Race: The Reality of Human Differences 1st Edition

by Vincent Sarich (Author), Frank Miele (Author)

18 customer reviews

ISBN-13: 978-0813340869

ISBN-10: 0813340861

Why is ISBN important?

Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon

Added to

Unable to add item to List. Please try again.

Share <Embed>

More Buying Choices

5 New from $75.07 17 Used from $17.74 1 Collectible from $49.98

23 used & new from $17.74

Deliver to France

See All Buying Options

Free Two-Day Shipping for College Students with Amazon Student

When the head of the Human Genome Project and a former President of the United States both assure us that we are all, regardless of race, genetically 99.9% the same, the clear implication is that racial differences among us are superficial. The concept of race, many would argue, is an inadequate map of the physical reality of human variation. In short, human races are not biologically valid categories, and the very ideas of race and racial difference are morally suspect in that they support racism. In Race , Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele argue strongly against received academic wisdom, contending that human racial differences are both real and significant. Relying on the latest findings in nuclear, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosome DNA research, Sarich and Miele demonstrate that the recent origin of racial differences among modern humans provides powerful evidence of the significance, not the triviality, of those differences. They place the "99.9% the same" figure in context by showing that racial differences in humans exceed the differences that separate subspecies or even species in such other primates as gorillas and chimpanzees. The authors conclude with the paradox that, while, scientific honesty requires forthright recognition of racial differences, public policy should not recognize racial-group membership.

Customers who bought this item also bought

Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1

This shopping feature will continue to load items. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading.

Heather Mac Donald

39

in Government Social Policy
Hardcover
$18.89
Madison Grant

37

Paperback
$13.50
Carleton S. Coon

16

Hardcover
20 offers from $28.97
Jared Taylor

129

Paperback
$23.05
Richard Lynn

33

Paperback
$27.95
David Reich

147

Hardcover
$18.23

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1

This shopping feature will continue to load items. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading.

Nicholas Wade

356

Paperback
$17.10
Gregory Cochran

165

Paperback
$17.99
Steven Pinker

360

Paperback
$17.00
Judith Rich Harris

33

Paperback
$17.99
Jared Taylor

129

Paperback
$23.05
Kevin MacDonald

163

Paperback
$26.55

Sponsored products related to this item (What's this?)

Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1

Feedback

Perry Marshall

167

Paperback
$11.56
Feedback

Neala McCarten

The history, art, and culture of New Mexico brought to life, from the Buffalo Soldiers and Blackdom to Georgia O'Keeffe and story behind Los Alamos.

16

Kindle Edition
$6.99
Feedback

Al Moe

The Mob stole Las Vegas right under the nose of the FBI and skimmed the casinos dry for 40 years. It's scary, it's true and it's here, 1931 to 1981!

281

Kindle Edition
$3.99
Feedback

David Hunter

A straight-forward commentary on various aspects of our society that teach African Americans to look down on themselves as a group.

22

Kindle Edition
$2.99
Feedback

Joss Sheldon

48

Just Released

Paperback
$8.99
Feedback

Ken Heptig

Ace your daily challenges from health, work, and relationships. Find more happiness and meaning. Follows the ancient wisdom of the 8 Limbs of Yoga.

17

Paperback
$13.38
Feedback

Joss Sheldon

131

Kindle Edition
$3.99

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Sarich, a Berkeley emeritus anthropologist, and Miele, an editor of Skeptic magazine, cannot resist calling the current view that "race does not exist" a "PC dogma." They make cogent, if not convincing, arguments of their case in three areas. Race as a concept, they argue, considerably antedates colonial Europe, presenting such examples as an "Egyptian tomb with four races" (as one caption calls a tomb painting) that may point up "awareness" of difference, but whether that awareness correlates to concepts of "race" as currently defined remains unproven. Several chapters are heavy going on DNA-based research into the origin and differentiation of Homo sapiens, here interpreted as branching off from the other hominids recently enough to make differences among people very minor but, in the authors' view, significant. They move from the Human Genome Project into their final section, in which differences in intelligence are said to correlate to a concept of race (but are not said to be a justification for discrimination). This last argument is predicated on what will seem to many readers an excessive faith in IQ tests. Nevertheless, the book lacks vitriol, other than that needed to fuel the skeptic's attempt to debunk.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

Sarich and Miele, both respected academicians, challenge the much-hyped, popular notion of race as an illusion, or mere social construct. Instead, they contend that significant human racial differences exist. Those differences are being increasingly identified and quantified via medical research and law-enforcement techniques, most notably in DNA testing, which has led to convictions and acquittals. Inquiries into the genetic influences behind racial differences in educational achievement and intelligence, despite inflammatory resistance, are justified by cost-benefit analyses, the authors contend. Assessing the future of racial politics in the U.S and internationally, Sarich and Miele offer three scenarios: meritocracy with race-sensitive safety valves (which they prefer), affirmative action or quotas, and rising resegregation and ethnopolitics. This is an important work, despite its conservative inferences, that challenges both the existence and the value of America's obsession with color blindness. Vernon Ford
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product details

Hardcover: 287 pages
Publisher: Westview Press; 1st edition (January 7, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0813340861
ISBN-13: 978-0813340869
Product Dimensions: 6 x 0.8 x 9 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
Average Customer Review: 18 customer reviews
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,285,964 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #651 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Anthropology > Physical
- #846 in Books > Science & Math > Biological Sciences > Biology > Molecular Biology
- #1504 in Books > Medical Books > Basic Sciences > Genetics

Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?

Be the first video

Your name here

Sponsored products related to this item (What's this?)

Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1

Feedback

Perry Marshall

167

Paperback
$11.56
Feedback

Neala McCarten

The history, art, and culture of New Mexico brought to life, from the Buffalo Soldiers and Blackdom to Georgia O'Keeffe and story behind Los Alamos.

16

Kindle Edition
$6.99
Feedback

Al Moe

The Mob stole Las Vegas right under the nose of the FBI and skimmed the casinos dry for 40 years. It's scary, it's true and it's here, 1931 to 1981!

281

Kindle Edition
$3.99

Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features:

See Kindle Edition

Customer reviews

2.8 out of 5 stars

Write a customer review

See all 18 customer reviews

Top customer reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Refreshing honesty

May 13, 2015

Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

I have only recently become aware of the bizarre belief that race does not exist, so I have been doing a fair amount of research into the topic. The book by Sarich and Miele is definitely worth a read for anyone interested in the subject. The most important points the authors make are:

1) They dispel with the argument that race cannot exist, because no sharp boundaries can be drawn between racial groups. Rather, there is a gradual morphing of physical features as one traverses geographic distances – the "clines" that some anthropologists speak of. The excellent analogy the authors use is that of a rainbow. There is no discrete wavelength at which light ceases to be red and becomes orange, or orange becomes yellow. The colors blend into each other. Does that mean the colors of the rainbow don't exist? Of course not. The idea that races must be "discrete" groups with little or no interbreeding at the margins seems to be an invention whose only purpose is to define race out of existence. If that standard were imposed on all species, then there would be very few examples of species divided into recognizable subspecies (races, if you prefer). Further, as the authors point out some of the transitions do occur abruptly, as one traverses natural barriers like the Sahara desert (let alone the Mediterranean Sea).

2) Another popular claim among race deniers is that all humans on Earth are 99.9% identical. The authors point out that domestic dogs are also 99.9% identical, yet there is huge variation in both morphology and temperament between different dog breeds. Thus, it does not take a lot of genetic change to make a big difference between dog breeds and, by extension, human races. They also point out that humans are as morphologically diverse as any mammalian species with recognized races (with the exception of dogs), and that such morphological diversity developed in such a short period of time is indicative of strong selective pressures. That is not surprising, considering that human have adapted to every biome on Earth.
This part of the book actually disappointed me, as I could not find a reference to the way morphological diversity was measured, and the methodology was not described in the book. Thus, this particular claim needs to be viewed with some skepticism.

3) Race deniers are also fond of pointing out that there is more within race genetic diversity than between race diversity. 85% vs. 15% is the standard measure given. The authors don't do a great job of dispensing with this claim, but do hint at the simple explanation that is "so what?" The 85% variation is largely neutral variability with little effect on phenotype. The 15% demonstrably does have a large impact on phenotype.

While this book is worth reading, I am not a fan of the writing style of the authors. It is often difficult to interpret their meaning, for example regarding the correlation between brain size and intelligence. The authors point out that the three major races have different average brain sizes, with Asians having the largest average and Sub-Saharan Africans the smallest. This correlates well with the average intelligences of the three major races. Brain size also correlates with intelligence within races, but not within immediate family members. Thus, there must be other factors that have a stronger influence on intelligence than just brain size. (This is obviously the case, otherwise all the geniuses of the world would have enormous heads.) This and other simple conclusions were often stated in very non-straightforward ways that made interpretation difficult.
Another criticism is that the first two-thirds of the book don't actually deal with subject of the title, i.e. the biological reality of human races.

6 people found this helpful

Comment

good introductory book to race and evolution using modern DNA science

August 21, 2005

Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

This is the first serious book i have read about race and I learnt alot about the early evolution of ape and man and how the development of DNA testing proceeded to reach its current accurate stage of been able to differentiate not only individuals but races.

This book covers 3 basic topics in order-

1) a historical account of how ancient civilizations like Aztecs, Egytians and Romans etc recognised and treated the racial groups in their empires.

2)Early anthropolgy and its disputes between its famous scientists, leading to DNA methods that prove the birthdates of man-ape and modern man.

3)Showing how real race differences exist today, in sport, medicine and measured IQ. Also examples of how race can be integrated into modern societies by either Meritocracy, Affirmative Action or EthnoStates.

The author Sarich? is occasionally a bit glib in some of his remarks but there is nothing controversial or heretical in this book. Both authors do get a bit personal with their ideological opponents but anyone with any interest in DNA/race is aware of the ideologies that some vehemently proscribe to in the name of denying race.

I really enjoyed this book and although i would have liked it to contain more data on the modern race groupings it really brought my understanding of race and evolution into the new millennium.

69 people found this helpful

Comment

VEL – The Contemporary Heretic

A Rare 21st Century Hereditarian Perspective on Race Both Issued by a Mainstream Publisher and Marketed to a General Readership

May 29, 2016

Format: Paperback

In this age of political correctness, it is refreshing that a mainstream publisher has published a hereditarian work dealing with that most incendiary of topics – the biology of race. Unfortunately, ‘Race: The Reality of Human Differences’ by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele is a disappointment.

The Law
The authors begin by discussing the recognition given race in the American legal system. They cite various legal cases involving affirmative action to show “the most adversarial part of our complex society, not only continues to accept the existence of race, but also relies on the ability of the average individual to sort people into races” (p14).

As for the claim that racial categories are socially-constructed, they note the ability of forensic scientists to identify the race of a criminal from DNA fragments (p19-23).

However, while folk-taxonomic racial categories have an ultimate basis in biological differences, they are part socially-constructed as well (e.g. the 'one-drop-rule’ in America).

It is unfortunate that the authors restrict their analysis to US law. It would be interesting to know how the race of citizens was determined in under Apartheid or the Nuremberg laws.

A Race-Recognition Module?
Humans are, the authors argue, innately predisposed to racially classify. Thus, Lawrence Hirschfeld found that three-year-olds already recognise the immutable and hereditary character of racial characters (p125-7). They claim, “evolutionary psychology provides… evidence that there is a species-wide module in the human brain that predisposes us to sort the members of our species into groups based on appearance, and to distinguish between ‘us’ and ‘them’” (p31).

However, since races were, until recent advances in transportation (ships, aeroplanes), largely separated from one another by the very oceans, deserts and mountains that reproductively isolated them from one another and hence permitted their evolution into distinguishable races, it is doubtful human races have been in contact for a sufficient time to have evolved a specific race-classification module.

Moreover, if race differences are indeed real and obvious, then there is no need to invoke (or evolve) domain-specific modules. General intelligence is more than capable of doing the job.

Ancient Civilizations
It is sometimes claimed the race concept is a recent European invention. Miele and Sarich show that humans sorted themselves into racial categories ever since physically distinguishable people came into contact and ancient peoples used similar racial categories to nineteenth-century anthropologists and twenty-first century bigots.

Thus, African rock paintings supposedly distinguish Pigmies, Bushmen and Bantu; while Egyptian monuments are “not mere 'portraits but an attempt at classification’” with different races painted different colours (p33). The authors even describe “history’s first [recorded] colour bar” – an Egyptian notice declaring “no Negro shall cross this boundary… save for the purpose of trade” (p35).

They also assert the ancients believed races differed in behaviour.

Generally, civilisations regarded other groups’ characters less favourably than their own. This reflected, not only ethnocentrism, but also the fact that civilisations of the sort that leave behind artwork and literature sophisticated enough to permit moderns to ascertain their views on race were indeed often surrounded by less advanced neighbours (p56).

These views are sometimes surprisingly congruent with contemporary stereotypes. Thus, in Greek and Roman art “black males are depicted with penises larger than those of white figures” (p41), while “Islamic writers… disparaged black Africans as... hypersexual yet also… with a natural sense of rhythm” (p53).

Thus the authors conclude, “European colonizers did not construct race as a justification for slavery but picked up an earlier construction of Islam, which took it from the classical world, which in turn took it from ancient Egypt” – the only alternative being that “each of these civilisations independently 'constructed’ the same worldview, and that the civilisations of China and India independently 'constructed’ similar worldviews” (p50).

There is another possibility. Perhaps racial stereotypes remained constant because they reflect actual behavioural differences that themselves remained constant because they are rooted in biological differences.

Race, Religion, Science and Slavery
Chapter three continues this history of the race concept from biblical writings to the Age of Science (and of pseudo-science). The authors trace the history of anthropology, from its beginnings as the 'science of race’, to its current incarnation as the study of 'culture’, most of whose practitioners vehemently deny the biological reality of race and some of whom deny even the possibility of anthropology being a science.

They argue polygenism – the belief that races had separate origins – was associated with free-thinking and the Enlightenment, whereas monogenism – the belief that the races shared a common origin – echoed the orthodox interpretation of the Bible. Thus, defenders of slavery in bible-belt slave states did not draw on the emerging race science of American anthropology. They preferred biblical doctrine (the so-called 'curse of Ham’).

The authors focus on two debates/rivalries, between Franz Boas and Madison Grant; and Ashley Montagu and Carleton Coon. These conflicts can themselves be viewed as racial in nature – Grant and Coon were Anglo-Americans; Boas and Montagu were Jewish (see The Culture of Critique).

The current consensus of 'Race-Denial’ is traced ultimately to Boas – “Franz Boas… remade American anthropology in his own image” and had “more influence on American intellectual thought than Darwin” (p86).

Molecular Clock
The next chapter, recounts how the molecular clock method of determining when species diverged was discovered. Geneticists discovered they could estimate when two species diverged by measuring differences in their non-coding ('junk’) DNA. Since junk DNA does not affect an organism’s phenotype, it is not subject to selection and mutates at a uniform rate, hence serving as a 'clock’.

This technique also permits one to determine when races split. However, this is more difficult as races can interbreed even after diverging.

Devoting a whole chapter to describing how this method was discovered is excessive. One suspects the attention paid to this topic reflects the central role played by one of the book’s co-authors in this process. This chapter permits Sarich to showcase his scientific credentials.

Is Race Real?
In Chapters Seven and Eight, after a hundred and sixty pages, the authors finally address the topic which the book’s title suggested would be its focus – race differences. The first deals with physical differences, the next behaviour differences.

Actually, both chapters begin by defending the race concept itself.

Sarich and Miele define races as “populations, or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features” (p207).

Strictly speaking, due to recent migration, human races are often no longer “separated geographically”. However, surely the key element is whether they were separated during their evolution.

Sarich and Miele protest that critics of the race concept often define the word 'race’ in such a way as to rule out races a priori – e.g. demanding discrete non-overlapping boundaries. Yet, since races are distinguished from species by the fact that only the former can interbreed, it is inevitable that races blend into one another, otherwise they would not be races (p209).

“The simple answer to the objection that races are not discrete, blending into one… is… they’re supposed to blend into one another and categories need not be discrete. It is not for us to impose our cognitive difficulties upon the Nature”

Characterizing races as “fuzzy sets” (a recently-developed mathematical concept), they use the analogy of colour – “red… shade[s] imperceptibly into orange and orange into yellow but we have no difficulties in agreeing as to where red becomes orange, and orange yellow” (p208-9).

This is an unfortunate analogy. Physicists and psychologists agree that colours don’t really exist – at least not outside of the human minds that perceive and recognise them. Instead, the electromagnetic spectrum varies continuously. Colours are imposed only by visual system as a way of interpreting this variation.

If racial differences were similarly continuous, then it would be inappropriate to divide peoples into racial groups, because wherever one drew the boundary would be entirely arbitrary.

However, the key point about human races is that, as the authors argue, although “races necessarily grade into one another… they… do not do so evenly” (p210). Instead, there is clustering.

Sarich and Miele give the example of the Sahara, a relatively impassable obstacle that impeded gene-flow for millennia (a “genetic filter”), and represents the boundary between the so-called Caucasoid and Negroid races (p209-10).

Likewise, Stanley Garn reports, “the high and uninviting mountains that mark the Tibetan-Indian border” mark the boundary between Caucasians and those formerly termed 'Mongoloids’ (Human Races: p15).

Meanwhile, vast oceans completely precluded gene-flow between the Old and New Worlds for millennia.

Thus, Garn concludes, “the facts of geography, the mountain ranges, the deserts and the oceans, have made geographical races by fencing them in” (Human Races: p15).

However, migration, intermarriage and improved transportation technologies mean that 'fuzzy’ boundaries are fast becoming 'fuzzier’. If meaningful boundaries could once be drawn between races, or even if they still can, they may not be for much longer.

Yet, if races didn’t exist, race differences still would. They would just vary on a continuum ('cline’) – and, just as populations differ in skin colour on a clinal basis, so they could differ in psychological traits too.

Debunking Diamond
Jared Diamond, in an influential article, argued that racial classifications are arbitrary, because different populations can be grouped in different ways if one uses different characteristics to group them (1994).

Thus, “depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as (respectively) either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan or Italians” (p164).

Sarich and Miele respond, “most of us, upon reading these passages, would immediately sense that something was very wrong with it, even though one might have difficulty specifying just what” (p164). Unfortunately, they are not very clear themselves in identifying precisely what is wrong with Diamond’s proposal.

First, they observe, “the sickle-cell allele can never go above about 40 percent in any population, and nor does the proportion of lactose-competent adults in any population ever approach 100 percent”. Thus, “on the basis of sickle-cell, there are two groups of Falani, one without the allele, the other with it” such that “those Fulanu with the allele would group not with other Fulani, but with Italians with the allele” (p165).

However, this could be taken to confirm Diamond’s point – if a legitimate system of racial classification demands that some Faluni tribesmen be grouped with Italians and others in an entirely different group, then this does indeed suggest racial classifications are silly. Moreover, the within-population variation in genes coding for sickle-cell and lactose tolerance seems to confirm Lewontin’s claim that within-group variation dwarfs that between groups (see below).

Sarich and Miele also argue that absence of sickle-cell is a “meaningless association” for the purposes of racial classification because “the character involved (the lack of the sickle-cell allele) is an ancestral human condition” and therefore only indicates that all groups with this trait are human – “not a particularly profound statement” (p165).

What Sarich and Miele are getting at is that, whereas Diamond proposes to classify groups on the basis of a single characteristic, most biologists favour a so-called 'cladistic taxonomy’, whereby species are grouped together on the basis, not of shared traits, but shared ancestry. Shared characteristics are relevant only to the extent they are (interpreted as) homologous and hence evidence of shared ancestry. Ancestral traits and traits that evolved independently through convergent/parallel evolution are irrelevant.

For example, genes responsible for lactose tolerance evolved independently among different groups through 'gene-culture co-evolution' in concert with the independent development of dairy farming in different parts of the world.

However, Diamond’s classifications are especially preposterous. Even pre-Darwinian taxonomies classified species on the basis of many traits clustered together. Diamond proposes to classify races on the basis of a single trait, chosen arbitrarily or, one suspects, to illustrate the point he is making.

Genetic Differences
In an even more widely-cited paper, Marxist biologist Richard Lewontin claimed that 85% of genetic variation occurred within populations and only 6% accounted for the differences between races.

The usual rejoinder to Lewontin is provided by Edwards who observed that, while Lewontin’s figures are correct when one looks at individual genetic loci, one can identify an individual’s race with precision that approaches 100% the more loci that are used (Edwards 2003).

However, Edwards’ paper was only published in 2003, just a year before Sarich and Miele’s book (though Jeffry B. Mitton had made the same point previously). Sarich and Miele therefore respond differently.

They contend, “[Lewontin’s] analysis omits a third level of variability–the within-individual one” because “we are diploid, getting one set of chromosomes from one parent and a second from the other” (p168-9). Therefore, “the… 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5%) between the intra- and inter-individual within-population comparisons” (p169).

However, this seems to be just playing around with numbers. After all, if most variation is within-group rather than between group, then, even if individuals mate endogamously, offspring will inevitably show substantial variation between the portion of genes they inherit from each parent.

Morphological Differences
Sarich and Miele then argue that it is actually more useful to look at morphological than genetic differences.

After all, humans and chimpanzees share around 98% of one another’s DNA, but they are not necessarily 98% similar. Small numbers of genes can have great effects while others ('junk DNA') do nothing.

Yet, looking at morphological differences, it is clear that, for some traits (e.g. skin colour, hair form, stature, body build), between-individual variation does not dwarf that between groups (p167). Indeed, “group differences can be much greater than the individual differences within them; in, for example, hair from Kenya and Japan, or body shape for the Nuer and Inuit” (p218).

That human populations are genetically similar indicates, the authors concede, that we separated only recently. However, the fact that within this short period large morphological differences evolved, indicates the presence of strong selective pressures selecting for differentiation. Sarich and Miele conclude, “so much variation developing in so short a period of time implies, indeed almost requires, functionality” and “there is no good reason to think that behavior should… be exempt from this pattern” (p173).

Measuring Morphological Variation
The authors assert that human racial groups differ more from one another morphologically than do many separate species of non-human animal and that “racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the distances among species within other genera of mammals” (p170).

This claim has been made before, notably by John Baker in 'Race'. However, Sarich and Miele go one better – they prove it statistically.

Relying on “cranial/facial measurements” in humans, chimpanzees and gorillas (p170), Sarich and Miele conclude that, measured as a proportion of total morphological variation within the group being considered, a greater percentage of the total variation among humans is found between some different human groups (e.g. Africans and Asians) than is found between some separate species of non-human (e.g. bonobos and chimps).

Their analysis, however, is rather technical. Surely the more appropriate place to publish such an important finding would be a specialist journal, with full methodology section and peer-review.

Domestic Dogs
Only among domestic dogs, the authors argue, are constituent races so strongly marked. Dog breeds are, they contend, analogous to human races.

Of course, dog breeds are a product of artificial selection, not natural selection. However, the processes are so analogous that the former was used by Darwin to illustrate, and helped inspire, his theory of the latter. Moreover, humans themselves have been described as 'self-domesticated', while Darwin attributed race differences to sexual selection, a process even more analogous to artificial selection (p236).

Of course, morphologically, dog breeds differ far more than humans. Yet, despite the logistical problems of a Chihuahua mounting a mastiff, all breeds are capable of interbreeding with one another (and with wolves) and are therefore considered a single species.

Moreover, genetic differences between dog breeds, and between dogs and wolves, were so slight that, at the time Sarich and Miele wrote, researchers had only just begun to be able to genetically distinguish some breeds from others (p185). (This probably also reflects the lesser funding devoted to studying the canine vs the human genome.)

Dog breeds also differ behaviourally (Freedman 1958). Indeed, recognition of behavioural differences among dog breeds even has statutory recognition, with 'breed-specific legislation’ in many jurisdictions restricting the breeding, sale and import of so-called 'dangerous dogs’ and ordering their registration, neutering and sometimes destruction – the canine equivalent of the Nuremberg laws!

Athletic Performance
In the remainder of the chapter on “Physical Race Differences’, the authors say surprisingly little about physiological race differences. Instead, they focus on an indirect effect of physiological differences – namely, differences in athletic performance. Moreover, most discussion is restricted to just one sport, namely long/middle-distance running.

They do not really discuss the physiological differences that underlie athletic superiority, save for a single sentence observation that “body-fat levels seem to be at a minimum among African populations; the levels do not increase with age in them, and Africans in training can apparently achieve lower body-fat levels more readily than is the case for Europeans and Asians” (p182).

They also make the curious argument that “our basic adaptations are African [and,] given that, it would seem that we would have to make adaptive compromises… when populating other areas of the world, thus taking the edge off our 'African-ness’" (p182). Therefore, they conclude "Africans are better than the rest of us at some of those things that most make us human and they are better because their separate African histories have given them, in effect, better genes for recently developed tests of some basic human adaptations” (p182-3).

Primary among these “basic adaptations” and “things that most make us human” are, they argue, bipedalism (i.e. walking on two legs). This then explains African dominance in running events, the ultimate measure of bipedalism.

This argument is nonsensical.

Moreover, another of our “basic adaptations”, even more integral to what “makes us human” is intelligence. Yet Africans notoriously do not appear to have “better genes” for this trait, at least as measured in other “recently developed tests of some basic human adaptations”, namely IQ tests.

Intelligence
Whereas the authors' chapter on physical differences focuses mostly on athletic performance, their chapter on behaviour, focuses (perhaps inevitably) on intelligence.

They are guilty of sloppy writing, for example their claim that “Asians have a slightly higher average IQ than do whites” (p196). Actually, this advantage is restricted to East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans). South-East Asians (Thais, Vietnamese etc.) score lower than whites, as do South and West Asians (see, Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence).

The authors focus on two issues:
1) Differences in brain size;
2) The sub-Saharan African IQ.

Brain Size
As between individuals, the correlation between brain-size and IQ is well-established (Rushton and Akney 2009).

The authors note that one study conducted by one of Sarich’s graduate students found no association between brain size and IQ between siblings from the same family (Schoenemann et al 2000). This suggests the relationship between brain-size and IQ is not causal, but rather that some factor that differs as between families is responsible for causing both bigger brains and IQs. However, they explain, “the obvious candidates” (e.g. socioeconomic status, nutrition) do not have a large enough effect to account for this (p222).

However, four further studies have now established a correlation between brain-size and IQ even within families according to Rushton and Akney (2009: at p695).

Species with larger brains are also thought to be more intelligent, at least after controlling for body-size (hence Jerison's 'Encephalization Quotient'). However, comparing the intelligence of different species is a problematic endeavour. (If you think a 'culture-fair’ IQ test is impossible, try designing a 'species-fair’ test!)

Yet most dwarves have normal IQs, despite smaller brains, but bigger brains relative to their body-size. Likewise, sex differences in brain-size are greater than those between races (at least before controlling for body-size) but IQ differences are small to non-existent.

Meanwhile, Neanderthals had bigger brains than modern humans, despite being shorter, but stockier (see Gallagher 2014).

Moreover, the race with the largest brains are Eskimos. However the latter are not noted for their contributions to civilization and, according to Richard Lynn, their average IQ is just 91 (see Race Differences in Intelligence).

The correlation between latitude and cranial capacity has also been attributed to other factors, notably temperature regulation. On this view, “larger and relatively broader skulls lose less heat and are adaptive in cold climates; small and relatively narrower skulls lose more heat and are adaptive in hot climates” (Human Biological Variation: p285).

However, it seems implausible that an increase in metabolically expensive brain tissue would have evolved solely for regulating temperature, rather than by modifying only the external shape of the skull. Yet is it possible that differences in intelligence could have evolved as a byproduct of selection for skull shape for temperature regulation?

African IQs
Citing an average IQ of 70 for sub-Saharan Africans, the authors claim “one can perhaps accept [this]… as a well-documented fact” (p225). Yet including both “perhaps” and “well-documented” in a single sentence is surely evidence of evasive fence-sitting.

Such an IQ is, in the West, indicative of retardation. Yet, the authors report, “interacting with [Africans] belies any thought that one is dealing with an IQ 70 people” (p226).

The authors observe, “whites with 70 IQ are obviously substantially handicapped over and above their IQ scores” (p225). Thus, Jensen distinguishes “biologically normal mental retardation” (i.e. individuals at the tail-end of the normal distribution) from victims of conditions such as chromosomal abnormalities who are impaired in other ways besides IQ (Straight Talk About Mental Tests: p9). Clearly, proportionally fewer low-scoring Africans fall into the latter group.

On this view, most sub-Saharan Africans with IQs<70 are not retarded. Rather, they are within the normal range for their group. It would be no more meaningful to say that chimpanzees are retarded because they are dumber than humans.

Sarich and Miele propose, instead of comparing sub-Saharan Africans with mentally-handicapped Westerners, we do better to compare them to Western 11-year-olds (p230).

However, this analogy is equally problematic. Just as retarded adults differ from normal adults in various ways besides IQ, so do children. Thus, even highly-intelligent children lack 'emotional maturity' and worldly knowledge.

Khoisan IQs
The authors suggest that one group of sub-Saharan Africans may be more intelligent than their neighbours – the Khoisan. They quote population geneticist Henry Harpending as observing in relation to his African fieldwork, “all of us have the impression that Bushmen are really quick and clever and are quite different from their neighbours”, and anticipating, “there will soon be real data available about the relative performance of Bushmen, Hottentot, and Bantu kids – or more likely, they will supress it” (p227).

A decade later, the only data I am aware of is that collected by Lynn. Relying on just two (very limited) studies of Bushman intelligence, Lynn estimates Bushmen’s average IQ at 54 – the lowest for any racial group anywhere in the world (Race Differences in Intelligence: p76).

Politics
In their final chapter, the authors turn to the political implications of race differences.

First, they discuss the prospect of "race bombs" – i.e. “ethnically-targeted [biological] weapons” that “selectively attack members of a certain races… but like the Death Angel in… Exodus, ignore members of the attacker’s race” (p250).

In practice, they conclude, such weapons would lack “pin-point accuracy” and only extremists “crazy enough to view large numbers of dead among their own nation, race or ethnic group as 'acceptable losses’ in some holy war to save their own group” would risk employing such a device (p354) – especially since, paradoxically, many warring ethnic groups, being neighbours, are genetically similar (p254). Only Sudan, where war then raged between the racially-mixed Islamic north and black south, is identified as a “likely prospect for this risk” (p255).

The authors warn against creeping re-segregation and so-called 'affirmative action' (“it is… difficult to imagine policies that could have been more deliberately crafted… to exacerbate racial… tensions [and] discourage individual performance”: p245).

They also caution against one proposed antidote to racism, namely miscegenation.

Actually, they argue “Intermarriage is the factor most likely to cause some extremist terrorist group to feel the need to launch such an attack” because “from a racial solidarist perspective, intermarriage is an act of race war” and “every ovum… impregnated by the sperm of a member of a different race is one less of that precious commodity to be impregnated by a member of its own race” (p255-6) – a crudely group-selectionist sociobiological interpretation of race conflict.

Instead, the authors champion meritocracy, with individuals judged according to their individual qualities, not those of the group to whom they belong.

However, they caution that the inevitable outcome of equality of opportunity is inequality of outcome. Thus, “when we assess group representations with respect to high-visibility pluses (e.g. high-paying jobs) and minuses (e.g. criminality) in any society, it is virtually guaranteed that they are not going to be equal” (p246).

However, “increasing societal complexity… means increasing the number of groups… to which a given individual can belong” a process that “mitigate[s] exclusive group identification and… associated resentment” (p242).

These policy proposals bear little hope of implementation. That their hereditarian account of race differences was published at all was an achievement. That it might influence government policy is surely a hope too far.
_____________

References
Ankney (1992) Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence 16(3-4): 329–336
Diamond (1994) ‘Race without color’, Discover
Edwards (2003) Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy, BioEssays 25(8):798–801
Freedman (1958) Constitutional and environmental interactions in rearing of four breeds of dogs. Science 127:585-86
Gallagher (2014) Absolute and relative endocranial size in Neandertals and later Pleistocene Homo. HOMO–Journal of Comparative Human Biology 65:349-375
Lewontin (1972). The Apportionment of Human Diversity, Evolutionary Biology.
Rushton, J.P. & Ankney, C.D. (2009) Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(5):692-732
Schoenemann et al (2000) Brain-size does not predict general cognitive ability within families. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 97:4932–4937.

13 people found this helpful

Comment

English United States

Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Interest-Based Ads
© 1996-2018, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates