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.
I am slowly reading the entire book a chapter at a time so it is premature for me to write a full review, however he makes some very good and powerful points and its a welcome breath of fresh air (unseen since R.Baker's excellent book) to read a non-peecee tract on anthropology.
However I have to take issue with his assertion (not sure in which chapter) that whites are now less than 10% of the 7 billion homo sapiens alive today. That would put "us" at under 700 million. I think the true figure is more like 1100 million, almost 16% (admittedly declining as we speak).
Here are my estimates....
European Union 27 countries, 500 million (guesstimate 94% white) = 470m Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, 200 million (guess 95% white) = 190m former Yugoslavia est 20m (99% white) = 20m Albanians (incl Kosovo) = approx 6m Israel = approx 6m
N.America (USA, Canada) 350m (guess 75% white) = 260m Australia, NZ 26m (guess 90% white) = 23m surviving S.African whites = 4m Latin American whites (big guess) = 100 to 150 million whites living in Asia/Middle East (huge guess) = 10m
I could also add the ancient christian nations of Georgia and Armenia and one could go even further and classify many Turks, Iranians, even Pakistanis, as whites although clearly they are not in a cultural sense.