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.

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.