Race

[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????

[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 Jewish genetics. The news accounts emphasized how Jews DIFFER from non-Jews in a genetic sense, and how a DNA-based study found that Jews have maintained their unique genetic identity over the centuries. One big message was perfectly clear--Jews are genetically separate from Gentiles.

Commenting upon the study of Jewish genetics published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, (NYT) noted: "The analysis provides genetic witness that these [Jewish] 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 Jewish exile of 586 B.C., when Jews dispersed across Europe and North Africa, Jews 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 Jews and Arabs, the articles emphasized that Jewish 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 Jews and non-Jews.

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 Jews and non-Jews 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 Jews and non-Jews can be found at the genetic level, and the label of "Jew" 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 Jews and non-Jews 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 Jews and non-Jews, 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. Jews are genetically different from non-Jews 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 Jewish political and cultural establishment. 10

Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that the Jewish-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 Jewish political and cultural establishment. J.J. Goldberg, JEWISH POWER; INSIDE THE AMERICAN JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996; Kevin MacDonald, THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE: AN EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS OF JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1998); Neal Gabler, AN EMPIRE OF THEIR OWN: HOW THE JEWS 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 Jewish influence upon the scientific establishment, see Kevin MacDonald.

[Darorinag]

The subliminal message may be the following. Jews are genetically different from non-Jews 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?

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

If Jews aren't a race, then why do they need an all-jewish country?

[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 Jewish 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 Jewish Holocaust, even though he is a libertarian and is married to a Mexican lady.

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?