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.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:12
[IQ]
I haven't dodged shit- the results are trivial because there is no "intelligence gene" in the first fucking place. How many times must it be pointed out that IQ cannot fully measure intelligence? It only measures what we *assume* intelligence to be. It is simple common sense that you cannot 100% accurately measure the attributes of the human mind using the human mind. Objectivity is not possible by virtue of the means used.
Quantum physics has been struggling to uncover the mysteries of objectivity since forever and then you come skipping along claiming to have discovered an objective test for intellect? Here's an example of mental fortitude: SURVIVOR. Why is it that when 20 or so Americans try for 30 days to live like an AFRICAN...their brains turn to mush and they start babbling to themselves and start begging to strip naked for the camera for a bite of peanut butter?
What If I then gave an "IQ test" that asked how many triangles of equal size can fit into a square comprised of a square made from 12 of those triangles? If the subject answers "who gives a shit, I'm fucking *hungry*?". I will score that subject with above average IQ. When we've finally reached a consensus on exactly how every part of the brain works then we will talk about an objective "IQ" test. (Analogy: If you can find a doctor who can explain why the heart loves then we will talk about an objective EQ test.)
Also: One fact you continue to glare over (like it didn't even happen). Is that most of these studies were done during the repression of blacks or the slow acceptable emergence of blacks by whites in various areas of the world during the battle for civil rights fights (spands 1960's -late 70's and even thru the present-day depending on the emergence of one's parents, location and attitude of the area blacks came from at the time since it varied depending on those kids experiences and their previous 'masters' allowances). All of which depended on prior circumstances of the parents, financially, educationally and emotionally. I don't think that is enough time to compare the two races as if they were homogenous populations separated only by genetics and economics.
And yet you want to draw parallels among them all. That's just fucking re-tah-ded.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:15
[Civilizations]
First it was "they didn't have civilization", now it's "it wasn't that great." When you say that "negroids haven't contributed to society" you are making a generalizing statement about a "race" of people that is (A) completely subjective and completely dependant upon what is known (or your personal knowledge) of history - and (B) the idea that "negroids" are a seperate race in the first place. Without the African roots of hunting and gathering, without the roots of civilization that the humans of ancient Africa laid down- we wouldn't be here. But this is irrelevant Race is a not a biological construct so IQ can't biologically inheritiable by "race".
Also, I'd like to know how they came up with IQ for people who lived before the IQ test was invented. Was it magic? How do you know, for certain, that discoveries of man weren't previcously discovered (I.E- RE-discovered)? How do you know that the discoveries required a "high IQ" (when "IQ" didn't even fucking exist). Do you think Newton had a high IQ? It's said that it was 190 but the first IQ test for which you could base your assertions wasn't invented until 1905. What about Leonardo De Vinci? Ceaser?
The "systemic correlation" you keep refering to is by no means empirical and it is in no way what anyone intelligent would consider a scientific method. Therefore, it is a theory and not 'truth'. There are certian people who can and can't "get their shit together" in every fucking civilization and society since the beginning of time. The notion that this is solely to do with the western (not completely accepted idea) IQ is a leap of imagination.
Many, if not all of the "achievements" came about with civilizations working in concert with each other. No one civilization achieved anything important by going solo. Also: Your assertions that "ancient negroes" had no wealth, culture or art is completely fucking false. Discoveries are still being made despite eurocentricity and it's far too early to make an assumption like that.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 9:22
[Summing up] (with insults!)
The two abstract concepts of "Intelligence" and "race" are not correlated whatsoever and IQ scores are not a good universal test of intelligence. In fact they are strongly biased based on one's culture and geographic location. (Anyone who's taken Psychology 101 can tell you this) The IQ scores do follow a bell curve model however with vast majority of the population being "average" and a few retards and a few really smart ones (some who were autistic).
For anyone to proclaim to be able to biologically define a person, let alone an entire socially defined 'race' or ethnicity, when we are still trying to figure out the brain itself is a watershed in stupidity. That's skepticism. That's the scientific method. And one thing people used to actually understand about the scientific method is that you can't just do surveys and call it absolute truth. You have to identify the mechanism, not just the results, or else you're wildly guessing as to what's the real cause. What I'm saying is that (brace yourself) ---there's an actual methodology to REAL science! :-O! The simple fact is that the data presented here does not eliminate the chance of some completely different cause, or even other factors producing correlation. Only a queer nazi would keep repeating this dogmatic bullshit over and over like some kind of "I'm gay and that's ok" Mantra.
You are yet another one of these dumb asses that try to make an argument for some kind of racial superiority based on your personal interpetation of statistics and what co-relations you've inferred from your limited knowledge of history. MY question is why do you even bring this shit up? I highly doubt it was in the cause of improving the quantity and quality of education, nutrition, mental health services, and free drug treatment programs in black communities. We don't even have that shit *now*.
But fine! Let's say 'whites' are more intelligent than blacks. Well, whites and asians rule the planet right now and therefore whites and asians are responsible for the negative path that they have put planet earth upon. So much for intelligence and which "race" has more of it. Maybe, in the end, the "savages" had it right.
Alright maybe I'm missing something, but how is that relevant to what was said >>363?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 13:01
>>368
The divide and conquer practices of white colonialists results in predictable ethnic violence.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 13:50
I AM NIGRA, I KNOW NOTHING OF THE WORLD, ALL I KNOW IS THAT WHEN WE HAD SMALL POX AND 50% OF PEOPLE DIED BEFROE THE AGE OF 5 THINGS WERE BETTER, BECAUSE LOGIC WAS MADE BY DEAD WHITE MEN SO BEING ILLOGICAL AND DOWNRIGHT FUCKING STUPID AND IGNORING FACTS IS GOOD!
Your ignorance and your across-the-board inability to address my arguments are noted. And your misinterpetation of my position is testament to the arrogant amd fascist nature that is inherant in all who prescribe to the racist mode of thought.
My ignorance and your across-the-board inability to respond to criticism is evident throughout the entire thread. And my paranoia knows no bounds, I am so deluded I now seem to think that not only criticism against my arguments are racist, but facts and reason itself is "racist" and to be ignored. My actions are testament to the demented and marxist nature that is inherant in all who prescribe to this cultlike fanatic-psychosis mode of thought.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 16:42
I'm done with this.
Anti-chan, you are a retard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 17:13
Yeah, Anti-chan, all your theories sound good in theory, and in their ability to make people feel good, but they don't work in reality. To assume that there's no phyiscal attribute to intelligence (EG, capacity for abstract thought) is fucking stupid. And your survivor example is also fucking retarded; living in the bush is a skill, and the ability to do that doesn't mean anything for someone's intelligence. In face, an intelligent person might know some of the general principals of nature and where food can be found ETC... Has nothing to do with intelligence. It's just knowledge.
And how is it stupid to try to understand what intelligence is before we understand the workings of the brain? This is your same old "Show me a so I can think b" thing. It's totally unreasonable. Intelligence is a measure of performance, asshole. You don't have to understand how the lamborgini's head cam-double thrust V-tech engine works in order to be able to see that it goes faster than my 4-banger Toyota camry. In fact, finding out that one goes faster than the other is more in line with the scientific method, because we can see that A does B and C does D, without needing to get into spiritual shit to find it. In fact, demanding an intelligence gene is just what you're claiming not to do; it's a dodge.
And race has to do with which population an individual was descended from. There are the black africans, which are the original humans. They've been in africa since the beginning. Then you've got the indians, europeans, ETC who are descended from the semites, who migrated into the middle east around 10,000 years ago. From there, humans migrated just about everywhere. So in short; the blacks came from africa, the semites from populations that migrated into the middle east etc. It has nothing to do with skin color, bone structure ETC.. although you can usually use that to determine what race someone is from. That's my objective definition of what race is, which you (hopefully) can't ignore.
So, when I say the first moors weren't black, I mean that they came from the middle east. And then they mixed with africans creating the moors we have today.
What's so difficult about hunting and gathering in comparison with, I dunno, TRIGONOMETRY that other people's wouldn't have been able to think of it on their own in like ten seconds time? Seriously, that stuff comes instinctually, so to say that a race "gave" it to us (memetically, I mean) is completely retarded.
So. What contributions have sub saharan africans NOT descended from middle easterners given us? Please don't start muddling the issue with your BS as I'm sick of it.
And my knowledge of history is not limited. It's still ongoing now. Look at africa; it's a cesspit. Look in the US; black people don't have much here either. It's not that I think we're better, it's just that I'm sick of people using lies to convince themselves that everything is right with the world when in reality it isn't. You can't just ingore your problems into submission. And the fact remains that whenever black people run anything for themselves, it disappears into chaos. It's a persistent pattern that's existed since the beginning. I myself don't honestly think it relates as much to IQ as it does to personal inhibition and an ability to think about what's good for the group. It's there, it's honestly and truly there, and to deny it will just make the problem worse in the future.
Whites and asians ruining the planet, eh? Well, accomplishing something is better than accomplishing nothing. I subscribe to the human-centric theory, where the only point in anything existing is for us ourselves, the thinking breed of people. Living in harmony with nature and getting killed by saber toothed tigers seems pointless. I don't want a world devoid of natural beauty and all that shit that's just stupid, I think we should use nature to get to a point in technology where we don't have to step on it is all.
In fact, fuck you. So many of your arguments are so far deluded and easy to counter that it's unbelievable. I think your debate strategy is just to get your opponent so busy picking apart the easy stuff that they get sick of it before they get to the big stuff.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 19:06
What proof do you have that my arguments make people feel good? First of all, I never made any assumption nor have I implied that there is no physical attribute for intelligence. Obviously, it's the brain and it's inner workings. What we do know, however, is that there are no definitive genes that determine intelligence. All gene work relating to IQ is purely theoretical.
Your opinion about how much intelligence it takes to survive in the sub-sahara is just that: An opinion. You say that it hasn't anything to do with IQ and is "just knowledge".
Well I have some really bad news for you; Dictionary.com's definition of knowledge:
knowl·edge
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Seems to me that you just admitted that the pre-historic sub-saharan humans were pretty intelligent, no? I mean, obviously they understood nature and where to find food or the human race wouldn't be here.
It's not stupid to try and understand intelligence. But it is very, very stupid to infer certain things about the brain biologically based solely on our perception of it's output. It's important to indentify and quantify the *input*, as well. And you're right! "Show me (A) so I can think (B)" is indeed unreasonable. But this is not the scientific method by which we glean truth. You have been *shown* that "blacks" are "less successful" and you "think" the reason is solely genetic. Sorry, kid, but that's not science and there's nothing "spiritual" about it. You have to show *what* genetics "blacks" lack and why.
And No, you don't have to *understand* the V-tech engine in a Lamborgini into to see that goes faster than a toyota. But then again, you aren't merely saying "Whites are better than blacks." If you did, you'd just be a bigot so instead you mask it by saying they are better because of a *reason* (genetics). That is simply not true. You're saying that "whites" naturally and biologically have a better "engine" that blacks. But guess what? They have the same fucking engine.
(cont.....)
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-08 19:10
As for your talk about human migration...
First off all, humans moved from Africa to Southeast Asia and then spread out from there. The only thing that changed about these people were their physical appearences. And that didn't change until they *got to their destination*. Semites still aren't any different from their African ancestors- they just *look* different. You insist that they were semites under the assumption that this means they weren't African or Black.
Well, I've got some more bad news.
Sem·ite
n.
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
And here a question: When it comes to the current black populations, how can you tell the difference? You do understand the current condition of Ethiopia, right? Hey: They're semites...how come they haven't "gotten their shit together"?
Oh right! Thet were enslaved. :) Just like everyone else with dark "negroid" skin.
You keep saying that you're sick of people "using lies". What lies are you refering to? Slavery happened. The repression of blacks happened. I don't know if you're a racist or not...but the one reason people who take up your position are called racist is because they downplay the severity of the repression of black race by colonialist and an opportunisitic upper class. No mattter how loud you yell or how much you pout- the social and cultural repression of "negroids" is always going to play a factor in their current social and cultural standing in the modern world. Sure, at some point the repression of pass will no long be an excuse- but we have not reached that point yet. When you asked earlier *why* sub-saharan Africans never contributed to civilization- you willfully ignored the rest of that paragraph.
African south of the Sahara lived largely in nomadic, hunter-gatherer groups up until 200 BC. As a result, African populations were very sparse. There are several speculations as to why sub-Saharan Africans remained in hunting-gathering groups, but they are all guess-work. Perhaps the most reasonable explanations involve the abundance of resources and the protection that their isolation gave them from invasion and migration pressures.
What makes you think you know something that a State University doesn't? The very reason they don't say: "Sub-saharans stayed in hunter-gather groups is because of low IQ" is because to pass a western standardized IQ test, it helps if you're educated by the western standard and know how to speak english. They don't know how intelligent sub-saharan Africans were- how would they? So why would the say anything about their genetics or IQ? Why are you?
You say that whenever blacks run things it descends into chaos. When have blacks ever run things in the modern world for longer than 20 years? There's plenty of black politicians in america who're doing just fine. Africa as a whole was just dandy until colonialism.
And hey, if my points are so deluded and easy to counter then you should have no problem doing so without resorting to calling someone retarded, communist or a marxist. And what "big stuff"? Do you think you're saying something new? Something that hasn't been argued since African colonialism? The repression of blacks began under the assumption that whites were born superior to blacks. What do you say to this? Or do you willifully ignore it, per usual?
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 21:16
>> They have the same fucking engine.
Proof? Prove to me that black brains are identical to white ones.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 21:27
Every race thinks they are superior to every other race. No big surprise there. But the superior ones will win history (or maybe they already won).
Yet again, you've misunderstand and you're desperately grasping for straws. I didn't say they were exactly identical. No two brains are indentical, even in the same "race". But seeing as how there is no "Race". They both have the same human brain. Are you're implying that the brains have fundamental biological differences? (extra brain stem? 7 layered neo cortex?)
Anyway...what your own theory calls for you to do is to prove that the brain has any co-relation to IQ. Or that brain size always falls along "race". This non-truth has already been addressed by many scientists.
Although Rushton (1988, 1990a, 1991) implied that Blacks are consistently found to have smaller brains than Whites, some of the studies listed in his reviews actually show opposite trends: North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9). In general, skulls from people in countries with poverty and infant malnutrition are smaller regardless of race. This trend is apparent even in Rushton's (1990b) tabularly summary of Herskovits' s review: Caucasoids from Cairo had far smaller crania than North American Negroes (see more details in Cernovsky, 1992). In this respect, Rushton (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) also repeatedly misrepresented findings by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) on cranial capacity. Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto, extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equator), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer climates, irrespective of race.
"Intelligence must not be confused with IQ as measured by an IQ test."
W.BODMER (medical geneticist), 1973
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 22:21
Doesn't prove anything. All you proved is that skull size varies by nutrition. This doesn't show that intelligence or brain performance is the same across the board.
And we are not talking about the brain. We're talking about what it puts out. This is just another point that shows your consistent and probably willful misunderstanding of the material presented.
Now, show me that brains are all identical in performance across all races.
>>379
Strange how you find this relevant when you just got through ten minutes ago talking about how the differences in the brain were completely irrelevant.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-08 23:48
White supremacists are incapable of acknowledging the role of social environment on what they perceive as race. To do so would undermine their whole worldview, even though the facts are widely accepted. Therefore, they prefer to call anti-chan's arguments trollish rather than considering for a moment that they may be true.
Why bother with a response if you're not going to read the material presented to you? You basically asked me to prove something that I didn't say. I never said brain performance is the same across the board. So, explain to me in length why I should prove something I didn't assert in the first fucking place.
The input of the brain (the brain itself) is responsible for what it puts out (output). If you fill one engine with sand and the other one with oil. The one with sand all gunked up into it is going to have a weaker performance. Are you sure you understand the brain? Are you 100% sure you understand what the scientific method is?
Yes. If you notice it's one thing they hasn't addressed through out the entire thread. To not address that issue is to assume the blacks were inferior before european colonialism- which at it's most basic ideal- is white supremacism.
Well, we all know you don't *think* you're a supremacist. But seeing as how you've done everything to dodge the cultural and social implications of the "race-intelligence" arguement, the evidence is pretty damning.
Your arguement basically fell completely apart when it turned out that some semites were black Africans. Ethiopia is one of the most underdeveloped nations in Africa, if they were semites they would be in a better place in the world and have contributed more to it. Why do you think they haven't? Genetics? But don't they have semitic genes?
*waits for brutal lack of response*
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-09 3:47
Ethiopians may be semites, but they are still semites who are mixed with negroids.
No. They are negroids,period. Ethiopians aren't a mixture of assorted peoples. They are what you (and european colonialst) would percieve to be negroid. Thus: They were rounded up in the slave trade. I think the dictionary and the pictures posted are pretty self explainatory. Otherwise, I'd like it if you perhaps provided proof to the contrary?
The point is moot anyway. The only thing different about "negroids" (LOL, just say nigger...we all know that's what you mean) and semites is their appearence.
By the way, maybe you'd like to explain away this:
North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9).
I notice that you left it out of your last few replies and just thought maybe you'd like to comment.
Also: Regardles, a semite is a semite. Their semetic blood should've insured them a throne in the modern world. So why aren't they "ahead of the game"?
Another thing: Are ever going to address the cultural and social implications of the "Race-Intelligence" arguement? I suppose not, eh?
Name:
jem2006-01-09 4:29
>>388,389
If they are negroid "period", then they can't be semetic, retard. Which will it be?
Besides, almost all references to "Semite" today refer to the language. Ethoipians today have Semetic or Cushitic languages.
Name:
jem2006-01-09 4:32
North American Blacks were superior to American Whites in brain weight (see Tobias, 1970, p. 6:1355 g vs. 1301 g) or were found to have cranial capacities favorably comparable to the average for various samples of Caucasians (see Herskovits, 1930) and number of excess neurons larger than many groups of Caucasoids, for example, the English and the French (see Tobias, 1970, p. 9).
There has yet to be conclusive evidence relating brain-size to intelligence. Maybe phrenology will help you on your quest*. Besides, quality not quantity. Speed of neurons etc.
I know that. I was making a point about the irrelevancy of brain size and weight, etc. Hey and when you're fully able to quantify the speed and density and such of neurons, divided among race lines- and what relevance this had to IQ...let us know.
Obviously you fail to see the relevance of pointing out the fact that some semetic peoples would qualify as what one would term "negroid". Care explaining what a negroid is in the first fucking place? Biologically? Genetically? If they're semetic- then why don't they "have their shit together"?
Are you going to come along and ignore the other factors relating to poor brain performance as well? If so: Gtfo, we already have one of those.
Um, no. The samples themselves are fine. The point of the whole response to Rushton serves to point out the fallacy in the INTERPETATION of those given samples. These are the same samples that Anonymous has been basing his argument on.
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 4:55
wait nvm I suck cock
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 4:57
And regardless if you think Ethiopians are negroid or not: They ARE semetic and they WERE rounded up and taken to Benin in the American slave trade and they ARE an underdeveloped third world country, right along the line of many of the African countries Anonymous has cited as being "civilization failures".
Hahaha...That's right, keep it up. See the thing is...I actually want you to keep up with the line of insults. When people see this thread- they are going to see one guy debating senisibly using scientific method and empirical evidence and another camp of people shouting "NIGGER, NIGRA, MARXIST, COMMUNIST, COCKSUCKER, RETARD".
Name:
anti-chan2006-01-09 5:05
shit I still suck cock
Name:
jem2006-01-09 5:20
Sem·ite
n. 1. A member of a group of Semitic-SPEAKING peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
No genes involved here. Conclusion: either ethoipians are niggers, they are semites (racially not linguistically) or they are mixed. You say they are niggers -- fine. Then they are not semetic.
yeah yeah yeah, only a pussy hides behind someone else's user name. after this I'm *so* returning to being Anonymous. I understand now why that system was put in place