It's fairly accurate, but remember its simply an attempt to explain how and why Europeans had several significant advantages over the rest of the world. I am sure that there are some parts of it that might contain some factual inaccuracies however I think that the majority of objections to this book are ideological and are mostly espoused by /pol/tards.
>>24317 As someone who has actually read this book the person who posted this obviously only has a cursory knowledge in the books main talking points.
For example the poster talks about domesticatable animals and it says that Australia and the Americas almost hunted their animals to extinction however there were not domesticatable animals in the Americas or Australia. Certainly not cows, pigs, horses and camels that allowed the west and near East to flourish. Similarly the Author of Guns, Germs and Steel also discusses in length how Zebras are near impossible to tame compared to horses and South Africans havent succeeded in properly taming them despite numerous attempts since colonization.
>I think that the majority of objections to this book are ideological and are mostly espoused by /pol/tards. Considering it's been debunked by multiple --actual-- historians, geneticists, and economists, /pol/ is right on this one.
It's weird you would lump people on a simple free-speech political board into a single ideology, though.
>>24386 For example in the part about the Spanish conquest of the southern Americas he outright ignores the city states that held until 1700 or the parts of the empire that broke away and regained independence for decades after the initial conquest. Also in the epilogue (or in the prologue? I forgot) he writes there was an "irrevocably westward" shift in where the powerful empires were located (from the initial ones in the near east area) after the 4th century BC. Were the Seljuqs not powerful? China? Caliphates? Ottomans? Sassanids?
Like I said he's just cherrypicking. He picks three events which do support his conclusion - this is what he does, he does not seem to arrive at a conclusion by examination, he has a conclusion and tries to build support for it - and simply does not address the seven others that do not conform.
>>24703 >however there were not domesticatable animals in the Americas or Australia That seems speculative since it's impossible to say if the majority of Australian megafauna would have been domesticatable since it's all extinct. It's entirely possible that giant wombats would have made good livestock.
Trying to understand history with current knowledge is doomed to fail. You could argue forever which was the decisive factor to European hegemony (mind you, only post 16th century). Some think it was the fact Europeans were so barbaric they only could war each other which lead to never stopping arms race between small states, which would eventually give them tools to control large areas with few men. Some say it is the European greediness which led to trade and them completely dominating flow of goods and ideas, making them literally kings of the world. Just like how Rome didn't collapse on any single part, but sum of them all.
>>24124 Honestly I think the core idea of the book - that the geography of Europe/Eurasia lead to those cultures developing faster than other parts of the world and then "dominating" the globe - isn't wrong.
But Diamond just goes about proving his idea in an awful way that doesn't satisfy most Historian's standards.
>>24336 That whole website is pretty interesting, aside from the furfaggotry that gets shoehorned into all his worlds.
>>25257 It's interesting what you say about causes for European hegemony being "barbarism" and "greediness" because a /pol/tard (I know I'm strawmanning a bit here) would likely say exactly the same thing, except instead of "greediness" he'd say the "entrepeneurism" of Europeans lead to their dominance of the world economy.
Interesting how the same ideas can be twisted that way, and shows you how we need to seek deeper roots to the traits we often assign to races and cultures.
>>25493 I generally try to avoid giving terms positive or negative connotations, as it usually derails the discussion on those words instead of the subject... And I didn't mean anything bad with greediness (after all, greed is good) or barbarism, but that's how it looked like when compared to example China, which was a super power in the 13-15th century while Europe was just about to start conquering the world. Also China pretty much closing to the rest of the world might be luck on Europeans side as it removed one really big and wealth opponent. Historically it seems large empires usually succumb to being slow and unagile, while small nations could recover fast and adopt new ideas eventually outlasting the old empires, and then becoming a vast empire themselves, just to continue the cycle.
>>25690 But you have to make huge generalizations to make a general account of why it happened. We are talking about thousands of years of human history and taking in and using knowledge from across several disparate disciplines.
>>24124 It's not that good. No I'm not /pol/, it's just that Diamond isn't a historian and it really shows, *Ecological Imperialism* is the recommended text on the topic if you're willing to put up with the slightly dry writing.
>However, Diamond’s own words suggest that he subscribes to a double standard. In an article that appeared in the popular Natural History in 1993, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this eye-opening statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew. For example, a debate is going on right now [November 1993] in Israel concerning policy toward Ethiopia’s remaining would-be immigrants who identify themselves as Jews. Are they descendants of ancient Jews, as they maintain, or are they descendants of converted Africans, as their physical appearance might suggest?”
Some of the stuff is bullshit, he claims Europe had "convoluted coastlines which make it easier for dissidents to hide out in" for example.
However, there's nothing wrong with discussing geographical determinism provided you understand that geographical isolation is what contributes to divergent evolution. In other words, different races evolved in different parts of the world, and this creates positive feedback loops for different traits and different rates of selection pressure.
Diamond says Africa didn't have any domesticable mammals, but what about ostriches?
Moreover, you can't really say whether or not Africa had domesticable mammals since the horse was first domesticated like... twenty thousand years ago, back when it was a completely different type of sub-species to what we have now. At that same time, Africa also had equine species that could have been domesticated but they were hunted to extinction for the most part.
>>26859 Really? in my experience they tend to get defensive and start pulling some fucking Olympic level mental gymnastics. I had one guy tell me straight up that East Asians only scored better than whites in IQ tests and school exams because of sociology-cultural reasons, like two posts after a giant rant about how blacks are just inherently stupid. Fucking moron.
>>26914 Some of them get defensive, yeah. But for the most part IQ is only brought up since it's a foundational pillar of liberalism that everyone is equal and that inequalities of outcome must be down to environmental factors. Beyond diosproving that I don't think it's hugely necessary to obsess over.
>>26984 >Well, /pol/ also isn't one person as I'd imagine your homeboard isn't either. Man people love to bring this up when they're being criticized but it's all crickets when someone defends them by saying something like >Hey Mr. Strawman, /pol/ likes East Asian intelligence.
>>26999 Right, because no one has bothered to do it to an extent that would be satisfactory for classification.
The pictures of zebras functioning similar to horses is meant to show it could be done and are also cool pictures.
The focus on "muh no domestication" should really be on water buffalo though, as again they exist in SE Asia and Africa and the SE Asians managed to do it.
The definition for what can be domesticated is fucking retarded anyway. Do people really think auruchs and wolves had "calm and good dispositions" before generations of selective breeding killed off the ones that didn't?
You can get half-wolf dogs that are fucking madmen. Does that mean dogs could've never been domesticated because those are cunts?
>>27086 There have been experiments where you can domesticate foxes into dogs in just 8 generations. Different animals have different ratio of success. And until someone manages to do this with zebras your argument is invalid.
>>27144 >Yeah nah, Germany has a substantial immigrant population. I'm saying you control for white ethnic Germanics and its 105.
Great, your source is a fucking wordpress blog, and even if correct it disproves your original claim of "ethnic Germanics" having the highest IQ, congratulations. Nevermind that Germany is not the only country in Europe with a substantial immigrant population.
>>27329 Finland in 3rd place, like I originally claimed. Again your theory of "ethnic Germanics" (which don't exist, as Germanics are a linguistic group just like Slavs and Romance speakers) being on top.
>>27655 >>27655 This is also meant for you, I suppose! >muh semantics I'd meant to link the Germanic peoples subset of that article. If you want to be an obtuse quibbling bitch thats your thing, whatever gets you through the day friend.
Also you need to take that whiteness bullshit to another board.
An anon inquired on racial disparities in intelligence and I thought I'd give him some info, sorry you're triggered friend.
I wonder how much chance affects the initial domestication process. Like how affectionate a wild animal has to be to begin with so that a hunter-gatherer decides to try to tame it instead of just kill it right on the spot.
>>27750 They're not semantics you idiot. Germans are not the same as Germanics because an English speaking autist says so. They're only called Germans in the English language and a few more, they call themselves Deutsche and call Germanics "Germanen". Two different things.
>And no, Finns are not 'white Europeans'. They're Eurasian or Uralic predominantly. And no, Europeans aren't white Europeans, they're predominantly Asians from the middle east, persia and India.
>what are indo-europeans Pic related is the oldest haplogroup in Europe. The rest came with indo-europeans from outside Europe.
>>27833 Well with doges they were highly social creatures to begin with, hence the ability to read cues and respond.
Horses are somewhat similar; mammalian groups that are pack animals and non-apex predators are all good candidates.
Really though, the most important thing is you slaughter any animal with a sign of ferality until you select for the meek enough that you end up with enough genetic distance to qualify as a subspecies.
>>27872 Its entirely semantics. You know what my intent was and are trying to capitalize on the fact I didn't add the peoples suffix so you can be a smug cunt about what was a mutually understood inference of a racial group.
I would think as a 'race doesn't real' advocate you'd acknowledge that Haplogroup I comes from somewhere else and isn't European, as well ;^)
>>27833 Modern ethology would suggest that quite a few animals sort of tamed themselves. >>27879 already mentioned dogs. Their most important difference compared to wolves is flight distance, meaning how close they let humans approach before they bolt. This is moderated by the adrenal glands and is highly hereditary. Basically there was a combination of natural and artificial selection where nature selects for the animals that are docile enough to spend time scrounging human refuse despite their proximity, then artificial selection among that population.
Cats are very similar. Early granaries were full of fat rodents and there was a massive evolutionary advantage for an otherwise reclusive cat to spend time close to humans. Once this semi-tame population emerged, humans took over the domestication part.
>>27890 >actually I have no source to back up anything of what I said >also, Germany is the only country with immigrants
>>27935 >muh semantics There's no semantics at all, you're just wrong, that simple.
>You know what my intent was and are trying to capitalize on the fact I didn't add the peoples suffix so you can be a smug cunt about what was a mutually understood inference of a racial group. You're an idiot who asserted a claim that was false and all of a sudden Germanics morphed in to Germans. Furthermore Germanics are not a fucking racial group but a linguistic group.
>I would think as a 'race doesn't real' advocate you'd acknowledge that Haplogroup I comes from somewhere else and isn't European, as well ;^) And then you resort to straw man's. Haplogroup comes from Europe, retard, IJ=/=I, it mutated in Europe.
When one excludes first generation migrants, the German score jumps from 514 to 528. Yet this only includes first generation migrants or migrants without passports ("Auslaender"). This group makes up 13.1% of the student population. The total student population with Migrationshintergrund is about twice that, so we should add on another 10 points or so, giving an approximation of 535-540 - putting native Germans on par with Japanese.
>>28043 Re I: t is thought to have arrived from the Middle East as haplogroup IJ sometime between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago, and developed into haplogroup I approximately 25,000 years ago.
Re R1b1: Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years ago). The northern branch, R1b1a (P297), seems to have originated around the Caucasus, eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia, then to have crossed over the Caucasus, from where they would have invaded Europe and Central Asia. R1b1b (M335) has only been found in Anatolia.
So your inference is the location of mutation for a specific subclade is what defines European?
"They admit evolution. They admit that animals vary by breed and that you can breed better and worse animals. Now, how is it that there is a certain dividing line when you come to one particular animal called man? They have no explanation; time and again when I've asked them they have no explanation. They just say, 'if it's got two legs and it stands on its hind feet then it becomes a special being and there is absolute equality. They're all the same.' Man is an animal just like all the rest of the animals. He's more intelligent, but he must obey nature's laws."
In a words, there's at least some of a genetic component to all of this and modern thought is too clouded my the fantasy of equality to ever take this into consideration. As for the book itself, I still think it has a few good points, though it glosses over some vital ones IMO.
I'm a geography student but I am yet to read this book. It is interesting to note that within geography there is a large variety of interpretations when it comes to the relation between man and nature. You have those who were apply deterministic view in the approach of nature-human relations. This means that the fate of civilizations is pre-set due to environment. But there are also geographers who thought that human-nature relations were (partially) based on voluntarism. As in, they were free to choose their way of living and create their own fate despite natural circumstances. From what I’ve seen so far, Diamond in this sense, has a very deterministic viewpoint.
The quick and dirty answer is that modern historians and anthropologists are quite critical of, if not borderline/outright hostile to, Guns, Germs, and Steel. Put bluntly, historians and anthropologists believe Diamond plays fast and loose with history by generalizing highly complex topics to provide an ecological/geographical determinist view of human history that, in the end, paradoxically supports the very racism/Eurocentricism he is attempting to argue against. There is a reason historians avoid grand theories of human history: those "just so stories" don't adequately explain human history.
Given our natural tendency to avoid speaking with authority on topics outside our expertise, academic analysis of GG&S is somewhat wanting. To work around this issue, /u/snickeringshadow and I constructed several point by point refutations in another history-related community. I will quote a bit from both analyses because they illustrate many of the critical issues permeating GG&S, though I'll just discuss three of the issues.
First, Diamond notoriously cherry-picks data that supports his hypothesis while ignoring the complexity of the issues.
In his chapter "Lethal Gift of Livestock" on the origin of human crowd infections he picks 5 pathogens that best support his idea of domestic origins. However, when I dived into the genetic and historic data, only two pathogens (maybe influenza and most likely measles) on his hand-picked All Star team could possibly have jumped to humans through domestication. The majority were already a part of the human disease load before the origin of agriculture, domestication, and sedentary population centers. Diamond ignored the evidence that didn't support his theory to explain conquest via disease spread to immunologically naive Native Americas.
Also, he cherry-picks history when discussing the conquest of the Inka...
Pizarro's military advantages lay in the Spaniards' steel swords and other weapons, steel armor, guns, and horses... Such imbalances of equipment were decisive in innumerable other confrontations of Europeans with Native Americans and other peoples. The sole Native Americans able to resist European conquest for many centuries were those tribes that reduced the military disparity by acquiring and mastering both guns and horses.
This is just patently false. Conquest was not a simple matter of conquering a people, raising a Spanish flag, and calling "game over." Conquest was a constant process of negotiation, accommodation, and rebellion played out through the ebbs and flows of power over the course of centuries. Some Yucatan Maya city-states maintained independence for two hundred years after contact, were "conquered", and then immediately rebelled again. The Pueblos along the Rio Grande revolted in 1680, dislodged the Spanish for a decade, and instigated unrest that threatened the survival of the entire northern edge of the empire for decades to come. Technological "advantage", in this case guns and steel, did not automatically equate to battlefield success in the face of resistance, rough terrain and vastly superior numbers. The story was far more nuanced, and conquest was never a cut and dry issue, but Diamond doesn't mention that complexity. The Inka were conquered when Pizarro says they were conquered, and technology reigns supreme in Diamond's narrative.
This brings us to a second issue: Diamond uncritically examines the historical record surrounding conquest.
Pizarro, Cortez and other conquistadores were biased authors who wrote for the sole purpose of supporting/justifying their claim on the territory, riches and peoples they subdued. To do so they elaborated their own sufferings, bravery, and outstanding deeds, while minimizing the work of native allies, pure dumb luck, and good timing. If you only read their accounts, like Diamond seems to do, you walk away thinking a handful of adventurers conquered an empire thanks to guns and steel and a smattering of germs. No historian in the last half century would be so naive to argue this generalized view of conquest, but European technological supremacy is one keystone to Diamond's thesis so he presents conquest at the hands of a handful of adventurers.
Finally, though I do not believe this was his intent, the construction of the arguments for GG&S paints Native Americans specifically, and the colonized world-wide in general, as categorically inferior.
To believe the narrative you need to view Native Americans as fundamentally naive, unable to understand Spanish motivations and desires, unable react to new weapons/military tactics, unwilling to accommodate to a changing political landscape, incapable of mounting resistance once conquered, too stupid to invent the key technological advances used against them, and doomed to die because they failed to build cities, domesticate animals and thereby acquire infectious organisms. When viewed through this lens, I hope you can see why so many historians and anthropologists are livid that a popular writer is perpetuating a false interpretation of history while minimizing the agency of entire continents full of people.
Instead of GG&S try...
Restall Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest
Mann 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
MacQuarrie Last Days of the Inca
And if you would like to hear more about infectious disease spread after contact... Kelton Epidemics and Enslavement: Biological Catastrophe in the Native Southeast, 1492-1715
>>28353 >You're implying it is entirely unique to the region. It merely mutated from its progenitor there, making it hardly "native". It's native because it formed in Europe, that simple really.
>You're also ignoring the substantial Haplogroup N population in Finland. Doesn't matter, just like R1a, R1b, etc are not native so is N not.
>>28364 1. You're focusing only on mathemathic 2. Finalnd still BTFO's you 3. You're still attempting to back paddle like a bitch from your fiasco of Germanics = Germans 4. What I posted is page 230, you link a PDF file that has it's own page count, not that of the book.
>>28516 The progenitor of I is not European. I is merely a modification of a previous clade. How you think this represents an entirely new people is baffling. Its like saying R1b1 and R1a1 are entirely unrelated.
Once again, you turn to semantics in an effort to be a smug cunt.
>>28628 >The book compares East and West across the last 15,000 years, arguing that physical geography rather than culture, religion, politics, genetics, or great men explains Western domination of the globe.
It sounds absolutely retarded but no doubt gullible psuedo intellectual retards like you will believe it.
>>28578 >No, PISA is only focussing on maths for that year because 2012 was a maths year. The values are all highly correlated though, science, mathematics, reading. Which is false
>Can't you read? Non migrant Germans scored 528, non migrant Finns scored 523 on Maths. Damn, you're retarded. Can you?
>Can't you read? Non migrant Germans scored 528, non migrant Finns scored 523 on Maths. Damn, you're retarded. Except when they're not, then you cherry pick a particular germanic nation, right?
>Maybe you shouldn't be a fucking retard in the future. Maybe you shouldn't, for fucks sake, you're not giving me a book, you're giving me a PDF
>>28613 >The progenitor of I is not European. I is merely a modification of a previous clade. How you think this represents an entirely new people is baffling. It doesn't represent a new people but it is the ONLY native haplogroup to Europe.
>Once again, you turn to semantics in an effort to be a smug cunt. The only one resorting to any kind of "semantics" is you from the get go.
You claim Finns are not white Europeans because you don't like their particular haplogroup originating from Europe, but it's okay when the particular haplogroup that you like doesn't originate from Europe but still makes people white.
>>24317 >there could be no serious question of a non-European army successfully resisting an attack by a European army There's more to winning a battle than 'my men are stronger than your men'. The Mapuche held out for hundreds of years. >epidemic disease only became a factor post-conquest Pizzaro was able to conquer the Inka empire because it was in the middle of a civil war because the old king died from a European disease!
Because IJ turned into I in Europe does not mean "I IS LE ONLY EUROPEAN SUBTYPE".
Get a grip dude. Its a minor mutation that occurred there.. and you're still entirely ignoring haplogroup N in Finland, which is what this original conversation was all about!!
Given haplogroup N comes from ASIA or EAST AFRICA and is over 60% of the Finnish population, WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY DISCUSSING, why are you even trying to derail this with how a minor mutation for IJ occurred in Europe??
>The only one resorting to any kind of "semantics" is you from the get go.
Bruh. You've be hung up on the fact I didn't tack on "peoples" to native speakers of Germanic language this whole time. To infer that I'm playing semantics games is fucking laughable.
>>28751 Non immigrant Finns include fucking Saami and Fenno-swedes, you dumb fucking retard. Substract the Swedish average and deduct the sammi %
>>28770 >"I IS LE ONLY EUROPEAN SUBTYPE It literally is.
>Given haplogroup N comes from ASIA or EAST AFRICA and is over 60% of the Finnish population, WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY DISCUSSING, why are you even trying to derail this with how a minor mutation for IJ occurred in Europe?? Given the fact R1a and R1b also come from ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST, which is the entire point of you claiming Finns are not white, makes anyone carrying those haplogroups also not white.
>muh minor mutations I'm not trying to derail anything, you're a fucking idiot who applies different standards to the same example.
>FINNS ARE NOT WHITE EUROPEANS BECAUSE THEY CARRY A NON EUROPEAN HAPLOGROUP >EVERYONE ELSE IS A WHITE EUROPEAN BECAUSE THEY CARRY A NON EUROPEAN HAPLOGROUP Makes no fucking sense you god damn idiot.
>Bruh. You've be hung up on the fact I didn't tack on "peoples" to native speakers of Germanic language this whole time. To infer that I'm playing semantics games is fucking laughable. Top lel. Are you retarded and simply don't understand differences between ethnicity and language groups? You literally call semantics when you're fucking wrong, germans are not germanics, you fucking idiot there's no semantics there.
>>28913 >completely ignoring the fact your entire argument was based on Finns being "true Europeans, haplogroup I" >not admitting the majority of Finns are fucking Asians (or even Africans!!) like I originally inferred
>>28990 >completely ignoring the fact your entire argument was based on Finns being "true Europeans, haplogroup I" That was not my argument you retard, my argument is that if Finns are not European because they have a non-european haplogroup then it means that no one except I carriers are Europeans as it is the only fucking native European haplogroup.
>Top kek dude, way to shift the goalposts. Straw maning this hard? There was no goalpost shifting. You're goalposts are constantly shifting though, Finns have non-eu haplog group = not white, other europeans have a non-eu haplogroup = magically white
>Muh Sammis aren't true Finns, Swedes aren't truew Finns. They're not. Saami's are an ethnic minority and Swedes in Finland have their own political party (Swedish People's Party). Hard to have a Swedish people's party without the Swedes.
>Germanic being an ethnicity or a language group, you've still been blown the fuck out of this argument and in PISA as a Finn. I'm not even Finnish you idiot, but your "argument" (top fucking lel) is fucking retarded.
>>29033 >So where do I find data for Saami and Fenno-Swedes? You'll be hard pressed to do so. You can, however, take the Swedish average for the Fenno-Swedes. After all if your language (Germanic) determines the results they should stay consistent no matter the area they're present in.
>>29053 >pop science should be mandatory reading in schools
>>28990 Which Finns are you talking about? The population that lives within the modern borders of the country is not uniform in any meaningful way.
Besides, I doubt you'll learn that much about racial intelligence from PISA results. Country rankings chance a lot more quickly than would be biologically possible, so much of it is due to changes in the education systems. Western Finnish and Eastern Swedish populations are almost indistinguishable genetically, yet perform differently in studies like this.
>>29306 >My originally assertion was Finns are more Asiatic than what is considered "European". N (Asian) predominance v. I(J) and R* (both Middle Eastern!!) probes me right. Oh, now it's what you "consider" European.
>But at the same time haplogroup N and I are both pure Finnish because you say so? OK senpai. I never said so, retard.
>The only thing thats a "fucking retarded" argument is your ability to switch from le all Scandinavians are true type I Europeans to "haplogroup doesn't matter politics does :DD" >Your inability to form a thesis and stick with it is fucking laughable I just think you have a sever case of mental retardations and are unable to follow a god damn argument, your reading comprehension is also lacking
If you claim that Finns are not white because they have non-european haplogroups, then apply the same to everyone, meaning R1a and R1b carriers are also not white as they have just as much non-european haplogroups.
>>29127 >pop science The current idea that it's only legitimate to study/comment on super-thin slices of history (or science) in obsessive detail has ruined the whole field.
Diamond brought together evidence from various fields of science and history, stretching over the whole sweep of human history, and explained in a quite elegant and totally satisfactory way (imo) why parts of the world developed much faster than others.
For my money it's up there with the The Origin of Species and The Wealth of Nations in terms of explanatory power.
>>29668 >Oh, earlier its what you consider "European" and all that haplogroup I shitposting with no remarks on N was nothing. You're an idiot, it has everything to do with N, I'm kind of tired repeating myself over and over, you're mental inferiority is showing when you can't process something written in a very simplistic manner. If Finns =/= White because N =/= European than no one is white in Europe because *Haplogroup of your choice*=/= European
>Like I, these are Middle Eastern origin haplogroups that more readily define European than "N". India/Central Asia is now the middle east?
>Like I, these are Middle Eastern origin haplogroups that more readily define European than "N". Oh, so now non-european haplogroups are magically European because you want them to be European? Hey, N is in Europe too. I like your constantly shifting standards, it literally boils down to "whatever I define as white is white regardless of haplogroups or where they originate from"
>>29725 I don't get why Diamond raises the ire of /pol/. It doesn't deny the superiority of Western culture/civilization (in material if not moral terms), it just explains why it's superior without resorting to race.
>>29783 The entire point you made was Finns are not predominantly an Asiatic subclade because "muh true European I" when they are predominantly N Asiatics like I inferred to begin with! I'm tired of repeating myself over and over because you're (sic) mental inferiority allows you to argue anything you want without acknowledging your entire argument was erroneous to begin with.
>India See. I(J) and R* are both Levantine/Middle Eastern and more readily characterize modern Europeans than N >>28212
I'm sure you're just pretending to be retarded, friend. Just like with the PISA scores.
>muh haplogroups You guys are aware that Y-dna haplogroups don't mean much as far as ethnicity is concerned as it's only related to patrilineal ancestry (e.g. women don't have these because they don't have Y chromosomes, duh), right? You guys are also aware that everyone shares ancestry with everyone from 7000 years ago, right?
>>24124 Ridiculous pseudo-scientific bullshit. Incredibly and openly biased, with little to no actual basis in fact or research, relying instead on speculation and thought (that has since been proved as largely untrue.)
THERE ARE GROUPS THAT PAY INDIVIDUALS TO POST FAVORABLE NATIONALISTIC NARRATIVES ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE DISCUSSION FORUMS
WE NEED FLAGS AND IDENTIFICATION MARKERS SO THAT BOARD RHETORIC IS NOT INFLUENCED BY SUBVERSIVE GROUPS SEEKING TO UNDULY INFLUENCE YOUNG MINDS BY PAYING CITIZEN COLLABORATORS TO POST FAVORABLE NARRATIVES FOR THEIR NATION OF INTEREST
Asians score higher on IQ tests because they have higher visuospatial intelligence than whites. That much is clear. However there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest Asians have roughly the same (or slightly lower) verbal intelligence as whites.
>>30578 GG&S is just as much as redpill for people who "aren't racist" but would freeze up in horror if you asked them to explain why Europe conquered Africa/Australia/the Americas and not the other way round, as it is for racists who say x-race is clearly inferior to whites because whites conquered them and not the other way round.
>>29876 >The entire point you made was Finns are not predominantly an Asiatic subclade because "muh true European I" No, I have not, your poor reading comprehension did that.
>when they are predominantly N Asiatics like I inferred to Just like everyone else in Europe
>See. I(J) and R* are both Levantine/Middle Eastern and more readily characterize modern Europeans than N I is not Levantine/Middle Eastern, I is European, you're still butthurt about that I see.
>Haplogroup R is a descendant of macro-haplogroup N. Among its descendant haplogroups are B, U (and thus K), F, R0 (and thus HV, H, and V), and the ancestral haplogroup of J and T.
>South Asia lies on the way of earliest dispersals from Africa and is therefore a valuable well of knowledge on early human migration. The analysis of the indigenous haplogroup R lineages in India points to a common first spread of the root haplotypes of M, N, and R along the southern route some 60–70 kya.
>>30578 >his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates. Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
>>30700 I do wish he could contribute his opinion alone at this juncture like a 4chan compatriot, but this board needs safeguards to ensure it does not become a playground for cyber trolls to promote pro-nationalistic historical narratives.
>>27124 Yeah, fish, bugs and reptiles are incredibly hard However any plant eating mammal can be domesticated within 3-4 generations. Many were ignore for being not particularly useful. Predator mammals are more difficult by size. Hell Australia started to let it's citizens adopt red foxes because someone realized that an invasive species might have a place to go. There's also birds but they are the gray area between lizards and mammals.
Good go back to r/historians nobody cares. Also the point I made stands this book was written by a liberal Jew (better now?) in order to disprove race determinism. Nowdays it is considered "eurocentric" and "racist". That's insane and shows the level of discourse
>>30915 I've never been to reddit have no idea how it works (except that apparently it has up/down voting of posts so I assume it's a circlejerk). Don't understand the need to constantly reference it here.
>>30877 Ok, your post is actually readable now, so thanks for that
So you're saying that GGaS was initially considered liberal and anti-racist since it sought to explain the supremacy of western/white civilisation by non inherent racial factors - but the fact that it is now considered eurocentric and racist shows how absurd the current cultural zeitgeist is?
That seems reasonable to say. Who thinks GGaS is racist though? Eurocentric yeah, that's the entire point because the world is literally composed of European-style nation states. Europe won
>>29896 I have said my piece and am sorry to have distracted from your contribution to the topic Hiroshimoot.
But this board at the very least needs IDs to prevent individuals promoting a false consensus of their claims and perhaps more importantly needs flags to prevent paid nationals from influencing public opinion on their country in a skewed fashion.
>>30894 2 things first, they also had camels second, horses and camels traveled across the same bridge later used when native Americans would make their way to America. Horses and Camels were being put to extinction due to the large predators, in which horses and camels were not very good at repeling, and escaped over the bridge. Any left over went extinct not due to introduction of humans, as that would likely not happen for a good while, but due to no safe plains for them to live in within America.
Apparently it is "eurocentric" and "racist" according to the teenagers at /lit/ who used to discuss this book all the time.
We are at a point where any attempt to judge a civilisation in a no go. The term "civilised" is considered offensive and racist. Saying that classical Greece was more civilised than the cannibal tribes of Papua New Guinea is verbotten.
>>31232 Your attempt to read discourse as fundamentally national, and readable from a geoip paints you immediately as a shill. Try learning how to read texts for bias. It is the most basic historical skill.
States can readily afford clean IPs in other states. Paid shills tend to either be very low quality, like yourself, who is basically shilling in favour of a nationalistic approach of /pol3/: the /int/ isn't enough, or very high quality.
Low quality shills can be immediately detected by their posts: you don't need flags.
High quality shills cannot be detected by their flags, as state agents they have ready access to IPs in different geolocations.
You need to improve your reading comprehension, because you seem incapable of following a basic argument.
>>29896 Hiroshima-Daicihi, I've made what I feel to be a fairly compelling case for ID tags and flags in this thread.
Again, I'm sorry to derail your contribution to this thread, but it is important such a long anticipated and potentially influential board such as /his/ has safeguards to prevent undue influence from subversive nationalistic groups.
Please save this board by curing its cancer before it comes malignant.
>>31599 I'm not bothering to read your disparaging shitpost about how I'm somehow a shill for wanting this board to not be unduly influenced by foreign nationals, have a good day and go fuck yourself faggot.
>>33100 The cases he looked at were really interesting. The implication that we're now doing the same thing at a global scale is pure speculation however, and it's not as if we can do much about it anyway.
>>28453 So diseases did not kill almost everyone in the Americas? Holy shit, that is the strongest argument for white supremacy I have ever heard. A few ships of adventurers exterminated empires with just better swords.
>>33386 ...in particular the Easter Island one is just insane. One of the most extreme cases of human stupidly ever surely. A people dependent on fishing (in boats) cut down EVERY LAST TREE on their totally isolated island in order to build useless statues in some sort of pissing contest. What was going through the head of the guy who cut down the last tree...
>>28369 His argument doesn't hinge on people catching diseases from domestic animals. Even if diseases appeared totally at random, the fact that Eurasia was so populous and so interconnected means that it'd quickly sweep through, leaving the people who remained with immunity. Getting additional diseases (over the baseline) from close contact with domestic animals was just the icing on the cake.
>>29636 The shit his theories are based on were blown out and rejected almost a hundred years ago.
Claiming that geography is a big role and shapes and limits cultures is fine. Claiming that it's the dominant and causal isn't backed up by the historical record.
>>30081 I disagree. Each statement has to stand on it's own merit regardless of origin. This isn't biz, or int or even pol. It doesn't matter if the person talking about roman history is actually from italy, as opposed to the person claiming to see race riots in Austria is actually there.
>>33100 The TV show was crap. The historical cases he's looking at are the interesting part. The speculative part is more clearly speculative.
>>33470 >What was going through the head of the guy who cut down the last tree... Take a look at modern Hatii. Without support, and perhaps the Dominicans, they'd colapse as well.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.