A Look at the Ju|’hoan Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.
Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.
Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.
Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.
This post will look at the Ju|’hoan language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Khoisan
Southern Africa
Southern
Northern

Ju|’hoan, a Khoisan language spoken by 5,000 people in Botswana, has one of the wildest phonological inventories on Earth. Some question whether these segments actually exist and say that they are instead spoken with a “breathy-voice.” However, voiced aspirated consonants do appear to be real.
In addition, Ju|’hoan has a closed class of only 17 adjectives since descriptive functions are done by verbs. They are the following:
female
male
other (those remaining)
other (strange)
true
old
new
a certain
each
all
some
the numbers one through four
Ju|’hoan scored very high on a study of the weirdest languages on Earth.
Ju|’hoan gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

A Look at the Taa Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.
Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.
Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.
Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.
This post will look at the Taa language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Khoisan
Southern Africa
Southern
Hua

!Xóõ (Taa), spoken by only 4,200 Bushmen in Botswana and Namibia, is a notoriously difficult Khoisan language replete with the notoriously impossible to comprehend click sounds. Taa has anywhere from 130 to 164 consonants, the largest phonemic inventory of any language. Of this vast wealth of sounds, there are anywhere from 30-64 different click sounds. There are five basic clicks and 17 accompanying ones. Speakers develop a lump on their larynx from making the click sounds.
In addition, there are four types of vowels: plain, pharyngealized, breathy-voiced and strident. On top of that, there are four tones. Taa appears on many lists of the wildest phonologies and craziest languages period on Earth.
Taa gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

RIP Black Rhinoceros

From the link:

At some point in the next five or ten years, all sub-species of black rhinos will go extinct in the wild. He writes at one point that in order for Namibia’s black rhinos to survive, it isn’t necessary for local tribesmen to like the animals – it’s only necessary that they not hate them. But as long as there exists a black market in Africa, those tribesmen need only hate their own poverty (or feel a touch of a human emotion called greed) to keep going out into the scrubland and shooting rhinos.
The more the Namibian government clamps down on poaching, the more money the black market will offer for every dead animal. This would be bad enough if there were ten thousand black rhinos in the world, but there are very likely fewer than a thousand. There’s no way the animals can win.

Conservatives like this? They think this is ok, all right, no big deal, not a problem?
I don’t get it. But I will say, “Screw conservatives,” just for that one crap view right there.
On another note, primitive people of any type, African Blacks in particular, simply cannot be relied upon to preserve any wild animal of any type. To preserve wildlife goes against the human tendency to solipsism and short-term profit at the expense, and I think in the modern era, it requires a relatively high IQ. The Black African IQ, at 67 or 75 or whatever it is, is simply too low to preserve any wild animal. “What’s in it for me?” They will ask. “Nothing,” will be the answer.
Don’t give me the poverty argument. Georgia and Moldova are just as poor and they are not exterminating any animals on their land, though they could easily do so, particularly with the hated wolves.
The Blacks were never able to complete their goal of exterminating  everything wild in Africa but the cockroaches and flies not because they were nice people but because they had primitive weapons. When modern weapons showed up, the Blacks were all colonized, and the Europeans, believe it or not, kept the Blacks from exterminating all the animals, and even made parks to protect the creatures.
With decolonization in the mid-1960’s, the Africans quickly went about exterminating all non-human non-domesticated animals. After all, now they not only had guns, but they even had automatic weapons. Giving a 67 IQ human an AK-47 can never be a good idea. At the same time, they also went about exterminating a lot of their fellow humans. The extermination of wildlife was so extreme (painfully recorded in the great Italian film Africa Addio) that the Europeans, who had just been tossed out, were quickly called back in by some decent-minded Africans to serve as quasi-colonists to protect the animals from the Africans and the Africans from themselves.
European paternalism is the only reason that there are large numbers of wild animals left on the continent. I am still convinced that Africans are in need of some paternalism.

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.

Musings on Dual Loyalty, Judaism as Zionism, and Anti-Semitism

Repost from the old site.

Always-perceptive commenter James Schipper makes some astute, terse and cut to the chase comments on my post, The “New Anti-Semitism.” In it, he moves beyond the typically vulgar anti-Semitism that much modern anti-Zionism descends into and offers a perfectly logical explanation for the dual loyalty accusation leveled at Jews.

He also brings up some very difficult questions about the differences between Judaism and Zionism and whether there is really any difference at all.

Schipper:

If criticism of Israel = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then we should be proud to call ourselves anti-Semites.

What is really wrong with Israel? It is not such a bad country for Jews, or even for the Arabs in Israel proper. I would rather be a Jew in Israel than an Arab in any Arab country. Israel was born in sin, but so was every country in the Western hemisphere. Israel is oppressive in the occupied territories, but by historical standards, this oppression is hardly unique.

The real reason for opposing Israel is that it does not see itself as the country of its citizens but as the country of all the Jews in the world. According to Israel, Jews in other countries are living in exile, are really Israelis and should be loyal to Israel.

In other words, Israel expects the Jewish citizens of other countries to behave like Israel’s fifth-columnists, and that is exactly what Zionists outside Israel are.

No political party outside Israel should accept Zionists as members, and no government outside Israel should appoint Zionists to a senior government job. Instead, Zionist should be encouraged to put their bodies where their loyalties are: in Israel.

Suppose that Italy saw itself as the country of all Catholics in the world and expected Catholics everywhere to defend Italian interests, then it would be behaving exactly as Israel does. That would also be a good reason for non-Catholics in other countries to look at Catholics with suspicion and to regard Italy with hostility.

The late Arthur Koestler wrote in an essay that after 1948 all Jews should choose one of two options: go to Israel or abandon Judaism altogether. He is right insofar as Judaism implies Zionism.

Judaism has always posited that Jews are a people and that Israel is their promised land, which is also the position of Zionism. If Judaism implies Zionism, then Jews outside of Israel, it they want to remain Jewish, should emigrate to Israel or else detribalize and deterritorialize Judaism, which may be denaturing it.

Theological question: Why does Obama allow bad things to happen and evil people to prosper?

More seriously, why did Obama appoint a hard Zionist as his chief of staff? It is not a good sign.

I agree with several things in this post.

First of all, he attacks some of the usual broadsides leveled at Israel and dismisses them.

What I find disturbing, and many Zionists have noted this, is the particular vehemence many Israel-critics level at Israel’s oppression of Jews inside Israel, while they are silent or even supportive of even worse oppression by states against minorities outside Israel.

White nationalists think it’s awesome for Whites to treat non-Whites like shit, except when it comes to White Jews versus “muds” in Israel. Kurds in the Arab World are treated awfully bad, Berbers less so but still poorly, and the Shia are oppressed all over the Arab World. There is open oppression and violence against Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Baha’i are treated horribly in Iran, Sunnis less so but still poorly, and the Ahwaz have some good beefs. Turks treat Kurds horribly in Turkey. Russia has massacred 20% of the population of Chechnya in what can only be termed a genocide. China’s treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans is disgraceful. Treatment of Hindus in Pakistan is shameful, and NE Indian Asians are treated poorly by the Indian state.

Japan treats its Koreans, Burakumin and Ainu pretty badly. The Hmong are still treated like shit in Laos, and the Montagnards are not done well by Vietnam. Pygmies are openly genocided and cannibalized as a matter of custom in Zaire, and the Khoisan are nearly murdered at will in SW Africa.

There is a real genocide of Arabs against Africans in Darfur, and another one, Arabs versus Christians, has just ended in South Sudan. Africans are routinely enslaved by Arabs in the Sahel.

We could go and on, but you get the picture. What is disturbing about all of this is that most Israel-critics are either indifferent to, ignorant of or even supportive of, the maltreatment of minorities above. Zionists are correct that this is either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

All, or most all, modern nations were born in sin.

This was due to the nature of the modern nation-building exercise, which typically involved ethnic cleansing or some sort of mass killing or genocide of any existing indigenous people, sidelining, subjection, forced assimilation (cultural genocide) or outright genocide against anyone not part of the dominant nation of the nation-state, and forced destruction of all languages but the one chosen by the nation-state or that is the dominant nation.

The Modern Left in the West, which has adopted Third-Worldism, minority-hugging and European hatred with gusto, errs in singling out Europeans for particular abuse in terms of nation-building. It’s been bloody and awful everywhere and at all times.

Schipper also points out that although Israel is oppressive in the Occupied Territories, by comparative standards, they are relatively mild. Considering the outrageous provocations and attacks of the Palestinians, I am amazed Israel has gone as easy on them as it has.

Arabs do not believe in fighting wars in a civilized manner, and the Geneva Conventions are regarded by them as Western comedy. Any Arab state faced with Palestinian-type provocations by non-Arabs would have been vastly worse than Israel.

Truthfully, just about every nation fighting an insurgency has been more horrible that Israel by orders of magnitude.

Consider this: according to counterinsurgency doctrine, enshrined by the US military and state and promoted by the US media and both US political parties, any civilian who “supports” an insurgency needs to be arrested, beaten, tortured and killed. All counterinsurgencies supported by the US have routinely massacred, mutilated and tortured to death insurgency “supporters.”

This has been true in every counterinsurgency in Latin America, in Indonesia in 1965, the US counterinsurgencies in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, the counterinsurgencies in Mozambique, Algeria and Angola, Russia’s counterinsurgency in Chechnya, India’s counterinsurgencies in India proper and Kashmir, in Sri Lanka against the Tamils, in Indonesia against the Acehese and East Timorese, in the Philippines against the NPA, and in Nepal’s recent Civil War.

In these counterinsurgencies, hundreds of thousands of “supporters” of insurgencies were murdered, tortured and mutilated, while the US cheered, poured in money and looked the other way.

In contrast, almost 100% of Palestinians seem to support the Palestinian insurgency. Clearly, Israel has not been going around killing “supporters” of the insurgency. If they did, they would have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians so far.

Considering the provocations of the Palestinians, Israel has fought one of the cleanest counterinsurgencies in modern times.

Zionists are correct that these criticisms of Israel, combined with support for to indifference to much worse behaviors by non-Jews, are evidence of either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

But Schipper does hit it on the head.

The reason to oppose Israel is that it is not a state of its citizens. Israel openly says that it is the state of all Jews on Earth, not of its citizens. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for non-Jews in every nation on Earth containing Jews to look upon their Jews as possible traitors and dual-loyalists. Dual loyalty, rather than being an “anti-Semitic canard” as many Jews shrilly screech, is actually grounded in immaculate reason.

Schipper also suggests that the wall between Judaism and Zionism may be little more than a wall of sand, and one that has been hit by so many waves that there’s almost nothing left.

Although anti-Zionist Jews offer various reasons for their non-support of Israel, the fact remains that Judaism has always said that Israel is the land of the Jews. Assuming the Messiah returns tomorrow, even Naturei Karta is willing to head to Israel and become fervent Zionists.

Hence the uncomfortable notion, typically parroted by ferocious anti-Zionists and some vulgar anti-Semites, that it is not just Zionism that is the problem, but Judaism itself, is lent some troubling weight. I don’t want to go near this thesis because to be honest, I’m a pussy when it comes to the Jewish Question.

Schipper finally suggests that the Jews of the world either renounce Judaism or practice what you preach and head to Israel. Once again, troubling stuff.

There’s nary a trace of anti-Semitism in Schipper’s comments, but the issues he raises are toxic as Hell.

Just some thought-meals.

Enjoy.

“Hired Guns,” by Alpha Unit

I know a man who served in Vietnam and got offered two job opportunities once he got home: police officer and mercenary. He turned down both. I guess he’d had enough of war. Plus, the Marines still owned him, and would for the next few years. He wasn’t about to cross the Corps by screwing up somewhere.

My impression of mercenaries used to be that they were trigger-happy adventurers who for some reason just loved the thrill of war. If only it were that colorful. Soldier of Fortune magazine is said to attract its share of poseurs. But some of the people seeking this employment are regular guys with wives, kids, mortgages, bills to pay. Warfare is what they know. Being a professional soldier is something they’d be good at. And the pay would come in handy.

If you get caught, though, you’re pretty much on your own. The Geneva Convention carefully defines what a mercenary is, but makes a mercenary an unlawful combatant – unless he’s a national of the country that has him in custody. He still has to be given a fair trial, in any case.

If he’s found to be a mercenary, he is no different from any other criminal.

A Vietnam veteran named Daniel Gearhart wanted to be a mercenary, for pressing reasons. He needed the money, badly. So he placed an ad in Soldier of Fortune magazine. He got hired not long after, and went to Angola.

Angola was in the middle of a civil war. A war which some might characterize as yet another proxy war war between the Soviet Union and the United States. The Angolan civil war had broken out not long after Angola had nominally been granted independence from Portugal.

To oversimplify, Gearhart was among those who were on the side of the USA-backed National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA). The FNLA had been opposed to the Soviet-backed Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA).

Gearhart got arrested soon after he arrived in Angola. He was put on trial, along with other mercenaries. He denied ever firing a shot in Angola. But the ad he had placed in Soldier of Fortune was one of the things used against him.

He was executed by firing squad, along with three Britons.

Risky business, being a soldier of fortune. Anyone willing to put himself on the line in this way gets a kind of respect from me, and from many people. What I’ve found eye-opening, though, about the mercenary business are all the allegations lodged against XeServices LLC – otherwise known as Blackwater, labeled “The World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army” by author Jeremy Scahill.

Four “contractors” working for Blackwater were brutally killed in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. The families are suing Blackwater for wrongful death, accusing the company of taking cost-saving measures that may have led to these deaths.

You have to sympathize with these grieving families. And maybe in their place I’d do the same thing they’re doing. But anyone who chooses this line of work chooses all the risks and all the consequences, presumably. Are people signing up for this business unaware of what it might cost them? Are their families in the dark as well?

This country’s propensity for litigation means that it is increasingly unlikely that anyone is responsible for choices freely made. Not even the choice to rush into known war zones, placing yourself in the hands of a private outfit and with little or no legal protection in the event that something goes terribly wrong.

Great New Study of Ancient African Genes

Repost from the old site.
A new study of African genes shines some new light on the Out of Africa Hypothesis, which is now the dominant view. Most of the Multiregionalists are now isolated into racial or ethnic chauvinists, each of whom wants to believe that they came from a different kind of monkey. This includes European, Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese chauvinists. It’s all nonsense, and Out of Africa reigns.
Previously, the oldest human lineages were in the Khoisan or Bushmen, where they go back from 90,000-150,000 years. During this period, six separate extant lineages existed in parallel in the proto-Khoisan.
However, recent data has shown that the oldest human genes of all are in East Africans from Kenya and Tanzania.
When humans left Africa 60-70,000 years before present (YBP) from East Africa via the Gulf of Aden to Yemen, and from there along the Indian Ocean to India, SE Asia and Australia and New Guinea, there were at least 40 separate lineages going in Africa, each of which has continued to this day.
Finally, 40,000 YBP, newer, more modern lineages entered the Khoisan pool. The evolution of humans in Africa involves many lineages that were isolated from one another and were evolving separately.
A very early split in modern humans of two separate lines is suggested. This occurred from 140-210,000 years ago in Africa, and may have occurred near Lake Victoria, but we do not really know for sure. One line went to South Africa and the other line went to East Africa – Ethiopia, etc.
About 144,000 years ago, a South African line entered the gene pool in Ethiopia. This line then creates a joint East-South African line that later traverses westward from Ethiopia to the Sahara, West and North Africa. Although there has long been debate about whether the cradle of human development in Africa was in South or East Africa, as they were both contenders, the debate now appears to be settled. Humans arose about 180,000 years ago from a Southwest African site around Namibia.
Genes in Africa have been found in the Khoisan dating back 132,000 years, and they have not been found in any other groups of humans anywhere else. That proves Out of Africa right there.
However, we should note that the ancient South African humans did not look like either modern day Khoisan or Bantus.
Of the 40 separate lineages going in Africa 40,000 YBP, only two went on to become all modern non-Africans. Pygmies go back to a split with other Africans 70,000 YBP. The earliest male line among humans appears in the Khoisan in large numbers, but hardly exists outside of Africa anymore, as it has probably been drowned out by newer lines. Two great graphics are here.
The modern-day ancestors of the Africans who left Africa to populate the world are found in the Sudanese, Ethiopians and also the Bushmen. Note that the Bushmen once extended all over East Africa, and a few isolated groups like the Sandawe are still extant in Kenya.
In my opinion, it was Blacks in this part of Africa, the ancestors of the Tutsi and Masai, who left Africa 45,000 years ago, probably via the Horn once again, moved into Iran and the Caucasus, and went on to birth the Caucasian race after they received proto-Asian inputs from China.