Playing the Indian Card

Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eugenics. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes

 


American Eagle’s current ad campaign for their jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney is getting a lot of attention. Not all favourable. Some are objecting to it as being full of “Nazi” or “Fascist” “dogwhistles.” 

This puzzled me at first, but now I think I get it. It is seen as a celebration of “white superiority.” In one short, Sweeney starts by saying she is a product of her genes. Including her eye color. The camera wanders down to her cleavage. “Eyes—up here,” she says. The camera moves to her blue eyes. She says “My jeans [genes?] are blue.” Then the overlay, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.”

This supposedly endorses eugenics, and the supposed superiority of “white” genes. Never a Fascist idea, but a Nazi one.

This objection is itself racist, however, unless you would also object to a black model, or a Native American model, being featured in the same way, as having “great genes.” It can be no more than a thought experiment, but I cannot imagine anyone doing so. 

But it is “white” people who are being discriminated against if they are not permitted to be called beautiful or have their genes praised.

You might counter with a claim about white privilege, some ancient wrong that needs to be redressed.

But Sydney Sweeney has no white privilege. 

Sydney Sweeney is Irish. At least until the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, most educated people were aware of historic discrimination against the Irish; those who did not despise the Irish themselves. Attending university in Canada in the 1970s, the student newspaper ran an editorial titled “Let’s Sink Ireland for a Day”—an actual call, if not entirely serious, for genocide. There was no blowback. I have been told several times by women that they had promised their parents never to bring home an Irishman. T.S. Eliot used Sydney Sweeney’s very own surname in these lines to describe an Irish character in 1920: 

Apeneck Sweeney spread his knees
Letting his arms hang down to laugh,
The zebra stripes along his jaw
Swelling to maculate giraffe.

The Irish were never considered by the larger Anglo world part of any master race with superior genes. More often as a separate, subhuman race. 

There is a reason so many “black” Americans have Irish surnames. Look at Mariah Carey. Look at Rhiannon Giddens. They are probably half Irish. Irish and blacks were long considered the same social class, and commonly intermarried.

“Dumb Blonde” jokes may be part of this continuing prejudice—and such jokes are still perfectly permissible in polite company. As are comments like “do gingers have souls?” 

Talk about blackface? How about whiteface—the usual clown makeup. Note the red hair. The conventional North American clown is actually a stage Irishman, including the bulbous red nose suggesting a drinking habit. An ethnic stereotype.

It is time the Irish had a right to celebrate their genes, and their beauty.


Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Dawkins and Eugenics



Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is apparently in trouble for saying that eugenics would work.

I am no fan of Dawkins’s philosophy.

But he is a geneticist, and he is simply stating a fact, obvious to anyone who knows genetics. Or any farmer or gardener.

If your political views require denying reality, there is something wrong with your politics, not with reality.

Of course it is possible to selectively breed for desirable characteristics. We do it all the time, and have always done it, with plants and animals. Why would it not work with humans?

The rap against eugenics is not that it would not work, but that no government has the moral right to decide who may breed, and with whom. Government belongs to the people; the people do not belong to the government.

To make it turn on purely practical issues—that it would not work—is to endorse it, the moment it is plain to you that it does.

In fact, we all practice eugenics individually. What attracts us in a member of the opposite sex? Whether we are aware of it or not, we are selecting what we think will be the best genes. We are deciding what characteristics we want to pass on to our children.

And it is not just individuals. Cultures also spontaneously practice genetics. Whatever that given culture values, it is breeding for.

This accounts for that other scientific fact nobody is allowed to mention now without being declared a racist: that different cultures have different levels of average IQ.

In the tribal societies that until recently dominated sub-Saharan Africa, those who rose to the top socially would be the best hunters and the best warriors. These cultures therefore selectively bred for fast physical reflexes, physical strength, and physical endurance. It is not simple “survival of the fittest”; but such a man would be widely admired, have his choice of marital partners, and be able to raise more children in better health. So sub-Saharan Africans dominate in sports and athletics. High intelligence has little value in a tribal society; so they did not breed for IQ. Sub-Saharan Africans have a relatively low average IQ, and that is now part of their genetic makeup.

In the Confucian system in China, by contrast, those who rose to the top socially did so by passing rigorous academic exams; or, failing that, by success in trade. So the brightest got their choice of marriage partners, and were able to raise more children in better health. Athleticism and fast reflexes had little value in such a settled society; so they did not breed for them. East Asians have a relatively high average IQ, and that is now part of their genetic makeup.

Ashkenazi Jews had similar views: social prestige was based on learning, or success was in trade. As a result, they are the second cultural group with an unusually high average IQ.

And so it goes. Every culture practices eugenics informally as part of the culture. Some cultures breed for courage, some for physical beauty, some for even temper, and so forth.

To admit this obvious truth is “racist” only to people who do not understand the concept of human equality. It does not mean that everyone is the same; that is obviously untrue. It means that everyone is equal in intrinsic worth, equal in the eyes of God, and so must be treated equally by government.