e Inconvenient Truth About Race

nificant ways. We’re not talking about e 10,000 Year Explosion: skin, eye, or hair color. We’re talking How Civilization Accelerated about intelligence, temperament, and Human Evolution a host of other traits that affect an by Gregory Cochran individual’s chances in life. e races, and Henry Harpending the authors claim, are differently Basic Books, 2009, abled in ways that really matter. 304 pages. at, of course, is a dangerous thing to say. In 1994 Richard Herr- Reviewed by Marshall Poe nstein and Charles Murray made a similar argument in e Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in his is the most difficult book I’ve American Life. Critics pummeled T ever had to review. I’ve read it the book and pundits had a field day and read it again. I’ve interviewed one excoriating its authors. Bob Herbert, of the authors. I’ve discussed it with a columnist for the New York Times, people who know the subject. I’ve called it “a scabrous piece of racial thought about it until my head hurt. pornography masquerading as seri- I’ve had a fight with my wife about it. ous scholarship,” and said that its I’ve even read other reviews in search authors were in effect calling African- of guidance. I didn’t find any, so I still Americans “niggers.” Herbert wasn’t don’t know exactly what I should tell alone in his opinions. you about it. Faced with e 10,000 Year Explo- Here’s why: e 10,000 Year Explo- sion, one is tempted to say, “Here we sion: How Civilization Accelerated Hu- go again!” throw up one’s hands, and man Evolution, by Gregory Cochran be done with it. But that would be and Henry Harpending, argues that too easy. Cochran and Harpending the various races that make up hu- are not racists dressed up as scientists; manity are genetically different in sig- they are real scientists studying race

 • A   /  •  (or, rather, the genetic traits of large made it simply impossible to build a human populations). e thesis they racist political program in the West propose is not obviously ridiculous: successfully. is shift in attitudes e type of phenotypic variation we was a boon to scholars who said that see among human beings is found in racial differences were insignificant other species (such as domesticated and that race was a myth. Studying animals) and clearly has an underly- racial differences was out; studying ing genetic basis. eir argument will the social construction of race was offend those who believe that people in. is was the prevailing intellec- are “all the same under the skin,” but tual and political norm for decades, that’s no reason to dismiss it out of and for the most part, it remains so hand. In short, the authors deserve today. a fair hearing. If they are right, they In recent years, however, there has are right. If not, then not. We’ll try to been a resurgence of research into find out which it is. genetic differences among the races, or what should properly be called efore we lay out what Cochran “descent groups,” or “populations.” B and Harpending have to say e reason for this is technology. about race, let’s step back and put In the nineteenth century, the only their thesis in context. ey are way scientists could tell one descent hardly the first scholars to suggest group from another was on the ba- that the races are differently abled. sis of external appearance—a very Before the mid-twentieth century, crude technique indeed. In the early nearly all scientists believed this, twentieth century, doctors developed including Charles Darwin himself. a more refined way of identify- ere were exceptions, such as Franz ing descent groups, using blood Boas, Margaret Mead, Ruth Ben- chemistry. Although this technique edict, and Ashley Montagu, but they allowed scientists to get “under the were voices in the wilderness. All of skin,” as it were, it was also far from that changed in the second half of exact. About a quarter-century ago, the twentieth century, however, not however, molecular biologists found because of any scientific advance, but a way to distinguish descent groups because of the deeds of Adolf Hitler based on their genetic profiles. and Martin Luther King Jr. Hitler is technique proved to be ex- gave racist politics a very bad name, tremely precise, and has now allowed and King gave antiracist politics a molecular biologists to rewrite, liter- very good name. ese two leaders ally, the history of humanity.

 • A   /  •  As they tell it, the human race that the races are genetically different began in Africa roughly 180,000 is not necessarily troubling so long as years ago with a relatively small everyone agrees that the differences in population of Homo sapiens. It then question don’t really matter. We all proceeded through a very long pro- think that traits like skin color, hair cess of growth, division, and reunion. type, and eye shape are not a legiti- As humans spread around the world mate basis for discrimination. We see from their East African home, they them as incidental to a person’s merit slowly grew more numerous. ey as a human being, and therefore ir- also divided again and again into relevant to how we treat him. If you sub populations, sub-sub populations, were an employer who chose to hire and so on. For a variety of reasons, someone with superficial trait X over these groups became subtly differ- someone with superficial trait Y, most ent. Sometimes two or more of people would consider you irrational them mixed and became more alike. and possibly a racist. Indeed, we usu- e results of this growth-split-and- ally call someone a “racist” because merge process can be seen in the she discriminates between people on many descent groups—some we call the basis of some cluster of superficial “races” and others not—that make traits. up humanity today. ese groups are e idea that the races are geneti- remarkably similar genetically, but cally different is quite troubling, how- they are also different enough to be ever, when the specified differences are distinguished phenotypically (by the universally considered important. We way their genes express themselves) all agree that, in most contexts, it is and genotypically (by the genes them- legitimate to discriminate on the basis selves). Given that people generally of traits like intelligence, equanimity, mate with their neighbors, it is not and honesty. We see these traits as surprising that these descent groups virtues, the very stuff of “merit,” and overlap fairly well with folk racial we believe they should affect how we categories (black, white, Asian) and treat people. If you hire someone with even more so with language groups virtue X over someone without virtue (Bantu-speaking, German-speaking, X, no one is going to raise an eyebrow. Mandarin-speaking). You are neither irrational nor a ra- Whether or not people find this cist; instead, you are smart and fair. disturbing very much depends on e trouble starts when the possibil- what they perceive to be the implica- ity arises that virtue X might be both tions of these discoveries. e idea genetically determined and unequally

 • A   /  •  distributed among different racial e second argument is that hu- groups. In a fair competition, these mans are too genetically similar for “troublesome traits,” as we will call troublesome traits to exist. is point them, would inevitably produce de is also easily refuted. We know that a facto racial segregation. People of race small number of genetic differences A, having virtue X, would be preferred can have a massive effect on different over people of race B, who do not have populations of the same species. In virtue X. is would present us with a many human populations, for exam- very unsettling dilemma. On the one ple, a few genes can mean the differ- hand, such discrimination would be ence between the frequent incidence legitimate insofar as it would be the of severe genetic diseases and their result of consistently applying merito- total absence. cratic principles. On the other hand, e third argument is that stand- it would be illegitimate insofar as it ardized test results which have shown produces racial inequality. us, trou- differences in ability between racial blesome traits might present us with groups don’t prove anything about a choice between upholding meritoc- genetic differences, because the tests racy and upholding racial equality. We are flawed. is argument is harder would not be able to uphold both. to dismiss. Some of the test results e question, then, is whether and seem quite sensitive to cultural fac- to what extent troublesome traits ex- tors, which suggests that the tests ist at all. e overwhelming majority are measuring nurture rather than of researchers claim that they do not, nature. And even the tests that show and they muster a number of argu- persistent cross-cultural differences ments in support of this claim. e can be used to draw inferences about first is that our species is too young genetic differences only; they do not for troublesome traits to have evolved. constitute direct proof of anything. is objection is easy to refute: We know that different populations of nter Cochran and Harpending the same species can develop sig- E with e 10,000Year Leap. ey nificantly different traits over a much argue for the existence of troublesome shorter period than the 180,000 years traits, but they do so in a new way. In- humans have existed on earth. Over stead of inferring underlying genetic the past several hundred years, for differences from controversial tests, example, modern livestock have been they claim that the laws of population significantly transformed by means of genetics predict exactly the sort of dif- “artificial selection,” i.e., breeding. ferences we see in the test data. ey

 • A   /  •  don’t make any lengthy arguments for according to their “selection pressures,” the tests as a valid measure of genetic that is, the many forces at work that differences. ey simply state that if determine fitness. Geneticists would what they propose regarding popula- say that gene X worked for population tion genetics and human history is A and not B because A was situated in true, then we should expect to see an environment that placed it under precisely those differences we do see different selection pressures than B. In in the test results. other words, population A’s environ- To understand this line of argu- ment selected for gene X because it ment, a short primer on population improved fitness in that environment, genetics is in order. Population ge- and population B’s environment netics is a well-established sub dis- selected against it because it didn’t. cipline of evolutionary biology that e important point is this: When studies gene frequencies in popula- two genetically similar populations tions. A standard question in this are subjected to significantly different discipline would be why gene X is selection pressures, significant genetic common in population A but rare differences between the populations in population B, even though A and will nearly always appear. B are of the same species. ere are Cochran and Harpending apply a number of ways such differences this theory to human beings, and can arise. Sometimes they are the make the following claims as a result: result of pure chance, but the most Humans live in populations, that is, important cause is natural selection. groups whose members breed more If natural selection is the reason for often among themselves than with the unequal distribution of gene outsiders. Typically, all these popula- X, geneticists would say that gene X tions taken together are at genetic likely increased the reproductive suc- equilibrium, meaning that a) the cess—or “fitness”—of A, whereas it forces of natural selection have ge- decreased that of B. In population A, netically optimized all of them for life gene X was “selected for” and there- under common selection pressures; fore spread; among B it was “selected and b) as a result of this optimiza- against” and therefore disappeared or tion, they are relatively homogeneous became very rare. genetically. Occasionally, however, Broadly speaking, the environment some disruptive event—a change in is the “selector” referred to by the the environment, a pandemic term “natural selection.” Population disease, etc.—upsets the equilibrium geneticists characterize environments within particular populations. In

 • A   /  •  other words, these changes affect only have simply remained as they were. some of these populations, not all of However, even when they do occur, them. For the affected groups, the divisions such as these have usually traits selected under the old selection proven temporary, mainly because pressures are no longer advantageous human populations are almost never under the new ones. At this point, completely isolated for long periods two things tend to occur: sudden of time. For a variety of reasons, one evolutionary acceleration and genetic population’s genes tend to spread division. to others and the result is a species- What this means is that as the wide equilibrium. But this return to affected populations adapt to new a common equilibrium is not a given. selection pressures, the rate of genetic If two populations remain isolated change—measured by shifting gene long enough and are subject to suf- frequencies—speeds up, exceeding ficiently different selection pressures, the long-term average. is process, then they can evolve into separate however, is usually temporary. As- species. is happened, for example, suming that both selection pressures with chimpanzees and humans some and population size remain stable, six million years ago. the rate of genetic change necessarily decelerates as natural selection adapts ochran and Harpending use the the affected populations to the new C theory of population genet- selection pressures. As the process ap- ics to tell the story—or rather their proaches a new equilibrium between story—of human genetic history. It is genes and pressures—meaning that a tale in three acts. nearly all new genetic mutations Act 1: e Primitive Hunter-Gath- are deleterious—evolutionary change erer Equilibrium: 180,000-40,000 slows to a crawl, and the new equilib- years ago. Humans originally evolved rium will remain mostly stable until in East Africa about 180,000 years the next disruptive event. ago. ey lived as primitive hunter- It should be immediately appar- gatherers in environments that were ent, however, that this process causes friendly to this way of life. About something else to occur as well: It 50,000 years ago, some of them left divides humankind into two different Africa in search of similar environ- genetic types. e affected population ments. ey found them, and thus has adapted to new selection pres- tiny populations of humans spread sures and reached a new equilibrium, all over the globe. As a result, all while the unaffected populations humans, no matter where they

 • A   /  •  were, lived this way for the better the West Eurasians to accelerate. Very part of 130,000 years. Cochran and quickly after it occurred, they evolved Harpending argue that, this being into “behaviorally modern” humans, the case, humans became highly so-called because they created a more genetically adapted to hunting and sophisticated material culture than gathering. “If a population… ex- their primitive ancestors. is cul- periences a stable environment for a ture included paintings, sculptures, long time, it will eventually become beads, missile weapons, fish hooks, genetically well matched to that en- nets, ropes, baskets, and textiles. For vironment.” at’s what happened a brief moment, humankind was to early humans. Genes that reduced divided into two genetic types: e fitness were weeded out; genes that new, behaviorally modern humans improved it spread. e species-wide and the old, primitive humans, each human genome was optimized and living in separate populations. ey homogenized. As the balance be- coexisted for a time, but the genetic tween genes and selection pressures gap between them closed fairly quick- moved toward its optimum, the rate ly. e behaviorally modern genes of genetic change slowed. After eons enhanced fitness in many environ- of genetic fine-tuning, there was very ments, and as a result, they spread to little room for improvement. e primitive populations around Eurasia primitive hunter-gatherer equilib- and Africa. Eventually, the primitive rium had been reached. humans disappeared, and humankind Act 2: e Modern Hunter-Gath- was once again united into one ge- erer Equilibrium: 40,000-10,000 years netic type. After this, all behaviorally ago. en, around 40,000 years ago, a modern hunter-gatherers underwent disruptive event destroyed this equi- the process of genetic optimization librium. and homogenization that populations According to Cochran and routinely experience when adapting Harpending’s speculations, the event to new conditions. In this case, the in question was a bit unusual: It was, new conditions were behavioral mo- they say, “introgression, that is, the dernity itself. As the new optimum transfer of alleles from another spe- balance was approached, the pace of cies, in this case Neanderthals.” at’s evolution slowed again, and a new right, our ancestors mated with Ne- species-wide stasis occurred: the mod- anderthals. By definition, this “intro- ern hunter-gatherer equilibrium. gression” of Neanderthal genes caused Act 3: e Agricultural Disruption: the rate of evolutionary change among 10,000 years ago to the present. en,

 • A   /  •  10,000 years ago, another disruptive more humans carrying the mutating event occurred: Some populations in genes. e more genetic mutations the Near East learned how to grow are produced, the greater the chances food. Agriculture, the authors claim, that a fitness-enhancing mutation “imposed a new way of life (new di- will appear and spread throughout ets, new diseases, new societies, new the population. is means that benefits to long-term planning) to population growth in and of itself which humans, with their long histo- accelerates evolution. When a popu- ry as foragers, were poorly adapted.” lation is expanding, there is always In other words, agriculture brought “room for improvement” thanks to with it radically new selection pres- an ever-increasing number of possibly sures. As one might expect, the beneficial mutations, so even when rate of genetic change initially rose optimization is reached, the rate of sharply as the Near Easterners strug- evolution never slows down. Taken gled to adapt. But then, as the Near together, the adoption of agriculture Eastern populations worked toward and the resulting population growth a new optimum balance, something accelerated the rate of evolution as unprecedented happened: Instead of nothing had before. slowing down, the pace of genetic According to the authors, this change accelerated. is revolution- change also led to the reappearance of ary development was not caused by significant genetic differences among a disruptive event and the new selec- human populations. Humans who tion pressures that followed. Instead, adopted agriculture and experienced it was caused by a radical increase the resulting population growth in population. Agriculture provided became genetically different from more food than hunting and gather- those who did not. “is picture of ing, and the agriculturalists turned adaptation to agricultural diets,” so this food into more agriculturalists. the authors claim, “has two impor- e population exploded. is had tant implications: Populations today unexpected genetic consequences. must vary in their degree of adapta- Cochran and Harpending explain tion to such diets, depending on their it like this: e larger the popula- historical experience, and popula- tion, the more genetic mutations it tions must have changed over time.” produces; the mutation rate remains In other words, humankind was the same, but the total amount of again divided in two. Only this time, mutations increases because there are claim Cochran and Harpending, the

 • A   /  •  genetic gap didn’t close. On the con- whose genomes should be quite close trary, it widened, and new genetic to the behaviorally modern type. gaps appeared. Humankind was di- Cochran and Harpending argue vided into three, four, five, and so that the genetic gap between agri- on. e crucial factors in this unpre- culturalists and non-agriculturalists cedented process of genetic differenti- is still with us, though it is closing ation were the adoption of agriculture as the genes of the former spread and population size. to the genomes of the latter. But To begin with the former, the they also claim that new gaps have authors propose that the earlier a occasionally appeared within ag- population adopts agriculture, the ricultural populations themselves. more time it has to adapt to new se- Some of these populations— lection pressures, and the more time civilizations, empires, societies, and it has to adapt, the more different it nations—have grown very large and will become from the species-wide very complex. Both of these charac- genetic “starting point,” i.e. the be- teristics increase the probability that haviorally modern equilibrium. ey some sub population—a territory, explain, “e evolutionary responses class, ethnicity, or profession—will to an agricultural diet must differ, become genetically different. Large, since different peoples adopted dif- complex populations create the ferent kinds of agriculture at differ- “space,” so to speak, in which sub- ent times.” us, the descendants populations can become genetically of the first agriculturalists, the Near distinct. e force that differentiates Easterners, are the most genetically them is, of course, natural selection, distant from the behaviorally mod- but here the selection is engineered ern equilibrium. ey are followed by other human beings in the same by the descendants of later agricul- population. Socially induced selec- turalists—North Africans, Indians, tion pressure can be subtle, as when East Asians, Mesoamericans, etc. one class oppresses another, and not ese populations, in turn, are fol- so subtle, as when one race tries to lowed by the modern descendants exterminate another. e important of populations who adopted agricul- point is that socially induced selec- ture relatively recently or still live as tion pressures accelerate genetic hunter-gatherers: Aleuts, Australian change in the affected sub popula- aborigines, African bushmen, as well tion and move it toward a new local as certain Siberians and Amerindians, optimum balance, one that is similar

 • A   /  •  to that of the general population but ways that matter because, given what adapted to local circumstances. we know—or think we know—about Cochran and Harpending offer population genetics and human his- the Ashkenazi Jews as an example tory, they must be. Science predicts of this phenomenon. In the Middle that troublesome traits should exist, Ages, European Christians confined and they do. We now need to ask two the Ashkenazi to a small set of oc- questions about this theory: “Is it cor- cupations, most of which required rect?” and “Does it matter?” intensive intellectual activity. In other Are Cochran and Harpending words, Christians imposed a new and correct? ey may be. e theory of unusual set of selection pressures on population genetics is sound. If you them. e standard process of evo- believe Homo sapiens is an animal lutionary acceleration, optimization, species like any other, then you must and genetic homogenization then believe that it obeys the laws of popu- took place. Since the new selection lation genetics. One of these laws is pressures favored certain intellectual that populations under sufficiently abilities, genes that produced these different selection pressures will- di abilities were selected and spread verge genetically. So if, as Cochran throughout the Ashkenazi sub popu- and Harpending argue, different -hu lation. As a result, the Ashkenazi Jews man populations have existed under became different in terms of both very different selection pressures, it their genome and their abilities. “We seems that they must have diverged propose,” Cochran and Harpending enough to produce the troublesome write, “that the Ashkenazi Jews have traits suggested by standardized tests a genetic advantage in intelligence and other data. that arose from natural selection for e validity of this thesis depends success in white-collar occupations on three kinds of evidence. e first during their sojourn in northern is historical evidence of selection pres- Europe.” Cochran and Harpending sures sufficiently powerful to result hold that this is not an isolated case. in species divergence. Cochran and In large, complex agricultural popula- Harpending say that there were two tions—just like the ones almost all of such episodes: e Neanderthal in- us live in—it is happening all the time trogression 40,000 years ago and the to one degree or another. advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago. From an evidentiary point of view, we he moral of our authors’ story don’t know if the former happened T is this: e races are different in at all, but we do know that the latter

 • A   /  •  did. In other words, one scenario is It certainly seems reasonable, then, to speculation, the other is established suggest that an environment defined fact. I am not qualified to evaluate by agriculture would have selected for Cochran and Harpending’s arguments genes and traits that were not favored for the Neanderthal introgression. All on the African savannah. Moreover, I can say is that it seems possible, it since agricultural populations have would have altered selection pressures been continually changing for 5,000 if it occurred, and most experts doubt years, and for the most part these that it did. e theory is a clever way changes have been in the direction to explain the mysterious transition of increasing size and complexity, it from primitivism to behavioral mo- also seems reasonable to suppose that dernity, but being clever isn’t proof of selection pressures have continued anything. to change both globally (across the I can say a bit more about the entire human population) and locally advent of agriculture. Cochran and (in specific sub populations). We all Harpending are on solid ground have to do things that people living when they claim that this new mode in ancient Mesopotamia didn’t, and of production and everything it most of us have to do things that oth- brought with it—namely, civiliza- ers in our population don’t. Modern tion—changed selection pressures in selection pressures are both different a whole host of ways. Humans liv- from and more varied than pre mod- ing by agriculture need to do many ern selection pressures. e question things that hunter-gatherers don’t: is whether these selection pressures ey have to eat a lot of food that isn’t are different enough to cause sig- meat and isn’t tasty or terribly nutri- nificant genetic divergence—the kind tious; they have to work very hard for that would produce troublesome that food; they have to stay in one traits—among and within popula- place for a long time, and this place tions. is mostly populated by strangers; they e second kind of evidence is have to live in a hierarchal society drawn from observed phenotypic with extensive division of labor; and differences among descent groups. If, they have to get used to living ac- as Cochran and Harpending claim, cording to rules and laws, some quite selection pressures changed and di- restrictive; they have to go to school, versified drastically after the adoption or at least learn new skills; they have of agriculture, then we should see to fight without running away,- some many such differences. ere is no times in large groups such as armies. doubt that we do. People of different

 • A   /  •  descent groups often—though not al- Harpending’s retelling of human ways—look different from each other. history is accurate, we should see As Cochran and Harpending indeli- these genetic differences. ere is no cately put it, you would never mistake doubt that we do. Geneticists have a Finn for a Zulu. But the observed identified the genetic characteristics differences are not confined- toap of many descent groups; moreover, pearance. Some are behavioral. To use they have succeeded in measuring the obvious example, people of differ- the genetic distance between many ent descent groups often—though descent groups. Some are very differ- not always—perform differently on ent from one another, which suggests a wide variety of standardized tests. an ancient divergence, and some are As we’ve seen, many critics doubt very similar to one another, suggest- that these tests can be used to draw ing a more recent divergence. is is inferences about genetic distinctions. consistent with the authors’ version of Yet the critics have yet to provide a events. Critics counter, however, that good reason why such differences— these genetic differences are too new troublesome traits among them— and too few to manifest themselves would not exist given what we know as anything like major phenotypic about population genetics and differences. Cochran and Harpend- strongly suspect about human histo- ing meet both of these objections ry. Changing selection pressures pro- by showing that species can change duce differences, not similarities. e quickly and that a few genes can make selection pressures on humans have a large difference in behavior. e key certainly changed. erefore, we have question, of course, is whether these every reason to expect that we would few genotypic differences actually see differences like the ones we seein give rise to troublesome traits. the test data. If we didn’t see them, that would be very surprising indeed. oes it matter? Cochran and e question, again, is whether the D Harpending make a strong changes in selection pressures were case that it does, and that the races powerful enough to produce the phe- are different in significant ways. notypic differences that we observe in I doubt, however, that they will the data. convince many people. e idea e third kind of evidence is that the races are differently abled is observed genetic differences among just too odious and frightening for descent groups. If the laws of popula- most of us to stomach. Perhaps there tion genetics hold and Cochran and are some things that we shouldn’t

 • A   /  •  believe—or at least say—even if they are not that significant. e majority are true. of them are, in fact, completely trivial, is, however, may not be one of at least to fair-minded people. ey them, because the implications of don’t affect what we consider “merit” Cochran and Harpending’s theory are in any way, and the few genetic char- not as frightening as you might think. acteristics that do—the troublesome Even if they are right, the sky will not traits—are neither very numerous nor fall. Instead, we will have to rethink very influential. At present, we can some things that, in the end, are not identify only one trait—or rather one very important to the way we live. cluster of traits—that could be called For example, we will have to dispense troublesome with any degree of con- with the notion that people then were fidence: intelligence. is shouldn’t basically the same “under the skin” as really worry us, because differences in people now. As a historian, I don’t intelligence among races, if they exist find this threatening in the slightest. at all, do not appear to be very large. Far from it: I can’t wait to get to work Moreover, it’s not as if all members fleshing out what it might mean for of race X are always smarter than our understanding of the human members of race Y or Z. In fact, the past. We will also have to toss out the differences appear to be so slight that notion that people here are the same one cannot confidently predict that “under the skin” as people there. is any given member of race X will be doesn’t particularly bother me either. I significantly smarter than any given already accept that people are different member of race Y or Z. e differ- “over the skin,” and I have no prob- ences show up in the aggregate, not lem living happily among cultures among individuals. Of course, there that are acknowledged to be different may be other traits—the jumble of from each other. ough I can’t say characteristics we call “temperament” for sure, I doubt I would have any is a possibility—but we have every difficulty living happily among kinds reason to believe that they too will be of people—races, descent groups, minor. populations, or whatever you want ere is a sense, however, in which to call them—that are acknowledged none of this really matters. More or to be different as well. is is true for less all of us believe that it is wrong— two reasons. e first is an “is,” and not to mention irrational—to treat the second is an “ought.” people differently on the basis of race. By happy accident, the differences is is not an empty conviction; it that genetically divide us into types has repeatedly moved us to action.

 • A   /  •  It was on the basis of this belief that when it can discard the immature slavery was ended, fascism defeated, idea that being marginally different in civil rights secured, and apartheid the aggregate—even when it concerns shunned. In each of these instances, important traits—has any bearing on lives and treasure were sacrificed in the way we should treat individuals. the name of this idea. Today, only After all, we are not the groups to people on the lunatic fringe base their which we accidentally belong; we are political beliefs on folk racial catego- ourselves, and we must be treated as ries like “white” and “black.” Clearly, such. we are not the same people who con- cluded that because the races are dif- ferent, we must treat their members Marshall Poe is a professor of history at differently. at conclusion simply the University of Iowa and the founder of no longer makes sense to us. Human- MemoryArchive, a universal, wiki-type ity appears to be reaching the point collection of contemporary memoirs.

 • A   /  • 