I'm not a racist, but I am...

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.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"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.

|If they are significant, to any degree, that renders one of your premises false.

This is wrong. *Any* degree and a *revelant* degree, revelant enough to build a prejudice upon- those're two different things entirely. I've rendered more of your assertions (about african inventors, philosophers, pioneers of civilization) to be completely false. What response have you given to that display of ignorance?

...and so because you've <i>barely</i> made a dent in *one* of agruements then, what? You win? No, buddy, it doesn't work like that.

The difference between you and I here is that- while I can concede that not all the answers are there (I mean, have we even found an a priori definition of "intelligence", yet?) and my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ. (And there's MORE data supporting this than to the contrary.)

I'm also not implictly suggesting that this is a valid reason for descrimination or prejudice against an entire people. There simply is no ethical, moral or scientific excuse for it. Hilter wanted the jews removed from German society because, in fact, they were *too smart*.

Your singular assertion that blacks are generally unintelligent because of genetics is buried under the weight of it's own ignorance and evidence that clearly states other wise. Regardless, it's the power of nuture, the inherant lack of "pure races" that regails genetics to a backseat role in intelliegence when it comes to this particular arguement.

In the end, yeah "But we don't know" is apt. But in that not-knowing shouldn't we just generally treat people with respect and provide people with equal opportunities, regardless?

I think it very much boils down to my closing question in my last post. Btw, Why didn't you answer my closing question, Anon? 

Oh right. I know why.