Further thoughts on “race realism”

For those unfamiliar, a race realist is an individual who postulates that there are distinct genetic differences between races that separate them.  These differences explain the social and intellectual behaviors of races and it is important to understand these differences as it pertains to social policies and opinions.  This movement has several proponents that vary in their range of credibility and social acceptability; however, it would be intellectual dishonest and irresponsible to completely dismiss it as nonsense as I initially did.  This is not to say that this is indisputable as a social and biological theory.  There are many more credible entities that oppose this school of thought than support it.  However, my research has shown that it deserves more attention and discussion in the realm of race relations in America and worldwide.

In my experience, the biggest proponents of these theories are usually whites who could be best described as “anti (insert pertinent nonwhite here).”  I use the term anti black instead of racist because most of the followers of this theory do not accept the label nor do they exhibit all of the usual traits of the typical racist.  In my interactions with “race realists” I have yet to be called a nigger, and in comparison to my other experiences with more traditional “anti black” individuals, their tone is fairly tame (although calling it civil would be a bit of a stretch).

I realized that what makes these racialists less hostile is the fact that finally they feel that they can justify their animosity towards blacks and other people of color because it has been substantiated by science.  Now, it is not their hate, fear, or ignorance that forces them to label ALL black people as a “net negative” on society because now it is historically sound and scientifically proven.  For them, there is no need for any hate and emotion in the face sound science and documented history.  This shows that they also realize that their opinions are well within the area of Fringe or extreme and know that if they ever want to popularize or validate their views that it cannot be attached to hate or oppression. 

The core element of racialist theories is that all people who derive from Sub Saharan African gene pools (ie black people) are genetically destined to be barbaric, irresponsible, overly aggressive and generally unable to thrive in a “civilized” world.  They believe that this is the core reason for the problematic state for around 35% of African Americas, as well as the rampant dysfunction of Africans in Africa.  Lastly and more significantly is the role of culture in these theories.  As far as I can tell concepts of cultural bias, social structure, or environmental factors are effectively rendered insignificant by the racialist theory.  From what I have read and ascertained, many Race Realist do not believe that those factors have much to do with the results.

I was wrong to so quickly and categorically dismiss this as “pseudo science” in my earlier arguments.  It is clear that there is much merit to this information as a plausible scientific study.  My problem is that in no logical way can one use this to define an entire race of people world wide without taking into account other aspects of reality.

I am willing to give this theory credence up until this point.  Aside from the large amounts of counter evidence to its theories, the problematic concept of IQ, and the damning factor of the definition of “civilized” through white society being essentially inapplicable upon African culture, this idea that culture has nothing to do with behavior does not hold water on any level. 

 There are several reasons why.

1-In America, unarguably one of the most diverse and stable nations in the world, African Americans enjoy a standard of living much higher than their African counterparts.  Since the civil rights movement of the 1960s almost every indicator of cultural progress has been on the rise.  This includes important indicators such as Median income, home ownership, college education, etc.  This is not to say that there are not many problems, but if culture were not a factor these facts would not exist.

2- The core of the race realist that i have seen thus far seem to have a really poor concept of history prior to 1950.  I have seen them speak of white culture and civilizations as if they were all incredibly stable, crime free, and socially just.  The reason for this is that you cannot believe that culture and environment have anything to do with behavior in order to use race realism as a argument against black people if you cant first establish that White people throughout history have fared excellently without the "net negative" influence of people of color.

White culture throughout history has been one of the leading killers of human beings by a wide margin.  White cultures have always been highly militaristic and imperialistic dating back to the Viking era Germanic tribes that serve as the basis of White culture.  The Vikings were known to hit land, kill all the men, steal all the goods, rape all the women,  and take whatever needed back to their nomadic tribes.  This behavior serves as the template for white culture as a whole to follow whenever it meets others, even if they are also white.  The first notable modern victims of this type of behavior, as well as the one of the first to be dehumanized through controversial science were the Irish.  The British ruling class promoted the (mis)use of Charles Darwin’s studies to establish that the Irish had to be some sort of sub human that was not worthy of humane treatment.  What followed was similar to what would happen to Africans in Africa, and Blacks and Native Americans in America.  In fact the only race that wasn’t rampantly murdered were the Asians, although that did not leave them immune from the effects of European imperialism.  Not mentioned are the various other genocides committed by white people such as the Holocaust, Spanish inquisition, Bosnian Genocide, Aboriginal genocide and so on.  Furthermore, even though blacks represent a greatly disproportionate amount of criminal activity in almost every category, white greatly outnumber blacks in terms of crimes of perversion or rage such as school shootings, killing sprees, serial killings and child molestation.  Also, let’s not forget the epidemic of white collar crime, whose victims often range in the hundreds or thousands per incident, that has occurred in the last 20 or so years.  Now, according to Race realism the only explanation for this can be genetic markers on how people build societies.  What in the genetic code of white culture could account for such behavior?  Furthermore there if you look at the historical data of Africa you see little to no sense of aggression in their nature.  No massive spanning kingdoms, no great wars, no imperialism.  This is not to say that all African tribes were peaceful (the Zulu come to mind) but they were far from feral aggressive beasts.  In fact many early accounts of European exploration into Africa describe Africans as simple and relatively docile. None of this information fits with the racialist’s model for how genetics mark our behavior. 

It is quite likely that the genetic markers discussed could explain the Nature of African people prior to rampant European imperialism.  Africans who were lower in IQ but high in all physical attributes functioned with relative ease within the bountiful environment of Africa.  Although some nations and kingdoms were established, most were relatively simple and tribalistic even as Asians and Caucasians were establishing complex empires.  With an understanding of basic genetics and evolution, it makes sense that Asians and whites, faced with a harsher climate and a weaker physical genetic code would have to develop ways to thrive in their environment.  Race realism does a very efficient job explaining this.  However it fails to explain that these events and trends cultivated by their genetics would eventually establish a specific CULTURAL normalcy for a given area.

To take this further let’s take a cursory glance at Asian(essentially Chinese) history and their kingdoms.  Minus the Mongols, Asian empires were far more stable, peaceful, and advanced than their white counterparts, in fact it was the appropriation of many Asian elements (along with Egyptian) that lead to the development of many significant aspects of Anglo culture.  At the same time, even though their IQs were higher, Asians never embarked on massive conquests of other nations or exploration.  If there were a significant relationship between IQ and a tendency to seek dominance, one would think that Asian ideology and culture would be the dominant force within the world. However every major scholar points that it was the conservative principles of isolation along with the mountainous coast that made Asian Culture sit still while Europeans were colonizing everything in sight.

All of these issues lead to the logical conclusion that while there is much to be made of race realism within the study of race and sociology, it alone cannot explain or provide significant guidance in addressing racial, social, and economic issues.  The only reason it is being so rampantly dropped in sites like this and other quasi racist sites is because it can be used to support white supremacy, which is next on my list.