Views: 4076|Replies: 15

A Scientific Explanation of Aboriginese   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 1

Post time 2013-1-28 10:50:35 |Display all floors
http://www.theoccidentalobserver ... itique-part-5-of-5/

Brenton Sanderson
August 22, 2012

Nobody disputes that the traditional hunter gatherer lifestyle of the Australian Aborigines was severely disrupted by the arrival of Europeans. There were around 300,000 Aborigines in Australia at the time of European colonization in 1788. Their numbers declined considerably in the decades that followed – mainly as a result of diseases contracted from Europeans for which they had no immunity. Aborigines were also killed by Whites in violent clashes on the frontier; however, such behavior was never sanctioned by the governing authorities, and White settlers were charged with murder and executed for killing Aborigines. The 1961 census reported that the Aboriginal population of Australia at around 106,000. This had increased to 171,000 by 1981, and (incredibly) to over 500,000 in the 2011 census. This figure has been inflated by those with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) claiming to be Aboriginal to take advantage of a raft of generous indigenous welfare programs and career opportunities.

Notwithstanding the fact that European colonization had a range of very negative effects on Australia’s indigenous people, the real (though never acknowledged) source of the ongoing social dysfunctional of Aboriginal people is their extraordinarily low average intelligence. In his 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel the anthropologist Jared Diamond, currently a professor of geography at UCLA, declared that the idea that there are genetic factors which cause Europeans to be more intelligent (on average) than Australian Aborigines is morally loathsome. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Diamond observed that

            most laypeople would describe as the most salient feature of native Australian societies their seeming “backwardness.” Australia is the sole continent where, in modern times, all native peoples still lived without any of the hallmarks of so-called civilization – without farming, herding, metal, bows and arrows, substantial buildings, settled villages, writing, chiefdoms, or states. Instead, Australian Aborigines were nomadic or seminomadic hunter-gatherers, organized into bands, living in temporary shelters or huts, and still dependent on stone tools. During the last 13,000 years less cultural change has accumulated in Australia than in any other continent. The prevalent European view of Native Australians was already typified by the words of an early French explorer, who wrote, “They are the most miserable people in the world, and the human beings who approach closest to brute beasts.”

            … When asked to account for the cultural “backwardness” of Aboriginal Australian society, many white Australians have a simple answer: supposed deficiencies in the Aborigines themselves. In facial structure and skin color, Aborigines certainly look different from Europeans, leading some late-19th century authors to consider them the missing link between apes and humans. How else can one account for the fact that white English colonists created a literate, food-producing, industrial democracy, within a few decades of colonizing a continent whose inhabitants after more than 40,000 years were still nonliterate hunter-gatherers. It is especially striking that Australia has some of the world’s richest reserves of copper, tin, lead, and zinc. Why, then, were Native Australians still ignorant of metal tools and living in the Stone Age? It seems like a perfectly controlled experiment in the evolution of human societies. The continent was the same; only the people were different. Ergo the explanation for the differences between Native Australian and European-Australian societies must lie in the different people composing them. The logic behind this racist conclusion appears compelling. We shall see, however, that it contains a simple error.[vi]           
According to Diamond, this simple error consists in failing to take into account the differing environments of Aborigines and Europeans, and how these differing environments determined the divergent historical development of these groups. Totally ignoring the numerous studies showing very large differences in average IQ between Europeans and Aborigines, Diamond posits that Europeans only developed a more technologically advanced society than Aborigines because they were fortunate enough to be situated in a band of “lucky latitudes” running across Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea that made the agricultural revolution possible. They were also fortunate to have many plants and animals suitable for domestication. The comparative backwardness of Aborigines in 1788 was entirely due the corresponding lack of these geographic factors. This, he claims, made it more difficult for them to develop agriculture, which, in turn, delayed their development of science and technology. According to Diamond, geography, not race, determined the contrasting fates of Europeans and Australia’s Aborigines.

The failure of Australia’s Aborigines to domesticate plants and animals is attributed by Diamond to “the lack of domesticable animals, the poverty of domesticable plants, and the difficult soils and climate.”[vii] Yet Diamond confirms that yams, taro, and arrowroot grow wild in northern Australia and could have been cultivated along with two native grasses which could have been bred to produce cereals. Richard Lynn notes that Diamond fails to acknowledge that Australia’s climate is very varied and that “apart from the deserts of the central region is potentially suitable for the agriculture that was developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Europeans.”[viii]

The real reason why the Aborigines continued to live as hunter-gatherers right up to the time of European contact (and after) is most likely that the evolution of sufficiently high intelligence was an essential preliminary for the independent invention of agriculture, with an average IQ of about 80 necessary for this to occur. Lynn notes that the transition to agricultural societies was not possible until people evolved sufficient intelligence to take advantage of wild grasses, and that it was only after the last glaciation that they were cognitively fit to do this. Evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton points out that: “Lynn’s view provides an explanation for why these advances were never made by Negroids or those southeast Asian populations who escaped the rigors of the last glaciation.”[ix] Michael Hart makes the points that “The idea of planting crops, protecting them, and eventually harvesting them is not obvious or trivial, and it requires a considerable degree of intelligence to conceive of that notion. No apes ever conceived of that idea, nor did Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, nor even archaic Homo sapiens. It seems unlikely that such a notion could be originated by a group of humans with an IQ of about 70.”[x]

According to psychologist Richard Lynn, the first attempt to estimate the intelligence of the Australian Aborigines was made by Francis Galton in 1869. On the basis of descriptions of their accomplishments, he estimated that their intelligence was approximately three “grades” below that of the English. Lynn explains that “In Galton’s metric, a grade was equivalent to 10.4 IQ points. Hence in terms of the IQ scale, he estimated the Australian Aborigine IQ at 68.8. Seventeen studies of the intelligence of Australian Aborigines assessed by intelligence tests have shown that this was a fairly accurate assessment. … The median IQ of the seventeen studies is 62 and represents the best estimate of the average intelligence of Australia’s Aborigines”[xi] In 1929 the eminent Australian anthropologist A.P. Elkin had observed that “some races possess certain powers in greater degree … than do others. Thus the Australian Aborigines and the African Negroes are human and have powers but they are not necessarily equal to the white or yellow races.”[xii]



Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2013-1-28 10:51:03 |Display all floors
The findings from studies into Aboriginal IQ have been corroborated by a study showing Aborigines have slower reaction times (reaction time being significantly correlated with IQ), and seven studies showing that the average brain size of Aborigines is significantly smaller that Europeans (brain size being correlated with IQ at approximately 0.4). The most authoritative study of Aboriginal brain size is that of Smith and Beals (1990) which gave a brain size difference between Aboriginal and Whites of 144cc. or about 10 per cent. Four studies put the average IQ of Aboriginal-European hybrids at 78 — about midway between the IQs of Aborigines and Europeans. The low intelligence of the Aborigines is also corroborated by their very low levels of educational attainment. Lynn notes that “Aborigines do poorly in education, consistently with their low intelligence, showing that their low cognitive abilities are not confined to their performance on intelligence tests.”[xiii] As of 1976 no Aborigine had ever obtained a Ph.D. Citing psychological studies showing that Aboriginal Australians had a much stronger self-concept (self-esteem) than Europeans, Lynn makes the point that “These are remarkable results considering the low levels of achievement of Aborigines in school and employment. Similar results however have been found for African-Americans in the United States, and Africans in Britain.”[xiv]

A 2010 report on Aboriginal school performance found that indigenous students in year 9 achieved similar scores last year to non-indigenous students in year 3. …  Of the indigenous students who sat the tests , 40 per cent – 60,000 students – failed to meet national minimum standards, a proportion mirroring the 40 per cent of indigenous families who were welfare-dependent. [Substantial percentages [18-30%, in different states] do not take the test and may be presumed to be likely to not meet minimum standards.) ”Every state and territory has a problem, in every year, in every subject,” the report said. (Indigenous students are six years behind in literacy and numeracy, report says)

Australian Aborigines have much higher rates of crime than Europeans. Studies show that they are 10 times more likely to commit homicide than Europeans, and are 10 to 15 times more likely to commit a serious assault. Aborigines are, consequently, vastly overrepresented in Australia’s prison population. It is common to blame White Australia for this dismal state of affairs. Lynn cites an Australian sociologist who argues that “the key general cause of the perceived criminalisation of Aborigines is universally perceived to be socioeconomic deprivation and consequential exclusion” and that “the underlying issues of unemployment, poverty, ill-health, dispossession, and disenfranchisement are the causes of the over-involvement of Aborigines in prison,” and these are themselves “the product of indirect discrimination.” Lynn notes wryly that “Thus it is the Europeans who are responsible for the high crime rates of the Aborigines.”[xv]

The reality is that a population with a mean IQ of only 62 is congenitally incapable of functioning effectively in a modern technological society like Australia. The observations of the German sociologist Hans Schneider, who studied Aboriginal communities in 1986, retain their relevance today. While the Europeans had built houses for the Aborigines,

the Aborigines do not accept these houses with the result that they are usually unoccupied. Many of them have been deserted, vandalized, or even destroyed. In order to prevent Aborigines destroying their houses, these are now prefabricated out of steel-plated units. Most of the inhabitants live in self-constructed shacks made from branches or sheets of corrugated iron, erected outside of and around the settlement. They have not accustomed themselves to garbage disposal with the result that the surrounding bush land is littered with old cans, bottles, tires, transistor radios, and batteries. Rusty car bodies and unauthorized garbage dumps can be seen everywhere. … The health, education and living standards are well below the Australian average. Almost all the inhabitants are unemployed and fully dependent on social security. They just sit around in a state of boredom and hopelessness. They do not send their children to school. The Aborigines have no problem operating machines or driving cars and tractors, but they have not learned how to service and repair them. Faulty machinery is simply left where it breaks down and transistor radios are thrown away when the batteries are flat. Under the supervision of whites they are able to establish a plantation or cattle station and will work there, but as soon as this supervision and instruction is withdrawn the project collapses.[xvi]

One Australian demographer has observed that “In every conceivable comparison the Aborigines stand in stark contrast to the general Australian population. They have the highest growth rate, the highest birth rate, the highest death rate, the worst health and housing, and the lowest educational, occupational, economic, social, and legal status of any identifiable section of the Australian population.”[xvii] To ascribe this situation exclusively to the legacy of European colonization and the evils of “White racism” in Australia is nonsense. Non-White migrants like the Chinese have somehow managed to overcome this supposedly intractable racism to outperform White Australians in a range of social indicators. Lynn points out that

    the Australian Aborigines are a racial underclass with the same characteristics of the black underclass of the United States, Britain, and Brazil, but they are an even more serious social problem. They have much lower intelligence with an average IQ of 62, as compared with approximately 85 for Blacks in the United States and Britain, and they have worse rates of educational attainment, unemployment, crime, teenage motherhood, welfare dependency, alcoholism, and the other social pathologies of the underclass. In addition they have high fertility that is about double that of Europeans, and although this is to some degree offset by their high mortality, their numbers are growing to the extent that they are approximately doubling every generation.

    There can be little doubt that the syndrome of social pathologies of the Australian Aborigines has a genetic basis. Their shorter gestation times and typically small brain size that underlies their low intelligence, poor educational attainment, and low socioeconomic status cannot be explained by environmental deprivation or European racism. None of this is recognized or at least articulated by any of the Australian social scientists. … None of them even make any mention of the contribution of low intelligence and high psychopathic personality to the social pathology of the Australian underclass.[xviii]  


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2013-1-29 09:52:28 |Display all floors
Has this article improved your understanding of human nature?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2013-1-31 02:02:18 |Display all floors
There is so much biological diversity in humans.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2013-2-4 10:31:29 |Display all floors
Aborigines are great people.  They could have become geniuses, but they were oppressed by the Whites.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 2

Post time 2014-8-8 11:02:46 |Display all floors
Fartman Post time: 2013-2-4 10:31
Aborigines are great people.  They could have become geniuses, but they were oppressed by the Whites ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2014-12-11 08:47:57 |Display all floors
Nice!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.