That YouTube video took lorenz comments out of context. He said the samples were contaminated with The scientists European DNA. Because they could not replicate those same results. Also, the skulls were Sinodont and and within the variability of Native American morphology.

Does anyone know why he looks more Negroid than Khoisan? My impression was that negroid features were a much later development in West Africa.

It is a good thing to throw out, shred or use as toilet paper any studies and reports before the current date. Why? Because they are based on old data, old ideas and old paradigms. So Brace et al, Angel et al… garbage.

Again on the Yoruba, and The Ga And Ashanti of Ghana:

The Yoruba were historically divided into culturally varied city-state subgroups, so the male contribution may have differed significantly within Yorubaland.

“The three major items within the household were food, clothes, and education. The division of finacial load varied greatly, depending on the relative wealth of the spouses, the number of children, and the total income of the polygynous family. In general, men earned more than women, and when the wife was trading on a small scale, the husband had to provide nearly everything. Polygynous men tended to be wealthier, but their households were correspondingly larger.
…For instance, if a man had no money on him in the morning to give his wife, or chop money(food money; my parenthesis) for the children, he would leave early for the market, leaving his wife to provide the money from her own pocket. He would then pay her back at the end of the day out of his takings.”
Strangers and Traders: Yoruba Migrants, Markets, and the State in Northern Ghana
By Jeremy Seymour Eades, p.85

Concerning the Ga and Ashanti peoples of Ghana:
“If the duolocal couple has children, they often live with the mother but retain normal bonds with the father. The woman will receive money, usually referred to as “chop money”, and/or other resources from the man for the maintenance of the duolocal household. The woman will supplement the man’s “chop money or resources with food from her farm and/or income from her off-farm activities.”
Challenging Situatedness: Gender, Culture and the Production of Knowledge
By Ericka Engelstad, Siri Gerrard, p.117

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Challenging+Situatedness%3A+Gender%2C+Culture+and+the+Production+of+Knowledge++By+Ericka+Engelstad%2C+Siri+Gerrard

“Among the Ga of Accra, Ghana, the husband is expected to pay for the food and clothing of his conjugal family.
…In sum, there is a general agreement that the major items of childrearing expense, including food and clothing in some instances and by all accounts the major expenditures related to education, are the primary responsibilities of the husband. Thus to say that the burdens of child rearing fall almost entirely on the shoulders of the wife, which is the view advanced by Caldwell….is to overstate the case considerably.”

…Ashanti men (Abu, 1983) provide their wives and children with the basic necessities—such as chop (meal) money and school fees…”
Factors Affecting Contraceptive Use in Sub-Saharan Africa
 By National Research Council (U.S.). Working Group on Factors Affecting Contraceptive Use, p. 109-110

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Factors+Affecting+Contraceptive+Use+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa+%C2%A0By+National+Research+Council+(U.S.).+Working+Group+on+Factors+Affecting+Contraceptive+Use&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=Factors+Affecting+Contraceptive+Use+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa+%C2%A0By+National+Research+Council+(U.S.).+Working+Group+on+Factors+Affecting+Contraceptive+Use&tbm=bks

(One last quote, which I should have included in my first post of Guyer’s work)

“The empirical sources no longer support Baumann’s assertion of a primordial division of labor, but rather lend credence to a view that the features of “femaile farming” are relatively recent immovations associated with the spread of new world staples from the sixteenth century onward.
…The fundamental problem is precisely what made the vision attractive and plausible in the first place, namely the assumption that Baumann expressed so unselfconsciously and graphically, that African farming in the twentieth century can be taken to represent an early stage of human social evolution”
“Female Farming in Anthropology and African History” by Jane Guyer p.257-9

https://books.google.com/books?id=GGomG4fhU5gC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=female+farming+jane+guyer&source=bl&ots=ysTsujoh4a&sig=m39KUZ0UgrgX9ocNJMJ4vxPHvCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6hxrUNGFCavh0wGEjYFY&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=female%20farming%20jane%20guyer&f=false

One last quote, which I should have included in my original Jane Guyer post

“The empirical sources no longer support Baumann’s assertion of a primordial division of labor, but rather lend credence to a view that the features of “femaile farming” are relatively recent immovations associated with the spread of new world staples from the sixteenth century onward.
…The fundamental problem is precisely what made the vision attractive and plausible in the first place, namely the assumption that Baumann expressed so unselfconsciously and graphically, that African farming in the twentieth century can be taken to represent an early stage of human social evolution”
“Female Farming in Anthropology and African History” by Jane Guyer p.257-9

https://books.google.com/books?id=GGomG4fhU5gC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=female+farming+jane+guyer&source=bl&ots=ysTsujoh4a&sig=m39KUZ0UgrgX9ocNJMJ4vxPHvCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6hxrUNGFCavh0wGEjYFY&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=female%20farming%20jane%20guyer&f=false

regarding self employed Yoruba women:

“In the case of the woman trader, the main source of capital was her husband or his father on marriage, and the percentage seems to have been higher in Ogbomosho than in the other towns. The amount of (Table 5.5) capital varied with th e means of the husband, but was generally smaller than that of the men, reflecting their greater dependency.”

Strangers and Traders: Yoruba Migrants, Markets, and the State in Northern Ghana
By Jeremy Seymour Eades, p.111

https://www.google.com/#tbm=bks&q=Strangers+and+Traders:+Yoruba+Migrants%2C+Markets%2C+and+the+State+in+Northern+Ghana++By+Jeremy+Seymour+Eades

That thing about palm wine is interesting. I read a Nigerian story that followed that exact trend, I think the Joys of Motherhood was the title. The wife worked all the time while the husband was in and out and often getting drunk.

Someone already mentioned the thing about the Swiss and dogs, but I really do think more could be said about this- I really think the attachment we have to dogs in the long run is something that largely arose out of their versatility. Canines have the greatest genetic plasticity of any animal and are suited to more roles in human society than any other. Pigs are also genuinely more intelligent than dogs. I’m not saying we should eat dogs, but when you really get down to it, there’s no true rational reason just why we do so, but I think we shouldn’t really eat pigs either. I don’t really know why asian cultures have often eaten dogs, but I don’t think it really arises from any distinct sociopathy or pathology in the way many people think it does, or many other foods.

Look at how lobster used to be looked at- they’re insect-like and were seen as food mainly befitting of prisoners and such. Now it’s a delicacy. And I don’t think many people will have issue eating insects down the road, given how likely it is we’ll be moving more to meat from them.

And just look at the kinds of things Scandinavians sometimes eat.

The part about indo-europeans is funny too- China is fairly isolated from much of the rest of Eurasia, by desert, the himalayas, the plains of central asia etc. Interactions with “indo-europeans” have not been terribly consistent.

I don’t know if the chinese write buddhism only in sanskrit, but there’s that idea again I’ve seen crop up a number of times- “The Chinese were (and are) incapable of developing their own alphabet!” You don’t even have to look at the case of Koreans (or are they really different? According to Jayman, the north and south of Korea might be!)- do chinese/asians who grow up in the west (or anywhere else that use alphabets) have any difficulty writing and reading alphabets? Does their handwriting or processing look any different?

But yes, “HBD” is where rationality reigns, and asians are the ones more likely to be autistic, not the people who spin retarded theories about the chinese and alpabets.

Given how the “HBD” scene and such are predominantly white and jewish and filled to the brim with nerds and spergs, and just how much of this scene seems inherently autistic, I doubt it.

But in all seriousness, I’ve wondered this myself, but I don’t see any evidence for it whatsoever, even if their cultures do seem generally more “autistic”. I really think people in this scene, and in general, have an absolutely caricatured idea of what it asian “collectivism” is and how asians behave. My experience with asians, I’ve never really gotten the impression of them being so introverted and anti-social and non-risk taking etc. I’d say they are less boisterous, and do have tendencies towards different pathologies, and there undoubtedly are tendencies in east asian cultures that are distinctively dettached or sociopathic (particularly in China), but this image I see crop up doesn’t really exist. It also doesn’t square with the suicide rates and the feelings of social atomization that crop up in east asia, particularly the NEET phenomenon in Japan- if they’re so adapted for these things, why do have these problems?

Your image of them as being less empathetic and how they can be “mind-bogglingly brutal” isn’t what you think it is, and I’d think you’d be better off looking at yourself and the kinds of people in this scenes. I have seen vastly too many white nerds, spergs etc. etc. for this to be possible. And I love the idea that’s cropped up that ADD/ADHD is virtually non-existent among them- why do reports of it even crop up in east asia? I really doubt it’s all over-reporting. And don’t even get me started on Rushton’s image of them, as basically asexual and sexually underdeveloped. I kind of think a lot of what he wrote about them was some sort of projection.

This is why I also can’t take Frost’s ideas here completely seriously. For every few good ideas he has, he seems to have some remarkably caricatured or outright dumb ones, and he seems to be abit self-aware, once remarking how the HBD scene is mostly male because men are social retards.

Other gems:

“And in my very limited personal observation, the Caucasians are all very linear, organized “engineer-like” thinkers. The Chinese kids do not come naturally to that kind of thought pattern and tend to process things in what appears to be a cheerful garble. After raising this mixed family, it is absolutely no marvel at all to me that the Chinese never developed an alphabet, for example. The sort of thought process that would make the benefits of an alphabet naturally obvious doesn’t easily occur in a Chinese head. And now that the advantages of an alphabet are plain for them to see, guess what? they still don’t have an alphabet and are cheerfully content with the limitations that imposes. Maybe it’s because they’re too easily bored with spelling. ;-D”

And it turns out the Koreans invented an alphabet, one of the most efficient in the world. It took them awhile to widely use it (which they do now with no issue), but are the Koreans that different from the chinese?

And this is from someone who’s raised Chinese kids, who comes out and says they’re incapable of developing an alphabet. Sure.

IC:

Your rambling anecdote doesn’t prove anything. People in this scene I also find have a bizarre idea of morality and how it factors in with intelligence, and I’d say this was most exemplified in Michael Levin’s work, where he claimed an essentially linear correlation between IQ and morality. Murray did this too. Big surprise Levin was a libertarian moral relativist and Murray too is a libertarian with a Thai wife.

I do think whites and asians are more prone to aspergers/autism than blacks, and there seem to be distinct forms of sociopathy/psychopathy and social anomie and pathology that go hand in hand with them. There’s a lot of angles in this regard people have long overlooked.

Correction: “There is a high correlation between societies where women farm an polygyny but there are defects in the argument as far as Africa is concerned….”

regarding the Ewe people mentioned earlier:

“Spieth quotes informants who tell that agriculture in the older days was carried out exclusively by men. Old people today say that before cocoa was introduced, men were “by far and large the food producers, while the women helped on the farm during weeding and harvesting periods”. There is locally a strong opinion about the importance of male labour in food production in the earlier daysand it seems certain that men were mainly responsible for yam cultivation.
Men were responsible for clearing the land and burning the straws, diggingthe hills for the yam, and, when mature, cutting the heads of the yam for replanting. Women seemed to have shared the work with the men in weeding, and in planting and harvesting the rest of the crop. If the family had people in pledge or slaves, then they did the clearing and digging of the yam mounds, and helped with the weeding.
When the farmers started to grow cocoa, much less emphasis was put on food crops. Firstly, the food farms were soon pushed away from the most fertile land, now being used for cocoa growing. Secondly, the men’s time now became occupied in the cocoa farms for part of the year. Work in the cocoa farms coincided with e.g. the yam harvest, but the men also had in general less time to spend on the food farms. The responsibilities for food production thereby to a larger degree came to be left to the women. This new sexual division of labour in agriculture resulted in the yam slowly being replaced with other crops like maize and cassava, which were less labour intensive.
The new sexual division of labour in agriculture created a system under which the men controlled the cash crop production, while women took responsibility for the subsistence activities. Cocoa was grown by men, and the marketing of the beans was also completely in the hands of men, who sold them to the European trading houses. Food crops, on the other hand, were entirely the women’s domain, in the sense that they were responsible for handling and selling them in the market. The cocoa brought money into the hands of the men twice a year. This money was earmarked for larger investments either in more cocoa, or in house building and children’s education. The women’s sale offood crops from the family farm did not yield cash that they could dispose of. This money was controlled by the family head, the man, and used directly for subsistence needs of the family. ”

Bukh, J. 1979. The Village Woman in Ghana

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:278154/FULLTEXT01.pdf

“There is a high correlation between societies where women farm an polygyny but there are serious defects in the argument as far as Africa is concerned. For while it is in East Africa that
women’s farming predominates(Goody and Buckley, 1973), it is in the west that polygyny rates are the highest.”

female labor percentages(as a percentage of total agricultural labour as recorded in the 1970 population census) eg: 36 Ghana, 42 Liberia, 42 Sierra Leone, 50 Thailand, 24 India, 9 Morocco, 13 Pakistan

The Character of Kinship
By Jack Goody p.180-181

https://books.google.com/books?id=TFjf4mUHqv4C&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=Polygyny,+Economy+and+the+Role+of+Women.+In+The+Character+of+Kinship&source=bl&ots=Lf9x7vC_bD&sig=FIXZhuFg7FqH7l1FiOuf38ARa-w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAmoVChMI57C-i7j9yAIVjDc-Ch1wvghF#v=onepage&q=Polygyny%2C%20Economy%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20Women.%20In%20The%20Character%20of%20Kinship&f=false

Although I mentioned this in a comment, I somehow overlooked this later on, but I’ll reiterate abit:

“This sexual division of labor influenced the transition to farming. In the tropics, women were the main providers for their families as gatherers of fruits, berries, roots, and other wild plant foods. They were the ones who developed farming, thereby biasing it toward domestication of wild plants.

This may be seen in sub-Saharan Africa, where farming arose near the Niger’s headwaters and gave rise to the Sudanic food complex—a wide range of native crops now found throughout the continent (sorghum, pearl millet, cow pea, etc.) and only one form of livestock, the guinea fowl (Murdock, 1959, pp. 44, 64-68). Many wild animal species could have been domesticated for meat production, but women were much less familiar with them. Men knew these species as hunters but had little motivation to domesticate them. Why should they? Women were the main providers.”

I’m curious where you get the idea women were the ones who developed farming. This seems like a pretty bizarre idea to be honest, given that agriculture on the part of SS africans is up to 10,000 years old, and while polygyny is similarly old, it really stretches believability to think that this arose on the part of women and that polygyny and agriculture’s origins worked so closely in tandem. And again, your idea that polygyny prevented domestication of other animals in SS africa really falls apart when you consider that africans have been in contact with so many other animals long before agriculture/polygyny yet never domesticated them, while many animals in eurasia/the americas were domesticated before agriculture or when it was very primitive. Africans also took to usage of a wide variety of domesticated animals with no difficulty, even if they weren’t domesticated by themselves, and I’m pretty sure men do most of the work with them. And while it’s difficult to say the various animals in SS africa are impossible to domesticate, it’s most likely the case they are for the most part far harder, to the point where a primitive people might have a very hard or even impossible time to do so. Europeans today have made virtually no progress in domesticating zebras (I should add the topic of the domestication of zebras is a really tired subject in this discussion that borders on parody at times- “BUT WHY DIDN’T THEY DOMESTICATE ZEBRAS???”), among others.

You really seem to boil too much down to differences polygyny. Explaining why africans supposedly failed to domesticate other animals in africa because of it is nonsensical.

Maybe could be important analyse sex ratio or proportion. Polygynous societies tend to have more women than men*

The idea that gender-labor roles explain polygyny in Africa (or at least that they are the main cause) has been questioned.

http://www.voxeu.org/article/african-polygamy-past-and-present

James Fenske:

“Several theories link polygamy to poverty. Polygamy is concentrated in west Africa and has declined in recent decades. Geographic variation in women’s agricultural productivity does not predict differences in the prevalence of polygamy, but historical inequality and exposure to the slave trade do. Although contemporary female education does not reduce polygamy, areas with more educational investment in the past have less polygamy today. Conflict and lower rainfall lead to small increases in polygamy, whereas lower child mortality leads to a large decrease. National policies appear to have little effect.”

” Polygamy in the data is largely bigamy – 72% of respondents report that they are the only wife, 19% report that their husband has two wives, 7% report that he has three wives, and fewer than 2% report that he has 4 wives or more.

“The three hypotheses I test about the spatial distribution of polygamy relate to geographic, historical, and cultural variables that are slow to change. First, Jacoby (1995), building on Boserup (1970), has linked differences in the demand for wives across regions of the Ivory Coast to the productivity of women in agriculture. I find, by contrast, that polygamy is least common in those parts of Africa where women have historically been most important in agriculture. Second, economists since Becker (1974) have argued that polygamy can only exist where there is inequality between men. I am not able to find any correlation between wealth inequality recorded in the DHS and the probability that a woman is polygamous. I find, however, that historical inequality predicts polygamy today.”

“These results pose challenges to existing theories of polygamy. The distribution of polygamy in Africa does not fit an explanation rooted in the gender division of labour. I find no evidence that educating women in the present reduces polygamy. Further, I find that history matters. Pre-colonial inequality, the slave trade, and colonial education all predict polygamy rates in the present. I find limited evidence that African marriage markets have responded to economic growth and fluctuations. The largest elasticities that I find are in response to changes in child health. This is consistent with theories that see polygamy as a strategy for men to increase fertility, making wives and surviving births per wife substitutes.”

The Long-Term Effect of Demographic Shocks on the Evolution of Gender Roles:
Evidence from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade∗ Edoardo Teso †
July 2014
sites.bu.edu/neudc/files/2014/10/paper_139.pdf

AFRICAN POLYGAMY: PAST AND PRESENT
JAMES FENSKE
http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/workingpapers/pdfs/csae-wps-2012-20.pdf

Pardon me if I don’t know the exact population of Oxford back then. I assumed it was in the thousands or around 10,000 (which is a reliable number in gauging these things, like if you compared Tuskegee’s homicide rate to the african-american average). I don’t doubt it was vastly smaller than it is now, but 2,000 seems like a stretch. If it’s as low as 2,000, I’ll rescind it, but comparing the murder rates of towns/cities back then to stone age tribal people where most violent deaths occur in ritualized tribal war, and I’m pretty sure a town of 2,000 people is much bigger than the largest villages in tribal PNG. Even then, only 2 murders in Oxford even if the population was about 2,000, in face of what has been recorded elsewhere in Britain and the rest of Europe doesn’t seem likely.

“Oh my, I didn’t even read this
” If one person commits a murder in a band of 100 people, that murder rate would register as 100/100k.”

You might want to work on your math skills.”

You might want to work on where you use your snark. I admit I made an error when I should have said 1,000/100k, but the same point stands (and is even more pronounced than what I originally said). You can use a measure of x/100k when discussing homicide rates even when the population is far smaller than 100,000. Any homicide in a very small population is going to register as much more disproportionately than in a much larger one.

I know.

Haiti has worse living standards than many african countries. Even the most crime-ridden, impoverish black majority/significant minority countries in carribbean do not approach it.

Well, sure, Haiti has African people in an overpopulated country with frequent natural disasters. You’d expect it to be a hellhole.

“From your comments, I take it that you’re mestizo, right?”

Why on Earth would you conclude that a reasonably intelligent but kind of foolish anti-racist was a mestizo? This guy is a moderate. Seriously, he’s a lot closer to the HBD side than the average Democrat. Oh, and there’s his name, which isn’t proof, but is evidence

Oh my, I didn’t even read this
” If one person commits a murder in a band of 100 people, that murder rate would register as 100/100k.”

You might want to work on your math skills.

The IQ of ALL Mexicans isn’t as high as 94, and you’re saying it’s dysgenic immigration.

“Your comparison with how people in the new guinea highlands engage in war is kind of disingenuous. Any tribal war for people that primitive with such small populations is going to register high “murder” rates, and would often manifest with what are in reality very petty reasons.”

Says the guy who brought up a 100/100000 murder rate in a single year in Oxford when it had 2000 people. IOW, two murders.

That was pretty stupid.

“Can I ask you why some people think it’s okay to home in on blacks as the absolute worst humanity has to offer”

I’m guessing that if you asked them, they would say Australian aborigines are worse, but less relevant. Possibly other small groups, too. Who cares about PPNG murders if they’re all in their homeland?

“Wasn’t that the point I was trying to make?”

Yes, and given that you openly compare a “murder rate” of close to 600/100k to the highest recorded rate in Britain (over 100/100k in Oxford), you give the impression that polygyny is a far bigger factor in male violence than anything else.

I think what controls do exist in PNG are meager enough as they are. I look at it similar to how big christianity is in Africa. I doubt it’s doing much to inhibit things, and people often mold religons/belief systems to suit themselves. I believe you have claimed this previously how tribal warfare in places like Pakistan predate Islam. In Africa, animism mixes with christianity and we see cults in Mexico that mix Christianity with indigenous beliefs.

Was there ever a time where Christianity was particularly strong and curbed things in PNG? You could argue the colonial era, but couldn’t that have had more to do with just white rule independent of religious belief? It really feels like a stretch to say christianity is doing much for PNG, and we still have the issue of taking a murder rate of close to 700/100k at face value.

The Coolidge Effect would be a good name for a band

Disposition for polygamic or monogamic behavior seems depend on personality types.

Is not a theory but observations about this people and its cultures.

Is not a universal pattern. Physically strong men don’t have necessarily to be polygamous.

The tallest men in Europe are Montenegrins, people along the Dinaric mountains and the Dutch, all impressive physically and none polygynous.

Most men everywhere are polygamous. Only a moron infers that status from a piece of paper.

The theory sounds ok but reality is something different. The men in polygynous societies are not impressive whatsoever unless one is awed by some lunkhead flexing his biceps. Nothing comes out of those societies and none of them so much as produce a bicycle or even barely a skateboard. So some of them are supposed to be aggressive in nature, so what? None of them could combat any of the people from modern non-polygamous societies. They can run well in our sports contests but couldn’t construct the watches by which they’re being timed. The tallest men in Europe are Montenegrins, people along the Dinaric mountains and the Dutch, all impressive physically and none polygynous. It’s not clear what is meant by ‘more masculine’ in this case except for a stereotypical Mack Daddy concept which some types hold up as the epitome of masculinity which is actually just laughable.

There is no doubt that black Africans have more robust bones, dominate sprinting, and have propensity to get into physical confrontations . Black men are more high rated for physical attractiveness by women, and less likely to stay with one woman.

Dietrich, read Houellebecq’s book on HP Lovecraft, which quotes him about Europeans as if they were something out of the Dulwich Horror, before you cite him as an example of a particular antipathy toward blacks

I think that many authors on Meso-American civilizations tend to somewhat downplay the extent of human sacrifice and cannibalism.

I think that you are correct here, and it was not my intent to downplay this in any way. I just meant that my understanding is that they had a very well developed client state and tributary system. (You no doubt know that the exploitation of this system by Cortez was one of the keys to his success.) I have never read of any culture that approaches the industrial scale human sacrifice and cannibalism that was there in Mexica. I have a book on Cahokia in my reading queue; I hope the author addresses any possible direct connection to the Aztecs. You mention the ME and the Hittites. Instead of a straight chronological comparison it might be beneficial to think in terms of before agriculture and after. I guess the smart scholars do this already. Certainly we know that there was human sacrifice in many different cultures, whether it approached the extent of the ritual cannibalism of the Aztecs we don’t know. If someone from 1000 BC had passed through 10,000 BC ME and gave us a report we might have a different opinion. I haven’t read enough to state that all civilizations passed through the human sacrifice stage, but it sure seems like a good bet.

The main issue is do polygynous descended people have different outcomes to Europeans on average. In the UK and US crime rates are higher, on average, for the descendants of polygynous peoples. In the UK and US the whites have lower rates of crime, family instability that blacks, and in the US probably even 2nd or third generation assimilated Mexicans, because statistics show a trend of downward assimilation.

The post was just offering an explanation for different rates in different people. It is not a case of being harsh to say that people from other cultures have worse outcomes when assimilated to European culture. If anything it is an argument for multiculturalism. “Amerind ancestry does not seem to be an especially clear cut factor in crime or social cohesion”is saying it is all culture, so it would be all culture for blacks too.

Peter,

What about differences between European and Mediterranean men in aggressiveness and sexual competitiveness? Are these differences the result of differences in polygyny in the past, or do you suppose other factors are at play?

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/greek-kamaki-summer-tourism-sex-old-time-puas-876

Western girls also quickly realised that it was in Greece, where they could satisfy their sexual frustrations. According to Klouvas, the men who visited Greece from abroad were no match for the Greeks for one simple reason:

“In order for a European to approach a woman he’d need to have three or four drinks in him. We were hot-blooded, audacious Mediterranean men. We didn’t need to drink. We’d cut to the chase straight away and that would flatter the women. Plus, as a rule, we’d never hit on a woman if we stank of alcohol”.

“aren’t indicative of behavior outside of war”

An interesting example in this regard is the horrific atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in WWII contrasted with the low rate of violence in Japanese society.

I know you haven’t explicitly made that claim, but you have multiple times compared the measured “murder rate” of tribal papuans to the murder rates in medieval britain, which even at their highest are still far lower than the face value rate of PNG tribes.

I am aware of crime in PNG, but your link does not say much about the continued or impending collapse or erosion of PNG’s government. As I said, in many parts of PNG, government control and modern civilization are meager enough as it is, and I don’t think much is being held back, nevermind the issue of extrapolating murder rates.

I agree with your assessment about africans and didn’t mean to make that explicit claim about inherent dysfunction, but that is roughly what we see. And you seemed harsher towards them initially the way you spoke of how their murder rate would be higher.

I haven’t encountered these things about hispanics from others here, but I haven’t been trying to say wrongfully negative things about them. I hope I’ve made it clear to most people I am not talking about all hispanics. Amerind ancestry does not seem to be an especially clear cut factor in crime or social cohesion, nevermind the original white populations in question or whatever social selection has happened over the past several hundred years in the americas.

”10 vs. 20 million is a big difference.”

Big difference= 10 vs 40 million,

10 vs 20 million is like 500 thousand vs 1 million, don’t look higher, and most of countries with this population size (10-30 million) no seems have greater difference in similar space/time/human-bio among them.

”Haiti has worse living standards than many african countries. Even the most crime-ridden, impoverish black majority/significant minority countries in carribbean do not approach it.”

But Haiti ”still’ will have a ”african living standard”, that many is not the same that most. In globalization era, smart nations or with smart and zealous elites, look for successful countries and repeat same formula of capitalistic success. (when some geniuses and/or wises are in certain elites, they can improve living standard without copy everything and invent new paths to the long term social sustainability… will be copyed).

”Jamaica, one of them, actually has a good deal of modern infrastructure, national industries, and has actually produced some worthwhile things culturally. Nothing similar could be said of Haiti.”

Yes is much better but not so much. Haiti look like a typical african nation while Jamaica look like a Nicaragua in their best days. But criminality in Jamaica seems higher than US for example.

”And I meant that the level of social cohesion and general living standards are sustained in these countries even if the reason for economy being as prosperous as it is isn’t likely due to much ingenuity on the part of black populace. They’re nothing like South Africa. Even the ones that are not tourist spots/tax havens do not approach Haiti’s dysfunction.”

South Africa exceptionality can be in large part assigned to the non-black population and possibly minority of functional and smart black ones.

”Do you have any evidence Barbadian immigrants in the US are more violent?”

I’m asking, they ”are” (on average).

References would be helpful. I am aware human sacrifice predated the Aztecs for sure, but I have never heard of anything comparable to them.

Santoculto:

10 vs. 20 million is a big difference. Haiti has worse living standards than many african countries. Even the most crime-ridden, impoverish black majority/significant minority countries in carribbean do not approach it. Jamaica, one of them, actually has a good deal of modern infrastructure, national industries, and has actually produced some worthwhile things culturally. Nothing similar could be said of Haiti.

And I meant that the level of social cohesion and general living standards are sustained in these countries even if the reason for economy being as prosperous as it is isn’t likely due to much ingenuity on the part of black populace. They’re nothing like South Africa. Even the ones that are not tourist spots/tax havens do not approach Haiti’s dysfunction.

Do you have any evidence Barbadian immigrants in the US are more violent?

Truth:

It really doesn’t matter if MS-13 originated in that fashion. Blaming african-americans for it is crazy. It doesn’t say much good about the El Salvadorans if what began as something to protect their people grew into something worse than the african-american gangs that attacked their people.

Oh, and here’s El Salvador’s recorded murder rate from that link about the Dominican Republic I posted:

“2010, it had a homicide rate of 24.9 per 100,000, far below those of Honduras (82.1), El Salvador (66), Jamaica (52.1), Trinidad and Tobago (35.2) and Belize (41.7),”

It’s worse than majority/heavily black countries Jamaica, T&T and Belize. That could help explain why MS-13 formed as it did.

Originally, the gang’s main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans and African-</blockquo

Poor semantics by the writer, other gangs in LA were comprised of Mexicans and African-Americans, but in the East LA, East Hollywood areas in which the Salvadoreans settled were Mexican Mafia turf, very few blacks around.

Eventually they joined the Mexican Cartel which is what the 13 stands for.

oops, is true, sorry, i was drunk. Well, 10-20 million, 200-400 thousand, little difference.

”It doesn’t really matter if the economy is largely based on tourism and banking, those countries are still stable with good living standards. They are able to sustain that way of life.”

Refresh your memory

”European countries development happen JUST because they inherited other civilization achievements of middle east”

More honesty, please, IF you don’t think like that about ”western civilization”, good for you and for us and sorry again.

Again (or not), we inherit a LIMITED behavioral plasticity which are partially influenced by circumstances. Some people are unable to hurt physically other people, in other hand, other people will be very susceptible to do it. Some people will be susceptible just by ”special” circumstances, tolerance and reciprocity for engagement for some behavior.

Barbadian immigrants in USA are more violent than barbadians in Barbados*

Why this arguments look as ”excuses for accept white genocide” **

Yes, Meso-Americans had tributary relations but compared to civilizations of the Ancient Near East they seemed far more inclined to genocidal violence. If you were a ruler conquered by the Hittities you became a vassal of the Hittite King. If you were the ruler of a city conquered in Meso-American your heart was ripped out of your living body and consumed by your conquerer.

Aztecs were descendents of people emigrating from the north. Nahautl is an Uto-Aztecan language. The Aztec Empire was fairly new, only about a hundred years old at the time of Cortes.

I think that many authors on Meso-American civilizations tend to somewhat downplay the extent of human sacrifice and cannibalism. It’s not a very pleasant subject. But one can’t help but notice that much of Meso-American art is very gory. The Spanish conquisitadors, who were pretty tough son-of-a-bitches themselves, were genuinely shocked by the bloody nature of Meso-American cultures.

”mamelucos ( black/amerindian), cafuzos ( white/ amerindian)”

Sorry,
is the otherwise, i commit a mistake too. (like right and left, )

“I mainly mentioned drift in relation to facial structure/hair texture/coloration”
A couple of studies have found that black men are rated more physically attractive.

You mentioned the Nilotics as darker, we agree they are very dark and polygynous. Indeed wherever people are very dark you will find polygyny and testosteronisation.

No, Barbados has about 270,00 people and Haiti has ten million. I think Barbados is large enough population wise where you can judge it as it is and can’t really expect crime to change if the population was larger. It doesn’t really matter if the economy is largely based on tourism and banking, those countries are still stable with good living standards. They are able to sustain that way of life.

Until this argument, I didn’t know how large the amerind component of Brazilians was. However,

For what it’s worth, in relation to the nutty claims about the high african ancestry in Venezuelans/Colombians/Puerto Ricans and that it matters for much, the Dominican Republic has a lower murder rate than many other latin american countries, and it’s doubtful underreporting is that severe, given that it’s not as unstable and corrupt as the others: http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/dominican-republic-the-chronicle-of-an-unreported-death

Puerto Rico has similar or higher rates to the DR, despite the black ancestry being largely in reverse.

Barbados have 400 thousand people and Haiti have 20 million people. Barbados is part of British commonwealth, British empire past “echoes”. Also Barbados are financial paradise like Switzerland and Caymans Islands. And seems they have a good elite there.

Little cities tend to have little crime rates than bigger cities.

Sorry but you are talking some misconceptions here. Brazil are quintessentially a trirracial nation. Amerindian genes are very common among modern Brazilians.

8-10% of Brazilians declared themselves as black but 45% without leave into account this 8% of self declared blacks, are basically mulattos/ mamelucos ( black/amerindian), cafuzos ( white/ amerindian). And at least 70-80% of Brazilian population have at least some % of subsaharian genes.

As badly as you want to believe it, I’m not black or part black. I’ve posted under a few different names on Unz in the past, and haven’t posted on anything relating to this topic since the summer. I used this name again because they were all continuations of a post about the Igbo, and things flowed better to use the same identifiable name. As hard as it is for you to believe, I have no personal stake about how “bad” blacks are. I believe in HBD and have no trouble believing they’re among the most violent, dysfunctional people in the world. The main contention has been this claim from Peter and Sean that they, along with the people of PNG, are the most extreme in those regards, and how this is mainly related to polygyny. My posts outside of this thread have said little about their violence or dysfunction.

It’s really hilarious how you make these personal accusations about me on top of accusing me of being some kind of “racist” against non-blacks. It’s ok to say terrible, “untrue” things about them but not other races, and there’s no way I could “defend” them like this unless I was black.

Regardless of what race you are, your motives clearly boil down to the fact you really despise them, and that there’s just something wrong with you.

No, we’re not comparing “races”, atleast like how you want to think. Human evolution can work remarkably fast, and the different ethnicities in the same broader racial group can differ greatly in behavior and outcomes. The americas have been inhabited for well over 10,000 years and have been populated by various groups of mongoloids in Siberia. That leaves more than enough time for plenty of dramatic divergences in behavior and intelligence. I was never talking about all amerinds/mestizos to begin with. The fact I originally said what I did about the “worst segments of Mexican society” just triggered something in you, and here we are.

In contrast, typical black africans originate from a small population about 10,000 years ago in the Sahara, and did not expand heavily outside of west africa until about 3,000 years ago. Africa was very sparsely inhabited, and by other african groups (variously like the ones described in Peter’s post). Even then, large parts of West Africa like Liberia and Guinea were sparsely inhabited until the middle ages. The broader similarity we see in black african populations is because they diverged and radiated outward in Africa quite recently in historic times.

Still, Mexico isn’t exactly a bad example given that it is the largest latin american country after Brazil, and the largest mestizo one. Colombia and Venezuela’s black ancestry isn’t as remarkable as you make it out to be. Distinct black populations in those countries are small in number (10% and 2.8% respectively, and Colombia counts mestizos too in that percentage), and there doesn’t exist the pervasive gradient with black ancestry like it does in Brazil. Even still, in both of those countries, the african ancestry is 13-16%. They’re both mostly european with the rest amerind. We should be focusing more on european and amerind ancestry in all of these countries.

Costa Rica and Chile are even whiter. The others likely don’t have as high of murder rates, but they’re also likely underreported. And again, we’re not talking about all amerinds.

Yes, crime and violence are pervasively high across SS africa, but they do vary considerably. Somalians/east africans are not typical black africans and look very different. They’re also worth considering for Peter and Sean given how they behave so similarly despite lower rates of monogamy. Ethiopia is quite bad too- it’s been christian for longer than most of Europe, but it’s murder rate is also very high, along with all of the general social strife.

I’m aware that hispanic-american immigrants (who again are mostly mexican) overwhelmingly come from the lower segments of mexican society, but note what I said about violence/sociopathy being concentrated in I said it multiple times. And no, their crime rates aren’t “drastically lower” and “aren’t even close”, they’re still pretty high for the most part. We again are talking mainly about mexicans, since aside from puerto ricans, other hispanic immigrants are far smaller in number. I’m not sure about the statistics on illegals, but I’ve never, ever bought the idea they commit less crimes than US citizens.

Through all this, I noticed you keep ignoring me saying the same things over and over again. And since you felt it worthwhile to bold that part of your post because I slandered the poor, poor segments of Mexico that become members of gangs and drug cartels, here’s what I originally said, bolded:

*I agree, sociopathy/propensity to violence can be concentrated in different segments of the population depending on where you look. The hispanic murder rate in the US is something like half (or less) that of african-americans, and there are many towns and cities in the US with large or predominantly hispanic populations with low or average homicide rates. I imagine it would be even lower if you excluded illegal immigrants, or considered solely mexican-americans. On the other hand, the worst segments of Mexican society I would say are much worse than what you often see in african-americans.*

The sentiment in the last sentence really seems to get to you. I hope me including that won’t cause you to keep making the same crazy, retarded accusations you spew out.

What happened to your admission of ” Perhaps some of that hatred is unjustified, and perhaps there are non-genetic reasons for the consistent dysfunction of the Black race wherever a representative sample is found,”? I didn’t deny they’re among the most hated- here’s what I said, bolded:

*Still, I agree in modern times there is a distinctive hatred of africans compared to most other racial groups (though the roma people have similar hatred in europe), but again, it’s not as objectively based as you like to make it out. All I’m really getting from you is “I just hate n*ggers.”*

And yeah, I am complaining about that sample size because it’s in a nation of OVER ONE HUNDRED MILLION. Do you even read what I post? Are you a troll or you this much of a desperate, fanatical moron? It doesn’t change the average of 89 we find for hispanics (who again are mostly mexican) in the US.

Puerto Ricans are mostly european and native american: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico#Genetic_studies

Mexicans are under 10% african, but really.

I’m aware of there being many learned, intelligent men who in the past had bad things to say about blacks, often times about the state of Africa that amounted to wordy proclamations that could be read as “those niggers, continent wide, were nothing but a bunch of stone age monkeys running around in the nude, eating eachother and living in mud huts/the bush/trees until the white man/arabs/berbers/etc. came along.”, which isn’t true at all. But no, that has hardly been the case universally. Early contacts between Portuguese and West Africans were very positive, and the Portuguese worked closely with the christianized people of Angola.

They can also be just patently untrue/crazy things in general, like Thomas Jefferson claiming that they’re “dull, tasteless, anomalous” and comparing them to the incredibly intelligent native americans, and how he’s never seen a single african exhibit any intelligent thought or any work of art whatsoever from them. Do you actually believe any of those things? Am I supposed to be particularly convinced because Thomas Jefferson said them, even if they’re blatantly untrue and crazy? But don’t you DARE say such things about non-blacks!

But “no elementary trait of painting or sculpture”, yeah, ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Bronzes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ife#Art_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo-Ukwu

That quote from Francisco García Calderón is in ways just as bad. People like you like to focus on Haiti, even though no predominantly/heavily black carribbean country is as bad. Some, like Barbados, have high living standards and low crime rates, even though that does not change the general trend we see with black countries. One naturalist from back then isn’t particularly informative, and there’s no evidence (aside from hair texture/color and eye color) black traits are “dominant” in whites.

The last part you bolded is the craziest- amerind mestizos are few in number in Brazil, and I find it hard to believe they ever amounted to much. And the mestizos of Peru and Bolivia are “distinguished by their pride and virility” and are less unstable, apathetic and degenerated than mulattos. I mean, I’ll admit that Peru and Bolivia’s murder rates are probably much lower than the worst latin american countries, but again, it doesn’t have much to do with african ancestry, and again, I’m not talking about all mestizos and amerinds. But I always thought Peru and Bolivia were basically third world backwaters that have never amounted to much- what is there to support him hyping up the mestizos of those countries? Again, do you actually believe these things?

Lovecraft had a great imagination, but he clearly had mental issues. I imagine you’re one of the dark enlightenment types if you bother to fixate on what he thought about race.

Santoculto:

I am not talking about just population size, though. It is how “murders” are evaluated in these societies, which are overwhelmingly in tribal wars that often have a ritualistic component. I didn’t say it’s impossible to compare, but when we are talking about murder rates of close to 700, or really any that register in the hundreds, we cannot take those as comparable to how we judge murder rates in larger, more complex societies.

Sean:

I agree, and I didn’t say it was drift. I mainly mentioned drift in relation to facial structure/hair texture/coloration. I talk about the pygmies like this because things like heavy physical development, maturation etc. coexist with monogamy. You don’t have anything to say about their physical development, especially you originally claiming they’re weak. That guy also describes in the video and the description he’s seen plenty of toddlers/young children doing things like that. I’ve also read young pygmy children can climb trees all on their own. Why is this happening in such a monogamous people?

Nilotes aren’t as tall as you claim. The south sudanese ones are 5’8-5’9. That’s lower than many European countries and the same as South Koreans. Still, that’s without modern nutrition and living standards, so they’d probably be taller. But south sudanese nilotes are heavily lactose tolerant. Why aren’t Senegambians taller, going back to you original claim about them being the most extreme?

I keep bringing up non-”power” sports because they’re an example of how africans are highly deficient in other areas. “Power” doesn’t mean that in an absolute sense. It really begs asking why africans are proficient in sports requiring quick bursts of energy and that revolve around running and speed as opposed to things that require upper body strength and physiques associated with heavy lifting etc. East africans, particularly Keyans are an extreme, but an extension of physical traits suited for running and speed, and that region is heavily savannah, but west africa isn’t like that.

You keep mentioning the selection in south sudan, but still haven’t provided anything. You also haven’t presented anything else about Senegambians, or the Yanomamo, or Bougainville.
Just curious, but what do you think about australian aborigines in all of this? I don’t know anything about their marriage systems, but I’d imagine they were overwhelmingly monogamous since they were all stone age hunter-gatherers until Europeans arrived. They’re also as dark as black africans, and I think it’s fair to say they’re the least physically attractive of all living humans. I don’t know about their murder rates, but their crime rates are very high along with their general social dysfunction. I’ve heard their very thick skulls is related to a form of male dueling involving clubbing eachother in the head, but still, they don’t really fit what you talk about.

Jim:

Do you have any evidence of this? I’ve always gotten the impression the Aztecs were unique. I’ve never heard of much cannibalism in meso america, but cannibalism has been found throughout the Americas. I’ve heard it’s somehow related to protein deficiency, but I don’t know.

About”African component” in Brazil. You are talking about genetic composition of average Brazilian (trirracial) and average Venezuelan or about demographic composition of Brazilian and Venezuelan populations???

By Brazilian census 45% of population are self declared mulattos/pardos/mamelucos/cafuzos and 8% are self declared blacks.

Venezuela seems have similar % of whites as Mexico but with greater % of mestizo population with greater mix between white and black genes.

In terms of genetic makeup more than 80% of Brazilian people have some “subsaharian genes”.

Jim,

They kept written records. Hundreds of different goods that were due as tribute. They even counted the number of feathers that were due.

Jim,

They kept written records. Hundreds of different goods that were due as tribute. They even counted the number of feathers that were due.

The Andean cultures don’t seem to have been quite as bloodthirsty as Meso-American cultures. But very high levels of war together with human sacrifice and cannibalism are very common in Meso-American cultures. The Aztecs were not that unique in that regard.

In the ancient Near East the general purpose of war was to secure tribute and taxes from conquered areas. In Meso-America it often seems as if sheer genocide was the purpose of war.

There is violence and intimidation at the individual level (which the post is about,), the tribal level and the state level. Multilevel group selection means the lower levels get suppressed, so tribes and can repress individual violence to make the group stronger against other tribes and states suppress tribal violence against other states. Senegal has a 900 year history as a state under Islam, and a lot of disruptive men must have been killed off by the stat. Aspects of male -male polygyny competition is being outgoing .

http://www.unz.com/pfrost/extraversion-tool-for-mating-success/. Alvergne et al. (2009, 2010a, 2010b) found no correlation among Senegalese men between mating success and most personality traits, i.e., neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness. One trait, however, showed a strong correlation. This was extraversion, defined as “pro-social behavior which reflects sociability, assertiveness, activity, dominance and positive emotions.” Men with above-medium extraversion were 40% more likely to have more than one wife than those with below-medium extraversion, after controlling for age. Furthermore, this personality trait correlated with higher testosterone levels. Such a linkage suggests that extraversion is part of the male toolkit for mating success in a high-polygyny environment.

But this is a culture with very tight constraints on sexual and illegal behaviour; Senegalese are not absent from African gangs in France,

“… their children exhibit marked physical development early on”
That is why the result of some kind of selection, for early development and reproduction seem a little more likely than drift to me. The Nilotics are very tall, and have marriage practices with brideprice in cattle. Surely you have read of this central part of their society even if you have never read of the theory that the extreme height of Nilotics is a result of selection for taller girls who can be eligible for marriage sooner. If you count the Khoisans with Bantu, Nilotics and Pygmies there are four groups in sub Saharan Africa who have different modes of existence are quite different in appearance, and have been living in the same part of continent for hundreds of generations. The Bantu and the Pygmies live right beside one another and Pygmy men never marry Bantu women.

Anyway, the post is all about the Bantu agriculturalists compared to hunter gatherers. You keep bringing up non power sports, but Bantu especially west African descended populations dominate sprinting not distance running and that is good evidence they are more powerful. Male male competition and reproduction seems emphasised in female farming systems while hunter gather men have a more economical type of physique There is no proof it is not drift admittedly.

From your comments, I take it that you’re mestizo, right?

”Murder rates in small, primitive tribal contexts are not comparable or extrapolable to more complex contexts. You cannot expect whatsoever a “murder rate” of over 600 to be literally sustained beyond the setting of a stone age tribal one, or that it’s even accurate to think of that as a murder rate comparable to anything in a more complex society. There are far fewer people in those papuan societies, and any murder (or more accurately, death in war) in a small setting like that is going to register in an absolute sense as a very high murder rate. At the same time, the mindset and dynamics behind “murder” are not the same in an absolute sense compared to modern ones. This is what led Pinker (and seemingly you) to extrapolate these in a literal sense and act like one murder in a group of small tribal bands is truly comparable to something like mass murder in a more advanced setting, among other things. If one person commits a murder in a band of 100 people, that murder rate would register as 100/100k. In terms of proportions, that person is a mass murderer. But it’s very doubtful that person is as sociopathic as an actual mass murderer and they’d have the capacity to commit it in a bigger population, or that many people would see them as comparable to one. That is what we’re talking about when we look at killings in stone age tribal villages.”

Depending on the size of the population, yes, we can compare with tribes with societies. Of course, dozens of people, in fact, will inflate the results of proportion of murderers. But that does not mean it’s impossible to compare, even in these groups. Only if it is applied a statistical and historical/cultural CORRECT analysis.

If afro-caribbeans and (most) afro-americans have little genetic differences, than environmental factors, as live in superpower as US or in Bahamas, it will can have a impact (is easy to live in a country like Bahamas). But, what i already see superficially about it is that caribbean countries with higher % of blacks, also have higher % of crime rates.

There’s no way you’re not Black or part Black, btw. There’s no other incentive for someone to spend so much time (as a perusal of your posting history reveals) arguing “b-b-but Blacks aren’t the worst! Stop focusing so much on Blacks, guys!”

I won’t bother defending the behavior of Mexican cartels or the morons who celebrate them, but we’re comparing races.I’ll point out that in order to make your case, you need to focus on Mexico, a handful of small Central American countries, as well as countries with significant Black admixture (Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil). Can you show me similarly widespread sociopathic behavior currently occurring in heavily mestizo and/or indio countries such as Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, etc.?

That’s the major difference. Brutal behavior among Blacks is not limited to America. I could easily find similar stories of brutal murders and rapes from South Africa, Uganda, the Congo, Somalia, Brazil, and so on. Even Blacks in Canada, who tend to be positively selected and more educated than Blacks elsewhere, commit a disproportionate amount of crimes relative to their population share.

I’ll also note that Hispanic-American immigrants tend to be from the less educated and lower class segments of their countries. Many of them arrive here without a high school diploma. By no means are they a positively selected elite. And yet they and their children still have a drastically lower crime rates than African-Americans. I mean, it’s not even close. I noticed you conveniently chose to ignore La Griffe’s analysis. Did it hurt your feelings to see just how much more violent and criminal your precious African-Americans are compared to the Hispanics you’re trying to shift focus on?

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm

And many people are aware of these statistics, even if on a gut level. They know that Blacks are much more likely to make a neighborhood insufferable than any other group. It’s not just crime either, but the way Blacks often behave in general once they’re concentrated in an area. That’s why Blacks are the most loathed race in the world, and that’s what you can’t bring yourself to admit. Once again, it’s not some arbitrary decision to hate Blacks the most.

I have never seen an IQ as high as 94 for mexican mestizos. Your study is about 900-something people in total in a nation of over 100 million, and the first page gives no indication of the exact composition of the study.

Well, I just showed you one. You’re complaining about a study with a sample size of 900 people? Do you know how statistics works? An N value of 900 is fairly robust. Many IQ studies have smaller sample sizes. (Puerto Ricans also have significant Black ancestry, btw, much higher than the average Mexican.)

And the fact is that Blacks have always been considered at the bottom of the racial totem pole. It’s not only in modern times that this is the case. For example, here is Thomas Jefferson writing about them:

A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course.

Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture.

The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint.

And here is Francisco García Calderón, from his Latin America: Its Rise and Progress:

One may say that the admixture of the prevailing strains with black blood has been disastrous for these democracies. In applying John Stuart Mill’s law of concomitant variations to the development of Spanish America one may determine a necessary relation between the numerical proportion of negroes and the intensity of civilisation. Wealth increases and internal order is greater in the Argentine, Uruguay, and Chile, and it is precisely in these countries that the proportion of negroes has always been low ; they have disappeared in the admixture of European races. In Cuba, San Domingo, and some of the republics of Central America, and certain of the States of the Brazilial Confederation, where the children of slaves constitute the greater portion of the population, internal disorders are continual. A black republic, Haiti, demonstrates by its revolutionary history the political incapacity of the negro race. The mulatto and the zambo are the true American hybrids. D’Orbigny believed the mestizo to be superior to the descendants of the Africans imported as slaves ; Burmeister is of opinion that in the mulatto the characteristics of the negro are predominant. Ayarragaray states that the children born of the union of negroes with zambos or natives are in general inferior to their parents, as much in intelligence as in physical energy. The inferior elements of the races which unite are evidently combined in their offspring. It is observed also that both in the mulattos and the zambos certain internal contraditions may be noted ; their will is weak and uncertain, and is dominated by instinct and gross and violent passions. Weakness of character corresponds with a turgid intelligence, incapable of profound analysis, or method, or general ideas, and a certain oratorical extravagance, a pompous rhetoric. The mulatto loves luxury and extravagance ; he is servile, and lacks moral feeling. The invasion of negroes affected all the Iberian colonies, where, to replace the outrageously exploited Indian, African slaves were imported by the ingenuous evangelists of the time. In Brazil, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, and Peru this caste forms a high proportion of the total population. In Brazil 15 per cent, of the population is composed of negroes, without counting the immense number of mulattos and zambos. Bahia is half an African city. In Rio de Janiero the negroes of pure blood abound. In Panama the full-blooded Africans form 10 per cent, of the population. Between 1759 and 1803 642,000 negroes entered Brazil; between 1792 and 1810 Cuba received 89,000. These figures prove the formidable influence of the former slaves in modern America. But they are revenged for their enslavement in that their blood is mingled with that of their masters.

Incapable of order and self-government, they are a factor of anarchy ; every species of vain outer show attracts them sonorous phraseology and ostentation. They make a show of an official function, a university title, or an academic diploma. As the Indian could not work in the tropics black immigration was directed principally upon those regions, and the enervating climate, the indiscipline of the mulatto, and the weakness of the white element have contributed to the decadence of the Equatorial nations.

The mulatto is more despised than the mestizo because he often shows the abjectness of the slave and the indecision of the hybrid ; he is at once servile and arrogant, envious and ambitious. His violent desire to mount to a higher social rank, to acquire wealth, power, and display, is, as Sefior Bunge very justly remarks, a ” hyperaesthesia of arrivism.”

The zambos have created nothing in America. On the other hand, the robust mestizo populations, the Mamelucos of Brazil, the Cholos of Peru and Bolivia, the Rotos of Chile, descendants of Spaniards and the Guarani Indians, are distinguished by their pride and virility. Instability, apathy, degeneration all the signs of exhausted race are encountered far more frequently in the mulatto than in the mestizo.

And if you want one more example of the unique prejudice directed towards Blacks a century ago, here’s H.P. Lovecraft:

Various race-stocks differ in inclinations & aptitudes, but of all of them I consider only the negro & australoid biologically inferior. Against these two a rigid colour-line ought to exist.

In dealing with these two black races, there is only one sound attitude for any other race (be it Indian, Malay, Polynesian, or Mongolian) to take–& that is to prevent admixture as completely & determinedly as it can be prevented, through the establishment of a colour-line & the rigid forcing of all mixed offspring below that line. I am in accord with the most vehement & vociferous Alabaman or Mississippian on that point, & it will be found that most Northerners react similarly when it comes to a practical showdown, no matter how much abstract equalitarian nonsense they may spout as a result of the abolitionist tradition inherited from the 1850’s. If a Russian-inspired communist dictatorship ever tried to force negro equality on the U. S., there is scant question but that the descendants of Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, & William Lloyd Garrison would stand side by side with those of Jefferson Davis & John C. Calhoun in fighting its ultimate implications to the death.

Members of one race can fit into another only through the complete eradication of their own background-influences–& even then the adjustment will always remain uneasy & imperfect if the newcomer’s physical aspect forms a constant reminder of his outside origin. Therefore it is wise to discourage all mixtures of sharply differentiated races—though the colour-line does not need to be drawn as strictly as in the case of the negro, since we know that a dash or two of Mongolian or Indian or Hindoo or some such blood will not actually injure a white stock biologically. John Randolph of Roanoke was none the worse off for having the blood of Pocahontas in his veins, nor does any Finn or Hungarian feel like a mongrel because his stock has a remote & now almost forgotten Mongoloid strain. With the high-grade alien races we can adopt a policy of flexible common-sense—discouraging mixture whenever we can, but not clamping down the bars so ruthlessly against every individual of slightly mixed ancestry.

so why is senegal the least voilent country in Africa? Senegal is also the most polygamous country in the world.

”I have never seen an IQ as high as 94 for mexican mestizos. Your study is about 900-something people in total in a nation of over 100 million, and the first page gives no indication of the exact composition of the study.”

Immigrants from nearby regions tend to be dysgenic by nature and specially if have ”facilitations” as jobs, cultural bridges (as greater diaspora in this country OR same language, a common ”history”)

More distant, more social differences between the two countries, more difficult will be to immigrate, more selected will tend to be.

Lynn analysed mestizo-mexicans from Mexico City if ‘i’m wrong.

Murder rates in small, primitive tribal contexts are not comparable or extrapolable to more complex contexts. You cannot expect whatsoever a “murder rate” of over 600 to be literally sustained beyond the setting of a stone age tribal one, or that it’s even accurate to think of that as a murder rate comparable to anything in a more complex society. There are far fewer people in those papuan societies, and any murder (or more accurately, death in war) in a small setting like that is going to register in an absolute sense as a very high murder rate. At the same time, the mindset and dynamics behind “murder” are not the same in an absolute sense compared to modern ones. This is what led Pinker (and seemingly you) to extrapolate these in a literal sense and act like one murder in a group of small tribal bands is truly comparable to something like mass murder in a more advanced setting, among other things. If one person commits a murder in a band of 100 people, that murder rate would register as 100/100k. In terms of proportions, that person is a mass murderer. But it’s very doubtful that person is as sociopathic as an actual mass murderer and they’d have the capacity to commit it in a bigger population, or that many people would see them as comparable to one. That is what we’re talking about when we look at killings in stone age tribal villages.

Imagine a scenario in which a few hundred people of european descent were stranded on a deserted island. They form a small society. Over time, a few get killed here and there over personal quarrels. They in essence aren’t that different from what is seen back in their home countries, which all have low murder rates. But given the small population and the proportion of murders, they would register a murder rate radically higher. You could come up with other similar examples, like a village of a few hundred or so where from time to time a few people get murdered. Owing to the small population, the murder rate would be registered as very high, but you can’t expect this to be sustained in the same sense beyond this setting or that the dynamics of violence/sociopathy/etc. can be magnified so readily.

Your comparison with how people in the new guinea highlands engage in war is kind of disingenuous. Any tribal war for people that primitive with such small populations is going to register high “murder” rates, and would often manifest with what are in reality very petty reasons.

Papua New Guinea is a very poor, undeveloped country, and even the parts exposed to modernity are usually backwards. Government control and influence is marginal and people often have few modern amenities. Barring them returning to a purely stone age context with minimal agriculture, you really think a literal murder rate like that would be widely seen if those minor controls dissolved, or that it would increase much in an absolute sense at all?

The point about the pygmies was that I do not think, given what has been documented about them behavior wise, that murder rate (which would probably be higher than african-americans) would literally sustain itself in a larger, more complex setting. I should have clarified this a bit more aside from the example with women, though. There are settled pygmy communities where people have some modern amenities and the people number in the thousands, and I doubt the murder rate is literally as high, or high at all. At the same time, the extreme gender equality likely hasn’t sustained itself and there are more than likely a few women who over time have been murdered by men. The mechanisms and dynamics behind behaviors in small, primitive tribal contexts are usually very different from those of people in larger, more complex settings. But through all this, I don’t really think it’s monogamy why the pygmies are so non-violent.

I didn’t say modern police can’t deter crime. However, the extent of how much it can deter it is. At an extreme, it can prevent a remarkable amount of crime if it’s completely totalitarian and all encompassing and targets any slight with extreme repercussions (like what you see in North Korea), but beyond that, it isn’t as clear. Tight policing can variously exacerbate crime, and what would be helpful is if you could compare the african-american murder rate before it peaked and it led to a larger incarceration that ultimately lowered the rate to now. It mainly peaked when drug use was in full-swing (an exception you again only allowed for latin americans), similar to what is seen in latin america, but is there any indication it was really that higher before modern policing and other modern controls?

You make a good point about the murder rate in the US before modern medical technology, but I’m not entirely convinced. I’ve seen other data and arguments to indicate murder rates would be higher without modern technology (and this is the case in third world countries.)

I see what you mean about the influence of the church, but you were claiming even now, they are strong contingencies against higher murder rates, and I don’t think that’s very accurate.

“Yes, that’s State-organized violence. The State can kill far more people than can individuals acting on their own.”

Uh…. the people who kill POW’s, civilians, engage in brutal torture etc. are still individual soldiers and such. You continually act like the violence we’ve seen in the past during war or various states of it, where atrocities and such were committed at far greater frequencies than we see now, can be distinctively parsed from behavior in the regular social sphere, that they aren’t indicative of behavior outside of war. There is no reason to believe this.

I think it’s debatable if underreporting is on the whole worse. I have seen murder statistics far african countries that are unbelievably low, but other times much higher ones. On the other hand, international agencies have routinely ranked various latin american countries as among the most dangerous in the world outside of warzones, moreso than many african ones, in spite of whatever underreporting there is. We get higher recorded murder rates than many african countries in places like Honduras, with plenty of indication there are heavily underreported, even before the spikes in the drug trade.

I’m not denying what the UN report said. My point is that the presence of organized crime networks means male violence is concentrated in different realms, and we’d very likely see far higher violence against women without them. We already see plenty even with their presence.

Venezuela and Brazil do not in any way have similar makeups. The african Venezuelan might have significant african ancestry, but it’s not comparable to Brazil. The black ancestry is much more pervasive and widespread in Brazil, and heavily african individuals are much more common. The “black” population in Venezuela is under 3%. Brazilians have very little amerind ancestry, and the amerind population is very small and mostly found in the rainforest regions.

Why are you deliberately giving the Mexicans a free pass?

Yes, the fact I’m talking about cartels that regularly engage in brutal mass murders and have been known to dump masses of bodies in public streets (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/22/dumping-35-bodies-seen-as-challenge-to-zetas-cartel) somehow still means I’m making “vague and unsubstantiated statements.”

You don’t need to compare african-american to hispanic homicide rates. If you bothered to read my post, which you clearly didn’t, and are now going on some bizarre fit about how it wasn’t run of the mill “N*GGERS ARE THE WORST” tripe, here’s what I said:

“The hispanic murder rate in the US is something like half (or less) that of african-americans, and there are many towns and cities in the US with large or predominantly hispanic populations with low or average homicide rates. I imagine it would be even lower if you excluded illegal immigrants, or considered solely mexican-americans.”

The hispanic average IQ in the united states is 89, and is predominantly mexican, at over 60%. Jason Malloy has shown Puerto Ricans, the second largest (and at only 10%) have an IQ of 87-90: http://humanvarieties.org/2014/03/13/hvgiq-puerto-rico-2/

I have never seen an IQ as high as 94 for mexican mestizos. Your study is about 900-something people in total in a nation of over 100 million, and the first page gives no indication of the exact composition of the study.

You cite worldstarhiphop. Okay then- but what do you know about Mexico in similar regards? Can you explain to me why brutal drug cartel leaders are often seen as folk heros in Mexico?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/world/americas/safe-haven-for-drug-kingpin-el-chapo-in-many-mexicans-hearts.html

Why is music that glorifies the exploits of drug cartels so popular?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/performers-narcocorridos-sell-arenas-u-s-mexico-generate-millions-sales-songs-romanticizing-drug-lords-beheadings-violent-drug-ballads-win-grammys-article-1.1536307#ixzz2zfxUCgii

Why have cults that have the backing of and are heavily implicated with the drug cartels so popular?

http://www.news.com.au/world/the-battle-for-a-nations-soul-how-the-cult-of-santa-muerte-has-infested-mexicos-drug-cartels-with-gruesome-consequences/story-fndir2ev-1226867231755

Yeah, Mexican culture has plenty of glorification and celebration of it’s worst elements. You cite the 8 year old murder of Christian and Newsom- well, here’s a recent story indicating mexican drug cartels kill young children to harvest their organs: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mexican-cartel-leader-accused-killing-children-harvest-organs-article-1.1725522

Here’s more about mexican drug cartels intentionally targetting children: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375578/Drug-cartels-murder-children-scare-rival-gangs-Mexico.html

So how do you explain these rampant mass executions and complete disregard for human life if african-americans and blacks in general are really the worst? Is it really just due to a 5 point IQ difference that if equal, african-americans would be worse? Or are they worse already? Or we could turn an eye to the cartels and gangs of other latin american countries and their sky high murder rates.

That might be a bad idea though, since mentioning MS-13 has led you to say something completely insane- it’s all the fault of african-americans. Because, if the poor people who formed MS-13 hadn’t had any contact with n*ggers, it never would have existed in the first place, so you can blame a transnational gang (who’s members often like to cover themselves head to toe in hideous tattoos, something not too many other groups do) that’s more notorious than most african-american ones on them.

Even if that were somehow true, do you really think it reflects well on whatever segment of the hispanic community that produced MS-13 they’d react in such a way? You’re not the first weirdo on the far right I’ve seen who’s praised hispanics in their ethnic conflicts with american-blacks, but I’ve never seen it this blatant.

It’s not anywhere near as rational/empirical/objective as you make it out to be. You make pathetic attempts at downplaying the atrocities and violence of mexican drug cartels and even excuse them or blame african-americans for MS-13. You from the start decried people who are “racist” against non-black groups by daring to say maybe black people aren’t “the worst.” I think there’s far more animus against arabs now and historically than you like to indicate, given how Islam and the countless violent conquests etc. throughout history that have exported it came from Arabia. As for hispanics, there are few hispanics outside of the Americas, and what we see in the US are hardly the worst representatives of latin america. Still, I agree in modern times there is a distinctive hatred of africans compared to most other racial groups (though the roma people have similar hatred in europe), but again, it’s not as objectively based as you like to make it out. All I’m really getting from you is “I just hate n*ggers.”

What else could explain someone blaming them for MS-13?

helena:

I do think food procurement has an influence. I do think family group structure has an influence on sexual dimorphism. Exactly how and why, I don’t know. I think it’s more complex and difficult to ascertain than Peter and Sean argue.

Jim:

I personally think Gottfredson is an IQ fetishist and isn’t completely objective. My point is that I don’t think an average IQ of 85 should prevent a population from forming large, organized crime networks or cartels comparable to what’s seen in Mexico. African-americans have indeed had organized crime networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_organized_crime

I disagree about the Aztecs- they seem to have been pretty unique, and they were despised throughout Mexico. I recently learned however that the Inca also had state-sanctioned cannibalism, but probably not to the extent among the Aztecs, among other things. Nor were they a true civilization, given their lack of a written language.

The Mara Salvatrucha gang originated in Los Angeles, set up in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in the city’s Pico-Union neighborhood who immigrated to the United States after the Central American civil wars of the 1980s.[8][9]

Originally, the gang’s main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans and African-Americans.[10]

As for MS-13, you are aware that those gangs were actually formed in the United States in response to African-American gangs and then later exported back to their home countries? If those Salvadorans had not been exposed to African-Americans, MS-13 and other Central American gangs might not even exist!

This is a lie. MS-13 was formed to combat bullying by the Mexican Mafia, Nortenos and Surenos, also from Mexico.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/history-mara-salvatrucha-el-salvador

“it becomes a kind of stretch to act like an IQ difference of 5 points is that worthwhile”

According to Linda Gottfredson a person with an IQ less than 75 is essentially unemployable in the present US economy. For African-Americans with an average IQ of 85 that would be 25% of the population while for Mexicans with an average IQ of 90 the corresponding figure would be 16%. So the five point difference can result in a substantial decrease in the economic underclass.

Note that the Aztecs were not unique among Meso-American civilizations which generally tended to be highly militaristic and genocidal.

Dipwill, what’s your null hypothesis? Food procurement has no influence on family group structure? Family group structure has no influence on sexual dimorphism?

None of the statistics support your claims, so you’re left making vague and unsubstantiated statements like “there’s a distinct sadism and inhumanity among Mexican drug cartels that isn’t seen quite to the extent in african-americans.”

For example, we can compare African-American with Hispanic-American crime rates. Unfortunately for you, African-Americans do not look good in this comparison:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm

As f0r IQ, according to this study, Mexican Mestizos have an average IQ of 94 while White Mexicans have an average IQ of 98:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=266611

So once again, your claims about their intelligence is correct. Compare those numbers to the pathetic African-American IQ of 85. That’s almost 2/3SD below the IQ of Mexican Mestizos.

And if you deny that there’s a distinct sadism in African-American culture that rivals or surpasses anything found in Mexico, then how do you explain the popularity of sites like WorldStarHipHop among Blacks? What other group besides Blacks watches those kinds of videos for their entertainment value? How do you explain the brutal murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and countless other similarly violent crimes perpetrated by African-Americans on a weekly basis?

As for MS-13, you are aware that those gangs were actually formed in the United States in response to African-American gangs and then later exported back to their home countries? If those Salvadorans had not been exposed to African-Americans, MS-13 and other Central American gangs might not even exist!

No matter how much you try to wish it away, any rational analysis of the statistics will show that Blacks are — by a huge margin — the greatest liability on society relative to any other racial group. There’s a reason they tend to be resented the world over in a way that, e.g. Hispanics and Arabs, are not. Perhaps some of that hatred is unjustified, and perhaps there are non-genetic reasons for the consistent dysfunction of the Black race wherever a representative sample is found, but when people express a much greater hostility towards Blacks than towards Hispanics, Arabs, or any other group, it’s not an arbitrary choice to hate Blacks on their part. It’s a hostility based on empirical facts.

“Why do some people think it’s okay to make gross, hyperbolic, and sometimes downright inaccurate negative generalizations about non-Black races just to make Blacks seem a little better?”

To be frank, I find this happens more in regards to blacks rather than non-black racial groups. The prevailing position on the objective reality of race amongst ‘black realists’ (race realists) is that blacks are the absolute apex when it comes to cultural debauchery and biological inferiority. Everything, both physiological and psychological, is exceedingly repulsive about them.

All other races get a golden pass.

Though, I guess you can’t help it. Like all inherently irrational humans (me included), you have a genetic propsensity to give in-group members a free ride on everything that they do while ballbusting out-group members at every given opportunity.

Isn’t HBD just grand?

“Why do some people think it’s okay to make gross, hyperbolic, and sometimes downright inaccurate negative generalizations about non-Black races just to make Blacks seem a little better? Are you Black yourself, by any chance?”

No, I’m not black. I like your question though- it could easily be read as “Why do some people think it’s okay to make gross, hyperbolic, and sometimes downright negative generalizations about non-black races just to make nigh- I mean, blacks seem a little better? Saying the same things about blacks isn’t gross, hyperbolic, and downright negative or inaccurate, because they’re without a doubt the absolute dregs of humanity, so don’t you dare say anything like that about Mexicans.”

I didn’t deny that african-american society has plenty of sociopaths/psychopaths, I just feel there’s a distinct sadism and inhumanity among Mexican drug cartels that isn’t seen quite to the extent in african-americans, or even africans (unless it’s in a full fledged warzone). It’s not just mexican drug cartels though- we can also talk about MS-13 or whatever cartels/gangs brutalize Honduras and other latin american countries with incredible murder rates.

I’m aware that the higher intelligence of mexicans likely plays a role in the organization of mexican drug cartels, but the average mexican IQ is like what, around 90? No higher than the low 90′s, and that’s in part brought up by white Mexicans, so we’d likely be talking 90 for the typical mexican mestizo. A several point difference has big ramifications, but it becomes kind of a stretch to act like an IQ difference of 5 points is that worthwhile when it’s still that low, that we’d be seeing cartel violence comparable to mexicans if the african-american IQ was higher. I really don’t mind going that direction at all, because if you payed attention to the rest of my post (or anything else I’ve posted in this thread), it’s clear I’m not opposed in the least to talking about biological differences, and I also made the caveat that different populations can have violence/psychopathy differentially concentrated in the population, so I’m not talking about the average mexican vs. the average african-american. It seems like you just homed in on the fact I dared say maybe blacks aren’t the worst people in the world and I’m somehow slandering the poor people of the mexican drug cartels.

Can I ask you why some people think it’s okay to home in on blacks as the absolute worst humanity has to offer and make gross, hyperbolic, and often downright negative, untrue generalizations about them and downplay anything equally bad or worse on the part of non-blacks, often because their internal thinking boils down to “I just really hate them”?

Can I also ask you why you ignored everything else I said and posted something as dishonest and pathetic as this?

And I don’t think it’s pure fantasy at all. If you want to look at a historical antecedent, look at who reigned in Mexico before the Spaniards- the Aztecs, one of the most uniquely violent and sadistic civilizations to have ever existed, who engaged in borderline industrial levels of human sacrifice and had state sanctioned cannibalism, who were widely hated throughout Mexico and prompted various states to ally with the Spaniards to vanquish them.

Peter,

Have you ever examined polyandry? How common it is, where and how it tends to arise, the dynamics of it, etc? That might be an interesting topic for a future post.

Here’s a recent article about polyandry in rural China in the 18th and 19th century:

http://qz.com/519572/it-was-normal-for-women-in-18th-and-19th-century-china-to-have-two-husbands/

in 18th and 19th century rural China, women took two (or sometimes more) husbands. This happened in every province in China, and for the most part, their communities tolerated or even accepted it.

The little-known prevalence of polyandry comes to light in Matthew Sommer’s fascinating history of peasant family structures, Polyandry and Wife-Selling in Qing Dynasty China. Since most peasants were illiterate and the Qing elite regarded polyandry as supremely immoral, there are few traces of the practice. Sommer, a Stanford University historian, draws descriptions from court cases.

Take, for example, the story of a farmer named Zheng Guoshun and his wife, Jiang Shi, in the southern province of Fujian in the mid-1700s. When Zheng suddenly went blind, his wife recruited a younger man named Jiang Yilang (no relation) to move in with the couple and help out on the farm, in exchange for sex. For nearly three decades, relations among the trio seemed to have gone smoothly, and Jiang Shi bore two daughters. When Zheng died of natural causes, 28 years after the arrangement began, Jiang Shi and Jiang Yilang continued their relationship.

Though the Zheng-Jiang-Jiang union did happen to be the longest-term polyandrous relationship Sommer found, the story is hardly unusual. Some polyandrous relationships combusted after a few months (often ending in a crime that landed them in the legal record). But many endured for years or even decades.

So why take two husbands? Contrary to modern-day associations with polyamory, the purpose was to protect the family.

Given how hard it was for peasants to survive, this was no easy feat to pull off. Between 1700 and 1850, the Middle Kingdom’s population tripled in size. Cultivated farmland, however, only doubled—encouraging people to simply work the land even harder. That left more people depending on less productive land for food. Mass famine was common.

Meanwhile, thanks to female infanticide and the Chinese elite’s concubine habit, among other things, the Middle Kingdom was amidst a “marriage crunch,” as demographic historian Ted Telford put it. The scarcity of demand meant rural men had to pay a heavy bride price—steeper than most could afford. The value of women’s sexual attention, companionship, and child-bearing capacity rose too.

When disaster struck—be it flooding or crop failure, or the personal calamity of injury or illness—two-worker families often earned too little to eat. Some families opted to sell of their children or allow a wealthier man buy the wife.

Instead of having to hock her kid or put the wife on the market, a family could find a second husband to bring in extra income and let families pool resources more efficiently. The primary couple gained economic security from this arrangement, while second husbands got a family and, often, the chance for offspring to care for them in their old age.

Many of these relationships were formalized according to local marriage custom. Some signed a contract, even though it was inadmissible in the Qing court. The two husbands commonly swore an oath of brotherhood (possibly in a bid to protect the first husband’s ego).

I should have specified more- the worst of mexican society is worse than most of what the worst of african-american society produces. African-american society does not produce drug cartels filled to the brim with psychopaths who regularly engage in mass murder and get off on dumping their mutilated victims out in public.

Why do some people think it’s okay to make gross, hyperbolic, and sometimes downright inaccurate negative generalizations about non-Black races just to make Blacks seem a little better? Are you Black yourself, by any chance?

First off, if you think African-American society is not filled to the brim with psychopaths who regularly engage in murder and other violent acts for all to see, then you need to read the news more often. Or just visit WorldStarHipHop once in a while. There’s no shortage of stories of African-Americans committing horrific and senseless violence against innocent bystanders.

Second, if the Mexican cartels seem worse, it’s only because they’re A LOT more organized and sophisticated than any African-American gang. The Mexican cartels have a capable hacker network who can track dissenters on the internet, even when the dissenters hide behind a proxy. They’re an organized crime group who differ from the Sicilian Mafia in that they also commit acts of terrorism against the populace. That’s one of the reasons they’ve paralyzed Mexican society to such an extent. The populace knows that if you speak out, even “anonymously” on the internet, you’re liable to get killed. Furthermore, that’s also why they make those brutal public displays of their victims. They’re essentially waging a terrorism campaign to instill fear in their enemies, not unlike Muslim terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda or Russian Neo-Nazi groups, who also release beheading videos and whatnot.

African-American gangs, or any African crime syndicate for the matter, just haven’t demonstrated that level of sophistication or organization. The parsimonious HBD explanation is that Mexicans (as well as Arabs) are significantly more intelligent than Africans on average, and so their cartels/terrorist groups are a lot more efficient than anything African-Americans can muster. I’m not sure you want to go down that direction. But there could be other explanations. However, to claim that the dregs of Mexican society are worse or more sadistic than the dregs of African-American society is pure fantasy.

And to the person who claimed that Costa Rica is 80% White: you’re wrong. Look up the autosomal DNA studies for the country.

None of the links you provided say anything about how common polygyny is in Yanomamo society, much less that it is anywhere on par in SS africa. The behavior described isn’t terribly uncommon compared to tribal people elsewhere in the world. Yanomamo desire to have multiple wives doesn’t translate to that being common in their society, or that such a thing is sustainable. Nevermind that bantu society isn’t typically centered around war to the extent Yanomamo society is, or that the Yanomamo are stone age people with limited agriculture.

That 70,000 year divergence between bantus and pygmies struck me as very hard to believe, so I went to the link and found this: http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1164.htm

“After a period of isolation, during which current phenotype differences between Pygmies and Bantu farmers accumulated, Pygmy women started marrying male Bantu farmers (but not the opposite). This trend started around 40,000 years ago, and continued until several thousand years ago.”

Even that 30,000 year gap sounds hard to believe. I mean, aside from height, pygmies do not look *that* different from bantus, not at all what you’d expect for 70,000 years (which is somewhere in the range of africans vs. eurasians.)

The point about pygmies is that they’re an example extreme rates of physical maturation can coexist with monogamy and extensive child rearing, even though that might be a very particular environmental adaption. It would be helpful if you could actually cite references to this thing about Sudanese girls, and I have never seen Peter propose this. Sexual selection in relation to looks isn’t as particularly relevant to that issue.

I’m not sure what you mean by “The alternative is to explain things like beards and long straight hair as inexplicable”. I think most human physical variation (aside from physique) is due to drift, very secondarily sexual selection and minimally natural selection. Yes, we’re in agreement about polygyny being correlated with dark skin in SS africa, but not to the extent you think it is. You just seem to fixate on the fact Bougainville has been in a state of low level of warfare for awhile and the fact… wow, they’re really dark. Is there anything unique about Bougainville warfare or their marriage system (IE on par with SS africa) or that the comparatively darkest parts of SS africa are similar in terms of social strife? (they’re not.)

I’m not proposing any of those theories, but I think your fixation on sexual selection is even more far fetched. I do not see any indication pygmies are weak aside from their height. I have read they are incredibly flexible and have very loose joints, and their children exhibit marked physical development early on. Here’s footage of a pygmy boy hacking a tree with a machete that’s as tall as he is:

T

hey are a good deal lighter than bantus, but not dramatically so, and they’re similar in color to various southern african bantus. This post, which is about the Hadza, are worth looking at, since they’re as dark as bantus and aside from height are outwardly about the same looks-wise.

African-americans in the US are slightly shorter than whites. And I’m sorry, but sexual selection isn’t as narrow as you make it out to be. Sexual dimorphism is usually typified by considerable differences between males and females, and that usually means more muscular, powerfully built males vs. females. There’s no reason this doesn’t translate to similar dynamics in humans, and Europeans are more sexually dymorphic than africans. And even then it’s complex, as African-american women are much more prone to obesity than black men and white women, which doesn’t work in their favor as being powerfully built, like you cite with the Williams sisters. Being good in sprinting and other “power” sports doesn’t translate to all around good physical prowess. The Kalenjin are the best runners in the world, but they have very narrow, spindly frames that don’t translate into prowess in other realms. Blacks have smaller lung capacity than whites, and that limits them in a variety of areas. As I mentioned, they aren’t as over-represented in strong man, body building, MMA etc. fields.

Consider also the khoisan, another monogamous african population and the lightest of all. They exhibit some very unique physical features unseen anywhere else in the world (or atleast to the extent among them), like steatopygia, hanging labia etc. The women basically exhibit extreme secondary sex characteristics, and men have a tendency towards androgyny/neoteny, some exhbiting steatopygia too. Sexual selection is likely a role since it’s been documented khoisan men prize steatopygia in women. But this is all in a highly monogamous people.

The nilotes aren’t exactly masculine either. They usually have thin, narrow, spindly limbs, and long legs and short torsos. Many of them have a rather androgynous appearance. I’ve seen a lot of tribal south sudanese women who are muscular, but it’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Jim:

I should have specified more- the worst of mexican society is worse than most of what the worst of african-american society produces. African-american society does not produce drug cartels filled to the brim with psychopaths who regularly engage in mass murder and get off on dumping their mutilated victims out in public.

Apache and Comanche raiding was primarily done to steal horses and cattle. If possible raiding parties tried to get away with horses and cattle without having to actually fight anybody. It is true that if an Apache was killed on a raid his kinsmen would feel it necessary to kill somebody from the village they had raided but in general the Apaches and Comanches had no genocidal intentions. Both were totally dependent on raiding and they knew that if they wiped out or drove away the Spanish they themselves would be doomed.

Costa Rica is not 80% white.

“the worst segments of Mexican society .. are much worse than what you often see in african-americans” – Obviously if you are going to compare Mexican violence to African-American violence you need to compare average to average or the worst of one to the worst of the other not the worst of Mexicans to average African-Americans.

“The similarity between sub Saharan Africans and people from Bougainville Island seem quite likely to derive from selection in a female garden agriculture system with associated polygyny.”

Andaman islanders (hunter gatherers) are at least as dark or darker.

https://www.google.com/search?q=andaman+islanders&biw=1112&bih=735&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI_cLWwpfmyAIVRT0-Ch15WQwe

Nilotics are stongly pastoral. Herding (esp. cattle) tends to be strongly male.

“And how to explain the historically low crime rates in mestizo countries like Chile and Costa Rica?” Costa Rica is around 80% white. You have a fair point about the developments in social system being able to affect the amount of violence, but I don’t think the post argues that any race is robotically killing irrespective of the social environment. There is an increase propensity under similar circumstances (groups in Western countries) with some societies successfully reducing violence and other not. I some places being in a gang gets you the girls. It is a difference that shows up in higher rates among population descended from highly polygynous areas. This is about access to women and one could point to propensity to force women into sex http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/report-reveals-a-very-high-incidence-of-rape-in-bougainville/1189047

You keep saying that you have not read things that are there on the Wikis so could you do a little work before raising that objection again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami#Organization. The Yanomami can be classified as foraging horticulturalists, depending heavily on rainforest resources; they use slash-and-burn horticulture, grow bananas, gather fruit, and hunt animals and fish. [...] Polygamous families consist of a large patrifocal family unit based on one man, and smaller matrifocal subfamilies: each woman’s family unit, composed of the woman and her children

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/06/10/the-yanomamo-and-the-origins-of-male-honor/
Chagnon argues that the Yanomamö were driven by a biological desire to pass on their genes just as other animals were, and that their conflicts were almost entirely rooted in reproductive competition. “The tokens of wealth that we civilized people covet are largely irrelevant to success and survival in the tribal world and were irrelevant during most of human history,” “But women have always been the most valuable single resource that men fight for and defend.”Yanomamö man hoped to have multiple wives.[...] Chagnon found that 20% of the women in the villages he studied had been abducted from other villages. [...] “Let me emphasize the Yanomamö view that when members of a group acquire a reputation of timidity and cowardice, their neighbors take ruthless advantage of them, push them around, insult them publicly, and take their women. Thus it is strategically important to react decisively to any affront, no matter how trivial. If a group is small, the men try to make up for their numerical disadvantage by acting as if the group is bigger, nastier, more ferocious, and ready to fight on a moment’s notice. ”

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/
Among mobile foragers there is a pattern that the closer to equator a group is the higher the proportion of its subsistence is derived from vegetable foods. Northern and extreme southern groups have more meat in their diet than do mid-latitude groups where more vegetables are consumed. A solid generalization about foragers is that women don’t hunt and that they do most of the gathering, so women contribute more of a group’s food in warmer latitudes. In these regions, particularly in humid forested areas, there is a very thin line between foraging and gardening: one can stick a gathered root in the ground, forget it as it propagates, and harvest it months later. While archaeologists generally think of the “origin of agriculture” as corresponding to what is visible in the fertile crescent and elsewhere as ruins of sedentary villages heavily dependent on grains grown in fields, there is a whole separate tropical route to farming via gradual intensification of gathering. This route has been essentially invisible to archaeologists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion It is thought that Central African Pygmies and Bantus branched out from a common ancestral population c. 70,000 years ago.[17]

The Pygmies stop growing at a early age and the early cecesion means they can reproduce faster for given resources in their environment. The Nilotic brideprice paid in cattle was meant there was selection for accelerated growth; once girls were a certain size they would be sought after and could be sold off at a young age. Those are not my ideas or the post authors, they are recent theories published by separately anthropologists. Peter is not the first person to propose such a theory, Darwin thought the differences in appearance around the world were due to sexual selection.

The alternative is to explain things like beards and long straight hair as inexplicable . As for dark skin we are in agreement that highly polygynous people are very dark indeed wherever they live in Africa. The similarity between sub Saharan Africans and people from Bougainville Island seem quite likely to derive from selection in a female garden agriculture system with associated polygyny.

See how silly this idea that short people are short to burrow through undergrowth is? Note that Lapps are short. Nilotics are not tall to stay cool. The Pygmies, Bantu and Nilotic physiques are related to what selection pressures they were under, and the terms of reproduction imposed by marriage practices and resources is the key to understanding each’s special characteristics The non- polygynous Pygmies are small, weak and much lighter in skin colour than the highly polygyous Bantu and Nilotics. Sprinting is the power sport, and people of mainly West African ancestry totally dominate sprinting. Basketball is for large fast men who can jump and blacks dominate that, and dominate the running positions of American Football even more . The Williams sisters domination of tennis is not caused by their “adeptness” it is mainly a function of their size and power. The post is talking about size and power and pro sports confirm blacks are larger and more powerful, just as people with inside knowledge (like Teddy Sheringham) have said. http://new.spectator.co.uk/2003/02/black-is-best/

And?? I *think* I remember to use the name ” pre civilized”. But meso and Andean WERE “civilized”. 500 years separating this populations today than in the pre Colombians. Farmers and other “lower class” who seems proliferate since Spanish invasion&colonization. Similar with the end of creta civilization, if I don’t commit any mistake. Pre Colombian civilizations, also, seems wasn’t like Belgium today where 95% of population live in urban regions.

About Chile and Costa Rica.

Just avoid alpha male proliferation and you have peace.

The Meso-American and Andean Indians had long passed the hunter-gatherer stage. Just sayin’.

And how to explain the historically low crime rates in mestizo countries like Chile and Costa Rica?

Unique Environmental factors are basically CULTURAL Environmental factors. Unique= human. I think this macro unique Environmental factors tend to have greater impact in human societies. Non predicted events seems common among human societies as you have a organized crime in Mexico now.

Frost:

Rates of well above 40/100k have been reported throughout Europe in the past, and we also have to consider how incomplete records were back then. Oxford in one year had a murder rate of over 100/100k in one year in the 1300′s: https://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites/soci.ucalgary.ca.brannigan/files/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf (page 85)

I’ve long found the usage of homicide rates for very small, tribal populations incredibly misleading in this manner. You cannot extrapolate the significance of murders and war in small tribal bands/villages (and war is where most deaths in them occur) to larger, more settled populations, much less modern ones. A murder rate of 660-690 per 100,000 in modern society would be one in which there would be basically a state of complete, unrelenting warfare, but I’ve seen little indication settled, more modern peoples in Papua New Guinea are quite this bad. Even Port Moresby isn’t on that level.

Consider also the Aka pygmies: http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/grads/Sell/AkaSite.html

“The homicide rate of the Aka is very low for a foraging people (approximately .003%) though still higher than the United States (approximately .00005% in 2008). There has never been a report of an Aka woman dying from male violence (Hewlett et al. 1986).”

This is a bit hard to parse to actual homicide rates per 100k, but .003% is many times larger than .00005%, and the US murder rate is typically around 5/100k, so I’d imagine the Aka homicide rate, taken as a literal value, is many times higher. It also seems unlikely that the record of no women dying due to male violence would persist if they became more settled, among other behaviors they exhibit, like the extreme gender equality. What it comes down to is you cannot so readily compare small tribal populations to modern, settled people.

I’m aware that incarceration has lowered the african-american murder rate, and I’ve also heard it argued that if all murders were solved, their rate would rise (but I imagine it would for whites too), but the rest your claims are kind of extreme. The link between modern policing and crime is very debatable, nevermind how corrupt the modern US police system is. It would be helpful if you could properly compare murder rates in african countries and parse them from deaths due to worse access to modern medical care.

And churches and church-sponsored youth groups? Really?

“It’s a “guarantee” for lower rates of personal violence. I’m not trying to create a unified theory of everything. Human societies are multidimensional and I recognize that other factors are involved.”

No, it isn’t. Recorded murder rates in the public sphere going back farther in history are very difficult to come by, but we have no shortage of evidence of incredible barbarism and atrocities in war from every corner of the globe in more distant times. Most deaths in modern tribal populations occur in war, but you don’t atrocities against civilians, POW’s etc. on the part of pre-modern societies can be particularly indicative of their propensity to violence in the social and public spheres. If we want to talk about pre-modern tribal peoples and what the historical record tells us, we can look at any number of native american peoples or the mongols and the huns as some prime examples that I’ve mentioned before. I never accused you of trying to create a unified theory of everything, but you are boiling far too much down to differences in polygyny vs. monogamy.

I’ve seen people often claim the drug trade is heavily responsible for crime in african-american communities, and they of course overlook things like how their crime rate isn’t unique compared to african populations throughout the world. On the other hand, you are allowing the drug trade as being the reason for the incredible homicides in latin america. I don’t deny that this is why there has been a recent spike, but homicide rates were very high even before this spike, and you have to consider how many murders and other crimes go unreported.

I don’t think it’s as different of a profile as you imply. The presence of organized crime, and especially on the scale as seen in latin america, in essence allows violent men and sociopathic/psychopathic impulses to be channeled into different realms and enterprises. If the drug trade disappeared, the large pool of violent, sociopathic men that composes them wouldn’t disappear. Crime and violence would by and large just become less “organized.” And what we see from cartels isn’t pretty- mass murders and executions, sadistic torture, indiscriminate killings and shock tactics like dumping mutilated, tortured masses of bodies out in public. It’s the kind of stuff you see in actual war zones, usually in Africa or the middle east. And I mentioned indiscriminate killings- here’s what we see in Honduras against women: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181118/Female-murder-rate-skyrockets-Honduras-dozens-women-killed-month.html

Just about any quote would be relevant, especially to your claim that homicide in africa is a “very different profile”, but here’s some particularly choice ones:

“it is believed many of the women are killed because of vengeance attacks against family members as well as many being targeted and raped in their own homes.”

“Sunday’s report noted that ‘more than 90 percent of the cases have never been investigated’.

Last year, a report by Oxfam Honduras and a Honduran NGO, the Tribunal of Women Against Femicide, said that women were dying because of a deadly mixture of gun crime, political instability and the ‘systematic indifference’ of the police.

It is thought convictions for the crimes are rare and the report stated that between 2008 and 2010 there were 1,100 reported cases of femicide.

However, only 211 of those made it to court with a further 4.2 per cent of these resulting in a conviction.”

Venezuela and Brazil might lack the elaborate, organized crime places like Honduras have, but violent usually isn’t much better. In Venezuela, which is overwhelmingly mestizo, unlike heavily black/mulatto Brazil, we find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela

“Crime in Venezuela is a pervasive issue. Venezuela was ranked the most insecure nation in the world by Gallup in 2013 with the United Nations stating that such crime is due to the poor political and economic environment in the country.[1][2] The country’s murder rate is also one of the highest in the world.[3][4][5] In 2008, polls indicated that crime was the number one concern of voters.[6] According to Venezuela’s Prosecutor General’s Office, 98% of crimes in Venezuela do not result in prosecution.[7]”

Santoculto:

“You can have a higher proportion of crime rates caused by organized criminal group but with a general or average pacific population.”

I agree, sociopathy/propensity to violence can be concentrated in different segments of the population depending on where you look. The hispanic murder rate in the US is something like half (or less) that of african-americans, and there are many towns and cities in the US with large or predominantly hispanic populations with low or average homicide rates. I imagine it would be even lower if you excluded illegal immigrants, or considered solely mexican-americans. On the other hand, the worst segments of Mexican society I would say are much worse than what you often see in african-americans.

Mexico have just 400 thousand afro-descendents.
I think is important too analyse intra-group-proportion of individuals envolved in crime rates and not just its extrapolation out of group as happen with this kind of analysis, race-crime rates.

You can have a higher proportion of crime rates caused by organized criminal group but with a general or average pacific population.

I think savage capitalism + typical third world problems may be viewed as aggravating in SOME cases ( and more possible dysgenic selective pressures) but look more complicated explain why afro-americans continue to be overrepresented in american or european crime scene (and equally initially poor people as chinese or lower comparative levels as hispanics).

Europeans and east asians evolved simultaneously with its respective civilizations. Blacks, amerindians and other groups, were simply thrown into this ”civilized context”. It explain partially i think why this reminiscent hunter gatherers derived groups are not adapted for ”long term gratification” lifestyle of human civilizations.

At least in Brazil, blacks have higher overrepresentation in crimes than ”mestizos”. Mexico become very dangerous recently and caused by organized crime is not** It STILL doesn’t mean that i’m saying that ”mestizos” on average are unable to ”surpass” ”blacks” (overdosis of ” ”) in crime rates.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/Pearl-Millet.htm

“Do you have any other references for this, and anything specific in Guyer? I’ve had trouble finding information on the domestication of african food crops. It’s helpful in these discussions given how often people claim africans never developed agriculture, or atleast not indigenously.”

“The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns”
By Bassey Andah, Alex Okpoko, Thurstan Shaw, Paul Sinclair

https://books.google.com/books?id=mtOhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=african+millet+domestication&source=bl&ots=0Hc7eZenTG&sig=KxAnG6S8Uvl_ra_eZ6bkcdOvQp0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI0LPR6YXlyAIVAlk-Ch1ITgn4#v=onepage&q=african%20millet%20domestication&f=false

And significant part of this violence is caused exactly by the presence of afro-descendents.

I take this to mean that negroes in Latin America have (far?) greater violent-crime rates than mestizos in the same country. What are the relative rates?

Nope, my comment wasn’t pointless. Just see again the scope of this micro context to try understand why your triumphalism was excessive. Someone use Latin America as example to prove that criminality “is not just a ” black thing. I refute showing that is not totally true … if just Brazil where at least 20% of Latin American people live have greater % of afro descendents and greater proportion of them in the crime rates.

I know you didn’t say “almost” or “most”, but given how small in number they are compared to the mestizo population, there is little reason to talk about them as being a significant factor in the crime in those countries, even if they are likely disproportionate for their numbers (but would most likely be outclassed by mestizos in these countries if they had similar population percentages.) So your comment was pointless.

I don’t know exactly how mixed the peoples of the countries I mentioned are (aside from Mexico), but whether they’re mestizo or amerind isn’t really relevant to this discussion, which is about polygyny and violence, and amerinds aren’t known for having high polygyny.

By the way, Peter, here is an example of what I meant about your writings touching upon lower polygyny in Southern Africa: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/2/4/169.pdf&productCode=pa

“The frequency is somewhat lower in East and South Africa, although 15 to 30 percent of
husbands are reported to be polygynists in Kenya and Tanzania. ”

The map on page 174 showers lower polygyny in southern africa, but there’s less groups documented. I recall you touching on this more explicitly before, but not the exact posts/articles. It’s also worth noting for Sean that nowhere else on Earth, not in the tropical Americas or in papua new guinea/melanesia, is polygyny as high as it often is in SS africa. The most polygamist group in South America is one somewhere in Northern Venezuela/Colombia, but still less than most SS africans.

Nicaragua have 9% of blacks (don’t into acount the afro-descendents, just by self-identification), USA have 12%.

Just Honduras that have little percent of blacks.

Is evident that blacks, on average, produce higher rates of crimes in quasi-every place where they ”are”. This should not be discussed because facts are not debatable.

This does not mean that there are no peaceful black populations, or populations of other ethnicities and races that are not violent.

But it seems necessary to repeat it, talking about very detailed way to avoid distorted interpretations. Even I do not believe that black physical phenotype is causal to the greater disposition to violent behavior. The greatest difference is the proportion of types who are more predisposed to violence.

Again, accuracy is important to communicate, but it would help a lot if people make further efforts to try to avoid distortions in time to interpret.

Its is not a refutation, baby! And don’t prove that my point is wrong because I use the term SIGNIFICANT. It’s not “almost” nor “most”.

Honduras and Nicaragua aren’t birracial amerindian-Spaniards, specially Guatemala and Mexico in north central America which are like that.

If I had said ” almost part of crimes in Latin America is caused by afro-descendents” your “refutation” make sense but not.

I’m try,