Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: On Racial Primitivism and Progressivism

  1. #31
    Senior Member cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 07:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,861
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lg
    I don't think it is possible to divide races into superior or inferior using "difference from the apes" as a guideline.
    It's not only differences from the ape but the degree (or distance) from the ape form in total.

    For example:

    Negroids are taller on average than Nordics and have longer legs.
    The shape of their legs are different. Nordic legs are straighter. Bowed legs are a primitive characteristic. I believe the spinal curvature is different among races as well.

    Negroes are human. No one is denying that. So of course they are not going to have all ape like features.

    The most extreme dolichocephaly belongs to Negroids, not Nordics:
    I'm not sure which is better, dolichocepahlic, brachycephalic or mesopcephalic. I'm not sure what is found among the various ape forms.

    Negroes tend to prognathism, flat wide nose, and large teeth.

    Caucasoids are hairy. Apes and monkeys are hairy. Negroids and Mongoloids have little body hair.
    Caucasoids vary in amount of body hair.

    Upper Paleolithic European body types are thick and able to develop fuller musculature, gorillas are also thick muscled. Whereas Negroid and Mongoloids develop only small amount of lean musculature.
    I'm not sure this is a valid comparison but I do think there are differences in muscle tissue.

    Apes have variation in hair, skin and eye color, just as Caucasoids do.
    Caucasoids are not the only ones with variation in color.

    Mongoloids have the largest cranial capacity and the highest average IQs, despite being the most brachycephalic.
    Neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity. And at the time they lived probably had a high IQ too. I think all this determines is that primitive looking people can have a high IQ.

    Sloping foreheads and brow-ridges are considered archaic characteristics. Some Nordic types have these characteristics. Baltic, Alpinid, Mongoloid types generally do not.

    There are Negroid types showing progressive features. (see attached images) I don't think it is a coincidence that the most progressive racial types of indigenous black Africans belong to the Ethiopians and Ethiopid race, the most intelligent, cultured and inventive black people.

    The longest, highest bridged noses belong to Armenoids and Irano-Afghans. Likewise there are Nordish types having shorter, lower bridged noses (East Baltics).

    Racial preservation isn't about labelling other people inferior. It is about having respect for who you are and where you come from.

    I don't think anyone is saying that Nordics are complete removed from having some ape like characteristics. They just have fewer.
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  2. #32
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 07:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Sorry if this is a bit of topic, but I once read somewhere that the Nordid race is a hybrid race. What does that mean? And a hybrid of what?

  3. #33
    Senior Member Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 05:58 AM
    Ethnicity
    German/Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Ethnic Nationalism
    Religion
    None
    Posts
    212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Well, some scientists claim that all caucasoid peoples have some small degree of Neanderthal DNA.

  4. #34
    Senior Member svartleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 01:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Subrace
    Baltid, Bruenn
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropology Student
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    97
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Put a 2m tall, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian scientist next to a pitch-black, illiterate and unprincipled Negroid hunter-gatherer from the Congo, and there you have a stark contrast of what different racial qualities embody. In some cases, it is not as visually apparent as in this example. But then you look at advancement in culture, character, IQ, achievement, humanism, aesthetics, relative prosperity, etc and you will see the difference.
    There is no debate that we should be proud to be Germanic and of the physical qualities that entails. Saying that genetic qualities express themselves through morality and culture is flawed on several levels.

    1)In science there are no morals, the statement unprincipled has no meaning. Morality, like character, aesthetics, and prosperity are all relative to who is asking and what they view as a measure of these things.

    2) The statement is clearly biased with no support for that bias. For the bulk of our history we Germanics were the savages. Remember the Roman descriptions of the Germanic tribesmen, however in awe of them their physical prowess they were, they still viewed us as primitive, lesser beings. Look at the Arabs during our dark ages. They were a Semitic people that advanced science and retained the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans while we Europeans were torching libraries. How about the Chinese, who invented and forgot the use of torpedoes and mechanical clocks before us Europeans could even formulate the ideas for those inventions.

    In closing, anthropology is a science. What you're talking about here, I'm sorry to say, is not science.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Vectis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 19th, 2012 @ 04:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Atlantic RhD-
    Ancestry
    England,Asturias,Scotland
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Isle of Wight
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Imperialism
    Posts
    51
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    But the Chinese may have got all their knowledge from the Tocharians who were white and europid according to mummies that have been found, and the Arabs gained most of their knowledge from the christian lands in the near east they conquered. Greeks and Romans were similar people to us before they started breeding with their Arab slaves but as a result mainly of living in an easier climate they were able to develop a more advanced society. Negroes don't seem to be able to sustain a civilisation.
    Germanics look paler because it helped them in cloudy cold conditions,and their larger frames were better for hunting large animals. It is purely subjective to say germanics/nordics are superior or more attractive than other white races but that seems to be the consensus.

  6. #36
    Senior Member svartleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 01:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Subrace
    Baltid, Bruenn
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropology Student
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    97
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vectis View Post
    But the Chinese may have got all their knowledge from the Tocharians who were white and europid according to mummies that have been found, and the Arabs gained most of their knowledge from the christian lands in the near east they conquered. Greeks and Romans were similar people to us before they started breeding with their Arab slaves but as a result mainly of living in an easier climate they were able to develop a more advanced society. Negroes don't seem to be able to sustain a civilisation.
    Germanics look paler because it helped them in cloudy cold conditions,and their larger frames were better for hunting large animals. It is purely subjective to say germanics/nordics are superior or more attractive than other white races but that seems to be the consensus.
    How many Tocharian clocks have been found? Tocharian treatises on gun powder? Where is the evidence that these people were ever scientifically advanced or (and this is really subjective) socially advanced? What about the water powered machines we've found from the time of Shi Huang Di?

    And-
    What about the Arab advancements in astronomy? Medicine? Clockwork?
    Yes they preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans, but they also did quite a bit to build on it.

    I'm not saying we Germanics are not great, but I think it goes beyond fallacious to say that there is any evidence showing that we are predisposed to scientific advancement.

    The only reason we gained dominance during the more recent parts of history is because while other nations with the same mineral wealth as us were generally in stable societies with strong traditions we Europeans existed as a series of bickering principalities in which stagnation was a death sentence.
    As toward African civilizations, the lack of them has less to do with African genetics than it does with the longitudinal orientation of the African continent.Civilization, at least as we define it requires a surplus of food and labor. That has only been achieved thus far by agriculture. Advancements like agriculture and domesticated animals were not able to spread over great distances in Africa because rather than spreading along the same latitude as in Europe and Asia new crops and farm animals, and thus the civilizations they could support were cut off by intervening tropical and arid zones, and so, to this day some peoples in Africa do not participate in any but the most basic forms of agriculture. Lack of efficient, viable agriculture=no surplus labor= no time for scientific advancement.

    This also accounts for the amount of time it took our own ancestors to create a modern state structure. Agriculture had to spread northwards rather than west or eastwards from its western hearth in Mesopotamia

    If you're curious about where these ideas are coming from I suggest a great book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

  7. #37
    Senior Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 22nd, 2019 @ 09:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    American of Northwestern European descent
    Ancestry
    Ireland, Sweden, Colonial America, Luxemburg
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Posts
    226
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by svartleby View Post
    I'm not saying we Germanics are not great, but I think it goes beyond fallacious to say that there is any evidence showing that we are predisposed to scientific advancement.

    The only reason we gained dominance during the more recent parts of history is because while other nations with the same mineral wealth as us were generally in stable societies with strong traditions we Europeans existed as a series of bickering principalities in which stagnation was a death sentence.
    As toward African civilizations, the lack of them has less to do with African genetics than it does with the longitudinal orientation of the African continent.Civilization, at least as we define it requires a surplus of food and labor. That has only been achieved thus far by agriculture. Advancements like agriculture and domesticated animals were not able to spread over great distances in Africa because rather than spreading along the same latitude as in Europe and Asia new crops and farm animals, and thus the civilizations they could support were cut off by intervening tropical and arid zones, and so, to this day some peoples in Africa do not participate in any but the most basic forms of agriculture. Lack of efficient, viable agriculture=no surplus labor= no time for scientific advancement.

    This also accounts for the amount of time it took our own ancestors to create a modern state structure. Agriculture had to spread northwards rather than west or eastwards from its western hearth in Mesopotamia

    If you're curious about where these ideas are coming from I suggest a great book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond
    Sure, the sub-populations of Homo sapiens that by chance occupied the right environmental regions were destined to become the dominant civilizations.

    That however doesn't mean all human populations are the same today. The genetic divergence that occurred as these sub-populations grew into different degrees of social complexity still must be taken into account; yet, Diamond, in his narrow, race-denying view of biogeography as the sole differentiator of human populations, fails to acknowledge the reality that genetic changes would undoubtedly have arisen between the "civilized" and "primitive" populations. Traits better suited for life in an increasingly socially complex society would have been selected for in Europe and Asia, in contrast to the relatively stagnant social structure of, e.g., African hunter-gatherers. The former would become racially progressive, the latter, in comparison, would be racially primitive.

    I'm not a Nordicist by any means, but I don't buy into Diamond's egalitarian nonsense.

  8. #38
    Senior Member svartleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 01:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Subrace
    Baltid, Bruenn
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropology Student
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    97
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Sure, the sub-populations of Homo sapiens that by chance occupied the right environmental regions were destined to become the dominant civilizations.

    That however doesn't mean all human populations are the same today. The genetic divergence that occurred as these sub-populations grew into different degrees of social complexity still must be taken into account; yet, Diamond, in his narrow, race-denying view of biogeography as the sole differentiator of human populations, fails to acknowledge the reality that genetic changes would undoubtedly have arisen between the "civilized" and "primitive" populations. Traits better suited for life in an increasingly socially complex society would have been selected for in Europe and Asia, in contrast to the relatively stagnant social structure of, e.g., African hunter-gatherers. The former would become racially progressive, the latter, in comparison, would be racially primitive.

    I'm not a Nordicist by any means, but I don't buy into Diamond's egalitarian nonsense.
    Actually the trend as of now is leaning towards civilization as something of a nullification of evolution. Except in times of hardship, it allows all but the most misshapen constituents of a society a more or less equal chance to reproduce, where as in traditional hunter gatherer societies the stock is a bit more "threaded".

    I agree with you, some differentiation has most definitely occurred, however given the amount of effort it takes to pass on our genes here in the first world, as compared with in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea this has probably not occurred in a way that is very flattering to us.

    I also have to ask you what constitutes a socially complex society? By whose standards?

  9. #39
    Senior Member Stanley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 22nd, 2019 @ 09:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    American of Northwestern European descent
    Ancestry
    Ireland, Sweden, Colonial America, Luxemburg
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Posts
    226
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by svartleby View Post
    Actually the trend as of now is leaning towards civilization as something of a nullification of evolution. Except in times of hardship, it allows all but the most misshapen constituents of a society a more or less equal chance to reproduce, where as in traditional hunter gatherer societies the stock is a bit more "threaded".

    I agree with you, some differentiation has most definitely occurred, however given the amount of effort it takes to pass on our genes here in the first world, as compared with in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea this has probably not occurred in a way that is very flattering to us.

    I also have to ask you what constitutes a socially complex society? By whose standards?
    Yes, it's probably true that evolution in modern times, if anything, has been a detriment to us because pretty much anyone can reproduce, but this has only been for the last few generations.

    I can't say what a socially complex society is per se, but a more socially complex society would be one in which greater numbers of people serve as the collective societal whole, with social stratification, occupational specialization, and all the other stuff necessitated by a large community. I think it's obvious that there's a grade of social complexity, with hunter-gatherer bands < early agricultural communities < civilization, with many steps in between of course.

    In any case, the social changes Europe and Asia underwent would require different traits/behaviors/adaptations, and as such European and Asian populations were under selective pressure to refine these things. Diamond overlooks the genetic impact this had; in fact, he even ignores evolutionary biology as a whole. He doesn't consider how things like the environment or sexual selection would have genetically altered the separated sub-populations of humans. This stuff is basic speciation.

    Diamond is a race-denier, which is why he gets so much publicity. Marxists and liberals love him. I've read a few things by him, and he's consistently shown an unscientific, biased perspective on anthropology. A lot of his Guns, Germs, and Steel is right on, but his dismissal of the interplay between biology and civilization is shocking. My honest impression is that he has an agenda to devalue Western advancement. His tone reads, "You Europeans are nothing special--you were just in the right place at the right time." I've posted this in another thread, but here's what he had to say on the subject of race in his essay "Race Without Color":

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared Diamond
    There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.
    As someone interested in anthropology as a science, this excerpt should disgust you. Diamond argues that Swedes would be grouped with Xhosas rather than Greeks and Italians on the basis of lacking antimalarial genes, and he uses this to conclude there are no human races. But that's like saying there are no species of animals because you can classify whales and flamingos together because they are both filter feeders. The whole idea that there is a phenotypically distinct group called the Swedes and one called the Xhosas implies a phylogenetic relationship among human groups to begin with.

    So, basically, my point is that Jared Diamond has no credibility when talking about the science of anthropology, and his ideas cannot be used to conclude that there is no genetic basis for our achievements.

    As for a properly scientific anthropology experiment, imagine that all European infants in, say, the year 1700 were replaced with an equal amount of African infants, and for every time a European baby would have been born, it was replaced with an African baby. The only variable that is changed is the genetic constitution of civilization's inheritors. What would 1900 Europe then look like? I have a hard time saying it would look in any way similar, and that would be precisely due to their, what is termed, "primitive" racial characteristics.

  10. #40
    Senior Member svartleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 01:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Subrace
    Baltid, Bruenn
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropology Student
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    97
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley View Post
    Yes, it's probably true that evolution in modern times, if anything, has been a detriment to us because pretty much anyone can reproduce, but this has only been for the last few generations.

    I can't say what a socially complex society is per se, but a more socially complex society would be one in which greater numbers of people serve as the collective societal whole, with social stratification, occupational specialization, and all the other stuff necessitated by a large community. I think it's obvious that there's a grade of social complexity, with hunter-gatherer bands < early agricultural communities < civilization, with many steps in between of course.

    In any case, the social changes Europe and Asia underwent would require different traits/behaviors/adaptations, and as such European and Asian populations were under selective pressure to refine these things. Diamond overlooks the genetic impact this had; in fact, he even ignores evolutionary biology as a whole. He doesn't consider how things like the environment or sexual selection would have genetically altered the separated sub-populations of humans. This stuff is basic speciation.

    Diamond is a race-denier, which is why he gets so much publicity. Marxists and liberals love him. I've read a few things by him, and he's consistently shown an unscientific, biased perspective on anthropology. A lot of his Guns, Germs, and Steel is right on, but his dismissal of the interplay between biology and civilization is shocking. My honest impression is that he has an agenda to devalue Western advancement. His tone reads, "You Europeans are nothing special--you were just in the right place at the right time." I've posted this in another thread, but here's what he had to say on the subject of race in his essay "Race Without Color":



    As someone interested in anthropology as a science, this excerpt should disgust you. Diamond argues that Swedes would be grouped with Xhosas rather than Greeks and Italians on the basis of lacking antimalarial genes, and he uses this to conclude there are no human races. But that's like saying there are no species of animals because you can classify whales and flamingos together because they are both filter feeders. The whole idea that there is a phenotypically distinct group called the Swedes and one called the Xhosas implies a phylogenetic relationship among human groups to begin with.

    So, basically, my point is that Jared Diamond has no credibility when talking about the science of anthropology, and his ideas cannot be used to conclude that there is no genetic basis for our achievements.

    As for a properly scientific anthropology experiment, imagine that all European infants in, say, the year 1700 were replaced with an equal amount of African infants, and for every time a European baby would have been born, it was replaced with an African baby. The only variable that is changed is the genetic constitution of civilization's inheritors. What would 1900 Europe then look like? I have a hard time saying it would look in any way similar, and that would be precisely due to their, what is termed, "primitive" racial characteristics.
    But the point that Diamond is making here is that most racial classifications as we know them are cultural designations, with little basis in actual physiology. Do you, or anyone else have any idea which specific genes would predispose blacks to a lack of civilization? More specifically, what genetic markers can you name that would mark someone as black? Where is the line for what is more or less black? Is this line based on qualitative looks? There is simply not enough hard science in that area (not informed by cultural bias) to accurately divide humans into any concrete races. Are these divisions possible to make? Probably, there's too much variation for something not to be going on there. But do these differences have any effect on behavior? (And this goes back to your hypothetical experiment) that question is ultimately impossible to answer. But if we take a look at the adoption of non-native members into other cultures we get a strong lean towards no. Numerous times whites have been fully adopted into other "lesser" cultures and vice versa. Culture it appears would be arbitrarily based on environment.

    As far as the social changes of Europe and Asia requiring different adaptive traits, I have yet to see anyone create a concrete list of what those adaptations are and then prove that they are not universally human to begin with. Might they be out there? Maybe. What we have found so far in terms of neurobiology (and since we're talking about behavior that's where we'd ought to look) has been very minor. Things along the lines of a slightly enlarged visual processing center in Scandinavians to cope with dim Winters.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Mourn The Ascent From Primitivism?
    By Cythraul in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Saturday, September 4th, 2010, 09:26 PM
  2. The Germanic Peoples, Rome and Primitivism
    By Friedrich in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, July 25th, 2010, 08:33 PM
  3. 'The Plumed Serpent' (1926) - Völkisch Organicism and the Use of Primitivism
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Saturday, June 18th, 2005, 07:19 AM
  4. Transnational Progressivism
    By Ederico in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, July 17th, 2003, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •