quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

Lane,

I don't think you will get an arguement from me on any of the above. Life is hard. There are winners and losers. Not everyone can be a winner. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist. I have no doubt that my parents both very intellegent people with IQs high enough to allow them to gain graduate degrees and me being a doctor with a similarly high IQ is no coincidence
Brett

You're white and so are your parents so is this accurate?

Robert,

I have no idea, but I would tend to think not. Those are fancy looking graphs. Anyone can create a graph that says anything. These mean nothing on their own.

Brett

PS. This BS really belongs on the political forum.......

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Svinejakt:
Sometimes its not what you say, but how you say it?

At the risk of sounding rather philosophical, isn't that part of the point of not being politically correct.

The comment might be bluntly put but it's not at all inaccurate.

Therefore, if the statement is accurate & true, how can it be wrong to make it?

it was meant to be blunt- BECAUSE IT'S THE TRUTH AND ANYONE WHO HAS EVER THERE AND SEEN THE END RESULT IN ACTION KNOWS IT......

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what IQ is here.

IQ testing is simply something that came out of the old military aptitude testing that showed how well (likely to complete the course of study) one would do educationally.

There may be some relationship to "intelligence" as loosely defined, but really all the test is intended to determine is the likelihood of one completing a given level of education.

Dr. Easter has been stating that intelligence is genetically driven. To some (basic) extent it is, but at levels we are absolutely unable to comprehend at this time. Look at the old Swedish twin studies. There is some correlation in IQ, behavior, etc. but these are two genetically identical individuals, and they showed that they were not identical in what they achieved, etc. Sometimes, there were dramatic differences in ability or outcome between two genetically identical subjects, thus the continuing debate on nature vs. nurture that has been ongoing.

The differences in IQ testing have long been thought to indicate that since the whites run schools in the countries where the standardized tests were developed, you are seeing some confounding issue in the testing.

Cultural and societal issues hold all people back. So far, the western world has done less holding back of its own than other lands in the modern era, but as history shows, that can change (the Romans being a particularly poignant example...)

So Lane, your rather simplistic argument about genetics being the source of all human intellectual differences is nonsense. I think you realize that. Yes, some cannot achieve all one would wish, such as the down's syndrome individual; but the environment in which that person is placed makes a heck of a lot more difference in how they turn out than pure genetic ability would show.

Use your example of baseball. You would still play rings around most Africans, because you spent lots of time learning how to play it, and its a valued (to some extent) skill here. In Africa, some guy may have the hand eye coordination that beats you blind, yet if one wants a team to beat the next town next sunday, they choose you because he has absolutely no learned skill in it. Despite his blatant genetic superiority, you are a better ball player than him.

I will not argue that Zimbabwe is seriously in trouble now. Where were we in 1863? It may be obvious to us where they are making mistakes with stealing land, etc. but is that really that different than the income redistribution schemes of various white socialists (Marx, Lenin, FDR?) other than the overt violence being used to achieve their goals?

Haven't the courts (run by Black justices, BTW.) for the most part told the Zim government that what they are doing is illegal?

People are people, and there have been plenty of bad white ones in Europe and here. We've been lucky so far, not "superior."

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Robert,

I have no idea, but I would tend to think not. Those are fancy looking graphs. Anyone can create a graph that says anything. These mean nothing on their own.

Brett

PS. This BS really belongs on the political forum.......

Brett,

It's not BS.

I didn't create the graphs but the studies have been done globally numerous times and they always point to the same conclusion. Murray's book, The Bell Curve, is illustrative.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Wilde:

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Robert,

I have no idea, but I would tend to think not. Those are fancy looking graphs. Anyone can create a graph that says anything. These mean nothing on their own.

Brett

PS. This BS really belongs on the political forum.......

Brett,

It's not BS.

I didn't create the graphs but the studies have been done globally numerous times and they always point to the same conclusion. Murray's book, The Bell Curve, is illustrative.

Bob

I did not say you made it up. What I said was that anyone can create a graph. Without meaningful figures or the ability to critically analyze the means used to attain these numbers these graphs mean nothing. Where's the info? Who did the studies? Point the way.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what IQ is here.

IQ testing is simply something that came out of the old military aptitude testing that showed how well (likely to complete the course of study) one would do educationally.

There may be some relationship to "intelligence" as loosely defined, but really all the test is intended to determine is the likelihood of one completing a given level of education.

Dr. Easter has been stating that intelligence is genetically driven. To some (basic) extent it is, but at levels we are absolutely unable to comprehend at this time. Look at the old Swedish twin studies. There is some correlation in IQ, behavior, etc. but these are two genetically identical individuals, and they showed that they were not identical in what they achieved, etc. Sometimes, there were dramatic differences in ability or outcome between two genetically identical subjects, thus the continuing debate on nature vs. nurture that has been ongoing.

The differences in IQ testing have long been thought to indicate that since the whites run schools in the countries where the standardized tests were developed, you are seeing some confounding issue in the testing.

Cultural and societal issues hold all people back. So far, the western world has done less holding back of its own than other lands in the modern era, but as history shows, that can change (the Romans being a particularly poignant example...)

So Lane, your rather simplistic argument about genetics being the source of all human intellectual differences is nonsense. I think you realize that. Yes, some cannot achieve all one would wish, such as the down's syndrome individual; but the environment in which that person is placed makes a heck of a lot more difference in how they turn out than pure genetic ability would show.

Use your example of baseball. You would still play rings around most Africans, because you spent lots of time learning how to play it, and its a valued (to some extent) skill here. In Africa, some guy may have the hand eye coordination that beats you blind, yet if one wants a team to beat the next town next sunday, they choose you because he has absolutely no learned skill in it. Despite his blatant genetic superiority, you are a better ball player than him.

I will not argue that Zimbabwe is seriously in trouble now. Where were we in 1863? It may be obvious to us where they are making mistakes with stealing land, etc. but is that really that different than the income redistribution schemes of various white socialists (Marx, Lenin, FDR?) other than the overt violence being used to achieve their goals?

Haven't the courts (run by Black justices, BTW.) for the most part told the Zim government that what they are doing is illegal?

People are people, and there have been plenty of bad white ones in Europe and here. We've been lucky so far, not "superior."

Dr. Butler,
You are taking what I am stating out of context.

You are speaking in the context of a few generations. I am speaking in the context of 10's of thousands of years.

The question was: Why did subsaharan Africa NEVER progress past the Stone-Age before Europeans colonized? And it is a fact that it had not.

So we are talking about a huge disparity here...not the difference in what 2 twins could accomplish. Think about the fact that one group (black Africans) had not progressed past circa ~10,000 B.C. and the other group (Europeans) had progressed to what Europe was like in late 19th and in some cases early 20th centuries.

Was this disparity founded in genetics...I think so. In 10,000 B.C., the playing field was pretty much even and the selection natural.

Personally, I hope the end is near for " The End is Near."

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
last i heard, no Chinese or Russians had invaded/stolen any farms/conservancies. of course, if you know differently, please enlighten us.

This is because they are fully occupied in this activity in their own countries.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
So we are talking about a huge disparity here...not the difference in what 2 twins could accomplish. Think about the fact that one group (black Africans) had not progressed past circa ~10,000 B.C. and the other group (Europeans) had progressed to what Europe was like in late 19th and in some cases early 20th centuries.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Everyone is citing all these examples of western technology that missed Africa. I would agree that is self evident. What I don't agree with is why that's so.....or that it has ANYTHING to do with race. I don't remember the book, but will try to find the title/author, but the premiss of the book was that societies found in colder climates with abundant(at least seasonally abundant) resources tend to be more technologically advanced due to necessity to overcome survival issues associated with cold winters and seasonally available/abundant food sources. Societies in more tropical environments tended to be less advanced due to stable weather and food sources throughout the year which means less need to adapt to survive.

Necesity is the mother of invention Lane.......

Brett

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Everyone is citing all these examples of western technology that missed Africa. I would agree that is self evident. What I don't agree with is why that's so.....or that it has ANYTHING to do with race. I don't remember the book, but will try to find the title/author, but the premiss of the book was that societies found in colder climates with abundant(at least seasonally abundant) resources tend to be more technologically advanced due to necessity to overcome survival issues associated with cold winters and seasonally available/abundant food sources. Societies in more tropical environments tended to be less advanced due to stable weather and food sources throughout the year which means less need to adapt to survive.

So living in a colder climate got Europeans all the way to driving cars where living in the warm left others chipping flint???

Excuse me if my mind does not allow me to buy into that theory.

People faced with problems are more likely to invent to overcome those problems. People in tropical climates with an abundance of food and stable weather have less problems to spur invention. I don't think that's unreasonable. I wonder what degree cultural isolation plays in stagnation of technological advancement? I'm sure traveling and meeting new cultures spurs new invention by sharing ideas.

Brett

Brett,

I don't think the climate theory holds water.

Inupiat/Inuit and other Arctic people lived in very cold climates. The Native Americans of the northern US and Canada lived in pretty cool climates. These peoples were centuries behind the Europeans.

Conversely, the Mayans lived in a very warm environment, but were very advanced. Also some of the cultures in the middle east were very advanced. These peoples were from warm climates, and at times were centuries ahead of the europeans.

please don't confuse emotion based arguments with "cold" hard facts....

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Blue Devil:
Brett,

I don't think the climate theory holds water.

Sure it does. What it probably doesn't do is fully explain the discrepancy. Necesity IS the mother of invention.

Brett

Guys. I've had enough. I'm a busy guy and I have other productive things to do with my time. Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. As I've stated earlier this thread is bordering on fodder for the political forum.

Brett

PS> I have my toys.

I think "Great Zimbabwe" is a good example and also an oddity for sub-Saharran Africa.

The "Great Zimbabwe Ruins" are the remains of a stone African city, temple and fortress. The actual city of mud huts does not exist anymore of course.

It thrived, grew, became substantial, then faded or was destroyed as a civilisation. Several hundred years ago.

A hawk or eagle from the ruins is on the Zimbabwean flag. Obviously the modern game retards are proud of it.

But it is ruins.

Just like the economy, farms, businesses etc of Zimbabwe are increasingly in ruins.

Maybe Mugabe thinks a "great ruin" is something to be proud of, having created a ruin of a country?

As an oddity, I believe the "Great Zimbabwe Ruins" is the only evidence of a great Sub-Saharran civilisation.


As for useful inventions, and people not needing all sorts of sh^t in Africa, because of all the "abundant food" etc etc, I wonder why people in Asia and Europe, invented the wheel maybe some 5000 years before colonialists brought that little invention to black Africa?

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Blue Devil:
Brett,

I don't think the climate theory holds water.

Sure it does. What it probably doesn't do is fully explain the discrepancy. Necesity IS the mother of invention.

Brett

Brett,

Your statement above is exactly what I am talking about. We are not discussing a small discrepancy but a ~10,000 year gap. Sub-Sahara Africa never made it to the bronze age much less industrial era. Harris speaks of the dark ages...but the Europeans were well advanced even in the dark ages...well into the iron age with simple machines.

Europeans were making internal combustion engines before Subsaharan Africa came out of the Stone Age. So I could buy cold climates having influence on making shelters and fire...I have a hard time with the magnitude of the discrepancy we are speaking of.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
I think "Great Zimbabwe" is a good example and also an oddity for sub-Saharran Africa.

The "Great Zimbabwe Ruins" are the remains of a stone African city, temple and fortress. The actual city of mud huts does not exist anymore of course.

It thrived, grew, became substantial, then faded or was destroyed as a civilisation. Several hundred years ago.

A hawk or eagle from the ruins is on the Zimbabwean flag. Obviously the modern game retards are proud of it.

But it is ruins.

Just like the economy, farms, businesses etc of Zimbabwe are increasingly in ruins.

Maybe Mugabe thinks a "great ruin" is something to be proud of, having created a ruin of a country?

As an oddity, I believe the "Great Zimbabwe Ruins" is the only evidence of a great Sub-Saharran civilisation.


As for useful inventions, and people not needing all sorts of sh^t in Africa, because of all the "abundant food" etc etc, I wonder why people in Asia and Europe, invented the wheel maybe some 5000 years before colonialists brought that little invention to black Africa?

There are of course scholars and scientists who have studied the origins of civilization. I recommend reading a thoroughly readable book titled "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond to explore at least one very viable theory on cultural hegemony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Wink,

I think it is quite simple to answer.

If Africans stopped killing each other every few years, people of other races, other tribes, neighbours, relatives, they might have progressed a little bit more in the thousands of years.

War is often a stimulus to development and invention. But killing within one's own country, tribe, family, just breeds division and chaos.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm: Brett, Your statement above is exactly what I am talking about. We are not discussing a small discrepancy but a ~10,000 year gap. Sub-Sahara Africa never made it to the bronze age much less industrial era. Harris speaks of the dark ages...but the Europeans were well advanced even in the dark ages...well into the iron age with simple machines. Europeans were making internal combustion engines before Subsaharan Africa came out of the Stone Age. So I could buy cold climates having influence on making shelters and fire...I have a hard time with the magnitude of the discrepancy we are speaking of.

I still believe that culture plays the most important role in the advancement of the societies. Most great civilizations, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian etc. were based on large cities where people from all tribal background came together and the tribal mentality took a backseat. That to me is the single most important cultural change that created progressive societies. People coming to Rome, Athens or Damascus from all over the empire with their craft and knowledge of specific processes created an opportunity to learn from each other and improve upon the tools and other inventions. Large cities also provided more opportunities to the trained labor and businessmen alike, strengthening the economies.

You can see the thriving Roman Empire at the same time when Gaul was nothing more than a loosely knit tribal society. Even though they shared common boundaries, Gauls could never rise above their petty tribal disputes while Rome became a powerful state right next door. Romans considered Gauls as savages and ultimately destroyed them. Their culture and language ceased to exist under the Roman rule. Genetics can hardly be considered the cause of great divide between the Romans and the Gauls.

As pointed above by Two Zero, Japan also failed to become a global power as long as it existed as a tribal culture. Only after they were forced to break the shackles of the tribal mentality, did they fully become an industrialized and successful state. Again, you can not attribute their failure to genetics and I.Q. The I.Q theory fails miserably in that case.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:


I think "Great Zimbabwe" is a good example and also an oddity for sub-Saharran Africa.

...........................?

Essentially one single site is evidence of a sub-Saharan civilization? Or just the remains of a far-flung trading (?) outpost of a civilization from much further to the north?

Seeing that this is a posting about racism, I was just wondering about the possible colour of the designer and architects' skin. No doubt, it was built, labour wise, by black hands!

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
People coming to Rome, Athens or Damascus from all over the empire with their craft and knowledge of specific processes created an opportunity to learn from each other and improve upon the tools and other inventions.

And what else did they do here Harris??? They exchanged genes improving genetics!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
People coming to Rome, Athens or Damascus from all over the empire with their craft and knowledge of specific processes created an opportunity to learn from each other and improve upon the tools and other inventions.

And what else did they do here Harris??? They exchanged genes improving genetics!

Lane,

Didn't tribes in their "wars" took women as booty and had out cross offspring? Why didn't the Gauls become dominant culture if genetics are the driving force?

Also, you are not addressing the question of the Japanese. Don't you think their history disproves your theory?

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:
People coming to Rome, Athens or Damascus from all over the empire with their craft and knowledge of specific processes created an opportunity to learn from each other and improve upon the tools and other inventions.

And what else did they do here Harris??? They exchanged genes improving genetics!

Lane,

Didn't tribes in their "wars" took women as booty and had out cross offspring? Why didn't the Gauls become dominant culture if genetics are the driving force?

Also, you are not addressing the question of the Japanese. Don't you think their history disproves your theory?

It is not simply mating...Lord knows Africans would have colonized Mars by now if that's all it took. It is selective mating of the best to the best that improves genetics and strengthens the race.

Harris,

All of the examples you are using, like Japan for instance, are far removed from the discrepancy of 10,000 years I am talking about. You are using examples of differences in advancement of a few decades to at most a century. I am talking about a discrepancy of 10,000 years where by one race is working on internal combustion engines...and the other is still chipping flint.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Wink,

I think it is quite simple to answer.

If Africans stopped killing each other every few years, people of other races, other tribes, neighbours, relatives, they might have progressed a little bit more in the thousands of years.

War is often a stimulus to development and invention. But killing within one's own country, tribe, family, just breeds division and chaos.

I wouldn't use the word "simple" to describe this. What we now call Europeans killed each other and their neighbors almost non-stop throughout history, and continue to do so unless inhibited by more powerful forces, whether internal or external. The Balkan wars are just yesterday, the Irish Protestants and Catholics just take occasional respites, the Basques go hot and cold but still blow up the occasional building for the hell of it, the Russians aren't nearly done with the Azerbaijanis, the Nagorno something or other and Armenia, and vice versa. Cyprus is still divided by two sitting armies of supposed allies (Greece, Turkey), and don't even think about throwing the Middle East into the mix. I haven't even mentioned two world wars in the 20th century which killed so many people that to top them will take quite an effort. African tribal warfare and disputes look like English soccer matches in comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
There are of course scholars and scientists who have studied the origins of civilization. I recommend reading a thoroughly readable book titled "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond to explore at least one very viable theory on cultural hegemony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Thank you Wink. That's the book.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Wink,

I think it is quite simple to answer.

If Africans stopped killing each other every few years, people of other races, other tribes, neighbours, relatives, they might have progressed a little bit more in the thousands of years.

War is often a stimulus to development and invention. But killing within one's own country, tribe, family, just breeds division and chaos.

I wouldn't use the word "simple" to describe this. What we now call Europeans killed each other and their neighbors almost non-stop throughout history, and continue to do so unless inhibited by more powerful forces, whether internal or external. .....

Yes but in Africa it is almost a constant. Even when not with war with neighbours, tribal hatred is a limiting factor, and the leadership is busy oppressing and murdering their own citizens.

Not an environment conductive to development of much instead of future hatreds.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Wink,

I think it is quite simple to answer.

If Africans stopped killing each other every few years, people of other races, other tribes, neighbours, relatives, they might have progressed a little bit more in the thousands of years.

War is often a stimulus to development and invention. But killing within one's own country, tribe, family, just breeds division and chaos.

I wouldn't use the word "simple" to describe this. What we now call Europeans killed each other and their neighbors almost non-stop throughout history, and continue to do so unless inhibited by more powerful forces, whether internal or external. .....

Yes but in Africa it is almost a constant. Even when not with war with neighbours, tribal hatred is a limiting factor, and the leadership is busy oppressing and murdering their own citizens.

Not an environment conductive to development of much instead of future hatreds.

And during the thousand years that Europeans were deciding their "borders" through the complex process of conquest, hegemony and alliances, nobody was stopping them. Europeans set the borders for African countries (Bismark presiding) with zero account for tribal animosities, then proceeded to inhibit Africans from resolving it the way the Europeans did.

You are right, tribalism is the curse of African politics and development. When Africans do attempt to resolve it (violently, just like Europeans did) they are either stopped by outside forces or nothing is done and we lament their violent nature.