The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, 28 February 2006 00:26.

Ruth

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.

Amrita Thapar

Compare Miss India 2005 to Miss USA 2005, Chelsea Cooley, below.

Chelsea Cooley

Look at the top three contestants in the Miss India 2005 beauty pageant.

Amrita Thapar

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.

Brittany Hogan, Kristen Johnson, Melissa Witek, 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.

Hindu beauties

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.

Shilpa Shetty, Madhuri Dixit, 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.

Ragnhild Marie Alvær, Sharon van der Knaap, 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.

untouchables

untouchables

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.

Aditi Govitrikar, Hritik Roshan, 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.

 Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai

Raylene Richards

 
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.

Hair-color diversity in and near Europe.

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.)

Eye-color diversity in and near Europe.

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).

Major vegetation zones in Europe approximately 18,000 BP.

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).

Skin-color depigmentation in Eurasia approximately 500 BP.

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.



Comments:


1

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:05 | #

Remaining references:

Olivier, 1960 U. Olivier, Pratique anthropologique, Vigot Frères, Paris (1960).

Ovchinnikov et al., 2000 I.V. Ovchinnikov, A. Götherström, G.P. Romanova, V.M. Kharitonov, K. Lidén and W. Goodwin, Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus, Nature 404 (2000), pp. 490–493.

Pitulko et al., 2004 V.V. Pitulko, P.A. Nikolsky, E.Y. Girya, A.E. Basilyan, V.E. Tumskoy, S.A. Koulakov, S.N. Astakhov, E.Y. Pavlova and M.A. Anisimov, The Yana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the last glacial maximum, Science 303 (2004), pp. 52–56.

Rana et al., 1999 B.K. Rana, D. Hewett-Emmett, L. Jin, B.H.-J. Chang, N. Sambuughin, M. Lin, S. Watkins, M. Bamshad, L.B. Jorde, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins and W.-H. Li, High polymorphism at the human melanocortin 1 receptor locus, Genetics 151 (1999), pp. 1547–1557.

Riches, 1974 D. Riches, The Netsilik Eskimo: A special case of selective female infanticide, Ethnology 13 (1974), pp. 351–361.

Rees, 2000 J.L. Rees, The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R): More than just red hair, Pigment Cell Research 13 (2000), pp. 135–140.

Relethford et al., 1985 J.H. Relethford, F.C. Lees and P.J. Byard, Sex and age variation in the skin color of Irish children, Current Anthropology 26 (1985), pp. 396–397.

Reich et al., 2001 D.E. Reich, M. Cargill, S. Bolk, J. Ireland, P.C. Sabeti, D.J. Richter, T. Lavery, R. Kouyoumjian, S.F. Farhadian, R. Ward and E.S. Lander, Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411 (2001), pp. 199–204.

Richards et al., 2000 M.P. Richards, R.E.M. Hedges, R. Jacobi, A. Current and C. Stringer, Gough’s cave and sun hole cave human stable isotope values indicate a high animal protein diet in the British Upper Paleolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 27 (2000), pp. 1–3.

Richards et al., 2001 M.P. Richards, P.B. Pettitt, M.C. Stiner and E. Trinkaus, Stable isotope evidence for increasing dietary breadth in the European Mid-Upper Paleolithic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 (2001), pp. 6528–6532.

Riedl, 1990 B.I.M. Riedl, Morphological and metrical characteristics of the male and female Leitmotif in mate-selection and its impact on the selection of the spouse, Homo 41 (1990), pp. 72–85.

Rogers, 1986 R.A. Rogers, Language, human subspeciation, and ice age barriers in Northern Siberia, Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5 (1986), pp. 11–22.

Santos et al., 1999 F.R. Santos, A. Pandya, C. Tyler-Smith, S.D.J. Pena, M. Schanfield, W.R. Leonard, L. Osipova, M.H. Crawford and R.J. Mitchell, The Central Siberian origin for Native American Y chromosomes, American Journal of Human Genetics 64 (1999), pp. 619–628.

Scheffel, 1984 D. Scheffel, From polygyny to cousin marriage? Acculturation and marriage in 19th century Labrador Inuit society, Inuit Studies 8 (1984), pp. 61–75.

Scheffer, 1704 J. Scheffer, The history of Lapland: Containing a geographical description, and a natural history of that country; with an account of the inhabitants, their original, religion, customs, habits, marriages, conjurations, employments, etc., Tho. Newborough & R. Parker, London (1704).

Schrire & Steiger, 1974 C. Schrire and W.L. Steiger, A matter of life and death: An investigation into the practice of female infanticide in the Arctic, Man 9 (1974), pp. 161–184.

Schweder, 1994 B.I.M. Schweder, The impact of the face on long-term human relationships, Homo 45 (1994), pp. 74–93.

Scozzari et al., 1997 R. Scozzari, F. Cruciani, P. Malaspina, P. Santolamazza, B.M. Ciminelli, A. Torroni, D. Modiano, D.C. Wallace, K.K. Kidd, A. Olckers, P. Moral, L. Terrenato, N. Akar, R. Qamar, A. Mansoor, S.Q. Mehdi, G. Meloni, G. Vona, D.E.C. Cole, W.W. Cai and A. Novelletto, Differential structuring of human populations for homologous X and Y microsatellite loci, American Journal of Human Genetics 61 (1997), pp. 719–733.

Seccombe, 1992 W. Seccombe, A millennium of family change, Verso, London (1992).

Sherman, 1922 C.P. Sherman, Roman law in the modern world, New Haven Law Book Co, New Haven (1922).

Short, 1975 G.B. Short, Iris pigmentation and phototopic visual acuity: A preliminary study, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 43 (1975), pp. 425–434.

Simchuk, 2001 A.P. Simchuk, Frequency-dependent sexual selection in a natural population of oak leafroller moth (Tortrix viridana L.), Tsitologiya i Genetika 35 (2001), pp. 25–29.

Sinnock, 1970 P. Sinnock, Frequency dependence and mating behavior in Tribolium castaneum, American Naturalist 104 (1970), pp. 469–476.

Smith & Smith, 1994 E.A Smith and S.A. Smith, Inuit sex–ratio variation, Current Anthropology 35 (1994), pp. 595–624.

Soffer, 1985 O. Soffer, Patterns of intensification as seen from the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. In: T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, Editors, Prehistoric hunter-gatherers. The emergence of cultural complexity, Academic Press, Orlando (1985), pp. 235–269.

Soffer et al., 1993 O. Soffer, P. Vandiver, B. Klima and J. Svoboda, The pyrotechnology of performance art: Moravian venuses and wolverines. In: H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. White, Editors, Before Lascaux. The complex record of the early upper Paleolithic, CRC Press, Boca Raton (1993), pp. 259–275.

Stepanov & Puzyrev, 2000 V.A. Stepanov and V.P. Puzyrev, Evolution of Y-chromosome haplotypes in populations of North Eurasia, American Journal of Human Genetics 67 (2000), p. 220.

Sturm et al., 2001 R.A. Sturm, R.D. Teasdale and N.F. Box, Human pigmentation genes: Identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation, Gene 277 (2001), pp. 49–62.

Tacitus, 1970 C. Tacitus, Germania Transl. by M. Hutton. Loeb Classical library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1970).

Taioli et al., 1996 E. Taioli, S.J. Garte, J. Trachman, S. Garbers, D.W. Sepkovic, M.P. Osborne, S. Mehl and H.L. Bradlow, Ethnic differences in estrogen metabolism in healthy women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 88 (1996), p. 617.

Templeton, 2002 A.R. Templeton, Out of Africa again and again, Nature 416 (2002), pp. 45–51.

Thelen, 1983 T.H. Thelen, Minority type human mate preference, Social Biology 30 (1983), pp. 162–180.

Torroni et al., 1990 A. Torroni, O. Semino, R. Scozzari, G. Sirugo, G. Spedini, N. Abbas and M. Fellous et al., Y-chromosome DNA polymorphisms in human populations: Differences between Caucasoids and Africans detected by 49a and 49f probes, Annals of Human Genetics 54 (1990), pp. 287–296.

Tyrrell & Chamberlain, 1998 A.J. Tyrrell and A.T. Chamberlain, Non-metric trait evidence for modern human affinities and the distinctiveness of Neanderthals, Journal of Human Evolution 34 (1998), pp. 549–554.

Vallois, 1961 H.V. Vallois, The social life of early man: The evidence of skeletons, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 31 (1961), pp. 214–235.

Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986 P.L. Van den Berghe and P. Frost, Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution?, Ethnic and Racial Studies 9 (1986), pp. 87–113.

Vatin, 1970 C. Vatin, Recherches sur le mariage et la condition de la femme mariée à l’époque hellénistique, Éditions E. de Boccard, Paris (1970).

Wang et al., 1991 D.Y. Wang, T.J.A. Key, M.C. Pike, J. Boreham and J. Chen, Serum hormone levels in British and rural Chinese females, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 18 (1991), pp. S41–S45.

Weyer, 1932 E.M. Weyer, The Eskimos. Their environment and folkways, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1932).

Zerjal et al., 1997 T. Zerjal, B. Dashnyam, A. Pandya, M. Kayser, L. Roewer, F.R. Santos, W. Scheifenhövel, N. Fretwell, M.A. Jobling, S. Harihara, K. Shimizu, D. Semjidmaa, A. Sajantila, P. Salo, M.H. Crawford, E.K. Ginter, O.V. Evgrafov and C. Tyler-Smith, Genetic relationships of Asians and Northern Europeans, revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis, American Journal of Human Genetics 60 (1997), pp. 1174–1183.


2

Posted by friedrich braun on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:19 | #

The Times of London has a piece on the study.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article…058688,00.html

A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the WHO study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202.

This is actually a hoax. The WHO has never done any such study. Very strange that they’re repeating an error that’s been debunked for four years now. Kind of makes me raise my eyebrows about the rest of the article. I expect better from the Times of London, somehow.


3

Posted by friedrich braun on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:20 | #

here’s a link that works:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2058688,00.html


4

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:39 | #

TO J.RICHARDS-Fascinating post;I had to print it out in order to throughly digest it;your references alone will keep me going for another 10 years! Thanks-I appreciate all the additional time.LOL


5

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:41 | #

I over here, I have Blond hair and blue eyes, I will save us, ha. smile
My wife might have some difficulty accepting it, but in the name of survival, I will help.


6

Posted by jonjayray on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:15 | #

Does this lady upset any applecarts?

Nefertiti


7

Posted by karlmagnus on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:36 | #

If that’s Nefertiti it’s a Ptolemaic representation of her, I think, and thus 1000 years from being contemporary.  Of course cuteness is a survival gene, and so’s attractive but unusual coloring. As for what’s more attractive, personally I find the current blonde overmuscled US ideal pretty unappealing.


8

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:21 | #

Update:

Peter Frost has pointed out that his mention of at least 7 alleles for hair color among Europeans is outdated.  There are 30 such alleles that exceed the 1% threshold among Europeans:

Makova K, Norton H. Worldwide polymorphism at the MC1R locus and normal pigmentation variation in humans. Peptides. 2005 Oct;26(10):1901-8.

The evidence in the paper cited above makes Frost’s case much stronger since random genetic drift is highly unlikely to have been responsible for the accumulation of so much genetic diversity in a short amount of time.

I would like to add that the leftist proponents of diversity are probably not too keen on preserving this kind of diversity.


9

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:23 | #

Mark,

Sexual debauchery is only part of the package, and some of it is simply a side effect of greater sexual freedom that does not lead to better looking children. 

Since you mention Tacitus, note that the upper class in ancient Rome consisted of a Northern population (the Latini) that had moved South to Italy.  Sexual freedom has not always remained constant in Northern Europe, and one could probably find some period where a local population punished adultery severely, but the long-term trend is clear.  For instance, the Nordic fairy tale of Rapunzel is derived from a Norse practice whereby young adults were allowed sexual liaisons prior to marriage, which would often follow the woman getting pregnant; this way, the parents of the bride could be reasonably sure that the groom is virile.  Presently, the majority of children in Sweden are born out of wedlock, but they are typically raised by their cohabiting biological parents, who typically marry, often after having a child together. 

Regarding your comment that allowing women greater sexual promiscuity would not necessarily create more handsome children as women often select for resources rather than looks, it is of course true that women emphasize resources much more than looks, but if they have sufficient sexual freedom, a number of them will marry a rich man but secretly have their children fathered by an unrelated attractive man.  This way, they will get the best of both worlds: a good looking man to father their children and a resource-rich man to ensure that the children are well taken care of.  Now, this behavior is obviously morally unacceptable, but it cannot be [naturally] beaten when it comes to producing attractive children.

The third point that you mention is relevant, but focuses on an improvement of looks resulting from rich men choosing the most attractive women.  Since women are the ones who give birth, the crucial sexual freedom is the one that is available to women not what is available to men.  Arabs have had a polygynous system for quite a while, and it is a boon to upper class men, but their women do not have the sexual freedom to select their own mates, let alone commit adultery.

You raise a hypothetical scenario where there is no stigma attached to extra-marital sex. Well, there is always some level of stigma attached to extra-marital sex except for small sub-groups such as some tribals where such behavior may be a requisite or swingers in the West.  The point is not that extra-marital sex is required to be socially acceptable for rapidly evolving better looks; all that is needed is sufficient tolerance of extra-marital sex to allow women to find better looking men to father their children than their husbands.


10

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:25 | #

Comment on John Hawks:

John Hawks did not correct the Times for calling Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sharon Stone and Scarlett Johansson blondes.  None of these women happen(ed) to have blonde hair as adults.

Fred Scrooby,

Your hypothesis relating the selection of blondness to the cloud cover invokes natural selection.  Well, the cloud cover should strongly influence skin color.  The greatest proportion of pale-skinned whites are found in Northwestern Europe (e.g., the Irish), but the Irish have a much lower prevalence of blond hair compared to the Swedes, who have fewer very pale-skinned people than the Irish.  So, think again.  Light skin but not light hair is relevant to Vitamin D synthesis from sunlight.  One thing is very clear: it is not random genetic drift; some type of strong selection is indicated, and it does not appear to be natural selection.


11

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:10 | #

It may be too late to point out I blogged a similar theory here at MR some time ago titled: Of Penguins, Paleolithic Gender Ratio and White Fertility and that there has been other prior support for this theory.


12

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:38 | #

Mark R., that’s unworthy of you. You’re falling into the liberal fallacy, and failing to distinguish between freedom and debauchery. Adultery is not sexual freedom: it’s failing to keep one’s promises and refusing to take responsibility for one’s decisions.

The ability to freely choose one’s partner would result in breeding for attractiveness. Easy adultery (and it’s legalised version, no fault divorce) and unfaithfullness reduce the point of finding an attractive mate, as they could be easily taken away from you.

Real sexual freedom (and not ersatz “volya”) means taking the consequences of your choices. After all, every other sort of freedom does.

Remember and “svoboda” and “volya”, the two words that will unlock the hitherto unfathomable depths of liberal thought.


13

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:41 | #

Add a wink to the last line, to show that I’m being mock patronising. And remove the first and.


14

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:58 | #

To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition.

It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans.


15

Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:12 | #

Alex, I wasn’t attempting to define a true sexual freedom. I was replying to J Richard’s thesis, in which a greater sexual freedom (call it “latitude” if you want to), including women committing adultery by marrying rich men but having affairs with more handsome men, produces more attractive children.

J Richard’s reply was reasoned, but I still think we are in the dark as to whether the northern populations were stricter or more lax in their sexual morality. I don’t think looking at the current situation helps, as what the Scandinavians are doing now is a product of advanced social democracy. For hundreds of years before this very different conditions obtained under the influence of Lutheranism.

(Note: I doubt if the single mother’s benefit existed ten thousand years ago. A woman who had a child without securing the protection of the father through marriage would have risked a great deal in those times.)

I’ve read quite a bit of the pre-Christian history of northern Europe, and I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to make definitive statements. I’ve mentioned Tacitus, J Richards a fairy tale. It’s not enough. In the four or five Norse sagas I’ve read, there’s little sense of sexual latitude (the sagas often deal with pre-Christian history, though they were written in the early Christian era).


16

Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:29 | #

Three points:-

1. In KMacD’s SAID, we read: “20. As discussed in PTSDA (Ch. 8), one theory of the evolution of recessive genes in northern Caucasian populations is Salter’s (1996) “blank slate hypothesis” in which recessive genes act as an individualist anti-cuckoldry mechanism. Because of the commonness among the “Aryans” of recessive genes affecting physical appearance, the offspring of Jews and non-Jews in Germany therefore would tend to resemble the Jewish partner, thus leading to beliefs on both sides of the “indelibility” of the Jewish character.”

Thus, Salter has touched on this issue in the past.

2. If South Asians wish to consider their women and their morality as superior, that’s fine with me, as long as these peoples continue living in their South Asian homelands.  They are not the problem.  The following intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, and “Popperian” quote by Razib, from his website, does illustrate a problem with the South Asian diaspora:-

“i read in the economist that one out of four people in swedish are non-swedish ethnically. what the fuck??? where are my mischlinge kids going to get their supply of leggy-light-haired hotties?”

3. Er … BigBoobDreams.Com?????  Another pictorial source may be preferred.


17

Posted by Zach on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:07 | #

“To emphasize blonde promiscuity resulting from an oversupply of females during the environment of evolutionary adaptation is to miss the profoundly relevant condition of males of northern ancestry: a relative lack of sexual competition.

It is genocide to introduce men adapted to stronger sexual competition to the societies of northern Europeans.”

Interesting point, though I am not sure I would take the last bit too far; I think we can still be very competitive when we want to be. However the idea that we focus our competition primarily on resources, rather than women, is very interesting. Perhaps this partly explains why we have been so willing to fall for consumer capitalism and globalism over and above all else.

Of course, without wealth and resource redistribution, the issue of reproductive success would not be such a problem.


18

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 10:27 | #

Actually, Zach, I think the northern tradition of Holmganga—formal combat between individual males to the death—may have arisen in response to the combination of:

1) A tendency toward sexual reserve.

2) Rising availability of calories due to agriculture.

Where it failed to provide the insulation required, mass warfare tended to take its place as a means of culling the male population.

Genocide of the competing males is the ultimate resort when both formal single combat and mass warfare have been successfully suppressed by them.


19

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:32 | #

John,

Posting the bust of a North African woman does not undermine any argument on this page.  At your home page, I haven’t seen very many pictures of North African or Southern European women, and it is easy to guess what kind of women you think look best.   

James,

White males need not fear being outcompeted by non-white males when it comes to attracting the favors of white women.  Most white women know better than to entertain non-white males.  The problem is that unattractive white women, whom most white males wouldn’t have anything to do with, happen to be often better looking than most non-white women, and are sought after by a number of non-white males.  This sets the stage for gradual creeping of non-white genetics into the white gene pool.

Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population.  Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history. 

JW,

I wish bigboobdreams.com was not stamped on one of the pictures above, but the contrast between the waist-hip region of the white woman and that of the “most beautiful woman in the world.” i.e., Miss World 1994 Aishwarya Rai is striking and needs to be shown.  If Hindus are not convinced, I will find other pictures without anything offensive stamped on them.

Peter Frost’s sexual selection hypothesis is a much more reasonable account than the anti-cuckoldry mechanism proposed by Salter.  After all, in even the blondest of regions, such as Southern Sweden, you do have a white minority with dark hair, and some of the light-haired people are light brown rather than some shade of blond.  Also, during the time period of intense sexual selection implicated by the molecular evidence, it is unlikely that the forebears of present-day Northern Europeans encountered a phenotypically very different population whose males were in a position to attract the favors of Nordic women.


20

Posted by John Ray on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:03 | #

Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above.  Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown.  We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time.

It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented.  Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown.  And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate.

The whole theory seems implausible to me.  I see loss of pigmentation as a destructive mutation that could survive only in a very cloudy climate.  Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes


21

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:49 | #

John,

In my reply to Fred Scrooby, I have already pointed out that Scandinavians are not as pale-skinned as the Irish, though they are blonder.  Contrary to your interpretation, this strengthens Peter Frost’s case because it argues against the notion that natural selection is responsible for across-the-board depigmentation.  Whereas Peter Frost has mentioned the more feminine appearance of white women, he has probably thought it best to refrain from mentioning the finer facial features of Scandinavians compared to the Irish, which once again reflects strong sexual selection.  It is difficult to imagine any advantage of finer facial features from the standpoint of natural selection.


22

Posted by JW Holliday on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:21 | #

Nerfititi’s ethnic origin is a matter of some debate.  Even is she was of the Egyptian royal family, that family had a history of ethnic outmarriage (similar to the modern European dynasties) and of course one cannot assume that the ancient and modern peoples of Egypt are exactly the same in any case.

A deeper issue is whether it is necessary to attempt to placate the “genes are mystical” crowd and justify the pursuit of ethnic interests based upon the female preferences of JJR, David B. or whomever.  Every group has an interest in their own genetic continuity/expansion regardless of what anyone else thinks of their characteristics - or even what they may so think.

I still maintain that the “bigboobdreams” - particularly after the GNXP/porno link problem - is not the best idea.


23

Posted by SD on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:25 | #

I think by racially mixing people we rarely get a more attractive population. Indeed most mixed children I have seen tend to look hideous. Only a small minority tend to be attractive as in those lucky few cases the genes for looks have matched well (but there could be mismatches for other traits). As Anthony Ludovici pointed out many years ago in his book, Choice of a Mate (http://www.anthonymludovici.com/cm_int.htm), marriage between like is very necessary for good health, character and appearance of children. Most of the attractive racially mixed people I have come across among commoners tend to be Nordic/European-Mongoloid mixes. But in both cases the original races tend to be quite attractive in the first place. I have even come across cases when both the parents one Mongoloid and the other Nordic are attractive specimen of their subspecies, the mixed children tend to come out unattractive due to mismatch in features.

    South Asians and to a lesser extent people from the Middle-East and South East Asia are heavily mixed racially. As mentioned above in the original post, all the primary races, Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid have mixed in India to form the so called mixed South Asian race. This has led to the large majority of the population having ugly mismatched features. Not only that, but they also tend to have unhealthy looking misshapen bodies. Only the lucky minority where the mixing has been perfect do we see some attractiveness.

    I was wondering if the poor performance of the brown belt from Arabia all the way to Indonesia in Olympic like sports be due to this basic mismatch inherent in these populations. Could it also be possible that the overall poor health among these populations (Indians and Pakistanis have extremely high mortality due to diabetes, heart failures etc.. compared to a Chinese or a German) be due to the inherent mismatches as well. Indeed Mr. Ludovici did stress that for children to beget healthy vigorous bodies like should marry like as far as their parents are concerned. Indeed he even disapproved of peoples in the various parts of Britain marrying each other. In the case of intermarriage between people from different continental subspecies the problems might be far more severe indeed. I have also noticed that the stray dogs in my country of origin (who are a result of mixing of many breeds) were uglier and unhealthier than pure breeds or subspecies of canines.

      Besides if you are wondering, I am Hindu myself of the warrior Ksatriya chaste (No.2 after the Brahmins) from Bengal.  As Rajib had pointed out earlier, it is common for Indian families to have family members with completely different phenotypes in looks. My Mom’s Father looked like a Chinese actor (whose name I cannot recall). My mum’s brother has green eyes. My Fathers father looked like an Englishman but was a bit dark. My father has strong Caucasian looks as well. His sister (my auntie) has brownish/blondish hair.


24

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:34 | #

SD,

Your ancestry is hardly relevant to your comment, but since you have mentioned it, I appreciate your looking at the matter in an objective manner and seeing it for what it is, unlike your co-ethnics over at gnxp.com.  I have no problems with South Asians who are not hostile to whites and intelligent enough to function well in Western societies. 

On some counts, upper caste Hindus are in a more precarious situation in India than whites are in the West.  To start with, they are a small minority in India, living among a great majority that resents upper caste people.  A Hindu acquaintance of mine told me about the horrible affirmative action system in India for the low caste and untouchable groups, which is much worse than its counterpart in the U.S.  He also told me that whereas the West focuses on discrimination against the untouchables, it largely ignores reverse discrimination, which started from Independence [from the British] onward, and includes untouchables physically attacking upper caste people.

Anyway, to address your points, I will start from Sports.  Outstanding athletes usually come from specific ethnic groups, depending on the sport, quite often because the physical requirements for excellence in the sport favor a particular ethnic group.  Therefore, with the kind of race mixing in India, Indians will naturally be underrepresented among outstanding athletes since they have mostly lost the extreme physical traits that are a requisite for outstanding athletic performance in most sports.  Some of this loss of athletic ability can also be blamed upon a weakened physical constitution resulting from race mixing.  The high rates of major diseases such as you mention among South Asians are most likely partly related to race mixing.  I have previously addressed data from a random, population-based study showing increased health problems resulting from race mixing, which largely appears to be related to biology.

Regarding your comments about the greater odds of increased unattractiveness among mixed-race people compared to enhanced attractiveness, you have related this to a mismatch of features.  This is a crude way of stating what has just now begun to be documented in the scientific literature.  The more technical term for the consequences of a mismatch is “loss of morphological integration,” and a new study that will be shortly published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology is among the first to show loss of morphological integration resulting from the mixing of major races.  You can download the pdf of this study here.  The paper is not very intelligible for laypersons, but I will address this study in a future post at MR.


25

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:01 | #

J Richards writes: Speaking of Holmganga, I am sure that you will find equivalent behavior in several other cultures, irrespective of the sexuality of the population.  Fighting to settle disputes is very common in human history.

Whoa there guy…

It’s a long way from formalized laws for single combat to some general notion of “fighting to settle disputes”!

Blood feud and war are “fighting to settle disputes”.  A couple of guys going at each other, which is what animals frequently do, is also “fighting to settle disputes”. 

I have looked into this in some depth and haven’t been able to find, outside of the pre-Christian northern European tradition, formalized rules for dispute resolution where single combat is the appeal of last resort for dispute processing.  Perhaps I missed somethng among the Inuit, or other circumpolar cultures but I would be most interseted in finding evidence of such in other cultures.


26

Posted by AD on Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:43 | #

Scandinavian skin colour has been rather misrepresented above.  Given much exposure to the sun, Scandinavians rapidly tan to a beautiful golden brown.  We see it Scandinavian tourists here in Northern Oz all the time.

It is the Irish who are almost totally depigmented.  Those of us unfortunates with Irish genes for skin-colour are more likely to go red than brown.  And the sun gives us skin cancer at a huge rate.

Scandanavian skin colour hasn’t been misrepresented above. Did you read the charts? It clearly shows that they’re darker than the Celts. It also shows that Celts, particularly around Wales, often have dark features with ultra-white skin- a trait only commonly seen with cloudless dwelling Ashkenzai Jews. Nordics are the reverse. (as an aside, did you know that Norway and Sweden have the highest reported rates of skin cancer in all of Europe?).

Yes, the sun gives you skin cancer at a huge rate, when you live in bloody Northern or Western Australia which has three times the incidence than the far South East of the country. That most aboriginals live in the North and West, while whites live in the South East should tell you something.(in Tasmania the biggest problem is vitamin D deficiency from lack of sun, not skin cancer)

Nobody would want to live in the peri-Baltic or Western Ireland who had the choice of warmer and more fertile climes

Do you realise that Tasmania, NZ and the southern Great Dividing Range regions of Australia are milder than any part of Ireland? Tiny South East Australia has a bigger population than all the ‘desirable’ Tropical regions of Australia combined. I think you’re approaching this debate with the eyes of a desert dweller/cane toad.


27

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:45 | #

For those who come in late:

Part of the discussion above has continued in a separate entry authored by John Ray, titled “Pigmentation loss is of itself maladaptive,” which should be read for additional comments that strengthen my arguments above.

Fred,

The finer facial features also go with a more robust body skeleton compared to Southern Europeans.  In light of the evidence above, this is best understood in terms of sexual selection rather than natural selection.

James,

I have heard of fighting to settle disputes among the Japanese, the Nuer of Sudan and the Yanomamo of Brazil/Venezuela, which has been along the lines of a man challenging another to a fight/duel to claim something or settle a dispute.  These fights range(d) from one-on-one duels to group warfare.  The exact details vary across cultures, but it would be remarkable if something like Holmganga were found in one group only.  It may be that the Norse were more formal about the duel than most others, but the basic idea cannot have been exclusive to them.


28

Posted by Lister on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:32 | #

Very interesting topic. Can anyone tell me where I might find more information or pictures of the beautiful Ragnhild Marie Alvær?


29

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:33 | #

Lister,

The only other picture of Ragnhild Marie Alvær that I have is shown below.  She was a participant in the 2003 Miss Norway beauty pageant, where she was identified as an 18-year-old, 177-cm-tall student from Bergen Handelsgymnasium.  If you find other pictures of her, let me know.

Ragnhild Marie Alvær


30

Posted by AJ on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:56 | #

I’m worried about the way the world is going right now. If current population trends continue, then blondes or for that matter whites, will become a slim minority in a world of nonwhites.

I’m sure the result would be a world with more conflicts and more unhappiness. I do believe blondes have more fun and are more fun to be with.

So let me cut to the chase. Here’s my plan to save the
blondes and the world.

There are two forces at work, natural selection and sexual selection. In order to save natural blondes from possible extinction, we have to spread the blonde genes around more.

With technology, it can easily be done, and I’m not talking about cloning. All you have to do is get attractive blond men to donate their sperm and then attractive blonde women to donate their eggs. Match the blond sperm with the blonde eggs to create embryos that will turn out to be blonde babies.

Now, here is the cool part. We can simply implant the blonde embryo into a non-blonde or even non-white woman. She will, in effect, function as a surrogate mother and give birth to a naturally blonde baby. If more non-blondes and non-whites do this, plus the natural blonde couples who have blonde offspring, then the number of blondes will greatly increase.

I have heard cases of white surrogates giving birth to Asian couples’ babies. Why not the other way around? Of course, there’s the moral debate and people will be in an uproar over the racist/eugenics undertone.

Personally, I do not advocate any “forced” campaign by
any organization or government. All I want to suggest
is that people should be given the choice and that sexual selection is the law of nature. Put it this way, if most men (regardless of race) find blondes to be more attractive, then why not make your own daughter blonde if you are not blond yourself? Commission a blonde embryo to be created and implant it into your girlfriend/wife’s womb and 10 months
later, you’ll have a blonde baby daughter. Raise her as your own. She’ll grow up to “have more fun” of her own.

Similarly, if most nonblonde women desire to be blonde, then the same logic goes. Why not give your daughter blonde genes?

With IVF and surrogacy, we can produce lots of true natural blondes. But this method is expensive and very controversial. I don’t know if society is ready to see black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women having and raising blonde babies.

A more “intermediate” or “compromise” method is to use
the donated blond sperm to inseminate more nonblondes
and nonwhites. Artificial insemination (donor insemination) is cheap and easy to perform. I mean, just inject the sperm into a woman. Any woman can practically do it herself without any assistance. At the present, society will be more likely to accept
this. We already see so many cases of intermarriage. In California, interracial marriage has probably become the norm, I would say.

So let’s say a single Asian woman desires to give her child blonde genes but does not have the money to go the full method, ie, implanting a blonde embryo, then she can go for this halfway solution. Her child will be half blonde/Caucasian, half Asian. Ideally, I would also recommend using technology to select the sex of the baby. The technique that exists currently has a 90% guarantee for female babies and 70% for male babies. Make the baby female so that when she grows up, she can also receive blonde genes again by AI. By
then, the new third generation offspring will be three quarters blonde/Caucasian, one quarter Asian. By the fourth generation, the child will be 7/8 blonde and only 1/8 Asian. And so on. Of course, at any generation, the woman can choose to have 100% blonde embryos implanted.

I’m sure my proposal will sound very racist and contentious to many people. But I would repeat my most basic arguments to critics again. They are:

1. Blondes are and have more fun because they are more
sexually attractive.
2. If you don’t believe this, it’s okay. Let the people choose.
3. People have the right to choose the “ideal” genes
for their offspring, whatever “ideal” means.
4. Sexual selection is a very powerful force.

So again, I’m all for freedom of choice. With an altruistic spirit, let’s make the choice for blondes available to everyone, not just natural blondes themselves. It’s kind of stingy for real blondes to keep blonde genes to themselves. Share the good stuff. Pass them around. That’s basically what I’m saying. Nobody is going to be forced to do anything they don’t want. Instead, the forces of sexual selection will
help people choose.

I think somebody ought to really open up a sperm bank and make some money selling blond sperm. Another business is to open up an agency recruiting blonde eggs. Yet another is to provide counseling and matchmaking service,ie, finding and matching male and female donors, advice on the medical stuff, etc.

I welcome more thoughts and feedback. Feel free to share my ideas with others.


31

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:55 | #

That sound to clinical and not much fun A J, what about us blond hair and blue eyed men just go and save the planet and have some fun while we are at it.
Although some pedantic black haired men might think it discriminatory, but in the name of survival, a Blond man with blue eyes must do what must be done, besides a jar is not much fun anyway and does not do much for my libido. Hope the wife does not see this.


32

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:04 | #

AJ,

There are a few problems with your proposal.  Non-whites should be discouraged from combining their DNA with that of whites because race mixing is known to increase the incidence of health problems, which is consistent with some loss of morphological integration in the skull (apparently related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes) resulting from race mixing.  Having non-white women give birth to white offspring via surrogate pregnancy is also not recommended.  How will the white child feel about his different looks, and how appealing will it be to the non-white masses to raise children that are not their biological offspring?  Secondly, mixed offspring with substantial white ancestry or non-whites genetically manipulated to look whiter will be more sexually appealing to whites than other non-whites, and will thereby accelerate non-white admixture into the white gene pool since whites are a minority of the human species.  The possibility that non-whites will continue to have their gametes fertilized by whites in large numbers per generation will simply not materialize.  At least one of a non-white pair will object to not having his/her own DNA transmitted to the offspring that he/she wishes to raise.

Your aims will be better served by trying to keep the non-white masses out of the West.  Besides, interracial marriages are not the norm in California by a long shot, though they are much more prevalent than in, say, Iowa.


33

Posted by Bryan on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 04:07 | #

I am more worried about Blacks and Whites Mixing Quite honestly. I find asian girls attractive as do i find blondes attractive. Now if i had a choice i would stick with blondes or other white women.
Its more of a sexual thing with the asian women..because we all know they want to be seen and associated with white men. so they will do practically anything you want them to.
Like Most Men, i have the need to have sex. So if i cant find the right white woman, i will have to substitute with something less desirable.


34

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:58 | #

First of all let me be very arrogant and declare that I am a Biologist, and secondly that I believe that the purpose of citing these research papers [that are not really scientific] etc., are an attempt to prove something - ie white women are more beautiful than all other women - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In fact most beauty contest results which are the only real avaialble yardstick of beauty clearly show that INDIA and Venezuela , both countries containig mixed Caucasoids and some pure Caucasoids have won the most number of beauty contests in recent times.

India has won 7 titles and has 12 runners up and venezuela has won 8 times and has many runners up too. Someone here mentioned Ash Rai who was named the most beautiful woman in the world by wsterners themselves, and the most beautiful Miss World ever by the Miss world Organizers.

Another fact is that Saira Mohan, A Canadian model of Indian ( and Irish ) descent was chosen as the global face of beauty in 2003 when computer modeled face was matched for most attarctive features.

To my knowledge , the Biology of it is that physical attractiveness tends to favor mixed races as mixing eliminates all extermes such as , albino white skin, freckles, masculine features, slant eyes, curly hair , thick lips etc and moves the mixed race women towards the median.

And most importantly the proof is in the pudding as beauty contest results show.

If you consider the top 1% beauties of the world , I am sure mixed race women from India, Latin America, Iran etc., will produce the winners. Thats why they say thee is no beauty like an Indian beauty


35

Posted by Ethnocentrist on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:08 | #

Malcolm, your yardstick for what is considered beautiful in this day and age is nothing but forced political correctness onto the global stage of pageantry.  Nothing more.  When Black women started winning these contests over gorgeous, voluptuous White women, it didn’t take a biologist to realize that the fix was in.


36

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:57 | #

Malcolm,

JR can converse with you from the biological standpoint, if he so wishes.  From the political standpoint, however, I can do the job passably well.

If you are of European descent, and not of mixed-race, it is worth you quietly asking yourself how you became a carrier of anti-white opinions.  How did you come to feel uncomfortable with the kind of self-advocacy that is considered healthy and normal by every people in the world but which liberalism denies to us alone?  How did you come to lose touch with reality in that way?

The answer, probably, is that you have not been strong enough intellectually and emotionally to stand against the tide.  You probably never even tried.  But here at MR you get a chance.

Now, dealing with the specifics of JR’s post ... for me there is no Marxian political barrier to clear before I can freely consider whether facial delicacy attaches to the Nordic type more than any other, and whether such delicacy is not only our ideal of facial perfection but, strangely, that of much of the world.  This is the import of JR’s work.  Is he right?  I think he might be.  But either way the issue cannot be considered until you strip out the racial Marxism from your mind, and disdain forever that familiar and infuriatingly self-destructive spasm of faux-moral correctness.  There is no benefit to allowing yourself to be duped.


37

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:31 | #

Malcolm A,

For a biologist, it is curious that you have labeled the paper unscientific without bothering to refute anything in the paper. 

International beauty pageants are cesspools of political correctness and have to deal with the dilemma of avoiding charges of racism by consistently letting the most attractive women (read white) win and alienating their audience by frequently selecting Negroids or Mongoloids as top-ranked contestants in order to avoid charges of racism.  Therefore, they have shifted toward crowning non-white women that would simultaneously help avoid charges of racism and also be less likely to alienate their audience by virtue of their being closer to whites in looks, which explains the success of Hindu women from the 1990s onward.  The contestants from Venezuela tend to be whiter than the Hindus, and it is apparently not enough for PC reasons to stick with Venezuela or other Latino contestants. 

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.   

I have already addressed the [relative lack of] attractiveness of Saira Mohan.  Your notion that race mixing leads to the average is incorrect.  Phenotypic average is defined for a race but not for the species.  Whereas race mixing averages some traits, not all traits are averaged by race mixing; there are multiple deviations from the average related to disruption of co-adapted gene complexes and loss of morphological integration (evidence here).  Correspondingly, there is also an increase in health problems among mixed-race offspring.  Besides, you only have to look at non-white facial features more closely to appreciate the aesthetically disastrous consequences for whites that will result from the absorption of non-white genetics into the white gene pool (see here, here and here).

Chances are that you are a South Asian and may find it difficult to understand that the top 1% of good-looking women from the PC-free perspective of whites are all white.


38

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:47 | #

Hi J Richards

Thank you for your kind comments in response to my post.

1. I am a white though born in South Asia, married to an Indian and living in N. America.

2. I am a Scientist and I believe that scientists are trained to speak the truth ( as they see it ) unless and until proven wrong.

3. Here is where I agree with you and others of my own race.

- White caucaisans are the most advanced race on earth in terms of Technological achievement and innovativeness . I totally agree with this statement as there is proof ! Almost all major scientific achievements as well as inventions were made by white Caucasians and continue to be so even now.
Te world is what it is today mostly thanks to our endeavors.

- In general our women tend to be more beautiful than most other races. Certainly so.

- But when it comes to comparing the top beauties in the world, I would disagree with you and others totally, for the following reasons.

a. The pictures you have posted of Ash Rai are not the best ones available. Perhaps you may agree that there are good pics and bad ones of any beauty. eg Liz taylor, once considered the most beautiful woman , appears rather fat and ungainly in some pics. So maybe a little bias on your part caused some of the less attactive pics of Ash Rai and other Indians to be posted against the best pics of the European beauties.

b. As for beauty contsts being cesspools, I doubt whether any of us would say that aloud if our favorite won the contest.

c. I apologize for stating that the research articles were unscientific, but what I intended to say was that these papers ( I have published in exess of 40 research papers myself ) do NOT necessarily pertain to beauty in real life, because beauty in essence is a combination of ‘physical beauty + inner charm’ that projects itself outwardly to the onlooker.

d. The biological reason that India, a real cesspool of a country in many ways, manages to produce great beauties is because of a very large genetic pool resulting from mmigrations from the caucasus, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Israel, Africa etc., compounded by a 1billion + population. I believe the British also added a considerable amount of genetic variance to that country’s genepool while tthey were there ! So blaming Indians is partly blaming ourselves ( Though I am more dutch than Brit ).

e. recent Genetic research by cavalli Sforza, Bamshad et al, Oppenheimer, Spencer Wells etc have clearly indicated that an Aryan gene exists and that the Aryans did arrive in India. In fact most high caste Hindu Brahmins carry genes that are mostly Western European in origin ( R1a1, R1b ) etc..

So the Indians should thank us whites for their beauty too, as so elegantly said by you while posting that pretty pic of Aditi Govitrikar ( Ms World 2000 ). In fact, Indians set a world record in beauty by winning all 4 major international beauty contests (Miss world, Miss Universe, Miss Asis Pacific and Mrs World ) in 2000.

Will give detailed references if required.


39

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:06 | #

Hi Guessedworker,

Thanks for the kind response.

If you would care to read my reply to J Richards you would find answers to most of what you asked me.

As I said, I am with the whites on most issues. BUT sometimes there are certain undeniable truths , such as ’ there are some very beautiful women in other races too ’ who might be just a tad more beautiful than our best women occasionally.

Also, I am not denying that Nordic faces are the most attractive. But, then Indians are also caucasians and some do have mostly nordic faces. Richards himself says [ in another post here ] that some good looking Hindus like Aditi Govitrikar, Ritik Rosan etc.,  have us nordics to thank for their beauty !! Isn’t that a tacit acceptance or what ?

It is true that there are about 75% mixed population in India but there are about 25% [ 250 million souls ] including some relatively unmixed upper caste elite as proven by Bamshad et al who studied the Aryan genetic composition in India. So Indians are a watered down version of Caucasians.

Sometimes we have to call a square a square , whether drawn by a white or someone else ! Some truths are difficult to deny.


40

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:21 | #

Hi Ethnocentrist

Beauty contests are the only yardstick avaialble. Even Richards is comparing beauty contest winners, as you can see.

If you ask the Chinese they will say that Chinese women are the best looking. So someoen has to decide, and thats what happens in beauty pageants.

If our white women won or kept on winning would you say the same thing about beauty contests ?


41

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:23 | #

Malcolm A,

Better looking facial pictures of Aishawarya Rai show her with heavy make-up, colored contacts and light overexposure.  You need to see through make-up wizardry.  Anyway, there is no way camera tricks could make her physique look anywhere as feminine as that of the white woman shown below her.

Political correctness is obvious in Western and International beauty pageants, regardless of the race of the winner.  The 2005 Miss Universe and 2005 Miss World beauty pageants were won by white women, but this does nothing to change the fact that these pageants are PC-ridden.

I have not based some comparisons on beauty contests because they are an appropriate yardstick of beauty, but because the Miss India contest likely does not have to deal with the political correctness that Miss USA does, yet white women beat the Hindu women hands down.

You talk about inner charm as a component of beauty.  This is true, but this entry has nothing to do with inner charm; it addresses physical appearance.

There is no Aryan gene, but genetic correlation structures that distinguish races, and I am aware of the white genetic contribution to India, but this contribution is minor and most extensively found in the upper caste people who themselves are a minority of the population.  It is incorrect to describe Indians as Caucasoid when only a minority of them look Caucasoid, and in even the latter, significant non-Caucasoid genetic material can be easily shown.

Since you acknowledge that white genetic contribution is a major component of the best-looking Indians, if white contribution is what it takes to make an ethnic Hindu better looking, then it follows that the best looking people are white unless you believe that there is something about the looks of whites that could be improved upon via Hindu admixture, but I am not aware of any such features.


42

Posted by Westhoek French on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:51 | #

Does this lady [Néfertiti] upset any applecarts?

Although much rarer, North Africans beauties do exist. I acknowledge a personal strong anti-arab bias, yet I already saw young Algerian girls like that. Especially among those whose origins go back to Kabylia.


43

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:37 | #

Hi J R

Thanks for your comments.

1. As for pic’s of Ash Rai being heavily madeup etc., pictures of both Indian as well as European beauties are always taken with the best possible makeup, camera angles and light exposure. This is a norm in the beauty industry, and therefore this factor should not play a role.

2. The contention that political correctness is a trend in beauty pageants is challenged by the fact that the Mongoloids have rarely, if ever, won an international beauty pageant, whereas Mongoloids play a significant role in both world politics and World Economics these days - vis a vis CHINA, JAPAN etc.

Also, the very fact that, as you say, Nordics won in 2005 ( Miss Australia & Miss Canada ) only goes to prove that there is NO trend towards ‘political correctness’ in these pageants.

3. Research geneticists such as Spencer Wells and Prof. Bamshad have used the R1a1 gene (M17 marker) to establish Aryan migration to India as a fact, and R1a1 is called the ‘Aryan gene’ as it helps to establish evolutionary clusters of the Aryan branch of the caucasoids and prove that the Caucasoid group known as Aryans who are further linked to
each other by a common Indo-European language did arrive in India.

4. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as it may seem, current Linnaean classification recognizes Indians as the NORDINDIC sub group of the Caucasoid race ( Nordindic and Nordic are closer than we think !) and even classifies the darker skinned Dravidians of South India as primitive Caucasians of the Dravidic sub-group.

I am aware that many of us whites like to equate CAUCASIAN to WHITE, but it is ABSOLUTELY NOT SO in scientific terms.

5. The contributions made by the British, French and Portugese etc.. to the Indian gene pool may appear insignificant at first glance, but it helped form well-defined and isolated social groups in India such as the Anglo-Indians and the Goans etc., which maintained very distinct physical features. The scientific principle that applies here is that of
Randon Genetic Drift and the Founder Principle, which cause deviations from the Hardy Weinberg Principle leading to isolated populations with phenoytypical traits that are significantly different from their parent population [Rita farian, the First Miss India to win Miss World in 1965(?) was a Goan, I believe].

6. As you say, Indians may have to thank those ancient white Caucasian Aryan ancestors ( Persians, Greeks, Turks and Russians ), and to a lesser degree, the British and other European Colonialists for the exceptional physical beauty they have inherited, but thanks are also due to the gene pool they received from those other Non-Aryan Caucasoids from
the Mediteranean such as the Semitic Syrians, Israelis, Arabs etc.. resulting in so called ‘hybrid vigor’, an unbeatable combination.

Hence, a little admixture with other groups have erased some unflattering traits of our race such as Albino skin leading to a nice peachy or creamy, off -white hybrids such as Preity Zinta, Udita Goswami and others.

Take care


44

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:30 | #

Malcolm A,

The heavy make-up and light over-exposure in Aishwarya Rai’s pictures are remarkable, and not your ordinary level of make-up in European models.  Anyway, here are three more pictures of her.  Notice her part-Mongoloid features, massive jaw, thick lips, facial masculinization, colored contacts and brown hair coloring.  Are you seriously telling me that this is a very attractive woman?

Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai

And, here is a picture of the masculinized and unimpressive Udita Goswami, which I do not understand why you find to be attractive:

Udita Goswami

I have posted a picture of Preity Zinta above, but here are two more pictures of her:

Preity Zinta

Preity Zinta

How can you be a white man and find these Hindu women attractive, let alone very attractive?

To reply to your second point, I have previously mentioned that letting too many Mongoloids or Negroids win will alienate the audience, and hence they use Hindus and Venezuelans to avoid charges of racism.  It is remarkable that you refute the notion of political correctness by virtue of a Nordic occasionally winning; a Nordic has to occasionally win or else the audience will be alienated.  Once again, the balance for the pageant organizers to achieve is to intersperse crowning the most attractive women (read white) with crowning non-white women—generally not as different looking as Mongoloids and Negroids—to best retain the audience as well as avoid charges of racism.

To reply to your remaining points, term such as Nordindic and related classification terminology are outdated terms that are not in current usage.  As the pictures above show, most Hindus do not have Caucasoid facial features and the genetic evidence for substantial non-Caucasoid ancestry among Hindus is overwhelming.  Therefore, it is incorrect to describe Hindus as Caucasoid, notwithstanding European genetic contribution to the Indian gene pool.  Additionally, a marker pointing to part-Aryan ancestry is best not described as an Aryan gene. 

You have mentioned hybrid vigor, but have failed to back up evidence for it.  I have disputed this idea in my entry on Saira Mohan and offered evidence for the negative health consequences of race mixing and craniofacial evidence for loss of morphological integration resulting from race mixing (links in a previous comment).

The only feature of whites that you identify as something that can be improved upon via Hindu admixture is albino skin.  This is not the view of most whites.  I prefer a slight tan myself, but want the baseline to remain albino; this way you get a pasty white woman in the winter and a tanned woman in the summer.


45

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:27 | #

Hi JR

1. It was not I who praised Ash Rai as the ‘most beautiful woman’ etc etc.,  It was mostly those from our own community. such as Julia Roberst, Roger Ebert ( when asked ‘who is the most beautiful woman,’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ and when asked , ‘who is the second most beautiful woman’ he replied ‘Ashwarya Rai’ again !), 60 Minutes, David Letterman etc etc.. She was also selected as the most beautiful Miss World ever, and Most beautiful woman by the Hello Magazine poll. So it is NOT my personal opinion. There are aslo 17000 websites devoted to her from what I hear !!

So obviously I am NOT the only white with a thing for Indians! I am not into Hindus, Xtians etc., etc., as that has nothing to do with the physical. I think gorgeous Uma Thurman is a Buddhist, if I am not mistaken…

2. I am NOT clear as to why choosing a Mongoloid /Negroid Miss Universe would alienate anyone as it would prove the exact opposite of ‘racism’ or ‘political incorrectness’

3. If, as you say, the Nordindic classification is outdated , could you please provide the current classification for me. I admit that I am NOT a geneticist but a Population Biologist ( Did take a lot of Genetics courses in Grad school though ).

4. As for your point about Aryan heredity, ‘Aryan’ is a now extinct group believed to have given rise to all the Indo-European speaking people of today. They form one of the 2 major branches of the caucasoids ( Aryan branch and the Semitic Branch ) and whether we like it or NOT the Dravidians as well as North Indians are classified as caucasian. The term Indo-Aryan is used to describe 72% of the indian population in the 2005 CIA World Fact book.

5. Spencer Wells studied the R1a1 distribution and discovered that it originated in the Caucasus (Kurgan culture) and traced it to India. I believe his book is titled “The Journey of Man ” if I am not mistaken.

6. I am sure you are familiar with the term ‘hybrid vigor’ which is a common term for a genetic trait, where inbreeding causes deterioration of the Genepool of a population, as opposed to admixture which adds new genetic variation enriching the gene pool.

I believe that, in the case of physical appearance, traits such as skin color, eye color and other physical traits are mostly governed by multi gene effects ( more than one gene ), and admixture with slightly different populations will smoothen out harsh or extreme features as extreme whiteness, masculine features etc.. and lead to a median off-white, soft, oval faced beauties of Italian mediterranean, Middle eastern Indian looks.

I find our white women very pretty, but on average, their bone structure, demeanor and appearance tends more towards the masculine rather than the feminine, which is compounded by the easily reddened sensitive white skin, and it is this disparity that gives an edge to the non Nordics.

I have no problem with the Caucasian facial features of white as well as non-white caucasians at all. They are the most beautiful.


46

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 03:27 | #

Because JR indicated a preference for tanned women (and of course Malcolm A. is going on about swarthy women as well) I’d like to chime in here and defend white skin on Euro women.  I like white women’s white skin.  Skin on a Euro woman that is alabaster-white, ivory-white, milk-white, snow-white—with no tan, not even a hint—is extremely beautiful, by far the most beautiful woman’s skin in the world.  On some Euro women, white skin is so white it has almost a bluish cast, as if sort of marbled by the veins or something.  On the right kind of white woman, that all by itself can make strong men faint from its sheer beauty—strong men of sense, that is; men who know the value of things.  Women who are incapable of tanning, but only burn—natural fiery-red or orangey-red redheads, and a large proportion of blonds, in other words—have exquisitely beautiful skin.  I have never in my life, ever, not once, felt a tan improved a woman’s looks.  Never.  To my eye white women are the most beautiful, with their swan-like white skin and everything else about them.  They don’t need to be emulating swarthy women in anything, nothing:  not one single thing.  So that, for me, is part of the matchless beauty of white women:  their snow-white skin, those divine human swans who have it.  With that said, I find Subcon women among the world’s most beautiful (Euro women have them beat) and I certainly don’t have aught whatsoever against tan, brown, or black skin on a woman.  But the tan, brown, or black skin itself is not as beautiful as white skin itself.  White skin itself actually has its own beauty exclusive of the woman, which tan, brown, or black skin itself doesn’t have, to my eye.  But tan, brown, or black skin don’t detract from a swarthy woman’s beauty.  If something detracts from a swarthy woman’s beauty, for me it’s never her swarthy skin.  If the rest of the package is right, the skin makes no difference for my taste.  For me, if a white woman who was beautiful on other grounds had jet-black skin she’d still be beautiful.  What makes Grace Jones unattractive to me isn’t her dark-chocolate skin but everything else about her looks (and the personality that shines through her looks).  Anyway, I wanted to get my two cents in, in defense of whiter-than-white-skinned Euro women:  they’re angels as far as looks go.  They have nothing, not one thing, to envy in swarthy women (though swarthy women can of course also be very beautiful).  When men talk about how much a tan improves a white woman’s looks I start yawning ... “When’s the interesting convo gonna start around here? ... Oh, that again?  That ‘tan’ thing?  These men don’t know beauty when they see it ... OK someone wake me up when they start talking sense around here ....

“Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .......”


47

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:14 | #

Malcolm,

In answer to the alienation factor I blogged on the Miss America beauty pageant here

In essence, Miss America was a testament to the moral character of America in the first half of the twentieth century.  It was a show about and for women.  The hugged and kissed and crowned victrix was a lodestar for young female minds, her mock-regal progress in triumph all bedecked with roses and popping flashbulbs a consummation sans Eros.  Judged, chosen and yet remaining curiously but unequivocally chaste - this, it said, is what’s right, what’s best for an all-American girl.  Be like this and you are all that you possibly can be in America.

... Despite some pretty flakey attempts to keep up with the times – to be more “correct” (wrong audience), to be sexier (wrong audience), to be racially blind (wrong audience and insincere) – the Miss America organisers could not hold viewer numbers.  A future of low budget cable TV awaits them.  It probably won’t last long.

Meanwhile, we might now ask ourselves which was better for the formation of the healthy female mind, Miss A or MTV?  And we might ask ourselves where the hell we go from here?

MTV, of course, is a symbol for all that is counter-white at a political and cultural level in public discourse.

I do urge you to detach yourself from the public mind in a more scientific vein.  The door to white dispossession and deracination was opened by powerful and careless people in Britain and Europe in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1965 in America.  It was opened in Australia when the White Australia policy was first loosened then dumped, also after WW2.

At this point in the process, public perception among whites the world over is floating detached from its biological moorings, the plaything of a false-moral imperative towards extinction.  You seem not to have realised this fact or, if you have, not formulated an inner resolve to do what you can to resist it.  You argue, basically, that we are told something therefore we believe it, we believe it therefore it is true.

We are not told the truth, however.  The fact that people think the haggish Aishwarya Rai is, from the non-existent standpoint of racial disinterest, objectively the greatest beauty in the world speaks more of the power of money interests and our own suggestibility than anything else.  JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison ... and whose refinement might actually be the basis for an objective beauty, if such can be said to exist at all.

I think this is a fine riposte to the “sexual socialism” we are sold everywhere everyday.  What are you doing in this thread and in the rest of your life to rectify present-day wrongs and promote our survival?


48

Posted by Steve Edwards on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:17 | #

Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent).

I don’t really have a strong preference either way, some darker women are gorgeous as are some white women, but let’s not kid ourselves about the preferences of most women in foreign countries - they prefer to be pale.


49

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:51 | #

Hi Fred Scrooby

1]. .

I like white women’s white skin.  Skin on a Euro woman that is alabaster-white, ivory-white, milk-white, snow-white—with no tan, not even a hint—is extremely beautiful, by far the most beautiful woman’s skin in the world.

I respect your opinion. We are all entitled to ours

2]. .

OK someone wake me up when they start talking sense around here .... ....zzzzzzzzzz…....

Hehe….If you find this topic boring, blame JR. It is his fault.. He started this thread. Not I.

3]. This is about whether nordic, blue eyed women with
alabaster skin are the most beautiful. In the eyes of Nordics I am sure they are. I agreed too, as stated in my earlier post that, on average, Nordic women are the prettiest. I am not a fan of dark/swarthy skin either.

There are several aspects to this topic.
1. Socio -political - It becomes a matter of racial pride.
2. Philosophical - Is beauty worth discussing
3, Scientific - Biology of beauty.

I am trying to discus the 3rd [scientific] aspect of it.  I stumbled on this forum when I ran across JJ Ray’s Indian beauty thread. There are 3 related topics ; Indian Beauty, More on Indian beauty and Evolution of Nordic blue eued women.

The question is why are our beautiful women losing more these days ? All of you seem to believe ‘political correctness’ to be the key factor. I believe, once individual /racial bias is
overcome, the Biological/genetic explanation is that visual sensations prefer the median ( Not very black or very white, but just pale).

Isn’t this supposed to be under ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS ? So genetic explanations matter.

The question is though, like all other races, we have concluded our women to be beautiful, what happens when collective global perception comes in ? This is the crux of the matter when it comes to beauty.


50

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:14 | #

Hi G W

1]

I do urge you to detach yourself from the public mind in a more scientific vein.  The door to white dispossession and deracination was opened by powerful and careless people in Britain and Europe in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1965 in America.  It was opened in Australia when the White Australia policy was first loosened then dumped, also after WW2.

Thanks for a most interesting response. Could you please explain to me how your 1st statement above relates to your 2nd above.

2]

We are not told the truth, however.  The fact that people think the haggish Aishwarya Rai is, from the non-existent standpoint of racial disinterest, objectively the greatest beauty in the world speaks more of the power of money interests and our own suggestibility than anything els

.

Ashwarya does look a bit haggish at 32 years, though JR’s agenda of posting the most unflattering pics available is partly to blame ! But that’s what age does to most beauties white or otherwise. Personally, I have seen both white and Indian women who are much better looking than Ashwarya!

Hey, as I said, don’t blame me. Blame all those judges at Miss world,( mostly anglos Nordics ) and the likes of Julia Roberts, Roger Eberts , Bob Simon etc..

I personally don’t believe there is such a thing as the most beautiful woman.

3] JR is commending us to return to the understanding that beauty, for white men, lies in the white woman, from whose perfection others shrink by comparison

I totally agree with you on that. We whites are self destructive. See what we Americans are doing with China. Helping them to become more and more powerful so they can challenge us. I am NOT a race traitor but I also don’t believe that just saying that there maybe a scientific reason behind why there are some prettier women out there is a BETRAYAL of my race.

BEAUTY is not that important a matter for survival of our race , is it ?.


51

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:25 | #

Hi Fred Scrooby

1]

Exactly, and let’s start telling our white women that more often!  They are better looking than Brazilians, better-looking than Subcons, better-looking than North Africans

Hey don’t waste your time. White women know this already and believe it too ( at least my 1st wife did !). I am with you on that one.

But, and I repeat, what we wanna do here is debate WHY our beautiful gals don’t win as much. As far as I can see there are 2 explanations given so far.

a. Beauty contests are rigged ( political incorrectness )
b. There maybe a genetic reason that affects perception of beauty.

That’s all .


52

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:35 | #

Steve E

1] Every single Asian woman I have ever spoken to about the subject has told me that they want to be whiter than they are. Not surprisingly, the whitest women in Asian societies are generally seen as the most beautiful (that includes the sub-continent).

In India the ’ Fair and Lovely cream’ , a skin whitener is doing great business for the very reason you have mentioned. That is because the browner women want to get fair skin. Does that mean they wanna be 100% white ? I dont know that for sure.

Many North Indians , Punjabi, Kashmiris etc , who are very very fair, don’t use any creams, which I know from personal experience.

It is a craze in China too for sure. But that I believe is ‘cos fair skin is about the only really beautiful feature they have ( their facial and bodyshape attractiveness is very marginal )


53

Posted by EV, EF, ER! on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:40 | #

Malcolm must be one those millions of smallish, dusky subcons whom imagine themselves to be blue and blonde Teutons, a delusion that won’t survive the purchase of a mirror (which they cannot yet afford on India’s $300/year wages).


54

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:45 | #

EV, EF, ER! - I dont like the sneering tone of your comments. Malcolm has stated various things here in a polite and open-minded manner, I think you could manage the same.


55

Posted by EV, EF, ER! on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:54 | #

Lurker,

He won’t be offended if I am wrong.


56

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:02 | #

Hi JR

Try this one

1.http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/rating.asp?catid=475004

more here ;

http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/category.asp?catname=udita goswami&page=2&thumb;=

cheers


57

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:22 | #

“If you find this topic boring, blame JR.”  (—Malcolm)

I apologize—I didn’t mean to say I found the topic you and JR are discussing boring.  What I find boring is when white guys start talking about how much better white women look with a tan.  When I hear that, my eyes glaze over.  But as for your comments and JR’s in this thread, I’ve found them quite interesting.

“This is about whether nordic, blue eyed women with alabaster skin are the most beautiful.”

That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities.

“I am not a fan of dark/swarthy skin either.”

OK but for my part, I wouldn’t say I “wasn’t a fan” of swarthy skin in women.  I certainly have nothing whatsoever against swarthy skin in women.  Not a thing.  What I’d say is I find white women’s white skin ravishing, I find white women (complete with untanned white skin) the planet’s most beautiful, and I find Hindu and Paki women often quite beautiful also, though Euro women have them beat (sorry, all you subcon girls out there ... hey you’re often gorgeous but Euro women are the undisputed queens of gorgeous ...).  I added somewhere that, esthetically, I have naught whatsoever against brown skin on a woman per se (or tan skin, or yellow, or red, or literally jet-black for that matter, assuming jet-black exists somewhere—maybe among the North-African Tauregs?  or somewhere in the Subcontinent?  I think it or damn close to it can probably be found)—if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me.  I’m literally never attracted to Negro women and it’s not the chocolate-fudge color of their skin that makes it that way but other qualities that make it that way, including non-physical ones (personality).  Their particular skin color by itself is perfectly fine.  Put the exact same chocolate-fudge skin color on a woman I find very attractive and I’ll still find her very attractive.


58

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:46 | #

For what it’s worth, in my opinion darkish skin tones (i.e. Mediteraneanish)  combined with Euro features are the most attractive. A. Rai looks fairly attractive, but then she also looks like a Euro with dark skin. You should look at a real Indian. Indian friends tell me England is a huge relief!

Oh, and EV, EF, ER!- you are a scandal and should be ashamed of yourself.


59

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:08 | #

Malcolm, the lady has a hook nose, thick lips, masculine jaw.  In a white women these things would be sexually disadvantageous, no? 

I don’t believe that there there is a general mean to which all peoples can assent.  I believe we all fight like hell for our own reality, for not to do so is to relinquish power to an enemy.

On my two statements, the link is liberalism.  Everything I scribble is anti-liberal.  I accept that my scribblings do not state at the outset, “this is an anti-liberal statement.”  I expect people to take that as read.  And now I have explained it clearly, you, at least, can do exactly that.

But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ...  In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it!

Geez, with all this goin’ down inside my head how do I manage to be so happy?


60

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:18 | #

Malcolm A,

The reason that a huge number of websites are devoted to Aishwarya Rai is that there are a billion-plus Indians.  Given the looks of the average Hindu, it is understandable that Indians would hold Aishwarya Rai in high regard, but look at her photos carefully and tell me how a white person could see her as a great beauty; once again, notice the part-Mongoloid face, facial masculinization, thick lips, big cheekbones, massive jaw, hooked nose, masculine waist-hip region, etc.—and these are not an illusion based on me posting the most unflattering pictures of her; the pictures that I have selected are the ones that clearly show these features; for instance, most of her pictures show her from the front, and it is easy to miss her hooked nose in these pictures.  The examples of whites that find her attractive are hardly impressive.  Some of these people are giving politically correct comments, Julia Roberts is far from the best looking white woman, and since Roger Ebert married an ugly black woman, Aishwarya Rai would naturally appear to be a beauty queen in comparison.  If Miss World Organization can crown the likes of Aishwarya Rai as a Miss World, then given the voice of a billion-plus Indians, it can surely say that she is the most beautiful Miss World ever.

The reason choosing a lot of Mongoloids and Negroids as pageant winners will alienate the audience is as follows.  Whereas many non-Caucasoids find Caucasoid facial features attractive, few non-Negroids and non-Mongoloids find Negroid and Mongoloid faces attractive, respectively.  Therefore the best choices of non-white winners are those that have facial features leaning toward the Caucasoid. 

Regarding the obsolete term Nordindic, there is no official scientific racial classification anymore.  Geneticists avoid the word race and use, instead, population stratification and populations clusters, and most South Asians fall into a South Asian cluster that is clearly distinct from the cluster that Europeans fall into.  Besides, genetic studies have revealed substantial East Asian genetic affinity in South Asia.  It is for this reason that if you insist of using traditional terms such as Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid, then South Asians are correctly classified as a mixed population with varying levels of Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid ancestry. 

Regarding hybrid vigor, there is also something known as outbreeding depression, which is what applies to human races, and I have cited literature on this in an entry on the negative health consequences of race mixing and the paper on loss of morphological integration as a result of race mixing. 

You mention soft, oval faces as attractive.  Well, oval faces are the classic ideal for Northern European women, and most extensively possessed by these women, and several of my entries have pointed out the finer facial features (read soft features) of Nordic women compared to other women.  Race mixing involving Nordics will be less likely to produce such traits.  It is remarkable that you describe Nordic women as having a more masculinized bone structure, when my entries, common observation, and Peter Frost’s data show that Nordic women have a more feminine appearance overall than other women.  The strongerbetter chins and smaller breasts in Nordic women may appear to be less feminine than in women in some other populations, but overall, Nordic women have a more feminine appearance, on average.

The link that you posted to Udita Goswami’s pictures doesn’t help your argument.  Most of the pictures don’t show her facial features clearly enough, and masculinization is evident in one picture where her features are clearer, but the woman’s torso is clearly manly.  Since you have mentioned that you have seen Indian women who look better than Aishwarya Rai, and you obviously know much more about Indian women than I do, why don’t you post or link to images of attractive Indian women?  You can host images at imageshack.us and hotlink them in your comment.

Your argument is that Nordic women are, on average, better looking than Indian women, but between these two groups, the best looking women are the lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid Indian women.  We can have a contest and see who can come up with the best looking women; the rule being that facial features should be clearly evident in the pictures.  I’d be interested to see you come up with Indian women who look better than beautiful Nordic women from a facial structure standpoint (we will ignore pigmentation).  If you plan on posting plenty of images, it would be best to do this in a separate entry.  Thus, you find the pictures that you are going to use and upload them to rapidshare.de, zupload.com or equivalent and post the link here, and I will post your pictures besides pictures of beautiful Nordic women in a separate entry and we can ask the blog readership to compare the pictures.


61

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:19 | #

Hi GW

1. On my two statements, the link is liberalism.  Everything I scribble is anti-liberal. 

2. But for the sake of absolute clarity, I am against liberalism, modernity, cultural Marxism, white racial dispossession and deracination, feminism, buggers’ licence, democracy and universal suffrage, equality, anti-Darwinism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, Jewish racism, Firedoglake-ism ...  In fact, you had better just assume I am against everything in the modern liberal zeitgeist unless I specifically exclude it!

Why so radical ? ...Sounds very extremist to me.

Aren’t the statements, given above, proof that you are NOT SO MUCH concerned about the TRUTH, but just a firm supporter of anti-liberalism at any cost and NO MATTER WHAT.

i.e. If an Anti Liberal says ‘Horses have 8 legs’ would you blindly support him, because he is anti-liberal ? Isn’t that a perversion of truth on your part ?

And do these thoughts apply to your perception of beauty too ?

Take care.


62

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:39 | #

Hi Fred

1.That’s true but to make it clearer, it’s not about whether their alabaster skin is what makes them more beautiful, but about a whole series of physical qualities.

2. if the whole package is right, brown skin or skin of any color is fine with me.

This is the very issue that I have been grappling with so far.
If, as you say,  skin color does not matter, is there any clear scientific proof that Nordics and other Caucasoids have dissimilarities in bone and skeletal structure what would make them statistically significantly different populations. I think NOT.

Most genetic differences between Nordic and Non-Nordic Caucasoid females are largely superficial and can be found in the eye color, height and skin tone. If significant differences existed they wouldn’t fall into Caucasoid group. See Mongoloid and Negroids have major, very obvious structural differences and are classified accordingly.

The most admixture has done , especially in middle eastern populations, is to smoothen out some sharp features of nordic populations.

This is where I disagree with JR.

Cheers.


63

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:01 | #

Hi JR

Thanks for the detailed response.

1. I have a question about the 4 pics you have posted from the Miss USA , above..Miss California, Kentucky etc…

Is your point that they are white but non-nordic and therefore won for reasons of political correctness ?

2. About Ash Rai, why beat a dead horse ? I think she got attention from the West only after she appeared at Cannes [ 2001 or 2002 ?]in a yellow saree…Looked good that day!

3. I am trying to post the latest Linnaean classification of Homo Sapiens for you. Give me some time. As a Biologist, I do not accept your claim that there is no current classification of the human species. I am a Population Biologist ( now semi retired ) who worked for over 25 years in the pest management field, and I am sure I can locate the latest classification .. The one I have posted might be the one, but I will check whether it has changed.

4. As for Udita I will try to post the correct link. I am very bad at posting pics and maybe you can help me out by posting one or 2 that I will provide links to. I think she looks pretty difficult to identify separately, especially in this one photo with a blond wig, I thought she was a nordic 1st.. There are also some other beauties that you might not have even heard of
( My wife is a beauty contest fanatic ). I also like Adrianna Lima, Letitia Casta, etc.

5. But, I think the most important factor is the biological aspect of this debate and would you post what you say are the significant bone structure differences between Nordic and Non -Nordic caucasians. The detailed paper you have posted does not clearly indicate the differences.

Also why do you use the term Nordic if you believe it to be outdated ? maybe as a point of reference ?

In a hurry.

Will be back later.

Cheers


64

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:49 | #

Malcolm A,

My point is not that the non-blond white women won because of political correctness.  There is a great deal of hair and eye color diversity in Europe, and minus political correctness, it is unlikely that all the top white contestants will be blonde, though one would expect them to be overrepresented if you average over multiple beauty contests.

Linnaean classification is old stuff.  Cladisitics is more popular, and whereas a scientific classification of human races is possible and can be inferred by anyone who takes the trouble of looking it up, such classification is not official and discussion of it is generally avoided.

I have been able to get the pictures of Udita by copying your link and pasting it instead of clicking on the malformed link.  Anyway, Udita is an unimpressive woman by European Standards, especially her physique.  See if you can come up with better examples, and I am especially interested in you coming up with lots of examples of Indian beauties so that we can see whether the best looking Nordic women or best looking Indian women look better.

Adriana Lima and Laetitia Casta look better than many women, but there are plenty of much better looking Nordic women around.

Nordic is not a racial term per se, but it is short for Northern European or something that pertains to Northern Europe.

There are a number of skeletal differences between European populations.  Perusing the [mostly old; e.g., C. S. Coon] anthropological literature will provide you with plenty of examples: more slender skeletal build of Southern Europeans, rounder crania in Central Europeans, especially elongated crania in several Northern European populations, greater height in Northern and [related] Eastern European populations, relatively greater leg lengths in some Northern European populations, finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans, etc.


65

Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:29 | #

HI JR

1.My point is not that the non-blond white women won…etc
Thanks for clearing that up.

2. Linnaean classification is old stuff.  Cladisitics is more popular ...etc.,

I am not aware of Linnaean classification being outdated at all. The old classifcation of human races was suppressed for the very reason we are discussing- political corectness.
Following WW II related race-based atrocities committed by Nazi Germany etc., scientists hastened to disown the human race concept and adopt theories such as geographical Clines, Clades etc. However, Cladistics is beset by a whole set of scientific problems and is not at all a widely accepted concept in systematics. The old Linnaean classification of binary nomencalture still holds ( Genera; Species).

However, all that is largely irrelevant to our discussion.

Replying to your contention in regards to differences in height, finer bone structure, skull shape etc., between nordic and non nordic caucasian women ( S. European etc ), do you know of any studies that show a statistically significant difference between such populations, because this question can only be answered by comparing representative samples from each population and conducting a statistically valid study.

3. Your usage of ‘Hindu women’ is misleading because, all Indians are not Hindu per se. There are many Xtians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Pharsis (persian ancestry) as well as Anglo-Indians and other Eurasians etc in India

4. I made a little mistake while posting the Udita Goswamy link by pasting it next to 1. Sorry about that. I never quite managed to master the art of posting pics. Also, some links are too long and breakup into 2 lines causing a bad linkup. In such cases copy-pasting the link should take you to the pic.

5. I am posting below, one with Udita in a blond wig and I would like to hear your opinon as to how close her look in that pic is to Nordic and if NOT how so ? If you wanna compare this with a Nordic woman, please post both pics side by side here so we can each see what the other is talking about rather than having to go back to the web site.

I am posting 2 more links to Amrita Rao and 2 others, who, in my opinion, has very narrow jawline and sharp aryan features. My main objective is to demonstrate that there isn’t that great a difference between the physical features ( especially facial parameters ) of these women and Nordics except in hair, skin and eye color.

1.Udita Goswami

2.Amrita Rao
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/Amrita Rao/pictures/4.shtml
http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/Amrita Rao/pictures/9-y.shtml

3. Katrina Kaif

http://www.pixparty.com/ftv/photos/2.jpe

4. Diya Mirza


More links will follow.

Cheers.


66

Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:50 | #

Hi JR

Re above post.

I notice that the 2 Amrita Rao links did not post fully when uploading to your site. Others are working.

Please type in percent symbol followed by 20 in the dotted gap after Amrita and before Rao to complete the link.

com/stars/Amrita…...... Rao/pictures/4.shtml


67

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:56 | #

Malcolm A,

Classification of organisms in terms of genus and species is, of course, the norm, but it is a different matter when it comes to subspecies, i.e., race.  There is no official acknowledgement of whether there are subspecies within humans, and for reasons that you have described correctly.

Anyway, there is no way South Asians can be classified as Caucasoid when they have a substantial non-Caucasoid element in them.  Even aside from genetics, only a minority of South Asians look Caucasoid.

In my previous comment, I linked to a paper that shows finer facial features in Northern and Central Europeans compared to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners; read it.  I don’t believe I need to cite any papers on some of the more obvious differences such as height differences between European populations.  You can look up W.W. Howell’s data for differences in skull shape between European populations:

Howells WW (1989) Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189.

Howells WW (1995) Who’s Who in skulls: ethnic identification of crania from measurements. Peabody Museum Papers 82:1-108.

I know that not all Indians are Hindu, but I believe that the Indian women that I have shown above are all Hindus, and Hindus being the dominant group in India, I might as well use Hindu as a proxy for Indian because Indian in the U.S. typically means Native American.

Even though your links are malformed, I have been able to see the pictures of the women by copying and pasting the links.  Anyway, now you are talking!  Nothing beats an actual comparison of some of the best looking Indian women with good-looking Nordic women to see who looks better.  Like I said previously, we will ignore pigmentation.

First up is Udita Goswami.  As you can clearly see below, Udita Goswami does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and I cannot imagine any white man finding the face of Udita Goswami better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right.  Udita Goswami has facial features in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and there is no way colored contacts, bleached skin and blonde hair dye could make her look Nordic.

Udita Goswami, Naomi Watts

Next we consider Amrita Rao, who once again does not have European facial features, let alone Nordic facial features, and as in the case of Udita Goswami, her facial features lie in between Caucasoids and Mongoloids.  Once again, I would be surprised if any white man found the face of Amrita Rao better than that of the Nordic woman shown to her right.

Amrita Rao, Sarah Peachez

Now, let us consider Diya Mirza.  Diya Mirza clearly does not have Nordic facial features; the gracile jaw and facial fineness seen among attractive Nordic women is simply lacking in Diya.

Diya Mirza, Chynna Phillips

Finally, we consider Katrina Kaif.  Katrina Kaif looks European, and is the closest to a Nordic among all your examples, but she is nowhere close to being among the best looking woman within a European context.

Katrina Kaif, Jennifer Avalon

Between Katrina Kaif and attractive Nordic women, some white men will likely prefer Katrina, but in all other cases, few to no white men will prefer the facial features of the other Indian women that you have mentioned.  Additionally, among the four Indian women that you have mentioned, only two—Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—have Caucasoid facial features, and your choices of the four women are no match for the fine facial features seen in attractive Nordic women. 

More importantly, your choices do not help your argument that between Indian/Hindu and Nordic women, the best looking are the ones with some combination of Indian and Nordic looks because of all the women that you have pointed out, the whitest, i.e., Katrina Kaif, will be seen as the most acceptable to the majority of white males.

See if you can come up with better looking Indian women.


68

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:16 | #

Hi JR

Thanks for the side by side comparisons. A I said, I am not good at posting pics. This, in fact, is the first time I am trying this stuff. Sorry about the bad links.

2, Some of your assumptions are correct while others are incorrect. Some of the women I have posted are not hindu ( religion ) I am pretty sure that Brahmins like Udita ,  Amrita Rao has no Mongoloid blood in them.

3. These wome certainly aren’t the best looking women in India. They are just good looking women with acting talent. If you have no acting talent you would not be an actress.So beauty is not the only criterion though it is a major one. ANd the same goes for the Nordics too.

1.Priyanka Chopra (Miss world 2000)

2.Amisha Patel
http://www.bollywoodpicturesgallery.com/pictures/amisha02.htm
http://www.bollywoodpicturesgallery.com/pictures/amisha10.htm

3. Celina Jaitley ( Miss universe 2nd runner up)

More will follow. I really must find time to go into the various sites and get some more pics for you. Perhaps by the week end!

As for your scientific argument I will post a detailed response as soon as I have time.

Also one more thing before I go. As you’ve said here, the Nordics would certainly prefer the women you posted but then that is not the criterion. What would the whole world prefer ?

Also we were discussing fine facial features and jawlines , and I think I see no difference between Amrita and the Nordic girl in you comparison. Also this comparison illustrates my point that Nordic women look too intense and masculine and aggressive as compared to the sweet, innocent and soft look of Amrita etc.. Also check out Amsiha Patel for the same reasons.

Talk to you soon.

Take care.


69

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:26 | #

JR

I would have liked to see that one link of Udita with the blond wig that I posted , but perhaps you overlooked to post that pic. Gives a very good comparison. The one you have posted here is not from the link I posted ..

Also some of Diya’s and Katrina’s pics are not from the links I have given above.

Those would have given a better comparison !

Cheers


70

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 02:25 | #

Malcolm A,

I said that the women whose pictures I posted above my previous comment were probably all Hindus, not that all pictures of Indian women on this page feature Hindus.  Anyway, I am just using Hindu as a proxy for Indian, as explained previously.

You are mistaken that Brahmins do not have any Mongoloid ancestry.  Some of the genetic data about castes in India that you have cited shows absorption of the mitochondrial DNA of low caste Hindus by the higher caste people, revealing female-biased Asiatic ancestry of the upper caste Hindus.  Besides, Mongoloid ancestry is clearly evident in the facial features of Udita Goswami (there is no way you could say that her face is Caucasoid).

Acting ability is required on the part of an actress and may not coincide with good looks, but given India’s large population and the romantic theme of the vast majority of Indian movies, one expects to see some of the best looking Indian women as lead actresses, and so far your choices are nowhere as good looking as the best looking Nordic women.

You have asked what would the World prefer?  I think most would prefer the Nordic women to the Hindu/Indian women in the comparisons above and also below.

How can you not see any differences in the jawline and degree of fineness of facial features between Amrita Rao and the Nordic woman to her right?  The Hindu has more massive jaws, larger cheekbones, a broader nose and a pasty face.  The Nordic woman has much more refined and sharper features.  I don’t see how you see the Nordic woman as having more intense and masculine features!

The pictures of the Indian women that I have used are mostly different from the ones that you have linked to for good reasons: your pictures are not clear and often too small.  For instance, you asked me to use a picture of Udita Goswami with a blond wig, but the photo you linked to was too small.  I found a larger version of it, and as you can see below, her hair is obscuring a lot of her facial features, and she does not look Nordic at all.

Udita Goswami

Now, I will post the pictures that you have linked to, followed by clearer comparisons.  You linked to the following picture of Priyanka Chopra.

Priyanka Chopra

However, a clearer picture of Priyanka Chopra clearly reveals non-Caucasoid facial features and nothing approaching the fine looks of a Nordic woman.

Priyanka Chopra, Grace Kelly

You linked to the following pictures of Amisha Patel.  Both your links show obscured features.

Amisha Patel

On the other hand, a clearer picture of Amisha Patel shows heavy-set non-Caucasoid features that are completely devoid of the refined features of attractive Nordic women.

Amisha Patel, Annah

You linked to the following pictures of Celina Jaitley.

Celina Jaitley

However, the following clearer picture of Celina Jaitley shows non-Caucasoid facial features that are far removed from Nordic fineness.

Celina Jaitley, Charlize Theron

This time all three women that you have chosen have non-Caucasoid facial features with clear evidence of part-Mongoloid ancestry.  How can the heavy features of these women compare to the fine features of attractive Nordic women?


71

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:00 | #

Hi JR

First of,  several inconsistencies in the points you have raised.

1. It is the differences in the pic’s ( angle, light etc ) rather than the differences in the faces that stand out ; i.e :  compare the 1st 2 pics of Udita and Priyanka with those of the 3 Nordics you have posted and I see hardly any difference in the overall facial structure/features.  It is just differences in the angles of the specific portraits that stand out .

2. I agree that Amisha and Celina do have somewhat more smaller and less angular facial bone structures, but so do lots of nordic like Britney Spears etc. It is just that you have
selected Nordic women with somewhat longer faces to prove your point.

Second of, my point in posting Amisha and Celina’s pics was to demonstrate that they have much more feminine, softer looks compared to the Nordic women in you next to last post
that males find more attractive.

The woman you have posted next to Amrita Rao ( Sarah Peachez)  looks like she could kill some one, point being projection of aggressive appearance ( not saying she is really that way). Indian women are on average, much more respectful,  gentle and tolerant to adversities in life, which probably accounts for the very low divorce rates (<7%) in the
subcontinent as compared to ours (50%). I should know. Married both kinds. Their nature reflects in their look.

3. Some of the Nordic women you posted apear to have brown hair (  Charlize Theron ) showing that it is all in the pic ( brown filter). Also most of them have a very unhealthy looking pinkish skin color ( Annah next to Amisha Patel ).

4. As for Celina Jaitley, she was 3rd runner up in Miss Universe, and her boyfriend is a Nordic movie producer ( ? Teague ), who is lving in India for the last 3 years . I don’t think Charlize even compares. Maybe someone like Kate Beckingsale ? ( One good looking Nordic in my book )

5. As for Udita’s blond pic,  her jaw looks pretty pointy to me and if you are calling her Mongoloid, what about Catherine Zeta Jones and Rene Zeilweger ? Pretty chinkish looking
right there.

In regards to Brahmins Maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) being mixed with lower castes it is the otherway about. Brahmins were infusing their genes into the lower castes. Brahmins could sleep w/ any women they wanted.

6. A VERY IMPORTANT POINT before I go. You mentioned that this non-Nordic beauty trend is a recent phenomenon ( ‘90s)  caused by political correctness, but Indian women have been appreciated for their beauty as early as in the 1950s and 60s too.

i]. Ayesha , Queen of Jaipur :
named one of the 10 most beautiful women in the world by Vogue in early 1960s
ii]. Leela naidu :
Indian fashion model -votd one of the 10 most beautiful women in the world by Vogue in
the 1960s
iii] Rita Faria : Miss world 1965 ?
1v] Shakira Baksh : Miss Guyana, and 2nd runner up in Miss World (1967)
( married Michael Cane who went bonkers for her after seeing her in a coffee commercialand immediately went and proposed to her (  RE: Whats It All About - Autobiograpby of Michael Cane ; says he went all sweaty palmed after seening the commmercial and couldn’tsleep whole night )

Find below, some more south Indian filmstars who are supposed to be Dravidian Caucasoids , but look pretty northern. Also as you’ve posted Grace Kelly etc., I am posting a coupla pics of Indian movie stars from yesteryear.

i]Asin (South Indian)
http://www.behindwoods.com/features/Gallery/actress/actress1/Asin-Gallery/Asin 17.html

&Id=515

&Id=633

ii]Simran (south Indian)


iii]Sneha Ullal(2000s)
http://www.apunkachoice.com/people/act755/sneha_ullal-stills6.html
http://www.apunkachoice.com/people/act755/sneha_ullal-stills.html

iv]sonali bendre(1980s)





v]sadhana (1960s)


72

Posted by Phil Peterson on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:23 | #

“Malcolm A”,

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

Earlier on this thread you said that Indian women were the most beautiful because they were of mixed race.

Now you say Indian (“Upper Caste”) women are not mixed because the mixing occured lower down in the social structure because the (“Upper Caste”) men could have sex with any women they wanted.


73

Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:48 | #

Hi Phil

JR’s contention was that Brahmins are mixed with Mongoloids and low castes etc..And I was trying to show that Brahmins could cause their genes into the lower castes but the lower castes were not able to infuse theirs into the Brahmins. Maternal DNA is carried from mother to progeny, and means that the Brahmin men took non Brahmin women and not the other way around.

2. When it comes to Indians ‘mixed’ is often used but is misleading . The proponents of the Aryan Theory like Spencer Wells argue that Aryans [ (M17) R1a1 carriers] displaced and later admixed with darker Dravidians who were non aryans, BUT were and are still considered Caucasian in Systematics.
They may NOT be Nordic Caucasians, but they are still Caucasians. I know JR will comeback with the ’ this classification is outdated’ argument, which I don’t buy.

3. Also, for a Brahmin, a lower caste could mean the warrior caste (Kshatriya) or merchat caste ( Vaishya).

So here the word ‘mixed’ has to be considered in a totally different context.


74

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:43 | #

Malcolm A,

You have to be kidding me that you cannot see any differences between the facial features in the specific pictures of Udita Goswami and Priyanka Chopra you mention and the Nordic women that I have compared them to.  Notwithstanding the obfuscation (by hair or angle) and the small size, some prominent differences are clearly visible.  For instance, in the photo of Udita Goswami with blondish hair coloring, you can see widely spaced eyes, a somewhat flattened nose (especially in the upper region ), somewhat flared nostrils, a tendency toward having slanted eyes and massive cheekbones; all these traits are leaning toward the Asiatic rather than the European.  You address Udita’s chin, but most of the variation in humans as far as the chin is concerned is within populations, and you need to look at the overall face to see evidence of racial ancestry.  You are right that Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger do not have very European facial features, and this is the major reason why these women are unattractive.  Their glamorous portrayal is make-up magic.  More importantly, very few Nordics (and Catherine Zeta Jones certainly isn’t one) have multiple facial features shifted toward East Asian facial features, but most of the Indian women shown on this page have facial features shifted toward East Asian norms, including the aboriginals in southeast Asia.

I did not say anything about Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley having smaller facial bones; their facial bones (especially cheekbones and jaws) are more massive than those of the Nordic women.  Controlling for face size, Nordic women have longer faces than Indian women, on average.  Anyway, Britney Spears is not an attractive woman and it is pointless to address her looks.

Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley have less angular features than white women, and this is what you are calling softer features.  Well, having more Mongoloid ancestry than Nordic women is bound to make their features less angular, but the reduced extent of angular features in them is not due to greater femininity but because of greater Mongoloid ancestry, instead.  Their facial bones are more massive than those of the Nordic women, and this makes them look less feminine.  Additionally, the part-Mongoloid pasty features of their faces are not what most whites prefer.  Besides, I doubt that there are very many white men who would prefer the robust facial features of Celina Jaitley to that of the finer facial features of Charlize Theron. 

The Nordic woman next to Amrita Rao looks aggressive?  Are you kidding me?  She has much more refined looks and a finer bone structure than Amrita.

I cannot comment on the gentleness of Indian and Nordic women since I have barely interacted with Indian women, not come across any relevant studies, and have known plenty of good-natured Nordic women, but the most likely reasons for the low divorce rate in India are 1) massive female illiteracy and low status of women, which make women dependent on men, forcing them to suffer male abuse without divorce as a practical option, and 2) a biased sex ratio, whereby reduced female availability implies than some men who do not like their wives would rather have a helping hand at home than try their luck at getting a new wife.

Yes, Charlize Theron does have brown hair, but so what?  Not all Nordics have blond hair.  With the exception of some parts of Scandinavia, only a minority of Northern Europeans have blond hair in adulthood.

Brahmins surely have been transferring their genes to the lower castes, but they also have absorbed lower caste genes among them—including the lowest caste and untouchable people—via upwardly mobile lower caste/untouchable females.  Here is proof:

Hindu castes

Figure legend. Neighbour-joining networks of genetic distances among caste communities. a, Network estimated from 411 base pairs of hypervariable region 1 of mtDNA. Distances between upper castes (Brahmin, n=41; Vysya, n=10; and Kshatriya, n=10), middle castes (Yadava, n=48; and Kapu, n=52), and lower castes (Relli, n=20; Mala, n=25; and Madiga, n=28) are correlated with social rank. Pairwise estimates of the proportion of genetic variation attributable to differences between groups indicate that the genetic distance between upper and lower castes is fourfold higher than between upper and middle castes (P<0.001). A neighbour-joining network of unique haplotypes reveals a star-like pattern (data not shown) with a few short central branches linking nodes from which tufts of long branches emerge. Lineages from different castes are scattered throughout the network, consistent with gene flow between communities or the sorting of lineages before the separation of castes. Analyses limited to transversions or excluding rapidly mutating sites within mtDNA HVS1 (ref. 9) do not substantially alter these results (data not shown). b, Network of genetic distances among caste communities estimated from Y-chromosome STRs (DYS19, DYS288, DYS388, DYS389A, DYS389B, DYS390 and DYS392) and SNPs (SRY10831, SY57 and RPS4Y)10. Upper, middle and lower castes do not cluster together, and distances between upper, middle and lower castes are not correlated with social rank.

Bamshad, M.J., Watkins, W.S., Dixon, M.E., Bhaskara, B.R., Naidu, J.M., Rasanayagam, A., Hammer, M.E., and Jorde, L.B. 1998. Female gene flow stratifies Hindu castes. Nature 395: 651-652.


How Brahmins got substantial Asiatic ancestry is not relevant to showing that they indeed have a large amount of Asiatic ancestry.  You curiously keep calling Indians Caucasians when most of the pictures of Indians here as well as what you see in real life overwhelmingly show non-Caucasoid facial features, which hardly necessitates genetic studies to address how Caucasian they are, but as the example above and numerous other studies show, how can substantial East Asian genetic contribution to the South Asian people be reconciled with their being allegedly Caucasian?

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.

I did not say anything about a recent non-Nordic trend in beauty pageants; a focus on appreciating Nordic beauty has been problematic since the time the Nazis were in power.  What has been seen in recent years is a sudden notable improvement in the placement of Indian women in beauty pageants.

You mention four examples of Indian women being appreciated for their beauty in the 1960s.  Big deal!  A population of several hundred million people with a significant Caucasoid element is bound to produce a handful of very good looking women.  And, here are some pictures of the four women that you have mentioned.

Maharani Gayatri Devi, with features in between Caucasoid and Mongoloid, but she does look good.

Maharani Gayatri Devi

Leela Naidu, with Caucasoid facial features but nothing approaching a fine Nordic nose.

Leela Naidu

Rita Faria (on the right; couldn’t find a better picture of her).

Rita Faria

Shakira Baksh, with nothing Caucasoid about her looks, and she looks much worse than both the white women next to her.

Shakira Baksh

If the 4 women above were among the best looking among hundreds of millions of Indian women in the 1960s, then the apparent conclusion is that beauty is largely alien to Indian women, with the best looking also happening to be the closest to Caucasians.

And, here are some more comparisons based on the newer women that you have mentioned. 

Asin, with a hooked nose (apparent in lateral view); compare the fineness of her nose and other features to that of the Nordic woman.

Asin, Heather Knigin

The manly Simran who doesn’t look Caucasoid, compared to a Nordic woman whom I don’t particularly like, but I am going easy on Simran.

Simran, Gretchen Mol

The aboriginal-featured Sneha Ullal.

Sneha Ullal, Angela Sommerfeld

The coarse-featured Sonali Bendre.

Sonali Bendre

The masculine and part-Mongoloid Sadhana.

Sadhana

Once again, none of the Indian women that you have pointed out are any match for the fine facial features of Nordic women.


75

Posted by Jules on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:20 | #

Well I read a lot of the post and as a Nordic woman, I can honestly say I am NOT ATTRACTED To most white men, unless they have brown hair or eyes. Those of English descents with their dark features, I find attractive. Now I agree with Malcom to some extent, some of the women are attractive, however some of them not to my standards of taste, such as Rai, whose figure I would say is “Overweight.”

However someone posted pictures of indian women next to nordic women, an on the contrary, I found that most of the indian women were actually better looking then the nordics. Yes majority of inidan people are indigeneous and not appealing to me, but those women are prettier then the nordic women compared to them.

Just because you have blond hair blue eyes does not mean you are beautiful. You are beautiful because certain features are attractive and overall your face is shaped nice etc

I am constantly sunning myself because I hate the paleness of skin colors and I would hate for people to say that I or any other Nordic women tan because we are trying to be more ethnic, just as I can understand when someone says a negroid or mongloid or asian or latin wants to have lighter skin because they want to be white. If one was smarter and well traveled, you would know that in those countries, perhaps not latin america as most do seem to want to be white, but in those of Indians or asians, they want lighter complexion to show that they are not poor field hands but rather wealthy people who are pale due to being in their house all day.

Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots, but unfortuantely, mine and many of my nordic friends are always attracted to the dark haired men whether they be latin, white or anything else that deems attractive. You know how they say, opposites attract, so perhaps, you could date women who dyes their hair blond.


76

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:51 | #

Jules,

Try to seperate the influence of your biology, which is eternal and true, from your own suggestibility, as evinced by your interest in obtaining a tan.  Little in what you have said is free from influence from without your own psyche, and strongly infers the powerful embrace of modernity.

As freedom is not self-expression when the expressions are acquired from without, so sexual preference is not genuine when it favours other races over one’s own for the same reason.  In that regard, women are situated somewhat differently to men, since sociobiologically they must adapt to accept tribal victors so as to pass on their own genes in whatever circumstances prevail.  But in evolutionary time tribalism is not antipathetic to racialism - tribal competitors, victorious or not, would likely be extremely close genetically.

The golden letters inscribed on the entrance of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi remain a better guide to freedom than liberalism.


77

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:24 | #

Hi JR

Thanks for the detailed response. This time I will try to respond in detail too.

1.

You have to be kidding me that you cannot see any differences between the facial features in the specific pictures of Udita Goswami and Priyanka Chopra you mention and the Nordic women that I have compared them to…etc..

I assume you must have some grounding in science. I am a field Biologist who has authored over 40 research articles in accredited journals and know something about scietific research methodology. Why I state this is for the following reasons.

i)  There are individual variations within populations ( chance or random ) and often two close but different populations overlap at their tail ends. The diffferences between Udita, Priyanka etc and the Nordics you have posted are individual variations within a population or ones that fall within the overlapping zones. These do not prove anything. (Type I and II errors in Biometry).

ii) This is why I inquired whether you possess or know of any publications proving a significant statistical difference between a combination of facial featues ( not just one or two ) between nordic and non-nordic Caucasians, which may prove that their facial structure pputs them in entirely different statistical populations.

iii ) The research papers you have provided are largely theoretical and do not provide any methodology, data or analysis thereof.

2.

You are right that Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger do not have very European facial features, and this is the major reason why these women are unattractive.  Their glamorous portrayal is make-up magic….

Catherine Zeta Kones was voted the second or 3rd most attractive woman in the world ( behind Aishwarya Rai ) by a recent poll in the UK. SO I am not sure whether you are on solid ground with the above theory of yours..

3.

I did not say anything about Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley having smaller facial bones; their facial bones (especially cheekbones and jaws) are more massive than those of the Nordic women.  Controlling for face size, Nordic women have longer faces than Indian women, on average.  Anyway, Britney Spears is not an attractive woman and it is pointless to address her looks

Amisha and Celina would certainly look different and appear to have less ‘massive’ jaws, if the angles were different and if I could post pics I would be able to post some Nordics with ‘massive’ jaws too..So you have the edge over me in posting the pics…

About longer faces , again, do you have a definitive statistical study ?

About Britney’s looks , we Americans would disagree with you totally. Folks here were crazy about her [before marriage]...Nordic and everything you know…

4.

Besides, I doubt that there are very many white men who would prefer the robust facial features of Celina Jaitley to that of the finer facial features of Charlize Theron. 

The Nordic woman next to Amrita Rao looks aggressive?  Are you kidding me?  She has much more refined looks and a finer bone structure than Amrita.

In fact, as I said, Celina’s boyfriend is a white man who moved to India to be with her ! And about Charlize , did you know that her mom shot her dad ? So some aggressiveness is certainly present.
As for Charlize having brown hair that whole pic was brown tintd, indicating a brown filter ? SO my point there was that pics can and do make a difference.

4.

the most likely reasons for the low divorce rate in India are 1) massive female illiteracy and low status of women, which make women dependent on men, forcing them to suffer male abuse without divorce as a practical option, and 2) a biased sex ratio, whereby reduced female availability implies than some men who do not like their wives would rather have a helping hand at home than try their luck at getting a new wife.

This is wrong. If the women were aggressive the men would divorce them. So the women’s status does not apply. THe availability of women does not apply to all parts of India equally ( true only in a few parts ) and in China it is even lower.

5.

You mention four examples of Indian women being appreciated for their beauty in the 1960s.  Big deal!  A population of several hundred million people with a significant Caucasoid element is bound to produce a handful of very good looking women

I did not say anything about a recent non-Nordic trend in beauty pageants; a focus on appreciating Nordic beauty has been problematic since the time the Nazis were in power.  What has been seen in recent years is a sudden notable improvement in the placement of Indian women in beauty pageants.

As i said,
1. The Bollywood women nor the 4 women Ayesha, Leela , Shakira and Rita represent the most beautiful women in India for the following reason

i. In India the elite families look down on movie industry and women who act in them ( a a form of exhibitionism and prostitution ) and would rather die than send their women to Bollywood. Though some change has occured in recent years ( Amisha Patel )

ii. India has 1 billion + and even if 1% of them were pretty it would be a very big number ( more than 4 ). As I said I move a lot in elite Indian circles here in N America and have seen Indian girls who can beat even Ash Rai in looks and no body even heard of them.

iii. Actually there were a lot of Nordics winning in the 50s to the 80s. It is just that the Indians , Latins etc are beginning to TRAIN better and speak and carry themselves better so that their superior looks are not masked by POISE.

5.

Shakira Baksh, with nothing Caucasoid about her looks, and she looks much worse than both the white women next to her.

Your argument does not hold.

Did you know that a panel of judges voted Aishwarya Rai (India, 1994 ) the most beautiful Miss World EVER, Claudine Auger (France in 1958 ) the most beautiful 1st runner up EVER, and Shakira Baksh (Indian 1967 ) the most beautiful 2nd runner up EVER, as recently as in 2003..

The judges were [ international panel w/ NO Indians]

Ms. Janet Boring (photo), Miss New York State and Miss United State’s 1st runner-up from 1961, Dawid Baraniak, Poland , Nick C, Turkey/NewZealand , Markku Erkkila, Finland , David Aizik, Israel, Donald West, Canada, Heidar Jonsson, Iceland, Lee Grindley, England , Peter Sereno, Australia/Philippines , Woojae Chung, Korea, Alberto Dubal, Brazil , Rafael Delfin, USA/Philippines , Marjukka Nieminen, Finland , Jimmy Steele, Canada and Julio Rodriguez,Venezuela

http://www.globalbeauties.com/contests/mw2ndru.htm

So please dont say that this was a poll result with Indians voting en masse.

7. Asin has a hooked nose etc..

This is mostly because of selective posting of pics. I am sure you have seen better pics of most of these women but did not post them. Would you post the 3 pics of Asin that I linked and then maybe we will compare.

6. Brahmin ancestry

As this is a scientific subject I will reply below with some references.

Cheers


78

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:12 | #

JR

As for your theory about the ancestry of Brahmins, here is an abstract of a very recent study published in Ann. Hum. Biol. using Mt DNA variations.

Mitochondrial DNA variation in ranked caste groups of Maharashtra (India) and its implication on genetic relationships and origins.

Ann Hum Biol 2003 Jul-Aug;30(4):443-54.

INTRODUCTION
Polymorphism in mitochondrial DNA have been proven to be useful in studying genetic relationships and origins. ...

CONCLUSIONS:
....The upper caste group, Brahmin, is genetically distinct from the middle and lower caste groups. However, ...... it appears that there may have been recruitment from other populations into this group….

This clearly indicates that whatever genetic infusion it was that took place into Brahmins was not sufficiently significant to alter their racial sub-group status.

If it is your contention that even mild incorporation of non Aryan genes would contaminate the Aryans, welcome to the real world ! Even we Nordics carry a lot of non Caucasian genes that are common to other groups as we all emanated from Africa ( re Stephen Oppenheimer’s The Real Eve. Modern Man’s Journey Out of Africa  ?? not sure if the title is exact ).

Also, responding to Phil Peterson’s commnets above, no one is arguing that Indo Aryans and Nordics are different sub groups. relative to Nordics the Indo Aryans ( Iranians ) are indeed different ( ‘mixed’ if you will ). But my contention in stating that brahmins aren’t mixed is that they remained largely isolated form other non-aryan groups such as Mongoloids and Dravid Caucasians, which is proven by the above study

Think Iranian when I refer to Aryans and not the Nordic aryans. These two groups split , reconnected and split again many a time durng the course of history.

Accounts for the lighter, peachier pale skin color of the Iranians [ as opposed to the less pigmented Nordic paleness] that most Northen Indians (Punjabis, kashmiris, konkana Brahmins etc ) carry.


79

Posted by Jules on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:48 | #

Whoever quoted that Catherine Zeta Jones was not attractive is absoulutely crazy!! there is nothing about that woman that isn’t perfect! Rene I find unique looking, not beautiful but rare and different. Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays.

As for someone’s comment saying that white men prefer to date Nordic women over other races, please tell me where, I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!! We have traveled all over the world, and no matter where we go, whatever race we encounter, the girl seems to hold some sort of spell over people because as long as she is around, its as if men who love nordic women forget that they do.

So to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!! I wonder where are you based that such an argument can be made??


80

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:45 | #

Jules,

Personal experience is no basis for disinterring Truth, and even popular conceptions are invariably misconceptions.

For what it’s worth, I find non-white skin and facial features disinteresting.  I look at a woman through a race-aware sexuality, and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant.


81

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:24 | #

I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration, however my friend who is half nordic and half asian of some sort, as soon as any man or woman sees her, its as if I or anyone else does not exist!!

Some Asian-white mixes do look good. But then there are many that do not. I have seen many Asian/white mixes in London and there are some that do not even deserve a second glance. It all depends.

In addition, I have never been attracted to Mongoloid or Negroid women. But there are lots of white men who prefer asian women. I would say that those who do are generally incapable of winning over the better looking white women (this may not be universally true but it generally holds).

Culture also plays a part. I hope I will be forgiven for saying this by my American friends and colleagues here. I have never, with one notable exception, been attracted to any American women I ever met (although they may not be a representative sample). Even the better looking ones sounded more masculine (and Im not alluding to the tone of someone’s voice but more to the manner and style of speaking and their demeanour). European women tend to be more feminine (although there are many that are obviously not). Incidentally, the American girl I found attractive grew up in Britain!

This has less to do with race (if we consider that there are many Nordic women in America too) and more to do with culture. 

Also, unlike JR, I do find some Italian and Greek women very attractive. As I have written on a previous thread, the best looking woman I have yet seen, IMO, is probably Monica Bellucci (when she was younger).


82

Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:40 | #

and regard those of my countrymen who do not do likewise as slaves to fashions of which they are sublimely ignorant.

Someone should do a study as to what types of women and shapes very considered beautiful in which age.  Looking at paintings a from a few centuries ago and we find most of the women in the paintings (when seen from my 21st century lens) obese or at least very plump. I would not consider them attractive. But they were clearly the standard of beauty at one time and that is why they were chosen as models for those paintings.

At the other extreme, we have anorexic women with little more than skin and bones on their body dominating the fashion ramps (for reasons we all know) these days.

So fashions obviously keep changing. And given the modern/post-modern obsession with multiculturalism, it comes as no surprise that race-mixed women are elevated to some sort of platform (which may not have happened in another time).


83

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:50 | #

Jules,

Nobody here is arguing that blond hair and blue eyes make one beautiful.  The issue is the attractiveness of people with a high frequency of these traits (Nordics) versus those with an absence of these traits (e.g., South Asian Indians), and with Malcolm, the debate specifically is about the best looking Nordic and Indian women.  The comparisons are one of facial features and the physique [most of the data pertaining to the physique are in the form of citations rather than pictures].  The fact that you like dark eyes and dark hair is not relevant, and is in fact true of several white women, but if you find the facial features of the Indian women better than those of the Nordic women in the comparisons, on average, then you surely are an outlier among whites.  Once again, the aforementioned comparisons address facial features, not pigmentation.

Regarding your tanning, you are just tanning and not trying to have your facial features surgically altered to make it more non-white, which cannot be described in terms of your trying to look more ethnic, but the non-whites who are trying to lighten themselves are also disproportionately going for plastic surgery to make their features look less ethnic and are thereby trying to look whiter.

Regarding your argument that you, an attractive Nordic woman, barely gets noticed if you are standing next to a white-Asian friend, I will believe you if I see a picture of you and your Asian friend together.  Host it at imageshack.us and link to it or click on the contact link at the top of this image and email it to the site owner (use the email address mentioned since emailing the owner from within this site will not allow you to send attachments). 

As far as my being absolutely crazy for not finding Catherine Zeta Jones attractive goes, I will let the following image speak for itself; even with extensive plastic surgery, she is no match for Nordic beauty.

Catherine Zeta Jones

Malcolm A,

Regarding your comment concerning Type I and Type II errors, even if you compare blacks and whites, the majority of the overall variation with respect to several skeletal parameters will be found within populations and only a minority between, yet there will be no difficulty in separating blacks and whites if a sufficiently numerous cluster of traits are examined.

More relevant to our discussion, yes there are Nordic women with massive cheekbones, Nordic women with large jaws, Nordic women with weakly developed chins, Nordic women with somewhat flattened noses, Nordic women with hooked noses, etc., but examining the cluster of traits such as jaw shape, nose shape, cheekbone shape, etc. clearly reveals Indians to be physically distinct from Europeans and especially Nordics.  Your own pictures reveal that the majority cannot be said to have Caucasoid features, let alone Nordic facial features, and most show some combination of European and East Asian features, which dovetails with the two major population affinities of South Asians.

You have asked again whether there are data that show statistically significant differences between the facial features of Nordic and non-Nordic Caucasians.  Did you not notice that I cited two of W.W. Howells’ books on this issue in a previous comment?  They have all the skull measurements you could want and are not devoid of data analysis.  You can download W.W. Howells’ data and run a cluster analysis on it to see if all Caucasoid populations are indistinguishable from each other.  Howells’ did not include South Asian Indians, but then South Asian Indians are not Caucasian, as shown below.

In a study of racial variation in facial flatness, South Asians, including people from Punjab and Delhi, both in the Northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent, thereby comprising of Indians that are closest to Europeans genetically, had, compared to whites, multiple facial features shifted toward Australian aborigines, Melanesians and related people in Southeast Asia; the Indians had flatter forehead profiles, a deeper infraglabellar notch, less projecting nasal bones and more protruding jaws at the level of the teeth.  See:

Hanihara T. Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jan;111(1):105-34.

So you have multiple shifts in average features of South Asians toward southeast Asiatics, even in people in Northwestern India, and an aboriginal contribution to South Asians is self-evident to any astute observer of the facial features of South Asians.  Is this an example of variation within a race supposedly comprising of both whites and the majority of South Asians?

Consider the following genetic study.   

A study of 199 ancestry-informative DNA markers showed that South Asians, comprising of mostly upper caste people, do not cluster with Europeans.

In the two figures below, EUA = white, AFR = black African, AMI = Native American, EAS = East Asian, SAS = South Asian, AFA = black American, PRN = Puerto Rican, MAM = Mexican-American and MXN = Mexican.

Cluster analysis of 199 ancestry-informative markers at k = 6 (i.e., 6 clusters) produced the following average contribution of the six clusters in the populations studied.

6 population clusters

When the proportion of each cluster in an individual (shown on the y-axis) is plotted for each consecutive individual (on the x-axis), the following results are obtained.

population affinity in each individual

Yang N, Li H, Criswell LA, Gregersen PK, Alarcon-Riquelme ME, Kittles R, Shigeta R, Silva G, Patel PI, Belmont JW, Seldin MF. Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers: application to diverse and admixed populations and implications for clinical epidemiology and forensic medicine. Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):382-92. Epub 2005 Sep 29.

Here is another study you need to look at.

A study of 993 microsatellite markers in 1000-plus individuals showed greater East Asian contribution to the gene pool of Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia than Europeans (except for the Euro World bordering the Mongoloid World).  You say that some whites have non-European genetics, and this is true, but other-race admixture is nowhere as extensive in whites as in Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia.  Had this study included Hindus, the non-European component among them would have been much greater since the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia are obviously much more European than those in other parts of South Asia.

In the figure below, the population clusters are color coded as follows.

Orange = Black African, Blue = European, pink = East Asian, Green = Melanesian/Papua New Guinean, Yellow = North American Native American, and Purple = South American Native American. 

Individuals are consecutively plotted on the y-axis and the proportion of each population cluster in an individual is plotted on the x-axis.

population affinity in each individual

Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Ramachandran S, Zhao C, Pritchard JK, Feldman MW. Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure. PLoS Genet. 2005 Dec 9;1(6):e70 [Epub ahead of print]

Thus, the facial features of Central Asians and the Northwestern inhabitants of South Asia would be in between Europeans and East Asians, just as several Russians bordering the Mongoloid World clearly show Mongoloid influence in their facial features.  So do you believe that there is anything anomalous about the pictures of Hindus/Indians on this page, most of which show features in between Europeans and East Asians, and will you still insist on classifying the majority of South Asians as belonging to the same race as whites? 

Mitochondrial DNA behaves as one locus, and notwithstanding the mtDNA paper that you cite whereby Brahmins can be distinguished genetically from low caste Hindus, the multi-loci studies above are quite informative and show Hindus as not belonging to the same race as whites.  As a group, Northern Europeans can be genetically distinguished from Southern Europeans just as Brahmins can be distinguished from non-Brahmin Hindus, but both Southern and Northern Europeans belong to the same race but Hindus do not belong to the same race as whites.  The important thing that you do not seem to appreciate is that the classification of Hindus as outside the race of whites can be made using a cluster of facial features alone.

Continued below.


84

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:52 | #

Reply to Malcolm A. continued from above:

Regarding the placement of the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Britney Spears in some prominent lists of attractive/sexy women, these lists are based on celebrities, and famous women who look decent though not really good and have some talents will invariably end up on such lists.  This does not mean that these women are particularly good looking.

Regarding my edge over you when it comes to posting pictures, this is half true, and the reason is your ignorance.  For instance, you can host images at imageshack.us or a similar free host and hotlink to the images in you entries.

Yes, you could find pictures of Amisha Patel and Celina Jaitley where their jaws look less massive, but this will be because of the obscure nature of the pictures rather than because these women do not possess massive jaws in reality.  Note that in the comparisons that I have shown, I have tried to show pictures that are sufficiently large and the women posed in a roughly similar manner.

So what if Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend?  This is a sample size of one and doesn’t prove at all that many white men will prefer her facial features to those of Charlize Theron.

You have made the absurd claim that some aggressiveness is present in Charlize Theron because her mom shot her dad!  Behavior genetics studies of the heritability of aggression do not reveal anything close to genetic factors explaining the majority of the variance in aggression.

You have argued that pictures can and do make a difference by pointing out Charlize Theron’s brown hair.  Well, her brown roots are evident in the picture, and once again we are not discussing pigmentation.  More importantly, I have myself pointed put that your pictures are sometimes too small or obscure as in the two pictures of Amisha Patel that you linked to.  Therefore, I am acknowledging that the angles and obfuscations in pictures can make a difference.  This is the reason that I have tried to provide sufficiently large pictures and similar posing angles in the comparisons.

Regarding my comment on the most likely reasons why the divorce rate is low in India, you have ignored a major reason and pointed out that if the women were aggressive then men would divorce them and therefore the women’s status does not apply!  All right, look at it this way.  A desire to divorce can arise in either partner.  However, if you have massive female illiteracy and low status of women such that few can lead an independent existence, then women-initiated divorce will generally not be feasible.  This should substantially reduce the divorce rate.  Then, it is very reasonable to postulate that if a man doesn’t like his wife for any reason (not necessarily aggression), and there is a shortage of women, and the man is guaranteed of a woman that cooks and cleans for him if he remains married to her, then why would the man want to divorce the woman unless he was forced to?  India does not having a widespread dating culture, especially in its villages, and if a man who is not young divorces his wife, then how easy will it be to obtain another woman and how easy will it be for a not-young woman to obtain a new husband?  Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is that the discrepancy in divorce rates between the U.S. and India do not suggest that the supposed greater aggressiveness of Nordic women plays any role in the discrepancy.

First you post pictures of Indian women, apparently mostly actresses, to point out really good looking Indian women and now you claim that these are not the best looking women because elite families will not let their women act in movies.  Well, the page where I got the picture of Leela Naidu from mentioned that Leela, a high caste Hindu, was an actress at a time when high caste women would generally not be among the movies stars, but this was decades ago and things have changed considerably.  Therefore, your point doesn’t apply.

You have mentioned that you move in elite Indian circles in the U.S. and have seen Indian women who look much better than Aishwarya Rai [whose lack of attractiveness is apparent in the pictures posted in the entry and comments].  Why don’t you photograph some of them and post their pictures?  Then I will see whether they look anywhere as attractive as beautiful Nordics.  You can tell them that this is for modeling opportunities.  This site does get a decent amount of hits and if these women are good looking, then some people may enquire about contacting these women.

On the other hand, your statement about having seen really good looking Indian women—who look better than the best looking Nordic women— is a mere statement and you need to come up with actual pictures to make others believe your point.  Like you, I could mention anecdotal experiences, too.  For instance, I have been to India and have traveled through Bombay and New Delhi.  I don ‘t recall seeing any Indian woman whose facial features looked Nordic, and I found none of them attractive, and most of my interactions were with upper class people who were presumably upper caste people.  Two of the people that I interacted with extensively had the last names of Sharma and Chatrvedi (not sure of the spellings).  Maybe you can tell us what caste these people belong to based on their last names.

In a previous comment of yours, you asked why I was beating a dead horse, i.e., mentioning more about the looks of Aishwarya Rai?  However, you have rehashed your argument by pointing out that Aishwarya Rai has been named the most beautiful Miss World ever—by an international team of judges—and mention Shakira Baksh in a similar vein.  Well, all Miss World competitions are judged by an international team of people with some distinction.  Therefore, if Miss World organization can crown an unattractive woman like Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994, then why should it be surprising if she is named the most beautiful Miss World ever by it?  Once again, it is evident from her pictures on this page that she is part-Mongoloid, has massive cheekbones, thick lips, large jaws, a hooked nose and other unappealing features in a European context.  Try to understand that international beauty pageants are hardly about beauty or else the likes of Aishwarya Rai or Shakira Baksh would not even be competing.

And do you believe that the hook-nosed appearance of Asin is because of the selective picture that I have posted?  The picture that I have posted does not reveal a hooked nose, but I mentioned this because I saw her hooked nose in a different picture, and I am posting it below.

On the other hand, not one of your links to Asin’s pictures reveals that the woman has a hooked nose because the pictures don’t show her in profile view.


85

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:30 | #

Hi J.R.

Hey, thanks for the detailed technical analysis including citations and references which purportedly support your view.
Perhaps, these references would be of use to me too..sometime in the future.

However, I wish to raise a couple of points…

1.
I think you have misinterpreted some statements made by me. I am posting here a portion of my reply ( italized) to Phil Peterson.

Also, responding to Phil Peterson’s comments above, no one is arguing that Indo Aryans and Nordics are not different sub groups. relative to Nordics the Indo Aryans ( Iranians ) are indeed different ( ‘mixed’ if you will )..........Think Iranian when I refer to Aryans and not the Nordic aryans. These two groups split , reconnected and split again many a time durng the course of history.

As you may observe, I have clearly said they are different sub groups of Caucasians.(i) The Nordindic Indo Aryans and (ii) the Nordic Aryans.

The arguments laid out by you only support this very superficial difference ( skin color, hair color, eye color differences ). Your references including those of TT Howell, Hanihara et al, Yang et al, Rosenberg et al are merely cluster studies based on cluster analysis , which is specifically a technique used in taxonomic studies. These are useful in placing various inter-related groups in common clusters rather than prove significant morphological variation. I have done a few of those myself.

In fact, L.L. Cavalli Sforza’s A MAP OF HUMAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY ( Title ?? ) almost solely depended on such claustering and ran into some criticism, though I agree with his basic assumptions within the confines of Cluster Analysis.

BUT, what you need for conclusive proof of your hypothesis is a simple statistical study like a 2 sample t, F test etc showing that these 2 groups fall into entirely morphologically different sub groups statistically.

2.

but both Southern and Northern Europeans belong to the same race but Hindus do not belong to the same race as whites.  The important thing that you do not seem to appreciate is that the classification of Hindus as outside the race of whites can be made using a cluster of facial features alone.

A very general and erroneous statement. Hindus ( Indians ) are not from one race anyway. There are Mongoloids (Assam etc ), Semitics (Jews ) among others in India. What would you call Nepalese Hindus ?

You rely on cluster analysis way too often. Clustering can prove that Toy Poodles and Regular Poodles fall into different clusters , BUT they are still poodles.

3.

Regarding the placement of the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones and Britney Spears in some prominent lists of attractive/sexy women, these lists are based on celebrities, and famous women who look decent though not really good and have some talents will invariably end up on such lists.  This does not mean that these women are particularly good looking.

So how about Grace Kelly, Chynna Phillips, Charlize Theron etc.. that you posted. Same theory applies to them then ? So both of us are wasting time comparing women who are NOT particularly good looking ?


4.

Regarding my edge over you when it comes to posting pictures, this is half true, and the reason is your ignorance.  For instance, you can host images at imageshack.us or a similar free host and hotlink to the images in you entries.

I have already admitted and apologized for my weakness in posting pics, and was hoping that you would act in good faith by posting only the very same links that I post for the sake of our discussion. This would enhance the quality of our debate and strengthen each other’s hand, as otherwise I could always maintain that you have overlooked the pics I wanted posted because you were afraid they would PROVE my point.

5.

So what if Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend?  This is a sample size of one and doesn’t prove at all that many white men will prefer her facial features to those of Charlize Theron

.

Obviously Celina is NOT the only one. I am married to one too !! and that makes two. What matters is NOT what whites prefer but what the whole world prefers ( Remember we are comparing universal beauty ?)

6.
As for comparing actresses, I have already stated that they are good looking women BUT NOT the most good looking women (Nordic or Indian ) .Only reason we are comparing them and beauty quens is becuase of easy access to pics.
There are many terrific looking women who cant act !

7.
I can assure you that I have indeed seen Indian girls who are either as good looking or better than Ash Rai, BUT you know very well I am not gonna take pics of strange women that I meet casually over a dinner/wedding party or some such occasion . YOu must know Indians are pretty sensitive to that type of stuff. Are you saying Ash rai is the best looking Indian woman ever ? Of course NOT.

8.
You may have traveled in Indian high society, and I ahve moved in lots of high societies like in the Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand etc.. but that does not mean I consider Thai girls pretty. Individual tatse does not translate into universal taste.

Sharma , Chaturvedi ( Not Chtrvedi) etc could belong to a lot of different castes as Indians change their last names all the time. My wife is Kashmiri hindu ( paternal) and Punjabi/Farsi Xtian (maternal) who has lived 3 generations in the USA. She’s Been to India only twice and does not even speak Pun..

9.
Asin does have a little pointed nose but I’ll bet she looks better than Charlize any day of the week. Ask JULES . She seems to give an unbiased opinion.

10.
As for Aishwarya, the panel who chose her as the best ever Miss World was not the same panel who voted for her in 1994 .

I am also taking up your argument that she looks pudgy etc.. in the post below and I challenge you to post both pics that I have linked below, they are. and compare them with any other Nordic that you may care to, for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, and symmetry as well as excellence of facial featues etc..

Gotta go. My challenge appears in the post below.

Cheers


86

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 04:13 | #

Hi J.R.

Here is the challenge that I talked about in the previous post. Please post these pics as theyare and in No 1, I have a very clear shot of Ashwaryas face when she was at her peak and
in No. 2 I have a full shot showing a very slim, toned and shapely body. You can post any of our Nordic beauties for comparison. on a similar scale and angle pic.

1.

2.

For the sake of comparison, please do post the pics as they appear ( regardless of whether in your opinion,  they are obfuscate or links were broken etc )

Ash Rai, when she was at her peak, was declared
1. Miss World, 2 The best Miss World ever 3. voted the most beautiful by Hello UK, 4 the most beautiful by 60 Minutes, Julia Roberts, R Eberts, david Letteman, Oprah etc )

So it is difficult to accept your word at face value that she is a rather unattractive woman, and as they say ” A pic is worth a 1000 words ” Although. pushing 32 now, she was a stunner when she was at her peak.

P.S. Here’s a bonus of Urmila matondkar, declared one of the sexiest women in the world by MAXIM mag

http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar3.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar14.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar1.jpg
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/urmila/urmila matondkar5.jpg

Cheers


87

Posted by Jules on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:00 | #

On the posting of Catherine Z Jones, There is no comparison to posting a pic of a girl when she was 16 to now a woman of 38. NO ONE looks the same, either you get worst or you get better!! She doesnt look like she has had plastic surgery, on the contrary their are bogus websites out there that claim that so and so had this done which is all bull, because they take a pic of someone at a different lighting or different make up and say look, he had this done or she had that done. Thats rediculous! But thats how those sites make money and attract people to them. Dont believe all the crap they put out there on the internet!

On posting a picture, 1) I am not savvy enough to post on the image thing and 2) Do not wish to expose myself so disgustingly and 3) would never betray anyone that I care about and post their pictures up for the world to see. Just put it this way, we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her.  Why dont whoever asked me to post, post some pictures of themselves up and I will tell you if you are an attractive nordic man or not??

I also want to say Phil, Are you from England?? Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive?? Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go.


88

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:37 | #

I also want to say Phil, Are you from England??

Yep

Do you think Keira Knightly is attractive??

Yep

Women in america are attractive, but it depends on where you go.

Well, I think my argument might have been misunderstood. I wasn’t saying that American women don’t look good. They do. But feminine charm is less common among American women than among European women.

I am open to being contradicted on this obviously. It isn’t a very strong opinion I have. Just an observation from personal experience.


89

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 29 Apr 2006 23:14 | #

The film depicting Aishwarya and Will Smith, as husband and wife, or perhaps as lovers, simply has to be made. It will certainly test the true convictions of a few bloggers out there, but I don’t have to name names, now, do I?


90

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:00 | #

Steve,

That’s an interesting point. I have a feeling those chaps will swallow a few bullets on that one.

Here are my own thoughts on it. I think I disagree with the majority of people on this blog who say that the Subcon and Oriental bloggers act in furtherance of their respective EGIs in promoting race-mixing for whites. I don’t think that is the real motive. Their actual motives are more petty than that - individual self interest in being able to do as they please since that is the defining principle of everything they hold politically. Note that petty self interest and EGI do not always converge. 

I don’t think they will object too much. The majority of those people are believers in borderless cosmopolitanism (which serves their petty individual interests). Will Smith had an oriental play opposite to him in one of his earlier films (Wild Wild West, I think it was). I don’t think they complained too much.

The reaction in Aishwarya Rai’s native India might be different though.


91

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:55 | #

Hi Phil

I have no doubt but that there’ll be protests against the film in India and all these “hip” Subcon bloggers here who claim to view as neanderthals any whites who question white race-replacement will be unhappy about it whether or not they attempt to hide their unhappiness behind their usual façade of “anything-goes” hipness.

In regards to the above comment, I must say that I do NOT view anyone here as Neanderthals. What J.R. and I are trying to discuss , I believe, is does beauty fall on a curve, or is it more dependant on the degree of the purity of gene expression.

My contention is, though individual racial groups or sub-groups may contend that theirs is the most beautiful, gene expression tends to favor the average global gene pool rather than any isolated gene pool, and in India such a global representation exists due to migrations from all over the globe into India during the course of history . J.R. obviously has other ideas .

As I said earlier I was born in the sub continent, but I can assure you I am not a sub con.

As for Ash Rai and Will Smith, explicit sex scenes are not popular in India even among Indian film stars. So naturally it will be body double or nothing if such a scene is in the script. I am sure Ash rai will NOT jeopardize her global status by doing such a scene.

cheers


92

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:23 | #

The film depicting Aishwarya and Will Smith, as husband and wife, or perhaps as lovers, simply has to be made. It will certainly test the true convictions of a few bloggers out there, but I don’t have to name names, now, do I

The film can be made. But, in India no one acts out explicit sex scenes with any one, white, black or blue. Would be suicidal. So body double it is, if at all.

Also, no one here is advocating race nixing. It is a debate about admixture and beauty statistics. Not whether admixture is advisable or NOT. I have both white and admixed offspring

cheers


93

Posted by raj on Tue, 02 May 2006 01:38 | #

J Rich

you could have chosen better looking Indian women then the pic posted above.

go through all the pages

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8875&st=80


94

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 02 May 2006 02:27 | #

Jules,

Where have I posted a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones at 16?  Both pictures show her as an adult.  Now, how is it possible for a woman in her mid-30s to have a better looking face than in her early-20s?  Hint: Heavy make-up and plastic surgery; look at the picture carefully.

Anyway, I don’t see how you would be exposed in a disgusting manner by posting your picture here (hotlinking an image hosted at imageshack).  If you indeed are an attractive Nordic woman, you will only be praised, and if you are not so attractive, then I will not be picking on your looks.  Alternatively, you can email your picture to us and I won’t post it; I just need to look at it to believe that your white-Asian friend is indeed better looking than an attractive Nordic woman.  On the other hand, judging by the fact that your friend has made a much better impression at modeling agencies than you and you have also gotten some agents interested, my guess is that both of you are somewhat masculinized women, with your friend being more masculinized than you.  This is so because fashion models are rarely feminine.  Thus, you are probably better looking than your friend.


95

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 02 May 2006 02:46 | #

Malcolm A,

I have not misunderstood your argument that South Asians are a sub-type of Caucasians that are different from other Caucasoid sub-types.  However, if the term Caucasian describes the race to which whites belong, then it is clear than Hindus and other South Asians do not belong to this race, i.e., are not Caucasians. 

You are mistaken that the arguments that I have put forth only support superficial differences.  Firstly, in mentioning the superficial differences, you have included pigmentation variables and conveniently left out the skeletal differences that I have mentioned.  Secondly, the superficial traits are related to genetics.  The genetic studies address neutral DNA markers, i.e., DNA markers not involved in gene expression.  Therefore, there are multiple markers, a cluster of which are classifying Hindus as outside the race of whites.

I am surprised that you undermine the important of the cluster analyses that I have cited and mention t-tests and F-tests as somehow more relevant.  You can run these analyses on Howells’ data and see the differences for yourself, but these tests are not useful when it comes to determining whether there is a correlation structure underlying multiple differences between two groups, and it is the correlation structure that is relevant to taxonomy, which is what our interest lies in.  Therefore, cluster analysis is appropriate and it shows South Asians as lying outside the European racial cluster.

Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, as far as I recall his study did not run a cluster analysis, but used principal components analysis, instead, whereby he extracted the principal factors underlying the variability of DNA samples from different populations.  The first two principal components separated the populations into four groups, and the graphical depiction of these groups into 4 quadrants is all over the net.  The 4 groups were Europeans, blacks Africans, N.E. Asians and S.E. Asians.  South Asians were placed in between Europeans and East Asians, which is what most of the pictures of South Asians here clearly show.  Regarding the controversy over this study, it wasn’t over the methodology but over the evidence for racial clustering of humans.

You wrote that my argument that Hindus are outside the race of whites is a general and erroneous statement and then follow this comment by saying that Hindus are not from one race anyway.  Irrespective of whether Hindus belong to their own race or are a people resulting from the mixing of several races and cannot be said to have their own race, the evidence that I have cited makes it clear that they are outside the race of whites, something that you have not been able to disprove by citing evidence.

As to what is the racial status of, say, Nepalese Hindus, it is like this.  This question can be addressed in a standard manner by examining a large, random sample of neutral DNA makers around the world and examining whether there are correlation structures that result in population clusters.  The studies that I have seen so far do not reveal a separate South Asian cluster, but show the contribution of several racial clusters to South Asia.  Thus, South Asians are readily genetically distinguished from others, as in the example of the Yang et al. study where South Asians turned out to have their own cluster based on ancestry-informative markers, but randomly selected neutral DNA markers have not shown a separate South Asian cluster.  Thus, South Asians are not assigned a race.  A crude analogy to help understand this scenario is to picture a rainbow.  A rainbow has distinct color bands but the region where a color band blends into another color band is not assigned a particular color.

Regarding my statement that the placement of a female celebrity in prominent lists of attractive/sexy women does not mean that the woman is particularly good looking, it is not the case that none of these women are good looking; some are good looking, and the faces of Grace Kelly and some of the other celebrities that I have shown look good regardless of what lists they are in or not in.

There have been a couple of occasions where I have posted exactly the pictures that you linked to (e.g., Priyanka Chopra, Amisha Patel, Celina Jaitley), followed by clearer pictures of the women to show the obfuscation in your selections.  Besides, people can copy and paste your links and see for themselves all your linked pictures.  Additionally, like I have pointed out, I have tried to provide clear photos and comparisons using roughly similar angles.  Therefore, there is no inadequacy from my part in the comparisons.

All right, Celina Jaitley has a white boyfriend and you have a Hindu wife.  This makes a sample size of two and is hardly of any significance.  Of course, there are other white men married to Hindu women, but none of this proves that white men generally appreciate the looks of South Asian women.  As far as the whole world is concerned, why should I believe that the world would preference South Asian women over Nordic women?  As far as I know, Japanese men have a preference for Russian prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; rich Arab sheiks have a preference for European prostitutes, not South Asian prostitutes; Eastern European rather than South Asian prostitutes are especially hot in Israel, and so on.  The reference to prostitutes is because non-prostitute white women will generally not have anything to do with non-white men except if they are unattractive, obese, mentally ill or if the non-white men are rich.

You have said that Hindus have changed their last names frequently.  Then how do Hindus keep track of their castes?   

So what if different panels of judges voted Aishwarya Rai as Miss World 1994 and the most beautiful Miss World ever?  Both these events occurred under the auspices of the same organization—Miss World Organization—which has not shown any commitment to focusing on beauty in beauty contests.

Anyway, I see that you will just not let off Aishwarya Rai and have asked me to compare her to a Nordic woman for slimness of figure, beauty, skin tone, symmetry as well as excellence of facial features.  It is not necessary to compare skin tone, and there are plenty of pictures of Aishwarya Rai and Nordic women here, which should allow the reader to compare facial features, but I will address the physique of Aishwarya Rai.

First up are the pictures that you have posted.  The face of Aishwarya Rai is from an obscure angle, not showing her hooked nose and the massiveness of her cheekbones and jaws.

Aishwarya Rai

Here is the picture of Aishwarya Rai’s physique that you linked to.  You should have posted a picture of her in a bikini so that it is easy to see how shapely she is.

Aishwarya Rai

I tried to find a picture of Aishwarya in a bikini and wasn’t successful, but I found some other pictures that reveal her shape.

Aishwarya Rai does not have very feminine hips.

Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai has almost no butt.

Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai has the kind of legs that are seen in Negroid and Australoid women, and do not even approach the shapeliness of Nordic women.

Aishwarya Rai

Aishwarya Rai also has shoulders on the broad side, as seen in some pictures above.

Now tell me is your idea of a shapely woman or is the world’s idea of a shapely woman a woman with the physique of Aishwarya Rai?

Next up is Urmila Matondkar.  I am posting all the pictures that you linked to.

Urmila Matondkar

Urmila Matondkar

Urmila Matondkar

Urmila Matondkar

To please you, I have been able to find a picture of Urmila that makes her look close to white and am comparing her to a woman that I am not fond of, but she will do.

Urmila Matondkar, Erica Campbell

However, the following pictures of Urmila Matondkar show her ethnic features and a hooked nose.

Urmila Matondkar

On the other hand, showing the white woman at different angles does not reveal ethnic features or a hooked nose.

Erica Campbell

I tried to find pictures of Urmila in a bikini, but was not successful and the following pictures are the closest that I came to.

Urmila Matondkar

Now, Urmila has a nice, shapely figure, but does she beat the shapeliness of the white woman?  I don’t think so.

Erica Campbell

I recommend that you re-read Peter Frost’s paper and note the references to the more feminine appearance of white women compared to non-white women (the references do not specifically cite the more feminine appearance of Nordic women (except for breasts), but this can be inferred by careful observations).  Therefore, you had best stick to comparing facial features and not bring the physique into this debate.


96

Posted by Indian Girl on Tue, 02 May 2006 06:16 | #

konkana Brahmins etc

The Konkani Brahmins have lived in the South for centuries, and they don’t acknowledge their northie roots.  They are South Indians now.


I hope people also know that Punjab and Kashmir doesn’t make up the entire North India.  Why are people always using them to represent Northies (North Indians)?  North India also consists of Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, UP (Uttar Pradesh), Himachal Pradesh, and Haryana.  Some people might debate that MP (Madhya Pradesh) and Bihar might be considered North, but it has an unusual place on the map. 

Not all Punjabis and Kashmiris are “very fair.”  They might have a higher amount of light-skinned people due to climate, but a brown/dark one isn’t rare.  Punjabis that live in Delhi and in the South become dark/brown due to climate.  Southern Punjabi farmers also are dark, due to working in fields. 

If you ask me, the Konkani Brahmins, South Indian Tulus, and the Iyers have a higher amount of light-skinned AND light-eyed people. 

No, I’m not a South Indian if you think I am.


97

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 02 May 2006 06:36 | #

To the author of this blog.

I’m not going to try to “prove” my point of view to you, lol.  BUT, I’m just curious as to what you think about these women?  These are some of my favorites, but I’m not over-analytical about a girl’s jawline or how Caucaoid/Mongloid she looks.  I just like their overall look.  That would be funny to see you talk about these girls in detail, lol. 

Rajshree Thakur

 

Anu Agarwal

 

Rekha

Sheetal Mallar

Leena Chandrevekar (from the 60’s)

 

Bipasha Basu

MadhuBala

Sonal Chauhan


98

Posted by Malcolm A on Tue, 02 May 2006 21:08 | #

Hi J.R.

1. I have not misunderstood your argument that South Asians are a sub type of caucasians that are different from other Caucasoid sub types….
However, if the term Caucasian describes the race to which whites belong , then it is clear that Hindus and other South Asians do not belong to this race…i.e are not caucaians

i. Unfortunately, though you and I would very much prefer to believe the above as true, Systematics as well as Genetics tells us a whole different story.  Cavalli Sforza, Spencer Wells, Bamshad et al ..etc ..support the theory of a Caucasoid Race that includes Indo Aryans and Nordic Aryans .

Eg: The Map of Genetic Diversity - LLCavalli Sforza 1994.(History and Geography of Human Genes )
The color map of the world shows…...it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,and in the West, South and much of Central Asia.
[Note : South Asia = India etc }


2.

You are mistaken that the arguments that I have put forth only support superficial differences etc….
You conveniently left out the skeletal differences that I have mentioned etc ......
a cluster of which are classifying Hindus as outside the race of whites etc…

i.  Not only are they superficial but eye color etc., are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ). Iranians, Afghans , Kashmiris etc., display a range of eye colors including blue, grey etc too..
ii.  I did not disregard skeletal differences. They are most important tools. BUT 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 .
iii.  Again sadly, the scientific communitly does not recognize the biological race “whites.’ We must keep this debate within the confines of science.

3.

I am surprised that you undermine the importance of cluster analysis etc ...
You can run these analyses on Howells’ data etc….
These tests are not useful when determining whether there is a correlation structure underlying etc…

i.  I have included the following review of Cluster Analysis for your perusal…
Cluster analysis is an exploratary data analysis tool for solving classification problems. It’s objective is to sort cases (people, things, events etc) into groups….Cluster analysis is thus a tool of discovery. It may reveal associations and structure in data which, though previously not evident, nevertheless are sensible and useful once found
RE : http://www.clustan.com/what_is_cluster_analysis.html

ii.  In order for me or anyone else to run a test on Howell’s data, such data should be from an experiment designed for such tests. So unless that information is avaialble it is not possible.
iii.  Correlation, Regression analysis establishes covariation/association of data sets and inter dependency. 
Not whether they belong in the same statistical population. 


4.

Cavalli Sforza did not run cluster analysis etc…
The controversy wan’t over the methodology etc..

i.    Here is an excerpt which refers to clustering in Cavalli’s 1994 book
The book devotes a chapter to the data on each of the nine genetic custers or population groups identified in previous cluster analysis ( Cavalli Sforza et al. 1994 )..
RE : http://en.wikipdia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn.

I believe cavalli even developed his ow clustering methods for some of this stuff.

ii   The controvercy was over the results but that led to the methodology being questioned.


5.

It is clear the my argument that Hindus are outside the race of Whites etc…..
I have cited makes clear that they are outside the race of whites. ..
you have not been able to disprove by citing evidence etc…...

I do NOT find the need to disprove the difference between the white race and the hindu race because these 2 races do NOT exist. There are NO such races or even sub races in Biological vernacular.

6.

Placement of female celebrities etc…
some of the celebrities that I have shown look good etc..

Your contention is that the celebrities selected by you are good looking while, those selected by me or others are NOT. I find such a statement from a learned man like you very biased..

7.

Japanese men like Russian prostitutes not south Asian ones etc..
Saudis also prefer European prostitutes.etc..

As I said Indian street people and poorer classes are not that great looking. It is the elite society that produces most of the beauties. I don’t think either any Jap man, A Muslim Saudi or a White could even get close to a elite Hindu family ( recently here, an Indian killed his daughter ( jailed or 16 years ) for trying to marry a white kid). I faced great opposition and had to elope with my wife. Still not fully accepted into her family. Indian apartheid makes S. African apartheid look like child’s play. Know for sure that many old Saudis marry young muslim Indians and recenty India passed a law against it.

8

Different panels voting for Ashwarya but it is the same Miss World Organization etc… hasn’t shown commitment to focussing on beauty

Well, Miss World Organzn’ has also selected a lot of Nordics and other groups. So are you questioning their ability to select beauties in general ..

9.

You have NOT let off Ashwarya ...
Ash’s face is obsure
Ash does not have feminine hips..no butt…

i   Well we came back to Ash when I brought up Shakira being selected as the most beautiful 2nd runner up..Also you focussed a lot on Ash at the beginning of your thread and posted rather flabby pics of hers.. SO it is fair game for me to contest that

ii.  Looks to me like she is staring straight ahead at you and me…Very clear frontal shot..All facial featuresare clear and visible..So bring it on !

iii.  That was when she was 20.  Now she does have those assets you are so critical of. But the pic shows how slim and elegant she looked earlier on…

iv.  About butts and hips, it is considered rather peasant and lower classy to have large child bearing hips and hottentot butts as you may know from Victorian values. High class = tall, slim and willowy..hehe.. Think Uma Thruman, Gwynneth Paltrow etc.. always in Victorial dramas..

v.  Urmila has a great figure; Bikini or no bikini. Why are you comaparing her with that Rudolf the red-nosed and freckled Nordic gal ( We must look for better Nordic specimens. Kate Beckinsale was voted one of the 100 best looking women w/ Angelina topping the list this time by PEOPLES ). Those are the types of women you should dig out if you wanna even get close to comparing with these Indian women.


Gotta go. Please read Cavalli Sforza a lot more carefully for he is totally for classifying Nordics and Indo’s together.

Here is Manisha Koirala , a Nepalese Hindu, Indo Aryan who ruled Bollywood in the 90s. Andrew Lloyd Weber made Bombay Dreams after watching her in the Bollywoof flick Bombay .

http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/manisha/manisha koirala13.jpg
http://www.karmicastro.com/manisha_koirala.htm
http://www.phoolwala.net/filmstars/images/manisha/manisha koirala7.jpg
http://www.dialindia.com/bollywood/actress/manisha_koirala/manisha_koirala_5.shtml


Cheers


99

Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 03 May 2006 21:10 | #

Just to let the author know,

Diya Mirza is half-German from her dad’s side.  LOL, how do you know she didn’t get her “manly features” from her white dad’s family? 

She has a Muslim last name, because her Muslim step-father adopted her.


100

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thu, 04 May 2006 01:04 | #

IndianGirl, in my experience whites (both sexes) tend towards gracility more than non-whites.

We must look for better Nordic specimens. Kate Beckinsale was voted one of the 100 best looking women w/ Angelina topping the list this time by PEOPLES ). Those are the types of women you should dig out if you wanna even get close to comparing with these Indian women.

Neither woman you mention is a good example of the Nordic type.  Beckinsale has east Asian blood and Jolie has some non-white blood, I forget from where.


101

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 04 May 2006 05:28 | #

Raj,

I went through some of the pages in the mega-forum that you linked to.  The women pointed out by Malcolm were included and some of the newer women that I come across did not look better than those pointed out by Malcolm, but then I didn’t go through the 51 pages of the forum.  Why don’t you pick out the ones that are comparable to attractive Nordic women and then I will see how these women look.

Indian girl,

It is not necessary to address the jawline, nose shape or racial elements of the facial features of a good looking woman.  However, the reason I have addressed these features is because Malcolm continues to insist that South Asians are classified as Caucasians, and can’t seem to tell that most Indian women on this page don’t look Caucasoid. 

Anyway, regarding the women that you have pointed out, I don’t like any of the faces except for the face of MadhuBala.  All the other women that you have pointed out have discernable Mongoloid and/or aboriginal elements in their faces, although this is not clear in some of the pictures that you have posted (e.g., Bipasha Basu, Rajshree Thakur, Sonal Chauhan).  Sonal Chauhan looks masculinized and her photo is overexposed, making it difficult to make out her features in the picture that you linked to.  I searched for pictures of Sonal Chauhan and found clearer pictures that show her ethnic, part-Mongoloid features that are clear in side view or at an angle, and didn’t like her features much.  If Malcolm had pointed out MadhuBala, I would have readily acknowledged the attractiveness of her face and wouldn’t have bothered comparing her to an attractive Nordic woman, though it would be possible to find a Nordic woman who looks better than her.

Regarding the ancestry of Diya Mirza, I had no idea that she had a German father, and you are of course right that she could have inherited her jaw structure from her white father, but I can’t tell because I don’t know how her parents look like.  I hadn’t even heard of her before Malcolm pointed her out, but Diya’s ancestry certainly doesn’t help Malcolm’s case.  Assuming that Diya’s mother is at least half European, which should not be unusual for upper caste Indians/equivalent, Diya is mostly European yet has ethnic features that make her facial features deviate from Nordic fineness.  If some of the other women pointed out by Malcolm have a white parent, then let me know.  For instance, Katrina Kaif would be a possible candidate for having a white parent.

Malcolm A,

Of course genetic evidence supports a Caucasoid race inclusive of both Nordic Aryans and Indo Aryans, but the Indo Aryans existed a long time ago and absorbed too many non-Caucasoid racial elements to remain Caucasoid anymore.  I have cited enough evidence, but where is your evidence for classifying most present-day South Asians as Caucasoid, i.e., part of the same race that whites belong to?

Since you have mentioned Cavalli-Sforza’s map on the cover of his book, this map assigned green color to Europeans and light blue to the part of the world in between Europids and Mongoloids (this type of blending is evident in Northernmost Scandinavia; Central, West and South Asia).  Therefore, I don’t see how Cavalli-Sforza’s data classify South Asians and Europeans as part of the same race.

Cavalli-Sforza race map from History and Geography of Genes.

Another way of looking at the issue is to consider a profile of a South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics.

South Asian DNA profile

In reference to the figure above, the question is what is the cutoff of non-Caucasoid admixture that you will be willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid?

Your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups shows ignorance of both cluster analysis and the apportionment of variability within the species, whereby the majority of overall variation is within groups.  Yet, this does not pose any problem for racial classification because there is a correlation structure to the variation.  I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays [Volume 25, Issue 8, Date: August 2003, Pages: 798-801].

Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, the graph showing the grouping of humans into 4 quadrants using the first two principal components (based on principal components analysis) as the axes was not based on cluster analysis, and this is what I mentioned in my previous comment, although Cavalli-Sforza has undoubtedly performed various analyses on his data, including cluster analyses, which I was not aware of until now.

You have mentioned that the scientific community does not recognize a white race.  This is obviously true since the scientific community does not recognize any human races, but what does evidence say?  See the Rosenberg et al. study cited above for proof of a European racial cluster.  Let me see you cite evidence that South Asians belong to the same racial cluster.  I have already pointed out that there is no present evidence for a South Asian racial cluster based on randomly selected neutral DNA markers and South Asians are not assigned a race.

I am not being biased by saying that the celebrities selected by you are nowhere as good looking as the women selected by me; it is obvious which of the women in the comparisons are better looking.  Besides, the celebrity status of the women is irrelevant; what matters is how they look.

I can understand that Japanese, Saudi or white men in general could not get close to elite Hindu families, but non-white men can also generally not get close to attractive Nordic women, yet when they prefer women from other races, they show a preference for Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women.

Yes, Miss World Organization has selected Nordic winners, who are not necessarily particularly good looking, but this doesn’t mean that the Miss World contest is about beauty; just look at the contestants in general.

Regarding Aishwarya Rai’s face pic that you requested me to post, yes she is staring straight at the camera, but her face is pointed downward and her picture is therefore obscure.

So you say that at age 20 Aishwarya Rai did not have a shapely figure, but now she does.  Well, the Nordic woman that I have compared her physique to is about age 20 and is shapely.  On the other hand, Aishwarya has gained flab.  Her hips have gained fat and her waist has become broader, too.  Thus, she has not acquired the shape of the Nordic woman and is clearly incapable of acquiring the Nordic’s shape because she simply doesn’t have the genetics.

You have to be a bizarre man to believe that there is anything peasant-like or lower class about a shapely butt in women; heterosexual men of all socioeconomic classes prefer a shapely butt on a woman rather than the flat butt of Aishwarya Rai; it is a different matter if you are a sodomite.  The Nordic woman that I have compared Aishwarya with does not have Hottentot butts; she has just the right kind of butt for a woman.

Why should I bother with Kate Beckinsale or Angelina (Angelina who?) when the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to beats Urmila hands down in the physique department?

Now you have posted links to the pictures of another woman with a hooked nose and lots of Mongoloid ancestry—Manisha Koirala—and have called her Indo-Aryan!  I don’t know what is wrong with your perception, but her looks are easily beaten by a Nordic woman.  Besides, what is up with all the hook-nosed women?  Do you like hooked noses?

Manisha Koirala

Manisha Koirala, Stephenie Flickinger


102

Posted by IndianGirl on Thu, 04 May 2006 05:44 | #

Assuming that Diya’s mother is at least half European, which should not be unusual for upper caste Indians/equivalent Diya is mostly European yet has ethnic features that make her facial features deviate from Nordic fineness.  If some of the other women pointed out by Malcolm have a white parent, then let me know.  For instance, Katrina Kaif would be a possible candidate for having a white parent.

Yes, I think Katrina has a white parent. Celina Jaitely also had an Afghan mother. 

But there are some white/Indian mixes where the mixture isn’t too noticeable.  Even I thought that Diya and Celina were fully Indian. 

Here are some Indians with immediate white blood. 

Padma Lakshmi -Could easily pass for a full Indian.  She is darker in real life than she appears in pictures.

 

Lara Dutta (who is 25% white).  She does have somewhat of a Mongloid look.  She looks like someone from the Eastern/North-Eastern part of India

Dino Morea


103

Posted by IndianGirl on Thu, 04 May 2006 05:48 | #

Hey J.R.

I guess Padma Lakshmi isn’t half-white.  Some of her biographies say that she a pure South Indian, and other sites claim that she has a white mother.

I think I’m going to believe that she’s a full Indian.  That woman doesn’t look like she has any white in her, or I could be wrong.

A lot of people lie about their ethnicity anyway.


104

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 04 May 2006 08:18 | #

Is there any way to objectively measure beauty?


105

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 May 2006 01:47 | #

I wonder if this research is real:

http://www.faceresearch.org/


106

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 May 2006 02:01 | #

Interesting output after I took the test on comparative attractiveness:

Thank you for participating in this experiment.

There is some evidence that the more average a face looks, the more attractive it is perceived to be. In 1994, however, David Perrett and colleagues showed that exaggerating certain traits away from average makes a face even more attractive.

We are looking at how preferences for these traits differ when the starting attractiveness of the faces or the difference between the faces is changed.

View more extensive feedback about this experiment.


On average, people had a 83% preference strength for the ‘more attractive’ images. You had a 83% preference strength.

Now I’m wondering what the variance is…


107

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 05 May 2006 02:35 | #

Hi J.R.

1. Of course genetic evidence supports a Caucasoid race inclusive of both Nordic Aryans and Indo Aryans, but the Indo Aryans existed a long time ago and absorbed too many non-Caucasoid racial elements to remain Caucasoid anymore. I have cited enough evidence, but where is your
evidence for classifying most present-day South Asians as Caucasoid ?

The most recent classification of Causcasoids follows.

I. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies (Geographic distribution centered in the Caucasus mountains)

A. Mediterranid race
  1. Iberid subrace (West Mediterranean - Spain etc)
  2. Pontid subrace (East Mediterranean or Ukraine, Romania
  3. Dinaric Mediterraneans (Residual mixed Mediterranids)
  4. Saharid subrace ( South Mediterranean Algeria & Libya)
  5. Arabid subrace (Arabia, from Egypt to Syria etc)
B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans )
C. Alpine race (Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria & Bohemia)
D. Ladogan race (indigenous to Russia; Lappish subrace )
E. Nordish/c race (subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia)
F. Armenid race (in Armenia,Syria, Lebanon etc)
G. Turanid race (hybridized w/ Mongoloids; Hungary &Turkey;)
H. Irano-Afghan race (Iran,Afghanistan, Iraq, 25% in Turkey)
I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]

This should indicate how the classification works as of now. I am sure you will argue that this is outdated ( i.e Lewontin’ etc ). I have contacted some of my colleagues and they are certain that the above is the most recent human race classification available. So there is the answer to your conundrum.

2.Since you have mentioned Cavalli-Sforza’s map on the cover of his book, this map assigned green color to Europeans and light blue to the part of the world in between Europids and Mongoloids (this type of blending is evident in Northernmost Scandinavia; Central, West and South Asia). Therefore, I don’t see how Cavalli-Sforza’s data classify South Asians and Europeans as part of the same race.

You are confusing races and sub-races. There are only 3 major biological races and Caucasoid is one of them.  As the above classification shows both whites and Indians fall into this race (under Caucasoid see E and I sub-races ) Cavalli’s book cover shows clustering of different sub-races.

The excerpt cited by me in the earlier post, i.e.

” The color map of the world shows…...it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,.......  and in the West, South and much of Central Asia…”

was intended to indicate to you that West, South  and Central Asia has caucasoids according to Cavalli’s own analysis. South Asia = India.

Also here are some excerpts from Cavallis other works,

b) ...Any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult. Yet anyone can see that there are certain relatively clear differences between a typical Caucasoid and a typical Mongoloid or a typical Negroid....
c) ...Caucasians are spread over Europe and in Southwest Asia as far as India, where there is a relatively gradual transition with Easterners….
d)...The correlation between linguistic and biological traits does tend to hold, for instance, among Caucasians. Most Caucasians who inhabit Europe and parts of Asia today speak languages of the Indo-European group....
e) ...A fairly natural classification, which follows geographic boundaries, is that between European and extra-European Caucasians..

Ref : W.F. Bodmer and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, 1976. Genetics, Evolution, and Man. WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco. pp.559-574

[ Note : note the words in bold type Cauacsoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Indo -European, extra -European caucasian etc ]

3.Another way of looking at the issue is to consider a fairly typical profile of a South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics. In reference to the figure above, the question is what is the cutoff of non- Caucasoid admixture that you will be willing to accept beyond which one ceases to be a Caucasoid?

The typical South Asian you have shown is a Caucasoid. But of a different sub-race than “Nordic’. Please do NOT confuse differences between sub-races as those between races.

4. Your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups shows ignorance of both cluster analysis and the apportionment of variability within the pecies, whereby the majority of overall variation is within groups. Yet, this does not pose any problem for racial classification because there is a correlation structure to the variation;

You misunderstood me again. I am reposting the excerpt.

Cluster analysis is an exploratary data analysis tool for solving classification problems. It’s objective is to sort cases (people, things, events etc) into groups….Cluster analysis is thus a tool of discovery...

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.

5. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays…

Lewontin argued that, as variation observed within groups for a single locus allele ( ~85%),  was larger than variation between groups (~15%) (cline studies), the race concept does not hold. Edwards later provided evidence that some of lewontin ‘s assumptions weren’t correct either. Scientists later came to accept that low (Sewell Wright’s) Fst statistic (measures genetic distance) did not necessarily debunk race. Any positive Fst is evidence of subgroups (rejects the null hypothesis that all groups are genetically indistinguishable).

This was what Lewontin’s fallacy article was all about and I’ve read it some years ago.

However, my point in discussing within and between variance was in regards to ANOVA and not about clustering. What I intended to point out was that eye color, hair color etc., are qualitative and do not lend themselves to such variance analyses unless coding is used ( A good contingency Table/ chi sq., study maybe ). But then that does not prove anything. Also,  I already agreed that skull measurement studies etc., are the best and would be much more preferable to hair color etc ( re earleir post ) and it is this type of study that is lacking.

6. Regarding Cavalli-Sforza, the graph showing the grouping of humans into 4 quadrants using the first two principal components (based on principal components analysis) as the axes was not based on cluster analysis, and this is what I mentioned in my previous comment, although Cavalli- Sforza has undoubtedly performed various analyses on his data, including cluster analyses, which I was not aware of until now.

Well, now you know. Most of his conclusions were based on cluster analysis and he came under some criticism for that, though most of his findings were pretty sound as he just used taxonomic clustering to create dendrograms showing eucleadian and other distances between races and sub races. Most correlation figures were given to relate the groups for ranking ( Pearsons Product Moment Coeff (r ( jk)] etc : by far the most useful. Estimates the resemblance between 2 OTUs and takes into account mismatches as well as matches ( Can also be used for multi state characters ).

7.You have mentioned that the scientific community does not recognize a white race. This is obviously true since the scientific community does not recognize any human races, but what does evidence say? Seethe Rosenberg et al. study cited above for proof of a European racial cluster. Let me see you cite evidence that South Asians belong to the same racial cluster. I have already pointed out that there is no present evidence for a South Asian racial cluster based on randomly selected neutral DNA markers and South Asians are not assigned a race.

Again you are confusing ‘race’ with ‘sub-race.’ Does a european race or sub-race exist ? Could be ( eg;  Nordic ). Europe has mostly Caucasoids only. As for S. Asian cluster it would be impossible as S. Asia has Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids. So showing all those belong to one cluster would not be possible.

Part two of reply follows…


108

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 05 May 2006 02:39 | #

Hi JR

Here is the second part

8.I am not being biased by saying that the celebrities selected by you are nowhere as good looking as the women selected by me; it is obvious which of the women in the comparisons are better looking. Besides, thecelebrity status of the women is irrelevant; what matters is how they look.

First you said celebrities are not particularly good looking ( ie;  Catherine Zeta Jones ) but get their pic’s posted nonetheless because they are famous. I pointed out that all women posted by you were celebrities. Your second statement that those posted by you are BETTER looking only reinforces my statement that you tend to be biased, when in fact it is ‘you said; I said’ ( vote of 1 each ) with no way to decide.

9. I can understand that Japanese, Saudi or white men in general could not get close to elite Hindu families, but non-white men can also generally not get close to attractive Nordic women, yet when they prefer women from other races, they show a preference for Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women

Nowhere did I say that Indian men can get close to our women easliy. It was you who brought up the subject by saying Japs ( Indians are way superior to Japs etc. in looks ) do not prefer Indian women. I responded that Indian masses are not that good looking, and that the elite who are good looking are not accessible. I can assure you that elite Indians do NOT care for whites OR think highly of us, the way we imagine they do. For most of them caste is the be all and end all.

10. Yes, Miss World Organization has selected Nordic winners, who are not necessarily particularly good looking, but this doesn’t mean that the Miss World contest is about beauty; just look at the contestants in general. Regarding Aishwarya Rai’s face pic that you requested me to post, yes she is staring straight at the camera, but her face is pointed downward and her picture is therefore obscure.So you say that at age 20 Aishwarya Rai did not have a shapely figure, but now she does. Well, the Nordic woman that I have compared her physique to is about age 20 and is shapely. On the other hand, Aishwarya has gained flab. Her hips have gained fat and her waist has become broader, too. Thus, she has not acquired the shape of the Nordic woman and is clearly incapable of acquiring the Nordic’s shape because she simply doesn’t have the genetics.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. According to you, all Miss World contestants are average or below average ! Well,  if Nordic winners are not that good looking then so are the non-Nordics. So you can just imagine the non-nordic beauties ( who do not contest ). Stunning wouldn’t they be ?

Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted ( Diya Mirza (Miss Asia Pacific ), Celina ( Miss Universe Runner up, Ash (Miss world ) by any standards. Also they (the Nordics) all look the same with no variablitly or range (inbred ),  like the Indians, who come from a wider gene pool. Indians show a wider range of looks that suits a range of tastes in skin color, facial type, height, features etc as they all come from an Indo Aryan Caucasoid base topped up by a very fine genetic contribution form other races which enhances their exotic beauty. Again the median is the preferred . Also any neutral observer can see that these women ( both Nordic and Indian ) are Caucasoids, and NOT either Mongoloids or Negroids.

The Nordic gal you have posted against Urmila is one of the worst looking I have seen and I know many Nordics who can beat her hands down. Notice her red nose, freckles, wide face and the toothy grin. There are many very beautiful Nordics out there and by trying to go too ethnic and post British/Euro based women you are missing out on a lot of American Nordics who are much more glamarous and beautiful. Try to dig up some better women. Angelina, as in Jolie ( I am sure you know her -the most beautifu woman in the world -People Mag )

Manisha is an Indo Aryan Nepali. Not Tibetan Nepali. So a little Mongo Admixture is there. But you ( like old Andrew Lloyd ) were intimidated enough by her so as NOT to post my links !

If you are so enamored with straight noses, I can post a 1000 Indian beauties with straight pointed noses. Madhubala
( Mumtaz Jehan Delavi) was called Venus of Bollywood in the ‘50s according to my wife.  Diya , Katrina, Dino Morea etc are all some Anglo genes in them. But then that’s what being Indian is all about !

Here is Mallika Sherawat who was called the next Pamela Anderson (sex appeal) by Howard Stern and offered a centerfold spread by Playboy. Jackie Chan who has openly declared that Indian women are the most beautiful, wanted to cast one in his MYTH flick, and chose Mallika Sherawat ( who is not so highly ranked in Bollywood.. Jackie wasn’t influential enough to get the top stars I guess ) who appeared at Cannes with him.


http://www.sulekha.com/Movies/wallpapers/Mallika Sherawat/800-600/MAL20050701-4_800-600.jpg
http://www.sulekha.com/Movies/wallpapers/Mallika Sherawat/800-600/MS20050504-7_800-600.jpg

Happy hunting.

Cheers


109

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 05 May 2006 02:58 | #

Hi James B.,

Is there any way to objectively measure beauty?

In 2001? a beauty products corporation conducted a worldwide survey where random samples of all races were questioned for their preferences of various facial features and characteristics, and the most preferable of these features were used to create a computer graphics model considered the global face of beauty for women.

And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics.

Cheers.


110

Posted by IndianGirl on Fri, 05 May 2006 04:57 | #

I can assure you that elite Indians do NOT care for whites OR think highly of us, the way we imagine they do. For most of them caste is the be all and end all.

Hi Malcolm,

What do you mean by “elite?”  Indians that are rich or Indians that are of high-caste descent? 

My mom hails from a respectable high-caste that has a glorious history of courageness, chivalry and honor (The Rajputs). BUT, her family is pretty darn poor.  They aren’t the poorest of the bunch, but they can be considered poor in comparison to middle-caste families from Mumbai and Delhi.

The Rajputs originated in Rajasthan, but my mom’s family lives in the backward North Indian state of UP.  So, not all high-caste people are rich and not all middle-caste/low-caste people are poor.  My mom didn’t even have any shoes to wear to school.

But you know what?  She was known as one of the prettiest girls in her school.  The rich Indian boys drooled over her. 

Rajput women have been historically known for their beauty in India, but that’s not to say that only Rajputs are pretty or that there are no ugly Rajputs.  Gayatri Devi, the woman that you mentioned, is of Rajput descent.  smile 

Rajputs are theorized to have a lot of Scythian ancestry, but a lot of Rajputs like to think of themselves as native Indians. 


To be honest, I have seen servant girls and poor village girls who I found to be delicately attractive.  Some even have light eyes.  Of course, these girls are of high-caste descent.  It’s just that they don’t have much money, which is why they are poor.   

If you mean “rich” when you talk about elite families, I don’t fully agree that the prettiest girls come from the richest families.  There are some who are really pretty, but some aren’t pretty at all.  It really depends. 

My dad’s family is filthy rich, but he is of a lower-caste than my mom.  But, I think my mom’s family has prettier girls (even though they are poor, lol).  A lot of the rich Mumbaikers get fat from eating too much, or maybe it’s just from what I’ve seen?  Most of the women in my dad’s family are overweight and don’t take care of themselves.  You would think that they would watch their looks, because they have more money and they live in a cosmopolitan city.


111

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 May 2006 08:18 | #

And this global face of beauty belonged to Saira Mohan a mixed descent ( Indian + Irish ) caucasian model from Canada. Proving your point that the average or median facial features with a little quirk tend to be the most attractive. This is why the Indian subcon and Latino women lead in beauty statistics.

Well, first of all, it wasn’t my point—I was reporting what they said.  Secondly, looking for a single global standard of beauty is different from coming up with an operational definition of beauty.

For example, in the study to which I subjected my self, all the faces were very much the same.  I was amazed actually that they conducted a supposedly scientific study of beauty with the apparent presumption that it is a simple “hill climbing” optimization problem.  No one is that stupid in real operational systems.


112

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 05 May 2006 10:58 | #

Indiangirl - isnt it likely that these poor, pretty high-caste girls will, on average, get to marry into money though?  Like your mother in fact.


113

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 06 May 2006 02:42 | #

James,

There are objective correlates of beauty.  See the following literature review and meta-analysis.

Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:199-226.

This paper is sound except for its mention of research on the attractiveness of mixed-race people, which I have previously critiqued.

On the other hand, there is also some truth to the adage that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.  Therefore, beauty cannot be measured 100% objectively.

Thus, the debate that I am having with Malcolm over attractiveness is objective in the sense of racial elements in the face and degree of fineness of facial features, but he and I cannot see eye to eye because our preferences are oriented in different directions.

The website that you have linked to does mention some decent research.

Malcolm A,

Your classification of Caucasoid races is citation-less and has obvious roots in 19th century anthropology.  Do you have any modern citations that show European populations to be divided into races?  I am not talking about a position statement, but evidence, that supports races among whites?  And, do you have citations that support the concept of sub-races?  There is a valid concept of race or subspecies in taxonomy, but I have not heard of sub-sub-species or sub-race as part of the taxonomical literature.

The citation from Cavalli-Sforza that you have mentioned is 30 years old.  More recently, Cavalli-Sforza has denied the existence of races, obviously to not have his funding dry up.  Besides, saying that Caucasians are spread out as far as India is not to say that Indians are a Caucasoid people, but simply implies that some Caucasoids are found in India, and Cavalli-Sforza has mentioned that there is a transition to Easterners in India.

More importantly, if you are a man of science, you should know the difference between an argument by authority (so and so says this….) and an argument by evidence; the former being unacceptable.  Therefore, where are your citations involving evidence?  You have not cited any proof of there being only 3 major biological races.

I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American):

Nei, M. and A. K. Roychoudhury (1993). “Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale.” Mol Biol Evol 10(5): 927-43.

Bowcock, A. M., A. Ruiz-Linares, et al. (1994). “High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites.” Nature 368(6470): 455-7.

Rosenberg, N. A., J. K. Pritchard, et al. (2002). “Genetic structure of human populations.” Science 298(5602): 2381-5.

Rosenberg, N. A., S. Mahajan, et al. (2005). “Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure.” PLoS Genet 1(6): e70.

     

Some populations not included in the 5 races are mixed groups—such as South Asians—and are not assigned a race because of the failure of such designation to satisfy phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.

A series of 24 neutral craniofacial assessments also revealed the following 8 population clusters:

Data from 24 craniofacial dimensions were compiled for samples representing all the human populations of the world. These were converted into C scores and used to construct Euclidean Distance dendrograms. The populations of the world are best depicted as 8 major regional clusters representing: Africa, Amerind, Asia-Mainland, Australo-Melanesia, Eskimo-Siberia, Europe, India, and Jomon-Pacific.

Li, Y. Y., C. L. Brace, et al. (1991). “Dimensions of face in Asia in the perspective of geography and prehistory.” Am J Phys Anthropol 85(3): 269-79.

Note the classification of Indians as outside the group of Europeans, something that can be easily appreciated by going through the pictures of Indians on this page.  So much for your claim that it would be impossible to show a South Asian cluster because of the contribution of multiple races to South Asia or your claim that:

“Also, I already agreed that skull measurement studies etc., are the best and would be much more preferable to hair color etc ( re earleir post ) and it is this type of study that is lacking.”

There is clearly a South Asian cluster based on both ancestry-informative markers (see the Yang et al. citation above) and 24 neutral craniofacial markers.  Thus, whereas South Asians are not assigned a race of their own because this would not be consistent with the phylogeographic criteria of race assignment, it is clear that they are outside the race of whites.

Besides, I can see that I am wasting my time citing all this current evidence when you are willing to assign Caucasoid status to a non-white with about 50% non-Caucasoid admixture; ref: the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics shown above.  You obviously cannot be convinced by state of the art molecular and craniofacial evidence because you will not accept any evidence. 

Therefore, do not waste my time over this issue again unless you can cite comparable evidence (not an argument by authority) showing that South Asians belong to the same race as whites and argue against the evidence that I have provided.

Regarding cluster analysis, let us consider populations that are assessed on multiple variables.  If there are no significant differences between the populations on each count, then would it be possible to show that the populations belong to separate groups by virtue of cluster analysis of the variables assessed?  Obviously, if cluster analysis distributes the individuals sampled over separate groups, it is because there are statistically significant differences between the clusters with respect to multiple variables and there is a correlation structure underlying these differences

Continued below.


114

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 06 May 2006 02:48 | #

Malcolm A,

Regarding celebrities, I have not implied that all of them are not good looking.  Some obviously are good looking.  Once again, the celebrity status of the women that we are comparing is not relevant; it is how they look that is relevant.  Besides, you are grossly mistaken in assuming that all women that I have posted are celebrities.  A number of the women that I have posted are non-celebrities and some are ordinary women who, far from being famous, just have their pictures on the internet without having their names mentioned.  A number of these women are also American, unlike your impression that they are all residents of Europe.

Where have I implied that all Miss World contestants are not good looking?  One need only look at most contestants, including top-ranked contestants, to understand that the Miss World contest is surely not about an emphasis on beauty, but this is not to say that none of the contestants are good looking.  As I have extensively pointed above, it is unlikely that Miss India has to deal with the extent of political correctness that Miss USA has to, yet white women competing in the Miss USA contest easily outcompete South Asian participants in Miss India contest, on average, in looks. 

I will quote the following passage by you verbatim because of the sheer nonsense in it.

“Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted ( Diya Mirza (Miss Asia Pacific ), Celina ( Miss Universe Runner up, Ash (Miss world ) by any standards. Also they (the Nordics) all look the same with no variablitly or range (inbred ), like the Indians, who come from a wider gene pool. Indians show a wider range of looks that suits a range of tastes in skin color, facial type, height, features etc as they all come from an Indo Aryan Caucasoid base topped up by a very fine genetic contribution form other races which enhances their exotic beauty. Again the median is the preferred . Also any neutral observer can see that these women ( both Nordic and Indian ) are Caucasoids, and NOT either Mongoloids or Negroids.”

You have to be seriously deluded if you think that most of the Indian women shown here easily beat the Nordic women shown here in looks by any standards.  When it comes to having finer facial features, the Nordic women shown beat the Indians shown hands down.  Finer facial features means having less massive jaws, not having hooked noses, having less rugged facial features, having narrower noses, having less massive cheekbones, etc.  Only two of the comparisons above have addressed the physique, and with the exception of sodomites, it is a universal standard among men that feminine physiques in women are preferred.  It is clear that both Aishwarya Rai and Urmila Matondkar have less feminine physiques than the women that I have compared them to.     

It is not unusual for people to think that others of a different race look alike, but if you are a white man, then your statement that the Nordic women that I have shown all look the same is evidence of your piss-poor perception.  The Nordic women that I have shown are so different looking that no two of them could be seen as sisters by Northern Europeans.  Additionally, no neutral observer with reasonable perception will get the impression that most of the South Asian women shown here have Caucasoid faces, which would be in accordance with the 24 neutral craniofacial markers classifying Indians as outside the grouping of Europeans (see above).  Besides, the “fine genetic contribution” of non-Caucasoids to Indo Aryans in the past is a type of contribution that is unwelcome in the present West.

You have again pointed out, twice, that the median in looks is preferred.  Where are your citations?  It has been shown that whereas the average within a population is good looking, average faces are the not the best looking faces, and you have ignored evidence that I have cited in previous comments showing that there is no average face when it comes to the human species.  Race mixing produces an intermediate shape on some counts only; many face shape variables in racially mixed offspring clearly deviate from the hypothetical shape obtained by averaging the parental shapes, something that is accompanied by some loss of morphological integration in the skull, undoubtedly resulting from disruption of co-adapted gene complexes (read: bad outcome).

You have ignored the fact that when non-Nordic men desire women from other populations, these women are usually Nordic women rather than South Asian women, including elite South Asian women.           
     
Don’t kid yourself about my being intimidated by the pictures of Manisha Koirala that you linked to.  Anyone can copy and paste the links and see the pictures.  As usual, your pictures didn’t reveal the features of the woman well enough and I had to search for other pictures of her, and most can see just how much of her is Indo-Aryan.

Regarding straight noses, you had no idea that a number of the women that you have pointed out have hooked noses and blamed me for using pictures from a certain angle to give the impression of hooked noses, which prompted me to come up with clear profile views to show that these women indeed have hooked noses.  This again reflects on your piss-poor perception.  Besides, I am not enamored with straight noses; straight noses in profile view are typical in Northern Europeans and are a standard requirement in an attractive person in a European context.

You have again rehashed your argument about Saira Mohan, without citations, and ignored my debunking of the alleged good looks of Saira Mohan.

Whether the white woman that I have compared Urmila Matondkar to can be beaten hands down in looks by many Nordic women is not relevant; what is relevant is whether this woman beats Urmila in looks, and she indeed does so in both the face and body.  Your piss-poor perception again shows in your comment that the white woman has a wide face.  The white woman has a narrower face than Urmila; she has more fat in her cheeks though.  Urmila clearly has more prominent cheekbones; just look at the pictures that you yourself linked to.  I picked a photo of Urmila that would please you, but this photo shows her face tilted downward, yet her more prominent cheekbones are visible.  Besides, I have not seen any criticism of the physique of the white woman by you in comparison to Urmila’s physique, which is the important issue because your posting links to Urmila’s pictures was apparently in the context of the physique.  The rest of your criticism addresses pigmentation that I have repeatedly asked you to ignore since we are focusing of facial features.  I don’t like yellow or yellow-brown skin and could point out these features in the women that you have selected, but the point is to focus on face shape.  In addition, I have pointed out that I am not fond of the looks of the white woman that I have compared Urmila to, but she is okay for the comparison, and if a white woman with her looks can easily be beaten hands down by many Nordic women, then this can only mean that Indian beauty is no match for Nordic beauty because a not-so-attractive Nordic woman can easily beat some of the best looking Indian women.

You have asked me to dig up better looking women and suggested Angelina Jolie.  Previously you mentioned Catherine Zeta Jones in the context of attractive women.  I wonder how bad your perception can be?  I have shown a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones above, which speaks for itself.

Angelina Jolie is a fine example of an attractive Nordic woman, right?

Angelina Jolie

Angelina Jolie is part Native American in case you didn’t know.

Anyway, tell me between Mallika Sherawat and the Nordic woman next to her, who has finer facial features?

Mallika Sherawat


115

Posted by IndianGirl on Sat, 06 May 2006 04:39 | #

Indiangirl - isnt it likely that these poor, pretty high-caste girls will, on average, get to marry into money though?  Like your mother in fact.

Yes, you’re right.

Not to mention that many second-generation Indian boys are going back home to get brides.  The fact that these poor, high-caste girls also have traditional values may make them more appealing to a rich man.


Rumor has it that rich girls in the big Indian cities are more prone to boozing, promiscuous behavior.  The same thing applies to South-Asian girls brought up in the West.  This doesn’t apply to everybody though.


116

Posted by tyutyu on Sat, 06 May 2006 08:40 | #

you are all stupid and wasting your time.  Go get a gf.


117

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 04:31 | #

Hi J. R.

1Your classification of Caucasoid races is citation-less and has obvious roots in 19th century anthropology. Do you have any modern citations that show European populations to be divided into races? I am not talking about a position statement, but evidence, that supports races among whites? And, do you have citations that support the concept of sub-races? There is a valid concept of race or subspecies in taxonomy, but I have not heard of sub-sub-species or sub-race as part of the taxonomical literature.

(i) Here is the citation. Unfortunately it is based on the book, Racial Compact (1994) by one of our own, the great white nationalist, preservationist and Nordic theoretician, Anthropologist Richard McCullough. So obviously NOT 19th century. If a great white supremacist of the ilk of Richard accepts Indics and Nordics as sub-groups of Caucasoids, who am I to disagree. Do you (disagree) ?
http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

(ii) The concept of sub races is well founded in both Social Biology and Darwinism. There are variations within species that cause sub-species(races) and then there are variations within sub species that lead to varieties ( some debate over this term) which would eventually grow into separate races. I cite Charles E Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’ if you really insist on citations. This is a famous piece of work and I am sure you can track it down.

(iii) As for citations in regards to the division of European population into sub races what better citation than our great white hope, Richard mcCullough himself. AND btw do you have citations proving that they are NOT divided into sub races ( Nordic, Alpine etc )

2.The citation from Cavalli-Sforza that you have mentioned is 30 years old. More recently, Cavalli- Sforza has denied the existence of races, obviously to not have his funding dry up. Besides, saying that Caucasians are spread out as far as India is not to say that Indians are a Caucasoid people, but simply implies that some Caucasoids are found in India, and Cavalli-Sforza has mentioned that there is a transition to Easterners in India.

(i) This contention is erroneous. The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand.

(ii) Cavalli has NOT denied the existence of Races more recently as, his own words in his The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994),  quoted by me yet again here, indicate otherwise ”..it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,...  and in the West, South and much of Central Asia.” I am certain you had no difficulty in understanding the underlined portion of the quotation which cannot be made any clearer.

(iii) Please change the words ‘some Caucasoids’ to ‘some Mongoloids (3%)’, and your 3rd statment would be accurate. There are many caucasoids (97%) in India according to the latest CIA world book (2005).

3.More importantly, if you are a man of science, you should know the difference between an argument by authority (so and so says this….) and an argument by evidence; the former being unacceptable. Therefore, where are your citations involving evidence? You have not cited any proof of there being only 3 major biological races. I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American):

(i) I am a experienced Population Biologist with 2
post-graduate degrees, and over 25 years of field experience as well as over 40 publications in my field of expertise. I am NOT a Geneticist though. I am also aware that anyone can claim anything on the internet. So this is not important.

(ii) The citations do exist and I have indeed cited some of the highest authorities ( Cavalli, Bamshad etc ), which you tend to dismiss as outdated etc. Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza is considered the foremost authority on Gene based systematics and I have cited him again above. I am also citing below another famous scholar Prof. P. Rushton who wrote in support the 3 Races theory as recently as 1994
”......I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races—mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid .....
again,
....... Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race….
again
........For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person “

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Race&Groups;-General/Doc-Race&Groups;-General-Biology/RaceIsBiologicalReality-Rushton.htm

4.I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races ....

(i) I cannot help but emphasize the fact that I have repeatedly stated to you that I am NOT saying Nordics and Indics are similar. There maybe so many differences between them as you cite. BUT they do fall under the same major group Caucasian. In regards to cranial differences etc, I beg to revisit Rushton’s satement above which typifies the major identifying differences between the 3 races based on cranial measurements.,

5. Some populations not included in the 5 races are mixed groups—such as South Asians—and are not assigned a race because of the failure of such designation to satisfy phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.


(i) Your contention that all Indians can be classified as ‘mixed race ’ is totally erroneous. It is like saying all Americans can be classified as a mixed race. What you are talking about is countries of many races ( USA has Caucasians, Negroids, Mongoloids etc and SO DOES INDIA ) They are multi-racial countries and not countries of one ‘mixed race ’ That is why such confusion exists as to who is an American or who is an Indian.

6. Besides, I can see that I am wasting my time citing all this current evidence when you are willing to assign Caucasoid status to a non-white with about 50% non-Caucasoid admixture; ref: the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint Genomics shown above.You obviously cannot be convinced by state of the art molecular and craniofacial evidence because you will not accept any evidence.
Therefore, do not waste my time over this issue again unless you can cite comparable evidence (not an argument by authority) showing that South Asians belong to the same race as whites and argue against the evidence that I have provided.

(i) You seem to be losing your patience which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate.

(ii) Although you say I have NOT cited evidence , it is very clear that I have indeed done so as shown above. Is it your premise that Indians have no classification status in zoological systematics because, in your opinon, they are ‘mixed’ The craniofacial evidence you cite proves Indians and Nordics do not match as sub groups and NOT that they are not Caucasians. S. Asians maybe outside the cluster of whites but both groups cluster under Caucasoids. (see my citation of Rushtons statement above).

(iii) Well, let’s then analyze these latest ‘findings’ of yours,  that have you greatly excited.

a)  You have given four citations indicating evidence for 5 races based on genetic studies (clustering etc.). Two of these citations involve Rosenberg who is not even an authority as compared to Cavalli. Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ’ race’ ? So which one is it. Are there 5 races or NOT? Further, according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria. A gaping hole in their theory, technique and conclusions. Ever heard of a zoological classification that left out a whole chunk of the species ? Aren’t there any identifying criteria specific to this mongrel Indian populaton if it is indeed a single unit ?

I propose to you that this difficulty arose due to the fact that S.Asians come from many different races [ Caucasoids ( Indics, dravidics etc ), Mongoloids etc ] and therefore cannot be sampled as one statistical population. If, as you say,  they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit

b) You cite 1 anthropological paper by Brace et al, identifying 8 clusters based on craniofacial measurements. MY question to you is, if you are indeed a Biologist , which I assume you should be in order to debate me on this matter, how does these 5 races fit into these 8 clusters ? 8/5 = 1.6 or 5/8 =0.6?

6. Clusterig studies…

(i) As intimated to you earlier, I have done some of these studies myself. Correlation analysis is used to show signifcant association and not significant differences between groups of OTUs.This helps in clustering them together.[correlation = association ].. Please consult a good stats manual…

7. I recommend that you read Edward’s debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy in BioEssays [Volume 25, Issue 8, Date: August 2003, Pages: 798-801].

(i) In regards to the above comment are you sure that Edward’s debunked Lewontin’s fallacy, or did he debunk Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy? This comment of yours has made me somewhat suspicious of your biological knowledge.

(ii) Are you a Biologist, because, if NOT, we are both wasting our time. But I am cartainly not one to back off , when I have clear supporting evidence. I Consider this as an educational experience for both of us.

Part two follows..


118

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 04:53 | #

Hi J.R.

Here we go again

8. Here is another citation that you may want to look up. The US Supreme Court vs. Bhagat Singh Thind.

During the era of draconian Jim Crowe laws, having considered anthropological and other evidence the US Supreme Court ruled that Indians were caucasians.

1. Regarding celebrities, I have ..etc..

This is not that important and you maybe right…but when deciding on beauty on this thread, it is a “I said ; you said” situation ...

2.Where have I implied that all Miss World contestants are not good looking? One need only look at most contestants, etc..

Neither you nor I can decide on our own as we have different tastes in beauty. That’s why we have panels of judges and international opinion. To bring up “political correctness’ etc to explain away’ losses and losers, ’  after the fact, sounds like sour grapes….Any complaints should be made prior to the contest. If a Nordic wins I would never complain.

3.I will quote the following passage by you verbatim because of the sheer nonsense init.“Maybe you could post a Nordic in a similar posture and then compare w/ Ash. Our women (Nordic ) that you posted so far are no match for most of the Indians I have posted etc..

Same as above. Taste differs. But this time around, I backed up my contentions with some stats ( winners of international pageants ) as evidence. If any of your Nordic pic selections are winners too, you have to only point that out and I will agree…..

4.You have to be seriously deluded if you think that most of the Indian women shown here easily beat the Nordic women shown here in looks by any standards. When it comes to having finer facial features, the Nordic women shown beat the Indians shown hands down.

(i) Ok. We agree to disagree on this point. But I did back up my contention with beauty stats, that at least some of the Indians were internationally recognized beauties (ie pageant winners ).

(ii) You do NOT have any evidence to backup most of what you say about massive jaws etc, I have posted Indians who were accepted as exceptional by International Mags , pageants etc.. Urmila was commended by Maxim Mag and you should take up her looks with them..

(iii) I agree with you that a shapely figure is an asset, but, as you may well know the Victorian standard of beauty was totally different.  Indians have fine figures too. You should see women like Asha Parekh if you want to see bodies.

(iv) I have replied to your craniofacial argument above as non acceptable. Even otherwise, the mere fact that Nordics and Indians have 24 measurements that differ does not indicate which group has the better ones.

5 .Don’t kid yourself about my being intimidated by the pictures of Manisha Koirala that you linked to. Anyone can copy and paste the links and see the pictures

Well, you never ever post my links…If at all rarely. Makes me think you are afraid that they look too good and would prove my point. There are some here who can’t connect to the links.. Even though you have posted some the worst pics of the Indians ( mallika, Manisha etc ) vs some the best of our Nordic women , you are still in trouble judging by the comments.

Complains about Angelina Jolie ? Take it up with People and also that other UK monthly that did a poll on beauty last year which also elected her as the most beautiful.

As for Saira Mohan,  I did not select her. It was a panel of experts. You should take it up with them. As of now, despite your claims to the contrary, she is the global face of beauty and no two about it. Pardon my American slang !

6.Anyway, tell me between Mallika Sherawat and the Nordic woman next to her, who has finer facial features?

Hmm… let’s see. Between Mallika’s bad pics and your favourite’s excellent pic… seems to me like your favourite is a little anemic looking. But as you say skin color doesn’t matter. They both do have straight noses and a pointed chin, but then would Howard Stern give the time of day to your choice. I’m not sure. Will Jackie Chan offer her a role in a movie. Who knows? Let’s ask Jackie.

Anyway, here is someone you know very well in disguise !

http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml>

and here is Namrata Shirodkar, 1st runner up Miss Universe, and praised by Geoff Boycott ( test Cricketer ) and some American movie critics ( Bride and Prejudice )as even better looking than Ash Rai !!




Take it easy. Talk to you soon.

Ciao.


119

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 05:15 | #

Hi JR
That ‘1st link on the earlier post, ‘stranger in disguise’ was messed up ( > at the end has to removed ). The correct link follows

http://www.bollywoodblitz.com/stars/madhuri/md11.shtml

Here are some more for comparison w/ our Nordic beauties.





cheers


120

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 07 May 2006 05:22 | #

Hi IndianGirl,

Based on my experience with Indians, an elite Indian family is one which is descended on both sides ( maternal and paternal ) from families that have belonged to high society for at least three generations. Here high society = old wealth, aristocracy/ high caste, western education, and high class all combined.

Cheers.


121

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 13:43 | #

This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities.

He uses 1976 books as source or 19th century old stuff to make a point, yeah before genes research was invented and he accept no sound scientific reason.

Something else: stop calling these hindus part mongoloid, they are part middle eastern (hooked noses, massive jaws) and part australoid, australoid is not the same as mongoloid, they would have looked better if they have mixed with mongoloid.


122

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 14:28 | #

Another good reading is:
http://grokhovs1.chat.ru/legacy.html

It describes the composition of paleolithic genes and neolithic genes of todays Europeans as 80% paleolithic and 20% neolithic (9000 years ago when farmers from fertile crescent migrated into Europe bringing not only new food plant and animals but also Indo European speech, Indo European language is from the area now called Anatolia).


123

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 14:41 | #

I have this to say: the hindu women depicted here look like middle eastern women. I am not getting excited about it.

I have another thing to say: I did not know that Catherine Zeta Jones was so plain to speak of… she looked like some woman from Spain, Italy or Greece before her plastic surgery and after plastic surgery she looked like some woman from Ukraine with Mongoloid admixture.

Before complaining about flaring cheekbones, they make women look better, look at the picture of the girl immediately after the header. Kirsten Dunst has them too, as Ali Larter, or Evangeline Lilly to name a few.


124

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:27 | #

Yes, Nordic women are the prettiest. It’s not only the fine facial features or the blue eyes or the blonde hair.
Women of norhtern Europe have great bodies, the sandclock figure, narrow waist, broad hips, nice butt and long legs, tall.
More refined in everything.

Women from Southern Europe are more like those as in Middle east, too fat, fat ass, too puny and too coarse in facial features. It must be the middle eastern admixture.


125

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:31 | #

This thread rocks! Let’s move this to front page!

Oh yes keep up the good work of posting the pics of these pretty women minus the hindus.


126

Posted by JB on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:34 | #

Malcolm all you have to do to post pictures is to put ‘img’ and ‘/img’ in brackets [] (i have inverted them just to show) ]img[]PICTURE LINK——.JPG[]/img[


J Richards:

I can cite modern genetic evidence for at least 5 races (all major population groupings) among humans (Europeans, black Africans, East Asians, Melanesian/Australian, Native American)

Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers.

Where would Arabs and Turks fit in those five categories ?

Malcolm A:

But this time around, I backed up my contentions with some stats ( winners of international pageants ) as evidence. If any of your Nordic pic selections are winners too, you have to only point that out and I will agree…..

that doesn’t mean much. Who are on the juries in these contests ? Nationality, race, gender, age, income, etc. any idea ?

Do you think a south asian special edition of say Penthouse magazine would outsell a nordic one ? I think those stats would be more meaningful

C. M.

This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities.

maybe he’s one of Razib’s or GC’s cousins


127

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 08 May 2006 15:56 | #

“Melanesian/Australian and Native American can’t really be called major due to their numbers.”

Yes, they can. I can explain it too. There were two waves out of Africa, a land route and a coastal route.
The coastal route involves the ancestors of todays australoids/melanesians, reason why hindus have alot of australoid admixture (south east Asian) is because the coastal route went via India. They reached Australia 60000 BC.

The other route involves a landroute and these people were the ancestors of what is to become European, North East Asians and middle easterners.

There are more than 3 races, even more than the 5 that you cited. The reason why people look “different” is due to genetic drift and isolation. You should understand that there was a very small founding population especially for the nordics.
If we are to talk about races, there are about 8 races.
5 does not sound illogical and people from south Asia are a blend of middle easterners and australoids (iranians +dravidians).


128

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 08 May 2006 16:17 | #

This malcolm is clearly a hindu in disguise as white man, yeah this guy is also spamming other forums with his non existing hindu stupidities

.

I am neither a Hindu nor an Indian, and you can take that to the bank.

Just playing devil’s advocate to see how J.Richard’s ‘scientific’ theories stand in the face of real science

Name the sites I am supposedly spamming so others can see for themselves too


129

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 08 May 2006 16:59 | #

Hi JB

that doesn’t mean much. Who are on the juries in these contests ? Nationality, race, gender, age, income, etc. any idea ?

You probably haven’t read the thead carefully. I have given all the names of one panel in an earlier post. BTW
Are you questioning the validity of panels now ?

Do you think a south asian special edition of say Penthouse magazine would outsell a nordic one ? I think those stats would be more meaningful

That depends. Witht Ash Rai, Mallika Sherawat etc, it may well do good business.. But, in any case,  Indians and Latinos have , in recent years, begun to outclass Nordics in Beauty pageants etc and where the most Beautiful 1% of women are concerned.

eg India won ALL 4 major international beauty pageants in 2000 (Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Asia Pacific and Ms World ) . A world record . So undoubtedly something is going on besides JR’s ‘political correctness’ theory

3. Although I am quite reluctant to talk science with non-scientists, I must say the 5 race, 7 race theory etc., are NOT proven at all. The only accepted races are the 3 already known ones. Others are just ‘proposed’ races.

Cheers


130

Posted by AD on Mon, 08 May 2006 17:16 | #

Jules said:

Again, yes I wish to preserve the aryan roots…[ ]...Blond hair and blue eyes have become so common nowadays…[ ].... I am a very attractive Nordic woman and get plenty of attention and admiration..[ ]...we both went in for modeling and got the agents interest, but shes the one that books all the ads. Maybe she just has a charm about her…[ ].... to say that most white men prefer a nordic woman is based on my experience and many other people’s experience absolutely wrong!!

A “Nordic woman”, also a “model”, who wants to preserve “the aryan roots” but can’t compete with her half asian “of some sort” friend, taking the time to post on Majority Rights.

Sounds believable.


131

Posted by JB on Tue, 09 May 2006 01:25 | #

Malcolm:

I have given all the names of one panel in an earlier post.

their names not their race, age, sexual orientation, occupation, whether they have investments in Revlon, etc. For all I know the men on the panel could be homosexuals or metrosexuals working for fashion magazines.

Malcolm:

Are you questioning the validity of panels now ?

yes, the validity of their opinion concerning female beauty. When I see beauty pageant contestants I see living ads for cosmetics companies not attractive women. I don’t like the glitz and the makeup overdose and I suspect a lot of men don’t either. And I don’t consider white fashion models to be particularly beautiful. I’d like to know the % of women VS men in the audience that attends or watches a beauty pageant or some other contest like Miss America, Miss Canada, etc. And the same for the readership of glitzy glossy fashion/beauty magazines

Malcolm:

But, in any case, Indians and Latinos have, in recent years, begun to outclass Nordics in Beauty pageants etc and where the most Beautiful 1% of women are concerned.

Who besides heterosexual men are in a better position to judge a woman’s beauty ? I’ve seen more beautiful women on the streets of small canadian towns than in the pages of glossy Revlon sponsored magazines. Beauty pageants are like the Grammies for music, the Oscars for movies, the Pulitzers for journalism, the ??? for books, etc. media creations that are mostly meaningless by themselves.

Malcolm:

Although I am quite reluctant to talk science with non-scientists,...

A good scientist is someone who can explain science to the common man and since probably most MR readers are a notch above you shouldn’t hesitate to enlighten the non scientifically trained among us. Even though I don’t have a degree in one of the hard sciences I can understand a scientific debate if the debaters are coherent and use terms for which there is a established definition. I can probably understand most of what you or JR wrote but I haven’t read the whole page because this particular topic bores me and is not really important anyway.

I’m familiar with Rushton’s racial trichotomy because I’ve read the short version of his book.

Malcolm:

I must say the 5 race, 7 race theory etc., are NOT proven at all. The only accepted races are the 3 already known ones. Others are just ‘proposed’ races.

there seems to be a contradiction between this assertion and your approval of Cavalli-Sforza’s work :
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/may_24.htm

“The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”


132

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 01:57 | #

C.M.,

Hindus are indeed part Mongoloid, as both genetic data and facial features reveal.  Hindus also have Middle Eastern and Australoid/aboriginal elements, like you have pointed out.  Additionally, in East Asia, there is clinal variation from the southeast to the northeast, and hence some continuity between the flat-faced NE Asians and the less-overall-flattened SE Asians, yet there is no difficulty in assigning Australo-Melanesians and NE Asians to separate races, just as some level of continuity from Europe to India does not imply that Europeans and South Asians belong to the same race. 

JB,

Racial classification takes into account genetic profile, physical appearance, geographic residence, etc. (read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment).  Thus, Australo-Melanesians are appropriately classified as a prominent racial group, major racial group if you please, in spite of their small numbers, though the term major should not be used because of its ambiguity.  Regarding the classification of Arabs and Turks, if you read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment, you will understand that some human populations cannot be assigned a race.

Fred Scrooby,

Kate Beckinsale in one-eight Burmese, yet it doesn’t show in her.  Therefore, you cannot assume that Benazir Bhutto has no Mongoloid ancestry.  The fact is that there is a large East Asian component in South Asia, and it is not just limited to those who look part-Mongoloid.         

Malcolm A,

I told you not to waste my time over the race stuff unless you can cite comparable evidence and refute the evidence that I have cited.  Do you not understand the difference between an argument by authority and an argument based on evidence?

Look at what you have cited to support the classification of South Asians as Caucasoids and the division of humanity into three “major” races: 1) Richard McCullough, a Nordicist who has not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence to support his classification scheme and one who has simply lifted the classification scheme from old and largely qualitative anthropological work; 2) an obscure statement by Cavalli-Sforza, which implies some level of continutity between Europeans and South Asians, which should not be surprising since there are well-documented clines and also because South Asia has seen European migrations in the past; 3) a statement by Rushton, who has not cited molecular data and has mentioned craniofacial traits that distinguish blacks, whites and NE Asians, which does not prove the existence of only 3 races; 4) the 2005 CIA Worldbook, which allegedly classifies 97% of people in India as Caucasians; and 5) the U.S. Supreme Court that labeled a South Asian as a Caucasian in the Jim Crow era! 

You have not cited molecular and/or craniofacial evidence from peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims, whereas this is the type of evidence that I have cited to back up my claims, and you have not refuted my citations.  The stance of a top-ranked scientist isn’t worth a damn unless he can cite empirical evidence to back up his claims, and empirical evidence is what you need.  Look at it this way.  If you submitted a paper to a journal to argue that South Asians are overwhelmingly Caucasoid and that there are three “major” races among humans with your kind of supporting evidence, what will happen?  Unanimous rejection!

If the concept of a sub-race is a valid taxonomical category, why have you been unable to cite a supporting reference based on the current literature?  You have cited Darwin to support the notion of a sub-race!  Back then, the classification scheme was nowhere as formal and substantiated as in the present.  For instance, Josiah Nott classified blacks and whites as members of separate species, yet included both among mankind.  Additionally, the formal concept of a biological species (Ernst Mayr) is a 20th century concept, and so on.

Since you raised the notion of sub-races, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for sub-races based on the current taxonomical literature rather than my responsibility to provide evidence against them.  The classification scheme that you cited classifies Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans as separate races, but the question you ask me is to provide evidence that these groups are not sub-races.  What is this?  Of course, Northern, Central and Southern European populations look different, but is sub-race a valid taxon and are these groups sub-races based on this valid taxon?  Cite current empirical evidence from peer-reviewed journals; don’t waste my time by saying so and so says this.

In response to my saying that a statement by Cavalli-Sforza is 30 years old, you came up with the absurd response that “The Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Evolution, Quantum Mechanics etc., are more than 70 years old and still stand.”  Just because some old ideas still stand doesn’t mean that all old ideas still stand.

Do not repeat your statement that it is not your argument that Nordics and South Asians are similar.  It is obvious that you believe that these groups differ but fall into the same race.  However, evidence from neutral DNA markers, ancestry-informative markers and neutral craniofacial measurements unambiguously reveal that South Asians do not belong to the same race that whites belong to.  I am obviously wasting my time in trying to convince you of this because you classified the South Asian shown in the data from DNAPrint genomics as Caucasoid even though this person has close to 50% of his genetic material derived from non-Caucasoids! 

You have written that it is my contention that all Indians can be classified as ‘mixed race.‘  Where have I implied this?  Most Indians are mixed race.  Even the Brahmins are mostly mixed race, as per one of the citations that I have mentioned above and also common observation.  For instance, when I was in India, I never came across one South Asian that could be passed off as a white person, though there were some rare cases that approached the looks of borderline-white Southern Europeans, which is not to say that white-looking South Asians do not exist, but they are obviously very rare.  You have acknowledged that Europeans have migrated to India in the past, including Nordic types such as the Aryans, but if these people had remained largely unmixed, then high caste Hindus would mostly look white, but they don’t.  The pictures of Hindu women that you have pointed out mostly show non-Caucasoids, and in some cases where they look Caucasoid—e.g., Diya Mirza and Katrina Kaif—it turns out that these women have a white parent each.  Therefore, the central tendency in India is to be mixed race, whereas in a multiracial society such as the USA, the vast majority of whites are overwhelmingly European (some have been living in parts of the nation that are predominantly white) and the mixed race people are American blacks, a large number of Native Americans, Hispanics, South Asians, and some other groups.

Continued below.


133

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 01:59 | #

Malcolm A,

You said that I seem to be losing my patience, which is not a good sign in a scholarly debate.  Of course I am getting frustrated, and it is because of your unscholarly arguments; scholarly debate my ass!  You started off by citing your degrees and background, none of which matter one bit when it comes to supporting one’s arguments by citing empirical references.  The evidence that you cite comprises of arguments by authority; this authority said this, this major organization ranked this woman as very beautiful, and so on.  You rehash your arguments, ignore a number of things that I have cited, and have yet to show how it is possible for cluster analysis to assign individuals to separate groups if there are no statistically significant differences between the groups.  I will elaborate on why I am getting frustrated by commenting on the following passage by you:

You have given four citations indicating evidence for 5 races based on genetic studies (clustering etc.). Two of these citations involve Rosenberg who is not even an authority as compared to Cavalli. Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ? So which one is it. Are there 5 races or NOT? Further, according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria. A gaping hole in their theory, technique and conclusions. Ever heard of a zoological classification that left out a whole chunk of the species ? Aren’t there any identifying criteria specific to this mongrel Indian populaton if it is indeed a single unit ?

You twist my words.  I did not cite evidence for 5 races; I cited evidence for at least 5 races.  You undermine two of these citations by saying that Rosenberg is not an authority like Cavalli-Sforza is.  I repeat that there are no arguments by authority in science.  Rosenberg provided 1) molecular evidence comprising of neutral DNA markers, which is the gold standard in taxonomy; 2) his 2005 paper used 993 micorsatellites, a much higher number than most studies in this regard, including the studies by Cavalli-Sforza and others leading to Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 book; 3) used geography-based sampling rather than the population-based sampling seen in previous studies, thereby refuting a major objection to racial clustering in humans; and 4) showed racial clustering regardless of model choice whereby the neutral markers are assumed to be either correlated or uncorrelated, which takes care of another objection to racial clustering of humans.  Therefore, I have cited recent and state of the art evidence for at least 5 races in humans, but you have not cited anything comparable to support your contention of three major races in humans.     

You have twisted my words by saying, “Also according to your own earlier posts, modern science refutes ‘ race’ ?”  I said that there is no official acknowledgement of races in humans.  Official acknowledgement is something on the part of scientists.  Science, as in scientific data, unambiguously supports the existence of human races.

Then you go on to say that “according to these esteemed articles, the Indians cannot even be classified by their criteria.”  This is absurd refusal to look at the data that I have cited.  Both the paper by Yang et al. and Li et al. show a separate South Asian cluster based on ancestry-informative DNA markers and neutral craniofacial measurements, respectively.  Therefore, South Asians have their own distinct group, which reflects the central tendency in the population, the existence of which is not undermined by outliers.  The question, however, is the racial status of South Asians.  I made repeated references to phylogeographic criteria for race assignment in a recent previous comment, and you have completely ignored it or else it would be clear to you why the nature of race mixing in South Asia, including its heterogeneous and asymmetric nature, and the known history of the peopling of South Asia prevent South Asians from being assigned a race.  There is no shortcoming in methodology here.  Sometimes two species can be viably crossed, but this does not mean that the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, and even if the hybrid offspring are assigned a species, it will not be the species of either parent.  Recall again the rainbow analogy.  Whereas the color bands of a rainbow are assigned a color, the region where one band blends into another is not assigned a color.

The problem is not simply your ignoring what I am saying, but also your failure to understand some of the things that I am saying.  For instance, you wrote, “If, as you say, they are a mixed population, there would be identifying parameters that separate them as one distinct unit.”  Guess what?  What do the Yang et al. and Li et al. papers show?  They show that the great majority of South Asians are characterized by a cluster of shared molecular and craniofacial structures that make South Asians stand out as a separate group among the major divisions of humankind.  Once again, phylogeographic criteria for race assignment prevent assigning a separate race to South Asians, but it is clear that they, as a group, don’t belong to any of the following races: European, Mainland Asian, Australo-Melanesian, sub-Saharan African and Native American.

As to how the [at least] 5 races based on molecular markers fit into the 8 population clusters based on the neutral craniofacial markers, 5 of the 8 craniofacial clusters correspond to the 5 races based on molecular markers.  The three remaining craniofacial clusters comprise of India, Eskimo-Siberia and Jomon-Pacific.  Extensive race mixing characterizes the India and Jomon-Pacific groups, and these groups cannot be assigned races in accordance with phylogeographic criteria, though the vast majority in each of these groups can be easily distingushed from other populations.  The Eskimo-Siberia group was not included in the molecular studies that I have cited to support at least 5 races among humans, and this is part of the reason why I have been talking about at least 5 races.

You wrote:

Correlation analysis is used to show signifcant association and not significant differences between groups of OTUs.This helps in clustering them together.[correlation = association ].. Please consult a good stats manual…

Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, each of which is normally distributed.  The groups do not differ with respect to each variable, i.e., the trait distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group.  You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters.  Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.

More importantly, if you look at the genetic and craniofacial data, not only is it clear that there is population clustering, it is also clear that there are statistically significant differences between populations with respect to several variables that go into the cluster analysis.  Once again, download Howells’ data and see it for yourself.  And, I will mention some such data shortly.

You asked whether I believe that Edwards has debunked Lewontin’s fallacy or whether he has debunked Lewontin’s theory as a fallacy.  What theory are you talking about?  Edwards debunked Lewontin’s fallacious conjecture rather than some theory proposed by Lewontin.

Anyway, you have become suspicious about my biological knowledge and have asked whether I am a biologist.  I am not a biologist.  I am a pimp and a high school dropout at that.  Now, hopefully you, an esteemed scientist, will consider it beneath your dignity to debate me on biological issues and stop wasting my time.

Continued below.


134

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 02:02 | #

Malcolm A,

You wrote:

This is not that important and you maybe right…but when deciding on beauty on this thread, it is a “I said ; you said” situation ...

 

When you twist my words, I have to defend what I wrote, and when you no longer can play around, you just try to ignore my defense instead of acknowledging that you did twist my words.

I am not bringing up political correctness after the fact to explain why a Nordic woman did not win in a beauty contest, and unlike you who would not complain if a Nordic woman wins a beauty pageant, I will not be pleased if the Nordic woman is not attractive.  Your talk about there being some validity to the aesthetic judgments in beauty pageants because of an international team of judges is pure absurdity.  Just go through the pictures of the white women that have participated in recent international beauty pageants and see how attractive these women are, on average.  Several of these women are unattractive, and this is all you need to see in order to conclude that these pageants are not about beauty.

What do you mean that we agree to disagree that Nordic women have finer facial features than upper caste South Asian women?  How can there be any disagreement when it is clear that East Asian, aboriginal and Negroid admixture will make one’s facial features less fine, and upper caste Hindus have a considerable amount of such ancestry compared to Nordics.  Your own selections show the Indian women to have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc.

I am tired of having to repeatedly respond to why I don’t always use your pictures; your pictures are often too small; often overexposed, making it difficult to see the facial features; and obscured by hair or angle.  It is appropriate for me to search for clear, non-overexposed pictures of these women to see their features.  Thus, Mallika Sherawat is shown to have more massive cheekbones, thicker lips, a wider nose and less fine features than the Nordic woman that I have compared her to, all of which you ignore and point out, instead, that both these women have a pointy chin and a straight nose.

You have said that there are some people who can’t connect through the links right after quoting a passage by me that says that anyone can copy and paste the links to see the pictures for themselves.  Are you retarded?  Copy and Paste works.  Besides, several of your links are clickable.

I am starting to wonder whether you lack a basic aesthetic sense.  Your defense of the looks of Angelina Jolie and many other women in this thread is that some prominent organization or magazine labeled these women as very attractive.  The look of an attractive woman speaks for itself and an attractive woman will look good from any angle.  There is no need to have some authority label a woman attractive in order for us to see whether the woman is attractive.

Now you have linked to some pictures of Madhuri Dixit; 5 of them very small and one with a blondish hair dye and features obscured by hair, and ignored a picture of her that I posted in my entry.  Anyway, Madhuri Dixit is easily beaten by Nordic women who are barely good looking.

Madhuri Dixit, Cindy Paulsson

And here is a picture of Madhuri Dixit showing her hooked nose.

Madhuri Dixit

You linked to a highly ranked beauty pageant contestant, Namrata Shirodkar, and mentioned a movie, Bride and Prejudice, where she appeared.  Here is a screen capture of this movie, showing that Namrata Shirodkar (far right) has massive jaws and a hooked nose.

Namrata Shirodkar

By the way, the seated woman is Aishwarya Rai.

This hook-nosed issue needs to be addressed formally.

In a study by Hanihara (cited above), the extent of upper nose projection was computed by dividing the simotic subtense by the simotic chord, and the values (standard deviation in parentheses) of some populations were: English, 53.5 (11.40); Punjab, 45.1 (10.86); Delhi, 42.3 (13.20); Bihar-Bengal, 42.3 (10.89); Assam-Sikkim 32.9 (12.17), Madras, 40.6 (10.13); Veddah, 39.7 (7.01).  Punjab and Delhi are in the Northwestern part of India; Bihar-Bengal and Assam-Sikkim people are in the Northeastern part of India, Madras and Veddah people are in the Southern part of South Asia.  Higher values imply a more projecting upper nose region.  The Northeastern part of India has more Mongoloid influence, and it should not be surprising that the upper noses become flatter as one moves from the NW to NE part of India.  Similarly, the SE Asiatic element becomes stronger as one moves from the NW to the Southern part of India, and correspondingly the upper nose gets flatter.  The interesting thing to note is that even if you take the Punjab population, a light-skinned people that are genetically closer to Europeans than South Asians from other parts of India, the difference between a Northern European population (English) and the people from Punjab is close to one standard deviation, which is obviously statistically significant.  This study only addressed the skull, but there are other studies that have addressed soft tissue features, and I will use the closest approximation to the English in another study, i.e., American whites, the majority of whom are Northern European.

The other study is: Farkas et al. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg. 2005 Jul;16(4):615-46.

The Farkas et al. study had the following average values of nose lengths (p values for statistically significant differences in brackets): American white males, 53.0; American white females, 48.9; India males, 47.2 (p = 0.002); India females 43.7 (p = 0.0009).  Thus, the India men and women had shorter noses.

The Farkas et al. study had the following average values of nose breadth (p values for statistically significant differences in brackets): American white males, 34.7; American white females, 31.4; India males, 37.9 (p = 0.008); India females 33.8 (0.01 < p < 0.05).  Thus, the India men and women had broader noses

The inclination of the nose bridge (-2SD, +2SD in brackets) was: American white males, 31.6 (22.4, 40.8)); American white females, 30.0 (19.4, 40.6); India males, 32.5 (21.3, 43.7); India females 31.7 (22.5, 40.9).

Now, what do these values tell you?  It is obvious that the frequency of uglier noses will be higher in India than in Northern Europe by virtue of a higher incidence in India of shorter noses (more characteristic of Australoids, Mongoloids and Negroids), broader noses (more characteristic of non-Europeans) and hooked noses (more characteristic of Middle Easterners, Central Asians).

Similar data can be shown for many other aspects of facial features.  So don’t tell me that the assignment of South Asians to a separate cluster from that of whites does not reflect statistically significant differences between these groups.  Additionally, the craniofacial measurements and known genetic composition easily allow one to infer which group among the best looking Nordics and the best looking South Asians looks better by your own standards.  You have acknowledged that whites look better than East Asians and black Africans, and since it has been shown that the combination of East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal elements is a large part of the genetics of South Asians (see, for instance, the DNAPrint Genomics profile above) and that Brahmins have extensively absorbed lower caste people into their gene pool, then it is obvious that the best looking Nordic women will leave the best looking upper caste Hindu women in dust.  East Asian, Negroid and Australoid/aboriginal components are bound to make facial features less fine: noses broader, lips thicker, cheekbones more prominent, jaws more massive, etc., which is what we clearly see in your choices of Indian women compared to the Nordic women.  Don’t tell me that this is not objective.   

You have mentioned that I am not posting pictures of Nordic women that have been highly ranked in beauty pageants.  I figured that I might as well contrast Namrata Shirodkar with a Nordic beauty pageant winner—Jennifer Hawkins, Miss Universe 2004—even though the Nordic isn’t that feminine, but she will do.

Namrata Shirodkar, Jennifer Hawkins

As far as the Victorian standards for the female physique go, who cares?  Heterosexual men prefer a feminine physique in women now and this was also true in the Victorian era, and there is no way Aishwarya Rai’s physique could be the stuff of the fantasy of men who are aware of the existence of women with the kind of physique you see in the Nordic woman next to Aishwarya Rai.  You mentioned Asha Parekh as a woman with a great physique, but I have not been able to find pictures of her physique.

Anyway, do not goddamned waste my time by citing poor sources.


135

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 09 May 2006 06:41 | #

The interesting thing to note is that even if you take the Punjab population, a light-skinned people that are genetically closer to Europeans than South Asians from other parts of India

Who did this study?  Punjabis in India are stereotypically known for having big noses, whether it be wide and bulbousy or gigantically hooked.  No, I’m not trying to be rude, but relating them to white Europeans is just too funny.  To me, I think they look more like semites. Trust me, I’m surrounded by Punjabis.  Some do have a very slight Mongloid look, like the actress Juhi Chawla. 

Punjabis may have a higher amount of people with lighter skin,  but that doesn’t mean they look “more European.”  Light skin can be a result of climate, and being a light-skinned Indian doesn’t mean that you’re going to have more European features, lol. 

Don’t forget that Kashmir is North of Punjab.  If you’re going to go by the “Punjabis are more related to Europeans logic,” then it would natural to say the same thing about Kashmiris and Uttaranchalis. 

Don’t forget that there are certain sects spread out all over India, who have that light-skinned/light-eyed look (such as the South Indian Konkani Brahmins, Chitpavan Brahmins from Maharashtra, the Ptallu of Hydrabad, etc).  I don’t know why people act as if Punjab is some sort of special region distinct from the rest of India. 

In case you didn’t know J.R.-Aditi Gorivkar is a Chitpavan Brahmin. They are from the WesternCentral state, Maharashtra.


136

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 09 May 2006 06:51 | #

Sharma

Sharmas are generally North-Indian Brahmins.  They can be from Rajasthan, Punjab, UP (Uttar Pradesh), etc. 

But you’re right, Indians do change their last names, especially in cases of re-marriage and adoption.  A lot of lower-caste Hindus also change their last names, but I don’t think it’s that common for high-caste Indians to change their last names. 

In our culture, it’s kind of weird for step-kids to have a different last name than the step-father.  There is great emphasis on family values, so it’s natural that the step-kids adopt their step-father’s last name (even if he is from a different caste). 

Somebody made mention about the low divorce rate among Indians.  Just to let you know, a lot of divorced Indian women lie about being remarried and divorced.  So, you can’t always tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.

They will tell their kids to tell everybody that their step-parent is their biological parent.  They will not openly tell you that they have a step-parent, because it’s not acceptable to advertise such a thing. 

Indians are like any other human beings, but they choose not to openly acknowledge their personal situations to the rest of the community.


137

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 09 May 2006 08:06 | #

Indian girl,

The Punjab group includes samples from the Punjab-Kashmir region.  On the other hand, your objection about the bulbous/prominent noses of people in Punjab is not applicable since this study assessed the upper nasal region, which is bony, rather than the fleshy part of the nose, which is what is bulbous (the study sampled skulls).  You can see from the data that the upper nasals (bony structure) are more prominent in the Punjab-Kashmir region than in other parts of India, and this is consistent with other evidence, only part of which is lighter skin, for the greater European affiliation of NW India.  You are, of course, right that upper caste Hindus, generally closer to Europeans than other Hindus, are scattered through other parts of India, but these people are a minority and do not undermine the general geographic trend of reduced European ancestry as one moves south and/or east of NW India.  Besides, like you say that some people in Punjab look part Mongoloid, this is what you would expect since race mixing has taken place extensively in India and Mongoloid/aboriginal elements are present in NW Indians as well as upper caste Indians. 

Thanks for the other information.


138

Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 10 May 2006 06:01 | #

On the other hand, your objection about the bulbous/prominent noses of people in Punjab is not applicable since this study assessed the upper nasal region, which is bony, rather than the fleshy part of the nose, which is what is bulbous (the study sampled skulls).  You can see from the data that the upper nasals (bony structure) are more prominent in the Punjab-Kashmir region than in other parts of India, and this is consistent with other evidence, only part of which is lighter skin, for the greater European affiliation of NW India.

I’m not talking about the upper nasal region.  Even if you do have a higher nose bride, the bottom part can be gigantically hooked or broad. 

Here are some pictures of Punjabis, who fit the “typical Punjabi” look in India.  The protoypical Punjabi look is hard to definte in words, but you can tell by looking at their overall face.  Do they look ” European” or “fine featured” to you? I don’t think so. 

Famous author Deepak Chopra. 

Punjabi actor Dharmendra

Actor Rishi Kapoor

 

A Punjabi boy

http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=138791

Random Punjabi Girls
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=2537
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=2537

 

Were all of these people surveyed in the study NATIVE PUNJABIS?  Just because you live in Punjab and Kashmir doesn’t mean that you are a true Punjabi or Kashmiri.    Indians have migrated constantly for hundreds of years. 

There are South Indians who are descendants of North Indians, and there Eastern Indians who are actually descendants of NW Indians.  However, these people follow the culture of whatever state they live in.  So, a Konkani Brahmin would consider himself South Indian (even though his ancestors were North Indian).  A Rajput from the Eastern state of Bihar would consider herself a Bihari (even though Rajputs were originally from Rajasthan). 


Punjab and Kashmir aren’t the only states that make up NW India.  Rajasthan is also a NW state.  Also, that study only sampled people from certain states.  What about places like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, and Uttar Pradesh?  A lot of people in UP/Uttaranchal and MP are actually of NW descent. 

But like I said before, these people don’t identify as NW Indians.  They don’t live in NW India, speak the language or follow the customs.    People don’t always base their ethnicity on their genetic roots.  Indians often base their ethnicity on the language they speak, what religious customs they follow, the food they eat, etc.


139

Posted by IndianGirl on Wed, 10 May 2006 06:16 | #

I accidentally doubled the pic of the Punjabi girl.

Here are some more.



?42
http://www.ratedesi.com/view.php?id=172030


140

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 06:18 | #

Hi J.R.

Light hearted banter helps make the thread interesting. Sorry about the spelling and grammatical errors in my posts caused by some rather hurried writing on my part. The reason for inquirng whether you were a Biologist or NOT is not to undermine your integrity, but to gauge the level of response that I could come up with. Helps understand where we stand.

1.
JR, if you are NOT a biologist, then your ability to sort through the morass of advanced reaseach papers and extract the relevant citations is either quite amazing or very suspect. It may well be that you have no proper undestanding of any of these articles but are trying to bluff your way through by just posting rather ‘high sounding’ but totally unrelated articles, charts etc.,  that prove nothing at all.  Your reference to Lewontin’s Fallacy, insistence on empirical data when the citations provided by you are not related to the topic at hand and your failure to grasp the nuances of statistical /  biological theory could spell trouble in regards to your ability to defend your theories.

Lewontin’s fallacy : Please read the following para.which proves it was Lewontin’s view that was debunked and NOT Lewontins fallacy
Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither “race” nor “subspecies” were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). This view is purportedly debunked as Lewontin’s Fallacy. [www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Race ]-


a) Craniofacial citations etc..
You cite Brace et al’s anthropological data on 24 craniofacial measurement as relevant to the topic,  but their conclusion shows that the objective was to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate ( ( some of his co-authors are Mongoloids ; so this is not a surprise !). Also consider the craniofacial measurements of a whale as opposed to those of an elephant. The whale’s would be much more closer to those of a fish, rather than the elephant’s, by way of dorso-lateral flattening etc.,  BUT the elephant and the whale cluster together under class Mammalia ( which is genetically very distant from class Pisces ( Fishes ) ! In this context, terms such as parallel / convergent evolution, analogous and homologous structures etc., are important.

The Cambodians and Burmese who are much more darker (slightly admixed w/. Dravidian caucasians) than the Japs or the Chinese, are still classified as Mongoloids ( Hope you won’t contest that one too ). You say Kate Beckinsale has Burmeses genes, but what race would she be presently classified under. I’ll bet it would be Caucasian. This is why the degree of admixture is important in classification. We are all admixed to some extent. Doesn’t necessarily affect one’s classification.

b) Genetic evidence given by Rosenberg ( 993 microsattelitles ? ) and others…

The most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s [ is the term caucasoids mentioned specifically, and if so have they conclusively stated that Indians are NOT caucasoids ? ]. Then we must check the degree of acceptance the publication has received from the scientific community. Have their recommendations being adopted by the Zoological society and included in modern texts etc etc.. Without such an evaluation, just citing a paper proves nothing.

Although you say that you have provided empirical evidence , it appears that you have not, as the clustering in Rosenberg’s article is clearly Epidemiological rather than taxonomic in nature, and is full of holes. I have already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme.

Citing your own words, ’ at least 5 races’ and ’ 5 or more races’  etc., I must say that these by themselves are an indication of the uncertain nature of this citation by Rosenberg et al. As I said, when suggesting a system of classifciation( if that is indeed what they are doing )  you cannot arbitrarily say at least 5 races etc. What does that mean ? Is it 6 , 7, 8 , or 100 ?  He also admits further data is needed. (ii) It is rather strange that you cite 5 works but only 2 conclusions. Did Nei et al (1993), Bowcock et al( 1994), Rosenberg et al (2002 )and (2005) all point to ’ 5 or more races ’ OR did they each reach some other conclusions(if so please quote them separately ). Seems like you haven’t even read these papers properly before quoting them.

The problem w/ Rosenberg’s reputation is further discussed below, and confirms my questions to you about holes in his technique
....These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design
[ REF : http://experts.about.com/e/r/ra/Race.htm ]

c) Authorities, citations etc…
I must point out that there are ‘publications’ and then there are ‘publications,’ due to the ‘publish or perish’ syndrome affecting academics. Everyone form undergrad to grad students, as well as research and teaching staff are publishing 1000s of papers for a variety of reasons.. But all of these are NOT valued at the same level. Eg Darwin is considered an authority on Evolution for obvious reasons many years after his death. Lamarck is NOT. Therefore, anyone publishing a paper supporting ’ Inheritance of acquired characters’ will not get the same respect. Same goes for Authority. You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite. This is why numbers don’t matter in the citation game.

It is in this context that I suggested Cavalli as the foremost authority on this matter, as his book is now accepted as the definitive work on this subject See ( d) below. Highly esteemed Journals such as NATURE, SCIENCE etc.,  reguraly call upon Prof Cavalli-Sforza to write reviews which is an honor extended to only the foremost and top experts/ authorities in their fields.

2.
a) . Caucasoid : Defintion and Scope
Definition : ......racial classification used as a part of a system including Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid etc..Defined with a pattern of physical traits typical of humans indigenous to regions centered in Europe, North Africa, West Asia, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh ) & some of Central Asia(View Typical caucoasid skull )  : (b)  caucasian race : humans whose ancestry can be traced back to Europe, Middle East, South Asia and some of Central Asia and N Africa.  [note: The suffix ‘oid’ indicates “a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else ]....source : http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/caucasoid 2005

b)  Genetic evidence for evolutionary relationships between Europeans and Indians
Oppenheimer, Stephen; (2003) “The Real Eve: Modern Man’s Journey out of Africa” 
In this book, OppenHeimer, provides evidence that the M17 mutation which specifies the R1A haplotype common to both European and Indian populations originated in India, among Primitive caucasians and then traveled out to Europe and returned again with the so called Aryans. Thus, the M17 marker is clear and present evolutionary evidence that Indians and Europeans had common ancestry.

Bamshad M., Kivisild T., et al; (2001) Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations, Virus Research 75(2): 95-106, Jun. 
The following genetic evidence of common genes shared by Indians and Europeans again prove evolutionary relationships
Y DNA :  R1a1 haplotype, which is an Aryan haplogroup with a very high frequency in Europe and Central Asia, and found at a high frequency among East European populations, is also commnoly found among many Indian races.,  ii ]    Y-DNA :  R1b Western European Haplotype which is most common haplotype in Europe is found among North Indians,  iii ]    Y DNA : L haplotype is another Aryan marker commonly found in Greek, Turk, Lebanese, Iranian and Indians and present in Indo-european spoken areas.  iii ]  J2 marker : Originated in northern fertile crescent ( above Iraq) and migrated into India iv ]  MtDNA Western European markers such as U etc., are very common in Indians,  vi ]  Punjabi Jats have more haplotypes in common with Germans, Balts, and Slavs ( 2- 10% ,  around 1- 5 haplotypes, mainly R1a1) than even with the neighbouring Indo-Iranians ( Bamshard et al 2001).These are all common to Aryan gene pool and all possibilities populations ( Bamshard et al 2001) .

Wells Spencer ; (2003) ‘The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey’, Princeton University Press. .
Positively proved that there was an Aryan migration into India as evidenced by the temporal and spatial distribution of the R1A haplotype.

Part 2 follows


141

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 06:24 | #

Part 2 contd….

L L Cavalli-Sforza, A Piazza, P Menozzi, and J Mountain, Department of Genetics, Stanford University, CA 94305.Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 August; 85(16): 6002-6006.
Created genetic and linguistic map using Clustering and average Linkage analysis using Nei’s genetic distances…..
Caucasoids form a fairly tight group consisting of 12 populations, 5 of which were pooled as Europeans…. ( Please see map which shows the others 7 as Lapps, South Indian (Dravidian), Indian, Sardinian, Iranian, S.W. Asian, Berber (N.African)....) The map also shows the linguistic connection by grouping 8 populations {European (5), Indian, Sardinian and Iranian} under Indo-European speaking branch


[ii]  Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza et al;  PNAS | August 15, 1988 | vol. 85 | no. 16 | 6002-6006 Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Bringing Together Genetic, Archaeological, and Linguistic Data
.....The first split in the phylogenetic tree separates Africans from non-Africans, and the second separates two major clusters, one corresponding to Caucasoids, East Asians, Arctic populations, and American natives, and the other to Southeast Asians (mainland and insular), Pacific islanders, and New Guineans and Australians…..

[iii] Luigi Luca cavalli-Sforza et all The History and Geography of Human Genes. [4] Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca et al (1995). Princeton University Press.
This is Cavalli-Sforza’s own description of this map that is the capstone of his half century of labor in human genetics:
The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids ... (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”

c) Correlation analysis in clustering
Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters. Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.

???  Where did I say this ? [ie underlined portion ?].I was just trying to explain that correlation Coefficients indicate significance of association rather than that of differences. I hope you are not trying to test me or mislead/confuse me by just writing some gobbledygook!

I will give you a very simple example regarding correlation as your understanding of the subject seems to be poor….If data sets A, B and C are assessed for correlation and it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C.

3. Real Life situations
a)  Here is an example of one very puzzled “caucasian” who went for DNA profiling and found that he has relatives and ancestors in the most uexpected of places, extending well into India, in his own words
..... My genetic migration : 
I finally got my information back from the genographic project..[  Note : his genetic group was M17, a europeanoffshoot that appeared 10000 years ago….]....I figured I would be on a European branch, but M17 is much more ... This means that somewhere in my family history is a group of Central Asian descendants, possibly as far south as Iran or India. That is pretty crazy to think about…....

[http://www.trappermarkelz.com/2005/07/my_genetic_migr.html]

b)  US Supreme Court’s Ruling in the matter of People Vs Baghat Singh Thind (1937):
US Supreme Court agrees that ....Indians were Caucasians and that anthropologists considered them to be of the same race as white Americans


4.Beauty matters

a)  Pageants are NOT about beauty :
JR, no one believs that pageants are not about beauty. Do some ugly fat women goto these NO. So it is about beautiful young women who are also smart and savy..

b) What do you mean that we agree to disagree that Nordic women have finer facial features than upper caste South Asian women? How can there be any disagreement when it is clear that East Asian, aboriginal and Negroid admixture will make one’s facial features less fine, and upper caste Hindus have a considerable amount of such ancestry compared to Nordics. Your own selections show the Indian women to have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, a higher frequency of hooked noses, etc.

Says who ?.... you !!
JR stop kidding yourself. If Indians weren’t a threat why would you even start to compare our women w/ them. You started this whole morass by posting Indians for comparison instead of Chinese or Latiinos. NOt me or anyone else.

c) I am tired of having to repeatedly respond to why I don’t always use your pictures; your pictures are often too small; often overexposed, making it difficult…

As if anyone would believe that !
I really don’t mind, as your great FEAR of posting my links alone proves my point. I rather enjoy your fear psychosis induced paralysis when it comes to posting my links..

d) The look of an attractive woman speaks for itself and an attractive woman will look good from any angle. There is no need to have some authority label a woman attractive in order for us to see whether the woman is attractive…. Anyway, Madhuri Dixit is easily beaten by Nordic women who are barely good looking.

....says you !

e) Similar data can be shown for many other aspects of facial features. So don’t tell me that the assignment of South Asians ....As far as the Victorian standards for the female physique go, who cares? etc etc…Anyway, do not goddamned waste my time by citing poor sources

I think I am beginning to like you a lot! We could start a comedy club !!
You managed to make even namrata look terrible and that’s an achievement. Here’s what Jack Mathews of NY Daily News had to say about Ash Rai and namrata
.......while Rai is getting all the attention - she’s been called the world’s most beautiful woman in the world by no less an authority than Julia Roberts - I am not sure she is prettier than Namrata shirodkar…..
Jack Matthews, New York Daily News; Feb 11, 2005; pg. 51

Anyway, for your viewing pleasure , here is a very straight nosed Mandira Bedi and another stunner from Bollywood Mahima Chaudry

Mandira Bedi

Mahima Chowdry




FEAR OF POSTING LINKS SYNDROME got you now. ??

Cheers


142

Posted by Chom Fa on Wed, 10 May 2006 14:01 | #

You people are seriously scary


143

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 10 May 2006 15:14 | #

Hi JB

their names not their race, age, sexual orientation, occupation, whether they have investments in Revlon, etc. For all I know the men on the panel could be homosexuals or metrosexuals working for fashion magazines.

This statement is so crazy it is not even worth replying to. Are you suggesting that the panels are full of homosexuals. most panesl have at least 30 to 50% women !

I’ve seen more beautiful women on the streets of small canadian towns than in the pages of glossy Revlon sponsored magazines

True. But beauty pageants also attract only those considered beauties.  As I told JR there are better looking wone than Ashwarya Rai in India !

3. Scientists can explain stuff to the best of their ability but unless the person trying yo learn has a basic knwoeldge of science it woufn’t work, especially when one is discussin advanced Biology such as Genetics at the PhD and above level.

4. The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ). For an interpretation of the map you have to read Cavalli’s The History and Geography of The Human gene
Cheers


144

Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 15:36 | #

“The Map does not show the distribution in terms of race but in terms of related groups. You can see that India, all the way upto Scandinavia, has the same color ( blue/green ).”.

This map is hugely flawed: the reason why scandinavia has the same color blue as China or India like Malcolm A. propose is that the area of the Baltics and North Scandinavia has large percentage of haplotype N3 which is a sister clade of haplotype O, the main haplotype of Han Chinese. I Know that in the Baltics and Scandinavia, you have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyed hotties. These areas have parental haplotype N3 over 50%, I think for Finnish something like 60% or 70%. Yeah ironic isn’t it that areas with N3 have the largest amount of blondes and blue eyes.

You should ask yourself where nordics got their better looks from, if “European” means the same thing as southern European or Mediterenean, people in Northern Europe should look the same as Italians. But a Italian woman with dyed blonde hair and coloured contacts still looks Italian, so it’s not the pigmentation, their facial features will still give them away.

I think the whole concept of what is “European” is kindda vague because a person like Cavalli-Sforza think middle easterners are “European” too, but that is because the South of Europe has absorbed large number of middle easterners in past. Like haplotype J. I think it all depends from the person involved.


145

Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 15:53 | #

I have seen other maps too of genetic relationship.

There are of course differences, in interpretation of data.

I think Europe must be considered as a receiver of signals from Asia. Signal means genes. As we consider the main east and west European haplotype R1a and r1b which are derived from M173 which in turn is a derivative of the even older M45 which is Mongoloid, then you can actually say that Europeans are actually mutated Mongoloids going all the way to the neolithics when farmers from Middle east migrated into Europe with haplotype J.

I will be very clear about this: northern Europeans are less affected by neolithic middle eastern farmers so they retain their look of paleolithic ancestors.

Swedes should look like Italians but they don’t. Dutch should look as Spaniards if there is something like “European”, but they don’t.

I think Europe can be compred like a street, your neighbour is not necessarily your relative. Europe is like a street where strangers find a home. Nordics are derived Mongoloids or mutatede mongoloids and southeren Europeans are more like middle easterners.


146

Posted by C. M. on Wed, 10 May 2006 16:25 | #

This Malcolm A posts alot of bullshit. Indians are just blend of middle eastern and australoid and they don’t contribute to any region in genes.

I think all the links he posted are frauds like that of Bamshad of university of Utah.

I doubt that you can find R1a in India at all, of maybe a few that descended from the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander.
R1a is eastern european haplotype.

Like I have explained earlier on R1a and R1b are actually Mongoloid so how Malcolm can claim something that clearly is not his is beyond me.
Maybe some upper caste Indians got r1a from Mogul period too (Mongols), R1a is not unusual among manchu Chinese, a tribe in Northern China.

Too much old stuff or propaganda from Malcolm A.
There is not such thing as “aryan”, because if he meant “Aryan” is speaker of indo-european language, then he should look for the origin in middle east, because the original indo european languages originates from Anatolia.

Paleolithic Europeans did not speak “indo european” at all, this language family is just 9000 years old from the neolithic farmers from anatolia.

People of this language family migrated west into europe in neolithics and they migrated into India about 1200 B.C.
So the relation of these languages can be explained easily.


147

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 May 2006 01:45 | #

“You cite Brace et al’s anthropological data on 24 craniofacial measurements as relevant to the topic, but their conclusion shows the objective was to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate (some of his co-authors are Mongoloids, so this is not a surprise!).”  (—Malcolm A., at upper fourth of comment of May 10, 5:18 AM)

Why isn’t it a surprise?  You’re saying an objective of Mongoloid scientists is to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate?  If so, why is that their objective?  Is it that they dislike the term “Mongoloid”?  Is it that they join the world’s Jewish academics who’ve been bizarrely denying that there are races since around the 1880s (something which is the same as asserting that two plus two equals five)?

“Are you suggesting that the [beauty-contest judging] panels are full of homosexuals?  Most panels have at least 30% to 50% women!”  (—Malcolm, May 10, 2:14 PM)

Women, who are without exception disastrous beauty-pageant judges, join homosexual men in not knowing what makes a woman beautiful:  they always misjudge this, for reasons ranging from not having a neuronal or hormonal clue as to what attracts men in women’s faces, bodies, or clothing to allowing sympathy for or antipathy toward a contestant’s perceived personality to prompt them to call her beautiful when she’s appalling or vice-versa, to following the dictates of PC absolutely, unquestioningly, and even completely unselfconsciously (are not even aware they’re doing it), to sheer jealousy of beautiful women in those instances where they (dimly but) accurately sense they are in the presence of such. 

As for male homos, they are atrocious judges of beauty pageants for the reason, oft-alluded-to in this site’s threads, that a crucifix repulses a vampire less than feminine beauty repulses homosexual men, who are attracted to the exact opposite:  masculinity in women’s faces, bodies, and clothing. 

Judging panels ought to consist solely of non-leftist heterosexual men at least half to two-thirds of whom are happily married:  “non-leftist” because leftist men’s ability to judge womanly beauty is also impaired (in some ways along the same lines as that of homos), and “happily married” because unmarried men are mere boys where women are concerned, lacking in appreciation of the deeper, realer ways in which women are beautiful:  a bachelor of thirty-five judges women’s beauty still more or less the way he did at fourteen.  He hasn’t grown up where women are concerned, just as a spinster or old maid hasn’t grown up where men are concerned (or where children are concerned either, often enough).

Women don’t know which women are most attractive any more than men know which men are.  If there were beauty pageants for men—“handsome pageants”—clearly men would have no place whatsoever on the judging panels which would properly consist solely of women.

“You people are seriously scary.”  (—Chom Fa)

Your name suggests it’s possible you’re a Chinaman, Mr. Chom.  If so, does your nation’s “racialist” preference for the Chinese race, its policy of strictly closed borders where racially-incompatible immigration is concerned, and its steadfast espousal of others of the things that scare you about us scare you about it?  I can only assume so.  You’re scared-stiff of the Chinese people and of China.  Absolutely terrified of them.  It’s sad for a Chinaman to feel that way—but at least you’re being consistent ...  (You are being consistent ... aren’t you, sir? ... I’m sure you are ...  Yes, yes, I feel certain of it ....)


148

Posted by JB on Thu, 11 May 2006 03:28 | #

Malcolm:

Same goes for Authority. You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite. This is why numbers don’t matter in the citation game.

It is in this context that I suggested Cavalli as the foremost authority on this matter, as his book is now accepted as the definitive work on this subject See ( d) below. Highly esteemed Journals such as NATURE, SCIENCE etc., reguraly call upon Prof Cavalli-Sforza to write reviews which is an honor extended to only the foremost and top experts/ authorities in their fields.

numbers don’t matter but the same goes for reputation. It’s not the authority of the author or researcher or its reputation that matters it is the validity of their work. I would have thought all scientists would be aware of that.

Also scientific journals aren’t free of politics. Their editors aren’t necessarily flawless open minded scientific thinkers

Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.


149

Posted by Jules on Thu, 11 May 2006 10:02 | #

So who was the one who wanted me to email them my picture?? I already know you will think I am good looking, so am not worried about that.  I will make some type of arrangement so that you may view them since you are so desperate to see.

And unlike most of you, I don’t have time to frequent this board, however, the nordic evolution caught my eyes as when I think of Nordic, I think only of Norway, Sweden, Finland, to which my descendents originally are from

I dont think all mixes are good looking, I have seen some mixes that are hideous, asian white or white latin, if you are ugly youre ugly. And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic.

I know that sounds brutal, but thats my honest opinion. Aisha Rai, sp? is very hindu lookig for me and not pretty in my standards, there was some or few indians up there that I thought attractive, but dont you Losers up there worry about it, because even the ugliest Indian woman would never mix with blood that they considered trash, meaning some of you up there,

Now for the ones who liked Keira Knightly,
Charlize Theron, Catherine Z Jones and Kate Beckinsale, you have good tastes and high standards.

To all of you, I feel sorry that your one desire is to have a nordic girl in your life, well, you know, let me tell you a secret to winning any womans heart. All you have to do is have a good heart, not be so racist even when you want to be, and perhaps even the cruelest of women will give you a chance. Yes I am very cruel, but occasionally I meet peple that I can tell are real, and I treat them good. The rest of the world, I jsut use all you stupid losers, because in the end, thats what you really are.


150

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 11 May 2006 16:00 | #

Hi C.M.

This map is hugely flawed: the reason why scandinavia has the same color blue as China or India like Malcolm A. propose is that the area of the Baltics and North Scandinavia has large percentage of haplotype N3 which is a sister clade of haplotype O, the main haplotype of Han Chinese

I believe I have already explained to my fellow posters here, that unless you are a scientist , you would not be able to decipher some of the stuff here, and more and more, that appears to be the case.

What Cavalli did with the map is trace evolutionary relationships using clustering studies and his conclusions based on the map are clear in the statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE…WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA

As I have admitted here, I am NOT a Geneticist ( population Biologist - Pect Control w/ particular reference to economic thresholds and injury levels of cotton pests )  but I have taken enough 500/600 level courses in Genetics to be able to decipher the science in these articles.

2I think the whole concept of what is “European” is kindda vague because a person like Cavalli-Sforza think middle easterners are “European” too

,

Displays ignorance of science right there. Cavalli is only stating genetic facts that prove most of these races fall under the larger group identified as caucasoids. Thats all.

e.i. Elephants and whales look different but fall under the larger group mammalia as opposed to say Pisces ( fish ). Thats at the class level whereas cavalli is comparing at the race ( sub spps ) level.

3

. think all the links he posted are frauds like that of Bamshad of university of Utah.

Why is Bamshad a fraud and NOT you ( matter of opinion !)? There is an error in that BTW. ONLY the statements followed by ref to Bamshad are from Bamshads work. The references above that are just a general compilation from my own notes.

4. R1a is eastern european haplotype. Like I have explained earlier on R1a and R1b are actually Mongoloid so how Malcolm can claim something that clearly is not his is beyond me.

Ridiculous ! Now I am beginning to lose respect for you. Read Spencer Wells, Oppenheimer. etc etc who are real geneticists and you will know better (vis a vis R1A known as the Aryan gene )

5. There is not such thing as “aryan”, because if he meant “Aryan” is speaker of indo-european language

Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc..

6. Why isn’t it a surprise?  You’re saying an objective of Mongoloid scientists is to prove that the term Mongoloid race is not appropriate

?

You misunderestood ! I was just tryin to prove to JR that the purpose of the article was not what he thought it was.

7. numbers don’t matter but the same goes for reputation. It’s not the authority of the author or researcher or its reputation that matters it is the validity of their work

.

Reputation is built up on validity. Validity has nothing to do with integrity. A researcher may do good work and come up w/ a wrong conclusion. BUt if your work has been consistently accepted as valid by the community in general, your validity based reputation is built up. Cavalli’ is one such person.

Cheers


151

Posted by C. M. on Thu, 11 May 2006 17:12 | #

“statemnt about the UNITY OF CAUACSOIDS FROM EUROPE…WEST, SOUTH and MUCH OF CENTRAL ASIA”

Bullshit, ask Cavalli Sforza what he meant, his answer will be he took the haplotyping. Russia is in full blue too as is China and a whole bunch of other Eurasian countries. Your assumption that India would be the same as Finland is rediculous. The map is hugely flawed, if he meant “caucasoid”, how come India isn’t green, or arab countires are green etc. The whole map is inconsistent.


“Read Spencer Wells, Oppenheimer. etc etc who are real geneticists and you will know better (vis a vis R1A known as the Aryan gene )”
Crap!
there is a aryan gene, you mean the gene of the language “indo european”, it’s haplotype J. Not R1a because a whole bunch of people in Siberia would be “Aryans” too while they speak Uralic languages.

“Aryan = proto Indo European speaking ancestral population. Now represented by it’s many descendants in Europe, Iran India etc.. “

I think you are American: your mixing up of “aryan” with “European” would explain your ignorance. Of course the proto Indo European speaking population did not speak the current languages! Bask is the sole survivor of paleolithic Europe. Indo-European languages is just as import from middle east like the sheep, wheat, goats and vines from the middle eastern farmers in neolithics.

Bamshad is a fraud because his work does not show the scientific relevance nor the sincerity.
If somebody pays you money to publish that a cow is actually a moose, would you take the money?
Brahmins are related to Iranians, I cannot recall that Iranians are the same as Europeans, surely they don’t look the same to me.

Yeah your take of mammals like whale and cow is very clever but then you should include Japanese too as caucasoid.
I have this to say: I once saw a white male with a south Asian wife and their kids, the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans are the same. I also saw a white male with a East Asian woman, the kid, a girl looks like a ordinary white kid with dark brown hair. If Japanese or Chinese are a different race, then how come the breeding results are more closely matched with breeding of other Europeans, how come offspring from Europeans and South Asians look middle eastern? Yet you claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans. How come another race like Chinese have breeding results looking more closely to breeding as with other Europeans? Of course you can say that it is coincidence, but I have also seen East asian breeding with whites, the kids had blonde hair.
How come South Asians breeding with whites produce arab looking kids if they are the same race?


152

Posted by C. M. on Thu, 11 May 2006 17:17 | #

Ï have to correct one of my sentence:

“the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans are the same”

It should be of course: the kids look as their mum so it means that south Asians and Europeans aren’t the same.


153

Posted by Jules on Thu, 11 May 2006 19:56 | #

Fred,

So I take it you think the other women I named are attractive except for one, catherine Z JOnes, Wow 4 out of 5 women that you think are good looking that I mentioned? So needless to say, your puny thoughts of Catherine and trying to say that if I thought she was good looking says much of how I must look. Yet Ironically you fail to quote that the other 4 you find attractive, so what that means, is I must be extremely goodlooking then if that is your silly logic.

You must be some ugly FAT old pervert who have nothing better to do, poor thing. I AM POSITIVELY SURE you are not married nor do you have a gf, no decent girl would be with you SAILOR!! Obviously you go to Thailand and Rio de janiero to screw with the poor little children there, pedophiles like you should be locked up!! Wish they could kill all the pedophiles.

Why dont you post your picture hon, you boring old fart!! Guess you are too insecure of that lard to be showing anything huh?? I already offered to send someone my pic, so I am not afraid to be judged in any form. Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder. Im sure if I was nicer to you, you would be be on the ground groveling.

I can only find humor in your funny comments above, thank you for making my day, because it did make me laugh, I give you that! Oh yes from a high class gal to another high class gal, Fred you are one testy bitch! thats right baby, I said you are a bitch only because you act like one. I hope you’re not gay.


154

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 12 May 2006 03:19 | #

Bullshit, ask Cavalli Sforza what he meant, his answer will be he took the haplotyping. Russia is in full blue too as is China and a whole bunch of other Eurasian countries. Your assumption that India would be the same as Finland is rediculous. The map is hugely flawed, if he meant “caucasoid”, how come India isn’t green, or arab countires are green etc. The whole map is inconsistent

..AND you are a Geneticist, to know what Cavalli Sforza meant when he said that the map shows the UNITY of CAUCASOIDS FROM EUROPE…AND SOUTH ASIA ?

I am sure he meant what he wrote because otherwise he would have corrected it before publication!

2.Crap!
there is a aryan gene, you mean the gene of the language “indo european”, it’s haplotype J. Not R1a because a whole bunch of people in Siberia would be “Aryans” too while they speak Uralic languages

R1a and its successor R1a1 can be traced from the Caucasus to India through Iran ! As this route coincides with that taken by the invaders who called themslves Aryans ( see Vedic and Iranian literature ; i.e. ” I am Darius; an Aryan ; the son of an Aryan ”  Ancient Iranian rock edict).  It does also coincide w/ the Indo European laguage speakers. Sure it is in Russia to as it spread from the Caucasus to begin with but broke into 2 groups.

3.I think you are American: your mixing up of “aryan” with “European” would explain your ignorance. Of course the proto Indo European speaking population did not speak the current languages! Bask is the sole survivor of paleolithic Europe. Indo-European languages is just as import from middle east like the sheep, wheat, goats and vines from the middle eastern farmers in neolithics

The only thing correct in all of this nonsense is the first statement. I am American.

4. Bamshad is a fraud because his work does not show the scientific relevance nor the sincerity.

How would you know ? You are NOT a scientist ; are you ?

5. Yeah your take of mammals like whale and cow is very clever but then you should include Japanese too as caucasoid.

This statement makes a little better sense. Yes the Japs do look different and are in a diferent group, but thats why I said to JR that any one set of data like craniofacial measurements etc aren’t sufficient to separate races or any other taxa.

We need Evolutionary/genetic ( Most imp ), backed up by paleontological, morphological, anatomical, physiological and Biochemical evidence supported by anthropological, linguistic and historical facts to really trace race relationships. This is why Cavalli always backs up his data with language connections where available.

If Japanese or Chinese are a different race, then how come the breeding results are more closely matched with breeding of other Europeans, how come offspring from Europeans and South Asians look middle eastern? Yet you claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans. How come another race like Chinese have breeding results looking more closely to breeding as with other Europeans

....AND how come time appears different on a meteor than on earth. Ask Einstein to explain the theory of relativity !

Answering all your questions here,  involves a whole 300 level course in Genetics at the undergrad level. This is why I say those who are not familiar with science should keep out of this discussion


155

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 09:31 | #

Jules,

For once I am pleased to see you write, “And I am not racist in the least when I say this, but I think most Hindus are very hideous, however, and even when tehy are mixed, they are still ugly, too ethnic.”  Malcolm A. asked me to refer to your opinion on Indian women because of its unbiased nature, and I am glad you wrote this.

Anyway, if you want me to see your pictures, here are two ways of going about it.  Either you email it to us by clicking on the contact link (top of page) and getting the email address from there, or give me approval to contact you by email (I can use the email address you have used to post comments here as long as it is valid).  I will need two pictures from you, a close up of your face and a picture of your physique.  In both pictures you should be holding a sign that reads “Racists will burn in Hell!”  In the picture that shows your physique, you should be holding this sign with one hand, pointing your finger at the camera with the other hand and have a T-shirt on that reads “Racism sucks;” just write this on a T-shirt you plan on discarding and then have yourself photographed in it.  If you do all this, I can believe that the pictures are of you or a friend of yours rather than of some Nordic woman whose pictures you lifted off the internet.  I won’t be posting your pictures online unless you ask me to.   

Indian girl,

None of the pictures of Punjabis that you have linked to show fine-featured European types, but then no one is saying that NW Indians look like Europeans; they are just genetically closer to Europeans than Indians in NE or southern India.  Like I said before, high caste Hindus are scattered through other part of India and are closer to Europeans than lower caste people, but a lighter, high caste people in Southern India would be too much of a minority to alter the general trend of decreasing Europeanization, sampled over all inhabitants of a region, as one moves away from NW India.  Therefore, I don’t see what the problem is.  The study sampled some populations from NW, NE and southern India and did use enough skulls native to the regions to get the central tendency in the regions sampled.


156

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 09:36 | #

Malcolm A,

Goddamned, why are you continuing to debate a pimp?  I am not kidding.  Notice that others have not stepped in to post pictures of attractive Nordic women to counter the Indian women you point out.  This is because they know that I am a pimp, and professional pimps obviously have an eye for the right women for the job.  Thus, they have left it to me to come up with attractive Nordic women.  Why don’t you work on writing papers instead of debating us dilettantes?

Anyway, you have attempted to dismiss the separate India craniofacial cluster by pointing out that 1) the authors had the objective of showing that the term Mongoloid is inappropriate and 2) a superficial examination of whales may suggest that they are fishes but genetically it is clear that they are mammals, i.e., a separate craniofacial cluster does not necessarily imply a separate taxonomical group.  This is insane.  You have not critiqued the methodology and brought in tangential issues.  The purpose of the paper was not to test the validity of the word Mongoloid, but to address patterns of global craniofacial variation.  Thus, it was found that several populations previously classified as Mongoloid did not group into the same craniofacial cluster.  Since the term Mongoloid was originally based on physical appearance, it is therefore not appropriate to classify all populations previously thought to fall into this group as Mongoloid.  It should also be noted that the India cluster was one of the major clusters that appeared in the analysis, and hence there is no support for grouping Indians with Europeans in regard to neutral craniofacial measurements.  Regarding the whale issue, even in the absence of genetic knowledge, one would note that these animals breath air, like land animals, and hence could not be classified as fishes.  Additionally, I cited two papers, one utilizing ancestry-informative DNA markers and another utilizing neutral craniofacial measurements, and both lead to the same conclusion, namely that Indians are outside the grouping of Europeans, which in conjunction with other data, such as the known history of the peopling of India, clearly shows Indians to not be part of the same race that Europeans belong to.  I am not just making my case on craniofacial evidence alone.           

Regarding Kate Beckinsale, you are looking at the following scenario.  A white person bred with a Burmese, the resulting offspring bred with a white person, the resulting offspring again bred with a white person, and the resulting offspring was 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.  The case of South Asians is very different.  You have pointed out elite, upper caste Indian women, and most of them don’t look Caucasoid, and of the rare few who do, two of them turn out to have a white father.  I have posted pictures of some untouchables, none of whom look Caucasoid.  Thus, in terms of looks, few Indians look Caucasoid.  So, keeping in mind that the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, how can Indians be described as an overwhelmingly Caucasoid people when most of them don’t even look Caucasoid and belong to a separate craniofacial cluster than the craniofacial cluster that Europeans belong to?  The genetic issue dovetails with the physical appearance issue.  Thus, for instance, the profile of the South Asian from DNAPrint genomics above shows someone with about half European and half non-European genetic affinity, which is the equivalent of an offspring resulting from a white person breeding with a non-white.  It would be inappropriate to describe this offspring as either white or European, and if the term Caucasoid was proposed to describe the facial features of Europeans, then how can this offspring be described as Caucasoid given that it doesn’t look Caucasoid?  Don’t waste my time over this issue.

In response to Rosenberg’s study based on 993 microsatellites, you have mentioned two absurdities.  You said that “the most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s.”  This is ridiculous.  The most important thing is to look at how the authors arrived at the conclusions, not the conclusions themselves.  Then you said that the next thing to look at is the extent to which the scientific community has accepted the publication.  What kind of scientist are you?  The history of science is full of instances where a correct idea/explanation was initially ridiculed or even strongly opposed by the scientific community in general, and also full of instances where nonsense was passed as science under the blessings of most scientists (e.g., denial of race differences).  Thus, the issues that matter are how the conclusions have been arrived at and how well they better explain phenomena, not how well accepted the ideas are.  You also said that “You can cite 10 papers against my 1, but you will still NOT prove your point depending on the quality and reputation of the people you cite.”  This is coming from a scientist!!!  Once again, the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers.  Even if a researcher has a solid track record of high quality research, it does not follow that a new paper by him must also be high quality; the quality of a paper depends on the evidence offered in it, not the reputation of the authors.  Such statements on your part show that you are either not a scientist or one who is a disgrace to the scientific community.         

You have to be under some serious delusion to say that you have “already shown that Rosenberg’s clustering is neither comprehensive nor conclusive. There is NOT a single reference as to how the Negorids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids etc would fit or not fit into his scheme.”  You have not critiqued the methodology, and Rosenberg’s data makes it very clear what the traditional terms correspond to: Negroid = sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasoid = European, and Mongoloid = Chinese and related people.

You assert that the proof of at least 5 races reflects the uncertain nature of the papers.  There is no uncertainty that the minimum number of races in humans is 5.  The reason that a definitive figure cannot be arrived at is that not all human populations have been sampled in these studies.

You point out holes in Rosenberg’s data by saying:

The problem w/ Rosenberg’s reputation is further discussed below, and confirms my questions to you about holes in his technique
....These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since 2002: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Paabo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Paabo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Paabo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental designREF : http://experts.about.com/e/r/ra/Race.htm[/quot.e]

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 methodology.  However, if you had only bothered to read the 2005 paper by Rosenberg, you would note that this criticism no longer applies.  Of the three research papers cited in the quote, Rosenberg and Tang found evidence for racial groupings, but Serre & Paabo didn’t and they argued that the evidence for racial groupings was an artifact of population-based sampling and the assumption of a correlated alleles model.  Rosenberg showed in his 2005 paper that as long as you have a sufficient number of alleles, even geography-based sampling and an uncorrelated alleles model provides evidence for population clustering, i.e., races.  Therefore, your quotation is not applicable.  Once again, I am obviously wasting my time because you will not bother to read the papers that I cite.


157

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 09:49 | #

Malcolm A,

Now you have cited a bunch of sources to support your contention that South Asians are Caucasoid.  Your first source is an online dictionary!  Your next three sources are Oppenheimer, Bamshad and Spencer Wells, all of whom are mostly addressing Y-chromosome DNA evidence, which shows European migrations toward India.  Two things should be noted about this data.  Americans blacks typically have some European ancestry, but I don’t think that you will call them Caucasoid for this reason.  Therefore, part-European ancestry does not necessarily make one fit into the same race as Europeans.  Secondly, Y-chromosome data will show much greater European affiliation on the part of South Asians than mtDNA.

Your next two sources are a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza and his book again.  I will address Cavalli-Sforza’s paper below.  The genetic and linguistic trees in this paper are shown below.

Genetic and linguistic relationships of human populations.

Firstly, this dataset refutes your notion of there being only three races since you can see the NE Asians clustering with the “Caucasoids” rather than with SE Asians, i.e., there is no support for only three races on the part of this study, and this study supports at least 4 races in humans.  Secondly, if you had only bothered to read this paper, you would have noted that the Lapps joined an Asiatic cluster in 32% of the bootstraps, the Berbers joined the African cluster in 20% of the bootstraps and the Dravidians joined an Asiatic cluster in 20% of the bootstraps.  This is obviously because these are mixed populations.  It is well known that a mixed population attaches in the tree to the branch that has contributed the greater fraction.  Thus, if someone’s ancestry is 42% European, 28% East Asian, 15% African and 15% Australoid, then this person will attach to the branch containing Europeans since this branch has contributed the greatest fraction, but this certainly doesn’t mean that this person belongs to the same race that Europeans belong to.  Also note that Cavalli-Sforza used the term Caucasoid, but not Negroid and Mongoloid.  Cavalli-Sforza cannot use Mongoloid to refer to NE and SE Asians because NE Asians are clustering with the “Caucasoid” group rather than with SE Asians.  It is obvious that Cavalli-Sforza is using Caucasoid as a convenience term only, and could very well have chosen to use Euro-Mediterranean, instead.

Your next citation is Cavalli-Sforza’s book again.  Note that your quote assigns green to Caucasoids, but South Asia is not shown in green, i.e., your idea that South Asians are Caucasoid is refuted right there, but you seize on to the statement about the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and South Asia.  This does not mean that South Asians are Caucasoid or else they would be shown in green.  The statement simply shows a genetic link between Europeans and South Asians, which nobody here is disputing, and since Caucasoid is a term originally proposed to describe physical appearance, it is clear that there are a minority of people with Caucasoid facial features in India, who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India.  Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you.  The same-color assignment is easily explained.  Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper.

Nordics

Nordics

Nordics; Sofie, Ragnhild, Inga, Elisabeth

Now look at some pictures of Northern Scandinavians (in traditional dresses).  What do you see?

Komi

Komi

Sami, Lapps

It is clear that the facial features of Northern Scandinavians vary from Caucasoid to non-Caucasoid, which results from Asian-European mixing in the region.  Since the largest two racial elements in India are European and Asian, the color assigned to India and all the way up to Northern Scandinavia reflects the transition from East Asian to European, and this transition, like the region where one color band in a rainbow blends into another, is not assigned a race.  Of course, simple color bands cannot capture complex genetic history, but they do give a bird’s eye view of the scenario, and it is clear that South Asians are not assigned the same color as Europeans-proper.

Your last source to support your belief that Indians are Caucasian is once again 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.”  What in the world?  Is this a scientific source?  Why can you not cite recent evidence?  Obviously because quantitative skeletal and molecular studies clearly show Indians to be outside the race of whites. 

My citation of Lewontin’s fallacy was appropriate in response to your statement that clustering does not prove anything because the traits examined have to be uniform within groups; in you own words, “[cluster analyses] are simply not acceptable statistical tools unless they do NOT show dissimilar within and between group variance ( ie are uniform ).”  Thus, I cited A.W.F. Edwards’ paper to show that even if the majority of the variation is within groups (no uniformity, greater variation within groups than between groups, and considerable group overlap), it is still possible for cluster analysis to neatly separate blindly sampled individuals into separate categories.  Additionally, are you serious about saying that Lewontin’s view rather than Lewontin’s fallacy was debunked?  If yes, then are you insane?  What was debunked was Lewontin’s fallacious view, which could be described as either Lewontin’s view or Lewontin’s fallacy, the latter being more appropriate since Lewontin has espoused plenty of viewpoints, not all of which are fallacious.


158

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 12 May 2006 09:55 | #

Malcolm A,

Regarding cluster analysis, you wrote:

Let us say that there are two groups and there is variation within each group on, say, 20 variables, distributions for all 20 variables are identical in either group. <u>You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters.</u> Find me one such example among humans; it doesn’t have to be 20 variables, but there should be at least 10 variables, and the cluster analysis should separate the groups based on at least 3 of the 10 variables or if you reference a study with a large number of variables, then the groups should be separated by at least 15% of the variables.


???  Where did I say this ? [ie underlined portion ?].I was just trying to explain that correlation Coefficients indicate significance of association rather than that of differences. I hope you are not trying to test me or mislead/confuse me by just writing some gobbledygook!

Here is what you said:

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 .

In other words, you are saying that clustering in separate groups does not prove anything, i.e., that there are significant differences between the groups.  Thus, I asked you to come up with a real life example of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters.

You also said: 

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 if grouping into separate clusters can either be due to significant differences between the clusters or no differences, then separate clustering does not allow one to determine whether there are significant differences between the groups, but if grouping into separate clusters can only be if there are significant differences between groups, then separate clustering is also proof of significant differences between the groups.  You are implying the former scenario and this is why it is necessary for you to provide an example—in accordance with the underlined statement—of individuals being separated into separate clusters such that there are no significant differences between the clusters.

Besides, you curiously said that you hope that I am not trying to mislead/confuse you.  How can a lowly pimp confuse or mislead an esteemed scientist?

Don’t forget that I cited three examples of statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial structures—nose width, nose length and upper nose projection—which shows that there are indeed statistically significant differences between Europeans and Indians in craniofacial features, which is consistent with their assignment to separate craniofacial clusters, but you have ignored this evidence.

You wrote that “[if] it is found that groups A &B are significantly correlated as compared to A & C that does not indicate that A & C are significantly different.but just that A & B show more association [cluster closely ] than A & C.”  Care to cite a practical example to help a non-scientist who lacks your profound understanding?

What is your point in citing the story of the puzzled Caucasian?  This person found genetic evidence of ancestry from the Russian Caucasus, but then the Indo-European people who spread out from this region were a white people.  So what is the puzzlement?

You said that no one believes that beauty pageants are not about beauty.  Someone with your poor perception has apparently not noted the large number of unattractive women participating in these contests, but others have, and if these contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating.  You are right that beauty contests are also about smartness, but there are plenty of attractive and smart women around, yet you see a number of unattractive women in these contests.

It is not just me who sees that Indian women have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Nordic women.  Anyone with reasonable perception can see this even in elite Indian women, forget about the general population.

Besides, I have not included Indian women in my entry because I am threatened by them.  I have previously addressed East Asians, and it would be appropriate to address South Asians at some point, which I did in this entry.  Clueless whites need to know about the disastrous aesthetic consequences of absorbing non-whites into the white gene pool, and hence entries such as this are needed.

Anyway, you need to quit coming up with your demented pointers or else I will be forced to use the language that I use with my hos.

Regarding the women you pointed out, here is Mandira Bedi compared to a Nordic.

Mandira Bedi, Jaclyn Smith

Mandira Bedi, Jaclyn Smith

And, here is Mahima Chowdry compared to a Nordic. 
     
Mahima Chowdry, Kristanna Loken


159

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 11:12 | #

u are all dicks…white skin is the most disgusting color i have seen…goes all ghostly pale in the winter and red and blotchy in the summer…gross…we dont need our beautiful people of color to mix with whites and contaminate our beautiful genes and blood…
All the pictures of the white women posted on this site are ugly…they have thin noses that looked like the nostrils have been squashed toghether, and their lips are so thin, they look like they have buck teeth cos theres not enuf lip to cover the teeth, not to mention their hair which looks like the color of a dirty vermin and once again that disgusting complexion which looks washed out…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…angelina jolie with her big lips and high cheekbones could pass for an indian anyday…uglies like jennifer aniston couldnt…Blondes are the ugliest ppl around…Indians are the best looking closely followed by Persians, Arabs and Hispanics.
Aishwarya Rai has been voted as the western media as the most beautiful women in the world…and ppl like J Richards like to suck their grandmothers, who are ugly whores…Unfortunately the looks arent the only department where the whites are lacking…same goes for the culture, or lack thereof, religion, customs etc


160

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 12 May 2006 12:35 | #

Anjali,(we hope, not a Brit),
Has skin the colour of shit,
How she’d love to be fair,
With Caucasian blonde hair,
And an IQ of triple-digit.

But a Darkie is what she remains,
No matter how much she complains;
She could pray to Lord Shiva,
Spread dye on her beaver,
And still she’d have Indian brains.


161

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 14:50 | #

wah wah….what wit, we have a poet in our midst!!! we should all defer cos the wanker knows how to rhyme his words…
“shed love to be fair”...how presumptuous….even after reading that, man with such a high IQ finds it difficult to cotton on to the fact that my post was dissing blonde haired, white skinned ppl.
As a Christian i will refrain from praying to Lord Shiva, but thank Jesus Christ that he gave me luscious black locks and beautifully colored olive skin.

Indian brains only will suffice for me, and suck on this wanker….....

India is the world’s largest, oldest, continuous civilization.
India never invaded any country in her last 10000 years of history.
India is the world’s largest democracy.
Varanasi, also known as Benares, was called “the ancient city” when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C.E, and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today.
India invented the Number System. Zero was invented by Aryabhatta.
The World’s first university was established in Takshashila in 700BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century BC was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.
Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages. Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software - a report in Forbes magazine, July 1987.
Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to humans. Charaka, the father of medicine consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years ago. Today Ayurveda is fast regaining its rightful place in our civilization.
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. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India’s wealth.
The art of Navigation was bornin the river Sindhu 6000 years ago. The very word Navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from Sanskrit ‘Nou’.
Bhaskaracharya calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: (5th century) 365.258756484 days.
The value of pi was first calculated by Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century long before the European mathematicians.
Algebra, trigonometry and calculus came from India. Quadratic equations were by Sridharacharya in the 11th century. The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 10**53(10 to the power of 53) with specific names as early as 5000 BCE during the Vedic period. Even today, the largest used number is Tera 10**12(10 to the power of 12).
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.
The earliest reservoir and dam for irrigation was built in Saurashtra.
According to Saka King Rudradaman I of 150 CE a beautiful lake called Sudarshana was constructed on the hills of Raivataka during Chandragupta Maurya’s time.
Chess (Shataranja or AshtaPada) was invented in India.
Sushruta is the father of surgery. 2600 years ago he and health scientists of his time conducted complicated surgeries like cesareans, cataract, artificial limbs, fractures, urinary stones and even plastic surgery and brain surgery. Usage of anesthesia was well known in ancient India. Over 125 surgical equipment were used. Deep knowledge of anatomy, physiology, etiology, embryology, digestion, metabolism, genetics and immunity is also found in many texts.
When many cultures were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley (Indus Valley Civilization).
The four religions born in India, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are followed by 25% of the world’s population.
The place value system, the decimal system was developed in India in 100 BC.
India is one of the few countries in the World, which gained independence without violence.
India has the second largest pool of Scientists and Engineers in the World.
India is the largest English speaking nation in the world.
India is the only country other than US and Japan, to have built a super computer indigenously.
Famous Quotes on India (by non-Indians)


Albert Einstein said: We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
Mark Twain said: India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.
French scholar Romain Rolland said: If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India.
Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA said: India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border.
Facts to make every Indian proud


Q. Who is the co-founder of Sun Microsystems?
A. Vinod Khosla

Q. Who is the creator of Pentium chip (needs no introduction as 90% of the
today’s computers run on it)?
A. Vinod Dahm

Q. Who is the third richest man on the world?
A. According to the latest report on Fortune Magazine, it is Aziz Premji,
who is the CEO of Wipro Industries. The Sultan of Brunei is at 6th
position now.

Q. Who is the founder and creator of Hotmail (Hotmail is world’s No.1 web
based email program)?
A. Sabeer Bhatia

Q. Who is the president of AT & T-Bell Labs (AT & T-Bell Labs is the creator
of program languages such as C, C++, Unix to name a few)?
A. Arun Netravalli

Q. Who is the GM of Hewlett Packard?
A. Rajiv Gupta

Q. Who is the new MTD (Microsoft Testing Director) of Windows 2000,
responsible to iron out all initial problems?
A. Sanjay Tejwrika

Q. Who are the Chief Executives of CitiBank, Mckensey & Stanchart?
A. Victor Menezes, Rajat Gupta, and Rana Talwar.

We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America, even
faring better than the whites and the natives.

There are 3.22 millions of Indians in USA (1.5% of population). ,


Websites you might be interested in


162

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 15:06 | #

you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke…in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner…to this dinner ive been invited to i am expected to bring my own drinks and my own meat for the barbie, shall i bring my own cutlery perhaps??...such is the hospitality and culture of the whites…why the hell wouldnt one go to a restaraunt?? and does the conncept of a family unit exist in these white cultures?? ppl dont know what the term respect means…on top of that…one of my white acquaintances recently asked her mother to knit her a scarf…her mother accepted of course as long as the scarf was paid for…wow…now let me relate my own story…recently my aunt needed to put down a deposit for a house she wanted to but…my parents gave her $20 thousand australian dollars…this was gifted to my aunt not lent…so shes not even expected to repay it…not that we are rich and can afford it, but such is our generosity, and the value we place on our relationships…


163

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 12 May 2006 15:08 | #

u are all dicks…white skin is the most disgusting color i have seen…goes all ghostly pale in the winter and red and blotchy in the summer…gross…we dont need our beautiful people of color to mix with whites and contaminate our beautiful genes and blood…

Please be nice to others. Everyone has an opinion and insulting people/races does not achieve anything.

I am a white married to a indian. SO there

Cheers


164

Posted by Nio Zilda on Fri, 12 May 2006 15:24 | #

you brits are the big joke and your ancestors the australians are an even bigger joke…in australia, i am invited to a bbq dinner

Why the f*ck are you in Australia? Go back home. You Asiatics are not wanted, liked, or needed, in our countries. And you lot are ugly in comparison with Northern Europeans, as honest Indians admit.


165

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 May 2006 15:55 | #

Anjali,

Our point is that large aggregates of Sub-Continental immigrant are not wanted in the West.  You have a homeland of your own.  Be madly wealthy and successful there, if you can.  But leave us to live in peace as we wish.


166

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:02 | #

dont flaut your indian marriage in our face like a flag..who gives a toss who ure married to…shoulda stuck with your own race…i have every right to be in australia…the land of the indigenous…its the brits and white ppl who have no claims to land in this part of the world…england is home to the brits….this includes their offsprings such as the white americans and austrlians…they should go home….ill inult ppl if i pls…they are free to say what they want to me, ill sleep easy…are race is the most attractive…northern southern eastern european…none can compare to our beauties who have been named, the most beautiful in the world…this is fun…im looking forward to your replies…so keep them rolling in…
White caucaisans are the most advanced race on earth in terms of Technological achievement and innovativeness . I totally agree with this statement as there is proof ! Almost all major scientific achievements as well as inventions were made by white Caucasians and continue to be so even now.
read the facts Malcolm A

ps..what attracted you to your indian wife, apart from your children being able to make a claim to the greatest culture in the world…


167

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:04 | #

australians, the offspring of criminals…


168

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:09 | #

Malcolm A.

About the Cavalli map: isn’t it strange that Cavalli classifies part of middle east in green, while Baltics and Russia are blue?! How weird is it that Cavalli think Iran is “european”, while he thinks the Baltics (incredible blonde and blue eyed hottties) are not “european”! The whole map is a fraud! None of the middle eastern countries should be put in green.
I can understand that as a Indian you feel more closely related with Iranians, but they are not European.
The whole map is inconsistent.
Or do you think that “European” means middle eastern?

You have not answered my question why offspring of Mongoloid/White looks more European than offspring of White/south Asian. It’s you who claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans.

It’s obvious you do not accept reason. You are holding on to outdated 19th century stuff or 30 year old books.
Science has advanced further than your dusty books.


169

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:30 | #

It is always a source of annoyance to cretins like anjali that the lowest type of European, the transported criminal and future Australian, could engender people who built a desert country into a far bigger success than India, with its innately backward people and hopeless Oriental fatalism.


170

Posted by anjali on Fri, 12 May 2006 17:01 | #

if the west is successful today it is thanks to the fact that they have stolen what they never had…starting with the land they live on…brazil, a country rich in natural resources…yet most of its population lives in poverty…why?? because the west steals its resources and then sells it to others…africa…a third world continent, huge source of diamonds, which the africans themselves never see…the west give the africans loans so they can mine the diamonds but the africans have to sell the diamonds back to the west at a price set by them to repay the loans…and then the west sells it to others at exorbitant prices…same goes for the middle east and its oil…where does the west stop?? it doesnt stop on its own accord, and then they wonder why they are constantly being bombed at??
Australia was shaped by a multicultural society…the chinese and greeks arrived not long after the convicts…so the anglos cant claim they built this country themselves…
India is the place to be in the 21st century…either it or china will be the next superpower…i hope to go there soon…then the iraqis will be free to bomb this hole at will and all its stupid ppl with it…


171

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 May 2006 17:45 | #

India is the place to be in the 21st century [...] I hope to [move] there soon”  (—anjali)

Will you agree to unlimited amounts of Chinese, Mexicans, Arabs, and Negroes being allowed to go there too?  (That’s unlimited amounts mind you—no upper limits, exactly the thing we’re being asked to accommodate here.)  Or is India best reserved solely for Indians?


172

Posted by rustymason on Fri, 12 May 2006 19:19 | #

Anjali, you’re in someone else’s home, please at least try to be courteous.  Perhaps you are upset that the greatest civilizations were built by Whites and you feel inadequate.  Well, we try to be as inclusive as we can, but we cannot tolerate behavior such as yours.  Bye.


173

Posted by amazed on Fri, 12 May 2006 20:18 | #

wow…and to think we’re all gonna rot and die despite whatever complexion we have?!!?! This is truly amazing! What really is beauty? An indian’s beauty cannot be defined by the white man and similarly, the nordic beauty cannot be defined by the indian. We all have different concepts of beauty due to socialisation, culture etc. I never thought white women or indian women had shapely figures but that’s due to my culture. When i think of a good body i think of latinas… the brazilians, the women of the caribbean. I think of curves but others may like a little butt or none etc… it’s all about culture. It doesn’t have to be such a nasty discussion but regardless, noone should be hurt by any one else’s comments because everyone is beautiful in their own way. How is beauty defined again…? Beauty for you isn’t beauty for me… and what really matters is the heart. We die and ROT ppl!!!
And to the white ppl, if ya’ll feel so good about yourselves and I mean really really feel that way then you wouldn’t have to bring down other races just to try to make yours superior. That’s lame and i mean gosh…you’ve done that through time just to feel better about yourselves. You’ve tried to put other races down for so long…it’s incredible….maybe ya’ll don’t feel that strongly about yourselves afterall. And to talk about the IQ of others… that’s really low. I’m so ashamed to know that I’ve got white running through my veins.


174

Posted by Andrew on Fri, 12 May 2006 21:09 | #

Anjali;
Australians as a pack of Criminals, well you must appreciate. Educated and enlightened criminals. In 200 years looks what Australians have done to build Civilization compared to some tribal shit hole in other places.
Let’s face it; you would not be here if it was a tribal shit hole, as the one you left behind.
So go back to it, and leave us Criminals to advance further. People like you are not welcome.
By the way, How Old is the subcontinents heritage?
No comparison to what: Australian Criminals have achieved in 200 years.
3 % of the population then was convicts, but considering the minor crimes they were deported for hardly rates to the crime of you standing on this land.
More Ignorance by yourself on display. You must be a Moslem, or lived close to them.


175

Posted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 13 May 2006 01:34 | #

Why is Anjali using the Queen’s English to berate the people of this blog?  Shouldn’t she be using her native tongue clicking and head bobbing to put us in our place and confirm her superiority? 

The twat..err…twit rattles off a bunch of Paki names from US based companies as confirmation of Paki superiority?  LOL

Al Ross, hilarious poem.


176

Posted by randomdude on Sat, 13 May 2006 02:08 | #

I hope that I am not making an ad hominem argument here, but most of you posting in favour of the nordic look are yourselves in such a race.  This favourism may arise partially through pure aesthetics (she looks better because she looks better) but mostly from racial preservation (she looks better because she is of MY type and I want to mate with her in order to perpetuate OUR race). 

That said, I agree with the assertation.  Blondes are pretty and indians ugly, and that’s that.

randomdude


177

Posted by Nio Zilda on Sat, 13 May 2006 02:59 | #

...i have every right to be in australia…the land of the indigenous…

So, I take it you got the abos’ permission before immigrating?


178

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 03:49 | #

Nio…did you get permission to be here…if u didnt then wtf?? dont even talk to me…and as an aside, i was born here…immigrate is what my parents did…


179

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 03:55 | #

if yall could speak anything other than english i would no doubt be talking to u in arabic…but i have to come down to ure level and communicte in english so u morons can understand…
“Sanskrit is the mother of all the European languages. ” English is a eurpean language…


180

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:01 | #

Fred Scrooby…yes, in my opinion India should be accomodating of outsiders…hell we put up with enuf of british, and dutch shit…i dont see why we couldnt handle the others…that being said…they would have to keep to themselves…interracial mixing sux…indians have to preserve their aryan (cos yes we are the true aryans) blood…and they would have to be respectful of our culture and traditions…and before u get back to me on this one…can someone tell me what the fuck ure culutre is…if it is what i think it is, then i feel sorry for you guys…
Livivng in a multicultural nation…i can go down the street without having to see nordic bums…go to the milkbar and pick up milk from the chinese guy…or get a lift from the arab cabbie or eat out at a greek restaraunt…its gr8


181

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:11 | #

Hi C.M.

1.

About the Cavalli map: isn’t it strange that Cavalli classifies part of middle east in green, while Baltics and Russia are blue?! How weird is it that Cavalli think Iran is “european”, while he thinks the Baltics (incredible blonde and blue eyed hottties) are not “european”! The whole map is a fraud! None of the middle eastern countries should be put in green. I can understand that as a Indian you feel more closely related with Iranians, but they are not European.
The whole map is inconsistent. Or do you think that “European” means middle eastern?

You shouldn’t even be talking about this unless you are a professional biologist. I am repeating for the last time Cavalli is NOT illustrating individual races with color. He is using genetics to cluster closely related groups, thats all. There is no race called European, Indian or Iranian. That is what you are missing.

2.

You have not answered my question why offspring of Mongoloid/White looks more European than offspring of White/south Asian. It’s you who claim that South Asians are the same as Europeans.

I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race. 

Cheers.


182

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:13 | #

sorry rustymason…pls remind me exactly whos home this is…are u an abo??


183

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:15 | #

did yall see the closing ceremony for the melb 2006 comm games?? us indians blew the show outta the water, and that was a pretty crappy performance by indian standards…the rest of the ceremony was just plain boring


184

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:18 | #

Anjali,

I am glad to have you comment here.  People like you make a strong case for minimizing the presence of the dark races in the West.  You hate our culture and customs, yet live in our midst because your countries of origin are hellholes.  You ascribe many inventions and innovations to your own dark kind, claim that whites have stolen these from the dark races, and blame the abysmal quality of life in your homelands on exploitation by whites.  Wow, talk about serious delusion!

Let me briefly address some of your nonsense.  The oldest civilizations have been documented in Europe and the Levant, not India.  India does not have a history of invading others because it mostly consisted of tribal units that had neither the intelligence nor the military might to invade other nations.  The reason India is the largest democracy is because democracy was introduced by the British, not invented by the Indians, and European-achieved advances in medicine and agriculture notably reduced mortality in India, thereby rapidly increasing its size.

In case you didn’t notice, there is plenty of documentation here—by none other than the great scientist, Malcolm A., who greatly admires the beauty of Indian women—that there have been European migrations toward India, and the genetic legacy of these migrations is most evident in high caste Hindus.  Thus, some of the inventions and innovations you ascribe to the supposedly dark inhabitants of India were a product of white or close-to-white people, whereas the others are pure fiction on the part of deluded Hindu supremacists. 

For instance, you mention the great Hindu medical system known as Ayurveda, which teaches that diseases are caused—in part—by the malevolence of female demons!  Ayurvedic products are repeatedly flagged in Western nations for containing excessive lead and other metals that pose a danger to one’s health.  Some Hindus are even known to practice urine therapy, a long-standing practice among many Hindu holy men and other Asians, which involves drinking urine for therapeutic and preventative measures!  Boy, am I flabbergasted at how advanced the indigenous medicine of the dark races of India (Ayurveda is not an Aryan element) was thousands of years ago!

Your praise of Sanskrit fails to consider that it was brought in by the Aryans and is not native to the dark people of India.

Big deal India gained independence without much violence!  India was dealing with the British, and the British Empire was one of the most benign in history.  The British would have left India eventually, regardless of what the Indians did.

Don’t gloat over India having a large number of scientists and engineers.  Judging by the dearth of top-notch inventions and discoveries on their part, India probably leads the World in having the largest pool of third-rate scientists and engineers in the world.

India is the largest English speaking country in the World?  Well, India probably takes the cake when it comes to a large English-speaking population that also has the highest incidence of poor language proficiency.  Of course, Indians did not invent this language and all their indigenous languages have a far less rich vocabulary than English does. 

Regarding India developing its own supercomputer, what Indian engineers did was to hook up a bunch of ordinary processors in parallel, which were bought from the West, and this is how Indians ended up with a supercomputer.  None of this comes close to white engineers in the US, who actually designed and produced very powerful CPUs and hooked them together to come up with something most aptly describable as a supercomputer.  Even the Japanese came up with their supercomputers by hooking up a large number of not-very-powerful processors in parallel.

Regarding Indians and software engineering, the 2006 ACM international competition for top computing prowess was dominated by white males.  Northeast Asians, in spite of their superior average IQ, especially in math ability, and huge numbers could at best manage the 5th rank, and people from India were nowhere to be seen among the ranked.  Similarly, the great majority of top-ranked computer programmers dealing with the most difficult aspects of computer programming at topcoder.com are white males; there are few Northeast Asians and no South Asians in the top ranks (top 20).  Besides, the average IQ of South Asia is in the low 80s.  And, your brightest people are typically high caste Hindus, closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and a small minority of the Indian population.

On the other hand, you have digressed into matters not relevant to this entry.  More relevant to this entry, notwithstanding Indian women winning several beauty pageants, which you have emphasized like Malcolm A., Nordic women rather than South Asian women are the stuff of men’s fantasy around the world, which is the proper yardstick of who is considered more attractive.  Anyway, if you dislike the West, don’t live in it.


185

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:19 | #

Hi Anjali,

Show some class.

By using profanity and insults you are demeaning India and Indians. Try to present your point of view without losing your cool.

Cheers.


186

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 04:26 | #

Varanasi, also known as Benares, was called “the ancient city” when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C.E, and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today.

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. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India’s wealth.

Once again, the british came and fucked up all they saw…including the women…so yea andrew…lets not compare our ancient civilisation..to some tribe and moreover to what you whites like to call “your” cicvilisation


187

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 05:14 | #

J Richards… would stick ure dick in a hole given half a chance…let me give you the tip…

“your brightest people are typically high caste Hindus, closer to Europeans than lower caste people, and a small minority of the Indian population.”
pls dont ever compare us to the shitstix europeans are…we dont want to and will never be like them…and get your story straingt…first you say we are nothing like even in looks and now your try to how high caste are closer to them…do u kno anythng about the caste system?? it was based on social class…

sure aryan ancestory and sanksrit was brought in…by the aryans…not by the nordics..whats is the point ure trying to make?? westerners are not the ancestors of aryans however much they wish they were…

The day where any western country has a women for PM is the day we can say they are truly democratic nations…till date america, britain and australia are yet to see women leaders…and u love to call ureselves a democracy..u dont even kno the meanin of that word…

“highest incidence of poor language proficiency”
please…its a known fact the australians absolutely butcher this language…they know nil about grammar for starters…

Grammar constitutes one of India’s greatest contributions to Western philology. Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian, who lived between 750 and 500 BC, was the first to compose formal grammar through his Astadhyai

Proper ayurvedic medicines are herbs not chemicals…like the ones u use in western product…im yet to come across a face wash that doesnt contain sodium laureth sulphate…used to was garage floors…in our skin prodcuts!!

yea…british would have left india eventually…once there was nothing left for them, once they had destroyed everything…and when they left they took with them…indian cooks, so they would not be reduced to eating pig food like mash potato and corn and they also took a great indian game, cricket, which they now like to claim as their own ans tea…


Interesting Facts about India and Indians!
38% of Doctors in America are Indians.

12% of Scientists in America are Indians.

36% of NASA employees are Indians.

34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians

28% of IBM employees are Indians

17% of INTEL employees are Indians

13% of XEROX employees are Indians

These facts were recently published in a German Magazine which deals with WORLD HISTORY

There is a difference between aisian white skin and nordic white skin…the latter being the shit type

i havent finished…but i have more pressing matters to attend to..such as eating


188

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 05:28 | #

when i see the northern scandanavians in traditional garb…i see red, ugly, fat women dressed in…i dunno…what do u call the crappy clothes they wear??


189

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 06:29 | #

Hi JR

1. Goddamned, why are you continuing to debate a pimp..Why don’t you work on writing papers instead of debating us dilettantes?

JR, Relax. Posting girlie pics doesn’t make one a pimp…Just an enthusiast of beauty matters ( like me !! ) Why am I debating you ? Well, you should have figured out that a guy like me with post grad qualifications, and over 25 years of field experience can’t be very young !! I am semi-retired due to health reasons and hence a lot of spare time to debunk your myths. Hope that settles that.

2 You have not critiqued the methodology and brought in tangential issues…Since the term Mongoloid was originally based on physical appearance, it is therefore not appropriate to classify all populations previously thought to fall into this group as Mongoloid
Additionally, I cited two papers, one utilizing ancestry-informative DNA markers and another utilizing neutral craniofacial measurements, and both lead to the same conclusion, namely that Indians are outside the grouping of Europeans… etc.

You got it all wrong as usual.
I cited the craniofacial measurements of whales vs elephants example to prove that THOSE ALONE are not enough to prove taxonomical affinities OR differences. As I stated in my reply to C.M, all other data ( evolutionary, genetic, Paleontological, Biochemical, physiological, morphological + anthropological, linguistic, historic etc ) have to be combined to trace these affinities. Of course evolutionary and morpho’s are the most important. However if you can prove there is significant statistical differences between skulls ( morpho)  + bio chemical+ genetic + evolutionary+ ...  evidence supported by linguistic +....etc ) then that is evidence.
Simply citing craniofacial differences don’t prove anything ( vis a vis whale examples ).

3 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….few Indians look Caucasoid…..most of them don’t even look Caucasoid !)

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!!!

4.You said that “the most important thing to look for when evaluating a publication is the conclusion/s.” This is ridiculous

.

How so ? What matters in the final analysis in the conclusion. Most people don’t know how Einstein arrived at his Relativity equation. But they know that E=MC^2 !!
10 papers written by grad students wont be = to 1 by cavalli in the degree of acceptance in the community for sure UNLESS they manage to prove Cavalli is totaly wrong !!

Part 2 follows


190

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 06:43 | #

Hi JR ( part 2)
5

.Once again, the quality of the evidence matters, not the quality and reputation of the researchers.

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.

6.You assert that the proof of at least 5 races reflects the uncertain nature of the papers. There is no uncertainty that the minimum number of races in humans is 5.

..and which 5 is that ? also please show me any university prescribed / latest Zoological text that names these 5 as the current human races…How do they know in advance that the minimum number might not go down to 3 or 4 as more research is done?

7.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 methodology

Well, 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.

8. Your first source is an online dictionary!

Maybe you should contemplate on why the online dictionary would give such a definition in 2005 ? Surely they have their sources ? and also proves that Caucasoid race w/ Indian is NOT just a figment of my imagination…

9.Oppenheimer, Bamshad and Spencer Wells, all of whom are mostly addressing Y-chromosome DNA evidence, which shows European migrations toward India

.

Really ? Are you sure of this ? I’ll bet you never even opened Oppenheimer’s book. Thats not what he says !

10. Americans blacks typically have some European ancestry, but I don’t think that you will call them Caucasoid for this reason. Therefore, part-European ancestry does not necessarily make one fit into the same race as Europeans.

European race ? never heard of that one until I came here .!

11Cavalli-Sforza cannot use Mongoloid to refer to NE and SE Asians because NE Asians are clustering with the “Caucasoid” group rather than with SE Asians. It is obvious that Cavalli-Sforza is using Caucasoid as a convenience term only, and could very well have chosen to use Euro-Mediterranean, instead.

Now you are interpreting cavalli’s words to suit your theories. Did you check w/ Cavalli to see whether he agrees w/ your interpretation of what he wrote ? Please don’t put words in Cavallis mouth. The old guy wouldn’t like it !

Cavalli, the foremost authority on this matter as of now, has, in his 1995 book, which is considered an authoritative text, reconfirmed these findings as I repeated in the previous post.( ie the unity of the Caucasoids from Europe ..and South Asia ). Cannot be any clearer than that. Too bad it doesn’t agree w/ your view point.

quote]11who can be described as Caucasoid with respect to physical appearance only, and the data show that these people can trace part of their ancestry to Europe; hence the statement of the unity of Caucasoids in Europe and in India. Additionally, don’t let the same-color assignment to Northern Scandinavia and India fool you. The same-color assignment is easily explained. Look at the following pictures of Scandinavians-proper

Again, yet another interpretation..Does cavalli use the word ancestry anywhere in the unity of the caucasoids   statement ?[like ancestry based unity of etc etc..} NO.

12 Since the largest two racial elements in India are European and Asian, the color assigned to India and all the way up to Northern Scandinavia reflects the transition from East Asian to European, and this transition, like the region where one color band in a rainbow blends into another, is not assigned a race. Of course, simple color bands cannot capture complex genetic history

I would accept this interpretation of yours, only if Cavalli himself issued a letter agreeing that your interpetation of his map is the correct one, as opposed to his own interpretation !!

PART 3 follows


191

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 06:59 | #

PART 3

13.Your last source to support your belief that Indians are Caucasian is once again 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.” What in the world? Is this a scientific source?

Lo !! Didn’t Einstein publish his Relativity in 1923 (?) ? Do I hear any complaints about the year ? NO. You missed the importance of this argument. None of my former nationalist friends here has ever raised any objections to this decision based on any new scientific evidence from Rosenberg et al etc !! So far no challenges from my former heritage foundation buddies here in N America and therefore it stands !!

14. Additionally, are you serious about saying that Lewontin’s view rather than Lewontin’s fallacy was debunked

Why beat a dead horse. Maybe what you intended to say did not come out the way it shouldda been. This is just small potatoes. Semantics. Forget it.

15.Here is what you said:
BUT 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

Now that I did say. But this is not what you said, I said in the previous post ! [ie You are saying that cluster analysis of these 20 variables will in some such cases separate individuals, randomly and blindly drawn from both groups, into separate clusters]  See the difference between 1 and 2.

In other words, you are saying that clustering in separate groups does not prove anything, i.e.,

Again this I did NOT say. It is your own interpretation Just like your interpretations of Cavalli’s words. I said clustering does not prove significant differences among groups but rather significant association ( though there is one coeff that can be used to prove differences which is not that used often due to difficulties of interpretation ( coefficient of divergence )

AND you want me to cite an example, here is one !
Imagine a hypothetical involving 3 white groups ; say British, German (Germanics)and French (Romanics ) ; all 3 are members of your so called European race ! Clustering would prove that British and Germans cluster significantly closer to each other than British and French (or German and French) do. But does that prove British and French are significantly different enough for the French to be classified as outside the European race . NO ! Both Germanics and Romanics belong to the European race but Britsh are sgnificantly more closer to the German than they are to the French who are a different (Romanic) tribe !! [Please don’t start an argument over specifics about Brits, Franks etc This was just a hypothetical case to illustrate a point..]

SEE correlation is essentially a test for association and proves only the significance of such association and this is helpful to test whether 2 or more OTU groups are closely associated so that they can be clustered together. Aside from K clustering several other methods can be used ie rJK etc for genetic distance, resemblance, racial likeness, divergence, Euclidean (temporal/ spatial)  distance etc….which are then analyzed for variance by weighted methods. The Matches Asymptote method is the commonly used method and uses the ‘proportion of characters agreeing to the total compared’  which .assumes that similarity between 2 Operational Taxonomic Units (OTU) expresses the same similarity between a parametric proportion of character matches ( Needs no defense as supported by Sampling theory )

SUMMARY

Let us look at what we are trying to prove here.

1. I am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids.

So please stop repeating arguments that try to prove they are 2 different populations, which they are [ This is why your citations proving craniofacial differencess etc are out of point ; I already agreed that they are different in many ways ] . But they both classify under the Caucasoid population as opposed to Negroid or Mongoloid.

IF YOU ARE trying to prove that the Indians are a totally new classificational taxa outside of the major three, then provide the new classification, including their new race nomenclature (ie Indianoid ? ), meaning a proclamation by the Royal Zoological Society etc.,  that, ’ according to evidence provided by Rosenberg et al,  a totally new Zoological classification of the Homo Sapiens Spps has been established:  There are now 4 races ; Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and - here is the new addition - INDIANOID !!’

This is what you should try to prove !

BEAUTY MATTERS

1if these contests were about beauty, then unattractive women would not be participating

....

JR, attractive and/or unattractive is a relative term. Even among the contestants some are more unattractive compared to the others and so on and so forth…

2. It is not just me who sees that Indian women have more massive cheekbones, broader noses, thicker lips, and a higher frequency of hooked noses compared to Nordic women. Anyone with reasonable perception can see this even in elite Indian women, forget about the general population

.

Didn’t you admit to ‘Indian gurl’ that there is variability among both Nordic and Indian women in terms of individual facial features and that it is the total package that matters ? OR am I mistaken again. You said Indians have hooked noses and I just showed you one with a straight nose… So now
what seems to be the problem

3. Besides, I have not included Indian women in my entry because I am threatened ...

You missed the bus again. Please read what I said. I said you included Indian women [by comparing them w/ our women here ] because U felt that Indians were the ones posing a threat to our women in terms of beauty. 

4. Anyway, you need to quit coming up with your demented pointers or else I will be forced to use the language that I use with my hos.

JR not nice ! Arent you a registered writer of a reputed blog ? We are both civilized and educated men right ?.Anyway, I thought you were already using bad language ( ass, etc ) But I am not at all the sensitive type ! If you like to use bad language feel free to do so by all means. I am American, remember ? ( we invented bad language here in the Wild West and aren’t very impressed by it ).

But, hey, if it’s serious rationale you require w/out any humor, so be it !

Take it easy.


192

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 13 May 2006 09:41 | #

“I have studied your previous posts and believe from your many references about Mongoloids that you may be one yourself. This maybe the reason why you believe that Mongoloid and white offspring look more European. Mongoloids are typified by unusually angled eyes, flat facial structure, shapeless figures (flat hips and breasts) and to my knowledge Mongoloids haven’t been able to win a beauty contest to save their life. So, Mongoloids + Caucasoid maybe European geographically, but they will never be considered caucosoid as they are mixing races. Indians are caucasoids just as white Europeans and their mixes, and whether Meditteranean or otherwise will remain within the Caucasoid race. “

As far as I know “caucasoid” is outdated because they previously classified people from South Asia with “caucasoid” while genetic evoidence provide evidences that south Asians can be called a race. So you think that a mix Mongoloid/European like the Komi or Lapp are not European with their nordic looks, while brownies from middle east and India are the so called “aryans”.
You have to understand that you can put popolations in clusters easily according to their geographic locations. Your language tree is interesting but useless, Uralic speaking Hungarians look exactly like their Austrian neighbours. So to come up with this rediculous language related stuff is stupid.
Besides sanskrite is only related with Iranian/Armenian/Greek language family, it clearly is not the “mother of all Indo European languages” as claimed by hindus. Greek is a language that has no analogues in Europe, it’s a languages on its own. We already know where “indo European” languages originated, it’s indeed in Anatolia.

About the classification of races, it needs some serious cleaning up. Genetics research is superior to the dumb language studies of the past or the phenotyping of 19th century. Ah Mongoloids is everybody in the east. We now know that south east Asians are different than the North East Asians. How rediculous it was to group them together just as rediculous it is to group hindus within Europeans.

About your so called typical Mongoloid features: it’s only the extremes you are mentioning, it’s just as silly to claim if you have a few Indians with a straight nose, they all have straights noses, while in real they have hooked noses.
There are people in Spain with blue eyes but it would be rediculous if they pretend that they are all like that, they are exceptions. Well you should look how North East Asians look like, I told you already not to bother with South east asians.

I can understand your desire for “only 3 races” so it would be convenient for you to squeeze unrelated people into one cluster, but you cannot get anway with this now, you could get away with “3 races” in 1912.

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.

Europeans can be distinguish from middle easterners and south asians, it’s as simple as that.
Surely if so called south Asians are the same as Europeans, the offspring should look more European, but they don’t.
It’s very clear to me how things really are.


193

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 13 May 2006 09:59 | #

” am saying that Indian and White caucasoids are different in many ways, but are still classified under Caucasoids”

Malcolm A: That’s what I am trying to make clear to you that they shouldn’t classify it under “Caucasoid”.

Why are you holding on to old stuff? How did they know in 19th century that there are more than 3 races? They were ignorant then.

While it is certainly true that everybody has some kind of admixture, the admixture in India is heavily mixed.
While it is very clear to me that middle east is not the same as Europe, Cavalli-Sforza did gave them the green colour in the map. How stupid is that?! 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?!
Who gives a toss about one iranian looking ancestor who invade in 1200 BC but from then on they mixed extensively with Australoids in India. By the way if those so called “Aryan Iranians” walk on the street now I wouldn’t think of them as Europeans. The hooked noses of Indians is just something from the middle east. I don’t consider Iranians to be white anyway.


194

Posted by Nio Zilda on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:09 | #

Nio…did you get permission to be here…if u didnt then wtf?? dont even talk to me…and as an aside, i was born here…immigrate is what my parents did…

I’m a New Zealander (hence the sobriquet). I assumed you were an immigrant to Australia because your English is so poor.

and they also took a great indian game, cricket, which they now like to claim as their own ans tea…

Ah, do carry on deary. This is all helping the Cause.


195

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 13 May 2006 11:33 | #

Anjali’s hilariously persistent assaults on reality may well soon persuade Phil Peterson that she has delighted us long enough.


196

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 15:21 | #

” 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.

I frequently intersperse profanities with what i am trying to say becasue that is the way to communicate with dumb yobbos, who should know that i am not some 2bit that can be pushed around, and AR ur comment isnt worth the time im spending or the blog space needed to give u a reply


197

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 15:27 | #

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…J Richards i think its a matter that is important to this entry…why dont u want to talk about…i understand..id be embarassed too if i had a culutre like yours…true its not really worth a mention…


198

Posted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 13 May 2006 15:42 | #

The real question is why haven’t you addressed any of the issues that J Richards pointed out in his long comment reply to your unfounded histrionics?

As for the “38% of Doctors in America are Indians”, I find that highly dubious firstly and it is no bragging point considering that Indians are simply leeches and nepotistic, secondly.  It is no point of contention that when you allow one Indian in, then he quickly metastasizes to a billion or so due to your highly racist favoritism for one another.  Most Indian doctors in the US are abhorrently subpar.  That is a fact.  Most also are on the receiving end of investigations for inappropriate professional behaviour.

I’m sure you do not see any hypocrisy in your views that Indians are allowed to be nepotistic and tribal, yet you behave ignorantly when whites try to do the same.  Indians are not ones high on the logic list, are they?

The remaining list that you posted has a recurring theme and that is ALL are US companies or in the US.  Where is your equivalent in India?  Where are your Microsofts etc?  Hmmmm?

LOL


199

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:14 | #

yes…they are all us companies…yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them…all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates…

educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal…im yet to come across of hear of modern day nordic “tribes”...

Today, Asian Indians are the second largest Asian group (2,226,585) in the US, behind only the Chinese (2,762,524). Source: 2003 American Community Survey

Indians own 50% of all economy lodges and 35% of all hotels in the US, which have a combined market value of almost $40 billion. Source: Little India Magazine

One in every nine Indians in the US is a millionaire, comprising 10% of US millionaires. Source: 2003 Merrill Lynch SA Market Study

A University of California, Berkeley, study reported that one-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley are of Indian descent, while 7% o valley hi-tech firms are led by Indian CEOs. Source: Silicon India Readership Survey

NRI’s: Indians have the highest educational qualifications of all ethnic groups in the US. Almost 67% of all Indians have a bachelor’s or high degree (compared to 28% nationally). Almost 40% of all Indians have a master’s, doctorate or other professional degree, which is five times the national average. Source: The Indian American Centre for Political Awareness.
it is highly dubious that the US just hands out these degrees willy-nilly to the Indians…so what ure sayin is that to qualify for a degree in the US your standard has to be sub-par…now why doesnt that suprise me??

Microsoft has large R&D investment in India and many products
are being developed in India
Microsoft employs large number of Indian IT professional
Microsoft has a program to share its Windows source code with
the government agencies
Microsoft has launched many programs like providing
broadband Internet access to schools, and many national
projects bringing government and nation into the digital age.
Narayana Murthy, of Infosys Technologies, endorse Microsoft’s
technologies.
Indians acknowledge the fact that the company Gates has built
up is the biggest and most profitable software firm in the world.

Microsoft said it would invest US$400 million (S$680 million) in India over the next three years in part to triple its staff in Hyderabad to 500 by 2005. ...now why the heck do they want to do that i wonder??


200

Posted by Ethnocentrist on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:37 | #

educate me as to how the whites are nepotisitc and tribal…

They’re not, you ignor"anus”.  That is part of the point, for if we were, you would not find your sorry ass in Australia and none of the braggadocious Browns would be in the US.  Understand?  YOU are nepotistic and tribal which is a primary reason for your “success” in the west.

yes…they are all us companies…yet their success is thanks to the indians they have working for them...all our “microsofts” are working for bill gates…

LOL

Surely you jest.  Do you honestly think that were it not for the Browns, all these companies would shrivel to oblivion?  Also, your “microsofts” are simply leeches on good idea.  The question is not how you can bring together a few subpar code writers from a pool of over a billion people.  The question is where is the ingenuity to create a Microsoft out this same pool of Brownians?


201

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:40 | #

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.


202

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:50 | #

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”


203

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:53 | #

ignor"anus”.  a play on words…ohhh rnt u a smart cookie…how many years of education to come up with that??


204

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:56 | #

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??


205

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:58 | #

haha…forgot to put down my email address
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


206

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 17:34 | #

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…


207

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 13 May 2006 17:41 | #

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.


208

Posted by anjali on Sat, 13 May 2006 17:43 | #

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??


209

Posted by JB on Sat, 13 May 2006 22:13 | #

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”


210

Posted by JB on Sat, 13 May 2006 22:22 | #

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


211

Posted by Andrew on Sat, 13 May 2006 23:12 | #

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.


212

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 13 May 2006 23:33 | #

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:

Shiva Lingam; Lord Shiva’s penis partially inserted into labial folds

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.


213

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 14 May 2006 00:45 | #

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.


214

Posted by Nio Zilda on Sun, 14 May 2006 02:56 | #

“ 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.


215

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 14 May 2006 03:47 | #

Anjali’s “witty performances” at the Indian culturefest may well have included the temple-based Devadasi defloration ceremony, so popular among the innately primitive.


216

Posted by anjali on Sun, 14 May 2006 07:01 | #

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


217

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 14 May 2006 18:24 | #

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!!


218

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 04:30 | #

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.</P>

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.


219

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 04:38 | #

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.


220

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 04:47 | #

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 methodology

Well, 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.


221

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 04:56 | #

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.
 
Frequency distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups in various populations

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.

Admixture proportions

Admixture proportions

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.

Fst distances between groups based on Y haplogroups

The spatial frequency distribution of major Y haplogroups in India is shown below (data for tribals in inset maps).

spatial frequency distribution of major Y haplogroups

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.


222

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 16 May 2006 05:23 | #

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.


223

Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 15:12 | #

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.


224

Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 15:21 | #

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


225

Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 15:48 | #

“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.”


226

Posted by anjali on Tue, 16 May 2006 15:50 | #

ash is considered to be beautiful, but ive seen more beautiful women walking around the dirty streets of india


227

Posted by Anon on Tue, 16 May 2006 17:51 | #

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!


228

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 17 May 2006 04:37 | #

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.


229

Posted by anjali on Wed, 17 May 2006 04:54 | #

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


230

Posted by anjali on Wed, 17 May 2006 05:07 | #

“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


231

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 17 May 2006 05:09 | #

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.


232

Posted by Malcolm A on Wed, 17 May 2006 05:37 | #

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.


233

Posted by anjali on Wed, 17 May 2006 07:04 | #

“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


234

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 15:10 | #

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.


235

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 15:23 | #

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.

Aeta of Philippines

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 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.


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.


236

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 15:30 | #

Malcolm A,

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.


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.


237

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 17 May 2006 15:35 | #

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.


238

Posted by Anon on Wed, 17 May 2006 18:39 | #

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.


239

Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 07:20 | #

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


240

Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 07:23 | #

also could someone please let me know how to post pictures on this page?


241

Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 08:35 | #

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…


242

Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 08:47 | #


243

Posted by anjali on Thu, 18 May 2006 12:11 | #

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…


244

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 19 May 2006 07:31 | #

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?


245

Posted by Ridiculous on Fri, 19 May 2006 15:06 | #

The point is Nordic women are better-looking and most evolved? This is soooooo ridiculous!!
WHAT the hell is the definition of “better-looking”?


246

Posted by anti-white on Fri, 19 May 2006 16:02 | #

this is the rally of white supremacy and modern Operation Wetback.


247

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 19 May 2006 18:44 | #

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.

Bridgette Bardot


248

Posted by Anon on Fri, 19 May 2006 21:28 | #

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)


249

Posted by Raanne on Fri, 19 May 2006 22:22 | #

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.


250

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 20 May 2006 04:25 | #

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.


251

Posted by anjali on Sat, 20 May 2006 05:49 | #

“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…


252

Posted by Anon on Sat, 20 May 2006 05:58 | #

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:


253

Posted by vipin mohan on Sat, 20 May 2006 06:47 | #

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


254

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 20 May 2006 09:40 | #

“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.


255

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 20 May 2006 09:58 | #

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.


256

Posted by EC on Sat, 20 May 2006 14:51 | #

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!


257

Posted by Howitzer McLean on Sat, 20 May 2006 15:58 | #

Indian women are like cows ... to be purchased and bred.  It comes as no shock that they look like cows as well.


258

Posted by you guys are on crack on Sat, 20 May 2006 19:45 | #

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


259

Posted by venecan on Sun, 21 May 2006 02:36 | #

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.


260

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 07:42 | #

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.

Halle Berry

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?

Halle Berry

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

Saira Mohan’s nostrils, approaching the Negroid, and apparently less Negrified by part-white ancestry.

Saira Mohan 

———————————————————

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.

Ralf Moeller

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.

Ralf Moeller as Conan


261

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 07:46 | #

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.


262

Posted by Anon on Sun, 21 May 2006 10:32 | #

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.


263

Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 10:39 | #

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…


264

Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 10:41 | #

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


265

Posted by anjali on Sun, 21 May 2006 13:15 | #

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


266

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 21 May 2006 14:17 | #

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.


267

Posted by Anon on Sun, 21 May 2006 16:41 | #

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)


268

Posted by EC on Sun, 21 May 2006 17:36 | #

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.


269

Posted by venecan on Sun, 21 May 2006 22:31 | #

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.


270

Posted by anjali on Mon, 22 May 2006 03:26 | #

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


271

Posted by anjali on Mon, 22 May 2006 03:56 | #

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…


272

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 13:58 | #

“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.


273

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 14:12 | #

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.


274

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 14:22 | #

“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.


275

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 15:37 | #

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.


276

Posted by Dan on Mon, 22 May 2006 15:52 | #

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.


277

Posted by anjali on Mon, 22 May 2006 15:54 | #

“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…


278

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 16:04 | #

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.


279

Posted by C. M. on Mon, 22 May 2006 16:05 | #

Besides the kids in the pic look like a bunch of arabs, I think they are from iran.


280

Posted by venecan on Mon, 22 May 2006 19:45 | #

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.


281

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:27 | #

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? 

Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron


282

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:35 | #

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.

craniofacial features cluster analysis

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. 

multidimensional scaling plot

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. 

untouchable woman in India

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.

Wodaabe

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.


283

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:37 | #

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.


284

Posted by dan mohan on Tue, 23 May 2006 05:20 | #

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 .


285

Posted by anjali on Tue, 23 May 2006 05:51 | #

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…




286

Posted by TJ on Tue, 23 May 2006 05:53 | #

Why do the aboriginies people of Australia have natural blonde hair?


287

Posted by Mr Gonzo on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:30 | #

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?


288

Posted by venecan on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:50 | #

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?


289

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 23 May 2006 14:21 | #

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.

Charlize Theron

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.

Aishwarya Rai, Charlize Theron

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.

Aishwarya Rai, Charlize Theron

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.

Aishwarya Rai, Charlize Theron

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.

Aishwarya Rai, Charlize Theron   

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. 

Aishwarya Rai, Charlize Theron

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.


290

Posted by Anon on Tue, 23 May 2006 21:18 | #

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.


291

Posted by Anon on Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33 | #

Furthermore, pale, frekled, blonde just about describes the nordics. No more and no less.

More coming soon.


292

Posted by dan mohan on Wed, 24 May 2006 04:21 | #

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


293

Posted by dan mohan on Wed, 24 May 2006 04:28 | #

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


294

Posted by Arvind Kelkar on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:39 | #

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.


295

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:07 | #

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.


296

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:39 | #

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.

Flynn effect in Spain.

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!


297

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:48 | #

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.


298

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 25 May 2006 18:58 | #

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.


299

Posted by shankho on Fri, 26 May 2006 00:58 | #

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?


300

Posted by dan mohan on Fri, 26 May 2006 05:02 | #

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


301

Posted by dan mohan on Fri, 26 May 2006 15:10 | #

DEAR J.RICHARDS,

REFERRING TO YOUR PASSAGE
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.

COME ON WAKE UP MY DEAR ARE NORDIC WOMEN THE MOST SOUGHT OUT INTERNATIONALLY I HAVE NEVER READ THAT ANYWHERE I AM A CONSTANT NET USER I HAVE NEVER COME ACROSS SUCH NEWS.SEEING TO THE ASIAN AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES PEOPLE IN THESE PLACES HAVE BLACK HAIR AND THEY ACTUALLY HATE BLONDE HAIR AS IT WONT LOOK GOOD WITH THIER COMPLEXION.BUT THESE PEOPLE COLOUR THEIR HAIR BLONDE AND WITH OTHER COLOURS AS IT IS A STYLE PATTERN AND NOT TO LOOK NORDIC.IT IS FACT IN THESE ABOVE COUNTRIES THAT ONLY OLDER PEOPLE ABOVE 60’S AGE HAS WHITE OR BLONDE HAIR DUE TO AGING.

AND IN USA PEOPLE MAY USE BLONDE DYES THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANT TO LOOK NORDIC.

THEN ANOTHER ABSURD THING ABOUT PLASTIC SURGERY PEOPLE IN ASIAN COUNTRIES AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHICH HAS THE LARGEST POPULATION IN THE WORLD IF WANT TO GO FOR A PLASTIC SURGERY THEY WILL NEVER OPT FOR NORDIC FEATURES BECAUSE TO THESE PEOPLE NORDIC AND WHITES FROM USA OR ANY OTHER WHITE COUNTRY IS THE SAME.AND FOR MANY OF THESE ABOVE COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE THINK THE BOLLYWOOD STARS AS THE ULTIMATE PARAMETERS FOR BEAUTY SO SAYINS THAT AROUND THE GLOBE PEOPLE OPT FOR NORDIC FEATURES FOR PLASTIC SURGERY IS ABSURD AND BASELESS.

AND IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL NORDIC WOMEN ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE FIGURES OF BEAUTY MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN COMES FROM AROUND THE GLOBE AND VOTED BY MEN ARE LIKE ASHWARYA RAI,AGELINA JOLIE,QUEEN OF JORDAN. DONT MISTAKE THAT EVERY MAN AROUND THE WORLD LOOKK FOR NORDIC FEATURES IN WOMEN


302

Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 27 May 2006 09:26 | #

dear j.richards

i feel that you are frustrated that the nordic women never come on the list of most beautiful women in the world and that they are not recognized in the international stage as the main focus is always on the women who are nonnordics and non-white.Come on accept the truth that with all that nordic facial features of ur womens they are still not that beautiful or any way near to ashwarya rai or angelina jolie or queen of jordan when it comes to beauty


303

Posted by Daqnie on Sat, 27 May 2006 09:38 | #

Comparing Third-world women to European women is bit like comparing a mud hut to a palace


304

Posted by Jim Kale on Sat, 27 May 2006 10:29 | #

Your comparison of “pretty” women to that of the untouchable women is flawed. As someone who is familiar with the world of modeling, I can tell you those “pretty” women don’t get out of bed looking that good. They are wearing tons of makeup which is applied almost scientifically to highlight their best features and hide their worst. But it doesn’t end there. When the makeup artist is done with them the photography gets a go at them. manipulating the lighting so it’s just right. Some of the photos are furher “enhanced” via photoshoping.

There is no doubt these women aren’t ugly in general, however, without makeup they are certainly not vastly prettier than some of those untouchable women, who would fix up very nicely or even more so than the “pretty” women.

It is something to note that the “pretty” Indian women are of vastly lighter skin tone than the untouchables. This isn’t by chance. India, as most of the world, is partial to light skinned women. As far as physical environment is concerned, light skin has very little benefits in most of the world, as it damages very easily.

However, light skin has social advantage. In areas where medium dark skin is the norm (populations that are dark but not so dark that they don’t tan), a person who spent all day out in the fields tanned, and thus grew darker. A person of higher social class, who did not have to work outside, and thus did not tan, remained lighter and so light skin was associated with a higher social class, making it more desirable.


305

Posted by Tyen on Sat, 27 May 2006 20:34 | #

Dear J. Richards

You misunderstood Venican’s post. You can’t claim that the only reason why Indians cluster with Europeans is because they’re mixed race, because even the pure blood Dravidians of Southern India are on the Caucasoid branch and they have zero European ancestry.

Also it’s absurd to adjust Indian IQ’s by only 5 points when their environments and exposure to Western culture is far inferior to that of whites circa 1900 who saw their IQ’s rise 20-40 points as urbanization and industrialization became widespread. Thus you MUST add 20-40 points to India’s IQ’s if you wish to make a genetic comparison regardless of what part of the curve you feel is responsible for the rise.

If you don’t believe IQ gains among whites were really so great than read the extensive documentation James Flynn has compiled in THE RISING CURVE about the Flynn Effect which makes clear it was at least 20 points (and perhaps double that, especially since it’s STILL CONTINUING)

NOw your argument that whites are the best at sports is really desperate. Even racialists like JP Rushton say that Blacks are the best physically (jump higher, stronger, faster, larger penises) but claims Orientals are the best mentally (highest IQ’s, fastest complex reaction times, largest brains for body size, early civilization).

According to Rushton’s theory, Whites are in the middle on all traits, however this might give them the optimum balance of intellect, athleticism, and personality, that has made them so influential for the past few centuries.


306

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 May 2006 05:43 | #

Shankho,

Comparisons of attractiveness are not entirely subjective.  People have their own preferences, but this does not mean that one cannot compare, for instance, who has finer facial features.

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.

Hence, one should avoid breeding with blood relatives.  However, race mixing increases the odds of producing children with a higher incidence of health problems (also see supporting evidence).

The reason that I put up this entry is because Peter Frost’s paper is of interest to Northern Europeans, and this entry also illustrates the disastrous aesthetic consequences of race mixing for whites.  Some people are bound to find it offensive, but I did not put it up to offend people, and I do not date Asians. 

Many Hindus are white?  I have never seen one unless you are talking about white Hare Krishnas, but Hindus from India generally don’t regard them as Hindus.

I have not contradicted myself by pointing out the 106 average IQ of Asian-Americans in reference to the 103 average IQ of white Americans.  Among Asian-Americans, the South Asians are highly unrepresentative of South Asia.  The NE Asians and whites in America are more representative of NE Asia and Europe, respectively, but then NE Asians are known to slightly outscore whites on IQ tests.  The latter is not a contradiction.  The correlation between predominant skin color of a population and its average IQ is -0.92, not -1.0, which means that there will be some examples of somewhat darker indigenous populations with slightly higher IQs than a lighter indigenous population.  In any case, a number of NE Asians produce as much melanin as whites do, but look darker because their skin is thicker (hence the yellow color).  Besides, the study that I cited used IQ values from indigenous populations, not diaspora populations to avoid problems of selective migration and also to relate the correlation to variables such as distance from the equator and climate.  Asian-Americans and whites in the U.S. are not indigenous to the Americas. 

———————————————————

Dan Mohan,

I cited a paper by Rhodes in a previous comment regarding what makes faces attractive.  This paper shows that beauty is not entirely subjective, i.e., you cannot say that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and pretend that there is no broad agreement.  If you believe that the pictures of the East Indians posted by Indian girl show Nordic-featured women, then this is another example of your poor perception since not one of these women have Nordic facial features.

The woman next to Mallika Sherawat has a small, hooked nose with a flat bridge?  Are you visually impaired?  Not one of these things is true!  I would never post a woman with this kind of nose.  The woman has a narrower nose than Mallika.  Besides, you have glossed over the large number of hook-nosed East Indian women, including your beloved Aishwarya Rai, posted within this thread and some data that I previously cited showing that the frequency of hooked noses is higher in India than in Northern Europe.

So you think that Manisha Koirala has beautiful teeth but the woman next to her has big, ugly teeth?  The picture that shows Manisha Koirala’s teeth also shows a flattened face and a hooked nose, things that you have not commented on.  The Nordic woman next to her is smiling and hence her teeth are showing, and they don’t appear to be ugly.  Besides, East and South Asians have larger teeth, on average, than Nordics.   

You have critiqued the woman compared to Asin as having a nose that looks unnatural, artificial, and like a wooden log chopped to fit as a nose!  Wow!  You have ignored Asin’s broader and hooked nose with a flatter nose bridge (see second posted picture of her).  Straight, narrow and fine noses are bound to look unnatural to Hindus like you.

As I said before, I am tired of having to deal with Aishwarya Rai.  You have, like many others, pointed out the accolades she has received, failing to see that these accolades have been on the part of many East Indians, and a few magazine editors or prominent organizations such as Miss World Org., and they do not reflect the views of the general Western public.  Lists of the most beautiful/sexy women in the world are typically based on the decisions of a handful of magazine editors who choose among famous women.  Thus, it should not be surprising if a former Miss World and prominent Indian actress makes it in some such lists, but this does not mean that most people around the world find her attractive.  Some of these top lists feature the likes of manly women such as Gisele Bundchen, showing that they have little to do with beauty.  Aishwarya’s pictures speak for her looks; there is no need to refer to what kind of praise she has received or how many fans she has among whites, which are surely few.   

You said that just because a large number of women dye their hair blonde in the U.S. it does not mean that they are trying to look Nordic.  Then why are these women dying their hair blonde?  Obviously to attract men; the majority of white men prefer blondes.  You said that black-haired people in Asian and Muslim countries actually hate blonde hair because it wouldn’t go with their complexion, but some of them color their hair blonde for style?  This is insane.

Your English skills could surely need some improvement.  I have not implied that people seeking cosmetic surgery around the world are trying to look Nordic.  What I said was that they are trying to shift their facial features closer to the Euro-Nordic norm.  I don’t see why you should have a problem with this statement.  How many people try to make their noses narrower compared to broader?  How many people try to make their noses straighter compared to more hooked?  How many East Asians try to make their eyes more slanted compared to less slanted?  How many non-whites seek smaller cheekbones compared to larger cheekbones?

I have also not said that every man is looking for Nordic features in women.  However, you can yourself see that the elite Indian women regarded as better looking than average by Indians are closer to Europeans in looks than the average Indian woman.  Thus, the looks preference among your co-ethnics is shifted toward the European.

Once again, notwithstanding your delusion about the higher desirability of the darker Mediterraneo-Afghan-East Indian women, non-white men with money (Japanese businessmen, Arab Sheiks) generally seek blonde prostitutes, not South Asian or other dark prostitutes.

You wrote the following:

i feel that you are frustrated that the nordic women never come on the list of most beautiful women in the world and that they are not recognized in the international stage as the main focus is always on the women who are nonnordics and non-white.Come on accept the truth that with all that nordic facial features of ur womens they are still not that beautiful or any way near to ashwarya rai or angelina jolie or queen of jordan when it comes to beauty.

           

Talk about insanity!  There are plenty of Nordic women who make the list of the most beautiful/attractive women in the world.  It is just the case that I will not bother using these women as good examples of Nordic beauty unless they have good looking faces.  Thus, I have used Charlize Theron’s face, but there have been other well-ranked Nordic women that I have not bothered to use pictures of because I am not fond of their looks: Kim Basinger, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, etc.  Unlike some clueless people, I judge for myself and don’t believe that a woman is good looking because some high profile magazine says that she is good looking.


307

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 28 May 2006 05:46 | #

Jim Kale,

I have not compared “pretty” women to untouchable women.  The untouchable women have been shown to clarify some of the major racial elements present in India and also convey the point that the other Hindu women shown are among the better looking women in India, based on gross face shape variables.

You, too, have the brought up the issue of makeup.  The Hindu women shown in the comparisons within this thread are high profile celebrities and hence have been photographed with makeup and may also have had their pictures airbrushed.  However, a number of the Nordic women that I have shown are either ordinary or close, and their pictures do not feature any tricky airbrushing.  For instance, some of the Nordic women shown have freckles.  If I had gotten these pictures from fashion magazines, then all these freckles would have been digitally removed.  Additionally, as I have said it previously, makeup does not change gross face shape variables.  For instance, makeup does not make 1) a hooked nose straight in profile view, 2) thick lips look thin, 3) flared nostrils look narrow, 4) a broad nose look fine, 5) large cheekbones look small, 6) large jaws look small, etc.  Thus, differences in gross face shape variables are seen between both untouchable and high caste women and either of these groups and Nordic women, though, on average, the differences between the untouchable and caste women is smaller than the difference between the caste women and Nordic women.  On the other hand, some untouchable women probably look good, though it appears that good looking Indian women are more likely to come from the higher castes.

—————————————-

Tyen,

I have not misunderstood Venecan’s post.  Pure-blood Dravidians?  What is this supposed to mean?  The reason that Dravidians are shown as part of the cluster labeled Caucasoid is that they were part of this cluster in 80% of the bootstraps but joined an Asiatic cluster in 20% of the bootstraps.  Thus, for the alleles tested, the European contribution was greater in the sample than the East Asian contribution.  If you read the Sahoo et al. paper above, you will note a great deal of overlap between the Y chromosomes of the caste groups and the tribals/aboriginals.  Thus, imagining the Dravidians to be some kind of pure-blooded people is absurd.  India as a general rule is heavily racially mixed, with aboriginal elements found in the highest castes and vice versa.

Your understanding of the Flynn effect is flawed, too.  The international average rate of IQ rise in the mid-late 20th century has been 5 points per decade. And you cannot assume that none of this IQ rise has taken place in India.  Black Africa has had a much worse problem with malnutrition than India, but its IQ has also increased in the 20th century.  For instance the IQ of 7.5-year-old children in rural Kenya increased by 11.22 IQ points between 1984 and 1998, which works out to about an 8-point rise per decade, which is higher than the 5-point per decade international average:

Daley et al., 2003 T.C. Daley, S.E. Whaley, M.D. Sigman, M.P. Espinosa and Ch. Neumann, IQ on the rise: The Flynn Effect in rural Kenyan children, Psychological Science 14 (2003) (3), pp. 215–219.

How can you assume that no Flynn effect has been taking place in India?  In the mid-20th century, India’s population increased by hundreds of millions.  This increase would not have been possible without a corresponding increase in food supply, and belies any claim of large scale starvation in the country over the few decades that this large population increase has taken place.  Do not forget that the Indian IQ studies likely never included the street children and tribals, and few to no untouchables.  Richard Lynn adjusted data from all studies based on year of study publication, and at a standard rate, and you cannot critique him on this count.  Regarding the magnitude of the increase, as the Colom et al. study shows, the spectacular increases are in the lowest IQ range.  Thus, if you add 30 points to someone with an IQ of 40, you still have a mental retard.  Similarly, considerable improvement in the education and nutrition of American blacks in the 20th century has done nothing to reduce the 18-point black-white IQ gap in the U.S.  Once again, given the staggering gap between the brightest Indians and the brightest whites, the groups virtually unaffected by the Flynn effect, by all means this corresponds to a large, genetically determined difference between the averages of these groups.

My argument that whites are the best overall at sports is not desperate.  You have chosen to focus on a handful of traits: “jump higher, stronger, faster,” and still you are wrong.  If you look at “Strong man” competitions, the winners are typically white men.  The top weight lifters, wrestlers, fighters (martial arts, fencing), race car drivers and fighter pilots are mostly white.  If you look at the faster variable, there are two components to speed: reaction time and response time.  The reaction time is slowest in blacks.  Thus, in sports requiring a fast reaction time, such as table tennis, blacks do not stand a chance to compete with East Asians.  Where the likes of West Africans are fast, as in sprinting, they cannot participate in endurance events and vice versa for the Kenyans, and once again, whites are second to only blacks in sprinting, second to only Kenyans/East Africans when it comes to endurance events dominated by Kenyans, and champions in other endurance events.  I could go on, but here are some statistics.

In the 2004 Summer Olympic, of the 929 medals awarded, approximately 70 percent, or 650, were won by white athletes.  Asian athletes won 154 medals, or 16.6 percent, while Negro athletes won 89 medals, or just 9.6 percent of the total.  The rest were won by athletes from other groups.

In the 2006 Winter Olympics, of the 252 medals awarded, 228, or almost 91 percent, were won by white athletes.  Asian athletes won just over 9 percent of the medals, with 23 total, and only one medal was won by a Negro.  You could try to dismiss the Winter Olympics by saying that blacks either have no interest or lack opportunity, but the Summer Olympics stats speak for themselves.  There are many sports that require no special equipment or expenses, but blacks just don’t have the build to emerge as top champions in these sports, e.g., cycling, bench pressing, karate, etc.

Blacks dominate only a few sports, and it is clear that whites are overall much better athletes than blacks.


308

Posted by Sophia on Sun, 28 May 2006 17:36 | #

My husband and I were crawling the web searching for relevant information about his home-country: Denmark,Copenhagen when he came across this post. He assumed it was an out-of-date post considering the topic, but was shocked when he realized it wasn’t. He insisted I read it and thus I was inspired to write: I am an American woman, a psychiatrist, and my husband is a Dane—all 6’3, blonde blue-eyed inches of him, and our children are all grey-blue-eyed, blonde curly haired angels. My husband has always been attracted to darker (black) women—which is why he married me, and I have always beena attracted to fairer white men. My husband and I both agree that there is only ONE race (the human race obviously) and that naturally there are variations in this gene pool. However, for humans to expend this amount of time, resources, and energy to argue the fact that we ARE humans who happen to be different—thank goodness—is an embarassment. Our intellect is higher than this. Unquestionably, beauty IS and always will be in the eyes of the one(s) beholding it. There are more important issues occurring on this planet of OURS that need to be addressed, and cranial size and eyes displacement are not they. Fact is: the HUMAN race WILL continue on as it has, without your ideal-ethnologies and ethnic slurs. And a note to the creator of this post from Mr. Nielsen, 100% Nordic Dane Viking (whichever label suits your liking): I am not a seperatist. I am a man who loves a woman regardless of her ethno-genetic predominance. YOU will speak for YOURSELF and not the rest of us Nords when you make hate-filled comments and write uselessness such as this. You shame us all when you pressume to speak for a human unit on behalf of yourself! You are a coward! Stand alone if your argument has merit. It does not, which is why you post on a public forum such as this—join us in the scientific community on OUR stage!  As for Malcolm A: May your marital union be blessed and write on!
Signed: Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen


309

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sun, 28 May 2006 17:45 | #

DEAR RICHAREDS,

I THINK NOW YOU ARE GOING VISUALLY IMPAIRED DOES ASIN HAS A FLAT NOSE BRIDGE LOOK AT HER SIDE VIEW NEAR TO A MIRROR IN THE THREAD

AND SAYING ABOUT THE NORDIC LADY NEXT TO MALLIKA YOU SAY SHE HAS FINE FEATURES COME ON MAN FINE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NOSE IS ALMOST VANISHING FROM THE FACE ,SHE HAS NO NOSE BRIDGE IT IS FLAT COMPARED TO OTHER NORDIC WOMEN OR ELSE SEND ME A SIDE POSE OF HER.

NOW LOOK AT THE NORDIC GIRL NEXT TO SIMRAN WITH ALL THAT NORDIC FEATURES SHE IS VERY DULL IN LOOKS COMPARED TO SIMRAN.OH GOD HOW CAN YOU SELECT SUCH PHOTOS OF WOMEN ONLY TO THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE NORDIC FEATURES SHE LOOKS LIKE A PUPPET.

NOW LOOK AT THE GIRL NEXT TO SONALI BENDRE DOES THIS NORDIC WOMEN HAS A FINE NOSE COMPARED TO THE NORDIC ONE BELOW HER OR NEXT TO ASIN. DOES THAT GIRL LOOK BETTER THAN SONALI, NO WAY,

THEN ONE MORE THING DO YOU SAY THAT ALL WOMEN WITH NORDIC FEATURES LOOK BEAUTIFUL WELL IF YOU THINK LIKE THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO DEVELOP YOUR SENSES.

THEN ABOUT ASIANS AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES DYING HAIR IT ACTUALLY LIKE ,THESE PEOPLE LIKE A LITTLE BLONE HAIR BETWEEN THE WHOLE LOT OF BLACK HAIR And IT IS NOT ONLY BLONDE HAIR DYE THESE PEOPLE USE , OTHER COLOURS ARE ALSO USED IN THE SAME RATE MAY BE MORE THAN BLONDE DYE.AS THE PEOPLE OF THESE COUNTRIES ARE NOT AWARE OF NORDIC WOMEN BECAUSE TO THESE PEOPLE , PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE ARE THE SAME ,WHETHER NORDIC OR NOT THEY ALL ARE WHITE AND YHESE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT MOSTLY ALL WHITE PEOPLE HAS BLONDE HAIR.SO NO QUESTION OF WANTING TO BE A NORDIC BY COLOURING BLONDE.

AS YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IN ASIAN COUNTRIES THE BLONDE HAIR IS COMMONLY SEEN IN OLD PEOPLE AS A PART OF AGEING ,I AM SURE THAT NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE THEIR HAIR TO BE FULLY BLONDE

THEN ABOUT PLASTIC SURGERY WHEN AISHWARYA WON THE MISS WORLD AND SHE BECAME FAMOUS IN INDIAN CINEMA THE WOMEN FROM ASIAN COUNTRIES AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES CONSIDERED HER FEATURES AS THE PERFECTION OF BEAUTY AND ANY PLASTIC SURGEON KEEP HER FEATURES AS A CHOICE WITH MANY OTHER INDAIN STARS FOR A SURGERY TO CHANGE FEATURES.

SO IN PLATIC SURGERY IN THESE COUNTRIES THE NORDIC WOMEN FEATURES ARE NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED AS INIDAIN FILM STARS ARE IN MORE DEMAND.


310

Posted by EC on Sun, 28 May 2006 20:01 | #

To Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen,

Your “we are all one human race” assertion is a red herring.  It in no way cancels out the variations of all the different races.  You two have clearly made this point indirectly by stating that Mr N loves black women and Mrs N loves fairer white men.  You two have clearly set discriminating parameters in your choice of opposite sex partners and thusly have indirectly rejected the “we are all the same” liberal maxim.  For if you two actually DID believe that tripe, then the likelihood that Mr N would have “settled” for a white woman and Mrs N would have settled for a black man would have been quite high. 

You, Mrs N being a psychiatrist, should know better than repeating that liberal sewage considering you MUST have taken at least one or two science/biology/genetics courses prior to entering medical school, correct?  Repeating lies in order to assuage public opinion in your choice of mate is disingenous at best.  Tell me, why did you always favour white men over black men in mate selection?  I have my suspicions on this.

And finally to Mr N, my dear man, not all of us have imbibed in the indoctrination set forth by the MTV generation and this includes many of your countrymen in Denmark.  If one becomes infected with “jungle fever”, then it his choice and it is highly unfair and uncivilized to help “infect” everyone else solely for selfish reasons.  You’ve made your bed my friend.  Now lie in it.  No need to kick and scream and show moral indignation because everyone else is not as “enlightened” as you are.


311

Posted by Tyen on Sun, 28 May 2006 20:27 | #

J. Richards

Blacks are clearly physically superior to whites. Look at all the highest paid athletes in America. Virtually all are black and this is despite the fact that blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population, grow up with fewer opportunities, less money to buy sports equipment, worse nutrition and environment etc.

Even black Africans in starving countries outperform white countries with every advantage in many sports competetion.

Even people as politically incorrect as JP Rushton claims blacks are physically superior & claims it’s party because they have narrower hips, more fast twitching muscles, more muscle, and more testosterone.

Of course whites with a billion times more money, nutrition, and opportunity have the resources to succeed in a few sports that no one cares about, but the fact that they are absent from the most competetive and lucrative sports of all, despite all their social advantages shows that all non-Africans are genetically disadvanted physically.

And sports like race car driving and ping pong require MENTAL SPEED as much as PHYSICAL SPEED.

Now the reason why I feel Indian IQ’s should be upgraded by AT LEAST 20 points is very simple. James Flynn has documented over and over again that when countries move from rural poverty to urbanized industrialization, IQ’s especially on the Raven test, start rising by several points per decade for perhaps an entire century or more. Flynn even claims that British born in the 19th century were scoring in the 60s (much lower than Indians) on the Raven.

Now even I find those numbers a little low to believe (perhaps the Raven test is not as valid a Lynn cliams) but the point is that India is at least 100 years behind most white countries in terms of urbanization and industrialization, so comparing today’s India with today’s Britain is not a fair comparison. It makes far more sense to compare today’s Indians with Brits in the 19th century since both were afflicted by rural poverty, malnutrition, and poor schooling.  Have you ever been to India and seen the masses of people? They’re mostly very short and weight less than 90 lbs. It’s completely obvious that they’re suffering from EXTREME malnutrion and are nowhere near their genetic potential. Indians raised in the west TOWER over their counterparts back home, just as whites living today TOWER over their counterparts in the 19th century, both physically and mentally.

And apart from a few trivial adjustments, Lynn himself admits that IQ’s were NOT controlled for the Flynn Effect. He clearly states that the correlation between IQ and national GDP works BOTH WAYS. That is high IQ CAUSES high GDP, but also high GDP creates better schools, better nutrition, better health care-all of which causes IQ to go up (i.e the Flynn Effect).

And I don’t care what part of the curve the Flynn Effect increase (different studies make different claims). The point is that every time mass urbanized industrialization occurs, the AVERAGE IQ score SKY ROCKETS. Why should only India be an exception to this worldwide trend?

I don’t doubt that the Flynn Effect has occured in a few scattered pockets here and there across the third world, but the VAST MAJORITY of Indians are still stunted, wasted, undereducated, unstimulated, raised by undereducated malnourished parents.


312

Posted by Anon on Mon, 29 May 2006 21:37 | #

J Richards,

With all the evidence of there clearly being only 3 races (Mongloid, Negroid and Caucasoid) having hit you in the face, you are still arguing with your faulty claims and continue to cite your nonsense. As is evident, you are not here to understand logic. Besides, who has ever used skin color and photographs to in the studies of race determination? Craniofacial measurements are used for these studies. But then again, I don’t think morons like you can get it. As I said earlier and you deleted, you should consider yourself honored that Malcom A decided to post on this thread and share his knowledge with you. If his explanations have not been able to bring you into the light, then nothing will.

Now, as for the rest of your false claims, I will crush each one of your misconceptions below.

1. Let me clear your delusions as to who is smarter between the Asians and Whites. [Note: I am citing reliable sources like Wikipedia and not unreliable ones (majority rights and other white supremist websites) like you do for your faulty claims.] Whites are smart and there is no doubt that modern civilization can be attributed to the white race, but when it comes to intelligence, whites are certainly not smarter than Asians.

The average IQ scores of the East Asian population living in the US and in Asia are similar, and both are higher than the average IQ scores of the White population living in Europe and the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Minority

Asian Americans on average have higher IQs than White Americans whether they live in the US or Asia.

2. As far as beauty is concerned, beauty is a subjective topic. I have already stated above that none of the “beautiful” nordics on this thread posted by you can compare to the beauty of the Indian, Southern European, Arab and Latin women. Maybe you and your friends have a preference for the pale, plain looking nordic women, but then again, you lot would have lived happier had you been born a few centuries ago.

Besides, when most men think of beautiful, sensual women, most do not think of nordic women. Instead their imaginations take them to the sun-kissed beaches of Brazil, to the mystic deserts of Arabia, to the ancient cities of India…. sorry to burst your bubble. You and your redneck friends might consider blondes beautiful… but as I mentioned earlier, we dont live in the Middle Ages anymore. Yes, majority of American women dye their hair blonde, but then again, this country is filled with dumb guys like JR who have their preferences clear. I do agree that certain blondes can be beautiful (Claudia Schiffer), but they remain few and spread far out (most are dyed blonde anyway).

Dusky beauty is what defines beauty in the 21st century. The white skinned (myself and all the women known to me included) tan ourselves to achieve that dusky brown skin tone in order to be attractive. Sweden has the highest rates of skin cancer per capita and don’t tell me that they just like to sit in the sun. They are trying to become bronzed (sadly for the Swedes, all they can get is a roasted crab look).

Although you fail to acknowledge it, Nordic women and men are a sub-race of the Caucasoids, just as the (North and South) Indians are and just as Southern Europeans are and just as most Arabs are (read Malcom’s posts and citations above using Cavalli Sforza’s studies). Therefore, my statement that the Nordics have as much in common physically with the southern Europeans as with Indians holds true.

3. With reference to your comment about race mixing, it is clearly evident that in the case of Saira, having an Indian father has given her an edge above the rest of the white women. She is the “Global Face of Beauty” because of her ethnic blood. If her mother had mated with a regular white guy, do you think Saira would be recognized for her beauty like she is presently? She’d have been another “plain jane.” Besides, Saira is an intelligent woman, not like the typical blonde bimbos. So think again before you say things like race mixing is detrimental for the white race. Our race is clearly benefiting from race mixing.

On the other hand, it is the Indians who don’t want to mix their race. Indians are known to be adamant about marrying into their own castes and backgrounds. They are least interested in mixing their blood with whites.

4. Your ignorant and vulgar comments about Lord Shiva’s representation demonstrate your appallingly low IQ which I doubt could scrape beyond 70 (so far your cut-paste “performances” have been at par with a far below-average IQ).

I have been studying Hindu Religion and Philosophy for over 8 years and I can tell you that no interbred trailer trash moron like you would EVER begin to comprehend the depth and complexity of Hinduism. It is clearly beyond you. Any explanation here would be useless as your IQ level would fall short.

5. You claimed the following:

the darker the population, the dumber it is.

And what great reliable reference have you cited? Ah, the one and only greatly reliable MR.com. HAH! JR, you freak, don’t cite if you cant back your claims up with reliable data.

Again you claimed:

the great Hindu medical system known as Ayurveda, which teaches that diseases are caused—in part—by the malevolence of female demons!”

In response to this, I will refer to my comment number 4 above.

You also claimed:

The 2006 ACM international competition for top computing prowess was dominated by white males.

You moron, the link you have cited has the names of universities in order of ranking. The site does not give any names, genetic data or racial factors as to who constituted the winning teams. Keep in mind that the smartest kids at American universities are often Indian, Chinese, and Koreans. Having pulled out of your ass your claim that the competition was dominated by white males, you are not only citing something that doesn’t exist, but also lying about the information cited. Top US universities owe their status to the fact that most Asians attend their programs while paying five to six times as much than regular Americans. Besides, American universities beg Indian students to chose them for further education by staging “educational fairs” in every Indian city to attract these bright student to their universities. They do it for three reasons:

1.Indians are the smartest students they have and form majority of the research teams at the grad level.

2.Indians have the purchasing power to send their kids to ridiculously priced educational institutions to obtain the tag of having an American degree. There are few Americans who send their kids to university paying out of state tuition. For many Indians on the other hand, it is not a big deal to pay $75,000 out of state tuition per year.

3.Finally, top US schools such as Columbia, MIT, U Penn (Wharton), U Cal Berkley etc have the rankings that they do as they have the highest number of international students, especially Asians as they are the smartest.

6. As for your example of a “good looking man,” it is nothing short of ridiculous. By posting images of “chunky monkeys” and referring to them as good looking, you are only trashing any credibility that you may have established earlier on in this post.

I will be back to continue. In the mean time, look at the following Indian women posted. The nordic women posted by you look lame in comparison. The Indians shown here have olive skin and dark features, and stand in a class of their own. And frankly, if you can pull out some good looking pictures of a nordic woman that matches up to them, then please go ahead. But if your “good looking” women resemble the clowns posted by you earlier, then its not even worth your time posting as pictures speak for themselves.










313

Posted by vipin thomas dan on Tue, 30 May 2006 03:35 | #

dearest anon,

WOW WOW WOW UR ANSWER TO THAT OLD MINDED J.RICHARDS IS MINDBLOWING.KEEP GOING MAN YOU ROCK.

DEAR J.RICHARDS,

YOU HAVE SAID THAT
Lists of the most beautiful/sexy women in the world are typically based on the decisions of a handful of magazine editors who choose among famous women.  Thus, it should not be surprising if a former Miss World and prominent Indian actress makes it in some such lists, but this does not mean that most people around the world find her attractive.

OH GOD NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE BY SAYING ALL THESE BASELESS POINTS THAT MAGAZINES LIKE HELLO FROM BRITISH AND TIME ARE FAKE.THE WORLD WIDE INTERNET POLLINGS Are fake.YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF MIND.YOU HAVE TO EDUCATE YOUR SENSES LET YOUR GOD SHOW SOME MERCY UPON YOU


314

Posted by nirmal on Tue, 30 May 2006 03:42 | #

dear J.RICHARDS,

I HAVE SEEN THIS LOT OF WHITE MONKEYS LAYING NUDE ON THE BEACHES OF ASIAN COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA AND SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES TO TAN THEIR DIRTY PALE WHITE SKIN.THAY WANT TO LOOK DARK THAT THIER PALE DIRTY WHITE

SO J.RICHARDS IF UR ARE ALIVE GIVE AN ANSWER TO THIS


315

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Tue, 30 May 2006 03:48 | #

dear j.richards,
check out these sites these are new fresh photos of indian women like ash and laila rouass they can beat any NORDIC WOMEN IN BEAUTY AND SEX APPEAL


http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2006/04/20/laila-rouass-hot-indian-of-the-week/

http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2006/05/24/aishwarya-rai-bastardly-sexiest-women-2006-23/


316

Posted by Anon on Tue, 30 May 2006 04:35 | #

Dear Dan,
here are the pictures. To post images all you have to do is use the following tag:

Cheers


317

Posted by Dhruv Mehta on Tue, 30 May 2006 20:07 | #

Visit

http://www.obitsindia.com/

for more information.


318

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:40 | #

Sophia,

You may believe that humans are not racially differentiated, but scientific evidence—cited within this thread—reveals what is obvious to the common man: the existence of races among humans.  Your husband is no more a representative of Northern Europeans than I am, and I am not a self-appointed spokesperson for Northern Europeans.  This entry focuses on a recently published article in a peer-reviewed journal and is of interest to some people.

Read the paper by Rhodes as to what makes faces attractive (cited previously) and see for yourself whether beauty completely lies in the eye of the beholder.

There are all kinds of issues that are worthy of discussion, and regardless of the importance of some of the issues discussed here, they need to be addressed.  It is not like this entry occupies the center-stage of this site.

I don’t see how I am displaying cowardice by posting this entry in a public forum.  The evidence cited within this thread by me is state-of-the-art science, but the politically sensitive issues addressed here are things that the scientific community shies away from.  On the other hand, if this entry is indeed rubbish, then perhaps you and your husband could enlighten us about the misconceptions you have come across.  The reason why the public is allowed to comment here is for enlightened people to correct us; so help us.

————————————-

Dan Mohan aka Vipin aka Nirmal,

Why are you posting under different names?  You need to improve your English skills and stop writing in all caps.  I have not said that Asin has a flat nose bridge; I have said that she has a flatter nose bridge than the white woman she is compared to.  And, where have I implied that all women with Nordic features look attractive?  I have been wasting time responding to your atrocious lack of understanding of what I have written, thanks to your poor English comprehension.  Godamnit, improve your English proficiency.

Anyway, your poor comments are useless to this thread.  Your preferences are certainly not those of the typical white person.  If you believe that the masculine Simran, the coarse-featured Sonali Bendre and the hooked-nose Aishwarya Rai are better than the Nordic women they are compared to respectively, then all I can say is that I am not surprised.  The typical Hindu has simply not evolved a better aesthetic sense, which goes with his abysmally low average IQ and also explains why Hindus look the way they do.

Old people in Asia have white hair, not blond hair!  And, if people in Asia think highly of the looks of Aishwarya, it is because she is much better looking than the typical South Asian.

My comment regarding the magazines naming top sexy/beautiful women does not pertain to their fakeness, but the fact is that many of these women are not attractive and some downright repulsive (e.g., Giselle Bundchen), and these lists are based on a good deal of considerations unrelated to sexiness or beauty.  So referring to these lists to infer what women are considered the most attractive by the majority of people is foolish.

So you have seen a lot of white monkeys lying nude on beaches to tan their dirty pale white skin?  Well, rest assured, this is not to acquire the fecal-colored skin that you and other South Asians possess.  Since most jobs moved indoors, pale skin among whites has become a sign of low social status since whites who have to spend most of their time working for money will usually not get enough sun—unless they resort to tanning salons or spray-on tans—and thus be pale.  Thus, tanning is popular among whites.  The large number of white women tanning themselves are also disproportionately dying their hair blonde and prefer Euro-Nordic facial features.  Don’t be mistaken that tanning has anything to do with a desire to have dark skin.  Tanned white skin is different from naturally darker skin, and whites do not want naturally darker skin.


319

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:42 | #

Tyen,

Blacks are clearly physically superior to whites. Look at all the highest paid athletes in America. Virtually all are black and this is despite the fact that blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population, grow up with fewer opportunities, less money to buy sports equipment, worse nutrition and environment etc.

Americans blacks are much more obese than American whites, and they often get free food in the form of food stamps, and also by Churches and charities.  So no, they have more than enough to eat.  As far as opportunity and sporting equipment go, K-12 education is free in the U.S., and public schools offer plenty of sporting facilities and equipment.  Once again, if you go through the contents of castefootball.us, you will encounter plenty of evidence for the special treatment of black athletes, and there are plenty of people encouraging blacks to participate in sporting activities in high school, yet they basically participate in activities that they are capable of being good at, i.e., football, basketball and some track and field events.  Blacks simply do not have the build for excelling in most sports.

When you are talking about the highest paid athletes, you are obviously talking about football and basketball, but there are other sports where the best athletes make a lot of money, but blacks are uncommon among the top ranks in these sports; e.g., tennis, golf, ice hockey.  You could argue that this is because of lack of opportunity, but this was true in the past and does not apply to Americans blacks today.  There is also plenty of proof of anti-white discrimination in football and basketball documented at castefootball.us.

You have ignored the fact that the majority of Olympic medal winners are whites, who are less than 10% of the world’s population.

Even black Africans in starving countries outperform white countries with every advantage in many sports competetion.

This is lame.  Most blacks that win Olympic medals are American blacks.  Of the few African blacks who excel in the Olympics, they do so in only some events such as sprinting (West Africans) and some long distance events (Kenyans), and this is because they have the build to excel in these activities, but they simply do not have the build to excel in most sports.

Even people as politically incorrect as JP Rushton claims blacks are physically superior & claims its party because they have narrower hips, more fast twitching muscles, more muscle, and more testosterone.

You may be misquoting Rushton on the alleged physical superiority of blacks; he might have commented on the better black performance in some sports, but the important issue is not what someone says, but what proof exists out there.  The fact is that a greater proportion of fast-twitch fibers means diminished endurance.  Thus, West African blacks are nowhere close to being champions in sports requiring endurance.  Fast-twitch fibers are also associated with large motor units, and having more of these fibers translates to less success at fine motor skills.  “Strong man” competitions require a combination of great strength and endurance, a combination that favors whites, not blacks, and you should look at the weight lifting records to see whether blacks or whites dominate weight lifting.  If blacks are stronger than whites, how come they don’t dominate weight lifting, something that hardly requires any expensive equipment?

The denser bones of blacks means that they cannot dominate swimming.  The shorter, less powerful trunks of blacks means that they cannot dominate wrestling or bench pressing.  The strength-agility-reaction time combination in blacks is such that they cannot dominate martial arts.  The leg proportions of blacks, with relatively longer lower legs, means that they will not be dominating cycling.  And so on; no amount of training, nutrition or good facilities is going to change this.  How can you say that blacks are overall better at sports than whites?  Ridiculous!

quote]Of course whites with a billion times more money, nutrition, and opportunity have the resources to succeed in a few sports that no one cares about, but the fact that they are absent from the most competetive and lucrative sports of all, despite all their social advantages shows that all non-Africans are genetically disadvanted physically.

This is an absurd statement.  Whites are absent from the most competitive and lucrative sports?  Have you not seen white players in the NFL and NBA (ever heard of Larry Bird, John Stockton?)?

Major League Baseball is about 60% white, 30% Hispanic, 9% black and 1% Asian.  The percentage of blacks has fallen to a third of what it was 30 years ago, and I will quote the following from castefottball.us:

In football, mostly black players are recruited by the elite 1-A programs with many superb white high school players shut out, which is why blacks go on to dominate the NFL. College baseball would love to have more black players participating, but whites are dominating American baseball, to the point that well over 95 percent of the best college players are white.

However, unlike football, Major League Baseball commits huge resources to developing and signing non-American players. Scouts are sent swarming through the Dominican Republic and other hispanic baseball hotbeds, and “baseball academies” continue to be built outside the U.S.

Inside the U.S., large resources are devoted to the mostly fruitless cause of developing black American players, again with academies, as well as many inner city programs paid for by MLB. However, there are no baseball academies in mostly white areas, nor are there any special programs to develop talent in suburban areas or in poor rural areas. Baseball is the all-American game, but the powers that be, both in baseball and society in general, are interested in making it as “diverse” as possible, as they are with any sport that whites dominate.

Last I checked, Tennis and Golf, well paying at the top level, were dominated by whites.

Whites have recently taken the boxing world by storm, and three of the four top heavyweight boxing titles are currently held by white men; you better read this.

Even though blacks have some advantages in specific track and field events, whites do a better job at the decathlon.  In short, the notion of black athletic superiority is complete nonsense; they only dominate a few sports.


320

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:45 | #

Tyen,

You need to quit harping on James Flynn.  I have not disputed the Flynn effect.  You want to add 20 points to the 81 average IQ to India?  This would make it equal the average white IQ.  Like I have pointed previously, the Flynn effect mostly occurs in the lower half of the bell curve, and the smartest people are virtually unaffected.  Given the huge gap between the brightest East Indians and the brightest whites, do you want me to believe that the average differences between East Indians and whites are little to none?

You have again repeated nonsense related to the Flynn effect.  You said that modern whites tower over their ancestors in height and mental capability.  An increase in height of 1 SD over 50 years is not exactly towering over one’s recent ancestors.  Similarly a 1 SD rise in IQ over 50 years, most of it in the lower half of the bell curve and almost no increase at the right extreme, is hardly towering over one’s recent ancestors.  Stop saying that the IQ scores used by Lynn were not adjusted for the Flynn effect with reference to the date of publication/assessment; this adjustment was not possible in some cases, but India’s scores were adjusted. 

Flynn claims that the British in the 19th century were scoring in the 60s with respect to IQ?  This is ridiculous.  There were no IQ tests back then.  Besides, a massive prevalence of undernutrition will drop the average IQ of any population, but it cannot be extrapolated from the rise in IQ of white populations that other populations have the same innate intellectual capability as whites.  Once again, the abysmal presence of East Indians among the top intellects, inventors and innovators in the 20th century is not compatible with the notion that the intellectual potential is the same in whites and East Indians.

I have been to India and have seen plenty of Indians there and also in the West.  You are correct that Indians are shorter and much poorly built than whites.  But is this evidence for massive malnutrition?  Black Africa has a much greater problem with malnutrition than India does, yet West Africans have a better body build than East Indians.  I have cited plenty of studies previously regarding the poor physical build of East Indians.  If you go through these studies and additional references in them, you will come across some rather interesting finds.  For instance, I have always found it curious that whereas East Indians are generally weakly built with respect to skeletal and muscular mass, they often have excess belly fat.  I have wondered how is it possible for apparently underfed people to pack on excess belly fat.  What the studies show is that East Indians are fatter than whites, i.e., their lean body mass is even lower than what appears to be the case!  If you were to ask me to picture fat people, I would picture obese blacks, Polynesians and whites, not East Indians, but East Indians living in the west are among the fattest people, though they don’t look like it given their poor physical builds.  Thus, the poor physical appearance of East Indians generally reflects their innate physical constitution rather than undernutrition, the exception being the minority of people who are homeless, diseased or old.  Once again, widespread undernutrition culls the population, but India’s population has increased by hundreds of millions in the 20th century!

I have not said that India is somehow an exception to the Flynn effect.  The reason that I cited the study from rural Africa is that if a greater-than-international-average IQ rise can be shown in rural Africa, which is worse than most of India, then it is absurd to assume that a parallel process has not taken place in India, too.  The fact is that the IQs of both whites and Indians have risen, but the white-Hindu gap has remained, just as the 18-point black-white gap in IQ has remained constant in the U.S. in spite of the Flynn effect operating in both groups.  You need to understand that the average IQ of a reference population is always designated 100.  If this average were to rise to 105, then new norms will be proposed to designate it as 100.  Thus, a 100 IQ among whites today corresponds to a higher numerical value of IQ in the recent past just as an 81 IQ in India today corresponds to a higher numerical value of IQ in India in the recent past. 

The Indian IQ tests are unlikely to have recruited people affected by undernutrition, i.e., the poorest people.  In fact, one of the Indian studies included by Lynn used the WISC-R, which is not something you would give to illiterates, i.e., over half of Indian children, yet it reported an average IQ of 82.  Similarly, toward the end of Apartheid Africa, there was no undernutrition problem in the general public in South Africa, yet data from 1990 show an average IQ of 83 among the East Indians there (summarized by Lynn).


321

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:49 | #

Anon,

With all the evidence of there clearly being only 3 races (Mongloid, Negroid and Caucasoid) having hit you in the face, you are still arguing with your faulty claims and continue to cite your nonsense. As is evident, you are not here to understand logic. Besides, who has ever used skin color and photographs to in the studies of race determination? Craniofacial measurements are used for these studies. But then again, I donï¿1?2t think morons like you can get it. As I said earlier and you deleted, you should consider yourself honored that Malcom A decided to post on this thread and share his knowledge with you. If his explanations have not been able to bring you into the light, then nothing will.

I have not deleted any of your comments, though most people would given your obnoxious manners.  This is my house and I can do what I please, but you are a guest, and it seems that you have not learned manners.  Don’t falsely accuse me.

Malcolm has not presented any evidence for there only being three races among humans.  There has never been any agreement in the past as to how many races existed among humans; Cavalli-Sforza himself cited racial classification attempts ranging from 3 to 200 races among humans, and demanded proof of the existence of biological races among humans in a 1997 paper (cited above).  Malcolm 1) picked 19th century literature about 3 races from a Nordicist site; 2) ignored other racial classification schemes; 3) cited a dictionary; 4) ignored current genetic evidence for at least 5 races published in peer-reviewed journals; 5) Ignored craniometric evidence showing that it is not possible to classify humans into three races only or classify whites and East Indians into the same race; 6) misrepresented a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision; 7) cited some statements by Cavalli-Sforza in the 1970s whereby he used terms such as Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid without presenting evidence for only three races among humans; 8) cited a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza to support his arguments even though this paper featured a genetic tree where NE Asians were clustering with the group labeled Caucasoid, not SE Asians; 9) ignored Cavalli-Sforza’s 1997 statement asking biologists who believe in race to offer genetic evidence for it, and so on.  If you bring up again the notion of there being only three races among humans or that whites and East Indians belong to the same race, I will ask you to cite recent evidence from peer-reviewed journals that supports these contentions or else you will not be allowed to comment here.

As far as your crushing my arguments goes, let us see what you have attempted.

You cited literature that NE Asians have higher average IQs than whites from a reliable source, namely Wikipedia!  Talk about scientific standards!  I have been citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals to support my major contentions, and this is what you need to do.  On the other hand, if you go though my entries and comments, I have never denied, and have acknowledged, the higher average IQ of NE Asians compared to whites.  But South Asians are not NE Asians.  Additionally, the brightest people are not NE Asians, but Europeans, as evidenced by Europeans producing modern civilization; winning the most Nobel Prizes and Field Medals; outcompeting NE Asians with respect to building the most technologically advanced equipment such as rockets, fighter jets, very powerful CPUs; dominating the top ranks of software coding, etc.

You have called beauty a subjective topic, but ignored the paper I cited by Rhodes regarding objective correlates of beauty.  You have apparently missed the contradiction between your statement that “when most men think of beautiful, sensual women, most do not think of nordic women…” and your statement that a large number of white women dye their hair blonde because the U.S. is full of dumb people like me.  So which is it?  I got news for you.  White women in both the U.S. and Europe overwhelmingly dye their hair blonde compared to other colors, and there are a large number of such women.  They do it because they know that most white men prefer blondes.  Only in your distorted mind do men around the world dream of dark Brazilian and South Asian women.  White men may dream of vacationing in the sun-kissed beaches of Brazil, the mystic deserts of Arabia and the ancient cities of India, but they will almost always imagine themselves snuggled between a blonde and a redhead, not Hindus or Middle Eastern women.

You think Saira Mohan has gained an edge over other women because of race mixing?  Hindus like you are so retarded that it is unbelievable.  I posted a bunch of pictures of Saira Mohan within this thread and you can see that this woman is masculine and unattractive.  And you need to quit pretending that you are a white man.  It is telling that you Hindus feel the need to defend your arguments by portraying yourself as a white person.

You have talked about blonde bimbos and an intelligent Saira Mohan.  Saira Mohan is not dumb, but whereas Northern Europeans are responsible for modern civilization, the average Hindu is a mental retard by European standards.

On the other hand, it is the Indians who don’t want to mix their race. Indians are known to be adamant about marrying into their own castes and backgrounds. They are least interested in mixing their blood with whites.

The Indians who are adamant about marrying into their own castes and backgrounds have so extensively mixed with each other that the genetic distance between the untouchables and tribals on the one hand and the caste groups on the other hand is miniscule and a small fraction of the large genetic distance between the caste groups and Western Europeans; see the evidence by Bamshad et al. in their paper on women stratifying Hindu castes and the Sahoo et al. paper.  Besides, Al Ross previously mentioned the Devadasi system in India.  This is a disgusting form of temple prostitution in Southern India whereby upper caste men have sex with untouchable women.  So much for Hindus avoiding other castes!  And as far as Indians not wanting to mix their blood with whites goes, tell that to the white women that have been pestered and harassed by East Indian men.


322

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:51 | #

Anon,

Regarding my comment about Lord Shiva’s representation and the Ayurveda system, instead of mentioning the philosophical high points of the penis worship and citing the proven medical benefits of Ayurvedic medicine, you have called my comments ignorant and vulgar, and described me as a sub-70 IQ inbred trailer trash moron.  Some great defense of the high points of Hindu beliefs!

I have not studied Hinduism like you have for 8 years, but I took plenty of religion classes when I was a student and came close to having a religion minor.  Thus, it is not that I am clueless about Hinduism, but speaking of its philosophy, some of it is Aryan, not indigenous to the dark natives of India, and the actual beliefs and practices of the dark natives are atrocious.  Shiva is a black-skinned indigenous god.  You could not have missed references to how much the Aryans despised the black natives of India for, among other things, being penis worshippers.  The beliefs associated with Lord Shiva are incredible, and a small sampler is documented below.

ORIGIN OF HOLY SHIV LINGAM (Lord Shiva’s penis)

Lord Siva seduces the Pine Forest sages’ wives and is cursed for this immoral behavior. Origin of the holy Linga which is commonly worshipped in Hindu temples:

“When the sages saw Siva naked and excited they beat him and they said, ‘Tear out your linga.’ The great yogi said to them, ‘I will do it, if you hate my linga’, and he tore it out and vanished.”—Kurma Purana 2:38:39-41; cf. Haracaritacintamani 10:74; Yagisvaramahatmya 26a. 14.

In another version, the sages in the forest quote the legal texts regarding the penalty for seducing a guru’s wife when they punish Siva:

“You false ascetic, let your (Siva’s) linga fall to earth here. A shameless and evil man who has seduced another man’s wife should be castrated; there is no other punishment ever. A man who has seduced his guru’s wife should cut off the linga and testicles himself and hold them in his hands and walk until he dies.”—Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 10:187-90; cf. B. K. Sarkar, pp.234-5.

MORE ON ORIGIN OF HOLY SHIV LINGAM

Here is another origin of the holy Linga:

“... He (Siva) agreed to this and laughed, for he was secretly amused, and he said to Brahma, ‘There is no good use for this linga except for the creation of progeny.’ And as he said this he broke it off and threw it upon the surface of the earth. The linga broke through the earth down to the subterranean hell and went to the very sky. Visnu sought the end of it below, and Brahma flew upwards, but they did not find the end of it, for all their vital effort. Then a voice arose out of the sky as the two of them sat there, and it said, ‘If the linga of the god with braided hair is worshipped, it will certainly grant all desires that are longed for in the heart.’ When Brahma and Visnu heard this, they and all the divinities worshipped the linga with devotion, with their hearts set upon Rudra (Siva).”—Siva Purana, Dharmasamhita 49:23b-46, 74-86.

LORD SHIVA’s CHILDREN

The elephant-headed God Ganesha is the son of Shiva.  Here is how Ganesha was born:

“When Siva and Parvati were making love together, Visnu took the form of a Brahmin with matted locks, oppressed by thirst, and he went to the bedroom door and said, ‘What are you doing, Siva? Arise and give me food and water, for I am an old man oppressed by thirst.’ Siva arose, and his seed fell on the bed instead of in the womb of his wife. Then Siva and Parvati offered the Brahmin food and water, and he vanished and took the form of a child and went to Parvati’s bed. There he became mixed with the seed of Siva that was on the bed, and he was born like an engendered child. Parvati found the child and nursed him, naming him Ganesa.”—Brahmavaivarta Purana 3:8:19-33, 83-8, 3:9:1-26.

Lord Shiva even managed to accidentally chop off the head of his son, Ganesha, and remorseful of his deed, he decided to compensate by affixing the head of the first being that he came cross, which happened to be an elephant, and this is how Ganesha got the head of an elephant.

Some additional examples of Shiva’s children:

“When the gods interrupted Siva and Parvati, two sons were born of drops of Siva’s seed. These sons were then posted at the door to prevent further interruptions while Siva made love to Parvati, having promised the gods that he would not spill his seed in her. One day Parvati came out of the bedroom in great dishabille, half naked, her breasts scored with teeth marks. The two sons chanced to see her like that, and they were upset, but Parvati became angry and said, ‘Why have you looked at me when I was not in a state to be seen by anyone but my husband? You should have closed your eyes. Since you have done this immoral thing, you will be reborn as mortal men with the faces of monkeys.’ Then they were miserable and protested that it was her fault for having come out so suddenly, and they cursed her to become a mortal queen (Taravati) and Siva to be her husband (Candrasekhara) so that they themselves might be born again as their sons, Vetala and Bhairava.”—Siva Purana 3:21:1-8; Kalika Purana 49:1-92, 50:1-64, 51:1-60, 52:1-155, 53:1-217.

More here.

     

The philosophical underpinnings of Shiva beliefs speak for themselves.


323

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 31 May 2006 20:55 | #

Anon,

Regarding my statement that the darker the population, the dumber it is, you wrote:

And what great reliable reference have you cited? Ah, the one and only greatly reliable MR.com. HAH! JR, you freak, don’t cite if you cant back your claims up with reliable data.

You ignoramus, I did cite my own entry at MR, but all the data were presented from a recently published paper in a peer-reviewed journal.  I even offered the pdf file of the paper, and the citation is:

Donald I. Templer and Hiroko Arikawa. Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An international perspective. Intelligence, Volume 34, Issue 2, March-April 2006, Pages 121-139.

Regarding the ACM 2006 competition and topcoder data, you wrote, and I will be addressing it line by line:

You moron, the link you have cited has the names of universities in order of ranking. The site does not give any names, genetic data or racial factors as to who constituted the winning teams. Keep in mind that the smartest kids at American universities are often Indian, Chinese, and Koreans. Having pulled out of your ass your claim that the competition was dominated by white males, you are not only citing something that doesn’t exist, but also lying about the information cited.

Your piss-poor investigation is remarkable.  The top 10 teams in the 2006 ACM competition, in order, were: 1) Saratov State University, 2) Jagiellonian University – Krakow, 3) Altai State Technical University, 4) University of Twente, 5) Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 6) St. Petersburg State University, 7) Warsaw University, 8) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 9) Moscow State University, 10) Ufa State Technical University of Aviation

As you can see, the Western Universities, except MIT, are from non-English-speaking nations that have few non-whites.  If you looked around, you would find the following names of the participants (you can search for their pictures if you like):

Saratov State University - Michael Mirzayanov, Igor Kulkin, Ivan Romanov, Roman Alekseenkov.

Jagiellonian University (Krakow) - Pawel Idziak, Arkadiusz Pawlik, Bartosz Walczak, Pawel Walter.

Altai State Technical University - Elena Kryuchkova, Coach; Artur Mogozov, Dmitry Gozman, Roman Gomenjuk.

University of Twente – Eljakim Schrijvers, Boris de Wilde, Erik-Jan Krijgsman, Kamiel Cornelissen.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University - Yong Yu, Bohai Yang, Chang Liu, Yuan Lin.

St. Petersburg State University – Andrew Lopatin, Gleb Leonov, Sergey Bankevich, Vitaliy Valtman.

Warsaw University – Jan Madey, Bartek Romañski, Marcin Michalski, Pawel Parys.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Martin Rinard, Heng Ping Nabil Christopher Moh, Hubert Hwang, Velin Tzanov.

Moscow State University - Eugueny Pankratiev, Andrey Khalyavin, Andrey Rumyantsev, Ivan Popelyshev.

Ufa State Technical University of Aviation - Alexander Fridlyand, Alexey Zhevak, Denis Nazarov, Konstantin German.

Thus, in the top 10 teams, out of a total of 40 individuals, 34 were white, 6 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  Whites clearly dominated, and considerably so if you consider their much smaller population size compared to East and South Asians.

Similarly, it is unlikely that you will bother to look up the topcoder.com data, but of the 20 top coders at the time of this writing, 18 are white, 2 NE Asian and 0 South Asian.  The NE Asians were ranked 12th and 14th, and the white males were overwhelmingly Northern European types; there were no Southern Europeans.

I suppose I should also mention the data from the ACM software system award, the highest award for the most outstanding innovations in computing.  From 1983 to 2005, of the 63 people awarded, 58 were white males, 4 were NE Asians and 1 was South Asian.

Top US universities owe their status to the fact that most Asians attend their programs while paying five to six times as much than regular Americans.

Finally, top US schools such as Columbia, MIT, U Penn (Wharton), U Cal Berkley etc have the rankings that they do as they have the highest number of international students, especially Asians as they are the smartest.

Talk about ignorance!  Top U.S. schools established themselves as World Class Universities much before the 1960s immigration reform that flooded the U.S. with non-whites, and this achievement of high status had nothing to do with Asians.  Asians are the smartest?  The only smart Asian populations are the NE Asians, and you can see that they are notably underrepresented in the top ACM rankings, the top topcoder.com rankings, Nobel Prize winners, Field Medalists, etc.

Besides, American universities beg Indian students to chose them for further education by staging “educational fairs” in every Indian city to attract these bright student to their universities. They do it for three reasons:

1.Indians are the smartest students they have and form majority of the research teams at the grad level.

2.Indians have the purchasing power to send their kids to ridiculously priced educational institutions to obtain the tag of having an American degree. There are few Americans who send their kids to university paying out of state tuition. For many Indians on the other hand, it is not a big deal to pay $75,000 out of state tuition per year.

Indians the smartest students?  No team from India was present among the ranked in the 2006 ACM competition, no team from India is among the top 20 Universities at topcoder.com at present, only one of the 63 awardees of the ACM software system award till 2005 has been an Indian, Indians have only won 3 Nobel Prizes in science and no Field Medals, etc.  Besides, some Indians may have decent purchasing power in the U.S., but only a miniscule number of them do so in their homeland. 

The facts speak for themselves.  Whites dominate the ranks of the brightest people; NE Asians are a distant second, and south Asians have such a low presence among the brightest that their presence can be treated as a rare aberration.

In summary, any reasonable person can see how effectively you have demolished my arguments, and I definitely recommend that you click on the link posted by Dhruv Mehta.

As far as the pictures you have hotlinked go, I am pleased to see you argue on my behalf.  Even though parts of the face are hidden by hair in several of your pictures, the looks of these women are seen for what they are.  Almost no white male would give them a second look.  Besides, you have posted a small picture of Aishwarya Rai and a picture of Saira Mohan, completely oblivious to the fact that several clear and multi-angle pictures of these unattractive women have been shown within this thread previously, but what would retards like you be expected to do?

Dan Mohan mentioned Laila Rouass, a woman that does not look Indian, and it turns out she is half Moroccan.  Both of her pictures that you hotlinked show the sides of her face covered by hair, but I didn’t have to search much to find a picture that shows her face outline more clearly, and she is hardly a woman that would turn the heads of white males.   

Laila Rouass


324

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 31 May 2006 21:55 | #

Perhaps 339 posts is enough for one thread, JR, and you should construct a new post for your critics to dash their brains against.


325

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Thu, 01 Jun 2006 04:28 | #

dear J.RIchards

as you said
My comment regarding the magazines naming top sexy/beautiful women does not pertain to their fakeness, but the fact is that many of these women are not attractive and some downright repulsive (e.g., Giselle Bundchen), and these lists are based on a good deal of considerations unrelated to sexiness or beauty.  So referring to these lists to infer what women are considered the most attractive by the majority of people is foolish.

Why you want beauty to be described in your own terms,you call a large majority of the population on earth fools (including many whites) because their taste is different from yours.beauty concepts differ from person to person and from nation to nation . asian countries ,muslim countries even UK, extending to cape town africa fall in for indian beauties because of bollywood .In these countries many bollywood films fare well than hollywood. Now it is usual that hollywood directors come knocking the doors of bollywood beauties, many indain film actress turn down these offers due to over body exposure and sex scenes.Bollywood films keep coming up in the Uk top 10 films .you dont find aishwarya beautiful but there are millons or billions around that world that find her beautiful.Reports says that she has the largest fan base in the world taking into consideration that for a long time she has acted only in bollywood films now that hollywood directors are behind her for signing movies and she is to sure to top hollywood

There is no particular standards for beauty and facial features so most beautiful will be the one that appeals to many.Anyway the asian countries ,muslim countries are not concerned about nordic beauties and many of these people find them ugly and tooo pale dead white


326

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:35 | #

Dear j.Richards,

None of the Nordic women in this thread look better than aishwarya rai or sonali or bipasha basu. Some of the Nordic women in this thread are head to toe ugly I will show you out specifically the ugliest ones
1.the Nordic women next to simran, okay i agree that simran looks manly in this photo( i have seen her in real life she looks better than this and womenly) but what about the nordic one she looks like ugly puppet worse than simran.i think this nordic women will be ab lack mark on ur self.

2 now the women next to sonali see that marks on her nose and that two nose holes are standing far away fom each other i dont think that she will attract any white or non white man in this world she is ugly.sonali is thousand times better

3now the women next to mallika (i dont like mallika)  but the nordic women next to her does she have a nose ,is this what you call a fine feature is.oh god .now you compare the nose of this Nordic women to the Nordic women next to asin(not asin’s nose) and do u find any difference

4the women next to urmila you said that this nordic women is not ur favourite okay she has good figure but she looks damn ugly and does not come anywhere near the beauty and sex appeal of urmila.

now you must check out the figures of indian women like SHILPA SHETTY ,shamita shetty thier figures can beat any nordic women you have posted above but they look only average even the nordic women that you have shown with the best figures are not good looking.


327

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:16 | #

dan mohan

Nordic women are so called “ugly” in the eyes of the hindu, but why can’t white women who travel alone pass through India without being sexually assaulted or harassed by brownies.

Of course these women are naieve but you better stay with your dirty hands off from them!
You are out of your retarded mind to think that your ugly country men don’t find blonde women attractive.

You hindus are inferior and you better stay away from our women!


328

Posted by anjali on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:52 | #

“You are out of your retarded mind to think that your ugly country men don’t find blonde women attractive.”

Actually u kno CM ure right…our men do find these nordic women attractive…their most attractive quality however is the fact that they are “easy”...thats why all the boys love em…town bicycles is what they are reffered to as…haha

PS…i am not a hindu…sorry what?!?!

“Damn!  I told you that I did not want this thread to digress into a who-has-the ugliest-women contest.”

You did that a long time ago…Damn!!!

“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?”

The high cheekbones, the cut jaw, the high arch in the brow, the perfectly symmetrical almond eyes…let me reiterate…i am not a hindu

“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.”
pinched nose!! is that what natural sunlight does to her nose?? poor soul… 

“it is clear that Aishwarya has a broader face, more massive cheekbones and more massive jaws.”

“MASSIVE”...you love that word dont ya??? as far as i kno most people find high cheekbones attractive…thats why women pump them with collagen and use all sorts of makeup techniques to define their cheekbones….High cheekbones, for vague reasons, have the flavor of aristocratic beauty…

“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.”

Aishwarya did look pretty flabby at cannes in ‘04, she was told to gain 20 pounds for Bride and Prejudice a movie she shot during that year…however she looked pretty buff and at cannes 2005…and at least her looks havent started deteriorating…too bad we cant say the same for charlize

Southern European women are closer to Northern European women in facial features than Indian women, on average, including upper caste Indian women.

sorry, but the majority of southern european women, especially the italians and greeks have the hooked nose u seem to detest…and lots of indians i know guys and girls alike get asked if they are greek or italian…

“the darker the population, the dumber it is”

hahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
if this statement holds true then u JR must be a black mutha posting under the alias of JR….ive got one thing to say to you…be proud of your dark skin JR

“The evidence cited within this thread by me is state-of-the-art science”

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
Ure a joke u black mutha

“You need to improve your English skills and stop writing in all caps. I have been wasting time responding to your atrocious lack of understanding of what I have written, thanks to your poor English comprehension.  Godamnit, improve your English proficiency.”

Erhh…when ure english is perfect, then ull have every right to start berating others for their poor grasp of the english language…this works on the same principle of “those of you who are free of sine may cast the fisrt stone”.

Anyway, your poor comments are useless to this thread.  The typical Hindu has simply not evolved a better aesthetic sense.”

The rest of the world seems to appreciate our tastes…the taj mahal (moghul architecture) for example…one of the seven wonders of the modern world, along with the great pyramid of giza (middle eastern), great wall of china (asian) are all exapmles of awesome
craftsmanship by the people of their countries respecitvely.

“Laila Rouass, a woman that does not look Indian”
WTF??? what does she look like then chinese? nordic? hah!! she looks everybit indian to me…

Anways this forum/thread/blog whateva it is has become more boring than bat shit…ill go bak to staring at the walls, it was much more interesting…what happened to Malcolm A??

PS…Anon and others i wouldnt bother posting any more pictures…we all know that JR prefers ugly fat viking mammas and cavewomen to beautiful women


329

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:41 | #

You hindus are very funny, you claim children of foreigners as your own, this Leila Rouass is half or full maroccan, Katrina Kalf sounds very indian to me as is Dino Morea.

Now the darker the dumber, it is simply true. Just look at what countries are doing fine, the countries with the best infrastructures, economies, science etc.

About your comment of white women “being easy”, what can a backpacker girl do when she’s being assaulted by filthy hindus, victims of rape are always easy. Just admit that hindus are a bunch of filthy niggers


330

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:14 | #

Hindus and blacks are ugly niggers just being pushed by jewish media.


331

Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:41 | #

Malcolm, J. Richards - you are probably one of the most pathetic human beings to ever exist.
The fact that you can pick apart Aishwarya Rai’s irrefutable beauty just to reconcile yourself that “whites are superior in beauty” makes me want be sick all over your face.

Talking of IQ levels. India was granted independance merely 50 years ago. I’m sure America and the European countries were probably as screwed up in terms of literacy levels, IQ scores just as India is at the moment. (which btw is not as bad as you have made out).
The amount of Indian celebrities people say “do not look indian”! You’re proving my very point! hahaha. The sheer diversity of Indians! - Nordic people can be beautiful - I am not saying that is not true - what i am saying is that you are probably more limited in the way they look than Indians!
Indians may not have blonde people, but we have brown hair and black hair. Indians may not have as many people with light eyes as Nordics do - but you do not have as many people with dark eyes. It works vice versa.
In the U.k. i see so many adverts for spray on tans, tanning creams, tanning bed shops.
The western world is filled with much more vanity about looks than the rest of the World and that is a fact. So many celebrities undergo plastic surgery here it is laughable. You see them on interviews talking about it as easily as though they were plannign which pretentious and overpriced restaurant they would eat at next.
If Nordic, Caucasoid people are so beautiful why undergo so much plastic surgery???
Why do so many whtie celebrities wear enhancer contact lenses, or colored contact lenses or in photoshoots have their eyes “blued up” as it were.
The very first picture posted in the whole of this page is of one of the most average, skimpy and prissy looking women I have ever seen. I am baffled as to how such light hair and such light skin, and such light eyes is an attractive combination.
The indians we have posted here represent a very sizeable chunk of the Indians that live in India and around the world. They have variations int he way they look, darker hair, lighter eyes, lighter skin, darker skin.

It’s funny that you say Aishwarya has a ugly nose or she has massive jaws (the most untrue statement i’ve ever heard of anyone). The fact is that she is so beautiful I could break down into tears just looking at her. She in some ways goes against every single notion that plastic surgeons, modelling agencies and hollywood put out as the ideal.
The problem is here that you are fixed upon what physical characteristics are attractive and what aren’t attractive. It’s about how it all comes together.
If we take a simple look at age - by the time a nordic women is of the age of 30 she will begin to be developing wrinkles. You have absolutely no melanin in your skin, eyes or hair. You are vulnerable to disease, to the UV rays of the sun. An indian woman on the other hand will usually not experience significant wrinklage until the age of 40+ (and that is an underestimate) - one of my friend’s mother’s is 49, wears no makeup and she still has no wrinkles. She is Indian - actually one of the lightest indian women I have seen. Doesn’t this prove my point in whole.

Africans and Indians will sustain their looks much easier - nto having to resort to cosmetic surgery to possess more ‘cat like features’ and fewer wrinkles. For you nordic, your “beauty” (Because you are SOO BEAUTIFUL i mean wow, those freckles, that blotchyness, pastyness, i mean those prissy looking lips, that ghostly yellow hair) is temporary and no doubt couldn’t last more than one day in the Indian sun.


332

Posted by HC on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:52 | #

Brunette women from Norway and Sweden are by far the most beautiful in the world, especially when they have a tan. Indian women are in general way too hairy and have ugly legs.


333

Posted by HC on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:22 | #

In South Africa bc of the great climate and year round sunshine, european caucasoids have the most attractive skin tones - a lovely bronzed colour, whereas Indians and Blacks go too dark. Which is probably why all the rape cases are non-white on white. I have known many Nordics, who while normally quite pasty, when they live in a tropical climate go a lovely brown colour.

Some South African beauties:

file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/tp.jpg

file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/tp2.jpg

file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/roxyingram.jpg

file:///Users/hadcle00/Desktop/Indian.jpg


334

Posted by HC on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:24 | #

ok let me try those images again


335

Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:38 | #

hello C.M,

you said that a lot of white women is raped in india .i will now educate you in this case

these white women are real big fools they walk on the streets of india at mid night as it is thier own country and they are raped by the low class street men.they wear such dresseses to reveal whatever they can and these low class street roudies who dont even get achance to even glimpse a women from a good indian family as the women from high indian families and middle class families are very very beautiful and are not seen roaming the street at night like these white women, the roudies find a way to fulfill thier desire

most of these white women just move in the night alone and it is well know that in india only prostiutes move alone on the streets at night after 12pm and and are easily trapped and raped by these low class beggars of the street.

the high class indian families and middle classes indian families keep themselfs away from the these street beggars and women here do not wear revealing dresses on the street and do not go alone in night.

the white women with thier pea nut brains no doubt cannot think better when they are in different situation because these white women are brought with modern facilities all the time with so many machines to aid them all the time that thier brains work rarely and when it works the indicator is always at zero so it never works

so the incidence of white women being raped in india is not at all related to the high class and middle classes indian men

you look into the cases of these white women being raped it is mostly by low class people like the autoricksaw drivers,,street roudies and the sewage cleaners and beggars. The high class and middle class indian men are not involved in this at all.

so please educate your white women to use their senses and brain when they are outside there country .your cahances of failure in educating then will be 100% failure.


336

Posted by Buster on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 07:13 | #

Its not because of their peanut brains. Its because of their goodness and naivety. White women cannot comprehend the destruction and violence that men of other races are capable of, until ofcourse, they experience it.


337

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:12 | #

“you look into the cases of these white women being raped it is mostly by low class people like the autoricksaw drivers,,street roudies and the sewage cleaners and beggars. The high class and middle class indian men are not involved in this at all.”

You tell that to the Swiss woman of 40 who worked at the embassy in your filthy country. She was carjacked by a bunch of upper caste hindu men, one who drove her car and the other was raping her in the back of the car.
Of course she never wants to go back to your horrible country. 

You are a bunch of filthy niggers and rapists, the gang rape reveals your middle eastern roots of upper caste hindus.
Gang rape is typical of middle easterners and niggers. Of course middle easterners are sandniggers too because they have also black admixture.

Jewish media should stop pretending that filthy india is a good tourists destination while it’s a horrible third world country. Maybe the jews can promote india so their own women do backpacking vacations there and end up with a bunch of hairy moneys all over them.

If it was up to me I would freaking carpet bomb india.


338

Posted by C. M. on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:18 | #

There is something else:

If the jews are so convinced of mix relations I would believe it if Gwynyth Paltrow married a nigger and have nigger children. But for some reason I just don’t think so. They would not jeopardize their carefully acquired European looks after their 1500 years stay in Europe when they entered Europe they looked like a bunch of middle easterners.

So jews must stop pushing the kind of James Blake and the ugly Saira Mohan.


339

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:22 | #

hello C.M,

The 40 year old white women was raped by the two middle aged low class people these guys are not from the high class hindu families .You cannot even read a news well.

Okay you say that we hindus are niggers and rapist then why your white womens keep coming to India in large number. Then stop these white pea nut brains from coming to India. Whatever happends even if they are raped or ripped of everything these white women flock in large numbers to India and that to many come lonely I think these white women love themselfs being sexually assulated and raped by Indian men. any way they make every thing easy for the low class Indian men(street ruodies, beggars ,sweeper class , rikshaw drivers) to rape them. These white women wear such small dresses whatever their age is, so no problem of riping or tearing of their clothes for the rapist and that too walk lonely in the streets and sea shores at night making every possibility of them being raped. These white women are allergic to dress and cannot bear on their body beyond the two piece dress.

The incidence of these white women being raped fall small in number when compared to the number of white women who actually go to bed with the low class Indian men on their trip to India. It is fact in many hotspot tourist sites In India, it Is common to see white women going hand in hand with the local class people mostly the guys in their 20’s to 30’s.It is a shame these white women select theses fruit venders ,ferrymen and other low class maggots to spend their night with. So when these white women get raped it is her own mistake they do not have a brain to think of in a situation. Theses white women befriends any guy who pours a laugh upon them.I have seen a lot of these white women going around with the local guys that we don’t even like to be near with. Oh god put some sense into their heads. Your women are dumbos


340

Posted by DAN MOHAN on Sat, 03 Jun 2006 19:36 | #

Dear JR,

you said
Dan Mohan mentioned Laila Rouass, a woman that does not look Indian, and it turns out she is half Moroccan.

What man what she looks like to you,ya she is half morrocan but she has all the typicl indian features long nose ,black eyes,black hair,her skin tone.She looks every bit indian.You are totally out of mind now, i doubted it but i am now sure


341

Posted by you are all hate filled bastards on Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:06 | #

“If it was up to me I would freaking carpet bomb india.”

Shows your small mind. You white trash morons obsessed with your ugly race should try to get some knowledge and read some books. You are only wasting your time in rebuttling India and Indians because sooner or later, you will be at her mercy.


342

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:49 | #

Gentlemen,

We have a rule here.  We address one another with civility.  No one is faultless in that regard, and I too have slipped into the vernacular more than once.  But I much prefer to read a thread filled with sound argument, eloquently put - and I assume that is your preference, too.  Please raise your game if you wish to comment at MR.

Thanks.


343

Posted by dan mohan on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:03 | #

hello J.Richards,

i am sending you this photo of a south indian women ,she is a bollywood actress she is very very beautiful ,she has this innocent look and a specially gifted beauty i dont think none of the women(indain or white) in the thread has this divine look of innocence , calm and beauty

http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/modules.php?set_albumName=Vidya_Balan&op=modload&name=Gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php



345

Posted by Dan's Mohannis on Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:06 | #

ok, seriously, how do you post pictures on this forum?


346

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:56 | #

Dan,


You post pictures by using putting


Just put the IMG tags around the link. 


Anyways, I’m amazed at how this thread is still going.  May I ask the OP why you specifically chose to do a detailed analysis on Indian females?  Why not East Asian, SE Asian, blacks or non-whites in general?


Here are some pictures of Parveen Babi.  She’s dead.  Her dad is from the Western state of Gujarat.  Her mom is also Indian, but I don’t know which ethnicity she belongs to.



347

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:17 | #

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.


LOL, my mom grew up in India and I grew up in America.  I’m still shorter than her.  wink  Height can vary, and can be a result of any factor.  I still know a lot of short Indian-American second-generationers, even when they do have a good diet.


Some Indians get their height from their family genes.  I know it may be hard to believe for you, but it can happen.  My brothers are 6’4, because my grandad and my uncles were over 6 ft.    Yes, my grand-dad and my brother are vegetarians. 

Based on my observation ONLY- Rajput Hindus, UP/Haryanavi/Rajasthani Hindu Jat community, Balochis, Sikh Jatts, and Malu Nairs tend to be tall and built on average (in comparison to other South Asian communities).  I’m mainly talking about the males, not the females.


348

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:33 | #

Just to let you know, the communities that I mentioned are actually a minority in the West, in regards to the South Asian diaspora.  Only certain South Asian groups and castes are dominant in the West.  That’s why many Westerners aren’t exposed to the diversity of South Asians, and give in to the fallacy that South Asians are supposed to only look a certain way. 


The majority of the communities that I mentioned reside in South Asia, and you would have to go there to see what they look like.


349

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:41 | #

IndianGirl - which group/caste are you talking about? I take it you are a member of this group/caste?


350

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:24 | #

In order to understand the Indian mentality, members of civilisation must consider the actions of a devotee of the goddess Kali. He carefully removes individual lice from his matted filthy hair with the utmost care lest he inadvertently ends the precious life of his parasites, then joins his fellow Thugee cult members in the murder of humans who have been befriended for the sole purpose of human sacrifice.


351

Posted by IndianGirl on Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:47 | #

Lurker,


I was talking about the ones I mentioned in my early posts.


The Rajputs, the Balochis, the Sikh Jatts (not all Sikhs are Jatts), and the UP/Harayanavi/Rajasthani Jats (Hindu community not to be confused with Sikhs). 

I guarantee you that most second-generation Indians have never heard of Rajputs, Balochis or Jats.  Why?  Because, most of them are in India and they make up a greater proportion of the army.


352

Posted by BRUNETTE FAN on Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:53 | #

FUCK THE BLONDES, MARRY THE BRUNETTES.


353

Posted by Amy on Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:16 | #

Well, well…
I was absolutely shocked when I read this paper that someone so ignorant could just go right out and say blonde and white women are way more attractive than non-whites. I strongly disagree and I just think that Peter Frost and this whole paper sounds like Hitler to me. Example of naturally gorgeous non-whites compared to the majority of mankind: Halle Berry is a naturally gorgeous african-american girl.
That is just one example. There are plenty, I mean plenty of people who are non-white that look better than some who are white. It has nothing to do with your race. Dark hair is beautiful when it is thick, shiny, clean, and rich, and full. This goes the same for someone who is a darker complexion. Either you got it or you don’t, and you flaunt it; it has nothing to do with your skin color.


354

Posted by Sacul on Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:03 | #

The fact of the matter is attractiveness is based on preference.  Whoever posted this thread obviously thinks that nordic women are the most attractive woemn in the world, and thats fine (and obviously this individual is a cacausian, probably nordic male).  I know a dozen black guys that would entirely disagree with this argument, and make claim that black women are the most attractive.  I know another dozen East asians that would claim east asians are the most attractive, and the same goes for middle eastern/south asians.
Trying to use science to prove your point is entirely pointless for science has yet to, and never will be able to map put and explain the complexety of the human mind and the thoughts and emotions therein.  And considering what sort of individuals people are attracted to is steeped within human emotion, your argument is entirely flawed.
The only ‘scientific’ method of studying this subject should be that of statistics.  And considering Europeans (furthermore Nordic Europeans) make up only a small portion of the worlds population, and regions such as China (with 1/6 of the worlds population) and India (again 1/6 of the worlds population) contain the highest population densities in the world, it is hard to imagine that Nordic women would be considered the most beautiful women in the world from a statistical perspective.  (considering most indians and chinese are most likely attracted to their own kind of people).

To conclude I am cacuasian, and I am most often attracted to European women, and find myself not so attracted to people of colour.  This doesnt mean that European women are the most beautiful women in the world, even though they may be in my opinion.  Whoever wrote this thread needs to get out of their sheltered bubbled life, and realize there is an entire world outside of America.  If you want to claim Nordic women are the most beautiful in the world, thats cool, but you dont have to demean other races, and attempt to prove that your perspective is scientifically sound….  because it isnt


355

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:56 | #

To dan the dandnigger mohan

Huh so called “two middle age lower caste men"did the rape of the Swiss 36 year old woman.

http://www.countercurrents.org/gen-wadhwa221003.htm

read this moron, it’s clearly that only upper caste men can speak English in filthy india.


356

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:07 | #

dan sandnigger mohan, this is your callsign.

“it Is common to see white women going hand in hand with the local class people mostly the guys in their 20’s to 30’s”

You are talking about 50+ white woman from countries like Germany, right?

Tell me what’s up with you hindus into older women?

The two upper caste rapists in their early twenties raping a 36 year old mother of ? children, but because of their upper caste background they are of course being protected by the india police. One of the Dutch politicians who visited india called india “india is zo corrupt als de neten” a translation is something like"everybody in india is corrupt like hell”.


357

Posted by C. M. on Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:11 | #

you know those 50+ women also go to countries in Africa like Gabon, I saw it on the German television once. Disgusting.
But of course these women will not “score” any young male in their homecountry so…

Besides only hippies or backpackers visit india, the number of europeans visiting india is neglicible. Only the hippies in Goa or the bakpackers who wants to save money go to india.


358

Posted by dan mohan on Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:56 | #

C.M,
You people are brought up like this calling vulgur words,this shows your dirty filthy culture and how people treat each other and how parents grow up thier children..and in your country you dont say rape is not common.you have send me a news of october 22 2003 oh poor man you did not come to know the follow up of the case after 1 year and 2 months the two men were later caught and identified by police one of them who spoke english is a man from lower caste and it is nothing new that a man from lower caste can speak english ,speaking fluent english does not mean that the person is from upper classs and the other person who knows only hindi is still from a even lower class

The case went unfiled and the two rapist eascaped as the women involed in it did not turn up again.

you said only 50+ women are seen with guys here so sorry many of these white women who come to india are young between 20 to 30years. now a large number of white women from europe and USA flock to india.india comes in 5th in the hot tourist spots in global scenary and that to because all these white keep coming up here

http://www.turnkeysoftwareprojects.com/top-destinations.html

in 2000 - 2006 it is seen that many europeans come to india and actually many and many of them settle here in different jobs for a period of 1 year but they tend to stay longer and many of these europerans never leave ,this one below is one example of the many and by BBC news so that you can believe it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4038069.stm


359

Posted by Anon on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:11 | #

You rednecks should stop your petty minded racist discussions and wake up. Islam is knocking at our door. Learn the facts about Islam. Visit http://www.faithfreedom.org

Unless we spread awareness and stop being politically correct, we cannot eradicate this canerous disease in the name of religion. The answer is staring us in the face.

Please read this website and forward it to all your friends and loved ones. Specially make all Muslims read it. An example of what our free democracies can end up like:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AyeshaAhmed60501.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AyeshaAhmed50229.htm


360

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:07 | #

Hi JR

Malcolm has not presented any evidence for there only being three races among humans.  There has never been any agreement in the past as to how many races existed among humans; Cavalli-Sforza himself cited racial classification attempts ranging from 3 to 200 races among humans, and demanded proof of the existence of biological races among humans in a 1997 paper (cited above).  Malcolm 1) picked 19th century literature about 3 races from a Nordicist site; 2) ignored other racial classification schemes; 3) cited a dictionary; 4) ignored current genetic evidence for at least 5 races published in peer-reviewed journals; 5) Ignored craniometric evidence showing that it is not possible to classify humans into three races only or classify whites and East Indians into the same race; 6) misrepresented a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision; 7) cited some statements by Cavalli-Sforza in the 1970s whereby he used terms such as Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid without presenting evidence for only three races among humans; 8) cited a 1988 paper by Cavalli-Sforza to support his arguments even though this paper featured a genetic tree where NE Asians were clustering with the group labeled Caucasoid, not SE Asians; 9) ignored Cavalli-Sforza’s 1997 statement asking biologists who believe in race to offer genetic evidence for it, and so on.  If you bring up again the notion of there being only three races among humans or that whites and East Indians belong to the same race, I will ask you to cite recent evidence from peer-reviewed journals that supports these contentions or else you will not be allowed to comment here

I have no interest in replying to your nonsense, which is quite clearly a waste my time. I happened to return to this “trash’ thread after some time,  and see that you are still villifying me.

My only counter to all this nonsense you have written about me, as quoted above, is that YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST ( by your own admission ) and hence NOT QUALIFIED TO DEBATE OR SPEAK ON THIS MATTER using SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS.

I hope you won’t hide behind your cowardly DELETE button and show some GUTS by posting this reply which is only defending my name, which you seem to be freely using when I am not here to defend it !! Otherwise stop using my name.


361

Posted by dan mohan on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:05 | #

this thread is a waste filled with ugly nordic women who Jr says to be the best are not even good to be compared with the beautiful indian women


362

Posted by Sigurd on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:54 | #

There is a type of face, perhaps not unbearable, though certainly not beautiful, and because of this holding the promise of sex and sex with a certain, shall we say, gratitude.  Non-whites have this face by definition and in decedent ages, when society has lost any sense of proper sexual mores (those that produce good breeding) and sex merely for whimsical gratification predominates, such a face may even become attractive as the goal is no longer breeding but easy sex with a grateful partner.  The appreciation of facial beauty becomes refined in the relatively non-degenerate society, when producing offspring is regarded an obvious duty.


363

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:53 | #

There is a type of face, perhaps not unbearable, though certainly not beautiful, and because of this holding the promise of sex and sex with a certain, shall we say, gratitude.  Non-whites have this face by definition and in decedent ages, when society has lost any sense of proper sexual mores (those that produce good breeding) and sex merely for whimsical gratification predominates, such a face may even become attractive as the goal is no longer breeding but easy sex with a grateful partner.  The appreciation of facial beauty becomes refined in the relatively non-degenerate society, when producing offspring is regarded an obvious duty

Why write gobbledygook to hide the obvious.  Speak for yourself.

Most who say Indians are good looking are Non-Indians of Western origins. ( News magazines like Hello, Vogue, and celebrities like Julia Roberts, Lapierre etc )


364

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:50 | #

Malcom,

Despite my occasional but, I would have thought, quite plain efforts to open your politically darkened eyes you still don’t seem capable of understanding that MultiCult, feel-good liberals and ethnically-aware Jews run the media, and set themselves up as the judges of Western female beauty.  They are utterly unreliable and care only for their ever so anti-racist reputations in the case of liberals and ethnic advancement over the corpse of Western Man in the case of Jews.  Now, is that perfectly clear?  Please don’t repeat the same falsehood again.


365

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:11 | #

You are scary ....Just kidding.


366

Posted by Malcolm A on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:29 | #

Hi Guessed Worker

You are scary ....Just kidding.

Apart from my above quoted attempt at humor, felt that a brief clarification is in order, in regards to your statement, quoted below..

Now, is that perfectly clear?  Please don’t repeat the same falsehood again.

Falsehood = lie.

As Julia Roberts, Dominique Lapierre , HELLO, VOGUE etc., are all on public record , it is obvious that I did NOT lie. (ie:  make something up ).

My rationale as to ‘why they said what they said’ is obviously different from your rationale ( ie; U seem to think it’s a jewsih conspiracy that makes westerners say Indians are good looking !——BTW Wouldn’t Jews be bound to say Jewish women, instead of Indian women, are the best looking ?  ). BUT I did NOT utter a falsehood. So, please don’t accuse me of uttering falsehoods. Not my style.

I did not intend to get dragged into this thread yet again, until I noticed that JR has been using my name very freely after using the DELETE button to suppress all opposing views !!!.

Cheers.


367

Posted by Sigurd on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:39 | #

Malcolm,

Why get angry to hide the obvious.  Speak for yourself (and that great horde of non-whites salivating over white features whilst unable to admit to themselves what this implies.)


368

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:56 | #

Don’t know or care what your style is.  Anyway, the falsehood you have retailed throughout this thread is that the liberal opinion on race which permeates the mainstream media is representative of something more than itself, ie it is a reliable and objective assessor of, for example, Western female beauty.  Self-evidently, it is not.  Your entire argument has no legs.


369

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:14 | #

Hi guessed worker

Don’t know or care what your style is.  Anyway, the falsehood you have retailed throughout this thread is that the liberal opinion on race which permeates the mainstream media is representative of something more than itself, ie it is a reliable and objective assessor of, for example, Western female beauty.  Self-evidently, it is not.  Your entire argument has no legs.

What you state here is an OPINION not a TRUTH or FALSEHOOD. Same for me .

Hi Sigurd

Malcolm,

Why get angry to hide the obvious.  Speak for yourself (and that great horde of non-whites salivating over white features whilst unable to admit to themselves what this implies.)

I am not a NON WHITE. The issue is NOT what you are referring to BUT why are non nordics winning more beauty pageants these days, which is the OBVIOUS that I am referring to. Maybe U should read the whole thread.

Cheers


370

Posted by Mera nam choot on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:45 | #

Must see this, this is funny. Even the Pakistanis consider the Indians as monkeys. They compare the photos of random Indians and Pakis and you can see thier claim to being more attractiveness is due to their more Europeanlike look.

http://www.afghansolidarity.com/forum/index.php?&act=ST&f=3&t=1300


371

Posted by jasmine on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41 | #

The fact is that u people cant digest the fact that indians are the most beautiful people in the world… what u call a hooked nose and whatever… they are the sharp feautures of indians… not blurred like most of the ..... whatever ethnicity girls….. U PEOPLE ARE DEPRIEVED OF THICK AND BLACK ATTRACTIVE EYEBROWS raspberry…. THATS THE DRAWBACK… U GET THAT??????????????????? SORRY FOR ALL THE LOSERS WHO ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THEIR RACE IS THE BEST OF ALL!!!!!!! BOOOOOO…....


372

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:03 | #

Malcom,

The liberal nature and Jewish ownership of mainstream media is NOT an opinion.  You are simply wrong, my friend, to rely upon such destructive voices.

Jasmine,

You simply can’t digest the meaning of this post - which is not, as JR said, about who has the ugliest women.  Try to think more politically.


373

Posted by hmmm. on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:41 | #

Guessedworker, as the founder of this blog - I’d advise you to go through this thread when you have ample time and read the comments - particularly those contributed by MR participants.

Reflect on the language, the tone, the arguments, and the overall contribution of this post/thread to your blog.

Do read the comments first.  All of them.


374

Posted by odin on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:45 | #

Interesting Stuff. I don’t think blonde hair comes from sexual selection though. During the ice ages humans in cold environments could not farm so were hunters. If you look at the predators in the arctic circle like the polar bear or the white fox you will see their hair is light. This is because the light hair provides a hunting advantage as they do not stick out so much against a mostly white background.


375

Posted by odin on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:47 | #

As mentioned men are ruddier and women fairer. This means men generally see white nordic woman as more feminine, and woman see ‘dark and handsome’ as more masculine. Just seeing this you can see ‘diversity’ will be a disaster. What it will actually do is destroy humans diversity by mixing us all together. As mentioned on this thread, I too almost always find it is Jewish people who are promoting immigration or race-mixing, and likely most are them are smart enough to see they are purposely causing the destruction of the white race. An all white school or town is thought to be a horrible thing and they work hard to bus or move minorities into the area.

I too find a lot of Indian, Middle Eastern, and African woman to be sort of manly looking (expecially if they are really hairy), and being closer to Africa they may have more testestorone(see Prof. Rushton) and actually are more manly. This difference though is unfortunate for white men for we have evolved skills that make us superior in warfare or in one on one battles to the death, and I believe we are more honorable men, yet woman can sense higher testestorone levels in darker males and are attracted to it due to an ancient evolutionary instinct. And why are American woman becoming so manly? Is it due to the mixing of races or of cultures? It is beyond feminism, they are getting tattoos, talking vulgar, certain female sports you can see it the most where they look and talk like men.

Everything is averages though and probably most people go against the norm. I think the Indian girls posted were very pretty, and so were the nordic girls but I don’t think they were the best lookers we have. But on average nordic woman are far better looking (Indians you should not hate us for this fact, and you can disagree with it too). Sweden is only around 8 million population, finland 5 mil, and norway 4. India has a billion. They should far more beautiful woman. The scandinavian countries have let in about 10% people of another race, I completly agree what they are doing is going to be a genocide of the nordic genome. Europe and America are becoming like India, a mix of races. Not to say that will not produce beautiful woman but they will all be mixed eventually. I think woman of all races are beautiful. Thats why humans should stay separate. Whether you believe God made us different for a reason, or that we evolved different, either way you should appreciate the diversity the human race has, and seek to help preserve this diversity. I am not saying race mixing is wrong, but there should be areas where each race can have to themselves, as well as areas for the multi-cultural societies we all know and love (or hate).


376

Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:12 | #

This whole post is a sham

NOthing but pictures vs other pictures with a comment from the idiot known as ‘Malcolm’ claiming more ‘refined features’ - no explanation - just “uhh yess.. here you can see more refined features”. shut up you moron.

Why is plastic surgery so common in the WEST? Because vanity is everywhere. You have your pin ups of Angelina Jolie - who btw is czech, french and iroquis indian - and you group her as one of your own merely through the fact that she is “white”???
In fact other beauties such as Jessica Alba are of mixed race as well.
A discussion should involve some element of fact. There is no fact in this. Just opinion after opinion. personally I rate Aishwara the most beautiful woman atm in the world.This does NOT mean that she is! Neither does it mean man-cat Angelina is the most beautiful because a few magasines and polls put her on top. Especially when you can actually she that she has refined her nose in surgery. Especially when you can see what she/(they all) look like without their makeup - pretty AVERAGE.

The thing is - with all these cosmetic enhancements I think people forget that there is nobody who is 100% perfect in their looks - and there never will be. The media has created a level of attractiveness that cannot be matched up to by anyone without the help of the hollywood treatment - surgery, hair extensions/pieces, makeup, hair dyes, coloured contacts etc. etc.

i don’t how anybody can add anything more to this pathetic conversation in which some deluded person is intent upon reinforcing white supremacy on us.


377

Posted by Sigurd on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 06:18 | #

Malcolm,

If you don’t believe in the social and geographic separation of whites from non-whites (which I suspect you don’t) then you don’t believe in the continuance and survival of the white race.  Therefore in what regard are you white?  And if you’re not white, well then naturally you’re a non-white.

And a very insincere apology for not being familiar with every inane word you’ve posted on this thread.  Though you should remember it was you who attacked my comments which were never intended as a rejoinder to anything you had said but rather simply comments directed toward the general theme of the thread.  I hadn’t read one of your comments prior to posting and now that I’ve learned you’re a pro-mixing non-white I’ve made a mental note not to read any in the future. 

Please don’t take it personally, but you see, for some reason, while contemplating solutions for white survival, the things that pro-mixing non-whites like you have to say don’t seem terribly relevant.  Though perhaps I can recommend the comment board at American Renaissance as it seems there is a loyal group of white nationalists who never grow tired of the rather rote exercise of exposing all the obvious delusions, double standards, and hypocrisies of their opponents. 

I think you’ll find it especially rewarding: the perfect place for “whites” like yourself to go to show their Multicultural piety and gloat about Multiculturalism’s ascendancy and invincibility in the face of “evil bigots.”  “It creates the most beautiful women in the world” you could argue “Just look at the recent pageant winners…proof, proof, proof.”  And then maybe you could see about being a judge for one of these pageants.  We’re certain you’d have all the right things to say in the interview.

Though it seems you’ve also found some playmates here.  That they feel it useful even to write three words refuting you is beyond my understanding.


378

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:46 | #

Hi Guessed Worker

Malcom,
The liberal nature and Jewish ownership of mainstream media is NOT an opinion.  You are simply wrong, my friend, to rely upon such destructive voices

.

Even the above quote, is your opinion, which is neither a truth nor a falsehood.

Hi Sigurd

Malcolm,
If you don’t believe in the social and geographic separation of whites from non-whites (which I suspect you don’t) then you don’t believe in the continuance and survival of the white race.

White race is threatened. By whom ? I dont see Osama or the Chinese posing any serious threat to the white race for another 200 to 300 years !. This is just a ‘scare’story invented by supremacists like you who looking for a ‘cause’ for a lack of better things to do..

If our race was in serious danger I would be the first to defend it

Hi Mera Naam

Must see this, this is funny. Even the Pakistanis consider the Indians as monkeys. They compare the photos of random Indians and Pakis and you can see thier claim to being more attractiveness is due to their more Europeanlike look.

Maybe the Pakistanis should take a good look at Musharaff !!

So Pakistanis are different from Indians ? I dont think so !
Pakistan is mainly Indians who emigrated during partition + a few pathans etc..Most muslims in the Indian sub continent were low caste riffraff Hindus who converted to escape the caste system.

You should visit Indian sites to see what Indians call Pakis ! Pakistanis can’t win a beauty pageant to save their life, because of their social backwardness and coarse facial features unlike the more refined and classy Indian elite women .

That Muslim Pakistanis hate India and Indians is a well known fact, which is just a part of Islamic jealousy of Hindu India who beat them in 3 wars etc & leaving them in the dust in technology…..

No one here is arguing that Indians (or Pakistanis for that matter ) are European like. Just that they classify together biologically as close sub-groups belonging to the same race.


379

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:11 | #

Hi Guessed Wroker

In regards to your statements about the liberal media and jewish interests etc., whether I believe the liberal media OR not is irrelevant. The important thing is what is the TRUTH. Well, obviously you believe the TRUTH is something other than what I believe in. Does that mean I am somehow against my race. I dont think so.

WHY ?

I dont think a tiny matter like beauty can threaten the survival of any race. What threatens race is racial/religious prejudice. Are Muslims all of one race ?NO ! Are they attacking eachother and threatening eachother’s survival? YES. Did whites fight eachother and threaten eachothers survival ? YES ( WW I and II)

Therefore, when it comes to survival it is neither race nor religion that matters , but individuals who believe that THEY ARE THREATENED and want to preempt.


380

Posted by Sigurd on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:16 | #

“This is just a ‘scare’story invented by supremacists like you who looking for a ‘cause’ for a lack of better things to do.. “

Where have I indicated I am a supremacist?  In some ways European man is less fit than the other races.  His present dilemma illustrates this.  Particularly the tendency of some of its members to retreat into denial when things are at their most dangerous and the descent of our race most obvious and even convince themselves that things have never been better (nor the women more beautiful.)  I also would never deny “having a cause” (and, indeed, there are a lack of better things to do) but you on the other hand may even be unaware you have a cause.

Simply because your beginning premise has been handed to you as the “truth” and you’ve accepted it as such, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t someone’s “cause”.  Are we to believe whereas we have an “agenda” your concern is simply truth?  We are awed, indeed, by your “nobility.”  Boas smiles down on you and guides you in your pursuit of truth against those deceiving ones with “agendas.” 

Though you seem at least clear headed enough to admit to yourself that whatever the truth is, believing what I believe and saying as much, would not help you much in your chosen profession.  Is this your hidden “cause”?  Or is it really as you say, you would be the FIRST to sacrifice for the benefit of your race.  You’ll have to please excuse that sound of incredulous laughter.  “Warrior of your race” is a bit of a stretch after what you’ve written.  Though as Zeppelin says (and caring little as to what they meant): There’s still time to change the road you’re on.


381

Posted by JB on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:57 | #

J Richards:

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.

those bodybuilders look sick and unhealthy.

Amy:

Example of naturally gorgeous non-whites compared to the majority of mankind: Halle Berry is a naturally gorgeous african-american girl. That is just one example.

an example of a half-white woman combined with hollywoodian rhinoplasty

Anon:

You rednecks should stop your petty minded racist discussions and wake up. Islam is knocking at our door. Learn the facts about Islam. Visit

Visit: http://www.dieforisraelyoustupidgoyim.org

Anon:

Unless we spread awareness and stop being politically correct, we cannot eradicate this canerous disease in the name of religion. The answer is staring us in the face.

Please read this website and forward it to all your friends and loved ones. Specially make all Muslims read it. An example of what our free democracies can end up like

the problem isn’t islam it is us. Their presence among us is a symptom. Our minds have been poisoned by the mass media and the government’s schools. If we still had a collective racial conscience there wouldn’t be millions of arabs living in our lands.

Malcolm A:

My only counter to all this nonsense you have written about me, as quoted above, is that YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST ( by your own admission ) and hence NOT QUALIFIED TO DEBATE OR SPEAK ON THIS MATTER using SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS.

YOU ARE USING CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE A POINT and this point is a fallacy to begin with.

John Jay Ray is a social scientist with a PhD and I don’t see what makes him special or credible. Albert Jacquard is a anarchist who became a geneticist and he’s a believer in Equality of the ‘everyone is born equal’ type so he’s full of s—t despite having one or two degrees in genetics.

Malcolm A:

Falsehood = lie.

a lie is a falsehood told by someone who knows he’s not telling the truth. You could tell falsehoods which you think are true and that wouldn’t make you a liar. Being married to an indian woman this could influence you to the point of telling pro-indian falsehoods and still honestly thinking you are right.

Malcolm A:

White race is threatened. By whom ? I dont see Osama or the Chinese posing any serious threat to the white race for another 200 to 300 years !. This is just a ‘scare’story invented by supremacists like you who looking for a ‘cause’ for a lack of better things to do..

whites should be a minority in the USA in 50 years or so. And Clinton was very happy to tell that to a cheering University of Oregon audience. Same in Canada according to Paul Fromm. In England a hundred years perhaps. In France maybe 70-80. In what used to be our cities we are already minorities. It’s only going to get worse and worse unless whites overthrow the regimes that are killing them.

Malcolm A:

If our race was in serious danger I would be the first to defend it

says the so-called white guy who married a non-european woman


382

Posted by IndianGirl on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:38 | #

WHoever said Indians were “weak” earlier-

Do you know who this man is? 

DALIP SINGH aka The Great Khali

 


He is the tallest wrestler in WWE, and is one of the biggest bodybuilders in the world.  He comes from the state of Himachal Pradesh.  Some people claim that he’s Sikh, but he prays to Hindu Gods and got married in a Hindu ceremony.  Don’t forget that Singh is also a Hindu last name, so he might be Hindu.


383

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:23 | #

That’s the effect of the needle, Indian Girl.  On this website was you should be able to see what is possible with strict adherence to current dietary and training regimens, and NO drugs.

It is a matter of public record that India, despite its population size, is almost invisible in high impact sports achievement.  I am sure there are several areas of human endeavour in which Indian males have excelled, but power-based sport is definitely not one of them.

Is it fair, then, to draw a conclusion from that about the genetic qualities of the population?  Well, let’s look at the one sport - not really high impact, which all India loves: cricket.  There can be no cultural explanation for the fact that India does not and never has dominated world cricket.  Today, with a population of a billion it is not within any distance of that.  Neither is Pakistan, with a population, I suppose, in excess of 130 million, though it has come closer.

Yet the West Indies (an equally poor but, on a global scale, tiny society) Australia, with just 20 million, and apartheid South Africa (ie the Anglos there) have commanded the stage magnificently.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to question the athletic qualties of the Indian population.  It is for Indians to answer on the sports field, if they can.


384

Posted by IndianGirl on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:26 | #

Dalip Singh had a grandfather, who was also close to 7 ft tall.


As far as sports are concerned, it’s important to remember that most Indian parents stress on academic endeavors and want their kids to pursue academic-related careers.  Sports careers and other careers related to the entertainment industry are frowned upon, and anyone who chooses that route over academics will be seen as a failure or “just not smart enough.” 

At one point, even going into Bollywood was almost seen as being a “prostitute.”  Some of the most famous Indian actresses are rumored to be former prostitutes, children of prostitutes, or girls who came from poor, low-class families. 

That’s another reason why you don’t see few Indian females in the Western media.  Most Indian families in America wouldn’t let their daughters get into that kind of business, even if their daughter got offered too.


385

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:26 | #

Hi Sigurd

Though you seem at least clear headed enough to admit to yourself that whatever the truth is, believing what I believe and saying as much, would not help you much in your chosen profession.  Is this your hidden “cause”?  Or is it really as you say, you would be the FIRST to sacrifice for the benefit of your race.  You’ll have to please excuse that sound of incredulous laughter.  “Warrior of your race” is a bit of a stretch after what you’ve written.  Though as Zeppelin says (and caring little as to what they meant): There’s still time to change the road you’re on

.

White race will never be threatened. WHY ? Because numbers dont count. Quality over quantity !!

I dont see a time when all whites will be mixed ? Will never happen. Biologically impossible.

So relax !!

HI JB

says the so-called white guy who married a non-european woman

Hey, I was also married to a lily white woman and have a lily white kid ! Marriage 1 wasn’t as happy as mariage 2 though .

whites should be a minority in the USA in 50 years or so

Numbers don’t count. S. Africa was run by a few whites ( a minority). Did they feel threatened ? I don’t think so.

John Jay Ray is a social scientist with a PhD and I don’t see what makes him special or credible. Albert Jacquard is a anarchist who became a geneticist and he’s a believer in Equality of the ‘everyone is born equal’ type so he’s full of s—t despite having one or two degrees in genetics.

Silly. If you needed brain surgery would you select a highschool drop-out, a qualified civil engineer or a qualified, expereinced brain surgeon ?

Highschool drop out = J Richards
Civil engineer = John J Ray
Brain Surgeon = Malcolm A

Why, because we are discussing Biology and I am a qualified Biologist ( Believe it or not !)

a lie is a falsehood told by someone who knows he’s not telling the truth. You could tell falsehoods which you think are true and that wouldn’t make you a liar

This is again a matter of opinion ( in this case your opinion ). AND an opinion is neither a truth nor a falsehood in anyway.


386

Posted by Sigurd on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:52 | #

“White race will never be threatened. WHY ? Because numbers dont count. Quality over quantity !!”

In what condition will they exist?  In what condition do they now exist?  As guilt-cowed, disempowered, second class citizens LEGALLY less entitled to the jobs of their own country than invading non-whites and whites living abroad?  Without rights as a people, without a culture or in any case a proud culture? As whiggers?  As a dwindling, infertile economic elite that has no loyalty to country, nation, culture or folk of any qualitative beauty, intelligence or strength, but instead must, in the most disheartening and dishonest manner, grovel before, lick the boots of and especially promote the lowest elements of the society in order to remain in power?  As a people that worships money alone whatever the cost?  This is appealing to you?

It seems to me that as their quantity dwindles their quality does as well.  The health and freedom of my people are my concern as well as their existence and clearly, to any free thinking individual who has the slightest sense of fairness, decency and baring this, even a “sense of aesthetic”, this is no way to live. 

Of course, given the weak health of whites as a people, naturally it follows that their very existence is also in peril.  To degenerate means to die to grow unhealthy.  Whoever denies that white race has degenerated does deserve to be called sane.  We know that other races, sub races and even whole species have passed from the stage of history, why would we doubt this possibility when it comes to our own race, particularly as it occurs before our own eyes? 

But like you I don’t believe our race will pass.  I think it will prevail but certainly not by the help of people who are too cowardly to admit the potential terminality of their illness so as to be rendered unable to take steps to reverse it.  As I have said, by no useful definition are you white whatever the biological reality.  In fact your mimicry of us makes you far worse, makes it possible for less brave or less intelligent whites to be deluded by you. 

Are you an example of the quality that you speak of?  Do the traits: courage, nobility and honesty (especially honesty with oneself however terrible the truth) also figure into your definition of quality?


387

Posted by Sigurd on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:59 | #

To degenerate means to die, to grow unhealthy.  Whoever denies that the white race has degenerated does NOT deserve to be called sane.

Sorry about typos.


388

Posted by Malcolm A on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:54 | #

It seems to me that as their quantity dwindles their quality does as well.  The health and freedom of my people are my concern as well as their existence and clearly, to any free thinking individual who has the slightest sense of fairness, decency and baring this, even a “sense of aesthetic”, this is no way to live. 

Of course, given the weak health of whites as a people, naturally it follows that their very existence is also in peril.  To degenerate means to die to grow unhealthy.  Whoever denies that white race has degenerated does deserve to be called sane.  We know that other races, sub races and even whole species have passed from the stage of history, why would we doubt this possibility when it comes to our own race, particularly as it occurs before our own eyes

This is an unscientific observation. Less numbers dont mean less healthy or die out. (re : my example of South Africa during apartheid )

Are you an example of the quality that you speak of?  Do the traits: courage, nobility and honesty (especially honesty with oneself however terrible the truth) also figure into your definition of quality

?

These traits are individual traits not racial attributes.

Are you saying Hitler was a good example of courage, nobility and honesty How about Alfonse Capone or Rcihard Nixon, OR Christine Wheeler ?

Relax. Your own fear mongering is getting to you.


389

Posted by Nikhil Sheth on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:19 | #

Aishwarya and Angelina are the most beautiful women in the world.
Aishwarya is not white. Angelina is of Czech, French, and Iroquis Indian Descent - she is mixed race. Jessica Alba too is of mixed race.
Why is it that blondes rarely win these most beautiful women polls.
How can you therefore state the white nordic race is superior in looks to other ‘races’ if the most beautiful women in the world are of mixed race or just a completely non-white race? Adriana Lima too is of Brazilian descent!

J.Richards and Malcolm (same person!): you are insane, pathetic and probably one of the most ignorant creatures that ever existed on this earth since you had the audacity to write this pile of garbage. It makes me feel physically ill to know that people like you exist.

It’s funny you say that blondes such as “Scarlett Johanson” are so beautiful - yet the have to use and endorse tanning cream products to make their skin more brown to actually look half decent. As well as all that makeup!
                  WOW
You are just a fool aren’t you?! haha


390

Posted by Sigurd on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:25 | #

“This is an unscientific observation. Less numbers dont mean less healthy or die out. (re : my example of South Africa during apartheid )”

It’s an entirely scientific observation.  When animal species dwindle in the wild, it represents a decline in the species health.  What else could it indicate?  Your example of South Africa during apartheid, whatever it is, is not a sound example. 

Generally, relatively high fertility whites colonized non-white territories, dominated and controlled the native population.  Now the reverse is occurring: high fertility non-whites are colonizing white territories and dominating them politically and culturally. 

Politically, rigorously enforced taboos are placed on any criticism of non-whites, and non-whites are encouraged to organize for their own interests, while whites are forbidden from doing so.  Culturally, their garbage culture and its dysgenic consequences are foisted on the host culture.

I think the onus is on you to provide examples as to how whites are healthier or of higher quality now, then in former days.  Otherwise we should assume you forfeit this point.

“These traits are individual traits not racial attributes.”

Whether they are racial traits or individual traits is not the point.  These traits are in decline among all races.  They reappear in traditional societies which by definition are opposed to the sort of senseless racial admixture and bad breeding occurring in modern Western societies.

“Relax. Your own fear mongering is getting to you.”

This is an unhelpful, snide and insulting remark.  I could just as easily point out that it is your side of the debate, that’s engaged in fear mongering, by continually insinuating that any re-assertion of genuine pride in European heritage (thus also the desire to continue it) is tantamount to the rise of a genocidal dictator and a third world war.  For example, by say slipping Hitler into the conversation. 

Has your own fear mongering gotten to you?  See it’s a stupid remark.  It lends nothing to the debate.


391

Posted by mikka on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:22 | #

i read a lot of shit what is considered from a truly scientist on this page. the more i read, the less i got interested by the question what s the relation of ethnicity and beauty, but instead i more and more got catched by the psychological background of that people who vainly praise “nordic features” in this topic.

i would like to know the origins of your mimicry of scientific evaluations.


392

Posted by Malcolm A on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:29 | #

It’s an entirely scientific observation.  When animal species dwindle in the wild, it represents a decline in the species health.  What else could it indicate?  Your example of South Africa during apartheid, whatever it is, is not a sound example.

You are NOT a scientist and this statement proves it.
Humans are not subject to the same evolutionary stresses that animals are subjected to in the jungle. Humans are part of an artificial society . Hence social Darwinism, Social Biology etc..

Generally, relatively high fertility whites colonized non-white territories, dominated and controlled the native population.  Now the reverse is occurring: high fertility non-whites are colonizing white territories and dominating them politically and culturally.

Yet Another ignorant statement . How do you know that whites who colonized nonwhites were “relatively high fertility”
India, China etc., were always more populated than white countires ( so much for your high fertility theory )

Politically, rigorously enforced taboos are placed on any criticism of non-whites, and non-whites are encouraged to organize for their own interests, while whites are forbidden from doing so.  Culturally, their garbage culture and its dysgenic consequences are foisted on the host culture.

Taboos maybe placed, BUT don’t mean they are being followed. Birth control is rigorously imposed in China etc too. That is a universal ting. BUt no one is following them . Not enforced.

[quoteI think the onus is on you to provide examples as to how whites are healthier or of higher quality now, then in former days.  Otherwise we should assume you forfeit this point

Whites are the same as before. Evolution takes thousands of years. So it is upto you to justify your theory that they are low fertility now. You proposed it. Not I.

“Relax. Your own fear mongering is getting to you.”

This is an unhelpful, snide and insulting remark.  I could just as easily point out that it is your side of the debate, that’s engaged in fear mongering, by continually insinuating that any re-assertion of genuine pride in European heritage (thus also the desire to continue it) is tantamount to the rise of a genocidal dictator and a third world war.  For example, by say slipping Hitler into the conversation. 

Has your own fear mongering gotten to you?  See it’s a stupid remark.  It lends nothing to the debate.

You are the one demeaning whites ( saying they are being endangered, less fertile, less healthy, less competitive etc.., w/out supporting data). That is FEAR MONGERING .

I didn’t start the FEAR MONGERING. You did. SO stupid is as stupid does.


393

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:08 | #

Malcolm,

What is your ethnic interest in this discussion?

You call yourself a scientist and you appear to believe that science is some kind of ultimate truth, without which deliberative grace all else is illusion.  This is not a fit foundation for serious debate.  It leads you to ascribe too much importance to your own opinions and not enough to others.

Fertility can be read as birth-rate or as ease of conception.  The former is well below replacement, the latter has been troubling scientists - real ones - for at least a decade.  What are you denying, exactly?

The post-war alien influx into the West is a disaster for us.  Physical dispossession and the permanent harm of miscegenation (which is your life-choice, I understand) are terrible problems which we must find a way to address.  There is nothing demeaning to European Man in this assessment.  It is necessary and it is righteous.


394

Posted by shivani on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:04 | #

wtf u white ppl make me sick, im not racist against you guys since mos tof my friends are white, but what they hell you guys think your so good looking?!! PSHHH…u all are soo proud of ur white skin….then WHY THE F*** ALL THE WHITE GIRLS HERE are soooo OBBESSED WITH TANNING…mmmm maybe to get the ARTICFICAL tan skin such as INDIANS AND OTHER BROWN PEOPLE….oh and their thin features are soo gorgeous…THEN WHY THEY HELL YOU WHITE PEOPLE USING ALL THESE BEAUTY PRODUCTS SUCH AS LIP GLOSS AND LIP INJECTIONS TO GET FULLER LIPS!??!....and culture: all the white girls going around wearing cute sequinced “ballet flats” saying aww look at my cute new shoes!!! when acutually they are PUNJABI SHOES (type of INDIANS… FOR YOU WHITE DUMBASSES) and indian girls have been wearing them for centuries….and why they hell you girls goin around wearing indian jewerly and clothes….why the hell dont u guys follow ur own culture…...OH YEAH THATS RIGHT I FORGOT…..YOU DONT HAVE ONE!!! and you guys think your soo smart?! wtf most the indians that are in us and england are there to do jobs YOU WHITE PPL CANT DO SUCH AS DOCTORS AND ENGINEERS….you guys are soo dumb….heck im in AP ENGLISH IN MY HIGH SCHOOL AND HALF THE PEOPLE IN MY CLASS ARENT WHITE….MOST OF THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE IN REGULAR ENGLISH GETS C’s, D’s, F’s…..in a class of their OWN LANGUAGE!!!


395

Posted by Racist to the maximum on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:05 | #

Dude,  I know u have done some research but your ideas r simply racist. Beauty is inthe eye of the beholder. Humans are all equal irrespective of sex, race, skin colour. Grow up mate.


396

Posted by Malcolm A on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:22 | #

Hi G.W.

What is your ethnic interest in this discussion?

You call yourself a scientist and you appear to believe that science is some kind of ultimate truth, without which deliberative grace all else is illusion.  This is not a fit foundation for serious debate.  It leads you to ascribe too much importance to your own opinions and not enough to others.

Fertility can be read as birth-rate or as ease of conception.  The former is well below replacement, the latter has been troubling scientists - real ones - for at least a decade.  What are you denying, exactly?

The post-war alien influx into the West is a disaster for us.  Physical dispossession and the permanent harm of miscegenation (which is your life-choice, I understand) are terrible problems which we must find a way to address.  There is nothing demeaning to European Man in this assessment.  It is necessary and it is righteous.

1. The point is that I don’t believe in the widely held “Myth” that the white race is endangered by any other race. It never was and never will be.

Low fertility, if true, can be resolved by scientific means - eugenics etc..and we possess enough hi tech to do that

Immigration was a well thought out policy to keep western society from disintegrating byway of there being not enough people to do the difficult and unpleasant labor work that we arent willing to do anymore.  In South Africa, a vey small white minority managed to thrive despite being outnumbered a100 :1. |Were thry in danger of being assimilated ever ? I dont think so.

2. I don’t believe that admitting the fact that some women of other races are prettier than some beautiful white women is in any way endangering the survival of the white race.

3. This FEAR MONGERING - “white race is endangered ! It’s very survival is at risk !! We are the underdogs !!!” etc -  is the actual cause of our downfall as it erodes our self confidence.

AND MOST OF ALL THESE MYTHS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE AND SCIENCE IS THE UNIVERSAL YARDSTICK irrespective of whether you and I agree or not.


397

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:02 | #

Malcolm,

Now your political naivety is shining though.  Loss of living space is killing to a people.  Loss of culture is killing, too.  If you devalue these things to the point where you “don’t believe in the widely held Myth” etc, etc you will simply fail to grasp the arguments, and that is what is happening.

Nonetheless, the arguments are irrefutable.  If high “r” peoples gain admission to a geographic area belonging to a high “K” people, and if that high “K” people are seduced into complacency by liberalism, and their remaining survival instincts are effectively outlawed by their own Establishment, the prognosis is poor, wouldn’t you say?

So which part of this “myth” do you not believe in?

That the native peoples of the West are losing living space?

That their populations are receding, and all population growth in their homelands is due to immigration?

That their interests have been shaped by the individualism and self-interest which is the end-product of the liberal zeitgeist?

That their normal, healthy expression of EGI - visible among other all peoples in all other societies - has been rendered morally illegitimate, and in several important regards actually illegal?

On the “well thought out policy” of immigration, outside of organised Jewry, I don’t believe it was thought through at all.  Certainly, the post-War British govenments stumbled into it with very little understanding of what it might mean.

On science, it is NOT the universal yardstick, since not all people are members of the cognitive community.  Philosophy IS, since all people have ideas, however knowingly, which arise in serious thought.  Actually, science is only politically valid to the degree it is “potable”.

Malcolm, this is a very long thread and takes a while to load.  We will take quite a while, I think, to penetrate your carapace of complacency.  Why don’t you find a suitable alternative and camp there, if you seriously want to discuss politics.


398

Posted by Stefan Kallin on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:38 | #

Being myself a blond blue-eyed male with Swedish parents I tell you this: Scandinavians have lived their life in Scandinavia for some thousands years without much interference. Reason? No one wants to come here because there’s nothing here to get. The only times we had contact with the outer world is when we made war on it (Vikings and Thirty year War).
Most of us would rather live somewhere else where it is warm and the food is plenty. Our present situation is as mentioned due to advanced social democratics.
Furthermore I would like to see some pictures of your faces before you criticise the looks of any woman.


399

Posted by Emily on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:03 | #

By nordic white women being more beuatiful, do you mean compared to indian women, or all, such as asian, spanish, etc?


400

Posted by Malcolm A on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:29 | #

Hi G.W.

Point taken.

Will decamp, if that’s what you want me to do.

I am unsure as to whetehr I can camp elsewhere, though, due to time constraints and lack of knowhow !

Cheers.


401

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:26 | #

Comments have continued to pile up while I have been away, including insane comments, and worst of all, obstinate Hindu “Malcolm A” is back!  Damn Malcolm, I told you to stay off of this thread unless you prove your scientific credentials and agree to a civil debate.  I will address your comments, but will reply to some others first. 

—————————-

Stefan Kallin,

I know that liberals have been trying to convert Sweden to hell, and may they be damned to Hel.  Amen!  Anyway, now that people the world over know about Sweden, non-whites are eager to migrate to Scandinavia for its generous welfare checks, and non-white men have been itching to get their hands on blonde women.  Scandinavia’s greatest treasure is its Nordic stock, and I sincerely wish that the Nords up there wake up to their senses and urge, even pay non-whites, especially Moslems, to go back where they came from.   

I don’t see why you need to see the faces of those of us who are describing the looks of some women in unflattering terms.  What do our looks matter?  Male beauty is no match for female beauty.

—————————

Emily,

Nordic beauty is the epitome of beauty, i.e., it is far superior to the beauty of any other people, as partially evidenced by a long history of non-Nordic European women trying to look Nordic, and most men placing Nordic women at the highest level of beauty rankings.  In case you are wondering why this thread has addressed East Indian women, some tout the virtues of race mixing, and if there is any aesthetic merit to race mixing, it should be most extensively observed among South Asians, and hence this thread has attempted to examine whether this is the case.

—————————

Shivani,

Read previous comments prior to commenting.  Whites do not tan because they value naturally dark skin, but because ever since most jobs moved indoors, poor whites have typically ended up pale, and a tan has become a marker of high status.  Regarding white women using lip gloss, this is to enhance their seductiveness, not to make their lips thicker.  Some white women, disproportionately with unusually thin lips, may resort to lip injections to make their lips thicker, but this is not because they admire the thicker lips of non-whites, but because more feminine women within a population have lips that are thicker than average, and white women attempting to make their lips thicker are trying to be more seductive to men.  The same white women disproportionately dye their hair blonde rather than dark, and when they have nose jobs, they try to make their noses straighter and narrower, not more hooked and broader as among non-whites.  Regarding ballet flats, I have never heard of them, but I gather they are some kind of footwear.  So what if some whites adorn themselves with Indian jewelry and clothing?  Most whites do not find Hindus in their midst welcoming, but you and many Hindus apparently would rather live in the West than in the Third World hellhole the “superior” Indian intellect has built.  By the way, for someone in AP English in high school, you spell beautifully…I am so impressed!

—————————

Indian girl,

You have asked why this thread has addressed East Indian women.  I have previously addressed East Asian women, and at some point it would have been pertinent to addressed East Indian women because of the alleged benefits of race mixing.  My original entry only had a few comparisons; the rest were posted in response to the lame defense of Indian beauty by the Hindu signing off as “Malcolm A..”

You have attempted to counter the claim that East Indians have a weakly built physical constitution, on average, by using the example of 7-foot-3 wrestler and bodybuilder Dalip Singh.  This is the equivalent of saying that the likes of Yao Ming invalidate the claim that the Chinese are shorter than the Dutch.  The weaker physical build of East Indians is a common observation, has been repeatedly documented in the scientific literature (citations in a previous comment), and is evidenced by the poor athletic prowess of East Indians.  Dalip Singh’s face shows growth abnormalities.  Whites with abnormal growth have outgrown the likes of Dalip.  For instance, Andre the Giant was only about an inch taller than Dalip, but was at least 80 pounds heavier, though he was not a bodybuilder.  There is also 7-feet-tall Paul Wight without any abnormal facial growth; he is about 80 pounds heavier than Dalip, without being a bodybuilder.  Normal Indian body builders are no match for normal white bodybuilders.


402

Posted by J Richards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:30 | #

Nikhil Sheth,

Why do you criticize Malcolm A when he is a Hindu who is arguing on your behalf?  As to who is the real ignoramus and fool, consider your own arguments.  Scarlett Johansson is not blonde, and who has said that she is a beautiful woman?  Certainly not me; I do not like her looks.  Tanned skin helps unknown whites convey an impression of high status since richer whites have more time to spend outdoors, which normally results in a tan.  High status individuals such as Scarlett do not need a tan to convey an impression of high status; people already know of her high status.  Pale women such as Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore have ended up in high profile lists of beautiful women, and whites in general have not expressed any displeasure at the paleness of the skin of these women.  Besides, here is part of the Vanity Fair cover from a short while back, showing Scarlett Johanasson and also the normally-dark Keira Knightley as pale.  Do you seriously believe that whites find the paleness of these women unacceptable? 

Scarlett Johansson, Tom Ford and Keira Knightley on the cover of Vanity Fair

Besides, Scarlett has been named the top-sexiest woman in FHM magazine’s latest poll. 

You apparently do not have the intellect to understand that the prominent lists of supposedly the most attractive women must include a diverse background of women lest they be seen as racist.  Hence, we see the likes of Aishwarya Rai being named in such lists when her actual “beauty” is self-evident from her pictures shown previously.  Besides, few people will bother to assess how Aishwarya looks like from multiple angles, but as her pictures within this thread reveal, the woman has massive cheekbones, large jaws, a flattened face, thick lips, a hooked nose, etc.  I can understand Hindus finding her to be attractive, but don’t kid yourself; most whites have a better aesthetic