- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 0 Hour
- Reading permission
http://www.theoccidentalobserver ... itique-part-5-of-5/|
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
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.
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]
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]