8/8/2019 199703 American Renaissance http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/199703-american-renaissance 1/12 TWe are approaching a full understanding of the biol- ogy of racial differences. by Glayde Whitney here is a revolution taking place around us. It is a conceptual revolu- tion driven by scientific knowledge. Its impact on mankind will be greater than that of the Copernican revolution and the Darwinian revolution. Its fac- tual basis is knowledge of man’s ge- netic nature. This revolution—it can be called the Galtonian revolution— stands a fair chance of revolutionizing what we know about race. It sounds the death knell of politically correct egalitarianism as we know it today. The Galtonian revolution got off to a bit of a slow start in the 1860’s when Francis Galton began his epoch- making studies of human individual differences, heredity and behavior. It was he who named the famous bell- curve statistical distribution a “normal” distribution. It was Galton who invented methods of analysis, such as regressions and correlation, in order to understand human heredity, and it was Galton who first uttered the phrase “nature versus nurture,” and coined the term “eugenics” (see AR, Feb. 1997). But the biology of hered- ity—the chemistry of units later called genes—was not understood until well into the twentieth century. Until very recently most of our knowledge about genetics consisted of deductions from patterns of inheri- tance of traits among family members, and statistical inferences from traits in populations. We have known very lit- tle about the actual molecular chemis- try of inheritance. This lack of knowl- edge has resulted in neverending argu- ments about the causes of race differ- ences. For example, it is widely accepted among scientists (although rarely ac- knowledged in public) that blacks and whites differ substantially in average IQ. The never-ending arguments hinge on whether the cause of the difference is genetic or environmental. Over the last 40 years both environmentalists and hereditarians have generally agreed that an adoption study would settle the question. If black children, adopted and reared in middle-class white families, grew up to function intellectually and emotionally like whites it would be a strong argument for environment. If they grew up to function like blacks it would establish that the race differences were largely genetic. The study has been done (Scarr and Weinberg 1976, Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman 1992) and the results are clear: By the time they are young adults, blacks who have been raised in bright, white middle-class homes and school environments show virtually no benefit from the experience; their av- erage IQ is not raised. This is clear evidence for the hereditarian position, but it has not stopped the debate. En- vironmentalists simply reinterpret the evidence as indicating that outside- the-home societal prejudices hinder black IQ even more than anyone ex- pected! Arguments over interpretation can continue only because we lack mo- lecular knowledge of the genes that influence IQ (except for a few rare abnormal mutations), and therefore do not know the distribution of such genes among the races. Only in the last few decades have scientific break- throughs occurred in our techniques for studying genes at the molecular level. We are actually now beginning to read the genetic blueprint. Coordi- nated projects have been designed to discover all the genes that comprise Homo sapiens, in what may be one of the most portentous scientific efforts ever conceived. When the study— known as the Human Genome Pro- ject—is complete, we will not have the answers to all our questions but the genetic Rosetta Stone will have been decoded. Today we know so lit- tle that we cannot even speculate about what we will find written in the genes, but we will finally be able to read what is there. Along the way to the ultimate goal, there are a number of interim goals. These involve finding what are called genetic markers, and putting together genetic maps. Projects of this kind are also going on for useful other species like mice and fruit flies, which are model organisms for research. In order to understand some of these endeav- Continued on page 3 The Human Genome Project will decode the genetic Rosetta Stone. American Renaissance - 1 - March 1997 Vol. 8, No. 3 March 1997 Diversity in the Human Genome There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world. – Thomas Jefferson
We are approaching a fullunderstanding of the biol-ogy of racial differences.
by Glayde Whitney
here is a revolution taking placearound us. It is a conceptual revolu-tion driven by scientific knowledge.Its impact on mankind will be greater than that of the Copernican revolution
and the Darwinian revolution. Its fac-tual basis is knowledge of man’s ge-netic nature. This revolution—it can be called the Galtonian revolution— stands a fair chance of revolutionizingwhat we know about race. It soundsthe death knell of politically correctegalitarianism as we know it today.
The Galtonian revolution got off toa bit of a slow start in the 1860’s whenFrancis Galton began his epoch-making studies of human individualdifferences, heredity and behavior. Itwas he who named the famous bell-curve statistical distribution a“normal” distribution. It was Galtonwho invented methods of analysis,such as regressions and correlation, inorder to understand human heredity,and it was Galton who first uttered the phrase “nature versus nurture,” andcoined the term “eugenics” (see AR,Feb. 1997). But the biology of hered-ity—the chemistry of units later calledgenes—was not understood until wellinto the twentieth century.
Until very recently most of our
knowledge about genetics consisted of deductions from patterns of inheri-tance of traits among family members,and statistical inferences from traits in populations. We have known very lit-tle about the actual molecular chemis-try of inheritance. This lack of knowl-edge has resulted in neverending argu-ments about the causes of race differ-
ences.For example, it is widely accepted
among scientists (although rarely ac-knowledged in public) that blacks andwhites differ substantially in averageIQ. The never-ending arguments hingeon whether the cause of the differenceis genetic or environmental. Over thelast 40 years both environmentalists
and hereditarians have generallyagreed that an adoption study wouldsettle the question. If black children,adopted and reared in middle-classwhite families, grew up to functionintellectually and emotionally likewhites it would be a strong argumentfor environment. If they grew up to
function like blacks it would establishthat the race differences were largelygenetic.
The study has been done (Scarr andWeinberg 1976, Weinberg, Scarr andWaldman 1992) and the results areclear: By the time they are youngadults, blacks who have been raised in
bright, white middle-class homes andschool environments show virtually no benefit from the experience; their av-erage IQ is not raised. This is clear evidence for the hereditarian position, but it has not stopped the debate. En-vironmentalists simply reinterpret theevidence as indicating that outside-the-home societal prejudices hinder black IQ even more than anyone ex- pected!
Arguments over interpretation cancontinue only because we lack mo-lecular knowledge of the genes thatinfluence IQ (except for a few rareabnormal mutations), and therefore donot know the distribution of suchgenes among the races. Only in thelast few decades have scientific break-throughs occurred in our techniquesfor studying genes at the molecular level. We are actually now beginningto read the genetic blueprint. Coordi-nated projects have been designed todiscover all the genes that comprise
Homo sapiens, in what may be one of the most portentous scientific effortsever conceived. When the study— known as the Human Genome Pro- ject—is complete, we will not havethe answers to all our questions butthe genetic Rosetta Stone will have been decoded. Today we know so lit-tle that we cannot even speculateabout what we will find written in thegenes, but we will finally be able toread what is there.
Along the way to the ultimate goal,there are a number of interim goals.These involve finding what are calledgenetic markers, and putting together genetic maps. Projects of this kind arealso going on for useful other specieslike mice and fruit flies, which aremodel organisms for research. In order to understand some of these endeav-
Continued on page 3
The Human Genome
Project will
decode the genetic
Rosetta Stone.
American Renaissance - 1 - March 1997
Vol. 8, No. 3 March 1997
Diversity in the Human Genome
There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.
reviewer, Thomas Jackson, does itagain! In the January issue he reportedon what seven goofy Berkeley profes-sors have to say about The Bell Curve,and in the February issue he staggered back to civilization with news aboutwhat two crazy black people, CarlRowan and Richard Delgado, are say-ing about whites. It is fascinating for the rest of us to learn about the aston-
ishing things written in books we willnever read, and for that I am moregrateful than I can say. However, I'm beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Jack-son. Can't you give him some assign-ments that are not the equivalent of ananthropological field trip to the nuthouse?
Andrew Harding, Tully, N. Y.
Mr. Jackson appreciates your sym- pathy. He says he quite enjoyed thebook he reviewed in this issue, and islooking forward to writing up Prof.
Richard Lynn's Dysgenics. Still, wewonder if he doesn't secretly enjoy histrips to the nut house.
– Editor
Sir – In the January issue you re- port that federal regulators will nowhave the power to monitor the hiringand promotion policies of Texaco.This is shocking and frightening. Likeall corporations, Texaco has a respon-sibility to its stockholders as well as toits employees to hire and promote
people according to ability.Private corporations should not be
forced to become charitable institu-tions. A racial quota system cannothelp but lower the efficiency and prof-itability of the company. Of course,federal regulators have never had tomeet a payroll or satisfy stockholders.
Charles E. Weber, Tulsa, Ok.
Sir – What's wrong with Ebonics?The Scots, Australians, Irish, and NewZealanders all have their own variants
of the English language, as do theChinese engineers who wrote the in-structions for my new camera. Ameri-can Southerners have their own wayof talking and would be annoyed to betold they were wrong. If blacks wanttheir own language let them have it.Let them speak it in their own coun-try.
Henry Arpen, Lexington, Ky.
Sir – After reading Peter Critten-don's excellent article on eugenics Irealize that I was among the dupes. Imanaged to get through graduateschool thinking that eugenics had al-
ways been conservative and upper class.
The article set me to musing on therelentless way in which the radicalismof the past becomes the conservatismof today. Socialists used to promoteeugenics but now conservatives whoapprove of it dare not say so for fear of censure. Likewise, "conservatives"would be happy with mere school de-segregation if it meant they could bespared forced busing. In the face of government discrimination againstwhites, they bleat about a return to the
"color-blind principles" of the CivilRights Act of 1964 rather than boldlyclaim the right of free association.
T h i s d i s m a l p a t t e r n o f "conservative" support for yesterday'sradicalism is found everywhere. Con-servatives who once fought the veryidea of expanded federal power nowtry only to keep it from expanding sorapidly. Instead of abolishing welfareand social security they want to"reform" it. Rather than give marriagevows once again the power of lawthey want to stop homosexuals from
taking them. Rather than require realintegrity from their leaders theysquawk about only the most flagrantcorruption.
Conservatives seem to take theword literally; they try to "conserve"the insanity liberals foisted on them just last year. They have let whatshould be their real label – reaction-ary – be turned into a term of abuse.
Francisco Ortiz, Norfolk, Va.
American Renaissance - 2 - March 1997
Letters from Readers
Sir – I have recently been struck by two interesting contradictions pro-moted by our rulers. One is the claimthat there is no such thing as race. Ap- parently because there is every possi- ble gradation, from the fairest Nordicto the darkest Congolese, there can be
no real difference between the two.But when the fate of the Republic de- pends on it, that is to say, when itcomes to handing out preferences, itsuddenly becomes very easy to tellthe races apart.
Another logical inconsistency isthat (a) whites and blacks are equal but (b) the manifest shortcomings of the latter are the fault of the former.We learn, for examples, that Hutusand Tutsis are killing each other be-cause of their evil colonial masters.But if whites are evil and blacks are
not how can the races be equal? Name Withheld, San Diego, Cal.
Sir – AR is carrying on a much-needed discussion about interestingquestions but the debate will becomeirrelevant unless immigration is
stopped in its tracks and turned around. Under current projections,whites will be just another minority in50 years.
Did you vote for this transforma-tion of our country? I didn't. Immigra-
tion patterns reflect deliberate policyand can therefore be changed. For de ta i l s , I r ecommend Pe ter Brimelow's book, Alien Nation. Inorder for whites to avoid irrelevancyor worse, I urge all readers to pressuretheir Congressional representatives.
ors, we need to understand some basicgenetic terms and concepts. Readersmay skip to the section “Whose Ge-nome” if they wish, but they will un-
derstand the genome project much better if they are aware of some of theunderlying science.
Genetics
Genes govern every detail of everystructure and function of every cell inthe human body. Although they oper-ate in constant interaction with theenvironment, genes control every physiological function, from growthto healing to digestion to data- processing in the brain—and they do
so from conception to death. A tre-mendous amount of information—theentire biological blueprint for eachindividual human being—is containedin the genes.
The material in which this infor-mation is stored is DNA, or deoxyri- bonucleic acid. Humans have 23 sepa-rate but very long strings of DNA,which are called chromosomes.Genes, of which there are an esti-mated 50,000 to 100,000, are distinct portions of the DNA, and are ar-ranged along the 23 different chromo-
somes.The components of DNA that code
or record the genetic blueprint arecalled bases (because their chemicalnature is alkaline, or basic, rather thanacidic). There are only four different bases, adenine (A), guanine (G), cyto-sine (C), and thymine (T). They can be thought of as letters in the chemi-cal alphabet that is used to record the
details of the genetic blueprint. Just asthe 26 letters of our alphabet are com- bined in different sequences to makedifferent words with different mean-ings, the four bases are arranged in
different sequences that indicateevery detail of what a cell does andwhat chemical products it makes.
The “words” in this chemical lan-guage of bases can be very long. Eachgene consists of a region of DNA(located on one of the chromosomes)that ranges in length from a sequenceof a few thousand bases to over 100,000 bases. The complete set of this information about a species or individual is called its genome. TheDNA of the human genome consistsof a sequence of about 3 billion bases.
If this material were stretched outstraight, it would be about three feetlong, but the DNA is helixed andfolded and refolded into chromo-somes that fit within the microscopicnucleus of a single cell!
If the four letters of the DNA code(A,T,G,C,), were printed in smalltype, it would take about 200,000 pages of print to specify the genome.It would take the equivalent of 200Manhattan telephone books of 1,000 pages each to record all the geneticinformation contained in the nucleusof every human cell. Of those200,000 pages, we now know the ex-act sequence of bases for about 200 pages, or one inch out of the threefeet. And that one inch is in bits and pieces scattered throughout the ge-nome rather than in one place. Thelongest continuous sequence (at leastuntil recently) was 865,000 baseslong; perhaps one-fourth of a millime-
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor
James P. Lubinskas Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor
— — — — — — American Renaissance is published monthly by the
New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contribu-
tions to it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage is
an additional $6.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) and overseas (surface mail)are $30.00. Overseas airmail subscriptions are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each.Foreign subscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.
Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, PO. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: [email protected]
American Renaissance - 3 - March 1997
ter. The purpose of the Human Ge-nome Project is to locate and identify(or sequence, as the scientists say) allthree billion bases.
A gene is a length of DNA where aspecific sequence of bases acts as thecode used to build a specific func-tional product for the body, usually a polypeptide or protein. These func-tional products are the building blocksof the body and are the ingredients of the body’s myriad chemical processes.The procedure for building these products is called translation or tran- scription, because the information inthe gene is processed sequentially, base by base, to make something the
Funding the Project
The major force now drivingthe Galtonian revolution is theHuman Genome Project. Planning
began in 1986 and the UnitedStates Human Genome Program began formally on October 1,1990 as a $3 billion, federal-ly-supported 15-year effort. Thisis the largest coordinated researchendeavor ever undertaken, dwarf-ing even the Manhattan project of World War Two.
The actual work is being doneat many different locations. The program is jointly administered byDOE (Department of Energy) and NIH (National Institutes of
Health). DOE is involved because,after the atomic bomb, Congresscharged DOE's predecessor, theAtomic Energy Commission, withthe study of genetic mutations,especially those induced by radia-tion. Given the difficulty of end-ing any federal bureaucracy, theDOE, along with NIH, remainsinvolved. At the end of 1996 thistwo-headed giant was actuallyunder budget and ahead of sched-ule.
In addition to government
funds, several private foundationsand foreign governments havecommitted yet more billions of dollars. At least 16 countries nowhave human genome research pro-grams. HUGO (Human GenomeOrganization), with membersfrom 50 countries, attempts to co-ordinate international collabora-tion on the genome project. ●
body needs. It is these gene products,and the interactions among the prod-ucts of many genes, that constitute thechemical and observable characteris-tics that make a person.
The position on a chromosomewhere a particular gene exists is calledits locus. For example, at one locusthere might be a gene that codes for eye pigment, causing its bearer to be
blue-eyed. An alteration of the basesequence at that locus (a mutation)might change the gene to one causingthe eyes to be brown. Each differentform of the gene at that locus is calledan allele. Many genes are exactly thesame in all people, so there is only oneform of the gene. All people have anenormous number of body functionsand structures in common, and that portion of their genetic code is there-fore the same. Other genes have alter-native forms and therefore account for (or cause) human differences. A gene
with more than one alternative form,or allele, that is common in a popula-tion (any gene can have rare, mutantforms, but they do not become com-mon if the bearers do not survive) issaid to be polymorphic. A populationconsisting of many people could havemany different alternative alleles of any particular polymorphic gene.
Cell Division and Reproduction
Every DNA molecule is actuallycomposed of two paired strands or
sequences of bases. The strands areheld together by chemicalattraction between the bases,in a physical form that re-sembles the way the steps of a ladder hold the two sidestogether (see figure). Informing the steps, the baseson one strand always pair with the bases on the other stand in a specific way: Talways pairs with A, and Galways pairs with C. Thusthe two strands contain two
complementary versions of the same genetic informa-tion.
When a cell is going todivide and the DNA is to becopied, the two sides of theDNA molecule separate, asif they were unzipped, andeach strand serves as a tem- plate for building the com-
plementary strand. All the cell needsto do is pair every A with a T andevery C with G, and the two DNAstrands can be duplicated. When thecell divides, each of the two daughter cells thus gets an exact duplicate of the DNA from the parent cell. It is thechemical specificity of base pairing— T always to A, G always to C—thatallows the body to make exact copies
of its genes and thus maintain struc-tural and functional coherence. This is
self- replication, one of the fundamen-tal properties of life.
(Cells make exact copies most of the time. Mutations are a wide varietyof changes that can occur. An incor-rect base may be substituted duringthe copying process, or a base pair may be skipped. A region of DNAmay be duplicated or deleted, or moved from one place to another.Many alterations in fine and grossstructure are possible, but they are
rare).Since gene loci are arranged along
23 chromosomes, it could have beenthe case that all genes were inheritedas 23 “linked” sets. All traits wouldhave been assorted , or arranged, into23 categories that were inherited to-gether.
However, a special kind of cell di-vision takes place when the reproduc-tive cells are formed, and the geneticmaterial originally received from the(grand)parents is thoroughly mixed before it goes into an egg or sperm.
The mother includes one copy of her genome in the egg and thefather one copy of his in thesperm. With the exceptionof the sex-determining ychromosome, which comesfrom the father and resultsin a boy, the child thereforegets two copies of eachchromosome, one from each parent, for a total of 46. If the two copies have geneswith the same alleles (suchas the code for blue eyes)
the individual is said to behomozygous. If the allelesare different (one for blue,one for brown) the individ-ual is heterozygous. An indi-vidual’s genetic complementis his genotype.
If we consider just onelocus with two possible al-leles (A1 and A2), there arethree possible genotypes:
two homozygous (A1A1 and A2A2)and one heterozygous (A1A2).Among humans there is an astronomi-cal number of possible genotypes. For instance, imagine just one locus with20 possible alleles: There are 20 ho-mozygous genotypes in addition to190 heterozygous ones ( [{20}{19}]/2= 190) for a total of 210. With justfour such loci, the number of possible
combinations (genotypes) is 210 to the4th power, or about 2 billion. Withonly five loci, the possible genotypesare more than 400 billion, a figure thatfar exceeds the current world popula-tion of less than seven billion. Of course, the human genome does notconsist of 4 or 5 loci but something onthe order of 50,000 to 100,000 genes.The number of different possible hu-mans is therefore a number so largethat the human mind can scarcelygrasp it.
New genes are being discovered
and mapped to a precise location on achromosome all the time. A December 8, 1996 check of the Johns Hopkinson-line depository of human geneticdata, “GenBank,” listed 8,271 entriesfor genes. It is possible to be sure of the existence of a gene without know-ing exactly where on the DNA chain itis located, so a gene locus was knownfor only 5,310 of the 8,271. This is avery small percentage of 100,000, butin 1958 only 412 human genes wereknown, and most of them were notmapped to a definite locus. Every year
we know more than we did the year before.
Whose Genome?
Since every person’s genotype isdifferent, exactly which 3 billion or so base pairs are being mapped? Thes t a n d a r d a n s w e r i s t h a t a“representative genome” is going to be completely sequenced and it will bethe standard against which to comparechunks sequenced from particular in-dividuals—mutations of medical inter-
est, for example.The representative genome was
supposed to be a composite from adiversity of sources—anonymous do-nors who had given informed consent.In practice, most of the initial materialcame from three men and one woman,not completely anonymous and notwith informed consent. Much of thematerial was ejaculate from a scientistworking on the project.
The folks who worry about publicrelations and “ethics” became veryconcerned, because “elitist” ejaculate
wouldn’t do. Feminists wantedwomen equally represented despite thefact that you cannot get a completehuman genome sequence from women because normal women have no ychromosome. The problem went all
the way to the top and the sequencing part of the project had to start over with sample DNA from a suitably di-verse assortment of non-elite anony-mous donors who gave informed con-sent.
In fact, it would have been interest-ing to have completely sequenced thegenome of a single, known person.Knowledge of his genotype could
have been compared with what wasknown of the person. But this would presumably have implied that there
was an “ideal” person to whom allothers were being compared.
Maps and Markers
One part of the Human GenomeProject has been establishment of agenetic linkage map. Informativelandmarks, or marker loci, have beendetermined at approximately equalintervals along the entire genome. Theloci used are called “markers,” rather than genes, because the DNA is“silent” at these places, that is to say,
it does not actually code for anyknown function or cell product. Infact, much of the genome is made upo f t h i s s i l en t , “ anonym ousDNA.”Some people believe that this isexcess baggage, perhaps left over from ancient evolutionary experi-ments. Others suspect it has importantfunctions of which we are simply ig-norant.
Many of these markers, or land-marks, are short, simple repeats of DNA base sequences with variationsin the number of repeating sequences.The markers are used in procedures tohelp locate more complex, functionalgenes. Some are highly polymorphic,that is, a large number of different al-leles exist for them. Besides providingan outline map for the genome, they
also have a very interesting forensicuse, and their patterns of occurrence provide important data about racialdifferences.
Comparing markers in geneticsamples from different individuals isthe essence of “DNA fingerprinting,”or profiling, a forensic technique thatis only about ten years old, but hasalready become very important (see“DNA Fingerprints,” AR, Dec. 1996).This procedure can distinguish be-tween individuals with 100 percentaccuracy. Also, because different al-
leles for different marker loci consis-tently appear with different frequen-cies in different races and subraces,ethnic identification is also 100 per-cent accurate.
A pre-publication copy of a 1996U.S. National Research Council Re- port called The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence says:
“DNA analysis promises to be themost important tool for human identi-fication since Francis Galton devel-oped the use of fingerprints for that purpose. We can confidently predict
that, in the not-distant future, personsas closely related as brothers will beroutinely distinguished, and DNA pro-files will be as fully accepted as fin-gerprints now are . . . .
“The population of the UnitedStates is made up of subpopulationsdescended from different parts of theglobe and not fully homogenized. . . .Extensive studies from a wide rangeof databases show that there are in-deed substantial frequency differences[in marker alleles] among the major racial and linguistic groups (black,
Hispanic, American Indian, eastAsian, and white). . . . The main rea-son for departures from random-mating proportions in forensic DNAmarkers is population structure due toincomplete mixing of ancestralstocks.” In other words, for as long asAmericans are not a completely inter- bred people with precisely equal per-centages of ancestors from every race,
American Renaissance - 5 - March 1997
Feminists wanted women
equally represented
despite the fact that
normal women have no
y chromosome.
Ethical Perversions
The biggest mistake yet in theHuman Genome Project is a com-mittee called ELSI (Ethical, Legal,and Social Implications of humangenome research). Richly over-funded at the beginning, DOE setaside three percent, and NIH five percent, of their respective genome program budgets for ELSI studies.Spin doctors sometimes tout this asa wonderful innovation: the firsttime that a major research programhas budgeted a major amount toconsider from the outset its own so-cial and ethical ramifications.
In practice it has been a fiasco.Much of bioethics and legal scholar-ship has been captured by the politi-cally correct, egalitarian-socialist,
economic-redistributionist brand of postmodern deconstructionistscholar. According to this view, all people are identical in all importantrespects, except to the extent thattheir ancestors have been unfairlyexploited by others. "Race" is anarbitrary and prejudicial construc-tion of western civilization, in direneed of deconstruction. ELSI has to
date distinguished itself by recom-mending that private insurance not be allowed to consider genomic datain assessment of risk, thus suggest-ing the transformation of a private profit-motive industry into a mecha-nism for socialist redistribution of risk and wealth. The chairwoman of ELSI and another member published
a statement "deploring" The BellCurve for misrepresenting geneticknowledge and "wrongly" implyingthat genetic knowledge has any roleto play in societal decisions, whichshould be made on "moral, socialand political" grounds.
Actually, there are many ethicalissues in need of consideration. For instance, will we create designer offspring to order or limit ourselvesto treatment of genetic disease?ELSI was to play a major role in public education concerning the ge-
nome, but that would be like placinghard-core communists in charge of education about free market capital-ism. Recently the ELSI WorkingGroup's chairman has resigned, andin June 1996 an 11- member com-mittee was established to review thestructure and function of ELSI. Areport was expected in January of 1997. ●
their DNA will always record the dif-ferences. For example, various marker alleles occur with different frequen-cies in individuals of different Euro- pean stocks. Using such alleles in ap- propriate prediction equations, it could be quite straightforward correctly toidentify a particular white Americanas being of, for instance, mixed Celtic(Irish), Nordic (Swedish) and Mediter-
ranean (Italian) ancestry. Some sub- populations, such as various AmericanIndian tribes, differ very substantiallyfrom each other in marker composi-tion.
Genetic marker diversity can beused to investigate the veracity of oraltraditions. Members of the Lemba, a
black Bantu-speaking South Africantribe, have an oral tradition that theyare descended from Semitic, Jewish or Muslim, traders. One version of thetribal myth is that their ancestors in-cluded pre-Christian era Jewish trad-ers stranded in Africa when their basecity was sacked. The Lemba maintainthe myth as well as some cultural practices, such as ritual slaughter of animals and male circumcision, whichare not common among their Bantuneighbors. Genetic markers supportthe tradition. Common among Lembamen are y-chromosome gene markersthat are also common among Semites but rare in other blacks.
Even at this very early stage of ge-nomic analysis, in which polymorphicmarkers are used for identification, ithas already become obvious that thereare substantial genetic differences be-tween the races. It is trivial to identify
unerringly the race of any individual,including mixes of various races. Thisfact should forever dispel the myth of racial equivalence. Fashionable non-sense to the effect that race is a socialrather than a biological phenomenonis clearly and demonstrably false. Ad-vocates of a socialist utopia foundedon the egalitarian fallacy are justifia- bly terrified of the genome project,
because the possibilities for obfuscationand denial are being severely limited.
The Percent Scams
Knowledge from the genome pro- ject has already helped put in perspec-tive some previously misunderstood,or intentionally misrepresented, ge-netic information—what I call the“percent scams.” There have been twomain scams, one at one percent, an-other at six percent.
The one percent scam started fromgenuine surprise among scientists atthe similarity in base sequences be-tween early samples of chimp and hu-man DNA. In some comparisons itappeared that we shared about 99 per-cent of our genetic material with thechimpanzee, and egalitarian anthro- pologists immediately exploited thissimilarity. If there is only one percent
of difference between the two species,it must follow that all men are geneti-cally functionally equivalent. By this“proof,” racial differences must be dueto historical accident and cultural dif-ferentiation—not genetic differentia-tion—since there is no room for ge-netic differentiation.
Better understanding of the ge-nome reveals that “percent differ-ence,” is not a relevant comparison.Small differences can matter tremen-dously. Mice and humans, for exam- ple, have many DNA sequences in
common, and many mouse genes arevery similar to human genes. It takes alot of the same genetic blueprint to build mammalian bodies with liver,spleen, digestive tract, skeletal sys-tems, and nervous systems. And, infact, there are many similarities be-tween mouse and man, as any anat-omy student can verify by direct ex-amination. There are also importantdifferences.
With apes we share many of our genes. However, we could share 99 percent of our base pair sequences and
still differ in 100 percent of our gene products, depending on how the one percent difference were distributedthroughout the genome. Since genesand protein products interact in com- plex ways, often small differences ingenes can cascade to enormous differ-ences in final traits.
As an example, consider thatamong humans the manifold differ-
ences between the sexes are, on pre-sent evidence, the result of a differ-ence in only one gene. The gene inquestion is a regulatory gene, that is,its primary product interacts with theDNA to regulate the expression of many other genes. With the tdf gene(testes determining factor, also knownas Sry, or the Sex determining Regionof the y chromosome) you get a male;without the tdf gene, a female. Sry isonly one gene out of 50,000 to100,000. The argument that the “onlyone percent difference” between apeand man is evidence for genetic iden-tity among humans can now only bemaintained as a deliberate scam.
The six percent scam began in1972 with Richard Lewontin. He isthe brilliant Harvard biologist who co-authored (with Leon Kamin and Ste-ven Rose) the Marxist screed Not inOur Genes, and coined the term“jensenism” to denigrate and demon-ize both an outstanding scientist andan entire area of investigation. In the
early days of population comparisonsof allelic patterns, Lewontin cata-logued the frequencies across sevenracial groups for 29 alleles from 17gene loci, from which he calculated astatistical genetic diversity index. Hereported that 85.4 percent of the ge-netic diversity was contained withinlocal populations, an additional 8.3 percent of the diversity was between populations within a race, and only 6.3 percent of the genetic diversity differ-entiated the major races. (These are percentages of Lewontin’s index, and
not percentages of genes, so the num- bers are not comparable to the per-centage of genes shared by humansand chimps.) Other investigators havereported similar results. From the find-ing that only about six percent of thediversity differentiated the major races, Lewontin ended his 1972 paper with the politically correct non sequi-tur that:
“Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively de-structive of social and human rela-tions. Since such racial classificationis now seen to be of virtually no ge-netic or taxonomic significance either,no justification can be offered for itscontinuance.”
That paper and its conclusion be-came a classic in the egalitarian arma-mentarium but the Lewontin argumentis a scam in the same way the Chim- panzee comparison is a scam. The factthat there is much genetic diversityamong people within local populationsis very important. However, the mean-ingful question about racial differ-ences is not the percentage of totaldiversity, but rather how the diversityis distributed among the races, whattraits it influences, and how it is pat-terned.
It has indeed been a surprise to
many geneticists to discover howmuch genetic diversity there is in local populations. Two brothers, for exam- ple, share fully half their al-leles by descent, but differ incountless ways. According toLewontin’s statistical formu-lation they account for muchgenetic diversity just be-tween the two of them.
Nevertheless, to under-stand how meaningless thisapproach is as an analysis of racial differences, one might
consider the extent to whichhumans and macaque mon-keys share genes and alleles.If the total genetic diversityof humans plus macaques isgiven an index of 100 per-cent, more than half of thatdiversity will be found in atroop of macaques or in the population of Belfast. Thisdoes not mean Irishmen dif-fer more from their neighbors than they do frommacaques—which is what
the Lewontin approach slylyimplies.
Patterned Diversity
Since the mid-1980s therehave been a number of popu-lation surveys looking at ge-netic diversity, and virtuallyall the serious ones find the
same racial patterning. The thousand- page tome published in 1994 by L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his col-leagues (The History and Geographyof Human Genes) is one of the better known. They present 491 world popu-lations using data for 128 alleles at 45 polymorphic loci. The populations aregrouped in various meaningful ways,aggregated into 42 populations, whichare combined into nine clusters.
Cavalli-Sforza et. al. are adamantthat they are not studying races, butrather populations of humans. How-ever, their nine clusters have a famil-iar ring: “Africans (sub-Saharan),Caucasoids (European) . . . NorthernMongoloids (excluding Arctic popula-tions) . . . .” (1994, p.79) The figureon this page presents a graphic sche-matization of their major findings withregard to patterning of genetic diver-sity. In their words, from their genetic
data, “the greatest difference withinthe human species is between Africansand non-Africans . . . . The cluster
formed by Caucasoids, northern Mon-goloids, and Amerinds is reasonablycompact in all analyses.” (1994, p. 83)Thus, from investigation of gene dis-tributions not only are the races andmajor subraces of man clustered, butalso the relative degree of genetic dif-ference reflects the degree of differ-ences observed for traits such as intel-ligence and criminality—sub-SaharanAfricans are most different from allother humans.
Mongoloid
CaucasoidAfrican
Austrailian
Another frequency survey was re- ported by the noted geneticists Nei &Roychoudhury, who looked at the dis-tribution of 121 alleles of 29 genes for
26 population samples. Arthur Jensenthen subjected the data to factor analy-sis with varimax rotation, a procedure
that reveals which variablescluster together. With hiskind permission, the results,which are to be published inhis forthcoming book, The
g Factor , are presented inthe accompanying table.
The results show that bystandard statistical proce-dures the genetic data fromthe 26 populations yield six
components that showwhich populations cluster together most distinctly.The size of a numerical en-try indicates how close a particular population is tothe central tendency of acluster. The Xs indicate val-ues of less than 200, whichhave been left out for clar-ity.
Notice that some popu-lations have a major load-ing on one component and a
minor loading on another;these represent combina-tions of genetic clusters.The six components reflectclusters that are easily iden-tified as the following population groups: (1)Mongoloids, (2) Cauca-soids, (3) South Asians andPacific Islanders, (4) Ne-
American Renaissance - 7 - March 1997
Components of a Genetic Similarity Matrix for26 Populations (Values less than 200 omitted)
Varimax Rotated Components Population 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pigmy x x x 651 x x Nigerian x x x 734 x xBantu x x x 747 x xSan(Bushman) x x x 465 x xLapp x 500 x x x xFinn x 988 x x x xGerman x 978 x x x xEnglish x 948 x x x xItalian x 989 x x x xIranian x 635 x x x x North Indian x 704 x x x xJapanese 936 x 214 x x xKorean 959 x 229 x x xTibetan 855 x x x x xMongolian 842 x 357 x x xSouthern Chinese 331 x 771 x x xThai x x 814 x x xFilipino x x 782 x x x
Indonesian x x 749 x x xPolynesian x x 526 x x 284Micronesian x x 521 x x 328Australian (aborigines) x x x x x 706Papuan (New Guineans) x x x x x 742 North Amerindian x x x x 804 xSouth Amerindian x x x x 563 xEskimo x x x x 726 x
Adapted from Arthur Jensen’s Table 12.NIn MS of The G Factor.
groids, (5) North and south Amerindi-ans plus Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Aus-tralians and Papuan New Guineans.These genetically defined componentsare racial groupings quite similar tothe population groups obtained in theCavalli-Sforza study mentionedabove. More importantly, these twoexamples illustrate that modern ge-netic diversity studies are convergingon a human population structure thatis amazingly similar to racial classifi-cations suggested by classical physicalanthropologists such as CarletonCoon, whose work has been thor-oughly abused by a recent generationof politically correct scholars. Thesedata are therefore a virtually irrefuta- ble demonstration of the reality of race—a purely statistical analysis of allele frequencies gives results that areessentially identical to the racialgroupings established by traditional
anthropology.
The Genomic Future
The eminent human geneticist T. E.Reed has pointed out that we knowalmost nothing about the racialapportionment of human geneticdiversity. Indeed only about five percent of the approximately100,000 human genes have even been characterized, and only a fewhundred have been used in popula-tion surveys. “What is known
about the distribution of the other 99+% of loci? Nothing!” he reminds us.
Unless censorship is imposed, wewill soon be unable to avoid manytruths. The range of possibilities isenormous. It is possible that the “only-skin-deep,” observable differences between the major races will turn out
to be the tips of some very differenti-ated icebergs. Great genetic differen-tiation is suggested by the data sum-marized on the previous page. Thehuman species, with its geographicallydistinct ancestral populations, mayhave much more patterned diversitythan is commonly appreciated.
For example, what constitutes agenetic species? Lions and tigers,when brought together by humantransportation systems, are capable of interbreeding, as are wolves, dogs, andcoyotes. Humanity is indeed diverseand polygenic, and we will soon havethe tools to know to what extent. Itcould easily be found that there is far more consistent genetic difference be-tween the different races—all thoughtto be the same species—than there is between wolves and coyotes, for ex-ample, which can interbreed but arerecognized as distinct species.
The Human Genome Project, evenif completed on schedule in 2005, willnot answer all our questions. Rather itwill provide a framework withinwhich, for the first time, it will be fea-sible and efficient to seek the answers.
Much more physiological and psy-chological work remains to be done, and partial se-quences will need to be gath-ered from many different in-dividuals and races. How-ever, for the first time we will be able to answer questions
of great importance: What is hu-man nature? Or rather, what are hu-man natures? Why are some humangroups statistically so very differentfor so many traits?
The “nature versus nurture” prob-lem will be solved. The differentiationof the sexes, as well as the develop-
mental revolutions that separate chil-dren from adults will also be under-stood with a completeness far beyondearlier comprehension. And to under-stand the origin of the kinds of raciallydifferentiated traits catalogued by J.Philippe Rushton in Race, Evolution,and Behavior , modern science will beable to go beyond statistics, supposi-tion, and ideology to definitive bio-logical answers.
The ideologues of egalitarianismare well aware of these possibilities,and are already trying to block re-search and even discussion. “Hatespeech” laws are being tightened inmany countries, and discussion of racedifferences can get you fired or bringcriminal charges in France, Germany,Canada, and Australia. In the UnitedStates, researchers routinely censor themselves and their “insensitive” col-leagues, for fear of losing jobs or
funding. Knowledge could be drivenunderground even more than it is to-day, but if science is unfettered we areon the verge of great new discoveries.
Until the previous century, chem-ists worked with the elements of air,earth, fire, and water. It was only with
the establishment of the periodictable of elements that anyonecould have imagined modern plastics or silicon-gallium com- puter chips. The Human GenomeProject is discovering the human elements, and the consequences
are likely to be just as profoundand unanticipated. ●
Dr. Whitney is a past-president of the Behavior Genetics Association. Heis a professor in psychology, psycho-biology and neuroscience at FloridaState University.
American Renaissance - 8 - March 1997
A deeply subversive studyof the laws of nationhood.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
t would be hard to think of a main-stream, commercially-published book that is more subversive to the contem-
porary notion of America than Eth-nonationalism, by Walker Connor. Inthis collection of essays that wereoriginally written between 1966 and1992, Professor Connor establishes aset of propositions about nationalismthat cast doubt upon the very legiti-macy of the United States.
Needless to say, this was not hisovert intention. However, his explana-tion of the nature of nationalism andhis deft references to nationalistmovements in every part of the worldleave no doubt about the perils Ameri-cans ensured for themselves with thechoices they made in the mid-1960s.
Build the State, Destroy the NationWalker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding , Princeton University Press,
As he points out, the conflicts fromaround the world that fill the headlinesmake no sense to anyone who doesnot understand nationalism—and yetrecent American scholarship hastreated nationalism as if it were somekind of primitive emotion that willsoon wither away. Most political sci-entists had taken it for granted that“modernization” would erode paro-chial loyalties, but Prof. Connor shows that the effect of increasedcommunication is often to accentuate ethnic consciousness rather than at-tenuate it. Although he refrains fromdrawing conclusions about the UnitedStates, he argues that the coming era islikely to be one of intensifying na-tional sentiment, and that any analysisthat fails to reckon with its power ishopelessly superficial.
Language Problems
Prof. Connor points out that somemisunderstandings about nation andnationalism stem from the misuse of words. He notes that the word“nation” comes from the Latin nasci,meaning to be born, and proposes adefinition of nation that runs counter to current American dogma and alsodisqualifies nearly every sovereignentity on earth: “[A nation]is a group of people whofeel that they are ances-trally related. It is the larg-
est group that can com-mand a person’s loyalty because of felt kinship ties.It is, from this perspective,the fully extended family.”
Prof. Connor points outthat 90 percent of the politi-cal units that claim to benations are not, and thatwith the exception of such places as Japan, Iceland,and Norway, they are allmultinational states. Inter-national relations should be
called interstate relations,and both the League of Na-tions and United Nationsare “obvious misnomers.”The term “nation-state” properly refers only tothose rare cases when state and nationcoinc ide . Use of the word“nationalism” to mean loyalty to thestate is so common an error that Prof.
Connor has coined the term“ethnonationalism” to emphasize thekinship element that the word nation-alism properly contains but has lost.
Nationalism is far more powerfulthan allegiance to a state or govern-ment: “[A]n intuitive sense of kin-dredness or extended family wouldexplain why nations are endowed witha very special psychological dimen-sion—an emotional dimension—notenjoyed by essentially functional or juridical groupings, such as socioeco-nomic classes or states.” Prof. Connor explains that “the national bond issubconscious and emotional rather than conscious and rational” and isreached through “appeals not to themind but to the blood.”
Another characteristic of nations,even when they do not enjoy the self-determination that most of them longfor, is an exclusive attachment to a
certain territory. The Scots and theWelsh are, in this sense, nations, asare a nearly endless number of groupsthat do not have seats at the United Nations—Basques, Flemings, Tutsis,Tibetans, Kurds, Punjabis, and Bret-ons to name just a few.
Prof. Connor notes that even theUnited States at one time shared thesense of consanguinity and territorial-
ity—blood and soil—of which nations are made. Inhis address at Gettysburg,Abraham Lincoln spoke of
the nation that “our fathers”had brought forth, and thesong “America” is a tributeto the “land where my fa-thers died.” The Confeder-acy’s second-best knownsong, “The Bonny BlueFlag,” opens with a classicstatement of the principlesof nation:
We are a band of broth-ers/Native to the soil/Fighting for our liberty/With treasure, blood, and
toil.Appeals to national
blood-kinship are so power-ful that even Communistsused them to gain power,despite Marx’ insistence
that class solidarity takes precedenceover love of nation. Ho Chi Minh ral-lied the people of both north and southVietnam with these words: “We have
the same ancestors, we are of the samefamily, we are all brothers and sis-ters.” Mao Tse Tung spoke to “all our fellow countrymen, every single zeal-ous descendent of Huang-ti [the firstemperor to unite China].” Prof. Con-nor also cites Bismarck’s famous ex-hortation to the Germans: “think withyour blood.”
Of course, once revolutionariesgain power they become extremelyhostile to fissiparous appeals to nation.
The Soviets and the Chinese at leasthad Marx’ approval for stamping outnationalist movements, but many lead-ers who have struggled for independ-ence in the name of self-determination promptly deny it to others as soon asthey gain power. Anti-colonial agita-tors insisted that rule by aliens wasintolerable, but immediately imposedit on others as soon as they inheritedthe multinational states the colonial powers left behind.
Prof. Connor points out that whenThird-World (and other) leaders talk
of “nation-building” they are reallystrengthening the state in a processthat should be called nation-destroying . It was the Ibos who were building a nation during the Biafranwar; it was the (multinational) Nige-rian state that crushed it.
Nationalist conflict usually hassimple causes: state and national bor-ders that do not coincide. Nationalsentiment is sure to arise when a na-tion feels that its sacred land is beinginvaded by strangers or when a nationchafes under alien rule. As history has
repeatedly shown, local autonomy or even outright separation are the mostreliable cures for national conflict.
Explicit Denial
Prof. Connor has been a lonelyvoice within American academic cir-cles: “With but very few exceptions,authorities have shied away from de-
“The national bond issubconscious and emo-tional rather than con-
scribing the nation as a kinship groupand have usually explicitly denied thatthe notion of shared blood is a factor.”This reluctance is paralleled by the re-fusal to acknowledge the importance of race within the United States, and one of the most interesting chapters in Ethnona-tionalism explains why so many aca-demics have misunderstood the nature of nationalism and have been caught nap- ping by its post-war resurgence.
One of the most frequent mistakesis to believe that all conflicts are eco-nomic. National conflicts usually areassociated with economic disparities but money is not at the heart of thestruggle. Prof. Connor describes casesin which economic gaps have beennarrowed and even reversed withouteasing national tensions. At the sametime, so long as people think of them-selves as members of the same nation,
they tolerate huge disparities in wealth by region, class, and profession.
Some scholars mistake symptomsfor causes. For example, they writesolemnly about “the weakness of gov-ernment institutions” when the real problem is that the government is inthe hands of one tribe whom all theother tribes hate.
Another common mistake is basedon the view that nationalism is an un-enlightened, juvenile sentiment. Thusit is thought to be always waning as peoples mature towards sophisticated
one-worldism. It is true that many20th-century European nationalismswere muted, first by the exhaustion of the Second World War and then bythe imposition of Marxism. However,national movements that fashionablescholars had pronounced dead havesprung to life and others are stronger than ever.
Perhaps the most widespread error
is to describe a national conflict interms of one of its components, suchas language or religion. Belgium, for example, is not wracked with dissentover language but has a national strug-gle between Flemings and Waloons.
The Irish problem is likewise mis-reported. The fight is not about relig-ion but between natives of Ireland andthe Englishmen and Scots who movedinto the territory, often as alien rulers.In Prof. Connor’s view, the troublescould as accurately be described as aconflict over last names as over relig-ion. It is a common mistake to confusenation with some tangible element of nation:
“[W]hat is fundamentally involvedin such a conflict is that divergence of basic identity which manifests itself inthe ‘us-them’ syndrome. And the ulti-mate answer to the question of whether a person is one of us, or one
of them, seldom hinges on adherenceto overt aspects of culture.”Prof. Connor argues that the ethnic
bond can survive even if every distinc-tive cultural element has disappeared,since “cultural assimilation need notmean psychological assimilation.” He points out that at one time the Irishclung desperately to Gaelic for fear that national sentiment could not benourished in English. English-speaking Irishmen learned to hate theEnglish as much as Gaelic-speakershad.
Perhaps the most naive of the rea-sons for underestimating nationalismis the silly view that the more contact people have with strangers they morethey will love them. The opposite istrue. In the undeveloped world, many people still live with almost no aware-ness of the existence of people unlikethemselves. Only with the arrival of the transistor radio do they discover that “their” president may not evenspeak an intelligible language or prayto the right gods.
Post-war modernization has had
the same effect among Europeans, of sharpening rather than reducing na-tionalism. Prof. Connor cites theBasques and the Castillians, the
Czechs and the Slovaks, the Flemingsand the Waloons, not to mention themyriad incompatible nations that de-stroyed Yugoslavia and the Soviet Un-ion. In North America, French Cana-dians are moving towards independ-ence rather than assimilation.
Among people who already think of themselves as a single nation, in-creased contact does reduce strictly
regional differences. The disappear-ance of regional differences encour-ages the misguided to think that in-creased contact will have the sameeffect on national differences.
Current Racial Dogma
Nevertheless, in Prof. Connor’sview, what best explains Americanscholarship’s failure to understandnationalism is that it is non-rational.Academics hate the mysterious andunquantifiable, and therefore look for
economic and class explanations for phenomena that stir the blood rather than the mind. Although Professor Connor does not touch on this, therecan also be no doubt that current racialdogma has blinded academics to muchthat is obvious. Acknowledging theterrible difficulties inherent in multi-nationalism would cast a completelydifferent light on the American at-tempt deliberately to undertake thehazards of building a nation out of incompatible materials. To admit thata belief in common ancestry is the
necessary glue of nations is to admitthat the United States is not a nationand cannot be one.
The laws of ethnic kinship function just as well in the United States asanywhere else—except for one excep-tion. As Professor Connor writes, “a prerequisite of nationhood is a popu-larly held awareness or belief thatone’s own group is unique in a mostvital sense. In the absence of such a popularly held conviction, there isonly an ethnic group.” American blacks and Hispanics and even some
Asians act like nations (Prof. Connor concedes that racially conscious blacks are, indeed, a nation); onlywhites are a mere ethnic group.
This is, of course, changing as moreand more whites begin to see that they,too, are a nation with national aspira-tions. Eventually, the futility of multi-racialism will become clear and real na-tion-building will begin. ●
William Clinton has been sworn infor a second term as President of theUnited States. The inaugural festivi-
ties in Washington over the weekendleading up to the swearing-in struck acertain theme. There were perform-ances by Chaka Khan, “rhythm and blues vocalist;” the Six Nations Sing-ers, “an American Indian vocalgroup;” the de Colores Mexican Folk Dance Company; and somethingcalled “One Family/One Planet, chil-dren’s stories about the Earth.” Therewas also an exhibit of the“Cambodian-American Heritage,”complete with “Khmer artforms.”
Elmo and his Sesame StreetFriends seem to have been thrown into amuse children, but at the sametime adults could watch “Pueblo
Dances” or see Music and the Under-ground Railroad, “a musical on free-dom from slavery.” Another musicalwas called “King,” and celebrated thelife of America’s patron saint. Thewords were written by Maya Angelou,the black poetaster who read lines atthe first Clinton inauguration.
The folk-singers, Peter, Paul, andMary were an unusual all-white event, but were followed by KanKouranWest African Dancers and Drummers,who competed with the Gay Men’sChorus of Washington. There was also
Lilo Gonzalez y los de la MountPleasant, billed as “Salvadoran song-writer and music.” The program wasrounded out with American Indiandancers called Blue Horizon DanceCompany; Eth-Noh Tech Creations,which offered “Asian-American sto-ries and dance;” and yet another batchof Indians called Dr. Arvol LookingHorse and the Northern Cree Drum-
mers.”In keeping with the prevailing
mood, William Clinton chose to besworn in on the day the country ob-served the birth of Martin Luther
King, Jr. President Clinton alsostopped by the Metropolitan AfricanMethodist Episcopal Church on themorning of his inauguration. Other Presidents have visited the black church, which is handy to the WhiteHouse, but the current President is theonly one to do so on inauguration day.He dropped in at the time of his firstinauguration as well, and on both oc-casions he is said to have prayed.
30 Years of Kwanzaa
Kwanzaa, the made-in-AmericaAfrican holiday, is gaining ground. Itwas cobbled together in 1966 out of various bits of African tradition byRon Karenga, then a graduate student.Mr. Karenga, who is now a professor at the University of California at LongBeach, says he was inspired to this“political act of self-determination” bythe Watts riots.
Last year, 13 million Americansare estimated to have spent $500 mil-lion celebrating Kwanzaa. Hallmark
started selling Kwanzaa cards in 1992and now offers 11 different varieties.From Dec. 26 to 31—almost exactlythe period during which Kwanzaa iscelebrated—the National Museum of American History in Washington puton a display called “Traditions of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa andthe New Year.”
Every year William Clinton issuesKwanzaa greetings to the American people. Last year, he lauded the“seven principles of Kwanzaa” andadded, “Today, we have a renewed
sense of hope in America, a hope based on the idea that our great diver-sity can unite—not divide—our soci-ety.”
One of the symbols of Kwanzaa isthe flag of the black nation, composedof three horizontal bars of color: red, black and green. Melanet, a black or-ganization that promotes Kwanzaa,explains what the flag means:
“Red, Black and Green are the old-est national colors known to man.They are used as the flag of the Black Liberation Movement in America to-day, but actually go back to the Zinj
Empires of ancient Africa, which ex-isted thousands of years before Rome,Greece, France, England or America.
“The Red, or the blood, stands asthe top of all things. We lost our landthrough blood; and we cannot gain itexcept through blood. . . . The Black isin the middle. The Black man in thishemisphere has yet to obtain landwhich is represented by the Green.The acquisition of land is the highestand noblest aspiration for the Black man on this continent, since withoutland there can be no freedom, justice,
independence, or equality.”Melanet, which can be reached on
the Internet at melanet.com, notes thatKwanzaa is a seasonal holiday buturges Americans to celebrate its spiritall year ‘round.
Honors for the Honorable
The United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) has granted its 1996 Hu-man Rights Award to former president
of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Thisis in recognition of his “exceptionalwork for human rights and democracyin Haiti.”
Mr. Aristide is an avowed Marxistand defrocked priest, who has de-nounced the United States as “Satan,”and complains of the “deadly eco-nomic infection called capitalism.” Hehas special praise for “necklacing,”the African and Haitian practice of burning political enemies to death by putting gasoline-soaked tires aroundtheir necks and setting them ablaze.
He once called it “attractive, splendor-o u s , g r a c e f u l , a n d d a z -zling.” (UNESCO’s Man of the Year,The New American, Feb. 3, 1997.)
Words Come True
In the latest issue of his newsletter,columnist Samuel Francis notes theirony of Congressman Robert Dor-
nan’s loss in the November election.Mr. Dornan has represented part of Orange County, California for 18years, while the voting population be-came 50 percent Hispanic. He claimedto welcome this process. Early in1996, he told an interviewer, “I wantto see America stay a nation of immi-grants. And if we lose our NorthernEuropean stock—your coloring andmine, blue eyes and fair hair—tough.”
The voters of Orange County took him at his word. They voted for a 36-year-old daughter of immigrants,Loretta Sanchez, who kept remindingeveryone of her Mexican background.She had tried to run for office before,under her married name of Brixey, butwisely switched back to Sanchez tochallenge the blue-eyed incumbent.(For information about The Samuel
Francis Letter , write Box 19627, Al-exandria, Va. 22320)
Americans No More
More than half the population of New York City is now made up of immigrants or the children of immi-grants. The five top nations of originfrom 1990 to 1994, with percentagesof the total number, are: DominicanRepublic (19.6), former Soviet Union(11.8), China (10.6), Jamaica (5.8),Guyana (5.5). Mayor RudolphGiuliani thinks immigration is won-derful and helps “revitalize” the city.
(Susan Rabinowitz, City’s a Red-hotMelting Pot: Immigrant Study, NewYork Post, Jan. 9, 1997.)
Immigrants from many countries,including the Dominican Republic,Ecuador, Trinidad and Tobago, andColumbia, have the right to maintaintheir original nationality even if they become U.S. citizens. On December 10, Mexico passed a law providing for dual citizenship, and the law is likelyto be ratified by Mexico’s 31 state leg-islatures soon. In India, the powerfulHindu-nationalist party, Bharatiya
Janata, is promising to change the lawto allow expatriate Indians to holdoverseas citizenship. (Somini Sen-gupta, Immigrants in New York Press-ing Drive for Dual Nationality, NewYork Times, Dec. 30, 1996, p. B1.)
The big push for dual nationalityhas been prompted by recent measuresthat would deny U.S. welfare and so-cial security to non-citizens. Peoplewho have only an economic interest in
America can now continue to feed atthe public trough without violatingtheir true loyalties.
Whites in the Trenches
Although blacks are 12 percent of the population, they are 30 percent of the Army. However, they go mainlyinto support units, and are only nine percent of the infantry. It is mostlywhites who volunteer for the mud andgrit of combat units. As the Wall
Street Journal recently put it:“[T]hose parts of the Army with
the longest hours and the most back- breaking work are increasingly peo- pled by young white men, while the 9-to-5 jobs in clean, well-lit offices aretaken by soldiers who tend to be older, black and married.”
Hispanics, who are 10.6 percent of the population are only 5.3 percent of the army. Of the women in the army,fully 50 percent are black. (ThomasRicks, U.S. Infantry Surprise: It’s Now Mostly White; Blacks Hold Of-
fice Jobs, Wall Street Journal, Dec.12, 1996, p. 1.)
More Tricks
In 1995, the Board of Regents of the University of California systemvoted to end affirmative action. Thefirst students to apply for admissionunder the new, race-blind rules are
graduate students who will startschool this fall. The NAACP and theMexican American Legal, Defenseand Education Fund (MALDEF) havesued, claiming that this is illegal be-cause most graduate students work asresearch or teaching assistants. The plaintiffs claim that federal employ-ment law rather than California uni-versity regulations should therefore
apply, and that students should becovered by the affirmative action planthe University maintains to keep itsstatus as a federal contractor. Graduatestudents are generally treated as stu-dents rather than as employees, but theClinton administration is entirely ca- pable of deciding otherwise. (PamelaBurdman, Complaint Hits UC’s Ad-mission Policies, San FranciscoChronicle, Jan. 11, 1997, p. A1.)
Will There Always be an
England?Tottenham, an area of north Lon-
don, is heavily black. In 1985, Totten-hamites went on a rampage in whichthey killed a police officer andthrashed several others. BernardGrant, the black member of parliament
who represents Tottenham, said at thetime that the police got a “bloodygood hiding.” Now Mr. Grant has putin a request for five million pounds of government money to build a museumof black culture in Tottenham. Themuseum would highlight the “racism”that blacks suffer in England, andwould showcase the efforts of Mr.Grant, M.P., on behalf of his people.
One of his latest efforts was tocomplain that there were too manyScandinavian nurses at Homerton hos- pital, which treats many blacks.“Scandinavian people don’t know black people,” explained Mr. Grant.“They probably don’t know how totake their temperature.” (Linda Jack-son, Riot Museum ‘a Shrine’ to Tot-tenham MP, Sunday Telegraph(London), Dec. 29, 1996, p. 7.) ●
American Renaissance - 12 - March 1997
Announcements
● AR plans to hire an Assis-tant Editor, to start work thisspring. The location would bethe Washington, D.C. - north-ern Virginia area. Please con-tact us for more information.
● A number of readers haveinquired about the results of
the reader survey that we dis-tributed several months ago.We are tabulating the repliesand plan to report the resultssoon.
● Some readers who con-tacted the magazine, The Re-sistor, on the strength of a re-view in AR have written to saythat they received no responsefrom the magazine. The editor of The Resistor asks us to as-sure readers that everyone willreceive an issue in due course.
