|
|
 | | From: | man_in_black529 at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | 16 Jan 2005 14:19:55 -0800 |
|
|
 | P.Comm wrote:
> "stlbl" wrote in message
> news:1105618735.290023.20580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > So the Egyptians were white...and they all had blue eyes....
>
> What's with the blue eyes? Seems to me that depigmented color is
something
> kinda recent - I can post something from a Professor that's very good
> (below). Egyptians were graphically described by people as having
skin sort
> of like how I get if I'm in the sun a bit - coppery. Dark eyes.
They dyed
> their hair all kinds of colors, LOL. They also waxed their legs or
other
> body parts - which means they had hair on them. WHY they'd do that,
is a
> good question. Who'd they see with lack of body hair? Asians?
Body hair, in the Amazon, is a sign of the animal world, so
they remove what little they have. Even pubic hair.
> and the
> > Mayan and Tolmec civilizations were white
>
> Olmec or Toltec? Which? They were white? No they weren't, if you
base it
> on features. One of them may have been Chinese from T'ang Dynasty
people
> coming there. I've seen pure blooded Mayans in the backwaters of
Mexico -
> they look like S. Chinese people - VERY much so. They don't speak
Spanish,
> either.
Well, they don't look southern Chinese to me. (And I live in
California.)
> ---even if either one of us is
> > completely wrong we are still talking about appearances---and skin
> > color is NOT what determines whether or not someone is considered
> > black, especially in America---here, the criteria for black is "One
> > drop" of Negro blood-
>
> Features are what people see - facial recognition. Not color. Color
is too
> changeable.
Agreed. I mean, my features actually are somewhat
Mediterranean-looking.
> > The squalor Im talking about is , say, 1000 to 1500 AD when the
> > Mayans were coming out of a period of high civilization, Egypt's
> > pyramids and sphinx and astronomical knowledge had been around for
> > millenia---and most of Europe (except for the landed gentry and
> > nobility) lived along side of rivers, used open trenches for
latrines
> > and were at the mercy of disease plague and ignorance.
>
> It was a LOT worse than that there - civilized people described it in
detail
> and wrote of it.
Well, living along the river's a good thing; easy access to
water and fish. But yeah, Europeans were at the mercy of the
plague. (On a side note, I read somewhere that Europeans
have more immunity to HIV than the indigenous people of
other regions because of some similarity to bubonic plague.)
> Everyone knows
> > the Renaissance only happened after cultural exchange (if you want
to
> > call the Crusades cultural exchange) with the near east--Ottomans
> > universities, systems of accrued knowledge, etc. In fact the
Catholic
> > church would send their popes and other reiligious dignitaries to
Spain
> > for education.
>
> Spain had a HIGH civilization under the Moors - they were Berber
people.
> When the Moors lost to the Spanish - the civilization went out the
door and
> it became 3rd world - but the Moors went and made war with Songhay
and
> wrecked the shit out of it. Whole library vanished due to that. Ibn
> Battuta chronicles Songhay - some parts of it had lit up streets at
night.
> He doesn't say HOW they lit it up. Back then the Chad River was also
HUGE.
> Climate changed big time there.
People forget that during the Middle Ages, Spain and Turkey
were the only areas which weren't Third World.
> Yeah, but that changes. As I once argued with an off the cliff
leftie that
> blamed all evil imperialism on white males - well, heh, the mantle of
> imperialism seems to have been passed along from one group of people
to
> another - and only very recently do white males have the mantle.
They'll
> probably lose it to China in the future.
Agreed about imperialism; Bush has certainly accelerated
that process. (Only an idiot would cut taxes during
wartime and simultaneously hike spending.) The big problem
is, Americans' biggest industries are credit and debt
collection. As for a correlation, everything has a
correlation. If a correlation's less than .9, I'm not
interested in it. For example, the correlation for stature
and genetics is .990. Herrnstein and Murray's greatest
correlation was .4.
> And it wasnt because the "whites" had more of
> > anything aquired through heredity except maybe gunpowder.
Thankyou.
> > Reply
>
> Heh, the Chinese had gunpowder first - and you may not know, but us
Tatars
> USED that - tho no one else knew what the hell it was - Europeans
thought
> it was demonic power from Tartarus, LMAO.
Hence the name Tatars. Remember, these are people who only
recently realized the value of bathing.
> You see, the wisdom of the
> Chinese on this was that war should NEVER be made so easy that you
can just
> blow up so many people with one shot, including non soldiers. Making
war
> that easy was seen as a very bad idea.
True. I mean, once you start destroying infrastructure,
conquest's no longer worth it. But, while war itself is
basically politics by violent means, the resulting
militarism is what you want to do after the hour 200 of a
filibuster.
> People with the extremely pale skin, hair, and eyes typical of
northern
> Europeans first appeared on the world stage a mere five millennia ago
--
> long after cave men turned into farmers. Despite Hollywood's casting
lovely,
> talented Darryl Hanna as a Paleolithic huntress, it turns out that
"The Clan
> of the Cave Bear" were not White folks at all.
Actually, white folks are genetically closer to black folks
than to "the Clan of the Cave Bear". But apparently even
Ayla (the cro-magnon adopted by neanderthals) wasn't white
as we think of it.
> In fact, DNA
> analysis of Africans of Bantu stock and Europeans reveals that these
two
> groups are today genetically closer than either group is to, say,
Asians or
> Native Americans.
Or even Asians and Melanesians. From the DNA studies I've
read, the genetic phylogeny is something like this:
,---------------------------------------East Africa
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! `--------------Circum-Mediterranean
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ,-----Northern Europe
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! `----------Central Asia
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! `-Circumpolar
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! `--Southern Asia
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !-----------------Pacific Rim
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !-Polynesia
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! `------------------Melanesia
! ! ! !
! ! ! `-----------Australia
! ! !
! ! `----------------------Western Africa
! ! !
! ! `--------Central Africa
! !
! `------------------------------Americas
! !
! `--Tierra del Fuego
!
`----------------------------------------Southern Africa
> Hair-, skin-, and eye-color all come from a body-produced substance
called
> melanin. Africans have lots of melanin. Europeans have very little.
And yet,
> when it comes to melanin, Europeans, not Africans are the exception.
This is
> hard to grasp today. Europeans conquered the planet a few centuries
ago, and
> so you see their descendants everywhere. But consider only natives,
and you
> will soon realize that people from southern India, Andaman Islanders,
> Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines are all as dark as Africans,
I've also seen some fancydancers who were as dark as
Africans. (Hell, I once saw an Eskimo who was almost dark
enough to be black in a movie filmed in Nunavut.)
> Two lines of evidence, art and DNA analysis, tell when the mutation
took
> place. Art brackets the time period of the event. DNA analysis
pinpoints it
> so precisely that we can figure out the cause of its regional
success.
I personally wouldn't use DNA to trace the exact time of a
gene which actually does undergo natural selection, but the
art, and any remains preserved well enough, could give us
a date.
> Another strategy of examining art approaches the question from the
other
> direction, "When was the first portrait of an undoubtedly
fair-complexioned,
> European-looking person painted?" As it turns out, it was a statue
painted
> in Egypt about five millennia ago. It depicts Prince Rahotep and his
Consort
> Nefret, of the Old Kingdom, early Fourth Dynasty. He is brown. She is
pink.
_insert jungle fever joke here_
> For details on the when and how of the paleness adaptation, read
Luigi Luca
> Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and
Geography
> of Human Genes, trans.
Sforza's a bit of a demagogue, IMO. Of course, most pop
scientists end up being so.
> Vitamin D is essential to calcium metabolism. Without it, you get
rickets:
> grotesquely bowed legs and malformed skull and chest. Human skin
produces
> vitamin D when the sun's ultraviolet light penetrates the protective
melanin
> layer. This means that the complexion our ancestors inherited from
> equatorial Africa was a delicate balance. Too little melanin (too
fair a
> complexion) and you would get skin cancer. Too much melanin and you
would
> not produce enough vitamin D.
There's also the issue of folic acid; too much UV radiation
destroys folic acid and thus results in all kinds of birth
defects.
Cancer itself isn't as much an issue in natural selection.
However, humans, being social animals, might lose the
governing body (e.g., old people) to skin cancer.
> They continue to consume mainly animal fat to this
> day and so acquire vitamin D despite weak sunlight. But the Gulf
Stream
> washes northern Europe and warms the Baltic Sea. In this narrow
region, the
> climate allowed the switch to agriculture, but sunlight was too weak
to
> penetrate dark skin and produce vitamin D. Rickets spread through the
> population, as can be seen in the fossil bones of the time.
Agreed for the time.
> Paleness offers neither advantage nor harm around the sunny
Mediterranean,
> so people there are about a 50-50 mix between the pale European model
of
> human being and the original African model. Nowadays, vitamin D is
added to
> commercial foods, so rickets is rare, no matter where you live or how
dark
> your complexion.
A lot of those nutritional diseases are rare now because we
can add the vitamins. I don't know anyone with scurvy; if
you can't get citrus, you can eat organ meats. The big
defects now are a lack of antioxidants and excessive energy
intake; I blame both to some extent on the food industry.
Said food industry raises animals on grain rather than a mix
of vegetables, and is constantly super-sizing.
> Hypothesis: this DEEP kind of trauma of the sick, dead and dying
babies,
> MAY account for this demonification of all things dark - including
dark
> people. Sandor Gilman "On Blackness Without Blacks" is a must read -
to see
> how DEEP this feeling is.
I'd agree there. I mean, look at how fundies are always
talking about men giving people AIDS. The trauma from a
fatal disease which occurs more often in people who meet
certain conditions will always result in discrimination
against people who meet those conditions.
|
|
| | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:19:17 GMT |
|
|
| > P.Comm wrote:
>> "stlbl" wrote in message
>> news:1105618735.290023.20580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > So the Egyptians were white...and they all had blue eyes....
>>
>> What's with the blue eyes? Seems to me that depigmented color is
> something
>> kinda recent - I can post something from a Professor that's very good
>
>> (below). Egyptians were graphically described by people as having
> skin sort
>> of like how I get if I'm in the sun a bit - coppery. Dark eyes.
> They dyed
>> their hair all kinds of colors, LOL. They also waxed their legs or
> other
>> body parts - which means they had hair on them. WHY they'd do that,
> is a
>> good question. Who'd they see with lack of body hair? Asians?
>
> Body hair, in the Amazon, is a sign of the animal world, so
> they remove what little they have. Even pubic hair.
Egypt is not in the Amazon. :)
>
>> and the
>> > Mayan and Tolmec civilizations were white
>>
>> Olmec or Toltec? Which? They were white? No they weren't, if you
> base it
>> on features. One of them may have been Chinese from T'ang Dynasty
> people
>> coming there. I've seen pure blooded Mayans in the backwaters of
> Mexico -
>> they look like S. Chinese people - VERY much so. They don't speak
> Spanish,
>> either.
>
> Well, they don't look southern Chinese to me. (And I live in
> California.)
Try going via the back roads to Chichen Itza. Of course the ones in CA
don't look that way - they are Spanish mostly. The ones along the roads to
Chichen Itza DO.
>
>> ---even if either one of us is
>> > completely wrong we are still talking about appearances---and skin
>> > color is NOT what determines whether or not someone is considered
>> > black, especially in America---here, the criteria for black is "One
>> > drop" of Negro blood-
>>
>> Features are what people see - facial recognition. Not color. Color
> is too
>> changeable.
>
> Agreed. I mean, my features actually are somewhat
> Mediterranean-looking.
>
>> > The squalor Im talking about is , say, 1000 to 1500 AD when the
>> > Mayans were coming out of a period of high civilization, Egypt's
>> > pyramids and sphinx and astronomical knowledge had been around for
>> > millenia---and most of Europe (except for the landed gentry and
>> > nobility) lived along side of rivers, used open trenches for
> latrines
>> > and were at the mercy of disease plague and ignorance.
>>
>> It was a LOT worse than that there - civilized people described it in
> detail
>> and wrote of it.
>
> Well, living along the river's a good thing; easy access to
> water and fish. But yeah, Europeans were at the mercy of the
> plague. (On a side note, I read somewhere that Europeans
> have more immunity to HIV than the indigenous people of
> other regions because of some similarity to bubonic plague.)
>
HIV has some similarity to leukemia (HTLV 1 is leukemia I think). Europeans
homozygous for Gc2 gene are immune - and some that lack a strand of DNA that
AIDS attaches to are immune. That's the last I heard of that. Uh, oh,
James Michael Howard might be interested in this one - that Gc2 gene is part
of that Vitamin D bonding thing.
>> Everyone knows
>> > the Renaissance only happened after cultural exchange (if you want
> to
>> > call the Crusades cultural exchange) with the near east--Ottomans
>> > universities, systems of accrued knowledge, etc. In fact the
> Catholic
>> > church would send their popes and other reiligious dignitaries to
> Spain
>> > for education.
>>
>> Spain had a HIGH civilization under the Moors - they were Berber
> people.
>> When the Moors lost to the Spanish - the civilization went out the
> door and
>> it became 3rd world - but the Moors went and made war with Songhay
> and
>> wrecked the shit out of it. Whole library vanished due to that. Ibn
>
>> Battuta chronicles Songhay - some parts of it had lit up streets at
> night.
>> He doesn't say HOW they lit it up. Back then the Chad River was also
> HUGE.
>> Climate changed big time there.
>
> People forget that during the Middle Ages, Spain and Turkey
> were the only areas which weren't Third World.
True - and more than that - the Tatars (Turks not living in Turkey) had a
HUGE empire - the biggest one to-date in history - and that was not 3rd
world back then either.
>
>> Yeah, but that changes. As I once argued with an off the cliff
> leftie that
>> blamed all evil imperialism on white males - well, heh, the mantle of
>
>> imperialism seems to have been passed along from one group of people
> to
>> another - and only very recently do white males have the mantle.
> They'll
>> probably lose it to China in the future.
>
> Agreed about imperialism; Bush has certainly accelerated
> that process. (Only an idiot would cut taxes during
> wartime and simultaneously hike spending.) The big problem
> is, Americans' biggest industries are credit and debt
> collection. As for a correlation, everything has a
> correlation. If a correlation's less than .9, I'm not
> interested in it. For example, the correlation for stature
> and genetics is .990. Herrnstein and Murray's greatest
> correlation was .4.
? Not sure I understand what you are saying here or what it's about.
Stature is affected by DIET - the white Americans that came here are living
proof of it. Those guys were like 4'10" tall - but due to good diet, they
grew big. Us too. The next generation of us well, my 17 yr old male cousin
was 6'7" tall for an example, his female sister, age 12 was 5'11" and all of
this was due to the mostly beef (steaks) diet here. The parents of both my
cousins are about 5' to 5'3" tall - they starved as kids. They are SHORT.
Meanwhile, both the male and female are still growing and they are very
tall. They are mesomorphics too, they aren't bean poles.
>
>> And it wasnt because the "whites" had more of
>> > anything aquired through heredity except maybe gunpowder.
> Thankyou.
>> > Reply
>>
>> Heh, the Chinese had gunpowder first - and you may not know, but us
> Tatars
>> USED that - tho no one else knew what the hell it was - Europeans
> thought
>> it was demonic power from Tartarus, LMAO.
>
> Hence the name Tatars. Remember, these are people who only
> recently realized the value of bathing.
Well, our own name for ourselves is Tatar (Europeans called it Tartars).
Actually, Tatar is only one tribe - but that tribe was the majority compared
to others.
>
>> You see, the wisdom of the
>> Chinese on this was that war should NEVER be made so easy that you
> can just
>> blow up so many people with one shot, including non soldiers. Making
> war
>> that easy was seen as a very bad idea.
>
> True. I mean, once you start destroying infrastructure,
> conquest's no longer worth it. But, while war itself is
> basically politics by violent means, the resulting
> militarism is what you want to do after the hour 200 of a
> filibuster.
>
>> People with the extremely pale skin, hair, and eyes typical of
> northern
>> Europeans first appeared on the world stage a mere five millennia ago
> --
>> long after cave men turned into farmers. Despite Hollywood's casting
> lovely,
>> talented Darryl Hanna as a Paleolithic huntress, it turns out that
> "The Clan
>> of the Cave Bear" were not White folks at all.
>
> Actually, white folks are genetically closer to black folks
> than to "the Clan of the Cave Bear". But apparently even
> Ayla (the cro-magnon adopted by neanderthals) wasn't white
> as we think of it.
Ah, that's a movie. I know whites are closer to blacks. Central Asian or
Siberian Asiatics are the furthest from blacks. Not sure about China.
>
>> In fact, DNA
>> analysis of Africans of Bantu stock and Europeans reveals that these
> two
>> groups are today genetically closer than either group is to, say,
> Asians or
>> Native Americans.
Yup.
>
> Or even Asians and Melanesians. From the DNA studies I've
> read, the genetic phylogeny is something like this:
>
> ,---------------------------------------East Africa
> ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! `--------------Circum-Mediterranean
> ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! ! ,-----Northern Europe
> ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! `----------Central Asia
> ! ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! ! ! `-Circumpolar
> ! ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! ! `--Southern Asia
> ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! !-----------------Pacific Rim
> ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! ! !-Polynesia
> ! ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! `------------------Melanesia
> ! ! ! !
> ! ! ! `-----------Australia
> ! ! !
> ! ! `----------------------Western Africa
> ! ! !
> ! ! `--------Central Africa
> ! !
> ! `------------------------------Americas
> ! !
> ! `--Tierra del Fuego
> !
> `----------------------------------------Southern Africa
>
>> Hair-, skin-, and eye-color all come from a body-produced substance
> called
>> melanin. Africans have lots of melanin. Europeans have very little.
> And yet,
>> when it comes to melanin, Europeans, not Africans are the exception.
Well, as I said somewhere else, Central Asians and many Chinese are a lot
"whiter" than Europeans.
> This is
>> hard to grasp today. Europeans conquered the planet a few centuries
> ago, and
>> so you see their descendants everywhere. But consider only natives,
> and you
>> will soon realize that people from southern India, Andaman Islanders,
>
>> Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines are all as dark as Africans,
The shade they have is different - except for the Adaman Islanders. But if
you want to go by skin color alone - then China, with the most people in the
world populating it - those people have white skin - and I mean WHITE, way
whiter than many Germans even. The racial name "white" is very misleading -
it does not just refer to skin color - it refers to features. Chinese
people are whiter than most "white" people. In fact, so am I, if I'm not
tan from being outside.
>
> I've also seen some fancydancers who were as dark as
> Africans. (Hell, I once saw an Eskimo who was almost dark
> enough to be black in a movie filmed in Nunavut.)
Keep in mind, Eskimos are outside a lot. I can get dark like that, like a
person from India - same shade of dark - if I'm outside a lot - especially
since I live in the tropics and love the beach and ocean :)
>
>> Two lines of evidence, art and DNA analysis, tell when the mutation
> took
>> place. Art brackets the time period of the event. DNA analysis
> pinpoints it
>> so precisely that we can figure out the cause of its regional
> success.
>
> I personally wouldn't use DNA to trace the exact time of a
> gene which actually does undergo natural selection, but the
> art, and any remains preserved well enough, could give us
> a date.
You are responding to Sweet's article - I think he used that approach too.
>
>> Another strategy of examining art approaches the question from the
> other
>> direction, "When was the first portrait of an undoubtedly
> fair-complexioned,
>> European-looking person painted?" As it turns out, it was a statue
> painted
>> in Egypt about five millennia ago. It depicts Prince Rahotep and his
> Consort
>> Nefret, of the Old Kingdom, early Fourth Dynasty. He is brown. She is
> pink.
>
> _insert jungle fever joke here_
LMAO - oh, are you MIB my pal? He's probably brown from being outside.
Color for us was never an issue because we CHANGE so much and so FAST.
Features are seen. HEY - check these photos - the b/w of me might show you
something - got some of me, mom, dad, brother and grandfather:
www.geocities.com/go_darkness/pictures.html
>
>> For details on the when and how of the paleness adaptation, read
> Luigi Luca
>> Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and
> Geography
>> of Human Genes, trans.
>
> Sforza's a bit of a demagogue, IMO. Of course, most pop
> scientists end up being so.
>
>> Vitamin D is essential to calcium metabolism. Without it, you get
> rickets:
>> grotesquely bowed legs and malformed skull and chest. Human skin
> produces
>> vitamin D when the sun's ultraviolet light penetrates the protective
> melanin
>> layer. This means that the complexion our ancestors inherited from
>> equatorial Africa was a delicate balance. Too little melanin (too
> fair a
>> complexion) and you would get skin cancer. Too much melanin and you
> would
>> not produce enough vitamin D.
>
> There's also the issue of folic acid; too much UV radiation
> destroys folic acid and thus results in all kinds of birth
> defects.
>
> Cancer itself isn't as much an issue in natural selection.
> However, humans, being social animals, might lose the
> governing body (e.g., old people) to skin cancer.
>
>> They continue to consume mainly animal fat to this
>> day and so acquire vitamin D despite weak sunlight. But the Gulf
> Stream
>> washes northern Europe and warms the Baltic Sea. In this narrow
> region, the
>> climate allowed the switch to agriculture, but sunlight was too weak
> to
>> penetrate dark skin and produce vitamin D. Rickets spread through the
>
>> population, as can be seen in the fossil bones of the time.
>
> Agreed for the time.
>
>> Paleness offers neither advantage nor harm around the sunny
> Mediterranean,
>> so people there are about a 50-50 mix between the pale European model
> of
>> human being and the original African model. Nowadays, vitamin D is
> added to
>> commercial foods, so rickets is rare, no matter where you live or how
> dark
>> your complexion.
>
> A lot of those nutritional diseases are rare now because we
> can add the vitamins. I don't know anyone with scurvy; if
> you can't get citrus, you can eat organ meats. The big
> defects now are a lack of antioxidants and excessive energy
> intake; I blame both to some extent on the food industry.
> Said food industry raises animals on grain rather than a mix
> of vegetables, and is constantly super-sizing.
Well, TRANSFATS! anything with "partially hydrogenated oil of any kind" is
TRIPLE bad.
>
>> Hypothesis: this DEEP kind of trauma of the sick, dead and dying
> babies,
>> MAY account for this demonification of all things dark - including
> dark
>> people. Sandor Gilman "On Blackness Without Blacks" is a must read -
> to see
>> how DEEP this feeling is.
>
> I'd agree there. I mean, look at how fundies are always
> talking about men giving people AIDS. The trauma from a
> fatal disease which occurs more often in people who meet
> certain conditions will always result in discrimination
> against people who meet those conditions.
Fuck yes! And the fundies are modern people. Picture it back then, during
shaman days - all the dark ones sick and rickety, babies dying? HORRORS -
they must have been horrified. They wouldn't have the knowledge to figure
it was what they ate. But they would see lighter people doing OK with
babies. Bingo - there it is.
>
|
|
|
