Alt Left: Anatomy of Two Chinese Stereotypes: Greediness and Lack of Aesthetic Taste

Thinking Mouse:

What do you make of the stereotype that Chinese are greedy amoral worker drones with no aesthetic taste and little emotion?

Lot of truth to those things. Let’s take these one by one here. We previously discussed amorality and stoicism or lack of emotion, so let us look at greediness and lack of aesthetic taste. I will also look at Jews as many Chinese stereotypes are Jewish stereotypes as well.

 

Greediness

 

The Chinese are white collar criminals, and they are amoral in that sense. Very similar to the Jews. It may be the case that any group with IQ’s markedly higher than the majority will not only grab most of the money under capitalism but will also be profoundly ruthless and amoral in how they go about it, often to the point of basically being a race of white collar criminals, which is what I would call Chinese and Jews.

Both Chinese and Jews are viewed as being fanatically money-oriented, materialistic, and aggressively driven to succeed at all costs. As the Jews have their Jewish mothers and uncles with pinky rings, so the Chinese have the newly created Tiger Moms

Lack of Aesthetic Taste

 

You can make the lack of aesthetic taste argument about all those other Chinese-influenced societies. The Chinese or Japanese artist is deliberately spare and seems at first glance to be drawing excessively, shall we say, modest paintings. It is as if the Asian artist feels ashamed of artistic talent and is deliberately dumbing down in his art so as to not appear better than others.

Nevertheless, artists have told me that Chinese and Japanese art is excellent in its own spare, somewhat minimalist, and certainly modest sense.

Both Chinese and Japanese have taken to modern literature, the Japanese in particular in terms of fiction. But both races have early traces of fiction in the form of epic tales that are basically novels extending back centuries, even to 1000. Think of The Tale of the Genji or Water Margin for Japanese and Chinese respectively.

Japanese invented a very interesting, spare, minimal, “shy”, and modest or self-effacing form of poetry called the haiku, which in its own way reaches to the peaks of literature.

The Japanese also took up Western or rock music. Many excellent rock bands of all sorts have come out of Japan. The Chinese, like the Italians, have been entertaining themselves via operas forever.

Alt Left: A Little Respect Goes a Long Way

Jason: I hate to play the devil’s advocate, but sometimes women, children, men are asking for violence. In other words, without a culture of fear, these people would become so tyrannical as to be worse than possible people who would punch them.

I have always said that the world of men or Man World operates on a Terror Principle. The glue that holds the whole damn thing together is what I call “the threat of a punch in the face.” We men are so violent. Many of us men are terrified of other men. There are countless rules in Man World, and when you break some of them, the penalty can be a punch in the face or worse. I’m nice and decent to men and follow the rules of Man World mostly so other guys won’t punch me in the face.
Or worse!
As a result, I have gotten into quite a few fistfights with other men. Hell, I still get into about one fistfight a year, and I’m 60 years old! I have pulled large knives on and pepper sprayed other men, been roughed up by cops a couple of times, had detectives threaten to beat confessions out of me in their office. I took a baseball bat and smashed someone’s front door down with it. I’ve made bombs that blew up car windshields and firebombs that set lawns on fire. I’ve slashed people’s tires. I’ve turned cars upside down with groups of other men. I’ve blown out glass doors with slingshots.
I’m not bragging here but I know just how dangerous men are. Hell, I’m even dangerous myself! How’s that for confirmatory evidence?
And I am actually a pretty pacifistic fellow. It’s just that I don’t take any shit from anyone, and I believe in paybacks. Almost all of the above, someone attacked me first or harmed me in some serious way.
Women sure act a lot better when they defer to men and are afraid of us. I run into this all the time, even with teenage girls. They defer to me and act a bit like they are afraid of me. As a result of this fear, they defer and are also very nice and almost submissive. My end of the deal is to be very nice back to them, a perfect gentleman.
It’s as if they are saying, “I am afraid of you, so I will defer to you and act submissive to you. In return please don’t hit me or kill me and please be nice to me.”
The men say, “Thank you for your deference and submissiveness. I will be very kind and gentlemanly to you as a result.”
It works perfectly. They have their end of the deal to uphold, and I have my end of the deal to uphold. If I act like a dick, they’re free to turn into bitches real fast, which most of them will do, and is their right.
This is how civilization works. Notice how Japanese women or sometimes even men bow in front of you when they meet you. Everybody’s pretty much kissing everyone else’s ass all the time. It may seem degrading and humiliating, but if people are always kissing your own ass too, it’s no big deal. I kiss other people’s ass; they kiss my ass, no problem.
You end up with a very polite society – so polite it is almost neurotic and too polite. It is sort of a transactional thing. People are cutting these ass kissing deals (shows of pure respect) and in response, the person who received the pure respect has to be grateful for the respect and kind to the person who gave it to him.
The Japanese almost like Blacks in a way in that they think the worst thing is to “diss” someone. It’s just that if you diss a Japanese, he will just think you are either a caveman or barely human, almost on the level of a dog and he will act disgusted with you. When you diss a Black man, he puts a bullet in your head. In both cases though, it’s quite clear. Humans, especially males, demand respect. When it’s not given to them, it can be an unpretty picture.

The Truth about Africa, Immigration, and IQ

I have nothing to add here.

Tim Watkins: Immigration patterns are obviously backwards, of what they should be. People should be going from high IQ countries to low IQ countries…from Japan, China, Germany, etc…to Africa…increasing the number of high IQ humans in African countries, to help them solve their problems.
The problem in South Africa was not too many whites. It was too few Whites…Whites felt threatened by the large black majority, so they acted like racist assholes. That doesn’t change the fact that high IQ Whites basically provide all the professionals to make a modern economy run in Africa.
So in African nations the people who are generally the smartest are the ones that leave to emigrate to high IQ countries. This helps countries like the United States but hurts the African countries who can’t afford to lose high IQ people. An example of this was President Obama’s dad, who was a champion African scholar.
Liberals encourage the economic devastation and slow pace of improving the lives of Africans by encouraging Africans to immigrate to America. Liberals do this because they claim, “we are not racist”…but if racism is defined as doing things which hurt other races, then liberals are the most racist people among the White population.
If Africa had 25% of it’s population as Japanese, or Chinese, or White…its problems would very quickly disappear. The biggest problem Africa is facing is not environmental degradation, it’s not poverty, it’s not lack of money, it’s not lack of resources, or anything else…it’s lack of smart people.
Sorry liberals…but that’s the truth. Get your head out of the sand. Your so-called “anti-racism” leads to an awful lot of suffering among our fellow humans in Africa.

 

Honesty Is Overrated

Let me tell you a story. For the first five years I lived here, my landlord always acted like she hated me, and I just smiled and pretended to like her back. I cannot afford to make this woman mad. I cannot afford to be sincere with her. In my case, sincerity would have gotten me thrown out of this place long ago. Sincerity, like honestly, is overrated.
For instance, in the US we have this idiot attitude that we are supposed to be honest all the time and never lie. Not only is that unrealistic, but in a lot of cases, it’s downright stupid. In many cases, the only smart thing to do is lie. Forced with lying and telling the truth, lying is clearly the smarter case in many situations. Being honest in those situations is sort of suicidal. You are deliberately causing problems in your life just to carry the torch for Sincerity. What’s the point? Is your name Jesus? Why do you have to be honest all the time?
The Japanese are very smart about this, and much of their culture is based on strategic lying. They often lie in order to be polite. You tell a Japanese man that you never lie and he will laugh right in your face and call you a fool. Because of course that is exactly what you are.
Many Americans, for some idiot reason, like to tell people that they never lie. That in itself is of course a lie.
Sometimes this lie is necessary. For instance, in dating. In heterosexual dating, women typically demand honest men. Go on dating sites. “No liars! No players! Honest men only!” If you talk to women in this context (call it pre-dating), and I have talked to countless women in that context, you are often quizzed about whether or not you are honest.
If I am honest, I will have to say, “Of course not. I’m a big fat liar and proud of it. In fact, I am an excellent liar. You will rarely meet a liar as skilled as I am. I deserve a PhD in lying.”
But if I say that, I blow the potential date. So I lie and say that I am honest even to a fault. I say that I am so honest that my honesty gets me in trouble. I am an innocent babe in the woods, ignorant of worldly ways. If she thinks I am a fool for doing that, then I just adjust the lie and admit to white lies, lies of omission and  strategic lying. A number of Americans are uncomfortable accepting of those sorts of good lies, but it’s clear that for an American, the very idea that there are good lies and bad lies opens up a huge can of worms that needs to stay sealed.
Seduction is all about lying anyway.

Japanese Would Rather Freeze than Be Impolite

In Japan, you leave a door open, and after a bit, people will start saying things like, “My, it certainly is cold in here, isn’t it?…Why is it so cold?…etc.” They may look at you pointedly when they say this. You are supposed to get the hint and go look at the door and figure out if you left it open or not.  They are so damn polite that they would rather sit in the cold than ask you to close the door!

Repost: What Do the Chinese Think of Blacks?

This is also getting posted around lately. There is a lot of talk on this site about racism, prejudice and ethnic conflicts that result from that all over the world, so I thought you might be interested in this. I hate to say it, but I do not think Chinese like Black people too much. There is also an excellent story of Chinese men staging an anti-Black race riot in China over Black men “stealing their women.” Most groups of men will not put up with another ethnic group taking their women. It is a primal thing.
Hacienda, a Korean nationalist commenter with an anti-White grudge, posts:

“…all those groups seriously hate blacks…”
One thing whites HAVE to stop doing:
Stop trying to be the spokespeople for other races. How the f+ck do you know that Chinese REALLY hate blacks!

I have spent a lot of time around Japanese and Koreans. They seriously hate Blacks, way, way, way, way worse than Whites do. They are like how we used to be. It’s pretty much the same with the East Indians in the US. And I know for a fact it’s true about Hispanics. It’s not that these people hate Blacks and Whites don’t, it’s just that they are vastly more racist than we are anymore. US Whites have lost a lot of their anti-Black racism lately. Things are far different than they were 30 or even 20 years ago.
I recall that during Mao’s era, the Maoist regime used to send bright Africans to college in China. The Chinese male students would chase them down the streets threatening to beat them up and calling them monkeys.
Also, a number of Blacks came to a university town in China recently. As might be expected, they were great players and were quickly cleaning up with the Chinese girls. They would throw parties in their apartments. Only Black men allowed. Only Chinese women allowed. No Chinese men allowed.
The Chinese male students at the university staged a wild, violent riot over the Blacks “stealing Chinese women.” Things got so bad that the Chinese government moved the Black students out of the city.
I also heard one Chinese guy from the Bay Area say that he and every Chinese person he knew in the Bay Area despised Blacks. Turned out that a number of them had been victims of violent crime. In every single case, the Chinese person was victimized by a Black criminal. This was the genesis of their rage.
Those anecdotes, along with the fact that Chinese racial supremacism probably mirrors the Japanese and Korean varieties, lead me to think that Chinese are not too wild about Blacks.
Heck, Chinese don’t even like other Asians. They don’t even like non-Han Asiatics who are their fellow citizens in China. I have had them tell me that Chinese means “Han.” Anyone in China who is not Han is “not Chinese.” Implication is that they are inferior. Even the Cantonese Yue are considered to be barbarians. They are somewhat off the hook as they have been Hanized, but not totally.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Another Way of Looking at IQ: Extra-IQ Factors

RL: Incidentally, two of the brightest commenters on my blog had IQ’s of 113 and 117. The 117 IQ guy was fantastic at philosophy and other forms of abstract thinking. The other fellow was into genetics and anthropology, but he thought in much the same way. A few of these types are so bright that you almost think that their score is wrong. I am not sure what is going on except maybe they are working their brains extra hard, or they have filled their brains up with all sorts of goodies.
Oops I did it again: Myers-Briggs (Jungian) type, life experiences, economic status, degree of neuroticism (“Work their wits hard”), the brain faculty we call “sensitivity”, the other we call “fantasy”, all are factors.

This is so correct. Jim Flynn wrote a book the premise of which was something like “factors above and beyond IQ.” He showed how 1st and 2nd Generation Northeast Asians in the US (mostly Japanese and Chinese) were often working at jobs up that usually required IQ’s 20 points above their level. In other words, a 100 IQ Japanese-American would be functioning on the job at the same level as a typical 120 IQ ordinary American. In other words, the NE Asians might have an IQ of 100, but on his on the job performance was the same as someone with a 120 IQ.
Flynn called these “extra-IQ factors.” In other words, on the job, IQ isn’t everything. I forget what the extra-IQ factors were but they seemed to be things like punctuality, responsibility, resilience, psychological stability, regular attendance, studiousness, reliability, seriousness, conscientiousness, hard working nature, and stick-to-it-iveness or what some are now calling “grit” which boils down to “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” or continuing to hammer away at a problem even after repeated failure – not giving up.
So you see there are personality factors that you can add to your IQ score so you perform at a higher level than your IQ would predict.
I was thinking of this in terms of Blacks, that maybe Blacks could cultivate some extra-IQ factors that would allow them to overcome some of their disadvantage due to lower average IQ. If an 85 IQ Black person could function on the job at the same level as we expect a 105 IQ person to perform at, I think the position of Blacks in the US could improve a lot. Unfortunately the wort of things that were helping the NE Asians were sort of “nerd factors, square factors, uptight factors” that Blacks just don’t seem to do well in, mostly because they look down on this sort of excessive seriousness.
Nevertheless, I am open to the idea of harnessing extra-IQ factors in Blacks to help them to perform better in school and work. Harnessing what seems to be their innate social skills and extroversion might be one of these things.
Myers-Briggs or Jungian personality type: Yes, certain personality types might help one perform above their IQ level.
Life experiences: Correct. Certain types of life experiences and lessons learned and skills gained from them could help push you above your IQ level.
Economic status: Yes, a higher economic status might help you to perform above your IQ level.
Degree of neuroticism or working their wits hard: Correct. Someone who pushes their brain into overdrive and characteristically pushes their mind and intellect to its limits in an almost challenge-testing near-athletic competitive manner could surely perform above their IQ level. I think I have seen some examples of this in my life.
Sensitivity as a brain factor: I could see how this would help you perform above your IQ level, but I am wondering just what this factor is.
Fantasy as a brain factor: If this means something like creativeness or open mindedness or the tendency to think outside the box, I could see how this would help you.

Where Did the Jomonese People Come from?

1gmakn
This East Timorese man looks more Aboriginal, or better yet, Papuan.

 

2dke141
A pseudo-Caucasoid or Ryukuyan type in East Timor.

 

3Atimor_t640

An Ainuid! What is this hairy Ainu man doing in East Timor?

Maricon Power writes:

Robert Lindsay, I do agree on many of your point. The only thing I don’t agree is that Jomons (ancestors of Ainu ) were descendants of the Jomonese Thailand in 16,000 YPB. You’re right that they descended from Southeast Asia but most likely that location is in southern Southeast Asia, maybe Timor.

”According to Hanihara, modern Japanese lineages began with Jomon people who moved into the Japanese archipelago during Paleolithic times from their homeland in southeast Asia.”

Ryukyuan
This map goes along with Maricon Power’s comment above. That pseudo-Caucasoid is, believe it or not a Ryukuyan Ainuid type.

 

681x454
Another pseudo-Caucasoid Ainuid type from East Timor. He’s even wearing a White man’s cowboy hat!

 

2705542765_bd4642eed1
Yet another pseudo-Caucasoid. That man simply looks like a White man, period. Amazing.
Asien Ost Timor Timor-Leste Maubisse Bergregion Minderheiten
An Ainu man in East Timor! Get a load of that getup, including the most amazing feather hast I have ever seen.

Hello, a study was done using many different Asian skulls. When plotted on a graph with all of the other skulls, Jomonese 13,000 was a perfect match for Thailand 16,000 (Proto-Thai). “Proto-Jomonese” types were probably widespread through SE Asia at the time. The types in Easts Timor and in Thailand are probably the same people.

cq5dam.web.460.306
Everyone who thinks that Australoids are all ugly needs to reconsider that view now. Look at this fellow. He’s an Australoid, sure. And he’s also quite exotic looking. But he’s incredibly handsome, at least to my eyes. Anyone agree?

 

maubisse-market06
Another Ainuid-looking fellow. Actually he looks more Aboriginal to me, but Ainu types also look Aboriginal.

 

timor-leste-PIC-4-man-in-costume-
There he is! An Ainu in East Timor. Does that garb resemble traditional Ainu clothing? I wonder.

How Do We Define a Race of Humans?

aircommodore writes:

Robert, you’ve probably done this already but can you please provide a definition for “race”?

Based on this post here, The Major and Minor Races of Man, where I divided humans up into four macro races, 11 major races and 115 minor races based on genetic distance. The questioner wants to know what my methodology is for determining what a race is and what it is not.

Here was my method and I must admit that my methodology was completely impressionistic in that I would just look at how far certain group[s were from each other to determine where they were racially. I didn’t have any strict figures that I was using (more sort of general ones) but I used the same basic distance for all groups.

At some certain X genetic distance, you a race. At some certain less than X distance, you have groups in the same race.

For instance, I created a South China Sea Race due to data showing that Filipinos, the Ami aborigines of Taiwan and the Guangdong or Hong Kong Han all formed a nice tight genetic race because they were so similar to each other. On the other hand, there is no Guangdong Han Race, Ami Race nor Filipino Race as they are all part of a larger group or actual race. I am not sure what you might call them – perhaps those three could be called ethnic groups.

On the other hand, the Puyuma Taiwan aborigines were far enough apart to even be in a separate race from the Ami.

The biggest races of all – the huge groups with the most genetic distance from each other, form Macro-Races such as Caucasians, Africans, Asians and Oceanians. Included within those groups are eleven Major Races the names of which elude me now as I forget what I called them. For instance, I believe I split Asians into Southeast Asians, Northeast Asians, and Amerindians because those three groups are so far apart that you really need to split them.

Within each Major Race, I split each one up in to a number of Minor Races. Within say Northeast Asians, I had the Japanese-Korean Race consisting of the Japanese, the Koreans and the Ainu because they are so close to each other genetically and they form a nice neat little cluster that is away from all other groups.

The Races of China and Japan

Pretty cool old anthropology article on the Chinese and Japanese races. It’s wrong in some ways, but it still has a lot that should be of value. Obviously such an article could not appear in any anthropology journal today, which is pitiful. Blame PC for that.

The Races of China and Japan

by Harry Paxton Howard

The China Weekly Review, Vol. 60 (12 March 1932), pp. 48–50

The Chinese and Japanese are two separate and distinct peoples, as separate and distinct as is the southern Italian from the Norwegian taken in the mass. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that they are of the same race, and indeed anyone at all familiar with the two peoples is readily able to distinguish between the general type. There is the lesser height of the Japanese (due mainly to shorter legs), the more rugged features, the sharper, longer, and narrower eyes (usually black as compared with the typical Chinese brown), the more brownish skin-color, the much greater frequency of beard.

On the other hand, there are certain sub-types which both peoples possess and which make it possible for thousands of Japanese in this country to pass as Chinese, while there are many pure Chinese who may be mistaken for Japanese. The reason for this is that each people is a mixture of different elements. Some of the elements are common to both peoples. Some elements one people possesses but not the other.

Chinese Racial Origins

Many anthropologists have devoted themselves to analyzing and distinguishing the racial elements in the two countries. Buxton, Li Chi, Shirokogoroff and some others have given special study to the Chinese people, and all distinguish different types among the population, as do also Haddon, Morant and others.

The most complete study to date is that made by Dr. Stevenson of the P.U.M.C. at Peiping, in his ‘Collected Anthropometric Data on the Chinese,’ showing at least two distinct types, though Stevenson is too cautious a scientist to state any definite conclusions as yet. And as regards racial origins in the North, the data given in Black’s study of skulls from prehistoric sites in Kansu and Honan suggest answers to some long-debated problems when considered in connection with some physical types already distinguished by different anthropologists.

First of all there is a Chinese type which is also found among the Manchus and by students is regarded as the fundamental ‘Manchu’ type. It is of short or medium stature, with broad head, low orbits (apparently associate with a long and narrow eye-slit), narrow nose often aquiline, frequently fair and ruddy skin. This type exists in Manchuria and in North China today, and is found further south as well.

Secondly, there is a type which, if placed side by side with the foregoing, will show marked differences. It is taller, with longer skull, wider forehead, higher orbits (‘rounder’ and more open eye), broader nose. It is frequent in North China, but is found to be predominant and characteristic among the Kham Tibetans of the territory adjoining Kansu.

The Primitive Mixture

The study of prehistoric skulls referred to above indicates the existence of these very types in the China of four thousand years ago. The earliest skulls, from Neolithic cities in Kansu and Honan, present ‘several suggestive similarities to Kham Tibetans’ though differing from more recent North China skulls in being longer, ‘with somewhat wide foreheads and longer skull bases, and slightly broader palates and lower orbits.’

The aspects in which these Neolithic skulls differ from the Kham Tibetans, however, are very significant. In addition to the Tibetan type, they include a type with broader head, narrow nose, and lower orbits. Such features are characteristic of the Manchu type referred to above, which fact leaves little doubt that the Neolithic people were a mixture of these Kham Tibetan and ‘Manchu’ types.

Judging from their later distribution, it is probable that the ‘Manchu’ type was more characteristic of the Honan communities, the Kham Tibetan type of those in Kansu, but the study referred to above, unfortunately, does not distinguish between the two localities, grouping them all together as ‘Yang Shao’ (Neolithic).

The Turkish Element

Others of these prehistoric communities, evidently later in date and showing the use of bronze in addition to stone, show the addition of another type which, combined with the previous ones, makes up a mixture hardly distinguishable from the Northern Chinese of more recent times. As previously stated, the primitive mixture differed from the more recent by its narrower skull, broader foreheads, and lower orbits. The new type evidently possessed a broader skull, with relatively narrower forehead and higher orbits.

These features are characteristic of the Turki, with their broad skull, long oval face, and generally non-Mongolian eyes. From the study mentioned…it would appear that the lower orbits are generally an Oriental characteristic. They are apparently associated with the longer, narrower eye. No other race in this part of the world seems to possess just these characteristics, and we know that the early home of the Turkish peoples was somewhere in the interior of Asia. It is an interesting confirmation of the theory held by many historical students (e.g., Hirth), on different grounds, that the Turkish element is present and is of some significance in China.

[It should be understood that the word Turki here refers not to the tribe, but to the racial stock. This stock is predominant among the Turkish peoples, though now apparently mixed with other elements.]

This element, indeed, would explain the presence of the occasional ‘hairy’ type among the Chinese. Most Chinese, like Mongolian peoples as a whole, have little hair either on face on body. The Turki, however, possess a plentiful beard, and a fair supply of hair on the body as well, in distinct contrast to the Mongolian peoples. We find some Chinese possess beards and growth of hair on the body, and the Turkish element would account for this. Hairiness, indeed, is a distinguishing feature of Chinese Moslems, who quite clearly have a strong non-Mongolian element in them.

Four Types

This Turkish element seems to have come in together with bronze in the legendary period just preceding more definite history. The early Hsiung-nu (on the plains to the north of the Yellow River in ancient China) appear to have been Turkish, and Hirth believes that the Chou Dynasty was of Turkish origin. It was apparently in the second millennium B.C. that this element became mixed with the Kham Tibetans and Manchu types referred to above, producing a mixture similar to that of North China today.

There is, however, a fourth type, of the presence of which Chinese history leaves no doubt whatsoever – the Mongol. This type, distinguished from the mass of Chinese by the lowness of the Mongol head and breadth of the face and head, as well as the little flat nose and low stature, has apparently existed for long in the Chinese mixture. Its coming into China was during the historic period, with one invasion after another by Mongol peoples (as well as by others) during the past two thousand years.

There may be distinguished, therefore, four racial types of some importance in North China,— the Manchu, the Kham Tibetan, the Turki, and the Mongol. These four elements, with their combinations, seem to account for every type of any frequency in North China and are found further south as well.

It should be noted however, that three of the types, judging from their present-day representatives, possess certain essential characters of the Mongolian group – hair straight, black, and scanty on face and body; eyes usually relatively long and narrow, generally brown in color, and commonly with the characteristic Mongolian eye-fold; skin color varying from yellowish-white to yellow-brown, though there are fair and ruddy complexions also.

The Turki are closer to the Caucasian owing to their abundant hair on face and body, frequently if not typically wavy; eyes generally full and round (though often – apparently through admixture – with Mongolian fold); skin color from pinkish-white to brown.

The South

The above-named elements are characteristic of North China, but they extend into the South as well. Here, however, they come into contact with other types rarely found among natives of the North. First of all there is an element with wavy or even curly hair, open and round non-Mongolian eye, short stature but relatively long legs, long and narrow head, and broad nose. These characters, which set this type distinctly apart from the Mongolian races, belong to many southern aborigines as well as Chinese, distinguishing a race which Buxton and Haddon link up with the Indonesians or Nesiots.

There is still another element present in the South, a quite different race but now generally mixed with other types – the Negrito. This type is characterized by its woolly hair, very short stature, very dark skin and broad nose, and full or thick lips. Li Chi and other anthropologists have pointed out indications of such a type.

It appears indeed, that the occasionally curly-haired Chinese in the south is usually a cross between this woolly-haired type and either the wavy-haired Indonesian or straight-haired Mongolian element. And other Negroid characters such as prognathism, black skin, pigmentation of the eye, the full or even thick lips also occur. Negrito peoples still exist scattered over a considerable area in southeastern Asia and the adjoining islands, and probably at one time occupied a much greater part of southeastern Asia than at present.

Stevenson believes there is still another type present in the South which he terms Polynesian, rather similar to the Indonesian but with finer and more prominent features.

The Chinese Mixture

There are therefore several races or sub-races among the Chinese people. There is indeed little agreement among anthropologists as to what constitutes a race, some defining 19 or 20, others 40-60, among the peoples of the earth.

There is wide agreement among competent anthropologists, however, as to certain broad divisions of the human species, and Boas…recognizes two main divisions, the Caucasian-Mongolian and the Afro-Australian.

In the first division the Mongolians have straight black hair, flat or broad face, Mongolian eye-fold, frequently yellowish (though often fair, ruddy, or brown) skin color. The Caucasian hair is often wavy or curly and of lighter color, and the Mongolian eye-fold and yellowish skin color are ordinarily absent. The most fundamental distinction between the two however is the relative hairiness of the Caucasian and the hairlessness (on face and body) of the Mongolian.

The Blacks of the second division differ from both members of the first division by their woolly or frizzly hair, their black skin (with a degree of pigmentation which even affects the eye), their frequently thick and everted lips, and by actual bodily proportions, the Negro leg being differently formed from that of ‘White’ or ‘Yellow’ man. The most marked point of distinction between Negro and Australian is the relative hairiness of the latter and the fact that this hair is not woolly but curly or frizzly.

Of these four main physical divisions of mankind we find the Mongolian most common in China. The extent of the Caucasian element depends upon how the Indonesian and Turkish types are classified. Some group the Indonesians with Caucasians because of their wavy or curly hair and open, round, non-Mongolian eye. Elliott Smith groups them together with the Mediterranean peoples as the Brown Race. The Turki are also a people regarding whose classification there is a difference of opinion, their straight black hair making it possible to group them with the Mongolians, while its abundance and their lack of other specifically Mongolian characters marks them as Caucasian.

Besides the Mongolian and Caucasian elements in China, there is only the Negrito, which is slight. We find, therefore, six recognized types in China, three being Mongolian – the Mongol, Manchu, and Kham Tibetan (though Morant thinks the last-named type is not Mongolian at all – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasian – the Turki and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito. There are some other rather infrequent physical types not yet clearly defined and classified.

Japanese Racial Origins

The racial analysis of the Japanese is in some ways easier than that of the Chinese owing to their being concentrated in a very much smaller area and owing to their being a more recent mixture of which the various elements are still fairly distinct in many cases. Three thousand years ago the ‘North China’ type seems to have already been formed, with its Manchu, Tibetan, and Turkish elements, but nothing whatever is known of the Japanese at that period. In the next thousand years the Chinese penetrated into the south and mixed with the Indonesian and other non-Mongolian elements there, but still nothing is known of the Japanese.

There are indications however that while this continual push to the southward was taking place on the mainland, there were movements in a northerly direction off and along the coast. Just when this movement of a southern maritime people reached Kyushu, the big southern island of Japan, we do not know, but it was probably not much before the Christian era. The present distribution of physical types in Japan, however, and their outside associations permit us to outline roughly the development which took place there just as we have done for China.

The early natives of the Japanese islands were the short, fair-skinned, hairy, non-Mongolian people known as the Ainu, now found, in fairly pure form in their communities only in Hokkaido, the most northerly of the three big islands but probably occupying practically the whole of the main island (Hondo) two thousand years ago. This people, whose affinities are Caucasian and who indeed show much resemblance to certain Russian types, were steadily driven north by the invasion from the south, continuing for century after century.

Negritos and Malays

In Kyushu there may have been another element – Negrito – prior to the maritime invasion. The wide territory over which the Negritos are scattered and the probability that they formerly occupied a much greater area than at present has already been referred to. At the present time, as regards Japan, this type seems more common in Kyushu than elsewhere, though it is scattered through the islands, and clearly recognizable Negroid or specifically Negrito types can be noted, though generally mixed with other elements.

In speaking of the Japanese types, our task is simplified by the fact that most of the racial types have already been defined for China. When we speak of the Malays therefore we can state the general type by simply noting that anthropologists tend to regard this type as a mixture of the Indonesian peoples with a Mongolian element from the north. The Mongolian element is shown more specifically in the eyes; the Indonesian in the short stature and occasionally wavy hair. The Malays themselves therefore are an ancient mixture – how old we do not know, though perhaps more recent than the early North China mixture.

This brown Malay element is probably the most important type in Japan, but for fully two thousand years it has been mixed with the Negrito, and also with types from the Asiatic mainland via Korea. These mainland types are of interest here.

Manchus and Ainus

The earliest known center of civilization in Japan was at a point opposite Korea where certain types evidently came across from the mainland. Among these types there was the ‘Manchu’ type which has already been defined, and probably the ‘North China’ type which had already been formed from the mixture of different elements previously referred to. There are Malay and other elements in Korea also.

Of these elements, the Manchu-Korean appears to have left the widest traces in Japan. Though there was some Chinese migration both in prehistoric and historic times, this was not sufficient in quantity or contained too little of the tall Kham Tibetan type, to affect the short Malay physique to any extent. The ‘Chinese type’ however is distinctly present in Japan, though its proportion to the whole is apparently not great.

Far more important than the Chinese element was that of the White aborigines, the savage Ainu.

As the Japanese people (mainly Malay but mixed with Negrito, some Manchu-Korean, and a slighter Chinese element) advanced northward in their steady conquest of the islands, they exterminated, enslaved, or absorbed those of the natives who did not give war before them. They certainly absorbed a very large number of them, as is shown today by the frequency of individuals with Ainu characteristics among the Japanese.

Most recognizable is the Ainu hairiness. Some have estimated that the Japanese people of today are more than one-third Ainu, though this figure is probably too high.

The Japanese Mixture

When we consider the four main physical divisions of mankind already referred to we find the Japanese are a quite different mixture from the Chinese.

While the Malay element is apparently of most importance, this must itself be divided into Mongolian and Indonesian. Another Mongolian element is seen in the Manchu-Korean type and in the occasional ‘Chinese’ type (which includes however other elements). The Mongolian element is therefore the most important quantitatively speaking, though this includes much more of the Manchu type than is the case with the Chinese, as shown by the long, narrow eyes characteristic of the Japanese.

The extent of the Caucasian element depends partly on how the Indonesians are classified, but there is little doubt of the essentially Caucasian characters of the hairy Ainu. The importance of the Negrito element is considerable, much greater than in China.

We find, therefore, six recognizable types in Japan, three being Mongolian – the Manchu type, and the Mongolian elements in the Malays and Chinese – two being classifiable as ‘Caucasians’ – the Ainu and the Indonesians – and one being Negrito.

Through the different methods of combination in the Japanese and Chinese peoples, therefore, we can see some of the reasons for the physical differences between the two. There is little sign among the Japanese of the Kham Tibetan and Turkish types which add height to the Chinese (particularly the northern Chinese) as well as making for a rounder and more open eye. There is no sign among the Chinese of the Ainu type which gives the more frequent hairiness and more rugged features to the Japanese. And so we have two separate people, generally easily distinguishable but containing many individuals of similar types.

Other Differences

Probably more important than race, however, are other differences. For four thousand years and more, the Chinese people have been agricultural villagers, tillers of the soil, conquered by pastoral nomads from time to time but absorbing their conquerors.

But for most of this period, the Japanese were a maritime people, raiding their way north and in the islands of Japan conquering and absorbing a White native population even more savage than themselves. China’s age of military feudalism came to an end two thousand years ago, and though there have been relapses, the essential principles of private ownership and a peasantry free from feudal shackles have remained.

But at that time Japan had not yet emerged from the darkness of savagery, and when many centuries later the light of Chinese civilization shed its rays over the islands, it illuminated a primitive military feudalism which continued to exist down to two short generations ago. The inhabitants of the islands cultivate the soil, but the peasantry remained serfs under feudal masters until a little over half a century ago, and military feudalism remained the law of the land.

It is differences in psychology resulting from these things which are probably more vital and fundamental than the physical differences between the two peoples…

Is Dravidian Related to Japanese?

Thirdeye writes:

The Tamil-Japonic connection isn’t quite as off the wall as one might think at first glance. There’s apparently a strong Andaman-Indonesian language connection. The convention of repeat plurals seems to have found its way to Japan. There’s also some similarity between the Finno-Ugric languages, which are Uralic outliers in a sea of Indo-European languages, and Dravidian languages that have a remnant in Pakistan. Contact between proto-Dravidian-Uralic and Altaic languages is a real possibility.

If Uralic is close to anything, it is close to Altaic and Indo-European and probably even closer to Chukto-Kamchatkan, Eskimo-Aleut, Yukaghir and Nivkhi. Yukaghir may actually be Uralic itself, or maybe the family is called “Uralic-Yukaghir.”
There is no connection between Austronesian (Indonesian) and the Andaman Islanders. Austronesian is indeed related to Thai though (Austro-Tai); in my opinion, this has been proven. If the Andaman languages are related to anything at all, they may be related to some Papuan languages and an isolate in Nepal called Nihali. A good case can be made connecting Nihali with some of the Papuan languages.
Typology is not that great of way to classify. Typology is areal and it spreads via convergence. What you are looking in search genetic relationship among languages more more than anything else is morphology. After that, a nice set of cognates.
There is probably no connection between Dravidian and Uralic in particular. Dravidian is outside of most everything in Eurasia. It if is close to anything, it might be close to Afro-Asiatic. There also looks to be a connection with Elamite.
Dravidian and Afro-Asiatic are probably older than the rest of the Eurasian languages, and they were located further to the south. Afro-Asiatic is very old, probably ~15,000 YBP.

Racism among Different Ethnic Groups in California: Perpetrators and Targets

Mr E2me writes:

Derek: “They treated me like kin. Asians don’t hate blacks, that is just another white man’s lie to fuel black-Asian hatred.”
I don’t agree with that comment. My experience has been that Asians tend to be the most racist. As a White guy who has spent the last 2 decades in L.A. stewing in the cultural melting pot I have some very definite opinions on whom exudes the most racism.
Asians towards Blacks is def. #1
There is a definite difference in culture for this sort of thing amongst Asians ie, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, but I find them very united in their dislike of the dark people. They can be very intolerant of Whites as well.
Black towards White is 2nd.
Not as prevalent as the Oriental disdain, but there is a definite intolerance of Whitey by a lot more dark people than there is the other way around.
Tying it up @ 3rd, 4th and fifth would be
Mexican towards Black
White towards Black
White towards Mexican.
These sentiments are there; I just find them fewer and further between than number 1 &2 .

I would tend to agree with this.

      1. US Asians do not like Blacks at all. The ones that hate them the most seem to be the Japanese. They have a strong and abiding dislike for them. Black men do things like run around and have 30 different kids by 17 different women and then don’t marry or support any of them. To a Japanese man, that is the ultimate in dishonor. To them, a man who acts like that is acting like a dog! That is exactly what dogs that run around in the streets do – knock up as many bitches as they can, make lots of puppies, don’t form long term bonds with any of the bitches, and don’t support the offspring.
      2. Here in California, Blacks definitely hate Whites way worse than Whites hate Blacks. CA Whites are very PC and are almost racism-neutered. CA Whites are not supposed to be racist. It is seen as immoral and a social faux pas. If you make a racist remark in public, people will often more or less tell you to shut up. Black people are not very PC, and their racism is often open.
      3. Black racism against Asians would be next. Blacks pick on and prey on Asians mercilessly in schools and in the streets, whereas White racism against Asians is pretty much not allowed in PC California; and anyway, many Whites here like Asians, and there is a lot of White-Asian intermarriage.
      4. Next would be Mexican racism against for Blacks. That is actually quite strong among most Hispanics from Latin America. They are not very PC and are not burdened with White guilt, so they just say and think what they want to. Hispanic racism against Blacks is often open, blunt, and unashamed. On the other hand, the local gangsta types tend to emulate ghetto Blacks.
      5. There are not very many of them, but American Indians here have a profound dislike for Black people for some odd reason.
      6. Down on the list would be White racism against for Blacks. If you bring a Black girl home to your family, it is still a pretty big deal even among White liberals here in California. I ran into that somewhat when I was dating Black women. Mostly your family just acts nervous and your Black girlfriend suspects they are being phony. On the other hand,  it is getting harder and harder to say anti-Black things to fellow Whites because so many Whites are liberals who will get upset and California White culture is becoming wildly PC. Even Whites who make anti-Black statements often make sure to phrase them very carefully so they don’t come across as racist.
      7. White racism against Hispanics. Around here, you will hear more anger towards Hispanics because there are more of them, and disliking Blacks is considered really wrong here in PC California. Also there are not many Black people around here. But also around here, it is quite hard to diss Hispanics to other Whites because nowadays so many White men are married to Hispanic women. Also many Hispanic women appear White and you say something against Hispanics and the White woman next to you gets mad. White racism against Hispanics is getting more and more proscribed here.
      8. Also there is a huge amount of intermarriage going on between Whites and Hispanics. This is more of a cultural issue. If you bring a certain type of Hispanic woman home to Mom, your mother will look down on you because she is “low class.” But another type of Hispanic woman, who is more cultured, more White acting, less barrio, and less into “Mexican culture,” would be just fine. The truth is that many Whites in California treat Hispanics as glorified Whites and there is often this notion that Hispanics are some species of White people with some funny genetics.
      9. And I do know a few Whites who are angry at South Indians for taking over all the gas stations, 7-11’s and hotels.
      10. Negligible:
        • White racism against Asians or American Indians.
        • Black racism against Hispanics or South Indians.
        • South Indian racism against anyone.
        • Asian racism against Hispanics (they don’t care about them) or South Indians.
        • Hispanic racism against Asians or South Indians.

     
     

Japanese and Blacks

Tulio comments:

Virulent racism of Japanese towards blacks is something I always doubted. It seemed to contradict what black friends that have visited and worked there have told me. They said it’s absolutely fine and they have experienced little racism and what racism they do experience is stuff that tends to be directed toward foreigners in general such as being denied entry into Japanese only places.
Now one place I thought would be extremely racist to black people is Korea. But according to this black guy living there, he said he’s experienced nothing but hospitality and warmth. That even shocked me.

First of all, I am very happy that well behaved Black Americans can have a great experience in Korea and Japan. Black people really ought to be free to travel to and have fun in as many countries as I could. That a Black American is afraid to travel to some country because they will treat him badly simply because he is Black is very painful for me to contemplate. Maybe we Whites don’t realize how lucky we are.
However, a lot of Japanese Americans, both male and female, have very racist attitudes towards Blacks. I knew a Japanese American, and he was quite racist against Blacks.
You see where these Black guys run around and have like 8 different kids by 8 different women and don’t support any of them. That’s profoundly offensive to Japanese people, especially Japanese men. In East Asian society, a man may father children with more than one woman, but he absolutely must support all of his kids. If he does not, he is just a lowdown dirtball.
When these Black guys have 8 kids by 6 different women and don’t support any of them, to a Japanese man, you are little more than an animal. You’re basically a dog. Because that’s what a dog does. A dog just knocks up any bitch he can or as many bitches as possible, then runs away and leaves her and doesn’t help her raise any of the young.

Being Black in Japan

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiB9Lqz5moE]

The race realists and White nationalists frequently say that the Japanese absolutely detest Black people.* Based on this video, I would say that that is somewhat of an exaggeration. However, also based on this video, I would say that the Japanese aren’t the biggest Negrophiles on Earth.

All in all, the Black experience in Japan is more nuanced than either the Negrophobic or Negrophilic extreme. It’s somewhere in between. This guy has had some difficulties, but he doesn’t say he’s been living in Hell. On the other hand, he’s a quite civilized young Black man, and he also seems pretty smart, so even here in the US most Whites are going to be pretty nice to him. How will the more common ghetto Black type to one degree or another go over in Japan? Probably a lot worse, I would imagine.

He does say one interesting thing. In Japan, a foreigner is a foreigner. So a Black man is likely to be treated about the same as a White man in Japan. They’re all the same – foreigners.

There are few Blacks in Japan period, and most of the ones over there are Oreos like this guy. Nevertheless, I have heard that of all ethnic groups in Japan, the small group of Blacks have the highest crime rate. Which should surprise no one.

Good video – check it out.

*What I have seen is more the case is that many Japanese-Americans have a strong and abiding racism towards Blacks. I know this from some of these types that I have known, generally 2nd or 3rd generation. As an example, see the all too common ghetto Black behavior of a man running around and making babies with  a number of different women,and then not supporting any of them (also relatively common in Africa by the way).

To a Japanese man, that is perfectly normal behavior – for a dog! Because that’s what a dog does – he runs around and knocks up various bitches down the years, then takes off and refuses to support any of the whelps. So to a Japanese man, a Black man who does that is not even human – he’s simply a dog. Japanese men are supposed to be husbands and fathers, and a man who refuses to support his kids is treated as the lowest sort of garbage.

Japanese in Japan are probably a bit differnt because they simply don’t have much experience with Blacks. Japanese-Americans have dealt with Blacks in their families and extended circles for two or three generations, and I think they don’t like what they saw.

Table Manners: Are You Supposed To Leave Some Food on Your Plate?

Here.

This is a sore issue between me and my extremely uptight, ultra-White family. The “table manners” game. They’ve always insisted that my table manners are atrocious. I think that’s ridiculous. No one else has ever remarked on them except for one Black girlfriend, who was one of the most uptight people I’ve ever met. I actually don’t like slobs either, and I am White, culturally and obviously, but I think that at some point you are just too White.

My violations?

  1. Putting my left wrist on the table while I eat with my right hand. I really hate the eating with one hand thing and keeping the other forearm off the table in your lap. I feel like my left arm just got chopped off!
  2. Finishing every last bit of food on my plate.
  3. Eating soup. Something asinine about eating soup that I can’t quite remember. Could it be leaning over the bowl? You’re not supposed to lean over the bowl?
  4. Using my left fingers as a “pusher” to help ease recalcitrant food onto my utensil. I guess I could use a piece of bread to do this, but I’m usually too lazy. Anyway, my uncle, a wealthy business owner who spent all his life having business meals, uses his fingers to push too.
  5. Eating with my mouth open. This accusation really pisses me off, because even I don’t think I do that! Like I said above, I’m into manners too.

Can’t think of anymore right now.

My father being dead is not a good thing, but I am glad I don’t have to listen to his table manners crap anymore.

The only one I looked up about was the “always leave a bit of food on your table.” The version I learned was the White genteel version that says you leave some food on your plate to show you’re not a pig. Also, trying to get the last scraps does tend to involve some of those “pushing” violations.

According to this article, that rule is all but dead. It’s a rule from the older generation, and at the moment in the US and around the world for that matter, it’s either out or on its way out. Around the world, manners seem to be moving in the Japanese direction: eat it all up to show how appreciative you are. The only problems are in a few countries where, if you lap it all up, the host thinks you didn’t get enough to eat, so they demand that you have seconds. In other places and in some US groups, it’s considered rude to leave any food on your plate!

If there’s one thing that sucks about being White, it’s this table manners crap. There’s no way on Earth that other cultures are as nutty about this stuff as we are.

IQ and Crime in the US Redux

Repost from the old site.
This is follow-up to an earlier post – Black Crime and Intelligence – An Intrepid Investigation. No matter how much Leftists and liberals deny it, there are clear differences in racial crime rates in the US. US Hispanics and Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites in the US in the same way that Asians have lower rates. It is neither controversial nor racist to report on this observable fact.
The usual Left explanation for elevated Hispanic and Black crime rates is poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment, low rates of educational attainment, lack of government investment and poor schools in poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The general rationale behind all of these is said to endemic White structural racism and discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics.
Another argument is that Blacks and Hispanics do not have elevated crime rates – it is only that racist police racially profile Blacks and Hispanics to stop and search them more often, resulting in higher arrest rates, while Whites who are just as criminal are let off the hook.
These appealing arguments are becoming harder and harder to sustain in the face of new evidence and rapidly decreasing White racism in US society. This decline has occurred in tandem with harsh penalties – social, occupational and monetary – against Whites who discriminate against non-Whites, continuing affirmative action programs, quotas and goals, judicial mandates for ethnically diverse schools and workforces, etc.
All of this has resulted in a White population whose recent thinking has been molded by anti-racist discourse and who consciously try to avoid overt anti-White discrimination and even bigotry most of the time. This is actually a good thing. Each and every human being should be evaluated and treated on their individual merits or demerits, race be damned. And, regarding crime, the judicial system should be fair with regard to suspects and arrestees.
One problem in getting a handle on racial differences in crime rates is that it has been very difficult to find good ethnic breakdowns of US crime rates, mostly because law enforcement agencies usually refuse to count Hispanic offenders at all or in any rational way.
The Color of Crime, a report by the frankly racist New Century Foundation, is nevertheless an excellent document that has managed to dredge up some good figures for Hispanic, American Indian and Pacific Islander (in the US, they are about 50% Hawaiian, 25% Samoan and 20% Chamorros on Guam and in the US Micronesian Territories) crime rates in the US.
Samoans and Hawaiians are Polynesians, but Chamorros are Micronesians. Hawaiians are well-known to have an elevated crime rate in Hawaii. For instance, Hawaii has the highest rate of theft, larceny and property crime of any state. It is a good guess that much of this stealing is being done by native Hawaiians.
In (independent) Western Samoa itself, recent reports describe a traditional society with a crime rate is extremely low.
But statistics from 30-40 years ago tell another story.
In Western Samoa in the mid-60’s, the rates of assault and serious assault were 400 percent and 40 percent higher, respectively, than the rest of the US. In 1977, Western Samoa had a murder rate 60 percent higher than the rest of the US. In American Samoa the rate was much higher – 460 percent higher than the rest of the US.
In general, the Samoan crime rate in the rest of the US is not known. However, Samoans are over-represented in juvenile hall in San Francisco, and across the bay in Alameda County, Samoans have a higher crime rate than Hispanics.
And in Micronesia, on Guam at least, the crime rate has gone through the roof since the 1960’s, whereas previously it was quite low. The breakdown of the nuclear family and the introduction of a money-based economy has been blamed for the crime explosion on Guam. Saipan is also now reported to have a high crime, and even murder, rate. The reasons are not known.
It has been idiotically bashed all over the Left as “racist”. Here is a typical argument, this one from Wikipedia:

One New Century Foundation’s publication, The Color of Crime, makes various claims about the relationship between crime and race. The publication concludes that black people are more dangerous than white people, just as “young people are more dangerous than old people” and “men are more dangerous than women.” It claims that is logical to take precautions around black people.

The SPLC has led attacks against the report authored by the execrable Heidi Weiss, leader of an attack force against the fine scholar Kevin MacDonald. The attacks by Tim Wise on ZNet are quite sophisticated. An excellent rebuttal of many of Wise’s main points can be found on Global Politician here.
Bottom line is that Wise appears to be disputing what seems obvious to most any non-Leftist with a brain: Black people have a dramatically elevated crime rate, and one is more likely to be victimized by Blacks than by Whites, no matter what one’s race is.
Furthermore, Wise’s characterizing of Jared Taylor as a “White Supremacist” is as problematic as calling 99% of US Jews “Jewish supremacists” based on their Zionism. How about “White Nationalist”? And it is grossly unfair of Wise to call Taylor a Nazi, especially since he renounces anti-Semitism.
Wise is an anti-racist activist. I am an anti-racist too, but facts are facts.
Despite the fact that The Century Foundation authored the report, The Color of Crime is excellent, and attacks on the report do not do it service. Those opposed to the report are asked to logically rebut its arguments or hold their tongues.
The best figures are towards the middle of the report. Of most interest are the overall Hispanic and Black crime rates. The report states that the Black crime rate is 7.4 times the White rate, the Hispanic rate is 2.9 times the White rate and the Indian and Hawaiian rates are about 2 times the White rate.
From another study, Masking the Divide, by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (actually a liberal think tank), the figures are a bit different: the Black crime rate is 9.1 times the White crime rate and the Hispanic crime rate is 3.7 times the White crime rate.
Combining the two reports, we get a Black crime rate 8.2 times the White rate and an Hispanic crime rate 3.3 times the White rate.
The Color of Crime found that poverty, unemployment and lack of education add little to the Black and Hispanic crime rate differentials compared to the White rate – that is, when Whites, Blacks and Hispanics all live in poverty, have the same low educational variables and the same unemployment rates, the differential between Blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Whites remains pretty much the same.
The report also effectively deals with familiar complaints from the Left that the Black crime rate is so high because police selectively target Blacks for arrest while ignoring White criminals. A careful examination of the data in the report, shows that, actually, looking at the whole picture, if anything, the system is somewhat prejudiced in favor of Blacks and against Whites.
There is a suggestion that Blacks are actually underrepresented, and Whites, overrepresented, in the nation’s prison population as compared to their actual crime rates. Hence, prejudice and discrimination does not appear to be a significant factor in Black crime rates.
Further, Blacks are much more likely to target Whites as crime victims than vice versa.
An incredible anecdote: In a 3-year period in the US, there were 9,000 cases of group Black on White sexual assaults – about 10 per day. In that same 3-year period, Whites, with a 4.5 times greater population, committed exactly zero group sexual assaults on Blacks. That figure alone is simply stunning.
The Left loves to talk about hate crimes, but the only hate crimes they are interested in are White hate crimes against non-Whites. The report makes it quite clear that Blacks are much more likely to commit hate crimes against Whites than vice versa.
What is fascinating is that the media plays up White on Black hate crimes for weeks on end as the crimes of the century, while Black on White hate crimes are met with deafening silence. That right there would seem to give the lie to the notion that the US media is hopelessly prejudiced against Blacks and in favor of Whites. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case.
I have no idea why Whites are so much less likely to commit crimes than Blacks or Hispanics, or even why the lesser differential between Whites and Amerindians and Hawaiians exists, nor why Asians commit crimes at dramatically lower rates than Whites. Some will talk about genes and others about culture.
Lining up IQ with crime rates seems entirely logical to me. Groups with lower average IQ’s should commit more crimes than those with higher IQ’s on an ascending linear scale.
Unfortunately, the results do not pan out very well. Let us look at some racial IQ scores followed by racial crime rates in the US:

IQ scores:
East Asians:1    106 (link)
Whites:          103 (link)
Hispanics:       89 (link)
American Indians 87 (link)
Blacks           85 (link)
Polynesians      85 (link, link and link).
Crime rates:
Asians:      78% lower than Whites (!)
Whites:      Baseline
Amerindians: 100% higher than Whites
Polynesians: 100% higher than Whites
Hispanics:   230% higher than Whites
Blacks:      720% higher than Whites (!)

The racial IQ scores and racial crime rates do not line up very well; there are some correlations, but there are also some problems. The small difference between East Asian and White IQ’s in the US would not seem adequate to explain an Asian crime rate that is a mere 22% of the White average.
The Hispanic crime rate is 65% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, yet Hispanics have significantly higher IQ’s than both groups . The Black crime rate is an incredible 310% higher than the Amerindian and Polynesian crime rates, despite the fact that all three groups have the same IQ’s.
In these cases, there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between IQ and crime. There is a modest correlation between crime and IQ between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, but the differences are completely out of sync with what we would expect merely based on IQ.
In particular, the Black and Hispanic crime rates are far higher than expected by IQ compared to Whites2 (especially looking at the Polynesian and Amerindian figures), and the Black crime rate that is 2.5 times higher than the Hispanic rate is dramatically higher than expected by IQ compared with Hispanics.
Furthermore, we can completely rule out IQ-crime links in Hispanic mestizos . How is it that Amerindians have a crime rate 2 times that of Whites, yet White-Amerindian mixed race people (Mestizos with an average of only 1/3 Indian blood and probably a good amount of heterosis) have a crime rate of 3.3 times that of Whites? That makes no sense whatsoever.
One would expect White-Amerindian mixed-race US Mestizos to have a crime rate median between Whites and Amerindians and probably closer to Whites, say 1.35 times the White rate, considering that Mexicans and Chicanos in the US are about 63% White on average.
Also, from 1960-1995, the Flynn Effect3 has been causing steadily increasing IQ’s in Americans of all ages and ethnic groups. During this period, the US population increased its IQ by 9 points. At the same time, crime exploded from 1960-1980 and has continued at a very high level ever since.
How is it that a steadily rising US IQ has coincided with a skyrocketing crime rate?
The Flynn Effect has had its most noticeable effects at the lowest end of the IQ range – precisely the people that are most likely to commit crimes. Nevertheless, wild crime increases occurred in tandem with a progressive loss of those very people most likely to commit crimes – those with the very lowest IQ’s.
All of this seems to indicate that whatever in God’s name is causing racial differentials in US crime rates, IQ does not seem to play a huge role. Perhaps other biological factors could be involved, but that seems dubious.
For instance, there are recent suggestions that Polynesians (the study looked at Maoris) may be predisposed to violence due high rates of an a gene that codes for low levels of a component – MAO inhibitor – that breaks down neurotransmitters in the brain associated with violent and impulsive behavior.
With lower levels of the MAO inhibitor, Polynesians have higher levels of catecholamines that tend to cause violent and aggressive behaviors.
It is likely that Polynesians selected for aggression during their colonization of the Pacific Islands. Without an aggressive temperament, they may not have been able to undertake mad, near-suicidal journeys on boats to colonize those islands in the first place.
Once on the islands, individual tribes of South Sea Islanders, especially on Fiji and New Zealand, were continuously locked in the most horrible tribal warfare with most of their neighbors, in addition to having downright brutal and vicious societies of their own.
No evidence has yet been presented of a Black or Mestizo genetic propensity to violence. How is it then that the Polynesian Polynesians, with their low rates of MAO-inhibition, have a dramatically lower crime rate than Blacks and Hispanics, who have no provable genetic links to crime?
Very well then. Having disposed of biological arguments, let us move along.
I am inclined to fall back on the old environmental standby – culture. Even if poverty, lack of education and unemployment have little to do with high Black and Hispanic crime rates and the role IQ is not dramatic either, there is yet another explanation:
There is a possibility that in recent years, both Blacks and Hispanics have developed an underclass culture that is simply criminogenic in and of itself. The hows and whys of the development of this underclass can be debated at length, but it’s existence seems uncontroversial, and whatever caused this sick culture, IQ or race itself do not seem to be at work.
See this website, Brown Pride , for an example of a depraved, wicked and amoral subculture operating in the Hispanic underclass.
This Black and Hispanic underclass contrasts with large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics who have “made it”, assimilated to proper US society, are employed and out of poverty, and have relatively low crime rates.
1. The only data available for Asian IQ’s in the US are for East Asians. This group logically includes Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu, Taiwanese, Mongolians, Tibetans, Hmong, Mien and some smaller groups, but we do not know if all these groups were included. Studies in the US usually focus on the first three groups. It is quite difficult to draw a line showing where “East Asians” end and “Southeast Asians” begin.
2. Let us suppose a linear relationship between Hispanic and White IQ’s and crime rates. Extrapolating that to Black IQ, we should get a Black crime rate 4.9 times higher than the White rate; instead the rate is 8.2 times higher. Assuming a linear relationship between Black and White IQ’s and crime rates, we should get an Hispanic rate that is 5.4 times the White rate; instead it is 3.3 times the White rate.
Differentials between White, Hispanic and Black rates alone cannot be fully explained by IQ. Either the Black rate is higher than expected, or the Hispanic rate is lower, or both.
3. The Flynn Effect has been subjected to a lot of criticism, typically emanating from those White Nationalists who refuse to believe that anyone, especially the Blacks and Browns they dislike, is getting smarter. A number of arguments have been put forth, one of the most powerful of which is that the Flynn Effect does not show an increase in intelligence; it just shows that people are getting better at taking tests.
Yet the Flynn Effect shows up as early as 4 years old. One wonders just how many rigorous tests the average 4 yr old has been subjected to? Furthermore, Flynn himself presents some interesting arguments that cast doubt on the test sophistication argument.
Furthermore, in dismissing the Flynn Effect as simply measuring “some abstract test-taking ability”, these same detractors pour cold water on IQ tests themselves, the results of which they so cherish, as they show the delightful 10 and 15 point gaps between Whites and Browns and Blacks respectively. The consensus now is that test-taking skills cannot explain the Flynn Effect.
Another argument is that the Flynn Effect is having little effect on “g”, a hypothesized, supposedly heavily genetic or biological factor of purported pure, raw intelligence.
However, the Flynn Effect is greatest on the most heavily loaded g tests, and much less on the least g-loaded tests. Either “g” means nothing, or “g” is also increasing. Note that there is good evidence that “g” is in fact increasing, and a good theory is that it is related to improved nutrition. More evidence linking nutrition to IQ is found in studies linking IQ with micronutrient levels, namely iron , in the blood.
This is because height has been increasing in tandem with the Flynn Effect (not only that but socialist states are making people taller than less socialist states), and so has head size and cranial capacity and even brain size. This provides an excellent underpinning for increases in the biologically-driven “g”.
Hybrid vigor, or heterosis, which has been increasing, much to the disdain of White Nationalists, has also been suggested as a prime driver of the Flynn Effect. Heterosis has supposedly been increasing in modern society as more isolated, rural and ethnocentric populations move to urban areas and have children with those outside their ethnic group. But Flynn himself completely pours cold water on the heterosis theory.
A very long (24 pp.) discussion about whether or not the Flynn Effect is valid and what it is measuring is here. The American Scientist also took a look at the subject in a much-quoted article.
Steve Sailer wraps it up in a recent post, suggesting that the Flynn Effect shows people are definitely getting smarter, but only in certain ways. Sailer is not even really a White Nationalist, as he advocates “citizenism” as opposed to ethnic ethnocentrism. This is close to the universalism advocated by this blog. His site is always interesting, and it worth a read.

1825: When the US South Was Not Yet White

Repost from the old site.
Most people take it as a given that the USA as a nation and society is and always has been basically White, even mostly British or Northern European White. We have only to look at the authors of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration of Independence to see that all of them where White. And as the Christian fundamentalists love to remind us, they were all “Christians” too. Too bad most of them were actually Deists.
It’s true since 1830 or so (see 1830 census figures Excel, pdf ), this has been a majority-White land, and that is the picture most people’s memory and cultural knowledge of this country gives them.
But Whites have only been here a short while, and we were immigrants, or actually invaders at first, ourselves. Previously, this land was inhabited 100% by Amerindians, a race close to Northeast Asians. Before this was even a nation, huge numbers of Black slaves were imported to this land, such that most Black lineages in the US go back farther than most White lineages.
In California and the Southwest, we have even had Hispanics (almost all Mexicans) living here before those states were even a part of the US. A Filipino was part of the party that founded Los Angeles before California was even a state. He got sick in Baja and ended up staying there, but he was still present on the voyage. See below where many more Filipinos were already in this country even before 1781.
On the eve of the Gold Rush, there were a mere 1,000 Chinese in the US. Only seven of them were in California. But within a year of becoming a state, California was full of East Indians (Hindoos), Samoans/Hawaiians, Mexicans and other Pacific Islanders (Kanakas) and Chinese, all come for the Gold Rush.
By 1852, there were 25,000 Chinese alone in California. All of these groups stayed on through the whole decades-long Gold Rush and afterwards remained here as residents in the US.
So are West Africans, as this is where many of the American slaves came from. There was a Filipino settlement in St. Malo, Louisiana, in 1763, before the US was even formed. The first Chinese immigrants came to the US in 1820, but before the Gold Rush, only 1,000 or so had arrived.
Japanese and Filipinos have been present in Hawaii in large numbers since 1890, and Koreans have been present in much smaller numbers there from 1896. Hawaii was only made into a state in 1959. Cubans have also been here a very long time. Hundreds of Cubans came to St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, over 200 years before there was a USA.
Similarly, the first Jamaicans (a party of 20) in America were already in Jamestown, the first White British colony in the US, by 1619. Further, many Jamaicans were included in slave shipments to the US since Jamaica was a way station along the way between Africa and the US.
Significant numbers – two large ships full of Chilean and Peruvian miners were in California for the Gold Rush as early as 1848. A couple of thousand Brazilian and Caribbean Blacks also came for the Gold Rush. Note that California did not become a state until 1850.
Pakistanis (people from what later became Pakistan) were in the US since the 1700’s and continuing into the 1800’s in Oregon and Washington, working in agriculture, logging and mining in California. The first known East Indian Hindu came to the US in 1790, soon after the Declaration of Independence, as a maritime worker.
Mexicans, Samoans, Blacks, Cubans, East Indians, Pakistanis, Chileans, Peruvians, Filipinos, American Indians, Canadians, Japanese, West Africans, Hawaiians, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have been here in significant, not trivial, numbers, from the very start.
They are not, as groups, wholly immigrants or foreigners to this land. They are not foreign to American culture – they are part of the very building blocks of it. Perhaps Germany, Russia, Sweden, France and most of Europe can lay claim to being predominantly White countries for centuries or millenia, but the US cannot.
On the inside back cover of a recent issue of American Heritage Magazine was a painting of the Antediluvian American South with some text below. The text took me aback. I shook my head and read it again and again and it’s stuck in my head ever since.
It said that in 1825, the US South1 was estimated to be 37% Black (almost all slaves), 25% American Indian2, and only 38% was White3. Neither the Blacks nor the Indians could vote and none were citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, but so what.
Both the US South, and the nation as a whole, were already White-minority as early as 35 years after signing of the Constitution. Take that, “White America” fools!
The White America of movies, TV, magazines, books and memories was just a temporary mirage, a ship passing in the night.
Now, as the USA moves back to becoming a White-minority land, we are not changing the basic nature, culture and essence of this nation. We just reverting to our roots.
I am not arguing for unlimited immigration to this land (In fact, I want to seriously limit it) and I am a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. Nevertheless, it angers me when White Nationalists act like this is some kind of a “White country”.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
1I misremembered the text in the issue – it referred to the US South only, not the US as a whole. A look at the US Census Bureau information (Excel file here, pdf here) clears up the mystery. A 37% Black figure is apparent for Blacks in the US South.
The 25% Indian figure quoted was obviously for Amerindians in the South. Therefore, the article claimed that Whites were 38%, Blacks 37%, and Indians 25% in the US South in 1825.
Figures for the whole of the US reveal a White majority, however, if we include the Amerindians living in the Louisiana Purchase at that time (recently part of the US in 1825), we can still make a case for a non-White majority in the US. See note 3 below for more on that.
2There were numerically small numbers of Filipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, pre-Pakistanis (people from the land that would later become Pakistan), East Indians and Cubans here in 1825, but they probably added up to less than 1% of the population.
3The American Heritage figures quoted have now been called into question (see comments at the end of this post and the comments at the end of the frankly White racist American Renaissance article that linked this piece); the suggestion is that Blacks made up 19% of the US at the time, and Whites made up the rest.
The mystery is cleared up in note 1, where the magazine text referred to only the US South, not the US as a whole.
Indians were not counted in either the 1820 or 1830 censuses, and may have numbered 8 million in the US at the time (recall that the Louisiana Purchase had just been added to the nation).
Figure 12 million Indians in the US and Canada pre-contact, with 90% of those in the US (compare US and Canadian populations now for a 9-1 disparity in US versus Canadian population – a similar distribution was probably extant pre-contact). Assume 2 million Indians gone from the original population by 1825, mostly East of the Mississippi, and 2 million living in New Spain and the Oregon Territory.
This leaves us with 7 million Indians in the US in 1825. Further, runaway slaves were clearly not counted, probably 10% of the Black population. Figuring 7 million Indians, 9.2 million Whites and 2.5 million Blacks in 1825 still leaves us with a bare minority-White population in the US. The US was probably non-White majority from 1803-1825. By 1830, Whites were the majority entire nation, and have remained so ever since.

Cavewomen and Wormboys

Repost from the old site.
A fellow named Zsidozas comments on the Race, Gender and Masculinity/Femininity post. My comments follow:

Zsidozas comments: A personal story – as a White American male I’ve encountered much hostility from White females because I am not an effete and feminized White American male like so many of the others are these days. I am more aggressive, dominant, and masculine than the majority of White males for sure, but I try to temper this by my strong orientation toward reason, rationality, and learning.
So yeah, I’ve encountered problems with White women because many view me as an overly aggressive, pushy, and angry asshole/jerk/brute/prick/Viking/Neanderthal, of which I am not at all, but they only view me that way because I am quite a bit more masculine than most White men (who I agree are, on the whole, far too wimpy and resigned for their own good).
I am not a bodybuilder or football player or anything like that, so it’s not like I am afflicted by the ‘macho male complex’ that men like that suffer from.
So I’ve noticed that many White women think of me as something a bit unnatural or strange and view me with some contempt and suspicion because I am not easily dominated and controlled like the rest of White men.
In fact, I’ll argue and bicker with women (of whatever ethnicity) until we are all blue in the face if I believe something strongly as I’m not afraid to back down like so many modern men are — and I usually win those arguments.
And when I do win those arguments, believe it or not I’ve had women get violent with me either playfully or for real, like they are trying to get back at me physically for ‘beating them’ mentally and emotionally in an argument when they are just so used to lording over modern men.
It seems as if many White women, if they date or marry White men as most do, actually sort-of want or prefer a push-over who they can easily control, manipulate, and dominate in many ways (though they still want the man to bring them home some money, of course).
I think this is a rather recent development and a major reason why gender relations are so screwed up in the modern Western White world, particularly in America.
A quick story: I was at a party with my girlfriend the other night that was mostly populated by a bunch of drunken lesbians and overly masculine (but straight) White females, along with their feminized male lackeys. And one of them, in a drunken and pilled-up stupor actually said to me and me girlfriend as we were talking to her [paraphrasing]: “I love to emasculate men. I just like it. It’s fun. I do it all the time at work.”
And she said it sort-of at me and my girlfriend, like almost a veiled insult toward me or something. I continued to laugh with her and joked around and such, but still I think it was like a veiled insult toward me because she recognized in me a man who refused to be emasculated and feminized like so many modern men.
So I laughed and joked (but was secretly disgusted toward her that she would actually take pleasure in mentally emasculating men and fucking with their egos).
Lame story, but I think it illustrates a decent point about the attitude of most modern White women.
Also, you didn’t mention Semitic peoples here like Jews and Arabs. But just a thought: Jewish males are certainly very effeminate (as effeminate as many Asian men, often more), and Jewish females very masculine (maybe even as masculine as Black women).
Ditto with Arabs — and maybe this is why Arab men are so severe toward their women, like they want to keep them in check or something? Most Jewish and Arab females have, I’ve noticed, many masculine physical traits like deep/husky voices and hairy bodies, while many Jewish/Arab men have many feminine traits like higher pitched voices and moodiness/high emotionality.
Many men in Arab countries also engage in some behaviors that are considered effeminate or even gayish here in The West like holding hands as they walk together and kissing each other a lot, but they don’t think anything of it over there.
However, there is still something that is just intrinsically aggressive about both Jews and Arabs that I can’t pin down yet, though I’m looking for reasons — maybe it’s their rather fanatical ethnocentrism? So, if possible, I’d like your thoughts on Semitics (however brief) as well if you don’t mind.

Ok, first of all, I do not understand why women would hate an overly aggressive or masculine man, even in the feminized US. But I won’t deny you the reality of your experiences. Around here, most of the White guys are pretty machoed out.
Now if you go over to San Francisco, it is a totally different story. The Northern California male is said to be so feminized that many people think that they are gay. Conversely, the women are often said to be quite masculinized. I never heard this too much when I was in Southern California.
I do not know why this is, but for instance, my brother knows this older guy was paints his toenails like a woman. I heard that and freaked out. I said, “Is he gay?!” Because I think it sucks for a guy to paint his toenails. My brother answered, “No, he is just a Northern California male.”
There are some others like that, including a guy well-known to both of us. I will note: “Sometime he acts like a total fag! What the Hell is the matter with him anyway?!” And then I will imitate his ridiculously faggy behavior. My brother responds that this guy is a Northern California male.
Now this guy hooked up with and later lived with a woman for a while who was quite masculine, and I’m not sure what kind of a relationship they had, but they did seem to be happy, so I was very, very happy for them and especially for him, as I have known him forever.
At one point, the relationship started ending, and I heard she was bi or lesbian or something and she had moved her girlfriend into the house with our friend.
Now, this could be fun if they guy got into the sex, but I do not think so. Last I heard she has living with her lez girlfriend.
There is another older guy close to us who has many extremely faggy characteristics: walks like a fag, talks like a fag, etc. I will say: “That guy acts gay!!” and someone will chide me, responding that he’s been married five times.
He has some kind of weird relationship with his wife now where he acts all feminine or like a little boy or something, and she thinks it’s really cute, and I guess afterwards they fuck like crazy. Whatever. I am happy for both of them though, because she has made a lifetime project out of being miserable, and the guy is at least getting laid, and I cheer that on in all males.
There is another one living in San Francisco married to someone close to us. Everyone (all my close relatives) insists that he acts gay but I do not think he does at all. I just think he acts like me. Hmmmm. But they are very happy together also, so I am happy for them too.
I do not know about Arabs. I dated an Arab woman once, a woman from Egypt who was part Black. She was quite submissive, not bossy or aggressive or anything like that. She was Muslim, but that never got in the way of sex. In fact, she was so incredible that I think I want another one of those Arab women!
I do not think that Arab women are bossy or domineering in their relationships with men, though some are. Saddam’s Hussein’s Dad was supposedly horribly pussy-whipped by his Mom. I suspect it is probably more common that one might think.
The Philippines has a reputation for being a very sexist place where the males are very macho and do not really treat women all that well. Like Arabs, they frequently beat their women. However, a Filipina I know told me that there is a saying called, “under the saya“, which means that a Filipino man is basically pussy-whipped. Saya is skirt.
So he’s under his wife’s skirt, and she controls him. I asked if this was common, and she said it was very common. Keep in mind that in the Philippines, the Arab World and Asia, the woman rules the home. The man just needs to keep out of there.
I read an interview with an Egyptian man and his sons living at home in Cairo. The living room was decorated in frilly pink feminine stuff and the interviewer asked this macho Arab husband if he liked it this way, and he said basically, “Well, it’s her house and she can decorate it any way she wants to.” I assume the males have some control over the way they want their particular inhabited spaces decorated.
In these places, often the woman controls all the money for the couple, and makes all decisions about household expenditures. My Mom told me a story about a Japanese couple who came to look at a house a friend of hers was selling. The seller asked the Japanese man if he was interested, and he said something like, “That decision is left up to her.”
In other words, this poor oppressed Japanese woman actually gets to decide what house they buy! It seems to me that these women are not as oppressed as we think that they are, and many Japanese and Arab women resent Westerners and feminists sticking their noses in Japanese or Arab culture and telling them that they are oppressed.
You’re often going to get people’s patriotic backs up when you do that. Better to let some folks negotiate their way to liberation by themselves.
Jews and Arabs are both highly emotional probably because that is a “Mediterraneanism”. In other words, most of the folks in that part of the world tend to act that way.
Arab guys put their arms around each other because this is common in many parts of the world. I had a friend from China who was always trying to put his arm around me in public.
I see Mexican Indian farm workers in town who often walk around with their arms around each other, especially when drunk. I think it is an “Indianism”, as you don’t see the other Mexicans doing that. This male buddiness does not seem associated with homosexuality in these Indians and it is not in the Chinese.
The Arab World is quite complex. In the Levant and Mesopotamia, homosexuality is despised and treated very harshly, not uncommonly with death. In the Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, opportunistic or even preferential bisexuality is very common and in fact, the religious police often look the other way, as they are more concerned about men and women together! Stupid or what?!
In Egypt, there is fairly free and easy bisexuality among unmarried males, which they may continue after marriage. This is a lot more common in Nubia in Southern Egypt, where people are a lot Blacker, and there is actually a long tradition of that stuff.
In Cairo and in Morocco, many males will play the male role in homosexual sex with a “gay” male, who plays the female role. In many cultures, it’s not considered gay to play the male role in gay sex. Most guys who do this are young unmarried males. This is what happens when you forbid young males with a stratospheric sex drive female outlets: they screw each other.
I don’t find Arab males feminine at all. In fact, I find them ultra-macho.
The commenter asks about Jewish men and women. Well, I don’t think Jewish guys have a reputation for being feminine so much as wimpy. Wimpy and oversexed at the same time! So that is not quite the same thing.
And there is the stereotype of the Jewish woman as neurotic, insecure (she hates her looks and longs to be a blond), controlling, addicted to cheap, tacky and gaudy clothing and jewelry, domineering, histrionic (drama queen), and in particular constantly badgering him to make more money.
There were horror stories by Jewish men about Jewish women dating all the way back 100 years ago to the early Jewish press on the East Coast of the US. In many ways, this stereotype has not changed. The Jewish guy is supposed to marry a Jewish girl, but he often resents their domineering nature, and the stereotype is he wants a blonde shiska. Jewish women, like Black women, complain that their men don’t want them.
But most Jews do still marry their own. On the plus side, Jewish women can be very nurturing, and in my opinion, they can be real Stand By Your Man types. I had a Jewish girlfriend who everyone thought was a bitch. People thought she treated me like crap in public and would say, “I hate the way she talks to you!”
Well, in the relationship, she started out as a bitch sometimes, but I turned the tables on that pretty quickly!
I forgot her birthday, forgot our anniversary, got in a big fight with her on her birthday (The most evil, cruel, mean, horrible and insensitive thing I could have done!), calmly laughed in her face at her horrible insults, made her cry repeatedly, called her a bitch and a cunt and all sorts of other horrible names I have never called any woman, and this was one of the best relationships of my life.
She hated me at times, but she hated me for being a man. She called me cruel, mean, asshole, jerk, evil and wicked, and at the end she called me Hitler.
She would horribly insult me to my face. I would respond, “Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt. Shut up, you dumb bitch, etc., etc,” real calm and assured-like.
After a few minutes of that, she would be blubbering like a little girl, “Oh, I adore you so much. Oh, I love you so much. I love you baby. Let’s get married, etc. etc.”
Oh man! Isn’t love grand!
It’s a horrible cliche, but a lot of these real bitchy types are really looking for a hard, masculine man to put them in their place and turn them into a feminine, blubbering little schoolgirl in love again. These bitches always go after wimpy guys, because they love to dominate them, or they think they love to dominate them, but that just doesn’t seem to work, as it violates nature.
I don’t like to be Mr. Advice Column on here, but at 50, it has occurred to me someone is going to wear the pants in a heterosexual relationship.
If you don’t, she will.
If she suspects you have taken off the pants for a while, she will try to make a power grab to put the pants on herself. This must be stopped, often harshly, with profanities, harsh words, meanness, threats to leave, etc.
Usually she will back down completely and start bubbering and even whimpering apologetically and asking, “Are you mad? You’re not mad, are you?” Assure you that you are not but issue an order that she is not to speak to you like that anymore, as you really, really hate it.
Women want to take control, but really a lot of times they hate it, because at the same time, I think that even masculinized Western women are disgusted by their vaginized metrosexual wormboy partners. You can wage cultural revolution and gender bend til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, I am convinced that you can’t fool Mother Nature.

Journeys in Asian Prehistory

Repost from the old site.
In this post we will look at the prehistory of the Asian or Mongoloid Race and some its subgroups. After humans came out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, they moved along the coast of Arabia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and eventually to Southeast Asia.

One Asian man’s rendering of modern Asian expansion, contrasted with the typical model. I don’t agree with either model, but I like the one on the left a little better. For starters, the yellow line on the map to the left should be hugging the coast quite closely and the brown and red lines should be radiating out from a base somewhere along the yellow line. Unfortunately, my artistic skills are not good enough to draw my own map.

We think that these people looked something like the Negritos of today, such as those on the Andaman Islands.
At some point, probably in Southern China, the Mongoloid Race was born. The timeline, as determined by looking at genes, was from 60,000-110,000 years ago. As humans are thought to have only populated the world 70,000 years or so ago, it is strange that the timeline may go back as far as 110,000 years.
One thing that is very interesting is that there is evidence for regional continuity in Asia (especially China) dating back 100,000’s of years, if not millions of years. This is called the multiregional hypothesis of human development.
Though it is mostly abandoned today, it still has its adherents.
Some of its adherents are Asian nationalists of various types, especially Chinese and Indonesian nationalists. They all want to think that man was born in their particular country. Others are White nationalists who refuse to believe that they are descended from Africans, whom they consider to be inferior. The problem is that the Asians can indeed show good evidence for continuity in the skulls in their region.
A good midway point between the two, that sort of solves the conundrum, is that humans came out of Africa, say, ~70,000 years or so ago, and when they got to Asia, they bred in with some of the more archaic types there. The problem with this is that the only modern human showing evidence of pre-modern Homo genes in Mungo Man in Australia from 50,000 years ago.
There is evidence that as late as 120,000 years ago, supposedly fully modern humans in Tanzania were still transitioning from archaic to modern man. Ancient South African humans 100-110,000 yrs ago looked like neither Bantus nor Bushmen.
Nevertheless, we can reject the multiregional theory in its strong form as junk science. We also note cynically that once again ethnic nationalists and regular nationalists, including some of the world’s top scientists, are pushing a blatantly unscientific theory. Yet again ethnic nationalism is shown to be a stupidifying mindset.
There must be a reason why ethnic nationalism seems to turn so many smart people into total idiots. I suspect it lies in the fact that the basic way of thinking involved in ethnic nationalism is just a garbage way of looking at the world, and getting into it distorts one’s mind similar to the way a mental illness does.
We think that the homeland of the Asians is in Southern China, just north of the Vietnam border. This is because the people with the greatest genetic diversity in Asia are found in Northern Vietnam. Since the Vietnamese are known to have largely come from Southern China, we can assume that the homeland was just north of the border. From there, all modern Asians were born.
This means all NE and SE Asians, Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians came out of this Asian homeland.

School kids in Hothot, a town in Inner Mongolia. There is some question about whether China really has a right to control this area. These Northeast Asians originally came from a homeland in SE Asia near the China-Vietnam border. As this race is only 9,000 years old, NE Asians could not possibly have gone through an Ice Age that molded their brains for high intelligence, as the racist liar and scientific fraud Richard Lynn claims .

There is even evidence that the Altaics of Siberia originated from the SE Asian homeland. They are thought to have moved out of there to the west and north to become the various Altaic groups such as the Buryats. Later Caucasian lines came to the Altaics from the West.

A Mongolian man on the steppes with a grazing animal and possibly a yurt in the background. Yurts are conical structures that the Mongolians still live in. I believe that Mongolians also eat a lot of yogurt, which they cultivate from the milk of their grazing animals. Note the pale blue eyes and somewhat Caucasian appearance.
My astute Chinese commenter notes: “While Mongolians do have ‘Caucasian genes’, they look distinct from Uighurs, who are mixed. I’m thinking Mongolians and Central Asians lie in a spectrum between Caucasoids in West Asia and “Mongoloids” in Northeast Asians, while Uighurs were the product of Central Asian, West Asian, and Northeast Asian interbreeding.”
In fact, all of these populations are on the border genetically between Caucasians and Asians.
A Mongolian woman. Note short, stocky appearance with short limbs to preserve heat in the cold. Note also the long, moon-shaped, ruddy face, possibly red from the cold weather. Are those ginseng roots in her hand?
More Mongolians, this time with what look like grazing reindeer in the background. Mongolians herd reindeer? Note once again the long, flat, moon-shaped face, the almost-Caucasian features and especially the pale blue eyes of each woman. I cannot help but think that both of these women also look like Amerindians. Neither would be out of place at a pow wow.
More Mongolians, this time a Mongolian boy. Other than the eyes, he definitely looks Caucasian. He looks like a lot of the kids I grew up with in facial structure. Mongolians are anywhere from 10% Caucasian to 14% Caucasian.

From their Altaic lands, especially in the Altai region and the mouth of the Amur River, they moved into the Americas either across the Bering Straight or in boats along the Western US Coast. Another line went north to become the Northeast Asians. And from the Northeast Asian homeland near Lake Baikal, another line went on to become the Siberians.

An Evenki boy with his reindeer. Prototypical reindeer herders, the Evenki are a classical Siberian group. Strangely enough, they are related to both NE Asians and other Siberians and also to Tibetans. This indicates that the genesis of the Tibetans may have been up near or in Siberia.

From 10-40,000 yrs ago, the Siberian population was Mongoloid or pre-Mongoloid. After 10,000 yrs BP (before present), Caucasians or proto-Caucasians moved in from the West across the steppes, but they never got further than Lake Baikal. This group came from the Caucasus Mountains. They are members of the Tungus Race and are quite divergent from most other groups genetically.

More Evenkis, members of the Tungus Race, this time some beautiful women and kids in traditional costumes. But this photo was taken in some Siberian city, so they may have just been dressing up. They probably have some Caucasian genes, as the nearby Yakuts are 6% Caucasian. Many of the Evenki women have become single Moms, because the men are seen as violent, drunk and a financial drain.

Soon after the founding of the Asian homeland in northern Vietnam 53,000-90,000 yrs ago, the proto-Asians split into three distinct lines – a line heading to Japanese and related peoples, another heading to the North and Northeast Asians, and a third to the Southern Han Chinese and SE Asian lines.

A beautiful royal member of the Southern Han Dynasty in Hong Kong, member of the South China Sea Race. This race consists of the Filipinos, the Ami and the Southern Han from Guangdong Province. The Ami are a Taiwanese Aborigine tribe who made up the bulk of the Austronesians who populated much of island SE Asia over the past 8,000 years.
These Southern Chinese people never went through any Ice Age, and the SE Asian Race is only 10,000 years old anyway. So why are they so smart? Unlike some NE Asian groups, especially those around Mongolia, the Altai region, the Central Asian Stans and Siberia, the Han have no Caucasian in them.
A bright Chinese commenter left me some astute remarks about the South Chinese IQ: “Some possible reasons for high South Chinese IQ’s: Chinese culture is very… g-loaded. For example, understanding the language requires good pitch, recognizing Chinese characters takes visual IQ and good memory, Chinese literature and history span 3,000-4,000 years for references, etc.
For several thousand years testing determined your social position (and it still does to some extent in Confucian nations). Those left in the countryside were periodically left to famine and “barbarian” invasions (slaughter).
Likewise, when Chinese people interbreed, there is strong pressure to breed into the upper class of a native population. Whatever caused the high selection when Chinese and Mon-Khmer/Dai groups interbred probably gave the Chinese immigrants leverage to marry into the upper classes when they did. This is something the Asian diaspora still tends to do.”
Regarding South Chinese appearance, he notes, “Lastly, the Chinese in Fujian have distinct features. They have thicker lips, curlier hair, more prominent brow, less pronounced epicanthic folds, etc. I’m in Taiwan now and I do notice it. I was at a packed market a while ago and was noting the way people look.”

As a result of this split, all Chinese are related at a deep level, even though Northern Chinese are closer to Caucasians than to Southern Chinese. Nevertheless, we can still see a deep continuum amongst Asian populations.

A Northern Chinese man with distinctly Caucasian features. Although they have no Caucasian genes that we can see anymore, they are still closer to Caucasians than to the Southern Chinese.

The major genetic frequency found in Japan, Korea and Northern China is also found at very high levels in Southern China, Malaysia and Thailand, and at lower levels in the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. Incredibly, even higher levels are found in Southern China, Malaysia and Thailand than in Northern China.
The proto-NE Asian or North Asian homeland was around Lake Baikal about 35,000 years ago. The Ainu and a neighboring group, the Nivkhi, are thought to be the last remaining groups left from this line. The Ainu are related to the Jomon, the earliest group in Japan, who are thought to have originated in Thailand about 16,000 years ago and then came up to Japan on boats to form the proto-Jomon.
The Jomon culture itself formally begins about 9,000 years ago. Japan at that time was connected to the mainland. Jomonese skulls found in Japan look something like Aborigines. Later, around 2,300 years ago, a group called the Yayoi came across the sea from Korea and moved into Japan.

The woman on the left is more Yayoi and the one on the right is more Okinawan. The Okinawans, members of the Ryukyuan Race, seem to be related to the Ainu, and they have a long history in the south of Japan. The Ryukyuan Race is a very divergent grouping.
Most Japanese are members of the Japanese-Korean Race (like the Yayoi woman at left) but there is a divergent group in the South called the Southern Japanese Race, made up of the Honshu Kinki (the people around Kyoto) and the island of Kyushu. They may be more Okinawan than the rest of the mainland Japanese.

Over the next 2,300 years, the Yayoi slowly conquered and interbred with the Ainu until at the present time, the Ainu are nearly extinct as a cultural and racial entity. The Ainu have always been treated terribly by the Japanese, in part because they are quite hairy, like Caucasians.
The hairy body is thought to be a leftover from proto-NE Asian days, as some other groups in that area also have a lot of body hair. Despite the fact that they look down on the Ainu, about 40% of Japanese are related to the Ainu, and the rest are more or less related to the Yayoi. Actually, Japanese genetics seems a lot more complicated than that, but that’s as good a summary as any.

The Ainu. Though despised by the Japanese in part due to their Caucasian-like “monkey hair” on their bodies (note the guy’s hairy legs), the Japanese themselves are about 40% Ainu. The Ainu are members of the Ainu-Gilyak Race and are one of the most diverse groups on Earth.
A photo of Ainu Yasli Adam in traditional garb. I love this photo. Note that he could be mistaken for an Aborigine or a Caucasian. For a long time, the Ainu were considered to be Caucasians, but recent genetic studies have shown conclusively that they are Asians.
The Ainu language is formally an isolate, but in my opinion it is probably related to Japanese and Korean and thence to Altaic, nevertheless I think that both Japanese and Korean are closer to Altaic than Ainu is. Genetically, the Ainu are closest to NE Asians but are also fairly close to the Na-Dene Amerindians. Cavalli-Sforza says they are in between NE Asians, Amerindians and Australians.

At this time, similar-looking Australoids who looked something like Papuans, Aborigines or Negritos were present all over Asia, since the NE Asians and SE Asians we know them today did not form until around 10,000 years ago.
There are still some traces of these genes, that look like a Papuan line, in modern-day Malays, coastal Vietnamese, parts of Indonesia and some Southwestern Chinese. The genes go back to 13,000 years ago and indicate a major Australoid population expansion in the area at that time. Absolutely nothing whatsoever is known about this Australoid expansion.

God I love these Paleolithic types. A Papuan Huli man, member of the Papuan Race, who looks somewhat like an Australian Aborigine. Although it is often said that Papuans and Aborigines are related, they are only in the deepest sense. In truth, they really do form two completely separate races because they are so far apart.
Once again, while Afrocentrists also like to claim these folks as “Black”, the Papuans and Aborigines are the two people on Earth most distant from Africans, possibly because they were the first to split off and have been evolving away from Africans for so long. I don’t know what that thing in his mouth is, but it looks like a gigantic bong to me. There are about 800 languages spoken on Papua, including some of the most maddeningly complex languages on Earth.
NE Asian skulls from around 10,000 years ago also look somewhat like Papuans, as do the earliest skulls found in the Americas. The first Americans, before the Mongoloids, were apparently Australoids.

The proto-NE Asian Australoids transitioned to NE Asians around 9,000 years ago. We know this because the skulls at Zhoukoudian Cave in NE China from about 10,000 years ago look like the Ainu, the Jomon people, Negritos and Polynesians.

Waitress in Hothot, Inner Mongolia. Zhoukoudian Cave is not far from here. Note the typical NE Asian appearance. Mongolians are members of the Mongolian Race and speak a language that is part of the Altaic Family.

We think that these Australoids also came down in boats or came over the Bering Straight to become the first Native Americans. At that time – 9-13,000 years ago, Zhoukoudian Cave types were generalized throughout Asia before the arrival of the NE Asians.

Northern Chinese prototypes from a photo of faculty and students at Jilin University in Northern China. People in this area, members of the Northern Chinese Race, are closely related to Koreans. Note the lighter skin and often taller bodies than the shorter, darker Southern Chinese. The man in the center is a White man who is posing with the Chinese in this picture.
My brother worked at a cable TV outfit once and there was a Northern Chinese and a Southern Chinese working there. The Northern one was taller and lighter, and the Southern one was shorter and darker. The northern guy treated the southern guy with little-disguised contempt the whole time. He always called the southern guy “little man”, his voice dripping with condescension.
This was my first exposure to intra-Chinese racism. Many NE Asians, especially Japanese, are openly contemptuous of SE Asians, in part because they are darker.

Native Americans go from Australoids to Mongoloids from 7,000-9,000 years ago, around the same time – 9,000 years ago – that the first modern NE Asians show up.

Prototypical NE Asians – Chinese in Harbin, in far northeastern China. This area gets very cold in the winter, sort of like Minnesota. Keep in mind that this race is only 9,000 years old. Note the short, stocky body type, possibly a cold weather adaptation to preserve heat.

Some of the earliest Amerindian skulls such as Spirit Cave Man, Kennewick Man, and Buhl Woman look like Ainu and various Polynesians, especially Maoris.

A Hawaiian woman, part of the Polynesian Race. Kennewick Man does not look like any existing populations today, but he is closest to Polynesians, especially the virtually extinct Moiriori of the Chatham Islands and to a lesser extent the Cook Islanders. Yes, many of the various Polynesians can be distinguished based on skulls. Other early Amerindian finds, such as Buhl Woman and Spirit Cave Woman also look something like Polynesians.
It is starting to look like from a period of ~7,000-11,000 years ago in the Americas, the Amerindians looked like Polynesians and were not related to the existing populations today, who arrived ~7,000 years ago and either displaced or bred out the Polynesian types. Furthermore, early proto-NE Asian skulls, before the appearance of the NE Asian race 9,000 years ago, look somewhat like Polynesians, among other groups.

An archaeologist who worked on Kennewick Man says Amerindians assaulted him, spit on him and threatened to kill him because he said that Kennewick Man was not an Amerindian related to living groups, and that his line seemed to have no ancestors left in the Americas.
Furthermore, most Amerindians insist that their own tribe “has always been here”, because this is what their silly ancestral religions and their elders tell them. They can get quite hostile if you question them on this, as I can attest after working with an Amerindian tribe for 1½ years in the US.
To add further insult to reason, a completely insane law called NAGPRA, or Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, mandates that all bones found on any tribe’s territory are the ancestors of that tribe and must be returned to the tribe for reburial. This idiotic law is completely anti-scientific, but most Amerindians, even highly educated ones, get pretty huffy about defending it (Trust me!).
Hence there has been a huge battle over the bones of Kennewick Man. Equally idiotically, White Nationalists insist that Kennewick Man is a Caucasian, so that means he is one of theirs. They also use this to conveniently note that Whites occupied the US before the Indians, and therefore, that the Amerindians implicitly have no rights to the place and that the land-theft of Amerindian America by Whites was right and proper.
This is even more insane than Zionism by orders of magnitude. First of all, Kennewick Man is not a Caucasian! He just sort of looks like one. But that is only because Polynesians, the Ainu and even Aborigines look somewhat Caucasian. This is not due to Caucasian genes, but is instead simply a case of convergent evolution.
These dual episodes above, like the Asian paleontologist morons above, adds weight to my hypothesis that ethnic nationalism, and nationalism in general, turns people into dithering morons. Among other reasons, that is why this proudly internationalist blog casts such a wary eye on nationalism of all kinds.
The prehistory of SE Asia follows a similar storyline. Once again, all of SE Asia was inhabited by Australoids. They probably looked something like the Negritos of today. Skulls from 9,000-11,000 years ago in SE Asia (including Southern China) resemble modern-day Australoids.
The oldest skulls in Vietnam look like Negritos. 25,800 yr old bones from Thailand look like Aborigines and the genes look like the Semang, Negritos of Thailand and Malaysia. There are skulls dating back 44,000 years in Malaysia and these also look like Aborigines. Some say that the Semang go back 50,000 years in Malaysia.

Andaman Islands Negritos. This type was probably the main human type all throughout SE Asia, and a variation of this type was in NE Asia too. These are really the first people to come out of Africa. Afrocentrists like to say that these people are Black, but the truth is that these people are very far away from Black people – in fact, they are Asians.
Andaman Islanders have peppercorn hair like the hair of the Bushmen in Africa. This would differentiate this group from the woolly-haired Negritos in the Philippines. Genetic studies have shown that the Andaman Islanders are quite probably the precise remains of the first people to come out of Africa.
Genetically, they tend to resemble whatever group they are living around, with some distinct variations. In truth, this group here, the Andamans, is one of the “purest” ethnic groups on Earth, because they have been evolving in isolation for so long. This is known as genetic drift. At the same time, I think there is little diversity internally in their genome, also due to drift.
The Andaman Negritos are part of the Andaman Islands Negrito Race. Their strange and poorly understood languages are not related to any others, but there is some speculation that they are related to Kusunda in Nepal, a language isolate. I tend to agree with that theory.
One of the problems with genetic drift is after a while you get an “island” effect where the population lacks genetic diversity, since diversity comes from inputs from outside populations. Hence they tend to be vulnerable to changes in the environment that a more genetically diverse population would be able to weather a lot better.
Although racist idiot Richard Lynn likes to claim that all people like this have primitive languages, the truth is that the Andaman languages are so maddeningly complex that we are still having a hard time making sense out of them.
As in the case of Melanesians, Papuans and some Indian tribals, Afrocentrists like to claim that the Negritos are “Africans”, i.e., Black people. The truth is that Negritos are one of the most distant groups on Earth to existing Black populations. Negrito populations tend to be related, though not closely, with whatever non-Negrito population are in the vicinity. This is due to interbreeding over the years. Furthermore, most, if not all, Negritos are racially Asians, not Africans.
Another misconception is that Negritos are Australoids. Genetically, the vast majority of them do not fall into the Papuan or Australian races, but anthropometrically, at least some are Australoid. There is a lot of discrimination against these people wherever they reside, where they are usually despised by the locals.
White Supremacists have a particular contempt for them. As a side note, although White Supremacists like to talk about how ugly these people are, I think these Negrito women are really cute and delightful looking, but do you think they have large teeth? Some say Negritos have large teeth.

Around 8,500 years ago, the newly minted NE Asians, who had just transitioned from Australoids to NE Asians, came down from the north into the south in a massive influx, displacing the native Australoids. We can still see the results today. Based on teeth, SE Asians have teeth mixed between Australoids (Melanesians) and NE Asians. Yet, as noted above, there are few Australoid genes in SE Asians.

8,500 years ago, NE Asians moved down into SE Asia, displacing the native Australoids and creating the SE Asian race. If NE Asians are so smart though, I want to know what these women are doing wearing bathing suits in the freezing cold. Compare the appearance of these Northern Chinese to other NE Asian mainland groups above.

A prominent anthropology blogger suggests that a similar process occurred possibly around the same time in South Asia and the Middle East, where proto-Caucasians moved in and supplanted an native Australoid mix.
One group that was originally thought to be related to the remains of the original SE Asians is called the Yumbri, a group of primitive hunter-gatherers who live in the jungles of northern Laos and Thailand. Some think that the Yumbri may be the remains of the aboriginal people of Thailand, Laos and possibly Cambodia, but there is controversy about this.

Yumbri noble savages racing through the Thai rain forest. The group is seldom seen and little is known about them. They are thought to number only 200 or so anymore, and there are fears that they may be dying out. This paper indicates via genetics that the Yumbri are a Khmuic group that were former agriculturalists who for some odd reason gave up agriculture to go back to the jungles and live the hunter-gatherer way.
This is one of the very few case cases of agriculturalists reverting to hunting and gathering. The language looks like Khmuic (especially one Khmu language – Tin) but it also seems to have some unknown other language embedded in it. Genetics shows they have only existed for around 800 years and they have very little genetic diversity.
The low genetic diversity means that they underwent a genetic bottleneck, in this case so severe that the Yumbri may have been reduced to only one female and 1-4 males. It is interesting that the Tin Prai (a Tin group) has a legend about the origin of the Yumbri in which two children were expelled from the tribe and sent on a canoe downstream. They survived and melted into the forest where they took up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The Khmu are an Austroasiatic group that are thought to be the indigenous people of Laos, living there for 4,000 years before the Lao (Thai) came down 800 years ago and largely displaced them from the lowlands into the hills. The Austroasiatic homeland is usually thought to be somewhere in Central China (specifically around the Middle Yangtze River Valley), but there are some who think it was in India.
They moved from there down into SE Asia over possibly 5,000 years or so. Many Austroasiatics began moving down into SE Asia during the Shang and Zhou Dynasties due to Han pushing south, but the expansion had actually started about 8,500 years ago. At this time, SE Asia was mostly populated by Negrito types. The suggestion is that the Austroasiatics displaced the Negritos, and there was little interbreeding.
The Austroasiatic languages are thought to be the languages of the original people of SE Asia and India, with families like Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Indo-European and Dravidian being latecomers. There are possible deep linguistic roots with the Austronesian Family, and genetically, the Austroasiatics are related to Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai and the Hmong-Mien speakers.

There is an interesting paradox with the Southern Chinese in that genetically, they look like SE Asians, but they have IQ’s more like NE Asians, around ~105. There do not seem to be any reasonable theories about why this is so. It is true that NE Asians came down and moved into SE Asia, but they moved into the whole area, not just Southern China, yet SE Asian IQ’s are not nearly as high as Southern Chinese IQ’s.
Of relevance to the IQ debate is that Asians, especially NE Asians, score lower on self-esteem than Blacks, yet they do much better in school. This would tend to argue against the contention of many that Black relatively poor school performance is a consequence of them not feeling good about themselves.
This seems to poke one more hole in Richard Lynn’s theory that a journey through the Ice Age is necessary for a high IQ, as the Southern Chinese made no such sojourn.
As a result of the Northern and Southern mix in Southern China, groups such as the Yunnanese are quite a mixed group. Yunnanese are mostly southern and are extremely distant from NE Asians. The Wa are a group in the area that is almost equally mixed with northern and southern admixture.

Two pretty Laotian girls being starved to death by murderous Communist killers in Laos. The Lao are related to the Thai and are members of the Tai Race that includes the Lao, Thai, Aini, Deang, Blang, Vietnamese, Muong, Shan, Dai and Naxi peoples. The Lao language is a member of the Tai language family.
The Thai are related to the Tai group in Yunnan in Southern China. They evolved there about 4,000 years ago and then gave birth to a number of groups in the region. The modern Thai are latecomers to the region, moving into the area in huge numbers only about 700 years ago to become the Lao, Thai and Shan. The Lao are the descendants of recent Tai immigrants who interbred heavily with existing Chinese and Mon-Khmer populations.
Gorgeous Dai women in China. The Dai are an ethnic group in China, mostly in Yunnan, who are related to the Thai – they are also members of the Tai Race and speak a Tai language . It looks like the Thai split off from the larger Dai group and moved into Thailand in recent centuries.
The Dai were together with the Zhuang, another Yunnan group, as the proto-Tai north of Yunnan about 5000 years ago. They moved south into Yunnan and split into the Zhuang and the Tai. There were also Tai movements south into Vietnam via Yunnan.
More Dai, this time two young Dai men from Thailand. They do seem to look a bit different from other Thais, eh? They look a little more Chinese to me. The Thai are not the only ethnic group in Thailand; there are 74 languages spoken there, and almost all are in good shape. These people apparently speak the Tai Nüa language.
A proud Dai father in China, where they Dai are an official nationality together with the Zhuang. He’s got some problems with his teeth, but that is pretty typical in most of the world, where people usually lack modern dental care.
A photo of a Thai waitress in Bangkok getting ready to serve some of that yummy Thai food. Note that she looks different from the Dai above – more Southeast Asian and less Chinese like the Dai. The Thai are also members of the Tai Race.
Another pic of a Thai street vendor. The Thai are darker and less Chinese-looking than the lighter Dai. The Tai people are thought to have come from Taiwan over 5,000 years ago. They left Taiwan for the mainland and then moved into Southwest China, which is thought to be their homeland. Then, 5,000 years ago, they split with the Zhuang. The Zhuang went to Guangxi and the Tai went to Yunnan.
A Thai monk. Am I hallucinating or does this guy look sort of Caucasian? In Thai society, it is normal for a young man to go off and become a monk for a couple of years around ages 18-20. Many Thai men and most Lao men do this. I keep thinking this might be a good idea in our society. Khrushchev used to send them off to work in the fields for a couple of years at this age.

Nevertheless, most Yunnanese have SE Asian gene lines and they are quite distant from the NE Asians (as noted, NE Asians are further from SE Asians than they are from Caucasians).

More beautiful women, this time from Yunnan, in Communist-controlled China. Look at the miserable faces on these poor, starving women as they suffer through Communist terror and wholesale murder.
Yunnan was the starting point for most of peoples in the region, including the Tai, the Hmong, the Mon-Khmer, the Vietnamese, the Taiwanese aborigines and from there to the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia.
In a sense, almost all of SE Asia was settled via a southward and southeastward movement out of Yunnan. Why so many groups migrated out of Yunnan is not known, but they may have being pushed out of there via continuous southward movements by Northern Han. Yunnan was seen as a sort of rearguard base and sanctuary for many Chinese ethnic groups who were being pushed out of their areas, mostly by Han expansions.
The terrain was rough but fertile. At some point, the Han started pushing down into Yunnan and that is when many southward expansions into SE Asia over the last 5000 or so years took place. A discussion of Asian racial features and their possible evolution is here.

Tibetans are close to NE Asians genetically, though they are located in the South. This is because they evolved in NE Asia and only recently moved down into Tibet. After coming into Tibet, they moved down into Burma. Many of today’s Burmese came from Tibet.

A Tibetan tourist in India. This woman has more of a classic Tibetan look than the younger woman below. Tibetans characteristically have darker skin than many NE Asians – Tibetans are actually NE Asians displaced to the south in fairly recent times. Although it is high and cold in Tibet, the region is at a more southerly latitude. Nevertheless, UV radiation is very intense in Tibet, which probably accounts for the darker skin.
It looks like all humans were pretty dark at the start and in some cases have lost melanin in cold climes where they needed to lighten to get Vitamin D. White skin in Europe is merely 9,000 years old, so European Whites never went through any brain-sharpening Ice Age either.
Tibetans are members of the General Tibetan Race, which includes the Tibetan, Nakhi, Lisu, Nu, Karen, Adi, Tujia, Hui and Kachin peoples. They speak a Tibeto-Burman language, part of the larger Sino-Tibetan family.
My observant Chinese commenter notes about the Tibetans: “As for the Tibetans, they seem to be primarily Northeast Asian (they look to be the most “yellow” of any Asians) with some other (South Asian-looking) element that interbred with them fairly recently. They tend to also be more ruddy, and have skin tones from reddish to yellow to brown.
You can see some similarities with Burmese, but they are distinct. Another thing to note is that the prevalence of colored hair and eyes is relatively higher in Tibet.
A gorgeous Tibetan woman, but to me she does not look typically Tibetan. Note that she seems to have put some whitening powder on her face – note contrast between her face and her darker hand.
Although this blog supports Tibetan freedom and opposed the colonial Chinese takeover and racist ethnic cleansing of the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communists, it should nevertheless be noted that the wonderful regime that the Dalai Lama apparently wants to bring back was one of the most vicious forms of pure feudalism existing into modern times, where the vast majority of the population were serf-slaves for the Buddhist religious ruling class.
Yes, that wonderful religion called Buddhism has its downside.
The Buddhist paradise of Burma, run by one of the most evil military dictatorships on Earth (No satire in that sentence). I thought Buddhists were supposed to be peace loving?
A Burmese woman with classic Burmese features. The Burmese, better known as the Bamar, are members of the General Tibetan Race. Boy, she sure is cute. And yes, I do have a thing for Asian women. I think I need to retitle this post Hot Asian Babes.

There are several interesting points in the sketch above. First of all, much as it pains them to be compared to people whom they probably consider to be inferior, all NE Asians were originally Australoids similar to the Australian Aborigines.
NE Asians like to accuse SE Asians of being mostly an “Australoid” group, an analysis that is shared by many amateur anthropologists on the web. We will look into this question more in the future, but it appears that both NE and SE Asians are derived from Australoid stock. Further, there are few Australoid genes left in any mainland SE Asians and none in most SE Asians.
It is true that Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians are part-Australoid in that the latter two are derived from Melanesians, who are derived from Austronesians mixed with Papuans. Any analysis that concludes that non-Oceanic SE Asians are “part-Australoid” is dubious.
If anything, NE Asians are closer to Australoids than most SE Asians. The Japanese and Koreans are probably closer to Australian Aborigines than any other group in Asia. I am certain that the ultranationalist and racialist Japanese at least will not be pleased to learn this.
Second, we note that all Asians are related, and that the proto-Asian homeland was in northern Vietnam. It follows that NE Asians are in fact derived from the very SE Asians whom the NE Asians consider to be inferior. A NE Asian who is well versed in these matters (He was of the “SE Asians are part-Australoid” persuasion) was not happy to hear my opinion at all, and left sputtering and mumbling.
NE Asian superiority over SE Asians is a common point of view, especially amongst Japanese – the Japanese especially look down on Koreans (Their fellow NE Asians!), Vietnamese, Filipinos (the “niggers of Asia”), the Hmong (the “hillbillies of Asia”) and the Khmer.

The beautiful, intelligent, civilized and accomplished Koreans. Tell me, the Japanese look down on these people are inferiors why now? Note the rather distinct short and stocky appearance, possibly a heat-preserving adaptation to cold weather. Note also the moon-shaped face.
The Koreans seem to have come down from Mongolia about 5,000 years ago and completely displaced an unknown native group, but don’t tell any Korean that. Koreans are members of the Japanese-Korean Race and the Korean language is said to be a language isolate, but I think it is distantly related to Japanese, Ainu and Gilyak in a separate, distant branch of Altaic.
My Chinese commenter adds: “I get the impression that Koreans are at least comprised two major physically discernible groups. Some of them have a shade of skin similar to the Inuit or Na Dene. But I think they have intermixed quite a lot during some relatively stable 5,000+ year period, which results in a fairly even spectrum.”

Third, Richard Lynn’s Ice Age Theory takes another hit as he can explain neither the Southern Chinese high IQ, nor the genesis of high-IQ NE Asians from lower-IQ SE Asians, nor the fact that NE Asians do not appear in the anthropological record until 9,000 years ago (after the Ice Age that supposedly molded those fantastic brains of theirs), nor the genesis of these brainy folks via Australoids, whom Lynn says are idiots.
Fourth, the Negritos, who are widely reviled in their respective countries as inferiors, are looking more and more like the ancestors of many of us proud humans. Perhaps a little respect for the living incarnations of our ancient relatives is in order.

Racists Create Their Own

Repost from the old site.
In the comments, one of our fine commenters and a great writer to boot, Dano of Hawaii Five-O, notes:

If you treat people with respect and dignity you get the same in return, and create a chain-reaction of civility. If you treat them like shit-enemies, you get a negative reaction, which allows you to point and scream “SEE! Just like I’ve been saying. They hate us!”

I think Dano hits it on the head. I go to American Renaissance and those White racists on there are constantly saying, “Blacks treat Whites like shit! They’ve been treating me and other Whites like shit my whole life!” And they say this about other races too. They are convinced that most or all races are completely racist towards most or all other races. Especially all non-Whites are horribly hostile towards all Whites.
It’s pretty clear that there is a Hell of a lot of projection going on here. I’m a racist (except wait, I’m not, really) so everyone else is. No wait. I’m a racist, because all those other races hate me and my kind. They done forced me into it.
I guess I must have missed this. I’ve been around Blacks quite a bit in my life. I taught Blacks in LA, including the inner city, including Compton and even Watts for a day. I never got a whole lot of hostility out of Black students. I mean, some were just antisocial period. They sure had a lot of opportunities to vent on me. There were a few occasions where I got some racist stuff at me, but I can’t think of many.
The worst of all was at Centennial High in Compton near Willowbrook (close to Watts). It’s the heart of the heart of the ghetto. The students were racially hostile and tried to bust me for being a racist by attempting to provoke me into making racist comments (they lied, and the Black principal backed me up). Some of the pretty young Black teachers were just out and out hostile.
In Compton, there were some classes of 8th and 10th graders that were so horrible I just walked off the job and left the kids there with no teacher. Amazingly, they took me back after that. Those kids were just animals, and I didn’t get the impression there was some racial thing going on, but who knows?
In LA, I’ve been to reggae concerts full of Blacks and rap concerts full of street Black rappers. I’m not saying that’s a good environment. But none of those Blacks ever bothered me. I’ve bought fast food in the ghetto in the daytime, quite a few times too. I’ve driven through the heart of the ghetto in daytime many, many times.
I think once some Black guy yelled something about “What are these RICH motherfuckers doing here?!” at me on a side street. I’ve dated Black women who lived in S Central LA (Black part of town). I got ripped off once, the day I was in Watts. The Black administrators always treated me like I was solid gold, and the Black teachers were pretty nice overall.
I’ve taught in Hispanic neighborhoods for years too. Also in Filipino, Japanese and Samoan-heavy schools. No real problems, at least racially, in any of these places. I delivered phone books for weeks on end all through the worst parts of East LA and nothing happened.
I drove an ice cream truck through barrios for months and nothing went down. I hung out in apartments smoking crack with Blacks in the Wilshire District of LA (I only tried it once) at the beginning of the crack era. I bought pounds of dope from teenage Mexican gang members who I never met before, who got it straight from the Mexican Mafia.
Nothing much ever happened.
If these people really hate Whites, they must do a pretty good job of covering it up, or else I am a complete idiot and can’t spot the virulent racists who hate me and my kind ferociously every time they deal with me.
I don’t really know what to say for why Blacks have not fucked me over more than the few depredations I experienced (one stolen car battery).
I’m a pretty paranoid guy, and I’m always looking around all the time and watching everything and everyone. I don’t open up very easily and I’m quite wary and dubious.
Furthermore, I’m reportedly a pretty scary-looking guy, despite my pretty boy preppie looks. That’s not really a good thing, but I guess that’s one way that looking a little dangerous comes in handy. Everyone pretty much leaves you alone, even the criminals. Criminals like easy targets, just like predators in the wild.
White racists give off fuck you vibes to whichever non-Whites they dislike, and those non-Whites fire it right back on them. Hence the White racist sees the world, partly through projection, as filled with White-hostile non-Whites. You’re 21 years old at the university and it’s Psychology 100 again. You look up at the overhead lamp and all the points of light come together in an epiphany, and it all makes sense. That’s being alive.

Race in a 1970's California Beach Town

Repost from the old site.
When I grew up on the California beach in the 1970’s, we had no White parts of town and Black parts of town. The whole place was White, with ethnics, Jews, NE Asians, Filipinos, Hispanics and mixed race folks scattered all about in fairly small numbers. It was a White culture in a White beach town, Huntington Beach.
All of the non-Whites pretty much just assimilated to the White, or American, or White American culture of the city. There was one Black kid in the school and I was his friend! There was a small group of Hispanics (Chicanoized) with gangs, and the Chicano barrio mindset at the school and I was friends with them!
I’m such a racist! From the early days yet! Snark.
What I am trying to say is that for all intents and purposes, in Huntington Beach, race just did not exist at all. The non-Whites associated with Whites and vice versa. The non-Whites were all pretty much assimilated to the White culture, so they were White for all intents and purposes. Their non-Whiteness was simply an accident of their ancestry and had no relevance on anything.
In every important way, the Chinese, Hispanics, Japanese, Filipinos, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and whatnot were just Whites with a little different ancestry, which may as well have been Czech or Greek or Italian.
For the most part, they were deracinated and fully assimilated to American society. None of them spoke their ethnic mother tongues. Most of the Hispanics had been in this country a long time – I never knew one recent immigrant from anywhere. If mass immigration was going on, it wasn’t coming to my town.
The general attitude was that racism was a nasty thing. If you made an ethnic joke, either my brother who dated a Mexican girl or one of my best friends – the 1/2 Mexican guy or the 1/4 Chinese guy, or the Puerto Rican guy who objected to anti-Black jokes by noting that he was part-Black, or my Cuban girlfriend, would just shoot you right down angrily with an attitude like don’t bring that up anymore.
The whole loony anti-racist notion (I’m sure that Whiteness Studies sees 1970’s Huntington Beach that way) that the White suburbs of 1970’s California were a place of vicious White racism is an insipid fantasy. Race was just not important. The other races didn’t behave any differently from Whites, as they all assimilated and left their cultures long behind.
If they don’t act any different, you have to be a real idiot just to hate someone who is different – who looks a little different, is different racially, has a different skin color, or whose ancestors came from a different land. For the most part, it simply did not occur.
We did have some Chicano-type Hispanics who lived in a place called Motown in downtown Huntington Beach. It was a mini-barrio full of graffiti and small gangs and Chicano culture. My friends and I were the only Whites who would befriend these real Chicanos.
I was a racist from childhood! Snark.
They were all into the gang thing, the guys were into the stereotypical Chicano machismo male psychological cultural set, and the girls were all into the stereotypical barrio Latina psychological cultural set.
We made friends with them, but no one ever wanted to, say, go hang out with them on the weekends. They just lived in another world.
Well, Chicano culture hasn’t changed one bit since then, at least the barrio kind. There’s still a vast Hispanic set in the US who are more or less assimilating to whatever American culture means in 2008, though less so than the ones I grew up with. And Motown has come to my town. It’s taken it over. I live now in an entire city full of Huntington Beach Motown 1975. It’s 33 years later, and nothing has changed.
I’m convinced that young barrio Hispanics really do love gang culture. They love it all, the fights, the tattoos, the colors, the sets, the hardass mentality, the gangsta rap, the crime, the money, the knives, the guns, the jail, the prison the probation and yes, even the funerals. They’re in thrall to it. How do I know this? I live with these people, and they are in my home and car night and day.
Older Hispanics love fights too. I hang out in Mexican bars full of drunken illegal aliens, blasting Norteno music, with strippers grinding in the background. It’s kind of a seedy, somewhat dangerous place, but I can usually handle myself in these places.
There are all sorts of really scary looking guys in there, guys who glare at you with menace, older hardcore Norteno gangsters, and guys who just look like criminals. Drunken brawls break out, and the owner won’t even break it up. The chairs and tables fly and all the guys just lap it up. Even the owner loves it his furniture flies. I guess macho Mexican males love a fight. Same way macho young Hispanic males love gangs.
Most importantly, that’s why Hispanic gang culture ain’t going away. All the gang task forces, the social programs, the anti-gang programs, years and what, decades now, and where are we? Worse than ever. And the more we import barrio-prone and gang-prone (that is, those who will go gang/barrio rather than avoiding that) Mesoamericans via immigration, legal or illegal, the more this phenomenon will grow and grow.
In my town when I grew up, White culture and American culture were synonymous. That may be wrong, but that’s just the way it was. For a lot of us, that’s the way it’s always been. Motown and South Central LA were always peripheral to mainstream US culture growing up, and they surely were in my town.
I don’t like it that Motown has come to my town. I like my Hispanics assimilated, thank you very much. Mexican and Hispanic barrio culture is good and bad, like all the rest, but the bad repels me like a face slap. If that makes me a racist, then I will stand up and say I’m a racist, loud and proud. No problem at all.
The Mestizo future is rising behind the hills of America, a jealous, angry, resentful, demanding and haughty yet peculiarly unthinking God, glaring in our faces. American culture and White culture are no longer the same. Motown has come to America and scribbled graffiti over about half of it, and East LA is California.
At some point in the not too distant future, the US will become just another Latin American country. The process of Mestizization, the murderous marriage that wove its tragic yet beautiful tapestry over our continent, yet somehow passed us by, will overtake us yet. We thought we could avoid it, that we were not a part of the mestizo and mulatto Americas after all, but we were only buying time.
America left the United States of, and the Americas walked right in. Why not, with the back door unlocked and swinging wide?
At this point, there is not much to do about it but learn Spanish and plan for the future. Will we be Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Brazil or Colombia? Or Chile, Costa Rica, Dominica or Argentina?
The future is not way off in never never land, out of our minds and our petty little worlds. The future is now. Get active. If you don’t die beforehand, either you come to the future, or it comes to you. Stride forward to greet your new world, smiling or not. At least you will be ready.

Frances Cress Welsing

Frances Cress Welsing has written many a ridiculous thing in her career as a Black radical. God pray she is not a tenured academic somewhere. Here are a few. Check out the mouth-feel as you read over them. Scrumptious!

The color of white people is the result of leprosy and genetic inferiority, and that the ancestors of white people are the sexual partners of dogs and jackals. It took 600 years to breed them, part man and part beast. Hence is it any wonder that whites lack true emotions in their creation ? Is it any wonder that white people are never peaceful ? Whites were only created to fight other invading races, to protect the God race of the black man…

LOL.

White men give there women chocolate with nuts on Mothers day, so they can feel sexual equal to the black man. You notice the way so many white males are homos ? It’s because through anal intercourse, the sick self-debasing white male may fantasize that he can produce a product of color, albeit that the product of color is S**T. Do not take what I say lightly, this is the truth.

LOL wut.
You know something, silly Blacks? Most White guys don’t go around all the time being worried about Black guys and their big Black cocks.
Anyway, some of us White guys, like the author, are pretty big themselves, not that it matters but still. I once had a Black woman tell me, in the midst of the frolics but before the penetration, “You’re pretty big you know?” Her terrified eyes were as big as moons. I’ll take that compliment to the bank, hun. Really, how big do you need to be? I’m big enough for my own ego. Who needs more?
Most White guys think that White women who slut for big Black cocks are whores anyway. Many of us effectively throw them right on out of the White race. That’s punishment enough.
White guys? I hate to break it to you Black guys. We feel superior to you. You can argue on and on how this is racism, how it’s crap, how it’s really inferiority transposed as superiority, but still. We just think Black guys are inferior. On a group level, at worst, you’re animals. At best, you’re still below us. On an individual level, that may vary, but we still often don’t feel that the individual Black guy is our better. A lot of us have residual racism that gets in the way of that.
That sucks, but that’s how we feel, even White liberals. Sure, Black guys are better at some stuff, but nothing that’s important. Sure, White women dump us for Blacks, but those are women of the street, nothing more than silly whores who are being evicted from the Great Race. Who worries about whores?
A much better analysis is to see White Supremacy for what it is, not psychoanalyze it away with nonsense. Yeah! We think we’re better! Not just better than you Blacks, but better than everyone else on Earth! And we really, really, really do believe it, too.
All races are supremacist in a sense, ethnocentrism being what it is after all.
But there are a few races, like the European Whites (North Europeans worst of all) and the NE Asians (Japanese worst of all) who have a truly extreme sense of their superiority. They don’t just feel superior to those “wife-stealing bastards over the hill” as most tribes do, they actually feel better than most other humans on the planet! And they really believe it.
The consequences of Super-Supremacism are not good. That Germany and Japan, two ultra-supremacist nations, engaged in mass genocides recently is not incidental. It’s easy to kill the inferior, not much harder than stomping on bugs.
Blacks and humanist Whites have written whole libraries full of the harm that White Supremacy as an ideology has done especially to Blacks and to other non-Whites.

  1. We think we’re better. This is the real problem. Discuss.
  2. We don’t think we’re worse. This is a Black fantasy to avoid dealing with the painful reality of number 1, that the Black is the butt of jokes and the object of humiliation by Supremacist Whites.

The Fallacy of Hereditarian Racial IQ Gap Theory

Repost from the old site.

I am republishing this piece which I published earlier. I am including some links and some more data making the case for a 6 pt. Flynn Effect gain for US NE Asians from the 1970’s to today. They went from about 97.5 IQ to 103.5 IQ (or 100.5 IQ to 106.5 IQ renormed) over 30 years, meeting and then surpassing US Whites, a gain of approximately 6 full points, purely by the environment.

In the comments section, Alan Weiss, a very smart guy, says it is either intellectually lazy or racist to assume that the B-W IQ gap, now at 13.5 points, not 15 points, as is frequently reported, is genetic. I don’t agree that it’s automatically racist or lazy to assume that the B-W gap is genetic. The hereditarians have done some excellent work in proving their case.

I guess my argument is that the hereditarian case is not necessarily relevant. Saying that “the gap is genetic” doesn’t really mean much.

The hereditarians say that 70% of the B-W IQ gap is genetic?

Ok, look.

James Flynn points out that in the 1940’s in the US, the IQ gap between NE Asians and Whites in the US was 3.5 points. The scores were US White = 100, US NE Asian = 97.5. Now, the hereditarians say that 70% of that racial gap is genetic, and it’s insurmountable. US NE Asians could never come within 1.5 pts. of US Whites, no matter what happened in their environment.

But look what happened.

In the next generation, they not only met Whites, but they surpassed them. They gained anywhere from 5.5 to 6.5 IQ points on Whites. Now, with renorming, Whites are at 103 and US NE Asians are at 108. So an “insurmountable” gap that was “70% genetic” was not only surmounted, but it was actually surpassed.

Flynn says that US Chinese had an IQ no greater than Whites in 1949, (actually their IQ was 97.5) yet got better jobs due to extra-IQ factors such as stronger work ethic and higher motivation. They used these new jobs to provide a better environment for their kids, which raised their kids IQ’s to 109 in children, falling to 103 by adolescence as parental influence wore off.

In his book, Asian Americans, Achievement Beyond IQ (The book is available for browsing online, and you are free to look through it). Flynn notes that the average US NE Asian American IQ may have risen 10 points over 30 years. From 1943-1975, average IQ was ~97.5 for Chinese and Japanese.

Flynn also found that Chinese-Americans in earlier decades were working at occupations that suggested IQ’s fully 21 points higher than what their actual IQ’s were.

This shows right there that IQ is not destiny, and there are extra-IQ factors that figure in occupational success. Now it is 103 according to Flynn (106 renormed), and others pretty much concur. This chart shows a US Asian IQ of 106 (Reynolds and Chastain, 1987, p.330). With an IQ of 106, it appears that US Asian IQ may have risen fully 6 points relative to other scores in 20-30 years.

Flynn also suggested an Asian IQ (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) of 104 in the last few years. With renorming, that should be 107. With renorming, all scores point to a US Asian IQ of 106-107.

There is support for Flynn’s data from hardcore hereditarians. Richard Lynn reports that Japanese IQ was significantly higher than average IQ in the United States, and that Japanese IQ scores had risen over the past generation (Lynn 1982).

Herrnstein and Murray 1994, Rushton and Jensen 2005 and Lynn 2006 all find that the average IQ scores of East Asians in Asia, North America and Europe are significantly higher than 100. Lynn has US Asian IQ at 106 and rising in this article.

About the Flynn Effect, Flynn notes that our vocabularies and information are no greater than our ancestors, so we can’t do any better at reading an adult novel.

The Dickens-Flynn Model shows that all of so-called pure genetic aspects of IQ can actually be explained by the environment.

Smaller families have had an IQ effect that looks like better nutrition – they can provide a better environment for their kids.

Studies have also shown that Asians enjoy studying more than other groups. This may explain their superior performance even relative to IQ.

This is what I mean when I say that when they say that racial gaps are “70% genetic” or whatever, it doesn’t necessarily mean all that much. Now the hereditarians have to look at the 5.5 point gain that US NE Asians have over US Whites (US NE Asians = 108.5, US Whites = 103) and say that gap is 70% genetic. Does that make any sense either? Of course not.

Once these “wholly genetic” gaps are not only overcome but even surpassed by purely environmental actions, the whole hereditarian argument gets a bit silly.

References

Flynn, James R. 1991. Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Herrnstein, RJ and Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press

Lynn, R. 1982. IQ In Japan And The United States Shows A Growing Disparity. Nature, 297:222-3.

Lynn, R. 2006. Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Books.

Reynolds, C. R., Chastain R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. 1987. Demographic Characteristics And IQ Among Adults: Analysis Of The WAIS-R Standardization Sample As A Function Of The Stratification Variables. Journal of Social Psychology, 25:323-342.

Rushton, J. P. & Jensen, A. R. 2005. Thirty Years Of Research On Black-White Differences In Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

On Korean Women

A Chinese American or Korean American (Which is it?) commenter, Hacienda, who is also a great writer, discusses the wonder of Korean women:

Korean women can be extremely sexy, to the point of absolute sexiness. I used to hang out in some Korean bars before the LA riots caused the police to crack down on the really seedier (but extremely hot) ones. You’ve not experienced sultry until you had experienced some of the women there. Unfortunately, these places are now mostly closed and ones left are too stiff, too regulated to be interesting. But, for we who know, our loss.BTW, I think white women need to be trained or acculturated to Korean (or East Asian) ways to reclaim the prized hotness they once possessed too. Rap and crap just makes them bulgy and unattractive.

Korean women are very submissive to men. If you treat them right, they treat you like a God to be worshipped. Japanese women can be like that too. They aren’t really bitches at all, though a few have developed a bad attitude towards men, and if you piss them off, some can just go fullon fuckin psycho with no way to turn it off.

They are less bitchy, demanding and castrating than White women by orders of magnitude. They’re also highly intelligent, even just the ordinary working class ones, which is an interesting find in a group of women. An average, uneducated working class Korean-American woman is smarter than an average White American female junior college student.

I don’t know how Korean and Japanese men treat their women, but you always hear that it’s a fullon sexist patriarchal culture. I’ve had a hard time verifying that though, or the extent to which it exists in the US.

These East Asian seem to assume you’re going to be a typical sexist male bastard like all guys, and then when you’re not, but you’re not a pussy either, you’re like God’s gift to women.

To the East Asian guys complaining about how their women are leaving them for White guys,  I feel sorry for them and don’t know what to say.

I would say this though: East Asian guys should try to act like White guys when in the US. The media elevates the White man all over the world. All over the world, women, except US White women, want a White man more than anything else. East Asian guys are in the US, and Whites run the show. I think their women are going for Whites due to media brainwash.

So the best course for Asian guys would be to try to act like us White guys.

What Do the Chinese Think of Blacks?

Hacienda, a Korean nationalist commenter with an anti-White grudge, posts:

“all those groups seriously hate blacks”One thing whites HAVE to stop doing:

Stop trying to be the spokespeople for other races. How the f+ck do you know that Chinese REALLY hate blacks!

I have spent a lot of time around Japanese and Koreans. They seriously hate Blacks, way, way, way, way worse than Whites do. They are like how we used to be. It’s pretty much the same with the East Indians in the US. And I know for a fact it’s true about Hispanics. It’s not that these people hate Blacks and Whites don’t, it’s just that they are vastly more racist than we are anymore. US Whites have lost a lot of their anti-Black racism lately. Things are far different than they were 30 or even 20 years ago.

I recall that during Mao’s era, the Maoist regime used to send bright Africans to college in China. The Chinese male students would chase them down the streets threatening to beat them up and calling them monkeys.

Also, a number of Blacks came to a university town in China recently. As might be expected, they were great players and were quickly cleaning up with the Chinese girls. They would throw parties in their apartments. Only Black men allowed. Only Chinese women allowed. No Chinese men allowed.

The Chinese male students at the university staged a wild, violent riot over the Blacks “stealing Chinese women.” Things got so bad that the Chinese government moved the Black students out of the city.

I also heard one Chinese guy from the Bay Area say that he and every Chinese person he knew in the Bay Area despised Blacks. Turned out that a number of them had been victims of violent crime. In every single case, the Chinese person was victimized by a Black criminal. This was the genesis of their rage.

Those anecdotes, along with the fact that Chinese racial supremacism probably mirrors the Japanese and Korean varieties, lead me to think that Chinese are not too wild about Blacks.

Heck, Chinese don’t even like other Asians. They don’t even like non-Han Asiatics who are their fellow citizens in China. I have had them tell me that Chinese means “Han.” Anyone in China who is not Han is “not Chinese.” Implication is that they are inferior. Even the Cantonese Yue are considered to be barbarians. They are somewhat off the hook as they have been Hanized, but not totally.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Men, Race, Masculinity Scales and Women’s Sexual Choices

In the comments section, people are arguing about whether Asian men are masculine or not. It all depends on your perspective, and masculinity ain’t all it’s cracked up to be anyway.

All other things being equal, the society with the most masculinized males will be seriously violent, unfair and uncivilized.

The society with the less masculinized males (within reason) will get along very smoothly, function very well, have high levels of wealth, trust and empathy, place emphasis on fairness, have low rates of crime and social pathology: in short, these will be the most civilized societies on Earth.

But a woman is a Cavewoman, and when looking for mates, she’s not necessarily looking for Mr. Civilization.

Let’s get real here for a second. Now, in my 20’s, I spent a lot of time with Asians at USC in the teaching program, then teaching in schools in Gardena, Koreatown and Orange Country, so I know them very well. The older generation of Japanese and Korean men always struck me as very macho.

Don’t know about the younger guys. They aren’t exactly wimpy. More like nerdy. But they aren’t feminine or effeminate. They’re just these somewhat uptight/nerdy squares. One thing I can tell you is Japanese guys seriously hate queers! They really, really, really hate them.

I had a best friend who was Japanese, and he had problems with women. Mostly he was shy. His older brother could not get laid if God himself decreed it. He would go to these bars in LA where you pay the chicks a lot of money just so they will dance with you and talk to you. That’s how hard up he was.

Even in Gardena, I noticed that the older Japanese men were super macho, but the younger guys were these nerdy office worker types. I would go out to eat in all-Japanese restaurants and some of the Japanese women in there would do the Stepford Wives hypnotized look thing. I still don’t understand what it is with Asian women and White guys. The best of us have some kind of power of them.

All that aside, let’s get real. Let’s line the 3 races of men together here in the US:

1. Asian men.
2. White men.
3. Black men.

1. Least masculine.
2. In between.
3. Most masculine.*

*The scale is exactly the opposite for females and femininity, but that’s another post. Think about it.

Now, not saying that low masculinity is all that bad, I mean I got a Master’s Degree and I’m a hermit / egghead who sits around and reads books all the time. On top of that, lots of people think I’m gay or bi. So no offense Asian guys.

Asian men’s quite decent and civilized behavior is due to lower masculinity.

Black men’s extremely uncivilized and indecent behavior is due to their extreme masculinity. Look at the imprisonment/woman abuse, etc. rates.

However, women are Cavewomen when it comes to sex. She will choose a guy who seems more masculine. Hence, White women go for Black men and call us pussies, wimps and fags. Asian women in a society with White and Black men will see Asian men as too feminine and go for White guys instead. Black men will be so masculine that most Asian women will see them as some kind of animals from a jungle, totally uncivilized beasts.

A woman wants a man who is *somewhat* more masculine, but not so much that he’s a fuckin’ animal. A White man is perfect for an Asian woman. Somewhat more masculine than Asian guys, treats them better, yet low enough in masculinity as to be quite civilized.

More Comments on the Genetics of Filipinos

The question involves whether or not Filipinos have some Negrito genes. The Negritos are the original Australoid peoples of the Philippines. The Filipinos are the modern, SE Asian Mongoloid types that we all familiar with.

SE Asian Australoids are people like Papuans, Melanesians and Negritos.

It is possible to be part this or that in your background, but it won’t show up in genes or in skulls. I think we are all aware that SE Asians in general are a mix of a Mongoloid type with more primitive Australoid types = Negrito or Melanesian types, that were already living there. But when we look at skulls, we see nothing. SE Asian skulls do not look Australoid, other than Negritos and the Senoi.

Classic SE Asian appearance in a young Filipina with relatively dark skin, an adaptation to the tropical climate. She also somewhat resembles a Taiwanese aborigine.

When we go looking for Australoid genes, we can’t seem to find much of those either. Just a few here and there along the coast of Vietnam, in Malaysia and in Indonesia. Though there are a lot more in Eastern Indonesia.

So, yeah, Filipinos may well be part Melanesian/Negrito going way back when (Heck, all SE Asians are) but there’s little to nothing obvious left of the Australoid presence, other than maybe some vague look in the faces won’t plot on a chart (Filipino skulls won’t plot with Australoid skulls on charts).

Emilio Aguinaldo, a famous Filipino independence fighter. This look, often said to be Australoid, actually shows resemblances to the Taiwanese Ami.

The analogy with Amerindians is a good one. Amerindians in the US have quite a bit of White genes. Most are only part Amerindian anymore. But Whites do not have a lot of Amerindian genes. Sure, we have some (I am 1/3000 Amerindian as I am related to Pocohontas), and perhaps a majority of Americans have Amerindian genes, but they only have small amounts of them.

Vast amounts of White genes went into the Amerindian population. Few Amerindian genes went into the White population. Both via genocide and genetic swamping effects.

A similar situation may have existed in the Philippines. Aeta genes now look Filipino, but Filipinos seem to have few Negrito genes that I am aware of.

Wilma, a Filipina girl from Siteo Pader, Angeles City. This Filipina girl has a classic Filipina look to her. She is much closer to a Taiwanese Ami than to a Negrito, as you can see.

The Negritos were simply genetically swamped out. Vast amounts of Filipino genes went into the Negritos, but few Negrito genes went into the Filipinos.

A Negrito woman from the Philippines. Do Filipinos look like this? No. Hence, don't have many Negrito genes.

All of this is complicated by the fact that the original Austronesians may well have been Australoid types. At 5000 YBP, the Taiwanese aborigine Ami, the source of the Filipino population, are Australoid.

An Ami girl from Taiwan. The Ami, Taiwanese aborigines, are the source population of most of the Philippines and the closest relatives of Filipinos.

They transition to Mongoloid over the next 3000 years. Probably a similar transition occurred in the Philippines, as the Ami in the Philippines slowly turned into Mongoloids along with the rest of SE Asia.

A chart showing the near-perfect relationship between the Taiwanese Ami and the Filipinos. The relationship is clear and unmistakable. Note that other Taiwanese populations could not have been the source.

It is true that there are Bornean genes from Borneo in the South of the Philippines, that is, the South Filipinos of Mindanao are part Bornean.

The heavily-Austronesian (Ami) people of Sabah. People from Sabah went up into the Southern Philippines (Mindanao) at some point in the past. P.S. The lady in the middle is a cutie. Same with 3rd one on the top and 3rd one on the left.

The proto-Daic genes from 15,000 YBP that make up 80% of the Indonesians were from an Australoid people. Proto-Daics (the ancestors of the present day Dai people of Yunnan in South China) 15,000 YBP were Australoids. I am not sure what they looked like. Maybe something like an Aborigine or a Melanesian. The Indonesians then transitioned to Mongoloid types over the next 13,000 years or so.

An Indonesian with a strong Australoid appearance. Quite a few Indonesians retain some Australoid features.

The Anuids or Ainu types probably passed through the Philippines two times.

An Ainu woman with quite a bit of Japanese in her. Most Ainus are now heavily Japanese. By the way, she's a hottie.

The first time, going from Thailand as the Ainuid Jomonese to Japan on boats to form the Japanese Jomonese 16,000 YBP.

An Ainu chief showing the typical Ainu appearance before Japanese gene flow.

Possibly the same migration brought the Jomonese to Australia as the Ainuid Murrayans, a formative element in the Aborigines.

Typical Aboriginal women.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

IQ Scores of Oppressed Minorities

There is some interesting literature out there about IQ gaps in minorities and in particular in oppressed minorities.

For instance, in Japan, Burakumin (a caste-like minority) and Koreans (an oppressed minority in Japan) have very low IQ scores and poor school performance relative to Japanese. The Burakumin have a 15 pt gap in IQ. However, it is said that when Burakumin immigrate to the US, in the second generation, the 15 pt difference evaporates and their children score even a bit higher than Japanese.

Japanese Koreans are also said to do very well in school and on IQ tests in the second generation after migration to the US, but they do poorly when they are in Japan.

There are also other examples of IQ score differences between close neighbors in the same nation who would appear to have similar genetics, for example between French vs. Flemish speakers in Belgium, Irish and Scottish vs. English in Great Britain, and Afrikaans speaking Whites vs. English speaking Whites in South Africa.

Children of immigrants of all types seem to score higher than those who stay behind. This difference is mysterious and apparently cannot be accounted for on the basis of selective immigration. Something about immigration itself seems to stimulate cognition in immigrants and their children.

References

Sternberg, Robert J. (Editor), Grigorenko, Elena L. (Editor). 2001. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Do Asians Have a Short Bell Curve?

In race realist circles, much is made of a so-called short curve in Asian IQ. That is, Asians are said to have few geniuses and few idiots – there are few Asians below 70 IQ (gifted) and few above 130 IQ (gifted). So, while Asians are highly intelligent, it is said that they lack a large number of the sort of extreme geniuses that really move a society forward. On the contrary, European Whites are said to have a long curve.

Quite a few geniuses and idiots, and therefore more likely to produce truly innovative and forward-looking societies. White Supremacists have jumped all over this, as they are stung by IQ studies that show NE Asians scoring about 5 points above European Whites. By emphasizing the short Asian bell curve, White Supremacists fight back by arguing that European Whites are in fact the most superior race of them all, and NE Asians are inferior to them.

There are a lot of problems with this data. For one thing, it is not holding up well in the US. Our very top universities are overflowing not just with Ashkenazi Jews (IQ = 112) but also with NE Asians (IQ = 108). One would think that the competition at top schools such as the Ivy League would be among the most high IQ of them all.

Let us also look at the data below regarding gifted programs in the US. As you can see, Asians, especially but not exclusively NE Asians, have a higher % of students in gifted programs than Whites or than the general population. This would not be the case if Asians actually had a short bell curve.

The graph below is confusing. It shows what % of Asians, out of all of those tested for the gifted program, actually made the cutoff (probably 125 IQ).

I have no explanation for some of the results below. Why do Amerindians have more gifted than Hispanics? Why do Hawaiians and Guamanians have so many gifted, but Samoans and other Pacific Islanders have fewer, when both groups have the same IQ?

The IQ scores may seem confusing. They are set at the new ranking of US IQ = 100. Scores were formerly set at US White IQ = 100. The new ranking pushes US White scores up to 103, and pushes everyone else’s score up 3 points. But the scores are still the same; only the scale has changed.

Asians are overrepresented in the gifted programs in the US, contrary to WN propaganda about narrow Asian SD and relative lack of gifted students.

For 1997, according to the Office of Civil rights (1999), 5.64% of the total enrollment was enrolled in gifted programs- 9.41% of Asians, 6.79% of Whites, 4.43% of American Indians, 3.38% of Hispanics and 2.43% of Blacks. East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans), Southeast Asians (e.g., Cambodians/Khmer, Laotians, Thais and Vietnamese), the Philippines, Pacific Islanders (e.g., Hawaiians, Samoans, Guamanians and Tongans), and South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) were all included as Asians.

Examination of data for those assessed and those who qualified for GATE during the 1998-99 school year indicated that of 14,778 students tested during the year, 3,108 (21.03%) qualified for GATE programs.

Examination of data for Asian subgroups showed a wide range in percentages of children who qualified, with Chinese (50.47%), Korean (47.44%), Asian Indians (45.45%) and Japanese (41.30%) well above the mean for the total group assessed. Percentages for Guamanians, Hawaiians, Filipinos, Vietnamese and other Indochinese were above the average for the district.

Laotians (15.79%), Hmong (14.12%), Cambodians (12.58%), and Samoans (7.32%) fell well below the mean. Higher rates of poverty are reported for three of the four: Hmong (63.6%), Cambodians (42.6%), Laotians (34.7%), and Vietnamese (25.7%).

APA Subgroup                % Certified  IQ in US

Chinese                     50.47%       108
Koreans                     47.44        108
Asian Indians               45.45        109
Japanese                    41.30        108
Vietnamese                  29.76        102.5
Hawaiians                   28.00         90
Filipinos                   28.00         97
Other Indochinese           25.00         93
Guamanians                  21.95         89
Total Including non-APAs    21.03         100
Laotians                    15.79         92
Hmong                       14.12         85.5
Cambodians                  12.58         92
Samoans                      7.32         89
Other Pacific Islander       5.56         89

In conclusion, it is not yet proven that Asians have a short bell curve relative to European Whites, and there is considerable evidence against the hypothesis.

References

Cheng L. L., Ima K. & Labovitz G. 1994. Assessment of Asian and Pacific Islander Students for Gifted Programs. In S. B. Garcia (Ed.), Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Special Education (pp. 30-45). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report. National and State Projections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

“Racist!”

Note: This post is extremely long, at 108 pages, so be forewarned. However, it’s very good, and I think it’s well worth your time.

There is not a whole lot I can add to this seminal work by a University of Montana Professor of English named Paul Trout. The piece speaks for itself. Here it is, 15 years later, and not a single thing has changed,  has it? This means that serious forms of PC insanity have devastated our universities, and from there, spread, virus-like, into society at large for over two decades now. In the meantime, in the past 20-25 years, things have only gotten worse for non-Whites in general, Blacks and Hispanics in particular.

So, while a blatantly White racist politics has held sway over the nation, causing serious harm to various non-Whites as Whites attacked them, at the same time, an idiot PC Idiocracy has held a Dictatorship of the Idiotariot over society as a whole. One wonders what good this PC silliness does, other than just spreading even more stupidity and insanity through a society that has too much of both already.

The PC Idiot Class has not been able to prevent a White racist politics from gripping the nation, yet it has gone on a jihad against a bunch of a nonsense, and its most frequent victims were non-racist and even anti-racist Whites. One wonders how any of the incidents below affected any US Black or Hispanics polities as a whole in any real and meaningful way. They didn’t. So all PC madness is attack innocent Whites, usually, most perversely of all, the liberal ones who are friendliest to non-Whites.

The main conclusion that we liberal Whites draw from all this looniness is that minorities are nothing but trouble. Blacks in particular. Read the article below and I defy you to conclude that modern PC Blacks are anything but a heap of ridiculous problems waiting to blow up on you at any unknown time. The only sensible conclusion Whites, even non-racist ones, draw from PC madness is that minorities, particularly Blacks but to a lesser extent Hispanics, Amerindians and other Professional Victims, are just not worth the trouble and are best avoided.

If you read below, you will notice that the only sane people protesting the PC lunacy are conservatives, particularly White racist conservatives. Great. So White people can either be PC professional flagellants or they can defy it and be White racist jerks. Well! That’s certainly one Hell of a choice!

Conservatives are so crazy and wrong on most everything that anytime the conservatives are right, you know the Left must be catastrophically screwed up. It embarrasses me to no end that the only folks making sense below are the rightwing nasties at US News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. Where are all the sane liberals? On vacation, I guess. Or, worse, afraid of being called racist.

Cruising around the Black blogosphere, you note that the PC nonsense below is the standard view on race at most intelligent Black blogs. This is a classical, and typical, example. And on many Hispanic blogs too. And, I am sad to say, it’s the standard view on most of the leftwing sites I read.

This piece was originally found on this site here. That’s a White racist site, and so is Nicholas Stix, probably, though I guess Nick has an excuse for being racist (he experienced a lot of terrible treatment by Blacks). One again, we see that the only folks promoting this eminently sane piece are racist Whites. How sad!

(This landmark monograph was originally published in 1995 in Montana Professor Journal.

I can no longer find any working links to the journal, and though I found this article again through a Google search on March 18 and downloaded it, today neither the direct link nor the Google cache works anymore. And so, rather than let this important 13,000-word work be lost in the ether, I am re-publishing it here.

The importance of this work is three-fold: 1. Its factual statements are true; 2. As an historical record; and 3. To show that the morally obscene practices of totalitarian campus multiculturalists, in particular, Black campus racists, have now gone on unopposed, without a break, for over 20 years. N.S.)

“Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression

Paul Trout

Dept of English

Montana State U – Bozeman

Montana Professor Journal

Fall 1995

Introduction

About the worst thing you can be called nowadays is “racist.” The word not only brands a person as intellectually and morally inferior but links him or her to hooded sickos who beat and lynch innocent minorities. And the accusation – whether merited or not – often brings stinging penalties, from shunning to firing. Ask Senator Conrad Burns, Andy Rooney, Jimmy the Greek, Marge Schott, or Christina Jeffrey. No wonder people who subscribe to liberal social and intellectual ideals, who abhor race prejudice, fear being branded with the scarlet “R.”

Since the term carries so much social opprobrium and can hurt a person’s private life and public career, it should be defined clearly and used cautiously. This is not the case, however, on today’s college campuses. The examples in this essay suggest that on college campuses across the country, the epithet “racist,” hard enough for dictionaries to define (see “Defining Racism,” Chronicles, August 1994, 46), has become alarmingly unmoored.

We have now reached a point where the term can be used, usually without explanation or justification, to stigmatize any policy, statement, symbol, statistic, outcome, word or expression that any minority member does not like, including all kinds of legitimate, scholarly, and protected material.

As Robert Hughes observes in The Culture of Complaint, the irresponsible and promiscuous use of “racist” has robbed the term of “whatever stable meaning it once had” (19). Even worse, since its use is sanctioned by the subjectivity of the user, there can be no false accusations of “racism.” In short, anyone accused of “racism” is ipso facto guilty.

As a result, the epithet “racist” has become a powerful weapon of intimidation, the contemporary equivalent of the 1950s charge of “communism.” Since nobody on campus wants to be labeled a “racist,” and since nobody knows what the term means, most people stay clear of saying or doing anything that some minority member may label as “racist.” Out of fear, most people – and especially Whites – studiously avoid touchy issues, provocative statements, or ambiguous symbols or behaviors.

Unfortunately, as the examples in this essay show, not everybody succeeds in avoiding trouble. An untoward statement, word, metaphor or observation, even an unpalatable research finding, can catapult a student, faculty member, or administrator, into the category of “racist” with regrettable results.

Of “Racist” Epithets There Is No End

Campus speech codes forbid and provide punishment for certain types of expressive behavior which causes an individual or group to feel demeaned or abused because of their racial or ethnic background (so long as they are non-White). Such codes are often said to be aimed at only the most outrageous ”ethnic slurs” and “racial epithets” (Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 198).

But anybody staying abreast of this issue knows that speech codes have been invoked to punish all kinds of acts and statements, from quoting upsetting statistics to evincing “disrespect” (see Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, 26).

Part of the problem with these codes is that they do not emphasize the objective content of the behavior or language, but the subjective response of the self-proclaimed victim. So an “ethnic slur” or “racial epithet” is whatever that person deems it to be. Another problem is that these codes – remarkably – never list the epithets that they forbid.

What words or epithets are “racist”? The only right answer is, more and more of them. Now even the noun “Jew” is “racist,” according to WordPerfect 6.0’s Grammatik, which warns us to “avoid using this offensive term.” So is the verb “to welch,” according to the Welsh-American Legal Defense, Education, and Development Fund. So is “digger pines” (Pinus sabiniana), according to a curator at the California State Indian Museum, who claims it is a slur on Native Americans.

So is “spook,” as in “Spook Hill” (in Mesa, Arizona), according to the NAACP, even though it refers to ghosts who haunt the area (in Phoenix, there was a brouhaha over Squaw Peak).

Given people’s notorious and awe-inspiring linguistic inventiveness (see A. A. Roback’s Dictionary of International Slurs) and their exquisite sensitivity to grievance, the list of offensive epithets will keep going and going…It is already quite long.”

An author who gave a talk at Harvard on why liberals like Jack Kerouac were drawn to Black culture provoked protests by entitling his talk, quoting Kerouac, “Spade Kicks” ( CHE 10 June 1992). The phrase “playing goalie Kamikazestyle” was deleted from a story in a textbook because it was construed to be an ethnic slur (Campus Reports, December 1992).

Even the word “slave” is now dangerous to use. An Education Commission in New York recommended in 1991 that the word “slave” be replaced with “enslaved person” in all school textbooks. Students at historically Black Prairie View Texas A&M University complained that they were offended by the Latin term servitium, in the school’s motto Recercare, Doctrina, Servitium, because in the Middle Ages it allegedly meant slavery. Regents approved the following translation: “Research, Teaching, Service” (CHE, 3 August 1994, A4).

Murray Dolfman was fired for using this word. When no one in his University of Pennsylvania law class knew what the Thirteenth Amendment forbade, he said according to his version), “We have ex-slaves here who should know about the Thirteenth Amendment,” (in Kindly Inquisitors, 148-149). He also referred to himself as an ex-slave (as a Jewish ’slave unto Pharaoh’).

When several Black students complained after class, Dolfman apologized but that did no good. Black students invaded his class and read a list of accusations to Dolfman’s students. News of Dolfman’s amazingly clumsy remark convulsed the campus for weeks, and Houston Baker, the well-known scholar of Black literature, engaged in a little signifying by publicly denouncing Dolfman as an “asshole…unqualified to teach dogs” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue, 112).

Dolfman’s contract was not renewed. Richard Bernstein draws this moral from the Dolfman affair: “In the era of political correctness and craven university administrations, the charge of racism, unsubstantiated but accompanied by a few demonstrations and angry rhetorical perorations, suffices to paralyze a campus, to destroy a reputation, and to compel an administration into submission,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 114-115).

Other words one should stay away from include – according to the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri – ”shiftless,” “fried chicken” (“a loaded phrase when used carelessly”), and “watermelon.” In 1987 at Harvard, Stephen Thernstrom, a respected historian of race relations, was accused of “racism” by students because he used the words “American Indian” and “Oriental” (Maclean’s, 27 May 1991; Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37).

At the University of Virginia Law School, a hapless White guy got into trouble simply trying to be hip when he shot back at one Black student, “Can you dig it, man?” The next day an anonymous note called the teacher a “racist” and a “White supremacist,” without regard to his pro bono work for the civil rights movement, his membership in Klanwatch, and his work in recruiting minorities to campus (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 6).

At Antioch, Ralph Luker, an associate professor of History and a civil rights activist, was denounced as a “racist” when he said that in the eyes of the law, slaves in the antebellum South had the same legal status as domestic animals. Students thought that he was comparing Black people to animals and took over his class in protest (CHE, 17 June 1994, 4D; 22 June, A14). Afterward, he was denied tenure.

A political science professor at the University of British Columbia (my alma mater) said, during a discussion of apartheid, that “Blacks were at the bottom of the totem pole in South Africa,” (Globe and Mail, 6 August 1994, D7). One student felt the metaphor to be a “racist” appropriation of the sacred symbols of the Kwakiutl and the Haida.

And everyone in the country now has been alerted not to use “water buffalo” within the hearing of Blacks. One night in January, 1993, a group of Black sorority women were dancing and chanting outside a dormitory window at 3 a.m. Several dorm residents shouted for the women to be quiet, and apparently some racial epithets were exchanged.

One student, Eden Jacobowitz, shouted “Shut up, you water buffalo. If you’re looking for a party there is a zoo a mile from here.” (CHE, July 7, 1993, A32). (The women claimed he said, “Shut up, you Black water buffaloes,” and “Go back to the zoo where you belong!”; see “The Raging Water Buffalo” by John K. Wilson, in The Newsletter of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, 2 [2], Fall 1993, 11-12).

The five female students charged Jacobowitz with “racial harassment” under the university’s vague hate-speech code (Scott Shepard, “Penn: The Most Poisoned Ivy?” Campus 5 [1], Fall 1993, 6).

Jacobowitz, an Israel-born Yeshiva student, used the word “water buffalo” because it was the English translation for the Hebrew word “behemah” (there are various spellings for this word), which means “water oxen” and is used as slang to describe an inconsiderate or foolish person. “It was the furthest thing from my mind to call them anything racial,” he said (CHE, 5 May 1993, A39).

During preliminary hearings, Penn Judicial Inquiry Officer Robin Reed asked Jacobowitz if he had been “thinking racial thoughts” on the night his supposed offense took place. She also explained that “water buffalo” could be taken as a racial slur because it “is a dark, primitive animal that lives in Africa” (AP, 14 May 1993). Reed is wrong. The animal is native to southeast Asia.

Although several Black faculty members were asked to testify that “water buffalo” is not a racial slur (until now, at any rate), John Wilson has argued that the fact that the phrase “is not a common racial epithet hardly makes it immune from use in a racist way.” In other words, any word can be used as a “racist” epithet. Charges against Jacobowitz were eventually dropped.

Students and faculty must be especially wary of potentially “racist” color words nowadays. Recently, at Columbia University, “chocolate” and “vanilla” were held to be “racist” after two White students who worked for the escort service were overheard by a Black security guard referring to certain escortees as “chocolate” or “vanilla.” The students explained that chocolate merely meant “attractive” and vanilla “unattractive” or “plain.”

The director of the service, however, summarily fired them for uttering “blatantly racist” remarks (see “Diversity at Columbia U.” by Jeffery M. Duban, the students’ attorney, in Heterodoxy 3 [1], January 1995). The students were reinstated when they sued.

If “chocolate” is dangerous, “Black” is even more so. A professor at the University of Michigan was condemned as a “racist” in part for using the word “Blacks” with a lower-case “B” rather than the seven-times-as-long “African-Americans.”

Use of the word “Black” is now suspect even in such innocuous words and phrases as “Black magic,” “Blacklisted,” “Blackboard,” and “Black eye.” School kids are encouraged to avoid the inherent offensiveness of the term “Black” by singing, “Baa, Baa, Green Sheep” (Campus Reports, September, 1992). One woman believes that being afraid of the “dark” is subtly “racist” (Parade Magazine 11 June 1995, 15).

And the Reverend Rodney X of the Nation of Islam believes that this country’s inherent “racism” is revealed by its having a “White House” and not a “Black House.” Rodney also thinks that pool is “racist” because “the White ball knocks all the colored balls into holes from which they cannot escape,” (Campus Reports, February 1993). A wag at The Observer of Boston College suggested that the Right Reverend might prefer bowling.

At Camden County College, Black tassels became a racial issue when Black students complained that students who earn the highest grades wear gold or silver tassels, but those with the lower grades wear Black ones. As one African American student complained, “Black does not need to represent the lowest,” (CHE, 15 December 1993, A5).

At a recent conference on college composition, an academic found all kinds of “racist” color-coding in computer icons: the “White pointer hand,” “icons of middle- and upper-class White culture,” etc. (quoted in The American Spectator February 1995, 80). Some American Indians find offensive “racist” meaning is such words as “massacre,” “scalped,” and “warriors” regardless of context (CHE, 14 August 1991, B1).

Last year, a dean at Georgia State University joined the president of the student association in declaring the American Heritage Dictionary to be ”racist” because of its definitions of “ghetto,” “Black,” “White,” “Ku Klux Klan,” and “Black Panther,” and because it included words like “nigger,” “spic,” ”chink,” and “cracker,” words that have no place, the dean said, in reference works on a multicultural campus. They want the dictionary removed from the library and bookstore, or at least stamped with warning labels (Campus Report 9 [3], March 1994, 1).

Even hitherto neutral and honorific words are being added to the list of “racist” epithets. For example, the word “minority” is now held to be “racist,” according to Black columnist Barbara Reynolds, who regards the term as a “euphemism for ‘nigger’,” (USA Today, 16 August 1994, 10A and D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 156). Another once-neutral word now declared to be “racist” is “subculture” (Ibid., 221).

Even honorific words are taking on “racist” connotations.

When a student at the University of Pennsylvania wrote to diversity education committee about her “deep regard for the individual,” an administrator returned her memo with the word “individual” underlined: “This is a RED FLAG phrase today, which many consider RACIST. Arguments that champion the individual over the group ultimately privilege INDIVIDUALS belonging to the largest or dominant group,” (in “Are You Politically Correct?,” by John Taylor, New York Magazine, 21 January 1991).

Here are other examples of just how unmoored the term “racist” has become in our educational grievance factories. A student filed a complaint against an instructor for saying that the student could “excel” and “receive an A grade.” “The student interpreted this as a racist comment, meaning that despite being Black he could receive an A,” (Jacoby, Dogmatic Wisdom, 84).

In a similar vein, the U. of Missouri stylebook warns writers to stay clear of using the word “articulate” when describing Blacks, saying that it implies that most Blacks are not articulate. In other words, it could be “racist” to say to a minority student, “because you are extremely articulate, you will probably excel in my class.”

Hunting Indians, Minutemen, and other “Racist” Mascots

The Sherlocks of Sensitivity have found “racist” messages not only in the most neutral and honorific expressions but in all kinds of university logos, mascots, and icons.

American Indians have been particularly assiduous in finding “racism” in any and every use of Indian names and images. Over the last ten years or so, their campaign to get colleges to drop team names, logos, and mascots associated with Indian culture has been very successful.

This campaign took a new twist early this year when five students at the University of Illinois filed a complaint with the Illinois’ Human Rights Commission, claiming that the school’s mascot, Chief Illiniwek, causes a “hostile and abusive” environment for American Indians (Campus 6 [3], Spring 1995, 11).

The Commission noted that if the complaint were successful, it would set a precedent that would enable African-American groups to prevent showings of Birth of a Nation, Jewish groups to repress The Merchant of Venice, and Native Americans to prevent the screening of cowboy movies.

When Native Americans find these logos “offensive” or “insulting,” not much can be said, since these subjective terms are self-validating. But are these logos “racist”? That term should be applied to depictions that imply and promote contempt, even hatred. But the images of logos are honorific, usually connoting power, integrity, honor, and nobility.

The Ute tribe has, I think, understood this distinction. It recognized that the University of Utah, in calling its teams the “Running Utes,” was actually implementing (in a small way) the tribe and the state’s Native-American culture. So instead of campaigning against the name and logo, the tribe attempted to control them. All accouterments had to be authentic, all depictions respectful.

Some measure of just how touchy Indian activists have become is seen in the campaign to change the mascot of Fort Lewis College. The icon/mascot was not a Native American, but a White male, a mounted U. S. cavalryman carrying a sword.

Native Americans found the image offensive (CHE, 13 April 1994, 4A). In an effort to make the graphic palatable, the college first replaced the sword with a military banner (no good), then with an “FLC” pennant (not good enough), and then it removed the horseman’s rife and pistol, describing the figure now as “the Raider” (still no good). Finally it dropped the Raider entirely, replacing him with a golden eagle. The A.S.P.C.A. has not complained – yet.

While animals still seem to be a safe bet as logos and mascots, other images and symbols are sitting ducks for charges of “racism.” Any image of a White man is now automatically “racist,” the very term used to describe “Blaze,” the cartoonish Nordic warrior emblem of the University of Alabama. The logo of the University of Alabama – a White, gentlemanly, Colonel-Sanders type – was attacked as “racist” because it allegedly reminded some minority students of “plantation owners.”

Even the Minuteman mascot of the University of Massachusetts was decried as “racist” (it was also “sexist” for being male and violent for holding a gun). Said Martin Jones, the student who led the attack, “to have a White male represent a student body that is not exclusively White or male is culturally biased, and promotes racism.”

The university chancellor agreed, making the university, according to the president of the Republican Club on campus, look like a “politically correct wasteland” and the “laughingstock of the country” (CHE, 10 November 1993).

But after Jones did “some research” into the historic contributions of the Minutemen, and after the campus library was named for the founder of the NAACP (W. E. B. DuBois), he defended the image and announced his “mistake” in criticizing it. “These men, as the original liberators of America, have earned the right to be honored fully by Americans everywhere…Long live the Minutemen of Massachusetts,” (USA Today, 28 October 1994, 10A).

So far the “leprechauns” of the University of Notre Dame have escaped attack.

In these examples, images and logos are being called “racist” not so much for what they depict as for what they exclude – they don’t depict other races or ethnic groups. The Representation Police want school logos to look like Benetton ads, all cuddly rainbow inclusivity. That’s an awful lot to ask of a college logo. In “Mascot Studies,” a writer for The American Spectator (December 1993, 14) puts this foolishness into perspective:

At our universities, neither professors nor administrators apparently possess the discernment to distinguish between a harmless mascot and, say, a flaming cross on a hill…There is today on campus…an innocent assumption that any protester must have a point.

We have quite forgotten that familiar figure of the past, the malcontent. Past generations recognized these odious cranks when they commenced to bawl and took them cum grano salis. If by accident the malcontent had come upon a legitimate grievance, fine – the Republic initiated a reform and passed on.

Today the country is at the mercy of these disturbed people, and actually raises many to lifelong prominence…Worse, these grumblers have inspired thousands of common malcontents to take up a noble cause. Vexed debate over the campus mascot is but one of the unhappy consequences.

In other words, get a life.

Remove That Tattoo, That T-Shirt, and That Elihu Yale!

Official logos and mascots are not the only images on campus ‘under erasure’ for being “racist.” This section will overview a number of incidents in which harmless and relatively benign images and activities were proclaimed to be “racist” and then almost always punished. These incidents demonstrate once again just how unmoored and repressive the R-word has become on today’s college campuses. Let’s begin in the kitchen.

A dishwasher in a residence hall at Iowa State University got into hot water when students noticed he had a swastika and the letters KKK tattooed on his arms. He had neither said nor done anything “racist,” he just sported some old tatoos left over from when he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (he explained that he repudiated the organization in a letter to the student newspaper).

Still, students demanded his removal. As one of them put it, “I’m for free speech. But…the KKK is wrong and has no place in a university environment.” What’s notable is that he had worked at the university for eighteen years before anybody noticed, or bothered to complain (U. Magazine, February 1994, 10). The university was warned by the state not to fire him.

Now to the infamous “racist” T-shirt at the University of California (Riverside). In 1993, Phi Kappa Sigma advertised its South of the Border Fiesta with a T-shirt featuring a figure in a serape and sombrero sitting on a beach looking at the setting sun and holding a bottle of tequila.

Next to the figure was a set of steel drums and a wooden Tiki head, in which was carved the word “Jamaica.” The lower half of the shirt shows a Rastafarian standing in the doorway of a Mexican cantina with a big smile and a six-pack of brew. This graphic was wrapped in a lyric from Bob Marley: “It doesn’t matter where you come from long as you know where you are going.” The shirt, according to the fraternity, was meant to show the ‘inclusivity’ of booze and partying down.

But campus Hispanic organizations charged the fraternity with “offensive racial stereotypes” and filed a formal complaint. Although the fraternity president, Rich Carrez, apologized to the campus Hispanic organization, the apology did no good. The fraternity was accused of being “racist,” even though it was the most racially diverse fraternity on campus (22 of its 47 members were non-White).

Carrez himself is part Native American, while the fraternity’s Vice President is Latino, and the student who designed the T-shirt is Hispanic. When this was pointed out, the Hispanic organization merely replied, “You should have known better.”

After a series of hearings, in which the fraternity was accused of launching a “racist” attack on the Latino community, the fraternity was forced to destroy all of the offending T-shirts, to write a letter of apology, to do 16 hours of community service, and to attend two sensitivity seminars on multiculturalism. But Hispanic students were still not satisfied, so the fraternity was also barred from intramural sports and rush activities, stripped of its charter and kicked off campus.

When the fraternity’s cause was taken up by the Individual Rights Foundation, the university settled out of court, agreeing to reinstate the fraternity, to drop all charges against it, and, in an unprecedented concession, to require two administrators to undergo sensitivity training in the First Amendment (see “Counter Coup: When Sensitivity Training is a Good Thing,” Heterodoxy 2 [3], November 1993, 12; “Campus Speech Codes Are Being Shot Down as Opponents Pipe Up,” WSJ, 22 December 1993, A1).

A similar graphic landed a student cartoonist at Portland State University in the gazpacho. In trying to point out that the American Free Trade Agreement was good for corporate America but not for the average Mexican citizen, the student drew a Mexican staring longingly at a display of beans, wondering if he could afford them. One would think that this would be received sympathetically by Hispanic students, but it wasn’t. All they saw in the cartoon was an implicit epithet: ‘beaner.’

The Chronicle of Higher Education sided with the thin-skinned students outraged by this scene, chiding the editors – “none of whom are Hispanic” – for not realizing that the depiction of beans could be construed as a “slur” (CHE, 17 November 1993, A39).

This spring, students at Yale demanded that the university remove a portrait of its founder, Elihu Yale, from its boardroom because it is “racist.” The painting portrays the school’s eighteenth-century founder seated in a chair with a young Black male (some think an Indian servant), perhaps kneeling, handing him a letter (CHE, 28 April 1995, A6).

Not nearly as exciting as the “Hovey murals” at Dartmouth, which feature drunken, scantily clad Native Americans, and which have been covered with panels since the 1970s because of protests that they were ”racist” (USA Today, 18 October 1993, D1).

At the University of Oregon, a banner depicting the faces of Michelangelo, Plato, Jane Austen, and eight other renowned, but White, figures was torn down by a group of students, who scrawled “racism” on it and painted some of the faces brown (CHE, 27 May 1992, A2).

What they did not realize, apparently, was that painting White faces brown was itself gravely “racist.” That was established in 1988, when a White Stanford student, to make a point, colored the face of Beethoven brown. The incident took place at Ujamaa House, Stanford’s “African-theme” dormitory.

One evening, a Black student claimed that Beethoven was Black. Several White students thought not. One of them found a big picture of Beethoven and, using a crayon, gave the composer an Afro and Black features and hung the poster outside the Black student’s room. When the Black student saw it, he was “flabbergasted,” and another was “outraged and sickened,” condemning the poster as “hateful, shocking.”

The White student explained that he did it only because disliked what he called “ethnic aggressivity,” and the campus obsession with race. He was also upset by a Black student who insisted that she would never marry anyone but another Black (a “racist” comment?). So he defaced the Beethoven poster “to show the Black students how ridiculous it was to focus on race.” He said the poster was “satirical humor.”

Threatened by members of an exceedingly hostile crowd of outraged Blacks, the White student apologized, but to no avail. Two days later, all the White students in Ujamaa – about 60 – found anonymous notes under their doors telling them to move out. In the photo display of the freshmen in Ujamaa, all the White faces had holes punched in them. Soon signs appeared that read: “Avenge Ujamaa. Smash the honkie oppressors!” (Chronicles, January 1990, 51-53).

And don’t even think about painting your own face Black! If you think Ted Danson got into trouble for his Friars Club routine, try it on campus. A number of frat boys have, and have been swatted with suspensions and hefty fines. No matter what the intent or context, painting your face Black is always a “racist” act, even when no Black person is present to be offended. The only problem is, that punishing people who do this is unconstitutional, even on campus, as a federal judge ruled in a case involving George Mason University (CHE, 4 September 1991).

At Brown, an art professor had to cancel a long-planned screening of the classic film Birth of a Nation when the local branch of the NAACP denounced it as “racist” (Commentary, September 1989, 22).

At Harvard, a government professor was forced to cancel a showing of It’s a Wonderful Life when Black students protested that its depiction of the household maid, which was both dignified and accurate, was a “racist” stereotype (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217).

At the University of Pittsburgh, a professor of public relations scrapped the showing of a Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, when some Jews called it “racist” and “anti-Semitic,” which it is. But it was to be shown to instruct students about how the mass media could be misused (CHE, 13 November 1991). The logic that prevailed in these cases would forever cut us off from the past to avoid discomfiting the most thin-skinned.

Classroom movies aren’t the only thing that can provoke a charge of “racism.” In 1994, a French professor of psychology was roundly attacked as a “racist” for asking students taking a final exam to give the “clinical reasons” why the majority of Jews saw deportation between 1939 and 1942 as their “inexorable fate” (Chicago Tribune, 28 June 1994, 10).

This year a physics professor at MIT also got into trouble for an exam question: “You are in the forefront of a civil-rights demonstration when the police decide to disperse the crowd using a water cannon. If the cannon they turn on you delivers 1,000 liters of water per minute, what force does the water exert on you?”

After apologizing in print, the teacher explained that the question was intended to make physics come alive and to honor the courage of activists. A Black student responded that the question revealed how badly all faculty members needed sensitivity training (CHE, 3 March 1995, A33).

Another professor was called a “racist” for reading aloud in class from Vachel Lindsay’s “The Congo” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 105).

A professor at the University of Western Ontario was accused of “racial harassment” when she said to an Iranian student: “Condinar means, as you said, ‘in Iran they condemn everybody’.” Although the student eventually reduced the allegation of “racism” to “insensitivity,” the race-relations officer at the school, to the professor’s amazement, initiated a formal complaint against her.

“It was to take two and half years of Ratcliffe’s time, $7,000 of her lawyer’s time, and who knows how much other time, before the case would be dismissed as unfounded,” (John Fekete, Moral Panic, 230). Apparently, David Mamet’s Oleanna is not an exaggeration.

In the censorious climate that prevails today on many campuses, even statements that are supported by observation, common sense, or statistics can be tagged as “racist.” A candidate for a university presidency did not get the job when it was learned that he had once said, perhaps after watching the Tom Brokaw special on “Black Athletes–Fact and Fiction” (1989), that “a Black athlete can actually out-jump a White athlete.” This occurred just before a movie enshrined this truism in its title (White Men Can’t Jump).

As Jared Taylor remarks, “Whites are not supposed to speculate about a possible Black superiority in athletics because to do so could be construed as a suggestion that Blacks may also have a natural inferiority in other areas. The tennis champion Arthur Ashe, however, is allowed to think Blacks may be specially talented at running because he, himself, is Black,” (222).

At Harvard, a memo distributed to students by the instructor was claimed to have created a hostile environment because it reported scholarly findings on negotiating styles that grouped Blacks and women as “low risk-takers.” A Black student said, “Just on the face of it, the memo is offensive,” (The Wall Street Journal, 30 October 1992, B1).

The prevailing assumption is that any generalization – favorable or unfavorable – about any minority that someone does not like is by definition “racist” and deserves to be suppressed – as long as it is said by a White person. Minority diversity consultants, in contrast, can parade, without a shred of empirical evidence, the grossest racial and ethnic stereotypes with virtual impunity.

Even statements about matters that are not directly racial are likely to be denounced as “racist” when they conflict with reigning groupthink. When Yale College dean Donald Kagan urged a group of freshmen to study Western Civilization, arguing that the freedom and civil liberties enjoyed by the West have led to a tolerance and a respect for diversity unknown in most cultures, the student newspaper denounced him as “racist, sexist, and out of touch,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In 1993, students at Cornell managed to free the epithet “racist” from all objective constraints. Someone spray-painted graffiti over an exhibition of art by Hispanic students. Although the graffiti contained not one “racist” slur, the students charged that the act was “racist” anyhow (CHE, 1 December 1993, A4). In short, even what is not “racist” is “racist.”

This perverse logic also governed the handling of a celebrated incident at Bowdoin College involving four fun-loving Asian students. What these students did was to dress themselves in White togas, wear bandannas around their heads, and march around the quad playing mandolins and harmonicas, holding candles and chanting, and throwing Toastee-Os breakfast cereal.

Incredibly, some students alleged that this was a “racist” demonstration. Because the togas were predominantly, but not exclusively, White, these students claimed that this was like having the Ku Klux Klan parading around campus – that they were, you guessed it, “intimidated” and “offended.”

While the Dean of Students conceded that these four festive Asians did not purposely set out to intimidate or offend anyone, nevertheless, the groups was charged with the Orwellian offence of being “grossly insensitive to the implications of their actions.”

The frolicsome foursome had letters of reprimand placed in their files, were forced to write an apology, to hear multicultural lectures on “issues involving racial sensitivities,” and to create an educational program on the conflict of freedom of expression with multicultural sensitivities (Campus, Winter 1992). Who better to speak from experience about the results of such conflicts?

Since anything can now be attacked as “racist,” it should not be surprising that this epithet has been hurled even at posters and exhibitions meant to combat racism. At Pennsylvania State University, a well-intentioned poster that listed almost fifty offensive slurs (“There’s a nasty name for everyone. Including you. Think about it.”) was itself attacked as “racist” (Campus, Fall 1991).

The same fate befell an art exhibit at Passaic County Community College attacking racism by depicting the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis and the epithets they hurl. The administration removed the paintings from a campus gallery when some students complained that they were “racist” (CHE, 8 December 1993, A6).

An exhibition at Johns Hopkins meant to honor the abolitionist movement unintentionally committed a ‘hate crime’ when it included material on James and William Birney, White abolitionists who released their slaves to demonstrate their anti-slavery commitment.

Blacks would have none of this sly “racist” endorsement of slavery. “This stuff will not be tolerated,” said Paul Brown, one of the Black students who staged a sit-in. “There are plenty of resources in the library if you just made a half-ass attempt to find something.” The library director who failed to make the half-assed attempt did manage the obligatory abject apology: “Personally, I deeply regret any offense given by the exhibit of abolitionist material,” (Heterodoxy, March 1993, 3).

This incident brings to mind the notorious attack on Jeanne Cannizzo, the University of Toronto anthropologist who curated the Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “Into the Heart of Africa” (1990), a well-meaning indictment of the humiliating way in which colonialists treated Africans.

Although no Whites protested this “insensitive” presentation of their forebears, some Blacks denounced the portrayals of vanquished African warriors as “racist.” According to this logic, any depiction of the victims of oppression must be “racist.” The protesters advised the museum that it should have exhibited only works of great African art.

Protesters mounted demonstrations not only outside the museum, but they invaded Cannizzo’s classroom, hurling insults and epithets at her. On one occasion, according to an eye-witness, “a large Black male chased Cannizzo down the hall.” Administrators and faculty did nothing to stop the defamation and assaults, abjectly afraid to oppose the will or criticize the behavior of campus minorities (“The Silencers,” Maclean’s, 27 May 1991, 63).

Cannizzo, shattered by this experience, left the university and eventually emigrated to England. All this, for organizing an exhibition that attacked racism!

This section ends where it began, in the kitchen. A group of dining-hall workers at Harvard wanted to have a “Back to the Fifties” party. But the Minority Affairs Dean denounced them for being “racist,” arguing that it was wrong to feel nostalgia for a decade that included segregationist sentiments (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217; Newsweek , 6 May 1991).

A far more notorious incident occurred at the University of California-Santa Cruz, where the swampy multicultural atmosphere that now chokes ‘cutting-edge’ campuses led to a menu being found “racist.”

Two semi-autonomous colleges on the campus share a kitchen. Merrill College caters to ‘multicultural’ students; Crown appeals to science and economics students, many of whom are Asians. The incident began innocuously enough with the Crown kitchen staff deciding what to serve at a monthly College Night dinner.

Weeks earlier Merrill had chosen an Asian theme, but a Crown staffer, a Japanese-American, noticed that the dinner happened to fall on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. Thinking this might appear to be by design and be misinterpreted, she chose a non-ethnic menu instead. While Crown students munched on chicken and spare ribs, a rumor spread at Merrill College that Crown had refused to serve Asian food because it blamed Asians for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Soon fliers littered the campus denouncing the Crown administration as “racist.” Crown staff members were besieged by groups of angry students, angry phone calls, and even death threats. Meanwhile at Merrill, students and faculty, gloating at the troubles of their colleagues, issued a public statement about Crown’s “overt and covert racism” and calling the decision – keep in mind that it was made by a Japanese-American – ”the racist unconscious at work.”

After months of turmoil, the staff at Crown was forced to attend sensitivity workshops, which Crown’s provost, Peggy Musgrave, described as “brainwashing perations…humiliating experiences where people have to bare their souls and expose their innermost thoughts.” Musgrave was forced to resign. Crown’s bursar was so distraught and exhausted by the controversy that he was forced to take extended medical leave. Other Crown staff resigned.

All this bloodletting began, remember, over an allegedly “racist” menu (see Barbara Rhoades Ellis, “A Day of Infamy at UC Santa Cruz,” Heterodoxy 1 [3] June 1992, 6).

Muzzling the “Racist” Student Press

Unmoored charges of “racism” have sanctioned far more serious and repressive attacks on free expression and debate than the ones mentioned so far. The epithet “racist” has been used with particular effectiveness to intimidate and silence the student press. According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, during the academic year 1992-93 there were 38 “major trashings of publications” on campus.

At the University of Maryland, students stole 10,000 copies of the Diamondback, alleging that it is “racist” for misspelling the title of W. E. B. DuBois’s book The Souls of Black Folk (which came out The Sales of Black Folk; CHE 17 November 1993, A39). Most often, the accusation of “racism” is invoked to discredit opinions that minority members find uncongenial or embarrassing.

At Duke, the Duke Review was denounced as “racist” and summarily trashed by a Black student because it dared to criticize the Black Student Alliance as wasteful and monolithic (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 13; 5 [3], Spring 1994, 12).

At the University of Iowa, Black students “filled the offices”– as the Chronicle of Higher Education euphemistically put it – of The Daily Iowan to protest the publication of a political cartoon comparing the Blacks who almost killed Reginald Denny to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently the White editors had not heard that Blacks cannot be “racists” – by definition.

At the University of South Carolina, the student newspaper was threatened with a funding review by administrators when it published a student’s poem satirizing then presidential candidate Jesse Jackson (Illiberal Education, 145).

At Virginia Commonwealth University, Black students stole the entire press run of the student newspaper to punish it for running “racist” editorials charging that Black student groups receive disproportionate funding from the school: “We find you guily [sic] of several counts of vandalist, slanderist, racist, scandalist journalism. Therefore we are shutting you down.” The Black student newspaper complimented the thieves for “staging a courageous and peaceful protest,” (Campus Report, 10 [3], April 1995).

At Vassar, the student newspaper was called “racist” after it proclaimed Black activist Anthony Grate “hypocrite of the month” for espousing anti-Semitic views while denouncing bigotry against Blacks. The newspaper quoted Grate as saying “dirty Jews” and “I hate Jews.”

When the Spectator publicized the hypocrisy and racism of this Black leader, the Vassar Student Association attempted to suppress the offending issue, and then, when that failed, withdrew its funding. The newspaper had to be punished, according to VSA, for “unnecessarily jeopardiz[ing] an educational community based on mutual understanding,” (D’Souza, Ibid. 10).

On most campuses, it is presumptively “racist” to point out minority “racism.” The editor of the student newspaper at the State University of New York at Stony Brook provoked a tirade of abuse when he wrote that his experiences on this multicultural campus had “taught me to be wary, distrustful, and, at times, downright revolted by African Americans.”

In a column, Stony Brook Teaches Reactive Racism , the student wrote: “In one particular Africana Studies class I was called a ‘kike’ by one Black student, while another yelled out, ‘You! You Jew. You raped my people!’” The student, who is Jewish, said that other White students had told him that they also had been victims of racism by members of minority groups.

After the column was published, Black students didn’t apologize, as so many White students have been coerced into doing, but engineered a boycott against businesses that advertised in the paper. Although the student editor was physically threatened, the president of this “inclusive community” did not denounce Black racism or even investigate the charges – he denounced the column (CHE, 9 March 1994, A33).

At the University of California-Riverside, it is unhealthy even to criticize gangsta rap! The trouble for Mark Hardie, a Black 22-year-old senior, began when he wrote two columns in the student paper, one denouncing ‘gangsta rap’ and the other calling Afrocentrism a “racist” concept. Hardie was forced to resign his position as a staff writer and columnist because retaliation was promised if he stayed on.

Police had to provide Hardie with security escorts on campus because Black students threatened to kill him. One caller to a campus radio program said: “Ya know, he’s a victim here, he’s gonna be a victim. I’m waiting outside. I’m gonna kill him. I swear to God I’m gonna kill his family,” (Campus Reports 9 [4], April 1994, 3).

At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Black students occupied the offices of, and temporarily closed down, The Massachusetts Daily Collegian when the White staff replaced three minority editors (others still served). Another grievance was that the paper refused to run an editorial condemning the first verdict in the Rodney King case. During the attack on the office, demonstrators broke a plate glass window and a stereo, and ripped up files, photographs, and documents.

When the student editor criticized the demonstrators in the Boston Globe, one Black student protester invaded the student-newspaper office armed with a baseball bat and attacked the newspaper’s photo editor, dragging him out of The Collegian office to the main floor of the Campus Center (CHE, 14 October 1992).

To also show their displeasure, the protesters confiscated or trashed most of the 19,000 copies of the press run. Although the theft of the papers was arguably a crime and certainly a violation of First Amendment rights, the administration refused to condemn, or even comment on, this act.

Throughout the controversy, the administration, as Gary Brasor points out, tacitly approved unlawful acts it deemed compatible with its multicultural agenda (for a blow-by-blow account, see Gary Crosby Brasor, “Weimar in Amherst,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 69-89).

At DePaul University, the DePaulia was recently denounced as “racist” and shut down by Black students who didn’t like the DePaulia correctly reporting that several DePaul students arrested for fighting at a campus “Bootie-Call” party were Black. In the story, the DePaulia quoted the police report, which described those arrested as “M/Bs,” police shorthand for male/Blacks and one of several routine abbreviations used by police to describe people either arrested or victimized.

According to the protesters, however, the abbreviation is “offensive” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12 April 1995, 11). Their leader said that the mention of race was “disrespectful” and contributed to negative stereotyping of Blacks on campus (Chicago Sun-Times, 11 April 1995, 13). In other words, quoting directly, quoting accurately, and having the facts straight are now “racist” if the truth discomfits minorities.

Predictably, DePaulia staffers will receive counseling about “cultural sensitivity” but the Black protesters will not receive tutoring in the First Amendment. And, of course, no reprimands for those who trashed the office and shut down the paper.

Perhaps the most outrageous attacks on a student paper occurred in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania during the tenure of Sheldon Hackney, the Poster Boy of Invertebrate Administrators.

Gregory Pavlik, a politically incorrect columnist for The Daily Pennsylvanian, had criticized Martin Luther King for being a plagiarist and adulterer, Malcolm X for being a pimp, and racial preferences for being “racist.”

Pavlik wrote a column in March of 1993 that criticized university officials for expelling two White freshmen who dumped water on Black members of the Onyx Senior Honor Society who were holding an initiation/hazing ceremony under their dormitory windows at 2:30 a.m. (Maybe Penn’s code should tell students when to go to bed.)

Pavlik provocatively claimed that the two students were suspended because they were White, and that the Onyx Society was the real culprit and should be punished, even though Black.

The column ignited a firestorm. The university’s Judicial Action Office filed 32 charges of “racial harassment” against Pavlik, despite the fact that the newspaper is financially and legally independent of the university. In the most wonderful doublespeak, the Judicial Action Officer said she filed the complaint because she was “afraid for [Pavlik’s] safety” (Campus Report, 8 [5], May 1993, 4).

To protest the “blatant and voluntary perpetuation of institutional racism” at the newspaper and on campus, a number of Black students removed nearly all 14,000 copies of one edition from campus distribution sites (CHE, 28 April 1993, A33). 202 Penn Blacks signed a letter justifying the act.

A university report on this incident found that the theft of the newspapers was a “form of student protest and not an indicator of criminal behavior,” and that the campus police who arrested demonstrators caught in the act were wrong (see excerpts in WSJ, 26 July 1993, A10, and editorial). They should have contacted “Open Expression Monitors” to study the students actions (I am not making this up).

The police were sent to sensitivity training seminars to have their sense of fair play adjusted. The chief of security for a campus museum, who nabbed two protesters sneaking out with plastic garbage bags, was officially reprimanded for “racial harassment” and suspended. He too had to undergo sensitivity training. The Black students who threw away the entire press run of the newspaper were not punished (see “Penn Report Faults Campus Police for Response to Students’ Taking Papers,” CHE, 4 August 1993, A27, and 22 September 1993, A35).

In July 1988 – before many of these incidents had occurred – Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, issued a prescient statement:

We are extremely concerned about incidents…which we believe reflect a growing wave of campus censorship inflicted under the guise of fighting racism. Faced with a real concern about an important issue, universities appear to be accepting the misguided notion that viewpoint suppression is an appropriate means to their end.

We note with some irony that this same means was used a generation ago against students who were advocating equality and desegregation (in Illiberal Education, 145).

Suppressing Debate about Public Issues

As the previous section makes clear, the term “racism” has been used on campus to squelch debate about a number of crucial social issues. The term has proven particularly effective in silencing debate about racial preferences. “On virtually every campus,” writes Dinesh D’Souza, “there is a de facto taboo against free discussion of affirmative action or minority self-segregation, and efforts to open such discussion are considered presumptively racist,” (Illiberal Education , 238).

Jennifer Imle, a junior at Southwestern University in Texas, displayed in her room a poster attacking admissions policies based on race. She was soon attacked as a “racist” and ridiculed by her professors during class. The Dean of Students took one look at the poster and said “This must go!” circulating a memo that said the poster smacked of White supremacy.

Imle resisted the effort to suspend her First Amendment rights, and arranged to have Dinesh D’Souza and a campus advocate of racial preferences debate the issue before 350 students eager to hear the issue publicly and honestly discussed.

Other stories don’t have such happy outcomes. At one major university, an associate dean was asked to resign because of his candid opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37). At another, an assistant vice chancellor of academic personnel was fired, and escorted by police from her office, when she pointed out that a new affirmative-action plan violated the university’s stringent guidelines for faculty search procedures Heterodoxy 2 [10], October 1993).

At Harvard, a professor got into trouble merely for defining affirmative action as “government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, and college admissions.” Black students denounced the phrase “preferential treatment” as “racist” (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 199-200).

In 1987, at UCLA, a student editor was suspended for printing a cartoon ridiculing affirmative action. In the “intolerably racist” cartoon, a student stops a rooster on campus and asks how it got into UCLA. The rooster responds, “Affirmative action.” When another editor at a different school wrote a column criticizing UCLA officials for suspending the editor – and reproduced the cartoon to support his argument – he too was suspended.

The newspaper’s adviser, an assistant professor of journalism no less, said that his crime was publishing controversial material “without permission.” Incredibly, other editors agreed with her, clucking that the student journalist had learned “a valuable lesson in common sense,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 209).

As John Leo put it, “Whenever the curtain parts and the public gets a peek at what is really going on in college admissions…voices are raised to expel the student who released the data, as well as the college editor who printed them. This kind of defense of furtiveness is routine,” (“Endgame for affirmative action,” U. S. News and World Report, 13 March 1995, 18).

The most outrageous example of denouncing a critic of affirmative action as a ”racist” involved Timothy Maguire, a law senior at Georgetown University Law School. After working as a clerk in the admissions office, Maguire wrote an article reporting that Georgetown admits Blacks with lower LSAT scores than Whites (a routine practice throughout the country).

The article provoked outrage, with one White student characterizing it as “assaultive.” “People were injured. I think that kind of speech is outrageous,” (in Hentoff, Free Speech for Me, 219). Black students accused Maguire of being a “racist” and demanded his expulsion (CHE, 29 May 1991).

When the law school prosecuted Maguire for revealing “confidential” admissions data (he named no names), lawyers refused to defend him out of fear of being called “racists” (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 1992, 181). The two who did were not only accused of being “racists” but placed on probation at the D. C. School of Law (Hentoff, 223-27).

Clearly, the safest way to express opinions about affirmative action on campus is anonymously, on the internet. At Yale recently, a posting contended that affirmative action should play no part in the selection of editors for The Yale Law Review, and defended using anonymity because “self-identification could lead to personal harm.” The law school dean determined that this posting had to go (CHE, 7 April 1995, A36).

Strategic interventions of the word “racist” have discouraged debate on other crucial issues as well. The University of Charleston refused to renew the contract of a conservative scholar after he criticized “diversity” standards for accreditation (National Review, 1 February 1993, 14).

At the University of Oregon, faculty members who had raised questions about a proposal to increase the number of required multicultural credits were called “racists” in a full-page ad published in an alternative campus newspaper. The ad listed the professors’ names, class schedules, and office telephone numbers (CHE 30 June 1993, A27).

Diane Ravitch was called a “racist” for criticizing “racial fundamentalism,” the notion that children can learn only from people of the same race. She has also been physically threatened: “‘We’re going to get you, bitch. We’re going to beat your White ass,’” (New York Magazine , 21 January 1991).

At the University of New Mexico, the contract of a part-time instructor was not renewed after she was charged with “racism” by a Hispanic graduate student for saying in class that “there are six generations of South Valley residents who cannot speak English. There’s no excuse for that since they have many opportunities to learn. There’s just no excuse for that if they want to stay in this country, and if that’s the case, as far as I’m concerned, they can go further south.”

Although the professor denied saying these words, no formal hearing was ever held, and she was not interviewed before she was released (NAS Update, 4 [1]).

At Chico State University, a professor got into hot water when he published a letter in the local newspaper arguing that demands for Indian teachers were unrealistic because there were not enough qualified candidates. He went on to say that Indian students ought to be on campus “to get the best education…not have their sensibilities stroked and grades of ‘A’ doled out on the basis of their race or correct politics.”

Native Americans across the country attacked these comments, and the Chico administration informed the professor that he had violated the school’s racial harassment policy, which calls for expulsion of faculty or students who create “an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility.” When the professor threatened to sue, the university dropped its charges (Heterodoxy 2 [4], December 1993, 3).

A similar incident occurred at the University of Alaska, when a Harvard-trained expert on Native American education was charged with “racism” and “discrimination” for saying that a teacher-education program at the university was under “equity pressures” to pass Alaskan Natives through the system.

Angry faculty and students organized demonstrations against her, and the Fairbanks Native Association filed a complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The OCR eventually determined that the professor’s remarks did not violate the rights of students (CHE, 23 September 1992; see also Steven Wulf, “Federal Guidelines for Censorship,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 58-68).

To avoid being stigmatized as a “racist,” it is best not to say anything that might disturb a minority member.

At Iowa State University, a White African-American history professor disagreed with a Black student about the role of Afrocentric theories in the course; the student, a member of the Nation of Islam, called her a “racist liar” and threatened her with a “jihad” (CHE, 20 October 1993, A5; 1 December).

At the University of Illinois a feminist scholar was removed from her course in women’s studies when she said of one Black student who “snickered” and trivialized rape that he fit the profile of a Black male rapist – a remark he found “racist.” She, of course, condemned the university for being “sexist,” (CHE, 7 October 1992).

At the University of Michigan, a White professor of sociology and the nation’s leading expert on the demography of Black Americans was denounced as a “racist” after he read a passage from the Autobiography of Malcolm X in which the author describes himself as a pimp and a thief. Black students called for a person of color to teach the course (and perhaps to re-write the Autobiography).

The professor stopped teaching the class and observed that several of his colleagues intended to drop any discussion of various important race-related issues from their courses, for fear of being accused of “racism” (Chester Finn, “The Campus: An Island of Repression is a Sea of Freedom,” Commentary, September 1989, 19).

One of the most notorious instances of intimidation was directed at two eminent, and exceedingly liberal, Harvard professors who co-taught a course on American history and demography. In 1987, both were attacked in the Harvard Crimson for being “racially insensitive.”

Bernard Bailyn’s crime was reading an exculpatory passage about slavery from the diary of a southern planter without giving equal time to the recollections of a slave.

Richard Thernstrom’s crime was assigning a book that defined affirmative action as “the government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion and college admissions,” and endorsing Patrick Moynihan’s thesis that the breakup of the Black family is an important cause of persistent Black poverty (John Taylor, New York Magazine, 21 January 1991, 33-34).

As a Black student put it, “I am also left to question his sensitivity when I hear that Black men get feelings of inadequacy, beat their wives, and take off” (in Illiberal Education , 195-96). Thernstrom’s defense, that he “presented factual information in an objective and dispassionate way,” is beside the point; the facts hurt the feelings of Black students, and that, by definition, proves “racial insensitivity.” Thernstrom wrote:

Teaching in a university in which a handful of disaffected students can all too easily launch a smear campaign…one must think about how many times one wants to be a martyr. I love to debate historical interpretations, but what I experienced…was not public discussion of the validity of my ideas but an indictment of my character and motives. I am not alone in deciding to avoid yet another irrational and vicious personal attack like this…

I know of other scholars who have censored their courses by dropping any treatment of touchy topics such as the disintegration of the Black family. When I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, the menace to academic freedom in America came from the right.

Academic freedom is again under attack today, this time from leftist students…who believe in “no free speech for fascists” and think mistakenly that all the fascists are on the right ( Harper’s, February 1992, “Letters”).

Given this repressive climate on campus, it is now dangerous even to report widely accepted facts, if those facts are unwelcomed by, or embarrassing to, minorities and their protectors. At the University of Michigan, a professor of statistics (for 37 years) was accused of “promoting racism” and temporarily suspended after he noted in class that minorities average 55 points lower on the SAT than Whites (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 12).

As Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer points out, “We have to deal with some very bad news when we talk about Blacks…We have to talk about unpleasant matters, matters that Blacks will find upsetting and depressing, and that can only make them unhappy.” If universities choose to have a curriculum that includes African-American Studies and courses on race, then universities, as Dinesh D’Souza argues, have a responsibility to make sure that professors and students are free to talk about these issues without intimidation (Illiberal Education, 201).

Suppressing “Racist” Research

The effort to discourage and suppress ’social risk’ research has a long and ignoble history (recall Bruno and Galileo). During the 1960s and early 70s, this urge took on a ‘humanitarian’ guise. The goal was to protect minorities from “racist” research that might harm the interests or psyches of minorities.

Why is it “ignoble” to suppress allegedly “racist” research? Jonathan Rauch provides an elegant answer in Kindly Inquisitors (1993). Rauch argues that the only way that liberal science can effectively work to find truth and establish consensus is to presume that any and all subjects are open to competent investigation.

To do otherwise would require authoritarian control of vast proportions, and countries that have tried to exert such control have suffered grievous social, political and economic deprivations as a result. The knowledge-making enterprise itself, with its checks and balances, is the only agent that can fittingly determine who and what is competent and when a case has been “proved.”

Liberal science, according to Rauch, “declares that the issue of race and intelligence should be explored by any researcher who cares to explore it and who will follow the rules,” (144). Whatever one thinks about this research, amateurs must leave it to experts and the processes of free intellectual debate to determine if and when it can be added to our body of knowledge.

Research that cannot withstand the vigorous fact-checking and error-finding that drives our knowledge-making enterprise will eventually be discredited and marginalized. Research that can withstand such scrutiny will be incorporated into the mass of data, findings, theories, etc. that we call knowledge. Once there, other agencies and forums can debate and deal with its political and social implications.

This crucial processes of testing can only occur, obviously, on research that has already been done and made public. To prevent research from being done, no matter how risky it may seem at the time or to some members of society, could rob society of potentially useful insights, and would likely, in the long run, lead to the undermining of the most successful and beneficial collaborative and international enterprise in the history of humanity.

Let me illustrate the truth of this observation. Back in 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan broke the silence on the problems facing Black culture with his book, The Black Family: The Case for National Action. Noting a sharp rise in the number of single-parent Black families, he forewarned that this trend posed a threat to Blacks’ social progress and to society at large.

For his efforts, he was vilified for “blaming the victim” and accused of “crypto-racism” (Joseph G. Conti and Brad Stetson, “The New Black Vanguard,” Intercollegiate Review , Spring 1993, 34). But as Adam Walinsky has recently pointed out, Moynihan’s dire predictions have come true; vilifying his “racist” research only served to blind people to the “long descending night” of violence which he foresaw and which is now upon us (“The Crisis of Public Order,” The Atlantic Monthly, July 1995, 48-49).

As Rauch has shown, humanitarians continue to attack scientific and social research that threatens to lead to findings that some minorities, and indeed some Whites, might find disturbing, especially if true. At the University of Michigan, for example, an administrator called for the suppression of “theories” that might conflict with a multicultural agenda, since “harassment in classrooms is based on theories held by teachers,” (Kindly Inquisitors, 136).

The notion that some credible scientific theories and findings are, in and of themselves, “racist” has spread to undergraduates, with dangerous implications for academic freedom. “An amazing 38 percent” of students evaluating a teacher’s lecture on the genetic contribution to intelligence felt that this was not an appropriate topic for a psychology course.

When these students were asked about the professor’s motives for presenting this material, “24 percent specifically mentioned ‘racist,’ ‘racism,’ or notions of ‘racial superiority’” (Stanley Coren, “When Teaching Is Evaluated on Political Grounds,” Academic Questions , Summer 1993, 77; reprinted in The Montana Professor, 5 [1], Winter 1995, 12-14). Clearly, scholars working on touchy subjects – and the list of these keeps growing and growing too – run their own risk of being label “racists,” no matter how valid their findings.

At the University of California-Berkeley, a professor of physical anthropology who argues that crime, intelligence, and other human behaviors are influenced by genetic factors and that there is a relationship between race and innate abilities, was prevented from teaching his class when 75 students marched into his anthropology class and drowned out his lecture (CHE, 4 March 1992; Russell Jacoby, Dogmatic Wisdom, 137).

Trouble befell a similar course taught at the University of Denver. Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, who studies the relation between race and IQ and how intelligence traits can be inherited and measured, was to lecture for half the course on intelligence and public policy with the other half reserved for his critics.

Not good enough. His critics at DU think his “racist” ideas were not worthy of any discussion and demanded that the course be canceled (Campus Report, June 1991; CHE, 16 January 1991). Fortunately for academic freedom, the university disagreed.

At the University of Maryland, a “thoughtfully organized” conference on genetic components in criminal behavior, which reviewers said did “a superb job of assessing the underlying scientific, legal, ethical, and public policy issues,” was canceled by the National Institutes of Health when Blacks said it would promote “racism.” The Committee to Stop the Violence Initiative, formed at Howard University, said of the conference, “It is clear racism. It is an effort to use public money for a genocidal effort against African Americans,” (CHE, 2 September 1992).

At the University of Delaware, two researchers were prevented from accepting funds from a private foundation some administrators deemed “racist.” The campus African-American Coalition claimed that the research threatened “the very survival of African-Americans,” (Campus Report, May 1992). An arbitrator, saying that the university based its decision on perceptions rather than on facts, overturned the ban (CHE, 4 September 1991).

Both researchers had already endured years of institutional harassment and character assassination for publishing the results of their research on race-norming (As a result of this work, race-norming was banned in 1991). After the Department of Educational Studies denied major credits for their courses and defined their publications and investigations as “non-research,” they filed a federal lawsuit to gain relief from the persecution and won an out-of-court settlement in 1992 (Campus Report 9 [2] February 1994, 6).

This humanitarian effort to restrict “racist” research can wind up inhibiting research by Blacks that could help the Black community! At the University of Chicago, a Black sociologist encountered all kinds of opposition to his research on racial integration, especially when he found that Black schoolteachers were less prepared than their White counterparts (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37; CHE , 21 November 1990).

Other Blacks at the same school have also complained about the pressures they face to avoid research that might reflect badly on Blacks or bring unwelcome news. Professor William Julius Wilson observed, “There has been a tendency in our field not to discuss issues that are unflattering,” (CHE, 30 October 1991).

Personally, I very uncomfortable with the theories of Philippe Rushton and Michael Levin, who argue, as I understand them, that on average Blacks score lower than Whites and Asians on intelligence and most other tests, and that these results may have something to do with genetic endowment (see Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, 123-182 for an overview of comparative test results in many fields).

I am also offended by the notion that Whites may be, on average, less intelligent than Asians, or that, as Leonard Jeffries incredibly argues (he is not a researcher), Whites, as “ice people,” are not as nice as Blacks, who are “sun people.”

I, like many others, worry about how any of this information may affect immediate human behavior and long-term social policy. But I first want to know if it is true, as truth is consensually defined by the experts in the appropriate fields. If it is not true, then I can dismiss it as I dismiss horoscopes no matter how flattering. If it is true, then we have to determine how this information bears upon the way we live together.

We must allow social-risk research to be done because we cannot know beforehand if the risks will materialize or not, or if the research will benefit some of us in unexpected ways. After all, most knowledge entails social “risks” for some group or other. The only way to avoid such risks would be to profoundly curtail through authoritarian fiat the knowledge-making enterprise of Western civilization. This program of repression, however, would entail the gravest risks of all.

Conclusion

I have tried to show that the epithet “racist” is often used irresponsibly to punish and suppress a wide range of words, images, statements and findings – from innocuous metaphors to unwelcome facts and theories. I am not arguing, of course, that the term “racist” is only or always used this way, but I do contend that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish legitimate uses of the term from exaggerated, promiscuous, and repressive ones.

It is time for responsible students, academics, and administrators to discountenance all heedless, negligent, and intolerant invocations of this word. The use of repressive and stigmatizing epithets has no place in a community of fact-gatherers, truth-sorters, knowledge-makers, and opinion-shapers.

How did campuses get into this fix? Why do so many students, teachers and administrators make, or treat seriously, patently preposterous accusations of “racism”? To understand this phenomenon, let me invoke a concept recently used by John Fekete in another context: the concept of “moral panic.” A moral panic emerges from the impulse to root out all moral evil and to prevent its germination.

Driven by a “zero-toleration” mentality, a campaign of moral panic feeds on itself, always expanding its boundaries (and thus enemies) and intimidating its adherents into ever more fervent demonstrations of compliance and support.

Many on campus – both minorities and non-minorities – apparently believe that such a panic is good for the “racist” souls of White folks. In Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor explains why:

It is widely assumed that if the struggle against racism is not maintained at fever pitch, White people will promptly relapse into bigotry. Thus a great deal of the criticism of Whites is justified on the grounds that it will forestall potential racism…The process becomes circular.

Since Whites are thought likely to turn racist if not constantly policed, it is legitimate to denounce acts of racism they might commit as if they had already done so. In this climate, all charges of racism must be taken seriously because they are potentially true (107).

A couple of years ago, a Black student at Emory reported being racially harassed, eventually falling into silence and curling up into a fetal position. Emory’s president solemnly denounced “renascent bigotry” and imposed new speech-code rules. An investigation proved, however, that it was all a hoax concocted by the student to divert attention from her cheating on a chemistry test.

But today, even hoaxes are defended as being morally true, given the assumption of rampant White “racism.” What does it matter if Twana Brawley was really raped or not by five White New York politicos? The truth is that every once and a while a White man does rape a Black woman. Of the Emory hoax, the head of the Atlanta NAACP said, “‘It does not matter whether she did it or not, because of all the pressure these Black students are under at these predominantly White schools,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In the perfectionist and puritanical climate of a moral panic, even trivial, trumped-up, or absurd charges of “racism” can have valuable political and therapeutic effects. Since racism is a bad thing, the more opportunities to condemn it the better. As a result of this deranged view, “charges of racism can be made with the same reckless impunity as were charges of communism at the height of the McCarthy era,” (Taylor, 23). To ask for the facts supporting the charge is to expose one’s own “racism” and to invite more accusations.

Campus culture provides a fertile field for the flowering of moral panic. The campus equity bureaucracy plays a crucial role in fomenting baseless and capricious charges of “racism.” The income and careers of these people depend on the discovery and extirpation of White“racism.”

Each accusation, no matter how idiotic, is interpreted as evidence of the increased racial tensions on campus; increased “racism” justifies the existence of – and the increased power of – the race-relations experts who must spring into action to avert campus race war.

This readiness to believe any accusation colludes insidiously with the desire of activist minority groups to “mau-mau,” as the insightful Tom Wolfe phrased it, campus flak catchers. “Blacks learned long ago that Whites can be silenced and intimidated by accusing them of racism. White acquiescence has made the charge of racism into such a powerful weapon that it should be no surprise to find that a great many Blacks cannot resist the temptation to wield it,” (Taylor 61).

In short, minorities enjoy assaulting the dignity of ‘Whitey.’ To push an absurd accusation to a successful conclusion is the perfect way to do it and to demonstrate, and thus increase, one’s clout. The equity bureaucracy doesn’t oppose such shenanigans because almost every successfully prosecuted accusation of “racism” results in the hiring of more minorities and equity-specialists, thus driving up their price and increasing their clout.

Even White adminstrators are seduced into this game. By responding to all minority complaints, White administrators, most of whom seem riddled with guilt, can demonstrate their oneness with oppressed peoples, salve their conscience, and placate menacing groups of minority students (with their sun glasses, hooded parkas and military fatigues). Lending credence to every accusation also serves to strengthen the hand of administration.

Administrators like stringent speech codes not only because they testify to the purity of their motives but because these codes generate accusations that help intimidate the majority of students and faculty on campus, making them more dependent upon the intercessory goodwill and power of administrators.

Meanwhile, administrators, being insulated from classroom teaching and most direct interaction with students, are usually able to escape the pernicious effects of the repressive codes they champion. When they can’t, as in the case of Francis Lawrence, they call in their chits and hang on until the tempest blows over.

Countenancing trivial, baseless, and absurd charges of “racism” carries a terrible price.

First of all, it trivializes real racist incidents, which get lost in the moral panic over innocent logos, innocuous words, and legitimate research data.

Second, it sours even good-willed Whites on tolerance and diversity. If they are “racist” by virtue of their skin color, and if almost anything they do can get them into trouble anyhow, why try?

Third, it creates for Whites an intimidating and hostile educational environment. Those in favor of prohibiting the use of words that demean and victimize members of the campus community might want to consider adding “racist!” to their hit list.

Fourth, trivial and baseless charges of “racism” inevitably embitter many Whites, more and more of whom are sick and tired of their ritual role as “racists.” Even the Washington Generals got tired of being programmed losers, and they got paid for it.

And fifth, the moral panic over “racism” has led to outrageous double standards harmful to both Whites and Blacks. As Jared Taylor points out, “Whites are held to a system of ’sensitivity’ requirements that do not apply to Blacks,” (Taylor 217).

Whites are monitored, pestered, and punished for preposterous reasons – for a look, for an innocent word, for wearing a T-shirt, for expressing a plausible argument – but Blacks can say almost anything with perfect impunity. The wording of many speech- and conduct-codes explicitly sanctions such double standards, protecting only certain, privileged minority groups, not all students.

Taking the hint, many minorities advance the absurd but self-exonerating claim that they cannot be “racists,” and then feel free to expound the most absurd and vilificatory racist nonsense ever heard on campuses.

No doubt some Whites, angered by this punitive duplicity, are provoked into “racist” thoughts and acts that would not have occurred to them in a more tolerant and even-handed environment. Moral panic over “racism” may create racists, not eliminate them.

Nor is the moral panic surrounding “racism” good for Blacks and other minorities. The climate of moral panic generated by exaggerated and unfounded accusations of “racism” only serves to dangerously reinforce “an already exaggerated sense of grievance in Blacks,” (Taylor, 87). This is not good for race relations. It encourages Blacks to mistrust all Whites and to see themselves as saintly victims of a system in which they cannot prosper.

Phony or trivial charges of “racism” may seem harmless enough in their particular contexts, but cumulatively they gnaw away at freedom. The argument Catharine R. Stimpson made to defend art is relevant here: “Higher education cannot delude itself into thinking that the arts can lose a little freedom here, the humanities a little freedom there, and everything will still be manageable…For academic and cultural freedom is like air: Pollution in one zone spreads to another,” (CHE, 26 September 1990).

In Fahrenheit 451, that remarkably prescient book, censorship does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up, and it comes through a thousand ostensibly minor restrictions on freedom in the name of humanitarian good will.

There was no dictum, no declaration,
no censorship to start with, no!
Technology, mass exploitation,
and minority pressure carried the trick…
You must understand that our
civilization is so vast that we can’t have our
minorities upset and stirred…
Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo.
Burn it.
White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin .
Burn it (Valentine, 53-4).

There are many ways to deal with false and trivial accusations of “racism,” but the one that seems most effective is to sue.

When something Eric Shane, the art historian, had written was said by another scholar to be open to a “racist construction,” Shane threatened to sue for defamation of character and libel.

The chastened critic, and her publisher, took out an ad in several major literary periodicals saying that the “slur” was “wholly unwarranted and [that they] deeply regret[ed] that the suggestion was made.” The ad went on to say that they were “pleased to have this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly this unfounded suggestion and to apologise most sincerely to Mr. Shane for the considerable distress and embarrassment which he has been caused,” (The Times Literary Supplement, 18 November 1994).

Given the moral panic that prevails on many campuses today, threatening to sue may be a more effective way of discouraging the irresponsible use of intimidating epithets than, say, appeals to this country’s principles of due process and free expression that still remain the envy and goal of so many people throughout the world.

More articles by Trout: Disengaged Students and the Decline in Academic Standards & Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations.