Scientific Racism - Help

[Mystic Core]

I'm trying to get a good grasp on the Marxist worldview and the idea of Equality. Note I was an outspoken National Socialist once, but I'm trying to learn. I'd appreciate some help here. The problem is, I haven't seen many sources dealing with the issue of racial differences.

I've been told that Race can't be a social construct due to obvious biological differences such as wiry hair and testosterone amounts. The 'theory' I read began with IQ tests, some of you whom might say are biased, but what about people raised in similar environments?

I was told that 'socio-economic factors' don't make someone commit rape as Africans apparently do on wider scale than White people, in general. I was also told that humans have a genetic difference that IS signifigant - like 0.5% between Europeans and Africans compared to 1.5% between Humans and Chimpanzee's or something. Is there another reason for all this?

I believe the economics of Marxism can work, I'm just trying to get a feel for the aspects of the third world part of it and such. They also point to the fact that African nations have accounted for like 1% of Scientific Advancement and that Zimbabwe is a hellhole. They say that colonization started 500 years ago and that people have been in Africa like 250,000 years and that it isn't a factor. They also said that Liberia was never colonized but is still a shithole because of their 'lack of ability to create civilization'.

Can someone help me answer these questions? I need to figure it out once and for all. I've had no luck looking around the forums or other areas, it seems to be a taboo subject for obvious reasons.

[Q]

For what I'm willing to comment on this: People from Africa do indeed have a bigger genetic divergence compared to Asians, Europeans, etc. The theory that explains this divergence plausibly is that Africans are the oldest strain of humans on the planet, since all of humanity evolved there. Africans have had more time to develop mutations, hence the divergence.

How this is related to the social state of development on this continent is beyond me.

[RedAnarchist]

The 'theory' I read began with IQ tests, some of you whom might say are biased, but what about people raised in similar environments?

IQ tests are not a valid measurement of intelligence, and were never intended to be such a thing, it was meant to identify school children who were at risk of falling behind others in their classes.

I was told that 'socio-economic factors' don't make someone commit rape as Africans apparently do on wider scale than White people, in general. I was also told that humans have a genetic difference that IS signifigant - like 0.5% between Europeans and Africans compared to 1.5% between Humans and Chimpanzee's or something. Is there another reason for all this?

Where are you getting this idea that Africans commit rape more than Europeans or any other group? Do you agree with that, as you seem to do in your post?

All humans are 99.5-99.9% genetically similar, it's not a 0.5% difference between Europeans and Africans, it's a 0.5% difference between individual humans. Much of our DNA is either the same "code" that says that the individual is a human, or is "junk" DNA.

[cyu]

I'd say that when leftists see race-based conflict, they consider it stupid. They'd prefer to unite those who are fighting and go after those leftists believe are the real source of society's problems: the ruling class.

The leftist view of the ruling class is that they incite racism on purpose. When there is random fighting in the streets, the commoners are less likely to point the finger at those who hold the reins of power. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

[Invader Zim]

I've been told that Race can't be a social construct due to obvious biological differences such as wiry hair and testosterone amounts. The 'theory' I read began with IQ tests, some of you whom might say are biased, but what about people raised in similar environments?

You have been told nonsense then. As RedAnarchist has pointed out, all of the available evidence available suggests that, on a genetic level, the biological argument for racism is without foundation. Meanwhile, IQ tests are certainly socially biased. The fact is that they do not test intelligence. They test education. If you practise IQ tests, non-verbal reasoning tests, etc., then you will improve in them. So they do not test intellect, they test a particular skill set.

I was told that 'socio-economic factors' don't make someone commit rape as Africans apparently do on wider scale than White people, in general.

The largest scale mass rape in modern history, during the Soviet invasion of German in the Second World War, in which two million women were raped (often repeatedly and gang raped) was committed by white soldiers.

[Tim Cornelis]

Hmm. I'm a little bit sceptical of your intentions. I suspect you are trying to convince us of your Nazi views but front as former Nazi.

'Marxists economics' can't work as it's a method of analysis of capitalism, not a blueprint for socialism.

We can also see widely diverging IQs within people of European descent. Research put the IQ of Dutch people in the 1950s on 82; IQ of Irish people in the 1980s on something like 85; Serbia now 89; Southern Italy something like 88; Albania 87. And then there's estimates by Dutch psychologist Wicherts whom puts the IQ of Vietnam at 94; Sierra Leone 91; Eritrea 85; Nigeria 84.

Regardless, I don't think it's a very important issue. Human worth is not measured by intelligence. And if anything it would be another argument against capitalism, apparently people are condemned to poverty based on intelligence.

[Counterculturalist]

I've been told that Race can't be a social construct due to obvious biological differences such as wiry hair and testosterone amounts.

I was told that 'socio-economic factors' don't make someone commit rape as Africans apparently do on wider scale than White people, in general.

I was also told that humans have a genetic difference that IS signifigant - like 0.5% between Europeans and Africans compared to 1.5% between Humans and Chimpanzee's or something.

They say that colonization started 500 years ago and that people have been in Africa like 250,000 years and that it isn't a factor.

They also said that Liberia was never colonized but is still a shithole because of their 'lack of ability to create civilization'.

You were "told" by who? Who is "they"? J. Philippe Rushton? Richard Lynn? Mankind Quarterly?

You'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist that would endorse these asinine claims that isn't somehow affiliated with white nationalist reactionaries.

I'd advise you to stop looking to pseudoscientist neo-Nazi crackpots for an adequate explanation of anything.

Further, and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your intentions, but your post smacks of Fox New-style tactics.

A typical Fox News headline: "Some People are saying that B. Hussain's Marxist Muslim army is deliberately importing ebola into the U.S."

Your post: "Some People are saying that Africans are inherently inferior rapist sex-maniacs."

Some people can go fuck themselves.

[Mystic Core]

You were "told" by who? Who is "they"?

Various Fascists. Ranging from crackpots such as Evola to fanatics like Goebbels.

All humans are 99.5-99.9% genetically similar, it's not a 0.5% difference between Europeans and Africans, it's a 0.5% difference between individual humans. Much of our DNA is either the same "code" that says that the individual is a human, or is "junk" DNA.

That makes sense. Have you got a link or book for further reading?

Hmm. I'm a little bit sceptical of your intentions. I suspect you are trying to convince us of your Nazi views but front as former Nazi.

Believe what you will, I'm just seeking to find the truth. I'm not here to convince anyone, I know well my post may seem like that. Only time can prove to you that I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone here. Either way, Nazis don't go to Revleft or revolutionary people to try and convince others. That'd be a waste of time seeing as there's masses of people with apolitical views.

[cyu]

Human worth is not measured by intelligence. And if anything it would be another argument against capitalism, apparently people are condemned to poverty based on intelligence.

Yep, if you ever played Dungeons & Dragons, they draw a distinction between "intelligence" and "wisdom". On the surface they may seem to be similar things - but in the game, it is possible to be extremely intelligent but very unwise, and vice versa. You might also draw a distinction between someone who has a lot of information, and someone who has good judgment. Without good judgment, more information actually just makes that person more dangerous to himself and others - someone without much power would be fairly harmless, but someone who is an expert in nuclear or biological weapons design may just destroy the world.

Still, I see knowledge as coming in many forms - some people may be brilliant plumbers but know nothing about particle physics, some people may be brilliant particle physicists but know nothing about making a meal, some people may have enough "leadership" skill to convince everyone else to jump off a cliff but not really know anything about how to run a country. "Good judgment", morality, ethics, political and economic systems design, "enlightenment", are just more aspects of knowledge that some people may know more about than others.

I may be the best sniper history has ever known, but what good is it if all I ever do is kill biologists just before they can cure cancer? I may know everything there is to know about counter-insurgency, but what good is it if all I ever do is put down revolutions that could've fixed a corrupt system?

[Comrade #138672]

Either way, Nazis don't go to Revleft or revolutionary people to try and convince others. That'd be a waste of time seeing as there's masses of people with apolitical views.

Believe it or not, but they do come to RevLeft.

[The Disillusionist]

I had a long post, and accidently hit the backspace key which sent me back a page and sent it into oblivion (who is the dumbass who thought that making the backspace key also a page-back key was a good idea). I'm too pissed to rewrite it fully, but here's some quick anthropological points, because I live for this stuff:

There is no such thing as "race", it's a social construct. Humans fall along an ethnic continuum rather than into compartmentalized "racial" groups.

Along that continuum, humans are extremely genetically similar. As a result of catastrophic events that nearly wiped us out in the past, we went through a genetic "bottleneck" and as a result we are all descended from a fairly small number of humans, making us very genetically similar to each other. There is significantly less variation in the human species than among many other animal species.

The only thing IQ tests test is the ability to take IQ tests.

One important reason that everyone else has a slight (very slightly) genetic "divergence" from the people in Africa is that, after humans began to migrate out of Africa, they interbred with the ancient neanderthal and denisovan people in Europe and Russia (the only people who could actually maybe be called different "races") who introduced a slight amount of their DNA into the gene pool.

Oh, and finally, the idea of "progress" or "advancement" is ethnocentric, because westerners tend to view the progress to others in relation to our own progress, despite the fact that we took the majority of our "progress" from others... Africans have had very advanced civilizations, Zimbabwe being just one of them. A lot of those civilizations were destroyed by barbaric European colonism. Those Africans without advanced civilizations weren't stupid either though, their cultures were, and are, highly adapted to their environments and to the use of the resources available to them.

By the way, I'm slightly surprised that white supremacists are putting down Zimbabwe, because when it was found the initial reaction was, "this is so awesome and complicated, it must have been created by white people." That reaction was then made into an offical statement and enforced by government censorship for a number of years.

Edit: The anti-black rape argument is just downright stupid and vulgar.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've been told that Race can't be a social construct due to obvious biological differences such as wiry hair and testosterone amounts. The 'theory' I read began with IQ tests, some of you whom might say are biased, but what about people raised in similar environments?

it is a social construct because, for one thing, these definitions and perceptions have changed over time. People in the u.s in the 1800s beloved "irish" was a race that could not assimilate and could be identified by their physical differences. In the u.s. In the middle of the 20th century, many Arabs were considered "white-ethnics" but today "Arab" is considered a different race in the u.s.

In the late 1800s or early 1900s, a light skinned Japanese man sued and went to the Supreme Court arguing that he was white because his skin was the same tone as Europeans. The court said that the white race is a category based on specific historical tribes of people. So then an Indian sued saying that he should be considered white because his people in India came from the same supposed tribes. The court then ruled that whiteness was based on skin color.

So it is absolutely constructed, has changed over time, and is only important in real life because these constructed divisions have been used to divide and rule people while justifying specific control and oppression of various groups.

I believe the economics of Marxism can work, I'm just trying to get a feel for the aspects of the third world part of it and such. They also point to the fact that African nations have accounted for like 1% of Scientific Advancement and that Zimbabwe is a hellhole. They say that colonization started 500 years ago and that people have been in Africa like 250,000 years and that it isn't a factor. They also said that Liberia was never colonized but is still a shithole because of their 'lack of ability to create civilization'.

you have been fed a lot of ignorant bullshit then. Europe was the backwater historically, in the last several hundred years, Western Europe advanced more quickly because capitalism took hold there first (potentially could have developed in other places earlier, China had a proto-capitalist type rule by merchants hundreds of years earlier but it was defeated) and used that rapid wealth to control other parts of the world. They created myths to justify this rule and keeping people in poor conditions.

White supremacists support or defend these myths in order to justify their support of ongoing oppression and defend a racial caste system that might allow them a slightly better position. They feel that they deserve to be treated better and that the system has failed them so they wish for a re-enforced caste system that puts people in their "rightful place".

This is fundamentally opposed to marxist/anarchist aims which are for people to self-organize (against the competition and divisions in capitalism) and liberate themselves from all oppression, not just exploitation.

[jullia]

For the IQ test oters already answear you.

For Liberia, the history is pretty complex. The country have been created by former black slave from america who come back to Africa. The problem was the only model of society they knew was the slavery organisation. So they never really integrate to the locals and have pretty bad behaviours. This and a lot of other stuffs made the state failed.

[consuming negativity]

You have been told nonsense then. As RedAnarchist has pointed out, all of the available evidence available suggests that, on a genetic level, the biological argument for racism is without foundation. Meanwhile, IQ tests are certainly socially biased. The fact is that they do not test intelligence. They test education. If you practise IQ tests, non-verbal reasoning tests, etc., then you will improve in them. So they do not test intellect, they test a particular skill set.

To elaborate on this, not that it is particularly necessary, but that "particular skill set" is what forms the basis for critiques of IQ tests based on cultural bias. Because the skill sets necessary to survive in one world - even if that world is only a mile or two away - can be significantly different from those needed to survive in another world. Imagine if RevLeft got together and decided to make a test designed to test the intelligence of its userbase, but were somehow naive enough to not be able to differentiate between intelligence and knowledge, as are proponents of IQ tests. The questions on the test would likely be a mix of information about various revolutions, dead white men, and communist theory. Apply that test to the general population and what would you find? That users of RevLeft are on average a lot more intelligent than everybody else. But that would be ridiculous. Why? Because knowledge of communist shit doesn't make a person smart. Similarly, knowing what the Qur'an is (a question on a version of the test from the 60s which indicated a very high level of intelligence) or being able to identify patterns have nothing to do with how smart you are.

I believe the economics of Marxism can work, I'm just trying to get a feel for the aspects of the third world part of it and such. They also point to the fact that African nations have accounted for like 1% of Scientific Advancement and that Zimbabwe is a hellhole. They say that colonization started 500 years ago and that people have been in Africa like 250,000 years and that it isn't a factor. They also said that Liberia was never colonized but is still a shithole because of their 'lack of ability to create civilization'.

1% of scientific advancement... what does this even mean? How do you quantify "scientific advancement" in the first place? Who measured this, and what are the sources for it? What time period is it even from? This "statistic" is something that could only be taken seriously by a person incapable of thought; perhaps an idiot or a small child, which incidentally forms the largest amount of the ranks of racists, although I'm happy to hear that you've since grown up and moved on from that.

To address the larger argument, though, which is essentially that African "nations" are poorer, have contributed less theory that we're aware of, etc. this is actually a partial illusion. There is a reason why you aren't exposed to the vast majority of the thought not only of the African continent but of the majority of the entire world, and that is because of language barriers, cultural barriers, and the economy. And what I mean by the last one is that it isn't really profitable to translate a very nice poem from an author in Namibia who doesn't speak English that was written for a local newspaper - even if it was enjoyed by everybody who read it. Similarly, African colonialism was not "500 years ago" - the scramble for Africa took place in the 1900s and the end of formal colonialism on the African continent is younger than WWII. But still it persists through capitalist economic imperialism and continues to export the wealth of the continent to prop up the West and allow its relative wealth and power in a sort of negative feedback cycle where the more exploitation that happens, the more it can be self-justified by the lack of progress on part of the exploited. That this has been going on for centuries and in spite of it there is still significant development on the African continent today does not show weakness but rather shows an incredible resilience on part of the people there to grow in spite of extreme exploitation and global neglect. Which is not to elevate the African people to superhuman status or to otherwise deprive them of their humanity - they are people and they are resilient in the same way that all people are.

And yet still, if your picture of Africa in your mind - which in and of itself is not just a giant savannah but is actually a continent larger than the US, China, or Russia with even more cultural variations than any of the three, which are themselves extremely culturally diverse countries - has a few malnourished tribesmen dancing around in loincloths, then your picture of Africa is simply wrong. It would be like judging American civilization in the 1800s by watching a native American dance from one of the hundreds of tribes which all had their own separate cultural, political, religious, etc. organizations. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with the native cultures, habits, etc. of the Americans before white people or the tribal Africans today, but rather, that such a view is not at all representative of the entire continent in the same way that a picture of New York City would not at all be representative of even New York state, let alone the entirety of the United States. It is racially-biased bullshit peddled toward people who already want to believe that Africa is, as you put it, a "shit hole", and whom are either incapable or unwilling to consider the idea that there is more to it than meets the eye.

[BIXX]

Honestly I think we should give this person a chance, why bother approaching them so suspiciously when, if they do turn out to be a fuck face (which I don't really know about one way or the other) if we have the ban hammer on out side? To me it seems just so folks can be like "see I suspected MC was a fascist I was suspicious from the beginning" when honestly who gives a damn? This doesn't apply to everyone in this thread, some of you are being not too bad.

[synthesis]

They also said that Liberia was never colonized but is still a shithole because of their 'lack of ability to create civilization'.

This is just so off-base, but it's not like you're the only person who thinks this. As "jullia" above noted, Liberia was colonized - the people who did the colonizing certainly viewed themselves as bringing God and capitalism to the heathens - but for various reasons (mainly that no one in the U.S. really gave a shit) the colonists never got anywhere near the same resources that other successful imperial ventures did - basically nothing at all - and the whole thing just floundered from there. If this is a topic that interests you, I'd be happy to PM you some more information on the subject.

[Blake's Baby]

The most important discoveries/inventions - the ones on which everything later have been based - were the invention of stone tools and the development of the bag. Both of these took place in Africa. Imagine trying to do anything only using sticks and having to carry every single thing in your hands.

I think after that, Africa can sit back and say 'you're welcome' - perhaps after claiming 2.5 million years of licensing rights from every single person on the planet.

While we're on, 8,000 years of pottery and 5,000 years of glass in a big fund to be paid to the the Middle East every time you use anything that's been stored or look through a window/use a lightbulb/put your glasses on.

[TC]

Like many empirical and historical questions this is probably better addressed through online research (even wikipedia) than here.

Gould's Mismeasure of Man is a good place to start though:

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=WTtTiG4eda0C

[Mystic Core]

To elaborate on this, not that it is particularly necessary, but that "particular skill set" is what forms the basis for critiques of IQ tests based on cultural bias. Because the skill sets necessary to survive in one world - even if that world is only a mile or two away - can be significantly different from those needed to survive in another world. Imagine if RevLeft got together and decided to make a test designed to test the intelligence of its userbase, but were somehow naive enough to not be able to differentiate between intelligence and knowledge, as are proponents of IQ tests. The questions on the test would likely be a mix of information about various revolutions, dead white men, and communist theory. Apply that test to the general population and what would you find? That users of RevLeft are on average a lot more intelligent than everybody else. But that would be ridiculous. Why? Because knowledge of communist shit doesn't make a person smart. Similarly, knowing what the Qur'an is (a question on a version of the test from the 60s which indicated a very high level of intelligence) or being able to identify patterns have nothing to do with how smart you are.



1% of scientific advancement... what does this even mean? How do you quantify "scientific advancement" in the first place? Who measured this, and what are the sources for it? What time period is it even from? This "statistic" is something that could only be taken seriously by a person incapable of thought; perhaps an idiot or a small child, which incidentally forms the largest amount of the ranks of racists, although I'm happy to hear that you've since grown up and moved on from that.

To address the larger argument, though, which is essentially that African "nations" are poorer, have contributed less theory that we're aware of, etc. this is actually a partial illusion. There is a reason why you aren't exposed to the vast majority of the thought not only of the African continent but of the majority of the entire world, and that is because of language barriers, cultural barriers, and the economy. And what I mean by the last one is that it isn't really profitable to translate a very nice poem from an author in Namibia who doesn't speak English that was written for a local newspaper - even if it was enjoyed by everybody who read it. Similarly, African colonialism was not "500 years ago" - the scramble for Africa took place in the 1900s and the end of formal colonialism on the African continent is younger than WWII. But still it persists through capitalist economic imperialism and continues to export the wealth of the continent to prop up the West and allow its relative wealth and power in a sort of negative feedback cycle where the more exploitation that happens, the more it can be self-justified by the lack of progress on part of the exploited. That this has been going on for centuries and in spite of it there is still significant development on the African continent today does not show weakness but rather shows an incredible resilience on part of the people there to grow in spite of extreme exploitation and global neglect. Which is not to elevate the African people to superhuman status or to otherwise deprive them of their humanity - they are people and they are resilient in the same way that all people are.

And yet still, if your picture of Africa in your mind - which in and of itself is not just a giant savannah but is actually a continent larger than the US, China, or Russia with even more cultural variations than any of the three, which are themselves extremely culturally diverse countries - has a few malnourished tribesmen dancing around in loincloths, then your picture of Africa is simply wrong. It would be like judging American civilization in the 1800s by watching a native American dance from one of the hundreds of tribes which all had their own separate cultural, political, religious, etc. organizations. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with the native cultures, habits, etc. of the Americans before white people or the tribal Africans today, but rather, that such a view is not at all representative of the entire continent in the same way that a picture of New York City would not at all be representative of even New York state, let alone the entirety of the United States. It is racially-biased bullshit peddled toward people who already want to believe that Africa is, as you put it, a "shit hole", and whom are either incapable or unwilling to consider the idea that there is more to it than meets the eye.

That's all great but how come East Asians score very high on the tests? Higher than white people?

[Blake's Baby]

Because these tests are entirely culturally-dependant. People of an East (and South) Asian background tend to score more highly than whites because people from East and South Asian backgrounds tend to come from cultural groups that prize academic achievement (especially in maths and sciences, but also maybe business studies and other commercial fields) more than white and black cultural groups.

I think these broad cultural tendencies are pretty much irrefutable, en masse, but obviously not every person from any particular social group will exhibit these tendencies.

However, the result is that Asians will tend to score more highly than whites on the portions of the IQ tests that have a mathematical or logic basis, and no lower on the other portions of the test.

Of course, if one believes in racial theories of IQ, then, it's just that Chinese and Indians are racially superior to Europeans, as Europeans are to Africans.