I think culture plays a role in how individuals and societies turn out. This must surely be why India is a very different country to Pakistan. Being a Hindu is culturally different from being a Muslim. Biologically both groups are more or less inseparable. In short, biology plays no role in the difference between the character of the two countries.
However, where people differ biologically, this does play a role. Let me say first off that individuals are individuals and that there are intelligent and stupid people from all races. Differences between the races are purely statistical and therefore say very little about the individual standing in front of you.
Also these ideas have to be seen as a bell curve, with each race having the same shape of bell curve, with their stupid people to the left and their intelligent people to the right. It is just that the bell curve for black people is shifted slightly to the left. This means that you will find a lot of black people who are more intelligent than the average white. But it also means that these people are in the extreme right section of the black bell curve. And with that disclaimer out of the way, I will continue.
Researchers have found that children adopted at birth resemble their biological parents both physically (obviously) and behaviourally (not so obviously) more than they do their adoptive parents. To some extent our biology gives rise to our behaviour. Rottweilers are more aggressive than Golden Retrievers mainly because of their genes. Though it is probably possible to train a Rottweiler to be gentle and a Golden Retriever to be aggressive, you will have your work cut out and in both cases you are going against the grain. This is why it is easy to teach a baby monkey to be afraid of a snake but much harder to teach it to be afraid of a flower, even though it has never encountered either before. It is written into its genome to fear snakes. Neither monkeys, nor we, are blank slates when we are born.
Of course, adoptive parents do influence the adopted child’s development but that influence declines as the child gets older and all of us, with age, become more influenced by our genes. In the end we get closer to a personality we would have acquired regardless of our life history (within limits, of course).
Steven Pinker humorously asks, if environment really is the sole decisive factor in our upbringing as so many liberals believe, why don’t our pets learn our language? After all, they share the same environment as our children. The reason is, of course, that they are two different species. But that is precisely the point. The difference between two species is genes, not environment.
My argument is this. Genes play a role in the people we become and we are not born equally talented at all things. I take it that this is an uncontroversial point of view. We all understand that although Beethoven needed a piano at home to be able to practice, it doesn’t therefore follow that everyone with access to a piano can become a Beethoven.
Now, because genes tend to run in families it is likely that a family member of Beethoven will share the same musically brilliant genes. This doesn’t mean that his son will automatically become a musical genius. The interaction between genes and environment is complicated. On top of this, there is something called ‘regression to the mean’, which explains, among other things, why film sequels are rarely as good as the originals. The children of geniuses might be better than average at something but they rarely become geniuses.
Even so, musically brilliant families do exist, as do athletically brilliant families and academically intelligent families. And what is true of families is also true of tribes and races: they share the same genes which make them good at some things and bad at others.
East Africans tend to win all the long-distance races at the Olympics while West Africans – or more usually their descendants who now live in the West – win all the sprints. Ashkenazi Jews tend to be verbally and musically very good while being bad at activities requiring spatial skills.
Black people all over the world do worse academically than other rcaes. They perform badly on IQ tests, which despite what opponents say, are not rigged towards white Europeans. Northeast Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) do better than Europeans on these tests. Neither are well-designed IQ tests simply a reflection of verbal or mathematical prowess that is so prized in the west but not in primitive societies. These tests often have no language content and test such things as pattern-seeking ability, something which is surely useful to all people everywhere.
Poor performance in such tests is often highly predictive of poor school achievement, out-of-wedlock births, higher crime rates, anti-social behaviour as well as some other undesirable traits.
Some people like to claim that there is no such thing as race and that any differences are really only skin-deep anyway. This is false. There are physiological differences in the races from day one. Black children, for example, are usually born after only 39 weeks gestation and are born more mature than either white or NE Asian babies.
White babies are usually born after 40 weeks and NE Asian babies after 41 weeks. The latter tend to be born more helpless and take longer to walk and to mature in general. On average they have larger brains than either whites or blacks, and this larger brain size is closely correlated with higher intelligence. Whites have on average larger brains than blacks.
Black people have higher levels of testosterone in their bodies than either whites or Asians. This probably contributes to their prowess at sport but also explains why they might be more aggressive, leading to restlessness at school and to getting into trouble later. High levels of testosterone also seem to be associated with self-esteem: blacks generally have the highest self-esteem of all races while Asians have the lowest. Whites, as with almost every other trait are intermediate between Asians and Blacks.
These are not trivial differences and are not simply a matter of having a darker or lighter skin. The differences go deep and lead to behavioural differences that cannot solely be attributed to culture, though culture does of course play a role in shaping our behaviour.
Liberals look at the brute fact that black people generally occupy a lowly position in most societies and conclude that America, Canada, Europe and all other countries where blacks mix with other races must be institutionally racist. After all, what else could explain the failure of black people to rise to the top in any of these societies?
Even in all-black countries where poverty, crime and corruption are rife, liberals manage to attribute the poor state of the countries to the influence of whites, either for continuing to exploit black people in some way or because black people are unable to recover from a period of colonialism. According to this view, if blacks were only given the same opportunities worldwide then surely they would succeed and there would be no need for such things as affirmative action and virtually permanent aid programs.
The radical black and liberal consensus that attributes the higher crime rate and greater poverty of blacks to ongoing institutional white oppression doesn’t fit the historical facts. It was when black Americans were gaining their civil rights and the income gap between whites and blacks had started to shrink that out-of-wedlock births and black crime sky-rocketed. If poverty and a lack of human rights were the real causes of crime, you would expect crime to have gone down after the mid-1960s, yet it didn’t. It increased dramatically.
Apart from the fact that it is almost certainly not true, there is something degrading in the liberal and radical black view that black people are helpless victims of white society and they need whites to emancipate them. Such a view might have been understandable in the age of slavery or in the Jim Crow south, where black people genuinely had no way to make their way in society, no matter how intelligent, talented or virtuous they were. However, this is no longer the case in modern America, as can be seen from the fact that the US now has a black president. Just how racially oppressive can a society be that votes a man from a 13% minority race to lead their country?
Furthermore, it seems that the colonialism of earlier eras can’t be blamed for the almost intractable rottenness and corruption of many African countries since, as a rule, countries that were colonized tend to do better than their neighbouring countries that were not. After all, the retreating colonizers often left behind a developed infrastructure and a certain amount of know-how.
Liberals tend to believe that if black people ever did achieve some kind of parity, a pleasant knock-on effect would ensue, namely that blacks, because no longer oppressed by society, would no longer need to feel hostility towards its oppressors and thus crime levels would come down. This would be a natural consequence of a reduction in poverty and a reduction in resentment. On this view, the only thing standing in the way of this beautiful ‘We Are The World’ vision is the alleged innate racism of white societies, which is proving very difficult to root out and eradicate. People who subscribe to this view feel that it is only white racism that keeps in place the awful inequalities we see in our societies and those around the world.
No wonder some black people are angry! This must be why they give ‘The Talk’ to their children; to try to prevent them from becoming entangled with whites whose driving passion is to see blacks either humiliated, imprisoned or gunned down, regardless of how innocent they might be. The idea that their black teenage son might be capable of committing a crime of his own volition is unthinkable to parents raised on a diet of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, the latter having done more to raise racial tension and class envy than any previous American president. According to such people, most black crime is in reality merely the result of over-zealous racist policemen who target only blacks and thus artificially inflate the amount of black crime. The fact that victims of crime where the police didn’t turn up and no arrest was made report the same percentage of black assailants as police figures suggests nothing to some minds.
Yet there is another possible explanation for black people’s inability to achieve what the Asian and Jewish immigrants have managed to do; namely to succeed in society without needing preferential treatment. It could be that what we are looking at is a biological ceiling that has been reached and against which we are now banging our heads, over and over again. It is possible that all attempts to get equal numbers of blacks into universities, government positions and high status professions is doomed to fail; doomed to fail that is, unless you are willing to give racial preference to less competent black people over more competent Asians and whites.
There is an odd fact that is hard to explain if you adhere to the ‘environment is all’ school of thought but easy to explain if you belong to the ‘intelligence is largely a matter of genes’ school of thought. It is the fact that children from low-income white families get better SAT scores than children from high-income blacks families. If it were true that environment were the most important factor in schooling, then you would expect these black children, who presumably enjoy an environment more conducive to learning, to outscore their white peers – but they don’t.
The reason I think all of this is important is that I believe liberals are stoking black hostility towards white people by peddling the idea that white people are invariably to blame for the dysfunctional lives that some black people live. I also don’t think it can be denied that such hostility is behind some of the black-on-white crime that is committed. I believe that some percentage of black people (and white liberals!), whenever they hear of a black-on-white crime, instinctively feel that somehow whites ‘have it coming to them’. 83% of interracial crime in America is black-on-white. Blacks constitute about 13% of the total population of America but commit just over half the murders.
In America the shooting of Trayvon Martin was big news, simply because George Zimmerman was a white man (actually a Hispanic-white) who shot a young black man. The police didn’t arrest Zimmerman because it looked like a case of self-defence (as it probably was). Yet this brought forth calls for justice for blacks and a reward was put on Zimmerman’s head by a black supremacist group. Barack Obama stuck his oar in, saying that Trayvon could have been his son. A cute picture of Trayvon was given to the media of an angelic 12-year-old wearing basketball gear, which was only later substituted for a more recent one of the 6′ 2″, 17-year-old, hoodie-wearing youth with gold-capped teeth, who had been expelled three times from his school for possession of burglary tools and jewelry, possession of a marijuana pipe and drug residue, writing graffiti and for truancy and lateness. He had also written gangster-style stuff on twitter. Ah, so maybe he wasn’t quite as angelic as he had at first been made to appear.
Yet no one seemed to find any of this at all unusual. The police chief who didn’t arrest Zimmerman was publicly criticised, even though his decision not to arrest was perfectly in line with normal police procedure. Had the shooter been black or even 100% Hispanic, I feel this case would have disappeared without a trace. It just suited the ‘blame-the-white-racists-and-police-for-all-black-problems’ faction too well to let pass.
Anyway, I think it’s important to start talking honestly about this subject, though I know most people disagree. They are much happier to simply let the white racism slur stand unopposed. And unless you actually become the victim of a black-on-white crime it’s much nicer to sit polishing your halo and preening your liberal credentials. In this way the dishonest, racial hostility-inducing pretence goes on. And on.