yes, we should all quit drinking soda; the phosphates deplete mad calcium from our bones. you go first jay, and i'll follow. ;)

Hey Jay,
I reported this on my blog this weekend. Here is the link http://www.rachelstavern.com/blog_comment.asp?bi=85&m=9&y=2005&d=1&s=

He talked about it on Wendy Williams on Friday and I saw the commercial on Saturday.

I forgot to say...last I heard it is not true, so unless it happened in the last 24 hours, I don't think it's correct.

Why Hip-Hop continues to dominate the music scene, and Rock music continues to die out.

I am writing this as a record executive who has been asked quite a bit , "How come the labels are releasing so much rap and hip-hop?"

The answer: Rock musicians are not working the scene!

It's simple. Many rockers that I've talked to who say they want to get signed, feel like it's enough for them to play some shows, throw out some merchandise, some demos, and expect a label to come at them with the "perfect deal." This is not working it. Rockers do not understand the concept of sacrifice. And why should they?

I theorize that the reasons behind rock musicians' lack of work ethic and drive and hip-hop musicians "success at all costs" attitudes stem from both socio-economic and racial conditions. It is not an assumption, but a safe fact to point out that hip-hop performers are predominatly african-american and rock musicians are primarily white.

Many of the hip-hop artists we speak to are clearly trying to "move on up" from their current indigent situations. A job as an entertainer is respected, and a noble way to make money and move into better neighborhoods. Street smarts are applied to business strategy, and they understand the concept of climbing the ladder one rung at a time. Even a slow climb gets you higher than you were yesterday.

Rock musicians on the other hand have more options. Many have to face a decision of leaving their $40k/year jobs to only make $30k a year to follow their dreams. And let's face it, white musicians in the entertainment industry aren't exactly society's "cream of the crop." Most are here because they don't have the work ethic to maintain regular day jobs. They're looking for the easier softer way to quick riches. So unlike most black hip-hoppers, an intelligent and hard working white rocker knows that if he does anything other than entertainment (e.g. go to college, get a corporate job), he will have a better return on investment than if he stuck it out with his musical endeavors; OPTIONS. Unfortunately, that leaves rockers waiting like spoiled infants for things like advances and perks - all of which a record label doesn't care to give, especially considering the stereotype of the arrogant, lazy, irresponsible rock musician (the same reasons why they may not have good day jobs). Thus they don't get signed. And if they do get signed, most rock bands expect the labels to do ALL the work in terms of promotion. Hip-Hop performers on the other hand, have historically shown more dedication and continual focus on the prize regardless of what's going on around them.

Despite personal tastes in music, a label's job is to make money for its shareholders. Hip-Hop musicians are willing to sacrifice perks, their own free time, and their own money to ensure success. They're not afraid to take risks to change their current situation, because their current situation may not be too pleasant. It's unfortunate, because I like rock music. But Hip-Hop is going to continue to prevail due to a sacrifice ethic and true motivation - something a rock musician is never going to grasp.

KANYE WEST COMMENTS:

WHY FUCK IS THIS DUMB-ASS MONKEY ON TV ANYWAY. HE CAN'T EVEN MAKE A COMPLETE COHERENT SENTENCE.

THIS IS AMERICAN POPULAR CULTURE AT IT'S FINEST. A VAST WASTELAND, DEVOID OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF INTELLIGENCE. WHERE THESE NIGGER CRETINS ARE GIVEN VALIDITY BY THE RUBBISH THEY PRODUCE AND MORONS WHO BUY IT...

THIS SHIT FOR BRAINS FUCKING MONKEY IS THE SPOKESPERSON FOR A GENERATION. MY GOD, HOW FRIGHTFUL IS AMERICA'S FUTURE.

WAKE UP AND VOTE FESTLER....

Festler no doubt is a jealous, envious jobless idiotic with nothing better to do. Kanye West grabbed the only opportunity he had to say what many black and white artistes would never have had the guts to say.

The so-called incoherence was due to nerves from a artist I respect not only for his views but how articulate he is. So well done Kanye.

As for the America's future you are so worried about, it has already been written. Any nation built on thievery, cruelty, genocide and greed will go the same.

So make the most of it.

Pepsi did not drop its endorsement with Kanye West. It was aired on primetime the week of September 25th. "Study and show yourself approve". That means to listen to what is said or see what is read and then research its validity. It's great to take a stand, just be sure what you are standing for.

Glad to see the Pepsi/Kanye rumor isn't true. I just received it in an email, advising people not to use Pepsi products. I had to look for something to validate that claim before I fwd'ed the email. Since there is nothing, I'll advise the sender of the facts.

If you didn't stop buying Pepsi when they dropped Ludacris(this is a free speech issue, after all), why would you stop buying Pepsi because they dropped Kanye(if true) for looking like an idiot? People need to wake up and realize there are more important issues out there, i.e., how street culture is destroying the black family and community. Why are our leaders Young Jeezy or the hottest star of the moment? Why are opportunist fools like Jesse Jackson and radical Al Sharpton our spokespersons? It's time for black people to reevaluate the situation we're in and stop being apathetic. We need to get into the hood and make changes like the Panthers once did, in their nonviolent stage. Society and governments aren't going to do any more for black people, only a true new leader(s) will.

One

yo festler , drop ya shotty .... obviously you dont listen to music!!
Jazz maybe some southern funk, get some culture into ya and maybe some brain cells will follow..... listen to the music...African Americans have something to say at least .. point out a white monkey who says what they think !!!! none . all puppets !!! white culture isnt as strong... dumb punk songs dammit ... aight im out.. peace

Fellow African Americans, I share your pain for the racism in this country and it it getting out of hand. But out of all the Rasist people I rose above it and treat every one equal white or black, asian or mexican. All Races are EQUAL!
Some of you hate George W. Bush right now but I can confidently say that he does not hate African Americans. WE ARE ALL EQUAL. Can you, my fellow brothers in this world forgive the white man of his sins, because many of them do not hold grudges. Some still do, but then again arent we also racist to them? WE ARE ALL EQUAL WE NEED PEACE! Kanye West is an ignorant fool for thinking this and he has nothing to back up his claims. If we boycott anything boycott Kanye West until he makes amends.

Stay'n Black and Proud

Please don't compare Kanye West to Rosa Parks because she served a purpose. I find it hard to believe that he is losing any sleep over the Pepsi endorsement gone bad. Was he planning on giving the proceeds of this endorsement to America's schools to provide books for our children's futures, or to the Katrina victims? If I fully understand he was given this endorsment before the Katrina tradjedy even happened. So that was not his goal for the endorsement money. I understand freedom of speech and yes we all should be able to express ourselves but there is a time and a place for everything. Think about it Kanye and look where freedom of speech has gotten you. Im still drinking Pepsi. Sorry!! Talk about a publicity stunt!!!

Speshial get the idea! he knows what he is talking about AMEN BROTHER!

FOOD:
I WALKED IN THE CRIB. I GOTS TWO KIDS AND MY BABY MOMMA LATE, UHHU, UHHU.

SO I HAD TO DID WHAT I HAD TO DID BECAUSE I HAD THE KIDS.

IM UP ALL NIGHT GETTIN MY MONEY RIGHT.

UNTIL THE BLUE AND WHITES, POEPOE-POEPOE!

NOW MONEY COMIN SLOW BUT ALTEAST THERE GETTIN TO KNOW SLOW MOTION BETTER THEN.

YEAH, I CAN MAKE IT RIGHT IF I COULD JUST SWALLOW MY PRIDE AND PUT MY GUN AWAY.

This clown is a poetic genius...Move over Keats, Pope, Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Emerson, etc. you are about to be outdone by the brilliant work of Kanye West.

Sell drugs and do crimes with your kids around, thats good.

Always use a gun and violence to solve lifes problems. Never be responsible for your own actions and place the blame for your life with others(i.e. George Bush).

Kanye has a very creative approach to grammar as well. Ohhh, sorry, ebonics has no syntax.

Yeah, your right! Kanye West is a brilliant man.

stop examining yourself black people, everybody knows that Bush ran on a none black ticket,that's why they put him in the white house. if Bush was for blacks, white people would not vote for him. that; the way it is. this is a racist country and they know it. They think that man can't do any wrong, because he says he is christan. i got news for you, so was the KKK. KOnservative Knights Kristians. Kanye is the man for saying the truth and voicing his taughts, I thought that what america is bulid for free speech. But if you say anything against Bush you are anti- american, so fuck the grammys if they don't let Kanye in. Black should boycott the grammys. don't pay taxes. and all blackmen should not fight or join any military, let him the white man fight his own war.

I would like to make a statement regarding your posting of Kayne West being droped by the Pepsi Corporation. FIrst off, does anyone remember Madona? In the late 1980's, this songstress was a spokesperson for Pepsi, until her "Like A Prayer" video debuted on MTV. This song, as well as the singer, was to be used in upcoming Pepsi ads, and due to the content of the video, she, along with the song, lost the endorsement contract for Pepsi. Now, all Madona did was take control of her First Amendment Rights and chose to NOT listen to the Pepsi Corporation when they instructed her to not do anything that would hinder the sale of Pepsi; she did not listen. The video, if you remember, had Madona getting close with a black Jesus, burning crosses and depicted numerous sexual inudendos with the above mentioned black Jesus.
I am in complete aggr

FESTLER IS RIGHT!!!YOU NIGGERS ARE WORTHLESS PRIMATES.

Fuck Kanye West. He is an idiot. If anyone should take the blame for this it should be Abraham Lincoln. He should've never let "yous" go, b/c then we would've never had to worry about you bitching and moaning about racism for fucking eternity. Its getting ridiculous. All you stupid fucks have to do is learn how to rap and you get rich. So stop selling drugs,shooting each other, and getting women pregnant everyday. Take all your energy and put into the music industry and stop fucking complaining. Give it up already. Stop behaving like assholes and maybe we'll treat you with more respect. Its not all of you but its the bad ones that give you the name and there pleanty of them. You get housing, food, jobs, educations and all this shit for free just b/c your black. And b/c I'm white and my dad went to college and makes a decent living so I don't get dick from the government. I gotta go to school and work and and pay for food and college. Why? It ain't fair and then this dickhead bashes his president that has all of these programs for blacks that dont take advantage of it. I don't understand, what happened had nothing to do with Bush anyway. If you don't like it here, if your all so fucking miserible, leave. And quit with the racism cry its getting old.

As long as white people walk the earth, hatred and misery will remain. They are the world's worst virus. They sweat venom from their pores, and smell of wet dog when they are dry.

Their entire existence on this planet, has been one of, rape, murder, disease, incest, cruelty, theft... and the justification of it through numbers, and power.

But... my black people.... as each day passes, we slowly drive them from the face of the earth. We capture their attention, we cut into their profits, we inflitrate their schools, we master their technologies, and we inseminate their women... stomping out their tainted blood lines.

Within 50 years, white devils will become the minority in this country. Fear and desperation for self preservation will cause the crazy ones to lash out first. The rest will follow out of fear, as we crush unmerciolously the first wave.

It in only a matter of time white man.... until I am you... you become I ... or you simply don't exist.

You will roll over in your grave when your great grand daughters are 2 shades lighter than the color of my dick.
__________________________________________________

:) Beautiful, Strong, Calculating, Black Man, Studying Your Every Weakness....

And when all "you" rappers, gangstas, and other trash take over the world and no one wants to work anymore resulting in the collapse of all social welfare systems, what then?

Kill each other? Who is the new enemy then? The light skin blacks? The Asian blacks? The darker blacks?

Remember that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

In other words, Mr. Honesty, if you want America to end up like genocidal Africa, all you have to do is purchase a plane ticket today to your beloved homeland. Genocide is the order of the day in Africa and who is killing Africans in incredible numbers? Why it's your own brothers. So you see Mr. Honesty, race plays no importance in your war against the white man, rather, HATE, ENVY, and GREED are the main factors which ironically are the same traits you display in your message. Hell, you pretty much sound like a KKK grand wizard yourself or at the least, a 1941 Nazi describing how he is going to stamp out the Jewish people.

I however have a better idea, how about you drop your conspiracy theories and learn to co-exist with various people regardless of what offenses others of your own race may commit.

Did blacks loot in New Orleans? Yes.
Did they shoot at rescue helicopters? Yes.

Did all of them commit these crimes? NO.

Was it you? NO. People will behave in whatever matter THEY choose and you can either accept it or deny it and get angry.

Are you ashamed of your own black race? You must be. You don't want to admit that RESPONSIBILITY falls on your own shoulders and not on those of others. You live in a fantasy world where you think the white man is your enemy.

Well Mr. Honesty, I have some rather bad news for you. As of September 11th, some rather fundamentalist muslims destroyed two buildings that genocided many people of all nationalies. 3,000+ Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, you name it. They were not in the least concerned about skin color like you are, they are only preoccupied with waging their holy war against anyone different from them. Guess what? YOU ARE DIFFERENT and they are...

:) Unshaven, lunatic, calculating Islamic men, not concerned with studying your weakness, just concerned with killing and enslaving you BLACK MEN like they have been doing for centuries.

....and when there are no more White men, no more Asian men, no more Hispanic men, no more European men and all that is left are fundamentalist Islamic men and black men as vile as you, who will win the war?

You behind the keyboard spouting your hate, or them behind the controls of an airplane loaded with black passengers headed right into your condo complex? :)

And the clock ticks my friend... the clock ticks.

" Tiiiiiiiime, is on my side.... yes it is."

:) Beautiful, Strong, Calculating, Black Man, Studying Your Every Weakness....

And when all "you" rappers, gangstas, and other trash take over the world and no one wants to work anymore resulting in the collapse of all social welfare systems, what then?

Kill each other? Who is the new enemy then? The light skin blacks? The Asian blacks? The darker blacks?

Remember that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

Wait wait wait!!!!! Wasn't it THE WHITE MAN, who brainwashed SLAVES into this way of thinking!?!

Sebastian... shut your fear spreading ass up. As you attempt to re-instill, old slavery methods and tactics in the present.

Honesty couldn't have said it better... time is truly on our side. And if the mark of mental slavery still exists to that extent... I would love to see it unfold, if that means that the white man will not be present to see it. And our culture could deal with it, without some pimple popping, GENOCIDE INSTIGATING, lice spreading, AIDS Creating, War Monger Cracker playing both sides to reap the rewards of the blood spilt.

Time is truly on our side... as the purity of your so call race of abominations slips like sands in an hourglass

What is sad is that these white people who are filled with such racism and hate on these postings, are people we may interact with everyday. These are the evil filled pigs that will stand and smile in your face, while they call you a primate and nigger on a website. Stop being cowards and speak your views openly. We should respect a person who is openly racist, it is the passive agressive cowards that should concern us. To make a correction to an uneducated comment, the most people on welfare are white people. Get educated on the stats before you feed into the lies. Also the main people on drugs are white people, the average drug addict is a middle class white woman. The main drug dealers are white people, who do you think black people get the drugs to sell on the streets from. Come on, you ignorant racist stop blaming black people for the problems yall created. Black people can complain all they want because it was the white man who took them from their homeland and brought them to this country to be slaves. African Americans have a history based on this, you racist bastards should think on this before you start talking ignorance.Reflect on our point of view! Also you all are the reason for all the genocide that is going on in Africa, Africa was divided by tribes before the white man came. Each tribe had its own territory and yall came and colonized the place, just focusing on yall own greed not taking the time to understand the system they had in place. So as a result tribes are now fighting to claim land and heritage they had before colonization. It is called tribal warefare not black on black crime. Why don't you racist bastards use that same line of thinking when discussing the situation going on in Palestine? Come racist people why live in hate?

If you feel that the whities have done your race so wrong why don't you go back to africa where things are so much like the way you say they should be. Second, you mention how the crackers took your ancestors from their homeland to be slaves here. Most of the slaves that were brought over here were sold by their own people. And no one ever seems to mention that Africa had 25-35000 white slaves so I want my reparations too. Blacks: "It's always someone else's fault." Keep thinking that way and remain at the bottom of the food chain

Ok, Street meat. Once again here is some person talking from a state of ignorance. Please read all the postings before you comment on something I have written.

The things you wrote here do not even make sense, and only a racist person would tell me to go back to Africa. That comment only screams out HATE!!!

I am sure that your whole family line did not originate from America.Why do racist people forget that this land belongs to a group of people called Native Americans? I am not even going to go there.

Also, MOST of the people brought over to America to be slaves were not sold by their own people. That is another lie people try to spread to make themselves feel better. Once again lets stop looking at the issue in regards to race. Africans are divided into tribes. In order to spare the lives of their tribes certain tribes that were settled near that coast went into the mainland and got members of other tribes. Don't use the word most because this was just a few instances. The slave trade went on for years. These same tribes were evetually taken into the slave trade as well.

In regards, to Africans having white people as slaves, I can not verify that number. It sounds a bit wrong though because the number was so small that most history books don't even estimate it. But I can not verify that unless I view your source. Anyway how many people did the white man kill and take away from their homeland.Yes, Africans did fight and enslave people who tried to take over their homeland. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY WERE PROTECTING THIER HOMELAND. THEY DID NOT GO TO EUROPE AND TRY TO STEAL THE LAND. OR GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND KIDNAP PEOPLE INORDER TO PERFORM FREE LABOR.

DONT BE MAD, WHEN PEOPLE STATE THE FACTS
LOVE, LOVE, LETS NOT Hate!!!

All you niggers keep spouting the fact that more whit people are on welfare when compared to blacks. Absolutely true ape boys. What you fail to recognize is that whites far outnumber the apes in this country explaining why white numbers are much higher. But, check your stats assholes, 1 in 7 niggers are on welfare compared to 1 in 39 whites. Do the math monkey's or is that too hard for you? I forgot, the majority never finish high school being only 1 in 5 black males do. But wait, there is hope, the hope you will soon make your race extinct by the constant violence you perpetuate among yourselve. So I say get them nigger gangs going and blow each others heads off. You'll save us honest taxpayers so much

It's alwasy someone else's fault isn't it. I heard some of the theories of how Katrina did some much damage from people like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. Ridiculous. If you look hard enough you can always blame your own problems on someone else. Lazy, worthless niggers fire me up so much but I would love to have the chance to vote for Condoleeza Rice over Hillary's evil slut ass. It's just like Chris Rock said: Everyone hates niggers, even black people.

IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF NIGGER INFERIORITY

Chapter 12 entitled Population Differences In Intelligence: from Arthur Jensen's latest book, The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability published 1998.

The relationship of the g factor to a number of biological variables and its relationship to the size of the white-black differences on various cognitive tests (i.e., Spearman?s hypothesis) suggests that the average white-black difference in g has a biological component. Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The ?genetic distances? between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g. What I term the default hypothesis states that the causes of the phenotypic differences between contemporary populations of recent African and European descent arise from the same genetic and environmental factors, and in approximately the same magnitudes, that account for individual differences within each population. Thus genetic and environmental variances between groups and within groups are viewed as essentially the same for both populations. The default hypothesis is able to account for the present evidence On the mean white-black difference in g. There is no need to invoke any ad hoc hypothesis, or a Factor X, that is unique to either the black or the white population. The environmental component of the average g difference between groups is primarily attributable to a host of microenvironmental factors that have biological effects. They result from non-genetic variation in prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal conditions and specific nutritional factors.

The many studies of Spearman?s hypothesis using the method of correlated vectors show a strong relationship between the g loadings of a great variety of cognitive tests and the mean black-white differences on those tests. The fact that the same g vectors that are correlated with W-B differences are also correlated (and to about the same degree) with vectors composed of various cognitive tests? correlations with a number of genetic, anatomical, and physiological variables suggests that certain biological factors may be related to the average black-white population difference in the level of g.

The degree to which of each of many different psychometric tests is correlated with all of the other tests is directly related to the magnitude of the test?s g loading. What may seem surprising, however, is the fact that the degree to which a given test is correlated with any one of the following variables is a positive function of that test?s g loading:

Heritability of test scores.
Amount of inbreeding depression of test scores.
Heterosis (hybrid vigor, that is, raised test scores, due to outbreeding).
Head size (also, by inference, brain size).
Average evoked potential (AEP) habituation and complexity.
Glucose metabolic rate as measured by PET scan.
Average reaction time to elementary cognitive tasks.
Size of the mean W-B difference on various cognitive tests.
The one (and probably the only) common factor that links all of these non-psychometric variables to psychometric test scores and also links psychometric test scores to the magnitude of the mean W-B difference is the g factor. The critical role of g in these relationships is shown by the fact that the magnitude of a given test?s correlation with any one of the above-listed variables is correlated with the magnitude of the W-B difference on that test. For example, Rushtont1? reported a correlation (r = + .48) between the magnitudes of the mean W-B differences (in the American standardization sample) on eleven sub-tests of the WISC-R and the effect of inbreeding depression on the eleven subtest scores of the Japanese version of the WISC. Further, the subtests? g loadings in the Japanese data predicted the American W-B differences on the WISC-R sub-tests with r = .69?striking evidence of the g factor?s robustness across different cultures. Similarly, the magnitude of the mean W-B difference on each of seventeen diverse psychometric tests was predicted (with r .71, p

This association of psychometric tests? g loadings, the tests? correlations with genetic and other biological variables, and the mean W-B differences in test scores cannot be dismissed as happenstance. The failure of theories of group differences in IQ that are based exclusively on attitudinal, cultural, and experiential factors to predict or explain such findings argues strongly that biological factors, whether genetic or environmental in origin, must be investigated. Before examining possible biological factors in racial differences in mental abilities, however, we should be conceptually clear about the biological meaning of the term ?race.?

THE MEANING OF RACE
Nowadays one often reads in the popular press (and in some anthropology textbooks) that the concept of human races is a fiction (or, as one well-known anthropologist termed it, a ?dangerous myth?), that races do not exist in reality, but are social constructions of politically and economically dominant groups for the purpose of maintaining their own status and power in a society. It naturally follows from this premise that, since races do not exist in any real, or biological, sense, it is meaningless even to inquire about the biological basis of any racial differences. I believe this line of argument has five main sources, none of them scientific:

? Heaping scorn on the concept of race is deemed an effective way of combating racism?here defined as the belief that individuals who visibly differ in certain characteristics deemed ?racial? can be ordered on a dimension of ?human worth? from inferior to superior, and that therefore various civil and political rights, as well as social privileges, should be granted or denied according to a person?s supposed racial origin.

? Neo-Marxist philosophy (which still has exponents in the social sciences and the popular media) demands that individual and group differences in psychologically and socially significant traits be wholly the result of economic inequality, class status, or the oppression of the working classes in a capitalist society. It therefore excludes consideration of genetic or biological factors (except those that are purely exogenous) from any part in explaining behavioral differences among humans. It views the concept of race as a social invention by those holding economic and political powers to justify the division and oppression of unprivileged classes.

? The view that claims that the concept of race (not just the misconceptions about it) is scientifically discredited is seen as a way to advance more harmonious relations among the groups in our society that are commonly perceived as ?racially? different.

? The universal revulsion to the Holocaust, which grew out of the racist doctrines of Hitler?s Nazi regime, produced a reluctance on the part of democratic societies to sanction any inquiry into biological aspects of race in relation to any behavioral variables, least of all socially important ones.

? Frustration with the age-old popular wrong-headed conceptions about race has led some experts in population genetics to abandon the concept instead of attempting candidly to make the public aware of how the concept of race is viewed by most present-day scientists.

Wrong Conceptions of Race. The root of most wrong conceptions of race is the Platonic view of human races as distinct types, that is, discrete, mutually exclusive categories. According to this view, any observed variation among the members of a particular racial category merely represents individual deviations from the archetype, or ideal type, for that ?race.? Since, according to this Platonic view of race, every person can be assigned to one or another racial category, it naturally follows that there is some definite number of races, each with its unique set of distinctive physical characteristics, such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. The traditional number has been three: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid, in part derived from the pre-Darwinian creationist view that ?the races of mankind? could be traced back to the three sons of Noah?Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The Cause of Biological Variation. All that is known today about the worldwide geographic distribution of differences in human physical characteristics can be understood in terms of the synthesis of Darwinian evolution and population genetics developed by R. A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr. Races are defined in this context as breeding populations that differ from one another in gene frequencies and that vary in a number of intercorrelated visible features that are highly heritable.

Racial differences are a product of the evolutionary process working on the human genome, which consists of about 100,000 polymorphic genes (that is, genes that contribute to genetic variation among members of a species) located in the twenty-three pairs of chromosomes that exist in every cell of the human body. The genes, each with its own locus (position) on a particular chromosome, contain all of the chemical information needed to create an organism. In addition to the polymorphic genes, there are also a great many other genes that are not polymorphic (that is, are the same in all individuals in the species) and hence do not contribute to the normal range of human variation. Those genes that do produce variation are called polymorphic genes, as they have two or more different forms called alleles, whose codes differ in their genetic information. Different alleles, therefore, produce different effects on the phenotypic characteristic determined by the gene at a particular chromosomal locus. Genes that do not have different alleles (and thus do not have variable phenotypic effects) are said to have gone to fixation; that is, alternative alleles, if any, have long since been eliminated by natural selection in the course of human or mammalian evolution. The physiological functions served by most basic ?housekeeping? genes are so crucial for the organism?s development and viability that almost any mutation of them proves lethal to the individual who harbors it; hence only one form of the gene is possessed by all members of a species. A great many such essential genes are in fact shared by closely related species; the number of genes that are common to different species is inversely related to the evolutionary distance between them. For instance, the two living species closest to Homo sapiens in evolutionary distance, chimpanzees and gorillas, have at least 97 percent of their genes (or total genetic code) in common with present-day humans, scarcely less than chimps and gorillas have in common with each other. This means that even the very small percentage of genes (

A particular gene?s genetic code is determined by the unique sequences of four chemical bases of the DNA, arranged in the familiar double-helix structure of the gene. A change in a gene?s code (one base pair), however slight, can produce a new or different allele that manifests a different phenotypic effect. (Many such mutations, however, have no phenotypic effect because of redundancy in the DNA.) Such changes in the DNA result from spontaneous mutation. Though mutations occur at random, some gene loci have much higher mutation rates than others, ranging for different loci from less than one per million to perhaps more than 500 per million sex cells?not a trivial number considering that each male ejaculation contains from 200 to 500 million sperm. While natural or spontaneous mutations have largely unknown causes, aptly referred to as biological ?noise,? it has been shown experimentally that mutations can result from radiation (X-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and ultraviolet radiation). Certain chemical substances are also mutagenic.

The creation of new alleles by spontaneous mutation along with the recombination of alleles in gametogenesis are essential conditions for the evolution of all forms of life. A new allele with phenotypic effects that decrease an individual?s fitness in a given environment, compared to the nonmutated allele that would normally occupy the same chromosomal locus, will be passed on to fewer descendants and will eventually go to extinction. The gene is driven out of existence, so to speak, by losing in the competition with other alleles that afford greater fitness. Biological fitness (also known as Darwinian fitness), as a technical term in evolutionary genetics, refers only to an individual?s reproductive success, often defined operationally as the number of surviving fertile progeny of that individual. (A horse mated with a donkey, for example, might produce many surviving offspring, but because they are all sterile, the horse and donkey in this mating have a fitness of zero.) The frequency of a particular gene in all of an individual?s relatives is termed the inclusive fitness of that gene. The inclusive fitness of a gene is a measure of its effect on the survival and reproductive success of both the individual bearing the gene and all of the individual?s relatives bearing the identical gene. Technically speaking, an individual?s biological fitness denotes nothing more than that individual?s genetic contribution to the next generation?s gene pool relative to the average for the population. The term does not necessarily imply any traits one may deem personally desirable, such as vigor, physical strength, or a beautiful body, although some such traits, to the extent that they are heritable, were undoubtedly genetically selected in the course of evolution only because, we know in retrospect, they enhanced individuals? reproductive success in succeeding generations. The survival of any new allele and its rate of spreading through subsequent generations is wholly a function of the degree to which its phenotypic expression enhances the inclusive fitness of those who inherit the allele. An allele with any advantageous phenotypic effect, in this respect, spreads to an ever-larger part of the breeding population in each successive generation.

New alleles created by mutation are subject to natural selection according to the degree of fitness they confer in a particular environment. Changed environmental conditions can alter the selection pressure for a certain allele, depending on the nature of its phenotypic expression, thereby either increasing or decreasing its frequency in a breeding population. Depending on its fitness in a given environment, it may go to extinction in the population or it may go to fixation (with every member of the population eventually possessing the allele). Many polymorphic gene loci harbor one or another allele of a balanced polymorphism, wherein two or more alleles with comparable fitness values (in a particular environment) are maintained at equilibrium in the population. Thus spontaneous genetic mutation and recombination, along with differential selection of new alleles according to how their phenotypic expression affects inclusive fitness, are crucial mechanisms of the whole evolutionary process. The variation in all inherited human characteristics has resulted from this process, in combination with random changes caused by genetic drift and gene frequency changes caused by migration and intermarriage patterns.

Races as Breeding Populations with Fuzzy Boundaries. Most anthropologists and population geneticists today believe that the preponderance of evidence from both the dating of fossils and the analysis of the geographic distribution of many polymorphic genes in present-day indigenous populations argues that genus Homo originated in Africa. Estimates are that our direct distant hominid precursor split off from the great apes some four to six million years ago. The consensus of human paleontologists (as of 1997) accept the following basic scenario of human evolution.

Australopithecus afarensis was a small (about 3?6?), rather ape-like hominid that appears to have been ancestral to all later hominids. It was bipedal, walking more or less upright, and had a cranial capacity of 380 to 520 cm3 (about the same as that of the chimpanzee, but relatively larger for its overall body size). Branching from this species were at least two lineages, one of which led to a new genus, Homo.

Homo also had several branches (species). Those that were precursors of modern humans include Homo habilis, which lived about 2.5 to 1.5 million years ago. It used tools and even made tools, and had a cranial capacity of 510 to 750 cm3 (about half the size of modern humans). Homo erectus lived about 1.5 to 0.3 million years ago and had a cranial capacity of 850 to 1100 cm3 (about three-fourths the size of modern humans). The first hominid whose fossil remains have been found outside Africa, Homo erectus, migrated as far as the Middle East, Europe, and Western and Southeastern Asia. No Homo erectus remains have been found in Northern Asia, whose cold climate probably was too severe for their survival skills.

Homo sapiens branched off the Homo erectus line in Africa at least 100 thousand years ago. During a period from about seventy to ten thousand years ago they spread from Africa to the Middle East, Europe, all of Asia, Australia, and North and South America. To distinguish certain archaic subspecies of Homo sapiens (e.g., Neanderthal man) that became extinct during this period from their contemporaries who were anatomically modern humans, the latter are now referred to as Homo sapiens sapiens (or Homo s. sapiens); it is this line that branched off Homo erectus in Africa and spread to every continent during the last 70,000 years. These prehistoric humans survived as foragers living in small groups that frequently migrated in search of food.

GENETIC DISTANCE
As small populations of Homo s. sapiens separated and migrated further away from Africa, genetic mutations kept occurring at a constant rate, as occurs in all living creatures. Geographic separation and climatic differences, with their different challenges to survival, provided an increasingly wider basis for populations to become genetically differentiated through natural selection. Genetic mutations that occurred after each geographic separation of a population had taken place were differentially selected in each subpopulation according to the fitness the mutant gene conferred in the respective environments. A great many mutations and a lot of natural selection and genetic drift occurred over the course of the five or six thousand generations that humans were gradually spreading over the globe.

The extent of genetic difference, termed genetic distance, between separated populations provides an approximate measure of the amount of time since their separation and of the geographic distance between them. In addition to time and distance, natural geographic hindrances to gene flow (i.e., the interchange of genes between populations), such as mountain ranges, rivers, seas, and deserts, also restrict gene flow between populations. Such relatively isolated groups are termed breeding populations, because a much higher frequency of mating occurs between individuals who belong to the same population than occurs between individuals from different populations. (The ratio of the frequencies of within/between population matings for two breeding populations determines the degree of their genetic isolation from one another.) Hence the combined effects of geographic separation [or cultural separation], genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection for fitness in different environments result in population differences in the frequencies of different alleles at many gene loci.

There are also other causes of relative genetic isolation resulting from language differences as well as from certain social, cultural, or religious sanctions against persons mating outside their own group. These restrictions of gene flow may occur even among populations that occupy the same territory. Over many generations these social forms of genetic isolation produce breeding populations (including certain ethnic groups) that evince relatively slight differences in allele frequencies from other groups living in the same locality.

When two or more populations differ markedly in allele frequencies at a great many gene loci whose phenotypic effects visibly distinguish them by a particular configuration of physical features, these populations are called subspecies. Virtually every living species on earth has two or more subspecies. The human species is no exception, but in this case subspecies are called races. Like all other subspecies, human races are interfertile breeding populations whose individuals differ on average in distinguishable physical characteristics.

Because all the distinguishable breeding populations of modern humans were derived from the same evolutionary branch of the genus Homo, namely, Homo s. sapiens, and because breeding populations have relatively permeable (non-biological) boundaries that allow gene flow between them, human races can be considered as genetic ?fuzzy sets.? That is to say, a race is one of a number of statistically distinguishable groups in which individual membership is not mutually exclusive by any single criterion, and individuals in a given group differ only statistically from one another and from the group?s central tendency on each of the many imperfectly correlated genetic characteristics that distinguish between groups as such. The important point is that the average difference on all of these characteristics that differ among individuals within the group is less than the average difference between the groups on these genetic characteristics.

What is termed a cline results where groups overlap at their fuzzy boundaries in some characteristic, with intermediate gradations of the phenotypic characteristic, often making the classification of many individuals ambiguous or even impossible, unless they are classified by some arbitrary rule that ignores biology. The fact that there are intermediate gradations or blends between racial groups, however, does not contradict the genetic and statistical concept of race. The different colors of a rainbow do not consist of discrete bands but are a perfect continuum, yet we readily distinguish different regions of this continuum as blue, green, yellow, and red, and we effectively classify many things according to these colors. The validity of such distinctions and of the categories based on them obviously need not require that they form perfectly discrete Platonic categories.

It must be emphasized that the biological breeding populations called races can only be defined statistically, as populations that differ in the central tendency (or mean) on a large number of different characteristics that are under some degree of genetic control and that are correlated with each other through descent from common ancestors who are relatively recent in the time scale of evolution (i.e., those who lived about ten thousand years ago, at which time all of the continents and most of the major islands of the world were inhabited by relatively isolated breeding populations of Homo s. sapiens).

Of course, any rule concerning the number of gene loci that must show differences in allele frequencies (or any rule concerning the average size of differences in frequency) between different breeding populations for them to be considered races is necessarily arbitrary, because the distribution of average absolute differences in allele frequencies in the world?s total population is a perfectly continuous variable. Therefore, the number of different categories, or races, into which this continuum can be divided is, in principle, wholly arbitrary, depending on the degree of genetic difference a particular investigator chooses as the criterion for classification or the degree of confidence one is willing to accept with respect to correctly identifying the area of origin of one?s ancestors.

Some scientists have embraced all of Homo sapiens in as few as two racial categories, while others have claimed as many as seventy. These probably represent the most extreme positions in the ?lumper? and ?splitter? spectrum. Logically, we could go on splitting up groups of individuals on the basis of their genetic differences until we reach each pair of monozygotic twins, which are genetically identical. But as any pair of MZ twins are always of the same sex, they of course cannot constitute a breeding population. (If hypothetically they could, the average genetic correlation between all of the offspring of any pair of MZ twins would be 2/3; the average genetic correlation between the offspring of individuals paired at random in the total population is 1/2; the offspring of various forms of genetic relatedness, such as cousins [a preferred match in some parts of the world], falls somewhere between 2/3 and 1/2.) However, as I will explain shortly, certain multivariate statistical methods can provide objective criteria for deciding on the number and composition of different racial groups that can be reliably determined by the given genetic data or that may be useful for a particular scientific purpose. But one other source of genetic variation between populations must first be explained.

Genetic Drift. In addition to mutation, natural selection, and migration, another means by which breeding population may differ in allele frequencies is through a purely stochastic (that is, random) process termed genetic drift. Drift is most consequential during the formation of new populations when their numbers are still quite small. Although drift occurs for all gene loci, Mendelian characters (i.e., phenotypic traits), which are controlled by a single gene locus, are more noticeably affected by drift than are polygenic traits (i.e., those caused by many genes). The reason is purely statistical.

Changes in a population?s allele frequencies attributable to genetic drift can be distinguished from changes due to natural selection for two reasons: (1) Many genes are neutral in the sense that their allele frequencies have remained unaffected by natural selection, because they neither increase nor decrease fitness; over time they move across the permeable boundaries of different breeding populations. (2) When a small band of individuals emigrates from the breeding population of origin to found a new breeding population, it carries with it only a random sample of all of the alleles, including neutral alleles, that existed in the entire original population. That is, the allele frequencies at all gene loci in the migrating band will not exactly match the allele frequencies in the original population. The band of emigrants, and of course all its descendants (who may eventually form a large and stable breeding population), therefore differs genetically from its parent population as the result of a purely random process. This random process is called founder effect. It applies to all gene loci. All during the time that genetic drift was occurring, gene mutations steadily continued, and natural selection continued to produce changes in allele frequencies at many loci. Thus the combined effects of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection ensure that a good many alleles are maintained at different frequencies in various relatively isolated breeding populations. This process did not happen all at once and then cease. It is still going on, but it takes place too slowly to be perceived in the short time span of a few generations.

It should be noted that the phenotypic differences between populations that were due to genetic drift are considerably smaller than the differences in those phenotypic characteristics that were strongly subject to natural selection, especially those traits that reflect adaptations to markedly different climatic conditions, such as darker skin color (thought to have evolved as protection from the tropical sun?s rays that can cause skin cancer and to protect against folate decomposition by sunlight), light skin color (to admit more of the ultraviolet rays needed for the skin?s formation of vitamin D in northern regions; also because clothing in northern latitudes made dark skin irrelevant selectively and it was lost through random mutation and drift), and globular versus elongated body shape and head shape (better to conserve or dissipate body heat in cold or hot climates, respectively).

Since the genetic drift of neutral genes is a purely random process, and given a fairly constant rate of drift, the differing allele frequencies of many neutral genes in various contemporary populations can be used as a genetic clock to determine the approximate time of their divergence. The same method has been used to estimate the extent of genetic separation, termed genetic distance, between populations.

Measurement and Analysis of Genetic Distance Between Groups. Modern genetic technology makes it possible to measure the genetic distance between different populations objectively with considerable precision, or statistical reliability. This measurement is based on a large number of genetic polymorphisms for what are thought to be relatively neutral genes, that is, genes whose allele frequencies therefore differ across populations more because of mutations and genetic drift than because of natural selection. Population allele frequencies can be as low as zero or as high as 1.0 (as there are certain alleles that have large frequencies in some populations but are not found at all in other populations). Neutral genes are preferred in this work because they provide a more stable and accurate evolutionary ?clock? than do genes whose phenotypic characters have been subjected to the kinds of diverse external conditions that are the basis for natural selection. Although neutral genes provide a more accurate estimate of populations? divergence times, it should be noted that, by definition, they do not fully reflect the magnitude of genetic differences between populations that are mainly attributable to natural selection.

The technical rationale and formulas for calculating genetic distance are fully explicated elsewhere. For present purposes, the genetic distance, D, between two groups can be thought of here simply as the average difference in allele frequencies between two populations, with D scaled to range from zero (i.e., no allele differences) to one (i.e., differences in all alleles). One can also think of D as the complement of the correlation coefficient r (i.e., D= 1- r, and r=1- D). This conversion of D to r is especially useful, because many of the same objective multivariate statistical methods that were originally devised to analyze large correlation matrices (e.g., principal components analysis, factor analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling) can also be used to analyze the total matrix of genetic distances (after they are converted to correlations) between a large number of populations with known allele frequencies based on some large number of genes.

The most comprehensive study of population differences in allele frequencies to date is that of the Stanford University geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his coworkers. Their recent 1,046-page book reporting the detailed results of their study is a major contribution to the science of population genetics. The main analysis was based on blood and tissue specimens obtained from representative samples of forty-two populations, from every continent (and the Pacific islands) in the world. All the individuals in these samples were aboriginal or indigenous to the areas in which they were selected samples; their ancestors have lived in the same geographic area since no later than 1492, a familiar date that generally marks the beginning of extensive worldwide European explorations and the consequent major population movements. In each of the Stanford study?s population samples, the allele frequencies of 120 alleles at forty-nine gene loci were determined. Most of these genes determine various blood groups, enzymes, and proteins involved in the immune system, such as human lymphocyte antigens (HLA) and immunoglobulins. These data were then used to calculate the genetic distance (D) between each group and every other group. (DNA sequencing was also used in separate analyses of some groups; it yields finer genetic discrimination between certain groups than can the genetic polymorphisms used in the main analysis.) From the total matrix of (42 X 41)/2 = 861 D values, Cavalli-Sforza et al. constructed a genetic linkage tree. The D value between any two groups is represented graphically by the total length of the line that connects the groups in the branching tree. (See Figure 12.1.)

The greatest genetic distance, that is, the largest D, is between the five African groups (listed at the top of Figure 12.1) and all the other groups. The next largest D is between the Australian + New Guinean groups and the remaining other groups; the next largest split is between the South Asians + Pacific Islanders and all the remaining groups, and so on. The clusters at the lowest level (i.e., at far right in Figure 12.1) can also be clustered to show the D values between larger groupings, as in Figure 12.2. Note that these clusters produce much the same picture as the traditional racial classifications that were based on skeletal characteristics and the many visible physical features by which non-specialists distinguish ?races.?

It is noteworthy, but perhaps not too surprising, that the grouping of various human populations in terms of invisible genetic polymorphisms for many relatively neutral genes yields results that are highly similar to the classic methods of racial classification based on directly observable anatomical features.

Another notable feature of the Stanford study is that the geographic distances between the locations of the groups that are less than 5,000 miles apart are highly correlated (r ~.95) with the respective genetic distances between these groups. This argues that genetic distance provides a fairly good measure of the rate of gene flow between populations that were in place before A.D. 1492.

None of the 120 alleles used in this study has equal frequencies across all of the forty-two populations. This attests to the ubiquity of genetic variation among the world?s populations and subpopulations.

All of the modern human population studies based on genetic analysis (including analyses based on DNA markers and sequences) are in close agreement in showing that the earliest, and by far the greatest, genetic divergence within the human species is that between Africans and non-Africans (see Figures 12.1 and 12.2).

Cavalli-Sforza et al. transformed the distance matrix to a correlation matrix consisting of 861 correlation coefficients among the forty-two populations, so they could apply principal components (PC) analysis to their genetic data. (PC analysis is similar to factor analysis; the essential distinction between them is explained in Chapter 3, Note 13.) PC analysis is a wholly objective mathematical procedure. It requires no decisions or judgments on anyone?s part and yields identical results for everyone who does the calculations correctly. (Nowadays the calculations are performed by a computer program specifically designed for PC analysis.) The important point is that if the various populations were fairly homogeneous in genetic composition, differing no more genetically than could be attributable only to random variation, a PC analysis would not be able to cluster the populations into a number of groups according to their genetic propinquity. In fact, a PC analysis shows that most of the forty-two populations fall very distinctly into the quadrants formed by using the first and second principal components as axes (see Figure 12.3). They form quite widely separated clusters of the various populations that resemble the ?classic? major racial groups?Caucasians in the upper right, Negroids in the lower right, Northeast Asians in the upper left, and Southeast Asians (including South Chinese) and Pacific Islanders in the lower left. The first component (which accounts for 27 percent of the total genetic variation) corresponds roughly to the geographic migration distances (or therefore time since divergence) from sub-Saharan Africa, reflecting to some extent the differences in allele frequencies that are due to genetic drift. The second component (which accounts for 16 percent of the variation) appears to separate the groups climatically, as the groups? positions on PC2 are quite highly correlated with the degrees latitude of their geographic locations. This suggests that not all of the genes used to determine genetic distances are entirely neutral, but at least some of them differ in allele frequencies to some extent because of natural selection for different climatic conditions. I have tried other objective methods of clustering on the same data (varimax rotation of the principal components, common factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis). All of these types of analysis yield essentially the same picture and identify the same major racial groupings.

African-Americans. The first Africans arrived in North America in 1619 and for more than two centuries thereafter, mostly between 1700 and 1800, the majority of Africans were brought to America as slaves. The end to this involuntary migration came between 1863 and 1865, with the Emancipation Proclamation. Nearly all of the Africans who were enslaved came from sub-Saharan West Africa, specifically the coastal region from Senegal to Angola. The populations in this area are often called West African or North West and Central West Bantu.

Steadily over time, the real, but relatively low frequency of cross-mating between blacks and whites produced an infusion of Caucasoid genes into the black gene pool. As a result, the present-day population of black Americans is genetically different from the African populations from whom they descended. Virtually 100 percent of contemporary black Americans have some Caucasian ancestry. Most of the Caucasian genes in the present-day gene pool of black Americans entered the black gene pool during the period of slavery.

Estimates of the proportion of Caucasoid genes in American blacks are based on a number genetic polymorphisms that have fairly high allele frequencies in the European population but zero or near-zero frequencies in the West African population, or vice versa. For any given allele, the estimated proportion (M) of white European ancestry in American blacks is obtained by the formula M =(qB-qAf)/qW-qAf) where qB is the given allele?s frequency in the black American population, qAf is its frequency in the African population, and qW is its frequency in the white European population. The average value of M is obtained over each of twenty or so genes with alleles that are unique either to Africans or to Europeans. The largest studies, which yield estimates with the greatest precision, give mean values of M close to 25 percent, with a standard error of about 3 percent. This is probably the best estimate for the African-American population overall. However, M varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states. Among the most typical and precise estimates of M are those for Oakland, California (22.0 percent) and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (25.2 percent). This regional variation in M reflects the pattern of selective migration of blacks from the Deep South since the mid-nineteenth century. Gene flow, of course, goes in both directions. In every generation there has been a small percentage of persons who have some African ancestry but whose ancestry is predominantly Caucasian and who permanently ?pass as white.? The white American gene pool therefore contains some genes that can be traced to Africans who were brought over as slaves (estimated by analyses of genetic polymorphisms to be less than 1 percent).

Genetic Distance and Population Differences in g. The preceding discourse on the genetics of populations is germane to any discussion of population differences in g. The differences in gene frequencies that originally created different breeding populations largely explain the physical phenotypic differences observed between populations called races. Most of these differences in visible phenotypic characteristics are the result of natural selection working over the course of human evolution. Selection changes gene frequencies in a population by acting directly on any genetically based phenotypic variation that affects Darwinian fitness for a given environment. This applies not only to physical characteristics, but also to behavioral capacities, which are necessarily to some degree a function of underlying physical structures. Structure and function are intimately related, as their evolutionary origins are inseparable.

The behavioral capacities or traits that demonstrate genetic variation can also be viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Given the variation in allele frequencies between populations for virtually every known polymorphic gene, it is exceedingly improbable that populations do not differ in the alleles that affect the structural and functional basis of heritable behavioral traits. The empirical generalization that every polygenic physical characteristic that shows differences between individuals also shows mean differences between populations applies to behavioral as well as physical characteristics. Given the relative genetic distances between the major racial populations, one might expect some behavioral differences between Asians and Europeans to be of lesser magnitude than those between these groups and sub-Saharan Africans.

The behavioral, psychological, or mental characteristics that show the highest g loadings are the most heritable and have the most biological correlates (see Chapter 6) and are therefore the most likely to show genetic population differences. Because of the relative genetic distances, they are also the most likely to show such differences between Africans (including predominantly African descendants) and Caucasians or Asians.

Of the approximately 100,000 human polymorphic genes, about 50,000 are functional in the brain and about 30,000 are unique to brain functions. The brain is by far the structurally and functionally most complex organ in the human body and the greater part of this complexity resides in the neural structures of the cerebral hemispheres, which, in humans, are much larger relative to total brain size than in any other species. A general principle of neural organization states that, within a given species, the size and complexity of a structure reflect the behavioral importance of that structure. The reason, again, is that structure and function have evolved conjointly as an integrated adaptive mechanism. But as there are only some 50,000 genes involved in the brain?s development and there are at least 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections in the brain, it is clear that any single gene must influence some huge number of neurons?not just any neurons selected at random, but complex systems of neurons organized to serve special functions related to behavioral capacities.

It is extremely improbable that the evolution of racial differences since the advent of Homo sapiens excluded allelic changes only in those 50,000 genes that are involved with the brain.

Brain size has increased almost threefold during the course of human evolution, from about 500 cm3 in the australopithecenes to about 1,350 cm3 (the present estimated worldwide average) in Homo sapiens. Nearly all of this increase in brain volume has occurred in connection with those parts of the cerebral hemispheres associated with cognitive processes, particularly the prefrontal lobes and the posterior association areas, which control foresight, planning, goal-directed behavior, and the integration of sensory information required for higher levels of information processing. The parts of the brain involved in vegetative and sensorimotor functions per se differ much less in size, relative to total brain size, even between humans and chimpanzees than do the parts of the brain that subserve cognitive functions. Moreover, most of the evolutionary increase in brain volume has resulted not from a uniform increase in the total number of cortical neurons per Se, but from a much greater increase in the number and complexity of the interconnections between neurons, making possible a higher level of interneuronal communication on which complex information processing depends. Although the human brain is three times larger than the chimpanzee brain, it has only 1.25 times as many neurons; the much greater difference is in their degree of arborization, that is, their number of synapses and interconnecting branches.

No other organ system has evolved as rapidly as the brain of Homo sapiens, a species that is unprecedented in this respect. Although in hominid evolution there was also an increase in general body size, it was not nearly as great as the increase in brain size. In humans, the correlation between individual differences in brain size and in stature is only about + .20. One minus the square of this relatively small correlation, which is .96, reflects the proportion of the total variance in brain size that cannot be accounted for by variation in overall body size. Much of this residual variance in brain size presumably involves cognitive functions.

Bear in mind that, from the standpoint of natural selection, a larger brain size (and its corresponding larger head size) is in many ways decidedly disadvantageous. A large brain is metabolically very expensive, requiring a high-calorie diet. Though the human brain is less than 2 percent of total body weight, it accounts for some 20 percent of the body?s basal metabolic rate (BMR). In other primates, the brain accounts for about 10 percent of the BMR, and for most carnivores, less than 5 percent. A larger head also greatly increases the difficulty of giving birth and incurs much greater risk of perinatal trauma or even fetal death, which are much more frequent in humans than in any other animal species. A larger head also puts a greater strain on the skeletal and muscular support. Further, it increases the chances of being fatally hit by an enemy?s club or missile. Despite such disadvantages of larger head size, the human brain, in fact, evolved markedly in size, with its cortical layer accommodating to a relatively lesser increase in head size by becoming highly convoluted in the endocranial vault. In the evolution of the brain, the effects of natural selection had to have reflected the net selective pressures that made an increase in brain size disadvantageous versus those that were advantageous. The advantages obviously outweighed the disadvantages to some degree or the increase in hominid brain size would not have occurred.

The only conceivable advantage to an increase in the size and complexity of the brain is the greater behavioral capacity this would confer. This would include: the integration of sensory information, fine hand-eye coordination, quickness of responding or voluntary response inhibition and delayed reaction depending on the circumstances, perceiving functional relationships between two things when only one or neither is physically ?present, connecting past and future events, learning from experience, generalization, far transfer of learning, imagery, intentionality and planning, short-term and long-term memory capacity, mentally manipulating objects without need to handle them physically, foresight, problem solving, use of denotative language in vocal communication, as well as all of the information processes that are inferred from performance on what were referred to in Chapter 8 as ?elementary cognitive tasks.? These basic information processes are involved in coping with the natural exigencies and the contingencies of humans? environment. An increase in these capabilities and their functional efficiency are, in fact, associated with allometric differences in brain size between various species of animals, those with greater brain volume in relation to their overall body size generally displaying more of the kinds of capabilities listed above. The functional efficiency of the various behavioral capabilities that are common to all members of a given species can be enhanced differentially by natural selection, in the same way (though probably not to the same degree) that artificial selection has made dogs of various breeds differ in propensities and trainability for specific types of behavior.

What kinds of environmental pressures encountered by Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens would have selected for increased size and complexity of the brain? Evolutionists have proposed several plausible scenarios. Generally, a more complex brain would be advantageous in hunting skill, cooperative social interaction, and the development of tool use, followed by the higher-order skill of using tools to make other tools, a capacity possessed by no contemporary species other than Homo sapiens.

The environmental forces that contributed to the differentiation of major populations and their gene pools through natural selection were mainly climatic, but parasite avoidance and resistance were also instrumental. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa from earlier species of Homo that originated there. In migrating from Africa and into Europe and Asia, they encountered highly diverse climates. These migrants, like their parent population that remained in sub-Saharan Africa, were foragers, but they had to forage for sustenance under the highly different conditions of their climatically diverse habitats. Foraging was possible all during the year in the tropical and subtropical climates of equatorial regions, while in the more northern climate of Eurasia the abundance of food that could be obtained by hunting and gathering greatly fluctuated with the seasons. This necessitated the development of more sophisticated techniques for hunting large game, requiring vocal communication and cooperative efforts (e.g., by ambushing, trapping, or corralling), along with foresight in planning ahead for the preservation, storage, and rationing of food in order to survive the severe winter months when foraging is practically impossible. Extreme seasonal changes and the cold climate of the northern regions (now inhabited by Mongoloids and Caucasians) also demanded the ingenuity and skills for constructing more permanent and sturdy dwellings and designing substantial clothing to protect against the elements. Whatever bodily and behavioral adaptive differences between populations were wrought by the contrasting conditions of the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa and the cold seasons of northern Europe and northeast Asia would have been markedly intensified by the last glaciation, which occurred approximately 30,000 to 10,000 years ago, after Homo sapiens had inhabited most of the globe. During this long period of time, large regions of the Northern Hemisphere were covered by ice and the north Eurasian winters were far more severe than they have ever been for over 10,000 years.

It seems most plausible, therefore, that behavioral adaptations of a kind that could be described as complex mental abilities were more crucial for survival of the populations that migrated to the northern Eurasian regions, and were therefore under greater selection pressure as fitness characters, than in the populations that remained in tropical or subtropical regions.

Climate has also influenced the evolution of brain size apparently indirectly through its direct effect on head size, particularly the shape of the skull. Head size and shape are more related to climate than is the body as a whole. Because the human brain metabolizes 20 percent of the body?s total energy supply, it generates more heat in relation to its size than any other organ. The resting rate of energy output of the average European adult male?s brain is equal to about three-fourths that of a 100-watt light bulb. Because temperature changes in the brain of only four to five degrees Celsius, are seriously adverse to the normal functioning of the brain, it must conserve heat (in a cold environment) or dissipate heat (in a hot environment). Simply in terms of solid geometry, a sphere contains a larger volume (or cubic capacity) for its total surface area than does than any other shape. Conversely, a given volume can be contained in a sphere that has a smaller surface area than can be contained by a non-spherical shape with the same surface area (an elongated oval shape, for instance). Since heat radiation takes place at the surface, more spherical shapes will radiate less heat and conserve more heat for a given volume than a non-spherical shape, and less spherical shapes will lose more heat by radiation. Applying these geometric principles to head size and shape, one would predict that natural selection would favor a smaller head with a less spherical (dolichocephalic) shape because of its better heat dissipation in hot climates, and would favor a more spherical (brachycephalic) head to accommodate a larger volume of brain matter with a smaller surface area because of its better heat conservation in cold climates. (The dolichocephalic-brachycephalic dimension is related to the head?s width:length ratio, known as the cephalic index.) In brief, a smaller, dolichocephalic cranium is advantageous for thermoregulation of the brain in a hot climate, whereas a larger, brachycephalic cranium is advantageous in a cold climate. In the world?s populations, head breadth is correlated about +.8 with cranial capacity; head length is correlated about +.4.

Evidence that the average endocranial volume of various populations is related to cranial shape and that both phenomena are, in some part, adaptations to climatic conditions in different regions has been shown by physical anthropologist Kenneth Beals and his co-workers. They amassed measurements of endocranial volume in modern humans from some 20,000 individual crania collected from every continent, representing 122 ethnically distinguishable populations. They found that the global mean cranial capacity for populations in hot climates is 1,297 ? 10.5 cm3 for populations in cold and temperate climates it is 1,386 ? 6.7 cm3, a highly significant (p

RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN HEAD/BRAIN SIZE
Are the climatic factors associated with population differences in cranial capacity, as summarized in the preceding section, reflected in the average cranial or brain-size measurements of the three broadest contemporary population groups, generally termed Caucasoid (Europeans and their descendants), Negroid (Africans and descendants), and Mongoloid (Northeast Asians and descendants)? A recent comprehensive review summarized the worldwide literature on brain volume in cm3 as determined from four kinds of measurements: (a) direct measurement of the brain obtained by autopsy, (b) direct measurement of endocranial volume of the skull, (c) cranial capacity estimated from external head measurements, and (d) cranial capacity estimated from head measurements and corrected for body size. The aggregation of data obtained by different methods, based on large samples, from a number of studies tends to average-out the sampling error and method effects and provides the best overall estimates of the racial group means in head/brain size measurements. The results of this aggregation are shown in Table 12.1.

Probably the technically most precise data on brain size for American whites and blacks were obtained from a study of autopsied brains by a team of experts at the Case-Western Reserve University?s Medical School in Cleveland, Ohio. It measured the autopsied brains of 811 whites and 450 blacks matched for mean age (sixty years). Subjects with any brain pathology were excluded from the study. The same methods were used to remove, preserve, and weigh the brains for all subjects. The results for each race X sex group are shown in Table 12.2. As the total sample (N = 1,261) ranged in age from 25 to 80 years, with a mean of 60 years in both racial groups, it was possible to estimate (by regression) the mean brain weight for each race X sex group at age 25 based on all of the data for each group (shown in the last column of Table 12.2). For the mean height-adjusted brain weight, the W-B difference in standard deviation units is 0.76s for males, 0.78s for females. (The actual height-adjusted W-B differences are 102 g for males and 95 g for females.) Neurologically, a difference of 100 g in brain weight corresponds to approximately 550 million cortical neurons. But this average estimate ignores any sex differences in brain size and density of cortical neurons.

Note that for each racial group the sexes differ in brain weight by about 130 g, which is about 30 g more than the average racial difference. This presents a paradox, because while brain size is correlated with IQ, there is little or no sex difference in IQ (even the largest IQ differences that have been claimed by anyone are much smaller than would be predicted by the sex difference in brain size). Attempts to explain this paradox amount to plausible speculations. One thing seems certain: Because of the small correlation (about .20) between brain size and body size, the sex difference in brain volume and weight can be only partially accounted for by the regression of brain size on body size. The resolution of this paradox may come from the evidence that females have a higher density of neurons in the posterior temporal cortex, which is the major association area and is involved in higher thought processes. Females have 11 percent more neurons per unit volume than do males, which, if true for the brain as a whole, would more than offset the 10 percent male-female difference in overall brain volume. This sex difference in neuronal packing density is considered a true sexual dimorphism, as are the sex differences in overall body size, skeletal form, the proportion and distribution of body fat, and other secondary sexual characteristics. Sexual dimorphism is seen throughout the animal kingdom and in many species is far more extreme than in Homo sapiens. I have not found any investigation of racial differences in neuron density that, as in the case of sex differences, would offset the racial difference in brain weight or volume. Until doubts on this point are empirically resolved, however, interpretations of the behavioral significance of the racial difference in brain size remain tentative. One indication that the race difference in brain weight is not of the same nature as the sex difference is that the allometric ratio of brain weight (in g) to body weight (in kg) is less similar between the racial groups than between the sexes within each racial group.

Also, we must take into account the fact that, on average, about 30 percent of total adult female body weight is fat, as compared to 15 percent for males. Because body fat is much less innervated than muscle tissue, brain size is more highly correlated with fat-free body weight than with total body weight. Statistically controlling for fat-free body weight (instead of total body weight) has been found to reduce the sex difference in head circumference by about 77 percent, or about three times as much as controlling for total body weight. Because head circumference is an imperfect proxy for brain size, the percentage reduction of the sex difference in directly measured brain volume (or weight) that would be achieved by controlling for fat-free weight will be uncertain until such studies are performed. Measuring fat-free body weight should become routine in the conduct of brain-size studies based on autopsied brains or on in vivo brain measurements obtained by imaging techniques.

The white-black difference in head/brain size is significant in neonates (about 0.4s difference in head circumference) and within each racial group head size at birth is correlated (about +.13) with IQ at age seven years, when the average within-groups correlation with IQ is +.21. A retrospective study of two groups of seven-year-old children, those with IQ 120 were found to have differed by 0.5s in head circumference measured at one year of age. Also, small head size measured at eight months has been found to interact most unfavorably with birth weight; infants with very low birth weight who had subnormal head size at eight months had an average IQ about nine points (0.6s) lower at school age than did infants of comparable birth weight but with normal head size (corrected for prematurity).

I have not found an estimate of the heritability of directly measured brain size. However, the heritability, h2, of cranial capacity (estimated by formula from head length, width, and circumference) based on Falconer? s formula [h2=rMZ-rDZ) applied to 107 MZ twin pairs and 129 DZ twin pairs ranged widely for different race X sex subgroups, for a within-subgroup average of .19. When the estimates of cranial capacity were adjusted for age, stature, and weight, the h2 values averaged 0.53. The narrow h2 (i.e., the proportion of the total variance attributable only to additive genetic effects) of various head measurements determined in a Caucasoid sample (Bulgarians) by the midparent X offspring correlation (all offspring over fifteen years of age) were: length .37, height .33, breadth .46, circumference .52. All of these estimates of the heritability of cranial size indicate a considerable amount of nongenetic (or environmental) variance, at least as much as for IQ. Moreover, much more of the nongenetic variance is within-families (i.e., unshared among siblings reared together) than is between-families (shared) variance. This implies that shared environmental effects, such as those associated with parents? education, occupation, and general socioeconomic level, are not the major source of variance in cranial capacity as estimated from head measurements. Also, what little evidence we have suggests that the total environmental variance in head measurements is greater for blacks than for whites. (The nature of these environmental influences is discussed later in this chapter.)

Implications of Brain Size for IQ Differences. Chapter 6 reviewed the major evidence showing that head measurements and brain size itself are significantly correlated with IQ. The only available correlations for blacks are based on head length, width, and circumference (and cranial capacity estimated by formula from these measurements); as yet there are no reported correlations between IQ and directly measured brain size for blacks. However, the head measurements are significantly correlated with IQ

What a hatefull peice of crap. In fact the majority of these postng are filled with hatred and evil.

I came to find out if Pepsi had really dropped Kanye and this is what I found.

No wonder your Wonderful USA is in such a nasty mess!

Don't worry white man. In 50 years, your crainial documentation... which clearly states blacks haven't even been accurately calibrated

"as yet there are no reported correlations between IQ and directly measured brain size for blacks. However, the head measurements are significantly correlated with IQ "

So nice try. I applaud your surpurb ability as a white male, to copy and paste the theorm of another man.

Your intelligence is intriguing....
Riiiiiiight.... - Dr. Evil

Nonetheless... within 150 years, when all white people will become mulatto. (Mixed both white and black or other)

So your incomplete study.... , will mean nothing at all when you are no longer here!

Bye Bye white people!

Black Male, 25 Years Old, MFA Degree (Masters of Fine Arts) and pursuing a Doctoral, Website Development Company Owner (Self Taught!)

Like water off a ducks back crackers. My Day Is NOW.

All Black People Are Rappers, Gangsters and Drug Dealers....

Right.

Colin Powell
Condalesa Rice
Michael Jordan
Oprah Winfrey
Bill Cosby
Johnnie Cochran

Silly Crackers, dicks are for chicks.

It amazes me how full of hate some people are. There are some racist bastards of both races throughout this thread. I can't fucking stand racism. We are all people regardless of the color of our skin. We need to learn to treat others with respect and not hate just because we look different. I always thought racism was just a problem that plagued the minds of just white people, but by judging this thread I can see that I was way off the mark. I've never felt offended by black people before reading this thread. Before this, I have had nothing but good experiences with black people. I grew up in a city with an almost even distribution of whites and blacks. Many of my friends growing up were black or mixed and we didn't treat each other any different than anybody else. I know the majority of white people are not racist and I would like to think that the majority of black people are not racist as well. However, there are obviously a significant number of bad apples on either side of this issue. It seems to me though, that there are some people in this thread that claim that all white people are evil. I'm sure I will get called a silly cracker whiteboy for saying this by those evil people, but I would just like to defend my case. Those whites who are racist are not only a disgrace to all other whites, but to mankind in general. Granted, I don't like being blamed for my ancestors mistakes. I have never owned a slave, have never killed a native american, but yet I am constantly blamed for it. Those atrocities were committed in the past, and I can do nothing about that except to try to lead a good life, set an example for others, and treat all people regardless of race, color, creed and religion with respect. So, say what you want about my post, and I'm sure I'll get flamed by somebody. Just know that we're not all bad people and that most of us would like nothing better to be able to live together peacefully and cooperatively.

Sorry, Negroes, but it�s true: your race are a failed race because you�re a feckless, unruly, uncivilized horde of feral proto-humans. You never figured out how to live in a society bigger than one or two squabbling families. Starting thousands of years ago, everyone else on this planet without exception did - they invented religion, the idea of law, and the ideas of property and respect for the value of human life. This enabled tribes to coalesce into bigger groups and become organized. The rest is history, or rather civilization.
But your lot never did this, did they? Abstract thought and problem-solving have never been the black man�s strengths, have they? Did they invent a long-lived and intellectually coherent religion? Nope. Did they ever build a city? Nope. Did they even invent bricks? Nope (the reason there�s no Stonehenge in Africa is because it took more than 20 people to move the slabs of rock - clearly a non-starter in Africa, where assembling more than 20 niggers normally results in a war). Did they till the land? Nope. Did they domesticate an animal for their use? Nope. Did they invent a written language? Nope. Did they invent the wheel? Mainly, nope. Were they curious enough about what lay out across the sea to sail upon it? Nope.
And blacks are the only �humans� on this planet of which all this is true. Eskimos are more technically advanced than blacks were, despite the handicap of having no raw materials to work with other than dead fish and snow. Indians managed to domesticate the elephant. Why couldn�t Negros?
So why do you fail everywhere even today? Let me offer a hypothesis. It�s because feral behavior - innate savagery, murderous violence if annoyed, predisposition to rape many women and thus fecklessly father many children - conferred valuable survival advantages on individuals in the backward, Paleolithic milieu of Africa. But they don�t help your kind in a civilized society. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the last few hundred years have not been long enough for these behaviors to have been domesticated out of you all. So you�re all still at it.
Let me illustrate this for you by analogy. Technically, an American pit bull terrier and an English golden retriever are exactly the same species. They can produce offspring, if crossbred.
The former was bred to exhibit certain characteristics - wanton aggression, propensity to fight, physical strength, powerful bite, and so on. The latter was bred to retrieve birds shot and killed by its masters, and to do this, it has to have a docile, placid, unaggressive nature; otherwise it would treat what it found as its own kill and refuse to hand it over.
Now imagine that your small children, aged maybe two or three years old, are going to be locked in a room with five or six of those dogs, and the dogs haven�t been fed for a week.
Which breed would you rather lock in there with *your* children? Hungry pit bulls, or hungry golden retrievers? Or do you figure that, even though they *look* differently, they�re all the same species really, so of course the pit bulls certainly won�t act any differently?
Exactly!
All this PC crap we hear spouted in the media about how �there�s no such thing as race� is just that - crap. A dog has four legs and a tail; a cat also has four legs and a tail, but that doesn�t make it a dog. The superficial similarity between cats and dogs and between whites and blacks is just that - superficial. If there really were no genetic difference between niggers and humans, then presumably my white woman and I could very easily produce a black baby between us at any time, and any nigger and his ho a white one.
Whenever blacks achieve a certain critical mass numerically in a pre-existing non-black society, they start to exhibit their natural feral behavior and to turn their environment back into a recognizably African, essentially Stone Age one. Thus, Africa has the jungle; black enclaves have �da �hood.� Native Africans were small wandering herds of marginal animals, one famine away from extinction, and which therefore fought each other savagely for pieces of territory. Large groups of African-Americans?at liberty in the west actually deliberately break themselves down into *smaller*, tribal hordes, because they feel uneasy in and unaccustomed to a larger society. Negro gangs of twenty to fifty individuals assert their rights to tag?other peoples property through gang violence, but fail to co-operate otherwise.
For instance, a 15- or 20-strong horde of Negroes was recently filmed by a security camera inside a London bank they were robbing. Once they had terrified the cashiers into handing over the money, they then fought *each other* for it, in the middle of the cashiers hall, like hyenas fighting over an antelope. Having stolen from the bank, they instantly started to steal from each other. The idea of escaping first, then sharing the swag, was just too complex for them to understand, never mind implement.
And so it goes on. You *cannot* fuse blacks into existing large societies or standalone nations because they are just plain not adapted to it. I�m sorry for you niggers and for your savagery, and I�m sorry you were born a violent black aboriginal savage in a civilized society, but I�m more sorry for the white societies that are having to tolerate all your crime while we try to absorb you.
This is why all black nations fail economically and sink into corruption, civil war, and permanent dependence on the white man�s generosity.
And presumably this is also why you pathetically allowed yourselves to be enslaved: you�re savage enough still to be angry about it long after it ended, but you were too backward to stop it at the time. No black Spartacus, is there? Why no slave uprisings among blacks? Slaves repeatedly rose against the Romans even they knew they�d be crucified for it, when captured.
*White* slaves, that is. They cared enough about their stolen liberty that they were prepared to risk even that. So whats different about the Negro? Why did you all sit there, enslaving each other even in America, and still enslaving each other even today in Africa, until a kindly but misguided white benefactor set you free? Is it because, as slaves, you were fed, watered, and housed, and that you as a race had no ambition beyond that if it entailed doing any work or taking any risks? What are you - lazy, cowardly, stupid, or all of the above?
And you�re *still* bleating about slavery now. If slavery is the root of all your problems, why did Australia prosper? England used Australia as a dumping ground when her prisons overflowed. Within a hundred years, a nation manufactured from convicts in irons had its own autonomous elected government, and barely a hundred years on from then, Australia is now a major economic power in the Pacific. And at no time have *they* niggerwhined for handouts from the mother country - in fact, if anything, it�s mostly been the other way around.
You know what? It�s because Australia is *white*. Oh yes it is. Just imagine if theres been a Black Australia. Look how few aborigines were able to live in Australia�s climate, and now look at how many whites can. If President Monroe had sent his niggers there, they�d be niggerwhining about how Bwana dumped de po?black folks on a desert island in the middle of nowhere, so they never had a chance. Every week there would be news of a new famine or civil war in Australia. The Africoons would be slaughtering the Aborigines, or the other way around, or whatever. The collecting tin would come out regularly, but the money would be stolen and spent on Kalashnikovs, and Black Australia would still owe Whitey billions which we�ll be expected to just forget. If all those unfortunate convicts we sent out there had been black, Australia today would just be yet another Liberia - a crappy failed nation of murderous warring niggers, with one hand held permanently out for money in the general direction of Bwana. And you know it.
So quit whining and thank the white man you live in America, not in Africa.

true daht festler, true daht

If Pepsi dropped dumb niqqer pan-head, I might buy one.

kanye west. nigger. sounds right. anyone who hates the people who pay them millions and millions of dollars needs to go back to africa and find out how thankful they should be that theyre not 90 pounds and have flies crawling all over their eyes. he knows nothing. i love black people, but can not stand it when one of them fucks shit up for everyone else. those are niggers. ignorant individuals that act like morons because the white man gave them the opportunity to speak. kanye needs to understand that rapping about women, drugs, and violence does not give him the right to bash a political force that he could never begin to comprehend. all u blacks out there, keep ur head up, way above this bullshit. u dont need some moron making u hate white people. be thankful ur not still in cages and have the chance to make money and be equals.

� monster bills | need to stop sleep depriving myself �
why niggers never progress; societal regression

I had the luxury of sharing a train cabin with some obnoxiously loud blacks this morning. Makes it a little difficult to read, and regardless of the blatant looks I was offering them, they did not understand. Some blacks are a little dense like that. Their understanding is that if they are being given looks, their freedom of speech must be exercised, otherwise it is wasted attention. Blacks are big on freedoms, volume is one of their modern day reactions to a history of suppression. Some find it empowering, but as an Asian minority (or majority if you prefer to believe that), I find it ignorant and annoying. If those blacks would shut the fuck up and read a book, the world would be a better place.

These blacks also had a child with them. I pictured it in 3 years, when it's at the age when water in large receptacles makes a fascinating plaything.

Child: [silently groping door to public toilet on subway]
Mom: Tyrone! You're stupid. Sit down before I slap you.
Child: But mom.
Mom: Shut the fuck up and sit. Stupid!
Child: [opens door to bathroom]
Mom: [words to violent to publish, harshly jerk Tyrone back outside]
Child: [smile at mother, walk slowly to toilet... *splash* *splash*]
Mom: You fucking idiot! Here, eat this. [pass snacks to child, no need to wash hands of course]

Tyrone would be a typical example of an ignorant fool who is hardened to any sort of discipline because of his upbringing. He will most likely be a troublemaker in school, for this very reason. A combination of this rougher, and mule-like stubborn attitude, and black-righteous "I'm never wrong, and I'm always free" pride on behalf of the mother will ensure a one way ticket to the ghetto for Tyrone.

Tyrone will be a rap superstar. His English will suck. And mainstream America will idolize Tyrone, place a high value on all of his words, and try to identify with the glorified gangster background. Regression.

When was the last time you heard a nigger freestyle about his education?

If you quote rappers like I quote Confuscious, then I shit on you. You're as brainless as Tyrone.

I hate the name: Tyrone.