Ok, so the Anglo - Saxon myth is this really stupid myth that white people, or the anglo- Saxons in general, are smarter than all other races. It came about around the time af ancient Greece and has been introduced many times since then. It came about in america right after the Civil War. The Anglo - Saxon myth states that because the anglo- Saoxn people have a better dent in theit forhead, then they are not only smarter, but better physically as well. Then there wa this whole thing about Eugenics. Euginics is a type of science and back then scientists stated that the white race began to evolve bofore any other race, especially the African race and, therefore, they were automatically behind. Thsi is about the stupidest idea I have ever heard of, aside from the "Big Bang Idea"! Why do others have to make excuses for racism? Scientists above all! I am planning to become a scientist and the fact that people can act so retarded and come up with these stupid ideas is beyond me. The Anglo- Saxon myth was, and still is, a joke. It is as stupid as saying that African Americans can not inlist in the navy because they cannot se in the dark. Black people are smart. They are motivated just as whites are, and every other race on the planet as well!
The Anglo-Saxon Myth
By ilovethemoviepe... - Posted on March 31st, 2008
ilovethemoviepenelope20's blog
• Login or register to add your review
• 1494 reads
• Email this page
This reminds me of the propaganda that went around during the time of the second world war. The Nazis circulated flyers that depicted Jews as rats. In America during slave times (and afterward, I'm sure) a similar kind of mentality was used. A black person was portrayed as an unnattractive, big-lipped worker of the fields. There was a very racist poster showing how white people evolved, and then how black people evolved. It's amazing how stupid people were.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
I'd like to think I live in a world where this "Anglo-Saxon myth" doesn't hold up anymore. I can't think of anyone who can he/she honestly believes this... I've never heard of the myth until now.
Also, on a side note (somewhat unrealted to the topic discussed in your blog), if you become a scientist, you have to be open to ideas. You can't just toss aside the big bang theory because it doesn't coincide with your belief system -- that is to say that if you're a scientist, you have to entertain the idea that it's possible that's how it happened. Not saying you have to believe it, just that it's possible -- that's my two cents.
"Put it before them briefly so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it, and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light." ~ Joseph Pulitzer
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/k-mal
White people are smarter than other races? And better physically too? I didn't think anybody credible had made these assertions for a long time.
I think it is pretty well established in the peer reviewed research that Asian nations have the highest average IQs. And if professional sports are any measure, black people tend to dominate.
But these types of measures are only averages. There are plenty of stupid Asians. And plenty of stupid whites. And there are plenty of really smart black people and plenty of really smart whites.
And of course IQ does not tell the whole story on intelligence. For example, artistic talent does not show up on an IQ Test.
The same holds true for athletes and physical abilities. One race might hold a slight advantage in the average and another race might be slightly inferior than the others when looked at on average. But their are exceptional athletes in every race and their are fat obese slobs in every race.
And athletic ability is not the only measure of physical quality. For example some races are susceptible to certain diseases and some people tend to live longer and there are probably countless otherways to measure physical qualities and I'm sure some races have advantages in some of these measures and disadvantages in others.
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or if you thought that this was a myth that was told recently? In fact I don't really understand you at all! And... i'm obese but I am NOT a slob! I clense everyday just as everyone else and I am just as useful as everyone else so I don't like the choice of words there! If you do not like fat people then you will probably end up one someday because of a little thing called carma!
Ooh, careful there kiddo. No personal attacks. If he said something that made you feel uncomfortable then try to resolve things calmly.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
Not all fat people are slobs. I struggle with my weight myself. I never really hit obese but I could always stand to lose some more weight. And I wash regularly every day too. My point was that while you can look at the averages and make some generalizations about the races, they are not very useful because those averages are composed of lots of individuals and around the average for any particular race you will find individual people at either extreme of that same race whether it be very fit or very fat or very smart or very dumb. Fat slob was just the extreme and there ARE such people even though not all fat people are slobs.
I am half Cuban and if you start googling "IQ by nation", you'll find there has been a fair amount of peer reviewed scientific reasearch done and Hispanic and African countries come out on the low end of the charts which are usually led by Asian countries at the top. I don't doubt that these measurements are true because they have been repeated more than once.
But they are only averages. I don't let my Cuban genes bother me because I always have kicked butt in school and in every other intellectual endeavor. I am smarter than average and that means even if I am Hispanic I am smarter then plenty of whites and plenty of asians and probably most of them. I demand that I be judged as an individual and not as a hispanic or a caucasian.
There may be some useful applications of the generalized scientifically measured average data. It has been used to explain why some nations do better than others for example. But when it comes down to judging whether or not any particular person has the qualities for any particular job or endeavor or leadership role or whatever, they need to be judged as individuals based on their track record of performance and their inate qualities and not by the fact that they belong to a particular racial group..
Thank you for being kind and apologizing. I apologize too. But, I don't think that you understood what I wrote. Who knows, maybe you did and I am just misunderstanding you. They came out with this in ancient Greece, way before they had any technology.
My best friend is Cuban and she made it into college. I think that it is more nurture then nature. Maybe the Cubans that do not do well in school were raised badly?
Maybe it's an economic thing. Parents can't afford to send their children to school, so they end up being in unskilled labor for the rest of their lives. I'm not saying this is how it is, but it's a thought on how it may be.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
Please see below regarding IQ reply. They already factor the attendance per populace for schools. That's how their tested, only students who are attending and have taken the standardized tests.
The IQ tests have been done over periods of decades by different researchers and they get data that is consistent. Some countries fair much better and some fair much worse and because the data is repeatable there is good reason to believe it is true.
But I don't think there is adequate explanation of WHY it is true. It may be be as you say environmental vs genetic. I tend to think it is a combination. This kind of stuff does not get researched much so there are big holes in our knowledge. When people try to advance the science it generally kicks up a political correctness firestorm. For some reason it is acceptable to acknowlege that the best long distance runners in the world are Africans from the area around Kenya which is almost surely a matter of genetics but it is totally unacceptable to find that there might be genetic roots to intelligence. That's too bad because I hate to see science suppressed. Political Correctness is not unlike a religion in that it tries to suppress inconvenient science.
Even though I am Cuban I don't worry about it much because I think people should be judged as individuals.
The Intelligence Quotient was never what it was set out to be. Originally it was meant for just students up to age 13 in Paris, France's public schools. Paris was instigating a country wide law that education was meant for everyone of it's citizens. So the board members decided that there needed to be a way to filter out those that would now be labeled as mentally handicapped from students who could gain and expound their knowledge. The students who were so mentally handicapped that they were unable to move up in mental levels (as they were called then, at this point in time mental age was not developed) would then be sent to specialized schools or programs. There were 3 major revisions to the already lengthy testing which would determine a mean age level for a particular group of students. The last revision was not completed as the author of it died. However an American psychologist took the revisions and implemented them into military programs to determine soldiers who could perform tougher tasks than first-line duty. After WW II the IQ test was standardized and mass-produced to schools and sold to individuals, as well as corporations to determine individuals mental age. However this was never the concept of the IQ, originally it was just information gathered from children in Paris, France during a certain time frame. These mean ages were never meant to be applicable to everyone. It was never meant to be one age, one number, but rather a range. Children were meant to take it every age of their development to ensure that the test was applicable to their mental levels. If the data was off then the tests would be administered again to gather the correct mental levels, or means for that age group. Binet-Simmon specifically stated it was never meant to be standardized or mass-produced. Please research before you make such claims.
Additionally, I believe what you are referring to is the standardized tests that individuals in schools are meant to take from various countries, where America ranks 16. Students in America are failing at an incredible rate. Our drop out rates are increasing and we can't seem to keep up on the mathematical levels of even European nations, let only Asian nations. These are not IQ tests. These are standardized testing, compounded with drop-out rates, and attendance per populace in particular schools of particular nations. Remember the limits of data. Scientists are aware, the public is not.
Additionally, I believe what you are referring to is the standardized tests that individuals in schools are meant to take from various countries, where America ranks 16. Students in America are failing at an incredible rate............These are not IQ tests.
I think I know what you are talking about when you refer to standardized tests. Those are the ones that show our kids are not measuring up in science, mathmatics and geography.
But you are wrong to assume that I am talking about those tests. I said IQ and I mean't IQ. IQ Tests have been widely administered around the world. Whether they were originally intended for this purpose or not, they have been widely used and there is an extensive base of data that is available for comparative purposes. It's use in this manner is controversial because it has implications that don't fit nicely with political correctness. But, I am a numbers guy. These tests have been administered repeatedly by different researchers over periods of decades and they have proven repeatable. That tells me something and I tend to believe them. Of course averages are averages and individuals are something entirely different.
Here is some discussion:
Race and Intelligence
Another interesting but controversial read is the book "The Bell Curve".
Im confused, you seem to express that the Greeks and anglo-saxons are the same people. In ancient Greece, they could be pretty xenophobic and they would have thought that the anglo-saxons (who didnt exist at this time) were barbarians, and definately not inherantly smart. Racism in the way that we think of it now is relatively recent in history, probably starting with the beginning of the age of exploration, but really gaining speed about 50 years or so after the colonization of English-America, the mid to late 1600's, and probably reaching a climax during the Victorian era. Im just going off the top of my head right now, so some of this could be somewhat off.
First, please clearly define your terms when you are going to state something as Anglo-Saxon Myth is racist. 1) Because Anglo-Saxon conveys, to historians and people who study literature, as a particular people in a particular period of time. 2) Racist- under my definition, revamped from a few years of study on sociology, would lead me to believe that your presumptuous and inflammatory comments are racist.
Second, Anglo-Saxon myth pertains to stories, mythology, perhaps better known as tall tales-- rooted in some historical context but generally believed, by modern day professionals, to be fabricated. Beowulf for instance is a Anglo-Saxon myth. Although recent evaluations ascertain that Beowulf is more of a Danish or Nordic myth.
Third, Eugenics is a completely separate issue. Eugenics and phrenology are two completely separate areas of study. Now it may interest you to note that these conceptions were not Anglo-Saxon developments. Mainly- it was argued around the time phrenology and Eugenics were being proposed- that since there was such hostilities from the Roman Catholic Church, which made scientific study basically impossible for the Italians, that the Nordic people have now gained enlightenment and carried the torch to further scientific development. Phrenology has been stated to be started by Gall, although Italian physicians used this information to develop theories of criminal-like behavior. This later development is what has later been ascertained as racist in nature. However in the beginning that was not the publicized intent. The results of these theories and data was then used as arguments in political agendas for why African Americans should be kept as slaves. Nazis took Eugenics into a whole different realm. Eugenics as it was, was meant as a warning to the ruling class because the poor, white class were delivering numerous children per household. What you have done is absolutely no research into the matter. White, Caucasian doesn't equal Anglo-Saxon. Greeks despised us white people just as much as you seem to. Do yourself a favor and get a college education regarding sociology, literature, or history and then you can post blogs of such detriment, because your comments will only create a strife between people instead of building blocks to assimilation.