Ian Iveson wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> > Aborigines didn't invent the wheel, or independently
> > evolve to build a city like Paris on the shores of the
> > Yarra River
> > where Melbourne is.
> >
> > When a blackfella living in the old style way in a group
> > up the bush,
> > he'd marry and bonk his missus as much as possible like WT
> > bonk their
> > White Wives.
> > But black and white men were pretty clueless about what
> > caused babies
> > for a heck of a long time
> > since we evolved into conscious rational thinking wise
> > beings.
> > In ancient times, if a black, brown, pink, white, yellow
> > bloke didn't
> > bonk his missus,
> > which was so rare its hard to imagine,
> > she still became pregnant.
> > So it obviously wasn't bonking that caused pregnancy.
> > Of course what was going on to lead to this logical
> > conclusion was that
> > the missus
> > belonging to the bloke would feel so ****ing ***** and
> > randy while out
> > gathering nuts, grubs,
> > and edible plants that she'd wander past the neighbours
> > and a single
> > bloke in that mob
> > would see her with that look and follow her awhile, and
> > ****ge ****ge,
> > wink wink,
> > and """AAAHHHHHHH, OOOHHHH, that feels BETTER!!!"""
> > And boy, that was easy to do and easy to get away with.
> > What did abos think about 300 years ago? ***, food, ***,
> > food, ***,
> > food.
> > Everyone was ****d, mainly young, lean and ***y and fit
> > (while they
> > lived.)
> > There was hardly anyone else in the world, and plenty of
> > big paddocks
> > and trees and bushes to hide behind.
> > The world was then a natural Rooter's Paradise, a
> > Fornicators's Heaven.
> > No condoms, no coppers, no lawyers, divorce settlements,
> > and no complex
> > silly social rules.
> >
> > So a bloke had a real job to keep stray semen out of his
> > missus's fanny.
> >
> > But maybe he was not aware of what was going on. Wives and
> > husbands sure
> > broke all the tribal rules when it suited them. Always
> > have, always
> > will,
> > and people are doin it and doin it right now.
> > If the abo saw another bloke rootin his missus, maybe he'd
> > just get
> > riled and
> > spear the **** right on the spot, and his missus too.
> > I doubt he'd know why he got so riled, but he would get
> > VERY cranky. He
> > didn't much know why,
> > or why so many tribal wars went on either, but they did.
> > Anyway, the few people who did make it to old age seemed
> > to transfer the
> > wisdoms of the tribe forward in an unwritten and verbal
> > way,
> > and that takes some very real intelligence.
> > Getting to old age was more likely if you were
> > intelligent.
> > The dumb ones died early.
> >
> > Had the rest of the world away from Australia not existed,
> > and hadn't
> > evolved science and doctors et all then perhaps I'd not be
> > here to
> > discuss this,
> > and I'd be dead if I was an abo, because life expectancy
> > was rather
> > short,
> > one could die anytime, and nobody really knew why. So
> > marriages didn't
> > last
> > because death intervened so often. Pregnancy was a death
> > sentance for
> > many ****elas.
> > Anyway, there was lotsa irregular rootin goin on, at least
> > while you was
> > young.
> > But anyway, without the rest of the world existing,
> > perhaps in another 25,000 years someone in Oz might have
> > decided to
> > invent
> > agrriculture, the wheel, culture and civilisation like in
> > ancient Iraq,
> > about 10,000 years ago.
> > The fact that I would be a member of a race such as
> > aboriginies in Oz
> > wouldn't make me
> > unintelligent with low IQ because I didn't know what
> > caused babies.
> > If I'd been an abo, perhaps I'd have been a smarter one,
> > but the abos
> > never
> > reasoned there was a need to have a test for it, or some
> > reward for high
> > scores, " dat white fella BS."
> > When we see how complex the aboriginal culture and its art
> > actually is,
> > then we see that you have to be pretty intelligent to
> > follow the thought
> > of the previous owners of Oz.
>
> Anthropology is, or maybe was coz you don't hear much about
> it these days, an interesting subject.
>
> Engels' "The Family, Private Property and the State" is a
> readable eye-opener. Pioneering and hence necessarily
> speculative in terms of detail, not rigorous by today's
> standards, no longer so cheap since the withdrawal of Soviet
> literature subsidies, and rather out of fa****on, it is
> nonetheless recognised as an im****tant contribution.
>
> Part of its intent was to counter the common assumption of
> romantic socialists and Christians that the world was once a
> garden of Eden, where happy and beautiful natives lived in
> harmony. Naturally Engels wanted to work towards a better
> future rather than dream of returning to the past. Unlike so
> many namby-pamby liberals and fire-and-brimstone
> fundamentalists, he believed in progress.
>
> The revelation is in its methodology, which it shares with
> astronomy and geology, and other parts of science that are
> not amenable to classical experimental techniques or
> analysis. If you look at the sky you can see many different
> kinds of objects, behaving in lots of different ways, and
> it's tempting to assume that so much variety must have been
> created by some clever being with a lot of imagination. But
> if you look for long enough you begin to notice changes, and
> this leads you to think in terms of processes. One day you
> are struck by a notion which becomes obvious as soon as it
> hits you: it's all the same process; and you see that the
> variety illustrates stages of development. Once unravelled
> and placed in order of time, you have an illustrated history
> of the universe.
>
> So it is with the history of people. At the time of the
> emergence of anthropology, though sadly perhaps no longer,
> you could travel round the world, if you were very rich and
> curious, and see a great variety of forms of social
> organisation. As with geology with its rock formations and
> astronomy with its heavenly bodies, it became apparent to
> those able to tear themselves away from received wisdom,
> that it all fell into place once a timeline was introduced.
>
> Engels would have regarded native Australians as savages,
> but the word had a different meaning then ("The Noble
> Savage"). IIRC, societies that didn't know how reproduction
> happened tended to be matriarchal: men may have been good at
> hunting but were totally useless at making the babies that
> you needed to look after you when you got too old to fend
> for yourself.
>
> Anyway, diversity and recombinant hybridisation adds vigour.
> There's progress, and backsliding, but no standing still.
>
> Thank god for black Americans. I remember when Eysenck was
> hounded from the platform at the LSE for saying that people
> of African decent had low IQs. His defence was that it's
> true, which rather missed the point. It was, and is, a truth
> of little significance for any purpose other than racialism,
> and he became the darling of the neo-fascists who wished to
> wrap the idea, that black people are by nature unfit for
> high office, in language that seemed like respectable
> science.
>
> If you test dolphins, they have an average IQ of 100. So do
> elephants, Japanese people, Australians as a whole, and
> native Australians. Any group you test has *by definition*
> an average IQ of 100. Mix them into one group, and the
> average will still be 100. If you test a group, you cannot
> validly come to any conclusion about how sub-groups compare
> with each other: it's either a group or it isn't, you can't
> have it both ways.
>
> There is nothing clear about the meaning of intelligence
> either, and it can't be expressed as a number, obviously.
> Anyone who brags about his IQ is deluded in the saddest way
> I can think of. Bret probably has a big one, too. Doesn't
> stop his head being full of ****.
Well, like me you see good and bad and complexity
where others see only good or bad, and simplicity.
I'm looking for a gal with a high FQ,
****ability Quotient.
Izza Notzo eazy.
Patrick Turner.
>
> Ian
|
