I doubt my arguments will convince you, Hydrogonian. Arguing about race issues is a lot like trying to argue about religion. Things just go around and around with no resolution.
You and I would be better off having a few glasses of beer and talking about chick's asses.
Anyway, as I see it, the whole thesis of the book is that some ethnic groups are lower down on the evolutionary and genetic ladder than are others. This is just not what accepted anthropology tells us.
Nobody should take my word for it. They should go to a library and read a few books in the anthropology section, and then compare them with what you see in this book the OP is talking about. As far as I can understand, the current state of science is that there is only one human species in existence today: homo sapiens, and that it spread out over the world and replaced all other species of human many tens of thousands of years ago.
And of course, as this author sees it (or strongly implies it), Nordic Europeans occupy the highest spot on the evolutionary scale. I see this author's arguments as racialism dressed up as legitimate science, and has about as much credibility as those who believe in ancient aliens making the pyramids.
Similar arguments have been made in the past by people like Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Madison Grant. It's all there. They were very open about it. But their thick books are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Going back even more, we can even take a look at the ideas of Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau. He was arguably the major intellectual figure in modern "race theory." In Gobineau's view:
"Everything great, noble, or fruitful in the works of man on this planet, in science, art, and civilization, derives from a single starting point, is the development of a single germ....it belongs to one family alone, the different branches of which have reigned in all the civilized countries of the universe...History shows that all civilization derives from the white race, that none can exist without its help, and that society is great and brilliant only insofar as it preserves the blood of the noble group that created it." ["Inequality of Human Races", XV, 210]
Science just doesn't support his theories. To explain why would involve a whole discussion of how evolution works. We have one human species. Of course there are different ethnic groups, nations, races, etc, and these all have different "personalities." But it's very different to say that some are "inferior" as a matter of evolution.
This is stuff is fascinating, actually. They are making new discoveries all the time. It's hard to imagine, but at one time there were actually different species of human existing simultaneously on Earth. It is amazing to think of that. And imagine what it must have been like to have Neanderthals and modern humans confronting each other in Europe. These were actually different species of humans.
Could they have interbred? I've been trying to find the answer to this lately, and it seems to be yes.
And how about the recent discovery of "homo floresiensis" (the so-called "hobbit man") in Indonesia a few years back? Incredible. There actually existed a diminutive human species that was only 3 or 4 feet tall.
But then homo sapiens spread over the earth, and either absorbed or wiped out all other competitive human species.
Anyway, I do find this subject very interesting.
You and I would be better off having a few glasses of beer and talking about chick's asses.
Anyway, as I see it, the whole thesis of the book is that some ethnic groups are lower down on the evolutionary and genetic ladder than are others. This is just not what accepted anthropology tells us.
Nobody should take my word for it. They should go to a library and read a few books in the anthropology section, and then compare them with what you see in this book the OP is talking about. As far as I can understand, the current state of science is that there is only one human species in existence today: homo sapiens, and that it spread out over the world and replaced all other species of human many tens of thousands of years ago.
And of course, as this author sees it (or strongly implies it), Nordic Europeans occupy the highest spot on the evolutionary scale. I see this author's arguments as racialism dressed up as legitimate science, and has about as much credibility as those who believe in ancient aliens making the pyramids.
Similar arguments have been made in the past by people like Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Madison Grant. It's all there. They were very open about it. But their thick books are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Going back even more, we can even take a look at the ideas of Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau. He was arguably the major intellectual figure in modern "race theory." In Gobineau's view:
"Everything great, noble, or fruitful in the works of man on this planet, in science, art, and civilization, derives from a single starting point, is the development of a single germ....it belongs to one family alone, the different branches of which have reigned in all the civilized countries of the universe...History shows that all civilization derives from the white race, that none can exist without its help, and that society is great and brilliant only insofar as it preserves the blood of the noble group that created it." ["Inequality of Human Races", XV, 210]
Science just doesn't support his theories. To explain why would involve a whole discussion of how evolution works. We have one human species. Of course there are different ethnic groups, nations, races, etc, and these all have different "personalities." But it's very different to say that some are "inferior" as a matter of evolution.
This is stuff is fascinating, actually. They are making new discoveries all the time. It's hard to imagine, but at one time there were actually different species of human existing simultaneously on Earth. It is amazing to think of that. And imagine what it must have been like to have Neanderthals and modern humans confronting each other in Europe. These were actually different species of humans.
Could they have interbred? I've been trying to find the answer to this lately, and it seems to be yes.
And how about the recent discovery of "homo floresiensis" (the so-called "hobbit man") in Indonesia a few years back? Incredible. There actually existed a diminutive human species that was only 3 or 4 feet tall.
But then homo sapiens spread over the earth, and either absorbed or wiped out all other competitive human species.
Anyway, I do find this subject very interesting.