Continued. Read Part I of the article here
By Peter Baofu
White frustration and the silence on biological differences
On the other hand, the American credo has also contributed to the reluctant silence by whites in America (largely due to “white guilt” with respect to the historical legacy of slavery and racial segregation in the past centuries) to openly debate about the biological differences between whites and blacks. Any white in America who dares to raise this issue could be immediately condemned as “racist,” regardless of any empirical evidences presented. This is the dirty politics of “political correctness” embedded in the American credo of equality, for 2 reasons (to be explained below).
The first reason is that, contrary to the dirty politics of “political correctness” embedded in the American credo, there are in fact biological differences among different races, just as there are biological differences between men and women, with consequences on how each group, on average, tends to behave, even when there are exceptions to the rule in all of them.
For instance, in 2005, a research team led by David Cox of Perlegen Science in California published in Science magazine “data on over one million crucial DNA variations in three racial groups” and the “mapping effort describes 1.58 million of these single-letter DNA variations” across “European-American, African-American and Han Chinese ancestry,” as reported by BBC News on February 17, as Cox presented his team’s finding at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC, and I already addressed this issue further in my book BEYOND NATURE AND NURTURE (2006).
In another study, Jon Entine and Earl Smith (2000) in his book TABOO: WHY BLACK ATHLETES DOMINATE SPORTS AND WHY WE ARE AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT IT showed that “genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics, such as skeletal structure, muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency, and lung capacity, are not evenly distributed among populations and cannot be explained by known environmental factors” (as they are to be explained on the basis of genetics) – and I already addressed this issue further in my book THE FUTURE OF POST-HUMAN SPORTS (2013).
Then, Adrian Bejan published his 2010 study in the International Journal of Design, Nature and Ecodynamics, which found that “black people have a higher center of mass (i.e. shorter relative torso) that favors them in running sports and that white people have a lower center of mass that favors them in swimming. Bejan et al. cite the progression of world record holders in the men’s and women’s 100 meters ‘dash’ [in running], the majority of whom are black, and the men’s and women’s 100 meters freestyle [in swimming], the majority of whom are white.” (P. Baofu 2013)
In another finding by Steve Gullans and Juan Enriquez, as reported by S. Pappas in “Tarnished Medals? Genetic Engineering Will Change Olympics” (on July 18, 2012), “the 577R allele of the gene ACTN3 has been found in almost every male Olympic sprinter tested-but it’s…in about 85 percent of [black] Africans” but only “50 percent of Europeans and Asians, for example.” (P. Baofu 2013)
But the major problem here is that the tradeoff of “black athletic superiority” (or “black athletic dominance”) is black intellectual “mediocrity,” black emotional “impulsiveness,” and black physical “aggressiveness,” on average again, when contrasted with other races.
For instance, in 1995, J. Philippe Rushton at the University of Western Ontario published his book titled RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A LIFE HISTORY PERPECTIVE, in which he showed that “Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids fall consistently into the same one-two-three pattern when compared on a list of 60 different behavioral and anatomical variables” (including intelligence, personality, reproduction, maturation, and so on), with blacks (Negroids) on one end of the spectrum, Asians (Mongoloids) on the other end, and whites (Caucasoids) in between. As an illustration, in the study, blacks, on average, scored higher than other races on “impulsiveness” and “aggressiveness” but lower on “IQ” – and Asians, on average, scored just the opposite (scoring lower on “impulsiveness” and “aggressiveness” but higher on “IQ”), with the average scores of whites in between.
Similarly, C. Murray and R. Herrnstein from Harvard University published the book THE BELL CURVE (1996) and found the same results, in that blacks on average have lower IQ test scores than Asians and whites, and “African blacks in fact have lower test scores than American blacks….African blacks have extraordinarily low scores on standardized mental tests, including ones especially designed for illiterate non-Western subjects,” so this means that environmental factors alone cannot explain the variations in question.
Then, Richard Lynn reported comparable findings in “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Intelligence in the United States on the Differential Ability Scale” (1996) and “Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective” (1991) that “Orientals [Mongoloids] score higher on tests of mental ability than do Whites, both within the U.S.A. and in Asia, whereas Africans and Caribbeans score lower. Oriental populations in East Asia and North America typically have mean IQs falling between 101 to 111. White populations in Europe, South Africa, Australasia, and North America have mean IQs of from 85 to 115, with an overall mean of 100. Black populations living south of the Sahara, in the Caribbean, in Britain, and in North America, average IQs of from 70 to 90.” The racial disparities remain, even after being adjusted for cultural variations.
In 2013, researchers in STATISTIC BRAIN released a new finding on IQ and the wealth of nations, which showed that “countries with the highest average IQ” were found mostly in Asian and European countries, as shown in the following ranking of the top 15 countries:
RANK COUNTRY HIGHEST AVERGE IQ (in Year 2013)
1 Hong Kong 107
2 South Korea 106
3 Japan 105
4 Taiwan 104
5 Singapore 103
6 Austria 102
6 Germany 102
6 Italy 102
6 Netherlands 102
10 Sweden 101
10 Switzerland 101
12 Belgium 100
12 China 100
12 New Zealand 100
12 UK 100
On the other hand, “countries with the lowest average IQ” were found mostly in black African countries, as shown in the following ranking of the 10 countries which have the lowest average IQ:
RANK COUNTRY LOWEST AVERAGE IQ (in Year 2013)
1 Equatorial Guinea 59
2 Ethiopia 63
3 Sierra Leone 64
4 Congo 65
5 Zimbabwe 66
5 Guinea 66
7 Nigeria 67
8 Ghana 71
9 Tanzania 72
9 Sudan 72
Now, one must be careful to interpret the data. For instance, a difference of a few points (say, between 105 and 100) can be easily adjusted by environmental factors, just as the rankings of these countries vary over time (as they do not stay on the same spots over the decades). But the important point to remember here is that a difference of many points (say, between 105 and 60) is simply too much to be dismissed on the sole basis of environmental factors, and that, even more importantly, the racial disparities (say, between Asians/whites and blacks) persist over time, even after being adjusted for historical, environmental variations. I already addressed this issue further in THE FUTURE OF POST-HUMAN AEROLOGY (2014).
All these studies help us understand why many blacks in America tend to be, both in perception and in reality, emotionally “impulsive” and physically “aggressive” in conflict situations, on average of course. By contrast, Asian Americans, on average again, have unusually low crime rates, and many of them often maintain emotional restraint with dealing with white police officers in America. Thus, many white police officers, on average again, tend to be more anxious when confronting black suspects than Asian ones. The obsession of many blacks with socio-cultural excuses often blind them from seeing this other side of the story in a state of self-denial of their “impulsiveness” and “aggressiveness” in conflict situations, on average again.
For instance, the riots, lootings, inflammatory speeches, and killings (of police officers in New York and Florida) by blacks in the aftermath of the 3 incidents (aforecited) in recent months only reinforce the perception and the reality that many blacks are indeed “impulsive” and “aggressive” in conflict situations. The violence by blacks after the incidents only strengthens the negative perception against them, contrary to their very intention to fight against the stereotype – so this chronic black violence only makes the situation worse, not better.
Unless many black folks are willing to look into the mirror and see their biological differences in behavior when contrasted with other races, instead of just blaming white racism with their endless socio-cultural excuses — their chronic problems with law enforcement in America will continue for decades to come. Just blaming the “racist” white police officers (with the all-too-familiar socio-cultural excuses) will not resolve their chronic problems with law enforcement. In a report by Al Jazeera on December 23, 2014, the U.S. had already experienced “a sharp decline of police brutality in the past decade,” in spite of the recent incidents. And the current President of the United States is a black, just as the current Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice is also a black (and the nominee to succeed him is also a black). It is high time for many black folks to put things into a proper balanced perspective and stop playing the game of “blaming.”
And the second reason is that, contrary to the dirty politics of “political correctness” embedded in the American credo, the biological differences also explain why black folks in sub-Saharan Africa had never developed their societies to the point that they could compete with Europeans on an equal footing in the past; instead, the European colonization of black Africa in the modern era was possible, largely because of the relative backwardness of black Africa at the time. In other words, just blaming white folks for the problems of black folks does not explain what happened before the Age of Colonization, when black Africa was already so poor and underdeveloped, even before the arrival of the Europeans – just as it remains poor and underdeveloped today (as it had been so before in the bygone ages).
In fact, even in (Arabic) North Africa (which is different from black Africa in the sub-Saharan region), like Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt, the Arabs and other local inhabitants have achieved higher socio-economic developments than many of those in sub-Saharan black Africa in much of their respective histories. The recent exodus of many blacks from their communities in black Africa to the European Union (via the escape routes in North Africa), with numerous boats sinking off in the Italian coasts, only adds to the argument about the helplessness and underdevelopment of black communities around the world. The very fact that these black migrants try to flee their beloved black Africa to the European Union for a better life clearly says something loud and clear: Blaming white folks (in the history of European colonization) for the problems of black folks is not solving their problems at home. On the contrary, these black migrants are so eager to flee to the “white” countries in Europe, as they prefer these “white” countries over their own “black” homelands in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the end, America becomes a victim of its own credo, as the false ideology of “All men are created equal” has given black Americans the indulgent habit of mind to blame their problems on whites, just as it has given white Americans the self-defeating political correctness (partly due to “white guilt”) to shy away from the open debate on the biological differences among different races (in fear of being condemned as “racist” even before the dialogue can get off the ground).
The call for a “post-racial” America remains a soothing wishful thinking, unless both blacks and whites are willing to calmly sit down and to rationally debate about both socio-cultural and biological differences between them, as these differences truly reflect the rich, beautiful diversity of humanity. Just as there is nothing embarrassing for us to know that lions and rabbits are biologically different in the state of nature, there is likewise nothing shameful for us to accept that blacks and whites are biologically different, or for that matter, that men and women are biologically different, with consequences on how each group, on average, behaves, even when there are exceptions to the rule in all of them.
Yet, the false credo of “All men are created equal” suppresses any open dialogue about this rich, beautiful biological diversity of humanity. This current ideology of “equality” in the American credo becomes the new “God” of our time — but this “Almighty God is wrong,” very wrong indeed, and has caused human sufferings in the opposite direction from the previous one, when the old “God” of “inequality” inflicted its own version of sufferings around the world.
Thus is the tragedy of this American ideology, as the credo, in its essence, contains what I call, in the absence of a better word, “heterophobia,” that is, the fear of recognizing the biological differences on the basis of race (and, for that matter, of gender, ethnicity, and the like), even though these biological differences reflect the rich, beautiful diversity of humanity.
In this way, America becomes a victim of its own credo, a credo which has gone astray into absurdity and becomes tragic in creating new sufferings, in the new state of denial of reality (with the all-so-familiar socio-cultural excuses) — just as there were already so many human follies in the bygone ages.
This critique of the American credo is no idle academic exercise, as it has tremendous implications for the future of democracy, as the world is already gradually evolving towards the future state of what I originally proposed as “post-democracy” in THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY (2002) and the 2 volumes titled BEYOND DEMOCRACY TO POST-DEMOCRACY (2004).
Dr. Peter Baofu is the author of 77 books and 79 new theories, all of which provide a visionary challenge to conventional wisdom in the social sciences, the formal sciences, the natural sciences, and the humanities, with the aim for a “unified theory of everything” — together with numerous visions of the mind, nature, society, and culture in future history. For more info about his visions on the future of global affairs, see some of his 77 books, such as “The Future of Post-Human War and Peace” (2010), “Beyond the World of Titans, and the Remaking of World Order” (2007), “The Future of Post-Human Sports” (2013), “Beyond Nature and Nurture” (2006), “Beyond Civilization to Post-Civilization” (2006), “Beyond Capitalism to Post-Capitalism” (2005), “Beyond Democracy to Post-Democracy” (2004), “The Future of Capitalism and Democracy” (2002), the 2 volumes of “The Future of Human Civilization” (2000), and so on.