The Accuracy of Coon, Günther, etc

[Scáthach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? :

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.