Re: Stephen J. Gould and anthropological fraud

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 06:36:27 GMT

"DesertCactus" <desertcactus@emailcorner.net> wrote in message
news:f25f7f62.0407020256.f32ca7b@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Actually, the El Kabus is legendary for the massiveness - and that IS an
> > Islamic term that is known in the culture (street talk). We ARE bigger
and
> > thicker than MOST Western European men - not all of them. But as a
rule,
> > our men are NOT small. If they were, they can have no wives - no woman
> > would take them. Our women are VERY BOLD in the bedroom! We are
nothing
> > like the Chinese.
>
> I'll take your word for it.
>
> > Heh, no - in my time they lied and claimed they WERE virgins. Even one
that
> > was pregnant and showing a little claimed she was a virgin. LMAO.
>
> Yeah, but things have changed perhaps?

Sure, things changed - people lie about NOT being virgins, especially guys.
Women still often say NO when they really do mean yes - and the whole ISSUE
is a pain in the ass.
>
> > >
> > > I don't know if you're being sarcastic here, but to my knowledge
> > > rushton never related an INDIVIDUALS IQ to his p$nis size.
> >
> > Yes, he DID and I heard him with my own ears on live TV doing it. He
> > equated large penis with lower intelligence - and my entire family
LAUGHED
> > at it.
>
> OK. Sorry I didn't know this. I thought it was just people mocking
> him. I'm not suprised your whole family laughed, it's quite a odd
> thing to assert.

Yeah, he did it on live, national TV - and was NAIVE enough to not know he
was saying something heh - well, explosive! :)
>
>
> >
> > > "...migrated to harsh northern climates were subjected to Darwinian
> > > natural selection favouring higher intelligence and therefore larger
> > > brains; smaller families and therefore smaller g$n!tals and greater
> > > self-control."
> >
> > If anything, Chinese for one provable people, used the strategyu of men
> > having many wives and lots of kids with each wife due to HARSH CLIMATE
> > conditions. Living in easy climate conditions - one doesn't have to
breed
> > that much at all to ENSURE heritage and family line. Compare China to
> > Africa when white men first saw Africa. This is what Rushton DID NOT
DO.
> > He's not a biologist - he's a psychologist. SOMEONE that suggested this
> > *** to him - SNOWED him. Made a fool of him.
>
> >
> > The problem is that blacks, when whites FIRST saw them way back, were
very
> > sparcely populated overall - the whites saw "nothing there, lots of
land, no
> > one on it." Compare that to China.
>
> Ok let's look at this. Why do you think Africa was so sparsely
> populated?

Because it was - like the Amazon is sparcely populated. Tribes even living
10 miles away from another tribe, had NO knowledge there was anyone else
there, the language was completely different, etc. They were highly
isolated, sparcely populated. People living like that do not HAVE to
develop any kind of more advanced technologies to feed a lot of people and
etc. China is OMG - man, what are they 1/3 of the world? DENSELY populated
people. Always were. When the whites came to the USA they also saw "not
many people here - a lot of open land." Why do you suppose the NA were
sparcely populated and not packed in like the Chinese? Because they WERE.

You probably have better theories than me, but I'd assert
> that the population was LIMITED by inability to get food, if most of
> the africans were tribes like the Zulu's they would have got food from
> what limited animals they could hunt and edible plants. Their
> population would have been in equalibrium with their surroundings,
> neither one threatening the other.

Yes, they did live in harmony - the whites that first found them said that
too. When humans live in harmony with land, they tend to be quite sparcely
populated! Life was not hard for them at all there in that tropical land.
Only a FEW tribes, like the Zulu, were warlike.
>
> There is more than enough arable land and sources of food in africa to
> feed huge amounts of people if farmed properly,

That's white man's thinking for ya. Right away, change the land, farm it
(that causes a whole HEAP of problems that cascade into more problems -
eventually OVER POPULATION problems - which is what you see NOW in Africa).
Exactly like what you are saying; that's what white men said when they saw
the place. That's not what the Africans did, they never did it. Neither
did the Amazonian Indians - which you CAN find out about - very sparcely
populated.

but they still have
> problems with this suffering occasional famines, I believe it was
> Zambia that was inviting the white farmers from Zimbabwe(that had
> their land seized and given to black zimbabwians) to come to Zambia to
> farm there because the Zambia's wanted their proffessionalism.

That's all recent. I'm speaking about PRE PRE COLONIAL TIMES, when the first
white men SAW Africans. They wrote in detail about what they saw - just as
they wrote about what they saw in North America. Try thinking outside that
paradigm. Africans didn't even have WHEELS, man.
>
> Whereas in china, they would have had mass-farming and been able to
> get huge amounts of food easily, food wouldn't limit the population.

Different strategy for people living in that climate for a VERY long time.
Africa is not China.
>
> But you can look at africa now, and look at how the population is
> growing, despite disease such as AIDS, war, famine and other
> difficulties. Ruston's theories are not destroyed by comparison to
> China or other countries are they?

Yes, they are. Rushton's theories fail because he is not doing what a real
hard-scientists would do - and that would be to really LOOK at the Africans
BEFORE contact with anyone white changed things. And then LOOK at the
Chinese the same way. China was always DENSELY populated. Africa was NEVER
densely populated - as I said, 10 miles away, a tribe living in one area
forever, NEVER even ventured 10 freaking miles away to KNOW there were other
tribes out there. That is what MOST of the place was like. No wheels.
NOTHING like that. PRIMITIVE. I don't mean "primitive" in any negative
way, either. Whites should have NEVER done anything there. NEVER. They
should have left the place alone.
>
> Africa will be the most populous area in the world in time. Birth Rate
> is related to the wealth of the people, poor countries have larger
> families, there are other factors like religion, Catholicism would
> increase family size, and availability of contraception etc.
> Chinas was relatively poor this may be a reason for the large birth
> rate before the 1 baby per couple law was brought in.

Poor compared to what? No one in China is poor today!

> Africa is the poorest place in the world,

Again, what do you define as poor? Before whites ever got there, the people
lived rich and fulfilling lives - and poor/rich were NOT determined along
the lines you think of them AT ALL.

> 20% of whites and 33% of blacks are below the poverty line in the USA.
> Europe's population is declining as is Russia's.

Yup, I know about that and I define the poverty line in ways a lot more in
line with reality of daily life - which means RAISE UP THOSE NUMBERS!. And
well, heh, it's funny because the whites are the ones that MESSED WITH
Africans when they should have kept their damned selves HOME and stayed out
of there. Seems to me that they bonded their fate to that place and those
people. That's how it seems to me on some esoteric level. They entangled
themselves with the black race. Asians DID NOT. They knew better.

 the space of a relatively short time, say 100 years a
> population of an area can decrease or increase massively.
>
> Also the evolution that caused the chinese to have higher intelligence
> presumably Rushton is asserting it happened many thousands of years
> ago? When people first moved into that area to become chinese? You
> know more about Rushton's work than me.

He gets into selection there, what they selected in favor of. The Chinese
have always more or less bred for intelligence and they forever had a merit
system too. Always. And again, NO ONE in China is poor! NO ONE! The USA
also has a HUGE deficit - TO CHINA! But when Rushton goes on about R and
K - I mean COME ON - that kind of thing NEVER biologically applies to groups
of humans, or even mammals. It applies to kinds of whole animals, like FISH
versus HUMANS, or FISH, versus Sea Mammals like dolphins. Dolphins are LIKE
US. Fish are NOT.
>
> >
> > Huh? Get rid of the firewarll. Get another one - try zone alarm. Or
black
> > ice. Or the one that comes with windows. Penis is a medical term,
after
> > all.
>
> I know the firewall is very primitive just blocking out words like
> that, and it's a real pain.

Get rid of it! Get Zone Alarm - or if you have windows XP, just use that
firewall - it's pretty good. I never heard of a firewall blocking out
medical terms.

Loading