May 8, 2014

Galton on the Chinese, 1873

In response to my post below about how it's increasingly difficult for contemporary intellectuals to remember accurately past views due to the perceived need to attribute all contemporary racial and sexual disparities to the malignity of historical attitudes, a commenter points to this 1873 letter from Francis Galton as germane to the question of what whites in the past thought about economic potential of East Asians. 

Darwin's half-cousin was, among much else, both a pioneering statistician and an explorer of Africa
AFRICA FOR THE CHINESE.
Francis Galton, letter to the Editor of The Times, June 5 1873. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. 
Sir, - ... I am desirous of availing myself of the opportunity to ventilate some speculations of my own, which you may, perhaps, consider of sufficient interest to deserve publication in the Times. My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese settlements at one or more suitable places on the East Coast of Africa a part of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would not only maintain their position, but that they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race. I should expect the large part of the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages living under the nominal sovereignty of the Zanzibar, or Portugal, might in a few years be tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese, living either as a semi-detached dependency of China, or else in perfect freedom under their own law. In the latter case they would be similar to that of the inhabitants of Liberia, in West Africa, the territory which was purchased 50 years ago and set apart as an independent State for the reception of freed negroes from America. 
The opinion of the public on the real worth of the Negro race has halted between the extreme views which have been long and loudly proclaimed. ... The Chinaman is a being of another kind, who is endowed with a remarkable aptitude for a high material civilization. He is seen to the least advantage in his own country, where a temporary dark age still prevails, which has not sapped the genius of the race, though it has stunted the development of each member of it by the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him, and no treatment is better calculated to remedy that evil than location in a free settlement. 
The natural capacity of the Chinaman shows itself by the success with which, notwithstanding his timidity, he competes with strangers, wherever he may reside. The Chinese emigrants possess an extraordinary instinct for political and social organization; they contrive to establish for themselves a police and internal government, and they give no trouble to their rulers so long as they are left to manage those matters by themselves. They are good-tempered, frugal, industrious, saving, commercially inclined, and extraordinarily prolific. They thrive in all countries, the natives of the Southern provinces being perfectly able to labor and multiply in the hottest climates. Of all known varieties or mankind there is none so appropriate as the Chinaman to become the future occupant of the enormous regions which lie between the tropics, whose extent is far more vast than it appears, from the cramped manner in which those latitudes are pictured in the ordinary maps of the world. But take a globe and examine it, and consider the huge but poorly-peopled bulk of Africa, by whose side the areas of India and of China look insignificant, and think what a field lies there for the development of a suitable race. The Hindoo cannot fulfil the required conditions nearly as well as the Chinaman, for he is inferior to him in strength, industry, aptitude for saving, business habits, and prolific power.

In reality, South Asians did migrate to East Africa in not insignificant numbers, and took over much of the commercial life of Kenya, much to the outrage of President Obama's father and Kenyan half-sister Auma.
The Arab is little more than an eater up of other men’s produce; he is a destroyer rather than a creator, and he is unprolific.

Six decades later Evelyn Waugh wrote two spectacular novels about his trips to East Africa, Black Mischief and Scoop, along with much travel journalism. Unlike the progressive reformer Galton, the reactionary Waugh greatly admired the Arabs in East Africa and Yemen for their aristocratic indolence and lack of economic dynamism, comparing their decadent ennui favorably to the enterprise of the Indians who got on his snobbish nerves.

Anyway, 140 years later, Chinese colonization of Africa is taking off, with over 1 million in Africa today. Of course, Africans are also showing up in China.

The future shall be full of interest.
  

165 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hilarious stuff. Sounds like Sanford and Son.

Fred G. Sanford. G is for Galton.

http://youtu.be/Ie1eFsbI6XE?t=10m18s

hardly said...

Perhaps the best indication of the genetic differences produced by India's caste system is that Chinese handily outcompete Indians in pretty much every society the two peoples were imported to (Singapore, the West Indies, Africa, Malaysia). The British primarily sent out lower Indian castes to be labor for the plantations. Singapore, for instance, has a lot of middle-lower caste Tamil hindus but no Brahmins.

On the other hand in North America, where the Indian immigrants are from relatively higher castes, the gap between Indian and Chinese Americans is not so huge. Indeed, Indian Americans earn more and outperform Chinese Americans in most areas.

However, the naturally higher Chinese mean IQ will gradually lead them to rise to the top, as they do in most mixed societies. You can already see Chinese IQ make itself felt in the teams America sends to the Mathematical Olympiads.

Anonymous said...

He noticed that the Chinese were unoriginal, but attributed it to politics, i.e. to nurture. Chinese politics changed enormously several times since then, but the Chinese are still unoriginal. It's nature. In his time the Chinese were extraordinarily prolific (i.e. had lots of kids) and the Arabs weren't. Those roles have totally reversed now.

Everyone should listen to Steve and read Scoop and Black Mischief. They are works of genius.

Gammil said...

" He is seen to the least advantage in his own country, where a temporary dark age still prevails, which has not sapped the genius of the race, though it has stunted the development of each member of it by the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him, and no treatment is better calculated to remedy that evil than location in a free settlement."

Some things never change...this is a pretty good description of a typical Chinese character in modern times. I do disagree with the theory that relocation would change their behaviors based on what we can currently observe.

Hepp said...

Arabs are unprolific?

Are you going to talk about the North Korea racist screed against Obama?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/north-korean-screed-against-obama-illustrates-race-based-worldview/2014/05/08/9bc7a68f-7b71-4110-b4f1-85ae05c92777_print.html

Anonymous said...

The big question imo is coastal China vs inland.

Giles said...

As someone who's read through numerous racialist books and travelogues written before WWII (i.e., before the era of political correctness and cant), I can say that the only two groups who are universally denigrated for their deficient intelligence are sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. Even well-intentioned observers like Anthony Trollope couldn't help but comment on the coarse mind of the Blacks he encountered.

On the other hand, just about every other group -- Semites, Amerindians/Mestizos, Hindus, Asians of various sorts -- despite having their share of detractors, have also had their intelligence and ability praised by numerous impartial commentators.

Anonymous said...

I think that Chinese people going to Africa en masse for business purposes is one of the biggest mistakes they are making right now. There are dumb people in every race, and the Chinese are no exception. White Europeans would not have the problems they now do if they had just stayed in Europe and minded their own business. In fact, The various European countries would be White versions of Japan right now if they had not colonised, conquered, enslaved people, and immigrated to North America, Oceania, and South Africa.

I bet that the same exact problems that White people made for themselves will happen to the Chinese people. People never learn and we are all fools to some degree, regardless of race and individual IQ.

Bert said...

Indians also dominate much of the commercial life in Tanzania, having come over in significant numbers since the fall of socialism.

They used to dominate Uganda as well, until a certain former boxer came to power.

Most of the Chinese in Africa today, however, are miners and engineers working for foreign companies. At the first sign of danger they'll be out of there fast.

Anonymous said...

Indians also dominate much of the commercial life in Tanzania, having come over in significant numbers since the fall of socialism.

What the did the Russians "people's hotel owners" do there after the fall of socialism?

Anonymous said...

the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him

Sounds just like Jockmerican public school...

Anononymous said...

My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese settlements [...] a part of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would [...] multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race.

So he was an open-borders libertarian of the econo-log variety.

Anononymous said...

occupied by lazy, palavering savages
[...]
might...be tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese
[...]
They are good-tempered, frugal, industrious,


Replace Negro with Americian and Chinese with Mexican and you have a NY Times article. The cassava is rotting in the fields.

Seth said...

And yet the one thing he did not say is that the Chinese are highly intelligent, or more intelligent than Europeans. Considering his obsession with talent and intelligence, this is striking.

It is indeed highly instructive to recall these early Europeans opinions on Chinese. They all noted the incredible thrift and industriousness of the Chinese. And we see this today; an incredible capacity for hard remains their greatest, and only serious, advantage.

Anonymous said...

So Galton found the chinese to be racially superior to africans, indians and arabs. That correlates well to today's HBD race hierarchy.

Btw, Nicholas Wade's new book also expounds on the genetic inferiority of the negroid africans and the caucasoid iraqis and afghans.

Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the best indication of the genetic differences produced by India's caste system is that Chinese handily outcompete Indians in pretty much every society the two peoples were imported to"

Except the US, where genuine smarts and talent is rewarded more than hard work and a capacity for organization.

Alat said...

Another quote from the same mould, from Arthur Diosy's The New Far East, fourth edition (1904), pages 337-339:


Were we mindful only of our own interests; did not philanthropy, which knows no distinction of race, or of nationality, fill the hearts of some of us; did greed, lusting after the fortunes to be made out of an awakened China, not animate others; did these opposite feelings not combine to sway the minds of many more, we should fervently pray that the Celestial Empire might continue in its lethargic slumber for evermore. Once the many millions of China call in the hitherto despised aid of Western science, they will not for long be content to employ it chiefly for the benefit of the Occident.

The busy factories, such as the one Kubota has prophetically depicted, where docile, intelligent Chinese will work in swarms, for fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, under this skilled guidance of Occidentals, will, in due course, be succeeded by similar establishments conducted, on their own account, by scientifically – trained Chinese. Imagination falters at the contemplation of the prospect. What chance will the workers of the Occident, striving daily to do less work for higher wages, have against the teeming millions of Chinese, sober, docile, marvellously thrifty, intelligent and skilful, working, unremittingly and cheerfully, for pay that would keep them in comfort, but on which no Occidental could live ?

[...]

Here is food for reflection for the Occidental industrial classes, high and low, especially for those who contribute their labour. If a correct appreciation of the industrial possibilities of the New Far East – possibilities that will be probabilities next year, and certainties within this generation – could be brought home to the Occidental workers, Capital and Labour would, if not entirely bereft of reason, cease their internecine strife. Here is a question for our Socialists, of various shades, to consider. How do they propose, if any of their social systems be put into operation, to cope with the competition of the Yellow Multitudes, to whom Socialism is as naught ?

anony-mouse said...

'... if they had just stayed in Europe...'

But Europeans are by nature travellers (Polo, Da Gama, Columbus, Magellan, Cook, Gagarin, Armstrong, Aldrin...)

Anonymous said...

However, the naturally higher Chinese mean IQ will gradually lead them to rise to the top, as they do in most mixed societies. You can already see Chinese IQ make itself felt in the teams America sends to the Mathematical Olympiads.


Ah, it's our old friend "Yan Shen".

Anonymous said...

" ...incredible capacity for hard remains their greatest, and only serious, advantage."

I'd say they have one advantage besides their remarkable capacity for hard work: a remarkable ability to maintain order. Violent crime is unbelievably low in China, lower than it was in Europe before immigration. Over the millennia they've had more peace, less war, rebellion, mayhem and revolution than the West. Yes, they've had war, rebellion, mayhem and revolution, but if you take the very long view and average out the ups and downs, I think you'll find that they've been more orderly than anyone else on Earth. This orderliness is surely related to docility, which is related to lack of innovation, so it comes with a price. But it's a real thing.

Anononymous said...

Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?

Because the ancesters of the people who are in nothern Europe now hadn't yet migrated to their present location at that early time.

King Tut’s DNA is Western European

Anonymous said...

"However, the naturally higher Chinese mean IQ will gradually lead them to rise to the top, as they do in most mixed societies."

But Chinese have more rigid ah-q.

Not as creative as IQ.

Here is real life ah-q.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Story_of_Ah_Q

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps the best indication of the genetic differences produced by India's caste system is that Chinese handily outcompete Indians in pretty much every society the two peoples were imported to."

It could be overseas Chinese are united as a group whereas Indians even away from India tend to be separated by caste or caste consciousness.

If you know Asian-Indian community in the US, you'll notice group cohesion isn't the strongest suit.
Younger ones tend to be more liberal get along with all kinds of Indian-Americans but immigrant parents are pretty much old school and regional/caste consciousness matters still. And even liberal children stick pretty close to family and clan.

Among Chinese, ethnicity trumps clan. Among Indians and Pakistanis, clan still counts for more in many cases.

Anonymous said...

"He noticed that the Chinese were unoriginal, but attributed it to politics, i.e. to nurture. Chinese politics changed enormously several times since then, but the Chinese are still unoriginal. "

I really have to laugh at people who are insular and ill-informed enough to think the Chinese are in any way unoriginal. Their philosophical systems and religions are largely indigenous, and anything they did adopt wholeheartedly - Indian Mahayana Buddhism for example, they completely altered to suit their own purposes.

For most of the common era China's technological accomplishments were unrivalled, and their traditions of arts and letters are the most sustained and prolific that humankind has ever hosted.

Anonymous said...

"For most of the common era China's technological accomplishments were unrivalled, and their traditions of arts and letters are the most sustained and prolific that humankind has ever hosted."

Firecrackers are unrivaled in noise.

Anonymous said...

More than lack of originality, the problem is lack of individuality and accountability in China and elsewhere in Asia.

It's a fear and shame and punishment culture.

Japanese cinema in 50s/60s and Hong Kong cinema in the 80s showed how creative Asians can be under certain circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4dUq4zE_o

Aristippus said...

The funny thing about Afro-Chinese relations is that the Chinese absolutely hate blacks. There's a phrase, "hēi guǐ" (pronounced like heg-way) that means something like "black devil" and, to my understanding, is the worst racial Chinese slur. The Nanjing anti-African protests (that involved African exchange students getting better housing than Chinese students) were also a contributing cause to the Tiananmen Square protest and there was basically a black curfew in Beijing for the Olympics.

My point being that the Chinese might like Africa's natural resources and have professionals involved in resource extraction, but they have about as much affinity for black people as a Korean shopkeeper during the Rodney King riots did. It makes me wonder if during the 19th century, Europeans should have fully colonized Africa like the United States or Australia.

Anonymous said...

"Firecrackers are unrivaled in noise."

How cute. Care to provide a substantive response as opposed to a failed attempt at snide mirth?

"More than lack of originality, the problem is lack of individuality and accountability in China and elsewhere in Asia.

It's a fear and shame and punishment culture. "

What rubbish - you've never lived in Asia and you know nothing about Chinese history.

Chinese from mainland China, to the immense consternation of Hong Kong Chinese and Singaporeans, have proven fairly difficult to shame when they bring their poor habits mores abroad.

Confucianism was never about shame or punishment - it was about foster a sense of conscience in individuals in order to forgo the need for punitive measures.

hardly said...

Man some of the my-race-better-than-others commentary, even in this pro-HBD corner of the internet makes you think the leftists have a point when they act like IQ differences are too toxic to be released into the public view.

For the record I'm Asian Indian, and I have no qualms admitting the Chinese are better adapted than Indians to thrive in modern multicultural societies. And they have higher IQs. The facts are undeniable. Same goes for whites. Higher IQs than Indians, but lower than Chinese.
Go to the websites of the Mathematics and physics olympiads. They are some of the purest IQ tests out there. The preponderance of orientals is stunning.
Off and on, you see some Western countries among the gold medalists. Then you look closer and find that 75% of the "Canadian" and "USA" and "Great Britain" and "Australia" teams are of East Asian descent. It's like that East African Immigrant who won the Boston marathon this year, it wasnt as great a victory for "American sport" as race-blind liberals claimed.
Chinese may be low on creativity compared to whites, but that's an unsubstantiated assumption for now, given that we dont even know what creativity is, much less how to accurately measure it. And the effect of the 1960s, which unleashed creativity in the West, was not felt in China.
I doubt the creativity claim, though. A cursory reading of history indicates the depth and sophistication of Chinese thought over the last 2000 years. A race of grinds couldn't possibly have pulled it off.
Not that I have a problem with grinds, but some of the commenters here seem to think being hard working is a sign of inferiority. A modern American idea, that only spontaneous expressions of your inner self are to respected, as opposed to anything that came about through effort and gradual improvement. Exemplified on Reddit, where everyone thinks he is a genius, it's just that he isn't hardworking enough to carry out his plans. (disclaimer- I thought the same way about myself until a couple of years ago).

Anonymous said...

generally agree with the comments on the indian caste system here - indians export it, and there are real cultural and probably genetic differences between castes that matter a great deal.

from personal experience, i can tell you that the indians from kerala who went to south africa, botswana, et al as teachers in the public school system were generally middle/lower caste people who found it difficult to integrate socially/otherwise with the existing indian business/baniya communities in those countries. it's a huge negative. north america is different, because of who first immigrated and because of cultural reasons.

won't speak to chinese creativity, but indian iq and other traits are likely to become much clearer in india over the next few decades, as internet/other new economy sectors start to grow. i would wager brahmins and baniyas have large leadership/development rules, disproportionate to their population.

Anonymous said...

also agree with previous commentator.

my rough guess is that smart chinese and medium iq, high grit chinese are better adapted generally than indians. the thing you have to understand is the degree of conformity in indian society itself and the diversity inculcates it in the bone. the ones who leave are the outliers. of course, some of them late come to jesus and become more catholic than the pope, but that's a universal tendency.

Arvind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Both Africa and Latin America are falling out of American influence. They are trading more and more with China and benefiting from heavy chinese investments.

Africa is growing fast economically. It has a higher per capita income and much less malnutrition than India. There are a number of African countries that have higher per capita income than a number of all-white eastern european countries.

The chinese are building infrastructure there at a rapid rate. Things are definitely changing for the better.

Dave Pinsen said...

One of the prerequisites of civilization is a surplus of food, so it makes sense that civilization began in the Fertile Crescent. It's also possible that the people who lived there in ancient times (at least, the smart fraction of them) were smarter than their descendants today.

That sort of regression seems to have occurred with the Greeks and Portuguese, for example. I can't think of any contemporary Greeks on the level of, say, Archimedes or Aristotle.

Similarly, if Portugal hadn't regressed from the age of exploration, there'd be Portuguese colonies on the moon now. What Vasco da Gamma did was the 16th century equivalent of landing on the moon.

Anonymous said...

Ever been to Lagos? All the businesses are in the hands of the Indians and the Lebanese.

Anonymous said...

IMHO, the Chinese are welcome to 'takeover' Africa. Let them try. I unequivocally predict right here and now that they will fail Africa will defeat them, Africa will beat them. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, The Chinese will have a catastrophic disaster on their hands. Mark my words. The Chinese think that they are being bold and clever going for all these natural resources in exchange for 'development', but mark my words they will come unstuck, big time.
Talking aboout old time writers, he words of Albert Schweitzer, who is now un-PC and forgotten, ring in my ears about the truth about Africa and the Africans - 'they will destroy you', 'they will devour you'. No matter how 'tough' or 'clever' , 'better' or 'more advanced' the would-be colonists of Africa think they are, the Africans will win out in the end and wipe out the colonists and all their works. In general people just don't get the African characteritics of irrepresibility, tribal instinct, desire to drive out strangers, the sheer incessant aggression and hostility, the whole anarchic package. People can't see how this sheer impossibility of character always bu always wins out in the end.
How do you reason with peoples who maintain 50% HIV rates 20 years after the epidemic started?
You can't reason, and you won't reason.

Anonymous said...

"The funny thing about Afro-Chinese relations is that the Chinese absolutely hate blacks. There's a phrase, "hēi guǐ" (pronounced like heg-way) that means something like "black devil""

Hmmm, you conveniently neglected to mention that the chinese have hateful racial epithets for europeans too. Like gweilo, yang guizi (white devil in mandarin), bok guai (white devil in cantonese) etc

Anonymous said...

Dalrymple's review is actually pretty bad.

Anonymous said...

I like Anonymous' comments about the Africans...

That's why I respect blacks despite the different IQ. There's just something there, something gritty.

And yes, blacks will easily defeat the Asians. It doesn't take long to slaughter people...a few hours will do it.

I find Asians tiring. They are the embodiment of what Steve said about the SAT. It's a waste of time to spend 4 summers worrying about the damn thing, yet you have to compete with Asians.

It's a waste of my time. Go away so I can focus on what's important and not compete with people who have nothing else to do.

Anonymous said...

"Ever been to Lagos? All the businesses are in the hands of the Indians and the Lebanese."

Actually Nigeria has 4 billionaires all self-made, including the richest man in Africa, Alito Dangote worth $24.5 billion. They are all black natives of Nigeria.

Anonymous said...

"Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?"

In a word: climate. Those areas were more suited to agriculture - a precursor to civilization - and did not require as high an IQ threshold to obtain it as did colder areas like Northern Europe. Note that it still required a higher IQ threshold that was present in sub-Saharan Africa.

Ernst Gombrich said...

Remember that wood rots.

The artifacts from European culture go back very far. Cave art and sculpting are ver very old in Europe. I hazard a guess that the ice shelf was quite active too and that the north end of the Black Sea was civilized at an early time.

Ed said...

Yet in apartheid South Africa, Chinese & Indians were reduced to kind of quasi Black status while the Japanese & even African-Americans were granted honorary White status.

I'm confused.

Anonymous said...

The Chinese will kill every last beast in Africa before they are done with that continent. They seem to have an insatiable desire for killing animals, and the rarer and more magnificent the better, it seems. Farewell, charismatic megafauna of Africa, it was nice having you around, but Africa isn't big enough for you and 0.1% of the Han exterminatory force.

Jerry said...

"For most of the common era China's technological accomplishments were unrivalled, and their traditions of arts and letters are the most sustained and prolific that humankind has ever hosted."

Please, don't make me laugh. The Chinese "science" meme has been taken down on nearby threads, and as for "arts and letters", they have none. They have empty erudition, but there is nothing for us to read, because the central Western topic, the engagement of the unique yet invaluable individual with the world around him, is absent in Chinese thought.

Simon Leys, the China scholar (his collection, The Hall of Uselessness, is excellent) came to this conclusion after, apparently, decades of study of Chinese culture.

Anonymous said...

"IMHO, the Chinese are welcome to 'takeover' Africa."

China only wants natural resources. In return, it builds stuff for blacks. That's about it.

Anonymous said...

"Confucianism was never about shame or punishment - it was about foster a sense of conscience in individuals in order to forgo the need for punitive measures."

But confucius say it shameful for son not to obey father. If son no act good, father beat him real good.

Anonymous said...

I believe a similar phenomenon is playing out in NYC: a large percentage of new buyers in the rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods in Brooklyn are Chinese. Noticing small Chinese-owned, black-employed businesses cropping up too. This is good.

neil craig said...

"Sir, - ... I am desirous of availing myself of the opportunity to ventilate some speculations of my own"

Must try that in a future letters to the editor.

I suppose everything he said about their potential in Africa came true in Singapore.

Hacienda said...

A cursory reading of history indicates the depth and sophistication of Chinese thought over the last 2000 years. A race of grinds couldn't possibly have pulled it off.

-----------

Yin/Yang. Beginnings and endings. Highs and lows. White and black. Strong and weak. Pain and pleasure. Good and evil. All understood to be paradoxes or illusions. And so much more than just the Germanic rubbish of thesis/antithesis.

Anonymous said...

"The funny thing about Afro-Chinese relations is that the Chinese absolutely hate blacks. There's a phrase, "hēi guǐ" (pronounced like heg-way) that means something like "black devil""

Hak Gui = black ghost

Hmmm, you conveniently neglected to mention that the chinese have hateful racial epithets for europeans too. Like gweilo, yang guizi (white devil in mandarin), bok guai (white devil in cantonese) etc

Bat Gui = white ghost

jgress said...

If you follow the link, you'll find a response by a Gilbert Malcolm Sproat who takes the opposite view, i.e. blacks are more useful citizens than Chinese. So I wouldn't say racial views were uniform back then, except in their general patronizing view towards non-European races and cultures.

Anonymous said...

"For most of the common era China's technological accomplishments were unrivalled, and their traditions of arts and letters are the most sustained and prolific that humankind has ever hosted."

Chinese no have heart. Without heart, Chinese ah-q serve greed and corruption than reform and progress.

Why Chinese skin dog alive and boil cat alive?

Why Chinese cripple women's feet until white folks tell them that no good?

Anonymous said...

"The Chinese will kill every last beast in Africa before they are done with that continent."

If old Chinese man with one more day to live think he get hard-on from eating horn of last rhino, he do that.

Chinese no have heart. Chinese greedy and petty. And superstitious.

Anonymous said...

"What rubbish - you've never lived in Asia and you know nothing about Chinese history. Chinese from mainland China, to the immense consternation of Hong Kong Chinese and Singaporeans, have proven fairly difficult to shame when they bring their poor habits mores abroad."

Chinese shame go from top to bottom.

Mainland Chinese poorer than hong kong and singapore chinese but mainland chinese feel proud as real chinese and see hk and singa chinese as lackey toady running dog chinese.

With chinese shame, it matter of wong foo, wong foom.

if you feel superior, no feel shame when shamed by inferior.

mainland chinese, even when poor, feel proud. they no respect little hk chinese who once suck up to british.

It is like ending of ELECTION 2. Mainland gangster see hk gangster as little guy even if the latter richer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f4OI6XT-ow

Anonymous said...

There are a number of African countries that have higher per capita income than a number of all-white eastern european countries.


There are a number of Arab countries which also have higher per capita income than a number of all-white eastern european countries. Some of them - Libya, for example - are also African countries. But there are a couple of black African countries with a decently high GDP. As with the Arab countries, this owes a great deal to natural resources, especially oil.

Anonymous said...

I see your comment section is as dumb as ever.

pat said...

About two years ago I was obsessed with the idea that blacks were doomed - not because of anything any American would do but it seemed to me that the Chinese would naturally flow into Sub-Saharan Africa.

Then I found out that Galton had suggested much the same thing a century earlier. That prompted me to read up a little on Galton.

My thinking process went something like this. My father drove a Studebaker. I had a Packard as a teenager. The winnowing down of auto brands has been going on everywhere for a long time. The same thing is happening more slowly with human races and sub-races.

The British got rid of the Tasmanians. The Ituri pygmies are not likely to survive many more Tutsi-Hutu conflicts, and the various San peoples are very vulnerable. There is a lot of diversity in Central Africa but the Bantu majority are working to diminish it.

I was also aware of the Chinese history of African exploration. In the early fifteenth century before Columbus, Zheng He cross the Indian ocean to Africa. He brought back a giraffe. This presently doesn't mean much to the Chinese but with a change in the political winds, this history could be exploited by a new expansionist China.

Tibet thinks it was conquered and is being exterminated, but China thinks they have liberated Tibet. They are not racked with guilt the way Western nations are over colonialism. China has self confidence. The Chinese people could be easily swayed to 'free' black Africans in some kind of new version of the 'white man's burden'.

Of course the Chinese are already there. For example, all the stewardesses on Air Zimbabwe are already required to be bilingual in Chinese.

The big stuff in history has been Chinese for a couple centuries at least. In the nineteenth century it wasn't the Napoleonic Wars or the American Civil War that was the most bloody. It was the Taiping Revolt a conflict that most Americans have never heard of and few could be expected to understand. All the great disasters in the Almanac are Chinese. The worst floods, the worst earthquakes, etc. When I was in High School Mao killed more people than Hitler and Stalin put together and few in the West even noticed.

I see that Hollywood is again making Nazi Holocaust movies. When will we get a 'Great Leap Forward' film?

All this I took as evidence that China could start up an ethnic cleansing campaign in black Africa and it would be hardly noticed in America or Europe.

Of course an active expansion into Africa is contrary to Chinese traditions for about two thousand years. It's the Europeans who went out and conquered the world. The Chinese sat at home as the 'Middle Kingdom' and waited for the barbarians to come to them.

But the 'Triumph of the West' has been moving East since the fifteenth century. It got to Japan with Perry and it has recently arrived in China. China picked up the idea of large scale manufacturing from the West - why not colonialism? Why not genocide?

Pat Boyle

Anonymous said...

"Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?"

High population density is required which is initially a function of climate.

Once high density agriculture becomes possible in a region then additional factors come into play like height / skull size etc.

(Although I think the oldest civilizations were actually around the Black Sea until they were displaced by steppe raiders.)

Whiskey said...

China produced the compass, silk, gunpowder, advanced mechanical clocks but did little with it. Three milennia of Emperor or Pharoa rulers with extremely high levels of conformity by mass killings of rebels alternating with low level repression has shifted Chinese genetics to conformity. Thus no Wright Bros, Gutenberg, etc.

Bert said...

"I'm confused."

The Chinese and Indians were communists who openly funneled money and arms to the ANC.

Otis said...

"...in his own country, where a temporary dark age still prevails, which has not sapped the genius of the race, though it has stunted the development of each member of it by the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him..."

At first I thought he was talking about whites in the West in the 21st century.

Anonymous said...

"A cursory reading of history indicates the depth and sophistication of Chinese thought over the last 2000 years. A race of grinds couldn't possibly have pulled it off."

Actually, even most white people are pretty 'lame'. I mean how many creative white folks do you know?
So, it's not like whites are all like this and Asians are all like that.

Most whites and most Asians aren't anything special. But it could be that if 10 out of 1000 whites are creative, maybe only 2 out of 1000 yellows are creative. And that makes all the difference since direction of history is determined by a handful of individuals like Newton, Beethoven, Einstein, and etc. Even most smart people just follow and master what has been taught them. It's like few rock bands really changed rock history. Most rock bands just crank out similar sounding tunes.

Anyway, as Wade pointed out, it's not just IQ but temperament. And this 'Asian' temperament may have been created more by extreme cold age conditions than civilizational factors. Why? Cuz look at a lot of indigenous folks of New World and they are pretty 'lame' and 'timid' too. Look at how the Mexicans in VIVA ZAPATA are about to say, 'si senor' and walk away, and it's only odd-man-out Zapata who stands up and says that peasants cannot eat patience but must eat tortillas or something.

DNA is like a musical notations. Blacks got lots of musical notes, in fact too many for them to calm down and think straight.

But in colder climes, lots of the notes had to be weeded out cuz people had to remain calm and conserve energy to survive. If you got too many notes in your DNA, you're likely flipping out all the time, and that aint no good for survival.

Whites lost a lot of notes but not enough to make them lose a certain individual musicality.

Since Asians evolved in the coldest climes, they lost more notes than even whites, and that made Asians kind of stiff. Of course, being stiff alone isn't enough to make a people a peaceful. Mongols weren't peaceful. But stiffness--like Americans Indians saying 'how, pale face, trade firewater for beaver, animal kind or my squaw woman?'--over time favors rigidity, and once civilization begins, it favors servility over individuality.
So, Asiatic stiffness resulting from cold climes may have paved the way for servility.

Anonymous said...

This book is troublesome cuz it's aimed at general public. If it were a book aimed for academia, it might be less troublesome.

It's like art film and Hollywood movie dichotomy. Art film can get away with controversial themes because they are aimed at a small number of elite viewers.
But when something is made for the masses, Libs want it to be a simple sermon about right and wrong.

International Jew said...

They're not going to be all that "prolific" either. To effectively colonize a place you need to move a big chunk of your lower class -- whose fertility, constrained by scarce land in the home country, is just waiting to explode --there.

Hence the British in America, the Mexicans in the USA, etc.

Anonymous said...

"White Europeans would not have the problems they now do if they had just stayed in Europe and minded their own business." - Well this is a testable hypothesis. What is the situation in, say, sweden? Is canada doing better than America? what about Australia?

Or how about state differences within the US? surely the northern states should be in much better shape attitudewise then the southern states.

mel belli said...

Honest injun, I'm not making this up. I was reading Galton's first paragraph when a McDonald's employee, the guy who served my coffee, interrupted me. "Excuse me sir, could I ask you a favor? What time would it be 30 minutes from 10:53?" (Didn't wanna be late returning from break). He's about 27, some kind of asian mix, maybe Filipino/white. Married to a sullen, light-skinned black girl with a neck tattoo. Two kids. I'm really glad I don't have to pick juries anymore.
kids.

Anonymous said...

And so much more than just the Germanic rubbish of thesis/antithesis.

Robert Anton Wilson, in his Illuminatus books, had a great rejoinder to this. It went: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, parenthesis, and paralysis.

Gordon of Khartoum said...

Good for who?

Anonymous said...

But Europeans are by nature travellers (Polo, Da Gama, Columbus, Magellan, Cook, Gagarin, Armstrong, Aldrin...)

Exploration is different from establishing colonies with links to the home countries. The Europeans should have quarantined the home nations from the African colonies, so that when the colonies became Africanized, the home countries would be sealed off.

Gordon of Khartoum said...

There is a lot wrong with your statement.

I don't think that genius is some sort of self indulgent expression of you inner snowflake.

Genius seems to have flourished in the Northwestern European population. Epoch ending and epoch beginning leaps in intellectual and empirical understanding take place there.

Gordon of Khartoum said...

They couldn't even set sail around the Bering strait and see where it went. They'd have been waiting for Drake in Sa Fra Sisko when he got there if they had an onze of gumption.

Anonymous said...

All this I took as evidence that China could start up an ethnic cleansing campaign in black Africa and it would be hardly noticed in America or Europe.

I don't think so. Black influence is so entrenched in Western Civilization at this point. It's clear that contemporary Western Civilization is not a purely white, European and American culture. Black influence is extensive in its moral, political, and social culture.

Also consider all the attention right now on the Nigerian school girl kidnapping by ragtag militants thing.

Note that when Galton was writing, Africans were a small minority of the world's population, Europeans were about a third, the Chinese were close to half. Today the African population is much bigger and rising.

Anonymous said...

Actually, even most white people are pretty 'lame'. I mean how many creative white folks do you know?


So, it's not like whites are all like this and Asians are all like that.


Most whites and most Asians aren't anything special. But it could be that if 10 out of 1000 whites are creative, maybe only 2 out of 1000 yellows are creative.


You're assuming that the "specialness" inheres to individuals and not to cultures, or societies, or groups of individuals. In other words you're assuming that if you could have picked up Issac Newton right after his birth and dropped him down in China, he'd have made the same discoveries.

There's no way of proving that mathematically false, but it's almost certainly false all the same. Newton did what he did partly because of his own genetic endowments, and partly because he was lucky enough to live in a society with other people who facilitated and encouraged his interests. In other words, he would not be the Newton we know today if it were not for all the "lame" and "non-creative" white people around him.

Anonymous said...

Genius seems to have flourished in the Northwestern European population. Epoch ending and epoch beginning leaps in intellectual and empirical understanding take place there.

What about Classical Greece and Renaissance Italy? They weren't NW European epochs. The NW European epoch was in the modern era, over the past several hundred years. Also the Age of Exploration began with Iberian explorers.

Anonymous said...

mel belli, friendly angel:

I was reading Galton's first paragraph when a McDonald's employee, the guy who served my coffee, interrupted me. "Excuse me sir, could I ask you a favor? What time would it be 30 minutes from 10:53?" (Didn't wanna be late returning from break).

I lived in the Golden Age of Whiteness, and have heard many similar questions and requests from the white trash who then worked at McDonalds. (No, I don't mean kids, I mean older adults.)

Anonymous said...

The Chinese will kill every last beast in Africa before they are done with that continent. They seem to have an insatiable desire for killing animals, and the rarer and more magnificent the better, it seems. Farewell, charismatic megafauna of Africa, it was nice having you around, but Africa isn't big enough for you and 0.1% of the Han exterminatory force.

That would be an improvement. The only continent in which large predators live cheek-by-jowl with humans is in Africa. While that's convenient for foreign tourists on safari, it's non-ideal for the natives who have to worry about being eaten alive. I'm sure Africans would be glad to export all of their large predators to the continents that have already killed off all of theirs. That would kill two birds with one stone - make large predators a part of the day-to-day lives of the environmentally-conscious citizens of the more developed nations, while giving Africans the option of not risking life and limb on a daily basis while simply living where they do.

Anonymous said...

I see your comment section is as dumb as ever.

I'm sure most of the commenters are reasonably intelligent. They're just ignorant, either from a disinclination (due to lack of time or attention span) to find out anything about what they're opining on or to go beyond the strictures of the beliefs or prejudices they've come to take for granted.

M said...

hardly: Go to the websites of the Mathematics and physics olympiads. They are some of the purest IQ tests out there.

There are many, many more pure tests of IQ than mathematics. Mathematicians have unusual personalities and patterns of strengths. (For instance, any IQ test).

Now being good at maths may be more useful than intelligence, but it is quite distinct from it, and I expect succeeding at a Maths Olympiad has a lot to do with having a "Mensa" or "Spelling Bee" type personality, rather than pure ability.

hardly: some of the commenters here seem to think being hard working is a sign of inferiority

Being a slave is. Being an industrialist isn't. These things are just the way it is.

Being "hard working", as a trait, is not a purely positive thing, but it is in a tradeoff with the ability to break the rules, to loosen your self control. To be active and energetic in ways which are not "work" yet are as ultimately profitable for the individual and the group.

The man who has his nose to the grindstone is often the one who is sleepier and less awake (going on autopilot helps you to "work hard"), more listless, and achieves less. Being hard working and energetic are very distinct states.

Anonymous said...

"Those areas were more suited to agriculture - a precursor to civilization"

In other words geography trumps genetics? Are you a HBDer or a subscriber to Jared Diamond's theories?

Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization.


Anonymous said...

"China picked up the idea of large scale manufacturing from the West - why not colonialism? Why not genocide?"

Wow. So you really wish to see the chinese do to the natives of Africa what anglo-saxons did to the natives of North America and Australia?

Perhaps the chinese when they get the upper hand will instead extract revenge on anglos for committing genocide on their racial cousins the amerindians?

Gottlieb said...

``I doubt the creativity claim, though. A cursory reading of history indicates the depth and sophistication of Chinese thought over the last 2000 years. A race of grinds couldn't possibly have pulled it off.
Not that I have a problem with grinds, but some of the commenters here seem to think being hard working is a sign of inferiority. A modern American idea, that only spontaneous expressions of your inner self are to respected, as opposed to anything that came about through effort and gradual improvement. Exemplified on Reddit, where everyone thinks he is a genius, it's just that he isn't hardworking enough to carry out his plans. (disclaimer- I thought the same way about myself until a couple of years ago).``

Nobody here is saying that chineses ARE NOT creatives. All human beings are creatives. The questions is the ``level of creativity`` and ``chineses`` (collectively talking) ``today`` (few times near the millenial chinese history)definitelly ARE NOT creatives. Long-time of domestication elevate their higher collective iqs but eliminate the extremes (specially in the end of phenotypic-behavioral human spectrum) and most gene pool of genuine genius. (but not, nominal modern tech-high iq genius)

Ali said...

Chinese achievement is a bit of a mystery. Yes they get fantastic academic scores but they don't appear to have anything close to the dominance of Jews and WASPs in the elite. Chinese communities seem to be very clannish and just not very interested in carving out a role in the white power structure.

One thing that holds a lot of first generation Chinese immigrants to the West back is their communication skills. First-gen Indians are pretty much all understandable but the Chinese really struggle with grammar, singular vs plural etc. to the point that it becomes difficult to establish rapport since you spend so much effort trying to understand what they're saying.

Anonymous said...

>> Today the African population is much bigger and rising


ah yes... the cockroach strategy. Breed a lot.

It didn't help the native South Americans repel a few boatloads of Spanish Marines.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the chinese when they get the upper hand will instead extract revenge on anglos for committing genocide on their racial cousins the amerindians?

The Chinese and other Asians never have, and don't, give a flying hoot about the Amerindians. Culturally speaking, Asians and Amerindians might as well be from different planets.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Wow. So you really wish to see the chinese do to the natives of Africa what anglo-saxons did to the natives of North America and Australia?

Perhaps the chinese when they get the upper hand will instead extract revenge on anglos for committing genocide on their racial cousins the amerindians? "

Diseases introduced from the Old World did most of the heavy lifting on that event.

There are theories that the New World had a much higher population than had been believed for the past few centuries, and had a rapid decline when introduced diseases hit. And most of the victims never actually saw a white person at all.

It is a theory, you can google it if you like.

Anonymous said...

"In other words geography trumps genetics? Are you a HBDer or a subscriber to Jared Diamond's theories?"

Geography drives genetics.

Diamond's stuff is good up to the point where he ignores the genetic consequences of his theory.

.

"Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization."

Sure that doesn't bother me at all. Given later contributions I don't understand why northern Europeans should be bothered about that unless most of the comments stirring up hostility are from the "let's you and him fight" brigade.

Bert said...

"Perhaps the chinese when they get the upper hand will instead extract revenge on anglos for committing genocide on their racial cousins the amerindians?"

You're amusing. You're not the "MMMMMM" guy, but you're almost as funny.

Anonymous said...

Salvador Dali used to tell people about his Arab/Moorish genealogy (the surname is anomalous in Catalonia and western Europe generally). He cited as evidence for this theory that he enjoyed lounging around the house in expensive pajamas.

Anonymous said...

"I see your comment section is as dumb as ever."

"I'm sure most of the commenters are reasonably intelligent."

I is dumb. Dumb enough to be honest.

Anonymous said...

It's a fear and shame and punishment culture.

What rubbish - you've never lived in Asia and you know nothing about Chinese history.

Well, these guys do, and they are not shy about pointing out that it is, in fact, a fear and shame culture:

http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2011/10/underachieving-chinese-school-children-wear-badge-of-shame-green-scarf/

Anonymous said...

"Culturally speaking, Asians and Amerindians might as well be from different planets."

But, but, as you all keep insisting: race trumps culture. It's all about the genes, right?

Asians and amerindians belong to the same mongoloid race. The chinese are far closer genetically to native americans than to their anglo-saxon tormenters.

On top of that chinese themselves were victims of anglo hate, violence and exploitation: Opium wars, lynchings and antichinese riots in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the invasion of their homeland etc.

Anonymous said...

Asians and amerindians belong to the same mongoloid race. The chinese are far closer genetically to native americans than to their anglo-saxon tormenters.

Interestingly, the latest studies on ancient dna, where they've taken genetics from ancient Europeans of the pre-Neolithic, seem to indicate that Europeans and Amerindians are both "hybrid" races, mixtures between two ancient broad racial groups.

Europeans and Amerinds seem to have one founding racial stock in common (the ancient North Eurasians), with the other for Amerinds is Chinese like Mongoloids, and the other for Europeans seems to be a mysterious people we don't know much about at the moment.

See this for more info - http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/more-ancient-scandinavians-skoglund.html

It's currently looking like the ancient Amerinds were "mestizos" of a sort themselves.

Anonymous said...

I dunno bout you but the specter of Chinese supersoldiers in Apache-Aztec garb invading the Colorado-Kansas region to finally crush and/or eat all Yankee Running Dogs at long last, does keep me awake nights

Anonymous said...

Asians and amerindians belong to the same mongoloid race. The chinese are far closer genetically to native americans than to their anglo-saxon tormenters.

Nope, not true.

On top of that chinese themselves were victims of anglo hate, violence and exploitation: Opium wars, lynchings and antichinese riots in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the invasion of their homeland etc.


Yes, yes, yes, Yanny, we're all familiar with your tedious left-wing victimology. If you find Americans to be such horrible racists, go back to China.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure most of the commenters are reasonably intelligent. They're just ignorant, either from a disinclination (due to lack of time or attention span) to find out anything about what they're opining on or to go beyond the strictures of the beliefs or prejudices they've come to take for granted.


Yes - but that's enough about Yan Shen and the other Asian racialists.

ysv_rao said...


Obama seems to have a love love relationship with Indians

He appointed many Indians to senior posts such as the Surgeon General and the CTO (what the heck is this guy supposed to do)

He carried a small statue of Hanuman when he was young

He has the hots for half Indian Kamala Harris

The lives of Pakistani children mean as much to his drones as to the most Hindu nationalist Indian general.

According to the right wing Obama is a homo rumor mill, Kal Penn is Obama's new beau

Indians reciprocate by voting for him by what 86%!!!

He was greeted in India as if he were a rock star

There was a incredibly stupid Bollywood film (My Name is Khan) where he was glorified as a broad minded multiculturalist

Much of this pro Obama fondness among Indians is the same as what drives white liberals- a Negro can get behind while prevented their daughters from dating one.

I knew this incredibly ditzy and pretty much Punjabi girl who was Obama worshipper all the while in the same sentence she would say " I would date a kallu(blackie)"

@hardly
Tamils dont too badly in Singapore actually. The only reason they are not proportionately represented in the political and economic elite is due to them jealously guarding their domain.
Those in Malaysia OTOH are discriminated by the Malay Bhumiputras AND the Chinese industrialists even more severely.
But OTOH god bless them they do protest and riot and much of their energy is channeled there.

Sri Lanka doesnt have a lot of high caste Tamils either but they do alright.







Hacienda said...

Perhaps the chinese when they get the upper hand will instead extract revenge on anglos for committing genocide on their racial cousins the amerindians?

-----------------

If the Chinese/Mongoloid race gets the upper hand, we will certainly expect Anglos/Teutons to free the red men. And I believe they will do so graciously.

Even from this perspective of 2014, it's becoming clear that eternal guilt at the least Limbo, if not Hell.

Anonymous said...

Bert:"You're amusing. You're not the "MMMMMM" guy, but you're almost as funny."

Why thank you, dear boy. I do like to think that while I will be imitated, I will never be surpassed.

Anonymous said...

"Culturally speaking, Asians and Amerindians might as well be from different planets."

But, but, as you all keep insisting: race trumps culture. It's all about the genes, right?


Too dumb to remember topic was Chinese perception, not HBD-ers'.

Anonymous said...

I don't think so. Black influence is so entrenched in Western Civilization at this point. It's clear that contemporary Western Civilization is not a purely white, European and American culture. Black influence is extensive in its moral, political, and social culture.

This is like attributing the environmental movement to Gaia's influence.

Also consider all the attention right now on the Nigerian school girl kidnapping by ragtag militants thing.

Note that when Galton was writing, Africans were a small minority of the world's population, Europeans were about a third, the Chinese were close to half. Today the African population is much bigger and rising.


This is like implying that the dramatic increase in the cattle population says something about the cultural influence of the cow.

Anonymous said...

In other words geography trumps genetics? Are you a HBDer or a subscriber to Jared Diamond's theories?

Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization.


How did you get "geography trumps genetics" (in any meaningful way) from that? You seem confused about HBD, which states "nature and nurture," not "nature, not nurture." Maybe this stems from a desire to boil things down to a level a small child could understand? Northern Europe was a latecomer to civilization, sure, in relation to a handful of other regions - i.e., the regions where civilization started. It was also a latecomer to human habitation, and human settlement.

I don't really see how it's controversial to suggest that that Thag the Early Man would prefer to live in a year-round-summer sort of climate. That he would go for the low-hanging fruit of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates valleys over the harsh climes of the north.

It's easier to settle more friendly climates, so civilization starts there. This is controversial or a "gotcha," how?

If you really need to score that point, sure go ahead: yes, geography trumps genetics: it's (currently) impossible to live on the surface of the sun or in a lava flow, regardless of your genes. Heck, we can barely handle a vacuum at this point. And we still aren't interested in the oceans (or Siberia) yet. Doesn't matter what a tree's genes are if somebody rips it out of the ground before it has a chance to grow. Et cetera. Happy now?

Anonymous said...

The whites allied with the chins and stopped the japs in ww2, yes? Blacks never came to the aid of any other group. They are short-sighted in their worldview and completely dependent upon the 'goodwill' of all the other races. There will always be a group on the bottom and it would seem that is their position. Until they are eventually eliminated and the next race takes that position. How's that for semi-informed plainspeak?

Anonymous said...

Nicholas Wade's new book also expounds on the genetic inferiority of the negroid africans and the caucasoid iraqis and afghans.


Wait, Wade expounds on the genetic inferiority of the caucasoid iraqis and afghans?

Have you read the book?

If so, can you cite the specific passages in which he "expounds on the genetic inferiority of the caucasoid iraqis and afghans"?

Because I'm pretty sure you're just blowing smoke again.


Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?


That sentence came immediately after the previous one, but there is no logical connection between the two. Saying "which" does not make a connection. Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan were/are all populated by "caucasoid" peoples.

As for why the centers of civilization have shifted northward over time (in Asia as well as in Europe) it's because the climate has changed a lot in the last 5000 years.

Anonymous said...

In other words geography trumps genetics? Are you a HBDer or a subscriber to Jared Diamond's theories?


Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization.


Based on your monomaniacal obsession with one particular geographic location rather than with genes, you seem to be the one who thinks that "geography trumps genetics". What's with your hangup with "northern europe"?

Likke said...

Who cares if the Chinese are not creative? Is creativity such a good thing? What did it get us? Don't the Chinese have it infinitely better than us? They have a stable society that has lasted forever and will certainly outlast us and that is able to provide satisfying and fulfilling lives to the millions who live within its system. So we have invented all these little gadgets. All this only increased our convenience. What's so good about convenience? That's the noblest goal humanity can set itself - convenience? The Chinese are much better at living. Is it better to have a car and a washing machine but live a life that is felt as pointless and futile, to the point where so many of our people hate their own culture, and so many seek to flee it for foreign climes, or to not have these things but to have a way of life that is good?

The worship of technology is the worship of convenience - yeah, real noble, that. Or at best the worship of power. But who cares about power? There are more interesting things in life.

Gottlieb said...

``Who cares if the Chinese are not creative? Is creativity such a good thing? What did it get us? Don't the Chinese have it infinitely better than us? They have a stable society that has lasted forever and will certainly outlast us and that is able to provide satisfying and fulfilling lives to the millions who live within its system. So we have invented all these little gadgets. All this only increased our convenience. What's so good about convenience? That's the noblest goal humanity can set itself - convenience? The Chinese are much better at living. Is it better to have a car and a washing machine but live a life that is felt as pointless and futile, to the point where so many of our people hate their own culture, and so many seek to flee it for foreign climes, or to not have these things but to have a way of life that is good?

The worship of technology is the worship of convenience - yeah, real noble, that. Or at best the worship of power. But who cares about power? There are more interesting things in life.``


''Stability'' has never led anyone to greatness.
At this time most of the cognitive elite Chinese are wondering what were the success formulas of Western civilization and even some groups eg the Jews. Koreans are studying the Talmud because some were convinced that this is the true formula for success Ashkenazim. However, no matter if you use the force the subsaharians to read the Talmud if they do not have a favorable genetics for both the learning and for practice.
My theory about the Chinese success in promoting colossal scale, high intelligence and good physical health while Caucasians have developed the largest and most magnificent civilizations, all of them, now extinct, is based on the idea of ​​anthropomorphic evolution that Caucasians have always sought.
Some say the white man is the man without nature. The anthropomorphic evolution is anti natural evolution when man rejects the nature and himself as his own God. The white man did not promote himself to the high collective intelligence and high physical health that Orientals have today, but always decided to produce civilizations that eventually renege nature and biology and so it gives mainly because of the huge amount of geniuses which spring branch of this human race. The sale of genius compared to the nature, biology, the animal world which man belongs.

Anonymous said...

"Wait, Wade expounds on the genetic inferiority of the caucasoid iraqis and afghans?

Have you read the book?

If so, can you cite the specific passages in which he "expounds on the genetic inferiority of the caucasoid iraqis and afghans"?

Because I'm pretty sure you're just blowing smoke again."

Forget the book, you obviously haven't even read the reviews many of which quote the passages: "Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. But if that’s so, why is it apparently so hard for tribal societies like Iraq or Afghanistan to change their culture and operate like modern states?"

You also seem to be ignorant of the IQ charts which show Iraqis, Afghans, Turks, Egyptians etc clustering with african-americans in the mid-80s, below the global average. Isn't that the definition of genetic inferiority among HBDers?

So again the question: why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior?

Anonymous said...

"The artifacts from European culture go back very far. Cave art and sculpting are ver very old in Europe."

Caveman art is not what one thinks of when talking about civilization. Northern europeans and Australian aborigines were both cave artists in pre-historic times. So what?

Why were northern europeans incapable of creating literature, science, philosophy, grand monuments etc until very recently, after being civilized by southerners?
Were they genetically inferior 1500 years ago?

Anonymous said...

"On top of that chinese themselves were victims of anglo hate, violence and exploitation: Opium wars, lynchings and antichinese riots in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the invasion of their homeland etc."

Mao was no Anglo. He wasn't Japanese either.

Anonymous said...

"Asians and amerindians belong to the same mongoloid race. The chinese are far closer genetically to native americans than to their anglo-saxon tormenters."

Anglo-Saxon tormentors? Anglos didn't bind Chinese women's feet. Anglos tried to convince Chinese to learn from the West. It's Manchu-Chinese elites who said 'go away and leave us to oppress our own people forever'. Anglos did a great favor to the Chinese people. It's the Chinese who messed up.

One thing that is kinda interesting.
Western Europe was very advanced. East Asia, in its own way, was quite advanced. But the Asian and white populations situated between the West and East were not so advanced. Russia lagged behind Western Europe, and Mongols and Turkic people of Central Asia--mix of white and Asian--were backward.

So, even though far east and far west were separated the most from one another in geographical distance, they had comparable development in civilization(before west shot past everyone in the late modern era) whereas all the people in between them tended to be backward.

You'd think that since Mongols were close to China, their level of development would be closer to China. You'd think since Russia was part of Europe, it'd be more like Western Europe. Though Russia did finally catch up somewhat, for a long time, it was really backward and barbaric.

It's like Slavic and Mongol barbarians were whupping one another while Western Europeans and East Asians were developing civilization along sea coasts.



Anonymous said...

Maybe it's the seacoast factor.

We can see it in the US too.

Though East Coast and West Coast are most separated from one another, they are the two most advanced parts of US.. and even though West Coast was much later to develop than the middle parts of America.

East Coast has NY, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, etc.

West Coast has LA, SF, Seattle, etc.

The middle has Chicago.

You'd think since East Coast is closer to the Middle America, middle America would be closer to the East. But East Coast elites feel closer to West Coast elites.

Anonymous said...

US is a two coast nation.

China is a one coast nation, and Russia is a no-coast nation.

Anonymous said...

Spain is a one coast nation. UK is a four coast nation.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again. Another fool's quest for a one-size-fits-all theory of why some people turned out better than others. As some commenters have pointed out, this has led to a rather silly comments section full of armchair sociology theories.

Face it, people, innovation for innovation's sake (or creation for creation's sake) is a modern phenomenon, when science has largely been accepted throughout the world (indeed, the backwardness of a race or culture correlates positively with the reluctance to embrace a scientific worldview.) Prior to the scientific era, say pre-Francis Bacon, all innovation was un-thought and reflexive. Any theory would fit that era. In fact, Diamond's theory in GGS is a rather good fit for the progress of races up to the 16th century; no genetic explanations are needed. And much has happened since then to attribute the conditions of 21st century peoples to their respective genetic mutations. Imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, Marxism... It takes a brave (and maybe stupid) person to say that all these other variables must be discarded in favor of genetics.

It is a lot more useful to separate history into eras and focus on differences within those eras. We are likely to get better fitting theories. Saying that X is the determinative factor since time immemorial and will be the determinative factor till eternity is a fool's errand (X being genetics in this case.)

Anonymous said...

Why were northern europeans incapable of creating literature, science, philosophy, grand monuments etc until very recently, after being civilized by southerners?
Were they genetically inferior 1500 years ago?


Why are yellows - okay, that's unfair - why are you incapable of reading the responses you elicit, assimilating the data, and adapting to it? Why are you so determined to prove the most ridiculous caricatures of yellow people? You're like a broken record.

Anonymous said...

On top of that chinese themselves were victims of anglo hate, violence and exploitation: Opium wars, lynchings and antichinese riots in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the invasion of their homeland etc.

Chinese are world's biggest racists. Won't let anyone into their country. Real Chinese Exclusion Act has been in China, for 3,000 years.

Anonymous said...

On top of that chinese themselves were victims of anglo hate, violence and exploitation: Opium wars, lynchings and antichinese riots in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the invasion of their homeland etc.

Chinese are world's biggest racists. Won't let anyone into their country. Real Chinese Exclusion Act has been in China, for 3,000 years.

Anonymous said...

"the Chinese Exclusion Act"

But remember that for 1000 yrs, Chinese had two-way exclusion act.

1. No foreigner come here.

2. No Chinese leave China.

Not only did China ban foreigners from entering China but they forbade Chinese from leaving China and learning about the world.

If exclusion is such an evil, Chinese should thank British imperialism. It allowed foreigners to enter China and it made it possible for ordinary Chinese to leave China and see the bigger world.

As Confucius say, "a man who bitch about others but no see his own fault is stupid moron."

Anonymous said...


In other words geography trumps genetics? Are you a HBDer or a subscriber to Jared Diamond's theories?

Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization.


How did you get "geography trumps genetics" (in any meaningful way) from that? You seem confused about HBD, which states "nature and nurture," not "nature, not nurture." Maybe this stems from a desire to boil things down to a level a small child could understand? Northern Europe was a latecomer to civilization, sure, in relation to a handful of other regions - i.e., the regions where civilization started. It was also a latecomer to human habitation, and human settlement.

I don't really see how it's controversial to suggest that that Thag the Early Man would prefer to live in a year-round-summer sort of climate. That he would go for the low-hanging fruit of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates valleys over the harsh climes of the north.

It's easier to settle more friendly climates, so civilization starts there. This is controversial or a "gotcha," how?

If you really need to score that point, sure go ahead: yes, geography trumps genetics: it's (currently) impossible to live on the surface of the sun or in a lava flow, regardless of your genes. Heck, we can barely handle a vacuum at this point. And we still aren't interested in the oceans (or Siberia) yet. Doesn't matter what a tree's genes are if somebody rips it out of the ground before it has a chance to grow. Et cetera. Happy now?

Anonymous said...

Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?

Yellow grind: ask question over and over and ignore answers; keep asking until YT gets bored answering them.

Anonymous said...

Keep eating bitterness and keep grinding until only one still talking is yellow with no nose left.

ben tillman said...

Which again raises the question: why were the 3 oldest civilizations created in Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, not in northern Europe or north-east Asia?

It was the climate, which allowed people to produce more food than they could consume.

Anonymous said...

"Face it, northern europe was a latecomer to civilization."

Geography and all that stuff matters.
But today, all races and all peoples have access to same knowledge, same seeds, same books, same phones, same cars, same this, etc.

So, we are now seeing the argument for genetic reasons, not because geographical arguments are wrong but because they are not enough.

Anonymous said...

Just because one people started something doesn't mean that people will be best at it.
Chinese invented Kung Fu and whites invented basketball, but blacks are better at both.

Just because a people evolved in some place doesn't mean they'll do best in that environment. Both Eskimos and black Africans will be better off in temperate zones where it's less hot and cold.

And just because a race developed apart from other races, it doesn't mean that its members will prefer its own as sexual partners. Jewish men and black men seem to prefer blondes.

Anonymous said...

Geography vs genetics gets confused cuz of geonetics because geography, after all, affects genes.

If one place has lots of dangerous animals and another place doesn't, the people and animals of the place with dangerous animals will become more aggressive and stronger.

If Africa didn't have lions, hyenas, and leopards, its cape buffaloes wouldn't be so aggressive and dangerous.
But same goes for blacks. Blacks are stronger and more aggressive because their tough environments weeded out the dorks.

Anonymous said...

"can you cite the specific passages in which he "expounds on the genetic inferiority of the caucasoid iraqis and afghans"?

Forget the book


I'll take that as "No, I have not read the book".

Genetically speaking, Iraqis and Afghans are considered to be Caucasians. Which is not to say that all Caucasians are considered to be identical, any more than all Asians are.


You also seem to be ignorant of the IQ charts which show Iraqis, Afghans, Turks, Egyptians etc clustering with african-americans in the mid-80s, below the global average. Isn't that the definition of genetic inferiority among HBDers?


No, it isn't. It's the definition of IQ inferiority among the HBDers.

Let's try an example which you may be able to grasp. Indonesians are Asians. Koreans are Asians. Even though Indonesians have a national IQ of about 82 while Koreans have a national IQ of roughly 106, they are both Asians.

Anonymous said...

So again the question: why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior? Were they genetically inferior 1500 years ago?


Again you display your fixation on geographical places rather than on people, as if the "northern europeans" of 500 AD were the direct descendents of the "northern europeans" of 3000 BC.

You also seem to be very taken with the notion that the Egyptians of 2014 are the direct descendents of the Egyptians of 3000 BC.

You might as well remark on the fact that some "Africans" in South Africa were able to develop the atomic bomb, while "Americans" turned Detroit into an impoverished hell-hole.

But we're making some progress - you've now moved your "Europeans were savages" argument back from 1500 to 500 AD.

Anonymous said...

If Africa didn't have lions, hyenas, and leopards, its cape buffaloes wouldn't be so aggressive and dangerous.
But same goes for blacks. Blacks are stronger and more aggressive because their tough environments weeded out the dorks.



Yeah, except that there's no evidence that blacks are stronger and more aggressive. If they were those things we'd expect that they'd have gone on to conquer the world, not became slaves to everyone who encountered them.

David said...

At least commenters are enthusiastic. Thinking about HBD has been suppressed so long, it's like a virgin field to most people now. They are grasping for what they can grasp and trying to make sense of it all. They should continue conversing publicly about these matters. And smartasses who say "your commenters are as dumb as ever" should take these golden opportunities to enlighten us with their superior erudition and reasoning abilities.

Anonymous said...

When did all these idiots start posting comments here?

Anonymous said...

"as if the "northern europeans" of 500 AD were the direct descendents of the "northern europeans" of 3000 BC."

You are just beating around the bush making one strawman argument after another. You are obviously begging to be cornered, so answer this simple question:

Are the germans of today the descendants of the germanic barbarians of 500 AD? Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

"So again the question: why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior?"

Some people from northern Europe want their ancestors to be *both* the big, bad barbarians *and* to have invented civilization and those two things don't go together.

Their (my) ancestors "were" the big, bad barbarians and then they got the heavy plow off the Chinese and settled down to invent things.

Two separate stages (mostly).

(with metallurgy as the big exception)

Personally I think being more recently barbarian helped with the invention thing because I think creativity is a mixture of IQ and aggression and civilization gradually pacifies aggression over time.

So imo human creativity and innovation has been a kind of relay race where the early civilized populations in the south took the baton forward and then faded out as they pacified themselves leaving the later civilized populations to take the baton forward in turn.

.

"Maybe it's the seacoast factor."

Seafood -> Iodine -> IQ

Anonymous said...

You are just beating around the bush making one strawman argument after another.



How is pointing out that the "Germans" of 500 AD and the "Germans" of 3000 BC (or more accurately, the people living in what later came to be called Germany on those dates) were two completely different people a "strawman argument"?

You're the one remaking in mock surprise over the fact that the "Germans" of 3000 BC were not as advanced as the Egyptians of the same period. So it's appropriate to point out to you that the same people don't live in the same spot forever and ever.

In other breaking news, todays Greeks are not genetically identical to those of the "Golden Age".

Anonymous said...

Europeans and Amerinds seem to have one founding racial stock in common (the ancient North Eurasians), with the other for Amerinds is Chinese like Mongoloids, and the other for Europeans seems to be a mysterious people we don't know much about at the moment.

Europeans appear to have three founding stocks: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE).

Anonymous said...

why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior?


The premise of the question is highly dubious. After all, East Asians lagged behind Europeans for the last thousand years, and it turns out not to be due to lower IQ.

But set that sizable detail aside for the moment and lets assume for the sake of argument that the northern europeans of 1500 years ago really were genetically stupid people. 1500 years is a long time, it's conceivable - probable, even - that their genes would alter over such a span of time. That's perfectly consistent with HBD.

hardly said...

I don't get the commenter above who thinks the Germans of 500AD are somehow of different stock than the germans of today.
The descriptions of the Germanic tribes of that period is the exact same as those of modern Germans. Their language is also a descendant. who else do you think they are descended from?
I do remember that genetic studies have shown that the vast majority of British genes are not from Anglo-Saxons, but belong to a pre existing substratum. So genetic bases of populations don't alter as much as you think they do. Unless there is wholesale migration and replacement as with europeans in north America.

Anonymous said...

"I don't get the commenter above who thinks the Germans of 500AD are somehow of different stock than the germans of today."

They are the same stock.

Complex societies create different selective pressures to more primitive societies. The dudes in the more primitive societies will be more scary. The dudes in the more complex societies will become smarter (over time).

So
primitive society
->scary dudes
->high density agriculture
->complex society
->smarter scary dudes
->pacification over time
->smart not scary dudes

all HBD

ben tillman said...

There's no way of proving that mathematically false, but it's almost certainly false all the same. Newton did what he did partly because of his own genetic endowments, and partly because he was lucky enough to live in a society with other people who facilitated and encouraged his interests. In other words, he would not be the Newton we know today if it were not for all the "lame" and "non-creative" white people around him.

That's a great point. We often hear claims that Jewish and East Asian cultures put a premium on education. But it's not true. They may value being educated (acquiring knowledge), but they don't value education (sharing knowledge). That's why the world's universities were founded by Whites.

The "open source" aspect of Western societies is an underrated part of White creativity and success.

hardly said...

The world's earliest universities were not founded by whites, that's another unsubstantiated Eurocentric claim. Knowledge became open source in Europe only after the middle ages, until then it was primarily for the monks.

Takshashila in northwest Pakistan was well known as a Hindu center of academia, well before the Platonic Academy was founded in Greece. Many of the early Buddhist chronicles note that the teachers of the Buddha studied there, and students traveled there from all over India.

The Buddhists themselves established universities wherever they had large monasteries, and the one at Nalanda in East India was internationally renowned in the later part of the 1st millennium AD. Several Chinese and Tibetan travelers journeyed to India to obtain manuscripts from Nalanda, and they have left extensive records about it.
Not to mention Cairo's Al Azhar, the library at Baghdad, and the many universities that China must have had, but I do not know about.

Europeans had great universities but they were by no means the only ones or the earliest ones in the world. However they are among the earliest ones which are still functioning today, with Al Azhar providing the only competition.

Anonymous said...

"So again the question: why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior?"

Isolation and smaller population.

Southern Europe and Near East, in contrast, were at the crossroads of commerce and ideas from all over.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, except that there's no evidence that blacks are stronger and more aggressive."

Yer right. NFL is filled with Mexicans. Chinese invented rap.
Jack Johnson and Ali were Armenians.

Anonymous said...

The premise of the question is highly dubious. After all, East Asians lagged behind Europeans for the last thousand years, and it turns out not to be due to lower IQ.

Please show us the IQ tests for the past thousand years that you are basing this confident assertion on. ;)

Evolution is continual as Wade agrees, and it does not necessarily lead in one direction. You are wrong in your belief that racial IQ is written in stone.

What you need to explain is why northern europeans despite being numerous and living in fertile lands were incapable of creating a civilization worthy of the name on their own. Even after centuries of observing Romans, and romanized Gauls, the germanic barbarians were unable to copy the superior culture of their neighbours, until they were conquered and converted by Charlemagne.

Gottlieb said...

''The world's earliest universities were not founded by whites, that's another unsubstantiated Eurocentric claim. Knowledge became open source in Europe only after the middle ages, until then it was primarily for the monks.

Takshashila in northwest Pakistan was well known as a Hindu center of academia, well before the Platonic Academy was founded in Greece. Many of the early Buddhist chronicles note that the teachers of the Buddha studied there, and students traveled there from all over India.''

PLEASE MAN,
well, you You look to be a lefty. So I'll be completely politically incorrect for you. The civilized, creative and modern world was created in its early days by all hybrid populations of different human strains where the neanderthal element was significant both in quantity and in quality of cognitive traits and this help us to explains the massive failure of the black race.
People are stupid, arrogant types including high iq. Blacks are nothing more nor less than the Aboriginal people or Amerindians, only demographically over-inflated by the medical aid of the white people, high iq and situationally stupid.
When you talk about Hindus , Arabs or Pakistanis I have some sad news to tell you . First, they were not and are not black , though currently being crossbred with Negroid strains (black slaves). Second, also as in much of the world inhabited by Neanderthals hybrids , blacks are hated . Third , all these masters of the Near East from the time of Mesopotamia were Caucasians . Today, they remain predominantly Caucasian and is easy to notice this through the European traits present in their elites . You can also imagine how the Middle East was just looking for inbred populations of the region as Christians , Egyptians Guptas and the Parsees , they are all highly intelligent , especially in relation to the muslim.
His arguments change the tone when it suits . And they all have only one purpose , to denigrate or demean any conquest of white people , however trivial they may be. Keep this his childish hatred for only constructive things , destroy the place where he lives is a stupidity that has no name .
When it suits you use the term European . When it is not , you prefer to use the term white . I can smell a Machiavellian mind far away.

Anonymous said...

Europeans appear to have three founding stocks: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE).

Sure thing, but as the WHG and ANE are very alike on a global scale, I simplified matters here.

Anonymous said...

@ "hardly" - Is there a "hard" definition of university out there? It seems that any large enough religious school would qualify if you chose to set the boundary low enough.

Yet doing so would elude all we would actually find interesting about the institution, which is acting essentially as a centre of instruction in secular learning and the pursuit of secular knowledge (for all that they may have religious affiliations).

Many societies have had large religious schools and even traditions of education, unfortunately, with a strong ethic of working hard to benefit the nuclear and extended family and clan (which limits the productivity of non-family run business), and these institutions secondarily lacking much independence to religious and central government authority, they become essentially not very interestingly functional, even in their own specific areas of focus.

Anonymous said...

Please show us the IQ tests for the past thousand years that you are basing this confident assertion on.



Sure, no problem, just as soon as you produce the IQ tests you used for your confident assertion that "northern europeans lag(ged) behind lower iq southerners for most of history".

Anonymous said...

You are wrong in your belief that racial IQ is written in stone.


I've never expressed any such belief.

"What you need to explain is why northern europeans blah blah"


What you need to understand is that "northern europeans" does not describe a distinct genetic group of people. The Somali's rioting in Sweden today are "northern europeans".

the germanic barbarians were unable to copy the superior culture of their neighbours, until they were conquered and converted by Charlemagne.


Charlemagne was himself one of those "germanic barbarians" you're so busy knocking. That's another glaring factual error on your part. Do yourself a favor and do a little research on the topic before you continue to shoot your mouth off on it. The "germanic" peoples had taken over all of Western Europe, south as well as north. The Franks were one such tribe. So were the Lombards in Italy and the Vandals (Andalusians) in Spain.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, except that there's no evidence that blacks are stronger and more aggressive."


Yer right. NFL is filled with Mexicans.


Yeah, right, the NFL is evidence of something.

Anonymous said...

The world's earliest universities were not founded by whites, that's another unsubstantiated Eurocentric claim.


Can you point to anyone making any such claim? Your entire contribution to this thread has consisted of making up silly strawman arguments which you then demolish. That and making factually false assertions.

Anonymous said...

I don't get the commenter above who thinks the Germans of 500AD are somehow of different stock than the germans of today.


Your really don't know how to read. He said that the Germans of 3000 BC were different from the Germans of 500 AD, not that the Germans of 500AD are of different stock than the Germans of today.

Anonymous said...

Jack Johnson and Ali were Armenians.

And the two Russian monsters beating up all the blacks in boxing today are black, obviously.

Anonymous said...

"What you need to explain is why northern europeans despite being numerous and living in fertile lands were incapable of creating a civilization worthy of the name on their own."

You're obviously just trolling now.

They didn't live in land suitable for high-density agriculture until the introduction of the heavy plow.

It's what they did after high-density agriculture was finally introduced that is so impressive.

ben tillman said...

"So again the question: why were northern europeans lagging behind lower iq southerners for most of history if they are genetically superior?"

Isolation and smaller population.


And a comparative lack of exploitable resources. As E.O. Wilson explains, group strategies will dominate the prime ecological niches like the crossroads of three continents at the east end of the Mediterranean. Those pursuing individualist strategies will get pushed to the ecological margins.

Anonymous said...

Charlemagne was himself one of those "germanic barbarians" you're so busy knocking

Charlemagne and his people the Franks had been romanized/civilized for generations when he conquered and converted the pagan germanic Saxons.


Anonymous said...

They didn't live in land suitable for high-density agriculture until the introduction of the heavy plow.

You are reaching for excuses. The romans who civilized the northern europeans ran plantations on that land two millenia ago.

After Julius Caesar had slaughtered a million Gauls and enslaved the rest over 2000 years ago some of his generals retired to the newly conquered northern lands to found and run profitable plantations worked by slaves.

hardly said...

Gottlieb: I have no such Machiavellianism in me. And if you think I am a leftist, you should read some other comments I've left here and on Mangan's site. What I am is a realist, and non-European, so I am always put off when European-derived commenters here try to ascribe more achievements to white/European civilization than is warranted by the historical record.
I use Whites to mean Europeans. Caucasoids may be used to encompass the entire stretch of land from Spain to Bengal, but that is a meaningless designation for our purposes, given that it includes Southern Europe, Northern Europe, Arab North Africa, Arabia, Persia, the Levant, The Caucasus and India. That's around half the world's population.
And within Europeans I like to distinguish between the southern/eastern Europeans of the Greco Roman civilization, and the Northwestern Europeans of Germanic descent. The Northwestern ones are culturally on top today, but 1500 years ago the situation was the exact opposite.
Regarding blacks, I admit their achievements don't captivate me as much.

Anonymous said...

The Chinese are going to be deeply sorry about this.

The Caucasian Semites/Arabs were the first on the African continent, the first who took black slaves and look at their state now. They're now inbred Islam fanatics thanks to polygamy and cousin marriage.

The U.S. White Americans got black slaves and look what has happened to them. A large and threatening NAM population within their midst, in Detroit, in Chicago and getting worse.

Mark my words: the Chinese are going to deeply regret this in the future.

Learn from Arabs and White Americans. You cannot, I repeat, you cannot civilize them. Blacks WILL drag you down to their level sooner or later.

Stay out of Africa is my advice as a foreigner. I myself am packing my bags to leave this god forsaken continent.

Don't use their resources, and don't let them into your country.

Anonymous said...

Lol @ Gaul as great white north.

Romans didn't conquer northern Europe, such ignorance...

Anonymous said...

Stay out of Africa is my advice as a foreigner.

Staying out will mean missing out on
one of the biggest stories of the 21st century, perhaps second only to the rise of China to the top.

Africa is geographically humongous and rich with resources. You can fit in 2 Chinas and 2 Indias in Africa and still have room left to put in the entire European Union.

Africa is the motherland of the human race and home to the grandest of the most ancient civilizations.

Anonymous said...

Africa is no "motherland of the human race". It's a crappy continent, a primitive savage Matriarchal continent.

Gottlieb said...

Hardly@ ''Gottlieb: I have no such Machiavellianism in me.''

All deny.



Hardly@ ''And if you think I am a leftist, you should read some other comments I've left here and on Mangan's site. What I am is a realist, and non-European, so I am always put off when European-derived commenters here try to ascribe more achievements to white/European civilization than is warranted by the historical record.''

It is impossible to deny the enormous contribution of Western civilization today. It is also very difficult to argue for the magnificence of Greece and Rome as well as the civilizations of the middle east where Caucasians were also a significant proportion . I like the term caucasian if we are talking of races . Clearly Bengal to Lisbon there is a human biological entity with predominantly physical and genetic traits , of course , vary more than in any other group . Clearly the Indians are racially Caucasoid strains with strains from other racial groups , for example the Dravidians . It is also clear that as happens nowadays, the tall Indian castes are more Caucasian than the lower castes and groups like the Parsees , are also in the same situation . What is also interesting is that historically inbred populations in the region are much smarter than the masses of Muslims and they are also lighter in physical appearance .
As a non-white Caucasians, I presuppose that you are, yes you have every right to ensure that the immaterial heritage (cultural, linguistic ...) and material of the people to which it belongs is maintained, but their claims are from weighting and the way you say looks more like a leftist with mental problems who tries all the time to demote the moral collective, already so low nowadays European populations.
The main fact is, when you say ''caucasian'' is asserting the creative superiority, of all people that are derived from this source. It may not have been his real intention, but it seems to me that speaks of non-objective and stony way to explain what you want.
You need to change the socio-cultural and economic composition of a region with a potential for creativity and intelligence to produce a civilization. For blacks, lack a favorable cognitive biology.
A civilization is like the pieces of a mechanical clock. The genius are the larger pieces (like Bruce Charlton has recently shown in his blog).
Western civilization reached its optimum capacity to function mechanically, but this creates a vicious circle, a perfect circle where creativity happens to be discarded, like a cuckoo clock that never stops running, as did the Chinese civilization. The evolution of civilization is restlessness. One should never think that this is the end point of evolution.

Anonymous said...

A group of Spaniard travellers on China at about mid 17th century, the end of Ming Dynasty:

“Fist of all, they are extremely clean, not only in their houses, but also in their streets…”

“There’re hospitals in all of their cities.. we have never seen anyone begging in the streets so we asked them why. They answered that there’s a large area in every city offering free housings for the poor, the blind, the lame, the old and those who couldn’t make a living on their own and there’s always sufficient rice supply as long as they are alive…”

“The men and women in that land seem to have very good physique, symmetry and are beautiful…their body sizes are a bit tall, and they are also very polite towards people from foreign lands…”

“They have manufactured exotic and excellent artillery guns and cannons in other provinces in China. Those are particularly good. I agree with this statement because I have seen some of these cannons mounted on ships. They’re better than what we have made… and are more solid…”

“Anyway they do not leave a foot of land without planted. One can never encounter some areas of wasteland or areas without harvest/plantation in China…”

“We’re surprised to see the graceful, elegant and educated demeanor of these noble people, which are also reflected from how seriously and carefully when they asked us what they wanted to know and when they answered us our questions.”

Anonymous said...

Yeah, except that there's no evidence that blacks are stronger and more aggressive. If they were those things we'd expect that they'd have gone on to conquer the world, not became slaves to everyone who encountered them.

If strength and aggression were sufficient to conquer the world, lions and crocodiles would rule the world. Long ago, man, the intelligent tool-making animal, introduced materials science (stone, bronze, iron in earlier epochs), edged and blunt weapons, armor, fortifications, tactics and strategy into the equation. That is how intelligence came to overpower raw strength and aggression, in the competition between man and the lower animals and among various human tribes.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Cm_wFnQ60

http://www.aapt.org/aboutaapt/2013-U...pr20130510.cfm

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/ed...finalists.html

http://www.imo-official.org/team_r.a...=USA&year=2014

In Physics and Chemistry, the Chinese Americans are overrepresented by 140 000% relative to White Americans. If Chinese were uncreative, then White people must be completely retarded.