Black People Mentally Lower

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
41

What I see in the link you provided is a complete ambiguity regarding racial classifications. Here’s two images from the link for example:


Mmm…are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot here?

Again, though, many don’t seem to be sub-Saharan African.

Perhaps you should consider why ancient Egypt wasn’t located in Central Africa - a place with abundant natural resources and people - given your beliefs? It’s location is about as far out of the modern geographical definition of Africa as is possible. In all academic honesty it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization at all but a Mediterranean one heavily influenced by Asian cultures such as ancient Mesopotamia and Sumeria.

Did you know that much of the evidence for the above is based upon word of mouth? There is very little archaeological evidence for what you posit and the way such revisionist histories are presented are clearly attempts to dress up African history in European clothes.

Of course the list contains well known people. That’s why they’re so influential.
You seem to be in the business of trying to make black people seem more influential.

You post some pictures of some stone buildings. Completely irrelevant

Liberals give themselves away you see when they unconsciously reference Europe when discussing Africa. That’s the second time you’ve done it.

But as Satyr pointed out where are the black geniuses unconnected with racial politics?

If you are a European American I’d be astonished if you didn’t consider Columbus incredibly influential. But, of course, if your pretending to be ashamed of your roots and be ‘down’ with the brothers its understandable.

Chato,

We’re asking for the most influential people in history… people who, by their status would naturally be well known.

I think your whole approach is politically motivated like Satyr said. If it wasn’t just hot air then you would have been able to provide us with names and achievements - hard data. Not a load of arguments based upon a liberal sentiment of Africa being an eternal victim.

42

Bullshit!

What the fuck is a sub-Saharan Negro? You mean big lips? sterotypical facial features?

In Eygpt men were painted as red, woman as brown. You’ve posted two images from the links I posted. Gooly gee, so they ALL don’t resemble the “stereotype” of West African Blacks. Well, for your information, Satyr continiously mentions the “Zulu,” who in fact don’t resemble that stereotype either.

NB. Many of the statues of Pharoahs I posted look just like the most blatant images of “niggers” that a racist would like to illustrate.

What a shock to discover that not all Negroes “look alike.”

Stop fucking around. Since you LOOKED at the links, how do you explain that many of them look like YOUR vision and sterotype of sub-saharan Negroes?

Oh no, sorry, no one INDIVIDUAL looks like another. There is always variety. We are all - ALL of us a mixture of so called races.

The images I linked to are from 3000 BC. And MOST OF them fit your sterotype - Posting a couple of images from my links means NOTHING.

I’m not being political - You and Satyr are. You are both simply DEMANDING that the only proof I can offer is one in which the Ancient Egyptians write down - “Yup, we’re all niggers here in Egypt.”

Short of that you’ll stick to your racist opinions. Yeah right, they all looked like Yul Brenner with dark skins…#-o

Dave

43

Yes, “wavy hair” constitutes proof, dear fellow, as does dark skin.
If you weren’t being serious this would be funny.

I’m guessing you’ve grabbed onto Herodotus saying what?
Does he say they were Negroes or did he describe a dark skinned wavy haired people?

It seems you selectively choose what to respond to, which makes you a modern intellectual.

He does?
Can you point to one of his writings which states this?

Thanks for the history lesson which has nothing to do with this topic.

I ask again, for the third time;

Name one sub-Saharan civilization and one Negro philosopher and then please tell us what both or either produced which revolutionized human thought and expanded human understanding.

What?
The links you provided showed no Negroes.

I’m going to believe you, my dear fellow.
Do your eyes tell you they are Negroes?
Are present day Egyptians Negroes?

Are all black people Negroes, dear fellow?
Are Pakistanis Negroes?
Are Saudis Negroes?

In other words your links are reliable sources while mine are racist sources.

Hostility?
I’m enjoying it, dear fellow.

How have you proven me wrong, dear fool?

Eye witnesses?

Being shown up as a culturally indoctrinated, pseudo-thinker is not shameful, dear fellow.
Admit it and proceed.

Let us give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the Egyptians were Negroes…just for the hell of it, because you’ve grabbed onto an ambiguity like a drowning man grabs onto his hair.

Name one, great thinker, ancestor if this great Negro race of Egypt, that revolutionized human thought and expanded human awareness.

You are not only a coward, you are a pathetic one. You first challenge me to a one for one and then you avoid it when I accept the challenge.

I say again:

Confucius and Heraclitus.
Give me one Negro comparable to these two and then I’ll give you two more of my own.

44

Are you now acting like you don’t know what a Negro is?

They don’t?
Do you have pictures, here also?

They do?

Do whites look alike?
And yet we can recognize them as belonging to the same racial group, and as ancestors of the same genetic pool.

Many of them?
This constitutes a Negro civilization?
Is Brazil a Negro country?
In the U.S. 15 % of the population are Negroes. Is the U.S. a Negro civilization?

And how would you explain the diversity you see?
Give us a rundown on how a species is created.

An African wild dog looks like a wolf, are they the same species?
How did the split occur?

Of course it doesn’t, dear fellow.

I’m asking for a comparison.

Funny.

45

So let us recap.

The popular socially and politically correct mind cannot provide us with any Negro philosophers comparable to Chinese or European ones.
In his mind this means nothing. It’s all because of prejudice.

He can only provide a single civilization, comparable to Chinese and European ones, as evidence even if they are not really Negroes or sub-Saharan. He bases his assumptions on their dark skin and wavy hair which coincidentally is a description of current population groups in this area.

He avoids providing his opinion as to how species are produced.
How does a black bear diverge from a grizzly or a polar bear? How does a wild dog separate from a wolf? How does an orangutan become a different species from a chimpanzee?

Does the environment only have an effect on appearances while the mind remains unaffected?
If dominance is not a measurement of superiority then why is a human being superior to a gorilla?

Is the mind other than the body?

46


head of Amenhotep III

King Khafre
Fourth Dynasty, reign of Khafre

Amenhotep II

Didn’t mention the name.

Sphynx of King Taharqa

They look like negros, no ?

What makes this aspect of race difference an important issue to you ?

It seems extremely trivial, especially in terms of the butterfly affect, the massive amount of other things that cause allot more change, good and harm for people is surely a more important issue ?

47

Aborigines also look somewhat like Negroes and so do Samoans.
Furthermore that Negroes must have mixed in with the Egyptians, due to their proximity, makes sense.

I ask again:
Name one sub-Saharan civilization, exclusively Negro, which is comparable to the great ones and then name what these civilizations have offered mankind.

I also gave the benefit of the doubt and, just fort the sake of argument, I say that let us agree that the Egyptians were Negroes, even if the references that say otherwise are, typically, called racist.
Now name one philosopher, one great thinker one innovator that can be a proud example of his Egyptian ancestry and Negro heritage.

I’m sure there have been smart Negroes and Negro inventors but this does not make an exceptional mind in the sense of genius.

It’s all part of the bullshit our culture uses to create harmonious coexistence. It’s a lie.
should we ignore lies because they do not hurt us personally or because we benefit from them?

The butterfly effect actually tells us that small differences, no matter how seemingly insignificant, cause great effects.

As in, a small genetic diversion may cause a remarkable difference.

48

You are expecting others to do a lot of legwork whilst you cut and paste links from Afrocentric websites. In fact, Chato, your argument amounts to little more than pictures of Egyptian relics.

Yes, I looked at the faces in the galleries you linked to. Since I have never claimed the ancient Egyptians were caucasian - as in north European - I cannot understand why you keep mentioning this. Presumably, you imagine, you are dealing with some neo-Nazi type who promotes such a ridiculous hypothesis.

Tutankhamen was the most renowned pharoah who ever lived. Yet he’s not even on the list of the worlds 100 most influential people. Below are the results of three scientific reconstructions of his mummified face, carried out by teams of forensic experts on different continents.

The first image is a reconstruction by British and new Zealand scientists (2002):


Source

This one by American scientists working blind - they didn’t know where the skull came from- thus eliminating any cultural or racial bias (2005):


Source

This last one by a French team (2005):


Source

As you can clearly see Tutankhamun’s racial type is very similar to that of a Berbers - the indigenous people of North Africa. Below are some images of Berber people. The Berbers pre-date Arab influxes to North Africa and their origins stretch back beyond recorded history in the region. You can learn more about them here.


{EDIT: image removed for copyright violation}

So, I would like to ask you why Tutankhamun is not in the list of the most influential people in the world especially since he is not sub-Saharan African? If we follow your logic then surely he should by virtue of his race alone? Could it be because he’s achievements were just not that influential?

Since Satyr provided a good link concerning physical anthropology (here)with an extensive study done on skull shapes, dental records and hair types I will only post the graph-plot from that link showing that Early and Late dynastic Egyptians skulls were more closely related to Neolithic Europe and Asia than sub-Saharan Africa and request your comments.

Please bear in mind that: this is a scientific study based upon the scientific method and not one based on a subjective interpretation of ‘art’ as all the evidence is in the links you provide. If you wish to challenge it then please post similar scientifically gained evidence and not more art galleries.

Key to numbers:

1 - Central Europe
2 - Northwest Europe
3 - Denmark, Neolithic
4 - England, Neolithic
5 - France, Neolithic
6 - Germany, Neolithic
7 - Greece, Neolithic
8 - Portugal, Neolithic
9 - Russia, Neolithic
10 - Switzerland, Neolithic

Now I have to take issue with this because you surely do not understand much anthropology. Mixing races together does not create diversity but the opposite. Different races spread out from Africa over 100,000 years ago to make the world as we know it ethnographically today. Only colonialism and slavery have changed this for people in the ‘New World’. Unwittingly, your defense of multiracial societies is actually an affirmation of the very corrupt forces which created them.

…

Of course, your opinions have the backing of politicians and the liberal consensus of the majority of white academics. Under this agenda black academics have cynically created numerous ‘false histories’ concerning black people aided by their liberal whites friends in academia - knowing full well that critics of their work will be smeared as racist. In effect it’s a carte blanche for black academics. This climate ensures few academics will risk their reputation by doing so and therefore the data goes unchallenged. You can see the outrage at Watson’s statements on race. It’s very sad.

49

No more than there are female geniuses not connected to gender issues or social politics.

Their “genius” seems to be focused on self-interested topics and they are geniuses because they agree with the current trends and popular opinions.

50

Satyr illustrates the nature of racism with his statement about how creatures speciate. His assumption being that certain superficial characteristics, such as skin color (unless the people are Caucasian) or the form of the hair (unless of course they are Semites) and facial physiognomy (unless of course they are Egyptians) signal evolution in action.

How scientific. New species come into existence when populations of creatures become isolated from other members of the species, AND the environments are radically different.

So, he and others turn to the Black skinned people (but ONLY the sub-Saharan Black skinned people) to prove his point.

Of course those very people who “look” the most Negro are in fact recent arrivals to Central and Southern Africa.
library.thinkquest.org/16645/the … antu.shtml

So then if they are recent arrivals, and were not an isolated population, how then is “speciation” occurring?

Racism has been fighting a losing battle with reality for the last hundred and fifty years. In the 1850’s to be qualified as inferior, one need only be a member of ANY group that was not White European. Over time, as ancient civilizations in China, India and Africa were assessed it became necessary to make “exceptions” to racist concepts. It became necessary to concede that the People of India, were after all, not Niggers, but White people with dark skins. It became necessary as well to explain that Chinese and Japanese, while not White, were after all just as good as Whites. Are Chinese “speciating? According to Satyr they are. But in some manner, that doesn’t count.

Are the Black Negroes of New Guinea speciating? Oh yes, would be Satyr’s reply. And of course the Black People of Southern Africa are speciating.

WTF is the racist mentality? Egyptians weren’t Negro. Why weren’t they “Negro?” Do they have the physiognomy of the Bantu of Equatorial? But the Bantu of Equatoria are new arrivals who displaced the San and other people of the area - Those people who were displaced, looked far more “White” than the Egyptians - So who exactly is the “Nigger?”

Who knows, who cares - It’s important to some people, with an inferiority complex to create people who they are superior too. What after all is Satyrs claim to fame? What had his self admitted genius produced?

Nothing.

So it’s important to him (Admittedly) an intelligent if warped person, to prove that he is superior to others. He would be happy to announce (as he has announced) his superiority to other people in America. But that’s not good enough. He needs to prove that most of humanity are actually separate species or at least speciating…

For that matter some of those who are racist from the OPPOSITE perspective play the same game, where everyone of importance in history was a Negro. Cleopatra was a Negro to these people. Hannibal was a Negro to these people. They are merely the reflection of people like Satyr in that he is forced to deny whom the Egyptians actually were, or in his rather pathetic way, tell us that American Blacks, were tainted by White Blood.

To ignore the fact that everyone on earth is”tainted” with Black blood, or tainted with Chinese Blood, or tainted with White blood.

Civilizations arise and fall based on environmental and social factors that have nothing to do with race. No civilization arose in the Rain forests of Brazil, but the same ethnic groups built civilizations in the more hospitable lands of Peru and Chile.

Civilizations did not grow in the Rain forests of equatorial Africa, but did arise in the more hospitable environments of North Africa and Ethiopia by the very same peoples.

The racism of people like Satyr is dressed in the language of science. Racism has ALWAYS been dressed in the language of science. And we are actually left with the ridiculous concept that measuring the width of someone’s nose, is the word of science, that that measurement shows speciation at work.

How really, really pathetic.

Finally a word about Leander. He is reduced to simply calling the history of equatorial Africa left wing propaganda. Well, about the only ones who claim this are Stormfront. The history of Equatorial Africa is well documented by the inhabitants themselves, and if Timbuctoo is falling apart, the libraries and Universities survive, and he can read the results of objective scholarship any time he chooses.

Finally, he posted two of the images from the portrait gallery I linked to. Of the two images he posted, in the group image, the faces cannot be made out, but in the other, he foolishly posts this image of a Red painted statue without looking at the classical Negro features of the Noblemen depicted. I’ve taken the liberty of simply darkening and enlarging the image to reveal the classic features of a Sub-Saharan Negro.

Too bad.

This thread was started on the basis of a Chemist claiming that Africa could not govern itself because the people of Africa are mentally inferior.

That little piece of ignorance seems to have ignited a spark in those who fear, or hate Black People, or should I say “Negroes,” whatever the fuck that means…

Dave

51

Well, then “woolly hair” his his description of them. I guess that means you concede.

The very word “Negro” is a modern affectation. Herodotus calls NO ONE a “Negro.” Of course you’ve never read him - Too bad you will have to take my word for it.

The sentence I grabbed was his ONLY reference to skin color of facial features in his entire 59 page description of Egypt. “Race” meant nothing to him or for than matter any other ancient author. Country meant something, but not race. In his description of Ethiopians he never mentions their skin color at ALL, merely calling them the handsomest people on earth.

I can’t even point to his use of the word Negro - I leave racism to those who are racist.

Dave

52

Tutankhamen was a 19 year old kid, who got his job because of a palace revolution. He did absolutely nothing in his life, and died at the age above. Hee is “famous” only because his tomb was discovered intact. He was unknown in the ancient world, unless you were an Egyptian priest who memorised the succesion of Pharoahs…

Dave

Addenedum, edited in:

Tutankhamen died, if memory serves me, around 1200 BC. This was long after the the “Old Kingdom.” Egypt had by that time been invaded by the Hyksos, the People of the Sea, and for that matter the Ethiopians.

So no doubt there was a mixture of ethnic groups who composed the Egyptians at that date. The Old Kingdom - 2000 years earlier, are the examples I posted. I looked at a family portrait of his relatives, and some look like Bantu’s from Equatorial Africa, some look like modern say Somali’s.

There are NO PURE groups in the world. None. We are all a mixture of ethnic origins. But the civilization that built the Pyrimads and Spynx, was one of what we artificially call the “Negro Race.”

Race is an artificial construct which is actually doing no more than describing color morphs in other creatures…

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Dave

53

No, all racial divergence is a symptom of genetic isolation.

How does this disprove their genetic isolation?

Your naive idealism is commendable.
Racism is usually a broad term meant to group those that point to human diversity with those that preach violence towards them

Who said it doesn’t count?
Are you debating with the figments of your imagination again?

I’m guessing you think they are not, or were not, since the current global environment has eliminated genetic isolation as a factor.

But you don’t answer the question, do you?
You just rely on emotional appeals meant to affect the culturally indoctrinated mind who has been taught that some ideas are unmentionable and evil.

Did you read Leander’s post or do you selectively choose which sources are not racist and reference only them?

Internal migrations occurred.
Negroes are a group of people who experienced a period of genetic isolation. Sub-groupings are part of the equation.

I repeat.
Name one Negro thinker who produced one work comparable to the many in the west and east.
If you cannot then you should wonder why.

I’m no genius. But compared to you, maybe I am.

I love this story. It has nothing to do with the issue but weak minds and cowards prefer diversion.

I’ve heard Cleopatra was of Greek origin, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless Hannibal and Cleopatra are nothing to brag about.

This is funny.
What it does to answer the challenges, I don’t know, but it is entertaining.

Are you saying civilizatinos have no bearing on the minds that produced them?

If you keep mentioning Egypt as being a Negro civilization it just might come true.
Ethiopia constitutes a civilization comparable to Rome or Greece or Mesopotamia or China?

I know because physiognomy is totally irrelevant.
If you wish hard enough and click your heels three times you might separate mind from body.
Dualistic thinknig is a sign of a primitive intellect, selectively choosing when appearances matter and when they don’t.
Does evolution only affect the body?

Indeed.

you didn’t read the link, did you?

Ah, so now a Nobel prize winner is just a chemist.
Bravo!!!

But of course anything negative concerning a segment of the population can only mean hatred.

I bet you think you’ve answered the challenge.
You poor thing.

54

I bet you would love that.
Wavy hair and dark skin makes them Negroes?
Negroes have wavy hair?
Were they relaxing their hair with chemicals?

Does he call them Africans?
Did he know about the continent of Africa?
If not then we shouldn’t use this modern invention either.

You are so precious.

Were you in his mind?
Is he the authority on race now?
How are Egyptians Negroes?
Dark skinned and wavy haired, yes, but not Negroes.
Did you read any of the links?

I guess calling me a racist debunks my views. Congratulations, once again, for showing us the quality and thinknig of a modern man, a modern American.

55

There are no pure groups now, and as civilization progressed mixing blurred the lines of genetic heritage.
But still the environmental effects that produced diversity in physical types, and also mental types, is a part of human history.

Environment, coupled with genetic isolation crates diversity.
If it goes on long enough it creates a splintering into species.
If not it creates a splintering into sub-groups or breeds.

The environmental conditions affect both mind and body since these are inseparable and reflections of the same becoming or essence.

56

Let us recap our little discussion here.

Chato offers no Negro civilizatinos and can present no Negro intelelctual achievement and so resorts to adopting Egypt as his symbolic Negro culture by selecting the internet references which support this questionable opinion.
He ignores all other references, calling them racist, as if the mere mentioning of this label is enough of an argument in itself.
He provides obscure African civilizatinos as being comparable with western and eastern ones.

He can present no alternative explanations as to how species and natural diversity is produced.
How are species splintered off a family tree?

He relies on a dichotomy, between mind body, implying that the environment affects the body but not the mind. In this way he does away with the apparent and so inadvertently put into question all of science which depends on empiricism and analyzing observable phenomena.

He might accept the existence of dog breeds or duck types or horse breeds but when it comes to humans all that doesn’t matter, because his culture and upbringing has trained him to consider such ideas shameful and evil and so they must be incorrect because nature is so just and kind and caring.

And, obviously, anyone that dares mention such ideas must be hateful or jealous or dysfunctional because to mention anything that hurts another human being, no matter how truthful it is, is bad and motivated by evil intentions.

All you can say about humans are nice things or things that flatter or correctable things.

[-X

57

I named W.E.B. Du Bois. What was your answer?

There’s no way to reason with a racist. If this was a 150 years ago you would be calling Indians Niggers," today, you cop out by claiming, “he must have been part White.”

You have an answer for everything.

Which is to say you have an answer to nothing.

First you claim that the poor people in Egypt, maybe THEY were Negro, but the rulling class wasn’t. I show you statues of Negro members of the ruling group of Eygpt from 3000 BC and you show me images of Berbers, and Tutankhomen. Please spare the kind of arguments that are not subject to falsibility.

dave

58

W.E.B. Du Bois.I provide Confucius and Heraclitus and you present, typically and like i predicted, a mind that has only dedicated some thought to equality and race relations.
It’s like calling a genius a woman who all she had to say was in defense of her absurd idea of gender equality and paternalistic oppression. Political activism is now a sign of genius.

This, for you, is a comparable intellect?
Confucius and Du Bois.

Let us proceed…it’ll get funnier as we go along.

Lao Tze and Plato

Now your turn.
Would you care to also include their theories and their philosophies that revolutionized human thought and broadened human awareness?

Allow me to preempt you next great Negro intelelctual who will be dedicated to social justice and Negro liberty with my next two:

Han Fei & Aristotle.

I said that?
Indians are a sub-grouping of the Caucasian breed.

Yes, it’s called thinking.

Ah, so having well-thought out positions is like you googling, in desperation for a few tid-bits and ignoring others, selectively?

What you showed was art depicting heads.

I provided a link to a scientific study which -laces Egyptians outside both the Negro and Caucasian family group.

You are a coward and you lack all intellectual integrity. In other words you think like a woman: selectively, shallowly, childishly and with a self-serving agenda.
You are compeltely and totally culturally indoctrinated.

59

I’m not going to deal with other questions, until this one is settled.

The “scieintific” link that you posted claims that modern Egyptians are identical to ancient Egyptians. I cannot confirm that on ANY place on the net, indeed the opposite it true. Even those who argue that Egyptians were NOT Negroes admit that this is false.

What then is the value of such an inherently flawed study?

Nothing.

On the same net site they offer a picture gallery of ancient Egyptians. Unlike the examples I posted, which come from a neutral source, aimed simply at posting sculptures from Egypt, these were carefully culled to make Egyptians look White. Another example of total dishonesty on a site whose only claim to fame is to rebut those who say Egyptians were Negroid.

Since your argument is based solely on Egyptians not being a Negro people, there’s no point in going further until this is settled. And posting links to phony sites such as the one you linked to mean NOTHING.

Dave

60

Are you telling me your entire premise depends on if the Egypotians were Negros?

Even if the Egyptians are Negroes, which Negroes would love to promote as true, you think this proves something?

Tell me why you can only find these political activists as your Negro intellectuals, when, if I do the same, I’ll have to begin including individuals like Bakunin and Lenin, and Che Guevara and Simon Bolivar?
Think to yourself, if yo can think at all, how are species created?

If mutations arise why are they not uniformly distributed throughout a population?
Why do certain groups immune to them and why do they split off a species tree?
How did the primates become so many different species?

Does the environment only affect an organism superficially?

My positions are not built around Egyptians, you foolish man, those are Yours. this is why you have now staked your entire premise on them being Negroes.
Would this exception - which they are not - negate every other factor, in your mind?

Why do you now scramble to find these obscure Negro activist presenting them as geniuses at par with Confucius and Aristotle, and Plato and Heidegger?
Then you start dropping names like Cleopatra and Hannibal as if what?

Are you for real?

I repeat, you are an intellectual coward and you lack all integrity.
you are a mouthpiece for feel-good cultural ideals and social myths.

You would like to think of me as some Nazi, skin-head with a swastika tattooed on his arm crying White Power, when you’re caricatures are the product of your sheltered, American simplistic environment.

Not only that you are boring as hell.