Jan Lamprecht posted this explanation of races. It’s not bad, but I hate when people compare humans to dogs. The liberal response is that dog breeds were developed on purpose. (If that’s possible, doesn’t it mean that genetics can be altered and therefore that genetics exist?) Instead of getting into a big argument with liberals, try comparing humans to wild animals and fish: bears, elephants, sharks.
I was watching an episode of Medical Detectives which dealt with a bunch of black babies in Cleveland who mysteriously suffered from bleeding in their lungs. Then they described how they started investigating it and trying to narrow it down to its source. At a point, one of the scientists involved mentioned that they were thinking of delving into “the genetics of race” to see why it was only black babies that were affected by the problem. And those were the words he used. Then they got some other leads, and the found the cause elsewhere.
You will find time and again that nobody wants to discuss the word “race”. “Race” we are told does not exist. It is taboo. You can’t mention it. Scientists will s!
ay, “there is no such thing as race”, and yet, all throughout medical science you’ll see that genetics and race all have some sort of existence.One good friend of mine I notice also skirts around the issue of race and IQ when I mention it. He seems to be a firm believer that “environment” explains everything, and yet it doesn’t.
Race exists, but you need to understand what they mean by it. Race does not exist in the same way as, “dog” and “cat” exists. “Black” and “White” are not as clearly defined as “dog” and “cat”. I have said this before, and I’m sure that if you go to scientists and corner them on the issue of race, then you’ll find that the correct definition of race is to think in terms of dog breeds, cat breeds, and horse breeds. When you say we are “human” you’re saying we are like, for example, “dogs”. When you say we are “black” or “white”, you’re saying, we’re like “bull terriers” or “alsatians”. That is the correct, genetic and scientific persp!
ective of race. But nobody will come out and tell you this.Dogs can breed with other dogs, and when they do you get “mixed breeds”, which is the equivalent of “mixed race” in humans. Blacks and Whites can interbreed. We’re not separate species. We are of the same species, it is just that we are different variations within the same species that’s all.
Now you can take it further. Ask a scientist who believes in evolution, since most of them do, what is the difference between black and white, or more accurately, how is it, if humans evolved from the same source, that you could end up with: black, white and asian? Well, the answer is actually quite simple. As people moved apart geographically, their breeding patterns and other patterns along with their isolation caused them to change. Blacks have all the same genes and DNA that whites have, its just that the proportions changed. Their breeding patterns and other factors must have caused certain patterns to begin to predominate. Perhaps certain tribes died of starvation, and other!
s did not. Then the very slight genetic differences in the survivors later became more common. Let’s put it another way. Suppose there were genes/DNA of type: A, B and C in the original people who went to Europe and the same types of gene/DNA existed among blacks. But while in Europe, due to starvation, war, etc; those with type B became fewer in number. Then in Africa, suppose, those of type C died out due, say to some random disease or natural event. Then with time, the European people would have more of A & C and less of B. In Africa, there would be more of A & B and less of C. And as the aeons go by and people interbreed, these slight differences then spread out and average themselves out. Then due to the physical isolation, these people’s bodies and colours will start being slightly different. 100,000 years later… they could be very different.I’ll bet you that scientists themselves, have postulated and discussed, in a much more complex form, that which I’m s!
aying above. Scientists are quite happy with the notion that w!
hites, a
sians and blacks come from the same “root race”. But they did change.You could liken it to dogs again. The original “dog” is probably a creature something like the African wild dog. It is a type of tough, mongrel. But through selective breeding programs, you could, over several generations develop poodles, bulldogs and alsations out of that one “root race”.
But now we can take this to a new level. If the original human species was a type of “mongrel” for lack of a better word, and that it developed different features due to isolation and different events affecting it, then it follows that if you merge all humans back together that you will get back to the original mongrel. If you took all the alsations, bulldogs and poodles and left them to interbreed madly, you should get back to your “African wild dog” type of creature eventually. And so it should be with humans too.
All this is logical, and easy to comprehend. But when it comes to humans, many peopl!
e just refuse to accept certain possibilities. For example, you would not doubt that a greyhound can run faster than a poodle. And nobody would deny that blacks excel at long distance running and will beat whites or asians at it more often than not. But mention one concept, INTELLIGENCE, and then everyone will deny that intelligence has a genetic dimension (except the scientists – since they’ve proven that IQ is more interited than not).We know that no matter what type of body you have, with exercise you can improve it. We know that whites can exercise and try to be better long distance runners. But even so, natural genetic talent gives black people the edge. It doesn’t mean that all whites will lose long distance races. It is just that when we get to the best in the world, we know the blacks have that little bit extra that allows them to be the best more often than not. Try and use exactly this same argument with respect to IQ and intelligence and people will spit!
in your face! We know blacks can learn and can be educated, b!
ut then
dare to make the assertion that mentally whites or asians are more talented at say, mathematics, and goodness knows… that is racism!!! Go and see how many excellent black mathematicians or black chess players there are as a proportion of their population, and you’ll be shocked. Even our Govt admits that as a nation, we suck at mathematics. That alone should be proof that race and certain logical skills go hand in hand since 72% of the children at school are black.Race is a concept in the same way as poodle is a concept. The rules are 100% the same. A poodle can be pure bred, and there is no reason why, “white” or “asian” or “black” can be “pure bred”. In fact, there is nothing stopping us from BREEDING NEW RACES OF HUMANS! Think about that! Since race is just a different group of DNA/gene combinations, there could be dozens of different “human races” you could breed. You could breed, for example: small people, big people. You should be able to breed people into an!
ything you want them to be. If you used the same logic that a dog breeder or a horse breeder uses and you could mate selected men and women for generations you should be able to produce all sorts of various “races”. You could breed people with big noses and small noses, straight noses and crooked noses. You could breed small people with red hair, big noses and thin lips – if you were determined enough!And then, if one of those people went and mated with say, an asian, they’d no longer be a “pure breed” in the same way that a poodle mating with fox terrier wouldn’t be a “pure breed”.
Race, like dog or horse breed, is not a species. It is instead a “concept”. A white person is really a concept in the same way that a bulldog is a concept. Bulldogs were created by humans. Bulldogs did not exist thousands of years ago. Humans bred bulldogs, as they bred different types of: horses, cows, chickens, etc. Race is really “animal husbandry” in the strictest sense.
You will hear dog breeders talking of “intelligent dogs”.!
You’ll
hear them say that an alsation or a collie is “highly intelligent”, but if you tried to say the same thing about an aborigine, or a black, you’d be called a racist and a liar! And yet, the underlying SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES are 100% exactly the same!!The problem with race is that it is not as clear and as definitive and divided as species. Nature does not allow you to interbreed a cat and a dog. So it is a very pronounced and definitive concept whereas “breed” and “race” are more like a fashion. They are a concept. “Breed” is really a statistical thing. A bulldog has a certain genetic makeup, and has a certain preponderance of “genes” or “DNA” that makes him very slightly different from a greyhound. But you can have a pure bred bulldog and 1,000 variations between a “pure bulldog” and a “pure greyhound”. The same holds true for the human race. We can have 1,000 variations between white and asian or black and asian.
As often happens, when people prefer to hide !
unpalatable facts, you get people who denounce a concept by misusing statistics. It is like the concept of the “average man”. The average man is X cm high, he weighs Y Kg, and he has dark hair and an IQ of Z. But you won’t find many men actually fitting that description exactly. You will find most men have a height of: X-A to X+A. The average height will be X. And if you examine race you’ll find that same definition of: X-A to X+A being true. When you say, that X defines a black man, everyone will deny it. But the reality is that most black men could be defined as: X-A to X+A. They fall within a range, and the average of that range is indeed an accurate and valid mathematical and scientific description of the group. So whites on average will be X cm tall. But I’ll bet you that if you did a survey of blacks and tried to measure their average height you’d see that they are NOT X cm tall. We know the Asians would definitely be shorter. And if you went and took other statistica!
l measurements including aptitude, IQ, running speed, weight, !
height,
you’d find that in each area that the races do differ.The races are probably more an accident of geography and isolation than anything else.
People will deny race exists, but they would be lying. Race could be defined in the same way that you could measure the heights of bulldogs versus greyhounds and measure and quantify many other things.
The main thing that bugs me about race, and in fact, it is the only thing that bugs me about race is this: Asians have the highest IQs and Whites have the next highest IQs. If blacks were to outnumber either whites or asians, then the IQ as a whole would drop. And there is a link between IQ and accomplishments. Intelligence is what drives the world forward, and if whites were to be bred out of existence you’d end up with “mongrel humans” who would have a lower IQ. And that to me is the issue that people forget in this whole discussion of race.
What is interesting though about IQ is that asians have higher !
IQs than whites, and yet whites dominated asians. I have wondered to myself whether there is another aspect to IQ that is not being measured which perhaps still gives whites an edge over asians? Unless it is perhaps something like “culture”.Nevertheless, somewhere in all of this are deep implications for mankind. I think people must beware of “mongrel humans” because it could mean that we will lose the First World. As I pointed out to a friend of mine, the First World and its success is NOT NATURAL. The Third World is NATURAL. It is the common theme. First World is exceptional. And we must be careful that the First World is not destroyed and that mankind is not returned to the “mongrel state” for if it is, then perhaps we will lose everything that we’ve built up and then, in the distant future, only the Third World will exist – EVERYWHERE. It was geographical isolation, or shall we say, “Geographical Apartheid” which may have caused humans to separate and to evolve!
differently, some with greater success than others. And we mu!
st be ca
reful that we do not destroy this. Sheer genetic quirks very possibly gave whites and asians the edge over blacks. But those genetic quirks ended up benefiting all of mankind and has resulted in the most incredible progress we’ve ever known.And remember, massive progress is not normal. Nations can regress too. When the Roman Empire fell, the world was lost in darkness for over 1,000 years. It took over 1,000 years for those same Europeans to get back to where they had been before. There are therefore sound reasons why race is a good concept and is worth keeping around.
But since races can be bred, I am sure you could also come up with a breeding plan that would increase the IQ of a specific race. If you can selectively breed noses, then you must be able to breed IQs too. You could breed cleverer people or you could breed dumber people. All these things must be quite possible.
The way that America and Europe are going, they are laying the foundation fo!
r a “mongrel race” to take over that which was created by the white race. And will this mongrel race be able to progress and run things as effectively as the white race did? I don’t think so. In Africa, a small contingent of the white race brought massive benefits to the entire continent. So the preservation of whites could in all likelihood benefit black people again in the future.
“What is interesting though about IQ is that asians have higher IQs than whites, and yet whites dominated asians. I have wondered to myself whether there is another aspect to IQ that is not being measured which perhaps still gives whites an edge over asians? Unless it is perhaps something like “culture”.
The answer is simply. Whites have greater dispersion around their mean IQ than Asians. Asians are more mean centric as a population. Hence Whites have more frequent genius level IQs in their populations.
Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are all interfertile with each other. Cross-species mating among these canines seem rare due to behavioral differences. When a wolf encounters a dog or a coyote it usually tries to attack and kill it.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
“What is interesting though about IQ is that asians have higher IQs than whites, and yet whites dominated asians. I have wondered to myself whether there is another aspect to IQ that is not being measured which perhaps still gives whites an edge over asians?”
An article on the South Africa Suck website discussed this point a while back. One aspect is that blacks tend to see things short term: for example, farming just enough to feed themselves for the season, but being unable to see beyond the next harvest. Asians tend to see things very long term: thus, China might make the recovery of Taiwan a goal to be met some time in the 22nd century. Whites tend to be in between, so they can mount realistic goals to improve their lives within a generation. And there is also the White concept of progress, of making things better.
Of course, it can be argued that in the long run, Asians will dominate Whites. Given the the decision of the leadership of the United States to have the national debt financed by East Asian countries, it just may be in the long term Asians will end up running the show.
“As I pointed out to a friend of mine, the First World and its success is NOT NATURAL. The Third World is NATURAL.”
This is true, and we can see this in the collapse of modern civilization when blacks take control of a country, as they have done so in Haiti and in sub-Saharan Africa. These ongoing black-run debacles are conveniently ignored by liberals because it conflicts with their egalitarian ideology. I have also seen the point made that the degree of development of Latin American countries is tied to their proportion of Whites. Thus, Chile and Argentina are the most developed because they have high European populaces; and as one goes into Central America, development decreases owing to the higher proportion of “indigenous” peoples.
(And which is why all the foreign aid or nationalization programs in the world will fail in the third world because it is not so much the economics as it is the people who are unable to move forward.)
And one can argue that the mass importation of third world peoples into North America and Europe has already changed these regions. We can look at the more obvious points of increases in crime, welfare dependency, whatever, in the USA. But I think there are more subtle forces at work. For example, take the decline of American infrastructure. I do a lot of long distance driving and many of America’s freeways are in wretched shape. It’s as if one is driving on roads in the third world. So why don’t Americans care? Is it because this is the kind of road system that is considered suitable by increasing numbers of people?
Similarly, the corruption of the political and economic systems seems to be ignored by growing numbers of Americans. Thus, there is little interest in such things as globalization and outsourcing, or of politicians and corporations being in each others’ pockets. Compare this to the populist reactions of a century ago to corporate and government malfeasance. What has changed? Well, to a large degree, the demographics of the America people. Civic responsibility is no longer a national virtue, it would seem. But is this because the dominant political groups in the USA are based around minorities demanding ethnic patronage (such as black demands for reparations for slavery)? And because the older White political virtues of citizenship (going back to ancient Greece) have been attacked by the multicult? And because the USA is importing large third world populaces with completely different political cultures, ones which accept corruption as the natural order of affairs?
All this bears further study.
Keep in mind, that after the fall of the Roman Empire, the population was still primarily European. The same instincts, abilities, and goals were retained, and a return was inevitable.
Were ‘Mongrolization” to occur, the new mix would likely be apathetic to past cultures except for a smattering of “Messianics” who might aspire to “change”. Just think of all the joys European culture is ignorant of: genital mutilation, death by Ebola, ornamental scarring, etc.
It’s what you do know that hurts!
Fascinating topic. In addition to cfenris’ observation about
the shape of different bell curves, I believe that the science
of personality, with it’s “Big Five” components, which are
different from g (general intelligence) will one day give us
another window on race differences.
I also think that the dog example is quite good. If you don’t
like it, how about bees? European and African honey bees,
with very different behaviors.
I actually heard a black man scream that the only reason African bees are called killer bees is to promote hate against blacks by making people think that anything African is going to kill.
The African bees must’ve internalized write racism and began killing. I wonder where African bees learned English.
72% of all students are black? Must be a typo or a reference to a specific area. Unfortunately it may be fatal to the article’s credibility with exactly the unpersuaded but reachable readers tv piece is trying to sway.
“72% of all students are black? Must be a typo or a reference to a specific area. Unfortunately it may be fatal to the article’s credibility with exactly the unpersuaded but reachable readers tv piece is trying to sway.”
The writer is from South Africa. Those numbers make sense there.
South Africa. Formerly a first world nation, where the first
human heart transplant was performed, the jewel of
Africa, along with Rhodesia.
How did “democracy” work out for SA? Zimbabwe/Rhodesia?
That Black fellow screaming about the bees must have been
funny. I’d explain that I don’t think that all Blacks are
oversexed, violent, lazy and stupid, (humans aren’t bees or
dogs) but that there are differences between the races which
become obvious when we look at statistics. There are
oversexed, violent, lazy White people and Black geniuses, but
nations reflect the law of large numbers.
“The African bees must’ve internalized white racism and began killing. “
It is all the fault of apartheid between honey bees and bumble bees.
Isn’t it sexist to call them honey bees?
[...] Explaining the existence of race [...]
Although, there are statistical differences between races, it would be erroneous to view those statistics in a vacuum. Factors like culture and environment are integral in determining x-outcome when considering scenarios. Looking at race in isolation would not be productive.
Fatal to the argument that it is significant, for instance, that Asians have the highest mean IQ, is the fact that race is not a static concept, constantly being molded by dynamics of environment and culture. In other words, although the observations are correct, they do not account for the existence of environmental stresses that shape the characteristics of individuals; hypothetically speaking: If survival and IQ were directly correlated, because Asians are ‘intellectually superior’ to Whites (meaning that the mean IQ, of the Asian is higher than that of the White person’s, but allowing for infinite variance on either side of the mean in both cases), the survival of the average Asian is more likely. However, in this instance, the Whites who do not survive would more likely be the whites with lower IQ’s. In the end, the environmental stress which preferentially selects higher IQ’s results in a changing of the composition of the white population, with time, t, RAISING the average IQ of the whites.
Another difficulty in assessing the concept of race is this: although as a group, there are statistically significant differences between what we call ‘races’, on an individual-individual basis, these differences do not hold much importance. For instance, if i am a Black male, it is possible for me to hold more genetic similarities with a White male from another state, than with my next door neighbor who is also Black. The problem is that there is no individual to individual significance in dealing with persons of different races, and each person must be approached on their own merit, which would be affected by their environments, and their genetic predispositions.
Part of the problem with assessing the biological significance of race is its application. Honestly, it IS racist to say that because Tom is black and Jude is Chinese, that Jude will score higher on a Mathematics exam. However, it is not racist to say, that in isolation of the situation and the objects of study, that a Black male taking a math test is likely to score lower than a Chinese Male taking said math test. Everyone wants to be PC with the topic, and with good reason. Self-fulfilling prophesies are social realities. If younger generations of whites are taught that they can’t swim, the probability is that smaller numbers of whites will attempt swimming than if they were told that they could, thus producing a smaller range of outcomes. Who knows, maybe Black-related statistics, when it comes to education, will improve once more black people divert their efforts in such veins as have been traditionally evaluated to assess intelligence. However, IQ scores say nothing to latent ability, and also examine talent in a poor way. There are seven types of intelligence, and IQ tests do little to examine someone’s social ability for instance. The methodology used to investigate intelligence may not take into account the type of intelligence that allows one to succeed in life and the frightening part is that this observation holds true for other empirical features. The meanings of tests are limited to the panorama of vision of those who design and interpret data and so are often misconstrued. A mathematically adept Black may dull next to the luster of a White who is outgoing and wily if they both work in the same marketing firm. And this is because humans come as packages, and not as isolated traits that autonomously result in x-outcome; there are almost infinite permutations of ways that traits can be put together in single individuals which work together to determine our niches. Not only are we whole and complicated people, but we are whole and complicated beings with different backgrounds.
We create the context of race, and it does not mean much more socially, than the meaning we attribute to it. In terms of science, it should definitely be investigated for practicality’s sake. If Chinese are more likely to suffer from prostate cancer, and methods of treatment, specific to Chinese are available, then there is good reason to investigate race, and there is. However, judging a person based on the color of their skin or on their background is an action out of ignorance. It’s not a lie to say, for instance that blacks make better runners, whites make better swimmers, and that Chinese make better mathematicians; It’s also not wrong to say that all of this may easily change.
if chinese make better mathematicians why was 95% of advanced maths created by europeans
Because developments occur usually when there’s a need for them. Maybe the Chinese did not see the need for the most part (speculation).