Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are you?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
AngloSaxonTutor
Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are you?
What subrace of "white" are you?
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No? Well that's how we describe people! Did you know we have
changed little physiologically for thousands of years, but the races of
Europe can be seperated into subraces such as:
Irish Brunn (John Wayne)?
Borreby (Marilyn Monroe, Robert Wagner)?
Keltic-Nordic (Tony Blair, Lix Hurley)?
Falish (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Val Kilmer)?
Paleo-Atlantid (Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Harrison)?
To find out which breed of white you are upload a photo and get a free
anthropological classification on any of these websites
Skadi
http://forum.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238
Dodona
http://www.dodonaforum.com/forum/index.php
Stirpes
http://forum.stirpes.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY LINKS
Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
http://www.nordish.com/
Anthropological Glossary
http://www.nordish.net
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No? Well that's how we describe people! Did you know we have
changed little physiologically for thousands of years, but the races of
Europe can be seperated into subraces such as:
Irish Brunn (John Wayne)?
Borreby (Marilyn Monroe, Robert Wagner)?
Keltic-Nordic (Tony Blair, Lix Hurley)?
Falish (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Val Kilmer)?
Paleo-Atlantid (Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Harrison)?
To find out which breed of white you are upload a photo and get a free
anthropological classification on any of these websites
Skadi
http://forum.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238
Dodona
http://www.dodonaforum.com/forum/index.php
Stirpes
http://forum.stirpes.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY LINKS
Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
http://www.nordish.com/
Anthropological Glossary
http://www.nordish.net
-
Charles Ellson
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
On 13 Feb 2006 14:18:14 -0800, "AngloSaxonTutor"
<anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
<anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:
What subrace of "white" are you?
How can you have a sub-race of something that isn't a race ?
<snip>
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|
-
marq
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Is this late last April 1st or early for the next one?
-
Slarty
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
On 13 Feb 2006 14:18:14 -0800, AngloSaxonTutor wrote:
There's only one human race currently living on this planet, Homo Sapiens.
*PLONK*
What subrace of "white" are you?
There's only one human race currently living on this planet, Homo Sapiens.
*PLONK*
-
Mark Ferguson
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
On 13 Feb 2006 14:18:14 -0800, "AngloSaxonTutor"
<anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:
What racist scum are you? This racist site is hosted at theplanet.com
and they should terminate the scumbags for spamming and trolling
groups.
But theplanet.com is a scummy company that supports spammers and
racist bullshit like this.
The racist is a moron. The Celtic tribes held most of Ireland for a
long time, taking on the Romans and actually sacking Rome.
The Picts [The painted people named that by the Romans] fought the
Norseman and kept the Norsemen off of present day Scotland. The
Celtic tribe the Scoti immigrated to Scotland and intermarried with
the Picts. Eventually the Norsemen beat the Pictish navy [yes the
most powerful navy of the time], raided and settled in Scotland.
IOW there is Norse, Celtic and Pictish blood in Blair, Wayne, Connery
and everybody from that part of the world. It is also believed the
Picts are descended from the Moors. IOW the OP is full of shit and
does not know anything about the world as it was, what it is like now
or what it will be like in the future.
Planet, terminate your spamming customers.
abuse@theplanet.com, abuse@gandi.net, abuse@nameprivacy.com,
abuse@aplus.net and admin@iddp.net is where to send your complaints if
you so desire. You can also post this the NANAS
news:net-admin.net-abuse.sightings with [usenet] as the first eight
characters so it will get accepted.
skadi.net = [ 67.19.136.164 ]
67.19.136.164 = [ skadi.net ]
network: Class-Name: network
network: ID: THEPLANET-BLK-11
network: Auth-Area: 67.18.0.0/15
network: Network-Name: TPIS-BLK-67-19-136-0
network: IP-Network: 67.19.136.160/28
network: IP-Network-Block: 67.19.136.160 - 67.19.136.175
network: Organization-Name: Zoe Kennedy
network: Organization-City: Cicero
network: Organization-State: IL
network: Organization-Zip: 60804
network: Organization-Country: US
network: Description-Usage: customer
network: Server-Pri: ns1.theplanet.com
network: Server-Sec: ns2.theplanet.com
network: Tech-Contact;I: abuse@theplanet.com
network: Admin-Contact;I: abuse@theplanet.com
network: Created: 20040802
network: Updated: 20040803
--
Mark Ferguson
Whew.com retooled
http://www.whew.com/archived_articles/
<anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:
What subrace of "white" are you?
What racist scum are you? This racist site is hosted at theplanet.com
and they should terminate the scumbags for spamming and trolling
groups.
But theplanet.com is a scummy company that supports spammers and
racist bullshit like this.
The racist is a moron. The Celtic tribes held most of Ireland for a
long time, taking on the Romans and actually sacking Rome.
The Picts [The painted people named that by the Romans] fought the
Norseman and kept the Norsemen off of present day Scotland. The
Celtic tribe the Scoti immigrated to Scotland and intermarried with
the Picts. Eventually the Norsemen beat the Pictish navy [yes the
most powerful navy of the time], raided and settled in Scotland.
IOW there is Norse, Celtic and Pictish blood in Blair, Wayne, Connery
and everybody from that part of the world. It is also believed the
Picts are descended from the Moors. IOW the OP is full of shit and
does not know anything about the world as it was, what it is like now
or what it will be like in the future.
Planet, terminate your spamming customers.
abuse@theplanet.com, abuse@gandi.net, abuse@nameprivacy.com,
abuse@aplus.net and admin@iddp.net is where to send your complaints if
you so desire. You can also post this the NANAS
news:net-admin.net-abuse.sightings with [usenet] as the first eight
characters so it will get accepted.
skadi.net = [ 67.19.136.164 ]
67.19.136.164 = [ skadi.net ]
network: Class-Name: network
network: ID: THEPLANET-BLK-11
network: Auth-Area: 67.18.0.0/15
network: Network-Name: TPIS-BLK-67-19-136-0
network: IP-Network: 67.19.136.160/28
network: IP-Network-Block: 67.19.136.160 - 67.19.136.175
network: Organization-Name: Zoe Kennedy
network: Organization-City: Cicero
network: Organization-State: IL
network: Organization-Zip: 60804
network: Organization-Country: US
network: Description-Usage: customer
network: Server-Pri: ns1.theplanet.com
network: Server-Sec: ns2.theplanet.com
network: Tech-Contact;I: abuse@theplanet.com
network: Admin-Contact;I: abuse@theplanet.com
network: Created: 20040802
network: Updated: 20040803
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No? Well that's how we describe people! Did you know we have
changed little physiologically for thousands of years, but the races of
Europe can be seperated into subraces such as:
Irish Brunn (John Wayne)?
Borreby (Marilyn Monroe, Robert Wagner)?
Keltic-Nordic (Tony Blair, Lix Hurley)?
Falish (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Val Kilmer)?
Paleo-Atlantid (Sean Connery, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Harrison)?
To find out which breed of white you are upload a photo and get a free
anthropological classification on any of these websites
Skadi
http://forum.skadi.net/forumdisplay.php?f=238
Dodona
http://www.dodonaforum.com/forum/index.php
Stirpes
http://forum.stirpes.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY LINKS
Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
http://www.nordish.com/
Anthropological Glossary
http://www.nordish.net
--
Mark Ferguson
Whew.com retooled
http://www.whew.com/archived_articles/
-
Eve McLaughlin
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No?
Yes, when I had a white one. Now it's silver.
snipped a load of pretentious rubbish
Stirpes
stirps (not stirpes) means the branch or the section of the family
which you belong, not a defined type.
--
Eve McLaughlin
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
-
Lutz Engelhardt
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Please, never feed the trolls.
Regards,
Lutz Engelhardt
--
Ancestors from Germany?
http://www.lutz-genealogy.de
Regards,
Lutz Engelhardt
On 13 Feb 2006 14:18:14 -0800, "AngloSaxonTutor"
anthropologically2006@yahoo.com> wrote:
What subrace of "white" are you?
What racist scum are you? This racist site is hosted at theplanet.com
and they should terminate the scumbags for spamming and trolling
groups.
--
Ancestors from Germany?
http://www.lutz-genealogy.de
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Modern Anthropology and its Political Agendas
Anthropology is the study of man and how mankind evolved throughout
history - although these days anthropology encompasses much more than
that; indeed, today it covers nearly all areas of human life. In some
ways, anthropology has overreached.
Anthropology and Race
In the past, anthropologists talked and wrote about the various
differences between the human races. But after World War II that became
much harder to do, since after that war descriptions of racial
differences came to be viewed as "Nazi-like" in much of Western
society.
Sadly, in the Western countries today, the field of anthropology is
filled with professors who either deny or downplay the significance of
racial differences in humans. Those professors insist that race is
either meaningless or nearly so, and that race is merely a social
construct instead of a key physical feature. They insist that a
person's environmental surroundings, not his race, is the central
factor in whether or not he is successful in life [note: there is a lot
of evidence suggesting that genetics play a vital role in human
intelligence and therefore human success] [1].
In other words, modern anthropology has become "politically correct,"
and is therefore frequently driven by leftist political ideas and not
by scientific facts.[2] Additionally, it has been noticed by more than
a few experts in the field that the transformation of anthropology from
science-based to politically-driven was engineered largely by
genetically-Jewish people within the field, beginning with Franz Boas
and continuing with Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould. The writings
and lectures of those popular figures played a key role in the
transformation of the field to largely-egalitarian-driven [3][4].[read
more about Jews below].
Race-denying-or-downplaying anthropologists will, presumably, pass
their views on to their students, and those students will also
presumably pass on such ideas as well, and so on, which makes the
race-denial matter more significant than it otherwise might be. In
fact, we predict that, in the not-too-distant future, the field of
anthropology will contain very few professors who hold "traditional"
views about racial differences in humans, and therefore, anthropology
will soon be nearly free of mentions of race and will adopt other, more
benign terms in place of "race." That, we believe, will eventually
result in the idea of race all but vanishing from Western society,
since race-deniers within society will then be able to use race-free
anthropology as "scientific proof" that race doesn't really exist. Such
a society will then be more-or-less a Marxist society, because its
framework will be right out of the Frankfurt School's lesson books
[that infamous school sought to make all humans appear "equal" to the
next one] [5].
Therefore, we believe that it is very important that the field of
anthropology encourage the practice of talking about and writing about
racial differences freely and openly, without any limits on what can
and cannot be discussed. Further, we feel that race should become a
central subject in the field of anthropology.
Continuing on the issue of anthropology and race, we also believe that,
given the significant role played by the Jews in shaping modern Western
culture, anthropologists should reclassify the Jews as being a race,
i.e., a race via historical inbreeding. We suggest that Ashkenazic Jews
- i.e., most of world Jewry - are so historically inbred that they are,
in fact, a race, just like Blacks are [granted, such a race description
would not apply to part-Jewish people or gentiles who converted to the
religion of Judaism]. There are Jewish genetic traits and diseases that
support our belief that the Ashkenazic Jews are a race and not simply
an ethnic group. Such a reclassification of Jews as being a race could
help gentiles to better understand Jewish behavior in the Western
countries.
Anthropology and Sexual Differences
Just as modern anthropology frequently denies or downplays racial
differences, it often denies or downplays sexual differences as well,
especially in the cultural areas of anthropology, where it is easy to
classify male and female behaviors as the result of environmental
factors rather than physical ones.
Regarding sex roles, we would like to see Western cultural
anthropologists address the strange matter of how and why White women
were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
pursue "careers." This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
and a historical standpoint. We think that such a sudden and radical
reversal of female roles in Western society warrants many dozens of
books to be published on the subject. Women are not men, yet they have
almost become men in a short period of time [socially, at least]. Isn't
that an important anthropological feature? Do sex roles in a society
usually change so quickly, historically speaking? Is such a change good
for families? Is such a change good for children? Will such a change
cause long-term problems in society? These are important questions to
ponder.
We hope that anthropologists and anthropology students carefully
consider what we have said on this page and use the resources found on
this website when they do so.
Anthropology is the study of man and how mankind evolved throughout
history - although these days anthropology encompasses much more than
that; indeed, today it covers nearly all areas of human life. In some
ways, anthropology has overreached.
Anthropology and Race
In the past, anthropologists talked and wrote about the various
differences between the human races. But after World War II that became
much harder to do, since after that war descriptions of racial
differences came to be viewed as "Nazi-like" in much of Western
society.
Sadly, in the Western countries today, the field of anthropology is
filled with professors who either deny or downplay the significance of
racial differences in humans. Those professors insist that race is
either meaningless or nearly so, and that race is merely a social
construct instead of a key physical feature. They insist that a
person's environmental surroundings, not his race, is the central
factor in whether or not he is successful in life [note: there is a lot
of evidence suggesting that genetics play a vital role in human
intelligence and therefore human success] [1].
In other words, modern anthropology has become "politically correct,"
and is therefore frequently driven by leftist political ideas and not
by scientific facts.[2] Additionally, it has been noticed by more than
a few experts in the field that the transformation of anthropology from
science-based to politically-driven was engineered largely by
genetically-Jewish people within the field, beginning with Franz Boas
and continuing with Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould. The writings
and lectures of those popular figures played a key role in the
transformation of the field to largely-egalitarian-driven [3][4].[read
more about Jews below].
Race-denying-or-downplaying anthropologists will, presumably, pass
their views on to their students, and those students will also
presumably pass on such ideas as well, and so on, which makes the
race-denial matter more significant than it otherwise might be. In
fact, we predict that, in the not-too-distant future, the field of
anthropology will contain very few professors who hold "traditional"
views about racial differences in humans, and therefore, anthropology
will soon be nearly free of mentions of race and will adopt other, more
benign terms in place of "race." That, we believe, will eventually
result in the idea of race all but vanishing from Western society,
since race-deniers within society will then be able to use race-free
anthropology as "scientific proof" that race doesn't really exist. Such
a society will then be more-or-less a Marxist society, because its
framework will be right out of the Frankfurt School's lesson books
[that infamous school sought to make all humans appear "equal" to the
next one] [5].
Therefore, we believe that it is very important that the field of
anthropology encourage the practice of talking about and writing about
racial differences freely and openly, without any limits on what can
and cannot be discussed. Further, we feel that race should become a
central subject in the field of anthropology.
Continuing on the issue of anthropology and race, we also believe that,
given the significant role played by the Jews in shaping modern Western
culture, anthropologists should reclassify the Jews as being a race,
i.e., a race via historical inbreeding. We suggest that Ashkenazic Jews
- i.e., most of world Jewry - are so historically inbred that they are,
in fact, a race, just like Blacks are [granted, such a race description
would not apply to part-Jewish people or gentiles who converted to the
religion of Judaism]. There are Jewish genetic traits and diseases that
support our belief that the Ashkenazic Jews are a race and not simply
an ethnic group. Such a reclassification of Jews as being a race could
help gentiles to better understand Jewish behavior in the Western
countries.
Anthropology and Sexual Differences
Just as modern anthropology frequently denies or downplays racial
differences, it often denies or downplays sexual differences as well,
especially in the cultural areas of anthropology, where it is easy to
classify male and female behaviors as the result of environmental
factors rather than physical ones.
Regarding sex roles, we would like to see Western cultural
anthropologists address the strange matter of how and why White women
were geared towards marriage, child-rearing and family life for many
centuries, but in the last 40 years have been encouraged by Western
popular culture to not engage in those family pursuits but to instead
pursue "careers." This seems very unnatural from both an evolutionary
and a historical standpoint. We think that such a sudden and radical
reversal of female roles in Western society warrants many dozens of
books to be published on the subject. Women are not men, yet they have
almost become men in a short period of time [socially, at least]. Isn't
that an important anthropological feature? Do sex roles in a society
usually change so quickly, historically speaking? Is such a change good
for families? Is such a change good for children? Will such a change
cause long-term problems in society? These are important questions to
ponder.
We hope that anthropologists and anthropology students carefully
consider what we have said on this page and use the resources found on
this website when they do so.
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
IOW the OP is full of shit and does not know anything about the world as it was, what it is like now or what it will be like in the future.
Heretics aye Mark?
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
RACIAL science has discovered the art, and the power, of flattery. Last
year, three scholars published a paper, Natural History of Ashkenazi
Intelligence, in which they argued that Ashkenazi Jews were
considerably more intelligent than other Europeans because their
history of moneylending and other financial occupations favoured genes
associated with cleverness.
The principle at stake was essentially the same as the one underlying
The Bell Curve, a provocative tome in which Charles Murray and Richard
Herrnstein suggested that black people might be innately less
intelligent than white people, that race is biologically real and that
some races are intellectually superior to others. But the public
reaction was strikingly different. There was none of the outrage that
followed The Bell Curve's appearance in 1994. Instead there were
thoughtful commentaries on the paper's arguments, and an undertone of
complacency.
At a meeting in New York at which psychologist Steven Pinker spoke
about the Ashkenazi paper, though, one writer was troubled. Maggie
Wittlin, reporting for Seed magazine, said: "People will hear what they
want to hear. And many in attendance were there to hear that Jews are
naturally smarter than everyone else." Seduction is more powerful than
provocation - and more insidious.
And it is not directed at one ethnic group. As Pinker has noted, race
has raised its head in public several times in the past year, and the
reaction - or lack of it - has been notable. Murray restated his
case, more magisterially than ever, in the magazine Commentary. British
biologist Armand Marie Leroi argued in The New York Times that race was
a scientifically meaningful and medically valuable concept. His case
has the implicit support of the US Food and Drug Administration, which
has approved a heart drug, BiDil, that is intended specifically for
black people. Discredited by association with the Third Reich, and
discarded by mainstream science thereafter, racial science is pushing
for rehabilitation on a range of fronts.
Last month, Pinker told the Edge website that "the dangerous idea of
the next decade" will be the notion that "groups of people may differ
genetically in their average talents and temperaments". It is all the
more dangerous for being bound up with ideas about how populations vary
in their susceptibility to disease. The implication is that we must
take these ideas as a package. Health must come first, of course -
and the dangerous elements must follow. We are ill-prepared to respond
to the complex challenges posed by racial arguments bobbing in the
unstoppable tide of genetic research.
In the past it was easy: an ominous reference to the Nazis and a
snippet of scientific reassurance - such as the observation that
there is more variation within so-called races than between them -
would do the trick. But the hard-core advocates of race science have
spent years working out answers to the standard rebuttals. And you
cannot refute a scientific claim by referring to its historical
baggage.
Over the years, the denial of race became almost absolute. Differences
were only skin-deep, it was said - despite the common knowledge that
certain groups had higher incidences of genetically influenced
diseases. It became a taboo, and as the taboo starts to appear outdated
or untenable, the danger is that unreflective denial will be replaced
by equally uncritical acceptance.
We don't need to take it as a package, though. In particular, we should
not be misled into thinking that sexes and races are the same kind of
thing. Evolutionary theory affirms that, in general, male and female
behaviour will differ. On race, however, it has little or nothing to
say. Whereas there is a fundamental asymmetry between the genetic
interests of men and women, because women are obliged to invest more
resources in their offspring than men are, different peoples are much
the same. Although hard-core race theorists talk about the bracing
effects of cold open spaces upon East Asian mental abilities (which
they consider to be greater than those of any other group), they are
pushed to explain why such environments should promote intelligence any
more than, say, the Australian outback. If life in groups of clever
primates was the main driving force behind human intelligence, as many
scientists nowadays consider, it's harder still to see why intelligence
should vary with the landscape.
For most people these are unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable
arguments. Critical and frank discussion from publicly engaged
scientists on racial issues would be welcome. But perhaps the most
constructive thing to do is to reflect on our own attitudes. Our ideas
about race are a mishmash of received opinions, partly remembered facts
and subjective impressions. They probably include more old-fashioned
racial notions than we would like to think, but clever approaches such
as the Ashkenazi paper may lure them to the surface.
We have gone beyond the stage where the question of racial science
could be seen as a straightforward contest between decent values and
sinister pseudoscience. It's no longer black and white.
year, three scholars published a paper, Natural History of Ashkenazi
Intelligence, in which they argued that Ashkenazi Jews were
considerably more intelligent than other Europeans because their
history of moneylending and other financial occupations favoured genes
associated with cleverness.
The principle at stake was essentially the same as the one underlying
The Bell Curve, a provocative tome in which Charles Murray and Richard
Herrnstein suggested that black people might be innately less
intelligent than white people, that race is biologically real and that
some races are intellectually superior to others. But the public
reaction was strikingly different. There was none of the outrage that
followed The Bell Curve's appearance in 1994. Instead there were
thoughtful commentaries on the paper's arguments, and an undertone of
complacency.
At a meeting in New York at which psychologist Steven Pinker spoke
about the Ashkenazi paper, though, one writer was troubled. Maggie
Wittlin, reporting for Seed magazine, said: "People will hear what they
want to hear. And many in attendance were there to hear that Jews are
naturally smarter than everyone else." Seduction is more powerful than
provocation - and more insidious.
And it is not directed at one ethnic group. As Pinker has noted, race
has raised its head in public several times in the past year, and the
reaction - or lack of it - has been notable. Murray restated his
case, more magisterially than ever, in the magazine Commentary. British
biologist Armand Marie Leroi argued in The New York Times that race was
a scientifically meaningful and medically valuable concept. His case
has the implicit support of the US Food and Drug Administration, which
has approved a heart drug, BiDil, that is intended specifically for
black people. Discredited by association with the Third Reich, and
discarded by mainstream science thereafter, racial science is pushing
for rehabilitation on a range of fronts.
Last month, Pinker told the Edge website that "the dangerous idea of
the next decade" will be the notion that "groups of people may differ
genetically in their average talents and temperaments". It is all the
more dangerous for being bound up with ideas about how populations vary
in their susceptibility to disease. The implication is that we must
take these ideas as a package. Health must come first, of course -
and the dangerous elements must follow. We are ill-prepared to respond
to the complex challenges posed by racial arguments bobbing in the
unstoppable tide of genetic research.
In the past it was easy: an ominous reference to the Nazis and a
snippet of scientific reassurance - such as the observation that
there is more variation within so-called races than between them -
would do the trick. But the hard-core advocates of race science have
spent years working out answers to the standard rebuttals. And you
cannot refute a scientific claim by referring to its historical
baggage.
Over the years, the denial of race became almost absolute. Differences
were only skin-deep, it was said - despite the common knowledge that
certain groups had higher incidences of genetically influenced
diseases. It became a taboo, and as the taboo starts to appear outdated
or untenable, the danger is that unreflective denial will be replaced
by equally uncritical acceptance.
We don't need to take it as a package, though. In particular, we should
not be misled into thinking that sexes and races are the same kind of
thing. Evolutionary theory affirms that, in general, male and female
behaviour will differ. On race, however, it has little or nothing to
say. Whereas there is a fundamental asymmetry between the genetic
interests of men and women, because women are obliged to invest more
resources in their offspring than men are, different peoples are much
the same. Although hard-core race theorists talk about the bracing
effects of cold open spaces upon East Asian mental abilities (which
they consider to be greater than those of any other group), they are
pushed to explain why such environments should promote intelligence any
more than, say, the Australian outback. If life in groups of clever
primates was the main driving force behind human intelligence, as many
scientists nowadays consider, it's harder still to see why intelligence
should vary with the landscape.
For most people these are unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable
arguments. Critical and frank discussion from publicly engaged
scientists on racial issues would be welcome. But perhaps the most
constructive thing to do is to reflect on our own attitudes. Our ideas
about race are a mishmash of received opinions, partly remembered facts
and subjective impressions. They probably include more old-fashioned
racial notions than we would like to think, but clever approaches such
as the Ashkenazi paper may lure them to the surface.
We have gone beyond the stage where the question of racial science
could be seen as a straightforward contest between decent values and
sinister pseudoscience. It's no longer black and white.
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
AnglSaxonTutor wrote:
What subrace of "white" are you?
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No? Well that's how we describe people! Did you know we have
changed little physiologically for thousands of years, but the races of
Europe can be seperated into subraces such as etc. etc.
Mary laughs - hey, what do you do when you are a mutt. Lets see, my
kids are a melange of Scots, Irish, English,Welch, Dutch, German,
Scandenavian, French, Lord KNOWS what else.
The theory only works when everyone stays put. My family has had the
wanders for hundreds of years.
M.
What subrace of "white" are you?
When you tell people what car you have got do you tell them "A white
one"? No? Well that's how we describe people! Did you know we have
changed little physiologically for thousands of years, but the races of
Europe can be seperated into subraces such as etc. etc.
Mary laughs - hey, what do you do when you are a mutt. Lets see, my
kids are a melange of Scots, Irish, English,Welch, Dutch, German,
Scandenavian, French, Lord KNOWS what else.
The theory only works when everyone stays put. My family has had the
wanders for hundreds of years.
M.
-
Steve Hayes
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
On 22 Feb 2006 11:01:33 -0800, christopherwilberforce@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthropology was ALWAYS "politically correct", following the political
fashions of the day. When imperialism was in fashion, Western anthropologists
dutifully reported that peoples of other continents were inferior and
therefore in need of the "protection" of "superior" Westerners.
But this really doesn't have a great deal to do with genealogy.
Follow-ups set to sci.anthropology.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
In other words, modern anthropology has become "politically correct,"
and is therefore frequently driven by leftist political ideas and not
by scientific facts.[2] Additionally, it has been noticed by more than
a few experts in the field that the transformation of anthropology from
science-based to politically-driven was engineered largely by
genetically-Jewish people within the field, beginning with Franz Boas
and continuing with Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould. The writings
and lectures of those popular figures played a key role in the
transformation of the field to largely-egalitarian-driven [3][4].[read
more about Jews below].
Anthropology was ALWAYS "politically correct", following the political
fashions of the day. When imperialism was in fashion, Western anthropologists
dutifully reported that peoples of other continents were inferior and
therefore in need of the "protection" of "superior" Westerners.
But this really doesn't have a great deal to do with genealogy.
Follow-ups set to sci.anthropology.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
-
Steve Hayes
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
On 22 Feb 2006 11:58:14 -0800, christopherwilberforce@yahoo.com wrote:
"Racial science" -- what absolute bullshit.
And nothing whatever to do with genealogy.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
RACIAL science has discovered the art, and the power, of flattery. Last
year, three scholars published a paper, Natural History of Ashkenazi
Intelligence, in which they argued that Ashkenazi Jews were
considerably more intelligent than other Europeans because their
history of moneylending and other financial occupations favoured genes
associated with cleverness.
"Racial science" -- what absolute bullshit.
And nothing whatever to do with genealogy.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
-
Sir Creep
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
AngloSaxonTutor wrote:
Hopefully not the same as you. Pray tell, what university gave you and
anthropology degree?
What subrace of "white" are you?
Hopefully not the same as you. Pray tell, what university gave you and
anthropology degree?
-
Gjest
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
But this really doesn't have a great deal to do with genealogy.
It has everything to do with origins, heritage, and ancestors. Don't
try to deny genealogists a valuable method because it doesn't quite fit
in with your perculiar brand of politically, if not scientifically
correct beliefs.
Follow-ups set to sci.anthropology.
Who are you Steve Hayes to sabotage this thread by "sending replies to
alt.anthropology or alt.idiots"? How do you know you are not the only
person who doesn't wish to read this thread?
-
Liz
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
christopherwilberforce@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, I'll join him in that thought.....
You, sir, dishonour the name of Wilberforce.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Who are you Steve Hayes to sabotage this thread by "sending replies to
alt.anthropology or alt.idiots"? How do you know you are not the only
person who doesn't wish to read this thread?
Well, I'll join him in that thought.....
You, sir, dishonour the name of Wilberforce.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
-
JohnR
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
How do you know you are not the only person who doesn't wish to read this thread?
Possibly because he has the sense to know that such remarks have been
the cause of wars and dissent over the centuries and that a number of
us are sickened by your postings.
-
mjoann
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
JohnR wrote:
So, are we supposed to pretend that there are NOT obvious physical
differences between races? Acknowledging what one's eyes can see is
hardly going to cause a war. Being ridiculously politically correct and
refusing to realize that various races often have very different
appearances... now that is quite disturbing. You don't have to ignore
the obvious to be polite.
There is a reason that we can instantly tell Asian from African from
Latino, etc., and is hardly threatening to acknowledge that people look
different. It isn't even unheard of to see differences in white races.
If you go to an area with a heavy Dutch population for example, the
general population looks different than that of a highly Irish area. In
the US, most people are mutts, but in traveling the US, you can
definitely see differences between population groups.
How do you know you are not the only person who doesn't wish to read this thread?
Possibly because he has the sense to know that such remarks have been
the cause of wars and dissent over the centuries and that a number of
us are sickened by your postings.
So, are we supposed to pretend that there are NOT obvious physical
differences between races? Acknowledging what one's eyes can see is
hardly going to cause a war. Being ridiculously politically correct and
refusing to realize that various races often have very different
appearances... now that is quite disturbing. You don't have to ignore
the obvious to be polite.
There is a reason that we can instantly tell Asian from African from
Latino, etc., and is hardly threatening to acknowledge that people look
different. It isn't even unheard of to see differences in white races.
If you go to an area with a heavy Dutch population for example, the
general population looks different than that of a highly Irish area. In
the US, most people are mutts, but in traveling the US, you can
definitely see differences between population groups.
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
mjoann wrote:
this is a nineteenth century concept of anthropology
I think you have IDIOT tattooed on your forehead
because you can only see the obvious
<<
Hugh W
=====================================================
Anthropology and Race 1: The Rise and Persistence of Scientific Racism ...
Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a
biological ...
faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/
legacy/editors_choice/scientific_racism.htm
American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998).
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the
American ...
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.answers.com/anthropology&r=67
American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been
conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions
within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the
vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has
become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly
demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of
genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%,
lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial"
groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This
means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than
between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of
genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history
whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred.
The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of
humankind as a single species.
JohnR wrote:
How do you know you are not the only person who doesn't wish to read
this thread?
Possibly because he has the sense to know that such remarks have been
the cause of wars and dissent over the centuries and that a number of
us are sickened by your postings.
So, are we supposed to pretend that there are NOT obvious physical
differences between races? Acknowledging what one's eyes can see is
hardly going to cause a war. Being ridiculously politically correct and
refusing to realize that various races often have very different
appearances... now that is quite disturbing. You don't have to ignore
the obvious to be polite.
snipped
this is a nineteenth century concept of anthropology
there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them
see below
I think you have IDIOT tattooed on your forehead
because you can only see the obvious
Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different
peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.
<<
Hugh W
=====================================================
Anthropology and Race 1: The Rise and Persistence of Scientific Racism ...
Most anthropologists recognize that race is a social concept, not a
biological ...
faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/
legacy/editors_choice/scientific_racism.htm
American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998).
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the
American ...
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.answers.com/anthropology&r=67
American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been
conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions
within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the
vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has
become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly
demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of
genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%,
lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial"
groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This
means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than
between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of
genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history
whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred.
The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of
humankind as a single species.
-
JohnR
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Sir or Madam,
You are obviously too young to remember that the classification of
whites in Europe led to the death of millions, including the lives of
almost all races and nationalities who fought to end it.
>>In the US, most people are mutts<< To call Americans dogs is about as insulting as you can get.
You are obviously too young to remember that the classification of
whites in Europe led to the death of millions, including the lives of
almost all races and nationalities who fought to end it.
>>In the US, most people are mutts<< To call Americans dogs is about as insulting as you can get.
-
Sir Creep
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
JohnR wrote:
And that's got WHAT to do with genealogy again? Remember where you
posted this....and your audience. I await...
Sir or Madam,
You are obviously too young to remember that the classification of
whites in Europe led to the death of millions, including the lives of
almost all races and nationalities who fought to end it.
And that's got WHAT to do with genealogy again? Remember where you
posted this....and your audience. I await...
-
mjoann
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
Hugh Watkins wrote:
You may want to attribute quotes correctly before you call anyone an idiot.
mjoann wrote:
JohnR wrote:
How do you know you are not the only person who doesn't wish to
read this thread?
Possibly because he has the sense to know that such remarks have been
the cause of wars and dissent over the centuries and that a number of
us are sickened by your postings.
So, are we supposed to pretend that there are NOT obvious physical
differences between races? Acknowledging what one's eyes can see is
hardly going to cause a war. Being ridiculously politically correct
and refusing to realize that various races often have very different
appearances... now that is quite disturbing. You don't have to ignore
the obvious to be polite.
snipped
this is a nineteenth century concept of anthropology
there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them
see below
I think you have IDIOT tattooed on your forehead
because you can only see the obvious
Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different
peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.
Hugh W
You may want to attribute quotes correctly before you call anyone an idiot.
-
mjoann
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
JohnR wrote:
Are you going to pretend that some Jewish people don't look different?
Some people you can look at and realize immediately are Jewish. Are you
going to look at Sandra Bernhard and think, "oh, I wonder what her
ethnicity is?" Now, I can clearly look at her and see that she is
obviously Jewish.
Since I am continuing with this example, I should note that I have
nothing but respect for Judaism, since some people cannot separate
visual observations from genocide.
Classification isn't the problem. It is not a value judgment; it is
realizing that ethnic groups often have features in common. It is silly
to mix the idea of simply recognizing a difference and the separate
phenomena of racism. I don't see why anyone should be afraid to realize
that people LOOK different. Noting that someone has a facial structure,
nose, etc. that stands out as specifically ethnic is not the same as
practicing genocide and doesn't automatically lead to it. Making an
observation and becoming Hitler are not one and the same.
The people freaking out about the original post seriously remind me of
the Californians that are afraid to teach about the Alamo for fear of
offending the Mexicans. You can't ignore the obvious because you want to
pretend it doesn't exist.
Sir or Madam,
You are obviously too young to remember that the classification of
whites in Europe led to the death of millions, including the lives of
almost all races and nationalities who fought to end it.
Are you going to pretend that some Jewish people don't look different?
Some people you can look at and realize immediately are Jewish. Are you
going to look at Sandra Bernhard and think, "oh, I wonder what her
ethnicity is?" Now, I can clearly look at her and see that she is
obviously Jewish.
Since I am continuing with this example, I should note that I have
nothing but respect for Judaism, since some people cannot separate
visual observations from genocide.
Classification isn't the problem. It is not a value judgment; it is
realizing that ethnic groups often have features in common. It is silly
to mix the idea of simply recognizing a difference and the separate
phenomena of racism. I don't see why anyone should be afraid to realize
that people LOOK different. Noting that someone has a facial structure,
nose, etc. that stands out as specifically ethnic is not the same as
practicing genocide and doesn't automatically lead to it. Making an
observation and becoming Hitler are not one and the same.
The people freaking out about the original post seriously remind me of
the Californians that are afraid to teach about the Alamo for fear of
offending the Mexicans. You can't ignore the obvious because you want to
pretend it doesn't exist.
-
David Nicholson
Re: Genealogy the scientific way. What breed of "white" are
"Liz" wrote:
Several honourable members: "Hear, hear".
David Nicholson ___________________
You, sir, dishonour the name of Wilberforce.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Several honourable members: "Hear, hear".
David Nicholson ___________________