I wonder how New Deal Democrat explains criminality and lack of scholastic success among North American aboriginals, who are most directly descended from “Orientals.”
I would imagine he doesn’t. Neither, by the way, did Philippe Rushton, who deliberately left them out of his “studies” because the numbers shoot his claims all to shit.
Perhaps I should have explained what “generational poverty” means.
Oh, wait–I did. So the study you linked to is completely irrelevant.
As others have pointed out, even if I hadn’t specified generational poverty, your study would be at best highly misleading.
If you have an on-point response to my post, please make it.
In The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:
the authors argue that agriculture and urban civilization have different population pressures than a paleolithic existence. Orientals - which is to say mainly Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese - have been practicing agriculture for about eight thousand years, and civilization for over three thousand years. North American aboriginals have not practiced either for nearly as long. Indeed, agriculture only reached the Great Lakes regions about one thousand years ago.
Consequently, North American Indians are more similar to Negroes than Orientals when it comes to average intelligence and crime.
An average IQ for American blacks of 85 is the general consensus. The SAT is not an IQ test, but it correlates with IQ. Since the school year of 1990-91 there has been a significant and growing gap between SAT scores for whites and blacks.
On the other hand, Orientals have always exceeded whites in mathematics, and are catching up on reading.
No Child Left Behind seems to have had no effect on the race gap in SAT scores.
And yet they had nothing to do whatsoever with “negroes”, at least not until Columbus, slavery and everything ; but were very likely descended from the same general stock as your “orientals”.
So what does that say about your classification system, the conclusions you make from it and the value thereof ?
ETA: that was re:Native Americans, naturally.
The higher average IQs of whites of European descent and Orientals can be attributed to several thousand years of urban civilization, and several thousand more of neolithic farming. In addition, the imperial exam system bred the Chinese for superior intelligence. Men who were intelligent enough to pass the exams were given generous incomes. They had several wives, and many children who were more likely to survive and reproduce than the general population.
These were factors that did not effect the American Indians.
Ancient stone age humans are genetically modern humans. Are you saying that something other than genetic differences are what’s causing IQ discrepancies?
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, which I reviewed here
explains the nature and importance of racial differences which evolved during the past 10,000 years.
It won’t do to handwave; this is equivalent to a creationist saying that he doesn’t understand all those anatomical homologues in various species or a Birther saying he doesn’t understand how those birth announcements got printed in contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers.
BZZZTTTT!!!
Nice try, but the fatal counterexample of Japan (where basic civilizational features such as agriculture only date back to c. 200 BCE) cannot be evaded by either handwaving (your previous tactic) or outright falsification (your current one).
It’s like watching a creationist respond to the discovery of a “missing link” in an “evolutionary gap” by pointing out that there are now two “gaps”.
The claim that while maze was developed in the Americas 6000 years ago…or that sugar cane was developed in Papua 7000 years ago you imagine your “white” Northern Europeans, who were hunter gatherers, e.g. the Boreal period evolved some super intelligence through their unique access to agriculture is quite humorous.
It’s not a matter of being unpopular; it’s a matter of being illogical.
The OP itself agrees with me on this point, dismissing cultural factors as irrelevant and insisting that failure can only be the result of inherent intellectual inadequacy. QED.
Africans have lived in cities and had farming about as long as the rest of the world outside the Fertile Crescent. Certainly longer than Europeans.
I meant “Western Europeans”…
If you mean Egyptians, that is true. The evidence from Egyptians mummies and Egyptian art clearly demonstrates that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasians.
If you mean the Bantu, that is not true at all.
pearl millet, sorghum and cowpeas were all domesticated in West Africa before most of Europe entered the agrarian world, most of Europe was one of the LAST places to do so.
But first I want some sort of evidence that there is any real thing called “race”, let alone special traits by each one.
For evidence of race go to any large city, and look around.
Agriculture entered Europe about eight thousand years ago. The Bantu only adopted it about three thousand years ago, four thousand at the most. They never developed indigenous urban civilizations with systems of writing and mathematics they developed themselves, the way the Mayans did in the New World.
anecdote != data
Eight thousand in the middle east, most of which you wouldn’t call “white”
The Irish, English, Swedes and Dutch only got it after almost the rest of the world by 1000s of years.
BTW, First generation Africa immigrants tend to do far better than “whites” and “Asians” in school.
It may be that you just need to take off your colored glasses to see that.
There are many indigenous scripts for African languages and many urban civilizations. You are making untrue declarative statements again.
