The term “South Asians & North Africans” seems to have been created by scientist Richard Lynn circa 2006, and refers to a race Lynn defined as the the people from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf States, the Near East, Turkey, and North Africa (that’s a lot of people!). The idea that all such people can be lumped together into a single race seems to have originated with the geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza who sometimes distinguished between Europeans and non-white European causcasoids. I have no idea whether Sforza had a genetic reason for making this distinction, or if he was just being descriptive but Lynn took a genetic interpretation.
Assuming this is a legitimate race or genetic cluster, Lynn could have just referred to them as “non-white caucasoids” as I do, but perhaps he wanted to emphasize how different they are from whites by dropping the term “caucasoid” and instead using the more long-winded term “South Asians & North Africans”. Still, I like the term “South Asians & North Africans” because it implies a people caught between two worlds: too Southern to be considered Eurasian, too Northern to be considered African.
Still, the term has limited practical use. Imagine a typical Arab being asked what race he is by a stranger:
Stranger: “What race are you?”
Arab: “I’m South Asian & North African”
Stranger: “You mean your dad’s from South Asia & you mom’s from North Africa?”
Arab: “No, they’re both from the Middle East.”
Stranger: “Then why didn’t you just say you’re Middle Eastern?”
Arab: “Because Middle Eastern is not a race; the race is South Asian & North African. Since the Middle East is between both, they get included too.”
It seems the HBD interest in “South Asians & North Africans” emerged after the Septempter 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States which put the worldwide focus on Muslims. Prior to that, I doubt HBD scholars like Richard Lynn & J.P. Rushton showed much interest in this group, with Rushton just lumping them in with other “caucasoids”. But in the years following September 11th, Rushton and his team collected data all the way from Serbia to show that a South Asian ancestry population living there (Roma) had an average IQ of 70. Rushton could have tested the South Asian population in his own country (Canada), and, if they’re anything like Indian Americans would have likely scored well above 100 because of highly selective immigration and high standards of Canadian nutrition, but instead it was off to Serbia to test perhaps the lowest scoring South Asian population ever documented. Rushton would also write an article with a shockingly politically incorrect title: “Indians Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average)”.
I can’t help but wonder if Rushton decided to study South Asians partly because there are a lot of Indian ancestry people in Canadian universities. If these are politically correct, they might have been disproportionately hostile to Rushton’s other racial ideas, which were relentlessly attacked for years.
According to Lynn, “South Asians & North Africans” have IQs half way between whites and sub-Saharan Africans. However Lynn’s data shows African Americans score about the same as non-white caucasoids living in their home countries, probably because the former benefits from better nutrition & white genes. However Lynn claims that when blacks and South Asians are reared in the same environment, the latter have higher IQs. One exception to this rule might be the Caribbean, where there doesn’t seem to be an IQ difference Indians and blacks (though data is limited). Lynn believes this is because the Caribbean attracted a lot of indentured workers who were below the average Indian intelligence. Of course one could argue that the black slaves who were imported to the Caribbean were also below the average black intelligence, but Lynn apparently doesn’t believe this.
Too broad.
Here is the list:
North Africans – part arab, part african, part old Mediterranean
Middle easterners – part arab, part turk, part old mediterranean, tiny part African, tiny part mongol
Turks – part old Mediterranean, part mongol, a gradient from turkey to the land of the yugurs
South Asians – are what they are
Iranians – mix of south Asian and old Mediterranean, plus a little mongol
Kurds – same as Iranian plus some arab
Pakis – same as Iranians only more purely south Asian
It makes sense to me, I also separate Mongoloids between all Asians from Siberians to Indonesians and all Native Americans from Greenland to Chile. I like Hinduism but I dislike India, I can’t think of no culture which stimulates me more than Hindu will all their gods, too bad India remain among the bad countries.
The cluster of Indians, pakis, Iranians, afghans, turks, arabs, Egyptians, berbers is very complex. I have the feeling about five to six dimensional, how much African, European, Mongol, Indian, South Arabian. The perfect mix of these spices would probably be found in Syria.
Native American are in comparison very homogeneous, came over 15k years ago, spread over the continent in 5k years. How fantastic to find a whole prestine continent. Wonder why some of them settled in the amazon forest though.
Rockall your comment was really interesting, so what do you think of the popularity of Korean music in SouthEast Asia? do you think that is related to low IQ? when I said it I am not doubting the quality of Korean music, is the fact that their music is popular in those countries in Korean! do you think people like Indonesians are enough naive to do that? I get Asians like to relate to the Asian faces of Kpop, but the Koreans always release albums in Chinese and Japanese, they sing in the native languages of China and Japan, but they are also interested in the South East Asian market, but ignore the other Asian languages nor sing in English, yet South East Asians accept it … I mean listening to few songs you don’t understand is ok once in a while (the whole world did that with the Korean singer Psy ) but Kpop in South East Asia is another level. I am sure most of them don’t speak good Korean neither. I was into Kpop when I studied Korean seriously, once I lost interest in the language why I would listen to it.
I didn’t know that Korea was such a musically imperialistic nation. I don’t know much about asia at all. I don’t believe it’s got anything to do with iq if people in southern asia listen to the Korean fake music. All Asians are childish, but that doesn’t annoy me in any way. As a European I don’t have much to do with Asian people, and the once I come across are nice and civil, minding their own business.
Jesus, boom shaka lak, it’s like a parody fifteen/twenty years too late. The girls were manlier than the boys, that’s refreshing.
Korean music and drama are not only taking East Asia by strom but has also invaded the Middle East and Latin America. Hundreds of thousands of Saudi youth watch Korean dramas in the privacy of their closed rooms. Saudi girls living a life of restriction are addicted to watching Korean dramas.
The Iranian Elite do not look South Asian at all. Here are some examples:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Mohammad Khatami
Ali Larijani
And South Asian seem like a very general term. Do you think Iranians have any semblance to the Dravidians of Southern India, or Pakistanis for that matter?
Ali Khamenei, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, lots of Christian names on this blog. Maybe my coordinate system lacks one dimension, call it Iranian. Proto-europeans that brought the indo-european languages far down in india, getting more and more mixed on the way. Maybe Iran is a pocket of high concentration. By south Asian I mean precisely south indians speaking non-European languages, not that that language necessarily says very much, but in this case it says something.
Iranians, especially Persians have substantial North European genetic influence. Trust me on this as have interacted with many Persians. There have been Persians I have mistaken as Russians and Englishmen. These kinds of Persians are in a minority now but they have substantial numbers of people with these phenotypes, in other words they are not as rare as one may think. Also the behaviour/ nature of Persians is very different from Arabs or Indians like me. Only 50% of Iranians are Persians.
India has 3 main IQ segments
Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals = 40% of pop = 75- 80 IQ with good nutrition
Caribbean Indians, Fiji , South Africa, Mauritius Indians are 60% from this group
2) Mid level peasant castes – Jat Sikhs, Gujurati Patels, Sri Lankan Tamils,
40% of pop = 90-95 IQ with good nutrition
80% of Canadian, and UK Indians belong to this group, perform at around white levels
3) elite castes, brahmins and merchants = 20% of Indian pop, 105++ IQ with good nutrition
US Indians are 60% from this group
each Indian diaspora IQ reflects the caste blend
3
How are you estimating the IQs of the different subgroups?
About 20 years ago, there was a new quota law, for mid-level castes, and at that time I remember seeing an article that had IQ estimates for the 3 IQ groups –
” 3) elite castes, brahmins and merchants = 20% of Indian pop, 105++ IQ with good nutrition…”
Please kindly spin on the fact that why with “105++ average IQ”, predominantly Brahmin “cities” or regions in India such as Vanarasi, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh have been such a dump for decades and even centuries, having more hungry people today than most of Sub Sahara Africa combined even without courtesy of Communism or larger scale civil wars but with one of the world´s largest UN Food Aid Programme in post WWII era instead, massive efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on toilets and drinking water aside?
You will always find that all the spelling bee winners, geography bee winners, most Indian national merit semifinalist winners, all top Indian performers in Math contests, Intel talent search etc, all belong to the 20% elite castes, and virtually no representation from North Africans and Mid and lower caste Indians and muslims – north african and south asian muslims perform poorly as well
How many Brahmins are Nobel Prize winners?
your statistics are very unlikely.
5 Indian Nobel winners are brahmins, 1 is merchant caste
maybe they are like chinese, high average but not many people at extremes…
I’m not convinced Chinese are underrepresented at the extremes. In a study of 100 Asian American (seven year olds) the mean IQ was 110 and the standard deviation was 15, compared with whites in the same study who had a mean of 102 and an SD of 15 (see table 2):
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/rushton1997intell.pdf
Of course Asian-American is not perfectly synonymous with Chinese, but judging from the identical standard deviations, it seems Asian Americans have just as wide an IQ distribution as whites.
Now I realize mongoloid populations do not produce that many Nobel Prize winners, but winning a Nobel Prize is about more than just IQ. Personality traits like curiosity and psychoticism are also important in creative output, and if Mongoloids are as advanced as Rushton said, they may lack primitive traits like psychoticism
Rushton said Mongoloids have a cautious personality profile. Whites are more adventurous and inquisitive. China could have never produce a Charles Darwin, nor even come up with the idea of HBD. The Chinese explorers saw the inferiority of Africans, but they didn’t bother to understand why, where as the Europeans, such as the Spaniards were more ahead of them, where they understood that their inferior intellect was ripe for wealth extraction and exploitation.
The Middle East and North Africa is the Latin America of the Old World. You’ll find Whites, at least by observation, and a hodgepodge of individuals who are mixed of some sort.
North Africans, disposition-wise, are more hot blooded than South Asians. It’s like comparing Puerto Ricans with Mexicans. They also have prettier women.
Never thought about it that way, Latin America of the old world, but it makes a lot of sense. There is the same undying hope invested in both Latin Americas. Why not call that of the old world “Ladin America”
Latin Americans and Muslims get a long really well.
I know Chavez was friends with Ahmadinejad in the joint struggle against Bush, but their womenfolk are very different. In what way do they get along?
Latin Americans make easy submission to Mohammad. It appeals to them because it’s an aggressive, yet empowering religion, with a simple line for lower IQ individuals, who feel victimized by colonization.
Brazilian northeast is like middle east with miscigenation historic, lower average iq and intelligent endogamic families.
Even, dalits tend to behave less worst than subsaharians, on average of course. Albinos negroids in África are more conscious than blacks and this idiossyncrasie to do all difference. Similar comparative scenario in behavior, to indians and blacks. Same ‘iq’, diferent level of civilized behavior.
Many North Africans look like Puerto Ricans with various levels of sub-saharan admixtures, and behavior is also similar. Aggressive, fiesty and hot-blooded due to sub-saharan influences in genes and culture.
Yes, because they have similar racial combination, mulattoid.
Yes, and also both groups resemble the Southern Spanish population.
This Puerto Rican actress, Adamari Lopez was very stunning during her youth. She looks like she might have some African ancestry, but minimal like some White Brazilians. She however looks like someone who comes from Southern Spain.
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/puerto-rico/images/354595/title/adamari-lopez-photo
She could also pass as Moroccan because I know of a Moroccan girls who looks like her.
Also, Puerto Ricans are descended from people of Southern Spain who share similar genetic makeup with North Africans, whose ancestors, some of them were Spanish Muslims from Southern Spain.
Canary islands??
Yes, and also from Andalusia (Southern Spain), because Spanish spoken in Puerto Rico resembles Southern Spanish. Many of the Spanish immigrants who went to Puerto Rico originated from Southern Spain, and Southern Spain was Muslim in one point in time. I also think a substantial number of North Africans have ancestors who are in fact Spanish, because the Christians tried to kick all the Muslims out of Spain, and most of them went to North Africa.
“North african and south asian” would be better described as “south caucasion”, East/West exists at the same latitudes which generally share the same sunlight, seasons, temperature, etc. This means crops which thrive in certain climates spread more easily East/West than North/South. As crops spread so do people, culture, ideas, technology, etc. Naturally they’d be a greater tendency for an East/West cline than a North/South cline. Therefore, you have a north caucasian cline that runs in a band from Europe all the way across northern Eurasia and a south caucasian cline that runs from north africa across the middle east and southern eurasia. However, that’s much too simple becaus of mountains, seas and deserts. So it’s not really a smoothe cline. It’s rather “chunky” with two big chunks in the middle east and south asia. Of course, there are others such as north africa that’s kind of a hybrid chunk that’s half middle eastern and half unique.
A substantial number of North African Arabs have visible black ancestry.
Some of the Muslim elite came up with the idea of black inferiority and their lack of civilization, and the Spaniards probably learned it from the Muslims, and made it into a science for conquest and exploitation. Both, however failed to learn anything at the end. Spain had the better deal, as they left their bastard dominions in the New World alone, to their own devices.
About Indians/South Asians again – They are in high profile and power positions more so than East Asians.
They are overrepresented as CEOs and political profiles more than any Chinese, Korean or other East Asian group.
There are 3 South Asians in the American media right now.
1) Sanjay Gupta – Current US Surgeon General talking about the health of Americans.
2) Preet Bharara – US Attorney for New York State charging high criminal cases, currently rooting out corruption among NY politicians.
3) Bobby Jindall – Republican Candidate who might run for president.
Indians are more like Jews with IQ more towards the social side while East Asians are more like Northern Europeans with IQ more towards the visual/ technological side. Indians and Jews are both dark mixed Caucasians who lived in the middle zone between the Tropics and the Frigid north. Due to historic high population density (agriculture came here earlier) people here have evolved to compete with other humans. So people here are more cunning, shrewd, good verbal skills to guile the opponent, have more nepotism etc… North East Asians have evolved in the same cold climate situation as Northern Europeans. Thus they have evolved to compete more against nature than other humans. This leads to qualities like altruism, inventiveness, superior tool making etc… Since the Industrial revolution is nothing but superior tool making, it is no surprise that the Industrial revolution was kick started by a Northern European people like the English and other White people industrialized very fast afterwards. And among non-Whites, the Japanese industrialized the first, followed later the Koreans and now followed by the Chinese.
You must realist these regions (South Asia and Middle East and I may also add South East Asians) fall in between the Caucasian stronghold of Europe especially Northern Europe, the Mongoloid stronghold of North East Asia, the Australoid stronghold of Australia/ Papua New Guinea and the Negroid stronghold of Sub Saharan Africa. So these were the regions where these 4 groups interacted and finally interbred from pre historic times. I know human bio diversity is too complicated by breaking us into 4 groups but this theory makes sense in its own right.
In other words, North Africa, Middle East, Horn of Africa, South Asia and even South East Asia are a kind of ancient Brazil- Mexico, race wise. India for example is formed by the mixture of all the 4 races but the most dominant are Caucasoid (Ancestral North Indian) and Australoid (Ancestral South Indian). If you take a train from Pakistan to Sri lanka, the facial structure of the population goes from more Caucasian to more Australoid by the time you hit Karnataka state in India. Also Upper caste Indians are more Caucasian looking while lower caste are more black looking though there are many exceptions to this they are all mixed like Mexico-Brazil. That explains why the average IQ (and looks and skin tone) here is similar to Mulattoes/ Hispanics/ mixed Brazilians.
I believe the first civilizations began in these regions because high IQ Whites and East Asians at some time in the past started migrating south from the harsh cold age Eurasian North. When they reached the Middle East- North Africa- North India latitudes (the middle zone), they found life much easier. They had evolved to just survive in the harsh ice age North Eurasia. Nature will only make you smart enough to just survive not build civilizations. But when these high IQ populations came to the middle zone, because of the ample sunshine etc… and ease of life, survival was no longer a problem for these high IQ people here. Thus they could direct some of their intelligence, resources and time to “higher things” beyond survival and this gave rise to the rise of civilization, monuments, philosophy etc… because now they had more time and energy beyond mere survival. But unfortunately they came across low IQ Negroid or Austaloid populations in these regions with whom they eventually interbred (after many years of apartheid, wars etc…). the resultant population would have an intermediate IQ (IQ in the 80s range), an IQ enough to maintain and flourish in an agriculture age.
I did read somewhere that in most wars high IQ people tend to defeat low IQ people though there are some exceptions. Similarly it has been found that in most wars between a Northern (people away from the tropics) and Southern (people closer to the tropics) populations, the Northerners tend to win. There are few exceptions to the above but in general that seems to be the case. For example Rome never fell to Egypt, Carthage or Judea but to the Germanians. The Chinese were never conquered by the Hmong, Vietnamese or Thai but by the Mongols, Manchus and Japanese. This process has been happening from pre historic times when Northern populations conquered populations living in a warmer zone. This would eventually lead to interracial sex and high IQ genes would be introduced in the Southern population. The problem with Sub Saharan Africans and Papuans is that they were absent from this process which the people of the Middle Zone benefitted from. They remained pure tropical races surviving the tropics with their low IQs.
So now what about the people who remained back in the extreme north like Northern Europe and North East Asia. The problem here, except the North China plains region was that they still lived in a harsh climate (though the climate in Europe and Japan warmed up with time and became more habitable). In the agriculture age, the most important driver of your economy was how much grain you could grow. Northern Europe and Japan/ Korea/ Mongolia had limitations in growing enormous quantity of grains due to climatic conditions unlike places like Egypt, Iraq, the Indian subcontinent etc… Thus in the medieval era they were poorer. Even with Europe Germany/ Scandinavia though ample in water could not compete with say Italy in food production due to climatic restrictions. A similar case can be made for Japan vs China/ Indonesia etc… There was no way England could compete with the Ganges of India in food production even though England had good soil quality. Similarly Scotland could not compete with England because of the topography of the land (more mountains). That explains why England has about 10 times the population as Scotland and was more wealthier. Take this difference and multiply it many times to get the difference between Northern Europe/ Japan Korea on one hand and the Middle zone (India, Middle East etc..) Besides Northern Europeans and North East Asian were located at the edge of Eurasia unlike people in the middle zone and thus could not gain wealth from trade passing through their territories. So even if these populations of the North had higher IQs and other favourable traits they were poorer and more backward than the middle IQ populations in the middle zone.
The Industrial revolution changed all that. Now wealth creation was moving from Agriculture to industry and wealth creation was no longer tied to the amount of grain they could grow in their lands. And it was now the high IQ cold climate populations of Europe and North East Asia finally got their advantage over the Middle Zoners. Also thanks to innovations made in transportation technology in Britain (steam ships), moving resources from the tropics to the temperate zone for manufacturing was easy and cheap. This is what explains why India or the Middle East were so advanced in the agricultural age but now are failures compared to Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc… and the Northern Europe settled places like North America, Australia, New Zealand in this technological age.