From email@example.com Thu Apr 18 08:12:02 PDT 1996 Article: 25842 of alt.politics.white-power Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet From: Laura Finsten
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination Subject: Re: If... Date: 17 Apr 1996 20:46:54 GMT Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer) Lines: 100 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org.McMaster.CA> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4ji3h <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-URL: news:firstname.lastname@example.org Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25842 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17556 alt.discrimination:45743 email@example.com (Ourobouros) wrote:  >About calibres being applied to the head and so forth, Brown. That's "calipers", Mr. Stone. > *Sigh* >Here is the reference posting for the hundredth time for another lazy >liberal: >Marks. J., Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, 1994. >p.160 Table 9.1. >He lists the primary skull shapes. Yes, he doesn't like them (he is >afterall a liberal), but he does mention that anthropologists still use >these shapes today. Miss Finsten doesn't have the honesty to admit it, >and insteads makes derogatry remarks, effectively evading the questions >imposed. Jonathon Marks, "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History", 1995 Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York. p.160 Table 9.1 (only 1 of 16 traits reproduced here) "Traits Mongoloid Am.Indian Caucasoid Polynesian Negroid Cranial broad medium- medium highly long form broad variable " Now, what "shape" did you say "white" folks' heads are, Mr. Stone? And here is what Marks says about this table: "Table 9.1 lists criteria provided by a forensic anthropologist to assist in allocating specific skulls tone of five groups. "The purpose of such an exercise is to assist law enforcement officials by providing them with additional information about a murder victim. None of the traits is perfectly diagnostic; these are average differences, and *do not imply fundamental divisions of the human species into a small number of basic homogeneous types*." (ibid., p.159, my emphasis). Marks is not the only physical anthropologist who emphasises this point about skeletal variation. I have cited two human skeletal biologists elsewhere who say essentially the same thing, and they are certainly not in a minority. But Marks also talks specifically about the cranial (or cephalic) index in another part of his book: "The cephalic index was rapidly adopted [in the nineteenth century] as a key racial feature. ... By this criterion, the peoples of the world were divided into brachycephalics (those with broad, round heads--a high cranial index) and dolichocephalics (those with narrow, long heads--a low cranial index). Those with cranial indices in the middle, around 80, were mesocephalics. *But the system quickly ran into difficulties coping with reality.* For example, the Turks were brachycephalic (84), in contrast to the English, but like the Hawaiians and the Siamese. *The slightly dolichocephalic English (78) were in the company of the peoples of North Africa and Central Australia.* This consequently struck critical observers as an exceedingly artificial way of clustering populations." (ibid., p.121, my emphasis) >Nor will she answer why there is different racial classification between >a half white/black Portuguese and a half white/black Ethiopian. Who, besides you, says that Portuguese are "half white/black", or that Ethiopians are "half white/black", Mr. Stone? Have you seen my other posts about the misunderstandings you seem to harbour about Old World population history that would lead you to ask such an absurd question? Or are you going to turn this into another of those absurd spiels about my dodging your questions? You pose an idiotic and unanswerable question. Really, Mr. Stone, I must say that I honestly do not think that you are interested in knowing about the genetic variation between these populations and, truly, I don't think that you are capable of understanding it even if you were. After all, you thought that "whites" have 88 genes (an average of fewer than two genes per chromosome, Mr. Stone? Really!). You thought that Cavalli-Sforza was claiming to have found an "agriculture" gene. >Now, please take special note of this: You are extremely lazy and inept. >I've never hidden this information, in fact I posted it many a time. Your >incompetence is astounding. Before you reply to any of my posts in >future, please take time to research any of my posts from the past. If >this post is not to your satisfaction, then tough. Do not make sweeping >statements concerning my posts due to your ignorance. But I will make sweeping comments concerning your posts due to your ignorance.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor