If prejudice is more the result of socialization and learned behaviors, as contemporary social engineers will clearly want to argue, it suggests that there is nothing wrong with their preferred model of society (i.e. a multiracial society), and that this form of society is a perfectly natural and stable arrangement. On the other hand, if prejudice is found to have origins in strong, innate behavioral tendencies, it would suggest that a more racially homogeneous society is a more natural arrangement, and that it should serve as our ideal. Even if a more racially homogeneous society proves to be in closer accord with elements of our nature, and therefore in greater accord with natural law, it does not mean that our society could not have "some" representatives of many different races within it. Rather, it would mean that, in order to be most stable, robust and functional, societies in general will have an interest in keeping their levels of racial heterogeneity within certain predetermined limits. The issue of exactly what these limits should be will be discussed at greater length in the next chapter. For now, our task is to identify the main causes of racial prejudice.

The Study of Prejudice in the Social Sciences
Especially considering the diverse racial makeup of our own society (the United States), might lead one to think that the study of racial prejudice, and the study of the origins of racial prejudice in particular, would have become a subject to which a large amount of resources would be devoted, especially in the social sciences. Instead, because it tends to touch such sensitive nerves, this subject often gets neglected as a focus of study, and it tends to get quietly swept under the rug at many of our colleges and universities. But, attempts to identify the root causes of prejudice would seem to be necessary to propose solutions, or to identify a course of action that would be most likely to reduce racial prejudice. And, if we are to consider the issue of racial prejudice at the most basic level, in an attempt to find its root causes, then we must be willing to ask some sensitive but very important questions: Could racial prejudice have an innate component, or a source in basic human reactions to the perception of visible differences in others? Alternatively, is racial prejudice entirely an acquired attitudinal response to the perception of visible differences in others? Attempting to answer these questions should be foremost on the minds of researchers in the social sciences. Yet, most of them totally ignore these questions as if there were some taboo against asking them, or as if they were afraid of the answers that they might find.

Under the ideological hegemony of humanistic values, many researchers in the social sciences are not even willing to consider the possibility that racial prejudice could have innate origins, because this would pose such a fundamental threat to their ideals, and to their ideal of a multiracial society in particular. Sociologists, and especially sociologists who moonlight as social engineers, would like us to believe that racial prejudice is entirely the product of socialization. For this explanation would obviously make racial prejudice more amenable to a solution which merely requires us to change the way that people are socialized. On the other hand, if racial prejudice was found to have a source in human nature, this would suggest that it could be much more difficult to suppress or eradicate. It would also suggest that multiracial societies are, in some degree, unnatural and unstable arrangements, and that, on these grounds, they do not have the support of natural law. It would further suggest that important aspects of the contemporary social engineering project are either misguided or are totally illegitimate. In fact, the social scientists' "bury your head in the sand approach" is somewhat understandable in the context of what the behavioral sciences have been revealing about human nature and the origins of racial prejudice. Specifically, the picture of human nature that is now emerging from the behavioral sciences (as opposed to the ideologically tainted view of human nature that continues to dominate the social sciences) strongly suggests that, at least partially, prejudice does have innate origins. Again, contemporary social engineers will prefer to ignore this fact, even when they have an awareness of it (most of them remain completely oblivious to its discovery), because it poses a challenge to their ideal that a multiracial society is a perfectly natural and stable arrangement. Although, the fact that such societies are a relatively recent developments, should give them a hint that these societal forms could be at odds with our evolutionary experience.

The majority of contemporary social engineers and social scientist ignore, discount, or are totally unaware of the innate mechanisms that play a role in the formation of racial prejudice, and which are now being revealed by a greater understanding of human nature in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions. Even in those cases where they are aware of this new understanding of human nature, social scientists will continue to fall back on their claim that "socialization has the power to override any natural behavioral tendencies that may play a role in the origins of racial prejudice"  In fact, they have a point. Socialization does have the power to "suppress" certain natural tendencies, including the tendency to experience a xenophobic response, which, as we will see, is a leading cause of racial prejudice. But, suppressing such tendencies does not totally eliminate them. Suppression is merely a strategy that is designed to render such tendencies latent, and to keep them under control.

Although we can construct societies which conform to a set of  artificial ideals (ideals which are in some ways at odds with important elements of our nature), and although these social forms may appear relatively functional and stable on the surface, the innate tendencies that are suppressed in order to realize these ideals will always remain just below the surface, waiting to erupt. And, under the right conditions (such as times of social upheaval or economic distress) these innate tendencies will erupt. And, these tendencies have the potential to manifest themselves in ways that can be potentially catastrophic for any civilization that is arrogant enough to think it can totally eliminate them. These tendencies will pose a constant threat to the stability of multiracial societies, or societies that have been organized along lines of the multiracial model. Such societies are unstable in the degree that they are based on "artificial ideals" or ideals that are at odds with our evolutionary experience and with important elements of human nature. As such, these novel and experimental societal forms do not have the sanction of natural law (the body of law which is based on principles that can be extrapolated directly from an accurate understanding of human nature). Yet, sociologists and contemporary social engineers continue to focus on the fact that socialization has the power to suppress any tendencies that are at odds with their ideals. And, one of the most important ideals which they have an interest in defending is the more absolute version of the tabula resa view of human nature, or the view of human nature that suggests that we are all born as blank slates with no cognitive, affective or behavioral predispositions to develop in a certain way, and especially not in a way that could be opposed to their ideals.

Even in those rare cases where social scientists are willing to acknowledge that racial prejudice has innate origins, in their view, we should certainly not want to draw attention to this fact. That is, in order to further harmony in a multiracial society, and in the service of their ideal of a multiracial society, we should want to focus on the power of socialization to neutralize or suppress any innate tendency which could be contributing to racial prejudice. Again, socialization does have the power to to suppress, or render latent, such innate tendencies as the xenophobic response. But, we must ask, why would anyone want to do this in the first place?  Wouldn't it make more sense to organize our societies in ways that are in closer accord with our nature to begin with? And, in those cases where the way that our societies have been organized are the result of historical mistakes, wouldn't it make more sense to try and correct these mistakes? We must ask further, why would anyone want to adopt a set of artificial ideals, or a set of ideals that are in conflict with a major aspect of human nature, as this nature is now being revealed by the behavioral sciences? If our aim is to create a society that is maximally stable and robust, and one which is most consistent with important elements of our nature (which is the more legitimate goal from the standpoint of natural law), then looking for ways to perpetuate a multiracial society should never be our goal to begin with. Rather, we should be looking for ways to dismantle it.

The Concept of Race
Before we attempt to understand racial prejudice, it is first necessary to define the concept of race more clearly. Contemporary social engineers will be reluctant to venture a definition of race and they are far more likely to want to dismiss the concept of race altogether as some social construct that has no substance, meaning, or place in a multicultural society. Contemporary social engineers would like to diminish the significance of race, or they would like to discredit the concept of race entirely, because, in the degree that the concept of race does correspond to substantive differences between human subgroups, or in the degree that it refers to differences that have subjective meaning for human beings, it poses a potential threat to their ideal of a multiracial society and to their social engineering project more generally.

In fact, there are both substantive and meaningful differences between human populations that correspond to the concept of race. (Dobshansky, 1973) has defined race as "a subordinate Mendelian population within a species." or as "Mendelian populations which differ in the incidence of some genes in their gene pools." (Dobshansky, p58) According to this well accepted definition of race, race is not a social construct; race is a biological fact. By contrast, the amount of significance that we choose to attach to race is a social construct. Relatedly, the concept of race corresponds to substantive differences in appearance between members of different groups, and these differences have the potential to trigger reactions in others (the xenophobic response). At an even more significant level, there are substantive differences between human populations in both temperaments, physical abilities and potentially, even some very subtle differences in intellectual abilities. These differences correlate with race. These differences cannot be easily dismissed, nor should they be. Rather than attempt to deflect attention away from these differences, rather than attempt to deny these differences, and from a more legitimate social engineering standpoint, we should want to focus our attention on these differences all the more sharply. The fact that most of the social science literature that is devoted to a discussion of the subject of race tries to dance around these differences, or ignores them completely in many cases, threatens to completely invalidate much of the "scientific" literature that has been devoted to the subjects of racial prejudice and race relations. At the very least, it renders this literature highly suspect.

Undoubtedly, a multiracial society can occupy itself with the suppression of either feelings of racial pride, or their close corollary, feelings of racial prejudice. Contemporary social engineers can busy themselves designing new and ever more imaginative ways of suppressing these racial feelings. But, the fact remains that the resulting social form will be less stable and robust than one which is constructed in closer accord with important elements of human nature. When we begin with a correct understanding of it, human nature provides us with a blueprint for constructing human societies in their optimal form. That is, human nature provides us with a basis from which principles of natural law, or optimal principles of social organization, can be logically extrapolated. According to these principles, a society that has a high degree of racial heterogeneity is not an optimal arrangement. In fact, such a society is distinctly at odds with a modern scientifically based understanding of natural law.

Because we live in a multiracial society, civil authorities who support the status quo will naturally encourage us to "look beyond our racial differences." and they will attempt to minimize the importance that we attach to race, or they will encourage us to ignore it completely. Yet, beneath the surface, and as a practical matter, our biology and our genetics are constantly urging us to pay attention to race. Racial differences are both substantive and meaningful. And, a society will attempt to smooth over or ignore these differences at its peril.

Theories about the origins of racial prejudice that are most popular in the social sciences are suspect for a number of reasons. First, they do not begin with an accurate view of human nature. Secondly, they tend to focus on the power of socialization to make us conform to virtually any set of ideals, and to their ideals in particular. Third, they seem unwilling to acknowledge that any aspect of human nature could potentially come into conflict with their ideals, or could pose an obstacle to the realization of their ideals. Sociologists and other social determinists will naturally prefer to argue that prejudice is the result of faulty socialization, and that if everyone were simply socialized properly to begin with, attitudes of racial prejudice would all just miraculously disappear. No doubt, to some extent, socialization does have the ability to override and suppress any innate mechanisms which might lead people to become prejudiced in the first place. But, the innate tendencies which lead to prejudice will always be just below the surface threatening to erupt when conditions that are more favorable for their expression occur, such as periods of social upheaval or economic distress. Once these conditions have presented themselves, it will bring forth the more natural tendencies that have been suppressed by artificial ideals.

As a result of the hegemony of the ideological left in the social sciences and in the field of sociology in particular, virtually all of the theories about the causation of racial prejudice that have become most popular in the social sciences suggest (or conclude outright) that prejudice is the result of some failure of socialization, and consequently, and that it is amenable to some kind of solution which involves socialization. Basically, the humanist researchers in the social sciences who are most closely involved in studying the origins of racial prejudice will be more likely to say things like: "The attitudes that are responsible for racial prejudice are totally the product of socialization, they are handed down from parent to child, or they are otherwise acquired from environmental influences, they are part of a subculture of prejudice, and these attitudes do not have any innate source or component whatsoever." But, here again, evidence is appearing in the behavioral sciences to challenge this view.

According to the view of racial prejudice that now prevails in the social sciences, if you took Black and White infants aged one to two years, who had no knowledge of the concept of race, and who had little or no contact with with members of another race, and placed them alone in the same room full of toys, they would ignore their visible racial differences, they would all play together as if they were members of the same race, and no patterns of interaction would emerge among them along racial lines. Or, if you take White infants to a grocery store, and they encountered a Black person, they would take no particular notice of them, and they would certainly not be upset by the close proximity of a Black person, even if they have never seen a Black person before. In fact, this is not what happens. (Van Allen, 2010).

Studies conducted with infants aged one to two years reveal that patterns of play and association based on race do tend to emerge.  In particular, infants tend to segregate themselves on the basis of their racial characteristics, and they tend to develop conflicts over toys along racial lines. The most important  implication of such studies is that there is an innate component to racial prejudice. Specifically, such studies provide conclusive evidence for the operation of the xenophobic response, or an aversive reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others. Yet, most social scientists are oblivious to such studies, mainly because they choose to be, or because they don't like the implications that such studies have for their ideals. Of course, one of the most important implications of such studies is that  multiracial societies are organized along lines that are unnatural in some degree. And, because this form of social organization is in conflict with an important element of human nature; it is neither optimally functional nor stable, nor is it in compliance with a rational system of natural law (i.e. a system of natural law based on principles that have been logically extrapolated from an accurate understanding of human nature.) And, even if most contemporary social scientists were aware of such studies, they would almost certainly not want to draw attention to them, because such studies would obviously pose a threat to their ideals, and to the contemporary social engineering project.

Even if studies of infants (those who are most likely to exhibit innate or natural behaviors, being relatively free from the influence of socialization) did not reveal patterns that could be interpreted as the  precursors of racial prejudice, we still could not safely conclude from this that people do not have natural predispositions to become prejudiced in response to the perception of visible racial differences in others. Such studies would discount the fact that infants are not mature human beings and that certain innate tendencies which might not manifest themselves in infants can appear in either adolescence or adulthood. For instance, we would not expect infants to show signs of sexual behavior. But, if we were to infer from this observation that humans do not have an innate predisposition to engage in sexual behavior at the onset of puberty, and that sexual feelings and behaviors are a product of culture, this would be a wrong conclusion. Similarly, even if we did not observe any patterns of prejudice emerging from the interactions of infants of different race, this would not be sufficient for us to conclude that racial prejudice does not have an innate source of causation, or that it does not have some deep biological roots in our evolutionary legacy. We could not conclude that humans are not innately predisposed to experience racial prejudice in some degree, in response to the perception of significant visible differences (differences which correspond to racial traits) in others.

Again, a majority of the theories about the origins of racial prejudice in the social sciences tend to reflect the biases and world views of the humanist social engineers who have proposed them. In the service of their social engineering agenda and their ideals, they will attempt to minimize the importance of, or deflect attention away from, anything that might suggest that there is an innate component of prejudice. Yet,  evidence that is accumulating in other fields suggests that a more "balanced and synthetic" view about the origins or causation of racial prejudice is justified. This evidence specifically suggests that racial prejudice has both an environmental and innate sources of causation.

Popular Sociological Theories About the Origins of Racial Prejudice
Again, due to the fact that most social scientists have normative and ideological views which favor certain conclusions about human nature, they will reject the idea that racial prejudice could have innate origins. To make such an admission would pose a fundamental threat to their ideals. In particular, it would pose a threat to their the ideal of a multiracial society is a perfectly natural and stable arrangement, and an arrangement that is in no way at odds with our evolutionary legacy, or in conflict with important elements of human nature. Such an admission would also threaten to invalidate a large part of the contemporary social engineering project in which many social scientists now find themselves engaged. Hence, for ideological reasons, rather than reasons that are most credible from a purely scientific standpoint, most social scientists will opt for theories about the causation of racial prejudice which have a much closer association with the ideological left, or those that depend solely on "social causation." Or, they will assert that prejudice is "solely the product of socialization." To suggest otherwise would pose a fundamental threat to their ideals, particularly the ideal that multiracial societies are completely viable and desirable arrangements. Such theories about the causation of prejudice also suggest that problems of racial prejudice are totally amenable to sociological solutions, or remedies which simply require changing how people are socialized. The following are some of the leading theories of racial prejudice that have become popular in the social sciences in recent decades:

Exploitation Theory
Basically, the argument behind this theory is that members of the dominant group in a society have an interest in oppressing minority groups. Hence, they have prejudiced attitudes towards them. (Schaefer, 1987).

Scapegoating Theory
According to this popular theory about the origins of racial prejudice, people are prejudiced because they believe they are society's victims (Schaefer, p63) This theory particularly applies to people who have lower social status. Such people are presumed to be more likely to look for someone to blame for their lower class status, and, for this purpose, they choose other racial groups as scapegoats. This theory also attempts to explain why lower class Whites tend to be more prejudiced towards Blacks than middle and upper class Whites.

An alternative explanation for the higher incidence of prejudice among lower class Whites might attempt to argue that because Blacks with less desirable normative characteristics are concentrated in the lower class, and because lower class Whites simply have more frequent contacts with them, that they are more likely to develop prejudiced attitudes towards them.. In addition, lower class Whites will come into more direct economic competition with Blacks than their upper and middleclass counterparts. Conversely, upper and middle class Whites have much less frequent contacts with members of other racial groups, and especially Blacks. Hence, it is easier for middle and upper class Whites to maintain an idealized image of them.

Biological Explanations of Racial and Ethnic Inequality
Although they are not widely accepted in the social sciences, some biological theories to explain racial inequalities and racial prejudice have emerged (cite). As one might suspect, those researchers who have dared to propose these theories are treated as pariahs by the social science community at large. One such group of theories is deficiency theories. Deficiency theories assert that inequality, and its close corollary, racial prejudice, are a result of attitudes formed towards a group because of actual hereditary deficiencies in a group's abilities. This applies mainly to the attitudes of racial prejudice which Whites have towards Blacks.

Arthur Jensen (cite)argues that Blacks are mentally inferior to Whites,( and presumably, also to Asians) and that 80% of IQ is inherited 20% from environment. Hernnstein agrees with Jensen and argues that hereditary castes have formed among racial groups which are based upon intelligence. According to Herrnstein 1)mental ability is inherited 2)success depends on mental ability. A more recent work by Herrnstein and Murray leads to a similar conclusion in more euphemistic terms.(Herrnstein and Murray, 1994).

Most sociologists will reject such arguments out of hand, and without even considering the evidence. In their view, they are not even obligated to consider the evidence because, according to their ideals, even if the strongest evidence emerged in support of such theories about the origins of racial prejudice, it would only tend to defeat higher societal goals. In particular, most sociologists would be likely to make the argument that no matter how convincing the evidence is that members of a particular race are, on average, less intelligent than members of other races, this evidence should be casually ignored or dismissed because it would only tend to interfere with the potentially positive affects which can follow from the self-fulfilling prophecy.

According to the self-fulfilling prophecy, even if a particular race was proven to be "marginally deficient" in terms of its innate cognitive abilities, the "power of a positive self image" could actually help members of this race to overcome their innate cognitive limitations. And, it would obviously be easier to help members of this race build a positive self image if any evidence of their inherent inferiority were suppressed or were simply dismissed by the scientific community, and by the social science community in particular.

A Synthetic Theory About the Origins of Racial Prejudice
Unlike the theories about racial prejudice that now prevail in the social sciences, and which focus on only one line of causation (environmental determinants), a synthetic theory of the causation of racial prejudice is based on the belief that racial prejudice can result from a combination of both innate and environmental or "learned" causes. It specifically argues that racial prejudice can result from natural reactions to the perception of visible differences in others, or differences which correspond to race, and that environmental influences can also play a role in the formation, expression or suppression of racial prejudice.

In some respects, proposing a synthetic theory about the origins of racial prejudice will require synthesizing some theories about the causation of racial prejudice that now enjoy currency in the social sciences, along with some theories about the causation of racial prejudice that are gaining currency in the behavioral sciences. Again, the social sciences prefer the explanation that prejudice is determined entirely by environmental influences, or that attitudes of racial prejudice are learned, and that innate factors do not play any role in its causation.

Because there is such an overriding tendency in the social sciences to favor theories of social causation for the origins of racial prejudice, or theories of racial prejudice which have a completely environmental basis, has resulted in a fundamental imbalance in the way that the subject of the origins of racial prejudice has been handled by the social sciences. The synthetic theory of racial prejudice attempts to correct this imbalance by giving due emphasis to both lines of causation (i.e. innate factors versus socialization) in an attempt to render an unbiased account for the origins of racial prejudice.

Understandably, liberals (including most contemporary social engineers) will be more receptive to the idea that prejudice is solely a result of environmental influences, as this view suggests that prejudice is more amenable to solutions which simply involve changing how people are socialized. Conversely, conservatives will tend to favor biological or innate theories for the origins of prejudice, or those theories that argue that racial prejudice has deep roots in human nature. Again, in this chapter, and in keeping with the general theme of this text, we will argue that racial prejudice has its origins in both sources. That is, we will accept that racial prejudice has both an innate component  (a component which is grounded in our genetic makeup), or that it has a basis deep in our nature as human beings. And, as well we will accept that prejudice has an acquired component based upon our knowledge of the characteristics of, and our own interactions with, members of other races.

Resistance to such "synthetic theories from the social sciences is only to be expected. For, if the leftist ideologues who now populate the social sciences were to ever acknowledge that prejudice could have innate origins, it would pose a threat to some of their humanist ideals. And, in particular, it would pose a threat to their ideal of a multiracial society. It would also pose a fundamental challenge to their claim that a multiracial society is in no way an unnatural arrangement or an arrangement which is in any way at odds with certain elements of human nature. As we will see, such claims are open to dispute.

As we saw from chapter two, the tendency to experience the xenophobic response in reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others is one of the most basic human tendencies and it is the main innate cause of racial prejudice. Humans are naturally predisposed to experience a xenophobic response, or an aversive reaction, to the perception of significant visible differences in others (such as differences that correspond to race). Basically, this response results from the comparison we make between our own characteristics (traits that we are most familiar with, and which normally correspond more closely to our own racial-genetic traits) and the characteristics that we observe in others. Based on this comparison, and depending on how similar or different we perceive others to be, we tend to have a reaction. Depending on the degree of similarity or difference (between one's own characteristics and the characteristics one observes in others), and depending on other factors (such as variations in the propensity to experience the response which may occur within and between human populations), we will be either more or less likely to experience a xenophobic reaction, other factors remaining equal (such as the influences of socialization, which can either reinforce or suppress the tendency to experience a xenophobic response). Because it can play such an important part in the formation of prejudiced attitudes, the xenophobic response should be a matter of considerable interest to researchers in the social sciences. Yet, under the influence of ideals which tend to discourage consideration of this line of causation for racial prejudice, most social scientists are not even aware of it.

Despite the fact that there is a general tendency for people to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of more extreme visible differences in others, not all human beings will experience this response in the same way, or in the same degree. Due to naturally occurring temperamental variations that occur between between populations, as well as temperamental variations that occur between individuals in the same population, some people will be more naturally predisposed to experience the xenophobic response than others. People will also be differentially predisposed to experience the xenophobic response depending on how their socialization interacts with their natural tendencies. Older individuals will be either more or less likely to experience this response depending on the kind of socialization they have received, and particularly depending on the degree to which their socialization has been specifically designed to target and suppress the expression of racial prejudice.

Despite the fact that it is a pervasive natural tendency to experience the xenophobic response, certain forms of socialization have proven very effective in its suppression. And, in fact, it is one of the main presumptions of the contemporary social engineering project that socialization can "completely" neutralize or suppress any tendency that individuals may have to be prejudiced, whether it is due to innate factors, or due to factors that are related to culture and socialization. But, once again, because it must depend in some degree on "suppressing" a natural tendency, the resultant social form of organization (a multiracial society) will not tend to be as stable or as durable as a society that is in closer accord with natural tendencies to begin with. That is to say, a multiracial society will not be as inherently stable or robust as one which is much more racially homogeneous. Hence, if our aim is to create the most stable and robust human systems possible, as part of our larger quest to maximize the survivability of our species (which is the ultimate aim of any "legitimate" social engineering effort), then we should have some strong objections to the ideal of a multiracial society.

At this point it should be noted that there is an important distinction between xenophobia and the xenophobic response. Xenophobia is a term that is widely used in social sciences to refer to a general fear of, or aversion to strangers. As it is most commonly used in the social science literature, xenophobia is a generic term that applies to the fear of strangers. This term does not make a distinction between forms of fear or aversion to strangers that result mainly from cultural factors or socialization, and those which are based on innate reactions. By contrast, the xenophobic response refers to the "aversive reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others" that is exclusively based on an innate trait, or an aspect of human nature.

The Evolutionary Origins of the Xenophobic Response
Again, the xenophobic response is the main innate mechanism, or biological basis for racial prejudice. It is simply a visceral response or an affective reaction to the perception of significant visible differences that we observe between our own characteristics and the characteristics that we observe in others. Studies have shown that in their natural state, or in human beings who have been relatively unaffected by socialization, such as infants, there is a tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of significant visible differences in others (Van Allen, 2010).From this point, the question becomes, how did this trait evolve and what functions did it likely serve in an evolutionary context? First of all, for this or any other trait to have evolved in early humans, it would have had to serve some purpose, and it would have had to confer some degree of fitness on those who possessed it. That is to say, the xenophobic response must have evolved in human populations because it served some function for people to have an aversive reaction to other people who did not look like them, or to those who did not share their essential racial characteristics. So what possible advantage could the xenophobic response have afforded for those who possessed it? To answer this question we need to look at the functions of racial differences in an evolutionary context.

Human populations have evolved certain traits, such as differences in skin pigmentation, because these traits were adaptive, or because they conferred some kind of survival advantage on the individuals that possessed them. For instance, because Northern European populations evolved under certain conditions, they would tend to evolve lighter hair and lighter skin. Specifically, because grains made up a large part of their diets, and because this food source was a relatively poor source of Vitamin D, and because they received relatively less UV exposure, they would have had a relatively greater need for lighter skin to aid in the synthesis of Vitamin D. Because people with lighter skin had a better ability to synthesize Vitamin D under these conditions, they were healthier, more survivable, and became a progressively larger part of the Northern European gene pool. By contrast, even though Eskimos also lived in a harsh Northern climate, they retained darker skin because their primary food sources (such as fish and blubber) were relatively rich in Vitamin D. Because they did not need lighter skin to aid in the synthesis of Vitamin D, their darker skin was not a liability, and they could retain this trait from their Asiatic ancestors. Conversely, because Southern European and North African populations had greater UV exposure and more varied diets, they also had less need for lighter skin to aid in the synthesis of Vitamin D, and they had a correspondingly greater need for somewhat darker skin to afford them greater UV resistance. And, people in the equatorial and subequatorial regions of Africa had an even greater need for darker skin, primarily to afford them greater UV protection. Accordingly, they evolved even darker skin. In very summarized form, this explains the functions of differences in skin pigmentation between racial groups and lesser degrees of difference between different populations within the same racial group.

So now that we have a better understanding of how racial traits evolved and what survival related functions they served for the groups that possessed them, the next question becomes: What function would a xenophobic response ( an aversive reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others) have served for those groups who possessed it? To begin with, if a visible trait such as skin pigmentation is adaptive, or if it is conducive to the survivability of the groups that posses this trait in the regions that they normally inhabit, then it would also have been functional for these groups to pass on this trait to their offspring. And, to maximize the chances that these groups would pass on this trait to their offspring, it would have also been functional these groups to have evolved a behavioral tendency to experience an aversive reaction (such as the xenophobic response) to the perception of significant visible differences (such as large contrasts in skin pigmentation which could adversely affect the survivability of one's offspring) in others. And here lies the origin of the xenophobic response. Basically, in order to insure a higher probability that traits (such as lighter skin in Northern populations) that were more adaptive would get passed on to their offspring, groups evolved an aversive reaction (the xenophobic response) to the perception of significant visible differences in others.

Northern European populations would have had an interest in insuring that the trait of lighter skin got passed on to future generations, because the trait conferred fitness on them. And to better insure this result they evolved a behavioral tendency (the xenophobic response) in the form of an aversive reaction to the perception of significant visible differences (especially significantly darker skin)  in others. Conversely, because the Northern European populations still retained some vestigial ability to produce melanin for UV protection, they could still survive in southern latitudes if they happened to migrate there. But, people in southern latitudes would not have had a corresponding ability to synthesize vitamin D if they migrated to northern latitudes, and if they began to subsist on diets that were much richer in grain than the diets that they were more accustomed to in southern latitudes. This provides a partial explanation for how a "differential in the intensity" of the xenophobic response could have evolved between lighter skinned Northern Europeans and darker skinned groups from Southern Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. That is to say, because preserving the trait of lighter skin likely made a comparatively greater contribution to the survival of Northern Europeans than the trait of preserving darker skin made to the survival of Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans may have evolved a somewhat stronger tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of significantly different characteristics (such as darker skin pigmentation) in others.

So basically, the xenophobic response evolved because it served "gene pool maintenance" functions. That is, it evolved as a tendency to have an aversive reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others. The purpose of this behavioral tendency was to help groups to retain those genetic traits that were likely to confer greater fitness on their offspring  (i.e. lighter skin in the case of northern Europeans and darker skin in the case of groups from North Africa and the Middle East). Alternatively, another mechanism that would have tended to produce a similar effect is the tendency for individuals to use detection of genetic similarity in the mate selection process (Russel, Wells and Rushton, 1985). At this point, we will not attempt  to conclusively establish the various ways in which the xenophobic response could have evolved. Rather, we will only suggest that it did evolve because it served some survival functions, or because it conferred a higher level of fitness on those who possessed it. So, as it occurs "naturally,"  the xenophobic response is not a "bad" thing, it was merely a behavioral trait that we inherited as part of our evolutionary legacy.

Variations in the Intensity of the Xenophobic Response
We have already established how differentials in the tendency to experience a xenophobic response may have evolved between different groups and between Northern and Southern Europeans in particular. Specifically, we have already established how Northern Europeans may have evolved a marginally greater tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of significant visible differences in others. But, it remains for us to determine how different stimuli can affect differences in the intensity with which an individual is likely to experience the xenophobic response.

According to predictions based on the theory of how the xenophobic response might have evolved, the degree to which one would be likely to experience the xenophobic response should bear a close relationship to the degree of difference that one observes between one's own racial characteristics and the racial characteristics that one observes in others. Because members of the Asian and Caucasian races much more closely resemble one another, especially in terms of their skin pigmentation and the texture of their hair, we should expect that there will be much less of a tendency for members of either  group to experience an aversive reaction to the other. For, generally speaking, the intensity with which members of a group are likely to experience the xenophobic response will vary according to the degree of visible contrast that exists between members of one's own group and members of another group. Accordingly, smaller perceived differences in appearance will be less likely to trigger a xenophobic response, and greater perceived differences will be more likely to trigger a stronger response.

Even though evolutionary theory suggests that visible contrasts between the racial characteristics of Northern Europeans (Nordics) and Southern Europeans (Mediterranean) could be sufficient to elicit a xenophobic response, from an evolutionary standpoint, we should also expect that the intensity of this response will be significantly less that the intensity of the xenophobic response that would be elicited by say the perception of a Black by a Nordic type. Accordingly, we should also expect that a Nordic's tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of Asiatics would be significantly less than their tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of Blacks. In fact, because the contrasts in skin tones and hair textures that exist between the Nordic and the Mediterranean variants within the Caucasian race are nearly as great as those that exist between the Caucasian and the Asiatic races we might expect that even though Asians could elicit a xenophobic response among Caucasians (especially Nordics), that, in general, Caucasians would be more likely to experience a stronger aversive reaction towards Blacks.

Similarly, we should expect that Caucasians will be less likely to experience the xenophobic response in reaction to Indians, because there is less of a visible contrast between Indians and Caucasians.  This provides a partial explanation for the differences in the levels of prejudice that Whites have shown towards Blacks versus Asiatics and Indians. Both Asiatics and Indians have been more readily accommodated by White society because there is less of a contrast between their appearance (especially their skin pigmentation), and the appearance of Whites. White settlers looked upon the Chinese as heathens, and they thought of the Indians as savages, but they saw both groups as nonetheless fully human. They did not have the same feeling towards Blacks, whom many regarded as subhuman, simply because of the greater contrasts between their appearance and the appearance of Blacks.

More About Variations in the Intensity of the Xenophobic Response According to Race and Sex
According to predictions based on the xenophobic response, males and females of all races should demonstrate a marked preference for members who share their own racial characteristics and they should exhibit a slight to substantial aversive reaction to the perception of different racial characteristics, depending on the degree of perceived difference. And, in fact this does appear to be the general rule. Yet, in some cases, the xenophobic response would not seem to be operating as evolutionary theory predicts that it should. So how are we to account for the exceptional cases where it does not appear to be operating, such as in cases of interracial dating and marriage. There are a number of possible explanations for such aberrations from the kind of behavior that the xenophobic response predicts.

First, the most likely explanation is that such patterns represent cases where a natural tendency (i.e. the xenophobic response) has simply been overridden and suppressed by the influence of socialization
For, once again, socialization does have the power to suppress natural tendencies such as the xenophobic response. There are other possible explanations which may have a more purely biological basis. For instance, males of all races seem to prefer females who have characteristics that are more likely to be found in Northern European populations. That is, they seem to prefer females with lighter skin pigmentation, blue, green and gray colored irises, and straight, silky hair. And, with the exception of straight silky hair, which is also found in Asians, such features are found overwhelmingly in females of Northern European descent. This suggests that there may be a universal and cross-cultural standard of feminine beauty which favors women who have characteristics that are more commonly associated with Northern Europeans, and to a lesser extent, Asians. Assuming that the standard of feminine beauty which favors women of Northern European descent is a cultural universal, then one suspects it must have a biological or an innate basis.  This being the case, one must ask: how could this apparent exception to the xenophobic response have evolved?.

As already noted, there are likely to be some differences in the extent to which different racial groups are likely to experience the xenophobic response. And as well, there are likely to be differences in the average intensity with which the sexes of different racial groups are likely to experience the xenophobic response. Hence, despite the general tendency for human beings to experience the xenophobic response, due to natural variations both within and between populations, some individuals within a population may have little or no tendency to experience the xenophobic response. The question then becomes how could differences in the intensity of the xenophobic response have evolved within populations or between them, and what survival advantages could these differentials have conferred? Or, alternatively, do cases where the xenophobic response is muted or largely absent represent anomalies which could be dysfunctional from the standpoint of evolution? For part of the scheme of evolution is to "throw out" random variations (exceptions to general tendencies) to see how well they work in a given environment, or to see if they have "survival" value.

Differences in the intensity with which members of a racial group are likely to experience the xenophobic response would appear to be related to the different costs that groups with different racial characteristics would have paid in terms of the survivability of their offspring from breeding with members of groups that had different racial characteristics. As already noted, it would have been more costly, in terms of its impact on the fitness of their offspring, for lighter skinned Northern Europeans who subsisted on diets deficient in Vitamin D to have bred with darker skinned groups, than the reverse. This suggests that lighter skinned Northern Europeans may have evolved a marginally stronger tendency to experience the xenophobic response than Southern Europeans. At least this theory would apply to those lighter skinned groups who remained in their home range (i.e. in the northern latitudes). Alternatively, darker skinned people from Southern Europe who migrated to Northern Europe may have had less of an aversion to breeding with lighter skinned Northern Europeans, because having lighter skin would tend to enhance the survivability of their offspring. Conversely, it would have detracted more from the survivability of Northern groups to have bred repeatedly and over generations with darker skinned groups that had migrated into their Northern territory, for they would thereby tend to lose the adaptive benefits of lighter skin. This suggests that lighter skinned Northern Europeans may have evolved a marginally greater predisposition to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of significant visible differences (such as darker skin) in others. It would have simply imposed more of a cost on the survivability of their offspring to have bred over successive generations with darker skinned groups from Southern Europe and beyond.

The Affinity Response
In addition to the xenophobic response, there is a closely related and inverse reaction to the perception of similar traits in others, or what we might call the "affinity response." Basically, this response is a function of our "natural" tendency to have greater empathy and affinity for those that we perceive to be more like ourselves. People just naturally have a greater affinity for members of their own race, or for those with whom they share a higher degree of genetic similarity. And, conversely, they are more likely to have an aversive reaction towards people of a different race, or towards people that they perceive to be unlike themselves, or who are more distant from them genetically. This is not to say that powerful cultural influences that are designed to mute or neutralize the expression of such natural tendencies cannot be effective, as the increasing rate of miscegenation readily attests. But, purely as a matter of what is natural for us, and apart from any influence of socialization, people will  "naturally" have a greater affinity for those with whom they share a higher degree of genetic similarity. So how did this affective response evolve, or how did it become part of our nature? Basically, it evolved because it served functions over the course of our evolutionary experience. It was just more conducive to our survivability for us to be more caring towards those who we perceived to be most like us (assuming we all possessed traits that were relatively adaptive traits for our environment) and those who were in fact more closely related to us genetically.

The most obvious way that the affinity response manifests itself is in our everyday patterns of interaction. People just naturally prefer to associate with those that they perceive to be more like themselves. People just naturally tend to associate more closely with those who more closely resemble them, and who are more closely related to them racially and genetically. People just naturally have greater bonds of affinity for those who are are more closely related to them genetically and racially. And, these bonds have an influence on racial attitudes. Contemporary social engineers would have use ignore such tendencies, in hopes that they will go away. They will simply say that such tendencies are in no way natural or representative, and that they are merely "cultural artifacts." Again, they will resort to such explanations in hopes of rendering racial problems more amenable to solutions that involve merely changing the way people are socialized.

Humanistically inspired social scientists and social engineers will advise us that we should look beyond our differences, particularly our racial differences, and that we should accept these differences. They will advise us that people have no control over the racial characteristics that they are born with, or the circumstances that they are born into, which is certainly true. They will advise us further that because people have no control over the racial characteristics that they are born with and no control over the circumstances that they are born into, that they have no control over the values systems that they are most likely to form or adopt. And, for this reason, all values systems, as well as those who hold them, should be accorded equal dignity and respect. They will go on to say that we have no rational means of ranking different value systems, and that even if it were possible to rank the different value systems that people hold according to some rational criteria (such as how well they function, and how conducive they are to building and maintaining a high level of civilization), in their view, we should not be judgmental. At this point, we must raise certain objections to the social scientist's line of reasoning.

As we saw in Chapter 5, not all value systems are created equal. Value systems can be qualitatively ranked according to certain universally valid criteria. Some value systems are more functional than others in absolute terms. And, because people naturally have both the ability to reason and an innate moral sense, they have both some ability to identify, and some moral obligation to adopt, values that are more functional. That is to say, with these abilities comes the natural obligation to form or adopt more functional value systems, or value systems that are more likely to lead to a higher level of civilization. And, in those cases around the world where people have failed to attain a higher level of civilization, then, to some extent, their values must be largely to blame. In turn, people must share a large part of the blame for their failure to adopt optimally functional values, or values that would prove more conducive to their success, and which would better enable them to attain a higher level of civilization.

Even though some value systems appear to be much more conducive to helping people to meet basic human needs, and even though some would appear more closely associated with the attainment of a higher level of civilization than others (and would seem to entitle people who hold them to a higher rank), humanistically inspired social scientists will advise us that we should not judge them differently. They will tell us that we should look beyond differences in people's values and that we should not attempt to grade them or rank them on the basis of their modal values or other normative characteristics. They will go on to tell us that we should not attempt to judge other's values or other normative characteristics, because values and other normative characteristics have some "meaning" for the people who hold them.

At this point, once again, we must cut their argument short. To the extent that values can be ranked according to criteria that are universally valid, such as the degree to which they conduce to human survivability, some groups will have values that are relatively more functional than others. By extension, the degree to which members of a group are likely to possess more functional normative characteristics (especially values), or normative characteristics that are more conducive to survivability, provides us with a rational, legitimate or a "justifiable" basis for our attitudes towards members of a group as a whole.
That is, we have a rational, legitimate and justifiable basis for ranking or grading different groups according to the degree to which their members are more likely to possess functional normative characteristics. Although most people may not be fully aware of the "functional calculus" that can be used to "rationally" rank people according to the functionality of their values, they will often attempt to assign such rankings to other groups anyway. And, in many cases, the attitudes of racial prejudice that people have towards members of a group can be based on some generally accurate first hand knowledge they have about members of this group. From their personal knowledge of and experiences with members of a group, people can infer certain general characteristics about the group as a whole.

In the degree that their knowledge of, or experience with, members of a group have been generally positive, they may infer positive things about the group as a whole. In the degree that their knowledge of, or  experience with members of the group have been generally negative, they may tend to infer something negative about members of the group as a whole. And, in the degree that a person's knowledge of or experience with members of a group has been "representative," or in the degree that this knowledge and experience has given them a "true and representative picture" of the overall characteristics of the group, then, in a sense, the attitudes that they have formed about members of this group will be "justifiable," whether these attitudes are good or bad. In those cases where one forms a negative attitude towards a racial or ethnic group based upon some generally reliable and representative knowledge about the characteristics of this group, a  "justifiable antagonism" is the result. By contrast, and more generally, an attitude of racial prejudice can result from either "justifiable antagonisms" or it can result from mistaken information about, or unrepresentative contacts with, members of another racial or ethnic group. Attitudes of racial prejudice which are based on justifiable antagonisms will obviously be more difficult to eradicate, simply because they have a factual and justifiable basis.

Again, in the degree that the attitudes that people form about a group from their personal knowledge of and interactions with members of this group are both negative and representative of the group as a whole, then their antagonism towards member of the group has an objective basis, and, in some sense, it is "justifiable." This is not meant to suggest that any resulting feeling of racial prejudice is "justified." Rather, it is only meant to suggest that certain facts about a group can provide the "justification" for the feelings of prejudice which members of other groups have towards it. In other words, these facts can provide a rational explanation and justification for why members of one racial group may have animosities or antagonisms towards members of another racial group.

Presumably, each racial group has its own unique set of deficiencies, even as the deficiencies of some groups may stand out more than others. In turn, these deficiencies provide the factual or the objective basis for justifiable antagonisms towards a group by members of other groups. But, because social scientists and contemporary social engineers like to make selective use of facts to support their ideological preferences, they will advise us that even if our experiences with members of another racial group have been uniformly negative, that we should not draw generalizations from such experiences. They will also say that even if such generalizations give us an accurate summary picture of the normative or other characteristics of a group, that we should certainly not attempt to draw attention to these things, because it could provide justifications for attitudes of racial prejudice. And, this is exactly the point!

Again, justifiable antagonisms, or simply JAs, have a factual basis in the modal normative or other characteristics of members of a racial group. This means that potentially, as members of different racial groups, we could all have some characteristics that other racial groups could use as the "justifications" for some prejudice towards us. Although, in the degree that the modal normative or other characteristics of different groups can be ranked qualitatively according to some rational criteria, or in the degree that some groups may have characteristics that are recognized as "bad" according to universally agreed upon standards and criteria, it can be argued that some JAs will be more "justifiable" than others. That is to say, some JAs will be better able to point to "facts" about a racial group for their justification.

Again, most sociologists and contemporary social engineers will tell us that, even if the concept of the "modal normative characteristics of a group" could have certain uses, and even if it can provide us with a generally reliable way of sizing up the most common and representative normative characteristics of a particular racial or ethnic group, it would be unfair to apply this concept to all individuals in a racial group, because some individuals will conform more closely to the modal normative or other characteristics of their group than others. They will go on to say that even if the idea of modal normative characteristics could give us a generally accurate depiction of the normative characteristics of a particular group, that we should judge each individual on a case by case basis, or according to the personal knowledge we have of them as individuals. But, in many cases, having this kind of first hand knowledge about members of a particular group that we need to form an opinion about is impossible, simply because we may not routinely come into contact with members of this group. And, to the extent that we need to form some impression about the normative or other characteristics of this group, the concept of modal normative characteristics can be useful.

Evolution of JAs on the Basis of Differential Values
Sociologists and contemporary social engineers will tell us that we should embrace the relativistic notion that no cultures or their associated value systems are inherently better or more functional in any absolute sense than any others, notwithstanding that some societies have been vastly more successful and have ostensibly produced higher levels of civilization than others. This argument cannot stand.  The differential success of human civilizations is mainly attributable to the differential functionality of the different value, attitude and belief systems which different peoples hold.

Sociologists and contemporary social engineers will be similarly reluctant to acknowledge that a system of values (especially our own) has been mainly responsible for our success as a civilization. They will be reluctant to acknowledge that a system of values has been mainly responsible for the fact that we have attained a high standard of living, a high level of civilization, and a way of life that people around the world (who hold different values) aspire to, but which they have not been able to attain precisely because their own value attitude and belief systems have been holding them back.

Sociologists and contemporary social engineers will invariably say that we should be tolerant of groups with different folkways, mores, and values, and that we should not attempt to judge other peoples by our own values, notwithstanding that our own values have been mainly responsible for the fact that we have attained such a high level of civilization. They will go on to argue that we have no absolute or universal standards for judging differences in the value systems between different peoples. Yet, once again, different value and belief systems can be ranked qualitatively according to universally valid criteria. As a result, some value systems emerge as being better than others in a more absolute sense. And, because people realize this, they engage in social judgments of other groups.

The way that people rank groups or the degree of respect that they have for members of other groups can be based on their perception of how functional the group's values are relative to their own. But if this "functional analysis" is not performed correctly, it can result in the a wrongful and "unjustifiable" attitude of prejudice towards a group. Conversely, in those cases where the modal values of a group really are less functional than the modal values of one's own group, one's own group will have a rational justification for holding an attitude of prejudice towards that group

Some human value systems are simply "better" than others, in absolute terms, or according to universally valid criteria. As a result, some individuals and groups are simply more entitled to be more highly esteemed and more highly evaluated than others. Such evaluations serve as the basis for assigning social rank to individuals within a society, and they serve as the basis for differentially evaluating different societies, according to the modal values of their people. Consequently, and especially in the eyes of those who hold more functional values, disparaging groups or individuals who hold less functional values is in some sense "justifiable."  That is to say, because they can point to certain "facts" about the characteristics of a group for their justification, there is a "rational justification" for holding attitudes towards members of a group which are based on these facts. Although, as we will see, even groups which hold relatively functional values can still become the objects of prejudice themselves. But, in such cases, prejudice is more likely to result from "unjustifiable" antagonisms, or it is more likely to have an irrational basis. And the resultant attitudes of prejudice in such cases are more likely to have a stronger visceral or "affective" component. Conversely, attitudes of prejudice which are based on JAs are likely to have a stronger cognitive component.

In terms of the cognitive and affective processes that are most typically involved in their formation, JAs begin with a cognitive element. That is to say, they are based on some facts or some reliable knowledge about the normative or other characteristics of members of a group. From this point, the knowledge that one has about the normative or other characteristics of a group will translate into either a positive or a negative attitude towards the group. In those cases where the knowledge one has about the characteristics of a group translates into a negative attitude towards the group, a JA is the result. Although the resultant attitude (the JA) may originate from some knowledge or some facts about the characteristics a group (the cognitive component of the attitude), the resultant feelings towards the group is the "affective" component of the JA. That is to say, even though the attitude may begin with some facts and knowledge about the characteristics of members of a racial or ethnic group (especially normative characteristics such as modal values), once these facts become known, they tend to translate into "feelings" of resentment towards members of a group (the affective component of the prejudiced attitude).

While JAs may seem to have much in common with stereotypes, there is a qualitative difference between them. Stereotypes are basically generalized conclusions about the characteristics (especially the normative characteristics) that have been attributed to members of a racial or ethnic group, which are generally well known throughout society, which tend to be communicated informally, but which are not necessarily based on well established facts about the characteristics of a group, and which generally lack validation.  By contrast, JAs have been substantiated, and they can clearly point to facts and data about the normative or other characteristics of a group for their justification.

In the sections that follow, we will focus on these "justifiable antagonisms" (henceforth JA's), in attempt to identify the main acquired or learned causes of racial prejudice in our society. Attempting to identify such primary causes of racial prejudice must be a major part of any reasonable strategy that is designed to reduce racial prejudice, or of any effort to find a realistic and lasting solution to the problem of racial prejudice in our society (i.e. American society), or in any society. Again, presumably, every racial group has some normative or other characteristics which define it and set it apart from the other groups. In turn, some of these characteristics can provide the factual or objective basis for antagonisms towards a group by members of other groups.

For reasons that are related to either deficiencies in their socialization, or due to innate reasons, or due to some complex interaction between these influences, Blacks have come to hold a number of normative characteristics that serve as the basis for "JAs" towards them as a group. To begin with, Blacks are quite obviously the least economically successful and upwardly socially mobile of any racial minority. (Most contemporary sociologists will say that merely by drawing attention to this fact, one is "blaming the victim.") Blacks also have the lowest levels of academic achievement of any racial group. Blacks have the highest high school dropout rates of any racial group. They score lower on competitive exams more generally than other groups. Blacks have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse of any racial group. Blacks have the highest rate of illegitimacy of any racial group. Blacks receive more per capita in government benefits than any other racial group.

It is certainly true that there are many good, honest, hard working Black people. There are obviously good and bad people in all racial groups. But, crime statistics suggest that there are proportionately more bad Black people, at least in American society. Blacks are responsible for the majority of rapes and murders, not only of their own people, but of White people as well. Blacks are much more likely to commit violent criminal offenses, including offenses against Whites, than any other minority. The number of Whites murdered by Blacks vastly exceeds the number of Blacks murdered by Whites. Yet, the press continues to focus on isolated "hate crimes" committed by Whites against Blacks. Such facts are a standing source of resentment against Blacks by members of other racial groups, especially Whites.

These are all among the more well established and well known facts about Blacks which serve as the basis for JAs toward Blacks. So now the question becomes: How do we account for these facts, or what are their main causes? Are these facts mainly the result of the fact that Blacks are living in a  predominantly White society, or in a society in which the deck has been stacked against them? Alternatively, in what degree are Blacks themselves more to blame for their failure to make a better showing in American society? Contemporary social engineers will argue that Blacks' failure to achieve levels of success that are comparable to those of other racial minorities, are not their fault. Rather, their poor showing, relative to other racial groups is the result of a continuing legacy of slavery (an institution that ended almost 150 years ago). Or, they will argue that Blacks' failure to achieve levels of success comparable to those of other racial groups is the result of a history of racial prejudice and systematic disadvantage in a predominantly White society. So how much credibility should we give the apologist's argument? Conversely, how much are Blacks actually to blame for their failure to achieve levels of success comparable to other racial or ethnic minorities? How much of their failure is due to some genetic deficiencies or due to some character deficiency or some deficiency of values? How much are they to blame themselves for their relatively poor showing in a predominantly White society?

Undoubtedly, the legacy of slavery has played some part in Blacks' failure to make a better showing in the past, and may even have some residual affects today. But, is not a very convincing argument to say that their current condition is mainly the result of something that happened 150 years ago. Any extended affects from slavery have had a long time to run their course. Over the generations since slavery ended, and especially in the last century and into the current century, many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to rectify any residual affects of slavery. Despite having spent billions of dollars on education and social welfare programs that have been designed to improve their quality of life, Blacks still have the highest rates of crime, illegitimacy, and dependency on government largesse (especially in the form of government employment) of any racial minority. These "facts" suggest that Blacks have some chronic racial or normative deficiencies, or some complex combination of both.

In attempting to better understand and explain their relatively poor showing in our society, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between a racial argument, a pure socialization argument, and a synthetic argument. Making such distinctions is necessary to explain differences in the levels of achievement of any racial group, and to explain Blacks' failure to achieve in particular. A racial argument would rest solely on the assertion that any group's failure to achieve at a certain level was due entirely to innate racial differences, and that their performance is in no way affected by environmental influences. Conversely, a purely environmental argument, or an argument based on socialization, would assert that a group's failure to achieve at levels that are comparable to other racial groups is entirely due to the way its members have been socialized. They will also assert that a group's failure is due mainly to some cultural or normative deficiencies, and is in no way the result of actual inherited genetic-biological differences that exist between a group and other racial groups. And, a synthetic argument will assert that both environmental and racial-genetic factors have been at work in varying degrees, and have been responsible for a group's failure. Of these three main arguments to explain a race's failure, and the failure of Blacks in particular, social scientists and contemporary social engineers will naturally prefer the first, because it suggests that a racial group's relatively poor showing is completely attributable to how its members have been socialized, and that there are no biological-racial determinants at work at all.

As the main apologists for Blacks, most sociologists and contemporary social engineers will argue that Blacks' poor performance relative to other racial groups is due to cultural deprivation. Basically, the cultural deprivation thesis is a normative argument. It is an argument that asserts that any group's failure to achieve at levels comparable to those of other groups must be the result of some "cultural" deficiency or some deficiency in the way its members have been socialized. The implication is that these flaws in socialization tend to get passed on from generation to generation through the family as the primary unit of socialization, until there is some radical intervention which is designed to "break the link" in childhood, or until mature adults begin to adopt new and better values, which they will then pass on to their families. The main problem with this thesis is that a race's modal values can frequently be very resistant to change by way of any "intervention."

As a group, Blacks simply seem to be less strongly committed to the values of education, work and achievement than the more successful groups in society (principally Caucasians and Asiatics) And, it is this normative deficiency more than any other that would seem to have been most responsible for their failure to achieve. Obviously, this explanation for Blacks' relatively poor performance is amenable to a cultural solution. By modifying their social experiences (by taking them out of the housing projects, by making it possible for them to buy houses in the suburbs) or by giving them educational advantages (scholarships, etc.) our contemporary social engineers suggest that Blacks can achieve levels of success that are comparable to those achieved by other groups. In effect, our social engineers suggest that by changing the way that Blacks are socialized, we can bring about positive normative changes in Blacks as a group (without specifying any values in particular, other than perhaps the value of a positive self-image).  But, what contemporary social engineers appear reluctant to acknowledge is that by the time that government interventions have typically taken place, Blacks' basic values and approaches to life have already been established in most cases.

Again, of all the major racial and ethnic groups, Blacks have been the least successful at living up to the dominant values in a predominantly White society. In particular they have failed to internalize values related to work, education and achievement as strongly as have other groups. Blacks have failed to meet the normative expectations of Whites and other groups in society on a number of other accounts as well. The following narrative is meant to illustrate how Blacks fail to measure up to the normative expectations of Whites more generally. The purpose of this narrative is to give a realistic snapshot of racial attitudes towards Blacks that are widely held by Whites. This will help to build a more realistic picture of the state of prejudice towards Blacks in our society.

A Snapshot of Some Popular JA's Towards Blacks
The following narrative is meant to illustrate some of the attitudes of resentment that other groups (especially Whites) feel towards Blacks, and which provide the basis for JAs towards Blacks. Although this approach may seem more subjective, it also tends to give a more realistic picture of the actual attitudes that other groups in society have towards Blacks than so called "scientific" surveys of attitudes towards Blacks. Scientific surveys of attitudes tend to be skewed by what researchers call "presentational concerns." In other words, people often don't reveal their true feelings about a group or a person, when researchers ask them to go on record, because they worry about how their true feelings will be perceived.

"Blacks do not value work and achievement as much as other groups in our society. They do not work as hard at their jobs and consequently, they are not as successful as other racial groups. Blacks do not value education as much as other groups, as their high school dropout rates attest. They score lower on competitive exams generally than other groups. Blacks (and Hispanics) are largely responsible for lowering standards in our public schools. Those states with the highest Black populations also tend to have the lowest levels of academic achievement, as measured by standardized test scores.

Blacks benefit more from both public assistance and from public sector employment than any other racial minority. There are more Blacks on public assistance than any other racial group. Through a system of public assistance born largely of Caucasian generosity, Blacks have been able to steadily become a larger proportion of the population, at the expense of Caucasians. Blacks appear to have a total disregard for family planning and a very low regard for family responsibilities. Blacks have the highest rate of illegitimacy of any racial minority. They intentionally have more kids than they can support, knowing that they will be able to pass on some of the cost to other groups in society, and to White tax payers in particular. Effectively, they force members of other racial groups to support them, and they threaten violence if other groups in society should refuse to give them this support.

Blacks benefit disproportionately from government employment and other government benefits, and they contribute less to taxes. They are a dead weight on our society. Rather than lift themselves up by their bootstraps, they blame us for their problems. The fact that members of the Caucasian race have had to bear such a disproportionate share of the tax burden while Blacks have been receiving such a disproportionate share of the benefits could be used to justify a Caucasian case for "reverse reparations."

Blacks don't respect what our race has done for theirs. They want us to recognize them for their achievements (mainly in the areas of sports and entertainment), but they take our achievements for granted, especially in the areas of science and technology. The fact remains that the vast majority of scientific and technological innovations which make all of our lives better were invented by members of the Caucasian race. Without the contributions of the Caucasian race, our standard of living (and the standard of living of Blacks in the US and elsewhere) would not be possible. Without these contributions, there would be no plastics, no cars, no airplanes, no light bulbs, no electricity and virtually none of the modern conveniences that people of all races take for granted around the world. Almost without exception, the innovations that make our standard of living possible sprang forth from the minds of Caucasian inventors. It is only by virtue of these contributions that people of other races have been able to increase their numbers far above their natural levels.

To their credit, Asians (primarily the Japanese and the Chinese) have been following a pattern of development that more closely approaches that of Caucasians. Asians have been able to achieve a relatively high level of civilization, and they are now making significant contributions to science and technology. But, the same cannot be said for Blacks. Even in the predominantly Black countries of Africa, where they are presumably not the victims of White discrimination, Blacks have shown few indications of being able to reach a comparable level of civilization.

Blacks don't even seem to like own racial characteristics, and they seem to prefer Caucasian traits over their own. If given a choice, most Blacks would choose to be born with Caucasian characteristics. Blacks resent the fact that they are Black and they envy us for being White. At the same time that they proclaim "Black is beautiful," Black men continue to show a distinctive preference for Caucasian females. Black women also appear to show a preference for Caucasian traits as evidenced by their attempts to emulate the racial features of Caucasian females by lightening their skin and straightening their hair.

Blacks don't just come up short on the dimensions of character and aesthetics. They also come up short on the dimension of intelligence. On average, Blacks are not as intelligent as White people. You can blame this on whatever you want. You can blame it on their genetics, their values, their lack of motivation, their diet, or their prenatal development. But, you cannot blame it on their lack of opportunity. When faced with adversity, such as that which results from systematic discrimination, other groups (like the Chinese and the Jews) have responded by throwing their intelligence into overdrive, rather than by looking for someone else to blame for their problems."

In Their Own Words: An Essay Illustrating Black Attitudes Towards Whites
The following essay (most likely written by a Black high school senior) is entitled "Multicultural Education." It was ostensibly written in defense of a more multicultural and less Eurocentric curriculum in high schools. It helps to illustrate the attitudes that many Blacks have towards living in a predominantly White society. The essay also illustrates how Blacks feel alienated and marginalized in a society in which most of the important achievements have been made by Whites. My own objections to the arguments made in this essay, or to the way they are expressed, appear in parenthesis.

"Today in American high schools, the population of ethnic groups are on the rise. The board of education needs to change to a multicultural curriculum.  The benefits of a multicultural curriculum can lead to a better understanding of each others background, and gives respect for oneself.  It raises self-esteem within a person; therefore, raising the prosperity of success between individuals (I believe they meant probability of success). Many high school classrooms today are focusing around Eurocentric teaching.  The students are getting their education; however, the problem lies with the fact that not everyone is getting the correct education.

In my high school, 85% of the students were African Americans. The rest of the students were a mixture of Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asians.  All through high school education was solely based upon European views.  In school, we studied poets, authors, historians who were from European descent. (Perhaps that is because the most significant achievements in literature were made by people of European descent.) Most of the curriculum was formulated from that.  However, many of the students found this troubling (Presumably they found it troubling that Whites have achieved so much, relatively speaking, while Blacks have achieved so little). The troubling part was we could not understand why we were being taught only European culture (According to universally valid criteria and standards, European have simply made more significant contributions in the particular areas being studied, and Europeans have simply achieved a higher level of civilization.) when really, only 10 percent of the high school was European (It wouldn't matter if the school's enrollment was 100% Black; if Whites are mainly responsible for the achievements in a particular area of study, then, quite obviously, they should be given the most attention. The race or nationality of the contributor should not be a consideration. The fact that Blacks would make it a consideration, reflects a racist attitude on their part.)

Many benefits can be gained from learning in a multicultural atmosphere. One benefit you will get is an understanding of one's culture. In today's society, many racial conflicts are due to misunderstanding, or a lack of knowledge for one's heritage (no argument there). These tensions feed into the typical stereotypes people classify each other with. Multicultural educated students who have learned and understood where their classmates are from, will have a better chance of getting along with one another.

Another good benefit from being multiculturally educated is, you will learn to have respect for yourself. Coming to Clark Atlanta made me realize how important my heritage, as well as defining myself is.  Learning about my culture, and what great feats my people had to overcome gives me great pride in being African American. In the few weeks I have been here, I have learned more about my culture than in my entire high school years.  Knowing about your great ancestors, or leaders who fought for freedom and equality, instills confidence, assurance that all people can benefit from.

Self esteem is another prospect of multicultural education. When taught about great leaders from all over the world, not just Europe, students will feel better about themselves.  A well rounded person who has a broad perspective on their own life as well as others, can have a very high self-esteem and high respect for themselves as well as others. Students who have a high self-esteem, tend to have an open-minded view.  In any case, it allows them to be less opinionated and more authentic.

Success is another benefit that comes from a multicultural education. Students that have been taught through multicultural education will have a higher chance of succeeding because of the knowledge they will have acquired about other cultures.  They will be able to relate to all types of people.  Also, they will understand their different traits. (Just because traits are different doesn't mean that they are equally deserving of respect.)

In any case, a multicultural education will help benefit everyone. It will give people an understanding of one another, respect for themselves and others, self-esteem and a higher chance of success. (self esteem is something that should be earned, not something that you are given in order to make you feel good about yourself.) The Board of Education needs to make multicultural education a priority.  If more teachers could be cognizant to each students individual needs, the overall spirit of students of different nationalities would change.

Critique of the Above Essay
The above essay exemplifies an attitude that is prevalent among Blacks, namely, that they have grown tired of being constantly reminded of White achievements, and would rather focus on their own achievements. The main problem with this attitude is that, due to the fact that their predecessors failed to attain a high level of civilization, for whatever reason, the Black race simply does not have as much to show for itself in the way of noteworthy achievements as either the Caucasian or the Asiatic race. That is to say, in terms of their ancient history, they did not produce anything on the grand scale of the Great Pyramids of Giza. Nor have they produced anything close to a Mozart in their more recent history. Blacks have simply not contributed as much to human civilization as members of some other races, principally Caucasians and Asiatics. Blacks share this distinction with many other peoples around the globe, and with many people who originate in tropical regions especially. (People in these regions may have simply failed to achieve higher levels of civilization because it is simply easier to maintain homeostasis in these regions without having to resort to a higher level of cognitive development.)

Not having a culture that merits celebrating as much as some other cultures, Blacks have made some attempts to invent one, or to exaggerate the importance of their contributions as a way to make them feel good about themselves. Black History Month provides an example of such attempts. Black History Month simply comes across as a lame attempt to make an underachieving people feel good about themselves. There was even an attempt by some Black scholars to suggest that the pyramids of Egypt were designed and constructed by Blacks, or that the Egyptian pharaohs were Black. But, this attempt was thwarted by DNA tests which confirmed that the mummies of Egyptian kings were of Semitic origins, rather than Negroid origins.

The contributions that Blacks have made to human civilization are not comparable to the ones that have been made by Caucasians and Asiatics. But, Blacks want members of other races to evaluate their race as highly as races whose contributions to humanity have been far greater. This stands out as a major JA towards Blacks. It is an inherently racist attitude on their part. It is an attitude which indicates that Blacks place considerations of race ahead of the objective quality of the contributions that their race has made to human civilization. There is simply no comparison between the contributions to human civilization that have been made by Whites and Asiatics versus Blacks, or, for that matter, by Australian Aborigines. Not every racial group will have the distinction of having contributed as much to human civilization as the Caucasian and Asiatic races. All that members of other racial groups can do is accept their historical legacy in a spirit of quiet resignation, or, they can put forth the extra effort that would be required to make up for it.
.
If we completely ignore their race and their nationalities, and although Asians are now fast on their heels, Europeans stand out for the quality, kind  and number of their cultural and scientific contributions. Presumably, if Europeans were Black, rather than White, Blacks would have no objections to a more Euro-centric education, simply because it was based in Europe. Rather, the main objection that they would seem to have to a Eurocentric education appears to stem from the fact that Europeans are White and they are Black. That is to say, their objections are based upon race and race alone. Blacks appear to want to disparage the achievements of the Caucasian race, simply on the basis of  race.

In a closing commentary to the above essay, this can be said: When Blacks produce the next Shakespeare or Mozart, then we can celebrate the next Shakespeare or Mozart (Michael Jackson was no Mozart). Until then, we will have to live in a world dominated by White and Asiatic achievements.

Critique of JAs Towards Blacks Generally
Daniel Moynihan has argued that because Blacks have traditionally had a weak family structure, this was mainly responsible for their lower academic and economic success rates and their higher rates of deviance. This explanation still places primary responsibility on Blacks themselves for their condition, rather than on society. Yet, Moynihan's detractors, and many contemporary social engineers in particular, would argue that his thesis tends to "blame the victim."

Moynihan's argument is a cultural deficiency argument. Again, cultural deficiency theories argue that a minority's "culture" prevents it from being more successful. According to this theory, Blacks and Chicanos are disadvantaged because their culture values instant gratification. In turn, this means they place less value of personal development and education, both of which would be necessary to some extent to improve their economic situation. Thomas Sowell, a Black economist, also agrees with this theory. He argues that the cultural values of Blacks and Chicanos (especially their attitudes towards work and achievement) are a major hindrance to their success. Sowell also argues that cultural attributes are responsible for Black's low status and low levels of achievement, rather than discrimination.

Cultural deficiency theorists like Moynihan and Sowell tend to place most of the blame for a people's failure to achieve on the people themselves, rather than on society. Hence, they place a correspondingly greater emphasis on the role of individual responsibility. Although such arguments only provide us with a partial explanation for why Black's have failed to achieve a level of social and economic status that is comparable to other racial minorities, they have enough validity to serve as the basis for JA's towards Blacks by members of other racial groups, and by Whites in particular.

As for the claim that Blacks have lower rates of academic achievement, this is clearly supported by the statistics. And, when federal authorities attempt to place pressure on academic institutions to give a  Black cultural flavor to college entrance exams, this is crossing the line. Taking such special measures will not do Blacks any good, and will not help them to compete. Similarly, it will not do Blacks any good to make degrees easier for them to obtain, for the value of such degrees will be diminished accordingly.

Blacks quite obviously depend more on government largesse in the forms of government jobs and public assistance than any other racial minority. One could argue that the relative lack of private sector employment opportunities for Blacks (especially in small White owned businesses) has been responsible for this. That is to say, one could argue that because Whites are more well established in small businesses they are also more likely to hire other Whites. By contrast, government has adopted a more accommodative policy towards Blacks, specifically for the purpose of counteracting any residual prejudice towards Blacks by White employers. As for the argument that Blacks rely more on public assistance than other groups, again, one can say this is not the result of their unwillingness to work, but is more the result of lack of opportunities.

As for the argument that Blacks are more criminally predisposed than other groups, the government's own statistics support this claim. Blacks are in fact more likely to commit crimes than any other racial group in society. Blacks are responsible for the majority of violent crimes, including crimes against Whites. One can invent all kinds of justifications for Blacks' higher rate of criminality. One can say that it is the result of a continuing legacy of slavery and being  systematically disadvantaged under a system controlled mainly by Whites. But, in one way or another, all such explanations simply come across as an attempt to make excuses for Blacks. For there have been many other racial groups in our society that have experienced prejudice, without resorting to a high rate of criminality. And, where crimes such as rape are concerned, the economic deprivation thesis falls apart completely. For, ostensibly, sex crimes do not have an economic source of causation. This specifically raises the question: Why should the number of Caucasian females raped by Black males far exceed the number of Black females raped by White males? One reason is that  Black males (and males of all races) simply find Caucasian females to be more attractive and sexually arousing. Correspondingly, the more attractive or sexually arousing a potential attacker finds a woman, the more likely she is to be raped. In addition to rapes of White women by Black men, the FBI's own statistics reveal that the incidence of violent crimes committed by Blacks against Whites far exceeds the number of violent crimes committed by Whites against Blacks. Hence, another JA towards Blacks can be seen to have its origins.

At this point we must begin to ask in what degree are the main antagonisms towards Blacks justifiable? The answer to this question depends mainly on whether or not you believe that Blacks are primarily responsible for the position which they occupy in society, or whether you believe that things like social structure, institutions and attitudes of prejudice are mainly responsible for the positions they occupy in society.  To answer this question it may help to look once again at the general human capacities for reason and forming moral judgments. To recap from Chapter Two, people in general have the ability to reason and they have an innate moral sense. And, with these abilities comes the obligation to make certain correct choices in one's life. That  is to say, because everyone has free will, the ability to reason and the ability to make correct moral judgments then, at least to some extent, everyone has it within their means to make something good out of themselves. So, even if Blacks (or anyone else) are born into unfavorable circumstances, they have a certain responsibility to make something good things out of themselves. Or, at the very least, they have an obligation not to make something bad out of themselves.

Hence, in most cases, and for the most part, responsibility for one's position in society lies with the individual, and is largely the result of an individual's choices. Society is only responsible for creating an overall environment in which individuals can succeed through their own determination, effort and abilities. Society is not responsible for insuring success in every case. And society can only do so much to motivate people or to provide them with opportunities. It cannot give people the determination to succeed by legitimate means in all cases, for this remains a matter of free will.

Possible Explanations for Differentials in Achievement Between Two Groups that Have Both Experienced Prejudice
Along with Blacks, Asian Americans, and principally the Chinese, were the objects of extreme prejudice by Whites. Given that both groups experienced extreme prejudice from Whites, the question then becomes: How do you explain the vast differences in the rates of progress between the descendants of the two groups? To answer this question we first need to consider the differences in the state of civilization that existed between sub-Saharan African societies (where the descendants of most Blacks originated) versus the level of civilization that had been attained by Asians (and principally by the Chinese) We must consider these differences apart from any lasting affect on values and family structure etc. that may have resulted from the institution of slavery itself.

First, there are dramatic differences in the levels of civilization that were attained by the descendants of Black slaves versus the Chinese. Even by the time the slave trade had reached its peak, Subequatorial African society remained predominantly tribal.. By contrast, the Chinese in particular had long before reached a much higher level of civilization. They had long before developed a complex system of writing and they had the benefit of a long tradition of complex normative and philosophical traditions. Effectively, they had more highly developed normative and philosophical belief systems than Blacks did. These normative and philosophical (primarily Taoist, Confucianist and Buddhist) belief systems had a positive impact on both their family life and on their attitudes towards education, work and achievement. Blacks in sub-Saharan Africa did not have the benefit of such philosophical and normative traditions. Again, you can argue that these differences in normative and philosophical traditions were more the result of differences in the environment and challenges to survival which the two groups had to face, and were not the result of any innate cognitive or temperamental deficiencies in Blacks. But, for whatever reason, the Chinese simply had a higher starting point than Blacks.

What About the Claim That Black's Resent Being Black?
As noted above, there is an unmistakable tendency for Black males (as well as males of other races) to find White females more attractive than their own females. This tendency manifests itself in patterns of  interracial dating and in patterns of interracial marriage. One could argue that Caucasian women just come closer to conforming to the prevailing (and culturally determined) stereotype of feminine beauty, than women of other races. And, in turn, one could argue that this standard is simply a result of the fact that Caucasians have dominated the culture industry for so long, and that it has no biological basis. In fact, this does not seem to be the case at all. It seems that regardless of how much exposure they have had to the prevailing standard of beauty (a standard which favors the attributes of Caucasian women) that males of other races and from other cultures show a "natural" preference for characteristics that are more closely associated with Caucasian females. That is to say, it would seem that Caucasian women just come closer to conforming to a universal standard for feminine beauty than women of other races. How this tendency could have evolved, and how it can be reconciled with a more general tendency to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of significant visible differences in others has been explained above.

What About the Widely Disputed Claim that Blacks are Less Intelligent than Whites or Asians?
Their purportedly lower intelligence stands out as a potential JA towards Blacks. At least one popular book has attempted to deal with this subject (The Bell Curve, by Hernnstein and Murrray). Although the authors of this book couched their findings in very euphemistic language, they essentially reached the conclusion that, as a race, Blacks are more likely to have lower IQs than either Caucasians or Asiatics. In no way do such conclusions suggest that there are not some highly intelligent Black people. Rather, the authors merely suggest that there is a large inherited component to IQ, and that this component tends to be closely correlated with one's race. This remains true even if all the right conditions for the development and expression of intelligence are present, and even if the state has done all that it can to help members of a particular race succeed.

Contemporary social engineers will tell us that if Blacks exhibit lower intelligence as a group that it is society's fault. That is, they will basically fall back on a cultural deprivation thesis, but they will say that this cultural deprivation is "society's fault." They naturally prefer to make this argument because, any lack of intelligence that could be attributed (rightly or wrongly) to cultural deprivation would theoretically be more amenable to remediation simply by changing the way Blacks are educated or socialized. Although, once again, by the time that remediation attempts typically take place, for many individuals it will be too late. That is, by the time that the state has intervened to help their development, the influence of early childhood socialization by the family has already had its affect (i.e. the norms imparted by the family which are the most important formative influence on attitudes related to learning and academic achievement). And once a person's attitudes towards learning and achievement have been established by such early formative influences, they are unlikely to be reversed by subsequent influences, such as education.

Even though individuals who have been subjected to adverse developmental influences can sometimes rise above them, solely on the basis of their genetics, some environmental factors can exert an overwhelming influence on development. For instance, prenatal influences such as improper nutrition (which can be an affect of poverty) can adversely affect brain development and can influence intelligence. And, in those cases where brain development has been impaired by some environmental influence, it may lead some to the false conclusion that deficiencies in intelligence are racially based, or based on heredity. Thus, biological factors which play a role in determining intelligence can be indirectly influenced by environmental factors. And, in the absence of such environmental influences, the natural intelligence of Blacks may more closely approach that of Whites and Asiatics, than their level of performance would seem to suggest.

What about the fact that Blacks do not score as highly on academic achievement tests as other racial minorities? Again, contemporary social engineers will prefer a cultural deprivation thesis. They will argue that Blacks consistent failure to achieve at rates approaching the achievement rates of other minorities is a result of the fact that they have been systematically disadvantaged by prejudice and discrimination, and that they have not had access to the same same educational opportunities as Whites. This is undoubtedly true up to a point. But now, in the face of government policies that have given them an overwhelming advantage, it becomes more difficult to justify their continuing lower rates of achievement.

Even if their failure to score as highly as other groups is due to a failure to "apply" what they have (in terms of natural ability) rather than due to "what" they have, it is still a failure for which they are primarily responsible. Again, their apologists will continue to fall back on the argument that their failure to achieve at levels approaching those of other groups is an unfortunate legacy of the institution of slavery and its prolonged affects on their norms and family structure. There may be some truth to this argument. But, it does not completely absolve Blacks of the responsibility to do everything they can to improve their situation by legitimate means. And, there is strong evidence that they haven't been doing all they can.

Lets assume for the moment that, on average, the innate differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites are minimal and that, for the most part, as many Black children are born with the right "hardware" as White children. Then, in this case, all the problems that Blacks have with achievement must be related to some deficiencies in their "software" and in their values in particular. And, in many cases, Black children do not acquire values early in life that would lead them to "value" things like education, work and achievement, or the values that are mainly responsible for the higher levels of success of their White counterparts. The main reason that Black children do not acquire these values early in life is because they are not being passed on from parent to child.

Despite the fact that they are much less likely to evoke a xenophobic response in Whites (simply because there is less of a visible contrast between them and Whites), Hispanics have become the objects of increasingly intense JAs. For instance, Whites as well as other racial groups have become increasingly resentful of the fact that large numbers of Hispanics enter this country illegally. Admittedly, many Hispanics have come to this country seeking a better life. And, once they get here, many have proven to be honest and hard working. But, as far as other racial groups are concerned, being basically honest and hard working does not atone for having a flagrant disregard for our laws by entering the country illegally. In their defense, Hispanics will merely assert that even if they have entered the country illegally, they are willing to work harder for less money than most Americans. This is undoubtedly true. But, it does not excuse them from breaking our laws to enter the country to begin with.

Although the knowledge that many Hispanics have entered this country illegally is a major source of resentment towards them, much of the growing resentment towards them is based on the knowledge of how much they end up costing American tax payers once they get here. Specifically, it is common knowledge that illegal immigrants, and mainly Hispanics, are imposing a large and growing cost on an already strained social services infrastructure. In turn, these costs are passed on to tax payers in the form of higher taxes. So, indirectly, tax payers are being forced to subsidize the low wage migrant labor force that illegal Hispanic immigrants represent.

The fact that so many Hispanics have entered this country illegally, and have imposed such a tremendous burden on our social services (a burden that must ultimately be born by predominantly White taxpayers) has become a source of growing resentment towards them as a group, especially by the predominantly White middle class. In addition, after they have entered the country illegally, Hispanics often have children (so-called anchor babies) who are automatically given the right of US citizenship. This tends to compound the strain which they already impose on social services, and indirectly, on tax payers. This is also compounding the growing resentment that other racial groups in society feel towards them.

A number of statistics taken from the L.A. Times illustrate additional sources of resentment towards the Hispanic minority by other racial and ethnic groups.

1. 40%  of all workers in  L.   A. County  ( L.   A.    County   has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying  taxes.This is because they  are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a  green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in    Los Angeles  are illegal aliens.
4. Over  2/3 of all births in  Los Angeles County  are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by  taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California  detention centers are Mexican nationals  here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are  living in garages.
7  The FBI reports half of all  gang members in Los Angeles are most likely  illegal aliens from south of the border.
8  Nearly 60%  of all occupants of HUD properties are illegals.
9  21  radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10 In  L.. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9  million speak Spanish.. (There are 10.2 million people  in  L.   A.   County  .)

Another JA towards Hispanics stems from their tendency to resist attempts at assimilation. Relative to other racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics have proven very slow to assimilate. In many cases they are extremely reluctant to learn our language and adopt our customs. Many of them, and especially those who enter the country illegally, have no intention of assimilating. Most just want to work here, and benefit from our social services.

Again, the actual racial or genetic differences between Hispanics and the White majority are barely enough to trigger the xenophobic response in most cases. Rather, the main source of prejudice towards Hispanics as a group stems entirely from JAs. And, it stems specifically from JAs that are related to their modal values. Relatedly, and as far as most Whites are concerned, the massive illegal influx of Hispanics into this country is more of a concern from a normative standpoint or from the standpoint of the values they bring with them, and its likely affects on our society as a whole. The modal values of Hispanics rank lower on the functionality scale than the modal values of either Caucasians or Asiatics. Hispanics are more likely to hold values that encourage a more hedonistic and immediate time frame orientation towards life, and they are less likely to follow the kind of deferred gratification pattern that is more closely associated with higher rates of academic achievement and economic success.

As a result of the prevailing or modal values of their people, most Latin American countries have, in one degree or another, exhibited some of the characteristics of failed nation states. At the very least, they exhibit the characteristics of suboptimal nation states. They are suboptimal, primarily because they do not have the benefit of the value systems that were most responsible for the pattern of more rapid economic development that unfolded in the United States and in Northern Europe. Hence, large scale illegal immigration from these countries, and from Mexico in particular must be a concern mainly from the standpoint of the values which these illegal immigrants bring with them, and from the standpoint of their potential impact on our society.

Narrative
The following brief narrative sums up some of the leading resentments that Whites and other groups have towards the rapidly growing Hispanic minority: "The have invaded our country and have attempted to impose their language and their culture on us. They come here illegally and they want us to speak their language. They show few signs of being willing to assimilate, and they would appear to want to turn the Southwestern United States into a separate Spanish speaking nation. They overwhelm our social services and they impose enormous costs on tax payers. They come here and they have their "anchor babies" which increases the strain they impose on our social services and the costs that must be born by tax paying citizens."

Critique of JAs Towards Hispanics
Large numbers of Hispanics do enter this country illegally solely for transient economic benefits. As their numbers continue to grow, they generate increasing tensions and they pose an increasing threat to social stability. The antagonisms which Whites and other groups increasingly feel towards them have a number of major justifications. First, illegal immigrants (principally Hispanics) impose an enormous and growing strain on our public services. This translates into higher taxes for all Americans. Second, illegal immigrants bid down the wages of American workers. Third, many illegals have no interest in assimilating or in adopting English as their language. Quite the reverse, they appear to want to turn portions of the Southwestern US into a separate Spanish speaking nation. The fact that they have been overrunning our largely undefended frontiers to the South reminds one somewhat of the barbarian hordes who began to overrun the frontiers of the Roman Empire at a time when this empire was in decline, if not rushing headlong towards its eventual collapse.

Current immigration laws are simply not being well enforced. Proponents of illegal immigration have made numerous arguments why a regime of non enforcement should be allowed to continue. They argue that because of the declining fertility rates of our own population, that we need immigration, even illegal immigration, as a source of "new blood." They also argue that we need these illegals because they are willing to do many of the kinds of work that most Americans are unwilling to do themselves. There would appear to be at least some truth to these arguments. Most upper and middle class families want to send their kids directly to college and they don't want them to get their hands dirty performing manual labor for even a small part of their lives. This unwillingness of the American upper and middle classes to perform work that they feel is beneath their dignity is a major source of the demand for illegal labor. Unless such attitudes towards work change, then half the battle for our nation's vitality is lost anyway.

Despite a persistent if not totally ineradicable prejudice against them by certain members of the White majority, Jews are perhaps the most well respected of any racial or ethnic minorities, with the possible exception of the Japanese and the Chinese. They are so highly respected mainly because they typically place more emphasis on things like work, education and achievement than other racial or ethnic groups. Because these values are held in such high esteem by the White majority (and also because there are fewer visible differences between them and the White majority), Jews have generally tended to experience less prejudice from the predominantly White population than other racial or ethnic groups. At the same time as the White majority has been more favorably disposed towards Jews, mainly because of their modal values, and similarities in their appearance, traditional sources of prejudice against them persist, mainly on religious grounds. And as well, new sources of prejudice against them appear to be growing. These new sources of prejudice towards Jews have several origins.

First, because Jews play such a conspicuous role in the entertainment industry, and because this industry has been widely recognized as the main source of many of our most severe normative problems, Jews will naturally be blamed for the corrosive affects which the popular culture has been having on American values.  Their prominence in the media and entertainment industry will also make Jews more susceptible to the charge that they use the media and entertainment industries to serve their own interests. And there is increasing resentment towards them for their apparent attempts to do just that.

In addition, Jews have also become prominent in organizations like the ACLU. Ostensibly, they want to use their positions in organizations like the ACLU to prevent Christians from using their numerical superiority to promote a social agenda that would favor their own interests, possibly at the expense of the Jews. The way that Jews intend to do this is by promoting a secular agenda, with which they hope to hamstring the vastly more powerful Christian majority. To the extent that Christians have become more aware of this strategy in recent years, there is growing resentment towards Jews on this account as well.

Such resentments aside, Jews remain among the most highly respected minorities in our society. They have enjoyed success in many fields, especially in the fields of law and medicine. Their achievements in the arts, and particularly, in the entertainment industry, are significant, but less commendable for the reasons cited. Again, because of their prominence in the entertainment industry, Jews have become closely associated with all that is wrong with the popular culture. And, in some ways, it would appear that Jews really do want to use their prominence in the entertainment industry to challenge conventional norms. This means that inevitably, Jews must find themselves in a position where they are challenging some of the core values of the predominantly Christian society in which they live. And, this is not likely to endear them to many Christians, with whom they already have strained relations. Although such sources of antagonism towards Jews are not without justifications, what distinguishes Jews the most from other racial minorities is their higher success rate.

There has been much speculation about the dynamic pressures that have contributed to the higher success rates of Jews. Hernnstein and Murray (who, being Jews themselves, hardly qualify as completely impartial observers), have identified a number of factors which they believe are responsible for the differential success of various racial groups, and for the disproportionately higher rates of achievement of Ajekenazi Jews in particular. Their argument rests on an implicit biological thesis as well as a cultural thesis. Because there is insufficient evidence at this point to provide firm support for the role which innate factors might play in developing intelligence, we will focus on the cultural thesis here.

There is no doubt that Jews have values and norms which have played a major role in their success as a people, and which other racial minorities would do well to emulate. Basically, Jews (with the notable exception of Hasidic Jews) tend to have a more "this worldly" orientation. In a sense, Jews follow a pattern of normative and intellectual development that has certain things in common with Protestant asceticism. At an early age, they are taught the importance of discipline, self-denial, deferred gratification, learning and academic achievement. The emphasis which they place on such values is undoubtedly what is mainly responsible for their higher rate of success.

Another influence that has helped Jews succeed, as ironic as it may sound, is the prejudice that they experienced from living in societies that were predominantly Caucasian and Christian.  The Jews reacted to prejudice towards them from the larger societies of which they were a part by becoming more cohesive and insular as a group. That is to say, they reacted to prejudice mainly by banding together, networking, and helping one another. Prejudice also had the effect of causing them to focus more on things like work and achievement at a time when other groups in society were beginning to "let down their hair" so to speak. As a result of their cohesiveness and their greater emphasis on education, work and achievement, Jews gradually began to pull ahead of other racial and ethnic groups in predominantly Christian societies, despite the prejudice they encountered. And, in another twist of irony, their very success provided ammunition for other groups to use against them. Specifically, from their greater drive to succeed, and in their efforts to overcome prejudice, they acquired the stereotype and the stigma of being "pushy." So, a quality like dynamism that is seen in a positive light, when it applies to members of the in-group (Christians), can be seen in a negative light, when it applies to members of an out-group (Jews).

As a consequence of their drive and determination, Jews have gradually become over represented in a number of fields, and, most conspicuously, in the media and entertainment industry. One could argue that their prominence in the media and entertainment industry is the result of a conscious strategy. Specifically, because the memory of how they were treated under the Nazi regime is still relatively fresh in their minds, and vowing never to let such a thing happen again, they may be strongly motivated to occupy certain strategic positions in society (such as in the media and the entertainment industry) in order to have some control over public opinion. If this is the case, one could hardly blame them for pursuing such a strategy. However, it is more likely that their overrepresentation in the media and entertainment industry is simply a reflection of their overrepresentation in higher paying fields more generally.

Jews have had some successes in political circles as well. A relatively powerful Jewish lobby has been mainly responsible for creating the myth that the defense of the Jewish state is of vital strategic importance to the US. Actually, and more purely from the standpoint of our national interests, Israel is more of a liability than an asset. We have a much greater strategic interest in currying favor with the oil producing states of the Middle East. The fact that Jews have been able to use their powerful lobby to exert an inordinate influence on the policy making process in another source of popular resentment.

Finally, because Jews have historically been largely absent from many manual occupations has lead members of the lower and working classes to speculate that they "avoid honest work." In part, such attitudes have their origins in the fact that Jews in Europe were often prohibited from entering the "more noble trades" that were open to Gentiles. As a consequence, many of them were relegated to less well respected (and in many cases, non manual) occupations such as banking and trading. In feudal Europe, traders were often viewed with suspicion (if not contempt) by the masses because they do not appear to add value to a product. They merely take charge of a product so that they can pass it on to others at a profit.

Narrative
Jews have an overwhelming drive to dominate human affairs. Recalling their experience under the Nazi regime, they believe that either they must be in control of a society, or they will be at the mercy of that society. This belief has led them to pursue a deliberate strategy to occupy positions in society that they regard as being vital to the defense of their interests. Hence, they have become over represented in the fields of law, journalism, the entertainment industry (Hollywood), as well as in academia and government. .

A disproportionately large number of Jews can be found in the media and the entertainment industries, both of which place them in a strategic position to manipulate public opinion to their advantage. They do this (i.e. attempt to dominate public affairs) as part of conscious strategy that is designed to prevent any systematic persecution, and any possible recurrence of what happened to them in W.W.II at the hands of the Germans. Jews are also very prominent in the legal profession. Although they makeup only 2% of the population, they makeup over 10% of the lawyers. A disproportionately large number of Jews are also members of Congress. A disproportionately small number of Jews serve in the armed forces. And, a disproportionately small number of them can be found in the manual occupations.

Jews would seem to be pursuing a strategy that is designed to weaken the Caucasian majority, or at least keep it ideologically divided, perhaps out of fear that if it were ever to be united it might turn against them. And, they use their positions of power in the press and the entertainment industry to influence the tide of public opinion in a way that they believe will serve their own interests.. They use Hollywood and the popular culture to propagate values that are relatively more functional for their group, and which are actually detrimental for society as a whole. In summary, because of the positions they occupy in the media and the entertainment industry, Jews are in a position to exert an inordinate amount of control over public opinion.

Along with Blacks, Jews seem to dislike their own women. Or, at least, they simply prefer women without more pronounced semitic features. As a result, they will typically marry Christian women, especially those of Northern European descent, whom they regard as more attractive. Along with Black men, Jewish men have been making a systematic assault on the Northern European gene pool by marrying Caucasian women of Northern European descent.

Critique of JAs Towards Jews
Having lived and worked with Jews, I am somewhat more qualified than the average person to comment on the degree to which JAs towards them are accurate or justifiable. From the limited standpoint of my personal experience with them, I am led to conclude that, in general, Jews are among the more hare working and achievement oriented of all minority groups. Their accomplishment in many fields stand as a testament to their attitudes towards education, work and achievement. Although there is an element of truth to the popular stereotype of Jews as being stingy (due to the fact that many are descended from merchants, and merchants had to be frugal in order to be successful), what is stingy from one standpoint is just good business practice from another.

By and large, Jewish people are intelligent and hard working. They have come a long way from the ghettos of Europe. Jews have contributed more to our culture than any other racial or ethnic minority. And yet, many Whites, and Christian Whites especially, continue to harbor some deep feelings of resentment towards Jews. Such feelings no doubt stem from the fact that the Jews were the ones who were responsible for Christ's execution. Although Pontius Pilate confessed that he saw no reason why Christ posed a threat to Roman rule (because Christ claimed to be king of a spiritual kingdom, as opposed to a secular kingdom), the Jews demanded that Christ be executed. Christians have been slow to forgive the Jews for this, and it has been a lingering source of resentment towards them ever since.

Although the Christian resentment towards Jews over the role they played in Christ's execution qualifies more as a form of religious prejudice, rather than a form of racial prejudice, this attitude has nonetheless posed a significant obstacle which Jews have had to overcome in predominantly Christian societies. They have overcome this obstacle in a grand style. One can't help but admire American Jews for the progress that they have made, in the past eight decades especially. Even as early as the 1930s, they had already begun to establish an important place for themselves in the field of medicine in the US, as well as in other fields. And, this was supposedly during a time when anti-Semitism was much stronger than it is today. Yet, once again, and in some ways, the prejudice that Jews had to face from living in a predominantly Christian society helped to stiffen their resolve and it contributed to their drive to succeed.

Their higher rates of achievement raises the question: Are Jews "naturally" smarter than everyone else. That is, are they more well equipped genetically to develop and exhibit intelligence, or, is their greater "demonstrated" intelligence just a result of the fact that they have internalized a system of values that is more conducive to the development and expression of intelligence? Perhaps the best way to approach this question is to argue that some reciprocal causation may be at work. That is to say, solely in terms of their innate cognitive potential, Jews probably have a slight advantage over other racial groups. In turn, this is likely to translate into a predisposition to form or adopt values which are more functional, and more conducive to academic and professional achievements.

As for the charge that Jews are deliberately occupying positions in the media and entertainment industries, as well as other fields, in order to either block or influence public opinion, this can be said:  Jews are over represented in the fields of law, politics, academia, and especially in the media and the entertainment industry. But, they are also over represented in the professions more generally. Hence, ipso facto, their overrepresentation in the "key power professions" is not proof that they intend to use their positions in these fields for the purpose of influencing public opinion in a way that would tend to serve their interests. However, they have the opportunity to do this. And, there is no reason to believe that they will not take advantage of this opportunity, when they can do so without being obvious.

Another source of resentment towards Whites that does not have a rational justification is related to the differential functionality of their modal values versus the modal values of underachieving minorities. Members of these minority groups commonly attempt to justify their own lack of success with the belief that: "its not what you know but who you know" that is mainly responsible for a person's success. Such beliefs also help underachieving minorities to rationalize their own rejection of the education and work ethics. And, those minorities who have not internalized values that would be more conducive to their own success are among the ones who are most likely to harbor some irrational feelings of resentment towards Whites. Basically, members of these minority groups resent Whites, along with other successful racial groups (principally, Jews and Asiatics), precisely because these groups have been so successful. And, because these minorities have not internalized values that would be more conducive to their success, (such as values which stress education, work and achievement), they tend to rationalize their own lack of success with the belief that the success of other groups is somehow undeserved.

Another source of resentment towards Whites basically stems from the fact that the US has historically been a predominantly White society. Because it has been a predominantly White society, quite naturally, most of the contributions to this society have been made by Whites. Accordingly, members of other races who live in this society must live in the shadow of White accomplishments in some degree. And, this is a standing source of resentment towards Whites, especially by members of underachieving minority groups.

None of these kinds of resentment towards Whites are legitimate or justifiable. However, there are antagonisms towards Whites that are justifiable. One of the most important JAs towards Whites is related to their attitude towards work, and their attitudes towards performing manual and menial work in particular. Specifically, many Whites, especially the more affluent ones, have apparently come to believe that they are too good to perform much of society's manual and menial work.

The children of the predominantly Caucasian educated middle class have begun to largely shirk their civic responsibilities to perform the socially necessary but least rewarding jobs, under the impression that such work is beneath their dignity, and that they have a natural entitlement to avoid such work. As a result, such work naturally falls to those who are willing to work harder for less, namely, minorities and illegal immigrants. And, to a great extent, illegal immigration to the US from Mexico is being driven by this character flaw in White Americans themselves (i.e. their unwillingness to do manual and menial work). Along with all other moral failures, this one can have potentially far reaching affects on our civilization.

Similarly, the children of middle and upper class Whites have increasingly come to believe that because of their race and because of the social class that they belong to, that they are entitled to a highly compensated, high status job from the first point at which they enter the work force. Many of them acquire professional or semi-professional status without ever having performed in any "stigmatized" or subprofessional capacity at any point in their lives. As a result, many of them end up with world views that have not been properly "tempered" by real world experiences. And, this is one of the main reasons why so many Whites who hold higher academic degrees (especially in the social sciences), tend to be so out of touch with the way the world works, and why it is so easy to saddle them with the elitist label.

Narrative
Whites think that they are too good to do the manual and menial work in society, and this work naturally falls to the rest of us (mainly Blacks and Hispanics). We do much of the work in society that they are not willing to do. They send their kids off to expensive colleges without their ever having done an honest days work in their lives. When they finish college they expect to go right into high paying jobs. And, because they often know the right people, many of them do just that. Although, because these advantages make them feel guilty, many of them become liberals, which is good for us.

Critique of JA's Towards Whites
Just like the antagonisms that Whites have against some minorities, some minorities have some good justifications for resenting Whites. The claim that Whites are generally "better connected" stands as a legitimate criticism. They have the social, academic and professional networks that are much more conducive to getting good jobs. In this sense, Whites are a privileged group, and other groups in society (most notably racial minorities) resent them for it. In their defense, the principle of merit, and the work ethic remain "relatively" strong among most Whites. For the most part, Whites continue to assign a high priority to "work and doing a good job." That is to say, one might get a job because of who they know, but they would typically only be able to keep the job because of adequate performance, or because of what they know.

The claim that many young Whites have never done an honest day's work in their life is legitimate. In numbers that are inexcusably large, many Whites send their kids directly to college without their kids having ever served in the labor force in either a manual or a menial capacity. Labor statistics suggest that a vast majority of Whites think that they are too good to do the manual and menial work in society. Hence, this work naturally falls to minorities in many cases, and especially to Blacks and Hispanics. And, it is mainly this creeping erosion of the work ethic among Whites that is driving the illegal immigration problem. If Whites were willing to do the work that illegal Mexican immigrants are doing, the illegal immigrants would have no work, and vastly greater numbers of them would opt to stay in Mexico. Hence, it is not enough for White Americans to tell Mexicans to go home. They have got to be willing to do at least some of the work that the illegal Mexican immigrants are now doing, even if its only their own yard work and cleaning their own homes. And as well, White Americans have got to tell their children and their grand children that they must be willing to do the kinds of work that are now being done by these illegals. If Whites are not willing to do this kind of work, then they deserve to lose their country, and they are rapidly in the process of doing just that.

Many White Americans appear to believe that they are naturally entitled to avoid both menial and manual work. No such entitlement or birthright exists. Yet, if more Americans become willing to do the kind of work that is now being done by illegals, it will allow us to stop illegal immigration dead in its tracks. In turn, if illegal immigration is stopped, it will tend to to bid up wages for both menial and manual jobs in the US. And once the wages for these jobs have been bid up sufficiently, presumably, more White Americans would be willing to perform them. That is to say, market forces will help to correct the problem.
From the perspective of most American business owners, this might seem to be inflationary. But, from the perspective of loyal Americans, this would be a good thing for our workers and our society.

It would seem that the same kind of moral failure that was responsible for bringing African slaves to the New World to begin with is now responsible for allowing massive waves of immigration to take place from Africa to Europe, and from Mexico to the United States. Basically, more well educated and higher social status Caucasians have come to think that their higher educational and social status entitles them to some kind of exemption from performing the more menial work in society; and that they can depend on a population of immigrants (legal or illegal) to perform this work. This is what is fueling the demand for immigration today, just as it fueled the demand for African slaves centuries ago. At the very least, this is what is allowing it to take place largely unimpeded. This is the kind of moral failure that can eventually destroy both European and American civilizations, or render them unrecognizable

Postscript about Asians
It should be noted that JAs towards Asians are absent from this inventory. This is because, to a certain extent Asians would seem to represent a model minority. In fact, of all racial groups, Asiatics are probably the least polarizing, and least likely to experience racial prejudice resulting from either an innate source (the xenophobic response) or from a learned or acquired source (JAs), at least among Whites. Although, because of their higher success rates, they, along with Jews, are more likely to incur racial prejudice from underachieving minorities, particularly Blacks.

One of the most ambitious attempts by government to create conditions that were supposed to result in a drastic reduction of racial prejudice was school desegregation. Ostensibly, and on the surface, the purpose of school desegregation was to bring equality of education to racial minorities. But the real "behind the scenes" motive of school desegregation was to force closer social interactions between Blacks and Whites, who, left to their own natural tendencies, would have preferred to avoid these interactions. By compelling Blacks and Whites to get along with one another in a closely monitored and controlled setting (i.e. public schools), social engineers hoped to diffuse the social tensions that would have resulted if both groups continued to follow more insular patterns of socialization.

As far as how close it came to achieving its "stated" aims is concerned, at best, school desegregation had mixed results. The push for school desegregation was motivated by false conclusions. Coleman notes that variance in funding only helped to explain 5% of differences in academic performance (cite).  As it turned out, the affect that the school environment had on learning was not nearly as important as the affect that one's family had on one's attitude towards learning.. The most critical factor for explaining differences in academic performance between Whites and Blacks was differences in their attitudes towards learning, or differences in the attitudes that kids brought with them to school, rather than the school environment itself. And, devoting additional money to education does not tend to get additional results unless it is actually used to change attitudes towards learning.

School Desegregation as a Failed Social Engineering Experiment
At least as far as contemporary social engineers are concerned, school desegregation was apparently one of the best things this country has ever done to improve race relations. Essentially, school desegregation, or busing to achieve racial integration, was designed to "short circuit" natural racial attitudes by thrusting different races (principally Blacks and Whites) into a situation where they would have daily contact with one another and where they would be "forced" to get along with one another in some degree. And while its immediate effect was to increase racial tensions, its net longer term effect was to "apparently" improve race relations and to promote understanding between Blacks and Whites. At least this was the idealistic aim of the esteemed social engineers who sat on the Supreme Court.

Some would say that school desegregation achieved its main "understood" purpose as opposed to its publicly stated purpose. But even though it may have had some success in "suppressing or preventing the expression of  more natural racial attitudes, it did not go very far towards reaching its "stated" objectives, which was to improve the educational performance of Blacks. As it turned out, this was a problem that had its origins elsewhere, and mainly in the way that Black children are socialized before they enter school.

Presumably, because minority races have less to show for themselves in the way of achievements, they have a greater psychological need for pride. That is, having to live in the shadow of Caucasian accomplishments, members of minority races have a greater need to feel good about themselves. Contemporary social engineers want to encourage minority groups to feel good about themselves, or they want to encourage them to have high self esteem. And, giving them a greater latitude to express their racial pride is one way that contemporary social engineers hope to accomplish this.

Contemporary social engineers just seem to accept that the achievements of the White race are so obvious and pervasive in our society, that no special occasion is needed to celebrate them, such as "White History Month." In their view, such an occasion would just come across as an attempt by Whites to "rub in" their superior achievements in order to make members of other races feel bad about themselves. So, to finally answer the question: Can people have racial pride without being branded as prejudiced? The answer is yes, if one belongs to a racial minority. This leaves open the question: How can this double standard be eliminated? By virtue of their achievements, Whites are certainly just as much entitled to express pride in their race as any other race. How can Whites express racial pride without being branded as prejudiced by an activist press that is eager to level the charge of racism wherever it can find the opportunity? To answer this question we must clearly distinguish legitimate expressions of racial pride from prejudice, which is something that contemporary social engineers fail to do when they level charges of racism against any Whites who dare to express pride in their race.

Distinctions Between Attitudes of Racism and Racial Pride
Having racial pride is not the same as racism or racial prejudice. They are not two sides of the same coin. One can have racial or ethnic pride in relative isolation from any feelings of antipathy, or any feelings at all, towards other racial or ethnic groups. One can celebrate the achievements of one's own racial or ethnic group without being prejudiced. St. Patrick's day is a good example. Properly, it is an expression of "ethnic pride" as opposed to any overt display of racial pride. The Irish do not use St. Patrick's Day as an occasion to celebrate the fact that they are White; they use it as an occasion to celebrate their "ethnic" heritage. Their celebration does not presume any feelings of antipathy towards any other racial or ethnic groups. So why is there no comparable English Pride Day? Perhaps because the English, or there descendants, have had such a pervasive influence on our society, that every day is like a celebration of their culture and their heritage. What do these facts suggest?

First, ethnic pride is a distinct concept from racial pride, and racial pride is a distinct concept from racism. Again, racism involves feelings of hostility and resentment by members of one race towards members of another race, whether the feelings can point to real justifications or not. By contrast, racial pride is a conscious appreciation of one's race, and it is an assertion of the dignity and worth of one's race. It is not an attempt to denigrate or disparage another race. This is one of the most important distinctions between racial prejudice and racial pride.

Although important distinctions can be made between racial pride and racial prejudice, because there tends to be such a close association between the two concepts in the minds of contemporary social engineers, we have been conditioned to believe that racial pride is just a euphemism for racial prejudice, unless it is displayed by a racial minority. So the conventional wisdom goes, in order to eliminate racial prejudice in a multiracial society, we must eliminate the last vestiges of racial pride, unless it is exhibited by minorities who don't have as much to show for themselves in the way of accomplishments, and who need to express pride in their race in order to build a sense of self worth.

Racial pride can also be distinguished from racial prejudice in other ways. Racial prejudice involves feelings of animosity and resentment towards members of another race. By contrast, racial pride does not even typically involve an attitude or a feeling toward another group. Rather, it typically involves an attitude or a feeling towards one's own group exclusively. Racial pride is typically based on feelings of reverence and respect that one has for one's own racial group. It is also based on the naturally greater feelings of affinity and admiration that people tend to have for the qualities of the gene pool to which they are most closely related. Again, it is natural to have a greater affinity for those who are most closely related to us genetically. This is a natural human behavioral tendency which our idealistic contemporary social engineers would have us ignore. And even though affinities can be extended to people who are not so closely related to us racially and genetically, such forms of affinity do not have the same deep biological roots as a form of affinity which is based on close genetic proximity.

Can You  Defend Your Legitimate Racial Interests Without Being Racist?
You might be able to defend your legitimate racial interests without actually "being" racist, but, in the current climate, you are not likely to be able to escape the "charge" that you are racist. Again, our contemporary social engineers will say that because racial minorities have been disadvantaged historically, they are entitled to assert their pride in ways that members of the majority race are not.
They will go on to say that minorities are entitled to promote their own interests exclusively as a way of "leveling the playing field" which they will maintain is still slanted in favor of Whites. Therefore, where the defense of their own legitimate racial interests are concerned, Whites must live with a handicap. They will not be allowed to defend or promote their legitimate interests when these interests come into conflict with the interests of minorities. This strategy is intended to result in a progressive improvement in social and economic circumstances for minority races, and in a progressive reduction in the advantages of the majority race (you cannot advance the interests of one race in a multiracial society without hurting the interests of another). Over time, according to our contemporary social engineers, such strategies will eventually result in a leveling of the playing field (especially in the arena of economic competition).

Once there is general agreement that the playing field has become essentially level (actually this agreement is only likely to be reached when the playing field is slanted decisively in favor of  minority races, in order to avoid the "appearance" of any residual racism by the racial majority), then, at this point, presumably, our esteemed social engineers would allow some token defense of  legitimate White interests. But even when conditions emerge in society that clearly favor minorities, it remains to be seen if those who have historically been among the more ardent champions of minorities rights (such as the press, among other social engineers) will be more even handed in their approach to the legitimate racial interests of the White majority. Considering their training, and considering the continuing influence of liberal White guilt on their perspective, it is difficult to imagine that they will become more even handed in their approach. It is more likely that, wanting to avoid any possible appearance of  being racially biased in favor of the White majority, they will depict any attempts by Whites to defend their legitimate racial interests in racist terms. This raises the question: Will Caucasians in a multiracial society ever be able to defend their legitimate interests without incurring the charge of racism? In turn, this raises another question: Is it ever legitimate for any racial group to attempt to exclusively defend or promote its interests?

First of all, an important distinction is still to be made between the defense of legitimate racial interests, and racism. When a group that happens to belong to one racial group attempts to defend or promote its legitimate interests in a situation where it is in direct competition with members of another race, this is not racism. Yet, because of the double standard which the mainstream press religiously adheres to, it will tend to recognize and report it as such. That is to say, under circumstances where members of the White majority attempt to defend their legitimate racial interests, the instinctive reaction of the press is to depict such attempts in racist terms. After all, Whites don't have a history of being oppressed to fall back on as a justification for the defense of their own interests. But, if members of a racial minority were to make a similar attempt, the press would likely give them a free pass. Apparently, as far as the press is concerned, it is not "racist" for members of a minority race to attempt to defend their legitimate interests. This helps to explain why Whites have become less likely to energetically defend their interests at a time when other racial groups are beginning to more aggressively defend their own racial interests. Whites know that an activist liberal press is waiting to pounce on them, and is eager to brand them as racists. However, this situation is likely to change, and in a way that the press is not expecting.

As the White majority moves ever closer to losing its majority status, it will likely become more defensive, in much the same way that minorities have been. The main reason that it has not been more aggressive in defending its interests until now is that the forces in society that have been helping to suppress and control the development and expression of more natural racial feelings among Whites have been so successful. But, the more successful that these forces have been in suppressing or controlling the expression of more natural racial feelings among Whites, the greater the pressure for the release of these feelings, once a suitable set of circumstances have presented themselves. Hence, at least where the manipulation and control of racial attitudes is concerned, the contemporary social engineering project could become a victim of its own success. For now at least, the press, the popular culture and the Zeitgeist remain firmly in support of the contemporary social engineering project. But, there is a good chance that their influence will begin to wear thin at some point.

If prejudice is more the result of socialization and learned behaviors, as contemporary social engineers will clearly want to argue, it suggests that there is nothing wrong with their preferred model of society (i.e. a multiracial society), and that this form of society is a perfectly natural and stable arrangement. On the other hand, if prejudice is found to have origins in strong, innate behavioral tendencies, it would suggest that a more racially homogeneous society is a more natural arrangement, and that it should serve as our ideal. Even if a more racially homogeneous society proves to be in closer accord with elements of our nature, and therefore in greater accord with natural law, it does not mean that our society could not have "some" representatives of many different races within it. Rather, it would mean that, in order to be most stable, robust and functional, societies in general will have an interest in keeping their levels of racial heterogeneity within certain predetermined limits. The issue of exactly what these limits should be will be discussed at greater length in the next chapter. For now, our task is to identify the main causes of racial prejudice.

Theories of Racial Prejudice
Most contemporary theories of racial prejudice tend to reflect the ideological preferences of the researchers who propose them. The most commonly accepted theories about the origins of racial prejudice are cultural theories, or theories which assert that racial prejudice originates from attitudes that we are taught, or which we learned through experience, and that these attitudes do not arise from any innate source, or that there is nothing in human nature that could contribute to the development of racial prejudice. Because they totally dismiss the possibility that any innate factors could contribute to racial prejudice (due to the threat that this would pose to their ideals and their social engineering project), we must consider the possibility that, to some extent, the prevailing theories of racial prejudice that are now most popular in the social sciences are "ideologically tainted and suspect." At the very least, they are not likely to be adequate to totally explain why some people are prejudiced, while others are not.

Theories about the origins of racial prejudice that are most popular in the social sciences are suspect for a number of reasons. First, they do not begin with an accurate view of human nature. Secondly, they tend to focus on the power of socialization to make us conform to virtually any set of ideals, and to their ideals in particular. Third, they seem unwilling to acknowledge that any aspect of human nature could potentially come into conflict with their ideals, or could pose an obstacle to the realization of their ideals. Sociologists and other social determinists will naturally prefer to argue that prejudice is the result of faulty socialization, and that if everyone were simply socialized properly to begin with, attitudes of racial prejudice would all just miraculously disappear. No doubt, to some extent, socialization does have the ability to override and suppress any innate mechanisms which might lead people to become prejudiced in the first place. But, the innate tendencies which lead to prejudice will always be just below the surface threatening to erupt when conditions that are more favorable for their expression occur, such as periods of social upheaval or economic distress. Once these conditions have presented themselves, it will bring forth the more natural tendencies that have been suppressed by artificial ideals.

As a result of the hegemony of the ideological left in the social sciences and in the field of sociology in particular, virtually all of the theories about the causation of racial prejudice that have become most popular in the social sciences suggest (or conclude outright) that prejudice is the result of some failure of socialization, and consequently, and that it is amenable to some kind of solution which involves socialization. Basically, the humanist researchers in the social sciences who are most closely involved in studying the origins of racial prejudice will be more likely to say things like: "The attitudes that are responsible for racial prejudice are totally the product of socialization, they are handed down from parent to child, or they are otherwise acquired from environmental influences, they are part of a subculture of prejudice, and these attitudes do not have any innate source or component whatsoever." But, here again, evidence is appearing in the behavioral sciences to challenge this view.

According to the view of racial prejudice that now prevails in the social sciences, if you took Black and White infants aged one to two years, who had no knowledge of the concept of race, and who had little or no contact with with members of another race, and placed them alone in the same room full of toys, they would ignore their visible racial differences, they would all play together as if they were members of the same race, and no patterns of interaction would emerge among them along racial lines. Or, if you take White infants to a grocery store, and they encountered a Black person, they would take no particular notice of them, and they would certainly not be upset by the close proximity of a Black person, even if they have never seen a Black person before. In fact, this is not what happens. (Van Allen, 2010).

The Xenophobic Response as a Main Cause of Racial Prejudice
Despite the protests and denials of many contemporary social engineers, the xenophobic response is a well documented psychological reaction to the perception of visible differences in others. This reflex is tied directly to reflexes and brain physiology. Rather than attempt to deny its existence or discount its importance, social scientists might want to ask themselves: How did such responses evolve, and what functions did they likely serve in an evolutionary context.

As we saw from chapter two, the tendency to experience the xenophobic response in reaction to the perception of significant visible differences in others is one of the most basic human tendencies and it is the main innate cause of racial prejudice. Humans are naturally predisposed to experience a xenophobic response, or an aversive reaction, to the perception of significant visible differences in others (such as differences that correspond to race). Basically, this response results from the comparison we make between our own characteristics (traits that we are most familiar with, and which normally correspond more closely to our own racial-genetic traits) and the characteristics that we observe in others. Based on this comparison, and depending on how similar or different we perceive others to be, we tend to have a reaction. Depending on the degree of similarity or difference (between one's own characteristics and the characteristics one observes in others), and depending on other factors (such as variations in the propensity to experience the response which may occur within and between human populations), we will be either more or less likely to experience a xenophobic reaction, other factors remaining equal (such as the influences of socialization, which can either reinforce or suppress the tendency to experience a xenophobic response). Because it can play such an important part in the formation of prejudiced attitudes, the xenophobic response should be a matter of considerable interest to researchers in the social sciences. Yet, under the influence of ideals which tend to discourage consideration of this line of causation for racial prejudice, most social scientists are not even aware of it.

Despite the fact that there is a general tendency for people to experience a xenophobic response to the perception of more extreme visible differences in others, not all human beings will experience this response in the same way, or in the same degree. Due to naturally occurring temperamental variations that occur between between populations, as well as temperamental variations that occur between individuals in the same population, some people will be more naturally predisposed to experience the xenophobic response than others. People will also be differentially predisposed to experience the xenophobic response depending on how their socialization interacts with their natural tendencies. Older individuals will be either more or less likely to experience this response depending on the kind of socialization they have received, and particularly depending on the degree to which their socialization has been specifically designed to target and suppress the expression of racial prejudice.

Justifiable Antagonisms as a Main Cause of Racial Prejudice
In addition to having an innate source in the xenophobic response (as well as in naturally greater feelings of affinity we have for those that we perceive to be more closely related to us genetically and racially), attitudes of racial prejudice can have their origins in the way that we are socialized, or they can be based on things that we learn about members of other racial groups. In effect, attitudes of racial prejudice can be learned. This is the explanation for attitudes of racial prejudice that social scientists are most comfortable with, because it suggests that attitudes of racial prejudice are more amenable to solutions that simply involve changing the way that people are socialized. Yet, even if we accept this explanation as a main cause of prejudiced attitudes, this doesn't mean that such attitudes cannot still have an objective basis in the normative and other characteristics of different racial and ethnic groups. That is to say, even if we were to accept that attitudes of racial prejudice were totally the product of socialization or environmental influences, it would still leave open the possibility that attitudes of racial prejudice could have a "rational" basis, or that they could be "justifiable" in some sense. It would still leave open the possibility that such attitudes might be able to point to certain facts (particularly facts about the normative characteristics of a racial or ethnic group, and about which there is little dispute) for their justification. And, as it so happens, one of the main environmental or learned sources of racial prejudice is in the form of attitudes that are based on some "generally reliable" knowledge we have about the modal characteristics of racial groups. That is to say, these attitudes have some "rational" justifications. And, this is a conclusion that most social scientists and contemporary social engineers will strongly object to.

Humanistically inspired social scientists and social engineers will advise us that we should look beyond our differences, particularly our racial differences, and that we should accept these differences. They will advise us that people have no control over the racial characteristics that they are born with, or the circumstances that they are born into, which is certainly true. They will advise us further that because people have no control over the racial characteristics that they are born with and no control over the circumstances that they are born into, that they have no control over the values systems that they are most likely to form or adopt. And, for this reason, all values systems, as well as those who hold them, should be accorded equal dignity and respect. They will go on to say that we have no rational means of ranking different value systems, and that even if it were possible to rank the different value systems that people hold according to some rational criteria (such as how well they function, and how conducive they are to building and maintaining a high level of civilization), in their view, we should not be judgmental. At this point, we must raise certain objections to the social scientist's line of reasoning.

As we saw in Chapter 5, not all value systems are created equal. Value systems can be qualitatively ranked according to certain universally valid criteria. Some value systems are more functional than others in absolute terms. And, because people naturally have both the ability to reason and an innate moral sense, they have both some ability to identify, and some moral obligation to adopt, values that are more functional. That is to say, with these abilities comes the natural obligation to form or adopt more functional value systems, or value systems that are more likely to lead to a higher level of civilization. And, in those cases around the world where people have failed to attain a higher level of civilization, then, to some extent, their values must be largely to blame. In turn, people must share a large part of the blame for their failure to adopt optimally functional values, or values that would prove more conducive to their success, and which would better enable them to attain a higher level of civilization.

Even though some value systems appear to be much more conducive to helping people to meet basic human needs, and even though some would appear more closely associated with the attainment of a higher level of civilization than others (and would seem to entitle people who hold them to a higher rank), humanistically inspired social scientists will advise us that we should not judge them differently. They will tell us that we should look beyond differences in people's values and that we should not attempt to grade them or rank them on the basis of their modal values or other normative characteristics. They will go on to tell us that we should not attempt to judge other's values or other normative characteristics, because values and other normative characteristics have some "meaning" for the people who hold them.

At this point, once again, we must cut their argument short. To the extent that values can be ranked according to criteria that are universally valid, such as the degree to which they conduce to human survivability, some groups will have values that are relatively more functional than others. By extension, the degree to which members of a group are likely to possess more functional normative characteristics (especially values), or normative characteristics that are more conducive to survivability, provides us with a rational, legitimate or a "justifiable" basis for our attitudes towards members of a group as a whole.
That is, we have a rational, legitimate and justifiable basis for ranking or grading different groups according to the degree to which their members are more likely to possess functional normative characteristics. Although most people may not be fully aware of the "functional calculus" that can be used to "rationally" rank people according to the functionality of their values, they will often attempt to assign such rankings to other groups anyway. And, in many cases, the attitudes of racial prejudice that people have towards members of a group can be based on some generally accurate first hand knowledge they have about members of this group. From their personal knowledge of and experiences with members of a group, people can infer certain general characteristics about the group as a whole.

In the degree that their knowledge of, or experience with, members of a group have been generally positive, they may infer positive things about the group as a whole. In the degree that their knowledge of, or  experience with members of the group have been generally negative, they may tend to infer something negative about members of the group as a whole. And, in the degree that a person's knowledge of or experience with members of a group has been "representative," or in the degree that this knowledge and experience has given them a "true and representative picture" of the overall characteristics of the group, then, in a sense, the attitudes that they have formed about members of this group will be "justifiable," whether these attitudes are good or bad. In those cases where one forms a negative attitude towards a racial or ethnic group based upon some generally reliable and representative knowledge about the characteristics of this group, a  "justifiable antagonism" is the result. By contrast, and more generally, an attitude of racial prejudice can result from either "justifiable antagonisms" or it can result from mistaken information about, or unrepresentative contacts with, members of another racial or ethnic group. Attitudes of racial prejudice which are based on justifiable antagonisms will obviously be more difficult to eradicate, simply because they have a factual and justifiable basis.

Justifiable Antagonisms Towards Blacks
Blacks are the most visible minority in American society. Because of the greater visible contrasts between Blacks and other racial groups, Blacks are the group that is most likely to evoke a xenophobic response among members of other racial groups, and among Whites in particular. In addition, due to the modal normative characteristics of their group, and due to certain normative deficiencies in particular, Blacks are more likely to be the object of racial prejudice than any other racial group in American society. So Blacks living in a predominantly White society are not only more likely to incur a deeper and more ineradicable form of racial prejudice, primarily due to the operation of the xenophobic response, but they are also the group that is most likely to experience prejudice as a result of JAs.

For reasons that are related to either deficiencies in their socialization, or due to innate reasons, or due to some complex interaction between these influences, Blacks have come to hold a number of normative characteristics that serve as the basis for "JAs" towards them as a group. To begin with, Blacks are quite obviously the least economically successful and upwardly socially mobile of any racial minority. (Most contemporary sociologists will say that merely by drawing attention to this fact, one is "blaming the victim.") Blacks also have the lowest levels of academic achievement of any racial group. Blacks have the highest high school dropout rates of any racial group. They score lower on competitive exams more generally than other groups. Blacks have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse of any racial group. Blacks have the highest rate of illegitimacy of any racial group. Blacks receive more per capita in government benefits than any other racial group.

It is certainly true that there are many good, honest, hard working Black people. There are obviously good and bad people in all racial groups. But, crime statistics suggest that there are proportionately more bad Black people, at least in American society. Blacks are responsible for the majority of rapes and murders, not only of their own people, but of White people as well. Blacks are much more likely to commit violent criminal offenses, including offenses against Whites, than any other minority. The number of Whites murdered by Blacks vastly exceeds the number of Blacks murdered by Whites. Yet, the press continues to focus on isolated "hate crimes" committed by Whites against Blacks. Such facts are a standing source of resentment against Blacks by by members of other racial groups, especially Whites.

Justifiable Antagonisms Towards Hispanics
Hispanics have not yet generated the kind of extreme animosity or resentment among other groups in society (principally Whites), as have Blacks. But, primarily due to their growing numbers, they are well on their way to losing this distinction. Nonetheless, Hispanics are among the racial minorities that are least likely to evoke a xenophobic response (at least among Whites) simply because they more closely resemble Caucasians than most other racial groups. Hence, any prejudice that Whites are likely to feel towards them is more likely to have its origins in JAs than in the xenophobic response.

Despite the fact that they are much less likely to evoke a xenophobic response in Whites (simply because there is less of a visible contrast between them and Whites), Hispanics have become the objects of increasingly intense JAs. For instance, Whites as well as other racial groups have become increasingly resentful of the fact that large numbers of Hispanics enter this country illegally. Admittedly, many Hispanics have come to this country seeking a better life. And, once they get here, many have proven to be honest and hard working. But, as far as other racial groups are concerned, being basically honest and hard working does not atone for having a flagrant disregard for our laws by entering the country illegally. In their defense, Hispanics will merely assert that even if they have entered the country illegally, they are willing to work harder for less money than most Americans. This is undoubtedly true. But, it does not excuse them from breaking our laws to enter the country to begin with.

Although the knowledge that many Hispanics have entered this country illegally is a major source of resentment towards them, much of the growing resentment towards them is based on the knowledge of how much they end up costing American tax payers once they get here. Specifically, it is common knowledge that illegal immigrants, and mainly Hispanics, are imposing a large and growing cost on an already strained social services infrastructure. In turn, these costs are passed on to tax payers in the form of higher taxes. So, indirectly, tax payers are being forced to subsidize the low wage migrant labor force that illegal Hispanic immigrants represent.

Justifiable Antagonisms Towards Jews
Jews stand out as one of the most successful racial minorities in the US. Yet, there is some dispute as to whether or not they deserve to be called a racial minority at all. Ostensibly, they would seem to be an offshoot of the Caucasian race. And, after many generations of interbreeding with Europeans, there is relatively little to distinguish them from other Caucasians, in terms of their appearance. But, as a people with a Semitic ancestry who typically have some residual racial features that allow one to distinguish them from Caucasians of more purely European descent, it is appropriate to treat them as a racial minority.
However, because the contrasts between their racial characteristics and the racial characteristics of Whites will not generally be sufficient to trigger a xenophobic response, then, much like Hispanics, the main source of prejudice against them must be JAs.

Despite a persistent if not totally ineradicable prejudice against them by certain members of the White majority, Jews are perhaps the most well respected of any racial or ethnic minorities, with the possible exception of the Japanese and the Chinese. They are so highly respected mainly because they typically place more emphasis on things like work, education and achievement than other racial or ethnic groups. Because these values are held in such high esteem by the White majority (and also because there are fewer visible differences between them and the White majority), Jews have generally tended to experience less prejudice from the predominantly White population than other racial or ethnic groups. At the same time as the White majority has been more favorably disposed towards Jews, mainly because of their modal values, and similarities in their appearance, traditional sources of prejudice against them persist, mainly on religious grounds. And as well, new sources of prejudice against them appear to be growing. These new sources of prejudice towards Jews have several origins.

First, because Jews play such a conspicuous role in the entertainment industry, and because this industry has been widely recognized as the main source of many of our most severe normative problems, Jews will naturally be blamed for the corrosive affects which the popular culture has been having on American values.  Their prominence in the media and entertainment industry will also make Jews more susceptible to the charge that they use the media and entertainment industries to serve their own interests. And there is increasing resentment towards them for their apparent attempts to do just that.

In addition, Jews have also become prominent in organizations like the ACLU. Ostensibly, they want to use their positions in organizations like the ACLU to prevent Christians from using their numerical superiority to promote a social agenda that would favor their own interests, possibly at the expense of the Jews. The way that Jews intend to do this is by promoting a secular agenda, with which they hope to hamstring the vastly more powerful Christian majority. To the extent that Christians have become more aware of this strategy in recent years, there is growing resentment towards Jews on this account as well.

Such resentments aside, Jews remain among the most highly respected minorities in our society. They have enjoyed success in many fields, especially in the fields of law and medicine. Their achievements in the arts, and particularly, in the entertainment industry, are significant, but less commendable for the reasons cited. Again, because of their prominence in the entertainment industry, Jews have become closely associated with all that is wrong with the popular culture. And, in some ways, it would appear that Jews really do want to use their prominence in the entertainment industry to challenge conventional norms. This means that inevitably, Jews must find themselves in a position where they are challenging some of the core values of the predominantly Christian society in which they live. And, this is not likely to endear them to many Christians, with whom they already have strained relations. Although such sources of antagonism towards Jews are not without justifications, what distinguishes Jews the most from other racial minorities is their higher success rate.

Justifiable Antagonisms Towards Whites
As little as members of the White majority in the US may think about it, members of other racial groups have some very strong antagonisms towards them. Like all racial antagonisms, some of these antagonisms are justifiable, while others are not. Among the main antagonisms which are not justifiable is simple envy. Admittedly, as a racial group, Whites in American society have much to make other groups envious of them. They have a disproportionate share of the wealth, they have a disproportionate share of the best jobs, they typically have the best education and the best access to the more desirable places to live. And, they tend to occupy a more privileged place in society more generally. However, because they have earned these things in most cases, and because they have historically been a majority in this country, they are naturally entitled to occupy a more privileged place in society. And, just because other groups may resents or envy them for their success, is not a valid reason or justification for this resentment. That is to say, one group may resent another for reasons that are essentially irrational. And, envy is just such a case. This is a case of an antagonism that is "unjustifiable."

Another source of resentment towards Whites that does not have a rational justification is related to the differential functionality of their modal values versus the modal values of underachieving minorities. Members of these minority groups commonly attempt to justify their own lack of success with the belief that: "its not what you know but who you know" that is mainly responsible for a person's success. Such beliefs also help underachieving minorities to rationalize their own rejection of the education and work ethics. And, those minorities who have not internalized values that would be more conducive to their own success are among the ones who are most likely to harbor some irrational feelings of resentment towards Whites. Basically, members of these minority groups resent Whites, along with other successful racial groups (principally, Jews and Asiatics), precisely because these groups have been so successful. And, because these minorities have not internalized values that would be more conducive to their success, (such as values which stress education, work and achievement), they tend to rationalize their own lack of success with the belief that the success of other groups is somehow undeserved.

None of these kinds of resentment towards Whites are legitimate or justifiable. However, there are categories of antagonisms towards Whites that are justifiable. One of the most important JAs towards Whites is related to their attitude towards work, and their attitudes towards performing manual and menial work in particular. Specifically, many Whites, especially the more affluent ones, have apparently come to believe that they are too good to perform society's manual and menial work. As a consequence, such work naturally falls to certain minorities (principally, Hispanics) who are willing to work harder for less. So, in a real sense, illegal immigration to the US from Mexico is being driven principally by a character flaw in White Americans themselves (i.e. their unwillingness to do manual and menial work). Along with all other moral failures, this one can have potentially far reaching affects on our civilization.

RACIAL PREJUDICE VERSUS RACIAL PRIDE
Can people have racial pride without being prejudiced, or are these merely two sides of the same coin? At least as far as contemporary social engineers are concerned, the answer to this question would seem to depend on which race you belong to. That is to say, as an aspect of the contemporary social engineering project, racial minorities are openly encouraged to assert their racial pride. Conversely, Whites are encouraged to tone down any feelings of pride that they may have in their own race.  So why the racial double standard? Why do contemporary social engineers feel that expressions of racial pride are OK if one belongs to a racial minority, but that similar expressions of racial pride by Whites are to be condemned?

Presumably, because minority races have less to show for themselves in the way of achievements, they have a greater psychological need for pride. That is, having to live in the shadow of Caucasian accomplishments, members of minority races have a greater need to feel good about themselves. Contemporary social engineers want to encourage minority groups to feel good about themselves, or they want to encourage them to have high self esteem. And, giving them a greater latitude to express their racial pride is one way that contemporary social engineers hope to accomplish this.

Distinctions Between Attitudes of Racism and Racial Pride
Having racial pride is not the same as racism or racial prejudice. They are not two sides of the same coin. One can have racial or ethnic pride in relative isolation from any feelings of antipathy, or any feelings at all, towards other racial or ethnic groups. One can celebrate the achievements of one's own racial or ethnic group without being prejudiced. St. Patrick's day is a good example. Properly, it is an expression of "ethnic pride" as opposed to any overt display of racial pride. The Irish do not use St. Patrick's Day as an occasion to celebrate the fact that they are White; they use it as an occasion to celebrate their "ethnic" heritage. Their celebration does not presume any feelings of antipathy towards any other racial or ethnic groups. So why is there no comparable English Pride Day? Perhaps because the English, or there descendants, have had such a pervasive influence on our society, that every day is like a celebration of their culture and their heritage. What do these facts suggest?

First, ethnic pride is a distinct concept from racial pride, and racial pride is a distinct concept from racism. Again, racism involves feelings of hostility and resentment by members of one race towards members of another race, whether the feelings can point to real justifications or not. By contrast, racial pride is a conscious appreciation of one's race, and it is an assertion of the dignity and worth of one's race. It is not an attempt to denigrate or disparage another race. This is one of the most important distinctions between racial prejudice and racial pride.

Racial prejudice can also be distinguished from racial pride in other ways. Racial prejudice involves feelings of animosity and resentment towards members of another race. By contrast, racial pride does not even typically involve an attitude or a feeling toward another group. Rather, it typically involves an attitude or a feeling towards one's own group exclusively. Racial pride is typically based on feelings of reverence and respect that one has for one's own racial group. It is also based on the naturally greater feelings of affinity and admiration that people tend to have for the qualities of the gene pool to which they are most closely related. Again, it is natural to have a greater affinity for those who are most closely related to us genetically. This is a natural human behavioral tendency which our idealistic contemporary social engineers would have us ignore. And even though affinities can be extended to people who are not so closely related to us racially and genetically, such forms of affinity do not have the same deep biological roots as a form of affinity which is based on close genetic proximity.
 

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN