I have had no response from my previous posting (19 March "The coming
divide") which argued that China might well take over the commercial and
scholastic supremacy of the world from America in the coming decades on the
basis that the IQ of East Asians is significantly higher than western whites.
This suggests that my posting was either non-controversial and acceptable,
or that it was so controversial that no-one wanted to encourage emotional
exchanges on this list.
However, a recent article by Edward George, Governor of the Bank of
England, in yesterday's Independent about the success of Asian immigrants
to England prompts me to raise the matter again.
Before I quote from his speech, let me summarise the broad history which
seems to have given rise to considerable IQ (ability) differences between
different 'races' of mankind:
1. Penultimate Ice Age.
The descent of glaciation produced considerable ecological effects (e.g.
shrinkage of rain forests in Africa); evolution of mankind (forced out of
the forests into the savannah).
2. Penultimate Inter-glacial
Retreat of glaciers produced moderate temperatures throughout most of
Euro-Asia. At around 100-120,000 years ago some tribes migrated out of
Africa and proceeded along sea coasts to India and China and other parts of
south-east Asia and then up the major river valleys. The greatly changed
methods of food-catching and environment probably had considerable
selective effects on IQ so that those who proceeded the furthest were the
most intelligent and able.
3. Last Ice Age
Descent of glaciation probably prevented further migration, stabilising
quite different societies as between Africa and Coastline Asia.
4. Last (that is, the present) Inter-Glacial
>From about 30,000 BC onwards the retreat of the last Ice Age glaciers
produced warmer conditions again, and man again migrated westwards and
northwards from Asia, meeting further migrations out of Africa and
producing a new mixed ("white") population of intermediate IQ.
Contemporaneously, this produced large (agricultural) cities along river
valleys, but also the spread of hunting man into the rest of Europe and
then round into North America.
So we seem to have three broad 'races' of humankind -- East Asians,
Caucasians and Africans -- with an overall range of something like 40-50
points between their mean IQs. (Of course, there are many overlaps in
individual IQs.) In my last posting I mentioned some evidence from America
as to the disproportionate effect of Asians in science and high-tech business.
But here's some evidence from England from Edward George's article:
<<<<
A Bank of England investigation, 18 months ago, into the availability of
finance to ethnic minority firms suggested that while the ethnic minorities
represent some 5% of the UK population, they controlled some 7% of UK
businesses and accounted for around 9% of start-ups. Those national figures
relate to 1997, so they are a little of date. But figures from London
Chamber of Commerce, published last December, on the contribution of Asian
business to London's economy, suggest that the ethnic minority population
manages or owns some 20% of London's private sector businesses, with the
Asian community alone accounting for half that -- or some 10% of the total.
>>>>
What Edward George failed to mention for reasons of delicacy is that almost
all these Asians are Pakistanis or Gujurati Indians and almost no
businesses have been established by Caribbeans (of African descent). We now
have three or four Asian billionaires among the richest 20 or so in this
country. In contrast, the crime rate of Caribbean young men is hugely
higher than that of Asian young men and accounts for most street crime in
England.
Both groups of immigrants in the last 50 years, Asian and Caribbean, are in
roughly equal numbers if I remember correctly. The Asians came with a
totally difficult culture and had to learn a new language so had much
greater difficulties to overcome. In fact, the race prejudice of whites
against the early wave of Caribbean immigrants became largely displaced
onto Asians until quite recently. (This was a repetition of the even
earlier prejudice of English people against the Irish immigrants and its
displacement when the Caribbeans started to arrive.) However, the vast
increase in the drug culture and muggings in recent years, largely by
Caribbeans ("Yardies"), has caused prejudice to swing back again to some
extent.
We have had relatively few Chinese immigrants in England so far and those
that came here in small numbers over the last 150 years or so tended not to
draw attention to themselves, concentrating on small private businesses. In
Liverpool, with the largest number of Chinese-English, their crime rate is
the lowest of all 'races'. However, some of them are just beginning to
emerge as major businessmen and academics.
So, although it is not politically correct to say so, the evidence seems to
be building up that, whatever IQ happens to be, it is measurably different
between different 'races' and has a direct relationship with scholastic and
business ability, and also in civilised, peacable behaviour.
Being a Causasian white belonging to a 'race' with a mean IQ of 100, I
don't think I can be charged with prejudice when suggesting that central
Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) with a probable mean IQ of about 120, and
East Asians (Chinese) with a mean IQ of about 140, deriving from the
circumstances of the two large migrations out of Africa during the last two
Inter-Glacials, will probably take over the role of the white man in the
coming decades.
Keith Hudson
__________________________________________________________
�Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
order to discover if they have something to say.� John D. Barrow
_________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________
