Some statistical and historical quality control seems necessary
on Keith's racial generalizations:
> 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.
> >>>>
Statistically, this can't be called evidence for the claim that Asians
as a race have a higher IQ, because the Asians in England are a
non-representative selection (self-selected sample) of their whole 'race'.
Considering the circumstances of Asian emigration and British immigration
criteria, it can be expected that this self-selected sample is *above*
average (among Asians) in terms of personal initiative and IQ. So this
sample will be more successful than the general British population
*even if* the Asian "race IQ" (average) is equal or lower.
> 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.
Well, on a historical scale, the largest muggers (as a collective) have
been the British. Now that most colonies are gone, the greedheads are
turning to their own people, with the socio-economic consequences that
Keith often describes on this list.
> 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.
Even if there are differences between races in general (as opposed to
self-selected sample groups) --note that Keith fails to provide evidence
for that--, the influence of *culture and nutrition/environment*
on "scholastic and business ability, and also in civilised, peacable
behaviour" is very large, as can be seen by comparing European countries
and individuals over history (e.g. Switzerland has the highest number
of Nobel Prize laureates per million of inhabitants, the greatest
business success/public services etc. and the longest peaceful period
in Europe, although it is racially similar to surrounding countries).
Instead of peddling unsubstantiated and dangerous theories about
"race IQ", it would be much better to explore and enhance the vast
potentials of IQ-/synergies-enhancing educational, nutritional and
environmental conditions -- but unfortunately, the "Free" Trade
fundamentalists are pushing in the opposite direction.
> 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.
Rather than by "race IQ", the rise and fall of civilizations over history
has been due to environmental and developmental cycles (buildup-->
fluourishing-->decadence/destruction). IF it would be just a matter of
"race IQ", then China would have been the top civilization *all the time*.
Considering the environmental and social (d)evolution of America, it
may well be true that it will soon reach the end of the cycle, but
the big question is whether its leaders will accept this as a historical
development, or try by ANY (military) means to maintain their global
dominance. Dubya's latest nuclear threats and the NMD development
(to enable nuclear first strikes) do not bode well in this perspective.
Chris
