reded's tenacious insistence on this claim does not make it true. in the previous 14 pages of posts, the reader will find (interspersed amongst the ususal forum nonsense, of course) documentation of the scientific valididty of the use of the concept of race. let's review: 1st we had the original statement from the wll strt jrnl directly suporting the original race/iq claim and signed by 52 phds from elite universities around the world. then we had dr. risch, who was not interested in iq, but who did provide a defense of the use of racial criteria in a scientific context. then we had the defense of the practice of cranometrics in the ny tms article. the scientists profiled in the article stated that they could determine "the continent of origin, or race" of a person with 80% accuracy by looking at the skull alone. then we had the recent sci-am article about the genetic underpinnings of the notions of race. and those are just the ones i remember off the top of my head.
race and iq
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 all moving parts stand still |
Re: Not rocket science, or science at all | ||
|
Posts: 191 (02/17/04 13:10:25) |
|
||
|
farmer cjm |
Some support for (y)our viewpoints moving parts? | ||
|
Posts: 279 (04/11/04 09:58:13) |
|||
|
all moving parts stand still |
Re: Some support for (y)our viewpoints moving parts? | ||
|
Posts: 191 (04/12/04 12:15:55) |
you must have fallen asleep for a bit, cj: i posted that link back on p.13. i appreciate the effort, though.
|
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Even better | ||
|
Posts: 0 (04/12/04 22:27:35) |
Read the original article:
www.journals.uchicago.edu...24642.html Am. J. Hum. Genet., 72:578-589, 2003 0002-9297/2003/7203-0009$15.00 2003 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved. On which the article was based. It clearly states that the concept of race is flawed. |
||
|
all moving parts stand still |
Re: Even better | ||
|
Posts: 191 (04/13/04 09:24:50) |
that link doesn't work, reded.
|
||
|
farmer cjm |
What a terrible oversight | ||
|
Posts: 279 (04/13/04 10:04:11) |
cjm was nodding indeed
|
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
I concur | ||
|
Posts: 0 (04/13/04 23:23:26) |
race and iq
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- some general comments on race and iq: 1)we must keep in mind that we are only speaking about averages of large numbers and not individuals. anecdotal references to individuals are therefore irrelevant ("i work with a lot of smart black guys"; "the chinese guy down the street is kind of slow"; "Langston Hughes was a great poet"; etc) 2) ad hominem arguments, in which an argument is dismissed merely on the basis of some unsavoury qualities of the person who made it, are also irrelevant. just because adolf hitler said that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't in fact =4 (re: pioneer fund, dr.lynn, etc.) 3)the cultural bias of iq tests is far from evident. in fact, the main argument for beleiving that they are is the underachievment of some groups on these tests. this is a circular argument. iq tests involve mostly culturally neutral elements such as numbers, shapes, and patterns. 4) iq involves only one particular kind of intelligence. this is not the same as saying that it is separate from intelligence. the kind of intelligence measured by iq tests is relevant for the aquisition of a wide range of skills that are valued in the contemporary marketplace. 5) challenges to scientific validity of the concept of race are instances of the "line drawing fallacy": just because a group cannot be defined such that all x are either within or without the group does not mean that the concept of the group is meaningless. for example, baldness is not clearly defined: how few hairs do you have to have on your head to be considered bald? no one knows, but this does not stop us from successfully referring to baldness. the concept of race is increasingly being used by scientists to track genetic disorders (ty sachs [sp?] in the jewish poulation, sickle cell amongst blacks, etc.) please see steven pinker's recent book, the blank slate, for more on this. 6)the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that the average iq of(negroes, blacks, african aborigines, bantus, whatever) is not in fact lower than that of other groups, as a variety of factors besides the tests indicate that it is: a)the theory of evolution. there was a long period during which some groups were migrating out of africa while others remained. it is inconceivable that the forces of natural selection brought to bear during this period exclusively affected things such as nose shape and hair texture while leaving the brain unaffected. b)history. the lag in iq is often explained in terms of the oppression to which blacks have been subjected (slavery, colonialism, apartheid), but this is to invert the "causal arrows" that indicate what caused what and what was caused by what. the oppression of blacks was made possible by their lack of technology, which in turn can best be explained by low average iq, as this kind of intelligence is relevant for technological pursuits. we should note that this dearth of technology in subsaharan (black) africa includes the absence of any written language or numerical system. therefore, it is the low iq which caused the oppression and not the other way around. c) comparative anatomy. i am unaware of any successful refutation of the claim that average cranium size is lower amongst blacks than other groups. rather, attempts are made to dismiss the relevance of cranium size to intelligence, which is to invert the burden of proof once again. that cranium size is correlated with mental capacity is evident when comparing the lower animals. if it is irrelevant in the case of comparing humans, we would need to see a cogent argument to that effect. d)performance on other tests such as those for school admissions remain lower for blacks even within groups of the same economic status in many different countries across the globe. so what is the conclusion of all this? what is the relevance to contemporary society? well, for one thing it does not mean that we can just look at a black person and presume that s/he has limited intelligence. this would be to ignore point#1)stressing the difference between group assessments and those of individuals, as well as point #4) about different kinds of intelligence. on the other hand, it does mean that there is no reason for us to expect that harvard's student body should be 12% black or that wits' should be 75% black. i beleive that what is necessary is for other kinds of intelligences besides that measured by iq to be accorded places of value, allowing all groups, as well as all individuals, to excel in their own way. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/15/03 10:08 pm) Reply Full circle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Until you are able to define race, the entire argument is meaningless. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/16/03 12:56 am) Reply Race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End of Race? By Salim Muwakkil | 6.20.03 print | email | comment As the sciences discredit long-held notions of racial taxonomy, racism endures. Im not sure if many Americans have noticed, but the concept of race has taken some devastating hits in recent years. Everywhere one looks in academia these daysfrom the abstract precincts of critical theory to the hard laboratories of molecular geneticsonce-mighty notions of racial taxonomy have fallen hard. The latest assault on race was a three-part PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Produced by California Newsreel, the series covers a wide range of race-related issues. But the programs title is its major point: Racial differences are illusory. For many Americans, this is pretty radical stuff. Well before the republic was founded, the belief in racial hierarchy was deeply embedded in our national culture, and there it endures. A persons economic and social well-being remains closely correlated to racial identity. Notwithstanding those socio-economic distinctions, the idea of racial difference seems obvious; people with a certain skin color and hair texture also tend to have common behavioral traits. However, science is revealing that those observable, natural differences are social constructions rather than biological facts. The Difference Between Us, the first episode of Race, explains that humanity emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and began migrating out about 70,000 years ago. As humans spread across the planet, populations intermingled, creating a variety of genetic interrelationships. These are not always what one might expect: Some Europeans have more genes in common with Nigerians than do Nigerians with Ethiopians, and so on. Most variation is within, not between, races. The first segment also notes that many of our phenotypic characteristics, like skin color, evolved recently, after we left Africa. But traits like intelligence, musical ability, and physical aptitude are of a more ancient genetic vintage and thus are common to all populations. As if on cue, a recent archeological find provided corroborating fossil evidence for this genetic view of human history. The June 12 issue of Nature revealed that scientists working in northeast Ethiopia found the 160,000-year-old remains of two adults and a child that are said to be the earliest human remains ever discovered. According to Tim White, the University of California paleoanthropologist who led the team, this discovery means our roots are African. According to the New York Times, the theory of an African genesis of humanity had gained wide support in the last two decades thanks to the research findings of the growing science of molecular genetics. These genetic studies, based on evolutionary changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, have concluded that humanity had a common ancestor in Africathe so-called African Eve. Before the advent of high-tech genetics, the reigning doctrines of white supremacy discouraged any consideration of an African genesis of humanity. And despite increasing archaeological evidence, many anthropologists resisted tracing humanitys origins to the so-called Dark Continent. The more radical white supremacists postulated that there was a multiregional evolution, in which Europeans evolved from another branch of hominids altogetherthe hearty Neanderthals. However, genetic studies have revealed no Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. A preponderance of genetic evidence reveals the ironic fact that the same Europeans who created the idea of race and white supremacy are genetic progeny of the Africans they devalued. With this view of history, its clear that the concept of race is an insidious fiction created primarily to justify exploitation, slavery, and imperial conquest. Races second episode, The Story We Tell, explores this sordid history, tracing the origins of the racial idea to the European conquest of the New World and to the American slave system. We see how the logic of racial hierarchy, which placed Africans on the lowest rung of humanity, allowed self-professed Christians to justify the institution of racial slavery. New York University historian Robin D.G. Kelley points out that the Enlightenment idea of freedom led to the ideology of white supremacy: The problem that they had to figure out is how can we promote liberty, freedom, democracy on the one hand, and a system of slavery and exploitation of people who are non-white on the other? They did it by dehumanizing enslaved Africans. The episode notes that by the mid-19th century, the idea of racial hierarchy and its corollary, white supremacy, had become conventional wisdom. The idea found fruition in racial science, Manifest Destiny, and our imperial adventures abroad, reads the PBS Web site for the episode. The final episode, The House We Live In, focuses on the ways U.S. institutions and policies advantage some groups at the expense of others. It outlines the historical trajectory of racial disadvantage and shows how it remains easily discernable in the wealth gap and disparities in other social indices. The segment also examines the unmarked race of white people. Here the documentary slides in some of the insights developed by the nascent Whiteness movement, which defines the very idea of white identity as an ideology of racial domination. Race: The Power of an Illusion concludes that racial inequality will remain a feature of this nations social structures until we seriously address the legacy of past discrimination and confront the historical meaning of race. The producers hope their series will blow some fresh air through a stagnant social debate and stir some new interest. I hope theyre right, but I doubt it. Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and a weekly op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community. weasel Unregistered User (7/16/03 6:13 am) Reply only the Mighty Jesus can race ahead of us all -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh I keep shouting woo woo woo for the Mighty Jesus! Woo woo! Oh my Jesus! Woo woo! The Mighty Jesus is the only race worth considering. All the rest is satan's work. Woo woo for the Mighty Jesus. Woo woo! Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/16/03 7:27 am) Reply Red Ed, you OK? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now who the hell is this camel jockey, Salim Muwakil? There is no such thing as race. You born blind, boy? Open thine eyes and cast a glance around and you gonna see different races. Next you are going to tell us there are no different species of animals. Undoubtedly you are the most plumb ignorant fellah I ever come across and believe me I come across many highly stoopid people. But I guess you take the cake. I hereby designate you the ClubAfrica Mpara of the week. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/18/03 7:13 pm) Reply How do you define race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm keen to see your scientific definitions. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:31 pm) Reply race/iq -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1st of all i would like to know how my post migrated to this forum from the m&g site where it had originally been posted as a response to another post by sir L which is also no longer there. i have never been to this sit befor in my life. why does my m&g assigned password work on this site? with respect to the scientific validity of the concept of race, you should refer back to my discussion of the line drawing fallacy. just because a concept cannot be defined such that all members of the domain (in this case human beings) are either included or excluded does not mean that the concept is meaningless. if my example of baldness (do you have a scientific def of that, ed?) is not enough to convince you8, consider that my 5 month pregnant sister wqas asked by her doctors if she had any black, american aborigine or jewish people in her family so as to determine if sickle-cell or ty sachs testing was in order. this is but one (personal) example of the use of the concept of race in a medical, and hence scientific context. with reference to the pbs show (and remember, it is just that, a show), such programs know what their audience is and on what side their bread is buttered (and let us not hear any skwaks about pbs being public and removed from vested interests)their audience, as well as that of other us tv shows consists of the mainstream "dont worry, be happy" people who wish to beleive in an undifferentiated blob of humanity existing solely for the purpose of pleasure. it is for this decadent audience, and not for the sake of truth that their programs' content is tailored. if you ar still unsure about the scientific validity of race or of its correlation to iq, please see the dec 14 (or thereabouts) letters page of the wall st journal where 75 phds in psych, genetics, and other fields signed a letter arguing for the truth of just such a correlation. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:41 pm) Reply oops! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the year of the wsj letter was 1994 Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:56 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear. Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:57 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear from the MG site. At the moment there there is quite a squabble about censorship there by the site devotees. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:24 am) Reply Still no definitions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any racial classification is arbitrary. Therefore I ask again, what scientific definitions are you using? BMFO Registered User (7/24/03 9:30 pm) Reply Race? Race? Race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Struth! All this about race. I agree with Ed the Red that race is some non-scientific description of what appears to be different. The so-called Coloreds [Coloureds] are what race? Sudanese, after millenia of mixinbg with Arabs, are what race? I cannot describe a so-called white person cos not one of the gits is the same. Race? It's the same as the labelling on a tin of paint. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:49 pm) Reply my bleeding heart -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you need a label to know what's inside Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 10:18 pm) Reply Post under your own name. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twit national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:14 pm) Reply def race, etc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "race: Biology: a population of organisms differing from others in the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits" -- Webster's dictionary what about Bulldogs, bloodhounds, and Greyhounds? Are these "arbitrary" terms? are they meaningless just because some dogs are the result of crossbreeding? are you disputing the fact that the average running speed of the greyhound is faster than that of the other 2? are bulldogs not generally stronger than the other 2? don't bloodhounds have a better sense of smell? the exact date of the statement in the wsj was dec 13, 1994. it can also be found in the academic journal "intelligence", 1997, vol. 24, pp 1-320 on july 30, 02, the new york times published an article about dr. neil hirsch and his documentation of the utility of the conept of race in tracking genetic diseases. also from the new york times, on sept 17, 02 there was a book review of dr. steven pinker's book, the blank slate, and a discussion of his argument that intelligence is for the most part genetically determined. as far as your mentioning the show on pbs, we should 1st note that while i have given you a convergeance of data among the fields of psychometrics, academic standardized tests, the theory of evolution, history, and anatomy that indicates that average negro intelligence is lower than that of asiatics and caucasians, as well as access to the names of 52 phds who agree with this claim. i have also given you the names of 2 phds who testify to the truth of particular aspects of my argument. in response, you have given me A TV SHOW! in this tv show, we hear the hoary plattitude that there are more variations between members of the same race than there are between members of different races.(wait a minute, i thought that you sais that ther were no such things! ) of course, this is true if we consider all genetic variations to be equal. if, however, we focus on 1 particular trait, such as intelligence, we find that interracial differences are greater than intraracial ones. basically, this means that while a black man has no more or less of a likelihood of having a smaller stomach, liver, or colon than a white man, he does have a greater likelihood of having a smaller brain than a white man next, we hear that the differences between races (i'm still wondering about all of this scientific study of an "arbitrary" term are restricted to superficial traits such as skin color and hair texture. this flies in the face of the already established correlation between race and disease. it also implies that a larger brain would not be naturally selected for as ice age humans migrated out of still warm africa, encountering an environment in which finding food and shelter required long organized hunts. what was their argument for this counter-intuitive claim? finally, most of your post focuses on the claim that all of humanity originated in africa, inexplicably sidestepping the fact that that my acknowledgement of THE TRUTH OF THIS CLAIM IS CENTRAL TO MY ARGUMENT! in a nutshell, humans originated in africa and evolved elsewhere. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:31 pm) Reply very old honkeys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- also from my research dept.: nyt article aug 6, 02 talks about how caucasians split off from the rest of humanity much earlier than had been earlier thought (including in the pbs show) klip Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:59 pm) Reply racism or just cultural differences -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Racism, as I understand it, is a tendency to see people as genetically distinct races and to impute immutable and unique behavioral characteristics to them. My dictionary says it's "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." Often prejudice, which is distinct from racism, is based on unfair but not irrational generalizations about the behavior of the members of other groups. Putting it bluntly as long as black people at substantially higher rates than whites and Asians have illegitimate children, commit crimes, abuse drugs, and refuse to apply themselves in school, there will be racism; many non-blacks will prefer not to share neighborhoods with black people, and will be more reluctant to get to know black people than people of other races. Racism among humans is overwhelmingly based upon cultural differences the actual genetic differences between human "races" are so infinitesimal that making sweeping statements is rarely useful and often dangerous. Genetic differences between human races are literally superficial. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:01 am) Reply biological race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a biological race to be defined there must be unique and universal features. Easy for dog breeds because we make them so. Not so easy for humans as they tend to interbreed. trainer Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:18 am) Reply left to their own devices dogs interbreed as well -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mongrels GreatTacklingOne Registered User (7/28/03 11:17 am) Reply Tough -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mongrels are invariably more disease-resistant, fitter, smarter and tougher than pure-breeds... national acrobat Unregistered User (7/28/03 4:19 pm) Reply race and racism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you say that racism is the belief that race determines character OR ability. that disjunction is critical for me. if it is the former, then i am not racist, as i have said nothing about any race/character correlation. if it is the later, i am still probably not a racist, depending on your definition of "determine" if you mean "determine" in some ineluctable, absolute sense, then no, i do not think that the simple fact of being black absolutely precludes the possibility of being intelligent, as i hope i made clear in my original post, where i stressed the difference between discussing individuals and groups. if by "determine" you mean "is corellated to", then yes, i am racist, as i believe that i have given a strong argument establishing the correlation between race and one particular kind of intellectual ability which anyone has yet to provide any refutation for. when discussing the cultuaral bases for racism, you should also refer back to my original post, where i mentioned that many oif the phenomena frequently used to explain intellectual disparity (slavery, etc)can themselves be explained in terms of low average iq. the cultural traits that you mention are derivative of the systems of oppression, which are themselves derivative of low average iq, which is the result of generalized genetic differences. in a nutshell, low iq causes one to be oppressed (by technological domination), and oppression causes an indisciplined, dysfunctional culture manifested by the social ills you refer to. the solution to many of these problems lies in treating individuals as individuals and treating groups as groups. |
||
|
Unregistered(d) |
Sorry | ||
|
Posts: 0 (04/14/04 06:02:38) |
|||
|
Unregistered(d) |
C & P | ||
|
Posts: 0 (04/15/04 23:02:47) |
race and iq
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- some general comments on race and iq: 1)we must keep in mind that we are only speaking about averages of large numbers and not individuals. anecdotal references to individuals are therefore irrelevant ("i work with a lot of smart black guys"; "the chinese guy down the street is kind of slow"; "Langston Hughes was a great poet"; etc) 2) ad hominem arguments, in which an argument is dismissed merely on the basis of some unsavoury qualities of the person who made it, are also irrelevant. just because adolf hitler said that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't in fact =4 (re: pioneer fund, dr.lynn, etc.) 3)the cultural bias of iq tests is far from evident. in fact, the main argument for beleiving that they are is the underachievment of some groups on these tests. this is a circular argument. iq tests involve mostly culturally neutral elements such as numbers, shapes, and patterns. 4) iq involves only one particular kind of intelligence. this is not the same as saying that it is separate from intelligence. the kind of intelligence measured by iq tests is relevant for the aquisition of a wide range of skills that are valued in the contemporary marketplace. 5) challenges to scientific validity of the concept of race are instances of the "line drawing fallacy": just because a group cannot be defined such that all x are either within or without the group does not mean that the concept of the group is meaningless. for example, baldness is not clearly defined: how few hairs do you have to have on your head to be considered bald? no one knows, but this does not stop us from successfully referring to baldness. the concept of race is increasingly being used by scientists to track genetic disorders (ty sachs [sp?] in the jewish poulation, sickle cell amongst blacks, etc.) please see steven pinker's recent book, the blank slate, for more on this. 6)the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that the average iq of(negroes, blacks, african aborigines, bantus, whatever) is not in fact lower than that of other groups, as a variety of factors besides the tests indicate that it is: a)the theory of evolution. there was a long period during which some groups were migrating out of africa while others remained. it is inconceivable that the forces of natural selection brought to bear during this period exclusively affected things such as nose shape and hair texture while leaving the brain unaffected. b)history. the lag in iq is often explained in terms of the oppression to which blacks have been subjected (slavery, colonialism, apartheid), but this is to invert the "causal arrows" that indicate what caused what and what was caused by what. the oppression of blacks was made possible by their lack of technology, which in turn can best be explained by low average iq, as this kind of intelligence is relevant for technological pursuits. we should note that this dearth of technology in subsaharan (black) africa includes the absence of any written language or numerical system. therefore, it is the low iq which caused the oppression and not the other way around. c) comparative anatomy. i am unaware of any successful refutation of the claim that average cranium size is lower amongst blacks than other groups. rather, attempts are made to dismiss the relevance of cranium size to intelligence, which is to invert the burden of proof once again. that cranium size is correlated with mental capacity is evident when comparing the lower animals. if it is irrelevant in the case of comparing humans, we would need to see a cogent argument to that effect. d)performance on other tests such as those for school admissions remain lower for blacks even within groups of the same economic status in many different countries across the globe. so what is the conclusion of all this? what is the relevance to contemporary society? well, for one thing it does not mean that we can just look at a black person and presume that s/he has limited intelligence. this would be to ignore point#1)stressing the difference between group assessments and those of individuals, as well as point #4) about different kinds of intelligence. on the other hand, it does mean that there is no reason for us to expect that harvard's student body should be 12% black or that wits' should be 75% black. i beleive that what is necessary is for other kinds of intelligences besides that measured by iq to be accorded places of value, allowing all groups, as well as all individuals, to excel in their own way. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/15/03 10:08 pm) Reply Full circle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Until you are able to define race, the entire argument is meaningless. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/16/03 12:56 am) Reply Race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End of Race? By Salim Muwakkil | 6.20.03 print | email | comment As the sciences discredit long-held notions of racial taxonomy, racism endures. Im not sure if many Americans have noticed, but the concept of race has taken some devastating hits in recent years. Everywhere one looks in academia these daysfrom the abstract precincts of critical theory to the hard laboratories of molecular geneticsonce-mighty notions of racial taxonomy have fallen hard. The latest assault on race was a three-part PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Produced by California Newsreel, the series covers a wide range of race-related issues. But the programs title is its major point: Racial differences are illusory. For many Americans, this is pretty radical stuff. Well before the republic was founded, the belief in racial hierarchy was deeply embedded in our national culture, and there it endures. A persons economic and social well-being remains closely correlated to racial identity. Notwithstanding those socio-economic distinctions, the idea of racial difference seems obvious; people with a certain skin color and hair texture also tend to have common behavioral traits. However, science is revealing that those observable, natural differences are social constructions rather than biological facts. The Difference Between Us, the first episode of Race, explains that humanity emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and began migrating out about 70,000 years ago. As humans spread across the planet, populations intermingled, creating a variety of genetic interrelationships. These are not always what one might expect: Some Europeans have more genes in common with Nigerians than do Nigerians with Ethiopians, and so on. Most variation is within, not between, races. The first segment also notes that many of our phenotypic characteristics, like skin color, evolved recently, after we left Africa. But traits like intelligence, musical ability, and physical aptitude are of a more ancient genetic vintage and thus are common to all populations. As if on cue, a recent archeological find provided corroborating fossil evidence for this genetic view of human history. The June 12 issue of Nature revealed that scientists working in northeast Ethiopia found the 160,000-year-old remains of two adults and a child that are said to be the earliest human remains ever discovered. According to Tim White, the University of California paleoanthropologist who led the team, this discovery means our roots are African. According to the New York Times, the theory of an African genesis of humanity had gained wide support in the last two decades thanks to the research findings of the growing science of molecular genetics. These genetic studies, based on evolutionary changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, have concluded that humanity had a common ancestor in Africathe so-called African Eve. Before the advent of high-tech genetics, the reigning doctrines of white supremacy discouraged any consideration of an African genesis of humanity. And despite increasing archaeological evidence, many anthropologists resisted tracing humanitys origins to the so-called Dark Continent. The more radical white supremacists postulated that there was a multiregional evolution, in which Europeans evolved from another branch of hominids altogetherthe hearty Neanderthals. However, genetic studies have revealed no Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. A preponderance of genetic evidence reveals the ironic fact that the same Europeans who created the idea of race and white supremacy are genetic progeny of the Africans they devalued. With this view of history, its clear that the concept of race is an insidious fiction created primarily to justify exploitation, slavery, and imperial conquest. Races second episode, The Story We Tell, explores this sordid history, tracing the origins of the racial idea to the European conquest of the New World and to the American slave system. We see how the logic of racial hierarchy, which placed Africans on the lowest rung of humanity, allowed self-professed Christians to justify the institution of racial slavery. New York University historian Robin D.G. Kelley points out that the Enlightenment idea of freedom led to the ideology of white supremacy: The problem that they had to figure out is how can we promote liberty, freedom, democracy on the one hand, and a system of slavery and exploitation of people who are non-white on the other? They did it by dehumanizing enslaved Africans. The episode notes that by the mid-19th century, the idea of racial hierarchy and its corollary, white supremacy, had become conventional wisdom. The idea found fruition in racial science, Manifest Destiny, and our imperial adventures abroad, reads the PBS Web site for the episode. The final episode, The House We Live In, focuses on the ways U.S. institutions and policies advantage some groups at the expense of others. It outlines the historical trajectory of racial disadvantage and shows how it remains easily discernable in the wealth gap and disparities in other social indices. The segment also examines the unmarked race of white people. Here the documentary slides in some of the insights developed by the nascent Whiteness movement, which defines the very idea of white identity as an ideology of racial domination. Race: The Power of an Illusion concludes that racial inequality will remain a feature of this nations social structures until we seriously address the legacy of past discrimination and confront the historical meaning of race. The producers hope their series will blow some fresh air through a stagnant social debate and stir some new interest. I hope theyre right, but I doubt it. Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and a weekly op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community. weasel Unregistered User (7/16/03 6:13 am) Reply only the Mighty Jesus can race ahead of us all -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh I keep shouting woo woo woo for the Mighty Jesus! Woo woo! Oh my Jesus! Woo woo! The Mighty Jesus is the only race worth considering. All the rest is satan's work. Woo woo for the Mighty Jesus. Woo woo! Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/16/03 7:27 am) Reply Red Ed, you OK? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now who the hell is this camel jockey, Salim Muwakil? There is no such thing as race. You born blind, boy? Open thine eyes and cast a glance around and you gonna see different races. Next you are going to tell us there are no different species of animals. Undoubtedly you are the most plumb ignorant fellah I ever come across and believe me I come across many highly stoopid people. But I guess you take the cake. I hereby designate you the ClubAfrica Mpara of the week. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/18/03 7:13 pm) Reply How do you define race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm keen to see your scientific definitions. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:31 pm) Reply race/iq -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1st of all i would like to know how my post migrated to this forum from the m&g site where it had originally been posted as a response to another post by sir L which is also no longer there. i have never been to this sit befor in my life. why does my m&g assigned password work on this site? with respect to the scientific validity of the concept of race, you should refer back to my discussion of the line drawing fallacy. just because a concept cannot be defined such that all members of the domain (in this case human beings) are either included or excluded does not mean that the concept is meaningless. if my example of baldness (do you have a scientific def of that, ed?) is not enough to convince you8, consider that my 5 month pregnant sister wqas asked by her doctors if she had any black, american aborigine or jewish people in her family so as to determine if sickle-cell or ty sachs testing was in order. this is but one (personal) example of the use of the concept of race in a medical, and hence scientific context. with reference to the pbs show (and remember, it is just that, a show), such programs know what their audience is and on what side their bread is buttered (and let us not hear any skwaks about pbs being public and removed from vested interests)their audience, as well as that of other us tv shows consists of the mainstream "dont worry, be happy" people who wish to beleive in an undifferentiated blob of humanity existing solely for the purpose of pleasure. it is for this decadent audience, and not for the sake of truth that their programs' content is tailored. if you ar still unsure about the scientific validity of race or of its correlation to iq, please see the dec 14 (or thereabouts) letters page of the wall st journal where 75 phds in psych, genetics, and other fields signed a letter arguing for the truth of just such a correlation. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:41 pm) Reply oops! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the year of the wsj letter was 1994 Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:56 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear. Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:57 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear from the MG site. At the moment there there is quite a squabble about censorship there by the site devotees. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:24 am) Reply Still no definitions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any racial classification is arbitrary. Therefore I ask again, what scientific definitions are you using? BMFO Registered User (7/24/03 9:30 pm) Reply Race? Race? Race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Struth! All this about race. I agree with Ed the Red that race is some non-scientific description of what appears to be different. The so-called Coloreds [Coloureds] are what race? Sudanese, after millenia of mixinbg with Arabs, are what race? I cannot describe a so-called white person cos not one of the gits is the same. Race? It's the same as the labelling on a tin of paint. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:49 pm) Reply my bleeding heart -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you need a label to know what's inside Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 10:18 pm) Reply Post under your own name. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twit national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:14 pm) Reply def race, etc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "race: Biology: a population of organisms differing from others in the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits" -- Webster's dictionary what about Bulldogs, bloodhounds, and Greyhounds? Are these "arbitrary" terms? are they meaningless just because some dogs are the result of crossbreeding? are you disputing the fact that the average running speed of the greyhound is faster than that of the other 2? are bulldogs not generally stronger than the other 2? don't bloodhounds have a better sense of smell? the exact date of the statement in the wsj was dec 13, 1994. it can also be found in the academic journal "intelligence", 1997, vol. 24, pp 1-320 on july 30, 02, the new york times published an article about dr. neil hirsch and his documentation of the utility of the conept of race in tracking genetic diseases. also from the new york times, on sept 17, 02 there was a book review of dr. steven pinker's book, the blank slate, and a discussion of his argument that intelligence is for the most part genetically determined. as far as your mentioning the show on pbs, we should 1st note that while i have given you a convergeance of data among the fields of psychometrics, academic standardized tests, the theory of evolution, history, and anatomy that indicates that average negro intelligence is lower than that of asiatics and caucasians, as well as access to the names of 52 phds who agree with this claim. i have also given you the names of 2 phds who testify to the truth of particular aspects of my argument. in response, you have given me A TV SHOW! in this tv show, we hear the hoary plattitude that there are more variations between members of the same race than there are between members of different races.(wait a minute, i thought that you sais that ther were no such things! ) of course, this is true if we consider all genetic variations to be equal. if, however, we focus on 1 particular trait, such as intelligence, we find that interracial differences are greater than intraracial ones. basically, this means that while a black man has no more or less of a likelihood of having a smaller stomach, liver, or colon than a white man, he does have a greater likelihood of having a smaller brain than a white man next, we hear that the differences between races (i'm still wondering about all of this scientific study of an "arbitrary" term are restricted to superficial traits such as skin color and hair texture. this flies in the face of the already established correlation between race and disease. it also implies that a larger brain would not be naturally selected for as ice age humans migrated out of still warm africa, encountering an environment in which finding food and shelter required long organized hunts. what was their argument for this counter-intuitive claim? finally, most of your post focuses on the claim that all of humanity originated in africa, inexplicably sidestepping the fact that that my acknowledgement of THE TRUTH OF THIS CLAIM IS CENTRAL TO MY ARGUMENT! in a nutshell, humans originated in africa and evolved elsewhere. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:31 pm) Reply very old honkeys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- also from my research dept.: nyt article aug 6, 02 talks about how caucasians split off from the rest of humanity much earlier than had been earlier thought (including in the pbs show) klip Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:59 pm) Reply racism or just cultural differences -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Racism, as I understand it, is a tendency to see people as genetically distinct races and to impute immutable and unique behavioral characteristics to them. My dictionary says it's "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." Often prejudice, which is distinct from racism, is based on unfair but not irrational generalizations about the behavior of the members of other groups. Putting it bluntly as long as black people at substantially higher rates than whites and Asians have illegitimate children, commit crimes, abuse drugs, and refuse to apply themselves in school, there will be racism; many non-blacks will prefer not to share neighborhoods with black people, and will be more reluctant to get to know black people than people of other races. Racism among humans is overwhelmingly based upon cultural differences the actual genetic differences between human "races" are so infinitesimal that making sweeping statements is rarely useful and often dangerous. Genetic differences between human races are literally superficial. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:01 am) Reply biological race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a biological race to be defined there must be unique and universal features. Easy for dog breeds because we make them so. Not so easy for humans as they tend to interbreed. trainer Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:18 am) Reply left to their own devices dogs interbreed as well -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mongrels GreatTacklingOne Registered User (7/28/03 11:17 am) Reply Tough -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mongrels are invariably more disease-resistant, fitter, smarter and tougher than pure-breeds... national acrobat Unregistered User (7/28/03 4:19 pm) Reply race and racism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you say that racism is the belief that race determines character OR ability. that disjunction is critical for me. if it is the former, then i am not racist, as i have said nothing about any race/character correlation. if it is the later, i am still probably not a racist, depending on your definition of "determine" if you mean "determine" in some ineluctable, absolute sense, then no, i do not think that the simple fact of being black absolutely precludes the possibility of being intelligent, as i hope i made clear in my original post, where i stressed the difference between discussing individuals and groups. if by "determine" you mean "is corellated to", then yes, i am racist, as i believe that i have given a strong argument establishing the correlation between race and one particular kind of intellectual ability which anyone has yet to provide any refutation for. when discussing the cultuaral bases for racism, you should also refer back to my original post, where i mentioned that many oif the phenomena frequently used to explain intellectual disparity (slavery, etc)can themselves be explained in terms of low average iq. the cultural traits that you mention are derivative of the systems of oppression, which are themselves derivative of low average iq, which is the result of generalized genetic differences. in a nutshell, low iq causes one to be oppressed (by technological domination), and oppression causes an indisciplined, dysfunctional culture manifested by the social ills you refer to. the solution to many of these problems l race and iq -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- some general comments on race and iq: 1)we must keep in mind that we are only speaking about averages of large numbers and not individuals. anecdotal references to individuals are therefore irrelevant ("i work with a lot of smart black guys"; "the chinese guy down the street is kind of slow"; "Langston Hughes was a great poet"; etc) 2) ad hominem arguments, in which an argument is dismissed merely on the basis of some unsavoury qualities of the person who made it, are also irrelevant. just because adolf hitler said that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2 doesn't in fact =4 (re: pioneer fund, dr.lynn, etc.) 3)the cultural bias of iq tests is far from evident. in fact, the main argument for beleiving that they are is the underachievment of some groups on these tests. this is a circular argument. iq tests involve mostly culturally neutral elements such as numbers, shapes, and patterns. 4) iq involves only one particular kind of intelligence. this is not the same as saying that it is separate from intelligence. the kind of intelligence measured by iq tests is relevant for the aquisition of a wide range of skills that are valued in the contemporary marketplace. 5) challenges to scientific validity of the concept of race are instances of the "line drawing fallacy": just because a group cannot be defined such that all x are either within or without the group does not mean that the concept of the group is meaningless. for example, baldness is not clearly defined: how few hairs do you have to have on your head to be considered bald? no one knows, but this does not stop us from successfully referring to baldness. the concept of race is increasingly being used by scientists to track genetic disorders (ty sachs [sp?] in the jewish poulation, sickle cell amongst blacks, etc.) please see steven pinker's recent book, the blank slate, for more on this. 6)the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that the average iq of(negroes, blacks, african aborigines, bantus, whatever) is not in fact lower than that of other groups, as a variety of factors besides the tests indicate that it is: a)the theory of evolution. there was a long period during which some groups were migrating out of africa while others remained. it is inconceivable that the forces of natural selection brought to bear during this period exclusively affected things such as nose shape and hair texture while leaving the brain unaffected. b)history. the lag in iq is often explained in terms of the oppression to which blacks have been subjected (slavery, colonialism, apartheid), but this is to invert the "causal arrows" that indicate what caused what and what was caused by what. the oppression of blacks was made possible by their lack of technology, which in turn can best be explained by low average iq, as this kind of intelligence is relevant for technological pursuits. we should note that this dearth of technology in subsaharan (black) africa includes the absence of any written language or numerical system. therefore, it is the low iq which caused the oppression and not the other way around. c) comparative anatomy. i am unaware of any successful refutation of the claim that average cranium size is lower amongst blacks than other groups. rather, attempts are made to dismiss the relevance of cranium size to intelligence, which is to invert the burden of proof once again. that cranium size is correlated with mental capacity is evident when comparing the lower animals. if it is irrelevant in the case of comparing humans, we would need to see a cogent argument to that effect. d)performance on other tests such as those for school admissions remain lower for blacks even within groups of the same economic status in many different countries across the globe. so what is the conclusion of all this? what is the relevance to contemporary society? well, for one thing it does not mean that we can just look at a black person and presume that s/he has limited intelligence. this would be to ignore point#1)stressing the difference between group assessments and those of individuals, as well as point #4) about different kinds of intelligence. on the other hand, it does mean that there is no reason for us to expect that harvard's student body should be 12% black or that wits' should be 75% black. i beleive that what is necessary is for other kinds of intelligences besides that measured by iq to be accorded places of value, allowing all groups, as well as all individuals, to excel in their own way. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/15/03 10:08 pm) Reply Full circle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Until you are able to define race, the entire argument is meaningless. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/16/03 12:56 am) Reply Race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End of Race? By Salim Muwakkil | 6.20.03 print | email | comment As the sciences discredit long-held notions of racial taxonomy, racism endures. Im not sure if many Americans have noticed, but the concept of race has taken some devastating hits in recent years. Everywhere one looks in academia these daysfrom the abstract precincts of critical theory to the hard laboratories of molecular geneticsonce-mighty notions of racial taxonomy have fallen hard. The latest assault on race was a three-part PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion. Produced by California Newsreel, the series covers a wide range of race-related issues. But the programs title is its major point: Racial differences are illusory. For many Americans, this is pretty radical stuff. Well before the republic was founded, the belief in racial hierarchy was deeply embedded in our national culture, and there it endures. A persons economic and social well-being remains closely correlated to racial identity. Notwithstanding those socio-economic distinctions, the idea of racial difference seems obvious; people with a certain skin color and hair texture also tend to have common behavioral traits. However, science is revealing that those observable, natural differences are social constructions rather than biological facts. The Difference Between Us, the first episode of Race, explains that humanity emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago and began migrating out about 70,000 years ago. As humans spread across the planet, populations intermingled, creating a variety of genetic interrelationships. These are not always what one might expect: Some Europeans have more genes in common with Nigerians than do Nigerians with Ethiopians, and so on. Most variation is within, not between, races. The first segment also notes that many of our phenotypic characteristics, like skin color, evolved recently, after we left Africa. But traits like intelligence, musical ability, and physical aptitude are of a more ancient genetic vintage and thus are common to all populations. As if on cue, a recent archeological find provided corroborating fossil evidence for this genetic view of human history. The June 12 issue of Nature revealed that scientists working in northeast Ethiopia found the 160,000-year-old remains of two adults and a child that are said to be the earliest human remains ever discovered. According to Tim White, the University of California paleoanthropologist who led the team, this discovery means our roots are African. According to the New York Times, the theory of an African genesis of humanity had gained wide support in the last two decades thanks to the research findings of the growing science of molecular genetics. These genetic studies, based on evolutionary changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter, have concluded that humanity had a common ancestor in Africathe so-called African Eve. Before the advent of high-tech genetics, the reigning doctrines of white supremacy discouraged any consideration of an African genesis of humanity. And despite increasing archaeological evidence, many anthropologists resisted tracing humanitys origins to the so-called Dark Continent. The more radical white supremacists postulated that there was a multiregional evolution, in which Europeans evolved from another branch of hominids altogetherthe hearty Neanderthals. However, genetic studies have revealed no Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. A preponderance of genetic evidence reveals the ironic fact that the same Europeans who created the idea of race and white supremacy are genetic progeny of the Africans they devalued. With this view of history, its clear that the concept of race is an insidious fiction created primarily to justify exploitation, slavery, and imperial conquest. Races second episode, The Story We Tell, explores this sordid history, tracing the origins of the racial idea to the European conquest of the New World and to the American slave system. We see how the logic of racial hierarchy, which placed Africans on the lowest rung of humanity, allowed self-professed Christians to justify the institution of racial slavery. New York University historian Robin D.G. Kelley points out that the Enlightenment idea of freedom led to the ideology of white supremacy: The problem that they had to figure out is how can we promote liberty, freedom, democracy on the one hand, and a system of slavery and exploitation of people who are non-white on the other? They did it by dehumanizing enslaved Africans. The episode notes that by the mid-19th century, the idea of racial hierarchy and its corollary, white supremacy, had become conventional wisdom. The idea found fruition in racial science, Manifest Destiny, and our imperial adventures abroad, reads the PBS Web site for the episode. The final episode, The House We Live In, focuses on the ways U.S. institutions and policies advantage some groups at the expense of others. It outlines the historical trajectory of racial disadvantage and shows how it remains easily discernable in the wealth gap and disparities in other social indices. The segment also examines the unmarked race of white people. Here the documentary slides in some of the insights developed by the nascent Whiteness movement, which defines the very idea of white identity as an ideology of racial domination. Race: The Power of an Illusion concludes that racial inequality will remain a feature of this nations social structures until we seriously address the legacy of past discrimination and confront the historical meaning of race. The producers hope their series will blow some fresh air through a stagnant social debate and stir some new interest. I hope theyre right, but I doubt it. Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and a weekly op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community. weasel Unregistered User (7/16/03 6:13 am) Reply only the Mighty Jesus can race ahead of us all -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh I keep shouting woo woo woo for the Mighty Jesus! Woo woo! Oh my Jesus! Woo woo! The Mighty Jesus is the only race worth considering. All the rest is satan's work. Woo woo for the Mighty Jesus. Woo woo! Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/16/03 7:27 am) Reply Red Ed, you OK? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now who the hell is this camel jockey, Salim Muwakil? There is no such thing as race. You born blind, boy? Open thine eyes and cast a glance around and you gonna see different races. Next you are going to tell us there are no different species of animals. Undoubtedly you are the most plumb ignorant fellah I ever come across and believe me I come across many highly stoopid people. But I guess you take the cake. I hereby designate you the ClubAfrica Mpara of the week. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/18/03 7:13 pm) Reply How do you define race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm keen to see your scientific definitions. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:31 pm) Reply race/iq -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1st of all i would like to know how my post migrated to this forum from the m&g site where it had originally been posted as a response to another post by sir L which is also no longer there. i have never been to this sit befor in my life. why does my m&g assigned password work on this site? with respect to the scientific validity of the concept of race, you should refer back to my discussion of the line drawing fallacy. just because a concept cannot be defined such that all members of the domain (in this case human beings) are either included or excluded does not mean that the concept is meaningless. if my example of baldness (do you have a scientific def of that, ed?) is not enough to convince you8, consider that my 5 month pregnant sister wqas asked by her doctors if she had any black, american aborigine or jewish people in her family so as to determine if sickle-cell or ty sachs testing was in order. this is but one (personal) example of the use of the concept of race in a medical, and hence scientific context. with reference to the pbs show (and remember, it is just that, a show), such programs know what their audience is and on what side their bread is buttered (and let us not hear any skwaks about pbs being public and removed from vested interests)their audience, as well as that of other us tv shows consists of the mainstream "dont worry, be happy" people who wish to beleive in an undifferentiated blob of humanity existing solely for the purpose of pleasure. it is for this decadent audience, and not for the sake of truth that their programs' content is tailored. if you ar still unsure about the scientific validity of race or of its correlation to iq, please see the dec 14 (or thereabouts) letters page of the wall st journal where 75 phds in psych, genetics, and other fields signed a letter arguing for the truth of just such a correlation. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:41 pm) Reply oops! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the year of the wsj letter was 1994 Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:56 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear. Sir Lancelotuk Unregistered User (7/23/03 11:57 pm) Reply No mystery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted on race and iq many months ago. I noticed a few days ago you made a reply and this thread suddenly emerged . Now Sir Lancelot was displayed as the originator of the thread. Now he has been banned for being a "racist". Obviously the visibility of the name frightened the moderator and the whole thread was wiped out completely, utterly and totally. Now someone must have pasted and copied part of it here before it was wiped out. You will find out that other non PC threads tend to disappear from the MG site. At the moment there there is quite a squabble about censorship there by the site devotees. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:24 am) Reply Still no definitions -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any racial classification is arbitrary. Therefore I ask again, what scientific definitions are you using? BMFO Registered User (7/24/03 9:30 pm) Reply Race? Race? Race? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Struth! All this about race. I agree with Ed the Red that race is some non-scientific description of what appears to be different. The so-called Coloreds [Coloureds] are what race? Sudanese, after millenia of mixinbg with Arabs, are what race? I cannot describe a so-called white person cos not one of the gits is the same. Race? It's the same as the labelling on a tin of paint. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 9:49 pm) Reply my bleeding heart -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you need a label to know what's inside Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/24/03 10:18 pm) Reply Post under your own name. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twit national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:14 pm) Reply def race, etc -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "race: Biology: a population of organisms differing from others in the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits" -- Webster's dictionary what about Bulldogs, bloodhounds, and Greyhounds? Are these "arbitrary" terms? are they meaningless just because some dogs are the result of crossbreeding? are you disputing the fact that the average running speed of the greyhound is faster than that of the other 2? are bulldogs not generally stronger than the other 2? don't bloodhounds have a better sense of smell? the exact date of the statement in the wsj was dec 13, 1994. it can also be found in the academic journal "intelligence", 1997, vol. 24, pp 1-320 on july 30, 02, the new york times published an article about dr. neil hirsch and his documentation of the utility of the conept of race in tracking genetic diseases. also from the new york times, on sept 17, 02 there was a book review of dr. steven pinker's book, the blank slate, and a discussion of his argument that intelligence is for the most part genetically determined. as far as your mentioning the show on pbs, we should 1st note that while i have given you a convergeance of data among the fields of psychometrics, academic standardized tests, the theory of evolution, history, and anatomy that indicates that average negro intelligence is lower than that of asiatics and caucasians, as well as access to the names of 52 phds who agree with this claim. i have also given you the names of 2 phds who testify to the truth of particular aspects of my argument. in response, you have given me A TV SHOW! in this tv show, we hear the hoary plattitude that there are more variations between members of the same race than there are between members of different races.(wait a minute, i thought that you sais that ther were no such things! ) of course, this is true if we consider all genetic variations to be equal. if, however, we focus on 1 particular trait, such as intelligence, we find that interracial differences are greater than intraracial ones. basically, this means that while a black man has no more or less of a likelihood of having a smaller stomach, liver, or colon than a white man, he does have a greater likelihood of having a smaller brain than a white man next, we hear that the differences between races (i'm still wondering about all of this scientific study of an "arbitrary" term are restricted to superficial traits such as skin color and hair texture. this flies in the face of the already established correlation between race and disease. it also implies that a larger brain would not be naturally selected for as ice age humans migrated out of still warm africa, encountering an environment in which finding food and shelter required long organized hunts. what was their argument for this counter-intuitive claim? finally, most of your post focuses on the claim that all of humanity originated in africa, inexplicably sidestepping the fact that that my acknowledgement of THE TRUTH OF THIS CLAIM IS CENTRAL TO MY ARGUMENT! in a nutshell, humans originated in africa and evolved elsewhere. national acrobat Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:31 pm) Reply very old honkeys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- also from my research dept.: nyt article aug 6, 02 talks about how caucasians split off from the rest of humanity much earlier than had been earlier thought (including in the pbs show) klip Unregistered User (7/27/03 11:59 pm) Reply racism or just cultural differences -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Racism, as I understand it, is a tendency to see people as genetically distinct races and to impute immutable and unique behavioral characteristics to them. My dictionary says it's "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." Often prejudice, which is distinct from racism, is based on unfair but not irrational generalizations about the behavior of the members of other groups. Putting it bluntly as long as black people at substantially higher rates than whites and Asians have illegitimate children, commit crimes, abuse drugs, and refuse to apply themselves in school, there will be racism; many non-blacks will prefer not to share neighborhoods with black people, and will be more reluctant to get to know black people than people of other races. Racism among humans is overwhelmingly based upon cultural differences the actual genetic differences between human "races" are so infinitesimal that making sweeping statements is rarely useful and often dangerous. Genetic differences between human races are literally superficial. Ed the Red Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:01 am) Reply biological race -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a biological race to be defined there must be unique and universal features. Easy for dog breeds because we make them so. Not so easy for humans as they tend to interbreed. trainer Unregistered User (7/28/03 10:18 am) Reply left to their own devices dogs interbreed as well -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mongrels GreatTacklingOne Registered User (7/28/03 11:17 am) Reply Tough -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mongrels are invariably more disease-resistant, fitter, smarter and tougher than pure-breeds... national acrobat Unregistered User (7/28/03 4:19 pm) Reply race and racism -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you say that racism is the belief that race determines character OR ability. that disjunction is critical for me. if it is the former, then i am not racist, as i have said nothing about any race/character correlation. if it is the later, i am still probably not a racist, depending on your definition of "determine" if you mean "determine" in some ineluctable, absolute sense, then no, i do not think that the simple fact of being black absolutely precludes the possibility of being intelligent, as i hope i made clear in my original post, where i stressed the difference between discussing individuals and groups. if by "determine" you mean "is corellated to", then yes, i am racist, as i believe that i have given a strong argument establishing the correlation between race and one particular kind of intellectual ability which anyone has yet to provide any refutation for. when discussing the cultuaral bases for racism, you should also refer back to my original post, where i mentioned that many oif the phenomena frequently used to explain intellectual disparity (slavery, etc)can themselves be explained in terms of low average iq. the cultural traits that you mention are derivative of the systems of oppression, which are themselves derivative of low average iq, which is the result of generalized genetic differences. in a nutshell, low iq causes one to be oppressed (by technological domination), and oppression causes an indisciplined, dysfunctional culture manifested by the social ills you refer to. the solution to many of these problems lies in treating individuals as individuals and treating groups as groups. ies in treating individuals as individuals and treating groups as groups. |
||
|
all moving parts stand still |
Re: C & P | ||
|
Posts: 191 (08/10/05 11:46:57) |
|
||
|
chik0ka |
ha? | ||
|
Posts: 2 (08/15/05 03:04:59) |
What happened to all my previous posts ampss?
BTW what about this ?redaction.org/wwwboard/msgs4/4834.HTM Quote ------------------------------------------- Steele has found that he can completely erase the black-white differences on such tests by convincing students that the particular test they will take is not related to intelligence. Conversely, he can recreate the racial gap by an intervention as minor as having students indicate their race on a questionnaire ---------------------------------------------- |
||
|
chik0ka |
Re: ha? | ||
|
Posts: 2 (12/02/05 04:03:31) |
Well I guess so much for:
" the truth emerges from debate and not censorship " |
||
