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.

>>326

It's a very big deal in this argument. It throws the entire idea of "genetic failure" right out of the fucking window. "But only the negroids and their faulty genes failed." - Guess what? Whites, Japanese, Chinese, Wap, Dago, Polish, Nigger, Chink, Spic, Kike = *Same fucking caste of genes*

>>327

I have wikipedia, too, you know. Obviously there is alot of debate on the subject of the Olmecs- the part that eurocentrics like yourself continuously leave out of just debate regarding the Olmecs is the fact that the modern human developed different physical traits *after* they left Africa. Answer this: Why is it implausable that negroids made it these world destinations first? If humans entered the Americas (or anywhere else) between 30,000 years B.C. to 150,000 years B.C., they would have had to have been Negroid. What about the cultural similarity between the Olmecs and West Africa, in general?

Also: Why did you not include the google/wikipedia return on the Zingh Empire? Should I provide some other civilizations for you to look up? Maybe the Nok Culture? Who jumped from Stone Age to Iron Age *before* "whites" did? Or the Ghana?

Regardless, you failed to see what I was getting at. Why is it- that you don't apply your "black washing" to things that are obviously "black"? "Moors" means black. It doesn't mean "Berber" it doesn't mean "High Yellow/Off-white". Also anonymous... previously you sited the facial features and the bone structure as proof of differences between the "races" - so did you change your mind all of sudden? Or do you morph the relevancy of these physical traits to better fit your arguments as the debate progresses?