The Supreme Empirical Spiritual Science(a brief talk on religion, spirituality and science)

Man has sought to reconcile spirituality with science for more than a century. Creationist fall short of this because they seek to prove literal translations of the bible with science. I understand the bible and all spiritual scripture to be symbolic. Only by ciphering the underlying symbolism with in scripture can you ascertain the historic, psychological and scientific meanings. I believe in a universal consciousness. I believe this universal consciousness is the primary causation of the big bang thus the reality we live in. I understand aspects of this universal consciousness are what man worships as God or gods. Allah, Vishnu, Yahweh, Amon Re, Azura Mazda, etc are all different interpretations of the same thing. Just as one has a different name for things in different countries & cultures different cultures have different names for God.  Religious believers misunderstand this & accuse the other religion as being false & theirs being the only true "way" This is like saying there is only one road or "way" to New York. Some ways may be better for some other ways quicker for some but fly, drive, ride, run or walk all will get you to New York. All right handed path religions seek to know and understand the universal consciousness or shall we say  the true God.(Left handed path religions such as Satanism are more about fulfilling animalistic pleasures in man) Atheist argue if a God or God like entity caused the big bang what caused God? They pose this argument as if it’s a foil to the argument in favor of a higher power. I disagree with this. For one the question whether if this universal consciousness(ie:God) has or even needs causation is moot. The question we are addressing is the creation of this universe and life with in it. I feel we can solve the question of Gods existence first and once If having arrived at empirical evidence of God we can then  delve into the question of the causation of the causer. I feel thought/consciousness  operates at the highest form of energy. Many scientists such as Steven Hawkins point to the fact all of our emotions can be traced to chemical reactions taking place with in our brains as proof of the non existence of a God or even consciousness or as Steven Hawkins says humans are "biological machines". I believe that these biological processes are merely the way our consciousness expresses  its self in the physical realm. The same way an animated computer avatar is a series of pixels, digital bits and bytes activated by electrical impulses humans are a series of organic cells, chemicals and water generating electricity but just as an animated computer avatar needs a person to program and activate it the human body needs a consciousness to activate or shall we say “animate” it. Phenomena such as the function of microtubules, quantum entanglement, universal constants and fine tuning all weigh in favor of something purposely having set this universe into play. I am a believer in a higher power. I believe God and the gods mankind has worshiped are all interpretations of the universal consciousness. Most believers in God be they pagans, Buddhist or Judeo Christians have a superficial understanding of Gods true nature. I believe all things have a scientific explanation but having a scientific explanation does not negate Gods existence. God operates via the laws of physics and nature . All so called miracles can be scientifically explained. This does not negate the divine nature of the miracle it simply explains how God(the universal consciousness ) expressed itself in a highly improbable way in that instance.
Creationist argue against evolution as if the fact of evolution negates Gods hand in the creation and development of life. This is an error in their thinking. Evolution is simply the scientific explanation of how God molded life into the myriad of forms on Earth today. The book of Genesis is a symbolic explanation of how God brought life into existence. Another misunderstanding creationist have is that evolution tries to explain how life was created. Evolution does not attempt to explain how life was created, it simply explains how life evolved after it was created. Atheistic biologist cannot explain how life was  created today and any explanation atheist scientist give are not complete and full of guess work. The atheist for the most part has the same superficial understanding of God as the average church parishioner. It is this superficial understanding most atheist disagree with. This is like saying you don't like a foreign film, thinking you know the plot but you've only been given a partial translation to. The creationist main mistake is trying to prove symbolic scriptures scientifically in their literal sense. Most scientist searching to unlock the keys to the genesis of life rule out the possibility of a universal consciousness existing much less having played a part in sparking life. Again I feel sciences religious hang ups keep them from exploring this possibility. On the other hand Creationist & other religious believers fail to see the symbolism their religious scriptures speak in. Judeo-Christians & Hindus alike take their creation stories literally & disregard any science that seemingly contradicts these bronze age stories. I  seek a scientific approach to understanding Gods existence. This approach I call Empirical Spiritual Scientism.

Richard Dawkins-Deepak Chopra and Dr. David Menton seem to be on the left,middle and extreme right of the spectrum from the belief there is no God  and that the bible is a myth to the belief in a universal consciousness that is not at odds with science and a belief in a Judeo Christian God and that literal biblical scripture can be proved scientifically 

A brief analysis of color based racism's history

A brief analysis of color based racism’s history

It seems Africans have been fighting for the respect

of Europeans for centuries

Racism has scarred our modern day world. It has been the cause of the death of untold millions and helped perpetuate chattel slavery into a socio-economic institution that lasted for almost 1000 years.
As we look at history we see that racism as we know it has not always existed.  In ancient times the ideal of slavery was not connected to skin color. Today when you hear the word slave you automatically picture a Black African in chains. The irony of this is the fact that the word slave comes from the Greek sklabos  used to describe the Slavic laborers of Byzantium and later from the medieval Latin root "sclavus"  the Latinized name of the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe.  By the 10th century in Europe pagan Slavic peoples were sold in slave markets from Dublin to Prague to Marseilles. Historians suggest Slavic slavery underpinned the economic growth of Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries just as the trans Atlantic slave trade would later fuel the economic growth of America There is evidence when the Bubonic plague killed off 1/3 of Europe's population the need for laborers began to shift to a concentration on Black Africans as a source of slave labor.  The Arabs supplied many of the Slavic slaves to Europe and the Middle East and having been exposed to African slavery by Muslims Portugal was the 1st European country to import slaves into Europe. This brought but a trickle of Africans into Europe but it is the beginning of the shift to Africans becoming the sole source of slave labor. When the new world was discovered Europeans attempted to enslave the native Americans 1st but were unsuccessful. The Native Americans died off as a result of the brutality of the Europeans and others easily escaped into the well known forest of their native lands easily evading capture. The Europeans began importing Africans into the new world to work the fields and plantations and as they say -the rest is history .

Depiction of Slavic slaves being presented to a ruler

Slavic slaves have been romanticized in history as the "White" Slave girl

As stated today's negative view of Black people did not exist in ancient times.  As the early 20^th century historian John Clark Ridpath wrote:
“In Greek times, the Egyptians depicted Ethiopia as an ideal state. The Puranas, the ancient historical books of India, speak of the civilization of Ethiopia as being older than that of Egypt. These Sanskrit books mention the names of old Cushite kings that were worshipped in India and who were adopted and changed to suit the fancy of the later people of Greece and Rome.” –this quote is not only doubly but three times indicative of ancient attitudes towards Black peoples. For one It speaks to the Greek attitude towards Black Africans. Secondly it speaks to ancient India’s ties with Black Africans and third it shows John C. Ridpath found so much evidence of Black Africans prominence that even in a time when scientific racialism was rampant he could not deny what history had shown Blacks to truly be.
 The father of history Herodotus wrote:  ” The Ethiopians to whom this embassy was sent are said to be the tallest and handsomest men in the whole world”
So when did  color 1^st begin to be a marker of inferiority and the positive view of Black Africans adultered to the negative image we see today?  As stated over all the ancient view of Black Africans was positive but we do see strikingly close similarities to what could be viewed as racism in some ancient cultures. The Hindu Vedas are the 1st ancient BCE text that stand out as illustrating an apparent bias towards dark skin.  Are the Hindu Vedas referring to race is a subject long debated. The text I have read seem to clearly indicate a higher status of one group as opposed to another and displays one group as “dusky” or “Black” skinned as compared to another  “fair complexioned” group.
Examples are :
Rg Veda
Hymn100- verse 18  "He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Śimyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows.
The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters."
and Rg Veda
Hymn130 verse 8- "Indra in battles help his Āryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin ".

Krishna & Radhal

Krishna depicted as an Infant

There are many other examples that can be interpreted as speaking to the skin color of the Daysus and the Aryan combatants. The word Varna means color and India's caste system is called the Varna system. I am not alone in believing these to be the root to India’s color consciousness and that the Vedic Varna/Caste system is an ancient form of apartheid that  helped relegate the darker aboriginals primarily to the lower caste. One can argue if the Vedas are referring to color or not when they speak of  black people (krsnagarbha) or skin (tvácaṃ )  but one cannot argue the fact the Vedas are speaking about one group of people conquering and enslaving another group of people they have labeled as demons and animals. India later had these Hindu beliefs compounded and manipulated by the British when they colonized India.

The next epoch in color based racism we see takes place when Arabs initiate the Arab slave trade. This abomination lasted in various forms from 650 AD  far into the 20th century (only having been outlawed in the 1960’s.) Here we begin to clearly see the role slavery and subjugation play in dehumanizing a people. With in the extra Koranic sayings attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith you have derogatory statements such as - :"Allah’s Apostle said “You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian slave who head looks like a raisin” 
Sahih Bukhari 9:89:256
Sahih Bukhari 9:89:256
The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375”
One of the main justifications used by Arabs for the enslavement of Black Africans was the "Curse of Ham". This is an adulterated version of the Biblical story in Genesis where Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan.  The original story in Genesis chapter 9 reads:
"20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: ²¹ And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. ²² And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. ²³ And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. ²⁴ ¶ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. ²⁵ And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. ²⁶ And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. ²⁷ God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."
Actually it was the Jews who created the misnomer of the story between 200 C.E and 500 C.E in the Babylonian Talmud (which contains many other morally controversial sayings). Why the Jews 1st created this pseudo biblical myth is unknown. Unlike the Arya of India they were not conquering a darker people and unlike Europeans or Arabs they were not enslaving solely Black Africans at the time they wrote the Talmud. One could speculate that since the Jews were enslaved by the descendants of Ham -Mizriam or Egypt and the Babylonians who descend from Ham's son Nimrod). The Jews may have enacted a grudge on Hams lineage while writing the Talmud. Arabs later (by 700 CE) would use the curse of Ham myth to justify the enslavement of Black Africans. Arabs even expanded upon the already adulterated  story and apparently creating negative pseudo biblical stories of their own:
“Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11
Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 21, p. 21”
“"Abu Darda reported that the Holy Prophet said: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don't care. He said to those who were on his left shoulder: Towards Hell and I don't care. - Ahmad"
Mishkat, Vol. 3, p. 117
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."
Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad, p.375”
Sadly these are just a few of the many racist quotes with in early Islamic literature. I am extremely grateful none are with in the Koran. Other Arabs during medieval  times wrote:
Al-Muqaddasi (945/946-1000) was a medieval Muslim geographer wrote:
"Of the neighbors of the Bujja, Maqdisi had heard that "there is no marriage among them; the child does not know his father, and they eat people -- but God knows best. As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence."
I must note Al-Muqaddasi  and other Arab writers with derogatory views on Blacks never traveled to Africa. Al-Muqaddasi  only visited the Islamic East. He and other Arab medieval writers clearly were projecting their view of Black slaves upon all of Black Africa.  When you read the opinion from someone who actually visited the African lands he talks about you hear a totally different picture.
  -Ibn Battuta writes:
"We ... traveled by sea to the city of Kulwa [Kilwa in East Africa]...Most of its people are Zunuj, extremely black...The city of Kulwa is amongst the most beautiful of cities and most elegantly built... Their uppermost virtue is religion and righteousness and they are Shafi'i in rite."
"Then I reached [a West African town]. This town had as its governor an excellent man, a pilgrim called Farba Sulaiman, well known for his bravery and tenacity...An Arab slave girl of his from Damascus came in to us. She was an Arab and spoke to me in Arabic."
"[the people of Iwalatan in West Africa] were generous to me and entertained me...and as for their women -- they are extremely beautiful and are more important than the men"
"Another of [the Malli blacks'] good qualities is their concern for learning the sublime Qur'an by heart...One day I passed a handsome youth from them dressed in fine clothes and on his feet was a heavy chain. I said to the man who was with me, 'What has this youth done -- has he killed someone?' The youth heard my remark and laughed. It was told me, 'He has been chained so that he will learn the Qu'ran by heart.'"
-Ibn Battuta
So here we see the drastic contrast between a person who actually traveled to the lands and met the people he wrote about and the varied Arabs who had never been in contact with Black African cultures and wrote only using the demeaning descriptions others relayed to them.  Another dynamic we see in Arab racism is the need to justify the brutal, ungodly and unrighteous treatment they have heaped upon Blacks by dehumanizing Africans.  As my earlier quotes display, Arabs even used twisted religious scripture and false parables using biblical character’s to justify enslaving Africans. Later Europeans would do the same. Almost all of the European racial stereotypes appeared previously in Arab racist attitudes. It may be possible that many of  Western Europe’s early attitudes towards Blacks were shaped by Arabs but it is clear the religious justifications such as the curse of Ham mirror each other. I’d like to note that the Bible speaks of no curse on Ham but rather his son Canaan.This and the fact according to biblical historiography Canaan descendants lived in Asia Minor illustrates the stretch the creators of “the curse of Ham” had to take to place a theological causation for the Black Africans plight. Today Africans find themselves in a self fulfilling negative prophecy. Due to a millennium of being ravaged by slavery and colonization Africa is poor and struggling . In many parts of Africa despotic regimes rule killing their own citizens and causing starvation for the rest. Outsiders look at this and see all of the negative stereotypes being displayed. What began as lies and derogatory exaggeration has manifested its self into a reality in some parts of Africa. Today many Black Africans and Africans of the diaspora display many of the negative stereotypes applied to them. This the long term effects of racist dogma coupled with brutal, continuous, systemic oppression. Centuries of negative treatment has caused Blacks to internalize this negative self view into their culture.
The oppressor group has internalized behavior based in racism as well. Recent studies point to biological and neural changes that occur when Caucasians see images of dark skinned people
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555431/

Whether if this is natural reaction based in genetic evolution, a learned reaction based in a racist culture or a combination of both is still in question. One dynamic that is apparent in every case where there is a significant minority existing within a larger dominant majority there is a history of oppression. The dominant groups attitude towards the oppressed are that traits such as “criminal behavior, being unemployed and having low intelligence” are inherent not a result of the oppressive environment. In fact the dominant group rarely views their treatment of the minority group as oppression. Today some minority groups have a strong enough and positive enough culture to still function fairly well in spite of living in an oppressive society but if you examine these groups history you will find they have suffered greatly at the hands of oppressive societies. The Jews strong, positive and rich culture could do nothing in the face of an extreme Nazi assault on life and liberty. Pundits such as Dinesh D’souza point to culture alone as the causation of Black failure in society. They negate the existence of modern day racism and do not factor in the psychological affects of 300 plus years of slavery and 100 years of American apartheid(Jim Crow). Again this is another example of the oppressor blaming the oppressed for their condition. D’Souza has pointed out that he is of East Indian heritage as if this gives him sort of “pass” to speak on and or insight into African American problems. As I alluded to earlier the East Indian Hindu Vedas carry if not racist an “anti-dark skin” message. D’Souza was raised by parents who are decedent from Goa Catholics. Goa Catholics superimposed Catholicism on top of their native Hindu beliefs. As recently as the 1960’s Goan’s have struggled with their Indian identity having been Westernized by the Portuguese who converted Goan Indians in 1510. So in D’Souza we have an East Indian American Republican Christian/Hindu born in a culture that historically has ethnic identity issues, a man that was more than likely taught the Aryan Invasion theory as he grew up drumming a color and caste system complex into his head. This is the man who penned “The End of Racism”. Unfortunately D’Souza is not alone in this line of thought. Many Whites truly feel racism no longer exist. This is one of the new hurdles Black people have to overcome. The fact they live in a society that has set obstacles in place for them that non Blacks cant or refuse to see. The one thing Black Africans have on their side is history. I point to the tribes of Gaul who were forced from their lands by invading Huns. The Gauls migrated towards Rome to seek refuge from The Hunnish hordes. Rome over taxed the Gauls and treated them as inferiors. It is said Romans made the starving Gauls sell their women and children into slavery for dog meat.
“Soon after, high taxes, Roman prejudice, and government corruption turned them against the Empire” -Wiki
This is why the barbarians smashed the gates of Rome. Whether if it’s the common people of 18^th century France, the serfs and workers of pre Soviet Russia or the colonist of  the American revolution, oppressed people will always rise shrugging of the yoke that afflicts them. I hope in this more enlightened era the people of the world can learn to truly respect their fellow humans with out the need for violent struggle to bring that respect about.

 

The Big Brain Cipher – The fallacies in J. Philippe Rushton 's theory

The Big Brain Cipher – The fallacies in J. Philippe Rushton 's theory

Many are familiar with J. Philippe Rushton . Rushton is a British born psychologist that believes Black Africans low IQ scores are due to the fact Black Africans have smaller brains than Europeans and Asians. The fact that Rushton is a psychologist and has arrived at this conclusion all the more points to his own short comings. Being a psychologist one should factor in all available data from socio-economic, environmental and psycho-social data-all aspects of psychology not just brain size and genetics which are aspects of biology. Again Rustin is a psychologist, he is neither a geneticist nor biologist.  It seems Rushton has failed to take in all possible data relevant to such a study purposely or by lack of insight on his own part. Rushton also has arrived at his conclusions using indirect data. For example Rushton jumps to the conclusion that African American low IQ is due to African Americans having a smaller brain with out factoring in psycho-social & or environmental factors. Nor does he delve into brain anatomy or function, two things that also could possibly explain away any assumed big brain advantage. These are all factors I will address and in the end clearly illustrate the holes in Rushton's theory.

I will briefly state that most minorities are marginalized & suffer from some form of oppression or discrimination by the larger group they live near or with in. The Dalits and North East Indians of India, American Indians, Rohingya Muslims of Burma, Palestinians and almost any marginalized or minority group has been labeled lazy, ignorant, violent and suffers from unemployment and poor education. So when looking at other marginalized populations outside and with in the U.S. one finds the same social-environmental dynamics and the same symptoms. It takes a small leap of logic to conclude the socio-environmental conditions are the primary causation of the social ills or at the very least significant contributing factors. Where you have a population that is discriminated against you will also find members of the dominant/privileged  group assuming the symptoms of this discrimination(lack of achievement, crime, etc) are inherent natural traits of the oppressed group. Rushton being a member of a privileged group has fallen into this faulty line of thinking. Clearly there are psycho-social dynamics that are in effect here that Rushton seems to overlook in the case of Black Americans. Either ignoring, minimalizing or dismissing as non existent the effects of slavery, Jim Crow (American Apartheid) and systemic racism (such as conservative pundits such as Dinesh D'Souza does) has had on stifling Black academic achievement and IQ levels the psychologist J.Ruston choses to theorize this lack of achievement is based in genetics and biology. Again for a psychologist to ignore phenomena rooted in his field of study and to base his theory on phenomena out side his field of expertise is not only strange but disturbing.

So lets address the "boogie man" / "elephant" in the room

Are Europeans and Asians brains bigger than Black Africans?

Why yes they are but here lies the rub. European and Asians also have bigger eyeballs. In fact all people living in and or native to northern latitudes have bigger brains and eyeballs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804214410.htm

You can see this dynamic with in the populations living at varying latitudes in Europe. As you travel north in latitude studies show Northern Europeans have bigger eyeballs and brains than Southern Europeans

This being the case the people with the biggest brains and eyeballs are Eskimos or the Inuit people who live near the North Pole. European and Asian brains are bigger in the areas dealing with sight. During the ice age it was dark and difficult to see. Also today due to sunlight refraction it is more difficult to see in Northern latitudes.

Neanderthal man who was an early cousin to homo sapiens (us) evolved during the ice age and had a bigger brain than any human.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319093639.htm

We can tell from early Neanderthal artifacts they were less intelligent than homo sapiens archaic or homo sapiens sapiens(us/modern man) so their bigger brains did not equate to a higher intelligence. In fact it appears to have been substantially lower

Europeans and Asians like Neanderthal developed in the northern hemisphere during ice age climatic changes. Both Asians and Europeans evolved bigger eyes and optic nerve areas to see better and developed bigger brains to deal with the extra sight sensory input

So now we understand "why" Europeans and Asians have bigger brains. The next question is does this correlate with their inherently having a higher IQ than Africans?

First lets look at two areas of the brain Asians and Europeans have increased size and have more grey matter dedicated to:



Above we have illustrated the visual cortex . Again note this extra brain matter is dedicated to analyzing increased visual input. Another area larger in Asians and Europeans are the lateral ventricles (seen in image below) These are filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) which bathes and cushions the brain and spinal cord . The lateral ventricles do not consist of any grey or white matter.


Cognitive functions such as -executive functions, planning, abstract reasoning, impulse control, sustained attention and insight are not carried out in these areas. These functions are carried out primarily in the frontal lobe were the Orbitofrontal Cortex is located.
 African Americans in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex  than Caucasians.

African Americans in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex than Caucasians . The orbitofrontal cortex carries out many cognitive functions.

 

 

The Plos study states that over all :
"there were no statistically significant differences in total gray matter, total white matter, or ventricular CSF volumes. (Plos-  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013642 )

The study goes on to state-  "In models examining specific brain regions, the only statistically significant difference was that African-Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes than Caucasians. However, when regional ratios were examined (regional volume/total cerebral volume), the African-American cohort exhibited greater ratios for the right amygdala and bilaterally for the OFC "

 

Another point Rushton glazes over is the fact that women have smaller brains than men. When asked about this in a recent documentary “Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo" Rushton stated that “the difference between men and women’s brains is due to spatial ability, the difference between White, Black and East Asian brains is due to general intelligence” he ends this statement in saying “ this is what we think.” He does not explain why brain size does not correlate to higher intelligence between White men and White women but he indicates brain size is something significant between Blacks and Whites. He simply states this is what he thinks. Again he does not factor in any environmental or cultural elements that a psychologist should. Rushton is arriving at conclusions from biological and incomplete educational data. I say incomplete because if I test an African American child raised in a drug and gang infested project and a White child raised in suburbia and conclude the Blacks lower score is due to his or her brain size alone I am disregarding the whole environmental factor. Not until I can test a Black person and White person who not only share the same economic bracket but both have cultures that support or encourage education my test data will always be skewed. As a psychologist Rushton should understand that the psychological legacy of racism and slavery has affected Black culture negatively and the presence of systemic racism in today's society act as a negative psychological effect. A psychologist should not be negating these factors and should be doing further research into them to arrive at an accurate answer. The conclusion Rushton has arrived at is the equivalent of a florist stating the white roses grown in fertilizer and sunlight are inherently superior to red roses grown in poor soil not only because the white roses have grown bigger & taller but because the roses are white. If the florist does not consider the conditions the roses were grown in the florist conclusions will be invalid.


Some might theorize "well" since Europeans & Asians have bigger eyeballs thus cans see better and have a bigger brain dedicated to the increased sensory input and the analysis of this input perhaps this gives them some type of edge. The opposite of this is shown in studies. People who are myopic (nearsighted) tend to have higher IQ’s
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/20/science/study-links-intelligence-and-myopia.html


So this would suggest the increased eyesight of Asians and Europeans would at best be a non factor in intelligence

Again I must point out the whole brain size argument is invalid because again Whites and Asians only possess more brain matter used for sight sensory intake and processing. This is the same as if certain human groups had a brain that possessed a larger primary olfactory cortex for smelling . This in no way would make one smarter.

The latest studies state that overall a bigger brain(with in the human range of 1100 grams to 1400 grams)does not equate to higher intelligence.
http://www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html

You do have older yet relatively recent studies that state brain size does equate to higher intelligence and men are more intelligent than women because of this. Throwing a wrench in the conclusions arrived at by these studies are women like the last Guinness world record holder for IQ - Marilyn vos Savant who IQ was tested at 228.

Black Africans and other dark skinned peoples possess higher amounts of melanin & melatonin which acts as an neurotransmitter by which neurons (brain cells) communicate to each other. This coupled with the fact Blacks have a functional pineal gland and a larger orbitofrontal cortex arguments can be made that Black Africans are more intelligent and this is why many are still able to achieve academically and economically in spite of a societal system that’s is set against them.

I theorize people such as Rushton not only suffer from a cultural arrogance but psychologically deal with "White guilt" by placing blame on the victims for a plight their ancestors have placed them in and they themselves have helped perpetuate or remained apathetic to. This is a well known psychological defense tactic. In fact the term "blaming the victim" was a term coined by William Ryan  in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim. In the book, Ryan described victim blaming as an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the United States 
(wiki-   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming    )
You will find this "victim blaming attitude" common in people who are part of the upper, ruling  or privileged classes. By labeling a people  inherently inferior the inference is  made that their socio economic condition is of their own making. This slippery slope could even have one arrive at the conclusion that slavery, colonization and all other subjugation of peoples of color throughout the world are the fault of the subjugated. This circles around to the ‘White mans burden” mental state that states Europeans have done colonized peoples a favor for bringing them technology and so called civilization. The North Western Europeans who control much of the world seem to have forgotten they were the barbarians who with their "big brains" brought about Europe’s dark ages. They have forgotten they have borrowed (directly or indirectly) most of the technology that allowed them to conquer the world from their Asian, Arab and African brothers. Such theories as Rushton’s fall flat in the face of the absence of any early ancient North Western European civilizations.  You will find no pyramids in ancient Berlin no Pantheons in an ancient Norway. All early civilization are found near or with in the worlds tropical zone. Europe’s earliest civilization were the Minoans who were located south of Italy on the modern Islands of Crete and Thera, the most southern parts of Europe-nearest to Africa and the middle east.

 

In many ways I regard the African American as a Ferrari engine that’s been drop into a Chevy chassis and connected to a Ford transmission. An unsuspecting driver will curse the engine stating that it is a piece of junk and just doesn’t run right. The fact is that the reason for the malfunction is that the engine has been connected to a system that is not designed for it. Even though the Ferrari is one of the worlds best built and efficient engines as long as its connected to a system not designed for it, it will perform badly. This has been the Black mans plight in North America. A human with so much potential but held back by the very system he must live in.

(Brilliant Blacks From BCE to Present)

Imhotep

 Mansa Musa

 Angelo Soliman

                                            Neil deGrasse Tyson

Black Shang Theory Explained

  
 

One of the 1^st  theories I came across when I began studying Afro centric history was the Black origins of Chinese civilization or commonly known as the “Black Shang Theory”. What I have discovered is that this theory is in error due to the context it is usually delivered and taken in. The Theory states that the Shang Dynasty which was a pre imperial dynasty located near the Yellow rivers valley was of "Black" African origins. It is commonly agreed the Shang developed much of the  roots of what would become dynastic China. This theory was developed before genetic testing so many claims could not be verified or debunked. Artifacts and skelatal remains of the Shang depicted a "non" mongoloid peoples.  This lead to the remains being labeled "proto-mongoloid" by  western anthropologist.  The truth is that the Shang were a non mongoloid peoples being related to Melanesians and Polynesians. Here is where the “Black” Shang theory more than likely developed.  Melanesians look like Black Africans and Polynesians are dark skinned peoples also. With the advancement of genetics we have discovered although Melanesians and other dark skinned people may look like Africans outwardly they are Asians & Austaloids genetically. I believe when early Shang  artifacts were discovered their  “Black” appearance lead to them being labeled as a Black African peoples by Afro centrics. Euro centrics created and applied the ambiguous term “proto-mongoloid” to the Shang. (Creating obscure terms is a practice Euro centrics have long done when they wished to deny an African presence or possible African presence in a civilization or culture. The early 20th century Euro centric anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi coined the term "Mediterraneanoid" and classified Nubians, Ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians as such. As for the Shang what we actually have here is the evidence of Melanesians and Polynesians building a high civilization. As an African American who has knowledge of self I know how it feels to have another people claim your civilization, your  accomplishments and or simply deny your contributions to history. This being the case I feel it is just as wrong for Afro centrics to claim the Shang as Black African as it is for Euro centrics to claim the Shang to be some obscure “proto-mongoloid” peoples. The Shang were a Melanoid(Melanesian)and Polynesian peoples. Below I explain my theory on how much of this transpired in the ancient region of the Yellow River valley

 As man left out of Africa he developed new haplo groups but kept a similar phenotype(dark skin, lower jaw prothagnism, full lips, wide nose).

(Top Left: Shang Dynasty Artifacts)
(Left & Above Right: Andaman Islanders & New Guinean Man)

Man changed slightly and you can look at Australian Aborigines and Africans and see that difference. If humans originally had straight or slightly curled hair like Aborigines and developed woolly hair later in Africa or if Aborigines developed straight and slightly curly hair later is not known. When humans first reached Asia they undoubtedly looked similar to the Africoid but more than likely would be genetically classified as Australoid or Austronesian. Proof of an Australoid people in Asia has been verified by archaeological artifacts and modern Indian dna. The evidence of Australoid dna in South East Asia is visible in the darker complexions of Vietnamese,Thai,Taiwanese,Cambodian and other South East Asians Linguistics & DNA also points to Australoid dna in South East Asia and Austronesian dna in East Asia.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20110216.html

(Aboriginals 1st to settle East Asia)

 The link below is to a study that speaks to this.( it also speaks to the various migrations that lead to the assimilation of the Australoid type by the later Mongoloid type migration)  http://www.genetics.org/content/130/1/139.full.pdf%20. 

                                                                        Melanesian Child

The Australoid migrated as far as Japan and parts of Russia (the Ainu people who have Asian admixture and may also have Caucasian admixture)

Ainu                                                                              Aboriginal

Dravidian

Andamese


                                                                                                                   Dravidian

Id like to state that  research on my part does point to mongoloid peoples having occupied the Yellow river area before the Shang but their culture was more primitive and Shang possessed Chariot technology which more than likely enabled them to conquer the inhabitants they encountered.

It also does appear  from the artifacts the Shang did have epicanthic folds or (Asian eyes). The noses and lips do seem Africoid or say Australoid.

The Han type Asian is a product of Ice Age climatic changes. Asians simply did not spend as long in Ice Age conditions as Caucasoids so they didn't develop long noses to warm up air but they did develop smaller noses with smaller nostrils and they have lower jaw  regression (negative prothagnism )but not as much as Caucasians Another ice age hominid Neanderthal has extreme lower jaw  regression ie: negative prothagnism to the extent many regard Neanderthal skulls as "chinless' -

In the image below are Neanderthal skulls (top) compared to modern Caucasian skulls (bottom)

 Also pale skin may only be 5000 years old. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1210056/White-Europeans-evolved-5-500-years-ago-food-habits-changed.html

 It is theorized that along with the dark ice age conditions skin grew pale due to the invention of farming. By eating farmed crops as a basis for diet humans took vitamin D out of their diet. Cereal crops have no vitamin D. Meat has some and Fish has a lot and these two were the primary sources of food for hunter gatherers. Once humans began farming in Northern climates this eliminated the Vitamin D from their diet and humans needed to process more via sunlight. Han type Chinese are almost as pale as Europeans. Again both are products of ice age climate change and adapting to living far North of the Equator were sunlight is minimized.The Han type haplo group is primarily the ydna haplo group O. This haplo group developed in Central Eurasia and migrated into Northern Asia developing along Siberia and  outwards into East Asia.

 The National Geographic project's "My genetic Journey "quotes:

"By the time haplogroup O ancestors arrived in China and East Asia, the last ice age was near its peak. Encroaching ice sheets and central Asia's enormous mountain ranges effectively corralled them in East Asia, and there they evolved in isolation over the millennia"  http://www.viethoc.org/temp/

This may be a reason Asians almost ubiquitously have epicanthic eye folds among other traits that are rare in other human populations.

Haplo group O is descendant from a population that reached Asia about 35k years ago. There was already a population there that reached east Asia via a different route about 50k years ago. This is 47k years before the Shang  and this population seems to have been absorbed by the population that came 15k years later. The Shang civilizations artifacts and structures appear to be laid smack on top of earlier, mongoloid peoples settlements as if they came as conquers. The Shang population more than likely had not changed in phenotype because this group although in Asia during the ice age they occupied an area free of glaciation(presumably on or near the east Asian coast) and still obtained large enough quantities of vitamin D for proper human body function(vitamin D keeps bones strong and helps women regulate folic acid crucial in child birth. Women could die with out the proper amount of vitamin D giving birth and children are born still born. This is one theory as to why humans developed lighter skin during the dark ice age conditions) so they had no need to develop lighter skin.

The Australoids in China just as the ones in India to the south developed early civilization or say proto-civilization before contact with the Han type. I say this because during this period the Han would have been living a Nomadic life style migrating throughout Asia before finally settling in the Yellow river area. Seeing that Australoids were the creators of the Indus Valley civilization(their text even speak of yogic positions and possibly are the roots to modern Hinduism) It is safe to assume they did the same in the Yellow river area. (were you have a water source, domestic animals and crops all rudiments of civilization.) Prehistoric Asia was the most hospitable environment for Neolithic man. Domestic animals and domestic grass/grains are indigenous to Eurasia/Middle East and spread to North Africa and other areas as humans migrated. Other Australoids live on Islands and continents with no domestic crops or animals, or the few native domestic crops they do farm are low in nutrition and require far more work to cultivate than wheat, barley, sorghum and other grass crops. With out a water source or domestic animals and crops civilization will not arise independently. This is why Island culture is tribal and even on continents like Australia the absence of domestic animals and crops halt the development of high civilization. Domestic crops allows a few farmers to feed a large population easily. This frees up people with in this population to become specialist such as architects, priest, scribes, astrologers and so on. With out domestication of animals and crops the majority of a population would have to spend the majority of time hunting and gathering. No time for some one to focus on developing a  script or alphabet or to plan out the construction of a temple or pyramid.

Thus the statement the original Chinese were Black or African  is only partially true. All mankind began in Africa and when man arrived in the area of China he was still dark skinned.  The Black Shang theory only speaks to the ruling dynasty that from archeology seem to be a conquering culture that came into the Yellow river valley area from near by. So as stated the Australoids and or Austronesian type was in East Asia at least 15k years before the group that would become the Han type Chinese arrived. One also must understand the Shang dynasty did not arise until 1675 BCE. This is more than 8000 years after the ice age ended and over 40k years after the 1st humans reached Asia. I plan to dig further on this theory but as it stands now the most concise non Euro, Afro or Chinese centric source ive found is from Plos Genetics Skeletal and dna studies that state there were two Shang dynasties, one Melanoid(as in Melanesian) and one of seemingly Polynesian stock. From what I gather this is the only source that sites actual study of Shang skeletal remains & not the Jaihu who occupied the area before them.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/annotation/listThread.action;jsessionid=2D0CE411277C5035176581703A91AFF2?root=7003
 

The 1st Cipher (an Introduction)

Some may know me from Yahoo Answers. Some may know me from my You tube commentary. Many know me as Hip-Hop Rapper and Bay Area pioneer Hugh EMC. Ive created this blog to address issues of anthropology,history,civilizations origins and the origins of mankind it self. On Yahoo Answers I've received email from question askers about certain topics dealing with the roots of civilization ,genetics & history. This is what prompted me in part to create this blog. I consider my self neither Afro nor Euro centric. I consider my self world centric and a scientific thinker. I do my best to look at matters of history & culture through an anthropological lens. I seek truthful non biased answers to questions of race and civilization. I do my best to support my claims with empirical evidence and in the case of an over abundance of circumstantial data i will state the particular claim is a strong theory. Euro centric thinkers will undoubtedly find me Afro centric. This is due to the fact many new discoveries have come forth revealing not only mankind's roots in Africa but the very roots of language,culture and civilization it self. Euro centrics have had a long history of masking and denying Africa's role in world culture and civilization and this mind state will prove hard to break in some.  Many Afro centrics will consider me brainwashed by Euro centric schools of study but this is untrue. Much of Afro centric claims are over reactions to extreme Euro centric racism so instead of stating something is a probable theory Afro centrics state claims as if they have all of the supporting evidence and this is an error. The way many Afro centrics state their claims only hurt African history over all. Ive listened to and  or read research from so many brilliant Afro centric academics only to find error after error. The errors are usually small but they hurt the over all validity of the theory put forth. In the coming months I will be re posting many of my YA Answers and commentary from other sites but I also will be posting new commentary and linking this blog with my new You tube site that also will be dealing with historical and anthropological issues. I look forward to dialogue with you all.

                              Ancient coins from North Africa & the Greek Isle of Lesbos