"In the late 1960s the psychologist Paul Ekman discovered that smiles, frowns, sneers, grimaces and other facial expressions where displayed and understood worldwide, even among foraging peoples with no prior contact with the West. These findings, he argued, vindicated two claims that Darwin had made in his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. One was that humans had been endowed with emotional expressions by the process of evolution; the other, radical in Darwin's time, was that all races had recently diverged from a common ancestor. Despite these uplifting messages, Margaret Mead called Ekman's research "outrageous", "appalling" and "a disgrace" - and these where some of the milder responses. At the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Alan Lomax Jr. rose from the audience shouting that Ekman should not be allowed to speak because his ideas where fascist. On other occasion African American activist accused him of racism for claiming that black facial expressions where no different from white ones. (Sometimes you can't win.) And it was not just claims about innate faculties in the human species that drew the radical's ire, but claims about innate faculties in any species. When the neuroscientist Torsten Wiesel published his historic work with David Hubel showing that the visual system of cats is largely complete at birth, another neuroscientist angrily called him a fascist and vowed to prove him wrong."

Pateicoties soctīkliem, man bija radies iespaids, ka citu cilvēku pavirša apvainošana fašismā un pārējos ismos ir tieši šī laika pazīme, bet nē, acīmredzot tā tas ir bijis, kopš šie vārdi vispār ir parādījušies valodas apritē. Tas ir reizē gan nepatīkami, gan arī nomierinoši - tātad cilvēki, iespējams, nevis degradējas, bet vienkārši nemainās.