PDA

View Full Version : The Accuracy of Coon, Günther, etc



Scáthach
Monday, May 19th, 2003, 09:27 PM
This weekend i posted a few links to works by Gunther and Coon and a link to the SNPA site on a board on which me and some people were trying (albeit in vain) to have an intelligent discussion on why non white immigration ito ireland should not be accepted.
Now personally,from what ive read of physical anthropology and Coon and Gunther in particular it seems sensible to me and not ''offensive'' in the least but the people from the board on which we were posting did not agree!

So my question is about how people like these are viewed today.
Are they widely discredited or was it just the fact that i was attempting to talk sense to commies?
Was this type of classification more or less abandoned in the 50's or thereabouts?
Are people like Broca and Topinard's views - on the negro in particular - completely discarded by modern anthropologists?
Are the views of all these men more or less discredited by the general public now?

It appears to me (maybe im cynical lol) that the views and works created by Gunther,Coon and Beddoe etc are more than accurate,valid and interesting BUT that people like the communists and non whites dont approve of them so thus thats why theyre held up as pointless and discredited?

I would appreciate anyone's views on this.

Von Braun
Monday, May 19th, 2003, 10:04 PM
Modern academics label racial anthropologists of this era "pseudoscientists." The irony is that these egalitarians are the pseudoscientists. I remember my first semester of college; I took a physical anthropology course, and the professor claimed that race does not exist in the sense that races blend into each other (which is actually caused by mixing between distinct races).

Not only are these men slandered, they are also largely ignored. I had never heard there names before I visited racial sites periodically. Modern anthropologists, biologists, etc., know that if people who think like we do and who were respectable, distinguished, and intelligent men receive widespread attention, and that their racial views are known (which would be hard to hide when racial anthropology is what these men are known for), then that would be a setback for their camp. Now you have more famous people who it is hard to either slander or hide completely, such as Ford and Lindbergh. In cases like that, the zionist establishment does not try to hide these men from students, they just hide the racial aspects of these men. This is easier to do since men of this type were known primarily for other things (manufacturing, aviation, etc.). Coon, et. al. were less well-known and also more blatantly racialist, so they are hidden completely, and when their names do come up, mainstream professors attack them as "racist" without addressing the validity of their main ideas.

Stríbog
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 12:15 AM
Additionally, as isolation was never lasting or perfect, there was always a genetic flow between different races, decreasing with the square of the distance, which kept the species together. That's exactly the reason why "pure" races don't exist; the fallacy your professor committed is, that this doesn't mean that races don't exist.


That's exactly right. There have never been stark lines separating different racial stocks, this does not mean that pure individuals of the various types aren't very different from one another.

Von Braun
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 12:43 AM
No, actually, racial clines (fluent transitions; areas where races "blend" into each other, such as the fluent transition from Nordids to Mongoloids from Northern Europe over North-Eastern Europe and the Ural Mountains into Mongolia and China) are more the result of divergent evolution than of mixing between the most typical or distinct representatives of racial groups.

Thorburn, isn't it peculiar that the regions that are cited as clinal zones are areas that we know to have been inhabited by two distinct races at the same time (extreme southern Europe, parts of eastern Europe, etc.)?




Additionally, as isolation was never lasting or perfect, there was always a genetic flow between different races, decreasing with the square of the distance

It is not the square of the distance because we are talking about the Earth's surface, and surfaces are two-dimensional loci of points. In three dimensions, gravitational fields and electric fields decay with the square of the distance, because the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the radius squared. On a surface, a circle and not a sphere is the relevant geometric object; the circumference of a circle increases in proportion to its radius (not its radius squared), and so mixing should decrease with distance and not the sqaure of distance.

Stríbog
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 12:53 AM
Thorburn, isn't it peculiar that the regions that are cited as clinal zones are areas that we know to have been inhabited bt two distinct races at the same time (extreme southern Europe, parts of easterne Europe, etc.)?

Since when do we 'know' this? It's just a theory that some WN's use because they dislike the idea of there being any clines at all between whites and other races. Biologically, this makes no sense. As for the distance thing, that's splitting hairs. You are assuming a model with no actual data. You assumed it was that particular type of model; you have to derive the models empirically and fit them to the data, you can't assume its a certain way and then try to make things coincide with that model. It doesn't matter whether phenotypes progress logarithmically, linearly, quadratically, etc over distance; the point is that clines do exist.

Von Braun
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 02:08 AM
Since when do we 'know' this?

Fionn, if anything can be "known" in the area of history, it is an occupation that lasted almost eight hundred years in early modern times on the Iberian penninsula. If we can't be sure that this ever happened, then what can we be sure of about the past? :confused:


You are assuming a model with no actual data.

He assumed the inverse square model; I made no assumption about the exact form of the model, I just meant that in a rough sense, one could say from first principles (see my last post in this thread) that the variation would be closer to inverse than inverse square.

Stríbog
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 02:36 AM
No, my point was not that we don't know they were occupied, but that we don't know very much about their racial makeup prior to occupation. Therefore, we can not do before/after comparisons, and have no way to determine when allopatric differentiation occurred, or even if it occurred at all. Looking at some half-breed Central Asian, there is no way to tell if his ancestors mixed 100 years ago or if they never even separated, over the course of 50,000 years.

Von Braun
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 03:17 AM
Looking at some half-breed Central Asian, there is no way to tell if his ancestors mixed 100 years ago or if they never even separated, over the course of 50,000 years.

Exactly, so the racial-mixing explanation is quite possibly more important than the divergent evolution explanation in explaining clinal zones.

Stríbog
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 03:27 AM
In cases like the one I mentioned, we can't determine that it is one or the other, which was my point. You assume that it is recent mixing because that is what you want. In the example Thorburn cited, semi-mongoloid platinum blondes, the only explanation is evolution, not mixing. I don't think you have much data on your side.

Von Braun
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 03:27 AM
For example, the platinum blonde hair of many NE Europeans with "semi-mongoloid" features could not be explained if they were the product between still blonde, but darker-haired NW/N European Nordids and black-haired Far East Asians.

Consider a mixture between east asians and platinum blonde people with no mongoloid features (i.e. fully Europid), in a proportion of about 1/16 and 15/16, respectively, as the source of these individuals. There is no doubt that the white group mentioned, fully Europid platinum blondes, does in fact exist.



No, genetic exchanges decrease (on average) with the square of the distance, as human groups breed in overlapping "wedding circles" (whose average dimensions depend on mobility and other factors) and in case of miscegenation only 50% of the alien genes are passed onto the new individual in the next generation. While genes pass through the wedding circles they get diluted by the factor 2.

Could you please explain how overlapping circles lead to an inverse sqaure decay (d^-2, where d is distance)? Now that I think about it, the model you just proposed would actually lead to an exponential decay ((1/N)^d, where d is distance and N is a number greater than unity) with distance. Think about it: you used N=2 and d = 9 (i.e. the distance from circle one to circle ten). Then, (1/2)^9 = 1/512 (the number you gave); (1/2)^d is exponential decay and not inverse square decay.

Stríbog
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 03:29 AM
An inverse square is 1/(d^2) or (d^-2). (d^-.5) is an inverse square root.

Von Braun
Tuesday, May 20th, 2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Fionn mac Cumhaill
An inverse square is 1/(d^2) or (d^-2). (d^-.5) is an inverse square root.

Sorry, that was a typo.

In any case, you must see that (1/2)^d=(1/2)^9 [i.e., d=9] is not an inverse square decay, but rather it is an exponential, or geometric decay. The only thing related to the number two is the decay factor, 1/2. Something is inverse sqaure if -2 is in the exponent, and something is a geometric or exponential decay if the variable is in the exponent.

goidelicwarrior
Thursday, May 22nd, 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Von Braun
Fionn, if anything can be "known" in the area of history, it is an occupation that lasted almost eight hundred years in early modern times on the Iberian penninsula. yes and it ended in a ethnic cleancing . :cool

Von Braun
Thursday, May 22nd, 2003, 10:06 PM
Triskel, I do not question that the Spanish Inquisition resulted in some ethnic cleansing. However, how thorough could it possibly have been?

goidelicwarrior
Friday, May 23rd, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Von Braun
Triskel, I do not question that the Spanish Inquisition resulted in some ethnic cleansing. However, how thorough could it possibly have been? thorough enough.. or do you seriously belive that a mongrelized population could go on and conquer an empire only surpased by the British? it lasted until the end of the1800.. this is evidence enough.. acc to kemp whom I spoke to.. Spain has.. he estimates ardound 15% people with some kind of non white admixture.. off course i belive its much less.. anyway.. look around in the world.. wich nations are socially advanced and welfare states ? Canada, USA, Europe and the best in SA is Argentina for example.. and Japan in Asia.. I think this speaks volumes.. dont you think...

Nordgau
Friday, May 23rd, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Scathach

It appears to me (maybe im cynical lol) that the views and works created by Gunther,Coon and Beddoe etc are more than accurate,valid and interesting BUT that people like the communists and non whites dont approve of them so thus thats why theyre held up as pointless and discredited?

I would appreciate anyone's views on this.

That's exactly the point. Günther is ignored and forgotten, but in almost every "academic", "scientific" history "study" of the last 30 years, where his name appears somewhere, he is the "pseudo-scientist" (that's the pet term), the "charlatan", the one who has "racial phantasies", the "bizarre" nordic "sectarian" and so on.

Take for example what George L. Mosse writes in his book "Towards the Final Solution. A History of European Racism" in a paragraph about Günther - Mosse's book is mostly seen as the "academic" standard "study" about "racism" in the late 19th and early 20th century:

The situation after WW1 promoted the creation and expansion of racist theories. Also Germany, that became to the centre of racist activities because of the war and the revolution, produced much-read racist handbooks. For example L. Clauß thought in his book "Die Nordische Seele" (The Nordic Soul) (1930) that regardless of the outwards appearance of the Aryans, the soul that was created by nordic blood was the source of all creativity. This "idealistic heresy" was attacked by H. F. K. Günther, the distinguished author of popular books about race in post-WW1 Germany, in his book "Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes" (Anthropology of Germany) (1922). Here he defined and illustrated once more the racial stereotype of the beautiful Aryan and the ugly Jew. But still, with the assertion, that there were no types of pure racde, but only less perfect, less pure, Günther tried to keep some connections with scientific observation. Nevertheless all Aryans had in some way one common "ideal typus" and the Jews the predominating characteristics of their race.

(Back-translated from the German edition of Mosse's book by me.)

That's all so complete junk what Mosse writes here... I really don't know: Is he just stupid or does he write completely wrong things from intention? I think he just looked for five minutes in the here mentioned books of Clauß and Günther and perhaps read a few lines, and on base of that he made his oh so "intellectual" "standard"-"study".

Clauß wrote excellent books about race and psyche but what Mosse sais about the contents of his book "Die Nordische Seele" and Clauß' ideas about the racial soul is complete foolish. And just as Günther, Clauß never used the term "Aryans" because he knew that it is problematic from a scientific standpoint. Clauß' ideas build on Günther and there is no contrast between Günther and Clauß. And it's a bit strange how Günther can attack in a book of 1922 a Clauß book from 1930.

Complete junk is Mosse's suggestion that the main contents of Günther's "Rassenkunde" is a contrast of "beautiful Aryans" and "ugly Jews". Günther's books deal only little with Jews. In the first edition of the "Rassenkunde" there was a small chapter about Jews, but it was excluded later, because Günther wrote an own book: "Anthropology of the Jewish People".
Günther didn't use the term "Aryans" for races. Perhaps Mosse just looked the pictures in the first edition and there are many photos of normal looking or even ugly Nordics. If Mosse sees there a contrast between "beautiful Aryans" and "ugly Jews", it's his problem.

I read Günther's books about the anthropology of the old Germanics and of the Indo-Europeans in Asia, I also read the books he wrote about the old Greeks and Romans in the 60s, the best anthropology of these ancient people in my opinion.
What Günther writes is always based on facts that are taken from old sources (art, litterature) or archeological relics, and I never saw anywhere in all today "academic" "studies" about "racism" one chapter where someone could show that all these facts were wrong. I even never saw that someone tried to deal with the facts in the book. Just noting that Günther has "phantasies" is enough proof of these "phantasies" in today's "studies".

It's just the point that the today oh so "intellectual" "anti-racist" "scientists" with their "neutral view", who are in the colleges are the true pseudo-scientists. Whenever racialists try to argue with them or to deal with their "argumentation", it's necessary not to adopt this "argumentation", but to detect it as what it is.

Scáthach
Friday, May 23rd, 2003, 10:02 PM
thanks for your post Thorulf :)
it seems that all these ''anti racist'' writers and anthropologists merely decided gunther etc were 'big mean nazi racists' and without bothering to read their work based their decisions on that.typical :rolleyes: