Category Archives: Aborigines

Alt Left: Were Human Females Sexually Selected for Beauty?

Let’s face it, folks, women are beautiful. They are far more beautiful than us men, and this is given as a reason that a lot of basically straight women drift into bisexuality. At least one bi-curious woman told me that, and I have seen others state it.

Put that idea in your head:

“Women are beautiful as a part of their basic genetic nature. They are far more beautiful than us men, who are more ruggedly handsome when attractive.”

Now start looking at women anywhere, especially on a dating site or Facebook. where you can see many women in short period of time. They are beautiful, aren’t they? They are beautiful in a way that most of us men are not. In fact, they appear to have been specifically bred for beauty, to put it crudely.

It must be that males across space and time have been specifically selecting for beauty in females. The less attractive females were apparently simply selected against.

If human females tend to have a core natural beauty as a result of sexual selection in favor of beauty cross-racially, it stands to reason that Black females have been selected for beauty also. The women of most races are beautiful, although I must admit I still can’t see the beauty in Aboriginal women, though Aborigine/White mixes are often remarkably beautiful. One of these mixes is a famous model in Australia. At any rate, races with largely unattractive females are quite rare. Poke around in any major human race, and you will start to see the beauty in the women if you look closely enough.

2 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Blacks, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Mixed Race, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Women

A Bit about the Hmong

David Duke Nukem: Turban sounds kind of Aryan. I’m most fascinated by Hmong. Most Asians I know are Hmong but I keep things light with them. I prefer skulls because genetics seem to mishmash, an Australoid and Mongoloid seem worlds apart but not always genetically. Not that I discount genetics, an understanding of both is ideal. Hmong are a mystery, I often ponder how they’d be if they defeated the Han or at least weren’t booted.

Hi David, I did a lot of ethnography work on the Hmong. The Hmong homeland seems to be in Xinjiang going way back a long time ago. This may be the Desert Clay Pottery culture the commenter is talking about. There is a single Hmong line that goes all the way back 42,000 years and is only found in the Hmong, just to give you an idea of how far back they go.

The turban may be from interactions with some Muslims or Turkic peoples. Turkic peoples have been wearing turbans for a long time. The Hmong may have had some interactions with Turkic peoples back in their Xinjiang homeland. The Hmong are partly Caucasian, possibly owing to their Xinjiang homeland. Periodically, Hmong babies are born with blue and green eyes and blond from pure Hmong parents. At one time, I had photos of such Hmong. This would not be possible unless they had some recessive genes for such things somewhere in their genome. The Caucasian genes probably date back to their Xinjiang homeland where Asians and Caucasians have been interbreeding for a long time. Check out the Tocharians, a completely White race that lived in Xinjiang long ago.

Skulls are by far the best way to determine race. Genes are not that good. For instance, the Mani Negritos of Thailand have genes that look Thai. The Ati Negritos of the Philippines have genes that look Filipino. But that’s not what either of them are. Both groups are Australoid Negrito types by skulls and the skulls line up well with Tamils, Senoi, Melanesians, Papuans, Aborigines, etc.

The reason that those Negritos have genes that look like that is because they have been genetically swamped by Thai genes in Thailand and by Filipino genes in the Philippines. On the contrary, Filipinos and Thais have few Negrito genes because they were such a huge group. When a huge group breeds with a tiny group, the tiny group gets swamped with the genes of the large group, but the large group hardly gets any genes from the small group. It makes sense if you think about it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Cultural, Filipinos, Genetics, Hmong, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand

Something Wrong with America? or Why Is America Hated? By A. J. Harvey-Hall

An interesting piece from a reader and financial supporter (thank you!) of this website. Hope you enjoy it.

Something Wrong With America? or Why is America hated?

By A. J. Harvey-Hall, Australia

Where do I start?

I originally wrote this in 2013 when I was mad as hell, and here we are in 2015, and I am still mad as hell at you guys. Most of what I have written has come true.

Don’t believe me – ask your Remote Viewing (Project Stargate) people to drop in and check me out. It works both ways in case you are unaware.

Coming from Australia I can tell you a hell of a lot of where America “went wrong”. I am not saying Australia is/was perfect – it’s just a fact we were the last large island/continent settled by the so-called enlightened Westerners – due to distance we saw where everyone else stuffed up and decided as a whole not to do that (Commonwealth knowledge?).

Canada is very similar to Australia, so look to them as well. One thing’s for certain – everyone gets a fair go in this country. We are multicultural and tolerant. Early Western settlers did not treat the Aboriginals appropriately, but in summary, it was probably no different to any superior culture that overtook another at some time in history. It’s easy to look back and say what the Westerners did to Aboriginals was disgraceful.

I have a right to tell you how it is because Australia is the only country that has fought every war alongside America all through WW1 and WW2 and several “police” actions.

Let’s revisit some words spoken by one of your greatest presidents in the course of the America’s Cup back in 1962 when Australia was still a country of 10 million:

Quoting Kennedy –

Ambassador, Lady Beale, Ambassador and Mrs. Berckmeyer, Ambassador and Lady Ormsby Gore, the Ambassador from Portugal, our distinguished Ministers from Australia, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I know that all of us take the greatest pleasure in being here, first of all because whether we are Australian or American, we are all joined by a common interest, a common devotion and love for the sea.

And I am particularly glad to be here because this Cup is being challenged by our friends from Australia, this extraordinary group of men and women numbering some 10 million, who have demonstrated on many occasions, on many fields, in many countries, that they are the most extraordinarily athletic group in the world today, and that this extraordinary demonstration of physical vigor and skill has come not by the dictates of the state because the Australians are among the freest citizens in the world, but because of their choice…

Australia became committed to physical fitness, and it has been disastrous for the rest of us. We have the highest regard for Australia, Ambassador. As you said, we regard them as very satisfactory friends in peace and the best of friends in war. And I know there are a good many Americans of my generation who have the greatest possible reason to be grateful to the Australians who wrote a most distinguished record all the way from the desert of North Africa, and most particularly in the islands of the South Pacific, where their particular courage and gallantry I think met the strongest response in all of us in this country.

But I really don’t look to the past. I look to the present. The United States and Australia are most intimately bound together today, and I think that — and I speak as one who has had some experience in friendship and some experience in those who are not our friends — we value very much the fact that on the other side of the Pacific, the Australians inhabit a very key and crucial area and that the United States is most intimately associated with them. So beyond this race, beyond the result, rests this happy relationship between two great people.

– President John F. Kennedy, Newport, Rhode Island, September 14, 1962

Let’s go back to the (your) War of Independence:

The English were wrong in what they were doing – hence independence – not a problem. In gaining independence however you put in place the building blocks that as of today are not crumbling – they have already crumbled.

Every builder in the world knows that unless your foundations are spot on and repaired when cracks appear, a structure cannot live for hundreds of years. You must update and repair as you go to ensure the building is viable for hundreds of years ongoing – not just paper over it.

The building I am referring to is the “United States of America”. It has now crumbled as a result of a demarcation dispute between your two political parties that act worse than our Australian Parliament. Each party is only out to make a name for itself and has lost the understanding of “serving the people”.

Let’s talk about your constitution – ohhh – am I upsetting you already? Remember I am an outsider who is looking in giving you an unbiased opinion.

When your Constitution was framed it was OK, for the day!

It is now the oldest ‘out of date’ Constitution in the world. Don’t stand behind your outdated constitution. Start again. Be bold.

Yes – you have made amendments, but those amendments are just papering over extensions – you need to go back and look at the foundations and do the work there.

Take one example – a right to bear arms.

It was OK 200 years ago when things were a bit rough – it is not acceptable in the 20th or 21st Centuries, but you will not remove that right. How many people have died in your country as a result of that one so called right?

Your gun culture is one of the bases (not basis) that has crumbled. This is ultimately why you have numerous police forces that are happy to shoot first and ask questions later.

Your children and work colleagues will continue to die in massacres as a result of this “right“. They will continue to die in soft target areas such as schools, mass transport, malls, parades (early days – wait for it).

Hang on – maybe the British, Russians or Communists are still coming to invade. Pity you don’t update your Constitution the same way you enforce updates to laws you force upon people who want to trade with you.

You allow gun lobbyists to “set the course” with government officials, senators and the public.

Since when did lobbyists of any ilk run the government? Since when did they represent “the people”?

You continue to think of arms as a gun – they are no longer guns – instead are bombs, viruses or maybe even the Internet itself. But it’s OK because you have a right” to bear arms.

Let’s talk about your medical care.

Actually let’s save time and refer to Michael Moore. He is spot on. How can you allow your own citizens suffer and even die on the streets because they don’t have medical insurance? And some of your citizens applaud this stance.

How about your returned veterans – even wounded veterans have to fight to get medical assistance upon return – why – because you outsourced the process and someone applied expiry dates that wounded veterans were not aware of. It then requires an act of Congress or a law to be passed to allowed them back into the system.

More veterans have committed suicide upon return that you lost in actual combat. That is an absolute disgrace.

Even that poor, small country across from Florida – Cuba – does it better than you. A pissant island makes you look like a disgrace. Ohhh that’s right…you won’t interact with them because they put one over you in the Cuban Missile crisis. Get over it – you eventually did with Vietnam. And that leads me to another chapter – Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia…or shouldn’t I mention all the “minor” illegal wars you waged?

You lost LOST the Vietnam War – admit it. You will also lose the Afghanistan and Iraqi Wars. The Middle Eastern wars are also bankrupting your country – why can’t day to day Americans see this? No one (starting with Alexander the Great) has ever conquered Afghanistan – get real or get out.

If you think those wars are over, and as G. W. Bush said, “Mission completed”…think again. You have effectively put people in charge who are far worse than the dictators that were already there in Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Afghanistan etc. and now you are trying to do the same in Crimea via the Ukraine. You are responsible for the extremists that are now running around the Middle East, and I don’t mean Al Qaeda. You are responsible for the creation of ISIS.

Let’s look at all those African refugees (including Syrians, Lebanese etc.) who are risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea to get to Europe. The USA is totally responsible for all these simply because of WMD lies that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. All Middle East actions from thereon are his fault. He is a war criminal – oopps did I break one of your laws saying he is a war criminal in the land of the free and home of the brave? The land of free speech?

Fact – history is written by the victors.

The USA is trying to run the Middle East like a corporation – all the top executives from the G. W. Bush era on are criminals lining their own pockets.

Starting wars in the 21st century will no longer get a country out of a recession. It’s simply profit-making. Why don’t you take Saudi Arabia to task for 9/11? Ohhh that’s right, they control the oil flow. Don’t upset them – why don’t you find an alternative to Middle East oil?

Are you getting a message here?

The entire world dislikes and even hates you. You have acted the bully for many years after The Korean War, effectively destroying the good will you established in the early 20th century. You are hated across all lines – economic, religious, social, political and otherwise.

What is your obsession with Israel?

Fact – Israel was founded by Jewish terrorists. They set off bombs, killed people and destroyed property to achieve their aims. Because the world had ‘sympathy’ for Jews after WW2, it happened and a blind eye was turned. Today Middle America strongly believes in the Bible literally and as such wants to see Israel succeed in order the “Second Coming” results.

People – the Bible is a guide. It is not Gospel.

Why? In the early centuries, the Roman Catholic Church held conferences and decided which books, writings and teachings ended up in “The Bible”. God did not decide which early Christian books ended up in The Bible – so it is absolute rubbish for someone to state that the Bible guides what the United States should do. Too many real accounts of Jesus’ workings were excluded. The Roman Catholic Church is responsible for closing our eyes to the real Christ.

Hopefully Pope Francis can arrest this BS.

There are numerous United Nations resolutions that Israel has refused to comply with. By the way – are you (USA) financially paid up with the UN, or do you still refuse to pay in a timely manner in order to attempt to remind them that you rule over them?

How about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that lead to invasion? Colin Powell held up a drawing and said – here is the proof. You never found proof and never admitted you were wrong. Yes – Saddam Hussein was a bastard but he had the warring clans under control. It was all ALL about oil and nothing else. When the mud got too deep, you changed tact and said it was all about democracy. How far is Greece from Iraq? – damn closer that the USA. If the Greeks could not influence them – you sure in Hell can’t.

You can resolve the Palestinian problem in a matter of weeks, but you won’t due to that “minority” in the Middle East. This bullshit has been going on for 60 years.

Everyone knows (sorry – obviously you don’t) – the longer a problem festers, the harder and more costly it is to resolve.

I worked in the finance industry for many years and can only say that the number of times “we” (non-Americans) had to change our processes and rules etc. because the USA had set ‘”new standards” makes me sick. The standards set were not improvements – they were changed to line your pockets.

Look at Sarbanes Oxley for example – the world spent hundreds of billions of $’s attempting to comply because the USA would not do business with another country unless they did so only to see the USA itself found it too costly to implement itself! What a joke!

We now have many European countries in dire straits as a direct result of the exporting of American ways.

You destroyed the financial industry with your Subprime rubbish.

What about changes to financial models and makes etc. of any product or service that demand that people buy the “updated” version to reline your pockets. This is simply to keep the money wheel turning. You are desperately trying to ensure it keeps turning long enough for your problems to be passed to some other country or the next generation.

Ever thought about how much you spend on items such as defense, spying, war, inventing, manufacturing and using machines of war? Just imagine if only half of that was diverted to your health programs, science or to the benefit of other countries less fortunate? What about converting the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines into an international force for peace and relief of local and international disasters?

How can you allow a company to have a patent on the human breast cancer gene? You have to be kidding the world – but then again that’s your Constitution at work. No one owns human genes!

What happened to the “United States” that I remember as a child? That far-off country whose technology was so far advanced we could never dream of equaling.

What happened to that country that every county – even Russia in the old days – feared  -a form of respect?

Oh – and how long before I get the FBI, CIA, and all your other bullshit muscle agencies to frame me for some rubbish and shut me down…

A parting true story:

In late 1978/early 1979 my family traveled to Washington state where my father was working on behalf of a company in Australia. Unfortunately, departing Auckland NZ they had an emergency which meant we had to go back, dumping fuel on the way. 24 hours later we took off again after repairs and finally landed in Honolulu. My mother was pretty savvy and said get to the front of the Customs line so we can get to the connecting flight to LA.

Well – I was at the front of the queue, 18 years old, looking at an overweight female Customs officer wearing a gun strutting back and forwards. Her welcoming words to the Australians and New Zealanders were, “If you step over that yellow line, I will shoot you!” What a fucking joke – in 1978! No wonder you have a gun problem.

Welcome to America!

Congratulations to the NRA who lobby the most congressman/women on both sides.

Fact – I was born in July 1960, and in November 1963 I still vividly recall my parents being very upset when they heard of the news of Kennedy’s death despite my being three years old. All the more remarkable is the fact that we lived in Papua New Guinea – a protectorate of Australia at the time – literally a colonial backwater. I was too young to understand but remembered the words Kennedy and death and vaguely remembered the Cuba Crisis. We cried in the backwaters of the Pacific!

I fully understand that the Kennedys had their dalliances. Small beer in the scheme of things.

He and his brother are the standard you must return to.

Did Kennedy not say “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country?”

And in closing, written on the base of the Statue of Liberty…

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Emma Lazurus

My country totally lacks world-shaking oratory ,but I think we more than make up with it in our actions.

20 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, American, Americas, Australia, Canada, Caribbean, Catholicism, Christianity, Cold War, Cuba, Culture, Democrats, Europe, Europeans, Government, Guest Posts, Health, History, Iraq War, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Latin America, Law, Middle East, Military Doctrine, North America, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, The Americas, Ukraine, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, Vietnam War, War

What is the Maximum IQ a Human Can Have?

From Quora.

There has been a lot of writing on this at genius.com. The man who writes that page estimates that Goethe and a few others had IQ’s up to 220. That’s about the limit.

Sidis was estimated by a psychologist who examined him to have an IQ to 250–300, but I have no idea what that means. Sidis dropped out of college, basically disappeared and devoted the rest of his life to collecting bus schedules. This is a pretty typical outcome for people with IQ’s in the “smartest man on Earth” range.

The smartest man in the world, Christopher Langan, is said to have an IQ of 200. He dropped out of college – he said he knew more than his professors and it was boring. He has spent his life working at jobs like truck driver, lumberjack and most recently, bar bouncer. Working at menial jobs is actually very common for people with stratospheric intelligence scores. They often don’t get along with people real well and many prefer menial jobs which give them time to think. In Europe in the last century, many of the people (usually men) who scored the highest of all on intelligence tests were known to work at menial jobs, often taking jobs like factory worker or janitor. When asked, they said that they preferred menial jobs because it gave them time to think.

It gets hard to measure very high IQ’s.

Children can have very high IQ’s because their IQ’s are measured in terms how smart they are for their age. Using that scale, childhood IQ’s of up to 400 have been calculated. All of these very high IQ scores among children in the 200’s and 300’s and even up to 400 are correct, but none of them can be sustained in adulthood. Of course, once they hit 18, you start counting the scores the other way, and they can’t have much above 200.

Talented people are always interesting.

There are plenty of fine athletes in high school and college who decided not to go into sports. They were still great athletes with excellent talent. There are people who can draw very well but don’t feel like using it. Likewise with music, writing, all sorts of things. All of this is interesting. I would love to hear about someone who had great artistic or musical talent who just decided they did not want to go that way and didn’t explore their talent. Do we beat these people over head with verbal clubs for not using their fine talents? Of course not.

There are many very good-looking people who never went into acting or modeling. Do we pummel them over the head with this for not using their good looks? Of course not. No one has to use their natural gifts in any particular way, and it’s no crime to be the handsomest man on Earth who never did anything with it but use to get women. And that is exactly how many very good-looking men use their inborn gift of great looks – they use it to get women.

Due to our hatred of intelligence and intellectuals, it is only intelligence that is attacked as “worthless unless you do something with it.” No other talent is attacked this way. People who do this are showing how much hate they feel towards intelligent people, especially highly intelligent ones.

I would also point out that people who fuss and fume about intelligence test scores are actually displaying a hatred of human intelligence. I ask these people, “Why do you feel so much hatred towards human intelligence? Is it sour grapes? Are you dumb? Is that why? Is it because you are stupid and resentful of people with faster brains? Are you so insecure that you must attack your intellectual betters to drive them down to your level?”

Look around you. Look at all these fancy devices we use all day every single day in our lives. Guess what, intelligence haters? All of those things were developed by smart people. Often very smart people, some of the smartest people out there. Human intelligence is what got us to this our present developed civilization. We would not have all these fancy highways, skyscrapers and vast bubbling metropolises without human intelligence. But you hate it, right? So why don’t you back and leave in a cave? You won’t have to worry about any of those pesky smart people there.

I would say if you hate human intelligence so much, why don’t you go live with dumb people? Dumb people are real dumb, so you don’t have to worry about anyone talking about their scores on intelligence tests. Hell, they probably don’t even know what an intelligence test is.

Aborigines are one of the least intelligent people on Earth. Why don’t you go live with them? They have lots of settlements where they don’t do much but collect welfare, drink booze, sniff glue and molest children. And on top of that, they’re pretty damn stupid, which is probably the main reason why they spend all their time in these activities. You’d be right at home since you hate human intelligence so much. No worries! You’d be surrounded by morons! You should be in paradise, right?

Many high IQ and very high IQ people explore their talent every day by necessity. They never give it up like lapsed athletes, artists, writers, etc. These people are very interesting to meet, at least for me anyway. High IQ people are fascinating whether they are “using” their talent or not. And what does using it mean anyway? Making a pile of money off of it. Not everyone is so mercenary.

My mother has a 150 IQ, yet she never “did anything with it.” So what! Why did she have to? She’s one of the smartest women I’ve ever met. Are we that greedy and mercenary that all talents must be converted into sleazy dollar bills?

Natural talents are interesting and praiseworthy no matter what use they are put to. By valuing brains only for how many dollar bills can be collected with them, Americans show just how greedy and sleazy they really are.

There is a long tradition of this BS. Check out Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in  American Life. It was written in the 1950’s. One of the reasons Adlai Stevenson lost in that decade is that he was considered to be an egghead. That is, Americans incredibly decided that Stevenson was somehow too smart to be President and they would be much happier with some a bit dumber.

Hofstadter wrote another classic article around the same time called, The Paranoid Style  in American Politics. Conspiracy theory and  the politics of paranoia have a very long history in this country. You can look around you right now at all these wingnuts and see that this thinking style is booming right along as always.

Hofstadter was one of the finest American political scientists. You might want to check him out.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, American, Culture, Democrats, Intelligence, Labor, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, US Politics

Race and Body Hair

Barbara Domino: Are hair strands used for identification of ancestry…Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid classification?

Can be. The hairs of the races are different. For that matter, Negrito and Melanesian (woolly) hair is different from Black hair (kinky or coiled). Aborigine (wavy) and Papuan hair is different from Caucasian hair. And Negroid hair is different from Khoisan hair (very tightly coiled and spotty).

Mongoloid hair – straight, black, smooth and sparse, seems different from Caucasian hair.

Not that anyone has any hair on their bodies anymore anyway, but back in the days before body hair went extinct, Asian body hair was definitely different from that of Caucasians and Black body hair differed from Caucasians and Asians.

I know nothing of the body hair of Negritos or Aborigines. When the shaving fad finally hits the devastated Outback or the ruined Aeta villages on the jungle mountains, you will know that the whole world is now postmodern and globalized with nothing left to discover.

Sigh. Alas.

Speaking of which, anybody know where I can get me one of those Aborigine chicks? How bout those cute little Negrito ladies?

Bucket list, guys.

6 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Khoisan, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

The Influence of the Tongues of Australoid/Vedda People in India on Dravidian Languages

Jm8: I wonder what influence the languages of the proto-Australoid/Veddoid peoples had on modern Dravidian languages. It seems pretty clear that Dravidian came primarily from a Near Eastern family also ancestral to Elamite (Elamo-Dravidian) in Iran and reached India around the Neolithic. But I wonder if Veddoid peoples’ languages could have a substratal influence on Dravidian (or at least some Dravidian languages—esp those farther south or the tribal ones), even perhaps playing a role in its divergence from its Elamo-Dravidian root; depending on where Dravidian truly diverged (e.g: If it diverged within the Indian subcontinent—like around Pakistan/NW India—, where proto-Australoid peoples lived).

The influence of those peoples might be hard to assess. I recall a while ago reading about an old theory that Dravidian had some grammatical similarities to certain Australian Aboriginal languages (Northern maybe?).

But did these similarities also exist I wonder in the one surviving Dravidian language of the North, Brahui in Pakistan, whose speakers presumably have much less native proto-Australoid ancestry?

One might possibly also check for similarities to Andamanese languages (a bit of a long shot I know).

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.

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

There is a moribund language spoken in Nepal called Kusunda which appears to be related to West Papuan the Andaman Islands languages.

Keep in mind that in mainstream Historical Linguistics (which has deviated far away from anything sane anymore anyway), there is no Papuan language family. Instead, Papua is divided into 37 separate language families and 20 isolates. They also say there is no Australian language family,  although I believe R. W. Dixon made a case for one. Instead we have 20 different language families and four isolates in Australia. And they do not posit that the Andaman languages form a coherent family. There are two separate families even in the Andaman Islands, with Ongan and Greater Andamanese, with no demonstrated relationship between them. I have looked at the Andaman languages, and trust me, some of them are extremely far apart.

The people positing that Papuan, Australian and Andaman are language families or even that all three together form a single family called Indo-Pacific (Joseph Greenberg’s hypothesis) are all long-rangers whose views are not accepted in mainstream linguistics. However, Steven Wurm accepts a much-modified and more conservative view of Greenberg’s theory.  In addition, it appears that Trans New Guinea, West Papuan, Greater Andamanese and some Timorese languages, all included in Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific, show striking similarities which to my mind could only be genetic.

At any rate mainstream Linguistics is very conservative as far as Historical Linguistics goes. The existence of Elamo-Dravidian, which should be obvious to anyone looking, is not even regarded as proven.

I have looked at Dravidian quite a bit, and I did not think it was even close to the putative Nostratic family of Northern Eurasia. Instead it seemed to be closer to Afroasiatic than anything else. If Elamite was spoken in Western Iran, and before that the proto-Dravidians were in the Levant (according to the old theories), then it would make sense that Dravidian would be closer to Afroasiatic than anything else.

Keep in mind that Afroasiatic is a very old family – it may be 13-15,000 years old. And the fact that it is even regarded as proven at all (yes there are some ultra-splitters who are now saying that Afroasiatic is not even real) shows how wrong Historical Linguistics is when they say that any relationships older than 8,000 years cannot be proven because they are beyond the means of the comparative method of Historical Linguistics. If anything over 8,000 YBP is unknowable as far as the comparative method is concerned, then how did we prove Afroasiatic which goes back 15,000 YBP?

But Comparative Linguistics has gotten totally offtrack. Whereas traditionally, we simply observed languages and threw them into families based on obvious similarities and only after that reconstructed, now they have it backwards. No matter how much the languages look alike, we can’t put them into a family unless we have reconstructed all the way back to the proto-languages and found regular sound correspondences. Only then do we prove relatedness.

But Linguistics never worked that way before. Relatedness was posited simply on observation, and only later was the hard reconstruction work with regular sound correspondences done.

According to Lyle Campbell, Joanna Nichols and others unfortunately at the top of Historical Linguistics nowadays, Sir William Jones could not have even posited the existence of an Indo-European family because we had not yet reconstructed Proto-Indo-European and its regular sound correspondences yet. See? They’ve got it backwards.

Anyway even IE is not well understood. How’s that Laryngeal Theory working out for you guys? Coming right along, right? Didn’t think so. Just as I thought.

4 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Afroasiatic, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, Comparitive, Dravidian, India, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Iran, Isolates, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nepal, Pacific, Pakistan, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia

The Confusing Genetics of East Indians

A-Man: Robert why did you say that south Indians are Caucasoid in genes? Aren’t they like a midway group between proto-Arabids (Caucasoid) and Australoid?

On some charts (autosomal DNA) the only Australoids are Papuans and Aborigines, and Indians look Caucasoid on those charts. That would be Cavalli-Sforza’s chart. However, they are some of the strangest Caucasoids of all as they are distantly related to the rest and closer to Asians than any other Caucasoids. Other charts have them an independent race between Asians and Caucasoids.

And yes, Indians are linked to Europeans, especially Southern Europeans, via Arabs. The link goes like this:

Greeks -> Arabs -> Indians

And honestly there is not a lot of genetic distance between any of those groups. The Asian and African sub-races are much further apart than Caucasoids. There is probably more distance between Samoyeds and Chukchi than between any of the three above.

Incidentally, the Chukchi somehow barely end up in the Caucasoid plot on Cavalli-Sforza’s autosomal chart! This indicates how closely related some of those ancient Siberians are to ancient Caucasoids. There is a group called Ancient Northeast Asians from 15-20,000 YBP that seems to be ancestral to both NE Asians and Caucasoids. There are also links between Orcadians (Scottish Islanders) and Siberians. Skulls from Europe from 21,000 YBP look more Amerindian than anything else. The closest match-up between those ancient European skulls is the Makah Amerindian tribe from the US. But the Amerindians are sometimes thought of as a NE Asian-Caucasoid link anyway.

Another interesting thing on Cavalli-Sforza’s chart is that the Berbers, a Caucasoid group, land barely in the African plot! This shows deep links between North African Caucasians and Black Subsaharan Africans.

There is a small Berberid group from Algeria called Mozabites. These are Caucasoids, but they are some of the weirdest-looking Caucasoids I have ever seen. They don’t really look like any other race of humans, but if you had to throw them anywhere, you would have to put them in Caucasians. Some of them look remarkably like people from India. In papers about the genesis of the Caucasian race, North Africa, the Middle East and India are mentioned as three hubs of the development of this race with many migrations back and forth over 30-40,000 YBP. And that Mozabite group gets mentioned over and over when they talk about the remains of ancient genetic groups along with the Uighur for some odd reason.

87 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Chuckchi, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Genetics, India, North Africa, North Africans, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberians, South Asia, South Asians, Uighurs

Where Did the Dravidians Come from?

Trash: A-MAN

I have no notion of where Dravidian people are from. This is quite mysterious although they are somewhat similar to Australian aboriginals.

But who knows where they are from?

Dravidians are possibly ancient Caucasoids. They probably came from Western Iran (Elamites) and before that, maybe the Levant all the way back to 15-20,000 YBP by the old theories.

They only look like Aborigines because they admixed so heavily with the existing population of Australoid Veddoid types who were already there when the Dravidians showed up.

12 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asia, East Indians, India, Iran, Middle East, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, South Asians

An Ancient Link Between India and Australia

Halal Butcher of Lhasa: Aboringinal Australians and their dingo dogs are linked to Dravidians in S. Asia according to scientists at Max Planck Institute of Germany.

Wow, that is great information. Thanks for that. I have not even read the link yet, but a link between early Indians and Aborigines has been suggested before.

There is a theory about the peopling of Australia that the present day Aborigines are not even the aboriginal people. The Kow Swamp people were an earlier group, and they were even more primitive than Aborigines. Some think the Kow Swamp person is not even Homo Sapiens. The skull is quite Erectus-like. It is nearly a relict hominid. Anyway the old theory is that these very primitive folks got replaced in two waves.

One wave was called Murrayians. This is an Ainu or Vedda-like group from the Thailand area. Skulls from Thailand 25,000 YBP resemble Aborigines. We know that there are very primitive people in Thailand 16,000 YBP whose skulls line up perfectly with the ancient Japanese Jomonese who later become the Ainu. There is still a Veddoid group in Thailand today called the Senoi.

There are drawings of Jomonese types even from Korea that show them as very robust types that do look quite Ainuid. It’s now known that the Ainu are a cold-adapted Australoid type by skulls, although their genes look Japanese and Korean. There has long been thought to be an Austronesian-like layer in Japanese which would logically go back to the ancient language spoken by these immigrants from Thailand. In other words, quite a few of the Japanese came up from the far south from SE Asia long ago. These earlier people mixed by Yayoi from Korea who invaded 2,300 YBP and slowly conquered the Ainu up the peninsula to the Far North. This conquest was apparently still underway in the modern era. The Japanese gene pool is ~20% Ainu.

Around the same time, the traditional model said that a very Ainuid-looking people moved into the Philippines. Logically these would have been these ancient Thai on the way to Japan stopping off in the Philippines.

The Murrayians are said to have come to Australia between 15-20,000 YBP. Logically these could have been these proto-Jomonese types from Thailand.

The second wave to Australia according to the old model were the Carpinterians. They came 10-15,000 YBP and are thought to have come from India. Logically these were Indian Australoid/Veddoid types from the south. All Indians looked like Aborigines (Australoid) until 8,000 YBP. The transition towards Caucasoid only occurred in the last 8,000 years. It may well have been this Carpinterian group that brought the dingo digs along with themselves in a seaward movement to Australia ~13,000 YBP.

75 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, East Indians, India, Japan, Japanese, Koreans, Northeast Asians, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai, Thailand

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