The Reality of Race
by Thomas Jackson
From American Renaissance magazine November, 1993

“Race is a veritable mountain of evidence, all of which can lead only to the conclusion that the races differ in ability. Nevertheless, Dr. Baker is strictly the scientist. He draws no further conclusions and makes no suggestions about social policy. There is no doubt in his mind that current orthodoxy on this subject is absurd, but he limits his exegesis to the interpretation of data.”

John R. Baker, Race, Foundation for Human Understanding (original publisher: Oxford Univ. Press), 1974

Introduction
The Proper Study of Mankind
Race and Color
Equal or Unequal?
A Mountain of Evidence

Race, by John Baker, is a remarkable book. There is probably no other treatment of the biology and physical anthropology of race that approaches it in breadth, detail, erudition or style. Even more remarkable is the book’s point of view. Far from evading the issue of racial differences in ability, it was written for the very purpose of investigating and clarifying those differences.

Dr. Baker, now deceased, was the ideal author for this book. He was professor emeritus of cytology at Oxford University, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and president of the Royal Microscopical Society. To these professional qualifications he added an abiding interest in what he called the “ethnic question,” that is to say, the entire range of ways in which the races differ.

Written late in life, Race is Dr. Baker’s definitive statement on what he considered one of the most important issues of our time. From start to finish the book is stuffed with little-known, eye-opening facts, and it is fascinating, even essential reading for anyone with a serious interest in race. It is supplemented with more than 80 illustrations, and some of the simpler line drawings are reproduced here.

Race is organized in four parts. The first is a summary of what was thought and freely written about racial differences up through the end of the 1920s when, as Dr. Baker puts it, “the curtain came down” on open discussion. The second is an introduction to the biology of taxonomy or classification, including a thorough treatment of how races and species are identified. The third is a detailed inventory of the biological differences that distinguish the major races and subraces. In this section Dr. Baker makes a particular study of whites, or Europids as he calls them, and of Africans (Negrids), Bushmen (Sanids), Australian aborigines (Australids), Celts, and Jews. In the final section, Dr. Baker sets out what he considers to be the essential criteria for determining what he bluntly calls superiority and inferiority. Not surprisingly, his conclusions are at odds with current dogma.

Dr. Baker’s historical account of what has been written about ethnic differences includes introductions to a number of people one might well expect, such as the Comte de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Nietzsche, Francis Galton, and even Hitler. Dr. Baker also describes the pioneering but no longer recognized work of men like Johann Blumenbach (1752-1840) and Samuel Sommerring (1755-1830).

Other famous men have pronounced themselves on the question of racial differences and, until recently, few have had any sympathy for the notion of equality. Rousseau, for example, thought the chimpanzee was a primitive form of human being, and Kant, Voltaire, and Hume thought the Negro vastly inferior to the European. Dr. Baker reminds us that even the Bible is hardly silent on the ethnic problem. The Children of Israel routinely exterminated enemies, whom they considered inferior, and in the tenth book of Joshua, they enslaved the entire Hivite people.

The Proper Study of Mankind

In the more technical sections that follow, Dr. Baker draws on his scientific training to treat homo sapiens as just one more member of the animal kingdom. “No one knows man who knows only man,” he observes, and adds: “One might almost go so far as to say, in relation to the ethnic problem, that the proper study of mankind is animals.” By this he means that without a thorough grounding in biology and taxonomy it is impossible to view man with the detachment that science requires. Dr. Baker writes, he explains, in the spirit that inspired T.H. Huxley to conclude that “Anthropology is a section of zoology [and] . . . the problems of ethnology are simply those which are presented to the zoologist by every widely distributed animal he studies.” In this, Dr. Baker is out of step with many contemporary social scientists who seem to believe that humans are uniquely exempt from the laws of heredity and from the kind of scrutiny to which all other animals are subject.

Dr. Baker leads us firmly back to biology with an account of how evolution gave rise to different species, how species are classified, the nature of hybridity, and the circumstances under which animals can be made to mate with differing species. Anthropology indeed becomes a branch of zoology. However, in this discussion it becomes clear that man differs from animals in at least one important way: humans are exceedingly unselective in their mating habits and will copulate with individuals–across racial lines, for example–from whom they are physically very different.

The contrast with the seven kinds of European mosquito, for example, could not be greater. Their eggs can be distinguished because of slight differences, but adults are so similar that not even experts can tell them apart under a microscope. What experts cannot do, the mosquitoes do without fail; they never interbreed.

Dr. Baker likewise reports that Grant’s gazelle and Thompson’s gazelle live together in mixed herds and are so similar in appearance that it takes a trained eye to tell them apart. They, too, never interbreed. It is only under domestication that animals can be made to overcome their repugnance for mates unlike themselves and thus produce mules or leopons (a cross between tiger and leopard). Domesticated dogs breed indiscriminately with widely different types but wild dogs like wolves, foxes, and coyotes breed only with their own kind.

Man is the most domesticated of animals and the least exclusive in his amours–but his promiscuity varies enormously by group and individual. As Dr. Baker points out, the Indian caste system successfully prevented interbreeding even among racially similar people. At the same time, there are individuals whose lust for animals is so great that bestiality has had to be specifically forbidden ever since Biblical times.

The races and sub-races of man have evolved largely because of geographical separation, but Dr. Baker also refers to what he calls “ecological races” that evolved to fill different but overlapping niches. The small stature of African pygmies, for example, fits them to forest life while the larger Negrids live in clearings.

If humans had continued to evolve in isolation or if they were as discriminating as animals in their choice of mates, racial differences would eventually lead to mutually infertile species. This would be diversity of a truly remarkable kind.

Domestication and travel have led to increasing miscegenation, but Dr. Baker speculates about another possible reason. The skulls of our remote ancestors show that their olfactory organs were much better developed than ours. It is also likely that ancient man had stronger odors than does modern man, and since our ancestors’ mating habits were probably governed by smell just like those of animals, this discouraged mating with unfamiliar peoples. Even today the races have different odors.

Dr. Baker notes drily that although modern man is scrupulous in selecting only the most promising breeding couples among his domestic animals, he almost never gives the same attention to his own reproduction. “It follows,” he adds, “that we cannot look for any advance in inborn intelligence . . . .”

Race and Color

Dr. Baker writes at some length about skin color, but only because race and color are sometimes confused. He himself thinks the subject is trivial and, in fact, since at least Darwin’s time scientists have recognized that color is unimportant in distinguishing biological forms. Dr. Baker points out that to make color the touch stone of race is as stupid as to think that a red rose is more closely related to a red petunia than to a white rose.

Australian aborigines are similar in color to Bushmen, for example, but it would be difficult to think of two racial groups that are more dissimilar biologically. Likewise, Dr. Baker explains that some of the inhabitants of northern India have relatively dark skin but are racially very close to Europids.

Skin color is affected by the color of blood that may be visible through it, but the main reason for variations in skin color is the presence of different amounts of the pigment melanin. All humans make the same melanin and have much the same number of melanocytes–the difference is in how much melanin is produced. The darkest Africans have visible concentrations of melanin even in the whites of their eyes and on their tongues. Melanin colors hair as well as skin, though it is the presence of a slightly different substance, called phaeomelanin, that causes “red” hair.

Dr. Baker explains that blue eyes are not caused by a blue pigment but by the absence of pigment. Eyes appear to be blue for the same reason the edges of a snow bank may appear blue: red light and other long wave lengths pass through but shorter, bluer wave lengths are refracted and scattered, and some are reflected back towards the viewer.

Light-skinned people are probably descended from dark-skinned people who migrated from the tropics. The skin of Europeans transmits three and a half times as much sunlight as the skin of Africans, and the ultraviolet rays convert ergosterol in the body into vitamin D. Dark-skinned people, whose skins are adapted to sunnier latitudes, may therefore get rickets–caused by vitamin D deficiency–if they live in cold climates.

The third section of Race, in which Dr. Baker describes the myriad ways in which the races differ from each other physically is the most technical. It includes general descriptions of blood chemistry, physiology and skeletal structure, with a special emphasis on the characteristics of the skull. It introduces concepts like brachycephaly, paedomorphism, and the cranial index.

It is useful for the reader to have had some training in physiology but it is not necessary. Even the most technical passages can usually be understood by a non-specialist who has paid close attention to earlier explanations, and Dr. Baker has set his most abstruse observations in smaller type as a signal to laymen that they may skip over them without much loss.

A certain level of scientific detail is necessary here not merely because physiological differences between the races require a certain vocabulary. In this section Dr. Baker is at pains to explain the extent to which some races show the traits of primitiveness–the retention into the modern era of features possessed by our remote ancestors–and paedomorphy–the retention as adults of traits commonly associated with children.

For example, it is indisputable that Australids are more primitive than other races. Like Pithecanthropus, their teeth and lower jaws are strikingly large, and their skulls are twice as thick as those of any other race. The forehead recedes sharply, and the brow ridges are so well developed as to be reminiscent of Pithecanthropus and of the larger apes. The brain is only about 85 percent the size of that of Europids and the back part has lunate folds not found in other races but similar to those in the brains of orang-utans. Likewise, the nasal aperture is similar, in some respects, to that of the orang-utan.

The Bushmen, or Sanids, show equally remarkable evidence of paedomorphy. Their very small size–males are often no taller than 4′7″ or 4′9″–is the most obviously juvenile characteristic retained by adults. Their skulls are notably short and squat like those of a Europid infant and their eyes are set wide apart like a new-born’s. The facial and body hair of both sexes is very weakly developed and reminiscent of children. Among males, the scrotum is like that of a pre-adolescent: so small and tightly drawn up that one might think only one testicle had descended.

As for Negrids, aside from a brain that is very slightly smaller than that of Europids and Sinids (North Asians), Dr. Baker finds no characteristics that could be called either primitive or paedomorphous. Negrids differ in blood chemistry from other races, and have broader shoulders and thinner calves. Certain tribes, such as the Hottentot, show extreme steatopygia or enlarged buttocks. In some cases the posterior extends horizontally, almost like a shelf.

Francis Galton, who travelled among the Hottentot in 1850 and 1851, wrote of one such woman that he was “perfectly aghast at her development.” He wanted to measure her dimensions but could not bring himself to ask her permission to do so. Instead, he took observations through his sextant and, he says, “worked out the results by trigonometry and logarithms.”

Equal or Unequal?

The question of whether Africans are, on average, equal in intelligence to whites is important both in the United States and in Britain. Dr. Baker therefore devotes considerable space to 19th-century accounts of African societies before they came into sustained contact with foreigners. This is the only sure way to know how far they had been able to advance without outside influence.

Every explorer found a remarkable poverty of development. No black African society had a written language or a calendar. None used the wheel or practiced joinery or built multi-story buildings. Iron smelting was common but no black Africans built what could be called a mechanical device, even one so simple as a hinge. Africans apparently tamed no animals themselves but received already-domesticated dogs and cattle from north of the Sahara. None used any beast of burden, despite the presence of large mammals that could have been tamed.

Although African societies are today described as having rich oral histories, this was by no means universal. A few tribes did have men who could recite the histories of their kings, but many were completely ignorant of the past. The Ovaherero tribe, for example, kept no count of years at all.

Slavery and polygamy were widespread. Arbitrary execution of subjects by rulers or wives by husbands was common. A few tribes ate human flesh though even some of their own members seem to have rejected this custom. Some coastal natives, seeing slaves being fed before being loaded onto ships for export, believed that Europeans intended to eat them.

Some people have argued that the reason Africans showed such poor development was that the effort to maintain life was too great to permit the leisure for advancement. On the contrary, the missionary and explorer, David Livingstone, found that some parts of the continent were a veritable paradise:

“To one who has observed the hard toil of the poor in old civilized countries, the state in which the inhabitants here live is one of glorious ease. . . . Food abounds, and very little labour is required for its cultivation; the soil is so rich that no manure is required.”

Although Dr. Baker does not pursue this idea very far, he suggests that it was the very ease of life in Africa that kept high intelligence from being as necessary for survival as it was in harsher climates.

In the concluding section of Race, Dr. Baker draws the only conclusions that the data will permit: Just as they differ in biology, the races differ in their mental traits. They are not equally intelligent or capable of building civilized societies. Dr. Baker reviews the literature on mental testing and on the heritability of intelligence and finds that it only confirms his conclusions.

After setting out an interesting set of criteria for genuine civilization he finds that the first people to achieve it were the Sumerians of the fourth millennium B.C. Physically, it is likely that they were more closely related to the Kurds than to any other present people. Europids and Sinids have also created genuine civilizations, but Negrids and Australids have not.

Dr. Baker puts the Maya of Central America in a category of their own. Their astronomy and mathematics were extremely advanced and were at one time the most sophisticated in the world. They built great cities and administered large territories. However, Dr. Baker hesitates to call them genuinely civilized for several reasons: they did not use the wheel or use commercial weights, their written language was poorly developed and their religion was a mass of superstitions that were often the basis for torture, human sacrifice, and mass slaughter.

A Mountain of Evidence

Race is a veritable mountain of evidence, all of which can lead only to the conclusion that the races differ in ability. Nevertheless, Dr. Baker is strictly the scientist. He draws no further conclusions and makes no suggestions about social policy. There is no doubt in his mind that current orthodoxy on this subject is absurd, but he limits his exegesis to the interpretation of data.

In its realm, however, Race is a magisterial work to which justice cannot be done in a review. It is probably the single most ambitious and comprehensive volume on the subject ever attempted, and is surely without peer in its treatment of the physical differences that distinguish races. It is not an easy book — Dr. Baker does not address himself to dullards or dilettantes — but in these blighted times it is a stroke of astonishing good fortune that a man of his immense learning and ability should have chosen to take up a position on the unpopular but truthful side of “the ethnic problem.”

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective
by Mark Snyderman
from National Review, Sept 12, 1994

WHAT MUST Pat Shipman think of Phillipe Rushton? Dr. Shipman describes how the scientific study of racial difference has too often been polluted by political forces; she proclaims her allegiance to science, and declares that we are better off knowing the unaltered truth about racial differences. But her rhetoric betrays great fear of what science may reveal.

Phillipe Rushton apparently has no such fear. Although his story is absent from Dr. Shipman’s book, it would fit neatly. Mr. Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, has endured excoriation because he has dared to posit an evolutionary/genetic explanation for racial differences in a wide variety of physical and behavioral characteristics. Undeterred, he has even appeared on Geraldo (though this episode may demonstrate more an ignorance of American television than fortitude). Mr. Rushton’s new book — a synthesis of a vast body of scientific research on racial differences — is his most ambitious, and fearless, work. Pat Shipman should be happy. She probably won’t be.

Dr. Shipman’s book, The Evolution of Racism, is beautifully written, and endlessly intriguing, but one is never quite sure what it is supposed to be about. For starters, the title is misleading. The book is only marginally about racism, as the word is commonly understood.

What Dr. Shipman does present is a series of case studies, told largely through biographical accounts, of the politicization of scientific debate over racial differences and genetic explanations of behavior. These are fascinating stories, well told. But the stories have no clear moral.

The book begins with a wonderful portrayal of Darwin’s insecurity about his new theory, of Thomas Huxley’s unabashed championing of Darwinism, and of Huxley’s famous debate with Bishop Wilberforce which put the theory of evolution over the top. Dr. Shipman begins the real discussion of race with the clash between the owlish Rudolf Virchow, perhaps the pre-eminent German scientist of the mid nineteenth century, and the vigorous Aryan Ernst Haeckel. Virchow opposed the theory of evolution because he thought it inconsistent with his own scientific theories and a fundamental challenge to his view of the social order, while Haeckel championed Darwinism and then used it to further his theories of racial superiority and his political position. Dr. Shipman decries the damage to science in the ensuing struggle.

There follows a discussion of the eugenics movement and of Hitler (who sought justification in Haeckel’s writings), and the post-war backlash against the scientific study of race. Dr. Shipman gives us an enlightening account of anthropologist Ashley Montagu [aka Israel Ehrenberg], a vehement anti-racist and author of the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race. The Ashley Montagu Statement, as it has come to be known, denies the validity of any notion that human groups differ in innate characteristics of intelligence or temperament, and touts scientific support for “the ethic of universal brotherhood.”

Montagu subsequently was among those who led the attack on Carleton Coon. According to Dr. Shipman, Coon was “a man betrayed by history.” An anthropologist-explorer trained in the early twentieth century, Coon published his life’s work, The Origin of Races, in 1962. His thesis was that the various races developed long ago–a half million years before we became Homo sapiens–and that some races developed into modern humans more slowly than others. Whatever its merits, Dr. Shipman explains, this was a work of science, not of racial politics. Yet it is not difficult to imagine the reaction to such a work in 1962, at the very moment that the civil-rights movement was coming into full swing. What is remarkable is that so much of the criticism from other scientists took the form of personal attack and political diatribe. As the line between concerned scientist and social activist blurred, genetic and evolutionary accounts of racial differences simply would not be tolerated even by those whose job it was to search for the truth: “It was an unresolvable conflict between the fervent social activist and the irascible scientific purist. But the tenor of the times was such that it was the scientific purist, Coon, who was disgraced and, to some extent, driven out of his profession.”

Dr. Shipman’s final case study is the tale of an attorney and researcher named David Wasserman. Mr. Wasserman had the idea to sponsor a conference on the legal and social implications of behavioral genetic studies of criminality. The story of how his innocent project became entangled in, and eventually destroyed by, the racially charged reaction to a wholly independent Bush Administration program is out of Kafka. Like many interested in biology and behavior, Mr. Wasserman was defeated by those who believe that there are some questions science simply should not ask.

In the end, one wonders where Dr. Shipman stands on this issue. She bemoans the politicization of science and proclaims that we are better off studying racial differences, yet she is afraid of what such research might find. Her fear comes very close to overwhelming her defense of science. Thus, the book ends with the following cryptic summation:

The trajectory begun with Darwin has run its course. No one has sought to provoke a bitter controversy, but the value of differences among humans has reached out its sticky pseudopods and engulfed the unwary over and over again. The monster cannot be outran; it threatens us all. There is a real danger here …. To date, we have feared to wrestle with it openly, we have turned our heads and shielded our eyes from the horror of the problem. Rather than face the monster, we have played, instead, at politicizing first evolutionary theory and then genetics, for we are intrinsically political animals and it is a game that comes naturally. We have fought each other–called each other names, accused each other of sinister intent, promulgated bitter insinuations–instead of fighting ignorance. In so doing, we have given the hate-mongers time to feed the monster. It has swelled on a steady diet of racial divisiveness, lies, and half-truths until it is strong enough to destroy us all.

What exactly is this “monster” to which Dr. Shipman refers? It is, apparently, the truth about human differences. How are we to handle the truth, if it “threatens us all”?

Dr. Shipman’s unsatisfying answer is to trust in the power of the environment. Should it turn out that there is a significant genetic component to individual and racial differences in behavior, she concludes, “Our only hope lies in the certainty that these attributes are subject to tremendous environmental modification.” For her, this is simply an article of faith.

Dr. Shipman’s fear of the genetic is evident in her readiness to reject biological explanations. In criticizing early behavioral genetics, for example, she explains that “we have a different perspective on what traits are heritable today.” She takes as an example the perceived difference in volubility between Italians and Finns. “Is it because Italians more commonly carry genes for talkativeness than Finns? It is wildly improbable that this is so, for how could such a gene work?” This is a naive response from a physical anthropologist. Of course there is no single gene for talkativeness, yet there plainly is some genetic mechanism that allows humans to talk (unless Dr. Shipman postulates that the lack of speech in other species is entirely due to a difference in environment). Why, then, is it difficult to imagine that this genetic mechanism might differ in degree among individuals or groups?

Dr. Shipman’s unease about any genetic explanation is particularly apparent in her treatment of intelligence, which lies at the heart of the controversy about racial differences. She follows unthinkingly the argument set forth by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. The argument is that the development of intelligence tests in the early part of this century was driven largely by the eugenics movement and belief in the inferiority of certain groups. The upshot of this argument is a form of guilt by association: intelligence tests were born of racism; thus they must retain their racist tint. Mr. Gould’s conclusion, which Dr. Shipman parrots, is that intelligence tests at best are extremely sensitive to environmental variation, and therefore are of limited usefulness in measuring intelligence or establishing any genetic component to differences in intellectual functioning.

Mr. Gould is wrong, and so is Dr. Shipman. While it is true that racists found some support in early test results, the historical record reveals that the majority of early mental testers were engaged in a legitimate scientific enterprise. There were flaws in these tests to be sure, as there are flaws today, but the large-scale problems with test development and administration to which Mr. Gould points have been eliminated. Evidence of the validity of modern intelligence and aptitude tests, and of the significant heritable component to individual differences in intelligence, is beyond rational refutation. (The genetic basis of group differences remains uncertain.) In following Mr. Gould, Dr. Shipman has fallen prey to the same environmentalist bias she condemns in the reaction to Coon and Wasserman.

WHAT IF she is wrong. What if scientific investigation reveals, for example, that there are average differences in intelligence between members of different races that cannot be accounted for by any known sources of environmental variation? Faith in the power of the environment will not shield us from that “monster.”

Phillipe Rushton is willing to accept the results of his science. He describes hundreds of studies worldwide that show a consistent pattern of human racial differences. The three primary human racial groups–Mongoloids (Orientals), Negroids (blacks), and Caucasoids (Caucasians)–show significant average differences in such characteristics as intelligence, brain size, genital size, strength of sex drive, reproductive potency, industriousness, sociability, and rule following. On each of these variables, the groups are aligned in the order: Orientals, Caucasians, blacks. On average, according to the data Mr. Rushton reports, Orientals are more intelligent, have larger brains for their body size, have smaller genitalia, have less sex drive, are less fecund, work harder, and are more readily socialized than Caucasians; and Caucasians on average bear the same relationship to blacks. There is, of course, tremendous variation within each group on each of these variables, and a great degree of overlap between groups. The group differences Mr. Rushton reports are not large, but they are demonstrable.

He proposes an evolutionary explanation based on “life history theory.” The theory assumes “that each species (or subspecies, such as a race) has evolved a characteristic life history adapted to the particular ecological problems encountered by its ancestors.” These strategies are organized along a continuum from “K-strategies” to “r-strategies.” K-strategies “emphasize high levels of parental care, resource acquisition, kin provisioning, and social complexity,” while r-strategies “emphasize gamete production, mating behavior, and high reproductive rates.” Compared to other species, humans are K-strategists. Based on the data he reports, Mr. Rushton observes that Orientals are the most K-strategizing of the human races, and blacks are the most r-strategizing.

According to Mr. Rushton, r-strategies evolve in environments in which the population is kept below the carrying capacity of the environment (that is, where there are more resources for survival than there are members of the population to use them) because of unpredictable factors such as weather or predators. K-strategies are more adaptive in environments in which the population is close to carrying capacity and competitive interactions among individuals are important. Put simply, when there are abundant resources, organisms are better off producing many offspring and letting them fend for themselves; when the environment is difficult, organisms are better off putting their resources into equipping each offspring to survive.

Mr. Rushton’s thesis now falls into place. Blacks evolved in Africa in an abundant but unpredictable environment that favored reproduction over nurturance, relative to other human populations. The harsh environment of northeast Asia in which Orientals evolved favored more nurturing, socialization, and greater intellectual capacity. Caucasian evolution in Eurasia imposed intermediate pressures.

Underlying Mr. Rushton’s thesis is the contention that there is a genetic basis for much of the observed between-race variation he reports. Here is where he will meet the most resistance. Behavioral genetic studies of between-race differences are notoriously difficult, as Mr. Rushton admits. Nonetheless he strongly argues for a genetic component to average between-race differences. He presents much behavioral genetic evidence on the question, but his most compelling argument is intuitive. What possible environmental variables could account for the systematic alignment of the races on such a wide variety of characteristics, including behavioral traits evident soon after birth, “the speed of dental and other maturational variables, the size of the brain, the number of gametes produced, [and] the physiological differences in testosterone?” The strictly environmental hypothesis also is undermined by the various studies that demonstrate a significant genetic component to within-race individual differences on each of the behavioral and physical characteristics and the fact that these racial differences are consistent across cultures. Mr. Rushton contends that only an evolutionary/genetic explanation makes sense of these disparate data.

This is dynamite he fails to handle with sufficient care. Mr. Rushton tries in the preface of his book to temper the impact of what follows. He notes that he is dealing for the most part with relatively small group differences, and that these differences are likely the result of environmental determination as much as genetic. He explains also that the mechanisms that mediate genetic effects offer “numerous ways for intervention and the alleviation of suffering.” His three-paragraph caveat is a tame cousin to the paean to the environment with which Pat Shipman ends her book. As such, it is woefully inadequate to head off any of the attack that is to come. Mr. Rushton must be aware of this; he seems not to care. “There are no necessary policies that flow from race research,” he declares. His reliance on this single idea indicates either a naivete about political reality or an unshakable faith in science.

Mr. Rushton is not naive. He begins his book with a discussion of the difficulties of the scientific study of race:

The propensity to defend one’s own group, to see it as special, and not to be susceptible to the laws of evolutionary biology makes the scientific study of ethnicity and race differences problematic. Theories and facts generated in race research may be used by ethnic nationalists to propagate political positions. Antiracists may also engage in rhetoric to deny differences and suppress discoveries. Findings based on the study of race can be threatening. Ideological mine fields abound in ways that do not pertain in other areas of inquiry.

This passage could serve as a summary of Pat Shipman’s treatise. Mr. Rushton adds a twist. He posits that the politicization of the scientific study of race may itself have evolutionary origins. He devotes a chapter to genetic similarity theory, the hypothesis that genetically similar people tend to seek one another out and to provide mutually supportive environments.” This phenomenon, according to Mr. Rushton, “may represent a biological factor underlying ethnocentrism.” Thus, the reaction to work like Mr. Rushton’s may have deeper roots than in our present environment.

Phillipe Rushton has written his own epitaph. Any genetic predisposition toward the defense of one’s race only adds to the near impossibility of rational response to the scientific study of race in a world that has seen the Holocaust and racial subjugation. As he explains, “The evolutionary psychology of race differences has become the most politically incorrect topic in the world today.” Mr. Rushton’s work may be ignored by the fearful, damned by the liberals, and misused by the racists. It is unlikely to be truly understood by anyone.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective
by J. Philippe Rushton
New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995, 334 pp.

***

Reviewed by FSU Professor Glayde Whitney
in Contemporary Psychology, December 1996, pp. 1189-1191.

The Return of Racial Science

The Theory

The History

The Reception

The Pity

References

If the mavens of Politically Correct could enforce an Index Librorum Prohibitorum, then you would not be allowed to read this book. Serious scientific considerations of similarities and differences among the living races of humankind have been in eclipse for most of a century. With Race, Evolution and Behavior author Rushton goes a good distance toward reinstating objective scientific rationality to this important and sensitive area of investigation. Here within a single cover are considered topics of race with regard to intelligence, aggression and criminality, sexual behavior, parenting behaviors, personality, rates of maturation, sexually transmitted diseases, social stability, brain size, differential rates of twinning, pharmaceutical reactions, and much more, along with genes and evolution. Rushton reports that for over 60 variables he has found the same pattern among races: “people of east Asian ancestry (Mongoloids, Orientals) and people of African ancestry (Negroids, blacks) define opposite ends of the spectrum with people of European ancestry (Caucasoids, whites) falling intermediately,” (p xiii). Although there is much variability among individuals within each broad racial category, the average differences between them are consistent indirection across diverse physical, behavioral, and social variables.

The Theory

To theoretically account for the consistent pattern of differences across races for so many disparate variables requires a high-level, broad conceptual framework. Rushton proposes a “gene-based evolutionary theory” that utilizes concepts from population biology. The r - K scale of reproductive strategy has been widely used in many sociobiological applications. The symbol “r” initially denoted “intrinsic rate of increase”, while “K” is the symbol for “carrying capacity of the environment” (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). The individuals of populations which have been r-selected tend to mature rapidly and reproduce at a young age. The emphasis is on maximization of number of offspring with less resources devoted to the care of each individual offspring. The species which are r-selected often exist at population densities that are well below the theoretical carrying capacity of their environment; they experience high rates of death due to unpredictable causes (disease, local famine). The r evolutionary strategy has been to throw out lots of kids in the likelihood that some might survive in a capricious world.

Individuals which are K strategists tend to live in more predictable environments and they mature more slowly. Rather than high rates of reproduction, there is delayed reproduction and considerable resources are devoted to caring for the smaller number of offspring which are produced. The K evolutionary strategy has been to produce far fewer kids and to carefully nurture each one through the most difficult times in a predictable world (think winter blizzard). K-selected species tend to have more stable and complex social structure than do r-selected species.

In order to emphasize that all humans tend to be K-selected in comparison to many other species, Rushton has referred to his theory as “Differential K Theory”. Essentially, the proposal is that African populations, evolving with a tropical abundance of both food and diseases, are relatively less K-selected. Relative that is, to Mongoloid populations which were more K- selected in the harsh environments encountered during the last Glacial epoch, or which are experienced today in cold climates. There is a positive Darwinian selective advantage favoring more forward planning, sexual restraint , parental nurturing, family stability, and social structure in order to successfully raise children across hard cold winters.

The History

On many of the variables that are considered, the racial differences are not large and Rushton emphasizes “the indisputable fact that much more research is needed. Objective hypothesis testing about racial differences in behavior has been much neglected over the past 60 years and knowledge is not as advanced as it ought to be” (p. xv). In view of the near taboo on race as a causal variable in the social sciences, it is interesting to consider how much do we know and since when have we known it. The answers to these two questions, as given in the chapter “race and racism in history”, as well as throughout the book, will likely surprise many psychologists and social scientists educated in the last 60 years. We knew a lot about race differences and we knew it prior to the early decades of the twentieth century.

Indeed, some of the race differences only now being investigated (re-investigated) have been known and have been stable with regard to direction of average differences since the first recorded contacts among the races. One example is the case of brain size. Well known to Broca and other 19th century scientists, then lost in a fog of misspeak and obfuscation and only now reemerging as a stable and potentially important difference between races. The context of progressive, socialistic, or communistic environmentalist-egalitarianism in which the study of race differences went from being respectable science to ideologically suppressed evil is a fascinating study in itself (Degler, 1991; Pearson, 1991). The widespread abhorrence of wartime excesses fed a mid- century frenzied denial of the legitimacy of racial science from which we are just now emerging. It is in large part this history of denial and demonization which marks Rushton’s book as a landmark volume.

The Reception

It will come as no surprise to learn that Rushton’s work, although well written and very readable, has not been greeted with universal acclamation. Indeed. He has probably suffered as much controversy and abuse stemming from his professional activity as any modern psychologist in the “free world”. Following a 1989 invited presentation of Differential K Theory at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a firestorm of controversy arose. Although not widely reported in the United States, an academic, governmental, and media circus played out in Canada. The Premier of Ontario (analogous to a state governor) called for the University to fire him. The Premier also asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether he had violated the federal criminal code of Canada. A leading Toronto newspaper kept a steady stream of scurrilous editorials flowing until threatened with a lawsuit, upon which they desisted. Canadian television news programs propagandized and demonized Rushton’s appearance with the insertion of Nazi flim clips, as did Connie Chung of CBS’s “eye-to-eye” infamy.

On the academic front the institution of tenure saved Rushton’s position at University, but not without cost. His annual performance rating suddenly went to “unsatisfactory” (as at most places a first step in laying the paper trail to eventual dismissal) until legally challenged, at which point his rating, as one of the most prolific researchers in his unit, went back to the customary high level.

One of the most ignominious events involved a covey of influential members of the Behavior Genetics Association (BGA). Because of their field of research, investigators of behavior genetics (even mousers and fruit fly devotees) have not been immune from Nazi name-calling and attacks on their academic credibility. Accordingly, the BGA had long established a “public and professional affairs committee” to issue the occasional “official statement” in support of attacked members. In a totally unprecedented turn-about that committee was requested to disavow, on behalf of the BGA, the member-in-good-standing Rushton and his research. When the committee refused, the afore mentioned covey took it upon themselves to circulate widely a statement throwing Rushton to the wolves. None of the attacks involved data or rational theory. Rather they were emotional attacks on Rushton’s “repugnant” insensitivity.

In the face of tenure protection, a move was instigated to criminalize Rushton because of his research. In what has been called “the worst attack on freedom of speech ever perpetrated in Ontario”, the Ontario Human Rights Commission investigated for four years and then unceremoniously dropped the case (Leishman, 1995).

It is not just the political left that has trouble acknowledging the legitimacy and importance of racial science. Irving Horowitz (1995), Rushton’s publisher, has written an interesting account of the refusal of a leading conservative publication to accept paid advertisements which announced the availability of Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

The Pity

More is the pity of these emotional rejections of racial science, since it is often members of the “protected groups” which suffer because of ideologically enforced politically correct ignorance. As an example, it has been quite unacceptable to discuss race differences in testosterone levels, although this taboo is crumbling since it was noted that the hormone difference might be causal to the substantial race difference inmortality due to prostate cancer. In the U.S. the epidemic of murders of young black males by young black males has reached such levels that even the most ideologically committed can no longer deny reality.

The remarkable resistance to racial science in our times has led to comparisons with the Inquisition of Rome active during the Renaissance. It is probably not the case that Pope Paul V and Cardinal Bellarmin were evil men. They were quite well educated for their time and probably sincerely concerned for the welfare of their society. Their duty was to prevent the destruction of society that must surely follow if the heresies were allowed. Now the Copernican heliocentric theory could be tolerated; it was after all only a theory and Copernicus was dead. Kepler’s mathematical calculations could be tolerated; they were after all quite mathematical and not likely to arouse the curiosity of the common man. But Galileo Galilei went too far. He said it was true. Come, look through his telescope. Not just a theory but real observable data. Not in the past but here and now. Truth from which who knew what evil might follow. Galileo Galilei was arrested and forced to recant. Astronomy and the physical sciences had their Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo a few centuries ago; society and the welfare of humanity is the better for it today. In a directly analogous fashion, Psychology and the social sciences have today their Darwin, Galton, and Rushton. Discipulus est prioris posterior dies [Publius Syrus].

REFERENCES

Degler,C.N. (1991) In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, I.L. (1995) The Rushton file: Racial comparisons and media passions. Society, 32, 2, 7-17.
Leishman, G. (1995) Shoddy attack on free speech is over. The London Free Press (Ontario), Dec. 2, opinion page.
MacArthur, R.H., & Wilson, E.O. (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, 1. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Pearson, R. (1991) Race, intelligence and bias in academe. Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers.

Race as a Biological Concept
by J. Philippe Rushton
November 4, 1996

Professor Phillippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario has released the following statement on race, in response to attempts to discredit the very concept of race and to argue that race “has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man.” We are pleased to make a copy of this important statement available to our readers.

Discussion of “race” shows little sign of diminishing, despite efforts to deconstruct the concept. Deconstructing the concept of race not only conflicts with people’s tendency to classify and build family histories according to common descent but 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 Linnaeus delineated: 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.) Such high-level classifications do not rule out making finer, hierarchical subdivisions within these major groups.

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, 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 the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed subspecies). Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.

Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group and should be treated as such. Nonetheless, much has been learned by studying the statistical differences between the various human races. In my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers), as well as in other recent writings (e.g., the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology), 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.

Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.

Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are 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, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different 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.

Jared Diamond’s classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a “negroid” is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a “caucasoid” and a “mongoloid.” This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into 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 — and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.

Social definitions — that is, self-identification and other-identification actually accord quite well with the physical evidence. Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of 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. 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.

The mean pattern of educational and economic achievement within multi-racial countries such as Canada and the United States has increasingly been found to prove valid internationally. For example, it is not often recognized, perhaps because it contradicts the politically correct theories that intelligence is purely a matter of socio-economic conditions, that Asian-Americans and Asians in Asia often outscore white Americans and white Europeans on IQ tests and on tests of educational achievement (even though the tests were largely developed by Europeans and white Americans for use in a Euro-American culture). Blacks in the Caribbean, Britain, Canada and sub-Saharan Africa as well as in the United States have low IQ scores relative to whites. For violent crime, analyses of INTERPOL data from the 1980s and 1990s show the same international distribution that occurs within the United States (that is, Asians least, Europeans in the middle, and Africans most). A similar racial gradient is found both within the U.S. and globally for measures of sexual activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS (based on World Health Organization data).

One neurohormonal contributor to crime and reproductive behavior is testosterone. Studies show that black college students and military veterans have 3% to 19% more testosterone than their white counterparts. The Japanese have even lower amounts than whites. 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 dizygotic twinning per 1,000 births (caused by a double ovulation), is less than 4 among Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. 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 Asian/European matings in Hawaii and European/African matings in Brazil.

Publication of 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, explanation. 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. None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental factors play no part individual development. But with each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic contribution to individual and group differences becomes more firmly established than ever.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

J. Philippe Rushton is a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow and a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Canada. He holds two doctorates from the University of London (PhD and DSc) and is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. His latest book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers, telephone 908-445-2280) details the theories and data summarized in this article.

Racial Differences in Intelligence:
What Mainstream Science Says

This public statement, signed by 52 internationally known scholars, was active on the information highway early in 1995 following several rather heated and negative responses to Herrnstein & Murray’s The Bell Curve. It was first published in The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, December 13, 1994. An alphabetical listing of the scholars and their home institutions are given at the end of the statement.

Prologue

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

Group Differences

Practical Importance

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

Implications for Social Policy

Prologue

Since the publication of “The BELL CURVE,” many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.

This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.

The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.

Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the BELL CURVE (in statistical jargon, the “normal CURVE”). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for “giftedness”), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language.

The brain processes underlying intelligence are still little understood. Current research looks, for example, at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain.

Group Differences

Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The BELL CURVES of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The BELL CURVES for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites.

The BELL CURVE for whites is centered roughly around IQ 100; the BELL CURVE for American blacks roughly around 85; and those for different subgroups of Hispanics roughly midway between those for whites and blacks. The evidence is less definitive for exactly where above IQ 100 the BELL CURVES for Jews and Asians are centered.

Practical Importance

IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.

A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.

The practical advantages of having a higher IQ increase as life settings become more complex (novel, ambiguous, changing, unpredictable, or multi-faceted). For example, a high IQ is generally necessary to perform well in highly complex or fluid jobs (the professions, management); it is a considerable advantage in moderately complex jobs (crafts, clerical and police work); but it provides less advantage in settings that require only routine decision making or simple problem solving (unskilled work).

Differences in intelligence certainly are not the only factor affecting performance in education, training, and highly complex jobs (no one claims they are), but intelligence is often the most important. When individuals have already been selected for high (or low) intelligence and so do not differ as much in IQ, as in graduate school (or special education), other influences on performance loom larger in comparison.

Certain personality traits, special talents, aptitudes, physical capabilities, experience, and the like are important (sometimes essential) for successful performance in many jobs, but they have narrower (or unknown) applicability or “transferability” across tasks and settings compared with general intelligence. Some scholars choose to refer to these other human traits as other “intelligences.”

Source and Stability of Within-Group Differences

Individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage. Heritability estimates range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1), most thereby indicating that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals. (Heritability is the squared correlation of phenotype with genotype.) If all environments were to become equal for everyone, heritability would rise to 100% because all remaining differences in IQ would necessarily be genetic in origin.

Members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points) for both genetic and environmental reasons. They differ genetically because biological brothers and sisters share exactly half their genes with each parent and, on the average, only half with each other. They also differ in IQ because they experience different environments within the same family.

That IQ may be highly heritable does not mean that it is not affected by the environment. Individuals are not born with fixed, unchangeable levels of intelligence (no one claims they are). IQs do gradually stabilize during childhood, however, and generally change little thereafter.

Although the environment is important in creating IQ differences, we do not know yet how to manipulate it to raise low IQs permanently. Whether recent attempts show promise is still a matter of considerable scientific debate.

Genetically caused differences are not necessarily irremediable (consider diabetes, poor vision, and phenal ketonuria), nor are environmentally caused ones necessarily remediable (consider injuries, poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases). Both may be preventable to some extent.

Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences

There is no persuasive evidence that the IQ BELL CURVES for different racial-ethnic groups are converging. Surveys in some years show that gaps in academic achievement have narrowed a bit for some races, ages, school subjects and skill levels, but this picture seems too mixed to reflect a general shift in IQ levels themselves.

Racial-ethnic differences in IQ BELL CURVES are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade. However, because bright youngsters learn faster than slow learners, these same IQ differences lead to growing disparities in amount learnedas youngsters progress from grades one to 12. As large national surveyscontinue to show, black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more likewhite 13-year-olds in reading, math, and science, with Hispanics inbetween.

The reasons that blacks differ among themselves in intelligenceappear to be basically the same as those for why whites (or Asians orHispanics) differ among themselves. Both environment and geneticheredity are involved.

There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ acrossracial-ethnic groups. The reasons for these IQ differences betweengroups may be markedly different from the reasons for why individualsdiffer among themselves within any particular group (whites or blacks orAsians). In fact, it is wrong to assume, as many do, that the reason whysome individuals in a population have high IQs but others have low IQs must be the same reason why some populations contain more such high (or low) IQ individuals than others. Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too.

Racial-ethnic differences are somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds. To illustrate, black students from prosperous families tend to score higher in IQ than blacks from poor families, but they score no higher, on average, than whites from poor families.

Almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors — the white admixture is about 20%, on average — and many self-designated whites, Hispanics, and others likewise have mixed ancestry. Because research on intelligence relies on self-classification into distinct racial categories, as does most other social-science research, its findings likewise relate to some unclear mixture of social and biological distinctions among groups (no one claims otherwise).

Implications for Social Policy

The research findings neither dictate nor preclude any particular social policy, because they can never determine our goals. They can, however, help us estimate the likely success and side-effects of pursuing those goals via different means.

The following professors - all experts in intelligence and allied fields - have signed this statement:

Richard D. Arvey, University of Minnesota

Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota

John B. Carroll, Un. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii

David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin

Rene V. Dawis, University of Minnesota

Douglas K. Detterman, Case Western Reserve Un.

Marvin Dunnette, University of Minnesota

Hans Eysenck, University of London

Jack Feldman, Georgia Institute of Technology

Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University

Grover C. Gilmore, Case Western Reserve University

Robert A. Gordon, Johns Hopkins University

Linda S. Gottfredson, University of Delaware

Robert L. Greene, Case Western Reserve University

Richard J.Haier, University of Callifornia at Irvine

Garrett Hardin, University of California at Berkeley

Robert Hogan, University of Tulsa

Joseph M. Horn, University of Texas at Austin

Lloyd G. Humphreys, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

John E. Hunter, Michigan State University

Seymour W. Itzkoff, Smith College

Douglas N. Jackson, Un. of Western Ontario

James J. Jenkins, University of South Florida

Arthur R. Jensen, University of California at Berkeley

Alan S. Kaufman, University of Alabama

Nadeen L. Kaufman, California School of Professional Psychology at San Diego

Timothy Z. Keith, Alfred University

Nadine Lambert, University of California at Berkeley

John C. Loehlin, University of Texas at Austin

David Lubinski, Iowa State University

David T. Lykken, University of Minnesota

Richard Lynn, University of Ulster at Coleraine

Paul E. Meehl, University of Minnesota

R. Travis Osborne, University of Georgia

Robert Perloff, University of Pittsburgh

Robert Plomin, Institute of Psychiatry, London

Cecil R. Reynolds, Texas A & M University

David C. Rowe, University of Arizona

J. Philippe Rushton, Un. of Western Ontario

Vincent Sarich, University of California at Berkeley

Sandra Scarr, University of Virginia

Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa

Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, Texas A & M University

James C. Sharf, George Washington University

Herman Spitz, former director E.R. Johnstone Training and Research Center, Bordentown, N.J.

Julian C. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Del Thiessen, University of Texas at Austin

Lee A. Thompson, Case Western Reserve University

Robert M. Thorndike, Western Washington Un.

Philip Anthony Vernon, Un. of Western Ontario

Lee Willerman, University of Texas at Austin

David Duke Online Radio Report 11/01/2002
The War on Freedom
Why the War Against Iraq is a War Against America.
by David Duke
Broadcast Date 11/01/2002
http://www.davidduke.com/radio

The War Against America

America is now at war against Iraq. No, we are not yet invading Iraq, but we are regularly bombing the country and preparing to invade Iraq in the weeks or months ahead. Over the last ten years American blockades and bombing have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Most of the victims of the embargo have been children and the elderly and even official reports by the United Nations have estimated that about one million have died. This ongoing war has cost Americans billions of tax dollars, and is one of the primary reasons that America has suffered the horrific terrorism of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Even bin Laden himself said that the deaths of Iraqi children by the American embargo was as one of his motivations for terrorism against America. His primary anger, of course, has always been the slavish American support of the criminal state of Israel.

When she was Secretary of State, that horrific Jewish crone, Madeline Albright, stated on the “Sixty Minutes” television program that the death of 600,000 Iraqi Children was “worth it” to hurt Saddam Hussein.

Here is the transcript of the interview of America’s Jewish Secretary of State with Leslie Stahl of CBS on May 11, 1996:

Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeline Albriht: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

That incredibly murderous and immoral statement by Albright was the moral justification bin Laden used in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that cost thousands of civilian lives.

If the head of American foreign policy publicly states that it is okay to cause the death over 600,000 babies and children in pursuit of political objectives, then bin Laden and many others reason that they have every moral right to kill American civilians in retaliation.

Indeed, if Albright could justify the American-caused death of 600,000 children because of Iraq’s violations of United Nations Resolutions and human rights violations, then America is in effect saying to the world, that any form of terrorism and murder can be morally justified as long as you claim the cause to be a good one.

Painful as it might be to admit it, America has an indisputable record of supporting bloody terrorism around the world. When the Soviets dominated Afghanistan, American officials supported Muslim terrorists against that state, and even supported Osama bin Laden. In Kosovo we supported Muslim terrorists aligned with bin Laden against Yugoslavia. In the eyes of the American government, bin Laden was a “freedom fighter.” We supported Saddam Hussein’s brutal suppression of the Kurds and war against our big boogey man of that time: Iran. We even gave Saddam Hussein biological and chemical weapons and turned our sanctimonious heads when he used horrible weapons against his enemies.

All this is common knowledge and admitted by U.S. Officials in sworn testimony before the U.S. Congress. But these facts are seldom mentioned by the pundits and politicians because the all-powerful Jewish Cabal in government and media that now want this Israeli-wanted war against Iraq. They want the Iraq war no matter how much it will hurt America. And to get this war they must babble hypocritically about the need to stop evil men who support terrorism. They never look in the mirror.

If the war against Iraq continues or escalates dramatically (as desired by the powerful Jewish Lobby and it’s dutiful servant George Bush) more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die. In turn, hatred against America and Americans will dramatically grow all over the world. In all likelihood the war against Iraq will lead to more militant terrorists taking over more governments and engender the support of more anti-American terrorists. We can already see that shift in the recent elections held by our ally, Pakistan. Even without an American attack on Iraq to fan the flames, supporters of bin Laden won pivotal power in their Congress. The ultimate result of the war in Iraq will be Americans suffering from more terrorism, economic devastation, and continued destruction of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

I will be called unpatriotic for pointing out these things, but the truth is that those who have led America on this immoral and destructive course of action are the truly unpatriotic ones. In fact, the only way to describe them is as traitors. They are traitors who have sold out America to a foreign power, Israel, and thus caused the death of thousands of Americans and great harm to the American freedoms and security.

Here are the main points for a promoted by the Jewish supremacist warmongers and their allies for a massive attack and invasion of Iraq.

Why they say America must invade Iraq:

1. Iraq has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, it seems likely that Iraq has some biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and it is trying to develop such weapons. But the question that must be addressed is “Who doesn’t?” If we are going to war against every nation that has or that tries to develop such weapons, we will fight a perpetual war all over the world that will devastate our economy, our freedoms, and ultimately this planet. And how will America justify going to war against Iraq for the doing same thing that dozens of other nations do. Israel has one of the biggest stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the world.
Israel also has a maniacal mass murderer at its head Ariel Sharon, a man who threatened to start World War Three if just one Israeli diplomat was harmed.
And how do we justify going to war against a nation for having chemical and biological weapons that the American government supplied?

Senator Robert Byrd revealed in the U.S. Senate that America supplied many of the chemical and biological toxins used in the Iraqi weapons program, and that America obviously gave them to Iraq with the expectation that Iraq would use them in their war against Iran. Despite the high-toned, moral pronouncements of George Bush, these facts clearly tell the world that America does not really oppose biological and chemical weapons or their use, all the Federal Government really cares about is which side uses them. The reason why the U.S. Government turned a blind eye to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran was that America at the time sided with Iraq against Iran.

2. Iraq may give these weapons of mass destruction to terrorists in other nations.

There is no evidence that Iraq has given weapons of mass destruction to any terrorists or to any other nations in the world. Israel, on the other hand, has exported WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and its technology and weapons to other nations around the world including the very government the Federal Government claimed at the time was a great pariah: South Africa. And Israel has given American top-secret weapons technology to potential enemies of the United States such as Communist China.

If America is supposed to bomb any nation that spreads biological and chemical weapons to other “rogue nations” than the American Air Force would have to bomb the White House along with Saddam’s palaces, because America, more than any other nation, has been the primary source for the spread of weapons of mass destruction to “rogue states” around the world, including Iraq itself! It is this kind of U.S. Government hypocrisy that makes the world think that the American Government has gone crazy.

3. Iraq has violated numerous United Nations resolutions.

If America bombs and invades every nation that violates UN resolutions, it would be at perpetual war. Truthfully, the first target of American bombs would have to be the Jewish Supremacist State of Israel. Any tally of violated United Nations resolutions will show that the biggest UN resolution violator is not Iraq, but Israel.

4. Iraq supports international terrorists.

Not a shred of evidence supports this thesis. The Government most responsible for international terrorism is of course, Israel. Israel has even committed terrorism against the United States of America such as in the Lavon Affair and the Attack on the USS Liberty. As I have shown in previous issues of the Duke Report, Israel had complicity in the 911 attacks. Israel had advance specific knowledge of the planned attacks and treacherously did not warn America. Israeli assassination squads have been sent throughout the world to strike down their enemies. The Palestinian people of the military-occupied West Bank have been terrorized by Israel for over 35 years causing the death of thousands of men woman and children, the imprisonment and torture of hundreds of thousands; the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses destroyed

5. Iraq threatens the peace of the region and its oil-rich neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

America has been bombing Iraq for ten years straight, killing thousands of military and civilian personnel in the process, and it is said that Iraq threatens “peace.” Yet, almost every Arab oil state with the exception of Kuwait has formally opposed this planned Invasion of Iraq.

6. Iraq invaded another nation (Kuwait) and continually violates human rights in areas of its control.

Yes, Iraq did invade Kuwait in a conflict over disputed oil fields. As a result, America went to war Against Iraq (a nation that never acted against America in any way). The war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and has since has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of more of its civilians through an embargo. Iraq has had some of its territory chopped off and the Kurds have become practically autonomous in northern Iraq. Iraq has been punished severely for their war in Kuwait.

The hypocrisy of the U.S. Government and the Jewish supremacy in the American media is clear. America did not punish Israel for the brutal invasion of Lebanon and the deaths of tens of thousands civilians, in fact all during the period we sent Israel billions of American tax dollars and the very weapons they used to invade and kill tens of thousands of civilians in Lebanon. We continued to support Israel even after Ariel Sharon’s mass murder of 1500 unarmed men women and children at the Israeli concentration camp at Sabre and Chatila in occupied Beirut. Israel has repeatedly invaded its neighbors many times and taken huge chunks of their territories over the years and subjected their inhabitants to a brutal military occupation.

7. Invading and taking over Iraq will help stop terrorism.

On the contrary, it will certainly cause increased terrorism against the United States and its people. A government can try to take away every civil liberty of its people, but it cannot ultimately stop individual acts of terrorism by someone willing to risk or even sacrifice his own life. Take for example the recent sniper case in Washington, one shooter virtually paralyzed the city for over three weeks. We live in an age where terrorism is almost impossible to prevent by physical means. The only reliable way to do it is to lessen the underlying reasons for it. If America would have minded its own business over the past few decades, the WTC would still be standing today and Americans would not be living in fear. Our hard-won Constitutional rights would still be intact.
Those are the reasons advanced by the Jewish Supremacists and their supporters for war against Iraq, but real reason for the war against Iraq is very simple. It is the fact that influential Jewish supremacists in Israel and around the world want this war. Israel wants no other nation in the Middle East to challenge their supremacy. Iraq, with the world’s second largest oil reserves has that potential. Israel doesn’t give a damn how much this war will hurt America and the American people.

The truth is the war against Iraq is a war against America because it is against every interest of the American people. It is the surest way for us to lose the War on Terrorism, it is most certain way to wreck our economy and take billions of dollars from the pockets of American taxpayers, and it is the surest way to lose our individual American liberties.

In the name of the American people, our interests, our morality, our freedom, we must stop this Jewish Supremacist war!

–

Visit the David Duke and EURO online catalog at www.davidduke.net

Read past articles by David Duke about terrorism and Sept 11 at:
http://www.davidduke.com/writings/israeliarticles.shtml

Learn more about EURO online at: www.whitecivilrights.com
Join EURO online at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Contribute online at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml