See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is There A Superior Race?
Source:
American Renaissance
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 1, 1999
Author: Michael Levin
Post Date: 2007-05-04 22:47:42 by Tauzero
Keywords: Kumbaya
Views: 394
Comments: 25
Is There A Superior Race? Michael Levin, American Renaissance, February 1999 Whether some races are superior to others is a question all racialists must consider, if only because their critics are sure to force them to. Just say that whites are, on average, more intelligent than blacks, and you will be told “Oh, so you think whites are superior to blacks.” If you say that Jews are, on average, more intelligent than gentiles you will be lectured that that sort of thinking led to the Holocaust. Behind all this passionate confusion lie real issues. Academics tend to duck them, from a desire for scientific neutrality or simply to avoid trouble. They will say that race differences in IQ and temperament have nothing to do with questions of value, that the greater intelligence of whites, for example, is just a fact of nature like blood pressure. But very few people view intelligence this way, and I am sure the typical psychologist prefers that his children have IQs of 120 rather than 80. In fact, both views of racial differences are valid. The scientist’s “Sgt. Friday,” just-the-facts-ma’am approach is basically right, I believe, but at the same time, we must acknowledge that group differences touch people’s deepest hopes and fears. To sort out these issues we must revisit an old riddle common in college philosophy courses: the place of value in the universe. The question is whether justice is “natural” or “conventional”—that is, whether right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly are objective features of the world, or fictions with no basis in the nature of things. Incidentally, only Europeans have ever reached the level of intellectual abstraction necessary to pose such questions, and the first to do so were the Greeks. They wanted to know whether judgments of good and bad are discovered or invented, whether they are based on reason or on mere projections of human emotion onto the real world. The skeptical view implies that nothing—including one or another race—is inherently better or worse than anything else. The most eminent ancients—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle—did see value as an objective feature of reality accessible to reason, but they have always had opponents. Socrates’ contemporary, Xenophanes, joked that if horses could draw, they would draw their gods as horses. Plato thought that most men failed to understand the existence of objective good. According to him, the Greek-in-the-street thought that all sensible men were profoundly selfish but had reluctantly agreed to limit their pursuit of self-interest to avoid a catastrophic war of all against all. These agreed-upon limits set on selfishness—which are necessary evils—are the laws of justice. They are like traffic rules: It is useful for everyone to agree to stop on red and go on green, but no one imagines that there is something inherent about red that makes stopping when you see it obligatory. (It is a tribute to Greek genius that the hoi polloi had an opinion on so deep a question.) Although I have great respect for the belief that God determines what is good and what is evil, I’m afraid I must count myself among the skeptics. As I see it, nothing in the world is good or bad, or right or wrong, or better or worse. People, like other organisms, have preferences, some of which are more common in some groups than others, but none is objectively better or worse than any other. They just are. It is not right or good that a lion catch the gazelle he is after, although a catch will certainly please him, and, as Xenophanes might have added, if lions could talk they would doubtless say that gazelle-catching was “proper” and “what all decent lions deserve.” Gazelles, for their part, dislike being caught and would, if given voice, accuse lions of violating their rights. In fact, the universe roots for neither. There is no neutral standpoint from which to rank the lion’s evolved appetite for gazelles against the gazelle’s evolved aversion to being lunch. It is not possible to say which is right or wrong. So in my view it makes no sense to say that one race is better or worse, superior or inferior, to another. It makes as little sense as saying that lions are “better” than gazelles. Before I go into my reasons for this, let me add a few words about that singular value called morality. Man alone has preferences about preferences, his own and those of others. For instance, most of us not only want to be honest and punctual, we want others to be honest and punctual, too. In fact, most of us feel distinctly uneasy about doing things we don’t want others to do. This higher-order desire, that our actions conform to general rules that we can also prescribe for others, is the essence of morality. A person is said to be conscientious or principled when he subjects his behavior to the golden rule, the how-would-I-like-it-if-everyone-did-that test. Concern for morality, like other traits, is not equally distributed. In Why Race Matters and elsewhere I cite evidence that, on average, blacks are less concerned than whites about the golden rule. This is clearly suggested by the very high rates of black criminality not only in the United States but around the world. At a more mundane level it is also reflected, for example, in the unwillingness of many blacks to take turns and a tendency of blacks to “talk back” to movies (which displays a lack of sympathy with audience members who want to watch in silence). Having taught philosophy for many years to a “diverse” student body, I have been able to compare the preferences and actions of different groups by using a classic philosophical conundrum. When I introduce ethics I always ask my students what you should do if a supermarket cashier gives you too much change, and there is no chance of discovery if you pocket it. While I have not kept precise statistics, disproportionately more black students say that “you’d be a fool” to return the money. Many back up their position by saying that the mistake is the cashier’s problem. When I ask what they would do if they were the cashier many reply, irrelevantly, that they wouldn’t let it happen to them. Why conformity to universal rules is important to whites may be linked to another Caucasian specialty, the quest for scientific knowledge. The hallmark of scientific explanation is that it follows general rules. Whenever you say that A is why B happened, you implicitly refer to a law of nature. When you say the window broke because the baseball hit it, you have in mind that whenever glass of that sort is struck with a sufficiently great force, it shatters. We find events comprehensible when they fall into general patterns, and we find behavior acceptable only when it obeys rules. It is no coincidence that the race that invented science is also the one preeminently concerned with right and wrong. Having said this, I reiterate that being moral—being concerned with the golden rule—isn’t better in any absolute sense than being amoral. It is a preference, neither right nor wrong, that some people feel more intensely than others, and that still others lack altogether. Skepticism The basic reason for skepticism about values is that they explain nothing. There are, as I see it, only two grounds for believing in something: It can be observed, or it is needed to explain something else that can be observed. I believe in elephants because I have seen them at zoos. I believe in electromagnetic waves because, if they didn’t exist, television could not be explained. Values are not observable—you cannot literally see the goodness of helping a blind man cross the street. Nor is there any phenomenon that requires values to explain it. Nothing in nature happens because it is right; lions chase gazelles and gazelles run away because of natural selection, not because it is “right.” Human beings act as they do, not because of right and wrong, but because of their convictions about right and wrong, and I believe these convictions are ultimately explained by natural selection. So we seem to be back at the Sgt. Friday position, with its corollary that high intelligence and moral concern are not inherently better than dimwitted amorality. There is no progress over evolutionary time, just change—tendencies, for instance, for organisms to display more intelligence, but no direction towards something inherently better. This position has its attractions, chiefly as an all-purpose reply to inevitable nagging about “racism”: You can doggedly insist on the facts of race and disavow any moral interpretation. But not only will this never satisfy egalitarians, it misrepresents what people ordinarily have in mind when they make comparisons. People do not usually intend some sort of cosmic, absolute judgment when they make comparisons or talk about superiority. Not even the most fanatical users of Apple computers claim that Macs are just better than PCs, period, in the eyes of God. What they have in mind is that Macs are better than PCs according to certain accepted standards like speed and ease of use. Beef is not graded according to some mysterious quality of inherent goodness, but by tenderness and marbling. Of course, accepted standards may change, but so long as the standards in force are clear, there should be no misunderstanding. In fact, people have four definite standards more or less clearly in mind when they compare human groups, and relative to those standards it is possible to draw conclusions about different races. 1) The first of these standards is influence. The most salient test for ranking individuals is influence: How different would the world be if so-and-so had never been born? (Michael Hart uses this test in his book The 100, which is his list of the most important people in history.) Columbus is more important than Joe Blow because the world would have been very different without Columbus, whereas Joe Blow’s absence would scarcely have been noticed. This test applies to groups as well as individuals. The Greeks were more important than the Iroquois because they made more difference to the world as a whole. It is a matter of verifiable fact that the influence of whites dominates mankind. Had blacks never existed, Europe and Asia would be pretty much as they are today. Had Asians never existed, the world would be somewhat different, but still recognizable. But a world in which there had never been Europeans is unimaginable. It is not just that everyone else has been Westernized in the superficial respects that are easy to criticize, like clothing and music. Western science and technology shape mankind’s building, trade, transportation, communication and education. Cars are almost everywhere, and where there aren’t cars there are bicycles—both Western inventions. People pay bills by check, an innovation of late medieval Europe. They erect large structures according to mechanical principles discovered in the West. Terrorists attack with guns of Western design and explosives mixed according to Western chemistry. Every high school student in the world learns Cartesian co-ordinates, another product of Caucasian ingenuity. 2) The other side of the coin of influence is emulation. Every other culture wants—covets—the control over nature that Western man has achieved by scientific methods of thought. It is important to emphasize this standard, for egalitarians always describe Caucasian influence as “imperialism,” as if whites forced it on the rest of the world. Not so; other countries would give a great deal for Western standards of living, infant mortality rates, longevity, productivity and individual freedom. While from a cosmic point of view no culture may be better than another, when all sides agree in prizing the products of one culture, there is from a practical point of view not much to argue about. This is not to say that other cultures always realize or admit that they emulate the West. They often treat the fruits of Caucasian science as natural resources they are entitled to. Negotiations about sea-bed mining are forever breaking down when backward countries demand that the Western world give them their “fair share” of the world’s mineral wealth. They ignore the fact that it takes Western ingenuity and effort to extract it, and that effort and ingenuity deserve to be rewarded. But it is clear that if a magic wand could give the Third World Western skills, Third-World critics of “imperialism” would wave it without hesitation. Western values are emulated not just collectively, but individually. Everyone admires the traits in which whites excel, chiefly intelligence. Do not be fooled by the esteem in which athletic and sexual prowess are held by some groups. Intelligence may not be valued as highly elsewhere as it is at an American university but there is no culture in which the local equivalent of “bright” is not a compliment nor “stupid” an insult. The picture is fuzzier for traits like law-abidingness, but on the whole Caucasians and Mongoloids excel Negroids in individual traits that members of all three groups prize. In many of these same traits Mongoloids slightly excel Caucasians, while in others—perhaps originality—Caucasians excel Mongoloids. To repeat, it is a verifiable fact that all cultures agree on the value of certain traits. This is why racialists are always accused of claiming racial superiority when they note the high intelligence of whites. The average person values intelligence, and assumes that other people, including psychometricians and racialists, do too. So when he hears whites described as more intelligent than blacks, he naturally concludes that the speaker is calling whites superior. This, after all, is the inference he would draw from the same data. Deep down, even egalitarians view intelligence as an important standard of personal value, so, since they would conclude that whites are superior if they admitted to themselves that whites are more intelligent, they foist this view on racialists. Hearing someone say a steak is tender and juicy, you would as a matter of course assume he is praising it. You would be surprised and a little doubtful if he insisted he was only describing the steak’s properties. 3) Closely related to the emulation standard is that of efficiency. Given certain goals or ends common to all groups, one group is considered “superior” when its means to those ends are most efficient. “Better” often means “is a better means.” Crop rotation, for example, is better than sacrificing to the Sun God, because it produces a bigger harvest. By this means-ends test, Caucasians have created a verifiably better civilization because it more readily secures certain universal goals. Every group has wanted indoor lighting, for instance. Most have achieved it with dangerous, expensive fire, while whites achieved it with cheap, easily controlled electricity. Every culture has wanted the ability to travel from one place to another. All have attained walking speed—about 3 miles per hour. A few have mastered the horse, allowing them to move at about 10 miles per hour. Caucasian mastery of jet propulsion allows people to travel in comfort at 600 miles per hour. Of course, the desirability of speed and indoor lighting are not inscribed in stone, and one can imagine a society consciously eschewing them. The Pennsylvania Dutch still ride carriages rather than drive cars. But since the desire for technological advance is in fact so widely shared, and Caucasians are better at achieving it than anyone else, Caucasians are “superior” in the sense of having developed the best means to certain universal ends. Technological preeminence is not the only source of Caucasoid means-ends superiority. Let me describe some recent experiments that shed light on how Western moral attitudes create wealth and other generally accepted goods. Western morality is more efficient. Suppose someone gives me $10, but with the following proviso: I am to offer you any part of that $10, from one cent to $5 to $9.99. You then decide whether or not to take my offer. If you take it, you get what I have offered and I keep the rest. If you reject my offer, the $10 is taken back and we both get nothing. We both know these conditions. What do I offer you? What offer should you accept from me? (There is a real-world parallel: Having discovered there is gold on my land, but being physically weak, I offer you a share of the profits to mine it for me. If you turn me down, the gold stays in the ground and neither of us is any better off. What deal should we strike?) From a strictly logical point of view, one would expect you to take any offer, down to a penny for you and $9.99 for me. After all, even a lopsided deal like that leaves you a penny richer. However, when this “take it or leave it” game has been tried on Germans, Americans, Yugoslavs, Japanese and Israelis, offers that deviate significantly from $5 for each person are almost always rejected—in effect punished—and no player ever accepts a split as unbalanced as $2.50 for him, $7.50 for the fellow making the offer. What is more, very few players from these countries ever offer a deal significantly more advantageous to himself than $5/$5, perhaps because each player knows that no such offer will be accepted. The reason for this seems to be a sense of equity, probably innate, that moves players to punish behavior they see as unfair, even at some cost to themselves. This moral indignation, though it may appear irrational and counterproductive, is one of those rules by which sensible men bind themselves for the sake of their own and everyone else’s long-run profit. For imagine a society of egotists with no compunction about making lopsided offers in the interest of maximizing short-term gain. No one egotistical enough to feel entitled to a $9.99/1¢ split is likely to settle for the one cent when someone makes that lopsided offer to him, so in such a society few beneficial bargains will be made. In such a society I will offer you one percent of the profits for mining my gold, you will give me a piece of your mind, and we will both remain poorer than we need to be. In a society where everyone has a sense of equity and 50/50 offers are apt to be made, these offers are also apt to be accepted, and everyone will become better and better off. Emphasis on equity leads to mutually enriching bargains. My sense is that Mongoloid moral systems put less emphasis than Caucasoid on conscience but endorse similar rules of fairness. I would love to see take-it-or-leave-it experiments with subjects of different races, although I cannot imagine such experiments being allowed in the present climate. I would predict that racial differences would be found in the lopsidedness of offers made and in offers accepted, with whites and Asians tending toward a 50/50 equilibrium, with blacks more inclined to make—but disinclined to accept—offers deviating from this midpoint. Please recall the “you’d be a fool” view of keeping incorrect change. This attitude would surely encourage short-sighted, unbalanced offers; would it also lead to the acceptance of such offers (since a penny is better than nothing) or militate against them? I suspect the latter, but I would like some data. 4) A fourth criterion of group excellence is power: When the ordinary person calls one group superior to another, he may mean that members of the first group can be counted on to defeat equal numbers of the second in battle. However unlovely, this is a standard people often have in mind, and there is no doubt that Caucasians predominate. The weapons they have invented would allow easy conquest of the planet, and they would meet resistance only from societies that have managed to imitate the weapons of the West. Nor is there much doubt that, say, a thousand Caucasoid males could organize themselves into a more effective fighting force capable of defeating a thousand Negroids. It is not clear that whites would have equal success against Asians, but again it must be remembered that ever since the Middle Ages, Asian armies have done reasonably well against white armies only by using white inventions. If in our imaginary 1,000-on-1,000 battle each group is restricted to weapons developed by its own society, whites would certainly win every time. This standard is not as brutish as it sounds, since, for better or worse, military power is the upshot of traits that are admired in their own right: courage, intelligence (to devise better weapons and better treatment for the wounded) discipline, audacity, and concern for the group. Superiority by this standard also has some interesting demographic implications. The first is that whites may well govern—that is, occupy virtually all positions of power—no matter what ideology is dominant. Blacks and non-European Hispanics may become more numerous in the United States, but even in a democracy they will have to have someone to vote for, and whites will generally manage to be the ones that get into a position to be elected. (We see this with the sexes: there are more female than male voters, but at the national level virtually all leaders are men.) This may explain why whites rule in Brazil, even though the black population is proportionally much larger than in the United States. It is not that blacks think whites are more fit to rule, it’s just that the naturally dominant group always does dominate. Thus, I fully expect that when 2050 rolls around, and assuming (as the demographers assure us) whites become a minority, whites will still rule because they will be better organized. However, at some point they will be unthroned through sheer weight of numbers—perhaps by the 22nd century. Thus, according to four common criteria—influence, emulation, efficiency and power—whites come out on top, but as I have pointed out, a determined skeptic can reject all four. We can fully expect egalitarians to reject them, at least in public: “What’s so great about influence or intellect or the capacity for moral thinking?” I doubt that anyone can mean this question seriously, but it can’t be answered except by appealing to other standards egalitarians can also disingenuously challenge. All anyone can do is point out that we do care about these things, and ask anyone who doesn’t to suggest traits we should care about more. As I emphasize in my book, the values we have as individuals and as a culture are the ones we can’t help but use. While upbringing counts to some extent, our values are the heritage of eons of selection. We are born with them. That is the way we are. One can be objective about one’s own values for a few hours in the study, but detachment becomes impossible as soon as the world presses in. Values are like emotions. I know intellectually that the grief I might feel for the death of a son is a biological adaptation—nature’s way of making sure I take better care of my other offspring—but realizing that emotions are a trick of neural wiring would not reduce my suffering one bit. The much touted “wisdom of the East” that teaches the extirpation of emotions is foolish. It can easily counsel an alienation from one’s own deepest commitments, and this trivializes life. The Western approach of engagement with the world, with its attendant risks of suffering, is more honest. Each group therefore finds its own standards best, and judges the rest of the world by them. How could it be otherwise? A group of people that disapproved of its own nature would suffer a spiritual dissonance not conducive to survival, and psychologists tell us that pride in one’s ethnic group is a sign of mental health (although this sort of pride is supposed to be reserved for non-whites). By Caucasian standards Caucasians are best. Critics of white “ethnocentrism,” like Capt. Reynaud in Casablanca, pretend to be “shocked I tell you, shocked” that whites give the highest grades to white writers, artists, composers, statesmen and inventors. What do they expect? If blacks preferred non-black culture, these same critics would say that whites have taught blacks to hate themselves. In any case, even if ethnocentrism is bad it is inevitable. We have the values we have, and we have no choice but to apply them. So what should you say if someone asks you whether you believe in racial superiority? Ask him what he means by “superior,” what standards he has in mind. If he can’t or won’t answer, remind him that the question was his. If he doesn’t know what “superior” means, he is as much as admitting that he doesn’t know what he is talking about—and if he doesn’t know what he is talking about, why should you continue the conversation? If he says accusingly “You know darn well what I mean,” pin him down: Tell him you know what you mean, but not what he means. If you finally elicit a concrete standard from him apply it, but remind him that any aspersions cast are his. For instance, if he says creation of material wealth is a measure of superiority, point out that, yes, white societies are richer than others and therefore better by his criterion, and that it is he, not you, who is assuming the value of wealth. This tactic will shame the most shameless egalitarian. In his heart he believes that, by his own criteria, whites (and Asians) are better than blacks. Since he will never admit this, with luck you can at least get him to go away.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tauzero (#0)
Some are partial to the Dover 400 but to me it will always be the Indy 500!
Neither can hold a candle to the Camptown Races.
We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Therefore, let us not think of mice and men. The distinction is an illusion, a social construct. To our shame, Stuart Little still finds it very difficult to catch a cab. Yes, we are called New Englanders. Yeah, but even New Englanders are leaving New England.
We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Therefore, let us not think of mice and men. The distinction is an illusion, a social construct. To our shame, Stuart Little still finds it very difficult to catch a cab. I'm fairly certain Blacks are. They must be, they have all the fun.
God is always good! Well, I am sure we can live without the dumb ones who prefer to live in cheap McMansions in souless anonymous developments in the "New South".
Doo dah, doo dah....
Except for the now closed Michter's Distillery in PA, the Yankees couldn't make whiskey for nuthin. It is the South that provides the nation's premium alcohol and tobacco, which we'll cheerfully (if not drunkenly) swap for some New England made firearms. So, be glad for your gun companies or you wouldn't have anything to contribute to American culture but Al Sharpton, Maine lobsters and rotaries.
Snow rallyes!
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
Mush!
We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Therefore, let us not think of mice and men. The distinction is an illusion, a social construct. To our shame, Stuart Little still finds it very difficult to catch a cab. Yeah, all these messianic pretensions take all the fun out of an invasion.
We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Therefore, let us not think of mice and men. The distinction is an illusion, a social construct. To our shame, Stuart Little still finds it very difficult to catch a cab. Sons of bitches must all be coming here judging by traffic jam I ran into today.
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
Yes, the South has New England beat in brewing wife beatin juice. As for culture overall? I suppose it is a matter of tastes. If Nascar, 1000 capacity titty bar palaces, and swim suit competitions for painted up 8 year old girls is your thing- then the South is the place to be.
Yes, we are called "I might have to go do something less stressfull, like core pavement on a busy freeway, at night..."
Yes, it's called the human race. Unfortunately 99 percent of the population of the earth doesn't fit into that category.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
You got it. NAMBLA wouldn't dare buy, hold and use a Southern farm to bring the pre-pubescent runaway boyss from NYC. These persecuted "alts" require the insulation and safety that only a Nawthern state can provide. You enlightened Yankees believe in live & let live, especially since your favorite unkie is a member of the cult that worships little boys' asses.
I'm not too interested in watching cars go around in circles for hours on end, but I grew up in Indy, and there ain't a better party anywhere on earth than in the "infield" on race day at Indy.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption:
This paragraph sums up my beliefs about people very well. I too think we are all the product of eons of genes that came together to make each of us who and what we are.
The young fellas I worked with didn't care much for "circle racing", either. They preferred cross country cycle racing or some other less regimented and presumably more arduous competition. My gen and my older kids love the sound of tweaked mills screaming down that track, with the occasional miscalculation that douses fans closest to the action with flaming petrol and wreckage. (I sit up high with hearing protection. Someone has to be alive to explain the chronology of events as the tragedy unfolded.) ~"It was awful, just terrible!" DAWGGY pants in front of the news cams....~
It helps me forget her, so the louder the better.... Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, turn me loose."__Dwight Yoakam
Calvin of "Calvin and Hobbes" thought the same thing. That's why he watched cartoons all the time. Thousands of generations of breeding produced my pug. Uh oh.
"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war." -- Thucydides
The baseless regard that you hold for the "North" or "Eastern (establishment) Seaboard" and loathing for the South, hints at self-inflated ego biased opinion without regard to truth. I've lived in both the North and the South, and am very familiar with the phoney bragadaccio of the harmless loud (foul) mouthes from the North and North-East. Most of the South's problems were brought into it by Yankees during and after the War of Northern Aggression like a sexually transmitted disease. (I should admit that I was born and educated in the North). There is an understated genteelness, a polite approach to life in the South that doesn't exist similarly in Northern "big city" society; that is, when you remove yourself from the hustle and bustle of the Metropolitan areas in the South that suffer the ravages of sick northern metro influence, which is also true of smaller communities up north to a somewhat lesser degree in my humble opinion. The filth that exists in the worst parts of America finds its root in the Eastern Banking and Industrial Monopolies that finance every abominable product that makes a profit regardless of the ill-effect it has on society. To each his own I suppose. I prefer the Southern hospitality to the Northern rudeness. And while I wish no ill will on those choosing to live up North, I'll spend the balance of my days in Texas.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption:
I recall Parnelli Jones kicking everyones ass one year in an almost silent turbo powered race car ... only losing when a $6.00 part failed near the end of the race that he was winning handily ... apparently someone with influence felt EXACTLY as you and your older kids ... because they wisely prohibited it the next year. Most of my friends were somewhat involved in racing when I was a kid, mostly drag-racing at Raceway Park.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption:
Yah lost me here. And by the way, I should say that I make these regional barbs tounge in cheek and am not really serious. I don't want to really offend anyone from the South.
Population Density by State: 2000
New England
Connecticut 3,405,565 4,845 703 0.1 1.2
Maine 1,274,923 30,862 41 0.9 0.5
Massachusetts 6,349,097 7,840 810 0.2 2.3
New Hampshire 1,235,786 8,968 138 0.3 0.4
Rhode Island 1,048,319 1,045 1,003 0.0 0.4
Vermont 608,827 9,250 66 0.3 0.2
Total 13,922,517 62,809 222 1.8 4.9
Mid-Atlantic
Delaware 783,600 1,954 401 0.1 0.3
Maryland 5,296,486 9,774 542 0.3 1.9
New Jersey 8,414,350 7,417 1,134 0.2 3.0
New York 18,976,457 47,214 402 1.3 6.7
Pennsylvania 12,281,054 44,817 274 1.3 4.4
Total 45,751,947 111,175 412 3.1 16.3
Midwest
Illinois 12,419,293 55,584 223 1.6 4.4
Indiana 6,080,485 35,867 170 1.0 2.2
Iowa 2,926,324 55,869 52 1.6 1.0
Michigan 9,938,444 56,804 175 1.6 3.5
Minnesota 4,919,479 79,610 62 2.3 1.7
Ohio 11,353,140 40,948 277 1.2 4.0
Wisconsin 5,363,675 54,310 99 1.5 1.9
Total 53,000,840 378,992 140 10.7 18.8
South
Alabama 4,447,100 50,744 88 1.4 1.6
Arkansas 2,673,400 52,068 51 1.5 0.9
District of Columbia 572,059 61 9,317 0.0 0.2
Florida 15,982,378 53,927 296 1.5 5.7
Georgia 8,186,453 57,906 141 1.6 2.9
Kentucky 4,041,769 39,728 102 1.1 1.4
Louisiana 4,468,976 43,562 103 1.2 1.6
Mississippi 2,844,658 46,907 61 1.3 1.0
North Carolina 8,049,313 48,711 165 1.4 2.9
Oklahoma 3,450,654 68,667 50 1.9 1.2
South Carolina 4,012,012 30,109 133 0.9 1.4
Tennessee 5,689,283 41,217 138 1.2 2.0
Texas 20,851,820 261,797 80 7.4 7.4
Virginia 7,078,515 39,594 179 1.1 2.5
West Virginia 1,808,344 24,078 75 0.7 0.6
Total 94,156,734 859,077 110 24.3 33.5
West
Alaska 626,932 571,951 1 16.2 0.2
Arizona 5,130,632 113,635 45 3.2 1.8
California 33,871,648 155,959 217 4.4 12.0
Colorado 4,301,261 103,718 41 2.9 1.5
Hawaii 1,211,537 6,423 189 0.2 0.4
Idaho 1,293,953 82,747 16 2.3 0.5
Kansas 2,688,418 81,815 33 2.3 1.0
Missouri 5,595,211 68,886 81 1.9 2.0
Montana 902,195 145,552 6 4.1 0.3
Nebraska 1,711,263 76,872 22 2.2 0.6
Nevada 1,998,257 109,826 18 3.1 0.7
New Mexico 1,819,046 121,356 15 3.4 0.6
North Dakota 642,200 68,976 9 1.9 0.2
Oregon 3,421,399 95,997 36 2.7 1.2
South Dakota 754,844 75,885 10 2.1 0.3
Utah 2,233,169 82,144 27 2.3 0.8
Washington 5,894,121 66,544 89 1.9 2.1
Wyoming 493,782 97,100 5 2.7 0.2
Total 74,589,868 2,125,385 35 60.1 26.5
Northeast 59,674,464 173,984 343 4.9
21.2
Midwest 53,000,840 378,992 140 10.7
18.8
Northeast and Midwest 112,675,304 552,976 204 15.6
40.0
South 94,156,734 859,077 110 24.3
33.5
West 74,589,868 2,125,385 35 60.1
26.5
South and West 168,746,602 2,984,462 57 84.4
60.0
U.S. Total1 281,421,906 3,537,438 80
100.0 100.0
SOURCE: Northeast-Midwest Institute calculations based on data from
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. From this it would appear that the "ideal" place for me would be (in order according to Population Per Square Mile of Land Area) However, all of these pose a climate which I consider too "harsh". So the "ultimate" is next on the list (by the criteria cited above) - New Mexico. And although I live in Texas, I DON'T live in the part of Texas that people think of as "Texas" (not even most Texans!) - for all practical purposes it could/should be considered that I live in New Mexico (which means I'm happy as a free-ranging horse in knee-deep grass)... As an aside, I also find it interesting that only Texas is in the "perfect average" - occupying an equal percentage of U.S. population with U.S. land. For me, the absolute WORST nightmares are: (again by the above criteria of population per land area) Note: I have been to EACH of these places. Like the old saying goes "I didn't lose anything there, so there's no need for me to go back". As for culture overall - if toll roads, subways, fashion shows, Broadway, and needing large incomes to meet high costs of living are your thing - then the Northeast is definitely the place to be. Personally, I prefer the camaraderie of neighbor-helping-neighbor, a slowed down pace to enjoy the beauty of God's creations, and a local sheriff who To each his own.
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
Do you want in on my New England, Colonial Man Wig company?
Is There A Superior Race?
#2. To: HOUNDDAWG (#1)
#3. To: Tauzero (#0)
Is There A Superior Race?
#4. To: Burkeman1 (#3)
#5. To: Tauzero (#0)
Is There A Superior Race?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#6. To: Tauzero (#4)
#7. To: Tauzero (#2)
Neither can hold a candle to the Camptown Races.
#8. To: Burkeman1 (#3)
Yes, we are called New Englanders.
#9. To: Tauzero (#0)
Is There A Superior Race?
#10. To: Dakmar (#9)
#11. To: RickyJ (#5)
They must be, they have all the fun.
#12. To: Tauzero, Burkeman1 (#4)
Yeah, but even New Englanders are leaving New England.
#13. To: HOUNDDAWG (#8)
#14. To: Burkeman1 (#3)
Is There A Superior Race?
New Englanders Geologists :-)
.
#15. To: Tauzero (#0)
#16. To: Burkeman1 (#13)
Yes, the South has New England beat in brewing wife beatin juice. As for culture overall? I suppose it is a matter of tastes. If Nascar, 1000 capacity titty bar palaces, and swim suit competitions for painted up 8 year old girls is your thing- then the South is the place to be.
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#1)
to me it will always be the Indy 500!
#18. To: Tauzero, Robin, chrstine, Ferret Mike (#0)
As I emphasize in my book, the values we have as individuals and as a culture are the ones we can’t help but use. While upbringing counts to some extent, our values are the heritage of eons of selection. We are born with them. That is the way we are. One can be objective about one’s own values for a few hours in the study, but detachment becomes impossible as soon as the world presses in. Values are like emotions. I know intellectually that the grief I might feel for the death of a son is a biological adaptation—nature’s way of making sure I take better care of my other offspring—but realizing that emotions are a trick of neural wiring would not reduce my suffering one bit.
#19. To: noone222 (#17)
I'm not too interested in watching cars go around in circles for hours on end, but I grew up in Indy, and there ain't a better party anywhere on earth than in the "infield" on race day at Indy.
#20. To: Diana (#18)
I too think we are all the product of eons of genes that came together to make each of us who and what we are.
#21. To: (#6)
(Edited)
#22. To: HOUNDDAWG (#19)
My gen and my older kids love the sound of tweaked mills screaming down that track,
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
your favorite unkie is a member of the cult that worships little boys' asses.
#24. To: Burkeman1, HOWNDDAWG, ALL (#13)
Population
Land Area Per Square Percent Percent
2000 in Square Mile of of U.S. of U.S.
State or Region Population Miles Land Area Land Population
_______________________
1U.S. totals do not include Puerto Rico or the territories. The
median, or
midpoint, density level is Washington State's 89 persons per square mile.
1. Alaska
2. Wyoming
3. Montana
4. North Dakota
5. South Dakota
1. Washington D.C. (by far! AND considered part of the South; though this number stems from it's being it's "own little entity", separate from Maryland, like Vatican City is with Rome. It's still a total fucking nightmare by all standards I can think of.)
2. New Jersey
3. Rhode Island
4. Massachusetts
5. Connecticut
Followed by Maryland, New York, then Delaware
(a) Knows everybody that likes to smoke a little pot, and doesn't bother them (even though it's illegal) because "they ain't hurtin nobody"
(b) Supports and adamantly defends folks rights to keep, bear, and USE firearms
(c) Has the balls to stand up and tell the FBI he doesn't need them interfering in affairs which are in HIS jurisdiction...
#25. To: Dakmar (#9)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest