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.

>>464
Proof, data, evidence? Oh right- like since the beginning of this thread. You have none.

>>463

I think the most telling thing about "whites" and the race/IQ arguement is that it always serves as an excusal of "white guilt". There's not a time where a white person in this debate doesn't try to effectively say: "Well see? It's not our fault!" It's a plain effort for anglo-saxons in general to wash their hands of the sins of their fathers. The irony is that when we speak upon things, we aren't attacking the entire white race.

We are attacking the history of a culture of assumed inferiority surrounding blacks, latinos, asians, arabs, shintos, hindus, buddists, etc. Races and religions which were deemed inferior on the grounds of being non-white and non-christian. That is true even now.

A bushman has knowledge that's passed down for generations, and memorized.  A bushman isn't inventing the techniques for survival, just copying them.

How is that different from academic education? It's very rare that relevant new ideas are introduced in academia and it was rare, then, new ideas were introduced for survival.

You see: We're simply stating things that happened in history. Things were not equal and are not equal now. And it is the assumption of whites that things, in fact, are equal. Of course they're equal.

For you.

Notice that it's only "whites" that think this. Notice that the one "people" who have a history of doing everything in their power to make sure things are not equal- are the ones claiming everything to be fair and good in the modern world. At the same time you turn around and try to "prove your superiority" with the IQ/race. While saying: "I have no connection to the whites of slavery and colonialism, so I'm not racist." - you turn around at the same time and say: "It's not *OUR* fault. You see *WE* are superior, so you failed." Don't you see the conflict of your words there?

But your apathy to the very real things that have happened to non-whites over this long modern history is at the very heart- the flaw in your debate.

"Well, if the data's there then..."

It's not there. It's only there if you completely ignore the fact that intelligence is nature AND nuture. Which is what you do with you don't address these issues in the race/IQ discussion. You don't address nurture. You already conceded. That's because there's no way around this. But you must desperately believe that you are responsible and NOT responsible at once. It's either one or the other. Either your view is bigotry and white eurocentricity. Or it is not.