Originally posted by likeyou:
Tks for your information on the above.
Is he trying to say developmenting countries are more advance in
medical feild and hoping spore will be one in future?
No. It's just one of Lee Kuan Yew's zany racist rubbish theories. Mostly outdated and debunked racial crap from 1930s.
Lee Kuan Yew is from that generation and he is unable to throw off those rubbish racist concepts.
This is a very serious intellectual handicap of Lee Kuan Yew.
He reveals himself to be a confused, intellectual trashbag. You can see how poor and confused his understanding of human development really is.
Nothing but filth from Lee Kuan Yew.
Pui. Read Lee Kuan Yew filth also want to vomit.
- "The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more ... the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow." - Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997
- "I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that's the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils... I didn't start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I've come to." - Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
Fundamentally, Ardrey is a racist, devoted to a belief in human inequality and unfreedom, an enemy of social "disorder" which must be suppressed by authority because man is a predatory, violent, aggressive creature, compelled by irresistible hereditary compulsion to war over territory. These are fascist ideas, and, in this book, Ardrey is doing for America what Treitschke, H. S. Chamberlain, Alfred Rosenberg, and others did for Germany: preparing an intellectual basis for fascist political action. Unfortunately, there is not space here to show this in detail, but a few brief points will show the trend.
Ardrey speaks of 6 to 7 million mentally deficient Americans as an example of "the accident of the night," when he must know perfectly well that a considerable part of these have nothing to do with inheritance but are the result of virus infections or other events of an environmental nature which occurred after conception.
Negro intelligence, which he renames "capacity to learn," he insists, is inferior. To soften the blow, he says that Negroes have "superiority of anatomical endowment and neurological coordination," then asks, "If racial distinction on the playing field is to be accepted, then can there exist theoretical grounds for banishing distinctions in the classroom? In the United States the evidence for inferior learning capacity is as inarguable as superior performance on the baseball diamond." He bases this of course, on the Coleman Report and, equally naturally, runs into a conspiracy to prevent him from getting a copy of this explosive document: "After some eight months of trying, I pried a copy out of the U.S. Government Printing Office. Why it had become unavailable became evident only after long exploration of its 700-plus pages of statistics. The Negro had failed in American schools catastrophically, beyond statistical doubt or sentimental apology. . . . Worse still for the black was the record of the Oriental-American, subjected in American life to discrimination certainly as rigorous as the Negro, who consistently equalled and in areas excelled the records of white students." Naturally, Ardrey finds Arthur Jensen's article "on the genetic inferiority of Negro intelligence" a persuasive document and calls those who reject it hysterical.
I can answer Ardrey simply by pointing out that his ignorance totally disqualifies him from writing on the subject. If he had compared Chinese-Americans with Negro-Americans from several points of view (crime rate, educational achievement, recourse to violence, mental ill-health, need for government social and economic relief), he would have discovered that the Chinese record is far superior to the Negro on all of these. He would also have discovered that the Chinese family is probably the most stable of any American minority, just as the Negro family is the most unstable, and that most students of these matters would attribute the difference in various social indicators to the factor of family stability, rather than to race or skin color.
Moreover, if Ardrey had taken time to compare the family life of the 15 percent of Negroes who do as well as the upper 50 percent of whites, he would have found that the higher achieving group came from more stable Negro families. The Moynihan Report, despite its obvious weaknesses, is as quotable as the Jensen paper, but Ardrey, who constantly doctors his evidence by selection, does not mention Moynihan. Ardrey's bigotry appears when he says that Chinese-Americans are "subjected in American life to discrimination certainly as rigorous as the Negro." This is nonsense.
Forty-five years ago, about 1925, writers like Ardrey were arguing the genetic inferiority of Negroes by using the intelligence tests of draftees in World War I. These bigots were silenced only when it was pointed out that the same tests which showed the whites did better than Negroes also showed that Northern Negroes did better than Southern whites. In Ardrey's case, as usual, he can be refuted from his own book. He admits that the Coleman Report tests were "culture-bound" and intended to be so. In that case, to use them to indicate genetic (that is, non-cultural) differences reveals Ardrey for what the whole book shows: that he is a writer who has no concern with scientific procedures.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/Robert_Ardrey_Current_Scheherazade.htm
