Something Wrong with America? or Why Is America Hated? By A. J. Harvey-Hall

An interesting piece from a reader and financial supporter (thank you!) of this website. Hope you enjoy it.

Something Wrong With America? or Why is America hated?

By A. J. Harvey-Hall, Australia

Where do I start?
I originally wrote this in 2013 when I was mad as hell, and here we are in 2015, and I am still mad as hell at you guys. Most of what I have written has come true.
Don’t believe me – ask your Remote Viewing (Project Stargate) people to drop in and check me out. It works both ways in case you are unaware.
Coming from Australia I can tell you a hell of a lot of where America “went wrong”. I am not saying Australia is/was perfect – it’s just a fact we were the last large island/continent settled by the so-called enlightened Westerners – due to distance we saw where everyone else stuffed up and decided as a whole not to do that (Commonwealth knowledge?).
Canada is very similar to Australia, so look to them as well. One thing’s for certain – everyone gets a fair go in this country. We are multicultural and tolerant. Early Western settlers did not treat the Aboriginals appropriately, but in summary, it was probably no different to any superior culture that overtook another at some time in history. It’s easy to look back and say what the Westerners did to Aboriginals was disgraceful.
I have a right to tell you how it is because Australia is the only country that has fought every war alongside America all through WW1 and WW2 and several “police” actions.
Let’s revisit some words spoken by one of your greatest presidents in the course of the America’s Cup back in 1962 when Australia was still a country of 10 million:
Quoting Kennedy –

Ambassador, Lady Beale, Ambassador and Mrs. Berckmeyer, Ambassador and Lady Ormsby Gore, the Ambassador from Portugal, our distinguished Ministers from Australia, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I know that all of us take the greatest pleasure in being here, first of all because whether we are Australian or American, we are all joined by a common interest, a common devotion and love for the sea.
And I am particularly glad to be here because this Cup is being challenged by our friends from Australia, this extraordinary group of men and women numbering some 10 million, who have demonstrated on many occasions, on many fields, in many countries, that they are the most extraordinarily athletic group in the world today, and that this extraordinary demonstration of physical vigor and skill has come not by the dictates of the state because the Australians are among the freest citizens in the world, but because of their choice…
Australia became committed to physical fitness, and it has been disastrous for the rest of us. We have the highest regard for Australia, Ambassador. As you said, we regard them as very satisfactory friends in peace and the best of friends in war. And I know there are a good many Americans of my generation who have the greatest possible reason to be grateful to the Australians who wrote a most distinguished record all the way from the desert of North Africa, and most particularly in the islands of the South Pacific, where their particular courage and gallantry I think met the strongest response in all of us in this country.
But I really don’t look to the past. I look to the present. The United States and Australia are most intimately bound together today, and I think that — and I speak as one who has had some experience in friendship and some experience in those who are not our friends — we value very much the fact that on the other side of the Pacific, the Australians inhabit a very key and crucial area and that the United States is most intimately associated with them. So beyond this race, beyond the result, rests this happy relationship between two great people.
– President John F. Kennedy, Newport, Rhode Island, September 14, 1962

Let’s go back to the (your) War of Independence:
The English were wrong in what they were doing – hence independence – not a problem. In gaining independence however you put in place the building blocks that as of today are not crumbling – they have already crumbled.
Every builder in the world knows that unless your foundations are spot on and repaired when cracks appear, a structure cannot live for hundreds of years. You must update and repair as you go to ensure the building is viable for hundreds of years ongoing – not just paper over it.
The building I am referring to is the “United States of America”. It has now crumbled as a result of a demarcation dispute between your two political parties that act worse than our Australian Parliament. Each party is only out to make a name for itself and has lost the understanding of “serving the people”.
Let’s talk about your constitution – ohhh – am I upsetting you already? Remember I am an outsider who is looking in giving you an unbiased opinion.
When your Constitution was framed it was OK, for the day!
It is now the oldest ‘out of date’ Constitution in the world. Don’t stand behind your outdated constitution. Start again. Be bold.
Yes – you have made amendments, but those amendments are just papering over extensions – you need to go back and look at the foundations and do the work there.
Take one example – a right to bear arms.
It was OK 200 years ago when things were a bit rough – it is not acceptable in the 20th or 21st Centuries, but you will not remove that right. How many people have died in your country as a result of that one so called right?
Your gun culture is one of the bases (not basis) that has crumbled. This is ultimately why you have numerous police forces that are happy to shoot first and ask questions later.
Your children and work colleagues will continue to die in massacres as a result of this “right“. They will continue to die in soft target areas such as schools, mass transport, malls, parades (early days – wait for it).
Hang on – maybe the British, Russians or Communists are still coming to invade. Pity you don’t update your Constitution the same way you enforce updates to laws you force upon people who want to trade with you.
You allow gun lobbyists to “set the course” with government officials, senators and the public.
Since when did lobbyists of any ilk run the government? Since when did they represent “the people”?
You continue to think of arms as a gun – they are no longer guns – instead are bombs, viruses or maybe even the Internet itself. But it’s OK because you have a right” to bear arms.
Let’s talk about your medical care.
Actually let’s save time and refer to Michael Moore. He is spot on. How can you allow your own citizens suffer and even die on the streets because they don’t have medical insurance? And some of your citizens applaud this stance.
How about your returned veterans – even wounded veterans have to fight to get medical assistance upon return – why – because you outsourced the process and someone applied expiry dates that wounded veterans were not aware of. It then requires an act of Congress or a law to be passed to allowed them back into the system.
More veterans have committed suicide upon return that you lost in actual combat. That is an absolute disgrace.
Even that poor, small country across from Florida – Cuba – does it better than you. A pissant island makes you look like a disgrace. Ohhh that’s right…you won’t interact with them because they put one over you in the Cuban Missile crisis. Get over it – you eventually did with Vietnam. And that leads me to another chapter – Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia…or shouldn’t I mention all the “minor” illegal wars you waged?
You lost LOST the Vietnam War – admit it. You will also lose the Afghanistan and Iraqi Wars. The Middle Eastern wars are also bankrupting your country – why can’t day to day Americans see this? No one (starting with Alexander the Great) has ever conquered Afghanistan – get real or get out.
If you think those wars are over, and as G. W. Bush said, “Mission completed”…think again. You have effectively put people in charge who are far worse than the dictators that were already there in Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Afghanistan etc. and now you are trying to do the same in Crimea via the Ukraine. You are responsible for the extremists that are now running around the Middle East, and I don’t mean Al Qaeda. You are responsible for the creation of ISIS.
Let’s look at all those African refugees (including Syrians, Lebanese etc.) who are risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea to get to Europe. The USA is totally responsible for all these simply because of WMD lies that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. All Middle East actions from thereon are his fault. He is a war criminal – oopps did I break one of your laws saying he is a war criminal in the land of the free and home of the brave? The land of free speech?
Fact – history is written by the victors.
The USA is trying to run the Middle East like a corporation – all the top executives from the G. W. Bush era on are criminals lining their own pockets.
Starting wars in the 21st century will no longer get a country out of a recession. It’s simply profit-making. Why don’t you take Saudi Arabia to task for 9/11? Ohhh that’s right, they control the oil flow. Don’t upset them – why don’t you find an alternative to Middle East oil?
Are you getting a message here?
The entire world dislikes and even hates you. You have acted the bully for many years after The Korean War, effectively destroying the good will you established in the early 20th century. You are hated across all lines – economic, religious, social, political and otherwise.
What is your obsession with Israel?
Fact – Israel was founded by Jewish terrorists. They set off bombs, killed people and destroyed property to achieve their aims. Because the world had ‘sympathy’ for Jews after WW2, it happened and a blind eye was turned. Today Middle America strongly believes in the Bible literally and as such wants to see Israel succeed in order the “Second Coming” results.
People – the Bible is a guide. It is not Gospel.
Why? In the early centuries, the Roman Catholic Church held conferences and decided which books, writings and teachings ended up in “The Bible”. God did not decide which early Christian books ended up in The Bible – so it is absolute rubbish for someone to state that the Bible guides what the United States should do. Too many real accounts of Jesus’ workings were excluded. The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for closing our eyes to the real Christ.
Hopefully Pope Francis can arrest this BS.
There are numerous United Nations resolutions that Israel has refused to comply with. By the way – are you (USA) financially paid up with the UN, or do you still refuse to pay in a timely manner in order to attempt to remind them that you rule over them?
How about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that lead to invasion? Colin Powell held up a drawing and said – here is the proof. You never found proof and never admitted you were wrong. Yes – Saddam Hussein was a bastard but he had the warring clans under control. It was all ALL about oil and nothing else. When the mud got too deep, you changed tact and said it was all about democracy. How far is Greece from Iraq? – damn closer that the USA. If the Greeks could not influence them – you sure in Hell can’t.
You can resolve the Palestinian problem in a matter of weeks, but you won’t due to that “minority” in the Middle East. This bullshit has been going on for 60 years.
Everyone knows (sorry – obviously you don’t) – the longer a problem festers, the harder and more costly it is to resolve.
I worked in the finance industry for many years and can only say that the number of times “we” (non-Americans) had to change our processes and rules etc. because the USA had set ‘”new standards” makes me sick. The standards set were not improvements – they were changed to line your pockets.
Look at Sarbanes Oxley for example – the world spent hundreds of billions of $’s attempting to comply because the USA would not do business with another country unless they did so only to see the USA itself found it too costly to implement itself! What a joke!
We now have many European countries in dire straits as a direct result of the exporting of American ways.
You destroyed the financial industry with your Subprime rubbish.
What about changes to financial models and makes etc. of any product or service that demand that people buy the “updated” version to reline your pockets. This is simply to keep the money wheel turning. You are desperately trying to ensure it keeps turning long enough for your problems to be passed to some other country or the next generation.
Ever thought about how much you spend on items such as defense, spying, war, inventing, manufacturing and using machines of war? Just imagine if only half of that was diverted to your health programs, science or to the benefit of other countries less fortunate? What about converting the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines into an international force for peace and relief of local and international disasters?
How can you allow a company to have a patent on the human breast cancer gene? You have to be kidding the world – but then again that’s your Constitution at work. No one owns human genes!
What happened to the “United States” that I remember as a child? That far-off country whose technology was so far advanced we could never dream of equaling.
What happened to that country that every county – even Russia in the old days – feared  -a form of respect?
Oh – and how long before I get the FBI, CIA, and all your other bullshit muscle agencies to frame me for some rubbish and shut me down…
A parting true story:
In late 1978/early 1979 my family traveled to Washington state where my father was working on behalf of a company in Australia. Unfortunately, departing Auckland NZ they had an emergency which meant we had to go back, dumping fuel on the way. 24 hours later we took off again after repairs and finally landed in Honolulu. My mother was pretty savvy and said get to the front of the Customs line so we can get to the connecting flight to LA.
Well – I was at the front of the queue, 18 years old, looking at an overweight female Customs officer wearing a gun strutting back and forwards. Her welcoming words to the Australians and New Zealanders were, “If you step over that yellow line, I will shoot you!” What a fucking joke – in 1978! No wonder you have a gun problem.
Welcome to America!
Congratulations to the NRA who lobby the most congressman/women on both sides.
Fact – I was born in July 1960, and in November 1963 I still vividly recall my parents being very upset when they heard of the news of Kennedy’s death despite my being three years old. All the more remarkable is the fact that we lived in Papua New Guinea – a protectorate of Australia at the time – literally a colonial backwater. I was too young to understand but remembered the words Kennedy and death and vaguely remembered the Cuba Crisis. We cried in the backwaters of the Pacific!
I fully understand that the Kennedys had their dalliances. Small beer in the scheme of things.
He and his brother are the standard you must return to.
Did Kennedy not say “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country?”
And in closing, written on the base of the Statue of Liberty…

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Emma Lazurus

My country totally lacks world-shaking oratory ,but I think we more than make up with it in our actions.

What is the Maximum IQ a Human Can Have?

From Quora.
There has been a lot of writing on this at genius.com. The man who writes that page estimates that Goethe and a few others had IQ’s up to 220. That’s about the limit.
Sidis was estimated by a psychologist who examined him to have an IQ to 250–300, but I have no idea what that means. Sidis dropped out of college, basically disappeared and devoted the rest of his life to collecting bus schedules. This is a pretty typical outcome for people with IQ’s in the “smartest man on Earth” range.
The smartest man in the world, Christopher Langan, is said to have an IQ of 200. He dropped out of college – he said he knew more than his professors and it was boring. He has spent his life working at jobs like truck driver, lumberjack and most recently, bar bouncer. Working at menial jobs is actually very common for people with stratospheric intelligence scores. They often don’t get along with people real well and many prefer menial jobs which give them time to think. In Europe in the last century, many of the people (usually men) who scored the highest of all on intelligence tests were known to work at menial jobs, often taking jobs like factory worker or janitor. When asked, they said that they preferred menial jobs because it gave them time to think.
It gets hard to measure very high IQ’s.
Children can have very high IQ’s because their IQ’s are measured in terms how smart they are for their age. Using that scale, childhood IQ’s of up to 400 have been calculated. All of these very high IQ scores among children in the 200’s and 300’s and even up to 400 are correct, but none of them can be sustained in adulthood. Of course, once they hit 18, you start counting the scores the other way, and they can’t have much above 200.
Talented people are always interesting.
There are plenty of fine athletes in high school and college who decided not to go into sports. They were still great athletes with excellent talent. There are people who can draw very well but don’t feel like using it. Likewise with music, writing, all sorts of things. All of this is interesting. I would love to hear about someone who had great artistic or musical talent who just decided they did not want to go that way and didn’t explore their talent. Do we beat these people over head with verbal clubs for not using their fine talents? Of course not.
There are many very good-looking people who never went into acting or modeling. Do we pummel them over the head with this for not using their good looks? Of course not. No one has to use their natural gifts in any particular way, and it’s no crime to be the handsomest man on Earth who never did anything with it but use to get women. And that is exactly how many very good-looking men use their inborn gift of great looks – they use it to get women.
Due to our hatred of intelligence and intellectuals, it is only intelligence that is attacked as “worthless unless you do something with it.” No other talent is attacked this way. People who do this are showing how much hate they feel towards intelligent people, especially highly intelligent ones.
I would also point out that people who fuss and fume about intelligence test scores are actually displaying a hatred of human intelligence. I ask these people, “Why do you feel so much hatred towards human intelligence? Is it sour grapes? Are you dumb? Is that why? Is it because you are stupid and resentful of people with faster brains? Are you so insecure that you must attack your intellectual betters to drive them down to your level?”
Look around you. Look at all these fancy devices we use all day every single day in our lives. Guess what, intelligence haters? All of those things were developed by smart people. Often very smart people, some of the smartest people out there. Human intelligence is what got us to this our present developed civilization. We would not have all these fancy highways, skyscrapers and vast bubbling metropolises without human intelligence. But you hate it, right? So why don’t you back and leave in a cave? You won’t have to worry about any of those pesky smart people there.
I would say if you hate human intelligence so much, why don’t you go live with dumb people? Dumb people are real dumb, so you don’t have to worry about anyone talking about their scores on intelligence tests. Hell, they probably don’t even know what an intelligence test is.
Aborigines are one of the least intelligent people on Earth. Why don’t you go live with them? They have lots of settlements where they don’t do much but collect welfare, drink booze, sniff glue and molest children. And on top of that, they’re pretty damn stupid, which is probably the main reason why they spend all their time in these activities. You’d be right at home since you hate human intelligence so much. No worries! You’d be surrounded by morons! You should be in paradise, right?
Many high IQ and very high IQ people explore their talent every day by necessity. They never give it up like lapsed athletes, artists, writers, etc. These people are very interesting to meet, at least for me anyway. High IQ people are fascinating whether they are “using” their talent or not. And what does using it mean anyway? Making a pile of money off of it. Not everyone is so mercenary.
My mother has a 150 IQ, yet she never “did anything with it.” So what! Why did she have to? She’s one of the smartest women I’ve ever met. Are we that greedy and mercenary that all talents must be converted into sleazy dollar bills?
Natural talents are interesting and praiseworthy no matter what use they are put to. By valuing brains only for how many dollar bills can be collected with them, Americans show just how greedy and sleazy they really are.
There is a long tradition of this BS. Check out Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in  American Life. It was written in the 1950’s. One of the reasons Adlai Stevenson lost in that decade is that he was considered to be an egghead. That is, Americans incredibly decided that Stevenson was somehow too smart to be President and they would be much happier with some a bit dumber.
Hofstadter wrote another classic article around the same time called, The Paranoid Style  in American Politics. Conspiracy theory and  the politics of paranoia have a very long history in this country. You can look around you right now at all these wingnuts and see that this thinking style is booming right along as always.
Hofstadter was one of the finest American political scientists. You might want to check him out.

More on South Asian Genetics, with a Note on Ashkenazi Jews

Here is a followup to my Indian friend’s post on South Asian genetics. Interesting stuff, and also goes into the genetics of Europeans in some details. Good post on Caucasoid/Non-Caucasoid mixture the world over.

Robert, just as an addendum/clarification to my post above:

I’d first like to address the point I made about the genetic makeup of South Asians, including Indians:

I’m glad you appreciated my post and accepted the validity of the crux of it, especially the major point that Indians have two major ancestral components, ANI and ASI, with ANI being closest to modern-day Georgians and 100% Caucasian in genetic makeup and ASI being a ~60%-40% mix of Caucasian and ancient South-East Asian (related to the ANE component in Europeans) respectively. I also pointed out that the 40-50% of ASI that is non-Caucasian is ancient South-East Asian admixture for the majority of South Asians, and that it has nothing to do with any other source population.

However, I noticed that you mentioned something about the Australoid-like component in a minority of (lowest-caste) South and East Indians that show up on a few charts (though not the majority). It seems like you are implying that other Indian populations might also have this admixture. This is completely, patently false.

While I conceded that these isolated tribal groups in the South and Far East of India have a few genetic markers pertaining to Australoid-like populations, I carefully pointed out the fact that other mainland, Subcontinental populations have NO Australoid genetic ancestry to speak of. This includes all other Indians who do not belong to these super-small minorities that live in isolation and are composed of tribal groups and untouchables outside of the caste system.

As far as the tribal populations I alluded to earlier are concerned, it is true that some members among them share certain markers with a common ancestor of Australoid-like people, as recent genetic research has shown:

Direct Genetic Link between Australia and India Provides New Insight into the Origins of Australian Aborigines

However, this is only limited to a super-small minority of tribes that are exceptionally geographically and racially isolated with no contact with the outside world. Even these tribes have been shown to be more similar to each other than to Australoid-like populations, as has been published in peer-reviewed research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6479999

Let me restate and clarify what the latest archaeogenetic research has conclusively shown about the genetics of mainland Indians that belong to the vast majority of castes and sub-castes in India (excluding tribals):

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that ASI or the South Indian component in Indians is related to modern-day Australoids or even Negritos. These are the fst distances, the most widely used measure of genetic distance between populations, between ASI and other populations:

Caucasian: 0.077
Baloch: 0.08
NE Asian: 0.081
NE Euro: 0.082
SE Asian: 0.084
SW Asian: 0.091
Siberian: 0.093
Mediterranean: 0.095
Beringian: 0.116
E African: 0.122
American: 0.128
W African: 0.142
Papuan: 0.145
Pygmy: 0.188
San: 0.203
BTW, Here are the Fst distances for your perusal:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=2

If one actually reads this fst distance spreadsheet I posted above (with data from Reich et.al and other Harvard geneticists), it is clear that the South Indian/ASI component is closest to Gedrosia (at 0.081) followed by Caucasus (at 0.082) and East Asian (at 0.085) and Northern European at (0.086). This clearly shows that it’s actually closer to Gedrosia and Caucasus than the East Asian components. Again, the component is closest to Caucasian, Baloch, NE Asian, NE Euro and SE Asian in that order. So its closer to Caucasian populations, followed by a Mongoloid South-East Asian population, followed by a North-Eastern European population.

In other words, the ASI/South Indian component is actually closer to Caucasian populations than even Mongoloid populations, and it is nowhere near close to Australoid populations. In fact, it’s even closer to North Eastern Europeans than Australoids and closer to West and East African than the Papuan component!

We all know very well that apart from the Siddis and Makranis (exceptionally small, endogamous communities of Africans found on the West Coast of India thanks to the Arab slave trade) there is no SSA/Sub-Saharan African or Negroid genetic influence in South Asia to speak of, so the long-parroted hogwash about there being an Australoid-like component in Indian populations is nothing but hot air. It’s like saying that Indians are part Negroid, which is laughable but according to the distances, it would still be less laughable than saying that they are part-Australoid. In other words, the whole Australoid theory is utterly wrong.

Also, the South Indian component clusters slightly closer to the West Eurasian components and in particular Gedrosia, a Caucasian component. Being roughly intermediate between the Siberian and Gedrosia components does NOT make the South Asian component Australoid in any way. Especially, when the HAP South Indian component is almost twice as close to the Caucasian component than it is to the Papuan component.

I’m not saying the South Indian component is completely West Eurasian, but it’s clearly mixed between ANI and ASI with the majority being ANI. In addition, Australoids cluster closest to East Eurasians (in particular Southeast Asians) than other populations. The South Asian/South Indian component is intermediate between Siberian and Gedrosia, Siberian being East Asia, and Gedrosia being Caucasian. It is actually slightly closer to Caucasian components than East Eurasian components, therefore, the component is ~60% Caucasian in nature, as I explained earlier. In fact, that is what Reich suggested in his original paper on ANI-ASI. That it represents ancestry that is not particularly close to either West or East Eurasians, but marginally closer to the Caucasian component, hence the 60% value again.

The South Indian component is so distant from the Papuan “Australoid-like” component that its laughable to suggest any connection as I explained above. Again, as the fst distances show, it is actually the furthest from all blacks, and then Papuans — Papuans are even further removed from the South Indian component than the East and West Africans! So there is no relation to Australoids/Onge or Papuans at all. If anything, there is a pull towards East Asians, who themselves are closest to some Negrito populations but still quite far away from them.

Some South Asians pull towards East Asians like all of Europe, particularly Northern and Eastern Europe and even Southern Europe in general, with the same affinities to the same populations, because of the ASI admixture which is present in Europeans in ANE form, which BTW is also 10% SE Asian and Australoid-like according to the latest research. Furthermore, the unusually high South and Southeast Asian scores in some Europeans can be explained by shared ANE ancestry with South Asians (in the form of ASI).

I’d also like to add that Melanesians and Papuans cluster in an isolated position by themselves and are somewhat divergent from one another, while South Asians are closest to West Eurasians with a pull toward East Eurasians. All that means is that the ASI portion of the South Indian component split less recently from the ancestors of the Papuans compared to other populations and is South-East Asian in nature. In addition, any fst distance over 0.1 is still quite distant.

Also, Dravidians have been hypothesized to be Caucasoids before admixing with Asians in India. Is it not possible the Brahui are the remnants of the original Dravidian speaking Neolithic West Asian farmers? While the rest of the Dravidian speakers migrated deeper into the subcontinent, the Brahui somehow got isolated in the Gedrosia/Balochistan region but retained their Dravidian language albeit with significant Balochi influence.

As for Mehrgarh, the Dravidians of that region weren’t forever sedentary. So what I am saying is, some of them did go to West Asian regions. BTW, recently they found Indian mtdna in ancient people all the way in Syria:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/09/ancient-mtdna-haplogroup-m-from-syria.html

If Indian mtdna has been found in ancient Syrians, then you can be pretty sure that the Dravidians did go to Iran as well.

In essence, Indians are Mediterranean Whites, with ancestry closest to present-day Georgians, with some Ancient SE Asian admixture of varying levels, based on caste + region of origin. Indians are dark due to the tropical, humid climate, high UV levels and micro-evolution and sexual selection resulting from living in the subcontinent. Also, the fact that their Caucasian component is Mediterranean, specifically, Georgian in nature, combined with their proficient tanning ability and mutation and variation specific to Indian evolution along with the ancient SE Asian admix, also gave them a unique appearance and complexion.

I’d like to conclude by reiterating the fact that the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian; on 23andme- Indians score 60-95% European, and the Central/West Eurasian Caucasoid component varies from 70-95% in NW India and 50-70% in South India. Here is an ancestry chromosome painting of an archetypal upper-caste Indian man from the NW of India:

View post on imgur.com

As you can see, this man is 90% Caucasian and 10% Asian, and fits right in with the genetic data above. That conclusively proves all of the points/studies/data outlined above. Now I’ll address the other two points you made.

Now, as far as the point you made regarding Ashkenazi Jews not having Negroid admixture, note how I said that their admixture was distributed between Mongoloid and Negroid, not evenly so. Anyway, here are a couple studies that support my earlier point about them being 16.47% admixed with Negroid and Mongoloid:

“Serum samples from Armenians, and from Libyan and Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel were tested for Gm (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, 24, 26) and for Inv(1) [Km(1)]. The Gm data indicate that all three populations have Negroid and Mongoloid admixture. The minimum amount of admixture varies from 3.1% (Armenians) to 5.5% (Libyan Jews). This admixture had not been detected by the study of other polymorphisms, thus once again underlining the sensitivity of the Gm system.

The haplotype frequencies among the Libyan Jews are markedly different from those among the Ashkenazi Jews. Surprisingly (coincidentally?) the haplotype frequencies among the Ashkenazi Jews and the Armenians are similar. The Libyan Jews have a significantly higher frequency of Inv 1 than do the Ashkenazi Jews and among the latter, Inv 1 is at least twice as frequent among Polish Jews as it is among Russian Jews.”
More at this Link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t76x467633412wwj/

Further, more evidence regarding the admixture of Ashkenazi Jews:
“According to Behar et. al. (2004), 5% of Ashkenazi DNA consists of Central Asian/Siberian Mongoloid Y-DNA Haplogroup Q. Y-DNA R-M17 (R1a1a) chromosomes have been detected at frequencies of 11.5% by Nebel et. al. (2004) and are of Central Asian origin with a probable vector of transmission in the Turko-Mongoloid Khazars. If we accept a proximate Turko-Mongoloid origin for Khazar Eu 19 chromosomes as was proposed by Nebel et. al. (2004), it could be argued that 16.5% of Ashkenazi Y-DNA is of Mongoloid origin. Admixture ratios for Ashkenazi mtDNA might be even higher. And of course, Negroid admixture (being approximately 1%) is negligible.”

Even more evidence:
“According to the supplementary data of Behar et. al. (2004) on low-frequency Ashkenazi mtDNA’s, they have a total of 3.7% non-Caucasoid maternal admixture, with the Negroid mtDNA haplogroup L2a being the most common at 1.8%.”
Link:

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000625.html

And more evidence yet again:
“I also forgot to mention that Behar et. al. (2004) also indicates that Ashkenazi Jews have non-Caucasoid Y-DNA haplogroups N and E*(xE3b), for a grand total of 6.1% non-Caucasoid ancestry (including Q). Added to R-M17, this comes out to 17.6% Mongoloid admixture.”

Link: http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000627.html

“The presence of three haplotypes at very low frequencies (0.3– 1.5%) in Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations (1A, 3A, and YAP1 5) may be explained by low levels of gene flow from sub-Saharan African populations. This conclusion is consistent with the observed presence of low frequencies of African mtDNA haplotypes in Jewish populations (16). Two haplotypes (1U and 1C) that are common in Asian populations (33) were present at low frequencies in Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations.
(Table 1).”

“Autosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA samples of Ashkenazic Jews occasionally reveal faint signals of descent from Sub-Saharan Africans from West, Central, South, and East Africa who belong to the Negroid race, which is typified by the Bantu peoples and differentiated from the Pygmy and Bushmen races as well as from the North African Caucasoids (white Berbers and Coptic Egyptians). The hairstyle amusingly called the “Jewfro”, sported by those rare Ashkenazim who have very curly hair of a kinky sort and don’t artificially straighten it, is a probable physical indicator of this descent.

Most Ashkenazic Jews, however, have no genetic trace of Sub-Saharan African descent. Scientific laboratory admixture tests usually show that most Ashkenazim are basically zero percent Sub-Saharan autosomally. This page collects anecdotes from Ashkenazim who did inherit this ancestry. Genetic testing reveals that some (but not all) Ashkenazic Jews from Eastern Europe descend a little bit from Sub-Saharan African black people.

Comprehensive maternal and paternal haplogroup analysis shows that a woman, rather than a man, was the source of this ancestry. (The common Ashkenazic Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1 originated with Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid people living in northeast Africa or Arabia. As noted above, E1a1a1 might likewise be rooted with Caucasoids of ancient northeast Africa.)”
More at this link:

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/aj-ss-african-admixture.html

And finally, the kicker, the latest study demonstrating the obvious Negroid admixture in all Jews, including the Ashkenazim:

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373

From the abstract: “Previous genetic studies have suggested a history of sub-Saharan African gene flow into some West Eurasian populations after the initial dispersal out of Africa that occurred at least 45,000 years ago. However, there has been no accurate characterization of the proportion of mixture, or of its date. We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations.

Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.”

So there, that proves without a doubt, that the Ashkenazim are heavily admixed between Mongoloids and Negroids, along with certain Southern European population groups (as you well know already).

Finally, just to clarify, I didn’t say that ANE originated in Amerindians, on the contrary, I stated that “All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians….the ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%….

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America….It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events….

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture…What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population….What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.”

In essence, what I stated is that the ANE found in Europeans links them to Amerindian populations because both groups have ANE ancestry, and the ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%., and this ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

And it does look like Northern Europeans are truly descended in part from a population which has affinities to the “First Americans.” I say this specifically because the Siberian samples they tested actually gave a weaker result than the South American Amerindians on the 3-population test, showing that they are descended from an ancestral East Asia population that is Amerindian-like and that has affinities to the Amerindians of today. More info here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/09/across-the-sea-of-grass-how-northern-europeans-got-to-be-10-northeast-asian/#.VfRxbs44JNZ

Just a final note, caste is NOT genetically arbitrary, despite what some lower-caste Indians and Blacks and Hispanics and Europeans may claim; all the scientific evidence and data we have so far completely contradicts this notion.

In other words, castes are not arbitrary units made up by the British to divide the South Asian population — they have a solid basis in thousands of years of systematic endogamous practices to the exclusion of less Caucasian individuals.

In essence, the Hindu caste system was set up by the Indo-Aryan Caucasians to ensure that they would retain as much of their Caucasian blood as possible, and it seems like they definitely succeeded in that endeavor as well as if not better than most Caucasoids (including some European and Russian populations) worldwide, then at the very least, equal to Caucasoid populations worldwide, from the Europeans to the Middle Easterners to the Levantines to even some Northern African groups that are less admixed with Negroid populations. Here is more information on the scientific evidence that backs up the existence and validity of caste:

Caste is not ancestrally arbitrary

And always remember, if you ever come across a Hindu who looks distinctively lower caste and claims to be upper-caste, then he is nothing but a pariah pretending to be upper-caste, an exercise that lower-caste individuals frequently engage in, using a process known as “Sanskritization” the existence of which was noted by British Anthropologists during the Raj.

Common symptoms of this include: Changing the surname to a higher-caste one, adopting practices of the higher caste, and earning immense wealth in an attempt to gain a bride of the higher castes. Lots of Indian Americans are guilty of this; which is why so many Indian Americans with higher-caste surnames like “Singh” look lower caste — they are impostors, not genuine higher caste individuals (and looking lower caste doesn’t have much to do with skin color (although, as a rule, upper-caste individuals aren’t darker than brown when untanned) but with facial features, bone structure, hirsuteness, and body structure, and of course, genetics.)

That sums it up. Let me know if you’d like more information about anything. Of course, all of these studies are freely available for anyone’s perusal.

That’s all. Hope that helps you understand the complex demographics of India.

Most Caucasian Populations Have Significant Non-Caucasian Elements

I received this comment today. I deleted the comment and banned the poster because he insulted me, but his comments are interesting nonetheless. His position is that most Caucasian populations are significantly admixed with non-Caucasian, and I am afraid he is right. There are probably few if any pure Whites or pure Caucasians.

The guy appears to be some sort of a Hindu nationalist type and he seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Indians are mostly White, especially high caste ones of which he seems to be a part. He is quite offended by the idea that Indians are part-Australoid, but that is how they show up on some charts.

He says the Australoid component is more similiar to SE Asians such as Thai people. However, this Asian component also looks something like the Asian part of the Ancient Northeast Asian group. The Asian part of the ANE’s has been called different things, but to me they look Ainuid. So the Asian part of Indians looks like Ainuids/Thais. I think he may really be onto something here. It is a good hypothesis.

He is just wrong about some things below. ANE did not originate in Amerindians (How did that happen? Did it move back from the Americas to Asia?); instead, Amerindians are obviously partly derived from ANE from Northeast Asia itself. The Karitiana of Brazil have the highest ANE ever found. They may be the remains of some of the earliest settlers to the Americans.

The Chukchi are probably also heavily ANE somehow because these very Asian-looking Eskimo like people actually plot Caucasian on some charts! So in Far Northeastern Asia, early Caucasoids and early Asians have been mixing it up for some time. He also notes that Berbers have a lot of Black blood. This is correct. In fact, on some charts, Berbers plot outside of Caucasian altogether and end up slightly into the the Black or African quadrant.

He also says that Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of Asian and Black in them. Asian maybe (ancient Asian). Black, no way. I have seen charts showing that Ashkenazi Jews and other people of the Caucasus have the least amount of Black of any White group on Earth. How hilarious for Stormfronters that Jews are the most pure of all the Whites. Australoids are absolutely not archaic Whites or archaic Caucasians.

This is an interesting blog. What I’d like to point out, however, is that there is quite a bit of misinformation regarding the genetic makeup/ancestry of races and ethnic groups/castes found in India on this blog. I noticed you implied in some of your posts here that Indians are hybrid population between two groups, one most similar to present-day non-White Caucasoids, and one most similar to Australian Aboriginals.

Let me explain what the genetic/latest research has actually shown, as far as India’s demographics and the genetic composition of its castes is concerned. What follows is a detailed explanation of South Asian genetics and therefore, I must warn you, it is a long wall of text but completely accurate and supported by the latest research, despite containing a lot of jargon that may give you a headache. Bear with me here.

Indians are composed of two composite groups: ANI or the Ancestral North Indians, a group which itself is a composite of two or more different Caucasoid populations, that are on average, closest to present-day Georgians in genetic makeup, and ASI, or the Ancestral South Indians, a group which is also a composite of two or more different populations, at least half of which is Caucasoid in nature, with the other half varying in composition from one ethnic group to another.

In other words, while ANI is completely Caucasoid in nature, ASI is 50-60% Caucasoid in nature depending on the caste in question, and the remainder of ASI ancestry is either composed of Mongoloid, proto-Mongoloid, proto-Caucasoid or in exceptionally rare, isolated cases like the Paniya tribe of South India, of proto-Australoid-like ancestry which still isn’t the same as having Australoid ancestry. Keep in mind that Australoids themselves are at least 80% Mongoloid in genetic makeup and are considered to be archaic Whites themselves.

They are also the furthest group genetically on Earth, from the Negroids/Congoids/Bantuids of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, apart from a minority of untouchables of South India and parts of East India who are not even a part of the caste system to begin with, no other group in South Asia has any proto-Australoid-like admixture to speak of. And Indians are predominantly Caucasoid and group with other Caucasoids according to every genetic test/anthropometric study since the dawn of time. More information here.

It is crucial to remember that Indians have nothing to do with Australoids – those people are completely different apart from a very few isolated tribes in India that have real proto-Australoid-like admixture due to their status and extreme isolation. And this admixture has nothing to do with ASI admixture – ASI is just like the paleolithic ANE influence in Europeans, and half of it is Caucasian (at least half, if not more, it varies for different people in India) and it is a composite just like ANI is with different components for different people/castes in India.

The Reich et al paper even pointed out that the Onge were at best a poor proxy to get something without ANI admixture and little ASI admixture, and even then, it was a worse proxy than the Han Chinese. In other words, East Asians were a better proxy than the Onge themselves.

The reason they picked the Onge as a (poor) proxy was because they were the only group they could find in that region without ANI admixture and because they are such an old population that has been isolated and separated from mainland populations for a very long period of time. They also have very few individuals left, so owing to the problems of genetic drift, they assume ownership of a component, and the admixture program tries to force the Onge component in an admixture model of South Asians.

In more recent papers, this has been clarified further and it has been stated that they were simply making a poor guess when using the Onge as a proxy in the model.

Furthermore, to illustrate just how poor of a guess it was, they pointed out that ASI is massively separated from the Onge. In fact, ASI is just as far from the Onge as the Utah Whites (a group of random Euro-descent samples from Utah in the States) are from the Onge, indicating that ASI is as related to Onge as Utah Whites are.

Papuans and Onge have no relation to India at all – the Onge are in SE Asia. Han are a much better proxy. In addition, Indians lack Denisovan admixture and other crucial haplogroups found commonly in the Onge as well.

It must also be said that if Indians are erroneously assumed to have proto-Australoid-like ancestry, so are Europeans.

You might be under the false assumption that Europeans are somehow a “pure” Caucasoid population, when in fact that couldn’t be further from the truth. The latest genetic research conclusively shown that Europeans are all admixed to different degrees between at least four main populations of people: West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), Early European Farmer (EEF), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer (SHG), and Ancient North Eurasian (ANE).

It has also conclusively shown that all populations of Europeans and other “White” Caucasoids have significant to huge amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry due to the fact that the ANE/Ancient North Eurasian component is at least 45% East Asian/Mongoloid in ancestry. The ANE component is based on the genome of the infamous Mal’ta boy or MA-1.

In Europe today, it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. Finns, Russians and Mordovians also carry very high ANE in addition to very high amounts of much more recent Siberian admixture. What’s even more interesting is that this ANE influence is the very influence found among South Asians, albeit in a slightly different variety known as ASI.

What the aforementioned information means is the following: Indians are not a hybrid population between Caucasoids and Australoids. In reality, the vast majority of Indians are an admixed population between Caucasoids and Mongoloids – except in this case, the Mongoloids are most similar in phenotype and genotype to SE Asians like the Thai.

According to the latest research, the average Indian is at least 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian – these figures have been substantiated by multiple reports including the National Geographic Project’s Geno 2.0 DNA ancestry test samples, the 23andme test samples, and even the Reich et. al paper published in the highly-cited/high impact factor scientific journal Nature.

It has been conclusively proven that South Asians/Indians range from 5-10% Asian to 35% Asian or in other words from 65% Caucasian to 95% Caucasian. The most Caucasian people in the region are from the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and the least Caucasian people are from the east and south. Only one person broke the magic 35% barrier, and he was a Bangladeshi (38%).

If you’d like a layman’s interpretation of the data in the aforementioned sources, check out this article by Razib Khan, one of the pioneers in the field of population genetics, particularly as it pertains to the archaeogenetics of South Asia as a whole – he writes articles for Discover Magazine, which is a well respected source. He is also a PhD student at UC Davis. Here is a post describing the general findings of genetic research into South Asian populations

In addition to the Reich et. al paper and other landmark papers in this field, the Harappa Ancestry Project, which is helmed by a genetic expert and is working in combination with Reich’s data is also another landmark study into the archaeogenetics of South Asia. It has conclusively proven and further substantiated the results I aforementioned.

According to the samples collected by the project, there is a sharp correlation between caste/location and Caucasian ancestry in India, with the upper castes in all parts of India being significantly more Caucasian than the lower castes, and the North-West Indian/South Asian upper castes being the most Caucasian of all – up to 95%.

All of the Northwest Indian/Pakistani/Nepali/Afghani upper castes are between 5-18% admixed with East Eurasians/Mongoloids; in other words all of them are between 82-95% Caucasian. These castes would include the Rajputs, Jatts, Khatris, Gujjars, Sindhis, Brahmins, Bhumihars, Balochis, Brahuis, and certain upper caste Punjabis, and Pathans. Note that this is only applicable to the upper castes aforementioned that are in the North and North-West of India as well as Pakistan and Nepal.

As for the rest of India (and Bangladesh/Sri Lanka), as I mentioned earlier, the average South Asian is 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian, so a good amount of South Asians are more Caucasian than 75%, and a good amount are less Caucasian.

For instance, the average Tamil (from South India, and well represented in the diaspora in the USA as the “typical Indian” stereotype) is 33-34% non-Caucasian, and the average Bengali/Bangaladeshi is closer to 55-60% Caucasian. The dalits of Tamil Nadu or the lowest caste Tamils (also well represented in the States), are at least 40% non-Caucasian. The lowest castes of India, the Chamars, who are found all over India (also in the States) are also in the 50-60% Caucasian range. Upper caste Indians in the rest of India (apart from the Northwest) tend to be 70-80% Caucasian.

If you’d like to see the data for yourself, here is the link to the spreadsheet.

For reference, the “South Indian” component is 50-60% Caucasian, and the ANE/NE Asian component is 45% non-Caucasian. The SE Asian, Siberian, Papuan, American and Beringian components are all Mongoloid, and the E. African, San, Pygmy and W. African components are all Negroid. Keep in mind that the data here is accurate only for South Asians, other regions are too under-sampled in the project.

Now you might be wondering, if South Asians, particularly the upper castes in the North and Northwest, are between 5-18% admixed, are they alone in this predicament? As I alluded to earlier, they are anything but alone.

Let’s start with Middle Easterners and Northern Africans. Egyptians, Moroccans, Libyans, and other North Africans are on average 15% Black/Negroid admixed. In fact, according to the latest research, the average North African is 15-16% black, and individual countries like Egypt and Tunisia are 18-21% Black on average, so some would be more than 21% black, some less.

The highest admixture is found among Moroccans and Berbers, who can be up to 30% Black/Negroid admixed on average. As far as the Middle East goes, Yemeni people have been shown to be 18-19% black on average, and the Bedouin tribes have been shown to be 16-18% Black on average as well. Qataris are 12-16% Black, and Saudi Arabians range from 14-18% black as well, on average. Jews, particularly the Ashkenazim, have also been shown to be 16.5% admixed with Mongoloid and Black/Negroid on average.

So on average, MENA people are 75-85% Caucasoid and 15-25% Black/Negroid admixed, therefore its safe to say that MENA people are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, with some groups being more and others less Negroid. All these figures have been collected by National Geographic and many other researchers.

As far as West Asians/Central Asians are concerned, they show significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture on average.Tajiks have 15% Mongoloid admixture on average, while Turkmen have 16% Mongoloid admixture on average.

However, some groups of Turkmen average 27% Mongoloid, and some are 35-56% Mongoloid. Southern Turkmen on average are only 1/8 to 1/3 Mongoloid or better said 13-31% Mongoloid. However in some parts of Turkmenistan like the northern and eastern parts, the Mongoloid DNA reaches 33-55%. Other parts of Turkmenistan are 33-55% Mongoloid.

Even many Turkish people are 10-20% Mongoloid and 15% Mongoloid on average. Iranians are also Mongoloid admixed – up to 10% on average, with the Azeris of Iran being even more admixed. Tatars are 16% Mongoloid admixed on average.

So, its safe to say that most West Asian groups are a hybrid of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, being on average 80-85% Caucasian and 15-20% Mongoloid, with some groups being much less Caucasian and much more Mongoloid.

Now, lets look at the European data. All non-Sardinian Europeans have been shown to have significant amounts of ANE ancestry due to the Malt’a boy mentioned earlier, and this ANE ancestry is related to/is the same as ASI ancestry in South Asians, relating Europeans to Amerindians and East Asians.

The ANE component is composed of 45% Mongoloid and Australoid-like ancestry (similar to the distant relation that some South Asians have to proto-Australoids), and the Malt’a boy also has a proto-Australoid ASE component on the order of 10%.

This ANE component peaks in the Karitiana Indians of South America

More info about ANE’s relationship to ASI is available at this link which itself references this landmark paper:

It is also pertinent to point out the fact that ANE ancestry in all Europeans with the exception of Sardinians (who have very minor ANE ancestry) is mostly (45-55%) non-Caucasoid in nature, and does not include separate additional East Asian ancestry that is due to much more recent admixture with Mongoloids from the Golden Horde and other admixture events.

ANE or NE Asian is best thought of as very ancient Asian admixture, while the recent admixture is added separately. A recent landmark paper definitively showed a clear signal of admixture in Northern Europe, represented by the ANE/NE Asian component. Here is the link to the paper and here is a link to the layman’s explanation of it.

What this paper definitively shows (as do successive papers recently released after it) is that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, have huge amounts of NE Asian, also known as ANE, admixture. This is because they are descended in part from an Amerindian population.

What is the actual amount? Well, remember that ANE or NE Asian is made up of two components – one is Caucasian and related to Levantine ancestry and the other is related to NE Asia/Siberians and the American Indians, peaking in the Karitiana Indians of South America.

Therefore, according to the research data in the latest papers, Northern Europeans are 5-18% admixed with Mongoloids, or in other words, Northern Europeans are 5-18% Non-Caucasoid, and the authors pointed out that this is actually a conservative estimate, one that is lower than what the actual value is likely to be – which is purported to be even higher than the 5-18% range, easily crossing over into the 10-20%+ non-Caucasoid range.

Keeping in mind that in the Near East among Lezgins, Chechens and Ossetians, ANE is in the 23-27%+ range. This means that other Eastern Europeans not residing in Northern Europe are also heavily admixed with non-Caucasian ANE ancestry as well. The ANE ancestry is 45% East Asian/Amerindian in composition and 10% SE Asian in ancestry, so 55% non-Caucasian and ANE ancestry ranges from 8-21%+ in almost all Europeans except Sardinians.

A table with ANE scores from a recent paper. Remember how I mentioned earlier that this ANE non-Caucasoid ancestry did not include additional, more recent, non-Caucasoid East Asian ancestry?

Well, lets take a look at that data as well. Russians and Finns are 80-88% Caucasian depending on the person (not including non-Caucasoid ANE admixture which would make them even less Caucasoid) because of much more recent East Asian admixture with the areas with the higher non-Caucasian mixture in the 12-20% range around Leningrad.

Finnish people, according to the latest genetic study, are at least 13-17% East Asian, and Russians, according to the latest genetic study, are 12-18% East Asian. More info here.

Lithuanians and Swedes are at least 10%-20% admixed with recent East/Mongoloid mixture. If we add this recent Mongoloid admixture to the more ancient ANE ancestry in Europeans, we get the following numbers: Russians, Finns and Swedes are 17-30% Mongoloid/Non-Caucasoid and 70-83% Caucasoid. Because of this, Finns have been found to be distinct from other Europeans and don’t cluster as close to them. Russians in the North are much the same way.

Therefore we can sum up the above with the following three sentences:

  • Proto West Eurasians + ANE/ASI-like = Europeans and Latin Americans
  • Proto West Eurasians + ASI/ANE-like = South Asians and Central and West Asians
  • Proto West Eurasians + African = Middle Easterners and Northern Africans

And since everyone in these regions can be as much as 30% non-Caucasoid due to either Mongoloid or Negroid ancestry, (but closer to 20-25% non-Caucasoid), Indians are definitely not alone in being admixed Caucasoids on this planet. They are actually part of the norm, being on average, 75% Caucasian and 25% Asian,

The data clearly shows that Indians are as admixed as other Caucasian groups throughout the world, and in some causes, purer, particularly in the case of the upper caste North and North-West Indians, who are at most 18% admixed or less and thus 82-95% Caucasian.

Early Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa

From the study of skulls we can learn what early humans in Africa looked like. By early humans, I mean modern man, not earlier types.

Very early skulls from Africa resemble either Khoisans or no living type. Some Khoisan type skulls (broadly defined) can be found going back as far as 90,000 years. Boskopoid skulls from 35-50,000 YBP seem to look like Khoisan (Mirazón Lahr,p. 282). Early Kenyan skulls look also look Khoisan.

Negroes appear in the fossil record in Congo, Mali, Niger and Chad from 6,000-12,000 YBP. They develop in the course of agriculture as Khoisan and Pygmy types gathered into agricultural villages in the regions above. In hunter-gatherer societies, women need men and marry early, hence there is little competition for females and every man gets a woman. In African agricultural societies, there was plenty of food, and women no longer needed a man to provide for them.

Since women no longer needed men, women got picky. Extreme competition for women developed among men, and one man or a small group of men tended to monopolize the women. This is the “chief” syndrome also seen in primitive agricultural societies in New Guinea.

Extreme competition led to the largest, strongest and most aggressive males dominating the group and preferentially passing on their genes. Hence, Negroes developed into big, strong, good athletes with high testosterone which drove high aggression. This is one theory for high Black crime rates.

In contrast, Pygmies are not aggressive at all, and tend to be rather meek and shy. Khoisan have low testosterone and have low levels of overt aggression.

Nilotics appear in Kenya 8-12,000 YBP. Originally, when these Nilotic skulls were first found, they were mistaken for Europeans. These are the classic “Horner” types of the Horn of Africa. It is amazing that Nilotics would be mistaken for Europeans, but they do have a more Caucasian look to them.

Recent Sub Saharan Africans have skulls that are more gracile than Europeans (ibid. p. 283), so it is a lie to say that Blacks have primitive or robust skulls.

The only really robust or primitive skulls nowadays in the study were found in Australians (65% are robust), Pantagonians, the Ainu and 1 Polynesian. This largely lines up with the Australoid racial group, which developed in a robust fashion for some reason.

The most gracile skulls were 13 E Asians, 13 SS Africans, 11 SE Asians, 7 Europeans, 1 Inuit, 1 S Asian and 1 Australian. So we can see that the most modern and gracile skulls are found in Blacks and Asians. Europeans are also modern and gracile, but not so much as the others. We also see that while Australians generally have the most robust skulls on Earth, some Aborigines have very gracile skulls. Australians are best seen as an extreme mixture.

Why did man leave Africa, and which route did he take? The reason for leaving was apparently a terrible drought in East Africa. For instance, between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago, East African droughts shrunk the water volume of  Lake Malawi by at least 95%, causing migration out of Africa.

Which route did they take? Researchers say their study of the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar islands using complete mitochondrial DNA sequences and its comparison those of world populations has led to the theory of a “southern coastal route” of migration from East Africa through India. They took the Indian Ocean coastal route.

References

Mirazón Lahr, Marta. 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

White Gangbangers in Argentina

Original link not working, but this photo album is similar. The text refers to the original link.

Click on the photo album to see more of these idiots acting all tough and throwing gang signs. They are from Cordoba, Argentina, which is in the center of Argentina. Known from growing wine grapes, relatively dry climate in the rain shadow of the Andes. These folks look like Whites, which seemed strange to me. An Argentine friend of mine told me that they were typical Argentine mestizos. If that is so, then your Argentine mestizo looks awfully damned White.

I knew that Hispanic-Black US gang culture was spreading to other areas, particularly mestizo and Indian populations in Latin America and I believe Black and mulatto populations in the Caribbean. I have also seen pics of Filipinos and Negritos in the Philippines who have adopted US gang culture. There are some Australian Aborigines and Polynesians who have adopted it too. The Polynesians like to imitate US Black culture, possibly because they feel closer to Blacks. In gang fights at LA schools, the Samoans would always line up with the Blacks.

If you have any information on other regions where US gang culture is spreading, please let us know in the comments. I guess this is one of the only products we are exporting anymore.

The Difference Between Phenotypical Race and Genetic Race

A commenter asks me some questions about my races of man post.

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid.

Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture.

I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race).

And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture.

The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture).

The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I thank the poster for his input.

The problem here is that the poster is confusing phenotypical race with genetic race. The races of man post dealt only with genetic race, using Cavalli-Sforza as a template and then expanding from there. The problem is that genetic race often does not line up with phenotypical race. For instance, some types are Australoid by phenotype, but not by genes. Only the Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines seem to fall into an Australoid race by genes.

The Garos are similar to other groups in the far east of India such as the Naga. The Nicobarese are very strange, but the general idea is that they are just archaic SE Asian types, migrated down from Yunnan Province in China maybe 5000 YBP with some of the original Austroasiatic speakers.

I have no genetic data on the Orang Asli or the Senoi. The Senoi at least are certainly Australoid by phenotype. Once again, these are ancient Proto-Malay early Austroasiatic types migrated down from Yunnan 5000 YBP or so. The Orang Asli are some of the original people of the planet outside of Africa, but are they phenotypically Australoid?

The Aeta are phenotypically Australoid, yes, but genetically, they are closer to Filipinos than to anyone else.

Melanesians and Micronesians genetically fit into a nice little category within the Oceanians of the SE Asian race even though they have some Australoid mix – the Melanesians much more than the Micronesians.

A mixed race macro-race of some sort did not make sense to me in terms of a rational classification, though I did think about it. Some groups are just too recent to be classified at all, such as Hispanic mestizos and mulattos.

For groups like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara, I had to look up percentages of Asian and Caucasian. If they were a bit more Caucasian, they went into Caucasian. If they were more Asian, they went into Asian. Groups for which I had no data were not listed. It was scatter-shot, but I could not think of anything else to do.

For the Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers, I did try to fit most of these into some race or another. However, I will agree with you here that I may need a new category. I have long contemplated a sort of Horner Major Race, splitting the Horners off from the rest of the Africans. The Horners are just too different from the rest of the Africans. They are about 1/2 way between Africans and Caucasians.

I realize that the Berbers are a mess, but there was not much I could do with them, and I don’t want to make a major race out of them. Sometimes you just have to improvise.

The Nepalese fit well into Caucasian on most charts. Granted, they are some of the most diverse Caucasians out there, but so are the Indians for that matter.

Although the Ainu are phenotypically Australoid, genetically they are quite close to the Japanese and the Koreans, so it makes sense to call them NE Asians genetically.

An Anatolian Homeland For Indo-European?

That may be, but the part about “proto-Europeans” coming from the Lower Volga is bullshit. All archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, and genetic evidence (not to mention, evidence from indigenous pagan religions/mythologies) point to an Anatolian origin of the Indo-Europeans.

During the LGM, European hunter-gatherer groups gathered in some refugia in South Central Europe (Iberia, Western Balkans, Ukraine…) Northern Europe was almost entirely covered in glacier, as were the Alps, Caucasus, Pyrenees, and other major mountain ranges.

After the LGM, the scant remnant of Upper Paleolithic survivors moved back north, but Southern Europe was depopulated, only to be repopulated again by Near Eastern agriculturalists at the dawn of the Neolithic. These agro-pastoralists from the Anatolian-Levantine refugium brought farming, livestock, and copper to Europe. Among the earliest farmers were the Anatolian proto-Indo-Europeans.

The Basques are probably remnants of the Mesolithic survivor population. The purest descendants of these Near Eastern settlers are the Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians -also the Turks, who inhabit the PIE origin land – ironically Turks, who speak a non-Indo-European Altaic language, are probably more Indo-European than most Indo-European speakers, especially Brits or Indians.)

Of course, there were other migrations around that time. A people closely related to the Mongols expanded westward across Siberia, over the Urals and into Scandinavia, following the deglaciation. They introduced Uralic languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Lappish) into Europe, and the Lapps are their most direct descendants.

But we have strong reason to believe that Indo-European spread from the Near East (most likely North-Central Anatolia) chiefly due to agriculture, not from Western Europe (as some White Nationalists might believe) or from India/Pakistan (as many Hindu nationalists believe) or from Gimbutas’ fanciful Kurgan patriarchs (which Wikipedia deems as “official” and which you appear to take for granted).

[Actually, it surprises me that so many people take for granted some nutty hypothesis proposed by the Marxist-feminist Jewess Marija Gimbutas despite the lack of evidence or historical precedent. At least the Paleolithic Continuity Model is based on some evidence (albeit misinterpreted) and the Out-of-India hypothesis is based on understandable wishful thinking.]

Consider the following:

* As per your own model, virtually all Europeans cluster closely with each other and with Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. Basques, North Africans, Arabs, and “West Asians” (i.e. Afghans) are minor outliers.

This interrelatedness suggests a strong demic diffusion and also implies that the stat that Europeans are 80% Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants but only 20% Neolithic colonists is considerably off. How else do you explain that Europeans are generally closer to Iranians than to Basques?

* While Indo-Europeans are/were indeed fairly heavily male-dominated (Gimbutas was at least correct about this), this follows from a Near Eastern origin, as the Middle East was, and still is, very patriarchal. Ironically, Gimbutas located the homeland of those “evil patriarchal invaders” who decimated the “feminist utopia” that neolithic European society (allegedly) was in Scythia, which is believed to be the source of the Amazon legends…

* Indo-European languages show relatively strong affinities to Semitic languages, and probably Kartvelian and Pelasgian languages (the latter may have actually been Indo-European, related to Hittite), possibly Ligurian (probably Indo-European and related to both Celtic and Italic languages), and even Etruscan (controversially). No such closeness to Iberian (Basque), Ural-Altaic, or Dravidian languages.

* The oldest evidence of Indo-European languages comes from Anatolia (Hittite) and the Aegean (Greek in Linear B). Minoan (in Linear A) remains undeciphered and may have been related. Archaeological records demonstrate a settled native population.

* Even the pagan religions seem to cluster near the Anatolian centre. Zoroastrianism and the Indic religions both descend from the Indo-Aryan religion, but the Persian religion is more similar to ancient European religious traditions than the Dharmic faiths are (because Hinduism absorbed some Harappan/Dravidian pre-Aryan influences.)

Greco-Roman and Germanic religions were more alike than either was akin to Celtic (Druidic) paganism, the Celts being more matriarchal and probably influenced by relatives of the Basques in Western Europe and the British Isles.

All this points to an origin for Indo-European in Neolithic Anatolia, but you ae probably correct that the Aryans (Indo-Iranians, not blonde Germanic supermen) came into Iran and India via Central Asia. Most likely route being a clockwise migration around the Caspian Sea…

Excellent commentary, fascinating stuff.

I actually agree with an Anatolian homeland for PIE, however, I also agree with a secondary spread from the Lower Volga. So, things are complicated. In fact, I argue that Indo-European is actually Indo-Hittite, with Anatolian being so far removed from the rest that it is actually a sister to the rest of the family. Just a look at Hittite shows you how archaic it is compared to the rest of the family.

The part about the Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians being the remnants of the original IE people is probably true. So, in a sense, these are really the “original Whites.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Nordicists.

Gimbutas’ theory has always ween a bit nutty. There were no ancient matriarchies. As a female friend once said, men have always ruled. Why? She answered, “Men are bigger, men are stronger, men push women around and make them do what they want them to do.” Well, of course, and women are too weak to fight back.

As it is now, as it’s always been. In gender relations, it’s the law of the jungle. I also feel that matriarchies might have been inherently unstable, as I’m not sure that “female rule” works very well. We are having enough problems with what matriarchy we have in the West.

Patriarchy or male rule is sort of a bad deal for women, but at least it seems to “work.” And I have noticed that women from patriarchal cultures seem to be happiest in their femininity and in general. The men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everyone’s happy.

The more women rule, the more miserable women seem to be, and men never seem to be happy under female rule. For one thing, oddly enough, female rule tends to make women act masculine and men act feminine. Neither is a normal role model, and I argue that the more masculine a woman is, the more unhappy she is, and the more feminine a man is, the more unhappy he is. That ‘s possibly because they are violating nature itself. When you do that, nature fights back, possibly by making you miserable.

Surely IE is related to Afro-Asiatic and Kartvelian, but I disagree that it is less related to Uralic or Altaic, and I also disagree that Uralic and Altaic represent some family. Ligurian and Pelasgian are probably IE, but no one knows what Etruscan is.

I definitely agree that almost all Europeans are quite close to Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. It is interesting how close the Caucasians are to each other. Most Caucasians are much closer to each other than other major races are. There is much larger differentiation among NE and SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans and for sure Africans than there is among Caucasians.

A lot of the rest of the post is rather over my head.

All around, a great comment. The rest of you may feel free to chime in if you have any thoughts or anything to add.

An Interesting NE Asian Phenotype

Repost from the old site.
White Nationalists like to go on and on and on about the glorious color of their skin: white. For some odd reason, this white skin is superior to darker-colored skins of folks who evolved in hotter zones. Truth is, darker skin color is a perfectly rational evolutionary response to high rates of UV radiation in areas where it is very hot.
And in some areas of the globe, people can have fairly light skins if they stay out of the sun, but they get dark quite easily if they go out in the sun. Italians and Greeks come to mind. Here are photos of Italians, Greeks and Spaniards who have stayed out of sun, and then the same folks after they got tanned.
The same page also shows identical phenotypes commonly seen as European-only, like Nordics, Mediterraneans and Alpines, in both their European and extra-European forms from Arabia, North Africa and Central Asia. Often the darker skin you see in a lot of Southern Europeans is nothing but a tan.
On the other hand, Northern Europeans, and possibly other Northern types, don’t tan very well (they often burn) and even when they do, they don’t get all that dark. The very dark skin of Blacks, Papuans, Melanesians, some Aborigines and some South Indians is simply a result of evolving in those parts of the Earth where the sun shines brightest of all.
But Whites ought to give up the fantasy of about their white skin being best of all – because other races have some very white skin too. See the Korean woman in the photo below for example.

A Korean woman. She has a shade of White on her skin that is lacking in almost all Caucasians – it is probably only seen in Ireland and Scotland and it’s probably even lacking in Sweden and Norway. But this very White phenotype seen in some Koreans and Northern Chinese differs from that of European Whites in that it is more glossy. European White skin looks more chalky or powdery.
This phenotype also has skin that looks more like porcelain and is reflective of light. The very light European skin tends to be less light-reflective.

Here’s a pretty cool chart showing degrees of skin lightness versus darkness around the world.

UV radiation chart along with zones of skin color. Zone 1 has the darkest skin of all . Zone 2, which includes Italians and Spaniards, has skin that tans easily. Zone 3 contains light skin that enables residents to absorb as much Vitamin D as possible from the sun due to lack of sunlight at higher latitudes.
Note that there is also pretty high UV radiation in parts of South America (Peru), in the heart of Mexico, in Southwest Arabia (especially Yemen), in Southern India and Sri Lanka and in Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Philippines and New Guinea. Indonesians and Malaysians are known for being darker than many other SE Asian groups.
According to this chart, the darkest people of all are Blacks from Mozambique and Cameroon in Africa and Aborigines from Darwin in North Australia. A look at the same chart, much expanded, in the original paper, shows that the next darkest are Blacks, the Okavango in Namibia and the Sara in Chad (Table 6, p. 19). The chart shows that the lightest people are in Netherlands, followed by Germany and then the northern parts of the UK.
Note on the map that Tibet and parts of the Amazon should have some very dark-skinned people, but those who live there are lighter than you would expect based on UV. The paper suggests that the Tibetans are lighter because it is so cold there that most of their body is covered up all the time and only the face is uncovered.
The face is lighter to collect what Vitamin D it can as so much of the body cannot collect Vitamin D due to clothing. The Amazonian Indians are known to be shade-seeking and the paper suggests that this may account for their lighter skin.

Most Whites don’t really have White skin anyway. I am looking at my own skin here as I type, and it looks more pink than White.

References

Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution. Available on this blog here.

Aborigine Youth Gangs in Australia


No Aborigine gangs in Australia? In a recent comments thread on this blog, two commenters, one a resident of Australia and another who just spent three months there, argued that there were no Aborigine gangs in Australia.
However, I had this photo in my files from a recent web story by an Australian paper about an Aborigine gang in Wadeye, in Northern Territory, in far north of Australia.
The gang in the photo is called the Evil Warriors, and they were warring with the Judas Priests. No one had been killed yet, and one of my Australian commenters said that the story is blown out of proportion. They are actually fighting each other with rocks and spears, because a gun is so hard to get in Australia.
Many of these young people do not even speak English as a first language, their native tongue being the Aboriginal lingua franca Murrinhpatha.
Though Aborigine gangs in Australia are apparently rare, it looks like they do exist.
I like that pic too. It reaches out and grabs you, huh?
Many, including Afrocentrists, think Aborigines are related to African Blacks. They do look like them. But no race on Earth is more divergent from Blacks than Aborigines. They were one of the first to split off after humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and they have been evolving in situ in Australia with few to no inputs from outside ever since.
The result is something called genetic drift, where a population takes off on a tangent. The only reason races of a species stay related is due to population mixing. Without that mixing, populations take off on their own, like college kids after graduation. The result is often a new species or subspecies.
Aborigines have one of the most advanced skills in visual memory, especially for distant objects, of any race. Ask a class full of White 7 year olds to point towards their home and only 6% can do so. Give the same task to a class of Aborigines and almost all of them will do it successfully at the drop of a hat.
These people have more problems than you could imagine. In a nutshell, they are a defeated race. We Europeans invaded their land and stole it, taking away their Paleolithic but adaptive way of life. Now they are not able to adapt to a modern White culture for which they were not evolved to deal with.

There Be Cannibals!

Repost from the old site.
My understanding of cannibalism is not good. It’s well-known that starving people in just about any society will eat their own dead. Clearly, the Anasazi Indians of Arizona and New Mexico, ancestors of today’s Pueblo Indians, engaged in cannibalism during the 1300’s. I don’t care what the Indians say. Indian tribes are notorious liars when it comes to denying anything that makes them look bad.
The cannibals and head-hunters of New Guinea are well-known, and some were said to continue to engage in the practice until the mid-1960’s. Cannibalism was well-known in other parts of the world, especially Polynesia and Fiji. It was legendary in New Guinea and widely practiced in Australia too.
The cannibals of the Congo below were not the only ones in Africa, just some of the more notorious. There were also cannibals in the Brazilian Amazon and a few in North America here and there.
But Polynesia, especially New Zealand, had some of the worst cannibals of all. A Maori wife of a chief killed in combat would offer herself to be killed and eaten by her enemies, becoming dinner to show her love for her husband. A Fijian husband’s power over his wife was such that he could kill her and eat her at any time for any or no reason at all.
In some societies, people were eaten if they were loved. In Australia, people ate the corpses of their relatives and friends in order to pay tribute to their lives.
In New Guinea, old folks, having a hard time straggling through life, were hanged from trees or killed in other ways, often by their own kids, in a big party with the whole village gathered around. After they were dead, they were chopped up and eaten. Beats mortgaging your house for Mom’s nursing home, eh?
Smoking a fish is a good way of making it more flavorful, and logically it follows that it adds a little zest to roast human. Humans waiting to be eaten were “tenderized” in water or other liquids to make the flesh less beef jerky-like.
Tribes from Africa to Polynesia went out on hunting parties, like armies of Jeffrey Dahmers, looking for human prey to kill and cook up.
Although women definitely are better looking then men, some cannibals insist that we guys are more delectable. Others prized female flesh most of all and went to great woman-chasing lengths to obtain it.
Dying in battle is bad enough if you are to be a meal afterwards, but being wounded and then hauled away to be served on the dinner table must have been a particular horror.
Slaves were captured, kept in chains and horribly mistreated for long periods, knowing all the while that one day that would serve as a main course.
What is interesting is that so many cannibal societies insist that Roast Human tastes great, even better than many or most domesticated or wild animals. One wonders why we taste so great. Did we evolve to be good eatin’?
In many places, White explorers were told, “Of course we eat people! Don’t you?” One New Guinea tribe had a legend about how they became cannibals. One day the men went out hunting. They came back with some wild pigs and whatnot. The women berated them, “Is that all you can give us – that lousy stuff?
The humiliated men, their masculinity at risk, figured that the women wanted people to eat, not some dirty animals. So they took off to a neighboring village and came back. They came back with humans to eat, the women danced all around and their manliness was intact.
Biting off the nose of a corpse is pretty horrible, and cannibals deny that they do this. They only bite off the noses of those others kill, not those they kill themselves! They do have some class. If boiling a dead man’s heart is too much for you, just get your daughter to do it, and then drink the delicious juice. A rack of rib sounds pretty good, but would you eat it if it came from a seven year old girl?
Now, I like pork myself, but “long pig” is said to be more delicate, and it never makes you so full you feel ill. We all like to get together with the family for Thanksgiving, but how about the New Guineans, a woman and her two daughters, who dug up the corpse of one of the daughter’s baby and consumed it? Gives a new meaning to three generations at the table for dinner, eh?
The Dobudura in New Guinea liked to keep a fresh supply of meat on hand. So they would capture a man and keep him alive for up to a week, cutting off bits of his flesh any time they felt hungry. They used a plant medicine to keep the food supply from bleeding to death. When he is nearly dead, they would poke a hole in his skull and scoop the brains out with a spoon, brains being a major delicacy and all.
One way to ensure a delicious meal is to roast a man while still alive, for the meat tastes better when prepared this way. Deboning a chicken makes for better eating, and humans may be similarly deboned. What to do with the giblets? Well, with human giblets, just give them to the kids, who roast them in the fire and eat them up.
With the coming of “evil Western colonialist missionaries” all of this quaint “indigenous” cultural behavior was laid to rest once and for all, or so we thought (but see below). Many cultures became ashamed of their former cannibalism and refused to discuss it.
The Aborigines were puzzled at why it had been outlawed. Why were we not allowed to eat our friends anymore, to have a party and say what a great guy he was? None of it made sense.
I suppose the Cultural Leftists, in love with all cultures, wicked, sublime and in between, as long as they are not White and Christian or Jewish, want to resurrect all this delectable human-chomping.
As the Congo War devolves, we are receiving reports that Congolese militias are once again reverting to old habits of cannibalism. In particular, they are killing the Pygmies (the Bantus have waged a long genocidal campaign against both Bushmen and Pygmies) and cooking them up for chow.
Almost all roads in the Congo built by those evil colonialists are now in disrepair – not due to weather or abuse, that is normal. It is that in the Congo now, when a road falls apart, no one ever fixes it. Never. Ever. Hence, roads just pretty much do not exist.
The apartheid Whites of Southern Africa, of paternalistic mind, always said that when the White man left Africa, Africans would “go back to the bush”, in every conceivable way.
That’s not necessarily the case in all Africa. See an optimistic post about a disaster zone called Nigeria, and note the good economic growth the continent has been experiencing, with the sole exception of Zimbabwe, which is disgustingly tossed out by White racists as an exemplar of all of Africa. Yet in Congo, it appears that this depressing forecast is being borne out.
Delicious quotes follow, from Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. Check out the title – I suppose the anti-racists assume it must be “racist”, no? Dark continent, heart of darkness, the horror, the horror, and all that?
Racists salivating over this post as an exemplar of “nigger innate savagery” be warned: cannibalism was not generalized over all of Africa. It was a cultural phenomenon primarily confined to the Congo, which then grew, strangely, in the 1800’s, to encompass more of the colony via cultural transmission.

For their part, the Malela were delighted by their diet of human flesh, describing it as “saltish in flavour, and requiring little condiment.” Unfortunately for their neighbors, their search for human flesh led to widespread slaughter. Edgerton, 85
But the Basongye, or Zappo Zaps as they were often known, sold slaves to their neighbors knowing that they would be eaten; they also ate their own dead. Soon after the end of the Arab War, they would work for the Free State and spread cannibalistic terror across the Congo.
Other societies such as the Baluba, for example, ate the hearts of virtuous or brave people to gain their strength, but they also ate the bodies of criminals and slaves to prevent them from doing evil to their masters or haunting them. Ibid, 86
In some Congolese societies, people ate human flesh only occasionally to mark a particularly significant ritual occasion, but in other societies in the Congo, perhaps even a majority by the late nineteenth century, people ate human flesh whenever they could, saying it was far tastier than other meat and, perhaps surprisingly, that male human flesh tasted better than female.
Persons to be eaten often had both of their arms and legs broken and were made to sit up to their necks in a stream for three days, a practice said to make their flesh more tender, before they were killed and cooked.
Teeth filed to sharp points were widely thought by Europeans to be the mark of cannibals, but in some societies whose people actually were cannibals, teeth were not filed at all, and in others that did not practice cannibalism, people nevertheless filed their teeth to sharp points.
As Sydney L. Hinde noted during the Arab War, the Batetela were such devoted cannibals that children actually killed and ate their parents “at the first sign of their decrepitude,” but they did not file their teeth. Ibid.
In 1907, the Bankutu people were seen by a European traveler to hunt people for food as other Congolese hunted animals. They served human flesh in “little rolls like bacon.” As late as 1923, American traveler Hermann Norden reported that cannibalism was commonplace.
One Congolese man reprovingly scolded him for not eating some human flesh when he was offered it: “You know the flesh of man tastes better than the flesh of a goat.” A Belgian companion of Norden’s admitted that he had probably been served human flesh and had eaten it unknowingly.
In 1925, Hungarian anthropologist Emil Torday reported an encounter with a Muyanzi man who boasted about cooking human brains with a pinch of salt and red peppers, then dipping his bread in it. “Then he would smack his lips and run away like an imp.”
Missionary and explorer A.L. Lloyd reported that when a European told a Bangwa tribesperson that eating human flesh was a “degrading habit,” the man answered, “Why degraded? You people eat sheep and cows and fowls, which are all animals of a far lower order, and we eat man, who is great and above all; it is you who are degraded.” Ibid, 86
While in the Congo, Livingstone saw human parts being cooked with bananas, and many other Europeans reported seeing cooked human remains lying around abandoned fires.
British captain and medical officer Sydney L. Hinde, who would take part in the Free State’s war with the Arabs in 1892-93, reported an incident in which a Basongo chief asked a Belgian officer’s tent to cut the throat of a little slave girl he owned. He was cooking her when soldiers seized him.
British adventurer Herbert E. Ward once asked a group of Congo tribespeople whether they ate human flesh. Their immediate answer was “Yes, don’t you?”
Later, Ward witnessed cannibalism on numerous occasions and was often offered human flesh to eat. He recalled an occasion when a young Bangala slave was killed. Soon after, the chief’s son, a boy of sixteen or so, “nonchalantly” said, “That slave boy was very good eating – he was nice and fat.” Ibid, 88
Several European officers in the Force noted with a mixture of horror and approval that because Congolese on both sides of such battles cooked and ate all of the dead and wounded, burial parties were unnecessary and diseases were kept under control. Cannibalism had become so routine that one Force Publique officer admitted he had become quite “bland” about it.” Ibid, 100
At least a thousand Arabs were killed – then smoked and eaten. Ibid, 102
While some Free State officials were exploiting Congolese and others tried to care for them, a constant concern of these Europeans was cannibalism. It was not simply the eating of human flesh that repelled them, but that so many people were murdered expressly so that others might feast upon their bodies.
Early in the 1660s, Englishmen Andrew Battell escaped the Portuguese who had enslaved him, to spend sixteen months among the Jaga people near the Congo’s Atlantic coast. He reported that they preferred human flesh to their own cattle.
Later, as we have seen, healthy children were stabbed to death to provide a feast for their owners, and men were known to help sick coworkers “die,” then smoke their body parts for later consumption.
Six Bangala men on the Stanley, a thirty-ton, stern-wheel steamer, were suspected by the ship’s captain of killing two crewmen who fell ill. They pleaded innocence, but smoked human body parts were found hidden in their lockers.
Some men showed no restraint in their appetite for human flesh. When one of Gongo Lutete’s wives was killed in battle, his own men ate her. Enraged, Lutete ordered these men killed the next day and eaten. None of the Europeans were surprised that Africans on both sides of the war with the Arabs routinely cooked and ate not only the dead they found on the battlefield, but the wounded as well.” Ibid, 108

References

Edgerton, Robert B., The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. 
Harris, Marvin, Cannibals and Kings: The Origin of Cultures. Glasgow, 1978, p. 69.
Hogg, Garry, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, quoting The Rev. James Chalmers, Life and Work in New Guinea. RTS, 1895.
Lange, Algot, In the Amazon Jungle. Putnam, New York, 1912.
MacGregor, Sir William, Foreword to Murray, Papua, or British New Guinea. Faber Unwin, 1912.
Maynard, Dr. Felix & Dumas, Alexandre, The Whalers. Hutchinson, 1937.
Métraux, Alfred, Easter Island. André Deutsch, 1957.
Murray, J. H. P., Lieutenant-Governor and Chief Judicial Officer, “Papua”, Papua, or British New Guinea. Faber Unwin, 1912.
Rice, A. P., in The American Antiquarian vol. XXXII, 1910.
Seligmann, C. G., “South-eastern New Guinea”, in The Melanesians of British New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, 1910.
Simpson, Colin, Adam in Ochre . Angus & Robertson, 1938.
St Johnston, Alfred, Traveller, Fiji Islands, Camping Among Cannibals. Macmillan, 1883.
Walker, H. W., FRGS, Wanderings among South Sea Savages. Witherby, 1909.
Wallace, A. Russel, Travels on the Amazon. Ward Lock, 1853.
Williams, F. E., Orikaiva Society. Clarendon Press, 1930.

Journeys in Asian Prehistory

Repost from the old site.
In this post we will look at the prehistory of the Asian or Mongoloid Race and some its subgroups. After humans came out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, they moved along the coast of Arabia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and eventually to Southeast Asia.

One Asian man’s rendering of modern Asian expansion, contrasted with the typical model. I don’t agree with either model, but I like the one on the left a little better. For starters, the yellow line on the map to the left should be hugging the coast quite closely and the brown and red lines should be radiating out from a base somewhere along the yellow line. Unfortunately, my artistic skills are not good enough to draw my own map.

We think that these people looked something like the Negritos of today, such as those on the Andaman Islands.
At some point, probably in Southern China, the Mongoloid Race was born. The timeline, as determined by looking at genes, was from 60,000-110,000 years ago. As humans are thought to have only populated the world 70,000 years or so ago, it is strange that the timeline may go back as far as 110,000 years.
One thing that is very interesting is that there is evidence for regional continuity in Asia (especially China) dating back 100,000’s of years, if not millions of years. This is called the multiregional hypothesis of human development.
Though it is mostly abandoned today, it still has its adherents.
Some of its adherents are Asian nationalists of various types, especially Chinese and Indonesian nationalists. They all want to think that man was born in their particular country. Others are White nationalists who refuse to believe that they are descended from Africans, whom they consider to be inferior. The problem is that the Asians can indeed show good evidence for continuity in the skulls in their region.
A good midway point between the two, that sort of solves the conundrum, is that humans came out of Africa, say, ~70,000 years or so ago, and when they got to Asia, they bred in with some of the more archaic types there. The problem with this is that the only modern human showing evidence of pre-modern Homo genes in Mungo Man in Australia from 50,000 years ago.
There is evidence that as late as 120,000 years ago, supposedly fully modern humans in Tanzania were still transitioning from archaic to modern man. Ancient South African humans 100-110,000 yrs ago looked like neither Bantus nor Bushmen.
Nevertheless, we can reject the multiregional theory in its strong form as junk science. We also note cynically that once again ethnic nationalists and regular nationalists, including some of the world’s top scientists, are pushing a blatantly unscientific theory. Yet again ethnic nationalism is shown to be a stupidifying mindset.
There must be a reason why ethnic nationalism seems to turn so many smart people into total idiots. I suspect it lies in the fact that the basic way of thinking involved in ethnic nationalism is just a garbage way of looking at the world, and getting into it distorts one’s mind similar to the way a mental illness does.
We think that the homeland of the Asians is in Southern China, just north of the Vietnam border. This is because the people with the greatest genetic diversity in Asia are found in Northern Vietnam. Since the Vietnamese are known to have largely come from Southern China, we can assume that the homeland was just north of the border. From there, all modern Asians were born.
This means all NE and SE Asians, Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians came out of this Asian homeland.

School kids in Hothot, a town in Inner Mongolia. There is some question about whether China really has a right to control this area. These Northeast Asians originally came from a homeland in SE Asia near the China-Vietnam border. As this race is only 9,000 years old, NE Asians could not possibly have gone through an Ice Age that molded their brains for high intelligence, as the racist liar and scientific fraud Richard Lynn claims .

There is even evidence that the Altaics of Siberia originated from the SE Asian homeland. They are thought to have moved out of there to the west and north to become the various Altaic groups such as the Buryats. Later Caucasian lines came to the Altaics from the West.

A Mongolian man on the steppes with a grazing animal and possibly a yurt in the background. Yurts are conical structures that the Mongolians still live in. I believe that Mongolians also eat a lot of yogurt, which they cultivate from the milk of their grazing animals. Note the pale blue eyes and somewhat Caucasian appearance.
My astute Chinese commenter notes: “While Mongolians do have ‘Caucasian genes’, they look distinct from Uighurs, who are mixed. I’m thinking Mongolians and Central Asians lie in a spectrum between Caucasoids in West Asia and “Mongoloids” in Northeast Asians, while Uighurs were the product of Central Asian, West Asian, and Northeast Asian interbreeding.”
In fact, all of these populations are on the border genetically between Caucasians and Asians.
A Mongolian woman. Note short, stocky appearance with short limbs to preserve heat in the cold. Note also the long, moon-shaped, ruddy face, possibly red from the cold weather. Are those ginseng roots in her hand?
More Mongolians, this time with what look like grazing reindeer in the background. Mongolians herd reindeer? Note once again the long, flat, moon-shaped face, the almost-Caucasian features and especially the pale blue eyes of each woman. I cannot help but think that both of these women also look like Amerindians. Neither would be out of place at a pow wow.
More Mongolians, this time a Mongolian boy. Other than the eyes, he definitely looks Caucasian. He looks like a lot of the kids I grew up with in facial structure. Mongolians are anywhere from 10% Caucasian to 14% Caucasian.

From their Altaic lands, especially in the Altai region and the mouth of the Amur River, they moved into the Americas either across the Bering Straight or in boats along the Western US Coast. Another line went north to become the Northeast Asians. And from the Northeast Asian homeland near Lake Baikal, another line went on to become the Siberians.

An Evenki boy with his reindeer. Prototypical reindeer herders, the Evenki are a classical Siberian group. Strangely enough, they are related to both NE Asians and other Siberians and also to Tibetans. This indicates that the genesis of the Tibetans may have been up near or in Siberia.

From 10-40,000 yrs ago, the Siberian population was Mongoloid or pre-Mongoloid. After 10,000 yrs BP (before present), Caucasians or proto-Caucasians moved in from the West across the steppes, but they never got further than Lake Baikal. This group came from the Caucasus Mountains. They are members of the Tungus Race and are quite divergent from most other groups genetically.

More Evenkis, members of the Tungus Race, this time some beautiful women and kids in traditional costumes. But this photo was taken in some Siberian city, so they may have just been dressing up. They probably have some Caucasian genes, as the nearby Yakuts are 6% Caucasian. Many of the Evenki women have become single Moms, because the men are seen as violent, drunk and a financial drain.

Soon after the founding of the Asian homeland in northern Vietnam 53,000-90,000 yrs ago, the proto-Asians split into three distinct lines – a line heading to Japanese and related peoples, another heading to the North and Northeast Asians, and a third to the Southern Han Chinese and SE Asian lines.

A beautiful royal member of the Southern Han Dynasty in Hong Kong, member of the South China Sea Race. This race consists of the Filipinos, the Ami and the Southern Han from Guangdong Province. The Ami are a Taiwanese Aborigine tribe who made up the bulk of the Austronesians who populated much of island SE Asia over the past 8,000 years.
These Southern Chinese people never went through any Ice Age, and the SE Asian Race is only 10,000 years old anyway. So why are they so smart? Unlike some NE Asian groups, especially those around Mongolia, the Altai region, the Central Asian Stans and Siberia, the Han have no Caucasian in them.
A bright Chinese commenter left me some astute remarks about the South Chinese IQ: “Some possible reasons for high South Chinese IQ’s: Chinese culture is very… g-loaded. For example, understanding the language requires good pitch, recognizing Chinese characters takes visual IQ and good memory, Chinese literature and history span 3,000-4,000 years for references, etc.
For several thousand years testing determined your social position (and it still does to some extent in Confucian nations). Those left in the countryside were periodically left to famine and “barbarian” invasions (slaughter).
Likewise, when Chinese people interbreed, there is strong pressure to breed into the upper class of a native population. Whatever caused the high selection when Chinese and Mon-Khmer/Dai groups interbred probably gave the Chinese immigrants leverage to marry into the upper classes when they did. This is something the Asian diaspora still tends to do.”
Regarding South Chinese appearance, he notes, “Lastly, the Chinese in Fujian have distinct features. They have thicker lips, curlier hair, more prominent brow, less pronounced epicanthic folds, etc. I’m in Taiwan now and I do notice it. I was at a packed market a while ago and was noting the way people look.”

As a result of this split, all Chinese are related at a deep level, even though Northern Chinese are closer to Caucasians than to Southern Chinese. Nevertheless, we can still see a deep continuum amongst Asian populations.

A Northern Chinese man with distinctly Caucasian features. Although they have no Caucasian genes that we can see anymore, they are still closer to Caucasians than to the Southern Chinese.

The major genetic frequency found in Japan, Korea and Northern China is also found at very high levels in Southern China, Malaysia and Thailand, and at lower levels in the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. Incredibly, even higher levels are found in Southern China, Malaysia and Thailand than in Northern China.
The proto-NE Asian or North Asian homeland was around Lake Baikal about 35,000 years ago. The Ainu and a neighboring group, the Nivkhi, are thought to be the last remaining groups left from this line. The Ainu are related to the Jomon, the earliest group in Japan, who are thought to have originated in Thailand about 16,000 years ago and then came up to Japan on boats to form the proto-Jomon.
The Jomon culture itself formally begins about 9,000 years ago. Japan at that time was connected to the mainland. Jomonese skulls found in Japan look something like Aborigines. Later, around 2,300 years ago, a group called the Yayoi came across the sea from Korea and moved into Japan.

The woman on the left is more Yayoi and the one on the right is more Okinawan. The Okinawans, members of the Ryukyuan Race, seem to be related to the Ainu, and they have a long history in the south of Japan. The Ryukyuan Race is a very divergent grouping.
Most Japanese are members of the Japanese-Korean Race (like the Yayoi woman at left) but there is a divergent group in the South called the Southern Japanese Race, made up of the Honshu Kinki (the people around Kyoto) and the island of Kyushu. They may be more Okinawan than the rest of the mainland Japanese.

Over the next 2,300 years, the Yayoi slowly conquered and interbred with the Ainu until at the present time, the Ainu are nearly extinct as a cultural and racial entity. The Ainu have always been treated terribly by the Japanese, in part because they are quite hairy, like Caucasians.
The hairy body is thought to be a leftover from proto-NE Asian days, as some other groups in that area also have a lot of body hair. Despite the fact that they look down on the Ainu, about 40% of Japanese are related to the Ainu, and the rest are more or less related to the Yayoi. Actually, Japanese genetics seems a lot more complicated than that, but that’s as good a summary as any.

The Ainu. Though despised by the Japanese in part due to their Caucasian-like “monkey hair” on their bodies (note the guy’s hairy legs), the Japanese themselves are about 40% Ainu. The Ainu are members of the Ainu-Gilyak Race and are one of the most diverse groups on Earth.
A photo of Ainu Yasli Adam in traditional garb. I love this photo. Note that he could be mistaken for an Aborigine or a Caucasian. For a long time, the Ainu were considered to be Caucasians, but recent genetic studies have shown conclusively that they are Asians.
The Ainu language is formally an isolate, but in my opinion it is probably related to Japanese and Korean and thence to Altaic, nevertheless I think that both Japanese and Korean are closer to Altaic than Ainu is. Genetically, the Ainu are closest to NE Asians but are also fairly close to the Na-Dene Amerindians. Cavalli-Sforza says they are in between NE Asians, Amerindians and Australians.

At this time, similar-looking Australoids who looked something like Papuans, Aborigines or Negritos were present all over Asia, since the NE Asians and SE Asians we know them today did not form until around 10,000 years ago.
There are still some traces of these genes, that look like a Papuan line, in modern-day Malays, coastal Vietnamese, parts of Indonesia and some Southwestern Chinese. The genes go back to 13,000 years ago and indicate a major Australoid population expansion in the area at that time. Absolutely nothing whatsoever is known about this Australoid expansion.

God I love these Paleolithic types. A Papuan Huli man, member of the Papuan Race, who looks somewhat like an Australian Aborigine. Although it is often said that Papuans and Aborigines are related, they are only in the deepest sense. In truth, they really do form two completely separate races because they are so far apart.
Once again, while Afrocentrists also like to claim these folks as “Black”, the Papuans and Aborigines are the two people on Earth most distant from Africans, possibly because they were the first to split off and have been evolving away from Africans for so long. I don’t know what that thing in his mouth is, but it looks like a gigantic bong to me. There are about 800 languages spoken on Papua, including some of the most maddeningly complex languages on Earth.
NE Asian skulls from around 10,000 years ago also look somewhat like Papuans, as do the earliest skulls found in the Americas. The first Americans, before the Mongoloids, were apparently Australoids.

The proto-NE Asian Australoids transitioned to NE Asians around 9,000 years ago. We know this because the skulls at Zhoukoudian Cave in NE China from about 10,000 years ago look like the Ainu, the Jomon people, Negritos and Polynesians.

Waitress in Hothot, Inner Mongolia. Zhoukoudian Cave is not far from here. Note the typical NE Asian appearance. Mongolians are members of the Mongolian Race and speak a language that is part of the Altaic Family.

We think that these Australoids also came down in boats or came over the Bering Straight to become the first Native Americans. At that time – 9-13,000 years ago, Zhoukoudian Cave types were generalized throughout Asia before the arrival of the NE Asians.

Northern Chinese prototypes from a photo of faculty and students at Jilin University in Northern China. People in this area, members of the Northern Chinese Race, are closely related to Koreans. Note the lighter skin and often taller bodies than the shorter, darker Southern Chinese. The man in the center is a White man who is posing with the Chinese in this picture.
My brother worked at a cable TV outfit once and there was a Northern Chinese and a Southern Chinese working there. The Northern one was taller and lighter, and the Southern one was shorter and darker. The northern guy treated the southern guy with little-disguised contempt the whole time. He always called the southern guy “little man”, his voice dripping with condescension.
This was my first exposure to intra-Chinese racism. Many NE Asians, especially Japanese, are openly contemptuous of SE Asians, in part because they are darker.

Native Americans go from Australoids to Mongoloids from 7,000-9,000 years ago, around the same time – 9,000 years ago – that the first modern NE Asians show up.

Prototypical NE Asians – Chinese in Harbin, in far northeastern China. This area gets very cold in the winter, sort of like Minnesota. Keep in mind that this race is only 9,000 years old. Note the short, stocky body type, possibly a cold weather adaptation to preserve heat.

Some of the earliest Amerindian skulls such as Spirit Cave Man, Kennewick Man, and Buhl Woman look like Ainu and various Polynesians, especially Maoris.

A Hawaiian woman, part of the Polynesian Race. Kennewick Man does not look like any existing populations today, but he is closest to Polynesians, especially the virtually extinct Moiriori of the Chatham Islands and to a lesser extent the Cook Islanders. Yes, many of the various Polynesians can be distinguished based on skulls. Other early Amerindian finds, such as Buhl Woman and Spirit Cave Woman also look something like Polynesians.
It is starting to look like from a period of ~7,000-11,000 years ago in the Americas, the Amerindians looked like Polynesians and were not related to the existing populations today, who arrived ~7,000 years ago and either displaced or bred out the Polynesian types. Furthermore, early proto-NE Asian skulls, before the appearance of the NE Asian race 9,000 years ago, look somewhat like Polynesians, among other groups.

An archaeologist who worked on Kennewick Man says Amerindians assaulted him, spit on him and threatened to kill him because he said that Kennewick Man was not an Amerindian related to living groups, and that his line seemed to have no ancestors left in the Americas.
Furthermore, most Amerindians insist that their own tribe “has always been here”, because this is what their silly ancestral religions and their elders tell them. They can get quite hostile if you question them on this, as I can attest after working with an Amerindian tribe for 1½ years in the US.
To add further insult to reason, a completely insane law called NAGPRA, or Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, mandates that all bones found on any tribe’s territory are the ancestors of that tribe and must be returned to the tribe for reburial. This idiotic law is completely anti-scientific, but most Amerindians, even highly educated ones, get pretty huffy about defending it (Trust me!).
Hence there has been a huge battle over the bones of Kennewick Man. Equally idiotically, White Nationalists insist that Kennewick Man is a Caucasian, so that means he is one of theirs. They also use this to conveniently note that Whites occupied the US before the Indians, and therefore, that the Amerindians implicitly have no rights to the place and that the land-theft of Amerindian America by Whites was right and proper.
This is even more insane than Zionism by orders of magnitude. First of all, Kennewick Man is not a Caucasian! He just sort of looks like one. But that is only because Polynesians, the Ainu and even Aborigines look somewhat Caucasian. This is not due to Caucasian genes, but is instead simply a case of convergent evolution.
These dual episodes above, like the Asian paleontologist morons above, adds weight to my hypothesis that ethnic nationalism, and nationalism in general, turns people into dithering morons. Among other reasons, that is why this proudly internationalist blog casts such a wary eye on nationalism of all kinds.
The prehistory of SE Asia follows a similar storyline. Once again, all of SE Asia was inhabited by Australoids. They probably looked something like the Negritos of today. Skulls from 9,000-11,000 years ago in SE Asia (including Southern China) resemble modern-day Australoids.
The oldest skulls in Vietnam look like Negritos. 25,800 yr old bones from Thailand look like Aborigines and the genes look like the Semang, Negritos of Thailand and Malaysia. There are skulls dating back 44,000 years in Malaysia and these also look like Aborigines. Some say that the Semang go back 50,000 years in Malaysia.

Andaman Islands Negritos. This type was probably the main human type all throughout SE Asia, and a variation of this type was in NE Asia too. These are really the first people to come out of Africa. Afrocentrists like to say that these people are Black, but the truth is that these people are very far away from Black people – in fact, they are Asians.
Andaman Islanders have peppercorn hair like the hair of the Bushmen in Africa. This would differentiate this group from the woolly-haired Negritos in the Philippines. Genetic studies have shown that the Andaman Islanders are quite probably the precise remains of the first people to come out of Africa.
Genetically, they tend to resemble whatever group they are living around, with some distinct variations. In truth, this group here, the Andamans, is one of the “purest” ethnic groups on Earth, because they have been evolving in isolation for so long. This is known as genetic drift. At the same time, I think there is little diversity internally in their genome, also due to drift.
The Andaman Negritos are part of the Andaman Islands Negrito Race. Their strange and poorly understood languages are not related to any others, but there is some speculation that they are related to Kusunda in Nepal, a language isolate. I tend to agree with that theory.
One of the problems with genetic drift is after a while you get an “island” effect where the population lacks genetic diversity, since diversity comes from inputs from outside populations. Hence they tend to be vulnerable to changes in the environment that a more genetically diverse population would be able to weather a lot better.
Although racist idiot Richard Lynn likes to claim that all people like this have primitive languages, the truth is that the Andaman languages are so maddeningly complex that we are still having a hard time making sense out of them.
As in the case of Melanesians, Papuans and some Indian tribals, Afrocentrists like to claim that the Negritos are “Africans”, i.e., Black people. The truth is that Negritos are one of the most distant groups on Earth to existing Black populations. Negrito populations tend to be related, though not closely, with whatever non-Negrito population are in the vicinity. This is due to interbreeding over the years. Furthermore, most, if not all, Negritos are racially Asians, not Africans.
Another misconception is that Negritos are Australoids. Genetically, the vast majority of them do not fall into the Papuan or Australian races, but anthropometrically, at least some are Australoid. There is a lot of discrimination against these people wherever they reside, where they are usually despised by the locals.
White Supremacists have a particular contempt for them. As a side note, although White Supremacists like to talk about how ugly these people are, I think these Negrito women are really cute and delightful looking, but do you think they have large teeth? Some say Negritos have large teeth.

Around 8,500 years ago, the newly minted NE Asians, who had just transitioned from Australoids to NE Asians, came down from the north into the south in a massive influx, displacing the native Australoids. We can still see the results today. Based on teeth, SE Asians have teeth mixed between Australoids (Melanesians) and NE Asians. Yet, as noted above, there are few Australoid genes in SE Asians.

8,500 years ago, NE Asians moved down into SE Asia, displacing the native Australoids and creating the SE Asian race. If NE Asians are so smart though, I want to know what these women are doing wearing bathing suits in the freezing cold. Compare the appearance of these Northern Chinese to other NE Asian mainland groups above.

A prominent anthropology blogger suggests that a similar process occurred possibly around the same time in South Asia and the Middle East, where proto-Caucasians moved in and supplanted an native Australoid mix.
One group that was originally thought to be related to the remains of the original SE Asians is called the Yumbri, a group of primitive hunter-gatherers who live in the jungles of northern Laos and Thailand. Some think that the Yumbri may be the remains of the aboriginal people of Thailand, Laos and possibly Cambodia, but there is controversy about this.

Yumbri noble savages racing through the Thai rain forest. The group is seldom seen and little is known about them. They are thought to number only 200 or so anymore, and there are fears that they may be dying out. This paper indicates via genetics that the Yumbri are a Khmuic group that were former agriculturalists who for some odd reason gave up agriculture to go back to the jungles and live the hunter-gatherer way.
This is one of the very few case cases of agriculturalists reverting to hunting and gathering. The language looks like Khmuic (especially one Khmu language – Tin) but it also seems to have some unknown other language embedded in it. Genetics shows they have only existed for around 800 years and they have very little genetic diversity.
The low genetic diversity means that they underwent a genetic bottleneck, in this case so severe that the Yumbri may have been reduced to only one female and 1-4 males. It is interesting that the Tin Prai (a Tin group) has a legend about the origin of the Yumbri in which two children were expelled from the tribe and sent on a canoe downstream. They survived and melted into the forest where they took up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
The Khmu are an Austroasiatic group that are thought to be the indigenous people of Laos, living there for 4,000 years before the Lao (Thai) came down 800 years ago and largely displaced them from the lowlands into the hills. The Austroasiatic homeland is usually thought to be somewhere in Central China (specifically around the Middle Yangtze River Valley), but there are some who think it was in India.
They moved from there down into SE Asia over possibly 5,000 years or so. Many Austroasiatics began moving down into SE Asia during the Shang and Zhou Dynasties due to Han pushing south, but the expansion had actually started about 8,500 years ago. At this time, SE Asia was mostly populated by Negrito types. The suggestion is that the Austroasiatics displaced the Negritos, and there was little interbreeding.
The Austroasiatic languages are thought to be the languages of the original people of SE Asia and India, with families like Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Indo-European and Dravidian being latecomers. There are possible deep linguistic roots with the Austronesian Family, and genetically, the Austroasiatics are related to Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai and the Hmong-Mien speakers.

There is an interesting paradox with the Southern Chinese in that genetically, they look like SE Asians, but they have IQ’s more like NE Asians, around ~105. There do not seem to be any reasonable theories about why this is so. It is true that NE Asians came down and moved into SE Asia, but they moved into the whole area, not just Southern China, yet SE Asian IQ’s are not nearly as high as Southern Chinese IQ’s.
Of relevance to the IQ debate is that Asians, especially NE Asians, score lower on self-esteem than Blacks, yet they do much better in school. This would tend to argue against the contention of many that Black relatively poor school performance is a consequence of them not feeling good about themselves.
This seems to poke one more hole in Richard Lynn’s theory that a journey through the Ice Age is necessary for a high IQ, as the Southern Chinese made no such sojourn.
As a result of the Northern and Southern mix in Southern China, groups such as the Yunnanese are quite a mixed group. Yunnanese are mostly southern and are extremely distant from NE Asians. The Wa are a group in the area that is almost equally mixed with northern and southern admixture.

Two pretty Laotian girls being starved to death by murderous Communist killers in Laos. The Lao are related to the Thai and are members of the Tai Race that includes the Lao, Thai, Aini, Deang, Blang, Vietnamese, Muong, Shan, Dai and Naxi peoples. The Lao language is a member of the Tai language family.
The Thai are related to the Tai group in Yunnan in Southern China. They evolved there about 4,000 years ago and then gave birth to a number of groups in the region. The modern Thai are latecomers to the region, moving into the area in huge numbers only about 700 years ago to become the Lao, Thai and Shan. The Lao are the descendants of recent Tai immigrants who interbred heavily with existing Chinese and Mon-Khmer populations.
Gorgeous Dai women in China. The Dai are an ethnic group in China, mostly in Yunnan, who are related to the Thai – they are also members of the Tai Race and speak a Tai language . It looks like the Thai split off from the larger Dai group and moved into Thailand in recent centuries.
The Dai were together with the Zhuang, another Yunnan group, as the proto-Tai north of Yunnan about 5000 years ago. They moved south into Yunnan and split into the Zhuang and the Tai. There were also Tai movements south into Vietnam via Yunnan.
More Dai, this time two young Dai men from Thailand. They do seem to look a bit different from other Thais, eh? They look a little more Chinese to me. The Thai are not the only ethnic group in Thailand; there are 74 languages spoken there, and almost all are in good shape. These people apparently speak the Tai Nüa language.
A proud Dai father in China, where they Dai are an official nationality together with the Zhuang. He’s got some problems with his teeth, but that is pretty typical in most of the world, where people usually lack modern dental care.
A photo of a Thai waitress in Bangkok getting ready to serve some of that yummy Thai food. Note that she looks different from the Dai above – more Southeast Asian and less Chinese like the Dai. The Thai are also members of the Tai Race.
Another pic of a Thai street vendor. The Thai are darker and less Chinese-looking than the lighter Dai. The Tai people are thought to have come from Taiwan over 5,000 years ago. They left Taiwan for the mainland and then moved into Southwest China, which is thought to be their homeland. Then, 5,000 years ago, they split with the Zhuang. The Zhuang went to Guangxi and the Tai went to Yunnan.
A Thai monk. Am I hallucinating or does this guy look sort of Caucasian? In Thai society, it is normal for a young man to go off and become a monk for a couple of years around ages 18-20. Many Thai men and most Lao men do this. I keep thinking this might be a good idea in our society. Khrushchev used to send them off to work in the fields for a couple of years at this age.

Nevertheless, most Yunnanese have SE Asian gene lines and they are quite distant from the NE Asians (as noted, NE Asians are further from SE Asians than they are from Caucasians).

More beautiful women, this time from Yunnan, in Communist-controlled China. Look at the miserable faces on these poor, starving women as they suffer through Communist terror and wholesale murder.
Yunnan was the starting point for most of peoples in the region, including the Tai, the Hmong, the Mon-Khmer, the Vietnamese, the Taiwanese aborigines and from there to the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia.
In a sense, almost all of SE Asia was settled via a southward and southeastward movement out of Yunnan. Why so many groups migrated out of Yunnan is not known, but they may have being pushed out of there via continuous southward movements by Northern Han. Yunnan was seen as a sort of rearguard base and sanctuary for many Chinese ethnic groups who were being pushed out of their areas, mostly by Han expansions.
The terrain was rough but fertile. At some point, the Han started pushing down into Yunnan and that is when many southward expansions into SE Asia over the last 5000 or so years took place. A discussion of Asian racial features and their possible evolution is here.

Tibetans are close to NE Asians genetically, though they are located in the South. This is because they evolved in NE Asia and only recently moved down into Tibet. After coming into Tibet, they moved down into Burma. Many of today’s Burmese came from Tibet.

A Tibetan tourist in India. This woman has more of a classic Tibetan look than the younger woman below. Tibetans characteristically have darker skin than many NE Asians – Tibetans are actually NE Asians displaced to the south in fairly recent times. Although it is high and cold in Tibet, the region is at a more southerly latitude. Nevertheless, UV radiation is very intense in Tibet, which probably accounts for the darker skin.
It looks like all humans were pretty dark at the start and in some cases have lost melanin in cold climes where they needed to lighten to get Vitamin D. White skin in Europe is merely 9,000 years old, so European Whites never went through any brain-sharpening Ice Age either.
Tibetans are members of the General Tibetan Race, which includes the Tibetan, Nakhi, Lisu, Nu, Karen, Adi, Tujia, Hui and Kachin peoples. They speak a Tibeto-Burman language, part of the larger Sino-Tibetan family.
My observant Chinese commenter notes about the Tibetans: “As for the Tibetans, they seem to be primarily Northeast Asian (they look to be the most “yellow” of any Asians) with some other (South Asian-looking) element that interbred with them fairly recently. They tend to also be more ruddy, and have skin tones from reddish to yellow to brown.
You can see some similarities with Burmese, but they are distinct. Another thing to note is that the prevalence of colored hair and eyes is relatively higher in Tibet.
A gorgeous Tibetan woman, but to me she does not look typically Tibetan. Note that she seems to have put some whitening powder on her face – note contrast between her face and her darker hand.
Although this blog supports Tibetan freedom and opposed the colonial Chinese takeover and racist ethnic cleansing of the Tibetan people by the Chinese Communists, it should nevertheless be noted that the wonderful regime that the Dalai Lama apparently wants to bring back was one of the most vicious forms of pure feudalism existing into modern times, where the vast majority of the population were serf-slaves for the Buddhist religious ruling class.
Yes, that wonderful religion called Buddhism has its downside.
The Buddhist paradise of Burma, run by one of the most evil military dictatorships on Earth (No satire in that sentence). I thought Buddhists were supposed to be peace loving?
A Burmese woman with classic Burmese features. The Burmese, better known as the Bamar, are members of the General Tibetan Race. Boy, she sure is cute. And yes, I do have a thing for Asian women. I think I need to retitle this post Hot Asian Babes.

There are several interesting points in the sketch above. First of all, much as it pains them to be compared to people whom they probably consider to be inferior, all NE Asians were originally Australoids similar to the Australian Aborigines.
NE Asians like to accuse SE Asians of being mostly an “Australoid” group, an analysis that is shared by many amateur anthropologists on the web. We will look into this question more in the future, but it appears that both NE and SE Asians are derived from Australoid stock. Further, there are few Australoid genes left in any mainland SE Asians and none in most SE Asians.
It is true that Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians are part-Australoid in that the latter two are derived from Melanesians, who are derived from Austronesians mixed with Papuans. Any analysis that concludes that non-Oceanic SE Asians are “part-Australoid” is dubious.
If anything, NE Asians are closer to Australoids than most SE Asians. The Japanese and Koreans are probably closer to Australian Aborigines than any other group in Asia. I am certain that the ultranationalist and racialist Japanese at least will not be pleased to learn this.
Second, we note that all Asians are related, and that the proto-Asian homeland was in northern Vietnam. It follows that NE Asians are in fact derived from the very SE Asians whom the NE Asians consider to be inferior. A NE Asian who is well versed in these matters (He was of the “SE Asians are part-Australoid” persuasion) was not happy to hear my opinion at all, and left sputtering and mumbling.
NE Asian superiority over SE Asians is a common point of view, especially amongst Japanese – the Japanese especially look down on Koreans (Their fellow NE Asians!), Vietnamese, Filipinos (the “niggers of Asia”), the Hmong (the “hillbillies of Asia”) and the Khmer.

The beautiful, intelligent, civilized and accomplished Koreans. Tell me, the Japanese look down on these people are inferiors why now? Note the rather distinct short and stocky appearance, possibly a heat-preserving adaptation to cold weather. Note also the moon-shaped face.
The Koreans seem to have come down from Mongolia about 5,000 years ago and completely displaced an unknown native group, but don’t tell any Korean that. Koreans are members of the Japanese-Korean Race and the Korean language is said to be a language isolate, but I think it is distantly related to Japanese, Ainu and Gilyak in a separate, distant branch of Altaic.
My Chinese commenter adds: “I get the impression that Koreans are at least comprised two major physically discernible groups. Some of them have a shade of skin similar to the Inuit or Na Dene. But I think they have intermixed quite a lot during some relatively stable 5,000+ year period, which results in a fairly even spectrum.”

Third, Richard Lynn’s Ice Age Theory takes another hit as he can explain neither the Southern Chinese high IQ, nor the genesis of high-IQ NE Asians from lower-IQ SE Asians, nor the fact that NE Asians do not appear in the anthropological record until 9,000 years ago (after the Ice Age that supposedly molded those fantastic brains of theirs), nor the genesis of these brainy folks via Australoids, whom Lynn says are idiots.
Fourth, the Negritos, who are widely reviled in their respective countries as inferiors, are looking more and more like the ancestors of many of us proud humans. Perhaps a little respect for the living incarnations of our ancient relatives is in order.

Genocide in Australia

Repost from the old site.
Looks like it was way worse than the genocide of the Amerindians in the US. The wiping out of the Amerindians was done mostly by disease. The much-repeated story of blankets poisoned with smallpox apparently occurred in once, back East.
There was a large poisoning of maybe 200-300 Amerindians in the Shasta area of California in the 1800’s, and there was a massacre of 200-300 Amerindians near Eureka at the same time. California was actually one of the worst places of all. There was an all-out war against the Amerindians here.
I spent months going over old newspaper archives in a library as part of work I did for an Indian tribe here in the Sierras (now doing great with a casino).
In the 1850’s and 1860’s, the California Indians were fighting back. The governor himself was making wild proclamations about how this war a war of one race against another, a war that had to lead to the extinction of one or the other.
For 15-20 years or so, it was more or less legal to kill any Indian you wanted in the Sierras and Northern California and for any reason. You could rape an Indian woman too if you want to, and take an Indian child captive. All of this was more or less legal.
Of course this was taking place against the backdrop of the utterly insane mass criminality and homicide of the California Gold Rush, a crime wave the likes of which the state has never even come close to seeing since.
Too many young unmarried men, hardly any women, few to no families, lots of money in the form of gold, little law enforcement, all the ingredients were there. The law that existed was a brutal one, and men were hanged right and left in the Gold Rush for all sorts of things, but preying on Indians was not one of them.
On Sundays, the men would all go to church, then they would head back to the camps to drink, take drugs, steal, fight, kill and just in general act like animals.
There were regular hangings at the camps, and these were well-attended. Folks would go watch the hangings, then head back to camp to commit more crimes later that evening. Sometimes, even capital punishment just doesn’t cut it. Recall the stories of the pickpockets that roamed through the crowds in England at the hangings. This was when pickpocketing was a capital offense.
Until 1870 or so, an Indian in this part of the state kept his head down and his mouth shut and hoped to stay alive. Epidemics and disease took their toll. By 1890, 95% of the Indian population on the Central Sierra Nevada foothills was dead.
That’s interesting to folks who insist that genetic change in humans takes a long time. Not necessarily, when something happens that kills 95% of a group, and the survivors have some characteristic that enabled them to survive, you can get some pretty extensive genetic changes pretty quickly.
Those who tally such things say that ultimately, Whites killed 7,000 Indians and Indians killed about 11,000 Whites. It’s true, the Indians were could be brutal and women and children were at times killed, but they also often kidnapped them and made them members of the tribe.
There are a couple of stories in my family about encounters with Indians. These all stem from one line of my family, who actually came over with the first invaders on the Second Ship of the Mayflower.
Sometime in the 1640’s in Massachusetts, Indians attacked the village where all the men were off hunting. They rounded up the women and children and prepared to set fire to them.
Some of the women started singing a pretty song, and the Indians stopped to listen. Well, this was long enough for the menfolk to return, chase off the Indians and save the day. Two of my ancestors were in that group, a woman and her young child.
Later, in late 1700’s Virginia, one of my relatives was taken captive by Indians with his friend. They made them run the gauntlet, a popular thing that Indians liked to do with captured Whites. As you ran the gauntlet, the Indians beat on you.
Well, the friend was apparently killed in this process. My ancestor, though, when prodded to run the gauntlet, started jumping around and squawking like a chicken. The Indians all started laughing and decided he did not have to run the gauntlet.
I’m not sure if it’s the same story, but one of my ancestors at one point was either captured by Indians or joined them. This in late 1700’s Virginia again. His family just gave him up for dead. Well, 10 years later, the son returns home, about 30 years old, and he’s walking up to his father’s house all dressed like an Indian.
His father got out his gun and was ready to shoot his own son until he recognized him. Back in those days, if an Indian was coming onto your property, you shot him.
My family goes back to 1600’s Virginia and it’s said that if you can trace your line back that far, you have a 50% chance of being related to Pocahontas. So there may be a bit of Amerindian (less than 1%) in me after all.
The first two stories are probably apocryphal.
If you notice the themes: clever Whites use their ingenuity (and common human nature) to fool the Indians by disarming them and appealing to their sensibilities for comedy and appreciation of music. As the Indian is a barbarian savage in both tales, at the same time, he is a fellow human, revealed by his ability to appreciate a clever joke or a beautiful song.
At the end of the day, there is really no way to figure out if such stories are true or not. But they got passed down through the family for years for a reason that is at once egotistical and at the same time a warning: our line is a clever line, able to cheat death by our wits. Remember this, and use this lesson in the close calls you may experience in your own dangerous times.
The treatment of the Aborigines looks like a real genocide. There were sterilization attempts, deliberate attempts at “breeding them out”, mass imprisonments for minor infractions, infantilization throughout life by being confined to child-care like institutions where even their shit had to pass muster.
In these homes, both sexes experienced mass sex abuse, and this went on for decades. Single women were not allowed to have sex, and males were punished for being a “menace to White women”. Half-breeds were taken away to be raised by Whites, and many Aboriginal children were stolen from their families. There was a conscious attempt to make this race fade into history.
There are not many full-blooded Aboriginals left. There are not that many in cities, and most are in remote areas. They still have very serious problems, but they are hardly any kind of threat to the rest of Australians in any way. At the moment, alcohol and drugs are the worst problems, and fetal alcohol syndrome is epidemic among them. The damaged children are petty criminals and find it hard to function on their own.
When the Whites first showed up, Aboriginals were waging their own war of extinction on the Negritos of Australia, who may have been there even before the Aborigines showed.
The Negritos are the first people out of Africa 70,000 years ago, who moved along the Indian Ocean to SE Asia, leaving trace populations (or relatives) behind (possibly) in Yemen, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Andaman Islands, Malaysia, the Philippines and New Guinea.

The journey taken by early man out of Africa 70,000 years ago. As you can see, one line goes to Australia. Negritos, not Aborigines, were probably the first people in Australia.

The first Whites witnessed Aborigines hunting Negritos the way man would hunt wild animals. They were killed just for the pleasure of it, and because they were small.
Early investigations revealed and photographed some relict populations in Southwest Queensland around Brisbane, Gold Coast, Tin Can Bay, Fraser Island, Blue Lake National Park, Gympie, Tewantin, Cooloola National Park, Tiaro, and the general area of the Mary River. There was another large population in Northeastern Queensland around Cairns and Cape York. Tasmanians also seem to have had Negrito characteristics.

A photo of Australian Negritos from the Cairns rainforest, taken in 1890, found by Tindale in 1937. He went looking for some Negritos in the area and found a few of them. I haven’t seen any genetic studies on these people, since there are few if any of them left, but studies did seem to show that like most Negritos, they are most closely related genetically to the people around them, in this case, the Aborigines.

Native Tasmanians are now apparently extinct. They were also hunted like animals for decades.
The people that we commonly know as Aborigines (or at least one group called Carpentarians named for the Gulf of Carpentaria in Northern Australia) seem to have come much later from Southern India (and seem related to the Veddoids) and largely replaced the Negritos, a genocide that was in its final phases when the Whites showed up.

Indo-Melanid Yanadi boys in Southern India. Note the resemblance with Aborigines. Unfortunately, cranial studies do not show a relationship with Veddoid types and Aborigines. However, genes did seem to show a link a while back. Nevertheless, cranially and surely genetically, these Yanadis are Caucasians.
They may be some of the most ancient Caucasians of them all. It’s fascinating to think that the Aborigines as we know them are the original people, but were actually later arrivals from India and the Pacific Rim respectively.

The Carpentarians showed up about 15,000 years ago, were darker and had little body hair.
A classic Aborigine, probably a cross between an Ainu type and an early South Indian type. These types were generalized across India and SE Asia about 24,000 years ago.
Another group, called Murrayians, are apparently related to the Ainu, and arrived 20,000 years ago. The Ainu are thought to be the remnants of the original people of Northern Asia. They were stocky, wavy-haired, hairy, and fairly light-skinned.

A photo of Ainu Yasli Adam in traditional garb. I love this photo. Note that he could be mistaken for an Aborigine or a Caucasian. Anthropological studies suggest that Ainu types showed up in Australia about 20,000 years ago. There seems to be evidence of them in Thailand around 16,000 years ago, and about this time they went to Japan to form a very early Japanese culture called the Jomonese. There is a suggestion that proto-Jomonese people were also in Thailand around this time.
At the same time, the Americas were being populated by types that best resemble the Ainu. These are the Paleoindians, and the Amerindians today are no relation, no matter how much they scream. The famous Kennewick Man is also a Paleoindian most closely related to an Ainu or a Maori. He only appears Caucasian because the Ainu types do look Caucasian. However, in facial structure, they are Australoid, and genetically, they are Asians.
Complete moron White nationalists claim that Kennewick Man is a White Man, and this proves that Whites were here before Amerindians, and therefore the whole continent is ours. Stupid or what? I’m going to do a whole post taking these clowns to task over this. In traditional early anthropology of the Philippines, a group called the proto-Malay is postulated.
They arrived after the Negritos and after an Australoid group called Sakais, who seem to resemble Veddoids or the Senoi of Malaysia. The proto-Malay are described as short and very hairy. A hairy Asian sounds like an Ainu, and indeed, there were Jomon types in Thailand, and Ainu types may have settled Australia 20,000 years ago, and the Americas 12,000 years ago.
In short, Ainu types were on the move around the Pacific Rim from 12-20,000 years ago, and may even have settled in the Philippines. This is real cutting-edge stuff here and I am totally going out on a limb. Feel free to dive in.

An Australian fossil called Kow Swamp from 20,000 YBP curiously looks more like Homo Erectus than Homo Sapiens.
The Negritos were least advanced, then the Murrayians, then the Carpentarians.
Tindale and Birdsell did the best work on the peopling of Australia long ago and much of it stands to this day. In between the 1960’s saw such idiocies as pan-Aboriginalism, which mandated that all Aborigines had to come from a single source.
Ridiculous theories postulated Negritos not as ancient remnants of the first modern humans in their regions, but as the result of microevolution (in particular, to living in a rain forest) and evolutionary drift.
This same scenario plays out in Africa, where Bantus kill Pygmies just for the fun of it, and take special pleasure in eating them. This old habit has come back with the horrible civil war in Zaire that has killed 5 million people.
In the Philippines, Negritos have been murdered by settlers for their land for decades now, with few legal consequences. The remainder are a defeated people, their lands stolen by Filipinos, working for Filipinos on their former lands as agricultural labor, living in squatter villages, families falling apart, riven by alcohol, dope and even pornography.

A full-grown Ati woman. The Ati, a Philippines Negrito group, live on Panay Island, where they number about 1,500. The Filipinos have been stealing their land and killing them when they resist for decades now, and the government could care less. The Negritos of the Philippines are starting to look like a defeated race.

On the Andaman Islands, most of the Negritos have gone extinct due to disease. The few remainders, for some odd reason, are afflicted with very low fertility, that is, the women seem to be unable to bear children. Is this nature’s way of marking the extinction of a race?

Andaman Islands Negritos. Contact with advanced civilization is fatal to them. They have some immunity to malaria, but none to Hepatitis, venereal diseases or even the common cold or the flu. They quickly succumb to venereal disease, violent crime, beggary, and sloth upon contact with modern civilization.
There is a group on the Sentinel Islands that attacks all researchers who come near. Indian nationalist fuckheads keep sending expeditions to “bring them into civilization” but every Andamans group that has come to the modern world has been destroyed. Long may the Sentinelese prosper in the Paleolithic glory.
I actually think these Stone Age chicks are kinda cute. Hell with modern woman anyway. Every one I meet wants to know my net worth. Think these babes care? Hell with Late Capitalism, how do I get me one of these Negrito chicks anyway?

Human Races and Subspecies

Repost from the old site.
A question that comes up all the time in race realist circles is whether or not the various races of man, however defined, can be considered to be subspecies. No reputable scientist considers the major human races to be separate subspecies of Homo Sapiens. At any rate, Homo sapiens himself is already a subspecies called Homo sapiens sapiens. There was H.s. neanderthalis , H.s. idaltu, probably H.s. rhodesiensis and finally, Homo sapiens sapiens.
So a human subspecies would be look more like a Neandertal, with dramatic differences between them and modern humans. Even Khoisans and Pygmies are much closer to the rest of us than Neandertal or Idaltu Man was.
This area is still quite controversial, but the only scientists and theorists who are suggesting that the differences between the races are great enough to constitute subspecies are racialists, many of whom are explicit racists. Almost all are associated with White nationalism and usually with Nordicism. Nordicists are best seen as Nazis.
You must understand the differences between races and subspecies. For instance there is the California kingsnake . There are no subspecies of the California kingsnake. However, there are numerous races, many of which look radically different from the California kingsnake norm. They are simply called races of the California kingsnake.
So races of humans and other animals are really a level even below that of the subspecies. They are not protected by the Endangered Species Act, and I’m not sure anyone cares about them all that much. They’re better seen as regional variants.
Subspecies are a variant of a species that only occurs in one limited geographical area in which no other subspecies of that animal reside. Hence, each subspecies is geographically isolated from the others such that interbreeding is rare to nonexistent. At some point, subspecies’ territories may start overlapping. They begin to interbreed a lot, since subspecies of a type are readily capable of interbreeding. Once their territories overlap and interbreeding begins, we often stop calling two types separate subspecies and wrap them into a single entity.
Subspecies were differentiated in the past based on a significant degree of anatomical difference. Nowadays, genetics is much more popular. The combination of significant anatomical and behavioral differences combined with significant genetic difference at some point is deemed great enough to warrant a subspecies split. These discussions are carried on very civilly in academic journals and after a bit of back and forth, a consensus of some sort is arrived at regarding whether or not two variants of a species differ enough to be called subspecies. At that point, the discussion typically dies.
In addition, new genetic discoveries now show that some subspecies are so far apart genetically that a good case can be made that they are actually full species and not subspecies. This argument is also written up carefully in a journal, and usually seems to be accepted if the argument is well thought-out. In addition to splitting, there is lumping.
Some variants of a species have in the past been divided into various subspecies. Some new analyses have shown that all of these subspecies definitions were in error, and in fact, the species is fairly uniform, with few to no subspecies instead of the 10-15 they had in the past. This argument also gets written up in a journal and passed around. Usually the new designation is accepted if the argument is well-crafted.
The species/subspecies question is not as wildly controversial among scientists as laypeople think. Designations change back and forth, all are based on good, solid science, and science simply coalesces around the paradigmatic view of a species as it may change over time. Science, after all, is always a work in progress.
The reasons that the California kingsnake races were not split into subspecies is because apparently the genetic differences were too small to warrant a split into subspecies. It is also possible that these races are widely distributed over the kingsnake’s territory, with no particular race holding sway in any certain locale. So probably all of these kingsnake races can not only interbreed like subspecies but they probably are actively interbreeding as they are probably not geographically segregated.
At some point, it is discovered that two animals, previously thought to be separate species, have interlapping territories and the two species are observed readily interbreeding. Since separate species cannot interbreed, once two species start interbreeding easily, science often decides that they are not separate species after all and instead that they are subspecies of a single species
At some level X, two living things are split into species. At some lesser level of genetic differentiation Y, a species is further split into subspecies. At some lesser level of differentiation Z, we can start talking about races. I believe that all of the various breeds of dogs and cats are races.
“Race” and “subspecies” are two terms often conflated in speech, even by biologists, but strictly speaking, they do have different meanings. I do not know any reputable biologist who thinks that any of the various extant human races or subraces, however defined, need to be preserved on solely anthropological grounds in order to preserve their phenotype.
The various human races have been changing all through time continuously.
North Africans were once pure African, now they are mostly Caucasian.
Northeast Asians looked like Aborigines until 9,000 YBP (years before present).
South Indians looked like Aborigines until 8,000 YBP.
Southeast Asians looked like Negritos and Melanesians until about 5,000 YBP.
Over 10,000 years ago, Amerindians looked like Aborigines. Between 7,000-9,000 years ago, they looked something like the Ainu or Polynesians.
Europeans looked like Arabs 10,000 YBP, like Northwestern US Amerindians 23,000 YBP and 30-40,000 YBP, they looked very strange, possibly resembling a Khoisan more than anything else. White skin only shows up 9,000 YBP in Europe.
Polynesians and Micronesians only show up in the past 2,000 years.
So all of the modern human races and subraces, however defined, have been continuously changing down through time. The notion that they are some kind of unique subspecies in need of conservation like Northern Spotted Owls is completely mistaken and has little basis in modern science.

Equality is Not a Prerequisite for Liberalism

Repost from the old site.

On a White nationalist blog that linked to me, I noted that it was possible to be a race realist and a socialist. This provoked the following objection:

…That makes no sense. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that of equality, of human beings being equal and interchangeable. It’s false of course, but take it away and all sorts of other leftist and liberal ideas crumble by implication.

I don’t see how one can be a race realist without that leading naturally to some sort of white supremacist / white nationalist / white exclusiveness position.

First of all, I would like to say some things about White Nationalism. I’ve finally concluded that White Nationalism is nothing but White racism and often White Supremacism.

It’s just White racism and White Supremacism repackaged with a fancy new name called White Nationalism to make it seem like it’s not those nasty things that we know of as White racism and White Supremacism, the latter being largely discredited. Well, if a philosophy is discredited, just invent a fancy new word for it and say it’s not the bad thing it really is.

It also explains why White Nationalists are so sensitive about the word racism and always put it in quotes like this: “racism”. Of course, they only do this when referring to White racism. Black racism, Hispanic racism, and all the other kinds are quite real; it’s only White racism that is phantasmagorical.

It’s also interesting how White Nationalists project. While they are denying their own racism, they are often fulminating about Black racism and Hispanic racism and whatnot. That’s clearly denial and projection.

There does seem to be a trend now with a lot of White Nationalists to come right out and admit that they are racists. This is to be encouraged. If you’re racist, what the Hell, just admit it. It’s not like you’re alone in the world – the world is full of racists. And it’s not like it’s the worst thing in the world to be anyway – as White Nationalists note, there are sure plenty of Hispanic and Black racists out there.

White Nationalists think they have excellent reasons to be racists – they’ve had bad experiences with Blacks and Hispanics and want nothing more to do with them. If that’s the case, then just admit it and make your case to an inquiring world.

There are a few White Nationalists who don’t seem to be racists, but I would say that 98% of them are.

No, onto this fellow’s rejoinder. This is a typical White Nationalist position. To them, one is either a silly race-denying liberal or one is a White Nationalist racist.

It doesn’t work that way. I know a number of White liberals and even Leftists who feel that there are intrinsic differences between the races; they just don’t think the question is very important. They date, befriend and even marry non-Whites. You might be surprised how common this type of thinking is.

One thing that always bothered me about the race realist crowd is that they insist that there are intrinsic differences between the races, and then proceed to blame races and ethnic groups for various average shortcomings and higher rates of pathologies.

But if those shortcomings and pathology rates are indeed genetic (This is what almost all race realists insist) then it follows that those groups should not be blamed for their shortcomings or pathologies. After all, it’s genetic and nothing can be done, right?

So, first of all, they accuse a group of being the equivalent of handicapped, then they throw the crutches away, kick the wheelchair to the side, throw the person into the gutter, all the while cursing them for being a cripple. How cruel can you get? Why does a realization that humans are not intrinsically equal automatically seem to lead to the cruelest sort of Social Darwinism, at best?

And by the same token, if the superior races are only superior through the luck of the dices, what on Earth do they have to feel proud of anyway? Nothing, really. Have they done anything to earn their superior status? Hardly. They just lucked out in the genes crapshoot. Big deal.

If humans are not equal, then it would be up to the state to equalize things. If Blacks, on average are always going to fall behind due to lower IQ (I am beginning to fear that this may be the case), then that is no fault of their own anyway, and it’s cruel to force them to suffer the ravages of the market, which is what most White nationalists seem to perversely want to do.

If Blacks were on average the same as we are, and the failures of their group were just due to their being a bunch of willful, perverse and deliberately wicked and stupid pricks, I would just say the Hell with them. But I honestly think that they can’t help it.

Nor can Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Aborigines, or any other group that is going to tend to fall behind. It’s really not their fault. Therefore, they should not be punished with failure for things that they can’t help.

If Black income is always going to be a lot lower on average than, say, Whites, due to an IQ deficit that they have no control over, then it is the duty of the state through redistributive taxation to equalize things a bit and make it more fair for Blacks who fail through no fault of their own.

Humans are not necessarily equal at all. Even within a race, we are born with wildly differing IQ’s and whatnot. I think most liberals would agree with that.

Even from a White Supremacist point of view, libertarianism makes no sense. Libertarianism is not only perverse for conscious White nationalists, it’s downright cruel.

If you really love your own people so much, why throw them into a Roman-type pit where they consume each other alive while you cheer on the deadliest and most homicidal of the White cannibals? Only via some form of socialism can Whites really work together to help each other and have real solidarity.

I’m not interested in supremacism or chauvinism or nationalism or any of that. What are you looking for in your acquaintances? There are smart or good or kind, or any combination of many other great qualities, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians and all sorts of other non-Europeans. Just as smart, good and kind as your European White friends.

I love my people finally (after decades of self-hate) but Whites are not the end-all and be-all. I think Whites are a bit cold, for one. Hispanics and Blacks are much warmer and friendlier, and it’s much easier to befriend them. Of course, their lower-income neighborhoods also have some big downsides too. There’s good and bad with all groups, including Whites.

If people are not equal, that’s no argument against liberalism. It actually implies we need it even more.

It means we need affirmative action, progressive taxation, humane prisons and all sorts of things you would never think of.

Racial Transitions in Human Prehistory

A commenter asks:

“Then Taiwan aborigines transition to Mongoloid over the next 3000 years. Probably a similar transition occurred in the Philippines, as the Ami in the Philippines slowly turned into Mongoloids along with the rest of SE Asia.”

Interesting, hey Robert has this kind of “Transition” ever happened anywhere else in the world around the same period of time?

Khoisan transitioned from earlier types 90,000 YBP.

Khoisans transitioned to Pygmy types 50,000 YBP.

Europeans transitioned from proto-Masai types 40,000 YBP to proto-NW American Amerindian types 30,000 YBP to proto-Arabids at 12,000 YBP to modern Europeans.

Aborigines transitioned from earlier types to proto-Ainu types 18,000 YBP to the modern Aborigine 13,000 YBP.

Pygmies and Khoisan transitioned to Negroids in the Sahel from 12,000-6,000 YBP.

Amerindians transitioned from Australoids like Fuegians at 12,000 YBP to proto-Polynesian types resembling Maori like Kennewick Man at 9,000 YBP to modern Amerindians later on.

NE Asians transitioned from proto-Ainu Australoid types to modern NE Asians 9,000 YBP.

East Indians transitioned from Aborigine-type Australoids to Caucasians 8,000 YBP.

More Comments on the Genetics of Filipinos

The question involves whether or not Filipinos have some Negrito genes. The Negritos are the original Australoid peoples of the Philippines. The Filipinos are the modern, SE Asian Mongoloid types that we all familiar with.

SE Asian Australoids are people like Papuans, Melanesians and Negritos.

It is possible to be part this or that in your background, but it won’t show up in genes or in skulls. I think we are all aware that SE Asians in general are a mix of a Mongoloid type with more primitive Australoid types = Negrito or Melanesian types, that were already living there. But when we look at skulls, we see nothing. SE Asian skulls do not look Australoid, other than Negritos and the Senoi.

Classic SE Asian appearance in a young Filipina with relatively dark skin, an adaptation to the tropical climate. She also somewhat resembles a Taiwanese aborigine.

When we go looking for Australoid genes, we can’t seem to find much of those either. Just a few here and there along the coast of Vietnam, in Malaysia and in Indonesia. Though there are a lot more in Eastern Indonesia.

So, yeah, Filipinos may well be part Melanesian/Negrito going way back when (Heck, all SE Asians are) but there’s little to nothing obvious left of the Australoid presence, other than maybe some vague look in the faces won’t plot on a chart (Filipino skulls won’t plot with Australoid skulls on charts).

Emilio Aguinaldo, a famous Filipino independence fighter. This look, often said to be Australoid, actually shows resemblances to the Taiwanese Ami.

The analogy with Amerindians is a good one. Amerindians in the US have quite a bit of White genes. Most are only part Amerindian anymore. But Whites do not have a lot of Amerindian genes. Sure, we have some (I am 1/3000 Amerindian as I am related to Pocohontas), and perhaps a majority of Americans have Amerindian genes, but they only have small amounts of them.

Vast amounts of White genes went into the Amerindian population. Few Amerindian genes went into the White population. Both via genocide and genetic swamping effects.

A similar situation may have existed in the Philippines. Aeta genes now look Filipino, but Filipinos seem to have few Negrito genes that I am aware of.

Wilma, a Filipina girl from Siteo Pader, Angeles City. This Filipina girl has a classic Filipina look to her. She is much closer to a Taiwanese Ami than to a Negrito, as you can see.

The Negritos were simply genetically swamped out. Vast amounts of Filipino genes went into the Negritos, but few Negrito genes went into the Filipinos.

A Negrito woman from the Philippines. Do Filipinos look like this? No. Hence, don't have many Negrito genes.

All of this is complicated by the fact that the original Austronesians may well have been Australoid types. At 5000 YBP, the Taiwanese aborigine Ami, the source of the Filipino population, are Australoid.

An Ami girl from Taiwan. The Ami, Taiwanese aborigines, are the source population of most of the Philippines and the closest relatives of Filipinos.

They transition to Mongoloid over the next 3000 years. Probably a similar transition occurred in the Philippines, as the Ami in the Philippines slowly turned into Mongoloids along with the rest of SE Asia.

A chart showing the near-perfect relationship between the Taiwanese Ami and the Filipinos. The relationship is clear and unmistakable. Note that other Taiwanese populations could not have been the source.

It is true that there are Bornean genes from Borneo in the South of the Philippines, that is, the South Filipinos of Mindanao are part Bornean.

The heavily-Austronesian (Ami) people of Sabah. People from Sabah went up into the Southern Philippines (Mindanao) at some point in the past. P.S. The lady in the middle is a cutie. Same with 3rd one on the top and 3rd one on the left.

The proto-Daic genes from 15,000 YBP that make up 80% of the Indonesians were from an Australoid people. Proto-Daics (the ancestors of the present day Dai people of Yunnan in South China) 15,000 YBP were Australoids. I am not sure what they looked like. Maybe something like an Aborigine or a Melanesian. The Indonesians then transitioned to Mongoloid types over the next 13,000 years or so.

An Indonesian with a strong Australoid appearance. Quite a few Indonesians retain some Australoid features.

The Anuids or Ainu types probably passed through the Philippines two times.

An Ainu woman with quite a bit of Japanese in her. Most Ainus are now heavily Japanese. By the way, she's a hottie.

The first time, going from Thailand as the Ainuid Jomonese to Japan on boats to form the Japanese Jomonese 16,000 YBP.

An Ainu chief showing the typical Ainu appearance before Japanese gene flow.

Possibly the same migration brought the Jomonese to Australia as the Ainuid Murrayans, a formative element in the Aborigines.

Typical Aboriginal women.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

A Recent Comment on Human Genetics and Races

Here is a recent comment on the Peopling of India post by an Indian commenter. I will answer his questions later on in the post:

Please try to answer all of this long winded set of questions, thanks. Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Firstly, you seem interested in this topic and well educated on it say as much as me (love your theories they make sense based on my previous online research and discussion with other people of Indian and indo-Iranian+Near Eastern origin), in fact even more, but how are you valid, are you an anthropologist, scientist of some sort, or do you at least have sources (no offence)?

I am just a journalist who has researched the subject for a few years now. I have no formal credentials whatsoever.

Can you pleases check out these genetic findings on this website: does this data not contradict yours? Is it valid?

That data is very interesting. I think it claims that the Indians are very old and consist of two stocks, North Indian and South Indian. North going back 40,000 YBP and South going back 70,000 YBP. Problem is that if you go back that far, all Indians looked something like Aborigines. Indeed the Aborigines were partly created by an infusion of proto-South Indian stock (Carpenterians) 12,000 YBP went by boats to Australia.

Also Pakistanis are not genetically distinct, correct, and I heard Iranians, Indians, and All Aryan(Indo-Iranian) are closely related genetically as are all Aryans, including Europeans, is this true?

Pakistanis are pretty hard to tell apart from the rest of Indians, yes. But it does appear to be a separate small race amid the Indids.

All of the Indo-Aryans are indeed pretty closely related nowadays, even archaic types like Tamil types. The archaic types are so close to the rest probably through mass interbreeding. All people on the subcontinent are close genetically. The Iranians are fairly close to the Indians, but they are somewhat more distant. The Iranians are the link between the Europeans and the Indians via the Italians. It works like this:

Italians -> Iranians -> Indians

Groups separated by only one arrow are fairly closely related. By two arrows, not so close.

So you see the Iranians are the link between the Caucasians of the East and West.

All Europeans are not that closely related. The groups in the Caucasus are very distant from the rest, as are Turks, Russians, Jews, Orkney Islanders, Sardinians, Basques and Sami at the very least. At lesser distance, but still far from the rest are Yugoslavians and Greeks.

Dravidians are essentially just darker Mediterranean (a phenotype not really from the Mediterranean) Caucasians with a distinct language and culture?

No one knows what the Dravidians are. At the least they seem to be the basic cross between the ancient Australoids of India with the more modern Aryan types from the steppes in the north. There is also evidence of an infusion of ancient Caucasoid stock moving into India 12-17,000 YBP from the area between Lebanon and the coast of Iran. These people may have been related to the ancient Elamites, and Dravidian languages may be related to Elamite. Genetically, this stock looked like Arabs. So the Dravidians may be in part ancient proto-Arabs or proto-Iranians.

Tribals seem like non-Caucasians that have adapted some local languages but kept their own.

Tribals at this time are genetic Caucasians but have skulls that are Australoid.

So essentially you are saying Europe, the Middle East and Caucasus were likely inhabited by Australoids from East Africa who became Caucasians in India and outside of India?

No, it is not correct that Europe, Caucasus, and the Middle East were initially inhabited by Australoids. The Caucasus and the Middle East were originally inhabited by Africans. Europe was originally inhabited by proto-Caucasians, but they did not look much like White people. They may have still looked like East Africans or Masai. Later on, they looked a lot like Amerindians from the US Northwest.

The original Australoids did come out of East Africa as Africans, but they turned into Australoids. And the Australoids were the first race out of Africa, correct. The survivors of this first group are people like the Andaman Islanders and the Mani.

However, the Caucasian race has a different provenance. They came out of East Africa as Africans too, but more recently, only 42,000 YBP. So Caucasians are a more recent split from Blacks. The proto-Caucasian stock may have resembled the Masai, but no one really knows. They moved into the Middle East and then to the Caucasus and South Russia. There, they met with migrating proto-Chinese types (maybe resembling Ainu). From a mixture 2/3 Ainuid and 1/3 Masai type, the Caucasians were born. The Asiatic eyefold was somehow lost.

In Asia, the Australoids progress into modern Asiatics by evolution. The progression occurs first in NE Asia and later in SE Asia. Ancient SE Asians look like Melanesians.

So the Australoids would have been the first race to diverge off of Negroids, and if I am right, according to recent research, they would have mixed with Neanderthals who mixed with everyone who was not Negroid?

Yes, everyone outside of Africa mixed with Neandertals, maybe in the Middle East first, then later in Europe.

One more are, Veddoids, Tamils/Elamites, and Kalash intermediates or something else, and aren’t Nagas Mongoloid?

Kalash are a completely separate race of Caucasians. Caucasians are split into two races – Kalash and Non-Kalash.

Veddoids, Tamils, tribals, etc, are Caucasians by genes and Australoids by skulls.

Nagas, etc. in the Northeast are Mongoloids.

What are Andamans and Negritos racially?

Based on genes, I think that they are some sort of Asiatics. I do not know about the Andamans. The Andaman genes are very distinct, but how distinct I am not sure.

The Mani in Thailand have genes that look Thai.

The Aeta in the Philippines have genes that look Filipino.

Etc, etc.

However, if you do race by skull type, all Negritos are members of the Australoid race, as are Tamil types and others that look like Tamils in India.

Genetically, the Australoid Race only has Aborigines and Papuans in it.

By skulls, it consists of Ainus, Melanesians, Aborigines, Papuans, Negritos, Tamils, Veddoids, tribals and similar South Indian types and Fuegian Amerindians.

“The Unsentimental Vision of Mark Twain,” by Alpha Unit

Mark Twain is a racist.

Or Mark Twain is most decidedly not a racist.

Well, it depends on who’s talking about him.

He actually occupied sane middle ground on the issue of race. Ground arrived upon with difficulty, sure. But isn’t sane middle ground the only place to be?

His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, fed and force-fed to American kids for generations, was banned in various quarters right from the outset, labeled by its detractors as coarse trash. It wasn’t until much later that anybody cared that it contained the word “nigger.” In more recent times its use of this word and its depictions of Jim the slave have been decried for their potential to inflict catastrophic damage to the psyches of Black youth – and undermine the general welfare in these enlightened times.

Some people make the case that Huckleberry Finn is clearly an anti-racist novel. I tend to think so. But being anti-racist in Mark Twain’s time was not the same as being anti-racist now. Twain was not the equivalent of today’s American “liberal.” He didn’t deny the concept of race. He didn’t see racial distinctions as irrelevant.

What I admire about him is his recognition that Brown and Black people deserved to be respected in their own right. They weren’t less human than White people. Whites had no God-given right to treat them however they wanted.

Mark Twain did not entertain, either, any notion that Black people were automatically ugly in comparison to Whites. Because he actually saw them as people, he easily saw what he described as their beauty.

While visiting India, he compared a beautifully-garbed Indian delegation to what he and fellow Christians could have produced had they put on a show of their own. It wouldn’t have been as impressive, he said.

Then there would have been the added disadvantage of the white complexion. It is not an unbearably unpleasant complexion when it keeps to itself, but when it comes into competition with masses of brown and black the fact is betrayed that it is endurable only because we are used to it.

Nearly all black and brown skins are beautiful, but a beautiful white skin is rare…Where dark complexions are massed, they make the whites look bleached out, unwholesome, and sometimes frankly ghastly. I could notice this as a boy down South in the slavery days before the war. The splendid black-satin skin of the South African Zulus of Durban seemed to me to come very close to perfection…

The advantage is with the Zulu, I think. He starts with a beautiful complexion, and it will last him through. And as for the Indian brown…I think there is no sort of chance for the average white complexion against that rich and perfect tint.

Twain recounted this trip in Following the Equator, written toward the end of his career, in which he chronicles his travels to India, Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. While traveling he got to see firsthand the way White colonizers interacted with those under their control.

He expresses sympathy for the Whites who must secure their lives in these strange territories they have put themselves in, and acknowledges the difficulties of both Whites and natives in trying to co-exist under trying circumstances. But he clearly recognizes that it is the natives who have the worst of it.

He tells the story of a White squatter who encounters some Aborigines while at his home – Aborigines who are clearly hostile. Afraid of what he sees as an imminent attack, the squatter persuades them to have a meal with him. It was a Last Supper of sorts; the pudding he served them contained arsenic.

Twain’s assessment:

It was better, kinder, swifter, and much more humane than a number of methods which have been sanctified by custom, but that does not justify its employment. That is, it does not wholly justify it.

He goes on to describe the way Whites had typically interacted with racial “others”:

In many countries we have chained the savage and starved him to death…In many countries we have burned the savage at the stake…In many countries we have taken the savage’s land from him; and made him our slave, and lashed him every day, broken his pride, and made death his only friend, and overworked him till he dropped in his tracks; and this we do not care for, because custom has inured us to it; yet a quick death by poison is loving kindness [in comparison] to it.

In assessing these and other acts that the civilized had committed against their inferiors, he concludes:

There are many humorous things in the world; among them the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages.

This year marks the centennial of Mark Twain’s death. He was a great observer and critic of humankind, and remains an amazing teacher, to those who would be taught.

Every people he observed was of the same fallible humanity. The idea of one race’s inherent superiority over any other? A joke.

References

Twain, M., Warner, C.D., Paine, A.B. 1922. The Writings of Mark Twain, Volume 21. New York: Gabriel Wells Co.

Head Size = Brains = Nonsense

Repost from the old site.

It is much postulated by hereditarians in the IQ debate that head size has a correlation with IQ. This seems to be true to some extent, but there are also problems with it. For one thing, nutrition increases head size, so head size is not as genetic as the hereditarians say it is. Another problem is that it is only a correlation, and not a very high one either.

What this means is that there will be cases where it does not make sense at all. For instance, Eskimos have the biggest heads, but they have IQ’s of 91, which, though Richard Lynn falsely states that they are the third major race in IQ, behind Northeast Asians and European Whites.

This is because Lynn leaves out very high scoring groups like East Indians in the West (IQ = 96) and Vietnamese (IQ = 99.5), but they don’t fit his silly Ice Age Theory of Brains Evolution, so they get left out.

Even more problematic, or much more really, enough to make the case for brain size = brains even more deadly, is the fact that human brains were much larger 10,000 years ago, when most Asians were all still Australoids (the same race as Papuans and Aborigines), when European Whites as we now know them were just beginning to evolve, and white skin was still 1,000 years away in Europe, when American Indians were changing from Australoid to Polynesian type, and the NE Asian type had not even really showed up yet, and would not for a few thousand years more.

People in India still looked like Aborigines too, and would not look like the modern-day Caucasians that they surely are for another 2,000 years. In most of the world, man was simply transforming from Australoid to either Amerindian, Indian Caucasian or Northeast Asian.

To think that these Aborigine types were smarter then than we are today and have today ended up sadly and world’s lowest IQ race except for Bushmen simply defies belief. No one was doing much better anywhere on Earth really at that time, as something called Civilization had not even developed.

If you want to think that 10,000 year old Cro-Magnon hulking hunter-gatherers and a bunch of proto-Aborigines, who were probably even lower IQ than they are today, were smarter than the guys who put a man on the moon and created the wonder known as sliced bread, you are entitled to that belief. But I will call you an idiot.

Even Lynn’s head size correlations that the hereditarians love so much only account for 12% of all of the IQ variance between races.

That brains were bigger 10,000 years ago than they are today simply means that humans have been getting less robust and more gracile. Robust means big and hulking. Aborigines, Melanesians and Papuans are some of the most robust folks around these days. Blacks are not necessarily as robust as one might think, many are surprisingly gracile.

We have been transforming from robust, hulking cave men more or less to our present status as Blackberry-doing New York metrosexuals, and in this transformation our brains have shrunk dramatically as we got sleeker and sleeker and more Upper East Side New York sleek and gym-trained.

Also, we should note that since 1600 to the present day our heads have been getting smaller and smaller. This is occurring in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa and may have been occurring elsewhere too.

If you really think that folks in the time of Shakespeare, Galileo, Hobbes, Descartes, Cromwell, Fermat, Rembrandt, Cervantes, Pascal, Leibniz, Peter the Great, Bach, Newton, Racine, Locke, Spinoza were smarter than we are, you may.

If you wish to believe that the humans who pulled off the Salem Witch Trials, Galileo’s Inquisition, and the idiotic Thirty Years War, the people who caused the Plague by sheer stupidity, the people who invented a famous thing called Pilgrims, who fought endless war in Europe against the Ottomans only halting at Vienna, were smarter than we are in our Teraflop Age, you are welcome to believe that, but I am going to call bull on that.

Still, they did halt the Turk at the gates, Newton did write is mathematical encyclopedic masterpiece, and the treaty of Westphalia was all pulled off, so this time did have its potential. Note, though, that all this good stuff occurred late Century when our brains were already shrinking. See where this argument is going? Time to get off a train that’s going off the tracks.

As you can see, the Fathead Brain Theory has serious issues, to say the least. There seems to be something there, but there is a lot less there than one might think. When people start talking in general terms of Fathead Brainiacness, it is time to wave the arms and shut the conversation down.

Hereditarians, come on, you can do better than this.

Megalithic Culture

Strange stuff.

Anyone know what to make of this stuff? I think they are onto something, except for maybe the last paragraph.

I don’t know what to say about this other than compared to the usual whacked out theories like this, this one actually seems to have something to it. I don’t agree that these people were IE speakers. At least some of them probably spoke something similar to Basque or Etruscan.

People have been cruising around on boats for a long time. The first OOA folks, 75,000 YBP, left Ethiopia and sailed the 16 miles to Yemen. By 60,000 YBP, their boats had taken them to  Australia.

Humans settled the Philippines, apparently by boat, as early as 30,000 YBP.

The first modern Aborigines, the Murrayans, arrived in Australia, probably from Thailand around 16,000 YBP. They must have come by boat. These seem to have been a proto-Ainu type people related to the Jomon. These same Jomon left Thailand and sailed up to Japan around the same time, where they eventually became the Ainu. Along the way, it looks like they stopped off in the Philippines.

Later, around 12,000 YBP, a group called the Carpinterians left Southern India and also populated Australia. They could only have gone by boat. This was a Veddoid-type group.

6,000 years ago, Siberians left Asia and came to America, giving rise to the Na-Dene. The latest theory is that they came by boat down the Pacific Coast, settling first in the Pacific Coast finger of Alaska that extends southeastward.

New Article About the Peopling of India

A new article has come out in Nature Magazine dealing with the Peopling of India, a subject I have dealt with quite a bit on this site. The Indian nationals who hate the Aryan Invasion concept have been jumping up and down for joy over this article. I’m not sure where these people are coming from, but generally, it’s a silly, anti-scientific and reactionary place.
Their argument is usually that the Aryan Invasion could not have taken place since our Hindu texts say that it never happened. Well, there is not much to say to such a powerful scientific argument like that!
Those who oppose the Aryan Invasion theory are generally Far Rightwing Hindu nationalists or Hindutvas. They also tend to be associated with the higher castes, especially the Brahmins. One argument is an Indian nationalist one. This crazy line says that there was no Aryan invasion – instead this was a lie made up by the evil British colonialists to “divide the people of India.” As Hindutva fascism claims (falsely) to be a national unification project, as all such projects do, they rail against the “outsiders who divide our people.”
Problem with this argument is that the Indians themselves and the Hindus in particular had done a mighty fine job dividing up the Indian people themselves into many thousands of insane, cruel, backwards and anti-human caste structures.
Another crazy Indian nationalist argument is that there was no caste until the evil Brits came. Or there was caste before then, but it was nothing. The evil Brits came and made caste so much worse. This argument is favored with high castes, typically Brahmins. It’s dubious. Caste was probably much worse before the British came.
The British, civilized folks that they were, hated the animalistic, bestial, primitive caste system and tried to eliminate as part of the necessary mission of civilizing the Indians. This article notes that caste is as old as India, and that the British did not hoist it upon the unwilling heads of the innocent and pure Indians.
Another crazy Indian nationalist line is that there was no race structure in India. Race was invented in India by those evil Brits again. The Brits divided the peaceable, loving, brotherly and Kumbayaa-singing Indian people into two races, a northern race that appeared European or Aryan and a southern race that they called Dravidian.
There does seem to be something to the concept of a somewhat bimodal race structure in India. The people of the South are darker and have a different physical type than the Northern Indics, who look more Iranian or even European. Some say that the Dravidians are the remains of a Mediterranean Caucasian Race that moved into India 13-17,000 years ago. That seems reasonable to me.
This article turns that on its head and argues that all Indians are a mixture between North Indians and South Indians. The South Indians are more Asiatic types and the North Indians are a more European type, yet all of the Indian people are thoroughly mixed between the two. This also seems reasonable.
Articles about the piece, especially from the reactionary Brahmin-controlled Indian media, are crowing about “the death of the Aryan invasion theory.” But the Nature piece proclaims no such thing.
The Nature article claims that the South Indians came to India 70,000 YBP. The only remaining pure members of the South Indian group are the Negritos of the Andaman Islands. This part is reasonable enough. The piece also claims that the North Indians (or Aryans) came to India 45,000 YBP. This much is a real shocker, and I do not know what to make of this.
45,000 YBP, there were no real Caucasoid types anywhere. Further, skulls from even north India dated at 24,000 YBP look like Aborigines. So these North Indians must have looked like Aborigines at first. In fact, all Indians looked something like Aborigines until 8,000 YBP when they started transitioning to Caucasian types.
Anyway, there was an Aryan invasion. Or at least, a group of Indo-Aryans moved down from Kazakhstan into Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, the Caucasus, Pakistan and North India about 3,500 YBP. They all speak related languages that we can provably trace back to the Russian steppes. We can follow their movements archeologically as they moved down from Kazakhstan into North India.
Now whether or not these folks were “invaders” is open to question. Perhaps they were “migrants.” Maybe they were “undocumented workers.” Maybe they were going on an extended vacation down South. I haven’t the faintest idea. But there was clearly a movement of Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryan folks down from Kazakhstan into Central and South Asia 3,500 YBP. That’s a fact of history, and no sane person questions that. Nor does this paper call that into question.
Another argument that Indian nationalists are making is that Indians are a unique race, a separate race, not part of any other race. If you look at the data, that’s an interesting argument, but skull and genetic data (see Cavalli-Sforza for instance) show that Indians are a member of the Caucasian race, though they are one of the most divergent members of that group.
One interesting finding is that Gujaratis seem to form their own separate minor race in India and differentiate from all the others. I can’t explain that, but it may have something to do with stories about Scythians moving into that area 1,200 YBP.
One of the more sensible dissections of the article is here by Razib of GNXP Science Blogs. Razib is sounding a lot more sensible since he got his better writing gig at Science Blogs.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Some IQ Conundrums

On the post IQ Is a Meaningful Construct, two commenters make some interesting comments. First cursed and then tulio comment, then my comments follow:

cursed: I have no problems believing that Blacks are stupid, but one thing that puzzles me is how a guy like Mohamed Ali (before he got punch drunk) summoned forth dazzlingly quick witted rhetoric, yet on his armed forces enlistment test he registered an 80 IQ.

White guys with an 80 IQ can in no way shape or form talk like Ali could. I’m not trying to let blacks off the hook for performing poorly on standardized test, but I think those guys brains work a little differently.

tulio: What cursed said is why I think we aren’t even close to conclusions about race and intelligence. I can think of many instances where a Black person who scored low on an IQ test didn’t necessarily come across as unintelligent. Also tests show IQ’s of 70 for Black Africa and I’ve even seen some groups with scores in the 60s, I think the Australian Aborigines score 62.
Now think about it, someone with an IQ in the 60s would be functionally retarded. They wouldn’t even be capable of normal activities like driving a car.
Yet the average African or Aborigine can operate a vehicle just fine and they are perfectly functional. So I do think there are some questions to be asked of how useful these tests are in gauging one’s intelligence, or at least the intelligence of groups that grossly-underperform on them.
I’m sorry, I have a seriously hard time believing that the average African or Aborigine is functionally retarded. Also, IQ is only one component of intelligence. And I think its importance in society and good desirable behavior is very overrated.
A person with a high IQ will probably be good at things like math, winning chess matches and solving computer programming bugs.
However, IQ doesn’t measure more esoteric but possibly more crucial survival skills such as “common sense” or just general “life wisdom”. I’m willing to bet that the people who run the flat earth society are intelligent and probably would do well on an IQ test, yet they have no common sense if they believe in such nonsense.
Look at Bobby Fischer, the late chess champion, guy’s IQ was probably off the charts, yet if you read any of his social commentary after 9/11 the dude was a complete moron.
The Mohammed Ali bit is interesting. It reminds of some of the freestyle rappers that I’ve heard. If you’re not familiar with that, “freestyle rap” is when a rapper has no pre-written lyrics but is making up rhyming verses on the fly that not only rhyme and make sense but can also be quite witty.
I’ve tried it myself once just to see if I could do it, and found it extremely difficult. It takes intelligence.
But who knows, if you gave these same guys an IQ test, they may not do too well. Maybe there is something to the multiple intelligences theory. Maybe we don’t know enough about the nature of intelligence to draw any conclusions of this time.
On the original post, Robert Lindsay wrote: The lower the IQ, the more likely the person is to do stupid things – go to jail or prison, commit crimes or lots of crimes, have kids out of wedlock or as a teenager, parent multiple children by multiple partners, be a lousy parent to your child if you’re female or refuse to support the kid if you’re male, go on welfare, engage in domestic violence, have poor to low morals, join a street gang, shoot someone or get shot, refuse to plan for the future, drink or take drugs, die young, never go to the doctor, engage in extremely risky behaviors, fall victim to injurious or life-threatening accidents, refuse to engage in healthy behaviors such as eating properly and exercising, etc.
I’m not convinced at all that low IQ leads to pathological behavior. I think this is a values issue, not an intelligence/genetic one. For example, yes people in jail will probably have lower IQ’s, but I think a more accurate way of reading this is that people with low IQ’s are simply more likely to get caught because they commit more petty crimes.
The leaders of crime rings are quite intelligent, they are the least likely to end up in prison. They are smart enough to cover their tracks, use lower IQ pawns to do their dirty work, work the system to their advantage and evade capture. I really don’t like assigning low-intelligence rationales to behaviors that could better be explained by low VALUES.

The commenters raise some interesting questions for which there are no good answers. It doesn’t really make sense.
The Black Africans with IQ’s of 70 or 65 or so are not retarded in the same way that a White person with an IQ that low would be. So in a way, those scores don’t make sense.
I have a Yahoo group where we fight scammers in Nigeria.
These guys probably have IQ’s of ~67 . Yet we had some White victims who were low IQ (I figure maybe ~72 IQ) and these Nigerians just danced circles around them for months on end and cleaned them out for $10,000’s. They were so much smarter than these women it was not even funny.
Your average African or Aborigine is not functionally retarded in the same way that a White with a below 70 IQ is. However, we spent a lot of time dealing with these African scammers, talking to them, etc. In some ways, these guys were dumb as rocks.
They can’t spell or construct a meaningful sentence, and their intellectual processes are just stupid in a lot of ways. Nevertheless, they were able to survive, and they were brilliant at reading people psychologically and manipulating them. They had a genius “Con Artist IQ.” They also often had excellent social skills. They are able to work and function in their societies, they have friends, they date, marry, and raise kids, all the things that below 70 IQ Whites often cannot do.
I have not dealt much with Aborigines, but I suspect that a similar thing is going on. I have seen some of them commenting on Youtube videos, and their writing reminded me of the Africans. They can’t spell to save their lives, can’t construct a sentence, and their writing comes across as stupid. Yet they can function in that they are sociable, can make friends, date, marry, raise families, etc. and even work at jobs concordant with their culture.
The White nationalists and scientific racist types have some argument that tries to explain this, but it never made sense to me. They argue that a 65 IQ in a Black is not the same as a 65 IQ in a White. Well, ok, but if not, why not? Nevertheless, they still argue that the 65 IQ Black is still retarded.
I suppose the point is that in our modern society, IQ tests do indeed measure all sorts of important things, such as ability to succeed in the workplace of a modern society. Societies with low IQ’s don’t do very well. Those with high IQ’s do better. IQ tests also predict very well how one does in school, and even how one does on the job.
They also predict all sorts of other things. The list of pathological behaviors that tulio is saying have no basis in IQ in fact do have such a basis.
The lower the IQ, the more likely people are to do what I call above stupid things. The higher the IQ, the less likely they are to do those stupid things. The notion that high-IQ types lack common sense is also not true. It’s hard to imagine a more commonsensical behavior than keeping healthy or living a long time. The higher the IQ, the longer you live and the healthier you are.
There just flat out are not a whole lot of ways in which high IQ people act stupid. It’s said that some of them have poor social skills, but I think that this is often due to neurosis, shyness, introversion, etc. They come across as strange because their heads are in the clouds all the time.
I don’t think that neurotics, shy people, introverts, etc. are social retards or lack social skills. A neurotic is ill, and in many cases, I think they can’t help it. Introverts and shy people are not social idiots; they’re just introverts.
If you subtract that stuff, I’ve found that most high IQ people have pretty good social skills. They are often very careful about what they say, they monitor conversational attributes, verbal and nonverbal, very well, and are constantly adjusting their verbal and nonverbal behaviors based on those cues.
Some of them are “deliberately eccentric” in that they just don’t give a damn about social rules that much and seem to delight in breaking them on purpose just to thumb their noses at society. The notion of the high-IQ social retard is dubious.
Much has been made of “emotional intelligence,” and some books have even been written on it. People love this stuff because everyone hates IQ, mostly because they don’t have a very high one, and they are jealous. EQ was a way to get back at all those uppity brainiac nerds. The problem is that EQ is highly correlated with IQ, so the argument starts going round in circles.
So you can go on all you want about how IQ doesn’t matter, but bottom line is that low-IQ folks in modern societies tend to not do so well. That’s just all there is to it. So right there, that implies that the tests are indeed measuring something meaningful, or at least something meaningful in our modern societies.

Whites Made The First Maps and Other Nonsense

The White nationalist crazies are all in a flutter over the latest news out of Spain. In a cave, a stone tablet has been found with what may be the world’s oldest map on it. The WN’s, as usual, are huffing and puffing about how this is evidence that Whites made the first maps.
There are problems with this analysis. The first is that the folks living in Spain 14,000 were first of all not ancestral to modern day Europeans. Second of all, they did not look like modern day Europeans. Instead, they looked more like Arabs and their DNA resembles modern-day Arabs more than any other race.
The White race only goes back maybe 9000 years or so anyway. It’s well documented that the folks living in Europe around 12000 YBP looked like Arabs and their DNA looked like the DNA of modern day Arabs. We know what they looked like by looking at skulls. White skin only goes back about 10,000 YBP and blond hair, red hair and blue eyes about 9000 YBP. Those are all just recent mutations. European Whites as we know them today are a new model.
It’s not that these people were Arabs, they were sort of like proto-Arabs.
White nationalists counter that “White mummies” have been found in China at 9000 YBP.
The reference is to the Tarim mummies. The Tarim mummies do not go back 9000 yrs in China. More like 3-4000 YBP. Anyway, those are Tocharian speakers, who are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans are some of the real Whites who moved into Europe and really “Whitened” the place up.
The White European race we know today (and the Caucasian race in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India is largely an IE legacy. This includes folks like the White Berbers and the White Arabs.
If you go back before 10,000 YBP, most modern races do not even exist.
Amerindians only go back 6000 YBP. At 9000 YBP, they look like Polynesians and at 12000 YBP they look like Papuans.
SE Asians only go back about 5000 YBP or maybe less. Prior to that, they look like Melanesians.
NE Asians go back about 9000 YBP. Prior, they look like Ainu.
Aborigines go back about 13,000 YBP. Prior to that, no one knows, but maybe they looked like Negritos.
East Indians go back about 8000 YBP. Prior, they look like Aborigines.
African Negroid Blacks only go back about 9,500 YBP. Prior, they look like Pygmies or Bushmen.
As far as whether these folks were our ancestors, they were not. We are not ancestral to the European populations of 10,000 YBP and earlier. There is an interesting article along these lines called We Are Not Our Ancestors that you can Google. What probably happened was that Paleo-Europeans were replaced by Indo-European speakers moving in.

The First Australians were Indians, Says the Media

See here.
As I have been saying on this site for some time now. However, this article suggests that the first Australians were Indians in that the Out of Africa folks from 70,000 YBP moved along the coasts of India down the coasts of other Indian Ocean nations (all true) before settling in Australia (true) and becoming the Aborigines (I say not true).
Most human races do not go back all that far. Northeast Asians other than Ainu types only go back 9000 YBP. SE Asians for the most part go back 5000 YBP. Most East Indians go back 8000 YBP. Typical African Negroids only go back 6-12000 YBP. Modern Amerindians mostly go back only around 7-8000 YBP. Modern Europeans are not related to the Europeans of the Pleistocene, as much as White nationalists lie and say they do. The furthest back are the Lapps at 11000 YBP.
It’s true that the Negritos go back a long ways. The Orang Asli in Malaysia have lines going back 72,000 YBP, making them the oldest race on Earth. It’s also true that some Africans have ancient lines. Bushmen have lines going back 53000 YBP and some Tanzanians have lines extending back even further, possibly beyond even the Orang Alsi.
I don’t believe that the Negritos created the Aborigines, though it is possible that the Negritos were the original Australians, and they were genodiced when the Aborigines arrived. The genocide was still ongoing when the White showed up. The Aborigines had been exterminating the Negritos for fun for probably over 10,000 years. Amazing that any were left at all.
In my opinion, the modern Aborigines were created by two forces – a Murrayan group from SE Asia (possibly Thailand) that looked something like the Ainu. At 17,000 YBP, Ain types were generalized throughout Thailand. At this date, they move up into Japan by boats and become the Jomon. So at 17,000 YBP, at the same time the Ainu types moved by boat to Japan, they also moved by boat to Australia.
Possible reasons for the mass migrations are rising sea levels. Keep in mind that around this time, Malaysia, Western Indonesia and SE Asia proper were all connected by land. In addtion, most of the Indonesian islands were connected by land. All of Sundaland was connected.
But rising sea levels in connection with mass melting of glaciers caused mass flooding  and rising sea levels in this region, isolated Indonesia from Malaysia and SE Asia proper and islandized the formerly connected region of Indonesia. There were other migrations in this period, and the ancestors of the modern Indonesians probably settled the islands from Proto-Daic types on the coast of SE Asia during this time.
The Murrayans lived in Australia for about 5000 years until an invasion of folks called Carpinterians. They seem to have come from Southern India. At this time, all Indians looked very Australoid. They reached Australia about 13000 YBP.
The mix of Ainu-Murrayans and South Indian-Carpinterians produced this strange fellow called the Aborigine. This is why people say that some South Indians like Tamils look like Aborigines. This is probably the ancestral stock of the Aborigines, in part. If you look closely at Ainu types, they also look somewhat like Aborigines for the same reason. The Ainu are the ancient ancestors of the Aborigines.
So the article is somewhat correct, but not completely. I believe that they are just finding the Carpinterian connection from 13,000 YBP, not some ancient connection from 60,000 YBP.

16-23 and 33-39

Repost from the old site.
Those are two figures for the ages at which something peaks in each of the sexes in human beings. Males peak at 16-23 and females peak at 33-39. After the male peak, there is a long slow decline down to some pretty low levels. For females, there is a decline, but not much of one, and the female level remains fairly high even into very old age, and I mean the 80’s.
We are talking sex, sex drive to be precise. Actually, they called it sexual responsiveness, and I am not sure what that means. It’s interesting that we think that elderly women are pretty much asexual beings, when their sex drive, or responsiveness, whatever that is, is only somewhat lower than it was at their peak.
People have whispered about this for some time, and if you have ever dated a ready and willing 35-40 year old woman, I think you know what I mean. They’re like the Eveready Bunny, once you wind them up and get them started, they want to go on all night, 7 AM rush hour be damned.
I am wondering what the evolutionary meaning of all of this is. Men are going to die young, so have the drive peak early, then if the guys dies, so what, maybe the woman can raise the kid on her own?
For the woman, in her prime child-bearing years, you don’t want the drive too high, or she will wander off with every guy who comes along. Later, as her looks decline into her 30’s, the male partner is tempted to wander in search of younger pastures.
Hence the female drive kicks into overdrive to dig the claws and squeeze him tight to home. She needs him around as a provider. Kids are grown and raised pretty much, but she still wants a man? What gives? And why does the female drive stay so high through life even into old age? What’s the advantage? Does an old cave woman have a hard time making it on her own, while an older cave guy can has more of a chance?
Higamous hogamous, women are monogamous. Higamous pigamous, men are polygamous. Neat little saying, but isn’t it more or less true across all cultures, all races and through all times? The woman must be coded to monogamy, for if she runs off with every Cave Man Dreamboat who strolls past the cave, the kids never get raised and they will die.
Males who sowed their oats far and wide impregnated more females than the “one woman man” types. The Lotharios couldn’t raise all those kids, and probably a lot of the kids died, but enough of them survived that his Casanova genes get passed on.
Or maybe many primitive societies like the typical village in New Guinea. One guy, the chief, has lots of wives. A lot of guys are losers in the New Guinea singles game and aren’t getting any at all. The Satyr-in-Chief is coded for promiscuity, and those are the randy genes he is handing down. After a while most of the guys are really horny all the time, even those who are striking out.
A lot of these Chief types are probably pretty sociopathic too, as are the guys who are just running around boffing every cavewoman in sight. Maybe after a while, the clan just gets together and kills the philandering bastard. But he’s already impregnated a number of females.
Hence, sociopathy, which doesn’t seem that adaptive, is passed on genetically and survives even today in the form of gansta rap, corporate executives and reptilian creatures called lawyers.
Much ink has been spilled about how humans are naturally monogamous, mostly by romantic types and women. But I doubt it, and I think this is an exercise in wishful thinking. Women tend towards serial monogamy at the very least. In a tribal situation, keeping the man around may not be so important if food is gathered and eaten communally.
Daddy goes out and hunts and kills animals with the guys, throws the meat in the pot and everyone eats. So he’s not with his baby-momma anymore, so what?
The kid is with Mom and there’s food for both, and that’s all that counts.
As an example of a swinging-style Paleolithics, let us look at the Ache, a tribe in Paraguay that was living in a pre-contact style until 1972 (Hill and Hurtado 1976). By age 30, your average Ache female had been married ten times, usually for about a year or so. A lot of the kids die.
The Ache were often not even really sure who the baby Daddy was. Whichever noble savage the Ache woman had been sleeping with the most in the month prior to her periods stopping was considered to be the Primary Father by the rule of probability.
Other randy tribesman she had slept with in the entire year prior to giving birth, including during pregnancy (!), are called Secondary Fathers. There might be a number of these guys. To the growing kid, all these guys are just known as dear old Dad. The Primary Father is likely to play a greater role in raising the child.
The reason for the two types of fathers is that the Ache, unfortunately, had not completely figured out the laws of impregnation. They were clear that the Primary Father played a necessary and sufficient role, known as “putting it (the baby) in her”. However, the other guys she had sex with, including during pregnancy, were thought to have somehow contributed some of their essence to the fetus. At least they didn’t believe in storks.
The tribe had also codified infanticide. Suppose Mommy had a 3 year old child. Then she has another kid. Well, maybe food is short, so she tells the 3 year old, “Hey look, we only have enough food for you and not enough for your baby brother you are so deathly jealous of. So I’m sure you will happy to know that I am going to take baby brother out tomorrow and kill him.”
Kid grows up knowing Mom killed his brother, but it doesn’t bother him much. It’s just life in the jungle, hey. There are worse threats. Nowadays, mental health professionals are convinced that having your Mom kill your baby brother when you were 3 years old would be a sufficient trauma to cause lasting psychological scars and would require extensive therapy. This is an empirical fact just how now?
Primitive people often have developed an excellent sense of memorizing distant visual objects. Bushmen, with otherwise very low IQ’s (57 IQ)1, are the world’s best at this. Then comes another very low IQ group (65 IQ)2, the Aborigines. Eskimos, with a much higher IQ of 94 – near the world average – have a similar advantage.
Looking at Ache life, we can see why. A major cause of mortality is the very thing Mom warned you about as a boy: not making it home before dark. For the Ache, if you are out in the jungle and you don’t make it back to the village by night, you may just die, as temperatures often plunge very low in the evenings.
Plus, sleeping out in the bush, you stand a good chance of being midnight snack for some jaguar. From which felinophobia may have developed?
The saga of the Ache inform us that the pathologies of the urban Underclass that so horrify middle-class Americans – feral males running around like dogs screwing and impregnating females far and wide and then not bothering to support any of them, women having several kids all by different fathers, and last and most incomprehensibly, mothers who murder their own children – may not be so alien and animalistic after all.
People who do these things are told to, “Quit acting like animals and start acting like humans!”. The terrifying thought being, “acting like humans” may be precisely what the Underclass is doing.
These behaviors may simply be genetically coded leftovers from our tribal past. Those of us who don’t stoop so low are just not giving in to our basest tribal urges. Those who do may be just “acting like normal Homo Sapiens”, discouraging as it seems.
On the streets of Detroit and in the jungles of Paraguay, life can be a short, nasty and brutish affair. In our folly, we look down at the Paleolithics. The cultured metrosexual Western man is merely the rudest tribesman in a mirror, and little less.

Notes

1. Over three separate studies.
2. Over 17 separate studies.

References

Hill, K. and M. Hurtado (1996) Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People . Aldine: Hawthorne, NY.

Native Peoples Adrift in the Modern World

Repost from the old site.
Note: This post has been accused, as usual, of racism. See here for my position statement on racism.
Recent news articles on the disgusting degeneration of many Polynesians in New Zealand into US Black-style gangbangers seems to be the case with many “indigenous peoples” in the world today.
They just do not seem to be cut out for modern, Western, high-tech society. In most cases, Whites came into their lands and either invaded and conquered them or merely colonized them, and took away their old way of life, which, limited as it may have been, was at least working for them.
A description of the Micronesians of Saipan from the interesting Saipan Sucks website (my notes) is instructive. Note this is just one American expat’s point of view, and does not represent my feelings about Micronesians, but instead represents those of the author of Saipan Sucks. I know nothing of Micronesians; I have only met one in my life, and he was just fine.

There is a very high rate of sexual molestation on Saipan, along with a very high rates of women having several kids, all by different men, and men fathering children by different women and never bothering to support any of them.
The locals basically refuse to work in any sort of productive occupations, and family-based corruption in politics is endemic. School performance is abysmal.
Spousal abuse is common. There is more incest and cousin marriage on Saipan than anywhere in the US. The police hardly bother to investigate any homicide cases, apparently since they are too incompetent to complete an investigation. The locals are profoundly racist against all Americans – especially White Americans.
The wealthy Micronesians on Saipan are almost all notorious thieves who stole every nickel they made. Theft and lying in all of the Mariana Islands is endemic, and the stealing is so bad that locals actually resort to bolting their furniture to the floor.
Micronesians feel they are racially superior to everyone, especially Filipinos, who are the most talented and hardest working people on the islands, as they are in much of that part of Asia.
Interestingly, the Filipino IQ of 89 is the same as the Micronesian IQ of 87. The suggestion is that the Micronesian IQ of 87 plays little or no role in much of the pathology above.

Although I have never been to Micronesia, I assume that this description is representative of the behaviors of far too many native Saipanese. Why do I think this? Because I have seen this same pattern here in the US with Native Americans and the Black and Hispanic underclasses.
This panoply of attitudes and pathologies is not limited to the Micronesians, but is common amongst many native peoples in our world, based on my observation.
These people used to hold traditional occupations at which they functioned well. Now, they can no longer do these jobs, and they are either not able to do or are not interested in doing modern work.
The following set of pathologies (in whole or in part) seems to be common amongst far too many indigenous peoples today:
Unwilling or unable for work in the modern economy, they become chronically unemployed, and are often regarded by others as lazy people who refuse to work, collect every welfare program they can, spend days sitting around doing nothing, and often drink to excess, or nowadays, take drugs. When they do work, their working style is often seen as irresponsible or lackadaisical.
They often do not do well in school, in part because many of them are not even used to being inside four walls, since they are used to spending much of their time outdoors. In their traditional life, there was no formal schooling, just learning by observation.
The family structure has typically been badly broken up for whatever reason, and child abuse of various forms is common. Women have kids by various different men and do not bother to marry any of them. Men for their part have children by various women and then refuse to support any of the kids.
Politics is characterized by a tribal, clan-based, often vicious and immoral scheme of ultra-corruption. Police and government officials are often lazy and incompetent.
Things like roads in Congo and water treatments plants in Saipan either never get built, as in Saipan where the natives apparently can’t figure out how to build one, or don’t get repaired, as in Congo where 90% of the country’s roads have vanished due to lack of repairs.
Bilingual programs founder when students are said to be literate in neither English nor their native language.
Crime spirals out of control as traditional village-based law enforcement systems are no longer operative, and impoverished and often unemployed natives are often confronted with mass wealth, waved right in their face.
Virulent anti-White or anti-East Indian racism takes hold due to resentment that these groups may have a higher standard of living, or may have settled or colonized their land in the past, along the painful realities of their own culture’s failure to succeed in the modern world combined with their observation of the others’ great success in negotiating that same modernity.
Indigenous people, selected via repeated famine to survive on very little food, are hit like a ton of bricks with the Western high-calorie, high-salt, high-fat diet, which they are not physiologically adapted for. The result is mass obesity, diabetes, hypertension, at least with some groups – Micronesians, Melanesians, Aborigines, Polynesians and North American Native Americans in particular.
The set of pathologies above is quite evident in many indigenous cultures, including Native Americans in the US and Canada, some Native Americans in South America (Amazon tribes in particular), native Siberians in Russia, Inuit in Canada, Alaska and Russia, Sub-Saharan African Blacks, Negritos in the Andaman Islands and the Philippines, Aborigines in Australia, Micronesians, Polynesians and urban Melanesians in New Guinea.
Some suggest that IQ may be a factor in this situation. These groups have the following average IQ’s (world average is also included):

Siberian Natives: 102.5 (est.)*
Inuit (Eskimo):   94
World Average:    92
Amerindians:      89
Polynesians:      88, but varies**
New Guinea:       86
Micronesians:     86
African Blacks:   70
Aborigines:       65

*Native Siberian IQ is not known, but Mongolian IQ is 102.5, and Siberians may be similar.
**Some Polynesian groups have higher IQ’s. The New Zealand Maori IQ is 93, the Cook Islands Maori IQ is 92 and the Samoan IQ is 90.5 The first two are right at the world average IQ, and the Samoan IQ is close to the average. Interestingly, the first two islands were settled later in the Polynesian expansion.
Siberian difficulties in adapting to modern life cannot be explained by IQ, nor can the problems of the Maori or the the Inuit. Average Polynesian, Micronesian, Amerindian and New Guinea IQ’s are not remarkably low, being only 3 points below the world average.
Many countries that seem to function quite well with the modern world, such as Cuba, Iran and many Arab and Latin American countries, have average IQ’s in the 86-88 range, but most of these peoples have been living in a more modern way for quite some time now. Few could be considered “indigenous peoples”.
It is true that the IQ’s of Aborigines and African Blacks are quite low.
In short, IQ is not sufficient to explain the problems that each of the groups above have in adaptation to our modern world.
In New Guinea, people living traditional lives in the mountains seem to do well, while the capital of Port Moresby is a crime-flooded, drunken urban catastrophe. In Samoa, traditional Western Samoa seems to do a lot better with their traditional lifestyle than American Samoa, where a Western way of life holds sway along with a very high crime rate.
Cook Islanders and New Zealand natives are both Maori. Cook Islanders have a functional society, as they still live a traditional life and have not yet been deluged with tourists. In contrast, the Maori situation in New Zealand is often regarded as catastrophic, with very rates of crime and the sorts of pathologies described above. Biologically and IQ-wise, the two groups are identical.
A few Andaman Islands Negritos have barely been contacted much at all (Sentinel Island), and they are doing quite well. Others have been contacted but still mostly live a traditional life, and they are doing less well but are still generally functional (the Onge and Jawara).
Some Andaman tribes who have been removed from traditional life seem to have completely lost their way, live on government reservations, are mired in the most deplorable pathology and even seem to be slowly going extinct (Greater Andamanese). For an overview, see George Weber’s great website.
A roughly similar situation holds with a number of tribes in the Amazon – the more they are left pretty much alone, the better off the are.
In regard to the difficulties in adaptation described above, let us note that in their traditional societies, these people typically never had vehicle roads (or vehicles), water treatment plants, schools, money-based societies with paid government employees and cops nor written languages.
In addition, marriage and divorce may have been a casual affair in many pre-contact societies. An excellent study1 of the pre-contact Northern Ache of Paraguay found that by age 30, the average Ache woman had been married and divorced 10 times (see page 13).
For decades, the Left has been offering an intellectually vapid, yet appealing, reason for these pathologies. “Western imperialism” or some such evil invaded and settled their lands, or colonized them, or looked at them wrong, or something. A long time ago. Like over 100 years ago.
Like most arguments of the Crazy Left, this argument sounds really cool until you start to look into it.
Many of these groups here never really got colonized in any real way, or at all, and in many cases, Whites did not even “take their land.” Lots of folks who were “colonized” or “got their land taken” recently still get on fine with modernity, including Basques, people of the Caucasus, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Ahwaz, Berbers, Tamils, Kashmiris, Assamese, Karen, Shan, Acehese, Saami, on and on.
Jews even got 75% of their population killed in Europe in one of the crimes of the century. Sure it was horrible, but the Jews picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and are now possibly the most successful ethnic group on Earth.
The pattern above raises interesting questions. A pattern of having multiple children by different men, where the men refuse to support the women, is the bane of many of these cultures above. Does it have roots in tribal society?
Was the Ache pattern of repeated marriages and divorces described above the norm in many tribal societies? Early travelers to Africa did report that marriages often did not seem to last long and that marriage, divorce and sex seemed to be all be casual enterprises.
In a tribal culture, where all food just gets tossed into the pot for everyone to eat, maybe it does not matter if a man does not provide specifically for his wife and kids, as long as the village provides for them. Children were often raised by groups of women while the men went off and hunted, fished or did whatever all day. By evening, the men would return, and then the intact families would spend some time together.
Since the children were being raised collectively by large groups of women – mothers, aunts, older cousins and sisters, grandmothers – there was little chance to get into trouble. At the first sign of trouble, one of the many women would be right there to put an end to it.
Curiously, studies in Israeli kibbutzes have shown that children raised this way have the lowest rates of antisocial behavior of any child-raising style.2
In our modern world, with many incompetent females raising children with no father around, or a father around only sporadically, with the woman overwhelmed, absent, working or on drugs or alcohol, kids are free to run wild. Lack of father figures and modern extended adolescence means the young males drift towards gangs in an effort to act like men.
I don’t really know what to do about any of this.
One idea is that a lot of these groups are not really cut out for modern life. Many of these people may do better if they lived more traditional lives, in traditional villages, with traditional styles of behavioral regulation (chief, elders, family or clan). Of course, the decision of whether to live a more Western or less Western life should be left completely up to the people themselves.
Western life is not for everyone, and we need to consider that for many indigenous peoples, it is not only harmful, but it is also deadly.
We can still provide them with medical care, make sure their structures and infrastructure are functional and intact, insure that they have water, plumbing and electricity, and provide them with food or supplementation if they need it. In many cases, they may need to return to a native diet or risk early death eating a Western diet.

Notes

1. Hill, K. and Hurtado, A.M. 1996. Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
2. Lykken, D.T. 1995. The Antisocial Personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Race, Crime, Genes, Culture, Capitalism, Urbanization: Some Puzzles

A commenter notes that genes provide a range of behaviors, and culture may not be able to move group performance much outside of that range. The suggestion by that commenter was that genes will predispose some populations to relatively high crime, and culture can only make it lower or higher, but it’s never going to be all that low.
Allow me to differ on that for a moment.
Check out my post on the Moriori.
In a nutshell, the Polynesians are widely regarded as extremely violent people. They were violent as Hell on contact, and their oral histories indicated a culture of extreme violence dating back as far as we can tell. They seem to have been some of the most violent folks on Earth.
The Maori were some of the most violent of all of the Polynesians. To this day, they have very high rates of general instability, drug abuse, domestic violence, and all sorts of crime, including violent crime. They are are regarded as having hair trigger tempers and for being highly aggressive. They have all of the social pathologies of US Blacks, though their IQ’s seem to be higher. (IQ = 91).
The Moriori were a Maori subgroup that colonized the Chatham Islands in the 1600’s. They started out being typically maniacal Maoris, but after a while of that, it become clear that they were going to massacre each other.
A leader came unto them and saw God. He became a religious leader, and all of the people followed him. He ordered them to renounce all violence. For the next 300 years, they were possibly one of the least violent people on Earth. Homicide was basically unheard of, and so was rape. Conflict was settled by a twig as wide as your index finger. At the first blood it was over and done with, and the conflict was buried.
Around the 1830’s, the Maori came to the Chatham Islands. They attacked the Moriori and the Moriori were so pacifist they would not even fight back. They were quickly massacred, enslaved and cannibalized. Few survived.
Now, how does the most violent tribe on Earth become the most pacifist tribe on Earth?
It’s clear to me that Polynesians are genetically primed for violence and aggression, but it’s also clear that a strong culture can completely overcome that.
Genes provide the clay, culture is the sculptor.
Now, the question is, how can these profound gene-warping cultures work? Sadly, I think they work best in small tribes and villages. In large cities and big societies, I don’t think these super-cultures can take hold. They just get washed out by the genes. So in large cities and with huge populations, genes will predominate, and maybe culture has limited effects. In very small populations, culture can be a super-warper.
There is also the possibility that some races are more “plastic” than other races. Polynesians may be a “plastic race” that is highly susceptible to cultural effects. Amerindians may be another one. There are Amazonian tribes right near the “most violent people on Earth”, the Yanomamo, that, like the Moriori, are some of the pacifist people on Earth.
A problem with Blacks is that they seem to commit lots of crime just about everywhere. I am willing to entertain the possibility that Blacks may not be as “plastic” or as effected by super-culture, as, say, Polynesians and Amerindians are.
The Dyula are an exception, and they are Blacker than people say they are. They are also subject to the profound gene-warping effects of a super-culture called Islam. In North Africa and the Arab World, Blacks and part-Blacks often have crime rates that are quite low, live in orderly and stable societies, are often employed, have fairly stable families, etc. I conclude that Islam is good for Blacks. The Dyula homicide rate is about the same as Japan’s. American Blacks have a homicide rate about 28 times higher than the Dyula.
In socialist societies, Blacks have low crime rates. Cuba is 37% Black, and Havana is probably the safest city in Latin America in terms of violent crime, but there is a lot of petty theft nowadays.
In Mozambique under Samora Machel’s Communist regime, anyone, male or female, could walk at 3 AM from one end of the 95% Black capital Maputo to the other with no problems.
Dominica, with an 89% Black population (the rest mixed race Black-White) has a homicide rate 68% that of the US, which has a 13% Black population. American Blacks have a homicide rate about 8 times higher than Dominican Blacks.
I conclude that socialism and relatively equitable societies are good for Blacks, and highly unequal societies seem to spur huge amounts of Black crime.
The reasons will be painful for Blacks but will make sense in a race realist sense. As we have noted on this blog, the US Black IQ is 89.8. That is 13.2 points lower than the US White IQ of 103. The Black IQ has skyrocketed by 22 points in 75 years, but it continue to lag behind the White IQ.
This blog takes no position on what is causing the deficit (Whether it is culture or genes or both, that is, but I will say that I do not think the gap is caused by racism.), and perhaps in the future, Blacks will close the gap partly or fully. But presently, the gap exists and is real; that’s all we need to know.
Blacks may also as a group have higher rates of genetic variables that make it more difficult to succeed in an advanced capitalist society.
Such a society rewards “nerdiness”, showing up on time, delaying gratification (often massive delay of gratification), ability to control one’s emotions in heated office environments, long attention span, etc. There seems to be evidence that Blacks on average have a more extroverted personality that finds these introverted type traits to be frustrating at best and idiotic at worst.
With an IQ deficit like that, Blacks will tend to lag behind no matter what.
Extremely competitive US capitalist culture (much more competitive than, say, European culture) continually blasts you with messages that you must be in at least the top 20% income bracket to be considered a “winner” in US society.
That means 80% of the population are “losers” at any given time. Many will be “losers” for life. US society foments extreme hatred and contempt for the 80% “losers” (particularly the males) and it reminds them of that every single day.
For people who already are handicapped in competition in such a society due to extroversion and lower IQ, who have a lesser ability to delay gratification, to have it hammered into their heads every day that they are failures and they need to be rich to be successful right now may be too much to bear.
If the standard way of getting rich doesn’t pan out, many will just say fuck it and turn to the easy cash of crime. This is my explanation for high Black crime rates in modern capitalist societies.
I suspect that this same dynamic may also effect other groups whose IQ’s, though not especially low, still put them at disadvantage against the higher groups.
Polynesians (IQ = 89), Amerindians (IQ = 90), Hispanics (IQ = 92, Arabs in Europe (IQ = 92), Inuit (IQ = 94) may be some examples. None of these IQ’s is especially low in global terms and neither is US Black IQ (IQ = 89.8).
The average human on Earth has an IQ of 89. I think it’s ridiculous to say that the average human is a moron, so I won’t say that. All of these groups, including US Blacks, have IQ’s near the global average. Melanesians (IQ = 89) in urban New Guinea have a similar IQ and reportedly have horrific crime rates.
In Europe, we have the Roma (IQ = 84), who have outrageous crime and social pathology rates.
Obviously, very low IQ groups like the poor Aborigines (IQ = 65), Black Africans (IQ = 70) and Caribbean Blacks (IQ = 74) are often going to be completely creamed in many highly competitive modern urban societies.
Indeed, Aborigines have off the charts social pathologies and presently nearly need to be taken care of like children for their own good by a paternalistic state. A near-70 IQ worked fine in African villages, but many African urban areas are sheer disaster zones. Urban areas in the Caribbean have some of the world’s highest violent crime rates.

R-K Scale or Introversion-Extroverion Scale?

Repost from the old site.
There are clearly some differences between the races, at least between Northeast Asians, European Caucasians and Blacks. Those differences are obvious to me and to many others, and show up in many statistics on a variety of societal variables.
Whether or not there are global personality differences between the races is very controversial, but it seems obvious to many folks just looking around at the world, and as a former US schoolteacher who taught classes full of Anglo-Americans, Japanese Americans and Afro-Americans for years all over Los Angeles, after a while you have to really lie to yourself to believe that such a thing does not exist.
At Gardena High School, there were many Blacks and many Japanese-Americans, and the contrast simply belts you in the face with a knockout punch. Even those experts who agree that there are differences go on and on about whether they are genetic or cultural, when it’s clear that they are both.
Some recent studies have come out (by Jewish psychologists, of course) claiming that there are no significant personality differences between Blacks and Whites. I don’t even care to read such a study, as it flies in the face of common sense observation.
Philippe Rushton is a racist who dislikes Blacks and his books are very controversial. He has suggested r-strategy versus k-strategy for the differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. R-k selection theory is a theory in biology relating different modes of adaptation that animals use to survive in the environment.
I’m going to stay agnostic on the r/k thing and I don’t wish to align myself with the oily Mr. Rushton, who, by the way, wishes to do away with all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but one thing I think Rushton makes clear is that there is an extroversion-introversion scale that closely mirrors that r/k scale.
As introverts have a vastly lower crime rate and extroverts tend to make up the vast majority of criminals (even among Whites) that makes good sense to me.
Also, extroverts are much more likely to be bored with school, tend to use and manipulate others more, have a “strong prey on the weak and that’s ok” mindset, are vastly less moral and mannered, less inclined to repay debts, have much more regard for self than others, are more promiscuous, gamble, drink and take drugs more, take worse care of their health, are less cautious, have more accidents, take way more risks, are much more aggressive, impulsive prone to wild and excessive mood swings (wild emotionality) and are financially irresponsible and have a lowered life expectancy.
It’s clear to me that all of these are true even within a race, say, with Whites (that’s the race I’m most familiar with).
It’s obvious to me that Blacks are the most extroverted race, NE Asians the least, and Whites in between.
Honestly, I have no idea what to do with most of the other races. SE Asians psychologically resemble NE Asians, though I think they are somewhat more extroverted. I haven’t the faintest idea what to do with Amerindians, Hispanics, Polynesians, Micronesians and Papuans. I suspect that Papuans and Aborigines may be more like Blacks in extroversion.
Polynesians are very odd. They’re obviously part-Asian and can be pretty quiet and introverted, yet at the same time, they are collectivist, love parties and are surrounded by people all the time. Filipinos are much the same. East Indians, Arabs, North Africans and South Asians are pretty much like Whites, cultural baggage aside.
Culture seems to intervene a lot here, as with everything else, and it gets real hard to disentangle everything. Sure, there are introverted Blacks (I’ve known a few of them!) and there are extroverted NE Asians, but we are looking at these groups globally here.

Modern Hunter-Gatherers in Africa and Elsewhere

Repost from the old site. Deals with the crazy White nationalist notion that African Blacks were “Paleolithic Stone Age hunter-gatherers” on contact. In truth, there are very few hunter-gatherers left not only now, but there were few left even in the last century.
Some commenters on the old site, reacting to the The Development of Agriculture in Africa post, have continued to insist that most modern Black Africans were hunter-gatherers upon contact. Examples are here:

While you are correct in some senses to say that agriculture existed among SOME Black African tribes, MOST Black Africans were not at all agriculturists but remained hunter-gatherers and scavengers well in to modern times.
Only in the past few decades have most Black Africans been FORCED in to adopting agriculture because there are now too many people to feed there and not enough space left in the most populated parts of Africa for hunting/gathering/scavenging…
…There was certainly some agriculture being practiced in Sub-Saharan Africa, I don’t dispute that…however, it was limited and, as I wrote, the majority of Black Africa still got most of their food by hunting/gathering/foraging and not through systematic forms of agriculture.
Because of its tropicality, many parts of Africa were/are lush and full of food which is easy to find and eat, fruits and berries and nuts and such, or easy to hunt game — thus why would they waste their time with intensive, work-heavy agriculture when much was already available to just grab and eat?
Also, as is the case elsewhere, some tribes were more agricultural than others — you cannot make a blanket statement saying  “ALL Black Africans practiced agriculture” when the fact is that many/most were still nomads, or herders, or hunters, or foragers, or some combination thereof.

This is just so wrong, but it’s standard White nationalist tripe. This nonsense needs to be combated head-on.
I am doing some research on this right now. The sequence of civilization follows this pattern:
Paleolithic: Hunter-gatherers, Stone Age.
Neolithic: Agriculture and/or animal husbandry Agriculture + animal husbandry is called “full array” agriculture, stone tools.
Copper Age: Metallurgy involving copper.
Bronze Age: More advanced metallurgy involving bronze.
Iron Age: Even more advanced metallurgy involving iron.
That’s about where it ends.
Modern Paleolithic hunter-gatherers included many of the tribes of the Americas, especially in North America and the Amazon.
There are not a lot of hunter-gatherers in the modern era.
Of course there were many in North America. And all of the Aborigines were hunter-gatherers.

An Australian Aborigine in a classic photo from Coon. All Aborigines were Paleolithic Stone Age hunter-gatherers on contact. Some, disgusted by civilization and living on land that is hardly suitable for farming or herding anyway, have actually pretty much returned to this lifestyle on their reservations.

Many of the Siberian tribes were said to be hunter-gatherers. Eskimos like the Yupik were hunter-gatherers, as were the Chukchi.
In Siberia, the Itelmen, the Khanty, the Nganasan, the Evenki, the Ket, the Yukaghir and the Nivkhi were all said to be hunter-gatherers.
In Japan, the Ainu were hunter-gatherers.

The Ainu of Japan, seen here in this woman in a traditional costume, were hunter-gatherers. The Neolithic Japanese took them out over several hundred years, but bred in with them extensively. The Japanese genome is about 40% Ainu and 60% Korean, which is interesting considering that the Japanese can’t stand either of these groups and consider both of them to be inferior. So what this means really is that the Japanese hate their own grandparents. Put that in your sushi and eat it, Japs.

There are two groups of modern African hunter-gatherers:
The Mikea of Southwestern Madagascar. In fact, they are not pure Africans – they are Africans mixed with Indonesian. Mikea gathering. Mikea hunting. Mikea fishing . Hunter-gatherers were discovered in Madagascar by the first Europeans who went there.

The Mikea of Madagascar. Now heavily acculturated, they trade, farm, practice animal husbandry and even wear modern clothing. As you can see, they are just Malagasy like the rest of the people on this island. There is a theory that these people were former agriculturalists who returned to hunter-gathering due to persecutions, but I’m not sure if that’s proven.

The Okiek or Dorobo of Kenya. This is the lone Bantu hunter-gatherer group. This site has a lot of photos of them. More here and here.

A Dorobo woman in Kenya. This group is now acculturated and has assimilated to surrounding tribes. This woman has assimilated to the Masai and many Dorobo now speak Masai. Many, if not all, now are herders, farmers and whatnot. As you can see, anthropologically, she is a modern African, not an archaic African. The appearance here is Nilotic, but others look Bantu.

There were a few hunter-gatherers in India, including the Chenchu, the Birhor, the Nyaka, the Paliyan and the Andaman Islanders. The Andaman Islanders are still hunter-gatherers.
In SE Asia, there were the Aeta, the Batek, the Batak, the Jahai and the Dulong/Drung/Derung.
The Aeta are the Negritos of the Philippines.

A Philippines Negrito man and woman. The women are said to be excellent hunters, and actually have a success rate double that of the men! The women also hunt with dogs very well. So Sarah Palin was like this modern day Paleolithic moose-hunter newscaster beauty queen White trash babe channeling her Negrito cousins! Right?

The Batek, the Batak and the Jahai are Negrito groups in Malaysia on the Malay Peninsula. Collectively, they are known as Semang in Malaysia and Mani in Thailand.

A photo of Malay Negritos. Tribes include the Batak, the Batek and the Jahai. DNA studies have shown that these are the most ancient out of Africa people on Earth – descendants of the very first humans out of Africa. There are lines here going back some 70,000 years. As you can see by looking at the eyes though, these are clearly Asians.
Here are some scary, macho-looking Malay Negrito men. There are some pretty interesting phenotypes there. Some of them look Melanesian or Papuan.
More Malay Negritos. Note the wavy hair of the guy in the back. Indian Veddoids and Australian Aborigines also have wavy hair.

The last one, the Drung, is a very interesting group living in Yunnan where China, Burma and Tibet all come together.

The location of the Drung can be seen in the yellow portion at the top left of the map. The region where they live is pretty much a tropical rainforest.

The Drung are probably the only known hunter-gatherer group from China.

Here are some Drung people engaging in some ceremony involving a cow. I guess they kill it here. There are only about 6,700 of these people left, but the language is still doing well. It’s still unwritten. Formerly, it was only written on bark in small phrases or words. Note the wavy hair on the guy in the back. These people could be related to Veddoids in part.
Drung women participating in some ceremony. They are pretty acculturated now and practice farming, read, write, trade, etc. These women just look Chinese to me, but this picture does not have good resolution and I’m not very good at parsing out Asian types.

Getting back to Africa, Africa in the Iron Age: c.500 BC-1400 AD, Chapter 3, Late Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Africa South of the Equator, quotes Malcolm Guthrie, the great Africanist linguist, on the subject.
It’s true that agriculture came to this region (Africa south of the Equator) later, but it did come in the past 2,000 years. The proto-Bantus expanded out from the Cameroon-Nigeria border region and rapidly colonized all of Southern Africa. The Paleolithics they displaced were mostly or all Khoisan types – archaic Africans, not modern Africans.
This is known as the Bantu expansion. It was driven by agriculture and in particular iron technology. We can reconstruct many terms for agricultural crops in proto-Bantu but not many for hunting. This was clearly primarily an agricultural-based culture. We can also reconstruct terms for iron implements and tools. Yes, Bantus were smelting iron 2,000 years ago. Some primitives.
White nationalists really need to dump this “Africans are/were primitives” crap. It’s true that they did not reach a very high level of civilization, but they definitely had settled agriculture, animal husbandry and metalworking. Those are some profound cultural achievements in their own right.
It also doesn’t have a lot to do with IQ. Hunter-gatherers in Siberia and Japan probably have IQ’s around 95-100 or so, but not much research has been done. Eskimo hunter-gatherers have IQ’s around 91. True Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the Americas have IQ’s around 87. Metalworking, herding African agriculturalists have IQ’s around 67.
Go figure.

References

Lee, Richard B. and Daly, Richard Heywood. 1999. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, Roland and Fagan, Brian M. 1975. Brian M. Africa in the Iron Age: c.500 BC-1400 AD. Chapter 3: Late Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Africa South of the Equator, pp.22-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.