The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics
Peter Frost has written a cool paper on the evolution of blond hair and the origin of the remarkable diversity of eye and hair color in Northern and Eastern Europeans. His paper will be published in the upcoming March edition of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Frost is spot-on in nailing intense sexual selection as the primary reason for the high prevalence of blondness, which is of recent origin (less than 20,000 years old), and the unusual diversity of hair and eye color among Northern and Eastern Europeans. Whereas Frost’s proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is open to debate, the conclusion that intense sexual selection is implicated is almost certain. I am including his paper in this post, but will first mention some important implications.
Frost also proposes that the extreme depigmentation seen among Nordics is partly related to sexual selection. Frost mentions traits other than pigmentation that suggest strong sexual selection among Nordics, namely the more feminine looks of white women, on average, than women in non-white populations. I would like to add a high prevalence of fine facial features, too, and certain parts of the face that bear the signature of sexual selection, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly.
For rapid changes to occur under intense sexual selection, two conditions should be met. Firstly, there has to be a high level of sexual freedom, especially afforded to women, and secondly, there also has to be a high level of variability with respect to reproductive success in the population, with individuals having less aesthetically desirable traits (ancestral traits) being disproportionately likely to die without reproducing. Among human populations, it is very clear that the availability of sexual freedom, especially to women, is much higher in Northern Europe than in most other societies, and it has been this way for a long time, except for a short period when the Church was powerful in Northern Europe. In many human societies, young individuals are not allowed to date, marriages are arranged and fornication or adultery are met with drastic consequences. Therefore, once again, such cultural differences are consistent with Frost’s hypothesis of more intense recent (on the order of tens of thousands of years at most) sexual selection in Nordics than in other populations.
People in many non-European societies, such as in Middle Eastern and South Asian societies, pride themselves on their alleged superior morality regarding sexual behavior, failing to realize that moral superiority can only be claimed if their sexual behavior remains the same when they have the same opportunity for sexual impropriety as in the West, which is surely not the case. Arabs and South Asians can sing paeans to their “superior sexual morality” all they want; the consequences of the low level of sexual freedom and arranged marriages in their cultures are very clear: the unattractive among them, thanks to not having to find mates on their own, are more likely to reproduce than unattractive whites; thereby, these populations have been evolving in attractiveness less slowly than whites. One will find few whites who would disagree that non-Europeans in general, including non-European Caucasoid types, look far less attractive than whites, on average, but also, few non-European Caucasoid types would disagree with the statement, too. I know for a fact that Razib Khan of Gene Expression blog thinks that white women, especially blondes, are much superior in looks to Bangladeshi women.
This ties in to mass migration of non-whites into the West. If there are sufficient non-whites around, unattractive whites, who would until the recent past disproportionately die without being able to find a mate and reproduce, may end up with a non-white person who would be more than happy to get a white mate. For instance, a black man would typically prefer a 250-pound white woman to a 350-pound black woman. The resulting offspring of such unions, being closer to whites in looks, would be more acceptable as a mate to a greater proportion of whites than the non-white parent, which in turn will set the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool, resulting in reduced attractiveness of the descendents of modern whites. In addition, if mass migration of the likes of Muslims reduces sexual freedom in the West, then the mulatto descendents of present-day Europeans will also have less of an opportunity to reacquire the looks of their white forebears via intense sexual selection. The conclusions are clear...we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, even if they are as intelligent and as well-behaved as whites are. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a small non-white presence in the West, but allowing mass migration of non-whites to the West is madness.
Peter Frost’s paper cites some genetic data to support greater reproductive skew among white males than non-white males, which is consistent with more intense sexual selection among Europeans in recent history. In this regard, I would like to add the following three papers that, taken together, show similar evidence:
Pereira, L., Dupanloup, I., Rosser, Z. H., Jobling, M. A., & Barbujani, G. (2001). Y-chromosome mismatch distributions in Europe. Mol Biol Evol, 18(7), 1259-1271.
Pritchard, J. K., Seielstad, M. T., Perez-Lezaun, A., & Feldman, M. W. (1999). Population growth of human Y chromosomes: a study of Y chromosome microsatellites. Mol Biol Evol, 16(12), 1791-1798.
Shen, P., Wang, F., Underhill, P. A., Franco, C., Yang, W. H., Roxas, A., et al. (2000). Population genetic implications from sequence variation in four Y chromosome genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 97(13), 7354-7359.
Also consider the following pictures, starting from Miss India 2005, Amrita Thapar, who has a manly face.
Compare Miss India 2005 to Miss USA 2005, Chelsea Cooley, below.
Look at the top three contestants in the Miss India 2005 beauty pageant.
Now look at the top-ranked contestants in the Miss USA 2005 beauty pageant; shown clockwise from top left: Brittany Hogan, Kristen Johnson, Melissa Witek and Jill Gulseth.
It is unlikely that beauty pageants in India have to deal with political correctness to the extent that is seen in the U.S.A. Therefore, the “beauties” shown below -- from the 2005 Miss India beauty pageant -- are probably among the better looking Hindu women.
Note that Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid elements are easily discernible in the women shown above. If race mixing is supposed to increase physical attractiveness, I for sure do not want my female descendents to look as “attractive” as the women above and would prefer the “less attractive” white look.
Hindu’s select their actresses for a high level of attractiveness. Look at the three Hindu actresses below; from top to bottom: Shilpa Shetty, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta.
Compare the Hindu actresses to the three Nordic women below; from top to bottom: Ragnhild Marie Alvær, Sharon van der Knaap and Jennifer Avalon.
It may be claimed that I have deliberately picked unattractive Hindu women for comparative purposes, but a quick look at the photos of the untouchables of India suffices to convince that the Hindu women shown above are among the better looking ones in India.
Of course, there are even better looking Hindus as shown below, but guess who they owe their good looks to? Shown clockwise from top: Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair.
Finally, look at the physique of the woman that many Hindus consider to be the most beautiful woman in the world, Aishwarya Rai, who has broad shoulders and a wide waist, and compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her, the likes of which are so many in number that the entire disk space allotted to this site could be easily filled with their pictures.
Hindus and especially Muslims can keep their “morally superior” sexuality to themselves. If more intense sexual selection -- having the side effect of greater allowability of sexual debauchery -- produces the likes of white women, I’d prefer it any day to a system that is far less successful at naturally getting rid of elements of the looks of primitive man. Black Africans would appear to have been in a position to improve their looks, too, given their high rates of promiscuity, but like their abysmally low IQ, they do not seem to have evolved a better aesthetic sense, and retain some of the most primitive facial features around.
Peter Frost’s paper follows.
European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?
Peter Frost
Abstract
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation.
Keywords: Gender roles; Monogamy; Pigmentation; Polygyny; Sexual selection; Upper Paleolithic.
1. Introduction
Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in a geographic area centered on the East Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Within this area, eyes are not only brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green, while hair is not only black but also brown, flaxen, golden, or red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965, pp. 212–214). As one moves outward from this area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair uniformly black.
Fig. 1. Hair-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 214). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Fig. 2. Eye-color diversity in and near Europe (after Beals & Hoijer, 1965, p. 213). (Reprinted with permission from Beals et al., “An Introduction to Anthropology,” 3rd ed. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 1965 by Pearson Education.)
Is this diversity due to chance? In particular, could it reflect founder effects during the repeopling of glaciated Europe 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? When a founder group breaks off from its parent population, such “sampling” may indeed increase the frequency of a variant hair- or eye-color allele. It is less probable that two alleles of the same gene would become more frequent, and this probability would decline exponentially with each additional allele. Yet the hair-color gene, MC1R, has at least seven phenotypically distinct alleles that exist only in Europe (Box et al., 1997, Harding et al., 2000 and Rana et al., 1999). Furthermore, eye-color diversity results from another set of alleles at a locus that is at best weakly linked to hair color (Eiberg & Mohr, 1987).
Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant alleles? Harding et al. (2000) have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) has come to a similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for approximately 35,000 years.
Is this diversity due to admixture with older European populations, notably the Neanderthals? Recently, human mtDNA has been retrieved from skeletal material on both sides of the transition from Neanderthals to modern humans: No genetic continuity is discernible between the late Neanderthals and the early modern Europeans (Caramelli et al., 2003). In addition, the mtDNA and dental traits of Neanderthals are no more similar to those of present-day Europeans than they are to those of any other modern human population (Krings et al., 1999, Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 and Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998). Neanderthal admixture seems to have been minor, if not negligible, and could hardly account for the high proportion of Europeans who deviate from the species norm of black hair and brown eyes.
Is this diversity due, then, to some selective force, either natural or sexual selection? The first kind of selection is unlikely. As a rule, highly visible color traits are not adaptations to the natural environment, which typically favors an unobtrusive, cryptic coloration as a means to evade predators. It has been suggested that a lighter colored iris may offer more visual acuity in dim light, such as in the misty maritime environments of northwestern Europe (Short, 1975). Eye color, however, is polymorphic over a much larger area of Europe, most of which is typically continental in climate. It is also unclear why selection for visual acuity would have favored more variability in eye color as opposed to a simple reduction in eye pigment.
The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe's hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits, but there is little consensus on the reasons why. It may be that bright colors stimulate sexual attraction in the brain through (1) mate-assessment algorithms that interpret pigment production as a sign of health and, hence, mate quality; (2) sex-recognition algorithms that pick out sex-specific color stimuli and respond open-endedly with stronger responses to more intense colors; and (3) general monitoring algorithms that respond to highly visible stimuli and indirectly alert other systems, including those related to sexual attraction (Farr, 1980, Hamilton & Zuk, 1982, Kirkpatrick, 1987 and Manning, 1979, pp. 66–75). The opposite sex may exploit all three algorithm types by intensifying its color stimuli until functional constraints intervene or until the cost of easier detection by predators exceeds the benefit of stronger sexual attraction (Endler, 1980 and Endler, 1991).
Under certain conditions, sexual selection may also diversify color traits within a single population. When an individual is faced with potential mates of equal value, it will tend to select the one that “stands out from the crowd,” that is, that has the rarest color morph. The selection is frequency-dependent, declining in strength as the rare morph becomes more common and tending toward an equilibrium that maximizes color diversity. This rare-color advantage has been studied mainly in fruit flies and guppies but has also been reported in a parasitic wasp, in red flour beetles, in ladybugs, and in leafroller moths (Anderson, 1969, Brooks, 2002, Farr, 1980, Grant et al., 1974, Hughes et al., 1999, Muggleton, 1979, Simchuk, 2001 and Sinnock, 1970). There are also a number of bird species that exhibit color polymorphisms for which the mode of selection remains unclear (Lank, 2002). Whatever the cause, color polymorphisms are relatively uncommon. They are often hindered by two evolutionary constraints: (1) high predation pressure, this being a constraint on color traits in general and (2) the presence of related species within the same geographic range, apparently because too much intraspecific variability interferes with species recognition and leads to hybridization (Endler, 1980).
Many evolutionary biologists dislike the concept of rare-color advantage. There is no gain in fitness from sexual attraction to unusual colors; therefore natural selection should eliminate such nonadaptive behavior. Yet it is difficult to see how, just as it is difficult to see how we can counter the many subterfuges that advertisers use to attract our notice. There are good adaptive reasons for paying attention when an eye-catching object enters our field of view, and it is impossible to disable this response in advance for sexual attraction, given that the nature of the object (animate/inanimate, conspecific/nonconspecific, male/female) is determined at a later stage of mental processing. At that stage, the increased attention could be reversed or given a negative meaning. But there would be a cost: not only in additional processing time but also in overcorrection and undercorrection–like a spam-filter that fails to screen out all unwanted e-mails while blocking some legitimate ones. The cost may be justified if attraction to rare-color morphs leads to hybridization or if the color itself is somehow maladaptive. Otherwise, the benefit will not justify the cost.
Rare-color advantage has been reported in humans. Thelen (1983) presented three series of slides showing blonde and brunette females and asked male participants to select the one from each series that they would most prefer to marry. The first series showed 6 brunettes, the second 1 brunette and 5 blondes, and the third 1 brunette and 11 blondes. For the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series, that is, in proportion to the rarity of her hair color. The same effect was observed, albeit to a lesser extent, when the study was repeated with male photos and female participants. These findings have some support from other studies. Schweder (1994) found that women tended to change their hair color and hair form to a type that was less common in the general population. Riedl (1990) found that men tended to prefer female faces that diverge from the norm. Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) noted less preference for blonde women in England than in France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English.
Rare-color advantage may have caused hair and eye color to diversify in ancestral humans, there being neither of the evolutionary constraints mentioned above, that is, high predation pressure or likelihood of hybridization. Outside Africa, there were only two potential predators: wolves and bears, the latter being uncommon and the former only an occasional threat to recent hunter-gatherers (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 238, 240). Hybridization was just as nonproblematic. All other Homo populations had been reduced to extinction or relic status by 30,000 BP.
It is less clear, though, why hair and eye color diversified in Europe and not elsewhere. Rare-color advantage is a special case of sexual selection, and the intensity of sexual selection normally varies with the operational sex ratio (OSR; the ratio of unmated males to unmated females). The usual pattern is too many males competing for too few females (pregnancy and early infant care exclude some females from mating at any one time). But why would there have been more competition for women in northern and eastern Europe? If anything, there should have been more in sub-Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea, where a high incidence of polygyny leaves fewer women unmated.
I will argue here that the usual pattern of too many males and too few females was reversed among ancestral Europeans, specifically among the highly mobile groups that once inhabited the continental tundra of ice-age Europe. This environment exposed men to a higher risk of hunting mortality while limiting their ability to provide for more than one wife. With fewer men altogether and even fewer polygynous ones, women had to compete for a limited supply of potential husbands. There was thus sexual selection, but it acted primarily on women—not on men.
2. The Eurasian tundra belt: low-latitude west and high-latitude east
As modern humans spread out of Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, they entered new environments, including one that no longer exists. Loess-steppe covered the plains of northern and eastern Europe during successive ice ages and interglacials until 10,000 years ago (Fig. 3). Quite unlike today's northern barrens, it combined Arctic tundra with fertile loess soil and low latitudes, the Eurasian tundra belt having been pushed far to the south by the Scandinavian icecap. Long intense sunlight favored a lush growth of mosses, lichens, grasses, and low shrubs with grazing herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison, and horses. Despite high bioproductivity, Europe's tundra plains posed several adaptive challenges. Winter temperatures averaged −20 to −30 °C, with little natural protection. Wood for fuel or shelter was scarce. Finally, almost all consumable biomass was in the form of large herds of migrating herbivores (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 21–26, 32–34).
Fig. 3. Major vegetation zones in Europe approximately 18,000 BP (after Mellars, 1985, p. 275, reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
South of 60°N, the Eurasian tundra belt lay entirely within Europe. East of the Urals, it narrowed and ran further north across Asia and into Beringia. Colder and drier with proportionately less fertile loess, this eastern end had a lower carrying capacity for herbivores (Goebel, 1999 and Hoffecker, 2002, p. 22).
3. Continental Arctic tundra: consequences of human adaptation
3.1. Less food gathering = increased female dependence on male provisioning
In adapting to Arctic tundra, modern humans had to change their sexual division of labor, which normally allocated food gathering to women and hunting to men. Women now processed meat provided by men and did tasks unrelated to food procurement, such as garment making and shelter building. Men procured almost all of the food (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8).
We can see this task reallocation by comparing recent hunter-gatherers from the Tropics to the Arctic. Near the equator, women procure about half of the family food supply by gathering berries, fruits, roots, grubs, eggs, and other sessile items, these tasks being more compatible than hunting with the demands of pregnancy, breast feeding, and infant transport (Kelly, 1955, pp. 268–269). Away from the equator, the cold season lengthens and gatherable food becomes harder to find, declining from 40% to 55% of the family food supply in hunter-gatherers below 40°N to less than 10% above 60°N (Martin, 1974, pp. 16–18). The end point of this trend is Arctic tundra. Among the Caribou Inuit, female food gathering is limited to eggs (during 2 weeks in summer), raw gadfly larvae, the root of a plant species, and some berries (Birket-Smith, 1929, p. 133).
On this north–south continuum, ice-age European hunter-gatherers were much closer to the ‘Arctic’ end, with most of their food being procured through hunting. Dickson (1990, p. 180) summarizes the evidence: the abundance of game animals in Europe during the late Pleistocene; the volume of animal bone at archeological sites like Solutré, Moldova, Predmosti, and Dolni Vestonice; the large amount of usable meat on late Pleistocene game animals; and the lack of wear on Upper Paleolithic dentition, indicating a grit-free, carnivorous diet (Butzer, 1964, p. 374; Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961). In addition, biochemical analysis of human remains from a British Upper Paleolithic site reveals a diet high in animal protein, principally from aurochs and red deer (Richards et al., 2000). At Czech, Russian, and British Upper Paleolithic sites, similar analyses reveal a diet high in protein from terrestrial herbivores, waterfowl, and fish (Richards et al., 2001). None of this means that food gathering was absent, only that it was less important. Indeed, a Czech site has yielded evidence of fleshy taproots from charred plant remains (Mason et al., 1994). The remains date, however, to approximately 26,000 BP, when forest-steppe predominated, and the investigators concluded that such foods were limited to southern and central Europe.
3.2. Increased female dependence on male provisioning = constraints on polygyny
As males assume more responsibility for food procurement, polygyny becomes more difficult. In his review of Inuit mating systems, Kjellström (1973, p. 118) concludes, “Since the duty of being a provider was more onerous for the man who had two or more wives, this meant that as a rule it was only the really able and skilful hunters and fishers who could manage this double duty.” Hodge (1959[1905], p. 809) concurs: “monogamy is prevalent, as the support of several wives is possible only for the expert hunter.” This pattern also prevailed among the Chukchi of northeastern Siberia: “The Chukchees commonly live in monogamy; it is only exceptionally that they have two wives” (Nordenskiold, 1882, p. 504). According to the earliest ethnography of the Sami of northern Scandinavia, “Neither is it Lawful for them to Marry more than one Wife at a time, or to be divorced from her. Polygamy and Divorces…, are Things unknown to the Laplanders, both whilst they were Pagans, and since” (Scheffer, 1704, p. 296).
These observations are supported by genetic data. The ratio of Y to X chromosome variability rises markedly as one goes from long-established tropical populations (sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, and Aboriginal Australians) to other populations (Europeans, Asians, and Amerindians), indicating that the latter have had a higher proportion of men contributing to the gene pool (Dupanloup et al., 2003; see also Scozzari et al., 1997 and Torroni et al., 1990). More work is needed to determine whether this trend peaks in recent Arctic hunter-gatherers.
3.3. Longer hunting distances = higher death rate among young men
As hunter-gatherers adapt to less tropical environments, men have to cover more terrain while hunting, partly because they need to hunt more (to offset the decline in food gathering) and partly because the game animals themselves roam over a larger territory, the land supporting less vegetation at colder temperatures (Kelly, 1955, pp. 128–132). Hunting distance peaks in the continental Arctic, where almost all potential food is in the form of wide-ranging and highly mobile herds (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 8). It then decreases further north in the extreme Arctic, where hunters cover shorter distances in pursuit of solitary game, fish, and seals (Kelly, 1955, p. 129).
As hunting distance lengthens, more young men die from starvation, accidents, or exposure. Among the Chukchi of the 18th to early 20th centuries, men died young because they followed reindeer over the tundra with a minimum of possessions; in contrast, men lived longer among the Nenets because herd dogs confined the semidomesticated reindeer to nearby pastures (Krupnik, 1985). Arctic populations that still hunted wild game thus had highly skewed sex ratios. Among 19th century Labrador Inuit, only 57 males remained for every 100 females in the 15+ age bracket because of hunting deaths from drowning or exposure (Scheffel, 1984). Among Inuit, in general, “the preponderance of adult women is generally explained by the higher death rate among men due to the natural hazards of hunting” (Weyer, 1932, pp. 135–136).
Some evidence points to long hunting distances and high male mortality on the tundra plains of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Many central Russian sites contain large quantities of black flint from sources at least 130–150 km away and other raw materials from sources up to 650 km away (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 184–185, 248). Human remains from Upper Paleolithic Europe were once thought to be mainly males (Binford, 1968, Harrold, 1980 and Vallois, 1961), but reanalysis with improved sexing criteria has found that females predominate, suggesting either that many men died under conditions unsuited for burial, such as hunting accidents, or that male burials were less conducive to preservation, such as in aboveground coffins (Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995). The Maszycka Cave in Poland has provided the only ‘snapshot’ of a single extended family from the Upper Paleolithic: the remains of three men, five women, and eight children, all apparently killed and partially eaten (Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995).
3.4. Constraints on polygyny+higher death rate among young men = skewed OSR
With less polygyny and more young men dying, the OSR is skewed toward a male shortage. Many women lose reproductive time, even among non-Arctic hunter-gatherers with less skewed OSRs. Among the !Kung, about 75% of all women lose some reproductive time while waiting between partners, and 10–20% lose 5 to 15 years. “A relative scarcity of husbands, then, is a regular and expected part of the !Kung marriage system” (Howell, 1979, pp. 247–250). One might expect that this female surplus would encourage more men to take second wives, but “having two families simultaneously is difficult to manage, both economically (in providing for a large number of dependents) and socially (in avoiding the conflicts and irritations of polygamous marriages)” (Howell, 1979, p. 272). Each additional wife, with her offspring, decreases the ratio of food-providing adults to food-consuming children (Howell, 1979, pp. 53–54).
These constraints on polygyny peak in Arctic tundra environments, where women have few opportunities for food gathering. Parallel to this trend, death rates among young men peak in the continental Arctic. OSRs should therefore be most skewed among hunter-gatherers (or rather hunters) living on continental Arctic tundra. Today, this environment is a shadow of its former self, both in the size of its migrating herds and in the extent of its land mass, essentially the northern fringes of mainland Eurasia and North America. Most of its indigenous peoples–low-Arctic Inuit, Chukchi, Yukaghir, Tungus, Nenets, and Sami (Lapps)–rely on a mix of maritime fishing and inland hunting; thus, their OSR characteristics are, at best, indicative of Upper Paleolithic conditions. Nonetheless, if we look at the Labrador Inuit of the 19th century, a very lopsided sex ratio appears at all reproductive ages, with many women, especially widows, shut out of the marriage market entirely (Scheffel, 1984). In the Siberian Arctic east of the Taymyr Peninsula, in the 18th to early 20th centuries, women outnumbered men at all reproductive ages because the men still followed reindeer on foot and suffered proportionately higher death rates. (Krupnik, 1985). OSR skewing seems to have occurred even further west, where reindeer were already semidomesticated in historic times. Sami of 18th to 19th century Finland had female-biased OSRs, although the same was true among the mainly agricultural Finns (Lummaa et al., 1998). Indeed, female-biased OSRs prevailed in most preindustrial European societies, reflecting perhaps the key importance of paternal investment and also cultural constraints on polygyny that predated Christianity (Seccombe, 1992, pp. 184–190; Sherman, 1922, Vol. II, p. 475; Tacitus, 1970, 18; Vatin, 1970, p. 201).
North of the continental Arctic, in the extreme Arctic, OSRs were more evenly balanced and sometimes had a male surplus (Schrire & Steiger, 1974). First, male mortality was lower. Men hunted dispersed marine animals and thus avoided the ‘feast or famine’ dilemma that occurred when hunting spatially concentrated terrestrial herbivores. Second, female mortality was higher, specifically female infanticide. In the extreme Arctic, parents viewed the prospects for a daughter as problematic. She would have trouble finding a husband locally (the low carrying capacity of the land limited the local group's size), and thus she would probably marry into another group and not support her parents later on, either directly or through her future husband (Balikci, 1967, Riches, 1974 and Smith & Smith, 1994). At lower latitudes, where the land had a higher carrying capacity, female infanticide occurred much less often, apparently because bigger and closer groups allowed women to marry locally and provide their parents with ‘son-in-law payback’ (Riches, 1974 and Schrire & Steiger, 1974).
4. Peopling of the Eurasian tundra belt
Modern humans penetrated the Eurasian tundra belt no earlier than 35,000 years ago, at first in its most southerly and resource-rich portion—southwestern France (Mellars, 1985). This ‘beachhead’ was dissected by valleys that offered wild fruits, grains, tubers, salmon, and non-Arctic game, as well as migrating reindeer in the fall and winter (Blades, 1999a, Blades, 1999b and Mellars, 1985). The reindeer may have drawn humans out of the sheltered valleys, briefly at first, and then for longer periods, as hunting bands adapted to the new niche. Eventually, some bands left the valleys to hunt year-round on the surrounding tundra plains. The initial founder group may have been small, as suggested by the very low genetic variability of northern Europeans today (Reich et al., 2001). There then seems to have been rapid growth (perhaps reflected in the spread of the Gravettian culture) with the front of the demographic expansion spreading eastward into the Central Russian Plain and ultimately reaching Siberia and Beringia by the end of the last interglacial approximately 25,000 BP (Goebel, 1999, Pitulko et al., 2004 and Soffer, 1985, p. 238; Soffer et al., 1993).
Thus, when the last ice age began, a single human population occupied a corridor stretching from Europe to Beringia. This inference is supported by several lines of evidence. A Y chromosome study has found that all North Eurasian peoples descend from a common ancestral population dated to about 15,000 BP (Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000; see also Armour et al., 1996, Santos et al., 1999 and Zerjal et al., 1997). The language families of northern Eurasia, particularly Uralic and Yukaghir and more generally Uralic-Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, and Altaic, share deep structural affinities that point to a common origin and not simply to word borrowing (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 97–99; Fortescue, 1998 and Rogers, 1986). Archeological evidence (characteristic lithic technology, grave goods with red ocher, and sites with small shallow basins) also suggests a common cultural tradition throughout Europe and Siberia 20,000 to 15,000 years ago (Goebel, 1999, Haynes, 1980 and Haynes, 1982). Finally, dental and cranial remains from Mal'ta (23,000–20,000 BP) in southern Siberia indicate strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 and Goebel, 1999).
This Eurasian population would have broken up at the glacial maximum (20,000–15,000 BP). East–west gene flow was severely constricted by the merging of the Fenno-Scandian and Ural icecaps and by the formation of large glacial lakes along the Ob (Rogers, 1986 and Crawford et al., 1997). At the same time, both sides of this ice-age barrier saw sharp declines in human population (Goebel, 1999 and Hahn, 1987). After the glacial maximum, cultural and biological unity continued to disintegrate as part of a trend toward higher population densities, regional diversification, and probably more restricted breeding units (Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999).
As gene flow declined between the two ends of the Eurasian tundra belt, selection pressures would have become more localized. Sexual selection, in particular, would have varied in intensity with regional OSR differences. This may explain why hair- and eye-color diversity arose in Europe but not in Asia—where hair is uniformly black and eyes uniformly brown. The eastern end of the Eurasian tundra belt differed from the western end in two OSR-relevant ways. First, its narrower width constrained herbivore mobility, thus shortening hunting distances and reducing hunting deaths among young men. Male mortality would have further decreased after the glacial maximum: An absence of base camps in the archeological record suggests that residential units were dispersing to exploit a variety of resources with shorter hunting distances (Goebel, 1999, p. 223). Second, the eastern Eurasian tundra had higher latitudes, lower carrying capacity, and a more dispersed human population, thus providing the same environmental conditions that in more recent times have led to female infanticide in the extreme Arctic. These two factors, shorter hunting distances and increased female infanticide, would have resulted in a more balanced OSR and, consequently, less sexual selection to diversify hair and eye color.
Such diversification would have begun in western Eurasia no earlier than 20,000 BP, given the uniform black hair and brown eyes of populations east of the ice-age barrier in eastern Eurasia. If the beginning of human history marks the latest end date, we are left with a maximum timeframe of 14,000 years. This is fast evolutionary change for human pigmentation, which elsewhere has responded more slowly to selection by the natural environment. A full range of environments, from the Arctic to the Tropics, has not caused the Amerindians to differentiate in hair, eye, or skin color, despite their being in the Americas for approximately 15,000 years.
5. Diversification of European hair color
The MC1R gene determines hair color by controlling the production of eumelanin (brown and black pigments) and pheomelanin (red and yellow pigments). It is unusually polymorphic in humans, both in its high number of alleles and in its high ratio of nonsynonymous (phenotypically distinct) to synonymous (phenotypically identical) alleles (Box et al., 1997, Flanagan et al., 2000, Harding et al., 2000, Rana et al., 1999 and Rees, 2000). Whereas most genes have more synonymous alleles than nonsynonymous ones, the reverse is true for human MC1R (Rana et al., 1999).
Nonsynonymous MC1R alleles are distributed differently in European and non-European populations: 11 in Europeans, 5 in Asians, and 1 in Africans (Harding et al., 2000, p. 1355). Furthermore, the Asian alleles differ little in their phenotypic effects. Harding et al. (2000) attribute the high MC1R diversity of Europeans to relaxed selection for dark skin outside the tropical zone. This would account for the redhead alleles, which are linked to skin depigmentation, but not for the other alleles. Relaxed selection also fails to explain the low MC1R diversity of non-tropical Asians. Nonetheless, Harding et al. (2000) advance three arguments for relaxed selection, rather than positive selection, to explain the high MC1R diversity of Europeans. The first argument is that relaxed selection has produced a comparable level of diversity at the β-globin locus. Yet β-globin variants clearly have selective value, as indicated by heterozygote advantage and the short time span (less than 5000 years) over which the β-globin polymorphism has evolved (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994, pp. 149–152). The second argument is that the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous alleles is only 10 to 3 in Eurasia and thus comparable to the ratio of 10 nonsynonymous to 6 synonymous MC1R substitutions that separate humans from chimpanzees. The data in table 1 of their article, however, indicate a ratio of 12 to 3 (2 redhead alleles are excluded because they came from a study that specifically looked for them). In any case, the 10 to 6 ratio separating humans from chimpanzees is hardly a benchmark for neutral selection: Ratios greater than 1 are normally deemed to be evidence of positive selection, and such selection has acted on MC1R in some primate lineages (Mundy & Kelly, 2003). Finally, the third argument against positive selection is that MC1R diversity does not depart significantly from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, there being neither excess homozygotes nor excess heterozygotes. No such departure, however, would be expected, inasmuch as MC1R heterozygotes exhibit partial effects (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Rees, 2000).
6. Discussion
One might object that sexual selection could not have diversified European hair and eye color because there is no sexual dimorphism in these traits. Had women been selected for a diversity of hair and eye colors, they would now be more diverse in this respect than men are. It should be noted, however, that both hair and eye colors are, at best, weakly sex-linked; hence, selection acting on women should have affected men and women equally until sex-linked alleles had arisen through chance mutations. The original alleles (i.e., the non-sex-linked ones) could then have been selected out, but only if men were somehow disadvantaged by the novel hair and eye colors. For most animals, the disadvantage is an increased risk of predation, which will reduce highly visible colors in the sex that does not need them. For early Europeans, such a disadvantage would have been slight. Even wolves were more likely to be prey than predators (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 180–183, 225, 241–242).
This being said, some hair and eye colors seem to be sex linked. Blond hair darkens with age more slowly in women than in men (Olivier, 1960, p. 74). Furthermore, prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, appears to be higher in individuals with blond hair or non-brown eyes (Mather et al., unpublished). If a sex difference does indeed exist in these novel hair and eye colors, it seems to be expressed only right after puberty. It was notably absent in the 18-to-38 year olds studied by Mather et al. (unpublished).
Besides diversifying European hair and eye color, sexual selection may have accentuated existing sexual dimorphisms. Several studies have found wider hips, narrower waists, and thicker deposition of subcutaneous fat in women of European descent than in women of other origins (Hrdlička, 1898, Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 and Nelson & Nelson, 1986). Even before birth, Euro-American fetuses show significantly more sexual dimorphism than do African-American fetuses (Choi & Trotter, 1970). The proximal cause may be lower androgen production than in women of sub-Saharan African descent (Falkner et al., 1999) and higher estrogen production and lower fecal excretion of estrogen than in women of north/east Asian descent (Adlercreutz et al., 1994, Coker et al., 1997, Key et al., 1990, Taioli et al., 1996 and Wang et al., 1991). Prenatal exposure to estrogen, as indicated by digit ratio, may also be higher in European women, albeit with much interpopulation variation (Manning et al., 2000; Manning, J. T. (2003). Personal communication). This variation may reflect a maternal-age effect: digit ratio is higher in Catholic countries like Poland and Spain, where mothers generally bear children in their 20s, than in Germany and Finland, where more mothers bear children in their 30s (Manning et al., 2000).
Sexual selection may have also lightened European skin color. The extreme depigmentation of northern and eastern Europeans deviates markedly from the much weaker north–south gradient in skin color of other human populations (the latter gradient may reflect selection pressures to maintain a critical level of vitamin D synthesis). Yet the geographic extent of this extreme depigmentation does not coincide with a specific pattern of solar radiation: Skies are generally overcast over coastal northwestern Europe and become clearer and typically continental further east. It does coincide, however, with the area where hair and eye color has diversified (Fig. 4). Aside from red hair, the color of the hair and eyes is not genetically linked to skin color (Flanagan et al., 2000 and Sturm et al., 2001). It seems, therefore, that a common selective force has acted simultaneously on skin, hair, and eye color within this geographic area while being absent at similar latitudes in northern Asia and North America (Frost, 1994a and Manning et al., 2004).
Fig. 4. Skin-color depigmentation in Eurasia approximately 500 BP (after Brace, 1973, p. 344, reprinted with permission from Wiley).
If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939, Frost, 1988, Frost, 2005, Hulse, 1967 and Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman's skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002, Feinman & Gill, 1978, Frost, 1988, Frost, 1994b, Frost, 2005 and Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986).
Among ancestral Europeans, such selection, even if acting only on women, would have lightened the complexions of both sexes because most skin-color genes are not sex linked. Nonetheless, some of these genes are; thus, there should have been some selective pressure to make European skin color more sexually dimorphic. Yet skin color actually seems to be less sexually dimorphic in light-skinned populations (Relethford et al., 1985). The reason may be a ceiling effect. As ancestral Europeans approached the phenotypic limit of maximum skin depigmentation, further lightening would have become harder to achieve for women than for men, with the result that sexual selection, although acting primarily on women, lightened men more.
In conclusion, sexual selection may have acted on all three color traits in northern and eastern Europe, with hair and eye color being diversified and skin color lightened. This hypothesis is consistent with the narrow timeframe for the evolution of these traits, their geographic distribution, and the large number of alleles involved.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. John Thomas Manning, who independently came to similar conclusions as I did, despite his approaching the question from a different academic perspective and drawing on a different body of evidence. This ‘repeatability of conclusions’ is further support for the arguments presented here.
References
Adlercreutz et al., 1994 H. Adlercreutz, S.L. Gorbach, B.R. Goldin, M.N. Woods, J.T. Dwyer and E. Hämäläinen, Estrogen metabolism and excretion in Oriental and Caucasian Women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86 (1994), pp. 1076–1082.
Alexeyev & Gokhman, 1994 V.P. Alexeyev and I.I. Gokhman, Skeletal remains of infants from a burial on the Mal'ta Upper Paleolithic site, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 119–126.
Anderson, 1969 W.W. Anderson, Polymorphism resulting from the mating advantage of rare male genotypes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64 (1969), pp. 190–197.
Aoki, 2002 K. Aoki, Sexual selection as a cause of human skin colour variation: Darwin's hypothesis revisited, Annals of Human Biology 29 (2002), pp. 589–608.
Armour et al., 1996 J.A.L. Armour, T. Anttinen, C.A. May, E.E. Vega, A. Sajantila, J.R. Kidd, K.K. Kidd, J. Bertranpetit, S. Paabo and A.J. Jeffreys, Minisatellite diversity supports a recent African origin for modern humans, Nature Genetics 13 (1996), pp. 154–160.
Balikci, 1967 A. Balikci, Female infanticide on the Arctic coast, Man 2 (1967), pp. 615–625.
Beals & Hoijer, 1965 R.L. Beals and H. Hoijer, An introduction to anthropology (3rd ed.), Macmillan, New York (1965).
Binford, 1968 S.R. Binford, A structural comparison of disposal of the dead in the Mousterian and the Upper Paleolithic, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24 (1968), pp. 139–151.
Birket-Smith, 1929 K. Birket-Smith, The Caribou Eskimos. Material and social life and their cultural position. In: K. Rasmussen, Editor, Report of the 5th Thule expedition vol. 5, Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen (1929), pp. 1921–1924.
Blades, 1999a B.S. Blades, Aurignacian settlement patterns in the Vézère valley, Current Anthropology 40 (1999), pp. 712–719.
Blades, 1999b B.S. Blades, Aurignacian lithic economy and early modern human mobility: New perspectives from classic sites in the Vézère valley of France, Journal of Human Evolution 37 (1999), pp. 91–120.
Box et al., 1997 N.F. Box, J.R. Wyeth, L.E. O'Gorman, N.G. Martin and R.A. Sturm, Characterization of melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor variant alleles in twins with red hair, Human Molecular Genetics 6 (1997), pp. 1891–1897.
Brace, 1973 C.L. Brace, A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity. In: C.L. Brace and J. Metress, Editors, Man in evolutionary perspective, Wiley, New York (1973), pp. 341–363.
Brooks, 2002 R. Brooks, Variation in female mate choice within guppy populations: Population divergence, multiple ornaments and the maintenance of polymorphism, Genetica 116 (2002), pp. 343–358.
Butzer, 1964 K.W. Butzer, Environment and archaeology, Aldine, Chicago (1964).
Caramelli et al., 2003 D. Caramelli, C. Laluez-Fox, C. Vernesi, M. Lari, A. Casoli, F. Mallegni, B. Chiarelli, I. Dupanloup, J. Bertranpetit, G. Barbujani and G. Bertorelle, Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neanderthals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 (2003), pp. 6593–6597.
Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi and A. Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).
Choi & Trotter, 1970 S.C. Choi and M.A. Trotter, Statistical study of the multivariate structure and race–sex differences of American White and Negro fetal skeletons, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33 (1970), pp. 307–312.
Coker et al., 1997 A.L. Coker, M.M. Crane, R.P. Sticca and D.W. Sepkovic, Re: Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89 (1997), pp. 89–90.
Crawford et al., 1997 M.H. Crawford, J.T. Williams and R. Duggirala, Genetic structure of the indigenous populations of Siberia, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104 (1997), pp. 177–192.
Dahlberg & Carbonell, 1961 A.A. Dahlberg and V.M. Carbonell, The dentition of the Magdalenian female from Cap Blanc, France, Man 61 (1961), pp. 49–50.
Dickson, 1990 D.B. Dickson, The dawn of belief. Religion in the upper Paleolithic of Southwestern Europe, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990).
Dupanloup et al., 2003 I. Dupanloup, L. Pereira, G. Bertorelle, F. Calafell, M.J. Prata, A. Amorim and G. Barbujani, A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity, Journal of Molecular Evolution 57 (2003), pp. 85–97.
Edwards & Duntley, 1939 E.A. Edwards and S.Q. Duntley, The pigments and color of living human skin, American Journal of Anatomy 65 (1939), pp. 1–33.
Eiberg & Mohr, 1987 H. Eiberg and J. Mohr, Major genes of eye color and hair color linked to LU and SE, Clinical Genetics 31 (1987), pp. 186–191.
Ellis, 1928 H. Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Sexual selection in man vol. IV, F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia (1928).
Endler, 1980 J.A. Endler, Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata, Evolution 34 (1980), pp. 76–91.
Endler, 1991 J.A. Endler, Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions, Vision Research 31 (1991), pp. 587–608.
Falkner et al., 1999 B. Falkner, K. Sherif, A. Sumner and H. Kushner, Hyperinsulinism and sex hormones in young adult African Americans, Metabolism, Clinical and Experimental 48 (1999), pp. 107–112.
Farr, 1980 J.A. Farr, Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae), Behaviour 74 (1980), pp. 38–91.
Feinman & Gill, 1978 S. Feinman and G.W. Gill, Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences, Journal of Social Psychology 105 (1978), pp. 43–52.
Flanagan et al., 2000 N. Flanagan, E. Healy, A. Ray, S. Philips, C. Todd, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Pleiotropic effects of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene on human pigmentation, Human Molecular Genetics 9 (2000), pp. 2531–2537.
Formicola & Giannecchini, 1999 V. Formicola and M. Giannecchini, Evolutionary trends of stature in upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Journal of Human Evolution 36 (1999), pp. 319–333.
Fortescue, 1998 M.D. Fortescue, Language relations across Bering strait. Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence, Cassell, London (1998).
Frost, 1988 P. Frost, Human skin color: A possible relationship between its sexual dimorphism and its social perception, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1988), pp. 38–58.
Frost, 1994a P. Frost, Geographic distribution of human skin colour: A selective compromise between natural selection and sexual selection?, Human Evolution 9 (1994), pp. 141–153.
Frost, 1994b P. Frost, Preference for darker faces in photographs at different phases of the menstrual cycle: Preliminary assessment of evidence for a hormonal relationship, Perceptual and Motor Skills 79 (1994), pp. 507–514.
Frost, 2005 P. Frost, Fair women, dark men. The forgotten roots of color prejudice, Cybereditions, Christchurch, New Zealand (2005).
Goebel, 1999 T. Goebel, Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach, Evolutionary Anthropology 8 (1999), pp. 208–227.
Grant et al., 1974 B. Grant, A. Snyder and S.F. Glessner, Frequency-dependent mate selection in Mormoniella vitripennis, Evolution 28 (1974), pp. 259–264.
Hahn, 1987 J. Hahn, Aurignacian and Gravettian settlement patterns in Central Europe. In: O. Soffer, Editor, The Pleistocene old world, Plenum, New York (1987), pp. 251–261.
Hamilton & Zuk, 1982 W.D. Hamilton and M. Zuk, Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites?, Science 218 (1982), pp. 384–386.
Harding et al., 2000 R.M. Harding, E. Healy, A.J. Ray, N.S. Ellis, N. Flanagan, C. Todd, C. Dixon, A. Sajantila, I.J. Jackson, M.A. Birch-Machin and J.L. Rees, Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R, American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (2000), pp. 1351–1361.
Harrold, 1980 F.B. Harrold, A comparative analysis of Eurasian Paleolithic burials, World Archaeology 12 (1980), pp. 195–211.
Haynes, 1980 C.V. Haynes, The Clovis culture, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1 (1980), pp. 115–121.
Haynes, 1982 C.V. Haynes, Were Clovis progenitors in Beringia?. In: D.M. Hopkins, Editor, Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press, New York (1982), pp. 383–398.
Hodge, ([1905]1959) F.W. Hodge, Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico. Part 1, Pageant, New York ([1905]1959).
Hoffecker, 2002 J.F. Hoffecker, Desolate landscapes. Ice-age settlement in Eastern Europe, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (2002).
Howell, 1979 N. Howell, Demography of the Dobe !Kung, Academic Press, New York (1979).
Hrdlička, 1898 A. Hrdlička, Physical differences between white and colored children, American Anthropologist 11 (1898), pp. 347–350.
Hughes et al., 1999 K.A. Hughes, L. Du, F.H. Rodd and D.N. Reznick, Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, Animal Behaviour 58 (1999), pp. 907–916.
Hulse, 1967 F.S. Hulse, Selection for skin color among the Japanese, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 27 (1967), pp. 143–156.
Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 N.G. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration, Journal of Human Evolution 39 (2000), pp. 57–106.
Kelly, 1955 R.L. Kelly, The foraging spectrum. Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (1955).
Key et al., 1990 T.J.A. Key, J. Chen, D.Y. Wang, M.C. Pike and J. Boreham, Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain, British Journal of Cancer 62 (1990), pp. 631–636.
Kirkpatrick, 1987 M. Kirkpatrick, Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18 (1987), pp. 43–70.
Kjellström, 1973 R. Kjellström, Eskimo marriage. An account of traditional Eskimo courtship and marriage, Nordiska Museets Handlingar 80, Lund (1973).
Kozlowski & Sachse-Kozlowska, 1995 S.K. Kozlowski and E. Sachse-Kozlowska, Magdalenian family from the Maszycka Cave, Jahrbuch der Römisch Germanischen Zentral Museums Mainz 40 (1995), pp. 115–205.
Krings et al., 1999 M. Krings, H. Geisert, R.W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki and S. Pääbo, DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neanderthal type specimen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (1999), pp. 5581–5585.
Krupnik, 1985 I.I. Krupnik, The male–female ratio in certain traditional populations of the Siberian Arctic, Inuit Studies 9 (1985), pp. 115–140.
Lank, 2002 D.B. Lank, Diverse processes maintain plumage polymorphisms in birds, Journal of Avian Biology 33 (2002), pp. 327–330.
Lummaa et al., 1998 V. Lummaa, J. Merila and A. Kause, Adaptive sex ratio variation in pre-industrial human (Homo sapiens) populations?, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 265 (1998), pp. 563–568.
Mallegni & Fabbri, 1995 F. Mallegni and P.F. Fabbri, The human skeletal remains from the Upper Paleolithic burials found in Romito Cave (Papasidero, Cosenza, Italy), Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, n.s 7 (1995), pp. 99–137.
Manning, 1979 A. Manning, An introduction to animal behaviour, Edward Arnold, London (1979).
Manning et al., 2000 J.T. Manning, L. Barley, I. Lewis-Jones, J. Walton, R.L. Trivers, R. Thornhill, D. Singh, P. Rhode, T. Bereckzei, P. Henzi, M. Soler and A. Sved, The 2nd to 4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: Evidence for sexually antagonistic genes, Evolution and Human Behavior 21 (2000), pp. 163–183.
Manning et al., 2004 J.T. Manning, P.E. Bundred and F.M. Mather, Second to fourth digit ratio, sexual selection, and skin colour, Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004), pp. 38–50.
Martin, 1974 M.K. Martin, The foraging adaptation—Uniformity or diversity?, Addison-Wesley Module in anthropology 56, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1974).
Mason et al., 1994 S.L.R. Mason, J.G. Hather and G.C. Hillman, Preliminary investigation of the plant macro-remains from Dolní Věstonice II, and its implications for the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, Antiquity 68 (1994), pp. 48–57.
Mather et al., unpublished Mather, F., Manning, J.T., Bundred, P.E. (unpublished). 2nd to 4th digit ratio, hair and eye colour in Caucasians: Evidence for blond hair as a correlate of high prenatal oestrogen.
Mazess, 1967 R.B. Mazess, Skin color in Bahamian Negroes, Human Biology 39 (1967), pp. 145–154.
Mellars, 1985 P.A. Mellars, The ecological basis of social complexity in the Upper Paleolithic of Southwestern France. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 271–297.
Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980 H.V. Meredith and J.H. Spurgeon, Somatic comparisons at age 9 years for South Carolina White Girls and girls of other ethnic groups, Human Biology 52 (1980), pp. 401–411.
Muggleton, 1979 J. Muggleton, Non-random mating in wild populations of polymorphic Adalia Bipunctata, Heredity 42 (1979), pp. 57–65.
Mundy & Kelly, 2003 N.I. Mundy and J. Kelly, Evolution of a pigmentation gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor, in primates, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (2003), pp. 67–80.
Nelson & Nelson, 1986 J.K. Nelson and K.R. Nelson, Skinfold profiles of Black and White boys and girls ages 11–13, Human Biology 58 (1986), pp. 379–390.
Nordenskiold, 1882 A.E. Nordenskiold, The voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe, with a historical review of previous journeys along the north coast of the old world, Macmillan & Co., New York (1882).
Remaining references in comments.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM in Anthropology, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Race realism
Comments (859) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Page 3 of 9 pages « FirstP < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:40 PM | #
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, MAY 05, 2005 12:46:32 AM]
NEW DELHI: IITians have hit a home run yet again. In the run-up to the high-profile Global IIT 2005 conference to be held between May 20 and 22 in Washington DC, the US Congress has passed a resolution which recognises and honours IIT grads in the US and the contributions that they have made to American society in every profession and discipline.
In fact, House Resolution 22, which was passed last week, goes well beyond just the IITs and is all praise for the contributions of Indian Americans to economic innovation and society generally in the US.
“I proudly co-sponsored this important legislation to offer my congratulations and support to Indian Americans throughout the US for the success they have found in all professions including engineering, education, research and technology.
The Indian-American community is one of the most successful immigrant groups and has achieved success in many areas, reaching beyond just the typically expected fields of engineering and technology.
The passage of House Resolution 227 demonstrates that the House, and the country as a whole, recognises the accomplishments and the opportunities the Indian-American community offers to the nation,” Bobby Jindal, the only Indian American US Congressman, who sponsored the resolution, told ET from Washington DC.
Meanwhile, the governors of the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia have declared May 2005 as Indian American heritage month in recognition of the contribution of IITians and Indian Americans to society in every profession and discipline in the US.
“The Global IIT graduates’ commitment, dedication in research, innovation and promotion of trade and international co-operation between India and the State of Maryland is greatly appreciated,” Governor Robert L Ehrlich said.
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:50 PM | #
haha...u make me laugh Ethnocentrist ..its 2 in the morning but im gonna keep going...cos ure a good source of entertainment…
whites try to be nepotistic and tribal...your words not mine…
of course i dont think these companies would shrink into oblivion...the corner store mangages to run fine without indians...however my point was that they wouldnt be as successful as they are today were it not for our input…
and btw if u have bothered reading my posts u will find i have indeed “addressed any of the issues that J Richards pointed out”
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:53 PM | #
ignor"anus". a play on words...ohhh rnt u a smart cookie...how many years of education to come up with that??
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:56 PM | #
i have a good idea...why dont u add me to ure msn list...it would be much better than having to refresh my pg and wait 10mins for ure next post to come up...then we can have a lovely chat...dya have the guts??
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 03:58 PM | #
haha...forgot to put down my email address
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 04:34 PM | #
argghh...this is shitting me...if there is anything u want me to clarify im more than happy...but still waiting to hear from fred, rustymason, guessed worker and andrew about some of the questions i have posed…
Posted by Malcolm A on May 13, 2006, 04:41 PM | #
Hi CM
1As far as I know “caucasoid” is outdated because
Here AS FAR AS I KNOW is the key word. Probably explains why You never answered my question as to whether you are a Biologist. WHAT YOU KNOW SO FAR doesn’t seem to amount to much (ie Science).
2. So to come up with this rediculous language related stuff is stupid. Besides sanskrite is only related with Iranian /Armenian /Greek language family
Yeah right. Tell that to Cavalli Sforza, Spencer and Michael who are bona fide geneticists, They will be impressed !
.
3.There is no such thing as “caucasoid”, it’s outdated, it’s like the APG-66 radar in early F-16 fighter blocks. It’s useless to use it now.you could get away with “3 races” in 1912
Proof ? I think I already know you are ignorant of scientifc facts. this confirms it.
4. Will I get my blonde and blue eyed hotties in Iran? they all look like Arabs! So stop bothering with this “caucasoid” stuff, how about mulattos, are they caucasoid too?!
OKay I will if you tell me to ! I am taking orders from you right ?
4 About your so called typical Mongoloid features: it’s only the extremes you are mentioning,
Really. So only 1% Mongoloids have slanty, slitty eyes, flat faces and stick bodies ? Just go to a Mongoloid country and look around you. Most Mongolid mixes also inherit the small eyes. I have been around the globe ( Worked for the FAO/UN as a scientist ) and seen for myself
Any one is better than a Mongoloid or any Mongoloid mix when it comes to appearance. Just visit the google websites devoted to how uglyness is attributed to Mongoloids by their own people. Sorry I had to bring this up but it is an accepted fact and no way you can get around it by attacking Indians. Indians are proven beauties internationally and thats why JR is discussing them and not Chinese etc..beauty is in the face first and other body parts later…
BTW We are not discussing the street people ( Iranians etc ) but the top 1% of global beauties. So just leave it alone w/out getting into more deep water.
Ever heard of the saying ‘There is no beauty like an Indian beauty/?’ I didnt say that.
Posted by anjali on May 13, 2006, 04:43 PM | #
one last q b4 i got to bed...what was your great granny deproeted here for andrew?? was she caught stealing food from a pig to keep herself alive??
Posted by JB on May 13, 2006, 09:13 PM | #
anjali [quoting the Indian Pride page]:
IEEE has proved what has been a century old suspicion in the world scientific community that the pioneer of wireless communication was Prof. Jagdish Bose and not Marconi.
I thought it was Fessenden:
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/42-45.htm
everyone can do a cut & paste from another page :
http://www.cgisf.org/cultural/facts.html
http://www.indpride.com/didyouknow.html
what’s funny is that when one does a search for IEEE+"Jagdeesh+Bose"+Marconi in Google [select and copy the link]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=IEEE+Marconi+"Jagdeesh+Bose"+&btnG=Search
only the Indian Pride FAQ shows up. I can’t find another source and when one searches only for “Jagdeesh Bose” only 13 more results appear and all the results are again the same source
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Jagdeesh+Bose"+&btnG=Search
Indian Pride text:
“38% of Doctors in America are Indians”
must be a mistake, it should be “38 % of motel owners in America are Indians” or “38 % of convenience store owners in America are Indians”
Posted by JB on May 13, 2006, 09:22 PM | #
Malcolm:
I am a white married to a indian.
that may explain some things
Malcolm:
...meaning a proclamation by the Royal Zoological Society etc., that, ‘
why don’t you try to find a government funded respectable and reputable organization of scientists that has an official statement about the human races and post the results of your inquiries here ? Or better find a quote by Cavalli-Sforza in which he explains that there is only three human races. If you really want to argue by invoking the authority of researcher X or group Y you should be able to find a group that holds the same opinion if your assertions about human races are a widely scientifically accepted standard.
C.M.:
There is no such thing as “caucasoid”, it’s outdated, it’s like the APG-66 radar in early F-16 fighter blocks. It’s useless to use it now.
the term is still used by forensic anthropologists:
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/race.html
osteologically speaking europeans and say arabs may be similar enough to be in the same category
Posted by Andrew on May 13, 2006, 10:12 PM | #
That would be Granddad, but 5 generations ago (1805), and he was the first surgeon general at Parramatta hospital. Jumped ship to which he was surgeon; Commodore Bligh commanded.
You do not have any points to discuss; but display a humorous personality trait, that gives you very limited scope. I am more amused at what our Idiotic leftists have created.
Posted by J Richards on May 13, 2006, 10:33 PM | #
Anjali,
36% of NASA employees are Indians! Are you on crack? I find it easier to believe the Afrocentrists who claim that Mona Lisa was painted by a black man but stolen by whites and attributed to DaVinci.
Don’t let the performance of the Indian community in the U.S. fool you. The first generation of Indians who mass migrated to the U.S. were highly educated professionals, and this was only a few decades ago. Therefore, it should not be surprising that Indians in America are better educated and more financially prosperous than most other groups, but their quality has gone down and is worsening due to the well known phenomenon of regression to the mean, as the lower IQ relatives of the professionals start immigrating to the U.S. For instance, Indians in the U.S. are better known now for running motels than as scientists or engineers.
The Indian takeover of the motels and convenience stores business has nothing to do with business acumen. The Indians who immigrated to the West were used to low living standards, and they cut their profits to offer cheaper rates, thereby outcompeting many Americans. This does not mean that these Indians are savvy; they are more willing to live a miserly existence than whites and hence are difficult to compete with when it comes to cutting profits. More of these Indians can only mean reduced living standards for Americans in general.
You have continued to harp on Indian computer programmers and ITT (Indian Institutes of Technology) graduates, failing to address the fact that Indians are completely absent in the top ranks of programming contests that test coding prowess and also that hardly any top-notch inventions, innovations and seminal research papers come from the ITTs. The reason so many Indians work in Silicon Valley is that employers save 10-15-thousand dollars a year, on average, by hiring aliens over citizens to do programming jobs, and these aliens can be burdened with extra work without complaints on their part because the employers can summarily fire any complainant, and then the complainant will have to leave the country.
India is a Third World hellhole for good reason; its average IQ is below the threshold for maintaining a technological economy. I don’t think that you will understand this though. A minimum IQ is needed to understand that one has low IQ, and I don’t think you cross this threshold. For instance, you wrote that Ayurvedic medicine comprises of herbs, not chemicals! All active ingredients in herbs are chemicals; even dihydrogen monoxide, water for those without a chemistry background, is a chemical.
As far as the relation between Aryans and Nordics goes, it is time for you to look up some history, especially the relatively recent discovery of European mummies in the Tarim basin of China, who were a people that spread out from the Russian Caucasus, which was the source of the Indo-European people. These mummies are tall and have light hair, and surely do not look like people from Iran or the Mediterranean.
Your measure of democracy is whether a country has had a female leader! As far as Britain goes, have you not heard of Margaret Thatcher? And, don’t forget that democracy is not an Indian invention; it first appeared in classical Greece.
You are deluded enough to believe that all the British did was to loot and exploit Indians. India owes its democracy, railway system, English knowledge and industrialization to the British. Had it not been for the British, too few Indians would know English for the English-speaking West to outsource call center jobs to India.
You have raised the issue of culture. Well, the British were primarily responsible for abolishing the disgusting practice of Suttee, whereby a widow was expected to burn herself alive in her husband’s funeral pyre. Indians traditionally did not allow widow remarriage. Indian states are divided along linguistic lines. Since independence, India has continued to split into an increasing number of states because of ethnic conflict involving assault, rapes, murder and mob violence, and the conflicts exist along multiple lines: linguistic, caste, geographic and religious. The more important issue is the frivolous nature of what prompts violence:
LUCKNOW, India (Nov 6, 2005, AP report)—A Hindu mob attacked a Muslim village in northern India, torching homes and killing three people, after hearing rumors that cows, considered holy by Hindus, were slaughtered for Islamic celebrations, police said Sunday. Hindus from neighboring areas attacked Mehndipur village in the northern Uttar Pradesh state on Saturday night and set fire to dozens of houses after being told villagers had killed the cows for a feast to mark Eid-al-Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the day before, said S. B. Shirodkar, a local police chief. Three Muslims died and more than 40 houses were torched, Shirodkar said. He said a police investigation revealed no cow had been slaughtered in the village. Authorities deployed paramilitary forces in and around Mehndipur, about 20 miles east of the state capital, Lucknow. Uttar Pradesh is India’s most populous state, and about 15 percent of its 180 million people are Muslims. Muslims form nearly 16 percent of India’s 1 billion people, and simmering tensions with the majority Hindus often spill over into rioting. (source)
People who cross caste or ethnic lines in romance or marriage risk being murdered in many parts of India. India still uses plenty of child labor. India has a lot of caste-based discrimination. There is plenty of child prostitution in India. There have been cases of Hindu girls being married to dogs. Indians kill people suspected of practicing black magic. There are still cannibals in India. 70% of Indians live in villages, and 65% of these Indians, including elected members of village councils, defecate in the open, along roadsides, railway tracks and fields, generating huge amounts of excrement every day, which finds its way into drinking water sources, thereby leading to a high incidence of diarrhea among rural Indians.
And see what millions of Hindus who are Lord Shiva devotees actually worship:
And, I will be impressed with your intelligence if you can figure out the symbolism behind the regular bathing, on the part of Hindus, of the holy structure you see above in milk.
As you can see, Indian culture is too exalted for us less culturally evolved Westerners to absorb or emulate, and we hope that it stays out of the West.
Malcolm A,
I will be back to respond to your comments.
Posted by Al Ross on May 13, 2006, 11:45 PM | #
Any culture whose members are so stupid as to defecate where they eat, wouldnt pass on much DNA due to death by disease, but because of Western medicine’s arrival in India, too many of the populace are still extant.
Posted by Nio Zilda on May 14, 2006, 01:56 AM | #
“ I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.”u say that like all immigrants have poor english, yet westerners must obviously have A-standards.
No, but immigrants are certainly more likely to speak English poorly (as you do).
PS...how come no one has got bak to me on the culture issue, now im feeling all revved up cos i just attended a cultural show with lots of wonderful dancing, singing and other witty performances
Lol. Oh yes, your superior Indian culture...I think I’ll stick with Shakespeare & Beethoven.
Posted by Al Ross on May 14, 2006, 02:47 AM | #
Anjali’s “witty performances” at the Indian culturefest may well have included the temple-based Devadasi defloration ceremony, so popular among the innately primitive.
Posted by anjali on May 14, 2006, 06:01 AM | #
no im not on crack, but i wish i had the time and money to take up that habit....and the mona lisa...is she your idea of a nordic beauty?? hangon...is she a she??coulda fooled me…
margaret thatcher ey...i bet you feel like christmas has come early...so u got me there...clearly i dont kno british history and clearly i was mistaken...at least i can admit when im wrong..but some people wouldnt see a fact as a fact even if it punched them in the face…
“All active ingredients in herbs are chemicals”
i should explain myself more clearly...yea i did basic yr 7 chem so i know that water is h20, and a lifesource...there are herbs that have properties that are beneficial to our health, ayurved...then there are toothpastes and face washes that contain ingredients that clearly are detrimetal to our health…
“India owes its democracy, railway system, English knowledge and industrialization to the British”
Post and railways were not patented by the Britishers. They would easily have come about without their presence, at least in some parts of India.
“Since independence, India has continued to split into an increasing number of states because of ethnic conflict involving assault, rapes, murder and mob violence, and the conflicts exist along multiple lines: linguistic, caste, geographic and religious.”
About the unification of India, If the Brits had truly unified India, there wouldn’t be a Kashmir problem, would there?
British united India politically. I don’t understand why that is supposed to be a good thing for Indian people. Europe is divided into small nations continously fighting against each other. Various empires came and went unleashing huge destruction in their wake. European went through Napoleanic wars, various uprisings, invasions, World I, World II, communist rule and so on. And inspite of all that on an average European nations are in much better situation compared to India in terms of economy. Most of the European nations have maintained their own language and not taken to English.So, why should we think that integration of India and introduction of English was a great thing?
yes 70% of indians live in villages...have u been to india?? you probabaly think the idea of our modern day villages are little mud shacks dont u?? my family is from a village...no we dont shit in the streets…
The Indus valley civilization was one of the most advance civilizations in terms of town planning etc
from wikipedia
A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture is evident in the Indus Valley Civilization. The quality of municipal town planning suggests knowledge of urban planning and efficient municipal governments which placed a high priority on hygiene. The streets of major cities such as Mohenjo-daro or Harappa were laid out in perfect grid patterns. The houses were protected from noise, odors, and thieves.
Image:Mohenjo Daro computergeneratedimage1.jpg
A computer-generated reconstruction has brought a small area of Mohenjo-daro back to life. (Lost Civilizations by Austen Atkinson, p. 179 - 188)As seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and the recently discovered Rakhigarhi, this urban plan included the world’s first urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. From a room that appears to have been set aside for bathing, waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets. Houses opened only to inner courtyards and smaller lanes.
The ancient Indus systems of sewage and drainage that were developed and used in cities throughout the Indus Empire, were far more advanced than any found in contemporary urban sites in the Middle East and even more efficient than those in some areas of modern Pakistan and India today. The advanced architecture of the Harappans is shown by their impressive dockyards, granaries, warehouses, brick platforms and protective walls. The massive citadels of Indus cities that protected the Harappans from floods and attackers were larger than most Mesopotamian ziggurats.
and id like to correct myself once again...mesopotamia is the oldest civilisation...but the indus valley civilisation is the oldest continuous civilisation, and more sophisticated
cannabalism. once again courtesy of the web
Several archaeologists have claimed that some ruins in the American Southwest contain evidence of cannibalism. Individual cases in other countries have been seen with mentally unstable persons, criminals, and, in unconfirmed rumors, by religious zealots. Cannibalism is also sometimes practiced as a last resort by people suffering from famine. In the US, it is commonly believed that the group of settlers known as the Donner party resorted to cannibalism while snowbound in the mountains for the winter.
and more:
Cannibalism has been one of the darkest, most abhorrent practices in human history. Accounts of humans being consumed in Papua New Guinea, regions ofAfrica and in some cultures of the Americas are well-documented. However, seldom do we discuss the cannibalism that took place in Europe.
Ethnohistorical accounts indicate that cannibalism, including “medicinal cannibalism,” was practiced extensively by European peoples even as late as the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.[l] Father Jerome records incidents of pre-historic cannibalism among the Angle-Saxons while Strabo and Wood-Martin highlight occurrences among the Irish Celts.[2] Incidents of cannibalism in Scandinavia, Czechoslovakia, and France are archaeologically documented.[3] Other European peoples, such as the Germanic Tribes of Gaul, Romans, Swedes, and the Mainland Celts practiced human sacrifices.[4]
Today, even though the scientific community is not yet producing pills with embryonic or fetal parts for human consumption, this does not mean that such a notion is outside the realm of possibility. If such were the case, how much difference would there be in ingesting a pill withhuman ingredients and being a pre-historic cannibal?
It seems paradoxical that Europe, cradle of Western civilization and world leader for many centuries, has a history scarred by such cruelty. Worse yet, modern Europe, the United States, Australia and other countries seem now to be regressing to these barbaric practices.
“The reason so many Indians work in Silicon Valley is that employers save 10-15-thousand dollars a year, on average, by hiring aliens over citizens to do programming jobs, and these aliens can be burdened with extra work without complaints on their part because the employers can summarily fire any complainant, and then the complainant will have to leave the country. “
once again this is a show of how the west continually exploits and gets rich from someone elses hard work…
so much more i want to write...but for the moment i have heaps of assignments to do and not much time, so for now i must go..but ill be back
Posted by Malcolm A on May 14, 2006, 05:24 PM | #
hi JB
why don’t you try to find a government funded respectable and reputable organization of scientists that has an official statement about the human races and post the results of your inquiries here ? Or better find a quote by Cavalli-Sforza in which he explains that there is only three human races. If you really want to argue by invoking the authority of researcher X or group Y you should be able to find a group that holds the same opinion if your assertions about human races are a widely scientifically accepted standard.
I agree with what you say here. The idea that Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids are the major races ( I believe they are now trying to classify Australoids under Negroids ) was 1st suggested to identify the 3 varieties of human species that are clearly distinguishable from eachother. Since then scientists have adopted these terms to identify these 3 races [ any individual w/ mixed ancestry can be classified under these by a perponderance of genetice, evolutionary, morphological evidence as belonging to one otf these 3 easily ( Re Prof Phillip Rushton’s article I quoted some posts back )]
Since Darwin publshed the Natural Selection theory there have been very few papers proclaiming Nat Selection, as Nat Selection is now an accepted scientific theory and there is no sense in REVALIDATING something that is already established as a fact. Thus someone would publish something about Nat Selection only IF EVIDENCE REFUTING IT existed.
Similarly, I have already given the evidence that you ask for. The fact that Cavalli Sforza , Rushton, SPencer Wells , Bamshad etc ( all PhD s w/ experience/specialty in genetics etc ) use the terms caucasoids in their research papers as recently as in the 1990s is by itself the evidence you are looking for. If They had evidence that the caucasoids is NOT a bona fide scientifc term they would NOT use it and instead publish evidence refuting it!!
Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2006, 03:30 AM | #
Anjali,
No, Mona Lisa is not my idea of Nordic beauty, and this is irrelevant like many of the issues you have raised. Don’t be under the delusion that herbs are beneficial for health. Most pharmaceutical drugs are derived from plants, yet they have side effects, but these result from their potency. The weaker potency of herbs is the reason why their side effects are also weaker and hence the false illusion about the safety of herbs. If you were in a medical emergency that needed drugs, chances are that the lifesaver will be a pharmaceutical agent, not an herb.
You have to give the British credit for the railway system or else India could only have had it if it had the money to buy trains. An average IQ of 81 would prevent the Indians from developing their own railway system.
The Kashmir problem was not created by Britain. A large number of Moslems = Trouble. Thus, British or no British, India would have had Moslem trouble. European nations are not currently at war with each other, except for the Balkans, where you have Moslem trouble. Anyway, the introduction of English by the British certainly helped. How else would so many call center jobs get outsourced to India and how else would a good number of Indians be able to function in English-speaking Western nations right from the moment they arrive here? Besides, English knowledge has helped a number of Indians appreciate some of the good points of Western culture, which are incorporated in India’s constitution, and which led to the demise of practices such as Suttee. Also, uniting different parts of South Asia into a single nation has helped India pool its brightest minds to work for the common good instead of having South Asia comprise of a large number of small nations that are competing with each other.
I have been to India, but did not travel through its villages, and if your family doesn’t defecate in the open, then good for you.
I am aware of the Indus Valley civilization, so you needn’t praise it. What I don’t believe is that the dark natives of India built it. This civilization is in the Northwest of India, where Western genetic affiliation is most evident. Where the darkest natives of India abound, namely the South, nothing like the Indus Valley civilization is seen around the time this civilization flourished.
Regarding cannibalism, all human populations practiced it in the past, but of the two major primitive reasons for cannibalism, namely human flesh as part of cuisine and religion-related cannibalism, the latter is still found in India, and both these types of cannibalism have been absent from Western nations for a long time. In any case, the scientific community in the West is not going to recommend fetal tissue as a source of nutrients.
At first you pointed out the heavy Indian presence in Silicon Valley as proof of the intellectual prowess of Indians, but now that it is clear that this is so because employers save a lot of money by hiring aliens over citizens, you have argued that this is an example of how the West continually exploits and gets rich from someone else’s hard work! Well, the people who are being exploited here are American workers. American employers are benefiting by having to pay less and the Indians are getting jobs that they wouldn’t otherwise be getting. So, Indians are definitely not being exploited here.
The following was forwarded to me by JT:
Anjali has made several claims that have no basis in reality. For instance, the claim that: “Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages.” Firstly, Sanskrit is merely one branch of the greater Indo-European (IE) language family. The parent stock of the IE languages is a hypothetical, reconstructed language known as Proto-Indo-European (PIE). It is PIE which is the source of IE, not Sanskrit. Secondly, not all of the languages of Europe are IE in derivation: Basque, Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish are all non-IE in origin. Therefore, this claim has absolutely no merit to it whatsoever.
She has also claimed that: “The very word Navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from Sanskrit’Nou’.” In fact, as the Oxford English Dictionary reveals, the English word ‘navigation’ is a compound word, derived from the Latin words navis, meaning ‘ship’ and agere meaning ‘drive’. Similarly, ‘navy’ derives from the aforementioned navis.
She goes on to claim that Budhayana “explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century long before the European mathematicians.” Does she mean the sixth-century B.C., or the sixth-century A.D.? In either case it is irrelevant, since Pythagoras flourished in the sixth-century B.C., and it would therefore be a miracle indeed if Budhayana had preceded Pythagoras’ work “long before”.
I would personally avoid trying to address every single claim by Anjali because it is not worth it to spend time refuting abject nonsense, but thanks JT.
C.M.,
Here is what JT sent to me in regard to a comment by you:
C. M. argues for an Anatolian PIE homeland. However, as Dr. J.V. Day in his monograph Indo-European Origins (2001) points out, the Kurgan PIE homeland hypothesis “has the backing of most prehistorians”, whilst “many dispute” the Anatolian hypothesis.
Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2006, 03:38 AM | #
I will be using some bad language in the next few comments, and I apologize to anyone who is offended by it except Malcolm A.
Malcolm A,
Goddamn you are obstinate and also demented. You keep rehashing your points and ignoring a lot of what I have pointed out, and I am sick of it.
You have once again reiterated the whale-elephant analogy right after quoting me on Indians being placed outside the European cluster by both craniofacial and genetic markers! Why the f**k don’t you note the genetic evidence from Yang et al.? Why the f**k have you again written that “simply citing craniofacial differences don’t prove anything (vis a vis whale examples)”?
I mentioned previously that even in the absence of genetics knowledge, people would note that whales breathe air and hence cannot be classified as fishes. One can also add the observations that these animals do not lay eggs and feed milk to their infants. Thus, whales are not readily classified as fishes even in the absence of DNA analysis. On the other hand, for the umpteenth time, I have cited both craniofacial and molecular data showing Indians to be outside the grouping of Europeans. Why the f**k do you ignore the molecular data from Yang et al.?
Also note that in both the craniofacial and ancestry-informative marker studies, Indians were assigned a separate major cluster along the lines of other major clusters such as European, sub-Saharan African and East Asian. Thus, it is not the case that Indians were assigned a minor cluster that grouped with the European minor cluster to former a major cluster along the lines of other major clusters such as sub-Saharan African, East Asian, etc. Why the f**k do you ignore this evidence?
Only a demented f**k would write the following:
I see that you are trying very hard to wriggle outa this one… Who says caucaosids are based on physical appearance ? WRONG there ( weren’t U citing genetic evidence sometime back ). Also, in citing that Kate is 3 generations Caucasian and hence classified Caucasoid, proves my point. It is the degree of admixture that counts in classification. So what if Indians are a little mixed they are still taxonomically Caucasians !
You seem to be admitting that at least some Indians are Caucasian ( ie... few Indians look Caucasoid.....most of them don’t even look Caucasoid !) Few in India may run into many many millions!!!
You damned retard, the term Caucasian predates genetics and hence is obviously based on physical appearance. One again, this is what I said about Kate Beckinsale: “Now, the term Caucasoid is based on physical appearance, and Kate Beckinsale looks Caucasoid. Thus, as far as looks are concerned, it is appropriate to classify Kate Beckinsale as Caucasoid, but genetically speaking, her classification is obviously mostly European but also part East Asian.”
In other words for a retard like you, I am distinguishing between Caucasoid looks and DNA. Of course there are some Indians who have Caucasoid facial features, and in my original entry, I have shown three such examples—Aditi Govitrikar and two men below her—but the genetic classification of these people is a different matter. Like Kate Beckinsale, the genetic classification of these Indians is only part European, but the European component is much less in the Indians. As I have previously pointed out, mixed people are not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.
I have also mentioned that only a few of the Indian women cited by you have Caucasoid facial features, and you have pointed out elite, upper caste women. A visual inspection of Indians, and I have been to India, shows that most Indians do not have Caucasoid facial features. Then how can these people be described as predominantly Caucasoid if most of them don’t look Caucasoid?
Regarding admixture, on the one hand, you do not accept a European-Negroid mix or a European-Mongoloid mix as Caucasoid, even though the European component is half of the DNA. Yet, I gave you an example of an Indian analyzed by DNA Print Genomics who had the following genetic affinity: European (54%), East Asian (26%), black African (11%), Native American (9%). You would classify Native Americans and East Asians as Mongoloid. Thus, about half of this person is Negroid plus Mongoloid and the other half European, yet you classified him as a Caucasoid! You have yet to answer what proportion of non-European ancestry are you willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid? Based on your rejection of black Americans as Caucasoid, notwithstanding their 20% European ancestry, and your rejection of a half white-half black or half white-half Chinese person as Caucasoid, it would appear that your cut off is at least 50%, yet you classify the example of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid! Obviously, you have your own definitions and it is a waste of time to argue with you over this matter.
A damned retard like you has ignored everything that I pointed out about the importance of the methodology leading to the conclusions and mentioned E=MC^2 as an example of a conclusion arrived at without proof to show that what matters in the analysis is the conclusion. What I said was in response to your assertion that the most important part of a paper is the conclusions part. Of course conclusions matter, but conclusions matter because they have explanatory power, and the typical conclusion will have been arrived at by some methodology, and methodology is what you need to focus on. E=MC^2 does not have proof, but it is accepted because it explains a lot of phenomena. On the other hand, your assertion that Indians belong to the same race as whites does not have explanatory power; it does not explain why there are many major differences between whites and Indians that are on the order of racial differences. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are assigned their own separate major cluster in studies of ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial markers. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are much darker than whites, why Indians have a considerably lower average IQ than whites, why Indians have a much weaker physical build than whites, why Indians have a much higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes than whites in spite of higher rates of vegetarianism, and so on.
In response to my statement that the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers, you said:
Well, as I said to C.M. validity and integrity are different things. Reputation is built up over time based on validity. Validity depends on acceptability by the community .Mull that one over.
Validity depends on methodology and explanatory power, not acceptance by the community, though if the matter does not border on political incorrectness, then conclusions that are methodologically valid and have explanatory power will be accepted by the scientific community. There is solid evidence that racial differences in IQ are mostly genetic, yet the American Psychological Association [the community] does not accept this notion. Thus, when it comes to racial issues, questions of validity are answered by looking at the methodology and explanatory power, not acceptance by the scientific community.
I cited a bunch of papers showing proof of at least 5 races among humans and you ask which 5 are these? You demented retard; did you notice that I said Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian and Native American? And, only some retard would ask me to cite “university prescribed / latest Zoological text” where these races are mentioned. You sick f**k, the proper standard of evidence in science is citing data from peer-reviewed journals, not textbooks. If you try to publish articles in some journals like PNAS, they will require you to cite peer-reviewed journals only. Besides, try to find out how many current textbooks divide humans into biological races. As to how one can be sure that the number many not go down to 3 or 4 with further research, 1) many studies support at least 5 races; 2) studies with an increasing number of markers have continued to support at least 5 races; 3) future studies will use more markers, and more markers allow better separation of populations rather than make population separation murkier; and 4) all 5 racial groupings are physically distinct, historically geographically separated and sufficiently genetically distant from each other for racial classification purposes. And, motherf*****g do not repeat your statement about unaccounted populations; some of these unaccounted populations have not been studied and others are mixed and hence not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.
Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2006, 03:47 AM | #
Malcolm A,
You wrote:
Why does an esteemed scientist such as you have to quote others to criticize the paper? The quote does not address problems with Rosenberg’s reputation, but addresses a possible problem with Rosenberg’s methodologyWell, if I did would you accept my critique. So others ( 3rd party) have to come in ; don’t they ? Rosenberg had more problems than I let on here.
I’d accept your criticism if there were any validity to it, and why don’t you mention additional problems with Rosenberg’s papers?
You have asked why an online dictionary continues to classify Indians as Caucasoid? Obviously because it doesn’t know any better!
Regarding Bamshad, Oppenheimer and Spencer Wells, they are obviously making their case using Y chromosome data. MtDNA evidence shows Indians to be predominantly indigenous/Australo-Asiatic, not European:
Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashov G, Kaldma K, Serk P, Karmin M, Behar DM, Gilbert MT, Endicott P, Mastana S, Papiha SS, Skorecki K, Torroni A, Villems R. Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in south and southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans. BMC Genet. 2004 Aug 31;5:26.
You sick f**k, when I said that Cavalli-Sforza is using the term Caucasoid as a convenience term in his 1988 paper, I cited good reasons for it, namely data from the bootstrap runs involving Lapps, Berbers and Dravidians, and also mentioned that mixed populations will attach in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction. You have f*****g ignored all of this. Why the f**k should the Lapps, the Berbers and the Dravidians leave the grouping labeled Caucasoid at all in the bootstrap runs if they are indeed Caucasoid? Answer this you sick f**k!
Regarding the unity of the Caucasoids statement, perhaps a retarded f**k such as you would understand the following. If I talk about the genetic unity of the blondes in England and the blondes in India, am I implying that all Indians or most Indians are blonde? Obviously not! What I am implying is that there is a genetic association between the blondes residing in India and the blondes in England, and a visual examination will reveal that most people residing in India are not blonde. Thus, if you travel through Europe and then India and notice that there are a few Indians that have the facial features of Europeans, then you may wonder whether this is due to indigenous development in these two regions or whether there is a genetic link. Thus, DNA studies show a genetic link and hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids (Caucasoid-looking people to be more exact) in Europe and India; most Indians do not look Caucasoid and have facial features sufficiently different to be assigned to a major craniofacial cluster that is distinct from the European craniofacial cluster.
A sick f**k like you seizes on to the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and India and fails to notice that Cavalli-Sforza notes that Caucasoid = green, and green is not the color assigned to India. F*****g retard!
I will quote two of your passages again:
UT for such data clustering alone would not prove anything. For such data one needs significance tests with known power, reliability and precision. ( perhaps a comparison of fiducial limits of parameters.) skull length, breadth, height, sagittal contour, face length, face breadth, orbital opening, nasal opening, lower nasal margin, nasal
profile etc are some of the data points to be considered for a two way ANOVA .
My intention in posting the above review was to indicate that Cluster analysis is primarily an EXPLORATORY technique and a TOOL OF DISCOVERY & not a DEFINITIVE one. I have done some clustering myself. It helps you form an idea. Does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT.
It is obvious that you have implied that data clustering would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or not. This is why I came up with the scenario of the 20 variables and asked you to cite a real life example of it; of course you did not come up with the 20 variables scenario, but you definitely implied that clustering will not prove significant differences between groups, and I came up with an example that you should try to find a real-life analog of. You have been unable to cite a real life example. All you did was to cite a hypothetical example of British, French and German people such that if clustering shows the British and Germans to be closer than either are to the French, then it does not prove that the British are different enough from the French to be assigned to a separate racial cluster. You retard, this is not about the degree of difference, but about whether there are any differences. According to you, and I have quoted what you have written verbatim, clustering in separate groups would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or NOT. This is why I have asked you to come up with a real-life example of two groups being assigned to separate clusters such as that there are no significant differences between the groups. You will obviously not say that your hypothetical example implies that there are no differences between the British and the French.
I have repeatedly pointed out that Indians are not assigned to a minor cluster that is different from a minor European cluster such that both Indians and Europeans are grouping into the same major racial cluster. It is clear from both DNA markers and craniofacial measurements that the India cluster is one of the handful of major clusters among humans that is clearly distinct from the European cluster, i.e., Indians are not part of the same race as whites.
You want me to f*****g quote the Royal Zoological Society or equivalent recognizing more than 3 races among humans or that Indians do not belong to the same race as whites in order for you to accept these notions? What kind of a retarded f**k are you? There is no official recognition of races among humans. An organization that carries a lot of weight as far as the assignment of humans to separate races goes, the American Anthropological Association, explicitly denies the existence of biological races among humans, i.e., it does not acknowledge 2 races, let alone 3 or 5. Anyway, a scientist would demand evidence, not proof of the position statement of some organization, but a retarded f**k such as you, who is most likely pretending to be a scientist, cannot be bothered to look up the recent papers that I have cited, which support a minimum of 5 races among humans, or DNA and craniofacial studies assigning Indians to a major cluster that is distinct from the European cluster.
Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2006, 03:56 AM | #
Malcolm A,
Here is the latest and most-comprehensive-to-date Y-chromosome analysis of Indians for you, which shows that the European genetic contribution to India is minor.
To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.
A total of 18 haplogroups were detected; frequency distribution shown below.
The following admixture proportions show the strong relatedness of Indian caste and tribal groups, especially in the South and also the minor contribution of Eastern Europeans to Central Asians.
The genetic distances (Fst) between groups show that except for the Asiatic Northeast tribes, all caste groups and tribals in India are much more closely related to each other than to people outside the South Asian subcontinent, and except for the North caste groups, you can forget about relating the others to Eastern Europeans.
The spatial frequency distribution of major Y haplogroups in India is shown below (data for tribals in inset maps).
Since you have talked about R1a repeatedly, guess what? Assuming that R1a came to India from the Aryans, then how would you explain that C3, DE, J*, I, G, N, and O, which cover almost half of the Central Asian Y chromosomes are hardly present among the Northwestern caste groups, whereas if you assume from the admixture proportions that there was a movement from India to the West, then how would you explain that the Central Asian sample is poor in haplogroups C*, F*, H, L, and R2 (with a combined frequency of 10%), whereas these haplogroups have a higher frequency in India? And, you cannot assume that the frequency of C3, DE, J*, I, G, N, and O haplogroups in India has become low as a result of a bottleneck since the diversity of the R1a haplogroup is greater in India than in Central Asia or Eastern Europe.
Similarly, R2 was concentrated in Eastern and Southern India and L occurred with India-specific haplogroups.
Only haplogroup J2 indicated an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia.
Ref: Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximi T, Gaikwad S, Trivedi R, Endicott P, Kivisild T, Metspalu M, Villems R, Kashyap VK. A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):843-8.
Therefore, the recent European (Aryan) genetic contribution to India is minor, and you had better motherf*****g stop harping on Indians belonging to the same race as Europeans unless you have proper scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals.
Besides, you f*****g retard, the use of the word Caucasian is not at all unusual in the scientific literature, but it is typically used to refer to whites and generally not used to imply a biological race. For instance, I have previously addressed a study where the authors used the word Caucasian to refer to whites while explicitly stating that they believe races to be social groups, not biological groupings. The word Caucasian is part of colloquial usage and refers to white, and hence its appearance in journals does not at all imply that the authors, including geneticists, somehow believe that there are biological races among humans, let alone a Caucasoid race.
In response to my statement that if the so-called beauty contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating, you said that attractivenes and unattractiveness are relative terms and that even among the contestants, there are varying levels of attractiveness. This is obviously true, but too many contestants in beauty contests are unattractive from the perspective of participating in a beauty contest.
Yes, I have acknowledged that there is variability among both Nordic and Indian women with respect to facial features, but the fact remains that Indian women, on average, have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, more massive jaws, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc. Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial features.
Once again, you are wrong about me having addressed Indian women in this entry because I felt that they are posing a threat to Nordic women in terms of beauty. Indian women are no match for Nordic women in beauty, and any beauty contest that ranks an attractive Indian woman as better looking than an attractive Nordic woman will be seen for the farce that it is. The point of including Indians in this entry was to help clueless whites better understand the disastrous aesthetic consequences for whites if non-whites are absorbed into the white gene pool. I have previously addressed East Asians, and it would be only a matter of time before I addressed South Asians.
Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2006, 04:23 AM | #
Malcolm A,
You sick f**k, you said that the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court statement that “Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans” still stands because none of your nationalist friends has disputed this. What the f**k is this? Is a scientific issue decided by the U.S. Supreme court? Quit citing old ideas that are no longer supported by quantitative genetic and craniofacial studies.
Anyway, you are mistaken about the issue, and here is what JT forwarded to me regarding the Supreme Court decision.
Malcolm A. has continually cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bhagat Singh Thind decision as proof that Indians are ‘Caucasian’. However, the truth of the matter, as we may see below, is rather different.
In U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed the issue of whether Asian Indians were white so as to qualify for citizenship under the Naturalization Act. Mr. Thind described himself as a “high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood born at Amritsar, Punjab, India.” The Court noted that some scientific authorities classified individuals in this group as members of the Caucasian or Aryan race. The court found that the term “Aryan” was “linguistic” and had nothing to do with physical characteristics.
Remarking that this linguistic connection was very remote in time, the Court compared this situation to African Americans who, by living in close proximity to whites, spoke English, although that was not the native tongue of their ancestors. As for the term “Caucasian,” the Court stated that it “is in scarcely better repute. It is at best a conventional term, with an altogether fortuitous origin, which under scientific manipulation, has come to include far more than the unscientific mind suspects.” The Court noted that the term Caucasian included groups as diverse as Arabs and Swedes. The Court found that the term “‘free white persons’ are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood.” More specifically, the Court stated:
It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of
antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today; and it is not impossible, if that common ancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiated from both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either.Ultimately, the Court held that Asian Indians were not members of the white race and were ineligible for citizenship.
In other words, the Supreme Court was well aware of the ambiguity of the term Caucasian even in the early 20th century, and modern genetic or craniofacial analyses have not managed to classify people ranging from Europe to India as members of the same race. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Asian Indians were outside the race of whites. Thanks JT.
Posted by anjali on May 16, 2006, 02:12 PM | #
J Richards u funny fuck, clearly you have far too much time on his hands, for you spew your rubbish with regrettable regularity
Goddamn you are obstinate and also demented. You keep rehashing your points and ignoring a lot of what I have pointed out, but quite frankly im not sick of it…in fact it excites me, the way thoughts about sucking off your mother excite you.
However don’t let thoughts of the afformention situation detract from the insurmountable fact that u would stick ure dick in a hole given half a chance…
“I am aware of the Indus Valley civilization, so you needn’t praise it. What I don’t believe is that the dark natives of India built it. This civilization is in the Northwest of India”
What’s ure point mate…the fact is, the Indus Valley was an ancient INDIAN civilization...why are u still harping on about it?
“You have to give the British credit for the railway system or else India could only have had it if it had the money to buy trains”
A piece of shit, garnished and covered in gravy and served on a silver platter is still a piece of shit…if JR can constantly reiterate his points, so can i…
Railways were not patented by the Britishers. They would easily have come about without their presence
And once again about the money issue: Although modern images of India often show poverty and lack of development, India was the richest country on earth until the time of British invasion in the early 17th Century.
Cannabalism: According to the PakTribune, cannibalism is still being practiced in India by members Hindu Aghora sect. Even more amazing is the implication that this sect may be responsible for the deaths of Western tourists who go missing (better not stray into these people, this can best be achieved if u stay outta India) - sacrifices for Indian religion. It is also indicated more than once that babies and children are prized sacrifices for cannibalistic consumption. Ritual murder of babies? Cannibalism for spiritual power? The PakTribune is a Pakistani news outlet and it seems much more likely that the story is designed to inflame passions against India than to inform about a weird and possibly dangerous religious sect.
“An average IQ of 81 would prevent the Indians from developing their own railway system.”
Yea, Ive seen the study…studies correlating IQ with national advancement are inherently flawed. For example, “IQ and the wealth of Nations” can hardly be considered a scientific work. It uses a ‘hodge-podge’ of IQ statistics from various studies, and often predicts the IQ of nations based upon its neighbors. For example the study uses a single IQ study for India, a country of over 1 billion people. furthermore this study was of 540 orphaned children. Given that some 42% of children in India are malnourished,it is not hard to speculate that this was the case for these orphans as well. There are no indicators on how the IQ is calculated. It is well known that verbal ability may or may not correlate with mathematical ability for example. Yet the study has proposed an IQ of 81 as an average for Indians.
do you even understand what you are talking of when you talk of IQ? An IQ of less than 90 is considered subnormal by psychologists and at an IQ of 70 people are considered retarded If Indians have an average IQ of 80 odd, it means that half of us are below 80 (assuming a normal distribution - other possible distributions make it worse, I assure you) and a significant proportion (say 30-40%) of us are below 70. Does it seem really likely to you that retardation is so highly prevalent among Indians. Please note that I am talking of real retardation, not in the metaphorical sense. They will be unable to do their daily functions properly, can’t understand the simplest things, etc. Those figures just don’t make sense and there are bound to be serious errors in any study that gives those figures.
“The Kashmir problem was not created by Britain. A large number of Moslems = Trouble. Thus, British or no British, India would have had Moslem trouble.”
Wrong, the Kashmir problem was created by the british. it was the muslim/hindu problem that wasn’t created by the british. whether the hindus and muslims fought is not relevant. india would still encompass land that is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.
“Well, the people who are being exploited here are American workers.”
Have a cry. So not only do they fuck the Indians around they fuck their own people around
Im sorry JR who can Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan and Arun Nair attribute their looks to? As far as I know they are not mixed parentage.
At the end of the day…at least my names not J Richards here…
As for a nordic beauty. once I figure how to upload images we’ll fawn over how beautiful nordic people actually are. Till then, seriously, just stay in your dark corner and have a good wank.
Posted by anjali on May 16, 2006, 02:21 PM | #
Ragnhild Marie Alvær, ermm where to start. she has no curves that could be considered voluptuous. somewhat of just a stcik figure. and about her face. yes very FINE CAUCASOID nose, which turns upwards at the end, much like the snout of a pig. moreover has that wonderful pink colouring, much like that of a pig
Posted by anjali on May 16, 2006, 02:48 PM | #
“You mention the accolades received by Aishwarya Rai and completely fail to address her pictures that I have posted. How many white people would regard Aishwarya as a very attractive woman? Let me see you cite evidence that a large number of whites have labeled her the most beautiful woman in the world. She has a part-Mongoloid face, broad shoulders and a wide waist compared to so many attractive white women that I know of; also compare her physique to that of the white woman shown below her.”
Daily Variety’s (06/12/02) Derek Elley describes ‘Devdas’ as “ some of the most sumptuous production values in Bollywood history ” Elley describes Ash as “almost Audrey Hepburn-like”, Moulin Rouge director Baz Luhrmann says “I loved her in Devdas” and Julia Roberts calls her “the world’s most beautiful woman”.
In the interview, which was over ten minutes long, the American viewer was privy to Aishwarya Rai being commented as the most beautiful woman in the world
I don’t see any reason to have a permanent shift of residence to Hollywood.” Attired in a brown leather jacket with a black skirt and boots, Aishwarya, who was seated next to Letterman on stage at the Ed Sullivan Theatre in New York City, looked well rehearsed and confident. Letterman introduced her as “often called one of the most beautiful women in the world and most famous actress. She is known by billions of people but is still unknown in America.”
Posted by anjali on May 16, 2006, 02:50 PM | #
ash is considered to be beautiful, but ive seen more beautiful women walking around the dirty streets of india
Posted by Anon on May 16, 2006, 04:51 PM | #
Ditto that Anjali. JR sounds like a bitter, however “wannabe intellectual” trailer trash who fucks his mum every night before bed...get a life GW, JR and the rest of you monkey bunch!
Posted by Malcolm A on May 17, 2006, 03:37 AM | #
Hi JR,
Don’t waste your time on the tough talk (F… word etc.). Doesn’t impress me, and moreover you are beginning to sound more and more like a Billingsgate butcher than the respectable science writer that you claim to be. If it feels like you are fast running out of “scientific facts” and are left with only bad language to prove your theories let me know and I’ll call off the debate.
I knew that sooner or later you will lose your cool and show your true colors ( ie. an unqualified fraud pretending to be a science writer). You seem to be just copy-pasting advanced scientific papers that you know nothing about. And from your so called “scientific interpretations” alone, I see that you understand nothing about science or scientific philosophy.
1. As for the worthless “scientific” points you have raised in great detail let me say this : filling up a whole lot of pages or copy-pasting publications prove nothing; a meaningless process when they don’t prove your point. Don’t try to mask your ignorance of science by posting a lot of gobbeldygook that you probably don’t understand yourself, hoping it would mislead me or the others here. We can see through you.
So relax, will ya?
2.
Why the f**k don’t you note the genetic evidence from Yang et al.? Why the f**k have you again written that “simply citing craniofacial differences don’t prove anything (vis a vis whale examples)”?
I already told you that there is no point in citing so-called genetic and morpho’ evidence. This voluminous evidence of yours doesn’t prove that Indians are outside Caucasians.
WHY ?
Because I already admitted that Nordics and Indians are different. THAT’S WHY! But, those differences are NOT significant enough for them to be classified seperately. Please try to get that fact through that booze-ridden skull of yours.
3.
In other words for a retard like you, I am distinguishing between Caucasoid looks and DNA. Of course there are some Indians who have Caucasoid facial features, and in my original entry, I have shown three such examples—Aditi Govitrikar and two men below her—but the genetic classification of these people is a different matter etc.
As they say, “ retard is as retard does.”
There is nothing called genetic/DNA classification you fool. All evidence should point to a particular taxonomic unit, comprehende ? As for Indians and Nordics that unit is Caucasoid. Like wolves and dogs differ, but they are classified seperately from cats.
4.
A visual inspection of Indians, and I have been to India, shows that most Indians do not have Caucasoid facial features. Then how can these people be described as predominantly Caucasoid if most of them don’t look Caucasoid?
Sure. In your distorted view they don’t look Caucasoid! Don’t you already know that you are biased and that your personal point of view doesn’t count ?
5.
Regarding admixture, on the one hand… it would appear that your cut off is at least 50%, yet you classify the example of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid! Obviously, you have your own definitions and it is a waste of time to argue with you over this matter
So what is your point in writing all this gobbledygook ? What are you trying to prove about Nordics and Indians here? That they are different and that Indians stand outside Nordics. Hey, we already know that! So, for the last time, stop repeating this.
And Aryans did not mix with aboriginals, but with Dravidians who are also primitive Caucasians with dark skin. So their features are all Caucasian any way. Aboriginals are the untouchables.
Posted by anjali on May 17, 2006, 03:54 AM | #
A quote from JR..."So you find pink skin unhealthy looking? Like I said, this comparison should ignore pigmentation because we are addressing facial features, but as far as I am concerned, pink skin is preferable to yellow or yellow-brown skin. Besides, pink skin can usually be changed with a little help from the sun, and in Nordics this produces a beautiful bronze tone that is devoid of the yellowish tinge in Asiatics, and one can always resort to a spray-on tan to avoid unnecessary skin damage and/or if the Nordic cannot tan. “
according to the dictionary bronze is
A moderate yellowish to olive brown.
A pigment of this color.
seems like someone is contradicting themselves
Posted by anjali on May 17, 2006, 04:07 AM | #
“JR sounds like a bitter, however “wannabe intellectual” trailer trash who fucks his mum every night before bed...get a life GW, JR and the rest of you monkey bunch”
my sentiments exactly Anon
Posted by Malcolm A on May 17, 2006, 04:09 AM | #
6.
about the importance of the methodology leading to the conclusions and mentioned E=MC^2 as an example of a conclusion arrived at without proof to show that what matters in the analysis is the conclusion.
Thanks. You proved my point here. Conclusion is what matters in any scientific article. And if you don’t know that what kind of science writer are you? Einstein’s paper had no experimental methodology in it, and yet the conclusion was accepted based simply on the rational of the theory. Comprehende?
7.
Validity depends on methodology and explanatory power, not acceptance by the community etc., etc…
And how many scientific papers have you published in peer-reviewed, accredited journals? None, is a safe bet based on what you write here; community= scientific community. If your work is reviewed and accepted by peers in the same field of expertise, then your validity based reputation builds up.
8.
You sick f**k, the proper standard of evidence in science is citing data from peer-reviewed journals, not textbooks
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Scientific texts derive their facts from journals and any university text would include your major finding of 5 races in their latest editions, IF those were indeed accepted by the scientific community at large. So show me.
Your moronic classification of 5 races - Europeans, Black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian and Native American - does not even include Indians. Talk about comprehensive!
9.
I’d accept your criticism if there were any validity to it, and why don’t you mention additional problems with Rosenberg’s papers? ... You have asked why an online dictionary continues to classify Indians as Caucasoid? Obviously because it doesn’t know any better!
(i) As if you would know what is valid in science. You already admitted that you are no scientist, remember? And that itself should indicate the validty of your statements ON VALIDITY to all here. (ii) And why should I demean Rosenberg in a discussion with a scientific non-entity like you? (iii) The online dictionary was to prove that I am not the only one who believes that Indians classify under Caucasoids (ie. that it is not a figment of my imagination only).
10.
You sick f**k, when I said that Cavalli-Sforza is using the term Caucasoid as a convenience term in his 1988 paper, I cited good reasons for it, namely data from the bootstrap runs involving Lapps, Berbers and Dravidians, etc…
(i) A real scientist like Cavalli ( and me ) would find your supposedly “good” reasons laughable. WHY? Because you are no biologist/geneticist ( by your own admission ), And are obviously rattling off some gobbledygook without even knowing what it means!
(ii) Bootstraps… don’t make me laugh. Do you even know what that means? Take my advice… get your GED ( Gr.12 ) and then try to get atleast a B.S. in biology.
11.
Thus, DNA studies show a genetic link and hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids ...
Again, do you have that letter from Cavalli that I asked for ( agreeing w/ your “good” reasons)?
12.
It is obvious that you have implied that data clustering would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or not. This is why I came up with the scenario of the 20 variables and asked you to cite a real life example of it…
Your bad. Your obviously to ignorant to understand what I said. I said, cluster analysis ALONE is not enough to prove that Nordics are Caucasoid but Indians are NOT. You need a whole lot more, showing significant morphological and genetic differences etc. The differences you have provided, are not enough to tip the scale of scientific judgement. Get that through your thick skull at least now.
Posted by Malcolm A on May 17, 2006, 04:37 AM | #
13.
I have repeatedly pointed out that Indians are not assigned to a minor cluster that is different from a minor European cluster such that both Indians and Europeans are grouping into the same major racial cluster. It is clear from both DNA markers and craniofacial measurements that the India cluster is one of the handful of major clusters among humans that is clearly distinct from the European cluster, i.e., Indians are not part of the same race as whites.
The preceding statement of yours is self-debunked by your very last sentence. There is no WHITE RACE. You are totally ignorant and display it by making ridiculous statements like WHITE RACE etc., which would cause you to be laughed out of any gathering of scientists.
You don’t even understand the concept of clusters and until I informed you of Cavalli’s usage of cluster studies, you weren’t even aware of it.
14.
There is no official recognition of races among humans…
A very moronic statement that contradicts everything you have said so far. This means that even your European/white race is not recognized, but you sure keep on using it. Same for Caucasoids. I can cite Cavalli etc., who admit the existence of Caucasoid race, but then what’s the point.
15.
Here is the latest and most-comprehensive-to-date Y-chromosome analysis of Indians for you, which shows that the European genetic contribution to India is minor.
So what? Who said all Caucasoids are European or European-based? Cavalli has already talked about extra-European Caucasoids (Re : my posts above ). It is the other way around, ignoramus! Both Europeans and Indians are Caucasoid based.
Wow you sure seem to like those maps and charts. Impressive huh? But they don’t prove anything that I already don’t know.
16.
Therefore, the recent European (Aryan) genetic contribution to India is minor, and you had better motherf*****g stop harping on Indians belonging to the same race as Europeans unless you have proper scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals.
Same goes for yourself!—If you don’t have evidence from peer-reviewed journals showing that they don’t belong to the same race, that is!
17.
Besides, you f*****g retard, the use of the word Caucasian is not at all unusual in the scientific literature, but it is typically used to refer to whites and generally not used to imply a biological race… The word Caucasian is part of colloquial usage and refers to white, and hence its appearance in journals does not at all imply that the authors, including geneticists, somehow believe that there are biological races among humans, let alone a Caucasoid race.
Says who? A fraud like you, who wouldn’t know biology if it hit you upside your head! You should be ashamed to call yourself a bonafide science writer ( copy-pasting articles won’t fool anyone here or make you a real writer ).
18.
In other words, the Supreme Court was well aware of the ambiguity of the term Caucasian even in the early 20th century, and modern genetic or craniofacial analyses have not managed to classify people ranging from Europe to India as members of the same race. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Asian Indians were outside the race of whites.
So where is that challenge you and JT would like to mount against the Supreme Court decision?
I already said that this was a decision given during the Jim Crow era. You left out the part that says “ based on anthropological evidence and that includes morpho’ evidence that was the only available evidence at the time. The ruling itself was intended to keep Indians out, BUT yet the Supreme Court was forced to admit that Indians and the whites were connected as Caucasoids despite their differences. They sure didn’t make a similar ruling about Negroids or Mongoloids. Did they now?
19.
Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial features.
Sounds like another one of your silly “ hooked nose/ massive jaw” theories which I debunked in my last post.
20.
Indian women are no match for Nordic women in beauty, and any beauty contest that ranks an attractive Indian woman as better looking than an attractive Nordic woman will be seen for the farce that it is.
Speak for yourself! Beauty stats say otherwise.
So only a beauty pageant that shows Nordics are better looking than Indians is not a farce? But, then that is only in the eyes of a fraud like you.
For me pageants in which Nordics win as well as ones in which Indians win are legitimate. How is that for fair?
Conclusion
As for the cussing keep it coming. I find it very entertaining.
PS : Don’t insult our fine Nordic women. You obviously have bad taste in women. Those pictures you posted were horrible ( fat ugly viking mammas in national dress ). No wonder some guys here said “ old Richard has bad taste in women”. Couldn’t you even find a Marilyn Monroe, Bridgette Bardot, Cathy Denevue look alike? You BIG BABY, YOU…
Cheers.
Posted by anjali on May 17, 2006, 06:04 AM | #
“Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial” features.
Please JR refrain from using me as your defence
Posted by J Richards on May 17, 2006, 02:10 PM | #
Anjali,
The Indus Valley civilization was an ancient Indian civilization, but why should any reasonable person believe that the dark masses of India—many of whom still worship penises and defecate in the open, close to where they live—built it?
India was the richest country before the British occupied it? How so?
I didn’t cite the Paki Tribune on cannibalism in India. India itself made a documentary about the cannibals, and it was reported around the World.
Don’t be deluded, Richard Lynn used plenty of studies to arrive at an average IQ of India in the low 80s. Your reason for rejecting this low value is flawed. For instance, aborigines in Australia have an average IQ of 62, black Africans have an average IQ of 67, and pygmies in Africa have an average IQ of 54. These people are not physically or mentally disabled. They have historically done a fine job of functioning, just as dogs, who have IQs much lower than humans, have done a fine job of surviving. The IQ values mentioned above are natural for the respective groups. Thus, the typical black African with an IQ of 65 would be a healthy person, but the typical white person with an IQ of 65 would have health and behavior problems because this IQ is much lower than the white norm (100), and something abnormal would have happened to make his IQ equal 65.
Judging by the fact that even in the present, a large number of people in India continue to worship penises (Shiva Lingam), cows, monkey-man and elephant-man gods, defecate in the open and in the neighborhood of where they live, and display other bizarre behaviors that I have mentioned previously, and I surely could cite more, an average IQ of India in the low 80s sounds reasonable.
The British did not create the Kashmir problem. Moslems do not want non-Moslems to live in their midst and hence would have wanted their own land at some point. India split into two nations after the British left; the second nation comprised of West and East Pakistan, and in the 1970s, West and East Pakistan fought with each other, resulting in East Pakistan turning to Bangladesh. Are you going to blame this on the British? A large number of Moslems can only mean trouble and the Moslems will fight with each other if not with non-Moslems. So don’t blame the British.
Once again, most Indians working in Silicon Valley have gotten jobs that they wouldn’t have gotten had it not been for American employers trying to save money. Therefore, how are the Indians being exploited? The Indians are benefiting. The American workers are being exploited.
As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, they certainly have not gotten their looks from the dark masses of India, and regarding their parentage, they may not have recent mixed parentage, but their mixed ancestry goes far back, and they can thank the Eastward bound people from the West of South Asia for their looks.
I did not cite Ragnhild Marie Alvær as an example of a shapely Nordic woman. Someone wanted a picture of her and I posted it.
Regarding a tan, the skin of a tanned Northern European generally looks different from that of a naturally darker person having the same level of melanin, and this difference is because of the finer skin of Northern Europeans, which corresponds to the normal lack of yellowish skin tone in them. Thus, I am not contradicting myself.
Posted by J Richards on May 17, 2006, 02:23 PM | #
Malcolm A,
It is time for you to stop commenting in this thread unless you have any newer data to cite. I have not claimed to be a respectable science writer. I have said that I am a pimp who dropped out of high school. It is far from the case that I have resorted to foul language because I have run out of scientific facts; I have done so because I am dealing with a retarded, demented individual who refuses to accept scientific evidence that Indians are outside the race of whites. You have glossed over the fact that in the midst of foul language, I cited two additional papers, one showing that the mtDNA of Indians is overwhelmingly indigenous/Australo-Asiatic and the other showing that the Aryans left little genetic impact on Indians. All of this is in addition to plenty of previously cited data from peer-reviewed journals.
I already told you that there is no point in citing so-called genetic and morpho’ evidence. This voluminous evidence of yours doesn’t prove that Indians are outside Caucasians.
You will obviously not accept any evidence, even if it shows that Indians have their own separate major genetic and craniofacial clusters, which are on the order of racial clusters; only phylogeographic criteria for race assignment preventing Indians from being assigned their own race. And, what is up with “so-called” genetic and morphological evidence? The evidence offered by Yang et al. and Li et al. is clearly genetic and morphological, respectively. On the other hand, notwithstanding your delusion that South Asians and whites belong to the same race, if there ever were a white ethnostate, you can rest assured that not a single South Asian will be found in it.
There is nothing called genetic/DNA classification you fool. All evidence should point to a particular taxonomic unit, comprehende ? As for Indians and Nordics that unit is Caucasoid. Like wolves and dogs differ, but they are classified seperately from cats.
Nothing called genetic classification? You ignoramus, all evidence does not necessarily point to the same taxonomical unit. For instance, the children shown below appear to be a type of Negroid people according to their looks, and given your 3-race classification scheme, they have to be classified as Negroids.
However, these children are the Aeta of Philippines. They do not genetically cluster with black Africans but fit in the SE Asiatic group, i.e., they are clearly outside the race of black Africans. This example shows the importance of genetics in taxonomy. There are plenty of related examples from non-human species. Thus, genetic classification is important, and notwithstanding your delusion, Nordics and Indians belong to separate major clusters based on both genetics and craniofacial evidence; they are not members of the same race.
Sure. In your distorted view they [most Indians] don’t look Caucasoid! Don’t you already know that you are biased and that your personal point of view doesn’t count ?
And your view counts? A half-blind person such as you cannot even see that Nordic women have finer facial features than Indian women and thinks that the Nordic women shown here all look the same! Nobody here is visually impaired to the extent that most Indians look like brown- or black-skinned versions of Europeans to them, and aboriginal and Mongoloid elements are clearly evident even in the features of the elite Indian women that you have pointed out.
Regarding admixture, on the one hand… it would appear that your cut off is at least 50%, yet you classify the example of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid! Obviously, you have your own definitions and it is a waste of time to argue with you over this matterSo what is your point in writing all this gobbledygook ? What are you trying to prove about Nordics and Indians here? That they are different and that Indians stand outside Nordics. Hey, we already know that! So, for the last time, stop repeating this.
My point? You have dual standards. You do not accept a European-Negroid mix or a European-Mongoloid mix as Caucasoid, even though the European component is half of the DNA, yet the DNAPrint genomics profile of the South Asian shown mentions about half Negroid and Mongoloid ancestry by your own definitions, yet you classify the South Asian as Caucasoid!
And Aryans did not mix with aboriginals, but with Dravidians who are also primitive Caucasians with dark skin. So their features are all Caucasian any way. Aboriginals are the untouchables.
As per my citing the Sahoo et al. paper above, the Aryans left little genetic impact on the Indians, and since you have not described the aboriginals as Caucasoid, the Fst values between these aboriginals and the North and South Caste groups were a mere 0.06 and 0.05, respectively. However, the Fst values between the North and South Caste groups and Western Europeans were 0.26 and 0.29, respectively, which are similar to the distances between the caste groups and NE Asians or SE Asians. Thus, if you are going to classify the North and South caste groups as part of the same race as Western Europeans, you obviously cannot say that they are outside the race of the aboriginals, whom you have not described as Caucasoid. In the event that you argue that these aboriginals are also Caucasoid, how pray, did primitive man who moved from Africa to India and toward Australia, where they are found in the form of aborigines, turn Caucasoid in India but not in SE Asia? And, why should we believe that the Dravidians were Caucasoid before the Aryan migrations?
about the importance of the methodology leading to the conclusions and mentioned E=MC^2 as an example of a conclusion arrived at without proof to show that what matters in the analysis is the conclusion.Thanks. You proved my point here. Conclusion is what matters in any scientific article. And if you don’t know that what kind of science writer are you? Einstein’s paper had no experimental methodology in it, and yet the conclusion was accepted based simply on the rational of the theory. Comprehende?
You forgot to cite what I mentioned right after the quote above:
What I said was in response to your assertion that the most important part of a paper is the conclusions part. Of course conclusions matter, but conclusions matter because they have explanatory power, and the typical conclusion will have been arrived at by some methodology, and methodology is what you need to focus on. E=MC^2 does not have proof, but it is accepted because it explains a lot of phenomena. On the other hand, your assertion that Indians belong to the same race as whites does not have explanatory power; it does not explain why there are many major differences between whites and Indians that are on the order of racial differences. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are assigned their own separate major cluster in studies of ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial markers. Your assertion does not explain why Indians are much darker than whites, why Indians have a considerably lower average IQ than whites, why Indians have a much weaker physical build than whites, why Indians have a much higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes than whites in spite of higher rates of vegetarianism, and so on.
Your assertion simply cannot be accepted based on the fact that it does not explain why there are many major differences between whites and Indians that are on the order of racial differences.
Posted by J Richards on May 17, 2006, 02:30 PM | #
Malcolm A,
You sick f**k, the proper standard of evidence in science is citing data from peer-reviewed journals, not textbooksThat’s exactly what I’m saying. Scientific texts derive their facts from journals and any university text would include your major finding of 5 races in their latest editions, IF those were indeed accepted by the scientific community at large. So show me.
Why don’t you cite current texts that describe three races in humans? I have already said that there are plenty of politically incorrect research papers in peer-reviewed journals, such as on IQ and race, but you will not see these in textbooks. Thus, the proper standard of evidence is to cite peer-reviewed journals, not textbooks. Textbooks also take a while to catch up with the latest scientific research.
Your moronic classification of 5 races - Europeans, Black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian and Native American - does not even include Indians. Talk about comprehensive!
To say that there are at least 5 races is not to be comprehensive because not all populations have been studied, and I have repeatedly pointed out that people resulting from the mixing of many races—such as South Asians—are not assigned a race in accordance with the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.
Besides, what is there to laugh about my mentioning bootstrap runs?
It is obvious that you have implied that data clustering would not prove anything and does not allow you to determine whether differences are significant or not. This is why I came up with the scenario of the 20 variables and asked you to cite a real life example of it…Your bad. Your obviously to ignorant to understand what I said. I said, cluster analysis ALONE is not enough to prove that Nordics are Caucasoid but Indians are NOT. You need a whole lot more, showing significant morphological and genetic differences etc. The differences you have provided, are not enough to tip the scale of scientific judgement. Get that through your thick skull at least now.
Cluster analysis based on craniofacial measures and genetics will assign Nordics and Indians to separate major clusters in the world only if there are significant genetic and craniofacial differences between these groups, and if it is clear that Nordics are Caucasoid and Caucasoids are a race, then Indians cannot be Caucasoid if they are assigned a separate major cluster that is on the order of a racial cluster, or if Indians are Caucasoid according to you, then the word Caucasoid surely does not describe a race. And, there are so many other differences not addressed by these studies, including physical build, prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, skin color, intelligence, etc.
The preceding statement of yours is self-debunked by your very last sentence. There is no WHITE RACE. You are totally ignorant and display it by making ridiculous statements like WHITE RACE etc., which would cause you to be laughed out of any gathering of scientists.
There is no white race? This is news to me and also to others associated with this blog. All recent studies that I have cited, which show at least 5 races in humans, reveal a European racial cluster, which is best described as the European or white race, and South Asians are not part of it by virtue of both genetic and craniofacial evidence.
You don’t even understand the concept of clusters and until I informed you of Cavalli’s usage of cluster studies, you weren’t even aware of it.
I am well aware of the concept of cluster analysis. I didn’t know that Cavalli-Sforza had carried out such analyses specifically for his book.
There is no official recognition of races among humans…A very moronic statement that contradicts everything you have said so far. This means that even your European/white race is not recognized, but you sure keep on using it. Same for Caucasoids. I can cite Cavalli etc., who admit the existence of Caucasoid race, but then what’s the point.
I am not contradicting anything. Official recognition is on the part of individuals in esteemed scientific organizations, but scientific data is a different matter. Thus, whereas the American Anthropological Association denies biological races in humans, there is plenty of data to support it, and I have cited the data.
You have said that Cavalli-Sforza accepts a Caucasoid race. Just because someone uses the term Caucasoid does not mean that he believes that there is a Caucasoid race. Here is a statement by Cavalli-Sforza in 1997, a few years after his book was published:
Implications for the Existence of Races in Humans
But what do these results imply for the race concept? Although no consensus has ever been reached on how many races exist in our species, with proposed figures ranging from 3 to 200 (20), in general a species is divided in races when it can be regarded as an essentially discontinuous set of individuals (21). Studies on a limited number of populations, like ours, cannot exclude that there are true discontinuities in the distribution of some genetic markers all over the world. However, only for one of the 109 loci studied was the within-population component of variance less than 50% of the total. If loci showing a discontinuous distribution across continents exist, they have not been observed in this study, and so the burden of the proof is now on the supporters of a biological basis for human racial classification.Further support for the conclusions of this study comes from the observation that, almost without exception, gene frequencies form smooth clines over all continents (22). Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques (23). In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries (24, 25), often overlapping with geographic and linguistic barriers (26-29). Genetic enclaves seem to be mostly limited to islands. Probably any two populations compared at a sufficient number of loci may be shown to differ, as suggested by the fact that several variances among populations, although low in relative terms, are statistically significant in this study. However, this has little to do with the subdivision of the human population into a small number of clearly distinct, racial or continental, groups. The existence of such broad groups is not supported by the present analysis of DNA.
Even with the present, limited sample sizes, this study shows that previous findings of large individual diversity within populations were not due to the particular nature of the markers chosen, normally frequencies of protein variants at biallelic loci. Microsatellite loci are among the most polymorphic in the genome, yet they yield variance estimates in excellent agreement with the previous ones and with variances estimated from other DNA markers. The differences among human groups, even very distant ones and no matter whether the groups are defined on a racial or on a geographical basis, represent only a small fraction of the global genetic diversity of our species.
Ref: Barbujani G, Magagni A, Minch E, Cavalli-Sforza LL. An apportionment of human DNA diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 29;94(9):4516-9.
So where is the proof that Cavalli-Sforza believes in a biological race known as Caucasoid?
So what [citing the Sahoo et al. paper]? Who said all Caucasoids are European or European-based? Cavalli has already talked about extra-European Caucasoids (Re : my posts above ). It is the other way around, ignoramus! Both Europeans and Indians are Caucasoid based.
I have also pointed out that there are non-Europeans with Caucasoid facial features. Look at the pictures of Aditi Govitrikar and the two men below her. Thus, I am aware of non-whites with Caucasoid facial features. This, however, does not mean that the majority of South Asians have Caucasoid facial features; most don’t.
Posted by J Richards on May 17, 2006, 02:35 PM | #
Malcolm A,
Therefore, the recent European (Aryan) genetic contribution to India is minor, and you had better motherf*****g stop harping on Indians belonging to the same race as Europeans unless you have proper scientific evidence from peer-reviewed journals.Same goes for yourself!—If you don’t have evidence from peer-reviewed journals showing that they don’t belong to the same race, that is!
The person who makes the assertion needs to provide proof for it rather than ask his opponent to provide proof against his assertion. You are the person who asserted that Europeans and Indians belong to the same race. You need to provide evidence from peer-reviewed journals that they indeed do. I have already done my part by citing Yang et al. and Li et al. Why don’t you find comparable studies that classify Europeans and South Asians into the same major cluster, i.e., a cluster along the lines of an East Asian cluster, a black African cluster, and so on?
In other words, the Supreme Court was well aware of the ambiguity of the term Caucasian even in the early 20th century, and modern genetic or craniofacial analyses have not managed to classify people ranging from Europe to India as members of the same race. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Asian Indians were outside the race of whites.So where is that challenge you and JT would like to mount against the Supreme Court decision?
I already said that this was a decision given during the Jim Crow era. You left out the part that says “based on anthropological evidence and that includes morpho’ evidence that was the only available evidence at the time. The ruling itself was intended to keep Indians out, BUT yet the Supreme Court was forced to admit that Indians and the whites were connected as Caucasoids despite their differences. They sure didn’t make a similar ruling about Negroids or Mongoloids. Did they now?
Read carefully. SCOTUS said that only some scientific authorities classified Indians as part of the Caucasoid or Aryan race; it then dismissed the term Aryan, describing it as a linguistic term, and said that the term Caucasoid was scarcely in better repute, calling it at best a conventional term. And, SCOTUS did not say that Indians and whites were connected as Caucasoids, it said that “It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but...” Note the emphasis on may, and SCOTUS went on to say that if this possible common ancestor were materialized in the flesh, then chances are that it could not be assigned to the race of either group.
Even Anjali has acknowledged that Nordic women have finer facial features compared to the elite Indian women that you have pointed out, though Anjali does not like fine facial features.Sounds like another one of your silly “hooked nose/ massive jaw” theories which I debunked in my last post.
You have debunked nothing. Here is Anjali in her own words:
...who cares about the fineness of ones features...sure the whites have smaller, finer features, however ure an idiot if u think thats what makes them attractive…
You said:
Indian women are no match for Nordic women in beauty, and any beauty contest that ranks an attractive Indian woman as better looking than an attractive Nordic woman will be seen for the farce that it is.Speak for yourself! Beauty stats say otherwise.
Stats from beauty contests don’t count if the beauty contests have little to do with beauty, which is indeed the case.
PS : Don’t insult our fine Nordic women. You obviously have bad taste in women. Those pictures you posted were horrible ( fat ugly viking mammas in national dress ). No wonder some guys here said “ old Richard has bad taste in women”. Couldn’t you even find a Marilyn Monroe, Bridgette Bardot, Cathy Denevue look alike? You BIG BABY, YOU…
Our Nordic women? Quit pretending that you are a white man. What fat ugly Viking mammas in national dress are you talking about? I posted a picture of older Northern Scandinavian women to show that parts of Northern Scandinavia comprise of white-Asian mixes. These are not Viking women, and I have not shown them in the context of attractive women. The photo of the younger women below this photo shows more attractive women.
Speaking of taste, now you have recommended women who look like Marilyn Monroe, Bridgette Bardot and Cathy Deneuve as good choices. A retard like you recommended the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Angelina Jolie as good examples of Nordic women that I should have used, and can’t tell that most Hindus do not have Caucasoid features. So why should I be surprised that you have recommended non-Nordic-featured women such as Bridgette Bardot or masculinized women such as Cathy Deneuve as good choices when it comes to posting pictures of Nordic women?
Anyway, you have repeatedly tried to dismiss criticism of your notions and poor citations by sneering at the assumed lack of scientific credentials and alleged poor understanding of science on the part of those, including myself, who have responded to your comments. You have ignored or dismissed—without proper justification—state of the art and current research, cited old stuff, made arguments by authority, and displayed dual standards whereby someone who is half white-half black or half white-half Chinese is not a Caucasoid but a half Negroid plus Mongoloid person by your own classification standards is nevertheless a Caucasoid if he is a South Asian. If you consider it beneath your dignity to respond to non-scientists, why even bother commenting here? I have decided that you need to do either of two things to continue commenting in this thread:
1. Prove that you are/were a scientist by posting/linking to a list of all the 40-plus papers that you have published, and I will look up your citations in scientific databases. Don’t bother asking me to cite my own publications. I am a pimp who is a high school dropout. You also must agree to citing current peer-reviewed journal articles to support your arguments.
2. Admit that you are Indian and not a scientist, and agree to debate within the confines of science, i.e., 1) no sneering at the assumed lack of scientific understanding on the part of your opponents and 2) citing current peer-reviewed journal articles to support your arguments.
You need to chose between either of these two options right at the beginning of the first comment you post after reading this or else I will delete all new comments posted by you within this thread. I am serious.
Posted by Anon on May 17, 2006, 05:39 PM | #
JR,
Please dont bore readers who momentarily saw something interesting on this blog with your copy-paste antiques. Accept what Malcom A has repeatedly proven and shut your trap for once. You should be honoured to have a true science writer in your midst, although I am sure, he too is probably bored of your childish, ignorant posts harping on what Malcom A has debunked time, and time again.
Malcom A,
maybe its time that you stop wasting your breath in shedding knowledge upon these ignorant fools and engage in something more challenging to occupy your time.. trailer trash morons like JR dont match up to you… (JR, you and your “white race” trailer trash folk would be lucky if your IQ reached anywhere close to 80).
Again, thanks Malcom A. from an avid reader for the knowledge you have imparted upon us over the last few days… However, it is almost worth the pain refreshing this page everyday, just to see JR grow more and more desperate and cite the same rubbish and harp on the same baseless invention of his “5 races”
Lets see how this one ends.... Im loving it.
Posted by anjali on May 18, 2006, 06:20 AM | #
The Indus Valley civilization was an ancient Indian civilization, but why should any reasonable person believe that the dark masses of India—many of whom still worship penises and defecate in the open, close to where they live—built it?
Hahahahahahahah…Cos u stupid git, it’s a FACT…do ya know what a fact is Jrichards??? Nah didn’t think so…what, do u think the ancient nordic tribes built it?? U wish mate…u wish…
“I didn’t cite the Paki Tribune on cannibalism in India. India itself made a documentary about the cannibals, and it was reported around the World.”
Yeah cos ur source is soo credible…could it perhaps have been that the elusive Aghora tribe made a documentary about themselves…or maybe it was a travelers who escaped the jaws of these cannibals just in time to go off and make this documentary!!!
“Thus, the typical black African with an IQ of 65 would be a healthy person, but the typical white person with an IQ of 65 would have health and behavior problems because this IQ is much lower than the white norm (100), and something abnormal would have happened to make his IQ equal 65.”
Your suggesting that the IQ-80 retardation level could be suitably applied only to Whites. Indians/Blacks at that level will be able to function normally (Hahaha. shit man, ure soo funny. ud do well in stand up comedy!).
Brilliant. doesn’t this kind of undermine the claim that IQ tests measure something intrinsic to you and/or the claim that IQ tests can be generalised across races? If an Indian can have an IQ of 70 and still function normally while a White with an IQ of 70 is retarded, isn’t it possible that an Indian who will be a genius by white standards has an IQ of just 100? IQ numbers aren’t sacred by themselves. They are good only to the extent that they actually measure an attribute that is actually present in you.
For example, if you have an IQ of 140 and still cannot understand the logic I presented in the previous paragraph, it means that you are an idiot, regardless of what your IQ test told you. It simply means that your IQ test was flawed. Got it?
“a large number of people in India continue to worship penises (Shiva Lingam), cows, monkey-man and elephant-man gods”
Hahahaha…there is no way your getting away with this one. Lets not discuss a religion about which your feeble mind could not begin to comprehend the complexity of.
“Once again, most Indians working in Silicon Valley have gotten jobs that they wouldn’t have gotten had it not been for American employers trying to save money. Therefore, how are the Indians being exploited? The Indians are benefiting. The American workers are being exploited.”
Once again. have a cry!
“As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, they certainly have not gotten their looks from the dark masses of India, and regarding their parentage, they may not have recent mixed parentage, but their mixed ancestry goes far back, and they can thank the Eastward bound people from the West of South Asia for their looks.”
As for Aditi Govitrikar and the others, like most Indians, they can thank their ancestors, the Aryans for their looks...once again u must think it was the ancient nordic tribes who we can attribute our good looks to…and once again (becoming once too often) u r wrong.
“I did not cite Ragnhild Marie Alvær as an example of a shapely Nordic woman. Someone wanted a picture of her and I posted it.”
No u didnt. “She was a participant in the 2003 Miss Norway beauty pageant”…shite man…if this is what the beautiful Norwegians look like id hate to see the average ones…
“Regarding a tan, the skin of a tanned Northern European generally looks different from that of a naturally darker person having the same level of melanin, and this difference is because of the finer skin of Northern Europeans, which corresponds to the normal lack of yellowish skin tone in them. Thus, I am not contradicting myself.”
Hahaha,..my sides are aching from lauging so much…once again let me repeat what I said earlier…
according to the dictionary bronze is
A moderate yellowish to olive brown.
A pigment of this color.
seems like someone is contradicting themselves
In conclusion Jrichards, in your next life, u would serve well as a toilet bowl considering the amount of shit u seem to exude. Hell, forget next life, ud do just as well in this one…
However J Richards don’t let the aforementioned fact detract from the insurmountable fact that u would stick ure dick in a hole…if the hole gave you a second glance…
NB: “I will delete all new comments posted by you within this thread. I am serious.”
Oohhh…threatening are we…yes Anon it is indeed obvious JR is growing more and more desperate. One only has to look at that comment to know it…this quote by the way, is what JR refers to as real DEMOCRACY
“It is almost worth the pain refreshing this page everyday”
Almost…
“I am a pimp who is a high school dropout”
And JR ure no pimp…pimps would get action if they were horny…u however have to wank off in the dark to thoughts of your mum riding your lil brother…
“I would personally avoid trying to address every single claim by JRichards because it is not worth it to spend time refuting abject nonsense” and the fact that hes a high school drop out (trailer trash) aint helping his cause…
Hahahahaha….fat ugly Viking mammas = older Northern Scandinavian women =Viking women= butches
Posted by anjali on May 18, 2006, 06:23 AM | #
also could someone please let me know how to post pictures on this page?
Posted by anjali on May 18, 2006, 07:35 AM | #
dear JR apart from Charlize Theron and the other ugly viking mammas and various pictures of some unkown white women, we’re curious to know who you think are the most atractive nordic women?? name at least 5 (mind u, these should be the ones you would say are beautiful, not average, so we can do a comparison)...you constantly name white celebrities and then go on to say that although the are decent they are not attractive…
Posted by anjali on May 18, 2006, 07:47 AM | #
Posted by anjali on May 18, 2006, 11:11 AM | #
Malcolm will “Admit that you are Indian and not a scientist”, when you admit to being white trailer trash, who fantasises about his mother.
PS. for some reason i dont think it will break Malcolms little heart by deleting his comments, he unlike you has a woman and has a life…
Posted by Malcolm A on May 19, 2006, 06:31 AM | #
Edited by J Richards:
This comment was posted by Malcolm A, but he did not comply with either of the requirements that I asked him to choose between. Therefore, I have deleted this comment and the next two comments that he posted. On the other hand, I copied his comments and pasted them onto a text document, and interested readers can download it by clicking here.
In the event that Malcolm A posts here again without satisfying either of the requirements, I will do the same thing once or twice but thereafter delete his comments for good.
Malcolm A has continued to insist on the existence of 3 races without citing a single peer-reviewed journal article that has offered evidence for this belief, repeated his earlier arguments, and not cited any newer information. It is just not possible to have a reasonable debate with him. Malcolm A has ignored the fact that his much-beloved researcher, Cavalli-Sforza, has cited a thorough documentation of attempts to classify humans into races, with the number of races ranging from 3 to 200, obviously with no consensus among anthropologists or other biologists, not to mention some of these professionals believing that there are no races among humans, and Malcolm A picked 3 over the other choices. On the other hand, even if one accepts three races only, i.e., Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, such that white = unambiguous Caucasoid, African black = unambiguous Negroid, Chinese = unambiguous Mongoloid, and insist that all populations be forced-fit into this classification scheme, it is clear that the central tendency in the Hindu is overall closer to the Negro than to white or Chinese by virtue of his very dark skin, facial features, average IQ below the threshold of mental retardation among whites and Chinese, shorter life span, disease-ridden constitution and borderline capability of being civilized. Thus, the Hindu is readily classified as Negroid in this scheme without any problems. Indeed, a number of African populations such as the Wodaabe and a bunch of Eastern Africans do not have classically Negroid facial features, and if they can be classified as Negroid, then what population outside of Africa would be more deserving of being classified as Negroid than the Hindu?
Posted by Ridiculous on May 19, 2006, 02:06 PM | #
The point is Nordic women are better-looking and most evolved? This is soooooo ridiculous!!
WHAT the hell is the definition of “better-looking”?
Posted by anti-white on May 19, 2006, 03:02 PM | #
this is the rally of white supremacy and modern Operation Wetback.
Posted by J Richards on May 19, 2006, 05:44 PM | #
Ridiculous,
Don’t be ridiculous. Who has implied that Nordic women are more evolved? As far as the definition of attractiveness goes, good looks speak for themselves.
Anjali,
What I wrote about IQ does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations. IQ tests are about intelligence, not mental and physical health. Thus, the typical Hindu with an IQ of 70 will be mentally retarded by European standards but be physically and mentally healthy. His mental retardation will be obvious if he were made to live in a Western society, but given that all this Hindu will do in his life is to eat, drink, sleep, urinate and defecate in the open, and have the job of a goat herder, his IQ would be sufficient to do the job, and he will live a decent life. An IQ of 70 would be too low for the typical white, and this white would be mentally retarded by European standards and also have mental and physical problems resulting from the adverse events that drastically lowered his IQ from the white norm.
I simply have to quote the following:
“a large number of people in India continue to worship penises (Shiva Lingam), cows, monkey-man and elephant-man gods”
Hahahaha…there is no way your getting away with this one. Lets not discuss a religion about which your feeble mind could not begin to comprehend the complexity of.
So my feeble mind would not understand the complexity of worshipping penises and cows?
I don’t understand why you South Asians hold beauty pageants as some yardstick of beauty. Beauty pageants have very low popularity in the West, and the major reason is that that few attractive women are seen in these pageants. Most of us have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in these so-called beauty contests. Thus, it is a lame conclusion that because Ragnhild Marie Alvær participated in the Miss Norway pageant, then it implies that she is among the best looking Norwegians.
Anyway, my threatening Malcolm A that I would delete his comments if he does not comply with some requirements is not something that pertains to democracy, but something that pertains to freedom of speech. Before, you accuse me of not respecting freedom of speech, you will note that your very first statement here was profanity-laden and devoid of substance, and this has been the case ever since, but I have not bothered to edit or delete your comments. I don’t care if I have profanity directed toward me every now and then, but if you were to continue with substance-less and profanity-laden comments, then at some point I will have to warn you about being civil and on-topic or else face deletion of your comments, in order to maintain minimum standards for a reasonable discussion. The problem with Malcolm A was not profanity, but other things that I have elaborated on previously, and I had to warn him to comply with the minimum standards for a scientific discussion, and I did this only after a weeks-long debate with him, but he did not comply with them, and I removed his newer comments, but this is not genuine deletion because I have recorded his comments and offered them as a download.
There is something curious about the profanity you use. Motherf****r is a universal slur, and in the West, some people use it with almost no thought if they are pissed, but you and the other South Asian have talked about me fantasizing about or actually having sex with my mother or me fantasizing about sex between my mother and little brother, and so on. What is up with such elaborate slurs? I have heard that because of the limited dating opportunities in India, incestuous fantasies are quite common in India, and perhaps this is the reason why you are coming up with such elaborate slurs instead of just saying motherf****r.
Some of your statements are simply parroting what I wrote to Malcolm A. Maybe you should worship Lord Shiva’s penis and ask it to grant you a triple-digit IQ in your next life so that you can come up with original statements, and in case you have not yet appreciated the usefulness of having a triple-digit IQ, look at it this way. You managed to upload a picture at imageshack, but even though imageshack provides you with the code to post images, you have not been able to do so.
What is your point in trying to post a picture of Bridgette Bardot? Is it to argue against my assertion that she does not have Nordic features? I suppose so. After all, why should I expect Hindus like you and Malcolm A to understand what is meant by Nordic features? Earlier you mentioned Jennifer Aniston as an ugly woman, apparently as an example of an ugly Nordic woman, but this woman is not at all Nordic. She is Greek, has fake blonde hair and even though she had a nose job to make her nose look less Greek, it hasn’t helped much.
Similarly, Bridgette Bardot dyed her hair blonde, is French, and if you got to see her facial features where hair was not obscuring the outline of her face, you wouldn’t see anything Nordic.
Posted by Anon on May 19, 2006, 08:28 PM | #
JR,
With whose permission have you deleted my earlier comments?
I repeat what I said earlier. REALLY white people are NOT good looking as J Richards so desperately trying to prove. Furthermore, nordics are neither superior nor more evolved. Ridiculous claims with no backups.
Whites are good looking ONLY and ONLY when they are dark (tanned) skinned and maintain caucasian facial features. Nordics are disgusting. Just as blacks are. Too black or too white, its all ugly.
Malcom A has convincingly proven his point, something that JR cannot digest and therefore threatened by his apparant defeat, has proceeded to delete Malcom’s and my post in which I told JR to accept what Malcom had proven and to shut his trap.
Do us all a favour JR and shut your trap. People like you are an insult to whites, you trailer trash. You dont have a clue about Hinduism and your IQ is as low as it gets. Im a white American from New York and I am ashamed to have people like you as fellow countrymen. Your insults to the great Hindu philosophy have no basis either. Hindus and Indians in general are a beautiful people. Saying the contrary would be like saying “all blondes are whores” ... which can be believed because many are.. however, it isn’t the whole truth (as many aren’t), but a subjective opinion, just like yours is. So stop your copy-paste antiques (utter rubbish copy pasted from all over the web) and go post somewhere else, because on this post, clearly, you have no more to contribute.
Thanks
(JR: get a life… and an education)
Posted by Raanne on May 19, 2006, 09:22 PM | #
Oddly enough, in all the side-by-side pictures, i always thought the person who was listed as “less attractive” was actually more attractive… As a white person myself, i have never been attracted to blonde hair and blue eyes, and actually find it a turn off… What this site seems to be mistaken on is that blonde hair / blue eyes are attractive to everyone, when in reality they are only attractive to those who have been brought up to see that as the height of attractiveness. Essentially each culture, when isolated, will move to an extreme of what they see as beauty, but as we have reached a global society, where all ethnicitys interact, more people view a moderate look as attractive. this moderate look would be more of a combined look - that would appeal to more people also. Most of the pictures above that are listed as the more beautiful would only be so to someone who is white - and i belive most other societies would consider them not that beautiful at all. I’m not pretending to be an anthropologist or sociologist or something - this is just from my own personal experiences and observations. It is a very ethnocentric viewpoint to believe that because white people find white people more attractive that the rest of the world does also.
Posted by J Richards on May 20, 2006, 03:25 AM | #
Anon,
I have not deleted any of your comments, and if I needed to, I wouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do it. You show remarkable arrogance in asking me to post elsewhere; this is not your site or entry. Anyway, don’t be deluded enough to believe that I removed Malcolm A’s 3 recent comments because I am threatened by my imminent defeat. If so, why would I bother to copy all three of Malcolm’s comments verbatim and archive them in the form of a text document so that you can see exactly what he wrote?
Besides, if you and Raanne are white, then I’ll be your friendly neighborhood Nigerian Negro!
Raanne,
This entry is not about the attractiveness of blonde hair and blue eyes, and the part of it that deals with attractiveness addresses the attractiveness of people with a high frequency of blonde hair and blue eyes (Nordics) vs. people among whom these traits are absent (e.g., South Asians). And no, it is not ethnocentric to believe that if whites find whites more attractive, then something along these lines is also true of many non-whites. Non-whites undergoing cosmetic surgery do not attempt to make themselves look more ethnic; they try to make themselves look less ethnic. Skin lightening creams are big business in India and other dark nations. Nordic rather than non-Nordic women are the global objects of men’s fantasy, and so on.
Posted by anjali on May 20, 2006, 04:49 AM | #
“What I wrote about IQ does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations. IQ tests are about intelligence, not mental and physical health “
Intelligence and health are not mutually exclusive…most would agree that physical and mental health effect intelligence
“So my feeble mind would not understand the complexity of worshipping penises and cows?”
Your feeble mind cannot understand that it is not penises and cows are worship but Gods…and no these Gods are not penises and cows…
“Most of us have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in these so-called beauty contests.”
Yeah. So same goes for us…but u keep having to point out how ugly Indian celebs are anyway…the celebrities are by no means the best looking Indians…ive seen way better from the bustling streets of Bombay to the rural villages of Rajasthan.
“Anyway, my threatening Malcolm A that I would delete his comments if he does not comply with some requirements is not something that pertains to democracy, but something that pertains to freedom of speech.”
Actually it pertains to both…obviously Malcolm can say what he wants, that is freedom of speech…but when u get angry you delete his posts, just because u can…this is called dictatorship
“Before, you accuse me of not respecting freedom of speech, you will note that your very first statement here was profanity-laden and devoid of substance, and this has been the case ever since, but I have not bothered to edit or delete your comments. I don’t care if I have profanity directed toward me every now and then, but if you were to continue with substance-less and profanity-laden comments, then at some point I will have to warn you about being civil and on-topic or else face deletion of your comments”
Shit man im quivering in my boots!!
Devoid of substance…according to you…and by the way…what makes u think im not being civil…if u think im not then ure a hyprocrtite cos uve said plenty of things that are demeaning and rude as well…double standards is what its called…
“in order to maintain minimum standards for a reasonable discussion. The problem with Malcolm A was not profanity, but other things that I have elaborated on previously, and I had to warn him to comply with the minimum standards for a scientific discussion”
yea with u being a scientist and all, youd know all about that wouldn’t ya…im sorry but I fail to understand the point your trying to make here...how are Malcolms posts non compliant…and futhermore non compliant to what…this is a stupid internet forum, what sort of respect are u trying to demand??
“and I did this only after a weeks-long debate with him, but he did not comply with them, and I removed his newer comments, but this is not genuine deletion because I have recorded his comments and offered them as a download.”
Don’t make piss weak excuses to justify your actions…
“There is something curious about the profanity you use. Motherf****r is a universal slur, and in the West, some people use it with almost no thought if they are pissed, but you and the other South Asian have talked about me fantasizing about or actually having sex with my mother or me fantasizing about sex between my mother and little brother, and so on. What is up with such elaborate slurs?”
For me JR motherfucker is not a word I simply use…when I ‘slur’ I like to be creative…its called wit…something u don’t possess
PS. There is nothing ‘elaborate’ about these ‘slurs’…this is the way we speak in the west much to the disappointment and disgust of my parents…
“I have heard that because of the limited dating opportunities in India, incestuous fantasies are quite common in India, and perhaps this is the reason why you are coming up with such elaborate slurs instead of just saying motherf****r.”
From which oh so credible source have u heard this?? Even if there were limited opportunities, why would we fantasize about our mothers?? Surely out of the billion or so Indians there are u could find someone who is not related to you to fantasize about
“Some of your statements are simply parroting what I wrote to Malcolm A.”
Its called sarcasm dumbass!!! U just don’t get it do u!!!
“Maybe you should worship Lord Shiva’s penis”
Is this your idea of minimum standards for a scientific and reasonable discussion??
“You managed to upload a picture at imageshack, but even though imageshack provides you with the code to post images, you have not been able to do so.”
One word…huh?!? Im sorry but do u not see the pic up there??
Earlier you mentioned Jennifer Aniston as an ugly woman,
apparently as an example of an ugly Nordic woman, but this woman is not at all Nordic. She is Greek, has fake blonde hair and even though she had a nose job to make her nose look less Greek, it hasn’t helped much.
Shes Greek huh…well that must make her ugly then…yea that’s a real great argument u put up just there…did ya know JR that there are actually Greeks and Italians who are born with blonde hair…sorry my bad, of course u didn’t…
“What is your point in trying to post a picture of Bridgette Bardot? Is it to argue against my assertion that she does not have Nordic features? I suppose so. After all, why should I expect Hindus like you and Malcolm A to understand what is meant by Nordic features? Similarly, Bridgette Bardot died her hair blonde, is French, and if you got to see her facial features where hair was not obscuring the outline of her face, you wouldn’t see anything Nordic.”
That’s the most crock n bull statement I have heard…she is a fine example of a nordic woman…and most ppl would agree with me here…
In conclusion JR it looks to me like your post is a personal attack. I just got one thing I wanna say to you, don’t hate me cos u aint me…
Posted by Anon on May 20, 2006, 04:58 AM | #
Correction:
Nordic rather than non-nordic women WERE the object of men’s fantasies. Lets not forget that we dont live in the Middle Ages anymore when white was seen as the color that set one apart as royal or upper class (and therefore more desirable), rather than a tanned white. White skin with no color is OUT and anyone who continues to believe that it defines beauty is demonstrating his stupidity.
We live in the 21st century. As Raane said, moderation is the key word. Not too black and not too white. It has to fall in between. That, and not the pale whitewashed skintone is in. Halle Berry beats any nordic woman in beauty for instance. Similarly, Angelina Jolie who is white (although with Native blood), beats any nordic woman in beauty as she makes up for her pale-ness with her dark hair and non nordic features. Many Indian women have the moderate skintone and moderate facial features that make them (and not nordics) the yardstick in the measurement of what defines beauty. Women like Saira Mohan with a white mix are Asian women white enough to suit Western sensibilities. The fact that Newsweek has named her the Perfect Face and the global standard for beauty, and not any “gorgeous” nordic woman, goes to show that THESE are the women that set beauty standards in the 21st century and not nordics.
You MR people would have lived happier if you had been born a few hundred years ago. However, it is not so, and instead of fighting what is inevitably lost, you would be happier of you learned to accept the times that you live in.
For your viewing pleasure:
http://raravindhan.tripod.com/aishwarya-rai/Aishwarya_Rai2_001.jpg
http://www.stars2go.com/t/christy-turlington/christy_turlington.jpg
http://aishwaryaworld.com/fans/images/gallery/ar10.jpg
http://aishwaryaworld.com/fans/images/gallery/ar12.jpg
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/pictures/galleries/zee_awards/2005_11.jpg
http://in.yimg.com/i/in/mov/cinesouth/20050920/05/571156582.jpg
http://www.outlookindia.com/images/photoessays/saira_mohan_newsbreakers_photo_20040112.jpg
Posted by vipin mohan on May 20, 2006, 05:47 AM | #
i think there are indian women who has beautiful figures .Aiswarya is stunningly beautiful she does not have good figure.take shipa shetty and her sister all the above photos of white women with so called great figures will crumble to dust seeing the soooooooo perfect figures of these sisters.White women they have these pale dead looks and all those dots on thier face look ugly.India has dark ,wheatish brownish and fair women .better than the pale dead looks
Posted by C. M. on May 20, 2006, 08:40 AM | #
“Women like Saira Mohan with a white mix are Asian women white enough to suit Western sensibilities. The fact that Newsweek has named her the Perfect Face and the global standard for beauty, and not any “gorgeous” nordic woman, goes to show that THESE are the women that set beauty standards in the 21st century and not nordics. “
I don’t agree with this at all, first I think it has more to do with political correctness than beauty. If I walk on the street here, I am in Holland, I see tons of more beautiful women than Saira Mohan, but they are not so called “supermodels”. I do think that marketing agencies are pushing this issue of mix people. I don’t think any white/black mix is pretty, I think they are ugly. But for some reason the media here in the west are pushing this so called ethnic issues whether you like it or not. They are brainwashing people to like types of Saira Mohan or the likes of James Blake, a good tennis player no doubt but overrated in beauty. These newsweek and other american magazines are really pushing it. I think James Blake looks like a Hindu.
As I see it, it’s simply a matter of political correctness due to the large number of blacks in west.
I don’t think Saira Mohan will make people turn their heads in she walks in Holland. They would probably think of her as some kind of Arab woman.
Posted by C. M. on May 20, 2006, 08:58 AM | #
The reason why India has done well in beauty pageants can be explained easily.
Indians are not white and not black, so they cannot be accused of being “racists”. It’s very simple.
Something else: I notice that people here are very scared to be accused of being “racists”.
Any black who does not get his way uses the magical word “racist” and everybody is trying to please him. Let me get this straight. My country never had this slavery past so I don’t give a damn about their victimhood. Maybe it works in Europe and America but certainly not with me.
Now I have seen in a electronics shop a DVD player from a Korean manufacturer, I believe it was Daewoo, now there was something interesting about it: on the box you had a picture of a pretty blond woman and a mix black/white male along the lines of James Blake with Afro haircut. Now Daewoo is Korean I don’t think the management of Daewoo are pushers of white/black mixers so the people who are responsible for this are the marketing and advertisement agencies in west who are doing this. Daewoo wants to earn money but I don’t think the target group for DVD players are blacks so there are too many of these political correct people in marketing and advertisement who actually wants to see more white/black mixing. But of course it’s always somebody else daughter who must date a black, not their own daughter.
You all get my point I think.
I mean why do see all this “blacks on blondes” porn. I think blacks are ugly.
Posted by EC on May 20, 2006, 01:51 PM | #
We live in the 21st century. As Raane said, moderation is the key word. Not too black and not too white. It has to fall in between.
Posted by Anon on Saturday, May 20, 2006 at 04:58 AM | #
Let me see here, what is “not too black and not too white”? Hmmm, what can that Holy Grail of beauty be? Oh yes, a Paki. A Paki falls in between black and white, right? My oh my, now we all know what is the epitomy of beauty and moderation, at that. LOL
No thanks!
Posted by Howitzer McLean on May 20, 2006, 02:58 PM | #
Indian women are like cows ... to be purchased and bred. It comes as no shock that they look like cows as well.
Posted by you guys are on crack on May 20, 2006, 06:45 PM | #
James Blake is one of the best looking guys out there! You “all white” men dont stand a chance!!! YOU ALBINO FREAKS - uuugggggghhhhh, get the hell out of my way!!!
YUUUCKKKKKKKKK
Posted by venecan on May 21, 2006, 01:36 AM | #
There are indeed only three races: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Australian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasoid that has been gentically isolated. South East Asians are a mix of Mongoloids and Australian aboriginals and thus cluster on the same branch as Aboriginals in genetic studies.
The Caucasoid race can be subdivided into European Caucasoids and non-European Caucasoids (i.e. Indians) just as the Mongoloid race can be subdivided into North East Asians and Native Americans.
Indians look very much like Europeans, especially Southern Europeans. Many Indians are mistaken for Italians and are simply a dark variety on a continuous spectrum. Genetic studies hsow Indians on the same branch of the human family tree as Europeans. The weak builds and low IQ scores obtained by some Indian samples are simply because much of India lives in rural understimulated and malnurished poverty, and thus has not yet had a Flynn Effect. Note that the Flynn Effect among the Dutch saw their IQ scores rise 21 points in 3 decades and their height rise substantially aswell. Second generation South Asians in developed countries score as well or better than white Caucasions and do about as well or better in school.
Posted by J Richards on May 21, 2006, 06:42 AM | #
Anjali,
You are right that intelligence and health are not mutually exclusive, but IQ tests measure intelligence and some correlation between these variables does not undermine the generalizability of IQ tests across populations.
So gods rather than penises and cows are being worshipped, but why are the gods represented in the form of penises and cows?
It may be that most Indians have friends, family or acquaintances who look better than most participants in the Miss India beauty contest, but I seriously doubt this for several reasons. Miss India contestants look much better to me than most Indian women that I have seen. It is unlikely that India has to deal with the kind of political correctness seen in American beauty contests, and hence is in a better position to select the best looking Indian women. Additionally, Malcolm was under no requirement to post links to pictures of some specific kinds of Indians only. He had his choice of women to point out, and his best choices are seen to be far from impressive, and you have not linked to pictures of better looking Indian women.
My removing Malcolm’s latest posts is not an example of dictatorship, and once again, I have archived his posts in a text file, which you can download. The act was necessary because of his failure to satisfy some requirements, including his repeated insistence that several of his assertions are true without citing supporting data from peer-reviewed journal articles, his dismissal of my citations without proper justification, and eventually his resorting to saying that I am just copying and pasting and do not understand what I am pasting. How can it be possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone like him? If somethings that I have said about Indians appear demeaning and rude, then it because of the nature of the facts, not because of profanity-laden and fact-less utterings as in some of the comments that you have graced us with. I was forced to use censored profanity against Malcolm, but this censored profanity was directed only against him, and I apologized in advance to everyone other than Malcolm.
My mentioning Lord Shiva’s penis is not part of a scientific discussion, but it was in response to your non-scientific entries.
You may have tried to be sarcastic by parroting what I wrote, but it came across as lame, and triple-digit IQ would surely result in better sarcasm.
Regarding the imageshack picture, you linked to the thumbnail rather than the image, and messed it up (see the http address around it). Thus, you did a lame job at posting the picture and can hardly be said to have been successful.
Yes, I am aware that there are blondes in Greece, but Jennifer Aniston isn’t one and there is nothing Nordic about her face. Besides, Jennifer Aniston is not unattractive because she is Greek, but because she is bad looking. And, Bridgette Bardot is not Nordic; look at her picture that I posted and tell me what is Nordic about her?
-----------------------
Anon,
Boy, are you deluded! Halle Berry will beat any Nordic woman???!!!!! There is a greater possibility that I am a recent descendent of a mentally retarded Negro. Here is a picture of Halle Berry before she had her second nose job.
Here is a picture of Halle Berry presumably from before her foray into the world of cosmetic surgery; see any trace of her white biological mother?
Once again, I am surprised at why you South Asians regard a woman as good looking if she has been praised in some prominent quarters for her looks. Looks speak for themselves. Like Malcolm repeatedly did, you have brought up Saira Mohan. I have addressed Saira Mohan previously. She is unattractive and manly, and I am reproducing some of her pictures that I have previously used.
Saira Mohan’s nostrils, approaching the Negroid, and apparently less Negrified by part-white ancestry.
--------------------------------------
To the person who thinks James Blake looks better than most men, especially whites,
Here is a guy, 7 inches taller and a 100 pounds heavier than James Blake, and he easily beats Blake in the looks department and everything else.
In the following picture, the same guy is demonstrating how to deal with non-white males seeking the favors of white women—show them the business end of a sword.
Posted by J Richards on May 21, 2006, 06:46 AM | #
Venecan,
See if you can cite proof from peer-reviewed journals that there are only three races among humans and also proof that whites and Indians belong to the same race.
A number of the Indian women that Malcolm has cited could pass as Middle Eastern, and if they look like Italians, it is because some Italians also look Middle Eastern, but Indians don’t look like Northern Italians. On the other hand, the masses in India lean toward Negroids and aboriginals in looks, and I don’t see how anyone could classify their looks as Caucasoid.
You are mistaken about the weak build in Indians resulting from malnutrition. Even Indians living in the West, including those born in the West on the part of well-to-do Indians have a much weaker physical build than whites:
Misra A, Vikram NK, Gupta R, Pandey RM, Wasir JS, Gupta VP. Waist circumference cutoff points and action levels for Asian Indians for identification of abdominal obesity. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006 Jan;30(1):106-11.
Oldroyd J. Low birth weight in South Asian babies in Britain: time to reduce the inequalities. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2005 Jun;51(1):1-10. Review.
Kumar BN, Holmboe-Ottesen G, Lien N, Wandel M. Ethnic differences in body mass index and associated factors of adolescents from minorities in Oslo, Norway: a cross-sectional study. Public Health Nutr. 2004 Dec;7(8):999-1008.
Snehalatha C, Viswanathan V, Ramachandran A. Cutoff values for normal anthropometric variables in asian Indian adults. Diabetes Care. 2003 May;26(5):1380-4.
Regarding IQ, Richard Lynn has adjusted Indian IQ scores for the Flynn effect, i.e., boosted them if necessary to adjust for year of study publication, and then reported the average IQ as 81. Besides, the Indian IQ tests to the best of my knowledge did not include the street children, aboriginal tribes and illiterates. Lynn used 4 published studies, and one of these summarized the result of 9 studies.
Since you mentioned the Dutch, there was a severe famine in the Netherlands in 1944-45, and people born during this period to pregnant mothers who did not have enough to eat were found to develop later in life 1) a higher incidence of coronary heart disease, raised lipids, altered clotting and more obesity after exposure to famine in early gestation; 2) a higher incidence of obstructive airways disease and microalbuminuria if exposure to famine occurred in mid-gestation; 3) decreased glucose tolerance in people exposed to famine in late gestation; and 4) diminished fertility among women. However, IQ was hardly diminished. Some citations:
Painter RC, Roseboom TJ, Bleker OP. Prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine and disease in later life: an overview. Reprod Toxicol. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(3):345-52. Review.
Elias SG, van Noord PA, Peeters PH, den Tonkelaar I, Grobbee DE. Childhood exposure to the 1944-1945 Dutch famine and subsequent female reproductive function. Hum Reprod. 2005 Sep;20(9):2483-8. Epub 2005 Jun 2.
In other words, eliminating malnutrition in India would add only a few points to the average Indian IQ, like raising it from 81 to 85, which is the American Negro average.
Regarding the performance of second generation Indians in Western nations, 1) these are not representative of Indians, and are biased toward middle and upper class Indians; 2) school performance is of little relevance since Indian parents are known to push their children toward studying hard to a much greater extent than white parents; and 3) IQ tests in Britain, reported by Lynn, have shown the best Indian average, 96, to be 4 points less than that of the white British.
Rushton studied the IQ of the brightest Engineering students in South Africa and found the IQs to be black (103), Indian (108) and white (118); thus, the Indians were closer to Negroes than whites, which is what all the other IQ data shows:
Rushton, J. P., Skuy, M., & Bons, T. A. (2004). Construct validity of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices for African and non-African engineering students in South Africa. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 220-229.
Rushton had previously studied bright South African engineering students; reported the IQs to be black (103), Indian (106) and white (117); and he showed that the IQ differences were Jensen effects, i.e., related to the general intelligence factor, race differences on which are almost entirely genetic:
Rushton, J. P., Skuy, M., & Fridjhon, P. (2003). Performance on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices by African, East Indian, and White engineering students in South Africa. Intelligence, 31, 123-137.
I have also heard about a comparison of IQ between people from India in the Netherlands and native Dutch, and the Indians had lower scores, but I have forgotten where I came across this study.
In a study, the predominant skin color of countries was rated on a 1-8 scale. Northern and Central Europeans scored 1, Greeks scored 2, India scored 6.33. The correlation between the predominant skin color of a country and its IQ was -0.92, which is close to a perfect correlation of -1.0, i.e., the darker the population, the dumber it is. Therefore, there is excellent consistency between the average skin color of the Hindu being closer to that of the Negro than white just as his IQ is closer to that of the Negro. I have seen many Indians who are darker than the average American Negro.
In short, there are many reasons for classifying Indians into the Negroid group in the hypothetical 3-race scheme that you have mentioned.
Posted by Anon on May 21, 2006, 09:32 AM | #
The highly retarded JR wrote:
IQ tests in Britain, reported by Lynn, have shown the best Indian average, 96, to be 4 points less than that of the white British.
Why dont you cite your cut paste jobs?
And:
I have also heard about a comparison of IQ between people from India in the Netherlands and native Dutch, and the Indians had lower scores, but I have forgotten where I came across this study.
Ahem, its easy to forget where you “came across this study” specially when such studies do not exist, and arent more than a mere product of your sick mind.
And by the way, by your opinion your hulk hogan pasted above looks better than the one and only James Blake. Your hulk hogan is nothing more than a monkey. James Blake’s arse would give him a run for his money.
Posted by anjali on May 21, 2006, 09:39 AM | #
JR
“why are the gods represented in the form of penises and cows?”
if u did soem research u might find out
“Miss India contestants look much better to me than most Indian women that I have seen.”
you obviously havent seen many Indian women then...if it were not to protect their privacy i would post pictures of my own good looking friends and family who are just your everyday Indians
“I was forced to use censored profanity against Malcolm, but this censored profanity was directed only against him, and I apologized in advance to everyone other than Malcolm.”
Forced?? was someone holding a gun to your head making you do it?? we’re not forced to do anything...and ‘censored profanity’...what the?? prafanity is prafanity
“in response to your non-scientific entries.”
who are you to decide whats scientific and whats not??
“You may have tried to be sarcastic by parroting what I wrote, but it came across as lame”
no im sorry but lame is what you are...have u read white thorn by bryce courtnay?? you remind my of a particular Dominee
“Thus, you did a lame job at posting the picture and can hardly be said to have been successful.”
well firstly i must say that no im no good at using a computer and putting in links and what not...who cares...there are plenty of ppl who cant...the fact is the picture is up there...thats what my aim was...and that to me is a success
“Bridgette Bardot is not Nordic; look at her picture that I posted and tell me what is Nordic about her?”
so enlighten me...what is she mongoloid, negroid???
firstly she has that pink-white coloring, secondly the fine nordic nose...and lastly a big forehead which many nordic women seem to have...on the other hand, she has full lips which i dont think seems to be lacking in a lot of nordic women…
Posted by anjali on May 21, 2006, 09:41 AM | #
on the other hand, she has full lips which i dont think seems to be lacking in a lot of nordic women…
sorry...i meant seems to be lacking in a lot of nordic women
Posted by anjali on May 21, 2006, 12:15 PM | #
by the way, you really shouldn’t have posted the pic of that guy cos now we really kno what sorta terrible taste u have...if u wanted to point out some attractive nordic men you would have been better off mentioning matthew mcconaughey
or jude law
Rather than an ogre with a ridiculous/disgusting body and a mong face sporting loin cloths.
JR u still haven’t said which women you find attractive, so im just guessing that Charlize Theron might be somewhere on the list??
Earlier on you posted some pictures of Aishwarya Rai commenting on her brown hair, colored contacts and amount of makeup on her face. For starters Aishwarya Rai doesn’t wear contacts…her eyes are naturally that color and secondly the amount of makeup she has on is not any more than any white celebrity would use…
Charlize Theron without and with makeup
*shudder*…now that to me is pretty damn disgusting…its obvious how much makeup she wears
Cameron Diaz
Renne Zellweger
Pamela Anderson
Do you recogise this beast?? I didn’t…its Christina Aguilera
its obvious the wonder what makeup does for these so called attractive women…
Now on to the Indians
Aishwarya Rai with and without makeup
she looks pretty good without her makeup and she looks even better with it
Rani Mukherjee
looks ok without her makeup
Priyanka Chopra
Sushmita Sen
even without makeup the Indians manage to look good but the white women...some of them are downright ugly without makeup
Posted by J Richards on May 21, 2006, 01:17 PM | #
Anjali,
Wow! I am impressed...you learned how to post pictures!
On the other hand, what is your point in posting pictures of ugly women? This thread is about attractiveness. I could find pictures of ugly Hindu women, and then where would we be? You need to come up with Hindu women that are a match for Nordic beauty. Anyway, look at what you have posted.
You posted a picture of Charlize Theron when she got a sunburn. It was not a permanent condition. Besides, it is pointless for you to pick on complexion; you should focus on facial features. I have said it before: I do not like yellow, yellow-brown or black skin, probably no less than you dislike pale skin, but I am not picking on it. For instance, I could say that at least the skin of white women doesn’t remind me of bowel movements or doesn’t look like a woman has spread a lotion made out of bowel movements on her skin.
You posted a picture of Cameron Diaz, who is Hispanic and dyes her hair blonde. She is not white, let alone a Nordic, and an ugly woman.
Your next picture is that of Renee Zellweger, another ugly woman who dyes her hair blonde, and Zellweger is half Central European, i.e., she is not Nordic; look at her face. You need to tell Nordic from non-Nordic features.
Then you posted a picture of yet another ugly woman—Pamela Anderson—who is fake from head to toe; she also dyes her hair blonde.
And, your last picture was of Christina Aguilera, who is Hispanic, not white, unattractive, and usually dyes her hair blonde.
Your comment has focused on pigmentation. However, the fact is that two of the women that you have chosen are non-white, and three of them—Cameron Diaz, Renee Zellweger and Pamela Anderson—are ugly with or without make-up.
Don’t bother posting pictures of ugly women and goddamn don’t post pictures of non-Nordic women as if they are Nordic women. Only two of the non-Hindu women you have posted are Nordic—Charlize Theron and Pamela Anderson—and of these, you posted a picture of Charlize with a non-permanent sunburn, and a picture of the ugly, masculinized Pamela Anderson. Don’t make me post pictures of ugly Hindu women, including Hindu women with zits. This thread should focus on attractiveness of facial features. And, in this regard, the facial features of the Hindu women that you have chosen are seen for what they are.
Posted by Anon on May 21, 2006, 03:41 PM | #
We live in the 21st century. As Raane said, moderation is the key word. Not too black and not too white. It has to fall in between.Posted by Anon on Saturday, May 20, 2006 at 04:58 AM | #
EC said:
Let me see here, what is “not too black and not too white”? Hmmm, what can that Holy Grail of beauty be? Oh yes, a Paki.
As a matter of fact, EC, that is the case. Apart from Pakistani and Indian women, other regions harboring the world’s most beautiful women are 1. the entire Southern European belt (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 2. the Mediterrenean belt (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc), 3. Latin America. Apart from these, there are countless gorgeous women in every tropical country of the world. Ask any sensible man (with emphasis on “sensible") if he fantasizes of pale, freakled, blonde nordic women or the likes of Aishwarya Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington (Latin - white mix) and Angelina Jolie. You will get the answer yourself.
PS: Hi Anjali, could you tell me how to post pics??
PPS: JR, the women of the Indian slums you have shown in the thread could only be compared to your white trailer trash women. Why dont you have a fair comparison and post pictures of white women living in slums (and please dont argue that “white slums” do not exist because we all know how many white Americans live below the poverty level)
Posted by EC on May 21, 2006, 04:36 PM | #
As a matter of fact, EC, that is the case. Apart from Pakistani and Indian women, other regions harboring the world’s most beautiful women are 1. the entire Southern European belt (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 2. the Mediterrenean belt (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc), 3. Latin America. Apart from these, there are countless gorgeous women in every tropical country of the world. Ask any sensible man (with emphasis on “sensible") if he fantasizes of pale, freakled, blonde nordic women or the likes of Aishwarya Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington (Latin - white mix) and Angelina Jolie. You will get the answer yourself.
I think your premise is faulty. You aren’t comparing apples to apples. In the above you mention “pale, freakled, blonde nordic women” and compare them to the top 1% of beautiful women that are not Nordic. All races and sub-races have their share of ugly women. Comparing the most beautiful of all races is what you need to do and, in my opinion, European women are the most beautiful. From the north all the way down to the south.
The women of other races that are beautiful have a large portion of European genes in them. I find blacks unattractive, even octoroons.
Posted by venecan on May 21, 2006, 09:31 PM | #
J Richards,
Proof for the three race divsision of humanity has been known for decades by anthropologists and forensic workers by the fact that that there are three main types of skulls found among the world’s people: Negroid, Caucasoid & Mongoloid. Now it’s easy to point out superficial characteristics lke skin color, and group people in other ways, but such differences are literally only skin-deap, and will not be preserved in the fossil record the way the much deeper and more ancient divisions in skull type are.
Support for the elegant three race divsion has further been confirmed by the state of the art ground breaking DNA research done by Cavalli-Sforza which shows most of the 42 international populations he studied fitting neatly on either the Negroid, Caucasoid, or Mongoloid branch of the human tree. The only exceptions were a Austrailans/New Guineans and South East Asians, however it has long been suspected that Austalian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasian that became isolated, and South East Asians are mix between ancient Caucasians and Mongoloids.
Now East Indians fall very clearly on the Caucasoid branch of the human tree and share common ancestors with Europeans that are even more recent than the common ancestor shared by the very similar North East Asians and Artic Asians. In addition, East Indians and Europeans have identical skulls. As much as you seem to wish to define Europeans as their own distinct race, the genetic evidence clearly contradicts you. Indeed European Greeks and West Asian Iranians (who look Indian) are almost genetically identical and are much closer to each other than either group is to the Danish and English. Now it’s possible to divide the Caucasoid race into various subraces (aka ethnic groups) but there’s no getting around the fact that Indians and Northern Europeans belong to the same major racial classification. Classifying East Indians as Negroid just because their skin is dark makes about as much sense as classifying British people as Polar Bears because both are white. On the vast majority of physical and genetic traits, Indians resemble white people.
None of the citations you provided prove much about the physical build about Indians, and Richard Lynn most certainly did not adjust Indian IQ’s for the Flynn Effect (I believe he adjusted their IQ’s downward to be comparable with the rising scores in Britain). If he did he would have raised them by 20-40 points since this is about the size of the IQ gain observed by countries that make the transition from rural poverty (in which the vast majority of India still lives) to ubran fully industrialized society. Indeed James Flynn presents evidence that British people born in the 19th century were obtaining average IQ’s in the 60s on the so-called culture reduced Raven test Lynn uses (see the Rising Curve), though I think this overstates the case. The point is that intelligence is every bit as vulnerable to nutrition as height is (even more so) and the Raven may not be applicable for international comparisons
since it requires culturally loaded decontextualization skills.
Now you can argue that the South Asians in developed countries are the best of the brightest, however they often score just as bad as South Asians back home when they first arrive. It’s only after they’ve been exposed to Western culture do their scores rapidly catch up as they acquire Western modes of cognition. Some IQ tests don’t seem to suffer from these cultural biases however they’re seldom used.
Lastly, Indians who raise their kids in developed countries often see their children grow up to be a good foot taller than they are. If Western nutrition can raise their height by as much as 4 SD, it can raise their IQ’s by as much as 60 points.
Posted by anjali on May 22, 2006, 02:26 AM | #
Anon
to post pictures u can go to http://www.imageshack.us if the pictures are saved on your computer then browse and upload it and then click the ‘host it button’.
i used the hotlink for forums (1) link. just copy the link and paste it here…
just make sure u delete the URL part at the start and end of the link...it should start with [IMG] and end with it as well...click on the preview button to make sure you have done it properly
hope ive expalined it properly
Posted by anjali on May 22, 2006, 02:56 AM | #
jr if u find these women unnatractive...let me kno which nordic women are attractive and i will post pictures of them...by the way...about the picuture of charlize, just ignore her skin for a minute and look at her features...without makeup she is very bland and very average looking, you wouldnt give her a second look if u saw her walking down the street
“This thread should focus on attractiveness of facial features. And, in this regard, the facial features of the Hindu women that you have chosen are seen for what they are.”
What they are is nothing short of beautiful
PS if u r going to post pictures of ugly hindu women with skin problems just make sure they are celebrities like i have done…
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 12:58 PM | #
“As a matter of fact, EC, that is the case. Apart from Pakistani and Indian women, other regions harboring the world’s most beautiful women are 1. the entire Southern European belt (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal), 2. the Mediterrenean belt (Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc), 3. Latin America. Apart from these, there are countless gorgeous women in every tropical country of the world.”
You are a retarded liar.
“however it has long been suspected that Austalian aboriginals are an archaic form of Caucasian that became isolated, and South East Asians are mix between ancient Caucasians and Mongoloids.”
You hindus are worse than retarded, abos are a kind of caucasian?! These australoids are a kind of caucasians in the words of the dumb hindu. No comment is needed here.
It’s not sane.
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 01:12 PM | #
For the hindus here: why are you having problems with accepting new realities like at least 5 races?
Even Australian abos are now in the “Caucasoid” group according to the hindus. Of course they are caucasoid too.
I have bad news for you: both hindus and abos can be assigned a seperate cluster from Europeans.
Even skull of Indians can be clearly distinguished. Your skull falls in category Indo/Afghan group, of course different than European skull.
Clearly hindus with average 81 IQ cannot comprehend common data so clearly presented.
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 01:22 PM | #
“Lastly, Indians who raise their kids in developed countries often see their children grow up to be a good foot taller than they are. If Western nutrition can raise their height by as much as 4 SD, it can raise their IQ’s by as much as 60 points.”
Are you kidding? The kids look about the same as their parents because you still eat the same indian food.
To add 60 IQ points only exists in your retarded mind. Go grab western fastfood and see if you can be smarter 60 points.
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 02:37 PM | #
Australoids were in first wave out of Africa, the coastal route in which India played a major role of colonizing south east Asia and Australia and the pacific islands. They reached Australia already in 60000 BC.
The people who are to become Europeans, Meditereneans and North East Asians were in the second wave out of Africa, the landroute. Modern Humans entered Europe in 35000 BC and the Americas 12000 BC.
Clearly Europeans and North East Asians are more bright because the envirionment they migrated to was more harsh, colder. It needs problem solving abilities to survive in a harsh and cold environment as Northern Eurasia. Hence it does not surprise me that there is significant difference in IQ between people living in cold climate and tropical climate.
Posted by Dan on May 22, 2006, 02:52 PM | #
Anjali,
I do hate to revert to such a simple directive here, but your demonstrated hateful contempt for the West - its culture, its men and women, its achievements - and your clearly tenuous grasp of reasoned speech impel me to present it to you:
GO BACK TO INDIA!!
No matter how good you think your race is, no matter how much better off you think your precence has made the West, no matter how many doctors are here, etc, etc, if you left you would not be missed. Trust me. You live here and continue to live here because it is a better country than India, which in turn is because it was founded by the very North Western Europeans you clearly depise.
If the countries and inhabitants of the West are so undesirable, why, oh why do we have to beat back throngs of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees? Why is it, that your own parents choose your new country in the West over India as a better place to raise their snide, ungrateful, little brown twit? Go home. And take your arrogant, unwelcome extended family with you. Ingrate!! To think, were it not for the benevolence (stupidity?) of your host country, you would still be living in the shithole you call your native land. I am incredulous.
Posted by anjali on May 22, 2006, 02:54 PM | #
“Go grab western fastfood and see if you can be smarter 60 points.”
yeah eat as much fast food as you can, so in CM’s ideal world everyone can look like this…
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 03:04 PM | #
You take my comment out of context: I was just merely commenting to venegan and his stupid comment that western food “could improve indian height and IQ points”.
I think western fastfood is typical for blacks and other retarded elements.
Western fastfood will do nothing for you, eating it once in a while is not bad for you, but you won’t see me at fastfood chains.
Posted by C. M. on May 22, 2006, 03:05 PM | #
Besides the kids in the pic look like a bunch of arabs, I think they are from iran.
Posted by venecan on May 22, 2006, 06:45 PM | #
C.M.,
Read the Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza. Check out the genetic linkage tree he provides that shows Europeans, North Africans, West Aisans, and South Asians all occupying the same branch of the human tree. Indeed European Greeks are much closer genetically to the West Asian population of Iran than they are to other Europeans, so it makes no sense at all to define Europeans as their own race, or even subrace.
Now it’s been well documented that IQ scores have been rising by about 3 IQ points per decade in the U.S. since perhaps the earliest days of intelligence testing. A parallel trend has occured with height and education level so it’s not clear whether 20th century nutrition is making people smarter as well as taller, or whether increased levels of schooling are just making people more test savvy. The point is that any country that makes the transition from rural poverty to urban industrialization sees IQ scores rise by 20-40 points, height rise by several inches, and brain weight increase to boot. This phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect has been demonstrated time and time again in many different corners of the globe.
While the Flynn Effect seems to be leveling off in Europe and North America, it has not even begun in India, so if economic conditions continue to advance there, IQ’s can be expected to skyrocket as the people reach their genetic potential. India has produced an early civilization, some of the greatest mathematicians, freakishly prodigous calculating prodigees, a high frequency of engineers, and more billionaires per capita than many European countries. Indeed, despite the high cognitive and economic performance of many Mongoloid countries, the richest person in all of Asia is Indian. Further India has one of the world’s largest populations, and because of the historic gene mixing in India, India enjoys the genetic benefits of heterosis which is known to enhance all dominant polygenetic traits.
As for australian aboriginals, many white anthropologist have concluded that they are indeed a form of archaic Caucasoid because despite their black skin, their features, body hair, and hair type resembles that of many European populations. While Australian aboriginals are genetically very distant from Europeans and Indians, on a seperate branch of the human tree, if you measure the length of the lines on Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic linkage tree, they are in fact closer to Caucasoids than they are to either Negroids or Mongoloids, so since they’re too tiny a population to form a major race, it seems reasonable to lump them in with Caucasoids.
Posted by J Richards on May 23, 2006, 01:27 AM | #
Anon,
I have not shown the slum-dwelling women in order to compare their attractiveness with Nordic women. I used Indian beauty pageant contestants and actresses for the comparison. I mentioned the following reason for showing the slum-dwelling people:
It may be claimed that I have deliberately picked unattractive Hindu women for comparative purposes, but a quick look at the photos of the untouchables of India suffices to convince that the Hindu women shown above are among the better looking ones in India.
Anjali,
Your choices of Matthew McConaughey and Jude Law are good choices, but the bodybuilder was posted for other reasons. Regarding Bridgette Bardot, her face width, large cheekbones and jaw structure should give you a clue that she is not Nordic. I will get back to you on the Nordic women that I like.
I have no wish to post pictures of ugly Indian women. This thread has digressed into topics that it shouldn’t have been discussing, and the last thing I’d like to see is a who-has-the-ugliest-women contest.
You are grossly mistaken about Charlize Theron having very bland and average-looking features. See her pictures from different angles below. She is far from plain-featured. How many Indian women above could be shown from multiple angles such that they manage to look good at all angles, let alone look as good as Charlize?
Posted by J Richards on May 23, 2006, 01:35 AM | #
Venecan,
Boy, you are Malcolm A. II, or perhaps Malcolm posting under a different name. Why don’t you cite references from peer-reviewed journals to back up your contentions that I am disputing?
If there is proof of three races only, then why are you not able to cite evidence for it in peer-reviewed journals? I cited a paper previously by Li et al. that shows that there are 8 major types of skulls among humans, including an India type and a European type. Thus, Indian skulls are different from European skulls to such an extent as to be assigned their own major cluster. Why have you ignored this evidence?
If you consider the 2005 Rosenberg et al. study that I cited previously, the study design is ideally suited for determining the minimum number of races in humans. Let us consider two possible scenarios: 1) there is a European race, or 2) there is a Caucasoid race stretching from Northern Europe to India. If the latter is true, you will observe that a number of people from Northern Europe to India have exclusive membership in a single cluster, say cluster A, and that of all people in this region that have membership in multiple clusters, most have the vast majority of their membership in cluster A. Thus, cluster A is appropriately called something other that a European cluster or white cluster, and the term would obviously be a Caucasoid cluster or Caucasoid race. But no such thing is observed. What is observed by Rosenberg et al. and other current studies is that you obtain a cluster, say cluster B, such that a number of Europeans have exclusive membership in cluster B only; of all native Europeans that have membership in multiple clusters, most have the vast majority of their membership in cluster B; and outside of Europe, only a miniscule proportion of people have the vast majority of their membership in cluster B. Thus, what should cluster B be called? Cluster B is obviously the European race or white race, and if you chose to call cluster B the Caucasoid race, then Caucasoid is synonymous with European.
You have mentioned Greeks being closer to people in Iran than in Northern Europe, and that this should undermine the notion of a European race. This is an incorrect idea. Greeks are bound to be genetically closer to geographically adjacent Middle Eastern populations than geographically distant Northern Europeans on several, though not all traits. Indeed, Rosenberg et al.’s 2005 study shows that there is clear evidence of clinal variation, i.e., generally you will be genetically closer to your neighbors than to more distant populations, with some exceptions if natural barriers that separate people, like mountains or deserts, are present, but notwithstanding clinal variation, there are still clusters, and Rosenberg et al. (2005), whose study is the most comprehensive, rigorous, and methodologically sound so far, have not found any evidence for a cluster that characterizes the majority of the population ranging from Europe to the Northwestern part of South Asia, but they have found clear evidence of a European racial cluster. Europeans are not the only people who have membership in this cluster. Thus, someone with 20% European ancestry has a fifth of his membership in the European cluster, but he will obviously not be called a European or be part of the European race. Similarly, the South Asian whose profile from DNAPrint genomics I have shown previously has about half of his membership in the European cluster and the other half in non-European clusters (African, East Asian, Native American). Since of all 4 groups that this South Asian has membership in, the contribution of the European cluster is the greatest, in a genetic tree, this person will attach to the branch that has contributed the greatest fraction, which will be European, but to infer from this tree that this person is part of the same race that Europeans belong to is absurd. This person is no more a part of the race to which Europeans belong than someone who is half white and half black is a member of the race to which Europeans belong. Look again at the Sahoo et al. paper for evidence that the Aryans left little genetic impact in India.
You have called Australian aboriginals a type of archaic Caucasoid! Are you deranged? Do you have any evidence to cite? You need to look at the following.
In a study involving 23 linear skull measurements, Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians clustered with Negroes and Early Iranians (from Bronze-Iron age to Islamic period through Achaemenian, Dailaman district of north Iran). The Australo-Melanesian and Negroid skulls were so different from those of other humans that they made the Europeans and East Asians cluster together, but you do know that there are plenty of differences between European and East Asian skulls.
The important point is that one doesn’t need a study to show that Australoids are not any kind of Caucasoid, primitive or otherwise; C.M. did not bother to cite any literature, but he has provided an appropriate comment:
hindus are worse than retarded, abos are a kind of caucasian?! These australoids are a kind of caucasians in the words of the dumb hindu. No comment is needed here. It’s not sane.Look at the following graph and notice the factor marked by the red arrow, which is separating the Australo-Melanesian plus Negroid plus Early Iranian cluster from other populations. You will notice a cline from Africa to Europe. Thus, humans that moved from Africa to Europe were the ones who acquired Caucasoid features, but the Africans also moved east through India to Australia. Thus, are there any reasons to believe that the initial out-of-Africa aboriginal humans that settled in India were a type of archaic Caucasoids? These aboriginals had features that were generally Negroid or else their largely unchanged—in looks—descendents in SE Asia would not cluster with Negroids when it comes to similarity of skull shape.
Ref: Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996;99:389-412.
Now look at the picture of the following untouchable from India, taken from National Geographic. Do you see a primitive Caucasoid? I see something closer to a Negroid than a Caucasoid in your 3-race scheme, and the Veddah, aboriginal, Dravidian and untouchable people are much closer to this untouchable in looks than they are to Europeans.
Untouchables are a sizeable minority of the Indian population, about a fourth of Indians according to this site, but I don’t know the true figure.
If you look at the Sahoo et al. citation mentioned previously, you will note that the genetic distance between the caste groups in India and the tribals/aboriginals is a small fraction of the genetic distance between the caste groups and Western Europeans. Thus, there is no way Indian caste groups can be classified in the race of whites but not these untouchables and aboriginals, and anyone who thinks that these Australoid/Negroid-looking aboriginals can be classified as Caucasoid has to be insane. Clearly, if there were only 3 races, then Indians would best be classified as a type of Negroids.
In the picture below, the men can easily pass as East Indian.
However, the men above are the Wodaabe of West Africa, and if they are Negroids, then too many East Indians look Negroid enough, and some look much more Negroid, to be easily classified as Negroids in a 3-race-only scheme.
How can you say that “None of the citations you provided prove much about the physical build about Indians”? Did you even bother to look at the studies? The studies clearly show that if you match Indians and whites on BMI (body mass index, which is the weight divided by the square of height), then Indians have more body fat, i.e., less muscle and less skeletal mass. Alternatively, if you match Indians and whites with respect to percentage body fat, then Indians have a lower BMI. Indians are born with less muscle and skeletal mass, even in Western nations, as shown by the studies cited. Also, this is consistent with common observation and the fact that Indians almost never win Olympic medals, thanks to their poor physical builds. Similarly, Indian bodybuilders have never made their mark in international professional bodybuilding because of their poor physical builds. Black Africa has a worse problem with malnutrition, yet it produces people with better physical builds than India does.
Posted by J Richards on May 23, 2006, 01:37 AM | #
Venecan,
Richard Lynn adjusted Indian IQ scores for the Flynn effect; see his calculations. Your idea about adding 20-40 points is absurd. Spectacular gains in IQ have mostly been demonstrated in Northern Europe and are larger for culture-free IQ tests; the IQ increase is not related to the g factor (crystallized g; see second citation below). More importantly, it has been shown that this gain was mostly in the lower half of the bell curve, thereby relating the Flynn effect to improved nutrition. There was little gain in the right of the bell curve. Citation:
Colom, R., Lluis-Font, J.M., and Andrés-Pueyo, A. (2005). “The generational intelligence gains are caused by decreasing variance in the lower half of the distribution: Supporting evidence for the nutrition hypothesis”. Intelligence 33: 83-91.
Therefore, the top intellectual brass has not benefited from the Flynn effect, but you can see that India, in spite of its population size, has only had a miniscule number of Nobel Prizes in science, and as I have mentioned previously, Indians are not found among the top performers in the most advanced tests of software coding prowess (ACM competitions, topcoder data, etc.). Thus, there is a big gap between the top intellectual brass of India and the top intellectual brass of Europe and NE Asia, which is in excellent agreement with the average IQ of India being [genetically] much lower than in Europe and NE Asia. Don’t tell me that better nutrition will translate to more Indians winning Nobel Prizes. Indians on the right side of the bell curve mostly have the resources to eat enough, and as pointed by others, American blacks have plenty to eat, but their average IQ remains abysmal.
Also, I cited a paper showing a very strong negative correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ (r = -0.92), i.e., the darker the population, the dumber it is. Even in Europe this correlation is -0.63, and in East Asia this correlation is -0.55. Cranial capacity increases with distance from the equator (r = 0.62). Why Should India be an exception to this global pattern? Also, in my previous response to you, I cited evidence that the black-East Indian-white IQ gap, where the East Indians were much closer to blacks, was a Jensen effect, i.e., related to the general intelligence factor, i.e., genetics. However, the Flynn effect is not related to the g factor:
Rushton, J. P. (1999). “Secular Gains in IQ Not Related to the g Factor and Inbreeding Depression--Unlike Black-White Differences: A Reply to Flynn”. Personality and Individual Differences 26: 381-389.
Think again, do you really believe that the average person in Northern Europe was mentally retarded in the early twentieth century? Your interpretation of the Flynn effect is flawed. Once again, the Flynn effect is not related to the g factor. Thus, the black-white IQ gap has remained unchanged, notwithstanding the Flynn effect, and Indians remain closer to blacks in IQ than whites.
Besides, I’d be impressed if you cite evidence that the children of Indian immigrants to the West grow a foot taller than their parents.
If you come to a thread late, it is your responsibility to read what has transpired before firing off comments or else you will frustrate people who have already dealt with the issues you bring up. For instance, you have mentioned:
India has produced an early civilization, some of the greatest mathematicians, freakishly prodigous calculating prodigees, a high frequency of engineers, and more billionaires per capita than many European countries. Indeed, despite the high cognitive and economic performance of many Mongoloid countries, the richest person in all of Asia is Indian. Further India has one of the world’s largest populations, and because of the historic gene mixing in India, India enjoys the genetic benefits of heterosis which is known to enhance all dominant polygenetic traits.
Why should one believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was a product of the dark people of India? Why is there no early civilization anywhere in the South, where the darkest Indians are found? A handful of calculating prodigies doesn’t mean anything. The important ability in science and math is mathematical modeling, not the ability to perform calculations, which are easily achieved by a computer. India’s engineers are not renowned for engineering prowess. India has a large population because Western medicine and food cut its child mortality sharply. You have mentioned heterosis, which supposedly occurred in India as a result of race mixing, failed to cite any supporting evidence for hybrid vigor, and ignored my citation of the negative health consequences of race mixing in humans, which is confirmed by some loss of morphological integration in the skull resulting from race mixing, both apparently related to the disruption of co-adapted gene complexes.
Anyway, you need to cite peer-reviewed journal articles (not books) to support your major points, or else don’t bother commenting here.
Posted by dan mohan on May 23, 2006, 04:20 AM | #
HELLO J. RICHARDS,
Oh you is it essential every women to look NOrdic to be beautiful.If so why dont these nordic women come in the list of the most beautiful womens in the world.LOOk at aishwarya rai is so so beautiful and her figure is not that good you have compared her figure to a nordic women but hey GUys look at the face ot that nordic women in BIKni beside RAi i felt like vomiting she has only good figure but in looks she falls no where.
Hello the PHOTO OF WOMEN NEXT TO SONALI BENDRE SEE THOSE WHITE PATCHES ON HER FACE AND DOWN ONE WITH THAT BLACK DOTS THESE ARE HOW MOST OF THE WHITE WOMEN LOOK LIKE WITH THAT UNGLY PATCES ON SKIN.
NOW LOOK AT THE WOMEN NEXT TO URMILA, AGAIN THAT SO CALLED NORDIC BEAUTY HAS THAT DARK DIRTY PATCHES AND IN LOOKS SHE IS NOT EVEN GOOD TO LICK THE FOOT OF URMILA .
THIS IS NOT DONE YOU TAKE THE PHOTOS OF THE BEST NORDICS WOMEN IN THIER BEST MAKE UP POSSIBLE(EVEN THAT DOES NOT WORK) AND COMPARE TO OTHERS AND MANY OF THE PHOTOS OF INDIAN WOMEN ARE BURRED AND DO NOT SHOW THERE REAL BEAUTY.
CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING IS ALL NORDIC WOMEN BEAUTIFUL AND ALL LOOK LIKE THE ONES IN THAT PHOTO WITH THE FEATURES YOU HAVE SAID ,IT IS IMPOSSIBLE .
Posted by anjali on May 23, 2006, 04:51 AM | #
if because of the angle of the photo you could not see how plain charlize is then here is another shot front on
in your earlier post you critisise aishwaryas physique...now have a good look at that top pic...charlizes body which has no feminine curves whatsoever...in the pic below she has either put weight on, on her stomach or has no chest...either way it is unproportional and unnattractive…
even i an admit that charlize is in fact quite attractive with makeup, the pictures you have posted above all show charlize with makeup and additionally have been airbrushed...she looks much different without it as u can see in the top photos...i can show you pics of aish rai from diff angles as well…
Posted by TJ on May 23, 2006, 04:53 AM | #
Why do the aboriginies people of Australia have natural blonde hair?
Posted by Mr Gonzo on May 23, 2006, 06:30 AM | #
Have anybody heard of Nancy Etcoff’s “Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty”. How does her theory on natural selection factor in on how certain groups of people have certain characteristics?
Posted by venecan on May 23, 2006, 06:50 AM | #
J Richards,
As I’ve already explained to you multiple times, proof for the three-race model was comprehensively demonstrated by the authoritative and exstensively peer reviewed analysis of Cavalli-Sforza which very clearly showed a Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid branch of the human tree. You of all people should know this since you posted a copy of that very tree in this thread and you should also know that Indians fall clearly and unambiguously on the Caucasoid Branch. You can argue that this is an artifact of European admixture but many people question whether the lighter skin tones in Northern India reflect Eruopean genes or simply climatic adaptations to cooler climate up North. Moreoever, the unmixed black skinned Dravidians of South India also fall clearly on the Caucasoid branch. In addition to Indians, there are many other non-white populations of Arab ancestry, that also fall neatly on the Caucasoid branch and you see a very clear and continuous gradient from the black-skinned Dravidians at one extreme to the fair skinned Danish and British at the other (with the brown skinned Southern Europeans and Arabs intermediate).
The genetic tree shows no abrupt split between whites and non-white Caucasoids, but rather a series of tiny divisions between populations settling in warmer and warmer climates. Of course some of the differences are going to be more than skin deep and it’s always possible to differentiate the skulls of the darkest caucasoids from the lightest, but the tree implies that Dravidians, Arabs, and Europeans all split off of the same very recent ancestral population. Nordics simply became a lot lighter so that their skin could absorb vitamin D, while light skinned genes were weeded out as Caucasians traveled South within India.
The Cavalli-Sforza tree you posted clearly shows that humans emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago, with an African non-African split about 110,000 years ago. Shortly after that Australian aboriginals split off the non-Africans but it wasn’t until 41,000 years ago that non-Africans split between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The split between European Caucasoids and non-European Caucasoids happened only about 15,000 years ago, and among white caucasoids, Nordics emerged only several thousand years ago.
The untouchable women you posted look Negroid in color but have classic Southern European features and hair type. In fact if you painted them white they would blend right in within Europe. I think you’re far too obsessed with color when assessing racial variation. Any race will turn black when migrating South, and a Negroid tribe in a dim-lit environment would turn white within a few thousand years to absorb vitamin D. Does that mean they have suddenly become Caucasoid? Of course not.
And yes I’m well aware that there are some Negroid populations that also have Caucasoid features, however their tight curly hair is unlike Caucasoid hair and more importantly, unlike Dravidians, they sit on the Negroid branch of the genetic linkage tree you posted (again please study it!) and not the Cuacasoid branch with the Dravidians, Arabs, and Europeans.
With respect to the Flynn Effect, how can you argue that the exceedingly low IQ’s obtained by early 20th century whites were not valid, but the low scores of contemporary Indians are. Early 20th century whites not only enjoyed a better standard of lving than today’s Indians but also were part of the culture that created the test. How could IQ tests be culturally biased against the early 20th century white population that created those tests yet not biased against people living in rural poverty in a completely different culture, on a different continent, with different languages, religions and custums. If IQ tests can not bridge the subtle and almost invisible cultural differences that separate generations within the same country, how can they possibly bridge the gap between radically different ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups living at opposite ends of the Earth?
Also the Flynn Effect is far too large to only be explained by the left end of the curve. To see IQ’s rise by 20-40 points without the right side rising too would require an absurdly high fraction of the left end having once been in the severely retarded range.
And who cares how many Nobel Prize winners India has. India has produced the wealthiest man in all of Asia, one of the greatest mathematicians in all of history, and U.S. citizens of Indian descent are overrepresented among well-to-do Americans (see the Forbes 400) which indicates they have the resourcefulness to solve the most important problems of everyday life and adapt in a competetive world.
If the Raven IQ scores of the British and the Dutch can sky-rocket by well over 20 points, than the severly malnourished and understimulated rural Indian villaigers can do the same, especially since unlike the British and Dutch, they approach these Western tests from a completely different culture.
The negative correlation between national skin color and national IQ score is not very interesting since it doesn’t control fro the massive Flynn Effect which white countries are known to be ahead on. But you asked how Indians could be an exception to this global trend. Didn’t you also claim Indians were physically inferior. Well than perhaps I should point to the well known global trend of dark skinned people dominating physical competetions in everything from boxing, to sprinting, to basketball, and ask why you consider Indians an exception to this global trend?
Posted by J Richards on May 23, 2006, 01:21 PM | #
Anjali,
Damn! I told you that I did not want this thread to digress into a who-has-the ugliest-women contest. Malcolm specifically asked me to compare Aishwarya Rai’s physique with any Nordic woman of my choice, and I used pictures of her physique that were taken in her twenties. However, I did not ask you to use the physique of Charlize Theron for any purpose. Just look at the Nordic physiques that I have shown previously and ask yourself if I would recommend Charlize Theron for a physique comparison. Charlize never had a good physique. On top of this, you find paparazzi pictures of her at the beach in her 30s!
All her multi-angle face pics show her in her 20s. Women become more masculine and less attractive as they age. So what is the bright idea behind using pictures of her past her prime?
The following pictures of her physique are from her 20s, and her body looked a lot better then, though it is wasn’t much of a sexy physique, but her physique was overall a little better than Aishwarya’s in her early twenties.
I am sick of having to deal with Aishwarya Rai. I don’t know what is up with you Hindus; what do you see in her? Anyway, I will compare her face with Charlize Theron’s.
The following collage shows, on the left, an older Charlize and an older Aishwarya, both with makeup. Notice that their faces are masculinized compared to their early twenties; this happens with aging, but Aishwarya looks a lot more masculine. The rightmost picture is that of an older (30s), fatter Charlize without makeup, and with corrugated brows and lighting that makes her upper nose look pinched. How do you think Aishwarya would look in a similar position? I’d wager that she would look a lot worse; even with makeup, she looks worse than Charlize on the right.
The following picture contrasts the hooked nose of Aishwarya with the straight nose of Charlize, and the difference is because of anatomy, not makeup or airbrushing. Also note the roundish skull of Aishwarya, which is flattened at the backside. I dislike these skulls and prefer the elongated Nordic skull as in Charlize, but those who are into East Asian skulls will have a different opinion.
The following picture compares a young Charlize with a young Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader face, more massive cheekbones and more massive jaws.
The following picture compares an older Charlize with an older Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader and uglier nose than Charlize, and also looks more masculine than Charlize.
The following picture compares an older Charlize with Aishwarya, both with makeup, and it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader and flatter face, and I suppose those who are into East Asians would better appreciate Aishwarya.
Besides, if Aishwarya were walking at the beach in a bikini with the flabby physique she presented at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, I’d bet her physique would look a lot worse than the physique of Charlize in the paparazzi pictures.
In other words, if you match Charlize and Aishwarya with respect to age and presence/absence of makeup, Charlize will beat Aishwarya hands down.
Once again, don’t make this thread degenerate toward a who-has-the ugliest-women contest.
I will reply to the others soon.
Posted by Anon on May 23, 2006, 08:18 PM | #
EC said:
I think your premise is faulty. You aren’t comparing apples to apples. In the above you mention “pale, freakled, blonde nordic women” and compare them to the top 1% of beautiful women that are not Nordic.
I am comparing Ash Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington and Angelina Jolie to the most beautiful nordic women that JR has posted here. Thats all. Since he hasnt been specific as to who exactly is the most beautiful, lets assume that they are all his idea of a good looking woman. Therefore, I am comparing apples to apples. And dont be mistaken here. Northern European (Scandinavean) and Southern European (Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) women have about as much in common as Northern European women have in common with Arab or Indian women. he discussion was never about European or not European. We are discussing nordic women and whether they are any challenge to dark featured women. Going by all of the Nordics posted on this thread, it is clear that none of these women are a match to the women I have mentioned. They are so far off that even comparing them would be absurd.
Posted by Anon on May 23, 2006, 08:33 PM | #
Furthermore, pale, frekled, blonde just about describes the nordics. No more and no less.
More coming soon.
Posted by dan mohan on May 24, 2006, 03:21 AM | #
DEAR ANON
OH god look at that nose of Charlize DOES IT NOT LOOK LIKE A PIG NOSE . AISHWARYA RAI SHE IS VOTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. AND YOUR Charlize DOES SHE EXIST IN ANY OF THESE LIST.SHE HAS 17,000 WEB SITES DEDICATED TO HER NAME AROUND THE WORLD.ALL THESE PEOPLE DOES NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM IN HER FEATURES.
THE MISS WORLD ORGANISATION HAS DECLARED THAT SHE IS THE PERFECT AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE CROWM TILL DATE.I THINK SO MANY WHITES HAS WON THE MISS WORLD CROWN INCLUDING NORDIC WOMEN WHERE ARE THEY ?A SIMLPE ANSWER AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER.
THE DUTCH PEOPLE HAS NAMED A NEW VARIETY OT A TULIP FLOWER IN AISHWARYA’S NAME NOT ANY NORDIC WOMEN.
DEAR ANON WAKE UP YOU ARE LIVING IN THE 21’T CENTURY NOW THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM ACROSS THE WORLD NOT JUST WHITE
Posted by dan mohan on May 24, 2006, 03:28 AM | #
DEAR J RICHARDS
OH god look at that nose of Charlize DOES IT NOT LOOK LIKE A PIG NOSE . AISHWARYA RAI SHE IS VOTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. AND YOUR Charlize DOES SHE EXIST IN ANY OF THESE LIST.SHE HAS 17,000 WEB SITES DEDICATED TO HER NAME AROUND THE WORLD.ALL THESE PEOPLE DOES NOT FIND ANY PROBLEM IN HER FEATURES.
THE MISS WORLD ORGANISATION HAS DECLARED THAT SHE IS THE PERFECT AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE CROWM TILL DATE.I THINK SO MANY WHITES HAS WON THE MISS WORLD CROWN INCLUDING NORDIC WOMEN WHERE ARE THEY ?A SIMLPE ANSWER AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER.
THE DUTCH PEOPLE HAS NAMED A NEW VARIETY OT A TULIP FLOWER IN AISHWARYA’S NAME NOT ANY NORDIC WOMEN.
DEAR ANON WAKE UP YOU ARE LIVING IN THE 21’T CENTURY NOW THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM ACROSS THE WORLD NOT JUST WHITE
Posted by Arvind Kelkar on May 24, 2006, 07:39 AM | #
Firstly, as one has already pointed out, beauty is very subjective. It’s not true that all Indians prefer Nordics. I, for one, think Afghanis have the best features in the world, in terms of their ruggedness and Iranis, in terms of their complexion (Heard the phrase “Persian beauty"). It’s just that being Muslim, they do not suit Western sensibilities, but with a good shave and western clothes, most Afghan males and females could easily beat your so-called good looking people. (Now, please don’t post the ugliest pic of an Afghani man or woman.) You remember the best National Geographic cover image? That girl is Aghani by ethnicity.
Some men prefer Mongoloid features, some prefer Indian, some prefer Nordic. How can you be so sure that everybody prefers Nordics? That’s a gross generalization. In terms of figure and sex appeal, Brazilians and latinos beat almost everybody, but again, that’s MY opinion, and as you have clearly shown, you prefer Nordic women over others. Again, that’s YOUR taste.
Indians do use a lot of face-whitening creams, but that’s because they want to look fairer, and NOT WHITE or European.
The same way, so many whites use darkening creams, definitely not because they want to look Indian.
Secondly, your so-called advanced civilization has its roots in the Greek civilization, do you agree? And greeks are closer to Indians and Iranians, as someone already pointed out before.
It’s definitely NOT nordic.
I don’t want to get into this which-race-is-superior rubbish, nor do I want to get into a diatribe like Anjali and insult other races, but the facts are clear.
Most Nobel prize winners are Jewish.
Most Ivy League colleges in the US were dominated by Jewish students, but are slowly being replaced by SURPRISE Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs (Your usage of the word Hindu to describe most Indians is most erroneous. Hinduism is a religion, it does not describe ethnicity, the same way Christian does not mean a White European).
The national IQ average in the US is high primarily because immigrants like the Chinese and the Indians excel in school. Look at the results of any spelling bee contest in the US. It’s true that Silicon Valley hires a lot of Indians to reduce costs. But even the upper end in technology is still dominated by Indians.
You may still choose to ignore all these facts.
I don’t blame you.
After all, someone who has wasted so much energy trying to prove that “Nordic women are the most beautiful”, needs to find a hobby. Race is a complicated issue. You may call yourself white, but you may have mongoloid blood in you, courtesy Genghiz Khan and his hordes who spread their semen across Europe. By calling Indians Negroid, and that too based on photographs (!!!!!), you’ve shown how flawed your research methodology is.
Posted by J Richards on May 25, 2006, 05:07 PM | #
Dan Mohan,
A woman does not have to look Nordic to be beautiful. As to why the Nordic women that I have shown are generally not among the list of the most beautiful women in the world, you should take a look at the women in these lists. When you see the likes of Gisele Bundchen, Halle Berry and Cindy Crawford in these lists, it is obvious that these lists have little to do with beauty, just as contemporary beauty contests have little to do with beauty. On the other hand, it is obvious what kind of women are most desired internationally: Nordic women. For instance, in the U.S., blonde hair dye outsells all other hair dyes by a huge margin among young women, and people around the globe seeking cosmetic surgery to improve their faces try to make their faces shift closer to the Euro-Nordic average.
Like a number of Hindus, you seize on to freckles, ignoring the fact that most of the Nordic women shown do not have freckles. You will note that since your co-ethnic signing as Malcolm A challenged me to compare the looks of Hindu women he pointed out with Nordic women, I have made an attempt to use clear pictures showing women roughly posed at similar angles. Thus, your objection about picking Nordic women in their best makeup and Indian women at their worst is not applicable. Makeup generally hides blemishes such as scars, acne, freckles, etc., does not alter gross face shape, and does little to alter minor shape variation by using optical illusions. Since we are not comparing pigmentation, though a number of Hindus keep bringing it up, the extent of makeup is irrelevant to assessing gross face shape variables such as face width, nose width, nostril shape, cheekbone prominence, nose profile, etc.
Extensive makeup and excessive lighting use are quite common in the photos of Hindu celebrities. Hindus appear to have a preference for light skin and thereby use excessive lighting to make the skin look lighter, making facial features more difficult to discern. Thus, if I seek a picture where the lighting is not excessive, the ethnic features of the Hindu women will be clearer, and the very fact that you Hindus consider such photographs to be less attractive shows a bias among you toward less ethnic features, i.e., more European facial features.
On the other hand, I am not surprised that you Hindus cannot see the difference between make-up enhanced skin features and gross face shape variables that are not altered by makeup, which is what the comparisons should focus on. There are comments here by Hindus/Indians along the lines of Australian aborigines being a type of primitive Caucasian, the untouchables of India shown within this thread looking like darker-skinned versions of Southern Europeans, the likes of Bridgette Bardot and Jennifer Aniston supposedly being Nordic, Hispanics such as Cameron Diaz and Christina Aguilera being Nordic, and so on. A Northern European can only be at a loss for words.
You have repeated Malcolm’s argument regarding the huge number of websites devoted to Aishwarya and the accolades she has received. Given the huge number of East Indians, it should not be surprising that thousands of sites are devoted to her. Additionally, one does not judge how beautiful a woman is by considering the praise her looks have received, but by looking at the woman, and Aishwarya’s degree of attractiveness is obvious in the pictures above.
I do not know why you call the facial features of the Nordic woman whom I have used to compare Aishwarya Rai’s physique with repulsive—you can hardly make out her facial features, and if after all the pictures of Aishwarya Rai shown within this thread, you still believe she has a really good looking face, then whereas I can understand where you are coming from, i.e., the normative looks of Hindu women, I hope that Lord Shiva grants you a better aesthetic sense.
To answer your last question in the first comment left by you, not all Nordic women look the same or like the women shown within this thread.
--------------------------------
TJ,
Only some Australian aborigine tribes have blonde hair, and when they do, it is rare in adults and usually found in children. I am not familiar with the genetics involved.
--------------------------------
Mr. Gonzo,
Nancy Etcoff has presented a lot of data in her book, but not much of an analysis. She does not address racial variation to the best of my recollection. Racial variation in physical features are not solely a function of natural selection. Random genetic drift and sexual selection are also involved, and this entry specifically addresses more intense sexual selection among Northern Europeans compared to other populations.
--------------------------------
Comments on Anon:
Going by all of the Nordics posted on this thread, it is clear that none of these women are a match to the women I have mentioned [Aishwarya Rai, Monica Belluci, Christy Turlington and Angelina Jolie]. They are so far off that even comparing them would be absurd.
This statement is coming from a person who also wrote the following:
And dont be mistaken here. Northern European (Scandinavean) and Southern European (Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian) women have about as much in common as Northern European women have in common with Arab or Indian women.
How deluded can Hindus be? You should not be mistaken. Southern European women are closer to Northern European women in facial features than Indian women, on average, including upper caste Indian women.
Anyway, the facial features of Aishwarya Rai and Angelina Jolie, shown above, are seen for what they are. Christy Turlington is attractive, but then my argument certainly isn’t that only Nordic women can be attractive. As far as Monica Belluci goes, she is a little too masculine for my tastes, but some men are into somewhat masculine women and a young Monica would qualify as a good looking woman.
The original statement is again coming from a person who wrote the following:
Furthermore, pale, frekled, blonde just about describes the nordics. No more and no less.
Most Nordic women shown here are not freckled, and those who tan themselves are not pale. Additionally, not all Nordics are blond; usually only a minority of Northern European adults are blond except for some parts of Scandinavia; some even have black hair.
Posted by J Richards on May 25, 2006, 05:39 PM | #
Venecan,
As I’ve already explained to you multiple times, proof for the three-race model was comprehensively demonstrated by the authoritative and exstensively peer reviewed analysis of Cavalli-Sforza which very clearly showed a Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid branch of the human tree.
I am sorry but you have not explained anything in this regard. All you have done is repeat your assertion without citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals. Cavalli-Sforza has not shown that all humans are classifiable into three racial groups. The cover picture of his book belies your claim as you can see more than three color bands. Once again, note that Caucasoid = green and green is not the color assigned to India. I have cited molecular evidence published from 1993 onwards, and it shows at least 5 races among humans. You have just ignored this evidence.
You of all people should know this since you posted a copy of that very tree in this thread and you should also know that Indians fall clearly and unambiguously on the Caucasoid Branch.
This is a gross misunderstanding for several reasons:
1) Cavalli-Sforza used too few markers to answer the race question. Besides, the gold standard in showing the existence of race is to use neutral markers since loci involved in gene expression can both be very different or hardly different between populations, depending on selection pressures. The 1988 study whose genetic tree I posted did not focus on neutral markers.
2) You can see the NE Asian group clustering with the group labeled Caucasoid rather than SE Asians. How is this compatible with a 3-race classification scheme?
3) Regardless of whether variation between populations is clinal only, racial only or both clinal and racial, one will obtain genetic trees. Thus, genetic trees by themselves do not prove the existence of race, let alone classify all populations within the same branch into the same race. The proper statistical tools that prove the existence of categories within a dataset are discriminant analysis, cluster analysis and taxonometrics, and none of these analyses appeared in the paper.
4) Mixed race groups will attach in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction, but this cannot be said to imply that they are thus part of the same race as the branch which they join. Thus, the Berbers, Lapps and Dravidians left the cluster labeled Caucasoid in 20%, 32% and 20% of the bootstrap runs, respectively. Why should this be he case if they belong to same race as whites do?
The genetic tree shows no abrupt split between whites and non-white Caucasoids, but rather a series of tiny divisions between populations settling in warmer and warmer climates.
There is no abrupt split between races. Clinal variation is a reality and races tend to blend into each other at the boundary of contact.
...but the tree implies that Dravidians, Arabs, and Europeans all split off of the same very recent ancestral population.
This is an absurdity. A child born of a white European and a black American (say, 80% black African, 15% European, 5% Native American) will be approximately 57.5% European, 40% black African and 2.5% Native American). In the genetic tree, this person will be grouped with the branch that has contributed the greatest fraction, i.e., European. Will you then conclude that this person belongs to the same race that whites belong to? Alternatively, let there be a population where the typical DNA profile is that of this child. Will you conclude that this population and Europeans split off of the same very recent ancestral population? Don’t be absurd.
The Cavalli-Sforza tree you posted clearly shows that humans emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago, with an African non-African split about 110,000 years ago. Shortly after that Australian aboriginals split off the non-Africans but it wasn’t until 41,000 years ago that non-Africans split between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The split between European Caucasoids and non-European Caucasoids happened only about 15,000 years ago, and among white caucasoids, Nordics emerged only several thousand years ago.
The tree shown shows no such thing. No dating work was involved in the study.
The untouchable women you posted look Negroid in color but have classic Southern European features and hair type. In fact if you painted them white they would blend right in within Europe. I think you’re far too obsessed with color when assessing racial variation.
Wow! I am at a loss for words, but if Australian aborigines look like primitive Caucasoids to you, then why should I be surprised that the untouchable women shown within this thread look like darker versions of Southern Europeans to you? Toward the beginning of my debate with Malcolm, he asked for proof that there are statistically significant differences between the facial features of Northern Europeans and South Asians!!! Some great perception you guys have.
With respect to the Flynn Effect, how can you argue that the exceedingly low IQ’s obtained by early 20th century whites were not valid, but the low scores of contemporary Indians are. Early 20th century whites not only enjoyed a better standard of lving than today’s Indians but also were part of the culture that created the test.
You apparently have not understood what I have written. Richard Lynn adjusted the IQ scores of all nations with reference to the international average of the Flynn effect, i.e., a 3-point IQ rise per decade. Thus, the Indian scores have been adjusted just like the European scores have been adjusted, but a massive gap remains. For instance, Lynn used a study of 5,607 Indians that revealed an average IQ of 77, but he added 4 points to this to adjust for the Flynn effect in reference to the date of publication, and recorded it as 81. Regarding the low IQs obtained by whites around the mid-20th century, the fact is that this was mostly due to lower scoring in the left half of the bell curve, and the typical European was not a mentally retarded person then. IQ tests were valid for Europeans in the past just as they are valid for Europeans in the present. Besides, your figures are inflated. The documented rise in International average IQ is 15 points over a period of 50 years in the 20th century, i.e., 1 SD; higher values are true for only some Northern European nations. Similarly, the height increase in Europe around the same time has also been 1SD, not something much more spectacular.
How could IQ tests be culturally biased against the early 20th century white population that created those tests yet not biased against people living in rural poverty in a completely different culture, on a different continent, with different languages, religions and custums.
Who has said that IQ tests were culturally biased against Europeans in the early 20th century?
Also the Flynn Effect is far too large to only be explained by the left end of the curve. To see IQ’s rise by 20-40 points without the right side rising too would require an absurdly high fraction of the left end having once been in the severely retarded range.
Why don’t you make an effort to read the references that I cite? Firstly, the rise has been, on average, 15 points in 50 years. Secondly, I said that the rise was mostly in the lower half of the bell curve. I did not say that there was no rise in the right half of the bell curve. I will address the main data table from the Colom et al. study that I referenced, which found a rise of 9.7 IQ points over a period of 30 years in Spain, which is in excellent agreement with the international average.
In the following table, the increase in raw IQ scores of the lowest IQ group (1st percentile) is 30%! To call this amazing is an understatement. However, the increase in raw IQ scores of the highest IQ group (99th percentile) is 1.5%, and the actual raw score increase for this group is one-ninth of the lowest IQ group. You can see that the bulk of the change is in the left half of the bell curve.
Thus, if malnutrition is eliminated in India, Indians having an IQ in the neighborhood of 50 will see a spectacular increase in IQ and quickly reach their genetic potential, but even after reaching their genetic potential, their IQ will still be in the retarded range. A rise in IQ will be much less for an average Indian and hardly any for the brightest Indians. Now, low-end scientific work requires an IQ of 110-plus, high-end scientific work requires an IQ of 120-plus and Nobel prize-caliber scientific work requires an average IQ of 145. Indians having an IQ of 125-plus will be in the 3 SD-plus group (99.998th percentile). What would be the Flynn effect IQ gain in this group? Virtually nothing!
Posted by J Richards on May 25, 2006, 05:48 PM | #
Venecan,
And who cares how many Nobel Prize winners India has. India has produced the wealthiest man in all of Asia, one of the greatest mathematicians in all of history, and U.S. citizens of Indian descent are overrepresented among well-to-do Americans (see the Forbes 400) which indicates they have the resourcefulness to solve the most important problems of everyday life and adapt in a competetive world.
Nobel prizes and equivalent accolades do matter because they reveal how capable Indians are of contributing to top-notch scientific and engineering work, and the Indian representation here has been miniscule, and this is how it will remain for a long time to come. It is clear that the top intellectual brass of Indians is no match for the top intellectual brass of Europe and NE Asia, and this is in excellent agreement with all the evidence pointing to a genetically determined considerably lower average IQ among Indians compared to Europeans and NE Asians.
The negative correlation between national skin color and national IQ score is not very interesting since it doesn’t control fro the massive Flynn Effect which white countries are known to be ahead on. But you asked how Indians could be an exception to this global trend. Didn’t you also claim Indians were physically inferior. Well than perhaps I should point to the well known global trend of dark skinned people dominating physical competetions in everything from boxing, to sprinting, to basketball, and ask why you consider Indians an exception to this global trend?
You need to read the papers before criticizing them. The IQ scores used to arrive at the “darker the population, the dumber it is” rule were adjusted for the Flynn effect, i.e., whether the IQ score of a nation increased or not between the time of the IQ test and the time of the calculations, all IQ scores were adjusted at the international average rate of a 3-point rise per decade, and a correlation of -0.92 simply cannot be dismissed. A useless assessment will not reveal such an amazingly high correlation.
What global trend is there of dark-skinned people dominating sports? Most sports are dominated by whites. Even if you consider running where West Africans are the best sprinters and Kenyans the best competitors in some long-distance events, West Africans are not present among long-distance runners and Kenyans are not present among the top sprinters, but whites are second to only West Africans in sprinting, second to only Kenyans in the long-distance running events dominated by Kenyans, and top performers in other long-distance running events. Thus, overall, whites are the best athletes.
The impression of black athletic superiority results from a very superficial examination of sporting events. For instance blacks dominate prominent team sports such as American football and basketball, which are observed by many, but individual sports where whites dominate have a lesser fan following, and these white athletes are not as well known. In addition, the mainstream media lavish more praise upon top black athletes than top white athletes, and are less critical of black athletes for fear of racism. If you go through the massive documentation at castefootball.us, you will encounter plenty of evidence showing that some of the overrepresentation of blacks in American football and basketball is a result of anti-white discrimination...I am not kidding.
Posted by J Richards on May 25, 2006, 05:58 PM | #
Arvind Kelkar,
If your idea of an attractive Afghan woman is the woman shown in the famous National Geographic cover, Sharbat Gula, then you apparently have weird taste. She looks really masculine as an adult.
How can you be so sure that everybody prefers Nordics? That’s a gross generalization.
I have never made this generalization. The point is that if you were to ask people around the world to name other-race populations that they find attractive, as in producing plenty of attractive people, then Northern Europeans will emerge on top. This is not the same as saying that everyone prefers Nordics.
Indians do use a lot of face-whitening creams, but that’s because they want to look fairer, and NOT WHITE or European.
The same way, so many whites use darkening creams, definitely not because they want to look Indian.
Look at it this way, the whites who tan do not desire the facial features of Indians and hence are not trying to look Indian, but the Indians who attempt to make themselves fairer also have a preference for more European facial features, which suggests that these people are trying to look more European.
Regarding the notion that the roots of European civilization lie in ancient Greece, this is an oversimplification. Anyway, Classical Greece was among the prominent early European civilizations, but modern civilization is a product of Northern Europeans. You have described the Greeks as closer to Indians and Iranians than Nordics. The Indian part is a mistaken notion, but it is true that modern Greeks are quite similar to adjacent Middle Eastern populations. For instance, in a study of 24 neutral craniofacial markers, modern Southern Europeans clustered with Middle Eastern populations before they clustered with Central and Northern Europeans.
However, can we assume that these Middle Eastern-type people were responsible for the classical Greek civilization? In a study cited below, ancient and modern skulls were analyzed from around the world. Guess what was found? Some important skull measurements of people in modern Southern Italy and modern Greece were similar to several modern Middle Eastern populations but not modern Northern Europeans, but the skulls from the Roman and classical Greek era were similar to modern Northern Europeans. This should not be surprising. The facial features of the sculptures left behind by the ancient Greeks are closer to modern Northern Europeans than to modern Greeks, and it is known from history that the Roman and Greek civilizations were the products of Northern tribes such as the Latini and the Dorians, respectively, that settled in the South. The study referenced:
Hanihara T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.
So don’t delude yourself about Middle Eastern-type people being responsible for the Greek civilization.
As to your clear facts, here is the reality.
Most Nobel Prize winners are non-Jewish, though Jews are considerably overrepresented in proportion to their numbers, and these Jews are the Ashkenazim, i.e., fair-skinned European-looking people, not the dark Middle Eastern types.
I am interested in seeing data showing the Jewish domination of the Ivy Leagues being significantly reduced, primarily by East Indians. My using Hindu as a proxy for Indian is not too far off. There is a huge amount of diversity in the religious beliefs of Hindus, making it difficult to talk about a basic set of beliefs that define all Hindu denominations, and it is also the case that someone is designated a Hindu by virtue of birth rather than by virtue of professing a specific set of beliefs. Thus, it is appropriate to use the word Hindu as if it describes an ethnic group.
The high average IQ of the U.S. has hardly anything to do with the Chinese and Indians. The average IQ of the U.S. is 98, the average IQ of white Americans is 103 and the average IQ of Asian-Americans is 106, and Asians are a small minority in the U.S.
Regarding the spelling bee, this reminds me of Venecan referring to computing prodigies in India. I have heard of a Hindu, Sakuntla Devy (not sure how to spell her name), who can multiply and divide freakishly huge numbers in her head within a matter of seconds. This ability is very impressive, but Sakuntla Devy couldn’t solve basic problems in science and engineering, and her contribution to these disciplines has been nil. Thus, Indians winning the spelling and geography bees are displaying the useless endeavors they spend their effort in rather than doing something useful. If my children wanted to learn bizarre words in order to participate in a spelling bee competition, I would strongly discourage it; there are far better and constructive things they can do with their time. Most whites, unlike many Indians, know better than to push their children toward becoming bookworms and wasting their time acquiring useless knowledge as in correctly spelling bizarre and highly uncommon words.
Regarding the heavy Indian presence in Silicon Valley, which is thanks to American employers attempting to save money, much of what I have mentioned in my reply to Venecan applies to you, too. For all the seemingly spectacular cognitive achievements of East Indians in the U.S., the facts remains that 1) India has won only 3 Nobel Prizes in science, notwithstanding its huge population size; 2) Indians have never won a Field Medal, the highest honor in Math, most of which have gone to whites and a few to NE Asians; 3) Indians were unranked in the 2006 ACM software engineering competition, which was dominated by whites; 4) Long-term data from topcoder.com concerning software coding prowess shows that whites dominate the top ranks but Indians are not even close to the top ranks, forget about having any presence in the top ranks; and 5) it has been well-documented that the darker the population, the dumber it is.
India’s freakishly large population means that notwithstanding its 81 average IQ, there will be hundreds of thousands of Indians that have enough intelligence to do moderate-advanced scientific and technical work, but don’t let these people kid you; the gap between the top white intellectuals and the top Indian intellectuals is staggering.
Anyway, I do not believe that East Indians are a type of Negroid people. My point is that if one insists on three races only—Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid—and it is clear than neither genetics nor craniometrics can divide humans into three races only, then assignment to these three alleged races has to be made via a visual inspection as in early anthropology, and a visual examination of the central tendency in India—as well as IQ—suggests that the best-fit group for Indians is the Negroid group.
Posted by shankho on May 25, 2006, 11:58 PM | #
oh my god there are so many things wrong with his page
1) the comparisons between race about which is more attractive, is as said before, entirely subjective, at a genetic level we wish to breed with some one with a genetic makeup more different than ours to increase variation and resistance to diseases etc.
2)why argue a point that will throw up so many racist slurs in the air, and arguing such a point that will yield no posistive results whatsoever, i understand free speech bla bla bla, but if you ask me, you put this up just to make people angry, or you were dumped by and asian person (oh and Hindus can be and many are white incedentally, so err reffering to ‘you Hindus’ is only higlighting your ignorance)
3) And you contradict yourself, IQ of Asian-Americans is 106 and average IQ of white Americans is 103, yet you back the theory that the darker the population the dumber it is?
Posted by dan mohan on May 26, 2006, 04:02 AM | #
DEAR J.RICHARDS
IT IS SAID THAT BEAUTY LIES IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER . I HAVE SEEN WOMEN WITH THESE NORDIC FEATURES THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL BUT YOU CANNOT SAY THEY ARE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL IN THE WORLD.EVEN IN INDIA THERE IS A MIX OF RACES FROM FAIR TO BROWM TO DARK IN COLOUR.AND THEN IN PHYSICAL FEATURES I HAVE SEEN IN INDIA WOMEN WITH THESE NORDIC FEATURES AND THE OTHER FEATURES .
NOW YOU LOOK AT THE INDIAN WOMENS POSTED BY INDIANGIRL WHO HAS FEATURES CLOSE TO NORDICS.LOOK AT THE NORDIC WOMEN’S PHOTO NEAR TO MALLIKA SHERAWAT LOOK AT HER NOSE IT IS A SMALL HOOKED NOSE AND THERE IS NO BRIDGE IN THE NOSE IT IS ALMOSI FLAT BETWEEN THE EYES.
NOW YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF NORDIC WOMEN NEXT TO MANISHA KOIRALA LOOK AT HER TEETH ARE THEY BEAUTIFUL .SHE HAS THIS BIG UGLY TEETH INFRONT.YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT TEETH ALSO IS A PART OF FACIAL FEATURE AND BEAUTY I THINK HER UPPER LIPS WILL NOT COVER HER TEETH IN NON LAUGHING POSE.
NOW YOU LOOK AT THE NOSE OF THE WOMEN NEXT TO ASIN(CLOSE UP PHOTO) YOU SEE THE NOSE OF THE NORDIC WOMEN SHE IS BEAUTIFUL BUT HER NOSE EVEN THOUGH NORDIC, LOOKS LIKE A PIECE OF WOODEN LOG CHOPPED TO FIT AS A NOSE THE NOSE LOOKS UNATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL.
THEN COMING TO AISHWARYA RAI IT IS NOT ONLY INDIANS THAT SAY AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD .THE HELLO MAGAZINE VOTED HER AS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL TAKE A NOTE THAT THIS MAGAZINE IS MOSTLY READ BY WHITES THAN INDIANS IN ABROAD AND INDIAS IN INDIA IS NOT THAT AWARE OF THIS MAGAZINE.
I THINK THE MISS WORLD ORGANIZATION COMMTIY OR THE MEMBERS OR ITS JUDGES ARE MOSTLY WHITE BUT THEY HAVE SAID THAT AISHWARYA RAI IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN EVER TO HOLD THE TITLE OF MISS WORLD PUTTING BACK ALL THAT WHITE AND NORDIC BEAUTIES.
NOW LOOKING AT YOUR WORDS
Additionally, one does not judge how beautiful a woman is by considering the praise her looks have received, but by looking at the woman, and Aishwarya’s degree of attractiveness is obvious in the pictures above.
IF A WOMEN IS PRAISED FOR HER LOOKS AROUND THE WORLD IT MEANS THAT SHE IS THAT STUNNINGLY BEAUTIFUL AND PEOPLE HAS PRAISED HER BY LOOKING AT HER FACE BECAUSE NO ONE IS GOING TO PRAISE THE LOOKS OF AN UGLY WOMEN .
EVEN A RUSSIAN MAGAZINE HAS PUT HER AS NUMBER ONE ACCORING TO A SURVEY IN RUSSIA IN BEAUTY.AND THE NEWYORK TIMES HAS REAPTEDLY SAID HER TO BE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN THE WORLD AND I THINK ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT HINDUS AS YOU SAY THAT HINDUS ONLY CONSIDER HER BEAUTIFUL.AND FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE THERE ARE ALSO HINDUS IN INDIA MANY OF THEM WHO CONSIDER HER NOT BEAUTIFUL.BUT SHE HAS FANS ACROSS THE WORLD SO MANY AMONG WHITES ACCORDING TO BBC ,CBS,CNN
WANT ANYTHING MORE
Page 3 of 9 pages « FirstP < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Next entry: Multiculturalism and false concessions
Previous entry: Christians singled out
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Alex commented in entry 'The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)' on 03/19/10, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 05:03 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 04:14 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 03:52 PM. (go) (view)
ilan commented in entry 'Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder' on 03/19/10, 11:56 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 11:38 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 10:46 AM. (go) (view)
Drifter commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 01:58 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 01:13 AM. (go) (view)
cladrastis commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/19/10, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/19/10, 12:25 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Automatic for the Sheeple' on 03/18/10, 11:30 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 11:08 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 10:32 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 08:02 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 06:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:19 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Romilly Jenkins: Truth and 'Ethnic' Truth' on 03/18/10, 04:10 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 02:39 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/18/10, 02:17 AM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy' on 03/18/10, 01:45 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 01:24 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/18/10, 12:35 AM. (go) (view)
Borvo commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 11:44 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Diasporal Hijinks: Christopher Hitchens and the Janjaweed' on 03/17/10, 10:31 PM. (go) (view)
Maximilio commented in entry 'Is Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., a Kosher Nazi?' on 03/17/10, 10:12 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 08:01 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/17/10, 07:44 PM. (go) (view)
Robert Reis commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/17/10, 07:29 PM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 07:27 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Blowing Bubbles' on 03/17/10, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Automatic for the Sheeple
- Blowing Bubbles
- Serious Crime - The Ethnic Dimension; Fact and Fantasy
- Saturday Riddle Classic
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa