Fighting racism

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag 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."

No Dan, the problem is that usually in the animal Kingdom, we differciante races because of physiologic differences that are just more than color and insignificant differences like that, this is one of the reason that Rushton manipulated his studies with the cranial capacity, to "forge" a new physiological difference to justify the existance of races.

[Darorinag]

No Dan, the problem is that usually in the animal Kingdom, we differciante races because of physiologic differences that are just more than color and insignificant differences like that, this is one of the reason that Rushton manipulated his studies with the cranial capacity, to "forge" a new physiological difference to justify the existance of races.

You mean we have various dog breeds not because of the way they look, but because of the "physiological" differences between them? There are more differences in the physiological construction of people of different races than there is between different dog breeds.

There are different dog breeds because they don't look the same way, they don't act the same way, and they certainly don't have the same intelligence level.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag You mean we have various dog breeds not because of the way they look, but because of the "physiological" differences between them? There are more differences in the physiological construction of people of different races than there is between different dog breeds.

There are different dog breeds because they don't look the same way, they don't act the same way, and they certainly don't have the same intelligence level.

This is highly innacurate.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Fadix This is highly innacurate.

Is it? How so?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Darorinag [B]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...).

I have already explained how the current trends could have arisen from environmental circumstances. It is a hypothesis that you cannot disprove.

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

Your humor is cute, but I'm serious. I think it's a safe assumption, regardless of what theory you buy into, that all of today's humans are descended from a single ancestral group. What this means is that we all basically started in the same place and ended up where we are today. Now we have the task of attempting to figure out why it is that some people developed advanced civilizations and others did not. It is counterproductive to postulate, as you are doing, that one race was simply inferior to the others. I am trying to figure out why they were inferior.

I really think we're going on different planes here, Dan. You're talking about the ancient Greeks, and Africans 2,000 years ago, but these groups existed well after the fact. Greeks did not invent civilization. Civilization arose in three places independently: India, Sumeria, and Central America. The Greeks were an offshoot of the Sumerians, and much of Greek civilization was borrowed from Egypt. What I am trying to figure out is why it arose in these three places, and not others. Central America I have no answer for, but the answer is rather obvious in Sumeria and India. These people lived on the banks of extremely fertile rivers, in valleys where the development of agriculture was a complete no brainer. Agriculture leads to civilization, and civilization leads to more civilization. Once these people didn't have to worry about bringing home their food every night, they could do more "human" things like think about their world and invent mythologies and build cities, and again, once agriculture is in place, the prominent trait needed to survive becomes intelligence, not physical strength. This took place at least 6,000 years ago, and would have given plenty of time for Africans to be lagging quite far behind by the time 2,000 years ago came around.

Nonetheless, as we are all (presumably) descended from a single group of people, no one race had an inherent head start. Now relax here, Dan. My hypothesis does not threaten your precious world view that Africans are an intellectually inferior people, or even that they have been for some time. My hypothesis only attempts to explain why that is. Your hypothesis isn't even a hypothesis. You are just saying that they are. Well, why? There has to be a reason. You are coming up with nothing.

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.

Why would it be true now? Being black gives no survival advantage as soon as you have cities and housing and sunscreen. Obviously, this was the direction that selection went in in the past, or we would not have any dark-skinned people.

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.

This doesn't matter, Dan. All of these great thinkers lived thousands of years after civilization first came into existence. Believe me, I am not trying to deflate their importance, nor will I make any attempt to level the playing field through some stupid claim of "multiculturalism." These men were simply greater thinkers than the thinkers of other cultures. I am with you on this, so chill out.

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).

I'm not going to quote your entire agricultural rant, but I will reiterate what I was saying. Sub-Saharan Africa is a rainforest. In a rainforest, the bulk of the nutrients exists in the canopy. Because of this, you can only farm the soil for three seasons after you have cleared all the trees. The reason they are able to continue farming after this, and with little fertilization, is because they are continually clearing new land. That is why we have such a startling rate of depletion of rainforests. And of course they will need little irrigation, as there is plenty of rain year-round, as is rather obviously implied by the term "rainforest."

Now this is all rather beside the point. You cannot farm rainforest unless you first clear all of the trees, and you bring in domesticable species from others continents. The only native African species that was ever domesticated is the camel. Ancient Africans, and ancient Sumerians for that matter, could not have cleared the rainforest. It is necessary to use controlled burns and heavy equipment that did not exist back then.

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.

People like you, that think because they aren't as smart or as civilized as you, they deserve to be subjugated. How do you explain the subjugation of Armenians over the past several centuries?

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

My point exactly, Dan. They didn't have any means by which to clear rainforest, so they couldn't develop agriculture. They were "unable to."

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?

Climate isn't the point. In fact, a tropical, equatorial climate is ideal, as there isn't a whole lot of variance and you have a lot of rain year round. The point is that you can't farm in a rainforest. You have to clear it first, and no one in the ancient world, black or otherwise, could have done this.

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)?

Hohokams didn't live in a rainforest. Africans, as you have pointed out, don't even need much irrigation once they have cleared the land, because rainfall alone is sufficient. This is all rather beside the point.

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.

I am arguing in a way that takes only circumstance into account. Unlike you, who is arguing based on what ancient Africans were thinking. There is a difference. My claims can be verified. Yours can't, as there is no way to know what an ancient African was thinking. My hypothesis is at least in principle verifiable, whereas yours isn't. It is only speculation and can never be any more.

[Anonymouse]

There is far more genetic variation within a breed of dog than there is between breeds. Ask someone to pet the wolf and not the greyhound and see how stupid that is. And yet it is only just a few genes that determine the ferocity of a wolf and the gentleness of greyhound. Nevermind the low IQ of greyhounds compared to other dogs. They now have dog contests or shows that are "performance" in nature. Intelligence in dogs is always consider for breeding practices as highlighted in "The Intelligence of Dogs" from a simple search on amazon.com. So, the same rule applies to human breeds and races.

[loseyourname]

I thought Jack Russell Terriers were the smartest. My ex-girlfriend had one, and the bastard was always figuring out ways to jack my donuts.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname I thought Jack Russell Terriers were the smartest. My ex-girlfriend had one, and the bastard was always figuring out ways to jack my donuts.

German Shepherds and Labrador Retreivers are the most intelligent in general. Hence why German Shepherds are used as police dogs.