The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Boasian anthropology"
 All Comments / On "Boasian anthropology"
    The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • Thanks for the info and references. This is valuable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the first article, The Franz Boas you never knew, Frost argues that early in his career Boas believed race differences were real, significant, and […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. In its modern form, however, it is a much more recent development, particularly in its special focus on relations between whites and blacks and its emphasis on discrimination as the cause of any mental or behavioral differences. Modern antiracism...
  • Sean says:
    @Enrique Cardova
    The liberal democracies are effectively run as a capitalist conspiracy and the rulers have nothing but contempt for the lower orders of the indigenous population . See the Economist’s unnamed editors scold the white English working class for their xenophobia.

    You have a point. It is understandable how some Britons would be put out by seeing ethnic change in their long standing neighborhoods, just as here in the US, Protestant old timers were put out by seeing the oft violent, sometimes disproportionately drunk white Irish start to flood in. In some US cities there was even "black flight" as more respectable black citizens vacated neighborhoods when the rowdy Irish moved in (Sowell 1981). There are some legitimate grievances- I would agree. Perhaps elites no longer worry about the lower-end white as they used to, save as a bloc to be primed around election time and then relegated to the sidelines afterwards. Maybe the money is where the more affluent, higher IQ white dwells.

    .
    Any elected politician would be publicly crucified for saying that, but you call it “all too easy”!
    When I say "all too easy" above, I am referring to the anthropology issues re skin color and so on. But agreed that open nativist or racialist sentiment on the social issues is not dealt with mildly by media elites. But there is the OTHER side naive people cannot see. Your link has an interesting quote by Lee Kuan Yew in his 2005 Spiegel interview:

    "In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."

    Yew is a race realist and white people have been doing what he says all along. But Yew is also mistaken, in that he fails to recognize that often economic and social interests COINCIDE WITH RACE INTERESTS. And inn multiracial societies people can vote for social and economic interests without race being a significant factor. Re race, Whites who elected strong union types in some eras for example knew that the union winner would enact discriminatory rules and laws to further white interests- socially, politically and economically. Same with white politicians of all eras.

    The white strategy these days is "SOFT" racialism, that allows "plausible denial." Hence in the US both conservative and liberal white politicians, particularly conservatives, use "coded" racial appeals to attract white voters. They don't openly state issues in stark racial terms, but people can "read between the lines" in tone and nuance. Hence they may speak stirringly about "hiring people only on merit" - a subtle racial appeal with the implication that all black workers have their jobs due to "affirmative action quotas." Its distorted propaganda- and white voters get the "coded" message, even as they, in their own workplaces will continue to favor white cronies, relatives etc in promotions and hiring. As detailed studies show so-called "quotas" have had little overall impact on black employment, but studies or facts in politics or social memes don't matter. All that matters is the propaganda line that can persuade people. White racialism has shifted underground, but is alive and well. Some US commentators call it "dog whistle politics." White liberals have their own version of the "dog whistle" as in some zoning control policies s to allegedly "guard green space."

    .
    You, Enrique, seem to think what is ‘just’ in the situation of people wanting to leave Africa for successful European countries is obvious and does not alter with the numbers, while opposition to such moral intuition must be due to the presumed personal failings or base vested interests of (white) people who disagree. In your world there’s no need for politics at all, because everything is already correctly understood and when things go wrong it must be a moral failure by someone who disagrees with you.

    Not at all. Again read what I say above. INTERNAL white weaknesses and failures are much more important than alleged "black hordes" swarming the beaches of Europe. What I am driving home is that focusing on the "horde" scapegoats is becoming a propaganda end in itself, and diverts attention from the key problems that need solving. Above I say, it is understandable why some people would be upset at demographic change, and give the example of the Irish in previous years. As to immigration, I agree, yes, it needs to be controlled better, and some of the problem is misguided liberalism. But the flip side is that internal weaknesses that are not being addressed adequately. If every migrant were turned back for the next 10 years it still would not solve such problems as high white abortion rates that are killing large numbers of the next white generation, or a growing and increasingly aggressive white "gay" movement further undermining traditionally solid social arrangements.


    .
    But no one is to blame for Pygmies lacking the wherewithal to prevent themselves ceasing to exist as a result of black African incursions, any more than anyone is to blame for the possibility that Europeans do have that capacity (we don’t know whether they do yet because the political outcome is very uncertain). Boas might have trouble explaining why populations differ in that way. HBD doesn’t.

    Well Europe does have the power, and using the analogy, is much more powerful, richer and better positioned than any "Bantu." Europe is no Pygmy. You say HBD has the explanation. It doesn't because so many of its claims are distorted, and its short-term tactics (such as race baiting) are yielding increasingly diminishing returns. A shrewd European these days works to maintain white hegemony using a "soft" supremacism, that shies away from standard black bashing, spreads around some resources to buy off and co-opt opposition, and avoids stirring up hornets nests of growing minority populations. Its simply a more efficient way of doing business, and it is working and will work for a time.

    In addition, liberalism has already achieved many HBD desires without the snarling negative feedback. The desire to live in mostly white enclaves for example, has been substantially met. White people will mostly live among other whites, marry other whites and hire mostly other whites for the better jobs. All that is being done and has been done under liberal regimes. The desire to promote higher white IQ has been substantially met in schools by tracking mechanisms. Sure all the kids eat lunch together in the cafeteria, but afterwards many white and Asian kids will head for Algebra 3 and AP classes while many minorities will head for "Intermediate" Algebra. After school, there may be a few outliers dating or marrying interracially, but these minor numbers mean little- and most whites will go with other whites.

    In other words, under liberalism, many aspects of white hegemony are already comfortably in place. Who needs sneering racialists talking about "evolutionary defects" of "inferior sub-species" or "rolling back" the ability of people to eat in some restaurant peacefully, to stir up a fierce nest of opposition and pushback from growing minority populations? Even in politics, it pays to dampen or soften such opposition so generally high white voter turnout can decide outcomes in favor of white interests. In this sense, "HBD" is increasingly redundant.

    HBD also will do little to reverse demographic trends. And it does not adequately tackle internal white corruption. To some extent it even furthers this corruption by disparaging religion on some counts for example. Sneering at religion as being for "weaklings" for example attacks a key foundation that can help hold the line. Exalting IQ as a primary value or virtue means that inevitably lower-end whites will be increasingly unimportant or irrelevant. In some quarters one can see an increasingly callous view of whites not in "the smart set" - with the higher IQ whites looking down on their lesser brethren. In the older days there was more unity, more shared spaces, as Charles Murray notes. Those days are gone as the gap between white "Belmont" and "Fishtown" widens.

    Exalting IQ also means an ironic pattern emerges- for higher IQs over time these days tend to trend more liberal, more gay and more atheist- with another set of problems looming thereby. More liberalism or homosexuality for example means less fertility as abortions remain high, or, more people opting out traditional marriage, etc. You can see the downward spiral. The "g-worship" so prevalent in "HBD" sows its own contradictory seeds, and yields increasingly perverse fruit.

    Europe is in for increased future turmoil and instability. The key, the ultimate line to be held is not boat people in the Mediterranean, but the line against internal decadence and corruption. And holding this line might actually gain allies on some issues. Many Africans for example oppose same sex marriages and are not happy about white liberalism to the contrary. Muslims may oppose the same and so on. A series of well placed tactical alliances need not jeopardize overall white hegemony at all. But this is anathema to many. HBD has very few answers on such matters, particularly the internal moral weakness problem.

    “I still think it’s clear that many policies are set up to benefit whites”

    We are getting repetitive and long winded, so this will be the last reply I give you for a while Enrique. An executive summary of this very long comment for those lacking the stamina to read it all is that I think you are trying to have it both ways by saying white majorities are too decadent to prevent unwanted mass immigration, but also organised subliminally to maintain racial hegemony. That might be a proper conclusion if we knew that every ethnicity was in truth and in fact the same with respect to potential for achievement. But that is precisely the point at issue.

    In a court of law where HBD is deemed inadmissible, and demonstrating that a practice or standard has racially disparate impact is apparently deemed conclusive proof that “policies are set up to benefit whites”. I’m not bound by that question–begging legalism, and need to be shown how things were set up by whites to benefit whites as such, before accepting a word like “clear” in this context.

    I can believe subtle undercover methods are keeping some non-whites down, which might lead us to wonder if some peoples are easier to hold down than others and HBD is part of the explanation. Around a seventh of blacks and half of Chinese exceed the white average IQ, and some test as having very high IQs by white standards. A policy set up to benefit whites as such would keep all those non-whites out of the jobs their IQ suggests they could do, and give then to whites. Whites were until very recently an overwhelming majority and it they had any such intent they could set up a cast iron apartheid state. Simply saying that on average whites do better than some varieties of non-whites, but not others when it comes to income level ect is as at least as compatible with HBD as of of underhand practices or whites running a system so subtle that they are unaware of it until Thomas Sowell explains it to them .

    This becomes salient when Asians are brought into the comparisons, and even more so when the income of the Jewish component of w the white population is compared to whites in general (the income of Jews is just as superior to other whites as whites’ is to blacks’). A system set up to benefit whites surely ought to be doing better for the 98% of gentile whites than that, and if whites were playing sneaky ethnic hardball it surely would be. A related point is that a system set up to completely equalise all ethnic disparity in average income would require discrimination against Jews. Anyway, the average outcomes by ethnicity are different but the when you look at whites; they are not doing suspiciously well, unless you begin from an assumption that they are not smarter than blacks on average. Without that crucial assumption, a sinister subliminal white hegemony is redundant as an explanation for why the average outcomes are different.

    I was not aware that blacks did not want to be around the Irish. I’ve read a little on how the historically working class Irish areas of Boston were racially integrated in the 1970′s by legal decree causing the Irish to flee. The Irish were despised by anti-clerical WASPs among the elites and loathing for cohesive Catholic communities (Italian neighbourhoods were also targeted) was strong well into the 20th century. By the way private schools in the US long preceded busing, they date from late 19th century restriction of parochial (Catholic) schooling laws.

    To get back to the clearer cut case of immigration into indigenously white countries. You mention the Irish. The South’s population was a fraction of the size of Britain’s; the South was part of the UK until the 1920′s, and citizens of the Republic of Ireland always had a right to live in Britain, and even vote. There is no comparison between immigration from Ireland and that from Africa and the Muslim world, even without any HBD considerations or the potential for astronomical increase in numbers.

    As for the suggestion that immigration is drawn in by low birth-rate, I disagree. Immigration is a wedge. Britain was a wholly indigenous county until the 1950s and in addition to the 50% displacement from London (where property is now an investment for foreigners that even the relatively affluent indigenous are priced out of) England is currently undergoing substantial emigration. About unions, which seem to be a bugbear of yours; Britain is unique in that it genuinely has become post-industrial and lost most of its manufacturing so that unions have little sway. In Britain there is a union affiliated Labour party that was in power for a long time and in addition to ‘rubbing the nose of the right in diversity’ as one high ranking Labourite is said to have put it, they used immigration workers to control wage inflation, prolonging a boom and sending it sky high; the following bust was concomitantly deeper.

    Add immigration to booms and indigenous emigration increases in the deeper busts. Immigrant communities draw immigrants from the homeland by lowering the cost of immigrating so that even people who are poor in their own countries will be leaving for Europe and that will be like bailing out the ocean. This is not a case of immigration slotting into spaces left by low European birth-rates. Immigrants are a wedge, and the idea of mostly white enclaves enduring is unrealistic.

    “Well Europe does have the power, and using the analogy, is much more powerful, richer and better positioned … Europe is no Pygmy.”

    We don’t know that Europe is any more of a match for the threat it faces than the Pygmies are. Europe could certainly resist violent force, but immigrants force themselves on Europe by being helpless, and Europeans certainly seems to have quite a bit of sympathy for the plight of Africans coming to Europe. Whether that empathy is something they can control remains to be seen. If a very heavy drinker says (or in his own mind believes) he can stop drinking any time he wants, that proves nothing. It’s quite often characteristic of an alcoholic that they think they are in control. Only when he actually stops drinking does he show he had the power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:
    @Ron Unz

    Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.
     
    That's exactly why I've always been extremely skeptical of sexual selection arguments. There's usually no way to find any evidence supporting or opposing them.

    Obviously, in some extreme cases, such as a peacock's tail or other remarkably bright bird plumage, it's probably at work, though most likely by providing manifest evidence of good health or parasite resistance. But why in the world would some particular eye color benefit from sexual selection against some other eye color. The whole explanation doesn't make any sense to me.

    But why in the world would some particular eye color benefit from sexual selection against some other eye color

    That is very telling against sexual selection I admit. I think the key point about eye color in Europeans is they have not moved from one eye colour to another eye colour; they have moved from one eye colour to a diversity of eye colours. Blues, but also grey, green and violet. Selection for the most unusual, Elizabeth’s Taylors violet eyes for instance, can be runaway selection; just as selection for the most eyespots on the male peacock’s plumage is the deciding factor for female choice, as experiments have shown. The male peacock with lots of eyespots has more lead in his pencil / parasite resistance.

    It has been shown that the most unusual eye colours are associated with feminine facial features.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    You provided a nice reference from the Smithsonian site that attempts to integrate all the recent data, here. Let's break it down.

    But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin
     
    This proposed explanation is not complicated, it's that white skin is caused by low light levels supposedly* found in northern latitudes of the globe, agriculture does not come into it because there were were blonde, blue eyed, white skinned, hunter gatherers in Sweden.

    OK, let's look at what was in central Europe.

    For example, earlier this year, the genome sequencing of a hunter-gatherer who lived in what is now Spain helped build the case that Europe was home to blue-eyed but dark-skinned people.

     

    Blue /diversified eye colour in dark skinned European hunter gatherers proves those eye colours cannot be explained as a side effect of white skin adaptations for UV level , an agricultural diet or interactions between them.

    Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.

    Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.

    That’s exactly why I’ve always been extremely skeptical of sexual selection arguments. There’s usually no way to find any evidence supporting or opposing them.

    Obviously, in some extreme cases, such as a peacock’s tail or other remarkably bright bird plumage, it’s probably at work, though most likely by providing manifest evidence of good health or parasite resistance. But why in the world would some particular eye color benefit from sexual selection against some other eye color. The whole explanation doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    But why in the world would some particular eye color benefit from sexual selection against some other eye color
     
    That is very telling against sexual selection I admit. I think the key point about eye color in Europeans is they have not moved from one eye colour to another eye colour; they have moved from one eye colour to a diversity of eye colours. Blues, but also grey, green and violet. Selection for the most unusual, Elizabeth's Taylors violet eyes for instance, can be runaway selection; just as selection for the most eyespots on the male peacock's plumage is the deciding factor for female choice, as experiments have shown. The male peacock with lots of eyespots has more lead in his pencil / parasite resistance.

    It has been shown that the most unusual eye colours are associated with feminine facial features.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The liberal democracies are effectively run as a capitalist conspiracy and the rulers have nothing but contempt for the lower orders of the indigenous population . See the Economist’s unnamed editors scold the white English working class for their xenophobia.

    You have a point. It is understandable how some Britons would be put out by seeing ethnic change in their long standing neighborhoods, just as here in the US, Protestant old timers were put out by seeing the oft violent, sometimes disproportionately drunk white Irish start to flood in. In some US cities there was even “black flight” as more respectable black citizens vacated neighborhoods when the rowdy Irish moved in (Sowell 1981). There are some legitimate grievances- I would agree. Perhaps elites no longer worry about the lower-end white as they used to, save as a bloc to be primed around election time and then relegated to the sidelines afterwards. Maybe the money is where the more affluent, higher IQ white dwells.

    .
    Any elected politician would be publicly crucified for saying that, but you call it “all too easy”!
    When I say “all too easy” above, I am referring to the anthropology issues re skin color and so on. But agreed that open nativist or racialist sentiment on the social issues is not dealt with mildly by media elites. But there is the OTHER side naive people cannot see. Your link has an interesting quote by Lee Kuan Yew in his 2005 Spiegel interview:

    “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

    Yew is a race realist and white people have been doing what he says all along. But Yew is also mistaken, in that he fails to recognize that often economic and social interests COINCIDE WITH RACE INTERESTS. And inn multiracial societies people can vote for social and economic interests without race being a significant factor. Re race, Whites who elected strong union types in some eras for example knew that the union winner would enact discriminatory rules and laws to further white interests- socially, politically and economically. Same with white politicians of all eras.

    The white strategy these days is “SOFT” racialism, that allows “plausible denial.” Hence in the US both conservative and liberal white politicians, particularly conservatives, use “coded” racial appeals to attract white voters. They don’t openly state issues in stark racial terms, but people can “read between the lines” in tone and nuance. Hence they may speak stirringly about “hiring people only on merit” – a subtle racial appeal with the implication that all black workers have their jobs due to “affirmative action quotas.” Its distorted propaganda- and white voters get the “coded” message, even as they, in their own workplaces will continue to favor white cronies, relatives etc in promotions and hiring. As detailed studies show so-called “quotas” have had little overall impact on black employment, but studies or facts in politics or social memes don’t matter. All that matters is the propaganda line that can persuade people. White racialism has shifted underground, but is alive and well. Some US commentators call it “dog whistle politics.” White liberals have their own version of the “dog whistle” as in some zoning control policies s to allegedly “guard green space.”

    .
    You, Enrique, seem to think what is ‘just’ in the situation of people wanting to leave Africa for successful European countries is obvious and does not alter with the numbers, while opposition to such moral intuition must be due to the presumed personal failings or base vested interests of (white) people who disagree. In your world there’s no need for politics at all, because everything is already correctly understood and when things go wrong it must be a moral failure by someone who disagrees with you.

    Not at all. Again read what I say above. INTERNAL white weaknesses and failures are much more important than alleged “black hordes” swarming the beaches of Europe. What I am driving home is that focusing on the “horde” scapegoats is becoming a propaganda end in itself, and diverts attention from the key problems that need solving. Above I say, it is understandable why some people would be upset at demographic change, and give the example of the Irish in previous years. As to immigration, I agree, yes, it needs to be controlled better, and some of the problem is misguided liberalism. But the flip side is that internal weaknesses that are not being addressed adequately. If every migrant were turned back for the next 10 years it still would not solve such problems as high white abortion rates that are killing large numbers of the next white generation, or a growing and increasingly aggressive white “gay” movement further undermining traditionally solid social arrangements.

    .
    But no one is to blame for Pygmies lacking the wherewithal to prevent themselves ceasing to exist as a result of black African incursions, any more than anyone is to blame for the possibility that Europeans do have that capacity (we don’t know whether they do yet because the political outcome is very uncertain). Boas might have trouble explaining why populations differ in that way. HBD doesn’t.

    Well Europe does have the power, and using the analogy, is much more powerful, richer and better positioned than any “Bantu.” Europe is no Pygmy. You say HBD has the explanation. It doesn’t because so many of its claims are distorted, and its short-term tactics (such as race baiting) are yielding increasingly diminishing returns. A shrewd European these days works to maintain white hegemony using a “soft” supremacism, that shies away from standard black bashing, spreads around some resources to buy off and co-opt opposition, and avoids stirring up hornets nests of growing minority populations. Its simply a more efficient way of doing business, and it is working and will work for a time.

    In addition, liberalism has already achieved many HBD desires without the snarling negative feedback. The desire to live in mostly white enclaves for example, has been substantially met. White people will mostly live among other whites, marry other whites and hire mostly other whites for the better jobs. All that is being done and has been done under liberal regimes. The desire to promote higher white IQ has been substantially met in schools by tracking mechanisms. Sure all the kids eat lunch together in the cafeteria, but afterwards many white and Asian kids will head for Algebra 3 and AP classes while many minorities will head for “Intermediate” Algebra. After school, there may be a few outliers dating or marrying interracially, but these minor numbers mean little- and most whites will go with other whites.

    In other words, under liberalism, many aspects of white hegemony are already comfortably in place. Who needs sneering racialists talking about “evolutionary defects” of “inferior sub-species” or “rolling back” the ability of people to eat in some restaurant peacefully, to stir up a fierce nest of opposition and pushback from growing minority populations? Even in politics, it pays to dampen or soften such opposition so generally high white voter turnout can decide outcomes in favor of white interests. In this sense, “HBD” is increasingly redundant.

    HBD also will do little to reverse demographic trends. And it does not adequately tackle internal white corruption. To some extent it even furthers this corruption by disparaging religion on some counts for example. Sneering at religion as being for “weaklings” for example attacks a key foundation that can help hold the line. Exalting IQ as a primary value or virtue means that inevitably lower-end whites will be increasingly unimportant or irrelevant. In some quarters one can see an increasingly callous view of whites not in “the smart set” – with the higher IQ whites looking down on their lesser brethren. In the older days there was more unity, more shared spaces, as Charles Murray notes. Those days are gone as the gap between white “Belmont” and “Fishtown” widens.

    Exalting IQ also means an ironic pattern emerges- for higher IQs over time these days tend to trend more liberal, more gay and more atheist- with another set of problems looming thereby. More liberalism or homosexuality for example means less fertility as abortions remain high, or, more people opting out traditional marriage, etc. You can see the downward spiral. The “g-worship” so prevalent in “HBD” sows its own contradictory seeds, and yields increasingly perverse fruit.

    Europe is in for increased future turmoil and instability. The key, the ultimate line to be held is not boat people in the Mediterranean, but the line against internal decadence and corruption. And holding this line might actually gain allies on some issues. Many Africans for example oppose same sex marriages and are not happy about white liberalism to the contrary. Muslims may oppose the same and so on. A series of well placed tactical alliances need not jeopardize overall white hegemony at all. But this is anathema to many. HBD has very few answers on such matters, particularly the internal moral weakness problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "I still think it’s clear that many policies are set up to benefit whites"

    We are getting repetitive and long winded, so this will be the last reply I give you for a while Enrique. An executive summary of this very long comment for those lacking the stamina to read it all is that I think you are trying to have it both ways by saying white majorities are too decadent to prevent unwanted mass immigration, but also organised subliminally to maintain racial hegemony. That might be a proper conclusion if we knew that every ethnicity was in truth and in fact the same with respect to potential for achievement. But that is precisely the point at issue.

    In a court of law where HBD is deemed inadmissible, and demonstrating that a practice or standard has racially disparate impact is apparently deemed conclusive proof that “policies are set up to benefit whites". I’m not bound by that question–begging legalism, and need to be shown how things were set up by whites to benefit whites as such, before accepting a word like "clear" in this context.

    I can believe subtle undercover methods are keeping some non-whites down, which might lead us to wonder if some peoples are easier to hold down than others and HBD is part of the explanation. Around a seventh of blacks and half of Chinese exceed the white average IQ, and some test as having very high IQs by white standards. A policy set up to benefit whites as such would keep all those non-whites out of the jobs their IQ suggests they could do, and give then to whites. Whites were until very recently an overwhelming majority and it they had any such intent they could set up a cast iron apartheid state. Simply saying that on average whites do better than some varieties of non-whites, but not others when it comes to income level ect is as at least as compatible with HBD as of of underhand practices or whites running a system so subtle that they are unaware of it until Thomas Sowell explains it to them .

    This becomes salient when Asians are brought into the comparisons, and even more so when the income of the Jewish component of w the white population is compared to whites in general (the income of Jews is just as superior to other whites as whites’ is to blacks’). A system set up to benefit whites surely ought to be doing better for the 98% of gentile whites than that, and if whites were playing sneaky ethnic hardball it surely would be. A related point is that a system set up to completely equalise all ethnic disparity in average income would require discrimination against Jews. Anyway, the average outcomes by ethnicity are different but the when you look at whites; they are not doing suspiciously well, unless you begin from an assumption that they are not smarter than blacks on average. Without that crucial assumption, a sinister subliminal white hegemony is redundant as an explanation for why the average outcomes are different.

    I was not aware that blacks did not want to be around the Irish. I've read a little on how the historically working class Irish areas of Boston were racially integrated in the 1970's by legal decree causing the Irish to flee. The Irish were despised by anti-clerical WASPs among the elites and loathing for cohesive Catholic communities (Italian neighbourhoods were also targeted) was strong well into the 20th century. By the way private schools in the US long preceded busing, they date from late 19th century restriction of parochial (Catholic) schooling laws.

    To get back to the clearer cut case of immigration into indigenously white countries. You mention the Irish. The South’s population was a fraction of the size of Britain's; the South was part of the UK until the 1920's, and citizens of the Republic of Ireland always had a right to live in Britain, and even vote. There is no comparison between immigration from Ireland and that from Africa and the Muslim world, even without any HBD considerations or the potential for astronomical increase in numbers.

    As for the suggestion that immigration is drawn in by low birth-rate, I disagree. Immigration is a wedge. Britain was a wholly indigenous county until the 1950s and in addition to the 50% displacement from London (where property is now an investment for foreigners that even the relatively affluent indigenous are priced out of) England is currently undergoing substantial emigration. About unions, which seem to be a bugbear of yours; Britain is unique in that it genuinely has become post-industrial and lost most of its manufacturing so that unions have little sway. In Britain there is a union affiliated Labour party that was in power for a long time and in addition to 'rubbing the nose of the right in diversity' as one high ranking Labourite is said to have put it, they used immigration workers to control wage inflation, prolonging a boom and sending it sky high; the following bust was concomitantly deeper.

    Add immigration to booms and indigenous emigration increases in the deeper busts. Immigrant communities draw immigrants from the homeland by lowering the cost of immigrating so that even people who are poor in their own countries will be leaving for Europe and that will be like bailing out the ocean. This is not a case of immigration slotting into spaces left by low European birth-rates. Immigrants are a wedge, and the idea of mostly white enclaves enduring is unrealistic.


    "Well Europe does have the power, and using the analogy, is much more powerful, richer and better positioned ... Europe is no Pygmy."
     
    We don’t know that Europe is any more of a match for the threat it faces than the Pygmies are. Europe could certainly resist violent force, but immigrants force themselves on Europe by being helpless, and Europeans certainly seems to have quite a bit of sympathy for the plight of Africans coming to Europe. Whether that empathy is something they can control remains to be seen. If a very heavy drinker says (or in his own mind believes) he can stop drinking any time he wants, that proves nothing. It’s quite often characteristic of an alcoholic that they think they are in control. Only when he actually stops drinking does he show he had the power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean
    Blue /diversified eye colour in dark skinned European hunter gatherers proves those eye colours cannot be explained as a side effect of white skin adaptations for UV level , an agricultural diet or interactions between them. Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.

    Probably agreed as to eye color. Also agree that sexual selection did play some role in sexual dimorphism. I think Peter’s research confirms some of this selection factor as you say. The problem arises when some people want to make this the ONLY explanation for these things, as well as the ONLY explanation for differences in skin color, and then leap from the ONE-dimensional explanation to assorted racialist rhetoric.. I have not seen much info on eye color per se- maybe you have some more.

    .
    Enrique you keep saying that policies in currently white majority countries are there to benefit whites. You are free to keep saying that, but as London is has went from 0 to 50 % non white in 50 years without increasing in population it is clear that half of the population has left because of immigrants.

    I still think its clear that many policies are set up to benefit whites. Even some conservatives admit it, at least over here in the US. For example if you enact subtle measures to suppress the supply of housing and drive up costs, you will tend to reduce minorities buying, since they on average will be less affluent. Less minorities means whiter neighborhoods and schools. In the early days after the civil rights victories some whites were quite open about advocating such “undercover” methods but have long since gone silent. I would not be surprised if over your way in England similar subtle measures are not widely operating. The thing about subtle measures is that they also provide “plausible denial” because on the face, they appear race neutral. A small number of conservative scholars have been pretty candid on this.

    .
    An slow but sure occupation and take over is underway, and the white majorities that are being inexorably displaced and subsumed cannot on any reasonable view be regarded as the beneficiaries of that process.
    I am not familiar with the case of London, though I do know the non white population has grown over time. No doubt some native whites have been displaced and have seen losses. Not all of this is the sinister work of “self-hating liberals” as some people make out in the propaganda mills. Some of it is plain old supply and demand. London is where many jobs are including lower end jobs. The welfare system buffers white Britons enough so that they have the option of refusing to take such low end jobs. Enter the immigrants who are glad to have them. Said immigrants will inevitably compete for housing, more jobs, more business spaces, etc etc. This has happened in cities for centuries- including white Irish immigrants to Britain.

    It could be that some white employers and landlords, driven by a desire for profit have found it more profitable to deal with immigrants. Why rent to a native white Briton always grousing about his rights, and late on the rent. when less complaining, hungry immigrants who pay on time, and will often pay MORE, will generate more gains?

    So I agree there have been some losses. But on the flip side, in more affluent neighborhoods, whites have erected an array of barriers, all the while seeming to “embrace diversity” – a favorite white liberal cover version here in the US. They cant discriminate openly, but the “under the table” barriers, get the job done. You have to look at both sides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:

    There is a leftist strain that in pursuit of its own agendas, wants to tear down other institutions that stand in its way. But leftism is not incompatible with white supremacy or hegemony. In fact liberals have used a regime of leftism and various manifestations like “multiculturalism” to ensure a “SOFT” supremacy. Its not the snarling racialism of old, but a more subtle “shaded hegemony”

    Enrique you keep saying that policies in currently white majority countries are there to benefit whites. You are free to keep saying that, but as London is has went from 0 to 50 % non white in 50 years without increasing in population it is clear that half of the population has left because of immigrants. An slow but sure occupation and take over is underway, and the white majorities that are being inexorably displaced and subsumed cannot on any reasonable view be regarded as the beneficiaries of that process.

    The Economist are by no stretch of the imagination left wing; they articulate the views of the ruling class, and think immigrants are the source of innovation and growth in a modern economy (a spokesman for the Conservative party campaigning for re-election openly said that in a radio interview last week). The liberal democracies are effectively run as a capitalist conspiracy and the rulers have nothing but contempt for the lower orders of the indigenous population . See the Economist’s unnamed editors scold the white English working class for their xenophobia.

    “Hence be careful of all too easy “HBD” claims in this area”.

    No European party of government, no British MP of any party, has ever said, or would dare say that African immigrants are not equivalent to Europeans for HBD reasons. Any elected politician would be publicly crucified for saying that, but you call it “all too easy”!

    You, Enrique, seem to think what is ‘just’ in the situation of people wanting to leave Africa for successful European countries is obvious and does not alter with the numbers, while opposition to such moral intuition must be due to the presumed personal failings or base vested interests of (white) people who disagree. In your world there’s no need for politics at all, because everything is already correctly understood and when things go wrong it must be a moral failure by someone who disagrees with you.

    But no one is to blame for Pygmies lacking the wherewithal to prevent themselves ceasing to exist as a result of black African incursions, any more than anyone is to blame for the possibility that Europeans do have that capacity (we don’t know whether they do yet because the political outcome is very uncertain). Boas might have trouble explaining why populations differ in that way. HBD doesn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:

    You provided a nice reference from the Smithsonian site that attempts to integrate all the recent data, here. Let’s break it down.

    But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin

    This proposed explanation is not complicated, it’s that white skin is caused by low light levels supposedly* found in northern latitudes of the globe, agriculture does not come into it because there were were blonde, blue eyed, white skinned, hunter gatherers in Sweden.

    OK, let’s look at what was in central Europe.

    For example, earlier this year, the genome sequencing of a hunter-gatherer who lived in what is now Spain helped build the case that Europe was home to blue-eyed but dark-skinned people.

    Blue /diversified eye colour in dark skinned European hunter gatherers proves those eye colours cannot be explained as a side effect of white skin adaptations for UV level , an agricultural diet or interactions between them.

    Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Sexual selection is the last explanation standing for European eye colours.
     
    That's exactly why I've always been extremely skeptical of sexual selection arguments. There's usually no way to find any evidence supporting or opposing them.

    Obviously, in some extreme cases, such as a peacock's tail or other remarkably bright bird plumage, it's probably at work, though most likely by providing manifest evidence of good health or parasite resistance. But why in the world would some particular eye color benefit from sexual selection against some other eye color. The whole explanation doesn't make any sense to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:
    The Bantu were not always more numerous than Pygmies so you can’t say a population group is destined to be marginal (or central) to a species just by looking at the weakness or ascendancy it currently has.
    This is heresy to many “HBD” proponents.

    In Britain the BMA, the doctors’ trade union (they don’t call it that but it is in effect) got higher and higher pay by restricting the number of doctors. Simple supply and demand. Unfortunately that just draws in more and more foreign doctors, while British people find it very hard to become become qualified:

    Well what you say is another reason for white decline, an INTERNAL reason- namely white greed. Rather than moderate their demands, the doctors provide an incentive to seek out cheaper alternatives as health coast soar. Same thing has happened in other industries where white unions drove up the cost of doing business too much. The much commented upon “British Disease” of lazy, grasping white unions during the 1970s, and 1980s is another example on a broader scale. Margaret Thatcher claimed she would “tame” this but only partially succeeded. But on the flip side labor can’t all be blamed. White corporate greed is also in operation, so that when workers have been moderate, ceaseless corporate grasping seeks out even cheaper lower wage alternatives, and ship jobs overseas, hurting white workers.

    But above and beyond the above, the laws of supply and demand make some job & industry losses inevitable. Comparative advantage also means such patterns as well. The classic solution is for the more developed European countries to concentrate on higher value goods and services, while handing off lower end industries like cheap textiles to Asia and elsewhere. Some protectionism also is inevitable in certain areas, balanced against the higher costs that will result for white producers and consumers. Some advocate a regime of self-sufficiency, an autarky- with high protectionist barriers for both labor and goods. Library shelves groan with books on why this neo-Mercantilism may be a bad idea for European consumers, certain producers as well as overall prosperity, but it is an alternative touted in some quarters. Whether this is realistic in the era of globalization that has in many ways benefited Europeans at the apex, remains to be seen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism#Criticism

    So who is the strong one when the intelligentsia of one group thinks its own group (nation) needs to be taken down from an unjustified position of power?

    Well I agree partially. There is a leftist strain that in pursuit of its own agendas, wants to tear down other institutions that stand in its way. But leftism is not incompatible with white supremacy or hegemony. In fact liberals have used a regime of leftism and various manifestations like “multiculturalism” to ensure a “SOFT” supremacy. Its not the snarling racialism of old, but a more subtle “shaded hegemony” that fools even the culluds into playing along. Some tactics to this end include:

    –”Beads for the natives” tokenism - everything from token minority hires to trivial and shallow multi-culti public relations exercises

    –Establishment of subtle, seemingly neutral barriers that impact targeted minorities negatively. Certain supposedly “neutral” zoning regulations suppressing the supply of housing for example impacts poorer minorities more- meaning less minorities in certain neighborhoods and their schools

    –Use of multi-culti PR to posture as more virtuous and wiser, and dampen or mute criticism

    –Self-serving white profit under the guise of “helping” minorities. Thus alleged “quotas” to “help” the culluds apply as well to whites, or the bulk of government spending for a “helpful” program can be vacuumed up by mostly white bureaucrats, or removal of discriminatory laws may occur not merely to “help” but as a way to unload older, less desirable housing stock on the culluds, and so on

    –Use of “the culluds” as stalking horses and front men to cover liberal/left agendas, and use of the culluds as scapegoats when controversy arises. Hence higher performing Asians can be limited in university slots, by blaming black quotas, even though the Asians are not competing for the trivially small 2-4% “diversity” admissions but directly against other white students. These can be helped by holding down Asian numbers. On top of regular white admissions, white legacies, children of alumni, athletes, special female outreach initiative participants, etc all get preferential admission, but such white maneuvering can be obscured, while the spotlight is placed on convenient cullud scapegoats. Sweet!

    White liberals have worked all the above angles skillfully to maintain white hegemony. They are not necessarily the “race traitors” they are made out to be among the more naive.

    .
    Isn’t that Economist article an indication that Europeans are inherently as helpless against the correlation of forces they face as the Pygmies are against Bantu murder and sexual mutilation?

    Not really. The situation is not remotely comparable. Again, Pygmies are a small population confined to an economically and ecologically fragile forest zone, lightweight players in regional terms. Not so Europe which is a spatial, economic and military powerhouse. Europe is no Pygmy swamped by Bantu. The analogy fails and indeed the Economist article illustrates that failure. If anything the Economist article shows that Europe has several workable options. It notes that the bulk of the refugees are a product of unrest in Syria and to a lesser extent, the “Arab Spring” fallout, and civil war in Eritrea. This is a far different picture than the breathless “HBD” propaganda claims of “hordes” of “blacks” supposedly “swamping” the beaches of Europe. Just the Syrian unrest, itself a product of internal fighting working in combination with Western, Arab and Israeli machinations in the mix, has generated millions of displaced persons. Western military campaigns in North Africa, notably the overthrow of strongman Khadaffi in Libya, once a buffer absorbing migrant movement, is another factor. So the West has had a partial hand in that unrest, though internal factors loom larger.

    The magazine also notes that European policies are not well coordinated, and that some countries are moving with “all deliberate speed” on the refugee crisis. Quote: “The obvious reason for the recent increase in deaths is that less is being done to avert them.” This “benign neglect” approach suggests that Europeans are in no hurry to see more refugees and in fact have been discouraging their arrival, by hoping that sea voyages in rickety, unsafe boats whittle down the numbers that make it. So beware of ginned up “HBD” propaganda about how “the liberals” have “thrown open our borders” to all and sundry. The situation is in many cases the exact opposite. Liberal EU countries have been hoping for an “attrition” game- the sea crossing will cut down on the mob.

    The article also shows that Europe has plenty of options, such as working with North African counties more closely to keep the refugees away, and the setting up of “processing centers” on North African soil, away from Europe, thus getting around any messy EU human rights regulations. Europe has not moved with any haste on these options- it is the surge caused by the civil war unrest, and the embarrassing pictures of sinking boats filled with women and children that has finally caused it to get serious.

    So Europe has a lot of options. It has often avoided some of these options or has gone slow on them. the main problems weakening Europe are internally derived. Alleged “hordes of blacks” are among the least of Europe’s problems. Millions of white kids, the next white generation, are aborted every year for example. The bogus “hordes” are not causing these losses.

    .
    Nina Jablonski says skin pigment was actively lost when humans moved into high latitudes, here at 54.:20. As there have been modern humans in northern Europe for over 10,000 year;s before the the genes for skin become white she is wrong. You got her mixed up with the agriculture theory.

    No she is not wrong at all. She says skin pigmentation was lost AS humans moved and adapted to higher latitudes. Obviously this would not b overnight- it would take time. Jablonski also notes the role of diet elsewhere- showing for example that the Inuit skin color is a good compromise between biology and culture. Tanning helps protect them from some UV radiation caused by snow reflectance and their Vitamin D rich diet keeps them healthy, and somewhat darker than other NE Asians. (Jablonski- Living Color- 2012)

    If blue eyes in Swedish hunter gatherers are a side effect of selection for skin depigmentation, then why would central European hunter gatherers have blue eyes and dark skin?
    As Jablonski notes, the picture of gene mutations and changes is now a lot more complicated as new gene data comes online. The blue eyes-dark skin combination shows that European skin whiteness did not apply across the board even as late as the Mesolithic. There were intermediate variants and mixes of light and dark skin, partially linked to diet. And blue eyes would be among those fluctuating transitions and mixes. Also unlike today’s modern Europeans, the La Brana hunter-gatherer was poor at digesting milk. Here’s the actual study- QUOTE:

    ” Our results indicate that the adaptive spread of light skin pigmentation alleles was not complete in some European populations by the Mesolithic, and that the spread of alleles associated with light/blue eye colour may have preceded changes in skin pigmentation… With respect to two recent well-studied adaptations to changes in diet, we found the ancient genome to carry the ancestral allele for lactose intolerance.. These results suggest the La Brana hunter-gatherer was poor at digesting milk and starch, supporting the hypotheses that these abilities were selected for during the later transition to agriculture.”

    –Olalde, Inigo, et al. “Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European.” Nature 507.7491 (2014)

    It was sexual selection on the ice age European plain that created the diversified hair and eye traits; why else the multiple eye and hair colours, eh? You’ll find out if you read Peter on this with an open mind from now on .
    You have to be careful of seemingly simple, one-dimensional explanations. As the study cited above notes there were several factors at play. Agreed, sexual selection plays SOME role. But there are many other complex factors at play- from diet, to the amount of UV radiation, to many other things. Hence be careful of all too easy “HBD” claims in this area.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:

    Pygmies and Bantu are members of 2 previously somewhat isolated population groups of a single species. If all the pre-modern hominins we interbred with were still around humans could easily be put in the same species as chimpanzees (because we could be fertile with hominins that could be fertile with a chimp). The reason why there are discontinuous species is just because the intermediates are gone. Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas than orang-utans are, and that is not because of drift.

    The Bantu were not always more numerous than Pygmies so you can’t say a population group is destined to be marginal (or central) to a species just by looking at the weakness or ascendancy it currently has. Especially as adaptations that make for apparent success can be laying the basis for future collapse, like the dinosaurs.

    “Furthermore competition always operates in combination with other factors, including the factors of time and space. It may only be a force in a particular set of circumstances for a limited time”. Quite, and those other factors may include ideas about there being nothing new about Africans in Europe or simplistic approaches shared with early racial theorists like Haeckel about hierarchies of races; such as the idea that Europeans are inherently stronger than the people who are replacing them. The low birthrate has nothing to do with immigration.

    In Britain the BMA, the doctors’ trade union (they don’t call it that but it is in effect) got higher and higher pay by restricting the number of doctors. Simple supply and demand. Unfortunately that just draws in more and more foreign doctors, while British people find it very hard to become become qualified: Aspiring doctor rejected by a string of UK universities despite getting top A-level results has finally found a place to study – in Romania.

    The European knowledge class consists to a great extent of by people who believe that politics are trumped by ethics, international law, and economic rationality, whereby it is a moral failure to keep well off Africans (yes the cost of the trip can only be met by families with above-average resources) from coming to Europe for a ‘better life’. So who is the strong one when the intelligentsia of one group thinks its own group (nation) needs to be taken down from an unjustified position of power? Isn’t that Economist article an indication that Europeans are inherently as helpless against the correlation of forces they face as the Pygmies are against Bantu murder and sexual mutilation?

    Nina Jablonski says skin pigment was actively lost when humans moved into high latitudes, here at 54.:20. As there have been modern humans in northern Europe for over 10,000 year;s before the the genes for skin become white she is wrong. You got her mixed up with the agriculture theory.

    When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

    But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

    Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.

    That does not make sense. If blue eyes in Swedish hunter gatherers are a side effect of selection for skin depigmentation, then why would central European hunter gatherers have blue eyes and dark skin? It was sexual selection on the ice age European plain that created the diversified hair and eye traits; why else the multiple eye and hair colours, eh? You’ll find out if you read Peter on this with an open mind from now on .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You may consider it a misguided talking point, but the disappearance of Pygmies (or Bantu) would necessarily alter the human species and natural selection of what works (ie, avoids disappearing) always has the last word over everything that went before when it comes to what genes (or ideas) are transmitted into the future.

    Keep in mind that Pygmies and Bantu are members of ONE species. Disappearance of either would of course affect species diversity- Agreed. Natural selection is important in the mix that impacts human variability, but genetic drift is another factor that at times can be equally or more important.

    ————————————————————-
    And as the most influential sectors of the European opinion thinks the EU’s policy on asylum is a moral and political failure. it looks very much as if Europeans are as unable to protect themselves as Pygmies. The reasons may be different but the results are going to be similar.
    I see the analogy you are trying to make but it is deeply flawed. For one thing the two situations are not really comparable. Pygmies were always a small hunter-gatherer population- dependent on a limited and fragile forest ecology. The Bantu were both pastoralists and agriculturalists with much bigger numbers, operating over a much larger zone. As far as Africa and Europe, Africa has always been underpopulated relative to much bigger numbers in Europe.

    It is only in very recent times that Europe’s population is shrinking and aging – through its wars, negative feminisms, high abortion rates, disparaging of traditional marriage and family, growing homosexuality, and the general tendency of fertility to level off at certain development levels. African immigration has little to do with these INTERNAL factors causing European decline. If there were no African migrants, this decline would still be happening. Europe could tighten its borders and reduce the flow, but many in power Europe- corporate and political- want the cheap labor, low end jobs done, and expanded output that will fund heavy pension and social subsidizes for an aging population.

    I agree the policies on asylum etc need looking at- but even more important, Europe needs to address the severe INTERNAL factors causing that decline. You see some people spending pages railing against “cullud migrants” while making nary a mention as to how high European abortion rates are killing significant portions of the next Euro generation. Then there are all the other internal indicators of decline. Even supposedly more pure, “mo betta” Nordic Sweden is crumbling down traditional family arrangements- posting a 50% out of wedlock rate. And these supposed pace-setters of Aryan or Nordic goodness were among the first countries in Europe to push for same sex marriages. Railing against “the culluds” will do nothing to reverse this internal corruption and decadence.

    —————————————-
    The agriculture theory of white skin, which is not Jablonski’s (her’s is the simple latitude hypothesis disproved by white skins being dated too recently) is looking very shaky of late, because Scandinavian hunter gatherers were white skinned, so you have picked the wrong time to start trumpeting that idea.

    Nope- not at all the wrong time- the right time actually- for your info again confirms what I say about how complex human reality is and warns against simpistic “racial” approaches, or one-dimensional ideologues. To be sure, the field has grown more complex. As more data and better techniques reveal more, Jablonski admits that it is now much more of a complicated patchwork in the north as to how Europeans became white. But no one disputes that darker skin was the starting point until recently, and no one disputes the fact that diet is a factor in the mix that causes some of those so-called “racial” changes- confirming some of Barzum. Let’s look at your quote again. You forgot to include the part that said central and southern Euros had dark skin. Here it is:

    Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

    Then there is also intermediate patterns- such as blue eyes with dark skin- i.e. La Brana Man. QUOTE:

    For example, earlier this year, the genome sequencing of a hunter-gatherer who lived in what is now Spain helped build the case that Europe was home to blue-eyed but dark-skinned people. This man, however, lived just 7,000 years ago. The researchers write that their analysis suggests that light skin was not yet widespread and ubiquitous in Europe at the time. Earlier work done with the genes of the 83 people in the new study, supported by linguistic evidence, also shows that populations in Europe about 8,000 years ago would have been mixed and diverse. The new study adds to this growing pile of evidence. Gibbons reports that the researchers found that Europeans probably couldn’t have digested milk until about 4,300 years ago. “

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans-quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/#vtCM4vUZguszTcVC.99

    The author you quote notes that ancient hunter-gatherers were dark skinned as they migrated to Europe from Africa and the Middle East. Over time they dapted to the colder environment.

    The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

    .
    So African migrants to Europe are nothing new. This same adaptation process took place with the paler types in the farther north- from dark skin to light relatively recently. They developed some additional or new variants and mutations in their adaptations, but the same general process from dark to light is in play with them, AS WELL AS the darker southern and central European area hunter gatherers. Different Euro-areas, same general process.

    The final para in your article confirms my earlier point about the role of diet:

    Anthropological geneticist George Perry, also of Penn State, notes that the work reveals how an individual’s genetic potential is shaped by their diet and adaptation to their habitat. “We’re getting a much more detailed picture now of how selection works.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:

    “Furthermore competition always operates in combination with other factors, including the factors of time and space. It may only be a force in a particular set of circumstances for a limited time”. Sure, it is a level playing field where all kinds of things enter into the correlation of forces, including what advanced ethical concepts circulate in the West about Pygmies and those who are persecuting them, and even I suppose whether people believe in races. But at end of day the arbiter is not what what humans think about a population group disappearing, or whether they think it’s fine for their own group to disappear or even if they don’t believe their group actually exists.You may consider it a misguided talking point, but the disappearance of Pygmies (or Bantu) would necessarily alter the human species and natural selection of what works (ie, avoids disappearing) always has the last word over everything that went before when it comes to what genes (or ideas) are transmitted into the future.

    Boas attained the greatest influence in the mid 30′s, and his main opponent were wrong about many things, but virtually no scientist had a correct Darwinian understanding of how evolution worked until the mid 30′s when the Darwinian Modern evolutionary synthesis became established. In a sense neither the race or eugenics scientists nor Boas knew what they were talking about until after Hitler took power. After that time there was an understanding among younger scientists of how evolution actually worked, including the role of population groups , sister species or whatever you wish to call them.

    A big change was that it was understood there was no hierarchy of races, as Haeckel thought, just a level playing field in which Pygmies might prove to be no match for the Bantu, but Europeans might prove to be no match for the Africans. And as the most influential sectors of the European opinion thinks the EU’s policy on asylum is a moral and political failure. it looks very much as if Europeans are as unable to protect themselves as Pygmies. The reasons may be different but the results are going to be similar.

    This is why these formulas keep failing, or have failed during and after Boas

    Well the theory that there is no such thing as race is itself a theory about race, and it has proved the most successful of all the racial theories. You shouldn’t pretend that only one side had political calculations in the back of their minds. Boas was quite aware of his ethnic identity and so are many other people who share it, and they are not entirely without influence. Just because circumcision was heavily promoted between the wars and became very common after WW2 in America doesn’t mean it was down to quite a few people in the field being part of a tight group who wished to minimise ethnic differences, but that probably was a factor. Circumcision is becoming controversial again, who is to say the received wisdom of the intelligentsia’s race denying theories may not become more controversial as well.

    The agriculture theory of white skin, which is not Jablonski’s (her’s is the simple latitude hypothesis disproved by white skins being dated too recently) is looking very shaky of late, because Scandinavian hunter gatherers were white skinned, so you have picked the wrong time to start trumpeting that idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You are missing the point about diet and indeed other environmental factors. The gene mutations and variants you mention are themselves a product of environmental factors like diet over time in a mix with other elements. Diet does not operate alone- no factor does. In combination with other variables, mutations and changes happen. This underscores the danger of people seeking simplistic ‘Hbd’ answers about human variability and human populations.

    And what you say about Bantu, pygmies, underwear etc doesn’t really have relevance to the matter at hand. But now you mention Gould as saying that competitive competitive ability between sibling species between sibling species is often the deciding force that leads to evolutionary change. Sure, at times, but Bantu and pygmies are members of ONE species not 2 or 3 or 4. Furthermore competition always operates in combination with other factors, including the factors of time and space. It may only be a force in a particular set of circumstances for a limited time.

    A rodent species that displaces another in a particular area may simply win for that limited area, while the losers adapt to another area, sometimes just a few miles away. A change in climate a century later, or severe climatic event a decade later can reverse the verdict or verdicts for particular areas, at particular times. In short reality is much more complex than simplistic talking points on “race” asserted by some. This is why these formulas keep failing, or have failed during and after Boas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Enrique, I have taken some trouble to explain about why European skin is white, we are wasting time (it’s later than you think). But once more

    Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed

    He did show how diet could cause some changes, and indeed, the role of diet, along with several other cultural and clinal factors, debunks sweeping “race” claims, particularly where Africa is concerned

    Ah yes, diet. In addition to having young females suffering ruptured internal organs from the Bantu rapists who run about waving the victim’s underwear and laughing, the Pygmies are being eaten.

    Recent report ‘Pygmy attacks on Bantu rivals in DR Congo leave 27 dead’. Don’t the Pygmies realise that everything will be OK if they just accept an influx of black Africans ? Racists have obviously have been supplying the Pygmies with the video game ‘Ethnic Cleansing’, leading the little folk to erroneously believe “Your skin is your uniform in this battle for the survival of your kind”.

    Obviously that cannot be correct. Here is anti racist evolutionary psychologist John Tooby explicating the thought of Stephen Jay Gould

    “In Gould’s view, most evolutionary change takes place when closely related biological lineages compete, with one surviving and spreading through the others’ ranges while the others go extinct…there is not much difference between a incipient species and a ‘race’ and in Gould’s world of sudden genetic revolutions there is not necessarily any difference at all… Gould does intimate that competitive ability between sibling species is often the deciding force”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Barzun seems to have been quite the Lamarckian, he probably wished to emphasise the indigenous French as having qualities acquired from living in France as a case study. This dovetailed with the general belief that immigrants own units of heredity would be altered by coming to live in America, as in Boas's head shape study. Barzum was one of the last intellectuals to be an open race believer. But the really fascinating thing is not that, as MacDonald noted, many nineteenth century thinker were muddled Lamarkians, and many of the intelligentsia decades into the 20th century were still believers in Lamarckian race; it's that that many race and eugenics scientists were. The idea was that the US race formed over time by a Lamarckian process such as alteration in the shape of childrens heads (in Boas's study after parents had been in the US for 10 years) to an American type, even if each immigrant community continued to marry only within itself. Any experimental results that seemed to show Lamarckian mechanisms in action were extrapolated prodigiously (for instance Haldane's finding parental diet in rats affecting glucose metabolism in the offspring, which we now know was caused by epigenetics).

    The most influential race and eugenics scientist by the mid 30's was Ernest Hooton, who wanted sterilisation or isolation of undesirables; he was a thouroughgoing Lamarckian. Crucially, Hooton said a long established race (such as the American type) could not be altered by immigration, because the American environment would alter the immigrants' genetic qualities toward American norms even if they married within their own immigrant community. The genes of every new influx would be modified to the inveterate type formed by the American environment and mode of life. Hence the American type population would subsume any amount of immigrants, because the similar environment would alter the immigrants' genes with or without intermarriage. Genetic mixture of the American type population with new immigrants would be overborne by modification of the immigrant genes acquiring the characteristic of American genes. This was not any kind of Darwinism.

    The scientists who provided the rationale for eugenics laws being passed were in the mainstream, but were in a great many cases not Darwinians. Moreover, they were actually targeting problematic white individuals and populations, such as the Appalachians who had failed to alter for the better despite living in the US for hundreds of years, thereby showing themselves to be a pathological element not susceptible to Lamarckian environmental genetic modification. On the committee on physical anthropology of the negro with Hooton was Aleš Hrdlička, who was something of a Lamarckian too.


    There is some justification therefore in speaking of the "American type" of white people. This is near the English, Irish and Scotch types, but is at least as different from any of these as these are different from each other. [...]. The Appalachian mountaineers, ranging from New York State to Alabama and numbering as many as 8,000,000, are the "sore on the American Continent," in an anthropological sense .. something that needs the hearty attention of the biological and anthropological part of America."
     
    Boas accepted race categories, but it's not obvious he ever thought they had enduring significance, given his Lamarckianism ("heretofore we had the right to assume that human types are stable, [but] all the evidence is now in favor of a greater plasticity of human types, and permanence of types in new surroundings appears rather as an exception than as a rule."). Boas did introduce the more variation within races than between them argument that Lewontin used.

    The person who some sources say more or less introduced the debiologized cultural inheritance type thinking so common today was Boas's independent-minded first student, someone who was concerned for the wellbeing of Amerindians: Alfred L. Kroeber. His background was in general literary studies, not science, and he championed the view that culture not an individual's biology determines the individual man or woman's intellectual attainment and behaviour in society. (Sounds a bit like undercover Lamarckism.)


    DESPITE the lack of hard evidence, the antiracist interpretation continued to win converts among American social scientists. A racial explanation for human differences was simply unacceptable; culture could account for all of them. "We do not need to look for the working, in the life of 'nature peoples' of factors essentially different from those which we find at work in our social life," concluded the prominent sociologist Charles Ellwood in 1918. "Habit and environment, accident and imitation, instinct and reasoning, invention and intercommunication," he noted, "have played qualitatively, if not quantitatively, the same part in the culture of all peoples." As Ellwood's words and those of Faris, quoted earlier, make clear, by 1920 the concept of culture had indeed supplanted race in the thinking of most sociologists and anthropologists. That it was so was largely because that concept closely fitted the ideological outlook of the reform-minded professionals to whom it was directed. Nonetheless, that transformation in thought required a catalyst and a rationale; both were effectively supplied by Franz Boas and Alfred L. Kroeber.
     
    One thing that is a little off topic, but I think relevant, is the influence of women's thinking in de-biologizing the discussion of issues in society. Mead was criticised by Kroeber for not backing up her ideas with data, but he 'noted that she had an aesthetic gift for conceptualization “approaching genius”'; here. A lot of anti nuclear agitation or Green politics seems to have a feminine cast to it. Reading about the Northeast elite, many of them, like Ovington, were the earliest advocates for women's rights.

    Barzun seems to have been quite the Lamarckian, he probably wished to emphasise the indigenous French as having qualities acquired from living in France as a case study. This dovetailed with the general belief that immigrants own units of heredity would be altered by coming to live in America, as in Boas’s head shape study. Barzum was one of the last intellectuals to be an open race believer.

    If Barzum he was saying that diet was the ONLY cause of “race” markers he would be wrong, as are many of today’s “HBD” proponents who seek simplistic one-dimensional answers to complex human phenomena, and to fulfill their particular racialist agendas. Barzum held that diet impacts “racial” factors in 3 ways: — stature, coloring, and shape of skull. As a ONE dimensional explanation it falls short, but on the flip side, he is not totally off base about diet.

    Diet can play apart in the mix, depending on what is being measured. The transition to a better diet for example, whether via agriculture or more intensive foraging can cause changes to body mass of a population (Pinhasi 2011). Likewise a hunter/forager diet rich in Vitamin D allowed tropical zone migrants to ancient Europe to retain substantial coloring, but this began to shift to a whiter shade of pale as agriculture was adopted. Pale skin is something that only appeared relatively recently on the evolutionary scale- some 6000-12000 years ago (Jablonski 2004, 2000).

    As far as stature, diet can affect such. Height for example can be impacted by diet. the Dutch have grown taller over time- one of the reasons being better diet. Likewise for some African sub-groups. Skull shape is more problematic- however changes in diet such as a shift to agriculture can introduce some changes in dental makeup- not exactly outward overall skull shape but measurable changes in the dentition of the skull. In Africa for example, once sweeping anthropological claims of mysterious ancient “wandering Caucasoids” flowing into Nubia to give the natives civilization were debunked when dental studies showed continuity linked to diet, not any mass ancient “Caucasoid” settler wave. Likewise dental analysis of key early foundational Egyptian groups like the Badari, who resemble African groups to the south more than Arab or Asiatic types, are a fair representation of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like (Irish 2006).

    So Barzum was not a crazy man by any means. Modern scholarship doesn’t follow his exact race model approach but sees clines of continuity, rather than rigidly bounded and isolated “races” staying in their own little ancient apartheid zones- a dubious approached favored by some “HBD” claimants. He did show how diet could cause some changes, and indeed, the role of diet, along with several other cultural and clinal factors, debunks sweeping “race” claims, particularly where Africa is concerned.

    Speaking of Lamarck, some HBDers seem to have a similar Lamarckian “evolutionary” model. For example, the argument of some proponents claim that nerdy bespectacled Jews huddled over parchments or books in a ghetto somewhere, would pass on these same nerdy traits to their offspring. Therefore we have “selection” for Jew nerds and weaklings- brainy but somewhat retiring, and lacking fulsome physical capabilities, and daring. Someone ought to explain this to the “weak” fighting men of Israel’s IDF.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Uncanny Wikipedia article Here. The reason
    almost all the eugenicists were evolutionists, but not Darwinians, was because very few biologists were true blue Darwinians up until the mid 30′s. In America many biologists, including the highly influential David Starr Jordan had been influenced by Louis Agassiz . Boas was from Germany where various other funny ideas were held, partly due to the influence of Ernst Haeckel.

    Developments in the field of genetics made many field naturalists such as Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayr abandon neo-Lamarckian ideas about evolution in the early 1930s.[39] By the late 1930s biologists like Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky had synthesized the ideas of population genetics with the knowledge of field naturalists about the amount of genetic diversity in wild populations, and the importance of genetically distinct sub populations (especially sub populations partially or fully isolated from one another by geographical barriers) to begin the modern evolutionary synthesis.[40] In 1944 George Gaylord Simpson integrated paleontology into the synthesis by statistically analyzing the fossil record to show that it was consistent with the branching non-directional form of evolution predicted by the modern synthesis, and in particular that the linear trends cited by earlier paleontologists in support of Lamarckism and orthogenesis did not stand up to careful analysis.[41] Mayr wrote that by the end of the synthesis natural selection together with chance mechanisms like genetic drift had become the universal explanation for evolutionary change.[6]

    Astoundingly, it would seem that international politics by itself may had very little to do with the 30′s watershed; instead, it was a genuine paradigm shift on scientific grounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ron Unz
    Actually, the famous European-American intellectual Jacques Barzun provides another amusing example of the changes you describe in intellectual fashion and the total dishonesty with which they were pursued.

    His first book, The FRENCH RACE, published in 1932 explained all of French history as actually being a racial struggle between different components of the French population:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1932

    But just a few years later in 1937, his second book RACE: A STUDY IN MODERN SUPERSTITION presented among the most extreme "Race Doesn't Not Exist" dogmas. He claimed that both head shape, skin color, and other racial markers were largely controlled by diet. The Communists in The New Masses praised his work, but the mainstream Saturday Review ridiculed him:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1937

    Barzun seems to have been quite the Lamarckian, he probably wished to emphasise the indigenous French as having qualities acquired from living in France as a case study. This dovetailed with the general belief that immigrants own units of heredity would be altered by coming to live in America, as in Boas’s head shape study. Barzum was one of the last intellectuals to be an open race believer. But the really fascinating thing is not that, as MacDonald noted, many nineteenth century thinker were muddled Lamarkians, and many of the intelligentsia decades into the 20th century were still believers in Lamarckian race; it’s that that many race and eugenics scientists were. The idea was that the US race formed over time by a Lamarckian process such as alteration in the shape of childrens heads (in Boas’s study after parents had been in the US for 10 years) to an American type, even if each immigrant community continued to marry only within itself. Any experimental results that seemed to show Lamarckian mechanisms in action were extrapolated prodigiously (for instance Haldane’s finding parental diet in rats affecting glucose metabolism in the offspring, which we now know was caused by epigenetics).

    The most influential race and eugenics scientist by the mid 30′s was Ernest Hooton, who wanted sterilisation or isolation of undesirables; he was a thouroughgoing Lamarckian. Crucially, Hooton said a long established race (such as the American type) could not be altered by immigration, because the American environment would alter the immigrants’ genetic qualities toward American norms even if they married within their own immigrant community. The genes of every new influx would be modified to the inveterate type formed by the American environment and mode of life. Hence the American type population would subsume any amount of immigrants, because the similar environment would alter the immigrants’ genes with or without intermarriage. Genetic mixture of the American type population with new immigrants would be overborne by modification of the immigrant genes acquiring the characteristic of American genes. This was not any kind of Darwinism.

    The scientists who provided the rationale for eugenics laws being passed were in the mainstream, but were in a great many cases not Darwinians. Moreover, they were actually targeting problematic white individuals and populations, such as the Appalachians who had failed to alter for the better despite living in the US for hundreds of years, thereby showing themselves to be a pathological element not susceptible to Lamarckian environmental genetic modification. On the committee on physical anthropology of the negro with Hooton was Aleš Hrdlička, who was something of a Lamarckian too.

    There is some justification therefore in speaking of the “American type” of white people. This is near the English, Irish and Scotch types, but is at least as different from any of these as these are different from each other. [...]. The Appalachian mountaineers, ranging from New York State to Alabama and numbering as many as 8,000,000, are the “sore on the American Continent,” in an anthropological sense .. something that needs the hearty attention of the biological and anthropological part of America.”

    Boas accepted race categories, but it’s not obvious he ever thought they had enduring significance, given his Lamarckianism (“heretofore we had the right to assume that human types are stable, [but] all the evidence is now in favor of a greater plasticity of human types, and permanence of types in new surroundings appears rather as an exception than as a rule.”). Boas did introduce the more variation within races than between them argument that Lewontin used.

    The person who some sources say more or less introduced the debiologized cultural inheritance type thinking so common today was Boas’s independent-minded first student, someone who was concerned for the wellbeing of Amerindians: Alfred L. Kroeber. His background was in general literary studies, not science, and he championed the view that culture not an individual’s biology determines the individual man or woman’s intellectual attainment and behaviour in society. (Sounds a bit like undercover Lamarckism.)

    DESPITE the lack of hard evidence, the antiracist interpretation continued to win converts among American social scientists. A racial explanation for human differences was simply unacceptable; culture could account for all of them. “We do not need to look for the working, in the life of ‘nature peoples’ of factors essentially different from those which we find at work in our social life,” concluded the prominent sociologist Charles Ellwood in 1918. “Habit and environment, accident and imitation, instinct and reasoning, invention and intercommunication,” he noted, “have played qualitatively, if not quantitatively, the same part in the culture of all peoples.” As Ellwood’s words and those of Faris, quoted earlier, make clear, by 1920 the concept of culture had indeed supplanted race in the thinking of most sociologists and anthropologists. That it was so was largely because that concept closely fitted the ideological outlook of the reform-minded professionals to whom it was directed. Nonetheless, that transformation in thought required a catalyst and a rationale; both were effectively supplied by Franz Boas and Alfred L. Kroeber.

    One thing that is a little off topic, but I think relevant, is the influence of women’s thinking in de-biologizing the discussion of issues in society. Mead was criticised by Kroeber for not backing up her ideas with data, but he ‘noted that she had an aesthetic gift for conceptualization “approaching genius”’; here. A lot of anti nuclear agitation or Green politics seems to have a feminine cast to it. Reading about the Northeast elite, many of them, like Ovington, were the earliest advocates for women’s rights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Barzun seems to have been quite the Lamarckian, he probably wished to emphasise the indigenous French as having qualities acquired from living in France as a case study. This dovetailed with the general belief that immigrants own units of heredity would be altered by coming to live in America, as in Boas’s head shape study. Barzum was one of the last intellectuals to be an open race believer.

    If Barzum he was saying that diet was the ONLY cause of "race" markers he would be wrong, as are many of today's "HBD" proponents who seek simplistic one-dimensional answers to complex human phenomena, and to fulfill their particular racialist agendas. Barzum held that diet impacts "racial" factors in 3 ways: — stature, coloring, and shape of skull. As a ONE dimensional explanation it falls short, but on the flip side, he is not totally off base about diet.

    Diet can play apart in the mix, depending on what is being measured. The transition to a better diet for example, whether via agriculture or more intensive foraging can cause changes to body mass of a population (Pinhasi 2011). Likewise a hunter/forager diet rich in Vitamin D allowed tropical zone migrants to ancient Europe to retain substantial coloring, but this began to shift to a whiter shade of pale as agriculture was adopted. Pale skin is something that only appeared relatively recently on the evolutionary scale- some 6000-12000 years ago (Jablonski 2004, 2000).

    As far as stature, diet can affect such. Height for example can be impacted by diet. the Dutch have grown taller over time- one of the reasons being better diet. Likewise for some African sub-groups. Skull shape is more problematic- however changes in diet such as a shift to agriculture can introduce some changes in dental makeup- not exactly outward overall skull shape but measurable changes in the dentition of the skull. In Africa for example, once sweeping anthropological claims of mysterious ancient "wandering Caucasoids" flowing into Nubia to give the natives civilization were debunked when dental studies showed continuity linked to diet, not any mass ancient "Caucasoid" settler wave. Likewise dental analysis of key early foundational Egyptian groups like the Badari, who resemble African groups to the south more than Arab or Asiatic types, are a fair representation of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like (Irish 2006).

    So Barzum was not a crazy man by any means. Modern scholarship doesn't follow his exact race model approach but sees clines of continuity, rather than rigidly bounded and isolated "races" staying in their own little ancient apartheid zones- a dubious approached favored by some "HBD" claimants. He did show how diet could cause some changes, and indeed, the role of diet, along with several other cultural and clinal factors, debunks sweeping "race" claims, particularly where Africa is concerned.

    Speaking of Lamarck, some HBDers seem to have a similar Lamarckian "evolutionary" model. For example, the argument of some proponents claim that nerdy bespectacled Jews huddled over parchments or books in a ghetto somewhere, would pass on these same nerdy traits to their offspring. Therefore we have "selection" for Jew nerds and weaklings- brainy but somewhat retiring, and lacking fulsome physical capabilities, and daring. Someone ought to explain this to the "weak" fighting men of Israel's IDF.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    We know Boas took race seriously enough to advocate intensive racial mixing of blacks and whites. If his interest in blacks was not political why his obliviousness to Amerindians despite many WASPs being deeply involved in the issue.

    He is on record as accepting races and sub races existed and could be classified. His big study was before WW1 and on the children of Sicilian couples and Jewish couples who had lived in America for 10 years; the children were larger-bodied than their parents, which was not surprising. However, the results which Boas trumpeted in 1912 was the children of immigrants had converged on a distinctively more American-style head shape. This latter conclusion is now generally accepted to have been false. Moreover Boas's results were reanalysed a decade ago and the paper, presented at the authoritative National Academy of Sciences, showed Boas's own data did not support his conclusion about cranial form. Either it was a mistake that just happened to strike at the basis for hereditarianism, or it was deliberate scientific fraud (see here). Boas hardly ever cited people outside his own followers favourably , and his circle had all the characteristics of a cult, as even one of his leading students admitted ( see here).

    I think the full historical record, not just what he said, suggests Boas may have been aiming to completely overthrow the Darwinist theory as regards human races and differences in racial attainment decades before the Nazis . Well before WW1 Boas produced worthless science and trumpeted it as if it was a theoretical advance of the first order. So it shouldn't surprise that his protégé Mead did this as well.


    Pinker:Margaret Mead disseminated the incredible claim that Samoans have no passions -- no anger between parents and children or between a cuckold and seducer, no revenge, no lasting love or bereavement,... no adolescent turmoil. Derek Freeman and other anthropologists found that Samoan society in fact had widespread adolescent resentment and delinquency, a cult of virginity, frequent rape, reprisals by rape victim's families,... sexual jealousy and strong religious feeling

     

    Boas's The Mind of Primitive Man (1916) had no research to back it up at all. but it was very influential.

    I think Peter is correct that the North-eastern elite especially had a pre existing attraction to anti-race theories. Boas had enough scientific authority that the the WASP tradition in social science accepted what he said because it was in tune with a cultural type of Lamarckian cultural inheritance. Sociology Professor Carl Kelsey went from saying biological race caused the differences between blacks and whites in 1903 to propounding social environment explanations 4 years later. Between 1910 and 1913 Southern white and future prominent sociologist Howard W. Odum had completely changed his thinking and he cited Boas as a key influence. (See here .

    The more I find out about this the more it seems that the largely WASP sociologists went over to Boas first and then the WASPs who were qualified in relevant disciplines and could have pointed out the truth about Boas and his school were left to isolated. And as they were operating with social heuristics such as imitate successful people and go along with what everyone else in doing, their position simply collapsed. There may have been some cognitive dissonance as to why they were doing it .

    Carl Brigham had publically abandoned race difference in intelligence and even the very concept of a thing called intelligence in 1930. Raymond Pearl, once a leading hereditarian was an authoritative biologist yet had began condemning the Darwinist explanation for racial differences in achievement by 1927. He went on to work for Black civil rights groups as an advisor.

    As far as I can see Boas's lack of interest in Amerindians is quite compatible with his fascination with blacks and hope of racial mixing, if he had the ethnic majority in his sights . I don't think there is proof that was what drove hi, but whatever Boas thought his actions were not fence sitting at any time after 1910, and he had triumphed by 1930. The WASPs' hearts were never in hereditarianism, they felt guilty for holding those views. We can never know what would have happened without Hitler and the war, but those factors might not have made a huge difference.

    Sean says:

    This latter conclusion is now generally accepted to have been false. Moreover Boas’s results were reanalysed a decade ago and the paper, presented at the authoritative National Academy of Sciences, showed Boas’s own data did not support his conclusion about cranial form. Either it was a mistake that just happened to strike at the basis for hereditarianism, or it was deliberate scientific fraud (see here).

    The critique of Boas by the recent studies is indeed on track, but that does not mean Boas’ larger concern about arbitrary assumptions and categories used to determine “races” is wrong. In this particular study, Boas comes up short, but forensic misclassification of “races” is a definite issue in the field. On this count, Boas’ own critique of various models is still relevant.

    For one thing, numerous classifications are established on the basis of skewed sampling of a narrow area or range then claiming that as “representative” of a much larger whole. Thus Egyptologist Barry Kemp (Kemp 2005- Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation) notes that the widely used CRANID reference database uses samples from a few cemeteries on the far north of Egypt and positions them as some sort of “representative” sample of the whole country, excluding the historic tropical south, from whence the Dynasties sprung. A similar pattern emerges as regards studies done in Nubia. WHen the widely used FORDISC program was run on various samples in one study, the Nubians were curiously classified into far-flung “races” – including Japanese and Eastern Islanders (Williams, Armelagos, Belcher 2005- Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania)

    Yet another problem is creation of arbitrary “race” categories in advance of an analysis, and then shoe-horning the data into the already preset pigeonholes, rather than letting the data speak for themselves (Keita and Kittles 1997, Armleagos 2001). If you tell your analytical program in advance that there will be only 6 races, the program will shoe-horn the results into your arbitrary 6-point patchwork. This is what is happening with some work in the field, and is a problem mentioned in the literature. These continuing issues show that while Boas’ own American study has numerous problems, his overall critique of “race” work is still relevant. Some of these methods are still being followed, only with updated technology and less open racialist rhetoric.

    Interestingly enough, the study you link to critiquing Boas, also has this to say:
    “4). It is not now possible to apportion changes between genetic and environmental causes.”– Jantz 2003
    The author notes that rapid environmental changes are impacting the variables. This of course also renders simplistic “race” formulas and claims untenable.

    The above being said, some of Boas’ own disciples ran into problems with arbitrary assumptions- you mentioned Margaret Mead for example.
    ———————————————————————————

    I think Peter is correct that the North-eastern elite especially had a pre existing attraction to anti-race theories. Boas had enough scientific authority that the the WASP tradition in social science accepted what he said because it was in tune with a cultural type of Lamarckian cultural inheritance.

    Possibly. I have no doubt some WASP elites were coming off earlier liberal traditions – Quakerism and such on the religious side, or something else on the atheist side. But Boas’ gained traction not merely because of liberal sentiment. He raised valid questions about the arbitrary and inconsistent methods, models and assumptions being made on race by scientists.

    .

    Carl Brigham had publically abandoned race difference in intelligence and even the very concept of a thing called intelligence in 1930. Raymond Pearl, once a leading hereditarian was an authoritative biologist yet had began condemning the Darwinist explanation for racial differences in achievement by 1927. He went on to work for Black civil rights groups as an advisor.

    No doubt. But again, this is not merely about liberal sentiment. Several serious methodological and theoretical issues, particularly arbitrariness and inconsistency, demanded a critical reexamination of widely accepted claims and approaches on “race.” Some of these claims and approaches in various quarters remain questionable or even dishonest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    We know Boas took race seriously enough to advocate intensive racial mixing of blacks and whites. If his interest in blacks was not political why his obliviousness to Amerindians despite many WASPs being deeply involved in the issue.

    He is on record as accepting races and sub races existed and could be classified. His big study was before WW1 and on the children of Sicilian couples and Jewish couples who had lived in America for 10 years; the children were larger-bodied than their parents, which was not surprising. However, the results which Boas trumpeted in 1912 was the children of immigrants had converged on a distinctively more American-style head shape. This latter conclusion is now generally accepted to have been false. Moreover Boas's results were reanalysed a decade ago and the paper, presented at the authoritative National Academy of Sciences, showed Boas's own data did not support his conclusion about cranial form. Either it was a mistake that just happened to strike at the basis for hereditarianism, or it was deliberate scientific fraud (see here). Boas hardly ever cited people outside his own followers favourably , and his circle had all the characteristics of a cult, as even one of his leading students admitted ( see here).

    I think the full historical record, not just what he said, suggests Boas may have been aiming to completely overthrow the Darwinist theory as regards human races and differences in racial attainment decades before the Nazis . Well before WW1 Boas produced worthless science and trumpeted it as if it was a theoretical advance of the first order. So it shouldn't surprise that his protégé Mead did this as well.


    Pinker:Margaret Mead disseminated the incredible claim that Samoans have no passions -- no anger between parents and children or between a cuckold and seducer, no revenge, no lasting love or bereavement,... no adolescent turmoil. Derek Freeman and other anthropologists found that Samoan society in fact had widespread adolescent resentment and delinquency, a cult of virginity, frequent rape, reprisals by rape victim's families,... sexual jealousy and strong religious feeling

     

    Boas's The Mind of Primitive Man (1916) had no research to back it up at all. but it was very influential.

    I think Peter is correct that the North-eastern elite especially had a pre existing attraction to anti-race theories. Boas had enough scientific authority that the the WASP tradition in social science accepted what he said because it was in tune with a cultural type of Lamarckian cultural inheritance. Sociology Professor Carl Kelsey went from saying biological race caused the differences between blacks and whites in 1903 to propounding social environment explanations 4 years later. Between 1910 and 1913 Southern white and future prominent sociologist Howard W. Odum had completely changed his thinking and he cited Boas as a key influence. (See here .

    The more I find out about this the more it seems that the largely WASP sociologists went over to Boas first and then the WASPs who were qualified in relevant disciplines and could have pointed out the truth about Boas and his school were left to isolated. And as they were operating with social heuristics such as imitate successful people and go along with what everyone else in doing, their position simply collapsed. There may have been some cognitive dissonance as to why they were doing it .

    Carl Brigham had publically abandoned race difference in intelligence and even the very concept of a thing called intelligence in 1930. Raymond Pearl, once a leading hereditarian was an authoritative biologist yet had began condemning the Darwinist explanation for racial differences in achievement by 1927. He went on to work for Black civil rights groups as an advisor.

    As far as I can see Boas's lack of interest in Amerindians is quite compatible with his fascination with blacks and hope of racial mixing, if he had the ethnic majority in his sights . I don't think there is proof that was what drove hi, but whatever Boas thought his actions were not fence sitting at any time after 1910, and he had triumphed by 1930. The WASPs' hearts were never in hereditarianism, they felt guilty for holding those views. We can never know what would have happened without Hitler and the war, but those factors might not have made a huge difference.

    Actually, the famous European-American intellectual Jacques Barzun provides another amusing example of the changes you describe in intellectual fashion and the total dishonesty with which they were pursued.

    His first book, The FRENCH RACE, published in 1932 explained all of French history as actually being a racial struggle between different components of the French population:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1932

    But just a few years later in 1937, his second book RACE: A STUDY IN MODERN SUPERSTITION presented among the most extreme “Race Doesn’t Not Exist” dogmas. He claimed that both head shape, skin color, and other racial markers were largely controlled by diet. The Communists in The New Masses praised his work, but the mainstream Saturday Review ridiculed him:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1937

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Barzun seems to have been quite the Lamarckian, he probably wished to emphasise the indigenous French as having qualities acquired from living in France as a case study. This dovetailed with the general belief that immigrants own units of heredity would be altered by coming to live in America, as in Boas's head shape study. Barzum was one of the last intellectuals to be an open race believer. But the really fascinating thing is not that, as MacDonald noted, many nineteenth century thinker were muddled Lamarkians, and many of the intelligentsia decades into the 20th century were still believers in Lamarckian race; it's that that many race and eugenics scientists were. The idea was that the US race formed over time by a Lamarckian process such as alteration in the shape of childrens heads (in Boas's study after parents had been in the US for 10 years) to an American type, even if each immigrant community continued to marry only within itself. Any experimental results that seemed to show Lamarckian mechanisms in action were extrapolated prodigiously (for instance Haldane's finding parental diet in rats affecting glucose metabolism in the offspring, which we now know was caused by epigenetics).

    The most influential race and eugenics scientist by the mid 30's was Ernest Hooton, who wanted sterilisation or isolation of undesirables; he was a thouroughgoing Lamarckian. Crucially, Hooton said a long established race (such as the American type) could not be altered by immigration, because the American environment would alter the immigrants' genetic qualities toward American norms even if they married within their own immigrant community. The genes of every new influx would be modified to the inveterate type formed by the American environment and mode of life. Hence the American type population would subsume any amount of immigrants, because the similar environment would alter the immigrants' genes with or without intermarriage. Genetic mixture of the American type population with new immigrants would be overborne by modification of the immigrant genes acquiring the characteristic of American genes. This was not any kind of Darwinism.

    The scientists who provided the rationale for eugenics laws being passed were in the mainstream, but were in a great many cases not Darwinians. Moreover, they were actually targeting problematic white individuals and populations, such as the Appalachians who had failed to alter for the better despite living in the US for hundreds of years, thereby showing themselves to be a pathological element not susceptible to Lamarckian environmental genetic modification. On the committee on physical anthropology of the negro with Hooton was Aleš Hrdlička, who was something of a Lamarckian too.


    There is some justification therefore in speaking of the "American type" of white people. This is near the English, Irish and Scotch types, but is at least as different from any of these as these are different from each other. [...]. The Appalachian mountaineers, ranging from New York State to Alabama and numbering as many as 8,000,000, are the "sore on the American Continent," in an anthropological sense .. something that needs the hearty attention of the biological and anthropological part of America."
     
    Boas accepted race categories, but it's not obvious he ever thought they had enduring significance, given his Lamarckianism ("heretofore we had the right to assume that human types are stable, [but] all the evidence is now in favor of a greater plasticity of human types, and permanence of types in new surroundings appears rather as an exception than as a rule."). Boas did introduce the more variation within races than between them argument that Lewontin used.

    The person who some sources say more or less introduced the debiologized cultural inheritance type thinking so common today was Boas's independent-minded first student, someone who was concerned for the wellbeing of Amerindians: Alfred L. Kroeber. His background was in general literary studies, not science, and he championed the view that culture not an individual's biology determines the individual man or woman's intellectual attainment and behaviour in society. (Sounds a bit like undercover Lamarckism.)


    DESPITE the lack of hard evidence, the antiracist interpretation continued to win converts among American social scientists. A racial explanation for human differences was simply unacceptable; culture could account for all of them. "We do not need to look for the working, in the life of 'nature peoples' of factors essentially different from those which we find at work in our social life," concluded the prominent sociologist Charles Ellwood in 1918. "Habit and environment, accident and imitation, instinct and reasoning, invention and intercommunication," he noted, "have played qualitatively, if not quantitatively, the same part in the culture of all peoples." As Ellwood's words and those of Faris, quoted earlier, make clear, by 1920 the concept of culture had indeed supplanted race in the thinking of most sociologists and anthropologists. That it was so was largely because that concept closely fitted the ideological outlook of the reform-minded professionals to whom it was directed. Nonetheless, that transformation in thought required a catalyst and a rationale; both were effectively supplied by Franz Boas and Alfred L. Kroeber.
     
    One thing that is a little off topic, but I think relevant, is the influence of women's thinking in de-biologizing the discussion of issues in society. Mead was criticised by Kroeber for not backing up her ideas with data, but he 'noted that she had an aesthetic gift for conceptualization “approaching genius”'; here. A lot of anti nuclear agitation or Green politics seems to have a feminine cast to it. Reading about the Northeast elite, many of them, like Ovington, were the earliest advocates for women's rights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • We know Boas took race seriously enough to advocate intensive racial mixing of blacks and whites. If his interest in blacks was not political why his obliviousness to Amerindians despite many WASPs being deeply involved in the issue.

    He is on record as accepting races and sub races existed and could be classified. His big study was before WW1 and on the children of Sicilian couples and Jewish couples who had lived in America for 10 years; the children were larger-bodied than their parents, which was not surprising. However, the results which Boas trumpeted in 1912 was the children of immigrants had converged on a distinctively more American-style head shape. This latter conclusion is now generally accepted to have been false. Moreover Boas’s results were reanalysed a decade ago and the paper, presented at the authoritative National Academy of Sciences, showed Boas’s own data did not support his conclusion about cranial form. Either it was a mistake that just happened to strike at the basis for hereditarianism, or it was deliberate scientific fraud (see here). Boas hardly ever cited people outside his own followers favourably , and his circle had all the characteristics of a cult, as even one of his leading students admitted ( see here).

    I think the full historical record, not just what he said, suggests Boas may have been aiming to completely overthrow the Darwinist theory as regards human races and differences in racial attainment decades before the Nazis . Well before WW1 Boas produced worthless science and trumpeted it as if it was a theoretical advance of the first order. So it shouldn’t surprise that his protégé Mead did this as well.

    Pinker:Margaret Mead disseminated the incredible claim that Samoans have no passions — no anger between parents and children or between a cuckold and seducer, no revenge, no lasting love or bereavement,… no adolescent turmoil. Derek Freeman and other anthropologists found that Samoan society in fact had widespread adolescent resentment and delinquency, a cult of virginity, frequent rape, reprisals by rape victim’s families,… sexual jealousy and strong religious feeling

    Boas’s The Mind of Primitive Man (1916) had no research to back it up at all. but it was very influential.

    I think Peter is correct that the North-eastern elite especially had a pre existing attraction to anti-race theories. Boas had enough scientific authority that the the WASP tradition in social science accepted what he said because it was in tune with a cultural type of Lamarckian cultural inheritance. Sociology Professor Carl Kelsey went from saying biological race caused the differences between blacks and whites in 1903 to propounding social environment explanations 4 years later. Between 1910 and 1913 Southern white and future prominent sociologist Howard W. Odum had completely changed his thinking and he cited Boas as a key influence. (See here .

    The more I find out about this the more it seems that the largely WASP sociologists went over to Boas first and then the WASPs who were qualified in relevant disciplines and could have pointed out the truth about Boas and his school were left to isolated. And as they were operating with social heuristics such as imitate successful people and go along with what everyone else in doing, their position simply collapsed. There may have been some cognitive dissonance as to why they were doing it .

    Carl Brigham had publically abandoned race difference in intelligence and even the very concept of a thing called intelligence in 1930. Raymond Pearl, once a leading hereditarian was an authoritative biologist yet had began condemning the Darwinist explanation for racial differences in achievement by 1927. He went on to work for Black civil rights groups as an advisor.

    As far as I can see Boas’s lack of interest in Amerindians is quite compatible with his fascination with blacks and hope of racial mixing, if he had the ethnic majority in his sights . I don’t think there is proof that was what drove hi, but whatever Boas thought his actions were not fence sitting at any time after 1910, and he had triumphed by 1930. The WASPs’ hearts were never in hereditarianism, they felt guilty for holding those views. We can never know what would have happened without Hitler and the war, but those factors might not have made a huge difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Actually, the famous European-American intellectual Jacques Barzun provides another amusing example of the changes you describe in intellectual fashion and the total dishonesty with which they were pursued.

    His first book, The FRENCH RACE, published in 1932 explained all of French history as actually being a racial struggle between different components of the French population:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1932

    But just a few years later in 1937, his second book RACE: A STUDY IN MODERN SUPERSTITION presented among the most extreme "Race Doesn't Not Exist" dogmas. He claimed that both head shape, skin color, and other racial markers were largely controlled by diet. The Communists in The New Masses praised his work, but the mainstream Saturday Review ridiculed him:

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarzunJacques-1937
    , @Enrique Cardova
    Sean says:

    This latter conclusion is now generally accepted to have been false. Moreover Boas’s results were reanalysed a decade ago and the paper, presented at the authoritative National Academy of Sciences, showed Boas’s own data did not support his conclusion about cranial form. Either it was a mistake that just happened to strike at the basis for hereditarianism, or it was deliberate scientific fraud (see here).
     
    The critique of Boas by the recent studies is indeed on track, but that does not mean Boas' larger concern about arbitrary assumptions and categories used to determine "races" is wrong. In this particular study, Boas comes up short, but forensic misclassification of "races" is a definite issue in the field. On this count, Boas' own critique of various models is still relevant.

    For one thing, numerous classifications are established on the basis of skewed sampling of a narrow area or range then claiming that as "representative" of a much larger whole. Thus Egyptologist Barry Kemp (Kemp 2005- Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation) notes that the widely used CRANID reference database uses samples from a few cemeteries on the far north of Egypt and positions them as some sort of "representative" sample of the whole country, excluding the historic tropical south, from whence the Dynasties sprung. A similar pattern emerges as regards studies done in Nubia. WHen the widely used FORDISC program was run on various samples in one study, the Nubians were curiously classified into far-flung "races" - including Japanese and Eastern Islanders (Williams, Armelagos, Belcher 2005- Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania)

    Yet another problem is creation of arbitrary "race" categories in advance of an analysis, and then shoe-horning the data into the already preset pigeonholes, rather than letting the data speak for themselves (Keita and Kittles 1997, Armleagos 2001). If you tell your analytical program in advance that there will be only 6 races, the program will shoe-horn the results into your arbitrary 6-point patchwork. This is what is happening with some work in the field, and is a problem mentioned in the literature. These continuing issues show that while Boas' own American study has numerous problems, his overall critique of "race" work is still relevant. Some of these methods are still being followed, only with updated technology and less open racialist rhetoric.

    Interestingly enough, the study you link to critiquing Boas, also has this to say:
    "4). It is not now possible to apportion changes between genetic and environmental causes."-- Jantz 2003
    The author notes that rapid environmental changes are impacting the variables. This of course also renders simplistic "race" formulas and claims untenable.

    The above being said, some of Boas' own disciples ran into problems with arbitrary assumptions- you mentioned Margaret Mead for example.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think Peter is correct that the North-eastern elite especially had a pre existing attraction to anti-race theories. Boas had enough scientific authority that the the WASP tradition in social science accepted what he said because it was in tune with a cultural type of Lamarckian cultural inheritance.
     
    Possibly. I have no doubt some WASP elites were coming off earlier liberal traditions - Quakerism and such on the religious side, or something else on the atheist side. But Boas' gained traction not merely because of liberal sentiment. He raised valid questions about the arbitrary and inconsistent methods, models and assumptions being made on race by scientists.

    .

    Carl Brigham had publically abandoned race difference in intelligence and even the very concept of a thing called intelligence in 1930. Raymond Pearl, once a leading hereditarian was an authoritative biologist yet had began condemning the Darwinist explanation for racial differences in achievement by 1927. He went on to work for Black civil rights groups as an advisor.
     
    No doubt. But again, this is not merely about liberal sentiment. Several serious methodological and theoretical issues, particularly arbitrariness and inconsistency, demanded a critical reexamination of widely accepted claims and approaches on "race." Some of these claims and approaches in various quarters remain questionable or even dishonest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:
    It is reasonable to think that WW2 had something to do with Boas’s views attaining institutional dominance. However, it is now several decades since the conflict with Nazi Germany was completely won, and Boas’s school of thought is not at all vulnerable to falsifying evidence in the way that the previous orthodoxy was. The Boasian paradigm shift was a transformation of the scientific method itself.
    I don’t know if it was quite a transformation in the scientific METHOD itself, as compared to the assumptions and models being used in various race theories or claims. In many ways it forced a truer attention to the scientific method, as shaky racial models and theories were exposed, based on more consistent application of the scientific method. Of course even today proponents of certain racial models manipulate or distort. One way to do it is with skewed sampling and then claim that the narrow sampling base is “representative” of a much larger area or reality. Another dodge is to make arbitrary race categories in advance, and then shoehorn the data into these preset pigeonholes and claim that as “representative.”

    Another technique is to use stereotypical “true types” – strawmen against which things can be compared. Yet another is a double standard approach- i.e. use a stereotypical rainforest type to stand in for all “true” Africans, but allocate all else to a “Caucasoid” or “mixed race” category- an old dodge where anthropopogy in Africa is concerned. The Boasian school is not immune from these tricks.

    Rial says:
    There was always reason to think that race wasn’t a social construct. It’s not for no reason Boas wasn’t taken seriously, and isn’t taken seriously amongst serious mainstream academics.

    There was always reason to think it was a social construct, particularly in the multiplicity of “races” seen in older writings, and such formulas as the “race of Shem”. Much depends on the definition of “races” and how such definitions are consistent with “racial” boundaries in other mammal species, the use of arbitrary categories, skewed sampling and so on.

    And you are wrong on Boas’ impact. Boas actually, while some of his specific arguments and methods are out of date, is still taken seriously by mainstream academics. Indeed his work as Sean notes above in many ways represents a shift in thinking in the field. Boas is and remains a giant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @n/a
    "Peter seems to be saying that Boas altered his views under the influence of idealistic WASP progressives, because Boas was part of a tiny minority and may have wanted to fit in with the prestigious universalism of the East Coast power elite"

    Yes, this is what Frost is claiming, and it's of course absolutely backwards:

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/search?q=%22reply+to+peter+frost%22+part&max-results=20&by-date=true

    Maybe no community in the north east was anti-racist (apart from comunes inspired by radicals such as Fourier). But there were idealistic WASP universalists like Horace Greeley and Ralph Waldo Emerson who were very influential. Kevin MacDonald has pointed out

    Emerson’s belief that the English race could remain the English race even after absorbing other races. Emerson thought that immigrants to America would literally be assimilated to the English race: The “foreign element [in America], however considerable, is rapidly assimilated,” resulting in a population of “English descent and language” (my emphasis). This is an example of the muddled thinking on race that was characteristic of many intellectuals during the 19th century. Kaufmann reviews the various strains of 19th-century liberalism that de-emphasized White or Anglo-Saxon identity. These were not majority views, but they do point to a robust strand among secular and religious intellectual elites associated with a New England Puritan background in the direction of a deracinated cosmopolitanism. Emerson, certainly, was a liberal, as were his fellow Transcendentalists and Unitarians. The bottom line is that, as Kaufmann says, “a good case can be made that ethnic (“race”) thinking in the nineteenth century was largely a muddled, incoherent enterprise” (p. 54). The basic problem was that these thinkers were Lamarckians

    Perhaps there is a case for thinking Boas was playing to an American Northeast elite whose morally idealism made them nebulously Lamarckian.

    However, the largely WASP scientists and psychologists that Boas and Klineberg defeated by the 30′s were not Lamarckians and did not think ethical ideas of equality mandated acceptance that acquired characteristics could be inherited.

    Boas’s school of thought triumphed because they presented research that convinced the Darwinians like Brigham, Goddard and Terman that they were wrong to think that human capacities were biologically based in a similar way to other mammals. The WASP psychologists were willing to assume good faith on the part of Klineberg and company, but it wasn’t reciprocated. ‘Klineberg was well aware of the anti-Semitism then prevalent in the academic world’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Enrique Cardova
    RW says:
    My point is exactly that. Boas changed his tune towards the end of his life, thereby creating the possibility for the absurd hypothesis that race is a social construct, exclusively.
    Agreed he did shift his thinking. I only note that he did not do so out of mere desired to ingratiate with the WASPS. There were sound scientific reasons why the simplistic "racial" models of the past have been discarded- from arbitrary assumptions, to skewed sampling, to manipulation of procedures so data so can be tailored or shoehorned into preconceived racial pigeonholes. As science progressed, credible researchers saw that these simplistic models were poor or distorted representations of actual populations, or their reality.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Sean says:
    Yet Boas’s school of thought triumphed over antagonists like Princeton professor of psychology Carl Brigham, who recanted everything, as did Goddard and Terman . If the research and original conclusions of Brigham, Goddard, Terman and others of their school was fraudulent, then one might wonder how Boas and his mainly minority associates won over unscrupulous antagonists in positions of power and authority who had the advantages of being part of the ethnic majority. Boas could have been dismissed with ad hominem attacks and ethnic solidarity, but he wasn’t.
    The revulsion at Nazi racial atrocities post WW2 played a role, but again, the advance of science and better data showed that the old race models were distorted and inaccurate representations of actual reality on the ground. People trying to boil everything down to "political correctness" are themselves advancing THEIR own version of "correctness" by refusing to take a clear-eyed analysis or view of the field, and allows them to avoid addressing the evidence that sparked such changes. "Political correctness" is not just a liberal scourge. Conservatives have their own "CONSERVATIVELY CORRECT" propaganda frameworks.

    ---------------
    Boas produced evidence that falsified the existing theories, and like good scientists, his opponents accepted that they had been wrong. The resulting Boasian institutional dominance can be seen as a result of the helplessness of the ethnic majority in the face of certain types of critique.
    Indeed. It is interesting though that some have charged that the field is not really dominated by liberalism. The argument is that many scholars still hold to the old race models, albeit in updated form. In other words they pay LIP SERVICE to the "no races exist" meme, but for all practical intents and purposes still use it in their work. They use certain "PC" phrases but in their work, they haven't changed much. Thus some scholars supposedly "Liberal" on the "no race" thing, still manipulate sampling and procedures behind the scene to reinforce the old race models.

    This is one critique of scholar Cavalli-Sforza for example in his popular, Genes Language and Culture book. In other words, there are still a lot of double standards in the field. Why are some Africans with light skin (which s heavily a function of climate- thus lighter skins further from the equator) for example considered to be some sort of "race mix", or "white people with dark skin," but when it comes to Europe a double standard appears- Europeans with dark brown skin like certain Mediterranean areas, are considered to be "pure" Europeans? One rule for Europe, but why a different one by supposedly objective scientists curiously emerging when it comes to Africa?

    Then there are the shaky racial "true type" double standards. Why do some scholars insist on using say a sample from a rainforest area as the only "true" or "representative" type in ultra diverse Africa, but do not do the same thing when it comes to Europe? And say designate a blond Swede as a "true white"? When in comes to Africa again, a double standard comes into play by supposedly super objective scientists. These and other hypocrises and double standards were exposed by the work of Boas disciples or people influenced by him. It is no wonder some racial model proponents threw in the towel. Their position became increasingly untenable as time went on.

    But hey, a critic may say- dash it all- its those durn Jews like Boas again, exposing and giving away the goyim game.

    There was always reason to think that race wasn’t a social construct.

    http://tightrope.cc/Black-Invention-Myths.htm

    It’s not for no reason Boas wasn’t taken seriously, and isn’t taken seriously amongst serious mainstream academics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • WASP liberal universalists were very concerned with Amerindians, but Boas was not, even though he and his students were deeply involved in anthropological work on Amerindians.

    The reservation system at the time was a travesty of humane treatment of dependent peoples, and the shocking decline of the Amerindian population was a topic of popular discussion. Yet Boas’s public writings and his professional correspondence are almost devoid of expressions of concern or even interest in the status of Amerindians, particularly when compared with his many efforts aimed at improving the place of blacks in American society.

    Uniquely, black Africans are heavily pigmented on parts of their skin which are never exposed to the sun. Skin colour is hardly the only difference between sub Saharan Africans and Europeans, as Boas himself was well aware:-

    I do not believe that the negro is, in his physical and mental make-up, the same as the European. The anatomical differences are so great that corresponding mental differences are plausible. (Boas, 1974, pp. 328-329)

    Boas knew the arguments against racial classification.

    There is, however, no proof whatever that these differences signify any appreciable degree of inferiority of the negro, notwithstanding the slightly inferior size, and perhaps lesser complexity of structure, of his brain; for these racial differences are much less than the range of variation found in either race considered by itself

    That makes it very difficult to see him as actually disbelieving that racial classifications of Europeans and black Africans did not reflect a genetic and physical reality. Boas hoped for and by the early 20′s was openly advocating mass breeding of blacks with whites. In view of him subsequently writing ”Therefore, 30 percent of the large-brained Europeans cannot be matched by any corresponding group of Negroes” (in 1928), and having a lack of interest or concern for Amerindians, I don’t think one can assume that Boas was only influenced by a concern for truth irrespective of race or creed. What his apparent desire for racial engineering of the white majority sprang from we cannot know; it may have lay so deep he was only dimly aware of it himself. Boas was silent about his own group, apart from his astounding Lamarckian 1910 assertion that the children of Sicilian and Jewish immigrants acquired an American head shape.

    If one is abiding by the ground rules of scientific debate, opponents are assumed to be acting in good faith and not motivated by their ethnic identity. Evidence that falsifies existing theories is considered particularly valuable, because the existing theories are assumed to be flawed, and in need of improvement. Boas was able to alter the consensus about genes and race because his opponents accepted those rules.

    It is reasonable to think that WW2 had something to do with Boas’s views attaining institutional dominance. However, it is now several decades since the conflict with Nazi Germany was completely won, and Boas’s school of thought is not at all vulnerable to falsifying evidence in the way that the previous orthodoxy was. The Boasian paradigm shift was a transformation of the scientific method itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • RW says:
    My point is exactly that. Boas changed his tune towards the end of his life, thereby creating the possibility for the absurd hypothesis that race is a social construct, exclusively.
    Agreed he did shift his thinking. I only note that he did not do so out of mere desired to ingratiate with the WASPS. There were sound scientific reasons why the simplistic “racial” models of the past have been discarded- from arbitrary assumptions, to skewed sampling, to manipulation of procedures so data so can be tailored or shoehorned into preconceived racial pigeonholes. As science progressed, credible researchers saw that these simplistic models were poor or distorted representations of actual populations, or their reality.

    —————————————————————–
    Sean says:
    Yet Boas’s school of thought triumphed over antagonists like Princeton professor of psychology Carl Brigham, who recanted everything, as did Goddard and Terman . If the research and original conclusions of Brigham, Goddard, Terman and others of their school was fraudulent, then one might wonder how Boas and his mainly minority associates won over unscrupulous antagonists in positions of power and authority who had the advantages of being part of the ethnic majority. Boas could have been dismissed with ad hominem attacks and ethnic solidarity, but he wasn’t.
    The revulsion at Nazi racial atrocities post WW2 played a role, but again, the advance of science and better data showed that the old race models were distorted and inaccurate representations of actual reality on the ground. People trying to boil everything down to “political correctness” are themselves advancing THEIR own version of “correctness” by refusing to take a clear-eyed analysis or view of the field, and allows them to avoid addressing the evidence that sparked such changes. “Political correctness” is not just a liberal scourge. Conservatives have their own “CONSERVATIVELY CORRECT” propaganda frameworks.

    —————
    Boas produced evidence that falsified the existing theories, and like good scientists, his opponents accepted that they had been wrong. The resulting Boasian institutional dominance can be seen as a result of the helplessness of the ethnic majority in the face of certain types of critique.
    Indeed. It is interesting though that some have charged that the field is not really dominated by liberalism. The argument is that many scholars still hold to the old race models, albeit in updated form. In other words they pay LIP SERVICE to the “no races exist” meme, but for all practical intents and purposes still use it in their work. They use certain “PC” phrases but in their work, they haven’t changed much. Thus some scholars supposedly “Liberal” on the “no race” thing, still manipulate sampling and procedures behind the scene to reinforce the old race models.

    This is one critique of scholar Cavalli-Sforza for example in his popular, Genes Language and Culture book. In other words, there are still a lot of double standards in the field. Why are some Africans with light skin (which s heavily a function of climate- thus lighter skins further from the equator) for example considered to be some sort of “race mix”, or “white people with dark skin,” but when it comes to Europe a double standard appears- Europeans with dark brown skin like certain Mediterranean areas, are considered to be “pure” Europeans? One rule for Europe, but why a different one by supposedly objective scientists curiously emerging when it comes to Africa?

    Then there are the shaky racial “true type” double standards. Why do some scholars insist on using say a sample from a rainforest area as the only “true” or “representative” type in ultra diverse Africa, but do not do the same thing when it comes to Europe? And say designate a blond Swede as a “true white”? When in comes to Africa again, a double standard comes into play by supposedly super objective scientists. These and other hypocrises and double standards were exposed by the work of Boas disciples or people influenced by him. It is no wonder some racial model proponents threw in the towel. Their position became increasingly untenable as time went on.

    But hey, a critic may say- dash it all- its those durn Jews like Boas again, exposing and giving away the goyim game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There was always reason to think that race wasn't a social construct.

    http://tightrope.cc/Black-Invention-Myths.htm

    It's not for no reason Boas wasn't taken seriously, and isn't taken seriously amongst serious mainstream academics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • n/a says: • Website

    “Peter seems to be saying that Boas altered his views under the influence of idealistic WASP progressives, because Boas was part of a tiny minority and may have wanted to fit in with the prestigious universalism of the East Coast power elite”

    Yes, this is what Frost is claiming, and it’s of course absolutely backwards:

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/search?q=%22reply+to+peter+frost%22+part&max-results=20&by-date=true

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Maybe no community in the north east was anti-racist (apart from comunes inspired by radicals such as Fourier). But there were idealistic WASP universalists like Horace Greeley and Ralph Waldo Emerson who were very influential. Kevin MacDonald has pointed out

    Emerson’s belief that the English race could remain the English race even after absorbing other races. Emerson thought that immigrants to America would literally be assimilated to the English race: The “foreign element [in America], however considerable, is rapidly assimilated,” resulting in a population of “English descent and language” (my emphasis). This is an example of the muddled thinking on race that was characteristic of many intellectuals during the 19th century. Kaufmann reviews the various strains of 19th-century liberalism that de-emphasized White or Anglo-Saxon identity. These were not majority views, but they do point to a robust strand among secular and religious intellectual elites associated with a New England Puritan background in the direction of a deracinated cosmopolitanism. Emerson, certainly, was a liberal, as were his fellow Transcendentalists and Unitarians. The bottom line is that, as Kaufmann says, “a good case can be made that ethnic (“race”) thinking in the nineteenth century was largely a muddled, incoherent enterprise” (p. 54). The basic problem was that these thinkers were Lamarckians
     
    Perhaps there is a case for thinking Boas was playing to an American Northeast elite whose morally idealism made them nebulously Lamarckian.

    However, the largely WASP scientists and psychologists that Boas and Klineberg defeated by the 30's were not Lamarckians and did not think ethical ideas of equality mandated acceptance that acquired characteristics could be inherited.

    Boas's school of thought triumphed because they presented research that convinced the Darwinians like Brigham, Goddard and Terman that they were wrong to think that human capacities were biologically based in a similar way to other mammals. The WASP psychologists were willing to assume good faith on the part of Klineberg and company, but it wasn't reciprocated. 'Klineberg was well aware of the anti-Semitism then prevalent in the academic world'.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter seems to be saying that Boas altered his views under the influence of idealistic WASP progressives, because Boas was part of a tiny minority and may have wanted to fit in with the prestigious universalism of the East Coast power elite. But his scientific conclusions ought not to have followed from his moral principles. In 1894 Boas showed he understood genetics, but he tried to publicise a virtually Lamarckian view of racial characteristics in 1910. By 1921 his proposed solution to what he said was a cultural race problem was genetic amalgamation of whites with blacks. I think the historical record suggests that Boas was a firm believer in the genetic reality of race, and a racial theorist who wanted to genetically engineer the majority population. It is not obvious that he saw his own ethnic group as suitable for amalgamation with blacks.

    The post discusses the alteration in Boas’s avowed scientific conclusions, and by my way of thinking those could not follow from first principles, moral or otherwise. His academic opponents were part of the overwhelming majority that was effectively a power elite running the country. Yet Boas’s school of thought triumphed over antagonists like Princeton professor of psychology Carl Brigham, who recanted everything, as did Goddard and Terman . If the research and original conclusions of Brigham, Goddard, Terman and others of their school was fraudulent, then one might wonder how Boas and his mainly minority associates won over unscrupulous antagonists in positions of power and authority who had the advantages of being part of the ethnic majority. Boas could have been dismissed with ad hominem attacks and ethnic solidarity, but he wasn’t.

    Scientists accept results even when they seem to be impossible. And there is a high value placed on falsifying evidence, because existing theories are unlikely to be flawed. Boas produced evidence that falsified the existing theories, and like good scientists, his opponents accepted that they had been wrong. The resulting Boasian institutional dominance can be seen as a result of the helplessness of the ethnic majority in the face of certain types of critique.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Enrique Cardova
    Anon says:
    I think the culture war over race started with the immigration battles in the 1920s.
    Quite dubious. Culture wars over race were in place from the early decades of American history.


    RW says:
    It’s also nice to see how the history of the development of Franz Boas’s ideas on race confirm that racism is a social construct and race is a biological reality.
    Actually many of those who trained under Boas were influential in developing the idea that race is NOT a biological reality. An Boas himself said:

    "The traits of American Negroes are adequately explained on the basis of his history and social status. The tearing away from the African soil and the consequent complete loss of all standards of life, which were replaced by the dependency of slavery and by all that it entailed, followed by a period of disorganization and by severe economic struggle against heavy odds, are sufficient to explain the inferiority of the status of the race, without falling back upon the theory of hereditary inferiority."
    --Boas 1938.


    .
    ZeusVsTyphon says:
    “Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. ”

    Christianity was established on a basis incorporating elements of equality and non-racism. "There is neither Jew or gentile" as the well known verse goes and so on. Salvation is open to all- black, white, whatever. You get no special place before God because you are white. Indeed one of the earliest non-Jewish converts to Christianity was black, the Kushite or Sudanic chariot rider in Acts 8. In fact, this is one reason Christianity has been so often disliked by many Jews- it denies them their special place before God. Under Christianity, they are nobody special, and have to obtain salvation and redemption through Christ under the Christian doctrine, just like everyone else. This has occasioned a certain jealously against the goyim- who have been brought into the universal blessing. Indeed the Apostle Paul specifically refers to Jewish jealously in Romans 10 and 11, and even quotes Moses to this effect. Acts 17 also specifically refers to Jewish envy and jealously leading to attacks against Christians by Jews.

    Of course some Jews have co-existed peacefully, and there are plenty of other reasons for conflict- like anti-Semitic killings for example. Christian practitioners of course have failed often and miserably in following the teachings of their faith as far as prejudice, but that does not alter the fact that the principles stand.

    Henrique, that is a 1938 quote. My point is exactly that. Boas changed his tune towards the end of his life, thereby creating the possibility for the absurd hypothesis that race is a social construct, exclusively,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:

    By the thirties the fruits of Boas’s associates including Klineberg were scientific mainstream and had discredited sub racial and racial IQ differences even among those who had earlier found them. It was WASP guilt and conformity to the ground rules of scientific debate that led to them going into the bag.

    True in part as to the new liberal movements gaining strength in the latter part of Boas’ career, but it is not mere “guilt” or “political correctness” that caused a reaction against “HBD” style racialist “science.” It was hard data, and better data and models that debunked numerous cherished racialist notions held by anthropologists. For one thing newer data showed just how arbitrary many “racial” classifications were- some scientists decreed 20 or more races, some 5, some 7, some 3 and so on, and often stretching things beyond credibility so as to pigeonhole data into preconceived race check boxes.

    A second problem was how data was being handled. The huge genetic diversity of Africa for example made artificial slicing and dicing into little race penny-packets ludicrous as people got better data. Well into the 1990s the academic literature sees scholars complaining how some anthropologists do not let data speak for themselves but set up their race models ahead of tie and then stretch and shoehorn the data into these preconceived constructs, rather than let the data speak for themselves. (Armelagos 2001, et al.)

    A third problem was skewed sampling- such as sampling a few cemeteries in the far north of Egypt and then declaring the results “representative” of the whole country, excluding the historic tropical south from whence the dynasties sprung. It’s like sampling only Maine and Connecticut and declaring that sample “representative” of the rest of America. The list of arbitrariness, biased handling, distorted sampling, subterfuge etc etc to maintain strained “racial” models can go on and on- and that’s scientists complaining, not laymen.

    I’m afraid this post is rather epitomising a similar tendency; can we not allow the possibility that Boas was utilising deviousness and cunning? Boas’s head shape study results showed him using his statistical prowess to bamboozle. He was espousing Lamarckism, and in 1910 for goodness sake!

    Maybe but racialist opponents of Boas were using sleight of hand, skewed sampling, arbitrary assumptions, and distorted methods to maintain their shaky race models. Boas’ work exposed some of that they were doing.

    My impression is a guilt-conformism tendency inherent to WASPdom was not predominantly operating through universalist anti-racism, which was really only visible in a tiny inchoate fringe, until Boas lent it it academic authority. Under psychological pressure from Boas’s associates welding the results of their studies, the hereditarian resistance collapsed.

    Equally likely heriditarian resistance collapsed under the many absurdities and weaknesses of its claims, models and methods, as exposed by better data- some of that as you say- the results of the studies of Boas and his associates. I agree Boas may have accelerated or contributed significantly to this collapsing. And no doubt a reaction against Nazi excesses played a part as well after WW2.

    But the largely WASP hereditarians wouldn’t do that, preferring to assume their opponents had a commitment to scientific objectivity.

    More likely they were embarrassed that various arbitrary racialist assumptions, claims and methods were being exposed as shaky by Boas and the newer generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Re Boas’s allegiance in WW1, aversion to fighting on the side of the Tsar and killing Jews serving in the German army may have had something to do with it (Jews had successfully lobbied for the US trade agreements with Russia to be abrogated before WW1). In any case Boas was hardly bothered about keeping in with WASPs apart from a tiny pacifist fringe when he publicly denounced US participation in WW1. Much of Boas’s career after 1900 is open to similarly alternative interpretation. For example .

    WHILE there can be little doubt that Boas showed a consistent and determined concern for the fate of black people in America, that same level of concern was not apparent in regard to Amerindians, despite his students’ and his own deep professional involvement with them. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the question of the well-being of the aboriginal population was a highly visible and political cause. The reservation system at the time was a travesty of humane treatment of dependent peoples, and the shocking decline of the Amerindian population was a topic of popular discussion. Yet Boas’s public writings and his professional correspondence are almost devoid of expressions of concern or even interest in the status of Amerindians, particularly when compared with his many efforts aimed at improving the place of blacks in American society .

    Proves nothing, but his concern for keeping in step with WASPs idealism and their enlightened views would seem to mandate Boas being as interested in Amerindians as WASP progressives were. He was very interested in blacks, but what were his objectives?

    Some years later, in 1921, when he considered “The Problem of Culture versus Biology the American Negro” for the Yale Review, he continued to see the elimination of the different appearance of blacks as something to strive for, especially if ending racial prejudice were the goal. What was required, he repeated, was the encouragement of interracial marriages…. He identified interracial marriage as “the greatest hope for the immediate future.,,”

    This went well beyond anti Nordism and it is difficult to see what he hoped for as being in the interests of Italians or Irish. Moreover, one might wonder why Boas (who wrote” Therefore, 30 percent of the large-brained Europeans cannot be matched by any corresponding group of Negroes” in 1928) hoped for mass interracial breeding in 1921, if he understood the consequences at that time.

    Ethnic motives would not have been openly avowed, and there is evidence that Boas was adept at getting round the hereditarians by dissimulation, he tricked them into funding Mead’s cultural determinism work in Samoa, and Klineberg’s against race differences in IQ . The hereditarians actually thought Boas was being converted. See here. By the thirties the fruits of Boas’s associates including Klineberg were scientific mainstream and had discredited sub racial and racial IQ differences even among those who had earlier found them. It was WASP guilt and conformity to the ground rules of scientific debate that led to them going into the bag. I’m afraid this post is rather epitomising a similar tendency; can we not allow the possibility that Boas was utilising deviousness and cunning? Boas’s head shape study results showed him using his statistical prowess to bamboozle. He was espousing Lamarckism, and in 1910 for goodness sake!

    My impression is a guilt-conformism tendency inherent to WASPdom was not predominantly operating through universalist anti-racism, which was really only visible in a tiny inchoate fringe, until Boas lent it it academic authority. Under psychological pressure from Boas’s associates welding the results of their studies, the hereditarian resistance collapsed. Now we can see that it would have been so easy to just question the motivations of Boas, and then look very closely at the supposed evidence for cultural determinism in the results of Mead and Klineberg ect. But the largely WASP hereditarians wouldn’t do that, preferring to assume their opponents had a commitment to scientific objectivity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stogumber
    I grant you that around 1900 race science was crude and in its popularized variant often simply wrong. And nobody would hold it against Boas that he stressed for example the way how body development was influenced by better nutrition.
    On the other hand, genetics became more and more refined and so became popular race literature - at least in Germany. But, as will be usual in political fights, the German point of view was wilfully misrepresented by its opponents. Boas may have been part of that wilful misrepresentation or may have fallen victim to it.

    I would say that Germany had a mix of views. Certainly one can find the hard core racists and anti-Semites, some a mix in the middle, but Germany also had a distinct liberal tradition. The relentless Soviet propaganda assaults against all Western democracies from the end of WW1 did not bode well for that liberal tradition, admittedly, nor did the threat from the right. See for example Liberalism in Germany by Dieter Langewiesche 2000. An exclusive “German” position on these matters may be stereotyped extremes. It may be possible that Boas and his followers traded at times in some unfair stereotyping

    And everybody beats up on Germany for racism, often justifiable so. But much less known is how racist Russians are, and have been since Soviet times. Brutal suppression of Crimean Tartars, Uzbeks, Chechens and Ingush never got, and still don’t get much press from the “politically correct” set. Why haven’t they jumped on this, rather than perennially bashing Germans? Could it be that certain forces want an eternal German whipping boy? I am not forgetting a horrible German history but where are the legions of anti-racist indignation when the scene moves further East? This racism continues unbroken since the fall of the Kremlin bosses. Behavior is much more civilized in Nordic Germany these days on may counts. People may not like you but they are relatively polite and decent. No so further east on many counts. See for example how one American reporter learned the hard way:

    http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/rus/f05/rus251-01/Scanned_RUS_251/Lee_Black_Among_Reds.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jim
    Per Greg Cochran the genetic evidence shows that the Khazar hypothesis not true.

    That is my understanding as well. If Herr Boaz was a specimen of nationwrecking vermin let us consider the fact without great concern over whether his great grandparents were of an obscure and oily tribe of Turks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Harold
    Even better Hitler quote:

    It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932
     
    (emphasis mine)
    Hitler may have been wrong, but I doubt he was entirely imagining things.

    Harold says:

    Hitler seemed to think the anti-racist falsehood of the unimportance of race was extant in 1927. One might say that Nazism was partly a reaction to, and caused by, anti-racism. Nazi anti-semitism likewise to the (percieved) Jewish role in anti-racism.

    That could be argued but it would not be convincing. Antiracism as such was a minor force internationally back then. The League of Nations after WW1 for example refused to include a racial equality clause in its principles. And all the major powers back in the day held to and defended racist policies, including the United States, and Japan. International anti-racist initiatives were heavily monitored, infiltrated, undermined and stifled by those powers. See stymied initiatives of WEB Dubois, and various other African colonial activists.

    Even the Soviet Union, while paying lip service to the “brotherhood of proletarian peoples” was racist, and only tolerated blacks as long as they could be used as a propaganda handle to expose the hypocritical democracy of the capitalists. See the book Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by black machinist Robert Robinson, who went to Russia to help set up machine tooling and training during the 1930s and got trapped there. The regime benefited from his technical expertise and he quickly became a symbol of minorities oppressed by the capitalists when 2 white American workers assaulted him. But once political turmoil and purges made foreign experts suspect and WW2 started, the regime got his US passport. His propaganda usefulness faded and he endured daily racism. This same pattern of racism continued into the 1960s as African students to “fraternal universities” found out, and with the end of the Soviet Union, white Russian racism is alive and well, and notorious.

    Time and time again prior to WW2 Communist party operatives tried to recruit US blacks alongside white workers and failed to gain widespread traction over the race issue, despite antiracist agitation. Time and time again internationalist projects on racism turned out to be little noticed conferences, or just lip service- additional propaganda levers deployed in the interests of the Kremlin, though within NATIONAL minority communities some genuine leaders and groups emerged- the Pan Africanists for example, but they had trivial impact. In short, internationalist anti-racism was a shaky or minor force during Hitler’s rise to power.

    Hitler quote:

    It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932

    The Fuehrer was wrong of course, and his lying propaganda is well known. The “entire international body of thought today” was not antiracism. As detailed above, internationalist antiracism was a minor player at best, and anthropology that seriously questioned the existence of races or alleged “racial” differences (emotional Mediterraneans versus rational Germans etc and so on) only gained substantial traction after WW2. Even the Soviets were racist, and suppressed their own non-white minority populations, such as ethnically-​directed campaigns of terror were employed under Stalin, most brutally in the mass deportation of Chechens and Ingush in 1944.

    ————————————————-

    Interestingly enough, during WW2, German propaganda attacked the US for hypocritical democracy, based on its treatment of blacks. Below is the text of a German propaganda leaflet addressed to blacks.

    ALL MEN
    are created free and equal
    Yes, that is what the declaration of Independence says.
    Well, it’s just Ballyhoo, always was. The white bosses want your peace-loving, hard-working colored boys just as
    CANNON FODDER
    In World War I they promised your father’s racial equality as a reward for fighting the war.
    What did they get? What did you get?
    The lousiest jobs.
    The lousiest flats.
    The lousiest pay.
    The lousiest chances.
    Poverty, Unemployment, Race, Riots, Lynching, Hanging and Burning!
    and
    The general contempt of all Whites in the U.S.A.
    RICH (WHITE) MAN’S WAR
    POOR (COLORED) MAN’S FIGHT
    (–When Jim Crow met John Bull: Black American soldiers in World War II Britain, by Graham Smith)

    When it suited them, the Nazis could play the “antiracism” card pretty well. The overall thrust of many such messages is that the United States is hypocritical in complaining about Nazi treatment of the Jews, given what it does to American Blacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    Concerning the question of nazi-racism and also the question how the nazi movement influenced Boas views and the general attitude to race in the USA T think two things have to be distinguished. Those things are 20th german antisemitism and racism. Both today are often summarized as "racism" but they are very different, have different cultural roots.
    Antisemitism in Germany had roots in christian antijudaism and was widespread in central Europa in the early 20th century. Antisemitism was irrational, had nothing to do with facts and on addition it was from the beginning on very malicious. It also led to the holocaust.
    Racism (which is another word for noticing things) is something which was developed in West Europe, especially UK and the Anglo diaspora. Racism understood in this way was the reaction to profound experiences around the world with different people in the course of colonialism.
    Germans lacked those experience as they had very few colonial experiences. They also were not interested in non europeans. They rather fantasized about non-existent evil jews who would take their money / women / children etc.
    I actually have this argument from a quite famous german historian, Immanuel Geiss, who himself was a antiracist, but still saw this distinction right in my opinion.

    Antisemitism was irrational, had nothing to do with facts and on addition it was from the beginning on very malicious

    Wrong. Anti-Semitism was the result of Jews trying to gain dominance over native Europeans. Throughout their history, the Jews have tried to undermine the various gentile populations that they have encountered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Penguinchip
    Oy vay, enough with the Khazars already!

    Per Greg Cochran the genetic evidence shows that the Khazar hypothesis not true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Penguinchip
    That is my understanding as well. If Herr Boaz was a specimen of nationwrecking vermin let us consider the fact without great concern over whether his great grandparents were of an obscure and oily tribe of Turks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is total nonsense. On the West Hunter blog, Cochran said that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically about 50-60% Mediterranean European and 40-50% Near Eastern.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • WHY JUDAISTS, WHO ARE MOSTLY WHITE, FEEL NECESSARY TO HATE WHITES.

    [MORE]

    Judaists are mostly whites, whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages. This is obvious from simply looking at them. But they hate the white race, call it “cancer” (eg. Susan Sontag), wish “white hearts would stop beating” (Tim Wise), promote miscegenation and 3rd world immigration, deny the existence of races (except their mythical own) and call whites who are race-conscious “racists”, etc.

    Why such pathological hate for their own race? Is that not insane?

    This is because Judaists are taught from childhood the Torah (Old Testament) and Talmud by their parents and rabbis, which books state that they are “Jews”, descendants of Middle Eastern/African Avram. The Torah also states that they are “God’s Chosen People”. This belief is the core of Jewish self-identity.

    However, the OT/Torah is a “forgery” (–Joseph McCabe) and pure myth. This is obvious from Page 1.

    Judaists justify all the special treatment they seek, demand, extract and get from white Christian society on the basis of this delusion (special race called Jew, a chosen people). But if the Judaists start accepting these basic facts (that they are white and the Torah is a forgery), their entire sense of superiority and rationalization of their evil deeds due to their being “God’s Chosen People” would vanish, along with all the special benefits the gullible white Christian confers on them. So the best way for them to sustain this bizarre delusion that they are “God’s Chosen People” and justify all their lies and scams is to denigrate whites, for, only by doing so, they can reinforce their own delusion of a special race of chosen people.

    In other words, if they admit that they are white, they cannot then claim to be chosen, as there would be nothing special about them, in the eyes of other whites. So they have to spin a tale that they are a special race, above whites.

    Now you know why their white-hate is due to their mental illness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Concerning the question of nazi-racism and also the question how the nazi movement influenced Boas views and the general attitude to race in the USA T think two things have to be distinguished. Those things are 20th german antisemitism and racism. Both today are often summarized as “racism” but they are very different, have different cultural roots.
    Antisemitism in Germany had roots in christian antijudaism and was widespread in central Europa in the early 20th century. Antisemitism was irrational, had nothing to do with facts and on addition it was from the beginning on very malicious. It also led to the holocaust.
    Racism (which is another word for noticing things) is something which was developed in West Europe, especially UK and the Anglo diaspora. Racism understood in this way was the reaction to profound experiences around the world with different people in the course of colonialism.
    Germans lacked those experience as they had very few colonial experiences. They also were not interested in non europeans. They rather fantasized about non-existent evil jews who would take their money / women / children etc.
    I actually have this argument from a quite famous german historian, Immanuel Geiss, who himself was a antiracist, but still saw this distinction right in my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Antisemitism was irrational, had nothing to do with facts and on addition it was from the beginning on very malicious

    Wrong. Anti-Semitism was the result of Jews trying to gain dominance over native Europeans. Throughout their history, the Jews have tried to undermine the various gentile populations that they have encountered.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Even better Hitler quote:

    It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932

    (emphasis mine)
    Hitler may have been wrong, but I doubt he was entirely imagining things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Harold says:

    Hitler seemed to think the anti-racist falsehood of the unimportance of race was extant in 1927. One might say that Nazism was partly a reaction to, and caused by, anti-racism. Nazi anti-semitism likewise to the (percieved) Jewish role in anti-racism.
     
    That could be argued but it would not be convincing. Antiracism as such was a minor force internationally back then. The League of Nations after WW1 for example refused to include a racial equality clause in its principles. And all the major powers back in the day held to and defended racist policies, including the United States, and Japan. International anti-racist initiatives were heavily monitored, infiltrated, undermined and stifled by those powers. See stymied initiatives of WEB Dubois, and various other African colonial activists.

    Even the Soviet Union, while paying lip service to the "brotherhood of proletarian peoples" was racist, and only tolerated blacks as long as they could be used as a propaganda handle to expose the hypocritical democracy of the capitalists. See the book Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by black machinist Robert Robinson, who went to Russia to help set up machine tooling and training during the 1930s and got trapped there. The regime benefited from his technical expertise and he quickly became a symbol of minorities oppressed by the capitalists when 2 white American workers assaulted him. But once political turmoil and purges made foreign experts suspect and WW2 started, the regime got his US passport. His propaganda usefulness faded and he endured daily racism. This same pattern of racism continued into the 1960s as African students to "fraternal universities" found out, and with the end of the Soviet Union, white Russian racism is alive and well, and notorious.

    Time and time again prior to WW2 Communist party operatives tried to recruit US blacks alongside white workers and failed to gain widespread traction over the race issue, despite antiracist agitation. Time and time again internationalist projects on racism turned out to be little noticed conferences, or just lip service- additional propaganda levers deployed in the interests of the Kremlin, though within NATIONAL minority communities some genuine leaders and groups emerged- the Pan Africanists for example, but they had trivial impact. In short, internationalist anti-racism was a shaky or minor force during Hitler's rise to power.

    Hitler quote:


    It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932
     
    The Fuehrer was wrong of course, and his lying propaganda is well known. The "entire international body of thought today" was not antiracism. As detailed above, internationalist antiracism was a minor player at best, and anthropology that seriously questioned the existence of races or alleged "racial" differences (emotional Mediterraneans versus rational Germans etc and so on) only gained substantial traction after WW2. Even the Soviets were racist, and suppressed their own non-white minority populations, such as ethnically-​directed campaigns of terror were employed under Stalin, most brutally in the mass deportation of Chechens and Ingush in 1944.


    -------------------------------------------------

    Interestingly enough, during WW2, German propaganda attacked the US for hypocritical democracy, based on its treatment of blacks. Below is the text of a German propaganda leaflet addressed to blacks.


    ALL MEN
    are created free and equal
    Yes, that is what the declaration of Independence says.
    Well, it's just Ballyhoo, always was. The white bosses want your peace-loving, hard-working colored boys just as
    CANNON FODDER
    In World War I they promised your father's racial equality as a reward for fighting the war.
    What did they get? What did you get?
    The lousiest jobs.
    The lousiest flats.
    The lousiest pay.
    The lousiest chances.
    Poverty, Unemployment, Race, Riots, Lynching, Hanging and Burning!
    and
    The general contempt of all Whites in the U.S.A.
    RICH (WHITE) MAN'S WAR
    POOR (COLORED) MAN'S FIGHT
    (--When Jim Crow met John Bull: Black American soldiers in World War II Britain, by Graham Smith)

     

    When it suited them, the Nazis could play the "antiracism" card pretty well. The overall thrust of many such messages is that the United States is hypocritical in complaining about Nazi treatment of the Jews, given what it does to American Blacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You know, it is really unbelievable that it was possible to preach this insanity of internationalism to millions of people and people believed in this idea; incredible that the Jew who has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a Jew, has managed to persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and yet for him race is all-important. What would that really mean,—that race does not matter? That would mean that if today I was to remove the Germans from here and take them to Central Africa and brought the Negro here, things would look the same as if the Germans were here.—Adolf Hitler, 1927

    First, a people has intrinsic value in its race. That is the primal value. A people that has the best blood but does not understand it, squandering it, receives no protection from its intrinsic value. And the purity of blood means nothing if the nation can be persuaded of the absurdity that its blood is worthless. Such a deepest value can be present, but not recognized. Individual people today are placed in large groups that no longer enable them to see this value. To the contrary, their program almost claims that there is no value in blood. They see race as completely insignificant.—Adolf Hitler, 1927

    Hitler seemed to think the anti-racist falsehood of the unimportance of race was extant in 1927. One might say that Nazism was partly a reaction to, and caused by, anti-racism. Nazi anti-semitism likewise to the (percieved) Jewish role in anti-racism.

    Furthermore, being against slavery and the maltreatment of other races no more inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, than being against the maltreatment of animals inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think men are more intelligent than pigs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @n/a
    It's an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism "out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture".

    Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.

    No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously at a deeper level, Boas wished to target "anti-semitism").

    As I replied to someone who picked this line up from you last time you tried peddling it: It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in the 1890s to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. The important thing is the direction in which [Boas] differed from his contemporaries and his motivations for taking the stances he did. And, as Frost acknowledges, Boas's race-denialism grew more extreme over time. The continuation of this trend among his students after his death hardly gainsays the fundamental influence of Boas on the school of anthropology he founded.

    Nor is there any indication Boas was eager to assimilate into American culture. According to Boas himself: "The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force". Beyond his identity as a Jew, he continued to identify with Germany at least through World War I, writing letters to the editor that were hardly calculated to endear him to Americans and banning a returning soldier in uniform from his classroom.

    After Boas retired, Columbia administrators appointed an outsider as his replacement: "Linton's appointment was a deliberate attempt to counteract the influence of Boas and his students in the department, who were seen by the conservative [Columbia president] Nicholas Murray Butler as dangerous radicals."

    As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington
     
    There are three people generally credited as the initial instigators of the NAACP. One Northeasterner (the one you decided to pick), one Southerner, and one Jew.

    If the figurehead for a movement wasn’t born, the macrohistorical forces (capitalism, liberalism, feminism, etc.) would just elevate somebody else instead.

    The 1960s and 70s would have happened even without figureheads like Bob Dylan because there were plenty of other people with the temperaments of John Lennon, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Ted Turner.

    re:

    The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force”. Beyond his identity as a Jew…

    Identifying with the revolution of 1848 has nothing to do with Jews, and neither did Boas’ defenses of German composers during WW1:

    “During the powerful anti-German backlash brought on by World War I, Boas spoke out against the banning of German culture and language. He argued that is was irrational to ban the playing of Bach, for example, simply because one hated the Kaiser.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Enrique Cardova
    Peter says:
    In its modern form, however, it is a much more recent development, particularly in its special focus on relations between whites and blacks and its emphasis on discrimination as the cause of any mental or behavioral differences.
    Only partially true. In Boas' time, anti-racists often noted that poor black education, health, nutrition etc would cause mental or behavioral differences. They still do today. No one believes that discrimination is the ONLY factor in differences..


    By the 1920s, it really held sway only in the Northeast, and even there it was losing ground.
    True enough.


    Yet this was the old Boas, a man already in his seventies. The younger Boas had thought differently, as seen in an 1894 speech he gave on “Human Faculty as Determined by Race”:
    True enough, but the older Boas in 1930 had more knowledge and a wider dataset than the younger Boas. In short, Boas found that much of the science of 1894 on "race" was shaky. The simplistic "skull" comparisons show this pattern. But even in 1894, before he went into liberal venues, one can see Boas eschewed the sweeping racialist claims of many in his day. Note what he says in 1894- Quote:


    "But does this anatomical difference prove that their mental capacity is lower than that of the white? The probability that this may be the case is suggested by the anatomical facts, but they by themselves are no proof that such is the case. "

    and

    While we have no right to consider one more ape-like than the other, the differences are such that some have probably greater mental vigor than others. The variations are, however, such that we may expect many individuals of all races to be equally gifted, while the number of men and women of higher ability will differ.

    In short, even back in 1894, Boas refused to subscribe to sweeping racialist or racist theories common in scientific circles. He was no flaming integrationist liberal as you correctly note, but he somewhat qualifies his statements even back in 1894- quite a difference from more racialist contemporaries.



    After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and began to express his views on race accordingly. The onset of this change is visible in 1905, when he penned an article for the first issue of The Crisis, the organ of the NAACP: “The Negro and the Demands of Modern Life.” While pointing out that the average negro brain was “smaller than that of other races” and that it was “plausible that certain differences of form of brain exist,” he cautioned:

    Again true, but aside from whatever liberalism he may have been influenced by, the expanding reams of knowledge that he acquired showed that the old racial science was dubious on several counts. It could be equally said that it was hard data that changed his mind primarily not liberalism. And even back in 1894, he refused to subscribe wholesale to the prevailing wisdom the the field.


    The same year, he wrote to a colleague, stressing “the desirability of collecting more definite information in relation to certain traits of the Negro race that seem of fundamental importance in determining the policy to be pursued towards that race”
    Sure. He found that merely repeating the talking points of previous decades was inadequate. He needed more credible data and he had to move beyond the old just so stories and skewed racial models of the past to do so.


    His tone was less even-handed in a private letter, written the same year:
    'You may be aware that in my opinion the assumption seems justifiable that on the average the mental capacity of the negro may be a little less than that of the white, but that the capacities of the bulk of both races are on the same level.'

    One can see how more credible data was changing his thinking. This is well beyond the simplistic "race skull" models he touted in 1894.



    From 1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race, but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century.
    This is reasonable enough, but the flip side too is that better, more credible data influenced the change in his scholarship. By 1930, the old sweeping assumptions about "race" were increasingly questioned on scientific grounds. The Nazi excrescence certainly accelerated a trend away from racist models of the past, but so did better data, and better models. But its more than race. Boas was also questioning certain verities in the anthropology of his day, such as neat theories of uniform cultural continuity.

    I grant you that around 1900 race science was crude and in its popularized variant often simply wrong. And nobody would hold it against Boas that he stressed for example the way how body development was influenced by better nutrition.
    On the other hand, genetics became more and more refined and so became popular race literature – at least in Germany. But, as will be usual in political fights, the German point of view was wilfully misrepresented by its opponents. Boas may have been part of that wilful misrepresentation or may have fallen victim to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    I would say that Germany had a mix of views. Certainly one can find the hard core racists and anti-Semites, some a mix in the middle, but Germany also had a distinct liberal tradition. The relentless Soviet propaganda assaults against all Western democracies from the end of WW1 did not bode well for that liberal tradition, admittedly, nor did the threat from the right. See for example Liberalism in Germany by Dieter Langewiesche 2000. An exclusive "German" position on these matters may be stereotyped extremes. It may be possible that Boas and his followers traded at times in some unfair stereotyping

    And everybody beats up on Germany for racism, often justifiable so. But much less known is how racist Russians are, and have been since Soviet times. Brutal suppression of Crimean Tartars, Uzbeks, Chechens and Ingush never got, and still don't get much press from the "politically correct" set. Why haven't they jumped on this, rather than perennially bashing Germans? Could it be that certain forces want an eternal German whipping boy? I am not forgetting a horrible German history but where are the legions of anti-racist indignation when the scene moves further East? This racism continues unbroken since the fall of the Kremlin bosses. Behavior is much more civilized in Nordic Germany these days on may counts. People may not like you but they are relatively polite and decent. No so further east on many counts. See for example how one American reporter learned the hard way:

    http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/rus/f05/rus251-01/Scanned_RUS_251/Lee_Black_Among_Reds.pdf

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chiron
    "Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. "

    Can you expand this? Many scholars say that racism didn't exist in antiquity and is a invention of the 19th century.

    Anon says:
    I think the culture war over race started with the immigration battles in the 1920s.
    Quite dubious. Culture wars over race were in place from the early decades of American history.

    RW says:
    It’s also nice to see how the history of the development of Franz Boas’s ideas on race confirm that racism is a social construct and race is a biological reality.
    Actually many of those who trained under Boas were influential in developing the idea that race is NOT a biological reality. An Boas himself said:

    “The traits of American Negroes are adequately explained on the basis of his history and social status. The tearing away from the African soil and the consequent complete loss of all standards of life, which were replaced by the dependency of slavery and by all that it entailed, followed by a period of disorganization and by severe economic struggle against heavy odds, are sufficient to explain the inferiority of the status of the race, without falling back upon the theory of hereditary inferiority.”
    –Boas 1938.

    .
    ZeusVsTyphon says:
    “Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. ”

    Christianity was established on a basis incorporating elements of equality and non-racism. “There is neither Jew or gentile” as the well known verse goes and so on. Salvation is open to all- black, white, whatever. You get no special place before God because you are white. Indeed one of the earliest non-Jewish converts to Christianity was black, the Kushite or Sudanic chariot rider in Acts 8. In fact, this is one reason Christianity has been so often disliked by many Jews- it denies them their special place before God. Under Christianity, they are nobody special, and have to obtain salvation and redemption through Christ under the Christian doctrine, just like everyone else. This has occasioned a certain jealously against the goyim- who have been brought into the universal blessing. Indeed the Apostle Paul specifically refers to Jewish jealously in Romans 10 and 11, and even quotes Moses to this effect. Acts 17 also specifically refers to Jewish envy and jealously leading to attacks against Christians by Jews.

    Of course some Jews have co-existed peacefully, and there are plenty of other reasons for conflict- like anti-Semitic killings for example. Christian practitioners of course have failed often and miserably in following the teachings of their faith as far as prejudice, but that does not alter the fact that the principles stand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RW
    Henrique, that is a 1938 quote. My point is exactly that. Boas changed his tune towards the end of his life, thereby creating the possibility for the absurd hypothesis that race is a social construct, exclusively,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @n/a
    It's an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism "out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture".

    Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.

    No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously at a deeper level, Boas wished to target "anti-semitism").

    As I replied to someone who picked this line up from you last time you tried peddling it: It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in the 1890s to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. The important thing is the direction in which [Boas] differed from his contemporaries and his motivations for taking the stances he did. And, as Frost acknowledges, Boas's race-denialism grew more extreme over time. The continuation of this trend among his students after his death hardly gainsays the fundamental influence of Boas on the school of anthropology he founded.

    Nor is there any indication Boas was eager to assimilate into American culture. According to Boas himself: "The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force". Beyond his identity as a Jew, he continued to identify with Germany at least through World War I, writing letters to the editor that were hardly calculated to endear him to Americans and banning a returning soldier in uniform from his classroom.

    After Boas retired, Columbia administrators appointed an outsider as his replacement: "Linton's appointment was a deliberate attempt to counteract the influence of Boas and his students in the department, who were seen by the conservative [Columbia president] Nicholas Murray Butler as dangerous radicals."

    As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington
     
    There are three people generally credited as the initial instigators of the NAACP. One Northeasterner (the one you decided to pick), one Southerner, and one Jew.

    It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.
    Whis is it “outrageous”? As Peter points out, there is a distinct liberal strain in northeastern WASP culture. Jews linked on with this to advance liberal causes, including civil rights and anti-racism. This does not deny the fact that Jews also linked on to pursue their own agendas as well. If laws or court decisions struck down racist or discriminatory practices against blacks, Jews could also benefit as well. And linking on with northeastern liberalism was itself one method or format of assimilation. What else were Jews gonna link on to- Jim Crow or lynch-law boosterism?

    No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement
    Sure, and Boas made no such denial though he was skeptical of many sweeping racialist claims. And no path to social advancement is ever quick. But linking on with a liberal tradition gave Jews an alternative model for advancement in America. America has always by the way had that tradition, variously expressed in various eras. It is as much American, as say the frontier tradition. Abolitionists for example while a mixed lot, form part of that overall AMERICAN tradition.

    There are three people generally credited as the initial instigators of the NAACP. One Northeasterner (the one you decided to pick), one Southerner, and one Jew.
    Inaccurate. Actually you forgot about influential black figures such as WEB Dubois, and hard-nosed civil rights crusader Ida Wells-Barnett.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter says:
    In its modern form, however, it is a much more recent development, particularly in its special focus on relations between whites and blacks and its emphasis on discrimination as the cause of any mental or behavioral differences.
    Only partially true. In Boas’ time, anti-racists often noted that poor black education, health, nutrition etc would cause mental or behavioral differences. They still do today. No one believes that discrimination is the ONLY factor in differences..

    By the 1920s, it really held sway only in the Northeast, and even there it was losing ground.
    True enough.

    Yet this was the old Boas, a man already in his seventies. The younger Boas had thought differently, as seen in an 1894 speech he gave on “Human Faculty as Determined by Race”:
    True enough, but the older Boas in 1930 had more knowledge and a wider dataset than the younger Boas. In short, Boas found that much of the science of 1894 on “race” was shaky. The simplistic “skull” comparisons show this pattern. But even in 1894, before he went into liberal venues, one can see Boas eschewed the sweeping racialist claims of many in his day. Note what he says in 1894- Quote:

    “But does this anatomical difference prove that their mental capacity is lower than that of the white? The probability that this may be the case is suggested by the anatomical facts, but they by themselves are no proof that such is the case. ”

    and

    While we have no right to consider one more ape-like than the other, the differences are such that some have probably greater mental vigor than others. The variations are, however, such that we may expect many individuals of all races to be equally gifted, while the number of men and women of higher ability will differ.

    In short, even back in 1894, Boas refused to subscribe to sweeping racialist or racist theories common in scientific circles. He was no flaming integrationist liberal as you correctly note, but he somewhat qualifies his statements even back in 1894- quite a difference from more racialist contemporaries.

    After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and began to express his views on race accordingly. The onset of this change is visible in 1905, when he penned an article for the first issue of The Crisis, the organ of the NAACP: “The Negro and the Demands of Modern Life.” While pointing out that the average negro brain was “smaller than that of other races” and that it was “plausible that certain differences of form of brain exist,” he cautioned:

    Again true, but aside from whatever liberalism he may have been influenced by, the expanding reams of knowledge that he acquired showed that the old racial science was dubious on several counts. It could be equally said that it was hard data that changed his mind primarily not liberalism. And even back in 1894, he refused to subscribe wholesale to the prevailing wisdom the the field.

    The same year, he wrote to a colleague, stressing “the desirability of collecting more definite information in relation to certain traits of the Negro race that seem of fundamental importance in determining the policy to be pursued towards that race”
    Sure. He found that merely repeating the talking points of previous decades was inadequate. He needed more credible data and he had to move beyond the old just so stories and skewed racial models of the past to do so.

    His tone was less even-handed in a private letter, written the same year:
    ‘You may be aware that in my opinion the assumption seems justifiable that on the average the mental capacity of the negro may be a little less than that of the white, but that the capacities of the bulk of both races are on the same level.’

    One can see how more credible data was changing his thinking. This is well beyond the simplistic “race skull” models he touted in 1894.

    From 1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race, but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century.
    This is reasonable enough, but the flip side too is that better, more credible data influenced the change in his scholarship. By 1930, the old sweeping assumptions about “race” were increasingly questioned on scientific grounds. The Nazi excrescence certainly accelerated a trend away from racist models of the past, but so did better data, and better models. But its more than race. Boas was also questioning certain verities in the anthropology of his day, such as neat theories of uniform cultural continuity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stogumber
    I grant you that around 1900 race science was crude and in its popularized variant often simply wrong. And nobody would hold it against Boas that he stressed for example the way how body development was influenced by better nutrition.
    On the other hand, genetics became more and more refined and so became popular race literature - at least in Germany. But, as will be usual in political fights, the German point of view was wilfully misrepresented by its opponents. Boas may have been part of that wilful misrepresentation or may have fallen victim to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oy vay, enough with the Khazars already!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Per Greg Cochran the genetic evidence shows that the Khazar hypothesis not true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • FRANK BOAS WAS JEWISH—THE CAUSE OF HIS MENTAL ILLNESS.

    The one best way to make sense of the anti-white hate of Judaists like Boas is to realize that they are mentally ill. And here is the powerful proof.

    Hatred for mankind, culture, their own white race and other antisocial and criminal traits are common amongst Judaists. This is because they are taught from childhood the Torah (Old Testament) and Talmud by their parents and rabbis, which books state that they are “Jews”, descendants of Middle Eastern/African Torah patriarchs like Abraham (who was a p*mp and sold his own wife Sarai as a prost*** to an African pharaoh). They worship Moshe, (anglicized to Moses) as their prophet.

    The Judaists beliefs about their identity, history and persecution are derived mainly from the Torah. These beliefs are mostly delusions because the Torah (Old Testament) is fiction, a pure myth.

    In fact, most Judaists are European Whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the middle ages. See Arthur Koestler, 13th tribe; also Dr. Schlomo Sand’s award-winning book reviewed on:

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-wandering-who-by-gilad-atzmon.html

    Also see: http://www.khazaria.com

    Also see: The Fallacy of Biological Judaism, By Robert Pollack, on:

    http://www.forward.com/articles/9406/

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html

    Hapologroup Q links Ashkenazi Jews to the Khazars:

    http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm

    Their Torah (OT) is a “forgery” (See: McCabe) and “spurious” (–Thomas Paine). That is obvious from book 1, page 1. The Earth is not 4000 years old. Cultures (unknown to the scribes) flourished much before. Written records and archeological evidence using carbon dating show man’s presence tens of thousands of years ago, probably over a 100,000 years ago. A million people cannot live in a vast desert (without water or food) in a hostile nation for 40 years—and leave no trace. Moshe, the Egyptian (and therefore black) mass murderer, never existed.

    These delusions lead Judaists like Boas to hatred of their own white race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. ”

    Can you expand this? Many scholars say that racism didn’t exist in antiquity and is a invention of the 19th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    Anon says:
    I think the culture war over race started with the immigration battles in the 1920s.
    Quite dubious. Culture wars over race were in place from the early decades of American history.


    RW says:
    It’s also nice to see how the history of the development of Franz Boas’s ideas on race confirm that racism is a social construct and race is a biological reality.
    Actually many of those who trained under Boas were influential in developing the idea that race is NOT a biological reality. An Boas himself said:

    "The traits of American Negroes are adequately explained on the basis of his history and social status. The tearing away from the African soil and the consequent complete loss of all standards of life, which were replaced by the dependency of slavery and by all that it entailed, followed by a period of disorganization and by severe economic struggle against heavy odds, are sufficient to explain the inferiority of the status of the race, without falling back upon the theory of hereditary inferiority."
    --Boas 1938.


    .
    ZeusVsTyphon says:
    “Antiracism has roots that go back to early Christianity and the assimilationist Roman and Hellenistic empires. ”

    Christianity was established on a basis incorporating elements of equality and non-racism. "There is neither Jew or gentile" as the well known verse goes and so on. Salvation is open to all- black, white, whatever. You get no special place before God because you are white. Indeed one of the earliest non-Jewish converts to Christianity was black, the Kushite or Sudanic chariot rider in Acts 8. In fact, this is one reason Christianity has been so often disliked by many Jews- it denies them their special place before God. Under Christianity, they are nobody special, and have to obtain salvation and redemption through Christ under the Christian doctrine, just like everyone else. This has occasioned a certain jealously against the goyim- who have been brought into the universal blessing. Indeed the Apostle Paul specifically refers to Jewish jealously in Romans 10 and 11, and even quotes Moses to this effect. Acts 17 also specifically refers to Jewish envy and jealously leading to attacks against Christians by Jews.

    Of course some Jews have co-existed peacefully, and there are plenty of other reasons for conflict- like anti-Semitic killings for example. Christian practitioners of course have failed often and miserably in following the teachings of their faith as far as prejudice, but that does not alter the fact that the principles stand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s also nice to see how the history of the development of Franz Boas’s ideas on race confirm that racism is a social construct and race is a biological reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s nice to see Franz Boas’s lack of consistency on this issue documented. Clears up some confusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anon • Disclaimer says:

    Boas didn’t really change his mind on race until the 1930s. The cause is not hard to pinpoint.

    I think the culture war over race started with the immigration battles in the 1920s. The law saying immigration should mirror the same percentages as the existing population blocked Jewish immigration so there was a simple conflict of interest with the nice white ladies as useful allies.

    .

    Is there an earlier arrest of mental and physical development in the Negro child, as compared with the white child

    Off-topic but I wish someone would look into how age of puberty effects this as if it could be equalized somehow not only might it reduce the gap it would lead to fewer twelve year olds getting raped at school while the nice white lady teachers cover it up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Of course, race was a much more touchy subject when it was applied within the white community, dividing “Nordics” from “Jews”. But did Boas never occupy himself with this Nordic/Jewish angle before Hitler? It had been a matter of debate since around 1890!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • n/a says: • Website

    It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.

    Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.

    No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously at a deeper level, Boas wished to target “anti-semitism”).

    As I replied to someone who picked this line up from you last time you tried peddling it: It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in the 1890s to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. The important thing is the direction in which [Boas] differed from his contemporaries and his motivations for taking the stances he did. And, as Frost acknowledges, Boas’s race-denialism grew more extreme over time. The continuation of this trend among his students after his death hardly gainsays the fundamental influence of Boas on the school of anthropology he founded.

    Nor is there any indication Boas was eager to assimilate into American culture. According to Boas himself: “The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force”. Beyond his identity as a Jew, he continued to identify with Germany at least through World War I, writing letters to the editor that were hardly calculated to endear him to Americans and banning a returning soldier in uniform from his classroom.

    After Boas retired, Columbia administrators appointed an outsider as his replacement: “Linton’s appointment was a deliberate attempt to counteract the influence of Boas and his students in the department, who were seen by the conservative [Columbia president] Nicholas Murray Butler as dangerous radicals.”

    As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington

    There are three people generally credited as the initial instigators of the NAACP. One Northeasterner (the one you decided to pick), one Southerner, and one Jew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
    It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.
    Whis is it "outrageous"? As Peter points out, there is a distinct liberal strain in northeastern WASP culture. Jews linked on with this to advance liberal causes, including civil rights and anti-racism. This does not deny the fact that Jews also linked on to pursue their own agendas as well. If laws or court decisions struck down racist or discriminatory practices against blacks, Jews could also benefit as well. And linking on with northeastern liberalism was itself one method or format of assimilation. What else were Jews gonna link on to- Jim Crow or lynch-law boosterism?


    No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement
    Sure, and Boas made no such denial though he was skeptical of many sweeping racialist claims. And no path to social advancement is ever quick. But linking on with a liberal tradition gave Jews an alternative model for advancement in America. America has always by the way had that tradition, variously expressed in various eras. It is as much American, as say the frontier tradition. Abolitionists for example while a mixed lot, form part of that overall AMERICAN tradition.


    There are three people generally credited as the initial instigators of the NAACP. One Northeasterner (the one you decided to pick), one Southerner, and one Jew.
    Inaccurate. Actually you forgot about influential black figures such as WEB Dubois, and hard-nosed civil rights crusader Ida Wells-Barnett.
    , @Southfarthing
    If the figurehead for a movement wasn't born, the macrohistorical forces (capitalism, liberalism, feminism, etc.) would just elevate somebody else instead.

    The 1960s and 70s would have happened even without figureheads like Bob Dylan because there were plenty of other people with the temperaments of John Lennon, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Ted Turner.

    re:

    The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force”. Beyond his identity as a Jew...
     
    Identifying with the revolution of 1848 has nothing to do with Jews, and neither did Boas' defenses of German composers during WW1:

    "During the powerful anti-German backlash brought on by World War I, Boas spoke out against the banning of German culture and language. He argued that is was irrational to ban the playing of Bach, for example, simply because one hated the Kaiser."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Maybe he just got smarter on account of the circles he was in as time went on…

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/12/native-americans-and-race/

    …and there’s still lots of space for White people to get smart (a larger brain doesn’t necessarily indicate a judicious use of the same)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • @jtberger
    There is only one fundamental cause of all 4 of the above....and none have much to do with capitalism. In a word it is Marxism. they won the war and we all now believe what we are told....regardless of how much it conflicts with the real world.
    Regardless of our ability to shape our environments.... we still are, and for some time at least will be , prisoners of our genes. In the past humans were also regulated by natural selection. But such is no longer the case. Now the most intelligent members of society spend much of their time and money assisting the least capable members of the human race.... all over the world.
    No one can deny that with each passing day the average IQ of the general population is declining.
    there has always been a huge positive correlation between the upper classes and intelligence. This very concept is a fundamental enemy of Marxism. The idea that most of what we are has been determined by the environment rather than our genes has come to permeate and pervade every facet of our social beliefs. the Bolshevics had the idea that they could by changing society change human nature and make the "communist man". Those follies are still very much alive and well in the world today. Only the Moslems have resisted. could it be that they might inherit the world of tomorrow. Their beliefs certainly have much more in common with those of our ancestors ( 2 and 3 hundred years ago ) than we do today.
    A very famous man once said.... The primary task of the politician is to bring all human activity into accord with the laws of nature. Mein Kampf ... Murphy translation March 1939. You won't find it in the fraudulent Mannheim edition brought out in 1943 by the USA as part of the war propaganda effort. ... the one found in every library and bookstore.

    If Marx hadn’t written his book, societies would still have needed to find the right balance between capital and labor as capitalism increasingly took over from feudalism. Scandinavians and New England liberals like Ruth Benedict would still have socialist concern for the poor, just as Christians had helped the poor for centuries before. Even ancient Rome had workers’ rights legislation.

    Similarly, the idea of “racism” is said to have been created by Trotsky, but it was created long before by Christians when dealing with Native Americans and British colonialism.

    Muslim nations have low academic scores even when wealthy. That’s the inverse of NE Asian nations, which have high academic scores even when poor. 2 and 3 hundred years ago, Europe was the global center of enlightenment and science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • he problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

    Frost actually argues against some of this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The next year Ruth Benedict wrote Race: Science and Politics to show that racism was more than a Nazi aberration, being in fact an ingrained feature of American life. Both of them saw the coming European conflict as part of a larger war. This is one reason why the war on racism did not end in 1945. <

    Agreed. In this Frost is correct. Racism did correlate with Nazism and Boas and Benedict moved to take action. It is correct to point out that Benedict correctly diagnosed racism as more than a Nazi aberration, but was in fact a common feature of white America. In fact, some German propaganda during WW2 specifically charged Americans with hypocrisy for being anti-nazi, noting that the brutalities of white Jim Crow were not that far off from their own anti-jewish action. Germans were just more efficient and open about it- and willing to bring racism to its logical conclusion- liquidation of the targeted "Other."

    She argued that such behavioral traits cannot be innate, since they assume different patterns in different human populations and in different time periods of a single population.
    Benedict is correct here because she was aware that the notion of “innate” characteristics could be reverse applied to white people. Indeed the Allied refrain against Germans as special brute beasts of cruelty and violence could well be applied to whites in general- Exhibit A being Nazism, but also lesser manifestations like racist American violence and practices.

    Middletown is a typical example of our usual urban fear of seeming in however slight an act different from our neighbours. Eccentricity is more feared than parasitism. Every sacrifice of time and tranquillity is made in order that no one in the family may have any taint of nonconformity attached to him. Children in school make their great tragedies out of not wearing a certain kind of stockings, not joining a certain dancing-class, not driving a certain car. The fear of being different is the dominating motivation recorded in Middletown. (Benedict, 1989, p. 273)

    In this Benedict is correct- and it has nothing to do with “political correctness.” Long before “political correctness” became in vogue “Middleton” was often seen as conformist, falling in line with the dictates of government leaders. William Whyte’s famous “Organization Man” (1956) argued against this stifling conformism long before political correctness gained ascendancy. Likewise white feminists like Bella Abzug filled pages with complaints against the conformity and me-tooism of white middle class life. Such critiques were already in place long before Civil Rights became popular or liberal college professors gained power. In short, Middletown has had issues with conformity long BEFORE PC campus police gained their high profile, or “the liberal media” supposedly rode triumphant.

    natural selection tends to hardwire any recurring behavioral response.
    Agreed in part, but it is also true that a particular behavioral response may have little to do with natural selection.

    Middletown America is no more tolerant today than it was in her time. Americans are simply obeying a new set of rules, whose first commandment is now “Thou shalt not be intolerant.” People are still fearful of being different from their neighbours. It’s just that the fears have another basis. People are still insulted for being different.

    Actually Middletown America is much more tolerant than in the past, when you could be physically assaulted or murdered for being the wrong color in the wrong place, or were denied business licenses by Irish political machines that controlled such licenses. In many ways, white America has cleaned up some negatives. The rules of political correctness are primarily in force in certain political correct venues like college campuses and were designed and enforced by high IQ white liberals. Middletown is rolling along quite nicely. Whites have learned to suppress their worse OPEN racism, but that does not mean they no longer dislike blacks and other minorities. Some Whites today are just LESS OPEN about it.

    To say an individual is “racist” is to stigmatize him, to assign him to a heinous category, and to abuse him verbally [...] The “racist” individual is thus expelled from the realm of common humanity and excluded from the circle of humans who are deemed respectable by virtue of their intrinsic worth. Through a symbolic act that antiracist sociologists denounce as a way of “racializing” the Other, the “racist” is in turn and in return categorized as an “unworthy” being, indeed as an “unworthy” being par excellence. For, as people say, what can be worse than racism?

    Overstated by Taguieff. While the club of “racism” has been used by high IQ white liberals to enforce a version of conformity in certain venues where they hold power, the impact of a charge of “racism” is less than earth-shattering. For one thing it often translates into mere rhetoric. Argue with someone, call them “racist”. Big deal. Al Sharpton’s charges of “racism” in various incidents has hardly reduced white America to frightened children cowering at the sound of the word. In fact, white America has not at all been “muzzled” by charges of racism. There is a massive torrent of books, articles, media, web content etc that shows quite the opposite, and this is nothing new. Back in the Reagan era there was a torrent of books, articles, popular talk show hosts like Limbaugh and conservative think tanks railing against liberalism and political correctness. Today that torrenthas expanded especially on the web. Far from being fearful white America has aggressively confronted charges of racism and accusers.

    Ruth Benedict saw Middletown as a difficult case, particularly its extreme guilt culture, and she drew on the language of education and psychotherapy to frame this difficulty in terms of long-term treatment
    Indeed but Middletown’s “extreme guilt culture” is not the product of anti-racism but such things as the conformism and me-tooism so prevalent during Ww2, and white religious traditions that promoted a deep culture of guilt. Such patterns were ALREADY in place before the significant rise of civil rights, political correctness, etc.

    By the time of her death in 1948, Boasian anthropology had become fully mobilized for the war on racism. This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

    This is debatable. Boaist anthropology never really engaged in a “war on racism.” Yes there were strong anti-racist elements but this does not constitute a war. What is missing here is the fact that the added data access after WW2 exposed numerous dubious, distorted and falsified constructs in anthropology like the dubious “racial” schemata of Carelton Coons. Tings like the “Hamitic Hypothsis”, or the artificial pigeonholing of complex data into simplistic “race models” and narratives simply could not stand up to critical scrutiny. Such scrutiny expanded after WW2. This is one of the primary reasons Boasim also expanded. It is not simply a matter of “political correctness” – that catchall explanation used by many. This is itself a simplistic meme that obscures the rickety nature of long accepted truths and methodologies in anthropology, whether it be alleged “wandering Caucasoids” sweeping into Africa to allegedly bring the natives civilization (See numerous critiques by well known anthropologist CL Brace) or attempting to bash complex archaeological and anthropological data into shaky and ever multiplying race categories. By the end of WW2, a lot of asserted “truths” were exposed as mere assertions resting on shaky methodology and assumptions.

    This mobilization had begun in response to the rise of Nazi Germany but was soon extended to a much larger enemy that included America itself, as seen in the increasingly radical meanings of “racism” and “tolerance.”

    This is partially true as regards radical high IQ whites in certain PC venues where they hold power. But there was never any mobilization against America itself. In fact white America gained handsomely from the increased postwar calls for more racial tolerance. For one, as credible scholars show, (Dudziak 2011-Cold War Civil Rights) such calls were an integral part of the US winning the Cold War against stinging Soviet propaganda thrusts on America’s racial hypocrisy- purporting to be fighting for democracy abroad, when it refused to guarantee democracy at home for those citizens who happened to be black. This is why even conservatives like Ike ordered his Little Rock Desegregation actions and other civil rights measures of his admin to be broadcast in numerous languages on Voice Of America and other international PR organs. Ike took such pains with a mere internal American matter in response to often accurate Soviet reports of American hypocrisy, demonstrating that white America was attempting to clean up its own house. I

    Likewise the administration of Kennedy was repeatedly embarrassed by racist white realtors, restaurant owners, hotel proprietors who pushed around Third World diplomats when they attempted to do normal business in the self-styled leader of the “Free World.” President Kennedy himself made a personal appeal to Maryland civic leaders to cease and desist from segregation and other racist practices in motels, hotels and restaurants to bring an end to ugly diplomatic incidents with representatives of countries where military and economic concessions were sought (Klarman 1994). In short white America moved to clean up some of its act out of self-interest.

    White America also benefited psychologically by the concealment of its dirty linen. Middletown or white America always wants to look good, to not be seen as the open, snarling racist beast that was white Nazism. Minimal effort on civil rights (how big of a concession was it to let some black guy eat a hamburger 2 tables down?) demonstrated “something was being done” but as Ike himself pointed out- such actions would not affect “the hearts of minds” of white people. Ike was right in part. white America’s “hearts and minds” may be far from changed. It had to clean up certain OPEN abuses to maintain its self-image of virtue, but deep down old hatreds remain. Benedict seemed to understand this when she spoke of “the psychopathic tragedies in America.”

    What Benedict failed to forsee or forecast, is that much of White America, or Middletown (there are exceptions) would become good or increasingly skilled at covering its racism, and would still pursue racist outcomes using what appeared to be neutral non-racist methods. Thus real estate agents for decades no longer posted openly racist ads, but would quietly steer “undesirable” minorities to lesser property. White city councils would no longer send forth police to attack negroes who failed to leave “sundown towns” at night, but became more sophisticated- keeping them out by a subtle web of zoning controls and regulations that reduced the supply of housing (minimum lot sizes, rent controls etc). Conservative libertarians like Thomas Sowell and Walter WIlliams have long pointed out such patters and their works are studded with examples. Benedict called for education to overcome ingrained white prejudices. She failed to forecast that a day would come when whites themselves would enthusiastically call for education- using it as self-serving cover to benefit themselves. Hence mostly white teachers unions retain an iron grip on urban education- white people get paid in the name of “education” and “social justice.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Southfarthing
    Right. Wealthy countries in the Middle East don't seem to feel guilty about treating their migrant workers like slaves.

    Maybe the 4 top causes of the rise of multi-culturalism would be:

    1. The predisposition to guilt cultures.

    2. The reaction to Nazism.

    3. Gender equality: Women entering the workforce in WW2 combined with birth control liberalizing social mores accelerated the rise of women's influence, pushing the average temperament to the left.

    4. Inevitable globalism: Advances in shipping and communications technology made the world a smaller place. Racialism was an impediment to capitalism. Capitalists are still pushing for open borders today.

    There is only one fundamental cause of all 4 of the above….and none have much to do with capitalism. In a word it is Marxism. they won the war and we all now believe what we are told….regardless of how much it conflicts with the real world.
    Regardless of our ability to shape our environments…. we still are, and for some time at least will be , prisoners of our genes. In the past humans were also regulated by natural selection. But such is no longer the case. Now the most intelligent members of society spend much of their time and money assisting the least capable members of the human race…. all over the world.
    No one can deny that with each passing day the average IQ of the general population is declining.
    there has always been a huge positive correlation between the upper classes and intelligence. This very concept is a fundamental enemy of Marxism. The idea that most of what we are has been determined by the environment rather than our genes has come to permeate and pervade every facet of our social beliefs. the Bolshevics had the idea that they could by changing society change human nature and make the “communist man”. Those follies are still very much alive and well in the world today. Only the Moslems have resisted. could it be that they might inherit the world of tomorrow. Their beliefs certainly have much more in common with those of our ancestors ( 2 and 3 hundred years ago ) than we do today.
    A very famous man once said…. The primary task of the politician is to bring all human activity into accord with the laws of nature. Mein Kampf … Murphy translation March 1939. You won’t find it in the fraudulent Mannheim edition brought out in 1943 by the USA as part of the war propaganda effort. … the one found in every library and bookstore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    If Marx hadn't written his book, societies would still have needed to find the right balance between capital and labor as capitalism increasingly took over from feudalism. Scandinavians and New England liberals like Ruth Benedict would still have socialist concern for the poor, just as Christians had helped the poor for centuries before. Even ancient Rome had workers' rights legislation.

    Similarly, the idea of "racism" is said to have been created by Trotsky, but it was created long before by Christians when dealing with Native Americans and British colonialism.

    Muslim nations have low academic scores even when wealthy. That's the inverse of NE Asian nations, which have high academic scores even when poor. 2 and 3 hundred years ago, Europe was the global center of enlightenment and science.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ww2 was a fight between the Marxists and the defenders of Western civilization.
    And the Marxists won…..simple as that.
    We in the West adopted the moderate wing of Marxism called Social Democracy. We have all become social Marxists…. having rejected only the more extreme forms of economic Marxism.
    Even a quick over view of the literature pertaining to the heritability of intelligence will quickly reveal that all of the main opponents of the heritability position are all Marxists. ….and interestingly almost all non Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • @Sean
    Not a single major Jewish thinker (Trotsky, Benjamin ect) thought Fascism stemmed from a biological hypothesis.

    Sean, before WWII the Left was hardly in a position to call the right racist. Western libs were as racist as the 19th century Imperialist right. Marx and Engels were racist. Woodrow Wilson expressed admiration for Birth of a Nation. JBS Haldane was both a Marxist and chair of the British Eugenics Society; the most poweful such society of its time. Another Chairman, Sir Julian Huxley (yes, a relation of Aldous) was a Fabian Socialist. Lord Keynes* never repented his eugenics stance even after WWII.

    As for Fascism, while Hitler’s wars of agression were undeniably motivated by his extreme German racial supremacism, the same can’t be said of other Fascist camps. Franco and Salazar were royalist sympathisers trying to hold back populist anger against aristocracy that followed the catastrophe of 1914-1918. Austro-Fascists were backed by industrialists. Pre-war Poland was a simple military dictatorship.

    @ Peter Frost

    As pointed out to Sean, there were many hereditarian liberals before the war. But there was a minority of environmentalists prior to WWII, though their strength and size varied from nation to nation. The hard socialist left of Eastern Europe never seriously believed in nurturism. Their Cold War statements otherwise were attempts to ingratiate themselves to potential client states. Nurturism has been a phenomena of the Western left.

    In the West and before anyone in power knew Hitler existed, America’s nurturists were more evenly matched against hereditarian liberals than Britain where British hereditarians faced weaker liberal blank slate opponents. Opponents there tended to argue eugenics was immoral, not that man could be conditioned to have equal abilities.

    But the BES was still back tracking from Hitler even before he could invade Poland. So it seems that Hitler was the overwhelming cause of the Western establishment’s abandonement of any healthy understanding of human differences in ability.

    The warped type of Boasian anthro that followed, the already warped Behaviorist psychology of Watson and, later, BF Skinner, as well other blank slatists such as John Dewey and Lester Frank Ward served the role of court astrologers telling the establishment what they wanted to hear but which was obviously untrue (‘Zero average human differences in ability’) and to provide an implausible cover story for the social engineering that was to come to the public.

    * I again strongly reccommend Kevles’ book to both of you. Not only is it an excellent account of the rise and fall of the British Eugenics Society, it also provides other tidbits such as early black Civil Rights sympathy for eugenics as a way to help blacks catch up with whites. If you want to jump ahead and get to the section on the BES, I suggest reading pages 160-180 and then going through the whole book.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Trotsky, Dialectical Materialism and Science (1925): “The German physiologist, Du Bois Reymond once envisaged philosophic thought as departing from the scene of the class struggle and crying out: “Ignorabimus!” That is, we shall never know, we shall never understand! And scientific thought, linking its fate with the fate of the rising class, replies,

    “You lie! The impenetrable does not exist for conscious thought! We will reach everything! We will master everything! We will rebuild everything!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean,

    Fascinating quote from Trotsky. It really wasn’t until the mid-1930s that the Left identified itself with rejection of genetic determinism.

    Undiscovered Jew,

    I agree. The change seems to have begun in the mid-1930s. I arbitrarily place it between 1935 and 1945, although signs of it are apparent as early as 1933, when the Nazis first came to power in Germany. During most of this period, the term “racism” was tightly associated with Nazism, being usually synonymous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • Ruth Benedict was not alone in believing that cultural evolution had replaced genetic evolution in our species. In a sense, this view had become inevitable with the collapse of hereditarian thinking in the 1935-1945 period. Moreover, by the mid-1800s genetic evolution had come to a standstill (or had even begun to go into reverse) at the very time when cultural change was increasing exponentially. People fell into the view that cultural evolution had always outpaced genetic evolution and always will.

    Benedict was influenced by German authors, either directly through her own readings or indirectly through Boas. In fact, cultural relativism was a German idea (which arose among conservative nationalist Germans in reaction to the universalism of the French revolution). In general, German authors had considerable influence in American academia before the Second World War.

    I agree with your final point. Today, we associate environmental determinism with the Left and genetic determinism with the Right. This wasn’t always the case, and even today it isn’t everywhere the case. Many conservative traditionalists tend to focus on environmental determinism because they take genetic determinism for granted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • From a German point of view:
    Benedict was read by some ethnologists in the thirties, but mostly from the late fifties to the seventies.

    She never was seen as a political and a controversial author, unlike Margaret Mead. (Germans hat no ideas about the soul of the Japanese, neither positive nor negative.)

    German reviewers saw her in fact as a follower of the German tradition – a tradition which had started with Johann Gottfried Herder and had its most actual representant in Leo Frobenius (then the leading German ethnologist w.r.t to Africa). In this tradition cultures were seen as holistic beings and identified with “the soul of a people”. Also, cultures were treated as of equal value.

    Some reviewers believed that Benedict was influenced by those German authors – I don’t know if that’s right.

    The nature-nurture problem was, in fact, no problem in Germany at that time. Just the conservative biologists and anthropologists (Portmann, Gehlen) had emphasized that man distinguished himself from animals by his lack of innate “instincts”, and that man had compensated this lack by inventing “institutions”. So the central point of debate in after-war-Germany was the importance of human “institutions”- which were fiercely attacked by Adorno and fiercely defended by Gehlen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • @The Undiscovered Jew
    I wouldn’t pay attention to Degler who sees intellectual revolutions everywhere,

    I read Degler's book and it agrees with the quotes provided above. He mentioned Boas wasn't an extreme nurturist. According to Degler the most radical blank slate school before WWII was Watson's behaviorist psychology.

    Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form.

    According to Daniel J. Kevles' In the Name of Eugenics the British Eugenics Society was fighting not to be associated with Nazi Germany by their opponents even before WWII started. They even tried to distance themselves from Hitler by pointing out they had a number of Jewish members.

    The entire book is available on Google Books.

    Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

    http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

    Not a single major Jewish thinker (Trotsky, Benjamin ect) thought Fascism stemmed from a biological hypothesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Undiscovered Jew
    Sean, before WWII the Left was hardly in a position to call the right racist. Western libs were as racist as the 19th century Imperialist right. Marx and Engels were racist. Woodrow Wilson expressed admiration for Birth of a Nation. JBS Haldane was both a Marxist and chair of the British Eugenics Society; the most poweful such society of its time. Another Chairman, Sir Julian Huxley (yes, a relation of Aldous) was a Fabian Socialist. Lord Keynes* never repented his eugenics stance even after WWII.

    As for Fascism, while Hitler's wars of agression were undeniably motivated by his extreme German racial supremacism, the same can't be said of other Fascist camps. Franco and Salazar were royalist sympathisers trying to hold back populist anger against aristocracy that followed the catastrophe of 1914-1918. Austro-Fascists were backed by industrialists. Pre-war Poland was a simple military dictatorship.

    @ Peter Frost

    As pointed out to Sean, there were many hereditarian liberals before the war. But there was a minority of environmentalists prior to WWII, though their strength and size varied from nation to nation. The hard socialist left of Eastern Europe never seriously believed in nurturism. Their Cold War statements otherwise were attempts to ingratiate themselves to potential client states. Nurturism has been a phenomena of the Western left.

    In the West and before anyone in power knew Hitler existed, America's nurturists were more evenly matched against hereditarian liberals than Britain where British hereditarians faced weaker liberal blank slate opponents. Opponents there tended to argue eugenics was immoral, not that man could be conditioned to have equal abilities.

    But the BES was still back tracking from Hitler even before he could invade Poland. So it seems that Hitler was the overwhelming cause of the Western establishment's abandonement of any healthy understanding of human differences in ability.

    The warped type of Boasian anthro that followed, the already warped Behaviorist psychology of Watson and, later, BF Skinner, as well other blank slatists such as John Dewey and Lester Frank Ward served the role of court astrologers telling the establishment what they wanted to hear but which was obviously untrue ('Zero average human differences in ability') and to provide an implausible cover story for the social engineering that was to come to the public.

    * I again strongly reccommend Kevles' book to both of you. Not only is it an excellent account of the rise and fall of the British Eugenics Society, it also provides other tidbits such as early black Civil Rights sympathy for eugenics as a way to help blacks catch up with whites. If you want to jump ahead and get to the section on the BES, I suggest reading pages 160-180 and then going through the whole book.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I wouldn’t pay attention to Degler who sees intellectual revolutions everywhere,

    I read Degler’s book and it agrees with the quotes provided above. He mentioned Boas wasn’t an extreme nurturist. According to Degler the most radical blank slate school before WWII was Watson’s behaviorist psychology.

    Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form.

    According to Daniel J. Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics the British Eugenics Society was fighting not to be associated with Nazi Germany by their opponents even before WWII started. They even tried to distance themselves from Hitler by pointing out they had a number of Jewish members.

    The entire book is available on Google Books.

    Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

    http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Not a single major Jewish thinker (Trotsky, Benjamin ect) thought Fascism stemmed from a biological hypothesis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • @Honest John
    In short, humans have turned the tables on evolution. Instead of being changed by their environment via natural selection, they redesign it with the tools provided by their culture. To a large degree, humans create their own environment

    Who can argue with that. Without question our intellectual prowess has overtaken our biological prowess at advancing our place in the universe. The problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

    One hundred percent for sure not everyone was included in the advancing intellectual culture. Our job is to include ever more people in that advancing culture – not separate people into biological antagonistic groups – pushing humanity backwards.

    I am the captain of my soul. Good thing too!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Who can argue with that.”

    I would. And I did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity”

    Neither is celebrated, at least not at any university I’ve seen. You’re confusing means and ends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SFG
    "The Germans are still extremely efficient despite completely altering values."

    I'd argue the Germans are still German, just a different kind of German. Remember, there were liberal and communist parties as well through 1933--the Nazis never got a majority. Of course, once they held power, nobody was going to stand up to them or they'd wind up as soap. Just like Massachusetts liberals and Alabama rednecks are both Americans--just different kinds. Any reasonably sized country contains multitudes, as Whitman would say.

    I still think Germans tend to pull together. Their current environmental policy is insanely ambitious; combining green power with getting rid of nuclear power completely. Once an idea becomes official ideology in Germany, no one will go against it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud …

    An imaginary friend, a clever fool and a guy unfortunately influential enough to retard the advancement of psychology for a few generations.

    So, no.

    Trotsky, writing in 1924:-

    That guy shoulda been kept off the streets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As such it was the approach people back then called ‘German physics’ that led the way to the atomic age and the Nazis did test nuclear warheads. I think I remember they used what we’d call ‘mini nukes’ on the Russians, though not nuclear bombs as we imagine them.

    Nonsense, wrong, incorrect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • In short, humans have turned the tables on evolution. Instead of being changed by their environment via natural selection, they redesign it with the tools provided by their culture. To a large degree, humans create their own environment

    Who can argue with that. Without question our intellectual prowess has overtaken our biological prowess at advancing our place in the universe. The problem is, what Ruth Benedict fostered, was a returned to biological prowess – she killed the intellectual golden goose that brought us this wonderful advancing culture. Her cohorts are killing the culture that has given us freedom and longer lives. What today is celebrated in Benedict’s elitist intellectual culture is biological diversity not intellectual diversity. In today’s social sciences biological diversity is studied (i.e., race, tribe, and sex) not the great Western Christian classical and philosophical ideas that got us to where we were.

    One hundred percent for sure not everyone was included in the advancing intellectual culture. Our job is to include ever more people in that advancing culture – not separate people into biological antagonistic groups – pushing humanity backwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I am the captain of my soul. Good thing too!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “The Germans are still extremely efficient despite completely altering values.”

    I’d argue the Germans are still German, just a different kind of German. Remember, there were liberal and communist parties as well through 1933–the Nazis never got a majority. Of course, once they held power, nobody was going to stand up to them or they’d wind up as soap. Just like Massachusetts liberals and Alabama rednecks are both Americans–just different kinds. Any reasonably sized country contains multitudes, as Whitman would say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I still think Germans tend to pull together. Their current environmental policy is insanely ambitious; combining green power with getting rid of nuclear power completely. Once an idea becomes official ideology in Germany, no one will go against it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • @SFG
    "Once the Nazis came into power, people became quite worried about the possibility that their statements might be used to provide cover for German racial policies."

    I've always thought it amusing that white nationalists are so fond of Hitler, when he damaged their cause worse than anyone in history. Before the Nazis, would anyone have thought it unreasonable to question whether a small ethnic group should own, say, 90% of the newspapers, and whether that might affect coverage and slant? Even if you don't attribute any nefarious characteristics to the group, if, say, 90% of newspapers were owned by the Irish, you'd wonder if Ulstermen were getting a fair shake in the news. But the last guy to say that about Jews started World War II, which is probably the largest disaster in history, and now...

    We can test the theory. If Jewish media owners were a major cause:
    1. The liberal media and academia wouldn’t be against Israel.
    2. News owned by Gentiles would be opposing rather than promoting multi-culturalism.

    I’m more concerned with liberalism in the media by people of all backgrounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On the state level, Britain and France tended to see their Empires as a source of manpower and a trump card to play against Germany. The US was quite keen to break those Empires up.

    Nothing succeeds like success, 1919 would be the time of the Bolshevik revolution and the founding of Communist Party USA. Trotsky, writing in 1924:-

    “The care for food and education, which lies like a millstone on the present-day family, will be removed, and will become the subject of social initiative and of an endless collective creativeness. Woman will at last free herself from her semi-servile condition. Side by side with technique, education, in the broad sense of the psycho-physical molding of new generations, will take its place as the crown of social thinking. [..].

    More than that. Man at last will begin to harmonize himself in earnest. He will make it his business to achieve beauty by giving the movement of his own limbs the utmost precision, purposefulness and economy in his work, his walk and his play. He will try to master first the semiconscious and then the subconscious processes in his own organism, such as breathing, the circulation of the blood, digestion, reproduction, and, within necessary limits, he will try to subordinate them to the control of reason and will. Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution. [...]

    Finally, the nature of man himself is hidden in the deepest and darkest corner of the unconscious, of the elemental, of the sub-soil. Is it not self-evident that the greatest efforts of investigative thought and of creative initiative will be in that direction? The human race will not have ceased to crawl on all fours before God, kings and capital, in order later to submit humbly before the dark laws of heredity and a blind sexual selection!

    “It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. All the arts – literature, drama, painting, music and architecture will lend this process beautiful form. More correctly, the shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • From what someone was telling me today. Germans obey rules without much supervision (people never cross the road without a signal, no one checking tickets on the underground ect). So maybe I was exaggerating about hereditary guilt inevitably leading to a certain type of politics, because Germans show signs of having abundant self-monitoring guilt and Germany today is as far as can be from the Nazi outlook that dominated there. You would have to say that international rivalries, the effectiveness of particular politicians, and the internal situation of Germany have much to do with which particular ethos gets established. The position of a country in the world and whether it is threatened by other states, the attitude of business elites, the level of urbanisation and organised mass political party system probably have a big influence, it’s a multi-level thing.

    There is the element of nothing succeeds like success, everyone copies American values because America says its success stemmed from its values. Peter seems to be saying that guilt is a group adaptation for greater collective efficiency, whatever the values. The Germans are still extremely efficient despite completely altering values.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • It’s Peter Brimelow who coined the phrase “Hitler’s Revenge.”

    Using Carol Swain’s definitions (of white nationalist, white separatist, white supremacist) I would say that white nationalists don’t admire Hitler at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Someone should put John Baker’s book ‘Race’ online because I can’t find it. He supposedly made a claim in it about the structure of Australid brains that I’d like to see checked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SFG
    "Once the Nazis came into power, people became quite worried about the possibility that their statements might be used to provide cover for German racial policies."

    I've always thought it amusing that white nationalists are so fond of Hitler, when he damaged their cause worse than anyone in history. Before the Nazis, would anyone have thought it unreasonable to question whether a small ethnic group should own, say, 90% of the newspapers, and whether that might affect coverage and slant? Even if you don't attribute any nefarious characteristics to the group, if, say, 90% of newspapers were owned by the Irish, you'd wonder if Ulstermen were getting a fair shake in the news. But the last guy to say that about Jews started World War II, which is probably the largest disaster in history, and now...

    SFG:”I’ve always thought it amusing that white nationalists are so fond of Hitler, when he damaged their cause worse than anyone in history. Before the Nazis, would anyone have thought it unreasonable to question whether a small ethnic group should own, say, 90% of the newspapers, and whether that might affect coverage and slant? Even if you don’t attribute any nefarious characteristics to the group, if, say, 90% of newspapers were owned by the Irish, you’d wonder if Ulstermen were getting a fair shake in the news. But the last guy to say that about Jews started World War II, which is probably the largest disaster in history, and now…”

    One can make a very good case for Hitler being the worst thing that ever happened to the idea of the nation-state in the West. Indeed, Steve Sailer has sometimes called America’s de facto open borders policy “Hitler’s Revenge.”

    So, yeah, on top of all the horrible things that he did while he was alive, Hitler also bears a good chunk of the blame for the dominance of the PC mindset in the modern world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • @Sean
    The psychology rings true. However, Benedict was a New Yorker critiquing Indiana, just as Richard Hofstadter, who saw McCarthy as a possible American Hitler, thought McCarthyism was a product of Wisconsin farmer populism. They saw themselves as living in a highly conservative society, yet almost all the intelligentsia were Marxists of some sort, and Marxists had been very early anti-racists. If there had been no Hitler anti racism would not have happened in the same way, but if guilt is a hereditary propensity it is dubious to say we would not be in the same position by now.

    Right. Wealthy countries in the Middle East don’t seem to feel guilty about treating their migrant workers like slaves.

    Maybe the 4 top causes of the rise of multi-culturalism would be:

    1. The predisposition to guilt cultures.

    2. The reaction to Nazism.

    3. Gender equality: Women entering the workforce in WW2 combined with birth control liberalizing social mores accelerated the rise of women’s influence, pushing the average temperament to the left.

    4. Inevitable globalism: Advances in shipping and communications technology made the world a smaller place. Racialism was an impediment to capitalism. Capitalists are still pushing for open borders today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtberger
    There is only one fundamental cause of all 4 of the above....and none have much to do with capitalism. In a word it is Marxism. they won the war and we all now believe what we are told....regardless of how much it conflicts with the real world.
    Regardless of our ability to shape our environments.... we still are, and for some time at least will be , prisoners of our genes. In the past humans were also regulated by natural selection. But such is no longer the case. Now the most intelligent members of society spend much of their time and money assisting the least capable members of the human race.... all over the world.
    No one can deny that with each passing day the average IQ of the general population is declining.
    there has always been a huge positive correlation between the upper classes and intelligence. This very concept is a fundamental enemy of Marxism. The idea that most of what we are has been determined by the environment rather than our genes has come to permeate and pervade every facet of our social beliefs. the Bolshevics had the idea that they could by changing society change human nature and make the "communist man". Those follies are still very much alive and well in the world today. Only the Moslems have resisted. could it be that they might inherit the world of tomorrow. Their beliefs certainly have much more in common with those of our ancestors ( 2 and 3 hundred years ago ) than we do today.
    A very famous man once said.... The primary task of the politician is to bring all human activity into accord with the laws of nature. Mein Kampf ... Murphy translation March 1939. You won't find it in the fraudulent Mannheim edition brought out in 1943 by the USA as part of the war propaganda effort. ... the one found in every library and bookstore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Real Japan isn’t the formalised corporate world or its education system, its the culture of construction workers, pachinko players and Yankii.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • An interesting tidbit about Margaret Mead:

    “An Anglican Christian, she played a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “When Boas retired in 1937, most of his students considered Ruth Benedict to be the obvious choice for the head of the anthropology department. However, the administration of Columbia was not as progressive in its attitude towards female professionals as Boas had been, and the university President Nicholas Murray Butler was eager to curb the influence of the Boasians whom he considered to be political radicals. Instead, Ralph Linton, one of Boas’ former students, a WWI veteran, and a fierce critic of Benedict’s “Culture and Personality” approach was named head of the department.[14] Benedict was understandably insulted by Linton’s appointment and the Columbia department was divided between the two rival figures of Linton and Benedict, both accomplished anthropologists with influential publications, neither of whom ever mentioned the work of the other.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Linton:

    “He was admitted to a Ph.D. program at Columbia University thereafter, but did not become close to Franz Boas, the doyen of anthropology in that era. When America entered World War I, Linton enlisted and served in France in the 1917-1919 saw him serving in Battery D, 149th Field Artillery, 42nd2 (Rainbow) Division. Linton served as a corporal and saw battle at the trenches, experiencing first hand a German gas attack. Linton’s military experience would be a major influence on his subsequent work. One of his first published articles was “Totemism and the A.E.F.” (Published in American Anthropologist vol. 26:294-300)”, in which he argued that the way in which military units often identified with their symbols could be considered a kind of totemism.[2]

    His military fervor probably did not do anything to improve his relation with the pacifist Franz Boas, who abhorred all displays of nationalism or jingoism. An anecdote has it that Linton was rebuked by Boas when he appeared in class in his military uniform.[3] Whatever the cause, shortly after his return to the United States, he transferred from Columbia to Harvard, where he studied with Earnest Hooton, Alfred Tozzer, and Roland Dixon.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • SFG says:

    “Once the Nazis came into power, people became quite worried about the possibility that their statements might be used to provide cover for German racial policies.”

    I’ve always thought it amusing that white nationalists are so fond of Hitler, when he damaged their cause worse than anyone in history. Before the Nazis, would anyone have thought it unreasonable to question whether a small ethnic group should own, say, 90% of the newspapers, and whether that might affect coverage and slant? Even if you don’t attribute any nefarious characteristics to the group, if, say, 90% of newspapers were owned by the Irish, you’d wonder if Ulstermen were getting a fair shake in the news. But the last guy to say that about Jews started World War II, which is probably the largest disaster in history, and now…

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    SFG:"I’ve always thought it amusing that white nationalists are so fond of Hitler, when he damaged their cause worse than anyone in history. Before the Nazis, would anyone have thought it unreasonable to question whether a small ethnic group should own, say, 90% of the newspapers, and whether that might affect coverage and slant? Even if you don’t attribute any nefarious characteristics to the group, if, say, 90% of newspapers were owned by the Irish, you’d wonder if Ulstermen were getting a fair shake in the news. But the last guy to say that about Jews started World War II, which is probably the largest disaster in history, and now…"


    One can make a very good case for Hitler being the worst thing that ever happened to the idea of the nation-state in the West. Indeed, Steve Sailer has sometimes called America's de facto open borders policy "Hitler's Revenge."

    So, yeah, on top of all the horrible things that he did while he was alive, Hitler also bears a good chunk of the blame for the dominance of the PC mindset in the modern world.
    , @Southfarthing
    We can test the theory. If Jewish media owners were a major cause:
    1. The liberal media and academia wouldn't be against Israel.
    2. News owned by Gentiles would be opposing rather than promoting multi-culturalism.

    I'm more concerned with liberalism in the media by people of all backgrounds.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • Threecranes: You were on a ship. There’s a real cameraderie that comes from shared efforts–it’s why union men would fight so hard for each other.

    I mean, culture is important, but so is the situation, and I suspect you’d have similar experiences on ships from most countries.

    I am sympathetic to your attempts to defend the Japanese guys, though–the academic world is a nasty, sociopathic place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • syonredux [AKA "marlowe"] says:
    @tadzio
    One can suppose that you also plunk for Stalinism which the 'genius' Einstein supported to his death. Einstein may have been clever in a narrow range, but outside of that he was a schmuck.

    tadzio:”One can suppose that you also plunk for Stalinism which the ‘genius’ Einstein”

    Why the scare quotes around “genius?” Do you feel that Einstein was not a genius?

    tadzio:”supported to his death. Einstein may have been clever
    in a narrow range, but outside of that he was a schmuck.”

    Which is why I said that my vote for Einstein was a vote for science. Politics is not science. It is the domain of ideology and willed blindness. Hence, I really don’t care what Einstein had to say about the issues of the day. I only care about the contributions that he made to physics. The same thing holds true for Heisenberg and Von Braun .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Steve,

    Hereditarian and racialist thinking faced increasing criticism from about 1919 onward (Derek Freeman covers this in his book on Margaret Mead). But it was really the rise of Nazism that crystallized opposition to racialism and created a sense of urgency that didn't exist before. Until the late 1930s, most people -- including liberally minded people like Boas -- accepted that human populations differ statistically in their mental makeup. By 1945, that position had definitely become a minority viewpoint, particularly among right-thinking people. The 1935-1945 decade had a definite transformational effect on discourse about race.

    Peter Frost:”Hereditarian and racialist thinking faced increasing criticism from about 1919 onward (Derek Freeman covers this in his book on Margaret Mead). But it was really the rise of Nazism that crystallized opposition to racialism and created a sense of urgency that didn’t exist before. ”

    Yeah, I seem to recall John Baker in RACE talking about how the 1930s marked the end of the period when people felt that they could discuss race in an open manner. Once the Nazis came into power, people became quite worried about the possibility that their statements might be used to provide cover for German racial policies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When Franz Boas died in 1942, the leadership of his school of anthropology passed to Ruth Benedict and not to Margaret Mead. This was partly because Benedict was the older of the two and partly because her book Patterns of Culture (1934) had already assumed a key role in defining Boasian anthropology. The word "define"...
  • I’ve lived and worked with midwestern country-dwellers. They are highly tolerant of quirky people. Think about Mayberry or the Beverly Hillbillies. Not one person in either set was normal. Truth be known, every individual I met was quirky in some way.

    As Sean says well, this type of shallow analysis is unfortunately all we can expect from New York intellectuals who are two steps removed from their subjects.

    Let me offer a first hand example of this kind of observation. I spent two months aboard a Japanese trawler fishing in the Bering Sea as a U. S. government observer/biologist. As anyone who has lived aboard a ship knows, there are few secrets. I came to know the crew pretty well, and they me. After dinner we took turns singing karaoke (long before it became mainstream). Drank together, bathed in their wonderful Japanese type hot-tubs together, slung fish together, spied on one another and so on. They farted with abandon and laughed uproariously, grunted, yelled, gesticulated, massaged one another’s sore muscles and put little hot cups on each other’s backs to draw out toxins, took turns scrubbing one another’s backs–all of this out in the open, communally in a perfectly natural way.

    Back on land, months later I met a woman on University campus who informed me that she was doing her graduate thesis on the Japanese.

    “Oh really, what about?”

    “On how reserved they are. They are very formal people.”

    “Reserved? In my experience, they’re quite at ease with their bodies, touching one-another, dropping their guard by singing (sometimes quite emotionally) in front of one another and so on….”

    “Oh no, you’re wrong. My professor is an expert and he said that the Japanese are very reserved people.”

    “But I lived with them on board ship and that’s sort of a microcosm and what I saw were people very informal, relaxed and accepting of the naturalness of their bodily functions.”

    “Well, you can’t generalize. A ship is not a microcosm, it’s what we call a ‘small sample’”

    And so on. So her reading trumped my first hand experience.

    How did Lincoln put it? (paraphrased) “Your Honor, I cannot let my opponent’s ignorance, however grand it is, out weigh my knowledge, however small it is.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The psychology rings true. However, Benedict was a New Yorker critiquing Indiana, just as Richard Hofstadter, who saw McCarthy as a possible American Hitler, thought McCarthyism was a product of Wisconsin farmer populism. They saw themselves as living in a highly conservative society, yet almost all the intelligentsia were Marxists of some sort, and Marxists had been very early anti-racists. If there had been no Hitler anti racism would not have happened in the same way, but if guilt is a hereditary propensity it is dubious to say we would not be in the same position by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Right. Wealthy countries in the Middle East don't seem to feel guilty about treating their migrant workers like slaves.

    Maybe the 4 top causes of the rise of multi-culturalism would be:

    1. The predisposition to guilt cultures.

    2. The reaction to Nazism.

    3. Gender equality: Women entering the workforce in WW2 combined with birth control liberalizing social mores accelerated the rise of women's influence, pushing the average temperament to the left.

    4. Inevitable globalism: Advances in shipping and communications technology made the world a smaller place. Racialism was an impediment to capitalism. Capitalists are still pushing for open borders today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The anthropologist Franz Boas is remembered for moving the social sciences away from genetic determinism and toward environmental determinism. In reality, he felt that genes do contribute substantially to mental and behavioral differences ... and not just between individuals. Most of us identify with certain great teachers of the past: Christ, Marx, Freud … Though...
  • Steve,

    Hereditarian and racialist thinking faced increasing criticism from about 1919 onward (Derek Freeman covers this in his book on Margaret Mead). But it was really the rise of Nazism that crystallized opposition to racialism and created a sense of urgency that didn’t exist before. Until the late 1930s, most people — including liberally minded people like Boas — accepted that human populations differ statistically in their mental makeup. By 1945, that position had definitely become a minority viewpoint, particularly among right-thinking people. The 1935-1945 decade had a definite transformational effect on discourse about race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Peter Frost:"Hereditarian and racialist thinking faced increasing criticism from about 1919 onward (Derek Freeman covers this in his book on Margaret Mead). But it was really the rise of Nazism that crystallized opposition to racialism and created a sense of urgency that didn’t exist before. "

    Yeah, I seem to recall John Baker in RACE talking about how the 1930s marked the end of the period when people felt that they could discuss race in an open manner. Once the Nazis came into power, people became quite worried about the possibility that their statements might be used to provide cover for German racial policies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • SFG says:

    “One can suppose that you also plunk for Stalinism which the ‘genius’ Einstein supported to his death. Einstein may have been clever in a narrow range, but outside of that he was a schmuck.”

    Sure, but that range was where he spent most of his life. He was known for his physics, not his political advocacy. They wanted to make him president of Israel, and he had the sense to turn it down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux
    Anonymous:"As for me and my house, we're going with Christ. The other 2 have been proved wrong too often."

    Think that I'll plunk for Einstein instead.

    One can suppose that you also plunk for Stalinism which the ‘genius’ Einstein supported to his death. Einstein may have been clever in a narrow range, but outside of that he was a schmuck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    tadzio:"One can suppose that you also plunk for Stalinism which the ‘genius’ Einstein"


    Why the scare quotes around "genius?" Do you feel that Einstein was not a genius?


    tadzio:"supported to his death. Einstein may have been clever
    in a narrow range, but outside of that he was a schmuck."

    Which is why I said that my vote for Einstein was a vote for science. Politics is not science. It is the domain of ideology and willed blindness. Hence, I really don't care what Einstein had to say about the issues of the day. I only care about the contributions that he made to physics. The same thing holds true for Heisenberg and Von Braun .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • SFG says:

    “It appears that Boas sold out his life’s intellectual work in favor of tribal imperatives – what a shame, tribe trumps mind – how backward – what a loser. Was tribal Israel worth it?”

    You’re talking about a looming world war. He might have just seen it as being socially responsible. Mencken started soft-pedaling his antisemitism after Hitler rose to power.

    Green: Agreed. We’ve had more than enough war for a big country with no real local enemies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @B and B
    I never felt Boas deserved all the flak he gets, which is better directed at that cunt Montagu. He did after all mentor Kroeber.

    The problem is largely the tendency of conservatives (the usual critics of the Boasians) to pinpoint a source for the blame so that Boas becomes demonised and Montagu is misrepresented as misled by Boas. One example of this is Kevin MacDonald's classic Culture of Critique, in which he not only demonstrated the philosemitism common in the Jewish dominated school of anthropology, but the selective use of logical fallacy and bad science to further that ends. Though the real Boas should not escape criticism altogether, he is mostly blamed for the excesses of those bearing his legacy and no one should fault his perspective that anthropology should be based upon facts and not top-down or model-led. Rejecting the simplistic stage-based evolutionary models does not entail rejecting cultural evolution, nonetheless rejecting 'physics' (=science) in anthropology is hardly scientific. Boas was full of contradictions, recognising civilisation as domestication yet having faith in the psychic unity of mankind.

    Chapter 2 of the Culture of Critique deserves comments as its a bit misleading, whilst Boas deserves criticism this needs to be part of a full-length revaluation not written to justify either a positive or negative conclusion.

    MacDonald misleading people about Boas wouldn’t be the first time he’s misled people in pursuit of his “Jewish theory of everything.”

    My background is part Christian and part Jewish, and I love the greatnesses of both Christian and Jewish history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ‘Jewish physics’ was not just identifiable by the ethnicity of its creators, rather by an unhelpful attitude about whether physics be driven by theory or by method. Einstein and the other Jewish-German physicists built upon the past research of ‘German physicists’ (not all of them were German) who placed more emphasis upon method than on abstract theory. As such it was the approach people back then called ‘German physics’ that led the way to the atomic age and the Nazis did test nuclear warheads. I think I remember they used what we’d call ‘mini nukes’ on the Russians, though not nuclear bombs as we imagine them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mark Green
    This was mildly interesting but basically superficial. Kevin MacDonald has far more to say of interest about Franz Boas than any tidbit I found in this brief overview.

    In fact, Boas did champion racial equality but that didn't stop him from being a strongly self-identified Jew. Boas's anti-racism started and stopped with Hitler and the White race. Ethnocentrism however is universal as Boas himself understood. This fact applies to innate preferences seen among virtually all racial groups. For instance, children tend to socialize and mix with children most like themselves. Physically attractive children tend to get more love and attention from other children as well as adults. This natural propensity is neither sinister nor evil. It's an biological expression of kinship and natural selection.

    As for Boas' implied disdain for all 'racism', if he ever scolded his co-ethnics about their particular brand of racism, I've not heard about it.

    As for racism and the Nazis, this is way overblown. Really. Along with virtually all the wars of the 20th century, WWII was a nationalistic war. Plus, Hitler had real political differences with the Jews. It was political. It was war. Ever heard of the Treaty of Versailles? It played a major role in Hitler's thinking. Consider also the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution and the spread of communism, not to mention the international Jewish economic boycott of Germany that began way back in 1933. History is complex whether you like it or not. And besides, aren't Jews white? The last time I checked they were.

    During the two great wars of the 20th century, whites were killing whites everywhere one looked. France, England, Germany, Russia, Spain and America. Japan also invaded China in before WWII even began. These were Asians killing other Asians. These struggles were not about race, though ethnicity was surely there. Yes, racial differences are potentially explosive. But so are language and culture,. And don't forget money and power! Perhaps we should sharpen our definitions here, including 'racism'.

    Most modern wars are about nationalism, borders, power, self-governance, culture and ideology. America's civil was was not about race. Sorry, but race (slavery) was a side issue. Even Viet Nam was an ideological struggle, not a racial one. America's arch enemy was formerly Soviet Russia, which was full of white people then as it is now. Ideology was the problem until communism imploded.

    'Racism' is used today for political purposes. The racist taboo disarms whites and continues to cloud the thinking of Jews. But it presently empowers many ethnic minorities in America. 'Racial neutrality' is now turning our nation into a multi-racial dystopia. Racism--and the charge of racism--is a political tool.

    As a side note, Hitler's Germany was aligned with Imperial Japan. Racism? These two races fought side-by-side during WWII. Maybe we should put aside modern fairy tales. Indeed, Germany and Asiatic Japan (along with Italy) had political aspiration and real political grievances. Turn off your televisions, please.

    Germans and Russians slaughtered one another over borders and ideological differences. No racial killing there. Nationalism--not racism--strikes again. Add noxious ideologies to the mix (communism, for instance) and you've got even greater problems ahead.

    My advice: watch out for empire builders and crazed nationalists. They're in Washington right now planning their next war.

    The Nazis would have been happier if they:

    1. Liberated Slavs and allied with them against the U.S.S.R instead of exterminating them as “untermenschen.”

    2. Allied with their Jews to build nuclear weapons before the U.S. did. Instead, they suppressed “Jewish physics” and squandered the lead their nuclear program had. Even if the Nazis had won at Dunkirk, they would still have lost the scientific war, with the U.S. being able to nuke German cities at will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I never felt Boas deserved all the flak he gets, which is better directed at that cunt Montagu. He did after all mentor Kroeber.

    The problem is largely the tendency of conservatives (the usual critics of the Boasians) to pinpoint a source for the blame so that Boas becomes demonised and Montagu is misrepresented as misled by Boas. One example of this is Kevin MacDonald’s classic Culture of Critique, in which he not only demonstrated the philosemitism common in the Jewish dominated school of anthropology, but the selective use of logical fallacy and bad science to further that ends. Though the real Boas should not escape criticism altogether, he is mostly blamed for the excesses of those bearing his legacy and no one should fault his perspective that anthropology should be based upon facts and not top-down or model-led. Rejecting the simplistic stage-based evolutionary models does not entail rejecting cultural evolution, nonetheless rejecting ‘physics’ (=science) in anthropology is hardly scientific. Boas was full of contradictions, recognising civilisation as domestication yet having faith in the psychic unity of mankind.

    Chapter 2 of the Culture of Critique deserves comments as its a bit misleading, whilst Boas deserves criticism this needs to be part of a full-length revaluation not written to justify either a positive or negative conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    MacDonald misleading people about Boas wouldn't be the first time he's misled people in pursuit of his "Jewish theory of everything."

    My background is part Christian and part Jewish, and I love the greatnesses of both Christian and Jewish history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.