In the West it is fashionable at present, politically correct,
to hold that there are no differences that go beyond skin-deep
between people of different races.
Those who hold this belief admit (reluctantly?) that some racial
groups have darker skins than others, some groups have broader
noses than others do; but to hold that different races have
different levels of abilities is not acceptable to them.
Is it likely? Some races are heavier boned than others, some are
taller, some have different facial features; is it not very likely
that some will, for example, live more from day to day while others
will tend to plan and work for the future?
Western peoples have been associated with agriculture for up to
10 000 years, while Australian Aborigines, for example,
have never developed an agricultural way of life.
(Some aboriginal groups did develop the beginnings of an agriculture, they
encouraged some of those plants that they found useful.) Can one
believe that no selection for characteristics associated with farming
developed over 10 000 years when the lives of the agriculturalists
depended on their skill? To be a successful raiser of
plants one must always have in the back of one's mind the needs of
those plants; there is a need for a 'work ethic' (another
concept that seems to be less fashionable at present).
Hunter-gatherers, by contrast, did not need to devote themselves
to the needs of other organisms in this way.
There seems to be an 'in-built' love of gardening in Western People.
Especially as they get older, Caucasians love to scratch about in
their gardens. I haven't seen this in Australian Aborigines.
I suggest that this love of gardening has been selected for in
Western people (and many others, but not Australian Aborigines) over the
last 10 000 years.
People who had a stronger love of gardening
produced more food crops, consequently they suffered less from
famines, and left more descendents.
People who lived in places with severe winters had a much
greater need to plan ahead than did those who hunted and gathered in
milder climates. In the former group, if you didn't collect enough
food during the period when it was plentiful to get you over the time
when it was scarce you faced starvation; while hunter-gatherers in
tropical or mild climates could live by what they found every day.
None of this necessarily means that one racial group is superior to
another; the idea of superiority or inferiority is a very difficult
one to judge, the human being is a very complex thing; and I'm not
at all sure that superiority or inferiority is
a very useful concept when considering racial characteristics.
However, I do believe that to deny the possibility of deep-seated
differences between races is to deny reality, to hide one's head
in the sand.
Some will claim that while such difference do exist between racial
groups they are due only to the education and social pressures that
the people involved have been subjected to during their life times;
the 'nature or nurture' question.
Again, I cannot believe that 10 000 years of selection is
insufficient to bring about some pretty fundamental differences
We must keep open minds; to deny concepts because they may be
unpalatable is always an error.