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.

| My point was never that genes had the major role - just that they have a role.

And my point is that the role is insignifcant *when compared* to the role of nurture.

| The jury is out on that, although it looks like it's quite a bit more than a pin-prick.

Obviously, I disagree. It's my observation that the environment has more of a control over IQ than genetics. If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else. This isn't even about facts anymore- this about a difference of opinion and a difference of interpetation of the evidence that even the scientific community ITSELF hasn't resolved.

"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy. There's no proof- so I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it? LOL, OK.

| No, isolating variables (large samples, double-blind, etc),

IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact. Why, you ask?

| IQ doesn't measure nurture's effect alone. Remember the nature versus nurture debate? IQ is just one possible measure of intelligence; what causes that particular score is outside its scope.

....because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture. There is no "genetic IQ test" only a nurture test. So your stats? BASED ON NURTURE. More to the point- they don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores. But from the nature of the test *themselves* we can make certain assertions as to how that person's intelligence was NURTURED.

| you were the person that stated as fact that they'd score the same.

What I find funny is your desperation to expose this as some untruth as if it's going to prove you right, or change my opinion on the nature/nurture dynamic when it comes to intelligence. Obviously they wouldn't score *precisely* the same. But I think that provided that they study the same- under the same teacher- same study habits- same nutrition- environment etc...that they would score within the same range.

Regardless, even if they didn't- there's no way to tell if that is because of genetics or not. Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_.  

Frankly, it doesn't matter what >>144 says. The "white/blacks score score the same" comment was a response to the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent and unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk. 

Shall we continue?