> In response to The Bell Curve a number of people in the media and
the
>scientific community played up research that shows that only an
unbelievably
>minuscule percentage of the human genome has anything to do with racial
or
>ethnic differences
Anyone else actually read the book? Could anyone please comment on their
statistical methodology? Seemed OK to me but my math is not so good.
Seems to me that there is a basic defect in their reasoning. (using the
words black and white as a convenience) When mass IQ tests were first
given this country was strictly segregated and there was no social or
financial reason for white people to pass as black. In the 50's the book
"Black Like me," (I think that was the name) was a stupendus revelation
because it was written by a white person who consumed a chemical which
turned his skin dark. It was mind-boggeling that a white person would do
this to himself.
Now days there is a financial benefit and for the lower classes, social
benefits to passing as black. When the City of Seattle adopted
promotional preference for minorities several "white" people turned
black. A black person is anyone who claims that classification. Thus the
designation "black" doesn't have anything to so with race but classifies
people who for social and financial reasons claim to be black.
Are white genes are so strongly regressive and black genes so strongly
dominant that extreme dilution of the black genes is immaterial to the
physical quality of blackness? If so, then it is a miracle that there are
any white people at all and humans must have segregated themselves by
skin color
right from the get go.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 15:39:46 EDT