Race

[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.



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

https://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.

[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?