Out of Africa and Leptosomic Caucasians

**Scoob** · Saturday, April 3rd, 2004

Atlanto-med posted a link to a very interseting book addressing racial differences. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/

Blacks exhibit substantially lower IQ, higher impulsivity, greater social permissiveness, greater individualism (lack of group consciousness), etc than Asians. They also have millions of fewer neurons - i.e., less brain cells to work with. Whites are intermediate between Blacks and Asians.

I notice that the two most "progressive" Caucasian groups, Nordics and Mediterraneans, have tropical physiques, compared to UP and the Eurasian humans. They also have greater individualism and greater aggressiveness, according to Gunther.

I think Leptosomic (slender) Caucasian subraces represent a phenotype that left North Africa for Eurasia, and became various leptosomic subraces. Notably: Nordids/Atlantids/Mediterranids and Indo-Iranians of the steppes. I suspect that this leptosomic group that left Africa was the catalyst that revolutionized the human species, culiminating in "Modern Humans."

Yet I now question some of the ideas about these revolutionary (catalytic) humans from Africa. Maybe they were stupid, compared to UP Europeans. Yet they were quite active, and their marauding, mixing, and destruction and dominance of societies across Eurasia (I mean Europe and Asia as one supercontinent, not the central part of the landmass) helped form what we call modern societies.

But I think they were only able to do this because there were communal, peaceful, hard-working, sedentary humans that they were able to dominate, destroy, and force to adapt! The dynamic of these types creating what we call "Modern society", I think.

Consider the Aryan invasion of India. The existing (Veddid?) civilization was very peaceful - there does not seem to be any war industry in Harappa and other sites. Compare that with the invading Vedic peoples - who were rather primitive, and formed a highly stratified society, run by a warrior/priestly elite.

Consider how much military science has advanced civilian science in recorded history.

Suppose these invading, warlike, mobile, primitive humans invented the idea of an elite in the settled societies they took over. Consider the implications of that elite for those societies. A rich, non-working upper class has time to think, to find new directions for society, etc. The "common working man" has little imagination and usually fails to see the "big picture" of where society is going - he thinks more of paying his rent, feeding his family, etc.

So the Aryan invasion theory might be partially correct, but only half of the equation.

This type of revolutionizing influence from NE African pastoralists or other mobile groups might have happened more than once. I don't know much about pre-sapiens fossils, so I'll have to educate myself on the matter.

Anyway, these ideas are just sketches - I appreciate any feedback.

**Agrippa** · Sunday, April 4th, 2004

I think the major difference was that pastoralists, herders were better organized and had to defend there animals and space.

Furthermore their gods were not bound to some space in particular and thats even true for combined Agrarians-herders.

The people of the Indus culture were Mediterranoid-Gracilindid in majority by themselves.

Leptosomic is furthermore not just associated with those groups although the constitution is more pronounced in this subraces.

If you look at the classic Negrid type, the Sudanid, they are more Leptosomic than typical Upper Palaeolithics at the first look, but if you look at them in detail there is some difference.

They have long extremities but their trunk is not that Leptosomic at all.

The real Leptosomics are more in East Africa and there again in herders in special.

The combination of herder social organization and values, intelligence and maybe Schizothyme character was crucial for many societies which combined simple agrarian societies with some sort of grocer spirit with the idealism and spirituality of the herder-warrior groups.

For sure without that herders life would have been much more peaceful from the Neolithicum until now.

You must differ between sexual constitution and overall body constitution.
Negroids are something special because they have so high hormone receptation.
Thats the reason for most of their negative (and positive especially in sports) features.

In fact the most collective thinking people were herders, because without that kind of thinking they wouldnt have been so successful.

The difference was what kind of collectivism and individualism they had.
For them collectivism didnt meant that everyone is the same or that nothing will change but that they fight together for their group and its honourable and good for the status to be better than the others in that.

So individualism in the sence of being more effective, fighting harder for the group and gaining spiritual strength, honour and social status.
In the beginning most of those societies were more egalitarian than their agrarian counterparts which often had a specific administration and priest cast.

If they defeated such a group it was natural for them that not just their leader, but all of them were above the mass of the sujected.
Not just the leader but all free fighting man had the right to share the success.
Because for herders every good warrior and herder is important for the group. If you lose some of them in a small tribe it can be deadly in hard climatic or war times.

So just with time, when this groups came in contact with agrarian stratified societies this changed.
First they subjected the peasants, but secondly greed and the lust for power found there way into the hearts of some of their leaders.

The best collective spirit is those of this herder-warriors because it doesnt say "stay all the same and change nothing and nobody is better" but change what is good for us and those which help the group in a significant way in peace or war get honour, status and spiritual and social power.
The problems come up in the moment in which some very important persons get greedy or thirsty for power.
So the social system, the spirit must be against such individuals which could harm the group.
This is harder in such societies because some sort of individualism they need, they needed even as herders because every herder must think fast and on its own.
In some agrarian societies it was enough if just some thought...

But you are right, the big success gained such societies mostly when they subjected masses of peasants so they could work on their ideas, science etc.

Dont forget this was true in agrarian priest societies too, the difference was just in the spiritual background which lead in the one group to a static and non-developing society made up by priests and a single leader.
Just think about Egypt or the early Mesopotamian cultures.

**RusViking** · Sunday, April 4th, 2004

With all due respect to Agrippa and Scoob, who are both articulate and knowledgeable, I find it very difficult to so easily accept the assignment of behavioral, both individual and social, characteristics to any particular race as though they do not exist in other races.

But then perhaps this is the case.

If you would be so kind as to cite at least a few sources for my consideration and perhaps education.

Thank you.

**Agrippa** · Sunday, April 4th, 2004

Originally Posted by rusman

With all due respect to Agrippa and Scoob, who are both articulate and knowledgeable, I find it very difficult to so easily accept the assignment of behavioral, both individual and social, characteristics to any particular race as though they do not exist in other races.

But then perhaps this is the case.

If you would be so kind as to cite at least a few sources for my consideration and perhaps education.

Thank you.

I think its a social phenomenon first and a biological one 2nd.

To my statements above I want just to add that herder societies were more patriarchalic, patrilinear and Clan-oriented than average agrarian societies.

It is clear that this lead to other problems especially if the state is not fully developed (just compare Balkan until the 20th century and still Albania and Kosovo or Arabs etc.).

So there was the Clan and the tribal collective with the Clan usually first at least in the earlier stages of social organization.

And as I said before, Alpines and UP in general can be Leptosomic as well, just in slightly lower numbers, same is true for all other subraces.

For the difference between Negrids and lets say leptomorphic Europids you should think about the sexual hormone levels first imo and those are not really different in Europe but to the Negrids afaik.

But some said Leptosomics have lower, other said higher levels in Europe...I think its not Sextype related primarily.

It would be interesting to compare sexual hormone levels from UP to Nordids. What do you think?

**Awar** · Sunday, April 4th, 2004

I'm exhausted from posting today

Great thread!

**morfrain_encilgar** · Monday, April 5th, 2004

Regarding adaptations to cold, this is interesting.

It reveals something interesting about modern humans. Despite having warm climate limb proportions, British have a cold-climate hip and femur shape. Therefore the pelvis seems more important than the limb length.

It is suggested that neanderthal femur shape is an adaptation to a cold climate.

**Frans_Jozef** · Monday, April 5th, 2004

Some caution to corrolate tropical and equatorial origins with certain limb proportions and any subscription to the Out-of-Africa thesis has to be put on the foreground.

The Melanesians, whatever marvellous connection with Africa may exist, are medium build, sturdy and plump, and in contrast with Africans, the exagerrated long legs are absent in these populations and they appear in my eyes to incline to a normal European constitution and proportionality.

The Vedda, however, are very equatorial but
the lumbar vertebrae misses the faculty to bow, lower arm bones are bend, the femur is curved and the tibia near the knee is bend backwards; anomalies, according to Weinert, which are of Neanderthaloid inspiration.
When we acknowledge that by a wholesale of agencies and evolutive modulation the head/skull form may change during a short period of time dramatically and changing the physiognomy that a present population is unrecognigzeable for its forebearers, without any possibility of amalganation, we should then allow the same flexibility for body shapes and limb proportions.

The bone material from a given geographical region should be followed up backwards in time, and in reverse we should detect afterwards the patterns that over and over again is reproduced but not inmutable in the samples...disruptive elements can indicate genic flow, either contained, interspersed, absorbed and re-arranged in the local morphological pattern, or real superimposing and gradually the older stock replacing migration waves.