Scientists See Traces of European Colonialism, Mongol Empire in Human Genes

Fox News, February 13, 2014

Tell-tale relics of Europe’s colonial period, the Mongol empire and the Arab slave trade can be found in the genes of modern humans, scientists said Thursday.

Researchers from Britain and Germany used almost 1,500 DNA samples from 95 different populations across the world to produce a map showing genetic links stretching back 4,000 years. By examining the moment when a particular part of DNA first appears, they were able to tie the genetic mixing of populations to historical events.

Some of these links have long been assumed, but others came as a surprise, said Daniel Falush, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who co-authored the paper published in the journal Science.

DNA samples from the Tu people of China indicate they mixed with a European group—related to modern Greeks—around A.D. 1200. One likely possibility is the European DNA came from traders traveling the Silk Road.

Another interesting find seems to bolster the legend among the Kalash people of Pakistan they are descendants of Alexander the Great’s army, Falush said.

Samples show that the Kalash were genetically isolated for a long period going back to about B.C. 300—around the time of Alexander’s military campaign in Asia.

{snip}

Using a technique called “chromosome painting,” the researchers were also able to illustrate the genetic flow caused by other historical events, such as the Arab slave trade that introduced African DNA to populations around the Mediterranean, the Arab Peninsula and what is now Iran and Pakistan from A.D. 800-1000.

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: Here is the website for the fascinating “admixture map.”]

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NeanderthalDNA

    Using a technique called “chromosome painting,” the researchers were also able to illustrate the genetic flow caused by other historical events, such as the Arab slave trade that introduced African DNA to populations around the Mediterranean, the Arab Peninsula and what is now Iran and Pakistan from A.D. 800-1000.
    ———————————–
    No duh…

    • IstvanIN

      Which shows why those areas declined.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        The pre-Islamic, pre-Africanized Semite was different critter. A man.

        Islam is a BLACK religion.

        • John R

          And note the black attraction to Islam-even in this country. Genetics at work?

          • NeanderthalDNA

            It’s the perfect low IQ religion. Simplistic, violent, oppressive, anti-intellectual. Keeps a similar population in line and maintains a veneer of civilization through the only mechanism that such “people” respect – brutality.

          • The Verdict of History

            Say what you will about the Spanish Conquistadors, the Dutch, the slave traders, the French colonists or English Colonials.

            Western peoples have never seriously had the monopoly on bloodthirstiness and oppression.

            In fact, it is not even close contest…

            1.) The ancient Assyrians and Babylonians of Mesopotamian times were diligent and (gleeful) murderers… especially the Assyrians… These were callous killers who took no quarter. They wiped entire communities over petty cultural differences. They were INTENTIONALLY savage to extreme.

            2.) The Huns, who hailed from Central Asia were sadistic killers who showed little mercy.

            3.) The Mongolians are said to have wiped out 30-60 million easily… during the High Middle Ages… I am including Timur the Lame in that blood bath. They slaughtered people with enthusiasm and with little regret.

            Please look up the Siege of Baghdad of 1258, which wiped out most of the city. The Mongols ethnically cleansed large portions of China and Iran.

            4.) The Turks were notoriously cruel to European Christians whom they lorded over for centuries.

            5.) The Arab Slave trade was at least as brutal and savage as the transatlantic slave trade.

            It was a large scale operation:

            Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert…

            6.) The Spread of Islam into Persia and India was not peaceful by any means. Many met horrible fates.

            7.) Slavery has a long and well-established history in Black Africa, as do wars, genocides (Darfur and Rwanda), cannibalism and tribal scuffles…

            8.) Female Genital Mutilation has never been practiced by any European-derived Society that I know of.

            9.) The Imperial Japanese butchered millions in the pursuit of their East Asian “Co-Prosperity Sphere”…

            They were essentially bloody murders.

            10.) Human Sacrafice, perpetrated by Aztecs and Mayans.

            11.) How many hundreds of millions of people have been oppressed by the Indian Caste System for thousands of years??
            ————————
            Non-Western atrocities in the 20th century.

            Deaths attributable to Marxist ideology:

            11.) The Soviet Union was not, in any serious sense, a Western state. The Stalinist regime wiped out 20 million people in purges and forced famines.

            12.) The Maoist regime wiped out some 40 million human beings.

            13.) The Congo Wars have slaughtered millions over the past several decades

            14.) Darfur and Rwanda Genocides murdered hundreds of thousands. Darfur is on the verge of another blood bath now that the south seceded.

            15.) And of course….

            The Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other over the past 1000 years.

            Some 1 million were killed during the Iran-Iraq conflict. The Sunni and Shiites are slaughtering each other in droves in Syria, Iraq….

            Pakistan and India…

            okay… you get the point!

          • Berkeley Guy

            Excellent list. Please save a copy in a file for the day when someone accuses you of being an oppressive straight white male.

          • John R

            Thank you. I know I am going to save that particular post on my PC. (Or, should I say, my non-PC, PC? LOL!)

          • dodger

            Me too.

          • Edruezzi

            Let’s not forget some people who cooked up a racist ideology while utterly ignorant of even the fact that DNA was responsible for transmitting hereditary traits, then deliberately constructed dedicated facilities for the industrial-scale murder of human beings, including children, and then killed six million people, and would almost certainly have killed a hundred times that number if a coalition of the world’s most powerful armies had not stopped them. At the same time their leaders planned to change the population structure of Eastern Europe and European Russia in a sort of eastward-headed version of the settlement of America. While we’re at it some of them believed they hailed from Atlantis or somewhere called Thule.
            Yup, you know who I mean.

          • JohnEngelman

            Nature’s punishment for Negro slavery is Negro genes. Where they go, IQ scores go down.

          • Edruezzi

            I hope you mean that metaphorically, because nature punishes no one. It is mindless. It does not care about slavery.
            You veer from invoking science and modern genetics to arguing like a stone age shaman. Of course, the conventional notion of race, including concepts like “Negro genes” has a lot of parallelism with shamanism. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, bu there it is.

          • JohnEngelman

            Race is not a social construct. It is a meaningful biological classification. The different races evolved in response to different population pressures. This is why some are more intelligent than others, and less prone to crime.

          • BonV.Vant

            What different population pressures? Do you really have an idea, or is it just rhetoric?

          • Edruezzi

            I’ll have to be blunt here. Race is a social construct because we care so much about it and because societies around the world have been willing to organize themselves on the basis of it. It is not a meaningful biological classification. Let me explain why, using that beloved instrument, the bell curve. Suppose I compile a bell curve for IQ for people of different skin color in the United States. I then compile one for, say, differences in height. I then compile one for differences in the blood groups. I then compile one for differences in foot length. I then compile one for differences in the ability to taste some chemical. I then compile one for differences in skin color itself. Now, if race were a meaningful biological classification these bell curves would vary in the same way for different races. They don’t.
            Starting in the 1940s, well before the genomics revolution, scientists began to realize that different traits of the kind I mentioned showed such independence in their variation that it was impossible to cleave humanity into tidy racial groups. It is the saga of human genetic variation. In this saga we have variation across the entire globe. When we try to fit variation among races into the global human bell curve the operation breaks down.
            Even racial medicine faces this problem. The doctors and researchers had the best intentions but they began to realize that they got the populations they had to work with because they started out making assumptions about these populations. Now I would call Englishmen and Germans different nationalities or ethnic groups but the same race. I could look at someone’s DNA and tell from it that they came from England or Germany. Now, different races, aside from the striking difference in skin color, cluster in exactly the same way. It would be preposterous to say that Germans had a higher IQ than Brits because of their genes. Racial differences in IQ, based on the extrapolation from differences in skin color to the notion of an essentialist difference between peoples, are however of exactly that same character.

            A technical point John: populations do not evolve because of different population pressures. The sentence is meaningless.

          • sshadow

            You sir, have the distinction of writing the most nonsensical screed that I have read in the last year. Congratulations.

          • Edruezzi

            Thank you from your reply.
            Coming from a person whose moniker appears to honor the SS I’ll take that as a compliment.
            Scientists and science itself are being insulted in the name of the concept of race. I think it’s time scientists took a stand on the race issue, in the same way they have taken a stand in the war between science and creationism. We can’t continue to have our discipline demeaned by people with a political agenda. They know politics in and out and so they turn on us and say we have politicized science. Race does not exist in the way the folk mind understands it. We’re going to have to live with it. Most people cannot understand the sophisticated science that has undermined the race concept. Well, most people can’t understand quantum mechanics either, or even Mendel’s genetics either.
            Race is a vestige of the caveman’s notions of genetics. For race to be valid several things about human genetics and human evolution would have to be true. None of them are.

          • sshadow

            Have you been hired by George Soros as a troll to suck all the air out of the Amren comments section to drive off viewers, with the tactic of excessively wordy tracts of sheer nonsense? I hope the moderators are considering this.

          • Edruezzi

            Nah, Soros never hired me. Or, since Ebonics is one of the official languages here, George Soros ain’t neber be ma massa.

          • Jotun Hunter

            where would we be without ‘the professor’ and his staid commentary

          • Edruezzi

            Here is a Wikipedia quote that’ll give you some idea of how the wealthy and powerful lived out their lives in civilization. Note the date, the late 19th century and then extrapolate form there to an earlier and filthier period.

            This is from the Wikipedia article on the last Empress of Russia.

            “In December 1878, diphtheria swept through the Grand Ducal House of Hesse. Alix, her three sisters, and her brother Ernest fell ill. Elisabeth, Alix’s older sister, had been sent to visit her paternal grandmother, and escaped the outbreak. Alix’s mother Alice tended to the children rather than abandon them to doctors. Alice herself soon fell ill with diphtheria, and died on the anniversary of her father’s death, 14 December 1878, when Alix was only six years old. Alix, Victoria, Irene, and Ernst survived the epidemic, but their youngest sister, Princess Marie, did not.”

          • Edruezzi

            Could you please define “negro genes”? In a high-stakes argument like this one it’s a good idea we all know what we’re talking about.

          • jeffaral

            You’re so funny.

          • The Verdict of History

            Right. Thank you for your feedback.

            I’ve been meaning to do this for some time, now…

            And indeed:

            The German Nationalist movement has done a great deal to tarnish the position of race-honesty.

            Yikes.
            ———
            ——————-
            The list was trying to highlight atrocities committed by non-Western, non-European regimes and forces.

            That is why I steered clear of fascists from European Societies.

            We all know of Hitler’s barbarism.

            But there is plenty of blame to go around… clearly.

          • Edruezzi

            Yes, some people voted it down. But unless we’re willing to go into a complex debate about epistemology and the philosophy of science, the Nazis ran an ambitious foreign policy based on the concept of race without knowing what a gene is or what DNA does. It’s the equivalent of planning for a moon shot without knowing Newtonian mechanics.
            It’s not for nothing that they say ignorance is bliss.

          • John R

            Thank you, very informative post. You have just taught us all more relevant history by your post, than we have learned at most four year colleges. However what do people here keep getting told about? The Nazi Holocaust, and the enslavement of Africans by Europeans. We are told about those two events over and over, and over…..

          • dodger

            Let the Commies account for that little lot.

          • pcmustgo

            gang oriented as well… I think you meant, keeps a “simple” people in check, offers lots of discipline. Mohammed was a war lord/gang leader.

          • Edruezzi

            On 9-11 I heard that planes had flown into the World Trade Center. I said, ‘What happened’. Then I heard that the pilots died in the collisions. I said, ‘Nah, it’s Muslims.’

  • So CAL Snowman

    That admixture map (found at the editor’s link) is incredible. It’s really interesting to see all of the admixtures in the Central Asian countries and then compare those countries to the European countries.

  • John R

    Very interesting. But, you have to take this a little further: The great civilizations of antiquity occurred thousands of years ago. Then, according to this article, African DNA came to the mid-east and the Mediterranean area around 1000 AD. This coincides with a time of the gradual decline of Mid-Eastern, and Mediterranean civilizations. This helps explain why Europeans are currently the most advanced countries in the world; why the center of civilization has shifted from the mid-east to Europe; and why certain groups of people are consistently poor, and inclined to crime, in every country that they live (i.e. Negroes). Once you stop following the dogma that “all races of people are equal” then history, and all our problems start to make perfect sense.

    • Edruezzi

      Uh, cough, cough, there was another part of the world that received a lot more African slaves than the Mediterranean did.

      • John R

        Uhhh, cough, cough, what happened to the Mediterranean and the middle East took place over race mixing that occurred, OVER SEVERAL CENTURIES. Until recently we had laws AGAINST RACE MIXING. That has changed-and you can see, cough, cough, the decline in our society over JUST A GENERATION! Please think before you post, thank you.

        • Edruezzi

          So the, uh, Ragheads couldnt keep their hands off those slave wenches, or slave dudes, and the rest was history. And they had no laws against miscegenation and no one drop rule.
          Well, I guess you are right.

          • John R

            Thank you. Nice to see your cold is getting a little better.

    • dodger

      “all races of people are equal” If that’s true there is no need for AA or positive discrimination.

      So it clearly can’t be true. But try telling that to the 85ers.

      • John R

        I know. I mean, we mustn’t lower their precious “self-esteem” right?

  • JohnEngelman

    Using a technique called “chromosome painting,” the researchers were also able to illustrate the genetic flow caused by other historical events, such as the Arab slave trade that introduced African DNA to populations around the Mediterranean, the Arab Peninsula and what is now Iran and Pakistan from A.D. 800-1000.

    – Fox News, February 13, 2014

    Civilization breeds for superior intelligence. One would expect areas that have been civilized longer would have higher average IQ’s than Northern Europe, which has a briefer history of urban civilization. This explains why that is not true.

    • IstvanIN

      Civilization breeds for superior intelligence.
      Explain:
      1) How societies became civilized, if civilization breeds for superior intelligence. We didn’t start off with civilizations.
      2) How do you explain black, living in the midst of some of the most advanced societies in the world devolving back to their natural state?

      • JohnEngelman

        Once civilization begins it exerts different population pressures than a neolithic way of life. Intelligent men become merchants, government officials, money lenders, artists, and so on. These become prosperous, so they have more descendants than laborers.

        The process takes at least a thousand years. That is why blacks have found it difficult to adopt western civilization.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          I think they defy all patterns relevant to most other human populations.

          In their regard you are assuming Boasian notions apply, but I have doubts. Even the East African seems to stand apart from the West African Bantu.

          The patterns of his existence defy comparison.

        • Edruezzi

          Laborers and the poor always outnumber merchants, government officials, etc, in all civilized urban, literate countries. It was not for nothing that Jesus Christ himself said ‘You will have the poor among you always’, or something to that effect.

          • JohnEngelman

            Historically laborers and the poor had fewer descendants because they were more vulnerable to malnutrition, starvation, and disease.

          • Edruezzi

            Man, what are you, the Energizer Bunny? You never stop coming. I’m talking about the overall numbers of the population, the overall demographic movements. You make it sound as if, throughout history, the poor have spent their time starving and suffering malnutrition and freezing and so on. Yes, they suffered but all that was needed for a peasant in, say, Medieval Europe was enough food and decent housing and they could pass on their genes. Maybe they didn’t live like the kings but they got by. A gene frankly doesn’t care if its carrier lives in a castle or a hovel as long as it gets through to the next generation. Since the poor got by and they far outnumbered the rich, it’s clear that the genetic contribution of the wealthy did not swamp out that of the poor. You make it sound as if premodern towns or rural areas had the bodies of the poor stacked in the streets or something.
            As for disease, it felled both the rich and the wretched the same way through most of history. We didn’t figure out the germ theory of disease until nearly the turn of the 20th century.

          • Jotun Hunter

            he never stops and he never learns

          • JohnEngelman

            I never learn what?

          • Guest

            that you know nothing

          • JohnEngelman

            I have already responded to your arguments.

            Your arguments do not explain why populations that have practiced civilization for over a thousand years average higher IQ’s than populations that have been recently introduced to civilization. My arguments do.

          • Guest

            you respond with conjecture and ego.

          • Edruezzi

            For, say, a thousand years to make a difference in the gene frequencies of animals as long-lived as humans, the selection has to be particularly vicious and unremitting. There is no evidence that “civilization” did that.

          • Edruezzi

            You’d cite the Jews and the Chinese as such populations, right?Well, there’s a lot more those populations have in common than their genes. They also have ancient, self conscious traditions of written literature and scholarship and a sense of cultural cohesion that’s lasted for thousands of years. It’s why a Jewish priest from 2014 looks indistinguishable from a Jewish priest from say 1014 BC. They and the Chinese have gone around the world preserving an idiosyncratic culture with a written canon. They have a strong sense of who they are and of cultural preservation. That and the written tradition may have been advantageous as the late nineteenth century and early twentieth began to give scientists a place of prominence in society.
            There were not a lot of Jewish scientists and mathematicians in the days of Galileo, Newton or Darwin. In fact in Newton’s day science was a decidedly Anglo-Saxon and Gentile pursuit. Then around 1880 Jewish scientists start showing up, mostly in the German speaking world. It would be risible to say that after centuries of quietude the Jewish genome changed radically in only about a decade in the late 19th century.
            Left unexplained by the Engelman Early Civilization Theory of course is how the people of the Western tip of Eurasia, who compared to the Middle East and Asia and even Greece and Italy, were latecomers to “civilization” came to dominate the world. What’s your theory about that?

          • JohnEngelman

            The high average IQ of the Ashkenazi Jews developed in response to religious persecution. Jews in Europe were not allowed to own land. They were not allowed to practice many trades. They were allowed to be money lenders. Christians were not allowed to do that. Money lending required intelligence. Before the European adoption of Arabic numbers it was difficult to do calculations with Roman numerals. Jews who could not learn the necessary skills left the faith, or did not have children.

            Jews did not distinguish themselves in European science earlier because of religious persecution. When this lifted during the nineteenth century, they did distinguish themselves, and have ever since.

            The oldest centers of civilization in the West – Egypt, what is now Iraq – imported Negro slaves. So did the Arabs. Negro genes lowered their average IQ’s.

            Civilization breeds a population for intelligence. So does living in a cold climate. That is why although Nordics were the last Europeans to adopt civilization, they have the second highest IQ averages, second only to Ashkenazi Jews.

          • Edruezzi

            These are just-so stories, straw clutching, and so on. They are all easy targets. Take your argument about religious persecution. You want to tell me that religious persecution kept Jews out of early science, a socially marginal field that was not a profession and that, almost to a man, its pioneers took up as an avocation or hobby and practiced mostly in their workshops or studies? Unless you were a Galileo going up against the might of the Catholic church early scientists did not attract that much persecution. If a smart Jewish kid in Newton’s England had taken up science nobody would have persecuted him. And I’m sure Newton’s ancestors were money lenders.
            About money lending. What is the “race” taken to be the low-IQ dirt-dumbest today? Aboriginal Australians? Can an Aboriginal Australian of today handle the arithmetic and mental operations required to be a money lender in late Medieval and Early Modern Europe? I think so, since I’ve seen Abos using Windows PC in Sydney. If the typical low-IQ Abo can handle Windows 8.1 I don’t think he would need genetic engineering of his brain cells to handle 15th century money lending. Therefore usury did not exert enough of a selective pressure on late medieaval Jewish genomes.
            I’ve tried to demonstrate what so-called ‘civilization’ was like for those who lived in it. Think of the Huns or Mongols sacking and raping villages or slow days on Roman farms, or the brutality of the Roman gladiator shows. It wasn’t sitting in the Athens agora and proving theorems that high school kids of today can prove. It was farmwork and tooth decay and smallpox epidemics and packing the kids in the wagons and fleeing to keep ahead of the advancing barbarian hordes. Most people were illiterate. When we hear from the horse’s mouth, almost every commentator on farm life notes its dullness and the boredom.
            As for cold climates, I’ve shown elsewhere why they are more likely to select for stocky builds, as in the case of the Neanderthals and the Eskimos, a striking case of convergent evolution, or for resistance to frostbite rather than high IQs.
            Of course you will not be convinced. I know a stubborn person when I meet one.

          • JohnEngelman

            The superior average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews, Orientals, and Nordics is not in dispute. I am able to explain it. You are not.

          • Edruezzi

            You ain’t explained nuffings, John.

          • Jotun Hunter

            the superior iq of ashkenazai is not in dispute, that is it. Even then their lack of idealism or faustian impulse leaves them generally undesirable.

          • Edruezzi

            PS:
            I don’t think 15th century money lending called for skill at handling derivatives or mathematical finance. It was basic arithmetic

          • Fak_Zakaix

            1. The Jewish ideology, Judaism, is abhorrent to science anyway.

            They could have adopted Greek humanism, as the Romans did, when they entered into contact with the Greek civilisation but they viciously opposed it. The only famous Jews of antiquity were those who adopted it: Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus, etc.
            Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jews of Holland…

            That is why the Jews of the 20th century switched to nationalism (Zionism) to preserve their racial purity because they realised that science is corrosive to religion (Judaism).

            2. I knew that you are a Nordicist… The Nordisch blood in you… LOL. Like Richard Lynn.

            What about the swarthy Greeks of Antiquity and the Italians of the Renaissance? What about the daring Portuguese and Spaniards? What about the mighty Ottoman Turks? What about the Slavs (genetically distinct from the Nordics) who were on the verge to start a nuclear Armageddon?
            Even Hitler admitted (the hard way) before he died that the true Herrenvolk are the Slavs.

            3. I got the impression from your previous posts that you see miscegenation positively…

          • JohnEngelman

            Eskimos are not on the average as intelligent as Swedes because they have not lived for over a thousand years in an urban civilization.

            Swedes on the average are more intelligent than Greeks and Egyptians because Swedes have not received Negro genes.

            I feel that miscegenation is a matter of personal choice, I believe that the trend toward miscegenation will accelerate as it has been doing since the late 1950’s. Whenever races have interacted they have interbred.

            Biological evolution makes cultural evolution possible. Where biological evolution has not taken place, cultural evolution is impeded. This is why the results of the civil rights legislation have been disappointing.

          • Jotun Hunter

            what is your proof that an environment of civilization would alter the genetic intelligence of eskimos, over a thousand years or more?

          • Edruezzi

            Okay, you win, John. I’m afraid I cannot match your genius and erudition.

          • Jotun Hunter

            that is not the core argument. The core argument you propose is the superiority of asians and jews. You base all your arguments on sat scores and iq stats and cherry picked quotes from Rushton and others. You cannot account and have no refutement for the fact that white europeans have invented and created virtually everything of note in the entire worls through it’s recorded history, with little or no input from other races. History means nothing to you.

          • Peter Connor

            Duh!

          • Edruezzi

            Can you handle a little algebra? We’ll plug some of this stuff into some equations for fitness functions and see if things could change the way you said.
            The only viable time period as a candidate for racial differentiation is the period from about just after the ancestors of non-Africans left Africa about 80,000-60,000 yrs ago and the thousands of years after that. The time periods you are defending, ie the time since Jews got herded into European ghettos and shtetls is too recent.
            At any rate, John, you are wonderfully made.

        • Edruezzi

          Get some caffeine into your system and sit down and think, John. Just consider this.
          Shrink yourself down to molecular proportions. If you’re a gene sitting in a chromosome and so on, I don’t think you’d notice any difference between “civilization” and the neolithic way of life. My caveat is that the neolithic way of life has to be settled, that is the people doing the neolithic living have to be agricultural. They may not have grand cities or writing but at least they engage in farming and have at least villages with some kind of political organization. Now, I will put forward a heresy: in terms of the vital statistics that are the final arbiter of natural selection, the selection pressures acting on a person in a literate community in Eurasia were not that different from those acting on a Sub-Saharan Africa. Just about the only difference was selection for malaria resistance. AND THAT’S IT. You might argue that the Afros were preliterate. Well, in a world before printing, as was the case in Europe until about 1450 and even for some centuries after that, there were simply not enough books to exert a significant selection pressure on anybody, even the geniuses.

          As for literate men leaving more children than laborers that is not the key. The leaving of descendants has to be systematic and has to go on for generation after generation in the same direction, (ie there has to be a selection gradient), and since, numerically, the poor always vastly outnumber the rich, the selection against the children of laborers has to be particularly brutal if the gene frequencies are to change in favor of the genes of the well off. Let’s say for every rich guy you have a hundred peasants. For the rich guy’s genes to spread through the population given that ratio (which is exaggerated) the children of laborers have to be dying at an astronomical rate. Something like 80% of laborers have to have ALL their children die out and this has to go on for a thousand years, and indeed for thousands of years. In fact, the laborer and his missus have to die too, to keep them from reproducing. I’ve read Homer, Murasaki Shikibu, Shakespeare, Dickens, Newton, Thomas Hardy, Cervantes, etc, and numerous works of history. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

      • Edruezzi

        “How societies became civilized, if civilization breeds for superior intelligence.”

        It’s easy, if you define civilized as urban and literate. Start with villages. The villagers start to produce a food surplus. This enables specialization in trades and occupations and the enlargement of villages into towns and then cities. The ruler has to keep track of things and to keep track of grain stores. The shorthand his goons invent to keep track of the grain stores evolves into writing.
        This is roughly how it happened in the Fertile Crescent and Asia Minor. We might note that that process never happened in Europe. Europe adopted the achievements of the Fertile Crescent, down to every last crop and the writing system. They literally did not even have to reinvent the wheel

      • Bossman

        The best and brightest of Blacks intermarry with whites. A rigorous selection process keep Blacks at the bottom. As one noted sociologist put it: white genes are forever entering the black community but they do not stay there.

        • Edruezzi

          I recall reading somewhere that those blacks that got into white society in the US through passing tended to be the smarter ones, so social processes creamed off the best and brightest of the African American community.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      The Bantu genome is the epitome of some kind of “Gaia’s revenge”.

      Insidiously it plays upon the form of empathy evinced by higher IQ types allowing itself to be introduced into the higher IQ population where it erodes everything and destroys civilization.

      I understand the reason for the presence of evil in this world. Without undeniable evidence of its nature and its results, modern Scandinavians result. Smart, humane, decent, sheltered types who, unable to recognize true wickedness when staring it in the face for lack of having experienced such…

      Invite its vampire-like presence into their very homes and encourage their daughters to breed with it, willingly or no. They have become like lambs calling to wolves to play with them, and they cannot understand why oh why would those wolves want to hurt them…

      Because, of course, evil excuse making lambs, it’s in their nature…

      • Berkeley Guy

        Pathological altruism.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Must be countered with “vicious self interest”.

    • the sound the flood the hour

      I think an environment that pressures a population to think critically breeds intelligence and civilization is just a byproduct of that.

      • Edruezzi

        History has not featured many such environments, unfortunately. As for prehistory, the ability to clobber mammoths was more important than the ability to think critically.

        • the sound the flood the hour

          I disagree.Having to track and kill mammoths would probably require more intelligence than planting seeds.

          • M&S

            Re: Tracking/killing mammoths requires more intelligence.
            Rewards better too. More protein, especially fatty proteins from liver and brain = more hunter brain growth. I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t an entire segment of human evolution which specialized around the Predators Waltz of controlled violence as the means to societal position, even after the last of the big prey species were wiped out in Asia and Europe.
            Skeletons of the late HG era show modern biometric sizes on the order of 6ft, with astoundingly healthy bodies, little tooth decay and clean heals of bad breaks.
            It’s only when you have to stand in one place for forever, protecting your crop and becoming vulnerable to all the diseases as climate change and predation that derive from early subsistence agrarianism that you start to find large scale instances of bone lesions, bad dental, muscle strains and various nutritional diseases that come from eating a single cereal crop like a herbivore rather than a varied meat diet as a hunter gatherer.
            But what prompted the change from mobile to settled existence was likely itself the alteration of climates to favor certain regions, specifically, the ‘Edean’ of the Black Sea/Caspian Sea area, to allow for a more settled life as again, the -success- of hunting both killed off the larger prey species (which were likely easily driven by fire) and allowed smarter men to plan for things like seasonal variances in prey herd positions, eventually leading to sweet-spot paradises where a settled living was possible, all year round (prey passing through leaving a calf being one route to the beginning of domestication as well).
            A question then arises as to whether population rates would go up or down with this. Pastoralism as the early domestication of hunting and herding animals (dogs, especially though horses may prove to be an earlier asset than we used to think) gives you the same meat source with half the journey-stress and that right there is a major stimulant to higher brain function because you aren’t throwing away calories to put boot after boot.
            Something people forget is that, in learning mode as fight or flight, the mind burns about 500 calories per day, one third of basal. In non-stressful conditions, this amount drops down to about 250 calories per day.
            Differing activities also builds brain tissue in different manners, as the cognitive neurons look more like a net or lattices and the motor equivalents have the appearance of a rose growing through them.
            Changing societal survival modes may well have been about releasing brain chemistry for other tasks than the rigours of hunting, even or especially if it was still mixed in with the added meat of prey groups wandering through as metabolic gains to feed a growing (different) mind.
            A hunter also needs a constant supply of new recruit chasers who take big risks following prey species over uneven terrain with other mega=predators often working the same prey group. That likely causes a lot of gopher hole attrition.
            OTOH, a pastoralist can get by with half as many humans if he has an animal to help drive with and an agrarian again needs a lot of help, but only seasonally. Again freeing up the brain to think based on training animals to do basic run-and-bark duties no longer required of him.
            These environmental variables, plus the risk to the women of carrying, delivering and carrying for young children in herd-following mobile vs. year-round static conditions will drive the population modifiers for group success as size, far more than actual starting or used intelligence derived from specific survival modalities.
            Where agrarians likely win out overall is in -familiarity- of resources as developed lands. Neighbors act as life insurance, threat insulation and breeding stock exchange norms, group activities help bring marginal areas under cultivation and share tasks like shepherding and slaughter/smoking of meat at low overhead for the rest of the year.
            While freedom from constant peregrination as the seasonal grind allows for more free time to further the development of tool technologies to meet specialist, static, (storeable) use needs.
            A hunter carries his/her life on their back and so cannot explore the variety of environmental stimuli they may get in a manner which encourages backfeed as reiterative manipulation and understanding/mastery that an agrarian can achieve, just from knowing the same problems, year in and year out.
            Idle hands breeds clever thoughts type associations would be visible in expanding tool sets etc..

          • the sound the flood the hour

            Wow. I never expected to see someone confirm my comment with a thesis. Thanks for the very informative analysis.

    • Extropico

      “Civilization breeds for superior intelligence.”

      A questionable statement. Once soldiers and sailors and all the other roughnecks are able to secure an area and keep it civil, isolated areas of science and academia can be supported.

      In the modern world, higher educated people have fewer children than the less-educated, who may value family more than the really smart. The world’s best birth control are graduate degrees.

      The isolated, protected areas don’t just spring up and maintain themselves. Never has been true. And it isn’t true today.

      Israel’s national IQ is allegedly around 95… and they still aren’t self sustaining.

      • JohnEngelman

        During most of history prosperous people were more prolific. Intelligent people are more likely to be prosperous.

        When civilization begins the military becomes a professional specialty. Military men are less prolific than civilians because it is difficult for them to raise families, and because they have a high death rate.

        • Extropico

          I do agree that civilization can assert a selectivity for intelligence. I’m wrestling with the idea of what mix is necessary for it to endure.

          • JohnEngelman

            Civilization selects for superior intelligence, while selecting against physical aggressiveness.

            Unfortunately, many liberals have become too civilized for their own good, and ours. They cannot understand the mentalities of less evolved races. They think a good environment creates a good people. The opposite is more nearly the truth.

          • Berkeley Guy

            Too civilized for their own good. It’s the pathological altruism concept at work again. I felt it myself at particular points in my life when dealing with some types of people. My altruism was often paid back with property theft, physical threats, or violence. I have changed for the better by keeping a close watch on who receives the benefits of my altruism.

          • Edruezzi

            I’m sure if I asked you to rigorously define the terms “civilization” and “physical aggressiveness” you’d retire this argument for good.

            The most successful human in spreading his genes was Genghis Khan. Did he leave millions of descendants across today’s Eurasia because of his intelligence or his physical aggressiveness? To be more precise, the most average citizens of the civilized communities we’ve had since the rise of agriculture have been ordinary, humble men who rose at dawn and worked diligently on the farm. I’m not sure the Isaac Newton types left more genes in the human population than the average farmer.

          • JohnEngelman

            Genghis Kahn and Isaac Newton are exceptions. Physically aggressive men are more likely to die violently or by capital punishment, or long prison sentences prevent them from having children who survive and reproduce.

            Intelligent men generally prosper, and can provide well for their children.

          • Edruezzi

            Nevertheless, define civilization and physical aggressiveness and show that underdeveloped regions had less of the former and more of the latter.
            Also, my argument remains that the intelligent and intellectual were not specifically at a reproductive advantage in the agrarian past.

          • JohnEngelman

            Civilization is a way of life dependent on cities.

            Physical aggressiveness is a tendency to behave violently. It should be obvious that in a professional environment a man who threatens subordinates, colleagues, and bosses with violence is not going to rise through the ranks.

            It was like that in the past too. Upward mobility has always been largely dependent on superior intelligence.

          • Edruezzi

            I don’t know any gentler and more polite way to ask this, but, pray, have you by chance ever taken psychotropic medication?

            A way of life dependent on cities cannot have exerted influence on gene frequencies if cities were small and the overwhelming proportion of people lived in rural areas.

            You do not seem to know enough about “primitive” communities. Since Africa is the big subject here any anthropologist will tell you that African traditional villages punish violent people.

          • Jotun Hunter

            you cannot see outside the biased prism of modernism. Aggression and force of will are the impetus of civilization, our modern ‘professional’ effete lifestyles are a temporary and doomed bubble.

          • Edruezzi

            In the same vein, I might note that Isaac Newton was a geek before the word was invented.

          • BonV.Vant

            Physically aggressive men are more likely to go into sports , boxing, the armed services or construction. Such people are not more likely to die violently. Criminal people are more likely to die violently.

          • JohnEngelman

            There are not many paying jobs in sports.

          • Bossman

            Farmers want to escape from farming if they could. Working the land has always been considered as a low-status occupation. That is why millions of African slaves were imported into the Americas to do just that. Today the food industry in the USA is very dependent on migrant labor from Latin America.

          • Edruezzi

            Think of some of the derogatory things farmers and rural types have been called in the US and English speaking world alone
            clodhopper, hayseed, hillbilly. Literature is full of savage attacks on the dulling effects of farm life, of girls and boys longing to get away. I mean even the SF film Star Wars is about a farm boy longing to go to the big city. Of course most American kids of 2014 when asked where eggs come from would say a carton, but back in 1977 the story of a farm boy longing for adventure resonated with a lot more Americans.
            Based on all this, the farm is a great place to undergo selection for a high IQ.

          • BonV.Vant

            Genghis Khan may have been illiterate but that does not mean he wasn’t intelligent. There is such a thing as natural intelligence. This has already been discussed on this site. All the education in the world can not turn a bantu Brain into a White Brain. Likewise, a sharp mind will still be sharp, even without education. What Khan accomplished took intelligence.

          • Edruezzi

            Pleased to make your acquaintance, Bon.
            I’ve been waiting for John Engleman to use this argument and he never has. Funny.
            Okay, it’s time to pull out the blunderbuss, nay the nuke.
            I require only two axioms or postulates:

            A. All modern humans descend from a single breeding population.

            B. Any differences in IQ, or any heritable trait, exhibited by different continental populations (a rough proxy for the concept of race) could only have resulted from natural selection.

            If we accept these two axioms, then any defender of hereditary IQs has to show how natural selection led to deviations in different regions in the IQs of different populations. Note what this requires. Recall those illustrations in high school biology texts of how giraffes got their long necks. One illustration purports to show that the long necks got long, literally from stretching, during the lifetimes of the giraffes and they passed it on to their descendants. That is the Lamarckian view. Evolution does not work this way, however. The only way the necks got long is from random and completely undirected mutations for increased neck length showing up. The environment then favored the long neckers, maybe because they could reach vegetation in higher branches.
            It’s the same way with the evolution of IQ. At time t=0 a group of Africans enters Europe and meet harsh weather, right. Now the harsh weather itself cannot make them smarter. What happens is that random mutations for increased intelligence show up and the environment acts by leading to more succesful reprodcution by the people with higher IQ. The problem here is this: did the typical tasks necessary for survival in a frozen neolithic Europe require a boost in intelligence. We may never know exactly how people lived in the paleolithic or neolithic and what they faced but we know what wasn’t there; agriculture, reading, calculus, computers, large political states, skyscrapers, spacecraft. So, are we then to say that selection for the ability to keep a fire going, to build warmer huts, to drive Neanderthals from the warmer caves, to stitch together warmer parkas and mittens, etc, boosted European IQs over “Bantu” IQs? (I might note that very few African Americans are descended from the Bantus). Since we are to take it that the modern African IQ is so low as to reflect the IQ of the stone age, can we say that modern Afros are too stupid to make stone age parkas, build stone age huts, make fires? Modern Africans can turn on televisions and figure out the rules of football, we might note.

          • Zaporizhian Sich

            Yes and evil and great intelligences often go hand in hand too. Ghenghis Khan was one of the most evil men in history, he killed at least 40 million people.

          • Jotun Hunter

            must I remind you, again, that behind the smokescreen of over-confident blather and biased theorizing you are in fact a liberal and diversity-fan? at least in your trolling choose some other identity group to criticize – say ‘non-race-realists’ at least. you would think that a pedantic blow-hard would:1) hone his rhetoric a bit better and 2) be a bit more careful in dotting his ‘i’s

          • M&S

            You assume that civilization is the operative mill by which humanity is filtered and thus an essential element of our uplift.
            I say that civilization is a the bug lamp for the mosquito populations which creates a system of systems _dependent on_ mass labor that only low intelligence can supply because only low intelligence has the metabolic reserves to replace themselves as they bounce off the zapper of societal sustainment.
            The problem is that civilization uses up the stupid without giving them a way to become smart as indolent and able to do other things. They realize this and rapidly are disaffected by the notion of dying in harness doing biped-farm/industry/social support roles.
            OTOH, keeping the rising numbers of the stupid happy enough to keep contributing also acts as a drag anchor for the smart because the smart have tricked themselves into the perception that ‘only by having a bunch of people to do the heavy lifting’ can they create better societies.
            Perhaps that was true, once upon a neverwhen, as resources were far apart and transport was the main driver on societal interchange at economic and materiel levels.
            But what if the real answer is that isolation of populations causes them to develop technologies which are NOT dependent on total dependent participation, i.e. which reduce the need for manpower rather than accommodating it?
            Now, ‘smart people’ will create systems of systems, heavily automated, which allow them to not put up with the mass-breeders negative behaviors (high TFR first among them) and use genomics to create and sustain higher and higher degrees of intelligence to offset a much slower level of resource depletion.
            This is the nature of a society which realizes _all modalities are transitional_ and thus what worked as the methods of the past need not and indeed _must not_ continue to be employed today.
            Because they are unsustainable.
            America is a label, as a ‘society’ or ‘civilizaiton’ it is a collection of parts given animation only by the people who make it work. _Americans_, as descendants of the founder populations of North European Whites are made great by our small numbers and low fertility. Because we are poised, as no other nation or race on earth, to take the next step: which is towards an almost totally automated, reduced footprint, lifestyle.
            Yet our leaders, who grew up under a legacy psychology as much as system which values the mass for their exploitable power to lever up the elites through permissive endorsement and dependent labor, _are not smart_ in seeing that the trends for the future are those which drive us towards either annihilation or a radical change in the way we live because dumb labor isn’t necessary to ‘sustain society’ as a grab bag of empowerment for the elites. And so dumb reproductive rates are an accelerant assurance of massive resource depletion across the board.
            We are led by the greedy and hostaged by the stupid and the vehicle which makes this possible is civilization.
            At least as we know it now.
            We cannot slip back to a preindustrial level. Because we cannot feed ourselves if we do and we have too many industrial accidents (reactors, chemical dumps, simple sewage control issues etc. etc.) to be survivable if we do.
            But to make the shift to a truly automated society which -replaces- the value of hard labor driven neuro-motor skills with neuro-cognitive alternatives is to acknowledge that dumbness costs way too much to provide make-work justification for.
            A population of 100 million white Americans would excel in the new era and as a new species. One point four billion Chinese? Not so much. Two point five billion Africans? Not a hope.
            We must dethrone the greed of our elites, dispossess and deport the stupidity of our dependent classes and stand up a _fully industrial, high technology_ replacement labor system that allows the remaining white populations to survive while we use exogenic genomics to further pump up our population IQ to the point where we are Homo Evolutis, unbreedable with and detached from our genetic precursor species.
            That is the only way past the extinction bottleneck that I see coming, for the rest of the planet’s biped populations.
            Forget civilization. Global Civilization is a 14 billion Ponzi Scheme as labor union whose membership dues destroy our genetic prospects to prop up the unsaveable.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          During most of history prosperous people were more prolific. Intelligent people are more likely to be prosperous.

          —————————
          The Bantu trumps this more than anything.

          • JohnEngelman

            Population growth among the Bantu has not been achieved by anything the Bantu have achieved, but by western medicine and health practices.

          • Edruezzi

            “During most of history prosperous people were more prolific. Intelligent people are more likely to be prosperous.”

            The first sentence has no empirical validity, especially given that poverty has been the lot of the vast majority of mankind.

          • JohnEngelman

            Poverty has not been the lot of those with superior intelligence. Every civilization had an upper class chosen largely by brain power.

        • Edruezzi

          This is like arguing with a main battle tank, or an oak tree.

          1. During most of history, in spite of what Hollywood historical epics teach us, most people lived humdrum lives as rural peasants. If the peasants and the poor outnumbered the aristocrats a hundred to one, a conservative ration, the sheer inertia of the greater numbers of the poor and rural makes your argument untenable. Natural selection cares about numbers more than anything else.

          2. Historians are obsessed about war but its effect on human demographics has been irrelevant. Smallpox alone has killed vastly more people than all the wars of mankind ever did. World War I killed 9 million soldiers, and it was a bloody mechanized war. The Spanish Flu that followed close on its heels may have killed as many as 100 million. Besides, the period of selection that led to the genes most of us are walking around with today came well before organized warfare and civilization.

          • JohnEngelman

            In “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World.,” Gregory Clark reported the results of a study of names recorded in English churches of baptisms, marriages, and funerals. He discovered that the last names of wealthy families became more numerous in subsequent generations, while the last names of poor families declined in number, and eventually ceased to exist.

            He reasoned that wealthy people were more prolific than poor people, because the wealthy people had more resources.

            On occasion, a scion of a poor family would rise, and become prolific. Gregory Clark reasoned from these facts that the general trend has been for the poor to be displaced by the rich, but for exceptional individuals to move up.

        • BonV.Vant

          Asians are very underrepresented in the highest levels of achievement, whether in business, academia or science. Performing well in school, or even economically, simply does not translate into their being the top performers that shape and change their fields.

          • Jotun Hunter

            they have no originality

        • BonV.Vant

          You know nothing about the REAL lives of the Royalty of Europe. The children of the Royal couple were more often than not slow, if not outright disfigured and retarded such as the last Spanish Hapsburg, Charles II. Almost ALL of the Kings of Europe had MANY mistresses, and they were chosen mainly for their beauty while the ability to function in courtly settings was sometimes important, and sometimes not important. More often than not these mistresses came from “peasant” backgrounds. The kings sometimes actually lived with the mistress and raised the children with her while only being a husband and a father to the royal family on a part time basis. The king often did not like his royal family at all, as the marriage was arranged, the wife was not attractive and the kids were spoilt and slow. The inbred children of the kings were notably slower that the kings illegitimate children. The very reason that William the Conqueror invaded Britain is that he was an illegitimate child of a French King and could therefore not inherit land or a title. We can not give him an IQ test, but it would be a good bet that he was a pretty sharp person.

        • M&S

          Original Roman Legions were the exclusive purview of the landed classes with participation being an honor as much as a duty and leading (eventually) to the crixus honorum as a pathway to further power.
          These armies were larger (5-6,000, plus camp followers) than later 2,500 man Legio because they were easier to raise in an environment where agro was predominant and non-elites in the few towns were not allowed to participate.
          Yet it was later, with the rise of the Roman urban Patrician classes that the size of the Empire (and thus it’s presumed success) began to get away from the Roman ability to supply manpower for it, even as these upper classes were particularly hard hit by dropping fertility.
          Methinks you put too much emphasis on the plus-ups of socialized living as a kind of constant selection engine rewarding the decision makers as though they were Viking Heroes mating every with woman they found.
          I would suggest the opposite. That the rise and success of dominant upper classes creates such a social schism between what the nobles need to survive and thrive and what the rest of ignorant masses of society can supply as a function of meeting their own rising expectations of ‘just like the rich’ lifestyles that you reach a threshold point where the highly intelligent elites spend all their time as creative effort reallocating divided resources to keep other’s happy until they lose the ability to create _better versions of themselves_ through a system which elevates intelligence alone.
          Not least because they are in constant competition with each other.
          Intelligence which applies itself, socially, towards sustainable infrastructures for an R-Breeding dumb society thus rapidly loses traction in it’s own elevation as there isn’t enough resources left to ‘make it all worthwhile’ for themselves. Internecine competition ensues and the rich sell each other and their owned populations out until fall back to entropy ensues through a series of Malthusian precipice events (build a population past sustainment, die off, rebuild it to a lower level, die off, each time losing the intelligence as labor skillsets to recapture the prior level of higher living).
          High operant intelligence probably pays an enormous metabolic deficit which suppresses fertility and competition as a focused ability to apply effort to levering up a given survival strategy.
          However; without a means to sustain that method of living without dependence on the stupid, it merely creates a beacon of false hope for by which lower IQ populations are drawn like to feed their own, base, (low IQ = large reserves of fecundity) needs.
          Until the system collapses.
          THIS, one thing, is most likely the reason why societies which were clearly on the verge of major increases in capability via printing, steam and perhaps even electricity always diverted from sustaining the push forward to sustaining needs and desires of the mass of the vox populi until they fell back to nothing.
          Not an absence of knowledge as technology as tools to sustain a given population but an absence of emphasis on pushing technology in preference to having hordes of babies which crashes society as a whole.
          Today, we are in the same position. Except that our society crunches so much raw materials to sustain such a huge base population that if we fall back from here three things will happen:
          1. The smart people, clustered up in urban centers, will die first and foremost as they cannot compete with savagery.
          2. The total genetic base which might again begin creating intelligence people will be so vastly, randomly, depleted by mazcats in the Billions will have a hard time generating new elevated classes because…
          3. The remaining resources will be so scattered and so diffuse (as nature returns iron to iron oxide, ‘ore to metal to dust’) that there will be no way to recover resources expended on the prior society.
          CONCLUSION:
          High intelligence which is accompanied by high altruism as some kind of guilt complex or sense of responsibility for the lower classes, whether out of pity or fear or empathy, is the number one driver in the failure of the very systems which it creates _only for itself_ (because only high intelligence can understand their relative worth as limits).
          Mr. Engleman, history doesn’t show what you say it does. It shows a progression of brief rises followed by ever deeper Dark Age falls and what we are headed for this time is a fallback which could result in a species ending extinction event even as we are on the verge of being speciated into a group which is, at last, able to understand that we are NOT in fact tied to our precursor/divergent group’s fate.
          And that is really sad.

      • Sangraal

        Additionally, the comforts of civilization facilitate dysgenic breeding.

      • benvad

        It’s half Ashkenazi vs half non white jews. Sephardic, Mizrahi, essentially arabs. So 107 vs 85 IQ Points rounds out to 95+ average for Israel.

      • BonV.Vant

        The fate of the Parsis in India corroborates what you are saying. They are almost extinct. They have the highest IQ and the highest level of education in India, yet their numbers are dwindling. They have the lowest rate of reproduction. There are only, I think, 50,000 of them now, in a sea of 1 billion Indians. Soon they will be extinct and the population of India will lose these most intelligent people.

    • Edruezzi

      Your first sentence is dogmatic and is unproven. Given the fact that most people living under “civilization” have been farmers and that “civilized” urban areas have been pestilential, it’s far more likely that civilization has bred for strong backs for farming and for disease resistance.
      Also why does a civilized place like the Middle East degenerate into the Arab Spring while a more recently civilized place like Scandinavia have orderly, and boring, changes of government?

      • JohnEngelman

        Arabs have lower average IQ’s than Northern Europeans. The article that begins this thread says that Arabs have more Negro genes. That would explain it.

        • Edruezzi

          QED, right? Good. That takes care of my second paragraph. I’ve learned you can’t beat the Negro gene argument. At the same time, the Negro gene argument requires different technical resources, including the full arsenal of modern genetics. But what about my first paragraph? Who contributed more to the next generation’s gene pool, circa 1200 AD, the scholar in a world without printing, or the farmer who worked diligently on the farm? History wasn’t Scarlet O’Hara. For most people it was unending drudgery on the farm.
          Let’s look at a very successful and powerful European family. The Hapsburgs at a time controlled most of Europe and even a large tract of what is today Latin America. Where are their descendants today?

          • Bossman

            The word “Pagan” comes from the Latin Paganus and it means peasant which means farm workers. People who were considered stupid and low class.

        • Bossman

          It is very hard to tell what is the problem with Arabs. Is it “Negro genes” or is it that they are still too much hypnotized by the teachings of Mohammed?

    • Andy

      Arabs do not have much in the way of black genes at all. Civilization is not the only thing that breeds for intelligence; I suspect climate has more to do with it. Remember that barbarian Germanic and Celtic tribes were able to become as civilized as Romans within a few generations of conquering them or being conquered by them. The northern parts of Europe did not lend themselves to early city-building, but they may have selected for genes that allowed easy adjustment to city life.

      • Bossman

        The biggest and most important “Arab” country is Egypt. It is fairly obvious that many Egyptians have some Sub-Saharan genes.

        • Andy

          Ethnic Egyptians have very little sub-Saharan admixture. (The map this article links to shows they don’t have much, and it may be even less if the researchers didn’t distinguish between Egyptians proper and various other groups in their country, such as Nubians.) Also, Egyptians are not really “Arab”. Arabs are Semites, and Egyptians are among those who used to be called “Hamitics”. Related groups but not the same. They have a fair bit of Arab admixture from the Muslim takeover, though. (I’ve heard that Copts may represent the ancient Egyptians better.)

          • Bantu_Education

            Hamites are from the Horn of Africa region, not Egypt. Anwar Sadat clearly had a lot of negro blood, why he even married a white woman (half-English).

          • Andy

            The Hamitic languages included Egyptian, all the Berber languages from along the northern coast, and the Cushitic languages like Somali from the Horn. The only Afroasiatic (formerly Hamito-Semitic) languages in Africa that were not once classed as “Hamitic” are the Chadic ones (the very divergent Hausa and related languages) and the Semitic ones (Amhara, Tigre, Tigrinya, and the non-native Arabic). Anwar Sadat was part Nubian on his mother’s side.

      • JohnEngelman

        It took more than a few generations for Celtic and Germanic peoples to emulate the Romans and Greeks intellectually. It took at least many centuries. Also, the Celts and Germans lived in climates where the climate became frozen in the winter. Live in a frozen environment requires more intelligence than life in the tropics.

        • BonV.Vant

          it appears you know nothing about the history of technology. Much of what is attributed to Romans was actually Celtic when it comes to the design of various weapons and armaments. Also, the Celts invented the first mechanical reaper, the “vallus” in the province of Gaul, in the first century AD. It was not adapted throughout the empire and eventually fell out of use because the Romans were afraid of the social upheaval that the displacement of large numbers of slaves would create. The Gallic reaper was the direct inspiration for John Ridley, who devised his own reaping machine in 1843 in Australia.

          • JohnEngelman

            What matters is genes, good genes.

          • BonV.Vant

            And celts and Germanics show they have good genes, and always did. They were just as clever and inventive as the Romans.

          • JohnEngelman

            When Julius Caesar conquered them the Celts had no cities, and no system of writing and mathematics. They and the Germans were at about the level of the Bantu two hundred years ago.

          • Bantu_Education

            Rubbish – the Bantu did not have the wheel let alone war chariots, had not domesticated any animals, and had not even thought of something as simple as internal walls within their huts.

        • BonV.Vant

          The traditional claimants of the inventor of the watermill are the Romans, since Vetruvius refers to them around 20BC. The earliest archaeologic evidence comes from Venafro , a village near pompeii which was buried in 79 AD by the Vesuvius eruption. There has been a horizontal watermill found in Demnark that dates to the first century Ad or later and it may be an independent invention since it is not a vertical waterwheel.

    • BonV.Vant

      you only ever hit that one note

    • Jotun Hunter

      when whites regain their natural dominance snakes like you will be the first in line saying ‘hooray, we did it’ as though you were with us all along, and not rooting for your magical asian/jewish future utopia. You are a traitor of the worst kind, if you are even truly european at all.

      • JohnEngelman

        How can I be a traitor when I was never on your side to begin with? My loyalty is given to decent, law abiding people of all races. In addition, I prefer the company of those who are intelligent, and widely read.

        • Jotun Hunter

          if you were born white (as you cllaim) and enjoy awestern civilization you are a traitor

          • JohnEngelman

            I have the right to choose sides. I will never be on your side.

          • Jotun Hunter

            of course you have the right do do as you please — as did Brutus, Cassius, and Judas

          • Jotun Hunter

            you have the right to do what you like – as did Brutus, Cassius, and judas — ridiculous that my comments are the ones deleted – troll

        • Jotun Hunter

          and you are not intelligent your points are extremely weak – you are not smart or adaptive enough to notice when youve been refuted

  • Spartacus

    But I thought we were all the same ? No ?

    • Berkeley Guy

      No squelch in the sarcasm, received loud and clear. That would be a big fat No. Inequality is a fact of life programmed into the DNA of every organism.

    • Edruezzi

      Actually, the article advances and bolsters the “we’re all the same” argument. One of the planks of the consensus that race has no scientific validity is that different populations have exchanged genes over time, so there are no pure races. In other words, the interbreeding of populations means that it is impossible to split humans into discrete, unambiguous populations. Look at the map that accompanies the article. It shows genes in China coming from as far as Scotland.

      Consider the case of Diana, Princess of Wales. You don’t get more European or “white” than that, right? Well, here’s a snippet from Wikipedia:

      “Diana’s fourth great-grandmother in her direct maternal line, Eliza Kewark, whose daughter was fathered by Theodore Forbes, is variously described in contemporary documents as “a dark-skinned native woman”, “an Armenian woman from Bombay” and “Mrs. Forbesian”.[156] Genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner assumed she was Armenian.[165] In June 2013, BritainsDNA announced that genealogical DNA tests on two of Diana’s distant cousins in the same direct maternal line confirm that Eliza Kewark was of Indian descent, via her direct maternal line.”

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Armenians are a kind of Whites, though somewhat darker than Europeans. Mix them with Europeans for some generations and it won’t be visible at all, which happened in the case of princess Diana.

  • wildfirexx

    We already know the destructive path that Attila the Hun and especially Genghis khan lay waste too in much of central Asia and eastern Europe. They slaughtered most the man folk and raped most of the women impregnating them with their own seed. European stock have been aggressively threatened by invading terrorists for thousands of years, and it continues to this day. Yet, It’s usually always the Whiteman that’s accused of aggressive behavior, and rarely looked upon as the victims.

    • Northerner

      Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan are ancient history. Accusations against whites happen because acts of racism/aggression have occurred in an era where people and their descendants still remember (e.g., black slavery).

      • Berkeley Guy

        And those sentiments of remorse are playing out and dying. Playing the race card becomes more tiresome to European ears each time.

        And what do the accusations say about me? Should I suffer anything bad at all for someone else’s actions? This is a question many Europeans do not ask these days.

      • wildfirexx

        My point is that…White Europeans have always been victims of aggression and crime throughout history. Black slavery in America is also history, but they don’t want us to forget. Spain was overrun by the Moors, and occupied for 400 years until they were finally kicked out, and over those years many thousands of light haired, light skinned female sex slaves were sent back to the harems in North Africa to satisfy the sexual appetite of the Arab war lords. This practice still carries on in some parts of the middle east to this day.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        Wrong, they are not ancient history, given many whites, me included are carrying their DNA. While I am white, I have one visible Asian trait, and that is I do not have heavy body hair and never had a full beard, ever. That is not the norm for European men. They have been the biggest threat to the white race all along, but Africans, Mestizos and Muslims are catching up. Indeed, we have been the targets of far more genocidal aggressors than the reverse. I think it is time for whites to start responding to aggression against their race, with genocides of their own against their attackers. We need to become much more violent and ruthless than we are now, and the simple fact is, our enemies are the ones who are making that happen.

        • benvad

          Here here and this agreement is coming from me. A man who has have Japanese children.

        • jeffaral

          Some asian blood is a problem, but is nothing compaired with mixing with blacks.

    • benvad

      We shouldn’t care about being viewed as aggressors. We should attack and destroy our enemies, that mainly consist of white traitors. Once they’re out of the picture the anti-whites won’t have any direction or leadership. Get rid of Katie Couric types and most of aggravators will be silenced.

  • Edruezzi

    If you stretch the definition of human a bit these have been the major demographic events of the past 40,000 years (since genes and time itself don’t care about our notions of historical time):
    The displacement of the Neanderthals and the Denisovans by modern humans circa 35,000 BC.
    The displacement of the population of the Americas by Europeans and African slaves.
    All the other shifts, like the ones listed in the article, have been insignificant compared to those.
    The article is boring. I want red meat like the use of chromsome painting to discover how “IQ genes” are distributed around the world.

  • Edruezzi

    The toilets don’t flush in a typical Cameroonian university.

    • John R

      So what? How many people in Cameroon even know what a toilet is for?

      • dodger

        We have had newspaper articles concerning foreign students at British universities (Wales actually) where they needed to put up signs (with pictures) showing them the correct way to use a toilet.

  • Jon Doe

    It’s funny how historically, Asians in general (Hun, Mongols, Han, Japanese even Cambodia) were the most notorious brutal human rights violators in all history. Yet, it is the “evil whitey” who is the villain and most portrayed in the Media. Middle Asia and Western Europe like Kazakhstan, Russia, Siberia, Northern India, Turkey etc. Are pretty much Asian, if you look at them. You can see Mongol/Hun Daddies

    • benvad

      The only racial group to even care to mention atrocities or genocides are whites. It’s our inert need to be altruistic & help the helpless, is why anyone would even know about the mistreatment of other humans. We should be like everyone else and look out for ourselves, with out a care for others. Every time we see Christian children’s find or any charity for non whites, just turn off the TV. Don’t donate to UNICEF or Médecine sans Frontière, or any leftist causes.

      Especially Amnesty International! It’s in our best interests if we let survival of the fittest, Mother Nature or whatever take its course and reduce the brown, black populations.

      White survival is paramount.

      • Jon Doe

        I truly believe in the end, when resources starts to dry up and our tech is not advanced enough to start colonizing other planets it will come down to an us vs them scenario. Prison is a good example of what will happen. When you are at the very bottom, there is no such thing as “racist” in Prison. The first thing that happens is you get segregated among your people. The second thing that happens is survival and the last thing that happens is control. The end will be Asians and Whites as it always have been. We have been dominate the past 60yrs or whenever we took Japan out mainly because of Industrialization and science. Unfortunately Asians history as a whole are extremely nationalistic and dominant who have proven to be merciless. They have had peace recently and that allowed them to regroup and catch back up, maybe even advanced. China is building an empirical army of drones and military tech. For what and against who? Who can challenge them? Us thats who. No one else. That already have began extracting from Africa its just a matter of time

        • benvad

          They’re staking their claim and will colonize large portions of Africa. They’ll probably start sterilizing the Africans without their knowledge.

          • Jon Doe

            Ha! China’s ghost cities in Africa and Bill Gates already started it. That’s where the Final war will take place, the French in central Africa, British in Kenya, South Africa, American bases in northern Africa. China also basically just took the south China Sea and the islands. It just hit me, It’s already going down. Survival of the fittest, here we go..

  • The Verdict of History

    Sounds like something right out of a social psychology textbook….

    ————–

    But I do take issue with your use of the term “construct” to describe biological features.

    Social constructs are often invented from thin air, or are designed in response to social problems (conflict) which call for social procedures (conflict resolution) to address those same social problems.

    Race is a superficial expression of underlying biological conditions…underlying realities.

    Racial identity can be subjective, but it is not invented from thin air.

    The existence (and relevance) of race is confirmed through one’s experience.

  • Berkeley Guy

    Very interesting. Yep, they seem to be doing well.

  • Edruezzi

    I think that stuff about a social construct has to be retired. It’s too imprecise and gives people the impression that race is entirely made up. People are treated as belonging to races because of how they look. If I put Samuel L Jackson and Bruce Willis under spectrometers I’ll get different readings. Those readings are not social constructs.

    • The Verdict of History

      I think you’ve offered a very politically correct way of refuting the conventional wisdom.

      The argument of all people being the same defies daily experience and common sense, really.

  • Edruezzi

    Mata Hari, a woman of Dutch descent, was able to fool a lot of people into believing she was of Dutch-Asian descent by her exotic costumes and her stage act.
    I’ll also always remember an Eminem concert. The first five rows were full of black kids, who knew Eminem’s songs by heart and were rapping along.

  • Jotun Hunter

    that is the weakest argument I have ever heard