Racial (in)equality and meritocracy

Racial (in)equality and meritocracy

Catalin Negru | Last modified: April 19, 2016 | 11:04

I know, some of you, given the title of this article, think that I am a racist, neo-Nazi, Hitler’s acolyte, Ku Klux Klan member, White supremacist, xenophobe, brainwashed or even insane. Right at this moment you probably ask yourselves how can I be so blind and ignorant: you have extraordinary friends, co-workers, husband or wife of different race, or maybe even you, the one who reads this text, are a wonderful non-White person.

All human beings are equal, regardless of race, but races are not equal.

But I also know that many of you are confused by the examples and counterexamples that bombard your mind. You are being told not to be racist, but you feel that something is not right; things are different from the media and political propaganda. You see Obama on TV, but you also face the reality every day when you walk on the street, when you take your kids from school or when you go to work. You simply know that some streets, neighborhoods or even cities, dominated by certain races, must be avoided. Those are not safe. So, the signals we receive about racial equality are conflicting and it seems like we stand in front a paradox, isn't it? Only in appearance. The answer to this problem is a little tricky: all human beings are equal, regardless of race, but races are not equal. If you do not understand, do not worry; the following lines will explain it. That being said, before you jump to my neck and socially crucify me, please, for a couple of moments, open your mind, put fear and hypocrisy aside and read what I have to say.

First and foremost I have to say that we will not talk about the superior or inferior spirituality of the human races as it was suggested by the New Age guru Rudolf Steiner1 or by the Mormon doctrine (which forged the history of the American continent to support this theory).2 And if you already armed yourselves with religious arguments, such as “all men are equal in God’s eyes,” you should better discard them; during the American Civil War the sacred texts you value so much were used both by the North and the South to justify their for and against position regarding slavery and racial equality.3 Let’s not forget that in the Old Testament slavery was practiced and even encouraged, and God said to the Hebrews that they are the chosen people and that they must not genetically and culturally mix with the neighboring groups of people. So, it is better to leave God and his holy texts aside, especially because not all of us are Christians or believe in the existence of a divinity. That being said, the issue of racial equality will be analyzed only with the help of common sense and a minimum of scientific, historical and statistical data. Yes, many of the numbers and data used below are still in debate and you may find slightly different values, depending on the sources, but try to see the big picture.

What is racism? Racism, or racialism, basically, refers to the unfounded idea that some races of people are superior to other races of people. Racist behavior is not a recent phenomenon and it is not characteristic only to the white race. It has manifested ever since human races began to interact with each other because racism has chiefly a psychological cause. I think we can agree that racism is not about skin color, but in fact about the mental impact of the skin color. Without a proper education and without knowing the person who looks different, the natural tendency of any person is to adopt a cautious (or different) behavior in relation to those very different from themselves. Our instincts tell us that the people who are physically different from us and the group we are part of might be dangerous (they might carry a disease or they might have a dangerous way of thinking) or they might have a weakness. So, throughout the world's history conquerors enslaved the conquered, while skin color gave birth to all kinds of theories, mainly religious, about the differences between people. The racism based on genetic criteria, as it is understood today, came to life in the 19th century, together with the theory of biological evolution. We find two examples of modern definitions of racism in Oxford Dictionaries: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior;” or “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”4

We are what we are due to evolution.

Why are there human races? The answer is the same as to why there are dog breeds, bird species, green and blue dragonflies, fir trees and cherry trees or why the eagle has one of the strongest eyes in the animal kingdom: evolution.

Evolution is present everywhere you look in the living world. It is the phenomenon through which a population of organisms slowly transforms itself physically and behaviorally by losing certain features and gaining new ones. The purpose of evolution is to offer advantages to organisms in their relation with their environment and consequently to increase their chances of survival. It modifies the members of a species, and sometimes creates, from a unique population, two or more different populations. For example, sheep exist because at a certain moment a mouflon suffered a genetic mutation, it further transmitted it to its progenies, which in turn followed a different evolutionary path compared to the other mouflons; polar bears exist because at a certain moment a brown bear suffered a genetic mutation; dogs exist because at a certain moment a wolf suffered a genetic mutation; and human beings exist because millions of years ago a primate suffered a genetic mutation which set the path of evolution toward the formation of the human species. Evolution, however, does not necessarily means a general improvement of an organism; evolution is most of the time a transformation, or a better adaptation of an organism to a certain environment.

There are many classifications of life forms, but most often we hear about “species,” “races” and “breeds.” The word “race” is usually used to designate genetic groups of humans, while “breed” is used to designate genetic groups of animals. Races or breeds appear when two or more groups of creatures share enough genes to be classified as part of the same species, but they possess features through which they can be categorically distinguished one from another. Creatures of different races or breeds of the same species have no problem mating, they can give birth to viable progenies, and the lifespan, the metabolism and the physical structure of the two is very similar. Different species, however, cannot give birth to viable progenies, and the lifespan, the metabolism and the physical structure of the two are radically different. Races and breeds appear due to the adaptation of organisms to the environment and they are the predecessors of species; it can be noticed that natural races or breeds (dog breeds are artificial, being the result of human intervention) are grouped on territories. Elephants, for example, are between breed and species. The Asian and the African elephants are similar in appearance, they behave similarly, they have a common ancestor, but the genetic differences between them are too great to allow them to interbreed.5 For a certain type of creature to become a distinct species, it first has to pass (or evolve) through the phase of being a race or a breed of the original species.

According to the current evolutionary theory, the evolutionary line between humans and chimpanzees split about six millions years ago. During this period the human genome (the complete genetic material of an organism) evolved so much that it came to have a difference of about 3% (up to 5%) compared to the genome of the chimpanzee (initially it was believed that the two species share about 99% of DNA, but that number has continued to drop).6 This number may seem small, and yet it is big enough to speak about two species, separated by obvious physical and mental differences. In the six million years humans constantly evolved7 and passed through a couple of evolutionary steps of crucial importance: we changed our bone structure and the appearance of our body, we adopted the upright walking, and, most importantly, our brains became radically larger and more efficient. Ultimately, the difference of 3% made the difference between living in the trees and Mozart.

When it comes to human races, the film of evolution is much shorter. All races of people are the descendants of a single race: the African race. Around 50,000 years ago people migrated from Sub-Saharan Africa toward the north and evolved into today’s races.8 The dark-skinned pigmentation was and still is a protective barrier against ultraviolet rays. But, as people moved further north, dark skin blocked too much sunlight and reduced the natural production of vitamin D in our deep skin layers. People with light skin thrived in Europe and most of Asia. For those who migrated in the Middle East, India, South America, Oceania and Australia, dark skin protected them again from the Sun.

The differences between the human races are not limited to skin color.

But the evolution of the groups of people who migrated from Africa was not limited only to skin color. It went much deeper than that: it also brought skull changes, teeth changes or hair changes. There are unique features and major differences between the physiognomy of Europeans, Asians, Africans or Amerindians. Almost every aspect of our biology changed as our ancestors migrated and found natural environments different from the original ones. And thus, through evolution, races and sub-races (and sub-sub-races and so on) formed on the entire planet.

At the moment, genetically speaking, all human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.5% alike. No matter who you are or where you are on the globe, at most 0.5% of genetic material is unique to you (individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations). The rest you share with the others.9 Can 0.5% of genetic material make a significant difference between the members of the same species? If only about 3% of genetic material is enough to speak about humans and chimpanzees, we can only imagine what kind of changes a sixth of that amount can bring.

It is tempting to believe that nature works according to a well-established plan and it is meant to help us evolve into smarter, healthier, more powerful and more attractive beings. But nature does not work that way. DNA loves to experiment and it is a gambling addict. No being is identical with another, whether we talk about plants, insects, animals or people. But every time a new organism appears, the genetic features of that organism are randomly established according to certain rules. The result of the randomization defines the unique features of that organism, but the genetic differences between generations are limited. And it is exactly these limits and rules which create patterns and features that, in turn, make creatures to be part of a race or another. As long as the rules of the genetic game are followed, the DNA of a species suffers a constant and slow evolution. A good combination of genes means healthier, stronger, better looking and better adapted individuals, which have better chances to procreate and to transmit their genetic features. A bad combination of genes means weaker, uglier and less adapted individuals, which have fewer chances to multiply.

DNA loves to gamble. But the genetic dice are a little different from race to race.

The creatures that come to life by respecting the rules of the genetic game are called “normal”; they are the standard representatives of the species or of the race they are part of. But, from time to time, for various reasons, the rules of the genetic game are not respected. And this is how mutations appear. When the genome fails miserably, it gives life to one-legged pigeons, two-headed snakes or deer without eyes. Bad mutations cause enormous problems to the functioning of the organism. But very rarely the genome hits the jackpot and confers to the affected individuals tremendous advantages compared to the normal individuals of that species. Bad mutations are discarded, while good mutations have chances to be further transmitted to the following generations. Genetic gambling according to the rules is a step of evolution, a good mutation is a leap of evolution.

Mutations are not only physical; they can manifest immunologically as well; certain groups of people developed resistance to certain diseases or parasites. Malaria, for example, has existed for at least 5,000 year as human pathogen. During all this time the populations of Southern Asia and Africa adapted to this disease by developing resistance.10 Studies regarding the plague virus, which ravaged Europe in the 14th and the 17th centuries, reveal a similar situation: today's Europeans, the descendants of those who survived this dangerous virus, developed a genetic resistance.11

To the surprise of many, our genetic evolution can be influenced even by our culture. Normally, in nature adult mammals do not have access to mammary glands in order to feed themselves with milk. For example, a buffalo cannot put itself in the right position to suck milk from a cow. Yet, there are populations of people who have continued to feed on the milk produced by domestic animals. And these populations, at a certain point, suffered genetic mutations which allowed them, as adults, to digest milk.12 In Northern Europe, this is a common mutation. But in other parts of the globe, such as China, consuming milk is not common at all. And it all happened because people changed their habits. As different climates had a different influence over populations, in the same way cultures and the rules of survival shaped our being both physically and mentally. If you are a human being, you have to interact with other human beings everyday in order to survive and reproduce. And thus culture is our environment.13

It can be said that a race or breed of a species is superior to another race or breed of the same species if, due to its genetics features, it has better chances of survival in the same environment. And, if it was not obviously enough, the above examples show that the differences between the human races are not related solely to skin color. They are much deeper and they involve inner features of our bodies as well. So, the big question, which haunted mankind for more than 100 years, is if some races are superior to other races of people because they have better chances of survival and which is the thing that offers them that advantage.

Intelligence is the main feature that differentiates us from other creatures.

What is man? Or, better said, what makes us humans? What is the main feature that differentiates us from other creatures? The fact that we have two upper limbs? That we have two legs? That we have a head, a mouth and two eyes? Every creature developed its own set of abilities and physical features – some of them unique, others more common – in order to survive and thrive in its environment: bears developed claws, fur and physical strength; wild boars developed tough skin, a powerful snout and tusks; snakes developed the ability of thermodetection; kangaroos developed powerful legs to run and so on. But if we look at man and his natural environment, we see that his body does not help him too much in the struggle for survival. He cannot run fast enough or long enough to hunt or defend himself, he does not have the muscular or maxillary strength of the animals of his size, he does not have claws and tusks as powerful as the animals of his size, he cannot climb trees as the chimpanzees, his body cannot be camouflaged efficiently, he cannot resist in extreme weather conditions, or the power of his senses is quite modest compared to other animals’ senses. If man relied solely on his soft and fragile body, he would not stand a chance in the natural environment; he would face extinction. But man, unlike animals, has instead something much more precious than powerful physical features: his incredible complex brain with its ability to process a huge amount of information.

Intelligence is our main weapon in the fight with the environment and the brain is the organ that we use the most. As an idea, the human brain is only 2% of our body mass, but consumes 20% of the oxygen we breathe while we rest.14 The brain has compensated for all the corporal drawbacks and allowed us to adapt to almost any environment on the globe, no matter how hostile: we have created clothes to compensate the lack of fur, we have created weapons to compensate the weakness of our body, we have created languages to better communicate between us, we have created tools which helped us modify the environment in our advantage. Human beings are the creatures that use the brain the most, and consequently this organ is the most predisposed to evolutionary changes. So, the only thing that can make a difference between human races is brain power. That being said, is it so absurd to conclude that 50,000 years of evolution altered brain chemistry? Is it possible that some races developed a genetic intelligence more than other races?

Science was used many times to support less moral or humane causes, but, despite what is told today,15 here is not the case. Daring to ask ourselves why we are so different from each other at the level of masses is important. Because the answers can explain both past and present problems. They can indicate where we are heading as a species, both from genetic and social point of view.

Racial equality has nothing to do with science.

I know, the issue of racial differences is very controversial and sparks feelings of revolt very quickly. And most scientists today, backed by media and the political environment, say that the genetic differences between human races are so small that the word “race” has no special significance. But anyone who has some knowledge about the history of science can realize that the truth is exactly the opposite. Racial differences or racism, as it is understood today, comes as a natural conclusion to the theory of evolution started developed by Charles Darwin16 in the second half of the 19th century. You cannot speak about biological evolution without speaking about racism, same as you cannot talk about racism without talking about biological evolution. At that time the theory of biological evolution sparked fierce debates. And, unfortunately, it came to support the Nazi theory of the superiority of the Arian race and to justify the Holocaust. This is why at the moment we face a social and scientific paradox: biological evolution still is the cornerstone of the mainstream medicine, but racism turned into a taboo.

Even more absurd is that current researches regarding racial differences can be rejected before they are even started on the ground that they are racist in themselves. Any scientific research is open to all possible outcomes. In this case, any objective scientific research starts from the presupposition that the races of people may or may not have different levels of intelligence. But such a research can be categorized as racist and consequently it can be rejected before it is even started. Linda Gottfredson, sociologist at the University of Delaware, has been categorized racist due to the conclusions she reached and she was marginalized in the scientific community. She has been analyzing I.Q. test scores and she says that they reveal a subtle, but measurable connection between intelligence, genetics and race. According to Linda, the I.Q. points of races are different. There are individuals in each race that are out of the patterns, negatively or positively, but the majority of a racial group is clustered around a certain value. Linda chose the average I.Q. of the white race and set it to the value 100 as a reference point. Thus, by comparison, the Blacks in the United States and in many Western countries, where there are proper social conditions for intellectual development, have an average I.Q. of 85. Hispanics have the average around 80. Native Americans are also around that value. The Americanized Japanese and Chinese are above the White average. And the Ashkenazi Jews are around 115.17

Things are far clearer when we analyze them from outside, detached, without being charged with emotions or prejudices. And we take the example of dogs. Can we say that all dogs are the same and they can fulfill the same tasks? In fact, we should go even further and say that there are no breeds of dogs; what we call “breed” is in fact nothing more than a classification based on the color and the shape of the fur. For anyone in the right mind this statement is idiotic. And a dog expert can offer lots of details about the genetic, physical and mental differences between dogs.

Dogs are a wonder of genetic engineering, because we managed to maintain the breeds separate. If we take a Bulldog, his father was a purebred Bulldog, his grandfather was also a purebred Bulldog and so on. For at least 14,000 years we systematically shaped the evolution of dogs, changing them to fit our needs. And, according to the psychologist Stanley Coren, who has spent years studying the difference of intelligence between more than 100 dog breeds, there are significant differences in intelligence from breed to breed. The most intelligent breed is the Border Collie, genetically bred to guard sheep, followed by the Poodle.18 By contrast, the Mastiff, a dog originally designed for battle, guarding and hunting, is less intelligent than the Border Collie or the Poodle, it has a more violent temper, large mass, powerful muscularity, large mouth with large teeth and a strong jaw for a devastating bite. The question is: could the Border Collie, through the stimulation of the environment (training), reach the fighting strength of the Mastiff? And the other way around: could the Mastiff, through the stimulation of the environment (training), equal the level of intelligence of the Border Collie and fulfill the same tasks? The answer is “yes” in both cases, but only up to a certain point. Of course some dogs from a breed or another are born with inferior or superior features compared to the standard features of that breed. But, normally, regardless of the stimulation of the environment, some things that the Border Collie can do will never be done by the Mastiff, and vice versa. Because at a certain point the genetic features of the breeds will make the difference. So, if some dog breeds are smarter than others, should not that be the same for the creatures from the other end of the leash? And, just to be clear, saying that all individuals of one race are idiots and all individuals of another race are smart is a horrible fallacy. But saying that all races of people have exactly the same average level of intelligence, although they evolved differently for 50,000 years, isn't a horrible fallacy as well?

The truth is in numbers. Statistics do not lie.

Intelligence is not only about making calculations or creating art, it is also about being capable to learn new things, to innovate, to improve things, to see the unwritten rules of social interaction, to ask yourself questions and to restrain yourself from acting anti-socially. If you do not agree with the scientific arguments or they are not convincing, then we should take a look at the statistics. And we will focus on the United States of America, the icon of multiculturalism and home to a conglomerate of races. In 2014 the United States of America had around 320 million people: 62,1% were Whites, 13,2% were African Americans, 15,3% were Hispanics (Hispanics were counted as Whites until recently), 5,4% were Asians, 1,2% were American Indians and Alaska natives, 0,2% were Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, and 2,5% were multiracial.19 Keep in mind the percent of the African Americans and Hispanics:

• According to the National Youth Gang Survey Analysis, in 2011, of all gang members, 46% were Hispanic/Latino, 35% were African American, 11.5% were White, and 7% were of other race/ethnicity.20

• According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 2008 Black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.21

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the Black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times higher than Whites, and Blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic Whites. Robberies with White victims and Black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the reverse.22

• A 2004 National Crime Victimization Survey report, which analyzed carjacking over 10 years, found that carjacking victims identified 56% of offenders as Black, 21% as White, and 16% as Native American or Asian.23

• According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics non-Hispanic Blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, while non-Hispanic Whites were 34.2%, and Hispanics (of any race) 20.6%. The incarceration rate of Black males was over six times higher than that of White males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents. Hispanics (of all races) were 20.6% of the total jail and prison population in 2009.24

• According to neighborhoodscout.com, these were the three most violent cities in America in 2014:25

a) On the first place was Camden, NJ.26 The racial makeup of the city was 17.59% White, 48.07% African American, 0.76% Native American, 2.12% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 27.57% from other races, and 3.83% from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race were 47.04% of the population.27

b) The second was Chester, PA.28 In 2010 there were 17.2% White, 74.7% Black, and the rest was mainly Hispanic.29

c) The third was Detroit, MI.30 In 2010 the racial composition of the city was 82.7% Black, 10.6% White (7.8% non-Hispanic Whites, 2.8% Hispanic Whites), and the rest was made of other races. In addition, 6.8% of the population self-identified as Hispanic or Latino, of any race, with ancestry mainly from Mexico and Puerto Rico.31

• In 2014 the median income for Black households was less than 60% that of White ones: $35,416 for Blacks and $59,754 for Whites.32

• The most advanced country in Africa is the Republic of South Africa, which holds the largest number of Whites on the continent. In 2011 there were: Black African 79.2%, White 8.9%, and the rest from other/unspecified races. At a population of 52 million there were 4,586,838 Whites.33

• Of the over 800 winners of the Nobel Prize, started in the year 1901, 20% were Jews, given the fact that Jews are only 0,2% of the world’s population. By contrast, there have been only 15 Black winners, of which 12 took the prize for peace, two in literature and one in economics.34

And I could keep mentioning examples of this kind endlessly. Do you think that all these are coincidences? Is the data out of the context? Are there statistics that prove otherwise? Let's take a look at the unfolding of history as well.

What stopped Sub-Saharan Africa from building a flourishing culture?

Starting with around 5000 BC the early civilizations and megalithic constructions appeared in the Northeastern part of Africa, followed afterwards by the rise of magnificent civilizations in the Middle East, and then in Europe and Asia. In parallel, civilizations began to rise on the American continent as well. Most parts of the world began to achieve more and more scientific knowledge, materialized in a better social organization, the creation of tools and the building of impressive structures. Empires were built and destroyed, discoveries were made, innovations were made, forms of governing were experimented, libraries were established, borders were set, alphabets were written and so on. What happened during this time in Sub-Saharan Africa, the cradle of the first modern people? Almost nothing. While other continents began to make cultural “leaps,” Sub-Saharan Africa culturally “crawled,” as it did for more than 50,000 years. As if this area of the globe was “immune” to change. Although, from the point of view of resources, Africa is the richest continent, in the 16th century – together with Australia (where the natives refused to evolve as well) – was the most poor and uneducated continent on the globe. And in the 21st century it continues to be the poorest and the most uneducated continent, excepting Antarctica, which is not populated. Who or what stopped these people from using their resources wisely and progressing for so many thousands of years?

Blaming an external factor for your own failure is the easiest thing to do. And, because we refuse to see or to accept reality, people look today for all sorts of explanations for the precarious situation of Africa: the social environment, racist conspiracies and most of all the lack of investments from the other rich nations of the world. But who invested in Egypt when the pyramids where built? Who invested in China when the Great Wall was built? Who invested in India when the Taj Mahal was built? Who invested in the Roman Empire when the Coliseum was built? Who invested in Central America when the Mayans built Chichen Itza? Yes, there is no doubt that there are many outside economic and political interests to keep Africa in darkness. But the intellectual condition of the natives makes this thing a lot easier.35

Indeed, social environment and nutrition play an important role in the intellectual and physical formation of a human being. But every man is part of the social environment for the man next to him. The degree of civilization reflects the degree of culture, which in turn depends on the average level of intelligence of the masses. Moreover, poverty, the lack of education and unemployment are undoubtedly feeding crime. But we must not forget that at a certain point in the past all races were poor, uneducated and unemployed. More than 150 years have passed since the American Civil War; the current Blacks in the United States are not freshly released from slavery nor are they the first generation of free men. In addition, American society offers all its citizens, regardless of race or background, access to information and a social and economic environment superior to most countries in the world. What has stopped the Blacks, as a group, from integrating, from having the same social results as the Whites or the Asians? What drives them to commit so many anti-social actions? Why are there no Asian riots in America when a Korean, Japanese, Chinese or a Vietnamese individual is shot by police?

Every population of people has members who break the pattern of intelligence, both negatively and positively. But in the end the power of the majority is what makes the difference. Geniuses or people with extraordinary talents may cause a cultural or scientific leap, but they stand no chance to make themselves heard without the help and the power of the majority. Michael Jackson, who was Black, would not have become a world star without other people thinking in advance of electricity, music, television or marketing. Likewise, Isaac Newton could not have developed his genius if there were not others before him, clever enough, who made a system of education and built the University of Cambridge. And Einstein would not have survived his disease in 1917, before finishing the theory of relativity, if there were not others before him, clever enough to develop a social and medical system to treat him.36 There is no doubt that, over time, geniuses were born in Africa as well. But they had no chance to develop their potential due to the material and social conditions: maybe they died at birth, maybe they died of malnutrition, or maybe they were killed in a random brawl.

Racial equality has anything to do with politics; the victors always alter history in their favor.

The current racial policy has nothing to do with science and has everything to do with politics. Two major historical events are “guilty” for the current state of things. The first was the outcome of the American Civil War, when the anti-slavery North won against the pro-slavery South. But little is known that at that time the North supported the abolition of slavery not because its men were suddenly smarter or because they were following scientific evidence. On the contrary, the ideological support was a religious fallacy: the evangelical preachers of the Second Great Awakening instructed the population that all men are equal in God’s eyes and America was not going to become the new Eden and a model for the entire world as along as it did not solve its social diseases: alcohol, prostitution, gambling, slavery or racial inequality.37 And then followed the horrors of the Holocaust and the outcome of the Second World War, which only strengthened the position of America regarding racial equality. Historical winners always alter history in their favor. And this is how the United States of America, one of the winners of the war, understands to clean its shameful past of slavery and at the same time to fulfill its messianic destiny of educating the entire world: by promoting worldwide a faulty ideology and demonizing the historical losers. Nobody today wants to be associated with the Nazi and with what they did. At the moment anyone who dares to start discussions about racial differences is quickly labeled as neo-Nazi, racist, xenophobe and faces social execution. The image of Hitler turned into a boogeyman that inhibits any attempt of debating the subject, as if anyone who discusses about racial differences implicitly agrees with the Holocaust and slavery.

In science there are no “closed topics”; new information and details are always to be found, regardless of subject. And the truth is never black or white; it is always full of shades and nuances. Human races are all about chances. The genetic dice of intelligence are a little different from race to race. But this little difference becomes increasingly visible an relevant as the number of people is growing and you get to compare the average intelligence of the various racial groups. Moreover, human races are like a very detailed spectrum of colors; you cannot make the difference between neighboring tints, but, when you look at the entire spectrum, you clearly see that at each end there are different colors.

Racial equality is a trend, a way of thought, like feudalism, monarchism, astrology, papal power or communism. But no trend stops itself peacefully, because those who are the exponents or the beneficiaries of an order of things do anything possible to maintain that order. The first who oppose any trend suffer: they are marginalized, ignored, punished or even killed. The elites – whether we speak about politicians, stars, intellectuals or scientists – avoid telling the truth so as not to lose the benefits they obtained. No one is willing to give up his titles, his money, his status, the respect he enjoys, his numbers of voters, his privileges for which he worked tens of years and ultimately to endanger his person and his family, only to admit truths against the established order. Besides, it is easy to defend any kind of ideology when you stand in an ivory tower.

Racial tensions have manifested and will continue to manifest predominantly in Western societies, where migrants of different races have been welcome to occupy the workforce deficit. Time and the current policies will not bring racial harmony, although the entertainment and sport industries try to convince us otherwise. If we lived in the Stone Age, racial differences would have been irrelevant. But we live in a world of technology, which has been built on the brain power of its members and its development requires more and more brain power. And the more it progresses, the more visible the intellectual differences between races become. Unless a technology that makes us all equally idiotic or equally smart is invented, racial tensions might worsen as globalization increases and the masses of people will move from one place to another. In the most optimistic scenario this issue will be maintained at a controllable level and regular revolts will take place. In the most pessimistic scenario we are talking about civil wars.

The ideal of meritocracy and the ideal of racial equality are conflicting.

The Western world and especially the United States have been built on the ideal of meritocracy. This means that all people, regardless of the familial or cultural background, race, gender or wealth have the right to fight in the social competition from equal positions. The difference between the individuals is made only by personal abilities, power of work, level of intelligence and knowledge. All institutions and organizations from within a state – whether we talk about schools, colleges or private companies – act as a sort of social filters. They put people in competition with each other in order to identify the valuable ones and use their potential. Accordingly, valuable people enjoy material and social benefits and the chance to advance further. Through this process of supporting and promoting values, society as a whole evolves and wins an improvement in living conditions. Meritocracy is the best social and political system ever invented. The problem is that the ideal of meritocracy and the ideal of racial equality are conflicting. And, if the Western world continues to promote a faulty racial policy, exactly this meritocracy is endangered and risks being overthrown.

The current signals about racial equality are contradictory. On the one hand, in schools, in media and in politics we are taught that races are absolutely equal and all men, regardless of race, have the same chances to gather knowledge, to hire and to personally progress. On the other hand, as the world grows and it needs more and more brain power to progress, the genetic differences between races are increasingly visible: the Blacks in America have a lower rate of employment than the Whites,38 a lower average income than the Whites,39 a lower rate of finishing higher education than the Whites,40 or the Black neighborhoods are much more disorganized. So, if all men have the same chances, who can the Blacks blame for these discrepancies?

Racial minorities do the easiest things they can do: they blame the outside for their failure, blame the racism of the Whites, they perceive society as being built against them and they riot. In reaction, in order to maintain public order and not lose votes, politicians and media make compromises in favor of racial minorities. Already in the Western world worrying trends, with multiple unforeseeable effects, have taken shape. One of these trends is the integrating of racial and cultural minorities. In meritocracy, every adult, regardless of race, gender or background, is responsible for his life, for his integration in society and for his social and economic condition. But suddenly, this idea was overthrown by placing the responsibility on the shoulders of the majority. The members of racial and cultural minorities no longer have to struggle or change according to the requirements of the society; on the contrary, society as a whole, or the majority, must struggle to integrate them within it. And the process of integration manifests through social and material benefits, such as easing the access to work in the detriment of the members of the majority. Moreover, because no one dares to wonder if some minorities can or want to be integrated, the failure of the process of integration is always the fault of the majority, not of the minority. Racial minorities began to be overprotected and advantaged, which in turn creates frustration and anger in the majority race, and ultimately to an increase of social tension. This is how problems escalate and become uncontrollable destructive phenomena.

Racial equality, in the current form, is nothing more than a utopia.

This is not an article against Blacks or any other race; the black race was chosen only to prove a point. This is not even about sparking hatred, reintroducing slavery or deporting people; it is about correctly educating and informing ourselves and our children. We passed from one extreme - in which the Whites were the best no matter what - to the other extreme - in which every public manifestation (from movies and music to politics and education) must be multicolored no matter what. So, at the moment we are living in a racial utopia, which, ultimately, is exactly that: a utopia. And this is also one of the main reasons multiculturalism will most likely fail: because some races of people will remain behind, will not be able to adapt to cultures that require certain levels of intelligence.

We have the right to understand the causes of the phenomena that surround us and affect our lives. It is nobody’s fault that nature is cruel and favors some groups of people in the detriment of others. But it is entirely our fault if we do not speak the truth. When people are afraid of speaking the truth, then there is something wrong with the society they live in. That is for sure. Lying will bring nothing good. Today’s social context teaches the children of the racial minorities only one thing: whatever bad things are happening to them is because they are discriminated; they have no guilt. What they really have to learn is exactly the opposite: they have to work harder to overcome their condition. But this thing is not possible as long as society promotes an ideology contrary to the truth.

We can continue to lie to ourselves about this issue and search for all sorts of explanations for the social and economic differences between races. But this will not bring the balance society needs and will surely not bring any long-term benefit. How long will the racist card be played? Reality cannot be ignored indefinitely, no matter what. And the longer we perpetuate this state of lie, the harder the inevitable change will be and will claim more sacrifices on all sides.

In the end let’s make an exercise of imagination. All the wars, conflicts and quarrels have the root in the physical and intellectual differences between people. So, if every ancestor or prehistoric relative of the modern man – homo neanderthalensis, homo habilis, homo erectus and so on41 – lived in different regions on the globe, what would we have done with these creatures? How would we have interacted with them? How would we have categorized them: human beings, animals? How would we have integrated them in society? It is very likely that our ancestors wiped out the Neanderthals42 and thus their cruelty made this world a lot simpler and spared us, today’s people, a lot of moral and material issues. But does that mean that they made a good thing? The Nazi also dreamed of a better, more peaceful uniracial, unicultural and unilingual world.

Notes:

1. Peter Staudenmaier, “Anthroposophy and Ecofascism,” PLANS – People for legal and Nonsectarian Schools, accessed December 21, 2015, http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Staudenmaier.html.

2. Catalin Negru, History of the Apocalypse (Lulu Press, 2015), Part II, Chapter II, 4.2. “Joseph Smith Jr. and Mormonism,” accessed December 10, 2015, http://reasonandreligion.org/index.php/joseph-smith-mormonism/.

3. Catalin Negru, History of the Apocalypse (Lulu Press, 2015), Part II, Chapter II, 4. “The Second Great Awakening,” accessed December 10, 2015, http://reasonandreligion.org/index.php/second-great-awakening/.

4. “Racism,” Oxford Dictionaries, accessed December 13, 2015, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism.

5. “Differences between African and Asian Elephant,” Elephant Encyclopedia, accessed December 19, 2015, http://www.upali.ch/differences_en.html.

6. Ajit Varki and Tasha K. Altheide, “Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack,” Genome Research, CSH Press, accessed December 15, 2015, http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full; Jay L. Wile, “99%? 95%? 87%? 70%? How Similar is the Human Genome to the Chimpanzee Genome?,” Proslogion, accessed December 1, 2015, http://blog.drwile.com/?p=697; David DeWitt, “Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More,” Answer in Genesis, accessed December 2, 2015, https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/greater-than-98-chimphuman-dna-similarity-not-any-more/.

7. Details about the evolution from animal to man you can find, for example, in Alice M. Roberts, Evolution: The Human Story (London: Dorling Kindersley, 2011).

8. Hua Liua, Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica and François Balloux, “A Geographically Explicit Genetic Model of Worldwide Human-Settlement History,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 79, no. 2 (2006):230-7, doi: 10.1086/505436, accessed November 20, 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631310; Donald C. Johanson, “Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?,” American Institute of Biological Sciences, ActionBioscience, accessed November 21, 2015, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html#primer.

9. D. J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchani, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer and L. B. Jorde, “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations,” Genetics 176, no. 1 (2007): 351-9, doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.067355, accessed December 21, 2015, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/.

10. P. W. Hedrick, “Population genetics of malaria resistance in humans,” Heredity 107 (2011), 283-304, doi:10.1038/hdy.2011.16, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v107/n4/full/hdy201116a.html.

11. Stephanie Pappas, “Black Death Likely Altered European Genes,” Discovery News, accessed December 11, 2015, http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/black-death-likely-altered-european-genes-140203.htm.

12. D. M. Swallow, “Genetics of Lactase Persistence and Lactose Intolerance,” Annual Review of Genetics 37 (2003): 197-219, doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143820; Elizabeth Weise, “Sixty Percent of Adults can’t Digest Milk,” USA Today, accessed December 17, 2015, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-08-30-lactose-intolerance_N.htm.

13. Nicholas A. Christakis, “What Have You Changed Your Mind About?,” Edge, accessed December 14, 2015, https://edge.org/response-detail/10456.

14. Marcus E. Raichle and Debra A. Gusnard, “Appraising the brain’s energy budget,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, no. 16 (2002): 10237-9, doi: 10.1073/pnas.172399499, accessed December 13, 2015, http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full.

15. Tim Crowe, “How Science Has Been Abused to Promote Racism,” Huff Post Science, accessed November 12, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-africa/how-science-has-been-abus_b_8626110.html.

16. Regina Bailey, “Biological Evolution,” About, accessed November 25, 2015, http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm.

17. Linda Gottfredson, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography,” Intelligence 24, no. 1 (1997), doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8, accessed December 25, 2015, https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf.

18. For details, see Stanley Coren, The Intelligence of Dogs: A Guide To The Thoughts, Emotions, And Inner Lives Of Our Canine Companions (Free Press: New York, 1994).

19. “Quick Facts – United States,” United States Census Bureau, accessed December 23 2015, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

20. “National Youth Gang Survey Analysis - Demographics,” National Gang Center, accessed December 20, 2015, https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics.

21. James Unnever, A Theory of African American Offending: Race, Racism, and Crime (London: Routledge, 2011), 3.

22. Brendan O’Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi, “Racial Stereotypes and Robbery,” Discussion Paper No.: 0405-15, Department of Economics, Columbia University, New York (December 23, 2004), 2-3, accessed December 15, 2015, http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:112753/CONTENT/econ_0405_15.pdf.

23. Bonnie S. Fisher and Steven P. Lab, Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, vol. 1 (New York: Sage Publications, 2010), 67; Patsy Klaus, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, “Carjacking, 1993-2002,” National Crime Victimization Survey, July 2004, NCJ 205123, 2, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/c02.pdf.

24. Heather C. West, “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009 – Statistical Tables,” Statistical Tables, June 2010, NCJ 230113, accessed November 25, 2015, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pim09st.pdf.

25. “NeighborhoodScout’s Most Dangerous Cities – 2015. Top 100 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S,” Neighborhood Scout, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/.

26. “Crime rates for Camden, NJ,” Neighborhood Scout, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nj/camden/crime/.

27. “Camden, NJ,” State & County QuickFacts, United States Census Bureau, accessed December 8, 2015, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3410000.html.

28. “Crime rates for Chester, PA,” Neighborhood Scout, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/chester/crime/.

29. “Chester Population by Race and Ethnicity,” CLR, accessed December 12, 2015, http://www.clrsearch.com/Chester-Demographics/PA/Population-by-Race-and-Ethnicity.

30. “Crime rates for Detroit, MI,” Neighborhood Scout, accessed December 10, 2015, http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mi/detroit/crime/.

31. “Detroit Population by Race and Ethnicity,” CLR, accessed December 12, 2015, http://www.clrsearch.com/Detroit-Demographics/MI/Population-by-Race-and-Ethnicity.

32. Tami Luhby, “5 disturbing stats on black-white inequality,” CNN Money, accessed December 11, 2015, http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/black-white-inequality/.

33. “Census 2011 – Census in Brief,” Statistics South Africa, 21, accessed December 23, 2015, http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf.

34. “All Nobel Prizes,” Nobel Prize, accessed December 21, 2015, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/.

35. James Gibney and Bloomberg, “‘The Looting Machine’ explains why Africa isn’t rising,” Concord Monitor, accessed January 2, 2016, http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/20290224-95/the-looting-machine-explains-why-africa-isnt-rising.

36. A. Douglas Stone, Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 193-7.

37. Catalin Negru, History of the Apocalypse (Lulu Press, 2015), Part II, Chapter II, 4. “The Second Great Awakening,” accessed December 10, 2015, http://reasonandreligion.org/index.php/second-great-awakening/.

38. Philip Bump, “Black unemployment is always much worse than white unemployment. But the gap depends on where you live,” Washington Post, accessed December 20, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/09/06/black-unemployment-is-always-much-worse-than-white-unemployment-but-the-gap-depends-on-where-you-live/.

39. The State of Working America, Economic Policy Institute, accessed December 19, 2015, http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/african-americans/.

40. Liz Fields, “The Graduation Gap Between White and Black Students Is Widening in the US,” Vice News, accessed November 18, 2015, https://news.vice.com/article/the-graduation-gap-between-white-and-black-students-is-widening-in-the-us.

41. “Human Family Tree,” Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, accessed November 29, 2015, http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree.

42. Robin McKie, “Why did the Neanderthals die out?,” The Guardian, accessed November 28, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/02/why-did-neanderthals-die-out.


You might also be interested in:

The failure of multiculturalism and the Muslim issue

There has been a lot of stir lately regarding the Syrian mass migration and its impact upon Europe. Overall, it seems that the Western world divided in two sides: those who defend humanitarianism and accept refugees (regardless of their background) in their countries, and those who refuse refugees and condemn the extreme multiculturalism and the Islamization of Europe. Now, in order to understand what is really happening, why...

4. The Second Great Awakening

Around the year 1800, in the period following the War of Independence, American society experienced the Second Great Awakening (1800-1840). This phenomenon was the natural consequence of the fact that the Americans gained their freedom. Winthrop’s ideal set in motion the process of formation of the American nation and generated the First Great Awakening; the latter defined the American identity and America’s special role, generating in turn the...

4. The Third Great Awakening

It is debatable if a Third Great Awakening took place indeed between 1850 and 1900, or whether what happened was only an extension of the Second Great Awakening. A religious awakening must be preceded by a religious sleep of the masses. Almost a century separates John Winthrop’s discourse from the First Great Awakening. Likewise, there are more than 60 years between the First and the Second Great Awakening. Until the middle of the 19th century the...


Share this page

Please read the rules before making a comment

10 Comments

  1. Good article, and also a good answer to the question: “Why do the good guys always win the war?” Well, they don’t.

    • Well, some people play World of Warcraft, others discuss politics, I research and I present my conclusions. I like to believe that conflagrations start from sparks.

  2. Its a good read. A lot of hard-work. As someone else pointed out, thought provoking. However, please do not delude yourself into thinking that its a research. Its just your opinion. Quoting data and references does not make it any relevant. Well who told you that IQ is a gold standard of intelligence. Its a standard that works well for educated people. There is fallacy within. You say and its right, Asians (well rich Asians) score more on IQ tests than white. So how many great inventions has Asia produced in past 100-200 years (I am not invoking ancient history). Why? I know you can research and come up with complicated answer. Which brings me to point, that if you are grinding in that abject poverty cycle that you can barely read and understand questions, you will fare poorly IQ tests however smart you may be. Another stupid comparison with dogs. Comparing humans with inbred dogs? Yeah, start a human breeding program similar to one that had been done for dogs, meet afters 16,000 years and yes we are on the same footing. Otherwise its apple and oranges. I can go on and on and knock down each and every one of your argument. But I have neither time, nor patience for this nonsense. Yes, there are differences between races. Its mostly due to social, economic and political reason. Not race or intelligence. If you stretch really far back in time, every human urban settlement across the world have greatly contributed bring us where we are today. If you look at just post 17th century, white Europe looks bright. When Europe was in caves, Egypt and Asia had very advanced and civilized settlements, with sanitation and democracy in place.They must be thinking at that time these white people are genetically stupid, knows nothing but to boink rabbit on head and quarrel. Well wheel of time. up and down, up and down…………

    • 1. Don’t you think that it is quite strange that, somehow, ONLY homo sapiens managed to survive to this day, and all the other homo species are gone? Look at this wikipedia article at the number of the homo species discovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo. If, for some reason, the Black people of Africa were extinct, now we would also have Homo Africanus in the list (or Homo Europeanus if the white people were extinct).

      2. And please answer to this question: is it a good thing or a bad thing for us, today’s people, that our ancestors wiped out (if they did so) the Neanderthals?

  3. You are looking it through flawed lens my friend. Here are my answer:
    1) No its not strange. First, let me run your flawed logic to you. Assumption 1: Black people are somehow inferior in intelligence (you can’t say physically as just look at Olympics, or sports in general) Assumption 2: Intelligence is somehow related to survival. Assumption 3: Ancient human species got extinct due to lack of intelligence. So all you have is one assumption supporting the other. There are no facts. Its amazing how someone can run a thread of assumptions with no facts and appear to prove a point. Chimpanzee lives. Monkey lives. So, it was not impossible for any of these primitive homo species with less intelligence to survive. Why early humans got extinct is very complicated. We don’t even know if they did get extinct instead of just evolving into us. We may never know the answer. The data we have about ancient homo species is very sparse and poor. You want to estimate how they lived, died and got exterminated up to millions of years ago by examining a handful of skeletons that survived. Yeah, good luck! Poor data = poor research = poor conclusions. Evolution, although looks very easy and simple, is in fact very difficult concept to grasp. You are assuming that modern humans with large brains are evolutionary most successful. Just for an argument sake, let me introduce you to bacteria and viruses. Viruses have actually invaded and occupied human genome and made home permanently. They are likely to survive any catastrophe (including man made) that can wipe out humans. So, don’t pay too much emphasis to cranial size. Its just one of the ways. As far as “if for some reason” is concerned, it was very plausible that all humans could have got extinct and still can.
    2) Again, you have this common malaise, you confuse hypothesis with facts. Its just a hypothesis (one of many) that modern humans wiped out neanderthals. Alright, let me answer it assuming that its a fact. Species are getting formed and getting extinct of earth all the time. Its a continuous process. Humans can impact this process, but in reality, its beyond their control. Imaging water running down the hill. There are multiple ways and streams keep changing course all the time. It was possible Egyptians could have wiped out Europe. Hell, possibly, Genghis Khan already wiped out Europe :-).

  4. Can you cite a single study showing the genes responsible for intelligence and that they are either missing or suppressed in people of color?

    You quote a lot of data but fail to interpret it. Correlation does not mean causation, take it from someone who has studied mathematical statistics and probability in great detail.

    Your research seems to be weak. Why is that IQ in less developed countries are rising faster than IQ in the rest of the world without showing signs of stopping? (Flynn effect).

    Do you want to talk about violence? What about the extreme violence Europe inflicted on the rest of the world for 300 years? Do you want to attribute that to European “genes”?

    The last point brings me to the next question: imagine that in the future we have concrete irrefutable evidence that Africans and others are just simply incapable of sophisticated thought, what do you suggest is the way forward? Genocide? Well sir, these days, white Europeans are not the only ones that can *reliably* launch spy satellites and neuclear tipped ICBMs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *