you understate the negative aspects of white european rule. i agree with your general thesis, tho.

I remember reading a news story some years ago about a Cuban man living in Havana
who had been reduced to eating stray cats. When asked about the possibility of
Communism being overthrown, he said, “Oh no. I would never want to return to the
days before the revolution, when there was so much inequality.”

That was an eye-opening experience for me.

If having to eat boiled cats does not convince people of the idiocy of radical
egalitarianism, no logical argument ever will.

Mainstream con-serv-a-dumb suffers from a pernicious form of Stockholm Syndrome.  The public institutions - education, politics, charitable foundations, even churches and synagogues - serve as guards/enforcers in a prison camp of the mind and soul.

“Much of Africa was once under white-rule.  By the mid-twentieth century this meant prosperity, efficient government, European-style capital cities, the rule of law, and rising standards of living for white and black alike.  Since the overthrow of white rule in places like Rhodesia and South Africa, the continent has declined on nearly every measure of human flourishing”

Mr. Roach, I do not care if “white rule” meant that farts smelled like roses, fact is that it is immoral for a foreign nation to rule another by force.  You spend a whole article talking about how bad liberalism’s attitude is yet you ignore the giant elephant in the room.  It’s like a man complaining about people running red lights as he himself is driving to a swamp so he can dump the bodies of the family he just murdered.

And how do we know that, without the colonizer nations, that Africa would not have done as well as it had?  Maybe without European powers Africa would have not only done better, but even kept those standards for today?

The fact that you can in one small article damn our current neoconservative imperial project in Iraq and then equally defend the older imperial projects in Africa is so amazing I swear this article must either be making a humorous point or you are simply admitting that you oppose our current foreign policies only because you are not the one getting rich from our destruction in Iraq.

Let me follow up by asking this simple question:  If anyone here believes that African colonization was good, then why oppose the colonization of Iraq?

“Ending slavery, women’s suffrage, defeating the Nazis, and the magnanimous civil rights movement are of no consequence. “

We shouldn’t talk of these as if they were accomplishments of our society.

Our accomplishments are discovering the Maxwell Equations, Newton’s laws, Mozart, and creating schools and communities where those can be learned and appreciated in safety. 

Furthermore, our job as a species like all species is to select the good genes in each generation to make extra copies and filter out the bad genes.  Much of what the left calls progress is doing the opposite. 

The Maxwell Equations and Mozart come from good genes, not bad ones.  So do students and schools where they can learn them and learn to surpass them.

You make a good point about the liberal tenancy of demonizing America for past sins, but many conservatives subscribe to the opposite extreme: the ludicrous “noble lie” theory, in which past events are viewed through rose colored glasses and historical figures are forgiven their clearly amoral behavior so that we can view our past through a lens that allows us to be proud-- and thus have a strong, patriotic mental springboard from which to face the future… yada yada.

This logic is horrible, as is the logic that colonialism was a GOOD THING for Africa simply because of the devastating aftermath. What about considering what would have happened if European powers NEVER HAD become involved in Africa?

Is it that brown people are intrinsically stupid and violent and would have created the present situation on the dark continent even if European Imperialism had never drastically changed their history, politics and culture. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t ad up, and no one that I know would agree that “hey, I sure do wish I was under someone else’s boot because I’m too stupid to be capable of self determination”.

I also find it questionable to claim that Obama’s presidency would be semi-black nationalist, since there’s no real evidence to support that other than that his former pastor is ridiculous.

An Obama presidency would include about as much black nationalism as would a Wayne Brady Christmas special.

A lot of good points are raised above. 

First, I do not mean necessarily to defend colonialism.  Perhaps the world would have been better if colonialism had never happened.  Not all colonization efforts were the same.  Some were more interested in justice and sharing the fruits of European civilization than others.  I think even if colonization by European powers had certain merits, it is both unnecessary and unwise for the United States today. 

By the 1960s, neither South Africa nor Rhodesia were colonies strictly speaking.  They were independent nations with minority white-rule.  The white people who had been born there, in my view, had just as much right to remain as anyone else, and, more important, had brought western technology, law, and structure to what had been very primitive and backwards lands.  This civilizational superiority gave them certain political and moral rights, as did the simple fact that the whites were from there, as were their parents, as were their parents, etc.  They’re about as much “colonies” as the United States is today.  It’s notable that Rhodesia, South Africa, and Algeria-- all African lands with long established European populations--fought far more tenaciously against indigenous nationalist movements than other formal colonies. 

I think it’s simply foolish to say Africa would have been anywhere near where it is today--which is still quite bad, but better than before--without European colonization.  It’s not a coincidence South Africa is the wealthiest nation in Africa, in spite of its troubles. European order, technology, and political structure should not be taken for granted as natural or easily accomplished achievments; the fact that these nations fell into decrepitude so quickly after the whites left is quite revealing.

Three, it is possible something is initially unwise and immoral, including colonization itself, but it may still be unwise to precipitously abandon an immoral project once begun because that abandonment would lead to worse moral consequences than its continuation, at least for a transition period.  In other words, the question of goals and the question of how to transition to a particular goal are two different matters.

Finally, Old Atlantic, I don’t agree with your eugenicist take, but I do agree that our civilization’s accomplishments go beyond mere liberal ones.  My point was simply that the standard litany of liberal achievments don’t get stored up in an account somewhere to reduce our guilt, but instead, ironically enough, add to that guilt by showing how much farther “we have to go.”

An excellent article Mr. Roach.  You have demonstrated the problems with the liberal mind.  The future is always far better than the present but it never occurs to them that soon the current present will be that backward past.  Amazingly some liberals have already come up with such conservative ideas as community and shared goals but they will never admit that these ideas actually come from the past.  I don’t think that you are per se advocating colonialism here but rather advocating against the violent or rapid overthrow of governments for equality.  When equality comes about naturally as a gradual process then it is feasible and without suffering.  Pre-civil war there were over 400,000 free blacks in the south.  Are you going to tell me we would still have slavery today without the civil war?  I believe the European countries were able to do away with slavery without sacrificing 500,000 lives and putting their countries through a violent reconstruction.  What Africa is experiencing is the results of changing the hands of government in too short a time.  It is not that blacks are incapable of ruling themselves it is simply that they were instantly thrust into roles that had long been carried out by whites.  To say that the suffering and starvation are all for the good is cruel beyond belief.  There are many blacks in Africa who wish for the days when they were under white rule.  The irony is that it is white owned corporations that have most profited on the removal of the white governments as they have found it easier to gut the countries with the help of unstable governments, most notably in South Africa.

The problem the liberals have with admitting that they are wrong is then they would have to admit that future change is not inevitable or needed.  The ideas of the past were not wrong for being liberal but for not being liberal enough.  If they ever admit that a liberal idea such as wellfare, has been counterproductive, then the house of cards falls apart right there.  Likewise with Africa.  The reason liberal think tanks, a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, are financed by huge corporations is that the liberal desires for change mesh perfectly with creations of new markets and cheap labor for outsourcing.  It is win win except for the starving people whose suffering becomes more inconsequential because now there is really big money being paid to look the other way.  Of course the media have no desire to look into that suffering anyway because as Mr. Roach has so clearly pointed out, that would neccesitate a re-evaluation of liberal ideals.

“I do agree that our civilization’s accomplishments go beyond mere liberal ones.  My point was simply that the standard litany of liberal achievments don’t get stored up in an account somewhere to reduce our guilt, but instead, ironically enough, add to that guilt by showing how much farther “we have to go.””

I agree with this and that your original article says this as well.  I should have made clear that my comment was not meant to disagree with you but simply to build on it.

Careful, or we might be accused of preaching materialism here? “Man does not live by bread alone.”

For many people, self respect and ego is more important than rising living standards. While being ruled by others might be economically beneficial, a diminished sense of self worth and resentment of the rulers is common. And as for potential leaders, some would rather be a big fish in a small pond rather than an average fish in a big pond.

That’s a good point, Rick.  But until liberalism came on the scene, it was far from obvious that to have dignity, self-worth, and a sense of place in a society that the society needed liberalism, democracy, or political power for every social class.  This is the trend of our age, liberalism coupled with nationalism.  Internally and with respect to outsiders, political power and participation is demanded.  This viewpoint does not easily allow a recognition of other political goods.

Daniel Bein asked, “ What about considering what would have happened if European powers NEVER HAD become involved in Africa?”

Simple - they would still be living in the palaeolithic period.  Consider that where white colonisation has occurred, no aboriginal group has ever really adapted particularly well to Western civilisation and the reason for this is simple - I.Q. get it?
As for the Iraqis - well they have rather more experience of civilisation than the West and presumably are intelligent enough to run their own affairs without assistance from Bush and his psychopathic neocon scumbags..

“Simple - they would still be living in the palaeolithic period.  Consider that where white colonisation has occurred, no aboriginal group has ever really adapted particularly well to Western civilisation and the reason for this is simple - I.Q. get it?”

Right, it’s IQ.  Suuuure.....  Oh and I suppose if aliens came here, tried to get us to adapt to their 30th century level technology, we would immediately adapt right?  They would probably just have an attitude like yours: “those damn earthlings cant adapt to our 1000 years-ahead technology in one year, I guess that makes them genetic morons!”

Jerry,

We’ve discussed the race/iq thing before, and you made it clear that you are not even fimiliar with the basic facts of the research done and don’t need to be, since this is too emotional of an issue for you. 

I don’t think anybody wants to take the time and explain this to you again, so if you want to know more see the FAQ I set up.

http://thenewfaith.org/faq-and-why-race-mattes/

IQ is surely one factor, as evidenced by the relative success of post-colonial Asian regimes in dealing with and thriving once they had access to western technology.  Japan after the Meji period is the best example, but Korea, Malyasia, etc. are important examples too.  In other words, it’s true that history, luck, and culture have something to do with the timing of when particular nations industrialize and modernize.  But IQ and related factors have a lot to do with whether one can borrow and master technology introduced from without.

Mr. Roach,

I enjoyed your article.  It is amazing how little facts matter to the reality based community.  See my blog on your post…

http://thenewfaith.org/2008/06/07/when-do-liberals-learn/

How to write an article like Roach.

All _______ [enter political ideology] think that _________. [enter something that bugs you]

They ______ all say this ____ and they all think that _______.

Its are very well that you have your opinion Mr Roach but your argument here is mostly of the strawman variety. It reminds me of the greatest strawman myth of all time. The liberal media - which Scotty McLellan thrust a wooden stake into the heart of.

Analyze capitalism and you will see its about exploiting peoples wants and desires for profit. Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based Evangelical group, was alerted a few years ago when its toll-free clergy-care line began lighting up with calls from ministers - and 25 percent were porn-related.

“We’ve been working hard to alleviate the addiction, and are seeing some improvement,” says the Rev. H.B. London, vice president of ministry outreach. Still, their experience shows that “probably about 20 percent of pastors have a pornography issue,” and “many, many every year have to leave the ministry.”

Did some liberal walk into these peoples homes and make them watch porno?? Is that because of liberalism? Hardly. Its because of capitalism. Like it or not this exploitation is what funds American adventures and our huge defense budget.

Liberalism is consumerism and every American is a consumer. We consume things we dont really need. We buy things we hardly use. We eat and drink way too much. Movies, video games on and on and on. What brought these things to Africa? Capitalism? Yet capitalism also has a dark side because it seeks to legalize poverty. It outsources jobs to other nations that are not American or even democratic for profit and greed. Currently the liberal capitalists are bending you over a barrel of oil. Exploiting your need for fuel. Owning you.

but your argument here is mostly of the strawman variety

Which part exactly falls under the straw man fallacy? I find that the claim that an argument is a smf to be one of the most abused responses online.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

To whom exactly has Mr. Roach mistakenly attributed the argument(s) that he gives above? Certainly it is not the liberal rejection of thick conceptions of the good as something that can be assumed or imposed in public discourse.

John--

The paleolithic period? Really?

I guess that’s true, except for the fact that one must completely ignore history to support the conclusion.

African kingdoms such as Mali and Guinea were highly sophisticated before western influence.

But since those who are so quick to bring up IQ differences are usually just people who think brown folks are inferior, those facts are often conveniently overlooked.

Chris Roach,

You wrote: “I think it’s simply foolish to say Africa would have been anywhere near where it is today--which is still quite bad, but better than before--without European colonization.”

The problem is that it’s foolish to say what would have occurred either way.

We can speculate all day as to how African society would have evolved without Western influence. But the negative effects of Imperialism and its subsequent end are evident.

You say you’re not necessarily defending colonialism, but you’ve clearly indicated that it helped to advance those civilizations and that the people there are better off now than they would have been otherwise.

Funny how some folks here are linking us to a website called the “new faith”.  This is definitely not the faith of a Jewish Carpenter in the 1st century AD, or of any wise man for that matter.....

“The New Faith” refers to PC liberalism, not what the author promotes.  Why not at least take the time to know what you’re attacking, before making a fool of yourself?

http://thenewfaith.org/what-is-the-new-faith/

““The New Faith” refers to PC liberalism, not what the author promotes.  Why not at least take the time to know what you’re attacking, before making a fool of yourself?”

The only fool is that website, which says that public education and welfare are great and wonderful so long as they are white-only (http://thenewfaith.org/faq-and-why-race-mattes/) What conservative with half a brain would support an ideology where welfare and public education are considered “good”?

“Let me follow up by asking this simple question:  If anyone here believes that African colonization was good, then why oppose the colonization of Iraq?”

Because Iraq is not being “colonized”. It is being “democratized”. The US fully plans to hand Iraq over to the Iraqis - they have no intentions to take over the power structure and government of Iraq but to grant the Iraqis self rule. This is the difference.

“they have no intentions to take over the power structure and government of Iraq but to grant the Iraqis self rule.”

Right, and that giant embassy bigger that the Vatican is just for show......

jerry:
“Right, it’s IQ.  Suuuure.....  Oh and I suppose if aliens came here, tried to get us to adapt to their 30th century level technology, we would immediately adapt right?  They would probably just have an attitude like yours: “those damn earthlings cant adapt to our 1000 years-ahead technology in one year, I guess that makes them genetic morons!” “

That’s the whole point - we would not adapt to the alien technology and civilisation, we would appear morons to the aliens.

It’s true, we can’t know exactly how Africa would have evolved without colonization.  But since technological and social development follows a pretty standard path, it would be remarkable if things like written languages, the scientific method, the rule of law, firearms, plumbing, modern medicine, sophisticated architecture, radio technology, etc. would all appear on the scene among a people basically at iron age levels of technology (or worse) when they encountered Europeans.  It’s true, Timbuktu and East Africa, both of which had a great deal of intercourse with the relatively sophisticated Medieval Arabs had fairly sophisticated local cultures.  Nonetheless, subsaharan Africa has been stuck for a long time. 

There’s no doubt the things I mentioned above would not have materialized any time in our lifetimes in Africa without colonization. Whether this would have been a better state of affairs than the one that actually transpired is a more complicated question that depends on one’s scale of values, including the value one attributes to the negative impact of colonialism on Europeans themselves.

“It’s true, we can’t know exactly how Africa would have evolved without colonization.  But since technological and social development follows a pretty standard path, it would be remarkable if things like written languages, the scientific method, the rule of law, firearms, plumbing, modern medicine, sophisticated architecture, radio technology, etc. would all appear on the scene among a people basically at iron age levels of technology (or worse) when they encountered Europeans.  It’s true, Timbuktu and East Africa, both of which had a great deal of intercourse with the relatively sophisticated Medieval Arabs had fairly sophisticated local cultures.  Nonetheless, subsaharan Africa has been stuck for a long time.

There’s no doubt the things I mentioned above would not have materialized any time in our lifetimes in Africa without colonization. Whether this would have been a better state of affairs than the one that actually transpired is a more complicated question that depends on one’s scale of values, including the value one attributes to the negative impact of colonialism on Europeans themselves.”

Ya know, it could have also been possible to just simply trade with the African nations and have them benefit from our culture and technology that way.  It’s not like our only options were either colonize them or just leave them to wallow and waste in isolation.

Dear Christopher Roach,

I think there is also another issue regarding the effects of “post-colonization “.  It is true that the Mugabes and the like probably cause much damage, comparable to the colonists, hence one could be tempted to conclude that ending colonial influence is not the solution.

However, it may be that even if the Mugabes come to power, the situation is not entirely “post-colonial”.  The European colonists have redrawn maps, rebuilt infrastructures, and have otherwise left strong social influences (sometimes by favouring certain groups against other groups, or dividing some, encouraging conflicts that probably would not have occurred, etc.) in their own interest, and these influences do not go away from one day to the other.  I do not want to insinuate that the crimes of Mugabe are the fault of the European colonists, only that I doubt that in such a short time the region has reached its internal equilibrium, hence in some ways the Mugabes themselves may be a result of colonial influence (one aspect that points in this direction is that Mugabe defines himself with respect to European colonial influence) and not a sign of genuine self-determination.

By and large I also agree that entire de-colonization may not be the solution, because there are possible benefits from what the Europeans have brought.  But, at least as much as possible, the decision should be left up to those who are most effected.

Jerry, I don’t mean to say that we know exactly how things would have gone down.  I concede that it’s pretty hard to know, and that trade can help improve a people’s knowledge of the world as readily (probably more so) than colonialism.  But trade has been around for a long time.  Trade has long depended on middlemen who are more itinerent and less rooted to any given society.  There’s no easy way that bushmen would have so much as met a European or obtained electricity through trade alone.  It’s also very different to passively use technology and be able to develop and maintain it.  Just consider how sophisticated an XBOX is and how dull so many of the people who use it are. 

Finally, the IQ factor can’t be dismissed. Think of our own society.  Who builds things, invents things, runs complicated institutions, writes laws and plays and news articles and history, who sets the tone?  It’s pretty much folks with IQs above 130.  They come in all races.  But there’s a big difference in a society where 1 out of 10 people have such an IQ and one where 1 out of 100 do, particularly when the latter society is rural and those people cannot form a critical mass and a leadership and managerial class based on a certain level of competence. I believe that’s how IQ interacts with culture; it does not allow the high IQ people easily to meet, share ideas, etc.

“But there’s a big difference in a society where 1 out of 10 people have such an IQ and one where 1 out of 100 do, “

You really underestimate the differences in the tails of the bell curve.  According to Michael Levin’s book “Why Race Matters,” on pages 264-267, 23% of American whites have an IQ of 114 and only 1% of American blacks do.  When it comes to IQs over 130 you estimated a 10:1 white:black ratio.  2.3% of whites have such an IQ compared with .135% of blacks, making the ratio 17:1. 

Mind you, we’re talking about America blacks here, who due to their luck live in American and get to benefit from white society and education and have a signficant percentage of white blood.  They have an IQ of 85, compared to the African average of 70.  So high IQ ratio comparing whites to Africans is significantly greater than even the numbers I cited above.

It is obvious that few or none of the writers to this blog have ever been to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or bothered to learn of its developments prior to the indecent haste of Thatcher and Carter to push independence for “Zimbabwe” prior to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January 1980. In 1978 Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it was called then, had conducted a totally multi-racial election where 66.3% of the African population had voted leading to a majority rule government with Bishop Abel Muzorewa as Prime Minister and a totally black Cabinet. (Thatcher had promised to recognize the result if more than 63% of blacks had voted but later reneged due to black nationalist pressure) This was an ideal time for enlightened world leaders (which Reagan did) to recognize the fact that Rhodesia was a well run multi-racial country with unlimited potential which could have been a model for stable emerging democracies in Africa. Its promise was decried and denied by Western liberal countries and the “hell hole” which is Zimbabwe today is the result. May I suggest that those Liberals who seek or desire to appear to be self-proclaimed experts on the subject of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (or anything else for that matter!) take the time to research the subject before making themselves appear foolish by their ignorance.

When will the Jerry’s of the (Western) world display an equally inflamed fury over the Chinese colonization of Africa that is occurring right now today?  Whom will they screech it too?  Or is their special brand of venom reserved solely for the European-descended men of today and the European men of a century or more ago?  C’mon, Jerry, demonstrate a measure of Equality!

“When will the Jerry’s of the (Western) world display an equally inflamed fury over the Chinese colonization of Africa that is occurring right now today?  Whom will they screech it too?  Or is their special brand of venom reserved solely for the European-descended men of today and the European men of a century or more ago?  C’mon, Jerry, demonstrate a measure of Equality!”

Show me pictures of Chinese troops patrolling the streets of an African city

It’s amazing people here still throw the genetic IQ stuff around as if it were 100% fact.  It is for now a theory, just like evolution, not a proven fact.

Evolution is a theory like gravity.  Do you believe in gravity?

jerry:
“It’s amazing people here still throw the genetic IQ stuff around as if it were 100% fact.  It is for now a theory, just like evolution, not a proven fact. “

Measured IQ scores are facts.  The reasons for those scores may not be fully known, eg the precise balance between genes and environment, but there’s plenty of evidence that both are influential.

“Evolution is a theory like gravity.  Do you believe in gravity?”

Are you saying you believe in evolution?  I would like to point out too that if the genetic IQ theory was 100% factual, then it would mean that ALL people in a certain genetic group MUST have a certain IQ range and that there could not possibly be any exceptions.  Yet almost all of us here have admitted that there are many exceptions to the rule, and if that were so then the genetic IQ theory is either void or it must be radically redefined.

Jerry, you are basically an idiot.  A genetic basis among a given population for a given trait does not mean that there is not large in-group variation.  The question is one of percentages and distribution and medians.  It’s like height.  And evolutionists believe in mutation as the basis for change which is itself the basis for naturla selection.

Evolution has plenty of room for individual exceptions.  The issue is what is the average and the distribution. Outliers prove exactly nothing since there are many genetic reasons for genetic variation. You may have learned in 9th grade biology about mitosis for instance.

alright, fine.... if we are then going to use scientific studies and genetic variables as the ultimate standard for how society should work, then let’s try this little what-if:

Imagine scientists a few years from now found out that the best genes for intelligence, physical health and overall positive factors came from a combination of white females and black males.  Are some of you here then going to encourage female blondes and male blacks to procreate?

Ah, but I know exactly what many people’s reaction to that would be:  anger and outright refusal to believe it, even when the studies come from groups which you previously praised when it went in directions which you liked.

See what I am saying?  This whole genes obsession is a two-edged sword:  People here only like it when it goes in their personal favor or gives their “race” an edge.

Remember the what-if example I gave above?  Well seems it is true.  A book by neuroscientist & psychobiologist Alon Ziv called “"Breeding Between the Lines: Why Interracial People are Healthier and More Attractive.” says “..mixed ancestry gives people better genes and stronger, healthier, better-looking bodies.” (http://breedingbetweenthelines.com/book.htm) Here is an excerpt from the book:

“Excerpt from Breeding Between the Lines:
East Marries West

Hawaii has always been a meeting point between East and West. This tropical paradise has no ethnic majority; its two biggest minorities are Asian-Americans and European-Americans. Possibly because of its tremendous ethnic diversity (or because of the abundance of piña-coladas), Hawaii has the highest rate of intermarriage of any state in the union. According to the 2000 Census, an incredible 21.4% of Hawaiians identify themselves as belonging to two or more ethnic groups. Hawaii is a true melting pot.

So when scientists did a study in Hawaii on the genetics of intelligence they were guaranteed to run into some interracial individuals. They focused their research on Americans of European Ancestry (AEA) and Americans of Japanese Ancestry (AJA), but some of their participants were both. The researchers administered a battery of 15 cognitive tests designed to measure intelligence. All of the groups had a similar socioeconomic background. But the biracial, half-European/half-Japanese participants outscored both the AEA group and the AJA group on 13 of the 15 tests.
You Really Are Smarter than Your Parents

The cognitive performance of the biracial group is impressive and it may hold the key to a long standing mystery. For some reason, we seem to be getting smarter. No one is sure why, but the average IQ score has consistently been creeping up by about 3 points every 10 years. This implies that each generation is significantly smarter than the previous one.

The phenomenon, known as the Flynn Effect, after its discoverer, has been seen all over the world. The effect is commonly believed to be caused by some kind of environmental factor. The most popular theory is better nutrition. Remember how your mom always told you to eat a good breakfast before a big test? Even though she came from a dumber generation, she was right. Better nutrition does lead to improved physical and mental development. But at the same time, nutrition can only go so far. And the link between nutrition and the Flynn Effect is somewhat shaky. The effect was stronger than ever in Scandinavia in the years following World War II, even though during the Nazi occupation, food was almost as scarce as freedom.

At least one intelligence expert thinks that the cause isn’t environmental at all - it’s hybrid vigor. True interracial marriage is still relatively rare, but the world is a smaller place than it’s ever been. People are less and less likely to marry someone from their own village. Plus, increased immigration and the growth of large cities mean that even if you marry the boy or girl next door, they may be ethnically very different from you. So, even if people are marrying within their race, they are still probably producing children with higher heterozysogity than the previous generation. That higher level of heterozygosity may account for the mysterious IQ boost.

The average height and growth rate have also increased significantly over the past few generations. Just as with intelligence, better nutrition usually gets all of the credit. Certainly, nutrition is a factor though I don’t think it’s the whole story. It wasn’t long ago that diseases like Scurvy and Beriberi were significant public health problems. Scurvy is caused by a lack of vitamin C and sufferers complain of weakness, bruising, and bleeding gums. A diet without fresh fruit or greens can lead to Scurvy. Beriberi is caused by a deficiency in vitamin B1 (thiamine). People with Beriberi suffer from extreme weakness and heart problems. It can be fatal. The name Beriberi comes from the Sinhalese language (spoken in Sri Lanka) and means, “I cannot. I cannot.”

Nutritional deficiencies like these are still a problem in some parts of the world, but they have mostly been conquered in first world countries. When was the last time you called in sick because of a bad case of Scurvy? Certainly nutrition has significantly improved over the last few hundred years. I have no doubt that it is a big part of the gains in intelligence, height, and growth rate that have been recorded. But I believe that hybrid vigor is another important component of these improvements.

As the world has become a smaller place, people have more choices of marriage partner. Most of us are no longer limited to the population of our village. Even though a majority of us are still marrying people from the same ethnic group, we are mixing genes more than ever before. When my friend Lorna, whose grandparents were Italian immigrants, married Stefan, who is of Swedish extraction, it was hardly scandalous. To most people they both just seem “white.” But this is a pairing that was geographically and socially unlikely in previous generations. They are more genetically distinct than an Italian-Italian or a Swedish-Swedish couple would be, and their kids will benefit from increased heterozygosity.

I see this as the first phase of human hybrid vigor. And I think it’s at least partially responsible for the Flynn Effect as well as other modern day improvements. But by introducing even more genetic variation, we can go even further. Once true interracial marriage becomes commonplace, I think we’ll see an even bigger boost in the physical and mental development of future generations. I find this thought incredibly exciting. I like the idea that with everything that we’ve achieved as a species, we can still do better. We can still do more. We have enormous potential lying untapped in our DNA, just waiting to be released. It’s also rather poetic that after every inappropriate racist joke, hurtful cultural slur, destructive race riot, and horrible ethnic cleansing, the key to so much lies in embracing our differences. It’s ironic and sad that wars are still being fought over ethnic divides, when everything you could ever wish for your children - health, beauty, intelligence - is buried inside the cells of your enemy.”

“Evolution has plenty of room for individual exceptions.  The issue is what is the average and the distribution.”

Our friend Jerry was here for the entire Raimondo/Epstein debate where Marcus showed that outliers don’t refute the race/iq connection.  I’ve also in this very thread explained that a certain percentage of blacks do have high IQs.

I don’t know if he’s too stupid to understand or too hysterical to remember previous conversations before he starts ranting, but having the same conversation over and over again with Jerry is waste of time.

Chris,

I agree with this:

“Whether this would have been a better state of affairs than the one that actually transpired is a more complicated question that depends on one’s scale of values, including the value one attributes to the negative impact of colonialism on Europeans themselves.”

My thing is that I don’t think that a less advanced society is necessarily worse off. But I don’t want to get off on some anti-technology tangent. I think that interfering with their society and taking away their self determination was a negative. Even if Europeans did introduce many advancements. That could have been done without colonialization.

That African societies became more advanced through contact with Europeans is true, but that could have occurred without the loss of their self determination.

Daniel

Dmytro, considering you link to socialist-eugenic sites, I have no reason to listen to a damn thing you say

CHRM2 and DTNBP1 are two genes that partly control IQ. 

http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/11/dtnbp1-gene-and.html

DTNBP1 explains 1/3 of the black-white IQ gap.

You can put CHRM2 and DTNBP1 both in to Google in the same search.  Add IQ as a second search.

From witch doctors marketing the skins and bones of black albinos…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/world/africa/08albino.html?bl&ex=1213070400&en=751c11f3322c497f&ei=5087


to sick men raping babies to try and cure their AIDS…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1703595.stm

one is reminded how evil colonialism was.

I know I am a little late to this discussion, but I think it necessary to make a point.
If the West did not colonize Africa, is it not likely that someone else would have? And that they would have done so with considerably less “moral” restraint.

Good point.  It’s not like Africa was itself this peaceful and homogenous mass.  One reason the Boers could expand into Northeast South Africa was because the Zulus had spent most of the prior 100 years kicking out the Sotho people.  There are likely countless wars and genocides everywhere on earth that have gone unrecorded in history between this or that primitive tribe. Europeans bear a heavy burden of guilt, not least because we strive to live by universal values and because we have recorded our history since about 300 BC.

I can’t believe some visitor comments here are still trying to justify colonialism.  This whole “Let’s use large doses of government and guns evil to cure those poor dark skin folk of their smaller tribal evils” smacks of neoconservative ideology.  National Review would be proud of some of the things being said here.

There are worse things than National Review and mainstream conservatism.  Conservatives spent much of the 50s and 60s defending colonialism, in fact.  Haven’t you read Kirk or Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn?

Just because colonialism is bad for America and has certain injustices attached to it, does not mean it’s the best among a range of bad and unfortunate choices. 

Incidentally, both South Africa and Rhodesia were independent nations, not European colonies.

“Incidentally, both South Africa and Rhodesia were independent nations, not European colonies.”

ummm........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_Empire_Anachronous_8.png

Since when did conservatism suddenly mean “radical Darwinists?”

The once admirable flag-ship Telos Magazine, prior to its submersion under the foam of non-sequitur leftist syllogisms printed an article by Paul Piccone which may shed more light on the true nature of conservatism vs. liberalism than anything heretofore printed by late modern man.  Paul’s career began as a committed leftist, but unlike most believers in fantasy, he had a brain and enjoyed using it.  By the time of his recent demise, his serpentine path through the myriad halls of liberalism and feigned conservatism led him to a now rarified populism, grounded in a polyglot of American Republican ideals mixed with enlightenment rationalisms.  He came to believe that the real enemy of authentic conservatism might preserve within the ranks of conservatism itself.  That the so called enemies of liberalism, however well grounded in their inner desires to stem the liberal tide were never the less the very people stymied by their own conflicting convictions rendering them improbable warriors at best and passive (conservative) liberalist facilitators at worst.  He came to such conclusions by noticing what so few people have ever noticed before, namely that Christianity is nothing more than secular liberalism. 

Discovering this simple formula helped him realize that a believing Christian was already a universalist egalitarian and to suggest otherwise was simply an oxymoron.  Perhaps this is best illustrated by re-reading your excellent article with the superimposed words Christian or Christianity in place of liberal and liberalism respectively. 

True, men throughout the ages up to the present have thought themselves Christian whilst believing and behaving in a rather non-egalitarian way, but this is in opposition to their creed of universal truths and their monotheistic God of Israel.  Such a conflicting social identity hardly seems the cure for our ailing West. 

Is it any wonder a small cabal of neo-cons shake us by the tail?  As Christian soldiers we will remain on this course of effete masculinity combined with egalitarian hogwash until our world has descended into the quicksand of a 3rd world stench that will be our deserved destiny—unless we realize first that it is “Christianity” that breed’s liberalism and “forbids an awakening.”

“Evolution is a theory like gravity.  Do you believe in gravity?”

Nope, gravity is a LAW. A law is a theory that has been proved right by means of experiments, the scientific method. The theory of relativity is, well, just a theory because it has not been proved experimentally yet. Under the same token, the theory of evolution will remain a theory (probably for ever).

Very thoughtful commentary. But you seem to be moving is so many directions that I tend to lose the focus of your argument. It certainly seems to me that your discussion and romanticization of imperialism and colonialism leads one to conclude that you defend them as...what? I’m not sure. Those who promoted the scramble for Africa called for spreading western civilization and traditions yet were only interested in strengthening the power of military and economic elites. The Africans and Hindus didn’t attack Britain. Are you suggesting that we try to do the same in, say, the Middle East. And why not? We’ll help bring “prosperity, efficient government, European-style capital cities, the rule of law, and rising standards of living for [Americans] and [Arabs] alike.” Imagine what would happen if we leave Iraq. And should we have remained in Vietnam?

This was the bottom line:"If the horrors of decolonialization and black-rule in Africa did not wake up liberals--whose trendy cause in the 70s and 80s was fighting against Apartheid--why should we expect the more mild pains and inconveniences of Barack Obama’s rule to wake us up here at home?”

The Africa stuff was just an example of how non-liberal political goods are dismissed.  The defenses of the Iraq War are similar in this respect. I don’t believe America should pursue these goods in the Middle East because I don’t think we’re well suited to provide them.  For starters, I don’t see many Americans moving to Iraq with their wives and children to set up shop.

Your writing suffers from the typical crap that permeates the whole “liberal/conservative” debate. You build a straw man and whack the shit out him.