Bronze-level articleRacialism

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Racialist)
Jump to: navigation, search
The touchy subject of


Key concepts
Racism and racists
Automatons led by a lunatic who looked like Charlie Chaplin


Notable figures
The Third Reich
Style over substance


Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
Edgar & Hunley (2009)

Racialism is the pseudo-scientific view living humans can be pigeon-holed into relatively discrete, large (continental) groups of populations, or that human populations are substantially different from each other in some measure to support biological classification below the species level. Most racialists maintain there is also a racial hierarchy.

Early attempts at race classification drew largely on Carl Linnaeus' Systema Naturae (1735), in which he posited five races: the Europeanus, the Africanus, the Americanus, the Asiaticus, and the Monstrosus (made up of mythical creatures).[1] Racialism was virtually unchallenged until the 1960s — 70s, when it was shown to be erroneous by genetics:

The rejection of the race concept by most anthropologists beginning most recently in the 1960s, was based on the genetic evidence... Conformity to political correctness was not the cause of these changes.[2]

People who today identify as "racial realists" (e.g. David Duke, Jared Taylor[wp] and Metapedia) should be a big clue as to the far-right politics behind 21st century racialism.


Subsets and names

Alternate names

Very few racialists call themselves "racialist". Instead, because straight-up racism isn't hip anymore, the euphemism treadmill rolls at full speed:

  • Scientific racism: While scientific racists do have to admit their racism, they also get the joy of slapping the "approval" of SCIENCE on it.
  • Racial realism or race realism: Racial realists get a two-pronged advantage: First, they can deny their racism by -- "I'm not a racist, I'm a racial realist!". Second, they can paint non-racialists as "race deniers" or "racial difference deniers", which suggests a denial of the obvious facts.
  • Human biodiversity or HBD: By being just one "bio" away from supporting "diversity" and by failing to mention race, human biodiversity is the most innocuous form of racialism, because it allows one to deny any racism -- because it's recognizing biodiversity, not being racist! Coined by Steve Sailer (a political blogger) of VDARE.
  • Human phenotypes or human varieties, such as Human Phenotypes (which attempts to revive centuries old race typology) and the far-right blog, Human Varieties.

Hereditarianism vs. non-hereditarianism

Hereditarian racialism is a school within racialism (mostly linked to the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly, e.g. Richard Lynn, J. P. Rushton and Roger Pearson) which argues there are significant heritable mental differences between races, and that there is a racial hierarchy in intelligence. Most, but not all, racialists are hereditarians.

Since the majority of racialist hereditarians are white supremacists, this usually puts the Caucasian, or "Aryan",[3] race firmly at the top. (When called on this, some recent racialists note Jews or Northeast Asians measure higher on IQ therefore they are totally not being racist except for everything else they say.)

Non-hereditarianism racialism argues that there are no heritable mental differences between races, although there is still significant genetic or phenotypic variation between races (such as in cranial form). This view is uncommon, but exists among 'race realists' that are trying to present themselves as more credible and claim to be non-racist.

What racialists argue

Modern racialists reject the standard taxonomic definition of race as a "geographically circumscribed, sharply [genetic] differentiated population".[4] This is because by such a definition, no human races (subspecies) exist. Rather than accept this reality, racialists invent new race concepts. A typical example is John Fuerst, who has published a recent work in a pseudojournal called The Nature of Race (2015). Fuerst invents a new biological theory about race, and re-defines race to mean something it never originally meant.

Glasgow (2003) cautions:

Thus, while some minimal revision to the meaning of 'race' (as for all definitions, of course) is allowable in the search for biological backing for race, we must stay fairly close to the vest, or we risk not talking about race at all.

The main problem is that new concepts of race used by racialists are watered down to the extent they are trivialised:

The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race.[5]

Hochman (2013) rejects these new concepts and re-definitions on the grounds "the criteria applied to humans are not consistent with those used to define subspecies in nonhuman animals, and no rationale has been given for this differential treatment".[6] (emphasis added)

Another problem with re-defining race is: "To avoid making 'race' the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed".[7] Modern racialists however argue there is no threshold which runs into the problem of any population being a race: "There are undoubtedly no two genetically identical populations in the world; this has nothing to do directly with the validity of race as a taxonomic device. Unless we have defined exactly what we mean by this… differences between populations are population differences, nothing more."[8] Another objection is a "mismatch argument", where local breeding populations not ordinarily conceived as races (e.g. Amish, or Kalash people[wp]), become races: "a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence."[9]

Most modern racialists redefine race as a "genetic cluster" by continent which captures a fairly small amount of variation (<10%) between groups of populations. Molecular anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks are confused by this re-definition because it is so far removed from biological taxonomy, and the traditional meaning of race:

What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups.[10]

The geographical pattern to human interpopulation variation, matches an almost continuous gradient/isolation-by-distance model[11][12][13][14] as little as 1.53% of this variation is unexplained by geographic distance, and can be captured by clustering.[15][16] However much of this discontinuity is found within continents, not between them.[17][18][19]

Human biological variation, and clines

Modern genetic[20][21][22][23][24][25] and craniometric[26] data has demonstrated the vast majority of variation >85% is found within populations, rather than between them <15%. Of the latter, 10%, or less, is found between large continental groups of ethnic groups/demes (e.g. "Caucasoid", "Negroid", and "Mongoloid" of outdated anthropology). Interpopulation variation is mostly continuous, and the arbitrary categorization of humans into races is therefore neither useful nor an accurate method in analyzing biological variation. Instead modern biologists and physical anthropologists tend to study clines.

Neutral genetic/phenotypic markers
Data Reference Within populations % Between ethnic groups % Between "races" %
17 classical polymorphisms[27] Lewontin (1972) 85.4% 8.3% 6.3%
18 classical polymorphisms[28] Latter (1980) 85.5% 5.5% 9.0%
25 classical polymorphisms[29] Ryman et al. (1983) 86.0% 2.8% 11.2%
57 landmarks and dimensions of the skull Relethford (1994, 2002) 78.8% 6.7% 14.6%
109 atDNA microsatellite loci Barbujani et al. (1997) 84.4% 4.7% 10.8%
79 RFLP's[30] and 30 atDNA microsatellite loci Jorde et al. (2000) 84.8% 1.6% 13.6%
21 Alu insertions Romualdi et al. (2002) 82.9% 8.2% 8.9%
377 atDNA microsatellite loci Rosenberg et al. (2002) 94.1% 2.4% 3.6%
100 Alu insertions Watkins et al. (2003) 88.6% 1.9% 9.6%
17 X chromosome markers Ramachandran et al. (2004) 90.4% 4.6% 4.9%
40 atDNA insertions/deletions Bastos-Rodrigues et al. (2006) 85.7% 2.3% 12.1%
642,690 atDNA SNP's[31] Li et al. (2008) 89.9% 2.1% 9.0%
783 atDNA microsatellite loci Rosenberg (2011) 93.9% 2.4% 3.8%
27 landmarks and dimensions of the pelvis Betti et al. (2013) 91.5% 5.6% 3.0%
The boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept... races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary.
—Biological anthropologist John Relethford
There are no races, there are only clines.
Frank B. Livingstone

Lieberman & Rice (1996) in their work Race or Clines? discuss several facts that "laid low the concept of race", including the rise of the cline concept.

The word "cline" derives from the Greek word for slope and the smooth gradient or continuity of a given trait across geographic space is known as a clinal distribution:

The influence of clines

Strong genetic influence weakening the race concept is also seen growing out of the concept of clines and supporting data. Clines referred to gradations of genotypes or phenotypes over a geographic area, and were distributed within and across racial and national boundaries. In 1938 HUXLEY proposed the concept of clines, but clarified that it was not a taxonomic entity, otherwise it might be confused with race. At about the same time HUXLEY and HADDON’S [1936] book, We Europeans, presented one of the early maps of a cline showing gradations in the B blood type starting at a low frequency in Spain and increasing towards Moscow [...] The concept of cline began to enter anthropological awareness in the 1950s when LIVINGSTONE [1958] published data indicating that the clinal distribution of the sickle-cell allele (Hbs) corresponded to the distribution of malaria throughout West Africa, the Mediterranean, and South Asia, demonstrating that Hbs is not confined to one so-called race and that alleged boundarylines between so-called races are really continuous gradations, not merely transitions between one race and another. In the early 1960s LIVINGSTONE [1962] participated in the debate over the validity of race and declared that 'there are no races, there are only clines' (p. 279).[32]

Clines replaced the race concept from the 1960s.[33] Although Stephen Molnar in his book Human Variation points out "the clinal approach has its strength, but only when used in conjunction with the actual basis for trait distribution — the population". He defines a local breeding population (gamodeme) as a "the most narrowly restricted group of individuals that interbreed a majority of the time".[34]

Modern Issues

"Lewontin's fallacy"

Racialists argue that while overall genetic variation between continental population divisions is <10%, this rather little human population structure still supports race classification (contra Lewontin, 1972). They quote Edwards (2003) who found by looking at how gene loci are correlated: "probability of misclassification falls off as the number of gene loci increases". It is notable Edwards in his paper does not dispute Lewontin’s statistical data on various blood polymorphisms, writing: "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification".

As Marks (2010) explains, there is then no "Lewontin fallacy":

Geographical correlations are far weaker hypotheses than genetically discrete races, and they obviously exist in the human species (whether studied somatically or genetically).[35]

What Lewontin (or Marks) and Edwards are discussing are two completely different things. Of course genetic correlations exist which can pinpoint someone's geographical ancestry, but as Marks asks: "What is unclear is what this has to do with race", and concludes: "Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups [races] do not exist in the human species, and Edwards's critique does not contradict that interpretation" (emphasis added). What this means is that Edwards is re-defining the race concept to a far weaker hypothesis, which is not how race is commonly understood in biological taxonomy:

...if one wants to measure the meaningfulness of differences between groups with different geographic ancestries, one needs to use a “proportion of variation” approach. This approach compares genetic variation among individuals within groups to the genetic variation between these groups. Ironically, Edwards’s (2003) reported findings confirm Lewontin’s (1972).[36]

What is the significance of the "proportion of variation" (Fst) approach? It measures phylogenetic 'treeness' via genetic differentiation[37] i.e. whether populations reflect a common evolutionary history or intraspecific distinctive lineage, which is taxonomically meaningful. Human populations however "have such little structure that ‘treeness’ is not demonstrated and phylogenetic models are invalid".[38]

The taxonomic division of the human species into races places a completely disproportionate emphasis on a very small fraction of the total of human diversity. That scientists as well as nonscientists nevertheless continue to emphasize these genetically minor differences and find new “scientific” justifications for doing so is an indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.
— Richard Lewontin, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974)


Wright (1978) calculated Fst values under 5% indicate little genetic differentiation between populations, 5% to 15%, moderate genetic differentiation, 15% to 25%, great genetic differentiation, and above 25%, very great differentiation which is the threshold for subspecies (races).[39] Human continental population divisions fall at the lower end of moderate genetic differentiation (<10%), while demes and ethnic groups under 5%: "Hence, as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human Fst value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional [definition of] subspecies".[40]

Forensic anthropology

Racialists quote forensic anthropologists who are said to be able to estimate ancestry of skeletal remains by continent ("race") with an accuracy of up to 90%. However this high accuracy figure only matches limited subsets of a sample in each broad continental grouping: "in cases where independent samples are used to test the methods, allocation accuracies decrease to levels that undermine the applicability of the methods in actual cases."[41][42] For example, Birkby (1966) found a high allocation accuracy for "Native Americans" (>90%) based on an archaeological sample from Knoll, Kentucky. When however indigenous remains were sampled from many other locations, the accuracy for the "Native American" racial category diminished: "the methods performed poorly on the respective American Indian samples (accuracies ranged from 14 to 30%), and confirmed Birkby’s conclusion that the Indian Knoll sample cannot be considered a proxy for the pattern of variation in numerous populations that are included in the group American Indian". The high accuracy rate claim for racial determination methods is also questionable since different methods have a tendency to produce different results:

We have shown that even with 20 non-fragmented sets of skeletal remains none could be consistently placed into a single racial category. Individual variability may have played a significant role leading to inconsistency of the results found in this study, which further confirms the ideas of Brace and Ryan (1980), Henneberg (2010) and Lewontin (1976); that most human variation occurs between individuals of the same population rather than being attributable to geographic distribution.[43]

Sauer (1992) notes that "to estimate, with varying degrees of specificity, a person’s place of ancestry from their physical features" is "not a vindication of the [biological] race concept".

C. Loring Brace makes the same point that "region, does not mean race".[44] More recently terms such as "geographical ancestry", or "ancestral population" have replaced race in forensic literature.


Classification of race (e.g. "Caucasian", "Black") is still sometimes considered to be useful by doctors. This however has been criticized on the grounds studies on disease rarely control environmental factors and so a genetic etiology is assumed without testing. That said, no doctor denies that some diseases are heritable and found at high frequency in some populations, low in others. While information about ethnicity may be informative for biomedical research: "it is imperative to move away from describing populations according to racial classifications such as 'black', 'white' or 'Asian'... there can be considerable genetic heterogeneity within a region, it is most useful to be as specific as possible about geographic origins, ethnicity or tribal affiliation" (Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004). Those diseases that show considerable inter-group difference, are only confined to local breeding populations, that are often more inbred (e.g. ethno-religious sects such as the Samaritans) rather than large regions, or continents.

Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine, has noted:

These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse.[45]

Race and IQ

One obsolete theory attempted to link cranial capacity (cc), to intelligence. While cranial capacity is an accurate measure of brain-size, the fallacy was to assume a larger cranial capacity (and brain) correlates with higher intelligence. The size of the brain itself is not a measure of intelligence. If this idea were taken to its logical conclusion, the world would likely be ruled by elephants, or sperm whales. It is only when a person has an extremely small brain, as with abnormal conditions such as microcephaly[wp], that absolute brain size has any negative impact on cognitive functions. Furthermore, having an very large amount of brain tissue, referred to as megalencephaly, is recognized as being pathological and is strongly correlated with several neurological disorders, especially severe epilepsy and autism. What is much more important than absolute brain size includes factors such as cortical folding, neuronal organization, dendritic and synaptic connections, etc.[46]

A handful of 21st century racialists including figures such as J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen have continued to argue that certain races are just inherently dumb. While they still like their skull and brain size measurements, their arguments hinge more on invoking genetic determinism as an explanation for racial and ethnic group differences in IQ scores. In addition to the fact that race is incredibly ill-defined itself, IQ has many of its own problems. While there is general agreement on IQ as a rough measure of overall intelligence, there is no consensus on a number of related issues, such as its heritability, whether there are biases introduced to IQ-tests, etc. Another problem with using IQ in this manner (besides the obvious) is the Flynn Effect, a phenomenon discovered by the psychologist James Flynn in which there has been a global rise in average IQ scores. In many cases, ethnic minorities have made the most rapid gains in the West.[47][48] Whoops.

Rushton, however, has put a new spin on the supposed racial hierarchy -- according to him, it should be organized thusly: "Mongoloid" > "Caucasoid" > "Negroid." This led anthropologist Jonathan Marks to remark:

First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.[49]

Adaptation doesn't work like that

Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others. This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be cultural bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped.

Genetic differences between people from different locations are pretty much entirely genetic drift. Amount of melanin does vary with distance from the equator, and there's recent actual evolution such as Lactase persistence in adults.[50]

Notable racialists

A racist 1860 American political cartoon, depicting with contempt an African-American as the "next Republican candidate." In the cartoonist's view, such a possibility is ridiculous because of the biologically determined positions of the races.
  • Benjamin Rush: Rush was, rather interestingly, one of the Founding Fathers and an abolitionist. He believed that blacks suffered from a disease called "negritude," supposedly a form of leprosy, that could be "cured" and would result in turning their skin white. This led to his attempts to develop quack "cures" for "negritude."
  • Samuel Cartwright: Expanding on Rush's work, Cartwright argued that drapetomania also a physical illness that could be diagnosed through the appearance of lesions on the skin. No doubt this had nothing to do with the backbreaking manual labor and frequent whippings and beatings slaves endured.[51] Cartwright coined two pseudo-psychological diagnoses that rationalized and justified slavery. The first he called "drapetomania," which was allegedly an illness causing slaves to run away from their masters. Conveniently for the slave masters, much of the "treatment" for this "illness" consisted of whipping. The second "diagnosis" was "dysaethesia aethiopica," or laziness.
  • J. Philippe Rushton: Advocate of "Life History Theory" that proposes that all socially desirable personality and intellectual traits are concentrated in the white and Asian races, whereas all the antisocial and undesirable traits are concentrated in black people. Repeatedly criticised in academia for sloppy scholarship including using questionable sources of information including the Penthouse Forum.[52]
  • Richard Lynn: Eugenics advocate who recently wrote a paper claiming that black people have longer penises than whites, who in turn are better endowed than Asians.[53] This was based on Rushton's "Goldilocks" theory of race: "Orientals have big brains but small genitalia, Africans have small brains but big genitalia, but Europeans Are Just Right[™]."[54] One of the key sources of data used in this paper was the World Penis Size Site,[55] an anonymously compiled source that includes a lot of made-up data and bogus references.[56][57] Lynn has also stated that "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out."[58] Just to clear up any doubt about which cultures he thinks need "phasing out" he writes: "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?"[59]
  • Donald Templer: Authored a book on penises used as an additional reference by Richard Lynn even though Templer has no qualifications in urology. Advocates the voluntary sterilization of welfare recipients on eugenics grounds.[60]

See also

External links


  1. Systema Naturae
  2. Lieberman et al. 2003.
  3. Or, in Metapedia's case, "White race".
  4. Templeton, 1998.
  5. Hochman, 2014.
  6. Hochman, 2013.
  7. Templeton, 1998.
  8. Hiernaux, 1963 (comments).
  9. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (race)
  10. Marks, 2010.
  11. Serre and Pääbo, 2004.
  12. Relethford, 2004.
  13. Fujimura et al. 2014.
  14. "Specifically, between human populations, including smaller groupings, genetic differences may be detected. These differences tend to increase with geographic distance, but the basic genetic variation between populations is much less prominent. This means that human genetic diversity is only gradual and presents no major discontinuity between populations." (Statement on Race, UNESCO [1])
  15. Rosenberg, et al. 2005.
  16. Handley et al. 2007.
  17. "Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." (Barbujani et al. 1997)
  18. "Zones of sudden genetic variation exist, often in correspondence with barriers to gene flow, both physical and cultural, but they almost never completely surround a region. Over much of the planet, clinal variation is the rule, with genetic characteristics of the various regions changing gradually into one another." (Barbujani & Benedetto, 2001)
  19. "The genetic exchanges occurred in the course of the frequent contacts have resulted in a smooth, continuous variation of many genetic parameters. As a consequence, zones of sharp genetic change are not the rule, but the exception; most human populations are not surrounded by clear genetic boundaries." (Barbujani & Colonna, 2011)
  20. Barbujani et al. 1997.
  21. Brown & Armelagos, 2001.
  22. Barbujani, 2005.
  23. Madrigal & Barbujani, 2007.
  24. Feldman & Lewontin, 2008.
  25. Barbujani & Colonna, 2011.
  26. Relethford, 2002.
  27. 17 blood groups.
  28. 10 blood groups, 3 serum proteins and 5 red blood cell enzymes.
  29. 14 serum proteins, 9 blood groups and 2 leukocyte antigens.
  30. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms.
  31. Single nucleotide polymorphisms.
  32. Lieberman et al. 2003.
  33. "Promoted by Livingstone (1962), the study of clines, the distribution of individual morphological and genetic traits, came to replace race as a focus of analysis for many workers." (Caspari, 2010)
  34. Molnar, 1975: 109.
  35. Marks, 2010.
  36. Fujimura et al. 2014.
  37. "Classical population-genetics theory and empirical data show that large genetic differences among groups develop if reproductive barriers separate these groups. In the presence of reproductive barriers, that is, under isolation, genetic drift, affecting independently each group, will reduce the group’s internal variation (because the alleles that are lost are not reintroduced by gene flow) and will lead groups to diverge from each other (because different alleles are lost in each group and different mutations occur in each group); divergence will generate genetic discontinuities... between groups." (Barbujani, 2005)
  38. Caspari, 2010.
  39. "The standard criterion for subspecies division is an FST estimate of or over 0.25." (Hochman, 2013)
  40. Templeton, 1998.
  41. Albanese & Saunders, 2006.
  42. Smay & Armelagos, 2000.
  43. Sierp & Henneberg, 2015.
  44. Brace, 1995.
  45. Angier, 2000.
  46. Sukel, 2009.
  47. Flynn Effect page at Indiana University. See also "None of the Above" by Malcolm Gladwell and The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races, Ethnicities, and Nations by Scott Barry Kaufman.
  48. James R. Flynn. Searching for Justice: The Discovery of IQ Gains Over Time. American Psychologist, vol. 54, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 5-20
  49. Quoted in: Leonard Lieberman. How "Caucasoids" Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank. Current Anthropology. Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001
  50. Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato, the genetics of lactase persistence see also: image
  51. Vanessa Jackson, In Our Own Voices: African American Stories of Oppression, Survival and Recovery in the Mental Health System, pp 1-36, p. 4-8.
  52. Weizmann, F., Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., &Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants and eggheads: a rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32 (1), 43-50 DOI: 10.1037/h0078958
  53. Lynn, R. (2012). Rushton’s r–K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations. Personality and Individual Differences, in press. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.016 [2]
  54. The Penile Economics of Ethnicity, Ethnic Muse. Perhaps "Goldicocks" would be even more apt.
  55. World Penis Average Size Studies Database
  56. WorldPenisSize: analysis of listed sources [3]
  57. How much does size really matter?, Psychology Today [4]
  58. Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race, Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting, January/February 1995
  59. Richard Lynn (1991) "Race Differences in Intelligence: A Global Perspective," Mankind Quarterly, 31(3), p255 [5]
  60. 'AmRen Conference Held in Tennessee' American Renaissance[6]


  • Albanese, J., Saunders, S. R. (2006). "Is It Possible to Escape Racial Typology in Forensic Identification?". In: Schmitt, A., Pinheiro, J. (eds.). Forensic Anthropology and Medicine. Humana. [7]
  • Barbujani, G., Magagni, A., Minch, E., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1997). "An Apportionment of Human DNA Diversity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 94(9): 4516-4519. [8]
  • Barbujani, G. (2005). "Human Races: Classifying People vs. Understanding Diversity". Current Genomics. 6(4): 215-226. [9]
  • Brace, C. L. (1995). "Region Does Not Mean Race: Reality Versus Convention in Forensic Anthropology". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 40(2): 171-175.
  • Brown, R. A., Armelagos, G. J. (2001). "Apportionment of Racial Diversity: a Review". Evolutionary Anthropology. 10(1): 34-40. [10]
  • Caspari, R. (2010). "Deconstructing Race". In: Larsen, C. (ed.). A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Wiley Blackwell.
  • Feldman, M. W., Lewontin, R. (2008). "Race, Ancestry, and Medicine". In: Koenig, B. A. (ed.). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. Rutgers University Press. [11]
  • Fujimura, J. H., Bolnick, D. A., Rajagopalan, R., Kaufman, J. S., Lewontin, R. C. (2014). "Clines Without Classes How to Make Sense of Human Variation". Sociological Theory. 32(3): 208-227. [12]
  • Glasgow, J. M. (2003). "On the New Biology of Race". The Journal of Philosophy. 100(9): 456-474.
  • Handley, L. Manica, A., Goudet, J., Balloux, F. (2007). "Going the Distance: Human Population Genetics in a Clinal World". Trends in Genetics. 23(9): 432-439. [13]
  • Hochman, A. (2013). "Against the New Racial Naturalism". The Journal of Philosophy. 110(6): 331-351.
  • Lewontin, R. (1972). "The Apportionment of Human Diversity". Evolutionary Biology. 6: 381–398. [14]
  • Lieberman, L., Rice, P. C. (1996). Race or Clines?. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
  • Lieberman, L., Kirk, R. C., Corcoran, M. (2003). "The Decline of Race in American Physical Anthropology". Anthropological Review. 66: 3-21. [15]
  • Madrigal, L., Barbujani, G. (2007). "Partitioning of Genetic Variation in Human Populations and the Concept of Race". In: Crawford, M. (ed.). Anthropological Genetics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Molnar, S. (1975). Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic groups. Prentice Hall.
  • Relethford, J. H. (2002). "Apportionment of Global Human Genetic Diversity Based on Craniometrics and Skin Color". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 118(4): 393-398. [16]
  • Sauer, N. J. (1992). "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race". Social Science & Medicine. 34(2): 107-111. [17]
  • Sierp, I., Henneberg, M. (2015). "Can Ancestry be Consistently Determined From the Skeleton?". Anthropological Review. 78(1): 21-31.
  • Smay, D., Armelagos, G. (2000). "Galileo Wept: a Critical Assessment of the Use of Race in Forensic Anthropology". Transforming Anthropology. 9(2): 19-29. [18]
  • Templeton, A. R. (1998). "Human Races: a Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective". American Anthropologist. 100(3): 632-650. [19]
Personal tools