The principal of North Miami Senior High School inadvertently injected himself into the racially charged national debate over police treatment of blacks with a social media comment — and it wound up costing him his position at the school.
The Miami-Dade County school district announced Wednesday that Alberto Iber had been removed as principal after going online to defend a white Texas police officer who waved a gun at black teens while responding to a call about an unruly pool party.
In a brief statement, the district said employees are required to conduct themselves, both personally and professionally, in a manner that represents the school district’s core values. The district said a replacement would be named shortly and that Iber would be reassigned to administrative duties.
“Judgment is the currency of honesty,” said Superintendent of Schools Alberto Carvalho. “Insensitivity — intentional or perceived — is both unacceptable and inconsistent with our policies, but more importantly with our expectation of common sense behavior that elevates the dignity and humanity of all, beginning with children.”
Cellphone footage from McKinney, Texas, caught white officer David Eric Casebolt throwing a black teenage girl to the ground, then briefly drawing his gun while responding to a call about an raucous pool party. The incident last week was just the latest in a string of encounters that have sparked charges of abusive police treatment of minorities.
Iber — in a brief public post on a story on the Miami Herald’s website — defended the officer’s response.
“He did nothing wrong,” Iber wrote in a comment that showed his Facebook picture, name, school and title. “He was afraid for his life. I commend him for his actions.”
…“I support law enforcement, and also the community and students that I serve as the proud principal of North Miami Senior High,’’ he said. “The comment I posted was simply made as the result of a short video that I watched and my personal opinion.”
Iber, who just finished his first year as the head of North Miami Senior, said he meant to write the comment anonymously.
Since when does offering an opinion in support of a police officer under fire not represent a school district’s core values? Are you only allowed to express left-wing opinions? What are the parameters for acceptable opinions?
America’s crime problem is not primarily white police officers acting badly. It is blacks behaving badly. As Steve Sailer wrote in 2013:
With federal judge Edith Jones being denounced for saying that blacks and Hispanics commit more violent crimes on average, it’s worth digging up an obscure but important 2002 book chapter written by the late James Q. Wilson, the leading social science expert on crime:
A central problem—perhaps the central problem—in improving the relationship between white and black Americans is the difference in racial crime rates. No matter how innocent or guilty a stranger may be, he carries with him in public the burdens or benefits of his group identity…
Estimating the crime rates of racial groups is, of course, difficult because we only know the arrest rate. If police are more (or less) likely to arrest a criminal of a given race, the arrest rate will overstate (or understate) the true crime rate. To examine this problem, researchers have compared the rate at which criminal victims report (in the National Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS) the racial identity of whoever robbed or assaulted them with the rate at which the police arrest robbers or assaulters of different races. Regardless of whether the victim is black or white, there are no significant differences between victim reports and police arrests. This suggests that, though racism may exist in policing (as in all other aspects of American life), racism cannot explain the overall black arrest rate. The arrest rate, thus, is a reasonably good proxy for the crime rate.
Black men commit murders at a rate about eight times greater than that for white men. This disparity is not new; it has existed for well over a century. When historian Roger Lane studied murder rates in Philadelphia, he found that since 1839 the black rate has been much higher than the white rate. This gap existed long before the invention of television, the wide distribution of hand guns, or access to dangerous drugs (except for alcohol).
America is a violent nation. The estimated homicide rate in this country, excluding all those committed by blacks, is over three times higher than the homicide rate for the other six major industrial nations. But whatever causes white Americans to kill other people, it causes black Americans to kill others at a much higher rate.
Of course the average African American male is not likely to kill anybody.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, fewer than one out of every 2,000 black men would kill a person in any year, and most of their victims were other blacks.
Though for young black men homicide is the leading cause of death, the chances of the average white person’s being killed by a black are very small. But the chances of being hit by lightning are also very small, and yet we leave high ground during a thunderstorm. However low the absolute risk, the relative risk—relative, that is, to the chances of being killed by a white—is high, and this fact changes everything.
When whites walk down the street, they are more nervous when they encounter a black man than when they encounter a white one. When blacks walk down the street, they are more likely than whites to be stopped and questioned by a police officer…
The differences in the racial rates for property crimes, though smaller than those for violent offenses, are still substantial. The estimated rate at which black men commit burglary is three times higher than it is for white men; for rape, it is five times higher. The difference between blacks and whites with respect to crime, and especially violent crime, has, I think, done more to impede racial amity than any other factor. Pure racism—that is, a visceral dislike of another person because of his skin color—has always existed. It is less common today than it once was, but it persists and no doubt explains part of our racial standoff. But pure racism once stigmatized other racial minorities who have today largely overcome that burden. When I grew up in California, the Chinese and Japanese were not only physically distinctive, but they were also viewed with deep suspicion by whites.
For many decades, Chinese testimony was not accepted in California courts, an Alien Land Law discouraged Asian land purchases, the Chinese Exclusion Act (not repealed until 1943) prevented Chinese immigration, and a Gentlemen’s Agreement, signed in 1907, required Japan to cut back sharply on passports issued to Japanese who wished to emigrate to California. When World War II began, the Japanese were sent to relocation camps at great personal cost to them.
Yet today Californians of Asian ancestry are viewed by Caucasians with comfort and even pride. In spite of their distinctive physical features, no one crosses the street to avoid a Chinese or Japanese youth. One obvious reason is that they have remarkably low crime rates.
The black murder rate, though it is much higher than the rate for whites or Asians, does not always change in the same way as the white rate. Between 1976 and 1991, the murder arrest rate for black males aged twenty- five and older fell dramatically even though the murder arrest rate for the nation as a whole did not change at all. Apparently, adult black men were becoming less violent. But in some years, such as 1965 to the early 1970s, the black murder rate increased much faster than the white rate. By the late 1960s the black rate was over eighteen times higher than the white one. Then, beginning around 1975, the black rate declined while the white rate continued to increase, so that the ratio of black arrests to white arrests fell to around six to one. From 1980 until the present, the rate at which adult blacks and whites are arrested for murder dropped more or less steadily. By contrast, the rate at which black and white juveniles are arrested for murder increased sharply from 1985 to the early 1990s, with the white rate almost doubling and the black rate more than tripling. Starting in the mid- 1990s, the juvenile rate fell again, almost down to the level it was at in 1985.
In short, though the gap sometimes widens and sometimes narrows, white and black homicide rates tend to remain different.
The late J. Philippe Rushton and Glayde Whitney wrote for the magazine Population & Environment (Vol. 23, No. 6):
Crime statistics within Britain, Canada, and the United States show that people of East Asian ancestry are disproportionately under-represented while those of African ancestry are disproportionately over-represented rel-ative to those of European ancestry. For example, in Canada, a government commission found that Blacks were five times more likely to be in jail than Whites and ten times more likely than Asians (Ontario, 1996). In Britain,the Home Office (1999) found that Blacks, who were 2% of the general population, made up 15% of the prison population. (No figures were re-ported for East Asians such as the Chinese, but Asians from the Indian sub-continent were 3% of the general population and 2% of the prison population.) In the U.S., Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Taylor and Whitney(1999) analyzed the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Crime Victimization Surveys from the U.S. Department of Justice (e.g., 1997, 1998)and found that since record keeping began at the turn of the century, and throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, African Americans consistently committed proportionately more violent crime than did European Americans, while Asian Americans consistently committed proportionately fewer.
Victim surveys tell a similar story. The proportional differences in arrest statistics cannot therefore be attributed to police prejudice. Finer grained analyses within the United States also find race a factor. Whitney (1995) found that the best predictor of local murder rate is the percent of the population that is African American. Across 170 cities, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.69 between the rate of murder and the percent of the population that was African American. Similarly, across the 50 states, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.77 between the rate of murder and the percent African American. In a follow-up study, Hama (1999) found a correlation of r = 0.76 across the 50 states between violent crime (an aggregate of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and the percentage of the population that was African American. Lynn (2002a, 2002b) has examined the application of Rushton’s r-K theory to racial differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality.
Thus, Lynn (2002a) analyzed the annual surveys of the National Opinion Research Center for 1990–1996 and found that, compared to Whites, Blacks reported more sexual partners and a greater frequency of sexual intercourse. Similarly, Lynn (2002b) reviewed the literature on psychopathy and found that East Asians averaged the lowest rate, Blacks highest, and Whites intermediate. The attributes included: being diagnosed with child-hood conduct disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) being suspended or excluded from school, scoring low on tests of moral understanding, failing to live up to financial obligations such as paying back student loans, poor work commitment, recklessness (e.g., having traffic accidents), maintaining monogamous relationships, being responsible parents, engaging in domestic violence, and needing hospitalization for in-juries sustained through altercations.
Two fundamentally different models have been put forth to explain why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued out-comes: (1) the “discrimination” model, and (2) the “distributional” model(Herrnstein, 1990). The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the “playing field.” The crucial assumption of this model is that in the absence of such discrimination, crime rates would be about equal for all populations. Factors hypothesized under this model include relative poverty, anti-Black bias by police, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and inadequate family socialization due to the legacy of slavery.
On the other end of the model, criminologists as early as the 1920s explained the under-representation of East Asians in U.S. crime statistics by hypothesizing the East Asian “ghetto.” This “ghetto” was seen as a response to external prejudice that protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. It was also claimed that bias against East Asian migration (“yellow peril”) resulted in only the wealthiest or hardest-working East Asians gaining entry into White-majority countries.The alternative distributional model explains the overlapping of the populations and their differing averages in terms of differential population characteristics—for example, Rushton’s (2000) r-K life-history theory, or Sowell’s (1994) theory of socialization through subtle cultural traditions.Other factors hypothesized to underlie the distribution model include deep-rooted cultural values and family structures endemic to populations, as well as biological variables including body type, percent of age of cohort, hormonal levels, exposure to toxic chemicals such as lead which may have different effects based on constitutional differences in metabolism, and personality and temperament. Thus according to the distributional model, the population differences are expected to occur more universally.
The two models may each be partially correct (Ellis & Walsh, 1999). To test whether the race differences in crime found within Britain, Canada, and the U.S. occurred more universally, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985)and Rushton (1990, 1995) collated data from INTERPOL Yearbooks (1980to 1990) and found that Pacific Rim countries reported less violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries.
Rushton’s theory of r-K race differences was examined in relation to the rate of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population and Gross Domestic Product per Person for 74 countries from the 1993–1996 International Crime Statistics published by INTERPOL and the 1999 CIA World Fact Book. Each country was assigned to one of the three macro-races East Asian, European, and African. The results corroborated earlier findings that violent crime is lowest in East Asian countries, intermediate in European countries, and highest in African and in Black Carib-bean countries. The median number of violent crimes per 100,000 population were:7 East Asian countries—34; 45 European countries—42; and 22 African and Black Caribbean countries—149, respectively. The median Gross Domestic Product per Person was highest in East Asian countries ($12,600), intermediate in European countries ($7,400), and lowest in African and Black Caribbean countries ($1,900).
Across the three population groups there was an “ecological correlation” of −.96 between crime and wealth (wealthier countries had less crime). Finer-grained analyses, however, found that while wealth was negatively related to crime across European or East Asian countries, it was positively related to crime for the African and Black Caribbean countries (i.e., the wealthier an African or Black Caribbean country, the greater its rate of violent crime). Future research needs to examine genetic factors in addition to cultural factors as well as their interactions.
J. P. Rushton (2000) has proposed an evolutionary life-history theory to account for racial differences in a host of demographic, populational, and environmental variables. The theory proposes a gene-based Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid gradient of r/K reproductive strategies. Drawn from sociobiology (Wilson, 1975), the r-K continuum defines a genetically-coordinated group of traits that evolved together to meet the trials of life—survival, growth, and reproduction. At one end of this scale, r-strategies are characterized by high fertility, low-investment parenting, fast maturation,and low intelligence and learning ability. K-strategies, on the other hand,are characterized by low fertility, high-investment parenting, slow maturation, and high intelligence and competitive ability.
Typically, the K-strategy requires more complex nervous systems and bigger brains. It has been hypothesized that r-selected species are more adapted to non-competitive environments of resource abundance whereas K-selected species are adapted to more competitive environments of resource scarcity. Because the components of life-history (differential fertility, rates of maturation, sexual behavior, and parenting) are critical determinants of demography, r/K theory could have important implications for understanding human variation. Rushton extended r/K theory to human race differences and found it predicts a wide spectrum of characteristics including fertility, infant mortality, rates of physical maturation, IQ scores, brain size, dizygotic twinning,crime, sexual potency, sexual precocity, number of sexual partners, and hormone levels. Mongoloids tend toward the K end of the r-K gradient. On average, they devote resources to producing fewer children, invest more heavily in them, and provide them with greater parental care. Negroids, on average, lie more toward the r end of the gradient. They tend to devote resources to producing greater numbers of children, invest less heavily in them, and provide less parental care. Caucasoids tend toward being inter-mediate, though closer on the r-K gradient to Mongoloids than to Negroids.
One test of Rushton’s gene-based theory is whether the racial differences in British, Canadian, and U.S. crime statistics are generalizable inter-nationally (Neapolitan, 1998; Rushton, 1990, 1995; Lynn, 2002b). Do East Asian populations from China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (sometimes called Orientals, or more technically, Mongoloids) generally average lower rates of violent crime (e.g., murder, rape, and serious assault) than do European populations (Whites, Caucasoids)? In turn, do Europeans and their descendants generally average lower rates of violent crime than Africans and their descendants (Blacks, Negroids)? The answers may shed light on the extent to which observed racial differences are the result of local conditions within Britain, Canada, and the United States (e.g., anti-Black racism;selective migration from Pacific Rim countries) versus conditions endemic to the populations (e.g., cultural values, family structures, genetic and bio-logical factors). Crime statistics within Britain, Canada, and the United States show that people of East Asian ancestry are disproportionately under-represented while those of African ancestry are disproportionately over-represented relative to those of European ancestry. For example, in Canada, a government commission found that Blacks were five times more likely to be in jail than Whites and ten times more likely than Asians (Ontario, 1996). In Britain,the Home Office (1999) found that Blacks, who were 2% of the general population, made up 15% of the prison population. (No figures were re-ported for East Asians such as the Chinese, but Asians from the Indian sub-continent were 3% of the general population and 2% of the prison population.)
In the U.S., Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Taylor and Whitney(1999) analyzed the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and National Crime Victimization Surveys from the U.S. Department of Justice (e.g., 1997, 1998)and found that since record keeping began at the turn of the century, and throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, African Americans consistently committed proportionately more violent crime than did European Americans, while Asian Americans consistently committed proportionately fewer. Victim surveys tell a similar story. The proportional differences in arrest statistics cannot therefore be attributed to police prejudice.Finer grained analyses within the United States also find race a factor. Whitney (1995) found that the best predictor of local murder rate is the percent of the population that is African American. Across 170 cities, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.69 between the rate of murder and the percent of the population that was African American. Similarly, across the 50 states, Whitney (1995) found a correlation of r = 0.77 between the rate of murder and the percent African American. In a follow-up study, Hama (1999) found a correlation of r = 0.76 across the 50 states between violent crime (an aggregate of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape,robbery, and aggravated assault), and the percentage of the population that was African American.
Lynn (2002a, 2002b) has examined the application of Rushton’s r-Ktheory to racial differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality. Thus, Lynn (2002a) analyzed the annual surveys of the National Opinion Research Center for 1990–1996 and found that, compared to Whites,Blacks reported more sexual partners and a greater frequency of sexual intercourse. Similarly, Lynn (2002b) reviewed the literature on psychopathy and found that East Asians averaged the lowest rate, Blacks highest, and Whites intermediate. The attributes included: being diagnosed with child-hood conduct disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), being suspended or excluded from school, scoring low on tests of moral understanding, failing to live up to financial obligations such as paying back student loans, poor work commitment, recklessness (e.g., having traffic accidents), maintaining monogamous relationships, being responsible parents, engaging in domestic violence, and needing hospitalization for in-juries sustained through altercations.
Two fundamentally different models have been put forth to explain why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued out-comes: (1) the “discrimination” model, and (2) the “distributional” model (Herrnstein, 1990). The discrimination model focuses on social and institutional practices that discriminate against members of one group (or favor members of another), thus tilting the “playing field.” The crucial assumption of this model is that in the absence of such discrimination, crime rates would be about equal for all populations. Factors hypothesized under this model include relative poverty, anti-Black bias by police, a lack of access to legitimate channels of upward mobility, and inadequate family socialization due to the legacy of slavery. On the other end of the model, criminologists as early as the 1920s explained the under-representation of East Asians in U.S. crime statistics by hypothesizing the East Asian “ghetto.” This“ghetto” was seen as a response to external prejudice that protected members from the disruptive tendencies of the outside society. It was also claimed that bias against East Asian migration (“yellow peril”) resulted in only the wealthiest or hardest-working East Asians gaining entry into White-majority countries. The alternative distributional model explains the overlapping of the populations and their differing averages in terms of differential population characteristics—for example, Rushton’s (2000) r-K life-history theory, or Sowell’s (1994) theory of socialization through subtle cultural traditions. Other factors hypothesized to underlie the distribution model include deep-rooted cultural values and family structures endemic to populations, as well as biological variables including body type, percent of age of cohort, hormonal levels, exposure to toxic chemicals such as lead which may have different effects based on constitutional differences in metabolism, and personality and temperament. Thus according to the distributional model, the population differences are expected to occur more universally. The two models may each be partially correct (Ellis & Walsh, 1999).To test whether the race differences in crime found within Britain, Can-ada, and the U.S. occurred more universally, Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) and Rushton (1990, 1995) collated data from INTERPOL Yearbooks (1980to 1990) and found that Pacific Rim countries reported less violent crime(an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries and much less than did African and Caribbean countries. Summing the crimes, and averaging across years, Rushton (1990, 1995) found statistically significant differences per 100,000 population of: 44 (Pacific Rim), 74 (European), and 143 (Afro-Caribbean) total crimes, respectively. These results did not depend on the selection of countries because when only ethnically more homogeneous sets were chosen, for example, by limiting countries to those from northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, the proportionate differences remained the same—or became even greater.Nor did the pattern alter for other sets of countries. For example, in the Caribbean data set, six mainly White/Amerindian countries averaged 72per 100,000 whereas eight mainly Black countries averaged 449 violent crimes per 100,000 population (Rushton, 1995)…
These data speak to one of the most important issues facing the field of criminology in showing there are significant differences in murder, rape,and serious assaults in East Asian, European, and African countries that parallel those found within Britain, Canada, and the United States. More-over, the crime differences cannot simply be attributed to “poverty” for such an explanation does not fit the finer-grained analyses found within African countries where violent crime increased with GDP. This could be because only wealthier nations have the infrastructure to gather and report crime statistics comparable to those for East Asia and Europe. It is also possible that there are some gene-culture interactions when opportunities become available for engaging in behavior not otherwise affordable. In Africa, for example, there is a link between wealth and AIDS: wealthier males turn their resources into sexual partners (Rushton & Bogaert, 1989). Lynn (2002a; 2002b) recently noted the relation between race differences in sexual behavior and psychopathic personality and Rushton’s r-K theory. He therefore called for a paradigm shift in the analysis of a number of population and environment issues. Most notably, while HIV/AIDS is a serious public health problem for all racial groups, it is especially so for Africans and people of African descent (currently almost 9 out of every 100 Africans are infected with HIV/AIDS; the rate is 2.2% in the Black Carib-bean; in the U.S. about 2% of African Americans are living with HIV/AIDS compared to 0.4% of European Americans and less than 0.1% of East Asian Americans (UNAIDS/WHO, 2001). Since there is little cultural contact be-tween the various African descended populations, the explanation is most likely a genetic one.Taken together, these results support the distributional model rather than the discrimination model of why the races differ in average rate of crime and other socially valued outcomes. However, we do not suggest that racial differences are 100% genetic, but rather that they are due to genes, cultures, and their interactions. Genetic factors involve brain size and intelligence (Jensen, 1998; Rushton & Ankney, 2000), and hormone levels like testosterone (Ellis & Nyborg, 1992). Cultural factors involve socialization practices, including of deep-rooted values transmitted by families (Sowell, 1994).
Luke: As I wrote in July 2014:
Black kids are more rambunctious than white kids who are in turn more rambunctious than oriental kids.
Blacks tend to take more risks in life than do whites who in turn take more risks than do Orientals. Ergo, Orientals are the least likely group to be victimized by violent crime, followed by whites, then latinos and then blacks. Orientals have the best credit scores, best academic scores, best incomes, followed by whites and then by latinos and blacks.
These trends hold the world over.
Black kids physically mature quicker than any other race. They can hold their head up sooner after birth, they can walk before white kids can, they have their periods earlier, they engage in sex earlier, they’re more likely to give birth to twins, and they have shorter life spans than other races.
Blacks engage in more pathologic behavior than do whites who engage in more pathologic behavior than orientals.
These are the facts of life but they are apparently unknown to the Washington Post.
White kids are more likely to get suspended from school than are oriental kids. That’s not because of racism. That’s because of genetics.
Black kids are more likely to play football than oriental kids. That’s because of genes. Their bodies are shaped differently (orientals have bigger brains than whites and consequently have wider hips and run more slowly on average). Blacks tend to have more muscular definition than do whites who have more than do orientals.
Steve Sailer writes: “So no matter what the President might say about black youths ought to behave better, his followers know in their bones that the real problem is discrimination against black youths.”
Any white or asian parent with a modicum of common sense knows you don’t want to send your kids to a school with a lot of black kids (just as whites and asians rarely choose to live in neighborhoods with a black or latino population over 20%).
People don’t assimilate except in the most superficial of ways such as language. Oriental kids who move to Australia or America develop academic, professional and social lives similar to what they would have led in their home countries. Same thing holds for blacks and mestizo Indians etc.
J. Philippe Rushton wrote in his book Race, Evolution & Behavior:
Black babies mature more quickly than White babies, while Oriental babies mature more slowly. African babies in a sitting position are more able to keep their heads up and backs straight from the start. White babies often need six to eight weeks to do these things (see Chart 3). It is unlikely that social
factors could produce these differences. A basic law of biology shows that longer infancy is related to greater brain growth.These differences in growth rate mean that races tend to differ in the age when they reach milestones such as the end of infancy, the start of puberty, adulthood, and old age. The races also differ in crime rates, parenting style, and even population growth.
Black babies spend the least time in the womb. In America, 51% of Black children have been born by week 39 of pregnancy compared with 33% of White children. In Europe, Black babies of even
professional mothers are born earlier than White babies.These Black babies are not born premature. They are born sooner, but biologically they are more mature. The length of pregnancy depends on the genes.
Different species have evolved different approaches to propagation. At one extreme is the r-strategy, by which an organism produces a very large number of offspring, but gives them little or no care. The oyster is a good example. Every year it releases millions of eggs into the ocean and leaves them to the mercies of weather and predators. Almost all of them die, but a few survive.
r organisms must mature quickly because they get no help from their parents. The ones that survive repeat the cycle by producing huge numbers of eggs, only a few of which will live. The symbol r stands for the maximum rate of increase in a population, and when the conditions for reproduction are good, an r-strategist can increase its numbers at a terrific rate.
At the other extreme is the K-strategy, which is used by more advanced animals, including man. The number of offspring is much smaller, but great effort is taken to give each one a good chance of survival. K- and r-strategists consequently are very different both in biology and in what Prof. Rushton calls life histories.
K-strategists live longer, have larger brains, and take longer to reach sexual maturity. Unlike the simpler r-strategists, they tend to have some kind of social organization. Besides the care they give their young, adults may share food, cooperate in the hunt, and fight predators together. The K-symbol stands for the carrying capacity of the breeding area, and represents the production of small numbers of offspring that are carefully nurtured for a particular environment.
All humans follow an extreme K-strategy. They have few young, who take years to mature and require a great deal of care. They have large brains and complex societies based on cooperation. However, human races are not identical. The chart on page 3 shows that Asians consistently show more K behavior than whites, who in turn show more than blacks. There is virtually no departure from this pattern.
Maturation and Reproduction
In almost every respect, racial differences in the physiology of reproduction show an r-K pattern that runs from blacks to whites to Asians. Fraternal twinning, for example, which happens when a mother releases more than one egg during ovulation, is clearly an r-strategy of producing more and smaller young, who are more likely to be miscarried, be born underweight, die in infancy, and receive less parental care.
Fraternal twinning is twice as common among blacks as among whites, and twice as common among whites as among Asians. Triplets are ten times more common among whites than among Asians and 17 times more common among Africans than among whites. In some African populations, multiple births account for 60 out of every 1000. In Japan, where twins are very rare, they are viewed suspiciously as the products of a “litter,” more akin to dogs than to humans.
Offspring of the different races gestate and mature according to different r-K strategies. Blacks are born earlier and smaller than whites, but are stronger and better coordinated. They can sit up and roll over sooner than whites, who can do so sooner than Asians. On average, blacks walk at age 11 months, whites at 12 months, and Asians at 13 months.
Although it is a specialized measure of development, permanent tooth eruption occurs sooner in Africans than in Europeans, and later in Asians. Among primates in general, there is near-perfect correlation between lateness of permanent tooth eruption and such things as length of life, brain size, years to maturity, and complexity of social organization…
Asians are more restrained, cooperative, and less aggressive than whites; whites are more restrained and less aggressive than blacks. These rankings are the same, whether subjects are assessed by personality tests or by their peers. From an early age, blacks are more impulsive and dominant than whites, and males boast and swagger more. Asians are least dominant and impulsive.
William Shockley wrote: “Nature has color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectually rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by the pragmatic man-in-the-street.”
FORMER TEACHER ERIC GUSTAFSON WRITES:
Once when I was in high school, I annoyed my conservative parents by asking a cute Hispanic girl to a dance. I knew this would bother them, but I never understood why. They had occasionally given me vague hints to find a mate of my own race so as to “keep my heritage white.” However, they failed to explain exactly what that meant, or why it was important. Perhaps they took too much for granted. They had spent most of their lives in white towns and I also grew up mostly among white people.
In my younger days, my libertarian views clouded my understanding of race, which I thought was a corrupt, collectivist concept. To add to the confusion, my mainstream, 1980s Christian upbringing had taught me always to look past the surface and into the heart–a teaching I interpreted too broadly. I had a self-righteous moral universalism that was sometimes openly hostile to the values of my own parents. In my arrogance, I saw my elders much the way Michelle Obama sees older white people: as misinformed throwbacks who needed to be enlightened by young people.
In their wide-ranging book, Crime and Human Nature, James Wilson and Richard Herrnstein point out that criminals are almost always more impulsive than non-criminals. They cannot put off the satisfaction of their desires, even if immediate satisfaction means smashing and grabbing. Other researchers, whose work has been exhaustively summarized by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, have found that blacks are more impulsive in this sense than whites, who are in turn more impulsive than Asians.
If it is true that blacks favor immediate impulse over long-range goals and if they are less able to sacrifice today for rewards tomorrow, it would help explain not just high rates of criminality but the chaos and lack of development that characterize all black societies. It takes foresight and self-control to work at a boring job rather than rob a liquor store, or to invest money rather than spend it, or to do homework rather than watch television. Any group that cannot defer satisfaction will not progress very far…
Albert Schweitzer, who devoted his life to ease the sufferings of Africans concluded at the end of his career: “They [Africans] have neither the intellectual, mental or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally with white men in any of the functions of our civilization.”