Talk:Carleton S. Coon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Earlier comments

Text adapted and expanded from emuseum.mnsu.edu, a non-copyrighted source. User:JDG.

Intent to edit: I am preparing a major rewrite of the third paragraph of this entry. The existing text fails to capture the overwhelming rejection of Coon's racial theories by anthropologists, regardless of how "meticulous" his work may have been. If anyone is following this page and feels some stake in the work, let's have some discussion about it. --Norvell 20:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree the page goes a little light on Coon, but at the same time I don't want to see a back lash. More importantly, however, the emuseum bibliographies have no explicit legal statement on them (that I could find) putting their work in the public domain and so it IS under copyright automatically. I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that this page is in violation. I'll edit it to increase the quality and prose etc. Rex 20:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intent to preserve the science in this man's work, even if his style is grossly out of touch with 21st century sensibilities. "Topsy" is apalling as a nickname, but he may have given it to her himself while doing the Melville Is. field work. The Alpha-Omega reference was meant to say "Caucasians are somewhere in between" the two extremes in terms of cranial development or brain complexity. Im not Chinese, but I think he may have had an impluse to show respect for a group of people who had the use of fire (chinese erectus) 300,000 years before Caucasians or their African genetic kin. Whites and blacks, have many good qualities, but we, are a bit closer to our erectus roots in terms of time. The same is true of the TiWi as evidenced by the smallest brain cases on the planet...yet they are certainly us...Homo sapiens. You could probably educate the Tiwi to be medical doctors, engineers, even anthropologists. We know that, sadly Coon lived too soon to get it! Gentlemen, the existience of Homo Florensis proves, as does the prior existence of Homo Nearderthalis, that non-Homo sapien humans co-existed independent of modern humans. Further, if the Florensis folk had been able to survive they may have by now transitioned into the sapien GRADE, or be well on that road. The physical evidence for some time shift in GRADE transition is reasonable nuetral science...Coon was just presenting it in a very insensitive manner...Don't discard a whole logical concept because it needs fine tuning. Reasonable workers in this field know that Coon had the the multi- type progression partially right. He just overlooked the overlap that actually exists in the all modern races which blurs the transitions he noted, and certainly blurs all the world's distinct population groups now. User:Allan Silliphant 11.30 Oct 28 2005

Good grief..."Tiwi...smallest braincases on the planet...could probably educate..." As a matter of fact, there are Tiwi doctors, educators, businesspeople, even politicians. Less of the speculation and inexorable "transition into sapien grade", more work on this rather badly-constructed and confusing article, is what we need here...--cjllw | TALK 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whites and Blacks are a bit closer to Erectus in terms of time ? What references do you have to support this claim ? Members of all human races have made remarkable scientific break throughs and to suggest Asians have more advanced brains is just ridiculous. These views are along the same lines of those which can be found in racial supremacist groups. Epf 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are violating "Ad Hominem" You cannot attack a man, only the argument. In fact, the various "races" of man do have differing average brain case sizes. That is not a racist comment, that is fact. further, asians do have the largest average braincase of any group of humans. If you define advanced to be the size of brain, and 6000 years of human history shows we do, than yes, asian, do have the most advanced brain, on Average. I would agree that "respect" has no place in scientific discourse, only facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.42 (talk • contribs)

It is not a fact, it is an assertion, predicated on a host of contested assumptions, including the very utility of "race" as a proxy for genetics and functional differences. And yes, it is a racist comment, although there are differences between maliciously racist comments, and simply incidentally racist comments. --JereKrischel 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many pre-historic uses of fire that pre-date that of "Chinese Erectus" have been located in southern France and northern Israel. His "respect" for the people of East Asia should be given for all races and the theory behind his "Alpha and Omega" comparison is ludicrous. Epf 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over a different C. Coon at MNSU's eMuseum

I have found references to another C. S. Coon, specifically the one described at <http://www.studentworldassembly.org/coon.htm> and at <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/po/com/11057.htm>. Note the spelling variations, which might just be internet typos (?). Anyways, the other Mr. Coon was a career Foreign Service Officer and ambassador to Nepal 1981–1984. This article here <http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/abcde/coon_carlton.html> seems to confuse the two. Should we post some sort of disambiguation, even a short one? I myself spent some time trying to refute that eMuseum claim. (cf. the date of Prof. Coon's death and the term of Ambassador Coon) Mang 08:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS

To call Coon a racist is plain and simple bias, Coon merely dealt with facts and reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs)

yeah, ok, I wouldnt consider his works "fact" or "reality", especially since many aspects of his works have been deemed unfounded and widely refuted by the majority of modern anthropologists. Coon's whole classification and "typological model" are obsolete in many respects. The photographic supplements he uses in books such as "the Races of Europe" for example, can be described as scanty at best and even disagree with his own observations. The only fact that deserves mention about Coon is his unacceptable and controversial opinions on the subject of "race" and society that is comparable to the obsolete eugenics and social darwinism common during the late 19th/early 20th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.101.225 (talk • contribs) .

Does it mean that you would want to present some sickening PC agenda here? Cartouche, August 2006

Instead of slandering coon, you should read his books again if you ever have. Coons plates are accurate.Far from obsolete, he is the one in the right direction. finalaval —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Finalaval (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Terrible POV and malicious deliberated difamation

"Racial theories" deliberatedly misquotes coon to make him a racist. By "european types" he meant that, european types; types common in europe, his works were not politically inclined although many use him to refute nordicism. Section reviewed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Finalaval (talk • contribs) .

  • While I agree that section should be "reviewed", I do not think it should just be deleted wholesale. If you have suggestions as to how to make it better, please feel free to give them. I saw nothing in the text you deleted that corresponded with your statement on here. An example of something misquoted would be helpful, if you can provide it. --Fastfission 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the mere title "racial theories" implies POV, Coon didnt view his work as a theory. It is clear that whoever wrote that is following a political agenda --Finalaval 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You will need to be clearer on which bits constitute POV in your assessment. How exactly does "racial theories" (ie, theories about race) constitute POV? If Coon didn't see his work as a theory, then as what? As per Fastfission above, instead of just deleting the text with the misleading "section reviewed" comment, the onus would be on you argue and point out in which respects the text is deficient. And BTW, switching to edit under an anon IP after your account has been blocked for 3RR is not really the way to go about things either.--cjllw | TALK 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I alerady pointed out how he was misquoted. Coon was not an ideologist, he did no theorize, his work was scientifical. That whole posts tries to elaborate a certain conspiracy theory under which Coon would be a racist and his work biased. It is farly ridiculous that people would fall for such nonsense such as to even insult his name on death. Reminds of the communists fabrications and stuff . A whole new version of this article is needed (btw my account was not blocked) --201.231.161.9 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Um, he did theorize. His works contain explicit theories about the origins of the human races and their relation to one another. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word theory? Einstein theorized about gravity, Darwin theorized about evolution; it is not a word with negative implications. And the page in question does not say Coon was racist, but it does say that his racial theories postulate a hierarchy of races, which is completely true. --Fastfission 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement that human races present "a continuous serial progression of populations" is quite funny. Is the difference between the centre of Washington and the violent black quarters also "a continuous serial progression of populations"? I would say that after some time, you will experience a sudden break, where you can't enter without a bullet-proof vest. But frankly, I am amused by this infantile PC propaganda spread by people, who obviously have no idea about anthropology or human psychology. This is the last desperate spasm of the multi-culti utopian ideology, whose wonderful plans about a multiracial mess can't somehow come true. Cartouche, 22.10.2006

[edit] Here i will expose this malice for what it is furthermore:

Already the beginning (not to mention the title, are political sounding and name calling disgraces).

1)"Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types. He believed Europe was the refined product of a long history of racial progression."

So as trying to make him look like some sort of nazi or at least a strong darwinian right winger or nationalistic. That statement is not only a complete lie, it is totally malicious and politically oriented. The purpose is of course, that the reader dismisses Coon as "a racist". Coon all over his works pointed out the mixture of peoples and the different racial types that resulted (an example being his travel to north africa or to Montenegro to study the dinaric race , a mixture of mediterraneans and alpines). This mixtures were often subject of his studies. His position is that types mix if they live in a similar enviroment rather than stick together and try to eliminate the other. History proves he is right. Coon even proposes and is hated by some for asserting Upper Paleolithic survivors are a mixture of Neanderthals and Sapiens. Coon believed the racial stuation of Europe to be the result of mixtures, or as he himself said "At any rate, the main conclusion of this study will be that the present races of Europe are derived from a blend of (A), food-producing peoples from Asia and Africa, of basically Mediterranean racial form, with (B), the descendants of interglacial and glacial food-gatherers, produced in turn by a blending of basic Homo sapiens, related to the remote ancestor of the Mediterraneans, with some non-sapiens species of general Neanderthaloid form. The actions and interactions of environment, selection, migration, and human culture upon the various entities within this amalgam, have produced the white race in its present complexity. "


2)"according to his book The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World. He believed the "maximum survival" of Europeans was increased by their replacement of the indigenous peoples of the "New World".(The Races of Europe, The White Race and the New World) He believed the history of the White race to have involved "racial survivals" of the different White subraces. (The Races of Europe, Chapter II Sec 12"

Here is what Coon said "

The Mediterraneans who peopled the New World were of two principal varieties, Nordics and small, or Ibero-Insular (in Deniker's sense), Mediterraneans. The Nordics went to North America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the Mediterraneans proper to Central and South America. Wherever the Nordics went, they found lands occupied by scattered tribes of hunters and gatherers, or of riverside agriculturalists who were too few to offer them successful resistance. The wars with the Blackfeet and the Sioux were long and bloody, but the Blackfeet and the Sioux have lost their racial hold on their land as completely as have the Arunta. Dispossession and gradual extinction has been the fate of those who opposed the English and the Dutch, whether their opponents were Bushmen or Tasmanians or Beothuks.

The Spanish, on the other hand, went mostly to countries where a dense native population lived close to the soil, and where mighty empires had already arisen; their colonization was largely a matter of conquest and subjugation, and in all the American countries of Spanish settlement, excepting Argentina and Chile, the Indian farmer has reemerged, and the Spaniard forms but an upper crust. The Portuguese, carving out, in Brazil, a vast empire of river and forest, found but little land suitable for the habitation of whites, and into this they brought black men from Africa whose descendants are now the chief possessors of the soil.

The expansion of the Mediterraneans, using the word in the larger sense, into the New World, was an extension of their earlier expansion into Europe. North America became, by the nineteenth century, the greatest Nordic reservoir in the world. But the century which saw the erection of this reservoir also witnessed the beginnings of its change in character; the tide of immigration brought with it members of all the other races cat Europe. The people who came to America, from the time of the Pilgrim Fathers to the imposition of the laws restricting immigration, were selected; none were fully representative of the countries from which they came. In America they were subjected to environmental forces of a new and stimulating nature, so that changes in growth such as their ancestors had not felt for centuries produced strange, gangling creatures of their children, In America we have before our eyes the rapid action of race-building forces; if we wish to understand the principles which have motivated the racial history of the Old World, it behooves us to pay careful attention to the New"

It is somewhat unclear what the writer he means with that, Coon states in that section that where the indians were reduced in numbers, populations largely did not mix, whereas to where they largely survived, populations mixed. This is a consecuence of what I said of Coon before and his belief wich was proved right by the mestization of latin america. It is common sense and not "theory" although this is deliberatedly written to make people believe Coon supported the elimination of indians. I invite everyone to read that chapter of the book.


3) "Carleton Coon did not embrace the Caucasoid racial identity he defined; he instead embraced a White racial identity. In his book the Races of Europe he mentions the term Caucasoid only in passing. He mentions the White race as more a primary identification. In his introduction of the Races of Europe he states the "concern (of his book) the somatic character of peoples belonging to the white race"

This is not only bulgar and ignorant, it is disgusting and purpousedly decieving. Coon used the term "white" all over the book as a sinonym of "caucasian" if you look at his graphic where he shows the different types and the main divison of the white race, you will see that middle eastern types are considered "white". The purpouse of the writer, however, is to make Coon look like some sort of proponent of White Nationalism.


4)"In other sections of his Races of Europe book he mentions people to be "European in racial type" and having a "European racial element" (Races of Europe, Chapter 7 Turks and Mongols) He did not consider studying non-White races to be of high importance. He advised studying the superior versions of European racial types seen in the quote from his book Races of Europe, "What is needed more than anything else in this respect is a thoroughgoing study of the inhabitants of the principal and most powerful nations of Europe".Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans. He believed "The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size." and "the negro group probably evolved parallel to the white strain" (The Races of Europe, Chapter II)"

Again more childish agitation. The book dealt with the white race, and so as to the subject of the book, further studies of whites are relevant. Coon even laments there are too few surveys of crania from europe and more from north africa and he thinks this is because european anthropologists find it more exotic and atractive to do it far away from their homelands. The writer however, wants to decieve you into thinking Coon wants more european crania examined because he would be "a racist". Read the section yourselves. Malicious and deliberate, there are no other words for that.

Again here is what Coon says

"For many years physical anthropologists have found it more amusing to travel to distant lands and to measure small remnants of little known or romantic peoples than to tackle the drudgery of a systematic study of their own compatriots. For that reason the sections in the present book which deal with the Lapps, the Arabs, the Berbers, the Tajiks, and the Ghegs may appear more fully and more lucidly treated than those which deal with the French, the Hungarians, the Czechs, or the English. What is needed more than anything else in this respect is a thoroughgoing study of the inhabitants of the principal and most powerful nations of Europe.

Much more badly needed, however, than data on the living is the publication of skeletal material of all cultural periods in European prehistory and history. European museums and private collections abound with skulls and long bones, only a small proportion of which have as yet been made available through the literature. Most of these are of Neolithic or later date; when a skull of alleged or real glacial age is discovered, it is, as a rule, soon published. "


Political correctness and hatemongering against scholars like Coon have no place in an objective Encyclopedia. I will not remove this, I want you all to see it now that my review is written. --201.231.161.9 04:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Your response to #1 does not disprove #1 in the slightest. Try and focus on what it is in #1 that you disagree with, and avoid getting sidetracked by talking about all the things in Coon you like. I'm happy to take a look at the chapter in question for #2 and see what it says in more detail. Again with #3 you do not really go against what the text says, and it is curious that he used "white" and "Caucasian" interchangeably (most works of physical anthropology of the period do not do so). As for #4, I agree that it should be more contextualized as part of a book explicitly about Europeans that Coon is arguing for the study of Europeans. However the statements about the parallel development of the different races do line up with Coon's racial theories, which were that the various races of the world evolved into Homo sapiens independently of one another. In any case, I agree the section should be tightened up and some of the claims in it are a bit misleading, though I'm not sure alleging "hatemongering" is going to help anything. --Fastfission 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please Remove Bias Comments Refering to Coon as a Racist

As stated plenty of times above, this needs to be fixed. The article is obviously bias.

To reiterate plenty of valid arguments, I will run through the vast list of problems with this article.

The Biography sub-article is generally valid. Some problems are that it is far too short and seems to spend a great deal of effort pointing out Coon's bad "21st century science ethics".

The Racial Theories sub-article has many problems. The following requires citation: "Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types. He believed Europe was the refined product of a long history of racial progression." The reference to "The White Race and the New World" chapter of "The Races of Europe" book is an obvious attempt to make the unwise person think of Coon as a racist upon reading this article. This is an example of a terribly biased statement that has no citation: "Carleton Coon did not embrace the Caucasoid racial identity he defined; he instead embraced a White racial identity." A perfected valid argument to this opinion (in what is suppose to be an encyclopedia) is that his reference to "White" is nothing more than an alternate term for Europid/Caucasoid as the political term currently means. The constant quotation of material containing statement with the term "White" in it is obviously done so to display Coon as a racist. This sub-article ends with a vague statement that all his life's work is completely invalid due to some recent studies, none of which are cited.

The Legacy sub-article is nothing more than another attempt at showing Coon as a racist. This is yet another direct statement that requires citation: "thus providing origins in deep time for his five races of mankind, no longer has wide currency among scholars, and his using this to rank different races struck many commentators of resembling the scientific racism of the early twentieth century".

The whole article is bias and seems to be written by someone who not only sees Coon as a racist, but also wants others to see their point of view. The author of this Coon-bashing article needs to be banned from Wikipedia for displaying such false information and forcing a bad image of Coon into Wikipedia users' minds. How about actually talking about Coon and his studies instead of displaying all this misinformation?!

I agree that some of that should be probably be toned down, as some of it is vague and unsourced (i.e. the "embraced.. identity" part) and other parts don't correctly differentiate between views that are uniquely Coon's or were common sentiments at the time (i.e. the "fought for domination and annhilation", which is was a fairly common way of conceptualizing the evolution of race from the 1880s through Coon's time). I'm happy to dig up a citation for the "scientific racism" part, which I think is both correct and neutral, but should be cited.
I think the calls for a user to be "banned from Wikipedia" are uncalled for, though. As for the article, it should give a broad overview of Coon's work but also be very attentive to the reception of the work, which in Coon's case is very important. --Fastfission 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This article definitely needs more work - I've made some changes. "Carleton Coon believed Whites followed a separate evolutionary path from other humans" comes across as implying he's a white supremicist (or something like) whereas, the presumably equivalent statement "Carleton Coon believed different races followed a different evolutionary paths" would not have the same overtones. Rich Farmbrough 16:07 2 August 2006 (GMT).
That's a sensible alternative, though it should be noted that Coon did conceive of the races in a hierarchical fashion (whites and Asians at the top, Africans and Australoids at the bottom). This is a rather important point not only to his theory but to his reception. --[[User:Fastfission|F

Fastfission repeatedly pushes his liberal and anti-Coon agenda, he is a malicious character whose partiality has alerady been noted and should not be considered seriously. Now he comes up with another invention to imply Coons "racism" with no basis at all. Stephen Jay Gould, Boas, Sforza and other race-deniers like him should be observed first of all for their lack of integrity and deliberate promotion of the dissolution of truth in fields they have no knowledge of. --Finalnow 20:44, 29 August 2006

His racial theory is absoulute bull. Whites are not superior to anyone else, it's just that in history, they stole gold and money from other native empires to make themselves richer.(By the way, Ethiopians are not white). There once was a time that Europe was poor and stricken with disease and war, while others were much better off. As a result, the Europeans (who were accustumed to warfare; due to Europe being a small continent anyway), developed better weapons-that's all. Other empires were not in war like the Europeans, but they had the resources. Sooner of later, the Europeans would become jealous of these native empires and steal their gold and rescources and make themselves richer-not necessarily better. As a result of stealing their money, the Europeans (who had sophisticated weapons) were able to conquer the people, and since then have started a rediculous ideology that they are better than everone else, even though they started out poorer. In the end, coon is just another foolish individual who lives in an overshadow of white supremacy-assuming that their race is and has always been better than others even though his ancestors were criminals who stole money from others. Not to mention, a lot of people conquered such as the Native Americans gave strong resistance. The only thing that caused them to loose was diseases given to them by the Europeans that they were not immune to. Otherwise without the diseases Europeans would of never conquered these places. So when I see all these stupid ideologies, I ignore it because it is only done to get attention or to "think" that ones race is better than others which is nonsense. If any white men say they are better than everyone else, they are lying and they are simply doing it to get attention or even avoid real history-the history of their diseases conquering people-not them.-I hate dishonesty!

  • Where are you writing from? From a mental house? You probably forget that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for presenting childish conspiracy theories. The level of your argumentation clearly indicates that the findings of Rushton, Lynn et al. about some racial groups being deficient in IQ are based on reality. Bye! Cartouche, 22.10.2006

[edit] "Physical" v. "Biological" anthropology

It seems a minor point to get hung up on - I've found google scholar is often a good neutral measure to use to judge the popularity of a term. --JereKrischel 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of points

  • I see a lot of personal attacks here. Please note that this is contrary to Wikipedia rules and can get you banned from editing. Comment on article content, not contributors.
  • Please sign your posts to the discussion page with four tildes: ~~~~

See the header to this page for links about these and other guidelines regarding article discussion. KarlBunker 11:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGAIN POV IN QUOTE

"Wherever Homo arose, and Africa is at present the most likely continent, he soon dispersed, in a very primitive form, throughout the warm regions of the Old World....If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principle schools."

From all of Coons works, you manage to find a little quotation that you find usable to twist it and claim "racism". Liberal propaganda at its best. That is supposed to be representative of Coon? Seems like linking persons that show the reality of race to racism and then claim bias is standard liberal procedure to "prove" races dont exist. Here are other quotes by Coon:

"No type of man is more purely sapiens than a negro"

of UP survivors and Nordics : "equally evolved forms of humanity"

of european cultural "superiority" : I recall him writing that in the past europeans were far behind and one should not think europeans superior because of present conditions.

Coons work refuted Nordicism (proved Nords are Meds) and Eurocentrism (proved european types werent exclusive), both strong tendencies at the time, to a large extent but apparently in "modern" standards thats still "racist" for histerically liberal minds. All that being said, it should only be the facts and not his inclinations, whether to the left or right, that should be judged. This childish attempt to make him look like a racist only backfires and indeed will only make people gain interest in Coon the most. --Finalnow 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finalnow, the first quote you cite, "No type of man is more purely sapiens than a negro", seems to indicate that in Coon's eyes, the negro was the pure, unfinished product that had to be refined in order to become white. Could you provide direct references to those quotes, so that we may read them in context? Thanks! (p.s.: I think it's quite clear that Coon's ideas were steeped in archaic racism - whether or not that makes him inherently evil or simply a product of his times is an open question. We should present him in a sympathetic light, but it simply isn't possible to avoid the racialism he represented. The quote currently presented is directly from Coon, and does accurately express his point of view...why should it be removed? It doesn't seem like a childish attack, IMHO, and it has made me gain interest in Coon (even if I disagree with him), which I don't think anyone sees as a bad thing.) --JereKrischel 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I found your first quote with a footnote: "There is no type of man more completely sapiens (As opposed to Neanderthaloid.) than a negro.". (http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-II07.htm). It seems that in context your quote doesn't show Carleton favorably comparing negroes to whites. A further quote from the same chapter states, "Disregarding for the moment their racial affinities, we may be sure that they were fully sapiens, and that they resembled Galley Hill in stature and in gross cranial vault form. The vault dimensions, however, are smaller. They thus show nothing whatever of the great size and robusticity of the crania belonging to the total Upper Palaeolithic group, and nothing of the latter’s exuberance of bodily growth." Here he clearly states that being "fully sapiens" is no indication of being completely equal - in fact, he explicitly notes the difference in brain vault size. --JereKrischel 16:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are honest in your criticism. If so, it shows you havent read TROE or are familiar with Coons writings at all. The quote in question clearly doesnt provide a good representation of his understanding of peoples. Coon says whites are either Sapiens or Sapiens+ Neanderthal. White mediterraneans and nordics (also sapiens) are also smaller than Neanderthals. If anything that would point toward negroes as a whole being more developed than whites. But then again Coon doesnt consider sapiens more human than neanderthals. I advise you to read the whole book or at least a good share of it. Coon only dealt with facts, and if he was a racist, there is no indication in his works. But then again this is not the place for conspiracy theories. --Finalnow 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a conspiracy. Of course, Coon wouldn't label himself a racist; nobody in their right mind would. But history has shown that physical anthropology the way it was generally practiced in the 19th and early 20th century (and Coon's work is a representative example of it) is basically pseudoscience.--Ramdrake 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Coon certainly dealt with facts as he understood them, but his entire works are strong evidence of the kind of archaic racialism common in the early 20th and late 19th century. I'm certainly enjoying reading his book, and I'm glad it is online, but there's no question that he got stuck in a world-view that has since been thoroughly refuted. Again, I think you're being a bit sensitive on this - pointing out that he saw Africa as an "indifferent kindergarten" is not a slight on his character, simply an example of his POV. I find it hard to claim that a direct quote of his is not a good representation of him - perhaps, Finalnow, you have other quotes where he contradicts himself? --JereKrischel 17:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Ramdrake and Jere: stop claiming racism without giving any evidence. The quote, be it from him, certainly isnt representative and I already explained why. He wasnt a believer of superiority of certain groups or at least that cant be infered from his books. The quote, just like the rest of the "racial theories" section, is just a mere attempt to deceive the casual reader into thinking Coon was racist.--Finalnow 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finalnow, I think you misunderstand the concept of racism - it is not necessarily about which race is completely superior, it is simply asserting that each race is inherently different. In Coon's case, he clearly states that he believed whites to be different on the evolutionary scale, and superior in specific measures such as brain size. Again, I'm sorry you feel that his own words don't represent his position well, but we cannot simply read his mind post-mortem - all we have is his words. --JereKrischel 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, if you have any doubt about what BIAS in the worst sense means, just read the section that took me hours "Here I will expose this malice for what it is furthermore" here in the discussion, to see how I effectively proved the entire section of "racial theories" as pure propaganda. If after reading that you continue to claim my additions are biased while defending that part, I have very much to doubt your intentions and honesty. --Finalnow 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that anyone who disagrees with your point of view must be dishonest and filled with malintent. Certainly we can both be honest, rational people, and still disagree without having ulterior motives. --JereKrischel 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism Noun

1. The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

2. Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/racism

Apparently you disagree with Websters dictionary on what "racism" is. Of course races are different. But Coon didnt even say there were significant mental differences among races. His work was ANTHROPOLOGY, no psychology. You continue to make claims without evidence and ignore my refutation of the "racial theories" section propaganda. --Finalnow 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is not "of course races are different". There is great debate over that archaic idea, and a wealth of scientific and genetic evidence to the contrary.
Also, regarding a more complete definition of "racism" -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Note the word usually. --JereKrischel 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Websters dictionary is the main source for the english language. And also the common use of the term doesnt apply to racial differences but to superiority. Did you read my section "here i will expose this mallice for what it is" in the discussion? Lastly, Coon didnt speak about behavioural differences resulting from different forms, or provide evidence if you think so. --Finalnow 19:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to back up your assertion that Webster's dictionary is the main source for the english language? --JereKrischel 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

it doesnt even make a difference in light of many other problems i already showed regarding your conspiratory racism-accusation. --Finalnow 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Finalnow, I'm nitpicking at your inaccuracies and bluster, and I should be more sympathetic to your emotional state. I understand you feel strongly about Coon's work being associated with the negative connotations of racism, and we can work together to build a good NPOV article, but I think first you'll have to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Let's try and tackle your concerns one sentence at a time and see if we can find compromise. --JereKrischel 19:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proved bias?

I'm sorry Finalnow, I strongly disagree with your characterization of anti-racialist scientists as being "proved biased". You have absolutely no way to assert that. --JereKrischel 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

read mismeasure of gould and lewontin fallacy. Coon was also a scientist by the way, and they didnt demonsrtate anything. --Finalnow 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Finalnow, are you simply stating that if a book exists claiming bias on the part of someone, that it is therefore proven and true? --JereKrischel 19:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

not if the bias was effectively demonstrated. also i would like your account on gould or any other proving coon wrong.--Finalnow 19:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is to judge whether or not bias was effectively demonstrated? Just you? --JereKrischel 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
no you could read the books as i have and decide, but my guess is you didnt --201.231.161.9 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you guess that simply because I disagree with your decision? I'm afraid that's an awfully narrow-minded point of view, to assume that if you decided something, that everyone else with the same evidence you've seen must also agree with your conclusions. --JereKrischel 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
In regards to proving Coon's theories incorrect, please see Recent single-origin hypothesis, and the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. --JereKrischel 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

yes sforza even himself admits his is only a hypotesis. and that wasnt about sforza, but about gould and lewontin. Coon also wrote about a lot more than the multiregional explanation--201.231.161.9 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a hypothesis - however, it is one that isn't contradicted by any evidence as of yet. The multi-regional explanation has been contradicted by genetic evidence. --JereKrischel 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i already told you this wasnt about sforza, coon was only one proponent of the multiregional theory and this wasnt his only assertion. there were many others as well. it hasnt been contradicted by genetic evidence and as far as i am aware the mutliregional explanation is well founded by analisis of crania in asia, as well as the Neanderthal upper paleolithic linkage. Again even by your own words there is no evidence to claim coon was "demonstrated" wrong. --201.231.161.9 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear - Coon's primary assertion in Origin of Races, that asserted a multiregional theory, has been decisively proven incorrect by the genetic evidence linking us all back to a single mitochondrial Eve. Cranial analysis does not hold up against the genetic evidence. Even prominent racialists like Rushton agree on this point now. --JereKrischel 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you show no evidence how this disproves the multiergional theory. Nobody claimed all humans didnt have similar ancestors, only that they evolved separatedly afterwards. Cranial observations are direct and far less far fetched than genetical theories based on a few markers and a majority of genes whose use is not even known. I dont care what Rushton said, again you are implying multiregionalism or Coon mean racism. Rushton has no authrotiy concerning Coon or physical anthropology. It is impossible to build a NPOV article with somebody who sees nothing wrong in the racial theories propaganda section that I already proved just that, propaganda. Have you read my section about unmasking the malice.--Finalnow 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me turn this around, Finalnow - how are you going to show me evidence that proves bias on the part of anti-racialists? What evidence do you think I should consider irrefutable? Maybe if you can come up with that definition, then I can provide you with the same type of evidence on the single-origin theory. Again, though, you seem very emotional about this - please, try to calm down and we can work together on making this a better article. Assume good faith. --JereKrischel 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And yes, Finalnow, I read your section on "unmasking malice", and I think you're overreacting. You seem to lose your train of thought half-way through, and don't effectively address the real issue. --JereKrischel 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race and intelligence controversy

Although you are correct, Finalnow, that Coon did not write specifically about Race and Intelligence, you cannot deny that his work prominently figures in the controversy. His assertions and study of crania size are cited and referenced over and over again by racialists like Rushton, Lynn, etc. Putting his page in that category does not assert that he was a proponent of any particular intelligence correlation to race, but simply that his work figures prominently in that field. --JereKrischel 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coon has no control on what others may do, this point is beyond absurd --Finalnow 19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you personalizing this? Coon's work figures prominently in the Race and Intelligence controversy, no matter if his primary work was not in that field. The category label is not saying that he was a primary proponent of any race and intelligence theory, but simply that his work figures prominently on the topic. Sun Tzu may not have fought in WWII, but his theories and work still are prominent in the field of modern warfare. You seem to be very emotional about any possible correlation between Coon's work, and controversy - why is that? --JereKrischel 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the last correction of mine, I didnt say they were biased, it was quite neutral. This article is about Coon, I dont have to prove anything about the others I dont claim. However anyone that browses www.nordish.com and reads its ton of evidence in the library and gallery, can pretty much get a hunch that they lie. Im not personalizing anything, this anti-Coon histeria in which you collect everything you can to say the worst possible thing about Coon, make up conspiracy theories and then claim people who want to let the rest know just what he stood for are biased is simply disturbing. It doesnt come as a surprise regarding the liberal bias in all social sciences after WW2, but I will address it and see that a fair account of Coon is given to the public instead of conspiracy theories. Coon relates to intelligence as much as a car to Argentina (ie X used a car to go to Argentina, therefore car relates to argentina).--201.231.161.9 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said, nor do I believe, the multiregional evidence to be irrefutable. However I think this is good evidence racial types do exist. http://amorsit.sitesled.com/AMOR_archivos/Page581.htm . You claim however that Coon was wrong and the others 100% right and give no evidence for it. The problem is the page is as strongly anti-Coon as it could be. My stand so far I consider less than moderate. --201.231.161.9 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that perhaps english is not your first language, 201.231.161.9. I appreciate your attempt to work on this article that clearly isn't in a language you are very familiar with. Let me assure you that nobody here is trying to promote anything "anti-Coon" - we are simply attempting to build a NPOV article that clearly paints the man's history, works and influence in a sympathetic light. Nobody is starting a conspiracy when they quote Coon directly. On the other hand, the insistence that Coon has nothing to do with discussions of racialism seems a bit unreasonable. It also seems unreasonable to assert that your "hunch that they lie" is the only valid point of view to be had. --JereKrischel 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV? The whole "racial theories" section deliberately takes Coons quotations out of context, thats NPOV to you and my additions are? And again you are putting things in my mouth that i didnt say and turn them the other way around to try and make a point.

Why do you think they are being taken out of context? What context would you add that would help explain them better? --JereKrischel 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coon and the "racist" label

May I suggest we compromise on this and instead use the word "racialist" (which is simply defined as "an emphasis on race or racial considerations")? It would prevent us from having to debate whether he meant to say that some groups were "more advanced evolutionarily speaking" or better in any way than others. Just that he put stock and emphasis on the reality of races, which I think is thoroughly indisputable.--Ramdrake 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Racialist is usually used as a political term for people such as White Nationalists who claim to be for their won race and not against others thus trying to avoid "racist" http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/racialist . It is a political term not scientific /scholar. Coon was interested in races, but he displayed no preference nor did he advocate for any in his works. Guenther, for example, was both a race researcher and a racist/racialist sice he believed "nordics" were superior. Coon was merely a physical anthropologist. --201.231.161.9 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. Racialist is defined as someone who believes in the reality of separate races, without saying whether one might be superior or inferior to others. That's as close to a neutral term as you will be able to use taking into consideration Coon's works and views.--Ramdrake 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
However, that's a bit beside the point, as after searching, I found out there isn't a single instance of the word "racist" in the whole text. So, what again are you complaining about?--Ramdrake 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at a more detailed dictionary besides "websters-online-dictionary.org".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racialist

Racialism

1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.

2. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.

If you go directly to Merriam-Webster's dictionary online, you get this definition:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racialist

racialism

a theory that race determines human traits and capacities;

The dictionary you're citing seems to be the personal work of one man:

http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=websters-dictionary-online&tld=org

Registrant Name:Phil Parker
Registrant Organization:Webster's Online Dictionary
Registrant Street1:4370 La Jolla Village Dr.

It's probably not a good idea to cite from his online dictionary. --JereKrischel 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry JK, are you saying you agree or disagree with what I just said? Sorry for having to ask, my brain is pretty much turning to mush by now.--Ramdrake 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Ramdrake, that wasn't directed at your comment - it was directed at the citations of definitions of "racialism" and "racism" that are solely negative in connotation. I'm also having a difficult time understanding the specific concerns of "racism". If I understand correctly, the pro-Coon supporters are concerned that any quotes taken from Coon that might imply racism on his part are inappropriate. I personally think they are being too sensitive, but I'm supportive of finding compromise language to put his quotes in context if they feel they need to be explained further. However, we can't just say, "Coon said this, but he wasn't a racist and didn't mean it in any sort of racist way", without any sort of reference or citation to back it up. --JereKrischel 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Racialist is defined as someone who believes in the reality of separate races, without saying whether one might be superior or inferior to others. That's as close to a neutral term as you will be able to use taking into consideration Coon's works and views." - Again, you are wrong, read even your definition from the Webster site. Coon wasnt a theorist for the capacities of races, he only identified and described cultures and types. I have repeated this many times. This isnt Coons field. What is the problem with calling him for what he was, a physical anthropologist? And to Jere, it is you who has to provide evidence for him being a racist in the first place. Today that word will highly discredit him. --201.231.161.9 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your lack of english language skills are hampering your ability to understand what I'm saying, 201.231.161.9. I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to come close to effectively communicating to you in your native language, so I'm certainly impressed at your level of skill with english as a non-native speaker, but your skill is apparently not enough to clearly understand this conversation. Note the definition I cited: "1. An emphasis on race or racial considerations,". Clearly this is a neutral definition, as I had stated before. I don't know why you feel that this word will "highly discredit" him - perhaps when you learned english that word was given excessive negative connotation. --JereKrischel 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually OED seems to support the idea that racialist = racist (which is my experience - that racialist is the BE equivalent of AE racist:

"Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being."

while "racist" has two meanings:

"a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. b. = RACIALISM."

OED is pretty good at covering both AE and BE usage, it's about the most definitive dictionary of the English language. That said, based on what I remember of Coon's writings, his position was racist. Guettarda 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What matters, of course, is not our own opinions on things, but rather the interpretations for which we can find reliable (preferably mainstream) sources. Guettarda 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the cite Guettarda - us Americans often forget there is more than one way to speak English :). That all being said, I guess the most sympathetic light we could put Coon in was that he was unable to challenge the racist foundation of physical anthropology in the late 19th, early 20th century, but that at heart he did not look down upon people simply because of their race - perhaps he even sympathized with them even more given what he must have seen as inherent disadvantage. Although his work is prominently cited by abject racists of today, who do believe in superiority, and has been thoroughly repudiated by scientific study since his time, I could give him the benefit of the doubt on his personal POV...--JereKrischel 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I never had a problem with calling Coon for what he was, a physical anthropologist. All the rest is just ad-hominems and speculation. I was referring to racist not racialist, but then again the latter term is not precise either.--201.231.161.9 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it ad hominem to quote Coon directly? And what makes you think that a physical anthropologist couldn't be a racist or a racialist? --JereKrischel 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help correct this article. It is interpreting Coon and his theories just the opposite of what is true. For example, the article states that, "Carleton Coon believed different racial types fought for domination and annihilation of other racial types." This is just the opposite of the truth. Coon believed that human races evolved "parallel" with various races exchanging genes rather than one superior race leading to the extinction of another race. This is the "Weidenreich Theory of Human Evolution" based on Franz Weidenreich's examination of Peking Man. Being an anatomist, Weidenreich observed numerous anatomical characteristics that Peking Man had in common with modern Asians. The Weidenreich Theory states that human races have evolved independently in the Old World from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens sapiens, while at the same time there was gene flow between the various populations. According to the Weidenreich Theory, genes that were generally adaptive (such as those for intelligence and communication) would flow relatively rapidly from one part of the world to the other, while those that were locally adaptive, would not. This is contrary to popular theories of human evolution that have one superior race displacing other races. It is ironic that Coon is being labeled a racist while the theory in fact proposed that no one race was superior and displacing others. --Matses 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)