posted
Can you explain why West Africans, particularly Nigerians, do better educationally than 'admixed' Afro-Caribbeans in the UK and African-Americans?
This question is specifically aimed at anglo, so I would be grateful if we let him provide his answer first. Let's see how long it takes him to try to answer this.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
Note: Anything under 80 is non-progressive, while anything under 70 is listed as mentally retarded. All West African countries fall under the latter.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not even pretending to answer the question properly.
Now, read carefully and try again.
Why do West Africans, particularly Nigerians, do better educationally than 'admixed' Afro-Caribbeans in the UK and African-Americans?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
I believe by 'educationally better' you are talking about the fact that more get degrees?
Anyone can nowdays get degrees, it doesn't give an overview of intelligence. Clyde Winters, has a PhD, yet i can assure you if he takes an IQ test he would score no more than 80. The guy is a retard. Anyone nowdays can get a PhD or Masters. Degrees are no longer a sign of intelligence.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
@anglo Degrees are no longer a sign of intelligence.
Is that why you're doing one? I doubt very much that you would have got onto a degree course 20 years ago. Of course, saying that degrees are not a sign of intelligence is just a way of dismissively moving the goalposts. Anyway, I digress.
Again, as a sign of your unintelligence, you still haven't answered why West Africans and Nigerians in particular do better than 'admixed' Afro-Carribeans and African-Americans. You've stated elsewhere that black genius is due to admixture, yet the evidence states that Africans who are not admixed tend to do better educationally that UK Afro- and African-Americans.
Again, why is that? If educational standards were as low as you imply, then the Afro-Carribeans and African-Americans would do as well as Nigerians. They don't, so why is that?
I will start sending you pms if you get all evasive.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: I go by non-biased IQ data.
I believe by 'educationally better' you are talking about the fact that more get degrees?
Anyone can nowdays get degrees, it doesn't give an overview of intelligence. Clyde Winters, has a PhD, yet i can assure you if he takes an IQ test he would score no more than 80. The guy is a retard. Anyone nowdays can get a PhD or Masters. Degrees are no longer a sign of intelligence.
Or maybe IQ isnt a good way to measure intelligence. Cause questions Ive seen focus on standardized, analytical thought when blacks are more likely to be field dependent and holistic learners/thinkers.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
'All irrelevant. As i already posted the IQ data -West African (incl. Nigerian) IQ is 67.
When Negroids take IQ tests they are scoring under 70, meaning within the mental retard range. And anything under 80, as a country is non-progressive. This is why the whole of West Africa falls under, and why no civilization ever came from there. Its why you and your ilk try and steal Egypt or other races histories out of self-hatred.'
So let this be further evidence that the little fvcking evasive, obfuscatory dumb sh1t is not worth responding to.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
claus3600 posted 06 June, 2012 06:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you explain why West Africans, particularly Nigerians, do better educationally than 'admixed' Afro-Caribbeans in the UK and African-Americans?
anglo posted 06 June, 2012 08:57 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All irrelevant. As i already posted the IQ data -West African (incl. Nigerian) IQ is 67.
When Negroids take IQ tests they are scoring under 70, meaning within the mental retard range. And anything under 80, as a country is non-progressive. This is why the whole of West Africa falls under, and why no civilization ever came from there. Its why you and your ilk try and steal Egypt or other races histories out of self-hatred.
claus3600 posted 06 June, 2012 10:08 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is this irrelevant?
I've already posted a comment on the main thread...but as expected, when cornered, you resort to being an evasive little racist ****.
Now, are you going to try to rescue the dreggy remains of your credibility by answering my question?
anglo posted 06 June, 2012 11:47 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not wasting time on silly topics. I only post in threads on historical topics of interest, or to correct Afrocentric lies.
claus3600 posted 06 June, 2012 03:52 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I take your evasiveness regarding my question as capitulation. You can't answer because the whole basis of your presence on this forum is bullsh1t.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that IQ tests are not a valid tests. of "natural" intelligence.One should read James Flynn's "What is Intelligence" to get an idea of the fallacies of IQ tests as developed in the West. Flynn's empirically derived "Flynn effect" explains it all.
Furthermore, culture and class background play an important role in all of this. The cultures of African Americans and so-called "West Indian" migrants [I am always puzzled by this ascription because such individuals are not from "the West of India" but from West Africa in general. In the U.S. the equally erroneous appellation "American Indian" has been replaced.] with regard to education in the case of Nigeria are somewhat different. Nigerian migrants to Britain usually come from the more educated classes than those of African Americans and African[ fill in the national origin].
In the case of African Americans the cultures forcefully imposed on them and allowed to them by the dominant white culture--singing, dancing, entertaining, certain sports, etc.--do not create conditions where learning of a fanatical nature[compare with the fanatical way in which Asian Americans push education on their children]is encouraged.
In the case of African[ fill in the national blanks from the Caribbean area] they are usually descended from working class migrants invited to the U.K to do working class factory jobs in the post WWII era. That's the difference with the Nigerian migrants.
A further point is that less than 10% of the populations of those areas are "admixed", as in the comparable case of Haiti. In the case of African Americans the average admixture is 13% according to Tishkoff et al. Given the racism in the U.S. black-white hybrids tended to form their own special caste according to which the social rules of marriage were carefully maintained. This is a general principle as it also explains the black/coloured percentages in places like South Africa and Haiti.
So in the final analysis everything boils down to class origins.
The cases of Egypt, Iraq, and Iran(ancient Persia) also support the idea that IQ testing with an explanatory emphasis on "nature" rather than "nurture" is just scientifically bogus. Proof: the bogusly arrived at IQ of modern Egypt--heir to Pharonic, Greek, Roman, and Islamic cultures--is 83, which is lower than that of African Americans. The IQ of modern Iraq is also 83, and that of Iran is 84. India is perceived to have had an impressive historical civilisation yet its reported IQ is 80--again lower than that for African Americans.
The scores reported for Africa are low and fall within the Western range of people who need guidance in their daily chores. This is not the case for Africa--so the whole set of IQ scores for Africa are rendered scientifically invalid.
Proof: the IQ scores for Westerners all all within a normal bell curve with its standard deviations of 15 points. If one applies the same model for African IQs then there would be no Africans with doctorates from Western universities in quantifiable areas such as physics, mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry, electrical engineering, etc. The reason being that the minimum IQ for doctorates in such areas is estimated at 130.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in the final analysis everything boils down to class origins.
Totally agree. This is why anglo couldn't answer my question - because it would obliterate his stupid notions of racial intelligence and laughable idea of the superior intelligence of Europeans over Africans. Or maybe he's just too stupid to know this.
I'm not sure about the percentages given for admixture. Surely most Afro-Carribeans and African-Americans have European 'heritage' somewhere?
there would be no Africans with doctorates from Western universities in quantifiable areas such as physics, mathematics, molecular biology, chemistry, electrical engineering, etc. The reason being that the minimum IQ for doctorates in such areas is estimated at 130.
Yes, and that idiot anglo tries to argue that the correlation between education (MAs and PhDs) and intelligence is weak.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a trivial point because given the data from haplogroup analysis there really are no "non-admixed" groups existing among human populations. Take the case of Europe. In that small Asian peninsula you have had migrations from Central Asia, from Africa North of the Sahara, etc. in relatively recent times--i.e. from the Neolithic onwards. That's why Europe confined to a landmass less than the size of the Congo is home to a number of haplogroups. In the case of Y-haplogroups you have R, I, E, J, etc. all found outside of Europe[exception possibly I].
In the case of African transplants to the Americas the genetic data is all we can reliably go on. Family anecdotes and eyeball impressions are just non-scientific.
In the case of African Americans the Tishkoff et al. data is the most comprehensive to date and her team's analysis put the European contribution to AAs at 13%(Tishkoff 2008). Since 13% would be necessarily a skewed average--given racial attitudes--then that 13% would tend to cluster among 25-30% of the AA population. See Kittles on this. This would mean that 75-80% of the AA population would have only zero or just trace elements of European ancestry.
In the case of African transplants in the Caribbean area the confined African populations had no alternative but to procreate among themselves given that the plantation landlords were in a small minority and mostly absent--away in Europe. Plus the fact that the small hybrid Euro-African population quickly formed their own racial buffer caste between the Africans and the small resident European populations.
Supporting proofs: The Spaniards were in the Philippines for over 400 years--they were thrown out by the Americans--yet the vast bulk of Filipinos are East Asian in genetics. The Portugese were in Macau--China--for over 500 years yet the population of colonial enclave is East Asian in genetics. Same for Hong Kong-a British colony--and India--a British colony for over 300 years. The Dutch and the British settled South Africa for more than 300 years yet the "Coloured"--based purely on claims--South African population is approximately 16% of the population.
But as I said above, all of this is trivial because human intelligence is necessarily the same on average everywhere. Why? Because all normal humans can learn any human language and can represent symbolically through the capacity for writing and other forms of symbolic representation--art, etc.
One's fate in life is determined by one's culture/language, family background, luck, individual talents,skills,gender, and phenotype,and very little else.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Races native to Eurasia (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) are higher in intelligence since they evolved in a harsher climate, which led to greater cognitive development.
Caucasoids are average 100 in IQ. Negroids are average 70 in IQ.
It is a very large 30 figure gap, which is verified by the historical record. Negroids never built a civilization, while most civilizations were built by Caucasoids (Sumer, Egypt, Rome etc) and China by the Mongoloids.
And on the note of admixture in African-Americans, it varies -
Parra et al, 1998 found accumulated Caucasoid European ancestry in African-Americans ranges from 12% in South Carolina to 23% in Louisiana.
It basically at the lowest ranges around 10%, to the highest in the twenties or thirties. This is significant or heavy admixture.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are singularly heavy-headed. The idea of "caucasoid" is a fiction, like unicorn or the Lochness monster yet you continue in your amusingly dumb-witted way. The civilisation of Ancient Egypt--LOL--was not the product of your fictitious "caucosoids" as all the systematic and scientific data show. Even for the mentally challenged the phenotype of the massive Sphinx is incontrovertible proof. The writings of Herodotus, the wall murals of the common people, etc. could only be challenged by a not-very-smart fanatic.
It's as if all the neurons and synapses in your addled brain are all congealed. You have to learn to think scientifically and rationally. In science you go with the latest findings and criticise them on their own terms. You just don't cite Lavoisier to critique the latest findings in chemistry. LOL.
Re racial admixtures of AAs: Tishkoff's is the most comprehensive to date. Let's see you critique her findings.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
@anglo Races native to Eurasia (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) are higher in intelligence since they evolved in a harsher climate, which led to greater cognitive development.
Total, laughable bollox.
Extracts from John Reader's 1998 book, ‘Africa: Biography of the Continent’ . The sub-headings are my own -
Comparative population growth ‘It has been estimated that about 1 million people inhabited Africa when the emigrants left the continent 100,000 years ago (see Chapter 10). By AD 200 numbers are said to have risen to 20 million – of whom more than half lived in North Africa and the Nile Valley (and thus would have been part of the Roman Empire population in AD 14), leaving a sub-Saharan population of under 10 million. By AD 1500 the population of the continent is estimated to have been 47 million and in a state of ‘stable biological equilibrium’, with population size fulfilling the potential of the environments that people occupied. Meanwhile, the out-of-Africa population had risen to just over 300 million.
A massive disparity is evident. While the out-of-Africa population grew from just hundreds to 200 million in 100,000 years, and rose to just over 300 million by AD 1500, the African population increased from 1 million to no more than 20 million in 100,000 years, and rose to only 47 million by AD 1500. And yet both groups were descended from the same evolutionary stock. Both groups inherited the talents and physiological attributes that evolution had bestowed during the preceding 4 million years in Africa.
Why did the migrant population grow so much faster? Or, to approach the disparity from another direction, what prevented the African population from achieving similar levels of growth? Since the ancestral stock was identical, the divergent history of the two groups implies that Africa itself was in some way responsible.’ (p3-4)
‘ So why did the migrant population grow so much faster? Answer: because they moved out of Africa.By leaving the tropical environments of the cradle-land in which humanity had evolved, the migrants also left behind the many parasites and disease organisms that had evolved in parallel with the human species. Throughout their evolutionary history humans have been opportunists, whose numbers were kept low by environmental factors for much of the time, but whose potential for population growth ensured they would multiply rapidly whenever circumstances permitted. In short, humans are adapted to maximize numbers and colonize new territory. Out of Africa, beyond the reach of the insects and organisms, which had infected generation after generation, the multiplication of human numbers quickly assumed a hitherto unprecedented scale. Of course, the initial absence or near-absence of organisms capable of living on or inside the human body was a passing phase. In time, as is all too evident, biologically and demographically significant diseases developed among the migrant populations too. But by then they had had more than a head start. Meanwhile, contemporary populations in the tropical African cradle-land remained constrained by debility and disease.’ (p234)
Pests and diseases ‘The hominids...kept away from tsetse fly-infested regions and so never acquired immunity. The strategy avoided the risk of trypanosomiasis, but also denied humans access to almost two-thirds of the potentially food-producing regions of sub-Saharan Africa.’ (p236)
‘While the trypanosomes restricted the growth and development of human populations in Africa by limiting the extent of land area available for them to occupy, the primary effect of other parasites has been to debilitate the people themselves, and thus lower their capacity to produce food. It has been claimed, for example, that where bilharzia is endemic the disease can cause an average loss of 40 per cent of an adult’s capacity to work. A study of sugar-cane workers in Tanzania quantifies the point in more direct terms: workers infected with bilharzia earned at least 11 per cent less in bonuses than those who were not infected.
Bilharzia, known medically as schistosomiasis, has a long record of association with humans. The parasite probably originated in Africa. Eggs of the schistosome fluke were found in the kidneys of two Egyptian mummies from the XXth dynasty (1200BC)...
‘..the power of the pharoahs probably rested on the fact that their subjects spent much of their lives paddling about in bilharzia-infested waters.’(p241)
‘The disease occurs wherever standing water facilitates the propagation of the host snail. It is so commonplace that a brisk haemorrhage from the bladder was regarded as a sign of puberty in boys, analogous to menstruation in girls...’(p237)
‘Hookworms, another parasite that evolved in Africa, are equally capable of debilitating a human population. A Unesco survey revealed an 80 per cent infestation rate among villagers and pygmies in the West African rainforest.’ (p238)
‘Falciparum malaria is the most common form of malaria in the tropics. In endemic zones nearly all children are infected by the time they are two years old.’ (239)
Soils ‘Africa, unlike any other continent, is divided into two almost equal parts by the Equator. Since most of the continent lies within the tropics, it does not experience the wide fluctuations in temperature which typify the climates of Europe and North America. (p98)
‘Relatively high and stable temperatures encourage growth when the soil is fertile and the rainfall is good. But there is a downside: the annual round of warm temperatures, with no seasonal change, means there is no relief from the activities of harmful bacteria or disease-bearing insects such as hard winter frosts bring to temperate climes. Furthermore, the total decomposition of vegetable matter is rapidly accomplished in consistently warm temperatures, leaving no time for the accumulation of humus, with the result that extensive layers of deep fertile topsoil are rare in Africa.
Fertile topsoils represent local concentrations of nutrients, but the overall availability of nutrients (from which that concentration is drawn) is initially determined by the nature of the geological parent material. Ancient granites and cratonic rocks , and the sediments derived from them, are poor in nutrients. Africa is the world’s most ancient and stable land mass...with a greater proportion of exposed granitic shield and cratonic surface than any area of comparable size on Earth. Nutrient-impoverished cratons and granites, basement sediments and sands cover about 90 per cent of African land surface; areas of nutrient-rich volcanic and associated sediments are corresondingly limited, concentrated in particular along the length of the Great Rift Valley in East and Central Africa.’ (p99)
Agriculture, nutrition and reproduction ‘The human population of Africa has never approached the size that the continent seems capable of supporting.
In the view of agronomists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Africa remains underpopulated even at the end of the second millennium, with a population approaching 900 million. Certainly the food-production potential of the continent has yet to be fully exploited. An FAO survey published in 1991 reported that only 22 per cent of land in Africa suitable for agriculture was actually in production (the comparable figure for south-east Asia is 92 per cent).’ (p243)
‘Three hectares of land (including fallow) is considered enough to feed a family and produce a surplus in any part of Africa where mixed agriculture is a viable, but the amount of labour required to keep that amount of land in protection seriously restrains a family’s ability to satisfy its needs. Pioneers clearing land for cultivation in the East African highlands invested up to 150 man-days of labour in the hectare, according to anecdotal reports. The annual round of planting and tending yam crops at typical locations in south-east Nigeria absorbed an average of 230 person/days per hectare. Weeds are a curse. Cleared ground creates conditions for profuse growth, especially in the humid tropics. In recorded instances, African farmers devote up to 54 per cent of their total labour output to the tiresome business of weeding, a greater proportion than weeds demand of farmers in any other part of the world.’ (p246)
‘A year –long study of energy expenditure among villagers cultivating clearings in the forest flanking the Gambia River in West Africa found that the effort required for some tasks exceeded the workers’ physical capacity by more than 50 per cent. Their body weight rose following the harvest, when food and leisure time were plentiful, but fell steadily when land preparations began again and the workload increased. Food stocks diminished rapidly and were almost exhausted during the period leading up to the harvest, when the workload was most demanding. At any one time in the course of a year the villagers were either enjoying an excess of food or enduring a deficit, hardly ever in balance. (p246)
‘Producing enough food to sustain the existing workforce is the first principle of subsistence agriculture. When production consistently fails to keep a community well-nourished, the seasonal round becomes a vicious circle: weakened by their inability to produce more food, farmers produce less and are trapped in a wearying struggle to prevent the circle becoming a downward spiral.
Nutritional deficiencies are particularly hard on childbearing women, whose pregnancies inevitably span at least one period when food is scarce and their workload high. The interval between births can be up to four years among women living under consistently stressful conditions (see page 118). In terms of a woman’s reproductive effectiveness, extended birth intervals should not simply limit the number of children born, but also ensure as many as possible survive. Even so, evidence from comparable situations in modern times shows that more than 30 per cent of infants probably died before reaching the age of five. The result was that although women married and began bearing children soon after puberty, they raised far fewer to maturity during their reproductive lifespans than was theoretically possible.
Children were precious, and the drive to reproduce became a central feature of African culture and social order.’ (p246)
African fauna: Elephants ‘Farmers...were in direct competition with elephants. Their preferred habitats were the same: medium to high rainfall regimes, soils capable of producing edible vegetation, and access to drinking water. Thus agriculture in Africa advanced at the expense of the elephant’s population size and range. Every hectare cultivated was a hectare lost to elephants. Conversely, since elephants found virtually all human food crops palatable, they inhibited expansion of the farmers’ population size and range.
Early farmers had recourse to spears, arrows, poison, fire, and noise, and they could dig pit-traps, but their capacity to keep a herd of hungry elephants at bay was always compromised by an inadequacy of numbers. In short, elephants compounded the problems of labour shortages and unpredictable environmental circumstances already restraining the development of agriculture in Africa, and from earliest times, were therefore a formidable obstacle to human population growth and expansion on the continent.’ (p255)
‘Lone farmers stood little chance, and if conflict or disease reduced a community’s manpower, elephants rapidly completed its collapse’. (p255)
‘In [colonial] Uganda, firearms and free ammunition were issued to famers, who were encouraged to kill marauding elephants. The policy ran from 1912-1921, when it was deemed to have failed – despite the death of several thousand elephants’. (p255)
Races native to Eurasia (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) are higher in intelligence since they evolved in a harsher climate, which led to greater cognitive development.
Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not read anything Anglo_Pyramidologist had to say,but a correction,the Coloured population is about 9% in south africa.
Posts: 2561 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by claus3600: @anglo Races native to Eurasia (Caucasoids, Mongoloids) are higher in intelligence since they evolved in a harsher climate, which led to greater cognitive development.
Total, laughable bollox.
Extracts from John Reader's 1998 book, ‘Africa: Biography of the Continent’ . The sub-headings are my own -
Comparative population growth ‘It has been estimated that about 1 million people inhabited Africa when the emigrants left the continent 100,000 years ago (see Chapter 10). By AD 200 numbers are said to have risen to 20 million – of whom more than half lived in North Africa and the Nile Valley (and thus would have been part of the Roman Empire population in AD 14), leaving a sub-Saharan population of under 10 million. By AD 1500 the population of the continent is estimated to have been 47 million and in a state of ‘stable biological equilibrium’, with population size fulfilling the potential of the environments that people occupied. Meanwhile, the out-of-Africa population had risen to just over 300 million.
A massive disparity is evident. While the out-of-Africa population grew from just hundreds to 200 million in 100,000 years, and rose to just over 300 million by AD 1500, the African population increased from 1 million to no more than 20 million in 100,000 years, and rose to only 47 million by AD 1500. And yet both groups were descended from the same evolutionary stock. Both groups inherited the talents and physiological attributes that evolution had bestowed during the preceding 4 million years in Africa.
Why did the migrant population grow so much faster? Or, to approach the disparity from another direction, what prevented the African population from achieving similar levels of growth? Since the ancestral stock was identical, the divergent history of the two groups implies that Africa itself was in some way responsible.’ (p3-4)
‘ So why did the migrant population grow so much faster? Answer: because they moved out of Africa. By leaving the tropical environments of the cradle-land in which humanity had evolved, the migrants also left behind the many parasites and disease organisms that had evolved in parallel with the human species. Throughout their evolutionary history humans have been opportunists, whose numbers were kept low by environmental factors for much of the time, but whose potential for population growth ensured they would multiply rapidly whenever circumstances permitted. In short, humans are adapted to maximize numbers and colonize new territory. Out of Africa, beyond the reach of the insects and organisms, which had infected generation after generation, the multiplication of human numbers quickly assumed a hitherto unprecedented scale. Of course, the initial absence or near-absence of organisms capable of living on or inside the human body was a passing phase. In time, as is all too evident, biologically and demographically significant diseases developed among the migrant populations too. But by then they had had more than a head start. Meanwhile, contemporary populations in the tropical African cradle-land remained constrained by debility and disease.’ (p234)
Pests and diseases ‘The hominids...kept away from tsetse fly-infested regions and so never acquired immunity. The strategy avoided the risk of trypanosomiasis, but also denied humans access to almost two-thirds of the potentially food-producing regions of sub-Saharan Africa.’ (p236)
‘While the trypanosomes restricted the growth and development of human populations in Africa by limiting the extent of land area available for them to occupy, the primary effect of other parasites has been to debilitate the people themselves, and thus lower their capacity to produce food. It has been claimed, for example, that where bilharzia is endemic the disease can cause an average loss of 40 per cent of an adult’s capacity to work. A study of sugar-cane workers in Tanzania quantifies the point in more direct terms: workers infected with bilharzia earned at least 11 per cent less in bonuses than those who were not infected.
Bilharzia, known medically as schistosomiasis, has a long record of association with humans. The parasite probably originated in Africa. Eggs of the schistosome fluke were found in the kidneys of two Egyptian mummies from the XXth dynasty (1200BC)...
‘..the power of the pharoahs probably rested on the fact that their subjects spent much of their lives paddling about in bilharzia-infested waters.’(p241)
‘The disease occurs wherever standing water facilitates the propagation of the host snail. It is so commonplace that a brisk haemorrhage from the bladder was regarded as a sign of puberty in boys, analogous to menstruation in girls...’(p237)
‘Hookworms, another parasite that evolved in Africa, are equally capable of debilitating a human population. A Unesco survey revealed an 80 per cent infestation rate among villagers and pygmies in the West African rainforest.’ (p238)
‘Falciparum malaria is the most common form of malaria in the tropics. In endemic zones nearly all children are infected by the time they are two years old.’ (239)
Soils ‘Africa, unlike any other continent, is divided into two almost equal parts by the Equator. Since most of the continent lies within the tropics, it does not experience the wide fluctuations in temperature which typify the climates of Europe and North America. (p98)
‘Relatively high and stable temperatures encourage growth when the soil is fertile and the rainfall is good. But there is a downside: the annual round of warm temperatures, with no seasonal change, means there is no relief from the activities of harmful bacteria or disease-bearing insects such as hard winter frosts bring to temperate climes. Furthermore, the total decomposition of vegetable matter is rapidly accomplished in consistently warm temperatures, leaving no time for the accumulation of humus, with the result that extensive layers of deep fertile topsoil are rare in Africa.
Fertile topsoils represent local concentrations of nutrients, but the overall availability of nutrients (from which that concentration is drawn) is initially determined by the nature of the geological parent material. Ancient granites and cratonic rocks , and the sediments derived from them, are poor in nutrients. Africa is the world’s most ancient and stable land mass...with a greater proportion of exposed granitic shield and cratonic surface than any area of comparable size on Earth. Nutrient-impoverished cratons and granites, basement sediments and sands cover about 90 per cent of African land surface; areas of nutrient-rich volcanic and associated sediments are corresondingly limited, concentrated in particular along the length of the Great Rift Valley in East and Central Africa.’ (p99)
Agriculture, nutrition and reproduction ‘The human population of Africa has never approached the size that the continent seems capable of supporting.
In the view of agronomists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Africa remains underpopulated even at the end of the second millennium, with a population approaching 900 million. Certainly the food-production potential of the continent has yet to be fully exploited. An FAO survey published in 1991 reported that only 22 per cent of land in Africa suitable for agriculture was actually in production (the comparable figure for south-east Asia is 92 per cent).’ (p243)
‘Three hectares of land (including fallow) is considered enough to feed a family and produce a surplus in any part of Africa where mixed agriculture is a viable, but the amount of labour required to keep that amount of land in protection seriously restrains a family’s ability to satisfy its needs. Pioneers clearing land for cultivation in the East African highlands invested up to 150 man-days of labour in the hectare, according to anecdotal reports. The annual round of planting and tending yam crops at typical locations in south-east Nigeria absorbed an average of 230 person/days per hectare. Weeds are a curse. Cleared ground creates conditions for profuse growth, especially in the humid tropics. In recorded instances, African farmers devote up to 54 per cent of their total labour output to the tiresome business of weeding, a greater proportion than weeds demand of farmers in any other part of the world.’ (p246)
‘A year –long study of energy expenditure among villagers cultivating clearings in the forest flanking the Gambia River in West Africa found that the effort required for some tasks exceeded the workers’ physical capacity by more than 50 per cent. Their body weight rose following the harvest, when food and leisure time were plentiful, but fell steadily when land preparations began again and the workload increased. Food stocks diminished rapidly and were almost exhausted during the period leading up to the harvest, when the workload was most demanding. At any one time in the course of a year the villagers were either enjoying an excess of food or enduring a deficit, hardly ever in balance. (p246)
‘Producing enough food to sustain the existing workforce is the first principle of subsistence agriculture. When production consistently fails to keep a community well-nourished, the seasonal round becomes a vicious circle: weakened by their inability to produce more food, farmers produce less and are trapped in a wearying struggle to prevent the circle becoming a downward spiral.
Nutritional deficiencies are particularly hard on childbearing women, whose pregnancies inevitably span at least one period when food is scarce and their workload high. The interval between births can be up to four years among women living under consistently stressful conditions (see page 118). In terms of a woman’s reproductive effectiveness, extended birth intervals should not simply limit the number of children born, but also ensure as many as possible survive. Even so, evidence from comparable situations in modern times shows that more than 30 per cent of infants probably died before reaching the age of five. The result was that although women married and began bearing children soon after puberty, they raised far fewer to maturity during their reproductive lifespans than was theoretically possible.
Children were precious, and the drive to reproduce became a central feature of African culture and social order.’ (p246)
African fauna: Elephants ‘Farmers...were in direct competition with elephants. Their preferred habitats were the same: medium to high rainfall regimes, soils capable of producing edible vegetation, and access to drinking water. Thus agriculture in Africa advanced at the expense of the elephant’s population size and range. Every hectare cultivated was a hectare lost to elephants. Conversely, since elephants found virtually all human food crops palatable, they inhibited expansion of the farmers’ population size and range.
Early farmers had recourse to spears, arrows, poison, fire, and noise, and they could dig pit-traps, but their capacity to keep a herd of hungry elephants at bay was always compromised by an inadequacy of numbers. In short, elephants compounded the problems of labour shortages and unpredictable environmental circumstances already restraining the development of agriculture in Africa, and from earliest times, were therefore a formidable obstacle to human population growth and expansion on the continent.’ (p255)
‘Lone farmers stood little chance, and if conflict or disease reduced a community’s manpower, elephants rapidly completed its collapse’. (p255)
‘In [colonial] Uganda, firearms and free ammunition were issued to famers, who were encouraged to kill marauding elephants. The policy ran from 1912-1921, when it was deemed to have failed – despite the death of several thousand elephants’. (p255)
^Excellent data claus360! A reinforced addition to the base, exposing the bogus arguments of assorted "biodiversity" or "HBD" idiots. What the idiots don't understand is that their denials, fakeries and lies only causes info that would have remained buried to come out- thus accessible across the web for everyone. What you post confirms the pattern shown by other writers, debunking the claim of allegedly "easy" tropical environments. And the alleged "harsh" and "unforgiving" European environment is complete nonsense.
The only qualification I would add for the sake of new readers who have not had a chance to look at all the info is that where these disadvantageous conditions were eased or offset by other factors, then African civ and culture developed rapidly. The Nile Valley is one such area in Africa, as well as the great savannah kingdoms such as Mali which had enough trans-Saharan trade to make it worth the while for Mansa Musa to do what he did. Likewise Great Zimbabwe developed elaborately when enough of a critical mass of people and trade had come together to offset other problems, making it worth the while to pull people from agriculture and shift into monumental building. Likewise large areas of the continent were off-limits to horses due to the tsetse fly but where the fly was not so strong, a powerful African cavalry tradition emerged. Just pointing this out so no one gets the false impression (used by the deceivers) of a static or rigid "environmentalism" governing all African activity.
We have to keep repeating it, but that's the only way the data is going to get out there. Posting it once then walking away only lets the enemies of a more accurate and balanced African bio-history continue to distort and flood the field with deception and lies. We have to keep insisting on our history for as long as it takes. Good job. Did you type some of the above Claus out of the Reader book or find it online? ANy more excerpts out there?
Another plank of 'biodiversity' proponents' is that cold-climate peoples lived in 'harsh' environments and this developed higher IQs and superior morality. Alas, an examination of their evidence reveals that the alleged cold-climate environmental "deprivation" of ancient cold-adapted Europeans is dubious. If anything the environment was often favorable, with reliable and predictable food and material resources. Despite this however cold-climate Europeans never pioneered plant or animal domestication even though the species to do this were in place, along with the favorable East-West climatic axis they enjoyed. Indeed, a long tradition of certain scholarship, continuing even today, suggests that some cold-adapted peoples were passive, reaching cultural and even genetic dead-ends.
Quote 1- alleged "harsh" ancient European environment is bogus- conditions were actually favorable in many respects:
"About 35,000 years ago, modern human populations apparently entered Western Europe for the first time and found what one pre-historian has described as 'a virtual Garden of Eden.' Southwest France and northern Spain formed a rich environmental mosaic that supported a profusion of animal and plant life. The diversity of animal life is r eflected in carvings and cave paintings of the Upper Paleolithic Period, spanning from 35,000 to 10,000 years ago. at various times, mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, wild horses, wild oxen, red deer, reindeer, ibex and many other species abounded... the Upper Paleolithic people of Western Europe probably enjoyed a greater degree of social-complexity than is projected by the simplistic hunter-gatherer model. They had a rich diversity of resources, and a high degree of stability and predictability of these resources year to year." -- Lewin, Roger (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 196-199
Quote 2- Famous Lascaux area of pre-historic France shows a favorable environment, not much different from other hunting areas on other continents, with plenty of climate variability, contradicting claims of alleged "harsh" venues. "The physical world inhabited by the painters and engravers of Lascaux was unlike anything known today.. Sea levels plummeted more than 300 feet; dry land connected not only North America and Asia but Britain and continental Europe. Southern Europe was cold, dry and covered with rich grasslands. In regions with some topographical re;lief, like southwest France and northern Spain, vegetation was more varied; sheltered and exposed localities created different micro-climates. Paleolithic animal life in this area was abundant, much more like the plains of modern Africa than anything seen in Europe today. Herds of horses, bison, and aurochs roamed the grasslands, along with reindeer and ibex in the hills...
To judge from discoveries of pollen and seed at some sites, and from engravings at others, peoples of Lascaux and their contemporaries ate blueberries, raspberries, acorns, hazelnuts, and other tubers, nuts, berries and grasses.
The last Ice Age was by no means a period of unrelieved cold, millennium after millennium. Temperatures fluctuated, sometimes coming close to today's balmy interglacial climes, and the animal and plant communities fluctuated in concert with them. Warmer climes brought woodland and forest where only open grassland had existed previously. At the same time, the horses and bison- animals of the plains, were replaced with red deer, wild boar and other confines of a forest habitat.. " -- Lewin, Roger (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 144
Quote 3- Long before the coming of the Neolithic revolution from the Near East via the Natufians and others, ancient cold-adapted Europeans had more than enough opportunity to pioneer plant and animal domestication. Wild species of the cow, horse, pig and goat were all well known. Wild ancestors of important crops- such as wheat-like spelt variants, and chick peas were also in place. What then took the alleged cold-adapted "pace-setters" so long to advance human civilization?
".. as critics of the climate theory point out, the world has gone through many climate fluctuations in the 100,000 years since modern humans occupied the Old World. Opportunities for cultivation and animal husbandry surely existed earlier than the Neolithic. Yet no evidence has emerged that any plant or animal domestication occurred before this time. More specifically, no potential climatic trigger can be identified in many of those cases in which development of domestication can be documented sufficiently to reveal information about local climatic conditions." -- Lewin, Roger (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 193
Quote 4- Even colder northern climes show a rich resource base and substantial material life. Such resources, particularly the water-based ones of the ocean, river and lake, were relatively stable and predictable, providing plenty of food - hardly the picture of alleged cold-climate peoples "deprivation" in "unforgiving" glacial environments, as alleged by JP Rushton, Michael Levin, Satoshi Kanazawa et al.. Nor did the supposed "evolutionary" evidence of high IQ shine forth. A long tradition of scholarship so the cold climate types of northern Europe or cold eastern Europe as dead-enders.
"Similarities appear in societies in which there are rich maritime or lakeside resources from the far north to the Mediterranean. In the far northern latitudes, where for four months of the year the sun does not set, the icy cold but resource-rich northern sea was the focus of settlements with pit houses, with people using elaborate seagoing vessels in their specialised focus on marine foods, probably associated with seal hunting (Bjerck 1995, Bjerck, this volume). Further south, other structured settlements echo the theme of marine or lakeside focus. At Tagerup in Sweden, large houses were constructed in a 'village; at the confluence of two rivers with permanent structures such as jetties and moorings for boats.. coastal and lakeside regions also provide evocative glimpses of societies for whom the sea and water played an important economic and symbolic role. We see richly symbolic pendants of amber and animal teeth, wooden artefacts such as bows, decorated paddles, canoes, and leisters in evidence from submerged sites in the Baltic.. Riverine resources also appear to have been particularly influential in the development of settlements such as Lepenski Vir and Vlasac in the Iron Gates... we see an apparently 'sacred' site at Lepenski Vir, comprising homes with plaster floors, carved figurines, and neonates interred under the floors." [pg 8]
"The Iron gates contain some of the largest concentration of Mesolithic burials in Europe. Burials have been recorded from at least eleven sites, and four of these, Lepenski Vir, Padina, Schela Cladovei and Vlasac each contained very large numbers of graves." [pg 241]
"Even Grahame Clark, excavator of Star Carr and pioneer and champion of Mesolithic studies in Britain, was forced to concede with evident reluctance in 1952 that the archaeological evidence for the coastal Mesolithic peoples of Northwest Europe hardly contradicted the notion of 'a low level of culture' (Clark 1952:63).. Extrapolating the origins of social complexity to certain contexts in Mesolithic Europe marked a powerful departure from ideas of small, marginalised groups apparently 'going nowhere'.. 'Complexity' was built on dense, productive, coastal resources that were available all year." [pg 4]
"Young (2000b:1) concluded that the discipline was still 'waiting for the great leap forwards'. A long-standing story of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers so immersed in their environments and nature, both ecologically and ideologically as to be almost socially inert seems to retain a strong hold on our imaginations." [pg 5]> -- G. N. Bailey (2008) Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp 8, 241, 4, 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
Cold climate evolution put to the test- the Neanderthals whose DNA shows up in today's Europeans
Neanderthals occurred primarily in Europe and show distinct cold-adapted body proportions. Some of their DNA markers appear in modern Europeans according to a recent 2010 study (Richard E. Green et al (2010). "A Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722. ) Neanderthals, with clear markers to today's Europeans, are thus a test case for alleged cold climate superiority. But in fact, these early cold-climate Europeans are a genetic dead end, with static technology, and brains that while as big as that of modern humans from Africa, lack essential processing capabilities.
Furthermore the Neanderthals failed to make the leap to more advanced technology beyond the stone age Mousterian package, and failed to innovate plant and animal domestication despite having numerous ancestors of sheep, goats, cows, pigs and horses available to them, as well as wild grain variants that could be used. As noted above, Europe in a colder earlier time possessed environments with a number of rich resources, and variable microclimates. The Neanderthals prospered there. So why couldn't this cold climate European race, which has DNA links appearing in modern Europeans, show the alleged IQ superiority touted for its homeland, either via brain makeup or technological/cultural achievement?
Quote 5: Neanderthal brains, which should have been superior due to alleged "activation" by the "challenges" of cold climate life, lag behind. They ended up a static dead-end, with genes reflected in modern Europeans but nevertheless failed to make crucial advances.
"Neanderthals had brain sizes comparable to modern humans, but their brain cases were elongated and not globular as in Homo sapiens[1,2]. It has, therefore, been suggested that modern humans and Neanderthals reached large brain sizes along different evolutionary pathways [2]. Here, we assess when during development these adult differences emerge. This is critical for understanding whether differences in the pattern of brain development might underlie potential cognitive differences between these two closely related groups. Previous comparisons of Neanderthal and modern human cranial development have shown that many morphological characteristics separating these two groups are already established at the time of birth [3,4,5], and that the subsequent developmental patterns of the face are similar, though not identical [6]. Here, we show that a globularization phase seen in the neurocranial development of modern humans after birth is absent from Neanderthals." -- Gunz et al (2010) . Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern human. Current Biology: 20, 21.
Other Notes -- Tattersall I, Schwartz JH (June 1999). "Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (13): 7117–9. ---------------------
r/k Selection theory- more virtuous, high IQ cold climate people (the "K" selected), became so due to alleged "novel challenges" of cold environments, or due to mental adjustments due to "novel, unpredictable" environments. Sounds fascinating, but if r/k selection theory is right in its prediction of behavioral changes caused by "more novel" or "unpredictable" challenges, then it also points to increasing moral corruption, violence and filth by the "k-selected".
In terms of human history and culture child pornography and molestation are certainly outside the norm. They occur in every culture but they are not the norm. However, if r/k Selection Theory is applied, the alleged virtue of whites and Asiatics is called into question. Both groups lead the world in the consumption and production of child pornography or child molestation. Likewise, few tropical nations embrace the marriage of homosexuals on a par with heterosexual relations. Such a par is certainly "novel" in human history.
However, here again, r/k Selection Theory may point to a pattern of deviancy being now embraced as normal- it is the white Western nations for the most part that embrace homosexual marriage. Mass killing of children for convenience is also relatively novel in human history. Here again, white women lead all others proportionately (as detailed above), with Asiatics weighing in on the "volume" factor. In the matterof mass murder, "K-selected" Asiatics and EUropeans soak the earth with billions in blood, from the mass killing of Ghengis Khan, Pol Pot and Mao, to the mass slaughter of Hitler, Stalin and others.
Examples could go on and on. Proponents of a racial r/k Selection Theory typically spin it to show "approved" groups in a virtuous light, but in fact their same theory predicts continual increases in white "k-selected" moral corruption and filth surpassing anything known in supposedly more "predictable" tropical environments.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I had to type it out but it's out there now for people to share. I would really like people of African descent - particularly our kids - to read the type of information that John Reader put together.
And yes, I also believe that we should shine the spotlight on the ecologically favourable regions where major civilizations did arise.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: I go by non-biased IQ data.
I believe by 'educationally better' you are talking about the fact that more get degrees?
Anyone can nowdays get degrees, it doesn't give an overview of intelligence. Clyde Winters, has a PhD, yet i can assure you if he takes an IQ test he would score no more than 80. The guy is a retard. Anyone nowdays can get a PhD or Masters. Degrees are no longer a sign of intelligence.
Or maybe IQ isnt a good way to measure intelligence. Cause questions Ive seen focus on standardized, analytical thought when blacks are more likely to be field dependent and holistic learners/thinkers.
Oshun you must be American coming with that racist nonsense. You think the African people receiving all of these degrees in sciences and mathematics are going to come out under 80?! Mathematics and the hard sciences are very analytically intensive - NO?!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed! I am very much disturbed by certain thought trends or popular notions that have come up in academia here in America with regards to the so-called 'differences' in mental processes between blacks and whites. What I find more disturbing is how even some blacks have bought into it, and not surprisingly black groups of 'leftist' agendas. One of the most shocking things I have heard was how a prominent host here in Atlanta got into a debate with a black female academic (a professor in a social science) who upon losing, accused him of racism. When he asked how he was racist, she pointed out that he used logic on her!! [sic] No lie! So apparently it is racist to use logic against a black person since black people are incapable of logical thinking. With black academics like her, who needs the KKK and Neo-Nazis!! That blacks are not as good when it comes to analytical thought or logic was the excuse white racists had in barring them from sciences. Suffice to say most of the students excelling in such disciplines here in America other than Asians are blacks from African, especially from countries like Nigeria. Which brings us back to claus's query.
Eurocentric Doctrine #1 PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DOCTRINE: In which white anthropologists treat people as racial specimens, measuring "cephalic indices" and attempting to prove superiority of the "white" brain. Ugly racist terminology: "prognathism," "platyrhiny," "steatopygous," "sub-Egyptian." Mug-shot lineups of "the Veddan female," "Arapaho male, "Negroid type," "Mongoloid specimen" characterize this approach. Out of favor in the mid-20th-century, it has enjoyed a revisionist comeback with sociobiology and works claiming racial differentials in intelligence, such as "The Bell Curve."Posts: 26300 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry Oshun, but I have to agree with Dana and Djehuti, I was surprised by your statement.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
No lie! So apparently it is racist to use logic against a black person since black people are incapable of logical thinking. With black academics like her, who needs the KKK and Neo-Nazis!! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
That blacks are not as good when it comes to analytical thought or logic was the excuse white racists had in barring them from sciences. Suffice to say most of the students excelling in such disciplines here in America other than Asians are blacks from African, especially from countries like Nigeria. Which brings us back to claus's query.
Printer-friendly view of this topic