Republican: Yes, We're Racist

No, it doesn't. Several studies are in conflict with the one Rushton cited.

Cognitive Development in Infancy by John Oates and Sue Sheldon p. 27:

In retrospect, the Geber and Dean report is so flawed with regard to choice and administration of examination procedures, use of comparison groups, and data analysis and reporting that it is no longer convincing (Super, 1980; Warren, 1972). More importantly, several later studies have found no difference in neurological maturity between African groups and Euro-American norms of comparison samples. Warren and Parkin’s study (1974), also carried out in Kampala, is the most thorough and it challenges both the facts and logic of the original report. The normal presence of neonatel reflexes has also been found by Griffiths (1969), Konner (1972), Freedman (1974, Vouilloux (1959a), Brazleton, Koswolski, and Tronick (1976), Keefer, Dixon, Tronick, and Brazelton (1978 ) and Super (unpublished data), using samples from South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Zambia, and Kenya. The very few reports that do not clearly support this view lack sufficient detail for adequate interpretation (Vincent & Hugon, 1962).

Indeed. Arguing with a racialist is like arguing with a creationist. They will ignore the research that invalidates their claims and nitpick at every little detail of their discredited scholarship in a vein attempt to prove their claims have scientific validity. In reality their research is not science, it's propaganda.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. - Rory Coker, Ph.D.

The first thing that struck me when I read Rushton’s work was how anyone today could possibly believe that
“civilization” was an organic property rooted in the innate constitution of certain people. Civilization is a property
of social history; genetic microevolution is too slow to account for it, and a century of acculturation studies
has shown how readily “civilization” is transmitted independently of the gene pool.

The argument that civilization is a genetic property was a self-serving justification for political evils ranging
from colonialism to genocide. Anthropology fought that battle many decades ago. To deny it today is like arguing
that the acceleration due to the earth’s gravity is not 32 feet/second/second but more like 26. Rushton’s work is
thus akin to modern creationism, but it claims paradoxically to speak on behalf of Darwin. This makes it important
to expose it for the quackery it is. The bane of such quackery is the rigorous use of scientific controls, and the better the controls, the weaker Rushton’s arguments about race, biology, and intelligence are empirically. - Jonathan Marks


Of course racism is an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology. Even if Scientific Racism were proven to be valid it does not justify racism.

 

Nisbett didn't omit East Asian adoption studies and studies showing IQ of adopted children drops in adulthood (destroying his argument on environmental impact on IQ)?

Oh, yeah, he did omit that.

 

Now get to the part where study after study discussing motor coordination differentials between White and Black children is discussed.

As opposed to confirmed frauds like Franz Boas and Stephen Jay Gould. Oh, no, you couldn't possibly be suffering an acute case of confirmation bias and myopia.

No sirree bob.

Perhaps you'll explain why your scholar, Nisbett, completely omitted the research showing adult IQ being around 80% heritable?

Oh, wait, that completely refutes his fudging of childhood Black and White IQ, doesn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

Please find a study, where actual measurements were taken, showing Blacks and Whites having same brain volume/head size.

 

Whyare you only interested in slavery when Whites do it? Didn't every race practice far worse forms, including your precious Negroes, and weren't Whites the first to end slavery? Didn't Arab slavers castrate the ten times greater number of Negro slaves they captured? Didn't Arabs force Whites into sexual slavery? Why do only Negroes get low IQs after being made slaves?

 

No, he didn't omit anything. Instead of parroting Rushton why don't you cite these adoption studies you're talking about and I will address them.

It says that in many African countries parents teach their kids how to sit and walk at an earlier age than is expected of babies in America. Child rearing has a major impact on the motor skills of infants. It's not some immutable evolutionary difference between races that can be placed along the r-K continuum as Rushton would have it (a discredited idea).

Why don't you just come out and admit your blatant anti-semitism with your highlighting of Gould's surname.

Got a source?

He didn't fudge anything. You're just parroting that racist quack Rushton.

He doesn't have to do that. Just read the Lieberman article that completely debunks racial hierarchies in brain size. And stop making excuses for not reading it. If you have criticisms list your criticisms.

How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001

I'm opposed to all slavery and you know full well that slavery isn't the only reason for low Black IQ scores. There's also the matter of decades of segregation that ensured that Blacks would be poorer on average than Whites many years after it ended.

 

Probably because that's where the problem was in this country, and it's this country that we're talking about.

"your precious Negroes"?? My...how white of you to say that. Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others. I think you've proven that definition to a tee. The hate and contempt you have oozes out of that single statement.

As for ("your precious" ) Whites ending the practice, the practice that they began here in this country, who else would end it? The Slaves?? I can imagine how far a slave revolt would get and the bloodshed that would result. In fact the resistance to that idea was so strong, among whites in one section of the country that a civil war was fought. So...yeah it was ended. But it cost over 600,000 lives to do it.

Don't know. Did they? And if they did, what does that have to do with what took place in America?

Again, what does that have to do with slavery in America? Are you excusing what took place here, because of what took place in another part of the world?

Where did you come up with this priceless gem? Who exactly did the study on various slave groups in the world and their relative IQ's and what century was that done? We didn't have slaves of other races in this country. Only blacks.

Ok...so we get it. You're another racist with a chip on his bigoted shoulder.

 

'Blacks were slaves - that's why they have low IQs' has to be the most transparently false anti-White argument going. It's really horribly offensive. Blacks everywhere have low IQs. Everybody had slaves. But you only want to focus on bashing Whites ('because it's this country' ???). Why is that? Where does this unproven accusation come from? Communist Jews? Are the Jews going to mix with Negroes now?

 

^_- you should read a little closer before you get too giddy and post. Graham said the country has racist elements, and acknowledged that they exist in his party. But of course, you're going to jump up and down when a GOP senator says that there's racism in his party and act like he's enlightened, but when he says it's in the Democrat party too he's just mistaken, right?

 

It isn'y 'anti-Semitism' because Jews really are massively overrepresented in Marxist frauds in academia.

So why do Blacks everywhere have low IQs?

 

What exactly was the purpose of his use of bold type with Gould? What was the significance of highlighting the guy last name? It's like these guys that write Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

You know the objective here appears to be toss out an absurd theory that when examined is falsified, and then nitpick every comma by claiming that it was omitted in the falsification. It's a crude attempt at a Scientific justification for their immorality and irrationality. If they can dress up their racism in a lab coat, they can hope to legitimize their hate as being logical. It's not too different from trying to make Creationism a legitimate science.

 

Please refrain from ad hominem arguments against posters as they contravene site TOS. (and are hypocritical and lame)

Gould is part of a long line of Jewish Communist frauds in anthropology, such as Kamin, Rose, Lewontin, Montague, Boas, Lieberman, etc. etc. Needless to say it's established they are frauds independently of the fact that they are Jews. Nevertheless the common thread of Jewishness is notable.

 

I don't think it's the Democrats that are holding up an immigration bill. They are 100% on board with it. Lets face some facts. The Democrats are about Civil Rights, and the Republicans are about States Rights. In the Republican view, I'm pretty sure that States Rights trump Civil Rights. Am I wrong about that?

 

Perhaps you could ask the poster that did it. I guess because he's a well known Jewish Communist fraud and a laughing stock in anthropology and psychometrics.

Ad hominem attacks reported.

 

My guess is that it is because Gould had some Jewish ancestry. White Supremacists like Rayznack and Mikemikev are not fond of the Jews.

I've heard posters like them claim that any scholar who has Jewish ancestry is by default not trustworthy. It's just like people who try to make a muslim connection with Obama. It's really a desperate and pathetic attempt to discredit them.

I agree. Even though Creationism is bad science I have more respect for a Creationist than I do a Racialist. At least most of them are trying to defend a religion that has positive qualities. Racialists are doing nothing but trying to promote an evil, racist ideological agenda which is incredibly disgusting. Some of these people have even tried to argue that Blacks are not fully human and try to pass that off as legitimate science.

 

Communism is destructive and false. It appeals to man's baser instincts of jealousy. It is far easier for Negroes to blame White people rather than take reponsibility for themselves, which they can't. The Negro everywhere is in the same condition and you might as well blame White people for Earthquakes.

 

Are you still of the opinion that Black people are subhuman and more beastial due to genetic affinity with Apes?

 

So then, it was meant to highlight his...how do you put it..."Jewishness"? But you said this; "It isn'y 'anti-Semitism' because Jews really are massively overrepresented in Marxist frauds in academia" ( Notice how I emphasized your statement in Bold type) So the bold type was in fact used inform everyone that Gould is Jewish. Maybe he should just wear a yellow star on his coat to make it easier. And you are telling us that this isn't anti-Semitic? Do you ever bother to read what you write? And do you understand what you write?

 

I clearly stated that genetic affinity with apes would make one genetically less human, although not necessarily phenotypically, and not subhuman. You are now slandering me and looking for a sanction.

 

That's the same thing....

 

Wearing a gold star would be anti-Semitic, and of debatable value. I'm not saying anti-Semitism is always a bad idea. Of course I didn't say anything about gold stars so this seems like an unusually facile and childish strawman. I'm stating facts about Gould and Jewish involvement in anthropology. Facts cannot be 'anti', they are neutral.

 

Do you know what a Genetic Fallacy is? A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It's like you're telling me, people like Gould are frauds because you call them Jewish Communists. Then you tell me that they are frauds and their being Jewish has nothing to do with it. However the Jewishness is notable. And you think that this fraudulent line of reasoning that you're using actually works?

 

What makes it easier? And do you think that it's a genetic thing that makes them, as you say, incapable of taking responsibility for themselves?

 

No, they are established as frauds and then classified as Jewish frauds. And then when you add up all of the Jewish frauds you see that there is a lot of them. That isn't 'anti-Semitism' or a 'genetic fallacy'. Where did I say 'X is Jewish therefore wrong'? Oh right, nowhere except in your slanderous mind.

 

Yeah, you're quite mistaken. Almost entirely because it's an oversimplification.