Fighting racism

[Fadix]

Originally posted by loseyourname Whoa there, Fadix. I don't care about brain size or cranial capacity. I never said Africans had smaller heads then Whites. I just said that there is a difference between the races, that is all. Don't start posting pages upon pages of irrelevant material. Please stick to addressing the several points I have outlined in my posts to you.

Louseyourname, cranial capacity is a parameter among others that is used to claim that whites and blacks are different enough to consider them as different races, so it is expected that I cover each of the claims one by one. I just though that this would be the first to cover since it was the most irrelevant one and wanted to clarify that up before starting.

[loseyourname]

Just address the points I gave you, or post evidence to show that race does not exist. Don't refute arguments I didn't make. I am sick of everybody's straw man tactics around here.

[Anonymouse]

Edited by loseyourname: Cool it guys. Keep your arguments private.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by loseyourname Just address the points I gave you, or post evidence to show that race does not exist. Don't refute arguments I didn't make. I am sick of everybody's straw man tactics around here.

Louseyourname, cranial capacity is part of MY argument to discredit the theses of different races, it is a physiological claimed differences that some uses to justify the classification of people under different races. I never claimed you discussed about the differences of the brain size. And as well, have in mind that I told Dan that he would find the answers for his questions in my reply to you. If you want that I address to Dan when discussing those issues of brain size etc... I can do that, I would have no problem doing that.

Edited by loseyourname: Don't worry about it, Fadix. Let's all be civil here. Both of you.

[Anonymouse]

If you are going to edit posts, you might as well edit Fadix' above essay on smearing me.

[Darorinag]

There is absolutely no way to substantiate that claim, as it is impossible to measure the intelligence of large groups of people that existed nearly ten thousand years ago.

Yes, but I am talking about looking at current trends of race vs. intelligence and relating that to those who existed 2000 years ago (not necessarily 10,000 years...). We do know that there was no significant civilisation developed by blacks (in Africa). And we know that all the other civilisations were either developed by whites (Caucasoids/Meds/Nords) or Natives, or Asians (mongols, etc.). Negroids are the only ones who don't have a civilisation attributed to them. We might not be able to measure the intelligence of those who lived 10,000 years before us, but we can compare all the circumstances (environmental, etc.) between the different peoples of ancient times, and arrive to a pretty accurate guess about what it was that caused this absence of civilisation for blacks... Agriculture existed for almost all civilisations (so if you consider agriculture to be a necessity for the development of a civilisation, you have it in Africa too, and they had it 10,000 years ago most probably). Harsh weather circumstances, you have that everywhere. In fact, cold is a bigger impediment than heat...

Then what were they, Dan? Did multiple races of humans beings just spontaneously come into existence at the same time? From where? From what?

No.... they all came from Adam and Eve, and then they had black and white and asian babies...

the reason a group of people's skin color would darken over evolutionary time is that dark skin color would be selected by females that realize it is advantageous for survival. European women living in Africa today are not thinking about this. They live in houses and have sunscreen. In fact, they are more likely to mate with the whitest person they can find, not the darkest, because they are making the decision based on cultural values, not biological necessity.

So you're saying that women naturally chose black (by instinct)? Somehow I doubt it. Because if it were true then, it would be true now. And if culture plays a role now, it would've played a role then.

Africans survived perfectly fine. They didn't need any civilization.

Yes, and that is why I am claiming that Africans were primitive. Therein lies the difference. They had no other aspirations and abilities. All they wanted to do was go hunting, bring home the game, eat, f*ck, and sleep, breed babies. Just simple animal nature. Whereas the other races transcended their animal nature. It is civilisation that distinguishes humans from animals. And Africans lacked that. Which is why we see today how most blacks in Africa live, like pseudo-animals. Primitive. Except in South Africa and a few other places where white civilisation touched it, or where the blacks had contact with non-blacks through travel outside the continent. The post-apartheid situation in South Africa is a very good example. Women are being raped (and not just white women), people being robbed, farms being destroyed. Utterly animalistic way of thinking. IF ALL whites leave South Africa, the country that is the most "civilised" in Africa will go down to the level of the other PRIMITIVE countries. And not because of the lack of money. But because of the lack of organising minds.

The greatest thinkers and political and philosophical pioneers were either Greek or Italian (or Europeans at any rate). A few Asians too. But no blacks. I am talking about the REAL thinkers of the ancient times - Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Machiavelli, etc. I'm not talking about today's overblown image of what art and philosophy and literature mean, and what the concept of "great mind" refers to.

Also note that when talking about the state of agriculture 5,000 years ago, we must take into account the climate shifts.

Rainforest nutrients are contained primarily in the upper canopy. If you clear the trees, which would be the first major (and I mean major) obstacle to agriculture, the ground soil would only be fertile for three season at most. Also, there are no domesticable animals in sub-Saharan Africa, except possibly the zebra and hyena, but these would not be suitable as food stock. Furthermore, there exist no plants that could be grown as crops in sub-Saharan Africa. All of the food plants are trees, and trees take years to grow. Agriculture is dependent on seasonal crops.

Improved, yield-enhancing technologies (improved seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) are scarcely used. During 1993, the rate of fertilizer consumption in sub-Saharan Africa was 11 kg/hectare compared to 129 kg/hectare in Asia and 67 kg/hectare in Latin America (Fig.2).



Use of Irrigation. In spite of the highly variable and in many cases insufficient rainfall, and the high incidence of droughts, food production in sub-Saharan Africa is almost entirely rainfed. In 1993, irrigated land as a percentage of total cultivated area was estimated at 5 percent for sub-Saharan Africa, 37 percent for Asia and 14 percent for Latin America (Fig.3).

Irrigation potential in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at around 33 million hectares, of which only about 16 percent is currently being utilized.


Crop Yields. For the period 1993-95, cereal yield (including rice in milled equivalent) in sub-Saharan Africa was 41 percent of Asian yield and 44 percent of Latin American yield. On the other hand, trials by researchers on farmers’ fields in many sub-Saharan countries have revealed the existence of a very large gap between farmers’ yields and the achievable potential.

Increasing productivity. Food production in sub-Saharan Africa generally follows a rainfall-determined seasonal pattern, with all production activities confined to no more than 6 to 8 months, the remaining months of the year being the so-called "off-season". By assuring year-round availability of water, production can be intensified through double or multiple cropping, thus raising resource productivity and total production. Research studies have found that, other things being equal, yields on irrigated land in sub-Saharan Africa average 3.5 times those from rainfed land. This has tremendous implications. Currently, irrigation potential in the sub-region is estimated at 33 million hectares, of which only 16 percent or 5.3 million hectares are being utilized, leaving 27.7 million hectares unutilized. While the realization of the full potential would be constrained by economic and technical factors, a tapping of even 10 percent of the potential could lead to full substitution of cereal imports.

Moreover, by applying supplementary irrigation to rainfed crops, the water stress caused by short, dry spells during the growing season can be minimized, thus substantially raising rainfed production as well.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w1144e/w1144e54.htm

---

Canal origins
The present system of canals was developed by three groups: the ancient Hohokam Indians, the pioneers, and the federal government.

The Hohokam
Archaeologists believe the Hohokam Indians were peaceful farmers who inhabited the Salt River Valley for about a thousand years, from A.D. 300 to 1450. They are most noted for constructing irrigation ditches with stone hoes.

The Hohokam canal system traversed nearly 500 miles and may have served as many as 50,000 people at a time. The Indians lived here for more than 1,000 years, but left the Valley by about A.D. 1450. Nobody knows exactly why they left.

The Hohokam set the groundwork for today's major canal system, which follows many of the same paths.

The precise locations of all the Hohokam canals are unknown. During the past 100 years, ruined Hohokam villages were plowed under or paved over on both sides of the Salt River from Mesa to Tolleson. By 1920, archaeologists had identified 150 miles of ancient canals, most of which have been destroyed by land development.

Even so, steps have been taken to preserve some Hohokam history. The protected ruins at Pueblo Grande Museum are an example. Located near 44th and Washington streets, Pueblo Grande uses history to show how today's water system developed.

The pioneers
The adobe ruins of the Hohokam baked in the Arizona sun for some 400 years. Then in the 1860s, a central Arizona gold rush brought an influx of non-Indians, including an ex-Confederate cavalryman named Jack Swilling.

Perhaps Swilling noticed the ruined Hohokam canals and thought they could work again. In any event, in December 1867, he formed the Swilling Irrigation and Canal Company at the gold camp at Wickenburg. With 16 others, he intended to take water from the Salt River via a canal so he could grow crops to sell to miners at Wickenburg and the U.S. Cavalry stationed at Ft. McDowell. That waterway became known as Swilling Ditch.

By March 1868, Swilling and his partners had harvested their first crops on land near the present-day Arizona State Hospital. During that same month, a government survey party came to the Valley and noted that a small community calling itself 'Phoenix' had appeared on the scene.

In a short while, the whole area went "canal crazy." Dozens of ditches were started, and some enterprising individuals even tried to make water in canals flow uphill.

The more successful canal projects were the work of private companies and associations, which assessed members a fee for construction and maintenance.

http://www.srpnet.com/water/canals/history.asp

---

And? What's your point, Dan? Finding a couple of tomb's doesn't give you anyway to measure the intelligence of groups of dead people.

What then explains the subjugation of blacks throughout (ancient and more modern) history, and the fact that they didn't have a civilisation or empire? Every other continent / race did.

It only supports the fact that Africans did not develop civilization. No one is disputing this. Your evidence does nothing to say why they didn't develop civilization.

Maybe, but the fact that they didn't aspire to develop one might mean that they were either 1) Lazy 2) Unable to.

Your attributing it to an innate lack of intelligence is entirely speculation. There is no way of determining whether or not, ten thousand years ago. sub-Saharan Africans were on average less intelligent than Europeans.

Assuming (and there is no proof that cold weather is preferable to hot weather in terms of developing civilisation...) that the hurdles of weather/climate facing each race were about the same, what explains the fact that Europeans developed civilisations and empires, whereas blacks didn't? Moreover, what explains the fact that the Hohokam developed irrigation system despite the fact that they didn't have very good agricultural possibilities (which you're claiming to be a prerequisite for the development of civilisation)?

You are arguing in a way that gives the impression that Africans were basically screwed over by their geographical location and climate. They have never been an adventurous race. They have never ventured to go out looking for better places, to conquer better lands, to think about building ships and sail out in various directions with the hope of finding a better place to live in or occupy. It is human nature to think about things that animals don't think about - namely culture and civilisation. As I said, that's what makes us HUMANS rather than BEASTS. All other races have thought about it. But blacks haven't. What does that tell you? Still nothing? Still that blacks are equal to whites/asians/natives in intelligence and aspirations?

There is a huge stock of bacterial and viral genetic variability in Africa.

Perhaps it's the survival of the fittest then. And evidently, blacks are not very fit to survive. Perhaps that is why they breed so much. Perhaps it's animal instinct. And remember, I am not saying this in a sarcastic/offensive tone. I mean it. Blacks outside of Africa have been civilised and given the shape of human beings. Blacks in Africa do not. Others are not to be blamed for their poverty. They have not taken any step towards enhancing trade or agriculture, in history. And when other civilisations came along, all they could do was be colonised. Non-blacks are not to be blamed for Africa's poverty. In fact, Egypt, Morocco, Libya fare QUITE well for countries in Africa. The majority of North Africans are not black. And of course, you're going to claim that it's bordered by the Mediterranean sea, but east and west africa are bordered by water too, and certainly could make MUCH use of it.

[Darorinag]

There was a larger, healthier African population living in Africa before the arrival of Europeans than there is today.

That's because the "healthier" Africans are now in USA, Canada, Europe. In other words, saved from the animalistic primitive life. And I suppose they shouldn't be grateful for it. Not even for their slavery... Heh... Considering that they were saved from hunger and death... eh? Talk about the ultimate demonisation of whites... Perhaps it was all for bad reasons that they were taken out of Africa, but the positive sides (for them) far outweigh the suffering they had to go through. They would probably be rotting in some hut in Africa instead of living in clean houses THEY OWN, attending university, basically being able to read and write......

Along with healthcare, Europeans brought civil unrest and large-scale technological warfare that has made Africa one of the most dangerous places in the world to live, if not the most dangerous.

Yes yes, blame the whites... as always... what a peaceful place Africa was, and naturally, the evil Europeans came and ruined it all.... and of course, not only did they do that, they also taught them how to use fertilizers, irrigate the land, etc. And now they have to provide them millions of dollars in monetary aid, simply because AIDS-stricken blacks refuse to stop having sex and breeding more babies. How smart of them indeed!!! Blame the whites. They should've brought some TV's into the continent to educate them. After all, they can't think for themselves...

You could say the same thing about the south Pacific Islands

Yes, they are black too.

or about many rural parts of South America.

South America is not completely white. It's a mixture of white, black, white&black, Asian, and European (especially spanish). Have you ever seen how black a native Brasilian is? Perhaps you should.

Let us not forget either, that disease does not kill off nearly as many Africans as malnutrition and large-scale warfare, two things that were not a problem until Europeans came onto the scene.

Yes, but malnutrition is an even better pointer to how primitive and underdeveloped (or rather, UNDEVELOPED) they are, compared to fighting disease, curing which is not always a guaranteed thing...

Yes yes, blame the Europeans... Naturally, THEY were the ones who caused all this havoc in Africa.... Of course...

Politics in Africa.. what an oxymoron.... give them guns and they will slaughter one another. guns were given for the purpose of self-protection. But it even turned against them. Just look at the number of white farmers in post-apartheid South Africa who have been shot dead by the guns the white people developed and gave the blacks....

It is believe in some African cultures that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. A lot of Americans in the bible belt refuse medical treatment and prefer to pray to cure their cancer. These are equally stupid ways of dealing with illness. Illogicality is not confined to any one race.

You are talking about exceptions in America. I am talking about widespread idiocy in Africa. The two are obviously incomparable.

Again, Dan, you are talking here about what has happened well after the advent of civilization.

Obviously not. It is very relevant. Because I am talking about things that were developed by THINKING about things other than sleeping, f*cking, eating. The very act of thinking about it is the beginning of civilisation.

I say it was because the environment they lived in did not favor agriculture, and as a result, physical strength was the prevalent trait selected for, whereas in the parts of the world where agriculture did develop, intelligence was the prevalent trait selected for.

Physical strength? Au contraire, my friend. Blacks in Africa are not strong. Blacks in America, Europe, etc. are. That's due to the nutrition. Again, in humans, superiority is not about physical strength. In animals, it is. I could be the tiniest person in the whole world, but I can still beat the tallest and physically strongest person on earth through intelligence, even if it came to a physical confrontation.

It is evidence that they were more technologically advanced and were mightier. That does not mean superior, unless in your book, might makes right.

Might doesn't necessarily make it right, but how you ARE stronger technologically (not physically, mind you - and you're referring to that) than the other person tells it all. See what I said above.

If it were about CLIMATE (in the case of Egypt, for example), why don't today's Egyptians have a huge empire or civilisation like the pharaohs? They are not the same people. Today's Egyptians are not the same Egyptians that built the pyramids. And THAT is where race comes in. THAT is where intelligence and superiority comes in.

I've seen your picture Dan, and I'm willing to bet any African out there could take you in a fight. Hell, I could probably take you, and I'm a twiggy little powder-puff.

Don't bet on it. I've fought against 5-6 large-build cops. They could barely get me down. Chances are, I can probably beat you in a dual...

Relax, Dan. It is irrelevant to a discussion of why civilization only arose in certain places in ancient times. I never said it's completely irrelevant.

We're not talking about geography here, specifically. We're talking about why in ALL of Africa, there wasn't a single example of or even MARKERS of civilisation. What explains it? Climate? Surely the Incas had to face some of the same challenges. The land? Ditto. What else, then? If it's not about land or climate, what can explain it?

[Darorinag]

Dan, fighting racism is the subject of the thread, but “racism” here is the original definition, which means the classification of races.

You said:

"First evidences to the court of this board against the other party consisting of two racists."

You constantly agreed with anileve's interruptions about me being a white supremacist and a hater. That clearly doesn't refer to the racial differences definition of racism. It clearly refers to the racism as in "anti-certain-races" racism. And the title "fighting racism" sure gives that impression. So it's fair game.

Fadix, how can you say there are no races when there are obvious PHENOTYPICAL differences between blacks, whites, and asians? I'm talking about major ones. Like skin colour and skull shape. That should be enough to say that there are races. You are fighting with political correctness and the newly found fantasy of "equality" against science. I suppose that is hypocritical for someone who claims to have studied physical anthropology for quite some time.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag You said:

"First evidences to the court of this board against the other party consisting of two racists."

You constantly agreed with anileve's interruptions about me being a white supremacist and a hater. That clearly doesn't refer to the racial differences definition of racism. It clearly refers to the racism as in "anti-certain-races" racism. And the title "fighting racism" sure gives that impression. So it's fair game.

Fadix, how can you say there are no races when there are obvious PHENOTYPICAL differences between blacks, whites, and asians? I'm talking about major ones. Like skin colour and skull shape. That should be enough to say that there are races. You are fighting with political correctness and the newly found fantasy of "equality" against science. I suppose that is hypocritical for someone who claims to have studied physical anthropology for quite some time.

Dan, I have explained you that the term racist I used was the original definition, not the modern term. When I use the word racist I use it in its orginal form. You do have a race cathegorisation belief. You can or can not hate blacks, it does not make any differences.

Dan, as for me saying that races does not exist. When we allude to races to discribe the blacks, whites etc... it is only a common term, it has nothing to do with a real indexing. If you do not believe me just choose whatever biologist you want in your university and ask him if blacks and whites are of different races and you'll see what I mean.

[Darorinag]

If you do not believe me just choose whatever biologist you want in your university and ask him if blacks and whites are of different races and you'll see what I mean.

That is irrelevant. We both know that 99% of the world (and university is no exception) is politically correct. It means nothing. Majority doesn't mean "right."