[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To quote from Eric Turkheimer :If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans’ social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves’ genes. If that isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is classic douchebaggery from the PC establishment.

1. Africa scores far worse than US blacks. Western "oppression" has nothing to do with anything.
2. I have previously posted SAT breakdowns offset against a number of socioeconomic characteristics for the four main racial groups. They alone debunk a lot of the author's claims.
3. Many of the author's excuses for poor African results work EXACTLY IN REVERSE when applied to the Asian-White differential, including both Asian homelands and immigrants. Either blacks are being massively held back by their circumstances to the tune of 30 IQ points, or Asians are massively smarter than Whites. You choose. I mentioned this above but no one has commented on this elephant in the room.

4. Indirect evidence is overwhelming, and needs to be adequately explained by any environment-only theory.

5. It's the enviro people irrationally claiming that

- Intelligence doesn't inately differ between races, or, if it does
- Environment >>>>>> Genes. I don't know exactly how Taraz is quantifying his >>>>>>, but it looks a like a lot. Perhaps he gives a few percent to genes. Thing is, this statement is a lot more contrary to the evidence than the one that genes may play a significant part.