
Uncle Volodya says, "When the stupidest man in Estonia moved to England, it raised the National IQ 2 points!""
In one of his latest comments, which offer wild conclusions unsupported by any apparent studies or evidence, our pet troll AJ suggests “IQ tests show that Slavs have a lower IQ than Western Europeans”, which purports to support a theory that Russians should just accept a culture of backwardness.
Let’s forget for a moment that this is merely a technique designed to “get a rise”, to make other commenters fire off a bunch of angry retorts, gradually moving away from the subject of discussion. That’s not very effective here, since discussions rarely follow any kind of structure or focus on the premise of the post. However, it’s the sort of unsubstantiated viciousness I’d expect from La Russophobe, who also regularly suggests Russians are stupid and ignorant. She’s a little more focused, though, mainly concentrating on Russia and Russians. AJ appears to suggest this genetic stupidity affects all Slavs, so we might as well start off with a definition of who is included. The Slavs are generally recognized to be made up of the East Slavs (Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians), West Slavs (Czechs, Kashubians, Poles, Slovaks and Sorbs), the Czech-Slovak Group (the aforementioned Czechs as well as Bohemians and Slovaks) and the South Slavs (Bulgarians, Macedonians, Slovenes, Croats and Bosniaks). There is some regional duplication, and there are numerous sub-groups, but this will do to go on. These main regional groups are Slavs by virtue of having majority Slavic ethnic populations.
I’m not an historian myself, but it seems curious on its face that such a huge piece of the globe could be occupied by people of substandard intelligence, and not have been absorbed by now by smarter people. Let’s take a closer look at the allegation. What’s a good way to measure intelligence and intellect? How about Nobel Prizes? Let’s see how Slavs stack up against Western Europe.
Gee; I guess before we start, we should agree on who makes up Western Europe. That’d be Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, with a combined population of just under 400 million. The overall population of the Slavic states is somewhere between 287 million and 384 million (census totals not being especially accurate in many), but either figure will include assimilated groups who are not Slavs by definition. Similarly, there will be quite a few Slavs by definition among Western Europeans, so let’s call them more or less even.
Anyway, on to Nobel prizes. All told, the Slavic countries have won 51 Nobel prizes in various fields. Enough to dispel the notion that Slavs are stupid, certainly. Hold on, though – that begs the question, when do people become stupid? Are they stupid by virtue of their birth, or by virtue of their later education? This is an important distinction for us to wrestle with, because it is at the root of AJ’s theory that Slavs are stupider than West Europeans. This suggests they are born stupid. Ergo (according to this theory, not reality), your country of origin determines your IQ.
That’s curious, because it feeds into another of AJ’s paranoias – immigration. Germany has won a very impressive 102 Nobel prizes; but 10 of them were won by foreign-born Germans, and of those, 6 were Slavs.
1. Peter Grunberg Physics 2007 born Czech Republic
2. Gunter Grass Literature 1999 born Poland
3. Gerhart Hauptmann Literature 1912 born Poland
4. Wilhelm Ostwald Chemistry 1909 born Latvia
5. Albert Michelson Physics 1907 born Poland
6. Philipp Lenard Physics 1905 born Slovakia
France has also done quite well, with 57 Nobels overall – but 8 of them were won by the foreign-born and 3 of those by Slavs; Ivan Bunin, who won the Nobel for Literature in 1933 and was a Russian, and two-time winner, one of the most brilliant women who ever lived, Marie Curie. A Pole by birth, she somehow managed to overcome her genetic stupidity to win the Nobel for Physics in 1903 and again for Chemistry in 1911.
Similarly, the United Kingdom appears to be populated by a brainy bunch, with 115 Nobels. But wait – a full 27 of them were won by foreigners, and of those 3 were Slavs: Andre Geim, who won this year’s Nobel for Physics and is Russian-born; Joseph Rotblat, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 1995 and is Polish, and Bulgarian Elias Canetti, who won the prize for Literature in 1981.
The USA is not in Western Europe, but would serve to further illustrate the point; of its 326 Nobel prizes, 84 were won by foreigners – better than a quarter of the American total – 10 of them Slavs.
It should be manifestly clear that there is nothing genetically stupid about Slavs; it would be difficult to argue it based merely on Nobel prizes won by Slavic people in Slavic countries. It’s even more difficult to argue given the number of Slavs who have bested foreigners in their own countries to take the world’s highest honour in their chosen field.
But it’s an interesting subject, so lets look at how Slavs compare with the world at large. If you’re not familiar with the PISA tests (Program for International Student Assessment), these series focus on core abilities in the sciences, across an international spectrum, testing 15-year-old students in various subjects. Conducted every 3 years, the most recent available for review is the 2006 test; the 2009 results have not yet been released. The 2006 test focused on Science as a major, with secondaries in mathematics and reading. Reading was the major focus of the 2009 tests, while the majors in 2012 and 2015 will be mathematics and back to science again, respectively. Everybody still with me? Good.
The 2006 PISA tests (warning, this is a fairly sizable PDF download, 4.5 mb) are revealing. If you downloaded the entire summary, have a look at table 1, on page 20. Finland has surprised a lot of people in the last few years, outperforming the world at pretty much everything. It should come as less of a surprise, then, that Finland blew the whole world into the weeds in the PISA, with 3.9% of its students reaching level 6, the highest achievable. Level 2 equates to basic competency in science. I’m aware the Finns are neither Slavs nor West Europeans; I’m just in awe of Finland’s incredible development. But look at who’s number 2. In the world. Estonia. Slavs. Estonian students had 33.7% of their number reach level 3, above average, and overall outperformed every Western European country. Slovenia, also Slavs, outperformed every Western European country with the exception of the Netherlands. In all modesty, I feel I must point out that my own country also outperformed every country in Western Europe, and is 4th in the world – Canadian Slavs, take a bow. The Russian Federation didn’t do all that well, but still beat Italy and Portugal of the Western European countries, as well as beating the United States. I’m eager to see how they did last year.
Have you heard of Ayn Rand? Author of “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”, her philosophy of Objectivism forms the backbone of western conservative thought, and western foreign and domestic policy is powerfully influenced by her ideas. American think-tanks from the Cato Institute to the American Enterprise Institute can quote chapter and verse from these books, and when American Republicans speak of “going Galt”, they are invoking John Galt, the main character of “Atlas Shrugged”; the man who said he would stop the motor of the world. Arguably, no other dead person has had such a profound affect on western conservatism as a political philosophy, except perhaps for Ronald Reagan. Every book she published in her lifetime (she died in 1962) is still in print. Hundreds of thousands of copies sell each year, so far totaling over 25 million.
Ayn Rand was a Slav, born in St Petersburg and a citizen of the Soviet Union until she was 20 years old.
Of course there is no “IQ test” that “proves Slavs are less intelligent than Western Europeans”. There are, however, tests which prove beyond question that some Slavs are a good deal more intelligent than many Western Europeans, not to mention many among other countries in the world. Slavs are not stupid, by birth or as a result of their education, and there are no IQ tests which prove anyone in the world is stupid because of the country in which they are born.
On the other hand, insistently pushing a viewpoint for which one offers no substantiation, while other established and reliable data contradict it and which data are in the public domain, accessible by everyone, is just about the textbook definition of stupid.

Estonians are Baltic people, not Slavs. Ayn Rand was Ashkenazi, not Slav. If Slavs are so smart why are the Slavs the poorest, least free White people in the whole world? Why has Russia failed to catch up to Western Europe in terms of standard of living, healthcare and welfare, safety, corruption, and internet access, among other things? We all know Russia can accomplish great things industrially, but Russia doesnt need more rocket ships, it needs stability, freedom, and a higher standard of living. Why cant the Slavs accomplish this, if they are capable?
Okay, I have to withdraw Estonians – I did look and could not find a reliable reference which said whether they were or were not Slavs. So I took a gamble, which is a valuable lesson for me, and I apologize if I hurt your feelings. However, the Slovenes are definitely Slavs, and they beat out everyone but the Netherlands. Just a lucky year? Maybe.
Many citizens of adopted countries, who were born Slavs, have gone on to great successes as citizens of their new countries; according to your theory, they should be stupid, too.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Estonia is 29% Slav. But your larger point stands. Too bad I hadn’t found this site yesterday.
That probably means that there are 29% of Slavic population in Estonia, the one Estonia oppresses, by the way. Estonians themselves belong to the same ethnic group as Finns, if memory serves.
A close linguistic realtionship as well.
Thanks for the info, Mike! In some of the research I should have done earlier, I’ve learned they (Balts and Slavs) may once have been a single ethnic group with a common language. In any case, the ethnicity of Estonia’s population is less interesting, to my mind, than Finland’s, Estonia’s and Slovenia’s acing out of Western European nations although Mr. Lynn’s research suggests they are of parallel IQ. It will be veery interesting to see the 2009 results, in which China participated. According to Mr. Lynn, China should come first if the tests are an accurate measure of national IQ.
Yes, an Estonian person once told me that they can listen to Finnish television and understand most of it. By DNA, Finns and Estonians are derived from the Finno-Ugric ethnos (going far enough back they are related to Mongols and Koreans, which is surprising because they are so blonde) and speak a similar language to each other. The Slavic minority ethnos in Estonia consists of Russians whose parents/grandparents settled there in Soviet times, when Russia and Estonia both belonged to the same country, so it was not really considered immigration.
The Magyars (Hungarians) are another European based group with Asian links.
Yes, the 29% would be Russians (with a sprinkling of Belarussians and Ukrainians).
The 2006. PISA test was performed mostly by those born in 1991.
Among those, estonians formed 68,5%.
The 2009. PISA test was performed mostly by those born in 1994.
Among those, estonians formed 73,5%.
http://www.stat.ee/en
Not all non-estonians should be considered russians – of those about 18% (or 2/11) are nonrussians. Then again, a large share of nonrussian soviet immigrants become eventually russians.
http://www.stat.ee/34267
Furthermore, a nonnegligible share of Estonian russians studied in estonian schools – these can perhaps be considered above-average, thus lowering the actual average a bit for all Estonian russians who took the PISA test in russian language.
The PISA test results of 2006 showed that Estonian russians scored a bit lower than estonians, but not much.
Also, nothing I say is “unfounded by studies”. My sources are The Bell Curve and various studies done by Professor Lynn.
Then when you take a position, please substantiate it. It doesn’t take long to track down a reference and include a link.
Well, that’s curious. Because according to the World Map of Average IQ per Country as based on Richard Lynn’s 2006 book, “Race Differences in Intelligence”, the area that is now the Russian Federation and the Baltic States (including Estonia, whether Slavs or Finns or whatever) is in the uniform range of 100. That places all the Slavs in the same range as all the Western European nations, second only to China, while the Australians appear to be the dolts of the world. To be fair, the accuracy of the article (which I take to mean the source document itself) is in dispute, and points out that the Australian rating refers only to its indigenous people, who make up less than 10% of the population.
*IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn examines this issue. Wether you think IQ is genetic, environmental, or both (as I do), you cannot reasonably deny its importance.*
I’ve written my thoughts on the topic at IQ and Industrialism.
Estonians are Balto-Finnic people. NOT slavs, not even close.
Mark, this is definitely not one of your best works, too many factual errors. Estonians, as already said here, are not Slavs, Ayn Rand is Jewish, etc. But the point is valid still. IQ tests are not designed to represent a whole nation’s intellectual potential, as there are many factors influencing its results, such as educational background and specifics. Besides, everyone can be trained to take an IQ test and drastically improve the result. Using Nobel Prizes as a measurement of success is very wrong too – it’s given by the Western Europeans mostly to European scientists. More importantly, it is heavily influenced by politics, like prizes to Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Arafat, Gore and Obama. So its objectivity leaves much to be desired.
As I remember correctly, the best results in IQ tests are shown by the Innuits and the Chinese. The former aren’t exactly a world powerhouse, the latter were pushed around by anyone until recently. So these studies aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
Maybe AJ should just accept his backwardness and learn to post comments correctly and start thinking before spewing any bullshit.
Some things from the top of my head.
There is a lot of discussion whether IQ is a good measure of intelligence. I myself much more prefer theory where intelligence = hardware (information processing speed of our brain) + software (environmental inputs, education, culture). Your brain power is affected by nutrition (pre-natal nutrition being extremely important) and the amount of neural connections that develop after you are born.
Because IQ measures mostly abstract thinking cultures where abstract thinking is less emphasized/needed/taught will perform lower on IQ test.
Educational system is very important here – I think there is something to be said about Estonia and Finland having superior education systems.
Asian people (Chinese, Japanese etc) perform better at maths and IQ tests because they spend more time at school, it matters more to their parents etc.
There is a very strong two way interaction between children and environment – is someone is expected to perform worse at school, they will perform worse. There is also evidence that your physical attractiveness and your emotional intelligence, (people skills), are more important to what your achieve than your IQ.
As for Jewish Ayn Rand – actually Jews have more noble prices that other ethnicities. Some researchers are saying that Jews have evolved a higher IQ as a survival strategy, seeing how they’ve been scattered around the world etc. I think their culture of hard work + higher parental expectations, more intellectual stimulation etc. is more important.
Superior mathematical skills in people with Asperger syndrome might be used to argue that at extreme ends of the scale (underdeveloped and gifted) genetics does play a large role (tho nobody knows yet why people become autistic).
A J was trolling a lot about black people being inferior in intelligence.
For what I know the only think that has been proved about black people is that their testosterone levels are higher then whites, and whites testosterone level are higher than east asians (and from what I remember this applies to males only).
I would steer clear of any radical IQ – race comparisons as a basis for saying which races is genetically more intelligent.
Estonia is probably 29% Slavic, but I am unaware of any separate tiers for the populations there.
As for Jews with high IQs… you have never about Jewish mothers?
Reminded of a discussion pertaining to the ethnically related Indians and Pakistanis having perceived discrepancies in educational levels.
Of late, Americans haven’t (offhand) been ranking so well as some might otherwise think in the hard sciences.
I saw in the paper this morning that politician “Rand Paul” won the Kentucky senate race for Republican party. His father is noted libertarian politician “Ron Paul”, who has memorized “Atlas Shrugged” from cover to cover. I am guessing dear old dad named sonny boy after Ayn Rand?
Probably. Though the name is also shared by Rand Al’Thor, the main protagonist of my favorite fantasy world. LOL.
Ha! Not familiar with that one! Dare I ask what your fantasy world consists of? Is it, like, trolls and dragons?
(1) WoT doesn’t have trolls or dragons. The magic is fairly “scientific”, which sits well with me. The Dark Lord trope is lifted straight from Tolkien, but he does it really well so I can’t complain.
(2) If I ever get round to writing my fantasy novel, the only “creatures” it will have will be militarized bioconstructs from the last wars of industrial civilization. The world itself will be a sweltering, deserted wasteland, in many places uninhabitable due to global warming, largely stripped of natural resources, and hosting only early 20th century technology at best.
Sounds like the makings of a cool fantasy novel! Okay, I order you to hunker down and start writing. Just, please, no plot cop-outs, like a secret religious relic with magical powers!
Mr. Chapman, o supreme Lord of this Blog, in the name of all Holy and UnHoly in our and another worlds, please… just-kill-that-troll! Ban him. It’s obvious that he can not be reasoned… I strongly suspect, that he is also an illiterate teenager with no high\med. education.
Pleeeease!
Hi, Carpenter; I’m afraid I can’t do that. Well, I could, but then I’d be no better than La Russophobe, who bans everyone who disagrees with her. Besides, banning AJ because I did something stupid would certainly not solve that problem, would it? For now I’ll let things stand as they are – it’ll be a useful lesson for me to take the few extra minutes it requires to verify the material. I had a problem with this post, accidentally overwriting it with an unfinished draft when it was nearly complete, and I had to do it all again. I was pretty tired by the time I finished, but that’s not an excuse for laziness.
Besides, it appears there is something to what he says, according to Anatoly’s research at Sublime Oblivion. Oh, it doesn’t support a generic statement that Slavs are stupid, of course, or that anyone has a lower IQ based on where they’re born. But there is apparently a relationship between culture and IQ test results, and apparently the research is quite solid, I recommend everyone read the post Anatoly linked. It mostly relates to the way people are taught to reason – which, while it has nothing to do with being stupid, can impact test scores.
Banning someone for (a) disagreeing with me, and (b) being right would be a very bad example to set. I always said I didn’t expect everyone to agree with me, and as long as disagreement remains polite, I still think that’s a good policy. The research says what it says, and we can’t just delete facts we don’t like. I strongly disagree with the intentionally provocative statement that Slavs are less intelligent than Western Europeans, and have still seen no proof of this; just because I was wrong about the ethnicity of the Estonian majority does nothing to substantiate the initial statement, nor has anything said since. But I’ll have to prove my argument some other way than just pretending no contradictory facts exist. My argument is that western media sources and power-brokers do little or nothing to help or encourage some countries to solve their problems, virulently criticizing them all the while, but for other countries no effort is too great. This attitude appears based on nothing but ideology. This post makes a good starting point for solidifying that argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoD-R_OeP6tU&v=oD-R_OeP6tU&gl=US
I can’t access Youtube at work; I’ll take a look at it when I get home.
Among some (stress some) of the stereotypes against the Slavs is an East-West breakdown, that suggestively has the ones coming from the Cyrillic and Orthodox Christian background as the least advanced.
At a Columbia U panel a few ago, Jim Jatras shared my experience of how anti-Serb often means anti-Russian and vice versa:
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/11/how_kosovo_factors_into_russoa.php
During the 1990s, I recall Bosnia’s Muslim nationalist and Western educated UN ambassador speak of the “bias” of having Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peacekeepers – as if he wasn’t biased.
I also recall a south Slav academic informally recollecting an experience with a certain Polish nationalist personality. The latter asked the former about his ethnic background. Upon learning that the former was of south east slav (Cyrillic and Orthodox Christian) background, the latter’s face became facially downbeat.
This reminds me of when I heard someone of Polish background who classified the Latin-Cyrillic difference as one between “European” and non-European. Such an experience explains why I’m not keen on making “EU” and “European” so interchangeable. One can be non-EU and European.
On a point raised about ethnicity not always being on par with where a person comes from, one periodically comes across people unaware of Nikola Tesla’s Serb background. He was from what’s now part of Croatia’s Krajina region. Tesla identified with his Serb background.
Pardon the sudden add on.
Just wanted to add that I’ve come across Slovenes, Croats, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks who’ve a fraternal feeling towards the Slavs of Cyrillic and Orthodox Christian background.
LOL@ people who think Slavs arent European. Meanwhile theyre contemplating accepting Turkey, a Muslim Turkic/Middle Eastern country, into the EU. No way in hell are Turks more European than Russians. Of course, Im not advocating that Russia join the EU, Im simply pointing out the selective defintion of what is “European”. Russia joining the EU would be suicidal, considering its much sought after natural resources. Also, Norway and Switzerland show us that its not necessary for a European nation to join the EU to be prosperous.
Agreed, so far as the examples of Norway and Switzerland go.
I’m just reminded of another instance of categorizing with an intent that seems to reflect a certain upbringing.
A few years ago on NPR, Ian Brzezinski (one of Zbig’s children) used the terms “Euro-Slav” and “Russo-Slav” to distinguish between Slavic attitudes towards Russia and the West.
This thread has already answered the misleading notion of Russia being alien to Europe. On another particular, IB’s categorization can get murky.
Up until the late 1980s/early 1990s, Serbia was on generally good terms with the West (particularly the US, UK and France), while also having a generally pro-Russian outlook. Bulgarians are generally pro-Russian in outlook despite their country having been allies of the Central Powers (in WW I) and Axis (in WW II).
Provided there’s a well established basis evident, categorizations can be helpful in better explaining the past and present. In other instances, categorizations can be inaccurate, in a way that can play up to questionable agendas.
Slavia Catholica and Slavia Orthodoxa dichotomy but as you say it doesn’t take into account the nuances of relationships of South Slavs towards the West.
Serbian connection with Austria in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries should also not be overlooked. V.S Karadzic spent a great deal of time in Austria and development of Serbian vernacular was supported by Austrian authorities.
Mark, 2 points:
1.) Stop beating yourself up about the Estonian gaffe. One factual error doesn’t invalidate your major points. Factual errors can be quickly corrected; stupidity cannot.
2.) On scholarly discussions of IQ: You really don’t see the difference between a bona fide intellectual like Anatoly and a pseudo-intellectual skinhead like AJ? Sheeeesh! I’m not saying you should ban him; it’s your blog, and that’s your call. But, seriously, dude….
Thanks, Yalensis; it’s not so much the error over Estonians – as Balts they are still far closer to Slavs than they are to West Europeans, and the map of national IQ compiled from Mr. Lynn’s books suggests Slavs are as smart as West Europeans and a cut above North Americans. The PISA tests support that, so perhaps AJ is simply misquoting Lynn’s research. No, for me the thing about making a mistake is that I can learn from it, as I have done from doing the research I should have done in the first place. Fascinating! Check out some of the leads regarding the funding behind Richard Lynn’s books (the Pioneer Fund, listed as a white-supremacist hate group by human-rights advocacy centers), the field of eugenics (popular in the early 20th century, but falling into disfavor after being associated with Nazi Germany), and so on. It might even lead to “The Post I should Have Written”.
As far as intellectuals go, Anatoly is particularly relevant because his cited research supports (to some extent) the association of differences in IQ with nationality. There are any number of factors involved, including (this is from Lynn’s work) differences in nutrition in early childhood. It’s certainly possible, although it’s ridiculous to suggest everyone born into a certain nationality is fated to be dumber than another race. That is racist nonsense; if that were true, how could children born to Slav parents in America do as well or better than their American counterparts in school? My stepson is a Slav, and came to this country speaking only the little bit of English he learned in school in Russia. He had to be tested to determine grade placement in BC school – his mathematics tested off the scale. In his first term he didn’t get anything lower than a B, even pulling off a B in French; a language to which he’d had no exposure except the words in Russian that are the same as French or close. He’s certainly not dumb, although our modern schools do have pretty low expectations. Anyway, you can’t reasonably make blanket statements like “IQ tests prove Slavs are less intelligent than West Europeans”. The PISA is an IQ test, and it proves the opposite.
Don’t sell AJ short. A lot of his hypotheses come from white-supremacist doctrine or organizations that associate themselves with white-supremacist schools of thought. But he’s either not dumb at all, or a quick researcher. There’s nothing wrong with having one’s beliefs challenged, and I hope we’re having the same effect.
Eeek! Another tiny correction, Mark: Estonians are not Balts. The Baltic peoples consist of only 2 major groups: Latvians and Lithuanians. Their languages are from the eastern branch of the Indo-European language family, closely related to Slavic, Persian and Sanskrit. The Estonians live on the Baltic Sea, but are not Balts. At least not ethnically (DNA-wise they are Finno-Ugrics, distantly related to Mongols and even Koreans, which is weird, because they appear so blonde) or linguistically (Estonian is closely related to the Finnish language, which is not Indo-European). P.S. I am loving these discussions on languages and linguistics, because that’s what I used to study, many moons ago! Now that my interest has been rekindled, thanks to you and other commentators on blog.
Okay, since I obviously don’t know what to call them, I’ll just call them “Estonians”. Are the ethnic (non-Slav) Estonians closer, in their language, cultural associations and social makeup to Slavs or to Western Europeans? More to the point, is there to the best of your knowledge anything to support a conclusion that Estonia’s success in the PISA proves that Western Europeans have a higher national IQ than Slavs?
To the best of my knowledge, Estonians consider themselves culturally Western European, and are very proud of their heritage. They are enthusiastic members of EU and NATO. Linguistically, their language is nothing like any Western European language, nor anything like a Slavic language. Very close to Finnish, however; and Finns also consider themselves to be European, as far as I know. Which also proves that language and culture are two separate things, and disproves Sapir-Whorf hypothsis. Re. IQ, I’m sure majority of Estonians are very smart people. Why sociologists study IQ? I have no idea. What is the point? If you can prove that one ethnic group is smarter than another, so what? Does that mean ths less-smart group is to be enslaved or exterminated? These studies are only used for nefarious purposes, as far as I can see. So, stop doing them. Even if a race of people were proved to be stupid, they still have the right to live and be free. Just not the right to tell others what to do. That last bit was a not-so-subtle dig at Americans.
@yalensis,
Appreciated – but would also appreciate not being called “intellectual”, “expert”, etc. I don’t want to be associated with those labels be they deserved or not.
This is linked to what one could call a “diaspora effect”. It’s well known that amongst some diaspora groups – most famously, the Jews – for whatever reason the average IQ is well above that of the aborigines (and even though they be low in numbers if you look at 19th century Germany, say, you’d see that a hugely disproportionate number of them made world-class achievements in the arts and sciences). Perhaps it’s linked to these people not having as full a social life as the locals around them, so the resources usually spent on building up “social IQ” and skills in childhood instead go to reinforcing the more purely intellectual IQ.
Interestingly enough, Israel is actually fairly low IQ by European standards – something like Greece – which goes against the typical stereotype of Jews as smart people. Even the Ashkenazim, who tend to be off the charts when part of diasporas in places like America, score no better than average Germans or Brits when in Israel. Presumable, when you gather all the outsiders into one nation, most of them cease to be outsiders.
Okay, Anatoly, I won’t call you names any more. Sorry! Actually, in the family I was raised in, the word “intellectual” (Russian интеллигент) is simply a statement of the fact that the person studies in an institute of higher education and/or reads books. Somebody who knows the difference between playwright Anton Chekhov and Ensign Chekov from Star Trek. Only in a knowledge-fearing country like U.S.A. could the term “intellectual” become an insult, as in “you pointy-headed intellectual”. How silly is that? intellectuals don’t have pointy heads, they have big rounded dome-heads. To recap: I do not regard this troll AJ as an intellectual, and somethinig within me rebels at the notion that his “research” is cited side by side with yours. I might disagree with your research too, but at least you know how to do it in the proper way, using footnotes, and so on.
The pioneer fund has never described itself as white supremacist, afaik. They dont want to rule over other races, so they are not. To be fair Mark, you cant just say a blanket statement like, “oh, so-and-so is racist, so lets ignore their research”, because that is willfully ignorant, and anti-intellectual to try to discredit scientists based on their personal political views. I mean, were not Nazis here, lets try to have an open and honest debate, geez. http://www.infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/02/race-and-iq-in-nature.html Here is a very good blog by Steve Hsu, a Chinese physicist who accepts the fact of genetic-racial differences in IQ. Oh, but wait, maybe hes just a Yellow Supremacist. Also, I would like to point out that I am a Slav, and as the Mark and his commenters have frequently noted, I am quite dumb. So perhaps there is some truth to the fact that Slavs are stupid, after all. But then again, Im just a teenager who dropped out of high school, so maybe that explains it.
Come on, AJ; you obviously know better than that. Environmentalists have never described themswelves as tree-huggers, either – that’s what their detractors call them. It doesn’t mean either group is 100% correct. That’s the premise of conservative thought that drives me crazy – it’s a discipline of extremes. Every business must make a large profit, or it’s a failure. Ethnic groups must remain apart, or the races are tainted. If you ask me to choose between yellow and green and I choose green, it means I hate yellow. It’s all just so….fundamentalist.
I didn’t say the Pioneer Fund were racists or white supremacists: I said that’s what human-rights advocacy groups call them. I don’t ignore anyone’s research, especially when it comes up with verifiable conclusions. Some professionals support Professor Lynn’s work, some say his samples are too small or otherwise selective. In any case, his research absolutely does not support a conclusion that Slavs generally have a lower IQ than Western Europeans; they are in the same group, and a category higher than North Americans. State-funded or subsidized higher education and broad support for intellectual achievement apparently made up for a deficiency in access to good schools (especially in rural areas) and generally a lower standard of living. Professor Lynn’s research makes sense – a proper diet, the dedicated support of both parents, access to a quality education facility with a recognized standard of instruction… all set the stage for rapid and sustained learning. Some Slavs and poorer countries have the deck stacked against them by virtue of their standard of living, or cultural differences that cause them to perceive interrelationships differently (as Anatoly describes) but there’s nothing to suggest they aren’t as smart as another group or ethnicity because they are born stupid.
Rather than ignoring research, as soon as you mention your sources, I look them up and study them. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes your own supporting sources don’t agree with each other. Sometimes individuals do the research properly, and then draw incorrect conclusions, like the 5 blind men examining an elephant. An elephant is like a rope, says the one holding the tail. No, an elephant is like a tree, says the one examining a leg. Once upon a time, doctors who were the most respected medical professionals in their field counseled their female patients to take up cigarette smoking, so as to minimize weight gain during pregnancy. What we thought we knew 100 years ago looks little like what we know now, just as those truths will likely be challenged in the future.
There’s a lot more to white supremacy as a philosophy than a desire to rule over other races. The Nazis had no interest in ruling over the Jews – they wanted to eliminate them. Eugenics is a step beyond that; a discipline that seeks to perfect the race by removing even those within it that are born with or otherwise acquire a defect that they might pass on – homosexuality, mental retardation or dementia, a blood disease.
Re: Chinese supremacist – I remember that Chinese actually tried to prove that they are descended from a different kind of human than other ‘races’. I don’t think these assertions are accepted by scientists wordwide but some in China are quite certain of it.
On my psychology course we read ‘The Bell Curve’ and then criticism of it and it’s methodology – nice exercise in critical thinking.
I don’t know about Lynn’s research now but in the past (when he contributed to the Bell Curve) it left a lot to be desired. He makes a lot of valid observations, higher malnutritin – lower IQ, higher malaria prevalence – lower IQ etc. I also like his ideas about how cold climate evolved higher IQ, it’s interesting. I don’t think it should be taken as a basis to discriminate against people.
The fact that somebody has a Prof. in front of their name doesn’t meant that they are right on everything. Scientists suffer from confirmation bias too (and self importance bias – like Prof James D. Watson!).
Prof James Watson is a genius, he discovered DNA and has made important scientific contributations. Hes an unfortunate victim of censorship, political correctness, liberal fascism, and Lysenkoism. Also, to Mark, please provide a source for the Nazis being “white supremacists”. They were racists, not white supremacists. Thats a crazy accusation, like calling the Japanese “yellow supremacists” when they invaded other Asian countries, or calling the genocide in Rwanda a product of black supremacy. 99%+ of Hitlers victims were White( European), He considered Slavs and Jews to be especially inferior. If he was a white supremacist, well, he clearly wasnt a very good one. His concept of an “Aryan race” is a unique form of racism, with a Germanic-centric view. Also, Im not arguing for “pure races”, nor am I a conservative (LOL@ that one!), so Im baffled at why you let loose an anti-conservative rant that was irelevant. I agree with you that its pretty messed up to consider ethnic groups “tainted” if they mix. Of course, I would be biased as I am a product of a Ashkenazi Jewish/Ukrainian/Russian mix myself. @grafomnka, if a colder climate leads to a higher IQ, then shouldnt the Eskimos(or Inuits, for some of you more PC folks) have the most technologically civilization on Earth? Instead they hunt fish and live in igloos.
Aren’t Innuits ones with the highest IQ?
I attended Watson’s lecture in Cambridge- he’s an extremely arrogant, patronizing guy (my personal opinion).
grafomanka, please excuse my excessive interest, but are you Russian or Polish? It’s just that I’ve noticed that you always have something to say when the subjects drifts toward Poland.
hello kovane
My mum’s Polish and I grew up in Poland, but I’ve got a Bashkir-Russian father
That makes you what, trilingual?
My grandparents in Russia speak some mix of bashkir and tatar to each other, I still have to learn those )))
By the way – Watson has used x-rays of DNA by Roslaind Franklin to determine structure of the double helix, never acknowledged her, there is a big controversy around it – they should have shared the Noble Prize with Franklin…
grafomanka: That’s a very good point. Rosalind Franklin never got the credit she deserved. Watson made sure to shut her out. In addition to everything else, Watson is also sexist and has made negative comments about women’s intelligence. Thanks for your comments, with your background in psychology you are ideally poised to contribute to this debate.
I’m late to this great discussion and, being a Slav, should be mindful of what I say — my IQ will be immediately questioned
But let me dispel this stubbornly-not-going-away myth that Rosalind Franklin was deprived of the Nobel Prize because she was a woman, and everyone else — Watson, Crick, and the Nobel Committee — were sexists. The Nobel Prize in medicine for establishing DNA srtucture was awarded in 1962 to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins (Franklin’s once boss). But Franklin pass away in 1958. The Nobel Committee has a policy of NOT awarding prizes post mortem.
Grafomanka, Franklin didn’t get the prize because she was dead in 1962, not because she was a woman.
The Nobel Committee has another policy: not to award prizes to more than 3 people. I wonder who — Franklin or Wilkins — would have gotten the prize had Franklin been still alive. But that’d be another conspiracy…
Sorry – could you point out where I said the Nazis were white supremacists? Could you point out where I used the word “Nazi” and the words “white supremacists” in the same sentence? We’ll never get anywhere as long as you keep tilting at windmills. The Nazis, and at that, only certain elements of the party, espoused a pure race free of the contaminants of inferior contributors such as people of colour, madmen and the genetically imperfect. This has much more in common with eugenics than with white supremacy, which is exactly what I said. White supremacists generally are Johnny-come-latelies who attach their bigoted beliefs to others’ research, and claim that research supports the beliefs.
An example already raised is the Pioneer Fund, which funded the production of Richard Lynn’s books. The Pioneer Fund is also the financial backer for the New Century Foundation, which is unambiguously described as a United States white supremacist organization. The New Century Foundation produced “The Color of Crime”, to which you’ve also referred as a source for your conclusions. This in and of itself is not enough to suggest you are a racist or a white supremacist yourself, but it certainly suggests you are sympathetic to the viewpoint of those who are racists and white supremacists. For instance, the beliefs of Jared Taylor, founder of the New Century Foundation. Mr. Taylor “…promotes the idea that racial segregation is ‘natural’ and society is best organized along racially homogenous lines”, and believes “racial, ethnic and religious diversity is one of the most divisive forces on the planet, and therefore dangerous”. Some of that looks awfully familiar, from your comments. Racist or hate speech is not just arbitrarily categorized by me; there are fairly strict criteria which define it. If you don’t believe me, try to get a blog shut down because you think it promotes racism or ethnic hatred. Calling someone a racist in print isn’t as whimsical as you seem to think. But Jared Taylor and his organization are clearly identified as white supremacist, closely associated with racist ideology.
The above pamphlet should not be confused with “The Color of Crime; Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harrassment and Other Macroagressions”, by Katheryn Russell-Brown. Whatever you think of her conclusions, her proposals to achieve fairness in the justice system are hard to argue with:
1. Criminal penalties apply to everyone, regardless of the race of the offender.
2. Criminal penalties apply to everyone, regardless of the race of the victim.
3. The race of the offender is not relevant in determining whether his/her actions constitute a crime. The offender’s actions would have been considered criminal, even if he/she were of another race.
4. The race of the victim is not relevant in determining whether the offender’s action constitutes a crime.
5. The offender’s racial pedigree (eg. “Degree of Blackness”) is not used to determine punishment
6. There are checks and balances that mitigate against racial bias within the legal system.
I don’t see any bleeding-heart liberalism there. The pamphlet to which you refer, however, draws some bizarre conclusions from crime statistics. For instance, it reports (as of 2001) an incarceration rate for blacks of 1,695 per 100,000, and the rate for whites as 236 per 100,000. No problem so far. But then it divides the black by the white rate to achieve a multiple – 7.2 – and then uses this figure to infer any given black is more likely to be a prisoner than a white. Okay, I pick Barack Obama. Is he 7.2 times more likely to be a prisoner than, say, Randy “Duke” Cunningham? This sort of statistical manipulation, designed to fool dumb crackers, suggests that blacks are 7.2 times more likely than whites to be criminals by ignoring that nobody – by virtue of their colour – is “more likely to be a criminal” if they have not committed a crime. Instead, it dances around this by offering a lot of babble about severity of offenses and prior incarceration records. Another is the example that suggests if blacks are 15% of Illinois’s population, but account for 23% of traffic stops, police are justified in pulling them over more frequently. For one thing, it’s rarely possible to determine someone’s race when they’re in a car before you stop them, unless you park somewhere, watch them get in their car and then follow them to see if they’ll do something to justify pulling them over. In fact, blacks and hispanics are no more likely to be pulled over for a traffic stop than whites. However, according to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics, blacks and hispanics are much more likely to be searched than whites, and blacks are more than twice as likely as whites to be arrested.
“Sorry – could you point out where I said the Nazis were white supremacists? Could you point out where I used the word “ Nazi ” and the words “white supremacists ” in the same sentence ? We ’ll never get anywhere as long as you keep tilting at windmills . The Nazis , and at that, only certain elements of the party , espoused a pure race free of the contaminants of inferior contributors such as people of colour , madmen and the genetically imperfect .” “Theres’s a lot more to white supremacy as a philosophy than a desire to rule over other races . The Nazis had no interest in ruling over the Jews – they wanted to eliminate them.” There you go, implying the Nazis were “white supremacists”. Also, what do “people of colour” (your PC-ness is showing) have to do with Hitler? Are Jews and Slavs(he killed over 20 million Slavs.) “people of colour”? WWll wasnt just a war, but it was a race war. Nazi Germany launched a racist attack against the USSR, in order to exterminate us because we werent “Aryan”, and create a “Lebensraum” (living space) for his master race on Russian soil. He failed, of course, as we all know. Grafonka, please show me your source for a high Inuit IQ. Also, even if they do have a high IQ, why are they so unknown? Where are their Nobel prize winners and geniuses? @Mark, if you want to know more about Jared Taylor’s philosophy, you can visit his website, http://www.amren.com . Its the leading white nationalist intellectual site and organization. You seem pretty interested in him. Also, Im not exactly sure what your point is regarding those statistics about driving, and crime. I dont want to go in circles with you, thats not productive. Yes, blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of their crime for their population in the US, 13%. No, they all shouldnt be harassed by the police and pulled over. I think the real issue here, is you have an ultra-egalitarian viewpoint of the world which I am shattering, and that hurts you. Im not doing this to hurt you, I just want the truth out there.
Okay. Consider me as being aware of the truth out there. Thanks.
lol according to Lynn IQ East Asians>Europeans>Innuit > and then the rest of the world ending on Bushmen and Australian Aborigines. Maybe you could actually read some of his research instead of cherry picking things that agree with your views? Maybe you could learn some thinking too…
Mark, I love the “Uncle Volodya” caption for this post.
And AJ: well, I agreed with some things you said on that prior post where there was that epic discussion you participated in, but I think you’re totally off-base about Slavs having a lower IQ. (Assuming I’ve not misinterpreted what you said, of course: I’m too lazy to go back and look at any precise comments right now.)
Uncle Volodya is a funny guy, isn’t he? Who ever thought he had such a sense of humour? Initially I was going to have a stock caption, so that he said the same thing every post, but once I made him say something snarky to Venus Williams, and since then he says something different every time.
I should have focused on the main issue instead of allowing myself to get distracted – of course, you’re right. It’s not about whether Estonians are Slavs or Balts or Finno-Ugric (although I should have known better); it’s about the initial allegation. And of course Slavs are not stupid. Standard IQ tests do not allow for the different ways various cultures approach problem-solving. Besides, most of the Slavs I know personally are very well-educated in comparison with North Americans, to a similar academic program but with more emphasis on the sciences and languages.
/* Uncle Volodya says, “When the stupidest man in Estonia moved to England, it raised the National IQ 2 points!”" */
That got me thinking, which national IQ are we talking about?
Estonian?
England?
Both?
It was intended to mean England, but the Uncle Volodya comment is almost always meant as a joke.
I’m ethnic Slav, so I’m stupid and I ask stupid questions. Here’s one: Maybe someone who studied sociology or psychology can answer: I see the point of testing individuals, say, in school,, to chart their progress. But why bother studying group intelligence? What’s the point? Suppose it were proved, hypothetically, that one nation and/or ethnic group was on average genetically smarter (or stupider) than another, based on standard intelligence tests. And then suppose, hypothetically, that everybody in the world agreed, however reluctantly, that the test was completely scientific and valid. So what? What would be the ramifications? What world-wide policy changes would ensue from this? I really can’t see any point to this type of research, except for nefarious purposes.
In the psychology textbook I read for class last year, the author actually said exactly what you’ve said: it’s relatively pointless to study group intelligence and a lot of conclusions drawn from studying group intelligence are usually erroneous anyway.
Agree with Natalie.
Just like with any research scientists do this out of curiosity.
History of intelligence testing is interesting – they’ve been used in the past to determine which immigrants to allow to USA.
The big use for such a perfect test would be in crafting welfare economics both domestic and abroad. For instances, say that researchers hailing from a green-majority country in fiscal straits, discovered that its poor red minority and impoverished blue people abroad had very low IQ’s relative to greens. In that case, some greens may start backing social welfare reductions and the end of affirmative action, because many of these programs are predicated on the assumption that greens, reds and blues are all fundamentally equal and that the latter two are only held back by discrimination / cultural reasons / etc as opposed to their own “qualities”. Since the test would imply that the differences in development outcomes largely accrue to inherent racial features, these programs would start becoming regarded as both ineffective at long-term “improvement” of reds and blues, and unfair to the greens.
Actually crafting such a test is extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, because of the challenges involved in adjusting the test for different types of intelligence, cultural factors, and life environment. If it was made, I suspect we would continue to see some variation between races, but it would be far smaller than what you get in Lynn’s book – and as I said, the fuzziness inherent to any such test will mean that those variations may not even necessarily signify unambiguous racial IQ differences.
All this is tied up with why race and IQ is such a taboo subject, BTW. If a link were to be properly established, absolutely scientifically, it would constitute a serious ideological challenge to vast swathes of US social programs operating from the 1960′s. The debates would also have the effect of undermining national unity, provoking racial tensions and far-right extremism, overturning political correctness, etc. And, yes – the research will likely be used for nefarious purposes, as the sad history of Social Darwinism, craniometry, and even geopolitics – developed in the 19th century and used to justify 20th century ethnocracies and military expansionism – demonstrates. This is the main reason, IMO, why discussing race and IQ in a rational way is near impossible – but given prior precedent, some would argue that that is not such a bad thing.
As long as we have an insatiable desire to know everything, we will encounter results that are socially unpleasant or even unacceptable. A South African white man who appeared to all respects very bright and well-adjusted once told me it had been scientifically proven that the brain of a black man weighed less than that of a white man. Maybe so, in certain specific individual examples and within a probably insignificant variation (since we actually use nowhere near all of our brain capacity), but that does nothing to prove a reliable racial difference.
Racial discrimination recognizes no boundaries, including intellect, and the Chinese (allegedly the most intelligent race on the planet) are among the most discriminatory on the basis of race, including rigid opposition to mixed marriage. The urge to know more is rooted in why you want to know – so you can determine who needs help that is within your power to provide without worsening your own situation, or so you can achieve advantage for your personal gain. I’m with Natalie and Yalensis; perhaps subtle variations exist, but they do nothing to substantiate a diagnosis of genetic stupidity. Trying to isolate the brilliance gene would serve no purpose unless you were planning on trying to engineer perfect people – which in turn would be without purpose if they don’t have a planet to live on. That’s a much more immediate problem than determining who is the smartest of all.
I’m not sure that the proof that some ethnicity has on average lower IQ hails the end of affirmative action. It’s a conscientious question. The fact that some ethnicity, let’s say green, has on average lower IQ says nothing about IQ of a particular green individual.
I’m in favor of positive discrimination (for example having a quota of how many women should be in the government cabinet, even if we know they face far less competition than male candidates).
I’m not sure what would be the best process for, say, filling a job post (referring to your mention of affirmative action, which is not it). In an interview, you’d obviously be able to determine the gender and probable race of the applicant. I can’t think, offhand, how you’d carry out an interview process that was totally focused on the applicant’s qualifications, and blind to everything else. You couldn’t do it online or over the phone, because you couldn’t be sure it was the actual applicant answering the questions.
In any case, we had an inkling, back during the manufactured scandal over the Sukhoi engineers getting fake diplomas to bolster their credentials, that there are probably only a few jobs that actually require a sky-high IQ or access to an enormous mental database. People of average intelligence are perfectly capable of putting an airplane together once they’ve had a little instruction and practice, for example. Designing one is something else again, but the people from every country in the world who are capable of that kind of work would be a tiny minority of specialists.
I’m not arguing for the abandonment of science, or the overall dumbing-down of the earth’s population to the lowest common denominator. But the insistence on the very brightest people for some jobs that don’t really require it is an artificiality.
/* But why bother studying group intelligence? What’s the point? */
One interesting metric would be to see how many persons from one group are needed to get all the right answers. Another would be to see if democracy (voting on answers) works and what would be the largest elite sample to reach correct answers through a democratic process.
One can speculate that if chinese are very similar, then they might need a large sample to cover all correct answers, while perhaps inuit need a very small sample.
Just a thought.
Not to jump on Yalensis’s answer, but I just wanted to point out that much of that discussion was inspired by A.J., who was less interested in actual demographics than he was in starting a fight.
Concerning a point that’s somewhat related to the one on Ayn Rand:
“Bulgarian Elias Canetti, who won the prize for Literature in 1981.”
****
Canetti was a Sephardic Jew, who spent much of his life outside Bulgaria and the rest of the Balkans.
Agreed. And many of the individuals who won Nobels for their home countries either did not originate there or were born to foreign-born parents. There’s absolutely nothing to the suggestion that any race is genetically stupid, although it is perfectly sensible to imagine that a child with all the advantages such as proper nutrition, access to good schools and a motivation to learn will do better than one who lacks some or all those things. Some African countries are at a considerable disadvantage in that respect, but a child born to African parents in, say, Germany and into a family that could afford decent schooling would be as likely to do well as any other.
“Some African countries are at a considerable disadvantage in that respect , but a child born to African parents in , say , Germany and into a family that could afford decent schooling would be as likely to do well as any other.” http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study?wasRedirected=true http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study?wasRedirected=true Mark, here is when I pwn you. Link #2 is directly relevant to your above claim, and completely refutes it. Link #3 is the same concept, but is a similiar study done in Minnesota.
Gee….if you say so. I don’t know how you’d account for statements from your source documents such as, “…the average IQ’s of the children studied were roughly similar across racial groups”, and “…stressing the similarity of IQ scores across racial groups in the Eyferth Study, James R. Flynn, Richard E. Nisbett, Nathan Brody and others have interpreted it as supporting the notion that IQ differences between whites and blacks observed in many other studies are wholly cultural or environmental in origin” . Maybe that spells “refutation” and “pwn” to you, but I’m afraid I’m having a little trouble with the concept. The white average was 97.2 against 96.5 for the mixed-race children, but you’d have a hard time finding a medical professional who would argue that was a significant difference. Arthur Jensen points out that nearly all of the children tested were pre-adolescent, before the genotypic aspect of IQ is fully manifested.
Interesting article by Professor Nisbett, cited in your source: he specifically refers to the difference observed in the Eyferth Study as “trivial”. He cites a study on adoption (a factor thought to have a strong influence on IQ) done by Elsie Moore at Arizona State University. The study found that black or mixed-race children adopted by white families had IQ scores 13 points above those adopted by black families. This argues strongly for any racial differences in IQ being environmentally or culturally based rather than genetic.
PS, sorry for the fact that the links are so close together, but if you look, there are 3. Im on my mobile phone.
thats just an interpretation, so what? Also, you are being intellectually dishonest. I know that the average IQ of children across racial groups are roughly the same, but this changes as they grow older. This can be interpreted that the IQ gap is wholly environmental, wholly genetic or a mixture of both. Boys and girls are both roughly the same size, but after puberty whos taller?
Of possible interest, this post relates to the issue of Russia technologically advancing itself:
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2010/10/good-start-but-not-nearly-enough.html
Offhand, it appears that Russia has produced its share of top scientists over the course of time.
Ditto the perceived brainy activity of chess – albeit with a good number of top Soviet/present day RF participants being of a non-ethnic Russian background.
In short, Russia/Russians are a mixed bag like others. There’re also Russians better suited for brute strength activity minus great intellect and a combo of both qualities.
On stereotypes and some earlier mentioned points, George Will comes across as a bigot.
During the Soviet era, he flippantly said (on the PBS aired) Agronsky & Company that the Russians have an inferior culture. (Imagine the outcry if he said that about some others.) Martin Agronsky proceeded to challenge Will by noting Russian scientific and cultural achievements. Stated with the look of a one dimensional in thought loon, Will’s reply was a repeat of what he said.
Years later, I recall Will advocating a return of the Habsburg Empire (on the ABC aired) This Week, as a counter-weight to the armed turmoil (at the time) in former Yugoslavia – a conflict which Will has shown a bias against the Serbs. Will’s take on the Habsburg Empire has a Niall Ferguson quality to it.
It’s good to be well versed in a number of other “Russia watching” issues. IMO, Russia continues to lack an effectively good counter-punch to the kind of anti-Russian biases evident in English language mass media, body politic and academia. (Ratings don’t always give an accurate accounting of what’s good and not so good.)
The proper utilization of patriotically responsible pro-Russian advocacy serves to improve Russia’s image abroad.
Mikhalkov gets belittled (in Vedomosti among other venues) for what can be reasonably seen as an idealistic image of Russia’s global role. On the other hand, Carter did likewise when he referred to America as the most moral country in the world – as his government pursued an ethically flawed human rights policy – which (in comparison terms) downplayed the abuses in China and Romania. (Recall the Sino-Soviet dispute and how Romania was a pest of sorts within the Warsaw Pact.)
I’ll never understand where George Will got his reputation as “Dean of the Pundits”, because he does indeed show signs of bigotry, not to mention being wrong on just about every major newsworthy issue of the past 10 years. Check out some of his forecasts for Iraq, during the initial war years, or some of his off-the-wall predictions about a big Bush popularity comeback. He called the financial crisis wrong, he….well, the things he got right would make a much shorter list.
He appears to think a bow tie and a patrician sneer are enough to carry him as a columnist.
He might be best placed for baseball commentary.
My bias against Will concerns my impression that neocons are extremely moronic when it comes to some key foreign policy issues.
Mark, for the record now, are you arguing that intelligence is not heritable, and that there is absolutely no genetic link between race and intelligence?
Are Slavs a race?
Pingback: Weekly Russia Blog Roundup 6 November 2010 | Siberian LightSiberian Light
Pingback: Official Russia | Weekly Russia Blog Roundup 6 November 2010
The problem here is with over-arching categorisation of people as Slavs, or Teutons, or Ugro-Finns, or Balts. These really are linguistic categories. On the biological level differences are not so clear cut. I myself am quarter German, although that quarter I can’t define properly. However, my great-grandmother had a German maiden name and considered herself to be Czech, whereas my great grandfather had a Czech name but considered himself to be German.
In the pre-modern times people would adopt linguistic identities according to utility. If all business in town were held by Germans, then Czechs would see speaking German as useful and vice versa. Hungarians came to a Slavic populated area and Magyarised many of its inhabitants. Genetic research in Russia has shown that Slavs share little with their Altaic neighbors but the word for money ‘den’gi’ is clearly Altaic, I wonder why?
Bulgars gave name to Bulgarians but these people share little with the original Turkic tribe.
Secondly the development of advanced civilisation rests on many other factors than just IQ. For instance penetration of technology into Africa was prevented by many deadly diseases found there. Slave ship captains would often be reluctant to leave their ships and the business was conducted by local middle men. The average lifespan for a European on African coast before the advent of modern medicine was not a two digit number. This is why Africa was colonised so late. However along the coast of East Africa trade with Middle East has established some more advanced cultures. The same in Sahel, south of the Sahara.
Another factor is population. If you look at a map of pre-modern Africa you see states with round or elliptical shapes. This is because an African king did not care about land or delineation of borders. Land was plentiful, people were scarce. In the African perception controlling or even owning people was far more important than having land. Early advanced civilisations tended to develop in ares with high population density such as Egypt and Mesopotamia. Map of Old Rus’ also lacks clearly defined borders and in my opinion Feudal organisation was not that apparent in that state either. In this respect Rus’ and Abyssinia are quite comparable as opposed to Rus’ and Holy Roman Empire.
This is extremely interesting, Leos; between you and Yalensis, I’m catching up on a lifetime of ignorance as regards the background of people from the region. I probably got too wound up over my mistake about Estonians, but I hate making mistakes when it’s completely avoidable. I left it as it was to remind myself not to do it again.
The main argument stands unweakened, to my mind; the better-educated who have the advantage of a good living standard will, except for the truly brilliant who outstrip their disadvantages, always exhibit higher average IQ – but that substantiates the difference being for other than genetic reasons.
Language and race are entirely separate things; as are language and culture. News flash: Hitler was full of shit when he conflated Aryan language (Indo-European or Indo-Aryan) with racial-blood markers and skin color (“white race”).
For informative discussion of language, race and culture, I recommend a book by John McWhorter, “Our magnificent bastard tongue: The untold history of English.” McWhorter is a reknowned African-American linguist, specializing in English dialects and creoles. He wrote his PhD thesis on creole languages based on English or French, as developed by African slaves in the New World. Anyhow, in Chapter 4, McWhorter discusses and debunks the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that “language channels thoughts”. Similarly, language and race are separate entities. The concept “race” only makes sense as variety of DNA markers in the human genome. For example, markers for sickle-cell anemia or lactose intolerance, etc. “Racial” categories based on DNA can be useful in the fields of medicine and nutrition, like, how to treat diseases or improve nutrition for people, based on racial markers and ethnic background. Now that the human genome has been fully sequenced, maybe people can use this information for the cause of good instead of evil.
Hitler never claimed the Aryan race was the same as the White race.
Who cares? Nobody cares about Hitler’s philosophical musings or what he “really” thought about race and language except for a.) professional historians; or b.) neo-Nazi skinheads who still worship him. So which one are you, AJ? I doubt if the answer is a)
LOL im a direct descendant of Jewish Holocaust victims, I’d make a pretty bad neo-nazi. Also, it should be noted that you’re the one that brought his philosophy up, not me, you hypocrite. So, which one are you?
You’re a direct descendant of Jewish Holocaust victims? Prove it! Names, dates, and places, please! Otherwise, my finely-tuned “bullshit-o-meter” tells me you’re just a lying skinhead, trolling the blogs trying to recruit for whatever southwestern American neo-Nazi militia group you belong to. Have a nice day!
Im not obligated to prove anything to you, asshole, and Im not giving out my family’s names. Your bullshitometer is broken. Also, dont be mad just because I called you out on being hypocritical on Hitler, when you’re the one who repeatedly called me an American neo-nazi (im not even an american citizen), when you’re the one who keeps talking about glorious Hitler and his idealogy. Face it, Hitler is dead and his Third Reich was defeated by the “inferior” Untermenschen Slavs.
Pingback: konyvklub.com » Weekly Russia Blog Roundup 6 November 2010
Ayn rand was not a slav but rather a member of the wealthy aristocratic elite who lived in the russia in the early 20th century. about as far from slav as a german czar
Yes, thank you, Miles, that’s been pointed out. In fact, nothing about her being a member of the aristocracy prevented her from being a Slav; after all, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a Slav, and he has (or had) quite a bit of money. She was born to Ashkenazi Jewish parents (like Albert Einstein and Allen Greenspan, to name a couple more), which is what made her not a Slav, although AJ’s allegation was that where you are born makes you genetically stupid.
Miles, do to their wealth and disproportionate influence, do you think the pogroms against Jews were justified? Because I sense that when you say “aristrocratic elite” you really mean Jew.
Mark, please stop slandering me and attacking me, I never said where someone is born makes you genetically stupid. Mikhail Khodokorvsky is not a Slav either, do some research. He was born to Ashkenazi Jewish parents, which makes him a Jew, not a Slav. Many of the oligarchs and people who have exploited Russia have been Jews.
Khodorkovsky isn’t a Slav, either? OK, I’m giving up on that argument, and I apologize if I misconstrued your theory. But let’s recall that you never offered any conclusive evidence that Slavs are stupider than anyone else, and Professor Lynn’s work tended to reinforce the contention that all of Europe possessed about the same IQ (which was one bump up the scale smarter than North America, according to him).
Jewish people are a religious category, they actually mixed with people that lived around them. This is why Ashkenazi’s look white, Falasha are blacks and Sephardi Jews look Middle Eastern. The Ashkenazis lived primarily in Eastern Europe and are the most successful of Jewish groups.
Mark, OK. I admit I may have been a little overzealous with regards to Slavic intelligence. Maybe we’re not so dumb after all. However, I still maintain that Ashkenazi intelligence is due to culture and genetics, as is the gap in IQ in Blacks and Whites/Asians. I dont buy your argument that intelligence is wholly environmental, and as a matter of fact, there is absolutely no evidence that shows that on a genetic level, Blacks are equal in intellect with Eurasians. Im open to that possibility, but before I see proof, Im going to go with the most logical explanation, that intelligence is due to both DNA and upbringing/culture.
As long as we can agree that people of any race who have access to the proper educational opportunities and conducive environment can (not necessarily will) succeed – in short, that intelligence is at least partly environmental, I think we’re there. Thanks for all that I learned getting to this point. But I still think you must know every single Ashkenazi Jew in Russia.
Re: Recent Set of Comments
If I’m not mistaken, Khodorkovsky comes from a “mixed” background, inclusive of a non-Jewish mother.
If so, he’s not a Jew according to Jewish law.
Technically, Sephardic Jews are Jews whose ancestors were expelled from Spain. There has been some simplistic categorizing related to this point. Some seem to assume that if a Jew isn’t Ashkenazi, he/she must therefore be Sephardic.
Iranian Jews and many Jews from Arab countries don’t use Ladino in their services unlike Sephardic Jews.
Leos is right in noting how the physical characteristics of Jews vary as a result of what he mentions.
Sacha Cohen and Andrew Dice Clay are both Jewish. So is Seth Green. I’d submit that simultaneously destroys the myth that there are no stupid Jews left, and introduces a thrill of terror that they are passing their DNA on.
Hmmmm….interesting. Actually I am quite interested in molecular biology and genomics – so may I comment?
Regarding race and intelligence :-
1. “Race” as a totally meaningless concept devoid of any significant biological ‘meaning’, a totally socio-cultural concept vs. “race” as a distinct, concrete biological entity. The former espoused and promoted by multiculturalist and ‘assimilationists’ who believe(or want us to believe) that the concept of ‘race’ is totally devoid of any biological basis; the latter mostly by racial supremacists(who naturally think their ‘race’ is superior to all others) who think that human variaties are so biologically distinct almost to the point that they are different species of Homo(or subspecies of Homo sapiens sapiens)! The truth is probably in between those two extremes. I disagree that ‘race’ has no significant biological reality. Even those of us who look at the word ‘race’ and oppose its very existence in English vocabulary cannot deny that deep inside them they know ‘race’ is biologically real – lest they are opposing a concept totally alien to reality! We can see discernible physical characteristics amongst the ‘major’ subdivisions of mankind – the so-called ‘caucasoid’ , ‘negroid’(too repulsive a word nowadays in our politically-correct era) and ‘mongoloid’ – and it’s not just variation in skin colour and tone but also hair, lips, skeletal dimensions, height etc. etc. Of course, in every human subdivision, these physical attributes are partly due to genetics and partly to the environment(nature + nurture) but genetic factors are, in my opinion, not insignificant. Molecular-wise, these human subdivisions(and even further subdivisions) definitely have significant differences in frequencies of many alleles(genetic polymorphism). In Medicine, I believe such human subdivisions do have biological significance that have practical implications. Let me give a few examples: Cystic fibrosis usually affects ‘caucasoids’ and this is especially true in those who are blond and blue-eyed. It’s super-rare in my part of the world(amongst East Asians). One cannot make a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis as a most possible one for an Asian with severe bronchiectasis. The HLA system(MHC – major histocompability complex) is so polymorphic but their relative frequencies are distinct in the classical subdivisions of mankind. To the point that a matched-unrelated donor transplant is more likely amongst donor and recipient of the same ‘race’ than that of a ‘different’ race. Even the Northern Chinese have different MHC allelic frequencies compared to the Southern Chinese! It would be improbable that an African can donate his marrow to an Asian recipient because the likelihood of a HLA match between them is remote. And we are not even talking about Minor Histocompability Complex polymorphisms! I view the disparate humankind varieties(‘races’) as part of a continuum – with the ‘classical’ subdivisions(‘caucasoid’, ‘negroid’, ‘mongoloid’ usually represented by a European white, East Asian and sub-saharan African black respectively) as extreme forms/ends of that continuum – so markedly different physically to make them recognizably distinct. Some of mankind obviously lie ‘in between’ these continuum – partly they could be survivors of those phylogenetically ‘close’ to the ‘common ancestor’ or those who arose out of intermixing between those in the extreme of that continuum. Hence I disagree with those who say there is no such thing as ‘race’. I also disagree with those who view ‘race’ as discrete ‘biological quanta’, if you know what I mean.
2. Do different ‘races’(if you now actually agree with me that such a concept is biological) have different mean ‘intelligence’? The problem is what does one mean by the word ‘intelligence’? IQ is only one way to ‘score’ intelligence and that also certain ‘skills’ may not be assessed by IQ. Probably, I would say it’s better to talk about certain skills/abilities/aptitude and categorize them rather than using the nebulous word’ intelligence’. Example : rational/logical skills, mathematical skills, spatial-orientation skills, musical skills, etc. If the ‘races’ can have integrated differences in alleles(genotypes) that translate into phenotypes that have measurable differences(for example, the mean height of Northern Chinese are higher than the Southern Chinese – part of it attributed to genetic differences), why not the means of those different skills/aptitudes? It is just not politically-correct to ask these things and one might argue that it’s unethical to design experiments to test the truth/fallacy of such a hypothesis. I think, there are differences – based on my observations. For example, in terms of ‘musical’ skills – blacks seem to have this a lot – but the tendency is towards the rhythmic and ‘emotional’. European musical aptitude is more towards that allied with the logical/rational – hence one can understand why Bach or Mozart arose in Europe and not in Africa. In sports, blacks seem to do better where stamina and physical prowess have more weightage such as sprint, marathons etc. Whereas Asians and Europeans seem to thrive and games that are more tactical – eg badminton. Of course, exceptions exist – but that’s it: exceptions; I am talking about generalizations because statistics is about generalization.
What do you think?
sinotibetan
Sorry….I need to correct a spelling error. MHC = Major Histocompatibility Complex. Thanks.
sinotibetan
Some comments on Slavs, Baltics and Finno-Ugrians:-
1. Slavs are not a homogeneous grouping. The Eastern Slavs(Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians), Western Slavs(Poles, Kashubs, Sorbs, Czech, Slovaks) and Southern Slavs(Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins) are , in my opinion, quite different from each other phenotypically and genotypically. Overlaps may of course occur especially between some Eastern Slavs and Western Slavs(eg. some populations in Poland, Belarus and Western Ukraine). Russians in European Russia are not homogeneous as some may have Baltic admixture(in the West) and Finno-Ugric admixture(in the East) ; some even Altaic admixture(in the East). Southern Slavs had probably assimilated the ancient Thracians and Illyrians – indigeneous to the Balkan area and thus genotypically distinct from both Western and Eastern Slavs. Western Slav may have some Teutonic and Baltic admixture.
2. The Baltics used to be more numerous than now. Many were assimilated by the Slavs and Germanic peoples. Only the Letts(in Latvia) and Lithuanians are the ‘surviving’ Balts. Ancient Prussians were also Balts but they were Germanized by the eastern expansion of Germanic peoples during the Middle Ages, if I am not mistaken. Many Germans from Eastern Germany may have ancient Prussian ancestry as well as some of the Poles perhaps.
3. Someone has said correctly that Estonians are Finnic people, akin to the Finns and Karelians in Fennoscandia. As to Finno-Ugrians having ‘Asiatic’ origin – probably this is not so true. The ancient Finno-Ugrians may be heterogeneous ‘Eurasiatic’ peoples – phenotypically and genotypically admixture of both ‘European’ and ‘Asiatic’ with the Finnic people more ‘European’ than the Ugrians. Whether they are admixture of European and Asiatic or akin to a ‘common ancestor’ of both Europeans and Asians I am not too sure. Anyway, many modern-day Finnic peoples(most live in Russia, by the way) have blonde hair(often reddish or ash-blonde) and grey/green eyes; they are also brachycephalic – unlike the Scandinavians who are dolichocephalic. For a picture of the Udmurts, a Finnic people in Russia:-
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?s=23cd2a01bcb2e971d2a9f252029c89ce&attachmentid=3721&d=1264635199
The Nenets(‘Samoyeds’) are a Finnic people in Arctic European Russia who are more ‘Asiatic’ but not a few have blonde hair!
http://www.russiamissions.com/Gallery/NenetsBoy2.jpg
The Ugric peoples like the Khants who live in Western Siberia are more Asiatic phenotypically. For example:-
http://image46.webshots.com/47/9/32/97/393193297FcPScc_fs.jpg
In fact, I thought they look like Central Asians such as the Kazakhs.
The European Finns probably have some Viking/North Germanic admixture while the Estonians might have some Baltic and Germanic admixture. Predominantly they are descended from Finnic tribes who migrated from Eurasia and are distant relatives of such peoples as the Udmurts and Mordvins who still live in their ancestral homelands in European Russia.
sinotibetan
Extremely interesting remarks – I wish you’d been around when this subject was still under discussion. I think most people have moved past it now, but it taught me a valuable lesson about research. It’s apparent you know more about it than any of us except perhaps for Yalensis, who used to be a languages student. Unfortunately AJ, whose provocative remarks inspired the post, is not around any more – it sounds like you would have tied him in knots quite quickly.
Some corrections on the genetic makeup and cultural history of finno-ugrians, balts and russians.
1. Finnic peoples and balts have only a few % of post-glacial new genes from out of Europe – we are the descendants of paleo-europeans.
2. The ancestors of all balts used to speak finno-ugric until some 4500 years ago. The genetic makeup rules out any large influx of indo-european speakers from Asia. The spread of the battle-axe culture had to happen through internal migration within the Baltics and southern Finland.
3. The ancestors of a large share (perhaps half, perhaps less, perhaps more) of northern russians used to speak finno-ugric until some 1-15 centuries ago. Again, the genetic makeup rules out any large influx of indo-european speakers from Asia.
4. Samoyeds are not finno-ugric – their ancestors were altaic siberians who migrated to their present location and took over much of the finno-ugric language elements.
5. Saamis are not finno-ugric – their ancestors came from the Franco-Cantabrean refugium after the end of the last ice age and took over many elements of the finno-ugric languages. Also, there is a genetic study which found out that danes have more mongoloid genes than saamis have.
6. Siberian ugric tribes have migrated from Europe to the West Siberian Lowlands sometime after the last ice age – after the local glacial lake / shallow sea drained out – they intermixed with altaic siberian tribes there.
7. Some of the Volga-Kama regions were inhabited by (most probably finno-ugric) tribes throughout the last ice age. There is evidence of 35000 years old settlements.
8. The Ukrainian ice-age refugium at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum most likely spoke dialects similar to finno-ugric, and much of those peoples migrated back to north after the Baltoscandian ice sheet melted away.
9. The Swidry people were a mix of peoples from the Ukrainian refugium and the Franco-Cantabrean refugium (and from more sparsely inhabited regions in between).
10. The finno-ugric homeland was always in Europe, the altaic connection probably happened some time during or after the last ice age, when one part of finno-ugrians moved anti-clockwise from Ukraine to Altai to Komi to the Baltics.
11. Finno-ugric languages are no closer to altaic languages than indo-european languages are to altaic.
12. Russians are the youngest large ethnic group in their territory in eastern Europe. Volga-Permian finns are probably the oldest “culture” to continually inhabit their territories.
13. Despite of the 700 years of german yoke, estonians have less germanic genes than finns have. Some attribute that to early medieval 6-7th c. AD immigration of germanic people to southern Finland.
14. Estonians are less “continental finno-ugric” than latvians or lithuanians or finns, based on the haplotype N1c1 frequency. The genetic makeup of finns is very diverse – European variability would suggest about 4 nations within the finnish population and about 2 nations within estonians.
15. Scandinavia was originally inhabited by tribes speaking dialects similar to finno-ugric. The indo-european dialects reached there much later, about 5000 years ago at the earliest.
And now about IQ and PISA results.
There are suggestions, that part of the differences can be attributed to language peculiarities – regular spelling most prominent among maritime finnic dialects + rich compositional and derivational morphology.
http://finnish-and-pisa.blogspot.com/
One advantage to baltic finns might also be the residual finno-ugric substratum in baltic, slavic and germanic languages. As a sidenote, it is actually funny to observe the bemoaning of some russians and other foreigners concerning the observed difficulty of finnish and estonian languages, since estonians and finns have a knack for foreign languages and since finno-ugric dialects were spoken by so many ancestors of contemporary europeans. Estonian language in particular is pronounciation-neutral, i.e. it has a very lazy pronounciation which can be easily molded for other languages (there are exceptions of course, like chinese).
One can also draw parallels between PISA results and literacy rates some 110 years ago:
http://www.nlobooks.ru/rus/nz-online/619/2051/2054/
Look at reference 3).
Incidentally, this literacy rate is a good indicator to the spread of success at deflecting soviet communist movement and invasion in Finland and the Baltics right after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917-1920.
Moreover, PISA 2006 results showed that Estonian russians scored highest in the world among those studying in russian language. Latvian russians were second. Russian russians were third. This pretty much invalidates the accusations of suppression of russian culture and language in Estonia and Latvia. I have not looked at 2009 PISA results in detail to reconfirm this.
So, I suggest that
1. russians are a young ethnicity
2. that the language switch among them is still ongoing (and will be for a long time) and that hinders their literacy and science skills test results.
3. baltic-finnic languages (and perhaps finno-ugric in general) seem to have some advantage over russian (and perhaps other slavic and indo-european) language, but once that is overcome the scale effect sets in (very few baltic finns).
4. Lutheran (and perhaps protestant) regions seem to score higher than catholic and orthodox regions.
5. Mostly regular and vowel rich spelling among maritime languages might have an advantage over continental consonant rich languages. Chinese is of course a possible counterexample.
PS. One can speculate that the asians are smarter because of the share of the recently discovered Denisova neanderthal genes, while europeans have some European neanderthal genes. African natives have neither. Neanderthals used to have slightly larger brains as well than early humans. Go figure
PPS. ini-itte in estonian dialect means “human itself” = a true human
“Inimene ise” in official estonian.
“Innuit” in innuit means the same thing.
Inimene = (in)human.
Notice how all over the world there is a need to stress the ancestry from “true humans” as opposed to, say, neanderthals. Perhaps we should reconsider our stance?
This is an extremely interesting response, certainly meriting broad circulation. I learned a lot from the post above these comments, much of it about how much I didn’t know. I compliment you on your remarkable English, and have drawn the attention of Sinotibetan and others to this late response because they would otherwise likely not know of it.
Ayn Rand was a Jew, not a Slav.
Yes, I know that now, thanks.
Wow….thanks ini-itte.
I don’t think I have that enough knowledge at this moment to agree nor refute most of your comments. I agree with point # 2 though. Yes, many modern-day ‘ethnic Northern Russians’ are probably Russianized Finno-Ugrians. I shall certainly find out more about what you’ve commented. Thanks for your post, ini-itte! And thanks Mark for highlighting this comment.
I find the Finno-Ugric peoples an interesting group, however your knowledge about their ancestries is excellent. I have to look through those anthropology blogs once more.
p.s. The ‘intelligence’ of Asians and Caucasians probably differ in terms of ‘type of intelligence’. I do feel, though, in a general way, Africans(I mean subsaharan blacks) have a tendency towards ‘rhythmic musical intelligence’ for example and do well in terms of physical strength but not so good in the mathematical, rational, logical sense on the other hand. This is a generalization and not to all individuals though. I may be wrong about this, but it’s the impression I have.
sinotibetan
Yes, agree this was a fascinating comment. From historical/genetic analysis it sounds like Finno-Ugric tribes were once more widespread over vast area, and then slowly pushed back to Baltic Sea, maybe by invading satem-branch Indo-Europeans? Indo-Europeans (Aryans) have a reputation of being warlike and cruel, not at all averse to seizing other people’s lands, as shown in Rig Vedas and other texts. It seems counter-intuitive that Aryan military conquests would leave the losing side with the best real estate (Baltic sea coast), but I believe this is also what happened on Indian subcontinent, where indigenous Tamils were pushed back by Aryans to coastal areas. Also analogous to history of Britain: originally Celtic/Gaelic tribes were dominant everywhere on the island, then were slowly pushed back by Anglo-Saxons to just coastal areas like Cornwall and Wales. So maybe a similar thing happened with Finno-Ugric peoples? I was taught in school that they migrated from Asia, but ini-itte makes compelling case that they are indigenous to Europe/Russia area. Note to ini-itte: I would be interested in reading your thesis, if you are planning to publish it online?
I am not a scientist in these fields.
I have read articles from Richard Villems et al. And bits and pieces from others.
Like this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4X9DFW5-6&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F03%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c201c8dcc639cd6db84906125540070&searchtype=a
——————————-
Summary
The driving force behind the transition from a foraging to a farming lifestyle in prehistoric Europe (Neolithization) has been debated for more than a century [1], [2] and [3]. Of particular interest is whether population replacement or cultural exchange was responsible [3], [4] and [5]. Scandinavia holds a unique place in this debate, for it maintained one of the last major hunter-gatherer complexes in Neolithic Europe, the Pitted Ware culture [6]. Intriguingly, these late hunter-gatherers existed in parallel to early farmers for more than a millennium before they vanished some 4,000 years ago [7] and [8]. The prolonged coexistence of the two cultures in Scandinavia has been cited as an argument against population replacement between the Mesolithic and the present [7] and [8]. Through analysis of DNA extracted from ancient Scandinavian human remains, we show that people of the Pitted Ware culture were not the direct ancestors of modern Scandinavians (including the Saami people of northern Scandinavia) but are more closely related to contemporary populations of the eastern Baltic region. Our findings support hypotheses arising from archaeological analyses that propose a Neolithic or post-Neolithic population replacement in Scandinavia [7]. Furthermore, our data are consistent with the view that the eastern Baltic represents a genetic refugia for some of the European hunter-gatherer populations.
———————–
The conclusions do not state that the newcomers were aryans or that they were mostly aryans. It just states that there was a population discontinuity in southern Sweden and that probably most of the old population got replaced by newcomers. And the old culture was replaced by a new one.
For all we know, those newcomers might have been descendants of mostly paleo-european hunter-gatherers from a neighbouring region, who had already taken over farming (present-day Germany, Netherlands, Poland).
As I understand, the contemporary swedish population also has a very small share of post-glacial genes from out of Europe, just as baltic-finnic peoples.
And I do believe that the contemporary Swedish population still contains a sizable portion of the old population.
As to the coastline as the best real estate, indo-european cultures were mostly continental and thus hunter-gatherers persisted much longer on the coastal regions. This is evident on both sides of the Baltic Sea. Germanic tribes were really the only non-Mediterranian indo-european tribes who became successful sailors by taking over the seafaring culture of the older population. Among Swedish regions, the Gotland population is more similar than others to the Baltic populations. The same is probably true for Älanders (Ahvenansaari).
“Germanic tribes were really the only non-Mediterranian indo-european tribes who became successful sailors by taking over the seafaring culture of the older population.”
Dear ini-iite: This is fascinating discussion, and jibes with something I read in John McWhorter’s excellent book, “Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English”. In Chapter 5, McWhorter discusses the seemingly preposterous, but ultimately convincing argument that proto-Germanic tribes were heavily influenced (both linguistically and in terms of inter-marriage) by Semitic, possibly Phoenician (seafaring!) tribes, around the time of the Great Consonant Shifts (Grimm’s Law). Around 500 BC, in other words.
I don’t have time to go into all the arguments adduced by McWhorter, who is a PhD American lingust, specializing in the English language and in Creole dialects. I recommend you read his book, it’s written in English, but you are apparently fluent in English, so that shouldn’t be a problem. Apart from consonant shifts, indicating a heavy foreign influence on proto-Germanic, McWhorter also shows remarkable vocabulary borrowings into proto-Germanic (an Indo-European language) from an apparently Semitic language. “No less than a third of the proto-Germanic vocabulary does not trace back to proto-Indo-European.” (page 181)
Among the vocabulary In question, many terms relate to seafaring: “sea”, “ship”, “sand”, “sail”, “carp”, “eel”, etc. These are not Indo-European words, they are Semitic words (for example, the true Indo-European word for “sea” is “mer”, the word “sea” is clearly a foreign borrowing…)
A non-sea example is the common family word “maedchen” (“young girl”). Akkadian and Proto-Semitic “makhat” Proto-Germanic “magath”, modern German “maedchen”, English “maiden”. Many other examples. McWhorter’s theory is that the neck of land now shared by Germany and Netherlands (and possibly other areas near Baltic) was overrun by Phoenicians, during the period of Cathagian dominance and colonization; this would have occurred around 500 BC, if McWhorter’s theory is correct. And the Phoenician “guests” obviously would have gravitated to the coastal areas, because the sea was almost like their native habitat.
“McWhorter also shows remarkable vocabulary borrowings into proto-Germanic (an Indo-European language) from an apparently Semitic language. “No less than a third of the proto-Germanic vocabulary does not trace back to proto-Indo-European.” (page 181)
Among the vocabulary In question, many terms relate to seafaring: “sea”, “ship”, “sand”, “sail”, “carp”, “eel”, etc. These are not Indo-European words, they are Semitic words (for example, the true Indo-European word for “sea” is “mer”, the word “sea” is clearly a foreign borrowing…”
Well, I am not sure about all the words, but finno-ugric linguists have considered the mare/mer/mere/meri/ as either finno-ugric, proto-european or nostratic, or something in between. There are a lot of placenames in and around Estonia which contain ‘meri’ or ‘mere’ as part of the name referring to sea.
Our placename registry has some instances registered:
http://xgis.maaamet.ee/knravalik/
The catch is that some of those Estonian placenames denote sea areas, some denote bays, some straits, but some denote lakes and swamps which have risen from the sea several millenia ago – some possibly earlier than 500 BC (Maksameri, Möldrimeri, Karjatse meri), some possibly much earlier. For example, in former Livonian areas (close to south-western part of Estonian mainland), there is an estonian / livonian placename called ‘Merenäki soo’ (the swamp of a Mermaid), which in current Latvian form is called ‘Mernieki’ (close to Mednieki). That place is at least 30 meters above sealevel – if that placename is as old as the swamp, then we are most certainly talking about pre-phoenician times, perhaps even pre-Noah Flood times of the Black Sea. I somehow believe that Finland and Karelia and Vadja and Ingermanland are able to provide similar examples of ancient placenames.
PS. The ‘swamp’ seems to be a loan from finno-ugric ‘soo / suo’.
PPS. the finno-ugric counterpart for ‘maedchen / madchen / maiden’ is ‘näkk(i) / neid / neitonen / neitis / neitsi / neiu’. The words are phonetically similar, if we exchange m with n.
Madchen – Maternal
Neitsi – Naiselik, Naissoost
So, again, ‘maedchen’ might be a loan from semitic, but it might also be a word with a more general (perhaps nostratic) background.
There are no good phonetically similar matches for “sail” (puri) or a “ship” (laev / laiva) in finno-ugric languages.
But our finno-ugric counterparts have been taken over by baltic languages and russian as well (parus = puri / purjes = sail / on sails). Or we are again dealing with more general origin.
purema = to bite (as a dog or a predator)
purihammas = molar
puri = sail, parus (sail in russian), “(s)he bit someone”, “sail bites the wind”
purjes = on sails, under sails
purjus = drunk (“walking as a sailor” or “had a knack for alcohol” or “has blood-thirst for alcohol”)
As a sidethought, the english word ‘pure’ might have originally meant in proto-european dialects ‘(a bone) chewed (bare)’
Dear ini-itte, Mark and yalensis,
First, I have to apologize for this late response to ini-itte’s first comment. The reason for this is because I did not have sufficient knowledge on the points mentioned and I thought I should check them out first before I comment further. Also, I noticed that ‘haplotype N1c1′ that ini-itte mentioned was neither HLA class I or II antigens(I initially thought the haplotype referred to was an HLA allele and then it occured to me that it cannot be because I’ve never seen any MHC allele given that nomenclature) and now only do I know that it is a Y chromosome haplotype. I have some comments to make that may merit further discussion if interests remain on this subject.
“I am not a scientist in these fields.”
Neither am I. I am a scientist(‘applied science’ and not ‘basic science’, though) but not in this field. I had some interests in the origins of human groups but not at the level of an expert. My interest in the past was more observational, ‘historical’, cultural and ‘phenotypical’. I have interest in molecular biology but more on cancer molecular biology rather than anthropological.
I managed to find a website on the relative frequencies of certain Y-haplotypes on a website that may be of interest; I’m using this website to quote some frequencies of the Y haplotypes:-
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
Back to some of ini-itte’s comments(not in chronological order):-
1.”The ancestors of all balts used to speak finno-ugric until some 4500 years ago. The genetic makeup rules out any large influx of indo-european speakers from Asia. The spread of the battle-axe culture had to happen through internal migration within the Baltics and southern Finland.”
I am not sure if ALL indo-europeans came from Asia. Their originally homeland(in spite of many claims) is probably “Eurasia”(partly in Europe just southwest to the Urals and partly in Western Siberia – my guess, no proof). That the modern-day Balts(Lithuanians and Latvians) have high frequency of the Uralic haplotype N1c1 agrees with this point. Although I would have worded it as ‘Modern day Balts have significant Finnic/Uralic ancestry’.
2. Your point that most Northern Russians have Finnic/Uralic ancestry I’d agree upon as 23% of Russians do have the N1c1 marker. Also, the presence of modern-day Volga Finns and the Permyaks do correlate with such a theory.
3. “Despite of the 700 years of german yoke, estonians have less germanic genes than finns have. Some attribute that to early medieval 6-7th c. AD immigration of germanic people to southern Finland.”
If we believe ENTIRELY on Y haplotypes(which I don’t and I will explain why later in this comment), this is true. Still, Estonians and Finns do have Germanic admixture(I1 haplotype frequencies of 15% and 28% respectively) – which I have alluded to in my earlier comments. In fact, Estonians have significant ‘Baltic’ marker(32% R1a haplotype) and the pattern of Y haplotypes amongst modern-day Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians are pretty similar to me! At least based on purely Y haplotype frequency patterns, these 3 peoples are ‘genetically very similar’ although Estonian language is Finnic and non-Indo-European.
4.”Finno-ugric languages are no closer to altaic languages than indo-european languages are to altaic.”
Agree. Probably yalensis is more qualified to say more on this point than I am.
5.”Estonians are less “continental finno-ugric” than latvians or lithuanians or finns, based on the haplotype N1c1 frequency. The genetic makeup of finns is very diverse – European variability would suggest about 4 nations within the finnish population and about 2 nations within estonians.”
I am not too sure what you meant by this. If Eupedia values are to be believed, Finns have a higher frequency of N1c1 compared to Estonians and as I’ve pointed out in point# 3, based on Y haplotype frequencies, Estonians are similar in this molecular aspect, to Lithuanians and Latvians rather than to Finns.
6. “Scandinavia was originally inhabited by tribes speaking dialects similar to finno-ugric. The indo-european dialects reached there much later, about 5000 years ago at the earliest.”
I can neither agree nor disagree with this. It is possible but by no means confirmed, in my opinion. That the Swedes and Norwegians have very small percentage of the N1c1 haplotype means the Germanic tribes were far more numerous than the putative Finno-Ugric tribes you mentioned. One problem with this point is why Finland was ‘spared’ from massive Germanic invasion.
7. “Russians are the youngest large ethnic group in their territory in eastern Europe. Volga-Permian finns are probably the oldest “culture” to continually inhabit their territories.”
Agree with the second part. Don’t quite agree with the first part. Hraerek(Rurik) the Varangian founded the “Rus” polity sometime in the 9th Century at the ‘invitation’ of squabbling East Slavic tribes. Baltic and Slavic languages are satem languages and believed to have a ‘common origin’ and at least ancient Balts and Slavs might have a common origin. The ‘urheimat’ of these peoples are still disputed yet at least from 5th-6th AD, the ancient Balto-Slavic was postulated to have become differentiated out. By that time, Belarus, parts of Ukraine and Western Russia were already inhabited by these ancient Balto-Slavic tribes. That Russians, in terms of ethnogenesis, are ‘younger’ than the Volga Finns is true but that they are the youngest large ethnic group in their territory in Eastern Europe is disputable. Hraerek the Varangian probably lead to unity of the East Slavs into a ‘Rus identity’ but that was a catalyst rather than the point of origin of Russian ethnogenesis. The East Slavic tribes were probably contemporarious with the West Slavic groups such as the Wends(ancestors of the Sorbs) and the disparate Polish tribes.
8. I have not commented on your comments regarding Samoyed(‘Nenets’) and Saami because I do not have sufficient knowledge to comment.
9. That the Balto-Slavic Y haplotype marker R1a is high in modern-day Belarus, Ukraine and Poland seems to support that these maybe the area of Balto-Slavic ethnogenesis. High frequencies of this marker amongst Russians seem to point that modern-day Russians have a majority ancestry from ancient Slavs. A point for Mark – the marked diversity of Y haplogroups amongst the modern-day “Slavs”(Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Slovenians, Serbo-Croatians, Bulgarians etc.) somewhat confirms my point regarding the heterogenous origins of modern-day Slavs. The map in the eupedia website I’ve provided seems to show that patterns of Y-haplotype frequencies group Poles-Ukrainian-Belarussians and Czeck-Slovak-Hungary-Austrian for example – of course this is just a ‘cursory glance’ and may not correspond to ‘reality’.
10. That there was a Germanic invasion into Scandinavia and its originally population(possible Finno-Ugrian?) were vanquished, almost decimated and assimilated – could I speculate that such an event was the origin of the Aesir-Vanir ‘war’ in Norse mythology? Aesir as the ‘sagacious’ Indo-Europeans(as the invading Germanic tribes view themselves) and ‘Vanir’ as the ‘savage’ ‘original tribes’? What does yalensis and ini-itte think of this possibility?
11. To yalensis: the Celts in the British Ilses were as Indo-European in ‘culture’ as the Anglo-Saxons. If both were ‘brutal’, why did the Anglo-Saxons succeed in almost totally subduing the Celts? Interestingly, the Y-haplotype frequencies of modern English people are akin to modern Irish and modern Scottish than to the modern North Germans(presuming the Anglo-Saxons’ original homeland was the Shcleswig-Holstein area and the Jutish peninsula) meaning that the Anglo-Saxons were the elites who did not quite manage to exterminate all Celts and that in fact many English are ‘Anglized’ Celts?
12. I think Y-haplotype frequency analysis is incomplete molecular analysis of the origin of ‘human groups and races’. Only ~ 50% of the population are analyzed- i.e. only the males! These should be correlated with mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) haplotype analysis so that we can ‘reconstruct’ the maternal aspect of human origins. X chromosome haplotype analysis – I don’t know if scientists do this analysis. Also, concurrent research on ‘minor’ blood group frequencies amongst population subgroups, major and minor HLA inheritance analysis and restriction fragment length polymorphisms would be useful.
sinotibetan
Perhaps I should further clarify that I have no formal education on biology or genetics since high-school. But I am a bit familiar with bioinformatics as a neighbouring field.
I thank sinotibetan for his thorough response.
Here is my own response:
1. I know that the homeland of indo-europeans is still open for discussion. Some have placed it south-west to the Urals and there it might have had an early contact with finno-ugric peoples. Some have placed it around the Black Sea or in the Balkans – if indo-europeans lived in north-Caucasus or in Crimea or near the mouth of Danube at the last stages of the last ice age, then again one can assume cantacts with more northern tribes who were partly ancestors to contemporary finno-ugrians. But I do understand that the Ukrainian refuge before, during and right after the LGM had a climate suitable for hunter-gatherers and thus those tribes were more likely speaking languages more similar to finno-ugric than those of indo-european. If one can establish that for example contemporary slavs (and balts) have less than half of genenetic material from those northerly hunter-gatherers, then one could suggest that contemporary slavs (and balts) perhaps did not mainly evolve from ancestors speaking finno-ugric before neolithic times. But if more than half of the genetic material of contemporary (western, eastern or north-eastern) slavs come from ice-age east (and central) European regions suitable for hunter gatherers, then most of their ancestors probably spoke languages similar to finno-ugric and thus a switch of languages must have taken place. As I understand, indo-european languages are not considered as languages of northern hunter-gatherers, or perhaps not as hunter-gatherers at all.
My point is that we, as finno-ugrians, increasingly do not see balts and slavs as mainly indo-euopeans, but as descendants of former paleo-european hunter-gatherers who once spoke languages similar to finno-ugric and have (some sooner, some later) switched over to indo-european dialects. And that might also be one of the reasons why slavic and baltic languages are so similar and are form one linguistic subgroup.
Based on the N1c1 (from the link sinotibetan gave), in the Baltics, estonians have slightly less N1c1 and lithuanians have more N1c1. I consider N1c1 as the marker for “continental” finno-ugrians – those who made a counter-clockwise turn. I consider R1a as another marker from the Ukrainian refugium, which is also more of a “ice-age continental finno-ugric” legacy marker. That leaves I1 and R1b (from Franco-Cantabria and/or from Balkans) as possible markers for more “maritime” hunter-gatherers from central and/or western Europe. The mixing of R1a and R1b and I for the Baltics happened within the Swiderian and to some extent the Ahrensburg cultures, while the share related to N1c1 was added a bit later on from the east, but those N1c1 influences were otherwise still closely related to peoples carrying R1a. Poles are predominantly R1a, probably from Swiderian times (and deriving from the Ukrainian refugium), and I cannot imagine that those swiderian proto-poles were speaking some sort of indo-european, but I can imagine that they spoke some sort of finno-ugric.
2. As I wrote above, I believe that N1c1 is not the only marker for ice-age (proto) finno-ugric ancestry. It would also include a large share of R1a.
3. I do not consider the whole of I1 as a Germanic admixture, more like Ahrensburgian and later on the Pitted Ware influence. I also do not believe that the vikings influence in the Volga region would explain most of the I1a there. I believe that much of the northern (Baltic Sea + Volga) I1a is related to the boating hunter-gatherers. I consider only the I1b2-M223 as the Germanic influence – that share among estonians is 0,5%, 1,2% among latvians, 0,9% among western finns and 0,9% among eastern finns. The differences are probably statistically insignificant, so the more correct statement would be that “despite the 700 year german yoke in Estonia and Latvia, the germanic genetical influence is not larger than among finns”. So basically the germanic yoke did not significantly alter local northern Baltic population. A more interesting question would be, to what extent the local Baltic population managed to influence the genetic makeup of Baltic germans – i.e. how much of them had ancestry related to local pre-christian nobility.
5. Discussed under 1 and 3.
7. I was referring to only russians, not to other eastern slavs. I consider ukrainians to be the oldest east-slavs, belorussians as second oldest and russians as the youngest. I consider all eastern slavs and poles to have switched over from finno-ugric. The cultural ancestry of south-western slavs are more of a questionmark to me. As to russians as the youngest among all in eastern europe, they have some competition from latvians, but I should point out that the Moscow – Smolensk region was originally inhabited by finno-ugrians, who later on switched over to baltic dialects and still later on to russian. But some of those balts around Moscow and Smolensk moved north-west along the Daugava and helped to turn the finnic population north of Daugava to baltic.
10. I would prefer “scandinavian” invasion, not “germanic”. First they (their culture) moved north, then they moved south again. I consider Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein as scandinavian, not german.
Relations to Aesir-Vanir war? Perhaps. But one would have to understand that at the time of the influx, Sweden was already separated from continental Denmark. It was also warmer and thus no winter ice there and they could not walk over the straits. So the danish indo-european culture had to acquire either an agreement with the previous hunter-gatherers, or at least get assistance from some of them. I do not consider those early agriculturalists militarily any stronger than european settlers against native americans, with the further notion that those European hunter-gatherers had vastly superior shipping culture. So even a 100:1 numerical advantage might not have been enough to establish a beach-head. Most likely the danish agriculturalists were themselves largely descendants of hunter-gatherers and used the services of those on their own coastline and they probably had initial agreements with hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia to settle there (just like in north America around 17th.c.AD). Later on, when agriculture proved more fertile, the agriculturalists mostly outbred and to some extent assimilated hunter-gatherers and that process certainly brought about conflicts. It was also rational that hulter-gatherers took over trading business over seas and on rivers and lakes, because of their maritime culture. The coastline areas were the last to be assimilated. The name ‘Vanir’ might be related to ‘Vendi’ (vend, venna, venda in estonian; little guy/little brother = vennike), which in finnic languages refers to a brotherhood or a guild or a set of related tribes. It might also be the origin of Fin-land.
More about Venir…
It might also be related to ‘väin’ or ‘veen’.
‘väin’ = strait
The sea around west-Estonian islands is called Väinameri. The Daugava river in estonian is called Väina river. Both were much more inland when the coastline had not rebounded yet from the glacial pressure (and during Baltic lake periods). Karelian / finnic epic Kalevala speaks about Väinämöinen.
‘veen’ = vein, a blood artery
I am not sure about the finnic origin of ‘veen’, could be a loanword from indo-european (through germanic), but germanic (and indo-european) words could also be loans from some proto-european (finno-ugric) dialect, so a double-loan is not out of the question.
The explanation could be that hunter-gatherer brotherhood was based on tributary and watershed systems.
‘veen / veden’ also designate ‘water’.
And a ‘vein’ could designate an artery of riversystems.
There is a similarity with a tributary (valg-ala) and a tribal state territory (vald / valta). In finnic languages vald/valta also designate power (compare to russian ‘vlast’), valdama designates a verb for ownership, vallutama/valtaama designates a verb for occupation/conquest.
The corresponding english terms would be:
valgala = flow area
valg = flow
valu = cast (the fluid falls to a cast), pain
valguma / valuama = to fall
valge = white
Truth rises, false falls = tõde tõuseb, vale vajub / valgub
So the Baltic Sea based on finnic dialects would not mean a White Sea, but a Flow Sea.
The White Sea would also mean a Flow Sea.
Beloozero = Flow Lake
Volga = Flow river
All these waterbodies have formed as a result of the Balto-Scandian ice sheet.
Russia = Boatland (Vene-maa)
Belarus = Flow-boatland (or a watershed-crossing boatland region near Smolensk)
Venir is also deceptively similar to estonian word ‘veenire’, meaning a “trickle of water / a thin thread of water”.
‘Nire / nõre’ is related to ‘nöör / narua / Narva’.
‘Narwhal’ has a corkscrew horn (a tooth, actually), as if a thread has been screwed around it. The english word ‘whale’ is believed to be derived from proto-european (probably finno-ugric) word ‘kala’, which means ‘a fish’. Whaling is still a hunter-gatherers occupation around the world.
Well, we have wandered far from PISA results, haven’t we? At least I have.
Vanir are often associated with boars.
Tacitus mentioned that Aestii keep boars as their totem animals.
Aestii = Eesti / Estonia / Estland
In Tacitus times, Aestii probably designated all the Baltic coastland from Estonia to Prussia. I doubt that all those coastal people still spoke finnic dialects at the times of Tacitus, but who knows.
So Vanir already have connections with vendi, Finland and Aesti/Eesti – all that supports the idea that coastal regions were the last to be assimilated by indo-europeans.
Thor / Taara / Toora as a name for god is widely used all over Eurasia, but in medieval pre-christian Estonia it was also related to the Kaali meteorite impact worshipping. Thus the sun behind the Van god Freyr – at least some scandinavian legends have the sunset in the east to Scandinavia, but I am not sure if it is related to Freyr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanir
I must warn that recorded estonian folklore has very few named gods. Taara / Ukko / Pitkne, some others, nothing of the sort of scandinavian god families. Karelian finnic folklore is richer in older layers of such figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiðr
Seid or seiðr is an Old Norse term for a type of sorcery or witchcraft which was practiced by the pre-Christian Norse. Sometimes anglicized as “seidhr,” “seidh,” “seidr,” “seithr,” or “seith,” the term is also used to refer to modern Neopagan reconstructions or emulations of the practice.
In finnic (and saami) dialects, that relates to the verbs of sõitlema / sajatama, which refer to a spelling type of witchcraft. It might also be related to the word for war (sõda / sota) and the word of ‘word’ (sõna).
Another word fur such activities is ‘sõnuma / ära sõnuma’ – to put a word (a spell) upon someone. This is also related to the custom of not calling animals with their proper name – to not give them a short notice that they are under discussion and a possible prey.
I believe finnic epics Kalevala and Kalevipoeg and Suur Tõll all include such activities (‘sõitlema / sajatama’).
Just passing by; I thought that you may be interested in the studies, which showed high number of R1a amongst the ancient skeletons associated with Scyths, Tocharians and other indo-european people. Also in India there was once public outrage with the studies showing, that the higher caste had much more r1a and were more genetically similar to Poles and Russians, than lower castes. A lot of effort went into proving, that R1a is as prevalent amongst lower castes as amongst higher.
Anyway, it means that R1a is more probably tied to indo-european, than to ugro-finns.
It is not 100% sure whether Scythians originally designated exclusively indo-europeans.
If the name predates horsekeeping, then it might also mean “skiing peoples”. The ‘ski / to ski’ comes from finno-ugric (or more universal) ‘suusk / suuskama’. Traveling ‘by skiing’ can be said as ‘suuskaten / suuskiten’.
“Anyway, it means that R1a is more probably tied to indo-european, than to ugro-finns.”
I beg to disagree. R1a is considered to have been widely spread in ice-age Europe, especially in eastern Europe (Ukrainian refuge). It might be that some paleo-european carriers of R1a were already speaking indo-european, but most likely not all of them. The initial repopulation of Poland after the last ice age was by hunter-gatherers from the Ukrainian refugium who most likely spoke dialects similar to finno-ugric. It seems that those initial inhabitants of Poland moved to east, north-east when new lands emerged from the glaciers / seas, and the new wave to Poland came from the immediate western regions (where land was submerging, Doggerland for example), which initially had also had influx from the Ukrainian region.
The way I see it, the only way that R1a can mostly be attributed to indo-european is if those “R1a indo-europeans” during the last ice age inhabited either the northern shores of the Black Sea, the northern Caucasus or the northern coast area of the Kaspian Sea, AND if those “R1a indo-europeans” were much more numerous to “R1a finno-ugrians” further north AND if they both had a similar lifestyle. This logical conjunction seems quite improbable.
We might get some clarifications from recent bone findings near Tartu, Estonia. 10 skeletons of stone-age (about 8200 years old) warriors were unearthed there. Let’s hope that they can extract some DNA.
Dear sino-tibetan: Thank you so much for your great comments! I only feel qualified to comment on your point #11, and you are absolutely correct: the Saxons did not physically exterminate the Celts. I should have been more clear on that and not implied that a genocide took place. On the contrary, the Saxon-speaking elite (kings, lords, ruling class, etc.) were a minority and were gentically absorbed through inter-marriage with the Celtic substratum; however, because of their political dominance, they did leave their mark linguistically, as their native Germanic language became widespread through the British Isles (albeit with much Celtic influence on grammar and vocabulary), mostly pushing out the native Celtic languages.
What a great discussion this is — thank you again!
The Polish American iq was 91 in the 1920′s & by the 1970′s the Polish American iq was 109
While in the 1970′s the U.S average was 98
The 1970′s white average was 100
& the 1970′s Asian average was 97
Today the U.S white average iq is 103
& Asian American iq up to as high as 107.
I don’t know the most recent Polish American iq but the White average jumped 3 points in 30 years & the Asian iq in America jumped about 9 points
So the Polish American iq could be like 115 now even.
China scored a 100 iq. By the most recent iq test went up to 105 iq
When Poland scored a 99 iq & Jumped to 106 iq by the most recent iq test.
East Germany under the same circumstances of COmmunism scored a 95 iq.
Poland scored a 99 iq, CzechSlovakia 97, Russia & Ukraine a 96 iq & Slovenia a 95 iq.
With Hungary scoring a 99 iq (Hungarians are not Slavs by linguistics but by genes Hungarians are more Slavic than some Slavs are
In this same Iq test West Germany scored a 103 iq which was the highest in Europe.
Now when East Germany scores a 8 point lower iq due to Communism & Yet West Germany scores the highest Iq in Western Europe?
To me this proves that Slavs are intellectually superior
Now Germans & Jews are both mixed with Slavic.
East Germany was once Slavic land. The Sorbs, Polabians ect. The Germans mass assimilated Polabians & Sorbs.
Many of the Greatest Germans had Slavic ancestry. Including Friedrich Nietzsche (Nicki) who was Polish & One of the best philosophers of all time
Leibniz who was a Slavic Sorb & Invented Calculus & binary code used in Computers
Paul Nipkow was a Slavic Polish Kashubian who invented Television
Other Slavic Germans inclode Rudolf Virchow, Von Zeppellin, Theodor Kaluza Robert Remak, Gustav Virchow,
Alot of Superior Germans came from far Eastern parts of Germany
Both Wernher VOn Braun & Immanuel Kants roots are from Kognisburg ( Kalingrad)
Germans themselves have admitted that everyone from Kognisburg had some Balto Slavic roots
By genes East Prussians were probably about 80 percent Balto Slavic & only about 20 percent German
Millions of Poles, Russians, Belarussians & Lithaunians were mass assimilated to German in the region of Prussia
The Prussians showed to have a 40 percent R1a Haplogroup level. Compared to 24 percent R1a for East Germany & 8 percent R1a for West Germany
Compare with 56 percent R1a for Poland & 46 percent R1a for Russia you can see that East Prussians were majority Slavic by genes
Balts are not Slavic but extremely close relatives both lingustically & genetically.
Slavs are far closer related to Balts than to anyone else
The only white Nations to win the IBM battle of the Brain contest were Poland, russia & Ukraine.
Now college students worldwide who are programmers, mathematicians ect compete in the IBM battle of the brain contest.
Now no Western European country won this
Only Poland, Russia, Ukraine, India & China have won this.
Now considering that India & China alone have more people than all of Europe combined
This shows how Slavs are superior
Also Russia won the International Math Olympics the most 4 times more than America & 2 times more than Germany did.
Bulgaria won the International Math Olympics as much as the U.S did. pretty sad that a small poor country like Bulgaria can do as well as a huge powerful nation like the U.S
Eastern Europeans won the International Math olympics more on average.
Some of the most intelligent people ever were Slavs.
Igor Sikorsky was Polish, Russian & Ukrainian & He invented the Mass produced Helicopter,
He is the Henry Ford of Helicopters.
The Helicopter is a Slavic Invention
The start of Helicopter mechanics start from Russian Mikhail Lomonosov
All the way back to Slovak Jan Bahyl invented the first helicopter
Igor Sikorsky invented the modern helicopter
Then Polish American Frank Piasecki invented the double roter helicopter
Of course the best Writers of all time are Russian Dostoevysky & Tolstoy
The best Inventor of all time is Serb Nikola Tesla. Tesla invented Radio, Remote controls, Alternate current, Induction motor, Tesla Coil, Hydro Electric plant, Tesla coil & many many more.
The first Automatic Digital computer was invented by Bulgarian Antanasoff
Polish Paul Baran invented the basis for the Internet, He also invented Wireless Internet, the Gun Metal Detector & was instrumental in Invented the ATM Machine, DSL & Cable Modems.
The Cell Phone was invented by Ukrainian American Martin Cooper
The Walkie Talkie was invented by Polish Henryk Magnuski
Rockety was invented by Polish Russian Konstantine Tsiolkovsky
Polish Ignacy Lukasiewicz invented the Oil Pump, Kerosene Lamp, Oil Refinery, Oil Wells, Kerosene lamp, Black top & Modern street lights
Russian Vasily Semyonov invented the Modern Oil Industry
Croatian Antony Lucas (Lucic) invented the Oil Industry in the U.S
Elevator, Gear boxes, Nuclear Power, Periodic Tables Lightning Rods Radiators, Electric Arcs, Mono Rails , Blood Banks, Modern Oil Tankers were by Russiansinvented in Russian
I am not really sure how anyone can say Slavs are stupid.
From my experience Western Europeans seem to be quite a bit more stupid than Slavs.
I rarely meet stupid slavs
I often meet stupid Western Europeans
This post, as kovane pointed out, was not my best work. The allusion that Slavs were stupid just because they’re Slavs so annoyed me that I didn’t research the subject very carefully, and I thought I had a winner in Estonians. Many pointed out that they are not Slavs, or not majority Slavic. I learned a great deal from informed comment, though, and yours would certainly have been welcome at the time.
It turned out that the individual (someone calling himself AJ) who started it all was just someone who shops around the blogs and tries to start racial-themed arguments until he’s kicked off. Kovane found a couple of other examples.
1. Peter Grunberg Physics 2007 born Czech Republic
2. Gunter Grass Literature 1999 born Poland
3. Gerhart Hauptmann Literature 1912 born Poland
4. Wilhelm Ostwald Chemistry 1909 born Latvia
5. Albert Michelson Physics 1907 born Poland
6. Philipp Lenard Physics 1905 born Slovakia
This means that these are all Slavs?? They definitely have very Slavic surnames. MicheSON, HauptMAN, GRASS (GROSS), GrunBERG.
Jews born in Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Russia always try to claim to be either Polish, Russian, Ukrainians, etc.
From what I know, the so-enlightened and intelligent europeans were tossing trash on the streets and emptying bowels there as well throughout Middle Ages. Europeans barely washed themselves due to Catholic Church ban on bath houses and such. That’s hardly a sign of intelligence.
Queen Isabella of Spain washed herself twice in life – once when she was born and second time before her wedding.
Nobel Prize! LOL. Is that a measure? Obama won the Nobel Prize. For what?? Most likely for using the neuro-linguistic programming techniques on dumb Americans.
A little all over the place here. When writing about Slavs it is a good idea to stick to Slav understanding of who are Slavs. As noted above, Ayn Rand and people with surnames like Hauptmann aren’t actually claimed by Slavs as Slavs.
That said Rand is an interesting case. I have seen her described as a Russian writer in the sense that that is the literature she belonged to. To me that is a stretch since she wrote in English, but it is true she shares many characteristics with Russian radical authors.
I would agree in the sense that she was strongly anti-Communist, which was a good part of her attraction for Americans. But at the time she was writing, Russians were not anti-Communist, and loyalty to the state was an essential characteristic to being Russian. It’s interesting that her first work was unpublished in the USA for a long time because it was assessed as too anti-Communist.
Ayn Rand – Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
Rosenbaum? Russian? Russian-speaking, yes. But not Russian.
Although born in St. Petersburg, she was an Ashkenazi Jew. To me, if you are born in Russia and speak Russian, you are Russian – the same as if you’re born in the United States to a set of parents from Costa Rica, and you speak English, nobody would say, “English-speaking, yes; but not American.”
The distinction, though, was that she was not Slavic. Russian, yes, and everyone would agree had she been born in Russia and lived her entire life there (which she did not, and America is only eager to claim a share in her development because she lived part of her life in the United States). But Slavic, which was critical to the argument, no.
And that is why you have a flaw in our speculations about IQ. If an Nigerian was born in Russia, he’s just a frigging citizen of Russian Federation, but not a Russian. Russian is ethnicity. Read some genome studies about the Slavic ethnic groups. Don’t mix the jews into it. Being born in country where dominant ethnic group is Russians does not mean one is Russian. Genetics is a much bigger proof than a stamp in the passport.
Yes, that’s what I said. She was a Russian (as in a Russian citizen), but not a Slav. But I have still to see any respected research which supports any group being genetically stupid, which was the suggestion that inspired the post in the first place. Ayn Rand was not a good example, because she’s not a Slav. Estonians were not a good example, because the majority of them are not Slavs, either.
You forgot to include the Serbs in the South Slavic group!
The Indo Europeans originiated somwhere around the Volga. They were one tribe of white people with the same language. Around 4000 BC they started to spread into all directions. The various groups developed different languages like Germanic, Slavic, Latin, Greek ect
So if you talk about Germanic peoples or Slavs ect – you just talk about white people/Europeans that speak a different Indo european language.
The Finns, Hungarians and Estonians ect have non indo European languages – from groups that came perhaps from Asia – but they are Indo Europeans because those “invaders” have been assimilated by the Indo european population.
People in India, Iran ect still talk a Indo European language from the white people that came from Europe and established a ruling cast there – (Aryan means: Noble from the North)but over time the white people from Europe mixed with the dark skinned aboriginies and in time dissappeared.
Only the language of this white ruling class remained.
So If anyone says India or Iran are Arayn – they mean the language and not the skin colour/people ect.
Another matter is: The Europeans are one people/family and extremely mixed. They just speak different languages.
How many Germans and Austrians went to the Czech republic and became Czechs and vice versa?
How many Germans went to Russia and became Russians and vice versa?
Britain and France, Spain and Italy, Rumania and Ukraine ect ect
One misconception concenrning eastern Europe is that many people think that Gypsies are Russians, or Czechs or Slovaks or Poles or Rumanians ect
They are not – Gypsies came from India and have never been assimilated by the European population.
So while they speak the language of the country they live in the are NOT Eastern Europeans or Europeans in general.
The same can be said about Albania and the Balkan.
While many muslims there are considered Europeans they are not – they are descendants of the Turks that came there and like the Gypsies have never been assimilated by the European populations there.
Rather these original European populations have been replaced with these turkish migrants.
Another misconception about Eastern Europa is that it is backward – it was until 1990 – but not because they are less intelligent or something – but because they had to endure 45 years – in Russias case 70 years of Communism!
And since communism is the most inhumane terror Ideologie ever created and killed over 20 million people in eastern Europe – that was a HUGE blow to Eastern Europe from which it has to recover.
Imagine 40 or 70 years of Communism in Britain or France… just look what it did to eastern Germany….
Great explanation!
One Jewish comedian said, “Do you know what is the difference between a British joke and a Jewish joke? English tell their joke on their own British land, and Jewish tell their joke on the British land”.
Thanks.
Its just stupid how some people say that eastern Europeans or the Balkans are not as good as the Western part of Europe. We are all white-have nearly the same religion and mentality and are Europeans.
The Czechs in 1940 were among the top 10 industrialised nations on earth – before communism. Russia build a VAST Empire and defeated the Mongol hordes.
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
Tesla, Dvorak,Tolstoj ect ect all slavic speaking.
Take a baby from France and give it to some family in Moscow – and it will be slavic speaking. No one will ever know it came from France.
Take a baby from Moscow and give it to a family in Britain – and it will be germanic speaking. No one will ever know it came from Russia.
Because Europeans are the same
The Balkans had to endure 500 years of turkish terror rule
Eastern Europe 40 or more years of Communism + two world wars
Additionaly a huge migration of Gypsies and muslims that are not Europeans since they were not assimiliated by the european population.
It was all this that devastated these regions so much that they still recover from that blow.
BTW: I live in Western Europe and when I travel to Eastern Europe I see 99% white people. While here in the West we allready have some 20 million Muslims and blacks and Gypsies that have never been assimilated into the european population……..
All trace holidays to March 8!!!
My wife, Natalya Vladimirovna, is a Slav born and bred in Moscow. She must be stupid because she married me, an Englishman born and bred not far from Manchester.!