>>29
The reason so many African countries fail is because of the white countries dominating them economically and militarily.
You can't use that excuse forever, especially when white countries are wasting so much money aiding them. Besides, why aren't they doing the same to us? They had even more time. They could take advantage of us in the middle ages, or even before. Yet they didn't.
>>30
Sorry, but if a category has no definition then it's useless.
It does. If it has black skin, thick hair, fat lips and fat nose, it's black. In case of doubt, look at parents.
You need to take history in perspective.
And I do. Time ran, and whites did some things blacks did not. We are living the consequences.
IQ is BS anyway.
You can argue that it's not representative of one's true intelligence, but it's a series of practical exercises which blacks tend to do slightly worse.
I'll read that as: I happen to not known of any smart blacks.
No, I do know at least two blacks who are pretty smart, just like my smarter white friends. But there's no blacks among Einstein, Sussman, McCarthy, Hawking, Ramon y Cajal, Edison, Steele, Euler, Da Vinci, Gauss, Darwin, Bohr, Schrodinger, ... ... ...
If you can give me data that indicates whites are better at a physical activity than black then I see no problem.
Why not at a mental activity? One you can easily measure with an exam, such as numerical skills? From kids educated in the same schools? Those are invalid, too? What new and amazing excuse will you come up with not to compare what you fear comparing because you already know the result and feel bad about it?
PC fags are pretty harmless (except maybe to your sanity). Bigots are a bigger problem.
Some bigots I'd kill as well. I'd be an equal opportunity dictator.