“The Bell Curve” Debate

Eugenics bs

Peterson is usually smart, and often right. But on this one he's completely wrong. This is BS.

It's true, unfortunately, but fortunately the iQ test only measures one kind of so-called intelligence. Also racists run with it to make illogical claims.

Here's the deal.

I'm reading a book right now by Robert Plomin (one of the leading geneticists and directors of twin studies) called Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are. According to him, IQ has a lifetime heritability rate of 80%. In early childhood, IQ is more environmental and less genetic, but as you get older, IQ gradually becomes genetic and the earlier environment becomes irrelevant. By the time you're finished with high school, it's about 60% heritable. As Plomin puts it, people basically "grow into their genes." Another thing that Plomin points out, genes play a bigger role in a student's educational achievement than the quality of school the student goes to. The thing is, the "high quality" schools are often selective schools that select the smartest students to accept, so it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that the student is smart enough to go to a good college afterwards. The reason this is good to know is because many parents knock themselves out trying to spend lots of money on tuition for private schools or moving into a different neighborhood because the school has a better reputation, when in actuality, the school does not make as big of a difference as the child's genes do.

Secondly, there is a regression toward the average in each generation. Just like tall parents are likely to have taller than average children but the children aren't as tall as the parents, the same goes for IQ. So, the average IQ is 100. Two parents with an IQ of 130 are more likely to have a child with an IQ of 115 than an IQ of 130. Because of this, we do not have a solidified caste system across generations. Most super-geniuses don't have super-genius parents or super-genius children. There is variability across generations. I saw one good analogy on Quora. Let's use a poker hand as a metaphor for genes. If both parents have an IQ of 140, they have a royal flush. The child receives half of each parent's genes. Chances are, the child will not have a royal flush, but the child will still likely have a pretty good hand of cards.

Now, to Charles Murray's point in the Bell Curve -- he argued that IQ was a better predictor than the parents' socio-economic class as far as predicting success in life. Back in 1958, sociologist Michael Young predicted that meritocracy would lead to inequality. By definition, the meritocracy benefits the people who have merit. In 1994, Charles Murray observed that our meritocracy now favored people with higher IQs and brain power (which had become valuable in the marketplace), and to the extent that higher IQ is genetic, people's ability to do well in the meritocracy is genetic, and this was leading to a "cognitively stratified society."

In 2012, he published Coming Apart -- The State of White America 1960-2010. He compares White America in 1960 to White America in 2010 (using white people as a neutral reference point). In 1960, less people went to college, the average SAT for students attending Harvard was significantly lower. Over the years, as more and more people started going to college, it got more competitive, pushing up the average SAT for Harvard. As more and more "smart" people started going to the Ivy Leagues, they develop into a critical mass population and develop their own culture, their own bubble, and they're completely cut off from the average Americans. What also happens is that because these people are smarter, they disproportionately produce smarter kids, so this has an effect of most of the kids going to top universities coming from richer families. He points out that what he was predicting back in 1994 with the Bell Curve that we were headed toward a "cognitively stratified society" had now come to pass.

Now... regarding blacks... it's true that there is a gap in test scores between blacks and whites. When this was first observed back in the 60s, nobody thought anything of it because, "Well, of course! After years of slavery and Jim Crowe segregation and poor schools, of course they're going to do worse than white people on average! But after integrating the schools, they will catch up!" The test score gap between blacks and whites was gradually getting smaller during the '70s and '80s, but then it stopped in the early '90s, and it's been intractable ever since.

On the other hand, with Latinos, there is a smaller test score gap between Latinos and whites, but that has gradually been narrowing and continues to narrow. However, there is a growing test score gap between whites and Asians.

Is it genetics? Is it culture? Is it environment? The problem is, even when you control for socio-economic class, whites STILL perform better than blacks on the SAT. A white kid from a family making less than $30,000 still does better than average on the SAT than a black kid from a family making $70,000 a year. Even with parental level of education, white students with parents who are only high school graduates still outperform black students whose parents are college graduates.

Now... are genes responsible for this basic difference between whites and blacks? There is no conclusive evidence, but at the same time, it hasn't been definitively ruled out yet, and as Amy Wax said in a podcast with Glenn Loury, "If I had to make a high stakes bet, like my life or my children's life depended upon it, I would have to say that genes probably play a role. To what extent? I don't know."

A typical stupid claim is that the have-nots are in that position because they are too stupid to survive and succeed at capitalism. Whereas more often than not the have-nots have very little because the cards are stacked against them and they are need to exploited to keep so the haves can have more.

How many would argue that race doesn't impact height? Hair texture? Facial features? Susceptibility to various diseases? Why should it be any different with IQ?

It surely would explain a lot.

R6, smart people are better at seeing and seizing opportunities.

My father had four adult children by the time I was born, so I have four older Boomer siblings. The oldest daughter was from his first marriage, and he had adopted her out after divorcing Wife #1. She grew up in poverty, being sexually abused by her stepfather, eventually going into the foster care system. Meanwhile, my father became a multi-millionaire, a successful real estate businessman, and with Wife #2, he had three other children who grew up in a pretty stable, upper middle class life, went to a good public school. You would predict that the oldest daughter would have turned out worse than the more three advantaged children, right?

Well, that's not what happened. The oldest daughter eventually got back in touch with our dad, went to work with him, partnered up with him, and became a successful businesswoman. She even graduated college. The other three advantaged kids from Wife #2? The older son barely graduated high school, never made much money, abandoned his wife and kids, and pretty much just became a personal trainer and found women to help financially support him. He never really tried to do anything with his life. The next daughter did okay (but she got into the drug dealing business for awhile) but always struggled financially. The younger daughter barely got her GED, never went to college, not even community college, could never do anything other than simple office work, never made much money. These three kids could have utilized the same connection in their father that the oldest daughter used. What was stopping them? What was their excuse? They had had a privileged life compared to the oldest daughter.

As for me, I became a lawyer, and my younger full sister is about to start medical school. By the way, my maternal grandmother is the oldest daughter's mother (my mom is the oldest daughter's younger half-sister). My grandmother is Wife #1 and the next three kids' mom is Wife #2 and my dad never married my mom (Wife #1's daughter). I'm a lawyer, and my younger full sister is about to start medical school. One of my aunts used to say, "Wife #1's SMART kids vs. Wife #2's DUMB kids!" Genes make a difference.

There is no "debate." This cyclical attempt to revive racist caliper junk science is no different than insisting that alchemists were onto something by trying to turn lead into gold.

Typical race-baiting weekend troll thread.

[quote]How many would argue that race doesn't impact [...]

Biologists, R7, because biologically there is no such thing as "race."

This thread will end in tears.

When *The Bell Curve* came out, Stephen Jay Gould soberly demolished it in a New Yorker review that showed how the authors were completely disingenuous in treating the statistical method they relied on (attached). It's a technical matter that would escape the non-specialist reader (like me), but should have gotten a lot more attention.

[quote]In short, their own data indicate that IQ is not a major factor in determining variation in nearly all the social behaviors they study—and so their conclusions collapse, or at least become so greatly attenuated that their pessimism and conservative social agenda gain no significant support. Herrnstein and Murray actually admit as much in one crucial passage, but then they hid the pattern....

Poverty, with its attendant lack of access to decent education and health services, impacts IQ.

Just sayin', I didn't see too many black people among the ultra-morons at the Capitol on the 6th.

Slate did a good summary of everything shady about the book, including the machinations of the authors and publisher to release it in such a way that no legit critic would have time to refute its bullshit before the first wave of coverage was complete.

Anyone insisting that this garbage fire might still have "a point" is just priming the pump to revive overt racism in our public discourse.

I'm copy-pasting this from another thread where this ass was mentioned.

" At first I was going to cite The Bell Curve as a book existing since the 1990s that tried to present this idea, and was thoroughly debunked time and time again.

Lo and behold, this asshat is one of the authors.

Social Darwinism is an empty premise and its proclamation that the so called "superior whites" (or any particular race) are smarter or more capable than other races fall flat when you realise that during the dark ages in Europe, when women were being burned at the stake and people lived in shit infested streets, the East (Andalusia, Ming dynasty, Delhi Sultanate, the Ottomans, etc) were absolutely thriving and living through their golden ages. Flash forward a few centuries, Europe was living its own Golden age and ruling the world.

This kind of thinking isn't just silly and absurd, its outright dangerous when you realise that this ideology of being superior over people different than you is what leads to genocide and massacres. This fossil needs to crawl back to his crypt."

Also R7, education and childhood experiences don't affect your skin colour or hair pattern, but it sure as hell affects your intelligence. When you have groups of people who are constantly affected by the disproportionate and unequal wealth and resources disturbution, it's bound to affect their intellect yes. But the reason isn't genetic, it's environmental.

Jordan Peterson's logic is flawed in many ways.

R9 Privileged kids usually end up the worst and stupidest, I've known several over the years. My most long term friend, a white guy who I finally dumped last year for being a lifelong loser, was adopted at birth by a wealthy white family. He was the oldest and the mother later had three kids of her own. Only one ended up somewhat successful. The other three including my ex friend were all more or less losers/dead beats. My ex friend never graduated high school, has never had a job, has always lived on welfare and scammed his way onto disability, after his mother died last year, his father finally released his trust fund to him so he now gets 5k a month. Genetics have nothing to do with their all being losers, their millionaire wealthy environment never created a bunch of successful independent adults either. Sometimes folks are just destined to be losers and dead beats. Their "genetics" don't guarantee anything, and growing up healthy white privileged (a great optimal environment) doesn't guarantee they will do well either.

Her third video "race is real" is so racist. Can someone please deconstruct her bigoted arguments?

R16, poverty can play a role, but really smart people tend to move out of poverty, and as I explained up in R5, economic factors still don't fully explain the gap between white and black test scores.

It's important to recognize that a school's quality is not wholly a function of exogenous variables, but rather, it depends critically on endogenous elements, such as the characteristics, behavior, and education-related attitudes fo the students themselves. These factors are notoriously resistant to outside manipulation.

Genes or culture? Here's the deal, do I think if black people did a huge cultural shift and adopted an Amy Chua Tiger Mom helicopter parenting style, that the test score gap between blacks and whites would close? Yes, probably. But.... what is the best way to get black people to do that? I don't know, but I don't think blaming exogenous racial discrimination is the solution or answer.

R15, Stephen Jay Gould's book largely attacks outdated information about IQ the way Scientology criticizes psychiatry for long outdated practices.

R11: Right. But if you call them out, you're called a troll and hysterical and you're told to kill yourself by these projecting trolls. DL has a problem.

For people using Stephen Jay Gould to debunk Bell Curve:

Arthur Jensen and Bernard Davis argued that if the g factor (general intelligence factor) were replaced with a model that tested several types of intelligence, it would change results less than one might expect. Therefore, according to Jensen and Davis, the results of standardized tests of cognitive ability would continue to correlate with the results of other such standardized tests, and that the intellectual achievement gap between black and white people would remain.[40]

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton accused Gould of "scholarly malfeasance" for misrepresenting and for ignoring contemporary scientific research pertinent to the subject of his book, and for attacking dead hypotheses and methods of research. He faulted The Mismeasure of Man because it did not mention the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies that showed the existence of statistical correlations among brain-size, IQ, and the g factor, despite Rushton having sent copies of the MRI studies to Gould. Rushton further criticized the book for the absence of the results of five studies of twins reared apart corroborating the findings of Cyril Burt—the contemporary average was 0.75 compared to the average of 0.77 reported by Burt.[43]

James R. Flynn, a researcher critical of racial theories of intelligence, repeated the arguments of Arthur Jensen about the second edition of The Mismeasure of Man. Flynn wrote that "Gould's book evades all of Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black–white IQ gap, by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g no more need be said. This is manifestly false. Jensen’s arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or ten or one hundred factors."[44] Rather than defending Jensen and Rushton, however, Flynn concluded that the Flynn Effect, a nongenetic rise in IQ throughout the 20th century, invalidated their core argument because their methods falsely identified even this change as genetic.[44]

According to psychologist Ian Deary, Gould's claim that there is no relation between brain size and IQ is outdated. Furthermore, he reported that Gould refused to correct this in new editions of the book, even though newly available data were brought to his attention by several researchers.

I think the socioeconomic status of the household a kid is brought up in has a much greater effect on IQ than any other variable.

R23 and 25, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I wasn't referring to Gould's book; I was referring to (and linked to) his review of *The Bell Curve* itself.

When you lump people together by immutable characteristics - things like race, gender, sexual orientation - you absolutely invite this type of thinking. That is why the identity politics crowd is among the most racist and sexist group.

R27, Gould's second edition of his book is a criticism of The Bell Curve. So, his criticisms of the book is flawed.

R26, not true. Socio-economic status is part of the "shared environment," and the shared environment has less of an effect on IQ than genes do.

[quote]Biologists, [R7], because biologically there is no such thing as "race."

You don't think there are biological differences between, say, a Japanese man and an African man? Really?

It's the only novel Sylvia Plath wrote.

Even Frederik DeBoer, a self-proclaimed socialist, acknowledges “genetic parentage” sets limits on cognitive ability and that this inheritance “plays a larger role in determining human outcomes than the family or home environment.”

People assume that kids are blank slates and that money just molds them into smart people. Kids are not blank slates, and money has its limits.

R31, biological differences =/= "race." Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Jesus Christ. Can’t the Klan Grannies and MAGAts find a slimy rock to gather under. Why the fuck are they trying to make this site the new 4Chan?

[quote][R27], Gould's second edition of his book is a criticism of The Bell Curve. So, his criticisms of the book is flawed.

His criticisms of *The Bell Curve* are flawed because they were included in the 2nd ed. of a book whose argument was criticized on other grounds? You're going to have to be more specific than that.

R34 There is indeed a biological basis for race.

How do proponents of these theories expect to actually use this information? What do you all think is going to actually happen?

Do you want to be pre-selected for a better life because of your genius? Or do you think this will give you a leg up in the slow erosion of the middle and working classes?

R38, that's a good point - what's the end game of this?

The sociologist Michael Young was mentioned above - he coined the term 'meritocracy' but he used it to describe a dystopia where believing in meritocracy would legitimise inequality. Yet people co-opted his term to do exactly that.

The *Bell Curve* authors were explicit in expecting that their "information" should lead to the abandonment of social welfare programs—which apparently they thought were mainly concerned with lifting black people into a better life, and were thus useless given the (very modest) IQ deficit they posited for blacks versus whites.

It may have been the realization that social welfare programs mainly benefited whites that prompted Murray to write *Coming Apart*, in which he blamed poor whites for their lack of success. His agenda has always been about promoting inequality.

IQ differences are not the issue within first world countries. A government of a very rich country should guarantee a certain standard of living and basic human rights and financial security. A stupid person working a steady job for decades is a contributing member to that society and deserves his or her share.

What is more important is character, and civility and morality (does not need to be religion based). The problem among poor stupid people isn't their stupidity really (low IQ) its their absence of mental and physical health and character, and a proper financial return and proper respect given to them if they contribute to society. This does not include the severely handicapped and sick. Those deserve a dignified life because they are human and are living in a rich country.

So really the arguments about IQ difference are used where they do not belong.

Obviously most people in a society really cannot be the high achieving meritocracy but they deserve a decent life if they are decent and hardworking.

Eugenics, basically, since there's no consideration for humanity or that people may bring different things to the table (to be hyper-specialized in IQ doesn't seem like a good idea for the human race where diversity can help survival of the species and progress)?

IQ is such a narrow way of measuring intelligence - there's physical intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, artistic intelligence, intelligence to do with husbandry, and so forth.

R40, it's not a MODEST deficit. It's almost a whole standard deviation.

R41, that was Charles Murray's point. Just because you have a higher IQ doesn't mean you're morally more valuable. IQ is not courage, it's not kindness, it's not virtue, etc. His point that we need a valued place in society for people who have lower IQ and who won't be able to compete with higher IQ people.

R43, IQ is g, which is sort of the aggregate of all those different intelligences that psychometricians measure -- physical-kinesio intelligence, musical intelligance, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, visual-spacial intelligence, verbal-linguistic intelligence, and math-logic intelligence. If you have a high IQ, you may have a much higher verbal-linguistic intelligence than you have in math-logic intelligence, but your math-logic intelligence is probably still higher than that of someone with a lower IQ.

R45, lol no, someone who is gifted in sport or dance isn't going to ever get that spotted by an IQ test. There are lots of people with high IQs who do and contribute nothing much of worth to the world.

Well, R46, there is probably a lower correlation between IQ and phsyical-kinesio intelligence compared to the other types of intelligence, but there is still correlation.

And lots of people with IQs who don't contribute anything says nothing about the AVERAGE of people with high IQs.

In which we discuss "ideas" of "thinkers" by which we mean "white supremacists."

One point I see is being missed is that the variation within races is MUCH larger than the variation between races. I recall seeing somewhere the bell curve graphs for various races overlaid over each other, and it was really striking just how big the overlap was compared to the slight differences.

My conclusion is - yes, its genetic, but race is relatively insignificant. Treat people as individuals. And IQ alone does not a good person make something that other above me have pointed out thankfully

Regardless of whether races are a predictor of IQ or not, the fact that IQ would be a function of your genetics has implications. It means that were not all born with the same level of intelligence and, potentially, there's not much we can do about it.

The question becomes what kind of model of society for we want? If some people are born more intelligent than others, and some of them exploit that intelligence, then inevitably, inequality gaps will arise. To take an artificial example, if Sarah is much more intelligent than Sophie, and Sarah starts getting serious about school, and then her career, she might end up being a millionaire while Sophie might end up not. There's some variability, but on average, that scenario is more likely than the converse.

How do we ensure some form of fairness so that people get rewarded based on their contributions while avoiding exponential inequalities.

Obvious we do it through democratic socialism and progressive taxation. And reward other human virtues than IQ and apex performance in meritocracy, finance, et. Some of these human virtues even make sense in capitalism! If you have a entire class of service workers, stop thinking of service work as "unskilled". It really is anything but that. And do you know how hard it is for anyone to get up and go to work day after day, year after year, do it well, take on some modest responsibilities, be TRUSTED, be pleasant at work? That all needs to be rewarded and it's not about IQ. Sheesh.

OP, please quote Jordan connecting IQ and race. I have never heard him say this nor read it in any of his books. He does make the case that IQ does impact the outcomes in one's life, as do several other human characteristice.. TIA for the quote.

[quote]if Sarah is much more intelligent than Sophie, and Sarah starts getting serious about school, and then her career, she might end up being a millionaire while Sophie might end up not.

And so?

Life isn't fair. Never was, never will be. "Equity" is an impossible goal.

One thing we can do is we should stop thinking that everyone is college material. We should be developing learning centers for skills and trades.

Trivia: I took the ASVAB in 1980 as part of the NLSY79, which is the test and study that the book The Bell Curve used. The study is still going on after 40 years.

We know that everyone is not "college material". It is industry that demanded that as entry to financially stable occupations for the average Joe. College education isn't necessary for many jobs that require one.

R37, of course you have to cite someone whose work has been debunked just like Murray's.

Future generations will look at how the study of genetics was hobbled by scientists in order to be politically correct. It's just like the scientists who now say they couldn't discuss even the possibility that Covid-19 came from the lab.

R36 Politics.

The response from Wade to the geneticists says it all. The entire subject is a taboo.

Sorry, the post at R58 is in response to R56.

In the 18th Century a bunch of Europeans who were not scientists decided that people with light skin were the "Caucasian race" because they incorrectly believed that human beings originated from the Caucasus Mountain area. But do go on about how science is hobbled by political correctness while you cling to the vestiges of this nonsense.

Whites know that Asians are smarter than them and they just accept it.

R60 We all classify people by race.

As is done all over the world.

But keep making a fool of yourself.

R62, yeah, and? That's not science, stupid. And it's not done "all over the world."

R61, no they don't and they don't. The "model minority" crap was made up by William Peterson in the 60s to both pit Japanese Americans against Blacks and downplay the harm that resulted from internment and other anti-Asian violence in order to dispel the need for civil rights reform. White people love Asians when they need a cudgel against Blacks fighting for equality; the rest of the time they ignore the fact that, for example, Asians have higher poverty rates, lower homeownership rates, and very high gambling and suicide rates.

Not to mention that once you start breaking down the very vast group that is "Asians" into the various ethnicities and nationalities, the whole myth of "Asian" superiority completely falls apart.

I taught English in South Korea for a decade. Every public school I worked at started all the students off in the morning by doing practice IQ tests before classes started.

The Korean kids were no smarter than my Thai students, but they've trained their brains from a very young age. No hate - it seems to be working for them (along with valuing higher learning).

[quote]And it's not done "all over the world."

And speaking of low IQs...

Your own government categorizes people by race.

r63 white people talk about Asians being smarter all the time. If their kids are in a school with a big Asian population they tend to get a little nervous that their kids won't do as well.

Yes, and my racist government was the first in history to do so. So, once again, not "all over the world."

IQ world ranking:

The Tiger Parents of Silicon Valley

White and Asian students in California schools self-segregate. That’s a pity—and a problem.

[quote] “Many white parents say they’re leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurricular activities like sports and other personal interests. The two schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian.”

From R68's link:

[quote]The Intelligence Capital Index, or ICI, is used to determine the intelligence of the world's countries. This index uses several factors to determine which nations are most likely to develop the most advanced ideas of the future. Based on this study, the United States is ranked number one and is the only nation to receive an A+ rating.

Aaaaaaand that's how we know it's bullshit.

For the low IQ dummy at R68. Learn to read.

The Intelligence Capital Index and the IQ rankings are two different things.

Scroll down for the IQ ranking.

^^^For R70 not R68.

Yes, R71, that's why I specifically quoted how the Intelligence Capital Rating was defined. Learn to read, indeed.

[quote]Whites know that Asians are smarter than them and they just accept it.

It’s even celebrated and appreciated.

So R70, What country do you think is "most likely to develop the most advanced ideas of the future."

[quote] What country do you think is "most likely to develop the most advanced ideas of the future."

One that is run by nonbinaries, genderqueers and trans POC!

LOL, what are some "advanced ideas of the future" being developed? High speed public transport? Because the US is way behind several countries on that. Renewable energy? We're behind there too. High speed internet? Again, the US is lagging there. Fighting climate change? Hahahaha. Quality of life? Americans get shafted on vacation, wages, access to affordable housing, and child care compared to other wealthy nations. Hell, we can't even make progress on a public health crisis like gun violence. So by what standards is the US the ONLY A+ country?

R77 What country do you think is "most likely to develop the most advanced ideas of the future."?

Not the US. At least not while we're stuck with so many people like you in it.

Ok. Not the US. Got it. So, what country?

Your silly attempt at baiting is pointless. Almost as pointless as your attempts to justify racism. It's a stupid metric, and the fact that whoever came up with it gave the US the ONLY A+ rating confirms it. You may as well ask "Which country has the really cool kids?"

So, the end goal is to have the smartest plucked from among the idiot masses, in order to lead us bravely into the future. Is that the idea, R81?

Genuinely asking, not trolling.

[quote}It's a stupid metric

[quote]You may as well ask "Which country has the really cool kids?"

*sigh*

Even the The Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) (a yearly report published by the World Economic Forum) ranks the US at the top only behind Singapore

The report has twelve pillars of competitiveness. These are:

Institutions

Appropriate infrastructure

Stable macroeconomic framework

Good health and primary education

Higher education and training

Efficient goods markets

Efficient labor markets

Developed financial markets

Ability to harness existing technology

Market size—both domestic and international

Production of new and different goods using the most sophisticated production processes

Innovation

R82 was meant for R78.

[quote]“Many white parents say they’re leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts ...."

A quibble here, but math and science ARE liberal arts. I think the writer must mean "at the expense of the humanities" or a similar phrase.

R83 even if you accepted that report with its limitations as any kind of standard, the top 6 countries are within 1-2 points of each other. But you use it to justify a ranking of the US as the ONLY A+ country "most likely to develop the most advanced ideas of the future."

For fucks sake, enough. I know it's hard for racists to take, but the country that turned racism into an art form is not actually the best at everything.

What the FUCK is happening on this board?

It's funny that conservatives have latched onto this because I bet studies would show that liberals have higher IQs than conservatives. How many smart people are anti-choice or think homosexuality can be cured through prayer?

I don't know r87 why don't you tell us?

There are two race-baiting trolls on this thread.

R63 So overall Asians have the highest median income, are rarely perpetrators of crime and violence, are overrepresented in our top universities, are over represented in the STEM fields but the "model minority" label is just a myth....

"Overall" the Burmese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian Asians have drastically different outcomes in the US than the Indian, Japanese, Filipino, and Pakistani Asians, but do go on with your race science.

Indians and Pakistanis aren't included in the "Asian" label in the US. "Asian" in the US means East Asians only.

You're just determined to be as wrong as possible as often as possible.

[quote]Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

[quote]the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and that it is a better predictor of many personal outcomes, including financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status.

Flawed syllogism.

If inherited AND environmental factors influence intelligence, the the parents' socioeconomic status is a key influencer of intelligence. In turn, the socioeconomic status of the parents becomes a predictor of the "personal" outcomes, they claim are a function of that same intelligence.

* I seem to remember Nigerian-Americans being held up as a way to debunk Murray's theory--they are more affluent, more successful academically and have higher IQs than any other ethnic group, black, white or Asian. You can argue that the Nigerians coming to the US are from the upper classes and well educated, which is how they wound up here. But they are also from the tribes who were most victimized by slave traders and thus genetically very similar to Black Americans who are descended from enslaved people.

* Was it The Bell Curve that posited that the Blacks in America were descended from people who made good field hands and thus physical prowess is their genetic destiny, not academics?

* Pointing out that some Asian immigrant groups do not excel academically is like pointing out differences between Albanians and Brits to dispel theories about "Europeans" It is Chinese and Korean immigrants who promote the "tiger parent" culture.

* Like the Nigerians, many of the Indians in the US are from upper caste Brahmin families--they are well educated back home which is why they were allowed in the US

* All of the various recent immigrant groups seem to be following in the path of the Jews in America--the first two generations are very success-at-all-costs focused, generations after that resemble their upper middle class American peers and the notion of "happiness" plays a bigger role.

Genes aren't the reason why there's an education gap. Culture (both inside & outside the home) and economics is.

I aught a lot of Chinese and Korean students. Very hardworking and studious but very bad at out of the box thinking. I’m not sure there is an ethnic group that has an advantage in creativity. The US did well in the past by encouraging immigration and providing incentives like wealth for original and creative thinkers. It should continue to do that I n the future. I notice a lot of Eastern Europeans and East Asians doing well as tech entrepreneurs. I am why they seem to have the edge lately

,,,taught,,, I am unsure …

r94 are you American? In the US "Asian" exclusively means East Asian. The current wave of violence against Asians in the US is a good example. Everybody uses "Asian" to refer to the people being attacked, even though they are all East Asians.

[quote]In the US "Asian" exclusively means East Asian.

You mean, that's how you see it, and using just your view, you have extrapolated from that what the rest of the country must think.

No r101 Asian in the US exclusively means East Asian. I can't believe this is actually being debated. When a person says something like "the Asian guy I work with" nobody thinks he means Indian or Pakistani.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Asian person" in the United States is most often thought of as a person of East Asian descent. In vernacular usage, "Asian" is usually used to refer to those of East Asian descent or anyone else of Asian descent with epicanthic eyefolds. This differs from the U.S. Census definition

Silly R100

In America, "Asians" refers to both East Asians (Chinese and Koreans) and South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis)

It's sort of a foolish lumping together of groups that have little in common, including skin color, but it is indeed the norm.

I suspect a lot of it stems from there being no easy term for South Asians other than "South Asians" so they are all grouped together as "Asians"

[quote] The Census Bureau defines a person of the Asian race as “having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.”

[quote] In 1930 and 1940, Indian Americans were identified as a separate race, Hindu, and in 1950 and 1960 they were racially classified as Other Race, and then in 1970 they were classified as White. Since 1980, Indians and all other South Asians have been classified as part of the Asian ethnic group.[28] Sociologist Madhulika Khandelwal described how "....as a result of activism, South Asians came to be included as 'Asians' in the census only in the 80's. Prior to that many South Asians had been checking 'Caucasian' or 'Other'."[29]

In the West, you can’t say such things and “eugenics” is deemed inherently evil.

Even if someday the genetics of intelligence are discovered and clearly correlated with race, it’ll be denied in the West and the scientists will be villified. If the scientists are foreign, the US and EU might very well impose sanctions on them and their institutions.

This is why the future lies in East Asia.

IQ and acceptance of science is destiny.

Sam Harris discusses his fight work Ezra Klein.

I don't know what rock the above poster is living under, but in America "Asian" refers to East Asians only. Indians and Pakistanis are separate, usually called South Asians.

You can't go by the US census, there have been calls to change its racial classifications for years. Arabs/North Africans are included under the "white" banner, much to their consternation.

I bet the posters fighting about “Asian” aren’t themselves any sort of Asian.

[quote]In America, "Asians" refers to both East Asians (Chinese and Koreans) and South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis/Bangladeshis)

On official government documents, yes. Everywhere else, no.

[quote]I don't know what rock the above poster is living under, but in America "Asian" refers to East Asians only.

Yes, we know what it means in your mind. The discussion is about what everyone else in the country thinks.

And r113 Asian in the US is usually understood to exclusively mean East Asian. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

Conversely, "Asian" in the UK is understood as a person of South Asian heritage.

I’m East Asian and American. I distinguish East Asians from Southeast Asians, South Asians, and Central Asians. “Western Asians” aren’t a thing, since we just use “Middle Eastern.”

I think if you’re actually Asian American, you know these distinctions.

You know these distinctions *and commonly use these appellations

Most Americans would consider muslim countries in South/Southwest Asia as part of the Middle East (Pakistan, for instance).

South Asian, then, is synonymous with Indian, which is shorter. Plus Indians are typically seen as quite distinct physically and culturally from East Asians.

Most Asians and Asian culture in the US are from East Asia. This is reflected through the Chinatowns, Vietnamese sandwich places, anime and manga conventions, "Asian fusion" restaurants, Kpop, among other things.

There's very few Central Asians here, South Asians usually call themselves Indians or South Asians, and West Asians are just called Arabs/Muslims/Persians/Turks, though they're classified as white.

I think it's because until recently East Asians were the only Asians in America in large groups. Chinese immigrants have a lot of history in the western states, and many Japanese immigrants came as well.

R100, R109, etc. that's absolutely false. There's the US Census definition, but also the definition used in all the major statistical and polling data--BJS, Gallup, Pew, etc. Not to mention the hundreds+ of Asian advocacy groups that define Asian similarly. Such as the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian American Advocacy Fund, AAPI Data, and the Asian American Federation. All advocate for East and Southeast Asians. Advocacy groups that focus on East vs. Southeast etc. Asians typically specify that in their name or mission statement. But do go on and tell them all they're using "Asian" the wrong way.

[quote]And [R113] Asian in the US is usually understood to exclusively mean East Asian. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

I get it that in your mind you firmly believe that everyone must think the same way as you do. It doesn't work that way.

Ok we don't care to see you two fight over the definition of Asians.

Colloquially, Asian in the US means East Asian. This is common knowledge. When someone says "I went to the new Asian fusion restaurant" or "I went to the Asian bodega" nobody thinks they're talking about Indians or Pakistanis. Where do some Dlers come from? They're so out of touch with the bare basics of common society.

There may be differences in usage in various US states. In California, where there is a significant population of “Asians”, everyone knows that Asian refers to East Asian—Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, etc.

Individuals in the US who are ethnically identified with the Indian subcontinent are referred to colloquially as “Indian.” Thus the confusion when Americans watch UK cop shows—they use Asian to refer to Indian and Pakistani.

In Flyoverstan, with few East Asians, usage may be different. But I t has zero to do with official census documents. It is a matter of common usage, and in US media, series, movies and other media content & shows, Asian means East Asian. Never the Indian subcontinent.

[quote]And [[R113]] Asian in the US is usually understood to exclusively mean East Asian. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

You're correct.

Even the entire anti-Asian hate campaign news was about East Asians. Those are the people that even the media is referring to when using the word "Asian". "Asians" inferred East Asians. There was no need to further define the word.

Should it be this way? No. But that's the way it is. That's the reality of it. Trying to argue otherwise is foolish.

[quote] I've been dying to ask an ER RN this. Don't take it personally, but isn't it true many nurses are drug addicts? I knew a UCLA nurse AND a psychiatric nurse and they both had drug histories you wouldn't believe. The latter got Hep C from needles. Is it the stress? (Must be like combat.)

Jesus, you sound like a real idiot

Jinx to r124

You owe me a coke, even though you posted first, I called jinx first.

The Vietnamese and Thai are not East Asians, so all you idiots are doing is further demonstrating your ignorance.

Again, please bring your nonsense to any of the many many many Asian advocacy groups that include South, East, and Southeast Asians in their clientele. And while you're at it, please find all the major statistical reporting agencies about Asian Americans that only include East Asians in that category.

Colloquially people use Hispanic vs. Latino incorrectly all the time., and there are plenty of folks who refuse to use either term even though they meet the definition. That doesn't change their "official" meanings. And since this whole silly digression came about as a result of official stats about Asians being a model minority. Those stats absolutely include South Asians, especially since the myth doesn't stretch as far without them.

R129 It's not a myth. Although some want it to be,,,

r128 you stated it better than I did.

[quote]The Vietnamese and Thai are not East Asians, so all you idiots are doing is further demonstrating your ignorance.

Let's put it another way. "Asian" in the US exclusively means the people who used to be called "Oriental."

[quote]Asians being a model minority. Those stats absolutely include South Asians, especially since the myth doesn't stretch as far without them.

Again, in common usage the "model minority" model exclusively means East Asian. The US census and government agencies are not part of common usage/colloquial usage of what Americans define as Asian.

^Except it doesn't but you keep trying.

In the US who refers to Pakistanis as Asians?

(besides R129)

Sorry r134 it doesn't in your mind, but as far as the American general public is concerned it does.

Oh yeah, sure, no one includes South Asians in the model minority myth. All this activism materialized from nothing.

So I go offline for an hour, then come back. And those two bitches are still fighting over the definition of Asians? For God's sake! Give it a rest!

"In The Karma of Brown Folk, you speak a lot of the subtext involved in the discussion of Indians as a model minority."

Note how even he makes a distinction.

Say "Asian" to an average American and "Indian" is NOT what comes to mind.

Give it up r137. You were PWNED several times in this thread. Finish snorting your Adderall and call it a night.

Girls! GIRLS! Please!

Can everyone just take a break about the who has the right definition of Asians?

R135, I’m just a stupid American, but “Asian” generally means people who are otherwise known as “East Asian”. People otherwise known as “South Asian” are “Indian” - even if they’re Pakistani.

Sorry.

R139 he identifies as Asian several times in the interview. Stop lying.

Asian-Americans have dominated the National Spelling Bee, so they are not only good at math and science, but also spelling.

It’s an inconvenient truth that can be publicly discussed, and so the falsehood of its falsity is aggressively promoted. Its pointless arguing about it because its truth is considered too socially disruptive to be accepted. There are other examples of such truths, but society cannot deal with them in any rational manner so the conversation is shut down. You just have to live with it.

typo: “CAN’T be publicly discussed”

For evidence of bigots IDing South Asians as Asians to boost the model minority myth, you all can look no further than your hero Charles Murray. He does it ALL THE TIME.

[quote]There are other examples of such truths, but society cannot deal with them in any rational manner so the conversation is shut down. You just have to live with it.

Like the problems with America's cities and the constant violence?

Another example:

^^^^ r149 link is from 2012. btw. Eight years and two elections ago, for what it’s worth.

^ Yeah, Murray's been doing this consistently for almost 30 years. And?

What kind of curve accounts for Instagram whores?

Here;s what;s so fascinating and so DL about this thread.

The Team EastAsians poster cannot conceive that in the part of the country where Team SouthAsian lives (or just among people they know) that "Asian" is a more all-encompassing term.

It's not what he does and thus IT MUST BE WRONG AND IT MUST BE CORRECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN

Rather than the more common response which would be "that's interesting. In my world, "Asian" only refers to East Asians. But it seems it has a more expansive definition elsewhere"

Where I live South Asians call themselves brown people, so fuck off.

The book has lots of shoddy aspects but I think its conclusions were caricatured to make it seem much more eugenics/racist-based than it actually was. The book was looking at all sorts of issues and their effect on iq - not just race. For example, single-parent families led to children with lower IQ. Given that the Black community was roughly 70% single-parent, the suggestion was that *that* could be the issue, not necessarily the color of one's skin. And I don't believe the book actually made the argument that one race was genetically inferior to the other - or that something like the IQ issue was immutable and couldn't change with better policies. But definitely behind it all was a totally tendentious, right-wing argument attacking the social welfare policies of the New Deal era.

R153. What country/state are you posting from?

Russia?

[quote]But definitely behind it all was a totally tendentious, right-wing argument attacking the social welfare policies of the New Deal era.

You clearly haven’t read it. Clearly. It was an entirely neutral work, simply raising issues, but making no conclusions. Haven’t read it in a while, but it raised 1960s War on Poverty policies (LBJ) not, 1930s Roosevelt New Deal policies. ffs.

[quote]It was an entirely neutral work, simply raising issues, but making no conclusions.

R158, please contact me immediately about a bridge I have for sale.

r153 "Asian" means exclusively East Asian throughout the US.

OMG you're still arguing about what "Asian" means in X context?

None of you are East Asian, clearly (IQ).

Time For Wapner, R161

Time For Wapner

Asians means East Asians

Time For Wapner

R160 - what the fuck are you talking about - no it doesn't!

Of course a thread about IQ would devolve into this mess.

Read the above posts r163. It does in the US.

It looks like all the rational people have agreed, of course, that Asian does not mean only East Asian in the U.S. I hope DLers from other countries realize the nutjob who keeps stating otherwise is just a loon and is not representative.

Say "Asian" to an American and ask them what image comes up for them. It's not Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans. For the Brits yes. But not in the US.

I'm fascinated by why it is so important for him to be right about this, R167

As if there were an objective metric.

R167 There is more than one person here saying what is perfectly obvious.

Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans are not what the average American thinks of when you say the word Asian. The British do...Americans don't.

Americans are pretty dumb about geography.

I'm not r167 and I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time with a response ... but in a sense, it *is* objective.

If I discuss someone I know with a fellow American and say "She's the Asian woman on committee X," we'd both know she's East Asian (or Southeast Asian). There is a 0% chance he would infer she was Indian or Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

In the same way, if I said, "Jim has a fetish for Asian women," we'd know he wasn't dating a series of Indian women.

[quote] By the way, my maternal grandmother is the oldest daughter's mother (my mom is the oldest daughter's younger half-sister). My grandmother is Wife #1 and the next three kids' mom is Wife #2 and my dad never married my mom (Wife #1's daughter). I'm a lawyer, and my younger full sister is about to start medical school. One of my aunts used to say, "Wife #1's SMART kids vs. Wife #2's DUMB kids!" Genes make a difference.

R9, your dad had kids with your grandmother??

Yeah what R171 said. God that was a confusing post.

R171, my dad had ONE kid with my mother's mother, his first wife. But he was divorced from my grandmother before my mother was born, and my father never met my mother until she was 24. So it's not exactly a Woody Allen/Mia Farrow/Soon-Yi situation.

Funnily enough, after my parents split up, my dad briefly married my grandmother's stepsister a few years later. Three women from the same family!

That's pretty fucked up let's not pretend otherwise

Super fucked up. R9, I hope this is just an EST.

I never really understood why people group east and south asians together. They are different enough that it should warrant two separate groups. Any all inclusive 'asian' discussion means nothing (and asian usually means east asian in the U.S.)

The people arguing about the meaning of “Asian” over multiple days are missing the point of the thread.

After the agreement that in the U.S. Asian did not mean only East Asian, the argument, if it could be called that, petered out

Actually the people insisting Asian means only East Asian because that’s all they know demonstrate beautifully the stupidity of race based “science.”

[quote]Actually the people insisting Asian means only East Asian

See what you do?

No one is insisting that Asian "means only East Asian".

What is being said is that in the US, to most Americans the word Asian usually means east asian.

Is it ignorance? Yes.

But the fact is: Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans are not what the average American thinks of when you say the word Asian.

I'm fascinated R180-- why does this matter so much to you?

Is it one of those "I'll come to bed in 10 minutes, but someone on the internet is WRONG!" things?

Are you, in fact, East Asian?

Please tell us why this is so important to you!!!

R181 Funny, I'm fascinated why this is so important to YOU. Just truly fascinated. Enthralled really.

I'm always curious why people feel the need to convince other people of things online, as if someone were going to read a random post, tweet or comment and re-evaluate their belief system as a result.

You've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convince other posters that "Asian" only means "East Asian" or that colloquially, it only means "East Asian"

So I'm trying to understand your thought process and learn why it's important to you to keep making this point over and over again.

Tell us more R183. We're all ears.

Well, I'm also wondering about why this debate has taken up so much space here, but the fact is that in the US the ethnic/racial term "Asian" is taken by default as "East Asian" in the absence of some other context, and I've been assuming that those saying otherwise are unfamiliar with everyday American terminology (or are just inveterate hairsplitters). For example, do a Google Image search of "Asian students" or "Asian workers" (etc.), and almost all the photos will be of people of East Asian background.

What a coincidence that the author just happened to be born in the race with "superior IQ"!

Race is a uniquely American construct. Is it a wonder that it gets confusing when we realize the world is more than just black and white.

[quote]Race is a uniquely American construct.

Oh really? Uniquely American? Have you lived anywhere other than the US?

R187 The author is Asian?

R189, America has had a strong influence around the world.

Historically, there was never a concept of human races based on skin color until it appeared in the US to justify slavery.

R187, no, the author is white, but he believes whites and Asians both have superior IQs with Asians being slightly higher.

Yet, I've never seen a convincing correlation between IQ and life outcomes.

The IQ test is a poor gauge of intelligence. There are so many types of intelligence--that one test can't even hope to define it.

Race is not a uniquely American construct, but it developed out of the exchange of ideas that went on between the Americas and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. "American slavery" started as European colonial slavery before the US came into being.

I just want to know if Siberian Americans count as Asian Americans. What if they are from Vladivostok? That's some East Asian right there.

Maybe Boris can let us know.

R193, it doesn't matter. On ANY test, whether it be the LSAT, SAT, ACT, regular IQ test, armed forces test, etc. blacks CONSISTENTLY, on AVERAGE, do worse than whites.

Nobody claims that it's a perfect predictor. But on on a macro level, THIS MATTERS, and it STILL has predictive value, otherwise it would have been scrapped long ago.

[quote] Race is not a uniquely American construct, but it developed out of the exchange of ideas that went on between the Americas and Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. "American slavery" started as European colonial slavery before the US came into being.

"American" and "US" are not always the same thing. The Race concept is an American one, meaning it was defined by the American experience with slaves, yes, even before a US was a created.

No, R197, neither Americans nor white people invented the concept of "race." That has existed as far back as ancient times.

This is a 2004 book called The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, by Benjamin Isaac. Classical antiquity came just a little bit before American oligarchs. On page 148 of this book, Professor Isaac summarizes the ideas of the Greeks and Romans.

"Thus we have seen that there is a long-standing tradition in Greek and Latin literature of idealizing the concepts of unmixed origin, pure lineage, and autochtony." (Auochthony means being the original people in a place.) This entails explicit statements that intermarriage between peoples produces descendants of inferior quality--physical, mental, and moral--consistent marriage between men and women belong to the same people will result in superior human beings. No rationale for these views is given, but they were strongly held all the same. Closely related is the idea, known particularly well from Athens, that autochthony produces better people, linked with their native soil. This link, valuable in itself, has the additional advantage that it is represented as a superior moral claim to possession of the land. These ideas were widespread in Rome, even though Roman legends do not make such claims for the early Romans. Athens gave citizenship only to children of two citizens. The Romans granted it liberally.

A belief in the superiority of unmixed origin is necessarily an historical fiction. (1) It reflects a conviction that the quality of an entire people is determined by lineage and origin only, and will be stable if protected against foreign contamination. (2) It regards some peoples as superior, others as inferiors, solely on a random biological or genetic basis. (3) The assumption that mixed origin necessarily leads to degeneration and deterioration represents a form of xenophobia, or fear of ethnic contamination which again is based solely on biological prejudice. (4) The fiction fo autochthony assumes a physical relationship between man and land which, by definition, turns an immigrant or descendant of immigrants into an inferior being and justifies keeping such people in an inferior status."

No, this isn’t a summary of Mein Kampf. It’s what the Greeks and Romans thought. Prof. Isaac says Aristotle taught that there was such a huge difference between Greeks and their enemies to the East that the latter should be conquered and “treated like plants and animals.”

The Egyptian Book of Gates dates from the New Kingdom, or from the 16th to 11th centuries BC. It’s about the “gates” the soul passes through after death. ­­Three thousand five hundred years ago, Egyptians recognized what they called the four races of man: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, and Egyptian.

The Egyptians enslaved blacks. Here is an Egyptian Pharaoh crushing his foes as dogs attack them. They are clearly black, and are different from the pharaoh.

Arabs were keenly aware of race. The book, Race and Slavery in the Middle East, tells you all about it. In the 9th century, Al-Jahiz of Basra wrote a book about animals. He also wrote about black Africans, whom he called Zanj. “We know that the Zanj are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind and least capable of understanding the consequences of actions.”

Al-Mas’udi was a 10th century historian known as the Herodotus of the Arabs. He wrote that the Zanj “are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.”

Arabs didn’t like whites either. Abu Firas al-Hamadani was an Iraqi Arab, writing in the 10th century. He complained that what he called “the infants dropped from the wombs of Slavs,” were “blanched, and leprous colored.” But Africans were worse: They were “overdone in the womb until they are burned, so that the child comes out something between black, murky, malodorous, stinking, and crinkly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions.”

Ibn Khaldun lived in the 14th century and was one of the great philosophers of the Middle Ages. He wrote: “The Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because Negroes have little that is essentially human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals.”

[quote]The Race concept is an American one,

You know nothing about history and other cultures.

Well, I'm an ancient historian and we tend to use the terms "race" and "racism" very cautiously when dealing with different periods of history. Certainly ancient cultures had prejudice and discrimination based on people's different appearances and places of origins, and lumped people together, but each period has its own characteristic ways of doing that. The modern concept that emerged from European colonialism doesn't map neatly onto earlier ones (terminology likewise), and it's best not to generalize. Isaacs's title, by the way, is more provocative than his actual thesis, which is about "proto-racism" and distinguishes the ancient practice from the modern concept with all its inseparable pseudo-scientific baggage (the topic of this thread).

Oops, I'm not R197, I'm R194.

The Bell Curve is Sylvia Plath’s greatest work.

I took a look at the Amazon reviews for that book R201. Islamic arabs, it seems, were some of those most brutal slave owners in history. Someone in the review section commented that the author is surprised at the lack of large black and mulatto populations in the middle east given they enslaved blacks for three times longer than the Americas. Apparently there was a slave revolt sometime in the10th century that historians classify as one of the largest if not the largest in history but it has been faked or denied by Islam scholars. Interesting nonetheless but it seems Arabs were historically far more racist yet it never gets talked about

[quote] No, [R197], neither Americans nor white people invented the concept of "race." That has existed as far back as ancient times.

No, it hasn’t. The concept of race is a relatively new woke thing.

[quote]The Race concept is an American one

Repeat it over and over again...but it's still not true.

Name one other country that has race.