|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 12:20:41 GMT -5
The Racial Composition of the Japanese Olympia Team 1936
According to Klenke, W. (Anthropologie japanischer Wettkämpfer, Z. Rassenkunde VIII), quoted in v. Eickstedt, the Olympia team consisted of about: 29 percent Palaemongolid 15 percent Tungid 5 percent Ainuid 44 percent Sinid (pred. Nordsinid) 6 percent Yakonids in the narrower sense
Interestingly the Jakunin-type was called "pseudosemitic" by some anthropologists and some speculated its main source could have been in Manchuria.
Its interesting to note that Sinid is in the average population of Japan for sure not that strong, but for sportsmen a higher and more rangy growth is, at least in many disciplines, clearly more advantageous, so the percentage of the Sinids would be higher because of that. I dont know if Koreans were sorted out neither.
All pictures of Japanese sportsmen from 1936 are welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 31, 2006 12:22:51 GMT -5
Did Klenke do a "Racial Composition" of every country attending the games?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 12:26:02 GMT -5
Did Klenke do a "Racial Composition" of every country attending the games? There were many done, but he did Japan from what I know. It was just a such a good chance of learning on Japanese people - especially their sportsmen. It was not just Klenke, others worked on that too and photographed f.e. Dutch and other people, dont have the material though.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 31, 2006 12:32:32 GMT -5
Ok thanks! It wouldve been nice to read what he said about the other countries as well for the heck of it.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 12:40:48 GMT -5
There was not such a detailed research though, at least not that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by Leader of the Barbarian Juns on Jan 31, 2006 12:52:04 GMT -5
Was this based on measurements or guessing?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 31, 2006 12:54:02 GMT -5
How much of the anthropology of Nazi Germany was honest quality you figure?
And
How much of their work was destroyed during the war or survived after it you know?
(Serious questions)
I know they sent teams to the East to study in Tibet for example!
|
|
|
Post by Leader of the Barbarian Juns on Jan 31, 2006 13:05:07 GMT -5
Those are the questions you should be asking.
Its no consistance Agrippa and Gareths \"progressive types\" are from Northern Europe.
There is also heavy on the \'biased opinion\' when dealing with these German anthropologists.
For example to say Hans FK Guenther work wasnt political is insane.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 13:08:17 GMT -5
Was this based on measurements or guessing? Both from what I know. I will post some examples on Skadi probably, you can easily see how it was done and that the morphology of the basic East Asian types is quite different, you cannot confuse a typical Ainuid with a Sinid, a Tungid with a Palaemongolid etc. Only the mixed variants are more difficult to guess, but its possible with limited certainty. You can't speak about "Nazi Germany anthropology" because much was done before Ns came and much afterwards as well, mainly population biology in the 60's and especially awful PC-crap and ideological nonsense changed the course from the 1990s to 2000. F.e. v. Eickstedt got some problems because he didnt changed his views nor had he the same contacts to the party as some others - intrigues in the scientific community, you know. F.e. Saller who went out of Germany and wasnt respected during WW2 and wrote after war against "racial science" in Ns-Germany was incompetent in many respects. His work is much more unscientific in many ways than that of the people he criticised, though he was innovative, that must be said, in some methodological areas and that parts of his major work are fully accepted by me and very for a time even a good general reference in physical anthropology. On the other hand the general language changed, at least to a certain degree, in Ns-Germany, but that doesnt say something about the quality of their work especially if its about physical anthropology. V. Eickstedt f.e. defended some physically primitive groups for having the full ability of forming a higher culture and having a certain intelligence, something not even all American scientists of that time would have said. And there were those which were for sure political TOO like Günther, even I commented his works on various occasions and said that it is valuable in many respects and a good inspiration but its no proof in itself if its about all hypothesis he formed. That doesnt mean that he wasnt right, but its scientific value is partly low and the philosophical-political opinion clear to some degree, but thats true for "modern science" as well, if they claim the nonsense of "all people the same", "no race" etc. Boas was just the beginning of this disease and he was not more scientific than Günther was, especially if its about physical anthropology. There was a lot of material destroyed, even archaeological remains, but most could be saved and with the exceptions of those which were politically involved or went to far, they could go on with their work. Most were anthropologists long before Ns anyway... That was rather an ethnologist and he mainly get it financed by the government and tried to satisfy his official buyer, but on the other hand worked on his own and made ethnological work which was respected after WW2 too mostly. I mean there are many myths around, in fact things went on as usual in most areas, just a little bit rougher, more clear in some respects, more ideological on others, but the influence on science was even significantly lower than in Stalinism and can be partly compared with the current situation in the West if its about the freedom of science if considering ALL pressure factors, including that of private organisation, student organisations, political pressure groups, financial support etc., because there was always a certain tolerance in the system of the 3rd Reich, especially in the early years, things became mostly more brutal and limited because of the pressure of the war, especially in the latest years. That were reactions in a brutalised environment and war which influenced the society at home (more pressure) as well.
|
|
|
Post by Leader of the Barbarian Juns on Jan 31, 2006 13:17:13 GMT -5
Was this based on measurements or guessing? This doesnt help.either you know or you dont. I will post some examples on Skadi probably, you can easily see how it was done and that the morphology of the basic East Asian types is quite different, you cannot confuse a typical Ainuid with a Sinid, a Tungid with a Palaemongolid etc. Only the mixed variants are more difficult to guess, but its possible with limited certainty.[/quote] No one is saying \"types\" dont exist givin the fact that its do to diet ectec. What you dont offer is numbers,all you do is mix athroplogist\'s guessing games to creat an Agrippa opinion which you do in every race base forum on the net,and all these race based forums mix extreme political idealogical with anthropology. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 13:40:06 GMT -5
You know that in standard works of physical anthropology it was usually the case that they presented the results, not the original data from their studies.
I have data on various populations and the corresponding typology though, but it depends on the exact region from which year and how exact or if at all. F.e. I have better data on Afghanistan than on Mongolia, better for Southern China than for Japan in general etc. What do you want? But dont destroy that thread again, there are already thread about the definition of Tungid, Sinid, Palaemongolid, Yakonid etc., answer there if you want, this is about the Japanese Olympia team.
F.e. to distinguish a Tungid from a Sinid: Sinids have a higher FI, HLI, body height, lower NI, CI and relative sitting height.
You can prove that on populations and individual yourself if you like.
|
|
|
Post by Leader of the Barbarian Juns on Jan 31, 2006 13:53:31 GMT -5
since you since you modified your thread a bunch of times give me time to responde.
a really quick comment
\"Nazi Germany anthropology\"
Well the study you are refering to in this thread come straight out of Nazi Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 31, 2006 13:56:38 GMT -5
I was referring to the years from 1932-1945...
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 14:01:35 GMT -5
since you since you modified your thread a bunch of times give me time to responde. a really quick comment \"Nazi Germany anthropology\" Well the study you are refering to in this thread come straight out of Nazi Germany. Thats like if I would say even John R. Bakers work "came out straight of plutocratic and Liberal-Individualistic America". Nonsense. First avoid "Nazi" but say Ns. Germany, National Socialist Germany, 3rd Reich or just Germany - thats like speaking of "Commie Russia" or "Jewish America", stereotypical and pejorative terms, stamped by the respective propaganda machine which defame people automatically if they just lived in that time and country and even those which were not even active National Socialists, Communists, Liberals etc. at all.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 14:11:19 GMT -5
Nasal Index.. Facial Index.. LOL It's so outdated. This is Nazi anthropology broken down to its essence: Take a group of 10 men. Those who are are above 175 cm are one race. Those who are below it are another. They keep mistaking natural variation for races. By that logic these two Jarawa girls are different races. There's only 90 of them left on an island in the Andamans.
|
|