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.

I forgot to sage.  Damn.  Oh well, seeing as it's already at the top it doesn't make any difference.

World4Ch needs an auto-sage feature for debates that drag on for too damn long.

>>639

There isn't a biological assertion for "race". You wanna drag out the alelle frequency, haplotypes tripe that I debunked eons ago?


>>637
>>638

If the "you'll just label me afrocentric!" stance is a strawman...then the "you'll just label me a racist/idiot" stance is a strawman. Apparently one without a brain seeing as how you said that then went onto you use the word "nigger" a million times in the next fucking post! Guess what? All that shit you said at the end of >>638? Makes you a racist.

The Hittites: So. What? Have you seen the wikipedia article on these guys? :D There's so much contraversy over who they were or if they even existed that it's almost a moot point. However, what drives it over the edge the fact that: This argument was never about who first discovered iron in the first place.

You said Sub-Saharan Africans didn't have a civilization on par with others: You were wrong. You said Sub-Saharan Africans didn't invent stone buildings or metal tools or contribute to anything: You were wrong.

So Africa got colonialized? So did Europe, Syria, China, Japan, nearly everywhere at some point. Who knows why civilizations fail? Why did the Hittites fail? Gee, you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant. Instead they've been reduced to a near-myth.

African Colonization was a modern colonization, a complete purging of history and culture and it only ended quite literally under 30 years ago!, blacks have had civil rights for around 50 years! It took Japan a good 200 years to get their shit  together and took China even longer than that. (China *still* doesn't have it's shit together if you ask me)

In the end it's a single question: What biological proof to you have that any civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence? Where's the proof that Africa's was?

Your arguments has been nothing more than these grand gestures of denial, edging dangerously close to a white supremist slant. Either you use scientific methodology to arrive an assertion or you don't. Educated people know this and if you don't think education makes a difference- then you are uneducated.

I'm not gonna take maturity lessons from a guy that values wikipedia over educational institutions and runs around calling people niggers from the safety of the internets. And people on "college campus" don't "hand out ass whoopings" for calling someone a baby bird. (that's high school shit)

Face it: You *are* a baby bird. There *is* alot of shit you obviously don't understand about human culture and society and how when you take even one step back; there's this creepy almost surreal common thread running through humanity as a whole. Same symbols, similar creation stories and imagery. Some history written, some oral. I just feel bad that you're probably going to spend so much time with your up your ass that you'll never realize it.  

FUCK DIEDIEDIE WHOCARES GODAMIT

>>643
Are you going to provide evidence to back up your statements or not? Where did that guy who said africans had blast furnaces for making steel in the 14th century BC get his facts?

646GET

>>645
But the first blast furnace was invented by the Han dynasty in 1st century BC china...  Maybe you're thinking about the bloomery, which works at a much lower temperature and produces iron pure enough for steelcraft in much smaller amounts.

>>645

I'll answer that in a second- in this thread, mind you. But first I'd like you to simply respond to the frequently ignored questions I set before you. To be sure...the actual argument isn't about who developed iron first. Regardless of when, Sub-Sahara Africa did and did so independantly of other civilizations. Great Zimbabwe had stone buildings. There were Sub-Saharan Civilizations. This is fact. You said they didn't and there weren't. You were wrong.

I'm going to number these points and I'd like it if- for a change- you addressed them in turn.

1. Why did the Hittites's civilization fail? I ask you this despite the fact that the discussion portion of a wikipedia article on Hittites has determined they weren't cacausoid in the first place. But you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant, right? What happened?

2.  African Colonization was a modern colonization, a complete purging of history and culture and it only ended quite literally under 30 years ago! Blacks have had civil rights for around 50 years! It took Japan a good 200 years to get their shit  together (Fully modernized) and took China even longer than that. ----- I want to hear you acknowledge this, because you've habitually avoided the issue for several pages now.

3.  What biological proof or hard evidence do you have that any civilization, particularly Sub-Saharan African civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence?

4. Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? I didn't ask you about scientists of today and their emotions. I asked you about colonization then, their emotions toward Africans and it's impact on African history and the perception of Ancient Africa now.

Why is it when it comes to this subject- there's a supposed vehement swell of emotion against "white eurocentrics" that makes the study "tabboo" and that is wrong...but it is not wrong to perpetuate this same swell of emtion towards "Afrocentrics"? What is the difference?

[Read these and answer them *before* you complain about the sources I'm about to share below- because *this* is the core of our argument. (Race/IQ)]

Also, do you mind me asking where did the guy that said the Hittites made iron first get his facts? How about you, "Han dynasty" guy? Where are the sources for anything that you've stated here? If you have sources, then by all means share:

_______________________________________________


5. Iron Age in Africa taken from wikipedia:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age#The_Iron_Age_in_Africa

--I'd like to point out here and now that the discussion portion of the site doesn't question the production of steel itself, but when it took place.


6. Here is another from an Iron Smelting expert/Archeologist:
http://www.ironsmelting.net/www/smelting/index.html (click: "African traditional iron production")

---He goes into detail and then cites his sources:
This can be found in Herbert 1993 (description, explanation and interpretation), Childs and Killick 1993, pp.325-329 and de Barros 1997, pp.141-143 (both are concise summaries of present knowledge and ideas).

7. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi385.htm
 Shore, D., Steel-Making in Ancient Africa. Blacks in Science, Ancient and Modern  (I. Van Sertima, ed.) New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1983, pp.157-162.

8. More on African Metallury:

http://www.der.org/films/inagina.html
---This are reproductions of how the iron was made.

Need anymore proof? If you've actually looked at every link you'll find the evidence is quite contrary to what you say and most of the links here aren't "Afrocentric". If you want more evidence- or if you're refering to something I'm supposed to have access to via the internet; then please specify.

>>647
African bloomeries were just termite mounds under which a fire had been started, and would be stoked by blowing into the base.  Rather ingenious use of what's available in nature, but demonstrates no real understanding of metalwork.  Plus the steel created in this fashion was of much lower quality than steel produced in a blast furnace, it was little better than iron.

Anti-chan is gay.

Screw this debate.  Fine; maybe blacks could have done something awesome with their civilization if things turned out differently.  But really, I don't care; I look at them living in the most advanced society the world has known and squandering their opportunities.  If you're going to keep saying that it's all the white man's fault that africans are in the gutter, then fine.  I'll accept that responsibility (though not any financial restitution for it). 

The future belongs to whoever is going to claim it.  If Africa is going to be the next society to take the modern world by storm ala China, then so be it.  But right now all I see is a bunch of violence and constant backsliding which no other society even in ancient times ever had to deal with. (even russia is a better place to live now than africa, and their upset was arguably a magnitude of times worse than what africa went through). 

But it that's all nurture as you say it is, then fine.  You can't prove it by splitting hairs with the past.  The future is stretched out before them, as finally the white man is relenting (of which you are a testament to).  Lets just see how things turn out. 

UNLESS

>>649
>>651

Why did you not address the questions, I laid out? That's automatical fail to start. Guess some people let their emotion take over no matter how much they hypocritical point out the same thing in others.

And I'm not white.

I'll post them one by one, if it helps:

Here's the first:

1. Why did the Hittites's civilization fail? I ask you this despite the fact that the discussion portion of a wikipedia article on Hittites has determined they weren't cacausoid in the first place. But you'd think with that 1500 hundred year head start they specifically would've been more dominant, right? What happened?

>>649

Steel is steel. Also where is your proof that it was low quality? Oh right. You have none. Per usual.

3.  What biological proof or hard evidence do you have that any civilization, particularly Sub-Saharan African civilization failed because of genetics or lack of intelligence?

4. Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history? I didn't ask you about scientists of today and their emotions. I asked you about colonization then, their emotions toward Africans and it's impact on African history and the perception of Ancient Africa now.

Why is it when it comes to this subject- there's a supposed vehement swell of emotion against "white eurocentrics" that makes the study "tabboo" and that is wrong...but it is not wrong to perpetuate this same swell of emtion towards "Afrocentrics"? What is the difference?

>>654
Am I supposed to trust white systematic colonizers with African history in the same way that I should trust a Nazi with Jewish history?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, you dildo head.

>>652
Because I was ceding the debate.  Learn to understand context.  You're obviously a very well-researched individual, but I don't have time to keep up this debate.  You are thick headed at some points, though I admit I too got caught up in the competition of it and forgot to keep my head clear.

This is where I get off.  Laters.

"Steel is steel. Also where is your proof that it was low quality? Oh right. You have none. Per usual."

Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Though it's funny how crazy it gets when you ask for something simple like evidence and then claims any evidence it doesn't like is all fabricated. Just like cops who were chasing OJ down the highway to the airport planted a disguise, tickets to rio and $5000 dollars or whatever and how this wasn't mentionned in court.

anti-chan: lol blacks invented steel
anonymous: it says here they did it 800 years before they enterred the iron age, where's your proof
anti-chan IT SAYS .EDU AT END OF WEBSITE EVIL RACIST!!
anonymous: no, there is just 1 sentence mentionning it in some corner of a university website where anyone could go on and slip in a sentence like that without gettting much criticism, considerring current afrocentrism and people like you I wouldn't be suprised if it were a lie. Evidence pls.
anti-chan: AM I SUPPOSED TO TRUST NAZIS WHO SAY ARABS INVENTED IRON FIRST IN NORTHERN TURKEY IN THE 12TH CENTURY BC AND NAZIS WHO SAY THAT BLACKS DIDN'T INVENT IRON IN 14TH CENTURY BC??? YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT BLACKS DIDN'T INVENT STEEL!!

>>656

In other words: You fail. You didn't answer any of my questions. I showed you the evidence. No response? Don't you have evidence of the hittites and all that?

>>657

You need to refer to: >>648 - I provided evidence. Non-"Afrocentric" evidence at that. It's just you're so emotionally attached to the subject that you will never believe any of the facts persented. I suspect with your overuse of the word: "Nigger", that you're a racist or at the very least "eurocentric". Why is it wrong to point that out if it's clearly true?

And Like I said: If it's wrong or unfair for me to point that out then why is it wrong or "Afrocentric" to prove the misinterpetations and characterizations of Ancient Africa wrong?  Or to at least show that whites of the latter half of the 18th and early 19th century wouldn't have had African history's best interests at heart?

You say in >>655 that I'm supposed to trust a nazi with with jewish history, therefore I should trust eurocentric historians who haven't even done their research; nor lived among African peoples and share a history of subjegation to the people...so tell me this: Why? Why should I?

If whites are so interested in putting themselves above all other races, why do they usually put asians above themselves?

You say in >>655 that I'm supposed to trust a nazi with with jewish history,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was being sarcastic lol

Back in that time period, a lot of whitewashing did take place.  But we've gotten back the arabic side of what was removed...  Why haven't we gotten back the african side?

>>659

That's just it, though. They don't. How many American-Asian politians, CEOs, etc...do we have in America? Ah, right- virtually none. The psuedo science crowd always use asians as a fall back. It's like: The "I'm not a racist" default sitting. Well: I like asians, so...nyeh!

Remember the Japanese internment camps? Gooks, Nips, Slanty eye. These are term invented by whites. And Guess what? Just because because you *supposedly* set asians above, doesn't prevent whites from setting *themselves* above other races- blacks, arabs, indians, latinos- etc.

The idea setting *any* race above any other is the racism and implies a racial hierarchy.

>>662
If they're going to pseudo-science up everything, why don't they set themselves on top?  As an elaborate ploy to undermine blacks and hispanics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_race

>>662
There aren't that many asians in america besides.

>>662
BTW, you seem to have a problem separating real scientists from racists.  Even if they privately hold those views, you have to find a way to discredit their research (that wikipedia article is one of the best most .edu reference ordained articles on wikipedia, which has constantly withstood people like you trying to undermine it) without ad hominem.  But I guess it's just easier to call them Nazis and ignore them.

This thread sucks, people should think of changing things that are actually changeable... in 50 years, people will be genetically altered and no one will be stupid anymore!

666GET btw

>>663

Fuck if I know. The point I'm making is that white still consider themselves above Asians. You can keep asking this question all you want but: The idea setting *any* race above any other is the racism and implies a racial hierarchy.

>>664

There isn't that many blacks, latino, indians, native Americans either. That's the point.

>>665

No, I don't. Like you said people will deny facts in front of their face for emotional reasons- this applies to scientist as well. This is what you don't get. I just sat here and proved the opposition wrong. Do I get: "You're right, I never saw it liket hat"? No: I get "You're a very well researched individual, baby bored now! Baby wanna play! BIX NOOD!"

And my questions have STILL gone unanswered. Should I post them again for effect?

>>667
Just because you win an argument doesn't make you right.  It means you selected your information well and brought it to the table.  This wasn't a battle between whites and blacks; it was you refuting a specific post.  Which you did a pretty good job of, I'll admit.

I thought someone like you would know that in an argument the point isn't to change someone else's view, but really, to win.  To, hopefully, sway those who haven't decided yet over to your cause.  I on the other hand have no reason to believe that anything you posted reflected anything other than a worldview that tries its hardest to deny genetic implications for moral reasons. 

I've really lost interest, and you just can't seem to comprehend that you won.  You should be breakin' it down and dancing in the street because you won an internet argument with a highschool kid with nothing but a passing interest in the subject while you're obviously (taken from the context about what you said in your posts) a person in college with a whole lot of interest in it (as well as a powerful reason to be interested in it), as well as a whole lot of rescources to help you.

I know you're very emotional right now.  As soon as I realized who you were I kind of got sick myself; up until a few posts ago I thought you were a skinny hippie liberal white guy.  Now that I know that you're not, well, it changes the debate.  I was in it for a rousing competition (not saying I don't agree with the genetics to intelligence to success in life thing) while your reasons were very different. 

Later.

>>668
Basically, what I'm saying is that I really don't want to argue with you because of what winning the argument would do.  I'd have to concede some points that I held onto for the sake of competition, but I'm closer to that than you think. 

I'm not doing it because I don't hate you.  Feel free to hate me, you have that right.

age

I on the other hand have no reason to believe that anything you posted reflected anything other than a worldview that tries its hardest to deny genetic implications for moral reasons.

On the contrary, you have every reason to *not* believe that because I made it clear that g (IQ) is a reflection of genetics AND environment. If you think that one has greater impact than the other, then you are just simply wrong. Nothing moral or emotional about it really.

But Alright, I'll let it go.

neegeroos are mostly idiot-morons.

>>672
Mostly, which is why we need eugenics! The alternatives are equality and racism.

Equality = dumbasses getting into university and wasting money and the human race generally degrading as the IQ 70s churn out babies.
Racism = Führer Fritag every day of the week..

Eugenics is the answer.

>>673

Eugenics is racism and only the answer if you don't believe nuture holds any sway over IQ. Which, we all know is impossible.

>>674
Nurture and nature play a role. Einstein had less opportunities than the children of German nobility, yet he was still a genius.

Yes, I'm complimenting a jew at the expense of rich people and I am a eugenicist, therefore I am not a nazi or an evil capitalist or a racist (my parents are from Bangladesh). That leaves you without personal attacks as a form of debate and only the facts to deal with, so either agree with me or fuck off.

>>675
?Einsteins brain actually had some strange formations in it.

>>673

You're an idiot and a racist. If your definition of equality actually existed, there would be a whole lot more white redneck trailer trash idiots in college. You didn't think of that, though, did you? All you had in mind were those dumb fucking niggers.

>>675

Just because you're from Bangladesh doesn't void you from racist or facist ideals. The only way to make eugenics work is to through totalitarian and facist means. The government has no business controlling the reproduction organs of the society at large. There are no "facts" to debate here, just ideals. And yours are wrong.

>>677
average nigger < trailer trash white

>>679
ghetto trash = trailer trash

fix'd