Rutherford, Adam. How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About
Human Difference. New York: The Experiment, 2020. ISBN: 978-1-61519-671-5
What works to win an argument? Can facts actually overcome feelings? Adam Rutherford, a British geneticist, seeks to do just that in How to Argue With a Racist.
Adam Rutherford opens with a Note on language and then a discussion for why he wrote this title -- to show how science, genetics in particular, is no friend of racism, but should instead be a tool against it. After an Introduction that covered the intersection of science and racism along with his personal stake in this tale, he flows into four parts.
Part One - Skin in the Game - looks at how pigmentation determined by our genes shape our views of those around us. And is not just skin, but hair, eyes, and blood types that are affected by our genes. Yet everyone has the same genes, just expressed differently to provide the spectrum of the human race.
Part Two - Your Ancestors Are My Ancestors - looks at how genes and genealogy participate in arguments with racists' beliefs about who really is white/black of "pure stock" and the like. But many racists are surprised regarding the so-called race of their ancestors when they send off their 23and Me sample. Everyone is related to everyone else via their ancestors.
Part Three - Black Power - looks at sports and the perceived role that "race" seems to play in who finishes first in sprinting and long distance running. Does the success of an athlete depend solely on their ancestry or are other factors in play? Does success depend upon opportunity, perhaps, or national attention to a sport? These and other questions are examined in this section
Part Four - White Matter - looks at race and intelligence. Rutherford is rightly aware that there are pitfalls and no easy answers when examining this topic. Cognitive abilities do vary among individuals and groups. But the question has to be asked - what do we mean when describing cognitive abilities? And is it determined solely by genetics? Does society and opportunities play a part in a person's abilities?
In summary, Adam Rutherford works hard to make the point that facts are needed to build an argument, but you need to communicate with someone, not at someone to have a chance of changing their mind. Listen to the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch for an example of someone trying to wear down their opponent. Rutherford, instead, works on proving his point without denigrating his opponent, i.e. trying to make an enemy an ally instead.
