The Reality of Race
by Dr. David Duke


Ashley Montagu's, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race [173] had impressed me before I began my look into the other side of the scientific studies on race. The "myth of race" position is essentially that skin color, hair type and other traits that influence racial classification are completely arbitrary traits of mankind and are as unimportant as are different types of fingerprint designs.

After almost thirty years of the media proclaiming the "myth of race," race-critic Jared Diamond refined the argument in the 1994 issue of the very popular Discover magazine.[174] Diamond chose a few traits such as lactose intolerance and fingerprint patterns that varied geographically among human populations and suggested by those traits alone, Swedes could be put in the same "racial category as the Ainu of Japan or the Xhosa of Africa. He asserted, therefore, that racial classification was nonsensical. Another media-popular disclaimer of race is Cavalli-Sforza, who in the preface of his major work, The History and Geography of Human Genes, gave lip-service to the arguments of Diamond and Montagu.[175] Interestingly enough, when one looks at Cavalli-Sforza's world gene-distribution maps in his book, they show the same geographic boundaries that reflect the traditional racial groupings.

I had realized back in the 1960s that the "myth of race" argument is perfectly analogous to saying that the dozens of different breeds of dogs is a myth because one can find some specific traits that exist in varying breeds. I thought about the question long and hard, and I asked myself, "Because some similar traits are found in different breeds of dogs, does that mean that there are no St. Bernards or Chihuahuas?"

If Ashley Montagu were attacked by a dog, I think it might matter to him if the dog were a Doberman Pinscher or a Toy Poodle.
As the doberman began to chow down on him, would he still insist that the differences among the breeds of the canines don't exist? Even Montagu could predict that a Doberman offers a great deal more potential danger than a toy Poodle. If Diamond wants to be technical about it, many human traits and sets of traits, can be found that exist in other mammals. In fact, humans share 98.5 percent of their genes with Chimpanzees. If one follows Diamond's rationale, there is no difference between humans and Chimpanzees because we can find sets of arbitrarily selected genetic traits we share.

A number of scientists in recent times have brought up the fact that the DNA in Blacks and Whites differs by less than a percent, and therefore such a small difference could not mean much distinction in races. Yet, with only a 1.5 percent difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees, humans have brains that are about twice as large. Small differences in DNA can make big differences in biological structure. [176] [177] [178] Only a small number of genes set the structure of an organism. It is similar to the fact that only a small set of paper architectural plans make a big difference in the way wood, steel, concrete and glass construct a house.

Saying that the races are the same because similar genes make up the bulk of the physical structures of both Blacks and Whites is analogous to saying that because a shack is built of wood, steel and glass -it is the same as a skyscraper made of the same materials. The vast majority of the basic genes that make up the races are not only shared by them, but also by all mammals and even other orders of life. What makes the important distinctions are the small percentages of genes that effect the structure and composition of those life forms.

A race is a more or less distinct combination of inherited physiological, morphological and behavioral traits. J. Phillippe Rushton describes it this way:
A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such differentiated populations as races. (Within the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed subspecies). Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.
[179] Differences between the major races of mankind include over 50 physiological and social variables. Other than the obvious differences in skin color and hair texture, they include brain size, cranial structure, dentition, intelligence, musculature, hormonal levels, sexual norms, temperament, longevity and a wide range of personality traits. As Rushton says eloquently, "If race were an arbitrary, socially constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist."[180]

Science has long established different species and subspecies as a recognizable group having a common heredity. Take a look at what the Random House Webster's Dictionary has to say about the subject.

species
Biol. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
race
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. a population so related.
breed
Genetics. a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans. lineage; stock; strain: She comes from a fine breed of people. offensive: half-breed (emphasis mine)
Even though many scientists argue for the existence of many races of mankind, most accept the existence of at least three major divisions: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. Obvious differences in facial features, skeletal and cranial characteristics, skin color and hair types make the three major races easily distinguishable. Blood, semen and molecular information can determine the race or even an estimate of the racial mixture in an individual. Scientific investigators can readily identify the race from just the skeletal parts of badly decomposed human remains, and the race of criminal perpetrators can readily be identified by traces of hair, semen, skin, or blood. The O.J. Simpson case gave the world a lesson in genetic racial identification.

Denying the reality of race is a good example of how egalitarians are grasping for straws. A mass of scientific evidence proves the existence of traits and features that identify the genetically differentiated breeds of mankind, just as there are genetically differentiated breeds of dogs or cats, or as I had found out years earlier in my garage -- domestic and wild breeds of rat. One does not need molecular studies to know that race exists, all one must do is use his eyes and some common sense.

In school, I discovered that anti-race bias had become almost like a religion with some people. They parroted back the silliest and most illogical concepts about race. For instance, someone would tell me that there are no such things as races because there are some individuals who may be racially mixed or who are not clearly of one race or another. That argument is much like saying that there is no day or night because for a few minutes every day at dusk it is hard to tell whether it is night or day.

Even a high-school teacher of mine maintained that there were no racial differences because some Whites are darker than some Blacks and that some Blacks are smarter than some Whites. Trying to negate group differences by citing individual exceptions is the poorest logic I could imagine. It is much like saying that because some grade school children are more knowledgeable than some college students, that there is no difference between the knowledge of college students and grade school students.

I have heard people say that individual variation within a race is greater than the average difference between races, so therefore race is irrelevant. One could easily take that fallacious argument to its logical conclusion and point out that since some humans unfortunately have less intelligence than some dogs, therefore there is no difference between humans and canines in intelligence. The racial egalitarians are just that silly, but like the fable of the emperor's new clothes; nobody dares to stand up and tell the truth!

Arguments erupted frequently at school, often with teachers. One teacher told me that there is no point to race because it is impossible to really know who is Black and who is White. I simply pointed out to her that the government seems to have no trouble in distinguishing between Blacks and Whites for affirmative action programs and for forced racial integration of education, and that she obviously believes that Blacks and Whites can be identified and therefore "integrated."

By far, the most popular saying among egalitarians is that Blacks and Whites differ only in color of skin. If that were true, one would be quite stupid to believe in racial differences in intelligence, and that is the direct implication. But, the idea that skin color is the only difference is patently absurd. Yet, the media consistently repeats it like a holy incantation, "We are all the same other than color of skin", How is it then, that every one of the top 16 semi-finalists in the 1996 Olympics 100 meter sprint were black, when one hundred times more Whites participate in organized track and field in the world? If the Black difference is just a darker skin color, how could skin color make one run faster? There are genetic qualities in Black people that make them, on average, more efficient sprinters and that talent has an association with skin color. If there are differences that can make one group have faster runners, it stands to reason that there can be differences that make other groups have faster thinkers.

I have already argued in this volume that IQ is primarily inherited and that Blacks and Whites differ dramatically in IQ -even when Blacks and Whites come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. I have shown that there is abundant evidence of difference in the size of the brains of Africans as opposed to Europeans or Asians. Does the fact that there are at least 40 times more Whites per capita who have a genius level of intelligence have to do with the fact that they have lighter skin color than Negroes? Lighter skin has no direct effect on the brain. Intelligence is obviously created by genetic differences other than color of skin, although there may be an association of skin color with brain size and structure as representative of racial heritage. So although lighter skin does not make one smart, it can be associated with other racial genetic features that can.

Until very recent times, American society completely segregated people with any visible degree of black blood, even those only one eighth or one-16th Negro. Is it an odd coincidence that lighter skinned, and Caucasian-featured Blacks have a tremendous overrepresentation among Negroes who have achieved prominence in academic and scientific disciplines? Or could it simply be that their lighter skin color and Caucasian facial features are somewhat indicative of their predominant White genetic component, making their intelligence closer to the White norm. As I have noted previously, in repeated intelligence testing of mulattos and full-blooded Blacks, even when environmental factors are controlled, mulattos average somehere between Whites and Blacks.

Yes. Whites, Blacks and Yellows have obvious differences in skin color and hair texture, but also in skeletal and cranial structure, blood groups and DNA fingerprinting. The latest DNA studies in fact indicate that ancestors of Blacks and Whites split at least as long as 110,000 ago (many say 200,000) and Whites and Asians about 40,000 years ago. Subspecies, which is the scientific term for race, has always denoted a geographic genetic differentiation of a species. Europeans, Asians and Africans obviously developed on different continents under different environments. I came to the conclusion that race is certainly real and that racial differences are inherent and profound. I then wanted to better understand how racial differences originated and their possible impact on modern society. To do that I had to look into evolutionary theory.

From My Awakening, "The Reality of Race," pp. 85-89.

============================

Pictured left: Professor J. Philippe Rushton

The following discussion about the reality of race was posted previously on The Official Website of Representative David Duke but it fits in well with our current series of articles and the facts that it presents bear repeating. Understanding the reality of race is fundamental to our continued survival. --Dave Cooper, http://www.davidduke.com/?p=482

The following was a statement released by Professor Phillippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario in response to attempts to discredit the very concept of race and to argue that race "has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man."

STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
J. Philippe Rushton

November 4, 1996

Discussion of "race" shows little sign of diminishing, despite efforts to deconstruct the concept. Deconstructing the concept of race not only conflicts with people's tendency to classify and build family histories according to common descent but also ignores the work of biologists studying non-human species. Ever since 1758, when the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus created the classification system still used in biology today, most zoologists have recognized at least the four human subdivisions Linnaeus delineated: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and Africans. (Technically, some would group the first two Linnaean subdivisions together, thus yielding three major races, often termed, mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids.) Such high-level classifications do not rule out making finer, hierarchical subdivisions within these major groups.

A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such differentiated populations as races. (Within the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed subspecies). Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.

Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group and should be treated as such. Nonetheless, much has been learned by studying the statistical differences between the various human races. In my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers), as well as in other recent writings (e.g., the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology), I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races -- mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid -- and show that these statistical differences are constant across both historical time, national boundaries, and political and economic systems.

Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.

Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.

Jared Diamond's classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a "caucasoid" and a "mongoloid." This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa -- and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.

Social definitions -- that is, self-identification and other-identification actually accord quite well with the physical evidence. Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person. In certain criminal investigations, the race of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is nonscientific and unrealistic.

The mean pattern of educational and economic achievement within multi-racial countries such as Canada and the United States has increasingly been found to prove valid internationally. For example, it is not often recognized, perhaps because it contradicts the politically correct theories that intelligence is purely a matter of socio-economic conditions, that Asian-Americans and Asians in Asia often outscore white Americans and white Europeans on IQ tests and on tests of educational achievement (even though the tests were largely developed by Europeans and white Americans for use in a Euro-American culture). Blacks in the Caribbean, Britain, Canada and sub-Saharan Africa as well as in the United States have low IQ scores relative to whites. For violent crime, analyses of INTERPOL data from the 1980s and 1990s show the same international distribution that occurs within the United States (that is, Asians least, Europeans in the middle, and Africans most). A similar racial gradient is found both within the U.S. and globally for measures of sexual activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS (based on World Health Organization data).

One neurohormonal contributor to crime and reproductive behavior is testosterone. Studies show that black college students and military veterans have 3% to 19% more testosterone than their white counterparts. The Japanese have even lower amounts than whites. Sex hormones are circulated throughout the body and are known to activate many brain-behavior systems involving aggression and reproduction. For example, around the world the rate of dizygotic twinning per 1,000 births (caused by a double ovulation), is less than 4 among Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. The differences in multiple birthing are known to be heritable through the race of the mother regardless of the race of the father, as found in Asian/European matings in Hawaii and European/African matings in Brazil.

Publication of The Bell Curve brought widespread public attention to the research on race that has been accumulating over the last 30 years in technical and specialist journals that demonstrably challenges each and every article of the dogma of biological egalitarianism. Startling, and alarming to many, is the conclusion that follows from these data that if all people were treated the same, most average race differences would not disappear. With egalitarianism under siege, there has been a major effort to get the "race genie" back in the bottle, to squeeze the previously tabooed toothpaste back into the tube, to suppress or deny the latest scientific evidence on race, genetics, and behavior.

Regardless of the extent to which the media promote "politically correct," but scientifically wrong, resolutions from professional societies such as the American Anthropological Association, facts remain facts and require appropriate scientific, not political, explanation. On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental factors play no part individual development. But with each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic contribution to individual and group differences becomes more firmly established than ever.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

J. Philippe Rushton is a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow and a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario N6A 5C2 Canada. He holds two doctorates from the University of London (PhD and DSc) and is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. His latest book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers, telephone 908-445-2280) details the theories and data summarized in this article.