Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'The Tongue Can No Man Tame'
The tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil. -- The General Epistle of James
The fault lies not with its proprietor, but with his tongue. It keeps saying things that surprise both proprietor and hearer and in two recent cases its utterances were completely unexpected and, indeed, unwelcomed, suggesting as they did, a bigotry to which neither of the tongues' proprietors acknowledges subscribing. In mid- October their tongues separately took off with startling pronouncements. The first came from the tongue of former Nobel Prize winner, James D. Watson.
Mr. Watson received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1962 for deciphering the double Helix of DNA. In 2007 his tongue entered new territory. Echoing sentiments of an earlier Nobel Prize winner it made a pronouncement both startling and racist. Mr. Watson's errant tongue expressed gloominess at the prospect for a solution to the myriad problems facing Africa. It was quoted in the Times of London as saying that its master was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" even though "there are many people of color who are very talented." Elucidating, it explained "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours-whereas all the testing says not really." Such a pronouncement is startling at any time but being made when the free world is led by a madman of diminished mental capacity, surrounded by advisors of equal intellect, it is all the more startling.
Happily for Mr. Watson and his admirers, when informed of his tongue's wanderings, he promptly disavowed its utterances, thus redeeming himself. In a statement to the Associated Press he said: "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief." (Imagine George Bush disavowing his tongue's utterances that there were weapons of mass destruction, things were going better in Iraq, etc.)
(This was not the first time that a Nobel Prize winner's tongue assumed its master's award gave it license to make racist utterances. William B. Shockley, a Nobel laureate who received the prize in physics for his work with transistors, eventually left the world of physics and began teaching at Stanford University where he formulated a theory that led him to promulgate the idea that African Americans were inherently less intelligent than Caucasians, a theory never disavowed by him and one that took considerable luster from the medal he had received as a Nobel prize winner. )
A day after Mr. Watson spoke, the tongue of another prominent American took flight and with an oratorical flourish that gave life insurance companies information that should increase their profits, denigrated minorities. The tongue took off while John Tanner, chief of the Justice Department's civil rights division, was making a speech to the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles. One of Mr. Tanner's responsibilities in the Justice Department is the protection of citizens' voting rights, The tongue, whose master had recently expressed support for a Georgia law that requires voters to show identification cards before voting, told the Latino audience that a disproportionate share of elderly minority voters did not have identification cards. Acknowledging that that was a problem for them, according to reports of a video posted on YouTube, the tongue went on to say: "That's a shame, you know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstances" Continuing, but not making matters better, it went on to say: "Of course, that also ties into the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."
The tongue then explained that there are lots of inequities in the U.S. and anything that "disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities. Just the math is such as that." That was a startling bit of information for the tongue to impart and it is unlikely that the utterance will qualify Mr. Tanner or his tongue for a Nobel Prize. (It may affect premiums paid by minorities for life insurance since if the companies are aware that minorities have shorter life expectancies than non-minorities the premiums minorities pay for life insurance will almost certainly be higher than those paid by insureds with longer life expectancies. Quoting Mr. Tanner's tongue: "Just the math is such as that.")
Given the opportunity to disavow the tongue's utterances, a Justice Department spokesman said Mr. Tanner's remarks had been "grossly misconstrued." He went on to explain that "nothing in his comments deviated from his firm commitment to enforce the law." That may be, although Mr. Tanner's support for Georgia's voter identification law would suggest he and his tongue are not as out of synch as supporters of voting rights would have had a right to expect from the chief of the Justice Department's civil rights division.
--Christopher Brauchli; brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu For political commentary see his web page, http://humanraceandothersports.com.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
11 Comments so far
Show AllJames Watson is a thoroughly unpleasant individual. I saw him interviewed a few years back and his arrogance was repugnant. It is no surprise he would believe in some aspect of eugenics given his work and is approval of genetic engineering. He is a kindred spirit of the once celebrated Dr. Mengele.
The only good thing is that he doesnt have many years left.
I remember decades ago, in the deep crevices (nooks and crannies) of my brain, hearing that Watson and Crick (sic?) dishonestly got a hold of some of Linus Pauling's reseach on DNA, allowing them to move forward with their research.
Intelligence of one type doesn't mean it carries over to others. The willful ignorance, i.e. stupidity and bias, of basic sociology, history and politcal science of Watson and Shockley is proof of it.
Tanner, patriarchal racist in the field of law and politics echoes the "outside aggitator" lines we heard 50 years ago.
He should be disbarred. And prosecuted.
I find it absolutely repugnant to in any way take pleasure in considering the demise of any human being as Kelmer implies above.
Watson is a complicated person, as most people are, and if you have read his "The Double Helix", you will know that he is very much aware of the discontinuities in his personality, at least when he wrote the book.
The big question -- and I dare surmise that Watson might even agree with me -- is not whether this or group in our common human race is more or less intelligent than the the other.
The question is, if there is any intelligence at all on this planet?
If we destroy it, which seems quite likely, the question of intelligence, at least of the practical sort does seem rather moot...
Nobel prize winners in physics and physiology can say any old thing they want, and though the world might be shocked, the "world" is not reponsible for it.
The American people, however, ARE responsible, to a degree, for pronouncements, and attitudes exuded by officials who are employed by taxpayers. If we have objectionable people in high positions at the Dept. of Justice, we can blame ourselves for having elected a president who approves and enables such people.
This, like many, many other problems is capable of being solved at the balloting station in 2008 by unelecting a Republican and electing instead a Democrat. Does anyone think John and Robert F. Kennedy would have approved the likes of Tanner to lead the Civil Rights Division? Well, neither would Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich.
I'm disappointed with you, Daniel David. You left out Gravel, who is still running (on foot these days I hear). But why buy into the corporate media tactic of ignoring candidates that don't go along with their game plan? Which, by the way is to continue to concentrate wealth at the top and is working quite well. And will continue to do so under the administrations of the first 6 candidates you did choose to mention. Although I would rearrange the order of the last four and put Edwards last in it.
Of all the problems our country faces, I believe this one, the concentration of wealth, is the root cause. And it started in 1886 with illegally written headnotes misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision by granting "personhood" to corporations. The decision specifically declined to address that issue.
One man, a court clerk, started a chain of events that may well bring down "the world's oldest democracy".
Daniel Davide writes: " Does anyone think John and Robert F. Kennedy would have approved the likes of Tanner to lead the Civil Rights Division? Well, neither would Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich."
Really? Bill Clinton approved the likes of Madeline "We think the price [500,000 innocent Iraqi children dead as a result of the U.S. led sanctions regime] is worth it" Albright to represent the USA at the UN and later as Secretary of State. Albright has stumped for Hillary Clinton during the past few months. Richardson defended the Iraq sanctions as U.S. policy as recently as 2005. Clinton and Obama have both signed on to the current Israeli- and U.S.-government sponsored sanctions against Iran being pushed by the Bush administration and Israel, its lobby, and its official friends http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/836498.html and Obama has signed on in a big way http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/30/2007-08-30_hit_iran_where_it_hurts.html
Human rights mean little or nothing to the duplicitious cutthroats and cranks of the oligarchy who defend their wealth and power and the status quo. The only candidates who have distinguished themselves from the political animal pack are Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. The others have all taken money from or otherwise demonstrated their subservience to Israel, its lobby, and other special interest groups.
Startling bits of information are every where, and yet to be discovered. A hopeful generalization is that humankinds' brightest minds will continue to discover and create in ways that benefit us all. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can cataylze an unwelcome outcome, but fire is real. In politics, a generalization taken out of context, then misconstrued, replayed, celebrated as an example of malevolence, is itself malovolent.
More satsifying than semantic theatrics and the hacks who dwell on celebrity deviance is the slow method of progress from thoughtful, but all too human, minds.
BeForKids,
Sorry about skipping Gravel. An oversight.
You're right, too, about the tragedy of the continuing corporate "personhood" error of 1886 in the Supreme Court headnotes. A huge probem, and not a chance of ever overturning it without a Supreme Court packed with Democratic appointees.
Shockley profited mightily from his purported racism taking his tight buddy Roy Innis of CORE on the lecture circuit road for a dog and pony show that they both cleaned up on. At least Shockley's motives were strictly mercantile. Mr. Watson was probably drunk.
Chuck Cliff:
Natural Scientists state that 90% or more of the species inhabiting the planet have gone extinct. Extinction is the "mission statement" of life on earth. Possibly some life forms will survive Homo Sapiens departure.
Governments of all sorts seem to have the same collective intelligence as the common mob. (About as dumb as a bag of hammers.) I have a conviction there is a great die-off is coming along for all of us, though Mother Earth will abide. Man is perhaps not the fittest form for long term survival.