Promiscuity

[crimsonfloyd]

Well half of the links you gave in defence of Africans being more promiscuous were actually on the topics of rape and violence and therefore I felt it was neccasary to show 1) the evolutionary disfunctinality of rape and 2) emphasise a common motivation for rape.

Considering we agree that rape is often an act of power consider the following about South Africa: "Thus were entitled the first of the infamous Pass Laws of apartheid, these prohibiting native movement after 8:00 PM, and requiring, under the threat of flogging, all native workers to carry signed passes to be shown at any time 'to anyone who may demand it...' Additional Masters and Servents Laws prohibited Africans from breaking their contracts no matter how harsh the working conditions. Nothing, however, prohibited death from breaking the contracts. Death rates ran between 8 and 10 percent per year."

Clearly the Africans were the subordinates in a power relationship. Now answer me the following; when a group of people are the subordinates in a power relationship for a long time, how should one expect such a people to react when they enter a position of power?

 

[Norsemaiden]

When a group of people are subordinates in a power relationship for a long time (is there anywhere in Africa where the people aren't permanently in a subordinate power relationship with a brutal dictator?) and then they are allowed to be free of that threat - you expect they should go on a decades long (or much longer) binge of violence and rape? That can't be what the anti-appartheid activists were campaigning for or expecting.

 

[Neith]

I truly believe that if it ever got anywhere near the African rate of rape here in Britain there would be a civil war, such would be the violent reaction to such attacks on members of one's family. I know how angry the men in my family would feel and I am sure they would never perpetrate it on anyone either. I pity you if you can't say the same about your family.

What you say about the increasing whorishness of girls who are happy to have gang bangs in this country is a sad development I agree. The report on Soweto said the school girls were upset about these gang bangs, so they weren't laughing and joking like the boys. It sounds like they felt really helpless and that the men wouldn't be interested in defending them at all.

But Africa is a dangerous place anyway, and individuals don't often go against what the majority want, think, say or do, no matter what country or race we are talking about. Therefore, the likelihood of family members getting revenge on a larger group of people, regardless of what they have done, is small. As far as I am aware, there is a lot of gang culture, and I don't know many people who would attempt to seek revenge against a gang, regardless of what that gang had done. Of course, people might say that they would, but usually when it comes down to it the reality would be much different. This would explain why the girls feel helpless, even if their families were upset about it, there's not much they could do anyway.

Over here, if a family member got revenge for the rape of a female family member, or indeed male family member, they themselves would likely end up in prison and fined, whereas the rapist would probably get damages paid to him and may not even go to prison. It happens all the time. What my family would do is neither here nor there.

Whilst the rate of promiscuity goes up in Britain and anyother country, then rape levels will probably increase anyway.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

When a group of people are subordinates in a power relationship for a long time (is there anywhere in Africa where the people aren't permanently in a subordinate power relationship with a brutal dictator?) and then they are allowed to be free of that threat - you expect they should go on a decades long (or much longer) binge of violence and rape? That can't be what the anti-appartheid activists were campaigning for or expecting.

Consider the fact that children who are raped or molested by thier parents are more likely to rape or molest. Or a more extreme example: scientists were curious to see what would occur to primates who were raised with absolutley no interation with other living beings. They were given a fake mother that would feed them, but would also electrically shock and stab the baby with small spikes from time to time. When the test subjects were placed around other primates they displayed only fear. Some of these primates were then impregnated. When they had thier children they all murdered them, mutilating thier bodys- activities no mother primate (except maybe a human) has ever been recorded doing out of captivity.

Now the point of this analogy is not to say South Africans have suffered through an ordeal as horrid as the test subjects but rather to show the effects of destructive power relationships on the psyche of animals in a controled enviornment (for the record I also believe the scientists who conducted this expiriment deserve to be exicuted). I do think there is a corolation between these, and really all, power relationships. Something else to be considered is how completley foriegn 1) the culture of domination that was originaly was placed in South Africa and 2) the system that is currently in place are to the wolrdview that has developed over centuries is to South Africa. Obviously a people are more likley to act in extreme fashions if they have no traditional understanding of thier surroundings from which they can rationalize them.

Oh and on an older topic, the Bantu were very sucessful agriculturalists in South Africa prior to European invasion.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

This thread is rapidly approaching the close-down phase. Rapidly.

because of my post?
or
because of all the stupid bullshit that prevented me from posting on this thread till yesterday?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Thanks for that LRD. No more mention of race on this thread then.

this thread pretty much fell into being fucking crap when people started trying to compare the promiscuity of one race to another, which is a fucking stupid thing to do because promiscuity/monogomy inclination has to do with pre-natal gender hormone levels, not race

 

[Volcano14]

this thread pretty much fell into being fucking crap when people started trying to compare the promiscuity of one race to another, which is a fucking stupid thing to do because promiscuity/monogomy inclination has to do with pre-natal gender hormone levels, not race

yeah but human races are not hormonally equal. Black girls have their puberty earlier than whites and asians

 

[Volcano14]

This thread is rapidly approaching the close-down phase. Rapidly.

I don't think I will apologize to anyone who feels offended by what I wrote not because I like to be considered an arsehole but because I think what I wrote is pertinent and true.

If this thread is closed by speed I will take private msgs

* * *

Africa has only been "swathed with AIDS" for a few generaton. Africa's cultures were in general much more similar to the previously mentioned tribes then to contemporary African culture proior to the European conlinization of the content, and sex life was nowhere near as promiscuous as it is now. It seems you're suggesting a evolutionary mechanism that would push Africans exceptionally towards sexually promiscuous behavior. Such a trait would take far longer then the time since colonization to dominate a population.

the fact that AIDS has been a plague to Africa in recent times only says nothing about the sexual culture of that continent if AIDS has existed only for a few decades. Surely they can't have watched victorian Englishmen colonials and decided they were going to be sexually promiscuous. They had to have the potentiel in them before even if external pressures or a disruption of their culture by external forces caused it

'Africa's fatal sexual culture spreads Aids'

Also keep in mind that when Europeans colonized Africa they raped the fuck out of the people, and American slave owners were nutorious for raping their slaves.

I doubt the first claim since we would have seen the results (unless all the babies were killed). But I'll wait for that source. As for the 2nd claim I read that african americans have an average of 15 or 20 % of white blood. So it had to come from somewhere

To jump for the "its genetic!" answer, espically with no evidence to support this hypothesis, when there are strong cultural implications for the high number of rapes in African cultures is to choose ignorance.

but again how did whites turned on the sex drive switch of africans ?

For example, in South Africa rape is getting worse post apparthide, however the anthropological thesis on rape states that high-rape cultures have had dramatic changes within the past several hundred years. South Africa has most definitley expierenced such changes. African Americans have as well, going from slavery to freedom, from legally second-class citizens to having equal rights.

'dramatic' and 'changes' are vague terms. Living under a communist regime must be a dramatic change but so would be surviving a famine and having a big chunk of the population moving out of Ireland.

The cultural change that the end of apartheid brought for africans living there was that they could blame whites for all their problems and that they didn't have to face the consequences of their criminal actions or their behavior in general because of their feeling of entitlement. The resentment was understandable but they clearly can't get their minds working on productive tasks. Their country is going down the drain but that's not because of themselves and the ANC, no it's because of whites.

I think the most important cultural change that has happened to both blacks in S.A. and in the US is the lack of fear of retribution and punishment and this is because whites are the ones who have had the most important and dramatic recent cultural change : the idea that most of them feel right now is that everyone and every race is equal to them and that whatever happens to them just doesn't matter - whites can be replaced by other races and it's just fine because opposition to this replacement is the ultimate sin one can commit, the Sin of Racism. You can't deny that it is a very important development and that the consequences of that feeling are far-reaching. This interesting anecdote from a law student is revealing of just how far even intelligent (or perhaps especially intelligent) people go to try to fit the real world into this egalitarian anti-racist feeling :

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/law-school-confidential.html


If a black man raped a white woman in the old racist times in America he knew he would see an angry mob with a rope. That's an incentive not to touch white women. Fear worked for it protected whites. That fear has vanished along with white racial conscience. Now there is all this interracial propaganda on TV/movies and this racial apologies and guilt industry, of which the media and the schools are the main sponsors, which promotes the idea that if it weren't for white racism blacks would be just as good as whites in all caracteristics even if there is no historical evidence that africans as a race have ever achieved what the other races have, culturally and scientifically (and before you object by using Egypt as an example: egyptians weren't blacks) and that the worst thing one can be is a gruesome racist. There's a few millions of white teens dressing up like blacks and espousing black lowlives as cultural heroes, any public figure that say something even remotely possibly racist is forced to apologize in front of the cameras, any racist crime in which whites are the perpetrators is often deemed newsworthy for the national media.

Black now have some kind of chip on their shoulders, thanks to MTV and record companies marketing their 'music' and their liberal allies, and they think everything bad that happens to them is because of whites even if their lives were more secure and their cultural and familial standards higher when there was segregation in the US. All the people I've corresponded with who lived in S.A. in the 1980s said the cities were safe, just as the american cities were relatively safe in the pre-desegregation era.

There can be no 'hate crime' against blacks today (and even less lynchings) without the national media screaming about it and the attorney general demanding the maximum penalty possible, which has greatly contributed to the restraint felt by white men in their relation to blacks a restraint that they would have never conceived only a few decades ago, but there can be black on white gang rapes & murders (and it happens every week) and americans won't hear or read a peep about it and I even doubt the families of the victims feel a racial rage like their grandparents used to.

The whole country has heard of the murder of that black guy James Byrd in Japer TX but very few americans have heard of the Zebra killings or the rape & murder of 10 years old Tiffany Long raped and killed by a gang of 4 blacks.

http://www.eaif.org/chron24.htm

When the white population of these two countries were racist (and had a media which cared for their interests) the countries were much safer than they are today. Now that they believe in the equality of everything and everyone their countries are a mess and nobody is allowed the point the finger at the real causes of the mess and the proponents of the falsehoods that led to it. In the US blacks commit almost half of all the violent crimes and there is only 6 % or so of black males in the country. In S.A. it's tidalwave of black-on-white and black-on-black crime. Yet nobody can publicly say it was better before. That's the most important and far-reaching cultural change in post WW2 America (and in other white countries): the disappearance of white racial consciousness. It has an influence on the crime rate of non-whites especially those of the sexual kind because the incentive not to commit all those crimes against whites, the fear, has vanished. And now with any kind of restraint they used to feel in racist times gone blacks' appetite and brazenness has increased a lot. Their crime rate, at least in the murders category, was still a higher than that of whites in the 19th century but it has exploded when desegregation arrived and all the overt anti-white cultural propaganda appeared in the media.

It's not different with arabs in Europe: they know the whites in front of them are scared to death of being called racists so they exploit the situation. Most rapes reported to the police in Denmark a year and a half ago were committed by ethnic minorities, particularly arabs. In a racist 1920s/USA-like Denmark these people who think twice before raping danish girls.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html

I may sound like an extremist but I've never felt hostility towards non-whites I've met or lived near. The people who deserve my hostility are those white idiots who have swallowed the poison and feel this moral need to destroy their race so that they can have a nice place in the Heaven of Political Correctness.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That was a really well researched post and I wish everyone would read it so that they can educate themselves on matters of which many on this forum know nothing. Especially they should read the list of black on white attacks on the link you gave http://www.eaif.org/chron24.htm

It is important to stress that this is not about racial hatred, but about exposing the truth. The people who have brought about this horrific situation and will not allow a solution are the ones who deserve to be hated.

Volcano's post is an example of one of those truths that people occassionally stumble upon, but then pick themselves up and carry on as if they hadn't read it. That's why humans are doomed.

 

[infoterror]

Scientists have identified two strategies for leaving living descendants. These strategies are called the r-strategy and the k-strategy.

* Remember that R stands for Rapid so that you will remember which strategy is which. R-Selected parents rapidly produce many descendents, but do not provide care for them.

* Elephants are examples of K-selected animals. Female elephants have babies about three years apart, and they have only one each time. The whole group looks after the youngsters, and protects them through childhood and adolescence. By reproducing at a rate that holds their numbers close to constant, elephants are able to survive in stable ecosystems.


http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/biomes/breeding.html

I think you will find that, on an individual level:

* The smarter, nobler, gentler, kinder, more perceptive/insightful, stronger people are bred according to K-strategies.

* The crasser, less aware, more violent, less insightful and more tunnel visioned, burst strength without endurance people are bred according to R-strategies.

* Sometimes you see a line of K- or R-strategied people switching to the other strategy; for K-strats, this is a downfall that works incredibly rapidly; for R-strats, it's an ascendancy that takes many generations to complete. This is part of the "evolutionary plan."

* Whatever populations choose K-strategies will over time become more valued, more favored, more refined and intelligent populations in contrast to whatever else is around them.

* If you wish to apply it to race, good non-controversial examples would be the contrast between Nungs and central Chinese, or the contrast between Falids and Nordids (or more profoundly, Dinarids and Nordids).

 

[Dushan S]

To (eventually) prove theory about promiscuity and race, one should compare two different races living in the same society, and take similar samples of both concerning, age, finance, social position etc. Comparing life in Africa today, that is different with life in western world in nonsence. I mean it is like giving laptop to tribesman taken from the jungle and then taking fact he cannot use it as a proof that black africans are way less intelligent than white people.

When europe was torn by wars in dark middle ages, people were dying from hunger and disseases etc, I guess that may be comparable to situation in africa today. Just a thousand of years has passed since then and this is small compared to hundreds of thousands years of human existence. Finaly, if we go back in time, some of the first civilizations (having developed agriculture) were in middle east and africa, while there was no sign of any civilization in europe. So there is no garantee that in some distant future, africa can't bloom into civilized continent while western civilization as we know it ends in decay.

 

[Norsemaiden]

To (eventually) prove theory about promiscuity and race, one should compare two different races living in the same society, and take similar samples of both concerning, age, finance, social position etc. Comparing life in Africa today, that is different with life in western world in nonsence. I mean it is like giving laptop to tribesman taken from the jungle and then taking fact he cannot use it as a proof that black africans are way less intelligent than white people.

When europe was torn by wars in dark middle ages, people were dying from hunger and disseases etc, I guess that may be comparable to situation in africa today. Just a thousand of years has passed since then and this is small compared to hundreds of thousands years of human existence. Finaly, if we go back in time, some of the first civilizations (having developed agriculture) were in middle east and africa, while there was no sign of any civilization in europe. So there is no garantee that in some distant future, africa can't bloom into civilized continent while western civilization as we know it ends in decay.

Those first civilisations were set up by Whites. You may argue, but there is no conclusive proof, only logic and some evidence.

You must think I am fueled by hatred and nastiness, but really it is a case of that I have taken the red (terrible truth) pill and you have chosen the blue (comfortable ignorance) pill.

Books have been written about how civilisations come into existence. The subject is somewhat complicated and VERY controversial (due to political correctness) but the babyish idea that Africans can just simply start up a civilisation without undergoing generations of extreme evolutionary pressure to necessitate it is plain naive.

Perhaps you may like to consider (but I doubt it) how every White civilisation has taken in millions of non-whites and declined in proportion to their numbers. This process takes a few generations - so it isn't about unfamiliarity with a new culture.

Just because a people is uncivilised, it doesn't mean they are inferior. Generally, the more civilised people are, the more weakened, lacking in necessary instincts and degenerate they are. So get this "racist" idea that civlised people are the best out of your head!

 

[Dushan S]

Those first civilisations were set up by Whites. You may argue, but there is no conclusive proof, only logic and some evidence.

Well it does have certain logic... I mean, we all know that only whites can be civilized, right? So I must agree on this.

You must think I am fueled by hatred and nastiness,

No, why? You mean because you constantly write AGAINST something? (including catolic christians and evil nigga' rapists) Nope, I have no idea why you think that.

but really it is a case of that I have taken the red (terrible truth) pill and you have chosen the blue (comfortable ignorance) pill.

You mean, your opinion is more realistic because it is...it is ... yours? Or in other words, if you think something you must be right because... You have better understanding of reality? You are not subjective?
Damn... I knew I had to take the red one!

Books have been written about how civilisations come into existence. The subject is somewhat complicated and VERY controversial (due to political correctness) but the babyish idea that Africans can just simply start up a civilisation without undergoing generations of extreme evolutionary pressure to necessitate it is plain naive.

I agree- I mean... It is this time machine you were talking about that also travels thru parallel universes? Stuff you were telling me about how you have seen that even in parallel universe where there were only black people in africa, and no whites on planet, they still didn't made any kind of civilization? I mean, we both know they are not capable to do that. It is too damn hot down there!

Perhaps you may like to consider (but I doubt it) how every White civilisation has taken in millions of non-whites and declined in proportion to their numbers. This process takes a few generations - so it isn't about unfamiliarity with a new culture.

Taken, sometimes even in chains on ships transferring slaves? You mean in that sense? Or in a sense of american indians... Taken to "other plane of existence" with "fire guns magic" made by white people? How lucky they were to have us, fine civilized whiteys to help them! I mean... They would live in their stupid vigwams forever!

Just because a people is uncivilised, it doesn't mean they are inferior. Generally, the more civilised people are, the more weakened, lacking in necessary instincts and degenerate they are. So get this "racist" idea that civlised people are the best out of your head!

You are mixing it all up. Civilization is not equal TECHNOLOGICAL civilization. Tech Civilization makes people more "degenerative" because they are loosing their connection with nature and their bodies. However, civilization does not have to be technology oriented. What western civilization has prooved is that technological civilization that is very agressive can destroy or control more spiritualy advanced civilizations. So I am not mixing it, because if you are stating that there could be no civilization in Africa, you are actually completely missing true meaning of term "Civilization". Civilization is more about culture and not about technology, if we need to think about it in such narrow terms at all.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Well it does have certain logic... I mean, we all know that only whites can be civilized, right? So I must agree on this.

No, why? You mean because you constantly write AGAINST something? (including catolic christians and evil nigga' rapists) Nope, I have no idea why you think that.

You mean, your opinion is more realistic because it is...it is ... yours? Or in other words, if you think something you must be right because... You have better understanding of reality? You are not subjective?
Damn... I knew I had to take the red one!

I agree- I mean... It is this time machine you were talking about that also travels thru parallel universes? Stuff you were telling me about how you have seen that even in parallel universe where there were only black people in africa, and no whites on planet, they still didn't made any kind of civilization? I mean, we both know they are not capable to do that. It is too damn hot down there!

Taken, sometimes even in chains on ships transferring slaves? You mean in that sense? Or in a sense of american indians... Taken to "other plane of existence" with "fire guns magic" made by white people? How lucky they were to have us, fine civilized whiteys to help them! I mean... They would live in their stupid vigwams forever!
You are mixing it all up. Civilization is not equal TECHNOLOGICAL civilization. Tech Civilization makes people more "degenerative" because they are loosing their connection with nature and their bodies. However, civilization does not have to be technology oriented. What western civilization has prooved is that technological civilization that is very agressive can destroy or control more spiritualy advanced civilizations. So I am not mixing it, because if you are stating that there could be no civilization in Africa, you are actually completely missing true meaning of term "Civilization". Civilization is more about culture and not about technology, if we need to think about it in such narrow terms at all.

Intelligent life could have evolved from reptiles or even silicon based organisms to make civilisations on other planets. I don't take issue with that. It may even be that they could have black skin. Actually it is the ice age on Earth that caused white skin to evolve and caused the mentality necessary for the creation of civilisation to evolve too. I think ice ages are the necessary evolutionary pressure to create these kind of people. And there are books that claim this too, although the idea is frowned upon by the establishment.

What do you think civilisation means anyway? Civilisation means city life - the word comes from "civil" which is from "civis" meaning citizen, from the Latin "civitatis"meaning state or city. It does NOT mean: nice, peaceful cooperative society. Uncivilised states often have all these qualities.

Civilisations must have cities and a necessary density of population, government, institutions, etc. The 20century historian Lewis Mumford uses the term civilisation to denote "the group of institutions that first took form under kingship. Its chief features, constant in varying proportions throughout history, are the centralization of political power, the separation of classes, the lifetime division of labor, the mechanization of production, the magnification of military power, the economic exploitation of the weak, and the universal introduction of slavery and forced labor for both industrial and military purposes."

Barbarism and savagery are words that have become associated with cruelty and backwardness, while the adjective "civilised" has become synonymous with: advancement, breeding, civility, cultivation, culture, development, edification, education, elevation, enlightenment, illumination, polish, progress and refinement.

The authors of such definitions are obviously "civilised" people. That explains why they use such glowing terms. They would not want to classify themselves as members of a "low, underdeveloped or backward state" of human society.

When you try to look at this objectively - it has often been the case that "civilised" people have been the ones perpetrating extreme cruelty, violence, slavery, etc on perfectly peaceful NON civilised peoples.

We have to question assumptions about civilisations being superior to more primitive ways of life.

Civilisation has now been forced onto Africans for example, because they now have city life and this in itself makes it too late for them to invent it, even if they were capable.

 

[Pessimism]

Actually it is the ice age on Earth that caused white skin to evolve and caused the mentality necessary for the creation of civilisation to evolve too. I think ice ages are the necessary evolutionary pressure to create these kind of people. And there are books that claim this too, although the idea is frowned upon by the establishment.

The ice ages were not directly responsible for the change of the pigment in melanin on the human species. The selective pressures were because of the migration patterns to new areas and staying there over extended periods of time; and the only reason these mutations in the genes happened was because of how much sunlight was focused on the regions of the world that were currently inhabited.

And every single society on earth is affected by the the resources they are near; hence why many societies on this earth have completely different kinship systems (be it desscent structures or affected living conditions), food gathering techniques (pastoralists, agriculturalists, etc), and even societal structures (cheifdoms, moeities, etc).

Civilisation has now been forced onto Africans for example, because they now have city life and this in itself makes it too late for them to invent it, even if they were capable.

Even with the definition you provided (which is unbelievably biased - as it was meant to be taken I presume), I still think what you are referring to has more to do with the affects and different variables of globalization than it does with the concepts of civilization (unless you're referring to the actions of more industrialized societies trying to get their own conceptualized ideas of the term across.)

You are mixing it all up. Civilization is not equal TECHNOLOGICAL civilization. Tech Civilization makes people more "degenerative" because they are loosing their connection with nature and their bodies. However, civilization does not have to be technology oriented. What western civilization has prooved is that technological civilization that is very agressive can destroy or control more spiritualy advanced civilizations. So I am not mixing it, because if you are stating that there could be no civilization in Africa, you are actually completely missing true meaning of term "Civilization". Civilization is more about culture and not about technology, if we need to think about it in such narrow terms at all.

Agreed.

 

[Norsemaiden]

We seem to have a problem agreeing on a definition of civilisation in the first palce. By what criteria would you define a civilisation then? Fair skin is an adaptation to a low light level climate, so it happened gradually as people moved North. We agree thus far don't we.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Here is an excerpt from "Why Civilisations Self-Destruct" by Elmer Pendell.

EVOLUTION IN THE ICE AGES

One of the controlling influences in man's journey to the sapient stage was cold weather. The iceages were harsh schoolmasters who kept asking life-and -death questions. Was a tribe too far north? Did its members have suitable shelter for the winter? Did they have fur clothing? Did they lay in an ample supply of grain, nuts, honey, dried fish? Was wood handy to keep the fires blazing?

Freezing temperatures were not good for individuals in the Ice Ages. But for the species - that is for the descendants of those who survived - the frigid weather was a benefactor. Parents didn't have to worry that their daughters would mate with worthless young men. When nature gets rough, there are no worthless young men! From the standpoint of eugenics, the hostile climate raised the intelligence level of the survivors' descendants sufficiently to pave the way for civilisation.

There were human beings in Europe about 600,000 years or 24,000 generations ago. This was the time of the Ice Ages. The weather had been growing colder and colder for many thousands of years before that. After unnumbered earlier Ice Ages, the Gunz Glaciation was probably the first to affect human heredity. It lasted about 50,000 years. After that came some 70,000 years of mild weather, which has been named the Gunz-Mindel Interglaciation. The Mindel Glaciation was the second such protracted period of selective influence on human survival. A vast ice sheet piled up and extended slowly down into Northern Europe. It lasted, according to the best estimates, from 480,000 to 440,000 BC. From the Atlantic Ocean to the Aral Sea, most of the scattered European band of Homo erectus people must have been killed by the Mindel freeze.

One or more of the ice sheets, which in many places were as much as 10,000 feet thick, reached as far south as London,Calais and Dresden. But half of Belgium was spared, and virtually all of France. To the south, where the ice sheets did not reach, was vegetation, which meant food - and survival - for men and beasts.

Without the Ice Ages there would have been no civilisation, which was the legacy of those who survived the bad times. The great epochs of man grew out of the misery that prevented the reproduction of all but the most resourceful of human specimens.

Ice Age Europeans who did not have the vision to prepare for the worst were not our ancestors. They were no one's ancestors! Our forebears were among the chilblaned, tenacious characters who anticipated bone-cold winters and were ready for them when they arrived. Some of the near relatives of Heidelberg Man, whose remains were found only 100 miles south of the furthest extension of the ice sheet, must have lived through the 40,000 year Mindel Glaciation.

When we speak in terms of generations, it's easy to see there was considerable opportunity for many mutations, both good and bad,and the transfer of the many favourable mutations by mating. Quite a few mutations could have occurred in the 1600 generations during which the Mindel Glaciation was sifting out the unfit.

In its article on the "Pleistocene Epoch" the Encyclopaedia Britannica states: The skeletal parts show that marked evolution took place during the 1,000,000-year stretch of Pleistocene times, particularly in the brain, which increased greatly in size. The artifacts show a gradual progressive increase in perfection and adaptability, which in turn record an increase in intelligence and skill among the people who made them.

End of quote

The Gunz glaciation was the first Ice Age to affect human evolution, 600,000 BC then came Mindel glaciation just after 500,000BC when Heidelberg man existed. The old stone age began 1000 years later, then a thosand years later was Swanscombe Man, then the Riss Glaciation was about 200 thousand BC, and Neanderthal Man arrived at the time of the first Wurm Glaciation (100,000BC), Cro Magnon man about 50,000years later at the time of the second Wurm Glaciation, then came the New Stone Age, and one more Wurm Glaciation soon afterwards. During the good weather, the quality of the humans deteriorated.
"It took three more Ice Ages, the Riss Glaciation and Wurm I and II to raise the inventive quality to the level that resulted in the New Stone Age, when tools were made more expertly and in greater variety."

 

[Dushan S]

Intelligent life could have evolved from reptiles or even silicon based organisms to make civilisations on other planets. I don't take issue with that. It may even be that they could have black skin. Actually it is the ice age on Earth that caused white skin to evolve and caused the mentality necessary for the creation of civilisation to evolve too. I think ice ages are the necessary evolutionary pressure to create these kind of people. And there are books that claim this too, although the idea is frowned upon by the establishment.

What do you think civilisation means anyway? Civilisation means city life - the word comes from "civil" which is from "civis" meaning citizen, from the Latin "civitatis"meaning state or city. It does NOT mean: nice, peaceful cooperative society. Uncivilised states often have all these qualities.

Civilisations must have cities and a necessary density of population, government, institutions, etc. The 20century historian Lewis Mumford uses the term civilisation to denote "the group of institutions that first took form under kingship. Its chief features, constant in varying proportions throughout history, are the centralization of political power, the separation of classes, the lifetime division of labor, the mechanization of production, the magnification of military power, the economic exploitation of the weak, and the universal introduction of slavery and forced labor for both industrial and military purposes."

Barbarism and savagery are words that have become associated with cruelty and backwardness, while the adjective "civilised" has become synonymous with: advancement, breeding, civility, cultivation, culture, development, edification, education, elevation, enlightenment, illumination, polish, progress and refinement.

The authors of such definitions are obviously "civilised" people. That explains why they use such glowing terms. They would not want to classify themselves as members of a "low, underdeveloped or backward state" of human society.

When you try to look at this objectively - it has often been the case that "civilised" people have been the ones perpetrating extreme cruelty, violence, slavery, etc on perfectly peaceful NON civilised peoples.

We have to question assumptions about civilisations being superior to more primitive ways of life.

Civilisation has now been forced onto Africans for example, because they now have city life and this in itself makes it too late for them to invent it, even if they were capable.

As Seraphim has said, this definition of Civilization is highly biased and is based on presumption that what we do is civilized, everything else is not, and it is just a technical matter to make definition for it.
There were some SciFi movies and books that were playing with possibilities of civilisations that could for instance be based on deveopement on mind possibilities. Technology was just our way to deal with problems of survival, and our way to control enviroment. But some other being may not be in the same situation.
Also, organised society with moral and cultural values was existing not only in the west, and was existing even if there was no technology.
There are specific problems with developement that are connected more with the geographics and climates, than with the race. It is hard to live in africa, much more harder than survive in Europe or in China. Also resources and exchange with other cultures has great impact on developement, Indians that were isolated were not in good position because of this.
If we take your views than is it right to say that Eskimos are lesser people because they didn't made any civilization in far cold north?

Civilisations must have cities and a necessary density of population, government, institutions, etc. The 20century historian Lewis Mumford uses the term civilisation to denote "the group of institutions that first took form under kingship. Its chief features, constant in varying proportions throughout history, are the centralization of political power, the separation of classes, the lifetime division of labor, the mechanization of production, the magnification of military power, the economic exploitation of the weak, and the universal introduction of slavery and forced labor for both industrial and military purposes."

Have you noticed that basic idea that comes to people minds when you say someone is "civilized" is often more connected with way someone acts, with his manners, intelligence, politeness etc, and not with the idea that someone wears a suit, knows how to use PC and is a rocket scientist?

 

[Dushan S]

Don't get me wrong but this article you have posted is wrong in its basic assumption, so it gets even worst later. It starts from the idea that problems of survival has made adaptation and progress necessary.

Freezing temperatures were not good for individuals in the Ice Ages. But for the species - that is for the descendants of those who survived - the frigid weather was a benefactor. Parents didn't have to worry that their daughters would mate with worthless young men. When nature gets rough, there are no worthless young men! From the standpoint of eugenics, the hostile climate raised the intelligence level of the survivors' descendants sufficiently to pave the way for civilisation.

By this logic, most advanced civilisation today should be in Sahara, and at the arctic circle. So apart from some technical data, this article or excerpt is worthless because it lacks any logic.
Problems of survival were there for people all over the planet, and poeple that had to adopt to survival in cold weather are in no different position to people adoptin to life in jungle or in desert or in mountains etc. Problems of finding food, surviving dangerous animals, and unfriendly climate are similar.

 

[Norsemaiden]

As Seraphim has said, this definition of Civilization is highly biased and is based on presumption that what we do is civilized, everything else is not, and it is just a technical matter to make definition for it.
There were some SciFi movies and books that were playing with possibilities of civilisations that could for instance be based on deveopement on mind possibilities. Technology was just our way to deal with problems of survival, and our way to control enviroment. But some other being may not be in the same situation.
Also, organised society with moral and cultural values was existing not only in the west, and was existing even if there was no technology.
There are specific problems with developement that are connected more with the geographics and climates, than with the race. It is hard to live in africa, much more harder than survive in Europe or in China. Also resources and exchange with other cultures has great impact on developement, Indians that were isolated were not in good position because of this.
If we take your views than is it right to say that Eskimos are lesser people because they didn't made any civilization in far cold north?

Have you noticed that basic idea that comes to people minds when you say someone is "civilized" is often more connected with way someone acts, with his manners, intelligence, politeness etc, and not with the idea that someone wears a suit, knows how to use PC and is a rocket scientist?

You haven't understood the passage that I copied from "How Civilisations Self Destruct". Eskimos have not lived in their present climate for sufficient generations to change noticably. Very cold weather with seasons also, requires FORWARD PLANNING for survival. Food must be collected and the winter planned for. That does not apply in Africa or the Sahara. They have different problems to overcome which do not require anywhere near that level of forward planning.

You seem to define civilisation by the synonyms that go with the term "civilised" - yet this is not a valid definition of civilisation. As I have explaned this is a biased and prejudiced list of qualities that were thought up by civilised people. They deliberately decided to use glowing terms to describe civilised behaviour and negative terms to describe barbarians and savages. The use of such synonyms does not serve as a guide to what is civilisation and what isn't. Manners, intelligence and politeness were qualities that barbarians had, but they did not have civilisation. Savages do not have civilisation yet they can also exhibit manners, intelligence and politeness in their culturally different ways.

You don't like the definition of civilisation as requiring citylife at its heart - yet that is what the word literally comes from. Cities inevitably involve technology to some extent. Ancient Rome was a city and the heart of a civilisation, yet I don't know where PCs, suits and rocket scientists come into that as that is all modern. Are you trying to suggest that I think civilisations were first invented in the late 20th century?!