<< Previous TopicReturn to Index  

Rasisticko zasnivanje stanovista !!!

September 25 2002 at 3:04 PM
No score for this post
dragana  (no login)

 
Povremeno pratim ovaj forum i primetila sam da u tumacenju istorije, porekla naroda, karaktera naroda itd. preovladjuje neka vrsta rasistickog zasnivanja stanovista (bez obzira na to koja su stanovista u pitanju).

Kad kazem rasizam, mislim na specificno biologisticko glediste , koje se istorijski pokazalo kao opsesija germanskih naroda narocito Nemaca i Anglo-Saksonaca.

Nije jasno zbog cega se kod njih razvila sklonost ka takvom gledanju na ljude, moguce da iskustvo iz stocarskog zivota vezano za ukrstanje i kreiranje raznih stocnih rasa, kod nekih ljudi moze uticati na razvijanje slicnog pogleda na ljudsko drustvo. Ovakva gledista obicno vode u bizarnost jer previdjaju osnovnu karakteristiku ljudskog bica a to je DUSA.

Tradicionalno mi Sloveni, Srbi i drugi Balkanci imamo smisao za dozivljaj sveta i ljudi koji polaziste nalazi bas u dusi, pa ne znam zbog cega se toliko oslanjate na biologisticke teorije. Mislim, naravno da su genetika, antropologija i slicne nauke od pomoci pri tumacenju istorije i porekla naroda, ali njihovo prenaglasavanje i vadjenje cinjenica iz domena tih nauka iz sireg istorijskog i kulturnog konteksta, vodi u protivrecnost i bizarnost.

Zajednicko mesto germanskog rasizma je suptilno ili otvoreno sugerisanje superiornosti nordijske rase. Pri tome je paradoksalno da je jedan od cetiri slovenska antropoloska tipa(balticki, dinarski, crnomorski, srednjevolski) upravo nordijski, ali germaski rasolozi to obicno precutkuju i precutni i istorijski potvrdjeni konsenzus medju njima je da Slovene svrstavaju u nize rase.

Nase sledbenike rasnih teorija to dovodi u nezgodan polozaj, jer ako hoce da budu Arijevci i nordijci, nemaju blagoslov 'pravih' germanskih arijevaca, ako pak hoce da budu Dinarci koji toboze nisu Sloveni, pa cak ni Indoevropljani, tek onda dolaze u corsokak, jer je dinarska rasa bliska mediteranskoj koja bas ne kotira dobro kod izumitelja rasnih teorija.

Ja smatram da ne treba ni koristiti izraz rasa za svaki poseban antropoloski tip, vec treba na osnovu najosnovnijih karakteristika ljude svrstati u nekoliko osnovnih rasa a u okviru tih rasa u podrase i antropoloske tipove.

Razlike i slicnosti izmedju tih tipova mogu se objasniti kao i razlike i slinosti medju jezicima. Neke slicnosti uslovljene su poreklom iz zajednickog supstrata, istorijskim diferenciranjem nastaju posebni antropoloski tipovi kao i posebni jezici, zatim njihovim medjusobnim uticajem dolazi do mesanja i formiranja novih slicnosti.

Tako na primer slicnost izmedju nemackog i srpskog vidimo u recima koje imaju zajednicko poreklo iz indoevropskog prajezika, istorijski razvoj je formorao razlike, ali su kasnije mnoge nemacke reci usle u srpski (prvenstveno da oznace tehnoloske i naucne pojmove, jer su u tim oblastima Nemci imali prednost, a te reci s druge strane vecinom poticu iz latinskog).

Prema tome vidimo vise nivoa slicnosti i razlika izmedju ova dva jezika. I antropolsoke razlike i slicnosti se mogu posmatrati na isti nacin, iz zajednickog kromanjonskog supstrata, razvio se mediteranski i dinarski tip, zatim nordijski raseljavanjem na sever, kasnija mesanja uslovila su stvaranje raznih kombinacija ovih tipova.

Ako posmatramo mediteranski, dinarski i nordijski tip kao tipove koji su izvorno razliciti, to bi bilo kao da posmatramo nemacki, latinski, srpski, kao jezike koji oduvek postoje u danasnjem obliku i medjusobno se mesaju, a znamo da to nije tacno.

Na slican nacin kao jezici i antropolsoki tipovi, diferenciraju se a zatim medjusbno mesaju i kulture, zajednicka arhetipska podloga indoevropskih kultura to nedvosmisleno potvrdjuje. U pojedinim kulturama naglasak pada na neke posebne aspekte te zajednicke podloge, u drugima na druge aspekte.

Generalno kod Slovena i balkanskih i mediteranskih naroda preovladjuje, topliji dozivljaj ljudskog bica zasnovan na emotivnom pogledu na svet i osecaju povezanosti i srodnosti ljudi medjusobno, ljudi i prirode, ljudi i Boga.

Kod Germana preovladjuje hladniji stav zasnovan na racionalnom, mehanicistickom pogledu na stvari i na osecaju individualne izdvojenosti iz celine zajednice i celog sveta.

Germanski mehanicizam, ukljucujuci i biologizam moze biti koristan u razvoju tehnologije i drustvene organizacije, ali njegova apsolutizacija ima posledice koje su istorijski poznate. Zbog toga mi treba da postujemo njihova dostignuca, ali utemeljenje ipak moramo traziti u nama inherentnom intuitivnom i duhovnom pogledu na svet.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
IIPOCBETAP
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:05 PM 

Hvala Bogu da se najzad pojavi neko kome opsesiaj rasom na ovom forumu takodje malo smeta!

Ma ne da su prekardasili sa merenjem "LUBANJA" ovde, Sestro mila, nego se od lubanja, usiju, noseva, DNA i ostalih parametara rasne antropologije vec odavno nista drugo i ne vidi u ovoj kafani!

To zakasnelo kopiranje Svaba nas potseca neodoljivo na onu narodnu: "Vid'la zaba dje se konji kuju pa i ona digla nogu".

Hvala na lepom prilogu.

IC XC
NI KA

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
wm
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:06 PM 

"...germaski rasolozi to obicno precutkuju i precutni i istorijski potvrdjeni konsenzus medju njima je da Slovene svrstavaju u nize rase." by Dragana.

ukoliko je tekst Tvoj ili si bar elementarno upucen/a u tematiku, molio bih za odgovor.

-koji germanski rasolozi?

-koje Slavene svrstavaju u "nizu rasu" ?


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Rambo, 666
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:09 PM 

Ovo je vjerovatno jedan od poslednjih mojih postova jer mi uzima previshe vremena.

Replika na tekst "Koleginice Dragane"


Dragana: "Kad kazem rasizam, mislim na specificno biologisticko glediste , koje se istorijski pokazalo kao opsesija germanskih naroda narocito Nemaca i Anglo-Saksonaca. Nije jasno zbog cega se kod njih razvila sklonost ka takvom gledanju na ljude, moguce da iskustvo iz stocarskog zivota vezano za ukrstanje i kreiranje raznih stocnih rasa, kod nekih ljudi moze uticati na razvijanje slicnog pogleda na ljudsko drustvo."

Rambo, 666: Koleginice, "Nijemci i Ango-Saksonci" jesu moderan ali nisu jedini primjer. Svaka civilizacija na svom vrhuncu je mislila da je neshto vishe nego ljudska. Pitaj Zechanina pa che ti lijepo da objasni objasni kako je s gadjenjem pogranichna rimska kalamerija gledala na varvarsko-nordijsku, pretezno Germansku, "brachu" sa shjevera. Bash onako kako su prikazani u pochetnoj sceni Gladiatora, prljavi, mlogo glupi divljaci iz shume. Takav pogled nije nishta posebno i sastavni je element degradacije drushtva koje, nakon istorijske kulminacije, vishe nishta ne moze da proizvede sem objasnjenja proslih "uspjeha".






Dragana: "Zajednicko mesto germanskog rasizma je suptilno ili otvoreno sugerisanje superiornosti nordijske rase. Pri tome je paradoksalno da je jedan od cetiri slovenska antropoloska tipa(balticki, dinarski, crnomorski, srednjevolski) upravo nordijski, ali germaski rasolozi to obicno precutkuju i precutni i istorijski potvrdjeni konsenzus medju njima je da Slovene svrstavaju u nize rase. Nase sledbenike rasnih teorija to dovodi u nezgodan polozaj, jer ako hoce da budu Arijevci i nordijci, nemaju blagoslov 'pravih' germanskih arijevaca, ako pak hoce da budu Dinarci koji toboze nisu Sloveni, pa cak ni Indoevropljani, tek onda dolaze u corsokak, jer je dinarska rasa bliska mediteranskoj koja bas ne kotira dobro kod izumitelja rasnih teorija."

Rambo, 666: To je tachno. Hitler je Slovene iz real-politichke "neminovnosti" svrstavao u "nizhe rase" jer je taj istocni cesho-poljsko-ruski prostor bio ukljucen u nacisticke geostrateshe vizije. Juzhni Sloveni su tu sporedan element. Dakle, to je isti onaj automatizam pljuvanja po zacrtanom neprijatelju kog zatichemo u chitavoj ljudskoj istoriji. Istorijski, to je kvazi-filozofko pokriche hiljadugodisnje okupacije Istochnika.






Dragana: "Ja smatram da ne treba ni koristiti izraz rasa za svaki poseban antropoloski tip, vec treba na osnovu najosnovnijih karakteristika ljude svrstati u nekoliko osnovnih rasa a u okviru tih rasa u podrase i antropoloske tipove. Razlike i slicnosti izmedju tih tipova mogu se objasniti kao i razlike i slinosti medju jezicima."

Rambo, 666: Prava nauka i koristi tu terminologiju. Shvrljanja po forumima i nevazhnim novinama iz provincije ne treba mlogo da te brinu.





Dragana: "Germanski mehanicizam, ukljucujuci i biologizam moze biti koristan u razvoju tehnologije i drustvene organizacije, ali njegova apsolutizacija ima posledice koje su istorijski poznate."

Rambo, 666: Koleginice, nikakav "mehanicizam", "automatizam" ili "biologizam" ili sta ti ja znam koji vec -izmi ne kreiraju niti su ikad kreirali nauku tj. znanost tj. prodore na podruchju (prirodnih) nauka. To je iluzija i nepoznavanje prirode spoznaje, koju milostivo oprashtam.



Zapad je sebe degradirao na birokratski sloj koji zapravo vishe nishta ne radi/stvara. Djecu im prave Kurdi i Turci, sport i prostituciju im odrzavaju Ruskinje Ukrajinke i Moldavke, programiraju Indijci a fundamentalno istrazhuju djeca komunizma. Ajd' pozdrav!


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Arijevac,
(no login)

Re: Rasisticko zasnivanje stanovista !!!

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:13 PM 

Dragana,

Ako malo bolje pogledamo gotovo svaki narod iz sebe gradi mitske supermene, pa zasto to ne bi radili i germanski "nordijci".

Istini za volju osim Svedske koja sa pravom sebe naziva nordijskom rasom ja ne vidim ostalih nordijskih naroda u Evropi, iz prostog razloga sto je nordijski bioloski suptrat u katastrofalnoj manjini u svim evropskim zemljama (osim svedske i nesto malo Poljske i sjeverne Rusije).

Niko nema pravo da kaze da su nordijci superiorni dok to ne dokaze.

Ako bantu crnci trce najbrze na sto i dvesta metara, zahvaljujuci svojoj misicnoj konstituciji oni to rezultatima nedvosmisleno dokazuju. Treba konkretno pogledati sta su to nordijci (pojedinacno dali nauci i umjetnosti, sportu itd. pa onda pricati o toj ili drugoj supremaciji. Dakle treba vidjeti recimo ko je bio po rasnoj konstituciji Nils Bor, Tesla, Ajnstajn, Mikelandelo, Leonardo, Pitagora, Borhes, Gete itd itd, odnosno svi veliki naucnici umjetnici i mislioci koji su sustinski svojim tvorevinama mijenjali svijet i civilizaciju, te takvim odnosom reci da nordijci jesu ili nisu vise talentovani od drugih za taj i taj vid nauke ili neceg drugog, jer nauka i umjetnost nisu tekovina naroda drzave ili rase vec iskljucivo samo i samo pojedinaca u okvirima nekakve sredine.

Recimo po kom to pravu neka nordijska budala moze da se hvali tekovinom pronalaska teorije relativiteta, kad je nordijac nije izmislio, nego covjek druge rase.

Mnogi kreteni danas generalizuju stvari i kazu da je savremena civilizacija tekovina nordijaca ????

Ako ona lezi na grcko -latinskom bazisu znanja (koji evidentno nisu bili nordijski ), onda treba da se kaze (ali prethodno da se vidi u kojoj mjeri)su to nordijci unapredili.

Ja licno mislim da nordijci osim za rad i disciplinu nisu isprogramirani na velika dostignuca nego da drugi bolje talentovani pojedinci to rade za njih.

Neka neko proba da izlozi ko su konkretno od velikih imena iz svijeta nauke, umjetnosti i sporta nordijci, pa cemo ugrubo da vidimo sta to znaci za danasnju civilizaciju.

Znaci odmah mozemo da izbacimo gotovo sva starogrcka imena kao i latinska i njihove" pronalaske "iz oblasti matematike, poezije, vajarstva, arhitekture, fizike astronomije itd.

Ako je neko njemac ili german to ne znaci da je nordijac. Sansa da je nordijac je 1: 10-15 jer ih toliko ima u germaniji.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
wm
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:16 PM 

...rambo i arijevac su ti odgovorili svaki na svoj nacin precizno, koliko je Tvoj post dozvoljavao...

eto da ne ostane, samo tako, posto je i sama tema brizantna i vrvi stereotipovima (normalno) :

Recimo, Bizant, koji je Tebi blizi, je bio jedna od tipicnih RASISTICKIH "tvorevina".

Iako nije bio formiran ni na rasnom ni na etnickom principu "malo-malo" je napadao i istrebljavao te Armene, te "Slavene" i sta Ti ja znam koga vise...

I to bez ikakvih UNAPRIJED zadanih kriterija ili osnova.

-----

ârijevac:

"Istini za volju osim Svedske koja sa pravom sebe naziva nordijskom rasom ..."

#i ti znas da se Svedska ne naziva nordijskom rasom##

"Ja licno mislim da nordijci osim za rad i disciplinu nisu isprogramirani na velika dostignuca nego da drugi bolje talentovani pojedinci ..."

#a koji ces veci talenat nego za rad i disciplinu...(gluvariti pa sta ti padne napamet ! )#

-------

"Rambo, 666: Koleginice, nikakav "mehanicizam", "automatizam" ili "biologizam" ili sta ti ja znam koji vec -izmi ne kreiraju niti su ikad kreirali nauku tj. znanost tj. prodore na podruchju (prirodnih) nauka. To je iluzija i nepoznavanje prirode spoznaje..."

-- lijepo receno,cisto udzbenicki (a ne znaju to svi)

a zadnji ti pasus, he he he, a mozda je uvijek tako i bilo ( u Rimskim Carstvima)


------------

dragana, aj da sad kvarno totalno:

"Nase sledbenike rasnih teorija...

-uf srce moje


to dovodi u nezgodan polozaj,

#aj aj , jadni ti oni


"jer ako hoce da budu Arijevci i nordijci, nemaju blagoslov 'pravih' germanskih arijevaca"

-jes pa si ti ljuta, sto tvoji moraju se okolo ici raspitivati, pa bi smislila druge kriterije...

RECI SRECO , HTJELA BI DA SAM ARIJEVKA, da mi se kojim slucajem sta ne dogodi (ko zna moze uvjek valjat )

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Arijevac
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:17 PM 

WM za rad i disciplinu su i konji spremni i to bolje nego ljudi. Zaludu rad i disciplina ako nema kreacije. Tj mozes da radis kao konj a da postizes manje rezultate nego da sjedis (za covjeka radi masina).

Kreacija je ta koja je odvojila covjeka od zivotinje. Znas li da africki divlji psi imaju najveci talenat za disciplinu u okviru chopora i urodeno demokratsko "drustvo" bez lidera, ipak i dalje ostaju psi.

Nordijci su male mace prema japancima i korejcima koji imaju daleko veci talenat za pripadnost kolektivu i kolektivni duh , kao i nevjerovatno izrazenu samodisciplinu i marljivost, ipak bez zapadnih izuma oni bi bili u feudalnom drustvu.

Jel osjecas razliku ili i dalje treba da ti se prica ?

Eto ako uzmes gore iznesenu paralelu mozes sam da zakljucis sta bi bili nordijci bez helenske osnove kao i bez pronalazaka koje su drugi za njih pravili.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
wm
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:19 PM 

WM za rad i disciplinu su i konji spremni i to bolje nego ljudi..."

jok, sta covjek more , nemere ni jedan konj!

"Zaludu rad i disciplina ako nema kreacije"

jok, kad radis ko konj onda smissljas kako ces bolje uzivat, pa kako ces manje radit, pa kako ce drugi za tebe radit, pa kako ces "drugim rasne pripadnike" pruzit mogucnost da nesta kreiraju , jel' boze moj nemoze ti svaki dan nesta novo na pamet past itd

"Nordijci su male mace prema japancima i korejcima koji imaju daleko veci talenat za pripadnost kolektivu i kolektivni duh ..."

razlog, he he he , Helenizam?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Arijevac
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:21 PM 

WM ljubazno receno malcice si priglup za raspravu ove tematike.

Nego da vidimo nesto drugo.

Posto danas znamo da su savremeni Evropljani (u vecini slucajeva proizvod IE dosljaka i preindoevropskih domorodaca) ne bi bilo zgoreg uporediti dostignuca jednih i drugih u vrijeme prije sudara.

Znaci na jednoj strani imamo Minojsku civilizaciju, razne mediteranske civilizacije, Stounhendz a na drugoj imamo jos nezapisane vede, avestu (zbog nepoznavanja pisma)i gotovo nikakve ostatke arhitekture ili monumentalne umjetnosti.

Pod uslovom da su svi IE bili nordijske rase (mada znamo da nisu) ostaje tuzna cinjenica da su nordijci Germani u evropu dosli gole guzice.

Znaci cija je zasluga sto zapadno evropski ljudi danas imaju jednu od najmocnijih civilizacija svih vremena (nordijska ili preindoevropska komponenta)

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
arion
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:28 PM 

1)WM, kao Hrvat(Avar)dakle Azijat, došljak nije kompetentan da diskutuje o našim "Evropskim" temama.

2)Germani nisu Arijevci. Oni bi to želeli. Arijevci su sledbenici boga-lovca Ariona èiji se kult vezuje za teritoriju sadašnjeg Kosova.

Hitler je bio polu-Aškenazi Jevrej (taènije polu-Hazar jer su oni Jevreji samo po veri, ne i rasno). Nisu ni Hiperborejci jer je Hiperboreja bila na severnim granicama Grèke, taènije negde na teritoriji sadašnje severne Bugarske gde su bili (T)raèani=Sloveni=Srbi...

3)Arijevci nisu došli "IZ" Indije, nego su došli "U" Indiju odavde. Arijevcima su ih prozvali Indusi.
aVESTa naš obaVESTava o nekim dogadjajima. VEDE prioVEDAju o znanju. Vede su "doneli Arijevci-bogovi(civilizatori) sa zapada(odavde)" to kažu Indusi.
Dakle oni TVRDE da Vede nisu njihove veæ da su stigle sa Arijevskim osvajanjem Indije.

4)Arijevci su nastojali da se NE MEŠAJU sa Indusima i u tu svrhu su formirali kaste. I dan danas pripadnici najviših kasti su dosta beli i genetski slièniji evropljanima nego pripadnicima najnižih kasti.

5)Arijvci su se kasnije VRATILI u Evropu.


NACIONALISTA=onaj koji voli svoju naciju
RASISTA=onaj koji voli svoju rasu.


Postoje osnovne rase
Bela
Crna
Žuta
Crvena (?)

Sve ostalo je pokušaj da se ni iz èega napravi nauka i da se svako ukrštanje proglasi novom rasom...


ARION.


P.S. DA LI BI NEKO OD VAS SVOJOJ (HIPOTETIÈKOJ ILI STVARNOJ) ÆERKI DOZVOLIO DA SE UDA ZA NIGERIJCA???


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Rambo, 666
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:30 PM 

Pohvalimo se da i Juzhni Sloveni gaje rasizam prema nekome. Prema Siptarima si njihovi susjedi gaje dubok rasizam.


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Balticki Sloven
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:32 PM 

>upravo nordijski, ali germaski rasolozi to >obicno precutkuju i precutni i istorijski >potvrdjeni konsenzus medju njima je da >Slovene svrstavaju u nize rase. Nase >sledbenike rasnih teorija to dovodi u >nezgodan polozaj, jer ako hoce da budu >Arijevci i nordijci, nemaju >blagoslov 'pravih' germanskih arijevaca,

nisam ni procitao ceo tekst od ove idiotske glupace koja ponavlja iztrosenu germansku laz da su oni arijevci hahaha ... hahaha

ovo je zaista idiotsko, ova prokleta glupaca prosipa govna i misli da je to istina ... jeli ti glupaco znas ko su bili Arijevci i da zapravo nemaju nikakve veze sa germanima ...

upravo Sloveni (naravno pravi Sloveni) su ti koji mogu da trvde da su Arijevci(zbog mesanja sa njima,npr. sa Skitima) jer su njihovi najblizi rodjaki,zapravo vec se utvrdila genetska veza izmedju Slovena i drevnih Arijevaca ,glupaco prokleta ...

onda glupaca spominje nordijski tip - (da se napomene: Indo-Arijevci nisu bili nordijskog tipa nego mediteranskog, Iranci jesu bili nord tipa ali ne "germanskog" nord tipa kako nemacke svinje popularno nazivaju za Skando-nordijski tip))...

plus jos i to da nisu svi nordijci Indo-Evropljani (npr Finci su originalno isto bili nord nar,tammo jos uvek ima dosta nordijaca).

Sloveni(pravi) ne trebaju nikakav blagoslov od nemackih ne-arijevskih majmuna (koji i nisu nordijski narod kako glupi plebs obicno misli), jer upravo su Sloveni ti koji mogu da trvde da su Arijecvi, a ne nemacki neandertaloidi.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Balt Sloven
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:35 PM 

>antropolsoke razlike i slicnosti se mogu >posmatrati na isti nacin, iz zajednickog >kromanjonskog supstrata, razvio se <mediteranski i dinarski tip, zatim

cuj samo ovu baljezgariju. hej glupaco, nemas pojma o pojmu glupaco procitaj Coon-a Races of Europe ako uopste znas engleski jezik

istina je da i mediteranska rasa(skup nekoliko medt. tipova.) i nordijska pripadaju istom osnovnom mediteranskom stablu, dakle u biti imaju isti izvor

cro-magnon ne samo da nisu druga rasa, vec su druga ljudska vrsta...idiotinja

dinarski tip uopste nije rasa nego specifican hibrid razlicitih rasa, vrsta zapravo (npr fuzija mediteranskog tipa i alpskog (ne-medit poreklo), ili fuzija nordijskog i alpskog-dakle ukrstanje relativno dugoglavih sa okrugloglavima)

------

>Generalno kod Slovena i balkanskih i >mediteranskih naroda preovladjuje, topliji >dozivljaj ljudskog bica zasnovan na >emotivnom pogledu na svet i osecaju >povezanosti i srodnosti ljudi medjusobno, >ljudi i prirode, ljudi i Boga. Kod Germana

hej glupaco, govori u svoje ime ... govedo
emotivan pogled na svet ---bruhahahaha--- pa mozda jebeni balkanoidi imaju vasljiv pogled na svet---npr.Spanjolci (jedini (plus Portugal.) pravi dakle
" rasno cisti" medit. narod u Evropi) ga sigurno nemaju, upravo suprotno


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
dragana
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 3:38 PM 

Kao sto rekoh, retko se ukljucujem u ove diskusije i to bas zato sto se toliko medjusobno vredjate.

Naravno , razlog je virtuelnost ovakve vrste komuniciranja i diskutovanja, pa medjusobne uvrede ne izazivaju posledice koje bi izazvale u pravom zivotu.

Ne razumem kakvo je to zadovoljstvo, vredjanje u virtuelnom svetu, ali neka vam bude.

Ovaj Sloven sa dva zadnja posta nije ni pazljivo procitao moj post, inace bi video da ja ne zastupam ni jednu od popularnih rasnih teorija (pa ni onu o arijevskim Germanima), vec da ukazujem na protivrecnosti takvih teorija.

Ajde zdravo i lepo se zabavljajte!

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Cezar
(no login)

Fizionomija Brahmana?

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 4:18 PM 

Ako pretpostavimo da su cigani(ovakvi kakvi su danas) pripadali 5., poslednjoj kasti arijevskog drustva, a 2., ratnicka, izgledala ovako:

http://www.wizardrealm.com/barbarians/history.html

Mozemo li Brahmane, tj. 1. kastu smatrati fizicki jos jacima od 2. kaste-ratnika?

Dakle, prva kasta se naziva jos i svestenickom, ali s obzirom da su svo svoje znanje nosili u glavi nisu imali potrebu za mirovanjem, sto znaci onda da su mogli i da razvijaju svoju fizionomiju?

Ili su mozda cigani bili jos snazniji po gradji tako da nije bilo jasnih razlika? Mislim da je jedini moguci odgovor, ako i postoji, zapisan u prvim pisanim Vedama i drugim arijevskim zakonicima i dokumentima tog doba koji su eventualno sacuvani.

Znaci, obracam se potencijalnim poznavaocima tih djela da daju svoje misljenje.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Slovenin
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 4:25 PM 

Slovenin -
Ako su ono tvoje mape, onda znaj da su jako, jako pogresne.

NPR. Mapa za godinu 732 AD : Avarski imperij nije bio tako velik a Sloveni su tada duboko u Alpama. Ali zato verovatno juzno od Balatona jos vladaju Avari.

NPR. Hunski Imperij je sci fi.
------------------------------------------------------


Balticki Sloven (Skorpion)-
ajde, balkanoidi, prestanite da kakite gluposti ... "mlogo mlogo" (po vaskije) ste ignorantni i glupi

Kshatrije (dakle Indo-Arijevci) su bile nekog mediteranskog tipa a ne Cro-magnon odnosno neandertaloidne pola-majmuni kao sto je onaj na slici
-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -
cezaru odnosno grog, pravi si idiot...pa nisi li sam postirao link do slika indo-arijevaca (inace A.Kemp nije pouzdan izvor jer iskrivljava cinjenice i prica lazi-ali u vezi izgleda indo-arijevaca je prilicno u pravu-osim ako ne misli da su bili nordijske rase)

http://white-history.com/hwr5c.htm

izgled potomka Khastrija

Above left: the modern Indian actor Aamir Khanall, whose Aryan ancestry contrasts strongly with the more typical Indian male, right.
-------------------------------------------------------



calle -

Zar nisu postojale samo tri kaste. Brahmani - najvisa i Sudra - najniza. Za srednju ne znam kako se nazivala.
-------------------------------------------------------


Cezar -

Prvo, nisam nikakav Grog i uopste se ne poznajemo.
Drugo, Indoevropljani su prije "potopa" zivjeli zajedno na relativno malom prostoru i pretpostavka je da su bili u srodstvu, sto znaci da su vjerovatno bili i slicno organizovani, kao Arijevci (posto samo o njima imamo najstarije pisane informacije).

Trece, ako su vec bili slicno organizovani, onda je ta organizacija izazivala slicne, pa i fizioloske efekte UNUTAR svakog od tih indoevropskih naroda.
Cetvrto, posto ja i ne raspravljam o razlikama izmedju naroda, nego izmedju kasta, tvoju slinacu primjedbu mozes da "stick in your ass!", jer samo ometas temu.

Obay your master!

LuLu Remix - Metallica - Master of Puppets.mp3
-------------------------------------------------------


Cezar -

Evo malo o medjukastinskoj psihologiji:

http://killdevilhill.com/phorum/read.php?f=28&i=10033&t=10033
-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

slusaj glupi mamojebac, poserem se na Nietzschea i slicne nemacke govnare...citao sam njegove baljezgarije dok sam bio teenager (dobro,napisao dve,tri ne-lose knjige-ostalo je sranje)

tamo (na sajt o barbarima) na slici je covek slican Schwarzeneggeru , Schwarzenegger je predominantno neandertaloid a ne Nordijac cak se ne moze svrstati ni pod "mesani Nordijac" .
-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

i chobaninu, nauci engleski prvo

obey your master-tako je, s sada balkanoidu na kolena i puzaj preda mnom-svojim gospodarem lol
-------------------------------------------------------



Cezar -
Okay, baby, obey your mother!
Ne zanimaju me tvoji majmunski preci!

MARSH iz topika!
-------------------------------------------------------



wm -
- Brahmani - svecenici koji potjecu iz usta Brahme
- Ksatrije - ratnici koji potjecu iz ruku Brahme
- Vashije - seljaci koji potjecu iz bedara Brahme
- Shudre - neobrazovani radnici koji potjecu iz nogu Brahme

Grupe koje ne pripadaju ni jednoj odredjenoj kasti smatraju se
nedodirljivima i zabranjene su u drustvu.


------stop-------


filozofija je u medjuvremenu evoluirala



-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

Pogresno balkanski cobanine , ja sam nordijske rase majmuncino balkanoidna! dakle ratnicke/gospodarske rase
-------------------------------------------------------



Cezar -

Jok, samo si bio u varikini!

"Ne budi alav, jos si BALavavavavav".

Ne znam, onda, zasto spominjes "krvavu arijevsku sikiru" ako su po tvome arijevci mediteranci? Il' se gubis?

Kladim se da je polovina onih tzv. anatolaca iz analize y-hromozoma izvucena iz varikine.
Znam originalne Turke, svjesne svog porijekla iz BiH potpuno bijele! Oni mora da imaju anatolski y-hromozom.

DO-WHY-ME!




-------------------------------------------------------



Cezar -

"Znam originalne Turke, svjesne svog turskog porijekla, iz BiH, potpuno bijele! Oni mora da imaju anatolski y-hromozom." A mozda i ti?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Arijevac
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 4:33 PM 

ARIJEVAC -

Balticki Sloven ,ove fotografije koje prezentiras meni licno govore da su u pitanju samo rudimentirani ostatci indoarijevaca. Danasnji "potomci " arijevaca nemaju gotovo nikakvih zajednickih dodira sa svojim "precima". Naime posle 2 milenijuma mjesanja sa drugim rasama oni su izgubili rasno obiljezje. Po cemu ti mislis da drevni arijevski narodi nisu bili nordijevske rase?

Na osnovu njihovih danasnjih ostataka?
-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

glupi balkanoidi jos uvek nisu nista naucili-izgleda da im takva "rasa"-da veoma veoma sporo uce

majmuncine jos uvek nisu skopcale da u biti nije pogresno ako se kaze da je nordijska rasa (koja je verovatno kompozitzna rasa-dakle nastala ukrstanjem vise medit. tipova i po koja kap Upper paleolithic= pola-majmunske krvi) depigmentirani ogranak osnovnog mediteranskog (homo sapiens) stabla

dakle zasto "krvava arijevska sekira"? zato sto su Indo-arijevci IE narod i zato sto istrebljivali mongoloidnu gamad po Aziji ...

veoma je verovatno Indo-Arijevci nisu bili nordijske rase, jer za to nema bas nikakve osnove---nordijske i mediteranske lobanje mogu biti slicne do te mere da su ocito neke priglupe germanske pola-majnunske svinje automatsko zakljucile (po kostima i lobanjama drevnih Indo-arijevaca) da su IdnoArijevci bili nordijci sto veoma veoma verovatno nije istina...veoma veoma verovatna istina je da su INdo-Arijevci bili nekog mediteranskog tipa,naravno sa belom kozom...dakle ne neke crncuge kao arapi i ostala blisko istocna melting pot gamad
-------------------------------------------------------



ARIJEVAC -

Balticki ,sta cemo onda sa Persijancima ?

Zna se da ih je bilo dosta plavih i depigmentiranih. Cak i danas u sjevernom Iranu ima ih dosta. Persijanci su takode bili arijevski narod. U vrijeme Darija Iran tj.ahemenidsko Persijsko carstvo bilo je sastavljeno od mnogih naroda, naravno vlast i vojska bili su uglavnom Persi.


-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

Persijanac nije tacan termin. Persia oznacava samo jedan deo Irana.

Sta oko Iranaca? Po svemu sudeci originalni Iranci su bili nordijske rase (napomenuo sam to gore-jesi li mozda corav?).a mozda ih je i bilo mediteranskog tipa.ko zna


-------------------------------------------------------



Cezar -

Stvarno ne znam jos koje sam rase. Znam samo da dobro jebem (preporuka za zenski dio tvoje porodice).
Dok ne saznam, smiri se, sjedi i popusi!

Aj zrao.


-------------------------------------------------------


Balticki Sloven -

mislim da znam koje si ti "rase"- psece hahaha

svoju preporuku si mozes zabiti u svoj razboleli govnarski supak


-------------------------------------------------------



ARIJEVAC -

>>slusaj glupi mamojebac, poserem se na Nietzschea i slicne nemacke govnare...citao sam njegove baljezgarije dok sam bio teenager (dobro,napisao dve,tri ne-lose knjige-ostalo je sranje)<<


Balticki opet sviras kurcu: Niche nije bio Njemac nego Poljak, i uvijek je to rado isticao.

Ti kazes da si gore pomenuo da su indo-arijci nordijevske rase (najvjerovatnije), vrati se onda gore pa ces naci da si tvrdio suprotno. Teritorija drevne Persije se gotovo poklapa sa Iranom (persija je nesto veca). Persijanci su od irano-arijevskog plemena Persi. Ti mjesas irano-arijevsku grupu sa indo-arijevskom grupom ili se meni cini. Ali ajde recimo da su to samo dva ogranka arijevaca sa zajednickim porijeklom. Kshatri zive (koliko ja znam u sjevernoj Indiji,i tu su doselili sa podrucja irana,posle prve invazije arijevskih plemena na indijski podkontinent).


-------------------------------------------------------



B. Sloven -

o boze, pa ja imam ovde posla sa potpunim idiotima




-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

Nice je poreklom delimicno bio Poljak, pa sta. Mentalno odnosno dusevno je predominantno bio Nemac a ne Sloven(Poljak)


-------------------------------------------------------



Cezar -

ARIJEVAC, Balticki je preglup za te teme.
Inace, ide li Slovenstvo i Arijevstvo zajedno?


-------------------------------------------------------



B. Sloven -

za "Arijevca":

http://www.sanibrite.on.ca/iran/index.html

IRAN OR PERSIA


In Avesta the ancient document and the most historic book of Iran the term "a-eer-ya-nemva-ee-jo" used to describe the land of the Aeers'. The terrain and plateau, which the Indo-European (Iranian) first settled

The term "Aeer" later was changed to "Ar", "Er" or "Ir" , the Avesta uses the term synonym to NOBLE. Noble means AzAdeh in today's Farsi.


"Arien" or "Aryan" was race of people who settled in the plateau of Iran. Nothing much is know of the history of Parthian"which they have settled in north east part of the plateau of Iran.


Parthia while it was part of a satrapy of the Achaemenian Empire joined to Hyrcania (present Gorgan, Iran) the two remained together as a province of the Seleucid kingdom.


Parthian (247 BC-ad 224) established a powerful empire during which dominated Roman many times. Finally, the new dynasty of the Sasanians, under the leadership of Ardashir I (reigned 224-241), overthrew the Parthian princes, ending the history of Parthia.


Both Aryan and Parthian races have settled in different parts of Ancient Iranian Empire stretched between Gang River in India to the north part of Egypt, including part or whole Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon.


In much of today's World Wide Web, and literature, the terms Persia and Iran have often been used interchangeably to refer to a vast geographic area that has extended from India to Mediterranean. These two designations refer to quite different geographic, political and cultural entities.


Persia is derived from the word Pars, or Persis, as it was known to the ancient Greeks, and has a narrow and specific connotation. It refers to a mountainous region to the northwest of the Persian Gulf, where the city of Shiraz and province of Pars (Present Iran) and the Achaemenid palace, Persepolis, are situated.


However the etymology of the word Iran is Aryan and refers to the Indo-European people and language, which spread throughout a region, connoting a much larger geographic and cultural domain. The term Iran has been in use since the Achaemenid period (ca 550- 331 B.C.)


Although the use of Persia as the designation for the country is less current, it is still used in its adjectival form, that is Persian to refer to language and culture. Therefore using term "Persia" referring to the Ancient and/or today Iran not historically nor geographically would be correct.


Using term Persia or Persian it corresponds to the small part of Empire of Iran. This word may help to describe a certain kind of product or species such as Persian Rug or Persian Cat, but certainly would be insufficient and unprofessional to name Iran, anything less than "Iran".


Therefore it is highly recommended to use "Iran" term when is referred to the History of Iran, Land and its People.




-------------------------------------------------------



Balticki Sloven -

>Inace, ide li Slovenstvo i Arijevstvo >zajedno?

itekako da idu zajedno...jer je to maltene ista stvar




-------------------------------------------------------



wm -

-ko zemlja i sunce...


-------------------------------------------------------



ARIJEVAC -

Ako su slovenski jezici najvise slicni sanskritu, kao i mitologija, onda je logicno predpostaviti da se radi o srodnim narodima (naravno, ne danas ,nego prije velikih rasnih mjesanja naroda). Danasnji sloveni se dosta razlikuju od nekadasnjih slovena, arijevski narodi, moze se reci da su izumrli ili su do te mjere rasno transformisani da se danas tesko prepoznaju.

Sta reci recimo za danasnje tadzike, Pashtune koji uopste ne lice drevnim predcima, ili Induse, Irance, Osete itd. Osim toga ne bi me iznenadilo ako saznamo da su sloveni porijeklom arijevski narod. Germanski narodi nemaju pravo da pretenduju na tako nesto jer im jezici mnogo manje lice na izvorno-arijevske jezike.

Velika vjerovatnoca je da su sloveni etnogenezom nastali od sarmatskih plemena koja i jesu arijevska plemena iz sjevernog irana.


-------------------------------------------------------



wm -

Sa druge strane, Srbi se razlikuju od ostalih Slovena, od nekih više, a od drugih manje. Po pogrebu se najviše razlikuju od onovremenih Južnih Slovena, u pisanim izvorima VI stoleæa poznatih pod imenom "Sklaveni".

--u 6. se stolecu razlikuju od ONDASNJIH juznih slavena...

autor teksta,

a) bora djordjevic

b) miso kovac

c) d.jankovic

d) arijevac


----------

"Podunavski deo oblasti Akvisa u VI i poèetkom VII veka" (Beograd 1981). Ispravio je pogrešno pripisivanje naselja kasnoantièkog doba Banata i Baèke Sarmatima, i prikljuèio ih istovremenim kulturama slovenskih osobina, èime je otvorena moguænost traganja za poreklom Slovena u Podunavlju.

o saramatima je izjavio:

a) arijevac

b) ceca

d) d. jankovic

c) nepoznati autor (anonimus)


-------------------------------------------------------



ARIJEVAC -

wm ,moj savjet ti je da pod hitno nesto preduzmes protiv svoje narkozavisnosti.Ima toliko dobrih sanatorijuma za odvikavanje od ovog zla,pa zasto ne probas .


-------------------------------------------------------



calle -

Arijevac,

Darijevi Persijanci bili su Semiti kao i ti koje su pobedili Skito-Alano-Sarmati.

Sargon osvaja Vavilon cca 2000 pre N.E., dakle od tada mozes racunati sa Semitima u Mejurecju.

Termin Persijac vrlo je sirok Pojam.


-------------------------------------------------------



wm -

evo i ja tebi pomazem,

na oba pitanja je isti odgovor.


izbaci momcilu bajagica i cecu,

nisi ti

i jos uvjek imas

SENZACIONALNIH

-------50%-------

sanse za ispravan odgovor !

aj, da vidim!


-------------------------------------------------------



calle -

U savez iranskih plemena svrstavaju se i ona iz Medije odn. medijska plemena.



" The rock and pillar inscriptions of the Sakhs, who also introduced Buddhism into India, are to be found in Afghanistan, Bombay, Delhi, Allahabad, and elsewhere.

They are in the so-called Aryan character, and become intelligible by "transliteration" into Hebrew. They appear to be the utterances of people who have been brought through great trials, who are groping in the dark though believing they have a Divine mission.
"Sak," their deity, after whom they call themselves, is apparently a man and an ancestor.

Sometimes they call themselves " Budh;" and Moore points out that the Budii are mentioned by Herodotus as a Scythian people living in Media, and that in Hebrew it signifies "separated."

The inscriptions contain occasional mention of the Getae, Goths, and Gotha, the tribe of Dan, and the Nethinim. (I Chron. 9:2)

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythian.html

The Medes and the Persians were coalitions of Iranian nomad tribes; in the fifth century, this was still remembered and the Greek researcher Herodotus wrote:

The achievement of Deioces [...] was to unite under his rules the peoples of Media - Busae, Parataceni, Struchates, Arizanti, Budii, Magi.

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus.html


-------------------------------------------------------



ARIJEVAC -

Calle ,znachi ti hoces da kazes da Darijevi PERSIJANCI NISU ARIJEVCI NEGO SEMITI ? A ko su onda Persi i Darije ? Semiti ?

Vjerujem da to ozbiljno ne pricas.

Moguce da je bilo semita u drzavi ali Darijeva vojska kao i najvisi stalez bili su Arijevci. Ahura Mazda iranski vrhovni bog kojeg je Darije tako rado pominjao u svojim osvajanjima samo idu u prilog tome da Persi nisu bili semiti nego pravi arijevski narod. Ahemenidska Persija je bila drzava arijevskog naroda u kojoj su zivjeli i drugi narodi, potcinjeni Dariju.


-------------------------------------------------------



calle -

Zahvaljujem na ispravci glede Dariusa. Naravno da nisu bili Semiti duhovno (pismo i religija) vec hocu da kažem pošto se topic odnosi na rasne karakteristike doticnih kako se u Persiji odn. Medjurecju vec cca 2000 stare ere pojavljuju Semiti koji osvajaju Vavilon i da govoriti o Dariusu i Persijcima kao izrazitim Nordijcima/Mediterancima sasvim je oprecno odn. pogresno

Poznato je da su Asirci pismom i verom deklarisani kao Semiti iako su bili u rasnom pogledu znacajno izmesani sa starosediocima -nesemitima.

ITD, ITD,...


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
calle
(no login)

.

No score for this post
September 25 2002, 4:34 PM 


Archaeological findings indicate that before the Ary ans moved to Iran, a race of people who were neither Semitic nor Aryan lived on the Iranian plateau. These men and women belonged to a certain race which inhabited western Asia, a region extending from the present republic of Turkestan to the Mediterranean. In Iran the Old Asians formed a settlement which gradually spread over the western parts of the plateau running into the Zagros mountains. Apparently this people discovered agricultural cultivation specially growth of barley and wheat and the art of pottery which began with the primitive sun-baked brick.

Gradually they had to face other neighboring peoples and civilizations quite different from their own. From the north tribes came peacefully, mixed with the natives and settled on their land. But on the west there was a different story. There, relations developed between the natives of Iran and the Semites of Mesopotamia who were developing an urban, agricultural civilization with well planned political and military structures. The Old Asians were still more or less nomadic but were beginning to show some sod of identity as various civilizations: the Elamites, the LuIlubi, the Guti, and the Kassites occupying the western pads of present Iran from Khouzistan northwards to the end of Luristan. One would think that these two people the Old Asians living in mountainous regions that were rich in raw materials such as ores; and the other, a wealthy people with abundance of food and manufactured goods should have lived in peaceful coexistence with prosperous trade. But in fad, the two people fought for centuries and although the Semites were generally superior and often victorious, it was the less civilized people of the mountains that overcame the Semites. Eventually the Elamites took over the whole of the Tigris Valley from Assure to the Persian Gulf. But soon they were overthrown by the Babylonians: Nebuchadnezzar I more or less destroyed this admirable civilization.

Meanwhile, on the inner side of the Zagros mountains, the Aryans were moving in peacefully from the north, mixing with the native Old Asians, and thus began to glimmer on the plateau the star of a great civilization.

The Aryans are a branch of the people today known as the Indo-Europeans, and are believed to be the ancestors of the people of present day India, Iran, and most of Western Europe. Their language was closely related to Sanskrit and was pad of the Indo-European family of languages. The Aryans began their migrations 3,000-4,000 years ago in three groups; one moved westward to Asia Minor, the second eastward to India; the third group took the middle route, southwards to the Iranian plateau, probably first via the present day Azarbaijan, and later also from the east of the Caspian crossing the river Oxus. Migration to the plateau was initially slow but by the beginning of the first millennium the pace and the number Increased. It continued for a few centuries at an ever expanding rate, but still peacefully, the newcomers mixing with and settling among the natives.

Eventually, two kingdoms appeared which were to play a most significant role in the history of the Persian Empire and Iran: a) Parsa or Persis as the Greeks called it, the Persian kingdom in the south of the plateau, in and around the present day provinces of Fars (from Pars and Parsa), and Khouzistan; and b) the Medes in the northwestern parts of the present day Iran.

http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/General/History/
http://www.zyworld.com/Pasargad/persians.htm
EUROPEAN HISTORY

2050 BC - 2001 BC


The Semitic Elamites (Persians) are at the walls of the city of Ur (Iraq) under King Ibbi-Sin (2028-2004 B.C.). The walls are said to be as high as the shining mountains but the city is taken sacked and burned. Ur is destroyed and its people dispersed. This event marks the end of the Sumerian Nation. The division of the country into kingdoms erased all traces of the city-states and the principles upon which they are founded. Men, land and cattle ceased to belong to the temples and the Spirit-gods. Ur is destroyed, its people dispersed. The Semitic Elamites (Persians) are soon expelled from Iraq and the Semites would remain in power for the next fifteen hundred years. These Semite are Akkadians from Iraq or Western Semites Amorites. Waves of nomadic Semites continued to enter Iraq from the West. The Semite however would continue to squabble among themselves. The new Sumero-Akkadian-Amorite culture hardly differed from its Sumarian roots. The Amorite introduced personal ownership whereby the people, land and cattle no longer belonged to the Spirit-gods and High Priests. A merchant class appeared in Iraq. The city-Spirit-god belief began to decline in importance.


http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/euro11.htm

http://www.zyworld.com/Pasargad/persians.htm
***********************************

One of the great Achaemenian emperors was Cyrus. His correct name in the inscriptions is Kurus (Kuru of Aitareya-brahmana and Mahabharat in Sanskrit). Kuru is described as a country of everlasting happiness beyond the most northern ranges of the Himalayas. Cyrus founded the imperial capital of Pasargadae or Pars-gard (the seat of Persians). Gard is Garta in Sanskrit, which means a seat. Garta or Karta later came to mean capital as in Jakarta.[48] The audience hall of the Achaemenian emperors was called apadana. Its Budhist parallel is Avadana.[49]


http://www.indianembassy-tehran.com/india-iran-links.html

Gard je inace rec IE porekla koja je svoje pravo znacenje ocuvala jedino u slovenskim jezicima (grad) dok u se ostalim pojavljuje u odrazima poput garden, guard,…

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Anonymous
(no login)

Seven Dumb Ideas about Race

No score for this post
November 27 2002, 3:10 AM 

Author: Steve Sailer
Filed: 6/6/2002, 3:38:29 PM
Source: Vdare
Race is a topic of such enormous importance that it's essential to think clearly about it. Yet much of the intelligentsia now attempts to deal with the problem by defining race as merely a mass hallucination afflicting the entire human race - other than we few members of the Great and the Good. As we saw in last week's column on the schizophrenic writings of the leading population geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, much of the professoriat now publicly deny the very reality of race. Prominent anthropologist C. Loring Brace asserts, "There is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term 'race.'" The American Association of Physical Anthropologists recently announced: "… old biological concepts of race no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions…" Similarly, the American Anthropological Association proclaimed " … differentiating species into biologically defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation…”

Well, wishing isn't going to make race vanish into thin air. Let's review some of the major myths about race.

If races exist, then one must be supreme.

Much of the Race Does Not Exist cant stems from the following logic (if you can call it logic): “If there really are different racial groups, then one must be The Master Race, which means -- oh my God – that Hitler Was Right! Therefore, we must promote whatever ideas most confuse the public about race. Otherwise, they will learn the horrible truth and they'll all vote Nazi.”

Look, this is one big non-sequiter: Of course, there are different racial groups. And of course their members tend to inherit certain different genes, on average, than the members of other racial groups. And that means racial groups will differ, on average, in various innate capabilities. But that also means that no group can be supreme at all jobs. To be excellent at one skill frequently implies being worse at something else. So, there can't be a Master Race. Sports fans can cite countless examples. Men of West African descent monopolize the Olympic 100m dash, but their explosive musculature, which is so helpful in sprinting, weighs them down in distance running, where they are also-rans. Similarly, there are far more Samoans in the National Football League than Chinese, simply because Samoans tend to be much, much bigger. But precisely because Samoans are so huge, they'll never do as well as the Chinese in gymnastics.

Every person falls into a single clear-cut racial group.

This one is so silly that I doubt that anybody who has thought about race in the real world for more than ten minutes believes this. Nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them.

Since nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them, then race does not exist.

This one's equally daft. Outside of mathematics, and of human inventions like the law, categories almost always fall across continuous dimensions. Where does "young" end and "old" begin? It all depends on the situation. For example, among female gymnasts, 18 is "old." Among architects, 45 is "young." Yet that does not mean that "age" is meaningless. Further, categories are typically fuzzy. Few people are 100% "sick" or 100% "well." But "health" is still a useful concept.

The best example of the fuzziness of natural categories is the concept of "extended family." All the criticisms made about the fuzziness of racial groups apply in spades to extended families. How many extended families do you belong to? Well, at least two: your mom's and your dad's. But they each belonged to their parents' two extended families, so maybe you belong to four. And your grandparents each belonged to two …

And what are the boundaries of your various extended families? If the question at hand is who you'd give a spare kidney to, you'd probably draw the limits rather narrowly. But, when making up your Christmas card list, you probably toss in the occasional third cousin, twice removed. And exactly what's the appropriate name for all these extended families anyway?

In fact, extended families are even less clear-cut than racial groups. Yet, nobody goes around smugly claiming that extended families don't exist.

But why is extended family such a perfect analogy for race? Because it's not an analogy. They are the same thing: kin, individuals united by common descent. There's no natural law defining where extended families end. A racial group is merely an extended family (often an extremely extended family) that inbreeds to some extent. It's this tendency to marry within the group that makes racial groups somewhat more coherent, cohesive, and longer lasting than smaller-scale extended families.

Genetic differences between the races can't exist because there hasn't been enough time for them to evolve in the 50,000 to 200,000 years since modern humans first emerged from Africa.

The popularity of this argument is bizarre, since genetic differences between the races are written on the faces of the people you see every day. If there wasn't enough time for these racially characteristic traits to evolve, how exactly did they come into existence? Magic? It's particularly amusing to hear paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould assert this since his one major contribution to science has been to document that evolution sometimes occurs at the speed of revolution.

In the History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza calculates the surprisingly short time in which a version of a gene that leads to more offspring can spread from 1% to 99% of the population. If a rare variant of a gene produces just 1% more surviving offspring, it will become nearly universal in a human group in 11,500 years. But, if it provides 10% more "reproductive fitness," it will come to dominate in just 1,150 years. A classic example is the gene for lactose-tolerance. It was almost nonexistent until humans started milking cattle about 10,000 years ago. Today, its prevalence ranges from negligible among East Asians to 97% among Danes.

Race is only skin deep.

I'm sure this bit of conventional wisdom is most comforting to Jews suffering from Tay-Sachs disease, to blacks enduring sickle cell anemia, and to American Indians battling alcoholism. In reality, there is absolutely nothing that restricts racial differences to "mere cosmetics." Races can differ in any of the ways that families can differ from each other.

Most variation is within racial groups, not between racial groups. Two members of the same race are likely to differ from each other more than the average member of their race differs from the average member of another race.

Sure, but so what? No single human category can account for a majority of all the many ways humans differ from each other. Try substituting other categories like "age:" "Most variation is within age groups, not between age groups." Yup, that's true, too. But, it doesn't mean that Age Does Not Exist.

You often hear that between-group racial differences only account for 15% of genetic variation. This number comes from a 1972 study by Richard Lewontin of 17 blood types, comparing variation between continental-scale races and between national-scale racial groups (e.g., Swedes vs. Italians). Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined -- the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.

Still, let's assume that Lewontin's 15% solution is widely applicable. That's like going to a casino that has American Indian and African American croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Indian croupiers and black for the black croupiers -- pretty useful information, huh?

Most of the human race's genetic variation is among black Africans.

This chestnut is true only for junk genes, the DNA that doesn't do anything. Junk genes are highly useful to population geneticists tracing the genealogies of racial groups, but they don't affect anything in the real world.

Then, are black Africans highly diverse physically? Well, that depends upon who you are lumping together. There are indeed some highly unusual peoples in Africa, but almost none of them were brought to America as slaves. The most genetically distinct people in sub-Saharan Africa are the Khoisan. These are the yellowish-brown, tongue-clicking Bushmen and Hottentots of the Southern African wastelands, the remnants of a great race that once dominated most of Africa before the blacks ethnically cleansed them from the more desirable lands. The most striking contrast in Africa is between the tiny Pygmies and the ultra-tall herding tribes of East Africa. But except for the 7'7", 190-pound basketball novelty Manute Bol, few of either group made it to America. In contrast, the West African tribes that did provide the vast majority of American slaves are relatively homogenous. Cavalli-Sforza sums up the situation on the ground like this, "… differences between most sub-Saharan Africans other than Khoisan and Pygmies seem rather small."

This does not exhaust the list of dumb ideas about race that I've collected. But it does give a taste of how anthropologists try to make race disappear by closing their eyes and wishing. Well, race won't go away, because it's an inevitable outgrowth of family. Our only hope to manage the problems of race is to study it honestly.


Steve Sailer ( http://www.isteve.com ) is the president of the Human Biodiversity Institute.



http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=405590236187

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Anonymous
(no login)

Does race exist?

No score for this post
November 27 2002, 3:11 AM 

Author: Paul R. Gross
Filed: 9/1/2002, 1:00:51 PM
Source: The New Criterion Vol. 19, No. 2, October 2000

The Human Genome Project is on schedule. Its many promised uses, nevertheless, are for the long haul. The New York Times tells us, though, that it has already achieved one invaluable result. On August 22, Ms. Natalie Angier announced the glad tidings on page one: There is no such thing as race. Her title: “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show.” Race, therefore, is about to join such other “social constructs” as quarks, atoms, motile sperm, and secondary sex characteristics.

Angier’s article collects opinion-sentences to that effect from two able leaders of the Genome Project—Dr. Craig Venter (the private branch) and Dr. Eric Lander (the public)—and from several others. All deny the biological reality of “race” among humans. Some fragments refer obliquely to Genome Project results. But separately or together, these statements allow no meaningful judgment on the significance of race, even from a geneticist or an anthropologist. The piece does mention in passing “a handful of researchers who continue to insist that there are fundamental differences among the three major races that extend to the brain.”

If, as claimed, races are not biologically significant, then they don’t exist. “Race” means biological difference. (And if races don’t exist, then there aren’t “three major races.”) If a mere “handful of researchers . . . continue to insist” that race means something biological, then the rest do not. So they regard all people as siblings who start life with the same endowment, including brains. Any differences we see or measure are then trivial or social. That is the Times’s message. It doesn’t work for anyone who knows what “race” means in science, and what the genetic data show.

Forty years ago, the distinguished evolutionist Ernst Mayr discarded “typological” notions from contemporary biological systematics. The difference was (and still is) important because of the then-stubborn remnants of idealism in biology and because advances in genetics had rendered the timeworn notion of fixed, racial “types” not even wrong, just irrelevant. In his 1959 essay “Typological Versus Population Thinking,” Mayr wrote:

Essentially . . . [the typological idea of “race”] asserts that every representative of a race conforms to the type and is separated from the representatives of any other race by a distinct gap. The populationist also recognizes races but in totally different terms. Race for him is based on the simple fact that no two individuals are the same in sexually reproducing organisms and that consequently no two aggregates of individuals can be the same. If the average difference between two groups of individuals is sufficiently great to be recognizable on sight, we refer to such groups of individuals as different races. Race, thus described, is a universal phenomenon of nature occurring not only in man but in two thirds of all species of animals and plants.

That is what biological “race” means—except, in recent decades, for humanity. Many argue, by whatever means come to hand, that while there are races (or “varieties,” or “demes,” or “breeding groups”) in other species, humanity has none, that group differences are either trivial or sociocultural. This accelerating assault upon what seems obvious raises two broad questions. First, why the current fussing over “race” in humans? And why drag in “the brain”? Second, what evidence—from the Genome Project or otherwise—supports this radical claim? (It is radical; people can distinguish, sometimes imperfectly, at least those “three major” human groups—African, Asian, Caucasian.)

Race is a battleground of politics. So, today, is science, with enemies at both ends of the political spectrum. Therefore, like the nexus religion/science, race/science is fertile ground for politics and prejudice, and everybody has politics and prejudice. Now, the surest way to extinguish flare-ups of race/science is to deny that there is any science in “race” and to assert that group differences are social (and politically malleable). Of course, most people think the opposite, intuitively.

Yet we are familiar with counterintuitive science that is true. So there being “no biological reality” in race is a possibility. Certainly it is useful and comforting for respectable people, including scientists—they depend upon public good will and most have currently respectable politics. And the brain? That’s the touchiest of all race/science issues! It is considered crude to say that one race seems to have innate advantages in certain sports, but one does think it. But it is indecent, today, even to think of innate cognitive differences, however small, among races. That can cost you friends or your job.

What about evidence? It has long been clear that the gross genetic makeup (as DNA sequence) of humans and, say, chimpanzees differs hardly at all. A few percent at most. Nobody doubts that this makes a huge biological difference, or that the difference depends upon scores of genes. But we and chimps are different species. Within a species, DNA differences overall are even smaller, race to race. For the kinds of genes studied until recently population-wide (for example, blood groups), within-group gene variability can be greater than between groups. None of this means that varieties are not biologically different. A small subset of genes, relative to the multiple tens of thousands in a genome, can make enormous differences in the functioning body (the phenotype). That has been the salient outcome of developmental genetics. “Innate” characteristics can be and some are known to be encoded in an insignificant fraction of the genome. Every competent developmentalist knows this.

For the Human Genome Project, turning its splendid accomplishment into specific gene functions, and then into phenotypes, is in the future. Nothing new has happened —yet—to relegate group-related biological traits to the trash heap. We already know some such traits. What has been reinforced is what we’ve known for decades: real differences among the human varieties float upon an ocean of physiological (hence genetic) uniformity. But that’s just what makes us all human.


©2000 The New Criterion http://www.newcriterion.com/



http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=767696559429


 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
 
< Previous Page 1 2 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous TopicReturn to Index  
Find more forums on Political RelationsCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement