"where there's on-going Afrocentrism/race debate."

Jason, I wouldn't call it an Afrocentrism debate, though that subject was touched on peripherally in Doric Greek's, I think it was, criticism of the thesis of Richard Poe's book, "Black Spark, White Fire," as being Afrocentric (which, I gather, is open to question).

From what I saw, it was a debate partly over "Thought's" position that there were no such things as races, which according to him (and of course the leftist neo-Marxist community in general) are merely a "social construct," and partly over the extent to which sub-Saharan and other recent Africans are part of the ancestry of the various European ethnicities or races, including Nordics and Mediterraneans.

"Thought," who of course took part with Richard Poe, Dienekes, and others in a GnXp.com debate over similar subject-matter, is a tenacious debater who does not shrink from taking several adversaries on at once, and who seems to know his subject for the most part, though he carelessly strays into areas where he is less-well prepared. He gives a good account of himself in debate (despite being completely wrong about, for one thing, the validity of claiming that there are no such things as races).

Thought's main interests seem to include educating white Euros and others about: 1) the fact that white Euros are believed to have sprung from remote Negro-like African ancestors who had dark skins and prognathic facial structures when they first arrived in Europe (or in central Asia before going to Europe, as the case may be); 2) the existence of a black-skinned "Caucasian facial look" which is, he says, entirely indigenous to (eastern) Africa and not the result of mixture with Caucasians; 3) the disqualification of the word Negro as applying broadly in any sense whatsoever African "black" folk, one benefit to be gained from this -- apart from increased precision and truth (by Thought's lights) -- being the elimination of a barrier against black African folk in general being able to feel they contributed to the birth of civilization in Egypt and perhaps to a certain extent in the Near East and Fertile Crescent also.

I took part in that exchange in order to defend the position that the denial of the existence of races is untenable.

I mentioned my conviction that race-denial is the product ultimately of the minds of Marxists and neo-Marxists.

(In my first sentence above, I didn't mean that the thesis of Richard Poe's book, "Black Spark, White Fire" was open to question. I meant that the contention -- by Doric Greek I think it was -- that that thesis was an Afrocectric one was open to question. I don't happen to have read that book yet -- but it's looking more and more like I'm going to have to.)

Jason, a few things:

I agree one hundred percent with everything you just said in your comment: 1) the debate did get bogged down in semantics (which was unavoidable given that a participant refused to admit that "races" existed -- it was either dwell on semantics or unilaterally withdraw from the debate altogether); 2) your final paragraph above is one hundred percent right, and 3) the passage by Richard Poe which you quoted is one hundred percent right.

I'll add: in today's world, "people who are inclined toward racial hatred," as you put it, and "racial ideologues" and "their purposes," are to be found just as much -- if not more so -- on the side of the "race-deniers" as on any other side (I would say "more so"). They're not expending so much time and energy devising sophistries aimed at denying the obvious for the weak-minded of the world, for nothing. They've got ultimate intentions which are worse than unpleasant -- they're frightening.

(Sorry for mistaking Poe's quote for your comment!)

"Abortion [including abortion done for sex selection?] is far more prevalent among better-off, town-dwelling, higher-caste and literate women."

Shame on these women and on their husbands: the social class having least "justification" for committing fœticide commits it most.

Does anyone know Hinduism's stance on sex-selection abortion? Does it condemn it? That Judæo-Christianity condemns it is reason for pride at being Judæo-Christian, those who are. (Unitarianism and modern liberal Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, and Reform Judaism and their ilk are scarcely part of Judæo-Christianity.)

The term "fœticide" employed in the article entails recognition that something is being killed. (The clipping of fingernails isn't called "phanericide.")

"All I can say is *sucked in* (just desserts) to all the backward, patriarchal shit-hole societies that practice gender selection at birth (e.g. China, India). Now they can all go to buggery (in a manner of speaking)." -- Jason Soon

Jason, capricious abortion isn't "patriarchal." It's being rammed down throats by the sworn enemies of "The Patriarchy." You use the term "patriarchy" completely wrong here.

"The hard core red America people are anti-intellectual, nativist, anti-evolution, and usually infested with bizarre Christian beliefs." -- Zizka

That view, Zizka, friend, is provincial. By and large, the people inhabiting the "red" part of the map (including those who inhabit the "blue" part geographically or come from it originally or circulate in it socially, but who have, thank God Almighty!, gotten hold of enough wisdom, enough honesty, enough intellect, and enough integrity to dwell in the "red" part spiritually) are more in touch with life's truths than those inhabiting the "blue" part.

Here is your "blue" part:

"As Castro's latest crackdown on dissidents reaches fever pitch, HBO has announced the May broadcast of 'Comandante' -- a documentary about Castro co-directed by Oliver Stone and the Cuban dictator himself. Given the country's patriotic mood, it hardly seems likely that HBO expects 'Comandante' to make money. This one is definitely for love. At least, Hollywood insiders will enjoy it. Breitbart notes in an OpinionJournal.com op-ed, that 'media moguls, celebrity journalists, filmmakers and Hollywood glitterati... continue to break bread with the Cuban dictator and idolize him...' Given the number of Tinseltown celebrities who come knocking at Castro's door, seeking the obligatory private dinner, it is surprising that the Marxist strongman finds time for imprisoning and torturing critics. Yoko Ono recently organized a $6,500-per-head junket for New York media bigwigs to meet Castro -- only the latest in an endless series of similar VIP pilgrimmages. Director Stephen Spielberg described his November meeting with the Cuban tyrant as 'the eight most important hours of my life.' Of his own Castro visit, Kevin Costner remarked, 'It was the experience of a lifetime.' Jack Nicholson said, 'He is a genius.' " ( http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=156 )

Spielberg called it "the eight most important hours in his life"?

What kind ..... now, I ask you, Zizka .... what kind of moral reprobate .... what kind of intellectual failure ..... would it take to say such a thing as that? What in the world could be wrong with the man -- if one could call him a man, and that's a big IF -- who would say such a thing as Spielberg said there?

You won't find your mouth-breathers --- your knuckle-draggers, Zizka --- at such "spiritually red-zone-dwelling" sites as RichardPoe.com, badeagle.com, Counterrevolution.net/vfr, JewishWorldReview.com, FrontPageMag.com, cellasreview.blogspot.com, LewRockwell.com, or how many dozens of others?

Your mouth-breathers --- your knuckle-draggers --- are on the left. Your "blue zone," Zizka, is filled to bursting with 'em.

I dare say Mac Diva, being one herself, feels right at home with them all.

Zizka, I assume your use of "mouth-breathers" ("slack-jawed idiots" being the more traditional term, both expressions being, at bottom, socio-economic "class insults") was an unintended slip instead of a deliberate class insult like James Carville's remark about "dragging a twenty-dollar bill through a trailer park"? Apart from any possible gene-based linkage between a slack jaw and intelligence level, there are individuals among us, especially among the older age groups, who've become life-long mouth-breathers because unfortunately not diagnosed in childhood (perhaps for some socio-economic reason?) as needing to have their congenitally narrow or otherwise partly-blocked upper airways surgically enlarged or their hypertrophied tonsils and adenoids taken out.

Did you recoil indignantly when James Carville made that remark, or when the entire left-wing press corps subjected Paula Jones malevolently, calculatedly to non-stop socio-economic class-insults far worse than anything innocently and benignly uttered here about teeth? Did you?

I would assume you must have.

"The Greeks are irate that the Slavs have stolen a name which should belong to them. They really, really care. As far as I know, they don't claim the territory, just the name, but it's a big deal." Zizka

I'm irate about that too, being generally in favor of meaning in life, and opposed to entropy. That name is fraught with historical (and other sorts of) meaning. It doesn't belong to the Slavs. (If anyone's interested, I'm ethnically half-Slav -- Russian -- and zero Greek.) The Greeks should take the name back for themselves.

" ... the reason I get ticked off about whites gushing about how experiences with non-whites 'changed their whole view on the world' is that they are obviously superficial and patronizing when they say this ... [etc., etc.]" -- Razib

Razib, know that non-PC whites get just as ticked off about this superficial and moronic patronizing as you do. We wonder how non-whites can stomach it.

"Isn’t reproductive fitness independent of the rate of reproduction (assuming the rate is non-zero)?" -- RR

It's hard to see how selection for a trait is taking place if the trait is not manifesting itself phenotypically or behaviorally, unless it's linked to a trait that is.

" ... blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, on average." -- RR

The phrase "intellectually inferior" seems unjustifiably broader than what has been shown (that as a group they have, on average, a lower IQ). The word "intellectually" seems, for all we know, broader than "IQ," and the word "inferior" seems fraught with broader meaning than the word "lower" as in the term "lower IQ." There is a sense in which the number 5 is lower than but not inferior to the number 6.

Rejection of PC doesn't entail disregard for tact, especially where the more correct terms technically are also the more tactful ones. Having a lower average group IQ is a bitter-enough pill for any group to swallow, without their needing to have terms implying additional opprobrium thrown at them.

RR, I'm sorry -- you're right.

I think I'm a little right too, though. ("Intellect" may, for example, encompass things which different groups may have more equal amounts of -- things other than IQ and "intelligence." Think about it. Think about the word "wisdom," let's say.)

(BTW, I absolutely abhor PC and hope my post wasn't taken as a plea for it in any way, shape, or form. It wasn't so meant.)

I just now saw Razib's post, and he's right too. (Now I'll shut up.)

"The oldest mutation, one that causes a blood-clotting disorder known as Factor XI deficiency, occurred 120 generations ago, or 2,200 years ago, when the Jews first became a distinct people in the Mideast."

I thought Jews first became a distinct people around 1600 BC or 1700 BC (Moses later leading them out of Egypt around 1100 BC). Figuring around 30 years to the generation, "120 generations ago" makes around 3,600 years ago, which takes us back to around 1600 BC. So, "2,200 years ago," or 200 BC, must be a typo.

"Local leaders announced today that they would begin accepting immigrants based partly on their wealth and talents and would adjust tax policies to encourage families to have more babies." (from the linked article)

Sooooooooooo .... looks like governments can control domestic birthrates after all! -- and quite easily at that, it would seem! If memory serves, when I suggested as much on another GNXP thread not long ago, I was treated by most who noticed my comment as something from the planet Uranus.

Governments can control and even fine-tune birthrates very easily. Count on it. That governments here and in Europe prefer the massive importation of third-worlders to taking the natality restraints off their own populations is purely political. That can and should be changed.

"absent rather massive cultural changes, such policies would not be very successful" -- Jimbo

But government policy also strongly influences the sort of "cultural changes" which are meant here by Jimbo.

"I doubt govt intervention alone will be effective. Until then, you're jumping to conclusions about the effect govt will have with their new policies." -R

Stay tuned, Jimbo and R. Ya wanna meet and discuss this again in, say ... uhhhhhhh ....let's see ..... nine months from now?

Ikram writes,

"I wouldn't dispose of Jewish clanishness so quickly. First : It would make sense (from a layman's perspective) for a persecuted outsider minority to develop a strong in-group preference.
Second: Even with a high intermarriage rate, there is some concept of 'jew' left in the USA. Compare this with German-Americans, who also have a high intermarriage rate but do not retain a sense of separate identity."

Maybe I'm the odd man out here, but what's wrong with "retaining a sense of separate identity," whether it be for Jewish-Americans, German-Americans, or any other Americans?

Ikram: "Part of the refusal of Jewish-americans to fully assimilate may be cultural, ... "

Jews aren't fully assimilated? Growing up in Queens, NYC, I knew almost nothing but Jews -- and they always looked pretty assimilated to me. I don't see how they could get more assimilated without actually changing into some other group -- and even that wouldn't make them more "assimilated," any more than the other group would become more "assimilated" by changing into Jews.

Razib, I agree with you completely on this. It ranks with the Clintonian (or whoever's it was) pure demagoguery slogan of putting a computer into every classroom -- as if there were any other way to learn geometry than by opening a book and sitting hours a day on one's butt with a pencil and paper, studying it. This stuff MUST be set in motion by behind-the-scenes outfits that stand to profit from the massive state or federal funded sale of computers -- obviously the computer companies themselves, acting through kick-backs to local and national pols.

I have a really dumb question: are men and women of each race attracted most strongly to members of their own race? (I know some aren't, but there are always exceptions. I'm interested in the majority.) Are Negro men attracted strongest to Negro women and vice-versa (the majority)? Are Chinese men ditto to Chinese women and vice versa (the majority)? Etc., etc. I've often wondered about this. I'm white and am attracted most strongly to white women, and I think there's something inborn that makes us each attracted most to our own race.

Skin color means nothing to me in this regard. I'm happily married to a white woman, who could have jet-black skin for all I care and I wouldn't feel less attracted to her (assuming everything else about her was the same). Skin color just has no importance for me. I *can* find oriental women attractive (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan) (on rare occasions, very attractive), but I seldom do and that's always been a mystery for me. Outside of the white world, it's easier for me to find Hindu and Pakistani women attractive than oriental women. I interpret that to be probably because Hindu and Pakistani women are white (caucasian) even though some may have skin the color of chocolate fudge. I worked with some of them once, in Trenton, New Jersey, including a few who were quite dark, darker than Negroes, and quite attractive -- easily as attractive as very attractive white women. In fact I saw no difference between them and white-skinned white women (that's in regard to looks -- in regard to personality they were more feminine and more refined, more dignified, than white women). I think some of the world's most attractive women are found in the Indian sub-continent -- certainly (to me) as attractive as white women, no matter what shade their skin may be. It's hard for me to be attracted to latino women unless they look white. It's impossible for me to be attracted to Negro women. I do not understand why. Though I've tried, I've never succeeded in feeling attracted to one in my entire life and to that there have been no exceptions -- no movie or pop star, no fashion model, no sports figure, none I've ever known or seen passing by on the street -- no exceptions. I have no idea why. It's some combination of looks and personality that just doesn't do it for me, I suppose the explanation must be.

To get back to my point: are the members of every race the same as me, in feeling most attracted BY FAR to members of their own race, way less attracted to some races than to their own race, and unable to feel attracted at all to yet other races?

To counterbalance Martin's comment with one: I recall reading Prof. Paglia's column where she advanced that theory, and I've also heard the exact same theory from someone -- also a woman -- who had never heard of Camille Paglia and claimed the idea was her own. As a man, I can say I've never looked at women's faces in this way -- with this in mind -- and I seriously doubt that any but, conceivably, a tiny minority of men, ever do. This is not even remotely what registers when a woman's face has its effect on a man's brain.

" ... certainly more so than women who think their sole purpose in life is spitting out babies and who are sufficiently gratified to do the laundry." [Feminine women love having babies and adore raising young children with a good husband at the head of the family, Jason -- count on it, those things in life are what fulfill them most. They DON'T enjoy drudgery such as doing the laundry any more than you or I do. Without complaining, they very admirably do housework that has to be done. Period. Because they do it cheerfully and uncomplainingly for the good of the family, some men imagine their feminine wives don't dislike household drudgery -- and, incredibly, may actually make fun of them for it. There is little more boorish in life than such men. If you as a husband can earn enough to pay a woman to come in a few times every week and do the laundry for your wife, she'll respect and love you all the more, and consider herself the luckiest woman on the planet. It's not easy being a baby-maker and baby-nurturer. It's also not something any man with any sense lacks respect for in the least. On the contrary, men of sense find it the most attractive thing in the known universe.]

"While your sister's attitude to pregnant women is rather extreme, I think you are exaggerating the divide between men and your 'wicked feminists' on these. Personally women who aspire to be baby machines and devoid of ambition are to me the least appealing of the species and one I suspect most modern men would avoid at all costs, more so than careerists whom, as I have argued, we can usually distinguish into 3 types." [Jason I respect most of your views as expressed on Gene Expression but here you show yourself not yet in possession of the most fundamental differences between men and women. Check out some of the bitter comments made by women who gave up starting a family so that they could attend to a career. The ones who don't bitterly regret it are a very small minority.]

"Those who prefer anti-feminist fresh-off-the-boat Orientals are welcome to them." [Men who prefer mannish women for their wives are welcome to them. They'll learn. I just hope they don't learn too late and contribute to the 60 percent or whatever it is divorce rate. One more thing about women making grimaces at seeing other women who are pregnant or hearing about other women who have more than one or two children: JASON IF YOU HAVEN'T FIGURED THIS OUT YET, THEY ARE INSANELY JEALOUS! I MEAN, GET WITH THE PROGRAM, MAN! THIS STUFF IS "UNDERSTANDING WOMEN 101"!]

" ... trading in successful older wives you went to college with and are probably socioeconomically equivalent for really attractive younger ones that are less accomplished in income & education...." -- Razib

But this cuts right to the point of Duende's query -- WHY would these men trade in their original wives? What are those wives (or these men) doing wrong? Are they doing anything wrong?

"The sexual revolution, which I generally support, ... " -- Duende

"Generally" support? Which part of it don't you support, then?

"A woman can be feminine without being a bimbo." -- Shell

Truer words were never written. In fact, there are no bigger bimbos out there than Naomi Wolff, Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem, and the list goes on ... (of course, they'd all be MORTIFIED to find out this sad truth about themselves -- who wouldn't be?).

You're sooooo right, "Anonymous Idiot" -- Jimbo was talking nonsense about the importance of demographics! That's why the unstoppable juggernaut of Parsi ( http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=04062002-091157-4598r ) culture and influence has been overwhelming a helpless world, sweeping all before its onslaught.