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.

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

Your basis for that assertion?

If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else.

The Minnesota twins study seems empirical to me. The compilation of studies that Farber made for a book are empirical too. Do you think they just pulled numbers out of thin air?

"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy.

It does. Like I said: 0.14-0.67 is not 0.0.

IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact.

Isolation of variables is my opinion? This is the scientific process. Evidence accumulates, theories adjust, confidence increases. Of course the theory can be wrong, that's why confidence plays a role.

...because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture.

Progress which is also influenced by a person's ability to learn. The effects of nature and nurture are intertwined, right?

hey don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores.

No, they don't. Reread my last post, please.

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.

Possibly. Then again, that depends on the role heredity plays.

Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_. 

Ah... yes and no. On the one hand you can't study for an IQ test, although you can certainly practice. On the other, environment most certainly has a large effect. But then again, your ability to learn affects your intelligence, so this argument is another red herring.

the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent

A possibility, although if it were so, I doubt the normal distribution would be much different from other groups. Even if it was, like you say, their upbringing and attitudes will play a role.

unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk.

Someone else raised those issues, and while that's outside my realm of experience (and I disagree with the "unable" part), I'm still curious why there's a dearth of of evidence of ancient civilization in the sub-Sahara.

I suspect it's probably environmental, and partly cultural.