Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle Reading App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
This debate is a very old one. I first came across it nearly a half century ago when I read Carlton Coon's first book on race. Coon pointed out that his theory was actually closely derived from that of Hans Weidenreich. Weidenreeich was before my time - about 1935.
The Widenreich theory is that the races predate the species. That is to say there were differences between East Asians and Europeans before the species Homo sapiens sapiens emerged. Widenreich and Coon believed that a Neanderthal had features that modern Europeans have - thin faces, protruding noses, etc. And that early East Asians had features that modern asians have - flat faces and shoveled teeth. Both people crossed the boundary to become modern people and kept those distinguishing characteristics.
More recently this view has been championed by Wolpoff. But about twenty years ago the multiple thread theory has been eclipsed by the Out of Africa theory. This theory traces all modern humans to a woman called Mitochrondrial Eve who lived in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
This theory has always had plausibility problems. One of the biggest problems is the shovelled teeth issue of asians. Out of Africa claims that about 100,000 years ago (or so) the modern africans eliminated all previous peoples in Asia and Europe. In asia the older peoples (Homo erectus) had long had shovelled teeth. OoA theory claimed that everyone of those older asians was eliminated and replaced by a modern african who then evolved shovelled teeth. Wolpoff has long argued that this and the similar issue of the european Neanderthals is too implausible to be taken seriously.
The Out of Africa hypothesis was put forth in 1987. It was the major second "genetic clock" theory to capture the public's imagination.Read more ›
First off, let state that i am mostly African-American, with some Amerindian & white admixture. I am also a grad from UF in Florida, and have always found fault in modern "science" for the explaination of what happened to the ancient archaic peoples & where did the races come from, but thankfully this book answers those questions. It adresses almost everything "modern science" shows as evidence for their model of evolution (all the modern genetics claims, archaeological & other claims), and the writer gives a very nice model of evolution, though it is not the alternative "multi-regional theory", but a more compelling one.
Though it has some very "right wing" leanings to it, i did not find it to be overtly "racist" (as some claim... though it does get pretty close lol!), and i am proud to count Erectus, Neanderthal, etc. among my many "archaic ancestors".
In simple English folks, if your interested in the various types of men in our history, buy this book!
If you have ever had doubts about "Out of Africa", this is the book for you.
I read this book from cover-to-cover over a period of three weeks, and although it is quite dense in the early chapters, the reader will not regret sticking it out. An absolutely fascinating (if somewhat confusing at first) narrative of human origins and the origins of the races is proposed, and it rings true. Everything in the book is backed up by recent published findings and is unfettered by the Political Correctness that stifles most of Academia.
A fascinating book, from which I deduct one star because of the writing style. Fuerle is technically-oriented and so his prose tends towards the textbook-ish more than necessary. Textbookish or not, this is the kind of book that gets you thinking about the fate of mankind on this planet, a quasi-spiritual experience for which I am grateful.
I should also note that the entire text is online for free at [...] ... The goal here is to simply present these theories to the world. Pure pursuit of truth.
All of the comments both for and against this work fail to discuss something of extreme relevance :
Namely that the negro brain weighs on average 120 grams less than the brains of whites, and that the negro brain weighs even less than that when compared with asian (and Jewish) brains.
That might sound like an incendiary statement, but alas, it is rooted in hard, pitiless science.
In 1830 Doctor Samuel Morton published his "Craniae Americana."
As you all know, refuting "Craniae" became the life's work of Jew "scholar" Stephen Jay Gould, whose 1981 "Mismeasure of Man" was required reading for tens of millions of American college students (I was forced to read it, and believe it).
Famously, and wonderfully, Gould's "Mismeasure" was itself refuted in 2011 by (mostly non-white) scientists in Chicago and California. Their conclusion: Morton was right ; Gould was lying.
Not only was Morton right, the Good Doctor actually under-reported average brain size differences between the races.
What logical person with a pair of eyes could look at the sloped, extreme prognathic skull of the modern african, and not make a link between brain structure and intelligence?
Answer: the New York Times. Why? Because they want humans to be fungible.
Humans are not fungible.
Those shackled by Political Cowardtion (NOT "Correction") really need to come to grips with the realities of the White Man's Burden, grow a pair. and stop pretending.
Was this review helpful to you?