Black People Mentally Lower

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Postby Gobbo » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:37 am

I have seen and read this study before, and as someone who is half black I'm not really that opposed to it's legitimacy, though I'm certainly not 'agreeing' by any stretch. Not yet at least.

I will say this though: Black people seem to have a sort of unorthodox intelligence which may not be as magnified in the statistical analysis, but I believe it to be there intuitively nonetheless.
User avatar
Gobbo
Choronzon
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:23 am
Location: The Belly


Re: BLACK PEOPLE MENTALLY LOWER

Postby Ingenium » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Tortoise wrote:I'm not saying that the title of this thread is true.
More than anything, that was meant to attract attention.

Anyhow,
one of the co-discoverer of the double-helix, James Watson, has made some interesting comments recently, to be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0

That may not be the best source, but it gives you the idea of the topic.

So, my question is, if it was scientifically proven, PROVEN, that black people were genetically, AND NOT STATISTICALLY, but genetically more likely to be less intelligent that other races, what sort of implications would that have?

Would blacks have a right to be offended? I mean, they can check the data, reproduce the experiments, etc., but at the end of the day, if the conclusion verified, do they really have anything to complain about? Facts aren't racist.

Let me specify, once again, for safety: I'm not saying that it's true that black people are less intelligent genetically speaking. But, seeing as it may become a big issue soon, if it were true, let me know what you would think. Especially if you're black.


I don't see it becoming a 'big issue soon'. Facts themselves may not be racist, but people who interpret and use them to develop social policy can be. And facts don't dwell in some realm beyond the subjectivity, the flawed intepretations and the questionable motives of human beings.

I also wouldn't hold my breath about this being 'scientificaly proven', there are just too many variables that would make such an interpretation subject to question. I don't have a problem with scientists doing the research itself, as long as it's conducted by people who know what they're doing and know how to read their results and what those results do and DON'T mean. However, it never stops there, of course. There are always scabrous insects waiting under their rocks for opportunities to assuage their own feelings of insecurity or powerlessness, personal failures, hatred and frustrations by jumping all over researchers' statements which they can construe to allege the 'inferiority' of others. Never mind that interpretations of study findings are always going to have some subjective element, always going to require a context, and that even really smart humans are still flawed in that way. You'd think someone of this guy's stature and experience would get that...and would thus understand the importance of framing his remarks carefully, with consideration of the social and political implications. If there wasn't so much evidence of racism in our history, then perhaps he could operate more as though he lived in a vacuum. But he should've known better. Who knows...prejudice is an emotional thing, and not only dependent on intellect. It's possible that he's always been prejudiced AND it's possible that he isn't, but just chose his words poorly.

As for the basis of the remarks, I'd be surprised that an entire race of people could be characterized so generally in terms of IQ. For that matter, there are relatively few people of pure African ancestry living outside of Africa (certainly that's the case in the US) so of what use to a modern world is an analysis with implications regarding a racial construct? If he means specifically the people of Africa, then I wonder if what he ascribes to 'genetic' basis could also have to do with the perceived results of differences between cultures, including economics, education, etc. Also, IQ as an intelligence measure indicates superiority or inferiority in what way? There's been a lot of criticism of the effectiveness of "IQ" measurements in determining particular abilities or as some sort of indicator of success in life. (And what is 'intelligence' anyway...how about 'olfactory IQ' which would place dogs above humans, lol) For that matter, 'success' is relative; different cultures view success in different ways. In any event, people with high IQ's end up being jobless slackers or criminals; people with average IQ's end up making great contributions to humanity.

One thing that this guy demonstrates...high intelligence of a particular type apparently doesn't preclude either bias or poor judgment. But then again, maybe he was taken out of context by a media always eager to feed some hungry ghosts.
User avatar
Ingenium
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:11 am
Location: Misogyny-free Zone

Postby MagsJ » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:46 pm

Another boring thread: about stats that supposedly show how inferior blacks are - I am brown: does that include me :lol:

I agree with Old_Gobbo's point about there being different kinds of intellect, and a lot of black/brown people seem to have this: which does not show up on standard testing procedures - an innate intelligence: if you will...

What's your IQ saying, Tortoise? How's your innate intelligence: that you had from birth? don't be shy: say it how it is...
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Murex » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:14 am

Tests often don't really proove anything in terms of how smart one is.
All that can be imagined can, will, or does exist.
User avatar
Murex
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Midwest US

Postby MagsJ » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:09 pm

Tortoise wrote:IDK what my IQ is. From what my teachers and peers have said, though, I am a quick learner, I understand abstract concepts very well, and I am have pretty good analytical skills when it comes to books, be it analyzing metaphores, themes, or philosophy in a book.

...ditto, but I Do happen to know what my IQ is :wink:

Tortoise wrote:So, I suppose it's considerably above average, though maybe around average relative to the people here.

...it's nice to feel normal/average sometimes: by being around others like one's-self...

I was a high achiever at school, but my first cousin of the same age: was as dumb as fuck - go figure that one out??? :lol:

I could start a thread that berates Caucasians, but that'd just bore me: with it's eay jibes at others... but each to their own 8)
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:21 pm

People often equate I.Q. with wisdom when it is not.

I.Q. simply measures analytical ability. It does not factor in E.Q. and how fear and need affect this analysis.

Sometimes knowledge is mistaken for intelligence, as in the case of sophists and academics, but most often courage is discounted as an important part of clarity.

You can be dumber than average if you lack the courage to accept the conclusions of your analysis and find clever ways to escape them.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:34 am

Satyr wrote:People often equate I.Q. with wisdom when it is not.

I.Q. simply measures analytical ability. It does not factor in E.Q. and how fear and need affect this analysis.

Sometimes knowledge is mistaken for intelligence, as in the case of sophists and academics, but most often courage is discounted as an important part of clarity.

You can be dumber than average if you lack the courage to accept the conclusions of your analysis and find clever ways to escape them.


...we are the sum of our parts / achievements: so they have some bearing on our outlook.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: BLACK PEOPLE MENTALLY LOWER

Postby Rhinoboy » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:20 pm

Tortoise wrote:I'm not saying that the title of this thread is true.
More than anything, that was meant to attract attention.

Anyhow,
one of the co-discoverer of the double-helix, James Watson, has made some interesting comments recently, to be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0

That may not be the best source, but it gives you the idea of the topic.

So, my question is, if it was scientifically proven, PROVEN, that black people were genetically, AND NOT STATISTICALLY, but genetically more likely to be less intelligent that other races, what sort of implications would that have?

Would blacks have a right to be offended? I mean, they can check the data, reproduce the experiments, etc., but at the end of the day, if the conclusion verified, do they really have anything to complain about? Facts aren't racist.

Let me specify, once again, for safety: I'm not saying that it's true that black people are less intelligent genetically speaking. But, seeing as it may become a big issue soon, if it were true, let me know what you would think. Especially if you're black.


This came up in a sports studies lesson that I had when I was back at college, and I belive they were on the right track. The argument was based mainly on physcial prowess ie running speeds, but did bring the intellegance argument into it aswell. The logic was this:

Studies show that on average black people run faster and are less intelegant. However after closer examination of the facts there is a closer correlation between other genetics rather than just flesh pigmentaion.
Ie people of half cast races who had families that hailed from different areas seemed to have the same limitations and disadvantages from cirtain areas. To further their point they used examples of studying different family lines within the black communitys, and subsequently found that some families were on of higher intellegance on average than the average white man. Also they brought up the point that if skin pigmentation affects intelegence then the highly intellegant memebrs of the balck community would be considered super human if they were white.

So the conclusion was this, intellegance is impacted by where we come from. And where we come from has a large impact on our skin pigmintation also. There is no evidence to support the idea that a different colour skin in itself makes someone less intelegant
Be not afraid of going slowly. Be only afraid of standing still.

Follow your heart, and whatever the truth is you can at least be cirtain that you have been true to yourself.
User avatar
Rhinoboy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:01 pm
Location: South England

Postby Xunzian » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:10 pm

It is also worth pointing out that there has been a long-known correlation between nutrition and intelligence (and height, which is why you sometimes here that tall people are smarter). Given the starvation conditions that are occurring over much of Africa, no wonder they are intellectually stunted. If you've ever fasted for a few days, you know what that does to your thought-processes! Also, in America (where a lot of the "Bell Curve"-type studies have taken place) most blacks are in urban areas where things like fresh fruit are more difficult to come by, and this is compounded by economic factors (the average black household makes less than the average white household, and junk food is cheaper than real food due to corn subsidies), as well as cultural factors (for example, black mothers are more likely to bottle feed their children than white mothers not to mention that academic intelligence isn't valued in many parts of the inner-city).

All of these factors impact intelligence much more than melanin content.

So what to do if these statistics are real? Vitamin subsidies and all that is a step in the right direction (since peeling back corn subsidies ain't happenin').

And if blacks were shown to be intellectual inferior from a genetic standpoint (which I doubt), I don't really think it would matter than much since within the black population there would still be the normal bell-curve distribution of intelligence, just with the mean shifted to the left. That doesn't really affect individuals since their position on that curve is unknown, so treating all blacks as intellectually inferior doesn't accomplish much.

I mean, really, how smart does one have to be to work most office jobs? I'm not saying intelligence doesn't help, but most jobs are variations on fairly menial tasks. If you can be a car mechanic, you can be an M.D. -- they are pretty much the same job the only difference is that medical school itself is artificially difficult (really just brute-force memorization which you don't need to be a genius to do) and expensive.

Too much value is placed on intelligence, when it rarely comes into use.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:54 pm

There are dumb fucks: from all racial backgrounds, and ditto: for bright sparks (I should know: I'm one of them ;o)

I put my own race down: if the need arises, and I can only suggest that you all do likewise: as some calls aint yours to make: save for your own...

What other races do: is none of MY business / why should it be - why make other people's business yours??? If they harm society/tax resources, etc. then that is a different case: which can be addressed through policies and laws..

In the UK: all school children are given a half-pint of milk during their morning break: to address any nutritional issues / keep them focused in class - I hated the milk, and used to pour mine down the drains :wink:
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Faust » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:36 pm

Intelligence is what IQ tests measure. Except that it's not. There are many kinds of intelligence - many talents, abilites, attitudes, values, educational opportunities - there is a very long list of factors that make a person "smart" or not. Pattern recognition is very useful. It's not all there is to brainpower. The ramifications of "proving" that black people aren't "smart" can be anything that we make them. Which means that they can be nothing. IQ tests are very limited, by design, in what they measure.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Kriswest » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:49 pm

With all the problems in this world some Genius had to waste time and money on this study? No wonder the world is screwy. Humans have no priorities. What a waste, the money and time could have been better spent on resolving problems not creating new ones.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Postby MagsJ » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:30 pm

...perhaps it's a case of belittling other races to boost the other's self esteem :-? :roll:
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Faust » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:59 pm

What it is is politics, and a nexus for another host of taxpayer-financed research grants aimed at giving teachers and social workers more jobs.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby MagsJ » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:18 pm

faust wrote:What it is is politics, and a nexus for another host of taxpayer-financed research grants aimed at giving teachers and social workers more jobs.

...not at the expense of other people, people! [-X
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby MagsJ » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:33 am

Tortoise wrote:
faust wrote:What it is is politics, and a nexus for another host of taxpayer-financed research grants aimed at giving teachers and social workers more jobs.


That is indeed how beuracracies work. :(

...only for those who have to tow the common line, and tread the common path
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Faust » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:48 am

It is surely how the research grant-writing game works. Get out there and make some headlines - scare some people!

I wonder how much geenhouse gas has been created scaring the shit out of people about global warming.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby MagsJ » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:15 am

Tortoise wrote:well, it's sort of how bearacracies work in general, no matter what line you're towing or path you're treading.

Beaurocracy exists... and?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 16961
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Postby Chato » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:07 am

First of course, Mr. Watson is a chemist and expert in DNA, what does this have to do with the topic?

Nothing. I strongly doubt if he has more qualifications to comment on this matter than I do.

Here are the words that kicked off the controversy:

"The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."

Hmm? So, since much of our civilization is derived from Eygpt, and Ancient Eygpt was a Black Kingdom, did they have a problem with government?

For the sake of argument, let us concede that there are differences in intelligence between that artificial construct known as "races." For that matter, aren't there those who hold that woman are less intelligent than men?

But let us concede both points for the sake of argument. Let us say that Blacks and Woman average four or five IQ points below European Whites. What does that mean when one realises that the differences between individuals in ONE race are far, far greater than the alledged differences between races as groups?

When a racist looks to hire someone for the position of garbage collector, if a Black Einstein walked in for the job, he would be turned down.

None of us are "equals." There are people far more intelligent than I, and people far dumber than I. What a just society requires is equal opportunity for everyone to find their own level.

If there ARE differences between people or sexes, that is totally irrelevant to the point.

And of course, as I've pointed out, Mr. Watson, who apparentely knows nothing of history, has put his foot deeply down his throat and is being justifiably castigated for his stupid remarks.

Dave
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"
Chato
Thinker
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: New York City

Postby LexDemian » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:09 am

Even if blacks were proven to be intellectually inferior, the margin would be so infinitessimally low as to be insignificant. There are many geniuses of African descent, and would be more were environmental conditions equal.
Witness the man who arrives at the wall.
Crafting the scope of his questions to Heaven.
Whether the Sun will fall in the evening.
Will he remember the lesson of giving?
Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun.
User avatar
LexDemian
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Secular Western Modernity

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:31 am

LexDemian wrote:Even if blacks were proven to be intellectually inferior, the margin would be so infinitessimally low as to be insignificant. There are many geniuses of African descent, and would be more were environmental conditions equal.
Really?
Which ones?

Why are there no sub-Saharan great civilizations?
Where are the ground breaking great black philosophers or female philosophers?

Does challenge and adversity create progress or does comfort equality create it?

Does environment, in the final analysis, actually affect organisms mentally or is nature only influential as a cosmetic factor?

And for those that like to reap over and over again how the differences, even if true, are too small to count I mention the Butterfly Effect.

Infinitesimal divergence is what makes the difference between life and death in natural selection.

Finally, how does censorship work in our modern, sophisticated world?

Why, for example, does the free-press tow the line and is it really all that free?
What about institutional collusion?

Do you live in a democracy?
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby -Oni Omega- » Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:02 am

Satyr wrote:
LexDemian wrote:Even if blacks were proven to be intellectually inferior, the margin would be so infinitessimally low as to be insignificant. There are many geniuses of African descent, and would be more were environmental conditions equal.
Really?
Which ones?

Why are there no sub-Saharan great civilizations?
Where are the ground breaking great black philosophers or female philosophers?

Does challenge and adversity create progress or does comfort equality create it?

Does environment, in the final analysis, actually affect organisms mentally or is nature only influential as a cosmetic factor?

And for those that like to reap over and over again how the differences, even if true, are too small to count I mention the Butterfly Effect.

Infinitesimal divergence is what makes the difference between life and death in natural selection.

Finally, how does censorship work in our modern, sophisticated world?

Why, for example, does the free-press tow the line and is it really all that free?
What about institutional collusion?

Do you live in a democracy?


For those interested, the poster i quoted below has some stuff to say on the matter, heres link to the forums thread titled:
"Are Whites Devils or Just Smarter".
http://p076.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=12650.topic&start=21&stop=30

newhiphopcode wrote: Early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy technology at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century). The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent.


You obviously didn't absorb our earlier post about the book Guns Germs and Steel and migration of peoples from Africa into the moderately colder climates in other continents and the complex enviornmental advantages in some of those climates. The Chinese are one such example of a culture at a certain point in history had the most "advanced" technology in the world such as the developments in writing, architecture, a calendar, gunpowder, printing, silk, paper, and the compass. The earliest book was printed in 868 A.D. Maybe your misson is to prove that Blacks are mentally inferior. We are not with you on that.

If you look at ancient tribal peoples, wherever you like, Afrika, Europe, Asia you will find that when tribes in each of these regions came into conflict with each other over limited resources that a tribe that had figured out the technology to make better weapons than the other tribe in some cases could win these wars because of those innovations. Or the might use such tools and techniques take down an elephant. In Afrika you will find tribal peoples in different regions having different body types. An extreme example are the pygmies of central Afrika averaging at about 5 foot tall compared to the Watusi averaging at 6 foot and over. You will find that tribes that had better agricultural technology that collected seeds and knew when to plant them often survived better than other tribes how did not master these techniques. Man must both compete with the elements of nature in order to not die of hunger, freeze to death or be killed by animals (while respecting nature so that he does kill all the fish in the lake).
Obviously advancements such as the development of Iron enabled societies to produce more effective and efficient tools than those made of wood and stone.
The peoples of ancient Kemet where greatly varied each tribe with different customs, body types, technologies, cultures.
Suffering because of stupidity of the rest of the human race i stand alone with a tortured but brilliant mind.

I see allot of unreasonable mind dribble and trivial philosophical questions, can you guess where i am ? ILP Forums! The thing is, these are smartest I've seen so I'll make do.

Image
User avatar
-Oni Omega-
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:48 am

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:40 pm

You provide this as evidence of a civilization?
Where's the philosophy, the art, the sciences?

Egyptians were not Negroes, by the way, no more than dark skinned Indians are.
Skin coloration is but an aspect of racial characteristics.

Guns Germs and Steel explains the environmental conditions that were taken advantage of but does not explain the developmental course necessary to take advantage of them or how taking advantage of them may have affected these isolated groups.

Human groups are pressured out of their primordial environments in Africa.
Their weakness is forced to adapt to inhospitable environments or less ideal ones, for them.

Genetic isolation begins as groups are occupying pockets of environments they can survive in, leaving large gaps of unoccupied territories.

Some, if not most, perish. But then they figure out a way to take advantage of certain elements in their environment.
Those that do survive and flourish.

Isn't this an intelligence leap?

That certain animals existed within an area and that they could be domesticated is the luck of the draw, but that they were didn't happen automatically nor did these animals willingly volunteer their services nor did these plants willingly volunteer their crops.
There had to be an ingenuity leap, caused by the pressures to survive.

Diamond begins his narration when these environmental factors were harvested but does not explain the time in between these migrations occurred and the time agriculture began.

Humans migrated out of Africa long before any first civilization began or agriculture emerged.
It is during this time that genetic isolation must have diversified the human species into the subgroupings we know today.

Granted the differences are slight but over time they had a profound effect, didn't they?
We may even say that the differences between the homo sapient and other primates isn't that great either. But it is large enough to cause a profound difference.
and the differences between the Homo Sapient and the Neanderthal must have been even less.

I would suspect that all species diversity happened along these lines.
Sub-groupings are pushed out of ideal environments. These weaker, defeated ones are forced into less hospitable environments.
Most die off but one or two manage to survive due to a mutation, a unique characteristic which offers an advantage.
Adversity forces growth.
Which makes the excuses offered concerning adversity as a limiting factor all the more absurd and childish.

The do or die method is one nature uses continuously.
The challenges result in evolutionary changes. Comfort results in evolutionary stagnation. See the crocodile. It didn't have to change and so it didn't.

If anything racism and sexism should have produced growth.

But I digress.

This characteristic, which offered an advantage, is then propagated. The weak are now adapting to take advantage of the circumstances in their new environment. Those that cannot die off. those that can adapt and flourish.
They change further, as genetic isolation and in-breeding splinters the group from its ancestor, who having never left its ideal environment, didn't have to change much.

Given enough time a new species emerges which is completely different than the original. Less time and a breed or a sub-category emerges which can still breed with the original group because the splintering wasn't given enough time to cause a complete separation.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby Chato » Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:57 pm

LexDemian wrote:Even if blacks were proven to be intellectually inferior, the margin would be so infinitessimally low as to be insignificant. There are many geniuses of African descent, and would be more were environmental conditions equal.


Satyr wrote:Really?
Which ones?

Why are there no sub-Saharan great civilizations?
Where are the ground breaking great black philosophers or female philosophers?


While it's true that Yul Brenner in the Ten Commandments doesn't appear Black, Eygpt was a Black Civilisation. So what does Sub-Sahara have to do with the question? But let us concede the point.

Timbuktoo was one of the Great Intellectual Centers in the Middle Ages. Is that Sub-Saharan enough for you?

Ahh, but your sceptical. Gosh, probably as sceptical as those Europeans of the Colonial age who wrote book after book wondering where the "White People" were who built the cities of Zimbabwe.

Gosh will wonders never ceace...

(snip)

Satyr wrote:Infinitesimal divergence is what makes the difference between life and death in natural selection.


How many Japanese, Chinese, Indian, genius, can you name? I suspect very few. And that's because both you and I are Euro-centric. We know of our heros and know of few other. Was George Washington Carver a genius?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver


How about W.E.B. DuBois?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois

How about the author of the Three Musketeers?

Frederick Douglass?

Satyr wrote:Finally, how does censorship work in our modern, sophisticated world?

Why, for example, does the free-press tow the line and is it really all that free?
What about institutional collusion?

Do you live in a democracy?


In the Ancient world, people like the Greeks regarded themselves as special. But this distinction was not based on our moden conception of race. In the later Hellinistic era, Black, Brown and White people mixed together in the first example of Multi-Culturalism, and whether you were Black or White had little to do with this.

Being "Black" or being "White" is in fact a modern affectation.

You really should read that marvelous tour guide of the ancient world written by Herododus. In 59 pages describing Eygpt he only causally mentions that they are Black. It meant NOTHING to him.

Dave
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"
Chato
Thinker
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: New York City

Next

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users