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.

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.