The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
More on the Younger Franz Boas
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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 began in the early 1800s as a radical outgrowth of abolitionism, reaching high levels of popular support in the mid-1800s, particularly in the American Northeast, and then falling into decline due to growing interest in Social Darwinism and increasing disillusionment with the aftermath of the Civil War. By the 1920s, it really held sway only in the Northeast, and even there it was losing ground.

This situation changed dramatically in the 1930s. Antiracism revived and entered a period of growth that would eventually go global. The anthropologist Franz Boas played a key role through his own work and indirectly through the work of his two protégés: Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict.

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”:

We find that the face of the negro as compared to the skull is larger than that of the American [Indian], whose face is in turn larger than that of the white. The lower portion of the face assumes larger dimensions. The alveolar arch is pushed forward and thus gains an appearance which reminds us of the higher apes. There is no denying that this feature is a most constant character of the black races and that it represents a type slightly nearer the animal than the European type. [...] We find here at least a few indications which tend to show that the white race differs more from the higher apes than the negro. 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. (Boas, 1974, p. 230)

It does not seem probable that the minds of races which show variations in their anatomical structure should act in exactly the same manner. Differences of structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of difference in structure between the races, so we must anticipate that differences in mental characteristics will be found. (Boas, 1974, p. 239)

We have shown that the anatomical evidence is such, that we may expect to find the races not equally gifted. 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. (Boas, 1974, p. 242)

Boas returned to this topic in a 1908 speech on “Race Problems in America”:

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. There may exist differences in character and in the direction of specific aptitudes. 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. (Boas, 1974, pp. 328-329)

How did his views on race evolve over the next twenty years? This evolution is described by Williams (1996), who sees his views beginning to change at the turn of the century. 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:

We must remember that individually the correlation [...] is often overshadowed by other causes, and that we find a considerable number of great men with slight brain weight. [...] We may, therefore, expect less average ability and also, on account of probable anatomical differences, somewhat different mental tendencies. (Williams, 1996, p. 17)

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” (Williams, 1996, p. 18). In 1906, he sought funding for such a project with two specific goals:

(1) Is there an earlier arrest of mental and physical development in the Negro child, as compared with the white child? And, if so, is this arrest due to social causes or to anatomical and physiological conditions?

(2) What is the position of the mulatto child and of the adult mulatto in relation to the two races? Is he an intermediate type, or is there a tendency of reversion towards either race? So that particularly gifted mulattoes have to be considered as reversals of the white race. The question of the physical vigor of the mulatto could be taken up at the same time. (Williams, 1996, p. 19)

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. (Williams, 1996, p. 19)

In 1911, Boas published the first edition of The Mind of Primitive Man. It recycled most of his previous writings on race, while emphasizing that race differences in mental makeup were statistical and showed considerable overlap. In 1915, he continued in this direction when he wrote a preface to Half A Man by Mary White Ovington, one of the founders of the NAACP:

Many students of anthropology recognize that no proof can be given of any material inferiority of the Negro race; that without doubt the bulk of the individuals composing the race are equal in mental aptitude to the bulk of our own people; that, although their hereditary aptitude may lie in slightly different directions, it is very improbable that the majority of individuals composing the white race should possess greater ability than the Negro race. (Williams, 1996, pp. 22-23)

Nonetheless, one finds little change from his earlier writings in his 1928 work Anthropology and Modern Life:

[...] the distribution of individuals and of family lines in the various races differs. When we select among the Europeans a group with large brains, their frequency will be relatively high, while among the Negroes the frequency of occurrence of the corresponding group will be low. If, for instance, there are 50 percent of a European population who have a brain weight of more than, let us say 1,500 grams, there may be only 20 percent of Negroes of the same class. Therefore, 30 percent of the large-brained Europeans cannot be matched by any corresponding group of Negroes. (Williams, 1996, p. 35)

Conclusion

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. A good example was Mary White Ovington, whose Unitarian parents had been involved in the anti-slavery movement and who in 1910 helped found the NAACP. Boas was also dealing with the city’s growing African American community and, through Ovington’s contacts, wrote articles for the NAACP. Finally, he was also dealing with the growing Jewish community, who identified with antiracism partly out of self-interest and partly out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture.

Boas didn’t really change his mind on race until the 1930s. The cause is not hard to pinpoint. When he died in 1942, an obituary mentioned his alarm over the threat of Nazism:

Dr. Boas, who had studied and written widely in all fields of anthropology devoted most of his researches during the past few years to the study of the “race question,” especially so after the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Discussing his efforts to disprove what he called “this Nordic nonsense,” Prof. Boas said upon his retirement from teaching in 1936 that “with the present condition of the world, I consider the race question a most important one. I will try to clean up some of the nonsense that is being spread about race those days. I think the question is particularly important for this country, too; as here also people are going crazy.” (JTA, 1942)

Hitler’s rise to power created a sense of urgency among many academics, both Jewish and non-Jewish, thereby convincing fence-sitters like Franz Boas to put aside their doubts and take a more aggressive stand on race. Thus began the war on racism, which foreshadowed the coming world conflict.

References

Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Frost, P. (2014). The Franz Boas you never knew, Evo and Proud, July 13 /pfrost/the-franz-boas-you-never-knew/

JTA (1942). Dr. Franz Boas, Debunker of Nazi Racial Theories, Dies in New York, December 23
http://www.jta.org/1942/12/23/archive/dr-franz-boas-debunker-of-nazi-racial-theories-dies-in-new-york

Williams Jr., V.J. (1996). Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries, University Press of Kentucky. https://books.google.ca/books?id=MKnIOfHNxXMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rethinking+race+franz+boas&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=lTkcVcLqLs-OyATM-IGoCQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Rethinking%20race%20franz%20boas&f=false

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. 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)

  2. 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.

  3. Stogumber says:

    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!

  4. 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.

  5. RW says:

    It’s nice to see Franz Boas’s lack of consistency on this issue documented. Clears up some confusion.

  6. 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.

  7. Chiron says:

    “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.

    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
  8. Tom_R says:

    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.

  9. Oy vay, enough with the Khazars already!

    • Replies: @Jim
  10. 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.

    • Replies: @Stogumber
  11. @n/a

    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.

  12. @Chiron

    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.

    • Replies: @RW
  13. Stogumber says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    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.

    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
  14. @n/a

    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.”

  15. Harold says:

    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.

  16. Harold says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
  17. 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.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
  18. Tom says:

    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.

  19. Jim says:

    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.

  20. Jim says:
    @Penguinchip

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

    • Replies: @Penguinchip
  21. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @Erik Sieven

    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.

  22. @Harold

    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.

  23. @Jim

    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.

  24. @Stogumber

    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

  25. Sean says:

    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.

  26. 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.

  27. RW says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    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,

  28. Sean says:

    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.

  29. 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

    • Replies: @Sean
  30. 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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  31. Sean says:

    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.

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Enrique Cardova

    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.

  33. Sean says:
    @n/a

    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’.

  34. 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.

  35. Sean says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Enrique Cardova
  36. Ron Unz says:
    @Sean

    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

    • Replies: @Sean
  37. @Sean

    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.

  38. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

    • Replies: @Enrique Cardova
  39. Sean says:

    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.

  40. @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.

    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.

  41. Sean says:

    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”

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.”

  45. 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 .

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

    • Replies: @Sean
  51. Ron Unz says:
    @Sean

    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.

    • Replies: @Sean
  52. Sean says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

  53. Sean says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    “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.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS