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.
This just in, they found out that it's one amino acid in one gene that determines skin color. So: There goes race. Pretty soon you'll be able to darken or lighten yourself with a pill.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 9:57
>>207
Great, so how do you increase the size of your neo-cortex and alter the shape of your skull to accomodate the increase in brain mass? Is there a pill for that?
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-28 10:12
Black people don't have different shaped skulls, not any different from anyone else, anyway. All homospaiens fall within a certain range of skull shapes, none of which have been proven to have a specific effect on one overall IQ.
There is obvious similarity between the brain encasing bones of caucasians and mongoloids and difference between these 2 and the negro skull. History also speaks for itself.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 12:31
>>210
Lol. And can you tell me, what is the dot on their chin? Because they all have it. I bet, it's the dot of stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 12:51
>>207
| They found...
Who? Can you tell me? Some sharp-witted scientists in white cloaks? With glasses and full-beard?
Next time before you believe something "they found", try to think. If there were some black/white gene, there will be only white and only black people. Nothing in between. Strewth!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 16:58
I would have thought it was several genes that affect colour, not just one. Or at the very least, several other genes that creat proteins that affect the expression and quantity of the colour genes.
|| Next time before you believe something "they found", try to think. If there were some black/white gene, there will be only white and only black people.
But that's just it, there isn't a gene that deals in two basic extremes like that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-28 21:52
You laugh at anti-chan like you laugh at a little kid who just learnt the words "penis", "cunt" and "poo" and is mad at anybody else for being right.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 7:26
Scientists studying zebrafish have found a gene that can make them change their stripes. That is, a mutation in the gene changes the color of those stripes.
Zebrafish? Just Zebrafish?
Shit, man, I was expecting something good, like actual tests on human cells or something. You're letting me down here.
The funny thing about this is that it is usually children who are the most pure and "right" in that direct sense until they learn words like "nigger", "chink" and "spic"- start going on about ridiculous shit like skull shapes. LOL. Ok.
Yeah, I saw your link there, chumpy and I don't to see where that says anything about IQ, EQ or all of those particular races actually being different species. What I want to see is cold, hard, absolute true evidence- not stuff where you've got to make a quantum leap of logic to come to a conclusion.
I've come to terms with the fact that there's some people who seem have the ideal of white superiority engrained into their DNA. You've been telling yourself that you're masters for so long that you've actually started to believe it. The thing is: It's fake. You've bullied, raped and colonized everyone in some fashion in order to perpetuate the perception that the white is right- but it's not actual fact.
You don't have valid scientific proof of anything, like the American ecomonist- your fundamental flaw is making a so-called "logical leaps"- without using a ounce of fucking logic or basing any of the shit you say on unrefutable evidence that takes in account all factors and conditions.
Like the typical Randian zealots you outright ignore any evidence of anything opposite of your world view. The underlying coincidence in this is that most people who agree with this stupidity about race are neo-conservatist pigs who's core ideals when it comes to capitalism and immigration is the fear that too many non-whites will saturate "the society" and that you'll have to cage yourselves up in gated-communities.
lol, like you haven't been doing that already.
But, hey whatever right? Think what you want.
Name:
pro-chan2005-12-29 9:16
There isn't a sinlge gene that determines whether people are black or white. There are thousands of genes that have evolved through upwards of 50000 years of evolution. Genes have been passed to and from the racial extremes (nords, south africans, native americans, japanese) and there are peoples in between with various traits that belong to both of these extremes. However the divides are there, even today along the Nile in Sudan and Egypt the divide is obvious despite the fact that the inhabitants are all religious extremists for whom racism is blasphemous. Even in the west were interracial sex and marriage are encouraged heavily by the media interracial sex and marriage remains proportionally low. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the world's racial mix within populations are not as diverse as Northern Europe's and North America's.
The reasons for this divide are geographical, for starters new races evolve in new environments or if their populations are sufficiently large to accomodate sexual selection or specialisation in gatherring food, which was not the case 50000 years ago. The changes in skin colour, the shape of the nose and type of hair are the must haves of the natural world. A negro hunter gatherer would be at a serious disadvantage in ice age europe just as a caucasian would be at a serious disadvantage in the plains of Africa. These changes are pretty irrelevant in the modern world, humans are tool users and many of these inferiorities can be negated easily. What matterred is of course intelligence, which is the primary tool of the human, next to being able to utilise these tools effectively. The pioneers into the deserts of arabia and ice age europe didn't evolve the same way as the neanderthals had done around 200000 years before them, there was finally a need for humans to think of new ways to deal with situations rather than performing the same tasks their tribe had learnt through trial and error for generations. Those humans that could cut it prosperred and those that couldn't adapt were left behind to compete with each other as they had always evolved to do, using gang violence, rape and thuggery to claim territory etc etc...
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 9:24
>>217
Shit! Arey you kidding? A ZEBRAFISH? I have almost wet my pants..
No, no, I've got it. >>217 must have been some fake anti-chan. Good joke.
Is there a racist gene? I called a black kid a nigger when I was 5.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 11:17
|||||Those humans that could cut it prosperred and those that couldn't adapt were left behind to compete with each other as they had always evolved to do, using gang violence, rape and thuggery to claim territory etc etc...|||||
And this is precisely where the whole "Blacks are genetically prone to...(insert negativism)" thing falls completely off. Show me instances of where poor uneducated whites or any uneducated people of any race haven't been prone to gang violence, rape, or thuggery to claim territory?
What I'm sick of is the idea that because Blacks do it, it's "in their nature". When whites do it, supremacist can churn out 101 excuses as to why they do it. What do you call the practice of slavery? The Crusades? Using Iraqi has a military staging point in the middle east? World War I. World War II. The Cold War. Vietnam. How is any of that different?
The research is obviously an ongoing thing, but the implications are there if your mind is open to them. If you're prone to a racist mind-set in the first place- you are simply not expected to understand.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 11:54
>>225
Shut up motherfucker, stop impersonating me you son of a bitch
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 12:07
>>225
Stop impersonating me, I am not stupid and ignorant enough to want to change the subject and revert to nonsense irrelevant dogma. No one is saying blacks are more or less prone to commit crime, just that they have not achieved the heights of civilisation other races did and continue to fail in the world's most succesful nation in history and the stark differences between negroes and other races. This is the subject at hand and I would be a stupid fucktard to ignore it.
Another lame attempt at impersonating me. First, I would I never cry like a little bitch: "Waaaaaaahhhhh, stop impersonating me." It would be obvious to a group of Thalidomide babies concieved by inbred retards (who got molested) that you're a fake. Why would I give a fuck? This is 4chan.
Secondly, It's not irrelevant dogma. "The heights of civilisation (sic)" as you call it is clearly biased towards what whites consider "civilized".
*You* guys (gays) are the ones referencing "thugish behavior", "crime" and "rape" as "Black traits"...so now it's dogma that you can't explain away the same behavior in your own race? Is that it?
Any differences you find are simply cultural and seeing as how whites and every other post-19th century superpower has at one point or another had a hand in disrupting Sub-sarahan African culture and civilization, seeing as how whites in "the world's most succesful(sic) nation" didn't start out as *slaves* and with the sarlet letter of assuming inferiority over their heads...I don't think it takes a fucking "geneologist" to figure out what's been going on with "the blacks" for the last 300 years.
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 15:58
*scarlet letter of assumed inferiority
And another thing, did not blacks just barely get civil rights 50 years ago? I don't know what you expect from a people so systematically dogged by the United States Government. What you're expecting is this magical over night change towards your ideal of success.
Black South African's didn't share the white ideal of success and civility, why would American Blacks? I truly don't understand how you expect a displaced people to get their shit together the same way, say, China and Japan has. It took the Japanese 200 years before WWII. China MUCH Longer. History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the irrepairable damage colonialism did to Africa- why is that so hard to grasp if you were not simply another redneck racist more interested in hate than understanding?
You know what most American minorities are tired of? They're tired of every fourteen seconds some white person reminding them how different they are. If blacks truly have all the same opportunites now and if all the old mindsets concerning race have finally been wiped clean- then why do you continue to refer to blacks as "niggers"?
This is just a self perpetuating arguement and you are creating your own "beef" with the black race as you go along. Shit like this doesn't make blacks want to 'step up'. You create a situation of hopelessness with your ideals...but I guess that's beyond you, isn't it?
You don't even consider blacks human.
I seriously wish death upon you.
Just want you to know that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 20:23
NIGGERS
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-29 20:48
WAH WAH WAH WAH MOMMY IT'S THE SYSTEM! WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE BELIEVE IN THE VAGUE UNSUBSTANTIAL BOOGEYMAN I CREATED TO OBSTRUCT THE TRUTH?
Standard second-rate liberal gibberish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-29 20:54
>>229
Liberals can't win on the issues or in real debate so they resort to thuggery to impose their failed ideology. No wonder so many of them are socialists.
That's just it though, it's not vague nor unsubstantial. You're just a fucking bigot.
Name:
pro-chan2005-12-30 1:45
I don't know about you anti-chan but I understand their argument completely. Also you still haven't rebuked the scientific facts and historical differences between races they cited.
They are not saying blacks aren't human, only the racists you see on TV say this and thye are very few in number. They are people who believe in eugenices more than racism, they could accept a multi-racial society if they were certain the future wouldn't consist of a population ghetto/trailer trash they occasionally experience. They are frustrated by the fact that liberals consistently claim that they are white supremacists clinging on to some ancient belief of racial superiority and this is capitalised by those atual white supremacists who recruit from such confused people.
It is in fact your denial of the truth that is driving people to racism. If you were to simply acknowledge that a proportion number of black people are not very intelligent, but that we should not deny those intelligent black people opportunities by being racist, then you would cut the head of the serpent off with one stroke of your scimitar. The racists will become eugenicists and what's more.. The road would be set to ensuring future generations have genes that make them intelligent and healthier, free from any possibility of this ideal being used by fascist for their own personal gain.
What you're asking me to do is conform to an ideal that I feel has no basis on the reality of intelligence or race. I have actually over-stated the rebukes to so-called "Scientific facts and historical differences". What I find most distrubing is the habitual lack of debate concerning these points. Even more disturbing that the opposition continuously brushes away these points without so much as a singular factual response. Personally, I see this cognitive dissonance as the very core of the racist mindset.
You're under the naive impression that this is some "new argument" concerning race when, in actuality, it's a debate that's been going on since the Modern Superpowers' colonization of Africa. The issues will always be intertwined and no one will ever be free of the fascist ability to use this so-called information for their own personal gain or to insure that their world view "wins out" over the others. When you make a reference to blacks and Africans-- it's already far too late for that kind of talk.
Your statement was perfectly reasonable until the very end when you brought up "genes" again. Race itself, has no biological definition. IQ tests are based on nuture and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture. Intelligence itself- when it comes to humam beings lacks an a priori definition. These aren't semantics...these are holes in your "Facts" that you simply refuse to address.
That's precisely why I think the way I do. Now, any other factors such as culture, social standing, environment...these are things that are far more reasonable and far more provable. And if the opposition didn't resort to the polarity of liberal/conservative everytime it comes to address these issues- showing a pointed interest in skirting around them completely- the so-called "liberals" would have no reason to call them ignorant bigots.
If you guys can go around calling "a nigger, a spade" then why can't we?
I think...
Fundamentally your approach to "the truth" is askewed. The opposition's ideas are based on this mutant combination objectivism and social darwinism. Your entire thought process is that of a capitalist or rather, an economist. You operate in "co-relations"- the "after the fact" theory.
You offer up these co-relations as facts or "truth" without taking into account and responding to all known variables. And when someone's not convinced- you accuse them of ignoring the truth. What irks me most about this scientific racism is that there's no true scientific method behind it...and yet the opposition spends so much time claiming "it's science" only to resort to this "liberal/conservatism" nonsense.
In light of all this, how could you blame me for not being convinced?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 6:22
"Race itself, has no biological definition. IQ tests are based on nuture and have no way of absolutely gauging what intelligence comes from nature and what intelligence comes from nuture."
So how do you explain the identifiable haplotypes, visible differences in skull shape that are unique to the negro race and history?
Not to mention the fact that none of the many studies and facts you have just provided links to are reliable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-30 6:57 (sage)
>>236
Don't bother arguing with anti-chan. Didn't you see what happened to the other two guys in this thread?
An indentifiable haplotype, to me, doesn't constitute the existence of a different biological "race". Plus, I've seen zero evidence that states these haplotypes have an absolute tie-in to intelligence. The differences in intelligence that you continue to imply would only be genetically related if these haplotypes were indications of a seprate speicies. That is not the case.
Moreover, you and I and other modern day human "races" exist as subsets to these haplotypes. Any variation of haplotypes is variation that was already present in ancient homosapiens. Seeing as how Africans were the first to civilize in the most basic sense...I don't see where you get the leap from haplotypes to the definition of biological race and then one race being "better" at civilization than the other. I think your understanding of what the Hap-Map implies is way off and I think you are purposely ignoring history to protect your world view.
This is what I mean when I say there is a difference between using a scientific method to reach a conclusion and using "co-related" theory from your interpetation of the facts.
And yes, I would suspect that you would say that they (my sources) aren't "reliable". It's even funnier that you say so without so much as stating why and without rebuking the studies with findings of your own. I suspect that nothing I show you will be good enough.