Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
199910 American Renaissance

199910 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 67|Likes:
American Renaissance, October 1999. The Biological Reality of Race; Book Review: The Sacred Ties of Blood; Notes on the Japanese; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, October 1999. The Biological Reality of Race; Book Review: The Sacred Ties of Blood; Notes on the Japanese; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 20, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



American Renaissance - 1 - October 1999
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 10, No. 10October 1999
The Biological Reality of Race
American Renaissance
Choice data are accumu-lating in a neglected field.
by Glayde Whitney
ace is a fascinating scientific sub- ject. Unfortunately, for morethan half of this century there hasbeen a huge propaganda campaign todrive it completely out of the sciences.And even though most of the race-de-niers’ claims are nonsense or wildly spunhalf-truths, the vast majority of seriousscientists have been taught their lesson.For a youngster, to deal with race froma scientific perspective and risk the la-bel “scientific racist” could be career sui-cide. Most of my scientific colleaguesleave race alone, at least in public.These days, in the genetic and bio-logical sciences there are so many thingsthat are unknown, and so many new andexciting techniques, that a scientist caneasily have a productive career withoutever mentioning race. But one of theconsequences of the absence of work inthis field is that there is a gold mine of data about the biological realities of race.Actually a gold mine is probably thewrong image because it implies one mustdig and work to collect the prize. It’sreally more like a riverbed strewn withgold nuggets. Race biology data have ac-cumulated all around us and are lyingthere waiting to be picked up and publi-cized.This article introduces a few of themany nuggets of information about thebiological reality of race. I will not coverintelligence differences–everyoneknows about that. But from bone thick-ness to brain size, there are many bio-logical realities of race besides differ-ences in intelligence.I should first explain my definitionof “race.” In biological tradition theword race is simply synonymous withthe terms “subspecies” or “variety.” Thebasic unit of classification in moderntaxonomy is the species. A species isusually said to consist of a set of indi-viduals capable of interbreeding and pro-ducing fertile offspring. If the offspringare not healthy and fertile, then the par-ent types are considered separate spe-cies. Mules are usually sterile so horsesand donkeys are thought to be separatespecies.However, in biology things are oftenfuzzy around the edges, and so it is withspecies. Sometimes what are consideredto be separate species in nature can andwill freely interbreed when brought to-gether by man. Sometimes their hybridoffspring are partially or fully fertile. Asone example of the fuzziness of species,consider
Canis familiaris
, the commondog, and
Canis lupus
, the Eurasian wolf.They are considered to be separate spe-cies because their habitats and life-stylesare different. Within the dog species it-self there are many varieties that arequite different in physiology and behav-ior. The tiny Mexican Chihuahua, wouldhave a hard time mating with an IrishWolfhound, but they are considered tobe of the same species.When wolves encounter dogs, theyusually eat them. But sometimes theymate with them. When they mate it isalmost always the male wolf with thefemale dog. The reverse is rare–maledogs are almost never able to mate withfemale wolves. The hybrid puppies areusually fully fertile, so by this defini-tion
Canis lupus
Canis familiaris
different species. The point is thatspecies and races are concepts of classi-fication that often blur around the edges.This is because of the very nature of bio-logical reality.These days humans are thought toconstitute one species–
 Homo sapiens
.Humans are in many respects typical of geographically widespread mammalianspecies in that we are polymorphic(meaning we have “many forms”). Thisis what appears to us as individual dif-ferences. The bell-curve distribution of so many traits–height, weight, strength,intelligence, and the like–illustratespolymorphic traits. We are also typicalamong widespread mammals in being apolytypic species. Polytypic means“many types;” it is simply a fact of bio-logical reality that not all differentgroups of humans are the same. Natu-rally occurring polytypic groups withina species are called varieties, subspecies,or races.
Starting With the Genes
Nowadays biological reality startswith genes, so that is what we will con-sider first. Genetic surveys have beendone that identify many genes for manyhuman populations all around the world.
Glayde Whitney
I will not cover intelli-gence differences–every-one knows about that.
American Renaissance - 2 - October 1999
 Letters from Readers
Sir – Your September report on themedia reaction to
The Color of Crime
was very interesting but left out an im-portant point. “Conservative” publica-tions were no more likely than any oth-ers to cover the report. This should tellus something about conservatism. In theearly 1990s,
 National Review
Hu-man Events
used to denounce multi-culturalism and racial double standards.Now it seems mainstream conservativeshave made peace with multiculturalismand accept liberal dominance on mostracial matters. You will have to do a re-port on tax cuts or the flag-burningamendment to get the attention of thelap-dog opposition.Name Withheld, Cheshire, Conn.Sir – I was gratified to see that
 Accu-racy in Media
devoted their July “AIMReport” to
The Color of Crime
.Robert Nattkemper, Kamuela, HawaiiSir – I enjoyed your comprehensivereview of Prof. Raymond Wolters’
 Right Turn
. It is good to know that in darkestacademe there are still a few rays of light.I would point out, though, that Mr.Jackson did not go far enough in his criti-cism of the 1954
decision. Hesuggests that if schools were to be de-segregated it was Congress’ businessand not the court’s. In fact, as he shouldknow, it is only the most strained read-ing of the Constitution that gives Con-gress power to regulate schools operatedby the states. Had there not been thesteady usurpation of states’ powers bythe federal government we would stillhave the system of competing experi-ments the Founders envisaged. Suchmatters as abortion, “civil rights,”schooling, and virtually all regulatorymatters would be in state hands. Wewould then have a chance to see whatworks rather than let Washington forceits policies on the whole country. AsProf. Wolters implies, our public schoolshave suffered grievously from federalmeddling.Tom Ericson, Mussel Shoals, Ala.Sir – In the review of 
 Right Turn
welearn that Bob Jones University lost itstax-exempt status, at least in part, be-cause of a ban on inter-racial dating.Since such a ban by a private universityapplied to all races, how did it violateanti-discrimination law?Conrad Schmidt, Rumson, N.J.
 It didn’t. It violated only the sensibili-ties of Supreme Court Justices. Robert  Detlefsen has a good discussion of thiscase in
Civil Rights Under Reagan
(ICSPress, 1991), in which he points out that despite much blather about the wicked-ness of racial discrimination, “the Court completely ignored the reality of Bob Jones University.” Mr. Detlefsen callsthe decision “yet another perfect ex-ample of result-oriented jurisprudence,in that it virtually ignores the statute it is supposed to be construing . . . .” – Editor 
Sir – Reading between the lines of theSeptember issue, I noticed a thread run-ning through several of the stories. In“The Law is an Ass”, we learn that theone Supreme Court Justice who sup-ported the Kansas City school desegre-gation fiasco was Ruth Bader Ginsberg.In the article about Arthur Jensen, I notethat the three “politically driven liars”who speak with “forked tongues” in theircriticism of Prof. Jensen, are MarcusFeldman, Steven Jay Gould, and LeonKamin. More mild critics, as mentionedin the AR article, include RobertSternberg and Alan Kaufman. Finally,in the “California Voters Scorned” piece,we read that Mariana Pfaelzer was the judge instrumental in overturning Propo-sition 187.This heavy concentration of Jewishindividuals carrying forward an agendacontrary to our interests reflects theethno-political reality of today’s Ame-rica, and serves as confirmation of Kevin MacDonald’s masterful
Cultureof Critique
. This is a topic AR readersmay not want to face, but it seems topercolate out of story after story.Ted Sallis, Tampa, Fla.Sir– In your mention of the specialissue of 
you quoted Doug-las Detterman as saying Prof. Jensenwould be glad to know the truth even if it proved him wrong. I would not havethought to put it this way, but I am sureit is true.I once had the pleasure of hearingProf. Jensen speak to a university audi-ence. I had expected him to be combat-ive and defensive but he was charmingand soft-spoken. I know that most of theaudience was hostile to him, but I couldtell that many were won over by his eru-dition and obvious love of the truth.Thank God for Arthur Jensen.Sarah Carpenter, Austin, Tex.
Rally ’Round the Flag
he NAACP and other black groups have announced a tour-ist and convention boycott of SouthCarolina in an attempt to persuadestate officials to remove the Confed-erate flag from atop the state capi-tol. In response to the boycott, theCouncil of Conservative Citizens issponsoring a “Save the Flag” rallyin Columbia at 1:00 p.m. on Satur-day, October 9th at the capitol. Forinformation telephone Frances Bellat (803) 648-3661. The C of CChelped keep the flag flying in 1996by organizing resistance when then-Governor David Beasley tried totake it down.
American Renaissance - 3 - October 1999
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Assistant EditorGlayde Whitney, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
Some surveys have tried to concentrateon so-called “native populations,” thatis, people who today are still livingwhere their ancestors were before 1500AD–before Columbus and the age of European expansion around the globe.When worldwide gene surveys are doneof native populations, the results inbroad outline are clear and consistentand can be replicated from one study tothe next.The most solid and remarkable find-ing is that genetically, the people fromSub-Saharan Africa are the most differ-ent from all other living humans. I willtherefore concentrate mainly on Afri-cans, but will quickly consider the restof the world.The illustration on this page showsthe results from one large genetic sur-vey with the lengths of the lines indi-cating the degrees of genetic differencebetween groups. Please note that Afri-cans are far different from everybodyelse.After Africans-versus-everybody-else, the next most different racialgrouping is Australian Aborigines andsimilar peoples in New Guinea and sur-rounding areas. The famous anthropolo-gist William Howells described them asfollows:“Australian aboriginals proper, [are]primitive men with a primitive huntingculture, lacking even the bows and ar-rows of the Negritos of other parts. Theyare dark skinned but hairy, with thick,ridged, poorly filled skulls and heavy,though fully sapiens, brow ridges; andwith broad noses, short projecting faces,large teeth and receding chins. In everyway they conform to a picture of 
at his most backward, beforeracial specialization and before a finallightening of brows, reduction of teeth,and expansion of brain.” (W. Howells,
 Mankind in the Making,
1959, p. 326.)If we return to the illustration on thispage we see that the other major racialgroupings are Caucasians, South Asians,and a cluster containing Northern Mon-goloids and American Indians. Aboutthe only surprise from this worldwidegene survey is the degree of differencebetween Northeast and Southeast Asia.Even within China there are substantialaverage genetic differences betweennorth and south. The racial/genetic dif-ferentiation within China is a fascinat-ing topic for another day.Let me turn now to the largest of ge-netic differences among humans, thatbetween Africans and everyone else.Some people in the scientific literatureargue that it is a vast oversimplificationto think of “Africans” as a single race–they emphasize that there is tremendousgenetic differentiation, and resultant bio-logical differences, among the nativeinhabitants of Africa. And that is cor-rect, up to a point. After all, the conti-nent of Africa is a big place; it is thesecond-largest continent, with muchenvironmental variation. It containssome of the driest and some of the mosthumid habitats on earth. Also some of the hottest. It has lowlands and high-lands, sea level jungles and snow-cappedMount Kilimanjaro. So it should come
Genetic distance between any two groups is represented by the total lengthof the lines separating them.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->