Nothing is more controversial in our contemporary world than the subject of human race. Even the meaning of the word has been redefined to reflect modern intellectual notions. This alteration in traditional meanings was due to the social impact of American racial protests in the latter decades of the Twentieth Century and the general world social trend to be more fair with people of all ethnic backgrounds and biological differences. The strength of this new social attitude is attested by the phenomenon that a race protestor, Martin Luther King, became honored in American culture by dedication to him of a national holiday shortly after his passing, an act that had in previous centuries been reserved for hallowed commemoration of the most outstanding national leaders — George Washington and Abraham Lincoln — long after they were dead.
Many papers and books have been written around the race controversy. My purpose is not to repeat or contribute to that debate but merely to summarize some of the important arguments for the sake of the reader who may not be familiar with that body of work.
I use the traditional meaning of the word as defined in such sources as the Britannica Encyclopedia, the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Random House Dictionary of the English Language. However, differences of emphasis appear in the definitions. Contrast:
A division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type.
A subdivision of a biological stock characterized more or less by a distinctive combination of physical traits that are transmitted in descent, illustrated by the Caucasian and Mongoloid races.
The first definition includes all traits exhibited by man, including that of intelligence, whereas the second narrows the focus to physical traits with emphasis on man as part of a larger range of physical biological stocks.
In more technical terms, defining biological characteristics:
An interbreeding, usually among geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits.
Note that this definition is not limited to man but applies to all biological organisms of sufficient complexity. This is further narrowed to:
A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
Human races fit descriptions as subspecies since they are "genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them.
The modern liberal intelligentsia has argued vehemently that the observable and marked physical differences among man should not be the basis for taxonomic classification of race. This is especially abhorrent to them since such recognition might yield to people being categorized as subspecies. We might group our pet dogs into Labrador, Beagle, and Chihuahua, since we cannot hurt their feelings, but heaven forbid that we would mention Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. Yet, whether man or dog, these subspecies can interbreed with one another without producing sterile offspring, and with impunity to other reproductive genetic consequences.
The other consequence of the liberal program is their denial that the genetic differences producing racial features are significant. They belabor this argument into logical contortions that violate scientific integrity and rational sense. The study of the encoding of human genes gave them much fuel for this fire. However they censored important scientific data to use this argument.
Consider the need for explanation to modern liberal intelligentsia of the word race by the group who prepared the American Heritage Dictionary:
USAGE NOTE: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.
The fact that early European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, was not unsound. For the science of the day, and within the limits of understanding, those classifications were useful. A multitude of illustrations could be offered of the convenience of such classifications even today. When describing a person to someone else we might say, "Oh, he has Japanese features." Or, "His color is like someone from the South Sea islands." When making such comparisons we invoke racial characteristics. To void such convenient racial-type descriptions would deprive all of us of sensible communication.
Whether this makes good science is another matter. If the anthropologists of two or three hundred years ago essentially codified the perceived differences among broad geographic populations by such methods they were merely doing their best to classify groups of human beings that had obvious physical differences.
With the advent of more advanced knowledge we have learned that human traits may depend upon factors not perceivable in earlier centuries, or through mere visual observation. If this new knowledge may cause the former classification to become controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, we experience the price of advances in knowledge. However, these advances should not detract from the evidence of gross observation. All of us today know from plain common sense that there are differences in human attributes assignable to different groups of human beings exhibiting different biological differences. These differences have genetic origins.
This is where the great current controversy arises. The modern liberal intelligentsia would suppress distinguishing biological difference on the basis of a new world view of "equality" among all human beings. In this new world cultural environment the older classification are considered offensive to those who wish all human beings to be considered equal.
Consider the work of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University. Alan R. Templeton is a professor of biology in the Division of Arts and Sciences. He has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. In a paper, "Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective," published in the fall 1998 issue of the American Anthropologist, an issue almost exclusively devoted to race, Templeton argues against the use of genetic differences to define human races. He maintains that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. According to his view, while between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans — genetic differences. Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity.
The new editor-in-chief of the Journal is Robert W. Sussman, professor of biological anthropology, who supports Templeton. He says:
The folk concept of race in America is so ingrained as being biologically based and scientific that it is difficult to make people see otherwise. We live on the one-drop racial division — if you have one drop of black or Native American blood, you are considered black or Native American, but that doesn't cover one's physical characteristics.
This latter is an argument by exaggeration, denoting the emotive content of the thinking of people who adhere to such arguments.
The pervasive influence that these liberal attitudes have had on our social integrity, and the consequent gross confusion in our scientific community, may be seen from remarks by Harold Freeman, a scientific genetists of the Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury: "Race is not seen as a factor in variation of genetic code," Feb. 20, 2001. He goes on to: The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science.
For other arguments against differentiation of human beings into race refer to "DNA Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" Science, Vol 282 (23 Oct 1998), pgs 654-655.
Consider a remark made in a position statement by the American Anthropological Association, the professional group of which so many geneticists and biological engineers are members.
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
This is an example of how the liberal intelligentsia will use genetic percentages to maintain their arguments. Some call it bean counting. If one takes the famous chemical filtering plots showing individual genes, then differences among the human population as a whole will have greater variation than found among individuals from different races.
But the argument is simple minded and fallacious. It says nothing about how the genes will manipulate cellular reproduction, or how genetic structure will produce racial characteristics.
Such arguments are basically flawed, and demonstrate how logically inconsistent and unscientific these recent social attitudes have become. Jim Bowery, a student of human genetic codes, quoted from one of his colleagues:
According to some studies, for example Sibley and Ahlquist (J. Hum. Evol. 20, 2-15, 1984), humans differ from chimps by 1.9%, from bonobos by 1.8%, from gorillas by 2.4%., and from orangutans by 3.6%. Thus, the human racial difference is a full 5.3% of the human/chimp differential, 5.6% of the human/bonobo, 4.2% of the human/gorilla, and 2.8% of the human/ orangutan. In addition, data from Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" book can be interpreted in making the human/chimp similarity as high as 99.1%, a mere 0.9% difference, which would make human racial variation more than 10% of this (11.1%).
In other words, the genetic difference between human races is more than that between members of the human species and the near primates.
Other studies showed that morphological differences cannot be predicted from mere genetic bean counting.
Wentian Li and Thomas G. Marr of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and Kunihiko Kaneko of the Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tokyo, reviewed the literature on statistical long-range correlation in DNA sequences. They noted "the complexity of the correlation structure in DNA sequences. The observed complexity often makes it hard, or impossible, to decompose the sequences into a few statistically stationary regions." See their paper: W. Li, T. Marr, and K. Kaneko, "Understanding long-range correlations in DNA sequences," Physica, Series D, Vol 75, pgs 392--416, 1994.
In another study (1987) they compared DNA sequence differences among the Great Apes. Using a mathematical equation for percentages they found that humans, chimps, & gorillas are all about equally different (ca. 1.5%). Orangutans are about twice as different from any of these (ca. 3.0%). Old-World monkeys are more than twice as different again (ca. 7.4%).
In other words, gene bean counting is not a valid method for comparing species, or subspecies.
Steven M. Carr asked:
What genetic changes are responsible for species differences? He quotes from Speciation in Primates, where King and Wilson (1975) compared proteins of chimps & humans. Researchers found that a value of D = 0.62 indicated genetic differences similar to those between sibling species of Drosophila (fruit fly) of one major chromosome rearrangement.
A post by A. Hu in the "Upstream" web site discussion makes the following point:
Microsatellite genetic analysis of dog breeds (Zajc et al., Mamm. Genome 8, 182-185, 1997) points to a difference between Greyhounds, German Shepherds, and Labrador Retrievers having a genetic index in the 0.028-0.054 range. This compares to a similar study in humans (Kimmel et al., Genetic 143, 549-555, 1996) which shows that Japanese and Chinese have an index difference of 0.029. Also stated in the post is that larger human racial differences are in the range of 0.087 - 0.363. Therefore, genetic differences between dog breeds, which result in large phenotypic consequences, are about equal to human intra-racial ethnic differences, and smaller than human inter-racial differences.
Clearly, degrees of morphological differences cannot be predicted from genetic differences. Arguments for racial equality based on superficial similarity of genetic codes are fallacious.
How did gene counts go wrong?
I excerpt statements from:
Genome Discovery Shocks Scientists: Genetic blueprint contains far fewer genes than thought — DNA's importance downplayed, By Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer, Sunday, February 11, 2001.
Until recently, scientists had expected to find as many as 100,000 genes in the genome. But the two scientific teams, reporting their findings this week in the journals Science and Nature, independently found only about 30,000 genes.
The paucity of genes left scientists struggling to understand how humans could be so much more complex than other animals with essentially the same number of genes.
"We have only 300 unique genes in the human (genome) that are not in the mouse," said Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, the Maryland firm that led one of the mapping teams. "This tells me genes can't possibly explain all of what makes us what we are."
Francis Collins, leader of the U.S. contingent to the Human Genome Project, a consortium of publicly funded scientists from around the world, said the findings will force scientists to look for other factors to explain many aspects of health, disease and behavior.
"We had a hard time explaining the (genetic) control mechanism when we thought there were 100,000 (genes)," Collins said. "Now we have only a third as many."
The publications include other surprising findings, such as the discovery that vast stretches of noncoding regions in human DNA — what has been called "junk DNA" — may actually play an important role in driving and recording evolution.
Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a scientific leader of the Human Genome Project, sounded awestruck as he summarized the article he and his scientific allies published in Nature.
"I think the junk is the biggest surprise in the genome," Lander said.
Lander said half of our genome seems to consist of repeating elements of DNA that have copied and inserted themselves into the sequence. Lander said scientists used these repetitive sequences to study how the genome evolved.
The genome consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes, which are present in the nucleus of almost every human cell. Each chromosome hosts thousands of genes, strings of DNA letters that carry instructions for making one or more of the proteins constitute the body's chemical workforce.
But genes are few and far between. Less than 1.5 percent of the genome seems to code for proteins, Lander said. Scientists thought it was twice as much before the map was done.
Both scientific teams painted the genome as a landscape of vast dark stretches of repetitive chemical letters, interspersed with genes that seem as rare as city lights seen from an airplane at night.
Key findings include:
How earlier gene counts went wrong: Years ago, scientists noticed that genes seemed to average 3,000 letters. Given early and accurate estimates of a genome roughly 3 billion letters long, that meant 100,000 genes — provided genes were evenly distributed.
Among the surprises in the maps, however, is just how unevenly genes are sprinkled throughout the 23 pairs of chromosomes that comprise our DNA. Venter's Science paper reports that chromosome 19 has 23 genes for every million DNA letters. Chromosome 2 has only five genes in the same expanse.
Venter said that when his team sampled chromosome 19 and another relatively gene-rich region on chromosome 4 not long ago, they extrapolated their findings to a gene count for the whole genome — and got it wrong. "It was a statistical fluke," he said.
Human DNA is constructed from two chemical strands that take the shape of along, twisted ladder. The four chemical letters that make up each rung of the ladder follow a strict rule: chemical A always stands opposite T, and G pairs with C. But these four letters are not evenly distributed. The gene maps show that ATs outnumber GCs roughly 60-40.
For reasons not completely clear, genes seem to cluster in GC rich regions, while so-called junk or repetitiveDNA generally confines itself to AT zones.
Lander said the one exception to the rule is a string of repetitive letters called the Alu sequence.
Many Alu sequences cluster in the GC regions of the genome, alongside genes.
Lander said that in 1998, Carl Schmid, a molecular biologist at the University of California at Davis, advanced what seemed like a nutty idea to explain Alu's unusual affinity for genes. Schmid suggested Alu sequences resided near genes because they weren't junk, but rather a mechanism to help cells repair themselves.
With the entire genome map in front of them, showing so many instances of Alu sequences around genes, scientists are beginning to take Schmid seriously. "It looks pretty convincing," Collins said.
Collins said scientists have found evidence that other repeat sequences have carried bits of useful DNA with them when they jumped around the genome, creating or modifying genes in the process. All of this suggests, as Collins put it, "that some of our junk isn't junk after all."
Even so, having come up so short on genes, scientists can't explain how humans can be so much more complicated than fruit flies, which have roughly half as many genes as humans.
Part of the answer could lie in the makeup of human proteins. "In general the proteins in the human are more complex than the proteins in other organisms we've studied," said Mark Adams, vice president for genome research at Celera and a co-author on Venter's paper. "They are capable of more interactions, they do more things."
This is important because molecular biologists see the human body as a machine, in which proteins serve as the gears, motors and pulleys that perform every task from flexing muscles to firing nerve synapses. Before the mapping project, genes were considered the control software in this analogy. But now that metaphor seems dated.
The emerging view is that much of our complexity must derive from proteins, which interact to build physical systems somewhat independent of direction from the genome.
Venter said all these findings undermine the concept of genetic determinism, the notion that genes determine everything from our behavior to our propensity toward illness.
"It's become part of the common language to say we'd like to have the gene for this or the gene for that, but the common language is wrong," Venter said.
"I believe all of our behaviors, all of our sizes and functions clearly have a genetic component but genes only explain a part of any process," he said. "We are around as a species because we have an adaptability that goes beyond the genome. If everything was hard-wired, we wouldn't have survived."
Consider how very simple-minded gene bean counting is:
Laboratory mouse: About 50,000 genes
Fruit fly: 13,600
Thale cress, a plant: 25,500
Human: About 30,000
Rice: About 50,000
Sources: New York Times; Associated Press; Incyte Genomics
In a paper entitled, Race is a Myth?, originally published as the cover story of the December, 2000 issue of American Renaissance, Michael Rienzi emphasizes how the intellectual left distorts science for political purposes. He discussed the great myth of race denial.
Racial egalitarianism has failed to produce the "fair and just" society promised by social engineers. At the same time, there has been a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in the post-Cold War world. In response, the left has adopted a new strategy: Deny the very existence of race! This is why we so frequently hear that "race is a social construct, with no biological validity" and that "science proves we are all the same." Ironically, it is in connection with progress in understanding the human genome — progress in the very field that will definitively prove the biological reality of race — that we most often hear that race is nothing more than "superficial" surface characteristics.
In a companion paper the sponsors of the Internet web page:
ask the question, Is this Scientific Malpractice? They discuss the incredible logical inconsistency of the genetic arguments.
Evidence continues to pile up supporting not only the reality of race, but also the obvious manipulations of fact that the race-deniers use to attempt to fool the scientific layman. Of great interest is a review article entitled "Evolutionists Present Their 1.3% Solution" by Leslie Pray in the August 19, 2002 issue of The Scientist (pages 36-37). The topic of this review are findings concerning the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. As you shall see, this has direct bearing on some of the race deniers' favorite arguments:
"We are 99.9% the same, we are genetic identical twins; the fact that all humans are so close genetically means that there is no such thing as race."
"There is more genetic variation within human populations than between human populations; therefore the genetic variation that exists between human populations is insignificant. Thus, there is no such thing as race."
According to the Pray article, the "problem" first arose back in 1975 when two researchers (Mary-Claire King and Allan Wilson) showed that the amount of genetic variation between humans and chimps (1) was too small to account for the phenotypic differences between the two species (2). They speculated that what is important is not the amount of genetic differences, but instead differences in how the genes are expressed — in other words, more of a qualitative difference in gene expression rather than a quantitative difference in "genetic bean-counting" (i.e., amounts of overall genetic similarities/differences). This is exactly the point made in the "Race is a Myth?" essay. New work (3), using more modern techniques, has demonstrated that this view — what can be called "the regulatory hypothesis" — is correct. There is a significant difference in human-chimp gene expression patterns — especially in the brain — and it is these differences in expression which primarily account for human-chimp phenotypic differences. And it can be speculated that these wide differences in gene expression occur as a result of the small genetic differences between the species. As "Race is a Myth" states, genes are arranged in hierarchical fashion, with some gene products controlling the expression of many other genes. Thus, a small genetic difference between groups in one or several genes can result in larger differences in expression of other genes, even if these other genes are themselves structurally identical between the groups. Indeed, another paper (4) has shown that small alterations in one gene, FOXP2, most likely is a primary reason why humans are capable of vocal speech, and the great apes are not. Small changes have enormous consequences. The fact that humans and chimps are 98.7% genetically the same does not equate to a 98.7% similarity in phenotype; likewise, the 99.9% genetic identity between various human groups is not in any way related to the amount of differences in actual gene expression and hence, overall phenotype between these groups. Even the scientists who make public race-denying statements about how "genetically identical" humans are also make statements (in more private arenas) about the genetic similarity between humans, chimps, and other mammals.
The "there is more genetic variation within than between groups" argument also falls flat. The Enard et al. paper (3) states: "The variation in gene expression between individuals within the species is substantial, relative to the differences between humans and chimpanzee."There it is! An admission that there is more genetic variation within the human species, and within the chimpanzee species, than there is between humans and chimps! And as Harvard molecular anthropologist Maryellen Ruvulo states in the Pray article concerning the issue of intra-group vs. inter-group genetic variation:
"That's a very intriguing difference . . . And it 'ain't' just in humans. You also see it in mice."Amazing. Thus, there is more genetic variation within populations of humans, chimps, and mice than there is between humans, chimps, and mice. Yet, the race-deniers want you to believe that because there is more genetic variation within, compared to between, various human groups, then, "there is no such thing as race." Really now, isn't it now clear how absurd that is? Would these same people insist that there are no real differences between humans, chimps, and mice, and that classifying humans, chimps, and mice as different species is just a "social construct?"
1. Important phenotypic differences between organisms is not proportional to the amount of genetic differences. Very small genetic differences can be amplified via larger differences in overall gene expression, with resulting differences in phenotype that can be enormous. What applies to humans and chimps (or mice, etc.) also applies to different human population groups. The "we are all genetic identical twins" argument is just plain false, a twisting of facts and interpretations, an obfuscation of biological realities.
2. The fact that genetic variation within groups can be larger than that between groups (groups being races or species, etc.) does in no way obviate the real genetic and phenotypic differences between the groups. What is important is the physiologically relevant differences in genes and gene expression, not just counting numbers of genetic differences, many of which may well be "neutral" in effect. Unless one wants to argue that the genetic, gene expression, and phenotypic differences between humans, chimps, and mice are "meaningless", then one must accept that the "greater variation within" argument is yet another shameless twisting of biological realities by those who wish to hoodwink the public.
One can assume that many (most? all?) of the scientists who make race-denying arguments know what the truth is, and, after these recent publications, they have no excuse not to know. Can we not then consider continued use of these now openly disproved race-denial arguments to be a form of "scientific malpractice?" Are these people trying to take advantage of their positions of authority to convince a scientifically non-informed public of things which are demonstrably and objectively not true (i.e., "there is no such thing as race; we are all the same"). Why are these people so afraid of the truth? Can they be considered real scientists, or are they really just modern-day Lysenkos (5)?
Thus we can perceive that the great error in the thinking of the liberal intelligentsia is in forcing biological equality to achieve social equality. But social equality is, in itself, a convoluted concept. What started as a desire to relieve the social repression of groups of humans, thus giving them equal social opportunity, has been extrapolated onto physical attributes. Now all physical attributes must be leveled to some common denominator that ensures social equality.
The insidious difficulty is that if one admits differences in physical attributes then an automatic and deep implication rests in the admission that perhaps there are differences in physical, mental, or artistic abilities, and hence, not everyone is truly equal.
In fact, when we pursue this fact we realize that no two people on earth are equal. Every person is different from every other person, in the way they think, they way they perceive reality, their preferences, their physical abilities, and dozens of other attributes.
Hence, a great conflict arises in our mental frameworks because the racial leveling processes create delusions about the real world. Are people different, or are they not? If they are different as individuals are they then different as men and women, or as physically strong and physically weak, or in ability of music, or art, or intellectual prowess? A candidate for a graduate program in mathematics at a university is not chosen from individuals measuring an IQ of 70. If people are different as individuals are they different according to their genetic ancestry? Do some races exhibit taste in art, or music, or mathematic ability different from other races?
The modern liberal intelligentsia would deny such natural differences. They would deny reality. They have thus become delusional.
This process creates a falsification of reality. Scientific integrity and intellectual honesty must be sacrificed to social norms. We can see this process of leveling at work through quasi scientific methods. The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes. However, blood groups are blurred from one race to another, as are metabolic processes; distinct demarcations according to race are not any more readily evident than are skin colors. As the Dictionary stated: the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. While rigid classification of race is difficult on any grounds, the new physical attributes have merely made our understanding less clear.
We can see how concepts designed to achieve social equality break down clear scientific understanding. A person who is considered black in one society, while he may be nonblack in another, has nothing to do with science but only with social attitudes. Then to conclude that cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact exactly describes the breakdown of scientific objectivity to accommodate social attitudes. We are then no longer scientific.
This is the process by which the modern liberal intelligentsia have become delusional. They censor scientific evidence that is counter to their intellectualized scheme. We can see how these social attitudes have contributed to both the breakdown of social consensus and scientific integrity. Marek Kohn in The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science (published in hardback by Jonathan Cape in 1995, and in paperback by Vintage in 1996) stated: "One of the most astonishing features of the contemporary discussion of race is the fact that anthropology, the science that deals with human biological and cultural variation, has managed to be marginalized." Jonathon Marks in a book review entitled The Return of Racial Science in Nature 113:337, remarked that "If this assertion is indeed true, it may be that anthropological rhetoric plays a role in the alleged neglect."
The great error is in transferring social equality to biological equality. But social equality is, in itself, a convoluted concept. What started as a desire to relieve the social repression of groups of humans, thus giving them equal social opportunity, has been extrapolated onto physical attributes. Now all physical attributes must be leveled to some common denominator that ensures social equality.
Multitudes of questions arise.
Does intelligence follow genetic lines? Are some family lines more intelligent than others? Any social worker can tell the dramatic effects of breeding low IQ people to one another. How many genetic lineages are noted for their intellectual contributions to mankind?
Do artistic tastes follow genetic lines? Have we all not witnessed musical genius in family lines?
Do social customs follow genetic lines? Do groups of people exhibit unique cultural preferences? Would we equate Hopi Indian fabric art with Rembrandt?
Who built civilization? What was the driving force? Who conquered the world? What social system took over the world? The entire world today has adopted the culture of Western European civilization, as notably expressed through the genetic power of the people of North America.
What members of the human race now have their progeny scattered in North and South America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand? Why did not other human groups feel the same drive? From whence derived the verve and the adventurism?
Did the Chinese conquer the world? Did the Bushman of Africa?
The modern liberal intelligentsia would deny such natural differences. They would deny reality. They have thus become delusional.
HOME BACK TO TOP