This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.
"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."
Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..
Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...
I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.
I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.
How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 1:43 (sage)
You have officially been on 4chan too long. It's CULTURAL, not racial.
Go outside and get some air.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 1:55
No he's right. Most of the world lives in sort of a fog, it's sort of like the nasty assholes on dogs. They're there, they're obviously visible, but we just don't see them anymore.
Fact is, blacks are dumb. Maybe not that much dumber than white people, maybe only about five IQ points, and you can't notice it when dealing with individuals, but those five points add up in large populations and cause problems. They also have reduced ability to inhibit their actions, which is what makes them more creative, but also makes them shoot each other for stepping on their shoes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 2:00
You ever tried to have a conversation with a black person? Beyond simple statments of fact ("That girl booty is HUEG!" "I like me some babecrue and waller-melon") they tend to lose their train of thought, and can't keep up with even relatively simple stuff. I work in a retail store, and if a black person needs me to clarify something on their order, I know that I'm going to be explaining what happened on their tab five times longer than with any other race. Even hispanics who can't speak english can understand it faster through hand signals and gestures.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 2:33
In common parlance, one encounters a statement of the form:
I'm not a racist, but (x)
where x is some ignorant shit.
>>12
We should all show this place the majestic philosophies of the Republic of /b/. I know I will. Lets wait for the weekend though, so the flood will be that much larger.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 0:59 (sage)
>>11
This forum is agonizingly right-wing, with very few exceptions.
>>14
You probably think that because you're one of only two people who post here. See, I think we only have john on the republican side, and only one or two other leftists. Of course you're going to think that there are only right wingers here, when your posts make up 70% or so of the left-leaning ones. But we all see your posts and think the forum leans left
SEe what
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 16:36
>>14
This forum reeks of leftard faggots holding hands smoking weed claiming the world is wonderful and muslims are lovable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 18:33 (sage)
Seems to me this forum is filled with racist rightard radicals. They have victim complexes so they bitch all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 21:02
Here's one thing I could never understand. We obviously take note of and acknowledge the fact that various races are physically different, right? I mean, how could we not? Look at a black person. Look at an Asian person. Look at a white person. Look at the racial diversity within your average NBA team. We do in fact acknowledge the differences between races.
So why, then, is it SO impossible to fathom that perhaps certain races are different from each other mentally? Averyone can see that black people are generally taller, can run faster, jump higher, and have bigger dicks than white people. But GOD FORBID anyone should imply that whites are better at math, literature, and other things that require intelligence. Double standards, anyone?
I'm a staunch liberal, by the way.
Name:
John2005-12-07 21:10
>>19
Are you... >_>
I never figured most liberals as realists...
>>19
As someone already mentioned, the differences are obvious, but liberals don't want you talking about it cuz they know the conmen will take advantage of it. The people in the middle take note of the difference, but also realize it doesn't really matter. So what's your problem? If you're really liberal why do you think it matters that this gets acknowledged?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 16:42
>>22
Well I wasn't saying we should parade the fact around and treat people better or worse because of it. It just pisses me off how so many people insist on keeping their heads in the sand when it comes to this subject. Even if it has negative consequences, I've always been a firm believer that truth should come before what is desired to be true.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 16:56
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 17:01
>>23
Truth is admirable, but imagine a CNN headline "black people scientifically found to be mentally inferior." All hell would break loose. I think we've got enough conflicts to deal with as it is. And if you really want truth then you'll have to announce all people are not equal. You should know that the majority of people are stupid regardless of race. If word gets out to them and they start having a fit, pretty soon we'll be communists.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 18:27
>>24
Who says it's only the stupid (or powerful) who want it altered? Just because you disagree doesn't make it stupid. So go to hell.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 20:19
>>24
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." >>25
"You should know that the majority of people are stupid regardless of race."
OH SHI-
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 21:49
>>19 So why, then, is it SO impossible to fathom that perhaps certain races are different from each other mentally? Averyone can see that black people are generally taller, can run faster, jump higher, and have bigger dicks than white people. But GOD FORBID anyone should imply that whites are better at math, literature, and other things that require intelligence. Double standards, anyone?
Truth and agreement
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 22:55
Black people have pubes on their heads. Fucking niggers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-10 6:20
>>29
SOMEBODY SMART FINALLY ENTERED THE CONVERSATION. THOSE NIGGERS NEED TO BE DEPORTED, AND KEEP THEIR GOD DAMN AIDS IN AFRICA, WHICH ON A RELATED NOTE IS THE CESPOOL OF THE WORLD FOLLOWING CHINA.
>>31
This could mean they are all liberals who have never experienced how bad black people could be or they are all conservatives who have never experienced how good black peopel can be.
everyone is speaking in an empirical vacuum. That's kind of the point.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 9:12
I am not a racist but I greatly dislike spics, spades, and sandniggers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 10:32
There are high class, middle class, and low class black people. A lot of the black people perpetuating negative attitudes are low class, or the hicks and white trash of white people. They seem to be louder and more prolific, revel in their lifestyle with music, and celebrate paycheck to paycheck consumerism to get the latest fashion without thinking about basic needs.
The important black people are accomplished doctors, business leaders, actors, or any professional jobs that demonstrate their capability. This is what white people would like all black people to strive for, but not every can be Morgan Freeman.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-11 10:56
Note that the hick culture is mostly based on blue coller working class activities. Nig culture is based on violent gang activities. Big difference.
Penis shrinkage is part of human evolution? Fuck that shit.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-16 5:06
For the last time.
There is no "white" or "black" gene. Therefore you can not be genetically "black" or "white". The "black gene" can not be the de-evolved gene, nor can the "white gene" be the "evolved" gene when neither gene even fucking exists.
Do you guys follow science AT ALL? There's a new contention that mankind has either (A) reached it's evolutionary apex. And (B) might be actually DE-evolving.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 8:14
You bash people for not knowing science, then truck out a term like "DE-evolving".
There's no such thing as devolving. What makes you think that mankind is at a pinnacle of anything?
Name:
Vinz2005-12-16 11:46
>>41
Devolving is a social, not genetic practice, n00b.
Usually goes hand in hand with a fundamentalist or theocratical government. (no, you don't have to be a theologist to be a fundamentalist, imagine if Jerry Vlasak ran for President, and somehow won. The US would be FUCKED.)
People are becoming stupider because they're not learning the things they're supposed to when they're young. They're nothing but grown-up tantruming babies thanks to a completely useless schooling system. If it were genetic there would be 40 more channels on cable just for talk shows and reality TV. Er, or something equally inane.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-16 15:23
If you fag-babies wanna sit here and nit-pick; be my fucking guest. I never said "de-evolution" wasn't social. Second, I didn't say "pinnacle" or "apex" to infer superiority or progress- I said it to infer inferiority.
The next evolutionary step will be to become something "inhuman", something who's society doesn't at all identify with the current societies of mankind. Neo-sapien.
The next evolutionary step will be giantic leap. It won't be evidenced by a new form of government or the elimination of all racism.
Regardless, the whole "white/black gene" thing stills stands.
What were you nerds bitching about again? :D
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 15:45
Fuck you are retarded. There is no single gene that makes someone white or black. No single gene that makes someone a cow either. It is a huge set of genes that makes a living thing what it is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 16:46
>>41 is right. There's more genetic variation within races than between races. IOW, your chances of sharing common genes with a random person of another race is greater than your chances of sharing common genes with a person of your own race.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 19:12
>>46
No. Chances of sharing 1 particular gene is greater. But chances of charing a set of genes is very very small.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 19:41 (sage)
I didn't say "pinnacle" or "apex" to infer superiority or progress- I said it to infer inferiority.
If something is inferior, then the other is necessarily superior. Did you not take logic class, or were you born stupid?
The next evolutionary step will be to become something "inhuman", something who's society doesn't at all identify with the current societies of mankind.
You're one of those singularity idiots, aren't you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 20:38
>>47
No. Do some research. Racist websites don't count.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-16 21:52
>>49
No. Do some research. Retarded website don't count.
You are WRONG. And shut the fuck up cum-bucket, your breath reeks of cocks. I said "apex" to infer that we are NOT a superior race of humans. What is "the other", you dumbshit noobfaggot? Do you even know?
In *MY* argument it's the concept of "Neo-sapiens". *I'm* saying that we, mankind, just may have reached our limit. That's all. I don't know what's this "singularity" faggotry you speak of, but I'm sure that it- like you- simultaneously fails and loses.
What limit? There's no such thing as devolution. You specifically said "evolutionary apex" in >>41, but there's no such thing. Perhaps you meant optimal survivability within an environment?
PS. C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
As if I couldn't make you appear even more stupid. You have talent, I'll give you that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 6:20 (sage)
Actually, "optimal survivability" is pretty gay too. Let's leave it at "well-adapted".
Who are you gonna believe? Circle jerk neo-nazis or actual scientists? Think carefully now, you don't want to end up hanging with these retards, prancing around in nazi uniforms in their mothers' basements.
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-17 8:08
So how do you explain the lack of civilisation in Africa? South and central america is strewn with giant structures from the civilisations that dwelled there and they did this all by themselves with no contact with the rest of civilisation and having only been there since the end of the ice age.
Negroes on the other hand have lived in Africa since humans first evolved and with access to agricultural technology and civilisation since it first arose in the fertile crescent, yet have achieved nothing as substantial as the achievements of caucasians in europe and the middle east and mongoloids in east asia.
The AAPA statement is blatant bullshit and as ambiguious as they could make it. Races CAN be defined by a set of already identified haplotypes aswell as observable physical and mental differences, which is not suprising as genes explain physical differences.
Stop being a nignorant fucktard terrified of the fact that your race has achieved nothing and look at the facts for yourself. The intelligent races will eventually gang up on the negro and demand they implement eugenics before they contaminate the rest of human civilisation, the best you can hope for is to look at the facts yourself and declare that eugenics, not genocide is the answer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 8:33
Stop pretending to be a scientist, nazi kid. "Geneologist", LOL.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 8:54
>>57
stop accuusing people of being nazis. say how they are wrong or whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 9:28
>>58
They're factually wrong, unable to follow an argument, and selective in commenting about the sources provided. It's like trying to explain that the world is round to those who insist that it's flat. The final paragraph takes the cake with it's vicious racism and promotion of eugenics. To answer these people seriously is to give them credit they don't deserve. And I doubt it'll change their minds anyway. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'm compelled to present the facts from to time in these sophomoric racist discussions to see if it'll have any effect, but it usually doesn't; they want to believe the earth is flat. Also, if these racist assholes can go on and on with their bix nood and nigger bullshit, I can call them nazis and rednecks.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 9:33
OK fine. I'll say how they're wrong. Geneologist does not address the question of genetics AT ALL, which was what I was talking about. The fact is, humans are 99.9% identical genetically speaking. And no, that's not the chance of sharing one gene with a man in Uganda. It's the entire sequence of genes. The links I provided show this. How are you supposed to debate against poor reading comprehension and willful ignorance?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 10:31
Black are in fact the missing link in the evolution between apes and modern humans.
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-17 10:31
Holy fuck what a bunch of idiots.
>>59
"They're factually wrong, unable to follow an argument, and selective in commenting about the sources provided. It's like trying to explain that the world is round to those who insist that it's flat. The final paragraph takes the cake with it's vicious racism and promotion of eugenics. To answer these people seriously is to give them credit they don't deserve. And I doubt it'll change their minds anyway. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'm compelled to present the facts from to time in these sophomoric racist discussions to see if it'll have any effect, but it usually doesn't; they want to believe the earth is flat. Also, if these racist assholes can go on and on with their bix nood and nigger bullshit, I can call them nazis and rednecks."
This is your reply to
"stop accuusing people of being nazis. say how they are wrong or whatever."
?
It's just a longer version of
"Stop pretending to be a scientist, nazi kid. "Geneologist", LOL."
Prove you are right fuckwad, just give me a synopsis of your argument, then link me to google so I can follow up on your facts like I did, or something witty like that. I can tell you are one of these marxist mind fuckers who think manipulating stupid people through threats and logical inconsistency is cool and all that. Well I present to you a challenge, convince someone who doesn't have a mental age of 13 to agree with you.
>>60
And we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees, go figure.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 10:39
>>60
It only takes on of those genes to cause cystic fibrosis or that harlequin skin disease. Who's to say it won't take one to make a nigga dumb?
Richard Dawkins:
"We were dealing with the unusually high level of genetic uniformity in the human species, despite superficial appearances. If you take blood and compare protein molecules, or if you sequence genes themselves, you will find that there is less difference between any two humans living anywhere in the world than there is between two African chimpanzees. We can explain this human uniformity by guessing that our ancestors, but not those of the chimpanzees, passed through a genetic bottleneck, perhaps within the last 100,000 years. The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but pulled through. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform."
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 12:02
"We were dealing with the unusually high level of genetic uniformity in the human species, despite superficial appearances. If you take blood and compare protein molecules, or if you sequence genes themselves, you will find that there is less difference between any two humans living anywhere in the world than there is between two African chimpanzees. We can explain this human uniformity by guessing that our ancestors, but not those of the chimpanzees, passed through a genetic bottleneck, perhaps within the last 100,000 years. The population was reduced to a small number, came close to going extinct, but pulled through. Like the children of Noah in the myth, we are all descended from this small population, and that is why we are so genetically uniform."
I am not misinformed or a nazi or whatever you want to call it. About 70000 years ago there was a massive volcanic eruption in which only humans and neandrthals survived and very few humans were left alive. The humans repopulated quickly and began to spread out of Africa unimpeded by competition, but they were unable to compete with the neanderthals in ice age europe. The humans that stayed in Africa continued to evolve slowly as they had no need to change their genes, however those that left faced new environments and had to adapt.
At this point humans were more dependant on their brains to survive than their bodies and thus eolved higher intelligence, those that left, the mongoloids and caucasians thus went on to develop this intelligence and construct civilisation whereas the more stagnant evolved negro race failed to evolve further intelligence.
A good example of this is the aborignes who were the original negrito colonists of Australia. Their mongoloid cousins went north and had to learn how to survive in a cold environment, where as the aborignes had little need to change. There are still some negrito tribes left throughout oceania also.
We are descended from a small population, however we had to wait until the negro colonists of asia and europe evolved into more intelligent races until civilisation could arise.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-17 12:03
Fucky McFuckwit said: "You fail at elementary logic."
No dick-brain, you fail at communication and reading comprehension. The only thing you succeed at is building straw men- which you ceremoniously rape because your crippling lonely brought on by your inability co-exist with people.
Who cares what *you* consider to be "the other" in this instance? That's not *MY* thesis NOR is it at all my argument. *I* defined what "the other" was. Neo-sapiens.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. What *I'm* saying that mankind may have evolved as far as possible- basically- we have no further incentive for our society or our biology to evolve into anything else.
Um, because there is no "nigga" gene, you fuckwit. No black gene. No white gene. No "liberal scientist" is trying to hide some mystery fact from you. It's the truth. Accept it. You can try to find it- but you will only find your latent lust for black cock (not vagina- because u r gay) and the repressed homosexual faggotry contained there-in.
(A) This in NO WAY proves that "blacks" are genetically inferior. Because not everyone on this planet is 100% "white" or "black" or "mongoloid" in the first place. Anything you say is simply voided by the fact that a "black" or "white" people simply does not exist genetically.
(B) Your assumption that "nergoids" (Ha!) or ancient Africans weren't the first to create "civilization" is based on pure ignorance. New Discoveries are being made that refer to a civilization that pre-dates anicent sumeria and the greeks. All you need to do is LOOK.
Consider this: No one *REALLY* knows how exactly everyone got so spread out. The REASON that is, is simply because that information has been lost through out time. Oh yeah- and maybe because as this was happening NO ONE had "civilization".
Another thing you have to realize is that writing, painting, language these are all products of civilization and the anicent Africans from which you are descended HAD these things. Your so-called "mongoloids and caucasians" came into these new enviroments WITH THESE SKILLS ALREADY LEARNED.
Finally, the very concept or idea of "civilization" inherantly fails and is steeped in human arrogance. The Greeks thought they were civilized- by today's standards they'd be likened to thinking savages.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:38
Blacks are not genetically inferior. But they are inferior.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:52
>>67
not everyone on this planet is 100% "white" or "black" or "mongoloid" but there are degrees.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 16:58
now that everyone else has huffed and vented I will present the correct stance for this issue as post number sixty-nine.
Nearly all racial differences owe, in point of fact, to culture, as opposed to race. Of course, the culture itself stems from races being put into seperate boxes.
Just as Europe once had its Dark Age, Africa is currently in its own.
Unfortunately, almost any research into the question of racial difference is politically suspect. When you step back into reality, racist websites are right out. But is racial difference fictive either? Whatever factual differences may eventually be sorted out in racial physiological differences, it remains the case that 'racial' difference is principally cultural.
And that "degree" isn't a cause for fear, hatred or the notion that one race is superior over the other. That degree still has ZERO importance because a white or black gene simply does not exist. Every racial argument will run into this wall until the end of time. Cash in your KKK-chips now, faggots. You FAIL.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 18:40
Just as Europe once had its Dark Age, Africa is currently in its own.
Only that Europe's dark age was full of castles, cathedrals, and some art, and Africa is full of... totems and AIDS?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 23:18
That degree still has ZERO importance because a white or black gene simply does not exist.
this is stupid. obviously you can distinguish between black and white in many ways. so there are genetic differences.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-17 23:59
What well made points for such an insipid argument. Listen dickwad, you can tell the difference between blacks and whites in a variety of ways, and it just so happens that one of those is mental(I don't think it's intelligence per se; I think it's attention span and inhibition, but it has the same net result).
Arguing that we're 99% the same genetically and therefore we're the same may be a pretty point to make, but it doesn't bear out. I know there are exceptions, but look at everywhere where black people are the major population; you have all kinds of social problems.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 0:26
Quit dancing around the problem that we all know is there. What do you propose we do about, if anything?
Don't know. Drug therapies maybe, but then we'll be on a slippery slope of constantly improving people's brains to get the most out of them, possible leading to a 100% eugenic society, only the "best" being allowed to reproduce ETC...
I think we'll be much better off when we learn to accept some negativity in the world.
No, what's stupid is you shirking factual science in favor of your own semen coated system of beliefs.
So, what you're saying if that we take two white people- who are identified as being culturally and socially "white"- but one LOOKS slightly more tan, has blond hair and blue eyes- then those two people are fundamentally different genetically?
That's bunk. And instead of owning up to your ignorance and your unreasonable hatred- you prefer to open up your buttcheeks and allow to me to continously rape you in this argument.
"Whites" have systematically disenfranshed the "black race" for CENTURIES. It's completely rediculous for you to make any futher uneducated commentary on Africa's social problems without addressing the very real, hard fact of the endless amount of damage colonialism has done to the contenient.
It's like pointing out that Native Americans "just can't seem to get their shit together". They, like Africa were in the process of getting their shit together until the europeans came and chained up their religion, their culture and their society. History proves that every culture of people take a number of steps of achieve modernization.
What do you think happens when you bust in and chain up a whole people? What do think happens when you invade a people and steal their land and tell them what Gods to worship? What do you think happens when you drop a bomb on an entire culture and impose upon them western culture and judeo-christian values?
You fucking noobs need to pick up a few more fucking books and take some college courses before you step foot into the "race arena" again.
When you guys stop citing the bell curve and those pioneer fund fuckers as referece to "race genetics" - then maybe the rest of the world will take you seriously. Right now you just look like scared little children.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
How many times do I have to state that there's no such thing as "devolution"? In other words, you can't evolve backwards, retard.
You talk science, but you fail unbelievable hard.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 8:24 (sage)
>>78
Take comfort in the fact that such ignorance is mostly found online, and in places where they fuck their sisters.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 9:15
"Whites" have systematically disenfranshed the "black race" for CENTURIES.
For centuries, huh? They ran down there centuries ago and took over the whole place? Have you ever been to Africa? They still have bushmen in many parts, for fuck's sake.
Now, while I disagree with racism, I'd like to raise just one problem I haven't been able to solve: I used to live in South Africa. Visited Zimbabwe a lot too. Despite all the PC bullshit people heard, the place worked. Violence was low, medicine was available for everyone, and most people had a job. Maybe being a servant ain't all that hot, but the money was rolling.
LOOK AT THAT DUMP NOW. The Blacks got South Africa and Zimbabwe on a fucking platter. No major revolution or anythin. The societies worked. Shit, SA used to be a nuclear power! But now it's full of unemployed, AIDS is everywhere, crime is astronomical, and the place is falling apart. Zimbabwe is even worse, with people dying of starvation!
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY THAT WAS WON THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND SO COMPLETELY FUCK IT UP IN UNDER A DECADE THAT NO SANE PERSON WOULD WANT TO LIVE THERE?!
Fuck colonialism. That's just an excuse. Look at Asia! Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Malaysia and China! In less than 60 years they've dug themselves out of a fucking hole and are well on their way to ruling the world.
SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 12:01 (sage)
Meet the new John, same as the old John.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 12:13
I am tired of seeing negroes and spics everywhere I go. It is hard to get away from the bastards. Iceland is a great place!
Name:
Geneologist.2005-12-18 12:53
Ok I can't be botherred to trudge through all these posts, so I will just highlight some key points.
There are 3 sides to this argument, there is the rational side, then there are the racist and anti-racist sides.
Both sides are illogical. I might say the ancient egyptians were hamitic or arab, some anti-racists would agree, some racists would agree and the assholes on both sides would scream out loud NO THEY WERE BLACK, NO THEY WERE WHITE. At which point I will point out the the egyptians differentiated themselves from both nubians and their mediteranean and middle eastern neighbours, but possessed no negroid features, suggesting they are as they are today. Arabs.
It is simple logic to compose a hypothesis from the facts rather than the other way round. So I'm going to put my key points in the form of observations.
1: Africa is currently extremely poor when compared to the rest of the world.
2: Africa experienced a long period of colonisation by the arabs and later the european powers up until it was replaced by various despots. The middle east, China, India and South east asia experienced the same and apart from their superior culture at the time had experienced no less of the oppression by foreigners than the tribes of sub-saharran Africa had.
3: At around 1000, these non-negroid regions of asia, europe and the mediteranean were about as developped as europe. Some parts of the world were more unified and others more wartorn, but they had large organised agriculture and various industries which allowed them to construct ships, smelt metals etc. Even obscure central America had civilisations to this standard, though ranking with ancient civilisations due to their lack of access to iron and the wheel. The only negro civilisations were satellites to the Islamic caliphates and their governmental system consisted of a patchwork of tribes who constantly fought against each other. The Mali were unified by strong trade ties to their arab neighbours and east Africa was more civilised than the rest of sub-saharran Africa. Africans had had access to the technology of the rest of the world since dawn of civilisation. Having began along the Euphrates flood plains, this knowledge quickly spread to the Nile. Populations increased and their denisty and food surplus allowed them to organise together and build the first towns with grain stores, craftsmen and soldiers. However this movement of civilisation down the Nile began to draw to a close, not due to the environment, the Nile flood plains used the stretch all the way to today's Khartoum (at which point they would still later develop agricultural techniques to irrigate land which did not usually flood). It wasn't until around 2000 B.C. that negro populated areas of the Nile began to leave evidence of civilisation, calling themselves the Kherma at which point the Egyptians began to push south and colonise the area. This wasn't unusual or where the crippling of the negro race all began, it was a standard invasion that every people faced from each other for thousands of years to come. The Mongols used to kill all the men and salt the fields when they came across civilians, but this didn't cripple Russian civilisation for thousands of years. In fact after 500 years of colonisation, Egypt's superpower status in the middle east and the mediteranean began to falter and the people of this region revolted, forming the Kush, then invading Egypt after a Persian invasion to set up Egypt's last dynasty. After the negro peoples invaded Egypt, the civilisation would be a puppet to the Persians, Greeks, Romans and East Roman empire until the Islamic Jihad in the 8th century AD.
Bluh, I can't be botherred to type anymore, just look up haplotypes in google and look at skull shapes like the original poster said.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 13:03
Can't we all just sing We Are The World, donate grain and cans of food, and ask politely that everyone hold hands and not shoot each other?
De-evolution is the closet term to what I was trying to say. *YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards. *I'M* saying that mankind has no futher incentive to or my be wholly incabable of any further social or biological evolution.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 17:19 (sage)
neegers are low beasts and need to be herded.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 17:47
>>79
I think it would be possible to evolve in a crippling way though, for example, when weaker and less able bodied individuals can succeed just as well as the more able-bodied ones, then the gene pool begins to get diluted with weaker genes. As a result, the race becomes weaker. This is probably a result of our easy life.
>>86
You fail reading x2. Here, let me put this so you can't miss it. Your words:
*YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards. "De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
Plus you talk about science. Evolution in a science context refers to... biology!
So what're you doing? Trying to drudge up one misused word for lack of a better term so that it- by some miracle- instantly voids all of the valid unrefutable facts in my argument?
Even so- what I meant by "De-evolution" isn't what *you* mean by "De-evolution". Yeah, evolution in a scientific context does indeed refer to biology. Now only if you could empty your brain of the caked-jizz long enough to realize that I'm inferring that mankind incapable of any _further_ evolution. I'm am NOT saying that we are "evolving backwards". I don't know what the exact word for reaching an evolutionary dead-end is- but that's what I was referring to.
Stop latching onto straw man semantics and start saying something of substance. Oh but wait!
Very simple. Around the time that these cultures took their leaps into Modernism. They were not still under colonial rule and more importantly- their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.
One thing you have never seen (and more like, never will see)- is a "Unified" Africa. For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized. And Africa has remained politically, culturally and socially "colonized" in a sense- until, oh say, the last 40 or 60 years of the 20th century.
Japan, Greater Asia and the places you mentioned did not have to deal with the practice of the Aparthied. Now, I can conceed to African culture being abject to modernism- but only as a consequence of colonialism. Africa has never been "left alone" to grow culturally, by their own terms to decide as a people to better themselves FOR themselves and to eventually unify. This is why you still have tribes and their old hatreds.
As a particularly ignorant white person, I don't expect you to look at what "worked" in African terms. It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans. That's why the Apathied system was thrown out in the first place...because what "worked" for white men was Africans being treated as second class citizen in their own homeland.
The cultures that you meantioned were NEVER forcibly uprooted from their culture and their society- from their homes in the name of slavery. It took Japan and China hundreds (300-400) years to "catch up".
Africa is STILL subject in many ways to being used and abused by the west. No matter what you say or believe the US has not been paying attention to Africa- simply because they have already raped the land of it's natural resources.
The only reason (besides the terrorist reason) that we're looking for stability in the middle east is because they have a majority of the oil- outside of our stockpile. If there was no U.N, if none of the World Wars had happened- I can assure you we'd see a VERY similar situation in Middle East as was the situation in Africa 200 years ago.
Your haplotypes don't take into account the fact that given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests. (Not that IQ tests ever really prove anything)
It doesn't take into account the fact that since the spread of human kind across the world that people have cross bred themselves to the point where the idea of their being a evolutionary problem with Africans or any race is pretty much meaningless. If Africans are genetically inept- then so is the rest of the world.
Europeans fucked neanderthals as well. (You DO know that at least, right?) Over all skull shapes and the "visable biology" hold little to no relevance to our species. ALL humans have a neo-cortex, a beast brain and a reptile brain. And the lines between purebreeds is so blurry that it seems archaic to cite this as proof positive that any one race is inferior or superior.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 22:26
niggers disgust me
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 23:10
Why can't we outsource more labor to Africa instead of mostly South America or Asia?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-18 23:33
>>93
Black children are more hyperactive, even when raised by white stable parents. Intelligence may be even, but behavior is not.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 0:38
Ugh... You're all ignorant if you think that the racial component has nothing to do with the condition of Africa.
Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 2:00
>>98 Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.
I agree. Please provide some form of support for the following assertion:
a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests.
Don't like IQ tests? Fine, use a variant of WAIS-R. Don't think there's a possible difference in intelligence between populations? Explain the current interest in Ashkenazi Jews.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-19 2:29
>>92 their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.
China? Unified? Singapore? Unified? South Korea? Bah. Even India, with their problems, is doing a lot better than Africa.
For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized.
So what? Explain Singapore then. Used to be some pissant fishing village before investment and endless construction turned it into a first-world trading power. China wasn't exactly trying to catch up with the West either, and they got carved up by Western powers. What about Russia? The sure were backward at the start of this century.
It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans.
Oh? Is it now? They were employed, had free medicine (by some of the best doctors in the world no less), and had a low crime rate. Their housing beat what was available elsewhere in Africa by a mile. In pretty much every metric, SA owned the rest of Africa as a place to live for the blacks, even if it wasn't heaven. Look at the current state. Compared to the rest of Africa then, and all of Africa today, it sure "worked".
And how do you die of starvation in Zimbabwe? Since most the workers were black anyway, all they had to do was keep doing the same work they used to. But no, nobody is doing anything and now there's no food. How do you die of starvation in such a fertile land?
As a particularly ignorant white person,
Ah, just the way to convince me! Keep it up, Mr. Know It All! Every time you don't get your way, you start slinging around poorly-hidden barbs (or your completely juvenile rants, like in >>66 or >>91).
Don't like what I wonder? Then resolve this to my satisfaction. Don't like that I wonder? What a hypocrite.
Name:
Eurolib from Tookie post2005-12-19 3:37
Sad fact is deep, unmixed Africans were never really all that advanced. It was the Islamicized ones who came in contact with the other ancient powers. Once the original larger tribes began to break down into worthless spearchuckers, that was the end of advancement until Zululand. If Zululand had both formed before the middle ages, and didn't suffer an inter-familial battle over lineage, they would've been okay. Zus if I'm recalling correctly were on par with Saracens when they came about, unfortunately Saracens came like almost a millenia earlier. Some things you have to attribute to nothing but plain bad luck and sucky climate. See also Inuit. And if you replace climate with clan infighting, ya's get the premodern Irish.