I agree with the criticism of JP Rushton’s theory by Peregrine, Ember and Ember, 2003. The weakness of Rushton’s theory that stood out to me when I critically analyzed it was that both Caucasoids and Mongoloids in the global context each represent a broad spectrum from low-IQ peoples to high-IQ peoples. Mongoloids include both Australian aborigines (60 IQ) and Koreans (105 IQ). Caucasoids include both Indians (82 IQ) and Ashkenazi Jews (110 IQ). Rushton’s samples tended to include only subsets of the peoples of USA and Canada, so “Mongoloids” would be mainly the Asians descended from China, Japan and Korea (excluding Native Americans?) and “Caucasoids” would be whites descended from Europe. The researchers who have built positively on Rushton’s theory (such as Templer and Arikawa) have ignored Rushton’s three-race scheme in favor of a more continuous and unified model, more fitting for evolutionary theory. The three-race scheme is not necessary to make sense of class differences, though it may be useful for forensic anthropologists, as racially differential bone features are more a matter of genetic drift, less a matter of climate adaptation.
We all know that it’s a hot topic with very little nuanced discussion. I’m wondering if this makes sense, or where it can improve. Please add, subtract or alter the framing as you think accurate.
I think that the spectrum would begin with utter ignorance and look like this:
Ignorance -> subconscious ambivalence about racism -> conscious unawareness of one’s own unvetted attitudes that accidentally contribute to racism -> aware of but uncaring about one’s own racist tendencies -> overt racism.
From an article in the March 11, 2019 New Yorker titled ‘BOUNDARY CONDITIONS’ - “The effort to fortify today’s borders is rooted in centuries of racial animus.”
First paragraph of this article:
On Election Day, 2018, residents of Nogales, Arizona, began to notice a single row of coiled razor wire growing across the top of the city’s border wall. The barrier has been a stark feature of the town’s urban landscape for more than twenty years, rolling up and over hilltops as it cleaves the American town from its larger, Mexican counterpart. But, in the weeks and months that followed, additional coils were gradually installed along the length of the fence by active-duty troops sent to the border by President Trump, giving residents the sense that they were living inside an occupied city. By February, concertina wire covered the wall from top to bottom, and the Nogales City Council passed a unanimous resolution calling for its removal. Such wire has only one purpose, the resolution declared—to harm or to kill. It is something “only found in a war, prison, or battle setting.”
Last paragraph of this article:
“What makes the wall terrifying to so many who live along the border is, in part, the way it serves as an inescapable reminder of the brutalities and injustices that have long been unleashed upon the frontier. The very presence of a barrier represents a profound psychological, political, ecological, cultural, and spatial reordering. In Arizona, west of Nogales, the border wall bifurcates the lands of the Tohono O’odham people, who live on the second-largest reservation in the United States. In an interview with the writer Marcello Di Cintio, a Tohono O’odham elder named Ofelia Rivas speaks of how post-9/11 enforcement shut down the cross-border pilgrimage routes of her people and led to the erection of border fencing and steel-bollard vehicle barriers across their sacred lands. The year the barriers went up, Rivas says, “we lost eleven elders. One after another, they passed away. It just seemed they couldn’t comprehend what was happening.” It was as if they had been poisoned, as if America had found a new way to take their land. At this point, Rivas begins to speak of her body, her hair. For Rivas, as for many native people, hair is intimately tied to heritage and identity. For the O’odham, the poet Ofelia Zepeda writes, “Our hair is our dress. It is our adornment.” When the walls went up, Rivas remembers, she had long hair. Each time an elder died, however, she would cut a length of it as an act of homage. “By the end of the year,” she recalls, “my hair was gone.”
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250179821 (the New Yorker article is a review of the book - ‘The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America’ by Greg Grandin)
Another problem with trying to put “racism” on a spectrum is that the most common thought and behavior patterns associated with “racism” are very likely instinctive. Races are merely extended families, and people will tend to value their own families at the expense of competing families, following from the “selfish gene” theory of Richard Dawkins (we are puppets of our genes, and the genes function to maximize their own preponderance). Such political expressions as border walls are manifestations of this instinct. The popular ideology at odds with the “racism” instinct does not reduce the instinct but merely suppresses its associated behaviors or redirects them. If we had an ideology that tried to prohibit sexuality, then would it follow that some members are pushed toward the non-sexual end of a sexuality spectrum? Not really. Catholic or Buddhist monks are generally no less sexual than everyone else.
EDIT: I am not talking about the spectrum from implicit to explicit, but the spectrum from non-racist to racist, which seems to be the most common perceived spectrum.