- TO: WHOM IT MAY
CONCERN
- DATE: November
4, 1996
- RE: STATEMENT ON
RACE (for distribution)
I am issuing this statement to a
wide range of media and interested
parties in response to the recent
Knight-Ridder article out of
Washington which argues that race has
no validity as a biological concept
when applied to man (see *Genetic
Basis For Race Just Skin Deep* :
October 13, 1996).
I refuted this widely disseminated
statement locally (including an
appearance on the John Oakley TV
talk-show, October 24, 1996 and in a
letter appearance on the John Oakley
TV talk-show, October 24, 1996 and in
a letter to The Toronto Star, October
28, 1996). However, the never-ending
disinformation campaign attempting to
deconstruct race as a biological
concept, needs to be countered by a
careful examination of what we do know
about human variation.
I urge academicians, journalists,
and editorialists to review the
evidence presented here before
offering any further comment on this
controversial topic. If nothing else,
those in academia and the media need
to be aware that major efforts are
being made throughout Europe to stifle
free discussion of race by tightening
so-called "hate-laws" and in
North America by restricting the way
research can be conducted (and funded)
and that implementation of these
policies threatens the general
principles of free speech, open
inquiry, and academic freedom and
tenure.
STATEMENT
ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
J. Philippe Rushton
(November 4, 1996)
Discussion of "race"
shows little sign of diminishing,
despite efforts to deconstruct the
concept. Deconstructing the concept of
race not only conflicts with people's
tendency to classify and build family
histories according to common descent
but also ignores the work of
biologists studying non-human species.
Ever since 1758, when the Swedish
naturalist Carolus Linnaeus created
the classification system still used
in biology today, most zoologists have
recognized at least the four human
subdivisions Linnaeus delineated:
Asians, American Indians, Europeans,
and Africans. (Technically, some would
group the first two Linnaean
subdivisions together, thus yielding
three major races, often termed,
mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids.)
Such high-level classifications do not
rule out making finer, hierarchical
subdivisions within these major
groups.
A race is what zoologists term a
variety or subdivision of a species.
Each race (or variety) is
characterized by a more or less
distinct combination of inherited
morphological, behavioral,
physiological traits. In flowers,
insects, and non-human mammals,
zoologists consistently and routinely
study the process of racial
differentiation. Formation of a new
race takes place when, over several
generations, individuals in one group
reproduce more frequently among
themselves than they do with
individuals in other groups. This
process is most apparent when the
individuals live in diverse geographic
areas and therefore evolve unique,
recognizable adaptations (such as skin
color) that are advantageous in their
specific environments.
But differentiation also occurs
under less extreme circumstances.
Zoologists and evolutionists refer to
such differentiated populations as
races. (Within the formal taxonomic
nomenclature of biology, races are
termed subspecies). Zoologists have
identified two or more races
(subspecies) in most mammalian
species. Unless one is a religious
fundamentalist and believes that man
was created in the image and likeness
of God, it is foolish to believe that
human beings are exempt from
biological classification and the laws
of evolution that apply to all other
life forms. Of course, individuals
vary greatly within each racial group
and should be treated as such.
Nonetheless, much has been learned by
studying the statistical differences
between the various human races.
In my book Race, Evolution, and
Behavior (1995, Transaction
Publishers), as well as in other
recent writings (e.g., the February
1996 issue of Current Anthropology), I
review the behavioral, morphological,
and physiological differences between
the three major human races --
mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid --
and show that these statistical
differences are constant across both
historical time, national boundaries,
and political and economic systems.
Here I will briefly summarize the
findings. Asians and Africans
consistently aggregate at opposite
ends, with Europeans intermediate, on
a continuum that includes over 60
anatomical and social variables. These
60 variables include brain size,
intelligence, sexual habits,
fertility, personality, temperament,
speed of maturation, and longevity. If
race were an arbitrary,
socially-constructed concept, devoid
of all biological meaning, such
consistent relationships would not
exist.
Those objecting to the concept of
race argue that the taxonomic
definitions are arbitrary and
subjective. Although critics are
correct to point out that the
variation within each race is
extremely large, that there is
disagreement as to exactly how many
races there are, and that there is a
blurring of category edges because of
admixture, they are in error when they
claim that classifications are
arbitrary. For example, race-critic
Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of
Discover Magazine, surveyed half a
dozen geographically variable traits
and formed very different races
depending on which traits he picked.
Classifying people using anti-malarial
genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint
patterns, or skin color resulted in
the Swedes of Europe being placed in
the same category as the Xhosa and
Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan,
and the Italians of Europe.
Jared Diamond's classifications,
however, are arbitrary and nonsensical
because they have little, if any,
predictive value beyond the initial
classification. More significantly,
they confuse the scientific meaning of
race, that is, a recognizable (or
distinguishable) geographic
population. In everyday life, as in
evolutionary biology, a "negroid"
is someone whose ancestors were born
in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise
for a "caucasoid" and a
"mongoloid." This definition
fits with the temporal bounds offered
by the best current theory of human
evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens
first appeared in Africa about 200,000
years ago, branched off into Europe
about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia
70,000 years after that, a "negroid"
is someone whose ancestors, between
4,000 and (to accommodate recent
migrations) 20 generations ago, were
born in sub-Saharan Africa -- and
likewise, for a caucasoid and a
mongoloid. Social definitions -- that
is, self-identification and
other-identification actually accord
quite well with the physical evidence.
Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids
can be distinguished on the basis of
obvious differences in skeletal
morphology, hair and facial features,
as well by blood groups and DNA
fingerprints.
Forensic anthropologists regularly
classify skeletons of decomposed
bodies by race. For example, narrow
nasal passages and a short distance
between eye sockets identify a
caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones
characterize a mongoloid person, and
nasal openings shaped like an upside
down heart typify a negroid person. In
certain criminal investigations, the
race of a perpetrator can be
identified from blood, semen, and hair
samples. To deny the predictive
validity of race at this level is
nonscientific and unrealistic.
The mean pattern of educational and
economic achievement within
multi-racial countries such as Canada
and the United States has increasingly
been found to prove valid
internationally. For example, it is
not often recognized, perhaps because
it contradicts the politically correct
theories that intelligence is purely a
matter of socio-economic conditions,
that Asian-Americans and Asians in
Asia often outscore white Americans
and white Europeans on IQ tests and on
tests of educational achievement (even
though the tests were largely
developed by Europeans and white
Americans for use in a Euro-American
culture).
Blacks in the Caribbean, Britain,
Canada and sub-Saharan Africa as well
as in the United States have low IQ
scores relative to whites. For violent
crime, analyses of INTERPOL data from
the 1980s and 1990s show the same
international distribution that occurs
within the United States (that is,
Asians least, Europeans in the middle,
and Africans most). A similar racial
gradient is found both within the U.S.
and globally for measures of sexual
activity and frequencies of sexually
transmitted diseases such as AIDS
(based on World Health Organization
data).
One neurohormonal contributor to
crime and reproductive behavior is
testosterone. Studies show that black
college students and military veterans
have 3% to 19% more testosterone than
their white counterparts. The Japanese
have even lower amounts than whites.
Sex hormones are circulated throughout
the body and are known to activate
many brain-behavior systems involving
aggression and reproduction. For
example, around the world the rate of
dizygotic twinning per 1,000 births
(caused by a double ovulation), is
less than 4 among Asians, 8 among
Europeans, and 16 or greater among
Africans. The differences in multiple
birthing are known to be heritable
through the race of the mother
regardless of the race of the father,
as found in Asian/European matings in
Hawaii and European/African matings in
Brazil.
Publication of The Bell Curve
brought widespread public attention to
the research on race that has been
accumulating over the last 30 years in
technical and specialist journals that
demonstrably challenges each and every
article of the dogma of biological
egalitarianism. Startling, and
alarming to many, is the conclusion
that follows from these data that if
all people were treated the same, most
average race differences would not
disappear. With egalitarianism under
siege, there has been a major effort
to get the "race genie" back
in the bottle, to squeeze the
previously tabooed toothpaste back
into the tube, to suppress or deny the
latest scientific evidence on race,
genetics, and behavior.
Regardless of the extent to which
the media promote "politically
correct," but scientifically
wrong, resolutions from professional
societies such as the American
Anthropological Association, facts
remain facts and require appropriate
scientific, not political,
explanation. On average, the Chinese,
Koreans, and Japanese are more similar
to each other and are different from
Australians, Israelis and the Swedes,
who in turn are similar to each other
and are different from Nigerians,
Kenyans, and Jamaicans. None of this
should be construed as meaning that
environmental factors play no part
individual development. But with each
passing year and each new study, the
evidence for the genetic contribution
to individual and group differences
becomes more firmly established than
ever.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J. Philippe Rushton is a John Simon
Guggenheim Fellow and a professor of
psychology at the University of
Western Ontario in London, Ontario
N6A 5C2 Canada. He holds two
doctorates from the University of
London (PhD and DSc) and is a Fellow
of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and of the
American, British, and Canadian
Psychological Associations. His
latest book Race, Evolution, and
Behavior (1995, Transaction
Publishers, telephone 908-445-2280)
details the theories and data
summarized in this article.
