It was funny once. The perfectly square bit of dirt on the window. The shocked reactions of Craggy Islands Chinese community. The local farmer who doesnt have much time to be a racist, because he just likes to have a cup of tea in the evening. The feckin Greeks

Dermot Morgans finest televisual moment that evocation of Nazi speech-making in front of the greatest window in comedy is perhaps a little less funny now that prime minsters or presidents of Hungary, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States are happy and comfortable to spout racist statements, and not merely get away with it but be applauded for it by their supporters.

How have we reached this point? Its the very question asked by geneticist and broadcaster Dr Adam Rutherford. Hes the Rutherford in the BBCs popular radio programme The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry, in which he and Dr Hannah Fry try to solve listeners scientific queries.

In the case of the resurgence of publicly acceptable racism, Rutherford decided that a radio show was insufficient and that a book would be needed. How to Argue with a Racist is published this week, and Rutherford will be delivering a lecture on the subject during the Northern Ireland Science Festival.

So, how did we get back here? I find myself asking the same question, Rutherford says. I find myself in lectures thinking how strange it is that Im now talking about this, because these are mostly questions that were parked, in my field genetics years ago. Maybe decades ago. And we keep discovering interesting things about evolution and population differences, and migration, and so on, but the question of how race as a concept relates to biological diversity, that ended a while back.

Having these conversations in the academy is one thing, but as someone who tries to communicate science, to talk about it, as a broadcaster and as a writer, I found I was suddenly having very different conversations. Conversations about race, when we were talking about ancestry In some ways, science has failed to convey to the public what is correct, and so I want to equip people with what current scientific thinking is, so that when the question comes up, they have the tools to respond. To say, Yes, there hasnt been a white man in the Olympic 100m final since 1980, but no thats not because of any lack of African-American ancestry.

Its precisely that sort of casual, inauspicious racism that Rutherford looks to quash with his book. The idea that Olympic athletes with African heritage are somehow better because their genes are imbued with extra strength is rubbish, he says. For a kick-off, using athletes as a test sample is a daft idea because anyone with the sort of genetic gifts that allow them to perform at the highest level is a poor sample of what a broader population is like. Beyond that, theres a simpler rebuttal if those with African heritage are inherently genetically better at running very quickly than others, then where are the Olympic 100m champions from South America, Europe or elsewhere with populations that can trace heritage to Africa?

Besides, tracing your genetic lineage in that manner, looking for secrets and answers to why you are so underprivileged compared with others, is a nonsense, says Rutherford. I do think that part of the change in culture which means I kind of had to write this book is to do with the rise of nationalism and the more open discussion of race. Certainly there are more open discussions of public racism than at any point I can remember in my lifetime. There are other factors, though, such as the rise in genetic ancestry testing kits. Now, theyre not pernicious in themselves, but I argue that they have fostered a misunderstanding of what genetics means, and specifically in the form of a sort of reversion to essentialism. So a notion that were determined by our genes and our ancestry, which as a geneticist I just dont think are scientifically valid nor verifiable to the extent that people adopt them.

So, when you take one of these tests and it comes back saying that youre 10 per cent Swedish, or 15 per cent Irish, these are very broad strokes, that are not scientifically meaningless, but they are of only trivial relevance. But people attribute very great significance to them. For instance, I sometimes talk about the fact that, genetically speaking, there is no such coherent ancestral group as Celts. But try telling that to an audience in Glasgow and see what happens.

Over in Ireland youve got some of the best genetic genealogists in the world, people like Dan Bradley [head of the school of genetics at Trinity College Dublin] who has been tracking the story of the Irish for years, and thats really important work, its important to understand the movement of peoples and the migration of peoples. But theyre always complex. Ancestry is a matted web, not linear family trees.

For example, I have a friend who told me that hes descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, and they can trace their ancestry back to him. Well, theres two things about that. One, no one is actually really sure if Niall of the Nine Hostages existed, which is problematic for a starter.

The second thing, though, is that if he did exist, he lived in the fourth or fifth century, and thats a date which comes before the isopoint, which is the time at which everyone in Europe is descended from everyone else. So if Niall did exist, and if my friend Bill is directly descended from him, then so too am I. And so are you. And so is a guy in southern Italy, and in Turkey, and literally everyone else in Europe. So if you can attach some kind of tribal identity to that, that idea that youre descended from some fifth-century Irish king, well everyone else is too.

This is a relatively recent revelation. One that has the power to stun those who claim kinship with any royal lineage, or who might have notions of racial purity. The simple, genetic, fact is that your family tree isnt a neat family tree at all. Its more like an overgrown shrub, especially the farther back you go. And because everyone elses is, too, it means that the family shrubs intertwine and merge until, once you go back a surprisingly few generations, were all related to everyone else.

Thus the late actor Christopher Lees claim to be directly descended from Charlemagne is accurate, but also meaningless. Not everyone can prove it using family trees. Christopher Lee could, because he was the descendent of an Italian contessa, so they had the paper trail of her family going back. The whole Danny Dyer story, which showed that he was a direct descendent of Edward III, they were able to paper-trail that too, and very few people can actually do that, but I calculated out a mathematical proof that anyone with long-standing English heritage is also 100 per cent descended from Edward III.

At which point I suggest that we should use our now undisputed and mathematically proven royal lineage to, shall we say, take back control, but Rutherford politely declines my invitation to insurrection. The point is, of course, more profound than working out where you stand in line for a throne. Its the fact that every white supremacist has, if you trace their genetic code back, African ancestry. Every Nazi has Jewish heritage. Every Briton is a mish-mash of European bloodlines.

The problem, of course, is that while all of this science is correct and provable, its also useless in the face of racism. As someone once said: You can argue with a racist; you can argue with a Labrador retriever, too, for all the good it will do you.

Rutherford agrees, but says theres a more important battle, on two fronts, to be fought. Part of the book discusses actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists, because they are obsessed with genetics. And their misunderstanding of genetics makes them think that they can prove some sort of racial purity, which is a nonsense. Arguing with those guys using science is a demonstration of the old Jonathan Swift maxim that you cant reason someone out of a position that they didnt reason themselves into, he says.

Who Im really interested in reaching, though, are those who arent racists, and who dont think like that. But because of relying on stereotypes, or myths, or the cultural sphere that says that race is real, or that some factors are biologically encoded and that those factors segregate by race, I want those discussions to be the ones that are informed by science. Because those people arent fundamentally racist, so when youre armed with facts, and youre armed with a knowledge of history, then I think that is your best route to change. Science is a powerful ally, its the best ally we have, I think. But whats the Bob Dylan line? I know my song well before I start singing.

One of the ideas I explore is that scientists need to get more involved. Its no longer good enough to simply say: Heres the data and let society decide. Racists have no such compunctions, and will use every tool at their disposal to spread their message. So if we. as scientists, sit back and say, Hey, its just the data and I dont know what the political ramifications are, thats for others to discuss, then were volunteering ourselves to defeat, and for our voices to be silenced in favour of populist, emotive arguments, and thats the political landscape in which we now live.

Racism isnt wrong because its drawn from and based on a misunderstanding, or specious scientific ideas. Racism is wrong because its an affront to basic human dignity. What Im saying is, if you want to be a racist, fine, fill your boots, go ahead, but you cant have my scientific tools, my weapons, to justify your position.

How to Argue with a Racist by Adam Rutherford is published by Orion. Northern Ireland Science Festival runs February 13th-23rd. nisciencefestival.com

Here is the original post:
How to turn racists genetic arguments against them - The Irish Times