Re: Is white racism nec. all bad?
Arun Gupta (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 16 Apr 1995 12:28:04 GMT
In article <email@example.com>,
Frank Forman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Why not go read Rushton's book for yourselves, instead of hostile
>reviews of it? When I said, "I offer the book in evidence," I meant
>just that. Make up your own minds!
> Rushton offered a tremendous amount of evidence for the r-K theory
>(r meaning high reproduction and little nuturing per offspring; K being
>the reverse) as it applies to humans, penis size just being one factor.
>And for that he produced other evidence, including the testimony of
Why not go and read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for "evidence" about the
degenerate nature of Jews ?
What I posted is not a review of Rushton's book. It actually comes
from a discussion of the "science" behind Murray and Hernnstein's
"The Bell Curve". The point is that with the methods of "research"
that Rushton, Lynn etc. follow, their findings are not better than
> Again, I see lots of nit-picking and NO evidence that there are no
>innate psychological differences among the various subdivisions of man.
> One very, very interesting thing I learned from the book, whose
>significance may have eluded Rushton himself. That is that American
>Indians behave like K strategists, even though they test lower on IQ
>tests than American whites. Since American Indians are mongoloid (with
>lots of caucasoid features, acc. to Coon), this means that race is
>important independently of intelligence. It also means that the r-K
>theory does not predict everything, as Rushton repeatedly said.