Post by Agrippa on Jan 28, 2006 21:00:43 GMT -5
The reason, perhaps, is that you don’t post any sources. Sources can be interpreted differently by anyone here. There’s nothing wrong with a layman having an opinion. But stating an opinion as fact is a different story.
I already posted some stuff and will post detailed info on growth differences in leptomorphic and pyknomorphic types in the future. But you can check things by yourself, what I said there and the threads on Skadi, there is no other interpretation, only the assessment could be different in theory.
Ah, then you won’t have issue with Nigerians, or other types of immigrants, moving to Germany and intermarrying with Germans and thereby creating a significantly large mixed race population. A significant population that will be absorbed completely and have a biological effect on future Germans. Wait... you don’t want that at all and nor do you consider such people German, even though they may be culturally German, because of they're mixed race. Therefore, culture doesn’t matter but race does.
Yes, but race is more than that, there are racial types below the major racial levels and what I said was meant for those. Never said that race doesnt matter, what an absurd statement that is for everybody who has any idea about the human nature, but "its not everything" and there is a lot to consider beside.
Question: If Germany absorbs a large number, lets say 10 million, Turks, for example, over time and their children and grandchildren adopted German culture (lets just say they all do.. this is a hypothetical question to make your view clearer) would the "direction" and habits of Germans be different? Why or why not?
From a racial standpoint "Turk" alone doesnt mean enough, but considering they are like they are now, it would, but to discuss that would mean a very long story and I have not the nerves to do so now.
However, positive racial standards can deteriote both because of foreign immigration of lower standard variants and lower birth rates of positive variants (contra-selection) inside of a population.
Both happens, both must be targeted.
There is in every case no real benefit in destroying a naturally grown, reginally adapted and highly evolved population.
1) That doesn't explain away Irish habits that were just as bad, perhaps even worse, than current AA ghetto culture.
Define "bad"? Question is always what caused it, you know there can be a similar outcome because of different reasons...
F.e. criminals in 19th century England might have been partly even on a higher level or same level as many workers of the same time whereas the same couldnt be said for Western Germany in the 1930's or 1970's. In injust and socially desperate situations more progressive types can be even those causing more problems, but in an well-ordered, just, group oriented and relatively wealthy (not decadent) society the contrary is true.
2) When you say early immigrants you must mean British, Germans, Swedes. Why shouldn't I be surprised that they may be physically similar to the American population?
The results are most interesting if comparing early immigrating Poles into the USA. Especially if comparing Polish industrial workers of the lowest levels which came to West Germany (under the Polish average, shorter head, smaller, more pyknomorphic) with that coming to the USA.
The first were rather recruited passively and came from the lowest elements of Poland partly whereas the same could be said for just a certain percentage of the immigrants which went to America - the level was even above the average as I stated.
3) Also.. what does this have to do with the argument considering other groups who are not of the same ethnic stock that was common in colonial America, or that came soon after from the British Isles and Germany, are just as successful after they became assimilated. Southern Italian immigrants were short and considered physically weak considering they were somewhat inbred.
A) They were indeed on a lower level.
B) In many Italian emigrants the same pattern could be observed. I forgot were I read it, but early Italian workers were better off as well, you have to compare with "those behind", the average of the region from which they came first...
That’s not correct. It depends on the nation’s role in its nation’s economics. It’s not a given that a large population brings down opportunities.
Thats true, but only under certain circumstances and especially for farmers which want to independent things are harder to manage usually, you dont agree?
Population density isn't always the main thrust.
I spoke about a special type of immigrant.
Basques, at that particular time (late 1880s), made up 4% of the population but made up 25% of the immigrants. While Estremadura, the Castillian plateau, Western Andalusia had only a puny number of its people immigrate. These are poor areas, then and now. The Basque lands were and are not.
Fits in. The other region was poor but a) less developed, people less able at that time at least and b) had more space and partly even freedom of certain kind - different mentality as well.
So especially developed areas with fix structures lead to emigration quite often if there is limited spacial and social space.
Actually, ethnic groups with a more primitive culture tend to be influenced by a superior culture, and that’s why they advance. But this is not even what is under discussion. Although, it touches on it.
Oftentimes a "higher evolved" culture is just superior in one or two areas, whereas it is at the same or even lower level on others. But usually people of the weaker group tend to adopt both...best example is what can be called "American Way of Life"....
The black ghetto culture obviously does not since they are out competed in everything except sports and music
Certain sports and rhythmic music are their natural strengths. If that wouldnt be their natural strengths they would have even less...its not the culture alone which produced this, that are things for which they have genetic potential, they just need a certain space and it will show up whereas they need much more training and more specific frameworks for being able to compete in a limited form with other group in other areas.
That’s the point! When you say “environment” you might as well say culture. A black youth who grows up in the black ghetto, for the most part, develops a poor work ethic, has a distorted view of “respect,” no understanding of family obligations, and no respect for education. The culture that child is born in gives him no chance in life to be successful.
Like I said. But giving the same framework doesnt mean to see the same results - depending on the genetic background.
Of course, like I said above. But I also want to point out that a person with an IQ of 85 is more likely to be criminal in an unstable environment
Chances are even high in a stable environment, especially if there are strong masculine tendencies as well, whats often the case especially in Negrids.
In a really unstable society even the more intelligent will become criminals more often....
But they didn't adopt it when they first arrived, and nor did many adopt it in the second or third generation. They brought their own cultural baggage, which was a burden on the rest. Violence and other types of crime, high rates of alcoholism, men abandoning their wives and children, etc. Take note of the difference between an Irish community in the mid 19th century and the same community a few generations later. They’re worlds apart. This was no accident. They had been mainstreamed.
The problem was to put the "black man" in the "late free market" after the best times were over in the USA. He couldnt compete and lost at the same time his natural environment, social bounds.
So the end of segregation made the situation for the majority even worse because they lost "their own structure" and were partly unable to orient themselves in the new "mixed society".
The Irish can't be compared with that, because the difference was mainly cultural without minor racial differences. Its even unnatural to fully integrate totally different groups with one another, that can be proven from psychology, ethology and ethnology. Multicultural systems are the exception and if they exist they really mean what the word says, MULTI (!!!) CULTURAL (!!!), various cultures living side by side without forming "one superculture".
The ethnic groups largely live on their own even if the neighbors are of the other groups...
What didnt worked was the black organisation, the trial to integrate them was for many reasons a failure. Again in a Liberalcapitalistic system which already declines and without social control and corporatism it was impossible to finance them on a high level nor giving them high quality jobs - in the mixed competition the majority had to fail from the beginning, both because of biological disadvantages and the worse social framework.
Again an organisation on their own would have been preferable. They would have felt the need to get active and organise themselves intraracially and would have had more chances to lead their own business, norms etc., rather then putting them into something which doesnt fit them anyway because people are not the same, neither socio-culturally nor biologically.
