In celebration of Black Alternative History Month, the Carlyle Club continues to call the Attorney General’s bluff with a forthright conversation about the most uncomfortable aspects of race we could think of.
- Mind the Gap
- Race Differences in Intelligence, plus:
- The Evolution of an Idea, including:
- Mulatto History Month
- A Different Sort of Delusion, plus:
- Rushton’s Case, featuring:
- The Celebration Continues at Radish
- Recommended Reading
- Letters to the Editor
An anonymous teacher, “graduate of a prominent school of education,” writes the National Association of Scholars (2010):
First, you have to understand that educational policy is consumed by the achievement gap, which is the disparity between groups of students on most educational measures, particularly the groups of race and socio-economic income — and, if I’m going to be honest, it’s race that generates the most intensity. I don’t just mean that this is the number one priority. It’s the only priority. The achievement gap pervades every corner of American educational policy discussion. Nothing else matters. No Child Left Behind was entirely about the achievement gap and measuring schools to see if they’d closed it. Obama’s Race to the Top is just another take on the achievement gap — again, focusing on testing and this time holding teachers responsible if they can’t get low-performing students to improve.
This is substantially confirmed by National Affairs (2011):
Today, the notion of “closing achievement gaps” has become synonymous with education reform. The Education Trust, perhaps the nation’s most influential K-12 advocacy group, explains: “Our goal is to close the gaps in opportunity and achievement.” The National Education Foundation has launched its own “Closing the Achievement Gaps Initiative.” The California Achievement Gap Educational Foundation was launched in 2008 to “eliminate the systemic achievement gap in California K-12 public education.” Elite charter-school operator Uncommon Schools says its mission is running “outstanding urban charter public schools that close the achievement gap and prepare low-income students to graduate from college.” Education Week, the newspaper of record for American education, ran 63 stories mentioning “achievement gaps” in the first six months of this year.
That seems like a lot. Hardly surprising, then, that education theorists keep turning up exciting new ways of closing the racial gaps, most of which involve some form of cheating, none of which actually work. The Kansas City Desegregation Experiment is perhaps the most spectacular example (Cato Institute, 1998):
For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, “You can’t solve educational problems by throwing money at them.” The education establishment and its supporters have replied, “No one’s ever tried.” In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.
Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil — more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.
The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.
Lesson learned? You must be joking. No, education theory just moved on to the next bad idea, and the next, and the next. The latest is “stereotype threat”: the idea that lower expectations lead to lower test scores. Unfortunately, “stereotype threat” doesn’t appear to exist, and couldn’t close the gap even if it did — and of course it can’t explain why some races have always underperformed, and others overperformed, in and out of school.
Meanwhile, old standbys like school funding and test prep get plenty of mileage, in spite of the fact that black and mestizo students actually get more funding (Heritage Foundation) and are more likely to use test prep than white students (Education Realist). This sort of thing is why John Derbyshire, in We Are Doomed, called modern educational theory “a vast sea of lies, waste, corruption, crackpot theorizing, and careerist logrolling.”
So how do we close the achievement gap? Simple: we don’t, because we can’t, because the Eurasian races evolved, over many millennia, for greater cognitive ability than the African and Beringian races. Oh well. In this issue of Radish, we’ll be wrapping our highly evolved brains around the consequences of that parsimonious theory, — hardly new, — which in a single stroke explains why the poorest Korean kids consistently outscore their Haitian peers, why icy Finland is richer and more peaceful than steamy Somalia, why the Belgian Congo collapsed when the Belgians left, and much else that would otherwise be quite mysterious.
Average IQ by country, collected from the literature by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in IQ & Global Inequality (2006). Purple is highest (e.g., China, average IQ 105), then blue (e.g., Germany, 99), then yellow (e.g., India, 82), then red (e.g., DR Congo, 65).
They clearly exist, and the default hypothesis, not to mention the only remotely plausible one, is that they are in part genetic. This used to be common sense. When and how did we become so confused?
Human Neurological Uniformity (HNU) is a key doctrine of progressivism — James Fitzjames Stephen’s “Religion of Humanity” (Radish 1.3). Distinguished dissident Mencius Moldbug explains in his Gentle Introduction (links in original):
An HNU credulist believes that modern human subpopulations are neurologically uniform. In other words, genetic differences between races (if the term is even acknowledged) are of no behavioral significance. Especially committed credulists may believe that genetic differences between individuals are of no behavioral significance, or even that human behavior has not been shaped at all by evolutionary history — both forms of the “Blank Slate” hypothesis. …
You may, for instance, hear phrases like “we are all the same under the skin.” Are we? (And consider the behavioral correlates.) I suppose one could step back to a less-falsified point: “we are all the same under the skull.” Evolution, in this theory, is somehow attenuated by tissue depth. Do you want to go there?
As the authors of this new book [download here] put it: given the genetic history of the human species, global equality in any quantitative trait — physical or behavioral — is about as likely as dropping a handful of quarters and having them all land on edge. Of course, as reasonable thinkers, we are prepared to consider improbable propositions. If presented with extraordinary evidence.
What, sir, is your evidence for HNU? Oh, you don’t have any. I see.
… Lacking any positive factual argument for their hypothesis, how do the spinmeisters of HNU credulism — from Stephen Jay Gould [see John Hawks and Wired] down — operate? The answer is a one-paragraph textbook in charlatanship. This maneuver takes a gallbladder the size of a basketball, but it works perfectly.
First: shift the burden of proof to the converse of your unsupported hypothesis, defining it as the null hypothesis — true until proven false. Second: raise the standards for proving it false to an absurd and unsatisfiable level. (See this for a typical attempt to clear the ever-rising bar.) Third: declare victory.
Thus: the moon is made of green cheese. You say the moon is made of moon rock and moondust, but you have no real evidence for this claim. Astronauts landed on the moon and brought home moon rock and moondust, but this is just a superficial layer of asteroid debris around the cheese. If they go again and actually drill this time, they’ll hit cheese. If they don’t, they didn’t drill deep enough. Regardless, the moon-rock theory remains highly speculative and unproven — it is probably “junk science” funded by lunar mining interests. …
Here is a thought I distinctly remember thinking as a teenager, quite possibly after reading one of Stephen Jay Gould’s better essays on the early hominidae: “boy, it’s a good thing Homo erectus went extinct. Because fortunately, racism is a lie, we are all the same under the skin, and once America educates the world all God’s chilluns will go to Harvard. But we’re obviously descended from less-intelligent hominids — and if those guys were still around, we’d have a real race problem.” A testament to the art of modern crimestop, which always finds a way to disable wrongthink by removing some tiny but essential component from one’s picture of reality.
“Skin deep?” From left to right: reproduction skulls of a modern male European, a modern male African, and a modern male aboriginal Australian. “Although the concept of race assessment is controversial, certain features of the skull may be of use in differentiating ancestral groups.” No kidding.
John Derbyshire, whose uncommon sense has graced our pages not a few times already, explored human genetic history in a panel discussion organized by the Black Law Students’ Association (BLSA) of the University of Pennsylvania in 2010:
When the organizers first emailed me to suggest I appear on the panel, I told them that this is my view of the matter. I said that I was flattered to be invited to speak at such a prestigious institution… but that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can’t be legislated out of existence; nor can they be “eliminated” by social or political action.
That there are natural, intractable differences between the human races seems apparent to me on both rational and empirical grounds.
First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.
Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.
Derbyshire went on to outline the empirical case, which is extensive, concluding with “a plea to turn to good old American individualism and stop obsessing about group outcomes” (National Review).
This was followed by a sort of stunned silence, into which Madame Moderator interjected the remark that “Mr. Derbyshire is here as a private guest of Prof. Wax, not at the invitation of the BLSA.”
Which I find quite droll, even though it wasn’t true.
Mingling for refreshments afterwards, I found the BLSA students a friendly bunch. The only rancor was from some older guy, either a mature student or an academic, who said that my ideas were “old” and my remarks “hurtful.” Apparently he thought that one or other, or both, of these observations invalidated the truth content of what I had said.
Now that we have a handle on the evolutionary history of race and intelligence, we can investigate the history of the idea of race and intelligence. Ta-Nehisi Coates, a professionally mulatto political commentator, has his own opinion, of course, informed more by racial animosity than by either facts or basic logic (The Atlantic, 2011):
Advocates of the “p.c. egalitarianism” theory [that progressives hinder the study of intelligence because it contradicts their egalitarian doctrine]… evidently believe that the notion that black people are dumber than whites is a cutting edge theory, as opposed to a long-held tenet of slave-holders and white supremacists. They present themselves as bold-truth tellers who will not bow to “liberal creationists.” In fact they are espousing firmly established views that date back to the very founding of this country.
Similarly, “political science” professor Henry Farrell squawks (2007):
… they’re new-style advocates for a long-established and intellectually discredited pseudo-science…
And prominent Washington political commentator Matthew Yglesias sneers:
It’s entirely possible that the sort of views about black inferiority that were sufficiently widely and strongly held as to provide key ideological support for centuries of enslavement, imperial conquest, Jim Crow, etc. and had public support for desegregation in the low thirties and trending down as recently as 1978 are correct. Maybe the slave-owners, white supremacists, imperialists, etc. were right all along…
I was not even a tiny bit sorry to hear that Yglesias got beaten up by blacks for being white in D.C.
As we discussed in Radish 1.6, scientists have for centuries been free to report the hard truth about race without fear of attack from progressive thugs for the thoughtcrime of ‘racism.’ If nearly all of them, dating back to the very founding of this country, have observed that men of African descent are, on average, “dumber” (to use Ta-Nehisi’s word) than men of European descent, not to mention Asian descent, then we should hardly take that as evidence against the hypothesis.
Instead, we might ask when, why, how those firmly established views were discredited — made “to seem false or unreliable” — and exposed as pseudoscience — “knowledge purported to be scientific… but which fails to comply with the scientific method,” no part of which method involves asking black people if the findings hurt their feelings. Did a team of scientists perform intelligence tests on representative samples of Europeans and Africans, and discover they were equally intelligent after all? Well, no, as a matter of fact, that never happened. Race differences in intelligence have been pretty stable for as long as we’ve been able to measure them, so it must have been a political shift, not a scientific one.
That explains why HNU credulists rarely appeal to science. They prefer to invoke popular, confused notions about “slave-holders and white supremacists” (Radish 1.3), not to mention “enslavement, imperial conquest, Jim Crow, etc.” — while at the same time scoffing at the “conspiratorial” notion that anyone might be “strangling research” into race and intelligence with “p.c. egalitarianism.”
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. First we should establish what our forefathers actually believed.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910)
Mentally the negro is inferior to the white. … his environment has not been such as would tend to produce in him the restless energy which has led to the progress of the white race; and the easy conditions of tropical life and the fertility of the soil have reduced the struggle for existence to a minimum. …
On the other hand negroes far surpass white men in acuteness of vision, hearing, sense of direction and topography. … For the rest, the mental constitution of the negro is very similar to that of a child, normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test. Given suitable training, the negro is capable of becoming a craftsman of considerable skill, particularly in metal work, carpentry and carving.
The author of this remarkable entry: Walter Francis Willcox, LL.B., Ph.D., Chief Statistician for the Census Bureau, Professor of Social Science and Statistics at Cornell, member of the American Social Science Association, and Secretary of the American Economical Association. Are we to believe Dr. Willcox was uninformed? (Would you care to debate him?)
Speaking of “the very founding of this country,” Thomas Jefferson mentions race and intelligence in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784, pp. 206–213):
… Comparing them [blacks] by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. … It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. … yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated.
Does this sound much like “white supremacy” or “key ideological support for imperial conquest”?
But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time… Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. — Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.
Jefferson raises an interesting point: try replacing human race by dog breed and see whose arguments still make sense.
Edward B. Reuter
The contribution made by Negroes to American literature is slight and contains very little of any permanent value. It is only very recently that there has been any contribution at all. There were from time to time efforts in this direction which attracted popular attention. But the public interest was excited by the unexpected fact that a Negro could write a book rather than because the production had merit. The output was small and the quality low, but since nothing worth while was expected the early efforts often received lavish praise.
… The volume of competent work [of poetry] is still very slight but the assurance of immediate recognition awaiting even mediocre work promises to bring to expression whatever poetic genius the race may possess. … There is a public eagerly awaiting any work of merit, and any competent craftsman is assured of immediate success. But a novel of importance by a Negro is as yet to be written.
Let’s explore this a little further.
David Hume was “one of the greatest philosophers the world has ever known” (BBC):
At the age of only 28 he returned from France with his groundbreaking philosophical work, A Treatise on Human Nature, which was a bold attempt to introduce scientific reasoning into moral subjects.
Hume was a sceptic, a thinker who questioned everything, who sought to explain the world without reference to a God. He aimed to create a ‘Science of Man,’ a new form of philosophy which took human nature as its basis and which used scientific methods to reach its conclusions. One of his principle areas of study was the human mind. Hume did not set out to discover the original qualities or essence of the human mind, as countless other philosophers had done, because this type of philosophy was not based on human experience. For Hume, experience was the boundary of knowledge, no one ‘can go beyond experience, or establish any principles which are not founded on that authority.’ Humanity was to become another branch of science and in applying his new philosophy Hume reached new and startling conclusions.
Hume, the great philosopher and expert on human nature and the human mind, had this to say on the subject of race and intelligence, in the notes to Volume I of his Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects (1742, p. 551):
I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.
On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men.
Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.
Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Oh, wait…
David Horowitz takes on Cornel West in ‘No Light in His Attic’ (Salon, 1999):
… West is a star of an academic world that is progressively left and politically correct. In addition to his professorships in theology and African American studies at Harvard, he has been on the faculties of Yale, Princeton and the University of Paris. His income is in the six-figure range, and his books are required texts in college curricula across the nation.
Only 46 years old, West has been called — if only by his publisher — “the pre-eminent African American intellectual of his generation.” His work has elicited White House invitations and more requests as a speaker, blurb writer and distinguished guest than any individual could possibly fill. …
A few years ago, Leon Wieseltier wrote a cover feature for the New Republic on West’s oeuvre called “The Decline of the Black Intellectual.” West’s productions were, in Wieseltier’s mortifying words “monuments to the devastation of a mind by the squalls of theory.” Surveying the corpus of West’s academic work, Wieseltier concluded that the Alphonse Fletcher Jr. Harvard professor was an intellectual empty suit whose writing was “noisy, tedious, slippery… sectarian, humorless, pedantic and self-endeared,” and whose works were “almost completely worthless.”
… West’s plight is that of a paradigmatic affirmative-action baby, whom the good wishes of his “oppressors” have elevated so far beyond his merits that he has lost sight of terra firma below. As a result, he has been condemned to a life of suspended animation, his entire being addressed to the impossible task of proving that he is someone he can never be. …
The intellectual ruin of West is not an isolated case. There is a whole generation of racially favored intellectual water flies — Bell Hooks, Michael Dyson, Robin D.G. Kelley, Patricia Williams, to name a few — whose cultural elevation is not only unrelated to any serious intellectual achievement, but has eliminated the possibility of one.
La TaSha B. Levy (right)
From Naomi Schaefer Riley’s ‘The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations’ (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012):
You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. …
… topping the list in terms of sheer political partisanship and liberal hackery is La TaSha B. Levy. According to the Chronicle, “Ms. Levy is interested in examining the long tradition of black Republicanism, especially the rightward ideological shift it took in the 1980s after the election of Ronald Reagan. Ms. Levy’s dissertation argues that conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, John McWhorter, and others have ‘played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.’” The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights? Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?
Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments. If these young scholars are the future of the discipline, I think they can just as well leave their calendars at 1963 and let some legitimate scholars find solutions to the problems of blacks in America. Solutions that don’t begin and end with blame the white man.
For that bit of candor, Ms. Riley was summarily dismissed by The Chronicle (American Thinker, Reason, PJ Media), which also claims to have “sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views,” and “allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach.” Clearly the very broadest of freedom.
Sketch of Freetown, Sierra Leone, from Savage Africa
British historian and explorer William Winwood Reade is comically blunt in his highly enjoyable traveller’s account Savage Africa: Being the Narrative of a Tour in Equatorial, Southwestern, and Northwestern Africa; with Notes on the Habits of the Gorilla; on the Existence of Unicorns and Tailed Men; on the Slave Trade; on the Origin, Character, and Capabilities of the Negro, and on the Future Civilization of Western Africa (1864). From Chapter 4 (p. 33):
I do not wish to detract an item of true worth from Sierra Leone. The town itself is a useful mart to which native merchants of all kinds find their way. It is a good school for the wretched savage disembarked from the slaver. There are negroes in the colony who are skilled in the usual handicrafts, and more still (for trade is always preferred to work) have settled as sub-colonists in various parts of the coast. This diffuses English language and English habits in a mutilated state, if it does no more.
A certain skill in mechanics, without the genius of invention; a great fluency of language, without energy in ideas; a correct ear for music, without a capacity for composition — in a word, a display of imitative faculties, with an utter barrenness of creative power — there is your negro at the very best.
Even these are rare, almost exceptional cases; and to show such trained animals as fair samples of the negro is to make an exhibition of black lies. One might almost as well assert, after the sights which one sees at a country fair, that all pigs are learned; that the hare plays on a drum in its native state; and that it is the nature of piebald horses to rotate in a circle to the sound of a brass band.
William Hannibal Thomas
Finally, William Hannibal Thomas provides an almost unbelievably harsh assessment of black intelligence in chapter 5 of The American Negro (1901, pp. 109–116). It may interest you to know that Thomas (above) was himself of African descent.
… the supreme difficulty of the negro mind is its inability to parallel internal with external environing phenomena, because there is no apparent intelligent apprehension and adjustment of its internal mental states to external facts. The negro has all the physical endowments of intellect, but he has a mind that never thinks in complex terms, and, as it is wholly engrossed with units of phenomena, the states of consciousness aroused by visual or textual impressions rarely suggest sequences. The consequence is that the freedman exhibits great mental density, and gives conclusive evidence that he has neither clear nor distinct perceptions of specific facts, inasmuch as in every attempt at primary reasoning he falls into confusion and error. There is also reason to believe that the negro neither associates correlated facts, nor deduces logical sequences from obvious cases. He is largely devoid of imagination in all that relates to purely intellectual exercises, though he has fairly vivid conceptions of such physical objects as appeal to the passions or appetite.
There is then no intelligent comprehension and adjustment of the freedman’s internal mental states to external facts, because the former is only engrossed with units of phenomena. That many negro people are incapable of associating numbers, beyond a few elementary numerals, verifies this conclusion. … Of course, such mental conditions forbid any apprehension of simultaneous or successive events being acquired; and we shall infer that, so long as the negro is devoid of the power of introspection, he will neither have the ability to analyze his own defects nor determine his relation to external phenomena. …
The negro not only lacks a fair degree of intuitive knowledge, but so dense is his understanding that he blindly follows weird fantasies and hideous phantoms. So great is his predilection in this direction, that he appears incapable of understanding the difference between evidence and assertion, proof and surmise. These facts warrant the conclusion that negro intelligence is both superficial and delusive, because, though such people excel in recollections of a concrete object, their retentive memories do not enable them to make any valuable deductions, either from the object itself, or from their familiar experience with it. The explication of such intellectual states is to be found in the fact that the chief mental anxiety of the freedman is for the immediate gratification of his physical senses. He lives wholly in his passions, and is never so happy as when enveloped in the glitter and gloss of shams. But while the frankness of these reflections is only equalled by their veracity, we must remember that the negro represents an illiterate race, in which ignorance, cowardice, folly, and idleness are rife, and one whose existence is dominated by emotional sensations. It is only from this standpoint, and with this knowledge of his being, that his characteristic qualities can be fairly ascertained.
To those who know the freedman the fact is obvious that the highest aspiration of negro ambition is, not to acquire the essential spirit of knowledge, but to imitate mechanically what he only succeeds in caricaturing. He certainly is not an intelligent observer of facts, for he can seldom accurately describe objects of daily contact, and one may easily discover that there is no such thing in his mind as capacity for original definition and analysis. We are also thoroughly convinced that the negro mind is rarely awakened to responsive intelligence by meditative reasoning. …
… when the negro acquires the terminology of things he vainly imagines himself endowed with a knowledge of the subject-matter represented thereby, and so gets credit from the unthinking class for a knowledge he does not possess. And his mental environment is not only complicated by the fact that in his quest for knowledge he never gets beyond unverified theoretical assertion and memorized verbal learning, but also because the opinions he asserts are echoings of second-hand utterances. …
An American philanthropy has never instituted searching inquiry respecting the fundamental characteristics of negro nature, it is pertinent to say that, if the foregoing deductions are correct, it follows that our negro educational methods are both wrong and profitless. … The educated class of the race — the result of such teachings — rarely seeks for truth in statement, but rather for rhetorical flourish, skill in contradiction, and word juggling, in order to confuse, bewilder, and impose upon their hearers, and to make those among the less informed believe them to be wise and all-knowing. So long as this shameless mendacity or pretence of learning continues, it will prove a fundamental hindrance to race awakening.
Well… at least his intentions were good.
Left: Robert C. Weaver, the first “black” cabinet member, with President Johnson.
Right: Colin Powell, the first “black” secretary of state, with President Bush.
What do almost all successful “black” Americans have in common? Below, from left to right: the first “black” president; the first “black” attorney general; the first “black” secretary of state; the first “black” female secretary of state; and the first “black” cabinet member.
The first “black” Supreme Court justice; the first “black” elected congressman; the first “black” governor; Booker T. Washington, the famous “black” writer; and W.E.B. Du Bois, another famous “black” writer:
Charles Drew, the famous “black” surgeon; Daniel Hale Williams, the first “black” cardiologist; the first “black” man to earn a B.A.; the first “black” man to earn a Ph.D.; and the first “black” general:
The first “black” woman to earn a US patent; the first “black” woman to earn a B.A.; the first “black” woman to earn a Ph.D.; the first “black” female college professor; and the first “black” female pilot:
Here, for comparison, is a woman of pure African descent holding a white child:
You may recall Edward B. Reuter, president of the American Sociological Society, and his dim view of black literature and poetry. From his comprehensive Mulatto in the United States (1918, pp. 314 and 397):
According to the strictness or the looseness of the definition of full-blooded Negro that is used, and the high or low degree of superiority that is accepted as the test, the twenty per cent of mixed-bloods among the American Negroes have produced eighty-five per cent or upwards of the race’s superior men.
In any study and discussion of the race problem, scientific accuracy as well as a decent regard for simple truth requires that the writer indicates whether his discussion has to do with full-blooded Negroes or with the men of mixed blood. The failure to make this simple and elementary distinction, more than any other one thing, has made the vast bulk of the literature relating to the Negro in America either worthless or vicious.
And from Winfield Hazlitt Collins’ Truth About Lynching and the Negro in the South (1918, pp. 145–147):
It is even sometimes asserted that the Negro would bring to the white race some qualities which would tend toward the development of a more perfect man. But such an idea has no basis in fact. The following quotation is to the point:
We have ample experience to go upon in South America, in the West Indies, in the Southern States themselves. The mulatto exists and has existed for generations, not in hundreds or thousands, but in millions; in what respect has he proved himself the superior of the pure Spaniard, or Portuguese, or Anglo-Saxon? Does South American history bear testimony to his political competence? Have his achievements in science, in literature, in music, been superior to the un-Africanized peoples? Or waiving the question of superiority, has he ever in these domains, produced meritorious in any fair proportion to his numbers? I do not say that it is impossible to make out a sort of case for him, by the ransacking of records and the employment of a very indefinite standard of values. But I do most emphatically say that no conspicuous or undeniable advantage has resulted from the blending of bloods, such as can or ought to counteract the instinctive repugnance of the South.
It is said that an investigation of 2200 Negro authors showed that nearly all of them come from the mixed stock. How many of these would take first, second, or even third rank in the literary world? It is needless to answer. Indeed, Negroes and mulattoes have been toilers in the United States for generations but who ever heard of an important labor saving instrument invented by them? The same abilities or characteristics which would make a white man only locally important would make a Negro or a mulatto famous. There were thousands upon thousands of white men intellectually and otherwise superior to Booker T. Washington who gained but little recognition, but because he was a negro, or rather mulatto, Washington’s abilities stood out in striking relief. Mulattoes ought to furnish the leaders of the Negro race for the best white blood runs in the veins of some of them.
(This recalls David Hume’s take: “like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.”)
A Dawkins meme on defending one’s views against “offensive” opinions.
Does that apply only to Christians, or is Dawkins’ atheistic Religion of Humanity fair game?
In any society there exists a somewhat mysterious consensus, which changes over the decades, and for which it is not pretentious to use the German loan-word Zeitgeist (spirit of the times).
Literally, the Ghost of Time. Very scientific.
I said that female suffrage was now universal in the world’s democracies, but this reform is in fact astonishingly recent. Here are some dates at which women were granted the vote:
This spread of dates through the twentieth century is a gauge of the shifting Zeitgeist. Another is our attitude to race.
Dawkins invites us to consider Thomas H. Huxley, notable English biologist and staunch supporter of Darwin:
Thomas Henry Huxley, by the standards of his times, was an enlightened and liberal progressive. But his times were not ours, and in 1871 he wrote the following:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins.
It is a commonplace that good historians don’t judge statements from past times by the standards of their own. Abraham Lincoln, like Huxley, was ahead of his time, yet his views on matters of race also sound backwardly racist in ours. Here he is in a debate in 1858 with Stephen A. Douglas:
… I will say… that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Had Huxley and Lincoln been born and educated in our time, they would have been the first to cringe with us at their own Victorian sentiments and unctuous tone. I quote them only to illustrate how the Zeitgeist moves on.
Yes, the ol’ Time Ghost has certainly shown considerable mobility: zooming right along. But, as Moldbug remarks in How Dawkins Got Pwned (links in original):
Had Professor Huxley been born and educated in North Korea, he would have been the first to praise the Dear Leader. Had he been born and educated in 4th-century Byzantium, he would have been the first to perform the proskynesis before the Emperor Constantine.
And had Professor Huxley himself been extracted from 1871 — perhaps the Zeitgeist has some kind of supplemental time-travel feature — he might want to know why Professor Dawkins disagrees so confidently — so, dare I say, unctuously — with him. This arrogant, bewhiskered troglodyte, still damp with the ichor of the twelfth dimension, might even dare to demand some actual evidence.
Obviously, it would be easy for us to satisfy Professor Huxley. Once he saw that one out of five Americans drives a Haitian car, that the last two winners of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry hailed from Papua New Guinea, and that Japan has trouble exporting anything it can trade for Mozambican semiconductors, I’m sure he’d sing a different tune.
In all seriousness, what is the evidence for fraternism? [“The belief that all
menmen and women are createdborn equal.”] Why, exactly, does Professor Dawkins believe that all neohominids are born with identical potential for neurological development? He doesn’t say. Perhaps he thinks it’s obvious.
What we have here is a factual proposition which has swept to dominance not through the presentation of any evidence, but by the simple trick of reassigning the burden of proof to rest solely on those who doubt it. It is not the fraternists who have to demonstrate that fraternism is true. It is the afraternists who have to demonstrate that it’s false. D’oh!
If I were to claim that the neohominid male liver is functionally indistinguishable from the neohominid female liver — that there is no sexual dimorphism in the neohominid liver — I’d expect someone to ask me why I was justified in making this claim. I would not expect them to accept the response that I see no convincing evidence that my claim is untrue. And this is despite the fact that the liver is not directly involved in the neohominid reproductive cycle. When we replace liver with brain, we have a considerably longer row to hoe. Yet somehow, the Zeitgeist shows up and hoes it overnight. If only it would do the same for my laundry.
If you’re actually interested in a positive empirical case for afraternism, let me recommend Thompson & Gray 2004 [here]. […] And it’s worth noting that afraternism is Steven Pinker’s dangerous idea. Michael Hart’s Understanding Human History [here] has to be the worst job of book design in human history, and my general reaction is that Hart understands neohominids a heck of a lot better than he understands history. However, all the cool kids are reading it.
But my concern is not empirical. It is philosophical and historical. What I’m interested in is how and why it came to be the case that fraternism is assumed true until proven false, and afraternism is assumed false until proven true.
One simple answer is that […] fraternism is optimistic and afraternism is pessimistic. But is it rational to assert that optimistic propositions should be assumed true until proven false, and pessimistic propositions should be assumed false until proven true? Not in the slightest. We are back at square one.
One could also suggest a technical explanation, which might go like this: since there is no reproductive isolation between any two neohominid populations, we should expect these populations to be genetically homogeneous. Anyone who wants to make a case for any kind of genetic inhomogeneity, therefore, should have to make it. Perhaps Lewontin’s fallacy could be drug into the picture as well, just for color.
However, as we can see by outwardly visible traits such as nose shape, hair texture, etc, the antecedent is false. It’s possible that the disparities in visible traits are the result of genetic drift. It’s also possible that they’re the result of natural selection. But it doesn’t matter which, because any evolutionary process that can vary a visible feature can vary an invisible one. (We’ve recently learned that neohominid populations show substantial evidence of recent selection — much more recent than the divergence of continental gene pools. But even before we knew this, we had no biological reason to assign fraternism the benefit of the doubt.)
Clearly, fraternism did not get the benefit of the doubt in 1871. So at some point it must have changed, n’est ce pas? How, when, and why?
Perhaps Charles Francis Adams Jr. can enlighten us on the subject. As the great-grandson and grandson of Federalist and Whig Presidents, son of and aide to one of the North’s leading abolitionist statesmen, and a Union general himself, one might expect he had some opinions on the matter. And one would be right.
Charles Francis Adams II, second from right, is not interested in your nonsense.
’Tis Sixty Years Since is a 1913 address by C.F. Adams II to the University of South Carolina:
Beyond all this, and coming still under the head of individual theories, was the doctrine enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, — the doctrine that all men were created equal, — meaning, of course, equal before the law. But the theorist and humanitarian of the North, accepting the fundamental principle laid down in the Declaration, gave to it a far wider application than had been intended by its authors, — a breadth of application it would not bear. Such science as he had being of scriptural origin, he interpreted the word “equal” as signifying equal in the possibilities of their attributes, — physical, moral, intellectual; and in so doing, he of course ignored the first principles of ethnology. It was, I now realize, a somewhat wild-eyed school of philosophy, that of which I myself was a youthful disciple.
So far, then, as the institution of slavery is concerned, in its relations to ownership and property in those of the human species, — I have seen no reason whatever to revise or in any way to alter the theories and principles I entertained in 1853, and in the maintenance of which I subsequently bore arms between 1861 and 1865. Economically, socially, and from the point of view of abstract political justice, I hold that the institution of slavery, as it existed in this country prior to the year 1865, was in no respect either desirable or justifiable. That it had its good and even its elevating side, so far at least as the African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On the contrary, I see and recognize those features of the institution far more clearly now than I should have said would have been possible in 1853. That the institution in itself, under conditions then existing, tended to the elevation of the less advanced race, I frankly admit I did not then think. On the other hand, that it exercised a most pernicious influence upon those of the more advanced race, and especially upon that large majority of the more advanced race who were not themselves owners of slaves, — of that I have become with time ever more and more satisfied. The noticeable feature, however, so far as I individually am concerned, has been the entire change of view as respects certain of the fundamental propositions at the base of our whole American political and social edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligent ethnological study. I refer to the political equality of man, and to that race absorption to which I have alluded, — that belief that any foreign element introduced into the American social system and body politic would speedily be absorbed therein, and in a brief space thoroughly assimilated. In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long anti-slavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men — no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair — were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee “who had never had a chance,” — a fellow-man who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.
“Apparently,” Moldbug notes, “the Zeitgeist doesn’t just work in one direction.”
On this map, territory size represents scientific output in 2001. The inset shows land area.
The poet and satirist Jahiz of Basra (circa AD 776–869), in a manner not unlike that of the white defenders of slavery and colonialism who allegedly invented “race,” described Africans (termed Zanj) as “the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions.” Like his later counterparts, Jahiz credited black Africans, “despite their dimness, their boundless stupidity, their crude perceptions and their evil dispositions,” with the ability to “make long speeches.”
… Similarly, the geographer Idrisi disparaged black Africans as having “stinking sweat” as well as a “lack of knowledge and defective minds such that men of learning are almost unknown to them.”
While we’re on the subject of body odor, from that great bastion of Islamic racism, How Stuff Works:
… it’s the sweat produced by apocrine glands that odor-causing bacteria enjoy eating… That’s… why Asians, who have the fewest apocrine glands of any race, are known as the least-stinky people on Earth (source: Lynn). … In the B.O. Olympics, people of European or African ancestry hold all the medals.
In the cited source, Sharon Lynn notes that “most of the data [on race and body odor] appears to have been collected before 1930. Perhaps lack of attention to this topic in recent years is an indication that the search for physical characteristics which set races of people apart is no longer as important as it has been in the past.” Either that, or those pesky egalitarian types have been meddling in more than just intelligence research…
But I must apologize, my new friends, for now we are blatantly indulging in that preposterous and paranoid “theory of conspiratorial political correctness” that Ta-Nehisi Coates warned us against. Clearly, in today’s free and open (not to mention tolerant and pro-science) society, scientists are free to study whatever they please without fear of persecution. Oh, wait…
When one of the greatest biologists of the 20th century, Nobel-Prize winner James Watson, noted that people of African descent average lower on intelligence tests than do Europeans and East Asians, he was excoriated by the mass media and elements of the scientific elite and forced to retire from his position as Chair of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Watson’s treatment was especially egregious given that, in point of scientific fact, more than a century-and-a-half of evidence corroborates his statement. Moreover, supportive new data and analyses appear regularly in main- stream, peer-reviewed journals in the relevant scientific disciplines. Evidence to the contrary is exceedingly weak. Most of the opposition to the genetic hypothesis consists of mere moralizing and worse, the creation of a threatening and coercive atmosphere incompatible with academic freedom, free enquiry, and the civil liberties of a truly democratic society. An enormous gulf separates the politically correct gatekeepers and enforcers from true experts in the behavioral sciences.
Nor is Watson’s case unique. He is but the latest in a long line of academics that have been pilloried and defamed… The others include Nobel-Prize winner William Shockley, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Christopher Brand, Glayde Whitney, Helmuth Nyborg, and Tatu Vanhanen. The present writers too have endured their share of attacks. The taboo on race will surely become a major topic of investigation by sociologists of knowledge. There is no parallel to it in the history of science. It is uniquely imposed, mainly through self-censorship, by members of the Western intelligentsia in their own academy — which prides itself on a tradition of academic freedom, open inquiry, and the unfettered discovery, systematization, and pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination to the general public.
Despite the chilling effect described, we (and the others) have persevered in part because of the great importance of the topic, the fascinating data it provides, and the theoretical issues it raises. One of us [Rushton] traveled to South Africa to collect new IQ data from highly-selected Black students at the prestigious University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Seven studies were published based on these data yielding a median IQ of 84 (range 77–103). Assuming that African university students are 1 standard deviation (15 IQ points) above the mean of their population, as university students typically are, a median IQ of 84 is consistent with a (very low) general population mean of 70. …
Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations). The differences are as large today as when first measured nearly 100 years ago [see, e.g., here and here]. Racial group differences, and the associated gaps in living standards, education levels etc., are rooted in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. …
IQ differences are attributable more to differences in brain size than to social, economic, or political factors. There is little or no value in denying reality. Improving opportunities and removing arbitrary barriers is a worthy ethical goal. Equal opportunity is laudable. But we must realize that it will result in equitable, though unequal outcomes.
No matter how much one may have disagreed with a colleague in life, no matter how much damage one might feel a particular person’s work may have done, when that colleague finally dies one says a few good words, pays respect, and puts aside past differences.
But not in this case. I met Jean Philippe Rushton a couple of times but never got to know him as a person. But I do know that he was convinced of the inferiority of Africans compared to, for instance, himself, and spent his entire life improperly manipulating data, sometimes just plain making the data up, to “prove” this. If you look at modern “psychometric” studies you will find, as you trace back the data to earlier sources “demonstrating” the link between genes and behavior and how races are real and how we can use racial distinctions to predict criminality, intelligence, levels of sexual aggression, and so on, you will find Jean Philippe Rushton’s “scholarly” effluence amassed at or near the base of the literature like a cancerous tumor deep in the body cavity of a rotted and stinking corpse splayed on the autopsy table.
And now he’s dead. Ding dong.
Is this the tone of a biological anthropologist? Or is it, as Moldbug put it, “the distinctive whining scream of the Puritan,” — that is, the political progressive — “speaking power to truth as is his usual fashion?”
Laden’s commenters are similarly scientific in their criticism:
Best news I’ve heard all night. Truly a blot on the culture. … Rushton was just a racist, not a scientist. I’m sure he will find a special place has been made just for him. … The death of Phillipe [sic] Rushon [sic] is great news. … Hopefully with his death will go the death of this type of science — if you can all [sic] it that!!!! … the only regret I have about his passing is that it didn’t occur sooner … I can’t wait to read about the demise of the other two miscreants of race “science”‚ Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn… I wonder what it was in his life that made him so insecure that he would compromise his profession in order to convince himself he was somehow superior… He couldn’t deal with the truth of not being super special by accident of birth.
Then we have P.Z. Myers of the so-called Freethought Blogs, another professional pretend-scientist and progressive thug, who has an entire category of posts set aside for describing his political opponents, particularly the “racists,” as “fuckbrained assholes”. Here he is on Rushton, who was a hundred times the scientist at least:
In case you haven’t heard of him (good for you!), he was an academic who promoted racism. He has died of cancer on Tuesday. That’s a rough way to go, and I’m sorry for that — but I regret even more that he wasted most of his life poisoning the discourse with evil racist nonsense.
I ask again: is this the tone of a scientist? And again, the comments section is full of free thinking:
Well, it is better than [sic] a racist is dead than alive. We did not even have to cause it! … another social darwinist who quote-mined Darwin to make his prejudice sound all sciencey … why sorry if an arsehole kicks the bucket? … Goood riddance. … being a racist promoting a false view of eugenics that assumed whites to be objectively superior… ‘objectively I think science shows you’re a degenerate inferior because of some racist psuedoscience [sic] bullshit’
Compare Rushton, in the words of Helmuth Nyborg (Personality and Individual Differences, 2012):
Phil always responded to attacks in a manner suitable for a serious scientist. A TV confrontation between Rushton and geneticist David Suzuki from 1989 illustrates this point. After Rushton presented his data, Suzuki and others elicited a veritable firestorm of moral outrage over his head. When Suzuki called for Rushton to be fired, he calmly responded: “That is not a scientific argument.” When accused of being [an academic] racist, Phil answered: “I am an academic.”
Average brain volume by indigenous population
I quote Greg Laden, not because I am accumulating evidence for a defamation lawsuit against him (who has the time?), but to illustrate the difference between a scientist, like Rushton, and a liar pretending to be a scientist. For example, Laden scoffs at the sort of “racist scientists” and “race-biased researchers” who believe in “the racist model of intelligence and brain size that he [Rushton] is promoting” (ScienceBlogs, 2010), including the terribly “racist” notion that the races differ in brain size. Similarly, consider this unintentionally amusing poster for a “Diversity Literacy” course offered by the University of Cape Town in South Africa:
“For some things, size DOES matter!” it proclaims, suggesting the authors do accept the 40 percent correlation between intelligence, as measured by an IQ test, and brain size, as measured by an MRI. They explain the poster:
For most of the 19th and early 20th centuries the “science” of ‘race’ purported that different races had different sized brains and by extension mental capacities. Predictably, Europeans were supposed to have the biggest brains and Africans the smallest. This claim has since then been thoroughly discredited — there are no differences in brain size between the ‘races’ — and it is now widely accepted that this view served the interests of European racism and the justification of colonial expansion.
Really? There are no race differences in brain size? That sounds like something we could check (Rutgers, 2012):
… when [evolutionary anthropologist Jason] Lewis started out… he never thought that he would debunk a notion accepted and taught by the academic community for the last 30 years: that 19th-century physical anthropologist Samuel Morton manipulated his research…
In his 1981 internationally recognized book, The Mismeasure of Man…, Harvard paleontologist and writer Stephen J. Gould criticized Morton for being biased in his research on brain size and race and charged him with mismeasuring the skulls to support his personal racist beliefs.
This premise stuck in the scientific community for three decades until Lewis… spent eight years taking measurements and fact-checking with a team of anthropologists. He found that the measurements taken by Morton were accurate. Morton, Lewis says, did find that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller.
Gould himself found race differences in brain size, even after he manipulated the data to hide them (John Hawks). The truth is, race differences in brain size are an incontrovertible scientific fact. You get some brains, you measure the brains, and you find that different races have different-sized brains. Welcome to reality. For instance, a 2010 paper from Nigeria, of all places, in the International Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, confirms Morton’s findings:
The findings in this study are similar to previous studies (Morton, 1839) where the mean cranial volume of the skulls of whites was 1,425 cm3, while that of the Blacks was 1,278 cm3.
Incidentally, East Asians have the largest brains. I may not be “diversity literate,” but I am at least literate.
So why would the “biological anthropologist” Greg Laden and his ‘anti-racist’ ideological allies in Cape Town (Radish 1.2) be trying so hard to bully you into believing otherwise? I’ll let you, my intrepid friends, answer that for yourselves. In any case, we’ve debunked one of Laden’s many claims about race and intelligence and Dr. Rushton. Shall we now devote weeks of our lives to the rest of Laden’s HNU credulism? I suggest we move on. Life is too short to waste on debating (or suing) liars. Why not read Rushton instead?
I leave you with the judgment of the great biologist, founder of sociobiology (evolutionary psychology), Edward O. Wilson:
I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species… no one would have batted an eye.
H.P. Lovecraft with two of his creations.
“That is not dead which can eternal lie,/And with strange aeons even death may die.”
As always, thank you for reading Radish. We hope you enjoyed it. Why not share it with a friend, or shout it from a rooftop? I’m as informed as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!
We close with the brilliant science fiction/horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, whose views on race (1919) are now somewhat controversial:
The genius of a few individuals is never an index of collective racial capacity. In spite of all the Booker Washingtons & Dunbars we can see that the negro as a whole has never made any progress or founded any culture. We cannot judge a man sociologically by his own individual qualities; we have the future to think of. Two persons of different races, though equal mentally & physically, may have a vitally different sociological value, because one will certainly produce an incalculably better type of descendants than the other. We must see that the best retain social & political supremacy, in order that our best traditions may be preserved.
By the way, Lovecraft is absolutely right on the science; it’s called regression to the mean.
The whole U.S. negro question is very simple. (1) Certainly the negro is vastly the biological inferior of the Caucasian. (2) Therefore if racial amalgamation were to occur, the net level of American civilisation would perceptibly fall, as in such mongrel nations as Mexico — & several South American near-republics. (3) Amalgamation would undoubtedly take place if prejudice were eradicated… (4) Therefore the much-abused “colour line” is a self-protective measure of the white American people to keep the blood of their descendants pure, & the institutions & greatness of their country unimpaired. The colour line must be maintained in spite of the ranting & preaching of fanatical & ill-informed philanthropists.
For David Barnett, such blasphemy against the Religion of Humanity simply will not stand (The Guardian, 2013):
The American writer, who died in 1937, is also widely considered today to have had unacceptable racist views. And yet, despite his prejudices and stylistic shortcomings, his work remains insanely popular. …
… fellow writer Nicole Cushing refuses to accept the oft-trotted out excuse that Lovecraft, born in 1890, was merely “a man of his time.” She says Lovecraft seems “obsessed with the theme of white supremacy, taking opportunities to shoehorn it into stories even when it’s totally unnecessary.”
So why do we continue to fete Lovecraft instead of burying him quietly away?
As Nick Land wrote: “That ‘we’ is more terrifying that anything H.P. Lovecraft ever put to paper.”
Until next time.
Want to learn more about the topics covered in this issue of Radish? We recommend the following resources. (We do not, however, necessarily endorse all opinions expressed in them: some are not nearly extreme enough.)
Achievement Gap Sense
- ‘Achievement Gap Politics’
- ‘Sweet Little Lies’
- ‘Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment’
- ‘The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding’ (Jason Richwine!)
- ‘Why Chris Hayes Fails’
- ‘Reading, ’Riting and Race’
- ‘Liberals’ Favorite Program Gets Another “F”’
- ‘Tying the Hands of Teachers’
- ‘PC Today, PC Tomorrow, PC Forever’
- ‘Those Unmentionable Asians!’
- ‘No Runner Left Behind’
Achievement Gap Cheating
- ‘The Color of Cheating’
- ‘Education Fraud in LA Public Schools’
- ‘State strips 23 schools of API rankings for cheating’
- ‘School: Teacher Helps Students Cheat Because She Says They’re “Dumb As Hell”’
- ‘College-prep push is based on false data’
- ‘Crackdown Is Likely Reason for Plummeting Scores at City School’
Achievement Gap Follies
- ‘Firestorm Erupts Over Virginia’s Education Goals’
- ‘Virginia’s “together and unequal” school standards’
- ‘New Entitlement: Liberal Think Tank Linked to Obama Produces Preschool-for-All Plan’
- ‘Obama’s America Will Become Detroit’
- ‘Only 7% of Detroit Public-School 8th Graders Proficient in Reading’
- ‘U.S. Department of Education: 79% of Chicago 8th Graders Not Proficient in Reading’
- ‘For Asians, School Tests Are Vital Steppingstones’
- ‘Class Offers to “Heal” Teachers Afflicted with Racism’
- ‘Public School Teaches “White Privilege” Class’
- ‘Dropout Nation’
- ‘Howard school board apologizes for earlier segregation’
- ‘Chicago plans to pay parents $25 to pick up their children’s report cards and go to parent-teacher conferences’
- ‘Schools Beat the Drum for Equity’
- ‘Atlanta Symphony Rejects Two High School Choruses Because They’re Not “Racially Diverse Enough”’
Stereotype Threat (Non-Existence of)
- ‘John List on the virtual nonexistence of “stereotype threat”’
- ‘High-stakes Stereotype Threat’
- ‘The Stereotype Threat scientific scandal’
- ‘“Stereotype Threat” a.k.a. Occam’s Butterknife’
Introduction to Race Differences in Intelligence
- Human Biological Diversity on IQ (reading list)
- The 10,000 Year Explosion
- ‘The facts that need to be explained’
- ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability’ (Rushton and Jensen)
- ‘The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains’ (Rushton and Jensen)
- ‘The Pioneer Fund and the Scientific Study of Human Differences’ (Rushton)
- ‘The Greatest Collective Scientific Fraud of the 20th Century: The Demolition of Differential Psychology and Eugenics’
- ‘Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud’
- ‘James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences’
- ‘How Dawkins got pwned (part 1)’
- ‘A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (part 1)’
- ‘An open letter to open-minded progressives (part 1)’
Read the rest of these series at Moldbuggery.
Assorted, tangential & miscellaneous
- ‘Morality and Abstract Thinking’
- ‘Racial Quota Fallout’
- ‘The African Talent for Mimicry’
- ‘Black History Month Resources’
- ‘Can’t We All Just Get Post-Racial?’
- Great Minds on Race
- Martin Sewell on race