So on the one side, we have an article where a (then still alive) scientists admit that their initial hypotheses were incomplete and possibly influenced by soci

So on the one side, we have an article where a (then still alive) scientists admit that their initial hypotheses were incomplete and possibly influenced by social factors. On the other, we have an article attacking a (now dead) scientist for endorsing fundamental concepts that not even the article itself dares to call incorrect. If anything, the first situation displays strength of character that should be taken as proof that he is capable of introspection where needed, which would make him more trustworthy as a scientist. The latter shows nothing more than the bad attempt of a racist individual to rewrite science to better suit their hateful world-view wherein people of one skin-colour could never see the whole picture due to their inherent cognitive characteristics and fundamental concepts of mathematics are still subjective.