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.

>>240

2nd Sentence, 2nd paragraph should read: *And other variations


>>238

Also, if you'd like to make yourself appear more valid (less of a bigot. You could try addressing some of the other issues I've brought up in >>237 - the 2nd paragraph in partic.

>>239
LOL. OK. The other two guys? This is the same guy. Regardless, they ran into the same wall that this guy is going to run into. Any college-kid can make a co-relation, but for it to become fact you actually have to back it up with hard evidence. A set of Haplotypes does not a seprate race make and until there's a study that says exact that (Haplotypes = One pure race), you don't have much of a case. I don't see the difference between skull shapes and skin pigment, these are all superficial (IE. Not pure biological) definitions of race.

absolute tie-in to intelligence

Here we go again...

YOU TYPOED THEREFORE YOU LOSE ARGUMENT MUHFUGA

WE ARE YOUR EQUALS!!

"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."

You have the memory of a gold fish, the evidence is at the very beginning of this post and practically throughout. This incredible stupidity and inability to understand and collect simple facts is going against your favour. I think even the most dimwitted readers of this thread are being driven to eugenics and the knowledge of the fact that negroes are a race apart and not very succesful.

Time to give up unless you want to drive them from eugenics to racism. In fact we are past the point where racists will pose as you to make you look even more stupid than you really are with success.

You're only hope is to acknowledge reality and role with the times.

Agree with me.

Admit the black race on average is less intelligent, but that for the sake of those few black people who are as intelligent as the average of other races we should implement eugenics and not racial discrimination.

Put aside your pride and this perverse racist desire to preserve the black race for the sake of it and admit you are wrong. For the future, for your children, so they can live in a world which is truly free from racial discrimination.

your***

I'm not a racist...
I am homosexual-communist-hippy-emo-negro. Catch me if you can...

>>242
>>244

Aw, but sorry :( In the adult world...that's what's known as a "wrong answer". You didn't address any of my statements, at all. (AGAIN) Yet again you claim the evidence is "right there", again you say it "should be obvious". But you flat out refuse to state how this is so. "It should be obvious" simply doesn't work. I need the evidence, sorry man. Ff you can't provide that...then you have no platform. 

Yes, it's obviously-obvious to someone who uses the "co-relative" method of thought, but the only thing I'm interested in is hard, unrefutable data. Not co-relative theory. The only thing you've systematically provided through out this whole thread.

I ask for this evidence and your response is "Just agree with me, already!"? More character attacks? Anyone capable of analylical thought is going to ask you to continuously address these other factors that I've continuously outlined (and that you've continously IGNORED) and if you expect to look like anything more than a bigot, then you are going to eventually have address them.

Stop calling the kettle black, >>247. Your arguments consist of repeating the same tripe, even if the other party makes an effective argument against it. If you repeat it, it must be true! Just ask Goebbels and Britain's Ministry of Information!

That said, you're one trollable loser.

I only repeat what's bears repeating IE - what you blithely ignore.

250 GET

>>247
Let me spell out my argument out for you.

*The evidence is all over this fucking thread.*

I refuse to repeat myself over and over and over like these other assholes who have tried relentlessly to get you to look at the facts.

Look you see....

We are on the same side of the racist vs non-racist fence. Except that you are psychotically non-racist regardless of liberty or justice and I am pro-eugenics where it does not interfere with liberty or justice. If you want to force an ideal so much it interferes with the freedom of speech and perhaps even the desire to determine the truth itself, then you become a paranoid crazy fuck and people who do care about the truth won't listen to you. They will get confused and feel outcast and then racists under the guise of the truth will attract them.

>>248
Is right, all you do is repeat the same crap. For example.

Anonymous: Black history isn't as rich as the history of other races by a huge margin.

Rape-Chan: white man put them down

Anonymous: What about before colonialism, why were they so unsuccesful then?

Rape-Chan: white man put them down

Anonymous: They had access to the same civilising impulses from the fertile crescent as the europeans, the indians and the chinese. Even the isolated native americans figured it out and even thsoe dwelling in the most inhospitable environments figured a way to create complex civilisation and this was way before arab or white colonialism. Why was there no intensive farming and various metalworking, shipbuilding crafts across Africa?

Rape-Chan: white man put them down

I want you to read ALL of this, VERY carefully this time.
_______________________________________________

There is no liberty or justice in saying that an entire segment of people are genetically pre-disposed to *any* traits without providing solid unrefutable evidence. Particularly in reference to Euroasian dominance over Sub-Saharan Africa; history has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such ideals have *already* been used for facism, genocide, cultural/social exclusion and a MODERN-DAY supression of an entire "races". Even when you say that a people are genetically pre-disposed to "intelligent behavior" the ideal is used for facism, genocide, death etc. See: The Nazi Movement. You can't just jump into a magic bubble and have this arguement of genetics take place in a world where history didn't happen.

When you continously repeat the same things over and over without solid proof- and there truly is none because if there were you'd just copy/paste it back here- you become apart of the same old argument (bigots) by association. When the modern-day superpowers were getting ready to carve up Africa- they said the exact same things you're saying now.

And do you really think I'm trying to *force* you? I've leaned more towards discussion, direct debates about the issues at hand (and what's written above is a very huge issue). My end phrase is: "Think what you want." not (and I'm quoting) "Just agree with me (everyone else does)." - who's trying to force who exactly?

All I'm saying is that if you wish to say that genetics are the be-all end-all reason for *your preception* that so-called "blacks" have "failed" (NOTE THE QUOTATIONS)- then by all means...have at it.

But. You must provide scientific proof of the biological existance of "race" outside of it's superficial, social and culture leanings. You must provide evidence of "race" having an impact on intelligence from a purely genetic stand-point. You must provide an a priori definition of intelligence. You must show, with empirical evidence, the effects genetics have on ones nuture IQ. And you have to prove that "blacks" haven't contributed to mankind or "failed".

Personally for me, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you're operating under the assumption that this is the end of something. That "the test" or the delusion of a "race competition" is "over". If you were truly non-racist, you wouldn't think of things in such overtly racist terms.

If I used your co-related theory, then I could say that whites are pre-disposed to raping the cultures of others and habitually enforing their way of life on others. Now that *APPEARS* to be the case...would I be right, or "justified" to wipe out their genes for the safety of future generations?

Re: sub-par Anon/Rape-chan analogy

That's your interpetation and you interpet it that way because, you are in fact, a bigot. No where have I said "White man's fault." - you equate it to that because you carry a white or eurocentric persecution complex with you where ever you go. (White man's guilt)

Mine goes a little like this:

Anon: Black History isn't as rich as the history of other races

Me: BZZZZ WRONG. *provides long list of proven civilizations that have existed before "the history of races", shows where they were successful and what they contributed to human civilization as a whole...only to have it habitually ignored and unaddressed*

Anon: What about before colonialism?

Rape-Chan: Wonders why you term as anything non-white as "unsuccessful"...(cont)

Anon: They had access blah blah blah...===> What about before colonialsim?

Rape-Chan: HUH? WHAT ABOUT THE MOORS?

 http://www.bartleby.com/65/mo/Moors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors,

HEY AND: Sub-Sarahan Africa was actually the first to make steel,

Hey guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel, http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

....Did I mention the first steps towards full-on Modern Colonization started in the 16th century?...etc etc etc = IGNORED, NOT DISCUSSED.

Holy fuck! We've taken one step in the right direction! Now allow me to crush your arugment so we can progress ont othe more important task of devising a way to teach the rest of the population to the truth of eugenics.

"Me: BZZZZ WRONG. *provides long list of proven civilizations that have existed before "the history of races", shows where they were successful and what they contributed to human civilization as a whole...only to have it habitually ignored and unaddressed*"

The Songhai at their peak in the 15th century were practically still in the ancient age, herding goats, with no navy or intensive farming, despite the fact that they were equal in technical knowledge of the rest of the world.

Bear in mind the Almuhads, later to be known as the Moors, were the reputed invaders of this civilisation. The Moors were mediteranean arabs, not negroid.

The Kush and their descendants and trading posts in east Africa were far more advanced, but why civilisation there did not spread throughout Africa isn't a mystery. The Kush peoples of course were heavily influenced by the Egyptians (and genes) and possibly the only pre-colonial black civilisation to have kept up with the rest of the world. I would also like to mention that whatever gene stunts intelligence in the negro must have been selectively bred out of negro genes which trickled up the Nile into Egypt. Likewise the genetic traits for intelligence trickling down the Nile would have eventually spread through Africa giving the descendants and advantage over their "traditionally gened" brothers. However we are at a time when

The great city of Zimbabwe came into being in the 18th century, well after colonialism, suggesting that colonisation was a civilising influence, even if any native civilisation that arose was eventually comandeered by the colonists.

"HEY AND: Sub-Sarahan Africa was actually the first to make steel"
No. You need precise machine tools, knowledge of chemical analysis and a blast furnace to produce steel.

"Hey guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel, http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

....Did I mention the first steps towards full-on Modern Colonization started in the 16th century?...etc etc etc = IGNORED, NOT DISCUSSED. "

I already know all of this and accept most of this. Yet I still notice that sub-saharran civilisation was astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world whilst evil european colonists consisted of vikings smashing sharp pieces of iron into monk's skulls across the north sea.

P.S. AAAAAAAFFFFFRRRIIICCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! MOORS ARE AFRICANS *imagines hundreds of black male models building pyramids on spanish soil until evil sly looking cretinous blondes come along and destroy all evidence of their grand civilisation due to racism* EVIL WHITEY DONE IT

lol

sorry..

>>254

Wrong. The Moors were many "races", Berber, Arabs, but cheifly amoung them: "BLACKS".

THE RACIAL MAKE-UP OF THE MOORS

To the earlier Greeks, the Moors were “a black or dark people” (Mauros) and to the Romans, Maurus, a black wooly-haired people, known synonymously as Ethiops, Niger (Negro) and Afer (African).

As late as the 5th Century A. D. Procopius, a Roman historian, called the people of Morocco “black.”

In the ‘Chanson of Roland’ (Song of Roland) written after the Moors invaded France in 718 A.D., the invaders are described (verses 145 and 146) as “blacker than ink with large noses and ears” and with “nothing white except the teeth.” (Moriaen. Arthurian Romance No. 4, PP. 29, 39, 41, 103. 1907. Trans. by J. L. Watson).

The Chanson of Roland states that the Moorish army was 50,000 strong and led by Marganice, Emperor of Ethiopia and Carthage. Their most valiant figure is Abisme (that is, Abyssinian), who (verse 126) is described as “black as melted pitch.” In this epic, the Moors are called Sarrazins, in English, Saracens.

In the official coat of arms of Aragon, which has four Moorish kings killed in battle by Pedro VIII, king of Aragon, on November 18, 1096, all the Moors are shown as jet-black. (Biblioteca de escritores aragoneses. Blancas. Comentarios de las cosas de Aragon. Seccion histor. 3, p. 110. 1878.)

Pietro Tacca in his monument to Ferdinand I erected at Leghorn, 1620, has four Moors in chains, which were modeled from originals, one of whom is instantly recognizable as a so Negro. (Raymond M. La Sculpture Florentine, XVIe siecle, pp. 182-3 1900).

Pitch black Negro troops played an important part in the Moorish conquest of Spain especially under Abderrahman I. (757-787), who founded the independent kingdom of Cordova. (Troupes noires. Revue de Paris, p. 62. July 1909 (pp. 61-80). A rival Moorish leader “brought from Africa a great number of Negroes from which he formed a redoubtable regiment of cavalry in 1016” and took over the Caliphate. (Troupes noires. Revue de Paris, p. 62. July 1909 (pp. 61-80).

In 1086, Yusuf ben Tachfln, who is described by Moorish historian Ali ibn Abd Allah as as “dark” and “wooly-haired,” (Roudh ci Kartas, p. 304.) and who was probably a Nigerian, brought in an army composed largely of “pure Negroes” (11. Ency. Brit. Vol. 21 (See SPAIN—Almoravides). Ibn El-Athair. Op. cit. pp. 525 Also pp. 457-60, 462. Scott, S. P. Hist. of the Moorish Empire, p. 622. 1904.)

Another Moor, Yakub el-Mansur, recorded as “the son of a Negro woman,” (Roudh el Kartas, p. 304.) invaded Iberia in 1194 and made himself master of almost the whole of it. The guards of these Moorish kings were specially chosen for their size Negroes, “jet-black and of immense strength, recruited from the Atlas, Tumbuctoo, and Nigeria." (Scott. S. P. History of the Moorish Empire, p. 668. 1904.)

|||||"Yet I still notice that sub-saharran civilisation was astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world"|||||

I'd like to see proof of "less advanced". Proof of sub-saharran Africa consisting of only "Blacks". And finally- PROOF OF THE GENETIC TIE-IN.

And of course, you don't address ANY of the issues in >>253, but it's alright because that's what I expected.

I have the internet you know.

http//www.google.co.uk/...

(note the absence of links and the stormfront link... wow what credible sources! (i am being sarcastic by the way, for the record i don't think stormfornt provides many credible sources...))

Afrocentric source.
http://www.blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/moors.html

I think it's obvious who the real racist here is.

"I'd like to see proof of "less advanced". Proof of sub-saharran Africa consisting of only "Blacks"."

The lack of proof of civilisation, a landscape litterred with the archaelogical remains of stone temples, walled cities and palaces for instance, is my proof that negroes were astronomically less advanced than the rest of the world. Such achievements are present throughout South America. Even the psychotic conquistadores could not eradicate all evidence of their civilisation, and it was far behind technologically than the actual African civilisations I seem to be the only one discussing.

What I'm more concerned about at the moment was the rise of the Empire of Ghana in the 9th century. Why have you never mentionned this? It would have certainly put a dent in my preconceptions about the black race! However the empire of Ghana was short lived and failed to withstand a small invasion by the Almuhads in 1040 I think. The empire was destroyed, the Almuhads went home and their descendants returned to subjugate the peoples of west Africa once again once they regrouped and formed the Songhai. Why haven't you mentionned this? Don't you know anything about black history?

You will find the original source you provided containing no superficial evidence and discreditting the.. biased... sources you enjoy believing with some sort of... manic fervor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/moors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mo.html

Today's Morrocan racial make up.
Ethnic groups:  
Arab-Berber 99.1%, other 0.7%, Jewish 0.2% 

Today's Mauritanian racial make up (some 900 miles south along the west coast of the Saharra from Rabat (the capital of Morroco..)).
Ethnic groups:  
mixed Maur/black 40%, Moor 30%, black 30%

It says that these region is experiencing ethnic tensions.

"The country continues to experience ethnic tensions between its black population and the Maur (Arab-Berber) populace."

Maybe they are annoyed because black racist groups are stealing their culture!

TL;DR version
Antichan loses, everyone wins.
oh and anglo-saxon eugenics is bad, if it were a wiki article there would be a header that says "This Article Needs To Conform To A Higher Standard. editplz"
It's partially true but not objective enough, because English people like looking down on everybody else.

>>258

Yes and? Most of Anon's IQ pertcentages were pulled from the Bell Curve. (Pioneer Fund Nazis WTF?)--- This is ridiculous! Because no matter what you say, what co-relation you're begging for everyone to make......

You still don't have genetic proof. How you say that the failure of any one civilization is *genetic*? I mean: Where is this "mystery data" that supports the assertion that the perceieved failure of any civilization is based on genetics?

The one thing the gives your argument any legitamacy is the one thing your argument lacks. The Moors were black. The very term "Moors" means black. Even the ancient berbers were darker than anglo-saxons. When you say "black" people- you are refering to people with the coloring of the Moors.

How you say that the failure of any one civilization is *genetic*?

On the other hand, how can you say it isn't?

People who are unfamiliar with IQ tests score lower, even if they score the same on other intelligence tests. I still haven't found that book I found once. I will be at the library on the 3rd of January though and I can quote a proper scientific analysis of intelligence, race and culture.

You are trolling, I find it hard to believe you are too blind to wonder why black civilisation was always so far behind, even before colonialism and why other civilisations prosperred better even after colonialism and with less technology. Negroes do have a clearly differnet physical appearance, including the shape of their skulls, these traits occur througout the negro race and are backed up by their haplotypes. We share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees, so yes, than 0.000001% does matter. Anything else?

In empirical studies you are supposed to count everything as a source, even if it is clearly biased, of course there were negroes in morrocco, there were Vikings and Khazars in morrocco at one point, but the majority of the population were mediteranean-arabs. I hope your racist mind can appreciate this, but the caucasian race consists of both whites and arabs. Skin colour is a pretty malleable trait and irrelevant, brain size, bone structure and biological chemistry are not. They were described as black because they had black skin and the sources I have provided prove they were caucasian. If you are suggesting there was some mass migration of negroes across the saharra at one point, then prove it, bearing in mind such a migration would either be an insignificant trickle or result in the starvation of thousands.

Not every medical graduate becomes a doctor, students who are admitted into universities are pushed to their limits and their environment is all the same, yet their grades end up as being different. Not everyone can be as intelligent as Albert Einstein and it isn't all due to the fact that his mom gave him omega 3 oils and played music to her womb. Albert had as much education if not less as his colleagues, yet surpassed them all. He was superior. Throw this blank slate idea of yours into the bin. Stop embracing "diversity" and embrace reality! I know what you are going to say next, "Albert was a jew!" As if expectantly I will reveal myself to be a nazi. I couldn't give a flying fuck.

You, sir, are faced with your worst nightmare, someone who cares more about the truth than anything else.

...are you done now? Your melodramatic grandstanding is an old and intellectually dishonest ploy. You don't have any data which states: "Civilization A failed because DNA-sequence B" ---Period.

Now the reason I say "civilization failure" isn't genetic is because if you actually look for the answer to why any wide number of "civilizations", from any number of "races" fails... You will find that there are other factors involved (geography, etc). 

It's a little something we call "history".

And "Racist mind"? Hahaha, that's funny. I don't even believe in race. Why? No data proving "race" exists in a biological sense.

Do you understand yet? Without absolute data you have a unproven theory. 

niggers is niggers

>>263
idiot, explain to me what exactly is required for a "race" to be different from other "races" extra arm? three eyes? elfin ears and slight build?

fool

>>263
SHUT UP STUPID YOU ARE PROBABLY A NEGRO.

You will find that there are other factors involved (geography, etc).

Okay, so why has there never been a civilization of significance in sub-Sahara? After all, humans have been there the longest...

>>265

LOL And right on cue, here come the insults. :(

Y R U MAD? :( :( :( (crys)

The perfect troll in a race debate is to tell the guy accusing you of being a "mindless racist" that you don't believe in race. And by "perfect troll" I mean: "perfect way to expose the bigotry that lines beneath his so called 'truth'"

It's funny that you ask me: "Explain to me what exactly is required for a "race" to be different from other "races"?"

LOL! You already know the answer to that question by your implied belief in "race", don't you? (Big nose, Big lips, Dark ass skin...that's a nigger!) Because I don't really know if I'm to give into that kind of thought anymore. It's just so funny to me- the same species of fish can come in different shapes and colors- but they don't segregate themselves.

 Is it genetic? Ok, well which genes are the "black" genes? Maybe it's the culture you think makes up a person's "race"? Social structure? Our symbology? Why don't you google the "Caduceus"? It's a symbol that shows up in multiple forms in multiple cultures. (Most of which, had no contact between each other)

Study of culture and history makes you realize how similar we are. You use words like "success" and "fail" as if to say that we've been taking part in some kind of competition or as if we've reached the end of some (snicker) "race". Can we really call this "success"?

"Okay, so why has there never been a civilization of significance in sub-Sahara? After all, humans have been there the longest..."

You keep asking this as if you have some kind of hidden data relating to this. But where is your proof that the percieved failure of Sub-Sahara Africa is genetic? What do you mean when you say "significant"? Under what criteria do you term "the success" of a civilization?

Can you tell me why the Greenland Norse civilization "failed"? Was that genetic? Ok, well, prove it. Prove that the failure of any one civilization is solely genetic. You're the one making these assertions- not me- so "the burden of proof" is on you, isn't it?

http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/08/kavanagh-collapse/
http//www.ama/...

This is another Jared Diamond book called "Collapse" which goes into detail the myriad of reasons "civilizations" fail. Might want to look into it. 

>>270
Civilisation fall, yes, the roman empire fell, but it didn't turn Europe into Africa. Roman science and organization left, but what was neccesary remained, the agricultural infrastructure, the towns and cities and the military technology were all preserved due to their neccesity. The Mayan civilisation fell and the region enterred a dark age, but then the Aztecs and various other tribes arose. The mongol plunderred China, but when there was no more plunder they founded the Ming dynasty and focussed on agriculture and protecting their lands as the previous dynasty had done.

Therefore Jared's book is irrelevant. Also negroes were poorly civilised before the colonies so it has nothing to do with guns germs and steel either.


There is no such thing as race? Don't be a moron, if individuals vary in intelligence and the slightest change in genes can give someone cancer or diabetes, then groups of people who have been seperated for generations will evolve different traits. Namely people who left Africa and had to face the ice age and the traits being intelligence and emotional control etc etc..

I have not emotional control, therefore I will never see reason. Just kill me.

>>271
>>272

Jared's book is ultra-relevant, if anything. It answers your type of questions: "Why did this civilization fail?" Like you said, an empirical study requires that you take information- even from bias sources. (though, how Diamond is 'bias' is beyond me)

Your claim that "negroes" were "poorly civilised" needs not only the definition of what a "successful" civilization is, but is always still wanting of the data that supports the assertion that the failure of these civilizations was genetic.

My argument is actually quite devoid of emotion. I am asking you  what is asked of any "co-relative" theory...absolutely true data  that supports the assertion.

"if individuals vary in intelligence and the slightest change in genes can give someone cancer or diabetes, then groups of people who have been seperated for generations will evolve different traits."

Ok, right, but where is the hard data that supports these people as irrevocably being different "Races"? If anything this statement does less service to the idea of race and more to the similarities of human culture and human intellect.

Why do you constantly ignore points that address the human species as a whole? Why do you willfully ignore the failing civilizations of "whites"? Why is it now looking like western civilization is going to "fail"? Is that genetic?

>>273
Of course, you are full of shit. Look at Africa's barbaric culture. Look at Haiti. Look at any nigger enclave. All HIV infested savages. Species instead of race? The negro is indeed a lower species. I agree with that.

"Why did this civilization fail?"

Wrong question.

Correct question: why didn't any ever arise?

I guess this bears repeating, huh?

Your claim that "negroes" were "poorly civilised" needs not only the definition of what a "successful" civilization is, but is always still wanting of the data that supports the assertion that the failure of these civilizations was genetic.

>>276
1st grade trolling, well done. You win a free 4chan.

Is the statement really that difficult of an issue for you to address? If you don't have the proof the percieved failure of a civilization was absolutely genetic, then you have no basis for your assertion. 

I don't spend all my time here Rape-chan..

What does that even mean?