One of the biggest mysteries of history is why did White Americans travel all the way to sub-Saharan Africa to get slaves, when they had a huge population of Native Americans they could have enslaved. One reason is that Native Americans were more respected than Blacks. But why? In searching for answers, Dinesh D’souza suggests three reasons in his book The End of Racism:
- Native Americans were respected because they lived in the Americas, which Whites viewed as a paradise. The Garden of Eden. By contrast Blacks lived in the thick dense burning hot jungles of sub-Sahara, surrounded by incects and massive snakes. Whites viewed Africa as hell on Earth.
- Native Americans were reddish in skin tone, and that’s a colour Whites respected. By contrast, Blacks were blackish in skin tone an that’s a colour Whites (and all races) associated with darkness and evil.
- Englishmen discovered Blacks at the same time they discovered chimpanzees, and in the same place: Africa. This caused scientists to look for similarities between Blacks and monkeys such as prognathism.
And so it is for these three reasons that Blacks were considered subhuman enough to be slaves, but Native Americans were considered noble savages who reminded Whites of their own ancestral past.
But that still doesn’t fully explain why Whites would risk their lives and travel all the way to Africa to get slaves, and so we see on pg 85, the biggest reason Native Americans weren’t slaves:
…Indians proved quite adept at escaping, and when this happened they faded into the landscape; it was extremely difficult to retrieve runaway Indians who knew the territory. By contrast, Africans could run but they could not easily hide.
So unlike Africans, Indians could adapt: take whatever situation they’re in, and turn it around to their advantage. As my high school chemistry teacher would say “That’s really what intelligence is.”
So in sounds like Whites got so tired of being constantly outsmarted by their Indian slaves that they risked their lives traveling all the way to Africa to find slaves who couldn’t outwit them.
This might explain why Native Americans, despite being the most socially and economically disadvantaged people in society, score 10 IQ points higher on the SAT than African Americans do, even though African Americans are part White. If African Americans did not have White admixture, they might score close to a full standard deviation behind Native Americans.
Scholar J.P. Rushton argued that Mongoloids were more genetically advanced than Caucasoids who were more genetically advanced than Negroids. Rushton believed this because Mongoloids were the newest race, and had the most ice age exposure, while Negroids were the oldest race, and had the least ice age exposure.
I find it interesting that even the least intelligent form of Mongoloid (Native Americans) outsmarted the most intelligent form of Caucasoid (Europeans), during slavery.
I also find it interesting that Native Americans were able to independently create a civilization, something not even Whites did!
I would not call that outsmarting whites, whites after all took over the land and indians could do nothing anywhere in Americas…
Your hypothesis is so over generalized I don’t know where I could start
Keep in mind that that “native Americans” are very diverse in culture,history and even in physiognomy.
In Brazil catholic church advocate to stop slavery against native south Americans. Why??
Probably the greater similarities in personalities, more introversion. The idea of catequización of native Amerindians. I think some part of bible call blacks as son of Can (bible story of sons Can and Abel). The curse of Can, but I’m not sure about.
Sorry, Brothers Can and Abel. ”All” of ”descendants of Can” born with dark skin and the dubious character of Can, which according to the Bible, he would have killed his brother Abel, for envy.
That that…. that that…
Pumpkin Person“I also find it interesting that Native Americans were able to independently create a civilization, something not even Whites did!”
The Mayans, Aztec, Olmec, Inca and some others were civilizations but were not all the same civilization. The Greeks founded Rome so are you saying that Greek(white) civilization came from Mesopotamia and Egypt? Were there civilizations in Europe before the Romans?
As for the quote from Dinesh D’souza
If whites loved native Americans so much why did they kill so many of them. Was killing them better that making them slaves? Dinesh D’souza thinks if you respect other cultures you kill them as equals because slaves are not equal? That would mean it is not because of their skin color but because they were hard to kill. Romans had white slaves but they also killed their people in battle. Whites with the same IQ as themselves.
Dinesh D’souza is delusional. Genocide does not mean you respect a culture. It means you believe they are so sub human they must be genocided not integrated. Nazis respected / loved Jews and Gypsies so they did not make them permanent slaves would be his argument. No, they were just in the way of an agenda. Land is what colonists wanted and a purity of race is what the Nazis wanted. This has nothing to do with love and respect. This is the stupidity of post-modernists thinkers. In war you use the enemy as a resource. The enemy no matter their race is sub human.
Obviously, to commit genocide against a group you must think they are indeed “sub-human”, however, you must also think they are so smart as not to be tamed like an animal (since when are entire species exterminated because they will not cease to willfully attack people?- never).
I laugh when I see anti-semites imply that Ashkenazi Jewish IQs are so low? If they are, why are they apparenetly tricking your smart German Nordic Brothers?
D’Souza is right when it comes to intelligence, but wrong when it comes to any other traits.
Hutus commited genocide against Tutsis because they had the feeling that Tutsis were more intelligent and that they had no chance against them in free market. Germans committed genome against Jews for the same reasons, with Turks and Armenians it is a similar story. Pogroms against Chinese in South East Asia, again a similar story.
When people commit genocide against a certain group they do NOT see this group as sub-humans, low-IQ monkey like creatures. No the usually see them as TOO successful, are somehow overly refined. Often the group of people who commit genocide have a self image of being down to earth guys, honest, physical working people, while they see those they commit genocide against as intellectuals who do not work for their money, but exploit poorer people (which is generally not true).
There are cases of genocides in modern times which were committed by a economical more successful group against a less successful group (Gypsies in Germany), but this is rare, as the more successful group usually do see no point in attacking others.
As far as I understand pre neolithic history genocide happened quite frequent in earlier times, and in those times there of course was no societal stratification, only one tribe against another, so in those times the pattern described above played no role
I agree with most of what you said, that’s what I was trying to say. It is in the premise of the most notable genocides that the victimized group is smarter than the offenders (no matter if they want to admit it or not). However, they believe that the other group is morally inferior, sexual deviants, etc., etc.
And nope, intelligence IS NOT or FUNDAMENTALLY ”adaptation” or ”adapt-ability”, specially for human beings because our actions und reactions tend to be very complex.
As an aside; Nietzsche calls Christianity a slave morality because he replaces the word Love and Patience with Hypocrisy and Self-righteousness. Joseph son of Jacob(Israel) Never hated his master. Being a good person means you do not seek vengeance in your heart. It does not mean God hates you and that is why you are a slave. It means having the self control and humility to know you have done nothing wrong and that you should be virtuous no matter what happens to you. You do not hold grudges because it only makes you unable to see how much better it is to have a clear conscious and emotionally peaceful. If people do wrong to you, you do not excuse those actions but you do try to change your relationship to them and what has happened to you from them in your mind and heart so that in the future it will be possible that things will get better in the future for you. Why be mad and resentful when you can just realize those emotions only hurt yourself. Slavery is wrong and unjustifiable to moral people. It is wrong to treat people differently than you would treat yourself.
” It is wrong to treat people differently than you would treat yourself.”
It’s counterproductive treat people ”equal” if they are different.
Is what happening now in Europe with the rapefugees.
SantocultoIt’s counterproductive treat people ”equal” if they are different.
Fairness should be applied to every one the same way.
Fair is Fair. Disagree?
I would treat a person in a wheelchair the same way I would want the be treated if I was in a wheelchair.
”Fairness should be applied to every one the same way.
Fair is Fair. Disagree?”
Included psychopaths *
If I break a law I should be punished. If a psychopath breaks a law they should be punished. Double standards are not fair. Any category that included identical items must be treated the same. A red ball may not be treated differently than another red ball. But a green ball may behave differently than a red ball. This does not mean other green balls must be treated like red balls. All items in the same category must be treated the same. That treatment is debatable but not arbitrary. People with O negative blood must receive O negative blood. A person with A positive does not require O negative necessarily. It is not arbitrary that O negative people are treated differently than A positive. Only when there are no differences does differently treatment becomes arbitrary and unfair. We must recognize all differences and all similarities between people. Red balls are still balls and green balls are still green but the color may signify that males cannot give birth and females can. Red and green balls may be useful in a census perhaps like bands around babies wrists. Men do not need tampons this does not mean woman have a different number of digits(fingers). Making a gloves only for men is arbitrary. We all in general have five fingers.
If a psychopath “broken a law” (kill people.. Non human animals… Etc etc etc)
You’re very naive here. Psychopaths and other anti social people always will broke the laws and even worse.
They should be punished”
Of course, we will jail them for some years and when they go out of prison they will behave better. It’s serious is not??
Santoculto“You’re very naive here.”
Well you you must consider that they (psychopaths) do fit into a different category than neurotypicals. If we know that there behavior will not change then we must accept that how we deal with them in a different way because they fit into a category which is not neurotypical and thus show that we take a course of action based on those categorical behaviors.
Of course, we will jail them for some years and when they go out of prison they will behave better.
That is stupid. Of course they will not behave better. So we must take a course of actions based on what we know about them. First we must diagnose them, then we must have them under constant surveillance so they commit no more crimes. The current justice system must be changed using the latest technology to reduce crime and to understand the risk people pose to society base on there category.
Fair is abstract word that varies enormously for or in different applicable contexts.
This does not mean fairness is arbitrary.
It does mean perspective shifting is important.
You said very loosely, very typical of leftists neurotypicals. And I interpreted literally, in this respect I am quite autistic.
We have to treat everyone the same.
period.
who **
how **
why**
Santoculto“very typical of leftists neurotypicals”
I think postmodernism is stupid. This does not mean it is absolutely wrong. Their problem is that well some things are arbitrary this does not mean everything is arbitrary. Differences do exist, and similarities do exist. The reject the fact that differences exist.
We have to treat everyone the same.
period.
Again this is stupid. You must treat a five year old in a different way than you treat a 16 year old. That statement is a postmodernist statement that I reject, period.
I made a mistake.
postmodernist reject that similarities exist.
They believe in the blank slate of human nature.
Steven Pinker wrote about it in his book.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
actually they think both similarities and differences do not exist.
it is hard to describe, they think truth does not exist.
Many Europeans do relate Native Americans to there own ancestral past. One man I know said they were simply “a thousand years behind the European conquerors”(which he meant as a small amount).
I personally have been very outspoken on the issue of Native American intelligence and am glad that you are questioning your own estimate that their genetic IQ is 89.
They are mongoloids after all.
Just research Chief Ross and the Civil War. They were smart when it came to politicking.
Great Article, Pumpkin Person!
The smartest Natives assimilated. The Rez is no place for someone with an ounce of intellectual curiosity.
To reject the null hypothesis that intelligence was not responsible for escapes, you would have to bring native americans to Africa and enslave them in a foreign land. I’ve also heard more often that native american slaves tended to die rather than escape.
You also have to take into account Africans were more physically robust, died less of tropical diseases, and committed suicide less compared to Native Americans. But yes, perhaps intelligence had something to do with it. It’s funny (and also sadly pathetic) the number of stories I’ve read about slaves running away and then returning to their masters, finding it easier to be dependent on their slave master than survive on their own.
You also have to take into account Africans were more physically robust, died less of tropical diseases, and committed suicide less compared to Native Americans.
Good points. D’souza also writes:
Many Indians came from fierce tribes which vowed and sometimes secured vengeance….Moreover several Indian tribes were nomadic hunters, and Europeans planters found it exasperating to the point of impossibility to accustom them to the intensive work of settled agriculture
It’s also interesting to note Africans are set to be the most numerous race globally by 2100, while purebred Native Americans have been almost killed off. Sometimes intelligence isn’t so Darwinian.
I haven’t crunched the numbers, but I suspect overall there’s a positive correlation between the population of a race and the mean IQ of a race.
What does that mean? European Jews who are a small population, are generally smarter than East Asians, who are quite numerous. Although we can find several instances that this is not always true. I met some Jews who think “Orientals” are the smartest people.
The Jewish population will grow because Israel keeps growing.
Meanwhile very low IQ populations like pygmies and Bushmen are almost extinct
High IQ populations like East Asians are very large
the African population is set to quadruple before the end of the century. The European population would fall if it were not for immigration from Africa and the Middle East.
thats a really interesting point. When somebody would ask me “whats the most relevant trend in humanity between the years 1500 and 2100?” I`d say: the decrease of the share of the world populations of Mongoloids and rise of the share of Subsaran Africans. The decrease of mongoloids started with the decrease in the Americas and continued with the extremely low fertility in East Asia in the second half of the 21. century. The rise of the subsaharan African population also started in the second half the 21. century and will much likely continue up to 2100.
Today for a population IQ is not relevant for growing. What counts is having characteristic which make Westerners more keen on providing for you and your children. In this regard obviously subsaharan Africans are best
Yes.
In fact, about the only ethnic group that Mark Twain really wrote badly about were the NA.
Twain liked blacks because they had good hearts (read “docile”), and he hated Indians because they were wild,.
If Mark Twain was living today, he would have a different view of blacks. What’s interesting is that many American blacks have traces of European ancestry, and so do the natives. Hispanics can have a combination of all the 3 racial groups.
Well, yes. Being docile in the ghetto isn’t going to get you laid. It’s a positive feedback loop of escalating violence leading to a city that eventually burns to the ground. In all fairness, Glasgow is the same. Only incarceration/hanging combined with forced monogamy can make it stop.
if I just want to observe 150 and 160+ people talking to each other, how can I? I don’t even want to participate, I just want to soak it all up.
The answer is, to some significant degree, positive.
Let’s remember the Valladolid debate that took place in Spain in the midst of the 16th century, and that stated Indian American had soul and couldn’t be slaves anymore (at least, for the Catholic Church).
Such a statement had only been possible because of the “proofs” of civilisation (of intelligence) brought by Bartolomé de Las Casas (music, developed arts). During the debate, the black people slavery hadn’t be challenged at all, for black people not to have a civilisation and for not to be able to build one.
But our talk is to be nuanced : to free Indian American from slavery had also only been possible because they didn’t, at this advanced time, represent a sufficient potential source of benefits, they were just a few (Central Indian American, in the Azteque Empire, were more than 10 millions at the discovery time, it fell in a very fast manner) and they were still dying too easily from sicknesses brough by Europeans.
That’s correct. Even though the Spanish conquerors had a hazy concept of HBD, describing the Indians as dumb savages in the tropics, where they can be exploited, they eventually found them smarter than blacks.
In South America it is pretty clear, the Amerindians there live in an environment to which they are not adapted to. That’s also why they take so many drugs.
Hi Pumpkin, I haven’t commented on here for a while and I guess I did spare a lot of time not doing so. But I keep on receiving your posts in my inbox and bother to check them out, now and then, when their titles make it obvious they’re going to be laughable masterpieces of nonsense…
Let’s start having fun !
“One of the biggest mysteries of history is why did White Americans travel all the way to sub-Saharan Africa to get slaves, when they had a huge population of Native Americans they could have enslaved.”
Well, no, this is only a mystery to the ignorant that you and your supportive readers are. The fact is that the colonization of the Americas is well known to have caused severe population loss in the indigenous communities of this part of the world. Natives died from diseases, extermination, forced labor and dispossession of their lands. All that resulting in the current situation in which pure-blooded natives have become the less numerous and often the most marginalized racial group on their own ancestral land.
Of course, the native population did not experience the same decrease in all parts of the Americas. In Mexico, central America and the Andes for instance, the native and metizo population managed to survive in sufficient numbers and the use of African slaves was very limited. On the contrary, in the Caribbean, where the natives quickly went extinct, they had to be replaced by Africans who were able to survive in an hostile environment in which Europeans would have been unable to become a productive workforce. In places like the USA and Brazil, the Native population was small. However, cases of indians held as chattle slaves have been recorded.
“By contrast Blacks lived in the thick dense burning hot jungles of sub-Sahara, surrounded by incects and massive snakes. Whites viewed Africa as hell on Earth.”
Oh, now Africa is hell on earth, I thought it was an Eden in which survival only required a very basic level of intelligence. Anyway, you have a point, Europeans saw Africa as a very unhospitable place and never ventured in its interior before the very late 19th century. And even when they had established formal colonial control on Africa, Europeans never settled in large numbers as they did in America or Australia, for the simple reason that Africa is a tough place that has done much more for human evolution than did any ice age.
“…Indians proved quite adept at escaping, and when this happened they faded into the landscape; it was extremely difficult to retrieve runaway Indians who knew the territory. By contrast, Africans could run but they could not easily hide.”
So unlike Africans, Indians could adapt: take whatever situation they’re in, and turn it around to their advantage. As my high school chemistry teacher would say “That’s really what intelligence is.””
I would not call this adaptation, Indians were on their ancestral lands, with their fellow tribesmen, all they had to do was to runaway and find shelter in a terry they knew better than anyone else in the Americas.
On the contrary, Africans where thousands of miles away from their homelands, in places that were often quite different from the world they knew before, either Africa or the plantations on which they were born and where the were not allowed to have any knowledge of the outside world. However, the Africans fled in large numbers too. Though this phenomenon was more limited in the USA where they were largely outnumbered by whites and actively chased if found missing on their master’s estate, In Brazil and the Caribbean, communities of runaway slaves (Quilombos, Maroon villages) were very numerous and thriving to the point of being considered threats to the colonies. In some cases, colonial authorities had to sign treatise of peace with Maroon communities. And of course, I could not miss to mention the Haitian revolution which saw the colonial authority being completly overthrown by the African slaves. And I don’t know of any indian Nation or tribe to have succeeded or even seriously attempted to break away from the colonial system.
The fact that natives are more prone to escape slavery is not specific to the Americas. In South Africa for instance, the dutch did not enslave local Africans, they instead bought Malagasys and Malays which were easier to control far from their lands.
“So in sounds like Whites got so tired of being constantly outsmarted by their Indian slaves that they risked their lives traveling all the way to Africa to find slaves who couldn’t outwit them.”
Well the whites did not take much risks. Those who bought slaves in Africa were not not plantation owners or European Bourgeois, those taking part in slave trading expeditions were most often outlaws from European coastal cities and once they reached the shores of Africa, they only had to buy slaves captured by African slave raiders. Moreover, Africa was the closest tropical destination to Europe, going there was certainly not as difficult as going to China, India or South America and the Caribbean.
“This might explain why Native Americans, despite being the most socially and economically disadvantaged people in society, score 10 IQ points higher on the SAT than African Americans do, even though African Americans are part White.”
Native Americans have the worst high school droupout rate of any ethnic group in America, their SAT score represents a lower share of them that it does for any other group. By contrast, Black Americans graduate in larger numbers from high schools that barely require them to be fully litterate to obtain a diploma. Moreover, I wonder what is the share of Native Americans going to such failing schools, I have difficulty believing that the Natives are numerous enough to go by large numbers in schools that are not majority white.
But anyway, the current situation is the following, in the US and many other countries in the Americas, Indians are the most marginalized group, they are even worse off that many Africans in Africa. All that though they had contact with European civilization for centuries with most of them enjoying the status of free human beings and suffering much less instinutional and cultural oppression than Blacks did. But in the end, blacks have managed to make a better and larger place for themselves in most of North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.
I want to be clear though, my point here is not to say that Blacks were smarter than the Natives, the two groups had different histories, went through different challenges and now find themselves in situations that are different and similar at the same time. My end word would be that the way that the two groups were treated by one oppressor tells more about the immorality of that oppressor and those who try to justify oppression as part of a natural order than it tells about the qualities or lack thereof of those who were oppressed.
Afrosapiens, welcome back!
Native Americans have the worst high school droupout rate of any ethnic group in America, their SAT score represents a lower share of them that it does for any other group.
Good point. It could be that the Native > black SAT gap is misleadingly high because the Natives who take the test are more filtered for ability.
However by the same logic, one could argue that the white > black SAT gap is misleadingly low.
“Afrosapiens, welcome back!”
Thanks, but I hope I won’t be here for too long 🙂
“However by the same logic, one could argue that the white > black SAT gap is misleadingly low.”
Maybe, but there are factors to take into account.
First, black and white high school graduates have on average attended high schools which set vastly different accademic standards and the black kids are much less likely to have received additional support such as private lessons or simply parent, siblings or peer assistance. You must be very blind to believe that black and whites are given equal chances of college readiness through the environment in which they grow up.
At the same time, it is quite likely that black and whites do not target the same type of colleges. Blacks are much less likely to ambition attending an elite college where they don’t think they would belong, where they could not afford tuition and side expense. Whites on the opposite are much more likely to push their SAT scores as high as they can without fearing social, cultural or financial barriers.
As far as Natives, I honestly don’t know white type of high schools they attend, nor do I know about their academic goals. But as the comment I posted below states, only 5% of the 51% who graduate from high school proceed directly to four-year college. That suggests that those SAT scores are those of la creme de la creme of the natives, a mostly unsignificant elite acting as a tree hiding a forest of widespread accademic faliure. Now I’m investigating to know whether the Natives do attend failing schools in large numbers, if they have that anti-intellectual oppositional mindset that too many black Americans have. I don’t know what’s going on with them except that I’d rather like to be in the situation of an average African American than that of an average Native.
You must be very blind to believe that black and whites are given equal chances of college readiness through the environment in which they grow up.
No I don’t believe that, I just think that if the SAT is biased against blacks, it’s even more biased against Natives, who live in extreme poverty. And yet Natives dramatically outperform blacks.
You could argue it’s because the Natives who take the SAT are more selected than the blacks who take the SAT, but if selectivity were a major factor, then why don’t blacks (who are more selected than whites) outscore whites?
So neither test bias or sample selection or the combination of the two can neatly explain the White > Native > Black SAT pattern, which is why it’s reasonable to invoke HBD
Let’s take a look at the numbers
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/324,323
As seen on this chart:
-36% of Native American youths live in poverty
-38% of Black American youths live in poverty
-13% of Non-Hispanic whites youths live in poverty
And I don’t believe that test bias is only affects the poor, it’s more complicated than what Pumpkin Person can/wants to understand.
inspite of this: 62% of blacks graduate from high school, 51% of Native Americans and 85% of whites do. In the general population, 17.7% of Black Americans hold a bachelor’s degree, 13% of Natives and do.
“but if selectivity were a major factor, then why don’t blacks (who are more selected than whites) outscore whites?”
They are more selected than whites but those more selected still come from less privileged background. They are three times as likely to be poor and likewise to attend high schools that endure the side effects of poverty and .
“which is why it’s reasonable to invoke HBD”
No Pumpkin, it is not, not in the real world…
No Pumpkin, it is not, not in the real world…
Okay, well when you come up with a better explanation than HBD, you can enlighten us. But the stats you’ve cited don’t come close to explaining why Whites score 7 IQ points higher on the SAT than Natives, who score roughly 10 IQ points higher than Blacks.
Well pumpkin, we’re going to close this debate with some more real world figures, I mean not your IQ astrology and pseudo-historical analysis.
According to this report: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/a-multiracial-society-with-segregated-schools-are-we-losing-the-dream/frankenberg-multiracial-society-losing-the-dream.pdf
The Average Black student attended schools in which 44.8% of students were poor, 71,6% attended schools where more than 50% of students belonged to minority groups
The Average Native student attended schools in which 31.3% of students were poor, 49,7% attended schools where more than 50% of students belonged to minority groups
The Average White student attended schools in which 19.1% of students were poor, 10.8% attended schools where more than 50% of students belonged to minority groups.
In other words, Black students graduate in larger numbers from poorer and more segregated schools. Native students graduate in lower numbers from better and less segregated schools. White students graduate in larger numbers than both groups and benefit from an even better socio-economic environment.
That’s the way things are in the real world pumpkin.
Afrosapiens, let’s simplify the argument by forgetting SAT scores, and focusing instead on test scores of 8th graders (before samples are skewed by dropouts).
At this age (averaging the years 2011 and 2013 together) 20.5% of Native Americans are proficient or advanced at reading, while only 16% of Blacks are.
Native Americans are also doing better at math, with 19% being proficient or advanced, while only 14.5% of blacks are.
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
You can argue this gap is because Native Americans attend better schools, but this argument is weak because Native Americans are probably more likely to be raised by high school dropouts than blacks are, suffer comparable levels of poverty, and the white house declared Native American schooling to be in a state of emergency:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/04/native-american-education_n_6264696.html
“You can argue this gap is because Native Americans attend better schools, but this argument is weak because Native Americans are probably more likely to be raised by high school dropouts than blacks are, suffer comparable levels of poverty, and the white house declared Native American schooling to be in a state of emergency:”
Not exactly, pumpkin. Here’s another variable, 66% of Black children are raised by (young) single parents whereas 53% of Natives are. Family structure, more than family income is well known to affect accademic success and overal well being of youths.
Native American education might well be in a state of emergency but it appears that they face (slightly) fewer structural obstacles than blacks. They go to better schools, have more stable family environments and are a little less likely to grow up poor. But in In the end and as whole, blacks are more likely than natives to graduate from high school and college.
Now let me ask you two questions:
Do you have an idea of what is a bad high school and a bad learning environment ?
Do you know how successful students become successful ?
This is my idea of a bad high school:
Good, and how much can a student have learnt when he graduates from such a school and lives in an academically toxic environment ?
Good, and how much can a student have learnt when he graduates from such a school and lives in an academically toxic environment ?
Not much, but HBDers believe that people who end up at bad schools have low genetic ability to start with, so providing everyone with quality education would certainly reduce absolute differences, it might not reduce relative differences.
Remember IQ is a relative scale (based on rank order).
Remember also my analogy with shoes and height:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/31/height-is-a-useful-analogy-for-iq/
more about Native Americans in education
“The Native American high school graduation rate is 51%. Of those, approximately 5% proceed directly to four-year colleges and only 10% of those students graduate in four years. Of American Indians living on reservations, only half are as likely as white students to persist and obtain a bachelor’s degree. Relative to other minorities and to the general US school-age population, Indian school children are at or near the greatest risks of receiving poor education and underperforming at the elementary and secondary levels (National Center for Educational Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of American Indians and Alaska Natives”, 2008).”
I had questioned the “intelligence” of whomever is behind this site. This post about settles it. If the question you posed were on an IQ test, you would have missed the mark. Don’t you think that *knowledge* of the landscape might have helped with escaping? That makes much more sense than IQ discrepancies.
Not be rude, really, but I think the author needs to work through their racism to really make good use of any intellectual talent lurking under that cloudy judgement. Overtly racist thinking has been disproved time and time again. (..mainly because it’s foolish to ascribe social metrics (IQ) to biological factors (phenotype) 99.99%. Social issues have social explanations. But I digress…)
Don’t you think that *knowledge* of the landscape might have helped with escaping? That makes much more sense than IQ discrepancies.
Obviously knowing the landscape helped, but why assume IQ didn’t also play a big part? Slaves were often taken far from their tribes to unfamiliar territory. Sure, they were a heck of a lot closer to home than the African slaves were and thus had a general familiarity with the type of landscape, but they were still in places they had never been and had to figure out where to hide.
Further, even when black and Native Americans have equal overall IQs, Native Americans (and other Mongoloids) tend to be better at spatial tasks. One theory is this is because evolving to the ice age required visual reasoning.
“I also find it interesting that Native Americans were able to independently create a civilization, something not even Whites did!”
And math, and writing, and astronomy. Etc. Completely isolated from the rest of the world, no Arab or Greek help, all on their own.
“I find it interesting that even the least intelligent form of Mongoloid (Native Americans) outsmarted the most intelligent form of Caucasoid (Europeans), during slavery.”
Except “Native” Americans cluster on their own since they have no outside admixture from other populations due to genetic isolation.
1) You can get anyone to cluster with anyone based on what traits you choose (neutral DNA, selected DNA, skulls, skin color, eye shape, hair color, etc)
2) Based even on mostly neutral genes, they do fit into a broader Mongoloid cluster, just not the specific East Asian cluster:
1) They don’t cluster with other populations due to no outside admixture due to genetic isolation. Don’t know what’s so hard to understand.
2) Source? They’re genetically distinct. I’ve shown that countless times. Even then, native Americans and Europeans share a common ancestor Paternally about 10kya. They were the same population (along with Asians) before the split that made Europeans 6500 ya. All three share the same deep Siberians Yamna ancestry. Catch up on the newest developments from Haak et al and read Evolution Theorist at evolutionistx.wordpress.com. She blogs about Haak et al’s data. Also, of course, Razib Khan as well.
1) They don’t cluster with other populations due to no outside admixture due to genetic isolation.
I just showed you a Cavalli-Sforza tree showing that they do. Here’s another of his diagrams:
Genetic isolation is relative, RR.
They’re genetically distinct.
Genetically distinct compared to who? It’s all relative. Even among Native Americans you can make distinctions. This is just the age-old lumpers vs splitter debate.
I’ve shown that countless times. Even then, native Americans and Europeans share a common ancestor Paternally about 10kya. They were the same population (along with Asians) before the split that made Europeans 6500 ya. All three share the same deep Siberians Yamna ancestry.
That just makes my point even stronger RR. They obviously haven’t been genetically isolated from other Mongoloids for very long.
I didn’t see the image because I commented from the WordPress application. Source?
Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining, correspondence and plane genetic distance analyses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144288
“I just showed you a Cavalli-Sforza tree showing that they do.”
I just asked for a citation for the image and you didn’t provide it.
“Genetic isolation is relative, RR.”
Compared to other peoples in the world, Native Americans are genetically distinct due to no outside admixture from other populations.
Please provide a citation for these images. Just posting pictures with no sources is not cool. Reverse searching the image does not bring up the paper, nor anything leading me to the paper. Please provide citations.
“Genetically distinct compared to who? It’s all relative. Even among Native Americans you can make distinctions. This is just the age-old lumpers vs splitter debate.”
….To the rest of the world. Is that a serious question?
Yea you can make distinctions, but they still cluster on their own. See fig. 2 in this paper.
“That just makes my point even stronger RR. They obviously haven’t been genetically isolated from other Mongoloids for very long.”
See figure 2 in above paper. Read the paper. You are wrong.
I speculate Native americans had the same genetic IQ as Europeans.
No use of arguing with race realist a bitter neo Nazi mongrel. He will come up with pseudo science and fake history inflate false statistics to prove his point that whites are master race. Every accomplishments under the sun is made by whites according to this mongrel. I am yet to see one neutral comment or post from this racist mongrel. May be he must show one post of him being neutral and without being subjective to explain that he is writing pure science not racist pseudo science garbage. What ta say pp and others?
“He will come up with pseudo science and fake history inflate false statistics to prove his point that whites are master race.”
I don’t believe in ‘master races’.
“Every accomplishments under the sun is made by whites according to this mongrel.”
Where have I ever stated this? Point out where I’ve said this on my blog. You won’t though. You leave one-off comments and never respond.
“I am yet to see one neutral comment or post from this racist mongrel. May be he must show one post of him being neutral and without being subjective to explain that he is writing pure science not racist pseudo science garbage. What ta say pp and others?”
Show me some examples or stop talking out of your ass.
First off,. They did not travel to Africa to get slaves. Africans enslaved them and sold them to slave traders. Indians enslaved each other so no they were not too intelligent to be slaves. They were just not good slaves,. Not good like Africans. Mexicans used them as slaves.
For tropical agriculture, African laborers were found more suitable because their resistance to malaria. Indians and Whites died off fast. Moreover, an American farmer (Cuban, Brazilian) did not need to travel to Africa to get workers, independent traders brought them nd offered them cheaply. There was no similar market for Indians or White farm hands. Intelligence had little to do with it/
no market? indentured servants, british and indian, were numerous. boxwallahs are 1/3d of t&t and guyana. georgia was a penal colony.
indians were bad slaves because they died…probably from white man’s diseases africans were immune to.
i meant native american were bad slaves. that’s true.