Evelynvogtgamble

ifjed5555 wrote:
    >

    > superiority. On the other hand, in the US the English-speaking slave
    > owners fathered tons of children with their slaves, however, the US
    > system made all of the offspring (no matter how white they were) into
    > blacks (and during slavery, into slaves). After the end of slavery,
    > these mixed blood folks mixed in with the black population, and no
    > longer with the white population.

That's not entirely true - if they were pale enough to "pass", they
headed North, where no one knew them, and became "white". (Not because
they thought they were superior to their darker relatives, but because
there was - and I'm afraid to some extent still is - an economic
advantage to being "white" instead of "black" in America.)

Mxsmanic

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > Isn't the prehistoric predecessor of most
    > European tongues known as "Indo-European"?

Yes, but that was a looong time ago, and it is the ancestor of almost every
language in Europe (Hungarian and Finnish are notable exceptions, as is
Basque, I think).

Mxsmanic

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...

    > ... because there was - and I'm afraid to some
    > extent still is - an economic advantage to being
    > "white" instead of "black" in America.

That's debatable. There are innumerable programs to aid blacks in the U.S.,
and relatively few to aid whites. Given constant intelligence,
statistically blacks do slightly better than whites in SES, thanks
(presumably) to these programs.

Tim

On Thu, 08 May 2003 20:50:38 -0700, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
wrote:

    > Tim wrote:
    >> > "Zé Bastos" a écrit dans le message news:
    >> > [email protected]...
    >> >> French are Latins, maybe the less of the latin nations, but they are
    >> > latins,
    >> >> with some influentions of other peoples (every body has, I think),
    >> but
    >> > they
    >> >> are Latins.
    >> Tell that to the Bretons.
    > But are they predominately brunettes? I had the idea they tended more
    > toward fair skin and lighter colored hair.
    >> Tim.

But the statement of "fact" was : "French are Latins..." which is what I
was picking on.
All the ones I've met are dark (all three of them). But that's really
beside the point.
Tim.

Tim

On Fri, 9 May 2003 12:06:12 +0200, J-Ph wrote:

    > "Mxsmanic" a écrit dans le message news:
    > [email protected]...
    >> > but it is not related to the language they speak.
    >> So?
    > So using the word "latin" to describe physical appareance is
    > inappropriate
    > imo.
    > JPh

Oh I don't know, you can say "latin type", when meaning that vaguely
mediterranean look.
Tim.

J-Ph

"Mxsmanic" a écrit dans le message news:
[email protected]...

    > > but it is not related to the language they speak.
    > So?

So using the word "latin" to describe physical appareance is inappropriate
imo.

JPh

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 8/05/03 22:39:

    > In Europe, but not in Africa. Africans prefer exactly the opposite, and
    > even apply chemicals to their skin to lighten it. In fact, recent
    > restrictions placed on photo film developing chemicals in France are
    > partially based on the tendency of many Africans to apply hydroquinone (the
    > main ingredient in many photo developers) to their skin to lighten it.
    > Unfortunately, hydroquinone is toxic when applied carelessly and liberally
    > directly to the skin--some people react to it very badly.

Black on Black prejudice is encountered in various ways throughout
the world, even Africa is not spared.

The book ³Out of America², by K. B. Richburg, New Republic, Basic Books 1997
deals with the experiences of a Black journalist for the Washington Post
in Africa. The title of the book transmits the idea that he found no
African identity in Africa, he as American. He recounts how Black
Africans discriminate with regard to one another and that getting
one identified as a Black American saved his life on several occasions.
The problem in Africa is mainly tribal but many Africans assume inferiority
on the basis of a number of factors, skin hue being one of them. Certainly
White on Black racism does influence how Blacks view themselves, it is one
of the insidious effects of racism. I would also assume that the
untouchables in India assume the same thing.

Whites are not immune to such assumptions. Some comparative tests of
Stanford students showed that when White students are tested along with
Asians, they perform more poorly IF they know they are being judged against
Asians! In California, many Anglos assume they are naturally poorer in
school than Asians, that perhaps the Asians are genetically a bit smarter!

Earl

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 9/05/03 8:57:

    > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" a écrit dans le
    > message de news: [email protected]...
    >
    >> ... because there was - and I'm afraid to some
    >> extent still is - an economic advantage to being
    >> "white" instead of "black" in America.
    >
    > That's debatable. There are innumerable programs to aid blacks in the U.S.,
    > and relatively few to aid whites. Given constant intelligence,
    > statistically blacks do slightly better than whites in SES, thanks
    > (presumably) to these programs.

You`ll have to cite numbers to prove you statement. I know of no "constant
intelligent" statistics on income of Blacks which support your claim.

First, the Statistical Abstracts of the United States does give racial
median income figures. For the year 2000 Abstracts the numbers can be
looked at in terms of family and individuals. Table 744 says for 1998
White Family median income was $49,023, for Blacks, $29,404.

Table 750 list individuals, White Males, $27,646, Black Males $19,321
White Females $14,617, Black Females $13,137.

As for constant intelligence and poverty, the book "Inequality by Design"
by Fisher et al provides some insight into what occurs in the case of Whites
only. Figure 4.6 of that book shows the relationship between poverty levels
for White men and women and AFQT intelligence scores. For a person of
average intelligence, average poverty rates among White women was 11% and it
was 3% among White men. I see nothing in either this book which would
support your claim that "given constant intelligence, statistically blacks
do slightly better than whites".

Where did you get your information?

Earl

Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE15D48.1CF90%[email protected]...

    > You`ll have to cite numbers to prove you statement.

There are about five decades of numbers that prove the disparity in average
IQ, and this disparity correlates well with differences in SES, as do
similar disparities for other identifiable groups.

    > For a person of average intelligence, average
    > poverty rates among White women was 11% and it
    > was 3% among White men.

If you look at black women and men, of average intelligence, the figures
will be slightly lower. However, since blacks overall have a lower average
IQ, there are more poor blacks than whites, proportionately.

Mxsmanic

"J-Ph" a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...

    > So using the word "latin" to describe physical
    > appareance is inappropriate imo.

Not when there is a correlation between language and appearance, as there is
here.

Mxsmanic

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
BAE14FD4.1CF87%[email protected]...

    > In California, many Anglos assume they are
    > naturally poorer in school than Asians, that
    > perhaps the Asians are genetically a bit smarter!

They are right. The average IQ of Asians is somewhat higher than it is for
whites. While this is irrelevant on an individual basis, it does predict
that Asians as a group will perform better academically, and will achieve a
higher SES overall. And they do.

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 9/05/03 14:44:

    > "Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
    > BAE15D48.1CF90%[email protected]...
    >
    >> You`ll have to cite numbers to prove you statement.
    >
    > There are about five decades of numbers that prove the disparity in average
    > IQ, and this disparity correlates well with differences in SES, as do
    > similar disparities for other identifiable groups.

Confusingly written. I am going to drag you back to your original statement
but I will point out that you have not referenced your claims. I don`t
think you can.

Putting your feet back into the fire, you wrote:

    > That's debatable. There are innumerable programs to aid blacks in the U.S.,
    > and relatively few to aid whites. Given constant intelligence,
    > statistically blacks do slightly better than whites in SES, thanks
    > (presumably) to these programs.

to which I said:

"You`ll have to cite numbers to prove you statement. I know of no "constant
intelligent" statistics on income of Blacks which support your claim."

You did not respond to that statement but drifted off.

I am assuming right now you can not find a source for you claim.

Everything I have seen says that it is probable that for the "same
intelligence" Black incomes are much less that Whites. There is a rough
relationships between intelligence and income, and poverty in the same group
of people (Such as only White males) but the data I provided, the source I
cited, indicates that if one changes groups, other factors dominate, like
the sex of the individual. In fact the figure 4.6 in the book "Inequality by
Design" shows clearly that intelligence and poverty rates are different
curves for White Women and White Men. "Dumb" White men have to be pretty
dumb to have the same poverty rates as a woman of average intelligence.

These results alone show that intelligence is not even the dominating factor
to driving people into poverty. Unmarried White women with two children
have an average 65% chance of being in poverty.

In econometric modeling this one was to fit a master equation to explain all
of this one would have to have factors of intelligence, sex, race, class
back ground etc into the model.

    > If you look at black women and men, of average intelligence, the figures
    > will be slightly lower. However, since blacks overall have a lower average
    > IQ, there are more poor blacks than whites, proportionately.

The lower IQs of Blacks is due to their socioeconomic situation not the
reverse! I know of no example in the world in which a underclass does not
score lower on IQ tests that the upper classes. The Koreans in Japan do,
yet they test the same in the USA. The Sephardic Jews in Israel are
"dumber" than those from Europe. Low IQ scores, Crime, and social
inferiority are coupled phenomena. The rough shift is about 10%.
So expect Blacks to score 90% of Whites, the same with Sephardic Jews
in Israel (in France Sephardics have a better reputation!).

I have not seen data on the tested IQs of Black men and women. White men
and women are close to being the same so I expect they are for Blacks too.

Curiously enough, although White women have much higher poverty rates
than White men, and much lower median incomes, they have higher high
school completion rates, and more women than men graduate from college.
So within the White community there is no positive relationship between
intelligence, overall school performance and income. Sex is more important.

The lesson is clear, intelligence does not mean as much as one claims.
The current President of the USA got into both his prep school, Yale and
Harvard out of family connections, i.e. Social back ground and money.
He is as dumb as a door knob but still President of the USA.

Earl

Earl Evleth

in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
[email protected] wrote on 9/05/03 14:47:

    >> In California, many Anglos assume they are
    >> naturally poorer in school than Asians, that
    >> perhaps the Asians are genetically a bit smarter!
    >
    > They are right. The average IQ of Asians is somewhat higher than it is for
    > whites. While this is irrelevant on an individual basis, it does predict
    > that Asians as a group will perform better academically, and will achieve a
    > higher SES overall. And they do.

The problem is that the Stanford Whites scored as well as the Asians if not
told they were competing!

People are dumbed down, they dumb themselves down. Or Society does.

I note again, however is that you don`t document your claim!


Indeed there is data which does show Japanese students testing 10% higher on
IQ tests than Europeans. There is also a claim that IQs vary with per
capita GNPs

This is covered in "IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Richard Lynn and Tatu
Vanhanen," published recently, 2002.

What he STATISTICALLY demonstrates is national GNP and measured IQ go hand
in hand. The world's average IQ is 90, not 100.

The GNP-IQ correlation (see graph at
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) shows a linear construction the
actual data. The correlation coefficient of 0.73, is poor in the physical
science but OK in the social sciences). Visual examination of the data
indicates that a better correlation would be non-linear (GNP = A +BxIQ +
CxIQxIQ) since there is a plateau region where GNP does not change
much with IQ until one is higher than it increases rapidly.

Lynn has the IQ data for 185 nations in table 4 of his own article

http://fp.rlynn.plus.com/pages/artic...ligence/t4.htm

These run from low 60s and low 70 for African countries, in the low
80s for Arab countries. The variations seem to be more regional
that "racial" since Iraq (87) and Iran (84) are respectively
Arab and Persian. Afghanistan (83), Pakistan (81) and India (81)
have nearly the same IQ ratings. As one gets closer to Europe
the IQs go up (Turkey, 90, Greece, 92, Croatia, 90 etc.

Table 4 gives Israel a 94 rating, Table 3 a 90! The surrounding
or nearby Arab countries, Jordan 87, Iraq 87, Lebanon 86, Syria,
87, and Egypt, 83, are lower. Europe proper approaches 100,
Germany at 102, France at 98, Italy 102, Luxembourg 101,
Netherlands 102, Belgium 100, UK 100, or the European
surrogate the US 98 are all the same within statistical
accuracy. Australia 98 and the US were settled partially by
social rejects from England so if people believe that the criminal
classes are inherited, there is a "fact".

There is a lot on web about this book.

I find it no surprise that there is a relationship between GNP and
measured IQ. I would be surprised if it were otherwise.

Of course, if the same study had been done 3000 years ago, England would
have come out around 70 and Middle Eastern Countries around 100, perhaps
with Egypt at the top of the list. That situation would not have changed
that much by 1000 years ago when Islamic culture was sweeping the
middle east and Northern Europeans freezing in their unheated
huts, too stupid to know how to heat them. Historical myopia wins the game
once more.


I won`t discuss the Flynn Effect which shows that people in the US (and
generally) have gained in intelligence some 20 IQ points in the first 50
years of the last century. Around 1900 Americans averaged being morons by
today`s standards.

So much for IQ tests!

Might I conclude, Mxsmanic, that this is an area you know little about?
In not furnishing references you give the impression of writing from off
the top of your head.

Earl

Hatunen

On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:03:59 +0200, Tim
wrote:

    >On Fri, 9 May 2003 12:06:12 +0200, J-Ph [email protected]> wrote:

    >> So using the word "latin" to describe physical appareance is
    >> inappropriate
    >> imo.
    >Oh I don't know, you can say "latin type", when meaning that vaguely
    >mediterranean look.

Like the Greeks?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Magda

On Thu, 08 May 2003 14:41:33 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, Earl Evleth
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... in article [email protected], Mxsmanic at
... [email protected] wrote on 8/05/03 10:49:
...
... > And many Norwegians have dark hair and eyes. Invading Sicilians, perhaps?
...
...
... Kirk Douglas was the perfect Viking. And Jewish!
...
... So much for stereotypes.

Have you noticed the statue of "Spartacus" in the Louvre ? It looks like (the young) Kirk
Douglas in an amazing way - although it was done a century or more before his birth.