Sources and Studies to Debunk Racism and "Race Realism"
Introduction
We are all aware of the massive problems with racism, fascism, and so-called "race realism" these days. In order to protect people from falling into this bigoted nonsense ("muh bell curve"), I figured it would be helpful to compile a list of high-quality sources for refuting this racist trash. The sources are divided up by category.
"White People Are the Most Intelligent!"
Over the last few decades, numerous studies have been conducted debunking the idea that there is a genetic IQ gap between whites and non-whites. We will now go over some of them.
In 1959, German biologist Klaus Eyferth published a study in the journal Vita Humana (Human Development), which studied the IQ of white and mixed-race children in post-war West Germany. The mothers were all white German women, while the fathers were white and black members of the US occupying forces. The mothers were matched for socio-economic status, and the children were tested for their IQ. The results were as follows:
| Group | Boys | Girls | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | 101 | 93 | 8 |
| Mixed-Race | 97 | 96 | 1 |
| Difference | 4 | -3 |
As you can see, the study (which is commonly known as the "Eyferth Study") found no statistically significant difference between white and mixed-race children. The majority of researchers, including Jim Flynn (researcher who discovered the Flynn Effect), Richard E. Nisbett, and Nathan Brody, feel that this study supports the conclusion that racial gaps in IQ are mostly or wholly environmental in origin.
Another study on a similar topic was published in the journal Child Development in 1972, conducted by Barbara Tizard, Oliver Cooperman, Anne Joseph, and Jack Tizard. This experiment studied black (West Indian), white, and mixed-race children raised in British long-stay residential nurseries. Two out of three tests found no significant differences, while one test found higher scores for non-whites:
One of the most important studies on this topic is Family Socialization and the IQ Test Performance of Traditionally and Transracially Adopted Black Children, published in the journal Developmental Psychology in 1986:
Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had a significantly higher mean score than 23 age-matched children raised by black parents (117 vs 104), and argued that differences in early socialization explained these differences. In other words, when black and mixed-race children were given access to the same educational opportunities, socialization, etc. as white children, the seeming difference in IQ is no longer apparent.
Rushton and Jensen (the two fathers of scientific racism in the USA) attempted to dispute this study by arguing that the children were surveyed before adolescence, and therefore the results were unreliable; however, subsequent research (such as that by Richard Nisbett, published in 2009) found that there is virtually no gap in heritability between ages 7 and 17, and therefore, this argument falls apart.
In the book IQ and Human Intelligence, Nicholas Mackintosh of Cambridge University surveyed various studies on the topic of race and IQ (including all of those previously mentioned), finding their results to be entirely compatible with a 100% environmental explanation of racial IQ gaps, with no significant evidence found for a genetic difference. The book was published by the Oxford University Press:
Mackintosh's book also explores other common racialist arguments, such as old "whites have larger brains" line. He explains that there is no evidence to support a difference in IQ based on brain sizes; for example, he points out that men and women have gaps in average brain size, without an observable difference in average IQ's. This is corroborated by other experts, such as a Nisbett's 2012 review of the research on the topic.
Finally, a study published in the journal World Archaeology in 2006, entitled "Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century", thoroughly debunks Rushton's claim that prehistoric whites were smarter than prehistoric blacks due to evolution
The study specifically states:
Examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers [Rushton and his companions]. This suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.
I would also like to include Richard Nisbett's article in direct response to Rushton and Jenson, which rips apart their various claims, and explores how they ignore relevant data which does not suit their conclusion. Nisbett analyzes the research on race and IQ, and concludes: "the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil."
Nisbett has been awarded the American Psychological Association's Donald T. Campbell award (given to honor distinguished researchers in the field of social psychology) twice, as well as a Guggenheim Fellowship. His book Intelligence and How to Get It is another good source discussing this topic.
In short, decades of research have debunked the notion that whites and non-whites have a genetic difference in intelligence.
"Non-Whites Commit More Crime Than Whites!"
Decades of research has found that, while there is a measured difference in crime rates among racial groups, this can be explained by socioeconomic factors, as well as discrimination in the criminal justice system. No compelling evidence has been found for a racial difference in crime rates when socioeconomic class is taken into account. The Oxford Handbook of Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration summarizes these points very well:
A study published in the journal Social Forces in 1996, entitled "Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban Crime", examined Columbus, Ohio, concluding that the vast majority of the difference in crime rates between blacks and whites can be explained by differences in disadvantage between city neighborhoods:
A study published in the journal Justice Quarterly in 2003, entitled "Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital" supported this conclusion, as did another study by the same researchers, published in the journal Criminology in 2003, entitled "Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Serious Adolescent Violent Behavior":
- University of Georgia | Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences...
- University of Georgia | Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Serious Adolescent Violent Behavior
Racial Bias and the Criminal Justice System
Some racists are fond of claiming (wrongly) that if you adjust for crime rates, then whites are actually more likely to killed by police than non-whites. However, the evidence strongly contradicts this view.
A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2018, entitled "Risk of Police-Involved Death, by Race/Ethnicity and Place, United States, 2012-2018" found the following:
Police homicide risk is higher than suggested by official data. Black and Latino men are at higher risk for death than are White men, and these disparities vary markedly across place. Public Health Implications. Homicide reduction efforts should consider interventions to reduce the use of lethal force by police. Efforts to address unequal police violence should target places with high mortality risk.
Research has found that non-whites receive harsher penalties than whites do for the same crimes. For example, a report from the United States Sentencing Commission found that blacks receive sentences which are, on average, 20% longer than whites for the same exact crime:
Research has also found that only approx. 60% of the gap in racial imprisonment disparity can be explained by differing crime rates, meaning that approx. 40% is due to other factors, including racial bias:
"Immigrants/Refugees Are Criminals!"
Research consistently finds that immigrants (both legal and undocumented) commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Even the right-wing Cato Institute has published multiple reports supporting this conclusion, as has the Sentencing Project:
- Cato Institute | Stiffening Immigration Enforcement Is Not the Answer to Reducing Crime
- Includes references to Cato and Sentencing Project research.
The United States Census Bureau confirmed that native-born citizens are more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants (regardless of legal status):
The Cato Institute also found no evidence to support the claims that refugees are more likely to commit violent crime or terror attacks, noting that nobody (refugee or non-refugee) from the nations on the Trump travel ban list had ever been involved in a terror attack of any kind:
Their research also concluded:
Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The annual chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee is one in 3.6 billion.
In other words, the research shows that refugees and immigrants do not commit more crime than native-born citizens.
Conclusion
Racism and "race realism" are cancers, which have been given an undeserved chance to reemerge in recent years. As such, it is essential that we all be well-informed on these issues, so that we may fight back against racist nonsense. Study this information carefully comrades, and be prepared to deploy it when necessary.
Posted Jul 6, 2019, 6:50 AM UTC · edited