Customer Reviews

Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

My review of this book is basically a heartfelt one. I read this book over 15 years ago. The thing that struck me as the most prominent theme in this book was that "race", as a differentia- tion among humans, is exclusively a social con- struct.

Race, per se, is non-existent because the simil-arities that are exhibited between humans by far outweigh the differences. In fact, race is a term that is used to disignate groups within a family that are (or are not) able to mate and have viable offspring. Take the genus Canis (dog's) for example: wolves, coyotes, and domesticated canines can all interbreed and produce viable offspring. Therefore, they are "stains" within the genus "Canis". However, lions, tigers, jaguars, etc... are all part of the genus Felis (cats) but can in no way interbreed and produce viable offspring.

Montagu the goes on to provide different exam-ples of how the human population is more alike than different.

I feel that this book is thorough in it's treatment of how the term race is misused and in it's refutation, through social, empirical, and factual data, of the supposition of one groups superiority/inferiority to another.

Montagu's book was ahead of its time in terms of the DNA evidence on 'races'. There are no such thing as human 'races'. The very idea of 'race' is actually racist. Most biologists, anthropologists, and geneticists ditched the idea of 'race' in the 1950s. The lay public still believes in this myth.

The DNA research against the 'race' myth is very damaging to white supremacists because it undermines their entire worldview. A white supremacist could get their DNA tested and it would demonstrate what DNA haplogroup belonged to their distant ancestors (maternal and/or paternal). The haplogroup would have migrated from Africa and through the Middle East, or Asia and to a white supremacist this violates the mythology that they surround themselves in.

Also, the idea of a "white" person only emerged in the early 1700s. If you were to go to Europe or anywhere else on the planet before the idea of 'race' emerged and ask who is "white", people would look at you as if you were insane. Another funny thing is to compare a piece of paper with the skin color of a "white" person and demonstrate how it never matches.

A modern book by an evolutionary biologist on the 'race' myth is Joseph Graves' (2004) book, "The Race Myth".

Another book that is the most detailed examination of the idea of 'race' is Audrey Smedley's "Race in North America" now in its third edition (2007).

It really is shocking to discover that race is simply a social construct. Even scientists are duped by the myth of race with sometimes sad results. This book truly exposes how the race myth has disorted our views on society, especially the cognitive abilities of certain groups.

This is a great edition and a very good book from one of the most important researcher on Race in last sentury. No all book is about the things I'm working on although the chaper 1, 5, 7 and 8 are important for those who are searching for the development of the concept of race and the relashionship with genetics. Specially those who want to Know how the things start!

i am of italian descent,make of that fact what you will.i read this book 25 years ago,prior to being required to read "double
helix." without mentioning dna the author proved to me that differences were so miniscule as to make race moot.this was an
excellent book.should be high school requirement.

This book may have been revolutionary in 1942 but today it seems to strain to argue points that most Americans readily accept. It also tends to be incredibly choppy, with thoughts coming and going like bad housegeusts. Lastly, it has all the faults one would expect to find in Montagu: he sacrificed his science for politics, and thus there are many times where he wildy exhorts his point of view or uses ad homineim's against his opponents. The reason is the book was not written to explore a phenomena, but to convince people that some things are wrong and other right morally. So his science suffers. However, there are glimmers of intelligent ideas and devastating studies that derode the basis of 'race thinking.'

I feel the author has left some things out, some things that the zealous "see! I AM OK!" readers need to know. Like:White people are not the only ones that use race as a "social construct". in 1942 when written (and a long time before that), a small minority of White people used race to try to keep others down. Now in 2001, a small minority of people of color use race as a crutch, using to as an excuse not to work hard and succeed. People need to stop feeling sorry for themselves, realize there is no white conspiracy to hold others down and get on with life.

The author also leaves out preference to be with one's own kind. Do Whites force people to live in certain areas? No, those people buy houses and rent apartments in areas where they are the majority out of choice to be with their own kind.

Also, history was ignored in the book. Do we hate Italians because they were Romans who conquered and enslaved hundreds of thousands over decades? No. Do we hate the Egyptians because they did the same? No. There is just a natural tendency to hate the last group to do what has been done since the dawn of man. Do we hate Norwegians because they had Viking ancestors who conquered, robbed and dominated all over the world? No. Do you hate White people because a small minority of them oppressed Black people 20 or more years ago? Yes! You do!