Dear Jervey:
I still think you might be playing some sort of elaborate joke on us, however, here goes:
Your original arguement seemed to be that Southern Caucasians were more receptive to steroids than Northern ones. Now you are arguing they mature earlier as well. Are we on track so far?
It IS generally accepted that among other physical differences, blacks do mature about a year earlier than Whites. However, you are the first person I've come across to propose any major set of such differences within the Caucasian sub-species.
You seem to be arguing from your own experiences-ancedotal evidence. Yet others have had very different experiences. For instance, I was heavily bearded enough in Junior High to once be mistaken for a teacher, as well as possessing copious body hair. The beard in question is red though. I admit it's not like I've conciously done a scientific study, but in my own recollection, I can remember about equal numbers of blonder and darker White lads who seemed to be early or late maturers. And when we reach the level of pro-athletics, as has been pictorially demonstrated with football in your "androgens" thread, lighter Whites if anything seem to outnumber the darker kind. Northern Europeans are, if anything, slightly physically larger than Southern Euros and have been for quite some time-Just read Greek and Roman descriptions of Celts and Germanics.
"I will however, claim "Swarthy Supremacy" in the arenas of culture, science, empire-building and indoctrination. Right now, >95% of the world is worshipping our gods, assembling in our Parliamentary systems, engineering technology by the rules we pioneered (and still pioneer today), and borrowing money from our complex, erudite financial machinations. We split the atom. We write the best comedy. We fight the best wars. We cook the best food. I have a deep respect for other groups, including "nordic" people and "asiatics". They're invariably honest, amicable people. They're just not very crafty...cunning...daedalian...machiavellian...as you guys in here are so ably illustrating."
With this, I know you are playing a joke, but still I'll bite.....
I assume you are referring to contributions of Greco-Roman civilization with most of this. But here we run into several problems. The first is the actual racial composition of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Zeus is a red-head, Athena is grey-eyed, Aphrodite is described as having flaxen locks, Achilles is yellow-haired...what does this tell you about the looks of the ancient Greeks who created these myths? Of the top of my head, Julius Caeser was tow-headed. I'm sure with abit of research I can add to the list. Italians and Greeks are somewhat darker than modern day Germans or Englishmen mainly because of invasions and interbreeding that happened AFTER the glory days of the Hellenic world.(None of this should be construed to mean that modern Italians and Greeks are somehow inferior either-any differences between Caucasian subgroups in average I.Q. are insigifigant if even detectable.)
The second problem is the huge contribution of various Nordic humans from at least the time the Roman Empire was conquered, on forward. Compounding this is the fact that the "barbarism" of the European peoples the Romans fought has been GREATLY exagerrated. This IS a pet area of mine. When we speak about the Celtic and Germanic tribes of this time, we are not speaking about wandering bands of tribesmen-we speak of small nation-states, not dissimilar to the Greek-city states, or even the American colonies before Federalism. (Speaking of which, tell me right quick, where do our concepts about every trials by 12 peers, every man having the right to bear arms and speak his mind in council, etc. come from? Ultimately rooted in ancient Germanic custom.) Technologically, they seem to have equaled or exceeded the Romans in many ways. We admire Greek and Roman ruins, but the Celts and Germans built on a large scale as well. Some Celtic hill-forts had highh walls enclosing many square miles, huge longhouses, many dwellings, etc. Unfortunately, the most practical material for them, wood, decays in time, unlike the stone that went into the best Greek and Roman constructions. Northern European mettallurgy seems to have outpaced Southern-remember that Greece's bronze age was ended by blond-haired invaders with iron spears, that mail armor and lengthy swords both seem to have been adopted by the Romans from the Celts. Roman observers also admired Celtic chariot construction and even left drawings of a sort of horse-drawn reaping machine of Celtic province!
The Greek and Roman intellectual classes left ample written records for historians to study. The Celts and Germans left very little. But when you examine the issue, you find there ARE examples of Celtic use of writing, but that Northern European's intellectual elite were commited to maintaining an oral tradition of transmission. An unfortunate cultural choice for historians, but absence of a written intellectual tradition does not imply that these otherwise highly-organized and technologically advanced peoples had no intellectual culture.
Gods? Excuse me? I suppose you mean the bizarre series of events by which the religion of Europe came to be derived from a rather odd and eccentric Middle-Eastern
cult. This has nothing at all to do with any cultural superiority or inferiority, and whether or not this occurence was a good thing is HIGHLY debatable.
Food? Boy we are feeling light-hearted today, aren't we Jervey? Truly, native English cuisine has been bloody awful for the last 300 years or so, for many historical reasons, including the tendency to simply borrow recipes from the French. But German and Scandinavian food is good. Even the Icelandic dish of Greenland shark buried in the ground for a few weeks shows alot of ingenuity in using you enviroment, as well as the stolid determination of anyone who actually eats it.
