Cultural differences: A DNA link?

[Pharaoh]

'East Asian and European cultures have long been very different, Richard Nisbett argued in his recent book "The Geography of Thought." East Asians tend to be more interdependent than the individualists of the West, which he attributed to the social constraints and central control handed down as part of the rice-farming techniques Asians have practiced for thousands of years.
Â*
A separate explanation for such long-lasting character traits may be emerging from the human genome. Humans have continued to evolve throughout prehistory and perhaps to the present day, according to a new analysis of the genome reported last week by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago.
Â*
Napoleon Chagnon for many decades studied the Yanomamo, a warlike people who live in the forests of Brazil and Venezuela. He found that men who had killed in battle had three times as many children as those who had not. Since personality is heritable, this would be a mechanism for Yanomamo nature to evolve and become fiercer than usual.'
Link here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/12/news/genes.php)

Could the statistical finding that, for example, black people are more likely to commit violent street crime be because of their DNA?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Oh, sweet Jesus.....

[Pharaoh]

Good point, maybe Jesus had 'Christian' DNA.

[ItalianStereotype]

ahaha

[Miss Modular]

Is it just me, or does Pharaoh remind me of our old friend Chagroth?

[Vexation]

Could the statistical finding that, for example, black people are more likely to commit violent street crime be because of their DNA?

You complete dumbass.

DNA traights take hundreds of years to develop. It does not happen overnight.

[Pharaoh]

Could the statistical finding that, for example, black people are more likely to commit violent street crime be because of their DNA?

You complete dumbass.

DNA traights take hundreds of years to develop. It does not happen overnight.

Where did I say it did happen overnight?

Did you read the article?

'Napoleon Chagnon for many decades studied the Yanomamo, a warlike people who live in the forests of Brazil and Venezuela. He found that men who had killed in battle had three times as many children as those who had not. Since personality is heritable, this would be a mechanism for Yanomamo nature to evolve and become fiercer than usual.'

Likewise Sub-Saharan Africa has a long history of tribal warfare and that could cause a DNA with more of a tendency towards using violence.

And it's traits not 'traights', knucklehead.

[Supafly345]

"Excuse me for thinking" is what he means.

[ziggytrix]

Likewise Sub-Saharan Africa has a long history of tribal warfare and that could cause a DNA with more of a tendency towards using violence.

Whereas Europe has no history of warfare whatsoever. If only them darkies weren't just naturally violent, we wouldn't have to kill em. :(

[Johnny Couth]

Likewise Sub-Saharan Africa has a long history of tribal warfare and that could cause a DNA with more of a tendency towards using violence.

Whereas Europe has no history of warfare whatsoever. If only them darkies weren't just naturally violent, we wouldn't have to kill em. :(

Take up the White Mans burden!

[Kulturkampf]

Europe would in fact be mightier if it had a greater history of warfare, and due to its great warfare heritage has a great ability to... kick a man's ass.

BTW...

I predict this thread to further devolve into "You are such an idiot/bigot/fascist/bonehead/moron."

No one wants to argue against reason if the conclusions do not favor their personal preference.

[Immortal Goat]

It isn't "reason" if this idea hasn't already been refuted by countless studies. Violence is a learned behavior, it isn't born into you. The reason children of violent people become violent is because it is what they are exposed to. The same can be said about black people. Because a majority of blacks in the U.S. live in low-cost, poorer, violent neighborhoods, they are exposed to it, and therefor more likely to resort to it.

The color of one's skin does not determine if one is violent or not. It is how the person is brought up, and the values instilled during that time. If one is brought up to care for all human life, no matter what, and they are constantly exposed to it, then that is, most likely, how they will be.

I will admit that there are cases where someone is a psychopath, and their behavior is unavoidable and mostly born into them. However, there isn't much significant proof that being a psychopath is hereditary. At least, not to my knowledge, which is admittedly very limited in the psychological field.

[maggiekarp]

I think it's really weird to see a Chinese person with a British accent


I just kind of assumed they all inherited broken engrish and eggroll-making skills.

[Pharaoh]

It isn't "reason" if this idea hasn't already been refuted by countless studies. Violence is a learned behavior, it isn't born into you. The reason children of violent people become violent is because it is what they are exposed to. The same can be said about black people. Because a majority of blacks in the U.S. live in low-cost, poorer, violent neighborhoods, they are exposed to it, and therefor more likely to resort to it.


They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all.

Obviously no liberal would agree with that, because it could possibly lead to discrimination against blacks, but new research into the human genome is going to be a lot more difficult to disprove. You can't avoid the truth forever, the uncomfortable facts will have to faced sooner or later.

[Dole]

You're just a racist who is grabbing anything that can be manipulated to back up your tawdry little prejudices. If you actually believe what you just posted then I just feel sorry for you.

Why not post on a BNP forum? You might make some equally deluded friends....actually, I bet you already do.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all.

Yeah, and thank GOD we have a really fail-proof measurement tool like IQ tests. i mean, look at the wealthiest and most successful people in the world. They ALL have the highest IQs, right? Everybody I know with high IQs are very successful and functional members of society. Every last one of them! :rolleyes


Obviously no liberal would agree with that, because it could possibly lead to discrimination against blacks, but new research into the human genome is going to be a lot more difficult to disprove. You can't avoid the truth forever, the uncomfortable facts will have to faced sooner or later.

What facts have you presented here? You cited one dinky little article. Do you think this brilliant conclusion hasn't been reached by quant-racists before?

I think Ziggy pretty much shot down your blacks are genetically violent crap.

[Skulhedface]

It isn't "reason" if this idea hasn't already been refuted by countless studies. Violence is a learned behavior, it isn't born into you. The reason children of violent people become violent is because it is what they are exposed to. The same can be said about black people. Because a majority of blacks in the U.S. live in low-cost, poorer, violent neighborhoods, they are exposed to it, and therefor more likely to resort to it.

The color of one's skin does not determine if one is violent or not. It is how the person is brought up, and the values instilled during that time. If one is brought up to care for all human life, no matter what, and they are constantly exposed to it, then that is, most likely, how they will be.

I will admit that there are cases where someone is a psychopath, and their behavior is unavoidable and mostly born into them. However, there isn't much significant proof that being a psychopath is hereditary. At least, not to my knowledge, which is admittedly very limited in the psychological field.

There's only one dispute I'd find with this: It may indeed not be hereditary, but it had to START somewhere. If violence isn't born-in and truly IS an acquired trait, one has to wonder naturally where it started, but this isn't a good argument to start as there is no discernible answer, i.e. "Who created God?"

[mburbank]

Okay,

1.) The Chagnon stuff you referenced isn't in the article you linked to.

2.) You didn't mention that Chagnon's work is widely regarded as discreditted within the anthropology community. That doesn't mean he's neccesarily wrong, but its worth mentioning, especially where you bring him up out of the blue as if the two articles were interconnected.

3.) "Since personality is heritable" is part of a quote from Chagnon, delivered as if it is a scientiffic fact. It is not. It is a highly debatable contention, and I am aware of no significant body of research making any such claim.

You should read more deeply. next thing you know you'll be attributing a quote to Churchill that he didn't say and claiming to be 'proud' of him on account of it.

"They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all. "

It has been many, many years since IQ was concidered a reliable measure of intelligence. I'm also unaware of any peer reviewed studies making a causal link between average racial IQ's and demographics. Even studies that claim a link do not claim causality, since it would be nearly impossible to craft an experiemnt which would reveal if Low IQ cuased one to live in a poor neighborhood or living in a poor neighborhood caused a low IQ.

Like many Louts, you have a limmited understanding of how research works and what it takes for research to be concidered verified or even verifiable. You dislike and fear other races and are desperate to find scientfiic justification for your gut reaction so you can revel in it instead of feeling ashamed. This is almost certainly something you 'learned' from your parents, as the idea you might have 'inherited' it shows a childish understanding of what hereity and genes are.

When you respond by pointing out the spelling errors in this post, it will be an example of an attention to irrelivance that is in no way genetic.

[Skulhedface]

They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all.

Yeah, and thank GOD we have a really fail-proof measurement tool like IQ tests. i mean, look at the wealthiest and most successful people in the world. They ALL have the highest IQs, right? Everybody I know with high IQs are very successful and functional members of society. Every last one of them! :rolleyes


Obviously no liberal would agree with that, because it could possibly lead to discrimination against blacks, but new research into the human genome is going to be a lot more difficult to disprove. You can't avoid the truth forever, the uncomfortable facts will have to faced sooner or later.

What facts have you presented here? You cited one dinky little article. Do you think this brilliant conclusion hasn't been reached by quant-racists before?

I think Ziggy pretty much shot down your blacks are genetically violent crap.

Interestingly enough, statistically speaking, serial killers have high IQs.

[Pharaoh]

Okay,

1.) The Chagnon stuff you referenced isn't in the article you linked to.

2.) You didn't mention that Chagnon's work is widely regarded as discreditted within the anthropology community. That doesn't mean he's neccesarily wrong, but its worth mentioning, especially where you bring him up out of the blue as if the two articles were interconnected.

3.) "Since personality is heritable" is part of a quote from Chagnon, delivered as if it is a scientiffic fact. It is not. It is a highly debatable contention, and I am aware of no significant body of research making any such claim.

You should read more deeply. next thing you know you'll be attributing a quote to Churchill that he didn't say and claiming to be 'proud' of him on account of it.

"They live in poorer neighborhoods because, on average, black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, and that means lower paying jobs or none at all. "

It has been many, many years since IQ was concidered a reliable measure of intelligence. I'm also unaware of any peer reviewed studies making a causal link between average racial IQ's and demographics. Even studies that claim a link do not claim causality, since it would be nearly impossible to craft an experiemnt which would reveal if Low IQ cuased one to live in a poor neighborhood or living in a poor neighborhood caused a low IQ.

Like many Louts, you have a limmited understanding of how research works and what it takes for research to be concidered verified or even verifiable. You dislike and fear other races and are desperate to find scientfiic justification for your gut reaction so you can revel in it instead of feeling ashamed. This is almost certainly something you 'learned' from your parents, as the idea you might have 'inherited' it shows a childish understanding of what hereity and genes are.

When you respond by pointing out the spelling errors in this post, it will be an example of an attention to irrelivance that is in no way genetic.

First of all, I'm not proud of Churchill just because of a quote, and whether he said it or not I don't care at all.

Secondly you should get a new pair of specs, because at the bottom of the first page of the article is a NEXT PAGE button, and if you click on it you'll find the Chagnon bit. And there's no mention of him being discredited at all. If he was I'm sure the leftie New York Times would have said so.

Try again.

[Immortal Goat]

I'll do it for him.

Chagnon's work has been heavily criticised and discredited by other anthropologists who have worked with the Yanomami, and described as thoroughly biased and even fabricated.

Need a link, dumbshit?

http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=156

[kahljorn]

"If violence isn't born-in and truly IS an acquired trait, one has to wonder naturally where it started"

A) When we used to hunt and kill animals for food/protection and whatever else

B) Not necessarily, but close enough: culture.

Genes could actually play a potential role in anger, however, it's unlikely it would effect an entire ethnicity because the entire ethnicity does not necessarily have the same genes.

[Pharaoh]

I'll do it for him.

Chagnon's work has been heavily criticised and discredited by other anthropologists who have worked with the Yanomami, and described as thoroughly biased and even fabricated.

Need a link, dumbshit?

http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=156

If it was so clear that he's discredited then why do you think The New York Times hasn't mentioned it? Any controversial work in this field is challenged, and I can find just as many links to people who support him as you can to people who don't.

Here's one to a defence of his work against the Patrick Tierney claims: Here, dumbshit (http://www.dartreview.com/issues/10.30.00/report.html)

'It is the "political incorrectness" of Chagnon's position that seems to bother moralists the most; by raising the possibility that violence is part of human nature rather than a pathology, Chagnon undermines the moral activists' efforts to promote a less violent world. Sponsel (1998:114) also admits that much of the criticism of Chagnon results from biophobia, which he defines as "an almost automatic reaction against any biological explanation of human behavior, the possibility of biological reductionism, and the associated political implications." Clearly it is the "political implications" that most annoy those with a moralizing agenda.'

[Immortal Goat]

Way to go, getting your information off of a website that barely works. And I see why that defense appeals to you. It attackes the evil "politically correct" people with no baisis in fact whatsoever. It is all merely opinion, whereas the people who debunked Chagnon actually use fucking studies. Congratulations, you moronic bigot. You have officially been revoked of your humanity.

[mburbank]

Porky; You rushed to attributre the quote to Churchill because you thought I didn't know who said it. It made you feel superior, which is sad, because I do know who said it, and it wasn't Churchill. It's just an example of the way your tiny porcine brain works. You think you now more than other people about subject, but it turns out all you know is the 'common knowledge', something which is generally wrong.

Of course you don't care. If you did care, it would be harder to be so full of yourself.

The New York Times is often fallible, especially lately. One need only look at the Judith Miller stories on WMD to see how easily their staff is misled. For instance in your article (Thanks for pointing out the button I missed) , the author makes his bizarre statement on personlity being hereditable without attributing it to Chagnon. Since that statement is highly contoversial and is in no way proven, that's an error any editor should have caught at any paper, liberal, conservative or small town. Likewise, citing Chagnon without mentioning that he is very poorly thought of academically and ethically (He's believed to have given the Yanamamo the 'gift' of measles) .

What's a moralist? is it the same thing as a Liberal? Can't you post some vague derogatory definition when you bring in a new term? Chagnon doesn't bother me because I'm politically correct (again, do you just mean liberal here? You could save yourself some time) I'm bothered by his lck of adherence to widely accepted reseacrh methodology.

When you say Moral activist, do you just mean liberal? It seems to me your haunted by a ot of boogeymen. I'd suggest it's just one boogeyman. You might sleep easier knowing that. Who is 'Sponsel" and what is he admitting? Is he a Chgnon suporter or detractor? If he's supporter, why the misleading use of the word 'admits'. If he's detractor, what are his objections? Do you actually have any idea who 'Sponsel' is?

It's very easy and very legitimate to point out structural differences in tatsebuds and pigmentation. It's irresponsible to look at personality and behavior, something we understand far, far, far less about then the comparatively simple actions of the nervous system and pigmentation. It's very bad science and it deliberately relies on it's readers ignornace of the terms under discussion. I don't even get to if I think it's all racist clap trap or not, because I'm not even looking at his conclusions yet. His initial premiss is flawed. Badly. He's mixing biology (a hard science) and Anthropology (a soft science)

It's typical for a lout such as yourself to assume my objections are based on being a Liberal Moralist Moral Activist because you don't know shit from shinola, you are a blowhard, and you have an inflated notion of your own intelligence.

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe there are people who have opinions different than yours and it's not because they are namby pamby tree hugging hippies. I'm sure it's comforting living in a world of straw men and imagining the whole world is against you and your few but proud common sense embracing real men. Why it would me more comforting then realizing you are in the majority and you firmly hold the reigns of power England and the USA is beyond me, but go ahead and keep worrying about Moralist Boogedys changing your nursery rhymes. Honestly.

If you need to believe that your lilly white self is superior to all the many varieties of froggy little brown men your country once owned, just do it, but for God's sake, stop your put upon squealing. The wold's trough is squarely under your massive snout. Chow down and shut up.

[Pharaoh]

If you have to resort to old hippie, capitalist pig insults, you've lost, slurbank. And it's very boaring.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

have you done spermbank yet?

Spermbank would by HYSTERICAL.

"and it's very boaring."

[mburbank]

That one's too complicated for him, Kev. Much as my last post obviously was. It probably gave piggywig a headache just looking at more than two paragraphs.

I'll shorten it for you Gruntyclaus:

You don't have any understanding of science or research.

and

You think your shallow survey level knowlege is WAY impressive

and

your wrong.

'slurbank'. Good lord. You are so not viable.

[Pharaoh]

It's not close enough to burbank. No, not good enough I'm afraid, it doesn't pass my strict quality control. It's also too flattering, I doubt butwank has much sperm left, considering the amount of wanking he does.

[Dole]

You see, on one hand you try to present yourself as some kind of learned far-right intellectual, but when anyone picks apart what you say (like Max did on the previous page) you don't even attempt (or perhaps you don't have) any kind of defence. It makes your already ludicrous arguments look just totally and utterly laughable.

[Pharaoh]

You see, on one hand you try to present yourself as some kind of learned far-right intellectual, but when anyone picks apart what you say (like Max did on the previous page) you don't even attempt (or perhaps you don't have) any kind of defence. It makes your already ludicrous arguments look just totally and utterly laughable.

I've already posted a link with a full refutation of leftie journalist Patrick Tierney's allegations against Napoleon Chagnon. But seeing as nobody here seems to have read it, I'll post the whole piece:

We have been asked by the university to gather facts on the allegations against Napoleon Chagnon in the book Darkness in El Dorado by Patrick Tierney (forthcoming on November 16, 2000 from W.W. Norton & Co.). We have now obtained galley proofs of the book. We are also responding to the allegations made in a letter from two reviewers: Terence Turner of Cornell University and Leslie Sponsel of the University of Hawaii-Manoa. Our role is merely to collect data.

In the short time we have had to investigate these allegations, we have already found materials that directly contradict the allegations made against Dr. Neel, Dr. Chagnon, and Dr. Timothy Asch (both Neel and Asch are deceased and unable to defend themselves). It is now clear that the book contains numerous errors and inaccurately presents the work of Chagnon and Neel.

We believe that Mr. Tierney has not consulted important original source materials that were available for study. Analyses of those source materials by specialists and experts refute the allegations.

Allegations, particularly those involving academic work of highly distinguished scholars in their field, require a fair and open-minded peer review--not a sensationalized public discussion in the headlines and over the Internet.

Claim: Dr. Napoleon Chagnon staged the violence in the film called "The Ax Fight," which depicts Yanomami fighting.

The director of the film, The Ax Fight, was Timothy Asch. No documentary film analyst we have consulted believes that any part of The Ax Fight film was staged.

Dr. Peter Biella, of the Department of Anthropology at San Francisco State University, has studied this film extensively for several years and laments "that Asch is not alive to defend himself." Biella says: "the film's structure, as I argue in my introduction to the Yanomami Interactive CD (a study of The Ax Fight film), bends over backwards to qualify and reject stereotypic impressions of irrepressible Yanomami violence. The film is about ways that violence is muted, restrained, and non-fatal. Essentially it argues that without police, Yanomami manage to make their system of dispute settlement work pretty well, with nobody in this case getting very hurt." Biella has published transcripts of tape recordings of Chagnon in 1971 in support of his statement that "the 1971 taped evidence confirms that at first Chagnon knew virtually nothing about the origins of the fight." Dr. Biella and a co-author (Dr. Gary Seaman, Director of the Center of Visual Anthropology at the University of Southern California) plan to submit a lengthier analysis of The Ax Fight to the American Anthropological Association Newsletter with all the reasons why they believe The Ax Fight was not staged. Biella gives several cogent reasons why "the criticism that The Ax Fight was staged for the camera strikes me as obviously and manifestly untrue".

Dr. Gregory A. Finnegan of Harvard University has extensive background in visual anthropology. Dr. Finnegan was originally a student of Dr. Timothy Asch (when Asch was teaching at Brandeis University). Finnegan also does not believe The Ax Fight film was staged, pointing out that the fight was already in progress when the crewman doing the sound recording was in his first full day among the Yanomami. He adds that the film's dialogue indicates that Chagnon himself was so taken by surprise by the fight that he was initially confused about the reasons for the fighting; at first, he says on camera that he had been told it was over "incest." Only later did Chagnon and Asch discover that the fight grew out of "political tensions in a fissioning lineage."

Dr. Alexander Moore, Chair of the University of Southern California's Department of Anthropology, notes that the television show NOVA did stage a film of a Yanomami feast, and for that purpose an entire communal long house was built. However, neither Asch nor Chagnon were involved in that NOVA production. It may be that Tierney has confused the NOVA production with the earlier films of Asch and Chagnon, none of which were staged. [For information on obtaining a copy of the Interactive CD on the Yanomami Ax Fight film, contact biella@sfsu.edu].

Claim: Chagnon himself is directly or indirectly responsible for endemic warfare among the Yanomami.

This claim is among the easiest to refute, especially since there is an extensive history on the topic. Warfare among Indian groups in South America goes back a minimum of 3,500 years. Abundant archaeological data show raiding, including the saving of trophy heads, throughout the pre-Hispanic periods called Chavin, Moche, Chimu, Wari, and Inka. Warfare was also reported by the Spanish conquerors of the sixteenth century A.D.

In the specific case of the Yanomami, our first report about these people is from the mid-1800s, by Moritz Schomburgk (1847-1848). Then sometime between 1875 and 1910, we have reports that women had been acquired by Yanomami raiding (Peters 1998:167-168). In 1911 Theodor Koch-Grunberg (1923) described the Yanomami as "very warlike people who succeeded in dominating several weaker tribes." The year 1931 is given as the year a war occurred between two Yanomami subgroups, the Xilixana and the Macu; 1935 as the year of the war between the Xilixana and the Yekwana; and 1946 as the year of a major epidemic (Peters 1998:167-168). Particularly illuminating is the story of Helena Valero, a woman of Spanish descent born in 1925 and captured in a Yanomami raid in 1937. Her biography is filled with data showing how fierce and brutal some Yanomami could be when abducting women from other villages as wives (Biocca 1971). These and many other accounts, too numerous to mention here, make the claim that Yanomami violence began with Chagnon's arrival obviously false.

[References: Moritz Schomburgk (1847-48). Reisen in Britisch Guinea in den Jahren 1840-44. 3 vols. Leipzig; Theodor Koch-Grunberg (1923) Von Roroima zum Orinoco, Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordbrasilien und Venezuela in den Jahren 1911-1913. Vol. 3. Stuttgart, Germany; John F. Peters (1998) Life among the Yanomami. Broadview Press; Ettore Biocca (1971) The Yanomama: The Narrative of a White Girl Kidnapped by Amazonian Indians. Dutton paperback, New York.]

Claim: Chagnon's characterization of the Yanomami as "fierce people" encouraged 40,000 invading gold miners to use violence against them between 1980-1987.

We have already established that Chagnon was not the first author to describe the Yanomami as violent. In fact, critics who have accused him of this characterization forget that the Yanomami refer to themselves as waitiri, "fierce and valiant." What Chagnon did was translate the term into English.

Given that the behavior of miners toward indigenous people during "gold rushes" in the 1850s and 1860s in places like California and Australia was similar to that seen in the 1980s in the Amazon, the idea that Chagnon is responsible for such behavior is not convincing. Published accounts of Yanomami violence had preceded Chagnon's arrival by a considerable length of time. Thus it seems much more plausible that the miners were familiar with sensationalized newspaper articles on Yanomami warfare than that they had spent time reading the anthropological literature.

Below is just a sample of the extensive literature on the effects of gold mining in the Yanomami area.

[References: Bruce Albert "Gold Miners and Yanomami Indians in the Brazilian Amazon: The Hashimu Massacre." Published in Portuguese October 10, 1993 in Folha de Sao Paulo, Brasilia; Jed Greer (1993), The Price of Gold: Environmental Costs of the New Gold Rush," in The Ecologist 23 (3):91-96; David Cleary (1990) Anatomy of the Gold Rush. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City; Dennis Berwick (1992) Savages: The Life and Killing of the Yanomami. Hodder and Stoughton, London]

Claim: Turner and Sponsel learned of this "impending scandal" from reading the galley proofs of Tierney's book.

While the now-famous e-mail letter to the AAA by Turner and Sponsel leaves the impression that they had just learned of the accusations against Neel and Chagnon, there is published evidence that they knew about them long before (see Part 3). The first piece of evidence is that both Turner and Sponsel are thanked in the "Acknowledgments" section of Tierney's book, which indicates that they read it long before the galley stage. A second piece of evidence is that Tierney's book cites a 1995 interview with Terence Turner.

Evidence indicating that Leslie Sponsel knew of Tierney's book and its contents can be found in the bibliography of a 1998 article by Sponsel. In the journal Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 24, Sponsel has a paper entitled "Yanomami: An Arena of Conflict and Aggression in the Amazon." In this paper, Sponsel discusses 10 major areas of disagreement with Chagnon and makes allegations not unlike those in the Turner-Sponsel letter to the AAA. Sponsel's bibliography also includes a reference on page 122 to a book by Tierney, as follows:

Tierney P (forthcoming): Last Tribes of El Dorado: The Gold Wars in the Amazon Rainforest

It seems likely that this is the same manuscript cited in a second published source, Life Among the Yanomami, a book by John F. Peters (Broadview Press, 1998). Peters, however, cites Tierney's manuscript as follows:

Tierney, Pat. 1997. The Last Tribes of Dorado. New York: Viking.

Borders Bookstore advises us that their records showed that this book, originally scheduled for publication by Viking Press, never appeared in print for reasons unspecified. At the very least, there is evidence to suggest that Peters and Sponsel had read a version of Tierney's book prior to 1998.

It would appear that this same book is now to be offered for sale by W.W. Norton, under the title Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon. We find it significant that the subtitle changed from an emphasis on gold mining to an emphasis on alleged scientific and journalistic misdeeds between 1997 and 2000, exactly the period Turner and Sponsel seem to have been in contact with Tierney.

An interesting paper trail, leading back at least to 1993, reveals a history of published attacks on Chagnon, some of which sound remarkably similar to those attributed to Tierney. In that year several anthropologists, including Terence Turner and Eric Wolf, received an anonymous packet of materials in the mail that attacked and impugned Chagnon's character.

Two distinguished anthropologists sprang to Chagnon's defense in the March issue of the AAA newsletter. Eric Wolf (Distinguished Professor, CUNY-Lehman) (1994:2) says:

"Anthropologists need to arm themselves professionally and ethically against such dubious practices of anonymous character assassination, directed in this case against an anthropologist who has built up an exemplary body of data through long-term and often difficult fieldwork. Even those among Chagnon's colleagues who might disagree with his Neo-Darwinian premises (and these include the present writer) acknowledge his extraordinary devotion to anthropology as a science, which has provided us also with the information that allows us to debate his interpretations and suggest possible alternatives. This was recognized most recently in a meeting devoted to Chagnon's work at the New York Academy of Sciences on September 27, 1993. O The search for relevant questions and good answers should not be inhibited by demonization."

Another distinguished professor, Robin Fox (Rutgers University) (1994:2), says:

"American anthropologists, both individually and through their organization, should rally to the support of Chagnon and the absolute value of his courageous and brilliant field studies of Yanomami culture as well as his practical efforts to save it."

According to the May 1994 issue of the Newsletter of the American Anthropological Association, "circumstantial evidence" suggests that this anonymous packet came from supporters of the Salesian Missions, a group of missionaries who have long maintained a mission among the Yanomami. (See Part 3)

In the same May 1994 issue of the AAA Newsletter, Turner criticizes the version of events given by Chagnon, Wolf, and Fox. In his commentary, Turner further alleges that Chagnon is linked to Charles Brewer-Carias, a Venezuelan naturalist whom Turner describes as "an ex-Cabinet Minister with extensive interests in gold mining." It is here in Turner's 1994 commentary, and not in Tierney's book, that we first see allegations linking Chagnon and Brewer-Carias to clandestine gold mining in Yanomami country.

In the September 1994 issue of the same AAA Newsletter, Chagnon and Brewer-Carias respond to Turner's allegations as well as the anonymously mailed packet. They assert that Brewer-Carias has a record of 30 years of scientific work and has never explored for gold in the Yanomami area (or in any other area occupied by indigenous peoples).

It would thus appear that the accusations against Chagnon in Tierney's forthcoming book were known to both Turner and Sponsel long before that book reached the galley proof stage. Some allegations had already been made in print by Turner as far back as 1994, and others in print by Sponsel in 1998. The accusations are part of a long-standing academic feud that shows no sign of diminishing, rather than recent discoveries by an investigative reporter.

[References: Eric R. Wolf (1994) Demonization of Anthropologists in the Amazon. Anthropology Newsletter (of the American Anthropological Association)/March 1994:2; Robin Fox (1994) Evil Wrought in the Name of Good. Anthropology Newsletter (of the American Anthropological Association)/March 1994:2; Terence Turner (1994) The Yanomami: Truth and Consequences. Anthropology Newsletter (of the American Anthropological Association)/May 1994:46, 48.]

Part 3

Allegations against Neel and Chagnon made by Tierney, Turner, and Sponsel: An Investigation of Motives and Agendas

Allegations of impropriety have been made against Drs. James Neel and Dr. Napoleon Chagnon in two sources: (1) galley proofs of the book Darkness in El Dorado by Patrick Tierney (forthcoming from W.W. Norton & Co. on November 16, 2000); and (2) a widely circulated e-mail letter from two anthropologists, Drs. Terence Turner of Cornell University and Leslie Sponsel of the University of Hawaii-Manoa.

In two previous statements (Parts 1 and 2) related to our ongoing investigation we have presented published source materials, as well as expert testimony from geneticists, physicians, epidemiologists, medical researchers, anthropologists, documentary film specialists, and eyewitnesses who accompanied Drs. Neel and Chagnon to the territory of the Yanomami people. This body of material collected by our team of investigators refutes most claims made by Turner and Sponsel, as well as those already reported by scholars who have now read the galley proofs of Tierney's book.

Given that most of the allegations are untrue, what possible motives would Tierney, Turner, and Sponsel have for making them? As suggested in our second statement, a long paper trail reveals that most of the allegations are not new, but part of ongoing feuds between Chagnon and two sets of detractors:

1. A group of anthropologists who are passionately opposed to Chagnon's use of neo-Darwinian theory to explain Yanomami violence.

2. A group of missionaries who view Chagnon's presence in Venezuela as a threat to their own agenda for the Yanomami.

Both feuds can only be understood by extensive examination of published background material. In this brief statement, we can give only a summary of our team's findings.

1. Science vs. the "Moral Agenda": A Source of Friction in Anthropology

During the last two decades, a schism has developed between anthropologists who believe in a scientific paradigm and those who do not. The first major casualty of that schism was Stanford University's Anthropology Department, which recently split into two departments: one of "Anthropological Sciences" and one of "Cultural and Social Anthropology." Citing Gerald Holton's The Anti-Science Phenomenon (1993), University of Missouri anthropologist Robert Benfer (1996) describes "science" as objective, quantitative, extrapersonalized, and based on proof and consensus; "anti-science" is subjective, qualitative, personalized, moralistic, and based on individual authority with no accommodation of contrary views.

A further development within anti-scientific anthropology has been the growth of a "militant" or "politically committed and morally engaged anthropology" (Scheper-Hughes 1995) which grew out of the moralistic aspects of the non-scientific position. Anthropologist Roy D'Andrade of UC-San Diego describes this as an effort to abandon objective models of the world and change anthropology to a discipline based on moral models. Anthropology's purpose then becomes "to identify what is good and what is bad and to allocate reward and punishment" (D'Andrade 1995:399). In such an approach, debate is not closed by the discovery of the truth, but by the most powerful group's exclusion of their rivals from the community of scholars. D'Andrade calls such an approach "estheticized journalism and moralistic pamphleteering" and suggests that it can be more easily replaced than scientific anthropology. Moral engagement against military dictatorships seems appropriate; against "the guy in the office down the hall," it seems inappropriate. In Turner and Sponsel's letter, moralistic phrases such as "sheer criminality and corruption ... unparalleled in the history of anthropology" leave no doubt as to which side of the debate they occupy. [References: Robert Benfer (1996) AAA Newsletter; Roy D'Andrade (1995) Moral Models in Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3):399-408; Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1995) The Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36 (3): 409-420.]

2. Leslie Sponsel's Agenda

Two recent essays by Sponsel (1996, 1998) reveal the source of his antipathy toward Chagnon. Sponsel is committed to what he calls "the anthropology of peace," and his agenda seems to be the promotion of a "more nonviolent and peaceful world," a world he believes is "latent in human nature" (Sponsel 1996:115). He opposes what he calls the "Darwinian emphasis on violence and competition" (1996:99), and remains convinced that "nonviolence and peace were likely the norm throughout most of human prehistory and that intrahuman killing was probably rare" (1996:103). In both essays, Sponsel refers to quantification or statistics as "magic."

Sponsel was clearly taken aback when Chagnon published a study showing that Yanomami men who had killed enemies in raids tended to have more wives and children than men who had not (Chagnon 1988). He had to be especially troubled by Chagnon's neo-Darwinian suggestion that by becoming a warrior who had killed, a man might have increased his genetic fitness. Even more disturbing was Chagnon's conclusion that violence was so potent a factor in human society that it "may be the principal driving force behind the evolution of culture" (Chagnon 1988:985).

It is the "political incorrectness" of Chagnon's position that seems to bother moralists the most; by raising the possibility that violence is part of human nature rather than a pathology, Chagnon undermines the moral activists' efforts to promote a less violent world. Sponsel (1998:114) also admits that much of the criticism of Chagnon results from biophobia, which he defines as "an almost automatic reaction against any biological explanation of human behavior, the possibility of biological reductionism, and the associated political implications." Clearly it is the "political implications" that most annoy those with a moralizing agenda.

[ziggytrix]

Come on guys, I posted a link. And if that isn't enough proof, FINE, I'll copy and paste it. God!

[Supafly345]

Dammit, I wish I was reading this when he said black naturally have a lower IQ. My girl is as black as I am white and did grow up poor and homeless with her ghetto family (I still love them though), but in school she was always above 3.5 gpa, and gets higher grades than I do in college right now (the last time I was in college at least). Chances are she will be apart of the upper-middle class by the time she is middle aged whether it be with me or not, which is rare for someone of her ethnicity due to cultural reasons, not genetic.

[Pharaoh]

Dammit, I wish I was reading this when he said black naturally have a lower IQ. My girl is as black as I am white and did grow up poor and homeless with her ghetto family (I still love them though), but in school she was always above 3.5 gpa, and gets higher grades than I do in college right now (the last time I was in college at least). Chances are she will be apart of the upper-middle class by the time she is middle aged whether it be with me or not, which is rare for someone of her ethnicity due to cultural reasons, not genetic.

Well that just proves that growing up poor in a ghetto doesn't stop you from being successful if you've got the capability to be so.

And you'll have to get your girlfriend to explain to you what 'average' means. Because I said that Blacks have a lower IQ than Whites or Asians on average. That means that some black people are highly intelligent, but the overall average of all black people's IQ scores is lower.

[glowbelly]

ok, admittedly i haven't read much of this thread, but uhhh, could we maybe assume that blacks - no fuck that - POOR people have lower iqs because of oh i dunno their lack of access to a decent education?

just a thought i wanted to toss out there.

[Pharaoh]

No, we can't assume that at all, because the whole point of IQ tests is to measure the inherited mental ability of a person, and they're specifically designed to be accurate whatever the education of the person taking it.
So a manual worker with no education could have the same IQ as college professor.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

1. All liberal jokes aside, could you please just admit that you're a racist right now? I think it would just make the conversation more honest, and in reality, the definition of a racist is someone with "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

You at least have the first part down, am I right? So in reality, you are an admitted racist, correct?

2.

Well that just proves that growing up poor in a ghetto doesn't stop you from being successful if you've got the capability to be so.

And you'll have to get your girlfriend to explain to you what 'average' means. Because I said that Blacks have a lower IQ than Whites or Asians on average. That means that some black people are highly intelligent, but the overall average of all black people's IQ scores is lower.

Do you honestly believe that there isn't a correlation between class, economics, surroundings, and violent tendencies?

If Supafly's girlfriend rises up into the upper-middle class, and has children, what do you think the likelihood is of her children being violent criminals? Do you honestly believe that her kids "on average" are more likely at that point ot be criminals than say a poor white living in the South???

[mburbank]

And again... It's been like, what thirty some odd years now since anyone thought the IQ test was a valid measure of mental abilities? Oh, sure, I know, it's just moral relativists who think IQ is a seriously faulted tool, they abandoned it for the same politically correct reasons they abandoned phrenology. Everybody knows Blacks are genetically more suceptable to bad humors than whites and tht they need to be bled more regularly.

Phag, you are not a capitalist pig, you are just a chunky, bristly, beady eyed pig, close to te ground, thick necked, confused by the human world.

[maggiekarp]

So a manual worker with no education could have the same IQ as college professor.
By saying this, you've just admitted that IQ isn't really important at all.

[kahljorn]

As max said, IQ tests aren't all they are cracked out to be. It seems pretty obvious since they are trying to measure Intelligence by such limited means. "Find a pattern in this!" An interior design specialist could become our new Einstein.

[mburbank]

I'm not sure anybody but MENSA and Phagroah have put any stock in them for a very long time.

[Pharaoh]

1. All liberal jokes aside, could you please just admit that you're a racist right now? I think it would just make the conversation more honest, and in reality, the definition of a racist is someone with "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

You at least have the first part down, am I right? So in reality, you are an admitted racist, correct?



2.

Well that just proves that growing up poor in a ghetto doesn't stop you from being successful if you've got the capability to be so.

And you'll have to get your girlfriend to explain to you what 'average' means. Because I said that Blacks have a lower IQ than Whites or Asians on average. That means that some black people are highly intelligent, but the overall average of all black people's IQ scores is lower.

Do you honestly believe that there isn't a correlation between class, economics, surroundings, and violent tendencies?

If Supafly's girlfriend rises up into the upper-middle class, and has children, what do you think the likelihood is of her children being violent criminals? Do you honestly believe that her kids "on average" are more likely at that point ot be criminals than say a poor white living in the South???

1. Why don't you just admit that you're a politically correct liberal then?
I don't think I'm a racist. I don't believe any race is superior to another, although I do think there are differences between races more than just skin colour. But, if you want to call me racist for that point of view, I couldn't care less.

2. Yes, I do think class, economics and surroundings are factors in making somebody more likely to commit violent crime, but I also think low IQ and racial genetic traits are equal factors. So upper-middle class black children in an affluent area, are less likely to be criminals than poor Whites living in the South because there are less of those factors affecting them.

[maggiekarp]

But you're saying that upper-class black children are more likely to become criminals than upper-class white children just because they're brown.

[edit] ooga booga, me like grammar

[mburbank]

Why aren't upper-middle class black children in an affluent area more likely to commit violent crimes than upper middle class white children living in affluent areas?

You don't think a high IQ (Since you seem to think IQ is significant of something beyond just your score on an IQ test) is superior to low IQ?

Do you think Blacks are genetically superior atheletes? Are Jews genetically funnier? Are Britts genetically egotistical?

Do you think White Europeans (excluding eastern europeans who everybody knows are a bunch of backward caveman-like savages) are simply better than all their woggy brown brothers, genetcially?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

1. Why don't you just admit that you're a politically correct liberal then?

Seriously, go look up what I've said on abortion and gay marriage, not to mention the war. I don't wanna pull the "I can't be pigeon-holed" shit, but there's absolutely nothing PC about where I'm coming from on this.


think I'm a racist. I don't believe any race is superior to another, although I do think there are differences between races more than just skin colour. But, if you want to call me racist for that point of view, I couldn't care less.

I think you've declared it from the hill tops. You're using evasive language, but when you say one race is more violent than the other, you're using violence (obviously!) as a negative qualifier. Blacks are violent and ignorant, whites are peaceful and intelligent....on "average". Right? You've clearly presented one as the superior and the other as the inferior, whether you like it or not. Racist!

2. Yes, I do think class, economics and surroundings are factors in making somebody more likely to commit violent crime, but I also think low IQ and racial genetic traits are equal factors.

So you think that genetic/racial defects place "certain" races above others, correct?

So upper-middle class black children in an affluent area, are less likely to be criminals than poor Whites living in the South because there are less of those factors affecting them.

But if it's in their genetic makeup, education, class, and surroundings shouldn't be as obvious a factor, should they?

[Pharaoh]

But you're saying that upper-class black children are more likely to be criminals than upper-class white children, just because they're brown

No, I'm not saying that at all, but they might be more likely to be athletes or musicians. I think their racial genetic traits could point them in a certain direction in their choice of occupation.

And if all other factors were equal, such as low IQ, poor housing, bad environment etc. I think that black youths who turn to crime, because of their racial genetic traits, are more likely to commit violent street crime than white youths who steal cars and shop lift.

I don't believe their DNA makes them more likely to be a criminal, just more likely to be a certain kind of criminal.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't believe their DNA makes them more likely to be a criminal, just more likely to be a certain kind of criminal.

:lol

[kahljorn]

I find it hilarious that he(pharaoh) feels genes couldn't effect a races disease/immune system but feels it could radically effect their disposition towards violence and "Immoral acts".

"but they might be more likely to be athletes or musicians."

So all you're saying is that, A) they are more inclined to violence and criminal acts because they are sporty and B) They are more inclined to be immoral because they listen to rap music?

[maggiekarp]

No, I'm not saying that at all, but they might be more likely to be athletes or musicians. I think their racial genetic traits could point them in a certain direction in their choice of occupation.
I disagree that black kids are more likely to become athletes or musicians than white kids, but if it's true, it's probably because there are more role models in those fields.

I think that black youths who turn to crime, because of their racial genetic traits, are more likely to commit violent street crime than white youths who steal cars and shop lift.

You're saying that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites. How many black serial killers are there? Violent street crimes might be more common because the majority of black criminals live on violent streets!

Kids of all races commit petty crimes because they're young and stupid.

[Pharaoh]

Come on butwank, let's have your boring, hippie, pig insults. I'm waiting.

[mburbank]

Whitey is far more likely to be a serial killer or a child molester. It's probably because Blacks are genteically superior.

[maggiekarp]

I think Pharaoh is a character

No one can possibly expect to be taken seriously if they keep calling their opponent kiddy-names like that.

Although, it would make televised debate much more watchable.


Seriously though, you suck, Pharaoh. And not just because I'm a filthy communist pig.

[Pharaoh]

Whitey is far more likely to be a serial killer or a child molester.

I agree with that actually, which I why don't think one race is superior to another.

[maggiekarp]

So why does it even matter to you if blacks commit street crimes and whites are child molesters if it doesn't mean anyone is superior? You're just pointing this out so that entire races can be self-concious or something?

[mburbank]

It's to cover his shame over his genetic desire to molest children.

[Pharaoh]

So why does it even matter to you if blacks commit street crimes and whites are child molesters if it doesn't mean anyone is superior? You're just pointing this out so that entire races can be self-concious or something?


Well I'm bothered by the lie that all races are exactly the same. One lie, however well-intentioned, leads to another lie and it's not healthy.

For example, first there's the lie that there's no difference in the average intelligence of different races. Then there has to be another lie that black people are generally poorer and in worse jobs than white people because of white prejudice and racism rather than because of black people's generally lower IQs. That leads to Black resentment against Whites. Next there has to be positive discrimination against white people. That leads to White resentment against Blacks. And so it goes on.

A society built on a lie is doomed to collapse and failure.

The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.

[kahljorn]

What the fuck? Since when does it matter what your IQ is to get a job or own a nice house? You stupid jackass. There's TONS of smart people who don't have jobs and even more stupid people who actually have them and make tons of money. Haven't you ever had a job before? IQ rarily makes you more successful or more rich than other people.

Why is it that every point you make is obvious and vapid? "Well obviously smarter people have better jobs because they are superior!" I swear that is the logic of an eight year old.

[mburbank]

Being bothered by the 'lie' that all races are exactly the same is nutso, Sowy, because nobody says that. I have noticed that almost all Black people are darker skinned than almost all caucasians. Aisans have epicanthal folds.

You have a very speciffic definition of what you call the claim 'all races are exactly the same.' Let THAT truth set you free. You also sound like a guy with a pretty massive chip on his shoulder. My guess? It ain't genetic. Someone raised you to feel put upon and superior.

"the lie that there's no difference in the average intelligence of different races. "
-Porker

Again, a selective definition of the word 'lie', Or too put more of a point on it, an incorrect definition. For the sake of agrument I'll give you the idea that it has yet to be proved their ISN'T a difference in the average intelligence of different races. But since there is NO widely agreed upon measure of the intangible concept 'intelligence' the very idea this is a lie is absurd. This is the reason you rely on IQ. You WANT to see it as a 'lie' as oposed to a widely held belief. Just as you WANT to believe that the socio economic conditions blacks live in has something to do with their 'IQ' At best, at VERY BEST, this is a Theory with a very small amount of potentially questionable research behind it. It COULD be true, though I strongly, strongly, strongly doubt it, but the jury is so out on that you could date them. You believe it because you WANT to. Accuse me of the same thing if you like, but don't call it a lie, That's kind of smug and arrogant, even for a truffle hunter like you.

"That leads to Black resentment against Whites."

Huh. You don't think slavery and segregation and lynchings might have helped build a resentment that might have lasted more than a couple of generations could account for that? I mean, I know it's all better now like magic and disparity between the races these days i all about IQ, but families have memories. There are people alive today who's great grandparents were slaves, there are people alive today who's grandparents were lynched. Look at your feelings of resentment against Arabs. Is that due to your low IQ or Whitey Liberals coddling you? Maybe it's because of run a muck reverse discrimination against fine upstanding white men who have such a hard time getting by in the world today. You have Victim Envy.

"A society built on a lie is doomed to collapse and failure. "
-Wilbur

See, my society was built on the idea that all men were created equal. Pigs in my society have fought that notion every single step of the way, grunting, squealing and rolling over on people and crushing them.

"Oh, I never said darkies wasn't equal, I just said they was more ignoranter and violent than us white folks."

Once there was a lie that Jews weren't as gentically fit as Aryans. And Blacks and gays and the retarded and poles and gypsies weren't genetically up to snuff either.

If Blacks are genetically more violent and stupider than whites, wouldn't we be justified to protect ourselves against them? I know, I know,m you didn't say that, but if you're right, why wouldn't we make special laws to keep them in line? It would be crazy not to if your right. Not every Black is going to go nuts, but we ought to watch them all closely beause they are genetically disposed to, and the wise gentle white man needs to coral them for their own protection.

You almost make me believe that Britts are Genetically predisposed to conquer and exploit the duskier races.

Stop getting your panties all in a bunch. A dozen or so more generations and interbreeding will take care of all your worries. BOO!
Scary thought, isn't it?

[maggiekarp]

I don't understand why you're saying that blacks should have worse jobs than whites because of lower IQs, when you yourself mentioned that people with the same IQ could have drastically different jobs.


You're afraid of black people

[Supafly345]

Wait, musicians? Blacks are more likely to become musicians? Have you ever seen a philharmonic orchestra? Asians and white people.

[Ant10708]

It's to cover his shame over his genetic desire to molest children. :lol

[Kulturkampf]

It is fascinating how different cultures have different kinds of crimes.

For instance, sexual assault and rape are hugely perpetrated and unreported crimes in Korea-Japan-China, and also there is an abnormal amount of burglary in Korea compared to the US, while a total lack of murder.

t is cool.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Hey buddy, do you think that might have more to do with, I dunno, the role and traditional social standing of the Korean woman in that culture, rather than a Korean "gene".....? Just a thought.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well I'm bothered by the lie that all races are exactly the same.

Racist.

[mburbank]

laughing emoticon.

[Pharaoh]

Well I'm bothered by the lie that all races are exactly the same.

Racist.

Hippie.

[Ant10708]

laughing emoticon. :lol

[Pharaoh]

laughing emoticon. :lol

:die

:party

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You are the gayest racist ever.

[Geggy]

I'll never forget the time when I thought all muslim were brown people. How naive I was.

[Supafly345]

Yeah, I stopped thinking that too once I saw my first light-brown one.