From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca 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: <4l3lbu$el2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h  <4l3h5l$o42@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
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:4l3h5l$o42@newsource.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25842 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17556 alt.discrimination:45743

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[edit]

>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.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor