Philosophy discussion: Do you think races are different?

[DietSoap]

Do you think races are different? As in, do you think a black's brain and an Indian's brain are generally wired differently, even beyond culture influence?

Do you think it's all cultural influence? Or do you think the land of origin crafted how the race's mind evolved?

Feel free to go in-depth, that's why I created this thread. Obviously don't be stupid and say "Native Americans are stupid and should be enslaved". I don't think anyone here is that ignorant, but I'm using extremities that hopefully you can relate with common sense.

Now lemme here some discussion.

[PsychoMistress]

Yes, and both genetics and cultural influence play a role.

And wouldn't this be considered a psychological discussion?

[white shadow]

The genetic differences between races are pretty much only pertain to phenotypes and rarely go far as affecting genotypes except in minor cases like sickle cell anemia. It has been also scientifically proven that brain size has nothing to do with intellect when comparing with the brains of homo sapiens (barring genetic analomies).







P.S., I see this thread going nowhere fast.

[BKB]

anthropological discussion?

You could look at it like dogs. There are various breeds of dogs, that are supposedly predisposed to be good at certain things, and shitty at others. Are different, uh, "breeds" of human the same?

I think it's all bullshit. We're all 99% the same, and I think the influence of culture can overcome anything like that, if it even does come into play.

[v1y]

Philosophical question? Wtf?

Absolutely not, no single race is predisposed to having certain traits more than any other. Black people do not inherently think differently from whites. All differences are purely a result of cultural influence, and not genetics.

[Jaldaboath]

Etological Discussion?

Mentally No, there are obvious physical differences but I've never heard anything about mental ones, nor is there anything that would make me believe so.

[Debaser]

It's all physical. Black people are fast.

[Javid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

:u:

I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

[white shadow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

:u:

I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

This has basically been proven to be false for close to a millenia, we are all born with certain innate tendencies regardless of environment.

[PsychoMistress]

I think it's all bullshit. We're all 99% the same, and I think the influence of culture can overcome anything like that, if it even does come into play.


Humans are 99.9%, and I think humans and mice are 99% percent. That small percentage is not as insignificant as one might think.

If anyone here reads Science, they recently reported that despite our similiarities, people tend to cluster into 5 principal groups, which correspond to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, Melanesia, and the Americas. The results do, in fact, suggest that there may be genetic differences among racial groups.

The science in this is somewhat new, and there is a lot to be done. So, there is no definate answer to the original question at this moment. The debate has raged for years, and at this point (especially with new studies and research being done thanks to the HGP) experts can't say one way or the other or even give a percentage.

But either way, what does it matter? Stop putting so much negative bullshit into the facts, and they really won't matter regarding Nature/Nurture and inferiority.

Edit: Lol. Dietsoap, I know that looks like it's directed to you sweetie, but it's not directed to anyone really except people who like to stand behind certain facts to discredit an entire race.

[OMG AntiAir Dust]

One other important thing to recognize in this discussion is the inherent BS in our concept of "race". Using external features to try to define genetic clusters is shaky ground. Look at any racial group and you will see HUGE genetic variability. Even people of the same "race" can have very different genetic backgrounds. not even discussing the amount of mixed heritage several people who look one race might have.

Anytime you go into genetic research people try to cluster people by self identified race just because its easier and the best we can currently do until full genome wide scans are cost effective/fast. So with all that in mind, there are bound to be genetic differences but of how much importance they are and how much influence they have compared to environment is hard to say.

[Insaniac2]

Some behavioral tendencies are genetic. It's mostly environment though.

[Bedfast Emperor]

I think the difference in the races are just superficial and on the physical scale. Black people are better off physically than other races because they originated in Africa. Asians are short...known fact, and white people are just...white people.

Race definately does not have anything to do with how smart you're gonna be.

[Zor]

This may not exactly be on toipic here, but someone recently told me that indians have a very strange reaction to alcohol and that its a fact. They said it was some sort of genetic chemical imbalance. Anyone know more about it?

[J-ride]

^ This is actually documented, I can't explain exactly how it works, but basically because they have only had alcohol for about 400 or so years, they haven't had time to adapt a great method of processing it, which is why they seem to have such a horrible problem with alcoholism. I'm doing this from memory but a good similar example is lactose tolerance. The peoples who have had cows for long periods of time have a ridiculously low LI rate, but peoples who got cows later on have much much higher rates of LI.

[Stanman]

Since you are asking us specifically then I would say that races aren't different. It is very much a cultural thing or rather how we grow up in our environments. Perhaps there might be science to prove otherwise, but I'm not sure if it will ever come up to anything significant. There hasn't been any race that is worthless or anything so I hope no superiority rants come from it.



But yeah, I did hear that native americans can't grow facial hair.

[Rioting Soul]

All differences are purely a result of cultural influence, and not genetics.

Not true. Some races are more prone to certain side effects when certain types of medicine are ingested. Also it isn't cultural influence that makes black people better adapted against skin cancer/sunburns due to a higher level of melanin which absorbs UV rays. Neither is it cultural influence that gives white people more body hair to combat Europe's cold weather(mainly during the Ice Age). If your statement were true then if I was surrounded by white people all my life and never experienced black culture or what is known of black culture then my hair would be as fair as an angel.

[PsychoMistress]

^ This is actually documented, I can't explain exactly how it works, but basically because they have only had alcohol for about 400 or so years, they haven't had time to adapt a great method of processing it, which is why they seem to have such a horrible problem with alcoholism. I'm doing this from memory but a good similar example is lactose tolerance. The peoples who have had cows for long periods of time have a ridiculously low LI rate, but peoples who got cows later on have much much higher rates of LI.

I heard about this too. I recall reading something about a protective gene that some groups have that can prevent alcoholism, and Native Americans along with a couple of other groups don't yet have the gene. Something to do with how the body breaks down alcohol, or rather a chemical substance in alcohol I think.

[white shadow]

^ This is actually documented, I can't explain exactly how it works, but basically because they have only had alcohol for about 400 or so years, they haven't had time to adapt a great method of processing it, which is why they seem to have such a horrible problem with alcoholism. I'm doing this from memory but a good similar example is lactose tolerance. The peoples who have had cows for long periods of time have a ridiculously low LI rate, but peoples who got cows later on have much much higher rates of LI.

The tolerance to alcohol is more ethnic than racial. Civilizations that have been practicing fermentation for thousands of years have developed a natural tolerance to it and rarely gain an addiction. The people most noted for this tolerance are of Italian, West African and Jewish descent.

And about the lactose intolerance, that is also a fact. Tribes such as the Masai have a huge tolerance to lactose and also blood. Even the average person who doesn't even have lactose intolerance would become very sick ingesting the unpasterized milk that many other cultures ingest regularly.

lol I am always reminded that Native Americans can't grow facial or body hair, I wish I had that adaptation. :sad:

[TheIlluminati]

99 percent the same?

Not anymore. Come on people, crack open this thing called the "newspaper".

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t&ct=ca/5-0&fp=456ada84ec0ba104&ei=_n5qRejDMIW6pwLGrPyGDQ&url=http%3A//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061122-human-genetics.html&cid=0

And regarding racial differences and alcohol, lots of Asians don't produce aldehyde dehydrogenase properly, and thus, Asian flush syndrome is born. Some people of all races have this mutation, I don't know if it has some specific application to Native Americans.

[Rioting Soul]

lol I am always reminded that Native Americans can't grow facial or body hair, I wish I had that adaptation. :sad:

I hear you on that. I got a friend that wishes he could grow a beard. I can't even yawn without drawing blood.

[Stanman]

I can not shave for 3 months and have less hair than my balls.

I wish I had a beard.

[Mr.Noodle]

Yeah I got that asian flush syndrome.I thought there was something wrong with me cause all my other friends don't have this problem.It just takes 1 beer for me to go super red and I just find it embarassing.

[PsychoMistress]

The tolerance to alcohol is more ethnic than racial. Civilizations that have been practicing fermentation for thousands of years have developed a natural tolerance to it and rarely gain an addiction. The people most noted for this tolerance are of Italian, West African and Jewish descent.


I don't think this is accurate. According to recent studies, Jewish and Asian groups have a problem breaking down alcohol, which makes them less tolerant, meaning they consume less and are less likely to drink heavily.

[Rioting Soul]

I can not shave for 3 months and have less hair than my balls.

I wish I had a beard.

Having people think you are older or not having the skin on your face so irritated that you just wanna rip it off. Which is more attractive to you?

[white shadow]

[QUOTE=white shadow;3462551]The tolerance to alcohol is more ethnic than racial. Civilizations that have been practicing fermentation for thousands of years have developed a natural tolerance to it and rarely gain an addiction. The people most noted for this tolerance are of Italian, West African and Jewish descent./QUOTE]


I don't think this is accurate. According to recent studies, Jewish and Asian groups have a problem breaking down alcohol, which makes them less tolerant, meaning they consume less and are less likely to drink heavily.

Hm, I might be wrong, must've mixed them in from the "alcohol intolerant" pile. My apologies then.

[Will Gotti]

From a deeply philosophical standpoint, I totally agree with Rene Descartes. On his very first page quoted verbatim from his book "Discourse on Method" he states:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone who thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality then they already possess.

<snip> ;and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but soley from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects.

So essentially I don't think our brains are wired differently, I think they're wired the exact same. We all breathe the same oxgen, drink the same water, have the same organs (if you peeled off our skin and didn't look at color), etc. I think difference in race is ecological and where different people come from. ie. colder climates, fairer skin. hotter climates, darker skin, etc.

I think cultural influences effects the way our brains perceives things positive or negative, but going back to Descartes with my take on it in reference to this particular subject matter, good sense is evenly distributed fresh of (cultural) negative and positive influences.

[PsychoMistress]

99 percent the same?

Not anymore. Come on people, crack open this thing called the "newspaper".

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t&ct=ca/5-0&fp=456ada84ec0ba104&ei=_n5qRejDMIW6pwLGrPyGDQ&url=http%3A//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061122-human-genetics.html&cid=0



99% on what? Cause all I see them changing is the Humans vs Chimps percentage, unless you count this:

The study also highlighted genetic differences among the population groups tested, with 11 percent of copy number variations not being shared between people of European, African, and East Asian ancestry.

[Rioting Soul]

Is there an evolutionary reason for mongoloids having slanted eyes?

[PsychoMistress]

[QUOTE=PsychoMistress;3462587]

Hm, I might be wrong, must've mixed them in from the "alcohol intolerant" pile. My apologies then.


LOL I guess I'm not the only one having problems with quoting this evening.

I don't know if you were wrong or not about the West Africans tho. I haven't seen too much regarding any African groups and alcohol. Here is an article that kinda talks about Jewish and Asian alcohol genes.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10400303

[Bowza]

This discussion reminds me of Russel Peters bringing up the fact about how Indian people are placed in one of the hottest areas of the world, and then given large amounts of body hair for some reason. An explanation for this would be interesting.

[white shadow]

Is there an evolutionary reason for mongoloids having slanted eyes?

I'm pretty sure that it's mostly has to do with genetic isolation than anything (Himalayas are bitch to go through). Also maybe the Ice Age could've favored those who had better eye protection from the frigid wind/sleet. (not a fact just deducing)

Psychomistress: I I'm pretty sure I'm correct about the Italians and West Africans, it was the Israelis I messed up on.

Bowza: The answer can come from 3 factors:

-There was a major climate change in that region thousands of years ago.

-Unlike Africans they didn't have thousands of years to physically adapt to their surroundings.

-Many parts of India is more humid than dry desert heat, hence why the Monsoon and forests are abundant there.

[glass]

in for subscription.

[pherai]

i heard 1/10 caucasians (white, european descent etc.) have an immunity to AIDS, which I think has to do with the black plague. not a fact i would bank on though.

anyway, anyone who thinks there is no difference in races beyond melanin levels is naive.

[RamirezPlatinum]

Hmm, interesting topic...

What about white supremacy? Why are the revolutionaries always concerning themselves with "white" supremacy and not "black" supremacy or "asian" supremacy? Most anti "the man" protesters(or what ever you want to call them) are against the mega corporations(all headed by white people). It is specified that the Mega Corporations are the true rulers of the U.S and the white supremacists are the heads of the mega corporations. Politics is just a game of charades. And if you note, blacks must be inferior to Europeans because when the Europeans came over to Africa for slave trade the Africans had nothing but spears and rocks to throw at the Europeans. The Europeans must have felt superior and put on great smirks as they subjugated the African people. The Europeans had superior weapons(rifles versus spears and rocks), clothes(Italian suites and designer clothing versus tribal grab) and worldly indulgences/plesures(spices, gold necklaces, rings, wristbands, meals fit for a king**well, the nobles anyway** versus worthless skull neckless and live game). The same can be said for Native Americans who were thowing spears at Christopher Columbus while he was blowing their heads of with live ammunition. He was also dressed in swank, designer clothing proably poumpously taking a bite from a noble roast wing(turkey/noble food fit for a king) while busting caps in the behinds of tribal men. Now don't get me wrong I don't justify the atrocious acts the he did as much as I just have a feeling that his race of people were further ahead(as a civilization) of the race of people that he was dominating.


Africans were further behind as a civilization(why they got subjugated back then) and are still further behind as a civilization today. Native Americans were further behind Europeans as a civilization back when Christopher Colubus sneezed on a tiny cleenex cloth, passed it on and whiped out the majority of the Native Americans in a careless act of genocide. But still, I know what you all are wondering. You are wondering where did all of the European's class, civilization, and wealth went. I think that it is by design that ever young person is knee deep in pornography, masturbating to lackadaisical porn twice a day, sagging their pants to their knees(black culture is popular even when it is poor, below the class level and a step behind civilization), and hooked on M.T.V.

In the words of Metallica: Moving back instead of foward, seems to me absurd.

[Bounce]

races are as different as red and pink, racial cultures have a greater difference, national cultures have the greatest distance, and it is national culture that ultimately affects sterotypes.....

in other words, yes.......but who cares

[glass]

i read somewhere (Dennett i think) that the reason white Europeans got a head start on technology was because they got a head start on agriculture - they had the right animals around them just waiting to be domesticated and used as food sources, the right type of land just waiting to be cultivated, etc. they went from developing tools and concepts for harvesting food to more general purpose tools, e.g. surveying land, exploring uncharted territory, economics, etc.

practice made perfect, so people began to develop pathways of sorts in the brain which allowed them to perform such activities without much thought. over several generations it's easy for this to develop via mutation (since passing it on through cultural learning made it more prevalent).

but point is, the environment gave that set of people a set of circumstances, which would cause them to evolve in a certain way in order to survive. it's not like they were necessarily responsible for it - you don't choose which patch of land you're born in.

---

as for the title topic, yeah i think races are different in big ways.. bigger ways than most people here are willing to admit anyway. not the easiest topic to shake negative stigma from, but i think it's useful to go into. if i weren't genetically predisposed to having high level of raw intelligence, i'd like to know that so as to compensate via conscious effort.

i don't know why so many people are afraid to find out that the races might be different in very significant ways. it sounds to me like a good chance to make corrections, and make the most of competitive advantage.

[Rioting Soul]

i heard 1/10 caucasians (white, european descent etc.) have an immunity to AIDS, which I think has to do with the black plague. not a fact i would bank on though.

I hadn't heard of that but I have heard of Africans developing an immunity. It makes sense. With the situation in Africa regarding AIDS, Darwinism is in full effect. Eventually some people are gonna be born with an immunity and they are bound to pass on that immunity since they'll be alive to have sex.

[white shadow]

Ahh crap it's past 2am....


One thing that wasn't addressed is how many technological facets of various cultures were absorbed by the Europeans during various time periods (and vice versa). Then over time they eventually were considered to be strictly inventions of Europeans.

-The modern number system (Middle East)

-Gunpowder, fireworks (Chinese)

-Pasta (Chinese)

-Geometry (Egypt/Babylonia)

etc...

It's quite funny how the term "civilized" were used by the Europeans to describe their lifestyle in comparison to other civilizations such as the Native Americans, the irony always gets to me.

Everytime I have discussions on race people always bring up how black Africans supposedly had a more tribal, savage lifestyle. But when you really think about it, isn't Anglos vs Saxons vs Germanic tribes vs Franks vs Prussians just another form of white tribalism under the guise of long term conflicts or wars? Isn't the same amount of brutality and bloodshed shared amongst all humans everywhere regardless of origin?


glass: Could you please elaborate how "races" can extend past a few
varying genotypes to have extensive and innate differences in mental capabilities? Because there is a lot more scientific information stating the contrary.

However, the likelihood of certain "advantages" can be present in certain races via cultural background. Asians for instance have a higher chance of gaining perfect pitch in music than other racial groups simply because eastern languages like Mandarin are very tonal and thus the minds of young children can adapt quickly to recognize the differences in pitch and tone than others.

[RamirezPlatinum]

i read somewhere (Dennett i think) that the reason white Europeans got a head start on technology was because they got a head start on agriculture - they had the right animals around them just waiting to be domesticated and used as food sources, the right type of land just waiting to be cultivated, etc. they went from developing tools and concepts for harvesting food to more general purpose tools, e.g. surveying land, exploring uncharted territory, economics, etc.

practice made perfect, so people began to develop pathways of sorts in the brain which allowed them to perform such activities without much thought. over several generations it's easy for this to develop via mutation (since passing it on through cultural learning made it more prevalent).

but point is, the environment gave that set of people a set of circumstances, which would cause them to evolve in a certain way in order to survive. it's not like they were necessarily responsible for it - you don't choose which patch of land you're born in.

Glass, you make some interesting points(I've debated this topic with someone in the past and he made similar points). But what about the genes themselves though? Another reason why the Euroeans enslaved the Blacks(besides the fact that their civilization was primitive and they just could) was becasue European nobles(basically white supremacists) believe in social class structure. ...And that basically goes like this(I'm not sure exactly how it works but I will explain it to the best of my abilities): rank(1)servants rank(2)commoners rank(3) upper class rank(4) nobility All Africans would be considered servants because not only was their agriculture level beneath Europeans, but they did and still do not have the tenacity or the magnificence to try and dominate the world like Europeans. I use the word magnificence because most white supremacists refer to nobles or pure bread Europeans as great(i.e Great Britain / "Great" Britain as in it is great). Even conspiracy theories say that elitists or "white" supremacists rule the world from behind the scenes(not "black" supremacists or "Native American" supremacists). Now, to say that it is because since the beginning of civilization Europeans had the better agriculture, got a head start, and domiated the world based on that is ignoring that fact that Europeans are inherently smarter than Africans. Yes, from the electric light, phonograph, motion pictures, steamboat, sewing maching, threshing machine it was a white man that invented it all(the list goes on). White people pave the future in advance for everyone else. Africans have invented nothing and most likely will never invent anything(they are not contributing to society). Even if everything was in reverse and Africans had all the agriculture and Europeans had nothing the Africans would not have been smart enough to invent and create rifles and invent sewing machines to sew high class garb to act as dominant as Christopher Columbus. The Europeans would have invaded their land, dominated them with spears and rocks and claimed their agriculture as their own.

It's quite funny how the term "civilized" were used by the Europeans to describe their lifestyle in comparison to other civilizations such as the Native Americans, the irony always gets to me.

It is because they dressed proper, above the class level, designer, spiffy, high class, while the rest of the world was beneath them(weren't as classy). They boxed their wines(showed them off). Wine was to ebb, sparkle, and give off an aroma that would illuminate the background(very high class and spiffy indeed). They held exquiste parties that could only labled enchanted banquets. They were noble and great. They were practicioners of etiquette. They also dominated the world behind the scenes and demanded the best luxiries money/gold could buy/bogart for their castles. Nobles never work but enjoy the beautiful life 24 a day(taking a que from Belvedere Winery).

...And what were the Africans doing while the Europeans were experiencing what is called the beautiful life? Superstitioius voodoo dances in the hopes of warding off the evil spirit chabacca?

(Long time no see by the way**white shadow**)

[glass]

Glass, you make some interesting points(I've debated this topic with someone in the past and he made similar points). But what about the genes themselves though? Another reason why the Euroeans enslaved the Blacks(besides the fact that their civilization was primitive and they just could) was becasue European nobles(basically white supremacists) believe in social class structure. ...And that basically goes like this(I'm not sure exactly how it works but I will explain it to the best of my abilities): rank(1)servants rank(2)commoners rank(3) upper class rank(4) nobility All Africans would be considered servants because not only was their agriculture level beneath Europeans, but they did and still do not have the tenacity or the magnificence to try and dominate the world like Europeans. I use the word magnificence because most white supremacists refer to nobles or pure bread Europeans as great(i.e Great Britain / "Great" Britain as in it is great). Even conspiracy theories say that elitists or "white" supremacists rule the world from behind the scenes(not "black" supremacists or "Native American" supremacists). Now, to say that it is because since the beginning of civilization Europeans had the better agriculture, got a head start, and domiated the world based on that is ignoring that fact that Europeans are inherently smarter than Africans. Yes, from the electric light, phonograph, motion pictures, steamboat, sewing maching, threshing machine it was a white man that invented it all(the list goes on). White people pave the future in advance for everyone else. Africans have invented nothing and most likely will never invent anything(they are not contributing to society). Even if everything was in reverse and Africans had all the agriculture and Europeans had nothing the Africans would not have been smart enough to invent and create rifles and invent sewing machines to sew high class garb to act as dominant as Christopher Columbus. The Europeans would have invaded their land, dominated them with spears and rocks and claimed their agriculture as their own.


i guess i should've been clearer - agriculture was the starting point. Europeans began to experiment with tools because their environment suggested "you could probably grow crops here" or "you could probably make this cow till soil, milk it, then eat it". the tools developed would then haev applications outside of agriculture, hence the headstart in agriculture meant a lot. if you took Africans and Europeans before they started adapting to their environments and switched their locations geographically, the Africans could've been doing the dominating.

Ahh crap it's past 2am....

glass: Could you please elaborate how "races" can extend past a few
varying genotypes to have extensive and innate differences in mental capabilities? Because there is a lot more scientific information stating the contrary.

However, the likelihood of certain "advantages" can be present in certain races via cultural background. Asians for instance have a higher chance of gaining perfect pitch in music than other racial groups simply because eastern languages like Mandarin are very tonal and thus the minds of young children can adapt quickly to recognize the differences in pitch and tone than others.

i'm not up to speed on what the journals are saying, but it's like you said.. attributes that lead to advantage will tend to thrive. take the Asian culture which not only values and rewards an educated person quite highly, but also imposes these values from a very early age (think of kids spending 14 hours a day studying, or why Asians are stereotyped as being good at math). the proportion of educated (but not necessarily more intelligent) would dominate after several generations because brilliance is esteemed in this society. if nature produced a person 20% smarter via mutation, society also rewards it, but the reward is disproportionately high (well.. more than it would be in a society which values academic ability any less), accelerating the thriving of this mutant and its offspring (who could add another 20% to that). so the result of a cultural valuing of academic brilliance is a higher standard of academic brilliance overall. factor in that most of the time people of any culture tend to be of the same race.

i don't feel like i'm answering your question though.. have i?

[Demon Dash]

Genetics are involved as races have evolved from the conditions in there global location. Like a black persons resistant to heat, or an asians protected eyes, all have evolved genetically. Trying to say genetics isn't involved is just crazy because if it wasn't the case it wouldn't be possible to cross breed two races together.

[white shadow]

It is because they dressed proper, above the class level, designer, spiffy, high class, while the rest of the world was beneath them(weren't as classy). They boxed their wines(showed them off). Wine was to ebb, sparkle, and give off an aroma that would illuminate the background(very high class and spiffy indeed). They held exquiste parties that could only labled enchanted banquets. They were noble and great. They were practicioners of etiquette. They also dominated the world behind the scenes and demanded the best luxiries money/gold could buy/bogart for their castles. Nobles never work but enjoy the beautiful life 24 a day(taking a que from Belvedere Winery).

...And what were the Africans doing while the Europeans were experiencing what is called the beautiful life? Superstitioius voodoo dances in the hopes of warding off the evil spirit chabacca?

(Long time no see by the way**white shadow**)

Hola!

The europeans developed advanced weaponry and "finer tastes" as a result of their own tribal warfare. Because of this intense conflict the need to be better than the other country was strong and technology was just a byproduct.

What is considered to be "civility" deals more with maintaining values, humility, and treating others with respect. Which the europeans damn well didn't do, even with that rope of christianity tied between their toes. As they travelled they labeled less advanced cultures (which is relative because the Aztecs had way more advanced astronomy for example) as savages and raped and pillaged as they went, the total opposite of civilized behavior, or even christian behavior for that matter.

Native Americans even with their more meager but still sufficient lifestyle did something almost unprecendented compared to other civilizations, they didn't attempt to deter foreigners even though it was a risk to do so. Not only that but they helped them to survive only to get slaughtered and driven away from their lands in just a span of a few decades.

Would the Native Americans be justified in attacking an legion of foreignors like so many other cultures do upon seeing people of different tribes? Sure. But their civil way of operating prevented such actions to take place.

Fine wines and playing Stratovarius is all fine and dandy, but I look more on the baser things, like how people treat each other as a measure of civilized behavior.

glass: Do you really think the capacity of intelligence has increased, or just that the societal pressures bring forth more intelligent people?

If an african child from say, Ethiopia moved to China and was given the same objective educational oppurtunities, would he not gain the same intelligence of his asian counterparts? I do believe so. Not because the garnering of knowledge is somehow easier in the mind of an asian person, only the pressures to compete in society focused on success makes higher learning the only outcome.

And for thousands of years most Chinese laborers were denied formal education designated for royalty until the last 120 years or so, even if your theory holds true the effects would take thousands of years to produce.

[Ojigishirou]

What I never get about people doing "black" accomplishment and "white" accomplishment is the need to not diffrentiate.

The vaaaaaaast majority of the foundation of anything European is southern European/Meditteranean region. They considered the northern ones savages and the like.

The Meditteraneans themselves, learned from the Middle Eastern/Africans along the nile.

Quite frankly, the only reason Europeans (paticularly British, France, Portugese, Italians, German, Dutch, Belgium, Spaniards) basically ran shit is because they took the Chinese invention of gunpowder and created guns.

Without guns, not much of anything would of happened and that's 90% of any "superiority" Europeans had right there, gone.

Quite frankly, I belive "race" is rubbish. If we, homo sapien sapien were indeed different races then any breeding would produce sterile offsprings.

A tiger and a lion are different races. They're offsprings are streile.
A horse and a donkey are different races. They're offsprings are sterile.

Any type of phenotypical or genotypical differences is immediately summed up to dietary, enviromental, etc. etc.

[HeaT]

i would like to think that the amount of alcohol you want to drink is not based on your race but rather on your mental will...same with alcoholism...

im outi

Roberth

[Shibuya]

black people are naturally faster runners.....
Asians are naturally smarter....
Spanish women are naturally better looking
Indians (the red dot ones) naturally stink the worse (gonna get bad repped for that one lol)
and white people are naturally greedy
and irish are naturally alcoholics

[J-ride]

i heard 1/10 caucasians (white, european descent etc.) have an immunity to AIDS, which I think has to do with the black plague. not a fact i would bank on though.

anyway, anyone who thinks there is no difference in races beyond melanin levels is naive.

This has been proven. In fact, when aids connects to a white blood cell it needs a co-receptor called CD4(going from memory here) and some white people have a recessive allele in which they have a mutant called CD5, so aids cannot connect and infect the white blood cell, so it ends up just dying after a while, from what I hear they are very resistant to nearly all strains of the virus.

[RaishinX]

Gotta subscribe to this. This immunity to AIDS is quite interesting.

[Dem-Dem]

this thread is pretty cool. It's like a high school think tank. The idea of genetics affecting intellect or brain activity should be examined. I'm sure that over time the activity in the human brain over the last 80 years has decreased. Of course this is all speculation.

[RaishinX]

It's like a high school think tank.

What?

[Dem-Dem]

What?

Raishinx don't be rubbed the wrong way. The higher education these people paid for is finally being put to some use. The correct terms have been used and each explaination has been thought out. Discussions like this always bring out the big words in people. I remember useing correct terms and pharases like this in grade school on similiar topics. High School is were most people first in counter this kind of in depth disscussion, normally between debate teams or scholastic topics generally discussed by the top 20% of the class. :grin:

[gamingsage]

Very cool thread. I hope the intelligence continues without being stupidified by bashing. I sense a little bit of nature vs. nurture in this discussion.

[Javid]

This has basically been proven to be false for close to a millenia, we are all born with certain innate tendencies regardless of environment.

I would like you to prove how this is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Most of what a human being knows is based from experience and the world around them. How do we develop a sense of right and wrong? How do I know not to touch that hot orange stove? How do I know not to jump of a bridge to see what happens? Where does all this come from? Obviously I know the answers to these questions now, but nobody can tell me that I was born with such knowledge.

You just said that it has been dismissed without giving any solid proof, if anything.:looney:

[Javid]

One more thing I want to add is my interest in feral children:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

Their stories are very interesting and bring up some questions that still need to be answered, especially this girl:

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie

[Hsiangsta]

Who is to say what is the true nature of reality? How does one know one's model of reality is ACTUALLY the true nature of reality?

I certainly don't. I think the best way to approach life and learning is to keep an open mind towards other people's beliefs as well as your own.

[epsilon_]

the reason europeans advanced faster has pretty much 100% do to with climate and things like that. not them being more apt or anything.

[white shadow]

I would like you to prove how this is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Most of what a human being knows is based from experience and the world around them. How do we develop a sense of right and wrong? How do I know not to touch that hot orange stove? How do I know not to jump of a bridge to see what happens? Where does all this come from? Obviously I know the answers to these questions now, but nobody can tell me that I was born with such knowledge.

You just said that it has been dismissed without giving any solid proof, if anything.:looney:

Most mammals have to learn certain behaviors before maturity by either playing, observing, and many bouts of trial and error, that doesn't exclude the fact that there are innate behaviors present in humans or other mammals.

Infants know how to clasp unto their mothers from birth, suckle without prior experience, smile, swallow, and most of all facial and language recognition. A 6 year old has a desire for self-preservation without being clearly told about what death is. Humans are also inherently social.

I'm afraid you might've missed this quote in your link: Generally people now recognise the fact that the entire brain is indeed preprogrammed and organised in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions, and natural responses. These preprogrammed parts of the brain then learn and refine their ability to perform their tasks.

Here's another example of instinct: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/disgust.shtml

Be wary, it can get quite disgusting later on.

[Kairio]

99 percent the same?

Not anymore. Come on people, crack open this thing called the "newspaper".

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t&ct=ca/5-0&fp=456ada84ec0ba104&ei=_n5qRejDMIW6pwLGrPyGDQ&url=http%3A//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061122-human-genetics.html&cid=0



big deal. that article only outlays common sense. OF FUCKING COURSE our buildup is different, we don't have the same family. traits differe and strive or die as the line progresses.

we are all computer programs, running in the same system, the only difference is our port of origin, and the random paths we proceed along. free will and choices aside, they are definately random in essence, and as such we build corresponding to the previous line.

NOw, for us to progress aligned as humans acknowledging our potential, not revelling in it, we must redefine our nature. How we address, if we should address, every observation that comes across our path. how we choose to acknowledge anything defines its progress in our line, in our mind, and thus our configuration of our genes to be passed on in our seed. BASIC FUCKING EVOLUTION, all it takes is for people to USE THEIR MINDS, and ask questions.

Opposition must be understood, with no positive or negative outlook, as they do not truly exist in nature, only to the mind if it chooses to believe so. Only then can we align with a path of progression.

I could go on, I could quote a whole section of the "8 lectures on the I ching", outlining opposition and fellowship working in tandem, as they should, as they will, as they always have in nature.

ask me to do so and i will, truly something you can all appreciate given our mutual interest in the nature of man.

- U C D

[Panicked]

snip

Just throwing it out there: it's been theorized that "right and wrong" has some genetuc predesposition, which makes sense when you consider that humans are naturally social creatures, and things such as stealing, or killingwould be seen as "bad"

Murdering and stealing undermine the stability of the community, so, in reality, parents are only making these predespositions more solidified, rather than creating them from scratch. This theory also explains why pretty much all cultures (if someone could find an exception, please let me know) view these things as inherently wrong under most circumstances.

[J-ride]

Gotta subscribe to this. This immunity to AIDS is quite interesting.

What is even more interesting is that one of the drug companies patented/copyrighted the CD5 receptor. Can you own a gene/mutation that is found in nature? If they had engineered it themselves it would make more sense. My old biology professor was vehemently opposed to such nonsense.

[Panicked]

What is even more interesting is that one of the drug companies patented/copyrighted the CD5 receptor. Can you own a gene that is found in nature? If they had engineered it themselves it would make more sense.

Water. My analogy is flawed, but, yeah.

[Dem-Dem]

Just throwing it out there: it's been theorized that "right and wrong" has some genetuc predesposition, which makes sense when you consider that humans are naturally social creatures, and things such as stealing, or killingwould be seen as "bad"

Murdering and stealing undermine the stability of the community, so, in reality, parents are only making these predespositions more solidified, rather than creating them from scratch. This theory also explains why pretty much all cultures (if someone could find an exception, please let me know) view these things as inherently wrong under most circumstances.

Act's of murdering and stealing have been recorded through out caucasian history so much to the fact that if you link the studies done on genetic memory mostly everyone of eurasian decent is a potential murderer or thief.

[glass]

Hola!
glass: Do you really think the capacity of intelligence has increased, or just that the societal pressures bring forth more intelligent people?

If an african child from say, Ethiopia moved to China and was given the same objective educational oppurtunities, would he not gain the same intelligence of his asian counterparts? I do believe so. Not because the garnering of knowledge is somehow easier in the mind of an asian person, only the pressures to compete in society focused on success makes higher learning the only outcome.

And for thousands of years most Chinese laborers were denied formal education designated for royalty until the last 120 years or so, even if your theory holds true the effects would take thousands of years to produce.


how many generations have these cultures been around for? so yeah.. we have had tens of thousands of years at least.

say there are two cultures, one values the abilty academic ability while the other values athletic ability. if i'm academically gifted but not athletic and in the first culture, i'd have a lot of money, respect, and be well off enough to pass on my brainy genes to my kids; if i was in the second the chances of my bloodline continuing are substantially lower.

if you took two clones A and B, put one in the 'smart' and 'athletic' cultures respectively and fast forwarded 100 generations, it's not hard to imagine the latest descendant of A would be naturally smarter, while the latest descendant of B would be naturally more athletic. this is because mutations that improved athletic ability in B's bloodline would've received disproportionately high rewards, allowing athletic offspring to thrive (and produce more athletic mutations) while stinting those without it (e.g. those less athletic but more intelligent may die of poverty). if you moved the 100-generations-after-descendant of A into B's culture, at birth, there's a good chance he'll struggle.

basically cultural norms are a piece of natural selection. look at us now - in less industrialized nations (e.g. rural Alaska), strength, aggressiveness, and physical ability are still skills very high in demand, and those possessing it are most likely to thrive, produce offspring, and pass on these strengths. these skills might be passed on by teaching, but it also means those without the ability to apply the skills (e.g. a smart but physically frail person) are less likely to have offspring. in an urban environment? it's all about the raw ability to develop social skills, the ability to pick up mentally demanding tasks - the hunter/gatherer skills are obsolete because so many basic demands are outsourced - defense (police), gathering food (supermarkets), etc.

edit:
Tuff Daddy's post (directly below) has some pretty solid examples. good stuff :tup:

[Muff Daddy]

the reason europeans advanced faster has pretty much 100% do to with climate and things like that. not them being more apt or anything.

i always thought it had something to do with the cold climates they lived in. since more of them were likely to die off from the cold weather it allowed natural selection to occur at a much faster rate - like Survival of the Fittest on crack and speed.

there are obvious physical differences based on climate - like how black Africans have larger nostrils for breathing the more humid air. i also heard someone say that the circulatory system of black people is radically different because of this and that the reason black people are superior athletes is literally because they can suck up more air than everyone else and provide their muscles with much more oxygen as a result. its like a Kenyan coming to Boston to run a marathon in the spring sucking up all the air from the other runners. as uncle ruckus would say" "don't trust them big nostrils over yondeeeeeer!"

perhaps the white man wasn't meant to live in the hot hot sun. perhaps thats why they out-sourced cotton picking to the Negro. every white guy who has spent a significant amount of time in some serious heat has gone bat-shit insane. look at Marc Anthony - he went crazy and said fuck you to Rome over an Egyptian chick, that African heat GOT to him. look at Southerners - they spent so much time in the sun they started speaking lazy and seceded from the goddamned Union; some turned into rednecks. it was so hot they started fucking black people. plus, they all get sunburned, the sun hates them. but fuck the Sun right? SPF that shit down. the white man even puts the SUN to work for him - fucking solar powered laser beams and shit. even the Sun is mad at the white man. if the white man could colonize the Sun, he'd be on that bitch right now getting free energy from the Sun-people and selling it back to Earth - not Sun-people as in black people, Sun-people as in the inhabitants of the Sun. i'm joking here by the way.

anyway. there are also differences in the amount of melanin which is produced and transported to the skin. every human has the same amount of melanoctye cells but black/brown people simply produce more of the melanin protien - freckles are just concentrated pockets of melanin.

there is a great book i read called The Naked Ape. the author is a zoologist and he talks about how different races have different sexual signals due to the climate they originated in. he talks about how when white people are aroused or having sex their skin becomes flush and turns a redish color. this has to do with visual sexual signaling and is associated with blushing as well - he also suggests that this is the reason why modern European women are so fond of red lipstick as it "simulates" the sexual signaling. he also said that because black people (the term he used was Negro, btw) essentially lack the means to display any significant color change indicator, they adapted and the lips became the primary visual sexual signal - hence the big bubble lips of the black African and the usually non-existent lips of some white people. it really put a whole new spin on collagen injections for me.

[Rhio2k]

Quite frankly, I belive "race" is rubbish. If we, homo sapien sapien were indeed different races then any breeding would produce sterile offsprings.

A tiger and a lion are different races. They're offsprings are streile.
A horse and a donkey are different races. They're offsprings are sterile.


The differences between races would be more akin to the differences of breeds of animals within the same genus, like horses or dogs. For instance: Shire/black guy, Appaloosa/white guy. Don't just jump from horse to donkey. that's just faulty logic, and bad science. Good day, sir.

[DietSoap]

Snip That's pretty interesting, about the climate and all. Very well fleshed out. :tup:

[Mycah Leonhart]

I have my own thoughts on this, I didn't read the whole thread but there are a lot of long posts.......that's a good thing.

I will drop this .02 - the #1 thing is infact Enviorment.

[Dem-Dem]

i always thought it had something to do with the cold climates they lived in. since more of them were likely to die off from the cold weather it allowed natural selection to occur at a much faster rate - like Survival of the Fittest on crack and speed.

there are obvious physical differences based on climate - like how black Africans have larger nostrils for breathing the more humid air. i also heard someone say that the circulatory system of black people is radically different because of this and that the reason black people are superior athletes is literally because they can suck up more air than everyone else and provide their muscles with much more oxygen as a result. its like a Kenyan coming to Boston to run a marathon in the spring sucking up all the air from the other runners. as uncle ruckus would say" "don't trust them big nostrils over yondeeeeeer!"

perhaps the white man wasn't meant to live in the hot hot sun. perhaps thats why they out-sourced cotton picking to the Negro. every white guy who has spent a significant amount of time in some serious heat has gone bat-shit insane. look at Marc Anthony - he went crazy and said fuck you to Rome over an Egyptian chick, that African heat GOT to him. look at Southerners - they spent so much time in the sun they started speaking lazy and seceded from the goddamned Union; some turned into rednecks. it was so hot they started fucking black people. plus, they all get sunburned, the sun hates them. but fuck the Sun right? SPF that shit down. the white man even puts the SUN to work for him - fucking solar powered laser beams and shit. even the Sun is mad at the white man. if the white man could colonize the Sun, he'd be on that bitch right now getting free energy from the Sun-people and selling it back to Earth - not Sun-people as in black people, Sun-people as in the inhabitants of the Sun. i'm joking here by the way.

anyway. there are also differences in the amount of melanin which is produced and transported to the skin. every human has the same amount of melanoctye cells but black/brown people simply produce more of the melanin protien - freckles are just concentrated pockets of melanin.

there is a great book i read called The Naked Ape. the author is a zoologist and he talks about how different races have different sexual signals due to the climate they originated in. he talks about how when white people are aroused or having sex their skin becomes flush and turns a redish color. this has to do with visual sexual signaling and is associated with blushing as well - he also suggests that this is the reason why modern European women are so fond of red lipstick as it "simulates" the sexual signaling. he also said that because black people (the term he used was Negro, btw) essentially lack the means to display any significant color change indicator, they adapted and the lips became the primary visual sexual signal - hence the big bubble lips of the black African and the usually non-existent lips of some white people. it really put a whole new spin on collagen injections for me.

I'd like to read this book whats the name of it? I get my signals from visual and auromic stimulation(I am after all an animal).

[white shadow]

how many generations have these cultures been around for? so yeah.. we have had tens of thousands of years at least.

say there are two cultures, one values the abilty academic ability while the other values athletic ability. if i'm academically gifted but not athletic and in the first culture, i'd have a lot of money, respect, and be well off enough to pass on my brainy genes to my kids; if i was in the second the chances of my bloodline continuing are substantially lower.

if you took two clones A and B, put one in the 'smart' and 'athletic' cultures respectively and fast forwarded 100 generations, it's not hard to imagine the latest descendant of A would be naturally smarter, while the latest descendant of B would be naturally more athletic. this is because mutations that improved athletic ability in B's bloodline would've received disproportionately high rewards, allowing athletic offspring to thrive (and produce more athletic mutations) while stinting those without it (e.g. those less athletic but more intelligent may die of poverty). if you moved the 100-generations-after-descendant of A into B's culture, at birth, there's a good chance he'll struggle.

basically cultural norms took the place of natural selection. look at us now - in less industrialized nations (e.g. rural Alaska), strength, aggressiveness, and physical ability are still skills very high in demand, and those possessing it are most likely to thrive, produce offspring, and pass on these strengths. these skills might be passed on by teaching, but it also means those without the ability to apply the skills (e.g. a smart but physically frail person) are less likely to have offspring. in an urban environment? it's all about the raw ability to develop social skills, the ability to pick up mentally demanding tasks - the hunter/gatherer skills are obsolete because so many basic demands are outsourced - defense (police), gathering food (supermarkets), etc.

Every civilization or tribe has always designated groups of people to retain knowledge for the masses. Earlier you mentioned asian cultures (which is not exclusive to seeking academic successes) and I replied that for thousands of years education were given to a select few.

While I do agree that cultural norms has created a secession of the integral factors that initiate natural selection (advanced healthcare for example) the effects of natural selection is an extremely long process in itself and would take more than a few hundred years to make any visible progress.

You also mentioned the fast-forwarding of many generations using 2 clones and putting them into opposing cultures. While I believe of thousands of years "physical" traits can be more apparent since women will largely be more attracted to a strong phenotype *the capacity* to garner knowledge still wouldn't drastically change if a descendant of the athletic clone was raised by birth in a smarter civilization. Otherwise many individuals from the 3rd world who have children that grow up to be affluent, intelligent individuals wouldn't be so common. It has more to do with nuture, assisted by culture.

Lastly, Hunter-gathering rarely exists in the world anyways, regardless of current modern conveniences. So any changes that would occur today should've happened thousands of years ago when agriculture became mainstream in the Mediteranean.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sYTbpCTphdc :razzy:

[RamirezPlatinum]

Originally posted by glass
i guess i should've been clearer - agriculture was the starting point. Europeans began to experiment with tools because their environment suggested "you could probably grow crops here" or "you could probably make this cow till soil, milk it, then eat it". the tools developed would then haev applications outside of agriculture, hence the headstart in agriculture meant a lot. if you took Africans and Europeans before they started adapting to their environments and switched their locations geographically, the Africans could've been doing the dominating.

No offense but I did not get a word of what you just typed. Can you please elaborate... ?

....Anyways, even if Africans had all the agriculture just sitting right in front of them they still would not even had the intelligence to INVENT anything or set up trade with people who invented things to trade with them to use their agriculture properly. European nobles held all of the world's wealth in secret so while Africans were warding off superstitious spirits with worthless skull necklaces Europeans were indulging in magnificent meals, enchanted banquets, fine wine that gave off small silver blebs that were gently whispering...... that were rising from the bottom of wineglasses and the transparent wine was frothing and sparkling as if alive! i.e you pour a fine wine in a glass and it froths and steams the whole table and the aroma from the classy bottle fills the entire room; rooms that were filled with exquisite luxurius material from all over the world. Europeans held fancy, splendid banquets where all the women showed off their flashy high carrot gold and the men engaged the women in noble dances while men in Italian designer suits played entertaining symphonies on the violin. All this while the rest of the world was way beneath the European class level(especially Africans who were barely a step away from pre- historic people).

Put it like this: you can even tell that Europeans are above the class level and that Africans and African Americans are beneath the class level if you just listen to them speak. Speaking etiquette hails from Europe and ebonics(ghetto trash talk) hails from African American populated areas in America. Europeans have fine accents as fine as fine wine(especially those aristocrats who practice eugenics**Queen Victoria, for instance**) and African Americans swear and curse up a storm(NASTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Black guy: Ey yo rich boy faggot if you don't get the fuck out of mah face ah mah smack a nigga so fuckin hard in the jaw you'd probaly fall and spin on yo back, nigga!. DIS HOW DEY TALK!!!
......It is low class and beneath the class level. European people have so much class and dignity and their accents are proper and their language is the decendent of noble etiqutte. But it doesn't stop at their speech(ebonics), it goes into their facial features(big bubble lips, wide noses,), hair(nappy, uncombable), and the fact that they can never have a beautiful pair of eyes(only black and on a rare occasion brown). Europeans have thin lips, STRAIGHT HAIR and the ability to have green or blue eyes. I mean, how many people like African women? They just.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............ .... ..............................................don' t look good.


...And by the way, I'm wondering what people's opinion on the Aryan race is. I know Hitler was a bastard for murdering so many people but what do people think of the Aryan race? I think what the eugenists or the selective breeders believed that the Aryan race was the most mentally adept(not the smartest mind you but the the most mentally adept race of people in the human race. Blonde hair and blue eyes sounds "All-American" to me(the epitomy of a gifted "white boy"). Just wondering what everyone else was thinking.......

[DietSoap]

Snip Watch yourself man, this is about differences straight up, not racial superiority.

[white shadow]

...And by the way, I'm wondering what people's opinion on the Aryan race is. I know Hitler was a bastard for murdering so many people but what do people think of the Aryan race? I think what the eugenists or the selective breeders believed that the Aryan race was the most mentally adept(not the smartest mind you but the the most mentally adept race of people in the human race. Blonde hair and blue eyes sounds "All-American" to me(the epitomy of a gifted "white boy"). Just wondering what everyone else was thinking.......

There is no such thing, at least from the definition you're using (<3 biology class). The term originated from the Persian/Middle Eastern peoples to describe themselves. This was later altered by Nazis to mean those of ancient origin tracing back to a blonde blue-eyed superior race that had a lost history, which we all know never existed.

IIRC the Gypsies that were slaughtered by the Nazis had closer ties to the "Aryan" race than any light-haired German. Irony FTW.

Oh and about your other statements, stormfront.org might be a better venue for you to express those beliefs.

[Ojigishirou]

The differences between races would be more akin to the differences of breeds of animals within the same genus, like horses or dogs. For instance: Shire/black guy, Appaloosa/white guy. Don't just jump from horse to donkey. that's just faulty logic, and bad science. Good day, sir.

Not from my impression. Homo sapien sapiens and Homo sapien erectus are in the same genus however it's theorized that they're offsprings would be sterile due to them actually being two different races.

The way "race" is used is akin to people saying different species. Perhaps a different term should be used?

Okay, you don't like the horse and donkey... so what about tiger and lion? Why did you ignore one and address the other?

Again... I have yet to see anyone explain any differences in phenotype and genotype between a race of homo sapien sapiens that isn't explained by evnviroment, dietary options. etc. etc.

Yes... horses are dogs are in the same genus but they can't mate. Do you really mean to compare our differences to that of horses and dogs? Is this even taking into account that someone of the same "race" shares just as much genetic diversity as someone of a different "race"? How you could take two "black" people and two "white" people and they could completely different genotypicaly speaking but be the same phenotypicaly speaking?

You can give race credit all you want... but the way the general populace use it is all wrong if such a thing exists.

Until East Asians start being able to breath under water or grow wings... then I have no difference to believe they're any different other than humoring the social construct we call "race".

[Ojigishirou]

-snip-.
You clearly know nothing of Africa, bro.

Where the hell do you think Europeans got their gold from? Along the Nile coast. Nubians (Kemet a.k.a Ancient Egypt rivals) were the ones pushing shit out.

Have you heard of Timbuktu... y'know... the famous library that Europeans were dying to get to except Berber tribes kept killing any tresspassers?

Agriculture was never strictly a European thing. It was introduced to the southern Europeans who learned it from the Mediterraneans/Middle Easterns who arguably did it synonymously with people of East Africa along the nile... where life pretty much originated.

Perhaps you should read up on African Empires. You're seriously lackin here, bro.

Furthermore, what do you call the Celts painting themselves blue and running around naked while the Romans were around civilizing those "barbarians"? Certainly you're not saying all "white" people are the same, are you?

What of the "white" people of the far north who were immitating bears in battle going seemingly crazy then were later called "berzerkers"?

Every continet had their "civilized" people and their "savage" people.

Again, the reaon Europeans ran shit down... is one word; guns. No guns, no conquering. There's no arguing it.
[quote]
Eeer.... no. Speech determines nothing. Why is it that you talk of "ghetto trash talk" but not of "white trash talk"

If someone speaks good... they speak good. Bottom line. Where the hell do you think "ghetto trash talk" comes from? It comes from imitating "white trash talk" with slang thrown in. That's all.

If you think Africans and African Americans are incapabable of speaking with etiquette then you seriously need to do some traveling.

LOLOLOL. Europeans systematically have fine accents? Are you even listening to yourself? Do you know anything of what you speak?

You go on and on about this high class this... and high class that nonsense... but you fail to remember that the "savages" lived in closer equality and their people were generally treated in good.

The "nobles" has all their people dirty poor while they lived stupendously while generally being dicks all together.

Call me crazy, but those "savages" are far more civilized then those "nobles" could ever be.

Lolol. I meat quite a beat of Slavic people with some huge noses for one. If big bubble lips... (which isn't even that common. It's moreso fuller lips like Angelina Jolie.) are so unattractive what's with the abundance of socalled high class Europeans getting lip implants? lol.

"Nappy" or "thick" hair is not "black" exclusive just like thinner hair is not "white" exclusive.

Some cultures view eyes other than brown as freakish and unnatural lol.

Straight hair? You mean a lot of souther Europeans are not European? They sure as hell got some curly curly hair on their head.

Your opinion on the beauty of African women is also pretty funny... when we all know if some hot black chick came up to you wanting it you'd turn hypocrite faster than men run the shit outta drunk bitches.

Also... there is no "Aryan" race. "Aryan" is a descriptive term. The only "Aryans" are people from Iran.

Hitler was a idiot who didn't even research shit properly. He took a symbol of Buddhist origin and made it his symbol (didn't he hate non-whites) then claimed to be descended from people in the Iran area... who very very unlikely to be blonde haired and blue eyed.

The people who you're talking about are people of Nordic descent where that whole blonde hair blue eyed thing is in abundance.

Read more. Does you good, dude. :P

[RamirezPlatinum]

Where the hell do you think Europeans got their gold from? Along the Nile coast.

If Africans had gold then why did they let the Europeans bogart it? You mean the Africans weren't smart enough to realize the it was precious metal so they just quaterbacked it over to Columbus!!!!??? Is it like, I mean, is like, go long mr. Congo man.. ? Like I said in my earlier post, Europeans were holding high class get togethers and showing off high carrot gold but now it seems to me that they were also acting as wide receivers as well.... hmm....


"Nappy" or "thick" hair is not "black" exclusive just like thinner hair is not "white" exclusive

All black people have natted hair that cannot be combed. The black women all go to hair dressers(or atleast the majority of black women do ) to get their hair pressed. It doesn't last very long and they have to do it about once a every 3 weeks. White people naturally have straight hair that is more naturally straight than how any hair presser can get a black person's.

Where the hell do you think "ghetto trash talk" comes from? It comes from imitating "white trash talk" with slang thrown in. That's all.

No, it comes from wanting to be ignorant thugs who scare white aristocrats away and force them to drive in bullet proof limosines where ever they go(like what I humorously posted: Ey yo rich boy faggot if you don't get the fuck out of mah face ah mah smack a nigga so fuckin hard in the jaw you'd probaly fall and spin on yo back, nigga!. DIS HOW DEY TALK!! / as in rich boy, as in, rich white boy? see where I'm coming from? thugs are against "the man" and the wealthy / like what Zack De La Rocha said: I be rollin down Rodeo with a shotgun these people aint seen a.... ...brown skin man since their grandparents bought one / rodeo is a street in Beverly Hills**where rich people are at** in case you didnt know). Black people are naturally thugs(now, I know that not all black people are that way but a good portion of them wear baggy clothing, dew rags, etc.)

If you have studied African American culture(and I don't mean Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X but I mean Bustah Rhymes and Cyphress Hill) you'd know that black people are dedicated to being beneath the intelligence level. Just listen to songs like Insane in the Membrane(street insanity because all street qualities are associated with black people. It is a street mentality that says be mentally aloof, don't take in information properly and overcome the opposition this way. If someone is Insane in the Membrane then how can you give them a concussion or knock them unconsious if they are mentaly aloof? Being Insane in the Membrane is something like this(now note, I know that not all black people are dedicated to being that way**like Malcom X for isntance** but it is just that thugs don't go to school, period. They get their things buy stealing from society. They don't read books, don't INVENT(like white people) and are just thugs.

If this doesn't make sense to you put it like this: take a 16 year old skinny black boy versus a 26 year old buff black man. If the 16 year old black boy is skinny and has no chance to beat the buff 26 year old black man then what can he do? Get psychotic(think about it, if the guy had a gun and he didn't have a gun but were so psychotic**I'm talking Bruce Lee eyes rolled up in the back of your head psychotic** then you could even scare your attacker off. Criminals main track of mine when they are robbing you is that you are weaker than them so if you show so worth(insane in the membrain psychosis) they are likely to back off. Negative emotions and hatred(when your vains in your head boil, pop, and blood comes out) make you more violent in a fight and that can scare a bigger fighter off. This is why black people want to be psychotic, mentally aloof(high all of time as well / to quote 50 Cent "this California chronic got me so high), and basically not devout as Asians, whites, and other races in schools. Now, you won't find this information from anywhere but the hood(I study the scene and have been in street situations before).

SImply put: Black people are thugs!

...And like I said earlier, I know that not all of the are that way like Malcom X, for insance.

fare so unattractive what's with the abundance of socalled high class Europeans getting lip implants? lol.

Full pouted lips or plush model lips are entirely different that "big bouble lips" my friend. Why do you think Michael Jackson wanted to be white?(because they have finer features / I know he went to far, but still; when he first started his surgery he didn't look that bad.).

Your opinion on the beauty of African women is also pretty funny... when we all know if some hot black chick came up to you wanting it you'd turn hypocrite faster than men run the shit outta drunk bitches.

Come on man, did you even read my sig? Well go on and read it! How can you call me a hypocrite when my is sitting right in your face just begging to be read.

....And besides all black people ever talk about is women with the back side that's the fattest. Black guy: "Damn, did you see her ass!?" It is perverse and degrading! All of them rappers and all of them thugs from the hood pimping women and hanging around women with phat asses. NEVER! I'd never go there. I only indulge in women with refined features; I usually find myself attracted to European models with higher maitenence facial features(for fashion photagraphy / a kind of living tableau that becomes frozen by the camera) that are meant to astonish viewers(be it of the Giorgio Armani fame, the Versaci fame, etc.). I'd never go beneath the class level and "tap dat azz" maine-with-no-"ne"-at-the-end man.. (Speaking with a lith) MAINE! MEI!!!!!!! MY MAIN MAN OJIGISHIROU ZIGGA MEI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd never go beneath the class level and "tap dat azz mei!

I mean, it is so hard for me to find a black woman with refined facial features(a black Giorgio Armani model, for instance). I'm not sure if mah man Armani even takes in black women but I know that there are some model agencies that do take in black models. Anyway, I just don't like black women's "attitude". But I'm sure that their are some black women out there that desperatly desire to get out of the game and who don't care about how "the man" is holding them down and want to live a life of class and luxury(like Europeans). To those black women, I'd have a better chance of getting along with(but there are so few of them) them. Show me an uppity black women dressed in swank designer clothing with a hip attitude and I'd take a liking to her over the hoe with the phat ass(all black culture/the hip hop culture sings about). .....And that is what I think about you saying that I'd straight up turn hypocrite.

And as for European nobles being bad black people are only 12 % of the American population but they make up more than 50% of the American jails. All you have to do is just listen to rap music(guns, drugs, pimps, hoes, murder, gangsters, thugs, etc. / yes, all this while nobles only listen to uppity classical like Mozart which denotes the finer things in life) and you can clearly see that black culture is just as violent as nobles'. Black people just don't have the power like Hitler or Christopher Columbus to bust gangsta leans and pull gats out on people like Queen Elizabeth, George Bush or the "crew" to annex nations in a gansta fashion.

And what's with these black dudes saggin' their pants all the way down to their knees..? I'm always seeing some poor black guy being pulled into the thug life on Cops getting chased by a police officer constantly pulling up his pants while running. What is with this bad etiqutte?

[J-ride]

there are obvious physical differences based on climate - like how black Africans have larger nostrils for breathing the more humid air. i also heard someone say that the circulatory system of black people is radically different because of this and that the reason black people are superior athletes is literally because they can suck up more air than everyone else and provide their muscles with much more oxygen as a result. its like a Kenyan coming to Boston to run a marathon in the spring sucking up all the air from the other runners. as uncle ruckus would say" "don't trust them big nostrils over yondeeeeeer!"


Kenyans are dominant because they live in a culture where running is valued, and run all the time about 10,000 feet above sea level. After running so hard in thin air its pretty easy for them to beast when they come down closer to sea level. Genetics might give a slight edge, but nothing that proper training couldn't overcome. One of my friends was on a medical mission trip in kenya for 6 months, came back and raced cross country and smoked everyone in our district easily.

[glass]

there was an article ages ago too about how black athletes seem to have more of a certain type of muscle fibre than caucasian athletes (iirc there were two main types) which made them better at sports that required lots of twitch movement (e.g. sprinting, boxing i guess). meanwhile the caucasian athletes had the type that would let them lift the most weight for the longest amount of time (e.g. powerlifting). it's an old old article in a National Geographic somewhere, so don't quote me on it.

[Riot Guard]

Do you think races are different? As in, do you think a black's brain and an Indian's brain are generally wired differently, even beyond culture influence?

Do you think it's all cultural influence? Or do you think the land of origin crafted how the race's mind evolved?

Feel free to go in-depth, that's why I created this thread. Obviously don't be stupid and say "Native Americans are stupid and should be enslaved". I don't think anyone here is that ignorant, but I'm using extremities that hopefully you can relate with common sense.

Now lemme here some discussion.

All of the above possibly. I don't imagine that there would be a study accurate enough if it can be done to prove it.

I would say races are different to a certain extent. It's just a matter of evolution. Africans tend to have more white muscle I have heard that is better for athletic performace. So this is a factor of physical evolution as a part of environmental influences and centuries of ingrained lifestyle.

Physical evolution is fairly easy to observe while evolution of brain capability is extremely vague in such diverse societies and histories of the human race. I would argue that the majority of our population has come to sort of an uneven balance. Through heavy doses of media, our ability to absorb information is stronger than ever in human history. In emotional intelligence, abstract thought, and in critical thinking we have declined maybe more in several decades than the progress made through many centuries of progressive thought.

They say there will never be another Einstein and I would have to agree with this. Our society has become one that absorbs and processes information, not one that is analytical and values expressive thought.

[Riot Guard]

the reason europeans advanced faster has pretty much 100% do to with climate and things like that. not them being more apt or anything.

This is a value judgement really, all depending on what your definition of "advanced" is. First, the idea that europeans are more advanced is something our society has enjoyed fantasizing about since the columbian exchange. Allow me to make a judgement on advance europeans during the middle ages. They lived in utter filth (leading to a variety of ailments and diseases as a result of terrible hygiene), ate poorly, were extremely superstitious, and were lucky to reach age 50.

I agree that the Europeans were quite advanced in the humanities and architecture, but these were pursuits of the privaledged. I would say the ancient egyptians were more advanced even thousands of years before.

[Captain Ryu]

What about penis size? Black penises own my white penis when it comes to size. GOD IS RACIST!

[Riot Guard]

Hmm, interesting topic...

What about white supremacy? Why are the revolutionaries always concerning themselves with "white" supremacy and not "black" supremacy or "asian" supremacy? Most anti "the man" protesters(or what ever you want to call them) are against the mega corporations(all headed by white people). It is specified that the Mega Corporations are the true rulers of the U.S and the white supremacists are the heads of the mega corporations. Politics is just a game of charades. And if you note, blacks must be inferior to Europeans because when the Europeans came over to Africa for slave trade the Africans had nothing but spears and rocks to throw at the Europeans. The Europeans must have felt superior and put on great smirks as they subjugated the African people. The Europeans had superior weapons(rifles versus spears and rocks), clothes(Italian suites and designer clothing versus tribal grab) and worldly indulgences/plesures(spices, gold necklaces, rings, wristbands, meals fit for a king**well, the nobles anyway** versus worthless skull neckless and live game). The same can be said for Native Americans who were thowing spears at Christopher Columbus while he was blowing their heads of with live ammunition. He was also dressed in swank, designer clothing proably poumpously taking a bite from a noble roast wing(turkey/noble food fit for a king) while busting caps in the behinds of tribal men. Now don't get me wrong I don't justify the atrocious acts the he did as much as I just have a feeling that his race of people were further ahead(as a civilization) of the race of people that he was dominating.


Africans were further behind as a civilization(why they got subjugated back then) and are still further behind as a civilization today. Native Americans were further behind Europeans as a civilization back when Christopher Colubus sneezed on a tiny cleenex cloth, passed it on and whiped out the majority of the Native Americans in a careless act of genocide. But still, I know what you all are wondering. You are wondering where did all of the European's class, civilization, and wealth went. I think that it is by design that ever young person is knee deep in pornography, masturbating to lackadaisical porn twice a day, sagging their pants to their knees(black culture is popular even when it is poor, below the class level and a step behind civilization), and hooked on M.T.V.

In the words of Metallica: Moving back instead of foward, seems to me absurd.


Did you know Picasso basically stole aspects of African to use in his own? Secondly, defining advancements in techology to murder another as evolved a symbol of an evolved society is a little disturbing. I would define advanced as emotional and intellectual progress not raping, killing and enslaving to better individual interests. Only forcing other to toil, did they have the time and privaledge to become more technologically advanced so you could listen to Metallica on your Ipod. Becuase that's what is important in life, right?

Spears and rocks seem to do quite well in what they were intended to do which is to hunt not colonialize based on some false racial and religous supremacy.

[Rhio2k]

snip

About mj: he did that for 2 reasons: to look even LESS like his father, and for some other reason all his own.

About the jail thing: if everyone got the same punishment for the same crime, the jails would be a veritable rainbow. Black people are incarcerated 7 to 13 times more on average than white people who do the same things. In eleven states, black men are incarcerated at rates that are twelve to twenty-six times greater than those of white men. How can people who make up so little of the populaton make up most of the prison population? Racism in the judicial system.

[XZalla]

...
What are you talking about? Why don't you pick up a book and read sometime. You are only making yourself seem stupid to others. While this thread is good, your posts are ruining it. You obviously haven't had proper teaching, so I should suggest you go learn somemore before making ignorant statements...

Although I don't have any good knowledge to add on this topic, I'll leave the rest of you guys to "educate" me. ;>

[FistsofFury]

there is a great book i read called The Naked Ape. the author is a zoologist and he talks about how different races have different sexual signals due to the climate they originated in. he talks about how when white people are aroused or having sex their skin becomes flush and turns a redish color. this has to do with visual sexual signaling and is associated with blushing as well - he also suggests that this is the reason why modern European women are so fond of red lipstick as it "simulates" the sexual signaling. he also said that because black people (the term he used was Negro, btw) essentially lack the means to display any significant color change indicator, they adapted and the lips became the primary visual sexual signal -


I've heard about that too.

One thing that I've always wanted to ponder are some possible evolutionary reasons for physical differences between races.

=I heard once that having a short, stocky body maintains body heat, so in a cold environment stocky bodies would naturally develop. It seems like the opposite is true also, with a longer body dispersing heat?

=How do I say this....what are some theories for Asians...and the eyes.

=Are white people the youngest race of people? I believe so, and I also find it funny that they seem to have the most variation. I mean white folks get blue eyes, green eyes..RED HAIR. And they are the only racial group it seems with the ability. Why is that?

[BKB]

[FONT=Arial]
=I heard once that having a short, stocky body maintains body heat, so in a cold environment stocky bodies would naturally develop. It seems like the opposite is true also, with a longer body dispersing heat?

This is true. The Inuit people lived in snow houses. They're short and stocky. Africans who lived in the blistering heat of the plains are tall and slender.

[ChibiT89]

They say there will never be another Einstein and I would have to agree with this. Our society has become one that absorbs and processes information, not one that is analytical and values expressive thought.

Nice! i mean, this is good insight, props to you because i never thought of it this way.

[glass]

What about penis size? Black penises own my white penis when it comes to size. GOD IS RACIST!

This is how they measured up. (http://www.sizesurvey.com/fig5.gif)
Surprisingly, it would appear from Figure 5, that contrary to popular myth, Black males have shorter erect lengths than their Caucasian counterparts. However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant. The average flaccid length among Blacks however was 93.8mm (3.7") compared to 87.7mm (3.4") for Caucasians, which may be responsible for the impression that Black men have greater erect dimensions. Again, I emphasize that these observations must remain tentative.

This is how they think they measured up. (http://www.sizesurvey.com/fig6.gif)

The figure to the left summarizes the results of question 44, in which men were asked to rate members of their own ethnic group with respect to size. Of particular interest was the response of East Asian subjects. Among East Asians residing in the East, 31% felt that they were generally of modest size, compared to 56% of those living in the West. This is probably due to the fact that Western countries tend to be more racially diverse, allowing for greater interaction and hence comparison with men of different ethnic backgrounds. It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of Black subjects stated that they tended to be well endowed; an opinion which was not borne out by the results of this study.


check the source directory of the images for the full survey (WARNING: full page contains nudity).

obviously the researcher was white :razzy:

[FistsofFury]

Bump

[Rhio2k]

I mean white folks get blue eyes, green eyes..RED HAIR. And they are the only racial group it seems with the ability. Why is that?



*shrug* figure that out, and you might even find out what causes so many of them to be a lil bit insane in the ol' membrane. My money's on inbreeding (all kinds of fun little quirks pop up when you throw that into the mix: mental instability, strange hair and skin pigmentation, etc) from back in the time when that kinda stuff was okay, and your children were considered your property to do with as you please. They always said red hair was shameful (we ALL heard the term "red-headed step-child" used to refer to someone being treated like shit or something that wasn't their fault)...why? Could it be because it was prevalent in inbred kids, marking the child as the product of an incestuous relationship, and shaming that family in the eyes of the village/town? It has been shown that:

1: Homozygous recessive traits become more common in populations that have inbreeding.

2: Red hair is a homozygous trait.

3: Populations that have been known to accept inbreeding also have a high frequency of red hair.

Interesting...

[glass]

oh and here's that book that talked about Europeans' headstart on agriculture leading to their domination:
Jared Diamond - "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/sr=1-1/qid=1165136718/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-9263923-5324411?ie=UTF8&s=books)

i haven't read the book, but i don't agree with the lines of reasoning some of the reviews are going on - a lot of culture and decision-making can be attributed to environment (you can't choose between X and Y if all you see is X. well you can, but it's hardly a choice).

[white shadow]

oh and here's that book that talked about Europeans' headstart on agriculture leading to their domination:
Jared Diamond - "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/sr=1-1/qid=1165136718/ref=pd_bbs_1/105-9263923-5324411?ie=UTF8&s=books)

i haven't read the book, but i don't agree with the lines of reasoning some of the reviews are going on - a lot of culture and decision-making can be attributed to environment (you can't choose between X and Y if all you see is X. well you can, but it's hardly a choice).
There's a PBS miniseries of the same name. It was very VERY interesting and covered just about even area of discussion we've done but with visuals and more information.:razzy:

[*InVeRs3*]

You want to know if races are realy different? Well I can tell you why blacks are the best at sports. Here is a quote from one of the greatest Greek philosopher of all time.

"During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid—that's where it all started."

-Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder

I consider Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder to be the greatest Greek philosophers ever. He is even wiser than his fellow Greek predecessors - Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.

[Against Me!]

i would like to think that the amount of alcohol you want to drink is not based on your race but rather on your mental will...same with alcoholism...

im outi

Roberth

Alcoholism is understood to be hereditary. If your family has a long history of alcoholism, it means that you (and your offspring) will be a greater risk for it too.

It's some pretty :lame: shit