A friend writes concerning Mr. Hume’s post Islam, generalizations, barbarism, and structural conflicts:
The tone of Mr. Hume’s essay is, in your terminology, a “culturist” one, of a “Blank Slate” kind.
“Moving specifically to Muslim perspective the experiences of Muslims of their religion is rich, and reflects the full totality of their social life within a community and family. At the other extreme, imagine a white Protestant who lives in rural Kansas. Their experience of Islam would be mostly through television news reports, perhaps the random Muslim they encounter but are not acquainted with, and the literature and material they seek out on their own. The experience of the two individuals would radically differ, and implicitly color their perspective on what Islam is.”
It is as if the only difference between these two subjects (in the cited part) is in their experience, with no biological difference. Sure, Mr. Hume is quite knowledgeable in genetics and HBD [i.e. Human Bio-Diversity — Bradlaugh], and does not make directly incorrect statements, but here he pretends not to notice HBD.
He also writes:
“So, moving on to generalities I would have to say that Muslims are barbaric. But not all Muslims are barbaric, and most of the Muslims who I know personally are not barbaric.”
It reminds me of the lady from NYC, who said “I do not believe Nixon won the elections. Nobody I know personally has voted for him.” [i.e. Pauline Kael — Bradlaugh]
I leave that for Mr. Hume to respond to. It is of course the case that Islam is a religion, and that anyone of any ancestry might take up Islam. It is also the case, however, that the overwhelming mass of actual Muslims belong to half a dozen distinct common-ancestry populations, each one fairly coherent for several centuries. It is therefore not unreasonable to consider broad heritable human group differences a factor at some level in Muslim/non-Muslim conflicts.