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.

>>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.