Why your skin is black?

[Dara]

Dear Haitians

While many people make fun of your dark skins and may say terrible
words to injure your hearts, I thought to introduce a small poem from
1000 years ago that explained why the African skin is black:

http://www.untiredwithloving.org/Ansaari_Treasure.html

In the last 2 verses, the poet renders that the shining of the
Creator's Knowledge's light upon the man, shall tan his skin black
i.e. made righteous.

I hope these kinds of imagery and poetry create a vintage for
self-recovery and healing from racial comments about the skin color. I
do not wish to write similar racial comments against the whites who
make fun of you, instead its more suited to create literature and art
in response. It takes much longer and lot more hard work but sure bet
to success.

--DARA The Eyeless Lion

[Tom Shelly Legendary White God]

On 26 Oct 2003 01:09:43 -0700, d...@untiredwithloving.org (Dara) wrote:

>While many people make fun of your dark skins

It's much more than just 'black skin', you ignorant monkey.

Just look at all the differences between the nigger species and
humans:

PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

"The ethnographic record {e.g., A French Army Surgeon (1898/1972), a
30-year specialist in genitourinary diseases} makes
reference to numerous
anatomical distinctions which show a similar pattern
of whites being
between blacks and Orientals. These include the
placement of female
genitals (Orientals front and high; blacks back and
low); angle and texture
of erection (Orientals parallel to body and stiff,
blacks at right angles to
body and flexible); salient buttocks, breasts, and
muscularity (Orientals
least, blacks most); and size of genitalia
(Orientals smallest, blacks largest).
We averaged the ethnographic data on erect penis and
found the means to
approximate: Orientals, 4 to 5.5 in. in length and
1.25 in. in diameter;
Caucasions, 5.5 to 6 in. in length and 1.5 in. in
diameter; blacks, 6.25 to 8
in. in length and 2 in. in diameter. Women were
proportionate to men, with
Orientals having smaller vaginas and blacks larger
ones, relative to
Caucasians. Clitoral size differed in length: in
European women, 1.2 in.; in
African women, 2 in. variations were noted; in
French West Indies, the
size of the penis and vagina covaried with amount of
black admixture;
Arab men, who were often mixed with black, had
larger penises than
Europeans. Recent data show similar patterns.
Measurements taken from
living subjects as well as those at autopsy, show
the size of testes is
twofold lower in Asian men than Europeans (9 g vs 21
g), a difference too
large to be accounted for entirely in terms of body
size (Diamond, 1986;
Short, 1984). Concomitantly, as mentioned, Asian
women have lower
ovulation rates than Caucasian women, as indexed by
dizotic twin
frequency, with the frequency per 1000 across
several Asian populations
being < 4, while for Caucasians it is 8, and for
blacks 16 per 1000 (Bulmer,
1970; Diamond, 1986). Contrary to the general trend,
Freeman (1934)
observed that, at autopsy, American blacks had less
heavy testes than
American whites (13g vs 15g). Freeman (1934),
however, did find that
black women had heavier ovaries than white women.
Subsequently Daniel,
Fienstein, Howard-Peebles, and Baxley (1982) found
no black-white
difference in testicular volume among American
adolescents, while
Ajmani, Jain, and Saxena (1985) found larger scrotal
circumference in
Nigerians than Europeans (212.6 mm vs 195.1 mm or
8.37 in. vs 7.68 in.).
A French Army Surgeon (1988/1972) also provided
early observations that,
in speed of sexual maturation, Orientals < whites<
blacks. Several
subsequent studies are confirmatory. In the United
States, blacks are more
precoscious than whites as indexed by age at
menarche, first sexual
experience, and first pregnancy (Malina, 1979). A
national probability
sample of American youth found that by age 12, 19%
of black girls had
reached the highest stages of breast and pubic hair
development, compared
to 5% of white girls (Harlan, Harlan, & Grillo,
1980), although the same
survey found white and black boys to be similar
(Harlan, Grillo,
Coroni-Huntley, & Leaverton, 1979). Subsequently,
Westney, Jenkins,
Butts, and Williams (1984) found that 60% of
11-year-old black boys had
reached the stage of acelerated penis growth in
contrast to the white norm
of 50% of 12 1/2-year-olds. This genital stage
significantly predicted onset
of sexual interest, with 2.2% of the black boys
experiencing intercourse by
age 11. While some surveys found that Oriental girls
enter puberty as early
as whites (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976), others suggest
that in both physical
development and onset of interest in sex, the
Japanese, on the average, lag
1.5 to 2 years behind white Americans (Asayama,
1975). (Rushton, J.P. &
Bogaert, A.F. (1987) Race differences in sexual
behavior: Testing an
evolutionary hypothesis. Journal Research in
Personality 21(4): pp. 536-7)

"In calf circumference all African groups are lower than the European
range, as might be expected, since the slender
African calf, like the longer
legs, is believed to be a genetic
characteristic."(Eveleth, P.B. & Tanner,
J.M. (1976) Worldwide Variation in Human Growth:
Cambridge Univ.
Press, London p. 111)

TESTOSTERONE DIFFERENCES

Conjecturing as to physiological mechanisms, one hypothesis implicates
testosterone and other sex hormones. Freeman (1934)
found differences in
the weight of the hypophysis (pituitary) with blacks
having the heaviest
(800 mg), whites being intermdiate (700 mg), and
Orientals the lightest
(600 mg). The pituitary is directly involved with
the release of
gonadotropins which stimulate the testicles and
ovaries in their functions
(the release of testosterone, estradiol, and
progesterone on the one hand,
and sperm and eggs on the other)." (Rushton, J.P. &
Bogaert, A.F. (1987)
Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an
evolutionary hypothesis.
Journal Research in Personality 21(4): pp. 546)

BRAIN SIZE

Cranial capacities were calculated from external head measurements
reported for a stratified random sample of 6,325
U.S. Army personnel
measured in 1988. After adjusting for the effects of
stature and weight,
and then, sex, rank, or race, the cranial capacity
of men averged 1,442 and
women 1,332 cm3; that of officers averaged 1,393 and
enlisted personnel
1375 cm3; and that of Mongoloids averaed 1,416.
Caucasoids 1.380, and
Negroids 1,359 cm3. (Rushton, J.P. (1992) Cranial
capacity related to sex,
rank, and race in a stratified random sample of 6325
US military personnel.
Intelligence 16 (3-4): pp. 401)

Negroid men and women have
smaller cranial capacities than do Mongoloid and
Caucasoid men and
women." (Rushton, J.P. (1992) Cranial capacity
related to sex, rank, and
race in a stratified random sample of 6325 US
military personnel.
Intelligence 16 (3-4): pp. 405)

THE GENE: FYA

"On the basis of recent studies of the incidence of the Duffy blood
group
gene Fya, which is absent in Africans but has a high
frequency in
Europeans, Reed (1969) has estimated that on average
about one-fifth to
one-quarter of the genes of persons currently
regarded as Afro-Americans
are of European origin." (Eveleth, P.B. & Tanner,
J.M. (1976) Worldwide
Variation in Human Growth: Cambridge Univ. Press,
London p. 82)

BETA FACTORS

"The rate of disappearance of alcohol from blood is normally
calculated from the slope of the rectilinear elimination
phase of the BAC time-profile. By tradition, this is denoted as
Widmark's beta factor. Beta factors vary among
individuals, depending in part on genetic and racial
differences,...." (p 7).

FROSBITE:

This was discovered during the Korean war, when it was observed that
Black soldiers suffered about 3 times the
amount of frostbite as White soldiers. This occurred even though they
spent equal amounts of time exposed to the cold, and were
all dressed in the same uniforms.

SKULL AND FACIAL

The eye and nose openings in the skull and certain proportions of the
skull vary by racial group between
the Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid races. By examining the skull,
or certain parts of the skull, forensic
folks can determine the race.

http://www.miafacts.org/identifi.htm#Race

DARWIN:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilized races of man
will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races
throughout the world. At the
same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be
exterminated. The break
between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a
more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian,
and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian
and the gorilla.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp.
241-242.

CONKLIN:

(Conklin was Professor of
Biology at Princeton University from 1908 to 1933. He was also
President of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science in 1936)

Comparison of any modern race with the Neanderthal or Heidelberg types
shows that all have
changed, but probably the negroid races more closely resemble the
original stock than the
white or yellow races. Every consideration should lead those who
believe in the superiority
of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to
establish and maintain the segregation
of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the
preponderance of the white
race will be

Edwin G. Conklin, The Direction of Human Evolution (New York:
Scribner's, 1921), p. 34.
8 Ibid., p. 53.

OSBORN:

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at
Columbia University. For twenty-five
years (1908-1933), he was President of the American Museum of Natural
History's Board of Trustees.
Osborn wrote:

The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and
Mongolians, as may be
proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of
the bodily characteristics . . .
but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of
intelligence of the average adult Negro is
similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo
Sapiens.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races," Natural
History, April 1980, p.
129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY:

The National Geographic Society, in November of 1985, set before the
public a display of "4,000,000
years of bipedalism" in its magazine. Nine "hominids," strongly
suggestive of evolutionary development,
are drawn--from Australopithecus-afarensis (a "Lucy" type), through
modern Homo sapiens. The first
five in the sequence had a darker skin tone; the last four, lighter.
The editors acknowledged that the skin
color is speculative, but, in the March 1986 issue of National
Geographic ("Members Forum"), they said
the following:

Since the three H. sapiens variations depicted were based on
fossil evidence in Europe, Mr.
Matternes gave them a lighter tone.

Members Forum,"National Geographic, March 1986.

for skull comparisons go to:

http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm
as of 12/01

Why Race Matters: A Preview

Michael Levin*

[Editor's Note: Michael Levin's new book, Why Race Matters: Race
Differences and What they Mean,1 is being published
in early 1997. Here, he highlights several of the key issues from his
forthcoming book, especially those having to do
with individual liberty.]

THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES 12: 2 (FALL 1996): 295 - 321. ©1996
CENTER FOR LIBERTARIAN
STUDIES
This essay is also available as a PDF file at The Journal of
Libertarian Studies 12: 2

I

My main concerns in Race, as its title indicates, are the implications
of genetic race differences, not their existence per se, so it
was not strictly necessary for me to document these differences. It
would have sufficed to ask, purely hypothetically, what
follows if they exist. However, two incongruent yet related
considerations forced a substantial discussion of the empirical issue.
The first is that many people find the consequences of race
differences so obvious that they only need to be convinced that
blacks and whites do differ genetically to have read enough. At the
same time there are many others who regard the possibility
of race differences as too fantastic to be worth thinking about. For
them, the topic has all the urgency of UFOs. To win their
attention, it must be shown that genetic race differences are likely
enough to take seriously.

The scientific material in Race is hardly original. Except for a
statistical tweak or two, all the evidence for race differences cited
in Race can be found in the standard literature of the subject. Since
so few people seem to be listening, however, the facts bear
repetition.

II

Race begins with a short exposition of the relevant biological and
statistical concepts, particularly the distinction between
phenotypes and genotypes. A phenotype is any trait of an organism: IQ,
birth weight, and weight in adulthood are examples.
An organisms genotype is the genetic basis of its phenotypes, the DNA
that produce phenotypes in the environment( s) to
which the organism is exposed.

Note the interaction of genotype with environment. Not only may
different genotypes produce different phenotypes in the same
environment, the same genotype may produce different phenotypes in
different environments. Had you been born with the same
genes but raised on rice instead of hamburger, your weight would
probably differ. Liberal environmentalists make much of this
interaction some going so far as to deny that talk of genetic input
makes any sense but it also means that phenotypes, and
phenotypic differences between individuals or groups, can be
identified apart from their possible genetic basis. One need not
know whether an observed race difference is genetic or environmental
in origin to be sure it is real.

In particular, the evidence that blacks and whites2 differ in
phenotypic intelligence and motivation is overwhelming. For the eight
decades during which IQ tests and related measures of mental ability
have been given, white populations have consistently
outscored black populations by slightly more than one standard
deviation. Despite some talk of the IQ gap narrowing, the most
recent studies continue to indicate that the full 1 SD difference
emerges by age four.3

IQ tests are often said to measure only acculturation to white
society, or to distort black intelligence because whites design
them.4 If standardized tests picked up only knowledge of white
culture, the questions most whites answer correctly the easy
ones should be those querying aspects of their culture available to
most whites (Who was Thomas Edison?), while harder
questions should be those querying white culture's more obscure
aspects (What is a niblick?) Yet questions easy for whites are
consistently found to be relatively easy for blacks also, and the
questions hardest for whites are those hardest for blacks,
implying similar acculturation between blacks and whites, so the claim
of cultural bias is surely incorrect.

Further evidence that IQ measures an intrinsic mental property
manifest in a variety of ways are its associations with non- social
variables. For instance, IQ correlates positively with brain size5 and
efficiency of cerebral glucose metabolization,6 although it is
unlikely that white thoughts enlarge the brain, or that white children
are encouraged to slow the burning of sugar in their frontal
lobes. These correlations have so far been established only for
whites, but the techniques of modern neurology7 could be
deployed tomorrow to search for race differences in brain function.

The rank- order and correlational evidence against test bias is
indirect, but there is direct evidence. Logically speaking, a test
for a trait is biased against blacks when a black must possess more of
that trait to earn the same score that a white earns.
(Tennis as a test of athletic ability is biased against people
unfamiliar with the game, since only an outstanding athlete can play
passable tennis the first time.) If IQ tests are biased, therefore, a
black whose IQ measures (say) 110 should outperform 110-
IQ whites on tasks with a large intellectual component, such as
earning good grades in school. Yet standardized tests do not
under-predict black performance on criterion tasks, and actually
over-predict it8 that is, blacks with a given IQ or SAT score
typically earn lower grades than whites with the same score. This
anomaly suggests a weaker black achievement drive: whites
on average try harder than blacks to reach long- term goals, and so
whites reach those goals more often when pure cognitive
ability is controlled for.

Before moving to the motivation issue, I should note a general point
about intelligence stressed in Race: since there is no
evidence that blacks are as able as whites, the egalitarian case for
racial parity consists entirely of ad hoc conjectures9 and
definitional objections directed against inegalitarianism. One
favorite target is the word race,allegedly too vague for scientific
employment. Race's response is simply to operationalize Negroid [i. e.
black] as having mostly subSaharan African ancestors,
and Caucasoid [i. e. white] as having European ancestors. Erstwhile
racial differences in IQ can then be reformulated without
loss of empirical content as IQ differences between individuals with
different geographical ancestries, and hypotheses about
genetic differences between the races can be reformulated similarly.
Nothing is lost but a word.10

Another popular conceptual objection is that no unitary ability
answers to the word intelligence. A statistical technique called
factor analysis is used to extract a single factor,g, detected by all
mental tests, but Stephen J. Gould and others dismiss g as a
mathematical artifact. The unitariness question is rather technical,
but the upshot is that it is irrelevant to all racial issues. All
sides agree that individual variation in IQ can be analyzed as
variation in g or in a cluster of more specific factors such as verbal
ability and numerical reasoning. Yet so far as explaining black
achievement goes, it makes no difference whether whites are (a)
more intelligent than blacks or (b) more able verbally and better at
numerical reasoning than blacks, for in either case the race
differences in literacy, school achievement,participation in science
and other socially significant outcomes result from race
differences in mental activity rather than racism. Likewise, it does
not matter whether genes produce a race difference in
intelligence or race differences in verbal ability and numerical
reasoning. Either way, once again, genes, rather than racism,
explain the difference in cognitive performance and its social
consequences. From the moral point of view, finally, whites are
innocent whether genes cause a shortfall in black intelligence or
shortfalls in a cluster of specific abilities collectively labeled
intelligence.

The burden of proof, usually borne by inegalitarians, should be placed
on egalitarians. Quite apart from any psychometric tests,
blacks seem less intelligent than whites. Black children do far less
well in school than white or Asian children; the black adults
seen in ordinary life and on television news commit more crimes,
parent more illegitimate children, have lower- paying jobs, and
boast less- regular work histories. Indeed, the very absence of
evidence for racial parity in intelligence, given that evidence
would exist (and be publicized by egalitarians) were the races equally
able, is evidence against it. The question is not why
anyone thinks whites are more intelligent than blacks, but why anyone
would think otherwise.

III

Race differences in motivation are anchored by Walter Mischel's
classic study of Dominican children who, when asked to
choose between a small candy bar at that moment or a larger bar a week
hence, overwhelmingly chose the smaller one. So
marked was the black preference for immediate gratification when
compared to a matched white sample that Mischel called
tests in statistical significance superfluous.11

Orientation to the present is a persistent theme of studies of black
behavior. Blacks watch almost 50% more television than
whites and, holding income fixed, spend three times as much on movies.
Blacks spend about as much on electronic games as
whites, but far less on computers. Black scores on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory are indicative of
impulseridden fantasies.12 Thomas Kochman reports that in turn- taking
situations, such as classroom discussion, blacks are
much more likely than whites to burst in out of order.13 This pattern
of thought and behavior has been described as
impulsiveness, lack of self- restraint, lower ego- dominance, and more
rapid decay of reinforcement, but, as these terms contain
implicit value judgments or causal hypotheses, Race favors the
economist's neutral notion of time preference. An individuals
time preference is measured by the money he would have to get tomorrow
to forego $1 today, and represents the rate at which
he discounts the future. In these terms, the mean phenotypic time-
preference of blacks is higher than that of whites.

Also, contrary to pop sociology, black self- esteem is generally
higher than white,14 and what is obvious in everyday life the
black self- presentational style is more confrontational. Blacks also
appear to be less cooperative than whites and less inclined
to follow Kant's categorical imperative, popularly known as the golden
rule. For instance, blacks are significantly more likely
than whites to agree with the statement . It is not hard for me to ask
help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor..
Kochman detects a black tendency to put self- expression ahead of the
sensibilities of others, as when talking back to the
screen in a movie theater: "With the shift in focus from doing unto
others to doing for oneself, blacks can also act as their
feelings direct without subsequent guilt." The best evidence for what
Race calls the lower "Kantianism" of blacks is the black
crime rate. Nobody, black or white, wants to be victimized by theft,
assault or murder, yet blacks commit these acts far more
frequently.

Defiant egotism has the same feel as impulsiveness the traits converge
in refusal to wait ones turn but there are deeper links.
Cooperation, reciprocal altruism, and kantianism originate in the
benefits accruing to everyone when everyone pulls together.
However, many cooperative situations present Prisoners Dilemmas:
pulling along with everyone else is advantageous, but not as
advantageous as pretending to pull while everyone else does the work.
This being so, the only selfinterested reason not to cheat
is the danger of being caught, barred from future cooperative
ventures, and ending up worse off than if one had cooperated.
But there is a catch: an individual will choose cooperation only if he
can grasp the future losses jeopardized by cheating, and the
time-discounted (dis)value of those expected losses exceeds his
immediate gain from cheating. In other words, his intelligence
must be sufficiently acute and his time- preference rate sufficiently
low. Thus, the lower mean intelligence and higher mean
time preferences of blacks explains their less cooperative and rule-
bound ethos.

Race connects intelligence and time preference to free will via a
difficulty in the standard exponential representation of
discounting. (15) If you are indifferent between one unit of a good
(say, G) today and n units of G tomorrow, then your daily
discount factor is 1/ n. (We can think of 1/ n as being the inverse of
the gross interest rate: someone with a personal interest rate
of 10% has a gross interest rate of 110% principal plus interest.
Equivalently, one with a personal interest rate of 10% has a
discount factor of 1/ 1.1.) Thus, if 1/ n is the mean discount factor
for whites and 1/ n' is the mean discount factor for blacks,
then Race is arguing that n' > n.16

Still, weakness of will remains a puzzle on this analysis. How is it
possible to choose a dispreferred alternative, as we all do
whenever we eat a dessert we know we should avoid?

Weakness of will becomes more comprehensible in a model where time
discounting is hyperbolic.17 In a hyperbolic
timediscounting model, the perceived value of G in the future depends
on how much one values a G in the hand, and on a
parameter I, known as the "coefficient of impulsivity." To relate this
back to the standard model, think of I as being similar to n:
the higher the value of I, the lower the weight one gives to the
future at any fixed level of current holdings of G. The argument in
Race is, therefore, that the mean coefficient I for whites is smaller
than the mean coefficient I' for blacks.18

So if I is the mean white coefficient, and I' is the mean black
coefficient, Race argues that I' > I. On this analysis, an agent may
prefer G in the hand to a smaller G' in the hand, but, if G is farther
in the future than G', the perceived value of G' can
temporarily overtake that of G.

Consider the following illustration. Entering a restaurant at 7: 00, I
prefer skipping my dessert at 8: 00 to having a dessert at 8:
00. I know at 9: 00, I will be more pleased if I have skipped the
dessert than if I have succumbed. However, once my main
course has come and gone and the waiter returns to offer me a dessert,
my situation changes. If it is now 7: 45, I no longer
consider what would have made me happier at 7: 00. That time period
has come and gone, and now I only care about what
pleases me now and in the future. When the waiter asks if I should
like him to bring me the cheesecake, my answer depends on
what pleases me now and what will please me later; the more heavily I
discount the future, the more I will focus on what
pleases me now. I refer to the time period when the short- term
pleasure of the dessert tempts me as my "period of weakness."
I have weakened despite having remembered what I had told myself at 7:
00, and knowing that I will feel indigestion at 9: 00. It
is during this interval that I believe myself not in control, not
fully autonomous.

Now, all else equal, larger coefficients of impulsivity will bring
about longer periods of weakness. The future becomes more
heavily discounted, so there is more room for a discrepancy between
the future decision which I initially plan to make (avoiding
the dessert) and the choice I actually make in the future (when the
waiter arrives with the dessert menu). The argument in Race,
that the coefficients of impulsivity are greater for blacks than for
whites, would therefore imply that blacks will suffer longer and
more frequent such episodes.

The fact that behavior during periods of weakness is less than free is
explained by John Locke's insight that free action must not
only express preferences all action, even of children, animals and
madmen, does that but that the preferences expressed must
meet the agents approval. Race expounds a conception of free will
according to which an agent is free when he is able to step
back, examine his desires, and act on those desires he prefers to act
on.19 This is why choosing a prospectively dispreferred
but transiently attractive alternative is not free; I did what I
wanted, but not what I wanted to want. But a more significant
corollary is that freedom increases with reflectiveness and self-
restraint. With insight into his own motives, the intelligent man
can anticipate preferences he does not wish to act on, and thereby
take steps to forestall their becoming dominant. Cognizant
that he will be tempted by dessert, he may drink a glass of water, or
shame himself into declining dessert by assuring his
companions beforehand that he will. Self- restraint, for its part,
gives a man time to contemplate the consequences of yielding to
questionable impulses.

Race concludes that blacks are, on average, less free and responsible
than whites. Further, it argues, awareness of this disparity
in autonomy explains why liberal fretfulness about the root cause of
black crime never matched by fretting about root cause of
stock fraud, or lynching, or the Holocaust. Liberals, without quite
admitting it even to themselves, think of black crime as akin
to an amoral natural force. This awareness also explains liberal
lenience, since penalizing black criminals seems to punish them
for what they cannot help. In this, we will shortly see, liberals are
wrong.

Although their self- esteem is higher, blacks consider themselves more
powerless than whites.20 At the same time, perception of
powerlessness is associated with loss of self- esteem among whites.
This discrepancy offers some empirical support for the
greater heteronomy of blacks, for it can be interpreted as showing
that blacks regard the self as less a "locus of control" than
whites do.21 This is turn makes sense if, for blacks, the self is a
less significant mediator of behavior.

IV

Having discussed phenotype race differences, I now turn my attention
to the evidence for genetic causes of those differences. I
group the evidence into seven categories.

1) The high interindividual heritability of IQ and personality

Holding group differences to one side, twin studies indicate that
genetic rather than environmental variation explains most of the
difference in intelligence between individuals, and much of their
personality differences. A pair of randomly selected individuals
will differ in IQ by about 17 points, but identical twins reared apart
typically differ by about six. Identicals raised apart are also
highly similar on dozens of personality traits, including impulsivity.
There are ad hoc environmentalist explanations for some of
these concordances,22 but only genetic factors seem able to explain
them all.

At this juncture environmentalists can be relied on to insist that a
genetic account of individual differences does not entail a
genetic account of group differences. After all, genetically identical
seeds will yield plants of different heights in different soil.
This is true enough, but it is also clear that some mean group
differences are too large to be explained plausibly by any
environmental divergence. Bonsai might all be undernourished Redwoods,
but it is not very likely. Numbers crunched in Race
show how unlikely it is that differences in black and white
environments have produced the racial IQ gap. Speaking
qualitatively, this conclusion is very natural. American whites and
blacks would seem to inhabit quite similar environments they
speak the same language, watch the same TV shows and movies, attend
schools with identical curricula, vote in the same
elections. Black slums are of course less salubrious than white
suburbs, but since a neighborhood is created by its residents, the
disarray in black slums counts as an effect rather than a cause of
race differences. (Race discusses such gene/environment
correlation at length.) Indeed, the fixity of the IQ gap during a
century that has seen black and white environments converge
leaves genes the only remaining source of variance.

2) Early appearance of race differences.

The appearance of the IQ gap before age four rules out most
environmental causes: low teacher expectation cannot affect the
development of a black infant still in his cradle. One
environmentalist hypothesis consistent with the early onset of race
differences is poor nutrition for black children, but this must be
rejected on other grounds: (1) black babies are physically more
precocious than white; (2) Department of Agriculture surveys indicate
that black children do get the minimum requirement of
vitamins and minerals; and (3) blacks dominate sports from early youth
on. If, however, there is truth in the claims that black
children receive poor nutrition, then the failure of black mothers to
feed their children properly in a society inundated with
messages about good health may itself indicate lower parental
intelligence, which might then be passed to offspring.

3) Physiological race differences

IQ correlates with brain size, and, controlling for body size, black
brains are about 4% less massive than white.23 To argue that
brain size means one thing for whites and another for blacks would
countenance race differences in the functional organization
of the brain, a position as biological as genetic differences, and
presumably as repugnant to environmentalists. In any event, the
IQ/brain size correlation appears to hold between as well as within
races, since black and white head sizes hence, inferentially,
brain sizes are identical when IQ is controlled for. Although I have
heard environmentalists conjecture that racism shrinks black
brains, this finding is difficult to explain non- genetically, since
eventual adult brain size is fixed by early childhood.

With regard to temperament, young black males exhibit relatively high
levels of serum testosterone, a mediator of aggression
and libido. A race difference has also been found in a gene
controlling alcoholism.

4) Transracial adoption

Sandra Scarr and her colleagues tracked over one hundred black and
mixed- race infants adopted in the late 1960s by upper
middle- class white families. The mean IQ of the black adoptees at age
7 was 97, but had fallen to 89 by age 17. More
significantly, at both junctures the IQs of the black cohort remained
a standard deviation behind those of the birth children and
the white adoptees of the adoptive families. Scarr takes these figures
to show the persistence of racism in the surrounding
culture, but she does not specify what racist influences the adoptive
families failed to block. A genetic analysis is obviously
simpler.

Incidentally, the decline in black IQ with age in the adoption study
is consistent with the known increase in the heritability of
intelligence across the life span. The currently accepted theory is
that individuals increasingly shape their own environments as
they mature, so that their environments come increasingly to reinforce
innate tendencies. The parents of a genetically dull child
may read to and otherwise stimulate him to a reasonable level of
school achievement, but as an adult on his own he will cease
reading and choose nonintellectual companions, leading to less-
impressive intellectual performance.

5) Failure of Intervention

Like transracial adoption, early intervention programs such as Head
Start control for many of the environmental variables to
which lower black intelligence is commonly attributed. Facilities
designed by highly motivated psychologists to stimulate children
as young as six months are not likely to omit any factor crucial for
mental development. Yet these programs have produced no
lasting gains in the IQs or academic achievements of black children
(although Head Start has produced small but measurable
gains in the academic achievement of white children).

6) Achievement of other Minorities

Despite functioning in more deprived environments, many groups,
including American Indians, outscore blacks on IQ tests,
particularly on the least culture-bound items. Jews, persecuted more
viciously than blacks for many centuries, have consistently
produced a disproportionate number of scholars wherever they have
lived. Chinese and Japanese in the US, two highly
successful groups, are as recognizably non- white as blacks,
undercutting the hypothesis that black failure is related to
identifiability. Explaining the differential success of various groups
in terms of their cultural values is circular, as it begs the
question of why different groups inculcate different values.

7) Africa

There was no white racism in Africa during the millennia that blacks
have dominated that continent, yet the mean IQ of African
blacks is considerably lower than that of American blacks. Again
contradicting conventional wisdom, Race crunches some
more numbers to show that the 100,000+ years during which Africans and
Eurasians evolved apart was enough to permit the
African/ Caucasoid divergence.

No sub- Saharan society has ever developed mathematics, a written
language, formal educational institutions, or the wheel,
while white and Asian societies have done so many times. Once again,
attribution of this failure to culture is circular, begging as
it does the question of why whites and Asians, but not blacks, built
cultures in which these indicia of civilization appeared. Race
takes the strongly individualistic line that culture and society are
not independent causal factors shaping their members, but
effects of their members. individual properties effects, that is, of
phenotypes expressing underlying genotypes in ambient
physical environments. Cultural attainments thus mirror innate
factors.

Thus, looking at these seven categories of genetic data, to say that
blacks are genetically less intelligent and more impulsive than
whites is not racist, since racism is by definition bad, and facts,
however unwelcome, are morally neutral. Mention of genes and
race in the same breath triggers hysteria not because it is a reminder
of Hitler (nobody can seriously fear a Nazi
resurgence),but, Race proposes, because genes determine personal
identity. The reader is asked first to imagine his zygote,
with his genes, born into an environment unlike his natal one and
becoming an adult with phenotypes unlike his; I suspect he will
agree that the adult described would still be him. The reader is next
asked to imagine a zygote with different genes somehow
developing into an adult with precisely his present phenotypes; I
suspect he will agree that that being would nonetheless not be
him. Judgments of identity thus track genotypes, making genetic but
not environmental factors essential to the self. For this
reason, genetic deficiencies are seen as essential, and talk of them
consequently more wounding, than deficiencies imposed by
the environment.

V

Before it turns to any concrete implications of the race differences,
Race devotes two chapters to the topic of norms. My
concern that this material might pull the discussion too far toward
pure philosophy was overridden by several worries that
prompted its inclusion.

For one thing, I wished to make clear that no empirical facts about
race imply that whites are better than blacks, a judgment so
often imputed to hereditarians that only a full airing of the issue of
value can put the imputation to rest. To this end Race
presents a resolutely "naturalistic," non- realist view of values.
There being no empirical phenomena requiring objective value for
their explanation, we have no more reason to believe in it than to
believe in phlogiston, or the little man that wasn't there. A
God's-eye view favors neither high nor low time preferences; investing
$150 may be more prudent than spending it on running
shoes, but it is not inherently better. Greater intelligence is
likewise no better or worse than or equal in value to less
intelligence.
The mean intelligence levels of whites and blacks were adaptations to
selectional pressures at work in Africa and Eurasia, just
as the lion's strength and the gazelle's speed are evolved responses
to selectional pressures in their niches. And just as the lion's
talons are neither better nor worse than the gazelles speed each
creature simply is what it is whites are not better or worse than
blacks.

Race is similarly neutral toward morality itself. An individual's
"moral" values are construed as those of his preferences that he
wants everyone to adopt (and wants everyone to want everyone to
adopt); and a group's morality is the set of moral values
shared by most of its members. Given the advantages of mutual trust
and the temptations to exploit trust by lying, it is likely that
every group reinforces truthfulness to some extent. However, groups
may differ in the moral values they adopt and the intensity
with which they reinforce them. Moral codes, too, are adaptations over
evolutionary time to differing environmental conditions,
none better (or healthier) than any other. In particular, it is
suggested, individuals had a better chance of surviving by their
solitary efforts in the milder sub- Saharan climate than in Eurasia,
leading to less intense selection for cooperativeness and
reciprocity. That is why blacks appear to be less cooperative or
committed to the golden rule than whites. Strictly speaking, the
black/ white difference is not so much a divergence in morality - in
the rules blacks and whites universally prescribe - as in
concern for morality itself. The notion of a moral value has
universality built into it by definition, so relative indifference to
the
golden rule amounts to greater amorality. But once again, amorality
for the naturalist is no better or worse than morality.
Wolves are amoral, but there are no grounds for judging a world with
moral agents but without wolves better or worse than
one with wolves but lacking moral agents.

It is proposed that this evolved divergence in morality helps explain
the curious racial guilt felt by whites who have done nothing
to blacks, and the deference of many whites to the most outlandish
black demands. Whites, having evolved to interact with
other whites, interpret black signals to mean what they would mean
coming from whites. Whites are programmed to interpret
and respond to black indignation as if it signaled the more serious
injuries that would elicit that level of indignation from whites,
so constantly overestimate the seriousness of black injuries.

Race insists that explaining honesty and reciprocity by their
inclusive genetic fitness24 does not reduce morality to disguised
selfishness. Inclusive fitness theory, despite much bad press, does
not deny that people are morally motivated to play fair and
sometimes make sacrifices. It claims, rather, that maximization of
genetic fitness is why these motives exist. A tendency to
cooperate in Prisoner's Dilemmas and even sacrifice oneself for others
is an evolutionarily stable strategy, but the motive of
cooperation selected is nonreductively unselfish.

Skeptical naturalism also raises the practically pressing worry of how
to draw normative consequences from race differences.
Can a skeptic criticize affirmative action or endorse freedom of
association if neither is intrinsically good or bad? Race's answer
exploits two old philosophical saws: (a) Much apparently normative
disagreement is actually disguised factual disagreement,
and (b) all genuinely normative suasion assumes some prior agreement
on normative principles. Option (a) lets naturalists
participate in the many moral disputes resoluble by empirical
investigation: whether Jones owes Smith damages for his broken
leg, for instance, depends on whether Jones did in fact break it, a
factual issue the naturalist may address. In the case of
essentially normative disputes, option (b) counsels the naturalist to
bring his interlocutor around by appealing to his interlocutor's
values. Show a man that your view is implicit in his commitments, and
he must accept your view on pain of inconsistency. Such
an appeal is no weaker for being ad hominem, since everyone thinks his
own values are correct.

In light of this, the pragmatically most fruitful perspective from
which to discuss race is that of my reader who, I assume,
accepts Caucasoid values. After seeking to epitomize Caucasoid values
(they revolve, I say, around the golden rule), Race
applies them to a cluster of issues at the heart of America's race
problem.

VI

Those few on the Right (Herrnstein and Murray25) or Left (Christopher
Jencks26) willing to discuss psychological race
differences say their origin does not matter. One aim of the pivotal
chapter, Biology and Justice, is to show how issues of racial
justice hinge on whether these differences are biological in origin.

The quota debate is patently about compensatory justice, since quotas
are meant to redress injuries said to have been inflicted
on blacks by whites. Lyndon Johnson introduced affirmative action for
government contractors via the analogy of a man
released from shackles required to run a foot race, and who (Johnson
reasoned) deserves a head start to make up for his unjust
handicap.

Many quota advocates say they reject the redress rationale. Johnson's
metaphor has lost its vigor as it has been realized that an
edge for the lame runner cheats his competitors, who are in no way
responsible for his plight. In literal terms, affirmative action,
particularly when state- imposed, is recognized as prima facie unfair
to whites who never discriminated.27 To dodge this
objection, defenders of affirmative action now say it is necessary to
create role models or prevent renewed discrimination.
Ronald Dworkin offers an elaborate rationale based on a distinction
between personal and external preferences. Race spends a
number of pages arguing that virtually all of these rationales tacitly
rely on compensation, or share the compensatory premise
that the race gap in attainment is due to harm done to blacks by
whites. The compensation rationale and its many avatars are
no firmer than the causal premise.

Ironically, most critics of affirmative action also leave this premise
unchallenged, perhaps in hope of avoiding the epithet "racist."
Affirmative action is bad, they say, because it stigmatizes blacks, or
costs too much, or replaces equality of opportunity with
equality of result. There is something to many of these criticisms,
but Race takes pains to show why, by missing the logical heart
of the matter, they are also rhetorically ineffective. The causal
question is all.

A propos cost, it is curious that redress for racial wrongdoing is
always said to require placing blacks where they should have
been, even though their inferior qualifications incurs great
inefficiency. After all, redress is normally constrained by
feasibility:
when literal restoration of the complainant to his uninjured condition
would be too disruptive, an equivalent is thought sufficient.
A dancer who loses his foot in an accident asks the earnings the
accident cost him, not the right to be a onelegged King
Kastchei. Race speculates as to why champions of redress accept no
cheaper substitutes, such as lump-sum reparation
payments, for compensatory hiring.

Because affirmative action rests on a theory of the cause of the
racial attainment gap, Race argues, only the race differences in
intelligence and motivation, which explain the gap more plausibly than
racism, offers a convincing case against it. Negatively,
racial discrimination cannot explain black failure because there is
not enough of it. Slavery ended over 130 years ago;
segregation in the public schools ended over 40. Private
discrimination has been a federal tort since 1964, and government-
sponsored preference for blacks has pervaded American society since
1970. Whites frequently favor black candidates in
elections. Positively, the IQ gap predicts the contours of black
failure with remarkable accuracy. For instance, according to the
IQ data, only about 13 blacks in any one- year cohort are as
intelligent as the average mathematician, and in fact, blacks earn
only about a half- dozen doctorates in the mathematical sciences
annually, a impressive fit given the small numbers involved.
Black over- representation in classes for the mentally retarded falls
right out of the IQ numbers. As one might expect in a
quota- ridden society, blacks are over- represented in prestigious
areas when IQ is fixed.28 There is no quantitative data on
the contribution of impulsivity to the attainment gap, but Race cites
many commentators on the low level of black
entrepreneurship and willingness to work.

That the attainment gap is explained by race differences in phenotypic
intelligence and motivation allows heads- up
compensation theorists to reply (as some have) that this phenotypic
variance is itself caused by racism. Blacks don't try because
trying is pointless when the deck is stacked against them. And were
racism thus indirectly responsible for the attainment gap,
the compensation argument would reenter at one remove, with blacks
deserving redress for their wrongfully caused
dysfunctional traits. That is why letting the issue rest at the
phenotypic level is inconclusive. The case for reparation can be
judged only by looking at whether racism offers a better account than
biology of the lower IQs and higher time preferences of
blacks. The topic of genes is unavoidable, Race insists. No matter
what the black shortcoming, some will insist that racism is its
cause, or the cause of its cause, or the cause of that cause. Sooner
or later, the genetic question must be faced.

In fact - this theme permeates Race - play of the gene card, far from
being a gratuitous swipe at blacks, has been forced on
defenders of justice by the constant diabolization of whites. It is
impossible to be silent when silence amounts to an admission of
guilt. When Smith limps into court, berates Jones for breaking his
leg, and demands damages, Smith must be prepared to hear
Jones deny the charge. Smith has opened the door to alternative
hypotheses about the cause of his deformity, for instance that it
runs in his family, and he must be prepared to face them. Smith cannot
accuse Jones and then call him tactless for pleading
innocent - exactly what liberals do when they blame whites for black
woes, then call whites who deny the charge insensitive and
try to silence them with speech codes.

Actually, Race notes two commonly neglected reasons why genetic
arguments may not be strictly necessary to rebut the
compensation argument. First, the suffering of the North and the non-
slave- holding South during a Civil War fought to give
black slaves their freedom may have made further white sacrifices
superfluous (i.e., non- slaveholding whites have already done
more than their fair share). Second, subsequent black behavior may
have canceled any remaining debt. The high black crime
rate and the preference of black offenders for white victims have
subjected whites to many more murders and robberies than
would have been inflicted by a white subpopulation of equal size. In
addition, blacks have marred or destroyed enormous
stretches of real property created by whites, as is obvious from a
tour of any large black neighborhood. On balance, blacks
may owe whites compensation.

Race pursues the issue of justice beyond compensation, to the
distributive fairness of racial inequalities. Many writers simply
assume that "we" (unspecified) should keep trying environmental
interventions in hope of finding one that raises black IQs to
white levels.

The obvious objection is that such regimens may not exist. Champions
of "let's keep trying" treat what is possibly possible as if
it were actual, whereas the racial gap may be, like differences in eye
color, ontogenetically fixed. But there are deeper
problems. Whites alone can afford to fund efforts to raise black IQs,
and it is not obvious, once compensation is set aside, why
whites have any duty to channel resources to that end. Virtually no
one believes that equality is good per se.29 The
environments of black children are less stimulating than those of
white children, but, Race insists, the distributive baseline for
where American blacks "should" be, namely the sub- Saharan African
milieu they would have occupied had they never
encountered whites, is far less stimulating than a plantation or a
segregated school in the Jim Crow south, to say nothing of
modern schools. Perhaps everyone has an equal right to resources when
they are literally the unprocessed bounty of nature, but
Caucasoid morality decrees that wealth created by human hands belongs
to the hands that made it.

Whereas it is always clear who should finance correction of a
compensatory injustice,namely the tort- feasor or his legatees,
appeals to distributive justice obscure the cost question. In fact,
may proponents of distributive justice, like John Rawls,
explicitly divorce distributive rights to wealth from contribution to
it, and are duly chastised in Race for this. Critics of inequality,
like Jonathan Kozol, who complain of more money being spent on
predominantly white than predominantly black schools are
not merely uninformed, although they are that - more is now spent per
capita on black children than on white children in the
nation's public schools because blacks need more special education and
counseling. Worse, these critics are morally obtuse:
there would be nothing wrong with white children receiving more
resources, given that these resources are controlled almost
exclusively by white parents. Per capita, blacks pay about half the
income tax whites do, and 20% of the property taxes, the
main source of school funding. Statistics cited in Race show Southern
whites during the Jim Crow era paying $15.60 for black
schools for every $1 paid by blacks. It takes considerably imaginative
effort to appreciate it, but the segregated schools of the
American South expressed white generosity,and integration has given
blacks access to schools, with their labs and computers,
even further beyond what blacks could create by their own efforts.

The chapter on justice ends with glimpses at utilitarianism and
Rawls's Difference Principle, that permissible inequalities must
benefit the worst off. While neither is consistent with ordinary
conceptions of justice, it is noteworthy that utilitarian bang- for-
the- buck calculations and (rather surprisingly) the Difference
Principle may both steer resources away from blacks. Over time,
the average well- being and the prospects of the worst off have been
most markedly lifted by the inventiveness of the intellectual
elite. Directing contested resources to society's most gifted
predominantly white and Asian students may thus help everyone,
blacks included, more than directing those same resources to blacks, a
conjecture confirmed by the improved white
performance unmatched by improved black performance returned on the
investment in Head Start.

VII

Race begins its discussion of crime with data showing that blacks
commit violent felonies at a rate ten times that of whites, and
decidedly prefer white victims. Despite the enormous publicity given
to any white- on- black felony, a black is on average
about twenty- five times more likely to kill a white than vice- versa.
The question is what responses are appropriate.

Race divides the question into private and public. Its view of
appropriate private measures, not shocking to libertarians but
scandalous in many quarters, is that individuals have a right to
consider race when assessing risk, and to be especially careful
when dealing with blacks. It is rational for a man on a deserted
street to be more leery of a black heading his way than he
would be of a white, and to cross the street or turn around. It is
rational for a cabbie to refuse to pick up young black males.
Unfortunately, such permissible avoidance is now often illegal.
Cabbies who refuse black fares lose their licenses.

Libertarians will wonder why a right to avoid blacks needs any defense
at all, since it falls under voluntary association and self-
defense. Here emerges a theme prominent in the last third of Race: the
rationality of exercising rights race- consciously.
Americans respect freedom of association, but they also want assurance
that it is not being abused. One reason for passage of
the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and other infringements of
liberty has been the conviction that a wish not to hire or
otherwise associate with blacks must be absurd, vicious, or insane.
This conviction has forced friends of liberty to say, in effect,
"There is no good reason to avoid blacks, but people have a right to
do so anyway," which, while perfectly consistent (a right is
a right, after all), leaves non- libertarians dissatisfied. The
statistics on race and crime show that avoidance of blacks is
perfectly
rational.

A right to flee danger is not the only truism defended at inordinate
length in this context; several abstruse issues about statistical
inference and risk are analyzed to prove that, since blacks commit
more crime than whites, an arbitrarily chosen black is more
apt to be a criminal than is an arbitrarily chosen white. Where race
is concerned, people will deny what they elsewhere find
obvious, necessitating argumentative overkill.

Libertarians may join liberals in rejecting race- conscious state
enforcement of rights against aggression, but I argue that this too
is permissible.30 For instance, a policeman may frisk a young black
male under circumstances in which he may not frisk a young
white male, on the statistical grounds that the black is more likely
to be up to no good.

Race's preliminary argument for this conclusion is the precedent
offered by suspect profiles for interdicting smugglers and other
statistical algorithms used by the state to deter crime. The central
argument is appeal to the Hobbes/ Locke theory of the state.
While Locke and Hobbes of course disagree about the existence of
natural rights, they are at one that the purpose of
government is to guarantee security; the state exists to prevent
aggression. Moreover, this function is normally understood to
allow some preemptive action against merely potential aggressors. I
may disarm a man gesturing menacingly with a gun, and the
police, my agents, may detain him. Since race is a valid predictor of
threat, the state may consider race in pursuing its
preemptive function. I emphasize that race- based screening meets the
Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard, which
permits only those racial classifications necessary to achieve a
compelling government interest. Controlling aggression is the
state's raison d'être, a compelling interest if any is, and crime
statistics show that attention to race may be necessary for its
discharge.

An aside in this context about Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia may
interest libertarians. My defense of race- based
screening is patently "rights- maximizing," permitting aggression
against possible innocents to minimize aggression against
innocents overall. (I have argued earlier that ordinary Caucasoid
morality maximizes rights in extreme cases.) As is well known,
Nozick claims to reject such utilitarianism of rights in favor of a
nearly absolute prohibition against aggression. I note, however,
that his own derivation of the state is also rights- maximizing, for
it lets the dominant voluntary protective association impose
itself on independents because of the anxiety independents create for
association subscribers. That a deontologist such as
Nozick should find himself relying on minimizing intuitions does not
vindicate race- conscious screening, but it does show how
deeply such intuitions inform the ordinary concept of the state.

As the root cause of black crime seems to be so urgent a problem to so
many, evidence is reprised that black crime is caused
by the relatively low genetic intelligence, self- control and
kantianism of blacks.31 An important misconception addressed here
is that the sharp increase in black crime over the last sixty years,
presumably unaccompanied by any major genetic change,
proves that black crime is environmental in origin. Relaxed sanctions
against wrongdoing have certainly facilitated an increase in
black crime, so the cause of the increase in black crime in particular
may be deemed environmental. However, this easing of
sanctions has produced no corresponding increase in white crime. What
is more, the net overall change in the criminal justice
system has been toward an increasing similarity (and lenity) in the
treatment of blacks and whites. Divergent responses to a
similar environment imply genetic differentiation, so the post- 1960
rise in black crime together with the stability of white crime
makes the race difference in crime rates likely to be genetic.

Tracing black crime to genetic factors leads back to free will and
responsibility. Race defends the view that, while the lower
mean level of responsibility of blacks makes them by definition less
punishable than whites, it permits other measures to control
black crime. After all, homicidal maniacs, although not punishable,
are not let roam free. Race suggests some possible deterrent
measures, including swifter imposition of harsher sanctions on blacks
than whites for the same infraction, in light of higher black
time preferences, and (in light of the apparent more rapid maturation
of blacks) treatment of blacks as adult offenders at an
earlier age than whites. It is also noted that if white mistreatment
has so affected the psyches of blacks that they are not
accountable for their actions, as some apologists assert, blacks must
also forego civil privileges associated with full rationality,
such as voting and jury service.

The chapter on crime seeks above all to discredit the idea that black
crime is an excusable payback for white misdeeds, an idea
which encourages black criminals and weakens the will to resist them.
Excuses for black crime would be equally poisonous
even if blacks have been as mistreated as liberals believe, Race
concludes, because no society can function with one group
exempt from rules against theft and violence.

VIII

By now, many readers of Race will have wondered at my willingness, as
in the case of selective police attention, to let people
be judged on the basis of their race. Does not Caucasoid morality
demand that each person be judged as an individual?
Arguably the issue of individualism should have been faced at the
outset, but it is best discussed in light of the facts and
distinctions accumulated in the meanwhile. I conclude that the
principle of individualism as conventionally formulated is
preposterous, and when made plausible it allows race consciousness.

I stress at once that the principle of individualism is unavailable to
supporters of quotas, who tend to trumpet it in other
contexts. Every rationale for affirmative action is shown to classify
by race and draw race- based statistical inferences about
individuals.32 This is not merely hypocrisy on the part of quota
enthusiasts; it reflects their recognition that all judgments, all
descriptions, categorize. Calling Jones optimistic, surely an
individual trait, groups him with all the other optimists. Affirmative
action errs not in grouping all whites together, but in grouping
incorrectly. It would be perfectly proper to reason . Most whites
profit from oppression; Jones is white; so Jones probably profits from
oppression. were the generalization true; affirmative
action is wrong because the generalization is false.

People cannot be judged by the traits that make them unique.
Attempting to do so would produce such absurdities as
friendships and hiring decisions based on fingerprints, or on precise
places and times of birth. The shibboleth of individualism
means, if anything, judging people by their important traits, which
may not be unique - Jones's optimism properly influences
how he is treated, but Jones is not the lone optimist - and anyway
leaves important undefined. At the end of the day, Race
argues, important traits are either those valued for their own sake,
or (what is more relevant in the racial context) those that are
predictively valid. Optimism is part of "who someone is" because it
tells others something about his sense of humor, behavior
under pressure, and overall personality. By this standard, a person's
race also is important, for it supports numerous reasonable
expectations. Taking someone's race into account is thus consistent
with "treating him as an individual." It classifies him with all
other members of his race, true, but noticing someone's optimism
classifies him with all the other optimists. Of course, one
should when possible look at more than race, just as one should try to
learn as much about any individual as is relevant to the
evaluation at hand. But sometimes learning more isn't possible, as
when you are deciding whether to proceed ahead on the
running track, or what to do when your neighborhood school becomes
predominantly black. In any case, it caricatures
awareness of a person's race to equate it with disregard of all his
other traits.33

An almost- reflexive objection to race- consciousness is that race is
involuntary, and that it is unfair to judge people by traits
they cannot help. Yet most everyday treatment of people is based on
involuntary, immutable traits. Mates are chosen because
of their appearance and personality, neither of which are chosen.
Personnel decisions are task- driven, and there is no reason to
expect the ability to perform a valued task to be voluntary. Managers
pick the rookie infielder with the fastest reflex is, even
though reflexes are not subject to the will, because infielders must
snag line drives. Conversely, many voluntary traits are
irrelevant to how individuals should be treated. For example, the
Admissions Committee for a law school will be unmoved by
an applicant's beer can collection.

Race speculates that the artificial link between voluntariness and
importance was forged mainly by the civilrights movement.
Once it was decided to ban racial discrimination, some characteristic
of race was needed to justify the ban; since race is
involuntary, discrimination based on involuntary traits was proscribed
(a proscription that subsequently rationalized banning free
association based on sex, handicap and many another trait). The link
has been sustained by the perception of all goods as
rewards; since only voluntary behavior merits reward or punishment,
goods like employment and housing (it then seems) must
not be allotted by involuntary attributes like race. In truth, very
few goods are bestowed as rewards. A rookie's place on the
team is not a prize for quick reflexes, however much it feels that way
to him, but an amoral management decision dictated by
the goal of a winning team, dictated in its turn by the need to
attract paying fans.

If race- consciousness is permissible and rational, what of action
based on it, i.e. discrimination? Focusing first on the private
sphere, Race distinguishes positive discrimination harming someone
because of his race from negative discrimination, the
refusal to benefit someone because of his race. Positive
discrimination is indeed wrong, but because of its aggressive rather
than discriminatory character. Negative discrimination is not wrong at
all, although it can be made to seem so when represented
as harm, for instance by describing a black turned away from a job as
a "victim of discrimination." However, an applicant
denied a job whether because of credentials, his race, or pure whim,
is no worse off than he was prior to the refusal, hence not
injured.

Libertarians will once again wonder at the fuss over the obvious, here
the right to refuse an association for any reason, or no
reason at all. Yes, Race acknowledges this right (deducing it from the
categorical imperative); the deeper question it asks is
why so many Americans have surrendered it, and taken it from those not
willing to surrender it, in the name of civil rights. A
couple of answers have already been broached. The assumption that
blacks are just like whites, or would be but for
discrimination, makes refusal to deal with blacks appear wholly
irrational. By this point, I hope, readers of Race will be ready
to agree that race differences in intelligence, behavior, and
Kantianism show reluctance to deal with blacks to be quite rational.
A second answer, it is argued, is that the perception of refusal to
benefit blacks as coercing them is traceable to blacks' own
limitations. As blacks could not enjoy Caucasian technology TVs,
multi- story dwellings, automobiles unless whites sold or gave
it to them, white refusal to do so appears to keep blacks from these
goods. Race tries to make clear that refusal to give or sell
someone something he cannot make himself leaves his productive
capacities undiminished, so does not harm him.

What of public discrimination? Having already argued that the state
may act race- consciously to protect rights against attack,
Race suggests that race- conscious welfare policies may be in order.
While all welfare states may self- destruct sooner or later,
as an increasing number of people batten off the public treasury, most
whites, at least so far, prefer working and parenting
children within marriage over the seductions of welfare. Consequently,
a limited safety net might be stable in an all- white
population. But the very different response of blacks to welfare
incentives, including an illegitimacy rate nearing 70%, is by now
familiar, making a safety net for blacks clearly unstable. If we must
have welfare, Race suggests, blacks should be denied it or
held to more stringent criteria. A general caution for libertarians is
that institutions which don't work in black or multiracial
populations (public education is an example) need not, by that token,
be intrinsically flawed. The problem may not be the
institution, but the population.

Race contends that the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment is consistent with state raceconsciousness. The
Fourteenth Amendment excludes only racial classifications irrelevant
to any vital government function. (Inborn, involuntary and
immutable traits might well be relevant, as when the state denies
driver's licenses to the congenitally blind.) The Constitutional
powers- that- be have decided that compensating blacks is a
sufficiently central government function to support laws burdening
whites. Race presses the logical symmetry of racial classifications
burdening blacks.

IX

Instead of ending Race with a conventional authorial compendium of
conclusions, I asked myself what I would want an
American President to say in a major speech about race. That speech
concludes Race.

The chief message of my imaginary President is honesty. The facts
about race must be faced unflinchingly, and whites must stop
being blamed for everything. More concretely, my imaginary President
lays out three basic approaches to race differences.

Minimizing envisions large- scale social engineering daycare,
childhood enrichment, racial preferences, job training to reduce
the race gap as much as is possible. This approach is not
categorically ruled out, but the President makes clear that it will
generate legitimate white resentment and probably not work even on its
own terms. Eugenic measures such as tax- funded
incentives to encourage the more intelligent to reproduce are also
rejected as taking too long, and not being the state's business.

The second approach, control, would seek to reduce disruptive black
deviation from white norms by instilling self- discipline,
respect for law, and the work ethic. It would ease the regulatory
burden on black businesses, restrict or eliminate welfare, and
impose swifter and more effective punishment for crime. Its downside
is infringement of civil liberties and possible creation of
civil disorder.

The laissez- faire approach is the policy, or non- policy, of leaving
everything to the market. It would end all forms of income
transfer on moral as well as practical grounds, repeal all laws
against private discrimination, and abolish the minimum wage,
allowing the many blacks with limited skills to find gainful
employment. A small government would operate virtually race-
neutrally on the economically efficient basis of merit. The market has
the great advantages of not aiming at any pre- set outcome
which biology may have put out of reach, and of imposing discipline
without coercion. My imaginary President does not
explicitly endorse laissez faire (he is, after all, President of all
the people, including liberal statists), but his preference is
unmistakable.

One might think that acknowledging biological race differences entails
enhanced private and public race consciousness, but a
suggested alternative is "realistic race blindness": racial criteria
should not be used in making public or private decisions, but the
disparate racial impact of almost any decision is to be anticipated
and disregarded as a natural consequence of race
differences. A good idea apart from its racial impact is a good idea-
period. If, for instance, it is pedagogically wise to track
schoolchildren by ability, and the only reason not to do so is white
and Asian dominance of the fast groups and black over-
representation in the slow groups, then children should be tracked.
However, it might be appropriate to weigh the racial impact
of policies whose effect on any specific individual is unpredictable,
but to which the races can be expected on average to react
in significantly different ways. The President warns that welfare and
penology may demand "realistic race conscious."

Mindful of the radical (by today's lights) character of some of his
proposals, he cites Claudius's precept that "diseases
desperate grown By desperate measures are relieved, or not at all."

Although Race makes some effort to explain my personal motives in
taking up these highly charged issues, it may still be said
that my views are defeatist, and that we should all continue to
proceed on the assumption of racial equality. In the long battle
between enlightenment and obscurantism, however, unpleasant truth has
always proved more useful than well- intentioned lies.

*Michael Levin is Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New
York and the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York.

NOTES

1 Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean
(Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1997).
Documentation for all claims unreferenced in the present paper may be
found there.

2 And Asians, but that is not my topic.

3 C. Peoples, J. Fagan and D. Drotar, "The Influence of Race on 3-
year- old Children's Performance on the Stanford- Binet:
Fourth Edition," Intelligence 21 (1995); J. Brooks- Gunn, P. Klebanov
and G. Duncan, "Ethnic Differences in Children's
Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, Home
Environment and Maternal Characteristics," Child
Development 67 (1996).

4 By such an argument, one might claim that yardsticks of white
manufacture unable to measure the height of blacks, or that
blacks should poorly at games invented by whites, like basketball.

5 L. Willerman, R. Schultz, and J. Rutledge, "In vivo Brain Size and
Intelligence," Intelligence 15 (1991).

6 R. Haier, B. Siegel, K. Nuechterlein, K. Hazlett, J. Wu, J. Paek, H.
Browning, and M. Buchsbaum, "Cortical Glucose
Metabolic Rate Correlates of Abstract Reasoning and Attention Studied
with Positron Emission Tomography," Intelligence 12
(1988).

7 Chiefly positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

8 W. Garner and A. Wigdor, Ability Testing (Washington, D. C.:
National Academy Press, 1982), 1, p. 72.

9 E. g. that the criteria for validating IQ, and the criteria for
validating those criteria, are all biased.

10 Race cites egalitarians who contest the use of some supposedly
unclear word ( "race," "intelligence" ), and then contest its
abandonment.

11 W. Mischel, "Preference for Delayed Reinforcement: An Experimental
Study of a Cultural Observation," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 56 (1958); "Preference for Delayed
Reinforcement and Social Responsibility," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (1961); "Father- Absence and Delay
of Gratification: Cross- Cultural Comparisons,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63 (1961).

12 See W. Dahlstrom, D. Lachar and L. Dahlstrom, MMPI Patterns of
American Minorities (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1986).

13 T. Kochman, Black and White: Styles in Conflict (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1983).

14 A. Tashakkori and V. Thompson, "Race Differences in Self-
Perception and Locus of Control during Adolescence and
Early Adulthood," Genetic, Social and General Psychological Monographs
117 (1991).

15 In Race, the following material is divided between an appendix and
the chapter on crime.

16 A standard discounting model might make sense when discussing
finance, where it makes little difference whether one is
computing the present value of $100 or $1,000,000. That is because the
interest rates we see in financial models are typically
taken to be market equilibrium rates, not reflections of an individual
agent's preferences. When we talk about individual
behavior, we might expect that the way one discounts the future
depends largely on what one has in the present. People may be
more inclined to discount future utility, rather than simply
discounting future consumption.

17 The standard discussion is G. Ainslie, Picoeconomics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992).

18 The most elegant expression for perceived value is G/[ I×t + Z],
where Z is a constant to keep perceived value from
becoming infinite when t= 0.

19 The account is compatibilist, i.e. consistent with universal
determinism.

20 A. Tashakkori, "Race, Gender and pre- Adolescent Self- Strucure: A
Test of Construct- Specificity Hypothesis,"
Personality and Individual Differences 14 (1993).

21 Tashakkori and Thompson, "Race Differences."

22 I. e., separated twins get placed in similar families; twins
reunited by psychologists influence each other.

23 Data is cited in Race; J. Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior
(New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction, 1994) contains a
thorough review and analysis.

24 Measured by the number of genetic relatives carrying partial copies
of its genes which an organism leaves behind, as
opposed to individual fitness, which is an organism's own probability
of survival.

25 R. Herrnstein and C. Murray, The Bell Curve (New York: The Free
Press, 1994).

26 C. Jencks,Rethinking Social Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1992).

27 Assuming that discrimination is an injury, which I do assume in
this chapter.

28 here the work of Herrnstein and Murray, and Linda Gottfredson is
called on.

29 The discourses of some prominent soi- disant egalitarians like John
Baker and Michael Walzer are deconstructed to this
effect.

30 A libertarian can recast the issue as the permissibility of race-
conscious action taken by his protective association.

31 A description offered by a group of young black males of their
social relations bears a striking similarity to Hobbes's account
of the state of nature.

32 Another self- evident truth that requires banging away at.

33 Race reviews a number of caricatures of race consciousness.

"Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
split about 40,000 years ago. The further north the people went out of
Africa, the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and
raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's Whites and
Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer
life."
End quote

From: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third
Edition, J. Philippe Rushton, page P-11

Fact 29: Additional Differences:

•The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it
is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct
like the hair of Europeans.

•The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up
nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the
mucous membrane similar to an ape.

•The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer
than the European. The humerus is a trifle
shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating
the simian form.

•The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits
large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic
coat over it like that of a gorilla.

•The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the
chest is more circular than whites. The
pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.

•The mouth is wide with very thick, large and
protruding lips.

•Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which
resists scratching and impedes the
penetration of germs.

•The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that
of anthropoids.

•The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white
type and close together earlier.

•The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat
high and detached thus approaching the
simian form.

•The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis
down and the white more powerfully
developed in the chest.

•The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward
which, along with lower retreating
forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as
opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees
for Europeans.

•The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and
longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter
and more robust.

•The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less
excavated and less capacious. The skull is
thicker especially on the sides.

•The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20%
smaller than whites.

•The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the
white race.

•The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced
in the Negro than in the white and thus
more characteristic of an ape.

•The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia
(shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the
calf of the leg high and but little developed. •The
heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and
broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great
toe is shorter than in the white. •The two
bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in
apes.

Genetic differences among ‘races’ are
partially accounted for by environmental
factors because:

Europeans and asians adapted
differently over time to northern
conditions
Europeans and asian evolved
genetically to have fewer children
and to invest more time in their
upbringing, while Africans had more
children and invested less in their
upbringing
As a result, Europeans and Asians
are more stable and caring, less
callous, have more stable marital
relationships, and require less
frequent intercourse.

http://www.bmtnews.org/newsletters/issue53/perfectdonor.html

"Since HLA types are inherited, patients are more likely to find a
matched
donor from within their own racial/ethnic group," notes Chatchada
Karanes
MD, Medical Director of the National Marrow Donor Program's Search and
Transplant Services Department. "For this reason, NMDP has made a
concerted
effort over the past few years to recruit more minority donors into
the
registry. Currently 55 percent of donors in the registry are
Caucasian, 8
percent are African-American, 6.1 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander,
8.3
percent are Hispanic, 1.3 percent are Native American, 1.5 percent are
of
multiple ethnic backgrounds, and 19.4 percent are of unknown origin."

http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/aa052400a.htm

I first learned of the special need for bone marrow donors of diverse
ethnic
backgrounds when Rod Carew's daughter, Michelle, was suffering from
non-lymphocytic leukemia and in need of a bone marrow transplant about
four
years ago. Michelle had a unique racial heritage. Her father is of
West
Indian and Panamanian background, while her mother is a Caucasian with
a
Russian-Jewish ancestry. Because bone marrow typing runs along ethnic
lines, Michelle's chances of finding a donor were decreased by her
unusual
heritage. According to the National Marrow Donor Program, "Some
characteristics of marrow type are unique to people of specific
ancestry."
And while it is possible for matches to be made across ethnic lines, a
person is more likely to find a match from another person of similar
racial
make-up. This puts people of mixed racial heritage who are in need of
a
bone marrow transplant in an often difficult position to find a
suitable
donor. The position is made even worse by the fact that minority
donors
make up only small percentages of available bone marrow donors.

http://www.kacvtv.org/local/organdonor/sbone.html

Some HLA antigens are found almost exclusively in specific ethnic
groups.
Due to this HLA antigen restriction, many minority patients can only
find
matches within their own ethnic group.
Unfortunately, since minority donor enrollment is low, many minority
patients cannot find a match. Therefore, there is a special need for
minorities to sign up as potential bone marrow donors.

http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/unicomm/Gazette/May28-01/letter.htm

Beverly Campbell, director of the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donor Registry
at
CBS, says that increasing the diversity of possible donors is key. The
need
is especially great for groups such as aboriginal Canadians, whose
genetic
pool is distinct from any other group in the world. It tends to be
difficult
to find a match for someone of mixed race, and Canadians of African,
Asian
and East Indian descent could also be better represented in the
registry.
Campbell stresses that an ongoing and sustained approach is needed to
reach
potential volunteers.

http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/race.html

"...it is clear that race does mean different things to different
people. In
the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous."
- Stan Rhine, PhD

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080501/met_6870358.html

Medical officials say there is a great need for kidney, heart, lung,
liver,
pancreas and small bowel donations from minorities. Tissue from
minority
donors has the best chance of being accepted by a minority recipient's
body.

"Minority patients need minority donors," said Deborah Rodriguez,
public
education coordinator for Life Quest Organ Recovery Services and
herself a
Hispanic kidney recipient.

With some organs like kidneys, matching the ethnicity of donor and
recipient
is particularly important, said Patti McHale, procurement coordinator
for
Mayo Transplant Services.

There also is a huge backlog of minority patients waiting for
transplants.
Of the more than 77,000 nationwide patients waiting for organ
transplants as
of July 20, some 21,000 are African-American, more than 10,000 are
Hispanic
and nearly 4,000 are Asian, according to figures from the Minority
Organ
Tissue Transplant Education Program.

While that's nearly half of those in need, only about 25 percent of
the
donor pool represents minority donors, the organization estimates. One
estimate is that minorities wait twice as long for a transplant
because of
the shortage of donors. On average, 15 people per day die waiting due
to the
shortage of organ and tissue donors, according to the Coalition on
Donation.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/2855189.htm

One out of four people on the national organ transplant waiting list
is
either black, Latino or Asian, she added. The chances for a successful
transplant often are increased when an organ is transferred to a
person of
the same race or ethnicity as the donor, according to HHS.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/race_ethnicity/race_ethnicity_report.htm

There are documented racial differences as well. Caucasians are more
likely
than Asians to have abnormally low levels of an important liver
metabolizing
enzyme (cytochrome p450 2D6). Blacks respond poorly to several classes
of
antihypertensive agents (beta blockers, angiotensive converting enzyme
(ACE)
inhibitors, and angiotensin II antagonists) and appear to have a
greater
risk of angioedema when given ACE inhibitors. It is therefore
important to
include in drug development representation of the broad range of
patients
who will eventually receive the drug, including people of both
genders,
representatives of major racial/ethnic groups, and patients with a
wide
range of disease severity, concomitant illnesses, and use of
concomitant
treatments.

Attention to potential racial and ethnic differences in response to
drugs is
part of a larger effort by the FDA to ensure that the safety and
efficacy of
drugs are adequately studied in people who represent the full range of
patients who will receive them upon marketing. FDA guidelines and
regulations encourage the participation of racial and ethnic groups in
all
phases of drug development, promote collection of race-related data
during
research and development, and recommend analysis of the data for race
effects. Following is a brief summary:

http://www.a-s-t.org/abstracts97/ph1-1058.htm#E13E475

African Americans (AA) are considered to be an immunologic "high-risk"
patient population, with increased rates of acute rejection being
evident
among this ethnic group. Limited in vitro data suggest that AA exhibit
greater resistance to corticosteroids when compared to NON-AA
transplant
recipients. One year graft survival was 78% in AA versus 96% in NON-AA
(p<0.05). Among AA and NON-AA recipients, 1 year patient survival was
97%
and 100%, respectively (p=ns). In conclusion, AA patients exhibit
higher
failure rates with corticosteroid treatment of acute renal allograft
rejection. Alternative antirejection therapies may need to be
considered for
this "high risk" patient population to improve long-term graft
survival.

http://www.a-s-t.org/abstracts97/ph556633.htm#E13E1046

Racial Disparities in LRD Kidney Transplantation

Significantly more Caucasians underwent LRDTx than any other racial
group
(p<.001). However, the most striking disparity was observed in African
Americans with regard to living related donation (p<.001) (Table 1).
Graft
survival by Kaplan Meier analysis demonstrated African Americans were
1.8
times as likely (p<.001, RR=1.0876) and Asians 0.7 times less likely
(p<.059, RR=.7455) than Caucasians to lose their grafts at 8 years.
Graft
survival in Hispanics and Native Americans were comparable to
Caucasians. A
Cox Regression analysis further demonstrated race was an independent
variable (p<.001, RR=1.7058) for long term graft survival including
matching, rejection or employment, although HLA identical 6 Ag
matching
minimized this effect. In conclusion, striking racial disparities
exist in
the LRD population. Efforts are needed to improve the live donation
and
outcome for all groups, regardless of race.

Race is a Myth?

The left distorts science for political
purposes.

by Michael Rienzi

Racial egalitarianism has failed to produce the "fair and just"
society promised by social engineers. At the same time,
there has been a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in
the post-Cold War world. In response, the left has
adopted a new strategy: Deny the very existence of race! This is why
we so frequently hear that "race is a social
construct, with no biological validity" and that "science proves we
are all the same." Ironically, it is in connection with
progress in understanding the human genome-progress in the very field
that will definitively prove the biological reality
of race-that we most often hear that race is nothing more than
"superficial" surface characteristics.

Against this view, there are first of all the obvious physical
differences between human population groups that
everyone recognizes. There is also genetic evidence that can be used
independently of traditional methods to classify
different human populations into racial groups that are virtually
identical to those based on the allegedly "superficial"
traits studied by traditional physical anthropology. As Professor
Glayde Whitney has written in these pages:

"These data are therefore a virtually irrefutable demonstration of the
reality of race-a purely statistical analysis of allele
frequencies [genetic differences from one group to another] gives
results that are essentially identical to the racial
groupings established by traditional anthropology."

An honest evaluation of the data confirms the reality of race. But let
us look at the arguments on the other side.

"We are 99.9 percent (or some other number) genetically identical; so
there can be no race differences and no races."

Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent
of their genes, it is also true that humans share
over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high
amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of
these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common;
differences between organisms are
caused by very small genetic differences.

Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and
women are the result of just one genetic
difference-one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an
estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and
women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one
suggests that sex is a mere "social construct." In
like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees,
which no one denies, can be described as
12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.

Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because
genes are ordered in a hierarchical
fashion. Some genes are "master genes," and control the expression of
a number of other genes, each of which may
further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene
is controlled by regions called "promoters" and
"enhancers," usually located in front of the functional part of the
gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene
"X" can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F.
Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes.
Even if all of the genes other than "X" are identical between two
groups, the one difference in "X" would be sufficient to
produce large group differences.

It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but
the nature of the differences: which genes are different,
in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences.
Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It
is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different
races of humans, but there is no doubt that these
subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance,
intelligence, and behavior.

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from
which it developed are 100 percent genetically
identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between
caterpillar and butterfly result from the
activation of different genes at different times. This should give
some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent
difference in tens of thousands of human genes "makes no difference."

"There is more genetic variation within human groups than between
groups; therefore, group differences are invalid."

This is another very popular argument that, although true, does not at
all mean that race is of no significance. The flaw
in this argument is the same as in the "99.9 percent argument," in
that it stresses quantity-genetic "bean
counting"-rather than the importance of genetic differences and their
consequences. Indeed, there is more genetic
variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation
does not influence the expression of important genes,
it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation
between siblings and between parents and
children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely
related to each other than to strangers.

Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the
"variation" argument. He points out that one could
take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of
Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it
an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of
that diversity will be found both in the population
of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity
even between two individuals who are very similar
to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more
like macaques than they are like their neighbors,
though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use
the argument when they apply it to humans.

Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic
differences between men and women, "the meaningful
question about racial differences is not the percentage of total
diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed
among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned."
Small genetic differences can translate into
important physical and behavioral differences.

"Population variation is continuous and human traits vary across a
spectrum, so discrete racial entities do not exist."

This is a scientific way of saying that since hybrids (racially or
ethnically mixed populations) exist, no single race
exists. This is an amazingly popular argument, even though it is
easily refuted. No one has ever thought the existence
of hybrid populations of animals means these animals cannot be
classified into distinct groups. This is self-evident.
Your dog may be a mix of German Shepherd and Great Dane, but this does
not mean there are no German
Shepherds or Great Danes. The existence of dog hybrids means only that
different breeds of dog can mate and
produce offspring. Dogs and wolves-separate species-can mate and
produce offspring but it is still easy to tell a dog
from a wolf.

There are certainly places in which there has been much human mixing
and where there are racial gradients-Central
Asia, Latin America, North Africa. The existence of hybrid populations
in these areas in no way disproves the existence
of other populations that are genetically more differentiated-in
Europe, the Far East, and sub-Saharan Africa.

This "continuous variation" argument is so illogical it is a wonder
anyone takes it seriously. The existence of mixtures
does not invalidate the existence of the original components of
mixtures. The fact that red and yellow can be mixed to
produce orange hardly means that red and yellow are illusions or do
not exist. Although racial gradation is far from
being a perfect and continuous gradient, even those variations in
nature that do lie along such a gradient can be
classified into distinct groups. The continuous variation of light
frequencies in the rainbow, for example, are easily
grouped into the distinct colors that virtually all people recognize.

"All human populations are mongrels, there is no such thing as a pure
race; thus, there is no such thing as race."

This argument is related to the previous one, except that it says we
are all hybrids, so there is no such thing as race.
First, no scientists talk about "pure" races. What does racial
"purity" mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations
are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more
hybridized groups. If we consider Englishmen,
Central Asians, and Koreans, we can make the relative statement that
Koreans and Englishmen are more genetically
(and phenotypically) distinct and differentiated than Central Asians,
who are in some respects intermediate between
East Asians and Europeans.

This does not imply that either Koreans or Englishmen are "pure,"
which would presumably mean they can all trace
their ancestries to a single population at a certain time. The
English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic
population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans,
and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many
European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if
having an ancestry of different but relatively
similar European groups makes someone a "mongrel," then indeed we are
all mongrels. But this does not invalidate in
any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various "mongrel"
populations are still genetically and phenotypically
distinct from each other and thus are separate races. Both genetically
and physically, Englishmen clearly belong in the
European group and Koreans in the Northeast Asian group.

The "we are all mongrels" arguments fails in two ways. First, the
various stocks that have gone into producing many of
today's ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it
stretches the definition of the word to call them
"mongrels." How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts?
Likewise, would a person of mixed English and
German ancestry be considered a "mongrel?" French-Italian? Do we call
the millions of white Americans of mixed
European stock "mongrels?"

Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a
new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race,
or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups,
formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains.
Europeans could be bred for hundreds-perhaps thousands-of generations
without producing offspring that look like
Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if today's races
are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are
distinct and extremely stable.

"Population differences are superficial and only skin-deep."

This is simply not true. Many consistent group differences have been
found in intelligence, behavior, brain size,
resistance to disease, twinning rates, speed of maturation, etc. Prof.
Arthur Jensen has gathered irrefutable proof of
racial differences in average intelligence. In Race, Evolution and
Behavior Prof. Philippe Rushton has not only
documented the large number of other racial differences but shown how
they fit the varying reproduction strategies
followed by different racial groups. Sometimes the race-does-not-exist
argument appears to be a desperate attempt to
shut down the argument about racial differences that the left has
clearly lost. Since egalitarians have nothing to say in
the face of mountains of evidence for racial differences, they have
suddenly shifted their ground and try to pretend that
race itself does not exist.

Even the most anti-racist medical doctors recognize that transplant
donors and recipients often have to be matched
not just on the basis of race but on close ethnicity within race,
because inter-racial transplants are likely to be rejected.
They also know that people of different races react differently do the
same drugs and suffer from different diseases.
To say these differences are only "skin-deep" is completely at odds
with reality.

"There has not been enough time for racial differences to have
evolved."

This is an odd argument because there has clearly been enough time for
physical differences to evolve. Pygmies and
Norwegians presumably once had a common ancestor but are now so
different from each other a biologist from
another planet might well think them different species. This argument
therefore is an attempt to deny differences in
average intelligence or other mental traits. In Why Race Matters
Professor Michael Levin shows that the IQ difference
between Europeans and black Africans has had more than enough time to
develop during the estimated 4,400
generations since the two groups split from a common ancestor.
According to his calculation, it would have required a
rate of selection per generation of 0.000106 against recessive genes,
a very small rate of genetic change that is the
equivalent to a change in 11 individuals per 100,000 per generation.
In nature this is an extremely slow rate of
evolutionary change.

"The white race-like all the others-is a social construct."

Here we begin to see the motivation behind all of the "there is no
such thing as race" nonsense. If people of European
descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that
their race does not really exist, there will be no
resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at
work in America, Europe, and elsewhere. People
will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.

If-against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their
senses-whites can be made to think race is an illusion they
can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration,
miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration. If
whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no
different from themselves nothing is being lost.

The irony, of course, is that when it comes to "affirmative
action"-policies that penalize whites-the very people who say
race is a social construct insist that it is a valid basis for
preferential treatment. People who say race is not biological
somehow have no difficulty claiming to be "black" or "Asian" or
"American Indian" if there is an advantage in doing so.

Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement
about who belongs in which race. Children can
distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is
parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures
with senses to distinguish things that do not matter. An inborn
ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are "our
people" and who are not is essential to group survival. Any attempt to
override or downplay that ability is a direct attack
on the group itself.

Needless to say, it is only whites who parrot obviously absurd notions
about race and who pretend that indifference or
even disloyalty to race is a virtue. Non-whites have a healthy
consciousness of race and know that it is a fundamental
part of individual and group identity. They must be hugely amused by
the potentially suicidal silliness they hear whites
urging each other to believe.

The claims of certain demagogues notwithstanding, Europeans are both a
cultural and a biological reality. Like all
racial and ethnic groups they have the right to preserve that reality
and to resist efforts to obfuscate science in an
attempt to eliminate races in fact, as well as name.

Michael Rienzi is a biological scientist who lives in the Northeast of
the United States.
This article appeared originally in the Dec. 2000 issue of American
Renaissance.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of
reality
than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of
racial
taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established
--
major races: black, white, etc. -- then one can classify human
skeletons
within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of
the
nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good
osteologist
as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive
observer of
living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years,
in
actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from
skeletal
remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So
those of
us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race,
whether
"real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue
does.
The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any
experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

ANTHROPOLOGY

FACT #21: The name Homo sapien was first used by
the 18th Century Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus.
The word "sapien" means "wise." The name was
originally used to speak of the White man and
synonymous with "europaeus." As a result, many
later
taxonomists and geneticists believed that Negroes
and
other races should be classified as different
species. In
fact, Darwin declared in The Descent of Man that
the
varieties of mankind are so distinct that similar
differences found in any other animal would warrant
their classification in different species, if not
different
genera. (39)

FACT #22: For his mammoth work, The Origin of
Races, Professor Carleton Coon, President of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
and
the premier geneticist of the world, assembled
massive
evidence from geography, anatomy, genetics,
physiology, comparative dentition, linguistics,
archeology, and fossil records from 300
bone-bearing
sites to verify his theory of pre-sapien
racianation." In
other words, Homo erectus was divided by race even
before evolution into Homo sapien stage. (12)

FACT #23: According to Dr. Coon, while the
Caucasoid subspecies (the White race) was evolving
in Europe, the Negro race was standing still on the
evolutionary plane and is today no less than
200,000
years behind the European in skull and brain
development. (9)

FACT #24: The Negro skull, in addition to having a
smaller brain volume and thicker cranial bones than
that of the White, is prognathous; i.e., the lower
face
projects forward, rather in the manner of an
animal's
muzzle. In consequence, the Negro jaw is
substantially longer, relative to its width, than
the
White jaw. A feature of the Negro lower jaw is its
retention of a vestige of the "simian shelf," a
bony
region immediately behind the incisors. The simian
shelf is a distinguishing characteristic of apes,
and it is
absent in Whites. (9) (12) (39)

FACT #25: The skin of the Negro is thicker and
possibly superior to the White's in the way it
impedes
the penetration of germs and in its protection from
the
ultraviolet rays of the sun. (39) (14)

FACT #26: The dark color of the Negro is due to
melanin pigment which is spread through every layer
of the skin and is found even in the muscles and
brain. (9) (27)

FACT #27: An African dentist can tell a Negro's
tooth
from a white man's at a glance. (14)

FACT #28: Negroes have arms which are longer,
relative to body height, than those of Whites. This
feature, together with their much thicker cranial
bones, gives Black athletes an advantage over
Whites
in boxing. The skeletal and muscular peculiarities
of
Negroes' lower limbs have given them considerable
success as sprinters, but have left them relative
undistinguished as distance runners. (39) (27)

FACT #29: ADDITIONAL DIFFERENCES

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in
texture, it is flat and elliptical with no
central
canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often
turned
up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of
the
mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively
longer than the European. The humerus is a
trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby
approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the
orbits
large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic
coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk the
cross-section
of the chest is more circular than whites. The
pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an
ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and
protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer
which resists scratching and impedes the
penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin
to
that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in
the
white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing
somewhat high and detached thus approaching
the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from
the pelvis down and the white more powerfully
developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes
outward which, along with lower retreating
forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70
degrees
as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82
degrees
for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally
narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are
shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium
are
less excavated and less capacious. The skull
is
thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to
20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than
in
the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less
pronounced in the Negro than in the white and
thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the
tibia
(shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the
calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot
long
and broad but slightly arched causing flat
soles,
the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are
occasionally united, as in apes.

FACT #30: Blood group studies made during WWII
suggest the American Negro gene pool is about 28%
white. --This despite all manner of institutional
discrimination, social segregation, etc. Keep in
mind
that the results of test from true Black Africans
would
show even bigger differences from Whites. (32) (14)

THE NEGRO BRAIN

FACT #17: Among human races
numerous studies have been
made of the comparative weight
of White and Negro brains with
results that fell within the
range
of about an 8-12 percent lower
weight for the Negro brain. Such
studies have been conducted by
Bean, Pearl, Vint, Tilney,
Gordon, Todd, and others. (23)
(27)

FACT #18: In addition to the
difference in brain weight, the
Negro brain grows less after
puberty than the white. Though
the Negro brain and nervous
system mature faster than the white brain, its
development is arrested at an earlier age which
limits
further intellectual advancement. (22) (27)

FACT #19: The thickness of the supragranular layer
(the outside layer) of the Negro brain is about 15
percent thinner, and its convolutions are fewer and
more simple, on average, than that of the White
brain.
(9)

FACT #20: The frontal lobes of the Negro brain,
responsible for abstract conceptional reasoning,
are
smaller relative to body weight, less fissured, and
less
complex than those of the White brain. (9) (27)
(23)
(22)

SOURCES

1.African Business Magazine, Dec. '91
2.American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92, pg
822+
3.American Renaissance, Dec. '90, Box 2504,
Menlo Park, CA 94026
4.American Sociological Review, Vol 45, pg. 859
5.Basham, A.L., The Wonder That Was India,
Grove Press, New York, NY 1954
6.Buckley, William F. syndicated column, Jan. 5.
1993
7."But What about Africa?" Harper's, May '90
8."The Christian Heritage of South Africa Under
Attack!", Peter Hammond, Herald the Coming,
Dec. '92.
9.Coon, Carleton S. The Origin of Races, 1962,
Alfred A. Knopf
10.Fagan, Myron C. How the Greatest White
Nations Were Mongrelized - Then Negroized,
Sons of Liberty Books.
11.Fields, Dr. Ed, The Dangers of Interracial
Marriage, PO Box 1211, Marietta, GA 30061
12.Howells, William. Mankind So Far, Doubleday,
Garden City, NY 1945.
13.Harris, Marvin, 1981. Why Nothing Works.
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY
14.Jacob, A. White Man, Think Again! 1965, publ.
by author.
15.Jensen, Arthur R. Bias in Mental Testing, The
Free Press, New York 1980
16.Jensen, Arthur R. Straight Talk About Mental
Tests, the Free Press. (Macmillan) New York,
1981
17.McCall's, May '92, pg 76
18.McGurk, Frank, "A Scientist's Report on Race
Differences." U.S. News and World Report,
Sept. 21, 1956. Washington, D.C.
19.Pearson, Roger, Eugenics and Race, 1966,
Noontide Press
20.Pearson, Roger. Race, Intelligence, and Bias in
Academe, Scott-Townsend Publishers, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
21.Pendell, Elmer, Sex Versus Civilization,
Noontide Press.
22.Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reason, 1961,
Howard Allen Press, Cape Canaveral, FL
23.Putnam, Carleton. Race and Reality, a Search
for Solutions, 1967, Howard Allen, Box 76,
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
24.Putnam, Carleton. A Study in Racial Realities,
an address at the University of California at
Davis, Dec. 17, 1964
25.Scott, Ralph. Education and Ethnicity: The U.S.
Experiment in School Integration,
Scott-Townsend. Washington, D.C. 1989
26.Shuey, Audrey H., The Testing of Negro
Intelligence, Social Science Press, New York,
1966
27.Simpson, William Gayley. Which Way Western
Man? 1978, National Alliance Press, Box 3535,
Washington, D. C. 20007
28.Social Forces, Vol. 69, pg.1+, Sept. '90
29."South Africa: Time to Choose Sides" Soldier of
Fortune, Dec. '89.
30.Snyderman, Mark, and Rothman, Stanely. The
IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy.
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ
1990.
31.Stell v Savannah-Chattham County Board of
Education, U.S. District Court, Southern
Georgia, May 13, 1963.
32.Taylor, Jared, Paved with Good Intentions: The
Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary
America. 1992, Carrol & Graf. New York, NY
33.World Almanacs, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92
34.United Nations World Census, 1990
35.Van Loon, Henrick, 1940, Van Loon's
Geography, Garden City Publ.
36.The Voice, Feb. 27, 1990.
37.Waddell, L. A. The Makers of Civilization,
1929, Angriff Press, Hollywood, CA
38.Weisman, Charles A. America: Free, White and
Christian, 1989, SFA, Box 766-c, LaPorte, CO
80535
39.Weisman, Charles A. The Origins of Race and
Civilization, 1990, SFA
40.Weyl, Nathaniel. The Geography of American
Achievement, Scott-Townsend, Washington,
D.C. 1989.
41.Martin Luther King (Man Behind the Myth) by
Des Griffin.

[Dara]

Hello Tom I missed you where were you?!

This is what we do, instead of my writing responses to you I will
compose more poems. We will have a duel you say what you say which you
have a right and I will verse poems and we duel it out.

I KNOW I will win and you will lose. So read my posts. BTW how was
your weekend?

--DARA

[wgodfrey]

"Dara" <d...@untiredwithloving.org> wrote in message
news:62f348c3.03102...@posting.google.com...

The least you can do is to stop following the stupid cross-posting.