Race

[Anonymouse]

Despite the current ideologically biased state of academia, race is a real thing. It is not a "social construct" as many claim it to be. The first obvious objection to race is it is visible to us. It is alive and speaks to us in bloodtypes and genotypes; in culture and civilization. Despite current efforts at trying to subdue any talk of the reality of race due to egalitarian fiction and fraud, I will address the issue of race. Race is biological. It is the biological differences found amongst different peoples. Culture and civilization are a reflection of that given people, as each civilization is unique to those people. This does not mean that one should hate someone blindly because they are of a different race, this only means that no one is alike, and differences pervade as the rule, not the exception, and the achivement and civilization of different peoples is tied to their race. The egalitarian police will have you believe that to talk of racial differences means one is automatically a hate monger. That is untrue propaganda propogated by non other than the racial equality polizei who themselves wish to stifle any criticism of their egalitarian fiction. With that being said no one is "pure", and differences are in degrees, and not in kind, i.e. some are "purer" than others ( England, Japan for example ).

With that said, I think we should first clear the issue around the ambiguiqity of "equality". Many contend that "we are all equal", yet cannot see that nature itself has chiseled great inequalities of minds, of strengths, of characters, and capacities. What is "equality"? It means the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. With that definition, what can we point to in nature where that definition applies to? It is a fact of nature that no two things are alike, and that no two humans are alike. We can extend this to different racial groups and see the same results. The fact that different racial groups produced different civilizations, is itself evidence of racial inequalities, not equalities, of superiors and inferiors, which simply means higher ranked or quality. When we take this further and state that Asians and xxxs by far are the most intelligent as evidenced by IQ, followed by whites intermediate, then blacks we are told we are racist and IQ is "not reliable" and "biased" and/or "racist". Yet we don't need IQ to determine the differneces in racial groups all we can do is point to the different civilizations and see the capacity of each racial group in their development. For the purposes of clarity I will use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as basic terms long ago abandoned by the new egalitarian "science". Thus it is no wonder that the premise of many modern ideologies, from Marxism, to Socialism, to Communism, to Civil Rights, to political correctness, all are in some way, shape or form, based on this assumption of "equality", or achieving that desired state.

To know science, we must understand science. Science, like anything else, is a social institution surrounded by an abundance of misunderstanding, even among those who are a part of the "scientific community". We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge, and we call that scientific, and that somehow is apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think science is objective, just like we think journalism is objective, or at least ought to be, but they are not. Science is greatly influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions, and the ideas that pervade the ruling circles. The problems that science entangles are ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so clled scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all influenced by preconceived ideas and predispositions that derive from society in which we live. Scientists don't start life as scientists, but as social beings, immersed in a family, a state, and the ideological structure that pervades.

It then follows that science is molded by society because it is guided by those who have and control time and money. People earn their living with science as it uses commodity so people rely on their living for science. As a side effect, the dominant social and economic forces in society will determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. That the current science trumpets the claim of "racial egalitarianism", or "egalitarianism" in general, goes hand in hand with the biased media such as the NYT that would report such things regarding race and the human genome that "race is nothing more than skin deep" ( NYT August 22, 2000 ). It is the control and influence of what scientsits do and say, and the use what scientists do and say to support the institutions of society, i.e. "diversity is our strength", endless "immigration", "egalitarian legislations" such as affirmitive action, forced integration and assimilation, etc.

That Mongoloids are by far more intelligent with a higher response time, than Caucasoids who in turn are higher than Negroids is indeed evidence of racial inequality, and an idea of superiorty or inferiorty. Moreover, in the bestseller, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by by Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray, we see evidence of how success is dependent on intelligence and the different groups that comprise this society. Although the authors were careful in their efforts of trying to show the correlation between intelligence and success, by cloaking their argument in "class", and not race, they nonetheless were smeared all over the media and egalitarian circles.

The further fact that some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes, as is common in this day and age of Marxian-lite sociology. That blacks or Negroids are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement. The fact that someone who walks by a black man feels "threatened", is not because he/she is racist or hateful, but because he she knows and realizes blacks are the most violent and hence is careful. Such discrmination is the natural, rather the cognitive ability of humans to differentiate. This is not "racist", aside from the "egalitarians" making it "racist", an all encompassing smear label used for anything and everything to stifle and silence those whom dare to critique the egalitarian wisdom.

The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you. The fact that men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men committ crimes than older men. We can see the evidence of the disproportionate involvement of blacks in crime by U.S. Government statistics.

Anyone who visits the U.S. Department of Justice can see this too:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

[anileve]

HAHAHAHAHA! :D :D :D Finally! I have to admit I haven't done enough research, but give me some time and I shall sort it out. I don't want to engage in a display of pompous and subjective views.

[Anonymouse]

Research all you want, facts are facts ;)

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Research all you want, facts are facts ;)

Sure sure Anon...

Since genetic is one of my favored subjects, can you be glad to present me any works you have read that will give you any credentials to write about "races"? I am interested to discuss about this but considering what happened the last time at the other forum(your total ignorance of the subject you wanted to discuss about) I do not want to waste my time.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Sure sure Anon...

Since genetic is one of my favored subjects, can you be glad to present me any works you have read that will give you any credentials to write about "races"? I am interested to discuss about this but considering what happened the last time at the other forum(your total ignorance of the subject you wanted to discuss about) I do not want to waste my time.

Ahhh the infamous "you were ignorant that is why I couldn't discuss" defense. If you want to discuss, nothing is preventing you from discussing, so stop with the pretensious "I'm a scholar and you know nothing" attitude of conceit. Before asking me for credentials, present your first, as only the nerfbrains pretend to ask. Credentials are not a prerequisite to making threads or posts. If you have an argument present it, otherwise stop beating around the bush Mr. Fadix.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag I thought mentioning the "other" forum was not allowed on this board. Mods?

Hey let's not get off topic please. Confine such comments to PMs, this is no chat room forum.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Ahhh the infamous "you were ignorant that is why I couldn't discuss" defense. If you want to discuss, nothing is preventing you from discussing, so stop with the pretensious "I'm a scholar and you know nothing" attitude of conceit. Before asking me for credentials, present your first, as only the nerfbrains pretend to ask. Credentials are not a prerequisite to making threads or posts. If you have an argument present it, otherwise stop beating around the bush Mr. Fadix.

When one treat about a such a sensitive subject, one ought to be more cautious. Right Anon? I have not claimed to be a scholar here, I just expect to know your references, the works which would support what you claim. Is that too much asking? Will I have an answer, or as usual you will start your rhetoric that your interlocutor has a big ego and is an arrogant know it all?

[Darorinag]

Fadix, for starters:

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective

Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario

ISBN: 0-9656836-2-1

http://queerhye.delri.net/racialdiff.jpg

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix When one treat about a such a sensitive subject, one ought to be more cautious. Right Anon? I have not claimed to be a scholar here, I just expect to know your references, the works which would support what you claim. Is that too much asking? Will I have an answer, or as usual you will start your rhetoric that your interlocutor has a big ego and is an arrogant know it all?

Sensitive subject? Why is it sensitive? Because it threatens to crumble the egalitarian world view? If you are going to contend that races are equal, please tell us how, beacuse reality says otherwise.

[Darorinag]

Fadix, I suggest you provide some insight into this issue instead of merely claiming that this is a sensitive issue. Why should we be cautious? Facts are facts. What's next, denying facts because it might offend some people?

Do provide some arguments as to why you might think that there are no "races."

[Anonymouse]

Dan how dare you post a "racist" scientist for daring to not espouse ideological bias. Even though I disagree with alot of your stuff Dan, the only thing I would agree is here, regarding race and inequality.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Dan how dare you post a "racist" scientist for daring to not espouse ideological bias. Even though I disagree with alot of your stuff Dan, the only thing I would agree is here, regarding race and inequality.
Yes yes, how dare I post a "white supremacist" scientist!! Duh!!! :D

Glad to see that there are people out there who see facts no matter how politically incorrect that might be labelled as. There really is nothing racist in claiming that there are racial differences, but I guess some people are uncomfortable with that idea...

--

The G Factor - The Book and the Controversy
Prof. Edward Miller

In late March a book by Christopher Brand titled The G Factor: General Intelligence and its implications.
appeared in UK bookstores. It was published by Wiley UK. On April 17, the New York office announced in an
unprecedented action "After careful consideration of the statements made recently by author Christopher Brand
(as reported in the British press), as well as some of the views presented in his work.. , we have decided to
withdraw the book from publication. (Wiley) does not want to support these views by disseminating them or be
associated with a book that makes assertions that we find repellant." (Holden, 1996). It is very unusual for a
publisher to break a contract with an author and announce that the reason for the this action is to prevent the
dissemination of certain views. The question naturally arises as to what are the views whose dissemination they
wish to prevent, and what is the evidence for these views? While Wiley has not been specific as to just what
views that were trying to prevent the dissemination of, one presumes they have to do with racial differences in
intelligence and the implications for economics and educational policy. Wiley announced (McMillen 1996) that
they acted because of "deep ethical beliefs", but what these were was not revealed. One suspects they were that
racial differences and eugenics should not be discussed, but that is merely a guess.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Darorinag Fadix, for starters:

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective

Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario

ISBN: 0-9656836-2-1


Same BS from you as usual. Bravo for originality. Can I ask you, do you have a special subscription to all Nazi material on the Internet?

Professor J. Philippe Rushton --------

This is the father of the modern day scientific and intellectual racists (Appeal to Emotion), (Ad Hominem), Philippe Rushton. Deriving his resources from the pro-Nazi racist (Genetic Fallacy) research program, the Pioneer Fund, Rushton has carried the tradition of writing countless Nazi-style (Guilt By Association) racist

Surely this is a very profound reasoning, coming from this brilliant man. :confused:
==================
Blacks, according to Rushton, have larger genitals, making them more promiscuous, and smaller brains, making them less intelligent than whites and Asians. Using 60 different measures, Rushton ranks the races along an evolutionary scale with blacks at the bottom and Asians at the top

Wow, I am most impressed with this study, now I feel enlightened.

[Darorinag]

Is there any thread in which you don't bring up White supremacy?

Care to cite the website from which you got what you pasted?
Or wait, let me do it for you:
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/PhilippeRushton.html



Author
J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D.
and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological
Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and
nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most
published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in
Science and Technology, Who’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

--

Acclaim for J. Philippe Rushton’s
Race, Evolution, and Behavior

“(An) incendiary thesis....that separate races of human beings evolved different reproductive strategies to cope with
different environments and that these strategies led to physical differences in brain size and hence in intelligence.
Human beings who evolved in the warm but highly unpredictable environment of Africa adopted a strategy of high
reproduction, while human beings who migrated to the hostile cold of Europe and northern Asia took to producing
fewer children but nurturing them more carefully.”
---Malcolm W. Browne, New York Times Book Review

“Rushton is a serious scholar who has assembled serious data. Consider just one example: brain size. The empirical
reality, verified by numerous modern studies, including several based on magnetic resonance imaging, is that a
significant and substantial relationship does exist between brain size and measured intelligence after body size is
taken into account and that the races do have different distributions of brain size.”
---Charles Murray, Afterword to The Bell Curve

“Describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences in such
characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness,
sociability, and rule following. On each of these variables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians,
Blacks.”
---Mark Snyderman, National Review

“Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand [race] differences in terms of life-history
evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social
science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.”
---Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology

.“This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study...of the psychological and behavioral differences
between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.”
---Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley

“The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely
environmental one...Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that ‘this emperor
has no clothes,’ and that a more satisfactory explanation must be sought.”
---Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

“The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the inquisition of Rome, active
during the Renaissance.... Astronomy and the physical sciences had their Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo a few
centuries ago; society and the welfare of humanity is the better for it today. In a directly analogous fashion,
psychology and the social sciences today have their Darwin, Galton, and Rushton.”
---Glayde Whitney, Contemporary Psychology

“The data are startling to the uninitiated....Race, Evolution, and Behavior confronts us as few books have with the
dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits.”
---Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences

“Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his
work....Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse
of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.”
---Hans J. Eysenck, University of London

“Should, if there is any justice, receive a Nobel Prize.”
---Richard Lynn, Spectator.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Fadix, for starters:

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective

Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario

ISBN: 0-9656836-2-1

http://queerhye.delri.net/racialdiff.jpg



What does it say? Nothing...

Cortical neurons/cranial capacity

blacks = 10.41
whites = 10.14

Difference is about 2.6% (near the error margin)

It is not only the size of the brain that is important, but the distance between neurons, this is why the numbers of neurons alone should not be measured but as well the density of the brain which is higher among blacks which compensate the lower cortical neurons level.

The rest is just bogus, IQ tests here have nothing to do with "race" but rather environment.... blacks and white do not have the same opportunities, chance in life, most black people have to fight for basic things such as food, water etc... and when they emigrate in Western countries they have difficulties adaptating because of their prior life experiences, there is many, many, many factors...

In any scientific statistical analysis in order to measure and compare two things... both must be measured in the same conditions... if they are not, you can not use those datas in order to draw a conclusion.

[Darorinag]

Btw, those fallacies refer to the initial criticism of Philippe Rushton...

This is the father of the modern day scientific and intellectual racists (Appeal to Emotion), (Ad Hominem), Philippe Rushton. Deriving his resources from the pro-Nazi racist (Genetic Fallacy) research program, the Pioneer Fund, Rushton has carried the tradition of writing countless Nazi-style (Guilt By Association) racist

What are you trying to "prove" here?

[anileve]

Originally posted by Darorinag Is there any thread in which you don't bring up White supremacy?

Care to cite the website from which you got what you pasted?
Or wait, let me do it for you:
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/PhilippeRushton.html

---Richard Lynn, Spectator.

Thanks for the acclaimed praises from a collection of some minor individuals, that still doesn't change the fact that the guy's material thrives on Nazi ideology and he is what you would call a racist, you know something that you are Dan.

Most of the material you post mainly come from Nazi sources, they are never anything besides that. That gives all of your opinions a foul smell and belongs in Anons toilet etiquette thread. Your views lose their credibility because they are extremely subjective, bias and complete reproductions of other peoples thoughts, nothing original there.

And that particular piece about the study of male genitalia speaks for itself. Someone who studies measurements of genitals to make a valid point is not even worth being taken seriously. Though you may disagree, because perhaps you do believe that your genitals are smaller than those of blacks, perhaps we got to the real root of your hate.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Fadix What does it say? Nothing...
In any scientific statistical analysis in order to measure and compare two things... both must be measured in the same conditions... if they are not, you can not use those datas in order to draw a conclusion.

Percisely! Rule of science and statistics, of course for those who understand not those who pretend to.

[Darorinag]

blacks and white do not have the same opportunities, chance in life, most black people have to fight for basic things such as food, water etc... and when they emigrate in Western countries they have difficulties adaptating because of their prior life experiences, there is many, many, many factors...
The usual arguments.

What then explains the fact that most blacks who have been in USA for generations still lag behind whites in school? So are you saying that a kid in Armenia who has been pitch-poor all his life is a fake chess-champion?

Also, if you didn't notice, Rushton is talking about race in relation to evolution.

IQ tests here have nothing to do with "race" but rather environment....
Can you prove that?

In any scientific statistical analysis in order to measure and compare two things... both must be measured in the same conditions... if they are not, you can not use those datas in order to draw a conclusion.
We are talking about evolution here!!!! We are talking about how certain races evolved. That environmental factors were different in no way means that there is no difference between the races! I am not claiming that environment had no role to play in those differences. I am simply claiming that there ARE differences.

Also, what explains the fact that Africans came to such poor circumstances?

[anileve]

Originally posted by Darorinag The usual arguments.

Can you prove that?

Can you prove anything that you claim? I'd like to see some of your studies and experiments or your thesis on this subject matter. Perhaps your Nazi mentors can co-sign your high school Nazi project for validity?

[Fadix]

No Dan, you are wrong as usual.


Every new major studies regarding IQ differences between black and white showed environment being the major factor.


-----

Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.



Summary

Since the publishing of The Bell Curve, a definitive study has come out of Columbia and Northwestern Universities demolishing the theory that the white/black IQ gap is largely genetically caused. But even at the time The Bell Curve was published, there was no reason to make such a claim. Of the seven major scientific studies on genes, race and IQ, six suggested that genes play no role in the IQ gap between whites and blacks, and only one suggested a genetic cause. Statistical objections can be raised to all seven early studies, but at the very least, The Bell Curve had no grounds whatsoever to imply that the IQ gap is largely genetic.



Argument

In The Bell Curve, authors Herrnstein and Murray strongly implied that the white/black IQ gap is largely genetic. (They were careful not to state that claim explicitly.) A year and a half after the book came out, scientists released the results of a well-designed, long-term study that appears to have refuted this contention. Their press release is worth quoting in full:

POVERTY ACCOUNTS FOR GAP IN IQ SCORES BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES (1)

EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites. (The study will be published in the April [96] issue of Child Development.)

Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

The study includes data from birth to age 5 on 800 black and white children who were born premature and with a low birth weight. Collected from eight health care sites around the country, it is the only data set that combines high-quality measurement of developmental outcomes (i.e., full-scale IQ tests) with longitudinal data on family economic status, neighborhood conditions, family structure and home environment. Because the study looks at very young children, the subjects' IQ measures cannot be attributed to such non-family influences as schooling or work.

"The study strongly suggests that economic and learning environments of the home are the most powerful predictors of racial IQ differences in 5-year-olds," said Brooks-Gunn.

The longitudinal data allowed the researchers to measure persistent poverty -- found to be a key factor in the IQ differences. "Many children have transitory experiences with poverty," said Duncan. "For black children, poverty is likely to be much more persistent," he said. Of the black children in the study, 40 percent lived in persistent poverty, compared to 5 percent of white children.

The study also takes into account how impoverished neighborhood conditions and environmental influences can affect even children not living in poverty. Black families are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, whether or not they are poor themselves. "Almost one half of all black children whose families were not poor resided in poor neighborhoods, compared with less than 10 percent of white children," said Duncan.

In addition, the study measured other factors associated with poverty that are more common in minority children. They include characteristics related to family structure and resources: single parents, parents with low educational levels and low literary scores, unemployed parents and young parents.

To determine the child's level of stimulation in the home environment, the data included measurements of parents' involvement and learning and language experiences that they provided for their children. For example, it measured whether the child has toys that teach color, size and shape and whether the child is encouraged to learn the alphabet and numbers.

Debate over what causes the IQ gap has been highly charged since the 1994 publication of "The Bell Curve," by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray, who view the difference as genetic and impossible to change.

The Bell Curve hypothesis does not depend on any direct evidence, but rather on its authors' assertion that social and economic factors cannot explain it. Because the typical black ranks at the 15th percentile of the white IQ distribution, say Hernstein and Murray, black socioeconomic status (SES) can only explain the ranking if, on average, it is well below than the 15th percentile of white SES ranking.

The Bell Curve authors claim no such SES inequality exists, and this is the point the Columbia-Northwestern study calls into question. Most studies of socioeconomic status do not consider such obvious factors as family income or neighborhood conditions, and those that do fail to account for the degree of persistent poverty.

Three times as many black children as white children live in families below the official U.S. poverty line. The average black child in the United States lives in a family whose long-term income ranks at about the ninth percentile of white income distribution, according to the study. The percentile ranking for blacks drops to about the fifth percentile of white income distribution when adjusted for the very different neighborhood conditions black and white children typically live in.

The significance of these factors, and the consequent finding that the economic and learning environments of the home are the most powerful predictors of age-5 racial IQ differences, is the implication that the debate spawned by "The Bell Curve" has badly misdirected the national debate on welfare reform.

Such reform is clearly needed, said Duncan, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov, but the point of reform should be to focus on the real problems of children rather than the presumed moral failings of their parents. Whatever the merits of requiring mandatory employment and responsible behavior, the researchers said, the key issue -- and the one with the greatest impact on the nation's future -- is how such requirements will affect family poverty.
The Bell Curve's one-sided analysis

At the time of The Bell Curve's publishing, there were seven studies in the scientific literature concerning the cause of the black/white IQ gap. Six of them point to the environment; and only one points to genetics. The authors of The Bell Curve prominently displayed only the results of the pro-genetics test in the main text. Of the others, they dismissed one in a single-paragraph side bar, dismissed another in the endnotes, and simply ignored the rest.

Psychologist Richard Nisbett has been generous enough to provide the public with the details of all seven studies: (2)

After World War II, many American GI's (both white and black) fathered children by German women; these children were then raised in German society. The children fathered by black GI's had an average IQ of 96.5, and the children fathered by white GI's had an average IQ of 97 -- a statistically insignificant difference. (3)

In another study of children raised in residential institutions, black, white and racially mixed children who were raised in the same enriched environment were given IQ tests. At four years of age, the white children had an average IQ of 103, the blacks had an average IQ of 108, and the racially mixed children had an average IQ of 106. (4)

Another study measured the IQ's of children from black-white unions. Assuming that mothers are more important than fathers in the education and socialization of their children, the study sought to see if a child's IQ is higher when the white partner is the mother. This turned out to be true -- the IQ of a racially mixed child averages 9 points higher when it is the mother who is white. (5)

A genetic study took advantage of the fact that African-Americans genes are about 20-30 percent European, and that Africans and Europeans differ just enough in their genetic blood groups to determine the degree of "Europeanness" in an individual. If intelligence were indeed genetic and favored in Europeans, we might expect blacks with greater Europeanness to be more intelligent. However, a study of 288 young blacks found almost no relationship between Europeanness and intelligence: the correlation was a trivial and nonsignificant .05. (6)

Another genetic study examined the correlation between IQ and European blood groups (as opposed to the estimated Europeanness of individuals based on blood groups). In one sample of blacks, the correlation was a trivial .01, in the other a nonsignificant -.38, with higher IQ being associated with the more African blood groups. (7)

Another study tested the hypothesis that if IQ were both hereditary and favored in Europeans, then blacks with high IQs should have several times the level of Europeanness than the black population in general. But a study of high-IQ black children in Chicago found that this wasn't the case; in fact, these black children were slightly less likely to have European ancestors. (8)

The study featured in The Bell Curve was the Scarr-Weinberg study, which examined the IQs of children from different races who were adopted by white parents. White adoptees turned out to have higher IQs than mixed-race adoptees, who had higher IQs than black adoptees. (9)

There are statistical difficulties with all the above studies. For example, Scarr and Weinberg themselves believe that their adoption study is not informative on the question of genes, race and IQ, because their study sample was small, the adoption agencies could have selectively placed the kids, the adoptive families were recruited on a voluntary basis, the natural parents' IQs were not known, the black children were adopted at a substantially later age, and the social stigma of being a black child in a white family probably has effects on development. Curiously, The Bell Curve does not report the reservations that the study authors themselves have.

Many of the same objections can be raised to the other studies. The IQs of the parents were not known, and there is a possibility that the study samples were nonrepresentative of the population being studied. Possibly, whites who breed with blacks may tend to have lower IQs. (This assertion would beg support, however, since the biracial population in the U.S. first burgeoned during the days of slavery, when wealthy slave masters and plantation owners raped hundreds of thousands of black slaves.) However, as Nisbett points out, the six studies suggesting a social rather than genetic factor were taken at very different times and places, under a wide variety of circumstances. That they should all suffer from the same sort of self-selection is therefore implausibly great.

But even accepting the statistical difficulties of all seven studies, the authors of The Bell Curve were wrong to imply that the difference in black and white IQ scores is largely genetic. At the very least, they had no hard scientific evidence at the time; at the very most, the fact that the environmental results outnumbered the genetic results six-to-one makes their suggestion completely indefensible.



Endnotes:

1. Press Release from Columbia and Northwestern Universities, April, 1996. Contact: Pat Tremmel at (847) 491-4892 or p-tremmel@nwu.edu or Barry Rosen at (212) 678-3176 or bmr13@columbia.edu .

2. Condensed from Richard Nisbett's article "Race, IQ and Scientism," pp. 37-42 in Steven Fraser, ed., The Bell Curve Wars (New York: HarperCollins, 1995).

3. J.R. Flynn, Race, IQ and Jensen, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980), pp. 87-88.

4. Ibid., pp. 110-111.

5. L. Willerman, A.F. Naylor and N.C. Myrianthopoulos, "Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: performance in infancy and at 4 years," Behavior Genetics 4, 1974, pp. 84-88.

6. S. Scarr, S. Pakstis, H. Katz and W. Barker, "Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population," Human Genetics 39, 1977, pp. 73-77, 82-83.

7. J. Loehlin, S. Vandenberg and R. Osborne, "Blood-group genes and Negro-white ability differences," Behavior Genetics 3, 1973, pp. 263-70.

8. P. Witty and M. Jenkins, "The educational achievement of a group of gifted Negro children," Journal of Educational Psychology 25, 1934, p. 586. Levels of Europeanness in subjects were based on self-reports on their ancestries.

9. S. Scarr and R. Weinberg, "The Minnesota adoption studies: Genetic differences and malleability," Child Development 54, 1983, pp. 260-267.

[Darorinag]

Wow, I didn't know you were SO full of hatred, anileve...

Most of the material you post mainly come from Nazi sources
You're saying the same thing over and over again. That I have brought in articles from Nazi sources does not mean that all my sources are Nazist!!!! Talk about idiotic generalisation!!!!
Philippe Rushton is in no way a White supremacist or a Nazist. That his works are used by Nazists to argue FOR and AGAINST certain points does not imply that HE is a Nazist!! Jesus Christ Almighty....

Your views lose their credibility because they are extremely subjective, bias and complete reproductions of other peoples thoughts, nothing original there.
Original? Do you expect me to KNOW everything about everything? I am no expert on race or genetics, but that doesn't mean that I cannot talk about it!!! That is why we use secondary sources, it's an academic rule of thumb!!! If we all have to start from point zero in our arguments, we might as well start from the invention of the wheel....

Someone who studies measurements of genitals to make a valid point is not even worth being taken seriously.
That there is a difference in genital size between races indicates that there are racial differences. Remember that I am not claiming that those racial differences are necessarily about intelligence or lack of it.

perhaps we got to the real root of your hate.
I am not going to argue with you. YOU are the one who is so full of bias and hatred. Never once did I bring in black inferiority in this thread. And neither does Rushton. But way to go. Thanks for ruining this thread.

[Darorinag]

Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.
So there IS a difference... Whether it's environmental, genetic, or otherwise. The difference is there. That is the crux of the issue.

In The Bell Curve, authors Herrnstein and Murray strongly implied that the white/black IQ gap is largely genetic.
I guess anileve is going to argue now that Herrnstein is a xxxish Nazist!! :D

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag So there IS a difference... Whether it's environmental, genetic, or otherwise. The difference is there. That is the crux of the issue.


I guess anileve is going to argue now that Herrnstein is a xxxish Nazist!! :D


Yes! There is probably a difference, like there is a difference between me and you, like there is a difference between me and anileve etc...

The differences found are in the range of the error margin, which means that the differences can not be correctly measured because of the precision of the studies, therefore any conclusions you take that are beyond the precision of the studies is only subjective.

Which means? Which means that there is no scientifical bases for your claim Dan.

[Darorinag]

Yes! There is probably a difference, like there is a difference between me and you, like there is a difference between me and anileve etc...
We are talking about averages here. Of course, there are exceptions in everything. But talking about genital size, for example, scientifically speaking blacks on average have bigger genital size and reach puberty before whites, and whites reach puberty before asians. That this is true in the case of most blacks and most whites and most asians (mutations are always present in every population sample) is significant.

Intelligence / IQ gaps might be due to poor circumstances, but what about genital size and other such findings?

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag We are talking about averages here. Of course, there are exceptions in everything. But talking about genital size, for example, scientifically speaking blacks on average have bigger genital size and reach puberty before whites, and whites reach puberty before asians. That this is true in the case of most blacks and most whites and most asians (mutations are always present in every population sample) is significant.

Intelligence / IQ gaps might be due to poor circumstances, but what about genital size and other such findings?

Dude, you are changing the subject here, what we were discussing about was regarding "intelligence" and "race." Genitals size are measured, there is a correlation, but the lower IQ among blacks, when used credible scientifc researchs has nothing to do with them being black... but rather environment.

[Darorinag]

I am not changing the subject. I am claiming that there is something called "race", because there are racial differences. That is enough to prove that there ARE races, something Anileve is arguing against. That is why I brought in the idea of the genital size, which was brought up by Anileve.

As for intelligence within races, I did not say much about it in this thread. So far, that is.

[Darorinag]

Fadix,

The Bell Curve and its Critics (http://queerhye.delri.net/The Bell Curve.pdf)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Same BS from you as usual. Bravo for originality. Can I ask you, do you have a special subscription to all Nazi material on the Internet?

Professor J. Philippe Rushton --------

This is the father of the modern day scientific and intellectual racists (Appeal to Emotion), (Ad Hominem), Philippe Rushton. Deriving his resources from the pro-Nazi racist (Genetic Fallacy) research program, the Pioneer Fund, Rushton has carried the tradition of writing countless Nazi-style (Guilt By Association) racist

Surely this is a very profound reasoning, coming from this brilliant man. :confused:
==================
Blacks, according to Rushton, have larger genitals, making them more promiscuous, and smaller brains, making them less intelligent than whites and Asians. Using 60 different measures, Rushton ranks the races along an evolutionary scale with blacks at the bottom and Asians at the top

Wow, I am most impressed with this study, now I feel enlightened.

When you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger. Thus anything contrary is "white supremacist" and "racist".

This is why I never debate this issue with emotional egalitarian such as the ones that thrive on this thread.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Yes! There is probably a difference, like there is a difference between me and you, like there is a difference between me and anileve etc...

The differences found are in the range of the error margin, which means that the differences can not be correctly measured because of the precision of the studies, therefore any conclusions you take that are beyond the precision of the studies is only subjective.

Which means? Which means that there is no scientifical bases for your claim Dan.

Which means exactly what you just admitted to, differences, ergo unequal.

[Anonymouse]

I am amazed at the lack of profundity by those that defend the claim of egalitarianism.

I started a simple a thread. I am beginning to wonder if Fadix or Anileve even read the thread. It seems their attacks were directed only on the messenger, or a certain scientist that dares to present claims of racial differences, and not the content. It is ipso facto clear that those who cry for "tolerance" and "egalitarianism" and defend the "equality" of the races, are the ones that are the most intolerant towards dissenters.

I have repeatedly addressed the issue of name calling or smearing someone as a "hater" or "racist", yet it continues to predominate. No one is a hater here, except for Dan, but the same smear tactics that are used by the egalitarians, who themselves invented the phrase "white supremacist" ( in order to have something to screw drive with ), are not becoming for any intellectual discourse. Let's refrain from letting emotions get in the way shall we?

Whether you attribute racial differences to genetics or environment makes no difference, as you are admitting to differences, thus corroborating that nothing and no one is equal. In order for the defenders - rather those who disagree with my argument - to have any headway in this discussion, they must first define the premise of which their argument is based on, egalitarianism, and prove it. Forming a conclusion, while not showing how that conclusion derives from a false premise, is a logical fallacy.

I am an "anarchist", as defined by the status quo, better known as a "libertarian". I have already maintained I subscribe to the Austrian school of thought of economics. I am only stating this to save myself from getting smeared, perhaps too late. I am not a Statist, nor am I a Nazi, nor am I a "racist" or a "fascist", unless you cannot fathom the issue at face value and feel the need to reinforce your worldview by labeling everyone a hatemonger. If being a "racist" means that one doesn't buy into the egalitarian fiction and notes that indeed there are inequalities, then I am a "racist". "Racist" is another smear term invented by none other than the people who wish to make race "non-existent". It's amazing how terms such as "racism" and "white supremacy" are invented by the exact people who themselves are against this. Getting back to the topic. This is no room for ideological tug of wars. You either present an argument or stop name calling and resorting to ad homenim fallacies. It's sad we have to waste disk space to address such trivial things, when we can instead be talking about the topic, and not the tug of war surrounding it.

[Anonymouse]

In addressing the issue of "equality" I will post a piece from Murray N. Rothbard, who wrote, Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market. The specific text I am quoting is his response to objections regarding the free market, and one of them, is curiously enough, the issue of "equality". It would do justice for people to read this.

-----------------------------------------------

Number4: The Alleged Need for Equality

Probably the most common ethical criticism of the market economy is that it fails to achieve the goal of equality. Equality has been championed on various "economic" grounds, such as minimum social sacrifice or the diminishing marginal utility of money (see the chapter on taxation above). But in recent years economists have recognized that they cannot justify egalitarianism by economics, that they ultimately need an ethical basis for equality.

Economics or praxeology cannot establish the validity of ethical ideals, but even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully. They must therefore pass muster before praxeology as being internally consistent and conceptually possible. The credentials of "equality" have so far not been adequately tested.

It is true that many objections have been raised that give egalitarians pause. Sometimes realization of the necessary consequences of their policies causes an abandonment, though more often a slowing down, of the egalitarian program. Thus: compulsory equality will demonstrably stifle incentive, eliminate the adjustment processes of the market economy, destroy all efficiency in satisfying consumer wants, greatly lower capital formation, and cause capital consumption—all effects signifying a drastic fall in general standards of living. Furthermore, only a free society is casteless, and therefore only freedom will permit mobility of income according to productivity. Statism, on the other hand, is likely to freeze the economy into a mold of (nonproductive) inequality.

Yet these arguments, though powerful, are by no means conclusive. Some people will pursue equality anyway; many will take these considerations into account by settling for some cuts in living standards in order to gain more equality.

In all discussions of equality, it is considered self-evident that equality is a very worthy goal. But this is by no means self-evident. For the very goal of equality itself is open to serious challenge. The doctrines of praxeology are deduced from three universally acceptable axioms: the major axiom of the existence of purposive human action; and the minor postulates, or axioms, of the diversity of human skills and natural resources, and the disutility of labor. Although it is possible to construct an economic theory of a society without these two minor axioms (but not without the major one), they are included in order to limit our theorizing to laws that can apply directly to reality. Anyone who wants to set forth a theory applicable to interchangeable human beings is welcome to do so.

Thus, the diversity of mankind is a basic postulate of our knowledge of human beings. But if mankind is diverse and individuated, then how can anyone propose equality as an ideal? Every year, scholars hold Conferences on Equality and call for greater equality, and no one challenges the basic tenet. But what justification can equality find in the nature of man? If each individual is unique, how else can he be made "equal" to others than by destroying most of what is human in him and reducing human society to the mindless uniformity of the ant heap? It is the task of the egalitarian, who confidently enters the scene to inform the economist of his ultimate ethical goal, to prove his case. He must show how equality can be compatible with the nature of mankind and must defend the feasibility of a possible egalitarian world.

But the egalitarian is in even direr straits, for it can be shown that equality of income is an impossible goal for mankind. Income can never be equal. Income must be considered, of course, in real and not in money terms; otherwise there would be no true equality. Yet real income can never be equalized. For how can a New Yorker's enjoyment of the Manhattan skyline be equalized with an Indian's? How can the New Yorker swim in the Ganges as well as an Indian? Since every individual is necessarily situated in a different space, every individual's real income must differ from good to good and from person to person. There is no way to combine goods of different types, to measure some income "level," so it is meaningless to try to arrive at some sort of "equal" level. The fact must be faced that equality cannot be achieved because it is a conceptually impossible goal for man, by virtue of his necessary dispersion in location and diversity among individuals. But if equality is an absurd (and therefore irrational) goal, then any effort to approach equality is correspondingly absurd. If a goal is pointless, then any attempt to attain it is similarly pointless.

Many people believe that, though equality of income is an absurd ideal, it can be replaced by the ideal of equality of opportunity. Yet this, too, is as meaningless as the former concept. How can the New Yorker's opportunity and the Indian's opportunity to sail around Manhattan, or to swim in the Ganges, be "equalized"? Man's inevitable diversity of location effectively eliminates any possibility of equalizing "opportunity."…

Human life is not some sort of race or game in which each person should start from an identical mark. It is an attempt by each man to be as happy as possible. And each person could not begin from the same point, for the world has not just come into being; it is diverse and infinitely varied in its parts. The mere fact that one individual is necessarily born in a different place from someone else immediately insures that his inherited opportunity cannot be the same as his neighbor's. The drive for equality of opportunity would also require the abolition of the family since different parents have unequal abilities; it would require the communal rearing of children. The State would have to nationalize all babies and raise them in State nurseries under "equal" conditions. But even here conditions cannot be the same, because different State officials will themselves have different abilities and personalities. And equality can never be achieved because of necessary differences of location.

Thus, the egalitarian must not be permitted any longer to end discussion by simply proclaiming equality as an absolute ethical goal. He must first face all the social and economic consequences of egalitarianism and try to show that it does not clash with the basic nature of man. He must counter the argument that man is not made for a compulsory ant heap existence. And, finally, he must recognize that the goals of equality of income and equality of opportunity are conceptually unrealizable and are therefore absurd. Any drive to achieve them is ipso facto absurd as well.

Egalitarianism is, therefore, a literally senseless social philosophy. Its only meaningful formulation is the goal of "equality of liberty"—formulated by Herbert Spencer in his famous Law of Equal Freedom: "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." This goal does not attempt to make every individual's total condition equal—an absolutely impossible task; instead, it advocates liberty—a condition of absence of coercion over person and property for every man.

Yet even this formulation of equality has many flaws and could profitably be discarded. In the first place, it opens the door for ambiguity and for egalitarianism. In the second place, the term "equality" connotes measurable identity with a fixed, extensive unit. "Equal length" means identity of measurement with an objectively determinable unit. In the study of human action, whether in praxeology or social philosophy, there is no such quantitative unit, and hence there can be no such "equality." Far better to say that "each man should have X" than to say that "all men should be equal in X." If someone wants to urge every man to buy a car, he formulates his goal in that way—"Every man should buy a car"—rather than in such terms as: "All men should have equality in car buying." The use of the term "equality" is awkward as well as misleading.

And finally, as Clara Dixon Davidson pointed out so cogently many years ago, Spencer's Law of Equal Freedom is redundant. For if every man has freedom to do all that he wills, it follows from this very premise that no man's freedom has been infringed or invaded. The whole second clause of the law after "wills" is redundant and unnecessary. Since the formulation of Spencer's Law, opponents of Spencer have used the qualifying clause to drive holes into the libertarian philosophy. Yet all this time they were hitting at an encumbrance, not at the essence of the law. The concept of "equality" has no rightful place in the "Law of Equal Freedom," being replaceable by the logical quantifier "every." The "Law of Equal Freedom" could well be renamed "The Law of Total Freedom."

[Darorinag]

Interesting posts, Anon. Still haven't read the above one though.

Some excerpts from Christopher Brand's The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications:


[A]doption of black infants into white middle class homes had yielded its usual 8-point IQ gain plus some narrowing of the gap between black and white adoptees at age 7; but, by 17, the black youngsters lagged the white by the usual 12-15 IQ points (Weinberg et al., 1992; Lynn, 1994).

Black children's lower IQ's persisted even when black homes were matched to those of whites in terms of income, years of education, marital stability and health, or when children grew up in professionally selected white homes; blacks did not perform conspicuously better in any of the countries or North American cities run by blacks themselves - indeed, they usually performed much worse, though testing was patchy and subject to the interpretative problems that arise when comparing people having different countries and languages; and there was mounting evidence that the Japanese children, whether growing up in their war-torn and subjugated homeland or in North America had IQ levels that actually exceeded those of whites (Lynn, 1982; Vernon, 1982; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Burnham, 1994). The American dream of human improvability was now becoming a nightmare, for the only way to equalize black people in outcomes (and not just in opportunities) was to compel 'affirmative action' by colleges and employers. To legislate and enforce reverse racism would necessarily create bitterness - especially amongst Asians(5) and whites of mediocre abilities who were thus deprived altogether of college places and middle-class career opportunities by still less qualified black candidates.

Why expect further Afro-American gains? The secular g rise - or part of it - was presumably due to the massive twentieth-century improvements in affluence, in diet, in health and hygiene, and in obstetric and gynaecological practice. Yet, if such improvement-led g rises have occurred in the past, black people in the USA - the world's best-fed country - will already have enjoyed the g boost along with whites. Big nutritional improvements will be more readily achieved in people who, because of poverty or ignorance of proper nutrition have especially poor diets in the first place; so any black 'catching up' that was possible should have been accomplished already in the USA. Some highly publicized experiments have claimed IQ-boosting by vitamin and mineral supplements in schoolchildren on normal diets. However, these gains have occurred only on some tests rather than others; the particular tests showing gains were not especially the tests of fluid intelligence on which researchers had expected gains (Blinkhorn, 1991); and the gains were mainly slight and bore no relation to dosage (see Peritz, 1994(9)).

A proper understanding of human intelligence does not lead to segregated schooling decreed by experts - whether by teachers or by psychologists. Anyhow, schooling is increasingly segregated already by what parents can pay for their house-locations so that their children can escape the low standard of much state education (Wooldridge, 1994). Rather, a proper understanding of g discloses the need to allow constant niche-selection by children themselves - at school as much as at home. To associate belief in genetic g with some kind of brutal pessimism and educational nihilism may seem progressive and radical; but it is actually a distraction from how egalitarian policies waste children's time in the name of communal harmony yet still require repeated and expensive state intervention in family life.

[Anonymouse]

That is interesting, but let's not forget given race, it is up to the individual to leap as far as he may choose.
-------------------------------

Liberation through Commerce

by Gary Galles

[Posted March 11, 2004]

Many newspapers I read in February published articles in honor of Black History Month. In contrast to those who now so stridently advocate more government (i.e., more coercion) as the "solution" to social problems facing blacks, one article about George Washington Carver stood out to me as a sharp contrast. His creative scientific efforts (including developing products from peanuts, sweet potatoes and pecans) benefited blacks as well as many others, without coercion.

http://www.mises.org/images3/btw.gif

With my interest piqued, I started researching Carver, whose efforts were critical to southern economic development. But that soon led me to his connection to Booker T. Washington and the Tuskegee Institute he founded and led (they are buried alongside each other on the Tuskegee campus). In Washington's equally inspirational life and his more extensive written work, I discovered a man with a far better understanding of the moral means to success—self-improvement that benefited others as well through voluntary arrangements—than statist proposals others pushed then, and even more push now.

Booker T. Washington, born a slave, was seven when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced. At 11, he got his first book and taught himself to read. He thought to "get into a schoolhouse and study . . . would be about the same as getting into paradise." At 16, he went to Hampton Institute in Virginia—500 miles away—with but $1.50 in his pocket, where he attended classes by day and worked nights to earn his room and board. After graduation, Hampton made him an instructor. In 1881, he founded and then led what is now the Tuskegee Institute for years as principal, emphasizing education and an unwavering work ethic.

Washington was a tireless educator and advocate of black self-improvement. At Tuskegee, he taught technical skills needed to provide the ability to earn a good living. He pushed the values of individual responsibility, the dignity of work, and the need for enduring moral character as the best means for former slaves, who started with little but the shirts on their backs, to succeed. He encouraged business, industry and entrepreneurship, rather than political agitation, as the most effective foundation for success. He formed the National Negro Business League. He understood and modeled the spirit of capitalism, recognizing that those who serve others best will benefit themselves by doing so.
Washington recognized that for blacks to advance, starting with little but the legacy of government-enforced slavery, coercion on other fronts was not the answer. Instead, that could not be found except in self-improvement and voluntary arrangements. That is because, regardless of past injustices, only voluntary arrangements prevent additional injustices from being committed, and "No question is ever permanently settled until it is settled in the principles of the highest justice."

On the Inadequacy of Coercion

- . . . whenever people act upon the idea that the disadvantage of one man is the good of another, there slavery exists.
-You can't hold a man down in a ditch without staying down in the ditch with him.
-There are two ways of exerting one's strength; one is pushing down, the other is pulling up.
-decide with yourselves whether a race that is thus willing to die for its country, should not be given the highest opportunity to live for its country.
-I have never seen one who did not want to be free, or one who would return to slavery.
-Slavery presented a problem of destruction; freedom presents one of construction.
- . . . we shall make a fatal error if we yield to the temptation of believing that mere opposition to our wrongs, and the simple utterance of complaint, will take the place of progressive, constructive action, which must constitute the bedrock of all true civilization . . .
-[instead of politics] . . . I would be helping in a more substantial way by assisting in the laying of the foundation of the race through a generous education of the hand, head, and heart.

On Self-Improvement

-I have never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed. I have always had high regard for the man who could tell me how to succeed.
-Each one should remember there is a chance for him.
no one can degrade us except ourselves . . .
-Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.
-Nor shall we permit our grievances overshadow our opportunities.
-I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed.
-Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know that you trust him.
-Character, not circumstances, make the man.
-. . . only little men cherish a spirit of hatred.
-I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.
-I believe that any man's life will be filled with constant and unexpected encouragement, if he makes up his mind to do his level best each day . . .
-Success in life is founded upon attention to . . . the every day things nearest to us rather than to the things that are remote and uncommon.
- . . . in a state of freedom, along with the elements of industry there has got to go one other element, and that is the element of intelligence, the element of education.
- . . . freedom, in the broadest and highest sense, has never been a bequest; it has been a conquest.
-One constructive effort in the way of progress does more to blot out discrimination than all the whinings in the world.

On Freedom and Voluntary Arrangements

- . . . the most complete development of each human being can come only through his being permitted to exercise the most complete freedom compatible with the freedom of others.
-Our republic is the outgrowth of the desire for liberty that is natural in every human breast . . . freedom of body, mind, and soul, and the most complete guarantee of the safety of life and property.
- . . . at bottom, the interests of humanity and of the individual are one . . .
-In a state of freedom and enlightenment, [man] renders the highest and most helpful form of service [to others].
-The world cares very little about what a man knows; it is what a man or woman is able to do that counts.
-No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is left long without proper reward.
-No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized.
-The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the end, make his way regardless of race.
-More and more thoughtful students of the race problem are beginning to see that business and industry constitute what we may call the strategic points in its solution.
-...those who are guilty of such sweeping criticisms [of the rich] do not know how many people would be made poor, and how much suffering would result, if wealthy people were to part all at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way to disorganize and cripple great business enterprises.

In reading Booker T. Washington's words, I found someone who inspired me with both his actions and his character. His emphasis on rejecting coercion of others, and relying instead on self-improvement and voluntary arrangements is exactly what we, as parents, try teach our children today, regardless of race, as we prepare them to make the most of their lives. And despite the fact that it involves hard work and sacrifice (as does every real success), which makes it a message many do not want to hear, it is as true, and as valuable, today as it was during his life.

____________________________

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1468

[Darorinag]

Anon, as always, your great articles and sources are very insightful and interesting.

What I was talking about in this thread and in fact everywhere else whenever the question of intelligence and race comes up, is ONLY intelligence - i.e. not coupled with anything such as success or personal achievements. On that note, I am a firm believer that success does not always require intelligence. That is not to underestimate the contributions of Booker T. Washington or other blacks. As I pointed out, I am not claiming that the difference in intelligence levels necessarily imply inferiority; just that they imply difference, and hence inequality.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag Anon, as always, your great articles and sources are very insightful and interesting.

What I was talking about in this thread and in fact everywhere else whenever the question of intelligence and race comes up, is ONLY intelligence - i.e. not coupled with anything such as success or personal achievements. On that note, I am a firm believer that success does not always require intelligence. That is not to underestimate the contributions of Booker T. Washington or other blacks. As I pointed out, I am not claiming that the difference in intelligence levels necessarily imply inferiority; just that they imply difference, and hence inequality.

Since it is common of egalitarians that suggest "race doesn't exist", yet to contradict that statement by supporting affirmitive action and other Statist legislation ( more coercion ) that chooses one race over another, mind boggles me. The same ones that cry out for "equality" and "no race", are the same ones that support Statist legislation such as affirmitive action, forceful integration of schools, and other measures aimed at bringing about "equality", by favoring one race over another. The irrationality of the position can only be vindicated by personal attacks. With that said, I agree with your point.

I was trying to make this thread not so much about posting articles, but that one about Washington was one I liked and thought it was interesting because of his idea of not having "victim status". It is interesting to note that the first people to advocate for "racial equality" the "civil rights", and other Statist measures were mostly Communist xxxs. But why bother stating this, when it is easier to label someone a "racist"? It saves themself having to research and dig up the facts themselves, and remain with their worldview, than expose it to criticism. Perhaps no one has done a finer job than the "racist", Kevin MacDonald, in his Culture of Critique:An Evolutionary Analysis of xxxish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0759672229.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Taken from amazon.com

About the Author
KEVIN MACDONALD is Professor of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach. He is the author of numerous works in evolutionary biology, including A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994) and Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998). --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Book Description
MacDonald provides a theoretical analysis and review of data on the widespread tendency among certain highly influential, xxxish-dominated intellectual movements to develop radical critiques of gentile culture that are compatible with the continuity of xxxish identification. Particular attention is paid to Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the efforts to influence United States immigration policy. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

[Darorinag]

I totally agree with what you said.

The fact that books such as the one you mentioned are not even present in university libraries (and I can name more than a dozen of them) in contrast to books of propaganda about racial equality, affirmative action, and so on being present in huge numbers (exceeding 200 for each topic) demonstrates how much people are willing to censor for the sake of their personal, political, or cultural agendas. I was reading a post by Ara Baliozian just a few hours ago and I find that it applies to this and many such cases: "Censorship is an admission of defeat."

This applies to almost any politically incorrect idea that has undergone fierce censorship from the state.

People in academic circles who conduct researches on these things are being labelled racists left and right, simply because their findings do not coincide with what would be ideal for the state's plan of social "unity." This is nothing new. Science has lost its objectivism; history has lost its truth. Society has lost its individuality.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag I totally agree with what you said.

The fact that books such as the one you mentioned are not even present in university libraries (and I can name more than a dozen of them) in contrast to books of propaganda about racial equality, affirmative action, and so on being present in huge numbers (exceeding 200 for each topic) demonstrates how much people are willing to censor for the sake of their personal, political, or cultural agendas. I was reading a post by Ara Baliozian just a few hours ago and I find that it applies to this and many such cases: "Censorship is an admission of defeat."

This applies to almost any politically incorrect idea that has undergone fierce censorship from the state.

People in academic circles who conduct researches on these things are being labelled racists left and right, simply because their findings do not coincide with what would be ideal for the state's plan of social "unity." This is nothing new. Science has lost its objectivism; history has lost its truth. Society has lost its individuality.

I attend UCLA, perhaps one of the most liberal "equality"-driven campus' in the nation. Bruinwalk, is a strip of walk on the campus that is full of every political fringe group you can think of advertising themselves, from "Christian Korean Club", to the "Indonesian Student's Business Association" to "Israeli Students Association" to "xxxish Business Club". Ethnic solidarity among non-whites and xxxs is encouraged and promoted. "Whites" do not have any such club, nor are considered to be "white", but you can deduce what the reaction would be. Of course when they say "liberal" it means those who agree with them.

Recently the school's "Bruin Republicans", another club, launched a campaign against the Hispanic student group MEChA, interestingly, one of their literature contains ideas about the breakway of the southwestern U.S. for greater Aztlan, and other militant chicano claims against whites. The Bruin Republicans, while I do not agree with them, attacked MEChA as being "racist", in in the UCLA newspaper the Daily Bruin, it was the Bruin Republicans that got verbally assaulted and washed by all sorts of commentators.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix What does it say? Nothing...

It says more than you wish to take away from it. It says that there are indeed marked differences in the population groups.

[Darorinag]

I am not surprised, Anon... and who's to be blamed? The individuals for not thinking by themselves about what they're being bombarded with, or the state for the massive brainwashing that it's implementing? Are those "liberals" aware of their own racism, or are they blind to it? I am not sure about that. But everything they say and do shows that they are doing it with the full realisation of what their actions result in and the hypocrisy of what they are doing. But then again, if they are called hypocrites, who's to believe the "racists" for calling them hypocrites, right? It's a loop with no exit. The cause results in an effect and the effect further fuels the cause... The most popular term in classrooms these days is "marginalisation." How women, blacks (and other non-whites), gays, and other "minorities" are marginalised by our "white heterosexual patriarchal society."

What you said also exists on my campus, with the exception that you aren't able (under the Canadian "hate crime laws") to do what the "Bruin Republicans" did. Arguably, the Canadians with all their claims of moral and legal superiority, lag behind USA in the most inherent of rights, freedom of speech, although arguably again, it's not much better in USA (from what I hear).

The university I attend has two polarities, the conservatives & zionists (albeit sometimes acting separately), and the liberals & pro-Arabs (aka anti-zionists), who are pro-"diversity." Where do non-xxxish, non-pro-arab, non-pro-diversity people fall? There is a black "alliance" COMPLETELY funded by the university, in addition to the xxxish student federation. To speak about "white alliance", however, is considered racism; people are obsessed with whites just like some men were obsessed with hunting "witches" during the witch-hunting and trials era...

To celebrate white culture and white heritage is considered racist, neo-Nazist, denialist, revisionist, anti-immigration. You name it. To talk about the differences in sexes brings vicious attacks on you by the radical feminists who run the "Women's centre" and the Sexual Assault Survivors Support Line... To talk against the gay rights movement and its hypocrisies brings complaints from the LGBT association against you at the Office of Student Affairs, and calls to the cops and security because of non-existant "threats."

To refuse to befriend black people in your class is considered racist. To speak out in a tutorial against that liberal nutcase who insists that there should be mandatory "positive-space" (LGBT) training for all teachers and students in high schools would have severe effects on your marks, because well, the T.A is a lesbian.... Not to mention the "humiliation" (personal attacks) you will receive by the mindless parroting of mainstream propaganda by the 29 other students in the classroom...

To be anti-communist labels you as an ignorant Nazi scum who "doesn't know sh*t about politics"...

THIS is the level of brainwashing we are at. And I could go on with more examples.

How does this relate to race? It does, in very obvious ways. Race has become the most controversial issue, and in being so, it has sparked censorship, political correctness and other not-so-tolerant practises against dissenters; and this is severely effecting academic freedom and TRUTH. Universities are no longer institutions that provide FACTUAL HIGHER EDUCATION. They are centres of nodding in agreement about politically correct views of the most controversial issues...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag
How does this relate to race? It does, in very obvious ways. Race has become the most controversial issue, and in being so, it has sparked censorship, political correctness and other not-so-tolerant practises against dissenters; and this is severely effecting academic freedom and TRUTH. Universities are no longer institutions that provide FACTUAL HIGHER EDUCATION. They are centres of nodding in agreement about politically correct views of the most controversial issues...

And hence science is guided and molded by those who have time and money, and academic institutions are obviously no exception.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0813340861.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

From Publishers Weekly
Sarich, a Berkeley emeritus anthropologist, and Miele, an editor of Skeptic magazine, cannot resist calling the current view that "race does not exist" a "PC dogma." They make cogent, if not convincing, arguments of their case in three areas. Race as a concept, they argue, considerably antedates colonial Europe, presenting such examples as an "Egyptian tomb with four races" (as one caption calls a tomb painting) that may point up "awareness" of difference, but whether that awareness correlates to concepts of "race" as currently defined remains unproven. Several chapters are heavy going on DNA-based research into the origin and differentiation of Homo sapiens, here interpreted as branching off from the other hominids recently enough to make differences among people very minor but, in the authors' view, significant. They move from the Human Genome Project into their final section, in which differences in intelligence are said to correlate to a concept of race (but are not said to be a justification for discrimination). This last argument is predicated on what will seem to many readers an excessive faith in IQ tests. Nevertheless, the book lacks vitriol, other than that needed to fuel the skeptic's attempt to debunk.

From Booklist
Sarich and Miele, both respected academicians, challenge the much-hyped, popular notion of race as an illusion, or mere social construct. Instead, they contend that significant human racial differences exist. Those differences are being increasingly identified and quantified via medical research and law-enforcement techniques, most notably in DNA testing, which has led to convictions and acquittals. Inquiries into the genetic influences behind racial differences in educational achievement and intelligence, despite inflammatory resistance, are justified by cost-benefit analyses, the authors contend. Assessing the future of racial politics in the U.S and internationally, Sarich and Miele offer three scenarios: meritocracy with race-sensitive safety valves (which they prefer), affirmative action or quotas, and rising resegregation and ethnopolitics. This is an important work, despite its conservative inferences, that challenges both the existence and the value of America's obsession with color blindness. Vernon Ford

www.amazon.com

[Fadix]

Here we go, changing the subject as usual, Mr. Anon, writes a long essay, typical…, about everything beside the central point. The same individual that consider as only a belief the Earth axes shifting, when it is observed, measured, calculated etc… and on the other hand consider as “truth,” something which was discredited by all recent controlled and scientifically serious studies.

First of all, even the 15 points is rejected and considered as a mistake on the Bell Curve, as the “studies” used among women and their children, after making the comparable comparisons, the average differences would be 7-10 points. This was at the beginning of the 90s. One of the most recent studies compared blacks and whites of comparable social statues, found not measurable differences when using the standards IQ tests. Another study with children sent to school, and followed until college, found that when children of blacks from difficult social backgrounds were sent to school and given the appropriate help in order to increase their standards at the levels of their white counterparts, their IQ was raised and achieved those of the white students.

In fact, EVERY recent studies when comparing blacks and whites with the same educations and social statues show no statistically significant differences.

Now Danny and Anon can start posting what ever they want, I have yet to see any recent controlled serious study that would support their claims. In order for one to support such a claim, one must be able to back it up with serious controlled studies, articles are not studies, insinuations are not studies, Anon senseless essays are not studies… self deceiving bigots hiding themselves under “rartialism” banner to not be labelled as racists are the last to be considered. Having in mind that the past years they were not able to support their claims with any of the recent studies.

Just title of any studies Dan and Anon, go ahead, if you can not find it on the web, just post the title, I can have access to it and I promises I will post the abstract.

If you can not support what you claim with recent serious studies, then, you claims will be just that, claims.

[Darorinag]

Now Danny and Anon can start posting what ever they want, I have yet to see any recent controlled serious study that would support their claims.
Of course. That's because you're blind and don't consider the studies I posted to be "valid." Did you even read what I posted? I posted an excerpt from Christopher Brand's "The g factor", which studied black and white kids who lived in USA in the SAME social, domestic, class, health circumstances, and blacks still lagged behind. Whereas Japs who faced poverty even in their OWN country as well as in USA in the same situation as the controlled study of blacks and whites, were still ahead of both groups.

In order for one to support such a claim, one must be able to back it up with serious controlled studies
"Serious" controlled studies? WHAT exactly do you consider "serious"? Something that coincides with your views? The two people I posted from are professors at universities, with PhDs.

I will repeat it for your benefit, since you didn't read what I posted before:

J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most
published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in Science and Technology, Who’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

Christopher Brand WAS a Psychologist and psychological researcher at Edinburgh University (until being FIRED for his views on IQ and race), Fellow of the Galton Institute.


self deceiving bigots hiding themselves under “rartialism” banner to not be labelled as racists are the last to be considered.
Self-deceiving? Bigot? Now now, you can't be more predictable, can you? How does that work in this thread? The thread is about race and whether or not it exists. Can you disprove our claims? Go ahead and do so. Please refrain from personal attacks, for the sake of your own credibility. Nothing I said in this thread was racist. Even if I am racist, that is irrelevant to this discussion. A zionist can still be a scientist. So can a Nazist or a racist. Your argument doesn't hold.

Having in mind that the past years they were not able to support their claims with any of the recent studies.
Only your liberal PC friends are claiming that race doesn't exist. Fact is, race remains an inherent part of our lives. But you want to bring it in whenever it suits you, and discard it whenever it doesn't (equality, etc.).....

If there is something called "black", there is something called "race." That's very simple. Taking into account even the phenotypical differences between whites, blacks and orientals, we can see that race exists. What's next, claiming that sexes don't exist? that males and females are the same? What's next, claiming that women are on average physically stronger than men? Wishful thinking. Reality says otherwise. That is in no way anti-women. But you, with your political correctness can choose to believe that it is. But it has no bearing on my argument.

[Darorinag]

Now to use your "IQ has nothing to do with genetics but with opportunities of education" friends' research, I will demonstrate the gaps in their theory:

Compare the average intelligence test scores of blacks and whites during their senior years in high school and whites tend to outscore blacks by as many as 15 IQ points. But send those students to college and the IQ scores of black students who graduate increase more than four times as much as those of their white college classmates, effectively cutting the black-white IQ gap in half by graduation.
This is one of the key findings of Washington University research that holds important implications for the current debate over federal and state attempts to roll back affirmative action programs.
That black kids are already lagging behind white kids in IQ is quite significant. Why would they lag behind them if they are on the same educational level (i.e. same grade in school) as their white counterparts? Now assuming that they DO lack "educational opportunities," despite the fact that they have received the same amount of education as the white kids used in these experiments, I shall go on arguing against their next point.

"Our study shows that differences in IQ test scores among blacks and whites may have little to do with genetics, and much to do with the relative quality of the educational opportunities afforded to blacks and whites," said Mark R. Rank, Ph.D., associate professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.
Relative quality of educational opportunities? I thought this was a controlled "experiment"? How can the quality of education be relative then? Either they have not used a controlled experiment for the benefit of blacks, or the claim they are basing their entire theory on is entirely crooked.


The study blasts holes in several controversial theories put forth by "The Bell Curve," a 1994 book by conservative social theorists Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The book and its theories on race-based intelligence are credited by some with fueling the attack on affirmative action.
How it "blasts holes" in the Bell Curve, I am yet to understand. The theory in itself is based on crooked premises.

"The message for the affirmative action debate is that black students who finish college appear to make dramatic gains in cognitive abilities," Myerson said. "White students also improve during college, but to a lesser extent.
That they IMPROVE doesn't mean that they are equal. On the contrary, it means that they were behind already. And even their improvement doesn't make them equal. There is still a different in IQ levels. This difference cannot be taken as "experimental error" because the difference already existed but was reduced. If the two were INITIALLY at a gap of 7 IQ points, it could then be considered to be an experimental error, but as it stands, it cannot.

"The more important point," Myerson added, "is that the level of ability black students exhibit at the end of college would have been greatly underestimated based on how they tested when they took college entrance exams in high school. For at least some black high school students, the SAT and other common college entrance exams may not provide an accurate picture of their potential."
Wait, are we talking about DIFFERENT testing for blacks and whites here? i thought this was a "controlled" experiment? SAT doesn't give an accurate picture of their potential? Hmmm.. but it does for whites? So doesn't that imply that blacks and whites are not equal in intelligence? oh yes, I forgot, "test bias"... indeed.. what a racist test!!!!

Even though many blacks come to college less prepared than their white counterparts, many manage to overcome this handicap and begin making dramatic improvements in cognitive abilities.
How does that work? "many blacks come to college less prepared than their white counterparts"... hmm.. again, i thought we had a "controlled" experiment and not from a "wide cross-section of American men and women" as they claim The Bell Curve experiment used? I thought they received the same education and graduated from high school. So how come now they're less-prepared?

The study attributes the rapid improvement of some blacks to the fact that most colleges and universities provide a level playing field, offering educations of relatively equal quality to all students regardless of race.
Hmm.. so education in high-school is racially biased? wow... i didn't know there was science for white kids and science for black kids!!! but we learn something new each day, i guess!!!

"We would argue that the constraint of inferior education for blacks at the high school level is largely removed during the college years," Myerson said.
Now their inability to do well in high school is attributed to "inferior education", huh?

The result is that at the end of four years of higher education, black students' intelligence test scores more closely resemble their white counterparts' scores."
More closely resemble, but not equal, right? So what happens to the remaining difference?

Contributing to the admission test problem, Rank said, is the fact that college entrance tests are traditionally taken near the end of high school -- precisely the period when the black-white gap in intelligence test scores is greatest.
Haha.. end of the high-school, gap is greatest.. umm, so maybe we should shift back the tests, for the benefit of our EQUAL black kids?


Myerson points out that the SAT and other college entrance exams are still fairly good predictors of how well any one student will do in college -- students who score low on the SAT are more likely to have a difficult time in college.
Ummm, wait, didn't he also say THIS in the same paper:

"The more important point," Myerson added, "is that the level of ability black students exhibit at the end of college would have been greatly underestimated based on how they tested when they took college entrance exams in high school. For at least some black high school students, the SAT and other common college entrance exams may not provide an accurate picture of their potential."
How about THAT for a contradiction, Mr. Myerson?

And yet again:
"These tests are still much better than chance at predicting who will succeed in college, but it appears that the same score doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for blacks and whites --a low score may underestimate the potential for some blacks to do well in college," Myerson said.
hmm, double standards, Mr. Myerson? I thought you were claiming blacks and whites could be equal if given the same opportunities? Whatever happened to that theory of yours? I guess you forgot about it and got diverted from it by political correctness and your pro-black-no-matter-what-science-says ideologies, eh?

Rank said: "Contrary to the conclusions reached in 'The Bell Curve,' our analysis of the same data set suggests that education does have a significant impact on cognitive ability. Furthermore, education at the college level exerts a sizable influence on reducing the widely reported differences in white/black intelligence scores. Unfortunately such an effect was virtually ignored in 'The Bell Curve.'"
Those people are SO overwhelmingly concentrated on DISPROVING The Bell Curve, that they forgot to support their own claims, and in the process of arguing against it, they forgot that they were essentially admitting that there still IS a difference between blacks and whites, only smaller than the Bell Curve suggests... not to mention the contradictions in the paper...

Full article here:
http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1997/11-06-97/7682.html

[anileve]

Anon, I never smeared you with the term “racist” or “fascist”, it's a complete misinterpretation on your behalf. I merely said that you support many racist and fascist platforms. However Dan is a racist and a fascist, and this is not my attempt to smear him with fallacy but it is his own claim. I don't know why he creates this ruckus when he clearly stated his orientation. He is what he is, there is no room in my mind for racists and fascists, and that is final, I could care less about his fairy tails and bogus arguments. One thing I must note, your essays are very articulate and elaborate, however they lack facts and are very difficult to address since you pile too many various issues together, which makes it rather complicated to address. In order to make a legitimate claim one must follow a systematic and coherent flow of the topic.

Also I must note that once again, sociology is a very vital factor in history and politics. One cannot take statistics lightly as well and attach himself to a subjective observation. When you make a claim you must support it with valid facts and look at the overall picture.

That being said, you must take into consideration various environmental, historical, conditional and political issues when you refer to race. I have pointed it out to you previously that your assumptions about blacks being more violent is a complete fabrication of your mind, it is not supported by the scientific or statistical studies.

I have never disputed that there are physical differences between humans, but that is treated on individual bases as well. Regardless of the race, we can take two men of the same ethnicity and age but of different physical attributes. One maybe short and physically not as developed as the other. Thus the one who is more physically fit can excel at athletics, while the one lacking an exceptional physical ability may excel at academics. In that case one exemplar may score higher on his IQ test than the other. You can no longer base such distinctions on race, but rather than on environmental, biological and social factors.

Overall there are supposed 4 racial groups differentiated by genetic and physical characteristics Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. But then again, Caucasians can also be of different genetic and physical characteristics. Since we differ so much in our appearance: different hair color, body structure, blood type and eye color but that wouldn't make us a different race from each other would it? No. Different skin color one might say? Well let's examine skin color.

Did you know that we all have basically same skin color? The only difference is a shade, just like you sit in the sun for a long period of time and it changes its shade. Whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to different shades of one color, melanin. Our shade is a result of a environmental and geographical determinants. Nature has equipped us with adaptability, our bodies adapt to numerous environments and climates, our behavior is also affected by those variants.

Now we can agree that there are Africans that have Caucasoid features, such as Ethiopians and Eritreans. Ethiopians are predominantly a Christian nation in addition their alphabet is almost identical to Armenian. However one can see the darker color that distinguishes them from Caucasians. Many of South Africans are also more white than you and I with Caucasian features, yet they are of Negroid race. Now a person who lives in a very hot climate develops a darker shade which in the effect makes him more susceptible to skin cancer and other skin diseases, thus you notice that people living in cool climate have lighter skin which is due to the efficient production of vitamin D for healthy bones to protect them from the harshness of the cold. In summary when one speaks of color many factors have to be taken into consideration. It is not as simple as Black and White.
Let us redefine the terms “race” and “ethnicity”. Dictionary definition.

Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.
While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal afilliation, religious faith, shared language or cultural or traditional origins and backgrounds. Whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. "Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race", or as a synonym for minority group.

Race is a type of classification used to group living things based on such elements as common descent , heredity, physical attributes, behavior, economic and academic achievement, and even language. Although the term is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), this article is primarily concerned with "race" as the term has been used to designate groups of humans, whether or not the groups are mutually exclusive, and whether or not the classification purports to be objective.

The practice of dividing humans into races emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities.

In summary a race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and eye shape. Race, based on scientific proof is a cultural creation and realistically far from biological. We are 99% genetically identical and most of the biological variation is more evident in women and men and in our personal traits.

[anileve]

Continued....................


Anon,

Now in terms of your unsupported and very inaccurate claim of blacks historically being most violent people, it is like a balloon inflated with hot air. It simply cannot be argued that historically “Caucasians” if we must go by racial terms, are most violent peoples in history. Who is historically responsible for the majority of wars, genocides and colonization? The Crusades? Germany? Turks? Russians? Spaniards? British? Mongols? The list goes on, I really cannot recall much domination done by third world countries. Africans???????? Where is the sense in that, Anon?

And if you want to look at things from a more statistical perspective to dispute your allegations, please look at the following statistics, National and International. Please notice that in the International statistics countries with the highest percentage of crimes are mainly westernized and “civilized” Asiatic and Anglo-Saxon dominated nations. Mexico my dear is number 13 and North Africa is not even in top 25. South Africa which is predominantly “white” is #5 on the list strangely.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri

Plus I am posting link to some of the figures for the National Crime rates, please take a look at the report and compare, do you still think that blacks commit most amount of crimes?

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t410.pdf

I can go on further, but I am out of fuel for tonight.

[anileve]

And do me a favor Anon, simmer down on posting articles regarding egalitarianism, equality, marxism, liberalism, anarchism and posting covers of books. Race is the main topic of this thread, let's stick to it, and just deal with one thing at a time.

[Fadix]

Dan, don’t start that s!.t with me, go try to sell your nonsense elsewhere. The g-factor is a joke; the references used are all pass dated uncontrolled studies and known to have been manipulated. The references used as “Lynn” comes from a known misinterpreted and manipulated study by a racist professor living in Ireland calling his research as “Negroid Intelligence.” There is hardly any sane person whom would use this man as reference. His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. And more so, one of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students or graduates. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally… I can provide a lot of example, such as his other claim regarding Arabs having 75 as IQ, a flawed test, like all his other ones. Murray and Herrnstein Bell Curves uses Lynn works(by the intermediary of the magazine he was associated Editor of “Mankind Quarterly”) 24 times, practically the major bases of the work regarding the blacks IQ. The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

The other manipulation on that article, regarding the adopted children, the reference is Weinberg studies of a hundred children adopted. Those children at age 7 scored 106 on IQ tests, while the white children scored 112. The study was run in the 70s, where black students face racial discrimination which influenced their devloppement, this explains this 6 point differences. A decade later, the black students IQ dropped to 89, while those of the whites dropped to 106. After analysing the cases Weinberg and Scarr realised that Black students in the study faced a lot of discriminations and social problems and many had to even leave school because of it. Jencks after reviewing the studies agreed and wrote: "The results are perfectly consistent with the difference being due to something in the early home environment and, for older kids, their experience in school." Even if after the problem was pinpointed, Murray and Herrnstein ignored the authors of those studies conclusion without referring it in the work, they replaced the conclusion by their own erroneous analysis by claming that the environment played a little role, without bothering checking the datas collected that pointed out that practically all the black students faced racial discrimination and social problems, and that many had to leave school because of those problems.

Now regarding your two protégés, Christopher Brand is a mentally deranged and known racist, he even supports some form of paedophilia…

As it is too late, I will go to sleep right now, I just realised that my computer was open and I decided to refresh and saw your stupid replies… will all answer them tomorrow.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Fadix Dan, don’t start that s!.t with me, go try to sell your nonsense elsewhere. The g-factor is a joke; the references used are all pass dated uncontrolled studies and known to have been manipulated. The references used as “Lynn” comes from a known misinterpreted and manipulated study by a racist professor living in Ireland calling his research as “Negroid Intelligence.” There is hardly any sane person whom would use this man as reference. His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. And more so, one of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students or graduates. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally… I can provide a lot of example, such as his other claim regarding Arabs having 75 as IQ, a flawed test, like all his other ones. Murray and Herrnstein Bell Curves uses Lynn works(by the intermediary of the magazine he was associated Editor of “Mankind Quarterly”) 24 times, practically the major bases of the work regarding the blacks IQ. The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

Now regarding your two protégés, Christopher Brand is a mentally deranged and known racist, he even supports some form of paedophilia…

Fadi, are you really surprised with his choices of sources? I think the predictability of such actions has been established, there is no room for objectivity on his behalf just plain stubborn pioneering of racism.

Thanks for the info, good to know another academic fascist. And once again I've become convinced that, at times intelligence cannot be held in such high esteem, when morality is so warped the credibility shifts to "0".

As for replying to Dan it's like taking a ride on a marry-go-round, motion is present but it's clear that it's spinning in circles and going nowhere.

As it is too late, I will go to sleep right now

I think I shall follow in your footsteps. :D

[Darorinag]

Crime in the United States 2002

Table 2.6 - Offenders by Age, Sex and Race, 2002

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-6.xls

White: 33.9%
Black: 35.3%

Population distribution (2000):

White: 75.1%
Black (or African-American): 12.3%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Assume for 2002 an increase of Black population from 12.3% to 15%, the higher the increase in this number, the more favourable it becomes for their crime statistics, provided that the % of crimes committed by Blacks stays the same.

Population is a key factor. How many among how many commit crimes. :)

Taking statistics out of context is very easy.

South Africa:

black 75.2%, white 13.6%, Colored 8.6%, Indian 2.6%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html

Crime in South Africa has HUGELY increased post-apartheid.

Farm attacks on white property are not rare. They are daily occurrences. Ditto for rape of white women.

As for the ranking by crime stats, you can't use that to prove anything unless you also have a ranking of the countries by immigration.

The first 4 in the list have HIGH levels of immigration.

1. United States
2. Germany
3. United Kingdom
4. France

The case of South Africa already explained.
5. South Africa

Russia has its share of immigrants and different races, so you can't assume anything unless you look at the population and the crime stats by race.
6. Russia

Again, high levels of immigration to Canada. People from all over the world.
7. Canada

Immigration levels very low.
8. Japan

Moderate levels of immigration for Italy, particularly from Algeria, Morocco.
9. Italy

Immigration levels low or non-existent.
10. India

Immigration levels low or non-existent.
11. Korea, South

Immigration levels low or non-existent.
12. Chile

Also, keep in mind that the crime levels in Africa might be "low" because mostly they are gone undocumented, due to lack of access to high-tech media technologies, as well as due to the lack of organised policing and documentation.

Also, notice how they have recently started to only mention race when it comes to "victims" rather than perpetrators. Especially in Canada and the UK.

When it's "hate crime" against a race, it's mentioned. When it's crime BY a certain race, it's not mentioned. How's THAT for double standards?

[Darorinag]

Fadi, are you really surprised with his choices of sources? I think the predictability of such actions has been established, there is no room for objectivity on his behalf just plain stubborn pioneering of racism.
Racism? Please prove that insisting on racial differences is = racism. Fact is, the two are separate things. I can be both, but being one doesn't necessarily imply the other.

Fadi - Objectivity? Sources? Don't even get me started on how the "holocaust" is now an established "fact." By that token, xxxish survivor accounts cannot qualify as "proof" to the holocaust. What are you talking about?
How about I show you sources from "nizkor" that use the ADL and only ADL in their works cited? How's THAT for proving that the "holocaust" took place? Bottom line is, where you get your sources has nothing to do with their validity - i.e. as long as you are using facts rather than wishful thinking or ideologies.

Now regarding your two protégés, Christopher Brand is a mentally deranged and known racist, he even supports some form of paedophilia…
What his personal beliefs on pedophilia are have nothing to do with race and IQ. So are you saying that a gay person cannot be a scientist because he's gay? And yes, it's comparable, because while you might not think homosexuality is immoral, a lot of people do. It's the same for pedophilia. There are a lot of people who don't object to it. Besides the fact that Christopher Brand is not a pedophile, because he does not advocate sex with minors, but relationships with adults whose age difference is bigger than the one considered "natural/normal"... such as a 20 year old woman and a 40 year old man...

Thanks for the info, good to know another academic fascist.
Ohhh, an academic fascist, eh? I think Seapahn's example of the cereal and your white supremacy obsession would be VERY helpful here and in all your posts in threads that I've posted in. You have become obsessed with me to the point of not being able to shut up about it, even in threads that are irrelevant to white supremacy. But way to show our fellow forumers your true level and mental age.

And once again I've become convinced that, at times intelligence cannot be held in such high esteem, when morality is so warped the credibility shifts to "0".
Morality? Now it's immoral to argue that there are differences between races? Wow.. you are the epitome of political correctness, aren't you? Your ancestors would be SO proud of your liberal-yet-not-so-liberal views (and hypocrisies)... but then again, you're from Armenia, aren't you? So there's no sense of loss there... your ancestors weren't the ones who were massacred because they were politically incorrect and went against the generally held belief/plan...

As for replying to Dan it's like taking a ride on a marry-go-round, motion is present but it's clear that it's spinning in circles and going nowhere.
You're right - because your replies are nothing more than cheap shots and accusations of "white supremacy" which have nothing whatsoever to do with what I am saying here. Notice that never once did I say that blacks are inferior to whites, in this thread... But your prejudice has taken you to SUCH a point of obsession that you fail to see ANYTHING other than that. Just like xxxs who fail to see anything but anti-semetism when a non-xxxish person talks about them.

saw your stupid replies
yes yes.. yet another cheap shot.. heh.. but then again, what can you expect from someone who posts on the other forum? :p

As for you, my dear "anileve," I guess some people LOVE the fallacy of "arguing with you is pointless so I will not argue with you, although I can disprove all your points." :D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Here we go, changing the subject as usual, Mr. Anon, writes a long essay, typical…, about everything beside the central point. The same individual that consider as only a belief the Earth axes shifting, when it is observed, measured, calculated etc… and on the other hand consider as “truth,” something which was discredited by all recent controlled and scientifically serious studies.

Talk about anything but the central point.

Originally posted by Fadix First of all, even the 15 points is rejected and considered as a mistake on the Bell Curve, as the “studies” used among women and their children, after making the comparable comparisons, the average differences would be 7-10 points. This was at the beginning of the 90s. One of the most recent studies compared blacks and whites of comparable social statues, found not measurable differences when using the standards IQ tests. Another study with children sent to school, and followed until college, found that when children of blacks from difficult social backgrounds were sent to school and given the appropriate help in order to increase their standards at the levels of their white counterparts, their IQ was raised and achieved those of the white students.

In fact, EVERY recent studies when comparing blacks and whites with the same educations and social statues show no statistically significant differences.

Talk about unsubstantiated assertions. Every study posted by Dan has in some ways shown differences.

Originally posted by Fadix Now Danny and Anon can start posting what ever they want, I have yet to see any recent controlled serious study that would support their claims. In order for one to support such a claim, one must be able to back it up with serious controlled studies, articles are not studies, insinuations are not studies, Anon senseless essays are not studies… self deceiving bigots hiding themselves under “rartialism” banner to not be labelled as racists are the last to be considered. Having in mind that the past years they were not able to support their claims with any of the recent studies.

Despite your appeal to your own ignorance, this is just a desperate attempt at trying to delegitimize the information provided. If you cannot refute obviously any of the information that suggests differences and not equality, it is to be expected that you will resort to such tactics.

Originally posted by Fadix Just title of any studies Dan and Anon, go ahead, if you can not find it on the web, just post the title, I can have access to it and I promises I will post the abstract.

If you can not support what you claim with recent serious studies, then, you claims will be just that, claims.

This is the last refuge of the pointless egalitarian. When he cannot confront of present evidence of "equality" he has to somehow pretend that the evidence and data offered by those that do is somehow "inconsequential".

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Dan, don’t start that s!.t with me, go try to sell your nonsense elsewhere. The g-factor is a joke; the references used are all pass dated uncontrolled studies and known to have been manipulated. The references used as “Lynn” comes from a known misinterpreted and manipulated study by a racist professor living in Ireland calling his research as “Negroid Intelligence.” There is hardly any sane person whom would use this man as reference. His “best study” which he refers uses black students from South Africa who knew a little of English, to pass the test written in English. And more so, one of the studies that were done, the black students scored higher in the Raven test, still Lynn ignored them and decided to not include it. In another study, he used a thousand Zambian miners without any scholarity… While on the other hand, he used for the white population for the comparison, British students or graduates. One wonder how do you ask those Zambian miners who could barely talk English to pass a test to measure their intelligence. And the results were even not on papers, but were reported orally… I can provide a lot of example, such as his other claim regarding Arabs having 75 as IQ, a flawed test, like all his other ones. Murray and Herrnstein Bell Curves uses Lynn works(by the intermediary of the magazine he was associated Editor of “Mankind Quarterly”) 24 times, practically the major bases of the work regarding the blacks IQ. The design of the studies that Lynn himself manipulated was actually from Dr. Ken Owen whom said that the poorer results of those studies had all to do with the fact that blacks had a poorer education under the racist apartheid system without denying the poor quality of those same studies.

This is simply another non-issue which you are driving to arrive at some sort of "legitimacy" regarding your position, and marginalizing ours because society is "racist". When things don't go your way, society is "racist". The blame in the current South African study is that it was a "racist apartheid" system, as opposed to now? Now it is racist in the reverse, if you didn't know. And now that it's been years since apartheid, how is S. Africa doing without white rule you say? We can only guess at the amount of crime that pervades. Now I am to guess that the criticism of testing IQs of blacks in the US is "racist" because there is "discrimination" and they don't have the exact means of "getting a better education" because of "racism".

Originally posted by Fadix The other manipulation on that article, regarding the adopted children, the reference is Weinberg studies of a hundred children adopted. Those children at age 7 scored 106 on IQ tests, while the white children scored 112. The study was run in the 70s, where black students face racial discrimination which influenced their devloppement, this explains this 6 point differences. A decade later, the black students IQ dropped to 89, while those of the whites dropped to 106. After analysing the cases Weinberg and Scarr realised that Black students in the study faced a lot of discriminations and social problems and many had to even leave school because of it. Jencks after reviewing the studies agreed and wrote: "The results are perfectly consistent with the difference being due to something in the early home environment and, for older kids, their experience in school." Even if after the problem was pinpointed, Murray and Herrnstein ignored the authors of those studies conclusion without referring it in the work, they replaced the conclusion by their own erroneous analysis by claming that the environment played a little role, without bothering checking the datas collected that pointed out that practically all the black students faced racial discrimination and social problems, and that many had to leave school because of those problems.

In the words of Richard Lynn:

Low IQ can lead to crime because less intelligent children do poorly at school and fail to learn the skills needed to get well-paid jobs, or even any job. Unemployment is therefore two to three times higher among blacks than whites. People without jobs need money, and have relatively little to lose by robbery or burglary, and may therefore commit property crimes. The association between low intelligence and crime holds for whites as well, among whom the average IQ of criminals is about 84.

Nevertheless, as Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein showed in their book The Bell Curve, low IQ cannot entirely explain a black crime rate that is six-and-a-half times the white rate. When blacks and whites are matched for IQ, blacks still commit crimes at two-and-a-half times the white rate. This shows that blacks must have some other characteristic, besides low intelligence, that explains their high levels of criminality.

Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray found the same race and IQ relationship for social problems other than crime: unemployment, illegitimacy, poverty, and living on welfare. All of these are more frequent among blacks and are related to low IQ, and low IQ goes some way towards explaining them, but these social problems remain greater among blacks than among whites with the same IQs. Low intelligence is therefore not the whole explanation. Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray did not offer any suggestions as to what the additional factors responsible for the greater prevalence of these social problems among blacks might be. They concluded only that “some ethnic differences are not washed away by controlling for either intelligence or for any other variables that we examined. We leave those remaining differences unexplained and look forward to learning from our colleagues where the explanations lie” (p. 340).

-Personality and Individual Differences, 2002, Vol. 32, pp.273-316.

Originally posted by Fadix Now regarding your two protégés, Christopher Brand is a mentally deranged and known racist, he even supports some form of paedophilia…

As it is too late, I will go to sleep right now, I just realised that my computer was open and I decided to refresh and saw your stupid replies… will all answer them tomorrow.

Every information or academic that somehow present information that is contrary to egalitarian claims of racial equality is either a racist or deranged, or what have you, in this case its an appeal to your own ignorance.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Continued....................


Anon,

Now in terms of your unsupported and very inaccurate claim of blacks historically being most violent people, it is like a balloon inflated with hot air. It simply cannot be argued that historically “Caucasians” if we must go by racial terms, are most violent peoples in history. Who is historically responsible for the majority of wars, genocides and colonization? The Crusades? Germany? Turks? Russians? Spaniards? British? Mongols? The list goes on, I really cannot recall much domination done by third world countries. Africans???????? Where is the sense in that, Anon?

It is not "unsupported" nor is it "innacurate" that blacks committ most crimes. I already documented it.

Originally posted by anileve And if you want to look at things from a more statistical perspective to dispute your allegations, please look at the following statistics, National and International. Please notice that in the International statistics countries with the highest percentage of crimes are mainly westernized and “civilized” Asiatic and Anglo-Saxon dominated nations. Mexico my dear is number 13 and North Africa is not even in top 25. South Africa which is predominantly “white” is #5 on the list strangely.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri

This is flawed data. You posting this to show that the "Anglo" and "civilized" or "Asiatic" nations committ most crimes is biased. The best we can explain is they are industrialized nations. For example for the United States, it doesn't take into account the minorities, nor in Britain for that matter, and their relative contribution to the crime rate, in proportion to their population. Also, what sort of "crimes" are we talking about? Murder? Rape? Insurance fraud? Arsen? It is vague and doesn't give a break down, so anything can literally be piled up in there.

Originally posted by anileve Plus I am posting link to some of the figures for the National Crime rates, please take a look at the report and compare, do you still think that blacks commit most amount of crimes?

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t410.pdf

I can go on further, but I am out of fuel for tonight.

This also doesn't take into account the crimes committed in proportion to their population group as represented in the U.S. It is a nation of 290,342,554 of which around 180-200 million would be whites, so it is expected for them to obviously have a greater number in crime. However when compared to crime of each group, within proportion to their population, it is then when blacks will stand out, hence the phrase "disproportionately" involved in crime. I don't "think" blacks committ most of the crimes, in proportion to their population, I know they do.

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/data1.jpg

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/data.jpg

Even for countries in Europe such as U.K., the British Commission for Racial Equality, reports that more whites are the victims of race based violence than Asians and Blacks added together.
-Daily Telegraph, London, 9 February 1999.

And according to the British Commission for Racial Equality's own statistics, for the 97-98 year, whites were attacked by non-whites in racially motivated assaults in Britain, greater than that of the supposed white on non white crime.

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/dt_hate_crimes1.jpg

[Anonymouse]

One of the pervading issues that is never taken into account, and this is an honest inquiry on my behalf, and what ties in this thread with that of the immigration thread, is the issue of race and civilization, and the population shifts that are taking place right now in most of the "white" countries. I say "white", because the term is usually used like that by people who don't recognize the reality of race, since we are all the "same".

The issue of immigration and race is a pivotal one to understanding why race goes hand in hand with civilization, and how civilization is only an outward manifestation of a given people. The current trends of immigration both in North America, Europe, and Australia, if projected into the future, show "whites", as becoming minorities. By 2050 "whites" will be minority in the United States, by 2090 "whites" will be minorities in most of Western European nations.

It seems clear to me, and anyone can dispute this, that the only countries that embrace the idea of "diversity is our strength" and colorblindness, are "white" countries. You clearly will never see Korea, or Japan, ever fiddle with these ideas, for they clearly recognize civlization and cohesion go hand in hand with homogeneity, and the northeast Asian countries are one of the most racially homogenous countries on the planet. But to state these facts one is a horrible racist and/or bigot or fascist. I personally would like to be called a fascist, I like the "f" sound.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve And do me a favor Anon, simmer down on posting articles regarding egalitarianism, equality, marxism, liberalism, anarchism and posting covers of books. Race is the main topic of this thread, let's stick to it, and just deal with one thing at a time.

If the articles and books tie in to the thread I will post them. There is no restriction on what one cannot post as long as it is within the constraints of the topic. I already said I wanted to avoid posting articles, but it naturally evolved into that, regarding equality since it has everything to do with your position of everyone being equal. If you contend that we are not equal then why are you here? If you contend that differences are not racial, but sociological, economic, or environmental, you are confirming differences in races, as each race is reacting differently to the sociological, economic, and environmental factors. I don't understand what you and Fadix are seeking to accomplish here, maybe you can summarize your position. Where do you stand?

[Darorinag]

Anonymouse, great arguments, great data you posted.

The "funniest" part (if I can call it that!) is how those who claim they are knowledgeable in Statistics have taken statistics out of context and interpreted it as they like. The crime rate vs race claim is a good example of that. Even someone who hasn't taken statistics would be able to point out the fallacy in that. It's a simple matter of logic. The larger numbers of whites, the more crimes committed by whites there would be, assuming that blacks and whites commit the same amount of crimes! but it's not even that. It's even the opposite. Blacks commit more crimes... and of course, this is not the first time that people have taken those stats out of context and interpreted them according to their whims... but to claim that would be "white supremacist." THIS is what I am talking about. Of course, I might be notorious for being a "racist", but what IS "racism" at this point? And do I CARE if I am called that at this point? It's going to be the most widely used term of the 21st century... despite the fact that they claim there are no races... yet they use the word "racist"... how's that for a contradiction?

I "understand" your "plight" to defend blacks against those claims and arguments, but really, facts are facts, let's not be fooled by our own beliefs and society's expectations of "good" behaviour from us and deny those facts.

Here:
Alabama state law required the Lamar County Board of Education to fire a black teacher after she failed a mandatory competency test five times during the three years allowed. She alleged discrimination because the test failed a disproportionate number of blacks. A judge reinstated her with three years' back salary.

[Anonymouse]

Making oneself pretend there are no differences, doesn't change the fact that there are differences, no matter where you attribute those differences, either to heredity, economics, or environment.

[Anonymouse]

The argument for superiority and inferiority.

Often times I am amazed at the people that, for the sake of believing in their minds that reality is anything but what it is, will ignore intentionally, blot out and pretend that there is no such thing as superior and inferior.

Often times this revolves around race, because since we are obsessed with race and the ones that argue for the non-existence of race, have more of a hang up with it, than the people that do. We are to believe that no race is superior or inferior to any other given race, and if we take this thinking further, individuals are not superior or inferior either. To suggest so means you are a "racist" or a "white supremacist", two smear labels concocted by those who don't want to admit to the reality of differences.

Usually, if you prove the illogicistics of the defenders of such wisdom, that yes, no individuals are alike and there are inequalities; while they may admit this, they do not want to attribute the same to race, that even though individuals may be different, races are not different.

The argument is that if you contend there is superiority and inferiority in nature, you are a "bigot" or "racist" or "white supremacist", and you are an "apologist for hate". No one here made apoligies for hate and violence and crime. No one here said because someone is different we have to kill them or oppress them. The only thing that is highlighted is that in nature is one of inequalities, and therefore superior and inferior elements. Obviously Einstein is a superior mind to me, just like I am a superior creature over an ant. Superior and inferior are part of nature. You cannot absolve it by simply pretending it doesn't exist.

If Europeans were able to explore the world, and conquer and colonize and subjugate other peoples it was because they were superior, used superior intellect, superior technology, and superior skills to defeat other peoples, who from the eyes of the European were obviously lesser, just like the Mongols were superior over the peoples they conquered, or Japan for that matter. Just like black atheletes are superior to white atheletes, and Asians by far are superior to whites and blacks on intelligence and response time. But notice, "white superiority" is not some hoopla that was invented by "whites", ironically it is invented by the same people that are intolerant of those that speak the truth.

Oh, I am to Fadix will dislike me posting "articles" or "rambling" with "unsubstantiated" assertions.

[Darorinag]

Person A: Whites are superior to blacks in intelligence.
"Unbiased" observer: You are a racist, white supremacist, Nazi SC*M!!!

Person B: Blacks are superior to whites in basketball.
"Unbiased" observer: You're right, man. Whites REALLY suck at basketball.

Of course, that's not a hypocrisy, is it? One is called white supremacy, the other "realism"... Racism, from what we understand, of course, is "feelings of antagonism and disrespect towards non-whites." I have never seen a black person being called a racist for dissing a white person, for example. Instead, that is labelled as "justified anger for years of slavery."

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag Person A: Whites are superior to blacks in intelligence.
"Unbiased" observer: You are a racist, white supremacist, Nazi SC*M!!!

Person B: Blacks are superior to whites in basketball.
"Unbiased" observer: You're right, man. Whites REALLY suck at basketball.

Of course, that's not a hypocrisy, is it? One is called white supremacy, the other "realism"... Racism, from what we understand, of course, is "feelings of antagonism and disrespect towards non-whites." I have never seen a black person being called a racist for dissing a white person, for example. Instead, that is labelled as "justified anger for years of slavery."

"Racism" is a stupid smear term invented by Communist xxxs who have taken on the race cause as a means to an end. After all the founder of the NAACP was xxxish.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve
I have never disputed that there are physical differences between humans, but that is treated on individual bases as well. Regardless of the race, we can take two men of the same ethnicity and age but of different physical attributes. One maybe short and physically not as developed as the other. Thus the one who is more physically fit can excel at athletics, while the one lacking an exceptional physical ability may excel at academics. In that case one exemplar may score higher on his IQ test than the other. You can no longer base such distinctions on race, but rather than on environmental, biological and social factors.

This is only obvious, if it were luck of the draw, arbitrary. But overall, when a general pattern forms, one can only conclude that as a general rule, with exceptions to it.

Originally posted by anileve Overall there are supposed 4 racial groups differentiated by genetic and physical characteristics Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. But then again, Caucasians can also be of different genetic and physical characteristics. Since we differ so much in our appearance: different hair color, body structure, blood type and eye color but that wouldn't make us a different race from each other would it? No. Different skin color one might say? Well let's examine skin color.

You forgot differences in intelligence, culture ( since culture is an outward manifestation of race ), creativity, physiological differences such as diseases and susceptibility to disease,i.e. blacks have Sickle Cell Anemia, due to mixing that occured in Britain and is still occuring, the disease that was virtually unknown in that area, is now common.

Originally posted by anileve Did you know that we all have basically same skin color? The only difference is a shade, just like you sit in the sun for a long period of time and it changes its shade. Whenever we speak of different "colors" we are referring to different shades of one color, melanin. Our shade is a result of a environmental and geographical determinants. Nature has equipped us with adaptability, our bodies adapt to numerous environments and climates, our behavior is also affected by those variants.

Yes, I knew about melanin, thankfully. Your statement following it is untrue though. Your suggestion of environment would have us believe that anyone can turn "white" or "black" depending upon where they live. Do you seriously believe this nonsense? So a Negroid can live in Sweden and somehow magically not only change his MELANIN, but his whole morphological and physiological differences? That assumes that we all evolved, or that somehow evolution is true.

Originally posted by anileve Now we can agree that there are Africans that have Caucasoid features, such as Ethiopians and Eritreans. Ethiopians are predominantly a Christian nation in addition their alphabet is almost identical to Armenian. However one can see the darker color that distinguishes them from Caucasians. Many of South Africans are also more white than you and I with Caucasian features, yet they are of Negroid race. Now a person who lives in a very hot climate develops a darker shade which in the effect makes him more susceptible to skin cancer and other skin diseases, thus you notice that people living in cool climate have lighter skin which is due to the efficient production of vitamin D for healthy bones to protect them from the harshness of the cold. In summary when one speaks of color many factors have to be taken into consideration. It is not as simple as Black and White.
Let us redefine the terms “race” and “ethnicity”. Dictionary definition.

"African" or "Africa" is a geographic term. A "white" from south Africa is technically an African. Ethiopians are not "caucasoids", and I never never seen any Ethiopan that has features of such, they are most definitely the result of mixtures and Blacks.

Originally posted by anileve Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.
While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal afilliation, religious faith, shared language or cultural or traditional origins and backgrounds. Whereas race is rooted in the idea of biological classification of homo sapiens to subspecies according to morphological features such as skin color or facial characteristics. "Ethnicity" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "race", or as a synonym for minority group.

Thank you for defining that we needed clarity.

Originally posted by anileve Race is a type of classification used to group living things based on such elements as common descent , heredity, physical attributes, behavior, economic and academic achievement, and even language. Although the term is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), this article is primarily concerned with "race" as the term has been used to designate groups of humans, whether or not the groups are mutually exclusive, and whether or not the classification purports to be objective.

Thank you for defining this as well as it is important for the topic.

Originally posted by anileve The practice of dividing humans into races emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities.


While the classification of race began with the European enlightenment, it is a documented fact that the ancients understood race and differences. I don't need to bring out Edward Gibbons, the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to show you how that society was conscious of differing groups.

Originally posted by anileve [b]In summary a race is a category of people who have been singled out as inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and eye shape. Race, based on scientific proof is a cultural creation and realistically far from biological. We are 99% genetically identical and most of the biological variation is more evident in women and men and in our personal traits.

Despite similarities, there are differences, even in that 1% there are so many differences you wouldn't even begin to know. In fact, one can say that most of the differences we are talking about are in that 1%. In fact, it could be that it is because of that 1% that no one is equal.

[Darorinag]

Anon, where did you get that post from? I don't see it anywhere in this thread??

Now a person who lives in a very hot climate develops a darker shade which in the effect makes him more susceptible to skin cancer and other skin diseases, thus you notice that people living in cool climate have lighter skin which is due to the efficient production of vitamin D for healthy bones to protect them from the harshness of the cold.
I don't see Australians' skin colour changing... Moreover, there are a lot of white people who have lived in Brasil for extended periods of time, yet they are still white...

Race, based on scientific proof is a cultural creation and realistically far from biological.
So far, you have only made claims, nothing more... Racial differences exist. Physical differences between races exist. How you can say that it's "realistically far from biological" is beyond me...

We are 99% genetically identical and most of the biological variation is more evident in women and men and in our personal traits.

Any similarities between what you just said and what Mr. Clinton said, by any chance?

In his State of the Union address in January 2000, President Clinton attempted to allay people's fears about the dangerous and unethical potential of recent advances in genetic science. "We are all, regardless of race, 99.9 percent the same," he declared.

Nobel Laureate James Watson, the man who discovered the double helix structure of DNA in the 1950s and started the international Human Genome Project in 1990, sparked outrage when he suggested that there could be biochemical links between skin color and sex drive.

Watson referred to an experiment in which male subjects (rats and humans) were injected with melanin and immediately developed erections. Although the esteemed scientist claimed that his findings were the product of documented research, many in the scientific community and beyond were appalled by Watson's remarks.

Theories of genetic differences between races have a long and troubling history and are unsettling to many today. And the political implications of such ideas are, of course, incendiary.

More recently, this perspective informed the work of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, whose notorious The Bell Curve, which examined 80 years of data on human intelligence, concluded that although every American ethnic group showed the same distribution in IQ, their averages were different, with African Americans possessing an IQ average 15 points lower than whites. Murray and Herrnstein stated that this difference could not be explained by environment alone, that African Americans' genetic constitution also played a role.

But while conservatives and liberals alike have argued against the very idea of genetically-dictated racial differences, some scholars feel that the "politically correct" emphasis on the genetic similarities between people of different ethnic groups has stifled potentially useful research into actual distinctions that do exist between and within genetic populations.

"In effect, he [President Clinton] was implying that there are no meaningful differences between populations. That belief is wrong and dangerously so," wrote Jon Entine in the San Francisco Examiner. "We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. Only one chromosome determines if one is born male or female. There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador retriever, yet their inbred behavioral differences are immense. Clearly, what's meaningful is which genes differ and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate into huge functional differences."

Entine, author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, makes a similar point. "Although we share a common humanity, we are different in critical ways such as our genetic susceptibility to diseases," he says. "For instance, blacks are genetically predisposed to contracting colo-rectal cancer; Eurasian whites are genetically prone to multiple sclerosis -- and Asians are by and large victims of neither. The problem with Clinton's pandering to political correctness is that it threatens confidence in the life-saving aspects of the genetic revolution."

"Why do we readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell, xxxs of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other groups to fall victim to the degenerative mental disease Tay-Sachs, and whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that blacks of West African ancestry have evolved into the world's best sprinters and jumpers and East Asians the best divers?" Entine asks rhetorically.

Geneticists, says Wells, do not subscribe to the concept of a biology of race. "You can find more genetic differences between two Africans than between an African and commoner from the Outer Hebrides," says Wells. "To me, race is a cultural construct. I put it another way: there is genetic variation among geographical groups." Wells speculates that the characteristics generally associated with race, such as skin color, account for no more than a tenth of the variation between humans, which is 0.01% of our genetic make-up.

Experts argue that differences in skin color — the most obvious difference between population groups -- developed as people migrated from Africa to colder environments, with paler skins developing in colder regions to "allow more efficient production of vitamin D from sparse sunlight," while people near the equator developed dark skin to protect them from the sun's harmful effects.

While recent genetic research has appeared to undermine the notion of "race" as a biologically-defined category, concern that scientific inquiry will be used to justify racism has proven an obstacle to popular acceptance of the study of the human genome. "If we do not welcome the impending genetic revolution with open minds, if we are scared to ask and to answer difficult questions, if we lose faith in science, then there is no winner; we all lose," says Jon Entine. "The question is no longer whether genetic research will continue but to what end."

In fact, recent research has actually debunked theories of a genetic racial hierarchy. In one study, James Flynn of the University of Otago in New Zealand forcefully exposed The Bell Curve's shoddy reasoning, arguing that the IQ scores of today are significantly higher than those of previous generations and that IQ test scores are influenced by environment as much as any genetic factor. "An environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap need only posit this: that the average environment for blacks in 1995 matched the quality of the average environment for whites in 1945. I don't find that implausible," Flynn says. According to his findings, when other measures of intelligence are taken into consideration, results are spread out more evenly across ethnic groups, suggesting that there is a cultural bias in IQ tests that works against certain ethnic groups. :rolleyes:

Sound familiar? :p

--

To quote Entine himself:

[T]here is something of a bandwagon of publicly expressed sentiment that we should get rid of the idea of "human differences" altogether, even in medicine where researchers have identified dozens of population-specific diseases.

--

Also, isn't using different "racial" categories in experiments to prove that there are no races a fallacy of "begging the question"?

---

Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans.

Scientific American, Dec. 2003

[anileve]

What I find very interesting is that Dan is so clearly against multiculturalism, yet he is only half Armenian. Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure. :confused:

For everyone else, please refrain from making personal insults and turning a discussion into a fight. It is not meant to be so.

[Sip]

Originally posted by anileve ... Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure. :confused:

Isn't any "Armenian" (one whose Armenianness coeficient is larger than 0) in the diaspora such a product?

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse It is not "unsupported" nor is it "innacurate" that blacks committ most crimes. I already documented it.

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/data1.jpg

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/data.jpg

Anon, I don't just make assumption all my information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the thoughts and the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/usacrime.htm

White Supremacist site with your statistics, of course promoting their agenda to display the superiority.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-4.xls

Real and unbiased statistics directly from FBI.

Also I am in no way basing my assumptions on race or ethnicity factors. I strongly believe that the choices people make are not based on their ethnicity or race, but rather on individual bases. That is the individualists point of view, which I thought you are, but as I can see I was wrong. We see what we want to see, our views are influenced by what is fed to us by media and our personal experiences. I tend to stay clear of fabricated fallacies and tend to filter though the thick layer of crap, to stay unbiased and objective.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Seapahn Isn't any "Armenian" (one whose Armenianness coeficient is larger than 0) in the diaspora such a product?

Exactly, a belief in "purity" of cultures and races is a myth, a fabrication of the mind which strives to elevate itself to justify its superiority.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Anon, I don't just make assumption all my information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the thoughts and the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/usacrime.htm

I figured I can post the statistics by just mentioning the source itself but then I would have to post every information in the brackets. That a "hate site" promotes it makes no difference, they will sport the same information U.S. government statistics will sport. Am I supposed to feel "guilty" or "bad" somehow?

Originally posted by anileve White Supremacist site with your statistics, of course promoting their agenda to display the superiority.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-4.xls

Real and unbiased statistics directly from FBI.

Yes, yes, yes they have the same information available to all, but since the only chart posted was on that site, and I did not get it from that, I was concluded in posting the chart. I still don't see your point in trying to invalidate the source simply because a site will associate statistics with it. That is just a logical fallacy you keep driving at which one gets tired of constantly.

Originally posted by anileve Also I am in no way basing my assumptions on race or ethnicity factors. I strongly believe that the choices people make are not based on their ethnicity or race, but rather on individual bases. That is the individualists point of view, which I thought you are, but as I can see I was wrong.

I never said I am not an individualist, when did I condone any violence or hatred? Since when does stating things amount to condoning violence or hatred? I am not going to pretend these things don't exist simply to appeal to my ignorance of "equality" and "utopia" like in John Lennon's Imagine. If you are going to associate me as a hater based on things, then that is your own flaw. For you and Fadix are the type that in order to make "more equality" and make ths world a better place", will support government insanity such as affirmitive action, more government, and more legislation, to make things "equal", and force "assimilation" and "equality" and "multicultural education" down the throats of people. In other words, mold peoples' thoughts, but not let people come to their own conclusions. You and Fadix are simply a product of the egalitarian culture that pervades academia where all things are "senitive" and we cannot discuss this because it is "racist". What would you and Fadix have to say to all the black rap lyrics that show hatred and racism towards whites? I am only exposing this fallacious view to its logical limit, in no way condoning hatred.

Originally posted by anileve We see what we want to see, our views are influenced by what is fed to us by media and our personal experiences. I tend to stay clear of fabricated fallacies and tend to filter though the thick layer of crap, to stay unbiased and objective.

I disagree, we see only what is there, looking the other way in light of obvious facts is when we want to look and see what we want to see, not see the truth for what it is. But yes

Ahh well, soon Fadix will be here, and yes, yes, I'm a hater, a racist, a bigot, you are right, I am wrong, you win. Apparently, trying to lay the facts straight is something anathema to egalitarians. Trying to have a cordial discussion is impossible with preconceived minds and emotional approaches to "sensitive topics". I already made my point, I wasn't here to justify hatred, merely to be objective, but yes "it's all subjective", and "all relative", and by that I close my participation in this discussion, since I am "biased" because I am here to foster "hatred". I see no more point in continuing this discussion with preconceived minds of the way the world ought to be, that if just maybe we were blind to these facts we too can live in an harmonious utopia.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Exactly, a belief in "purity" of cultures and races is a myth, a fabrication of the mind which strives to elevate itself to justify its superiority.

No one said anything about "purity", and yes some are superior over others despite what you like to believe. Sorry.

[Anonymouse]

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/hatecrime.jpg


Ahh this is hilarious. The absurdity of "hate crimes" based on the The FBI Uniform Crime Report. What isn't "hate" these days?

[Darorinag]

http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/hatecrime.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why isn't there any anti-white in that list? There can't be any anti-white "racism" can there? :rolleyes:

What I find very interesting is that Dan is so clearly against multiculturalism, yet he is only half Armenian. Obviously he is a product of multiculturalism, go figure.
I am against race mixing. I am also against multicultural propaganda and immigration. I am not against whites marrying between different cultures. I am not against blacks marrying blacks from a country other than their own. I am simply against multicultural propaganda and its political correctness; multiculturalism is nothing but anti-whiteness.

Tell me why multiculturalism should be "celebrated."

But of course, you are yet to address ANY of the POINTS I have raised, and can't get across my personal background and the fact that my mom and dad were from different countries. Mind you, BOTH my mom AND dad are/were White. So there is no hypocrisy in my views.

For everyone else, please refrain from making personal insults and turning a discussion into a fight. It is not meant to be so.
Oh you mean you are exempted from it? :rolleyes: YOU are the one attacking me over and over again. YOU are the one telling me I am a bigot, yet YOU are the one who is yet to get over the fact that I am of a culturally mixed (albeit 100% WHITE!!!) background... And I thought moderators should've been the ones to set an example of good/appropriate behaviour..... i guess i was wrong...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag http://img32.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/hatecrime.jpg

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why isn't there any anti-white in that list? There can't be any anti-white "racism" can there? :rolleyes:


There is it got cut off, this will be it for me in this thread.

Here is a rather interesting link though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1166720,00.html

[anileve]

Posted by Anonymouse No one said anything about "purity", and yes some are superior over others despite what you like to believe. Sorry.

I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by anileve I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

Nothing surprising dear, considering that our pall Anon elsewhere claimed he would more believe a Summerian script specialist over NASA specialists on what concerns astronomy and Earth axes shifting. Do you expect from someone like this to bases his beliefs on scientifical arguments?

[Darorinag]

Everyone has an agenda. Everyone does something BECAUSE OF or FOR something. That doesn't imply that there can be no scientific validity to anything.

Moreover, your claim that those statistics are based on personal and political agenda manages to disqualify your own sources as well. Anti-racism is an agenda just like racism.

[anileve]

"Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. Many were physically or emotionally abused by parents. "

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/what/whatmain.htm

Crime cannot be pinned to a particular "race" or "ethnicity", it's evident in every culture and every geographical zone, historically it varies from one nation to another. It is persistent and inherent in human nature overall. By separating people into classes and categories, one further widens the gap between people and encourages hate. It is also in human nature to blame certain conditions and fears on circumstances other than his own inability to stay objective. A personal experience cannot be be transcended into a generalization, it's inaccurate and ignorant, unfortunately many people engage in it.

Hate has no color, physical attributes or economic conditions, it feeds on fears and snowballs into violence. Discrimination is an offspring of a marriage between hate, anger and fear. It spreads its poisonous tentacles across people, nations and continents. It exists between Armenians and Turks, Blacks and Whites, French and British, xxxs and Muslims, Irish Protestants and Catholics (just look at an ongoing violence in Northern Ireland, where so many have died). By acknowledging an existence of race and superiority you validate it and give it room for growth. If you have certain expectations most likely they will be justified. If you believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites that is exactly what you will stumble upon. You see only what you want to see, and not what is reality, you claim your personal experiences and your assumptions to constitute a reality. So it presents itself in the light you yourself have created.

[Darorinag]

Do you expect from someone like this to bases his beliefs on scientifical arguments?
Great fallacies you've got going there...

About Crime Library:

The Crime Library is a rapidly growing collection of more than over 500 nonfiction feature stories on major crimes, criminals, trials, forensics and criminal profiling, as well as award-winning fiction short stories by prominent writers. The stories focus mostly on recent crimes, but an expanding collection also delves into historically notorious characters, dating back to the 1400s and spanning the globe.

The Crime Library is a source of entertainment and education for millions of readers throughout the world, and it serves as an important resource for students researching current and historical subjects and for producers of television documentaries and book authors.

The site was founded by Marilyn J. Bardsley in January 1998. Court TV, a joint venture of AOL-Time Warner and Liberty Media Inc., purchased the Crime Library in September 2000.

---

That you use a very "appealing-to-masses" "entertainment" website as "proof" is nothing but a pointer that this source is not qualified to be presented as "scientific" proof.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
"African" or "Africa" is a geographic term. A "white" from south Africa is technically an African.

Exactly!! But can you say that he is black, if you believe that race exists and is valid in your mind? Can you say that a white African is black, your hot babe Charlize Theron is from South Africa and so is Dave Matthews. Are they black? Race is non existent, it's a myth and as I have posted before: "The practice of dividing humans into races emerged during the European Enlightenment and was at that time generally accepted by both the scientific and lay communities." It is a term which has derived from politics to further separate people and ensure superiority of one power over another.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve I don't fully understand your purpose here. Why must you engage in a debate if you deny science, mathematical statistics, sociology and studies conducted? Does that mean that you abide by the opinion of a few which have a clearly negative agenda to separate already separated people into further categories? You don't believe reports of FBI, Sourcebook and other organizations who specialize in the field, but some pompous academics and filthy separatist groups hold more credibility in your mind?

Did I deny science? When did you prove that a "Negroid" living in Sweden will magically change his morphological and physiological traits to some how resemble a "Caucasoid"? You just assumed it based on the assumption of evolution. When did I not "believe" in FBI or Sourcebook statistics? Why are they "pompous academics" simply because they criticize your worldview of egalitarianism? When did I deny mathematical statistics? In fact, mathematical statistics can be manipulated, as I've already said.

Originally posted by anileve What I have included in my posts regarding the melanin in our skin is a scientific fact. The factors of evolution and the influence of a climate and geography on the physical makeup of people and the diseases they are more prone to is also a fact. Anthropology and Science cannot be disputed by some personal assumption.

No one disputes melanin, if you think that that's some sort of high horse you are touting, get over it. Melanin is indeed fact, when did I deny it? In your emotional filled haze you were quick to overlook my post, much like Fadix, in fact all your side does is overlook my position, and jump to hazy emotional-based conclusions. In fact, it is anthropology and science that you aren Fadix are disputing due to personal assumption. Your idea that "geography" determines race, is fallacious, and itself unsubstantiated. It is based on the assumption that we evolved.

Originally posted by anileve If you disagree with me based on facts you have studied or encountered, then please provide me with a credible evidence validating your allegations.

This thread is riddled with credible evidence, which you and Fadix have in one way or another dismissed because "it's not good enough" or "its racist". Dan provided pretty valuable information too, despite your side' appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be. I cannot do any better, if you the emotional egalitarians overlook simple facts, and misconstrue the message in my posts to fit your ideas of a egalitarian world.

[Anonymouse]

Race and Intelligence: The Evidence

Scientific data show that the races differ in intelligence—dogma holds otherwise.

by Samuel Taylor

There is probably no greater intellectual crime than to point out that the average intelligence of blacks is significantly lower than that of other races. American society punishes those who publicly state this view almost as vigorously as Islamic republics punish anyone who defames the Prophet.

Indeed, in an increasingly secular America, the dogma of racial equality has become virtually a religion. Like early Christians under the Romans, or Russian dissidents under the Soviets, Americans who question the dogma keep their forbidden opinions to themselves or exchange them only in private.

Despite its strength, one of the most remarkable things about the racial dogma is how new it is. Until only a few decades ago, hardly anyone thought the races were equal. Kipling wrote of “lesser breeds without the law,” and the Encyclopedia Britannica noted matter-of-factly in its 1914 edition that “The Negro is intellectually inferior to the Caucasian.” Until only a generation or two ago, this was the view of virtually all Americans: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman, to cite only Presidents.

Something equally remarkable about the dogma of equality is that there is no evidence to support it. One would search the planet in vain to find a single group of blacks that has managed to build an advanced, civilized society. By whatever standard one chooses, blacks demonstrate at every opportunity that they are not equal to other races. The history of Africa and the status of blacks in the United States are roughly what we would expect if the races have different capacities. But if the races are equally intelligent, disciplined, and hard-working, then nothing about Africa or African-Americans makes sense. Every disparity, every failure, every moment in history must be painstakingly explained.

The egalitarian position is therefore not based on evidence—for there is no evidence for that position—but on excuse-making. It consists purely in excusing blacks from the conclusion to which all the evidence points.

Race and IQ

In the United States, what little discussion there is about racial differences revolves around intelligence. Study after study has consistently shown that the average black IQ test score is 15 to 18 points lower than the white average. It appears that the gap starts at about 15 points in childhood and widens to as much as 20 points in adulthood. The gap has remained unchanged for 70 years—ever since IQ tests were first given to large numbers of Americans. Civil rights laws, greater social equality, and affirmative action have not reduced the difference.

As is clear from the diagram on this page, there is considerable overlap between more intelligent blacks and less intelligent whites; some blacks are clearly smarter than some whites. Egalitarians seize on this fact to discount the entire notion of racial differences but this is as absurd as claiming that because some women are taller than some men, the average man is no taller than the average woman.

Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “gifted” range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the “retarded” range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.

Not even the most reckless egalitarians can deny the differences in test scores. Instead, they claim that the scores are either meaningless or do not measure intelligence. It is true that intelligence cannot be defined to everyone's liking, but that does not mean it cannot be measured. IQ correlates almost perfectly with subjective impressions of intelligence. If you were to talk to five strangers for twenty minutes each and then rank them by intelligence, there is an excellent chance that you would give them the same rank order that an IQ test would.

Less subjectively, IQ tests are the best possible way to predict whether a student will get good grades or a white-collar worker will do a good job. If a test can accurately predict how well someone will do at any number of activities that we think of as requiring intelligence, it takes a peculiar stubbornness to insist that the test is not measuring intelligence.

IQ tests therefore measure what we understand to be intelligence. Blacks consistently score lower than whites on IQ tests. Are they therefore less intelligent than whites?

“Test Bias”

At this point, the egalitarian defense claims that IQ tests are somehow biased against blacks. Common as this charge is, it is nothing more than an ex post facto explanation for results that displease the egalitarians, for no one can look through a well-designed intelligence test and explain what the bias is and where it is to be found.

In fact, many modern IQ tests, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, have no verbal or cultural content at all. They test a person's understanding of shapes and patterns, and are routinely given to people who do not even speak English. Other varieties of IQ test do involve language and inevitably have some cultural content—and these are the very tests on which the black/white gap in scores is narrowest. The more culturally specific an intelligence test is, the narrower the black/white gap becomes. The most abstract, culture-free tests show the largest gap.

The theory of “test bias” is that unfair tests consistently underrate blacks' abilities. If that were true, blacks who got the same test scores as whites would do better than the whites at the things test scores are supposed to measure: they would get better grades and do their jobs better. This does not happen; blacks do no better than the test scores predict. This raises a larger and different issue. Both the tests and the abilities they are supposed to measure may be biased against blacks. Some egalitarians actually make this argument, but it comes dangerously close to arguing that ability and intelligence themselves are somehow biased against blacks.

The “cultural bias” position is further weakened by the fact that newly-arrived Asian immigrants, for whom the United States really is an alien culture, outperform both blacks and whites on IQ tests. The assertion that the same tests that are culturally biased against blacks somehow favor Asians strains credibility.

If blacks are as intelligent as whites, there must be some way to demonstrate this. None has ever been devised. Are we to conclude that the intelligence of blacks remains forever hidden because every method for measuring it is faulty? Believers in test bias cannot explain why it is impossible to design an intelligence test—carefully eliminating all bias—on which blacks score as well as whites. The explanation is that there is no bias to eliminate. “Bias” is an imaginary culprit.

Heritability

If tests cannot be shown to be biased, the next line of defense for egalitarians is to admit that, yes, IQ tests measure intelligence fairly and that blacks therefore may be less intelligent. They nevertheless insist that the difference is due to environment rather than genetics.

Some radical egalitarians talk as if intelligence were wholly a product of environment, but this is obviously not true. Mentally retarded children usually start life in the same environment as their normal siblings, but there is clearly something wrong with them and not with their surroundings. Intelligence comes in fine gradations all the way from genius to idiot. To admit that idiocy is genetic but to claim that every other level of intelligence is due to environment is like saying that the heights of dwarfs are governed by genes but that the heights of everyone else are governed by environment.

The nature v. nurture debate as it applies to intelligence is therefore about which predominates, and the best evidence comes from twin studies. Identical twins are genetically the same, whereas fraternal twins are no more similar to each other than ordinary siblings. When they are reared in the same household, twins have environments that are as similar as can be, but occasionally twins are separated at birth and reared apart. The crucial finding is that identical twins reared apart have more similar IQs (and personalities) than fraternal twins reared in the same household. Identical genes count for more than an identical environment.

Sir Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, R. Travis Osborne, and, most recently, Thomas J. Bouchard, are just a few of the people who have studied the intelligence of twins. They have concluded that intelligence is under considerably greater genetic than environmental control, with heredity accounting for 60 to 80 percent of all differences in intelligence. Thus, if one person has an IQ of 100 and another an IQ of 125, heredity accounts for 15 to 20 of the 25-point difference. Not even the most heroic environmental intervention could close the IQ gap by more than 10 points.

It is sometimes argued that if intelligence is affected even in the slightest by environment, society owes the less intelligent whatever boost a good environment can give them. Obviously, it is the intelligent who would have to provide the less intelligent with an IQ-boosting environment. So far, the evidence suggests that we do not know how to manipulate the environment to produce lasting IQ gains (see A Head Start Does Not Last) and if we did, the intelligent would demand the same treatment for themselves as for the unintelligent. The gap would presumably stay the same or grow wider.

One superficially plausible egalitarian argument is to claim that the meager circumstances in which blacks live thwart their development; rear blacks in good, middle-class homes, it is claimed, and they will be as smart as whites. In fact, a good number of adopted blacks have been reared in white homes, but their IQs remain closer to those of their natural parents than to their adoptive parents. The meager-circumstances argument likewise founders on the IQ scores of American Indians, Mexican immigrants, and Puerto Ricans. They often live in conditions of greater squalor than blacks, yet outperform them on intelligence tests.

Scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) provide some of the most eye-opening data on the relative unimportance of environment. The SAT is not designed as an intelligence test, but it gives results that virtually mirror intelligence. Black students who grow up in families with incomes of more than $70,000 a year get lower scores than whites who grow up in families with incomes of less than $20,000 a year. It would be hard to find more persuasive evidence that race counts for more than family circumstances.

The conditions in which blacks live are the result, not the cause of low intelligence. If an anthropologist were to imagine a society composed of people with an average IQ of 85—with one sixth as many gifted people and six times as many retarded people as in white society—would he not come up with something like pre-colonial Africa or the American inner city?

America is increasingly a society in which intelligence determines social status and success in life. Despite endless claims that America is inveterately prejudiced against non-whites, citizens of all races reap the rewards of intelligence. Prof. Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware has calculated that there are slightly more black doctors, lawyers, and PhDs than the distribution of black intelligence levels would suggest.

If this is true, it has profound implications. It would mean that blacks have already gotten as far in American society as their natural limitations permit. It would also mean that the number of blacks at high levels cannot be increased unless standards are further lowered and that the lingering handicaps of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation have completely disappeared. In other words, there is no such thing as “the legacy of slavery.”

Blacks in Other Societies

Surprising as this conclusion may seem, it is born out by the record of blacks in other white societies. For example, blacks are one eighth of the population of the United States and one eighth of the population of London, England. In both cases they commit about half of the reported crime. Canada does not keep official crime statistics by race, but informal estimates are that the two to five percent of the people of Toronto who are black commit 30 to 40 percent of the crime.

Large numbers of blacks have been living in Canada and England for only a few decades, yet their crime rates are equivalent to those of blacks who have suffered “400 years of oppression” in the United States. Although data is scarce, Canadian and British blacks also seem to have rates of poverty and illegitimacy that are the equivalents of American blacks.

All other multi-racial societies show the same pattern. In Brazil, for example, slavery was never as widespread as in the United States and race relations are consistently described as better than they are here. Yet the disparity between black and white incomes is greater in Brazil than in the United States. Cuba also has a mixed population and is famous for its aggressive, socialist egalitarianism. Though Cuban officials are embarrassed by this and try to keep it a secret, blacks are invariably at the bottom of society.

The primitive circumstances of pre-colonial Africa are well known, as is the spectacular failure of Africans to build modern nations after independence (see “Why is Africa Poor,” AR, Jan. 1992). Africans suffer from primitive levels of public health, but they may also be held back by an average intelligence even lower than that of black Americans. Most American blacks have at least some white ancestry, which raises their intelligence. Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Ireland, probably the most prominent student of national differences in intelligence, reports that average IQs may be as low as 80 in Uganda and Ghana, 75 in Nigeria, and 65 in Zaire. Such low levels of intelligence would rule out any possibility of real development.

[Anonymouse]

...continued

The Caribbean nation of Haiti presents an interesting parallel to the failures of black Africans. Its six million inhabitants are all black, the descendants of slaves. Haiti has essentially been governed by blacks ever since the slave insurrection of 1791, in which nearly all whites were killed. Thus, it has a history of independence and black rule that is much longer than that of African nations. Despite such different histories, Haiti is practically indistinguishable from Africa in terms of GNP per capita, infant mortality rates, average educational level, and all the other indices of modernization. Its governments have been the corrupt shambles that is typical of Africa.

To recapitulate, there is no evidence, either in America or abroad, in the present or in the past, that suggests blacks are as intelligent as other races. All of the evidence points to a significant and durable inequality.

The body of research is now so great that virtually no one who has taken the trouble to look into it remains an egalitarian. There was a time when some reputable scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, and Richard Lewontin seriously maintained the egalitarian or environmentalist view. They have now fallen silent. Their views are now echoed primarily by people who know nothing about current research data and show no interest in it. They appear to be driven by some motive other than the search for scientific truth.

That a proposition for which there is no evidence can have become dogma is one of the mysteries of our time. Part of the explanation for this is that a great many people seem to believe that even if racial differences can be proven they must be denied and suppressed. As we will show later in this series, it is vital that racial differences be recognized and accepted.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Did I deny science? When did you prove that a "Negroid" living in Sweden will magically change his morphological and physiological traits to some how resemble a "Caucasoid"? You just assumed it based on the assumption of evolution. When did I not "believe" in FBI or Sourcebook statistics? Why are they "pompous academics" simply because they criticize your worldview of egalitarianism? When did I deny mathematical statistics? In fact, mathematical statistics can be manipulated, as I've already said.

Oh my god! Anon jan, what is not clear here. I am repeating myself here. "My information is researched and based on various non-bias sources, the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace. However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted. "

No one disputes melanin, if you think that that's some sort of high horse you are touting, get over it. Melanin is indeed fact, when did I deny it? In your emotional filled haze you were quick to overlook my post, much like Fadix, in fact all your side does is overlook my position, and jump to hazy emotional-based conclusions. In fact, it is anthropology and science that you aren Fadix are disputing due to personal assumption. Your idea that "geography" determines race, is fallacious, and itself unsubstantiated. It is based on the assumption that we evolved.

It is not fallacious it's a scientific fact. I even brought examples which you overlooked, I am assuming for your benefit. I'll provide you with some more proof, I'll have to do further research.

This thread is riddled with credible evidence, which you and Fadix have in one way or another dismissed because "it's not good enough" or "its racist". Dan provided pretty valuable information too, despite your side' appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be. I cannot do any better, if you the emotional egalitarians overlook simple facts, and misconstrue the message in my posts to fit your ideas of a egalitarian world.

Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased. If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me? No. Why? Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage. I think it's obvious, but you still chose to pick material from those prejudice sources. If it's a fact, it should be present elsewhere and you shouldn't have a problem getting your hands on it.

My love, the only emotional one here is you. I simply asked for proof. Provide me with links which support your claims, such as "Blacks are more violent in history and it's a fact", "Race is a fact", links with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.

You are going in zigzags and not addressing anything in particular and eventually resort to your regular usage of egalitarianism and equality. By all means we are not discussing political or ideological orientation of individuals, just race my dear. No need to get all fired up here.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Oh my god! Anon jan, what is not clear here. I am repeating myself here. "My information is researched and based on various non-bias sources

Really? Everything has bias, lets get over it. If you sources are not biased how are the souces countering it biased? If your sources support egalitarianism, which has no evidence, other than to dismiss and delegitimize evidence to the contrary, isn't that bias itself? Let's drop this bias card for it is counter productive to the discussion.

Originally posted by anileve the agenda of these sources is not to display inferiority of races, unlike the statistics which you have posted. Your opinion is a product of 2 factors, one is a result of someones determination to justify hate and superiority of races and the other is the statistics that have been falsely presented. "

Despite what you claim, the agenda of these sources are not based on people who want to "justify hate", that is a blanket assertion. When did they justify hate? The idea that differences mean hate is fallacious. "Hate", is a human tendency, nothing relating to race, people hate every sort of thing. Your thinking would imply that we have thought control to somehow control "hate".

As far as your statistics, I have already addressed the issue of the statistics you posted. They are not taking into account different racial groups in the given nations, further one of them even lacks a propery definition and break down of various crimes, thus we are not able to know if "insurance fraud" or "murder" are difference things.

Originally posted by anileve I've done an extensive search on statistics and examined various sources and records, I've also posted my links to let you know the origin of the reports and their credibility, you chose to conceal your sources by saving those images and hosting them on your webspace.

What is your point? You speak of "research" as if its some sort of labaratory which we have no access to. Your "research" doesn't differ from Fadix pretensiousness in asking for credentials, nor mine. It essentally involves searching the web on google.com, and other sites. That is hardly actions I would call "research" for any of us. As for my sources, they speak for themselves, despite guilt by association. Did we even forget what I posted earlier?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Originally posted by anileve However, while I was doing my research I happen to come across this report in particular and guess where it was? I am enclosing the link, those reports are nowhere to be found in the FBI statistics I am also posting a link DIRECTLY to the FBI statistics, which hold more authenticity than the fictitious statistics you've posted. "

Really? The FBI, it should be known consider "Hispanics" white. I posted a link to the Justice Department and sourced the FBI Uniform Crime Report, as well, your point?

Originally posted by anileve It is not fallacious it's a scientific fact. I even brought examples which you overlooked, I am assuming for your benefit. I'll provide you with some more proof, I'll have to do further research.

You have provided no "factS" other than the biological fact of "melanin", assuming that all race is, is melanin. You contend that "environments" make races "change". This is unsubstantiated, it is assumed by evolution. Do you seriously think that someone will change their physiological and morphological traits simply by changing their geography?

Originally posted by anileve Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased.

How is it "biased"? What isnt "biased" that is against egalitarianism?

Originally posted by anileve If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site .

How are the academics and authors which Dan posted 'haters"? Simply because they provide evidence contrary to egalitarian fiction. You are assuming too much and appealing to your sense of "what things should be", than you like to admit. I don't see any hatefulness with what he posted. You have to prove that somehow they are hateful, not merely assume and make magical leaps that since they provide data that is contrarian to egalitarianism, it is "promoting hate". Such logic is indeed fallacious.

Originally posted by anileve with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me? No. Why? Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage. I think it's obvious, but you still chose to pick material from those prejudice sources. If it's a fact, it should be present elsewhere and you shouldn't have a problem getting your hands on it.

Guess, what the sources you keep trashing as 'hate" are not "hate". They are simply "hate" and "racist" because of your own bias. If you dropped your bias, and tried to prove how they are "hateful" other than the same old "they provide evidence for racial differences they MUST be promoting hate", then this would have a place as criticism.

And what isn't superior and inferior in this world? If nothing and no one is equal, it means the world has traits of superiority and inferiority, despite what you want to believe. Unless you can prove that we are all equal and identical egalitarianism remains as irrational as the day was spawned.


Originally posted by anileve My love, the only emotional one here is you.

Riiiiight. And it was you and Fadix who immediately began whining of "racism" and "hater" and "they promote hate" or "you are diverting the topic of the thread". I'm sorry, I have been tried to maintain the most calm position without baseless name calling and appealing to my emotions of what the world 'ought' to be.

Originally posted by anileve I simply asked for proof.

And you received alot of it. That you choose to disregard it, is no one's fault except ideological bias and preconceived views on how the world should be. We aren't equal but we shouldbe equal, hence the famous egalitarian phrase "just because we don't have equality doesn't mean we can't try".


Originally posted by anileve Provide me with links which support your claims, such as "Blacks are more violent in history and it's a fact", "Race is a fact", links with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.

The information you are asking for has already been provided in this thread. Look hard.

Originally posted by anileve You are going in zigzags and not addressing anything in particular

Geee, I can say the same about you. Does this prove anything? No, but you and Fadix make alot of such useless statements.

Originally posted by anileve and eventually resort to your regular usage of egalitarianism and equality.

Your point? You and Fadix resort to "hater" or "racist", like the boy who cried wolf. What is your point really? The reason why I use the terms egalitarian and equality are because they are the central premise of your guys' argument, and it is flawed premise. It is not real, and the conclusion you draw from the premise do not follow, i.e. non-sequitur.


Originally posted by anileve By all means we are not discussing political or ideological orientation of individuals, just race my dear. No need to get all fired up here.

Yes it remains that it is ideological and political orientation that makes us think the way we do, and ignore information that is contrarian to our way of thinking of the world. And no, I'm not fired up.

[Darorinag]

Dan's evidence is "not pretty good", it's biased.
And yours isn't? :) but of course, radical feminism is not biased, is it? Anti-racism isn't biased either, is it? Any opinion is biased against a certain thing. That is what makes them opinions.

If I wanted to convince you that women were naturally more intelligent then men and presented you with a link from some "men-hater" site with some statistics which are no where to be found otherwise, would you believe me?
Oh so you need double and triple documentation from different experimentors with the SAME results and statistics and numbers so that you would believe it?

Of course, any scientific proofs and statistics on a revisionist site would be "unbelievable", wouldn't they? But aren't pro-that-the-holocaust-happened sites biased too? And so if revisionists cannot be taken "seriously" because, well, it comes from revisionist sources/websites, where are they supposed to post their articles? on not-so-free-speech holocaust forums/websites? Your argument doesn't hold. That an anti-racist scientist conducts research on race doesn't make him "biased" but that a "racist" scientist conducts research on race makes him "biased" and therefore "unreliable"? how does that work?

Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote superiority and change facts towards their advantage.
Because the source would have a specific agenda to promote equality and change facts towards their advantage. How does that sound? ;)

I simply asked for proof.
Yes and we provided you just that, except that you kept bringing excuses and saying they are invalid because they are "biased." You are begging the question here. That their results show something you don't like makes them biased? Where does scientific objectivity stand here?

Provide me with links [...] with records of studies which are conducted by organizations that specialize in science, sociology, statistics, crime and anthropology and please, statistics from hate sites are not credible.
Prof. Philippe Rushton.
J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations.

AGAIN, that people use such research results to promote their own cause does not mean that the results were racist and wrong to begin with!!!

And this will be the last time I am going to post about Dr. Rushton's degrees and point out your fallacy of "if people use it to advance racism, the study must be racist and utterly biased."

statistics from hate sites are not credible.
Why aren't they? And how are they "hate sites"? How is insisting on racial differences hatred of others? You are YET to prove that Prof. Rushton is a white supremacist. And remember, that his work is used by white supremacists does not mean that he is one. So go ahead and provide a link that PROVES (not just claims) that Mr. Rushton is indeed a white supremacist. And keep in mind that just because someone is a racist (or an anti-racist) doesn't mean that one cannot conduct serious and correct scientific experiments. And you also need to prove IF and HOW the results of an experiment were skewed for the purpose of political agenda, something you have failed to do in Rushton's case. Instead of disqualifying the arguments, you are disqualifying the arguer. :)

And statistics from your anti-hatred sites are credible? Because they are "not biased"? and they don't, by any chance, have some bias against white supremacists which causes their statistics to be skewed and hence the "number of white victims of violent crime" to be close to none? so you see, i can claim the same things as you, and neither of us would have an advantage over the other on that issue!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Hate has no color, physical attributes or economic conditions, it feeds on fears and snowballs into violence.

Here you state this, that hate has no color, physical attributes, or economic conditions, therefore making "hate" a universal human phenomenon and indeed part of human nature, and it is not bound by race or color or anything. It is a human tendency.

Originally posted by anileve Discrimination is an offspring of a marriage between hate, anger and fear.

What isn't discrimination? We have already been through this thousand of times before. Discrimination is the natural and cognitive ability of people, humans acting, to differentiate. Note: Everytime we choose something, someone, or someplace, over something else, we are discriminating. If I choose to marry an Armenian, and not a non-Armenian, I am discriminating. If I choose to not live in Compton or Inglewood or South Central, and live in Glendale, I am discriminating. Your logic would imply that we shouldn't discriminate and be mindless robotic humans. Your logic further implies that we should somehow control thought to make people act a certain way. In other words that is not moral. To be moral we have to have the choice. Man in order to be a moral agent, must have the ability to choose, to choose to do good, to choose to do evil, etc. There is nothing that one can point to, that to any egalitarian, is not in some way "discrimination".

Originally posted by anileve It spreads its poisonous tentacles across people, nations and continents. It exists between Armenians and Turks, Blacks and Whites, French and British, xxxs and Muslims, Irish Protestants and Catholics (just look at an ongoing violence in Northern Ireland, where so many have died).

Obviously. But what you stated here now, contradicts your earlier statement, that humans indeed do not put hate on physical appearance, economics, culture, religion, class, race. Hate is not somehow just "limited" to race, your initial statement claimed, or what I understood from reading it to the best of my abilities.

Originally posted by anileve By acknowledging an existence of race and superiority you validate it and give it room for growth.

This assumes that all hate is restricted to race, when "hate" is indeed a human tendency. Your assertion that because "admitting to race" breeds violence, we shouldn't talk of race, like it is a sacred word the gods commanded to never utter, is fallacious. Earlier you said hate has no color, nor physical appearance, and indeed it is a human trait, and this would contradict that position by trying to pin it only on race.

If we take your logic and apply it to Marxian thought, which boasted endlessly of egalitarianism and class conflict, we would therefore not talk about "equality" or "classes", since obviously admitting "classes" exist, and we are aiming for "equality", as produced so much violence, and half of the globe was tangled in communist revolutions and violence. This position proves everything and nothing.

Originally posted by anileve If you have certain expectations most likely they will be justified.

I have expectations of Charleze Theron to knock on my door and ask me to be my girlfriend. It is not justified, it is based on an idea of the way I would like the world to be, hence the position of egalitarianism.

Originally posted by anileve If you believe that Blacks are inferior to Whites that is exactly what you will stumble upon.

This is not a belief, it is, quite aptly put, a matter of history as the different races developed differently.

Originally posted by anileve You see only what you want to see, and not what is reality. you claim your personal experiences and your assumptions to constitute a reality. So it presents itself in the light you yourself have created.

I disagree dear. If we see only what we want to see, it implies that reality is subjective, then you claim that since we see what we want to see, we don't see reality. If we see what we want to see, then obviously reality doesn't exist, so why claim we dont see "what is reality"?

[Anonymouse]

This is perhaps one article of its kind that best explains my viewpoint, and it is from my very favorite libertarian and individualist website on the planet.

-----------------------------------

WHY RACE MATTERS: RACE DIFFERENCES AND WHAT THEY MEAN
Michael Levin
Praeger, 1997, xi + 415 pgs.

Michael Levin has gotten himself into enormous trouble with his fellow philosophers by adhering to a standard maxim in the philosophy of science. Levin's trouble starts when he rejects a common explanation for a widely recognized, and deplored, social phenomenon: the social and economic inequality of the races in American society. Levin's rejection of the conventional account would be sufficient in itself to embroil him in controversy. But, as a good philosopher of science, he has taken a further step; and it is this that has led his liberal colleagues to throw up their hands in horror.

In empirical science, to find problems for a theory usually does not suffice to overthrow it. You must come up with an alternative account that better explains the data. Thus, astronomers long knew the severe difficulties of the Ptolemaic account. But they did not reject it until the competing Copernican theory arrived on the scene. (Matters differ in philosophy, where to show that a theory cannot withstand counterexamples often is enough to eliminate it.)

Unkind readers may dismiss the foregoing as typical philosopher's hairsplitting, but its practical importance cannot be gainsaid. Our author begins from some widely acknowledged demographic facts about American blacks. As conventional leftist opinion has it, precisely these facts mandate extensive affirmative action programs. The sorry social facts in question arise from discrimination and oppression, both past and present.

Professor Levin dissents. Discrimination against blacks, says Levin, does not explain their problems. What does? It is here that our author goes beyond other authors such as Thomas Sowell, who also rejects the discrimination view. Levin claims that genetic factors lie at the heart of disparities in income and performance.

As befits an outstanding analytic philosopher, Levin responds with care and imagination to objections to his contentions. One instance from his long discussion must here stand good for the rest. Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard paleontologist of Marxist leanings, has in The Mismeasure of Man argued that a general intelligence factor, called "g" by its proponents, is a scientific myth. The g-factor, Gould maintains, should not be reified; it is a mere artifact of statistics. It has been extracted through a disputable method called "factor analysis."

Levin readily acknowledges that the derivation of g depends on a particular method of analysis. But this by itself shows little: "all Gould actually shows, claims to have shown, or can show is that--what no one would deny--the reality of g is not logically guaranteed by its factorial extraction" (p. 53). A scientific theory need not exclude its rivals as logically impossible. We may rightfully accept it should it allow us to tie together a wide and varied set of facts.

Given the radical nature of Professor Levin's conclusions, the question of course arises: Is he correct? I shall say only this. Anyone who proposes to challenge Levin had better be well versed in statistics, intelligence testing, and evolutionary biology, all of which our author appears to have mastered. I venture to suggest that the so-called Flynn effect poses the sharpest challenge to our author's case. The mean IQ of Western populations has risen over the past sixty years, but surely people are not more intelligent than their parents and grandparents. Does this not suggest that IQ tests do not adequately measure intelligence? I shall leave it to readers to judge the adequacy of our author's ingenious answer (pp. 128 ff).

Does not the very attempt to suggest that racial differences may be politically relevant strike at the essence of libertarianism? Should not each individual be judged on his own merits? Levin himself is a thoroughgoing libertarian; and as he sees matters, his conclusions about race support rather than contravene his politics. Americans today find themselves confronted with all manner of affirmative action programs. Blacks, it is alleged, must receive special benefits in education, employment, and housing to compensate them for the malign effects of past oppression.

These programs interfere in drastic fashion with the free market; but, faced with the claim of justice, what is a classical liberal to do? He cannot combat these programs unless he challenges their root assumption--the view that blacks' social problems stem from the unjust treatment accorded them. Unless the premise is overthrown, a classical liberal must allow, on grounds of justice, interferences with the social order he favors. (One might, I suppose, claim that the affirmative action proposals, even lacking a rationale in justice, are consistent with classical liberalism; but most advocates of these programs have, no doubt wisely, declined to tread this path.)

One might here object that even the need to combat affirmative action does not justify Levin's resort to race. Is it not possible to counter the claims of its supporters in some less controversial way? In a passage crucial to the book's case, Levin denies this: "[W]hy raise the contentious genetic issue at all? It must be raised because it is widely, and reasonably, assumed that among environmental factors, only oppression can produce an attainment gap as large as the one between the races.... Once environmentalism is accepted, the compensation argument returns at one remove: superior ability may give whites an advantage but, the cause of the superiority was a wrong, a wrong that must be annulled" (pp. 271-72).

Whether Levin's contention is correct will, one imagines, be subject to strong challenge by supporters, in the style of Thomas Sowell, of the cultural account of the black-white gap. In any event, our author is not yet done with the compensation principle. He shows that even if one accepts the principle that blacks merit recompense, it is a task of surpassing difficulty to arrive at an acceptable compensation principle.

But, once more, to Levin these problems are of secondary significance. Unless one asks whether the race gap stems from white misdeeds, one has not penetrated to the essence. "Taking the origin of the race gap as the heart of the matter explains why criticisms of preference that do not reach that issue, however forceful they may be on their own terms, are dismissed as picky, legalistic, and irrelevant" (p. 251).

Although Levin's case is carefully argued, I suspect that most of his colleagues will ignore this book. But even for those in the grip of egalitarian prejudices, to do so is a serious mistake. Levin has poured into his book a large number of stimulating ideas on many vexed philosophical questions.

Most notably, he offers the best noncognitivist account of moral values that I have read. In his view, values are not objective properties, that we intuit, as states of affairs; they are the results of biological adaptation. People do indeed believe their values to be objectively correct; but their belief is a conceptual blind spot. We must, if Levin is right, entertain at the time of action a false belief in value-objectivity at the time of action. Ingenious, no doubt; but is it not an advantage of the intuitionist theories Levin rejects that in them people are not saddled with inescapable false beliefs? But of course intuitionist theories have their own problems, a fact Levin is not slow to point out.

And can an appeal to the evolutionary advantages of cooperation give us the Kantian principle of morality Levin endorses? Why would evolution favor cooperative behavior with all human beings rather than only with members of one's own group? I must admit, though, that Darwin himself is here on Levin's side. In The Descent of Man, he claims that the extension of cooperation beyond the bounds of one's own tribe is the result of a simple inference.

Also not to be missed are Levin's note about Quine on the indeterminacy of translation (p. 80) and his refutation of John Rawls's argument that choosers in the original position would not try to maximize average expected utility (p. 289). One finishes Why Race Matters admiring both the author's courage and his immense technical virtuosity.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=117&sortorder=issue

[Anonymouse]

Since Fadix thinks that only white people can be "racist", or people that dare confront egalitarian fiction, I will post "hate speech", as the liberal lefties like to call it, done, not by whites, but by non-whites. Of course the usual irrational liberal egalitarian excuse for this is that their "hate" is "justified" due to years of "white oppression". This sort of speech would immediately be condemned as "racist" and "hateful" if done by "white" people, and you would have all sorts of "town meetings" and "diversity programs" and other things that teach "tolerance". But this is normal and justified when done by non-whites. Woe to hypocrisy.

-----------------------------

"Bust a Glock; devils get shot. . . . when God give the word me herd like the buffalo through the neighborhood; watch me blast. . . . I'm killing more crackers than Bosnia-Herzegovina, each and everyday. . . . don't bust until you see the whites of his eyes, the whites of his skin. . . . Louis Farrakhan . . . Bloods and CRIPS, and little old me, and we all getting ready for the enemy"

-"Enemy"; Ice Cube, Lethal Injection, 1993,

"Like my niggas from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn't handle us; Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays [Latino gangbangers] up, and nigga, it's time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely"

-"The Day the Niggaz Took Over"; Dr Dre, The Chronic, 1993

"Dropping verses, casting curses, throwing these hexes on the devils. . . . respect to Farrakhan, but I'm the jungle-don, the new guerrilla, top-ranked honky killer. . . . what do blacks do; they just keep on blowing devils away. . . . evil xxxxing cracker. . . . I'm tightening up the laces to my steel-toed boots, so I can walk, stomp; we stomp this devil down in the park"

-"Planet of da Apes"; Da Lench Mob, Planet of da Apes, 1994

"Deal with the devil with my motherxxxxing steel [handgun]. . . . white man is something I tried to study, but I got my hands bloody, yeah. . . . I met Farrakhan and had dinner"

-"When Will They Shoot"; Ice Cube, The Predator, 1992

"Actual fact you need to be black. . . . everyday I fight a devil. . . . I grab a shovel to bury a devil. . . . the battle with the beast, Mr. 666. . . . my mind rolled to a 7th level; grab my bazooka and nuke a devil. . . . with black, I build; for black, I kill"

-"Fightin the Devil"; RBX, The RBX Files, 1995

"I love black women and I hate xxxxing crackers. . . . I destroyed a whole city like Sodom and Gomorrah or Babylon. . . . devils choke from the gunsmoke. . . . I'm swelling devils' melons. . . . send your asses to Kings County; solo pro-morgue supplier"

-"Graveyard Chamber"; Gravediggaz, 6 Feet Deep, 1997

Samuel Lin (Asian student at the University of California at Berkeley on what should be done about white men who date Asian women) - "I think we should f---in' kill them all. Get your own ladies. Stick to your own flavor." [Carrie Chang, "White Light," Monolid Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 1.](added 4/10/03)

Mario Obledo (former California secretary of health and welfare and co-founder of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. If they don't like Mexicans, they ought to go back to Europe." [interviewed on radio station KIEV, Los Angeles, June 17, 1998.] (added 6/29/03)

Mario Obledo (former California secretary of health and welfare and co-founder of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave. If they [Anglos] don't like Mexicans, they ought to go back to Europe." [interviewed on radio station KIEV, Los Angeles, June 17, 1998.] (added 6/29/03)

Ice Cube (black rap musician) -- "Ice Cube wishes to acknowledge white America's continued commitment to the silence and oppression of black men. . . . White America needs to thank black people for still talkin' to them 'cause you know what happens when we stop." [pamphlet included in his 1992 album The Predator.] (added 2/05/03)

Chancellor Williams (author of The Destruction of Black Civilization) -- "The necessary re-education of Blacks and a possible solution of the racial crisis can begin . . . only when Blacks fully realize this central fact to their lives: the white man is their Bitter Enemy." [Phil Collier and David Horowitz, The Race Card, 1997, p. 104.] (added 2/05/03)

Amiri Baraka (poet laureate of the state of New Jersey) -- "Come up, black dada nihilismus. Rape the white girls. Rape their fathers. Cut the mothers' throats." [from "Black Dada Nihilismus".] (added 2/05/03)

Paul Mooney (black comedian) -- "White people are scared, because minorities are taking over. White people are worried because they can't out-f*** the Mexicans --minorities in numbers alone are taking over, and white folks are scared because they are afraid that we are going to do to them exactly what they've done to us. And they are absolutely right. When the s*** turns around, we are going to treat you exactly like you've treated us: like s***."[ Danyel Smith, Full Moon, The Bay Guardian, 3/3/93.] (added 2/05/03)

[anileve]

Now Anon, was that really necessary? I think you have taken this completely off topic and out of context. You misunderstood, Not Fadix, nor I are in support of any hate, be it white, green, yellow or purple. Same debate would have risen if a black person was making misinformed allegations by generalizing whites and claiming superiority of blacks. You are forgetting the central points of this thread and keep tending to 101 directions. Let’s keep the focus, please.

Following are the central points.

===============
1. Is Race a myth or a fact?

2. Some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes.

3. Blacks or Negroid are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement.

4. The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you.

This statement by you: "men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men commit crimes than older men. " has nothing to do with race, in fact it contradicts your statement regarding blacks being more violent than other "races" due to the latter statement in which you clearly show that testosterone regardless of the race is the decisive factor in provoking violence. Although I personally think it's complete bullcrap, but that is besides the point. We shall examine this statement later.

5. It's a fact that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.
================

These are the focus points here, the main claims that you have made and ones we are addressing. Not "equality" or "Marxism" or "egalitarianism" or "hate lyrics". Statistical and scientific and sociological facts.

Please provide valid proof for each one, point by point. Otherwise everything is becoming quite tangled in this thread.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve Now Anon, was that really necessary? I think you have taken this completely off topic and out of context. You misunderstood, Not Fadix, nor I are in support of any hate, be it white, green, yellow or purple. Same debate would have risen if a black person was making misinformed allegations by generalizing whites and claiming superiority of blacks. You are forgetting the central points of this thread and keep tending to 101 directions. Let’s keep the focus, please.


I haven't "misunderstood", Fadix has. My thread is about race, not just intelligence. He came in here with his "wisdom" and conceit, demanding credentials and accusing me of "diverting the topic" by posting "articles" and "trash" that has nothing to do with the thread, yet he displayed the same in the other thread and how he has "studied" the Holocaust for "5 years". Do I care? He loves himself, so do I but dammit take a chill pill. Contrary to what you folks think this thread means anything that is race related. Issues, biology, intelligence, crime, cutlure, etc. If you want to talk about what you think should be talked about you are free to go to Fadix' self styled thread on "fighting racism".

Originally posted by anileve Following are the central points.

===============
1. Is Race a myth or a fact?

2. Some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes.

3. Blacks or Negroid are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement.

4. The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you.

This statement by you: "men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men commit crimes than older men. " has nothing to do with race, in fact it contradicts your statement regarding blacks being more violent than other "races" due to the latter statement in which you clearly show that testosterone regardless of the race is the decisive factor in provoking violence. Although I personally think it's complete bullcrap, but that is besides the point. We shall examine this statement later.

My example was merely drawing an analogy, and this was the results of Mr. Rushton, which Dan posted, which is seen as being "racist". It hasn't contradicted anything. How has it contradicted? It is a fact that younger men have more testosterone than older men, hence leads to more aggression. It is a fact that men have more testosterone ergo more aggression than females, and within humanity, those that are black have more testosterone ergo, are more aggressive than others. This is not contradiction.


Originally posted by anileve 5. It's a fact that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks.
================

These are the focus points here, the main claims that you have made and ones we are addressing. Not "equality" or "Marxism" or "egalitarianism" or "hate lyrics". Statistical and scientific and sociological facts.

Please provide valid proof for each one, point by point. Otherwise everything is becoming quite tangled in this thread.

These are not the only claims regarding race that I have made. How can you and Fadix tell me what I am thinking when I made the thread? I have made the claim that races do exist and are found on a biological level, not limited to intelligence, but crime, as well as biological differences in morphology, and as well as cultural development. It's just you and Fadix cherry picked and totally misunderstood my whole point, and he found it in his 'wisdom' to make his own thread, which in reality belongs in this thread, but since he likes to feel the aura of importance as the 'expert', indeed he loves being the expert on everything, as others will accuse me of it as well, since he's on the other forum displaying the same conceit. If he was rational he wouldn't need to resort to childish whining and making another thread accusing me of "diverting the topic" since he couldn't stand someone disagreeing with his 'wisdom'.

As for point by point, what is it that your side cannot grasp? I hate to say it but it was entirely you folks that misconstrued the meaning of this thread, the evidence presented, and the intent on my behalf. If your side is too emotional to deal with a "sensitive" topic that threatens to crumble the view that "we are all equal" then by all means you should avoid this thread, as it is controversial and evidence that race is real has been posted here a thousand times, right here in this thread, which your side has dismissed. Now those that claim "race is not real" cannot present any evidence that it isn't real, the only logical position is to dismiss and delegitimize those that do.

If you feel this is getting tautological then you don't have to participate and the only people that made it a tautology are you and Fadix, sorry.

[Fadix]

Edited by loseyourname: Both of you guys need to cool it. Get back to the topic or move on.

[Darorinag]

my 5 years research concerned Dan yapping about my refusal to answer regarding that subject in his stupid forum
Huh?!? Did I miss something???? :confused: :confused:

[loseyourname]

Can't you guys just get back on topic? Either give it up or start over? Forget who insulted who, who misunderstood who, it's in the past. Just move on.

[Anonymouse]

Edited by loseyourname: Both of you guys need to cool it. Get back to the topic or move on.

[Anonymouse]

Despite Fadix' attempts at trying to smear Rushton by trying to make claims of being a "white supremacist" and being funded by this or that, which is obviously a ad homenim tactic designed to discredit the mans scientific work, by smearing the man. One can very well make a connection to the scientists that Fadix supports such as Peters and say "He was sponsored by an egalitarian group that denies race". That doesn't prove or disprove anything, all it does is divert from the issue. Now in order for Anileve or Fadix to support that races do not exist, they must first provide evidence that races do not exist, only then can they rightfully dismiss ot try to refute the arguments presented here.

-------------------------------------------
from Insight Magazine
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=210980

Q: Is there a biological basis for race and racial differences?
Yes: Differences between the races are shown to be real by growing scientific evidence.
By J. Philippe Rushton

For the last 20 years my research has focused on differences between the three major races, commonly termed Orientals (East Asians/Mongoloids), whites (Europeans/Caucasoids) and blacks (Africans/Negroids). Roughly speaking, Orientals are those who have most of their ancestors from East Asia. Whites have most of their ancestors from Europe. And blacks have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa. In the main, I have not addressed the many other groups and subgroups.

What I've found is that in brain size, intelligence, temperament, sexual behavior, fertility, growth rate, life span, crime and family stability, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, blacks fall at the other end and whites fall in between. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile and less sexually active, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas. Whites fall in the middle, often close to Orientals.

Of course, these three-way racial differences are averages. Individuals are individuals. However, I've found that this three-way pattern is true over time and across nations. That the same three-way racial pattern occurs repeatedly on some 60 different biological and behavioral variables is profoundly interesting and shows that race is more than "just skin deep." The international data come from the World Health Organization, the United Nations and Interpol. Recently, I even traveled to South Africa to collect new IQ data.

Let's start with the biological differences in sports, which is something almost everyone observes. Jon Entine's recent book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, addresses the old clich that "white men can't jump" (and the new one that Oriental men jump even less well). Entine shows that in sports black men and women have a genetic advantage. Compared to whites, blacks have narrower hips, wider shoulders, less body fat and more muscle.

Blacks also have from 3 to 19 percent more of the sex hormone testosterone than whites or Orientals. This translates into more explosive energy, which gives blacks the edge in sports such as boxing, basketball, football and sprinting.

Why is it taboo to say that blacks are on average better at sports? Because the next question is, "Why do whites and East Asians have wider hips - proportional to their body size - than blacks, and so make poorer runners?" The answer is that they give birth to larger-brained babies. During evolution, as the head size of newborns increased, women had to have a wider pelvis.

The hormones that give blacks the edge in sports also make them more masculine in general. They are physically more active in school, and this can get them into trouble and even lead to their being diagnosed as hyperactive.

Race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than white babies, yet they mature faster as measured by bone development. By age 5 or 6, black children excel in the dash, the long jump and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teen-age years, blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.

The biological factors underlying race differences in sports have consequences for educational achievement, crime and sexual behavior. In educational achievement and occupational success, Orientals average slightly ahead of whites, who average substantially ahead of blacks. On standardized IQ tests, hundreds of studies show this three-way pattern. Most IQ tests have an average score of 100, with a "normal" range from 85 to 115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the United States tend to have higher scores, about 106, even though IQ tests were made for the European-American culture. Blacks in the United States, the Caribbean, Britain and Africa average lower IQs - about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans - from 70 to 75.

The relation between brain size and intelligence has been shown by dozens of studies, including state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging. Orientals average 1 cubic inch more brain matter than whites, and whites average a very large 5 cubic inches more than blacks. Since one cubic inch of brain matter contains millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of nerve connections, brain-size differences help to explain why the races differ in IQ.

Racial differences in brain size show up early in life as well. The U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 50,000 children from birth to age 7. In the 1997 issue of the journal Intelligence, I showed that the Orientals in the study had larger brains than whites at birth, four months, one year and seven years; the whites had larger brains than blacks at all ages.

In the United States, Orientals are seen as a "model minority." They have fewer divorces, out-of-wedlock births and reports of child abuse than whites. More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison. Blacks, on the other hand, are 12 percent of the U.S. population but make up 50 percent of the prison population.

The racial pattern of crime in the United States is not due to local conditions such as "white racism." The same pattern is found worldwide. Interpol yearbooks show the rate of violent crime (murder, rape and serious assault) is three times lower in East Asian and Pacific Rim countries than in African and Caribbean countries. Whites in European countries are intermediate. The 1996 Interpol violent-crime rates were: East Asian countries, 35 per 100,000 people; European countries, 42; and African and Caribbean countries, 149.

Orientals are the least sexually active, whether measured by age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency or number of sexual partners. Blacks are the most active on all of these. Once again, whites fall in between. These differences in sexual activity affect the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. In the United States today, 2 percent of blacks between ages 15 and 49 are living with AIDS/HIV as opposed to 0.4 percent of whites and .05 percent of Asians, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Other data make it plain that the race differences in sexuality are biological in nature. For example, the races also differ in rate of ovulation. Not all women produce one egg during the menstrual cycle. When two or more eggs are produced at the same time, pregnancy and the likelihood of producing two-egg twins are more likely. The number of twins born is 16 out of every 1,000 births for blacks, eight out of every 1,000 births for whites and four or less for Orientals.

Why do whites fall between Orientals and blacks in so many areas? No purely cultural theory can explain this consistent pattern. Genetic and evolutionary theories are required. Genes play a big part in athletic ability, brain size, IQ and personality. Transracial adoption studies, where infants of one race are adopted and reared by parents of a different race, provide some of the strongest evidence. Oriental children, even if malnourished before being adopted by white parents, go on to have IQs above the white average. Black infants adopted into middle-class white families end up with IQs lower than the white average.

These racial patterns make up what is called a "life-history" or "reproductive strategy." The traits evolved together to meet the trials of life - survival, growth and reproduction. Race differences make sense in terms of human evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and whites split about 40,000 years ago.

The further north people went "out of Africa," the more evolution selected for larger brains, slower growth rates, greater longevity, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control and rule-following are cultural manifestations of these gene-based evolutionary strategies. Surviving in cold environments required increased intelligence and larger brains. The wider hips of white and Asian women evolved to allow them to give birth to larger-brained babies.

What are the implications of this research? One is that we should stop blaming white racism for all society's problems. If blacks are good at certain sports and Orientals do well in schools, it cannot be because each group is trying to "overcome the prejudice of white society," because each group shows the same pattern of strengths and weaknesses in their countries of origin.

Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social construct that the human-genome project shows that, because people share roughly 99 percent of their genes in common, there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98 percent similar to chimpanzee genes and 90 percent similar to those in mice, which is why these species make good laboratory animals. But no one claims that mice, chimpanzees and humans are nearly the same! That would be laughable. Similarly, although men and women are genetically 99 percent the same, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a "social construction."

Much confusion arises because there are several sets of genetic measures. A much more realistic story comes from looking at the 3.1 billion base pairs that make up the 30,000 genes. People differ in one out of every 1,000 of these base pairs. Each change in a base pair can alter a gene. Technically, base-pair differences are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The 99 percent figure is based on DNA sequences which do not differ between people or even most mammals. These can give the impression that human groups and chimpanzees are almost identical because these genes code for similar internal organs, eyes, hands and so on. Though humans and mice look very different, any anatomy student can tell you that even their internal bone structures are very similar.

The Feb. 23 issue of Science magazine reported that 2.8 million SNPs were already being sold by Celera Genomics to scientists trying to crack the code of human behavior. Base-pair differences are important and SNPs clump together in races. Just one change in the base pair for hemoglobin, for example, causes sickle-cell anemia, from which many blacks suffer. Other base-pair differences affect IQ, aggression and mental illness. The 3.1 billion base pairs provide plenty of room for large racial differences.

If races did not exist, we would not find the same racial patterns all around the world and over time. The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra that "race is just skin-deep" is a case of deep denial.

Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in Canada and is the author of Race, Evolution, and Behavior and more than 200 scientific articles.

[Fadix]

Genetic Indexing Of Race Groups Is Irresponsible And Unscientific
By Garland Allen*(professor of biology at Washington University in St. Louis.)

There is an irony in the fact that Philippe Rushton has had to invoke the Canadian Libel and Slander Act to silence reaction to his research. The defining criteria of libel and slander are that the statements made are untrue, that is, cannot be substantiated by any concrete evidence, and that they are harmful. The irony is that the law ought to be invoked against Rushton rather than his critics. Using a variety of "measurements," from penis size to cranial capacity and I.Q. scores, Rushton has "discovered" a hierarchy of races in which Asians stand at the top and blacks at the bottom, with whites in an intermediate position. His selective citation and/or misrepresentation of source materials is an insult to his colleagues and to the racial groups, especially blacks, that he maligns as evolutionarily backward. What could describe more accurately a libelous or slanderous statement? Moreover, setting forth ideas about the biological inferiority or superiority of one or another racial or ethnic group not only is socially irresponsible, but also can lead only to disastrous results. When people compare Rushton's ideas to the racial hygiene theories of the Nazis, they have exactly this point in mind.

Rushton expresses surprise at the controversy that has greeted his theory. He attributes that reaction to a taboo that has been imposed on the scientific study of race, largely in response to the horrors associated with Nazi race science. He claims that since the end of World War II, a misguided egalitarianism has led biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists to favor environmental explanations for differences in personality and social behavior among various racial and ethnic groups. For breaking with this tradition, and demonstrating through "honest" research that biological factors might lie at the heart of the relative socio-economic differences between the three major human races, Rushton claims that he has been seriously maligned by fellow scientists and by the press. Free inquiry in his view has been stifled for political and social reasons. According to Rushton, scientists should pursue the truth wherever it may lead, regardless of the unpopularity of the conclusions.

If Rushton were to look more closely at the history of research on racial group differences, and if he were less naive about what he thinks following truth means in science, he might realize that there are very sound reasons why many scientists have reacted so negatively to his research. It is not merely that the conclusion is unpopular, or goes against a prevailing doctrine of egalitarianism.

Biologists, in particular, have had considerable experience over the past century and a half with theories that, like Rushton's, purport to show that the various races are innately different in terms of behavioral and cultural traits, and that these differences show one group to be superior (or inferior) to another. Such theories include:

Plato's "audacious lie" of the metals, in which all men are born with one of three distinct natures represented by gold, silver, or iron. (Plato at least acknowledges this theory to be a "lie," but one that is useful for social control.)

Eugenicists' claims during the period 1900-40 that social and personality traits such as criminality and feeble-mindedness were due to individual genes inherited in a dominant or recessive manner.

Psychologist Arthur Jensen's claim in 1969 that racial differences in intelligence are largely due to genetic causes (Jensen, A. "How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement?" Harvard Education Review, 33:1-123, 1969).

All of these theories have been referred to under the general term of biological determinism, meaning the determination of social and behavioral traits by innate, biological - at present understood to mean genetic - factors. But no theories of biological determinism advanced to date have stood the test of time. In addition, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists who know the subject of human genetics recognize immediately the methodological difficulties in trying to demonstrate significant biological differences in behavioral and social traits between individuals or groups. This is not only because "race" is a loose category with no real biological meaning, but also because of the extreme difficulty in separating innate behaviors (if there are any) from learned behaviors in human beings. Biologists and anthropologists also recognize the fallacy of claiming that any group is biologically inferior or superior to another.

Egalitarianism a-side, such claims smack of a subjectivity and bias that anthropologists and evo- lutionary biologists have been struggling to avoid for more than a century. Rushton is right: There was suspicion about his claims from the outset, but it is not simply because people found his conclusions politically or morally offensive. Past experience and present knowledge warn us that Rushton may be claiming more than he can demonstrate, and that his so-called honest research requires careful scrutiny.

That scrutiny is now taking place, as several individuals and groups, most notably psychologist Frederic Weizmann and his associates at York University in Toronto, have begun to check the sources of information on which Rushton's conclusions are based (York University Department Of Psychology Reports, March 1989). This has meant going back to the original sources in the literature where Rushton obtained his data, since he did not do any of the empirical studies himself.

Rushton claims that he has made an honest attempt to look at the literature on racial differences on more than 60 variables, and that his results show overwhelmingly that such differences exist and are consistent with at least one current model of evolutionary theory. A few examples from the findings of Weizmann et al. will indicate how honest or careful Rushton has really been.

Consider first the issue of race itself. Since he is interested in explaining racial group differences, one would think that Rushton might pay close attention to the problem of defining race. He dismisses the claims by many anthropologists and population biologists (Molnar, Steven. Races, Types and Ethnic Groups: The Problem of Human Variations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1975) that the concept of race in human terms has no biological meaning. Nor does Rushton bother to establish any biological basis for his three racial categories - Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid - but simply states that the division is based on common usage (Rushton, P. "Race differences in behaviour: A review and evolutionary analysis." Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 9:1009-24, 1988). Although common usage may correspond to a scientifically defined category, it does not necessarily do so. The correspondence must be established, not merely invoked.

Weizmann and his colleagues have documented numerous instances in which Rushton completely misrepresents work that he cites without giving the reader any sense of the problems recognized even by the original investigators or the cautions and reservations they express. In their claim that blacks have a higher level of sexual activity than whites, who in turn have a higher level than Asians, Rushton and his co-worker, A.F. Bogaert, present data on genital size in the three races. They claim that the literature showed that Asians have the smallest genitalia and blacks the largest, with whites in between.

The first problem is the assumption that genital size has anything to do with level of sexual activity. A second problem is the nature of the source used. Rushton and Bogaert cite as their main reference for data on all three races the work of an anonymous "French Army Surgeon" who is claimed to be a "30-year specialist in genitourinary diseases" (Rushton, P., Bogaert, A.F. "Race differences in sexual behaviour: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis." Journal of Research in Personality, 21:529-51, 1987).

Rushton and Bogaert refer to the work by the simple citation, Untrodden Fields of Anthropology (2 vols.). Weizmann et al. checked the original source and found that the work, published in Paris in 1896, consisted largely of anecdotal, prurient descriptions of unusual (to the European) sexual practices, a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information, containing so many contradictory claims that it is likely it was compiled by more than one author. No methods of measuring genitalia are ever described, nor is there any recognition of the problems involved in measuring an organ that is specialized for dramatic changes in size. Rushton and Bogaert claim that though Arabs have larger penises than Europeans, most of the Arabs were part black; however, Weiz-mann et al. find no mention of racial mixture in the Arab sample cited in the French source.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the misuse of the work of others comes in Rushton's attempt to couple anthropometric data to the evolutionary theory of r and K selection. This theory describes what were identified in the 1960s and 1970s as two different sorts of reproductive strategies. Organisms referred to as r-strategists were those characterized by living in harsh and highly variable environments (Northern climates, deserts, flood plains), and that breed opportunistically, that is, whenever conditions become favorable. They produce large numbers of offspring at a time and invest little parental time or energy in caring for them. Mortality is high among the offspring, but the species survives by sheer numbers. K-strategists, on the other hand, live in more stable environments, breed less opportunistically (more predictably), have fewer offspring, and invest more parental care in each. Survival rate is thus much higher.

According to Rushton, blacks have evolved as r-strategists, while Asians and whites have evolved as K-strategists: Blacks have more offspring but invest less parental care in each, while Asians and whites have fewer offspring but invest more parental care.

Moreover, Rushton adds a few characteristics of his own to distinguish r- from K-strategists that have no counterpart in the original theory (which was designed with animal, mostly insect, species in mind). We are told that r-strategists are low in "intelligence, social organization, and altruism," while K-strategists are high in these qualities (Rushton, P. "Differential-K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences." Personality and Individual Differences, 6:441-52, 1985). Putting it all together, Rushton's approach is nothing more than the grafting of crude racial stereotypes onto r- and K-selection theory.

Rushton here is being not only racist, but also disingenuous to his reader. He neglects to tell the reader that r-strategists often differ markedly in life span (r-strategists less than a year, K-strategists more than a year) and in body size (r-strategists small body size, K-strategists large) that do not apply in significant ways to humans. Finally, Rushton does not inform the reader that r- and K-selection theory is controversial within the field of evolutionary biology today, and is considered at best to apply only to certain groups, particularly among insect species. It is by no means a general theory that can be applied across the board.

What Weizmann has shown is that Rushton selectively cites and misrepresents his sources to support his conclusions. Far from being an "honest attempt" to follow the Truth wherever it leads, Rushton seems to be putting a ring through Truth's nose and leading it toward his own barn. In this respect, Rushton has followed well the tradition of his predecessors in the study of racial differences. He has used, abused, distorted, and in some cases virtually falsified his sources. As Weizmann and his colleagues conclude: ". . . Rushton not only cites sources which are not credible, but he consistently misrepresents the work of others. His summaries of the literature are not only tendentious, but untrustworthy."

If people are angry at Rushton's work it may be because he has betrayed the basic trust that anyone expects from a scholar. How many times must we be forced to sample the same old wine in a new bottle, only to find that what is called wine is actually vinegar? We should give every new bottle a chance, but when one sniff or sip suggests vinegar, we need not drink the whole bottle to be sure.

Should the study of the biological basis of socioeconomic and behavioral differences between races be a taboo subject, even if all previous attempts have failed? Can we not hope to come up with better methods in the future?

In the abstract, of course, the answer to the first question is no, and to the second, yes. No subject should be taboo in the usual meaning of that term - that is, forbidden. And, of course, it may be possible some day to find a way of rigorously distinguishing innate from learned behavior in humans. But at any point in time scientists must make decisions about priorities, about what research paths to follow. Rushton is extremely naive if he thinks that most researchers simply decide what is interesting to them and proceed to carry out a research project. Science is a social process, and there are constraints that affect every investigator. Studying a topic is greatly constrained by the availability of methods of gathering data. Granting agencies normally view closely the research methodology for any proposal; if that methodology is lacking - in current jargon, if the project is not "doable" - then the proposal is usually not funded.


(...)

*Garland Allen is professor of biology at Washington University in St. Louis. He specializes in the history and philosophy of science.

The Scientist 4[10]:17, May. 14, 1990

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix If Rushton were to look more closely at the history of research on racial group differences, and if he were less naive about what he thinks following truth means in science, he might realize that there are very sound reasons why many scientists have reacted so negatively to his research. It is not merely that the conclusion is unpopular, or goes against a prevailing doctrine of egalitarianism.

This whole article is carried out by a negative tone in which the author uses tone and semantics to subtly denigrate the evidence proposed by Rushton.

Biologists, in particular, have had considerable experience over the past century and a half with theories that, like Rushton's, purport to show that the various races are innately different in terms of behavioral and cultural traits, and that these differences show one group to be superior (or inferior) to another. Such theories include:

Plato's "audacious lie" of the metals, in which all men are born with one of three distinct natures represented by gold, silver, or iron. (Plato at least acknowledges this theory to be a "lie," but one that is useful for social control.)

Eugenicists' claims during the period 1900-40 that social and personality traits such as criminality and feeble-mindedness were due to individual genes inherited in a dominant or recessive manner.

Psychologist Arthur Jensen's claim in 1969 that racial differences in intelligence are largely due to genetic causes (Jensen, A. "How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement?" Harvard Education Review, 33:1-123, 1969).

All of these theories have been referred to under the general term of biological determinism, meaning the determination of social and behavioral traits by innate, biological - at present understood to mean genetic - factors. But no theories of biological determinism advanced to date have stood the test of time. In addition, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists who know the subject of human genetics recognize immediately the methodological difficulties in trying to demonstrate significant biological differences in behavioral and social traits between individuals or groups. This is not only because "race" is a loose category with no real biological meaning, but also because of the extreme difficulty in separating innate behaviors (if there are any) from learned behaviors in human beings. Biologists and anthropologists also recognize the fallacy of claiming that any group is biologically inferior or superior to another.

The job of scientists, whether biologists, geneticists and anthropologists is not to decide who is superior or inferior, it is to be honest in their research about science, to not allow ideological bias and the "fear that it might produce hate" to taint their research. In the above the author attempts to, like most egalitarians, simply state that "race" is "loose" and there is a "difficulty in separating innate behaviors". Because it is difficult to classify, the argument goes, therefore there are two conclusions 1) that races do not exist, and that 2) even if there are differences it is not worth classifying them.

In other words the author, himself a biologist, with a focus on philosophy and history of science, cannot understand how the pervading political and social forces, determine largely what the results of science will produce. The fact that it is difficult to classify races is not the question, the question is that scientists must still try, just like they still try to classify bacteria, granted it is just as difficult and classifications have always been changing, and why should we not classify humans?

Originally posted by Fadix .
Perhaps the most glaring example of the misuse of the work of others comes in Rushton's attempt to couple anthropometric data to the evolutionary theory of r and K selection. This theory describes what were identified in the 1960s and 1970s as two different sorts of reproductive strategies. Organisms referred to as r-strategists were those characterized by living in harsh and highly variable environments (Northern climates, deserts, flood plains), and that breed opportunistically, that is, whenever conditions become favorable. They produce large numbers of offspring at a time and invest little parental time or energy in caring for them. Mortality is high among the offspring, but the species survives by sheer numbers. K-strategists, on the other hand, live in more stable environments, breed less opportunistically (more predictably), have fewer offspring, and invest more parental care in each. Survival rate is thus much higher.

According to Rushton, blacks have evolved as r-strategists, while Asians and whites have evolved as K-strategists: Blacks have more offspring but invest less parental care in each, while Asians and whites have fewer offspring but invest more parental care.

Moreover, Rushton adds a few characteristics of his own to distinguish r- from K-strategists that have no counterpart in the original theory (which was designed with animal, mostly insect, species in mind). We are told that r-strategists are low in "intelligence, social organization, and altruism," while K-strategists are high in these qualities (Rushton, P. "Differential-K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences." Personality and Individual Differences, 6:441-52, 1985). Putting it all together, Rushton's approach is nothing more than the grafting of crude racial stereotypes onto r- and K-selection theory.

Rushton here is being not only racist, but also disingenuous to his reader. He neglects to tell the reader that r-strategists often differ markedly in life span (r-strategists less than a year, K-strategists more than a year) and in body size (r-strategists small body size, K-strategists large) that do not apply in significant ways to humans. Finally, Rushton does not inform the reader that r- and K-selection theory is controversial within the field of evolutionary biology today, and is considered at best to apply only to certain groups, particularly among insect species. It is by no means a general theory that can be applied across the board.

Rushton here is being not only racist, but also disingenuous to his reader. He neglects to tell the reader that r-strategists often differ markedly in life span (r-strategists less than a year, K-strategists more than a year) and in body size (r-strategists small body size, K-strategists large) that do not apply in significant ways to humans. Finally, Rushton does not inform the reader that r- and K-selection theory is controversial within the field of evolutionary biology today, and is considered at best to apply only to certain groups, particularly among insect species. It is by no means a general theory that can be applied across the board.

What Weizmann has shown is that Rushton selectively cites and misrepresents his sources to support his conclusions. Far from being an "honest attempt" to follow the Truth wherever it leads, Rushton seems to be putting a ring through Truth's nose and leading it toward his own barn. In this respect, Rushton has followed well the tradition of his predecessors in the study of racial differences. He has used, abused, distorted, and in some cases virtually falsified his sources. As Weizmann and his colleagues conclude: ". . . Rushton not only cites sources which are not credible, but he consistently misrepresents the work of others. His summaries of the literature are not only tendentious, but untrustworthy."

If people are angry at Rushton's work it may be because he has betrayed the basic trust that anyone expects from a scholar. How many times must we be forced to sample the same old wine in a new bottle, only to find that what is called wine is actually vinegar? We should give every new bottle a chance, but when one sniff or sip suggests vinegar, we need not drink the whole bottle to be sure.

Should the study of the biological basis of socioeconomic and behavioral differences between races be a taboo subject, even if all previous attempts have failed? Can we not hope to come up with better methods in the future?

In the abstract, of course, the answer to the first question is no, and to the second, yes. No subject should be taboo in the usual meaning of that term - that is, forbidden. And, of course, it may be possible some day to find a way of rigorously distinguishing innate from learned behavior in humans. But at any point in time scientists must make decisions about priorities, about what research paths to follow. Rushton is extremely naive if he thinks that most researchers simply decide what is interesting to them and proceed to carry out a research project. Science is a social process, and there are constraints that affect every investigator. Studying a topic is greatly constrained by the availability of methods of gathering data. Granting agencies normally view closely the research methodology for any proposal; if that methodology is lacking - in current jargon, if the project is not "doable" - then the proposal is usually not funded.

This attempt by Mr Allen to try to somehow denigrate allometry is ill-founded by attacking one source, to negate allometry as having a basis in sexual activity is questionable. Allometry is in fact a valid method of determining the differing sexual activity of the differing races as it is a change in proportion of various body parts of different growth rates, and since the races had different growth rates in different places it is measureable, and further evidenced by the social factors of rape, and the spread of hiv in Africa.

As far as Rushton r- and K- strategists "adding his own characteristics" based on something that is only applied to "animals" and "insects" is absurd, for humans are classed animals. As far as Rushton being "dishonest" that is simply a conclusion drawn by these scientist in researching his work. Rushton is accused of not telling that r- and K- selection theory is controversial within biology, but when isn't any theory controversial? Evolutionary theory itself isn't a holy law and always open to interpretation. Moreover Weizmann and friends here cherry pick themselves in picking out one flawed area of Rushton's sources in order to discredit all his data; in other words, engaging in the same tactic that they accuse Rushton of. By giving readers the picture that Rushton used that one source and attacking that, and not giving an objective view of all his other data and sources, it paints for readers a thorough illusion that Rushton is "dishonest" or "misrepresents" data, when in truth, he is human and one can cherry pick any scientists work and find such flaws.

This article in no way tried to question the other aspects of differences displayed by Rushton, but only hovered and focused on this one source, and allometry, thereby only trying to validate their position since they cannot offer evidence that we are equal, the most certain defense is "it is far too complex to classify race". In other words, this is a carefully plotted position in which differences are subtly and soundly pushed under the rug, and the altar of 'difficulty' is presented. This article, in the end, doesn't disprove that there are differences, but only proves a flawed aspect of Rushton's research, and an attack on his character. Moreover, we already know that races differ on a genetic level, and that these differences are not only highlighted by geneticists but also by forensic anthropologists. In the words of George W. Gill from the Universty of Wyoming:

First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

Morphological characteristics...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.

[Anonymouse]

After a search on google, I found this article again, on David Duke's website. Now I realize the implications of this, due to the politically and emotionally motivated egalitarians, that they will attempt to connect the article, the author, to the hateful racist Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, in order to de-legitimize the article, but I do not care, because I found the article informative, and well-researched. As a side note to Fadix, you will not demolish the evidence presented here, by attacking Grubach, I know he is associated with "white supremacy", although he begs to differ and calls it white nationalism, and holocaust revisionism. That is the the issue here, nor am I interested in white nationalism, nor do I care for it.

-----------------

THE MEDIA, THE GENETICS OF RACE,
AND THE RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD
By Paul Grubach

In May and August of 2000, the American mass media reported upon the results of two major studies of human genetics. What's most interesting about these research projects--and the newspaper accounts that brought them to the public's attention--is that they highlight the hypocritical double standard in regard to the study of race which is so deeply ingrained in the American mainstream media and major segments of the scientific community.

In the May 9, 2000, issue of the NEW YORK TIMES (NYT), America's most influential and important newspaper, and in other major media outlets, there were stories about a major study of xxxish genetics. The news accounts emphasized how xxxs DIFFER from non-xxxs in a genetic sense, and how a DNA-based study found that xxxs have maintained their unique genetic identity over the centuries. One big message was perfectly clear--xxxs are genetically separate from Gentiles.

Commenting upon the study of xxxish genetics published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, (NYT) noted: "The analysis provides genetic witness that these [xxxish] communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries." 1

Ohio's most important newspaper, the PLAIN DEALER, reported: "After the first major xxxish exile of 586 B.C., when xxxs dispersed across Europe and North Africa, xxxs largely retained their genetic identity, one that was formed in the Middle East according to the study..." 2

While noting the common biological ancestry of xxxs and Arabs, the articles emphasized that xxxish groups from various parts of the world are more similar to each other in a genetic sense than to the Gentile populations they reside next to.

But three months later, the mass media and a segment of the scientific community sang quite another tune. The August 22, 2000, issue of NYT carried a prominent story about the Human Genome Project and the idea of "race," which was clearly referring to the traditional categories of Caucasian, Asian, and Black, categories which do not divide the world up into xxxs and non-xxxs.

The title of the articles reveal the message being conveyed. The PLAIN DEALER: "Race No More Than Skin Deep, DNA indicates." 3 The NEW YORK TIMES: "Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows." 4 That is to say, Whites, Asians and Blacks are not really biologically different--but three months earlier we were told that populations of xxxs and non-xxxs do in fact differ in a biological sense.

The published accounts attempted to show that the Human Genome Project "has demonstrated that the idea of race is meaningless." 5 They contained claims that scientific knowledge accords with the following sentiment: "Regardless of race or creed, we really ARE all kin beneath the skin." 6

Consider this most telling statement: "Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized by society are not reflected at the genetic level. But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome...the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by 'race' have little or no biological meaning." 7

Wait one-second! Back in May the American people were told that significant differences between xxxs and non-xxxs can be found at the genetic level, and the label of "xxx" does in fact have a biological meaning.

It was reported on August 22 that scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race--the human race. 8

Yet, on May 9 the mass media and a segment of the scientific establishment were telling listeners that xxxs and non-xxxs are not necessarily of one race, as they are genetically distinct from one another.

This is a clear example of ideological bias. When genetic differences are found between xxxs and non-xxxs, they are interpreted as "meaningful." However, when genetic differences are found between Whites, Blacks or Asians, they are interpreted as "superficial and inconsequential."

The subliminal message may be the following. xxxs are genetically different from non-xxxs and must work to preserve their genetic makeup. However, Whites, Blacks and Asians are really not different from each other; they should all integrate and not be concerned about preserving their genetic identities.

Why the double standard in regard to the issue of race?

In his classic work on the sociology of knowledge, IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA, Karl Mannheim noted that in any society a large part of the prevailing ideologies, world-view, and "moral" judgments reflect the sociopolitical interests of that society's power elites and controlling elements. 9 One of the most powerful and influential of these elements in American society is the xxxish political and cultural establishment. 10

Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that the xxxish-Zionist elite possesses the power and authority to impose its values--inclusive of the racial double standard in regard to the race issue--upon the mass media and segments of the scientific community. 11 Most people never think to question these preformed patterns of thought, and thus, remain locked in a dogmatic slumber.

When the values and ideological biases of powerful elites act as distorting influences upon the acquisition of scientific knowledge, social and intellectual progress becomes impeded. Let us rid ourselves of this hypocritical double standard in regard to racial issue.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

1. NEW YORK TIMES, May 9, 2000.
2. THE PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), May 10, 2000, p.6-A.
3. THE PLAIN DEALER, August 22, 2000, p.1-A.
4. NEW YORK TIMES, August 22, 2000, pp.D-1.
5. Ibid; THE PLAIN DEALER, August 22, 2000, pp.1-A,8-A.
6. NEW YORK TIMES, August 22, 2000, pp.D-1, D-6.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1936), p.10, passim.
10. The following is a small sample of the many works which document the power and influence of the xxxish political and cultural establishment. J.J. Goldberg, xxxISH POWER; INSIDE THE AMERICAN xxxISH ESTABLISHMENT (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996; Kevin MacDonald, THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE: AN EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS OF xxxISH INVOLVEMENT IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998); Neal Gabler, AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN: HOW THE xxxS INVENTED HOLLYWOOD (New York: Crown Publishers, 1988): Paul Findley, THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT: PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT ISRAEL'S LOBBY (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985).
11. For an excellent discussion of xxxish influence upon the scientific establishment, see Kevin MacDonald.

[Darorinag]

The subliminal message may be the following. xxxs are genetically different from non-xxxs and must work to preserve their genetic makeup. However, Whites, Blacks and Asians are really not different from each other; they should all integrate and not be concerned about preserving their genetic identities.
Indeed. Propaganda works in mysterious ways, doesn't it? :D

Tsk tsk tsk Anon, how white supremacist of you to post this!!!! You really are a HATER!!! And a racist.. and an anti-semite.. :p

If xxxs aren't a race, then why do they need an all-xxxish country? :confused:

[Anonymouse]

It's funny how I used to browse the CODOH forums when they were active, and how various people would come and try to attack or smear Bradley Smith as a "racist" and "white supremacist" for questioning the xxxish Holocaust, even though he is a libertarian and is married to a Mexican lady.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse It's funny how I used to browse the CODOH forums when they were active, and how various people would come and try to attack or smear Bradley Smith as a "racist" and "white supremacist" for questioning the xxxish Holocaust, even though he is a libertarian and is married to a Mexican lady.
:eek: :eek: :eek: you were at the CODOH forums? Wow.. lol. I post there.. it's still there, although not too many post. all the better, discussions must be limited to knowledgeable and scientific observations rather than personal attacks and sticking labels on people left and right. And that's what most people do. But most people are duped by PC propaganda..

Anyway, yeah, that website & forum are great. i like vho too. they have lots of stuff on there.

Holocaust revisionism = anti-semetism
Saying that there are racial differences = racism
Can you see the similarities? *cough*

On another note, it was "proven" today in class that Othello is a racist play.. why am i not surprised? :rolleyes:

[Anonymouse]

It should be noted that I do not agree with everything revisionism proclaims. However, let's not divert too much from the intended topic. Moderator's could perhaps weed out the above to posts.

[Fadix]

Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?

Norman J. Sauer

Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, U.S.A.

Available online 28 June 2002.


Abstract

Most anthropologists have abandoned the concept of race as a research tool and as a valid representation of human biological diversity. Yet, race identification continues to be one of the central foci of forensic anthropological casework and research. It is maintained in this paper that the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed `racial' category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature.

Author Keywords: forensic anthropology; race; race identification; human variation

[Fadix]

"Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

American Anthropological Association, 1998

[Fadix]

Race and Gene Studies:
What Differences Make a Difference?


by Larry Adelman

In 1851 the Louisiana physician Dr. Samuel Cartwright observed a behavior evident in African African Americans but absent in whites. They tended to run away from slave plantations. He attributed this odd behavior to a disease peculiar to Negroes. He even gave the affliction a name, "drapetomania."

Cartwright's "run-away" disease elicits derisive laughter today. So too do all the other 19th and early 20th century exertions to distinguish races by facial angle, skull size, cranial index, length of shin bone and blood type. Our growing knowledge of the genome and human evolutionary history help us understand why all such efforts to locate the source of innate racial difference were doomed: it doesn't exist. Most geneticists and anthropologists who study human variation agree that humans just don't come bundled into three or four separate groups according to skin color and other physical traits.

Nonetheless, "discoveries" of racial difference resurface in the press with predictable regularity. Often they spotlight differential rates of diseases, or responses to a drug. Sometimes they zero in on a genetics study.

That was the case recently with a report published in Science magazine (Dec. 20, 2002). Noah Rosenberg, Marcus Feldman and others analyzed the variation in 377 different DNA sequences from 1056 individuals from around the world. They found that 95% of the DNA variation they studied is due to differences between individuals within any continent. But they also found they could use the remaining 5% of the variation as genetic "footprints" indicating the continent from which an individual's recent ancestors came.

Some were quick to interpret these results as evidence that old-fashioned notions of the "races of man" have been correct all along. But does it? What do these studies actually tell us? And why should our interpretations matter?

Reports about such studies commonly fall prey to three confusions: they conflate DNA markers of ancestry with markers of race. They mistake the fact that some gene variants are more common in some populations than others as signs of racial "difference" between those populations. And they assume that disparities in group outcomes can be attributed to inborn, or genetic, differences between races.

The idea of biological race assumes traits come packaged together, even color-coded for our convenience, as anthropologist Jonathan Marks jokes. In otherwords, if biological race were real, we'd find that skin color or other "racial" markers would correlate with a suite of other genetic traits. Knowing an individual's "race" should enable us to predict his or her other genes and traits.

But the DNA sequences studied by Rosenberg and his colleagues are not genes. Known by geneticists as "microsatellite short tandem repeats" (and more colloquially as "junk DNA"), they do not code for proteins, but just sit there taking up space in our DNA. Mutations in DNA sequences that don't code for anything are not affected by natural and sexual selection. They are neither selected for nor against but are simply passed down, generation to generation. Comparing these accumulated mutation patterns can provide clues to ancient population movements. But they have no effect on physical traits such as skin color or hair form or blood type.

In other words, the study accomplished the same thing our eyes do everyday. You can look at someone and stand a pretty good chance of identifying the continent where that person's recent ancestors lived, especially if you're gazing at someone whose family has resided in the same place for several generations - as did all the subjects of the study.

But what's that got to do with "race"? We all have ancestors from elsewhere - and if we go back far enough, about 70,000 or so years ago, all our ancestors can be traced back to Africa. But if our idea of race assumes that different groups each share among themselves a different suite of inborn traits, then we have to ask, "What difference makes a difference?" Certainly not micro-satellite short tandem repeats.

Still, there's no question that some gene forms show up more often in some populations than others: alleles that code for blue eyes, or the A, B, O blood groups, and of course, those alleles that influence skin color . (We all have the same 30,000 or so genes. But some genes come in different forms, or varieties, called alleles.) But just because some members of a population might carry a specific gene form, doesn't mean all members do. Only a small percentage of Ashkenazi xxxs carry the Tay-Sachs allele. When a couple I know were screened upon their pregnancy, the non-xxxish partner was found to be the Tay-Sachs carrier, not the xxxish one.

That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

Take sickle cell. Doctors were long taught that sickle cell anemia was a genetic disease of Negroes, a marker of their race. Yet sickle cell is found among peoples from central and western Africa, but not southern Africa. It is also carried by Turks, Yemenis, Indians, Greeks, and Sicilians. That's because sickle cell arose several thousand years ago as a mutation in one of the genes that codes for hemoglobin. The mutation soon spread to successive populations along the trade routes where malaria was common. It turns out that inheriting one sickle cell allele confers resistance to malaria and thus provides a selective advantage in malarial regions (inheriting sickle cell alleles from both parents causes sickle-cell disease). In other words, sickle cell, like tandem repeats in the Science study, is a marker not of skin color or race but ancestry, or more precisely, having ancestors from where malaria was common.

Like sickle cell, most traits are influenced by separate genes and inherited independently one from another. They are said to be "non-concordant." Someone with brown hair might carry A, B or O blood. Sub-Saharan Africans tend to have dark skin. But so too do Dravidians from India, Aborigines from Australia, and Melanesians from the South Pacific. Large numbers of West Africans are lactose intolerant as are Japanese, but East Africans aren't. German and Papua New Guinean populations have almost exactly the same frequencies of A, B and O blood. At one point on the genome an individual might share a gene form common in Africa, at another site East Asia, and still another, Europe. Jared Diamond and others have pointed out that for each trait we can classify people into "races" by that trait, each giving us different and overlapping races depending on the trait selected.

Indeed, the Rosenberg team found they could cluster the individuals in their sample into several different statistically significant groups, only one of which corresponded to five continents. They also found that no matter which clustering scheme they used, individuals could be placed in more than one group.

The reason for all this within-group variation is because unlike most other species, modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, are young, only about 150,000 years or so old, and we've always moved. As humans migrated around the globe, populations bumped into each other and shared their mates - and genes. Sometimes genes flowed across great distances - through trade, war, slavery, piracy, exile and migration. More often they flowed from village to village to village. Human populations just haven't been isolated from each other long enough to evolve into separate sub-species, or races.

Ancestry is important in genetics and health care. I would like to know if I were descended from a population at risk for sickle cell, or the blood disease porphyria, or Tay Sachs. Oliver Sachs has even written famously of an island of the colorblind. But because of non-concordance, the geographic shape of populations at genetic risk for a specific disease or adverse drug response change amoeba-like depending upon the trait under study. These populations do not map onto what we think of as race. To assume they do is medically troublesome on several accounts.

First, doctors might be tempted to use race as a very unreliable surrogate for an individual's own unique ancestry and patterns of inheritance. And insofar as 94% of all genetic variants can be found within any continent, assigning someone to a "racial" continent of origin is too gross a scale to narrow down the range of possibilities very much. (Some variants do correlate on a finer scale with ethnic groups, and on a scale smaller yet with recent family descent.)

But a belief in biological race also obscures the very salient consequences of race as lived experience. Race may be a biological myth, a social construction, but it nonetheless remains very real. It can even have biological effects. African Americans have among the highest rates of hypertension in the world. This was long assumed to be genetic, a "marker" of their nature. But then it was found that West Africans have among the world's lowest hypertension rates. A focus on race as innate biology, as genetic difference, would lead health professionals and policy makers to overlook social factors that might contribute to African American hypertension and heart disease, including the added stressor of living in a racist society.

Race is terribly relevant to life outcomes. The likelihood that toxic waste has been dumped in your neighborhood, your ability to get a home loan, the quality of your kid's education, connections to job opportunities, whether or not you're likely to be followed in a department store or pulled over by police, are all influenced by your race. Race does matter. Not race as genetics but race as lived experience, what sociologists call "social" race. Social race is an important variable for health researchers and epidemiologists.

The factors that lead to differential outcomes between races live not in any "racial" genes but in our social institutions and practices. It's easy to confuse the two. But doing so, like Dr. Cartwright's drapetomania, displaces our attention from those discriminatory practices to the "nature" of the victims. Blindness to the continuing impact of racism can be just as harmful as believing that race is biologically real. They both let society off the hook.

Larry Adelman is Series Executive Producer of RACE - The Power of an Illusion and co-director of California Newsreel.

[Fadix]

Race: Anthropologists say divisions were made by man


http://www.gazette.net/200018/frederickcty/state/10106-1.html

by Walter Lee Dozier
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2000


Evelyn Arias did not want to appear naïve when she asked her colleagues about a question on her census form.

But the 36-year-old Virginia resident was struggling with the section that asked her to identify herself in a racial category.

Both of her parents and grandparents were born in Costa Rica. Her mother has dark skin. Her father has light skin. She has Jamaican and Spanish ancestry. In Costa Rica, where she lived until she was 16, no one ever asked her about her "race."

"I said, 'Wow, this is hard,' " Arias said. "It asks me for my race, but I don't know what race I am. Is somebody supposed to tell me?"

Arias is not alone.

For more than 300 years, obsession with racial identity has permeated the social, political and economic structures of American society. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a chief concern for politicians, activists, educators and religious leaders, who are scrambling to right the wrongs of the past and anticipate the challenges of the future.

But there is a growing core of social scientists who say there can be no social solution to race-related problems until Americans confront and understand the biological myths related to race.

They say it is essential to question the biological legitimacy and acceptance of the popular racial categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (white, Asian and black).

Anthropologists, who have been noticeably absent from much of the current discourse on race, are at the forefront of this new challenge. They are among scholars in disciplines such as biology, genetics and sociology who argue that nature did not make "race."

Society did.

Race and biology

"The notion of race has become a central theme for anthropologists because anthropologists were so critical in the development of the notion of race," said Leith Mullings, an anthropologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. "Physical anthropology came into its own because of the concept of race."

The word "race" generally has been used and accepted as a synonym for "subspecies," which is defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. "Race" is mistakenly used to describe what anthropologists call human variation or diversity.

Human variation is the way anthropologists describe and explain diverse populations throughout the world. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south. But skin tone is not related to nose shape or hair texture.

Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or with curly or wavy or straight hair -- all of which can be found among indigenous peoples in tropical regions. Anthropologists say these variations render any attempt to establish lines of divisions among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

DNA evidence indicates that most physical variation -- almost 94 percent -- takes place within so-called racial groups.

Americans are socially conditioned to view race as biologically natural and based on visible physical differences, such as skin color, hair texture, eye color, appearance and nose shape.

But scientific evidence shows that these physical traits have more to do with environmental factors than biogenetics. Thus, from a scientific perspective, race has no intrinsic relationship to human variation. It simply reflects the social meaning that has been imposed upon the variation.

Anthropologists argue that the consequence of continued use of outdated and confusing classifying terms is not a trivial issue.

"Over the years, and certainly today, the concept of race has contributed far more to misunderstanding and conflict among humans than it has to understanding and cooperation," said Alvin Wolfe, an anthropologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa. "For the past century, scientists have tended to confirm a European cultural belief that humans could be usefully categorized into three basic types -- Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid."

As science improved, Wolfe said, it became clear that human variation was much more complicated than racial classifications allow.

Scientific evidence also shows that the amount of variation among humans is less than in other species.

Most data about human variation come from genetic studies. These studies are quantifiable and replicable.

They show that regardless of how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as are two people from any two different racial groups.

"Skin color is not an accurate reflection of genetic makeup," said Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Scientific evidence does not support 19th century notions of human variation. We are one race from a biological point of view."

Jackson directs the Genomics Models Research Group, which uses anthropology, history and ecology to develop models for the study of human genetic diversity.

She said U.S. society has placed far too much importance on the way people look and has misunderstood that visual traits are a tiny, often insignificant component of overall human diversity or human variation.

"The physical traits have been overemphasized and uncritically linked to nonphysical assessments such as intelligence, morality and creativity," she said. "Especially in the United States where racial classifications are more rigid than in many other places in the world."

[Fadix]

(article continued)


Race and society

The Virginia-based American Anthropological Association calls race the most contentious issue in contemporary American society.

Founded in 1902, the association encourages research, promotes public understanding of anthropology and fosters the uses of anthropological information in addressing human problems.

AAA seized the theme of race in its September 1998 edition of its American Anthropologist journal to provide scientific clarification to the concept of race in order to foster a better understanding of racism.

"A lot of anthropologists tried to deconstruct these categories in the 1930s," said Margaret Overbey, AAA's director of government relations. "A lot of anthropologists viewed it differently from the beginning."

Overbey said the deconstruction of "race" as a biological category is essential for any earnest discussion about the social implications of race and, subsequently, racism.

However, Overbey said, AAA will not accept the often-raised notion that because there is no biological race, then there is no racism.

Race, she said, is not real, but racism is because it is the result of the social construction of race, which is based on an embedded hierarchical belief in a system of material relations that produce assumed power and privileges.

Research has shown that the idea of race has always carried more meaning than mere physical differences, she said. In the United States, race was a social invention of the 18th century.

The categories were constructed by leaders among European Americans who fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each race, linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior traits with blacks and Indians.

"As long as people continue to think of race as biological, they will continue to see it that way," Overbey said. "Forensic anthropologists have been slower to come to this conclusion, but biological and cultural anthropologists came to the consensus that race is a social construction."

Race and history

When asked, many Americans cannot define race, except by physical appearance.

Racial categories have been particularly burdensome for blacks, but they have created significant social divisions and distance among many groups.

Virginia Commonwealth University anthropologist Audrey Smedley said race is a rather recent concept in human history. The historical record, she said, shows that neither the idea nor ideologies existed much before the 17th century.

In the United States, biophysical features have become markers of social status. Historically, Smedley said, race has been grounded in the myth of biologically separate, exclusive and distinct human populations.

"The English did not use race until the 17th century," said Smedley, who has taught a class called "The Origins of the Idea of Race" for nearly 20 years. "By the 18th century, everyone was using the terms. The terms became useful in the 18th century as a way to justify slavery and other unequal populations."

In this way, she said, racial categories have not lived up to their intended purpose -- to explain variations among humans.

What prevents us from understanding our diverse cultural norms and components, Smedley said, is the way we see race as a separate, biologically determined pattern of cultural behavior.

For example, certain diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs have been linked to specific racial groups -- sickle cell to blacks and Tay-Sachs to xxxs.

While sickle-cell anemia is labeled a "black disease," scientific evidence shows that while the disease is frequent among American blacks and the West African peoples from whom slaves descend, it is also frequent among nonblack populations in Greece, Southern India and other regions of the world where high rates of malaria exist.

"The frequency of sickle-cell anemia is higher in some parts of Greece, Italy and East India than in many parts of Africa," the University of Maryland's Jackson said. "The responsible gene is linked to exposure to malaria."

Howard University biological anthropologist Michael Blakey concurs. He said early erroneous research hailed sickle cell as a marker for "Negro-ness."

"When it was found in Europeans, it was thought to be because of gene flow or through marriage," he said. "Sickle cell evolved as an adaptation for malaria. The trait is related to malaria and not race."

Race and medicine

Race also has been problematic in biomedical issues such as bone marrow donations. Many anthropologists say that when bone marrow matches are sought, using race may slow the process of finding a match. They recommend instead looking at a person's ethnic and geographic background or family history.

Consider the case of Brian Bauman, a U.S. Air Force Academy cadet who was diagnosed with leukemia several years ago.

Bauman was born in South Korea of Korean parents and adopted by U.S. citizens. After failing to find his biological parents or a match in the United States, Bauman's adoptive parents looked to his birthplace. The South Korean army had its soldiers tested, a match was found, and Bauman survived.

In this situation, anthropologists argue, a public appeal to Asians in general would have been far less effective.

"There is a need for more diversity among donors," Jackson said. "But when people use terms like 'Asian American' or 'white,' you have to ask what does that really mean.

"I've been at community settings where the issue of race-specific organ donations has been discussed, and it goes against what we understand about human diversity. It's not enough to ask African Americans or Hispanics to donate when looking for a particular match for a person who is socially classified African American or Hispanic."

University of South Florida secondary education professor Barbara Cruz found that out when she tried to answer a plea for a bone marrow donation.

Last year, Cruz, who was born in Cuba, responded to a bone marrow appeal for a 10-year-old boy in the Tampa Bay area. The boy was described as Hispanic.

When Cruz called to make arrangements for testing, she said, she was grilled by appeal organizers about her Hispanic origins and was asked to prove them by speaking Spanish.

When she added that her husband was willing to be tested, too, she was told he would not be a good candidate because he was not Hispanic.

"They said the test is very expensive, and thus only limited it to Hispanics," she said. "When I went for the test, I was taken to the area where the blood is extracted, and the nurse looked at me and asked me if I was a real Hispanic. I had to speak Spanish again.

"Their thinking is that linguistic ability makes you more Hispanic. What about second-generation people who do not have Spanish-language skills? Are they less Hispanic?"

Cruz said the irony of the situation is that a month or so later, she read in a newspaper that a match for the boy was found -- in Scandinavia.

"You would think someone would eat humble pie," said Cruz, who is writing a book for and about multiethnic teens and their identity issues. "This thing called race is not a biological reality. His match was found as far away as possible. This could have been used as a critical educational opportunity, but the article simply noted that a match was found. It was a bizarre experience."

The term Hispanic includes people from Spain to Costa Rica to Bolivia. The only thing they may have in common is language. Genetically, they may have a great deal of diversity.

Yet, Jackson points out, many medical doctors and epidemiologists continue to use racial categories as a premise for many of our medical models.

"Biomedicine has had a hard time dealing with human variation," she said. "We can't talk about discreet groups when it comes to biology. Yet in this country we continue to emphasize the categorization of people."

Race and intelligence

The American Anthropological Association is deeply concerned by recent public discussions that imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race.

When race is placed into a biological category, Margaret Overbey said, it legitimizes books and flawed research that inextricably link intelligence and race.

"The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, for example, declared in 1994 that whites in the United States are inherently more intelligent than blacks. The authors said they arrived at that conclusion after testing the IQ of blacks and whites.

"'The Bell Curve' prompted the AAA statement on race and intelligence," Overbey said. The statement said that intelligence cannot be measured by race, and that there are many kinds of intelligence with no proven scientific methods of accurately measuring.

"We don't know who they tested," said Jackson, referring to "The Bell Curve" authors. "Blacks and whites in this country have overlapping genealogies. ... They are ignoring the historical continuum of European and African people. They don't know to what extent the genetic identification differs from the cultural identification."

From a biological point of view, scientists say, the average black gets 30 percent of his or her genetics from non-African ancestry.

Historian F. James Davis wrote in his 1991 book "Who is Black? One Nation's Definition" that an unknown amount of white-black relations took place in Africa and Europe, long before European settlements of North America began.

Davis is convinced that the population in the United States is far less divided biologically than socially.

"Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and other European explorers, traders, conquerors and colonizers had produced racially mixed offspring, especially in African coastal areas," Davis wrote, adding that African Moors and Arabs colonized the Iberian Peninsula for some 700 years.

Thus, he concluded, European settlers in the American colonies were not pure whites, and the enslaved people they brought were not pure African blacks.

Furthermore, anthropologists say, scientific knowledge is not yet sophisticated enough to establish what intelligence really is.

"Studies show that there is greater IQ variation among the white population in the United States than between whites and blacks," Audrey Smedley said. "IQ means knowledge. There are many kinds of intelligence."

Jackson said Americans have spent too much time and energy focusing on human differences when resources would be better spent trying to understand what differences exist within groups and, better yet, what different groups have in common.

For example, she said, science has found that 20 percent of the population in Western Europe have a genetic condition that prevents the development of AIDS.

In this population, the HIV virus cannot get into the cells to reproduce itself. These individuals can transmit the virus to others, but they themselves cannot develop AIDS.

"Human variation is a good thing," Jackson said. "Variation in humans buffers us from extinction. If we were all uniform we would all be equally susceptible to new viruses like those responsible for AIDS.

"Variation in humans is life-saving for our species."

[Fadix]

NO BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RACE, SCIENTISTS SAY

Distinctions prove to be skin deep
Charles Petit, Chronicle Science Writer

The San Francisco Chronicle Monday, February 23, 1998



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The President's Initiative on Race, designed to attack prejudice by bringing people of different races together to talk, may have overlooked something. Namely, that the very concept of race is bogus and has no basis in biology, according to most scientists. "This dialogue on race is driving me up the wall," said Jefferson Fish, a psychologist at St. John's University in New York who has written extensively about race in America. "Nobody is asking the question, 'What is race?' It is a biologically meaningless category. It is a cultural term that Americans use to describe what a person's ancestry is.

"But biologically the human species does not have categories. It just has variations as one travels around the world."

True, a walk along Market Street or almost any main street in a major U.S. city will reveal a host of people of various colors and cultures. Surely, one may suppose, the American melting pot is brimming with different races and racial mixtures.

Wrong, say a broad coalition of experts.

"The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species."

Although few people would mistake a group of Arapahos for Finns, or Malays for Tutsis, anthropologists can find no clear racial boundaries to show where one "racial" group stops and another begins.

Jonathan Marks, a University of California at Berkeley anthropologist, said the only pattern that shows up consistently is that as one surveys traditional homelands, "people are similar to those from (areas) geographically nearby and different from those (who are) far away." The bigger the distance, the more different people tend to look. Conversely, while people don't fit into neat racial cubbyholes, the more closely related they are, the greater the chances of finding good tissue matches for such things as bone marrow transplants.

Despite this, many Americans still believe in three great racial groups, a system developed in Europe and North America in the 18th century. Under that notion, indigenous residents of France, Iran and Poland, for example, are all Caucasoids, members of the so-called white race. People from Somalia, Nigeria and Zimbabwe in Africa are all Negroid, belonging to the black race. Ethnic Chinese, Koreans, Malays and American Indians are all Mongoloids, variants of the yellow race. And people born to, say, ethnic Swedish and Chinese parents are of mixed race.

No way, say scientists, who call such thinking a folk myth.

"We don't even come close to having enough genetic diversity for races, or subspecies -- not close," said Robert Sussman, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis and editor of a newsletter of the anthropological association that has taken on race and racism as its yearlong theme.

"It's hard to get across," said Sussman. "The best audience to try to get to is probably high school and young college students. But even they are steeped in American folklore, and the folklore is that races really exist."

One reason race is a myth, the great majority of anthropologists agree, is that there has not been enough time for much difference to build up between human beings. By most measures, modern humans arose in Africa less than 200,000 years ago, a short time by evolutionary time scales. And the migration out of Africa by the ancestors of today's Europeans, Asians, and North and South Americans took place less than 100,000 years ago.

Environmental pressure produced different physical appearances, including slightly different physiques, and Africa has the most human genetic diversity of any continent.

"But the environment, literally, works only on the surface, changing skin and hair a little bit," said Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, a Stanford University geneticist."Underneath, there has been little change."

So, although admirable, Clinton's initiative -- by its very name -- reinforces a false sense that biological races are real, say anthropologists who asked to be on the president's panel but were turned down.

"If Americans in general understood the history of the concept of race, the erroneous biological connotations of race, and the cultural and social dimensions of race, they could better address the initiative's goal of 'One America in the 21st Century,' " said Mary Margaret Overbey, a lobbyist for the association.

If anything, the president's initiative should have been on racism, say the scientists. For, even without race, racism can exist as a belief that ancestry is a significant factor in cultural and behavioral differences among peoples.

Rather than race, scientists like to discuss "clinal variations," or physical types that may be found in one general area but that fade more or less evenly into other types as one move about the globe.

At best, race is a clumsy term for people like Fish, the St. John's University psychologist, who is married to a Brazilian. By standard American usage, he is white because his ancestry is all European, and she is black because some of her ancestors were African. But she is not really the color black, rather more of a light brown, with ancestry from many parts of the globe.

In Brazil, people are labeled not by race, but by "tipo," Portuguese for type, and some families have many tipos. And she is a morena, which means, roughly, brunette. "Americans think you can't change race, that it's like changing genes," Fish said. "But my wife can change her race by taking an airplane home."

Last year, the association urged the government to drop the term race from its census categories in favor of blurrier, but more useful, terms such as ethnicity that also reflect culture and the psychological tendency of people to label themselves.

Now, while strict racial categories are not being abandoned altogether, censuses will permit people to list themselves in several races if they so choose. Since 1900, 26 different racial categories have been used in various censuses, including Hindu and Mexican. At the turn of the century in the United States, Italians, the Irish, and xxxs were all thought to be racial groups.

Nearly all college textbooks have long since dropped the idea that humanity can be neatly, or even sloppily, divided into races.

And a recent survey found that some experts in the 19th century graded humanity into as many as 300 races. Even current encyclopedias routinely list as many as nine races (African, American Indian, Asian, Australian, European, Indian,Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian).

In years past, children of mixed marriages "were assigned the racial (and legal) status of the more subordinate parent," said Faye Harrison, an anthropologist at the University of South Carolina. "That rule, called . . . the 'one drop rule' (for one drop of blood), has worked to classify me as African American, period," said Harrison. "Despite the fact that I, like most other African Americans I know, have a mixed heritage and mixed 'race' genealogy. But that multicultural or multiracial reality is part of my extended family's private transcript, not our public identity as blacks, as African Americans."

Studies show that the ancestry of American blacks is about 70 percent African, with the rest European and American Indian.

Stanford geneticist Cavalli- Sforza and his colleagues are collecting genes from traditional peoples all over the world. From them, they can get a good idea how past populations migrated and intermingled.

The gradients, or rate of change from place to place, "are all gradual. The idea of race is not tenable," Cavalli-Sforza added. The geographic patterns of some sets of genes do not match other sets of genes, showing clearly that human populations have been merging, migrating, and intermarrying from the start.

While some racist groups may believe there once were pure African or Nordic or other races, genes tell a different story, according to Alan R. Templeton, a biologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Still, anthropologists know they have a hard sell.

"Teaching that racial categories lack biological validity can be as much of a challenge as teaching in the 17th century that the Earth goes around the sun," said Marks.

[Fadix]

"Scientists: Idea of Race is Only Skin Deep," by Robert Boyd, Miami Herald (Oct. 13, 1996; p. 14A):

WASHINGTON -- Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups. Contrary to widespread public opinion, researchers no longer believe that races are distinct biological categories created by differences in the genes that people inherit from their parents...."Race has no basic biological reality," said Jonathan Marks, a Yale University biologist....Instead, a majority of biologists and anthropologists, drawing on a growing body of evidence accumulated since the 1970s, have concluded that race is a social, cultural and political concept based largely on superficial appearances. "In the social sense race is a reality. In the scientific sense, it is not," said Michael Omi, a specialist in ethnic studies at the University of California at Berkeley.

The idea that races are not the product of human genes may seem to contradict common sense. "The average citizen reacts with frank disbelief when told there is no such thing as race," said C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan. "The skeptical layman will shake his head and regard this as further evidence of the innate silliness of those who call themselves intellectuals."

The new understanding of race draws on work in many fields. "Vast new data in human biology, prehistory and paleontology...have completely revamped the traditional notions," said Solomon Katz, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. This is a switch from the prevailing dogma of the 19th and much of the 20th century. During that period most scientists believed that humans could be sorted into a few...inherited racial types....As recently as 1985, anthropologists split 50-50 when one of their number, Leonard Lieberman of Central Michigan University, asked in a survey if they believe in the existence of separate biological races....As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race....[T]he revised concept of race...reflects recent scientific work with DNA...."We are beginning to get good data at the DNA level," said a Yale geneticist, Kenneth Kidd....[which]"support the concept that you can't draw boundaries around races."

[Darorinag]

Thanks to spectacular advances in molecular biology and genetics, most scientists now reject the concept of race as a valid way to divide human beings into separate groups.
Bias?

As a sign of the change, Lieberman said most anthropology textbooks published in this decade [the 1990s] have stopped teaching the concept of biological race....
What I don't understand is how they claim that there are no races, yet use terms such as Negroid, Caucasoid, Med, Nord, in anthropology...

--

December 20, 2002

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.

The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.

"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.

The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.

The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.

Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive" said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.

Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.

The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.

The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.

But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.

Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.

Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."

But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.

"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be," he said.

Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.

The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."

Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.

But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.

"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.

---

Notice above, how it's the sociological association is the one that claims that it's dangerous and therefore "wrong" that someone claims that races are different.

----

A view widespread among many social scientists, endorsed in official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association, is that race is not a valid biological concept. But biologists, particularly the population geneticists who study genetic variation, have found that there is a structure in the human population. The structure is a family tree showing separate branches for Africans, Caucasians (Europe, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent), East Asians, Pacific Islanders and American Indians.

Biologists, too, have often been reluctant to use the term "race." But this taboo was broken last year by Dr. Neil Risch, a leading population geneticist at Stanford University.

Vexed by an editorial in The New England Journal that declared that race was "biologically meaningless," Dr. Risch argued in the electronic journal Genome Biology that self-identified race was useful in understanding ethnic differences in disease and in the response to drugs.

Vexed by an editorial in The New England Journal that declared that race was "biologically meaningless," Dr. Risch argued in the electronic journal Genome Biology that self-identified race was useful in understanding ethnic differences in disease and in the response to drugs.

Racial differences have arisen, they say, because after the ancestral human population in Africa spread throughout the world 40,000 years ago, geographical barriers prevented interbreeding. On each continent, under the influence of natural selection and the random change between generations known as genetic drift, people would have diverged away from the common ancestral population, creating the major races. Within each race, religious, cultural and geographical barriers fostered other endogamous, or inbreeding, populations that led to the ethnic groups.

Common diseases are found worldwide. But though much less is known about them, they may be caused by different genes in different racial groups, Dr. Risch says. In Caucasians, mutations in a gene called CARD15 make a person susceptible to Crohn's disease, but Japanese with Crohn's disease have none of these mutations. Presumably a different gene, yet to be found, contributes to Crohn's in Japanese.

"It may be tempting to abandon the notion of race altogether," Dr. Risch and his colleagues write, especially if attention to racial differences should perpetuate discrepancies, but because of the leading clues provided by race to the cause and treatment of disease, such a course "would be detrimental to the very populations and persons that this approach allegedly seeks to protect."
An opposing article by Dr. Richard S. Cooper, of the Loyola Stritch School of Medicine in Maywood, Ill., is more skeptical. Doctors have been too quick, Dr. Cooper and his co-authors write, to suggest genetics as the reason for the greater susceptibility of African-Americans to certain diseases, when the true reason may be social factors. :rolleyes:

Dr. Cooper, an expert in the epidemiology of heart disease, agrees that some rare diseases are particular to certain populations, but he says the genetic variants that underlie common diseases are not.

"We can expect genomics increasingly to negate the old-fashioned concept that differences in genetic susceptibilities to common diseases are racially distributed," he says. For example APOE4, a genetic variant that contributes to Alzheimer's disease, is found in all populations, he writes.

But even with APOE4, Dr. Risch says, knowledge of racial background provides important insights because the risk conferred by the gene varies by race. Inheriting two APOE4 genes, one from each parent, raises the risk of Alzheimer's 33 times in Japanese populations, 15 times in Caucasians and only 6 times in Africans. This suggests that some unknown factor modifies the effect of the APOE4 gene in different races, he says.

Dr. Cooper is also concerned that if medical geneticists were to prove that race is a valid biological concept, then social and political aspects of race, some not so benign, might also seem to be validated. MY COMMENT: They accuse those who insist on racial differences of racism and political agendas, yet they have racist agendas too (arguably because they want to deny objective truth for the sake of an equality (on all levels) that doesn't exist.

"Race already has a meaning," he writes. "To invoke the authority of genomic science in the debate over the value of race as a category of nature is to accept the social meaning as well."
Two years ago an editorial by Robert S. Schwartz, deputy editor of The New England Journal, dismissed the idea of race as a scientific concept. But in today's issue another deputy editor, Elizabeth G. Phimister, says only that it "remains to be seen" whether continental-based racial definitions will help track the variant genes that cause common diseases.

Dr. Phimister concludes that it would be "unwise to abandon the practice of recording race when we have barely begun to understand the architecture of the human genome" and its clues to the genetic basis of disease.

She said in an e-mail message, however, that an editorial in the journal "conveys the views of the author only, rather than views germane to journal policy." MY COMMENT: She is afraid of being too politically incorrect. Only a few dare to insist openly on racial differences, at the risk of their careers. THOSE are the ones who are true to the traditions of truthful objective science.

Dr. Risch said in an interview that anxiety about the genome and race might have arisen among minorities who did not always feel in control of their own genetic information. Despite initial fears of discrimination, he said, xxxs had taken charge of the information about diseases more common in Ashkenazis and now accepted its usefulness.

"The more minorities we can get doing the research, the more these issues will dissipate," he said.

http://www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=405056178570

[Darorinag]

---

The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]. For example, studying 14 indigenous populations from 5 continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowxxxx et al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered into the five continental groups, as depicted in Figure 1. The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians; and the Native American branch included Mayans from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once again provided distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples [12]: "The results confirmed the integrity of the self-described ancestry of these individuals". Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups. A previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: "A tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is remarkable in that most individuals cluster with other members of their regional group" [13]. Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

http://www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=650768458843

----

Bottom line is: whether or not it was geographical location that caused the differences over thousands of years to develop doesn't matter. We are talking about the existence of races. And according to studies done on people from various groups, they have been grouped into certain races by genetic analysis.

[Fadix]

Dan, are you suggesting that the fact that almost all geneticist, anthropologists, biologists that claims that race does not exist are trying to be politically correct? Read one of the abstracts I posted regarding why the term "mongoloid" "negroid" and "Caucasoid" are still used... it is just a common word that has no scientifical bases.

Here another study on behavour. It is a meta-analysis, if you don't know what a meta-analysis is, it is the newest form of study to have the highest accuracy. What they do is they tak all the studies take off the two extrems, compute them again and recalculate the margin of error with the new mega sample. It was with this method that they were able to conclude that Aspririn was good for the blood circulation.

Lack of racial differences in behavior: A quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis

Kevin M. Goreya, and Arthur G. Crynsb

a School of Social Work, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
b School of Social Work, State University of New York at Buffalo, 359 Baldy Hall P.O. Box 601050, Buffalo, NY 14260-1050, U.S.A.

Received 27 October 1994. Available online 13 January 2000.


Abstract

Rushton (Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 1009–1024, 1988) hypothesized that racial group differences exist across a range of behaviors from intelligence to social organization. Such differences were then discussed within the context of an evolutionary continuum (Negroid < Caucasoid < Mongoloid). For example, his observations that blacks compared to whites are less intelligent, physically mature more rapidly, and are more aggressive and impulsive (less law abiding) were said to support the evolutionary hypothesis. Quantitative replication of the 100 studies included in Rushton's original `review and evolutionary analysis' and a meta-analysis of 100 randomly selected studies infer that any behavioral differences which do exist between blacks, whites and Asian Americans for example, can be explained in toto by environmental differences which exist between them.

[Fadix]

Here another one... Here from this gene Saudi Arabian Caucasoids would have to be classed as Negroids... this is an example why you can not classify races, because you will find similairities between people living in the same regions and differences with others, independent with any link with ones body colour.




A new HLA Bw16 subtype defined in both negroid and Saudi Arabian populations

Eka Williams*, Antonio Alonso, Patricia Doyle, Ralph Okoye, William Ollier and Hilliard Festenstein

From the Department of Immunology, The London Hospital Medical College, London E1, England

Accepted 25 May 1984. ; Available online 20 December 2002.


Abstract

Serological identification of a new HLA-Bw16 subtype, B39B, was made by tha analysis of reaction patterns of many alloantisera and one monoclonal antibody. The B39B pattern of reactivity was shown to be distinct from HLA-Bw38, Bw39, and 8w57. Cytotoxicity testing before and after absorption suggests that the B39B specificity belongs to the HLA-B7 cross-reactive group. The B39B was clearly demonstrated in two families. This antigen was detected in Negroids and Saudi Arabian Caucasoids but not in a large panel of British Caucasoids.

Abbreviations: PBS, phosphate buffered saline; BSA, bovine serum albumin NaN3 sodium azide; RAM-FITC, rabbit anti-mouse Ig labeled with fluorescein isothiocianate; SAH-FITC, sheep anti-human Ig labeled with fluorescein isothiocianate; MoAb, monoclonal antibody; FCS, fetal calf serum


* Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

[Fadix]

Here the most extensive study on Rushton r/K selection theory reject Rushton theory applicability.

I appologize to the moderators that this study is long, but since it is not accessible from the web unless you have access rights, I have to post it to make it accessible, and might post others as well.


---------

Cross-cultural evaluation of predicted associations between race and behavior

Peter N. Peregrinea, , , Carol R. Emberb and Melvin Emberb

a Department of Anthropology, Lawrence University, 515 E. College Avenue, Appleton, WI 54911, USA
b Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT, USA

Received 13 February 2003; accepted 19 June 2003. ; Available online 27 August 2003.




Abstract

Rushton argues that much variation in human behavior is explained by membership in one of only three genetic groups or "races" ("Negroids," "Caucasoids," and "Mongoloids"). Using previously coded data on the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, we find no statistical support for the predicted associations between "race" and behavior.

Author Keywords: Evolutionary psychology; Sociobiology; Cross-cultural research; Behavior


Article Outline
References


Rushton argues that human behavior correlates so strongly with genetic ancestry in one of three "racial" groups ("Negroids," "Caucasoids," and "Mongoloids") that environment has little effect [Rushton, 1988, Rushton, 1992 and Rushton & Bogaert, 1987]. 1 Rushton's ideas have generated intensely negative reactions and critiques (e.g., [Gorey & Cryns, 1995, Leiberman, 2001, Lynn, 1989 and Zuckerman & Brody, 1988]), but it would be a remarkable achievement if Rushton has found a way to reduce human behavior to such a simple causal model. His ideas should not be dismissed because we dislike their implications or because they do not reflect "politically correct" thinking; rather, they should be rigorously evaluated to determine if they have explanatory power. We undertake such an evaluation here.

Rushton's ideas are rooted in r/K selection theory [MacArthur & Wilson, 1967], which posits that there are two distinct poles to reproductive strategy: to have many offspring and put little energy into raising them (r-selected), or to have few offspring and put considerable energy into raising them (K-selected) [Pianka, 1970]. All species fall somewhere on the continuum between an r-selected strategy and a K-selected strategy, and their location on this continuum predicts a great deal of their behavior [Barash, 1982]. Sociobiologists have tended to see humans as among the most K-selected species on earth, but in applying r/K selection theory to humans, Rushton argues that different geographic populations of humans developed different strategies along the r/K continuum. He argues that humans initially evolved an r-selected strategy, and it was only after humans left Africa and began to face the challenges of new environments that more K-selected strategies evolved.

According to Rushton, three distinct populations of humans evolved. Africans retained a more r-selected strategy, humans who moved into the "colder" conditions of East Asia evolved a more K-selected strategy, while humans in between (i.e., in Europe) evolved a strategy between the African and East Asian ones. [Rushton, 1995] argues that these strategies are genetic in their basis and that they affect a wide range of human behavior, including social organization, family structure, sexuality, and even technological sophistication.

Table 1 presents testable relationships between "race" and behavior predicted by Rushton. These constitute the dependent variables in our evaluation, which we operationalized using extant data from cross-cultural studies that have explored these or very similar variables. All were coded for either the whole or a subset of the 186 society Standard Cross-Cultural Sample [Murdock & White, 1969], which mostly includes cultures described by ethnographers. The independent variable in our evaluation is "race" as Rushton defines it. Because [Rushton, 1995] argues that three distinct human "races" evolved as adaptations to environmental conditions and were established no later than 40,000 years ago, all the indigenous cultures of Africa should be parts of his "Negroid race," the indigenous cultures of Europe and western Asia should be parts of his "Caucasoid race," and the indigenous cultures of East Asia should be parts of his "Mongoloid race." In addition, it would also seem that the indigenous cultures of Oceania and the Americas must be "Mongoloid" because those regions were populated from East Asia within the last 40,000 years. , 2

However, Rushton does not consistently use geographic location to define "race." For example, in Race, Evolution and Behavior, he says that Filipinos and Malays are "Mongoloid" and includes Malaysia along with the Philippines and Indonesia in comparing crime statistics but excludes all three from his analysis of cranial capacity; that the Indian subcontinent is "Caucasoid" but excludes 26 Indian samples from his analysis of cranial capacity; that Amerindians are "Mongoloid" but excludes 20 Latin American populations (especially Bolivian and Peruvian) on measures of cranial capacity; and includes the Caribbean in crime statistics but excludes Caribbean island states as "European/Negroid" mixtures for the purpose of comparing cranial capacity [Rushton, 1995].

Although we do not support Rushton's division of the world's human populations into three "races," or indeed into any racial classification, it is necessary for our cross-cultural tests to follow Rushton's classification as closely as possible, which is difficult because his procedures are so inconsistent. Accordingly, we have developed three versions of the "race" variable, each representing one of the apparent definitions Rushton used., 3 In our first version of the "race" variable, we use geographic location., 4 We believe this operationalization holds most closely to Rushton's conceptualization of "race." In our second version of the "race" variable, we make subdivisions based on a more refined geography., 5 In our third version, we classify borderline populations based on language., 6

Table 2 summarizes our results. A glance at Table 2 makes it clear that Rushton's predictions do not find much support, regardless of how "race" is operationalized. Indeed, of the 78 correlations in Table 2, only 2 are statistically significant (at less than or equal to the .05 level) in the predicted direction. This is no more confirming a set of results than one would expect by chance. Even if we look at the direction of the correlations, Rushton's predictions are not supported. More of the correlations are in the opposite direction (45 of 78) than in the predicted direction. Rushton's predictions clearly fail our cross-cultural evaluation.

There are at least four possible explanations for why the predicted relationships between "race" and behavior failed. First, the failure could be the result of a biased sample. We would argue, however, that the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample has been proven unbiased in formal statistical evaluations [Gray, 1996], and any sample bias is therefore unlikely to explain the failure to support Rushton's predictions. Second, our use of coded data from other studies may introduce validity problems with some of the variables; that is, we may not be testing the precise relationships Rushton predicts. We would argue, however, that such validity problems would affect only some of the variables being tested, not all 26, as is the case here. Also, the rather obvious face and content validity of some of the variables, which failed (for example, frequency of extramarital sex), decry such an argument. Third, we may have misunderstood Rushton's definition of "race" and hence created an invalid independent variable. However, we would argue that our three versions of the "race" variable capture Rushton's inconsistent definitions. If his predictions were accurate, our results would have supported them.

Our final explanation for why our evaluation failed to support Rushton's predictions is simply that "race" does not predict societal or cultural variation in human behavior. This seems both an obvious and logical conclusion from our cross-cultural tests. There is clearly more variation in cultural behavior than can be explained by a trichotomy of "racial" groups. There is a vast array of research demonstrating clear effects of the environment on human behavior––indeed, entire traditions and subfields within anthropology, biology, ecology, psychology, and sociology focus on the effect of environment on human behavior. In contrast, "race" seems to be irrelevant to the task of explaining cross-cultural differences in behavior.

Indeed, we suggest that Rushton's findings, when viewed from the position of our results, actually support the idea that behavior is strongly influenced by environment. Rushton does marshal some support for a number of his predicted relationships for which we found no support in the cross-cultural data. We suggest the discrepancy has to do with the samples Rushton used. Many of his data come from industrial societies where "race" is a widely employed social category and where there is a history of social discrimination (for example, the United States, Japan, and South Africa). In such societies, as opposed to the broadly representative sample of societies we use, socially defined "race" differences might appear to predict some differences in behavior [Rushton, 1995]. But they do not predict behavior in the world of the ethnographic record in which, for the most part, "racial" discrimination has not affected daily life within the communities studied by anthropologists.

[Fadix]

References

Barash, 1982. D.P. Barash. Sociobiology and behavior, Elsevier, New York (1982).

Barry et al., 1976. H. Barry, L. Josephson, E. Lauer and C. Marshall, Traits inculcated in childhood: cross-cultural codes 5. Ethnology 15 (1976), pp. 83–114.

Barry & Paxton, 1971. H. Barry and L.M. Paxton, Infancy and early childhood: cross-cultural codes 2. Ethnology 10 (1971), pp. 466–508.

Barry & Schlegel, 1984. H. Barry and A. Schlegel, Measurements of adolescent sexual behavior in the standard sample of societies. Ethnology 23 (1984), pp. 315–329.

Broude & Greene, 1976. G Broude and S.J. Greene, Cross-cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 15 (1976), pp. 409–429.

Broude & Greene, 1983. G. Broude and S.J. Greene, Cross-cultural codes on husband–wife relationships. Ethnology 22 (1983), pp. 263–280.

Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 2003. LL Cavalli-Sforza and M. Feldman, The application of molecular genetic approaches to the study of human evolution. Nature Genetics 33 (2003), pp. 266–275 (Supplement) . Abstract-Elsevier BIOBASE | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE | Full Text via CrossRef

Ember & Ember, 1992. C.R. Ember and M. Ember, Warfare, aggression, and resource problems: cross-cultural codes. Behavior Science Research 26 (1992), pp. 169–226.

Gorey & Cryns, 1995. K.M. Gorey and A.G. Cryns, Lack of racial differences in behavior: a quantitative replication of Rushton's (1988) review and an independent meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995), pp. 345–353. Abstract

Gray, 1996. J.P. Gray, Is the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample biased? A simulation study. Cross-Cultural Research 30 (1996), pp. 301–315.

Grimes, 1996. B.F. Grimes. Ethnologue: languages of the world (13th ed.),, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas (1996).

Hammer & Zegura, 2002. M.F. Hammer and S.L. Zegura, The human Y chromosome haplogroup tree: nomenclature and phylogeography of its major divisions. Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002), pp. 303–321. Full Text via CrossRef

Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000. N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin color. Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106. Abstract | Abstract + References | PDF (3094 K)

Leiberman, 2001. L. Leiberman, How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton. Current Anthropology 42 (2001), pp. 69–95.

Lynn, 1989. M. Lynn, Race differences in sexual behavior: a critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 23 (1989), pp. 1–6. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE

MacArthur & Wilson, 1967. R.H. MacArthur and E.O. Wilson. Theory of island biogeography, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1967).

Murdock, 1967. G.P. Murdock. Ethnographic atlas: a summary, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967).

Murdock & Provost, 1973. G.P. Murdock and C. Provost, Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology 12 (1973), pp. 379–392.

Murdock & White, 1969. G.P. Murdock and D.R. White, Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology 8 (1969), pp. 329–369.

Pianka, 1970. E.R. Pianka, On r- and K- selection. American Naturalist 104 (1970), pp. 592–597. Full Text via CrossRef

Rohner & Rohner, 1982. R.P. Rohner and E.C. Rohner, Parental acceptance–rejection and parental control: cross-cultural codes. Ethnology 20 (1982), pp. 245–260.

Rushton, 1988. J.P. Rushton, Race differences in behaviour: a review and evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1009–1024. Abstract

Rushton, 1992. J.P. Rushton, Evolutionary biology and heritable traits (with reference to Oriental–White–Black differences): the 1989 AAAS paper. Psychological Reports 71 (1992), pp. 811–821. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Rushton, 1995. J.P. Rushton. Race, evolution & behavior, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ (1995).

Rushton & Bogaert, 1987. J.P. Rushton and A.F. Bogaert, Race differences in sexual behavior: testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 21 (1987), pp. 529–551. Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman & Brody, 1988. M. Zuckerman and N. Brody, Oysters, rabbits and people: a critique of "race differences and behaviour" by J.P. Rushton. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1025–1033. Abstract


Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-920-832-7684; fax: +1-920-832-6962


1 We put the terms "racial" and "race" in quotes throughout the paper because we agree with the common belief in physical anthropology that "race" is not a scientifically useful concept when applied to humans.

2 It is important to note that the actual diversity in human genes does not break down by geography in the manner Rushton suggests. Human populations have extensively moved and intermarried, and while single traits (e.g., skin color) may have geographic correlations (although even these may be related to environmentally specific adaptations such as exposure to UV radiation––see [Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000]), the overall pattern of human genetic diversity is not correlated with large geographic regions [Cavalli-Sforza & Feldman, 2003 and Hammer & Zegura, 2002].

3 Raw data for the three "race" variables are available from the first author in either paper or electronic format.

4 Societies in sub-Saharan Africa ([Murdock, 1967] region A=Africa) were coded as "Negroid"; those in North Africa and Europe ( [Murdock, 1967] region C=Circum-Mediterranean) were coded as "Caucasoid"; all others were coded as "Mongoloid." [Murdock, 1967] coding of world region for the standard cross-cultural sample is available as Variable 200 in the World Cultures data files.

5 "Mongoloid" includes the Asian mainland east of the Urals, excluding South Asia (which we have taken to mean India, omitting Assam and the islands in the Bay of Bengal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and the Amerindian populations of the Americas. Rushton also includes "the Northern and Eastern Pacific," which we have taken to include the islands of southeastern Asia, Micronesia and Polynesia, and aboriginal New Zealand, omitting New Guinea, Melanesia, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and aboriginal Australia. "Caucasoid" includes Europe, the Middle East (the Arabian peninsula, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, as well as the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt), the Indian subcontinent (which we have taken to mean India, omitting Assam and the islands in the Bay of Bengal), Pakistan, and Bangladesh. "Negroid" includes sub-Saharan Africa (since the borderline is unclear, we have omitted the southern part of the Sahara in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and the northern part of the Sudan), but excluding Madagascar and populations in Ethiopia and Somalia; we have omitted the islands of the Caribbean.

6 This third version of the "race" variable makes minor changes to the second version based on language data from [Grimes, 1996]. For Northern Pakistan, Kashmir, Assam, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, and the islands belonging to India, we placed those populations speaking either an Austro-Asiatic (Nicobarese) or Sino-Tibetan (Lepcha, Garo, and Lakher) language into the "Mongoloid" category and populations speaking languages in the Indo-European and Dravidian families into the "Caucasoid" category (we omitted Burusho and Andamanese because their languages appear unrelated to others). In areas that were part of the southern Sahara (in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and the northern part of the Sudan) and opposite the Arabian peninsula (Ethiopia and Somalia), we grouped those populations that spoke languages in the Afro-Asiatic family (also spoken in North Africa and the Middle East) with "Caucasoid" and those that spoke Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages with "Negroid." In the Americas, we excluded from "Mongoloid" all populations that did not speak an Amerindian language.

[Darorinag]

Fadix, you still haven't proven anything. :)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix "Human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within racial groups than between them. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective."

American Anthropological Association, 1998

This is misleading. The fact that there is "greater variation" within racial groups is because whoever measured gene frequences and allele patterns measured the similarities within racial groups, and not the different gene frequences or allele patterns. This is hardly objective. If one measured the many gene frequences which differ between racial groups one can get different results.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Fadix, you still haven't proven anything. :)

Dan, this is an erronous logic, what you are asking me is like telling someone to prove the existance of a non-existance.

You guys have claimed that blacks had smaller brains, you guys posted Rushters table with cranial capacity etc... which I have demonstrated to be erronious, now the rest regarding breeding and the r/K selection theory that was the rest of the table, this study show is innacurate.

In fact from Rushton own most accurate simples from US army personals we see that the Cranial capacity of the three groups was about equal, the technique used by Rushton to measure brain size is rejected by neurologists or specialists of the brain physiology. Two recent studies(I may post them in future) reject entirly Rushton claim.

The IQ differences between blacks and whites therefore has nothing to do with brain size.

You pointed out that blacks attend less university and have lower IQ. Dan, in Japan Koreans are considered as inferiors, they are of the same "race" as you call it, and in their IQ tests they score less than Japenese. In the past Polish xxxs in the US were considered as dumb, and faced a lot of discrimination, they scored in IQ tests under the general population, while now xxxs score higher.

We can reffer to Northern Irland, where Catholics are discriminated and considered as inferiors, they score 15 points lower in IQ tests than the Protestants. Both are "Caucasoid" like you claim.

Blacks are not well addapted in our society, they do not have models to follow in science like whites, they have models in sport and other disciplines that do not require much education, there is many factors, while biologically speaking there is nothing "found" wich will permit us to conclude they are inferior.

Now you must "prove" that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove, since you claim something. Explain me if there is such a thing as race, how come we can find more similarities between a black and a white than two whites or two blacks... give me any other example in the animal kingdom where you can find more similarities between two different races than to of the same races. There is NONE!!!

So, you claim there is races, it is to you to prove so.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Anonymouse This is misleading. The fact that there is "greater variation" within racial groups is because whoever measured gene frequences and allele patterns measured the similarities within racial groups, and not the different gene frequences or allele patterns. This is hardly objective. If one measured the many gene frequences which differ between racial groups one can get different results.

Not right, there is no gene that you can not find in one group and find in another... this is the whole point.

This means that if you find out that 70% of blacks have the marker for one gene, and that only 12% of whites have it, from this standard, those 12% whites would be considered more "negroid" than the 30% of blacks that do not have the marker. This is one of the main raisons that searchers reject the claim of the existance of races. There is nothing genetically that would permit to classify blacks, whites etc... if we were to use genetic to do so, many whites will be classified as blacks, blacks as whites, yellos as whites or blacks etc...

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Race: Anthropologists say divisions were made by man


http://www.gazette.net/200018/frederickcty/state/10106-1.html

by Walter Lee Dozier
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 2000


Evelyn Arias did not want to appear naïve when she asked her colleagues about a question on her census form.

But the 36-year-old Virginia resident was struggling with the section that asked her to identify herself in a racial category.

Both of her parents and grandparents were born in Costa Rica. Her mother has dark skin. Her father has light skin. She has Jamaican and Spanish ancestry. In Costa Rica, where she lived until she was 16, no one ever asked her about her "race."

"I said, 'Wow, this is hard,' " Arias said. "It asks me for my race, but I don't know what race I am. Is somebody supposed to tell me?"

Arias is not alone.

For more than 300 years, obsession with racial identity has permeated the social, political and economic structures of American society. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a chief concern for politicians, activists, educators and religious leaders, who are scrambling to right the wrongs of the past and anticipate the challenges of the future.

But there is a growing core of social scientists who say there can be no social solution to race-related problems until Americans confront and understand the biological myths related to race.

They say it is essential to question the biological legitimacy and acceptance of the popular racial categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (white, Asian and black).

Anthropologists, who have been noticeably absent from much of the current discourse on race, are at the forefront of this new challenge. They are among scholars in disciplines such as biology, genetics and sociology who argue that nature did not make "race."

Society did.

Race and biology

"The notion of race has become a central theme for anthropologists because anthropologists were so critical in the development of the notion of race," said Leith Mullings, an anthropologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. "Physical anthropology came into its own because of the concept of race."

The word "race" generally has been used and accepted as a synonym for "subspecies," which is defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. "Race" is mistakenly used to describe what anthropologists call human variation or diversity.

Human variation is the way anthropologists describe and explain diverse populations throughout the world. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south. But skin tone is not related to nose shape or hair texture.

Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or with curly or wavy or straight hair -- all of which can be found among indigenous peoples in tropical regions. Anthropologists say these variations render any attempt to establish lines of divisions among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

DNA evidence indicates that most physical variation -- almost 94 percent -- takes place within so-called racial groups.

This is misrespresented twisting of facts to push for the case that "there are no races" by not giving readers information that the so called similarities within racial groups is because scientists measured only those markers which are similar in between populations and not those that are different. Any one familiar with the basics of genetics who has read up on it can see the obvious manipulation here, even Cforza and Gould admit to this.

Originally posted by Fadix Americans are socially conditioned to view race as biologically natural and based on visible physical differences, such as skin color, hair texture, eye color, appearance and nose shape.

But scientific evidence shows that these physical traits have more to do with environmental factors than biogenetics. Thus, from a scientific perspective, race has no intrinsic relationship to human variation. It simply reflects the social meaning that has been imposed upon the variation.

And let's not forget the evidence that indicates differences is totally neglected here. What scientists accused Rushton of doing, of not telling readers of the evidence contrary, is done by this article. Moreover, races differ culturally, as culture is a product of a given people.

Originally posted by Fadix Anthropologists argue that the consequence of continued use of outdated and confusing classifying terms is not a trivial issue.

"Over the years, and certainly today, the concept of race has contributed far more to misunderstanding and conflict among humans than it has to understanding and cooperation," said Alvin Wolfe, an anthropologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa. "For the past century, scientists have tended to confirm a European cultural belief that humans could be usefully categorized into three basic types -- Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid."

As science improved, Wolfe said, it became clear that human variation was much more complicated than racial classifications allow.

This is an indirect way of saying "there are differences" but we shouldn't categorize them as they are "too complicated". Instead they will use the classification that "there are no races", which in itself is another form of classification.

Originally posted by Fadix Scientific evidence also shows that the amount of variation among humans is less than in other species.

Most data about human variation come from genetic studies. These studies are quantifiable and replicable.

They show that regardless of how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as are two people from any two different racial groups.

It's amazing how many times this article has obfuscated the truth in order to push for ideological bias. The fact that two people within a race are more different than someone outside of a race, is a clear example of not telling readers the objective view, that genetic similarities are a result of measuring those similarities within groups, and not the differences, thus any scientist can come up with these results. Moreover, the genetic frequences and the "similarities" that are touted as "proof" we are similar can be genetic codes for simple things such as lungs, or esophagus, which all humans have, but genetic codes which show different diseases, or susceptibility to disease such as why blacks or Negroids are more likely to get prostate cancer and why their chances of survival are lesser than that of whites, is never discussed.

Originally posted by Fadix "Skin color is not an accurate reflection of genetic makeup," said Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Scientific evidence does not support 19th century notions of human variation. We are one race from a biological point of view."

Jackson directs the Genomics Models Research Group, which uses anthropology, history and ecology to develop models for the study of human genetic diversity.

She said U.S. society has placed far too much importance on the way people look and has misunderstood that visual traits are a tiny, often insignificant component of overall human diversity or human variation.

"The physical traits have been overemphasized and uncritically linked to nonphysical assessments such as intelligence, morality and creativity," she said. "Especially in the United States where racial classifications are more rigid than in many other places in the world."

Sadly what Jackson claims is simply her personal opinion that the U.S. has placed far too much importance on the way "people look", is untrue, as evidence is overwhelming that race is more than just skin deep, and in fact reflects our temperament and culture. No two races have produced the same culture, that is the way it goes.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Not right, there is no gene that you can not find in one group and find in another... this is the whole point.

This means that if you find out that 70% of blacks have the marker for one gene, and that only 12% of whites have it, from this standard, those 12% whites would be considered more "negroid" than the 30% of blacks that do not have the marker. This is one of the main raisons that searchers reject the claim of the existance of races. There is nothing genetically that would permit to classify blacks, whites etc... if we were to use genetic to do so, many whites will be classified as blacks, blacks as whites, yellos as whites or blacks etc...

First of all, let's avoid trying to make up things as we go along. The point is that there are genes that one can find in one group, that one cannot find in another group. The same geneticist Cavalli Sforza who wrote the book, "Genes, Peoples, and Languages" who contends "there is no race", is the same person to engage in this type of mismeasure. As Daniel L. Hartl, author of "A Primer of Population Genetics" highlights this is entirely probable that one can measure genetic frequencies which are similar in all populations and not measure those that vary among populations. To state that "No this is wrong" is simply ideological bias. Those that contend races are different never deny the genetic frequencies measured that are similar while ignoring those that show variation, but those with the agenda of "doing away with race" are the ones who will not acknowledge human errors in population genetics.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Dan, this is an erronous logic, what you are asking me is like telling someone to prove the existance of a non-existance.

You guys have claimed that blacks had smaller brains, you guys posted Rushters table with cranial capacity etc... which I have demonstrated to be erronious, now the rest regarding breeding and the r/K selection theory that was the rest of the table, this study show is innacurate.

In fact from Rushton own most accurate simples from US army personals we see that the Cranial capacity of the three groups was almost equal, the technique used by Rushton to measure brain size is rejected by neurologists or specialists of the brain physiology. Two recent studies(I may post them in future) reject entirly Rushton claim.

The IQ differences between blacks and whites therefore has nothing to do with brain size.

You pointed out that blacks attend less university and have lower IQ. Dan, in Japan Koreans are considered as inferiors, they are of the same "race" as you call it, and in their IQ tests they score less than Japenese. In the past Polish xxxs in the US were considered as dumb, and faced a lot of discrimination, they scored in IQ tests under the general population, while now xxxs score higher.

We can reffer to Northern Irland, where Catholics are discriminated and considered as inferiors, they score 15 points lower in IQ tests than the Protestants. Both are "Caucasoid" like you claim.

Blacks are not well addapted in our society, they do not have models to follow in science like whites, they have models in sport and other disciplines that do not require much education, there is many factors, while biologically speaking there is nothing "found" wich will permit us to conclude they are inferior.

Now you must "prove" that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove, since you claim something. Explain me if there is such a thing as race, how come we can find more similarities between a black and a white than two whites or two blacks... give me any other example in the animal kingdom where you can find more similarities between two different races than to of the same races. There is NONE!!!

So, you claim there is races, it is to you to prove so.

Ahh the famous "you must prove that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove since you claim something". This is similar to Holocaust revisionists who ask the Holocaust defenders to produce evidence of gas chambers. In any event, we have already provided alot of evidence, more than enough to suggest differences in races. The best you have done is post ideological biased articles that dismiss the evidence, simply because it is "too difficult" and "too complex" to map race, or simply focusing on Rushton r- k- selection methods, in order to discount everything else. That is fallacious. Rushton has found racial differneces not in just allometry or breeding, but as well as 60 other variables. There has been endless evidence here that races are real, and the only difficulty is in classifying them. The "evidence" that race is not real is selective, by those that contend "race is not real" do to ideological bias, by cherry picking studies and data which show similarities, and ignoring those that show differences, and thereby touting that as "proof" we are all the same.

Heritability increases from about 0.4 in childhood to 0.8 in later adulthood. The way these heritabilities are estimated is through numerous experiments on twins, adopted children, longitudinal studies, inbreeding depression research, etc. Nothing in science can be proven however. We know of gravity, but it is just a theory. We don't know what it is, contrary to you attacking me.

So what psychometricians are claiming is that the best evidence, based on similar research around the world, from thousands of studies, indicates that intelligence is highly heritable. In addition, very little evidence has been forthcoming showing that environment has much of an impact. Some data from nutrition, pathogens or diseases, etc. but very little real impact on intelligence has been shown so far. The selective cases you have posted is only evidence of scientists measuring and counting only those studies which support their preconceived notions of race being a "social construct".

Moreover, the best evidence of racial differences is the civilizations these people produced. Sub-Saharan black Africa has produced no high civilization, thereby telling us the capacity for this group of people, and thereby their intelligence capabilities. The only reason people have a vested interest in "disproving race" is because they fear that somehow admitting to differences means racism, or is Hitlerian in its effrontery. And as for "racism" because of racial differences, that is already the case. That is why Blacks deny intelligence testing, have moved to ban it, use quotas, etc., hence affirmitive action is reverse racism, or all black schools and clubs. Hitler was right on eugenics though, on the case of heritability, and breeding those that are healthier, more intelligent, and more stronger, contrary to politically correct egalitarian scientists.

This has grown in a tautology simply because it is evidence against dismissal of evidence, and the rest is rooted in beliefs, and no one will let go of their ideological matrix to comprehend this objectively, or consider evidence contrarian to preconceived notions of how the world ought to be. We are not equal, but we should be equal. Races are different, but we shouldn't be different.

[Fadix]

Margaret Munro
National Post
April 22, 2002

Royal Nubia Lies Under Sand


Canadian archaeologists in Sudan, using magnetometers, have found a
2,000-year-old
palace in the heart of the ancient black civilization.

If his partner had not fallen into an ancient tomb and broken both legs,
Professor Krzysztof
Grzymski would have discovered the ancient Nubian royal palace even
sooner. Still, Grzymski, a professor at the University of Toronto and a
curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, is a happy archaeologist these
days. He and his colleague, who is walking again, have found what they
believe are the remains of a palace and a colonnade built more
than 2,000 years ago by the greatest black civilization ever. "It's
quite remarkable, we can see them clearly beneath the sand," says
Grzymski.

The discovery is in the ancient, and for the most part buried, city of
Mero , which was the royal capital of ancient Nubia. It is located
about 200 kilometres northeast of present day Khartoum. Mero ,
considered one of the largest and most important archaeological sites in
Africa, was at the heart of a powerful black civilization that
flourished along the upper Nile River from about 750 BC to 350 AD.

Grzymski and his colleagues plan to start excavating the palace and
colonnade next winter. But for now Grzymski is content to pour over the
grainy images generated by a device that allowed the archaeolgists to
"see" the ruins buried beneath the sand without digging them out.
Explorers -- and tomb robbers -- have long been aware of Mero and its
riches. But archaeologists were so pre-occupied with Egypt's pyramids
and kingdoms to the north -- and deterred by the political conflict in
Sudan -- they largely ignored the ancient Nubian culture.

Many assumed it was merely an offshoot of a more advanced Egyptian
culture. "Here you've got this wonderful civilization that was literate,
which extended over 1,000 miles, maybe more, up the Nile, and which
built pyramids and palaces and temples and at the same time was a major
centre of iron production, and yet it is generally unknown to scholars
and the general public," says Grzymski.

He has been intrigued with the ruins since the 1970s, when he studied
under Professor Peter
Shinnie at the University of Calgary. Shinnie worked for years with
Sudanese scholars on the ancient iron smelters of Mero . Grzymski
helped keep the Canadian-Sudanese collaboration alive through his ROM
work. And in 1999, he and archaeologists at the University of Khartoum
were given a licence by Sudan's antiquities officials to explore the
50-hectare site of Mero . About 10 hectares of the ancient city had
been excavated in the early 1900s by British archaeologists. But most
remains entombed under sand and shrubs.

The archaeologists had a hunch about where the best ruins lay. But they
wanted to be sure. "You can spend weeks and weeks digging nothing," he
says. To find the most promising areas, Grzymski recruited Tomasz
Herbich, a Polish archaeologist and geophysicist who specializes in
using magnetometers to find buried ruins. Magnetometers are
sophisticated versions of the hand-held devices people use to find coins
on beaches and parks. They can differentiate between the magnetic
properties of materials -- such as sand, pottery, bricks -- and feed the
readings into a computer. The readings then generate maps.

Just before the archaeologists were to start scanning the Mero site
in the 2000-2001 season, Herbich, who works on ruins throughout northern
Africa, fell into an abandoned ancient tomb in Egypt, breaking both his
legs and injuring his spine. "It was a terrible accident," says
Grzymski. And it set the Mero scan back by one year.

In February, Hebrich and his magnetometer went to the Sudan site. Within
days, Herbich homed in on the palace and colonnade. The palace, about
400 square metres in area, is about a half a metre beneath the surface
of the sand. "There are traces of staircases, so it suggests there
must have been upper floors," Grzymski says. The street in front of
the building also came into view. To their surprise, they found what
appears to be a colonnade near one of the gates to the ancient city. "We
were absolutely delighted," says Grzymski. "It's really fascinating when
you can see the urban design without excavating."

In October, Grzymski will return to Mero to start digging with his
Sudanese partners. It remains to be seen what treasure lies beneath the
sand, but the materials uncovered in the region over the years have made
it clear the Nubian civilization was a powerful, inventive society. The
most incredible find was made almost 200 years ago in a pyramid near
Mero . An Italian physician and tomb robber known as Ferlini
accompanied an Ottoman invasion of Sudan in 1821 and discovered
exquisite gold amulets, signet rings and necklaces by blasting open the
pyramid of Queen Amanishakheto, one of Nubia's most powerful rulers.

Ferlini tried to sell the treasure when he returned to Europe. But
collectors would not believe such treasure could come from black Africa.
They thought he was trying to pass off fakes, says Grzymski. "They were
xxxels of great quality and beauty and often influenced by Greek art,
which was really a surprise," he says. "People didn't expect deep in the
heart of Africa depictions resembling those of Egyptian or classical
Greek art." The ancient Nubians exchanged plenty of ideas and goods with
cultures around them. Nubian pyramids, monuments and xxxels were clearly
influenced by Egyptian, Mediterranean and Arabian cultures. "They
worshiped many of the same gods as the Egyptians and the royalty was
buried in pyramids," says Grzymski.

Some of their pottery and burial talismans predate similar discoveries
in Egypt, indicating Nubia may have influenced the Egyptians rather than
the other way around. At the height of their culture, Nubian kings are
said to have ruled Egypt from 750 to 650 BC. They were driven south by
the Syrians, says Grzymski. Ancient trash heaps have revealed many
details of daily life for the Nubians. Olive pits suggest the Nubians
either imported olives from the Mediterranean or grew them on the banks
of the Nile.

And the animal bones they left behind reveal much about the climate and
environment they lived in. Along with sheep and goats, the Nubians
consumed gazelle, antelope, warthogs and other wild animals now seldom
seen in Sudan. The bones, and ancient water reservoirs, suggest rainfall
patterns have changed in the past 2000 years, shifting 300 to 400
kilometres to the south. "There has been quite a change in environment,"
says Grzymski.
But it is the Nubians' written language that he finds most intriguing.
Borrowing 24 signs from
Egyptian hieroglyphics and using them as an alphabet, they developed
their own writing system, Grzymski says. "It's the second-oldest writing
system in Africa, but it has still not been deciphered." So far, 1,500
inscriptions written in the ancient Nubian language have been found, but
no one knows what they mean. Grzymski and his colleagues are sure to
find more as they continue excavating.

While finding more palaces would make Grzymiski happy, what he would
most like to find is some manner of bilingual inscription to enable
scholars to unlock the messages left by the Nubian people. He says the
archaeologists need something like a Rosetta Stone, the famed slab of
black basalt inscribed in Greek text and Egyptian hieroglyphs that
enabled scholars in the early 1800s to decipher the Egyptian writings.

[Anonymouse]

During this race discussion and my searches on google, I came across this one web-page www.white-history.com, by Arthur Kemp. Now I am aware that this a "white nationalist" and he has "bias", but then again everyone has "bias". Moreover, Arthur Kemp provides a thesis into something that I have long been interested in but never had time to get into it, namely the rise and fall of civilizations based on race. There are things which I do not agree with Arthur Kemp and certain claims made that I find too weak. Beyond that I am interested in the macro history it presents.

Of course for the sake of objectivity there is a website that is a childish refutation of Arthur Kemp http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/ and they go into all the arguments of why there are no differences, mostly a verbal tug of war; a case of one says something over another.

Of course what I found most startling is the fact the refutation doesn't seem to challenge Kemp's main claim that all civilizations rise and fall based on model of who created that civilization and if they last, or are mixed and assimilated into other peoples' and cultures. The most solid example I can point to is the Roman Empire. And Kemp wasn't the first to claim this, as he uses the work of the noted Historian Edward Gibbon in his classic The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, as reference, and Hitler further developed the theory in his Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf recovered by the historian Gerhald Weinberg.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Margaret Munro
National Post
April 22, 2002

Royal Nubia Lies Under Sand


Canadian archaeologists in Sudan, using magnetometers, have found a
2,000-year-old
palace in the heart of the ancient black civilization.

If his partner had not fallen into an ancient tomb and broken both legs,
Professor Krzysztof
Grzymski would have discovered the ancient Nubian royal palace even
sooner. Still, Grzymski, a professor at the University of Toronto and a
curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, is a happy archaeologist these
days. He and his colleague, who is walking again, have found what they
believe are the remains of a palace and a colonnade built more
than 2,000 years ago by the greatest black civilization ever. "It's
quite remarkable, we can see them clearly beneath the sand," says
Grzymski.

The discovery is in the ancient, and for the most part buried, city of
Mero , which was the royal capital of ancient Nubia. It is located
about 200 kilometres northeast of present day Khartoum. Mero ,
considered one of the largest and most important archaeological sites in
Africa, was at the heart of a powerful black civilization that
flourished along the upper Nile River from about 750 BC to 350 AD.

Grzymski and his colleagues plan to start excavating the palace and
colonnade next winter. But for now Grzymski is content to pour over the
grainy images generated by a device that allowed the archaeolgists to
"see" the ruins buried beneath the sand without digging them out.
Explorers -- and tomb robbers -- have long been aware of Mero and its
riches. But archaeologists were so pre-occupied with Egypt's pyramids
and kingdoms to the north -- and deterred by the political conflict in
Sudan -- they largely ignored the ancient Nubian culture.

Many assumed it was merely an offshoot of a more advanced Egyptian
culture. "Here you've got this wonderful civilization that was literate,
which extended over 1,000 miles, maybe more, up the Nile, and which
built pyramids and palaces and temples and at the same time was a major
centre of iron production, and yet it is generally unknown to scholars
and the general public," says Grzymski.

He has been intrigued with the ruins since the 1970s, when he studied
under Professor Peter
Shinnie at the University of Calgary. Shinnie worked for years with
Sudanese scholars on the ancient iron smelters of Mero . Grzymski
helped keep the Canadian-Sudanese collaboration alive through his ROM
work. And in 1999, he and archaeologists at the University of Khartoum
were given a licence by Sudan's antiquities officials to explore the
50-hectare site of Mero . About 10 hectares of the ancient city had
been excavated in the early 1900s by British archaeologists. But most
remains entombed under sand and shrubs.

The archaeologists had a hunch about where the best ruins lay. But they
wanted to be sure. "You can spend weeks and weeks digging nothing," he
says. To find the most promising areas, Grzymski recruited Tomasz
Herbich, a Polish archaeologist and geophysicist who specializes in
using magnetometers to find buried ruins. Magnetometers are
sophisticated versions of the hand-held devices people use to find coins
on beaches and parks. They can differentiate between the magnetic
properties of materials -- such as sand, pottery, bricks -- and feed the
readings into a computer. The readings then generate maps.

Just before the archaeologists were to start scanning the Mero site
in the 2000-2001 season, Herbich, who works on ruins throughout northern
Africa, fell into an abandoned ancient tomb in Egypt, breaking both his
legs and injuring his spine. "It was a terrible accident," says
Grzymski. And it set the Mero scan back by one year.

In February, Hebrich and his magnetometer went to the Sudan site. Within
days, Herbich homed in on the palace and colonnade. The palace, about
400 square metres in area, is about a half a metre beneath the surface
of the sand. "There are traces of staircases, so it suggests there
must have been upper floors," Grzymski says. The street in front of
the building also came into view. To their surprise, they found what
appears to be a colonnade near one of the gates to the ancient city. "We
were absolutely delighted," says Grzymski. "It's really fascinating when
you can see the urban design without excavating."

In October, Grzymski will return to Mero to start digging with his
Sudanese partners. It remains to be seen what treasure lies beneath the
sand, but the materials uncovered in the region over the years have made
it clear the Nubian civilization was a powerful, inventive society. The
most incredible find was made almost 200 years ago in a pyramid near
Mero . An Italian physician and tomb robber known as Ferlini
accompanied an Ottoman invasion of Sudan in 1821 and discovered
exquisite gold amulets, signet rings and necklaces by blasting open the
pyramid of Queen Amanishakheto, one of Nubia's most powerful rulers.

Ferlini tried to sell the treasure when he returned to Europe. But
collectors would not believe such treasure could come from black Africa.
They thought he was trying to pass off fakes, says Grzymski. "They were
xxxels of great quality and beauty and often influenced by Greek art,
which was really a surprise," he says. "People didn't expect deep in the
heart of Africa depictions resembling those of Egyptian or classical
Greek art." The ancient Nubians exchanged plenty of ideas and goods with
cultures around them. Nubian pyramids, monuments and xxxels were clearly
influenced by Egyptian, Mediterranean and Arabian cultures. "They
worshiped many of the same gods as the Egyptians and the royalty was
buried in pyramids," says Grzymski.

Some of their pottery and burial talismans predate similar discoveries
in Egypt, indicating Nubia may have influenced the Egyptians rather than
the other way around. At the height of their culture, Nubian kings are
said to have ruled Egypt from 750 to 650 BC. They were driven south by
the Syrians, says Grzymski. Ancient trash heaps have revealed many
details of daily life for the Nubians. Olive pits suggest the Nubians
either imported olives from the Mediterranean or grew them on the banks
of the Nile.

And the animal bones they left behind reveal much about the climate and
environment they lived in. Along with sheep and goats, the Nubians
consumed gazelle, antelope, warthogs and other wild animals now seldom
seen in Sudan. The bones, and ancient water reservoirs, suggest rainfall
patterns have changed in the past 2000 years, shifting 300 to 400
kilometres to the south. "There has been quite a change in environment,"
says Grzymski.
But it is the Nubians' written language that he finds most intriguing.
Borrowing 24 signs from
Egyptian hieroglyphics and using them as an alphabet, they developed
their own writing system, Grzymski says. "It's the second-oldest writing
system in Africa, but it has still not been deciphered." So far, 1,500
inscriptions written in the ancient Nubian language have been found, but
no one knows what they mean. Grzymski and his colleagues are sure to
find more as they continue excavating.

While finding more palaces would make Grzymiski happy, what he would
most like to find is some manner of bilingual inscription to enable
scholars to unlock the messages left by the Nubian people. He says the
archaeologists need something like a Rosetta Stone, the famed slab of
black basalt inscribed in Greek text and Egyptian hieroglyphs that
enabled scholars in the early 1800s to decipher the Egyptian writings.

Well, that was an interesting read about the palace I must admit. I already knew of Nubia, otherwise it wasn't news. Is this the best example of a black civilization? Surely if we are all equal and we all started off at the same spot at the starting line, they could develop one that rivaled the Mayas, or China, etc.

[Darorinag]

Ahh the famous "you must prove that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove since you claim something". This is similar to Holocaust revisionists who ask the Holocaust defenders to produce evidence of gas chambers.
I don't follow. How is that similar, Anon? Am I missing something? Revisionists have proved that it's not possible for the gas chambers to have existed, since in the chambers that had holes in the ceiling through which the zyklon b could've been introduced, there were no cyanide residues found, whereas in the chambers that had no holes in the ceiling, there were cyanide residues.

In addition to the issue of doors and the way in which they open and the locks issue. I realise that's a bit off-topic, but I mentioned it to show that revisionists do not simply ask believers to prove their claims. they disprove them...

You guys have claimed that blacks had smaller brains, you guys posted Rushters table with cranial capacity etc... which I have demonstrated to be erronious
Where? How?

In fact from Rushton own most accurate simples from US army personals we see that the Cranial capacity of the three groups was about equal
"about equal" != equal.

Dan, in Japan Koreans are considered as inferiors, they are of the same "race" as you call it, and in their IQ tests they score less than Japenese.
I am talking about the average Asian vs. the average Black vs. the average White. I am not talking about variation in individual IQs.

In the past Polish xxxs in the US were considered as dumb, and faced a lot of discrimination, they scored in IQ tests under the general population, while now xxxs score higher.
Could be, but you haven't proven the correlation between higher IQs and social circumstances in this situation, have you?

We can reffer to Northern Irland, where Catholics are discriminated and considered as inferiors, they score 15 points lower in IQ tests than the Protestants. Both are "Caucasoid" like you claim.
Please cite studies that show that.

Blacks are not well addapted in our society, they do not have models to follow in science like whites, they have models in sport and other disciplines that do not require much education, there is many factors, while biologically speaking there is nothing "found" wich will permit us to conclude they are inferior.
They are very well adapted in our society. They have rights as much as whites do. Models have nothing to do with it. You are again talking about sociology, not biology, genetics, etc. We are talking about people like Kasparov. The myth of having a "hero" to look up to is BS. One doesn't need a model to be great. If one is great, one is great. period. Again, your position of insisting that since there isn't "evidence" that blacks are inferior in intelligence they must be equal is the same as mine (assuming that i REALLY don't have any evidence). Why? Because if you haven't proven something, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. It might be right or it might be wrong. Only in LAW does the "innocent until proven guilty work." You cannot assume that blacks are equal to whites when you have nothing to prove that they are (even if there is no proof that whites are superior to blacks either). Because you can't base a whole system of politics, society, justice, etc. based on an ASSUMPTION that has NO scientific basis.

Now you must "prove" that there is races in humans, it is not for me to disprove, since you claim something.
Again, you're using a fallacy here. Equality is not necessarily the "zero point", so it doesn't work that way. Your position is in no way any better than mine. That we still don't know it doesn't mean we have to stick by the assumption that both blacks and whites are equal. It means we go by what history shows us.

how come we can find more similarities between a black and a white than two whites or two blacks...
More similarities between a black and a white than 2 blacks or two whites? Please cite some sources for that one.
Humans and chimps share 99% genetic material. It doesn't mean humans and chimps are equal.

give me any other example in the animal kingdom where you can find more similarities between two different races than to of the same races. There is NONE!!!
You are using the animal kingdom as an example whenever it appeals to your hypothesis, and dismissing it when it doesn't. you still haven't told me why the "dog breed" example I mentioned (perhaps it was in the other thread?) doesn't qualify.

So, you claim there is races, it is to you to prove so.
No, dear lad. You must disprove my claims as well as prove your claims.

[Darorinag]

Ancient Nubians were 22% to 55% Negroid

Author: Fox CL
Filed: 28/03/2002, 03:01:29
Source: PubMed
Readers' Comments: (0)

mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile Valley.

Fox CL.

Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

PMID: 9158841 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9158841&dopt=Abstract

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag I don't follow. How is that similar, Anon? Am I missing something? Revisionists have proved that it's not possible for the gas chambers to have existed, since in the chambers that had holes in the ceiling through which the zyklon b could've been introduced, there were no cyanide residues found, whereas in the chambers that had no holes in the ceiling, there were cyanide residues.

In addition to the issue of doors and the way in which they open and the locks issue. I realise that's a bit off-topic, but I mentioned it to show that revisionists do not simply ask believers to prove their claims. they disprove them..

Let's stay on topic shall we? I know you are aching for anything to veer off into Holocuastianity debates, but this isn't about it. I merely made a reference to what Fadix said about proving the unprovable, since he says we claim race exists, and I merely made the same comparison to the Holocaust debate about those that defend the gas chambers as the method of killing cannot produce physical evidence of gas chambers, and use the same logic Fadix uses to then say that the onus is upon the deniers to prove that gas chambers didn't exist.

[Darorinag]

Anon, you can't use a false comparison and expect people not to go off-topic to point that out. I am not talking about holocaust, nor am I interested in bringing that debate to this forum. There is a revisionist forum for that. I was simply pointing out your fallacy. Please do not accuse me of something I have no intention of doing. :mad:

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag Ancient Nubians were 22% to 55% Negroid

Author: Fox CL
Filed: 28/03/2002, 03:01:29
Source: PubMed
Readers' Comments: (0)

mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile Valley.

Fox CL.

Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

PMID: 9158841 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9158841&dopt=Abstract


"Ancient Nubians were 22% to 55% Negroid" is not the title Dan you added that. The only thing this study shows is that in their genetic makeup there was sub-Saharan, the rest was probably other Africans, mostly Northern black Africans. We see now that your goal is not to have a debate or exchange informations, but that you have in mind that blacks are inferior so eveything that would show the contrary must be just fake...

You even have gone as far as searching on the web anything that would show that the civilization was not black. Pathetic.

And, before asking where I have shown it to be wrong, go at the other thread I have used Rushton own most "credible" study of US military personals. The rest of your post is of no relevency, and the Irish IQ is widly known and you ignore that, even Lynn in his study find it out, and he reject it by claiming that it was due to rurale circonstances or such reasons. But for him it was OK to include miners from the other part of the world disconnected entirly from society.

[Darorinag]

"Ancient Nubians were 22% to 55% Negroid" is not the title Dan you added that.
I know. I just realised that. I copied it from somewhere else, not from the main page. But it still doesn't disqualify what I posted. :)

You even have gone as far as searching on the web anything that would show that the civilization was not black. Pathetic.
Does it matter? As long as they are scientifically proven, who cares? You might think it's pathetic, but we all have different views of what is pathetic and what isn't. You might think scientific proof of the existence of racial differences, or the attempt to prove it at any rate is pathetic, and I might think that being politically correct and brainwashed is pathetic. Again, you are putting yourself in a morally superior position, without proving that your position is the right one. :)

The rest of your post is of no relevency, and the Irish IQ is widly known and you ignore that
Ignore that? Sorry but I've never come across it. If you have proof and sources, please cite them, I'm interested in reading about it. I've honestly not come across it.

And how similar is "widely known" to the pope insisting that the earth is flat? :D That it's "widely" known doesn't mean it's been scientifically proven. :) I never claimed that "everyone knows blacks are inferior in intelligence." I gave examples and scientific and historical proof to back my claims. Whereas the best you can come up with is, it's "widely known." Well, too bad, but I didn't know it. And chances are, if I didn't know it, a lot of people didn't know it either. So do "educate" us.

[Fadix]

Dan, your article is only an evidences that they were black, Northern Black Africans does not carry this marker.

As for Irish, just reffer to Lynn list where he give 78 as IQ. Are you telling me that you have even not pied attention to the studies of the persons which you use to "prove" your point? Is that what you mean? Another study reffer to their IQ as being 87. Just type Lynn and Irish or something such on google and here you will have your "proof"... I will not repost all the studies I have access to, this might put me in problems, I have selected few that I qualify relevent, and those are the ones I shall post. As I have selected few for my posts to louseyourname, and few for here...

Here anyother genetic research disproving the existance of races... I post them one after the other, while you still continue claiming I have not supported my claim... while I select relevent documents not found on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that.


----------

© Academie des sciences / Elsevier, Paris Concise review paper / Mise au point
Human genome diversity
Diversite genomique humaine
Howard M. Cann

Fondation Jean-Dausset, Centre d'etude du polymorphisme humain (CEPH), 27, rue Juliette-Dodu, 75010 Paris, France (Received 20 March 1998, accepted after revision 23 March 1998)

Abstract - Human genome diversity studies analyse genetic variation among individuals and between populations in order to understand the origins and evolution of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). The availability of thousands of DNA polymorphisms (genetic markers) brings analytic power to these studies. Human genome diversity studies have clearly shown that the large part of genetic variability is due to differences among individuals within populations rather than to differences between populations, effectively discrediting a genetic basis of the concept of 'race'. Evidence from paleontology, archaeology and genetic diversity studies is quite consistent with an African origin of modern humans more than 100 000 years ago. The evidence favors migrations out of African as the source of the original peopling of Asia, Australia, Europe and Oceania. An international program for the scientific analysis of human genome diversity and of human evolution has been developed. The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) aims to collect and preserve biologic samples from hundreds of populations throughout the world, make DNA from these samples available to scientists and distribute to the scientific community the results of DNA typing with hundreds of genetic markers. (© Academie des sciences / Elsevier, Paris.) human genome diversity / genetic variability / Homo sapiens sapiens I modern human origins and evolution / polymorphic DNA markers / Human Genome Diversity Project.

-----

One just has to look at other people to appreciate human diversity. Even within population groups which seem homogeneous because of a handful of prominent characters, one can see diversity among the members. This diversity is for the large part genetically based. When we look at the DNA level, with genetic markers from various locations in the genome, we begin to see the big picture, genome diversity. Indeed most of the genetic variation or rather genome diversity (70-80 %), as measured by variation of allele frequency distributions, is accounted for by individual differences among members within the same population, rather than differences between populations.

The two ingredients for studying human genome diversity are polymorphic markers and samples of individuals drawn from world populations. Initially, the markers were polymorphic gene products, so-called classical polymorphisms, which include blood groups and HLA cell surface molecules, immunoglobulin allotypes, alloenzymes and other polymorphic proteins, some 40 or so loci. Individuals from different populations in different parts of the world have been typed for these polymorphic markers and allele frequencies and their variances within and between populations analysed. Such studies were the basis for the quantitative attestation to individual human genetic diversity and to a much lesser extent to inter-population diversity, calling into serious question the genetic basis of the concept of 'race'. With the arrival of the DNA revolution, many more polymorphic markers from various nuclear genome locations have become available as RFLPs and, more recently, as the more informative variable-number-of-tandem-repeat markers, the minisatellites and microsatellites. Even the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) has participated in providing sequence polymorphisms. DNA markers are being applied, to date especially the non-recombining mtDNA (transmitted by mothers) and Y chromosome (paternal transmission) markers, to characterize increasing numbers of human populations. The concept of the importance of individual genetic diversity has been upheld by molecular studies. The repeated demonstration over the years with different types of polymorphic markers and members of different populations that individual differences account for most of the genetic variability in humans represents an important milestone for human genetic diversity studies. But the story does not end here.

Not surprisingly, it has been recognized that human genome variation in the present generation can help us infer aspects of the genetic structure of our ancestors, thus providing information about the history and evolution of (anatomically) modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. But to obtain such knowledge, it is necessary to make use of information from paleontology, archaeology, geography, anthropology and population genetic theory in order to interpret the genetic data. Evidence from Homo sapiens sapiens fossils found in Africa (especially east and southern Africa) indicate that modern humans were living there more than 100 000 years ago. Fossils found in other Old World continents ('out of Africa') suggest that modern humans were living in China some 60 000 years ago, in Australia some 50 000 years ago, in Europe some 35 000 years ago, and in northern Asia some 30 000 years ago. Evidence from archaeology, physical anthropology and linguistic analysis suggests that several migrations of populations from northern Asia were responsible for the original peopling of the Americas. The earliest migration, difficult to date, is thought to have occurred between 30 000 and 15 000 years ago, while the other two probably took place between 15 000 and 10 000 years ago.

[Fadix]

(article continued)


Based on this type of information, often of an approximate nature, it is tempting to speculate that Homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa and that migrations from there peopled the Old World continents out of Africa. What do genetic diversity studies have to offer in support of the speculation? Studies with mtDNA and Y and other nuclear chromosome polymorphisms show relatively constrained genetic variation of non-African populations that is quantitatively and qualitatively subsumed by the broader genetic variation of African populations, which is consistent with the fossil findings. The genetic differentiation among the out of Africa populations can be considered to result, in part, from the different founders of these populations who with their genes migrated from Africa to people other parts of the Old World. Thus, genetic diversity studies have amplified the useful hypothesis provided originally by fossil analysis concerning the origin of modern humans and their peopling of the world. And, like all useful hypotheses, Africa/out of Africa permits its testing with further diversity studies involving more markers and populations. For instance, recent Y chromosome marker studies enrich the hypothesis with the suggestion of a more recent 'back to Africa' component mediated by males from Asia. With further human genome diversity projects, expect the out of Africa story to be amended.

Human genetic diversity studies provide information on some of the conditions that keep populations different. The isolating effects of geography on population diversity is well known. Populations separated by geographic barriers, e.g. deserts, mountain ranges, and oceans and seas, tended to be genetically differentiated (different) before modern modes of transportation developed and provided support for inter-population gene flow. Another form of population isolation is linguistically mediated. In short, in order to reproduce it is useful to communicate (preferably before!). Genetic diversity studies have put in evidence remarkable instances of populations living virtually side-by-side (no or minimal geographic barriers) that show observable allele frequency and linguistic diversity between them. (Certainly other cultural attributes correlated with the language difference could account for this observation.) Starting with classical polymorphic markers and moving on to molecular markers, especially those of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, diversity studies have
shown that indeed language and allele frequencies tend to be correlated among populations. Intriguingly, there are now hints in several unilingual populations of differing Y chromosome and mtDNA contributions to genetic variation, in that the variation of the latter marker is increased as compared to that of the former. The conclusion here may be that the linguistic barrier is more readily breached by women through incorporation into a predominantly unilingual population.

Probably the most recent dramatic and novel result in human genetic diversity studies has been the sequencing of a portion of the control region of mtDNA extracted with great care from a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis fossil thought to be between 30 000 and 100 000 years old. This incredible experiment, following an admirably rigorous design, provided the entire 379-bp sequence of the hypervariable region 1, as deduced from many cloned, overlapping, short PCR products. This sequence was shown to differ markedly from the corresponding sequence of all known modern human mtDINAs. The mean number of pairwise base substitution differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mtDNA hypervariable region 1 (27 differences) is more than three times that observed among humans (on average eight differences). The difference seems to be sufficient to place the Neanderthal sequence outside of the variation that occurs among humans. This is an exciting result indicating that Neanderthals did not contribute mtDNA (and presumably nuclear DNA) to modern humans.

The above examples of results issuing from studies of human genetic/genome diversity show the importance in human biology of this field of research. The discrediting of a genetic basis of the concept of race, understanding the origin of modern humans and the details of the peopling of the world and the sequencing of Neanderthal mtDNA are hardly trivial undertakings, and there are many other interesting and important questions to be posed and answered. For instance, haplotypes, which are more informative than individual loci for the description of chromosomes of population founders, will become the genetic units for analyses of human genome diversity, which, in turn, will provide information on their origins, ages and evolution. The development of molecular polymorphic markers, and many of them, provides a depth of analytic resolution and power heretofore unavailable for, and is clearly impinging on, research design of diversity studies. The concept of genome diversity is clearly embodied in developing future studies involving markers drawn from throughout the genome, hundreds of markers that are highly polymorphic, as well as thousands of the more stable (less mutation and thus less polymorphic) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that detect variation on-average once every ~1 000 base pairs. Automatic typing of both groups of markers is reality and allows the equivalent of diversity genome scans of thousands of individuals. Put these together with methods for high throughput automatic DNA extraction from thousands of blood samples collected from world-wide population samples of hundreds of individuals each and with analytic methods for calculating inter-population genetic distances and evolutionary trees and describing in detail geographic variation of populations, essentially based on functions of allele frequency distributions, and one has the ingredients for an organized international collaboration on human genome diversity. Indeed, the Human Genome Diversity Project, after a slow start, is gathering steam, impelled recently by a favorable evaluation of the field by a committee of outstanding scientists and ethics specialists convened by the U.S. National Research Council.

The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) is a program for the scientific analysis of human genetic diversity and evolution. It aims to 1) collect and preserve biologic samples from populations throughout the world; 2) make DNA from these samples available to scientists; and 3) distribute to the scientific community the DNA typing results. The HGDP will be organized as an international collaboration of scientists who work on human variation (usually geneticists, physical anthropologists, paleontologists and archaeologists). Collaborators will provide blood samples from world populations and/or type the DNA from these samples. Collaborator activities will be coordinated by several major international repositories, which will be responsible for receiving and processing blood samples, storing purified lymphocytes and the leukocyte fraction from peripheral blood, establishing lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) and extracting DNA from these resources for distribution to collaborators. A database, containing DNA typing results as well as ethnographic information, will be developed and maintained online for collaborating scientists initially and eventually for the public.

Ethical issues play a critical role in the research design and organization of this project. Protection of the autonomy, privacy and welfare of those who participate in the project has been a central concern of those involved in this type of research. These obligations as they apply to individual subjects and, perhaps to populations, have been discussed and studied by the organizers of the proposed project, as well as by a subcommittee of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee and the U.S. National Research Council. The project requires a challenging application of the ethical principles used in other aspects of human genetics research.

A preliminary project is planned that would bring together some 500-1 000 already-existing LCLs from populations in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. DNA from these LCLs will be distributed to collaborating scientists for testing with various micro-satellite and, perhaps, SNP markers in order to develop a common panel of hundreds (to thousands) of markers for use in the HGDP program. These cell lines are expected to be gathered this year. The research program will then follow. The goals of the extended research program are to obtain blood samples from 100 to 250 individuals from each of 400 populations located in 33 geographic regions of the world. The results of typing the DNAs from this collection will be included in a human genetic variation database.

Two eminent French institutions, the Musee de I'homme and the Fondation Jean-Dausset - Centre d'etude du polymorphisme humain (CEPH), both in Paris, will contribute in major ways to the HGDP. The former institution has a superb fossil collection including specimens from ancient humans (e.g. Homo sapiens neanderthalen-sis and early Homo sapiens sapiens), and scientists who are heavily involved in human genome diversity studies are associated with the museum. The CEPH is presently expected to serve as one of the major HGDP coordinating repositories dealing mostly with sample collections from Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and West Asia.

The combined coding sequences of the 80 000 or more human genes account for about 3 % of the total genome sequence. Many of the coding sequences are thought to be monomorphic, presumably fixed in all human populations, although their sequencing and then re-sequencing in population samples is awaited with great interest. Other genes, as well as many non-coding sequences, are already known to be polymorphic and contribute to a unique genome for each human individual (monozygotic twins excepted). The almost six billion living humans are distributed among distinct populations throughout the world, and the members of each tend to share cultural traits as well as alleles at various loci which give rise to characteristic allele frequency distributions. Observations, at the DNA level, of the genetic structure of living human populations will help us infer our history, pre-his-tory and origins. The HGDP will permit the large scale organization and examination of the details of human genome diversity with the ultimate goal of an improved understanding of human evolution.


C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie / Life Sciences
1998.321,443-446

[Fadix]

Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality? A critique of Lynn's (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality

Marvin Zuckerman,

Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Received 1 April 2002; revised 30 May 2002; accepted 6 November 2002. ; Available online 30 August 2003.


Abstract

Lynn's claim that certain races or ethnic groups have a higher incidence of psychopathic personality is not substantiated by large scale community studies in America that show no differences between these groups in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. No consistent racial differences are found in traits closely associated with psychopathy, sensation seeking and psychoticism, and, Lynn to the contrary, the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the MMPI. Antisocial behavior in Blacks is less related to personality than in Whites. The results on criminality are not compatible with Rushton's r/K theory of evolutionary selection, as claimed by Lynn, because Native Americans and Hispanic groups are of Siberian Mongoloid origin in the case of the former and mixed Central-American Indian and Spanish Caucasoid in the case of the latter. The differences between African-American, Native-American, Hispanic, and European-American groups in antisocial behavior seems to be more a function of social class, historical circumstance, and their position in Western society rather than racial genetics. Following [Rushton, 1988 and Lynn, 2002] has presented a pastiche of population statistics on delinquency, criminal and sexual behavior, truancy, parenting, aggression, and disorders like Conduct Disorder (CD) and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to support the hypotheses that: (1) the races and ethnic groups differ in the incidence of "psychopathic personality"; (2) these population differences are based in strong part to genetic differences between the populations; (3) the differences have their distal origins in the different evolutionary histories of the races (Rushton's r–K theory of race differences). Lynn claims that Rushton's theory "...has now become widely accepted by scholars", citing only those who support the theory and ignoring those who have criticized it ( [Lynn, 1989, Weizmann et al., 1990, Zuckerman, 1990 and Zuckerman and Brody, 1988]). Consequently, some of those criticisms as well as those based on more recent data are addressed to the specific arguments in Lynn's article.

Author Keywords: Race; Ethnicity; Antisocial personality; Genetics; Evolution

--------

1. Diagnosis and ratings

At the offset, a distinction must be made between psychopathic personality, now called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), and criminal behavior. APD is diagnosed only in those persons whose history of antisocial behavior begins before the age of 15 and persists beyond the age of 18. APD must be distinguished from ordinary criminality by personality traits that apply to all areas of relationships, not just the criminal world. Although criminal history is often used as a surrogate for APD, actual diagnosis must inquire beyond the mere history of arrests and convictions. Otherwise there is no point in the distinction.

Conduct Disorder may be a precursor of APD but the majority of delinquent youths change in the post-adolescent years and do not end as persistent criminals. [Lyons, 1996] has shown in twin studies that early criminal behavior can be entirely explained by shared and unshared environment with no genetic component; early arrest by an equal contribution of genetic and shared environment; and later criminal behavior and arrests by genetic factors (30–39%) plus unshared environment alone. This supports [Lykken, 1995] distinction between the "Sociopathic Personality", or subcultural delinquency, based largely on family and neighorhood environmental factors, and the "Psychopathic Personality" which may arise in any type of family or social class and therefore would be more due to temperamental-genetic factors. [Cloninger et al., 1975] reported that their data showed no genetically based differences in sociopathy between Whites and Blacks. This means that the differences in crime between these populations could be almost entirely a function of environment.

The most relevant statistics, therefore, would be the incidence of diagnosed APD rather than population statistics on crime. The Environmental Catchment Area (ECA) study is the largest community study of diagnosis ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). This study found no significant differences between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in the incidence of APD. Similarly, the other large community study, the National Comorbidity Study (NCS, [Kessler et al., 1994]), found no significant differences between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in APD diagnoses. Blacks were significantly lower than Whites in substance use disorders. Thus two major community studies, using standardized interview methods for diagnosis, found no differences in ethnic or racial incidences of APD!

These data would seem to be in contradiction to the larger proportion of the Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations than the White population arrested and imprisoned for crime. Fewer Blacks who are arrested meet the criteria for APD compared to Whites, but Blacks who are arrested are more likely to be sent to prison than Whites, even when types of crimes are equated ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). Criminal behavior is less related to personality in Blacks than in Whites. Less association has been found between ratings of psychopathy and personality traits in Blacks than in Whites ( [Kosson et al., 1990 and Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995]). Both of these studies showed that a laboratory test of passive-avoidance learning was related to psychopathy in Whites but not in Blacks.

The association between poverty or social class and crime is well-known. Lynn uses IQ to control for this factor in comparing racial and ethnic groups on behaviors that he considered indices of psychopathic personality. However, intelligence in the ECA study was related to APD diagnoses much more strongly in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). [Hare, 1991], summarizing many studies of the relationship between intelligence and ratings of psychopathy on his Psychopathy Check List, concluded that there was no relationship. [Robins, 1978] found that criminality is more related to socioeconomic class of origin in Blacks than in Whites. Control for social class would have been more appropriate in analyses of the forms of social behavior discussed in this article. Analyses of crime, illegitimacy, and similar variables in Almanac statistics are usually not controlled for this variable.

2. Test scores

Lynn interprets several studies to show that Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics score higher than Whites on the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Scale of the MMPI. Those who know this scale realize that a number of the items ask about antisocial behavior during childhood rather than current behavior. Furthermore it is incorrect to interpret the MMPI based on a single scale in isolation from the profile. Many groups with other kinds of disorders score high on the Pd Scale, but even higher on other clinical scales. It is only when the Pd Scale is high and accompanied by a peak on the Hypomania (Ma) scale that the results are interpreted as indicative of a psychopathic personality. But the interpretation of the single scale results, based on studies selected by Lynn, is contradicted by [Greene, 1987] comprehensive review of studies comparing ethnic groups. Greene concluded that in normal, prison, or psychiatric populations there is no evidence of any consistent differences between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans on any of the MMPI scales. The moderator variables of socioeconomic status, education, and intelligence were more important determiners of MMPI performance than race or ethnicity.

[Fadix]

(article continued)

3. Sensation seeking

Sensation seeking, particularly Disinhibition, or excitement seeking, is among the personality scales showing the highest relationships with psychopathic personality disorder ([Blackburn, 1978, Emmons and Webb, 1974, Harpur et al., 1989, Harpur et al., 1994 and Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995]). Lynn's review discusses other personality traits but omits this one. [Zuckerman, 1994] reviewed 10 studies involving comparisons between Blacks and Whites in normal children and adults, college students, general population, delinquents, and drug abusers. In eight of the 10 studies Blacks scored lower than Whites on the Total score of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), and there was no significant difference in the two remaining groups. On the Disinhibiton subscale, which is the most culture-free of the subscales and the one most highly related to psychopathy, there was no significant difference between Blacks and Whites in five of the six studies analyzing this subscale and Whites scored higher than Blacks in the remaining study. These results do not confirm the prediction that Blacks should score higher than Whites on sensation seeking if they have a higher incidence of psychopathic personality.

4. Psychoticism

Like Rushton, Lynn ignores the [Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976] Psychoticism Scale in his racial comparisons. The Eysencks broad concept of psychoticism includes psychopathy. Delinquents and prisoners are among the highest scoring groups on this scale, scoring higher than actual psychotics. I have suggested that the scale might be more appropriately called Psychopathy rather than psychoticism ([Zuckerman, 1989]). The scale is the best marker for a factor consisting of low conscientiousness, agreeableness, and socialization, and high impulsivity, sensation seeking, and aggression, all consistent with the psychopathic personality ( [Zuckerman et al., 1993 and Zuckerman et al., 1991]).

[Barrett and Eysenck, 1984] did a large cross-cultural study using a modified form of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire that was comparable across all countries studied. The countries included European, Asiatic, and African countries with populations predominantly of one of the three races. Among males the three highest scoring countries were India, Australia, and Hong Kong, the first two predominantly White and the last predominantly Asian (Chinese). The three lowest scoring countries for males were Israel, Spain, and Nigeria, two Caucasoid and one Negroid nation. Ugandan males scored in the middle range. Among the females the three highest scoring nations were India, Yugoslavia, and Uganda, and the lowest were Hungary, the United Kingdom, and Iceland, and the next lowest were Israeli and Nigerian women. Clearly there is no relation of psychoticism (or psychopathy) to the race of these populations, and the Nigerian group is actually among the lowest on the P scale for both men and women.

[Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976] state that the content scales of the EPQ, particularly P, cannot be interpreted without consideration of the Lie (L) scale scores. The L scale is regarded as a social desirability type of measure, although elsewhere they have suggested that it also might assess the trait of conformity. Conceivably, group differences in L scale might account for differences in P. If this were the case the groups scoring high on P should score low on L and the low P groups should score high on L. Although this general tendency is apparent in their data, a comparison of two of the racial/ethnic groups, Indians and Nigerians does not clearly support this idea. Among males, the low P Nigerian men did score relatively high on L but not much higher than the Indian males who were among the high P groups. Among females, the low P Nigerian women actually scored lower on L than the high P Indian women. The differences between these two racial/ethnic groups on P does not appear to be a function of differences on L.

5. Race and ethnicity

Whereas Rushton confines his theory to races, combining diverse populations within the descriptions Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, Lynn makes a distinction of ethnic categories, particularly Hispanic, in contrast to race. However, he still regards Whites, Blacks, Asiatics, and Native Americans as pure racial representatives of their respective groups. The 19th century conception of race is not widely accepted among modern anthropologists and ethologists. There is simply too much diversity in genetic types among broad groups designated as Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, to make these meaningful descriptions of populations ([Zuckerman, 1990 and Zuckerman and Brody, 1988]).

However, accepting the premises that these are races within the context of Rushton's r/K theory the data do not make a great deal of sense in terms of a ranking of races on psychopathy. Blacks and Native Americans score highest on psychopathy as defined by Lynn. But Native Americans are of Asiatic origin, emigrating across the land-bridge from Siberia to Alaska about 30,000 years ago. Asiatics, according to the theories of Lynn and Rushton, are the least psychopathic or the most conscientious of the three primary racial groups. The current Native-Americans are primarily a mixture of these early ancestors of Asiatic origins and Caucasoid groups after the European invasion of the North American continent in the 16th century. Why then should they have psychopathic traits equivalent to those of African ancestry?

Intermediate degrees of psychopathy are said to exist in the Hispanic groups, largely Mexican in these studies, who are mostly a mixture of Caucasoid (Spanish) and Central-Native American stocks. The racial/genetic explanation is not consistent in explaining the ethnic differences. An explanation based on history, poverty, cultural prejudice, and isolation from the dominant groups in the society is more reasonable.

6. Evolution and the r/K hypothesis

Lynn uses the r/K hypothesis propounded by Rushton to explain the purported racial differences in psychopathy. According to Lynn the source of racial differences is climate. He says that the problems of survival in the colder climates of Euroasia, affecting Mongoloids and Caucasoids. led to stronger bonding between males and females with greater commitment by males to provisioning their families, more responsible parenting, enhanced capacity to delay gratification, and stronger control over aggression and sexuality than in the tropical climes of Africa.

Stringent controls over behavior and the formulation of laws to govern human behavior probably originated in the early civilizations that formed in the warmer climes of the Mediterranean basin, the fertile African Nile basin, and the fertile crescent between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers in Babylonia. Agriculture-based civilizations, with their class hierarchies, required stability of residence and tighter regulation of family and social behavior, began in the warmer areas of the world, including Central America, tropic West Africa and the Sahel, the Indus valley, New Guinea, and the Andes and Amazonia as well as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Western Europe ([Diamond, 1999]). Siberia was the last place where stable law-abiding societies arose. The American Plains Indians were direct descendents of the Siberian Mongoloids and most of these tribes were hunters and gatherers even into the 19th century. They were not characterized by strong controls over aggression or cruelty. Neither were the ancient or modern Europeans for that matter. For prototypes of psychopathic leadership who can top the Mongolian Ghengis Khan or the European Hitler?

All of these kinds of retrospective evolutionary arguments are problematical. To suggest that the behavior of modern descendents of these ancient regional ethnic groups is a function of evolved genetic mechanisms which are specific to their ancestry is not a plausible hypothesis. The more recent history of ethnic populations is much more relevant. Psychopathic personality does have a genetic component, probably mediated through the personality traits that compose it, but the evidence suggests that it is equally distributed across ethnic groups. The indisputable differences in criminality and antisocial behavior between groups has both genetic and environmental sources, but one cannot generalize from genetic explanations of behavior within groups to the sources of differences between groups.

[Fadix]

References

Barrett and Eysenck, 1984. P. Barrett and S. Eysenck, The assessment of personality factors across 25 countries. Personality and Individual Differences 5 (1984), pp. 615–632. Abstract

Blackburn, 1978. R. Blackburn, Electrodermal and cardiovascular correlates of psychopathy. In: R.D. Hare and D. Schalling, Editors, Psychopathic behaviour: approaches to research, Wiley, New York (1978), pp. 157–164.

Cloninger et al., 1975. C.R. Cloninger, T. Reich and S.B. Guze, The multifactorial model of disease transmission: II sex differences in the familial transmission of sociopathic (antisocial) personality. British Journal of Psychology 127 (1975), pp. 11–22. Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Diamond, 1999. J. Diamond, Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. , Norton, New York (1999).

Emmons and Webb, 1974. T.D. Emmons and W.W. Webb, Subjective correlates of emotional responsivity and stimulation seeking in psychopaths, normals and acting-out neurotics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 (1974), pp. 620–625. Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE

Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976. H.J. Eysenck and S.B.G. Eysenck, Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. , Crane, Russak, & Co, New York (1976).

Greene, 1987. R.L. Greene, Ethnicity and MMPI performance: a review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55 (1987), pp. 497–512. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE

Hare, 1991. R.D. Hare, The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. , Multi-Health Systems, Toronto, Canada (1991).

Harpur et al., 1989. T.J. Harpur, R.D. Hare and R. Hakstian, Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment 1 (1989), pp. 6–17. Abstract

Harpur et al., 1994. T.J. Harpur, S.D. Hart and R.D. Hare, The personality of the psychopath. In: P. Costa and T.A. Widiger, Editors, Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (1994), pp. 198–216.

Kessler et al., 1994. R.C. Kessler, K.A. McGonagle, S. Zhao, C.B. Nelson, M. Hughes, S. Eshleman, H.-U. Wittchen and K.S. Kendler, Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry 51 (1994), pp. 8–19. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Kosson et al., 1990. D.S. Kosson, S.S. Smith and J.P. Newman, Evaluation of the construct validity of psychopathy in black and white inmates: three preliminary studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 99 (1990), pp. 250–259. Abstract

Lykken, 1995. D.T. Lykken, The antisocial personality disorders. , Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1995).

Lynn, 1989. M. Lynn, Race differences in sexual behavior: a critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 23 (1989), pp. 1–6. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE

Lynn, 2002. R. Lynn, Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002), pp. 273–316. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (257 K)

Lyons, 1996. M.J. Lyons, A twin study of self-reported criminal behaviour. In: G.R. Bock and J.A. Goode, Editors, Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour, Wiley, Chichester, UK (1996), pp. 61–70.

Robins, 1978. L.N. Robins, Aetiological implications in studies of childhood histories relating to antisocial personality. In: R.D. Hare and D. Schalling, Editors, Psychopathic behavior: approaches to research, Wiley, Chichester, UK (1978), pp. 255–272.

Robins and Regier, 1991. L.N. Robins and D.A. Regier, Editors, Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study, The Free Press, New York (1991).

Rushton, 1988. J.P. Rushton, Race differences in behaviour: a review and evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1009–1024. Abstract

Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995. M.H. Thornquist and M. Zuckerman, Psychopathy, passive-avoidance learning and basic dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995), pp. 525–534. Abstract

Weizmann et al., 1990. F. Weizmann, N.I. Wiener, D.L. Wiesenthal and M. Ziegler, Differential K theory and racial hierarchies. Canadian Psychology 32 (1990), pp. 1–13. Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman, 1989. Zuckerman, M. (1989) Personality in the third dimension: a psychobiological approach. Personality and Individual Differences.

Zuckerman, 1990. M. Zuckerman, Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American Psychologist 45 (1990), pp. 1297–1303. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman, 1994. M. Zuckerman, Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. , Cambridge University Press, New York (1994).

Zuckerman and Brody, 1988.M. Zuckerman and N. Brody, Oysters, rabbits, and people: a critique of "race differences in behaviour" by J. Rushton. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1025–1033. Abstract

Zuckerman et al., 1993. M. Zuckerman, D.M. Kuhlman, J. Joireman, P. Teta and M. Kraft, A comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993), pp. 757–758.

Zuckerman et al., 1991. M. Zuckerman, D.M. Kuhlman, M. Thornquist and H. Kiers, Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences 12 (1991), pp. 929–941. Abstract

[loseyourname]

It's a little difficult to see why you posted that, Fadix. You have just confirmed that there is, indeed, an observable genomic difference between distinct human populations. The degree to which you assign one to a particular "race" is really just arbitrary. The four races currently recognized are really just a result of the Nixon administration's attempt to simplify the US census. It is also based on the fact that there were four continents inhabited in ancient times (Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa). Perhaps aboriginal Australians should be considered a separate race as well, but they are probably not taken into consideration because there are so few of them. Certainly there is a great deal of variation between the peoples initially descended from these four large groups, but that hardly seems to disprove the concept of race. It just blurs the lines. The same phenomenon is seen in the rest of the biological world. The theory of symbiotic evolution is doing a great deal to blur the traditional taxonomic lines. It is clear that species once thought to have evolved completely distinct from one another have in fact shared a great deal of their genomes. Even the human genome shows a great deal of junk left over from past bacterial plagues and other such gene-swapping activity. The fact that races have both intermingled and sub-divided into distinct populations within each race doesn't mean that the races never existed to begin with.

[Darorinag]

Dan, your article is only an evidences that they were black, Northern Black Africans does not carry this marker.
THey were not 100% Negroid. They were mixed. My argument is not about mixed peoples, but more or less about those who have higher (90%+) Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid mtDNA. You are twisting my arguments.

while I select relevent documents not found on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that.
While I select relevant documents FOUND on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that. The very fact that they're not available on the web shows the very reliable nature of their studies... And of course, I don't mean just ANY website. I mean educational websites or journals. I have access to a lot of scientific journals, FYI. I only copy and paste relevant material, and I read what I post. You only look at the title, and if it's good enough (i.e. claims that there are no races), then it's good to post. Which is why you are constantly contradicting yourself.

As for Irish, just reffer to Lynn list where he give 78 as IQ.
Dear lad, Richard Lynn's estimate of Irish IQ is 93. See below. Where you got the 78, is beyond me. Perhaps he revised his findings. :D


National IQs Based on the Results of Intelligence Tests and Estimated National IQs (marked by *) Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries.

Note: IQ purists say anything within a four point range is considered the same or comparable.


Country - National IQ


a.. Hong Kong - 107

b.. Korea, South - 106

c.. Japan - 105

d.. Korea, North - 105*

e.. Taiwan - 104

f.. Austria - 102

g.. Germany - 102

h.. Italy - 102

i.. Netherlands - 102

j.. Luxembourg - 101*

k.. Sweden - 101
l.. Switzerland - 101

m.. Belgium - 100

n.. China - 100

o.. New Zealand - 100

p.. Singapore - 100

q.. United Kingdom - 100

r.. Hungary - 99

s.. Poland - 99
t.. Spain - 99

u.. France - 98

v.. Australia - 98

w.. Denmark - 98

x.. Iceland - 98*

y.. Mongolia - 98*

z.. Norway - 98

aa.. United States - 98

ab.. Canada - 97

ac.. Czech Republic - 97

ad.. Estonia - 97*

ae.. Finland - 97

af.. Latvia - 97*

ag.. Lithuania - 97*

ah.. Argentina - 96

ai.. Belarus - 96*

aj.. Russia - 96

ak.. Slovakia - 96

al.. Ukraine - 96*

am.. Uruguay - 96

an.. Vietnam - 96*

ao.. Malta - 95*

ap.. Moldova - 95*

aq.. Portugal - 95

ar.. Slovenia - 95

as.. Israel - 94

at.. Romania - 94

au.. Armenia - 93*

av.. Chile - 93*

aw.. Bulgaria - 93

ax.. Georgia - 93*

ay.. Ireland - 93

az.. Kazakhstan - 93*

ba.. Macedonia - 93*

bb.. Yugoslavia - 93*

bc.. Brunei - 92*

bd.. Cyprus - 92*

be.. Greece - 92

bf.. Malaysia - 92

bg.. Costa Rica - 91*

bh.. Thailand - 91

bi.. Albania - 90*

bj.. Croatia - 90

bk.. Peru - 90

bl.. Turkey - 90

bm.. Cambodia - 89*

bn.. Indonesia - 89

bo.. Suriname - 89

bp.. Laos - 89*

bq.. Colombia - 88

br.. Venezuela - 88*

bs.. Azerbaijan - 87*

bt.. Brazil - 87

bu.. Iraq - 87

bv.. Jordan - 87*

bw.. Kyrgyzstan - 87*

bx.. Mexico - 87

by.. Samoa (Western) - 87

bz.. Syria - 87*

ca.. Tajikistan - 87*

cb.. Tonga - 87

cc.. Turkmenistan - 87*

cd.. Uzbekistan - 87*

ce.. Burma (Myanmar) - 86*

cf.. Philippines - 86

cg.. Lebanon - 86

ch.. Bolivia - 85*

ci.. Cuba - 85

cj.. Morocco - 85

ck.. Paraguay - 85*

cl.. Algeria - 84*

cm.. Dominican Republic - 84*

cn.. El Salvador - 84*

co.. Guyana - 84*

cp.. Honduras - 84*

cq.. Iran - 84

cr.. Kiribati - 84*

cs.. Libya - 84*

ct.. Marshall Islands - 84

cu.. Micronesia - 84*

cv.. Nicaragua - 84*

cw.. Panama - 84*

cx.. Papua New Guinea - 84*

cy.. Puerto Rico - 84

cz.. Solomon Islands - 84*

da.. Tunisia - 84*

db.. Vanuatu - 84*

dc.. Afghanistan - 83*

dd.. Bahrain - 83*

de.. Belize - 83*

df.. Egypt - 83

dg.. Kuwait - 83*

dh.. Oman - 83*

di.. Saudi Arabia - 83*

dj.. United Arab Emirates - 83*

dk.. Yemen - 83*

dl.. Bangladesh - 81*

dm.. India - 81

dn.. Maldives - 81*

do.. Mauritius - 81*

dp.. Pakistan - 81*

dq.. Seychelles - 81*

dr.. Sri Lanka - 81*

ds.. Ecuador - 80

dt.. Trinidad & Tobago - 80*

du.. Comoros - 79*

dv.. Guatemala - 79

dw.. Madagascar - 79*

dx.. Barbados - 78

dy.. Bahamas - 78*

dz.. Bhutan - 78*

ea.. Cape Verde - 78*

eb.. Nepal - 78

ec.. Qatar - 78

ed.. Zambia - 77

ee.. Antigua & Barbuda - 75*

ef.. Grenada - 75*

eg.. Dominica - 75*

eh.. St. Kitts & Nevis - 75*

ei.. St. Lucia - 75*

ej.. St.Vincent/Grenadines - 75*

ek.. Congo (Braz) - 73

el.. Mauritania - 73*

em.. Uganda - 73

en.. Botswana - 72*

eo.. Chad - 72*

ep.. Haiti - 72*

eq.. Jamaica - 72

er.. Kenya - 72

es.. Lesotho - 72*

et.. Mosambique - 72*

eu.. Namibia - 72*

ev.. South Africa - 72

ew.. Swaziland - 72*

ex.. Sudan - 72

ey.. Tanzania - 72

ez.. Côte d'Ivoire - 71*

fa.. Ghana - 71

fb.. Malawi - 71*

fc.. Burundi - 70*

fd.. Cameroon - 70*

fe.. Rwanda - 70*

ff.. Angola - 69*

fg.. Benin - 69*

fh.. Togo - 69*

fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*

fj.. Djibouti - 68*

fk.. Eritrea - 68*

fl.. Mali - 68*

fm.. Somalia - 68*

fn.. Niger - 67*

fo.. Nigeria - 67

fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*

fq.. Gabon - 66*

fr.. Zimbabwe - 66

fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65

ft.. Gambia - 64*

fu.. Liberia - 64*

fv.. Senegal - 64*

fw.. Sierra Leone - 64

fx.. Ethiopia - 63

fy.. Guinea - 63

fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*

ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*

gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm

[Darorinag]

Sao Tome/Principe - 59
Equatorial Guinea - 59

You know, what I don't understand is how, if it's due to poverty and all that, poor Armenians do not score as low as 59... Hmmm..
Assuming (and a big assumption that is) that a gap of 15 is indeed marginal error, that makes it 59 + 15 = 74. Now compare that to the estimated IQ for Armenia = 93. Suppose that the REAL IQ is 90.. how much difference does that leave us with? 90 - 74 = 16.

Perhaps Mr. Fadi can explain that to us?

[Fadix]

Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? The marker that is found among Sub Saharian Africans is not necessarly found among other blacks elsewhere. This is only purly statistical analysis, but since you consider blacks as inferiors, anything that disprove your belief is just wrong. You are acting like a Turk here that no matter what one may provide, won't move an inch from his preestablished belief. The only thing that this genetic test demonstrate is that 40% of the genetic makeup were from Sub-Saharian encestory, the other 60% most probably other blacks who did not possess that marker or others from the region. In order to be more specific, we have to use other genetic markers which would permit to study those 60% left.

As for what I post, because they are not on the web, it must be because they are not relevant? You act exactly like a Turk here that uses this argument everytime I provide them references or studies or researchs they can not find on the web. Unlike what you believe, the web is not everything. And guess what, I have read every single word of everything I have posted, the article that louseyourname is reffering to, I had it in PDF format and had to use a OCD recognising program to convert it to vectorial format, and separate the two collumns into one and change the spacing and everything, and correct the recognition mistakes. So obviously I had to read it to do that. So your claim of me not reading therefore contradicting myself is just plain wrong. That article author says that differenciating races in humans can not be done for this or that reason... yes! Louseyourname might interprate it as support for the existance of race, but since you have even not read the article and have read louseyourname comment, you insinuated that I have no read that article, because the article was saying the contrary of what I affirmed.(what you believed based on anothers opinion)

And here again, you claim that I just read the titles, Dan, give me an example of one of the abstracts(not the newspapers etc...) from scientific papers I posted that could not be found on the web, that from the title it suggest that there is no races. Go ahead, give me an example. If you can not support your stupid charges against me, just don't accuses me of things which you can not support.

Now regarding Lynn, yes! he has modified his tables countless numbers of times... the one that I am reffering to was taken from here.

http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Lynn/lynn-race-iq-table1.html

Which was taken off, on the same table he gave 87 for the Spanish.

And another thing, it takes brain dommage to compare Armenia a country that the literacy rate is of 99% with a country where there would be hardly anyone understanding what an IQ test is, because the majority of the population is illetrate. But what can we expact from a Dan, that do believe things not based on supportable evidences, but because of his preconcieved beliefs.

For instance, here we have a direct correlation between your dislike of xxxs and your denial of the Shoah, there is as well a direct correlation between your belief of White superiority and the quality of materials you post. (95% of the materials that support your views on my access list of abstracts has Rushton as one of its authors)

The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America by Jared Taylor, Michael, M.D. Levin, Samuel Francis, Philippe Rushton, Glayde Whitney

Read this work, and to that matter anyone should read that work, and see they will even have the goats to affirm that those that wrote it are unbiased "scientifics" that should be taken seriously. What a joke!!!


Originally posted by Darorinag THey were not 100% Negroid. They were mixed. My argument is not about mixed peoples, but more or less about those who have higher (90%+) Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid mtDNA. You are twisting my arguments.


While I select relevant documents FOUND on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that. The very fact that they're not available on the web shows the very reliable nature of their studies... And of course, I don't mean just ANY website. I mean educational websites or journals. I have access to a lot of scientific journals, FYI. I only copy and paste relevant material, and I read what I post. You only look at the title, and if it's good enough (i.e. claims that there are no races), then it's good to post. Which is why you are constantly contradicting yourself.


Dear lad, Richard Lynn's estimate of Irish IQ is 93. See below. Where you got the 78, is beyond me. Perhaps he revised his findings. :D


National IQs Based on the Results of Intelligence Tests and Estimated National IQs (marked by *) Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries.

Note: IQ purists say anything within a four point range is considered the same or comparable.


Country - National IQ


a.. Hong Kong - 107

b.. Korea, South - 106

c.. Japan - 105

d.. Korea, North - 105*

e.. Taiwan - 104

f.. Austria - 102

g.. Germany - 102

h.. Italy - 102

i.. Netherlands - 102

j.. Luxembourg - 101*

k.. Sweden - 101
l.. Switzerland - 101

m.. Belgium - 100

n.. China - 100

o.. New Zealand - 100

p.. Singapore - 100

q.. United Kingdom - 100

r.. Hungary - 99

s.. Poland - 99
t.. Spain - 99

u.. France - 98

v.. Australia - 98

w.. Denmark - 98

x.. Iceland - 98*

y.. Mongolia - 98*

z.. Norway - 98

aa.. United States - 98

ab.. Canada - 97

ac.. Czech Republic - 97

ad.. Estonia - 97*

ae.. Finland - 97

af.. Latvia - 97*

ag.. Lithuania - 97*

ah.. Argentina - 96

ai.. Belarus - 96*

aj.. Russia - 96

ak.. Slovakia - 96

al.. Ukraine - 96*

am.. Uruguay - 96

an.. Vietnam - 96*

ao.. Malta - 95*

ap.. Moldova - 95*

aq.. Portugal - 95

ar.. Slovenia - 95

as.. Israel - 94

at.. Romania - 94

au.. Armenia - 93*

av.. Chile - 93*

aw.. Bulgaria - 93

ax.. Georgia - 93*

ay.. Ireland - 93

az.. Kazakhstan - 93*

ba.. Macedonia - 93*

bb.. Yugoslavia - 93*

bc.. Brunei - 92*

bd.. Cyprus - 92*

be.. Greece - 92

bf.. Malaysia - 92

bg.. Costa Rica - 91*

bh.. Thailand - 91

bi.. Albania - 90*

bj.. Croatia - 90

bk.. Peru - 90

bl.. Turkey - 90

bm.. Cambodia - 89*

bn.. Indonesia - 89

bo.. Suriname - 89

bp.. Laos - 89*

bq.. Colombia - 88

br.. Venezuela - 88*

bs.. Azerbaijan - 87*

bt.. Brazil - 87

bu.. Iraq - 87

bv.. Jordan - 87*

bw.. Kyrgyzstan - 87*

bx.. Mexico - 87

by.. Samoa (Western) - 87

bz.. Syria - 87*

ca.. Tajikistan - 87*

cb.. Tonga - 87

cc.. Turkmenistan - 87*

cd.. Uzbekistan - 87*

ce.. Burma (Myanmar) - 86*

cf.. Philippines - 86

cg.. Lebanon - 86

ch.. Bolivia - 85*

ci.. Cuba - 85

cj.. Morocco - 85

ck.. Paraguay - 85*

cl.. Algeria - 84*

cm.. Dominican Republic - 84*

cn.. El Salvador - 84*

co.. Guyana - 84*

cp.. Honduras - 84*

cq.. Iran - 84

cr.. Kiribati - 84*

cs.. Libya - 84*

ct.. Marshall Islands - 84

cu.. Micronesia - 84*

cv.. Nicaragua - 84*

cw.. Panama - 84*

cx.. Papua New Guinea - 84*

cy.. Puerto Rico - 84

cz.. Solomon Islands - 84*

da.. Tunisia - 84*

db.. Vanuatu - 84*

dc.. Afghanistan - 83*

dd.. Bahrain - 83*

de.. Belize - 83*

df.. Egypt - 83

dg.. Kuwait - 83*

dh.. Oman - 83*

di.. Saudi Arabia - 83*

dj.. United Arab Emirates - 83*

dk.. Yemen - 83*

dl.. Bangladesh - 81*

dm.. India - 81

dn.. Maldives - 81*

do.. Mauritius - 81*

dp.. Pakistan - 81*

dq.. Seychelles - 81*

dr.. Sri Lanka - 81*

ds.. Ecuador - 80

dt.. Trinidad & Tobago - 80*

du.. Comoros - 79*

dv.. Guatemala - 79

dw.. Madagascar - 79*

dx.. Barbados - 78

dy.. Bahamas - 78*

dz.. Bhutan - 78*

ea.. Cape Verde - 78*

eb.. Nepal - 78

ec.. Qatar - 78

ed.. Zambia - 77

ee.. Antigua & Barbuda - 75*

ef.. Grenada - 75*

eg.. Dominica - 75*

eh.. St. Kitts & Nevis - 75*

ei.. St. Lucia - 75*

ej.. St.Vincent/Grenadines - 75*

ek.. Congo (Braz) - 73

el.. Mauritania - 73*

em.. Uganda - 73

en.. Botswana - 72*

eo.. Chad - 72*

ep.. Haiti - 72*

eq.. Jamaica - 72

er.. Kenya - 72

es.. Lesotho - 72*

et.. Mosambique - 72*

eu.. Namibia - 72*

ev.. South Africa - 72

ew.. Swaziland - 72*

ex.. Sudan - 72

ey.. Tanzania - 72

ez.. Côte d'Ivoire - 71*

fa.. Ghana - 71

fb.. Malawi - 71*

fc.. Burundi - 70*

fd.. Cameroon - 70*

fe.. Rwanda - 70*

ff.. Angola - 69*

fg.. Benin - 69*

fh.. Togo - 69*

fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*

fj.. Djibouti - 68*

fk.. Eritrea - 68*

fl.. Mali - 68*

fm.. Somalia - 68*

fn.. Niger - 67*

fo.. Nigeria - 67

fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*

fq.. Gabon - 66*

fr.. Zimbabwe - 66

fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65

ft.. Gambia - 64*

fu.. Liberia - 64*

fv.. Senegal - 64*

fw.. Sierra Leone - 64

fx.. Ethiopia - 63

fy.. Guinea - 63

fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*

ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*

gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It's a little difficult to see why you posted that, Fadix. You have just confirmed that there is, indeed, an observable genomic difference between distinct human populations. The degree to which you assign one to a particular "race" is really just arbitrary. The four races currently recognized are really just a result of the Nixon administration's attempt to simplify the US census. It is also based on the fact that there were four continents inhabited in ancient times (Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa). Perhaps aboriginal Australians should be considered a separate race as well, but they are probably not taken into consideration because there are so few of them. Certainly there is a great deal of variation between the peoples initially descended from these four large groups, but that hardly seems to disprove the concept of race. It just blurs the lines. The same phenomenon is seen in the rest of the biological world. The theory of symbiotic evolution is doing a great deal to blur the traditional taxonomic lines. It is clear that species once thought to have evolved completely distinct from one another have in fact shared a great deal of their genomes. Even the human genome shows a great deal of junk left over from past bacterial plagues and other such gene-swapping activity. The fact that races have both intermingled and sub-divided into distinct populations within each race doesn't mean that the races never existed to begin with.

More or less what I agree with

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? The marker that is found among Sub Saharian Africans is not necessarly found among other blacks elsewhere. This is only purly statistical analysis, but since you consider blacks as inferiors, anything that disprove your belief is just wrong. You are acting like a Turk here that no matter what one may provide, won't move an inch from his preestablished belief. The only thing that this genetic test demonstrate is that 40% of the genetic makeup were from Sub-Saharian encestory, the other 60% most probably other blacks who did not possess that marker or others from the region. In order to be more specific, we have to use other genetic markers which would permit to study those 60% left.

As for what I post, because they are not on the web, it must be because they are not relevant? You act exactly like a Turk here that uses this argument everytime I provide them references or studies or researchs they can not find on the web. Unlike what you believe, the web is not everything. And guess what, I have read every single word of everything I have posted, the article that louseyourname is reffering to, I had it in PDF format and had to use a OCD recognising program to convert it to vectorial format, and separate the two collumns into one and change the spacing and everything, and correct the recognition mistakes. So obviously I had to read it to do that. So your claim of me not reading therefore contradicting myself is just plain wrong. That article author says that differenciating races in humans can not be done for this or that reason... yes! Louseyourname might interprate it as support for the existance of race, but since you have even not read the article and have read louseyourname comment, you insinuated that I have no read that article, because the article was saying the contrary of what I affirmed.

And here again, you claim that I just read the titles, Dan, give me an example of one of the abstracts(not the newspapers etc...) from scientific papers I posted that could not be found on the web, that from the title it suggest that there is no races. Go ahead, give me an example. If you can not support your stupid charges against me, just don't accuses me of things which you can not support.

Now regarding Lynn, yes! he has modified his tables countless numbers of times... the one that I am reffering to was taken from here.

http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Lynn/lynn-race-iq-table1.html

Which was taken off, on the same table he gave 87 for the Spanish.

And another thing, it takes brain dommage to compare Armenia a country that the literacy rate is of 99% with a country where there would be hardly anyone understanding what an IQ test is, because the majority of the population is illetrate. But what can we expact from a Dan, that do believe things not based on supportable evidences, but because of his preconcieved beliefs.

For instance, here we have a direct correlation between your dislike of xxxs and your denial of the Shoah, there is as well a direct correlation between your belief of White superiority and the quality of materials you post. (95% of the materials that support your views on my access list of abstracts has Rushton as one of its authors)

The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America by Jared Taylor, Michael, M.D. Levin, Samuel Francis, Philippe Rushton, Glayde Whitney

Read this work, and to that matter anyone should read that work, and see they will even have the goats to affirm that those that wrote it are unbiased "scientifics" that should be taken seriously. What a joke!!!

What is your point? We have a direct correlation with your belief in the Holocaust, with your belief in equality and no races, and the material you post. Is there a point to all this?

[Anonymouse]

It is racist to state that there are racial differences. Most researchers think blacks have more inherent athletic ability than whites. This is a scientific question of interpreting the evidence, and is just like evaluating the evidence for IQ differences. Notice how one is "racist", but the other is clearly never questioned.

[Fadix]

Stereotype Threat Effects on Black and White Athletic Performance*1

Jeff Stone, , a, Christian I. Lynchb, Mike Sjomelinga and John M. Darleyb

a Department of Psychology, University of Ari