Breaking Down an Argument

(Image: Unsplash)

I wanna try to logically break down an argument that I thought was a little flawed. A couple weeks ago my professor opened the lecture with the following statement:

“Racism used to be very prevalent, until science had discovered that differences in genetics between the ethnicities are almost negligible. We share nearly 99.9% of DNA with any person around the world. So if most of the differences do not come from DNA, then why do we still hate each other? Well…”

The professor went on to explain things related to disparity, power, and greed. But I wanna go back to this opening statement, because I’m not sure it’s completely airtight. First of all, why are we to assume that racism was caused by differences in genetics in the first place? Second, even if we share 99.9% of our DNA with each other, research has shown that the delta matters a lot more than the objective value. We literally share 80% of our DNA with cows. So as far as that argument goes? It’s moot.

I’m not criticizing the broader point that my professor is making. But can’t you see how there is something vaguely flawed in that opening statement? It’s a rhetorical move, I guess; the statement wanted to show us that we are more similar to each other than we think, which sets up the argument that racism is irrational. But for some reason, it still feels weird. For some reason, it still makes you doubt the premise. I’m clearly being way too nit-picky about a statement that shouldn’t be the main point of focus in the lecture; but it still piqued my curiosity enough to think about.