 |
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Dates? Methodology?
How can Greenland be absolutely white while Australia is brown?
I assume the three people in Greenland are white and the vast majority of people in australia are white or oriental–not brown.
When will IQ or personal worth as a human being be published?—or religion which might actually be interesting for a quick glance?
It could be interesting – a pity that there are so many obvious errors.
Some here: Eskimos are rather dark. Scandinavians and Irish are very light. The lightest? European latins are not quite as dark as people from the middle east.
I wonder if the map is an attempt to show a historic (of the indigenous populations) or an actual representation.
Eventually I suppose people will mix so much that the color will be uniform.
Francis Vincent Zappa said “I ain’t black but there a whole bunch of times I wish I weren’t white.”
Come on, pedro, we all need to gang up on those
honky Greenlanders. After all, it looks like we’ve got them seriously outnumbered.
And why exactly is anyone supposed to give even one rat buttock, let alone a whole rat’s ass, about skin color?
#1 – bobbo,
Based on completely insufficient information, I’d say that the map shows tones of aboriginal populations. I was going to say that I’m not sure of the relevance. However, I would state that I am quite sure of the complete irrelevance of this data.
Wake up white people!
The map is from the Encylopedia Britanica and it is obliviously racist. As Pastor Uncle Jeremiah would say God damm textbooks.
Look at all those honkies in Antarctica!
The longer I live, the more I believe that skin color is absolutely meaningless.
May be someone confused the maps and the one shown is actually showing the results of global warming.
Everyone think green. We might still be able to prevent global warming.
Oh crap, there is a date on the map. 2000!!! Never mind , we are too late.
#10 Greg
May you have a long and healthy life.
See: http://tinyurl.com/2bs69
Were all the same on the inside..
Now I understand why all those conservatives are getting upset over immigration (illegal or otherwise).
The map is just stupid, along with the comment of #14.
This explains why there’s so much push for population control, of course primarily for those darker skinned people.
What about those guys in Antarctica? Are they that white!?! What about South Africa? This map FAILS!
Thanks thinkin out loud!
I don’t even believe in the concept of “race” anymore — except the human race!
I’m not color blind. I understand that your color makes a huge society difference.
And every society I’ve known had prejudices based on color but I’m convinced they are all wrong. Skin color doesn’t mean a thing.
There are just a few genes on the human DNA for skin color, the vast majority of our human DNA is IDENTICAL ! And don’t forget, the Human Species came out of Africa a long time ago !
The map shows the skin tone of Ireland being darker than any place in Canada. Hmm. Native skin tones? White man speak with forked tongue.
Reminds me of a map that appeared in the New Scientist not so long ago. The map purported to demonstrate that forests near the equator could counteract global warming, but that forests at higher latitudes do not. How could that be? Simple. Snow and ice reflect away the sun’s heat way better than soil and, of course, way better than leaves. The devilish detail was that the map showed a big advantage in not growing trees in some places where trees cannot possibly grow, for example in Canada’s North, above the tree line. Averaging in such bogus values could only skew the final result.
Somewhat earlier, the New Scientist also ran a study (no map this time) which held that large-scale hydroelectric projects that relied on flooding land behind dams was ecologically … why bother with a summary when I can link to the article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
The problem is not the dams, but land management. You can harvest the land-based plants before they become submerged methane-producers. D’oh.
Looking, I hope, at the forest rather than the trees…
#8
what’s racist about it?
There are many races in the world, can’t you see?
Negros have dark skin and wide noses, Asians have olive skin and tiny noses, Europeans have supposedly whitest skin (but many Asians have even “whiter” skin than i.e. Italians)and long noses, and such.
Describing the reality is not any “racism”, it is just stating the facts, you bigot.