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.

"Whites" have systematically disenfranshed the "black race" for CENTURIES.

For centuries, huh? They ran down there centuries ago and took over the whole place? Have you ever been to Africa? They still have bushmen in many parts, for fuck's sake.

Now, while I disagree with racism, I'd like to raise just one problem I haven't been able to solve: I used to live in South Africa. Visited Zimbabwe a lot too. Despite all the PC bullshit people heard, the place worked. Violence was low, medicine was available for everyone, and most people had a job. Maybe being a servant ain't all that hot, but the money was rolling.

LOOK AT THAT DUMP NOW. The Blacks got South Africa and Zimbabwe on a fucking platter. No major revolution or anythin. The societies worked. Shit, SA used to be a nuclear power! But now it's full of unemployed, AIDS is everywhere, crime is astronomical, and the place is falling apart. Zimbabwe is even worse, with people dying of starvation!

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY THAT WAS WON THROUGH DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS AND SO COMPLETELY FUCK IT UP IN UNDER A DECADE THAT NO SANE PERSON WOULD WANT TO LIVE THERE?!

Fuck colonialism. That's just an excuse. Look at Asia! Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Malaysia and China! In less than 60 years they've dug themselves out of a fucking hole and are well on their way to ruling the world.

SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!

Meet the new John, same as the old John.

I am tired of seeing negroes and spics everywhere I go. It is hard to get away from the bastards. Iceland is a great place!

Ok I can't be botherred to trudge through all these posts, so I will just highlight some key points.

There are 3 sides to this argument, there is the rational side, then there are the racist and anti-racist sides.

Both sides are illogical. I might say the ancient egyptians were hamitic or arab, some anti-racists would agree, some racists would agree and the assholes on both sides would scream out loud NO THEY WERE BLACK, NO THEY WERE WHITE. At which point I will point out the the egyptians differentiated themselves from both nubians and their mediteranean and middle eastern neighbours, but possessed no negroid features, suggesting they are as they are today. Arabs.

It is simple logic to compose a hypothesis from the facts rather than the other way round. So I'm going to put my key points in the form of observations.

1: Africa is currently extremely poor when compared to the rest of the world.

2: Africa experienced a long period of colonisation by the arabs and later the european powers up until it was replaced by various despots. The middle east, China, India and South east asia experienced the same and apart from their superior culture at the time had experienced no less of the oppression by foreigners than the tribes of sub-saharran Africa had.

3: At around 1000, these non-negroid regions of asia, europe and the mediteranean were about as developped as europe. Some parts of the world were more unified and others more wartorn, but they had large organised agriculture and various industries which allowed them to construct ships, smelt metals etc. Even obscure central America had civilisations to this standard, though ranking with ancient civilisations due to their lack of access to iron and the wheel. The only negro civilisations were satellites to the Islamic caliphates and their governmental system consisted of a patchwork of tribes who constantly fought against each other. The Mali were unified by strong trade ties to their arab neighbours and east Africa was more civilised than the rest of sub-saharran Africa. Africans had had access to the technology of the rest of the world since dawn of civilisation. Having began along the Euphrates flood plains, this knowledge quickly spread to the Nile. Populations increased and their denisty and food surplus allowed them to organise together and build the first towns with grain stores, craftsmen and soldiers. However this movement of civilisation down the Nile began to draw to a close, not due to the environment, the Nile flood plains used the stretch all the way to today's Khartoum (at which point they would still later develop agricultural techniques to irrigate land which did not usually flood). It wasn't until around 2000 B.C. that negro populated areas of the Nile began to leave evidence of civilisation, calling themselves the Kherma at which point the Egyptians began to push south and colonise the area. This wasn't unusual or where the crippling of the negro race all began, it was a standard invasion that every people faced from each other for thousands of years to come. The Mongols used to kill all the men and salt the fields when they came across civilians, but this didn't cripple Russian civilisation for thousands of years. In fact after 500 years of colonisation, Egypt's superpower status in the middle east and the mediteranean began to falter and the people of this region revolted, forming the Kush, then invading Egypt after a Persian invasion to set up Egypt's last dynasty. After the negro peoples invaded Egypt, the civilisation would be a puppet to the Persians, Greeks, Romans and East Roman empire until the Islamic Jihad in the 8th century AD.

Bluh, I can't be botherred to type anymore, just look up haplotypes in google and look at skull shapes like the original poster said.

Can't we all just sing We Are The World, donate grain and cans of food, and ask politely that everyone hold hands and not shoot each other?

>>79

De-evolution is the closet term to what I was trying to say. *YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards. *I'M* saying that mankind has no futher incentive to or my be wholly incabable of any further social or biological evolution.

neegers are low beasts and need to be herded.

>>79
I think it would be possible to evolve in a crippling way though, for example, when weaker and less able bodied individuals can succeed just as well as the more able-bodied ones, then the gene pool begins to get diluted with weaker genes.  As a result, the race becomes weaker.  This is probably a result of our easy life.

>>85
Why didn't I think of that!

>>86
You fail reading x2. Here, let me put this so you can't miss it. Your words:

*YOU* say that De-evolution refer to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.
"De-Evolution" refers to a species evolving backwards.

Plus you talk about science. Evolution in a science context refers to... biology!

>>90

So what're you doing? Trying to drudge up one misused word for lack of a better term so that it- by some miracle- instantly voids all of the valid unrefutable facts in my argument?

Even so- what I meant by "De-evolution" isn't what *you* mean by "De-evolution". Yeah, evolution in a scientific context does indeed refer to biology. Now only if you could empty your brain of the caked-jizz long enough to realize that I'm inferring that mankind incapable of any _further_ evolution. I'm am NOT saying that we are "evolving backwards". I don't know what the exact word for reaching an evolutionary dead-end is- but that's what I was referring to.

Stop latching onto straw man semantics and start saying something of substance. Oh but wait!

You can't because you are a fucktard.

My rebuttal to 81 and 84 is forth coming.

>>81

Very simple. Around the time that these cultures took their leaps into Modernism. They were not still under colonial rule and more importantly- their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.

One thing you have never seen (and more like, never will see)- is a "Unified" Africa. For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized. And Africa has remained politically, culturally and socially "colonized" in a sense- until, oh say, the last 40 or 60 years of the 20th century.

Japan, Greater Asia and the places you mentioned did not have to deal with the practice of the Aparthied. Now, I can conceed to African culture being abject to modernism- but only as a consequence of colonialism. Africa has never been "left alone" to grow culturally, by their own terms to decide as a people to better themselves FOR themselves and to eventually unify. This is why you still have tribes and their old hatreds. 

As a particularly ignorant white person, I don't expect you to look at what "worked" in African terms. It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans. That's why the Apathied system was thrown out in the first place...because what "worked" for white men was Africans being treated as second class citizen in their own homeland.

The cultures that you meantioned were NEVER forcibly uprooted from their culture and their society- from their homes in the name of slavery. It took Japan and China hundreds (300-400) years to "catch up".

Africa is STILL subject in many ways to being used and abused by the west. No matter what you say or believe the US has not been paying attention to Africa- simply because they have already raped the land of it's natural resources.

The only reason (besides the terrorist reason) that we're looking for stability in the middle east is because they have a  majority of the oil- outside of our stockpile. If there was no U.N, if none of the World Wars had happened- I can assure you we'd see a VERY similar situation in Middle East as was the situation in Africa 200 years ago. 

>>84


Your haplotypes don't take into account the fact that given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests. (Not that IQ tests ever really prove anything)

It doesn't take into account the fact that since the spread of human kind across the world that people have cross bred themselves to the point where the idea of their being a evolutionary problem with Africans or any race is pretty much meaningless. If Africans are genetically inept- then so is the rest of the world.

Europeans fucked neanderthals as well. (You DO know that at least, right?) Over all skull shapes and the "visable biology" hold little to no relevance to our species. ALL humans have a neo-cortex, a beast brain and a reptile brain. And the lines between purebreeds is so blurry that it seems archaic to cite this as proof positive that any one race is inferior or superior.

niggers disgust me

Why can't we outsource more labor to Africa instead of mostly South America or Asia? 

>>93
Black children are more hyperactive, even when raised by white stable parents.  Intelligence may be even, but behavior is not.

Ugh...  You're all ignorant if you think that the racial component has nothing to do with the condition of Africa.

>>97

Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.

>>98
Sorry, but in the adult word we require proof for the statements we make.

I agree. Please provide some form of support for the following assertion:

a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests.

Don't like IQ tests? Fine, use a variant of WAIS-R. Don't think there's a possible difference in intelligence between populations? Explain the current interest in Ashkenazi Jews.

>>92
their countries, their cultures were still somewhat unified.

China? Unified? Singapore? Unified? South Korea? Bah. Even India, with their problems, is doing a lot better than Africa.

For example when Japan was trying to catch up to Western technologies- Africa was still very much colonized.

So what? Explain Singapore then. Used to be some pissant fishing village before investment and endless construction turned it into a first-world trading power. China wasn't exactly trying to catch up with the West either, and they got carved up by Western powers. What about Russia? The sure were backward at the start of this century.

It's still very arrogant and intellectually dishonest for you to assume that South Africa "worked" for native Africans.

Oh? Is it now? They were employed, had free medicine (by some of the best doctors in the world no less), and had a low crime rate. Their housing beat what was available elsewhere in Africa by a mile. In pretty much every metric, SA owned the rest of Africa as a place to live for the blacks, even if it wasn't heaven. Look at the current state. Compared to the rest of Africa then, and all of Africa today, it sure "worked".

And how do you die of starvation in Zimbabwe? Since most the workers were black anyway, all they had to do was keep doing the same work they used to. But no, nobody is doing anything and now there's no food. How do you die of starvation in such a fertile land?

As a particularly ignorant white person,

Ah, just the way to convince me! Keep it up, Mr. Know It All! Every time you don't get your way, you start slinging around poorly-hidden barbs (or your completely juvenile rants, like in >>66 or >>91).

Don't like what I wonder? Then resolve this to my satisfaction. Don't like that I wonder? What a hypocrite.

Sad fact is deep, unmixed Africans were never really all that advanced. It was the Islamicized ones who came in contact with the other ancient powers. Once the original larger tribes began to break down into worthless spearchuckers, that was the end of advancement until Zululand. If Zululand had both formed before the middle ages, and didn't suffer an inter-familial battle over lineage, they would've been okay. Zus if I'm recalling correctly were on par with Saracens when they came about, unfortunately Saracens came like almost a millenia earlier. Some things you have to attribute to nothing but plain bad luck and sucky climate. See also Inuit. And if you replace climate with clan infighting, ya's get the premodern Irish.

as a side note, everyone bringing up Euro intervention doesn't seem to notice everybody else but the Red man recovered nicely and are now beating the pants off us. If we didn't get them blazingly drunk the Redskins would probably be walloping the anglos by now too.

i feel truly sorry for all those tribes who were introduced to alcohol. it's just sad to see normal people become like that when they drink. not to mention the addiction. and deaths.

...

Just because you assert something as hard as you can, making up facts to go along with it, doesn't make it true.

The fact is, given an opportunity no worse than what any other race or culture was given, blacks have done nothing.  Black children DO NOT score the same on IQ tests. 

Sorry anti-chan, but due to the sensitivity and corruption of this subject it has never really been conclusively proven than black people are more or less or of equal intelligence than other races. I have seen many sources and statistics concerning the IQ test aswell as 1 good unbiased source about intelligence and ethnicity and I would guess at best that educated non-negroid communities score at around 115, whereas educated negroid communities score less, but above 100. It seems that any community or section of that community unfamiliar with IQ tests scores about the same, for instance school boys in the hebrides scored the same as school boys in Jamaica, however educated Scots scored higher than educated Jamaicans.

Blacks can become doctors and pilots, no problem, I would say the majority of whites are equal to blacks in intellectual capability. I cannot say whether blacks are a standard deviation behind when it comes to critical thought, but there are very few black philosophers, scientists or general pioneers recorded in history. Arabs, Mongoloids and Whites all have histories steeped in fgamous figures, the Greeks, Turks and Chinese all yielded hundreds of inventors and such like. Again the native americans exceeded negroes with their knowledge of the stars, who's priests are forgotten. Each of these major civilised groups had a form of writing and complex method of intensive farming of some sorts, vital for the creation of an ancient state.

Clearly it is not unreasonable to say that negroes never yielded or yielded very few people who pioneered civilisation.

I would like to mention another key point concerning development. Even the most oppressed and wartorn nations attempted to develop a system of protecting their food and other resources, Africans had plenty of time, space and technology to do this. Even Africa's barren regions could concievably support large towns as the steppe peoples in Kazak and Dhungaria achieved, in fact this occurred in the great Zulu city of Zimbabwe, however this came 3800 years too late and was only due to influence to develop from colonial influences around the coasts. It's almost as if south Africa had traded with the east african settlements for millenia without any hint of thinking they could or should try to achieve something similiar.

Other peoples did this a lot faster, a flood of new technologies, deep sea fishing, bronze, irrigation allowed more parts of the world to increase their populations and form civilisations, but in Africa everything remained stagnant and for much too long. Eventually even the north europeans drained the swamps and burnt down the forests to create farmland. Africa was about as hospitable as Europe circa 3000 BC, Europe wasn't always acres and acres of lush farmland, it all had to be worked for.

should i tripcode?

>>100

You can't "Bah" away the truth forever. Singapore and those other countries are still unified by their history. Africa has no history that doesn't include colonialism in some way. In a way I suppose no country can ever be truly "unified". But then again Africa is bigger that a majority of those countries you mentioned- bigger than the United States.

FACT: Africa has been raped of a majority of it's natural reasources. It's gold, it's oil. FACT: Africa has been raped of  it's natural people- who were displaced by a system of SLAVERY up until the last 400 years. Sure, tribes did sell other tribes. But if the Europeans actually did things in Africa's interest- Slavery would've been outlawed anyway.

Africa's culture and social structure were gutted- and a place as big Africa requires an amount of time to decide as a people to go forward into modernizm. It doesn't matter what you say- Africa is unique in it's situation- and it's time for you to own up to the nearly-unrecoverable damage constant over colonization has done.

Comparing Africa to these other places shows a huge ignorance on your part. Dude, the Apathied ended in the EIGHTIES. That's the end of the arguement right now. You're expecting Africa to do in 20 years what took most countries 50-60-HUNDREDS years (China), neverminding the fact that these countries are SMALLER, didn't have to deal with the cultural and social displacement of their peoples.

And then you go on to say that "it wasn't heaven" but that "those niggers should've just dealt with being slaves in everything but name". Ok, just admit it dude- you don't know what the fuck goes on in African society. You don't know how South African's felt about being colonialized.

Say what you want about Africa. The fact is that a system has always been in place to keep these people uneducated, detached from their natural history and culture and riddled with diseases.

And you expect them to get their shit together in 25 years?

Ridiculous.

Hey and you know? PEOPLE STARVE TO DEATH IN AMERICA TOO. What you simply REFUSE to address is the simple fact that America and those other countries just flat out have more money than Africa. That's because they still have their natural resources to export.

Can you please go to the internet and look up the Aparthied and look at how long African has had to deal with whites? Because (A) Whites being somewhere isn't ALWAYS good. and (B) You will find that no continent has had to deal with what African has had to deal with.
 

>>105

An experiment with the proper conditions, taken OUT of the current culural and social context of race- completely isolated- but both raised in a society where "Race" isn't an issue- yes. An experiment like this has never taken place.

Your arguement presents many gray areas, while at the same not addressing any of the gray areas that are already there. No Black philosophers? Ok, dude, suuuuurrre. You need to hit up google for black philosophers, inventors and the like. You can start at the Moors and get back to us when you get to Mbiti, Hountondji, Kante and Wiredu. Jesus was "Black", what about him?

Just because you are ignorant of these people existing, doesn't mean they don't exist. What? Are you going to complain about the quality of the inventions or the philosophy now? I think these people have done alright considering all that Africa and Black Americans have gone through. These people are only still being recognised for their achievements. Blacks barely got the right to vote 60-70 fucking years ago.

Africans didn't have plenty of space, time, money, technology. Stop lying. Or maybe you THINK it's true. But it's not, obviously.

Genologist? LOL. More like Scientific Racist.

FACT: Africa has been raped of a majority of it's natural reasources. It's gold, it's oil. FACT: Africa has been raped of  it's natural people- who were displaced by a system of SLAVERY up until the last 400 years.

It hasn't been raped of the majority of its resources. Not even close. The mines in South Africa are still chugging along just fine, and they were never really developed anywhere else in Africa. Provide some authoritative data or publication that supports your assertion, because it counters everything I've seen.

It hasn't been raped of its natural people either. A few percentage points is rape now? And even if it was rape, it stopped _several generations ago_. The current African population is about 800 million. Why is New Zealand, with four million people, richer than most the 800 million combined? What the fuck are those 800 million doing?

it's time for you to own up to the nearly-unrecoverable damage constant over colonization has done.

Like what? Europe dominated Asia too! Where are they now? Oh, that's right, they're either economic superpowers or well on their way to being one. What about Africa? Bunch of warlords, dictators, and bushmen.

Amusingly enough, the world has been dumping plenty of money into Africa. As we can see, it's had little effect. It's not the West that can't take responsibility, it's the blacks who squander it. Where did all the money go?

Dude, the Apathied ended in the EIGHTIES. That's the end of the arguement right now. You're expecting Africa to do in 20 years what took most countries 50-60-HUNDREDS years (China)

Yes, it ended in the 80s... with a first world infrastructure. China, Japan, Singapore, India, and all the rest had to **build it on their own**. They didn't have factories, roads, telephone lines, hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure. South Africa was already there (they even had nuclear power!). Zimbabwe was already there. That's what I mean when I say the blacks got a functioning society on a platter.

But then again Africa is bigger that a majority of those countries you mentioned

And small in comparison to China or India. There are numerous examples of countries smaller than Africa, and a few larger, that are all vastly more successful. Why?

>>108
An experiment like this has never taken place.

In other words, you have no data to back up your assertion.

Maybe blacks, whites, and asians are equal in intelligence. Then again, maybe they aren't. You still haven't explained away the interest in Ashkenazi jews; apparently some populations are more intelligent than others.

You can start at the Moors

The Moors were Arabs. We all know the Arabs had some impressive societies. Indeed, while Europe was a backwater during the Middle Ages, it was the Arabs who preserved enlightened knowledge from the ancients, and extended it a quite a bit.

When we say "blacks", we mean negros, not arabs. So, what about the other 4/5 of Africa?

BTW, I'm certain Arabs will be delighted to be called black.

So, in order to defend "blacks" you're redefining the universally-accepted definition of negros to include arabs as well?

That's pathetic.

Pardon me, it looks like I was mistaken.

Well ignore that then. Explain away the first paragraph instead. Without data, how do you know all races are equal in intellect?

(and what about the other 4/5 of Africa?)

>>110

I expressed no "interest" in Ashkenazi Jews. But since you brought it up...

Ashkenazi Jews come a CULTURE of social selection for intelligence. Which makes IQ an inate hereditary compenent. This  proves nothing- in fact- Black Americans in particular were bred for physical attributes NOT intellectual and the Europeans capped this off by keeping these people purposefully uneducated.

If you bred any one human for one particular trait and raised them in a culture where that trait was desirable- you would more than likely get the same effect. The only way you couldn't believe this is if you held the pre-concieved notion that blacks (or any other given race) is genetically inferior.

Still. There is no Black, white or Ashkenazi Jew gene or gene grouping. Espeically for Intelligence.

And No, I don't have the hard data. But then again, I'm not going around saying any one race is BIOLOGICALLY predisposed to unintelligence. Given equal opportunites, equal culture and the proper mind-set, I think that any one human can do anything.

Yeah and um, I'm not ignoring the Moors part. The Moors were VERY, VERY black. Their skin was darker than the skin of modern day Africans (or Blacks). --This, along with the philosophers I've named just goes to show your ignorance when it comes to the subject of African culture.

The very reason the Moors were so successful is BECAUSE they had a society that favored intelligence...just like...oh lets see...your Ashkenazi Jews.

 

>>109

I am truly and utterly sick of you coming back with this "do you have a publication supporting..." nonsense when you have habitually failed to provide the same since the beginning of this argument. Why pretend that you care about any proof I have when you're just going to pull a "well ignore that then".

Listen, I've already outlined WHY Asia is well on their way to being an "economic superpower" (the jury is still out on that one.) There is no way you can say any of those countries have dealt with colonization as long as Africa has.

Yeah, we've dumped money into Africa- (not enough if you ask me)  but the very way you used the term "dumped" shows just how much care has actually gone into it. First (and again) Africa is WAY bigger as a country and more myriad as a culture and a nation.

"Where does all the money go?" Good question- maybe if America was so apathetic about the money- there would accountablity in that department. But we only start to care about where the money goes (like the oil-for-food program) when some smashing a plane into one of our skyscrapers. Maybe- when the Africans start bombing US soil- you'll start to ask those questions.

As for SA's "first world infrastructure" - it was still an infrastructure that EXCLUDED the native Africans. THAT'S WHAT THE APARTHIED WAS ALL ABOUT, STUPID.

To further your food analogy- it's like having an African (who didn't teach a lick of governing prowess or even the way your FINANCIAL SYSTEMS work) help a Chinese man make Mandrian Duck by handing him the ingredients never telling him the names of them or what they taste like- they handing some OTHER African the platter and telling him he can only eat it with chop sticks, the African NEVER have seen chopsticks before.

Alright, horrible analogy, but with purpose. Yours was just as bad, Africa hasn't handing ANYTHING on a "silver platter" that's a gross over-simplification of things. Especially when Africans had to FIGHT for that "silver platter."

Are you done bullshitting now?

Oh and sorry for the errors, I'm temporary blind in one eye over here and have been on painkillers for the last week and a half.

Don't ask.

What happened?

>>114
Why pretend that you care about any proof I have when you're just going to pull a "well ignore that then".

Because that "ignore that then" came from research. I knew Moors were Muslim, so assumed they were Arab, but something niggled at me (Shakespeare namely), so I went and looked it up. So clearly I am prepared to change my stance in the face of new evidence.

Now, why should you provide evidence? Actually, instead of that, why aren't you providing evidence? You made the claim, now back it up. I, at the least, lived and traveled across Africa, so I have a basis to work from. I find it quite strange how you aren't crushing my arguments with facts and references.

Why not? Prove I'm wrong. I want you to. I don't like the cognitive dissonance I get from believing that racism is wrong, yet at the same time being unable to develop an explanation about what went wrong in South Africa and Zimbabwe, or what is going on in the rest of Africa. I asked the question, you claim to have the answer. Prove it.

As for SA's "first world infrastructure" - it was still an infrastructure that EXCLUDED the native Africans.

Oh, yes it was. Blacks lived in townships. Even so, they were everywhere. They had medicine, employment, and free education up and including university (albeit rather poor). Why do you think the Afrikaaners kept the blacks around? For cheap employment. So it's not like the blacks were dumped into something new and strange.

In Zimbabwe, many of them were working on farms producing food. So, what happened there? Why are they all hungry? Did they suddenly forget everything they had been doing most their lives? Are you telling me they'd rather do nothing and starve to death?

Are you done bullshitting now?

Are you done being a child? Stop the useless ad hominem attacks ard prove me wrong already.

Ashkenazi Jews come a CULTURE of social selection for intelligence. Which makes IQ an inate hereditary compenent. This  proves nothing- in fact- Black Americans in particular were bred for physical attributes NOT intellectual and the Europeans capped this off by keeping these people purposefully uneducated.

In short, populations can have different intelligence and physical distributions. So an equal IQ is by no means assured.

>>115
WAS IT A DOLPHIN SEMEN ACCIDENT? 

YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, THOSE THINGS SHOOT JETS OF SEMEN UP TO 30 FEET!

>>>don't like the cognitive dissonance I get from believing that racism is wrong, yet at the same time being unable to develop an explanation about what went wrong in South Africa and Zimbabwe, or what is going on in the rest of Africa.

I found another way to solve that problem myself.  I believe that we should just accept that some things will go wrong in the world whatever the reason.  To try to solve everything, we'll become a race that constantly tries to improve ourselves at the cost of individuality, like the nazis. 

So it's because we value individuality we have to accept dumb niggers.

it's a price to pay, you see.  It's just the way it is.