Category Archives: Cultural

Primitive People Are Smarter Than You Think

We have a very primitive but wise group of Asians living amongst us around here called Hmong. This is a Chinese minority group that has moved down into Laos in the last 300 years. They did not even have a written language until the 1950’s and they have always lived quite a primitive life in the jungles.

Nevertheless, they are quite wise. I read an ethnography on them one time. It said that the Hmong believe that women who get pregnant before 19-20 are more likely to have problems in childbirth. The people who figured this out had no knowledge of modern medicine. But we now know that females continue to develop until age ~18-19. Pregnancies before this age are more problematic because the female’s hips are not wide enough to carry a baby yet. The final widening of the hips sufficient to carry a baby does not occur until age ~19.

You will notice this if you see 16-18 year old girls with killer curves and skinny bodies. They look incredibly hot but their bodies are not natural. It’s not normal to be skinny and curvy. You want curves, you got a bigger woman. You want thin, you get a stick. These girls look this way because the body in a formal sense is fully developed by age 16 in the sense of sex drive, full breast and pubic hair development, menarche and the full curvy body shape with narrow stomach, wider hips and a projecting butt is present by age 16.

Except for one thing. The hips have not yet widened to full adult proportions. So the 16-18 year old girl look is not natural or normal. It is a phase of incomplete development and makes little sense biologically. Since it is not biologically correct, there are increased pregnancy issues at this age range.

When I learned that the Hmong have a traditional belief that females should not get pregnant until 19-20, I was stunned. These humans had learned this via trial and error over the centuries. They didn’t need modern medicine to tell them the facts. They figured them out on their own.

Similarly, the Hmong have a traditional belief that one cannot learn a new language after age 40. This has been a problem in my area because non-English speaking Hmong in this age group simply refuse to enroll in English classes and so never learn to speak English much at all. The men often pick up a bit of English anyway because they are often working, but the women tend to stay at home, so older Hmong women are often Hmong monolinguals.

I told my mother of this Hmong belief and she said, “Aha! See? They figured that out on their own. And they are probably right. By age 40, it will be awfully hard to pick up a new language.” And studies in formal linguistics are showing this to be true.

23 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Applied, Asians, Biology, Cultural, Girls, Health, Hmong, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Medicine, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

More on the Remains of Ancient Australoid “Indo-Pacific” Languages in India

Jm8: Might there have also been more than one language family among the proto-Australoid peoples of India I wonder (including Austroasiatic) (like there are in Australia and Papua today), since India is big and had been inhabited for a very long time (being among the longest inhabited areas outside Africa)?

It would be interesting to investigate the distribution of Austroasiatic influence over the various Dravidian languages to see where in India it is stronger.

This article suggests that Austroasiatic is not indigenous to India (but rather to south east Asia).

I had though that the Veddoid/early Australoid languages of India might be lost forever and only (maybe) partly reconstructible (in as few aspects) from their influences on other languages that replaced them. But if they were Austroasiatic (and represented by those languages surviving in Andra Pradesh), then that is not the case.

“The Vedda/Australoid people are speakers of the Munda branch of Austroasiatic. There is an Austroasiatic layer in both Dravidian and Indic. It is the oldest layer.”

That’s interesting. I thought Austroasiatic was associated with Southern Proto (Paleo?)-Mongoloids (like some of the Northeast Indian tribes — and Vietnamese is Austroasiatic). But maybe it predates the split between Australoid and Proto-Mongoloid peoples (some Paleomongoloid descendants of course still somewhat resemble Australoids, or did not that long ago in prehistory), which would be interesting. It’s it a very old and deep language family? I know there are some tribes in East Central India (Andra Pradesh I think) that speak Austroasiatic, and they look phenotypically a bit like something transitional between South Mongoloid and Australoid.

“I am not aware of theories showing Dravidian close to Australian languages.”

It might be discredited now (I’ll try to look into it, and the Austroasiatic influence on Dravidian, which is interesting). The theory (I think) was only that there might be a substratal influence of something like one of the Australian families on Dravidian (but still that Dravidian came mostly from somewhere the Middle East — or consistent with that idea anyway).

It might make sense that there is a substratal influence from “Indo-Pacific” languages such as those from the Andaman Islands and West Papua in Dravidian, but I have never heard of it. That would be an older layer underneath even the Munda layer in Dravidian.

There was no split between Australoids and Proto-Mongoloids. The former simply transitioned into the latter. Austroasiatic is associated with the Paleomongoloids and Neomongoloids of SE Asia. Austroasiatic is indeed old and deep, and the evidence for Austroasiatic is about as good as the evidence for Afroasiatic and Altaic. This doesn’t make sense because Afroasiatic and Austroasiatic are generally recognized families, but Altaic is not, although there evidence for the two former is no better than the evidence for the latter.

They were not lost forever as Kusunda, Nihali and the Vedda language substrate seem to be the remains of the tongues of the original Australoid speakers. The original tongues were not Austroasiatic – those languages came later. However, at the moment, most of the highly Australoid people in India speak a Munda language like Santhal. Apparently the Munda languages were once widespread over the whole continent, but most of them were replaced by Dravidian and Indic intrusions. In the more settled people, Dravidian and Indic replaced Munda languages, but in the tribals, the earlier Munda tongues lingered perhaps due to their inaccessibility living in the forest and the fact that the scheduled tribes are mostly outside the caste system.

Yes and the split between the Munda languages and the rest of the Austroasiatic is very deep. Austroasiatic can almost be split into Munda and non-Munda as two basic parts of the family. And there is not a lot left connecting the Munda languages to the rest of the family.

Kusunda, Nihali and the substrate of the Vedda language of Sri Lanka are thought to be the remains of the languages of the original Australoid speakers. These languages may be related to the Andaman Islands languages and Papuan languages. I know there is a connection between Kusunda and Andaman Islands languages and West Papuan tongues. There is some theorized relationship with such “Indo=Pacific” tongues and Nihali and the Vedda substrate also.

Yes, the Mundas came into India relatively lately and surely replaced nearly all of those original Andaman/Papuan languages of the Australoid people.

At the moment, Kusunda and Nihali are isolates, and even the Andaman tongues are split into two different families, so right now there are already separate language families among these Australoid people.

1 Comment

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Cultural, Dravidian, India, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Isolates, Language Families, Linguistics, Pacific, Physical, Regional, South Asia, Sri Lanka

Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

Fantastic. This is the example I was thinking of talking about an African culture where women pretty much run things.

Judith Mirville: There are quite a few traditional cultures like that where all the brainy and managerial work is done by women, and the men keep content with mere physical work and a more childish, happy-go-lucky personality throughout life. That is the case with the Bamileke culture of Cameroon. But these cultures, by their own avowal, never evolve and keep content with a minimalist standard of living. These cultures, though matriarchal in a technical sense, have no use for any form of vindictive feminism or other left-wing ideology.

Women as a rule are conservative, and the societies where they have the highest real say tend to see all form of progress and experimentation as negative. Instead they idolize a mythical past without technical progress.

Women as a rule when having been in power for a few generations tend also to devalue learning in the academic sense. In the societies where they alone access it, learning is devalued except as an utilitarian means of day-to-day economic survival or of social interaction, so such societies prefer to stay backward.

If feminism is to last as a dominant ideology in the West (which supposes it jettisons all references to any resentment-based progressive thought and also to non-standard sexuality), it will turn the countries it rules into underdeveloped ones, so the Winnipeg picture of the women construction business manager with an attaché-case with a construction worker as a servant is a wholly disconnected fantasy.

What you could get instead as a picture of things to come (in the halcyon case everything goes on well for the feminist cause and their beneficiaries grow wise) is a woman open-air market manager with men acting as cowboys in the background (if the Plains of Winnipeg still exist), the only modern businessperson in the further background being a Chinese or Arab. You may also see male tourist adventurers coming to visit Manitoba as a quite primitive country. Whenever women are really at the top for good, they have no taste for construction, and they prefer to look for a greater profit to be made by existing things that require no invention.

Anyway, right now in Winnipeg, construction workers, especially when they are part of criminal organizations and part-time bouncers, make more money and enjoy higher social status than the nerdy people they despise. The bosses they obey are quite often Sicilian ones who have no use for any feminist manager.

That supposes the feminists in question rediscover a morality and also connect to a traditional spirituality approving of their approach. Maybe an Amerindian one, who knows? But that is far from their present-day perspective: these modern feminists are intent on destroying all morality which they resent against as being of male nature. They may be acting at the behest of vested interests who want to establish a dictatorship based on pure corruption.

Once every whiff of past morality is destroyed, all that remains is self-interest, and even feminism ends up waning as all collective identity causes of the past fade away once the elites have effectively succeeded in rooting out all political idealism and no longer need Identity Politics to divide the masses, a kind of late Ottoman imperial regime is installed, and there are no longer state subventions to special interest groups.

Once public ideals are all destroyed, and all what remains is materialistic self-interest, what do these would-be princesses want? Marrying princes or billionaires, preferably from One and  Thousand Nights-style patriarchal countries such as Qatar or Colombia. The fiercest feminists will be the first to revert to pure gangster-style patriarchy. This just like the fiercest Jewish Marxists were the first to turn into the neocons. Most are now before moving even further to the Right as we see in Israel. That country is growing into another Iran or Qatar with a slightly different Semitic religion.

These feminists only object to idealistic men of ordinary revenues doing the kind of non-work they envy like university tenured professors. When they meet gangsters, even of low life, revenue and status, they enjoy having regular sex with them and settle for traditional family life.

Women are also more egoistical by temperament, and feminism can last as long as there is a progressive ideology justifying the cost of their subventions.

But feminism is not as progressive as it seems since normally women don’t side with their less fortunate sisthren. Even the present-day radical feminists don’t object to FGM as practiced in other cultures.

The reality untold is that sexual pleasure itself however carefully mastered is just contrary to any moral decency and ideal. There is such a thing as carnal sin.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Cultural, Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Labor, North America, Philosophy, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

“‘Leaders’ and ‘Followers’ among Blacks,” by Phil

In my observations as both a researcher of native Blacks during the time periods of exploration and colonization as well as being a Black individual, I’ve happened to find a similar variation in terms of personality of “leaders” and “followers” when it comes to conformity amongst Blacks.

First, I will start with my thesis supported by my personal anecdotes, compare that with the anecdotes from my research on the pattern within a native environment, then state my concluding thoughts in the qualities of a “Leader” vs a “ Follower” in Black population.

Referring back to a previous article of my where I commented “I didn’t think I was Black,” I meant that I didn’t conform to Black groups or say common Black interest in way of social trends. With that said, while I haven’t met too many Blacks like me, I did notice considerable variation in personalities. Also, in addition, I will describe them in terms of phenotypes to guesstimate their ancestry ratios due to White ancestry possibly being a co-hypothesis in my thesis. Now, some will mention in the case of the Tutsis, that skin color alone isn’t very accurate in terms of determining ancestry. I agree, for my studies have shown that adding the variable of facial features or phenotype will reflect better results.

Number One would be a junior who I’ve met this year in my AP Calculus class named Cole. Cole, in terms of phenotypes, seemed more or less as admixed as I am. His eyes were seemed to have a similar distance from each other, though his lips weren’t as big as mine. His skin hue was overall browner (his being around “Earth 1,” and mine being closer to “Clay 2-3”) than mine, and our jaws were somewhat equally medium prognathous. Based on his head, he didn’t seem to have a receding forehead like other Blacks, which will be shown in other subjects.

In terms of personality and classwork, he was more industrious, calmer, and attentive. Overall, despite not really showing intellectual introvert characteristics like me, he was a better student than I was, thus is why he is still in the class, and I decided to leave. It wasn’t that I couldn’t understand the material, but for me I worked better with word problems because there was more to analyze, and there was a scenario for me to apply. Simple “solve” problems were too boring, and sadly, I became idle in my work.

Number Two will be a 2nd semester Medical Terminology classmate named Tyquan. He was overall darker and more prognathous than or Cole or I are and darker in hue (Earth 3), As far as his personality goes, he is, like Cole, calmer than me and overall a nice guy. His intellectual faculties didn’t come off as very strong, though he did seem like the type who would be obedient towards extra effort.

Number Three will be a first semester AP English student who I sadly didn’t catch the name of. Overall, he seemed as pure as a Black person gets in this country. He resembled a villager in many respects in terms of facial features, muscularity, and skin tone (about Earth 4) and was somewhat shorter than me. He, however, was not only calm like the others but particularly sweet in his manner and speech.

Number Four will be a General Biology classmate named Nehemiah. He had a similar Black phenotype to Tyquan or Number Three, third, yet his head and face were overall taller than theirs. Concerning hue, he was about an Earth 4 or 5. He was an extrovert, and thus was more disruptive and less calm than I am, though if were to compare us on aggressiveness, he was still aggressive than I am.

Number Five will be a boy named Marcus. In appearance he was similar to the previous subjects, particularly Tyquan, although he was notably overweight, and his skin seemed to be an Earth 6. In terms of personality, he projected more extroversion than Nehemiah, though he differed in lacked inhibition, being loud and less obedient. But he had the same humorous character as like Nehemiah.

Now we will move to a phenomenon taking place with West African Natives.

See here.

Here are details of personalities of various slaves, in particular some of whom were noted to have a decent temper.

As far as these types reacting to conformity, here’s what I found.

In the scope of cannibalism, being described as a major vice in the Calabar at the time, one man described his servant as of Eboe (being the slang for Calabar at the time, where true Ibo country was more to the west) origin, and describing the servant’s shame when he admitted to eating flesh during a cannibalistic ceremony.

Another one of similar origin wasn’t as embarrassed in doing this, for he explained that his tribe only did it to war enemies, and when asked, he said he wouldn’t eat his “Massa,” but he would eat his Master’s enemies. John Baker’s Race even shows near-individualist behavior in the Azande of Central Africa, a cannibal group of much fame at the time, where he mentions another man who refused to take part in the practice.

As far as I could tell, these types would meet either of two fates, being successful through conformity, or falling victim of beatings or even slavery due to their gentle nature.

The overall contrast between the Leaders and the Followers in these works seemed to be that the Followers were overall more gentle, sharing similar vices as the other Blacks but on a lesser scale. I don’t think I need to explain who the “Leaders” were. They were the main source of any mayhem or trouble. The Followers, though not all true individualists, were more likely to follow gruesome or horrific customs in lockstep fashion rather than actually embody the nature of them as the Leaders did.

This observation may tie into Robert’s posts about where line between the where the Ghetto Black begins and the “Good Blacks” ends and vice versa, but once we get to a subject like Marcus or perhaps Nehemiah, things get Fuzzy.

6 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Central Africa, Cultural, Guest Posts, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, West Africa

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.

174 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

The Bantus: Past and Present

Here.

Looks like a cool book. Apparently written some time around 1915-1920. Focus is apparently on the Bantus of South Africa. It is written by a Bantu himself, so it is probably quite accurate. This old ethnography stuff is probably better than the modern stuff because the old stuff probably told the truth about the people, warts and all, whereas the more modern stuff is probably whitewashed to Hell and back.

I know the idiot Cultural Left screams about these early books saying that the authors were racist, so they lied about those poor wonderful African Black people, but I doubt there was much of that going on. Anyway, they generally reported whatever they saw or whatever Africans told them was true. Most of it is probably quite solid stuff. Once you start getting multiple reports all saying the same thing, then the data gets better and better. Then you have to argue that all these evil White ethnographers somehow got together and made up the exact same lies about this particular group or that. It’s pretty implausible, but the Cultural Left is all about implausibility.

I was thinking Phil or jm8 in particular might like this stuff.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Cultural Marxists, Left, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa

“Self-Hate – Not Even an Option,” by Phil

Self-Hate – Not Even an Option

by Phil

Some people might wonder what type of research I do regarding HBD and Blacks. Well, I devote much of my studying towards old 19th century works on Blacks by European anthropologists, biologists, some missionaries, etc. The reason being that, aside from Global IQ, actually HBD work on Africans is minute, and the most variable studies regarding blacks are concentrated on US blacks.

What I’m really doing is comparing various case studies on different African groups, linking the replication of descriptions on similar groups through the passage of time and different authors, seeing how they hold up in modern times and thinking why certain traits aren’t apparent in modern days.

After a good deal of adjusting to the style in which they were described, the process becomes a nice hobby, though under the circumstances of why I do what I do, it’s an addiction. It doesn’t really bother me to see comments of inferiority regarding certain behavior or qualities, since I’ve already being exposed to the general facts regarding crime and overall achievement.

Though another reason, as I’ve mentioned before, is really the consistent credit these early writers present to be such judges. To the disbelief of others, their opinions varied a considerable amount regarding African tribes even within West Africa.

A good example would be one that I’ve been invested in for some months now,

Here.

On top of that, at least for Black standards, I consider myself tolerant towards criticism. However, whether it’s naive remarks or emotionally-driven ranting, I lose it over bashing.

When I see images of Black crime such as murder or rape, I am filled with worry. Not just for Blacks but more generally the fear that aware non-Blacks feel. When I see SAT score averages, SES averages, or any other statistic reflecting stability or function broken down by race, it fills me with anxiety. On a positive note though, I soon become anxious to find some path to a solution that’s applicable.

Sadly enough, in comes cases anxiousness is converted to rage when I stumble upon stuff like this:

As polite as I considered myself in my response, I honestly felt like saying something along the lines of those that Homer describes here being “on to something”.

It doesn’t help that of all the types of bashing, women-bashing is easily among the worst in my opinion. With that said, this could be a case where my feelings were misplaced, as I don’t believe actual malice was used with Homer’s words, but rather, he was just being blunt.

Outside of tribalism, there’s another reason I don’t like this form of commentary. In effect, it can have the ability to invoke self-hate. However, what I eventually learned after feeling close to self-hate many times at age 17 is I would be feeling sorry for myself for a long time if I started to feel this way all the time. Envisioning how wastefully pathetic a life like that would be, I couldn’t bear it a second after that realization. At that moment, I found that on an instinctual level I could reject self-hate.

With the above considered, I want it to be noted that this doesn’t translate to me being tribalistic towards Whites. On an outer level, I’m somewhat of an individualist, so if anything, I have overall appreciation for Whites. The only ones I dislike are SJWs or extremely tribal Whites that aren’t that different from other Internet ethnonuts. I respect them, give them credit where it’d due for their truth on racial matters and of course for promoting White pride especially in these times. However, under no circumstances, will this extend towards an automatic submission. That’s actually a topic for another day.

36 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Guest Posts, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Whites

Race in Vietnamese Antiquity

Vietnam writes:

That’s wrong. Viets already looked very mongoloid (flat-faced) before the Chinese invaded their country ~ 2200 years ago. Anthropologists Mongoloid-looking people already appeared in Vietnam ~3800 years ago. After Viets broke free from China, they took Champa and Cambodia and absorded those peoples (less mongoloid-looking peoples).

Viets became much more diverse that you can see today. If you keep tracing back then every country in Asia was not mongoloid looking. Japan only started to looked mongoloid ~2500 whereas. Ainu people were roaming in northern Asia very early…Oldest mongoloid skull found in Asia is only about 7000 years old.

I do not agree with this in whole, but I do agree with it in part.

The Dabut Culture began ca. 8,000 YBP but developed from 5,000-6,500 YBP. This culture was found in the northern part of Middle Vietnam (provinces Nghe An and Ha Tinh). Radiocarbon dating for this culture gives dates from ~3,500-5,000 YBP.
Anthropological studies show that Australoid elements dominate in the skulls of Da But, Con Co Ngua, Quynh Van and Bau Du. They belong to Mongoloid-Australoid or Melanesian race.

Skulls of the Peinan culture on the southeast coast of Taiwan look very much like this and may be related. The Man Bac people were Austronesians. Man Bac skulls are classed as the Ancient SE Asians – the Indonesian race. Recently, a very important burial field of those people was excavated at the Ninh Binh (Northern Vietnam) site of Man Bac. A 14C-dating for this site is 3,530 YBP.

But the first human occupation here could have been as early as 4,000 YBP. It was the age of many late Neolithic, early metal age cultures such as Phung Nguyen, Hoa Loc, Ha Long and Go Ma Vuong. These people were living in real villages. Some of them had already developed an agricultural society as in the case of Phung Nguyen culture. A great deal of rice and rice artifacts were found in the late phase of this culture. They cultivated Oriza Sativa, a large developed type of this grain.

Growing rice established new cultural developments with lots of settlements with rich potsherd layers, many domestic animal bones and rice remains. The non-food productions of pottery, stone tools, and especially jade ornament artifacts showed that a surplus economy in food production had developed. For the Pre-Ðôngsonian culture (2,800-3,500 YBP), many big burial fields in the Delta of Ma River have been excavated.

Pre-Ðôngsonian skulls have strong elements of Australoid, but elements of Mongoloid are clearly increasing – Austronesians. The Quy Chu and Nui Nap people are identified with the Southeast Asian or Indonesian race. Ðôngsonian – or Ðông Son – Culture in Vietnam was regarded as the most developed culture in late prehistory of Vietnam. It began 2,700-2,800 YBP, and ended with the complete occupation by the Han Dynasty in 2,200 YBP.

The Ðông Son culture belonged to the Iron Age and is found mainly in North Vietnam, southward only to Da Nang (18N latitude) and northward to southern Kwangzi and Kwangtung of China. The Ðông Son are Tai. Anthropological research confirms increasing Mongoloid elements in the Ðông Son skulls. However, the Ðông Son peoples belonged to the Indonesian or Ancient Southeast Asian group – a Southern Mongoloid with strong Australoid elements (Cuong, 1996).

In summary, in response to the poster’s comment, I do not agree with him that Vietnamese were full Neomongoloids 3,800 YBP. This is just not correct.

3,800 YBP Vietnamese were part of the Dabut Culture. Dabut people were Mongoloid-Australoid transitionals or Paleomongoloids. Skulls from Man Bac 3,500 YBP show that the Man Bac people were ancient Austronesians possibly from the Peinan Culture in Southeastern Taiwan. These people are classed as the Ancient Southeast Asian Race which is today the Indonesian Race. So 3,500 YBP, Vietnamese looked like Indonesians. This race is a Southeast Mongoloid Race with strong Australoid elements.

From 2,800-3,500 YBP, the Pre-Ðôngsonian Culture existed in Vietnam. These would also be classified as the Indonesian Race, but Mongoloid elements are now increasing over the Australoid. These people were also classed as Austronesians, possibly once again from Taiwan. These would be Taiwanese aborigines.

By 2,200 YBP, there was a huge invasion of Vietnam by the Southern Chinese Han who conquered the entire nation. At this point the transition to modern Vietnamese began. Modern Vietnamese are best seen as a Southeast Mongoloid Race with some Australoid elements. They are probably best seen as Neomongoloids as opposed to Paleomongoloids.

References

Cuong, N.L. 1996. Anthropological Research on Ðôngsonian Skeletons (in Vietnamese). Hanoi.

12 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Anthropology, Asia, Asian, Asians, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, History, Indonesians, Melanesians, Oceanians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, SE Asians, Taiwan, Taiwanese Aborigines, Vietnam, Vietnamese

Why “Rape Culture” Is Simply Normal Human Culture As It Has Always Existed

Tulio writes:

Logical fallacy. “Normal” does not equal good or acceptable. I’m not just talking rape, I mean anything. Slavery was also once normal too. Just sayin’.

Tulio: Let’s look at their definition of Rape Culture. Once we look at it, this Rape Culture thing is simply the way that all or nearly all human societies have functioned all through time. In other words, it’s normal. It’s not even pathological. It’s just the way people are.

In rape culture:

  • Men act masculine and practice obligatory masculinity. Normal.
  • Women act feminine and practice obligatory femininity. Normal.
  • Women are sexually objectified by men. Normal.
  • Women experience high levels of “sexual harassment” by men in the workplace and elsewhere. Normal.
  • “Sexual harassment” is seen by women as “just men being men.” Normal but possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Society is dominated by men. Normal or at least typical and de facto among humans. Possibly not even true in the West anymore.
  • Rape is an ever-present fear for women. Normal.
  • Rape is seen as something which can never be eradicated. Normal.
  • Men are expected to prove their manliness via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men prove their competence via masculinity. Normal.
  • Men are expected to suppress their feminine sides. Normal.
  • Women are expected to suppress their masculine sides. Normal.
  • Rape has an evolutionary basis, and males have an inborn tendency towards rape. Normal.
  • The onus is on women to avoid being raped. Normal.
  • The onus is not on men to control themselves and stop raping. Sadly normal in much of the world, but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Women take all sorts of extra precautions to avoid being raped. Sadly normal.
  • Women must treat every man they meet as a potential rapist. Sadly normal.
  • Patriarchy dominates society. Normal but not the case in the West anymore.
  • Men are supposed to be the protectors of women. Normal.
  • Although men are supposed to be the protectors of women, they do a rather lousy job of it. Sadly normal.

Do you see what these nutcases are doing? This horrible thing that they call rape culture that we are all supposed to be freaked out and upset and wringing our hands about is simply the natural, normal, probably biologically driven way that the vast majority of human societies on Earth have functioned as far back as we can tell.

In fact, societies used to be far worse with regard to this normal human rape culture. Human society at least in the West has gotten far less rapey in the modern era than it used to be. In fact, there are suggestions that among Pleistocene humans, rape may have been nearly continuous and the violent abuse of women was so common as to be typical. Look at the skeletons of humans from 12,000 years ago that have been found in Mexico. The people appear rude, crude and robust in terms of features, were very strong in terms of bone size, and most of the women were found to have suffered many injuries. Even teenage girls had suffered quite a few injuries.

The thinking is that these early Amerindians were an exceptionally brutal people for whom violence was the norm, the females of the society experienced a lot of serious violence from the men, and rape was probably the norm. To say that life was short, nasty and brutish was an understatement.

Worse, the feminuts say that unless we unravel the way human societies have always been, we will always have this Rape Culture bullshit. Well, I guess we will always have Rape Culture then because it doesn’t look like any of this is going away anytime soon.

Nor should it, I would argue.

Look, the feminists have already told us what their idea of a Nonrape Culture is. And it’s not a culture you would even want to live in unless you were a Cultural Left nut.

A Nonrape Culture is one in which:

  • Men do not act particularly masculine and women do not act particularly feminine. Granted we are already getting there, but is that a good thing? You want this? What sort of freakazoid society is that?
  • Men do not attempt to prove their masuclinity. Maybe not a bad idea, but it will probably never happen, one reason being that women themselves will not tolerate this as it is often women who try to force men to prove their masuclinity.
  • Men do not attempt to prove their competence by acting masculine. Ok, that sounds like a very bad idea and a recipe for mass incompetence.
  • Women are not sexually objectified by men. Granted we are already headed that way, but is that a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where you where if you try to be sexual in any way with a woman in public, even by looking at her, it is nearly illegal? Sucks or what?
  • “Sexual harassment” is removed from work and other public spaces. To feminists, sexual harassment means men looking at women, men flirting with women, men making sexual remarks to women, men acting seductively towards women, men asking women out, men asking women for their phone numbers, etc. Feminists apparently think this is evil or something, and they want to remove the ability of men to act sexual towards women in most public spaces. I agree that they might grant us active heterosexual scum special “pickup zones” that might look like bars, nightclubs, or special cafes, but they would resign this activity to those areas only and proscribe it everywhere else. Granted we are already halfway there, and it’s just about a firing offense to ask out any woman at your work, but is that a good thing? You want this?
  • The onus on women to avoid being raped is removed. This would be nice, but logically that would just result in women doing a lot of stupid and heedless things and probably a lot more women getting raped.
  • Rape is seen as something that could be wiped out if we only tried hard enough. It would be nice if we could have a society where rape was seen as something that could be wiped out, but logically that is probably not even possible, and it would just result in the sort of thing we are already experiencing: endless, vitriolic, pointless, irrational and poisonous “wars on rape” which would boil down to “wars on men,” more women hating men, more women turning into lesbian idiots, more insipid laws and rules like consent agreements on college campuses, and more men responding via reactionary movements. Sort of like the society we have now.
  • Men no longer feel that they have to protect women. Fine! We won’t protect you ingrate bitches anymore! See how you like it! Tell you what, men resign from protecting women, and the rates of violence and rape against women are going to go way up. That’s because contrary to Mary Edwards Walker (probably a dyke no man would protect anyway), men protect women from violence, rape and other harm every single day, possibly hundreds of times a day or more, often with considerable risk to themselves. But they want us to stop risking our asses for women? No problem! See how they like being even more defenseless!

27 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Feminism, Gender Studies, Latin America, Mexico, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sane Pro-Woman, Social Problems, Sociology, Women