The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Did Civilization Lag in Africa?
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Great Theater of Miletus, Turkey: capacity 15,000 to 25,000

In Freakonomics in 2012, superstar economist Daron Acemoglu and his sidekick James A. Robinson used a Q & A with readers to promote their book Why Nations Fail and its all-purpose theory that “extractive institutions” rather than “inclusive institutions” were to blame for anything bad that ever happened anywhere in the history of the world.

Q. I am from Haiti, a country that you guys speak of quite often. I moved here to the States about ten years ago for school. Anyway, I’ve always wondered why countries dominated by blacks have done so terribly (and I am not trying to make us look stupid)? My questions stems from the fact that even within Haiti, the wealthier people are the sons and daughters of ex-pats from Europe or Syria, but in the larger picture, countries heavily dominated by blacks tend to fail. I don’t know many countries in the world where blacks are at the top of the social pyramid; it is concerning. Does it have to do with slavery; more than slavery, education? And how would it be solved in a 30-year plan for example? -Jean-Marc Davis

A. The fact that nearly all countries which are headed by black people are poor is a coincidence.

There is nothing intrinsic about black people that makes such countries poor. Just look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years. The same is true of several Caribbean countries, such as the Bahamas. The reasons for this are several-fold. Let’s focus just on Africa. Historically (before European influence), Africa developed extractive institutions for reasons that are not well understood.

For instance, the fact that the construction of centralized states in Africa lagged behind Eurasia is not really understood. This history of extractive institutions then created a terrible vicious circle in the early modern period. First, the slave trade destroyed states and made economic institutions more extractive, and the poverty of Africa then allowed it to be colonized by Europeans. This left a legacy of extractive institutions with which African countries have been struggling since independence. But there is nothing inevitable in this process. Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?

We don’t ask that because we know that many Asian countries have changed their development paths. They, of course, had advantages Africa did not have, such as a history of centralized states. More broadly, there is nothing inevitable about the fact that the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain and soon after spread to Western Europe and these countries’ superior technologies allowed them to colonize large parts of the world. This was the outcome of a long contingent process of institutional change. This process did not happen in Africa, but that has nothing to do with black people but rather different histories of institutions and different shocks. In the book, we illustrate this by talking about Ethiopia. In 400AD, Ethiopia looked very similar to states in the Mediterranean basin, but then it experienced very different shocks and while these other societies changed, Ethiopia got stuck.

Obviously, this explanation wouldn’t strike anybody better informed and more objective than Daron Acemoglu, the Malcolm Gladwell of MIT, as terribly persuasive. (Of course, I often wonder if implausibility isn’t considered a virtue these days. If the point is to demonstrate your True Faith, then Acemoglu and Robinson’s opening tactical salvo of “The fact that nearly all countries which are headed by black people are poor is a coincidence” isn’t as funny as it would sound to the Man from Mars. If the point is not science but witch-sniffing, then making assertions so lunkheaded they are bound to raise a smile in anybody with an active brain is brilliant, even if it’s simultaneously stupid).

So, rather than critique Acemoglu’s thrashings, let me try to work out a fundamental explanation for why Africa, the home of anatomically modern humans, was long so far behind even other tropical lowlands such as the Yucatan.

I’ve put up a picture above of an immense ruin I visited five years ago, the theater in Miletus in what’s now southwestern Turkey, because there are a lot of ruins in this world. Turkey is full of ancient ruins (as are Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru).

This theater in Turkey is particularly jaw-dropping because it’s not just the usual hillside converted into seating, like in Ephesus or Bodrum/Halicarnassus. You drive through empty, flat farmland and them you come upon this old theater that struck me at the time as, “Not as big as Wrigley Field.” It’s definitely less massive than most current major league baseball stadiums, but I couldn’t say offhand how it compares in size to NBA/NHL arenas like the Staples Center. I’ve seen estimates that it seated 15,000, 18,000, and 25,000. In any case, it’s built on the same pattern as modern outdoor sports facilities, with big tunnels under the stands to help you get to and from your seat without having to walk in front of most spectators who arrived earlier.

There’s an explanation for why this vast ruin is in the middle of an empty field today: back in Ancient Greek times, Miletus used to be a big port city. But the meandering Meander River silted up the harbor, so it’s now five miles inland from the Mediterranean. Miletus was a big league city in world cultural history: it was the home to Thales, whom the two most famous logicians in history, Aristotle and Bertrand Russell, considered the father of philosophy and/or science.

Is this sports and entertainment facility the creation of extractive or inclusive institutions? Well, I suppose you could argue it either way. But the clear lesson is that, in any case, to pay for and erect this grandiose edifice there clearly had to be a lot of institutions and a lot of surplus to extract. Otherwise, you couldn’t pay for this theater, as well as all the philosophers and scientists associated with Miletus (such as, besides Thales, Anaximander and Leucippus).

Why this meandering reminiscence of mine about a random ruin in Turkey? Because sub-Saharan Africa has remarkably few ruins for its immense size.

This fact is not well known. It is so hazy in the contemporary mind that Henry Louis Gates managed to sell PBS on a six episode miniseries about African ruins called The Wonders of Africa without, apparently, anybody in PBS management calling his bluff about the lack of wonders that his camera crew would wind up documenting in one of the most boring documentary series of the 21st Century.

The only book I’ve read that has wrestled seriously with the implications of sub-Saharan Africa’s relative lack of ruins is John Reader’s extraordinary Africa: Biography of a Continent.

Reader’s argument is that the reason there are few ruins is because there was little wealth in sub-Saharan Africa before outside interventions. The Economist’s 1998 review of Reader’s book noted:

Much of Africa’s history is explained by its fragile soils and erratic weather. They make for conservative social and political systems. “The communities which endured were those that directed available energies primarily towards minimising the risk of failure, not maximising returns,” says Mr Reader. This created societies designed for survival, not development; the qualities needed for survival are the opposite of those needed for developing, ie, making experiments and taking risks. Some societies were wealthy, but accumulating wealth was next to impossible; most people bartered and there were few traders.

In fact, there were few people. Whereas the rest of the world tended to butt up against Malthusian limits on the amount of food that the burgeoning population could wrest from the ground, tropical Africa had plenty of land but strikingly few people.

The problem, according to Reader, was that African humans had a hard time outcompeting other living things in Africa, such as diseases (falciparum malaria and sleeping sickness, most notably) and giant beasts (such as elephants).

To put this in Darwinian terms, humanity not only evolved in Africa, but, unfortunately for the humans, co-evolved along with animals and germs, which gave humanity’s rivals a more than fighting chance. When humans arrived in the New World, in contrast, we killed and ate the local elephants (wooly mammoths) in short order because they didn’t understand how dangerous these two-legged creatures with pointy sticks were to them. In Africa, the elephants had seen us coming for millions of years and had time to evolve behavioral defenses against us.

A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day, leaving it starving. So, as Reader notes, humans and elephants in Africa tended to form patchworks of habitation, with humans only living in areas where they could muster enough density of population to drive off the elephants and giraffes and predators.

But too high a density of population, such as in cities, made people sitting ducks for diseases borne by mosquitoes and tsetse flies. The germs in tropical Africa were even worse than the megafauna. Thomas Pakenham’s 1998 review of Reader’s book in the New York Times explains:

Why did Africa south of the Sahara fare so badly in the last three millenniums? Reader explains Africa’s handicaps in terms of disease and climate. He contrasts the happy colonists who ”by leaving the tropical environments of the cradle-land in which humanity had evolved . . . also left behind the many parasites and disease organisms that had evolved in parallel with the human species.” Up to a point, this must be right. In the African Garden of Eden lurked enemies all the more potent because they were invisible: the malaria bug and other lethal organisms. The liberation of Africa from these enemies began with the period of European exploitation and has continued, somewhat haphazardly, as European drugs are exported to Africa.

For example, from Wikipedia:

Plasmodium falciparum is a protozoan parasite, one of the species of Plasmodium that cause malaria in humans. It is transmitted by the female Anopheles mosquito. Malaria caused by this species (also called malignant[1] or falciparum[2] malaria) is the most dangerous form of malaria,[3] with the highest rates of complications and mortality. As of 2006, there were an estimated 247 million human malarial infections (98% in Africa, 70% being 5 years or younger).[4] It is much more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than in many other regions of the world; in most African countries, over 75% of cases were due to P. falciparum, whereas in most other countries with malaria transmission, other, less virulent plasmodial species predominate. Almost every malarial death is caused by P. falciparum.[4]

Humans in Africa evolved a brutal defense against this version of malaria, the sickle cell genetic mutation, which provides some protection if you get one copy of the allele, but (without modern medicine) kills you if you inherit two. We wouldn’t have such an inelegant genetic protection if humans in Africa didn’t need it against such a massive killer. (The less vicious vivax malaria has a safer mutation to protect Africans, the Duffy gene.)

So, tropical Africans couldn’t learn to live in dense urban populations, with all the advanced trades made possible by the concentrations of city life. They largely remained small villagers scratching a living from the ground.

Also, in contrast to the rest of the world, where sexual restraint had its Darwinian advantages in avoiding the Malthusian Trap, tropical Africans found it advantageous to procreate as thoughtlessly as an NFL star like Adrian Peterson, Antonio Cromartie, or Travis Henry. Children weren’t likely to starve because their working mothers could grow enough food for them in the thin tropical soil (without fathers needing to do the heavy lifting of plowing, as on continents with better soil).

And the children were probably going to die of random diseases anyway, for which no amount of paternal investment could protect them before modern medicine. (For example, the hypothesis that yellow fever, which originated in Africa, was spread by mosquitoes was first proposed by Cuban doctor Carlos Finlay only as recently as 1881 and proven by American doctors such as Walter Reed and William Gorgas around the turn of the 20th Century.) So, it made more Darwinian sense in tropical Africa for men to procreate with abandon than to parent carefully.

Is Reader’s late 1990s theory of the difference between Africa (and thus Africans) and the rest of world true? It’s similar to Jared Diamond’s theory in the contemporary bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel, but is far more detailed, plausible, and interesting. Unlike Diamond’s rather airy theory, it has the advantage / disadvantage of explaining much that we see in modern America as well. Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.

In the decade and a half since Reader published his highly readable Africa: Biography of a Continent, has any economist, evolutionary theorist, or geneticist directly grappled with testing his model?

Not that I’m aware of. Instead, we have goofs like Acemoglu dominating our intellectual life, such as it is. Isn’t it about time to give serious attention to John Reader’s theory?

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Africa, Daren Acemoglu 
Hide 356 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Keith Vaz [AKA "D\'Marco Mobley"] says:

    Cavalli-Sforza thought Africans were the biggest outliers of humanity. …

    • Replies: @White Guy In Japan
    Funny, I call Europeans and East Asians the Northern Outliers and everyone else the Equatorial Mean. I view the NO as outliers in that they developed more sophisticated social structures, higher IQs and, in some cases, higher levels of trust and social capital.
  2. “The fact that nearly all countries which are headed by black people are poor is a coincidence” isn’t as funny as it would sound to the Man from Mars.

    This is a great template for poking fun at PC holy cows while appearing not to, with some plausible deniability.

    “The fact that on average, blacks commit an order of magnitude more violent crime than white people is a coincidence.”

    “The fact that nearly all the perpetrators of grooming of teenage girls in Rotherham were Pakistani Muslims, is a coincidence.”

  3. Reader’s theory may well be true, but think about this.

    Most nations, not just African ones, did *not* invent the Industrial Revolution. Some, however, were able to simply reverse engineer some of it and take advantage of it to build more advanced societies.

    In Africa (and perhaps other places), not only have they not been able to create civilization from the template that was handed to them by the 1st world (and I do not refer just to the colonizers), when it was built for them (like water treatment plants, etc.), they have not been able to maintain it.

    I used to be a pragmatist. Now, at 58, I am a fatalist about some things.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "I used to be a pragmatist. Now, at 58, I am a fatalist about some things."

    From Tim Butcher's "Blood River" - in 2000 he followed H.M.Stanley's route across Africa and down the Congo River:

    "The ground was brown with mud and rotting vegetation. No direct sunlight reached this far down and there was a musty smell of damp and decomposition. Above me towered canyons of green, as layer after layer of plant life filled the void between forest floor and treetop. I felt suffocated but not so much from the heat as the choking, smothering forest.

    I took a few steps and felt my right boot clunk into something unnaturally hard and angular on the floor. I dug my heel into the leaf mulch and felt it again. Scraping down through the detritus, I slowly cleared enough soil away to get a good look. It was a cast iron railway sleeper, perfectly preserved and still connected to a piece of track.

    It was a moment of horrible revelation. I felt like a Hollywood caveman approaching a spaceship, slowly working out that it proved life existed elsewhere in time and space. But what made it so horrible was the sense that I had discovered evidence of a modern world that had tried but failed to establish itself in the Congo. It was a complete reversal of the normal pattern of human development. A place where a railway track had once carried train-loads of goods and people had been reclaimed by virgin forest, where the noisy huffing of steam engines had long since lost out to the jungle's looming silence.

    It was one of the defining moments of my journey through the Congo. I was travelling through a country with more past than future, a place where the hands of the clock spin not forwards but backwards."
     
    , @Anonymous
    agree

    Senegal seeks French, Chinese help as water crisis hits capital
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-senegal-water-idUSBRE98Q0MS20130927
  4. Well, you’re going to have to qualify Africa as “sub Saharan Africa” because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization – writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it’s ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?

    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I’m not an MIT economist but………….no.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.
     
    No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. Also, ancient Egyptian artwork depicts a wide-range of skin-hues for humans. Seems the area had quite a bit of experience with diversity of the centuries.
    , @Whiskey
    Rifleman --

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.

    Second, the Egyptians did a LOT of stuff that was innovative for the time and over a period of about 4,000 years operated fairly continuously as a culture and self-ruling civilization that produced jaw-dropping buildings. Not only did the Egyptians create beer, bread, irrigation, bronze artifacts, and a massive program of domestication of animals (they even tried to domesticate hyenas which failed btw thankfully), Greeks familiar with the Acropolis were more impressed visiting the ancient city of Thebes with its nearly 3,500 year old building program. One massive temple on top of another.

    Thirdly, the Asian societies of China and India had in 1960, massive ruins that showed just how impressive their societies had been at one point. For example, in China there still exists mostly today a massive North-South canal built in the 1100s that goes from Beijing or thereabouts to near Shanghai IIRC. This canal had to pass through East-West rivers, mountains, and the like. It is truly impressive and when Marco Polo saw it he could not believe it. He could not even muster the effort it took to build the thing.

    The tomb of the First Emperor, with the terracotta warriors individually representing the soldiers in his army is also impressive, it had a pool of mercury to act as a giant mirror, and stars made of gems on the ceiling. There are even BIGGER tombs that resemble mini mountains around barely explored.

    Finally, there is the behavior of African and Asian peoples. While Asian men who rise to the very, very top, create harems, Asian men do not behave like Africans -- undisciplined, "wild," with casual sex with women who will then go on to have sex with other men. THAT is something Asian men simply do not do -- share women as a low-value instrument of reproduction. No Asian emperor for example shared his concubines with his soldiers. And outside the big men there were no real harems and especially not the casual and chaotic sex/reproduction methods of African men. Asian women were most definitely as today, one-man women. They might switch to a different man but never entertain multiple men at the same time. Asian societies remained densely populated, high-paternal investment societies unlike Africans. [Egyptian society from what we can reconstruct was the same, so Egyptians differed radically in family formation from Africans. And were more akin to Asians.]
    , @colm
    On 1964 South Korea, still reeling from the war 11 years ago, was at the same level with Ghana, the richest subsaharan nation at that time.
    , @RAZ
    Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics and Japan was well beyond African style poverty by then. The others weren't as advanced as Japan but they were beyond African style poverty.

    Before or shortly after WWII, or shortly after the Korean War for South Korea, there would've been some validity to this.
    , @Bill

    Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization – writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.
     
    I guess you are cribbing that locution "by American standards" from Wikipedia who got it from Stuart Tyson Smith. But, you know, the sentence you cribbed means the opposite of what you want it to mean. Here it is from Wikipedia, quoting Smith:

    Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans
     
    That is, the Ancient Egyptians were white (that's what "acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans" means). On the other hand, since us guys are in charge of The Narrative, we get to define them as black (that's what "by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black'" means).

    Let's ask some Copts if they are black.
    , @Jim
    The genotype of North Africans is about 7 percent black ie sub-Saharan African. Ancient Egyptians were not black in the American sense of the term.
    , @Mark Green
    The ancient Egyptians were not black. They had straight hair. Some were blonde and red-haired. The ancient mummies demonstrate this conclusively.
    , @Andy
    Those Egyptians were Caucasoids, sometimes with light hair.

    Not Europeans, but closer to them than blacks.
    , @Mark Green
    The ancient Egyptians had straight hair. Some Egyptian mummies have been found with blondish or reddish hair. Egyptian mummies are not phenotypically sub-Saharan.

    Unlike sub-Saharan Africa, Japan and China have glorious pasts. And great futures.
  5. Humans are not an invasive species in Africa.

  6. When humans arrived in the New World, in contrast, we killed and ate the local elephants (wooly mammoths) in short order because they didn’t understand how dangerous these two-legged creatures with pointy sticks were to them.

    Along with all the horses, a fact that rarely gets mentioned. In retrospect, not a very clever move.

  7. —-
    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
    —-
    no, no one would have asked that, because anyone back then who had met any east Asians in person could see that they are smarter and harder working than African-Americans, despite the latter living in one of those magical inclusive economies. Also, Japan industrialized without foreign aid and few natural resources over 100 years ago, defeated the Russian Empire in a war, and built one of the most advanced militaries in the world by 1941. Which African country has done anything comparable?

    was the Empire of Japan, and for that matter is modern China, an inclusive society? I wonder how far Acemoglu can contort the definition to accommodate the counter-evidence.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    because anyone back then who had met any east Asians in person could see that they are smarter and harder working than African-Americans,

    I gather you yo-yos have your story and your stickin' to it.
  8. “”””look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years.”””

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    • Replies: @Hepp
    "Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success"

    This appears to be correct. 50% of Botswanans live on less than $2 a day, compared to 4-5% of Turks and Mexicans. This is despite the fact that, if you look at just GDP per capita, Botswana seems to be similar to Turkey and Mexico.
    , @Art Deco
    The most recent assessments of Botswana's labor force have 30% employed in agriculture, and that's all enterprises, not merely subsistence farms. Rather short of 'the vast majority'.

    Natural resources rents amount to about 4% of Botswana's national income, which is about the global median. Value added in non-manufacturing industries bounces around some but generally accounts for about 30% of total value added in the economy. Given what's about normal for value added in utilities and construction, that suggests that about 25% of value added is attributable to extractive industries.
    , @Anonymous
    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?
    , @Anonymous
    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?
    , @Boomstick
    A look at the CIA World Factbook shows Botswana relies on diamonds for about 30% of GDP, making it roughly comparable to the economic situation of petrostates.
    , @MTC
    "Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth"
    The British TV series Number One Ladies Detective Agency gives a good impression of Botswana.
    I took a mild interest in the place after a cousin died there in a climbing accident.
    It has a low crime rate.
    There are no tribal tensions because there is only one tribe.
    , @Nickg
    And Botswana is 40% HIV positive. More, its president had a white Mum.
  9. You have a varied group of people that post here. I am from the South, and not more than two generations removed from people who were small farmers (and part time lumberjacks and part time cotton pickers on other people’s farms).

    In most of the South the soil is awful for farming. Dreadful actually. If you visit Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, even Pennsylvania you are just struck by how healthy and vigorous the plants are, compared to what you are used to.

    Obviously Mississippi is different (and Louisiana) due to the River if nothing else, but this is just not a good agricultural province.

    Anyway my two cents. New England traders and whalers, Northern and Midwestern manufacturing, oil, mining and herding in the West, all gets lots of time in economic histories.

    But for a good bit of this country’s history agriculture was THE industry. And the South was behind the 8 ball in that respect from the get go.

    And while there is more written about the Civil War than anyone will ever want to read, I have seen some accounts that the dismal propects of agriculture in some of the eastern Dixie states provided impetus to starting the war. I can’t really remember the argument, I’ll google it if someone likes.

    It was only a theory though, and if not popular those things can be tricky to track down in the original form.

    Edit: I posted this because in my experience getting food from tropical soils is a struggle. This thing about the women can do it all, just doesn’t seem to jibe with my experience.

    • Replies: @Lot

    In most of the South the soil is awful for farming.
     
    That's partly because intensive cotton farming depletes soil more than other crops.

    If you visit Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, even Pennsylvania you are just struck by how healthy and vigorous the plants are, compared to what you are used to.
     
    Much of these states were covered by thick forests, which when cleared produce very rich soil.
  10. No one ever utters the obvious answer. It isn’t that complicated.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Read the "Bell Curve". Nuff said.
  11. So, we need to drive the elephants out of Detroit?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    TITCR
  12. That’s why Carthage fell, all the demobilized elephants wreaked too much havoc.

  13. Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.

    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    • Replies: @Hard Line Realist

    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?
     
    Very droll.

    However, a simple selection argument would suggest that slavery and marginalization cannot explain the dysfunction of inner-city black America, while low IQ and low impulse control (which are correlated) can.
    , @viking
    we needn't we can simply compare other marginalized and enslaved non african peoples then compare time frames. we can look at blacks in countries with zero history of slavery colonization or prejudice both western and indigenous black countries. we can take IQ Crime etc statistics at face value and stop the tortured reasoning.
    , @Curle
    "When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?" ------------------------

    Because it can't. It is a laughably imbecilic proposition that actions in the 1860s keep a person from bothering to learn English, math or science in the 2010s. The only thing one learns from the constant prefacatory incantation "those who understand the long history of slavery and oppression . . ." appended to the introduction of most any dogmatic idealist explanation for social gaps is that eventually repetition leads some people to believe that a statement, no matter how moronic, has authority standing behind it. As it stands, there is no authority standing behind the proposition that slavery or Jim Crow keeps young blacks from expending energy improving their intellect. The better reasoned answer is that they don't expend the energy because they find it a fruitless exercise and they find it a fruitless exercise because they cannot succeed at it no matter how hard they try.
    , @gu
    "When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America,"

    It can't.
    , @Rip van Winkle
    I think the implication is clear enough. Natural selection favoured certain behavioral traits in Africa and nothing has happened in America to change the old evolutionary outcome. At least some of the whites who provided about one sixth of contemporary African-American genes were perhaps more like tropical Africans in certain behavioural characteristics than the average European male. Not that the truth or falsity of that makes much difference.

    BTW as I intend to note elsewhere the poor light soils point doesn't carry much weight with me. Unless you cut down all your tropical forest life for tropical people, especially those in the equatorial tropics where there are no hurricanes, is so easy that muscling up so as to be able to impregnate the maximum number of females is most likely to be favoured by natural selection. From seas and rivers the fishing is easy and fruits and roots, if not crops, mean that the women can provide food unaided. Sri Lankans aren't promiscuous muscular types like West Africans but don't need much of a work ethic to survive in the south west within 6 degrees of the equator on the Indian ocean.

    As for thin soils, none are as thin as those on which pre-Columbian people thrived along the Amazon. The secret was, as cattle rancher's are now learning, to let the jungle regrow regularly while cutting a new area for agriculture.
    , @Rip van Winkle
    I think the implication is clear enough. Natural selection favoured certain behavioral traits in Africa and nothing has happened in America to change the old evolutionary outcome. At least some of the whites who provided about one sixth of contemporary African-American genes were perhaps more like tropical Africans in certain behavioural characteristics than the average European male. Not that the truth or falsity of that makes much difference.

    BTW as I intend to note elsewhere the poor light soils point doesn't carry much weight with me. Unless you cut down all your tropical forest life for tropical people, especially those in the equatorial tropics where there are no hurricanes, is so easy that muscling up so as to be able to impregnate the maximum number of females is most likely to be favoured by natural selection. From seas and rivers the fishing is easy and fruits and roots, if not crops, mean that the women can provide food unaided. Sri Lankans aren't promiscuous muscular types like West Africans but don't need much of a work ethic to survive in the south west within 6 degrees of the equator on the Indian ocean.

    As for thin soils, none are as thin as those on which pre-Columbian people thrived along the Amazon. The secret was, as cattle rancher's are now learning, to let the jungle regrow regularly while cutting a new area for agriculture.
  14. Is there any data on PISA scores or IQ in Bostwana? Has all their wealth made them smarter than other black countries?

    • Replies: @JayMan

    Is there any data on PISA scores or IQ in Bostwana? Has all their wealth made them smarter than other black countries?
     
    See this post of mine:

    Welcome Readers from Portugal! | JayMan's Blog
  15. Could the answer be because Homo Sapiens aren’t very smart, and that everyone else outside of Africa (not counting Australian aborigines) are not pure Homo Sapiens but rather cross-breeds between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals and Denisovans?

    • Replies: @Portlander
    I think that's what Occam would say.

    Have you seen the guy at Vault Co? He takes it a step further with a bunch of how & why for getting from neanderthals to modern humans that is so crazy he might even be half right.
    , @Jacobite
    In fact the human genome contains long sequences of the genes of ancient viruses.
    , @AnAnon
    I believe that they have found evidence of such crossbreeding among sub saharan africans.

    The answer, from HBD, isn't terribly complicated. The disease load and heat shaped their evolution in such a way as to be able to survive in that environment without aid and assistance, prior to the advent of modern medicine and air conditioning whites were really not able to make any headway at all in going into africa. But these adaptations do not lend themselves to forming nice places to live.
  16. Obviously, this explanation wouldn’t strike anybody better informed and more objective than Daron Acemoglu, the Malcolm Gladwell of MIT, as terribly persuasive.

    If you wanted to persuade people you’d quit any serious inquiry into history or economic development, this statement will do it.

    • Replies: @MartinGale

    If you wanted to persuade people you’d quit any serious inquiry into history or economic development, this statement will do it.
     

    And yet, you keep coming back. Strange. Surely there are other HBD sites you could troll with greater impact? Or do you just troll them all?

  17. Just look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years.

    I’m no expert, but my understanding was that sparsely-populated Botswana was basically run jointly by the mining companies and the local hereditary tribal king; the mining companies share some of the profits with the locals, while the king is trying to think of long-term investments so his people can continue to make money after the diamonds run out. That arrangement- foreign business interests working with a compliant local autocrat- strikes me as not terribly different from the early stages of the dreaded “colonialism”. Nobody remembers this today, but European government takeovers of their colonies often took place in response to misbehavior by the monopolistic businessmen who were effectively in charge.

  18. Acemoglu’s willful blindness is perfectly illustrated by his foolish statements on Asia like “Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?”

    Even in 1950, when Asia was probably poorest vis a vis the West, the reasons for its poverty were perfectly obvious. Japan had just lost a major war that involved major targeting of its civilian areas and infrastructure, China was ending 50 years of war which resulted its best administrators and businessmen going into exile in Taiwan or Hong Kong, Korea was involved in a civil war, and SE Asia had been occupied during the war and had various insurgency movements getting started.

    An intelligent observer would note (and many did) that before the disruption of war Asian countries were making alot of progress, which you could reasonable expect to continue once the rubble got cleared and things settled down.

    Japan is the most obvious case, but Japanese-run Korea had infrastructure and civil administration far in advance of anything in sub-Saharan Africa even today. Pre-war Malaya, Vietnam, and Thailand were showing steady growth and were reasonably well run. China was more of a mixed bag, but the regions around Shanghai where Nationalist administration was centered were quite developed. Even after the Communist takeover, China made rapid progress industrializing on the Soviet model (until Mao derailed everything with his various idiotic schemes)

  19. “A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day”

    Why didn’t the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn’t the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don’t know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    “Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?”

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don’t wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of."

    Yes, I understand that Africa is nearly devoid of trees - due, undoubtedly, to disease and all those damned elephants.
    , @Southfarthing

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships...
     
    These are all "just so" stories.

    The Incan Empire didn't build ships or have horses, but they did pretty well:

    "Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador."

    , @Anonymous
    I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory.

    Zulus had leather shields and wore no armor. Three salvos of pilum would do a lot of damage. Romans had thick wood shields and metal armor that protected the head, chest and legs. Also, Roman siegecraft was the best in the world. The Zulu's walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.
    , @Anonymous
    Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation.

    No, they weren't so primitive.

    From "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries about the Veneti in French Brittany.

    They had ocean going ships with sails and trade routs to Britain:

    VIII
    the Veneti both have a very great number of ships, with which they have been accustomed to sail to Britain,
    XIII
    The ships were built wholly of oak, ... the benches ... were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather.

    In battle, they were a match with Roman galleys:

    XIII
    The encounter of our fleet with these ships was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone ... for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them

    They had a large fleet that could fight a naval battle with the Romans:

    XIV
    about 220 of their ships ... sailed forth from the harbour ... and drew up opposite to ours

    , @Veracitor
    No horses and camels: you forgot the tse-tse flies.
  20. It’s worth noting that much this primarily applies to sub-Saharan Africa’s farming/herding groups. The more primitive hunter-gathers, for example, have lower polygyny rates and higher paternal investment.

    Of course, population densities were kept low in H-G’s by constant tribal warfare.

  21. This would be a good post to add one of those maps of most of the rest of the world overlaid on the African continent that are lately popping up everywhere. It’s as big as China, Europe, India, continental US, and Japan combined and has nothing but the pyramids, the ironic exception the proves the rule.

  22. I haven’t read Reader, but I’ve read Diamond, and Diamond had similar or less detailed observations. He may also have read “Biography of a Continent”.

    Anyway, it makes sense that Africa had too many large animals and diseases, and the soil was too think, for much in the way of civilization to develop. Transportation is also bad, there are variations of the great Eurasia steppe corridor, which is how the Bantu spread throughout the continent, but not much in the way of inland waterways or good harbors. The trade winds and the big desert made trade links with Europe very difficult, and except for the Congo the rivers tended to have big cataracts making them useless for transport. The Bantu barely beat the Europeans to what is now South Africa, the one really nice part south of the Sahara.

    There were areas just south of the Sahara where civilizations of sorts developed, but these were for obvious reasons backwaters and derivative of the places on the other side of the Sahara, and tended to be Nilotic instead of Bantu.

    Incidentally, I think alot of the HDB handwringing about Blacks being behind on this or that measure is overblown. Civiliation in geolgoical terms has barely got started, the first cities (really overgrown villages with temples) emerging 8000 years ago. If you divide up humans into 3 to 5 races, one race by definition is going to be third or fifth on the various metrics, though Whites and Asians have traded first and second place with each other periodically. The descendents of the people who left Africa and went into virgin territory have tended to outperform the descendents of those who stayed behind.

  23. This account seems largely plausible for tropical Africa, but there are vast swathes of the continent that are nearly Edenic. Leaving aside possible climate shifts over the past 10000 years, Southern Africa from Lake Victoria to Capetown isn’t tropical, and has a super-abundance of terrific topsoil and natural resources.

    Were the animals really that much more fearsome and numerous that they prevented civilization from developing? Didn’t seem to obstruct the Boers. And the co-evolution notion providing advantages to animals seems sketchy anyway.

    Isn’t the central point of the now-derided but nevertheless true account of man’s conquest of nature, that it was a struggle? To cite difficulties in that endeavor as explanation for failing is really begging the question.

    • Replies: @fenster
    I had the same thought. Here's a map of the malarial and non-malarial parts of Africa and the non part in sub-Saharan is hardly tiny. Maybe half the size of Western Europe?

    http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/distribution.html

    No marauding elephants around these parts, too, I think.
  24. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Isn’t it great that 550 or so years after 1453 the Turks have finally decided to assault the last bastions of European supremacy.

  25. goofs like Acemoglu

    Yes, but he probably has a rather low Cromartie Index. So that’s something.

  26. Hi Steve, you linked to a post on your old blog:

    http://isteve.blogspot.fr/2007/11/african-dna-testing-services.html

    when you could have stayed on the unz site by linking to the version on the unz site:

    http://www. unz.com/isteve/african-dna-testing-services/

    In case you do this because it’s too much trouble to figure out the link and don’t know this, fyi it’s easy to find the equivalent post on the unz site from the URL of the post on blogspot:

    Just take the text part of the URL, for example “african-dna-testing-services” (without the “.html”part, and add it to the end of “https://www.unz.com/isteve/”, which gives you:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/african-dna-testing-services/

    Great post by the way, but you know that 🙂

  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    But the climate of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and much of tropical south east Asia are as equally fatal to life as Africa, the humidity being the ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes, snakes and all other assorted tropical nasties, but these regions even in pure modern times were never sparsely populated.
    As a speculation, Indians of the so called ‘non martial races’ is other than the big, bold Sikhs, Pathans, Punjabi, Rajputs etc of the north, seemed to have evolved the survival strategy of breeding fast, but breeding to a rather physically ‘gracile’ form, which in previous ages never really survived beyond child bearing.

  28. I took an African History class because I desperately wanted an answer to this question. While the result was somewhat disappointing, low population density was a stumbling block to development that plagued Africa until modern medicine inadvertently lead them into the Malthusian nightmare of today.

    Building cities in tropical rain forests has only been done twice in pre-modern times: the Mayans of Central America and the Khmers in Southeast Asia. Both collapsed due to various but often similar pressures. So, it isn’t too surprising that Sub Saharan Africa’s most famous ruins are in more arid and almost temperate Zimbabwe.

    If any group could benefit from a formal eugenics program it is sub Saharan Africans. Yet promoting disgenics has been the norm

    • Replies: @Jim
    Describing the cultures of meso-America or the Andes as Stone Age demonstrates your total lack of knowledge of these cultures.
    , @Jim
    The highland Mayan cities were destroyed but Mayan people remained there. The lowland Mayan civilization was very much in existence at the coming of the Spanish and resisted the Spanish conquest for some time.
    The highland Mayan cities were probably destroyed by rebellion as there is little evidence of foreign intrusion.o
  29. The Mayan area is definitely not tropical — 15-20 deg N, about the same as Khartoum to Abu Simbel. The remains in South America are in the highlands — think Ethiopia/Sanaa. Interested to know why there are so few substantial ruins in North America.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    There are substantial ruins in North America. Its just that the Mississippians built in earthworks. See the Mound Builders. De Soto and other Spanish explorers saw the last hurrah of the Mound Builders, one hypothesis is that Spanish-carried diseases wiped out those civilizations, two hundred years later in the 1700's local Indians had no knowledge of the peoples who had built them.

    De Soto described a fairly intense agricultural society, that had enough extra resources to build the mounds and support a dedicated priestly caste.
    , @donut
    maybe population density and they were mostly hunter gatherers. the mississippian culture might have left more ruins but they ran out of time.
  30. “The problem, according to Reader, was that African humans had a hard time outcompeting other living things in Africa, such as diseases (falciparum malaria and sleeping sickness, most notably) and giant beasts (such as elephants).”

    Does this assertion by Reader lend credence to Rushton’s theory on African breeding habits. Presupposing Reader was correct and Sub-Saharan African’s were unable to create advanced civilizations because of environmental factors (let’s call it elephant privilege) wouldn’t having as many children as possible be a beneficial adaptation?

  31. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Australian fauna differs from African fauna more than the Eurasian fauna does. The animals that out-of-Africans encountered in Australia were not adapted to dealing with humans at the time of contact. Yet civilization failed to develop in Australia until the time of British colonization.

    The Ice Age theory seems more plausible to me. Caucasoids and Mongoloids went through the last Ice Age. Negroids and Australoids did not. Caucasoids and Mongoloids went on to found civilizations. Negroids and Australoids did not.

  32. Priss Factor [AKA "frogule"] says:

    I can’t see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it’s a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc.
    So, the notion that the 10,000s of tribes of Africa all failed to develop civilization due to coincidence is really against the odds.

    As for Botswana, it may be impressive by African standards, but that’s not saying much.

    At any rate, the nature vs culture argument fails over a long stretch of time because not only does nature shape culture but culture shapes nature. Surely, a culture that prizes warrior genes will have warriors have more kids, whereas a culture that disfavors warrior genes will weed such genes out. Civilization professionalized the military. In primitive tribes, every man is expected to be a warrior. In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Quote: " In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out."

    This is demonstrably untrue for most of Western Civilization. Indeed for Egyptians and Babylonians. We have fairly good records for the latter two, and outside a small professional warrior caste both civilizations used mass-levies to create their fairly formidable armies.

    Yes the Spartans were all professional military, relying on a vast slave state for labor, but every OTHER city-state in Greece including their key allies the Thebans were small farmers and agriculturalists. This was also true for all of the Republic and most of the Roman Empire. Small time olive farmers like the Greeks would take up arms for a set period. Even during Feudal times the small amount of mounted knights, often only a few hundred, as they were very, very expensive, were supplemented by fairly large feudal levies where peasants were armed with spears and various agricultural implements like scythes, etc. In the gunpowder era, knights were done away with and it was all a peasant army. The same was true for the Japanese and the Chinese both before and after gunpowder -- a small professional elite warrior class and the bulk of the armies being peasants.

    The Greeks considered themselves superior to the Warrior barbarians because their armies were people who could slaughter all day. Indeed the Battle of Hastings and Cannae both lasted about 14 hours or so; if accounts are accurate. Meaning the slaughter was organized, it was conducted like an agricultural work party, and the height of bravery was not individual daring-deeds but staying in line and killing people alongside your fellows. The Greek armies were formidable as giant impaling pincushions advancing steadily, the Roman Legions flowed around like fingers on a hand in columns to stab people to death with their short swords (heavily armored in front with a massive shield, you can see how they fought by their armor).

    You are making the fundamental error of confusing the period of say, 1815-present for the entirety of human history. Outside non-European/Asian societies yes a warrior caste existed and most everyone else did little fighting in organized armies or everyone was a tribal warrior. But European and Asians mostly fought in massive and decisive engagements with a conscription/volunteer model. A hybrid system. Enough professional military people to keep critical knowledge and skills alive, but one avoiding the massive costs of a massive professional military and the risks to the sovereign thereof.
    , @Priss Factor
    "I can’t see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it’s a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc."

    I meant

    "I can see how..."
    , @Dave Pinsen
    If you look at the Human Development Index ranking ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index ), Botswana is ranked 109, "medium human development". There are a few black island countries in the "high human development" category (such as the Bahamas at #51), but none in the "very high human development" category (the top 25).
  33. Could you say the same for South America? Although they had more advanced civilizations in Mexico and the Andes.

  34. Priss Factor [AKA "frogule"] says:

    “It’s worth noting that much this primarily applies to sub-Saharan Africa’s farming/herding groups.”

    Here’s the problem with farming vs hunting dichotomy in Africa. Many tribes did some farming and did some hunting. They herded but also hunted. It was the rare case where African communities subsisted entirely on complex farming such as the kinds that developed in Europe and Asia.
    Africans were like American Indians who planted some corn but also hunted for food.

    And some warrior tribal groups could develop rather complex organizations. The Zulu empire for example. They were nomadic warriors but were good at forming and moving armies and conquering other tribes.

    “The problem, according to Reader, was that African humans had a hard time outcompeting other living things in Africa, such as diseases (falciparum malaria and sleeping sickness, most notably) and giant beasts (such as elephants).”

    This brings up India that had elephants, tigers, leopards, crocodiles, cobras, malaria, bears, and buffalos, but Indians did manage to build complex civilizations. One could say Asian elephants and buffalos aren’t as aggressive as African ones, but tigers and leopards were ferocious.
    So, how does one explain this?
    Steadier rainfall made for more fertile soil over large areas?

  35. As to the English-speaking Carribean generally and Bermuda specifically, they are mostly genuinely nice places. If I had the money of Michael Bloomberg(who has a huge estate at the end of the island near the airport) would readily find living there to be as pleasant as possible. But 3 things stike you when you interact with the locals; the significant centuries-long British influence, the fact that many of the locals have lived in the US and choose to go home, and the banking and tourist money from both countries. There is a huge banking presence and a steady flow of cruise ships . Everyone there wants things stable and to make money. Unlike Jamaica, it’s a very pleasant and moneyed place.

    Jamaice among the English isles is the exception. And it’s because while there is tourism, big banking is not going to trust what amounts to a narco state.

  36. Good point about the Americas. Michael Hart’s “Understanding Human History”, which you’ve discussed before, was very on point showing how the western hemisphere complicates Jared Diamond’s (a priori plausible) theory about north-south vs east-west axis.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Also, Africa is about 4,500 miles wide from east to west south of the Sahara.
  37. Isn’t IQ and the wealth of nations — or, if you prefer, La Griffe du Lion’s smart fraction-theory — an even more parsimonious explanation?

    In the case of Haiti, the European middle-class was slaughtered or emigrated at the time of its revolution, while in more recent decades the few educated Haitians have mostly emigrated to the United States and other advanced countries, leaving Haitian society with very little human capital. Contrast this to the Dominican Republic, which occupies the other end of the same island but has a very different history and demography.

    The Bahamas are 80 percent black, but 20 percent white, with a British institutional heritage which has remained intact.

    Botswana looks to be a much more important exception to the rule. While it has British political institutions and English is the official language, there are only 60,000 whites out of a total population of two million. Diamond mining provides 40 percent of government revenues but a much smaller fraction of per capita GDP. So, does this disprove smart-fraction theory? I don’t know. Maybe.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Here is an interesting fact about Botswana's economy (from Wikipedia): "Agriculture still provides a livelihood for more than 80%[citation needed] of the population but supplies only about 50% of food needs and accounts for only 3% of GDP."

    So whatever the average GDP per capita, this does not speak well for the presumably bottom 80 percent of the population. What is Botswana's Gini co-efficient?
  38. “Just look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years. ”

    Isn’t Botswana run by and for De Beers?

  39. @Luke Lea
    Isn't IQ and the wealth of nations -- or, if you prefer, La Griffe du Lion's smart fraction-theory -- an even more parsimonious explanation?

    In the case of Haiti, the European middle-class was slaughtered or emigrated at the time of its revolution, while in more recent decades the few educated Haitians have mostly emigrated to the United States and other advanced countries, leaving Haitian society with very little human capital. Contrast this to the Dominican Republic, which occupies the other end of the same island but has a very different history and demography.

    The Bahamas are 80 percent black, but 20 percent white, with a British institutional heritage which has remained intact.

    Botswana looks to be a much more important exception to the rule. While it has British political institutions and English is the official language, there are only 60,000 whites out of a total population of two million. Diamond mining provides 40 percent of government revenues but a much smaller fraction of per capita GDP. So, does this disprove smart-fraction theory? I don't know. Maybe.

    Here is an interesting fact about Botswana’s economy (from Wikipedia): “Agriculture still provides a livelihood for more than 80%[citation needed] of the population but supplies only about 50% of food needs and accounts for only 3% of GDP.”

    So whatever the average GDP per capita, this does not speak well for the presumably bottom 80 percent of the population. What is Botswana’s Gini co-efficient?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Again, the figure is wrong and your source is one no one prudent would rely upon. Why does this not surprise me?
  40. @Hepp
    Is there any data on PISA scores or IQ in Bostwana? Has all their wealth made them smarter than other black countries?

    Is there any data on PISA scores or IQ in Bostwana? Has all their wealth made them smarter than other black countries?

    See this post of mine:

    Welcome Readers from Portugal! | JayMan’s Blog

    • Replies: @Hepp
    JayMan, thank you, you are an invaluable asset to the HBD community.
  41. It’s a thought-provoking theory, but it involves painting over a pretty huge canvas with essentially two broad strokes: Malthus and Darwin.

    If the primary inhibitor of development is an incessant war for survival, then why did the North American Indians fail to construct wonders to compete with the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans? AFAIK, they had the element of surprise against the huge beasts and nothing like malaria to contend with.

    Nor does it seem that widespread polygamy is the ideal format for volume procreation and survival – it robs a plurality of men of sexual partners, contributing to environments of perpetual warfare and bloodshed. Fathers fighting against sons, brothers against brothers, etc. If a Malthusian trap can tame the sexual urge, why can’t a system that produces endless war? Starvation and homicide would seem equally deadly.

    I think there is an ideological aspect that, while not completely independent of Malthusian/Darwinian factors, plays a significant role that can’t be entirely subordinated to them.

  42. @JayMan

    Is there any data on PISA scores or IQ in Bostwana? Has all their wealth made them smarter than other black countries?
     
    See this post of mine:

    Welcome Readers from Portugal! | JayMan's Blog

    JayMan, thank you, you are an invaluable asset to the HBD community.

  43. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. Also, ancient Egyptian artwork depicts a wide-range of skin-hues for humans. Seems the area had quite a bit of experience with diversity of the centuries.

  44. @George
    "A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day"

    Why didn't the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn't the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don't know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    "Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?"

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don't wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    “One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of.”

    Yes, I understand that Africa is nearly devoid of trees – due, undoubtedly, to disease and all those damned elephants.

    • Replies: @dcite
    “One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of.”

    The excuses for African lack of develpoment are really the most creative thing about the whole narrative. Africa was covered, covered, with trees. Surely out all those billions of trees, a few here and there could have been used for building? Indeed, coastal blacks did build boats and did fish for a living. However to brave the unknown in a little vessel in the middle of a vast ocean, you really have to be motivated and you have to know what you are doing. There is no history of Africans being possessed of a powerful desire to know what is beyond their immediate environment. They have had to be literally dragged out of it. There was enough food within it, and virtually every non-black African they came into contact with, enslaved and exploited them in varying degrees. When the Somalis first saw the English, they were terrified not because they were English (they had had nothing to do with them) but because they thought they were Turks. Yes, the Somalis thought the English were Turks. The Turks had a terrible reputation for cruelty among black Africans, although they also like Ethiopian concubines. There's just no evidence, with a few rare exceptions of black Africans venturing into the unknown to make their fortune on their own accord. Only in modern times where they can do it with all the modern inventions of the internet, computers, planes, trains, scholarships, charities, and amnesty, do they make the effort.

    , @dcite
    " No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males."

    who's this fantasy belonging to? oh, probably whiskey, posting as a pizza.

  45. @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    “Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success”

    This appears to be correct. 50% of Botswanans live on less than $2 a day, compared to 4-5% of Turks and Mexicans. This is despite the fact that, if you look at just GDP per capita, Botswana seems to be similar to Turkey and Mexico.

  46. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    Rifleman —

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.

    Second, the Egyptians did a LOT of stuff that was innovative for the time and over a period of about 4,000 years operated fairly continuously as a culture and self-ruling civilization that produced jaw-dropping buildings. Not only did the Egyptians create beer, bread, irrigation, bronze artifacts, and a massive program of domestication of animals (they even tried to domesticate hyenas which failed btw thankfully), Greeks familiar with the Acropolis were more impressed visiting the ancient city of Thebes with its nearly 3,500 year old building program. One massive temple on top of another.

    Thirdly, the Asian societies of China and India had in 1960, massive ruins that showed just how impressive their societies had been at one point. For example, in China there still exists mostly today a massive North-South canal built in the 1100s that goes from Beijing or thereabouts to near Shanghai IIRC. This canal had to pass through East-West rivers, mountains, and the like. It is truly impressive and when Marco Polo saw it he could not believe it. He could not even muster the effort it took to build the thing.

    The tomb of the First Emperor, with the terracotta warriors individually representing the soldiers in his army is also impressive, it had a pool of mercury to act as a giant mirror, and stars made of gems on the ceiling. There are even BIGGER tombs that resemble mini mountains around barely explored.

    Finally, there is the behavior of African and Asian peoples. While Asian men who rise to the very, very top, create harems, Asian men do not behave like Africans — undisciplined, “wild,” with casual sex with women who will then go on to have sex with other men. THAT is something Asian men simply do not do — share women as a low-value instrument of reproduction. No Asian emperor for example shared his concubines with his soldiers. And outside the big men there were no real harems and especially not the casual and chaotic sex/reproduction methods of African men. Asian women were most definitely as today, one-man women. They might switch to a different man but never entertain multiple men at the same time. Asian societies remained densely populated, high-paternal investment societies unlike Africans. [Egyptian society from what we can reconstruct was the same, so Egyptians differed radically in family formation from Africans. And were more akin to Asians.]

    • Replies: @Anon
    For example, in China there still exists mostly today a massive North-South canal built in the 1100s that goes from Beijing or thereabouts to near Shanghai IIRC. This canal had to pass through East-West rivers, mountains, and the like. It is truly impressive and when Marco Polo saw it he could not believe it. He could not even muster the effort it took to build the thing.

    It's much older than that. From Wikipedia:

    The Grand Canal (also known as the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal), a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is the longest canal or artificial river in the world and a famous tourist destination.[1] Starting at Beijing, it passes through Tianjin and the provinces of Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang to the city of Hangzhou, linking the Yellow River and Yangtze River. The oldest parts of the canal date back to the 5th century BC, although the various sections were finally combined during the Sui dynasty (581–618 AD).

    The total length of the Grand Canal is 1,776 km (1,104 mi). Its greatest height is reached in the mountains of Shandong, at a summit of 42 m (138 ft).[2] Ships in Chinese canals did not have trouble reaching higher elevations after the pound lock was invented in the 10th century, during the Song dynasty (960–1279), by the government official and engineer Qiao Weiyo.[3] The canal has been admired by many throughout history including Japanese monk Ennin (794–864), Persian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), Korean official Choe Bu (1454–1504), and Italian missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610).[4][5]
  47. @Priss Factor
    I can't see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it's a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc.
    So, the notion that the 10,000s of tribes of Africa all failed to develop civilization due to coincidence is really against the odds.

    As for Botswana, it may be impressive by African standards, but that's not saying much.

    At any rate, the nature vs culture argument fails over a long stretch of time because not only does nature shape culture but culture shapes nature. Surely, a culture that prizes warrior genes will have warriors have more kids, whereas a culture that disfavors warrior genes will weed such genes out. Civilization professionalized the military. In primitive tribes, every man is expected to be a warrior. In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out.

    Quote: ” In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out.”

    This is demonstrably untrue for most of Western Civilization. Indeed for Egyptians and Babylonians. We have fairly good records for the latter two, and outside a small professional warrior caste both civilizations used mass-levies to create their fairly formidable armies.

    Yes the Spartans were all professional military, relying on a vast slave state for labor, but every OTHER city-state in Greece including their key allies the Thebans were small farmers and agriculturalists. This was also true for all of the Republic and most of the Roman Empire. Small time olive farmers like the Greeks would take up arms for a set period. Even during Feudal times the small amount of mounted knights, often only a few hundred, as they were very, very expensive, were supplemented by fairly large feudal levies where peasants were armed with spears and various agricultural implements like scythes, etc. In the gunpowder era, knights were done away with and it was all a peasant army. The same was true for the Japanese and the Chinese both before and after gunpowder — a small professional elite warrior class and the bulk of the armies being peasants.

    The Greeks considered themselves superior to the Warrior barbarians because their armies were people who could slaughter all day. Indeed the Battle of Hastings and Cannae both lasted about 14 hours or so; if accounts are accurate. Meaning the slaughter was organized, it was conducted like an agricultural work party, and the height of bravery was not individual daring-deeds but staying in line and killing people alongside your fellows. The Greek armies were formidable as giant impaling pincushions advancing steadily, the Roman Legions flowed around like fingers on a hand in columns to stab people to death with their short swords (heavily armored in front with a massive shield, you can see how they fought by their armor).

    You are making the fundamental error of confusing the period of say, 1815-present for the entirety of human history. Outside non-European/Asian societies yes a warrior caste existed and most everyone else did little fighting in organized armies or everyone was a tribal warrior. But European and Asians mostly fought in massive and decisive engagements with a conscription/volunteer model. A hybrid system. Enough professional military people to keep critical knowledge and skills alive, but one avoiding the massive costs of a massive professional military and the risks to the sovereign thereof.

  48. We have it backwards.

    Africa has too many inconvenient animals because Africans didn’t kill them off. Europe once had mammoths, lions, and wolves…

    Dangerous animals kill things that get to close to them even if they’ve never encountered humans. Killing mammoths and lions in Europe was likely no easier than in Africa.

  49. One often sees explanations of the shortcomings of SubSaharan African populations based on climate/germs/parasites.

    But I don’t see how this works. Presumably, the germs/parasites part of the explanation stems ultimately from the warm climate.

    But how does this explanation square with the apparent fact that all of the most advanced “models” of hominins came out of Africa, not elsewhere, where, presumably, the climate wasn’t so warm? Homo erectus was a primitive hominin which made its way out of Africa, but which was surpassed by the Neandertals, which arose Africa, and also made its way out of Africa, but which was in turn surpassed by homo sapiens sapiens, which also arose in Africa. If climate was so decisive, why didn’t the highest form of human being come from these other groups?

    I realize that the last ice age would have had an impact on the climate in SubSaharan Africa, but, still, why would SubSaharan Africa be a better place to bring about the most advanced human group, rather than these other areas?

    How is this supposed to work?

    • Replies: @donut
    i don't think the neanderthals came out of africa. no neanderthal remains have been found there.also
    Neanderthal bodies were adapted to cold climates not found in subsaharan africa.
  50. @gbloco
    The Mayan area is definitely not tropical -- 15-20 deg N, about the same as Khartoum to Abu Simbel. The remains in South America are in the highlands -- think Ethiopia/Sanaa. Interested to know why there are so few substantial ruins in North America.

    There are substantial ruins in North America. Its just that the Mississippians built in earthworks. See the Mound Builders. De Soto and other Spanish explorers saw the last hurrah of the Mound Builders, one hypothesis is that Spanish-carried diseases wiped out those civilizations, two hundred years later in the 1700’s local Indians had no knowledge of the peoples who had built them.

    De Soto described a fairly intense agricultural society, that had enough extra resources to build the mounds and support a dedicated priestly caste.

  51. @George
    "A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day"

    Why didn't the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn't the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don't know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    "Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?"

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don't wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships…

    These are all “just so” stories.

    The Incan Empire didn’t build ships or have horses, but they did pretty well:

    Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador.”

    • Replies: @George
    "“Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador.”

    Wikipedia gives the dates of the Inca Empire as 1438–1533 and the Aztecs start up in 1427. So if Europeans got there 100 years earlier there would have not been much to see, while if they arrived a few hundred years later it might have disappeared as so many other other temporary civilizations like the Hohokam did. So the Inca and other S American monument building civilizations might not be representative in the same way the various African civilizations are discounted as irrelevant. Since some like to come up with biological reasons (IQ, lack of self control) for why African civilisations (tyrannies?) failed, maybe there are biological reasons for why South American civilizations failed. Instead of intelligence maybe S Americans do not respond to authority and instinctively overthrow it. Which would also explain the post columbian chaos in S America. It may also predict chaos in the US that surpases what the Blacks were capable of in the 60s and 70s. Good luck with that.

    More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.
  52. Why Did Civilization Lag in Africa?

    In fairness to Africa, civilization “lagged” in most places. North and South America were still basically in the Stone Age when the Europeans showed up.

    • Replies: @Jim
    Describing the cultures of meso-America or the Andes as Stone Age demonstrates your total lack of knowledge of these cultures.
  53. @CCR
    Could the answer be because Homo Sapiens aren't very smart, and that everyone else outside of Africa (not counting Australian aborigines) are not pure Homo Sapiens but rather cross-breeds between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals and Denisovans?

    I think that’s what Occam would say.

    Have you seen the guy at Vault Co? He takes it a step further with a bunch of how & why for getting from neanderthals to modern humans that is so crazy he might even be half right.

  54. @CCR
    Could the answer be because Homo Sapiens aren't very smart, and that everyone else outside of Africa (not counting Australian aborigines) are not pure Homo Sapiens but rather cross-breeds between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals and Denisovans?

    In fact the human genome contains long sequences of the genes of ancient viruses.

  55. What did Africans in colonial 17th century Virginia behave like? Strikes me that they behaved rather like everyone else.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Key_Grinstead

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29

    If the damned Founding Fathers had only freed the slaves in the early 1800s, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. “African-Americans” would never have formed.

  56. @Art Deco
    Obviously, this explanation wouldn’t strike anybody better informed and more objective than Daron Acemoglu, the Malcolm Gladwell of MIT, as terribly persuasive.

    If you wanted to persuade people you'd quit any serious inquiry into history or economic development, this statement will do it.

    If you wanted to persuade people you’d quit any serious inquiry into history or economic development, this statement will do it.

    And yet, you keep coming back. Strange. Surely there are other HBD sites you could troll with greater impact? Or do you just troll them all?

  57. We all know why civilization lags in Africa. It’s not some big secret.

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    Thank you thank you thank you. I am getting so damn sick of corporate globalists pointing to Botswana as if it’s indicative of some kind of hopeful trend. It’s worth noting that until 1990 the country didn’t even have an army and was careful to avoid siding openly with the ANC.

  58. @Billy Chav
    This account seems largely plausible for tropical Africa, but there are vast swathes of the continent that are nearly Edenic. Leaving aside possible climate shifts over the past 10000 years, Southern Africa from Lake Victoria to Capetown isn't tropical, and has a super-abundance of terrific topsoil and natural resources.

    Were the animals really that much more fearsome and numerous that they prevented civilization from developing? Didn't seem to obstruct the Boers. And the co-evolution notion providing advantages to animals seems sketchy anyway.

    Isn't the central point of the now-derided but nevertheless true account of man's conquest of nature, that it was a struggle? To cite difficulties in that endeavor as explanation for failing is really begging the question.

    I had the same thought. Here’s a map of the malarial and non-malarial parts of Africa and the non part in sub-Saharan is hardly tiny. Maybe half the size of Western Europe?

    http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/distribution.html

    No marauding elephants around these parts, too, I think.

  59. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    Very droll.

    However, a simple selection argument would suggest that slavery and marginalization cannot explain the dysfunction of inner-city black America, while low IQ and low impulse control (which are correlated) can.

  60. Numinous – When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America

    What “recent history”? Slavery was abolish in America a century and a half ago, and the “dysfunction of inner-city black America” has only really taken off in the last fifty years. You can’t blame the dysfunction of inner-city black America on slavery.

  61. @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    The most recent assessments of Botswana’s labor force have 30% employed in agriculture, and that’s all enterprises, not merely subsistence farms. Rather short of ‘the vast majority’.

    Natural resources rents amount to about 4% of Botswana’s national income, which is about the global median. Value added in non-manufacturing industries bounces around some but generally accounts for about 30% of total value added in the economy. Given what’s about normal for value added in utilities and construction, that suggests that about 25% of value added is attributable to extractive industries.

  62. While we’re at it, about 87% of the adult population in Botswana qualifies as literate and 96% of the youth population. About 56% of the labor force has primary education and 26% have secondary education. The secondary education figure would be similar to early 20th century America. There’s quite a bit of human capital being built up.

  63. @bleach
    ----
    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
    ----
    no, no one would have asked that, because anyone back then who had met any east Asians in person could see that they are smarter and harder working than African-Americans, despite the latter living in one of those magical inclusive economies. Also, Japan industrialized without foreign aid and few natural resources over 100 years ago, defeated the Russian Empire in a war, and built one of the most advanced militaries in the world by 1941. Which African country has done anything comparable?

    was the Empire of Japan, and for that matter is modern China, an inclusive society? I wonder how far Acemoglu can contort the definition to accommodate the counter-evidence.

    because anyone back then who had met any east Asians in person could see that they are smarter and harder working than African-Americans,

    I gather you yo-yos have your story and your stickin’ to it.

  64. @Luke Lea
    Here is an interesting fact about Botswana's economy (from Wikipedia): "Agriculture still provides a livelihood for more than 80%[citation needed] of the population but supplies only about 50% of food needs and accounts for only 3% of GDP."

    So whatever the average GDP per capita, this does not speak well for the presumably bottom 80 percent of the population. What is Botswana's Gini co-efficient?

    Again, the figure is wrong and your source is one no one prudent would rely upon. Why does this not surprise me?

  65. @CCR
    Could the answer be because Homo Sapiens aren't very smart, and that everyone else outside of Africa (not counting Australian aborigines) are not pure Homo Sapiens but rather cross-breeds between Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals and Denisovans?

    I believe that they have found evidence of such crossbreeding among sub saharan africans.

    The answer, from HBD, isn’t terribly complicated. The disease load and heat shaped their evolution in such a way as to be able to survive in that environment without aid and assistance, prior to the advent of modern medicine and air conditioning whites were really not able to make any headway at all in going into africa. But these adaptations do not lend themselves to forming nice places to live.

  66. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    On 1964 South Korea, still reeling from the war 11 years ago, was at the same level with Ghana, the richest subsaharan nation at that time.

  67. @Priss Factor
    I can't see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it's a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc.
    So, the notion that the 10,000s of tribes of Africa all failed to develop civilization due to coincidence is really against the odds.

    As for Botswana, it may be impressive by African standards, but that's not saying much.

    At any rate, the nature vs culture argument fails over a long stretch of time because not only does nature shape culture but culture shapes nature. Surely, a culture that prizes warrior genes will have warriors have more kids, whereas a culture that disfavors warrior genes will weed such genes out. Civilization professionalized the military. In primitive tribes, every man is expected to be a warrior. In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out.

    “I can’t see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it’s a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc.”

    I meant

    “I can see how…”

  68. @Priss Factor
    I can't see how it could be a coincidence if Africa were a small continent, but it's a vast continent with all sorts of varieties in climate, soil, and etc.
    So, the notion that the 10,000s of tribes of Africa all failed to develop civilization due to coincidence is really against the odds.

    As for Botswana, it may be impressive by African standards, but that's not saying much.

    At any rate, the nature vs culture argument fails over a long stretch of time because not only does nature shape culture but culture shapes nature. Surely, a culture that prizes warrior genes will have warriors have more kids, whereas a culture that disfavors warrior genes will weed such genes out. Civilization professionalized the military. In primitive tribes, every man is expected to be a warrior. In civilization, a select group is trained and bred to be warriors, but everyone else is helotized and warrior attributes among them is repressed and/or weeded out.

    If you look at the Human Development Index ranking ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index ), Botswana is ranked 109, “medium human development”. There are a few black island countries in the “high human development” category (such as the Bahamas at #51), but none in the “very high human development” category (the top 25).

  69. What is Botswana’s Gini co-efficient?

    -Among the highest in the world. Also, Botswana isn’t even very electrified for its GDP per capita -Somaliland(!), Sudan, Senegal, and Mauritania(!) have a larger percentage of households electrified than Botswana.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/163739/powering-africa-challenge-charge-wellbeing.aspx
    Botswana remains very light in population due to extreme promiscuity combined with HIV.
    Also, there is only one region of the insular part of Africa that is even remotely conductive to genuine civilization-Zimbabwe. So a whole lot of insular Africa’s lack of civilization before the imperialist period is due to Africa’s terrible environment. Comparing the Yucatan with the Central African Republic is comparing apples with oranges. Africa had much more toxic tropical diseases than any forest in the Americas before the time of Columbus.

  70. Priss Factor [AKA "frogule"] says:

    “I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.”

    Piggies lived in the forest so they could hide behind trees.
    But many Africans didn’t live IN the forest. If a herd of elephant came your way, you better just run like a mothafuc*a.

  71. India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it’s obvious these questions wouldn’t be asked if there weren’t constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race. I’m sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I’ve seen for myself. But you can’t blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd."

    We got 'well-integrated' black/west indian middle class here too. Look at the likes of Obama and Holder. There is a large black middle class here.
    But we also have lots of problem blacks.

    Btw, was it the well-integrated blacks who were burning London down a few yrs back?
    Also, keep in mind that smart blacks in UK and US have a white society in which to integrate with.

    But in all-black nations, there is no whiteness-maintained-by-whites for blacks to integrate into. So, blackness dominates, and boy oh boy, it sure does suck.

    Also, keep in mind that distance between UK and Africa/Jamaica tends to favor those with some education with the means to make the trip.
    In contrast, US brought over lots of low IQ blacks during the slave trade. There was less demographic filter.

    But well-integrated or not, how does it feel for white British guys to be seen by their own women as a bunch of wussy boys in contrast to Negro men? Lots of British women get it on with black men, which means that they racially-sexually prefer Negro men over white men. It means they regard white men, the males of their own race, to be subpar/inferior men.

    Is this the future that white British men want for themselves and their sons?
    Wussy and pathetic.
    , @Hepp
    Two points:

    A) There's selective migration, meaning the blacks in England aren't representative of blacks in general

    B) Even with selective migration, blacks in England have a crime rate way over the national average:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Blacks are poor and crime prone compared to other groups everywhere and always. Richard Lynn's Global Bell Curve shows this applies to Africa, America, Latin America, Europe, wherever you want to look. It's incredible anyone could deny this.
    , @syonredux
    Via WIKIPEDIA

    In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.[25] Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.[26] In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people.[27]
     
    , @AnAnon
    "(I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)" - give it a few centuries.

    "Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class" - Likewise, your experience counts only very recent history. Time will tell whether the UK has succeeded or not.
    , @Ozymandias
    "Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race. I’m sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I’ve seen for myself."
    __________

    The U.K., showing the world the path to racial harmony. Show us the way, U.K.!
    I, for one, can hardly wait until the vibrants are raping all our pubescents, what a civilization we'll build then!
    , @Simon in London
    "I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)"

    After reading HBD chick, I do. At least partly, I think: their extreme inbreeding lends itself to a predatory culture, vs the extremely outbred high-trust indigenous British culture.

    But Islam also seems to be a factor, separate from any genetic influence the religion has had.
    , @gu
    "India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed."

    Why on earth would we do that? It's more or less for the same reason.

    "Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race. I’m sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I’ve seen for myself. But you can’t blame your and their cultural ills on biology."

    You're dumb idiot. Having a bunch of Talented Tenth around you don't disprove the much larger trend that black people are really unintellgent.

    "(I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!"

    Of course you don't, because you have a far more convenient scape goat.

    Your comment was so insipid, I'm actually believing that you're a troll.
  72. Priss Factor [AKA "frogule"] says:

    Instead of geology/geography vs biology, we need to consider the fact of geo-biology.
    The fact is the geology/geography of Africa affected black biology.

    Suppose, 1000 yrs ago, 1000 Greeks were dropped in some place in Africa and 1000 black Africans were dropped in some empty part of Greece. Suppose their minds are wiped of their culture and identity. Both Greeks and blacks only know esperanto for language and have basic skills of survival.

    Would Greeks in Africa act like blacks?
    Would blacks in Greece act like Europeans?

    Eventually, as time passes by, their genetics may indeed change in accordance to natural forces, but both groups are going to react to their natural environment in the way their genes designed them to be.

    It’s like a polar bear placed in warm climate is still gonna have polar bear habits, and a brown bear placed in the Arctic is still gonna have brown bear characteristics.

    Also, some people developed a more proactive approach to nature whereas other groups are only reactive.

  73. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Also, Japan industrialized without foreign aid and few natural resources over 100 years ago…”

    Not entirely true and a story that should be more well known… Not to take anything away from the Japanese, but Thomas Blake Gloverwas a Scottish merchant in Bakumatsu and Meiji period Japan. … initially buying Japanese green tea. … based in Nagasaki… his home… first Western-style building in Japan.

    … in the Meiji Restoration… Glover supplied… arms and warships. … in violation of Treaty agreements… … In the end Glover provided the needed rifles directly from Nagasaki… In 1863, Glover helped the Chōshū Five travel to London… helped send fifteen trainees… responsible in 1868 for bringing the first steam railway… assisted in toppling the Tokugawa Shogunate…

    …responsible for commissioning one of the first warships in the Imperial Japanese Navy… built by Alexander Hall and Company in Aberdeen…

    …began to develop Japan’s first coal mine at Takashima. He also brought the first dry dock to Japan…

    …Glover was a key figure in the industrialisation of Japan, helping to found the shipbuilding company, which was later to become the Mitsubishi Corporation… helped establish the …Kirin Brewery…

    … referred to as the “Scottish Samurai” in Scotland. A Scottish Samurai award has been initiated by Aberdeen Sports Council.”

    Seems this was one Scottish guy who profited quite a bit from ignoring the niceties of British laws… and being in on the ground floor of the right “regime change”. Interesting link between the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Aberdeen shipyard. For all he did he didn’t profit much from it in the end. Maybe there’s a lesson in there somewhere.

    It’s odd to think that the first coal mine in Japan was dug as late as 1868, under Glover’s direction.

  74. No, Reader’s theory is neither plausible nor interesting. It’s just another way of accusing whites of being privileged. It’s saying that whites were just lucky to live in good places and that if Africans had lived in good places, they would have built great civilisations just as the whites had done. Yeah, right.

    Look at Japan, for instance. With earthquakes and tsunamis and whatnot, that is a place that really wants to kill its inhabitants. And, of course, that means that the Japanese never built up any sort of civilisation, especially with the lack of many resources there. That’s right, their numbers stayed small and they never made paper, ink, swords, armour, ships, palaces or anything like that. They never had any sort of central government or any way of dealing with Westerners when they finally came to the place. Um, well, except that they did.

    Look at the Roman Empire. According to this theory, it must have been an Eden without any diseases. Except that the Romans did suffer from diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and typhoid fever, not to mention a few plagues now and again. All of which meant, of course, that the Romans could never have built any sort of civilisation.

    The list goes on. Hey, in India they have elephants and they managed to build a thing or two, didn’t they? Or is that just some fiction put about by privileged white people?

    Of course, we could always look at our own times and see that when Africans are moved to a northern climate, free of elephants and malaria, they just thrive. They took a city built by white people and made it even better. At least, that’s what you see in 83% black Detroit, don’t you? Don’t you?

    Anyway, getting back to Reader’s so-called theory, if Africa was so bad, why didn’t the Africans just leave? If the ‘out of Africa’ theory is to be believed – and I am very sceptical – some groups did. How did they do that, by the way, if there were all those elephants and there was all that disease?

    None of this washes, not at all. The people make the place. Africans didn’t build any sort of civilisation because they are Africans and that is all there is to it.

  75. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…in my experience getting food from tropical soils is a struggle.”

    This is one reason EMBRAPA, the Brazilian ag research institute, has had a world-wide impact.

    It’s counter-intuitive to a lot of people that many tropical soils, such as the Amazon and likely a good bit of sub-Saharan Africa, are relatively poor farming soils.

  76. @LiveFreeOrDie
    Reader's theory may well be true, but think about this.

    Most nations, not just African ones, did *not* invent the Industrial Revolution. Some, however, were able to simply reverse engineer some of it and take advantage of it to build more advanced societies.

    In Africa (and perhaps other places), not only have they not been able to create civilization from the template that was handed to them by the 1st world (and I do not refer just to the colonizers), when it was built for them (like water treatment plants, etc.), they have not been able to maintain it.

    I used to be a pragmatist. Now, at 58, I am a fatalist about some things.

    “I used to be a pragmatist. Now, at 58, I am a fatalist about some things.”

    From Tim Butcher’s “Blood River” – in 2000 he followed H.M.Stanley’s route across Africa and down the Congo River:

    “The ground was brown with mud and rotting vegetation. No direct sunlight reached this far down and there was a musty smell of damp and decomposition. Above me towered canyons of green, as layer after layer of plant life filled the void between forest floor and treetop. I felt suffocated but not so much from the heat as the choking, smothering forest.

    I took a few steps and felt my right boot clunk into something unnaturally hard and angular on the floor. I dug my heel into the leaf mulch and felt it again. Scraping down through the detritus, I slowly cleared enough soil away to get a good look. It was a cast iron railway sleeper, perfectly preserved and still connected to a piece of track.

    It was a moment of horrible revelation. I felt like a Hollywood caveman approaching a spaceship, slowly working out that it proved life existed elsewhere in time and space. But what made it so horrible was the sense that I had discovered evidence of a modern world that had tried but failed to establish itself in the Congo. It was a complete reversal of the normal pattern of human development. A place where a railway track had once carried train-loads of goods and people had been reclaimed by virgin forest, where the noisy huffing of steam engines had long since lost out to the jungle’s looming silence.

    It was one of the defining moments of my journey through the Congo. I was travelling through a country with more past than future, a place where the hands of the clock spin not forwards but backwards.”

  77. “When recent history of slavery…”

    2014 – 1864 = 150 years. Is a century-and-a-half really recent? I also suspect you might not universally apply this definition of “recent”.

  78. Sub-Saharan African rivers are unnavigable, its coastlines have few good harbor sites, its rain forests and grasslands are ridden by diseases harmful or fatal to both humans and their domestic animals, its water sources frequented by dangerous wild animals and its people of low intelligence.
    It would be unreasonable to expect any flowering of civilization under such circumstances.

  79. This isn’t even a question. The answer is, duh, because they’re hella stupid and lazy.

    • Replies: @Hard Line Realist

    This isn’t even a question. The answer is, duh, because they’re hella stupid and lazy.
     
    Nope. That is the lazy person's way of thinking about it. They were very well adapted to their environment. Unfortunately, other humans became very well adapted to a different environment that had higher cognitive demands and a strong work ethic and can also live in the environment that SS Africans were well adapted to. They might be displaced one day.
  80. @TGGP
    Good point about the Americas. Michael Hart's "Understanding Human History", which you've discussed before, was very on point showing how the western hemisphere complicates Jared Diamond's (a priori plausible) theory about north-south vs east-west axis.

    Also, Africa is about 4,500 miles wide from east to west south of the Sahara.

  81. @dumpstersquirrel
    This isn't even a question. The answer is, duh, because they're hella stupid and lazy.

    This isn’t even a question. The answer is, duh, because they’re hella stupid and lazy.

    Nope. That is the lazy person’s way of thinking about it. They were very well adapted to their environment. Unfortunately, other humans became very well adapted to a different environment that had higher cognitive demands and a strong work ethic and can also live in the environment that SS Africans were well adapted to. They might be displaced one day.

  82. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    “Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd.”

    We got ‘well-integrated’ black/west indian middle class here too. Look at the likes of Obama and Holder. There is a large black middle class here.
    But we also have lots of problem blacks.

    Btw, was it the well-integrated blacks who were burning London down a few yrs back?
    Also, keep in mind that smart blacks in UK and US have a white society in which to integrate with.

    But in all-black nations, there is no whiteness-maintained-by-whites for blacks to integrate into. So, blackness dominates, and boy oh boy, it sure does suck.

    Also, keep in mind that distance between UK and Africa/Jamaica tends to favor those with some education with the means to make the trip.
    In contrast, US brought over lots of low IQ blacks during the slave trade. There was less demographic filter.

    But well-integrated or not, how does it feel for white British guys to be seen by their own women as a bunch of wussy boys in contrast to Negro men? Lots of British women get it on with black men, which means that they racially-sexually prefer Negro men over white men. It means they regard white men, the males of their own race, to be subpar/inferior men.

    Is this the future that white British men want for themselves and their sons?
    Wussy and pathetic.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?"

    Yes, well, no one claims that West Virginia is some sort of economic miracle, which is wise, because it self-evidently is not. And as you so effectively point out, albeit by implication, neither is Botswana. And yet people claim that it is.
  84. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?

  85. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics and Japan was well beyond African style poverty by then. The others weren’t as advanced as Japan but they were beyond African style poverty.

    Before or shortly after WWII, or shortly after the Korean War for South Korea, there would’ve been some validity to this.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics"

    There was also Japan's high tech carrier armada conquering about 1/8th of the world's surface a couple of decades earlier. You can look it up: it was in on all the papers on December 8, 1941.

  86. “No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. ”

    The average Egyptian does have some Sub Saharan African admixture, this is 100 percent fact. So using the American Jim Crow one drop rule, the average Egyptian would be considered “Black”.

    Why it it that the average Egyptian has darker skin than the average Israeli for example, even though the weather in both countries is very similar.

    It is certainly not because Egyptians spend more time at the beach and tanning salons than the Israelis. The reasons why Egyptians on average are darker than Israelis is in the GENES.

    Egyptians are racial mutts.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Egyptians today are probably a bit different ethnically than they were in ancient times.
    , @Anonymous
    A comparison of skin color between Egyptians and Israelis doesn't make sense. Most of the Israeli Jewish population has only lived there for a generation or two, and many are recent immigrants from places like the former Soviet Union. Also, a large portion of the Israeli Jewish population is Ashkenazi, a hybrid Levantine-south European group that one would expect to be lighter skinned than most Middle Eastern populations on average.
  87. @RAZ
    Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics and Japan was well beyond African style poverty by then. The others weren't as advanced as Japan but they were beyond African style poverty.

    Before or shortly after WWII, or shortly after the Korean War for South Korea, there would've been some validity to this.

    “Tokyo hosted the 1964 Olympics”

    There was also Japan’s high tech carrier armada conquering about 1/8th of the world’s surface a couple of decades earlier. You can look it up: it was in on all the papers on December 8, 1941.

  88. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    Two points:

    A) There’s selective migration, meaning the blacks in England aren’t representative of blacks in general

    B) Even with selective migration, blacks in England have a crime rate way over the national average:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

    Blacks are poor and crime prone compared to other groups everywhere and always. Richard Lynn’s Global Bell Curve shows this applies to Africa, America, Latin America, Europe, wherever you want to look. It’s incredible anyone could deny this.

  89. “But well-integrated or not, how does it feel for white British guys to be seen by their own women as a bunch of wussy boys”

    This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun.

    Which is why there is no gun culture in The U.K like there is among White men in The United States. Most British men would shake and sweat at the more thought of holding an Uzi in their hands for example.

    Men who are anti-gun tend to be very emasculated. Meanwhile the enemies of The U.K the Muslims have absolutely no problem with guns what so ever.

    This is how you know the alpha male Muslims are going to win the culture war against the beta male Brits.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun."

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I'd list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80's btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90's, my data may be dated.
  90. Today’s local freebie paper contained one consequence of African evolutionary conditions:

    http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1158914/ottawa-man-kidnapped-and-left-in-wooded-area-after-violent-robbery/

    A 25-year-old man is safe after being kidnapped for two days and abandoned in a wooded area in Gananoque following a robbery earlier this month…

    …On Sept. 15 and 16, police arrested Laura Brahaney, 25, of Ottawa, Lisa Wooley, 27, of Scarborough, and Traevonne Mattis, 28, of Etobicoke in relation to this incident. Their charges include robbery, forcible confinement, kidnapping, uttering threats, extortion, and possession of a weapon.

    A fourth suspect remains at large. Police say he was referred to as “J” by his associates. He is described as black, approximately 25 years old and about six feet tall with a medium build.

    I think I need to turn myself in at the nearest Thought Police Station. I’m starting to notice things.

  91. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    Via WIKIPEDIA

    In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.[25] Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.[26] In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people.[27]

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Robbery, [b]drug use[/b], and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s."

    See this is where my personal experience doesn't go along with reported stats, or even popular conception.

    In my experience, whites drink a LOT more than blacks. And use more of every other drug under the sun.

    Except for crack, which is no longer seems to be used as much as it was. And there have to be black meth users, but there seems to be a color line with this.

    I'm not weighing every substance that goes into a black body with a scale, or even handing out questionnaires. But do things really differ this much in other parts of the country? Because in the southern US, it doesn't even seem to be close.

    Edit: I did see that your excerpt came from the UK. More shocking with a lower percentage of blacks in the population, but honestly that report could have easily come from a US city.

  92. @Sunbeam
    You have a varied group of people that post here. I am from the South, and not more than two generations removed from people who were small farmers (and part time lumberjacks and part time cotton pickers on other people's farms).

    In most of the South the soil is awful for farming. Dreadful actually. If you visit Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, even Pennsylvania you are just struck by how healthy and vigorous the plants are, compared to what you are used to.

    Obviously Mississippi is different (and Louisiana) due to the River if nothing else, but this is just not a good agricultural province.

    Anyway my two cents. New England traders and whalers, Northern and Midwestern manufacturing, oil, mining and herding in the West, all gets lots of time in economic histories.

    But for a good bit of this country's history agriculture was THE industry. And the South was behind the 8 ball in that respect from the get go.

    And while there is more written about the Civil War than anyone will ever want to read, I have seen some accounts that the dismal propects of agriculture in some of the eastern Dixie states provided impetus to starting the war. I can't really remember the argument, I'll google it if someone likes.

    It was only a theory though, and if not popular those things can be tricky to track down in the original form.

    Edit: I posted this because in my experience getting food from tropical soils is a struggle. This thing about the women can do it all, just doesn't seem to jibe with my experience.

    In most of the South the soil is awful for farming.

    That’s partly because intensive cotton farming depletes soil more than other crops.

    If you visit Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, even Pennsylvania you are just struck by how healthy and vigorous the plants are, compared to what you are used to.

    Much of these states were covered by thick forests, which when cleared produce very rich soil.

  93. @Jefferson
    "But well-integrated or not, how does it feel for white British guys to be seen by their own women as a bunch of wussy boys"

    This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun.

    Which is why there is no gun culture in The U.K like there is among White men in The United States. Most British men would shake and sweat at the more thought of holding an Uzi in their hands for example.

    Men who are anti-gun tend to be very emasculated. Meanwhile the enemies of The U.K the Muslims have absolutely no problem with guns what so ever.

    This is how you know the alpha male Muslims are going to win the culture war against the beta male Brits.

    “This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun.”

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I’d list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80’s btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90’s, my data may be dated.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Widespread gun ownership in the U.S. discourages the kind of casual brawling popular in Britain and Ireland.
    , @Simon in London
    >>Sunbeam says:
    September 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm GMT
    @Jefferson

    “This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun.”

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I’d list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80′s btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90′s, my data may be dated.<<

    This seems an accurate description of working-class Brits, and a good swathe of the midle class. Brits aren't particularly wussified, though I get the impression that north-west continental Europeans may be somewhat wussified. Of course our middle class don't like violence, but that is the same in the US.

    The political elite dislike guns, same as in the US. Ordinary Brits rarely think about guns, but have no particular horror of them. Also our criminals are rarely armed, which contributes to unarmed (male) Brits being much more likely than unarmed Americans to fight back against criminals, from what I can tell. In particular we will usually fight back against home invaders.

    Brits are probably better soldiers than non-Southern/Scots-Irish US soldiers; a much higher proportion of our soldiers are combat-capable. But America has lots of good soldiers too. Neither were as good as WW1 or WW2 German soldiers, but the US benefits from lots of German-descended soldiers & sailors.

  94. @syonredux
    Via WIKIPEDIA

    In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.[25] Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.[26] In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people.[27]
     

    “Robbery, [b]drug use[/b], and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s.”

    See this is where my personal experience doesn’t go along with reported stats, or even popular conception.

    In my experience, whites drink a LOT more than blacks. And use more of every other drug under the sun.

    Except for crack, which is no longer seems to be used as much as it was. And there have to be black meth users, but there seems to be a color line with this.

    I’m not weighing every substance that goes into a black body with a scale, or even handing out questionnaires. But do things really differ this much in other parts of the country? Because in the southern US, it doesn’t even seem to be close.

    Edit: I did see that your excerpt came from the UK. More shocking with a lower percentage of blacks in the population, but honestly that report could have easily come from a US city.

  95. @Sunbeam
    "This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun."

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I'd list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80's btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90's, my data may be dated.

    Widespread gun ownership in the U.S. discourages the kind of casual brawling popular in Britain and Ireland.

  96. @Southfarthing

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships...
     
    These are all "just so" stories.

    The Incan Empire didn't build ships or have horses, but they did pretty well:

    "Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador."

    ““Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador.”

    Wikipedia gives the dates of the Inca Empire as 1438–1533 and the Aztecs start up in 1427. So if Europeans got there 100 years earlier there would have not been much to see, while if they arrived a few hundred years later it might have disappeared as so many other other temporary civilizations like the Hohokam did. So the Inca and other S American monument building civilizations might not be representative in the same way the various African civilizations are discounted as irrelevant. Since some like to come up with biological reasons (IQ, lack of self control) for why African civilisations (tyrannies?) failed, maybe there are biological reasons for why South American civilizations failed. Instead of intelligence maybe S Americans do not respond to authority and instinctively overthrow it. Which would also explain the post columbian chaos in S America. It may also predict chaos in the US that surpases what the Blacks were capable of in the 60s and 70s. Good luck with that.

    More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    When we use terms like "Incas" and "Aztecs" we're just referring to the rulers who happened to be in charge when the Spanish showed up. The locals had been building giant works for far longer than the Incas and Aztecs had been in charge. The giant pyramids north of Mexico City, for example, predate Aztec rule by many hundreds of years.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The aqueducts of ancient Peru were civil engineering works both of high competence and civic-minded intent. The Peruvian-Bolivian ruins seem less bloody-minded than the central Mexican ones.
  97. @George
    "“Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador.”

    Wikipedia gives the dates of the Inca Empire as 1438–1533 and the Aztecs start up in 1427. So if Europeans got there 100 years earlier there would have not been much to see, while if they arrived a few hundred years later it might have disappeared as so many other other temporary civilizations like the Hohokam did. So the Inca and other S American monument building civilizations might not be representative in the same way the various African civilizations are discounted as irrelevant. Since some like to come up with biological reasons (IQ, lack of self control) for why African civilisations (tyrannies?) failed, maybe there are biological reasons for why South American civilizations failed. Instead of intelligence maybe S Americans do not respond to authority and instinctively overthrow it. Which would also explain the post columbian chaos in S America. It may also predict chaos in the US that surpases what the Blacks were capable of in the 60s and 70s. Good luck with that.

    More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.

    When we use terms like “Incas” and “Aztecs” we’re just referring to the rulers who happened to be in charge when the Spanish showed up. The locals had been building giant works for far longer than the Incas and Aztecs had been in charge. The giant pyramids north of Mexico City, for example, predate Aztec rule by many hundreds of years.

  98. @George
    "“Chasquis [trained runners] were dispatched along thousands of miles, taking advantage of the vast Inca system of purpose-built roads and rope bridges in the Andes of Peru and Ecuador.”

    Wikipedia gives the dates of the Inca Empire as 1438–1533 and the Aztecs start up in 1427. So if Europeans got there 100 years earlier there would have not been much to see, while if they arrived a few hundred years later it might have disappeared as so many other other temporary civilizations like the Hohokam did. So the Inca and other S American monument building civilizations might not be representative in the same way the various African civilizations are discounted as irrelevant. Since some like to come up with biological reasons (IQ, lack of self control) for why African civilisations (tyrannies?) failed, maybe there are biological reasons for why South American civilizations failed. Instead of intelligence maybe S Americans do not respond to authority and instinctively overthrow it. Which would also explain the post columbian chaos in S America. It may also predict chaos in the US that surpases what the Blacks were capable of in the 60s and 70s. Good luck with that.

    More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.

    The aqueducts of ancient Peru were civil engineering works both of high competence and civic-minded intent. The Peruvian-Bolivian ruins seem less bloody-minded than the central Mexican ones.

  99. @Jefferson
    "No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. "

    The average Egyptian does have some Sub Saharan African admixture, this is 100 percent fact. So using the American Jim Crow one drop rule, the average Egyptian would be considered "Black".

    Why it it that the average Egyptian has darker skin than the average Israeli for example, even though the weather in both countries is very similar.

    It is certainly not because Egyptians spend more time at the beach and tanning salons than the Israelis. The reasons why Egyptians on average are darker than Israelis is in the GENES.

    Egyptians are racial mutts.

    Egyptians today are probably a bit different ethnically than they were in ancient times.

  100. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    “(I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)” – give it a few centuries.

    “Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class” – Likewise, your experience counts only very recent history. Time will tell whether the UK has succeeded or not.

  101. “Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.”

    How the hell is a British Chav fist going to stop an Islamic terrorist who is coming at him with a gun or a machete ?

    The Muslim will blow his fists off clean with a gun or cut his fists off clean with a machete. You don’t bring just your fists only to a fight with Islamic extremists.

  102. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Never mind parts of Africa that were separated from centers of civilization.
    Even an intelligent people, if left in isolation, are going to achieve less.

    But look at the upper half of Africa where blacks came in contact with the high civilizations of Egypt, Libya, and etc. They had contacts with the cradle of civilization long before Northern Europeans did.
    And for awhile, there was stuff like the kingdom of Nubia. And much later on, there was Timbuktu.
    But why didn’t black achievement go beyond some degree of pale imitation of higher civilizations?

    So, never mind the pygmies and Bushmen. Why didn’t much come of Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and etc. that were in contact with higher civilizations?
    How come South American Indians, who were totally isolated from the Old World, all on their own created more astounding architecture?

    But then…

    maybe in some sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create civilization.
    To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. It’s like dogs are easier to control than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful but they take orders and are wussy creatures.

    The races that created civilization tended to be more slavish. Maybe nature made them more slavish, and then, civilizational factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes. So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.
    It’s like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they are colorless, can’t sing, can’t dance, are mostly skin-and-bones, tend to be timid and sheepish, and look like dickless space aliens at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. It’s like the natives of Mexico may have built Tiachuchatlan(sic) but they are a timid, sheepish, and colorless bunch. For them to be useful for building civilization, they had to be more slavish than savage.
    Now compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big and robust and have barbarian souls. They don’t like to take too much shit. They built less civilization but there’ something vital about them–and Mongol sumo guys bounce Japanese guys like ping pong balls.

    Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But in terms of their nature, blacks are least fit to be slaves. They have the savage gene than slavish gene. From a social viewpoint, the savage gene is problematic as too many Negroes be running wild and be acting like lunatics. But many people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music. No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.
    Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. No one listens to the music-of-slavish-genes of the Mexicans or Chinese.

    So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having built the pyramids and the great wall. They were too strong, too badass, and too wild to be subjugated to hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to be free and run wild and chuck spears at hippos and run from hippos when hippos hand enough of the Negroes and turned around to chomp off the Negroes’ ass.

    For every gain, there’s a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look at those scrawners. Non-asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry a whitey, Jew, or Negro than some yellow scrawner. Asian women are the story of the horniness of women with hots for bigger/tougher warriors. Despite matter of IQ, if a white guy was given a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, I’ll bet he’d rather be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee.

    Humanity operates according to three main principles: convenience, conversion, and convulsion.

    Civilization improved matters of convenience, and this is especially true of the West. Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such people, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don’t think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easy. But they don’t turn us on. It doesn’t move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioning is on, we don’t think about it. Elevators are useful but we don’t get excited about being inside an elevator. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don’t know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are useful for exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is nice, even essential, but it’s utilitarian, not orgasmic.

    Then there is the matter of conversion. It operates in the field of ideas and emotions. Religions and ideologies are conversionary. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim, or whatever, we have to do calm down, control ourselves, do some reading and thinking. Or some prayer and meditation. To understand ideologies, we may have to attend meetings, read certain texts, go to lectures, read pamphlets, and etc. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and moving. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and etc. They would make us realize that there’s a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn’t just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, or intellectual pursuit of truth. The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in conversionariness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense–as the stuff of convenience do–, but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their old faith. Sure, the modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience–medicine, technology, and etc–, but it’s not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of a carburator(sic), or meditate on the truth of a toilet. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

    When it came to matters of convenience and conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, and school of thought.

    But then, there is the power of convulsion. Human eyes, ears, skin, and genitalia are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes them comfortable. Conversion makes them feel meaningful. But it’s convulsion that makes their senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.
    Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It’s like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho’s pooter.

    Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure is so powerful for a lot of people that they’ve come to favor convulsion over all else. It’s like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more highs.
    It’s like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more and more.
    It’s like once young ones listen to pop music, they don’t wanna do anything else. It’s like sports addicts are crazy about sports.

    It is in the convulsion territory that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic necessities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to make a living. They had to grow food and so their minds were mainly fixated on making life easier through better convenience with better methods of farming and tool-making. Also, as there was no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to folk dances and get-togethers. And as morality and spirituality guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

    But today, we have enough food and water. We don’t have to worry about disease and cold. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services, and free sex.

    Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. Why? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. I mean how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and stuff, most people don’t care much about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passes for ‘ideas’ today is WWG and WWT.

    But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you’re dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.
    Since the success of the Modern West put people’s minds off convenience and ideas–as their usefulness are taken for granted–, people are looking for more and more pleasure.

    And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.
    Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans of black athletes is almost orgasmic. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. They act just like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they’re having orgasm all over their bodies.
    And look at rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they is. How white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They ‘twerk’ their asses to rap as if they’re mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.
    Intense sexual pleasure can be had through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to Negro masterfullery–or vicariously ‘sharing’ the conquest by the Negreos. There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having “mandingoes” hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can only get off by submission fantasies before the badass Negroes.
    The power of convulsion is huge. It’s like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or kate chopin’s THE AWAKENING which I haven’t read but I think it’s about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion’s shitty PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who’s gone native and acts like a Maori warrior. She feels ‘liberated’ by sexually submitting to the ‘savage’.

    We may admire the Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its maledom. Japanese males are seen as a bunch of scrawns. Hard-working drones who make good radios but zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offers some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mamasans.

    Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc. made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of ‘white guilt’, and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks.
    So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in this areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.
    Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana’s ‘Soul Sacrifice’ in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. They know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It’s like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen’s SLEEPER.

    http://youtu.be/KAKWKfVcd04

    Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken, but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely finds life easy with the modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.

    Today, Eskimos control much of the convenience industry–especially in high tech–and the conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of areas like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Eskimos tremendous amount of money. And with that money, they’ve bought up all the media and fund much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote ‘white guilt’ as the main moral-spiritual ideology of the age.
    And as Eskimos own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one’s own wives be humped by Negroes.

    http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos

    So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer who created the greatest civilizations but who produces the biggest convulsions?
    Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The greater degree of slavishness among whites, near easterners, hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan Quayle-like, and Tony Blair-like.

    Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger tougher Mongols(who excite the Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs), white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike.
    Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by demonstrations of great wolfish pitbullish power. It’s like dogs will be more impressed by wolves, and female dogs will have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves.. and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves.

    The future of wolfish negro males and doggish white males:

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Shorter version. Why oh why won't the cheerleaders look at me. It must be because I'm white and whites are callow nerds.
    , @Ozymandias
    "So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc."

    Human evolution has long been more about the group than the individual. In many ways, society is primarily a tool for binding individuals together as a singular entity to compete against other similar entities. Blaha's 'Civilizations As SuperOrganisms" is an informative read that can lay a foundation for understanding in this area. It is a far more robust philosophy than your 'everyone is horny for negroes' theory. Methinks thou doth project too much.
    , @Hacienda
    Yeah. Asian men have it rough. You can see them whining all the time about history trends
    the last 50 years. But you never hear whites complain about world trends...

    Wait a minute...Doh!
  103. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    “Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race. I’m sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I’ve seen for myself.”
    __________

    The U.K., showing the world the path to racial harmony. Show us the way, U.K.!
    I, for one, can hardly wait until the vibrants are raping all our pubescents, what a civilization we’ll build then!

  104. @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    A look at the CIA World Factbook shows Botswana relies on diamonds for about 30% of GDP, making it roughly comparable to the economic situation of petrostates.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Again, the World Bank figures indicated that all non-manufacturing industry accounts for about 30% of value added. That would incorporate utilities, construction, and any mining or quarrying outside diamonds.

    It's not comparable to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states, which have huge populations of imported labor and wherein natural resources rents can approach half of domestic product.
  105. Aren’t you guys forgetting about the Kush (Nubian) Empire and their pyramids?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids

    While we could argue that Egyptians weren’t black, the Kushites (nubians) were black for sure.
    And they were a close related kingdom to Ancient Egypt, to the point that later on some Kushites became Pharaohs.

    If the Kushites could develop a written language (unfortunately never translated) and create big monuments, I think the HBD and race explanation for Africa lack of civilization is very weak.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or the numerous accomplishments of Ethiopians.
    , @syonredux

    If the Kushites could develop a written language (unfortunately never translated) and create big monuments, I think the HBD and race explanation for Africa lack of civilization is very weak.
     
    Kush was a pale (ahem) imitation of Egypt. As with Ethiopia, it only looks impressive when compared to the rest of Black Africa. The Meso-American civilizations (Olmecs, Mayans, etc) had less of a head start and still accomplished more.
  106. @Priss Factor
    Never mind parts of Africa that were separated from centers of civilization.
    Even an intelligent people, if left in isolation, are going to achieve less.

    But look at the upper half of Africa where blacks came in contact with the high civilizations of Egypt, Libya, and etc. They had contacts with the cradle of civilization long before Northern Europeans did.
    And for awhile, there was stuff like the kingdom of Nubia. And much later on, there was Timbuktu.
    But why didn't black achievement go beyond some degree of pale imitation of higher civilizations?

    So, never mind the pygmies and Bushmen. Why didn't much come of Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and etc. that were in contact with higher civilizations?
    How come South American Indians, who were totally isolated from the Old World, all on their own created more astounding architecture?

    But then...

    maybe in some sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create civilization.
    To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. It's like dogs are easier to control than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful but they take orders and are wussy creatures.

    The races that created civilization tended to be more slavish. Maybe nature made them more slavish, and then, civilizational factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes. So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.
    It's like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they are colorless, can't sing, can't dance, are mostly skin-and-bones, tend to be timid and sheepish, and look like dickless space aliens at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. It's like the natives of Mexico may have built Tiachuchatlan(sic) but they are a timid, sheepish, and colorless bunch. For them to be useful for building civilization, they had to be more slavish than savage.
    Now compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big and robust and have barbarian souls. They don't like to take too much shit. They built less civilization but there' something vital about them--and Mongol sumo guys bounce Japanese guys like ping pong balls.

    Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But in terms of their nature, blacks are least fit to be slaves. They have the savage gene than slavish gene. From a social viewpoint, the savage gene is problematic as too many Negroes be running wild and be acting like lunatics. But many people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music. No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.
    Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. No one listens to the music-of-slavish-genes of the Mexicans or Chinese.

    So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having built the pyramids and the great wall. They were too strong, too badass, and too wild to be subjugated to hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to be free and run wild and chuck spears at hippos and run from hippos when hippos hand enough of the Negroes and turned around to chomp off the Negroes' ass.

    For every gain, there's a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look at those scrawners. Non-asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry a whitey, Jew, or Negro than some yellow scrawner. Asian women are the story of the horniness of women with hots for bigger/tougher warriors. Despite matter of IQ, if a white guy was given a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, I'll bet he'd rather be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee.

    Humanity operates according to three main principles: convenience, conversion, and convulsion.

    Civilization improved matters of convenience, and this is especially true of the West. Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such people, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don't think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easy. But they don't turn us on. It doesn't move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioning is on, we don't think about it. Elevators are useful but we don't get excited about being inside an elevator. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don't know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are useful for exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is nice, even essential, but it's utilitarian, not orgasmic.

    Then there is the matter of conversion. It operates in the field of ideas and emotions. Religions and ideologies are conversionary. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim, or whatever, we have to do calm down, control ourselves, do some reading and thinking. Or some prayer and meditation. To understand ideologies, we may have to attend meetings, read certain texts, go to lectures, read pamphlets, and etc. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and moving. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and etc. They would make us realize that there's a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn't just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, or intellectual pursuit of truth. The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in conversionariness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense--as the stuff of convenience do--, but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their old faith. Sure, the modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience--medicine, technology, and etc--, but it's not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of a carburator(sic), or meditate on the truth of a toilet. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

    When it came to matters of convenience and conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, and school of thought.

    But then, there is the power of convulsion. Human eyes, ears, skin, and genitalia are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes them comfortable. Conversion makes them feel meaningful. But it's convulsion that makes their senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.
    Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It's like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho's pooter.

    Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure is so powerful for a lot of people that they've come to favor convulsion over all else. It's like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more highs.
    It's like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more and more.
    It's like once young ones listen to pop music, they don't wanna do anything else. It's like sports addicts are crazy about sports.

    It is in the convulsion territory that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic necessities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to make a living. They had to grow food and so their minds were mainly fixated on making life easier through better convenience with better methods of farming and tool-making. Also, as there was no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to folk dances and get-togethers. And as morality and spirituality guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

    But today, we have enough food and water. We don't have to worry about disease and cold. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services, and free sex.

    Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. Why? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. I mean how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and stuff, most people don't care much about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passes for 'ideas' today is WWG and WWT.

    But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you're dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.
    Since the success of the Modern West put people's minds off convenience and ideas--as their usefulness are taken for granted--, people are looking for more and more pleasure.

    And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.
    Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans of black athletes is almost orgasmic. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. They act just like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they're having orgasm all over their bodies.
    And look at rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they is. How white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They 'twerk' their asses to rap as if they're mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.
    Intense sexual pleasure can be had through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to Negro masterfullery--or vicariously 'sharing' the conquest by the Negreos. There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having "mandingoes" hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can only get off by submission fantasies before the badass Negroes.
    The power of convulsion is huge. It's like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or kate chopin's THE AWAKENING which I haven't read but I think it's about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion's shitty PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who's gone native and acts like a Maori warrior. She feels 'liberated' by sexually submitting to the 'savage'.

    We may admire the Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its maledom. Japanese males are seen as a bunch of scrawns. Hard-working drones who make good radios but zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offers some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mamasans.

    Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc. made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of 'white guilt', and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks.
    So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in this areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.
    Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana's 'Soul Sacrifice' in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. They know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It's like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen's SLEEPER.

    http://youtu.be/KAKWKfVcd04

    Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken, but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely finds life easy with the modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.

    Today, Eskimos control much of the convenience industry--especially in high tech--and the conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of areas like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Eskimos tremendous amount of money. And with that money, they've bought up all the media and fund much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote 'white guilt' as the main moral-spiritual ideology of the age.
    And as Eskimos own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one's own wives be humped by Negroes.

    http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos

    So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer who created the greatest civilizations but who produces the biggest convulsions?
    Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The greater degree of slavishness among whites, near easterners, hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan Quayle-like, and Tony Blair-like.

    Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger tougher Mongols(who excite the Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs), white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike.
    Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by demonstrations of great wolfish pitbullish power. It's like dogs will be more impressed by wolves, and female dogs will have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves.. and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves.

    The future of wolfish negro males and doggish white males:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzEDtcfYGss

    Shorter version. Why oh why won’t the cheerleaders look at me. It must be because I’m white and whites are callow nerds.

  107. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization – writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    I guess you are cribbing that locution “by American standards” from Wikipedia who got it from Stuart Tyson Smith. But, you know, the sentence you cribbed means the opposite of what you want it to mean. Here it is from Wikipedia, quoting Smith:

    Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as ‘black’, while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans

    That is, the Ancient Egyptians were white (that’s what “acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans” means). On the other hand, since us guys are in charge of The Narrative, we get to define them as black (that’s what “by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as ‘black’” means).

    Let’s ask some Copts if they are black.

  108. Japan was a very poor country (due to low labor productivity due to overpopulation), very near the Malthusian limit, before its opening by the United States:
    https://www.academia.edu/3183761/Wages_prices_and_living_standards_in_China_1738-1925_in_comparison_with_Europe_Japan_and_India
    In Africa, only Malawi and Egypt were as poor as Japan:
    http://www.history.northwestern.edu/graduate/documents/StructuralImpedimentstoAfricanGrowth.pdf

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Japan before 1853 was a country constantly banging up against Malthusian limits on calories, but also had a rapidly progressing culture that included professional sports (sumo, including statistics from the late 17th century onward), entertainment superstars in Noh theater, brilliant artists like Basho making wood cuts for the mass market, and so forth. Japan had the second most dynamic culture in the world outside of the West, during a period of stasis in decade in most of the rest of the world.
    , @Anonymous
    Remember that being rich and being civilized are different things. Japanese had highly evolved civilization by any account.
  109. @E. Harding
    Japan was a very poor country (due to low labor productivity due to overpopulation), very near the Malthusian limit, before its opening by the United States:
    https://www.academia.edu/3183761/Wages_prices_and_living_standards_in_China_1738-1925_in_comparison_with_Europe_Japan_and_India
    In Africa, only Malawi and Egypt were as poor as Japan:
    http://www.history.northwestern.edu/graduate/documents/StructuralImpedimentstoAfricanGrowth.pdf

    Japan before 1853 was a country constantly banging up against Malthusian limits on calories, but also had a rapidly progressing culture that included professional sports (sumo, including statistics from the late 17th century onward), entertainment superstars in Noh theater, brilliant artists like Basho making wood cuts for the mass market, and so forth. Japan had the second most dynamic culture in the world outside of the West, during a period of stasis in decade in most of the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Japan also had rice futures trading in the 17th century. The Chicago Board of Trade wasn't founded until 1848.
  110. @Marcio
    Aren't you guys forgetting about the Kush (Nubian) Empire and their pyramids?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids

    While we could argue that Egyptians weren't black, the Kushites (nubians) were black for sure.
    And they were a close related kingdom to Ancient Egypt, to the point that later on some Kushites became Pharaohs.

    If the Kushites could develop a written language (unfortunately never translated) and create big monuments, I think the HBD and race explanation for Africa lack of civilization is very weak.

    Or the numerous accomplishments of Ethiopians.

  111. @Steve Sailer
    Japan before 1853 was a country constantly banging up against Malthusian limits on calories, but also had a rapidly progressing culture that included professional sports (sumo, including statistics from the late 17th century onward), entertainment superstars in Noh theater, brilliant artists like Basho making wood cuts for the mass market, and so forth. Japan had the second most dynamic culture in the world outside of the West, during a period of stasis in decade in most of the rest of the world.

    Japan also had rice futures trading in the 17th century. The Chicago Board of Trade wasn’t founded until 1848.

  112. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey
    Rifleman --

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.

    Second, the Egyptians did a LOT of stuff that was innovative for the time and over a period of about 4,000 years operated fairly continuously as a culture and self-ruling civilization that produced jaw-dropping buildings. Not only did the Egyptians create beer, bread, irrigation, bronze artifacts, and a massive program of domestication of animals (they even tried to domesticate hyenas which failed btw thankfully), Greeks familiar with the Acropolis were more impressed visiting the ancient city of Thebes with its nearly 3,500 year old building program. One massive temple on top of another.

    Thirdly, the Asian societies of China and India had in 1960, massive ruins that showed just how impressive their societies had been at one point. For example, in China there still exists mostly today a massive North-South canal built in the 1100s that goes from Beijing or thereabouts to near Shanghai IIRC. This canal had to pass through East-West rivers, mountains, and the like. It is truly impressive and when Marco Polo saw it he could not believe it. He could not even muster the effort it took to build the thing.

    The tomb of the First Emperor, with the terracotta warriors individually representing the soldiers in his army is also impressive, it had a pool of mercury to act as a giant mirror, and stars made of gems on the ceiling. There are even BIGGER tombs that resemble mini mountains around barely explored.

    Finally, there is the behavior of African and Asian peoples. While Asian men who rise to the very, very top, create harems, Asian men do not behave like Africans -- undisciplined, "wild," with casual sex with women who will then go on to have sex with other men. THAT is something Asian men simply do not do -- share women as a low-value instrument of reproduction. No Asian emperor for example shared his concubines with his soldiers. And outside the big men there were no real harems and especially not the casual and chaotic sex/reproduction methods of African men. Asian women were most definitely as today, one-man women. They might switch to a different man but never entertain multiple men at the same time. Asian societies remained densely populated, high-paternal investment societies unlike Africans. [Egyptian society from what we can reconstruct was the same, so Egyptians differed radically in family formation from Africans. And were more akin to Asians.]

    For example, in China there still exists mostly today a massive North-South canal built in the 1100s that goes from Beijing or thereabouts to near Shanghai IIRC. This canal had to pass through East-West rivers, mountains, and the like. It is truly impressive and when Marco Polo saw it he could not believe it. He could not even muster the effort it took to build the thing.

    It’s much older than that. From Wikipedia:

    The Grand Canal (also known as the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal), a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is the longest canal or artificial river in the world and a famous tourist destination.[1] Starting at Beijing, it passes through Tianjin and the provinces of Hebei, Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang to the city of Hangzhou, linking the Yellow River and Yangtze River. The oldest parts of the canal date back to the 5th century BC, although the various sections were finally combined during the Sui dynasty (581–618 AD).

    The total length of the Grand Canal is 1,776 km (1,104 mi). Its greatest height is reached in the mountains of Shandong, at a summit of 42 m (138 ft).[2] Ships in Chinese canals did not have trouble reaching higher elevations after the pound lock was invented in the 10th century, during the Song dynasty (960–1279), by the government official and engineer Qiao Weiyo.[3] The canal has been admired by many throughout history including Japanese monk Ennin (794–864), Persian historian Rashid al-Din (1247–1318), Korean official Choe Bu (1454–1504), and Italian missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610).[4][5]

  113. “That is, the Ancient Egyptians were white”

    What about modern day Egyptians are they White too ? Because if they are that would make Israelis Albinos. Since the average modern day Egyptian is darker than the average Israeli.

  114. This actor is a quarter Jamaican and he still looks Whiter than the vast majority of Egyptians.
    Egyptians are not the epitome of Whiteness, neither from a physical phenotype sense nor in the genetic sense.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    Egyptians are not the epitome of Whiteness, neither from a physical phenotype sense nor in the genetic sense.
     
    Yes, as we all know, skin hue is the be-all-end-all of racial demarcation.
  115. @Priss Factor
    Never mind parts of Africa that were separated from centers of civilization.
    Even an intelligent people, if left in isolation, are going to achieve less.

    But look at the upper half of Africa where blacks came in contact with the high civilizations of Egypt, Libya, and etc. They had contacts with the cradle of civilization long before Northern Europeans did.
    And for awhile, there was stuff like the kingdom of Nubia. And much later on, there was Timbuktu.
    But why didn't black achievement go beyond some degree of pale imitation of higher civilizations?

    So, never mind the pygmies and Bushmen. Why didn't much come of Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and etc. that were in contact with higher civilizations?
    How come South American Indians, who were totally isolated from the Old World, all on their own created more astounding architecture?

    But then...

    maybe in some sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create civilization.
    To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. It's like dogs are easier to control than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful but they take orders and are wussy creatures.

    The races that created civilization tended to be more slavish. Maybe nature made them more slavish, and then, civilizational factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes. So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.
    It's like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they are colorless, can't sing, can't dance, are mostly skin-and-bones, tend to be timid and sheepish, and look like dickless space aliens at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. It's like the natives of Mexico may have built Tiachuchatlan(sic) but they are a timid, sheepish, and colorless bunch. For them to be useful for building civilization, they had to be more slavish than savage.
    Now compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big and robust and have barbarian souls. They don't like to take too much shit. They built less civilization but there' something vital about them--and Mongol sumo guys bounce Japanese guys like ping pong balls.

    Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But in terms of their nature, blacks are least fit to be slaves. They have the savage gene than slavish gene. From a social viewpoint, the savage gene is problematic as too many Negroes be running wild and be acting like lunatics. But many people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music. No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.
    Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. No one listens to the music-of-slavish-genes of the Mexicans or Chinese.

    So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having built the pyramids and the great wall. They were too strong, too badass, and too wild to be subjugated to hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to be free and run wild and chuck spears at hippos and run from hippos when hippos hand enough of the Negroes and turned around to chomp off the Negroes' ass.

    For every gain, there's a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look at those scrawners. Non-asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry a whitey, Jew, or Negro than some yellow scrawner. Asian women are the story of the horniness of women with hots for bigger/tougher warriors. Despite matter of IQ, if a white guy was given a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, I'll bet he'd rather be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee.

    Humanity operates according to three main principles: convenience, conversion, and convulsion.

    Civilization improved matters of convenience, and this is especially true of the West. Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such people, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don't think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easy. But they don't turn us on. It doesn't move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioning is on, we don't think about it. Elevators are useful but we don't get excited about being inside an elevator. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don't know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are useful for exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is nice, even essential, but it's utilitarian, not orgasmic.

    Then there is the matter of conversion. It operates in the field of ideas and emotions. Religions and ideologies are conversionary. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim, or whatever, we have to do calm down, control ourselves, do some reading and thinking. Or some prayer and meditation. To understand ideologies, we may have to attend meetings, read certain texts, go to lectures, read pamphlets, and etc. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and moving. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and etc. They would make us realize that there's a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn't just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, or intellectual pursuit of truth. The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in conversionariness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense--as the stuff of convenience do--, but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their old faith. Sure, the modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience--medicine, technology, and etc--, but it's not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of a carburator(sic), or meditate on the truth of a toilet. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

    When it came to matters of convenience and conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, and school of thought.

    But then, there is the power of convulsion. Human eyes, ears, skin, and genitalia are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes them comfortable. Conversion makes them feel meaningful. But it's convulsion that makes their senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.
    Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It's like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho's pooter.

    Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure is so powerful for a lot of people that they've come to favor convulsion over all else. It's like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more highs.
    It's like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more and more.
    It's like once young ones listen to pop music, they don't wanna do anything else. It's like sports addicts are crazy about sports.

    It is in the convulsion territory that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic necessities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to make a living. They had to grow food and so their minds were mainly fixated on making life easier through better convenience with better methods of farming and tool-making. Also, as there was no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to folk dances and get-togethers. And as morality and spirituality guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

    But today, we have enough food and water. We don't have to worry about disease and cold. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services, and free sex.

    Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. Why? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. I mean how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and stuff, most people don't care much about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passes for 'ideas' today is WWG and WWT.

    But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you're dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.
    Since the success of the Modern West put people's minds off convenience and ideas--as their usefulness are taken for granted--, people are looking for more and more pleasure.

    And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.
    Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans of black athletes is almost orgasmic. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. They act just like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they're having orgasm all over their bodies.
    And look at rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they is. How white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They 'twerk' their asses to rap as if they're mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.
    Intense sexual pleasure can be had through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to Negro masterfullery--or vicariously 'sharing' the conquest by the Negreos. There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having "mandingoes" hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can only get off by submission fantasies before the badass Negroes.
    The power of convulsion is huge. It's like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or kate chopin's THE AWAKENING which I haven't read but I think it's about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion's shitty PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who's gone native and acts like a Maori warrior. She feels 'liberated' by sexually submitting to the 'savage'.

    We may admire the Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its maledom. Japanese males are seen as a bunch of scrawns. Hard-working drones who make good radios but zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offers some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mamasans.

    Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc. made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of 'white guilt', and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks.
    So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in this areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.
    Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana's 'Soul Sacrifice' in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. They know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It's like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen's SLEEPER.

    http://youtu.be/KAKWKfVcd04

    Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken, but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely finds life easy with the modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.

    Today, Eskimos control much of the convenience industry--especially in high tech--and the conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of areas like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Eskimos tremendous amount of money. And with that money, they've bought up all the media and fund much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote 'white guilt' as the main moral-spiritual ideology of the age.
    And as Eskimos own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one's own wives be humped by Negroes.

    http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos

    So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer who created the greatest civilizations but who produces the biggest convulsions?
    Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The greater degree of slavishness among whites, near easterners, hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan Quayle-like, and Tony Blair-like.

    Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger tougher Mongols(who excite the Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs), white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike.
    Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by demonstrations of great wolfish pitbullish power. It's like dogs will be more impressed by wolves, and female dogs will have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves.. and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves.

    The future of wolfish negro males and doggish white males:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzEDtcfYGss

    “So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.”

    Human evolution has long been more about the group than the individual. In many ways, society is primarily a tool for binding individuals together as a singular entity to compete against other similar entities. Blaha’s ‘Civilizations As SuperOrganisms” is an informative read that can lay a foundation for understanding in this area. It is a far more robust philosophy than your ‘everyone is horny for negroes’ theory. Methinks thou doth project too much.

  116. “I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. ”

    Ha ha, no. Assuming the Romans got to South African and weren’t killed by various diseases, and they weren’t vastly outnumbered, it would be a walkover. Roman armor, discipline, mediocre cavalry, engineering, and most importantly combined arms tactics would prevail, though there would doubtless be occasional losses due to ambushes and the like. Which the Romans, being made to sterner stuff than moderns, would shrug off.

    The Zulus were mostly fast moving light infantry with good discipline but lacking in sophistication.

    • Replies: @jack shindo
    That "lack of sophistication" did not prevent them from winning battles against the British!
  117. Japan wasn’t entirely isolated during the period of sakoku – although contact with the Western world was limited to the Dutch outpost on Dejima in Nagasaki (I think the island no longer exists), but the Japanese did keep abreast to some extent of scientific and technological developments in Europe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangaku

    For example, I think there were a few indigenous Japanese mechanical clocks prior to the 1850s.

    By the way, I recall reading once that the flintlock musket is ultimately Japanese in origin – the flintlock mechanism was adapted from a type of lighter (for tobacco) the Japanese once used, although it was mostly Europeans that adapted and made use of it.

  118. ” The fact that nearly all countries which are headed by black people are poor is a coincidence.”

    Here’s my reaction to that line:

  119. @Anonymous
    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?

    “How much did coal miners in West Virginia get paid? Not very much. What did rednecks in coal-rich counties get from coal-mining companies?”

    Yes, well, no one claims that West Virginia is some sort of economic miracle, which is wise, because it self-evidently is not. And as you so effectively point out, albeit by implication, neither is Botswana. And yet people claim that it is.

  120. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    First of all, Homo Heidelbergensis had 4 descendants, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Sapiens, and a species I’ll call Number 4. We know Number 4 exists because of gene studies. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and SOME Homo Sapiens do not have any genes from Number 4. However, SOME Homo Sapiens do.

    Number 4 lived in Sub-Saharan Africa, and bred with the Homo Sapiens population there. About 13-15 percent of the genes of Sub-Saharan Africans comes from Number 4. Genetic Anthropologists have been keeping their mouths shut about the existence of Number 4 because it’s political dynamite and career-ending for anyone to talk about it to the general public, although you can find plenty of academic papers about Number 4 if you bother to look around. That’s why no one has even named Number 4 yet. Number 4 was also apparently dumber than a post.

    Another point. Why did Eurasians become smarter? Anthropologist William Calvin wrote a book on the subject call the Ascent of Mind, which you can read online here:

    http://www.williamcalvin.com/bk5/bk5.htm

    His answer, which is a good and sensible one, is the evolutionary stress of dealing with winter.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    I remember reading Diamond's " The Third Chimpanzee" and he mentioned a little known " Third Man " in one of his charts of human evolution, although he implied it was contemporary with early Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus is that the species you are referring to? He also mentioned a contemporary Asian population to the the Neanderthals, I'm assuming that's the Denisovans or Peking Man, assuming they aren't the same species ( I believe the Peking Man fossils are much younger than the Java Man fossils ). Isn't there a name for number 4 somewhere in the biological anthropology literature? How could they cover up the gene sequencing of another hominid? How else would they know it's genetic contribution to modern Africans?
  121. @Marcio
    Aren't you guys forgetting about the Kush (Nubian) Empire and their pyramids?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids

    While we could argue that Egyptians weren't black, the Kushites (nubians) were black for sure.
    And they were a close related kingdom to Ancient Egypt, to the point that later on some Kushites became Pharaohs.

    If the Kushites could develop a written language (unfortunately never translated) and create big monuments, I think the HBD and race explanation for Africa lack of civilization is very weak.

    If the Kushites could develop a written language (unfortunately never translated) and create big monuments, I think the HBD and race explanation for Africa lack of civilization is very weak.

    Kush was a pale (ahem) imitation of Egypt. As with Ethiopia, it only looks impressive when compared to the rest of Black Africa. The Meso-American civilizations (Olmecs, Mayans, etc) had less of a head start and still accomplished more.

  122. You guys sure do love responding to obvious trolls and spammers.

  123. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @George
    "A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day"

    Why didn't the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn't the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don't know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    "Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?"

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don't wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory.

    Zulus had leather shields and wore no armor. Three salvos of pilum would do a lot of damage. Romans had thick wood shields and metal armor that protected the head, chest and legs. Also, Roman siegecraft was the best in the world. The Zulu’s walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.

    • Replies: @Unzerker

    The Zulu’s walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.
     
    The what?

    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.
    , @random observer
    I am glad to see a couple of posters already tackled the Roman question. I quite agree. But you are understating it with your last point. Siegecraft? Didn't the Zulus maximum settlements amount to wooden kraals? Just burn 'em down.

    Though, being Romans, the Legions would surely have first built elaborate camps and circumvallations whose ditchwork and palisades [presuming there was any wood left in the country] would dwarf the besieged kraal itself.

    If the Romans managed to get to Zululand with anything like 40% [to be generous] of the Zulus' numbers and didn't die off at once [I don't think South Africa itself is much of a natural disease hotbed- it's pretty temperate for one thing] they'd have MUCH less trouble at Ulundi than they had at Alesia.
  124. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Well living in NYC, you see a lot of things, and if you’re cognizant of race and all that, you begin to notice things.

    One thing that I’ve noticed is that there are a great deal of obviously White/Black mixed people who are more than capable of entering the upper-middle class of well-spoken, easy-going, thinking-ahead professionals.

    Of course, the opposite happens as well. But still, it’s not all bad news.

  125. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @George
    "A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day"

    Why didn't the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn't the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don't know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    "Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?"

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don't wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation.

    No, they weren’t so primitive.

    From “De Bello Gallico” and Other Commentaries about the Veneti in French Brittany.

    They had ocean going ships with sails and trade routs to Britain:

    VIII
    the Veneti both have a very great number of ships, with which they have been accustomed to sail to Britain,
    XIII
    The ships were built wholly of oak, … the benches … were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man’s thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather.

    In battle, they were a match with Roman galleys:

    XIII
    The encounter of our fleet with these ships was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone … for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them

    They had a large fleet that could fight a naval battle with the Romans:

    XIV
    about 220 of their ships … sailed forth from the harbour … and drew up opposite to ours

    • Replies: @Lot
    The Roman fleet that failed to defeat the Gaulish fleet was built by a small army, hundreds of miles from home, surrounded by hostile tribes. The result would have been different had it been the Mare Nostrum fleet, built by specialized Roman labor in friendly territory.

    De Bello Gallico is an amazing piece of history, and provides us with the single best description of the ancient Gauls and Germans, and mostly a flattering one, with frequent references to their size, strength, stoicism, and bravery, as well as frequent references to their victories over Roman armies in earlier generations.

    But Caesar was also an ambitious politicians who had every incentive to overstate the military prowess of the ancient Celts and Germans, whom he ultimately defeated despite being outnumbered more than 10 to 1.

    There's really no question that the Romans were massively more advanced than the ancient Gauls. One group was writing poetic satires and legal treatises, the other was illiterate.
  126. Nominal GDP per capita. This is ahead of where China was 10 years ago. Includes the largest African country, the largest South Asian country and the largest mainland South East Asia country….

    129 Moldova 2,229
    130 Sudan 2,039
    131 Solomon Islands 1,950
    132 Vietnam 1,901
    133 Uzbekistan 1,867
    134 Nicaragua 1,839
    135 Ghana 1,729
    136 Nigeria 1,692
    137 Djibouti 1,594
    138 Kiribati 1,570
    139 Zambia 1,541
    140 India 1,504
    141 Laos 1,476
    142 Yemen 1,468
    143 Pakistan 1,307
    144 Kyrgyzstan 1,280

  127. Nominal GDP per capita. This is ahead of where China was 10 years ago. Includes the largest African country, the largest South Asian country and the largest mainland South East Asia country.

    129 Moldova 2,229
    130 Sudan 2,039
    131 Solomon Islands 1,950
    132 Vietnam 1,901
    133 Uzbekistan 1,867
    134 Nicaragua 1,839
    135 Ghana 1,729
    136 Nigeria 1,692
    137 Djibouti 1,594
    138 Kiribati 1,570
    139 Zambia 1,541
    140 India 1,504
    141 Laos 1,476
    142 Yemen 1,468
    143 Pakistan 1,307
    144 Kyrgyzstan 1,280

  128. There is one particular African accomplishment that doesn’t get talked about very often; the so-called Bantu Expansion. What we think of today as typical Sub-Saharan Africans originally inhabited only West Africa (in a territory covering roughly Cameroon to Senegal) and parts of East Africa (Southern Sudan to Tanzania). The former group included the Bantus, while the latter included the Nilotic-speaking peoples. Ethiopia was basically a mix of Nilotic and Caucasian backwash from the Middle East.

    A big swath of Africa was, until only about 1000 years ago, inhabited by very different peoples from the ones mentioned above. The Congo River basin was peopled by mostly Pygmies. And the Southern cone of Africa – modem-day SA, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, etc. . was inhabited mostly by the Khoisan (Bushmen), arguably the most archaic group of humans in existence. These groups could be considered racially very distinct from the more northerly Sub-Saharan Africans (the Khoisan more so than the Pygmies). At any rate, a group out of West Africa we know as the Bantus left their homeland and over the course of several centuries utterly swamped the Pygmies and Khoisan. So much so that these groups now only exist in small inconsequential pockets throughout their former range. What the Bantus did to these groups in most circles might be considered genocide. Of course, I doubt you hear too much about the plight of the Bushmen in the mainstream media. Or when you do, it’s to blame Whites.

  129. @Boomstick
    A look at the CIA World Factbook shows Botswana relies on diamonds for about 30% of GDP, making it roughly comparable to the economic situation of petrostates.

    Again, the World Bank figures indicated that all non-manufacturing industry accounts for about 30% of value added. That would incorporate utilities, construction, and any mining or quarrying outside diamonds.

    It’s not comparable to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states, which have huge populations of imported labor and wherein natural resources rents can approach half of domestic product.

  130. Another good read along these sorts of lines but not quite about Africa is an essay called “The Arrow of Disease” published in Discover magazine back in 1992 but still seems to be quite passed around and autocompletes with an entry of “The Arrow of ” because it remains so widely read.

    http://discovermagazine.com/1992/oct/thearrowofdiseas137

    It explains why infectious disease and epidemics were something the Europeans brought upon New World peoples but not the reverse. And how Yellow fever was an African disease brought to the New World by slaves. It covers the theory behind epidemics and immunity. I found it very seminal and instructional in understanding how core the immune system is not only evolution but to current human existence.

    People forget that just a short while ago, fear of disease and of epidemics dominated human thought and social organization. And importantly, it set the basis of much of race relations. It was the fear of epidemic that drove much of segregation, separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, whites only hotels and restaurants. The flu epidemic of 1919 killed more people than World War I. Malaria wasn’t eradicated in the American South until the 1950s. To me, imagining the past without thinking of parasite load and disease is probably the biggest and most erroneous form of anachronistic thought. It is just unimaginable to people that South Florida was practically uninhabitable until the 20th century, and that to venture down to Panama was to risk death, and the same could be said for much of the tropics.

    When Haiti revolted, Napoleon yanked troops off the battlefield in central Europe, because the loss of the sugar revenue produced by the island was akin to loosing production of a major oil field in today’s world. It was said that at the time of Revolutionary War, a single Caribbean Island had the GNP larger than all 13 US Colonies. It was urgent to France that the rebellion be quelled and Haiti returned to Sugar production for France. When the ships carrying the troops arrived near Haiti, Yellow Fever broke out and the epidemic killed off most of the soldiers. Haiti had to be abandoned due to disease.

    I also find it interesting that when I tried to find some possible online copy of the Reader book, A Biography of Africa, and I searched for the title in Google, by the second page of search results it was already veering off into subjects and titles that were close or other subjects about African history. I have a bit of a casual background in evolutionary biology, of parasite loads, and the effect of disease, and much interest in the immune system as a function of sexual choice, it’s effect on the Endocrine system, on psychiatric illness, and even on personality. So the subject of this post and the Reader book is entirely plausible and logical to me as an explanation of African ecology and history.

    Yet I find it amazing that any mention of this book begins to trail off after merely 1 page of google search results, the majority being where to buy the book, and very little works or papers that cite the writing.

  131. Why Did Civilization Lag in Africa?

    A better question is why does civilization lag in Africa?

  132. Incidentally, I think alot of the HDB handwringing about Blacks being behind on this or that measure is overblown. Civiliation in geolgoical terms has barely got started, the first cities (really overgrown villages with temples) emerging 8000 years ago.

    You’re not paying attention. Black dysfunction is blamed on Whites and used as a justification for wiping Whites off the face of the earth. This is not just “handwringing”.

  133. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Once I was in a library (row) with the entire UK government equivalent of the “congressional record”, going back to who knows when. All the transcripts of the government inquiries, and so on. I pulled a random book and flipped to a random page.

    Turned out to be from the early days of British activity around Sierra Leone (late 1700s?). An inquiry was going on into the need to send lumber from the Baltics to a small outpost on the west African coast to build the outpost’s wooden buildings in Africa.

    The committee was interrogating one man, the fellow who seemed to be single-handedly running the place, not with a sense of hostility but almost a sense of wonder. It seemed this man was treated as an unusual specimen for his ability to live in Africa without getting sick. Did he have any special tricks or suggestions as to what the government could do? There where two line of questions:

    * Why wood from Africa, when the outpost was surrounded by forest and willing labor? The fellow’s answer was essentially that it would never work to try to get native labor to cut and machine lumber to the standard required for good buildings. He made a convincing case that it was cheaper to get quality machined lumber all the way from the Baltic then to try to produce/manufacture it in Africa.

    * How he survived when others died… he had no idea, but he did have a stout house built on a promontory in the “good winds” of the ocean, if I recall correct.

  134. The Mayan area is definitely not tropical — 15-20 deg N, about the same as Khartoum to Abu Simbel.

    In other words, it is part of the tropics. By definition a latitude of 15-20 degrees is in the tropics.

    • Replies: @Gbloco
    That's the stupidest thing I've said for a while
  135. Just a bit of a plug about Rice University to those who do not know. Rice is ranked 19 by US News and World Report. And frankly I think that is lower than it should be ranked. Consider that the top 20 contain the Ivy League, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Cal Institute of Tech, to be ranked 19th is among a pretty tough crowd. Rice is ahead of Berkeley, Georgetown, Tufts, Emory, USC, UCLA, Carnegie Mellon. It is considered the #9 best value, ranking vs price, where Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, MIT are names on that list.

    My favorite story about Rice was a few years back, Rice played Texas in Austin. The starting QB for Rice was from Austin. Both of his parents were Texas Exes, long time season ticket holders. For the Rice game they wore their son’s Rice jersey and sat in the middle of the UT season ticket crowd, most of whom where Texas graduates. Instead of razzing the parents, the fans treated the parents with much respect because it was as if they had succeeded in the best way as parents. They raised the Rice QB. You just don’t do better than that. Not in Texas anyway.

    • Replies: @RAZ
    That is a feel good story. But wonder if the Texas fans would've been so respectful if they did not know that the game was a gimmee, and if they thought this son of UT alum's team might actually beat them?

    I know a guy who had taught at Rice and still speaks highly of it. I'm in the Northeast and my children who applied to Ivys and the next level down really didn't have Rice on the radar - looking back on it now it might've been a good place for them- though winter weather aside I don't think either would've wanted Houston as their college town. Though Austin, maybe.

  136. Who in the recent Scottish vote gets the Scottish Samurai award?

    The Scots must get pretty bored during the bad days of winter, I imagine.

    Maybe that’s the problem in Africa. They can always go outside and play.

  137. @George
    "A herd of elephants seems cute to us in America today, but one can eat an entire African village’s crop of food in a day"

    Why didn't the Africans organize infantry squares of Africans to confront the elephants. And then use that social organization as the foundation of an Empire (or Tyranny if you think that way)

    I saw in a nature movie about pygmies how they hunt elephants. A lone super athletic dwarf with a sharp stick ran under the elephant and jabbed the soft flesh under the the elephant puncturing the elephants bladder. About a half hour later the butchering crew showed up and sliced it up. So elephants were not a problem at least for pygmies.

    Various cultures from North Africa to South East Asia have domesticated elephants as work animals.

    Didn't the mammoths die off because heterosexual white males ate them all, against the advice of liberal feminists to leave a few to breed?

    The American Indian horse culture appears almost immediately after they acquire a few stray horses from the Spanish. Africans had access to horses and camels immediately after they were domesticated.

    Now the disease thing I don't know what to say other than it appears that large areas of Africa are OK disease wise.

    Somewhat forgotten is that Mali and Ethiopia had established cultures along the lines of ancient Empires, or tyrannies depending on your world view. Mali gets blown back into the desert when they are bypassed by sailing ships and lose out to North Africans armed with guns. Otherwise Mali compared well to typical ancient European cultures. In the 1800s the Zulus were prepared to start an Empire (or Tyranny), they ran into modern European armies but I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory. So the Africans were about a millennia behind Europe. Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation. So the inherent backwardness of Africans might just be an illusion.

    Ancient Africans figure out how to make consumer products all by themselves:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost-wax_casting#Africa

    One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of. As far as I know every Empire ultimately needed ships and barges to move goods and soldiers. If you cannot move your soldiers around it is tough to collect taxes which makes Empire, or Tyranny impossible.

    "Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?"

    To the extent actual people ask that it is because all the Asians they know in America are very smart. The reality is only a few academics ask why Africa is poor, typical middle aged racists who only know about African culture from American Blacks don't wonder why Africa is poor, they think they know why.

    No horses and camels: you forgot the tse-tse flies.

  138. Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race.

    Yes, of course, just as you don’t notice anyone’s sex or age. How stupid do you think we are?

  139. Egyptians are not the epitome of Whiteness, neither from a physical phenotype sense nor in the genetic sense.

    The contention is that Egyptians 4000 years ago were not the same as today’s Egyptians.

  140. @Jefferson
    This actor is a quarter Jamaican and he still looks Whiter than the vast majority of Egyptians.
    http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/lf/ill_manors_premiere_4_310512/stephen-graham-ill-manors-world-premiere-held_3917882.jpg

    Egyptians are not the epitome of Whiteness, neither from a physical phenotype sense nor in the genetic sense.

    Egyptians are not the epitome of Whiteness, neither from a physical phenotype sense nor in the genetic sense.

    Yes, as we all know, skin hue is the be-all-end-all of racial demarcation.

  141. I see Botswana has the 3rd highest Gini index on earth: http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index_2014_0.html

    What kind of success story is that?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Income distribution data is always soft. That aside, the metric you are quoting is over twenty years old.
  142. @Luke Lea
    I see Botswana has the 3rd highest Gini index on earth: http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index_2014_0.html

    What kind of success story is that?

    Income distribution data is always soft. That aside, the metric you are quoting is over twenty years old.

  143. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/gray_09_14.php

    Destination Denmark

    Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy
    By Francis Fukuyama

  144. @ben tillman

    The Mayan area is definitely not tropical — 15-20 deg N, about the same as Khartoum to Abu Simbel.
     
    In other words, it is part of the tropics. By definition a latitude of 15-20 degrees is in the tropics.

    That’s the stupidest thing I’ve said for a while

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    That’s the stupidest thing I’ve said for a while
     
    It wasn't stupid at all. Just mistaken, in my opinion.
  145. I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education — half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening

    Slavery — carriage to the Americas, working on the plantations, segregation and subsequent emancipation clearly had a pretty big effect. Mostly behavioural but also likely selection and reproduction bias. After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.
     
    So, some fornication going on then? A little in-and-out? A bit of stanky on ye olde hang-down?
    , @Priss Factor
    "I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education — half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening"

    But this sort of thing was common in the slave days and prior to the 60s.

    American black families were strong and intact. Blacks didn't boogie woogie in churches. Most blacks were non-threatening to whites.
    As America only brought 300,000 slaves, white slave owners emphasized families in order to have blacks produce more blacks. Though some slave families did get split apart, most remained intact.

    So, what's true of Ghana was true of black America prior to 60s. Traditional values and strong sense of community are better for blacks than individualism and libertine-ism. Since blacks are naturally rowdier, they need to be controlled more.
    A tribal society is very conservative. Violating social norms can get you shunned, beaten... even exiled or killed. (You may have seen a peaceful society on the surface, but such peace has been created and enforced by means that would be illegal and considered 'immoral' in the West. Wife-beating is common in Africa not as abuse but as a proper means of social control. It's also ok to beat up kids who disrespect social norms. And there are few lawyers to take up cases. And less shit pop culture that turns everything porny. So, people just go along.)

    In tribal societies, everyone knows each other and be related in some way. That also leads to cohesion and mindful peer pressure.

    But modernity is about freedom and rule via laws and higher principles. It requires more abstract thinking and more individual self-control with all that freedom. Blacks are less good at this, esp if they integrate with weaker races(whom blacks come to despise and bully) and are raised to hate whitey for historical/economic reasons.

    Cuban slave system was far crueler than in the US, but why are Cuban blacks better behaved than US blacks? Cuba is like a military barracks nation. Castro is like the tribal chief of the nation, blacks are raised to defer to white Cuban leaders, and anyone who messes around gets a club on the head(and no NAACP OR MEDIA to raise a fuss). Any Negro who acts like Al Sharpton in Cuba is headed for the slammer.
    America used to send a harsher message to Negros in the past. Back then, black families were more intact, blacks were less likely to rob/rape whitey, and black students were more likely to show some respect to teachers.
    White man used to be the tribal chieftain over the Negroes. But once whites let Negroes to run free, oh boy.

    , @Ed
    As a Ghanaian American your description is very accurate. I'm not sure where this description of loose African women comes from but it's not descriptive of Ghanaian women for the most part. Family is everything and shaming the family is a big thing even among those of us in the USA & UK.

    Hopefully one day the country will realize its potential, I think the general ingredients are there for a decent middle income country.
  146. @Gbloco
    I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education -- half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening

    Slavery -- carriage to the Americas, working on the plantations, segregation and subsequent emancipation clearly had a pretty big effect. Mostly behavioural but also likely selection and reproduction bias. After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.

    After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.

    So, some fornication going on then? A little in-and-out? A bit of stanky on ye olde hang-down?

  147. “Yes, as we all know, skin hue is the be-all-end-all of racial demarcation.”

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.
     
    Don't be a regular moron.
    , @syonredux

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.
     
    This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.
  148. It is always amusing to watch race “realists” of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own, demeaning people who built this some 3000 years before their own germanic, scandinavian, slavic ancestors were finally civilized:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Chasseb%C5%93uf,_comte_de_Volney

    In 1787, Count Constantine de Volney—a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician—embarked on a journey to the East in late 1782 and reached Ottoman Egypt were he spent nearly seven months…….During his visit to Egypt he expressed amazement that the Egyptians – whose civilization was greatly admired in Europe – were not White! “All the Egyptians,” wrote de Volney, “have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ‘ As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair... “When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their ‘mulatto’ appearance) “In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?And while we are on it, please don't waste our time by invoking Bernal's ludicrous Black Athena nonsense.
    , @syonredux
    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?And while we are on it, please don’t waste our time by invoking Bernal’s ludicrous Black Athena nonsense.
    , @gu
    "It is always amusing to watch race “realists” of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own"

    Is this satire?

    Northern Europeans make those people you're referencing look like poorly tamed animals.

    Egyptians weren't black. Nubians were. You fool.
  149. @Anonymous
    I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory.

    Zulus had leather shields and wore no armor. Three salvos of pilum would do a lot of damage. Romans had thick wood shields and metal armor that protected the head, chest and legs. Also, Roman siegecraft was the best in the world. The Zulu's walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.

    The Zulu’s walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.

    The what?

    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There simply weren't many cities south of Timbuktu. There were some, but urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa vastly lagged behind, say, the New World. Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" visited places like Zanzibar and Dar-es-Salaam, but those were Arab slave-trading cities.

    John Reader discusses the famous ruins at Great Zimbabwe, which comprised the climax of Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" series. Reader says that a contractor estimated he could build the ruins with 200 men working for one year.

    Zimbabwe is mostly at a moderate altitude and thus is healthier than most of sub-Saharan Africa. In the vast lowland Africa, it was impractical to get large concentrations of people together because they were sitting ducks for insect-borne epidemics. On the other hand, not very dense outposts of a few people were sitting ducks for predators and giant herbivores like elephants, giraffes, and Cape buffalos who would devour crops. Sub-Saharan Africa was simply a difficult environment for humans.

    , @Anonymous
    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.

    That's the joke

    Regarding @George: I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory
  150. 25% of Botswana’s people are HIV+ and the high GDP per capita is totally due to taxation of international diamond house De Beers (owned by London-listed Anglo-American). That said, the country has been notably “un-African” in being able to save some of the diamond surplus in a Norway-style wealth fund (it is worth about $3000 per head vs. $170,000 per head in Norway, but still, not bad for Africa!). For this, Botswana national leaders deserve some credit.

    I have traveled often to the Bahamas and the equation for that country’s success is turquoise ocean + high black incarceration rate + citizenship for of super-rich international tax criminals + proximity to American tourist dollars = successful Black Country.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    25% of Botswana’s people are HIV+ and the high GDP per capita is totally due to taxation of international diamond house De Beers

    Again, this has been addressed in this thread, but the bulk of you read little. About 75% of the value added in Botswana's economy is attributable to sectors other than extractive industries.
    , @ben tillman

    25% of Botswana’s people are HIV+
     
    No. That's a bogus figure made up by people with an agenda.
  151. @Unzerker

    The Zulu’s walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.
     
    The what?

    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.

    There simply weren’t many cities south of Timbuktu. There were some, but urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa vastly lagged behind, say, the New World. Henry Louis Gates’ “Wonders of Africa” visited places like Zanzibar and Dar-es-Salaam, but those were Arab slave-trading cities.

    John Reader discusses the famous ruins at Great Zimbabwe, which comprised the climax of Henry Louis Gates’ “Wonders of Africa” series. Reader says that a contractor estimated he could build the ruins with 200 men working for one year.

    Zimbabwe is mostly at a moderate altitude and thus is healthier than most of sub-Saharan Africa. In the vast lowland Africa, it was impractical to get large concentrations of people together because they were sitting ducks for insect-borne epidemics. On the other hand, not very dense outposts of a few people were sitting ducks for predators and giant herbivores like elephants, giraffes, and Cape buffalos who would devour crops. Sub-Saharan Africa was simply a difficult environment for humans.

    • Replies: @Unit472
    OK, I accept the population density problem as related to disease issues but it seems to have had consequences beyond a lack of 'ruins' in Africa. One of the real problems in black societies is the lack of organization. Blacks are great athletes e.g. but not until whites created professional sports leagues could blacks showcase and make a living from their running and leaping abilities. That there are no major businesses founded and run by blacks anywhere in the world is an even starker evidence of this lack of organizational ability. While black apologists would ascribe this to 'racism', lack of capital, etc, the fact is many of the largest companies in the world came into existence since the Civil Rights Act passed in the US and such monsters of equity valuation and revenues as Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook in the last 30 years. Even big retailing and restaurant chains come and go with startling speed but never with a black entrepreneur at the helm.

    Some might point to BET as a big black enterprise but this was a matter of getting a government license. Motown and other recored companies tend to be mere agencies where singers are kept under contract not real enterprises.

    , @Unzerker
    I can't make head nor tail of the layout of Great Zimbabwe.

    http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previews/49621-great-zimbabwe-stone-ruins.jpeg

    I really like to know what they were thinking when they build the thing.
  152. @Unzerker

    The Zulu’s walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.
     
    The what?

    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.

    They had neither cities nor forts. They lived in round villages with a wooden fence.

    That’s the joke

    Regarding : I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory

  153. @Priss Factor
    Never mind parts of Africa that were separated from centers of civilization.
    Even an intelligent people, if left in isolation, are going to achieve less.

    But look at the upper half of Africa where blacks came in contact with the high civilizations of Egypt, Libya, and etc. They had contacts with the cradle of civilization long before Northern Europeans did.
    And for awhile, there was stuff like the kingdom of Nubia. And much later on, there was Timbuktu.
    But why didn't black achievement go beyond some degree of pale imitation of higher civilizations?

    So, never mind the pygmies and Bushmen. Why didn't much come of Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, and etc. that were in contact with higher civilizations?
    How come South American Indians, who were totally isolated from the Old World, all on their own created more astounding architecture?

    But then...

    maybe in some sense, blacks could take pride in not having been able to create civilization.
    To create civilization, the slavish genes have to outnumber the savage genes. It's like dogs are easier to control than wolves. And yet, wolves are freer, wilder, and more robust. Dogs are more useful but they take orders and are wussy creatures.

    The races that created civilization tended to be more slavish. Maybe nature made them more slavish, and then, civilizational factors compounded the slavishness by weeding out the savage genes. So, as a group, they could achieve more but this happened at the cost of individual savage gene that was more robust, rambunctious, colorful, exuberant, and etc.
    It's like Chinese and Japanese built high civilizations, but they are colorless, can't sing, can't dance, are mostly skin-and-bones, tend to be timid and sheepish, and look like dickless space aliens at the end of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. It's like the natives of Mexico may have built Tiachuchatlan(sic) but they are a timid, sheepish, and colorless bunch. For them to be useful for building civilization, they had to be more slavish than savage.
    Now compare the wolfish Mongols with the doggish Chinese. Mongols, by Asian standards, are big and robust and have barbarian souls. They don't like to take too much shit. They built less civilization but there' something vital about them--and Mongol sumo guys bounce Japanese guys like ping pong balls.

    Because Negroes failed to develop civilization, they came to be subjugated by other races. And they became slaves in Arabia and the New World. But in terms of their nature, blacks are least fit to be slaves. They have the savage gene than slavish gene. From a social viewpoint, the savage gene is problematic as too many Negroes be running wild and be acting like lunatics. But many people also find it vibrant, exciting, manly, sexy, badass, and etc. Look at the worldwide success of rap music. No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.
    Among all the arts, music is the most spontaneous and powerful, and blacks have been, pound for pound, the most dominant force in pop music in the 20th century with their contribution to or invention of blues, jazz, rock n roll, soul, reggae, rap, and etc. Such music arose from the savage genes, and it turns a lot of people on. No one listens to the music-of-slavish-genes of the Mexicans or Chinese.

    So, in some ways, blacks may take pride in not having built the pyramids and the great wall. They were too strong, too badass, and too wild to be subjugated to hauling bricks to build stuff for oppressive kings and queens. They preferred to be free and run wild and chuck spears at hippos and run from hippos when hippos hand enough of the Negroes and turned around to chomp off the Negroes' ass.

    For every gain, there's a loss. Chinese may have built a great civilization, but look at those scrawners. Non-asian women feel no excitement about Chinese men, and just about any good-looking Chinese woman in the US would rather marry a whitey, Jew, or Negro than some yellow scrawner. Asian women are the story of the horniness of women with hots for bigger/tougher warriors. Despite matter of IQ, if a white guy was given a chance to become a Negro or a yellow, I'll bet he'd rather be Long Dong Silver than Wong Dong Lee.

    Humanity operates according to three main principles: convenience, conversion, and convulsion.

    Civilization improved matters of convenience, and this is especially true of the West. Think of all the great Western scientists and techno-inventors who created stuff like cars, refrigerators, airplanes, machines, toilets, and etc, etc, that made life so much easier, more comfortable, and more convenient. We owe so much to such people, but how come they are almost invisible to us? Because the purpose of convenience is to serve us and make us forget it even exists. We don't think about the technology of plumbing every time we use the faucet to drink water or flush the toilet. We are very glad to have such things, and they make life easy. But they don't turn us on. It doesn't move us sensually or emotionally. Once the air conditioning is on, we don't think about it. Elevators are useful but we don't get excited about being inside an elevator. Western civilization has been the king of convenience, but how many white folks are reading books about past inventors to get their jollies? Think of the guy who invented modern textile technology. He did something very great. But I don't know his name and likely neither do you. Machines are useful for exist to serve us and make life more convenient. And convenience is nice, even essential, but it's utilitarian, not orgasmic.

    Then there is the matter of conversion. It operates in the field of ideas and emotions. Religions and ideologies are conversionary. Religions and ideology may require time and patience for us to appreciate. To understand Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taosim, or whatever, we have to do calm down, control ourselves, do some reading and thinking. Or some prayer and meditation. To understand ideologies, we may have to attend meetings, read certain texts, go to lectures, read pamphlets, and etc. In the end, religions or ideologies may be very fulfilling and moving. They may provide us with the meaning of life, a sense of truth and righteousness, and etc. They would make us realize that there's a higher meaning to life, i.e. life isn't just about material well-being but about spiritual, moral, or intellectual pursuit of truth. The Middle East, Asia, and Europe achieved great things in conversionariness. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek philosophy, Confucianism, and many schools of thoughts arose from those civilizations. Conversionary stuff may not make life easier in the physical/literal sense--as the stuff of convenience do--, but they are compelling because they imbue us with a sense of truth and meaning. And this is why some Muslims in the West still cling to their old faith. Sure, the modern West offers a great deal in terms of convenience--medicine, technology, and etc--, but it's not very meaningful to worship a refrigerator, ponder the significance of a carburator(sic), or meditate on the truth of a toilet. People find meaning by thinking about God, myths, high art, philosophy(ultimate meaning of life), history, moral progress, and etc.

    When it came to matters of convenience and conversion, black African produced next to nothing. No great science/technology/invention. No great religion, philosophy, ideology, and school of thought.

    But then, there is the power of convulsion. Human eyes, ears, skin, and genitalia are all erogenous-like zones. Convenience makes them comfortable. Conversion makes them feel meaningful. But it's convulsion that makes their senses explode like Juicy Fruit gum and go crazy.
    Convenience is like a perfect chair that makes the ass comfortable. Conversion is the book one holds while sitting on the chair. In contrast, convulsion may not offer any long-term utility or any deep meaning, but it provides intense explosions of pleasure. It's like a vibrator-dildo up a nympho's pooter.

    Now, we could argue that humanity should be wiser and favor convenience and conversion over convulsion, but the power of pleasure is so powerful for a lot of people that they've come to favor convulsion over all else. It's like if you give cocaine to a monkey, it will just want more highs.
    It's like once a boy or girl experiences orgasm, he or she has to look for more and more and more.
    It's like once young ones listen to pop music, they don't wanna do anything else. It's like sports addicts are crazy about sports.

    It is in the convulsion territory that blacks pose the greatest threat to the white race. Though convulsion may be the opposite of convenience and conversion, paradoxically the power of convulsion became magnified because of the success of convenience and conversion. The Western triumph in convenience led to huge technological advances. As people in the West have all the basic necessities and own TVs/stereos/computers, their minds are barely on convenience(even as their lives owe so much to it). In the 19th century, white farmers struggled to make a living. They had to grow food and so their minds were mainly fixated on making life easier through better convenience with better methods of farming and tool-making. Also, as there was no radios, TV, and stereos, fun and pleasure amounted to folk dances and get-togethers. And as morality and spirituality guided society, sexuality was carefully regulated.

    But today, we have enough food and water. We don't have to worry about disease and cold. Our social mores are more libertarian and freewheeling and hedonistic. So, people take basic necessities for granted and instead seek wild/intense pleasure through sports, music, movies, TV, porn, dating-services, and free sex.

    Conversion also paved the way for the rise of convulsion. Why? Because conversion-dialectic led to the emergence of the kind of political/social/moral philosophies that best served to create and maintain modern societies of peace, law, and order. Once such socio-economic-political success was achieved, people began to take ideas for granted. I mean how many people regularly read the documents of the Founding Fathers? How many read up on the history of advancement of law and ethics from Roman times to the present? Though some people do find intellectual fulfillment in reading and stuff, most people don't care much about ideas as long as life is pretty good for them. What passes for 'ideas' today is WWG and WWT.

    But one thing people are mad about is pleasure and more pleasure. If you're dying of thirst, a glass of water will suffice as pleasure. But if you have all the water in the world, you want something like ice cold beer or soda pop with the fizzle.
    Since the success of the Modern West put people's minds off convenience and ideas--as their usefulness are taken for granted--, people are looking for more and more pleasure.

    And it is in the area of convulsion that Negroes are beginning to take over.
    Look at sports. Muscled Negroes dominate. White girls cheer for black studs and line up to have sex with Mandingos who give them the biggest orgasms. White boys in the stands cheer for black athletes like crazy. The emotional response of white male fans of black athletes is almost orgasmic. White boys turn quasi-homo in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. They act just like white cheerleaders. They scream their heads off like they're having orgasm all over their bodies.
    And look at rap music. Black guys sing about how badass they is. How white girls worship their muscle and big dongs. And white girls have conniptions listening to that stuff. They 'twerk' their asses to rap as if they're mounting big Negroes. And white boys listen to that stuff too and get quasi-homo jollies in their worship of black muscle and masterfulness. White rock critics sing hosannas to Kanye West. White guys try to emulate black rappers. White homo guys look for black guys to pump them in the ass.
    Intense sexual pleasure can be had through feelings of conquest or feelings of submission. White girls and white guys find great orgasmic pleasure in submitting to Negro masterfullery--or vicariously 'sharing' the conquest by the Negreos. There was even an article in DETAILS mag about how white elites are having "mandingoes" hump their wives on their own beds. White wives must have the big Negro, and white guys can only get off by submission fantasies before the badass Negroes.
    The power of convulsion is huge. It's like WUTHERING HEIGHTS where some hussy runs off with Heathcliff. Or kate chopin's THE AWAKENING which I haven't read but I think it's about some white woman getting turned on by a mulatto. Or Jane Campion's shitty PIANO where some white hussy goes off with some white guy who's gone native and acts like a Maori warrior. She feels 'liberated' by sexually submitting to the 'savage'.

    We may admire the Japanese contribution to the technology of convenience, but in the area of convulsion, Japan fails at least in its maledom. Japanese males are seen as a bunch of scrawns. Hard-working drones who make good radios but zero in convulsion factor. On the other hand, Japanese women may offers some convulsion goodies since men prefer women who are feminine, and it seems men all over the world have fantasies about me-so-horny mamasans.

    Negroes achieved zero in convenience and conversion, but they seem to be masters of convulsion. And yet, this triumph of the Negro has been made possible by Western triumph in convenience and convulsion. Western invention of electronics, TV, stereo, and etc. made black music accessible in the bed room of every white boy and white girl. Western moral-intellectual development led to the feelings of 'white guilt', and MLK-ology is the reigning ideology of White folks.
    So, even though blacks are only really good at thuggery, humpery, and jiveassery, their power in this areas have been magnified as pleasure-drugs all over the globe through Western media. And ease of travel have sent Negroes all over the world to hump women of all color.
    Pleasure may be fleeting, but it is intense(just look at the loonies who totally lose their minds during Santana's 'Soul Sacrifice' in WOODSTOCK), which is why some druggies are hopeless. They know that the drugs that give them convulsions are destroying them, but they are so addicted to the pleasure, they gotta have more and more and more. It's like the orgasmo-orb in Woody Allen's SLEEPER.

    http://youtu.be/KAKWKfVcd04

    Just look at the state of UK today. You still have elites who are well-mannered, well-read, and well-spoken, but the main cultural interest now revolves around convulsion, especially in relation to the Negro. Andrew Sullivan the homo may find meaning in books and surely finds life easy with the modern conveniences(created by so many white scientists and inventors), but where does he find the greatest pleasure in life? By having some muscled big-donged Negro pump him in the ass. That pretty much sums up the essence of what the British elites stand for nowadays.

    Today, Eskimos control much of the convenience industry--especially in high tech--and the conversion industry(academia, media, publishing, etc). Control of areas like Silicon valley and finance technology gives Eskimos tremendous amount of money. And with that money, they've bought up all the media and fund much of the academia. And they use their control over conversion-spheres to promote 'white guilt' as the main moral-spiritual ideology of the age.
    And as Eskimos own much of sports, media, TV, music, and porn, they work in cahoots with Negroes to push the Negro dope or Negrope on white junkies who are totally addicted to orgasmic convulsions from sports, rap music, porn, and even watching one's own wives be humped by Negroes.

    http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/200703/meet-the-mandingos

    So, as we look to the future, the issue is no longer who created the greatest civilizations but who produces the biggest convulsions?
    Though non-blacks created the greatest civilizations, the price they had to pay was the rise of slavish genes over savage genes. The greater degree of slavishness among whites, near easterners, hindus, and yellows enabled them to build bigger cities and get along better and obey orders. But they also grew wussier, wimpier, doglike, Dan Quayle-like, and Tony Blair-like.

    Just like Japanese built high civilization but get bumped around by bigger tougher Mongols(who excite the Japanese ladies who also run around Yokohama looking for Negro studs), white folks built greater civilization but at the cost of becoming dweebier and doglike.
    Even though the dweeby and doggish naturally fear the wolfish and savage, they are also turned on by demonstrations of great wolfish pitbullish power. It's like dogs will be more impressed by wolves, and female dogs will have bigger orgasmic convulsions with male wolves.. and in time male dogs will find their jollies as quasi-homo bitches of male wolves.

    The future of wolfish negro males and doggish white males:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzEDtcfYGss

    Yeah. Asian men have it rough. You can see them whining all the time about history trends
    the last 50 years. But you never hear whites complain about world trends…

    Wait a minute…Doh!

  154. Blacks get cosmic credit for not killing off their large beasts.
    Blacks get cosmic credit for not killing off their large beasts.

    About blacks co-evolving with elephants. True that.
    The spirit of the elephant is great in blacks.

  155. Thomas Sowell’s Conquest and Cultures explained the lack of development in Africa with the lack of navigable waterways. When invaded by a navy, the landings were made on the coasts without natural harbors. This greatly reduced the efficacy of invasions.

    Most every other population on the planet was invaded by and/or invaded other cultures. Invasions by a superior culture changed the genetics of the invaded to their advantage. It wasn’t much fun for the object men, but the women had all these funny looking kids with new skills. Also, the new and improved weapons that the invaded adopted were nice too, much as the Syrians prefer US stinger missiles.

    Africa was left out of this joyous party and the result is what we see today.

  156. @Steve Sailer
    There simply weren't many cities south of Timbuktu. There were some, but urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa vastly lagged behind, say, the New World. Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" visited places like Zanzibar and Dar-es-Salaam, but those were Arab slave-trading cities.

    John Reader discusses the famous ruins at Great Zimbabwe, which comprised the climax of Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" series. Reader says that a contractor estimated he could build the ruins with 200 men working for one year.

    Zimbabwe is mostly at a moderate altitude and thus is healthier than most of sub-Saharan Africa. In the vast lowland Africa, it was impractical to get large concentrations of people together because they were sitting ducks for insect-borne epidemics. On the other hand, not very dense outposts of a few people were sitting ducks for predators and giant herbivores like elephants, giraffes, and Cape buffalos who would devour crops. Sub-Saharan Africa was simply a difficult environment for humans.

    OK, I accept the population density problem as related to disease issues but it seems to have had consequences beyond a lack of ‘ruins’ in Africa. One of the real problems in black societies is the lack of organization. Blacks are great athletes e.g. but not until whites created professional sports leagues could blacks showcase and make a living from their running and leaping abilities. That there are no major businesses founded and run by blacks anywhere in the world is an even starker evidence of this lack of organizational ability. While black apologists would ascribe this to ‘racism’, lack of capital, etc, the fact is many of the largest companies in the world came into existence since the Civil Rights Act passed in the US and such monsters of equity valuation and revenues as Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook in the last 30 years. Even big retailing and restaurant chains come and go with startling speed but never with a black entrepreneur at the helm.

    Some might point to BET as a big black enterprise but this was a matter of getting a government license. Motown and other recored companies tend to be mere agencies where singers are kept under contract not real enterprises.

    • Replies: @Chris

    OK, I accept the population density problem as related to disease issues but it seems to have had consequences beyond a lack of ‘ruins’ in Africa. One of the real problems in black societies is the lack of organization. Blacks are great athletes e.g. but not until whites created professional sports leagues could blacks showcase and make a living from their running and leaping abilities. That there are no major businesses founded and run by blacks anywhere in the world is an even starker evidence of this lack of organizational ability. While black apologists would ascribe this to ‘racism’, lack of capital, etc, the fact is many of the largest companies in the world came into existence since the Civil Rights Act passed in the US and such monsters of equity valuation and revenues as Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook in the last 30 years. Even big retailing and restaurant chains come and go with startling speed but never with a black entrepreneur at the helm.

    Some might point to BET as a big black enterprise but this was a matter of getting a government license. Motown and other recored companies tend to be mere agencies where singers are kept under contract not real enterprises.
     
    There most certainly are successful black companies. There's even a magazine called Black Enterprise that has been in print for years, dedicated to black entrepreneurship.

    http://www.blackenterprise.com/lists/be-100s-2014/

    I'm sure there are many black companies across Africa and Caribbean that you just may not be aware of since you don't like there.
  157. It seems most evolutionary biologist have a very static view of evolution. By static I mean they focus primarily on how populations evolved while stationary within an environment. I’m not aware of any speculation on the changes in intelligence that might have taken place DURING the migration out of Africa.

    Migration out of Africa was an arduous journey and it seems likely that during that time a culling of sorts would surely have taken place. The less intelligent and resourceful falling by the wayside as humans made their way across the globe. Over time the traits for intelligence becoming more pronounced within a population.

    There appears to be an increase in intelligence the further humans moved away from Africa and populations diverged into the racial groups we know today. (Africa-Middle East-Europe-Asia) Did the process of migration have more to do with increasing intelligence than biologist believe? Is there a correlation between increased intelligence and the time span each populations took to reach their perspective territory? Maybe Mr. Sailer can provide some insight into t his.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "By static I mean they focus primarily on how populations evolved while stationary within an environment. I’m not aware of any speculation on the changes in intelligence that might have taken place DURING the migration out of Africa.

    Migration out of Africa was an arduous journey..."

    It is not thought that individuals moved large distances on land. Rather there was a population range expansion, no individual needed to move more than a few km from their place of birth. There's no reason to think that this movement was arduous, even for hunters in the high Arctic following their herds into new ranges. People normally take the easy way.

    Migration by sea must have been different of course, and must have involved some very long distance travel, whether deliberate or accidental. But these were single-leap transits.
  158. @Jefferson
    "Yes, as we all know, skin hue is the be-all-end-all of racial demarcation."

    A Brown skin "White" person is an oxymoron.

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.

    Don’t be a regular moron.

  159. Would a black Sir Isaac Newton even be possible in Africa at any time? What about a black Einstein? It seems inconceivable.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    George Washington Carver?
  160. @Bliss
    It is always amusing to watch race "realists" of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own, demeaning people who built this some 3000 years before their own germanic, scandinavian, slavic ancestors were finally civilized:


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg/1280px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Chasseb%C5%93uf,_comte_de_Volney


    In 1787, Count Constantine de Volney—a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician—embarked on a journey to the East in late 1782 and reached Ottoman Egypt were he spent nearly seven months.......During his visit to Egypt he expressed amazement that the Egyptians – whose civilization was greatly admired in Europe – were not White! "All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair... "When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance) "In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?And while we are on it, please don’t waste our time by invoking Bernal’s ludicrous Black Athena nonsense.

  161. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “It is always amusing to watch race “realists” of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own,…”

    And yet, something different happened with western civilization. Those other civilizations never achieved the industrial revolution and disappeared. Western civilization landed man on the moon and sent probes to Mars and out of the solar system, among some other minor incidentals. What was different about western civilization? Will it collapse as well? Why did no other civilization escape the Malthusian trap? These are reasonably important questions.

    Watching “denigrators” is like watching whining children that just won’t stop crying; who are flopping in a tantrum on the floor.

    I don’t think anybody would have a problem with Egypt being a civilization built by African blacks… if it actually was. But whoever they were, they don’t appear to be the same stock as American blacks, which perhaps is why this question exists in the first place.

    Science may be able to shed some light on this. Perhaps soon we will have a much more accurate idea, no speculations needed:

    “The Mummy Code: Ancient-DNA researchers have long clashed over work on Egyptian mummies, but next-gen sequencing might resolve their debates.”, Dan Cossins, August 1, 2013.

    “…could also bring about a new era of “molecular Egyptology” in which mysteries concerning the ancestral origins of ancient Egyptians, and how they lived and died, can finally be solved. …

    … “Next-gen sequencing allows us quite easily to see if we are dealing with authentic ancient human DNA,”… preliminary results from the next-gen sequencing of mitochondrial DNA from 5 mummified Egyptian human heads held at the University of Tübingen… …one of the mummies belongs to an ancestral group thought to have originated in Western Asia.”

    Perhaps soon we will have some real facts.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    The ancient Egyptians didn't consider themselves the same race as the black Nubians to the south. Most self-depictions show a narrow faced, long-nosed race with a light brown or brown-red skin tone, distinct from the depictions of both whites and blacks in their art, but the facial structure in statuary seems usually much more Caucasoid than Africanoid.

    By contrast the sphinx's face structure definitely looks Negroid to me, but with slanted eyes like the Khoi-San, not much like modern Bantu or black Nilo-Saharan populations. The main body of the sphinx seems to be very old, with weathering patterns that seem to indicate it's from a wet period before the pyramids were built (maybe 8000 years/ca 6000 BC?), but the head has been recarved and its present form is younger.

    It's definitely a mystery, and it seems to me *could* be the case that the early ancient Egyptians were distinct from the neighbouring white-Semitic population (which evolved in NE Africa, but whose Caucasoid ancestors came from the north), and may even have been primarily descended from an indigenous NE African population whose ancestors had never been north into the Ice. It seems just possible that this is a uniquely non-Ice-descended civilisation that evolved in the unique conditions of the Nile, conditions that encouraged long term planning just as did the high latitudes.
    But this population would have been under unique selection pressure for a long time, was not closely related to modern Africans, certainly not to sub-Saharan west Africans, and does not mean that Africans, in the commonly understood sense, are capable of civilisation-building.
  162. @Jefferson
    "Yes, as we all know, skin hue is the be-all-end-all of racial demarcation."

    A Brown skin "White" person is an oxymoron.

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.

    This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.
     
    An excellent point.
  163. @Bliss
    It is always amusing to watch race "realists" of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own, demeaning people who built this some 3000 years before their own germanic, scandinavian, slavic ancestors were finally civilized:


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg/1280px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Chasseb%C5%93uf,_comte_de_Volney


    In 1787, Count Constantine de Volney—a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician—embarked on a journey to the East in late 1782 and reached Ottoman Egypt were he spent nearly seven months.......During his visit to Egypt he expressed amazement that the Egyptians – whose civilization was greatly admired in Europe – were not White! "All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair... "When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance) "In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?And while we are on it, please don’t waste our time by invoking Bernal’s ludicrous Black Athena nonsense.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?
     
    Such an obvious appeal to authority.
  164. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @syonredux
    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?And while we are on it, please don’t waste our time by invoking Bernal’s ludicrous Black Athena nonsense.

    You do, of course, know that Volney has no authority whatsoever in the realm of Egyptology?

    Such an obvious appeal to authority.

  165. @Gbloco
    That's the stupidest thing I've said for a while

    That’s the stupidest thing I’ve said for a while

    It wasn’t stupid at all. Just mistaken, in my opinion.

  166. @syonredux

    A Brown skin “White” person is an oxymoron.
     
    This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.

    This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.

    An excellent point.

  167. @Archie
    25% of Botswana's people are HIV+ and the high GDP per capita is totally due to taxation of international diamond house De Beers (owned by London-listed Anglo-American). That said, the country has been notably "un-African" in being able to save some of the diamond surplus in a Norway-style wealth fund (it is worth about $3000 per head vs. $170,000 per head in Norway, but still, not bad for Africa!). For this, Botswana national leaders deserve some credit.

    I have traveled often to the Bahamas and the equation for that country's success is turquoise ocean + high black incarceration rate + citizenship for of super-rich international tax criminals + proximity to American tourist dollars = successful Black Country.

    25% of Botswana’s people are HIV+ and the high GDP per capita is totally due to taxation of international diamond house De Beers

    Again, this has been addressed in this thread, but the bulk of you read little. About 75% of the value added in Botswana’s economy is attributable to sectors other than extractive industries.

  168. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Even the only indisputably African dog breed, Basenji, is among the most stupid dogs (untrainable, that is.) Hardly anything was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa – high future time orientation is not Africans’ strong point. Diamond’s “but they are simply not domesticable” is an obvious falsity – ostriches were domesticated over a lifetime of a single white farmer, something that blacks failed to do for ever.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Hardly anything was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa –

    http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=BolligPastoralism


    Okey doke.
  169. @Anon
    First of all, Homo Heidelbergensis had 4 descendants, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Sapiens, and a species I'll call Number 4. We know Number 4 exists because of gene studies. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and SOME Homo Sapiens do not have any genes from Number 4. However, SOME Homo Sapiens do.

    Number 4 lived in Sub-Saharan Africa, and bred with the Homo Sapiens population there. About 13-15 percent of the genes of Sub-Saharan Africans comes from Number 4. Genetic Anthropologists have been keeping their mouths shut about the existence of Number 4 because it's political dynamite and career-ending for anyone to talk about it to the general public, although you can find plenty of academic papers about Number 4 if you bother to look around. That's why no one has even named Number 4 yet. Number 4 was also apparently dumber than a post.

    Another point. Why did Eurasians become smarter? Anthropologist William Calvin wrote a book on the subject call the Ascent of Mind, which you can read online here:

    http://www.williamcalvin.com/bk5/bk5.htm

    His answer, which is a good and sensible one, is the evolutionary stress of dealing with winter.

    I remember reading Diamond’s ” The Third Chimpanzee” and he mentioned a little known ” Third Man ” in one of his charts of human evolution, although he implied it was contemporary with early Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus is that the species you are referring to? He also mentioned a contemporary Asian population to the the Neanderthals, I’m assuming that’s the Denisovans or Peking Man, assuming they aren’t the same species ( I believe the Peking Man fossils are much younger than the Java Man fossils ). Isn’t there a name for number 4 somewhere in the biological anthropology literature? How could they cover up the gene sequencing of another hominid? How else would they know it’s genetic contribution to modern Africans?

  170. There simply weren’t many cities south of Timbuktu.

    Steve, if you’re judging by Mesoamerican standards, you’re surely correct. However, there were very large (for the Middle Ages) cities in Northern Nigeria (e.g., Katsina, Ngazargamu, Kano), but their builders seemed to have had some sort of contempt for straight lines in streets and building plans. Most of the land from southern Mauritania to Somalia seems to have been comparatively friendly to African urban settlement. Niger had the small town of Agadez and the larger one of Zinder. The whole region from Katsina to Lake Chad was well-settled by the 1890s:

  171. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    The genotype of North Africans is about 7 percent black ie sub-Saharan African. Ancient Egyptians were not black in the American sense of the term.

  172. @Greenstalk
    Why Did Civilization Lag in Africa?

    In fairness to Africa, civilization "lagged" in most places. North and South America were still basically in the Stone Age when the Europeans showed up.

    Describing the cultures of meso-America or the Andes as Stone Age demonstrates your total lack of knowledge of these cultures.

  173. @Ghosti
    I took an African History class because I desperately wanted an answer to this question. While the result was somewhat disappointing, low population density was a stumbling block to development that plagued Africa until modern medicine inadvertently lead them into the Malthusian nightmare of today.

    Building cities in tropical rain forests has only been done twice in pre-modern times: the Mayans of Central America and the Khmers in Southeast Asia. Both collapsed due to various but often similar pressures. So, it isn't too surprising that Sub Saharan Africa's most famous ruins are in more arid and almost temperate Zimbabwe.

    If any group could benefit from a formal eugenics program it is sub Saharan Africans. Yet promoting disgenics has been the norm

    Describing the cultures of meso-America or the Andes as Stone Age demonstrates your total lack of knowledge of these cultures.

  174. @E. Harding
    Japan was a very poor country (due to low labor productivity due to overpopulation), very near the Malthusian limit, before its opening by the United States:
    https://www.academia.edu/3183761/Wages_prices_and_living_standards_in_China_1738-1925_in_comparison_with_Europe_Japan_and_India
    In Africa, only Malawi and Egypt were as poor as Japan:
    http://www.history.northwestern.edu/graduate/documents/StructuralImpedimentstoAfricanGrowth.pdf

    Remember that being rich and being civilized are different things. Japanese had highly evolved civilization by any account.

  175. “This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags.”

    The average Egyptian has some Sub Saharan African admixture, so the average Egyptian is a racial mutt and not a Caucasoid.

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group as well.

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group as well.
     
    A big fan of that one-drop rule, ain't ya? Go back further in time, say 50 to 100 thousand years ago and we all have one-drop genetics from Africa.
    , @syonredux

    The average Egyptian has some Sub Saharan African admixture, so the average Egyptian is a racial mutt and not a Caucasoid.
     
    What is a "racial mutt?" Is there a precise definition that I can look up?

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group as well.
     
    MMM, some Puerto Ricans are pretty clearly Caucasoid (Jose Ferrer, etc); on the other hand, admixture rates for Egyptians, based on what little reading that I have done on the subject, seem lower than the rates found in Puerto Ricans.
  176. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    we needn’t we can simply compare other marginalized and enslaved non african peoples then compare time frames. we can look at blacks in countries with zero history of slavery colonization or prejudice both western and indigenous black countries. we can take IQ Crime etc statistics at face value and stop the tortured reasoning.

  177. @Ghosti
    I took an African History class because I desperately wanted an answer to this question. While the result was somewhat disappointing, low population density was a stumbling block to development that plagued Africa until modern medicine inadvertently lead them into the Malthusian nightmare of today.

    Building cities in tropical rain forests has only been done twice in pre-modern times: the Mayans of Central America and the Khmers in Southeast Asia. Both collapsed due to various but often similar pressures. So, it isn't too surprising that Sub Saharan Africa's most famous ruins are in more arid and almost temperate Zimbabwe.

    If any group could benefit from a formal eugenics program it is sub Saharan Africans. Yet promoting disgenics has been the norm

    The highland Mayan cities were destroyed but Mayan people remained there. The lowland Mayan civilization was very much in existence at the coming of the Spanish and resisted the Spanish conquest for some time.
    The highland Mayan cities were probably destroyed by rebellion as there is little evidence of foreign intrusion.o

  178. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Gbloco
    I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education -- half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening

    Slavery -- carriage to the Americas, working on the plantations, segregation and subsequent emancipation clearly had a pretty big effect. Mostly behavioural but also likely selection and reproduction bias. After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.

    “I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education — half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening”

    But this sort of thing was common in the slave days and prior to the 60s.

    American black families were strong and intact. Blacks didn’t boogie woogie in churches. Most blacks were non-threatening to whites.
    As America only brought 300,000 slaves, white slave owners emphasized families in order to have blacks produce more blacks. Though some slave families did get split apart, most remained intact.

    So, what’s true of Ghana was true of black America prior to 60s. Traditional values and strong sense of community are better for blacks than individualism and libertine-ism. Since blacks are naturally rowdier, they need to be controlled more.
    A tribal society is very conservative. Violating social norms can get you shunned, beaten… even exiled or killed. (You may have seen a peaceful society on the surface, but such peace has been created and enforced by means that would be illegal and considered ‘immoral’ in the West. Wife-beating is common in Africa not as abuse but as a proper means of social control. It’s also ok to beat up kids who disrespect social norms. And there are few lawyers to take up cases. And less shit pop culture that turns everything porny. So, people just go along.)

    In tribal societies, everyone knows each other and be related in some way. That also leads to cohesion and mindful peer pressure.

    But modernity is about freedom and rule via laws and higher principles. It requires more abstract thinking and more individual self-control with all that freedom. Blacks are less good at this, esp if they integrate with weaker races(whom blacks come to despise and bully) and are raised to hate whitey for historical/economic reasons.

    Cuban slave system was far crueler than in the US, but why are Cuban blacks better behaved than US blacks? Cuba is like a military barracks nation. Castro is like the tribal chief of the nation, blacks are raised to defer to white Cuban leaders, and anyone who messes around gets a club on the head(and no NAACP OR MEDIA to raise a fuss). Any Negro who acts like Al Sharpton in Cuba is headed for the slammer.
    America used to send a harsher message to Negros in the past. Back then, black families were more intact, blacks were less likely to rob/rape whitey, and black students were more likely to show some respect to teachers.
    White man used to be the tribal chieftain over the Negroes. But once whites let Negroes to run free, oh boy.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "But this sort of thing was common in the slave days and prior to the 60s."

    This is why stuff like THE HEP, DRIVING ME CRAZY, GREEN SMILE, TO KILL A FRIED CHICKEN, and etc. are emotionally disingenuous. Even as they're about the 'bad ole days' of overt 'racism', their nostalgic appeal is also for a time when Negroes done act nicer and smile more and not burn down cities. But then, why were blacks nicer back then? Cuz they were still sort of afeared of the white man and why was that? Because society was more overtly 'racist'.

    Those movies seem to say, "boy, we've come such a long way since those 'bad ole days'.. but I wish today's Negroes would act like them good ole Negroes."

    Oprah banked her entire career on this shtick. Cynical ultra-rich 'mammy' biatch.

  179. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    “When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?” ————————

    Because it can’t. It is a laughably imbecilic proposition that actions in the 1860s keep a person from bothering to learn English, math or science in the 2010s. The only thing one learns from the constant prefacatory incantation “those who understand the long history of slavery and oppression . . .” appended to the introduction of most any dogmatic idealist explanation for social gaps is that eventually repetition leads some people to believe that a statement, no matter how moronic, has authority standing behind it. As it stands, there is no authority standing behind the proposition that slavery or Jim Crow keeps young blacks from expending energy improving their intellect. The better reasoned answer is that they don’t expend the energy because they find it a fruitless exercise and they find it a fruitless exercise because they cannot succeed at it no matter how hard they try.

  180. Africa is improving though. HDI is increasing steadily. Did any of you read the trends in that HDI study?

    Most other countries have been through immense problems one after the other until they got to a point of being considered developed and thats exactly whats happening in Africa and they are improving through those things. Only difference is theres more of it to go through.

    Lets go through the list:

    1. Most aggressive and most numerous predators AND other animals. Even Zebras are very nasty. European predators like that lion were only in small parts of the south. Mammoths went extinct long time ago and a lot of it was also due to climate change. Count how many predators there were and are in Africa compared to other places. Go count.
    2. Most diseases and viruses which are also the most dangerous life threatening hard to deal with ones. On top of that the climate is a breeding ground for such things. Wait I forgot to add that these viruses are passed on by vast amounts of diverse insects too.
    3. Very variable land and climatic differences from giant deserts to thick rain forests. Insects and germs that Africa is a breeding ground for can effect all of that.
    4. Very large distances.
    5. Constant outside interference economically and politically.
    6. Very large collection of different people with different languages per most countries. Making them much more tricky to govern unlike places like Korea or Japan.
    7. Populations are much younger and have only grown to the sizes they are in much more recent times.
    List goes on but I got tired.

    Either way even with all of that AFRICA IS IMPROVING IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Go check the HDI trend.

    • Replies: @gu
    Your kind of filth is really the worst.

    It's not impressive to grow in HDI when you're so low to begin with. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE.

    Not to mention the fact that the HDI is essentially "How closely does this country adhere to leftoid ideology".
    , @kaganovitch
    This is from " the food is terrible and such small portions!" school of analysis
  181. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    “I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)”

    After reading HBD chick, I do. At least partly, I think: their extreme inbreeding lends itself to a predatory culture, vs the extremely outbred high-trust indigenous British culture.

    But Islam also seems to be a factor, separate from any genetic influence the religion has had.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    I think the problem with South Asian Muslims most certainly has something to do with their genetics. A lot of them are descended from converted Untouchables, a group that had been selected for lower IQ for many prior centuries. In fact, Muslims in India presently do even worse than the Untouchable caste when it comes to poverty and crime.
  182. But black cock is going to take over USA???

    • Replies: @Wyrd

    But black cock is going to take over USA???
     
    LOL, you stole Whiskey's thunder.
    , @Ozymandias
    "But black cock is going to take over USA???"

    Soon, you won't be able to order pizza without it.
  183. @Steve Sailer
    There simply weren't many cities south of Timbuktu. There were some, but urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa vastly lagged behind, say, the New World. Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" visited places like Zanzibar and Dar-es-Salaam, but those were Arab slave-trading cities.

    John Reader discusses the famous ruins at Great Zimbabwe, which comprised the climax of Henry Louis Gates' "Wonders of Africa" series. Reader says that a contractor estimated he could build the ruins with 200 men working for one year.

    Zimbabwe is mostly at a moderate altitude and thus is healthier than most of sub-Saharan Africa. In the vast lowland Africa, it was impractical to get large concentrations of people together because they were sitting ducks for insect-borne epidemics. On the other hand, not very dense outposts of a few people were sitting ducks for predators and giant herbivores like elephants, giraffes, and Cape buffalos who would devour crops. Sub-Saharan Africa was simply a difficult environment for humans.

    I can’t make head nor tail of the layout of Great Zimbabwe.

    I really like to know what they were thinking when they build the thing.

  184. @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    “Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth”
    The British TV series Number One Ladies Detective Agency gives a good impression of Botswana.
    I took a mild interest in the place after a cousin died there in a climbing accident.
    It has a low crime rate.
    There are no tribal tensions because there is only one tribe.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There are no tribal tensions because there is only one tribe.

    No, about nine, most speaking Tswana.
  185. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    “When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America,”

    It can’t.

  186. Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    When Gregor Mendel cross bread his peas the dominant genes that fit the environment survived and propagated. In Europe there was a lot of human cross breading – not so in Africa. In Europe the genes that fostered cooperative emotions became prominent bringing stable families and private enterprise. In Africa the genes that fostered the tribal pecking order propagated. These are two different sets of genes. One is more empathic – the other more defensive.

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us – there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.
     
    Depends on what they need to cooperate for:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/20/disturbing-video-saint-louis-missouri-mob-assault/

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us – there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.
     
    That is simply not necessarily true. For example, very few West African blacks have the alleles for Lactase Persistence and very few whites have the alleles for β-globin gene that results in Sickle Cell Anemia. It would seem even less likely that we all have all the same alleles for complex behaviors.
    , @Art Deco
    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    See Theodore Dalrymple on family relations in African populations in Rhodesia and among African immigrants in Britain (and quit pretending you know what you're talking about).
  187. I’m laughing my butt off at all these liberals passive-aggressively trying to defend the poor black man and explain away all of his many failings.

    Steve was exactly right when he said that in the modern West it’s all about who can more fiercely embrace the Other.

  188. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Blacks do better under ‘let some heads roll’ than ‘let the good times roll’.

  189. WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    They weren't behind technologically.

    They had iron tools and iron weapons and armor, agriculture, animal husbandry, horseback riding, wagons, alcohol fermentation, textile weaving etc. They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).

    the dejbjerg wagon from dejbjerg bog, 50 BCE

    , @ben tillman

    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?
     
    Why should anyone care?
  190. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Frank
    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    When Gregor Mendel cross bread his peas the dominant genes that fit the environment survived and propagated. In Europe there was a lot of human cross breading - not so in Africa. In Europe the genes that fostered cooperative emotions became prominent bringing stable families and private enterprise. In Africa the genes that fostered the tribal pecking order propagated. These are two different sets of genes. One is more empathic - the other more defensive.

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us - there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.

    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    Depends on what they need to cooperate for:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/20/disturbing-video-saint-louis-missouri-mob-assault/

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us – there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.

    That is simply not necessarily true. For example, very few West African blacks have the alleles for Lactase Persistence and very few whites have the alleles for β-globin gene that results in Sickle Cell Anemia. It would seem even less likely that we all have all the same alleles for complex behaviors.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    West Africa has a high frequency of lactase persistence, but it may not be due to the same mutations that confer lactase persistence in Northwest Europeans. See the lactase persistence map that accompanies this UCL news article.
  191. @frizzled
    India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed. Ergo, it's obvious these questions wouldn't be asked if there weren't constant social friction between Blacks and Whites in the USA.

    Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you're surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone's race. I'm sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I've seen for myself. But you can't blame your and their cultural ills on biology.

    (I admit the UK haven't integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)

    “India has more people living in poverty than the whole of Africa, yet this kind of website never speculates over the genetic/essentialist reasons for why Indians fail to succeed.”

    Why on earth would we do that? It’s more or less for the same reason.

    “Here in the UK we have a well integrated African/West Indian black middle class, and asking whether their race makes them destined to fail at civilization sounds totally absurd. When you’re surrounded by intelligent people of all colours, you hardly notice anyone’s race. I’m sorry American society is so divided, and your cities are virtually apartheid, as I’ve seen for myself. But you can’t blame your and their cultural ills on biology.”

    You’re dumb idiot. Having a bunch of Talented Tenth around you don’t disprove the much larger trend that black people are really unintellgent.

    “(I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!”

    Of course you don’t, because you have a far more convenient scape goat.

    Your comment was so insipid, I’m actually believing that you’re a troll.

  192. @Jefferson
    "This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags."

    The average Egyptian has some Sub Saharan African admixture, so the average Egyptian is a racial mutt and not a Caucasoid.

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a "Caucasoid" ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a "Caucasoid" ethnic group as well.

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group as well.

    A big fan of that one-drop rule, ain’t ya? Go back further in time, say 50 to 100 thousand years ago and we all have one-drop genetics from Africa.

  193. Those claiming that “blacks don’t care about education because they are not capable of long-term planning” should travel down to Africa.

    See when most of these universities were formed! An estimated 300,000 Nigerians go to Ghana every year to get their university education.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Ghana

    The amount of compulsory education was increased from 6 to 9 years in 1996. The literacy rate increased from 54% to 71% between 1997 and 2010. This will start having some serious impact on PISA scores:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Ghana

  194. Civilization in remote Viking Scandinavia lagged Greece and Rome by at least 1200 years. Sub-Saharan Africa has had effective access to the larger cultural world for less than a hundred years and they are catching-up, fast.

  195. “More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.” Piling rocks? Huh? Might as well say the Brooklyn Bridge is as impressive as a sand castle. The Great Pyramid (the one that really puzzles the experts) is constructed with such precision, that this precision could not be duplicated today, and it is based on geometric principles and angles. I am not a mathematician, but I have read their treatises on it, and to this day they cannot figure out how it was done, and I don’t mean the piling part, which just might have been accomplished with brute labor; but not the design, and probably not the placement. An extraordinary level of abstract thinking was required to even conceive of the Great Pyramid much less build it. It had no objects in it, nor any artifacts of human scale, so it was probably not used as a burial chamber as were the much later, smaller pyramids. Have black Africans ever struck anyone as having a propensity for abstract, mathematical, conceptualized thinking?
    Pyramids in fact have been found in many parts of the world, not just South America and Egypt. Some of the biggest are in the Balkan area. Others have been found in China, Ireland, central North America.
    They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them.

    • Replies: @map
    The experts aren't "puzzled" by the pyramids. That's just the propaganda that they are espousing, the usual liberal nonsense about how advanced ancient people are.

    Want to know how the Great Pyramid is constructed? Simply take it apart. How can anyone draw conclusions about ancient engineering unless you reverse engineer it?
    , @Anonymous
    The gift that didn't manifest is the gift of staple cereals. Khamut, wheat and barley were very difficult to grow below the Nile River Valley. Agriculture generally didn't spread by long route trade but by short hops. Staple cereals rounded the Mediterranean sea pretty well, worked west into central Asia and did nicely in Europe but they couldn't cross the sand barrier of Northern Africa.

    So, sub-Saharan Africa was stuck with beans and yams as their main agricultural crop. Beans are good, but you get very little per acre vs. wheat and barley. Yams provide some starch, but they rot so quickly that you can't store your surplus in case of a famine.

    Mayans and Aztecs had Indian corn, the Chinese and Indians had brown rice and millet, the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks had wheat, khamut and barley. These crops store well and a small percentage of the people can make enough to feed an entire city

    So in Sub Saharan Africa, with every drought came political upheaval. More people had to work in farming full time. This left less time for people to create civilizations where a god-emperor conquered and controlled a massive river-valley and coast, much less figure out ways to build big piles of stone that benefited entirely one mummy.

    Of the stories of efficient cereals accelerating civilization the story of con is the most recent. It was domesticated the most recently, compared to the old-world crops. It fueled the growth of the late Olmec, Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations, all of which left some nice stone ruins. Corn was slowly crossing the mini sand barrier (north Mexico, Arizona, south Texas) into North America as a core crop where it allowed the Anasazi to make their awesome cliff palaces. Sure, they're not as grand as the pyramids but they were so much more practical and showed an ingenuity that would have been great if it were allowed to develop. Would be interesting to see what sort of architecture the Anisazi would have developed if white people didn't come over to get their smallpox and whooping cough on everything.

    So that's the deal. Civilizations start as hunters. If they find a farmable crops they mostly become farmers. If they find really efficient crops only some become farmers and others are free to work on technology, architecture, philosophy, warfare and government.

    The Sub Saharan Africans were stuck with low efficiency crops due to their rainy/dry season schedule and the sand barrier.

    Native Australians were even worse off since the had almost zero crops to choose from. Today Australia grows plenty of crops and fruits, but of their top 30 agricultural productions ALL of them came from Europe, South America or East Asia, so the best civilization could do in Australia was the fishing villages on the southern coast.

    So difficult weather, inefficient plants, bothersome animals = no time to advance technology/society. Inviting weather, efficient plants, domestication ready animals = plenty of spare time to advance society.
  196. @skepticaldonkey
    But black cock is going to take over USA???

    But black cock is going to take over USA???

    LOL, you stole Whiskey’s thunder.

  197. “More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos.” Piling rocks? Huh? Might as well say the Brooklyn Bridge is as impressive as a sand castle. The Great Pyramid (the one the really puzzles the experts) is constructed with such precision, that this precision could not be duplicated today, and it is based on geometric principles and angles. I am not a mathematician, but I have read their treatises on it, and to this day they cannot figure out how it was done, and I don’t mean the piling part, which just might have been accomplished with brute labor; but not the design, and probably not the placement. An extraordinary level of abstract thinking was required to even conceive of the Great Pyramid much less build it. It had no objects in it, nor any artifacts of human scale, so it was probably not used as a burial chamber as were the much later, smaller pyramids. Have black Africans ever struck anyone as having a propensity for abstract, mathematical, conceptualized thinking? They had to eliminate the Civil Service test in 1978 just to get a “representative” number in above-entry government jobs. In fact, all such tests for jobs or schools have to be simplified or graded on a curve for blacks to come anywhere near equal. Only a very few are truly competitive, even compared with more average whites or Asians; and this in a country where they have access to more education and free libraries than ever in history.
    Pyramids in fact have been found in many parts of the world, not just South America and Egypt. Some of the biggest are in the Balkan area. Others have been found in China, Ireland, & central North America. Their outlines have also been sighted under the oceans.
    They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them.

  198. “About blacks co-evolving with elephants. True that.
    The spirit of the elephant is great in blacks.”

    Yes, the Elephant dealers dole out the welfare crack in exchange for votes. Truly they have reached a symbiotic relationship.

  199. @Ozymandias
    "One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of."

    Yes, I understand that Africa is nearly devoid of trees - due, undoubtedly, to disease and all those damned elephants.

    “One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of.”

    The excuses for African lack of develpoment are really the most creative thing about the whole narrative. Africa was covered, covered, with trees. Surely out all those billions of trees, a few here and there could have been used for building? Indeed, coastal blacks did build boats and did fish for a living. However to brave the unknown in a little vessel in the middle of a vast ocean, you really have to be motivated and you have to know what you are doing. There is no history of Africans being possessed of a powerful desire to know what is beyond their immediate environment. They have had to be literally dragged out of it. There was enough food within it, and virtually every non-black African they came into contact with, enslaved and exploited them in varying degrees. When the Somalis first saw the English, they were terrified not because they were English (they had had nothing to do with them) but because they thought they were Turks. Yes, the Somalis thought the English were Turks. The Turks had a terrible reputation for cruelty among black Africans, although they also like Ethiopian concubines. There’s just no evidence, with a few rare exceptions of black Africans venturing into the unknown to make their fortune on their own accord. Only in modern times where they can do it with all the modern inventions of the internet, computers, planes, trains, scholarships, charities, and amnesty, do they make the effort.

  200. @skepticaldonkey
    But black cock is going to take over USA???

    “But black cock is going to take over USA???”

    Soon, you won’t be able to order pizza without it.

  201. @Ozymandias
    "One explanation I read somewhere was Africans had no access to the kind of trees that you can make large ships out of."

    Yes, I understand that Africa is nearly devoid of trees - due, undoubtedly, to disease and all those damned elephants.

    ” No one watches Chinese sports, but many millions of Chinese love to watch NBA where big ass Negroes dunk the balls while being cheered on by blonde women cheerleaders who now salivate over having sex with big muscular Negroes who be seen as the superior males.”

    who’s this fantasy belonging to? oh, probably whiskey, posting as a pizza.

  202. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson
    "No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. "

    The average Egyptian does have some Sub Saharan African admixture, this is 100 percent fact. So using the American Jim Crow one drop rule, the average Egyptian would be considered "Black".

    Why it it that the average Egyptian has darker skin than the average Israeli for example, even though the weather in both countries is very similar.

    It is certainly not because Egyptians spend more time at the beach and tanning salons than the Israelis. The reasons why Egyptians on average are darker than Israelis is in the GENES.

    Egyptians are racial mutts.

    A comparison of skin color between Egyptians and Israelis doesn’t make sense. Most of the Israeli Jewish population has only lived there for a generation or two, and many are recent immigrants from places like the former Soviet Union. Also, a large portion of the Israeli Jewish population is Ashkenazi, a hybrid Levantine-south European group that one would expect to be lighter skinned than most Middle Eastern populations on average.

  203. @Simon in London
    "I admit the UK haven’t integrated South Asian Muslims so well. But nobody thinks our problem with Muslims is down to their genetics, either!)"

    After reading HBD chick, I do. At least partly, I think: their extreme inbreeding lends itself to a predatory culture, vs the extremely outbred high-trust indigenous British culture.

    But Islam also seems to be a factor, separate from any genetic influence the religion has had.

    I think the problem with South Asian Muslims most certainly has something to do with their genetics. A lot of them are descended from converted Untouchables, a group that had been selected for lower IQ for many prior centuries. In fact, Muslims in India presently do even worse than the Untouchable caste when it comes to poverty and crime.

    • Replies: @rec1man
    In Bengal, ( bangladeshi ) , most muslims were converted untouchable from Namasudra caste .
    Pakistani are mostly from peasant castes, Jat and below, but above untouchable - Muslims lack brahmin and merchant caste converts ( except Ismaili merchants - who are successful in UK ) - Sikhs in UK are also Punjabi peasant castes, Jat, just like the Pakistanis . Sikhs are successful, Pakistani are like blacks - the only difference is islam. And yes, in India today, Muslims are more backward and more criminal than untouchables , though most Indian muslims are from castes above Untouchable - most Indian Muslims were urban artisan castes
  204. @Pete
    Would a black Sir Isaac Newton even be possible in Africa at any time? What about a black Einstein? It seems inconceivable.

    George Washington Carver?

  205. @Frank
    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    When Gregor Mendel cross bread his peas the dominant genes that fit the environment survived and propagated. In Europe there was a lot of human cross breading - not so in Africa. In Europe the genes that fostered cooperative emotions became prominent bringing stable families and private enterprise. In Africa the genes that fostered the tribal pecking order propagated. These are two different sets of genes. One is more empathic - the other more defensive.

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us - there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.

    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.

    See Theodore Dalrymple on family relations in African populations in Rhodesia and among African immigrants in Britain (and quit pretending you know what you’re talking about).

  206. @MTC
    "Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth"
    The British TV series Number One Ladies Detective Agency gives a good impression of Botswana.
    I took a mild interest in the place after a cousin died there in a climbing accident.
    It has a low crime rate.
    There are no tribal tensions because there is only one tribe.

    There are no tribal tensions because there is only one tribe.

    No, about nine, most speaking Tswana.

  207. Wyrd says:
    September 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm GMT

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. Also, ancient Egyptian artwork depicts a wide-range of skin-hues for humans. Seems the area had quite a bit of experience with diversity of the centuries.

    Nope. I said “black by American standards”. As in like Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Susan Rice, Halle Berry, Malcolm X etc etc Do you have trouble understanding that?

    And some darker as well.

    They didn’t look like Yule Brynner or Elizabeth Taylor. At least not until the Ptolemies.

    But not because they were a west African/West European mix like those American blacks. But because they were a Horn of Africa and some Middle Eastern “Caucasoid” mix.

    Point is they were Africans, geographically and racially. And they had civilization, albeit deeply flawed, undynamic and stiffing.

    Whiskey says: • Website
    September 19, 2014 at 5:34 pm GMT

    Rifleman –

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.

    Nope. They were predominantly NE Africans. Not unlike many Eritreans and Ethiopians. Or many Caribbean “mulatto elites”.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/12152011-family-portrait-high-res.jpg


    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    http://media.tumblr.com/f4fde8ebcffc195f68a1186589f78fc1/tumblr_inline_mwf0djsus91qizi9m.jpg



    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG


    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.
    , @Simon in London
    "Nope. They were predominantly NE Africans. Not unlike many Eritreans and Ethiopians. Or many Caribbean “mulatto elites”."

    Ethiopians (core Ethiopians - primarily Amhara) are a white-Semitic/black mixed population, the white part of their ancestry definitely came from the north originally, though they've been in Africa a long time and the Semitic language group evolved in NE Africa before entering the Midddle East. Amhara (at least high-status Amhara) do bear some physical resemblance to old-stock Caribbean 'mulatto elites'. But they do not look much like ancient Egyptians.
  208. @Bliss
    It is always amusing to watch race "realists" of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own, demeaning people who built this some 3000 years before their own germanic, scandinavian, slavic ancestors were finally civilized:


    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg/1280px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Chasseb%C5%93uf,_comte_de_Volney


    In 1787, Count Constantine de Volney—a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician—embarked on a journey to the East in late 1782 and reached Ottoman Egypt were he spent nearly seven months.......During his visit to Egypt he expressed amazement that the Egyptians – whose civilization was greatly admired in Europe – were not White! "All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair... "When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance) "In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

    “It is always amusing to watch race “realists” of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own”

    Is this satire?

    Northern Europeans make those people you’re referencing look like poorly tamed animals.

    Egyptians weren’t black. Nubians were. You fool.

  209. @Vlad
    Africa is improving though. HDI is increasing steadily. Did any of you read the trends in that HDI study?

    Most other countries have been through immense problems one after the other until they got to a point of being considered developed and thats exactly whats happening in Africa and they are improving through those things. Only difference is theres more of it to go through.

    Lets go through the list:

    1. Most aggressive and most numerous predators AND other animals. Even Zebras are very nasty. European predators like that lion were only in small parts of the south. Mammoths went extinct long time ago and a lot of it was also due to climate change. Count how many predators there were and are in Africa compared to other places. Go count.
    2. Most diseases and viruses which are also the most dangerous life threatening hard to deal with ones. On top of that the climate is a breeding ground for such things. Wait I forgot to add that these viruses are passed on by vast amounts of diverse insects too.
    3. Very variable land and climatic differences from giant deserts to thick rain forests. Insects and germs that Africa is a breeding ground for can effect all of that.
    4. Very large distances.
    5. Constant outside interference economically and politically.
    6. Very large collection of different people with different languages per most countries. Making them much more tricky to govern unlike places like Korea or Japan.
    7. Populations are much younger and have only grown to the sizes they are in much more recent times.
    List goes on but I got tired.

    Either way even with all of that AFRICA IS IMPROVING IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Go check the HDI trend.

    Your kind of filth is really the worst.

    It’s not impressive to grow in HDI when you’re so low to begin with. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE.

    Not to mention the fact that the HDI is essentially “How closely does this country adhere to leftoid ideology”.

  210. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Priss Factor
    "I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education — half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening"

    But this sort of thing was common in the slave days and prior to the 60s.

    American black families were strong and intact. Blacks didn't boogie woogie in churches. Most blacks were non-threatening to whites.
    As America only brought 300,000 slaves, white slave owners emphasized families in order to have blacks produce more blacks. Though some slave families did get split apart, most remained intact.

    So, what's true of Ghana was true of black America prior to 60s. Traditional values and strong sense of community are better for blacks than individualism and libertine-ism. Since blacks are naturally rowdier, they need to be controlled more.
    A tribal society is very conservative. Violating social norms can get you shunned, beaten... even exiled or killed. (You may have seen a peaceful society on the surface, but such peace has been created and enforced by means that would be illegal and considered 'immoral' in the West. Wife-beating is common in Africa not as abuse but as a proper means of social control. It's also ok to beat up kids who disrespect social norms. And there are few lawyers to take up cases. And less shit pop culture that turns everything porny. So, people just go along.)

    In tribal societies, everyone knows each other and be related in some way. That also leads to cohesion and mindful peer pressure.

    But modernity is about freedom and rule via laws and higher principles. It requires more abstract thinking and more individual self-control with all that freedom. Blacks are less good at this, esp if they integrate with weaker races(whom blacks come to despise and bully) and are raised to hate whitey for historical/economic reasons.

    Cuban slave system was far crueler than in the US, but why are Cuban blacks better behaved than US blacks? Cuba is like a military barracks nation. Castro is like the tribal chief of the nation, blacks are raised to defer to white Cuban leaders, and anyone who messes around gets a club on the head(and no NAACP OR MEDIA to raise a fuss). Any Negro who acts like Al Sharpton in Cuba is headed for the slammer.
    America used to send a harsher message to Negros in the past. Back then, black families were more intact, blacks were less likely to rob/rape whitey, and black students were more likely to show some respect to teachers.
    White man used to be the tribal chieftain over the Negroes. But once whites let Negroes to run free, oh boy.

    “But this sort of thing was common in the slave days and prior to the 60s.”

    This is why stuff like THE HEP, DRIVING ME CRAZY, GREEN SMILE, TO KILL A FRIED CHICKEN, and etc. are emotionally disingenuous. Even as they’re about the ‘bad ole days’ of overt ‘racism’, their nostalgic appeal is also for a time when Negroes done act nicer and smile more and not burn down cities. But then, why were blacks nicer back then? Cuz they were still sort of afeared of the white man and why was that? Because society was more overtly ‘racist’.

    Those movies seem to say, “boy, we’ve come such a long way since those ‘bad ole days’.. but I wish today’s Negroes would act like them good ole Negroes.”

    Oprah banked her entire career on this shtick. Cynical ultra-rich ‘mammy’ biatch.

  211. Nope. I said “black by American standards”. As in like Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Susan Rice, Halle Berry, Malcolm X etc etc Do you have trouble understanding that?

    They darker than us! Woof!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAYt6dpCgOI

  212. It is quite incredible how much of the world’s tropical land mass is in Africa, and the percentage of tropical land mass within Africa.

    As Steve says, Peru had some good civil engineering works. It is in the tropics, but those engineering works are famously at altitude (more temperate areas). The other notable tropical civilization exceptions are in South-East Asia, but they were not world conquering, either with armies or ideas (to my knowledge). The tropics definitely gives disease significant advantages versus man, not found elsewhere. Animals have less advantages in temperate regions versus man, but the tropics is not alone in that respect. The arctic and the oceans also have advantages in this regard, but because these are too inhospitable for man to adapt to instead of being overly hospitable.

    One also can’t help looking at the temperate areas of Asia and Europe and associating that area with civilization and high IQ. The exception there is the North American continent. It has a larger temperate area, but the natives there did not create a civilization on the order of Europe or Asia. It is also isolated and as much North-South as East-West.

    Perhaps what was necessary to create the high IQ/civilized areas was both the winter/summer seasonal variations that mandated forward thinking of a year’s duration, as well as the huge (3 times?) East-West breadth of Eurasia (including North Africa as well) allowing ideas, traders, armies and navies to traverse that distance at a faster rate. This would have made the rate of civilizational advancement faster as well.

    Civilization itself has a eugenic effect (without the welfare state, that is). If you can’t cope, adapt and profit from the concepts required by civilization, you will not reproduce. And as civilization has generally become more complicated over the years due to the above factors, so has the IQ necessary to reproduce above replacement rates steadily increased. So there are a few factors that have caused both civilization and IQ to have advanced the most in Eurasia/Mediterranean.

    Perhaps one of the biggest ways to again favor Europeans over NAMs is to eliminate the welfare state.

  213. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    They weren’t behind technologically.

    They had iron tools and iron weapons and armor, agriculture, animal husbandry, horseback riding, wagons, alcohol fermentation, textile weaving etc. They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).

    the dejbjerg wagon from dejbjerg bog, 50 BCE

    • Replies: @Unzerker

    They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).
     
    The Romans suffered many defeats at the hand of the Germanics. Some of the most massive defeats were during the Cambrian war. At the battle of Arausio alone, Roman losses are estimated to be between 80,000 and 120,000 men.

    Rome was never invincible. What set the Romans apart from their opponents was the ability to recover much more quickly from defeats.
  214. prosa123 [AKA "Peter"] says: • Website

    The other notable tropical civilization exceptions are in South-East Asia

    What about India?

    The average Egyptian does have some Sub Saharan African admixture, this is 100 percent fact. So using the American Jim Crow one drop rule, the average Egyptian would be considered “Black”.

    I doubt we’d apply the One Drop Rule to Egyptians. We don’t apply it to Latin Americans.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    Showing once again why race is often a social construct. Latin America and the Middle East are full of mixed race people, yet in the US census, and police reports, mongrels from these regions are classified as white caucasians....

    Likewise, the 1.5 billion folks in the Indian subcontinent are all mixed race. The black component there is different being related to australoid, papua new-guinean, andaman islander while the caucasoid component is west asian. Yet according to the absurd race theories in vogue among many race realists indians are caucasians...
  215. In Africa, the elephants had seen us coming for millions of years and had time to evolve behavioral defenses against us.

    But not the Carthaginians …

    Hannibal’s army on elephants

  216. @Rifleman
    Wyrd says:
    September 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm GMT

    @Rifleman

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. Also, ancient Egyptian artwork depicts a wide-range of skin-hues for humans. Seems the area had quite a bit of experience with diversity of the centuries.


    Nope. I said "black by American standards". As in like Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Susan Rice, Halle Berry, Malcolm X etc etc Do you have trouble understanding that?

    And some darker as well.

    They didn't look like Yule Brynner or Elizabeth Taylor. At least not until the Ptolemies.

    But not because they were a west African/West European mix like those American blacks. But because they were a Horn of Africa and some Middle Eastern "Caucasoid" mix.

    Point is they were Africans, geographically and racially. And they had civilization, albeit deeply flawed, undynamic and stiffing.


    Whiskey says: • Website
    September 19, 2014 at 5:34 pm GMT

    @Rifleman

    Rifleman –

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.


    Nope. They were predominantly NE Africans. Not unlike many Eritreans and Ethiopians. Or many Caribbean "mulatto elites".

    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player

    Maury Povitch and DNA testing to the rescue:

    Half of European men share King Tut's DNA
    Aug 1 (Reuters Life!) - Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.
    ...
    Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh
    ...
    The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong
    ...
    Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent
    ...
    Around 70 percent of Spanish and 60 percent of French men also belong to the genetic group
    ...
    It is estimated that the earliest migration of haplogroup R1b1a2 into Europe began with the spread of agriculture in 7,000 BC, according to iGENEA.


    r1b1a2 map
    , @Simon in London
    >>Bliss says:
    September 21, 2014 at 3:20 am GMT
    @Rifleman

    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/12152011-family-portrait-high-res.jpg

    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    http://media.tumblr.com/f4fde8ebcffc195f68a1186589f78fc1/tumblr_inline_mwf0djsus91qizi9m.jpg

    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG<<
    <<

    They don't look anything like the Obamas to me. OTOH they don't much look Caucasoid either, especially not Amenhotep. He doesn't look much like any living race, but the closest analogy would be to a plump Khoi-San.

    , @syonredux

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:
     
    MMMM, not based on the photos that I have seen, dear boy.

    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).
     
    MMM, perhaps after a fair amount of plastic surgery (Michelle has, of course, already straightened her hair in her quest to look less Negroid)....

    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.
     
    Freud's theories about Moses and Akhenaten are not taken seriously by anyone; for one thing, Moses never existed, and there was no Exodus.
  217. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?”

    and

    “They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).”

    They didn’t defeat a single legion, they defeated 3. Not only that, the Germans stopped the expansion of Rome at the Rhine. So talk about Zulus and Romans, etc., but it was the Germans who actually stopped Rome. Something of an accomplishment for erstwhile barbarians:

    “…Emperor Augustus, according to the Roman historian Suetonius in De vita Caesarum (“On the Life of the Caesars”), was so shaken that he stood butting his head against the walls of his palace, repeatedly shouting:

    “Quintili Vare, legiones redde!“ (‘Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!’)

    The legion numbers XVII and XIX were not used again by the Romans (XVIII was rebuilt under Nero, but disbanded under Vespasian)…”

    I have seen at least one academic book making the case that one reason for Rome’s inability to defeat Germany was that the Germans in fact were not ignorant barbarians. In addition, the Germans knew the Romans (and a good bit of the rest of the world) reasonable well, but the Romans were relatively ignorant of the Germans,, thus underestimating them.

    By the way, re ignorant Northern Europeans and Egyptians, etc., are you familiar with the Amber Road? Amber is interesting in that it came in large quantities from only a single region in the world, but has a very long history:

    “…sometimes dubbed “the gold of the north”, amber was transported from the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts overland by way of the Vistula and Dnieper rivers to Italy, Greece, the Black Sea, Syria and Egypt thousands of years ago…

    …From at least the sixteenth century BC amber was moved from Northern Europe to the Mediterranean area. The breast ornament of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen (ca. 1333-1324 BC) contains large Baltic amber beads Heinrich Schliemann found Baltic amber beads at Mycenae, as shown by spectroscopic investigation. The quantity of amber in the Royal Tomb of Qatna, Syria, is unparalleled for known second millennium BC sites in the Levant and the Ancient Near East. Amber was sent from the North Sea to the temple of Apollo at Delphi as an offering. …

    …The Old Prussian towns of Kaup and Truso on the Baltic were the starting points of the route to the south. In Scandinavia the amber road probably gave rise to the thriving Nordic Bronze Age culture, bringing influences from the Mediterranean Sea to the northernmost countries of Europe.”

  218. @prosa123
    The other notable tropical civilization exceptions are in South-East Asia

    What about India?
    --

    The average Egyptian does have some Sub Saharan African admixture, this is 100 percent fact. So using the American Jim Crow one drop rule, the average Egyptian would be considered “Black”.

    I doubt we'd apply the One Drop Rule to Egyptians. We don't apply it to Latin Americans.

    Showing once again why race is often a social construct. Latin America and the Middle East are full of mixed race people, yet in the US census, and police reports, mongrels from these regions are classified as white caucasians….

    Likewise, the 1.5 billion folks in the Indian subcontinent are all mixed race. The black component there is different being related to australoid, papua new-guinean, andaman islander while the caucasoid component is west asian. Yet according to the absurd race theories in vogue among many race realists indians are caucasians…

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Showing once again why race is often a social construct. Latin America and the Middle East are full of mixed race people, yet in the US census, and police reports, mongrels from these regions are classified as white caucasians….

    Yes, dear boy, everyone knows about the the politics of racial classification.

    Likewise, the 1.5 billion folks in the Indian subcontinent are all mixed race. The black component there is different being related to australoid, papua new-guinean, andaman islander while the caucasoid component is west asian. Yet according to the absurd race theories in vogue among many race realists indians are caucasians…

    Do people nowadays classify South Asians as Caucasoids/West Eurasians? It seems to me that they occupy their own slot, more or less.

    And dear boy, the terms used when discussing South Asia's ancestral population mixture are ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). Dienekes provides a nice summary of some recent results:

    A new paper on the topic of Indian population history has just appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics. In previous work it was determined that Indians trace their ancestry to two major groups, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form). The new paper demonstrates that admixture between these two groups took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago.
     
  219. @Archie
    25% of Botswana's people are HIV+ and the high GDP per capita is totally due to taxation of international diamond house De Beers (owned by London-listed Anglo-American). That said, the country has been notably "un-African" in being able to save some of the diamond surplus in a Norway-style wealth fund (it is worth about $3000 per head vs. $170,000 per head in Norway, but still, not bad for Africa!). For this, Botswana national leaders deserve some credit.

    I have traveled often to the Bahamas and the equation for that country's success is turquoise ocean + high black incarceration rate + citizenship for of super-rich international tax criminals + proximity to American tourist dollars = successful Black Country.

    25% of Botswana’s people are HIV+

    No. That’s a bogus figure made up by people with an agenda.

  220. @Anonymous
    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    Why should anyone care?

  221. What about India?

    I forgot about that one. But looking at heat maps of IQ, India is fairly normal for a sub-tropical region.

    I suppose that the higher IQ is really more of a temperate region thing, rather than a non-tropical phenomenon. Southern China seems to be an exception, though that may be more a case of the Han originating North and moving south. According to wikipedia, “The prehistory of the Han Chinese ethnic group is closely intertwined with their history. Han Chinese trace their ancestry from the Huaxia people, who lived along the Huang He or Yellow River in China.” The Yellow River is in the north.

    This is not to say that there wasn’t civilization in the sub-tropics. Obviously there was/is.

  222. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So here’s another idea. Suppose that there wasn’t a problem living in Africa for humans. Due to African fertility, even the disease burden wasn’t a problem. Suppose humans really were pretty much perfectly evolved to live in some belt of sub-Saharan Africa even with considerably less intelligence and “lack of civilization” than that of modern humans (perhaps even humans in Africa).

    Civilization and intelligence is expensive (requires more energy, larger brains, more organization, hierarchy, large-scale conflict). Why pay for these things if you don’t need them?

    Sharks, horses, and horseshoe crabs have all been around longer than modern humans. You clearly don’t need brains to be an evolutionary success.

    Suppose you only really need civilization (and perhaps the intelligence to cope with it) if trying to live in circumstances for which you weren’t “perfectly evolved”? Which doesn’t necessarily mean the far north, perhaps just about anywhere outside of a certain region in Africa.

    Perhaps this explains a large part of California. The Pacific ocean acts as a big heat sink and the climate is perhaps just about what humans are evolved for… I think I feel myself regressing even as I write…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Suppose that there wasn’t a problem living in Africa for humans.
    ...
    Suppose humans really were pretty much perfectly evolved to live in some belt of sub-Saharan Africa

    Umm ... humans evolved in Africa, so I'd say we are adapted. It's the high lattitudes with no vitamin D that are uninhabitable to humans (unless they get pale). Also, we have no fur, so non-tropical climes are difficult to habitate.

  223. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I think the problem with South Asian Muslims most certainly has something to do with their genetics. A lot of them are descended from converted Untouchables, a group that had been selected for lower IQ for many prior centuries. In fact, Muslims in India presently do even worse than the Untouchable caste when it comes to poverty and crime.

    In Bengal, ( bangladeshi ) , most muslims were converted untouchable from Namasudra caste .
    Pakistani are mostly from peasant castes, Jat and below, but above untouchable – Muslims lack brahmin and merchant caste converts ( except Ismaili merchants – who are successful in UK ) – Sikhs in UK are also Punjabi peasant castes, Jat, just like the Pakistanis . Sikhs are successful, Pakistani are like blacks – the only difference is islam. And yes, in India today, Muslims are more backward and more criminal than untouchables , though most Indian muslims are from castes above Untouchable – most Indian Muslims were urban artisan castes

  224. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss
    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/12152011-family-portrait-high-res.jpg


    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    http://media.tumblr.com/f4fde8ebcffc195f68a1186589f78fc1/tumblr_inline_mwf0djsus91qizi9m.jpg



    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG


    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.

    Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player

    Maury Povitch and DNA testing to the rescue:

    Half of European men share King Tut’s DNA
    Aug 1 (Reuters Life!) – Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said.

    Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh

    The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong

    Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent

    Around 70 percent of Spanish and 60 percent of French men also belong to the genetic group

    It is estimated that the earliest migration of haplogroup R1b1a2 into Europe began with the spread of agriculture in 7,000 BC, according to iGENEA.

    r1b1a2 map

  225. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    So here's another idea. Suppose that there wasn't a problem living in Africa for humans. Due to African fertility, even the disease burden wasn't a problem. Suppose humans really were pretty much perfectly evolved to live in some belt of sub-Saharan Africa even with considerably less intelligence and "lack of civilization" than that of modern humans (perhaps even humans in Africa).

    Civilization and intelligence is expensive (requires more energy, larger brains, more organization, hierarchy, large-scale conflict). Why pay for these things if you don't need them?

    Sharks, horses, and horseshoe crabs have all been around longer than modern humans. You clearly don't need brains to be an evolutionary success.

    Suppose you only really need civilization (and perhaps the intelligence to cope with it) if trying to live in circumstances for which you weren't "perfectly evolved"? Which doesn't necessarily mean the far north, perhaps just about anywhere outside of a certain region in Africa.

    Perhaps this explains a large part of California. The Pacific ocean acts as a big heat sink and the climate is perhaps just about what humans are evolved for... I think I feel myself regressing even as I write...

    Suppose that there wasn’t a problem living in Africa for humans.

    Suppose humans really were pretty much perfectly evolved to live in some belt of sub-Saharan Africa

    Umm … humans evolved in Africa, so I’d say we are adapted. It’s the high lattitudes with no vitamin D that are uninhabitable to humans (unless they get pale). Also, we have no fur, so non-tropical climes are difficult to habitate.

  226. @Mack0
    It seems most evolutionary biologist have a very static view of evolution. By static I mean they focus primarily on how populations evolved while stationary within an environment. I'm not aware of any speculation on the changes in intelligence that might have taken place DURING the migration out of Africa.

    Migration out of Africa was an arduous journey and it seems likely that during that time a culling of sorts would surely have taken place. The less intelligent and resourceful falling by the wayside as humans made their way across the globe. Over time the traits for intelligence becoming more pronounced within a population.

    There appears to be an increase in intelligence the further humans moved away from Africa and populations diverged into the racial groups we know today. (Africa-Middle East-Europe-Asia) Did the process of migration have more to do with increasing intelligence than biologist believe? Is there a correlation between increased intelligence and the time span each populations took to reach their perspective territory? Maybe Mr. Sailer can provide some insight into t his.

    “By static I mean they focus primarily on how populations evolved while stationary within an environment. I’m not aware of any speculation on the changes in intelligence that might have taken place DURING the migration out of Africa.

    Migration out of Africa was an arduous journey…”

    It is not thought that individuals moved large distances on land. Rather there was a population range expansion, no individual needed to move more than a few km from their place of birth. There’s no reason to think that this movement was arduous, even for hunters in the high Arctic following their herds into new ranges. People normally take the easy way.

    Migration by sea must have been different of course, and must have involved some very long distance travel, whether deliberate or accidental. But these were single-leap transits.

  227. It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions. Populations such as Australoids & sub-Saharan Africans who never experienced the Ice Age never created civilisations. I therefore suspect that this must be the critical factor.

    Not predators – no significant big predators in Australia for tens of thousands of years.
    Not crop-eating megafauna – Australia never even got as far as agriculture. None in the Papua New Guinea highlands.
    Not disease causing lack of population density – Papua New Guinea highlands very densely populated.

    The above three may all have contributed to lack of civilisations, but clearly lack of these three is not sufficient for civilisation.

    From what I can tell, the civilisation-building population groups all come primarily from the group that turned left out of Africa. Instead of proceeding east along the coast towards India, they went north. The Europeans/Caucasoids and NE-Asians/Mongoloids seem to have split first, with the distinct NE-Asian population emerging around 22,000 years ago (quite recent – several tens of thousands of years after this population entered Eurasia). The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians, with a split around 15,000 years ago. Later of course some of these Ice-folk went back south again into already-inhabited territory and eventually built cities in places like India (Caucasoids) and SE Asia (Mongoloids).

    • Replies: @Bliss

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.
     
    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians
     
    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    http://www.softseattravel.com/sitebuilder/images/Xalapa_Museum009-578x401.jpg

    http://images.travelpod.com/users/linzstoker/peru_05.1123816020.lindsey_and_olmec_head_xalapa_museum.jpg
  228. @anonymous
    "It is always amusing to watch race “realists” of northern european ancestry whose ancestors were never able to create a single civilization on their own,..."

    And yet, something different happened with western civilization. Those other civilizations never achieved the industrial revolution and disappeared. Western civilization landed man on the moon and sent probes to Mars and out of the solar system, among some other minor incidentals. What was different about western civilization? Will it collapse as well? Why did no other civilization escape the Malthusian trap? These are reasonably important questions.

    Watching "denigrators" is like watching whining children that just won't stop crying; who are flopping in a tantrum on the floor.

    I don't think anybody would have a problem with Egypt being a civilization built by African blacks... if it actually was. But whoever they were, they don't appear to be the same stock as American blacks, which perhaps is why this question exists in the first place.

    Science may be able to shed some light on this. Perhaps soon we will have a much more accurate idea, no speculations needed:

    "The Mummy Code: Ancient-DNA researchers have long clashed over work on Egyptian mummies, but next-gen sequencing might resolve their debates.", Dan Cossins, August 1, 2013.

    "...could also bring about a new era of “molecular Egyptology” in which mysteries concerning the ancestral origins of ancient Egyptians, and how they lived and died, can finally be solved. ...

    ... “Next-gen sequencing allows us quite easily to see if we are dealing with authentic ancient human DNA,”... preliminary results from the next-gen sequencing of mitochondrial DNA from 5 mummified Egyptian human heads held at the University of Tübingen... ...one of the mummies belongs to an ancestral group thought to have originated in Western Asia."


    Perhaps soon we will have some real facts.

    The ancient Egyptians didn’t consider themselves the same race as the black Nubians to the south. Most self-depictions show a narrow faced, long-nosed race with a light brown or brown-red skin tone, distinct from the depictions of both whites and blacks in their art, but the facial structure in statuary seems usually much more Caucasoid than Africanoid.

    By contrast the sphinx’s face structure definitely looks Negroid to me, but with slanted eyes like the Khoi-San, not much like modern Bantu or black Nilo-Saharan populations. The main body of the sphinx seems to be very old, with weathering patterns that seem to indicate it’s from a wet period before the pyramids were built (maybe 8000 years/ca 6000 BC?), but the head has been recarved and its present form is younger.

    It’s definitely a mystery, and it seems to me *could* be the case that the early ancient Egyptians were distinct from the neighbouring white-Semitic population (which evolved in NE Africa, but whose Caucasoid ancestors came from the north), and may even have been primarily descended from an indigenous NE African population whose ancestors had never been north into the Ice. It seems just possible that this is a uniquely non-Ice-descended civilisation that evolved in the unique conditions of the Nile, conditions that encouraged long term planning just as did the high latitudes.
    But this population would have been under unique selection pressure for a long time, was not closely related to modern Africans, certainly not to sub-Saharan west Africans, and does not mean that Africans, in the commonly understood sense, are capable of civilisation-building.

  229. @Bliss
    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/12152011-family-portrait-high-res.jpg


    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    http://media.tumblr.com/f4fde8ebcffc195f68a1186589f78fc1/tumblr_inline_mwf0djsus91qizi9m.jpg



    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG


    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.

    >>Bliss says:
    September 21, 2014 at 3:20 am GMT

    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG<&lt;
    <<

    They don't look anything like the Obamas to me. OTOH they don't much look Caucasoid either, especially not Amenhotep. He doesn't look much like any living race, but the closest analogy would be to a plump Khoi-San.

  230. @Rifleman
    Wyrd says:
    September 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm GMT

    @Rifleman

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    No, unless your argument is that by American standards any non-Northern-European demographic is black. Also, ancient Egyptian artwork depicts a wide-range of skin-hues for humans. Seems the area had quite a bit of experience with diversity of the centuries.


    Nope. I said "black by American standards". As in like Obama, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Susan Rice, Halle Berry, Malcolm X etc etc Do you have trouble understanding that?

    And some darker as well.

    They didn't look like Yule Brynner or Elizabeth Taylor. At least not until the Ptolemies.

    But not because they were a west African/West European mix like those American blacks. But because they were a Horn of Africa and some Middle Eastern "Caucasoid" mix.

    Point is they were Africans, geographically and racially. And they had civilization, albeit deeply flawed, undynamic and stiffing.


    Whiskey says: • Website
    September 19, 2014 at 5:34 pm GMT

    @Rifleman

    Rifleman –

    First the Ancient Egyptians were not Black but brown, they left plenty of hieroglyphs depicting themselves and its clear they were not Black, Nubians by contrast were depicted accurately as Black as they are today.


    Nope. They were predominantly NE Africans. Not unlike many Eritreans and Ethiopians. Or many Caribbean "mulatto elites".

    “Nope. They were predominantly NE Africans. Not unlike many Eritreans and Ethiopians. Or many Caribbean “mulatto elites”.”

    Ethiopians (core Ethiopians – primarily Amhara) are a white-Semitic/black mixed population, the white part of their ancestry definitely came from the north originally, though they’ve been in Africa a long time and the Semitic language group evolved in NE Africa before entering the Midddle East. Amhara (at least high-status Amhara) do bear some physical resemblance to old-stock Caribbean ‘mulatto elites’. But they do not look much like ancient Egyptians.

  231. @Anonymous
    Northern Europe was a millennia behind the Mediterranean, but caught up in what seems to be a generation.

    No, they weren't so primitive.

    From "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries about the Veneti in French Brittany.

    They had ocean going ships with sails and trade routs to Britain:

    VIII
    the Veneti both have a very great number of ships, with which they have been accustomed to sail to Britain,
    XIII
    The ships were built wholly of oak, ... the benches ... were fastened by iron spikes of the thickness of a man's thumb; the anchors were secured fast by iron chains instead of cables, and for sails they used skins and thin dressed leather.

    In battle, they were a match with Roman galleys:

    XIII
    The encounter of our fleet with these ships was of such a nature that our fleet excelled in speed alone ... for neither could our ships injure theirs with their beaks (so great was their strength), nor on account of their height was a weapon easily cast up to them

    They had a large fleet that could fight a naval battle with the Romans:

    XIV
    about 220 of their ships ... sailed forth from the harbour ... and drew up opposite to ours

    The Roman fleet that failed to defeat the Gaulish fleet was built by a small army, hundreds of miles from home, surrounded by hostile tribes. The result would have been different had it been the Mare Nostrum fleet, built by specialized Roman labor in friendly territory.

    De Bello Gallico is an amazing piece of history, and provides us with the single best description of the ancient Gauls and Germans, and mostly a flattering one, with frequent references to their size, strength, stoicism, and bravery, as well as frequent references to their victories over Roman armies in earlier generations.

    But Caesar was also an ambitious politicians who had every incentive to overstate the military prowess of the ancient Celts and Germans, whom he ultimately defeated despite being outnumbered more than 10 to 1.

    There’s really no question that the Romans were massively more advanced than the ancient Gauls. One group was writing poetic satires and legal treatises, the other was illiterate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There’s really no question that the Romans were massively more advanced than the ancient Gauls. One group was writing poetic satires and legal treatises, the other was illiterate.

    My point isn't that they were more advanced than the Romans. The point is they weren't a millennia behind and at the same level as 1800s Zulus. They had ships with sails and iron-chain attached anchors, and were larger than a galley and traded with Britain. You would expect barbarians to ride in dugout canoes down the river to hunt some heads. The city of Alesia was so well fortified it required 70,000 Romans to besiege it for two months to capture (by starvation, not storm). They wouldn't have had as much trouble in 1700-years-in-the-future Zululand.

    In any case, ancient Rome is at latitude 42 N, attached to western Europe, and twice as close to Paris than Cairo, so maybe we need a Moynihan`s Law Of Proximity to Barbarians.
  232. Not only that, the Germans stopped the expansion of Rome at the Rhine.

    No, they did not. The Roman Empire included a fair amount of modern Germany east of the Rhine for over 200 years. That includes modern Frankfurt, Munich, Worms, Cologne, Freiburg, Augsburg, (and modern Austria and Switzerland). Germanicus’s invasion of Germany went as far into north-central Germany as Hanover, about 150 miles east of the Rhine, and about 1000 miles from Rome, with the Alps in between.

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0006%3Aid%3Dlimes-germaniae-superioris&redirect=true

  233. Two more things about the ancient Germans. First, it would be more accurate to say the Romans stopped them. Until their defeat by Caesar, they had been moving south and west, gradually displacing Celtic tribes. Defending the Gauls from German invasion was Caesar’s primary justification for his conquest of Gaul.

    Second, the people who most resemble the ancient residents of modern Germany are probably the Danes rather than modern Germans. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Slavs and Huns conquered much of the territory where the ancient Germans were living, pushing them out in the Migration Period into France, Spain, Africa, Italy, and Britain. Thus, all Western Europeans are part descendants of ancient Germans, and modern Germans are hybrids of ancient Germans, conquered Celtic tribes and Roman settlers, and Western Slavs (the Wends). Even before the Migration Period, the ancient Germans were settling elsewhere in Europe in large numbers as slaves and mercenaries.

  234. Here’s evidence for one side of the argument –

    Surely the Ancient Egyptians looked like this

    http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5436061/1/

  235. @DJF
    """"look at Botswana — it is run by and for black people, but it is one of the great economic success stories of the past 50 years."""

    Botswana is run by international mining companies which extract most of the wealth. The vast majority of people in Botswana are subsistence farmers who see little of that wealth. Its only considered successful by people who define it this globalist definition of success

    And Botswana is 40% HIV positive. More, its president had a white Mum.

  236. @Keith Vaz
    Cavalli-Sforza thought Africans were the biggest outliers of humanity. ...

    Funny, I call Europeans and East Asians the Northern Outliers and everyone else the Equatorial Mean. I view the NO as outliers in that they developed more sophisticated social structures, higher IQs and, in some cases, higher levels of trust and social capital.

  237. “WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?”

    I have my own novel theory about that. The Northern Europeans took longer to become civilized because it took them longer to develop resistance to alcoholism. The Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners had been practicing agriculture longer (due to a climate more favorable for developing it), and were thus introduced to the fermentation process much sooner. When the Northern Europeans ultimately came into contact with these populations, alcohol wreaked havoc upon them much in the same way it did to the North American Indians.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "“WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?”"

    My guess: until the mouldboard plough they were reliant on sheep & cattle herding, not conducive to civilisation. Once they were able to farm wheat in heavy northern European soil they civilised quickly.
  238. @Bliss
    Showing once again why race is often a social construct. Latin America and the Middle East are full of mixed race people, yet in the US census, and police reports, mongrels from these regions are classified as white caucasians....

    Likewise, the 1.5 billion folks in the Indian subcontinent are all mixed race. The black component there is different being related to australoid, papua new-guinean, andaman islander while the caucasoid component is west asian. Yet according to the absurd race theories in vogue among many race realists indians are caucasians...

    Showing once again why race is often a social construct. Latin America and the Middle East are full of mixed race people, yet in the US census, and police reports, mongrels from these regions are classified as white caucasians….

    Yes, dear boy, everyone knows about the the politics of racial classification.

    Likewise, the 1.5 billion folks in the Indian subcontinent are all mixed race. The black component there is different being related to australoid, papua new-guinean, andaman islander while the caucasoid component is west asian. Yet according to the absurd race theories in vogue among many race realists indians are caucasians…

    Do people nowadays classify South Asians as Caucasoids/West Eurasians? It seems to me that they occupy their own slot, more or less.

    And dear boy, the terms used when discussing South Asia’s ancestral population mixture are ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). Dienekes provides a nice summary of some recent results:

    A new paper on the topic of Indian population history has just appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics. In previous work it was determined that Indians trace their ancestry to two major groups, Ancestral North Indians (ANI) (= West Eurasians of some kind), and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) (= distant relatives of Andaman Islanders, existing today only in admixed form). The new paper demonstrates that admixture between these two groups took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago.

  239. @Jefferson
    "This is why I prefer to use terms like Caucasoid and West Eurasian; it keeps people from bringing out their brown paper bags."

    The average Egyptian has some Sub Saharan African admixture, so the average Egyptian is a racial mutt and not a Caucasoid.

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a "Caucasoid" ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a "Caucasoid" ethnic group as well.

    The average Egyptian has some Sub Saharan African admixture, so the average Egyptian is a racial mutt and not a Caucasoid.

    What is a “racial mutt?” Is there a precise definition that I can look up?

    If you are going to say Egyptians are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group, than you might as well say Puerto Ricans for example are a “Caucasoid” ethnic group as well.

    MMM, some Puerto Ricans are pretty clearly Caucasoid (Jose Ferrer, etc); on the other hand, admixture rates for Egyptians, based on what little reading that I have done on the subject, seem lower than the rates found in Puerto Ricans.

  240. There’s a tendency to group all of Sub-Saharan Africa together when there is a tremendous amount of diversity among them. Certainly African development below the Sahara is not up to par but some countries and peoples are better than others.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashanti_people

    The Ashanti strongly resisted attempts by Europeans, mainly the British, to subjugate them. The Ashanti limited British influence in the region. Britain annexed neighbouring areas. The Ashanti were described as a fierce organized people whose king “can bring 200,000 men into the field and whose warriors are evidently not cowed by Sniper rifles and 7-pounder guns”[6]
    Ashanti was one of the few African states able to offer serious resistance to European colonizers. Between 1823 and 1896, Britain fought four wars against the Ashanti kings (the Anglo-Ashanti Wars). In 1901, the British finally defeated the kingdom and incorporated it into the Gold Coast colony as a protectorate.
    Because of the long history of mutual interaction between Ashanti and European powers, the Ashanti have the greatest amount of historiography in sub-Saharan Africa.
    The British touted the Ashanti as one of the more civilized African peoples, cataloguing their religious, familial, and legal systems in works like R.S. Rattray’s Ashanti Law and Constitution.

  241. @Bliss
    Of course, for the most part. Egypt is in northeast africa after all.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/12152011-family-portrait-high-res.jpg


    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    Queen Tiye:

    http://media.tumblr.com/f4fde8ebcffc195f68a1186589f78fc1/tumblr_inline_mwf0djsus91qizi9m.jpg



    Pharaoh Amenhotep:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG/240px-Inside_the_British_Museum%2C_London_-_DSC04210.JPG


    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.

    Btw, the Obama family looks like a lot like the ancient egyptians:

    MMMM, not based on the photos that I have seen, dear boy.

    In fact Michelle Obama is a doppelganger for Queen Tiye, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep (who looked like an afro-american NFL player).

    MMM, perhaps after a fair amount of plastic surgery (Michelle has, of course, already straightened her hair in her quest to look less Negroid)….

    They were the parents of the Pharaoh Akhneton, who was perhaps the first fanatical monotheist. Freud in Moses and Monotheism traces the hebrew monotheistic religion to the religion founded by Akhneton.

    Freud’s theories about Moses and Akhenaten are not taken seriously by anyone; for one thing, Moses never existed, and there was no Exodus.

  242. @Gbloco
    I was in Ghana a couple of months ago. Some observations
    1. Family bonds are very important.
    2. The tribal system with a chief enforced good behaviour.
    3. People are polite and concerned (especially women) about their reputation.
    4. There is huge demand for education -- half the billboards (and there are a lot) are for schools and institutes, most of the remainder are for churches
    5. People are friendly and totally unthreatening

    Slavery -- carriage to the Americas, working on the plantations, segregation and subsequent emancipation clearly had a pretty big effect. Mostly behavioural but also likely selection and reproduction bias. After abolition of the slave trade the slave owners embarked on a huge breeding program.

    As a Ghanaian American your description is very accurate. I’m not sure where this description of loose African women comes from but it’s not descriptive of Ghanaian women for the most part. Family is everything and shaming the family is a big thing even among those of us in the USA & UK.

    Hopefully one day the country will realize its potential, I think the general ingredients are there for a decent middle income country.

    • Replies: @gbloco
    Ed,

    I have invested all over the world. It is where Latin America was in the early 90s and China in the early 00s. The roll out of 4G is going to be a game changer in a country where most people don't have fixed line internet. Although as Steve points out TFR is very high in Nigeria (I am a little skeptical about that number as I will highlight on another thread) in Ghana they are dropping fast -- from 4 in 2000 to 3.25 in 2010. Finally Ghana has a large body of expats who will return to the country with the skills acquired in UK and the US.
  243. @Anonymous
    Even the only indisputably African dog breed, Basenji, is among the most stupid dogs (untrainable, that is.) Hardly anything was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa - high future time orientation is not Africans' strong point. Diamond's "but they are simply not domesticable" is an obvious falsity - ostriches were domesticated over a lifetime of a single white farmer, something that blacks failed to do for ever.

    Hardly anything was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa –

    http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=BolligPastoralism

    Okey doke.

  244. @The most deplorable one

    Black folks have a hard time cooperating with each other.
     
    Depends on what they need to cooperate for:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/09/20/disturbing-video-saint-louis-missouri-mob-assault/

    Both sets of emotion genes reside with all of us – there is NO reason that Black folk cannot nurture their cooperative side.
     
    That is simply not necessarily true. For example, very few West African blacks have the alleles for Lactase Persistence and very few whites have the alleles for β-globin gene that results in Sickle Cell Anemia. It would seem even less likely that we all have all the same alleles for complex behaviors.

    West Africa has a high frequency of lactase persistence, but it may not be due to the same mutations that confer lactase persistence in Northwest Europeans. See the lactase persistence map that accompanies this UCL news article.

  245. @Mark Minter
    Just a bit of a plug about Rice University to those who do not know. Rice is ranked 19 by US News and World Report. And frankly I think that is lower than it should be ranked. Consider that the top 20 contain the Ivy League, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Cal Institute of Tech, to be ranked 19th is among a pretty tough crowd. Rice is ahead of Berkeley, Georgetown, Tufts, Emory, USC, UCLA, Carnegie Mellon. It is considered the #9 best value, ranking vs price, where Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, MIT are names on that list.

    My favorite story about Rice was a few years back, Rice played Texas in Austin. The starting QB for Rice was from Austin. Both of his parents were Texas Exes, long time season ticket holders. For the Rice game they wore their son's Rice jersey and sat in the middle of the UT season ticket crowd, most of whom where Texas graduates. Instead of razzing the parents, the fans treated the parents with much respect because it was as if they had succeeded in the best way as parents. They raised the Rice QB. You just don't do better than that. Not in Texas anyway.

    That is a feel good story. But wonder if the Texas fans would’ve been so respectful if they did not know that the game was a gimmee, and if they thought this son of UT alum’s team might actually beat them?

    I know a guy who had taught at Rice and still speaks highly of it. I’m in the Northeast and my children who applied to Ivys and the next level down really didn’t have Rice on the radar – looking back on it now it might’ve been a good place for them- though winter weather aside I don’t think either would’ve wanted Houston as their college town. Though Austin, maybe.

  246. @Anonymous
    So, we need to drive the elephants out of Detroit?

    TITCR

  247. @Vlad
    Africa is improving though. HDI is increasing steadily. Did any of you read the trends in that HDI study?

    Most other countries have been through immense problems one after the other until they got to a point of being considered developed and thats exactly whats happening in Africa and they are improving through those things. Only difference is theres more of it to go through.

    Lets go through the list:

    1. Most aggressive and most numerous predators AND other animals. Even Zebras are very nasty. European predators like that lion were only in small parts of the south. Mammoths went extinct long time ago and a lot of it was also due to climate change. Count how many predators there were and are in Africa compared to other places. Go count.
    2. Most diseases and viruses which are also the most dangerous life threatening hard to deal with ones. On top of that the climate is a breeding ground for such things. Wait I forgot to add that these viruses are passed on by vast amounts of diverse insects too.
    3. Very variable land and climatic differences from giant deserts to thick rain forests. Insects and germs that Africa is a breeding ground for can effect all of that.
    4. Very large distances.
    5. Constant outside interference economically and politically.
    6. Very large collection of different people with different languages per most countries. Making them much more tricky to govern unlike places like Korea or Japan.
    7. Populations are much younger and have only grown to the sizes they are in much more recent times.
    List goes on but I got tired.

    Either way even with all of that AFRICA IS IMPROVING IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Go check the HDI trend.

    This is from ” the food is terrible and such small portions!” school of analysis

  248. I think mass black pathology is enhanced because of so many white people who still enjoy a good minstrel show. It’s like crack to them. Something deep in their psyche becomes excited by blacks behaving like old-timey negroes doing what they do best. Black people are to the liberal elite as young boys are to the Catholic church. They couldn’t be who they are without them. It’s the perverse lynchpin that holds their sense of identity together. They just have to have their “bad little black boys” around to give them a sense of purpose. Many blacks understand this intuitively, so the black minstrel shows go on, big, bold, and better than ever:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=636_1411201299

  249. Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!

    And he’s mostly right except that blacks are not “wolfish” or “noble savages.” One reason they were enslaved by everyone is not just because they were technologically backward but because they are docile and slavish. They make good slaves. That’s why they had to be imported to the Americas, because the natives (especially in North America) were in fact noble savages and wouldn’t tolerate slavery. Unlike other peoples, blacks prosper under slavery.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!"

    One of the stranger conspiracy theories about me is that I must have an immense number of cogent thoughts unexpressed, that I'm either secretly withholding the bulk of my ideas or am publishing them under other names.

    In reality, of course, the eight-figures-or-so of words I've posted on the Internet over the years under the name Steve Sailer is about all I've got. I don't actually have another ten million words buried away in my Corpus Hermeticum. If I come up with an idea that survives a few reality checks, you are probably going to hear about it shortly.

    , @Priss Factor
    "Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!"

    Steve Sailer doesn't get TWILIGHT. He can't be me.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!"

    I'm starting to wonder if "Art Deco" is Whiskey minus the "white women hate hate hate the beta male" thing.

  250. @skepticaldonkey
    Commenter "pizza" above is not Whiskey...it is STEVE SAILER!!

    And he's mostly right except that blacks are not "wolfish" or "noble savages." One reason they were enslaved by everyone is not just because they were technologically backward but because they are docile and slavish. They make good slaves. That's why they had to be imported to the Americas, because the natives (especially in North America) were in fact noble savages and wouldn't tolerate slavery. Unlike other peoples, blacks prosper under slavery.

    “Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!”

    One of the stranger conspiracy theories about me is that I must have an immense number of cogent thoughts unexpressed, that I’m either secretly withholding the bulk of my ideas or am publishing them under other names.

    In reality, of course, the eight-figures-or-so of words I’ve posted on the Internet over the years under the name Steve Sailer is about all I’ve got. I don’t actually have another ten million words buried away in my Corpus Hermeticum. If I come up with an idea that survives a few reality checks, you are probably going to hear about it shortly.

  251. “MMM, some Puerto Ricans are pretty clearly Caucasoid (Jose Ferrer, etc); on the other hand, admixture rates for Egyptians, based on what little reading that I have done on the subject, seem lower than the rates found in Puerto Ricans.”

    Egyptians have more Sub Saharan African admixture than Israelis and Europeans, so that pretty much disqualifies them from being Caucasoids.

    Caucasoid = the absence of any Sub Saharan blood. Once you have any Sub Saharan blood you turn into a racial mutt. Egyptians are racial mutts, this is 100 percent fact. Egyptians are not the epitome of Caucasoid racial purity.

  252. @dcite
    "More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos." Piling rocks? Huh? Might as well say the Brooklyn Bridge is as impressive as a sand castle. The Great Pyramid (the one that really puzzles the experts) is constructed with such precision, that this precision could not be duplicated today, and it is based on geometric principles and angles. I am not a mathematician, but I have read their treatises on it, and to this day they cannot figure out how it was done, and I don't mean the piling part, which just might have been accomplished with brute labor; but not the design, and probably not the placement. An extraordinary level of abstract thinking was required to even conceive of the Great Pyramid much less build it. It had no objects in it, nor any artifacts of human scale, so it was probably not used as a burial chamber as were the much later, smaller pyramids. Have black Africans ever struck anyone as having a propensity for abstract, mathematical, conceptualized thinking?
    Pyramids in fact have been found in many parts of the world, not just South America and Egypt. Some of the biggest are in the Balkan area. Others have been found in China, Ireland, central North America.
    They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them.

    The experts aren’t “puzzled” by the pyramids. That’s just the propaganda that they are espousing, the usual liberal nonsense about how advanced ancient people are.

    Want to know how the Great Pyramid is constructed? Simply take it apart. How can anyone draw conclusions about ancient engineering unless you reverse engineer it?

  253. Here is an Egyptian girl who is clearly the product of racial miscegenation. She does not even look White enough to pass for an Israeli, let alone White enough to pass for a European.
    And there are millions of Egyptians who look like her.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Egyptians have more Sub Saharan African admixture than Israelis and Europeans, so that pretty much disqualifies them from being Caucasoids.
     
    Why? It seems to me that a man who is, say, 95% Caucasoid and 5 % Negroid is Caucasoid. For that matter, there are Egyptians with no Black ancestry.

    Caucasoid = the absence of any Sub Saharan blood. Once you have any Sub Saharan blood you turn into a racial mutt.
     
    This is quite silly.

    Egyptians are racial mutts, this is 100 percent fact.
     
    I would avoid the phrase "100 percent fact." It sounds rather juvenile.

    Egyptians are not the epitome of Caucasoid racial purity.
     
    Was anyone claiming that they were?

    Here is an Egyptian girl who is clearly the product of racial miscegenation. She does not even look White enough to pass for an Israeli, let alone White enough to pass for a European.
     
    Of course, millions of Israelis are Europeans....

    And there are millions of Egyptians who look like her.
     
    On the other hand, there are also Egyptians who look like this:

    Omar Sharif:

    http://en.unifrance.org/directories/person/123097/omar-sharif


    No one seemed to mind when he played a Russian in Dr Zhivago and a German in NIGHT OF THE GENERALS.


    Faten Hamama:


    http://www.7asriyan.com/7asriyan/MoreNews.aspx?newsid=277387

    Mona Zaki:


    http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/562/profile.htm


    Essam Sharaf:


    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/12595/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-PM-speaks-of-Egypt%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98bright%E2%80%99-future-at-firs.aspx


    Egypt is a very diverse place.
  254. @Ed
    As a Ghanaian American your description is very accurate. I'm not sure where this description of loose African women comes from but it's not descriptive of Ghanaian women for the most part. Family is everything and shaming the family is a big thing even among those of us in the USA & UK.

    Hopefully one day the country will realize its potential, I think the general ingredients are there for a decent middle income country.

    Ed,

    I have invested all over the world. It is where Latin America was in the early 90s and China in the early 00s. The roll out of 4G is going to be a game changer in a country where most people don’t have fixed line internet. Although as Steve points out TFR is very high in Nigeria (I am a little skeptical about that number as I will highlight on another thread) in Ghana they are dropping fast — from 4 in 2000 to 3.25 in 2010. Finally Ghana has a large body of expats who will return to the country with the skills acquired in UK and the US.

  255. @Sunbeam
    "This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun."

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I'd list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80's btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90's, my data may be dated.

    >>Sunbeam says:
    September 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm GMT

    “This is how you know most British men are wussy boys, most of them do not believe that citizens should have a right to own a gun.”

    Actually from what I have heard from friends who have had a lot of interaction with brits (lower class in dives, and whatever classes join the British military), they are a lot more likely to fight than Americans are.

    And they are better at it. They also drink more booze than all but a select few sorts from the US (I’d list this, but it is not all encompassing, and you may think I missed one, but Uncle Sam does have some that can compete in this dubious Olympics).

    Also, from the same sources, they are better soldiers in general than we are (Germans too).

    Both of these anecdotes date from the 80′s btw. Dunno maybe Blair wussed them up pretty badly in the 90′s, my data may be dated.<<

    This seems an accurate description of working-class Brits, and a good swathe of the midle class. Brits aren't particularly wussified, though I get the impression that north-west continental Europeans may be somewhat wussified. Of course our middle class don't like violence, but that is the same in the US.

    The political elite dislike guns, same as in the US. Ordinary Brits rarely think about guns, but have no particular horror of them. Also our criminals are rarely armed, which contributes to unarmed (male) Brits being much more likely than unarmed Americans to fight back against criminals, from what I can tell. In particular we will usually fight back against home invaders.

    Brits are probably better soldiers than non-Southern/Scots-Irish US soldiers; a much higher proportion of our soldiers are combat-capable. But America has lots of good soldiers too. Neither were as good as WW1 or WW2 German soldiers, but the US benefits from lots of German-descended soldiers & sailors.

  256. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @skepticaldonkey
    Commenter "pizza" above is not Whiskey...it is STEVE SAILER!!

    And he's mostly right except that blacks are not "wolfish" or "noble savages." One reason they were enslaved by everyone is not just because they were technologically backward but because they are docile and slavish. They make good slaves. That's why they had to be imported to the Americas, because the natives (especially in North America) were in fact noble savages and wouldn't tolerate slavery. Unlike other peoples, blacks prosper under slavery.

    “Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!”

    Steve Sailer doesn’t get TWILIGHT. He can’t be me.

  257. Civilization started in the Middle East. The big question is why it didn’t spread south to Africa, except for Ethiopia. Disease seems like a good explanation— it wasn’t worth bringing technical innovations over mountains or desert if you had a high chance of dying of disease.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Civilization started in the Middle East. The big question is why it didn’t spread south to Africa, except for Ethiopia. Disease seems like a good explanation— it wasn’t worth bringing technical innovations over mountains or desert if you had a high chance of dying of disease."

    I think the question of "did African diseases, geography, climate, and etc prevent the rise of civilization in Africa?" is tolerable even to lots of Libs.

    And we might agree with that too.

    The more troubling question is, did African conditions only socially and culturally prevent blacks from building civilization... or did those conditions also alter the black DNA in such a way that blacks are less likely to build civilizations even in hospitable conditions?

    If the latter is true, then it's not just a black problem IN Africa but a black problem ALL OVER the world: Europe, US, Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica, and etc.

    In making black genetics more immune to malaria, did African conditions also make black genetics more immune to rules of civilization?

  258. @Hapalong Cassidy
    “WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?”

    I have my own novel theory about that. The Northern Europeans took longer to become civilized because it took them longer to develop resistance to alcoholism. The Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners had been practicing agriculture longer (due to a climate more favorable for developing it), and were thus introduced to the fermentation process much sooner. When the Northern Europeans ultimately came into contact with these populations, alcohol wreaked havoc upon them much in the same way it did to the North American Indians.

    ““WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?””

    My guess: until the mouldboard plough they were reliant on sheep & cattle herding, not conducive to civilisation. Once they were able to farm wheat in heavy northern European soil they civilised quickly.

  259. @Simon in London
    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions. Populations such as Australoids & sub-Saharan Africans who never experienced the Ice Age never created civilisations. I therefore suspect that this must be the critical factor.

    Not predators - no significant big predators in Australia for tens of thousands of years.
    Not crop-eating megafauna - Australia never even got as far as agriculture. None in the Papua New Guinea highlands.
    Not disease causing lack of population density - Papua New Guinea highlands very densely populated.

    The above three may all have contributed to lack of civilisations, but clearly lack of these three is not sufficient for civilisation.

    From what I can tell, the civilisation-building population groups all come primarily from the group that turned left out of Africa. Instead of proceeding east along the coast towards India, they went north. The Europeans/Caucasoids and NE-Asians/Mongoloids seem to have split first, with the distinct NE-Asian population emerging around 22,000 years ago (quite recent - several tens of thousands of years after this population entered Eurasia). The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians, with a split around 15,000 years ago. Later of course some of these Ice-folk went back south again into already-inhabited territory and eventually built cities in places like India (Caucasoids) and SE Asia (Mongoloids).

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.

    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians

    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    Because the big-headed, neotynic Mongols were equipped with technologically advanced military technology, the recurved composite bow.

    Also, why didn't they need to build a wall on their Southern border?
    , @Anonymous
    Meh, Meso-America never invented metal-smelting, so had to do everything with stone tools. Everything would take three times as long to do with stone tools. That statue of a slave had to be carved with stone tools. Barbarians had iron, so they got to use hammer and chisel to carve stuff.
    , @syonredux

    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization.
     
    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?
     
    On the other hand, the Greeks and the Chinese were not terribly impressed by their southern neighbors....

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own.
     
    On the other hand, they have managed to improve on what they inherited: Newton, Kant, Hume, Watt, Hubble, Edison, Rembrandt, etc.

    Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg
     
    And, of course, the Egyptians were North African Caucasoids...

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:
     
    MMMM, you seem to have "African-American football players" on the brain, dear boy. This is at least the second time that you have used that comparison. I do hope that you are not planning on invoking the whole "Omecs were Black Africans" idea. Even rabid Africentrists seem to have given that one up.
    , @Simon in London
    "If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. "

    Civilistion started in warm climes. But the ancestors of the civilisation builders all came from further north (with a possible question mark over Egypt).
  260. @skepticaldonkey
    Commenter "pizza" above is not Whiskey...it is STEVE SAILER!!

    And he's mostly right except that blacks are not "wolfish" or "noble savages." One reason they were enslaved by everyone is not just because they were technologically backward but because they are docile and slavish. They make good slaves. That's why they had to be imported to the Americas, because the natives (especially in North America) were in fact noble savages and wouldn't tolerate slavery. Unlike other peoples, blacks prosper under slavery.

    “Commenter “pizza” above is not Whiskey…it is STEVE SAILER!!”

    I’m starting to wonder if “Art Deco” is Whiskey minus the “white women hate hate hate the beta male” thing.

  261. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:
    @Eric Rasmusen
    Civilization started in the Middle East. The big question is why it didn't spread south to Africa, except for Ethiopia. Disease seems like a good explanation--- it wasn't worth bringing technical innovations over mountains or desert if you had a high chance of dying of disease.

    “Civilization started in the Middle East. The big question is why it didn’t spread south to Africa, except for Ethiopia. Disease seems like a good explanation— it wasn’t worth bringing technical innovations over mountains or desert if you had a high chance of dying of disease.”

    I think the question of “did African diseases, geography, climate, and etc prevent the rise of civilization in Africa?” is tolerable even to lots of Libs.

    And we might agree with that too.

    The more troubling question is, did African conditions only socially and culturally prevent blacks from building civilization… or did those conditions also alter the black DNA in such a way that blacks are less likely to build civilizations even in hospitable conditions?

    If the latter is true, then it’s not just a black problem IN Africa but a black problem ALL OVER the world: Europe, US, Brazil, Haiti, Jamaica, and etc.

    In making black genetics more immune to malaria, did African conditions also make black genetics more immune to rules of civilization?

  262. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    The Roman fleet that failed to defeat the Gaulish fleet was built by a small army, hundreds of miles from home, surrounded by hostile tribes. The result would have been different had it been the Mare Nostrum fleet, built by specialized Roman labor in friendly territory.

    De Bello Gallico is an amazing piece of history, and provides us with the single best description of the ancient Gauls and Germans, and mostly a flattering one, with frequent references to their size, strength, stoicism, and bravery, as well as frequent references to their victories over Roman armies in earlier generations.

    But Caesar was also an ambitious politicians who had every incentive to overstate the military prowess of the ancient Celts and Germans, whom he ultimately defeated despite being outnumbered more than 10 to 1.

    There's really no question that the Romans were massively more advanced than the ancient Gauls. One group was writing poetic satires and legal treatises, the other was illiterate.

    There’s really no question that the Romans were massively more advanced than the ancient Gauls. One group was writing poetic satires and legal treatises, the other was illiterate.

    My point isn’t that they were more advanced than the Romans. The point is they weren’t a millennia behind and at the same level as 1800s Zulus. They had ships with sails and iron-chain attached anchors, and were larger than a galley and traded with Britain. You would expect barbarians to ride in dugout canoes down the river to hunt some heads. The city of Alesia was so well fortified it required 70,000 Romans to besiege it for two months to capture (by starvation, not storm). They wouldn’t have had as much trouble in 1700-years-in-the-future Zululand.

    In any case, ancient Rome is at latitude 42 N, attached to western Europe, and twice as close to Paris than Cairo, so maybe we need a Moynihan`s Law Of Proximity to Barbarians.

  263. @Bliss

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.
     
    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians
     
    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    http://www.softseattravel.com/sitebuilder/images/Xalapa_Museum009-578x401.jpg

    http://images.travelpod.com/users/linzstoker/peru_05.1123816020.lindsey_and_olmec_head_xalapa_museum.jpg

    Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    Because the big-headed, neotynic Mongols were equipped with technologically advanced military technology, the recurved composite bow.

    Also, why didn’t they need to build a wall on their Southern border?

  264. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bliss

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.
     
    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians
     
    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    http://www.softseattravel.com/sitebuilder/images/Xalapa_Museum009-578x401.jpg

    http://images.travelpod.com/users/linzstoker/peru_05.1123816020.lindsey_and_olmec_head_xalapa_museum.jpg

    Meh, Meso-America never invented metal-smelting, so had to do everything with stone tools. Everything would take three times as long to do with stone tools. That statue of a slave had to be carved with stone tools. Barbarians had iron, so they got to use hammer and chisel to carve stuff.

  265. Amhara (at least high-status Amhara) do bear some physical resemblance to old-stock Caribbean ‘mulatto elites’

    I recently learned that a store clerk I had always assumed was Dominican is really Ethiopian. I’d describe the look as facial features and hair about equal parts white and black, but skin color 60-80% black. In this case, she was lighter than Obama.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    >>I’d describe the look as facial features and hair about equal parts white and black, but skin color 60-80% black.<<

    To me their facial features look more like 60-80% Caucasian, but skin tone 60%-80% African, as you say.
  266. Malaria was a big problem for much of the US until evil white people started spraying DDT and taking other measures, draining swamps, standing water, etc that can harbor mosquitoes. Now the death toll of malaria is so low in the US, that it’s a statistical blip here- usually its someone who traveled to some tropical region and caught it there.

    Much of Africa’s current problems with malaria are due to do-goodism from liberals. They’ve pushed for all sorts of aid to the region, with the consequent increases in population density necessary for malaria epidemics. They also went all ‘green’ on Africa and largely delayed and blocked the use of pesticides there which were instrumental in driving down malaria in the US. They do things like give free sleeping nets to the Africans to block mosquitoes, and the Africans use them for fishing.

  267. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “No, they did not. The Roman Empire included a fair amount of modern Germany east of the Rhine for over 200 years.”

    Okay, good point. How about “the Germans pushed the Romans back to the Rhine”?

    Likewise, I think the Romans occupied perhaps the majority of low-land Scotland for about 50 years. It’s likely the logistics/weather (poor local agriculture) pushed out the Romans: “The total size of the Roman garrison in Scotland during the Flavian period of occupation is thought to be some 25,000 troops, requiring 16–19,000 tons of grain per annum.”

  268. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    The ancient Egyptians were not black. They had straight hair. Some were blonde and red-haired. The ancient mummies demonstrate this conclusively.

  269. I often wonder if implausibility isn’t considered a virtue these days.

    70% how you look
    20% how you sound
    10% what you say

  270. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    I think the implication is clear enough. Natural selection favoured certain behavioral traits in Africa and nothing has happened in America to change the old evolutionary outcome. At least some of the whites who provided about one sixth of contemporary African-American genes were perhaps more like tropical Africans in certain behavioural characteristics than the average European male. Not that the truth or falsity of that makes much difference.

    BTW as I intend to note elsewhere the poor light soils point doesn’t carry much weight with me. Unless you cut down all your tropical forest life for tropical people, especially those in the equatorial tropics where there are no hurricanes, is so easy that muscling up so as to be able to impregnate the maximum number of females is most likely to be favoured by natural selection. From seas and rivers the fishing is easy and fruits and roots, if not crops, mean that the women can provide food unaided. Sri Lankans aren’t promiscuous muscular types like West Africans but don’t need much of a work ethic to survive in the south west within 6 degrees of the equator on the Indian ocean.

    As for thin soils, none are as thin as those on which pre-Columbian people thrived along the Amazon. The secret was, as cattle rancher’s are now learning, to let the jungle regrow regularly while cutting a new area for agriculture.

  271. @Numinous

    Reader didn’t really want to draw out the modern implications in the manner of J.P. Rushton, but it’s pretty obvious reading his book that there are connections between prehistoric Africa and inner city black America.
     
    Steve, this is where you sort of lose me. When recent history of slavery and marginalization can explain (at least to some extent) the dysfunction of inner-city black America, why must we jump back many millenia to discover the supposed roots of those causes in tropical insects and pachyderms?

    I think the implication is clear enough. Natural selection favoured certain behavioral traits in Africa and nothing has happened in America to change the old evolutionary outcome. At least some of the whites who provided about one sixth of contemporary African-American genes were perhaps more like tropical Africans in certain behavioural characteristics than the average European male. Not that the truth or falsity of that makes much difference.

    BTW as I intend to note elsewhere the poor light soils point doesn’t carry much weight with me. Unless you cut down all your tropical forest life for tropical people, especially those in the equatorial tropics where there are no hurricanes, is so easy that muscling up so as to be able to impregnate the maximum number of females is most likely to be favoured by natural selection. From seas and rivers the fishing is easy and fruits and roots, if not crops, mean that the women can provide food unaided. Sri Lankans aren’t promiscuous muscular types like West Africans but don’t need much of a work ethic to survive in the south west within 6 degrees of the equator on the Indian ocean.

    As for thin soils, none are as thin as those on which pre-Columbian people thrived along the Amazon. The secret was, as cattle rancher’s are now learning, to let the jungle regrow regularly while cutting a new area for agriculture.

  272. @Anonymous
    WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?

    They weren't behind technologically.

    They had iron tools and iron weapons and armor, agriculture, animal husbandry, horseback riding, wagons, alcohol fermentation, textile weaving etc. They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).

    the dejbjerg wagon from dejbjerg bog, 50 BCE

    They even were able to defeat a Roman legion(under ideal circumstances).

    The Romans suffered many defeats at the hand of the Germanics. Some of the most massive defeats were during the Cambrian war. At the battle of Arausio alone, Roman losses are estimated to be between 80,000 and 120,000 men.

    Rome was never invincible. What set the Romans apart from their opponents was the ability to recover much more quickly from defeats.

  273. @Bliss

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.
     
    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians
     
    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    http://www.softseattravel.com/sitebuilder/images/Xalapa_Museum009-578x401.jpg

    http://images.travelpod.com/users/linzstoker/peru_05.1123816020.lindsey_and_olmec_head_xalapa_museum.jpg

    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization.

    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    On the other hand, the Greeks and the Chinese were not terribly impressed by their southern neighbors….

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own.

    On the other hand, they have managed to improve on what they inherited: Newton, Kant, Hume, Watt, Hubble, Edison, Rembrandt, etc.

    Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    And, of course, the Egyptians were North African Caucasoids…

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    MMMM, you seem to have “African-American football players” on the brain, dear boy. This is at least the second time that you have used that comparison. I do hope that you are not planning on invoking the whole “Omecs were Black Africans” idea. Even rabid Africentrists seem to have given that one up.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    Sumer preceded Hwang Ho civilization by 2000 years, Egypt did so by 1,000 years or more, and the Indus Valley cities did so by 500 years.

    Egyptian Copts are the heirs to the ancient Egyptians. Supposedly, their most proximate kin would be the latter-day population of Ceylon.

    The Indus Valley is thought to have been predominantly populated with people related to today's Dravidian population in southern India, with a proto-Australoid minority you find today only in the Antipodes.

    , @Bliss

    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes?
     
    You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Egypt, Sumer and Indus are the three oldest civilizations. What part of came later re: China couldn't you understand? If you really are a teacher I feel sorry for your students. Yes, the chinese are practically white compared to the ancient egyptians, sumerians and indians whose civilizations preceded theirs. So, what the heck is your point?

    I see that Slimer has already corrected your ignorance of history and forced you to acknowledge it. But, being shamelessly and incorrigibly dishonest you had to once again resort to a lie as an excuse for your stupidity:

    I am quite aware of the sequence. However, Bliss seemed rather more interested in originality (which civilizations are more or less autochthonous) than in chronological sequence.
     
    Clearly you don't even know what chronological sequence means. Anyone reading my post can see that I wrote earliest for the 3 oldest civilizations followed by came later for the chinese, greek and other civilizations. Any idiot can see that's a chronological sequence...

    Hard to believe that you are actually a teacher...
  274. @Jefferson
    Here is an Egyptian girl who is clearly the product of racial miscegenation. She does not even look White enough to pass for an Israeli, let alone White enough to pass for a European.
    http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCH13289.jpg

    And there are millions of Egyptians who look like her.

    Egyptians have more Sub Saharan African admixture than Israelis and Europeans, so that pretty much disqualifies them from being Caucasoids.

    Why? It seems to me that a man who is, say, 95% Caucasoid and 5 % Negroid is Caucasoid. For that matter, there are Egyptians with no Black ancestry.

    Caucasoid = the absence of any Sub Saharan blood. Once you have any Sub Saharan blood you turn into a racial mutt.

    This is quite silly.

    Egyptians are racial mutts, this is 100 percent fact.

    I would avoid the phrase “100 percent fact.” It sounds rather juvenile.

    Egyptians are not the epitome of Caucasoid racial purity.

    Was anyone claiming that they were?

    Here is an Egyptian girl who is clearly the product of racial miscegenation. She does not even look White enough to pass for an Israeli, let alone White enough to pass for a European.

    Of course, millions of Israelis are Europeans….

    And there are millions of Egyptians who look like her.

    On the other hand, there are also Egyptians who look like this:

    Omar Sharif:

    http://en.unifrance.org/directories/person/123097/omar-sharif

    No one seemed to mind when he played a Russian in Dr Zhivago and a German in NIGHT OF THE GENERALS.

    Faten Hamama:

    http://www.7asriyan.com/7asriyan/MoreNews.aspx?newsid=277387

    Mona Zaki:

    http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/562/profile.htm

    Essam Sharaf:

    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/12595/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-PM-speaks-of-Egypt%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98bright%E2%80%99-future-at-firs.aspx

    Egypt is a very diverse place.

  275. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @dcite
    "More impressive than piling rocks up into pyramids are the rifled blow guns of the Amazon Indians and the technology of the Eskimos." Piling rocks? Huh? Might as well say the Brooklyn Bridge is as impressive as a sand castle. The Great Pyramid (the one that really puzzles the experts) is constructed with such precision, that this precision could not be duplicated today, and it is based on geometric principles and angles. I am not a mathematician, but I have read their treatises on it, and to this day they cannot figure out how it was done, and I don't mean the piling part, which just might have been accomplished with brute labor; but not the design, and probably not the placement. An extraordinary level of abstract thinking was required to even conceive of the Great Pyramid much less build it. It had no objects in it, nor any artifacts of human scale, so it was probably not used as a burial chamber as were the much later, smaller pyramids. Have black Africans ever struck anyone as having a propensity for abstract, mathematical, conceptualized thinking?
    Pyramids in fact have been found in many parts of the world, not just South America and Egypt. Some of the biggest are in the Balkan area. Others have been found in China, Ireland, central North America.
    They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them.

    The gift that didn’t manifest is the gift of staple cereals. Khamut, wheat and barley were very difficult to grow below the Nile River Valley. Agriculture generally didn’t spread by long route trade but by short hops. Staple cereals rounded the Mediterranean sea pretty well, worked west into central Asia and did nicely in Europe but they couldn’t cross the sand barrier of Northern Africa.

    So, sub-Saharan Africa was stuck with beans and yams as their main agricultural crop. Beans are good, but you get very little per acre vs. wheat and barley. Yams provide some starch, but they rot so quickly that you can’t store your surplus in case of a famine.

    Mayans and Aztecs had Indian corn, the Chinese and Indians had brown rice and millet, the Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks had wheat, khamut and barley. These crops store well and a small percentage of the people can make enough to feed an entire city

    So in Sub Saharan Africa, with every drought came political upheaval. More people had to work in farming full time. This left less time for people to create civilizations where a god-emperor conquered and controlled a massive river-valley and coast, much less figure out ways to build big piles of stone that benefited entirely one mummy.

    Of the stories of efficient cereals accelerating civilization the story of con is the most recent. It was domesticated the most recently, compared to the old-world crops. It fueled the growth of the late Olmec, Inca, Maya and Aztec civilizations, all of which left some nice stone ruins. Corn was slowly crossing the mini sand barrier (north Mexico, Arizona, south Texas) into North America as a core crop where it allowed the Anasazi to make their awesome cliff palaces. Sure, they’re not as grand as the pyramids but they were so much more practical and showed an ingenuity that would have been great if it were allowed to develop. Would be interesting to see what sort of architecture the Anisazi would have developed if white people didn’t come over to get their smallpox and whooping cough on everything.

    So that’s the deal. Civilizations start as hunters. If they find a farmable crops they mostly become farmers. If they find really efficient crops only some become farmers and others are free to work on technology, architecture, philosophy, warfare and government.

    The Sub Saharan Africans were stuck with low efficiency crops due to their rainy/dry season schedule and the sand barrier.

    Native Australians were even worse off since the had almost zero crops to choose from. Today Australia grows plenty of crops and fruits, but of their top 30 agricultural productions ALL of them came from Europe, South America or East Asia, so the best civilization could do in Australia was the fishing villages on the southern coast.

    So difficult weather, inefficient plants, bothersome animals = no time to advance technology/society. Inviting weather, efficient plants, domestication ready animals = plenty of spare time to advance society.

  276. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “Sub-Saharan African rivers are unnavigable..”

    SS-Africa is so huge and diverse I’m not sure generalizations like this make much sense.

  277. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    “WHY DID IT TAKE THE GERMANIC TRIBES SO LONG TO CATCH-UP CIVILIZATION-WISE WITH THE HELLENIC TRIBES?”

    Further away from cradle of civilization. Too many trees prevented communication. Mountain ranges.

    In southern Europe and Near East, fewer trees meant more travel. And sea routes linked the first civilized centers together in trade.
    Athens in unthinkable without sea trade.

  278. @Bliss

    It does seem that *all* the populations that did establish civilisation had been to high northern latitudes, and been exposed to Ice Age conditions.
     
    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own. Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg

    The Amerindian city-builders seem to have been mostly descended from NE-Asians
     
    The mother civilization of the Americas was the Olmec civilization of central america. The subsequent aztecs, incas, mayas were also located far closer to the equator than the north pole. Again making a mockery of your ignorant claims of northern latitude superiority.

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:

    http://www.softseattravel.com/sitebuilder/images/Xalapa_Museum009-578x401.jpg

    http://images.travelpod.com/users/linzstoker/peru_05.1123816020.lindsey_and_olmec_head_xalapa_museum.jpg

    “If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. ”

    Civilistion started in warm climes. But the ancestors of the civilisation builders all came from further north (with a possible question mark over Egypt).

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Civilistion started in warm climes. But the ancestors of the civilisation builders all came from further north (with a possible question mark over Egypt).
     
    That's not history, that is wishful nordicist fantasy. The kind of baseless nonsense you find at Stormfront. Over there you also learn that the chinese civilization was founded by nordics from europe...

    Get real.
  279. @Lot

    Amhara (at least high-status Amhara) do bear some physical resemblance to old-stock Caribbean ‘mulatto elites’
     
    I recently learned that a store clerk I had always assumed was Dominican is really Ethiopian. I'd describe the look as facial features and hair about equal parts white and black, but skin color 60-80% black. In this case, she was lighter than Obama.

    >>I’d describe the look as facial features and hair about equal parts white and black, but skin color 60-80% black.<<

    To me their facial features look more like 60-80% Caucasian, but skin tone 60%-80% African, as you say.

  280. @syonredux

    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization.
     
    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?
     
    On the other hand, the Greeks and the Chinese were not terribly impressed by their southern neighbors....

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own.
     
    On the other hand, they have managed to improve on what they inherited: Newton, Kant, Hume, Watt, Hubble, Edison, Rembrandt, etc.

    Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg
     
    And, of course, the Egyptians were North African Caucasoids...

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:
     
    MMMM, you seem to have "African-American football players" on the brain, dear boy. This is at least the second time that you have used that comparison. I do hope that you are not planning on invoking the whole "Omecs were Black Africans" idea. Even rabid Africentrists seem to have given that one up.

    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    Sumer preceded Hwang Ho civilization by 2000 years, Egypt did so by 1,000 years or more, and the Indus Valley cities did so by 500 years.

    Egyptian Copts are the heirs to the ancient Egyptians. Supposedly, their most proximate kin would be the latter-day population of Ceylon.

    The Indus Valley is thought to have been predominantly populated with people related to today’s Dravidian population in southern India, with a proto-Australoid minority you find today only in the Antipodes.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Sumer preceded Hwang Ho civilization by 2000 years, Egypt did so by 1,000 years or more, and the Indus Valley cities did so by 500 years.
     
    Yes, dear boy, I am quite aware of the sequence. However, Bliss seemed rather more interested in originality (which civilizations are more or less autochthonous) than in chronological sequence. Hence, his omission of China (which is usually regarded as having arisen independently) is rather interesting. One assumes that Bliss found their pallor disquieting.

    Egyptian Copts are the heirs to the ancient Egyptians.
     
    Yes, dear boy. They are Caucasoid West Eurasians.

    Supposedly, their most proximate kin would be the latter-day population of Ceylon.
     
    Do you have any gene studies that support that assertion?

    The Indus Valley is thought to have been predominantly populated with people related to today’s Dravidian population in southern India, with a proto-Australoid minority you find today only in the Antipodes.
     
    Yes, dear boy. The Harappans would, presumably, have pretty much entirely ASI in character. That's why I did not describe them as Caucasoids.
  281. Pyric Sense wrote:

    “They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them”

    Riiiight… that’s why Nubia built more pyramids than Egypt did.

    Syon Wrote: “Kush was a pale (ahem) imitation of Egypt. As with Ethiopia, it only looks impressive when compared to the rest of Black Africa. The Meso-American civilizations (Olmecs, Mayans, etc) had less of a head start and still accomplished more.”

    While heavily influenced by Egypt, Nubia/Kush was not merely an imitation – it had a distinct language, distinct architecture, distinct sundials/astronomical instruments and overall distinct system of governance. You clearly haven’t read much about either of these civilizations.

    And like Jefferson pointed out, Egyptians, if not black, most certainly have black African ancestry. Why did this black African-admixed population produce civilization at a time when most of Europe (Greece being the only exception) was populated by savages?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    While heavily influenced by Egypt, Nubia/Kush was not merely an imitation
     


    If only saying made it true, dear boy. Nubia was nothing more than a pallid reflection of Egypt.

    it had a distinct language,
     
    That counts as originality, dear boy?MMM, the Finns most be one of the most original peoples on the planet then.

    distinct architecture, distinct sundials/astronomical instruments and overall distinct system of governance.
     
    Only if by distinct you mean shoddy knock-offs, dear boy.

    You clearly haven’t read much about either of these civilizations.
     
    A book or two in the case of Nubia, dear boy; considerably more in the case of the vastly more interesting (and original) Egyptians.
  282. @Art Deco
    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    Sumer preceded Hwang Ho civilization by 2000 years, Egypt did so by 1,000 years or more, and the Indus Valley cities did so by 500 years.

    Egyptian Copts are the heirs to the ancient Egyptians. Supposedly, their most proximate kin would be the latter-day population of Ceylon.

    The Indus Valley is thought to have been predominantly populated with people related to today's Dravidian population in southern India, with a proto-Australoid minority you find today only in the Antipodes.

    Sumer preceded Hwang Ho civilization by 2000 years, Egypt did so by 1,000 years or more, and the Indus Valley cities did so by 500 years.

    Yes, dear boy, I am quite aware of the sequence. However, Bliss seemed rather more interested in originality (which civilizations are more or less autochthonous) than in chronological sequence. Hence, his omission of China (which is usually regarded as having arisen independently) is rather interesting. One assumes that Bliss found their pallor disquieting.

    Egyptian Copts are the heirs to the ancient Egyptians.

    Yes, dear boy. They are Caucasoid West Eurasians.

    Supposedly, their most proximate kin would be the latter-day population of Ceylon.

    Do you have any gene studies that support that assertion?

    The Indus Valley is thought to have been predominantly populated with people related to today’s Dravidian population in southern India, with a proto-Australoid minority you find today only in the Antipodes.

    Yes, dear boy. The Harappans would, presumably, have pretty much entirely ASI in character. That’s why I did not describe them as Caucasoids.

  283. @Slimer
    Pyric Sense wrote:

    "They are still a mystery as to their origins and builders; however, sub-Saharan Africans, who scarcely built two-story houses much less ingenious pyramids, are not contenders. Whatever gifts they may possess, the gifts necessary to create the Great Pyramid have never manifested among them"

    Riiiight... that's why Nubia built more pyramids than Egypt did.

    Syon Wrote: "Kush was a pale (ahem) imitation of Egypt. As with Ethiopia, it only looks impressive when compared to the rest of Black Africa. The Meso-American civilizations (Olmecs, Mayans, etc) had less of a head start and still accomplished more."

    While heavily influenced by Egypt, Nubia/Kush was not merely an imitation - it had a distinct language, distinct architecture, distinct sundials/astronomical instruments and overall distinct system of governance. You clearly haven't read much about either of these civilizations.

    And like Jefferson pointed out, Egyptians, if not black, most certainly have black African ancestry. Why did this black African-admixed population produce civilization at a time when most of Europe (Greece being the only exception) was populated by savages?

    While heavily influenced by Egypt, Nubia/Kush was not merely an imitation

    If only saying made it true, dear boy. Nubia was nothing more than a pallid reflection of Egypt.

    it had a distinct language,

    That counts as originality, dear boy?MMM, the Finns most be one of the most original peoples on the planet then.

    distinct architecture, distinct sundials/astronomical instruments and overall distinct system of governance.

    Only if by distinct you mean shoddy knock-offs, dear boy.

    You clearly haven’t read much about either of these civilizations.

    A book or two in the case of Nubia, dear boy; considerably more in the case of the vastly more interesting (and original) Egyptians.

  284. @Syon

    If only saying made it true, dear boy. Nubia was nothing more than a pallid reflection of Egypt

    Uhhh, you’re just saying the same thing you said previously. I gave several reasons why Nubia, in fact, was not merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.” Your only retort is to repeat the same thing. You’ve got no argument, bro.

    That counts as originality, dear boy?MMM, the Finns most be one of the most original peoples on the planet then.

    Who said it was original? The point is that Nubia wasn’t merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.”

    Only if by distinct you mean shoddy knock-offs, dear boy.

    No, I mean uniquely Nubian despite Egyptian influence.

    A book or two in the case of Nubia, dear boy; considerably more in the case of the vastly more interesting (and original) Egyptians.

    A book or two? Where, from the “HBD Library”? lolololol…

    I like how you completely ignored the last part of my post.
    Why did this vastly more interesting, black African-admixed population, i.e., the ancient Egyptians, build a thriving civilization before Europeans did?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Uhhh, you’re just saying the same thing you said previously. I gave several reasons why Nubia, in fact, was not merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.”
     
    No, you simply listed some things that struck you as being "original." To the rest of the world, they are shoddy knock-offs.

    Your only retort is to repeat the same thing. You’ve got no argument, bro.
     
    Hardly, dear boy. I have judgement. And Nubia is, at best, a satellite of Egypt.

    Who said it was original? The point is that Nubia wasn’t merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.”
     
    Dear boy, having your own language does not mean that you are not a "pallid reflection." Rome had Latin, but it's culture was derivative of Greece. Virgil imitates Homer, after all.

    No, I mean uniquely Nubian despite Egyptian influence.
     
    Only if "uniquely Nubian" means inferior, dear boy....

    A book or two? Where, from the “HBD Library”? lolololol…
     
    Sadly, no. I did most of my Nubian reading at UC Berkeley during my undergrad days.

    I like how you completely ignored the last part of my post.
    Why did this vastly more interesting, black African-admixed population,
     
    You mean the North African Caucasoids, dear boy?

    i.e., the ancient Egyptians, build a thriving civilization before Europeans did?
     
    You mean why did literate civilizations develop first in Egypt and Sumer before spreading to the rest of the Middle East, north Africa, and Europe? I really don't know dear boy. Why has Italy lagged since AD 1700? Why has Scotland outperformed Wales? Why was Japan more culturally vital than China in the early 19th century?
  285. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Rome was never invincible. What set the Romans apart from their opponents was the ability to recover much more quickly from defeats.”

    One of Rome’s not-so-secret biggest military weapons was roads. Some of which still are in use. Doesn’t a cadence of 1000 “left!” define the distance a legion marched in a “mile”? Which could also tell you how far along you were on the road…

    There’s a theory somewhere that roads and ox carts enabled civilization to spread much faster then transport provided by more “appropriate technology” such as camels (that didn’t need roads). Were there roads in sub-Saharan Africa? Or did people just carry everything wherever on their heads?

  286. Forgot to add. Some have said that we don’t know how the pyramids were created. Not true. Joseph Davidovits has come up with a material called geopolymers. They’re the equivalent of plastic polymers but they’re made of minerals. They look just like stone blocks when they’re hardened. If you look at the outside blocks of the pyramids they fit together perfectly. Inside the pyramid they are rough except for the hallways and galleries. So only the outside and covering were cast in geopolymer. Its also been speculated that the whole upper section was cast in order to make it easier as the geopolymer material can be carried in baskets then put into molds. Fair warning Egyptologists don’t like this explanation but to me it’s the only explanation that makes sense. It also explains the delicate vases and sculpture made of Dorite an immensely hard stone. They were cast just like clay. This would also account for the perfect edges on the various caskets, tool marks(they are actually wood mold marks). Where people claim that advanced machining has taken place is actually holes drilled while the casting stone was not completely hardened. One very strong piece of evidence that the stones were cast is the fossils in the stones. In pyramid blocks the fossils are all mixed up in terms of orientation. In a normal block the fossils are laying flat like they landed when they died on the sea floor.

    http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1

    There’s a video on the above link that shows him making limestone blocks.

    There’s intense interest and research in geopolymers. It’s not there yet but they will have a huge influence on building and material science some day. The cement made this way takes a LOT less energy, last as long as the pyramids and being a polymer can be tuned chemically in an almost infinitely number of ways just like plastic.

  287. @syonredux

    If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization.
     
    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes? As for the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Harappans, none of them were Black Africans, and the Egyptians and Sumerians were Caucasoids/West Eurasians.

    You would also know that the greeks, romans, chinese, persians etc who came later all saw the people living in high northern latitudes as primitive barbarians. Why do you think the Han chinese build the Great Wall of China on their northern boundary?
     
    On the other hand, the Greeks and the Chinese were not terribly impressed by their southern neighbors....

    The reality is that people living in the far north were never able to create civilizations on their own.
     
    On the other hand, they have managed to improve on what they inherited: Newton, Kant, Hume, Watt, Hubble, Edison, Rembrandt, etc.

    Northern europeans and northern asians were still primitive savages thousands of years after africans built this:

    http://pyramidsofgiza.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/great-sphinx.jpg
     
    And, of course, the Egyptians were North African Caucasoids...

    By the way take a look at these over 3000 years old giant head statues of the Olmec rulers, they look very much like african-american football players rather than northeast asians. Amuse us with a northern racial explanation for this:
     
    MMMM, you seem to have "African-American football players" on the brain, dear boy. This is at least the second time that you have used that comparison. I do hope that you are not planning on invoking the whole "Omecs were Black Africans" idea. Even rabid Africentrists seem to have given that one up.

    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes?

    You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Egypt, Sumer and Indus are the three oldest civilizations. What part of came later re: China couldn’t you understand? If you really are a teacher I feel sorry for your students. Yes, the chinese are practically white compared to the ancient egyptians, sumerians and indians whose civilizations preceded theirs. So, what the heck is your point?

    I see that Slimer has already corrected your ignorance of history and forced you to acknowledge it. But, being shamelessly and incorrigibly dishonest you had to once again resort to a lie as an excuse for your stupidity:

    I am quite aware of the sequence. However, Bliss seemed rather more interested in originality (which civilizations are more or less autochthonous) than in chronological sequence.

    Clearly you don’t even know what chronological sequence means. Anyone reading my post can see that I wrote earliest for the 3 oldest civilizations followed by came later for the chinese, greek and other civilizations. Any idiot can see that’s a chronological sequence…

    Hard to believe that you are actually a teacher…

    • Replies: @syonredux

    You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Egypt, Sumer and Indus are the three oldest civilizations. What part of came later re: China couldn’t you understand?
     
    Later, yes, dear boy. On the other hand, China, like Egypt, Sumer, and the Harappan civilization. did develop independently...

    If you really are a teacher I feel sorry for your students.
     
    Well, I am an awfully harsh grader....

    Yes, the chinese are practically white compared to the ancient egyptians, sumerians and indians whose civilizations preceded theirs. So, what the heck is your point?
     
    MMMM, the four aboriginal, as it were, Old World civilizations....Egypt (North African Caucasoid), Sumer (Middle Eastern Caucasoid) , Harappan India (ASI South Asian), China (East Asian Mongoloid).....Seems to be a positive dearth of Black Africans.
  288. I’d also point out that “civilization”, as many “race realists” would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology. Eastern Europe’s entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go. And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use – two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man, and the best poker player in the world is black. When Africa catches up, it will claim the world’s best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.

    Again, the genetics studies will eventually prove me right. The emotionally clouded rantings of a few emasculated white men are irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology.

    Ok, fair enough. You can have credit for ancient-Egyptian level technology, and we get the post 1400 advances.

    Now, can you explain why they didn't use their 4,000 year head start to colonize Mars by now?
    , @syonredux

    I’d also point out that “civilization”, as many “race realists” would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology.
     
    I don't know, dear fellow; looking at the historical record, it seems to me that Northern Europe had about caught up to the Med by 1,000 years ago (cf Michael Hart's UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY).

    Eastern Europe’s entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go.
     
    Only if we exclude the Byzantine Empire, dear boy....

    And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use – two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.
     
    As opposed to Mao's China (40 million dead), Shaka Zulu (1.5 million dead), Genghis Khan (40 million dead), Hulagu's Invasion (800,000), Timur's Conquests (17 million), Pakistan's slaughter in Bangladesh (1.5 million), the reign of Qin Shi Huang Di (one million), etc?

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.
     
    On the other hand, that is not going to do much good when you bear in mind the fact that the mean IQ of Blacks in America is 85....

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man,
     
    First, eh? MMM, let's see. He wasn't John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.

    and the best poker player in the world is black.
     
    Stop the presses!

    When Africa catches up, it will claim the world’s best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.
     
    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, dear boy.
    , @The most deplorable one

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.
     
    Do you have some evidence (you know, links, numbers, etc) to back up that claim?

    As far as I am aware, IQ tests of blacks suggest an SD around 12, compared to around 15 for whites.

    Secondly, selection for lower IQ (elimination of alleles causing higher IQ because they also increase metabolic requirements) will reduce the variance of a population. Selection for any particular trait will reduce the variance ...
  289. @Rifleman
    Well, you're going to have to qualify Africa as "sub Saharan Africa" because Egypt is clearly in Africa and was engaged in some civilization - writing, agriculture, monumental architecture, art, speculation for 2000+ years before Thales was born.

    And by American standards those Egyptians were black.

    But it's ecologically different from the rest of Africa.

    Fifty years ago, you would have asked “How come every country run by Asians is poor”?
     
    In 1964 I would have been noticing African style poverty in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong?

    Granted I'm not an MIT economist but.............no.

    Those Egyptians were Caucasoids, sometimes with light hair.

    Not Europeans, but closer to them than blacks.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Those Egyptians were Caucasoids, sometimes with light hair.

    Not Europeans, but closer to them than blacks.
     
    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white, to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north. In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.
  290. More mummy DNA testing:

    Egyptian mummies yield genetic secrets

    one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia.

    Modern map of I2a distribution.

  291. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Slimer
    I'd also point out that "civilization", as many "race realists" would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology. Eastern Europe's entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go. And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use - two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man, and the best poker player in the world is black. When Africa catches up, it will claim the world's best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.

    Again, the genetics studies will eventually prove me right. The emotionally clouded rantings of a few emasculated white men are irrelevant.

    Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology.

    Ok, fair enough. You can have credit for ancient-Egyptian level technology, and we get the post 1400 advances.

    Now, can you explain why they didn’t use their 4,000 year head start to colonize Mars by now?

  292. @Slimer
    I'd also point out that "civilization", as many "race realists" would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology. Eastern Europe's entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go. And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use - two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man, and the best poker player in the world is black. When Africa catches up, it will claim the world's best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.

    Again, the genetics studies will eventually prove me right. The emotionally clouded rantings of a few emasculated white men are irrelevant.

    I’d also point out that “civilization”, as many “race realists” would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology.

    I don’t know, dear fellow; looking at the historical record, it seems to me that Northern Europe had about caught up to the Med by 1,000 years ago (cf Michael Hart’s UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY).

    Eastern Europe’s entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go.

    Only if we exclude the Byzantine Empire, dear boy….

    And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use – two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.

    As opposed to Mao’s China (40 million dead), Shaka Zulu (1.5 million dead), Genghis Khan (40 million dead), Hulagu’s Invasion (800,000), Timur’s Conquests (17 million), Pakistan’s slaughter in Bangladesh (1.5 million), the reign of Qin Shi Huang Di (one million), etc?

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    On the other hand, that is not going to do much good when you bear in mind the fact that the mean IQ of Blacks in America is 85….

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man,

    First, eh? MMM, let’s see. He wasn’t John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.

    and the best poker player in the world is black.

    Stop the presses!

    When Africa catches up, it will claim the world’s best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting, dear boy.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    He wasn’t John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.
     
    It is Michell, not Mitchell:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been "a little short man, of black complexion, and fat."[7]

    John Michell (25 December 1724 – 29 April 1793) was an English clergyman and natural philosopher who provided pioneering insights in a wide range of scientific fields, including astronomy, geology, optics, and gravitation. Considered "one of the greatest unsung scientists of all time",[1] he was the first person to propose the existence of black holes, the first to suggest that earthquakes travel in waves, the first to explain how to manufacture artificial magnets, and the first to apply statistics to the study of the cosmos, recognizing that double stars were a product of mutual gravitation. He also invented an apparatus to measure the mass of the Earth. He has been called both the father of seismology and the father of magnetometry.


    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry, was also a black skinned scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America. Since you agree that indians are not caucasians what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?
  293. @Bliss

    Seem to have left out the Chinese, dear boy. Too fair for your tastes?
     
    You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Egypt, Sumer and Indus are the three oldest civilizations. What part of came later re: China couldn't you understand? If you really are a teacher I feel sorry for your students. Yes, the chinese are practically white compared to the ancient egyptians, sumerians and indians whose civilizations preceded theirs. So, what the heck is your point?

    I see that Slimer has already corrected your ignorance of history and forced you to acknowledge it. But, being shamelessly and incorrigibly dishonest you had to once again resort to a lie as an excuse for your stupidity:

    I am quite aware of the sequence. However, Bliss seemed rather more interested in originality (which civilizations are more or less autochthonous) than in chronological sequence.
     
    Clearly you don't even know what chronological sequence means. Anyone reading my post can see that I wrote earliest for the 3 oldest civilizations followed by came later for the chinese, greek and other civilizations. Any idiot can see that's a chronological sequence...

    Hard to believe that you are actually a teacher...

    You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Egypt, Sumer and Indus are the three oldest civilizations. What part of came later re: China couldn’t you understand?

    Later, yes, dear boy. On the other hand, China, like Egypt, Sumer, and the Harappan civilization. did develop independently…

    If you really are a teacher I feel sorry for your students.

    Well, I am an awfully harsh grader….

    Yes, the chinese are practically white compared to the ancient egyptians, sumerians and indians whose civilizations preceded theirs. So, what the heck is your point?

    MMMM, the four aboriginal, as it were, Old World civilizations….Egypt (North African Caucasoid), Sumer (Middle Eastern Caucasoid) , Harappan India (ASI South Asian), China (East Asian Mongoloid)…..Seems to be a positive dearth of Black Africans.

  294. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Slimer
    I'd also point out that "civilization", as many "race realists" would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology. Eastern Europe's entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go. And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use - two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man, and the best poker player in the world is black. When Africa catches up, it will claim the world's best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.

    Again, the genetics studies will eventually prove me right. The emotionally clouded rantings of a few emasculated white men are irrelevant.

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.

    Do you have some evidence (you know, links, numbers, etc) to back up that claim?

    As far as I am aware, IQ tests of blacks suggest an SD around 12, compared to around 15 for whites.

    Secondly, selection for lower IQ (elimination of alleles causing higher IQ because they also increase metabolic requirements) will reduce the variance of a population. Selection for any particular trait will reduce the variance …

  295. @Slimer
    @Syon


    If only saying made it true, dear boy. Nubia was nothing more than a pallid reflection of Egypt
     
    Uhhh, you're just saying the same thing you said previously. I gave several reasons why Nubia, in fact, was not merely a "pallid reflection of Egypt." Your only retort is to repeat the same thing. You've got no argument, bro.

    That counts as originality, dear boy?MMM, the Finns most be one of the most original peoples on the planet then.
     
    Who said it was original? The point is that Nubia wasn't merely a "pallid reflection of Egypt."


    Only if by distinct you mean shoddy knock-offs, dear boy.
     
    No, I mean uniquely Nubian despite Egyptian influence.


    A book or two in the case of Nubia, dear boy; considerably more in the case of the vastly more interesting (and original) Egyptians.
     
    A book or two? Where, from the "HBD Library"? lolololol...

    I like how you completely ignored the last part of my post.
    Why did this vastly more interesting, black African-admixed population, i.e., the ancient Egyptians, build a thriving civilization before Europeans did?

    Uhhh, you’re just saying the same thing you said previously. I gave several reasons why Nubia, in fact, was not merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.”

    No, you simply listed some things that struck you as being “original.” To the rest of the world, they are shoddy knock-offs.

    Your only retort is to repeat the same thing. You’ve got no argument, bro.

    Hardly, dear boy. I have judgement. And Nubia is, at best, a satellite of Egypt.

    Who said it was original? The point is that Nubia wasn’t merely a “pallid reflection of Egypt.”

    Dear boy, having your own language does not mean that you are not a “pallid reflection.” Rome had Latin, but it’s culture was derivative of Greece. Virgil imitates Homer, after all.

    No, I mean uniquely Nubian despite Egyptian influence.

    Only if “uniquely Nubian” means inferior, dear boy….

    A book or two? Where, from the “HBD Library”? lolololol…

    Sadly, no. I did most of my Nubian reading at UC Berkeley during my undergrad days.

    I like how you completely ignored the last part of my post.
    Why did this vastly more interesting, black African-admixed population,

    You mean the North African Caucasoids, dear boy?

    i.e., the ancient Egyptians, build a thriving civilization before Europeans did?

    You mean why did literate civilizations develop first in Egypt and Sumer before spreading to the rest of the Middle East, north Africa, and Europe? I really don’t know dear boy. Why has Italy lagged since AD 1700? Why has Scotland outperformed Wales? Why was Japan more culturally vital than China in the early 19th century?

  296. @syonredux

    I’d also point out that “civilization”, as many “race realists” would define it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in most of Europe. Only in the last five or six hundred years did Northern Europeans make any major advances in science and technology.
     
    I don't know, dear fellow; looking at the historical record, it seems to me that Northern Europe had about caught up to the Med by 1,000 years ago (cf Michael Hart's UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY).

    Eastern Europe’s entry to that arena began as recently as 250 years go.
     
    Only if we exclude the Byzantine Empire, dear boy....

    And even so, much of this knowledge and expertise was put to poor use – two world wars that killed millions of whites, colonialism and imperialism that killed millions more brown people etc. etc.
     
    As opposed to Mao's China (40 million dead), Shaka Zulu (1.5 million dead), Genghis Khan (40 million dead), Hulagu's Invasion (800,000), Timur's Conquests (17 million), Pakistan's slaughter in Bangladesh (1.5 million), the reign of Qin Shi Huang Di (one million), etc?

    Like I told you idiots before, the intelligence distribution among blacks is bigger than that of non-blacks. Given an equal environment blacks will produce more outliers period, smart and stupid alike. Sorry that hurts your feelings. But the studies will back me up on this once they identify the intelligence genes.
     
    On the other hand, that is not going to do much good when you bear in mind the fact that the mean IQ of Blacks in America is 85....

    Even under current circumstances blacks have some notable (if infrequent) intellectual achievements. For example the first person to propose the concept of a black hole was a black man,
     
    First, eh? MMM, let's see. He wasn't John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.

    and the best poker player in the world is black.
     
    Stop the presses!

    When Africa catches up, it will claim the world’s best musicians, athletes, scientists and engineers.
     
    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, dear boy.

    He wasn’t John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.

    It is Michell, not Mitchell:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been “a little short man, of black complexion, and fat.”[7]

    John Michell (25 December 1724 – 29 April 1793) was an English clergyman and natural philosopher who provided pioneering insights in a wide range of scientific fields, including astronomy, geology, optics, and gravitation. Considered “one of the greatest unsung scientists of all time”,[1] he was the first person to propose the existence of black holes, the first to suggest that earthquakes travel in waves, the first to explain how to manufacture artificial magnets, and the first to apply statistics to the study of the cosmos, recognizing that double stars were a product of mutual gravitation. He also invented an apparatus to measure the mass of the Earth. He has been called both the father of seismology and the father of magnetometry.

    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry, was also a black skinned scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America. Since you agree that indians are not caucasians what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?
     
    Looks like a sphinx to me.....

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white,
     
    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me....

    to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north.
     
    The Egyptians didn't think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors....

    In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.
     
    Well, yes, except that the Greeks noted that the Ethiopians looked like the Southern Indians whilst the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned Northern Indians:

    Arrian (Indica 6.9)

    The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.
     
    Strabo Geography 15.1.13

    As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
     

    It is Michell, not Mitchell:
     
    it's called a typo, dear boy, a sin to which you are occasionally prey ("from black to bark brown"; woof, woof, eh?)

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been “a little short man, of black complexion, and fat.”[7]
     
    Oh dear Lord, please tell me that you don't think that that means that he was Negroid?Dear boy, people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having "black complexions" in Northern Europe. I know that Africentists wander down strange paths in their desperation to find some traces of intellectual achievement among Blacks, but surely even they would not be that ignorant.

    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry
    was also a black skinned
     
    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.

    scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America.
     
    He also seems to have had some problems with the British:

    During this time, Chandrasekhar made acquaintance with British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington. In an infamous encounter in 1935, Eddington publicly ridiculed the concept of the Chandrasekhar limit. Although Eddington would later be proved wrong, this encounter caused Chandra to contemplate employment outside the UK. Later in life, on multiple occasions, Chandra expressed the view that Eddington's behavior was in part racially motivated.[6]
     

    Since you agree that indians are not caucasians
    what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?
     
    South Asians, dear boy. The product of ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). From the redoubtable Razib Khan (an atheist like me, by the way):

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
     
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/#.VCOEM5RdWHg
  297. @Andy
    Those Egyptians were Caucasoids, sometimes with light hair.

    Not Europeans, but closer to them than blacks.

    Those Egyptians were Caucasoids, sometimes with light hair.

    Not Europeans, but closer to them than blacks.

    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white, to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north. In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.

  298. @Simon in London
    "If you knew history you would know that all the earliest civilizations were created by dark skinned people in hot climates: Egypt, Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization. "

    Civilistion started in warm climes. But the ancestors of the civilisation builders all came from further north (with a possible question mark over Egypt).

    Civilistion started in warm climes. But the ancestors of the civilisation builders all came from further north (with a possible question mark over Egypt).

    That’s not history, that is wishful nordicist fantasy. The kind of baseless nonsense you find at Stormfront. Over there you also learn that the chinese civilization was founded by nordics from europe…

    Get real.

  299. A few thoughts:

    No human being ever was perfectly adapted to their environment. Human environments are rapidly changing, and thus evolution constantly lags. You may be able to talk about sharks and cockroaches as perfectly adapted, but humans are not in the conversation.

    The megafauna of Australia and New Zealand were avian, but like the mammalian megafauna of other continents, their demise coincided with human migration.

    There is evidence that a substantial factor in mesoamerican dominance was predation of other tribes as far away as central North America. When all of those cultures collapsed under the strain, the dominant cultures did as well.

  300. And, casting of stone would leave no fossils at all, unless they were deliberately added.

  301. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Africa baaaaaaaaaaaad!

  302. @Bliss

    He wasn’t John Mitchell, or Laplace, or Einstein, or Karl Schwarzchild, or Eddington, or Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, or , etc, etc.
     
    It is Michell, not Mitchell:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been "a little short man, of black complexion, and fat."[7]

    John Michell (25 December 1724 – 29 April 1793) was an English clergyman and natural philosopher who provided pioneering insights in a wide range of scientific fields, including astronomy, geology, optics, and gravitation. Considered "one of the greatest unsung scientists of all time",[1] he was the first person to propose the existence of black holes, the first to suggest that earthquakes travel in waves, the first to explain how to manufacture artificial magnets, and the first to apply statistics to the study of the cosmos, recognizing that double stars were a product of mutual gravitation. He also invented an apparatus to measure the mass of the Earth. He has been called both the father of seismology and the father of magnetometry.


    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry, was also a black skinned scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America. Since you agree that indians are not caucasians what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?

    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?

    Looks like a sphinx to me…..

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white,

    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me….

    to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north.

    The Egyptians didn’t think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors….

    In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.

    Well, yes, except that the Greeks noted that the Ethiopians looked like the Southern Indians whilst the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned Northern Indians:

    Arrian (Indica 6.9)

    The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.

    Strabo Geography 15.1.13

    As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.

    It is Michell, not Mitchell:

    it’s called a typo, dear boy, a sin to which you are occasionally prey (“from black to bark brown”; woof, woof, eh?)

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been “a little short man, of black complexion, and fat.”[7]

    Oh dear Lord, please tell me that you don’t think that that means that he was Negroid?Dear boy, people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having “black complexions” in Northern Europe. I know that Africentists wander down strange paths in their desperation to find some traces of intellectual achievement among Blacks, but surely even they would not be that ignorant.

    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry
    was also a black skinned

    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.

    scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America.

    He also seems to have had some problems with the British:

    During this time, Chandrasekhar made acquaintance with British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington. In an infamous encounter in 1935, Eddington publicly ridiculed the concept of the Chandrasekhar limit. Although Eddington would later be proved wrong, this encounter caused Chandra to contemplate employment outside the UK. Later in life, on multiple occasions, Chandra expressed the view that Eddington’s behavior was in part racially motivated.[6]

    Since you agree that indians are not caucasians
    what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?

    South Asians, dear boy. The product of ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). From the redoubtable Razib Khan (an atheist like me, by the way):

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/#.VCOEM5RdWHg

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Looks like a sphinx to me…..
     
    Poor boy, can't handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:

    when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...

    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me….
     
    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that. If they did the greeks wouldn't have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.

    The Egyptians didn’t think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors….
     
    The very fact that the greeks compared egyptians and ethiopians to north and south indians respectively clearly shows that they saw egyptians and ethiopians as related peoples. Just as north and south indians are obviously related.

    people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having “black complexions” in Northern Europe
     
    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again...

    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.
     
    Only an indian would claim that Chandrashekhar was "medium to light brown". I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?

    Here's an example of what Chandra had to endure in pre-Civil Rights America:

    https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=97&start=40

    Chandra himself faced open racism. I have a first person account of a rather disturbing incident
    when Chandra joined the Univ. of Chicago. There was a faculty dinner.
    At the dinner Chandra as a a new faculty was invited and so was a mathematician G.O. Bliss who was a notorious racist. Hutchins was the president of Chicago and a visionary who had hired Chandra. At some point Bliss came up to Hutchins and said" President Hutchins you have forced me to shake hands with this black man Chandrasekhar you have hired and now I am going to the washroom to wash my hands".
    , @Bliss

    “from black to bark brown”; woof, woof, eh?
     
    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.

    For example this brahmin ex-prime minister of India:

    http://www.timescontent.com/tss/photos/preview/28258/P%20V%20Narasimha%20Rao.jpg
  303. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It might not be entirely correct to dismiss early civilization in Northern Europe. For instance, _north_ of Britain, in the Orkney islands:

    “Ness of Brodgar is an archaeological site… in the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site… …The site may have been occupied from as early as 3500 BC…

    …”it’s of a scale that almost relates to the classical period in the Mediterranean with walled enclosure and walled precincts”…

    …approximately contemporary with the mastabas of the archaic period of Egypt (first and second dynasties), the brick temples of Sumeria, and the first cities of the Harappa culture in India, and a century or two earlier than the Golden Age of China. Unusually fine for their early date, and with a remarkably rich survival of evidence, these sites stand as a visible symbol of the achievements of early peoples away from the traditional centres of civilisation…”

    And

    “Neolithic discovery: why Orkney is the centre of ancient Britain”, Robin McKie, The Observer, October 2012:

    “Long before the Egyptians began the pyramids, Neolithic man built a vast temple complex at the top of what is now Scotland. …

    “We have discovered a Neolithic temple complex that is without parallel in western Europe… …the place is entirely manmade, although it covers more than six acres of land.”

    …arrived on Orkney about 6,000 years ago.

    …In size and sophistication, the Ness of Brodgar is comparable with Stonehenge or the wonders of ancient Egypt. Yet the temple complex predates them all.”

    So what happened? Who knows, but a leading candidate is weather change. Perhaps in early history the stability of large rivers in a relatively benevolent environment was necessary.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Rivers change all the time. Here in Los Angeles, the L.A. river ran west from downtown to Marina Del Rey until 1825. Since then it runs south and dumps into the ocean about 20 miles away from the original point.
  304. @anonymous
    It might not be entirely correct to dismiss early civilization in Northern Europe. For instance, _north_ of Britain, in the Orkney islands:

    "Ness of Brodgar is an archaeological site... in the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site... ...The site may have been occupied from as early as 3500 BC...

    ..."it’s of a scale that almost relates to the classical period in the Mediterranean with walled enclosure and walled precincts"...

    ...approximately contemporary with the mastabas of the archaic period of Egypt (first and second dynasties), the brick temples of Sumeria, and the first cities of the Harappa culture in India, and a century or two earlier than the Golden Age of China. Unusually fine for their early date, and with a remarkably rich survival of evidence, these sites stand as a visible symbol of the achievements of early peoples away from the traditional centres of civilisation..."


    And

    "Neolithic discovery: why Orkney is the centre of ancient Britain", Robin McKie, The Observer, October 2012:

    "Long before the Egyptians began the pyramids, Neolithic man built a vast temple complex at the top of what is now Scotland. ...

    "We have discovered a Neolithic temple complex that is without parallel in western Europe... ...the place is entirely manmade, although it covers more than six acres of land."

    ...arrived on Orkney about 6,000 years ago.

    ...In size and sophistication, the Ness of Brodgar is comparable with Stonehenge or the wonders of ancient Egypt. Yet the temple complex predates them all."




    So what happened? Who knows, but a leading candidate is weather change. Perhaps in early history the stability of large rivers in a relatively benevolent environment was necessary.

    Rivers change all the time. Here in Los Angeles, the L.A. river ran west from downtown to Marina Del Rey until 1825. Since then it runs south and dumps into the ocean about 20 miles away from the original point.

  305. @syonredux

    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?
     
    Looks like a sphinx to me.....

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white,
     
    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me....

    to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north.
     
    The Egyptians didn't think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors....

    In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.
     
    Well, yes, except that the Greeks noted that the Ethiopians looked like the Southern Indians whilst the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned Northern Indians:

    Arrian (Indica 6.9)

    The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.
     
    Strabo Geography 15.1.13

    As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
     

    It is Michell, not Mitchell:
     
    it's called a typo, dear boy, a sin to which you are occasionally prey ("from black to bark brown"; woof, woof, eh?)

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been “a little short man, of black complexion, and fat.”[7]
     
    Oh dear Lord, please tell me that you don't think that that means that he was Negroid?Dear boy, people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having "black complexions" in Northern Europe. I know that Africentists wander down strange paths in their desperation to find some traces of intellectual achievement among Blacks, but surely even they would not be that ignorant.

    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry
    was also a black skinned
     
    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.

    scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America.
     
    He also seems to have had some problems with the British:

    During this time, Chandrasekhar made acquaintance with British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington. In an infamous encounter in 1935, Eddington publicly ridiculed the concept of the Chandrasekhar limit. Although Eddington would later be proved wrong, this encounter caused Chandra to contemplate employment outside the UK. Later in life, on multiple occasions, Chandra expressed the view that Eddington's behavior was in part racially motivated.[6]
     

    Since you agree that indians are not caucasians
    what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?
     
    South Asians, dear boy. The product of ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). From the redoubtable Razib Khan (an atheist like me, by the way):

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
     
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/#.VCOEM5RdWHg

    Looks like a sphinx to me…..

    Poor boy, can’t handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:

    when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ‘ As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair…

    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me….

    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that. If they did the greeks wouldn’t have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.

    The Egyptians didn’t think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors….

    The very fact that the greeks compared egyptians and ethiopians to north and south indians respectively clearly shows that they saw egyptians and ethiopians as related peoples. Just as north and south indians are obviously related.

    people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having “black complexions” in Northern Europe

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…

    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.

    Only an indian would claim that Chandrashekhar was “medium to light brown”. I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?

    Here’s an example of what Chandra had to endure in pre-Civil Rights America:

    https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=97&start=40

    Chandra himself faced open racism. I have a first person account of a rather disturbing incident
    when Chandra joined the Univ. of Chicago. There was a faculty dinner.
    At the dinner Chandra as a a new faculty was invited and so was a mathematician G.O. Bliss who was a notorious racist. Hutchins was the president of Chicago and a visionary who had hired Chandra. At some point Bliss came up to Hutchins and said” President Hutchins you have forced me to shake hands with this black man Chandrasekhar you have hired and now I am going to the washroom to wash my hands”.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Poor boy, can’t handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:
     
    Are you actually quoting Volney again?

    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that.
     
    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.

    If they did the greeks wouldn’t have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid
     
    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.

    mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.
     
    On the other hand, they compared the Egyptians to the lighter-skinned Northern Indians, dear boy, the ones who look more like Mediterranean Caucasoids....

    Only an indian
     
    Well, seeing as how I am not Indian, that's obviously incorrect...

    would claim that Chandrashekhar was “medium to light brown”.
     
    No. medium to light brown seems about right.Someone like, say, Yaphet Kotto, would be dark brown.

    I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?
     
    Spectacularly wrong, dear boy. My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots. Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…
     
    Oh dear Lord, you actually do think that John Michell was Negroid? Is Beethoven going to be next?

    As for examples, there are so many:the black peasant in The Romance of the Rose, the Rígsþula, where the Scandinavian surfs are described as black, Black Irish as a term for dark-haired Irish, Russians routinely refer to Georgians as blacks, etc, etc.
    , @syonredux

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…
     
    Here's another one, this time from Jonathan Swift:

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old.
     
    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%20complexion%22&f=false
  306. @syonredux

    Does the Great Sphinx of Giza look caucasoid to you?
     
    Looks like a sphinx to me.....

    The numerous color paintings from Egypt show a people who were closer to black than to white,
     
    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me....

    to their neighbors to the south (ethiopians etc) than to the north.
     
    The Egyptians didn't think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors....

    In fact the greeks did not compare the egyptians to themselves or to any of the middle-eastern peoples. Instead the closest in color to the egyptians and ethiopians they saw were the indians a people who range from black to bark brown for the overwhelming part.
     
    Well, yes, except that the Greeks noted that the Ethiopians looked like the Southern Indians whilst the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned Northern Indians:

    Arrian (Indica 6.9)

    The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.
     
    Strabo Geography 15.1.13

    As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
     

    It is Michell, not Mitchell:
     
    it's called a typo, dear boy, a sin to which you are occasionally prey ("from black to bark brown"; woof, woof, eh?)

    There is no surviving portrait of Michell; he is said to have been “a little short man, of black complexion, and fat.”[7]
     
    Oh dear Lord, please tell me that you don't think that that means that he was Negroid?Dear boy, people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having "black complexions" in Northern Europe. I know that Africentists wander down strange paths in their desperation to find some traces of intellectual achievement among Blacks, but surely even they would not be that ignorant.

    Btw, Chandrasekhar, of indian/hindu ancestry
    was also a black skinned
     
    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.

    scientist who faced racial prejudice when he lived in pre-Civil Rights America.
     
    He also seems to have had some problems with the British:

    During this time, Chandrasekhar made acquaintance with British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington. In an infamous encounter in 1935, Eddington publicly ridiculed the concept of the Chandrasekhar limit. Although Eddington would later be proved wrong, this encounter caused Chandra to contemplate employment outside the UK. Later in life, on multiple occasions, Chandra expressed the view that Eddington's behavior was in part racially motivated.[6]
     

    Since you agree that indians are not caucasians
    what racial group in which racial classification system do you peg them as?
     
    South Asians, dear boy. The product of ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). From the redoubtable Razib Khan (an atheist like me, by the way):

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
     
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/#.VCOEM5RdWHg

    “from black to bark brown”; woof, woof, eh?

    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.

    For example this brahmin ex-prime minister of India:

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.
     
    Whatever you say, dear boy. I wouldn't want your feelings to be hurt.
    , @syonredux

    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone
     
    MMM, "skin stone" or "skin tone," dear boy?

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…
     
    Here's another example that slipped my mind earlier, the elaborate verbal play in Love's Labour's Lost. Biron is enamored of the dark-haired Rosaline, and the other characters find the passion misplaced:

    FERDINAND
    By heaven, thy love is black as ebony.
    BIRON
    Is ebony like her? O wood divine!
    A wife of such wood were felicity.
    O, who can give an oath? where is a book?
    That I may swear beauty doth beauty lack,
    If that she learn not of her eye to look:
    No face is fair that is not full so black.

     

  307. @Anonymous
    I doubt the Romans would have been able to defeat the Zulu in the Zulus own territory.

    Zulus had leather shields and wore no armor. Three salvos of pilum would do a lot of damage. Romans had thick wood shields and metal armor that protected the head, chest and legs. Also, Roman siegecraft was the best in the world. The Zulu's walled cities and forts would would be quickly captured.

    I am glad to see a couple of posters already tackled the Roman question. I quite agree. But you are understating it with your last point. Siegecraft? Didn’t the Zulus maximum settlements amount to wooden kraals? Just burn ’em down.

    Though, being Romans, the Legions would surely have first built elaborate camps and circumvallations whose ditchwork and palisades [presuming there was any wood left in the country] would dwarf the besieged kraal itself.

    If the Romans managed to get to Zululand with anything like 40% [to be generous] of the Zulus’ numbers and didn’t die off at once [I don’t think South Africa itself is much of a natural disease hotbed- it’s pretty temperate for one thing] they’d have MUCH less trouble at Ulundi than they had at Alesia.

    • Replies: @random observer
    Sorry, I see others have commented on the lost great cities of Zululand already. What a great concept, though, if the pulp writers hadn't already sucked the marrow out of the "lost cities" meme already. Good meme, though.

    Still, in the context of the alleged primitivism of northern Europe, I did manage a shout out for the Gauls.

    It seems to me that the relative primitivism of the north compared to the mediterranean was largely true throughout pre-Roman antiquity [or all of antiquity for the extra-imperial areas], but it was mainly based on the [not insignificant] absence of much written language or many cities made of reasonably permanent materials [or wooden communities larger than towns]. It was real, but can be carried too far. The Celtic [ish] world eventually managed fairly productive and organized agriculture, towns, river commerce, clannish polities organized on a fairly large scale, and in a number of cases galley type ships at least comparable to those of the mediterranean world, albeit perhaps a century behind on size in some cases. And those cultures could support fairly territorially large political jurisdictions of settled populations, albeit still organized on tribal lines. And all of that in place when the Romans showed up. Of course, still lagging behind the Mediterranean world on all those measures, and having benefitted from contact with it, but still, not that far behind except in a few big areas. That's why they could be Romanized to a degree so quickly. And, more typical of less developed peoples but still remarkable as a display of material culture, first rate metalworking.

    The Germans were farther behind, but under Roman influence they advanced pretty far between the death of Varus and the rise of Alaric. They could up sticks and move even in the latter era, but they knew about farming life and towns.
  308. @random observer
    I am glad to see a couple of posters already tackled the Roman question. I quite agree. But you are understating it with your last point. Siegecraft? Didn't the Zulus maximum settlements amount to wooden kraals? Just burn 'em down.

    Though, being Romans, the Legions would surely have first built elaborate camps and circumvallations whose ditchwork and palisades [presuming there was any wood left in the country] would dwarf the besieged kraal itself.

    If the Romans managed to get to Zululand with anything like 40% [to be generous] of the Zulus' numbers and didn't die off at once [I don't think South Africa itself is much of a natural disease hotbed- it's pretty temperate for one thing] they'd have MUCH less trouble at Ulundi than they had at Alesia.

    Sorry, I see others have commented on the lost great cities of Zululand already. What a great concept, though, if the pulp writers hadn’t already sucked the marrow out of the “lost cities” meme already. Good meme, though.

    Still, in the context of the alleged primitivism of northern Europe, I did manage a shout out for the Gauls.

    It seems to me that the relative primitivism of the north compared to the mediterranean was largely true throughout pre-Roman antiquity [or all of antiquity for the extra-imperial areas], but it was mainly based on the [not insignificant] absence of much written language or many cities made of reasonably permanent materials [or wooden communities larger than towns]. It was real, but can be carried too far. The Celtic [ish] world eventually managed fairly productive and organized agriculture, towns, river commerce, clannish polities organized on a fairly large scale, and in a number of cases galley type ships at least comparable to those of the mediterranean world, albeit perhaps a century behind on size in some cases. And those cultures could support fairly territorially large political jurisdictions of settled populations, albeit still organized on tribal lines. And all of that in place when the Romans showed up. Of course, still lagging behind the Mediterranean world on all those measures, and having benefitted from contact with it, but still, not that far behind except in a few big areas. That’s why they could be Romanized to a degree so quickly. And, more typical of less developed peoples but still remarkable as a display of material culture, first rate metalworking.

    The Germans were farther behind, but under Roman influence they advanced pretty far between the death of Varus and the rise of Alaric. They could up sticks and move even in the latter era, but they knew about farming life and towns.

  309. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Rivers change all the time.

    True, but the river valleys don’t change that much and the river stays there somewhere. The Nile has pretty much been in the same general place for maybe the last umpteen thousand years, even though it’s precise location wandered around enough for the Egyptians to need to become quite comfortable with basic geometry.

    And humans can probably keep up with the rate of change of river locations, even the extreme flooding event. Individual cities may be lost, but new cities arise.

    The transportation aspect of rivers is likely also important, for much of history they would have been the transportation energy-efficiency winners.

    So you get the Nile; Tigris and Euphrates; Indus and Ganges; and Yellow, Yangtze, and Perl, around each of which a long-lasting civilization formed (and corresponding ethnic group).

    It’s interesting that the Islamic State today is tied pretty close to the Tigris and Euphrates.

  310. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Rivers change all the time.

    True, but the river valleys don’t change that much and the river stays there. The Nile has pretty much been in the same general place for maybe the last umpteen thousand years, even though it’s precise location wandered around enough for the Egyptians to need to become quite comfortable with basic geometry to redraw field boundaries after every flood.

    And humans can probably keep up with the rate of change of river locations, even the extreme flooding event. Individual cities may be lost, but new cities arise.

    The transportation aspect of rivers is likely also important, for much of history they would have been the transportation energy-efficiency winners. The longer the river, the more important it would be as a transportation system.

    So you get the Nile; Tigris and Euphrates; Indus and Ganges; and Yellow, Yangtze, and Perl, around each of which a long-lasting civilization formed (and corresponding ethnic groups).

    It’s interesting that the Islamic State today is tied pretty close to the Tigris and Euphrates.

  311. @Bliss

    “from black to bark brown”; woof, woof, eh?
     
    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.

    For example this brahmin ex-prime minister of India:

    http://www.timescontent.com/tss/photos/preview/28258/P%20V%20Narasimha%20Rao.jpg

    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.

    Whatever you say, dear boy. I wouldn’t want your feelings to be hurt.

  312. @Bliss

    Looks like a sphinx to me…..
     
    Poor boy, can't handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:

    when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...

    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me….
     
    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that. If they did the greeks wouldn't have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.

    The Egyptians didn’t think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors….
     
    The very fact that the greeks compared egyptians and ethiopians to north and south indians respectively clearly shows that they saw egyptians and ethiopians as related peoples. Just as north and south indians are obviously related.

    people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having “black complexions” in Northern Europe
     
    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again...

    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.
     
    Only an indian would claim that Chandrashekhar was "medium to light brown". I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?

    Here's an example of what Chandra had to endure in pre-Civil Rights America:

    https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=97&start=40

    Chandra himself faced open racism. I have a first person account of a rather disturbing incident
    when Chandra joined the Univ. of Chicago. There was a faculty dinner.
    At the dinner Chandra as a a new faculty was invited and so was a mathematician G.O. Bliss who was a notorious racist. Hutchins was the president of Chicago and a visionary who had hired Chandra. At some point Bliss came up to Hutchins and said" President Hutchins you have forced me to shake hands with this black man Chandrasekhar you have hired and now I am going to the washroom to wash my hands".

    Poor boy, can’t handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:

    Are you actually quoting Volney again?

    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that.

    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.

    If they did the greeks wouldn’t have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid

    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.

    mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.

    On the other hand, they compared the Egyptians to the lighter-skinned Northern Indians, dear boy, the ones who look more like Mediterranean Caucasoids….

    Only an indian

    Well, seeing as how I am not Indian, that’s obviously incorrect…

    would claim that Chandrashekhar was “medium to light brown”.

    No. medium to light brown seems about right.Someone like, say, Yaphet Kotto, would be dark brown.

    I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?

    Spectacularly wrong, dear boy. My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots. Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…

    Oh dear Lord, you actually do think that John Michell was Negroid? Is Beethoven going to be next?

    As for examples, there are so many:the black peasant in The Romance of the Rose, the Rígsþula, where the Scandinavian surfs are described as black, Black Irish as a term for dark-haired Irish, Russians routinely refer to Georgians as blacks, etc, etc.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.
     
    If they did, irrational hindu boy, the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.

    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.
     
    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid. Every hindu, of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.

    My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots.
     
    I am not buying it. Internet hindu trolls are notorious for concocting false identities on forums. It's funny how you even adopted an archaic 19th century british colonial manner of speaking, stupidly assuming that it will aid your charade. Brits don't talk like that anymore. Welcome to the 21st century, hindu boy...

    Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?
     
    Dating isn't part of indian culture. Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage. And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago. I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin...
  313. @Bliss

    “from black to bark brown”; woof, woof, eh?
     
    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone which is common among indians looks similar to the color of tree bark.

    For example this brahmin ex-prime minister of India:

    http://www.timescontent.com/tss/photos/preview/28258/P%20V%20Narasimha%20Rao.jpg

    Stop barking and start googling. That was no typo. The greyish brown skin stone

    MMM, “skin stone” or “skin tone,” dear boy?

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…

    Here’s another example that slipped my mind earlier, the elaborate verbal play in Love’s Labour’s Lost. Biron is enamored of the dark-haired Rosaline, and the other characters find the passion misplaced:

    FERDINAND
    By heaven, thy love is black as ebony.
    BIRON
    Is ebony like her? O wood divine!
    A wife of such wood were felicity.
    O, who can give an oath? where is a book?
    That I may swear beauty doth beauty lack,
    If that she learn not of her eye to look:
    No face is fair that is not full so black.

  314. @Bliss

    Looks like a sphinx to me…..
     
    Poor boy, can't handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:

    when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: ' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...

    Look like Mediterranean Caucasoids to me….
     
    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that. If they did the greeks wouldn't have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.

    The Egyptians didn’t think that they looked much like their Southern neighbors….
     
    The very fact that the greeks compared egyptians and ethiopians to north and south indians respectively clearly shows that they saw egyptians and ethiopians as related peoples. Just as north and south indians are obviously related.

    people with dark hair and olive complexions were frequently described as having “black complexions” in Northern Europe
     
    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again...

    More like medium to light brown, I would say. About the same shade as my first serious girlfriend in High School. Yes, she was South Asian.
     
    Only an indian would claim that Chandrashekhar was "medium to light brown". I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?

    Here's an example of what Chandra had to endure in pre-Civil Rights America:

    https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=97&start=40

    Chandra himself faced open racism. I have a first person account of a rather disturbing incident
    when Chandra joined the Univ. of Chicago. There was a faculty dinner.
    At the dinner Chandra as a a new faculty was invited and so was a mathematician G.O. Bliss who was a notorious racist. Hutchins was the president of Chicago and a visionary who had hired Chandra. At some point Bliss came up to Hutchins and said" President Hutchins you have forced me to shake hands with this black man Chandrasekhar you have hired and now I am going to the washroom to wash my hands".

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…

    Here’s another one, this time from Jonathan Swift:

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%20complexion%22&f=false

  315. @syonredux

    Poor boy, can’t handle the truth. Let someone who does not belong to a congenitally dishonest caste tell you what the >4500 years old Great Sphinx of Giza looked like:
     
    Are you actually quoting Volney again?

    Mediterranean caucasoids look like greeks, levantines, persians etc. The ancient egyptians looked nothing like that.
     
    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.

    If they did the greeks wouldn’t have had to look at far away India with its dark skinned australoid
     
    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.

    mixed population to find people that to them looked far more like the egyptians and ethiopians than the other people of the mediterranean and middle-eastern region.
     
    On the other hand, they compared the Egyptians to the lighter-skinned Northern Indians, dear boy, the ones who look more like Mediterranean Caucasoids....

    Only an indian
     
    Well, seeing as how I am not Indian, that's obviously incorrect...

    would claim that Chandrashekhar was “medium to light brown”.
     
    No. medium to light brown seems about right.Someone like, say, Yaphet Kotto, would be dark brown.

    I figured you had to be an internet hindu troll based on your stubborn dishonesty and the fact that you think it is so cool to talk like a 19th century british colonial in India. Am I right or what, dear boy?
     
    Spectacularly wrong, dear boy. My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots. Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?

    Since you claim it was frequent, give us a few examples. Or admit you are lying again…
     
    Oh dear Lord, you actually do think that John Michell was Negroid? Is Beethoven going to be next?

    As for examples, there are so many:the black peasant in The Romance of the Rose, the Rígsþula, where the Scandinavian surfs are described as black, Black Irish as a term for dark-haired Irish, Russians routinely refer to Georgians as blacks, etc, etc.

    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.

    If they did, irrational hindu boy, the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.

    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.

    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid. Every hindu, of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.

    My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots.

    I am not buying it. Internet hindu trolls are notorious for concocting false identities on forums. It’s funny how you even adopted an archaic 19th century british colonial manner of speaking, stupidly assuming that it will aid your charade. Brits don’t talk like that anymore. Welcome to the 21st century, hindu boy…

    Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?

    Dating isn’t part of indian culture. Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage. And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago. I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin…

    • Replies: @syonredux

    If they did, irrational hindu boy
    the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.
     
    But yet they chose to make the comparison with Northern Indians, the ones who are most Mediterranean Caucasoid in type, dear boy....

    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid.
     
    Not quite , dear boy:

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent.
     
    Kindly note the bit about the ASI population not being "closely related to groups outside the subcontinent."

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29#.VCayDWddWHg

    Every hindu,
     
    MMM, you do know, of course, that nowadays "Hindu" tends to be used to refer to South Asians who practice Hinduism? E.g., it's incorrect to call a South Asian who practices Islam Hindu.

    of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.
     
    Well, barring the Tibeto-Burman populations, dear boy. And, on the other hand, the Northern population has higher rates of ANI admixture. Here's some more info from Razib for your edification:

    I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the “Ancestral North Indians”, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians. Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, who’ve prefigured that particular result. But wait, there’s more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!

    The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term “Indo-Aryan” only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

    The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,900–4,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. [notes removed -Razib]


    What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the “Ancestral North Indians” and “Ancestral South Indians” probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.

    Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the “Georgian” element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan. A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms “Baloch,” because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the “NE Euro” fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups).

     

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29#.VCayDWddWHg

    I am not buying it.
     
    Whatever makes you happy, dear boy.

    Dating isn’t part of indian culture.
     
    She was an American girl, dear boy. Her race was South Asian, not her culture.

    Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage.
     
    You are really developing an elaborate fantasy here...

    And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago.
     
    No, she was perceived as a South Asian. South Asians are far from uncommon in California, and people there know what they look like.

    I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.
     
    I'm strongly tempted to email her with this. I haven't seen her in some time, and she would get a kick out of this.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin…
     
    You really do think that Michell was Negroid, don't you? Well, here's Swift again:

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%
     
    Note that the Duke of Somerset is described as having a "very black complexion." I suppose now that you will argue that the Duke was Negroid?
    , @syonredux

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old."

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%

     

    And here's the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a "black complexion" could mean in an English context:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset


    I'm afraid that he does not look very Negroid, dear boy....
  316. @Bliss

    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.
     
    If they did, irrational hindu boy, the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.

    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.
     
    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid. Every hindu, of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.

    My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots.
     
    I am not buying it. Internet hindu trolls are notorious for concocting false identities on forums. It's funny how you even adopted an archaic 19th century british colonial manner of speaking, stupidly assuming that it will aid your charade. Brits don't talk like that anymore. Welcome to the 21st century, hindu boy...

    Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?
     
    Dating isn't part of indian culture. Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage. And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago. I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin...

    If they did, irrational hindu boy
    the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.

    But yet they chose to make the comparison with Northern Indians, the ones who are most Mediterranean Caucasoid in type, dear boy….

    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid.

    Not quite , dear boy:

    Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent.

    Kindly note the bit about the ASI population not being “closely related to groups outside the subcontinent.”

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29#.VCayDWddWHg

    Every hindu,

    MMM, you do know, of course, that nowadays “Hindu” tends to be used to refer to South Asians who practice Hinduism? E.g., it’s incorrect to call a South Asian who practices Islam Hindu.

    of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.

    Well, barring the Tibeto-Burman populations, dear boy. And, on the other hand, the Northern population has higher rates of ANI admixture. Here’s some more info from Razib for your edification:

    I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the “Ancestral North Indians”, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians. Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, who’ve prefigured that particular result. But wait, there’s more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!

    The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term “Indo-Aryan” only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:

    The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,900–4,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts. [notes removed -Razib]

    What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the “Ancestral North Indians” and “Ancestral South Indians” probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.

    Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the “Georgian” element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan. A plausible framework then is that expansion of institutional complexity resulted in an expansion of the agriculture complex ~3,000 B.C., and subsequent admixture with the indigenous hunter-gatherer substrate to the east and south during this period. One of the components that Zack Ajmal finds through ADMIXTURE analysis in South Asia, with higher fractions in higher castes even in non-Brahmins in South India, he terms “Baloch,” because it is modal in that population. This fraction is also high in the Dravidian speaking Brahui people, who coexist with the Baloch. It seems plausible to me that this widespread Baloch fraction is reflective of the initial ANI-ASI admixture event. In contrast, the Baloch and Brahui have very little of the “NE Euro” fraction, which is found at low frequencies in Indo-European speakers, and especially higher castes east and south of Punjab, as well as South Indian Brahmins. I believe that this component is correlated with the second, smaller wave of admixture, which brought the Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryans to much of the subcontinent. The Dasas described in the Vedas are not ASI, but hybrid populations. The collapse of the Indus Valley civilization was an explosive event for the rest of the subcontinent, as Moorjani et al. report that all indigenous Indian populations have ANI-ASI admixture (with the exceptions of Tibeto-Burman groups).

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeneExpressionBlog+%28Gene+Expression%29#.VCayDWddWHg

    I am not buying it.

    Whatever makes you happy, dear boy.

    Dating isn’t part of indian culture.

    She was an American girl, dear boy. Her race was South Asian, not her culture.

    Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage.

    You are really developing an elaborate fantasy here…

    And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago.

    No, she was perceived as a South Asian. South Asians are far from uncommon in California, and people there know what they look like.

    I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.

    I’m strongly tempted to email her with this. I haven’t seen her in some time, and she would get a kick out of this.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin…

    You really do think that Michell was Negroid, don’t you? Well, here’s Swift again:

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%

    Note that the Duke of Somerset is described as having a “very black complexion.” I suppose now that you will argue that the Duke was Negroid?

  317. @Bliss

    Actually, they looked quite a bit like that, dear boy.
     
    If they did, irrational hindu boy, the greeks would have compared the egyptians to the mediterranean caucasoids of the neighborhood, not to australoid mixed hindus from distant India.

    You mean ANI mixed with ASI, dear boy.
     
    Dear hindu boy, ASI = Black Australoid. Every hindu, of every caste, from north India or south India, is heavily mixed with black australoid. South indians being even more heavily mixed.

    My mother is Ashkenazi Jewish while my father is English-Scots.
     
    I am not buying it. Internet hindu trolls are notorious for concocting false identities on forums. It's funny how you even adopted an archaic 19th century british colonial manner of speaking, stupidly assuming that it will aid your charade. Brits don't talk like that anymore. Welcome to the 21st century, hindu boy...

    Do you really think that only South Asians date other South Asians?
     
    Dating isn't part of indian culture. Most likely the woman you are/were with belongs to your sub-caste, in an arranged marriage. And if, as you say, she is the same color as Chandrasekhar then she is probably seen as a black woman where you live, just as Chandrasekhar was seen as a black man in Chicago. I am pretty sure you are a south indian tamil brahmin.

    Finally, re:Michell, we were not talking of black hair. Show us where an englishman was described as having black skin...

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%

    And here’s the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a “black complexion” could mean in an English context:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset

    I’m afraid that he does not look very Negroid, dear boy….

    • Replies: @Bliss

    And here’s the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a “black complexion” could mean in an English context:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset
     
    Apparently you don't know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously? The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite. A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people...

    Btw, did you know that when the british ruled Calcutta, a city in indo-aryan speaking north India, the part where europeans lived was called White Town while the part where the bengalis, of all castes, lived was called Black Town?

    http://indiaadventures.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-town-indian-kolkata/

    By early 19th century, Calcutta was divided into two distinct areas–the White Town where the British lived, and the Black Town where the Indians lived. The poverty and the living conditions in the Black Town shanties were appalling.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like. Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids. The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids. Capische?
  318. syonredux [AKA "marlowe"] says:

    Hart on Black Africa:

    Section 8 – Cultural and technological achievements in SSA prior to 1500
    In late pre-modern times, sub-Saharan Africa consisted of two very different
    portions, the exposed zone and the secluded zone. The exposed zone consisted of those
    regions which were in contact with the Moslem world or the European world. These
    included:
    • West Africa
    • Ethiopia and Somalia
    • Small, isolated parts of the Indian Ocean coast where Arab traders had set up
    trading posts or colonies
    • Those parts of the Atlantic coast where the Portuguese traders had set up small
    outposts.
    The secluded zone consisted of the rest of SSA — i.e., most of East Africa, and
    virtually all of central and southern Africa. This was a vast region, roughly twice the
    size of Europe.
    Parts of the exposed zone were reasonably prosperous, but it is hard to think of a
    single significant contribution to world civilization that was produced by the Negro
    tribes of that region. (Although there were a few written languages, the writing systems
    had been brought in from the outside by Moslem tribes or traders.)
    The entire secluded zone was a primitive and backward region. This was true not
    just in 1500, but even in the early 19th century when European explorers first penetrated
    it. Here are some aspects of that backwardness:
    1) Although there were some towns, there were no sizable cities.
    2) There were no wheeled vehicles, nor did they use the potter’s wheel. In fact,
    there were no mechanical contrivances with moving parts, such as scissors or hinges.
    3) They had not devised means of joining together pieces of wood.
    4) There were no coins or money.
    5) Although cattle were raised, they were not used as beasts of burden, and there
    were no draft animals.
    6) There was not a single written language in the entire region.
    7) As a result, there were no law codes, no philosophical works, and no literature.
    Nor was there any orally-composed epic poetry, such as the Iliad.
    8) There was no mathematics other than simple arithmetic.
    9) Only primitive methods of construction were known. There were no domes or
    arches. Little use was made of stone, and there were no temples or large monuments.
    Nor were there any schools, hospitals, libraries, or paved roads. The most noteworthy
    example of construction in the secluded zone are the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, which
    cover over 60 acres (about a tenth of a square mile). However, in comparison with what

    we find in other regions — such as Machu Picchu in South America, or the remarkable
    complex at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, or the large cities and religious buildings found
    in Mesoamerica — these are third rate, both in size and in quality. Indeed, the giant
    statues found on Easter Island (a tiny, isolated island in Polynesia) are more impressive
    than anything found in the entire secluded zone of SSA.
    10) The maritime skills of the inhabitants were very limited. They never reached
    the Cape Verde Islands, just a few hundred miles off the West African coast. More
    surprisingly, the Africans failed to reach Madagascar (an enormous island, about 1000
    miles long, that lies only 250 miles off the East African coast). Madagascar remained
    uninhabited until it was settled by people coming from Indonesia — more than 3000
    miles away, on the other side of the Indian Ocean — about 500 AD.
    In addition, the secluded zone was backward in social and political matters.
    Absolute rule, with no semblance of civil liberties or democracy, was the usual case.
    Cannibalism was rare, but was practiced by some tribes. Slavery was commonplace
    everywhere, and masters were free to put their slaves to death.
    The paucity of cultural, technological, and political achievements in the secluded
    zone of SSA is not surprising; rather, it is about what one would expect of a population
    with a mean IQ of around 70.

    http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/hart_-_understanding_human_history-1.pdf

  319. @syonredux

    Duke of Somerset:

    Is of a middle stature, well shaped, a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry; of good judgment [not a grain;hardly common sense];but by reason of a great hesitation in his speech wants expression. He is about forty-two years old."

    http://books.google.com/books?id=88REAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22black%20complexion%22&pg=PA572#v=onepage&q=%22black%

     

    And here's the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a "black complexion" could mean in an English context:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset


    I'm afraid that he does not look very Negroid, dear boy....

    And here’s the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a “black complexion” could mean in an English context:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset

    Apparently you don’t know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously? The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite. A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people…

    Btw, did you know that when the british ruled Calcutta, a city in indo-aryan speaking north India, the part where europeans lived was called White Town while the part where the bengalis, of all castes, lived was called Black Town?

    http://indiaadventures.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-town-indian-kolkata/

    By early 19th century, Calcutta was divided into two distinct areas–the White Town where the British lived, and the Black Town where the Indians lived. The poverty and the living conditions in the Black Town shanties were appalling.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like. Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids. The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids. Capische?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    And here's another one, John Witaker's description of John Spens:

    It was contrived by him, no doubt, in concurrence with one, who was commonly called Black
    John Spens, one of the Queen's two Attornies General (Anderson, ii, 97), though a violent Protestant (Knox 338); who was probably engaged in the murder himself (Anderson i.48), who was certainly embarked in the rebellion afterwards (Keith, 452 and Goodall, ii. 370), and of whom, considering his black complexion and his anti-papistical spirit together, [...]
     
    Mary Queen Of Scots Vindicated: In Three Volumes, Volume 1, pages 302-303.

    I suppose that he must have been one of those Negroid Scotsmen that we hear so much about....
    , @syonredux
    Still more Europeans who are described as having black complexions:

    In the fourteenth year of my age, by a fellow scholar of swarth, black complexion, I had like to have my right eye beaten out as we were at play

    William Lilly's history of his life and times from the year 1602 to 1681, page 20
     
    And here's another person describing the Duke of Somerset as having a black complexion:

    He is of middle Stature, well shaped, a very Black Complexion, a lover of Music and Poetry

    Memoirs of the Secret Services of John Macky, Esq: During the Reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and King George I. : Including, Also, the True Secret History of the Rise, Promotions, &c. of the English and Scots Nobility, Officers, Civil, Military, Naval, and Other Persons of Distinction, from the Revolution : in Their Respective Characters at Large , page 17
     
    And here's an account of an English religious non-conformist:

    His Majesty had further opportunity of discovering his zeal against heresy this year, upon two of his own subjects; one was Bartholomew Legate an Arian; he was a comely person, of a black complexion, and about forty years of age


    The History of the Puritans: Or, Protestant Non-Conformists, from the Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth, with an Account of Their Principles, Their Attempts for a Further Reformation in the Church, Their Sufferings, and the Lives and Characters of Their Principal Divines, Volume 2
    page 89
     
    And here is a description of the inhabitants of the Western Isles of Scotland:

    The Inhabitants are generally well proportioned, and of a black Complexion; they speak only the Irish Tongue and use the Habit, Diet, and etc that is used in the Western Isles


    A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland: Containing a Full Account of Their Situation, Extent, Soils, Product, Harbours, Bays, Tides, Anchoring-places, and Fisheries. The Antient and Modern Government, Religion and Customs of the Inhabitants; Particularly of Their Druids, Heathen Temples, Monasteries, Churches, Chappels, Antiquities, Monuments, Forts, Caves, and Other Curiosities of Art and Nature: of Their Admirable and Expeditious Way of Curing Most Diseases by Simples of Their Own Product. A Particular Account of the Second Sight, Or Faculty of Foreseeing Things to Come, by Way of Vision, So Common Among Them. A Brief Hint of Methods to Improve Trade in that Country, Both by Sea and Land. With a New Map of the Whole, Describing the Harbours, Anchoring-places, and Dangerous Rocks, for the Benefit of Sailors. To which is Added, A Brief Description of the Isles of Orkney and Schetland

    page 248
     
    I suppose that you are going to argue that the inhabitants of the Western Isles of Scotland are Negroid?


    A description of Thomas, Earl of Ormonde:

    He was a very comely and graceful man, and of a black complexion, which gained him among the Irish the surname of Duffe

    A History of the Life of James Duke of Ormonde, Volume 1, page Lxiv
     
    MMM, here's Ormonde:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Butler,_10th_Earl_of_Ormond

    Doesn't look very Negroid, does he?
  320. Apparently you don’t know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously?

    That’s your response?You’re not joking?

    The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite

    Which explains why Swift could say that Somerset had a black complexion. Relative blackness, dear boy.When pale blondes abound, a swarthy brunet looks black in comparison.

    A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people…

    Swift could be quite serious, dear boy.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like.

    Yes, and they look rather like Mediterranean Caucasoids, only darker skinned.

    Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids.

    Not when compared to Negroids, dear boy.

    The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids.

    And yet the Greeks noted that the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned, Caucasoid looking Northern Indians.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    they look rather like Mediterranean Caucasoids, only darker skinned.
     
    Anyone who thinks they look like med caucasoids has to be either seriously delusional or pathologically dishonest. In your case it is obviously the latter. A group of north indians will stand out like sore thumbs anywhere west of the Indus River.

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI which is black skinned aboriginal. So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI. The majority of indians are majority ASI. Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy...

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes...


    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):

    Gandhi:

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf7DcuJFfDhEpiYEUrRKg3rzLgi7UN6mwrl_VoJszbNpt-N1we


    Prabhupada, founder of Hare Krishna cult:


    http://theharekrishnamovement.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/srila-prabhupada-smiles-2.jpg


    Maharishi founder of Transcendental Meditation:

    http://www.awaken.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/050.jpg
  321. @Bliss

    And here’s the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a “black complexion” could mean in an English context:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset
     
    Apparently you don't know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously? The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite. A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people...

    Btw, did you know that when the british ruled Calcutta, a city in indo-aryan speaking north India, the part where europeans lived was called White Town while the part where the bengalis, of all castes, lived was called Black Town?

    http://indiaadventures.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-town-indian-kolkata/

    By early 19th century, Calcutta was divided into two distinct areas–the White Town where the British lived, and the Black Town where the Indians lived. The poverty and the living conditions in the Black Town shanties were appalling.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like. Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids. The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids. Capische?

    And here’s another one, John Witaker’s description of John Spens:

    It was contrived by him, no doubt, in concurrence with one, who was commonly called Black
    John Spens, one of the Queen’s two Attornies General (Anderson, ii, 97), though a violent Protestant (Knox 338); who was probably engaged in the murder himself (Anderson i.48), who was certainly embarked in the rebellion afterwards (Keith, 452 and Goodall, ii. 370), and of whom, considering his black complexion and his anti-papistical spirit together, […]

    Mary Queen Of Scots Vindicated: In Three Volumes, Volume 1, pages 302-303.

    I suppose that he must have been one of those Negroid Scotsmen that we hear so much about….

  322. @syonredux

    Apparently you don’t know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously?
     
    That's your response?You're not joking?

    The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite
     
    Which explains why Swift could say that Somerset had a black complexion. Relative blackness, dear boy.When pale blondes abound, a swarthy brunet looks black in comparison.

    A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people…
     
    Swift could be quite serious, dear boy.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like.
     
    Yes, and they look rather like Mediterranean Caucasoids, only darker skinned.

    Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids.
     
    Not when compared to Negroids, dear boy.

    The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids.
     
    And yet the Greeks noted that the Egyptians looked like the lighter skinned, Caucasoid looking Northern Indians.

    they look rather like Mediterranean Caucasoids, only darker skinned.

    Anyone who thinks they look like med caucasoids has to be either seriously delusional or pathologically dishonest. In your case it is obviously the latter. A group of north indians will stand out like sore thumbs anywhere west of the Indus River.

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI which is black skinned aboriginal. So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI. The majority of indians are majority ASI. Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy…

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes…

    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):

    Gandhi:

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf7DcuJFfDhEpiYEUrRKg3rzLgi7UN6mwrl_VoJszbNpt-N1we

    Prabhupada, founder of Hare Krishna cult:

    Maharishi founder of Transcendental Meditation:

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI
     
    That's why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.

    which is black skinned aboriginal.
     
    More like dark brown....

    So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI.The majority of indians are majority ASI.
     
    Some data via Razib Khan:

    India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy.

     

    http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2011/04/22/the_genetic_ori/

    Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy…
     
    Or, in many cases, closer to "swarthy" than to "black."

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes…
     
    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians.....

    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):
     
    Ah, a good game of google image search, eh? I'm up for it. Let's see, the first thing that we have to bear in mind, dear boy, is that Northern India to the Greeks meant what is now Pakistan.So here we go:

    http://www.kashmir-tours.net/about_kashmir.htm

    Note the Kashmiri girl in the yellow head scarf. You could drop her into Poland and she would blend right in


    http://www.mommy-labs.com/creative-kids/art_craft_projects_kids/leaf-art-nature-therapy-kashmir-chinar-leaves/

    And you could lose several of these people in a crowd in Sardinia....


    http://www.pinterest.com/meownewyork/india-kashmir/

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med...


    http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/North/Jammu_and_Kashmir/Kargil/

    The two young ladies here could be dropped into Sicily....


    And then there is Nikki Haley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley
  323. @Bliss

    And here’s the Duke of Somerset to whom Swift is referring. This should give you some idea regarding what a “black complexion” could mean in an English context:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Seymour,_6th_Duke_of_Somerset
     
    Apparently you don't know that Jonathan Swift was a satirist of Irish origin otherwise why would you be taking him so seriously? The english, including that Duke, are very far from being black skinned. In fact they are the polar opposite. A person of mediterranean complexion would be called swarthy in the british isles. Only africans, indians etc could be called black, by serious people...

    Btw, did you know that when the british ruled Calcutta, a city in indo-aryan speaking north India, the part where europeans lived was called White Town while the part where the bengalis, of all castes, lived was called Black Town?

    http://indiaadventures.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/black-town-indian-kolkata/

    By early 19th century, Calcutta was divided into two distinct areas–the White Town where the British lived, and the Black Town where the Indians lived. The poverty and the living conditions in the Black Town shanties were appalling.

    Plenty pictures there showing what north indians look like. Anyone can see that they are very different from mediterranean caucasoids. The people that north indians are most closely related to are the south indians, which shows that the greeks saw egyptians, indians and ethiopians as quite different from themselves and other mediterranean caucasoids. Capische?

    Still more Europeans who are described as having black complexions:

    In the fourteenth year of my age, by a fellow scholar of swarth, black complexion, I had like to have my right eye beaten out as we were at play

    William Lilly’s history of his life and times from the year 1602 to 1681, page 20

    And here’s another person describing the Duke of Somerset as having a black complexion:

    He is of middle Stature, well shaped, a very Black Complexion, a lover of Music and Poetry

    Memoirs of the Secret Services of John Macky, Esq: During the Reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and King George I. : Including, Also, the True Secret History of the Rise, Promotions, &c. of the English and Scots Nobility, Officers, Civil, Military, Naval, and Other Persons of Distinction, from the Revolution : in Their Respective Characters at Large , page 17

    And here’s an account of an English religious non-conformist:

    His Majesty had further opportunity of discovering his zeal against heresy this year, upon two of his own subjects; one was Bartholomew Legate an Arian; he was a comely person, of a black complexion, and about forty years of age

    The History of the Puritans: Or, Protestant Non-Conformists, from the Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth, with an Account of Their Principles, Their Attempts for a Further Reformation in the Church, Their Sufferings, and the Lives and Characters of Their Principal Divines, Volume 2
    page 89

    And here is a description of the inhabitants of the Western Isles of Scotland:

    The Inhabitants are generally well proportioned, and of a black Complexion; they speak only the Irish Tongue and use the Habit, Diet, and etc that is used in the Western Isles

    A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland: Containing a Full Account of Their Situation, Extent, Soils, Product, Harbours, Bays, Tides, Anchoring-places, and Fisheries. The Antient and Modern Government, Religion and Customs of the Inhabitants; Particularly of Their Druids, Heathen Temples, Monasteries, Churches, Chappels, Antiquities, Monuments, Forts, Caves, and Other Curiosities of Art and Nature: of Their Admirable and Expeditious Way of Curing Most Diseases by Simples of Their Own Product. A Particular Account of the Second Sight, Or Faculty of Foreseeing Things to Come, by Way of Vision, So Common Among Them. A Brief Hint of Methods to Improve Trade in that Country, Both by Sea and Land. With a New Map of the Whole, Describing the Harbours, Anchoring-places, and Dangerous Rocks, for the Benefit of Sailors. To which is Added, A Brief Description of the Isles of Orkney and Schetland

    page 248

    I suppose that you are going to argue that the inhabitants of the Western Isles of Scotland are Negroid?

    A description of Thomas, Earl of Ormonde:

    He was a very comely and graceful man, and of a black complexion, which gained him among the Irish the surname of Duffe

    A History of the Life of James Duke of Ormonde, Volume 1, page Lxiv

    MMM, here’s Ormonde:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Butler,_10th_Earl_of_Ormond

    Doesn’t look very Negroid, does he?

  324. @Bliss

    they look rather like Mediterranean Caucasoids, only darker skinned.
     
    Anyone who thinks they look like med caucasoids has to be either seriously delusional or pathologically dishonest. In your case it is obviously the latter. A group of north indians will stand out like sore thumbs anywhere west of the Indus River.

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI which is black skinned aboriginal. So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI. The majority of indians are majority ASI. Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy...

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes...


    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):

    Gandhi:

    https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf7DcuJFfDhEpiYEUrRKg3rzLgi7UN6mwrl_VoJszbNpt-N1we


    Prabhupada, founder of Hare Krishna cult:


    http://theharekrishnamovement.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/srila-prabhupada-smiles-2.jpg


    Maharishi founder of Transcendental Meditation:

    http://www.awaken.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/050.jpg

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI

    That’s why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.

    which is black skinned aboriginal.

    More like dark brown….

    So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI.The majority of indians are majority ASI.

    Some data via Razib Khan:

    India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy.

    http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2011/04/22/the_genetic_ori/

    Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy…

    Or, in many cases, closer to “swarthy” than to “black.”

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes…

    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians…..

    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):

    Ah, a good game of google image search, eh? I’m up for it. Let’s see, the first thing that we have to bear in mind, dear boy, is that Northern India to the Greeks meant what is now Pakistan.So here we go:

    http://www.kashmir-tours.net/about_kashmir.htm

    Note the Kashmiri girl in the yellow head scarf. You could drop her into Poland and she would blend right in

    http://www.mommy-labs.com/creative-kids/art_craft_projects_kids/leaf-art-nature-therapy-kashmir-chinar-leaves/

    And you could lose several of these people in a crowd in Sardinia….

    http://www.pinterest.com/meownewyork/india-kashmir/

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med…

    http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/North/Jammu_and_Kashmir/Kargil/

    The two young ladies here could be dropped into Sicily….

    And then there is Nikki Haley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley

    • Replies: @Bliss

    That’s why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.
     
    And that, silly boy, is why the greeks did not compare the egyptians to west asians. Yet you are stupid enough to insist that the ancient egyptians were mediterranean caucasoids.

    More like dark brown….
     
    Damn, you are hopelessly irrational. If ASI was dark brown what explains the blackish skin tones of so many indians, such as your own people the tamils?

    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians…..
     
    How many times will this have to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? Are north indians closely related to south indians or not? Likewise the greeks saw the egyptians as related to the ethiopians. Not to themselves, or persians or other peoples of the near east.

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med…
     
    You are trying to pass off outliers from Kashmir whose population is not even 1% of north India as representative of the north indian phenotype? Pathetic.
  325. syonredux [AKA "marlowe"] says:

    Hart doesn’t think very highly of Egypt, either:

    Section 7 – The importance of ancient Egypt is usually greatly overrated
    Most of us, when we studied world history in high school or college, were told that
    the ancient Egyptians made enormous contributions to world civilization. A careful
    consideration of the facts, however, reveals that their contributions were actually quite
    meager.
    For many centuries, European historians believed that ancient Egypt had been the
    first civilization on Earth. However, we now know that civilization originated in the

    Crescent of Southwest Asia. The ancient Egyptians were not the first people to
    build cities, nor were they the inventors of agriculture. Nor were they the first to use
    plows, employ irrigation, rotate crops, or domesticate animals.

  326. syonredux [AKA "marlowe"] says:

    physical appearance of the Egyptians:

    Afrocentric misreadings of classical texts-The meaning of melas and melanochroes

    In their efforts to paint the ancient Egyptians “black,” Afrocentrists rely heavily on misreadings of ancient Greek and Roman literature – many of which stem from a severe misunderstanding of the historical use of color terms. In many ages and many cultures, descriptions of human complexion as “white,” “brown” or “black” would correspond in modern usage to “fair,” “tan” or “swarthy.” According to the anthropologist Peter Frost (*): This older, more relative sense has been noted in other culture areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people.

    Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans. In the same vein, the Greek words melas and leukos when applied to skin color were usually equivalent to “swarthy” and “fair” rather than the racial terms “black” or “white” as Afrocentrists would prefer (see definition of melas in the online LSJ lexicon). There are numerous examples of this usage in Greek literature – one unequivocal example describes an aged Odysseus magically regaining his youth (Homer Odyssey 16.172-176):

    “With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.”

    In describing the skin tone of Odysseus, Homer used the word melanchroiês – a form of the same word that other

    Greeks sometimes chose to describe Egyptians, and one that is the source of much Afrocentric misunderstanding. If taken literally, the word would mean “black-skinned”; however, it is clear from the context that Homer means “of swarthy complexion” rather than racially “black,” and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. Otherwise we would have to assume that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus transformed into a black African! This despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as Greek-looking and certainly not “black” in any modern racial sense.

    Likewise, when the ancient writers described Egyptians as melas or melanchroes, they almost surely meant “dark-complected” rather than literally “black.” Any ambiguity in such descriptions can be resolved by noting that other classical writers such as Manilius specifically identified the Egyptians as medium in complexion rather than “black,” and that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter and finer-featured than their African neighbors to the south.

    http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/descriptions-of-ancient-egyptians-by-others/

  327. @syonredux

    Mediterranean caucasoids are not heavily admixed with ASI
     
    That's why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.

    which is black skinned aboriginal.
     
    More like dark brown....

    So how the heck can they look like indians, north or south, who all have substantial ASI ancestry? Even the indians in the far northwest like Punjab, who are a very small fraction of north indians, are ~1/3 ASI.The majority of indians are majority ASI.
     
    Some data via Razib Khan:

    India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy.

     

    http://sepiamutiny.com/blog/2011/04/22/the_genetic_ori/

    Which explains why they are closer to black than to swarthy…
     
    Or, in many cases, closer to "swarthy" than to "black."

    The fact that the greeks compared the egyptians and ethiopians to distant indians instead of neighboring mediterranean caucasoids speaks volumes…
     
    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians.....

    Here are some famous north indians, all upper caste aryans btw (who are a small minority of hindus):
     
    Ah, a good game of google image search, eh? I'm up for it. Let's see, the first thing that we have to bear in mind, dear boy, is that Northern India to the Greeks meant what is now Pakistan.So here we go:

    http://www.kashmir-tours.net/about_kashmir.htm

    Note the Kashmiri girl in the yellow head scarf. You could drop her into Poland and she would blend right in


    http://www.mommy-labs.com/creative-kids/art_craft_projects_kids/leaf-art-nature-therapy-kashmir-chinar-leaves/

    And you could lose several of these people in a crowd in Sardinia....


    http://www.pinterest.com/meownewyork/india-kashmir/

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med...


    http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/North/Jammu_and_Kashmir/Kargil/

    The two young ladies here could be dropped into Sicily....


    And then there is Nikki Haley

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley

    That’s why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.

    And that, silly boy, is why the greeks did not compare the egyptians to west asians. Yet you are stupid enough to insist that the ancient egyptians were mediterranean caucasoids.

    More like dark brown….

    Damn, you are hopelessly irrational. If ASI was dark brown what explains the blackish skin tones of so many indians, such as your own people the tamils?

    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians…..

    How many times will this have to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? Are north indians closely related to south indians or not? Likewise the greeks saw the egyptians as related to the ethiopians. Not to themselves, or persians or other peoples of the near east.

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med…

    You are trying to pass off outliers from Kashmir whose population is not even 1% of north India as representative of the north indian phenotype? Pathetic.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    These Pakistani children don't look anything like Ethiopians:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6900313884/
  328. And that, silly boy, is why the greeks did not compare the egyptians to west asians. Yet you are stupid enough to insist that the ancient egyptians were mediterranean caucasoids.

    Other way around, dear boy. They were comparing Indians to Egyptians, and noting that, of the peoples in the Mediterranean, the Northern Indians most nearly resembled the Egyptians.

    Damn, you are hopelessly irrational.

    Says the man who thinks that John Michell was Negroid….By the way, dear boy, why the lack of response to all of my postings regarding Europeans who are described as having black complexions?

    If ASI was dark brown what explains the blackish skin tones of so many indians,

    Look more dark brown to me, dear boy…..

    such as your own people the tamils?

    Still operating under the assumption that I’m Tamil, eh? Well, if it makes you happy..

    How many times will this have to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? Are north indians closely related to south indians or not?

    Fairer skinned relatives, dear boy.Just as Finns are fairer skinned than the Greeks.

    Likewise the greeks saw the egyptians as related to the ethiopians. Not to themselves, or persians or other peoples of the near east.

    Dear boy, the Classical writers clearly distinguished the Ethiopians from the Egyptians:

    Strabo, Geography 15.1.13

    Black people resided not in the Nile valley but in a far land, by the fountain of the sun.

    And here’s Snowden:

    Another frequent misconception in some discussions of the populations of the ancient world is the assumption that words or expressions describing people as dark–or black–skinned were always in classical usage the equivalents of “Ethiopians” i.e. Negroes, or, in twentieth century usage, blacks. Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid. To summarize this point, there is no justification to equate Egyptians, Moors or any other north Africans, with Ethiopians, even when a color-word is applied to them, unless details are given as to other physical traits such as color, hair, nose, or lips, or unless there is additional evidence to support an equivalence with Ethiopian.

    You are trying to pass off outliers

    Outliers can be quite interesting, dear boy. For example, you won’t find people like these among the native inhabitants of the Congo….

    from Kashmir whose population is not even 1% of north India as representative of the north indian phenotype? Pathetic.

    On the other hand, dear boy, they are Northern Indians….

    • Replies: @Bliss

    They were comparing Indians to Egyptians, and noting that, of the peoples in the Mediterranean, the Northern Indians most nearly resembled the Egyptians.
     
    You sound like a broken record, like a brainwashed cultist. If you were a rational person the conclusion you would have drawn from that is: egyptians were unlike the peoples of the mediterranean.

    For northern indians are a mixed race ANI + ASI. ASI is native, ANI came from west of the Indus. The higher the ASI the closer to black skinned the Indian, with south indian tamils being as black as ethiopians. Pictures of masses of north indians, and the numerous color portraits from ancient egypt both show very dark-skinned people by west asian or mediterranean standards.

    All that means is that what north indians are to south indians, and what north europeans are to south europeans, or what north chinese are to south chinese is akin to what the ancient egyptians were to ethiopians. Capische, my boy?

    Look more dark brown to me, dear boy…..
     
    Do ethiopians, to whom the greeks compared you south indians, also look dark brown to you?

    Outliers can be quite interesting, dear boy
     
    Yes boy, they are interesting. But it is a truly irrational fool who tries to pass them off as representives of the norm, as you are doing.

    Says the man who thinks that John Michell was Negroid
     
    Where did I say he was negroid? I showed where he was described as black skinned. He could well have been an indian like Chandrasekhar who was seen as a black man in the american midwest in the 1950s . Unfortunately there is no extant portrait of the scientist Michell so we will never know whether he had african or indian ancestry, or was just a white brit who was bizarrely described as black complexioned, as in the examples you have dug up. Btw, can you give any examples from the early 19th century, Michell's era, where a white englishman was described as black-skinned?
  329. @Bliss

    That’s why they are Caucasoids, dear boy.
     
    And that, silly boy, is why the greeks did not compare the egyptians to west asians. Yet you are stupid enough to insist that the ancient egyptians were mediterranean caucasoids.

    More like dark brown….
     
    Damn, you are hopelessly irrational. If ASI was dark brown what explains the blackish skin tones of so many indians, such as your own people the tamils?

    And the Egyptians were compared to Northern Indians while the darker skinned Ethiopians were compared to the Southern Indians…..
     
    How many times will this have to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? Are north indians closely related to south indians or not? Likewise the greeks saw the egyptians as related to the ethiopians. Not to themselves, or persians or other peoples of the near east.

    Many of these people would look quite at home in the Med…
     
    You are trying to pass off outliers from Kashmir whose population is not even 1% of north India as representative of the north indian phenotype? Pathetic.

    These Pakistani children don’t look anything like Ethiopians:

    Pakistani children - Pakistani girls

  330. I can’t possibly wade through all the comments here, so I hope this hasn’t been already said.
    I read an interesting book one time, and since I’m now 60 my memory fails when I try to recall the name (in my defense, however, I read dozens and dozens of books annually.)
    Anyways, here was the theory on why Africans prospered less than residents of other continents: they did not have reliable pack animals. Most of the world, including North America after its invasion by the Spanish, had horses. They also had small, hardy donkeys. The Middle East had camels (though of course the Arabs were responsible for breeding the finest, purest horses on the planet as well). In India, there were elephants—ASIAN elephants, much more docile than their African counterparts.
    Contrast to Africa, which had…zebras; untameable. African elephants, also untameable. Could horses have thrived there? Well, perhaps, if Africa wasn’t also home to large predatory beasts such as lions.
    In short, the people themselves had to become their own “beasts of burden”, so to speak. It made sense to me, anyways.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The book to which you refer is Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

    His arguments about African animals being untamable are wrong. Most of those animals have recently been tamed by modern colonists, including the African elephant (tamed even back in the time of Carthage), Ostrich, and Zebra. Google each species on youtube, you can easily find tame cases.

    Wild animals in Europe were difficult to start with as well, before we started selective breeding. But, as the recent experiments with domesticating foxes in less than 50 years demonstrate, it can be done, even with animals which have resisted taming up until now. In the cases of fx. ostriches, mink and foxes, this is due to lack of applying selective breeding (lack of trying), rather than their being completely impossible to domesticate.
  331. @syonredux

    And that, silly boy, is why the greeks did not compare the egyptians to west asians. Yet you are stupid enough to insist that the ancient egyptians were mediterranean caucasoids.
     
    Other way around, dear boy. They were comparing Indians to Egyptians, and noting that, of the peoples in the Mediterranean, the Northern Indians most nearly resembled the Egyptians.

    Damn, you are hopelessly irrational.
     
    Says the man who thinks that John Michell was Negroid....By the way, dear boy, why the lack of response to all of my postings regarding Europeans who are described as having black complexions?

    If ASI was dark brown what explains the blackish skin tones of so many indians,
     
    Look more dark brown to me, dear boy.....

    such as your own people the tamils?
     
    Still operating under the assumption that I'm Tamil, eh? Well, if it makes you happy..

    How many times will this have to be repeated before it penetrates your thick skull? Are north indians closely related to south indians or not?
     
    Fairer skinned relatives, dear boy.Just as Finns are fairer skinned than the Greeks.

    Likewise the greeks saw the egyptians as related to the ethiopians. Not to themselves, or persians or other peoples of the near east.

    Dear boy, the Classical writers clearly distinguished the Ethiopians from the Egyptians:

    Strabo, Geography 15.1.13

    Black people resided not in the Nile valley but in a far land, by the fountain of the sun.

     

    And here's Snowden:

    Another frequent misconception in some discussions of the populations of the ancient world is the assumption that words or expressions describing people as dark--or black--skinned were always in classical usage the equivalents of "Ethiopians" i.e. Negroes, or, in twentieth century usage, blacks. Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples--Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors--who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these--Ethiopians--as unmistakably Negroid. To summarize this point, there is no justification to equate Egyptians, Moors or any other north Africans, with Ethiopians, even when a color-word is applied to them, unless details are given as to other physical traits such as color, hair, nose, or lips, or unless there is additional evidence to support an equivalence with Ethiopian.

     


    You are trying to pass off outliers
     
    Outliers can be quite interesting, dear boy. For example, you won't find people like these among the native inhabitants of the Congo....

    from Kashmir whose population is not even 1% of north India as representative of the north indian phenotype? Pathetic.
     
    On the other hand, dear boy, they are Northern Indians....

    They were comparing Indians to Egyptians, and noting that, of the peoples in the Mediterranean, the Northern Indians most nearly resembled the Egyptians.

    You sound like a broken record, like a brainwashed cultist. If you were a rational person the conclusion you would have drawn from that is: egyptians were unlike the peoples of the mediterranean.

    For northern indians are a mixed race ANI + ASI. ASI is native, ANI came from west of the Indus. The higher the ASI the closer to black skinned the Indian, with south indian tamils being as black as ethiopians. Pictures of masses of north indians, and the numerous color portraits from ancient egypt both show very dark-skinned people by west asian or mediterranean standards.

    All that means is that what north indians are to south indians, and what north europeans are to south europeans, or what north chinese are to south chinese is akin to what the ancient egyptians were to ethiopians. Capische, my boy?

    Look more dark brown to me, dear boy…..

    Do ethiopians, to whom the greeks compared you south indians, also look dark brown to you?

    Outliers can be quite interesting, dear boy

    Yes boy, they are interesting. But it is a truly irrational fool who tries to pass them off as representives of the norm, as you are doing.

    Says the man who thinks that John Michell was Negroid

    Where did I say he was negroid? I showed where he was described as black skinned. He could well have been an indian like Chandrasekhar who was seen as a black man in the american midwest in the 1950s . Unfortunately there is no extant portrait of the scientist Michell so we will never know whether he had african or indian ancestry, or was just a white brit who was bizarrely described as black complexioned, as in the examples you have dug up. Btw, can you give any examples from the early 19th century, Michell’s era, where a white englishman was described as black-skinned?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    You sound like a broken record, like a brainwashed cultist.
     
    Coming from someone who thinks that the Amerind Olmec were Negroid.....

    If you were a rational person the conclusion you would have drawn from that is: egyptians were unlike the peoples of the mediterranean.
     
    Actually, the rational conclusion is that they are Caucasoid Mediterraneans.

    For northern indians are a mixed race ANI + ASI.
     
    With higher levels of ANI, dear boy...

    ASI is native, ANI came from west of the Indus.
     
    Yes, Caucasoid West Eurasians.

    The higher the ASI the closer to black skinned the Indian, with south indian tamils being as black as ethiopians.
     
    MMM, not quite, dear boy. To quote Snowden (you really should read him, dear boy) again:

    Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme.
     

    Pictures of masses of north indians, and the numerous color portraits from ancient egypt both show very dark-skinned people by west asian or mediterranean standards.
     
    Yet not as dark as Ethiopians, dear boy....

    All that means is that what north indians are to south indians, and what north europeans are to south europeans, or what north chinese are to south chinese is akin to what the ancient egyptians were to ethiopians.
     
    Actually, Egyptians are to Greeks what Greeks are to Finns, dear boy.

    Do ethiopians, to whom the greeks compared you south indians, also look dark brown to you?
     
    Very, very dark brown, I should say.

    But it is a truly irrational fool who tries to pass them off as representives of the norm, as you are doing.
     
    They establish the boundaries of the norm, dear boy. Hence, the fact that the outliers in Northern India/Pakistan are so much fairer than what may be found in Ethiopia is quite significant.

    Where did I say he was negroid? I showed where he was described as black skinned. He could well have been an indian like Chandrasekhar
     
    Both possibilities are extremely remote, dear boy. For one thing, Michell's race would have been commented upon (cf, for example, the many references to Dumas and Pushkin's Negroid ancestry).

    Unfortunately there is no extant portrait of the scientist Michell so we will never know whether he had african or indian ancestry,
     
    Again, dear boy, it would have been commented upon.The fact that it was not shows that he was Caucasoid.

    or was just a white brit who was bizarrely described as black complexioned,
     
    Not so bizarrely, as my many examples indicate.

    as in the examples you have dug up. Btw, can you give any examples from the early 19th century, Michell’s era, where a white englishman was described as black-skinned?
     
    Michell's era was the 18th century, not the 19th. Michell's dates: 25 December 1724 – 29 April 1793.


    And while I'm here, here's another example of Europeans with black complexions:

    The inhabitants of this Isle are well proportioned, generally brown, and some of a black complexion

    A Tour in Ireland: With General Observations on the Present State of that Kingdom: Made in the Years 1776, 1777, and 1778, and Brought Down to the End of 1779, page 646
     
  332. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Gypsy
    I can't possibly wade through all the comments here, so I hope this hasn't been already said.
    I read an interesting book one time, and since I'm now 60 my memory fails when I try to recall the name (in my defense, however, I read dozens and dozens of books annually.)
    Anyways, here was the theory on why Africans prospered less than residents of other continents: they did not have reliable pack animals. Most of the world, including North America after its invasion by the Spanish, had horses. They also had small, hardy donkeys. The Middle East had camels (though of course the Arabs were responsible for breeding the finest, purest horses on the planet as well). In India, there were elephants---ASIAN elephants, much more docile than their African counterparts.
    Contrast to Africa, which had...zebras; untameable. African elephants, also untameable. Could horses have thrived there? Well, perhaps, if Africa wasn't also home to large predatory beasts such as lions.
    In short, the people themselves had to become their own "beasts of burden", so to speak. It made sense to me, anyways.

    The book to which you refer is Jared Diamonds “Guns, Germs, and Steel”.

    His arguments about African animals being untamable are wrong. Most of those animals have recently been tamed by modern colonists, including the African elephant (tamed even back in the time of Carthage), Ostrich, and Zebra. Google each species on youtube, you can easily find tame cases.

    Wild animals in Europe were difficult to start with as well, before we started selective breeding. But, as the recent experiments with domesticating foxes in less than 50 years demonstrate, it can be done, even with animals which have resisted taming up until now. In the cases of fx. ostriches, mink and foxes, this is due to lack of applying selective breeding (lack of trying), rather than their being completely impossible to domesticate.

  333. There have been African civilizations: Kush, Axum, Mali, Ghana and Songhay, with a few others as well.

    But here is the problem: the ruling family has to be extracted from a small intelligence elite. Most Africans have one crippling problem is that most of them cannot think in abstract terms. They can only perceive what exists in time and space, and what does not, they cannot perceive it.

    And one of the most important abstractions is to conceive of the future. Most Africans live for the day; from the morning, they might have the whole day planned, but ask about tomorrow, and the answer will be “When tomorrow comes.” Thus, massive projects lasting years cannot be put in the hands of the average African.

    Africans are also on average have slower wit than Europeans or East Asians for example. In some cases, as I have seen personally, an African cannot understand a single word of simple instruction that a child of average intelligence might.

    (Also, if you want work out of an African, figure out what he can do first, then explain to him the whole process of it, beginning to end. If he falls short on his work, you have to punish him *physically*, or he won’t be frightened of you and will brush you off. Believe me, nobody is more easily controlled than a frightened African.)

    Zimbabwe failed, because it fell into the hands of an African who could not understand how it was built and how it is maintained, and was a Marxist to boot. Cecil Rhodes should have held on to power, as you do not give in to demands of people who don’t know how to rule like their rulers.

    Equality is a lie, and democracy is a farce. And there is no better example of that than Africa. Not all races are equal, and not all members of a race are equal.

    If you want civilization, let each ethnic group have its own country (there are literally hundreds), and then let them after countless wars sort it out. No more than a dozen will appear.

    The form of rule would be absolute monarchy, whose leaders are intelligent, courageous and honest (the trio together). They will seek to build an empire that will be honored by other countries. This has happened before, but the important part is: the intelligent, courageous and honest rule over the rest, justly and benevolently, but with no acquiescence whatsoever and with brutality when needed.

    • Replies: @Bliss

    Equality is a lie, and democracy is a farce.
     
    You would be happier as a serf in feudal Europe?

    Pretty much everything you are saying about africans was once said about your european ancestors...
  334. “Why Did Civilization Lag in Africa?”

    no winter

  335. @Only Argue the Truth
    There have been African civilizations: Kush, Axum, Mali, Ghana and Songhay, with a few others as well.

    But here is the problem: the ruling family has to be extracted from a small intelligence elite. Most Africans have one crippling problem is that most of them cannot think in abstract terms. They can only perceive what exists in time and space, and what does not, they cannot perceive it.

    And one of the most important abstractions is to conceive of the future. Most Africans live for the day; from the morning, they might have the whole day planned, but ask about tomorrow, and the answer will be "When tomorrow comes." Thus, massive projects lasting years cannot be put in the hands of the average African.

    Africans are also on average have slower wit than Europeans or East Asians for example. In some cases, as I have seen personally, an African cannot understand a single word of simple instruction that a child of average intelligence might.

    (Also, if you want work out of an African, figure out what he can do first, then explain to him the whole process of it, beginning to end. If he falls short on his work, you have to punish him *physically*, or he won't be frightened of you and will brush you off. Believe me, nobody is more easily controlled than a frightened African.)

    Zimbabwe failed, because it fell into the hands of an African who could not understand how it was built and how it is maintained, and was a Marxist to boot. Cecil Rhodes should have held on to power, as you do not give in to demands of people who don't know how to rule like their rulers.

    Equality is a lie, and democracy is a farce. And there is no better example of that than Africa. Not all races are equal, and not all members of a race are equal.

    If you want civilization, let each ethnic group have its own country (there are literally hundreds), and then let them after countless wars sort it out. No more than a dozen will appear.

    The form of rule would be absolute monarchy, whose leaders are intelligent, courageous and honest (the trio together). They will seek to build an empire that will be honored by other countries. This has happened before, but the important part is: the intelligent, courageous and honest rule over the rest, justly and benevolently, but with no acquiescence whatsoever and with brutality when needed.

    Equality is a lie, and democracy is a farce.

    You would be happier as a serf in feudal Europe?

    Pretty much everything you are saying about africans was once said about your european ancestors…

    • Replies: @Only Argue the Truth
    Democracy hasn't worked in Africa. Name one black-run African country with a large population and covering a large stretch of territory that is democratic and prosperous.

    None. Not Kenya, not Tanzania, not Nigeria, not South Africa.

    All that you get in the Western media is process. Elections this, shared power that. Where are the results? Poverty, ignorance, superstition, disease etc.

    Where would you rather live? In Pyongyang or small-town Kenya? Riyadh or small-town South Africa? It's a difficult choice, given how bad the condition of this continent is.

    And plus (for Africa in particular), the low-IQ masses are better off with their work laid out for them, and happier, instead of living at someone else's expense, constantly anxious and angry, on the brink of despair and ready to kill someone.

    , @syonredux
    Look mostly Caucasoid to me

    http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/the-faces-of-ancient-egypt/
    , @syonredux
    Ancient Egyptian hair:

    You can get a decent look at Ramses II hair here. The L’Oreal institite plucked out one of hairs to examine the roots, and found it to be naturallyauburn when he was younger (even grey hair retains pigment in the roots). It was hennaed in his old age to match the colour of his youth. He is descibed as having cynotrichous wavy Caucasian red hair.
     

    Queen Hatshetsut, again very fine wavy hair. The colour is probably due to henna on grey hair
     

    Sitkamos, with loosely curly hair, and again a good definition between skin and hair colour. Beside her is the hair of Thutmosis II, again curly/wavy.
     

    Hair on a skull (the rest is a bit grim). Straight as a ruler, and fairly light coloured.
     

    The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard through dynastic times . . .
     
    http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/mummies-and-mummy-hair-from-ancient-egypt/