Tag Archives: Diversity

Confronting the hereditarian mindset and embracing diversity

The irony of JD Vance suggesting Britain is in the grip of cultural decline then holidaying in the Cotswolds was not lost on the natives who protested his presence, or the staff who refused to serve him at an up-market pub. Given the state of the USA at present, with its rapidly receding soft power, one might suggest he looks closer to home for cultural collapse.

It seems that, much to the surprise of the ill-educated VP, the Cotswolds is not an England of Mary Poppins and country cottages, frozen in aspic. In fact, the Brits have never been like that, except for gullible tourists. Behind a facade of tranquility, we’ve always been a pretty feisty lot when we need to be. 

We also have a history of absorbing diversity. Just study the archaeology of the London, that Rome founded, or the tens of thousands of Huguenots who fled to Britain. They were not just sheltered here, but played a significant role in our commercial and cultural development. The diversity we find in London’s cuisine today is just another indicator. Trump’s relentless attacks on London’s Mayor rails at this diversity success story with barely concealed racism.

There is now a racially motivated right wing MAGA movement in the USA. This is an old story, and it never ends well.

It is no different in essence to every other racially motivated project that sought ill-conceived racial ‘purity’ over diversity. The list is a long one, and in no particular order: genocide in the Balkans; Apartheid in South Africa; Hindutva in India; the Holocaust/Shoah in Nazi Germany; and the ethnic cleansing perpetuated across the empires of Britain and other European powers.

Interestingly, exploitation of indigenous land and peoples, with its attendant extractivism and racism, has often been linked to climate change and continues to be so [1]. 

Eugenics was so popular in Britain that both the left and right promoted it. Francis Galton was not alone. As Adam Rutherford documents in his book Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics, many of our best known cultural figures were supporters. It was establishment thinking for the likes of H G Wells, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Marie  Stopes, and more. 

They based their erroneous beliefs in part on a simplistic hereditarian mindset, which is perpetuated in how we’ve been taught eye colour genetics in school [2]. Some Eugenicists proposed genocide while others proposed ‘humane’ sterilisation. We are ignorant of this history because we choose not to face it.

The need for identity is a strong pull factor in all of us, so erroneous genetic beliefs persist in apparently benign forms, turbocharged by those DNA services that might tell you that you are 10% nordic. “Phew, I made it”, I hear some poor MAGA convert announce. 

All nonsense, but almost everyone plays the game “your paintings are really good but then there have always been great artists in the family”, I am told. Nope! I had an interest in art and worked very hard to develop my practice; no freebies [3].

The desire for identity can so easily turn toxic, and it seems the US Administration under Donald Trump now equates diversity with cultural collapse. 

David McWilliams shows in his book Money: A Story of Humanity, that diversity is always the route to greater prosperity. He gives many examples but the rich diversity of Norman Sicily is perhaps the most impressive of all.

We can learn much from nature in this regard, because nature abhors monocultures. It withers amongst the neatly trimmed lawns and acres of hard standing in America’s suburbia, where nature is curated almost to extinction.

Nature flourishes in messy diversity, as in a coral reef. Human societies and cultures do too.

Photo by Shaun Low on Unsplash

So, let’s end our simplistic hereditarian mindset for good, and embrace the diversity that always has, and always will, enrich our lives culturally, commercially and in our communities.

© Richard W. Erskine, 2026

Notes

  1. The European colonisation of the Americas killed so many by 1600 (about 56 million indigenous people) that forests grew back where their crops once grew (lowering the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere) that then cooled the Earth. Our contemporary extraction and subsequent burning of 300 million year old fossil fuels is not only warming the planet by putting ancient carbon into the atmosphere, but severely polluting indigenous lands: the water resources in North America polluted due to tar sands mining; the decades long impact of Shell’s oil extraction on the Niger delta; the environmental catastrophe created by the monumental Deepwater Horizon oil discharge; this list goes on. Amitav Ghosh’s The Nutmeg’s Curse: Parables for a Planet in Crisis gives a visceral historical account of the connections between empire, racism, extractivism and climate change.
  1. Gene expression is more complex than the simple Mendelian theory of dominant and recessive genes. For eye colour there’s a gene for colour, but also, a gene that controls the extent of expression of the colour gene. So in practice we get a spectrum of eye colour that includes hazel, for example. While brown is dominant (i.e. the simple rule is that it trumps blue in a partner), in fact two brown eyed parents can sometimes have a blue-eyed child. 
  1. I’m a decent painter mainly because of hard work. I’ve always loved art and science, but at school I was forced to choose, and I chose science. My wife and I visited many exhibitions over the years, but always as onlookers. Only in retirement did I find the time to really focus on developing my art. It’s taken 10 years since then to really master it. I reaped the rewards of hard work and great mentors, not some easy “it’s in your genes” freebie. Even accepting that ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ each play a role, we put far too much weight on ‘nature’ in many cases.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is hope possible in the dark shadow of the Holocaust?

I’ve been listening to coverage of Holocaust Day on BBC Radio and elsewhere. A lot of the coverage rightly centres around the stories of brave survivors who somehow lived to tell their stories of life and death at Auschwitz-Birkenau. 

I heard no mention of the camps whose only function was murder soon after arrival of the trains,  the Extermination or Death Camps built for the Nazi’s Aktion Reinhard plan: Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. 

Why is this? I want to try to address this question.

In Concentration Camps like Buchenwald and numerous others, dehumanisation and ‘death by work’ was the goal. The Nazis wanted a financial outcome to run alongside their goal of genocide. This required inhumane care and lodging, but as a result there were buildings and other physical records of life and death at the camp.

For those of us trying to make sense of this still recent horror, it also meant that the few that did survive could offer some kind of hope. An emotional release from the darkness. In the words of Primo Levi “To survive is to defy those who would wish to see you erased from existence.”

The greatest focus is naturally on Auschwitz-Birkenau, which was numerically the most deadly of the camps, but it is also unique in having been both a Concentration Camp and an Extermination Camp.  This creates an ambiguity about how to talk about this particular camp. It can be difficult to navigate (and explains why some commentators refer to it as a Concentration Camp and fail to mention the Extermination part). It can also enable Holocaust deniers to create their own wicked narratives.

As Channel 4 News tonight said, the story of the holocaust was not a story of those that lived, because the norm was that most died: the mass shootings all over Europe that preceded the camps (often eagerly supported by local antisemitic neighbours), and the build-up to the industrialisation of genocide. In all, the Holocaust created six million stories of lives brutally taken.

Laurence Rees remarked on the lack of attention to the purely Extermination Camps in his seminal  book on the Holocaust (Auschwitz: The Nazis & The ‘Final Solution’, BBC Books, 2005):

“Visitors to the sites of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka (of who there are far, far fewer than travel to Auschwitz) are shocked by how tiny these killing camps were. A total of around 1.7 million people were murdered in these three camps – 600,000 more than the murder toll of Auschwitz – and yet all three could fit into the area of Auschwitz-Birkenau with room to spare. In a murder process that is an affront to human dignity at almost every level, one of the greatest affronts – and this may seem illiogical unless you have actually been there – is that so many people were killed in such a small area.”

I simply think that news outlets, and most of us actually, find it simply unbearable, and beyond our comprehension to even think about the monstrosity of the industrial murder of so many. Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka seem to leave a blank space in our historical remembrances, because there are apparently no stories to tell of survival amongst the horror, only a blank sheet. Yet even that is not quite true. 

One of the most remarkable stories of survival was the ‘Treblinka Revolt’ by Samuel Willenberg and many others, on the 2nd August 1943. These were victims who actively rebelled, with great purpose and planning, against their enforced passivity.

Why is this story not told each year? 

Even while their numbers were small when tallied against the huge numbers that were murdered, we see in this story a willingness to stand up and be counted. A lesson to all of us who have infinitely more agency to confront hate and division.  

Ultimately, the Nazi’s were confronted and defeated in their war against humanity, and there lies hope too. The good guys won.

Those who seek to divide in the name of an ideology, to achieve absolute autocratic power, will always dream of some distorted vision of a homeland: one that is ‘cleansed’ and made uniform in many ways, even in terms of artistic expression. These people hate diversity.

Yet we know that nature is most successful at its most diverse. Monocultures wither and die. Human society is no different. David McWilliams’s recent brilliant book ‘Money – A Story of Humanity’ gives numerous examples of how cultural plurality provides the spur for wealth and happiness. The cultural monoculture that Hitler dreamed of led to destruction not hope and happiness.

Is hope possible in the shadow of the Holocaust?

Assuredly it is, because humanity has shown that open societies with cultural diversity are the most successful, providing the basis for wealth and happiness. We must continually work to make this a reality, in our own time, faced with the latest incarnations of monoculturalists and autocrats. History teaches us that open, multicultural societies will always prevail in the end, and are worth defending.

Hope depends on it; depends on us.

(c) Richard W. Erskine, 2025

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized