by J. Philippe Rushton1, University of Western Ontario
Abstract : Presents information on a study which defends the concept of race against a coordinated political campaign to deconstruct basic biology. Information on a policy statement on race adopted by the American Association of Anthropology; Discussion on deconstructing race; Review on the differences among difference race.
This article defends the concept of “race” against a coordinated political campaign to deconstrunct basic biology. It briefly reviews some of the most reliably documented Black-White differences, such as those in brain size, IQ, violent crime, testosterone, sexuality and AIDs. Although these racial differences are now reliably found worldwide (not just within the USA), many in the media and scholarly associations continue to try and deny them or attribute them to “political circumstance.” “Statements on Race” made by organizations such as the American Association for Anthropology are discussed and found to be wanting.
I originally wrote this paper in reaction to a Knight-Ridder article (”Genetic Basis For Race Said To Be Just Skin Deep,” October 13, 1996), which argued that race has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man, seeking to defend the concept of “race” against a coordinated political campaign to deconstruct basic biology. Since then numerous other media stories have appeared purporting to debunk the reality of race, some playing off policy statements by scholarly organizations such as the one adopted by the American Association of Anthropology on May 17, 1998. Worse, governments have become actively involved in propagating the misinformation.
I originally wrote this paper in reaction to a Knight-Ridder article (”Genetic Basis For Race Said To Be Just Skin Deep,” October 13, 1996), which argued that race has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man. I disseminated the paper on the Internet and elsewhere, seeking to defend the concept of “race” against a coordinated political campaign to deconstruct basic biology. Since then numerous other media stories have appeared purporting to debunk the reality of race, some playing off policy statements made by scholarly organizations. Worse, governments have become actively involved in propagating the misinformation.
The most recent example of a policy statement on race by a scholarly organization is the one adopted by the American Association of Anthropology on May 17, 1998 (to be discussed further below). Yet the AAA Statement on Race is empirically false when it argues that “physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them” and that any observed group differences are the result of social conditioning and “political circumstance” (September 1998 Anthropolgy Newsletter, p. 3). To take one relevant example, consider the relationship between brain size and intelligence.
During the 19th century, physical anthropologists found that Blacks averaged smaller brains than Whites. Whether measuring the weight of the brain or the size of the cranial cavity, they consistently found a difference equivalent to about 100 cubic centimeters. The difference was well documented as early as the 1840s by the “American school” of anthropology, which included Samuel G. Morton, Joshiah C. Nott, and George R. Glidden. It was corroborated from the 1860s to the 1890s by European anthropologists, such as Paul Broca and Paul Topinard in France, who compared Blacks and Whites from Africa and Europe. Broca (1873) wrote: “West Africans have a cranial capacity about 100 cm[sup 3] less than the European races.”
The data on race differences in brain size were so widely known that Charles Darwin (1871) was able to cite them as evidence in favor of his then controversial theory of human evolution in The Descent of Man. Even Franz Boas, who is often described as the “real” founder of American anthropology and the first to challenge “Eurocentric racism,” added further knowledge about brain size and race by emphasizing the amount of overlap in the distributions. On a visit to England in 1889, Boas had became acquainted with Sir Francis Galton’s work on biometrics and, in his 1894 article “Human Faculty Determined by Race,” pointed out that Topinard’s measurements revealed that 27 percent of Blacks exceeded the White average. His inference: “We might, therefore, anticipate a lack of men of high genius (among Blacks).” And, he wrote, “It would seem that the greater the central nervous system, the higher the faculty of the race and the greater its aptitude to mental development.”
In 1910, Boas again acknowledged that the “average” Black brain was “smaller than that of other races.” Remarkably, Boas published this in Crisis, the organ of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Boas wrote “We may, therefore, expect less average ability and also, on account of probable anatomical differences, somewhat different mental tendencies.” These early works were enlarged in his 1911 book, The Mind of Primitive Man.
To the modern eye it is astounding to see these data discussed so openly, and from scientists with such diverse viewpoints. Some were sympathetic to slavery (Nott and Glidden), some were anti-evolutionists (Morton), others in favor of evolution (Broca, Topinard), and some avowedly pro-Black and anti-racist (Boas). Unfortunately, today, the data can scarcely be mentioned in polite society, or even at scientific meetings.
In recent times, what I have dubbed the “hermeneuticist” perspective has so come to dominate anthropology that it has effectively removed the topic from the social scientific radar screen. Hermeneuticists approach race, brain size, and IQ, as epiphenomena, mere social constructions (Rushton, 1997c). They argue that political, economic, and even linguistic forces are the real causal agents that have created the concepts of “race” and “IQ” and deemed them worthy of study. Rather than research race, hermeneuticists research those who do. The current popularity of the hermeneuticist position might best be demonstrated using some vivid examples.
Deconstructing Race
“Race is a fiction, Racism is real” proclaimed the August 1998 placards on the Metro buses of Washington, D.C. The D.C. government is not alone in spending taxpayers money in the crusade against race. A 1995 campaign against racism by the British Commission for Racial Equality featured a slick Madison Avenue-like poster of four brains. Three of the brains are the same size and are labeled “African,” “Asian,” and “European.” The fourth brain, much smaller than the others, is labeled “Racist.” Because there are, in fact, significant differences between the races in average brain size (see below), the poster campaign by the Commission for Racial Equality constitutes state-sponsored misinformation.
The government campaigns are based on policy statements made by professional bodies. A resolution denouncing racism at the 1938 meeting of the American Anthropological Association broke the mold to the idea that scientific societies should be apolitical (Degler, 1991, p. 203). Ideological resolutions began in earnest with the 1952 “Statement on Race” issued by 14 anthropologists and geneticists under the auspices of UNESCO (Comas, 1961). Since then, several endorsements and modifications to the 1952 Statement have appeared. In December 1994, for example, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) adopted a “Statement on `Race’ and Intelligence” which read in part:
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race. Repeatedly challenged by scientists, nevertheless these ideas continue to be advanced. Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation.
Earlier AAA resolutions against racism (1961, 1969, 1971, 1972) have spoken to this concern. The AAA further resolves:
WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and
WHEREAS differentiating species into biologically defined “races” has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),
THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.
The American Association of Physical Anthropologists soon followed suit. Their 1996 “AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race” was originally published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (which had earlier published the UNESCO Statement) and was reprinted in the 1998/99 Annual Edition of Physical Anthropology. In fact, the AAPA did not deny the validity of race but, by carefully worded ambiguity, attempted to obscure its meaning out of existence. Point 11 of the AAPA Statement reads:
Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal capacity for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.
In September 1997, the AAA drafted yet another statement in Anthropology Newsletter and invited commentaries. A final version of the AAA draft was adopted by the Executive Board on May 17, 1998 and published in the September 1998 (p. 3) issue of Anthropology Newsletter. It not only denied that there were gene-based behavioral differences among the races but bordered on Europhobia when it accused White scientists of “fabricating” the concept of race in order to justify slavery, colonialism, and murder. It made no mention of efforts to explain natural variation.
As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each race, linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought….
Ultimately race as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world….not limited to the colonial situation….During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of race and racial differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust….
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification….
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior….we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called racial groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational and political circumstances.
So now we know! Some discussion of the AAA Statement was hyped in the media. “No Biological Basis for Race, Scientists Say” proclaimed the San Francisco Chronicle (February 23, 1998). Science writer Charles Petit quoted the AAA as saying that “The concept of race is a social and cultural construction …. Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically…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.” Petit went on to add supportive quotes from Jonathan Marks, a well known Berkeley anthropologist, Robert Sussman, an editor of the American Anthropologist, and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, the Stanford University geneticist. He also cited Jefferson Fish, a psychologist at St. John’s University in New York who challenged President Clinton’s Initiative on Race because he believes the very concept of race is bogus. “This dialogue on race is driving me up the wall,” said Fish. “What is race?” The reporter answered for him: “It is a biologically meaningless category.”
Other scholarly associations and media pundits also weighed in, although with less extreme a position. “Scientists Dismiss Race as Key to Human Origins” declared Guardian writer David Beresford (July 8, 1998). This story, distributed widely by Scripps Howard News, reported on a “dual congress” held by the International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology and the International Association of Human Biologists at Sun City, South Africa. At the conference the question was raised whether the “Out of Africa” theory or the “Multi-Regional” theory of human origins had the most implications for current race differences. At the heart of this argument is whether the Homo erectus ancestor who left Africa 1.5 million years ago subsequently gave rise to Homo sapiens independently in several geographic regions (the Multi-Regional theory) or whether just one variety of erectus, in Africa, gave rise to modern Homo sapiens, who then went forth a mere 150,000 years ago to replace the remnants of erectus (the Out of Africa theory). Christopher Stringer of the British Museum and Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University were cited as part of the growing consensus in favor of the Out of Africa theory — and to argue this meant there had been too little time for the races to have genetically diverged very far.
In fact, of course, whether one adheres to the Multi-Regional or the Out of Africa theory (this author agrees with Out of Africa), the amount of racial variation in various traits (including brain size — see below) cannot be wished into non-existence. Like them or not, the observed racial differences are there for anyone who cares to observe them. No theoretical sleight of hand can make them disappear. The argument about too little time actually turns evolution upside down. As Sarich (1995, p. 86) points out, “it is the Out of Africa model, not that of regional continuity, which makes racial differences more functionally significant. It does so because the amount of time involved in the raciation process is much smaller, while obviously, the degree of racial differentiation is the same — large. The shorter the period of time required to produce a given amount of morphological difference, the more selectively important the differences become.”
Those objecting to the concept of race like to argue that taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover Magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and was able to form a number of very different pseudo-races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.
Diamond’s classifications, however, are nonsensical. They are far more arbitrary than the traditional classifications because the traits he singles out for classifying have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race — a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent.
Race as a Biological Concept
Deconstructing the concept of race not only goes against the tendency of virtually every known culture to classify and build family histories according to some measure of common descent, it also ignores the work of biologists studying non-human species. Ever since 1758, when the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus created the classification system still used in biology today, most zoologists have recognized at least the four human subdivisions that Linnaeus categorized: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and Africans. (Technically, some would group the first two Linnaean subdivisions together, thus yielding three major races, often termed, Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids.) Most researchers since Linnaeus have accepted these four and added the Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, and some other numerically minor groups. Others have made finer subdivisions within each major group.
A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, and physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such differentiated populations as races. (Within biology, races are termed subspecies.) Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.
Scientists do not believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a “Negroid” is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise a “Caucasoid” is someone whose ancestors originated in Europe or the Middle East and a “Mongoloid” is someone whose ancestors originated in east Asia. This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the out of Africa theory of human evolution mentioned at the beginning of the article. Thus, according to the estimates prvided by Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994) since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into the Middle East and Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Eastern Asia 70,000 years after that, a Negroid is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, a Caucasoid is someone whose ancestors were born in the Middle East or Europe, and mutatis mutandis for a Mongoloid.
On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group. It is correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture. But it is an error when critics claim that classifications are arbitrary. Although some social concepts of race correlate poorly with biological relationships (Hispanics, for example, are not biologically an identifiable “race,” but represent a variety of admixtures of diverse racial components), self-identification generally accords quite well with the physical evidence.
Also, just as some plant and animal sub-species represent either intermixed or historically intermediate forms, many human populations are also mixed. Thus while clear distinctions identify the central tendency of the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid people, many intermediate forms, representing genetic gradients, can be found. Interbreeding of diverse racial types, as a result of population mobility in today’s world, is also affecting the human biological scene.
Yet despite all this, human racial variation is still marked by obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a Caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a Mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a Negroid person (Ubelaker & Scammel, 1992). In certain criminal investigations, the race of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is nonscientific and unrealistic.
Some Historical Context
It is noteworthy that this Statement on Race is appearing in the Mankind Quarterly whose opening editorial in July 1960 (nearly 40 years ago) called for a new journal devoted to race research. That same editorial criticized the anthropology of its day for having abandoned the Darwinian evolutionary tradition. Appropriately enough, the very first article in MQ was by Sir Charles Darwin (18871962), grandson of the famous naturalist, on the subject of “World Population.”
Mainstream anthropology immediately charged MQ with “racism.” Current Anthropology opened its pages to Juan Comas (1961), who published a long article with the inflammatory title of “`Scientific’ Racism Again?” This article attacked the MQ and its editors, denied the evidence of Black-White differences in brain size, defended the culture theory of race differences in intelligence and crime, and reprinted the 1952 UNESCO “Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences” (commonly known as the “Statement on Race”). MQ was also denounced in such journals as Race, Man, and Science. However, the editors of MQ stuck to their guns and fired back. For example, Henry E. Garrett (1960a, 1960b) challenged the 100% culture hypothesis of Black-White differences in intelligence, set out the hereditarian perspective, and defended MQ against charges of racism.
Those 40-year-old debates over race differences clearly touched on deeply held values. Both sides often displayed an intemperate tone. Politics intruded then, just as it does today. But the debates of that time seem to me to have had more structure and substance than those of today. There appeared to be at least an illusion of possible scholarly resolution. Discussion in those days centered primarily on the causes of the gap in school achievement between Blacks and Whites in the U.S., and whether desegregation and school busing would diminish it. The protagonists were identified as “hereditarians” (those who believed in a partly genetic hypothesis for Black-White differences), and “environmentalists” (who attributed the differences to poverty, relative deprivation, poor schools, and racism). Today, unfortunately, the debate has been deconstructed.
Indeed, nothing in the history of the social sciences has been so persistently intrusive as the issue of the relative importance of genetic and environmental determinants of behavior, especially of Black-White differences (Degler, 1991). Ever since World War I, when widespread testing began, Blacks have averaged lower IQ scores than Whites, at several age levels, under a variety of conditions, and in Canada and the Caribbean as well as in the U.S. (see reviews by Shuey [1958, 1966], Osborne & McGurk [1982], Jensen [1998], and others). Despite an overlap of 10-30 percent, which means that many Blacks obtained scores above the White mean, the average differences persisted and were statistically significant.
The current instantiation of the controversy dates from the publication of Arthur R. Jensen’s (1969) controversial monograph in the Harvard Educational Review. Jensen presented several propositions: (1) IQ tests measure a general-ability dimension of great social relevance; (2) individual differences on this dimension have a high heritability; (3) educational programs have proved generally ineffective in changing the relative status of individuals and groups on this dimension; (4) social mobility is linked to ability, so social-class differences in IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and (5) Black-White differences in IQ probably have a genetic component.
The publication of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) unleashed yet another torrent of debate. The book reported original analyses of 11,878 youths (3,022 of whom were Black) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). Most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (Black as well as White) went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s whereas many of those with low scores went on to welfare dependency. The average IQ for African Americans was found to be lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 115, respectively, pp. 273-278).
Once more, the flashpoint of discussion was whether the Black-White difference in IQ was partly genetic in origin. It was the furor over The Bell Curve that had led the AAA to undertake its most recent round of policy statements. It also led the American Psychological Association (APA) to establish an 11 person Task Force to fill an “urgent need” for an authoritative report “about the meaning of intelligence test scores and the nature of intelligence” (Neisser et al. 1996). The Task Force accepted the substantial heritability found for IQ from studies of monozygotic twins who have been reared apart as well as from studies of other kinds of kinship (p. 85). But about race differences in IQ, they concluded: “There is certainly no [empirical] support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).
Having just written Race, Evolution, and Behavior (Rushton, 1995), describing three distinct racial profiles ranging over 60 anatomical and social variables including brain size, personality and temperament, sexual habits and fertility, and speed of maturation and longevity, I was struck by the amount of evidence sidestepped in the various “Statements” by the AAA, by the APA report, and by other critics. I responded in the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology, in the January 1997 issue of the American Psychologist, and in a 1996 Internet posting. This is an update to the ongoing discussion.
Review of Current Race Differences
Much has been learned about Black-White differences since the original debates in this journal. Indeed, the debate has been greatly extended to include Orientals, and data from around the world, not just the U.S. The debate has also been widened to include variables beyond IQ. In my 1995 book, I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races — Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid — and show that these statistical differences are constant across both historical time, national boundaries, and political and economic systems.
Because the very earliest debates in MQ were primarily about the nature of Black-White differences in IQ, I will focus on this issue here. Those early protagonists, like Henry E. Garrett (1960a, 1960b), turn out to have been correct about the heritable nature of Black-White differences. Some of this confirmatory work was in fact published in the MQ, the best known of which is probably Richard Lynn’s (1991a, 1991b) review of the worldwide distribution of intelligence which was brought to wide attention by the publication of Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve. I will also review the relationship between intelligence and brain size, the worldwide distribution of brain size, and finally the heritability of intelligence. Few of the race debunkers are willing to acknowledge any of these data, though they grow stronger every day. Readers seeking a more extensive summary can consult Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve, Levin’s (1997) Why Race Matters, Jensen’s (1998) The g Factor, or my own (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior.
1. The geographical distribution of intelligence. As documented by these authors, one hundred years of research has established that East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than do Africans. Various East Asian populations measured in North America and in Pacific Rim countries typically average IQs in the range of 101 to 111. Whites in North America typically average IQs between 100 and 105 African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90 (see Lynn, 1997, for a recent review).
Parallel differences are found on relatively culture-free tests such as speed of decision making. Probably the simplest culture free mental tests are reaction time tests. In the “odd-man-out” test, Nine to twelve year-old children look at a set of lights. They have to decide which one goes on, and then press the button closest to that light. The test is so easy that all children can do it in less than one second. Even here, children with higher IQ scores are faster than lower IQ children. Around the world, Oriental children are faster than White children who in turn are faster than Black children (Jensen, 1998).
2. The relationship between intelligence and brain size. Remarkable discoveries have been made during the 1990’s Decade of the Brain using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These MRI studies, which construct three-dimensional models of the brain in vivo, show a correlation of about 0.40 between brain size and IQ, as replicable a set of results as can be found in the social and behavioral sciences. The first MRI/IQ studies were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s in leading, refereed, mainstream journals like Intelligence (Willerman et al., 1991) and the American Journal of Psychiatry (Andreasen et al., 1993). My article “Brain Size and Cognitive Ability” in the 1996 issue of the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (Rushton & Ankney, 1996) surveyed all the published literature on this topic. The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of .44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ.
3. The parallel geographical distribution of brain size. Racial differences in brain size have been established recently using wet brain weight at autopsy, volume of empty skulls using filler, volume estimated from head sizes, and MRI. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1980) reported a 100 gram difference in brain weight between Whites and Blacks in the U.S. Using endocranial volume Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians and Europeans averaged 1,389 cm[sup 3] while Africans averaged 1,268 cm[sup 3]. Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a sample of thousands of U.S. Army personnel. Even after correcting for body size, Asian and European Americans averaged 1,398 cm[sup 3], while African Americans averaged 1,359 cm[sup 3]. Rushton (1994) reported a study of tens of thousands of men and women collected by the International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Head sizes (corrected for body size) were larger for East Asians and Europeans than for Blacks. Moreover, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker & Murray, 1994).
These racial differences in brain size show up early in life. In an analysis of data from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 35,000 children, Rushton (1997a) found that Asian and White children averaged a larger head perimeter than did Black children, even though, at age seven, Black children had the largest body size. Further, head perimeter at seven years correlates with IQ at age seven in all three racial groups.
4. The heritability of intelligence. The heritability of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption, twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the heritabilities of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal & Tellegen, 1990). Moderate to substantial genetic influence on IQ has also been found in studies of non-Whites, including African Americans and Japanese. Even the most critical of meta-analyses find IQ about 50% heritable (Devlin, Daniels & Roeder, 1997).
Transracial adoption studies suggest a genetic contribution to the between-group differences. Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into White American and Belgian families show that, although as babies many came from poor backgrounds and were malnourished, when they grew up they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in (Frydman & Lynn, 1989). By contrast, Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman (1992) found that at age 17, Black and Mixed-Race children adopted into White middle-class families performed at a lower level than the White siblings with whom they had been raised.
5. Violent crime, AIDS, and sexuality. INTERPOL data from the 1980s and 1990s shows the same racial pattern in violent crime that occurs within the U.S. also occurs internationally. Asian and European countries have an average rate of homicide, rape, and serious assault that is less than one quarter that of African and Caribbean countries.
One neurohormonal contributor to crime is testosterone. Studies show that Black college students and military veterans have 3% to 19% more testosterone than their White counterparts. Sex hormones are circulated throughout the body and are known to activate many brain-behavior systems involving aggression and reproduction. For example, around the world the rate of two-egg twinning (caused by a double ovulation), is twice as high in Africans as in Asian and Europeans (16, 8, and 4 per 1,000, respectively). The differences in multiple birthing are known to be heritable through the race of the mother regardless of the race of the father, as found in European/African matings in Brazil.
Testosterone may also play a part in sexual behavior. A similar international racial pattern is found for measures of sexual activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. The 1997 U.S. syphilis rate for Blacks was 24 times the rate it was for Asians and Whites. Racial differences in AIDS/HIV are increasingly well known. Currently 8 out of every 100 Africans are infected with the AIDS virus. In South Africa, the estimates are that about 10 % of the adult population is living with HIV. In some areas of Africa the AIDS rate reaches 70%. Less well known is that HIV infection rates are also high in the Black Caribbean, about 2%. Thirty-three percent of the AIDS cases are women. This high figure of women means the transmission is mainly from heterosexual intercourse. The high rate of HIV in the 2,000 mile band of Caribbean countries extends from Bermuda to Guyana, and it seems to be the highest in Haiti, with a rate over 5%.
Black Americans also have high HIV rates, similar to Blacks living in the Caribbean and Africa. Three percent of Black men and 1% of Black women in the U.S. are living with HIV. The rate for White and Asian Americans is less than 0.1%. Of course AIDS is a serious public health problem for all racial groups, but it is especially so for Africans and people of African ancestry.
Conclusion
The ongoing campaign to deconstruct race as a biological concept needs to be countered by a careful examination of what we do and do not know about human variation. Academicians, journalists, and editorialists have an obligation to review the evidence cited here before offering any further comment on this controversial topic. Moreover, those in academia and the media need to be aware that major efforts are being made throughout Europe and Canada to stifle free discussion of race by tightening so-called “hate-laws” and, in the U.S.A., to restrict the way research can be conducted (and funded). Implementation of such policies threatens the general principles of free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom and tenure (Pearson, 1997).
Publication of Herrnstein and Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve brought widespread public attention to the research on race that has been accumulating over the last 30 years in technical and specialist journals that demonstrably challenges each and every article of the dogma of biological egalitarianism. Startling, and alarming to many, is the conclusion that follows from these data that if all people were treated the same, most average race differences would not disappear. With egalitarianism under siege, there has been a major effort to get the “race genie” back in the bottle, to squeeze the previously tabooed toothpaste back into the tube, to suppress or deny the latest scientific evidence on race, genetics, and behavior.
Regardless of the extent to which the media promote “politically correct,” but scientifically wrong, resolutions from professional societies such as the American Anthropological Association, facts remain facts and require appropriate scientific, not political or ideological, explanation.
None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental factors play no part in individual and group differences. But with each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic contribution to these differences becomes more firmly established than ever.
Source : Mankind Quarterly, Winter98, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p231, 19p
1. J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Canada
References
AAA (1998, September). American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race.” Anthropology Newsletter, 39, 3.
AAPA (1996). AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 101, 569-570.
Andreasen, N. C., Flaum, M., Swayze II, V., O’Leary, D. S., Alliger, R., Cohen, G., Ehrhardt, J., & Yuh, W. T. C. (1993). Intelligence and brain structure in normal individuals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 130134.
Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301 330.
Boas, F. (1894). Human faculty as determined by race. Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 43, 301-327. [Reprinted in G. W. Stocking Jr. (Ed.), The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911. A Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic Books, 1974.]
Boas, F. (1910, December). The real race problem. The Crisis, 7. [Cited in V.J. Williams, Jr., Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.]
Boas, F. (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: Macmillan.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223-228.
Broca, P. (1873). Sur les cranes de la caverne de l’Homme-Mort (Lozere). Revue d”Anthropologie, 2, 1-53. [Data cited in V. J. Williams, Jr., Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.]
Comas, J. (1961). “Scientific” racism again? Current Anthropology, 2, 303-340.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man. London: Murray.
Degler, C. N. (1991). In Search of Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devlin, B., Daniels, M., & Roeder, K. (1997). The heritability of IQ. Nature, 388, 468-471.
Frydman, M., & Lynn, R. (1989). The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1323-1326.
Garrett, H.E. (1960a). Klineberg’s chapter on race and psychology: A review. Mankind Quarterly, 1, 15-22.
Garrett, H.E. (1960b). The scientific racism of Juan Comas. Mankind Quarterly, 1, 100-106.
Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R. M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared with schizophrenics and healthy controls. Psychological Medicine, 24, 689-699.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve. New York: Free Press.
Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635-645.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Levin, M. (1997). Why Race Matters. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lynn, R. (1991a). Race differences in intelligence: A global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 31, 255-296.
Lynn, R. (1991b). The evolution of racial differences in intelligence (with commentaries and author’s response). Mankind Quarterly, 32, 99-173. Lynn, R. (1997).Geographical variation in intelligence. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The Scientific Study of Human Nature: Essays in Honor of H.J. Eysenck. Oxford: Elsevier.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpem, D., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 15, 77-101.
Osborne, R. T., & McGurk, F. C. J. (1982). (Eds.), The Testing of Negro Intelligence, Vol. 2. Athens, GA: Foundation for Human Understanding.
Pearson, R. (1997). Race, Intelligence, and Bias in Academe (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Scott-Townsend.
Rushton, J. P. (1992). Cranial capacity related to sex, rank, and race in a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. military personnel. Intelligence, 16, 401-413.
Rushton, J. P. (1994). Sex and race differences in cranial capacity from International Labour Office data. Intelligence, 19, 281-294.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Rushton, J. P. (1996). The eternal triangle: Race, class, and IQ. [Discussion of the book The Bell Curve]. Current Anthropology, 37, S168-S172.
Rushton, J. P. (1997a). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7-20.
Rushton, J. P. (1997b). Race, IQ, and the APA Report on The Bell Curve. American Psychologist, 52, 69-81.
Rushton, J. P. (1997c). Review essay. [Review of the books The Bell Curve Debate, The Bell Curve Wars, Final Solutions, The Mismeasure of Man, The Nazi Connection, The Race Gallery, and The Science and Politics of Racial Research.] Society, 34, 78-82.
Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C.D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21-36.
Sarich, V. M. (1995). In Defense of The Bell Curve. Skeptic, 3(3), 84-93.
Shuey, A. M. (1958). The Testing of Negro Intelligence. Lynchburg, VA: Bell.
Shuey, A. M. (1966). The Testing of Negro Intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Social Science Press.
Ubelaker, D., & Scammel, H. (1992). Bones: A Forensic Detective’s Casebook. New York: HarperCollins.
Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135.
Willerman, L., Schultz, R., Rutledge, J. N., & Bigler, E. D. (1991). In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence, 15, 223-228.
Good article - I would like to see more of these MQ articles here. Where are you finding them?
The conclusion to this article was especially important: the Jewish race-denying agenda, or the organized Jewish attempt to ‘deconstruct’ race in academia and the media, MUST be opposed at all costs.
“The ongoing campaign to deconstruct race as a biological concept needs to be countered by a careful examination of what we do and do not know about human variation. Academicians, journalists, and editorialists have an obligation to review the evidence cited here before offering any further comment on this controversial topic. Moreover, those in academia and the media need to be aware that major efforts are being made throughout Europe and Canada to stifle free discussion of race by tightening so-called “hate-laws” and, in the U.S.A., to restrict the way research can be conducted (and funded). Implementation of such policies threatens the general principles of free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom and tenure (Pearson, 1997).”
I had those in my archive, don’t remember where they’re from. But I’ll post them all here, so just stay tuned on The Civic Platform
Ahnenerbe, your posts are quite good so far, very impressive, informative, and educational. Thank you for the work you’re doing.
I agree.
It gives me the idea of also posting docs that I have saved over the years on my computer.
You people just LOVE to feel like you are better than SOMEONE. Is it because you all are the only race that has absolutely NO culture at all? You must be jealous.
I mean, really… If you go into a study with an OBVIOUS BIAS, then you will find exactly what you are looking for. I could do all of own research, with my own biases, and find evidence of the exact OPPOSITE. In my opinion, Blacks and minorities are FAR more intelligent than White people. That’s why you people have always tried to keep us from learning, limit funding to non-white schools, etc. If we were SO much less intelligent than you, then what would be the need for that? Why not place everyone on an equal playing field? Then, you’d REALLY see how much smarter we are than you.
This research is complete bullsh*t. I am not African, but Africans are some of the smartest people I know, particularly in Math and Science. If your research were true, then why (out of ALL the WHITE people in my Master’s degree program), are the African guy and I the TOP TWO students in our class?? We both have 4.0 averages. I have always been gifted in academics, and I also skipped a grade in high school. I am a member of American Mensa (If you don’t know what this is, I suggest you look it up). This would be completely impossible if your research were true.
You people just look for any way to make yourselves feel better, because you are the least desirable race out of all of the races. I can’t say I blame you; I’d probably need a boost of self-esteem too if I SUCKED.
Catherine please explain why Africa is and always will be a shit-hole? SA was turned over to blacks over a decade ago and its collapsing at freefall speed back to the days of dung huts. There have been plenty of studies showing the IQ of the races and blacks are always on the bottom. But I’m sure that reality and truth never bothered to enter the classroom where you’ve studied lest it might interfere with your blossoming self-esteem and high opinion of blackness. Its amazing because in my academic career, blacks were consistently the worst performing students and the laziest and expected special treatment because they were black. Its the same in corporate america with few exceptions. Whites created the modern world and without them, the world will devolve back into the dark ages. Blaming whitey has run its course babe, time to look in the mirror, if you can stand it.
Catherine, could you back up your hysterical claims with empirical facts? Please name for us great African scientists and mathematicians, besides Yakub? Exceptions to the rule does not a rule make. Thank you.
Yes please, FB. Do post your saved docs.
Whites don’t have culture, Catherine you say? That’s news to me! Germany alone probably has more culture then probably all on the non-Western world combined! Europeans were great bearers of culture while your precious niggers were still swinging from trees in africa! the phrase “african culture” is surely an oxymoron! the words “african” and “culture” don’t belong in the same sentence!
Africa had and has a culture of cannibalism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2661365.stm
Wednesday, 15 January, 2003, 23:41 GMT
UN condemns DR Congo cannibalism
Uganda helped establish the MLC rebels
The United Nations Security Council has strongly condemned massacres and human rights violations, including cannibalism, by rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
A UN investigation said that the Ugandan-backed Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC) and two smaller factions committed atrocities between October and December in the eastern Ituri province.
More than 350 witnesses and victims interviewed by the UN confirmed earlier allegations that the MLC was responsible for rape, torture, executions and cannibalism near the town of Beni.
In one case, investigators heard how a young girl was cut into small pieces by the soldiers and then eaten.
Other examples include hearts and other organs being cut out of victims and forced on their families to eat.
A senior Congolese Government official told the BBC that the massacres demonstrated the need for a more robust UN presence in the region.
‘Freaks’
The rights investigators heard that the soldiers systematically raped women and looted houses in the town of Mambasa and in villages along the road towards Beni.
Members of the minority Pygmy community, forced to flee their forest homes for the first time anyone can remember, were among those targeted.
The Pygmies say they have been targeted by the violence
The UN spokesperson in Kinshasa described the rebel soldiers as “freaks” who were out of control and said that abusers of human rights, wherever they were in Congo, should be brought to justice.
She said a copy of the investigators’ findings had been given to the UN Security Council.
The BBC’s Mark Dummett in Kinshasa says that, in spite of recent advances in Congo’s peace process, there is still insecurity in much of the country, particularly the north-east, where the rape and massacre of civilians have become commonplace.
‘Failed state’
The Congolese Information Minister, Kikaya Bin Karubi, urged the UN to consider strengthening its observer mission, MONUC, and give it a peace enforcement status.
“Today you may deploy even more MONUC troops in the Ituri province, they will go there, and as an observer mission they will be observing people eating people.
“They will be observing cannibalism because their mandate does not allow them to intervene or to do something about it.”
But the BBC’s Greg Barrow at the UN headquarters in New York says Security Council members remain reluctant to support a more robust UN military presence.
Our correspondent says the UN does not want to find itself playing the role of a proxy army, providing security for a failed state that controls the capital Kinshasa, but has little power outside.
Orion14: There is an inexhaustible amount of African and African-American mathematicians and scientists. A simple Google search would have done you well. Simply because White “Amerikkka” does not recognize these intellectual greats does not mean they do not exist. Mark Dean (holds three patents on the original IBM chip), Nathaniel Dean, Winser Alexander, Akintunde Akinwande, Adekunle Adeyeye, Clarence Ellis, Marc Hannah, Philip Emeagwali, Cardinal Warde, Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver, Rebecca Cole, Dr. Daniel Hale Williams (performed the first successful open heart surgery)… The list is just endless. It’s not even necessary to continue. This just goes to show what a product of our environment we are. Because you’ve never heard of these people, you assume they don’t exist. Because most education systems and media do not acknowledge Black/minority intellects, you all assume they don’t exist. Don’t ever assume anything! You could have at least done your research. Did you think I WOULDN’T be able to list any?? What a halfwit you must feel like…
Next! Dan C., I will make this quick and painless. We all know that Whites (and more particularly, White Americans) have ZERO culture. What other reason would you have to hate minorities SOOO much?? I mean, what do you people really do but eat hot dogs and twinkies and engulf yourselves in reality television? LOL! Give me a break. Really. Why do you think so many of your kind are embracing other cultures?? Because they have none themselves!!
Last… and LEAST.. Travis Bickle. Africa is in the condition it is today because of Whites. The original Africans, by nature, were amiable and peaceful by nature; and, unfortunately, White savages chose to take advantages. Africa was (and really, still is) one of the richest countries in resources; but rather than the Africans profitting from the resources, savages have come in and taken over. So they have the whiteys to blame for the condition of Africa.
As far as Blacks having low IQ’s… You just know that’s not true. You refuse to acknowledge the REAL reasons for some minorities’ low test scores. Apparently, you must not be bright enough to put it together, so I will do it for you. In minority neighborhoods, schools are obviously underfunded. Gee… WONDER why that is?? With lower quality educations, what do you really expect?? It has ZERO to do with the intelligence of minorities and EVERYTHING to do with the level of education they receive. Case in point: I attended prestigious schools all of my life, grew up in suburban areas… And I am exremely successful and have a very high IQ because of it. IQ does not determine brain intelligence, moron. OH, by the way… In response to your last comment… In addition to my intelligence, I also happen to be stunningly beautiful. I am hit on by more White men than I can count on a DAILY basis!! So, hmmm…. brains + beauty = you NOW having a legitimate reason to be so jealous of us!!!
I wouldn’t waste my time to respond to Catherine. She is obviously a negress just babbling along non-sensical garbage, as blacks are prone to do. Living proof so to speak, that the topic of this thread is true.
“I am exremely successful and have a very high IQ because of it. IQ does not determine brain intelligence, moron.”
LOL. Indeed, 123
Discussing about the intelligence of non-East Asian non-whites is a bit of a waste of time, but we’re here for propaganda and education purposes, so :
- Wherever Negroes complain about White racism, East Asians just work and succeed, without any help. This makes them hated of Negroes as well.
- IQ tests have been proven to be reliable, in all countries and all conditions, over a century and have always produced the same results with Blacks and other primitive non-whites at the bottom, then Whites, then East Asians, then Ashkenazi Jews.
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/10/05/racial-differences-the-scientific-evidence/
- The lists of “Negro inventions” are most of time plain and simple lies or falsifications, many of them being debunked here:
http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
- The link between IQ and wealth is established, as well as the link between national IQ average and national wealth.
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/09/04/intelligence-and-the-wealth-and-poverty-of-nations/
- True, there is more than IQ, there is the sense of creativeness, organization, discipline and self-restraint, which Black completely lack of.
- Even if Blacks were of equal intelligence, we claim the right to live separate from them because we just find their apelike physical features disgraceful.
You’re just so lucky that so many Whites have a very high level of altruism (inherited from the Ice Age bottleneck effect) that extends as far as all living humanity. In an objective, rational and scientific reality, 2-digits IQ non-whites should simply be phased out over a few decades to make space for carefully selected high genetic value individuals of Nordish genotype.
“There is an inexhaustible amount of African and African-American mathematicians and scientists. A simple Google search would have done you well”
No there isn’t. Blacks are pretty much unknown as significant contributors to the fields. Maybe a handful of third rate ones, but not intellectual heavyweights.
How many Nobel prizes have been awarded to Blacks for contributions to the sciences? How many Fields Medals? “Endless” list indeed - one cannot even find the beginning of such a list!
As far as your list goes: http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/
The facts just don’t add up to support your claim.
I shouldn’t be wasting too much time on this imbecile, but its worth responding to some of it.
“In minority neighborhoods, schools are obviously underfunded. Gee… WONDER why that is?? ”
Actually, minority schools have a habit of being very well funded.
What do you make of the poor white kids in poor rural (but white) schools who outperform their negro counterparts in schools that receive millions in local, state, and federal aid?
Look - there is no point in constantly proving your wrong with the facts. What it boils down to is this: blacks (and other non-whites) need to live in their communities - separate from our communities and government - and live by their own cultural standards.
You are not going to win by constantly believing that you can live up to the White standard and then subsequently blaming Whites for your race’s inability to achieve that standard (a standard that some - such as East Asians - manage to achieve and even exceed in some aspects).
Sooooo…. Let me get this straight.
YOU – a White person, who is at a born advantage, as far as this country is concerned – hate ME (not ME personally, but me, as a symbol for minorities) – who has been born at a disadvantage in this country. Ummm… Am I MISSING something here?? Does that even make proper SENSE? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?? Shouldn’t I be the one resenting YOU for oppressing me for hundreds of years and for imposing your system of racism and bigotry upon me?? What do you hate US for? Everything in this country is already in YOUR favor – and has been for CENTURIES. What did we ever do to YOU??
I mean… White people hating minorities SO MUCH would be the equivalent of me despising ugly people with a passion – devoting countless hours of my time to research, forums, and blogs, discussing the reasons why ugly people are sooo beneath me and why it’s been scientifically proven how ugly people are less intelligent and more likely to commit crime than pretty people. That’s something I would never do, because I’m confident enough in myself that I could really care less about the statistics on ugly people. Now maybe if I was losing confidence or was afraid that ugly people might take over and do better in life than pretty people, just maybe I would react that way.
But… I digress. If you people can hate us so much for just being…… well, for just BEING, then guess what? We must be doing SOMETHING right. No one ever has ever made it to the top without people trying to bring them down. And when we can be BORN at a disadvantage and still be resented by those with all of the advantages, then we MUST be doing something right! Does it upset you that more and more minorities are living the upper middle class and upper class lifestyles (as I have)? Or how about the fact that, given equal and fair conditions, minorities WELL surpass the intelligence level of Whites? Does that bother you? What are you afraid of?? Whatever it is, I suggest you get over it, because we’re not going ANY where. In fact, it will be YOUR race that will be nearly extinct in a matter of decades.
Time is ticking…. (Tick, tock, tick, tock…)
Actually, I get along QUITE well with East Asians, as do most other Blacks I know. VERY nice people.
Blacks lack self-restraint and discipline? That’s hilarious. If that were the case, then you can be DAMNED sure that you whiteys wouldn’t have gotten away with slavery for hundreds of years. It sure as hell wouldn’t fly today. You all LOVED the “Uncle Tom” type Black people back then… and, now that we’re not putting up with your bullsh*t anymore, you simply cannot stand it.
BTW, I didn’t even waste my precious time clicking on your links. It simply amazes me that, even when Black people make honorable contributions to this society, you all STILL refuse to acknowledge them. Over HALF of the items you use on a daily basis were invented by minorities. If minorities didn’t invent these things (as you claim), then get me the names of the White people who DID. I mean, they had to come from SOMEwhere! What are you so THREATENED by? Minority inventions are documented facts; and the fact that you have the audacity to challenge those facts is… well, pathetic. It just shows how endangered you are by minority success. Again, I revert to my “ugly people” theory… I would never challenge the fact that an ugly person might have a high IQ. I realize that intellects come in all levels of attractiveness (for the purposes of this example), so why the hell would I CARE to challenge that??
I swear… If White people can’t take SOME kind of credit for the good of minorities, then they choose to dismiss it completely. It’s just like how, upon seeing a picture of me, racist White people (like yourselves) online have debated with me that the only reason I am attractive is because I have “European-like” features. You people have to take credit for EVERYTHING. You are, and always have been, the most despicable, selfish, and EVIL race of people that has ever existed. I would NEVER lower myself enough to compare my features to a White person (ewww!) , but you all LOVE to take credit for them. If you really want to go there, every White celebrity, who is “so-called” beautiful by Hollywood standards, has minority features. Do you dispute that? If so, why do you whiteys risk skin cancer to get darker skin? Why not be satisfied with your pasty WHITE skin? Why the lip injections and gluteal implants? Why all the anti-aging creams? (Wait! Don’t answer! It’s because, without the help of cosmetic surgery, most of you look 50 before you even hit the 3-0 mark!!)
Darren, your claims that poor white kids in rural white areas outperform minorities in well-funded schools are false. Well, for one, the VAST majority of minority schools are underfunded. If you don’t know that, then you must be stupid. Even most racists will admit that.
Are white kids who grew up in poor, rural areas more SUCCESSFUL than Blacks from well funded schools? Possibly. When you have a system of oppression that values a white face more than a high level of intelligence, then that tends to happen. But, as for them being more INTELLIGENT? Not in the least bit.
Well, I think I’ve MORE than proven myself here. My level of intellect speaks for itself. I am intelligent, beautiful, talented, successful… Yep! Guess I just have it all… I have no more need to bicker with you petty crackers. I just thought I’d show up to remind you of how pathetic you whiteys are… And it looks as if I’ve done my job.
Unless one of you makes some DRASTICALLY ridiculous comment which requires my immediate response, I WON’T be back.
My hope is that you all find your confidence, so that you won’t continue to feel so extremely threatened by minority success and intelligence. But… If you don’t, that’s okay, too. Actually, I quite enjoy being hated so much by White people. It reminds me of how much I have to be thankful for. So… thank you.
What does it take to force someone like Catherine to spend so much time on here (and from ‘her’ comments, other sites like this one)
‘arguing with Nazis’? What sort of person needs to justify their own world view in such a way? Judging by her way of expressing herself, she does not seem to have the high IQ she claims, but most people have higher IQs online than offline. From her many messages, some responding to points others have made while others were attacking phantom positions I doubt anyone here holds, it seems she has a warped view of racialism and of herself.
“BTW, I didn’t even waste my precious time clicking on your links. It simply amazes me that, even when Black people make honorable contributions to this society, you all STILL refuse to acknowledge them.”
But that is the point - the page over at Brinkster proves that those alleged contributions were overstated or fraudulently claimed to begin with.
“Darren, your claims that poor white kids in rural white areas outperform minorities in well-funded schools are false.”
Wishing for your Marxist fantasy about racial equality to be true doesn’t make it so. The facts just don’t add up to the claims you make.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/07/in_science_rura.php
You haven’t replied to my comment about Nobel and Fields prizes in the sciences.
Catherine, you forgot Lonnie Johnson, supersoaker inventor. As for Philip Emeagwali, he’s the perfect example of African “innovation”. He won the Gordon Bell Prize despite the fact that another team beat him out in the performance category. He contributed nothing to the CM project, never achived his PhD and claims to be the father of the internet. This guy I was aware of because of my studies of the minds behind the internet, and just stumbled across his name once. The others, if I google them, will more than likely turn out the same: Working on creations invented by the White mind. Never has the African created anything on a first time basis.
Simple fact is, Africans would not even know about mathematics and science if not for Whites. After all, they never went anywhere that Arab or the White Man didn’t take them, and in fact stood on the coast of Africa for Centuries and couldn’t figure out how to make a sail.
If my memory serves me right, an African-American invented peanut butter.
Don’t forget the hairbush, traffic light and door knob, all critical contributions to Western Civilization.
Actually I find the exchange with Catherine fascinating insofar, that it clearly demonstrates some typical behaviours of blacks and whites, and therby the deeper reason for the different levels of achievement.
When Catherine writes
“My level of intellect speaks for itself. I am intelligent, beautiful, talented, successful… Yep! Guess I just have it all…” despite her obvious intellectual (plus one can suspects other) limitations she means it. She feels far aloof over facts, is actually proud of her ignorance, yet completely satiesfied with herself. This total denial of reality plus wishful thinking is just so typical of blacks. Even if such a person had sufficiant intelligence, how could she or he ever become e.g. a good scientist?
Also interesting is the reaction of whites. By and large they treat her as an equal even so she is obviously not, revert to logic and reason, try to prove their point with facts and references, not taking into account, that Catherine would never be bothered by facts and probably would have difficulies in comprehending the implications of the references given.
This “discussion” was a real life example, that race is indeed much more than skin deep.
123: in regard to Catherine’s exceedingly high opinion of herself (in all domains, no less: intelligence, beauty, “talent,” “success”) it’s well established in the field of psychology that Negroes have significantly higher self-esteem than Euros. One of the most amazing experiences in this life, I find, is seeing a Negro who looks unpleasantly ape-like, and anything but attractive — actually sort of hurts your eyes to look at — claim to be ravishingly beautiful or extremely handsome, or one with pathetically limited intelligence, actually at or near the mentally-retarded level, claim to be brilliant, more or less a genius, and so on. If a Negro learns one word in Japanese — “sayonara,” let’s say (which, please correct me, means “good-bye,” I believe) he and all Negroes who know him will say he’s “fluent in Japanese,” so that if he then learns “adios” (good-bye in Spanish), “ciao” (ditto, Italian), “tschüß” (German), along with a word or two in a few more languages, BUT KNOWS NOT ONE OTHER WORD IN ANY OF THOSE LANGUAGES, he and the other Negroes will say, “he speaks seven languages fluently” when he can’t even speak one fluently. That’s how Negroes think; that’s how they are: they have by far and away the highest self-esteem on the planet, totally without justification for that high self-esteem, of course. Catherine here is simply another example of that, which one recognizes at a glance immediately on seeing what she posts.
Fred:
Of course, part of the reason that the Negro has such a high opinion of himself is the cultural barrage that our society has to suffer. The Negro is depicted by media and academia as cool, confident, capable, mysterious, etc. Whites are portrayed as underhanded, backbiting, selfish, manipulative (Jewish knowledge of self -> projection onto the goy). There is a cause for Negro high self-esteem, and a cure as well.
“123: in regard to Catherine’s exceedingly high opinion of herself (in all domains, no less: intelligence, beauty, “talent,” “success”) it’s well established in the field of psychology that Negroes have significantly higher self-esteem than Euros.”
This is extensively addressed in Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters. Negroes also have psychopathological personalities, in the sense of being much less compassionate and caring. They’re indifferent to the pain and suffering of others to a far greater degree than Whites. They show little empathy in psychological studies.
Well done, Fred Scrooby. You actually forced me to return. I won’t take my time to respond to the rest of you, simply because, if you do your research — on actual PEER-REVIEWED scholastic journals and not Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers, and obviously biased White Supremacist websites — then you would know the truth. There’s no point in debating with you over information that I could EASILY prove — and all you have to do is search for it.
As for 123… When you learn how to SPELL, then maybe you can address me. As for your argument about race being more than skin deep, you’re absolutely correct; and you just proved it. Retard.
Fred Scrooby. Question. If you are so sure that my features must be “ape-like” (By the way, Bush looks more like an ape than ANY Black person I’ve ever seen), then please explain to me why, as I was walking back to my car on a well-known college campus yesterday, three WHITE boys (PREPPY - Ashton Kutcher, David Beckham types) started catcalling and yelling to me, and one actually said to me, “You are perfect. Absolutely perfect.” While you’re at it, explain why I can’t go ANYWHERE without being gawked at and hit on by men of ALL races; why, when many men approach me, the first thing they say is, “I know you probably hear this all the time, but…” (fill in the blank with any variation of, “You are beautiful!”, “You are hot!” or “You should model!” — which, by the way, I have); and why, whenever I am initially introduced to anyone (particularly White women), the first comment out of their mouths is, “She’s so pretty!” Hmmm… Maybe it’s because I am. Apparently, it’s not just my high level of internalized confidence that proves it. Nice try, though.
I’m sure it’s partially because I actually keep myself up… actually style my hair, wear jewelry, stylish clothes, etc. as opposed to most White women I see, who leave the house in old sweatshirts and dirty tennis shoes. White people just look DIRTY. Like trailer trash. Pale, pasty skin; stringy, greasy hair; non-existent lips; shapeless bodies. Ewww!
Maybe you’re just JEALOUS that a (gasp!) Black person has beauty AND intelligence, and you have… NOTHING. Or maybe your wife is one of those ugly White women I just mentioned… that is, of course, assuming you could find someone who wanted to marry you.
As far as my intelligence level, as I previously mentioned, my level of intellect speaks for itself. I don’t expect White supremacists to admit how intelligent I am; but, whether you admit it or not, you all can see it. Being a member of both American Mensa and the National Society of Collegiate Scholars, I think I’ve more than proven my capabilities. Having attended prestigious private schools all of my life; and, STILL having skipped a grade… Having graduated high school at the age of 16 and having begun undergraduate college before I turned 17, I think I’ve more than proven my capabilities. (How many of you whiteys can say that you’ve accomplished the equivalent… or even CLOSE??) Everyone else I’ve come into physical contact with has acknowledged both my intelligence and my beauty; so I really don’t think I need approval from a bunch of redneck honkeys online.
In response to your comment about fluency in language, I’ve never heard anything like that in my life, so it’s obvious that you just decided to create some off-the-wall story to support your sad attempts to indoctrinate people to believe that an entire race of people is beneath another. Just face it. White people are the least desirable race out of all of the races. You are the least attractive (by FAR!!), the least intelligent (whether you choose to admit it or not), and the most evil and selfish. You are a sad race of people. When I read your comments, I can almost feel the energy of jealousy surrounding them. You are an extremely jealous people. You are afraid that, now that minorities are beginning to get more fair and equal opportunities, we will surpass you; and you will eventually be kissing our feet. Well, you would be right. Since you have no control over that, your attempts to assert control come in the forms of White Nationalist forums and ridiculous “research” articles such as this one. Regardless of what you do, you will never stop us. Slavery is over; so you can bitch, whine, and complain all you want, but what good is it really going to do you? While you devote countless hours toward your forums, websites, and research on us (VERY flattering, might I add), minorities everywhere are out earning Master’s and Doctorate degrees, working in high-powered positions, and living upper class lifestyles; and no amount of research or pointless discussion can change this. My advice to you: Get over it. You’ve already lost.
LOL in my mind’s eye I can picture a Michelle Obama-type mulatto with chemically straightened hair, one hand on her hip while using the other to wag a finger at us, her lips moving at 120 miles an hour.
“if you do your research — on actual PEER-REVIEWED scholastic journals”
We have and you just ignore and deny.
“then you would know the truth”
Go ahead and cite those scholarly sources, dear.
“There’s no point in debating with you over information that I could EASILY prove”
But will not and can not. Its all just blustering on your part.
“Black person has beauty AND intelligence”
Pics or stfu.
How come you continue to ignore me when given total irrefutable fact (something, by the way, you have not done)?
“You are perfect. Absolutely perfect.” (from Catherine’s comment)
I just hope Catherine sticks around a little longer. She is always good for laugh, which is a change, as unfortunately we usually don’t have much to laugh about.
I know it is not really worth it, but I am just fascinated by this, perhaps because we have only few negroes here in Germany and so one encounters them only rarely and certainly not on such a level.
Fred, yes, you must be right. Plus I note from Catherine’s various utterings the typical complementary pattern to this, namely de-nigrating others by name-calling like moron, retard, etc., thereby verbally elevating herself. Apparently she is unable to grasp how embarressing her behaviour is, not only for herself, but also for her race, of whom, after all, she is a representative in this thread.
Again the difference in behaviour to the whites to this name-calling is striking. No direct retaliations, still remaining polite, still arguing factual, still keeping their manners.
Like I said before: fascinating (for me at least).
“…and so one encounters them only rarely and certainly not on such a level…” as if we’re some rare, endangered species of exotic animal or something. Wow. You had better get used to us.
White people certainly have a warped, hypocritcal perspective — i.e. They see what they WANT to see, and ignore the rest. 123 says (and I quote), “…the difference in behaviour to the whites to this name-calling is striking. No direct retaliations, still remaining polite, still arguing factual, still keeping their manners…” in regards to the White people attempting to debate my viewpoints.
Exhibit A - Fred Scrooby: “One of the most amazing experiences in this life, I find, is seeing a Negro who looks unpleasantly ape-like, and anything but attractive — actually sort of hurts your eyes to look at — claim to be ravishingly beautiful or extremely handsome, or one with pathetically limited intelligence, actually at or near the mentally-retarded level, claim to be brilliant, more or less a genius, and so on.”
So… This is considered “polite” and “keeping their manners”???
Exhibit B - Darren: “I shouldn’t be wasting too much time on this imbecile, but its worth responding to some of it.”
And… Let me guess. No name-calling, right? No direct retaliation?
Here’s a REAL kicker - Dan C.: “Europeans were great bearers of culture while your precious niggers were still swinging from trees in africa!”
Yeah, this just REALLY shows how polite and noble White people are! So… Did ya MISS these quotes, 123; or did you just decide to ignore them? Because you SURE didn’t seem to miss ANY thing I said, yet somehow managed to miss all of this. Never mind the fact that you said I was “just a negress” (whatever the hell THAT is) “babbling along nonsensical garbage, as Blacks are prone to do.” Yeah… REAL polite.
I could have cared less, but it absolutely AMAZES me how you would reference my demeanor in this forum, as if the crackers here have treated ME any differently than I’ve treated THEM.
I do applaud you, however, for proving my point that crackers are exceptionally brainless and mentally deficient. I’ve also noted that, when crackers can’t really find anything negative to say about you, they tend to hallucinate and make things up.
And Darren, I’d hardly call “Brinkster” a reputable source. I said PEER-REVIEWED scholastic journals; or did you miss that one, too?
Score 2 for Catherine.
Wait. I take that back. Maybe you’re just too dumb to know what a peer-reviewed scholastic journal is. Ignorance is not bliss. Educate yourself. (Psst! By the way, Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers don’t count either!)
Orion14: It is quite a compliment to be compared to Michelle Obama. She is an extremely accomplished and cultivated woman; and, having attended Harvard, she is also extremely intelligent. I am only in my early 20’s, but I can only hope I am as accomplished as she is at her age. Nonetheless, I do not look anything like her. And chemically straightened hair? Negative. Try long, beautiful, naturally curly hair — the kind of hair cracker women slave for hours with curling irons and fry their hair with perms just to achieve. (By the way, after my eyes, my hair is the feature I get the most compliments on from White women).
Oh, hold on. I just saw something I didn’t see before. Friedrich Braun: “Negroes also have psychopathological personalities, in the sense of being much less compassionate and caring. They’re indifferent to the pain and suffering of others to a far greater degree than Whites. They show little empathy in psychological studies.”
I must be dreaming, because I just thought I read that Whites are compassionate. Whites are empathetic towards the pain and suffering of others?? So, where exactly was this empathy when they were killing Black women and children? Hanging Black men? Whipping and beating them? Where was their COMPASSION, Friedrich?? Or, how about when they invaded the United States and killed the Native Americans, when all the Native Americans were trying to do was offer them food? WHERE WAS THE EMPATHY?? How about during the Holocaust? Or when they imprisoned Japanese-Americans in concentration camps?? Compassion, my ass. As a Black woman (and even as much as I HATE crackers!), I still couldn’t picture doing some of the things you all have done to BABIES!! Babies!!
White people just AMAZE me. Yet another example of crackers seeing what the hell they want to see. You all base your “facts” off of warped opinions and studies performed by racist White people (because those aren’t biased at ALL). You COMPLETELY ignore the obvious, and make of it what you want. You are an irrationally ethnocentric and intensely deranged group of animals. I don’t even know how much easier you could have made it for me to prove my points about you all.
Guys, please stop feeding the monkey. Hopefully, the simian creature will stop spamming.
We can at least laugh at the fact that the reason “Catherine” has a reasonable amount of intelligence is because she is probably more White than Black - she is probably the result of a part Black father and White mother. She probably also grew up in a predominantely White neighborhood, went to schools which were majority White, and her and her mixed family enjoyed the security and relative prosperity of her clean and safe White environment. So, in a sense, her “beauty and intelligence” (as she puts it) is a direct result of her own Whiteness along with White cultural institutions she grew up in as opposed to her partial Blackness from which her Black (or part Black) father was in no doubt trying to escape for a better life in White society BECAUSE IT IS FAR BETTER than Black ghetto culture.
The funny thing also is that she refers to herself as “Black” even though she is probably more genetically White than Black, as many “Blacks” in America are - because it is highly unlikely that one or both of her parents were ENTIRELY Black (no White admixture). It is only due to the fact that she probably looks more Black than White (due to the fact that Black features [however minute] almost always genetically drown out White features…a shame) that she still refers to herself as Black instead of White.