Jewamongyou

I’ve discovered a new (potential) ally, a certain Professor Steve Hsu.  Browsing his blog, it is obvious he is a very intelligent and objective man.  Here is an excerpt, from one of his posts (from 2007), that pertains to the biological reality of race:

This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa.
Every allele probably occurs in each ethnic group, but with varying frequency. Suppose that for a particular gene there are 3 common variants (v1, v2, v3) all the rest being very rare. Then, for example, one might find that in ethnic group A the distribution is v1 75%, v2 15%, v3 10%, while for ethnic group B the distribution is v1 2% v2 6% v3 92%. Suppose this pattern is repeated for several genes, with the common variants in population A being rare in population B, and vice versa. Then, one might find a very dramatic difference in expressed phenotype between the two populations. For example, if skin color is determined by (say) 10 genes, and those genes have the distribution pattern given above, nearly all of population A might be fair skinned while all of population B is dark, even though there is complete overlap in the set of common alleles. Perhaps having the third type of variant v3 in 7 out of 10 pigmentation genes makes you dark. This is highly likely for an individual in population B with the given probabilities, but highly unlikely in population A.
We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups – as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.
This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:
Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.
Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.
Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.
A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) “superficial” characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.
The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.
As scientists, we don’t know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don’t know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.
Finally, it is important to note that group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup.

As for the first couple of paragraphs from that post, they are way over my head.  Higher math has never been my strong point but I’ve always wanted to delve into it in order to better understand articles such as the one above – or the finer points of La Griffe Du Lion.

Benjamin Disraeli famously told his gentile counterparts, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”   Recent archeological discoveries have shown us that ancient Europeans were not always brutal savages.  Yet there is no denying that much of Europe was backward compared to the classical civilizations that came to dominate them culturally from Roman times onward.
I am reading a book called “A.D. 500” by Simon Young.  It is a fictitious account of the travels of a Byzantine scouting party through the British isles around the year 500 A.D.  Though it is fiction, the story is based on historical fact.  Though he sometimes takes a sympathetic view toward the ancient peoples of Briton, Young does make it clear that the peoples in question were indubitably savages.  According to him, among the British Celts, the Gaels of Ireland, the Picts and the Saxons were practices such as head-hunting, cannibalism, human sacrifices, ritual bestiality, slavery, extreme superstition and episodes of total lawlessness.
Though it is difficult to extract anything resembling a reasoned argument from leftists regarding their dogmatic racial egalitarianism, we may impute to them the argument that we were all, at one time, savages.  What is left unsaid by them is that there was no difference between the European savages of yore and African savages of the more recent past.  Indeed, reading through A.D. 500, I am reminded of the book “Explorations & Adventures in Equatorial Africa” by Paul Du Chaillu (1861).
On the surface, tribal Africa did (does) resemble the ancient British Isles.  In both cases life was cheap, superstition rife and barbaric practices endemic.  In both places, Christianity was twisted into strange local cults.  But there are some important distinctions to be made:
Writing was unknown among native black Africans until/unless introduced to them by outsiders.  All the various British tribes had one form of writing or another – and these forms of writing seem to have developed independently of any contact with the Romans.
Tribal Africans had no sense of the distant past except when it pertained to enchanted/sacred places or something else of practical use in the present.  In contrast, the various British tribes each had their own legends and histories of which they seem to have been keenly aware.
In Africa, though war was common, rarely would an individual knowingly sacrifice his own life for a greater cause.  All humans tend to value their own lives, but black Africans tend to value their lives even more than other groups.  This is reflected in their historically low suicide rates even in America.  In contrast, according to Young, it was common for ancient Britons to rush toward their own deaths rather than suffer disgrace or in order to show their faith in God (among early Christians).
Some groups of early Britons, especially the Picts, suffered great poverty.  Young attributes this, at least partly, to a lack of resources in their lands.  The poverty endured by Africans seems to be not so much due to lack of resources but lack of labor.  When motivated, Africans were capable of building fine houses for themselves.  Generally, however, Africans were not motivated.
Leftists, in their belief that there is no difference between ancient European savages and modern African ones, also assume that a mere two thousand years is not enough time to accumulate any meaningful genetic differences between populations.  I have already written about this fallacy elsewhere.   We Ashkenazic Jews took only several hundred years to increase our average I.Q.’s to the point where the difference is noticeable.   Polynesians have developed distinctive appearances, on their various islands – and yet, by most accounts, they only embarked on their voyages within the last 3,000 years or so.
Even though native Britons were “savages” in the year 500 A.D., this does not mean that their evolutionary advancement only commenced after that.  It takes time to built an advanced civilization.  Until then, and as long as primitive conditions exist, the masses will not meet their true genetic potential.  Such was probably the case in 500 A.D. – and such is certainly the case in many parts of the world today.  Only when we reach near optimum environmental conditions, such as in America today, do genetic differences in I.Q. become clear for all to see.  In the modern Occident we now have the descendants of savages from all over the world.  This is a grand experiment and the results have been coming in for several decades.  We only need to look at SAT scores, I.Q. tests and every other standardized test; they all tell the same story.