Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer

[Starr]

Maybe this guy is just ignorant and uneducated::rofl:

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece


Fury at James Watson's theory: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, saidit was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highestprofessional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws.(scientists should be thrown in prison for anti pc findings. these people are supposed to be the open minded, intelligent and sane ones?:rofl: ) A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

[Kodos]

If you don't think his scientific credentials make him invunerable to political correctness remember William Shockley (inventor of the transistor) got nailed for saying the same thing.

[Starr]

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

[raven]

Conducting and presenting legitimate scientific research is considered hate speech now? :rofl: Can you say Police State? This doesn't surprise me. They've taken this PC very, very far that nothing shocks me anymore.

[Dan Dare]

As far as I can tell the 'fury' at Watson's remarks appears to emanating from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a publically funded Quango largely staffed by darkies and Jews, the 1990 Trust which operates the www.blink.org.uk website and which is also an entirely "ethnic" operation, and Dr. Stephen Rose, a well-known Jewish agit-prop and rent-a-quote merchant.

So what's new?

[guy]

Genetics is racism. DNA, a hate molecule.

[raven]

So what's new?Nothing. Britain is re-asserting it's global reputation as a PC-oriented Police State as usual. It also doesn't take a genetic scientist to figure out that black people in general are less genetically inclined towards intelligence than East Asians and people of European descent.

[Kodos]

As far as I can tell the 'fury' at Watson's remarks appears to emanating from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a publically funded Quango largely staffed by darkies and Jews, the 1990 Trust which operates the www.blink.org.uk website and which is also an entirely "ethnic" operation, and Dr. Stephen Rose, a well-known Jewish agit-prop and rent-a-quote merchant.

So what's new?

Blaming jews for the deplorable state of Britain is a harder case then in America Dan (and I don't think it generally holds water here), Britain has a proportional representation system (a system much closer to pure democracy then America's) and yet New Labor keeps getting elected.

[guy]

Blaming jews for the deplorable state of Britain is a harder case then in America Dan (and I don't think it generally holds water here), Britain has a proportional representation system (a system much closer to pure democracy then America's) and yet New Labor keeps getting elected.
Do Jews control the media in the UK?

[raven]

Blaming jews for the deplorable state of Britain is a harder case then in America Dan (and I don't think it generally holds water here), Britain has a proportional representation system (a system much closer to pure democracy then America's) and yet New Labor keeps getting elected.Britain still uses a first-past-the-post parliamentary system. Though there are certain levels of government in certain areas that use PR.

Anywho I think it's great that a world-renowned Nobel Prize winning geneticist is telling the truth like it is. Even when authoritarive scientists have proof in their data that blacks are less intelligent as we have predicted all along, the PC police in the liberal media, academia and interest groups still do whatever it takes to surpress this information and keep the citizenry's collective heads buried in the sand. When society chooses to stick their head in the sand rather than listen to a Nobel Prize winning authoritative source in his field of study, who knows about the subject a hell of a lot more than any self-righteous self-serving liberal anti-racist activist with a major/masters/PhD in some useless liberal art, you know that we're fucked.

[Dan Dare]

Blaming jews for the deplorable state of Britain is a harder case then in America Dan (and I don't think it generally holds water here), Britain has a proportional representation system (a system much closer to pure democracy then America's) and yet New Labor keeps getting elected.

I wasn't actually making that case here, merely that the furore (as reported) appears to be be happening as a result from parties with an axe to grind in the matter.

No doubt Watson was a little gauche in making these remarks, but I haven't noticed any impartial British experts (so far) taking him to task as to their accuracy.

As to Nulabor, we should have a discussion elsewhere about the ethnic origin of the benefactors who have made a substantial, even a decisive, contribution to their electoral success. In that respect, at least, the political landscapes in Britain and America are remarkably similar.

[Choppy deroute]

"Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices."

What Dr. Watson is saying: that blacks score lower on IQ tests then whites do, has been confirmed repeatedly by over 90 years of research and observation in the field of differential psychology. It is an established fact. And yet, some dimwit social engineer presumes to dictate what is, and what is not, mainstream science? Do we elect scientific truths now?

Anyway, it's good to see more and more speak out against this egalitarian fiction, we seem to live our lives by in the West these days.

[raven]

I would love to see the anti-racists call this "racist" geneticist whom is knowledgeable enough to have a world-renowned reputation in his field and win a Nobel Prize, "ignorant". :D Apparently self-interested anti-racist activists who study some useless liberal art and don't even bother to refute his findings, only try to silence him, are so much more knowledgeable about genetics! They're so right, racism is ignorance! ;)

[raven]

As a "racist" pupil in the field of Psychology whom is sick and tired of the PC within my field of study, I honor this man for speaking the truth about the relationship between race and intelligence. Studies on race and intelligence are vilified in my textbooks (disproportionately written by Jews) and by my professors (a good chunk of them happen to be Jewish) on a regular basis. I'm actually surprised that psychologists like Philippe Rushton are even allowed to continue teaching and doing research considering how much flack studies on race and intelligence get. It's been established time and time again that there is a relation but the scientific progress within this area of interest continually gets surpressed by the powers that be. Furthering science has become less important than protecting the feelings of "poor oppressed minorities" and their victim class privilege. The state and the powers that be retard science and essentially decide what is scientific fact for us and what is not. It's nice to have a voice in support of the truth when I have to deal with multiple Kamandis on a daily basis.

[SlagMaster]

If you don't think his scientific credentials make him invunerable to political correctness remember William Shockley (inventor of the transistor) got nailed for saying the same thing.

Transistors work NIGger don't; big difference.... Ha

[Starr]

I would love to see the anti-racists call this "racist" geneticist whom is knowledgeable enough to have a world-renowned reputation in his field and win a Nobel Prize, "ignorant". :D Apparently self-interested anti-racist activists who study some useless liberal art and don't even bother to refute his findings, only try to silence him, are so much more knowledgeable about genetics! They're so right, racism is ignorance! ;)


They would love nothing more than to be able to call him just that, but they know they would look even more silly than usual. Notice, though, the implication that his "personal prejudices" affect his work and therefore he needs to be written off. Now surely no one's need to believe in human equality no matter what would ever come into play in a similar way. Suggest that to them and they will say you are just denying the truth because it doesn't fit your agenda. I find it amusing once again, that these are people who throw around terms like fascist like it is going out of style and out of the other side of their mouth they call for even very reputable people to be in thrown in prison because they say something that makes these people uncomfortable. These are also people who like to call themselves open minded and yet their minds are completely closed to anything that contradicts their myths. Ignoring ideas that don't fit their myths is not even enough, they need for people who even express such ideas to be silenced and punished. If such ideas are so ridiculous, easily refutable and only held by the ignorant and uneducated what are they so afraid of. It should be very easy for them to refute these views and give themselves a pat on the back while doing so. yet, they resort to nothing but childish antics like name calling, vilification and foot stomping. It shows the content of their counter arguments.

[SlagMaster]

I do remember William Shockley but does anyone have the exact words he used that got him into trouble? So often these "journalists" paraphrase people to get them into trouble.

I don't know the exact words, but basically he professed that
Negros are, like, 10 to 20 points lower on the IQ scale, then the
average person, according to statistical studies.

[Felix the Cat]

Not in Jewish interests to have their host populations thinking in racial terms like this.

(And a lunatic fringe believe their physical survival is dependent on preventing that sort of thing)

We discussed this repeatedly when the Kane/Ixbots were here. If science makes progress in these areas it will be in spite of Jewish activity, not because of it.

[Omniel]

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
When that happens, perhaps even intelligence itself will become a taboo. Additional support would be funded to help stupid people gain work in fields where a high IQ is prevalent. Medical surgeries and scientific laboratories will be required to take on a designated number of thick people to reflect their presence in society. If a stupid person is assigned too challenging a task for their IQ, their employer could face legal action for IQ-bias harrassment. The word 'stupid' will be referred to as 'the S word'.

[Angler]

A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
Translation: "We are completely unable to challenge Dr. Watson's position on the basis of science, reason, or facts, so we'll go running to Big Government and get them to suppress him."

Dr. Watson deserves a hearty pat on the back for his willingness to tell it like it is. The more people of his stature speak out on such issues, the stronger the pro-white position.

[Starr]

Here is an article that was linked below the original:

Efforts to prove the superiority or inferiority of different races have a long and undistinguished history, from the justifications of slavery to the eugenic policies of Nazi Germany. Modern studies on race and intelligence have continued to create controversy.

In 1994, a dispute erupted over the best-selling book The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Richard Hermstein, which argued that there were IQ differences between races that were at least partly genetic and that welfare and other polices were diluting the intelligence of the population by inadvertently encouraging the "wrong" women (with low IQs) to have babies.

The authors were attacked by, among others, the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who criticised the IQ test for its racial and social bias and pointed out that evidence did not indicate a genetic origin to group differences in intelligence. Intelligence could not be boiled down to a single measurable factor, he said.

Rutledge Dennis, of George Mason University, said it "paints a picture of blacks ... as collective biological illiterates" justifying those who would "disenfranchise and exclude racial minorities".

In 2002, Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, stoked the fire with the publication of his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, written with Tatu Vanhanen, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Tampere, Finland, and father of the Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen. The claims were criticised on the grounds that data for many countries was flimsy and inadequate, unrepresentative of their ethnic diversity and wrongly analysed. The countries with the highest scores were those where IQ testing was part of the educational process.

Arthur Jensen, a former professor of educational psychology at the University of Berkeley, California, published The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability in 1998 suggesting that a "genetic component" lay behind the difference between whites and blacks in intelligence. He was accused of "scientific racism", couching racial differences in IQ in a theory drawn from evolutionary biology, and of practising "social, value-laden science".

In the UK, the dispute erupted at Edinburgh University in 1996 when the psychologist Christopher Brand declared he was a "race realist". "The way in which I would try to explain higher levels of crime and out-of-wedlock births would not be by referring to blackness or race but to IQ," he said

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067223.ece

[harjit]

I would love to see the anti-racists call this "racist" geneticist whom is knowledgeable enough to have a world-renowned reputation in his field and win a Nobel Prize, "ignorant". :D Apparently self-interested anti-racist activists who study some useless liberal art and don't even bother to refute his findings, only try to silence him, are so much more knowledgeable about genetics! They're so right, racism is ignorance! ;)
It is perfectly possible that the evolution of geographically-seperate endogamous groups of humans results in intelligence differences.

The Watson comments are recent, but the hard arguments against The Bell Curve came from scientists, such as those at Scientific American magazine. Not liberal arts types.

I have a math degree, but am ashamed to say that most of my statistics knowledge is out the window. This is due to 20 years of non-use and the fact that it was one of my weak subjects. Both The Bell Curve and those rebuttals are absolutely dense with heavy-duty stats and regression analysis. I feel compelled to review undergrad statistics before embarking on reading any of it... it seems kinda gay for a math major not to understand the hard parts. :(


Dr. Watson deserves a hearty pat on the back for his willingness to tell it like it is. The more people of his stature speak out on such issues, the stronger the pro-white position.
The "stature" thing, for ground-breaking work he did 50 years ago, seems to be getting a bit worn.

Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

[Ahknaton]

The "stature" thing, for ground-breaking work he did 50 years ago, seems to be getting a bit worn.
Yeah, I'm sure that if he was on the other side of the fence, casting doubt on the veracity of racial differences, you would be the first to acknowledge that he's no longer relevant :rolleyes:. What is the latest actual research that Jared Diamond has done?

[Larrikin]

LOL. The Bell Curve said that too, I have a copy here in my personal library.
But the Bell curve is statistical invalid and non-conclusive study, as has long since been proven...

Few correlations between certain haplotypes and cognition have been identified by now, for example in the dysbindin-1 gene (DTNBP1)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm
But to conclude a general coennection to "races" as assembling of haplotypes and intelligence is a long shot and far from scientifically backed yet.

And, quite frankly, I can't see that saying "people who have to deal with black employees find this (equal intelligence) not true" is some sort of scientific argument.

Watson has a notorious tendency to make strange remarks and, like linking the sexual urge to sunlight exposure and body fat at Berkely in 2000. He linked a whole buinch of behaviour aspect to weight and "backed" his opinion by showing slides of bikini models, veiled women, Kate Moss and Rubens pictures. Not exactly a scientific line of argument. His suggestion melanin injections would be more efficient than viagra was found to have no scientific grounds whatsoever.

[harjit]

Yeah, I'm sure that if he was on the other side of the fence, casting doubt on the veracity of racial differences, you would be the first to acknowledge that he's no longer relevant :rolleyes:. What is the latest actual research that Jared Diamond has done?
Like I said in my post, I'm not disagreeing that there may be racial differences. I haven't read anything on the topic, including Jared Diamond. I've only heard that name and don't know even know what view he promotes.

I was just addressing Angler's comment about Watson's stature, and pointing out that just because he won a Nobel Prize 50 years ago doesn't preclude him from being seen as a wildcard. It's from the article in the OP's link.

[Felix the Cat]

Scientists aren't going to embroil themselves in these controversies until after they've made their careers and reputations

You may as well criticise a soldier for refusing to enter a firefight before donning body-armor

[harjit]

And, quite frankly, I can't see that saying "people who have to deal with black employees find this (equal intelligence) not true" is some sort of scientific argument.
It certainly shows where his personal bias is, for whatever that is worth.

[Larrikin]

It has been proven that sunlight helps men increase their libido, so he was correct.

According to which research? I am not aware of anything like this, but interested.

Also, fat people have a lower libido as they have less energy, this has also been proven.

Actually, he claimed that fat people are MORE sexual...

[Winston]

Quick, find some reason to mark this man as a loon before people realise that his professional opinion fits exactly with their personal experiences with blacks.

How can there even still be debate on this subject? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the races share equal intelligence distribution, and a mountain of reasons to believe the opposite.

[schtocken]

Sub-Saharan Negroid Africans are not even human beings.

[harjit]

Sub-Saharan Negroid Africans are not even human beings.
My wife thinks I'm a dog.

[Larrikin]

How can there even still be debate on this subject? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the races share equal intelligence distribution, and a mountain of reasons to believe the opposite.
But actually, science is not about belief (as long as you don't go along
with Petr here...), but about research and backing up one theories with facts.

If Watson can do this for his point, he should come forward. So far he hasn't really backed any of his claims (regarding women, sunlight, fat, race etc.) he made for years scientifically.

[guy]

But actually, science is not about belief (as long as you don't go along
with Petr here...), but about research and backing up one theories with facts.

If Watson can do this for his point, he should come forward. So far he hasn't really backed any of his claims (regarding women, sunlight, fat, race etc.) he made for years scientifically.
IQ tests show a difference. Heck, a look at any area populated with Blacks shows a bloody difference, Larrikin. But I guess only the excuses that people find for these differences are "scientific", eh?

Seriously, man, look at the response Watson's comment got.. Do you really expect science to advance in such an atmosphere? What these people (the liberal/Black/Jewish/whatever groups) are doing is intelectual terrorism.

[Kamandi]

If you don't think his scientific credentials make him invunerable to political correctness remember William Shockley (inventor of the transistor) got nailed for saying the same thing.
Quite justifiably, given the amateurishness of his ignorant psychologizing.

Racist non-specialists seem to love to try to cash in on their scientific cachet when they win the Nobel for contributions to fields far removed from psychometrics, then lament til their deaths when they get their asses handed to them by professionals.

[guy]

Quite justifiably, given the amateurishness of his ignorant psychologizing.

Racist non-specialists seem to love to try to cash in on their scientific cachet when they win the Nobel for contributions to fields far removed from psychometrics, then lament til their deaths when they get their asses handed to them by professionals.
Or by political organizations.

[Kamandi]

They can hardly complain when they get drubbed politically for their attempts at abusing their credentials for political gain. They made a deal with the devil and got the devil's reward.

[harjit]

Or by political organizations.
The Bell Curve was trashed by scientists, such as those at Scientific American.

[Kamandi]

And in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

[guy]

Like I said, the excuses for the differences that we see/measure are the only legitimate "science". :rolleyes:

[Francis]

And in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

Peer review, the process of getting people who agree with you to say you're right, to fool people into believing that what you say has more credibility than it does (whether it's credible or not).

Everything is "peer-reviewed" it's just some people don't accept the views of some other peoples "peers".

[Kamandi]

There's a big difference between having peers who are trained scientists who employ controlled double-blind experimental methods review your work and having peers who are idiotic neo-Nazis motivated simply by the desire to exterminate everyone who doesn't share the color of their skin do the same.

[shanemac]

Like I said in my post, I'm not disagreeing that there may be racial differences. I haven't read anything on the topic, including Jared Diamond. I've only heard that name and don't know even know what view he promotes.

As one of the leading lights of this forum's anti-racist team, don't you think you owe it to us (your opposition), to actually find out about the scientific basis of the stuff you're debating us on?

I fail to understand how one can argue against a scientific theory before actually trying to understand it first.

[Kamandi]

Like I said, the excuses for the differences that we see/measure are the only legitimate "science". :rolleyes:
Uh huh, anything that doesn't end up with blacks being genetically inferior to you is obviously just an "excuse" unworthy of further discussion. *yawn*

[guy]

There's a big difference between having peers who are trained scientists who employ controlled double-blind experimental methods review your work and having peers who are idiotic neo-Nazis motivated simply by the desire to exterminate everyone who doesn't share the color of their skin do the same.
I have to go (to my idiotic neo-Nazi lab), but please show me the "controlled double-blind experimental methods" employed to explain away the racial differences that we see in IQ tests, in the development of sub-saharan Africa vs Europe (or Japan), in the state in which Detroit is at, Haiti is at, etc, etc...

[Francis]

There's a big difference between having peers who are trained scientists who employ controlled double-blind experimental methods review your work and having peers who are idiotic neo-Nazis motivated simply by the desire to exterminate everyone who doesn't share the color of their skin do the same.

Let me correct that for you

There's a big difference between having peers who support my point of view review your work and having peers who I disagree with do the same.

Like I said, everything is "peer-reviewed", the only difference between what is "accepted", and what isn't, is the persons opinion of the "peers" in question.

In terms of message board debates it's a meaningless phrase dragged out in much the same manner as a strawman, to imply something is correct, when the only true measure of whether something is correct or not is the facts, and whether indeed it is correct or not.

I'm sure that in Galileo Galilei's day all the peer reviewed articles told us how crazy that fool was, sort of didn't stop him from being right though...

[shanemac]

Peer review options on a paper dealing with racial differences... Please circle your preference...

A) The races are equal (I like having a job).

B) There are significant differences between the races (I don't mind having my name dragged through the mud in the press, losing my job and my standing in society, and never being able to find another job again due to being branded as a racist).

[Kamandi]

I have to go (to my idiotic neo-Nazi lab), but please show me the "controlled double-blind experimental methods" employed to explain away the racial differences that we see in IQ tests, in the development of sub-saharan Africa vs Europe (or Japan), in the state in which Detroit is at, Haiti is at, etc, etc...
Don't need to: the assumption that differences in macro-economic development are necessarily based on genetics without evidence is a logical fallacy in itself; ie, the "Naturalistic Fallacy."

[guy]

Uh huh, anything that doesn't end up with blacks being genetically inferior to you is obviously just an "excuse" unworthy of further discussion. *yawn*
There are Black people at my university that are much better students than I am. Some of them will probably become good scientists. I might not even get my PhD. Anyway, I never said the excuses were unworthy of discussion. I said that they were excuses.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/excuse+

...

[Kamandi]

Peer review options on a paper dealing with racial differences... Please circle your preference...

A) The races are equal (I like having a job).

B) There are significant differences between the races (I don't mind having my name dragged through the mud in the press, losing my job and my standing in society, and never being able to find another job again due to being branded as a racist).
Just to begin with, the idea that one ethnic group can be said to be objectively "better" than another one is preposterous.

Such judgments are simply reflections of the prejudices of whomever is making them. "Better" just means "has more social status than an outgroup."

There wouldn't really be anyone to blame for losing your standing in society other than yourself. It's hardly as if you don't desire to ruin OTHER people's standings in society based on your own personal malice.

You get back what you put out.

[guy]

Don't need to: the assumption that differences in macro-economic development are necessarily based on genetics without evidence is a logical fallacy in itself; ie, the "Naturalistic Fallacy."
You claimed that the "peers" employ these methods. Anyway, please tell me what would be a good "controlled" experiment in your opinion.

[Kamandi]

There are Black people at my university that are much better students than I am. Some of them will probably become good scientists. I might not even get my PhD. Anyway, I never said the excuses were unworthy of discussion. I said that they were excuses.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/excuse+

...
They are only "excuses" because you desire to stigmatize an outgroup you dislike as a manifestation of your own maladaptive personality disorder and you can't stand the idea that anyone would suggest said group is not genetically inferior to you.

Scientists try to apply the scientific method to understand WHY things are. Such explanations are not "excuses" in and of themselves.

[Kamandi]

You claimed that the "peers" employ these methods. Anyway, please tell me what would be a good "controlled" experiment in your opinion.
There's no experiment that could ever be ethically performed (at this time) which could resolve these issues.

We can't raise children to adulthood in isolation to determine how much of their intelligence is based on genetics and how much on their environment and still meet accepted standards of professional conduct.

Even if we did, such children would probably be horribly traumatized and we couldn't compare them to a normally socialized control group anyhow.

[harjit]

As one of the leading lights of this forum's anti-racist team, don't you think you owe it to us (your opposition), to actually find out about the scientific basis of the stuff you're debating us on?

I fail to understand how one can argue against a scientific theory before actually trying to understand it first.
What have I specifically argued here against racial differences?

All I said was that some in the scientific community think Watson is a wildcard (which I quoted from the very article linked in the OP) and my observation that scientists at Scientific American rebutted The Bell Curve (and I honestly admitted that I haven't read either The Bell Curve nor the rebuttals to it).

I am hardly the "leading light" of anything here, either. :rofl:

[guy]

They are only "excuses" because you desire to stigmatize an outgroup you dislike as a manifestation of your own maladaptive personality disorder and you can't stand the idea that anyone would suggest said group is not genetically inferior to you.

Scientists try to apply the scientific method to understand WHY things are. Such explanations are not "excuses" in and of themselves.
You seem to be trying to stigmatize me as an evil nazi. I don't know if that is due to a maladaptive personality disorder, though, because I am a science student, and I apply the scientific method to understand why things are.

BTW, what "scientific methods" show that sub-saharan Africans have an average IQ identical to that of Europeans?

[Kamandi]

There's no way to legitimately compare the two, given the vast differences in education and culture that exist.

An IQ test adapted to European culture would not be appropriate for people from other cultures. Intelligent people in Asian cultures find the directions on Western intelligence inventories extremely confusing, for example.

[guy]

There's no way to legitimately compare the two, given the vast differences in education and culture that exist.

An IQ test adapted to European culture would not be appropriate for people from other cultures. Intelligent people in Asian cultures find the directions on Western intelligence inventories extremely confusing, for example.
So there are no "double blinded controlled experiments". You can't prove your theory any more than your opponents can. If we have to go by gut feelings, I would take my chances with the evil nazis, if that's mighty alright with you. Now, I must leave. Goodbye.

...

[Ahknaton]

Don't need to: the assumption that differences in macro-economic development are necessarily based on genetics without evidence is a logical fallacy in itself; ie, the "Naturalistic Fallacy."
So is the assumption that differences in macro-economic development are necessarily based on environment and culture without evidence. This obviously allows for endless skepticism, since a large-scale controlled experiment that would fulfill all scientific requirements for conclusively answering the question is obviously impossible. "There are no group differences" is obviously the default hypothesis until empirical evidence shows otherwise, but once those differences have been shown, I don't see a clear reason to privilege environmental explanations as the default hypothesis over genetic ones. Obviously both genetic and environmental differences exist between populations, so as per Occam's razor you aren't introducing any extra factors into the equation, it's just a question of determining which accounts for the differences in observed results.

I think that the precautionary principle should be applied when considering policies such as immigration, when the question of group differences comes up. If one group of immigrants commits more crime etc than another, the default assumption should be that it's genetic, or some other immutable characteristic, and this group should be excluded from future immigration or carefully screened to allow only high-quality individuals through. The reason being, if this is correct then you've saved yourself a lot of trouble, and if it's incorrect you haven't really lost anything by excluding them, since "everyone's the same anyway" and immigrants from other sources (or the native population) can perform their role just as well. If they sort out their problems they can be reconsidered at a later date. On the other hand, if you assume environment is the cause and it turns out that it's genetics, then the consequences of being wrong are far worse, since you have intractable social problems on your hands that can't be resolved short of some eugenics program.

Since the consequences of being wrong are worse for assuming environmental explanations than assuming genetic ones, policy should err on the side of caution: i.e. assume genetic explanations for group differences. The same principle is also applied to Global Warming: it's possible the theory is wrong, but the consequences of being wrong about that aren't as bad as the consequences of assuming it's not real and continuing as we are, then finding out that it is.

Also, I don't understand why some people have such an ego attachment to proving or disproving that their race isn't "inferior" (or conversely, that their race is "superior"). Anti-racists often claim that racists are insecure for basing their personal ego-securities on characteristics of their race. Well, employing that principle, why should anyone care if their race has an average IQ plus or minus 10 from the mean? After all, it's your individual abilities that count, right? (That's if you even care about IQ at all). Personally I was not in the least concerned to find out that Whites have a lower average IQ than Asians, nor was I upset to find that Irish have lower IQs than other Whites (I have Irish ancestry). Since my IQ is above the mean, why should I care how many stupid or smart people share the same racial or ethnic categorization as myself? It doesn't negate my own intelligence, which I would be stupid to gauge from some gross racial generalization. The only reason I can see (besides ego identification with the group) for resenting such results is that people who are ignorant of statistics (and unfortunately that is a lot of people) might erroneously make judgments about you as an individual based on group generalizations, which doesn't follow logically, since statistical averages do not permit deductive inferences about individuals.

That said, the IQ debate shouldn't be a centrepiece for people concerned with racial or cultural preservation, since it isn't the reason why defending one's collective interests is morally legitimate (which is the right to sovereignty and collective self-determination). It does however shine a light on the intolerance of dissenting views in the current PC academic climate.

[Kamandi]

Just to begin with, the theory that national wealth is a correlate to intelligence is bogus. National income is not a function of intelligence; it's a function of moral compromise.

It's simply a question of how much inequity in income distribution and the pathologies it creates a given society is willing to tolerate.

Capitalist societies willing to tolerate large income inequalities will have a higher standard of living, but they'll also have far higher rates of the social pathologies created by them as well.

Societies that decide that they're not willing to, say, let people die in the street because they don't have health insurance won't have standards of living like the US.

Since there's no absolute standard of what's "right" - values ARE relative - there's no way to judge. You're not "stupid" because you choose differently than we do.

[Francis]

Peer review options on a paper dealing with racial differences... Please circle your preference...

A) The races are equal (I like having a job).

B) There are significant differences between the races (I don't mind having my name dragged through the mud in the press, losing my job and my standing in society, and never being able to find another job again due to being branded as a racist).

"Nah, nah, nah, what you mean, I rolled a double five, I win easy!!"

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/7527/dicehv8.jpg

"Yeah, but I played my peer review card, so you had to roll at least a double six!"

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4555/peerreview1ml3.jpg

"No way dude, cuz I still got at least two strawmen and a race card to play, cuz my uncles black, innit?"

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6905/racevf4.jpg

"And the race card easy beats the peer review card, and so if I use my race card, one straw man, and my double five, I easy mash up your peer review card! Besides, I leveled up at the end of the last debate, so my double five is worth a double six..."

I remember when debates used to revolve around facts and figures...

[Death]

My guess is that the scientific establishment already has proof of which genes correlate to intelligence but are keeping the knowledge secret for use for the elites. I remember the Jew Gloria Stein him saying at one time that genetic research showing differences in intelligence between men and women should not be allowed.
Jews like Kam are no doubt rubbing their soft hands in glee knowing that hate crime/hate thought laws are coming to the US. Once here in the US this site will be forced to close down.

[shanemac]

Just to begin with, the idea that one ethnic group can be said to be objectively "better" than another one is preposterous.

Such judgments are simply reflections of the prejudices of whomever is making them. "Better" just means "has more social status than an outgroup."

There wouldn't really be anyone to blame for losing your standing in society other than yourself. It's hardly as if you don't desire to ruin OTHER people's standings in society based on your own personal malice.

You get back what you put out.


I never mentioned "better" or "worse"... I talked of "racial differences". You seem to be arguing about a point of science based on your emotion (ie not wanting to hurt people's feelings) rather than arguing about the actual scientific theory.

(whoa, I got through a whole post without dropping the N-bomb)... :D

[Kamandi]

The fact you're USING the N-Bomb in the first place seems to indicate that "racial differences" is not being used in a value-neutral sense by you.

[shanemac]

The fact you're USING the N-Bomb in the first place seems to indicate that "racial differences" is not being used in a value-neutral sense by you.

It was a joke... stop deviating from the topic of the thread.

[Larrikin]

I'd like to get back on some scientific grounds, if we could stop the :bitchfight: for some time.

It has been shown that certain genes affect mental capabilities, from disposition to mental disease to other effects. For certain sets of SNPs/haplotypes (Im mentioned this alredady in this thread) effects on intelligence related functions like cognition have also been shown.

Basically all scientists and their research support the idea that complex groups of many genes contribute to the overall mental capabilites of human indivuduals.

Since there are millions of haplotypes/SNP and virtually all haplotypes are existent in all haplogroups (most likely the closest thing to biological human races we know today) but in varying frequencies, the questions arises if there are haplogroups in which combinations of haplotypes that negatively affect mental abilities are more frequent.

Today, this question is virtually unaswered, because neither are all (or even most) haplotypes identified (HapMap is working hard) nor does exist a list of SNPs which are related to intelligence. In fact only very few have been identified.

Additionally, the variations of haplotypes within the gene groups that loosely correspond to that "races" commonly identified are rather big, so that are uniform advatage or disadvantage of those traditional "races" is not very likely.

Last, nut not least, it is important to keep in mind that any theoretical mental ability possibly determined by genes is without doubt greatly influenced by (among other things) nutrition, sociological environment and educational support. A malnutrioned child of two Nobel price winners growing up unsupervised in a warzone is unlikely to score high in most IQ test.
IQ scores and genetic mental potential don't neccessarily match.

[harjit]

It was a joke... stop deviating from the topic of the thread.
Still, what he said is true.

I honestly don't believe a completely and truly value-neutral discussion or analysis of this topic is possible, whatever side you are on.

[Kamandi]

It has been shown that certain genes affect mental capabilities, from disposition to mental disease to other effects. For certain sets of SNPs/haplotypes (Im mentioned this alredady in this thread) effects on intelligence related functions like cognition have also been shown.

It hasn't been shown exactly HOW they affect cognition or if they do so on a widespread population basis.

[Larrikin]

It hasn't been shown exactly HOW they affect cognition or if they do so on a widespread population basis.
That's true, but still it is a valid point that SNPs can affect mental abilities.

They study I cited was about a single (white caucasian) haplotype in a double-blind study compared to other (caucasian white) haplotypes.
So some whites turned out to by disadvantaged compared to other whites.

This basically does say that genes affect the brain/mental functions -what is quiet likely because they affect everything in the human body.
It doesn't in itself support racial differences in intelligence unless one would consider every haplotype a different race...

For haplogroups, the picture is different or, better said, blank canvas.

[Kamandi]

That's true, but still it is a valid point that SNPs can affect mental abilities.
It's not known if they affect mental abilities or not. They seem to correlate to certain cognitive modalities which aren't necessarily "intellectual abilities" in themselves.

Whether they have a causative role or not isn't yet understood.

[raven]

There's no experiment that could ever be ethically performed (at this time) which could resolve these issues.

We can't raise children to adulthood in isolation to determine how much of their intelligence is based on genetics and how much on their environment and still meet accepted standards of professional conduct.

Even if we did, such children would probably be horribly traumatized and we couldn't compare them to a normally socialized control group anyhow.But Kamandi most developmental psychology can't use experiments. You know that. In developmental psychology, it's very much accepted for eg. there is a hereditary basis for intelligence to some degree (its often said that genetics-environment is about 60-40) but we have no proof of this. Yet the theory is still widely accepted. Because of ethical reasons and also due to variables that you can't truly "manipulate" (like age and race), there are so many things that you can't test in developmental psychology. All that there is to go by are correlations and quasi-experiments. And while correlation does not prove causation as it only suggests relationships, it's overwhelmingly evident that there is a relationship between race and intelligence even when controlling for SES or education.

We just can't perform a true experiment because such a study will never get accepted by some so-called "ethics board". It's a convenient way for the liberal powers that be that head psychology academia to hide the truth. (many of them being liberal and Jewish and if you deny that, go read a journal article or look at the faculty list in a psychology department at a University and it all becomes too clear when every other person has names like <something>stein/baum/berg. Your kind are a cancer to the field of psychology and as a pupil, despite my interest and enthusiasm in psychology, I often regret entering into this field of study dominated by liberal Jewish professors like yourself. Whenever a researcher presents findings that your liberal (often Jewish) hegemonic clique doesn't agree with, they get vilified and made into pariahs. The current Peer Review system is one way that liberal (often Jewish) hegemony keeps every researcher in line. If the researchers peer-reviewing these "racist" findings defy the status quo and agree with the findings, they lose their job and they too get vilified. Psychology has become more of a breeding ground for liberal ideological propaganda and drugging up every kid on ritalin than as a cause for advancing scientific knowledge.)

I see nothing wrong with obtaining written parental consent and ensuring informed consent to perform an experimental study on intellectual development by race when SES and other external factors are controlled. Such research is of great value to science. And even if such a study was done, you anti-racist liberal psychologists would still be bitching about some little thing about third variables even though it's impossible to ensure that all third variables are controlled for using the experimental method. The goal of an experiment is to control for third variables as much as possible but I'm sure that wouldn't be enough for you if the results of this type of study show findings that don't fit with your world view.

Also keep in mind Kamandi that even if we don't have a true experiment showing racial differences in intelligence due to genetics, you also don't have proof that races are equal in intelligence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It goes both ways Kamandi. If we really want to go by true experiments alone, you can't prove that the races are of equal intelligence distribution either. The burden of proof is on both sides Kamandi because it can't be assumed automatically that every race has the same genetic intelligence distribution without proof.

[Larrikin]

It's not known if they affect mental abilities or not.
They seem to correlate to certain cognitive modalities which aren't necessarily "intellectual abilities" in themselves.

Whether they have a causative role or not isn't yet understood.
Are you actually disputing that genes play a role in mental ambilities and intelligence?

I think this is a very widely accepted concept throughout all related science.

[Kamandi]

But Kamandi most developmental psychology can't use experiments. You know that.
No, I don't - I read developmental journals every month loaded with experimental results. In fact, my PhD thesis was about research design issues in developmental psychology.

In developmental psychology, it's very much accepted for eg. there is a hereditary basis for intelligence to some degree but we have no proof of this. Yet the theory is still widely accepted. Because of ethical reasons, there are so many things that you can't test in developmental psychology. All that there is to go by are correlations and quasi-experiments. And while correlation does not prove causation, it only suggests relationships, it's overwhelmingly evident that there is a relationship between race and intelligence even when controlling for SES or education.
There's a gap in testing results and the explanation for it is currently (and will likely always be to some extent) unknown. That's pretty much the breadth of what we know (in summary).

That in itself doesn't make the racist case, particularly since our country's history of racism is likely a large factor in it.

We just can't perform a true experiment because such a study will never get accepted by some so-called "ethics board". It's a convenient way for the liberal powers that be that head psychology academia to hide the truth.
There's no experiment that could conceivably resolve the question while the SES and social disparities in this society remain. There's essentially no way around that.

I see nothing wrong with obtaining written parental consent and ensuring informed consent to perform an experimental study on intellectual development by race when SES and other external factors are controlled.
You mean, obtain parental consent to raise children in an isolation tank from birth to adulthood, where said children will receive no other input from society in perpetuity?

And how will we be able to compare such children against a control legitimately anyhow, given that they'll obviously be horrendously emotionally scarred feral kids?

Also keep in mind Kamandi that even if we don't have a true experience showing racial differences in intelligence due to genetics, you also don't have proof that races are equal in intelligence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It goes both ways Kamandi. If we really want to go by true experiments alone, you can't prove that the races are of equal intelligence distribution either. The burden of proof is on both sides Kamandi because it can't be assumed automatically that every race has the same genetic intelligence distribution without proof.
Quite simply, we can't define "race," "intelligence" or even "equal"! Obviously, we cannot make any valid statement about the science of B-W intelligence comparisons at this time, given those facts.

[Kamandi]

Are you actually disputing that genes play a role in mental ambilities and intelligence?

I think this is a very widely accepted concept throughout all related science.
No, I'm not - I was referring to SNP distribution specifically. It's quite clear that genes affect intellectual function at a variety of levels.

What that means for hypothesized group differences in intelligence is unclear.

[Dan Dare]

Whatever the numbers and root causes, or who is responsible and should be blamed for the situation (let's just agree that it's whitey for the sake of argument), is there any serious debate that negoes are, in aggregate, dull-witted and of only marginal utility in a a modern, technologically-advanced society?

[Kamandi]

^^ Also applies to WNs. :rofl:

[Dan Dare]

Perhaps so, but there are not 800 million of them.

[Kamandi]

Praises to Lord Shiva. :dance2:

[harjit]

Whatever the numbers and root causes, or who is responsible and should be blamed for the situation (let's just agree that it's whitey for the sake of argument), is there any serious debate that negoes are, in aggregate, dull-witted and of only marginal utility in a a modern, technologically-advanced society?
The way Mansa Musa spoiled our fun at MSF, I almost think you may be onto something. :)

Seriously though, what is utility? To what end, social utility? Should utility serve people, or should it be the other way round?

What is the utility of British tech workers who immigrated to America, post-1985?

[ivory bill]

That in itself doesn't make the racist case, particularly since our country's history of racism is likely a large factor in it.


Kindly explain how the history of racism in the US could be a factor in the lower intelligence of Black Africans.

[Dan Dare]

The way Mansa Musa spoiled our fun at MSF, I almost think you may be onto something. :)

Seriously though, what is utility? To what end, social utility? Should utility serve people, or should it be the other way round?

Utility as in usefulness, the ability to add societal value, and to function independently in a competitive knowledge-based economy, without the need for special concessions or privileges.

What is the utility of British tech workers who immigrated to America, post-1985?

Since they would almost certainly have had to enter on employment-related visas you should put that question to their employers who went through the aggravation and expense of bringing them over.

[Kamandi]

Just for starts, socially and economically disadvantaged caste-like minorities routinely test 10-15 points lower on standard intelligence tests than demographic majorities in countries all over the world. That's the rule, not the exception.

White racism is and has certainly been a factor in the economic disenfranchisement the black community has experienced.

[ivory bill]

Just for starts, socially and economically disadvantaged caste-like minorities routinely test 10-15 points lower on standard intelligence tests than demographic majorities in countries all over the world. That's the rule, not the exception.

White racism is and has certainly been a factor in the economic disenfranchisement the black community has experienced.

I think you'll find that Blacks are not a minority in Africa. Try again.

[Kamandi]

Try again yourself - black Afrikanners have been so disadvantaged through political exploitation and starvation that it's impossible to actually make a comparison.

[harjit]

Utility as in usefulness, the ability to add societal value, and to function independently in a competitive knowledge-based economy, without the need for special concessions or privileges.
Plenty of blacks meet these criteria.


Since they would almost certainly have had to enter on employment-related visas you should put that question to their employers who went through the aggravation and expense of bringing them over.
Some people obviously thought blacks too were useful enough to bring them over. Enough think they are useful enough now, to continue allowing some number of them to immigrate to the U.S. from the Carribean or Africa. If nobody wanted them there is certainly the power to shut that door.

[Dan Dare]

Plenty of blacks meet these criteria.

But most of them don't.

Some people obviously thought blacks too were useful enough to bring them over. Enough think they are useful enough now, to continue allowing some number of them to immigrate to the U.S. from the Carribean or Africa. If nobody wanted them there is certainly the power to shut that door.

Ah yes, the magic of chain migration!

[Kamandi]

But most of them don't.
Evidence? How do you add any more value to our nation than the average black person? Because you have an RP accent?

[ivory bill]

Try again yourself - black Afrikanners have been so disadvantaged through political exploitation and starvation that it's impossible to actually make a comparison.

Allow me to guide you back to the initial post:

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

Try to understand the subject in its context. It has nothing to do with the alleged effects of White racism either in the US or in South Africa.

[Kamandi]

Let me guide you back to YOUR post:

Kindly explain how the history of racism in the US could be a factor in the lower intelligence of Black Africans.
Asked and answered.

[ivory bill]

Let me guide you back to YOUR post:

Asked and answered.

Are you saying that you actually blame the low intelligence of millions of native blacks deep in the Congo region on racist policies practiced on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?

[Dan Dare]

Evidence? ...

Item 1 would be the trillions in entitlements and transfer payments that have been made over since the passig of the Civil Rights Act.

[Kamandi]

Are you saying that you actually blame the low intelligence of millions of native blacks deep in the Congo region on racist policies practiced on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?
There's no way to legitimately test their intelligence using Western-developed psychometrics or to take into account the vast variety of environmental factors - political, developmental, medical, economic, etc. - that influence their profiles.

And of course, the racist policies of colonialism have a great deal to do with them.

[Kamandi]

Item 1 would be the trillions in entitlements and transfer payments that have been made over since the passig of the Civil Rights Act.
Nothing compared to all the benefits we got from the free labor power over 500 years of slavery. So what?

Besides, blacks are hardly the only people who've benefited from those entitlements.

[Dan Dare]

Slavery's finished, negro dependency hasn't.

But again, my earlier remarks were directed to the utility of negroes in general, not just the few percent of them that reside in the United States.

[ivory bill]

Originally Posted by ivory bill
Are you saying that you actually blame the low intelligence of millions of native blacks deep in the Congo region on racist policies practiced on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?

There's no way to legitimately test their intelligence using Western-developed psychometrics or to take into account the vast variety of environmental factors - political, developmental, medical, economic, etc. - that influence their profiles.

And of course, the racist policies of colonialism have a great deal to do with them.

Carry on, then. Just don't be surprised to find that you're not taken seriously.

[Kamandi]

Slavery's finished, negro dependency hasn't.
Hard to believe - 80% of blacks live above the poverty line; more whites than blacks accept welfare; the top 6 black-owned businesses brought in more than $20 billion dollars last year; the CEOs of Amex, Time-Warner, and FedEx are black; blacks are over-represented in the US college population, etc.

Besides, given all of the vast rewards the US received from the centuries of exploitation, it's hardly inappropriate to have instituted the entitlements post-facto.

But again, my earlier remarks were directed to the utility of negroes in general, not just the few percent of them that reside in the United States.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Kamandi]

Carry on, then. Just don't be surprised to find that you're not taken seriously.
By bitter, irrational racists like you? I'm shattered!!

[Warka]

By bitter, irrational racists like you? I'm shattered!!

Well, if it's any consolation, I'm sure harjit, Larrikin and Mr. Angry appreciate and take you seriously. I know it's no Dream Team, but, hey...take what you can get, right? :)

[ivory bill]

By bitter, irrational racists like you? I'm shattered!!


You may resort to calling me names as you so often do, but the thread topic continues to be the opinion of Nobel prize winning scientist, Dr. Watson.

Irrational describes your efforts to explain away the chaos and backwardness of Black Africa as being the result of racism on another continent.
Why not add that any frustration Africans might have with tying their wooly hair back in a ponytail is the result of Europeans and Asians having straight hair? You might explore the idea that the straight-haired racists have impeded tonsorial developement in Africa for another doctorial thesis.

[Francis]

Slavery's finished.

Finished here in 1772, although we had hardly any anyway (comparatively), by 1807, at cost to the British tax payer, we had vessels patrolling the African coast to arrest slaving vessels, and in 1815 Britain paid Portugal £750,000 (several hundred million dollars in current values) to cease their trade.

Remember this is a country that had relatively few slaves, and in fact, in 1911, the black population of Britain was only 4,540 (and most of them were NOT descended from slaves).

Yet today, when asked why the blacks in our country commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, the answer is slavery.

There are over one million black people in Britain, of which the vast majority can not trace their ancestry back to slavery in Britain, and yet, when asked for a reason, they parrot slavery?

Now you compare their lot, with the indigenous population...

We had the workhouse, which means there were Whites in the UK, right up until the last the poor law institute of 1913, years after the abolition of slavery, living in some of the most appalling conditions imaginable.

People ended-up in the workhouse for a variety of reasons. Usually, it was because they were too poor, old or ill to support themselves. This may have resulted from such things as a lack of work during periods of high unemployment, or someone having no family willing or able to provide care for them when they became elderly or sick. Unmarried pregnant women were often disowned by their families and the workhouse was the only place they could go during and after the birth of their child. Prior to the establishment of public mental asylums in the mid-nineteenth century (and in some cases even after that), the mentally ill and mentally handicapped poor were often consigned to the workhouse. Workhouses, though, were never prisons, and entry into them was generally a voluntary although often painful decision. It also carried with it a change in legal status — until 1918, receipt of poor relief meant a loss of the right to vote.

Upon entering the workhouse, paupers were stripped, bathed (under supervision), and issued with a workhouse uniform. Their own clothes would be washed and disinfected and then put into store along with any other possessions they had and only returned to them when they left the workhouse.

Workhouse inmates were strictly segregated into seven classes:

Aged or infirm men.
Able bodied men, and youths above 13.
Youths and boys above seven years old and under 13.
Aged or infirm women
Able-bodied women and girls above 16.
Girls above seven years old and under 16.
Children under 7 seven years of age.

Each class had its own area of the workhouse. Husbands, wives and children were separated as soon as they entered the workhouse and could be punished if they even tried to speak to one another.

Once inside the workhouse, an inmate's only permitted possessions were their uniform and the bed they had in the large dormitory. Beds were simply constructed with an wooden or iron-frame, and could be as little as two feet across. Bedding, in the 1830s and 1840s at least, was generally a mattress and cover, both filled with straw, although blankets and sheets were later introduced. Bed-sharing, particularly amongst children, was common although it became prohibited for adult paupers.

Once a week, the inmates were bathed (usually superintended — another assault on their dignity) and the men shaved.

The daily routine for inmates proposed by the Poor Law Commissioners was as follows:

Woken at 6 o'clock

Begin work at 7 o'clock

Finish work at 6 o'clock (an 11 hour day)

Bed at 8 o'clock

Here is some of the punishments handed out in a workhouse, these are genuine examples as recorded in 1858

Elliott, Benjamin - Neglect of work - 31 May 1842 - Dinner withheld, and but bread for supper.
Rowe, Sarah - Noisy and swearing - 19 June 1842 - Lock'd up for 24 hours on bread and water.
Aplin, John - Disorderly at Prayer-time - 22 July 1842 - Lock'd up for 24 hours on bread and water.
Bartlett, Mary - Breaking window - 21 Mar 1843 - Sent to prison for 2 mths.
Park, James - Deserted, got over wall - 4 Sep 1843 - To be whipped.
Hallett, Isaac - Breaking window - 25 April 1844 - Sent to prison for 2 months hard labour.
Soaper, Elizabeth - Making use of bad language in bedroom. - 17 Jany. 1863 - Taken before the Magistrate & committed to prison for 14 days hard labour.

Not very pleasant I think you would agree, beatings, and rapes were not uncommon, meals withheld, no personal property allowed, and people sent to prison for 14 days hard labor, just for swearing.

And the sort of work they had to do was not pleasant, in rural areas, inmates were sometimes used for agricultural labor. Other more menial work included:
Stone-breaking — the results being saleable for road-making
Corn-grinding — heavy mill-stones were rotated by four or more men turning a capstan (the resulting flour was usually of very poor quality)
Bone-crushing
Gypsum-crushing — for use in plaster-making
Oakum-picking
Wood-chopping

A regime like this made it almost impossible to leave the workhouse, because how could you raise the funds to support yourself, and free yourself, if that was your life?

It was virtual slavery, in fact most slaves in North America never had it this bad, and this went on for almost a century and a half, after the end of slavery.

Yet blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and it's because of slavery?

You know what makes the slave argument even more laughable?

In the 15th and 16th Centuries between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire, although the trade dated back much further than this.

More British were sold into African slavery, than the other way around...

Yet blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and it's because of slavery?

I wonder if the people of Baltimore, Ireland would feel that way?

On Sunday the 19th of June 1631, two boats were taken from Dungarvan, in Co. Waterford, each about 12 tons burden and went to the old head of Kinsale, Co. Cork

John Hackett the master of the first, from Dungarvan was ordered to bring his boat into Kinsale but he refused saying that the place was to hot for them, for besides the fort there was the King's ships, and so the boats set sail for Baltimore, Co. Cork.

John Hackett was tried at the assises in Cork, condemned and executed for his part in this affair.

The Master of the second boat was Thomas Carew also from Dungarvan.

These boats had been pirated and were manned with Turks and Renagadoes.

The following is an extract from the Annals of Kinsale:

"Hackett brought them to Baltimore about ten o'clock in the night, and they cast anchor on the east side of the harbour's mouth, about a muskett shot from the shore, of whose coming none of the inhabitants had any notice, they came so late, for the sun setting they were seen, but not known, near Castlehaven. When they had moored their ships, the captain and ten Turks, with the said Edward Fawlett, a Christian captain, came in one of their boats into the said harbour, and they bound oacombe about their oars, least the noise might discover them. Fawlett piloted them along all the shore, and showed them how the town did stand, relating unto them where the most able men had their abode.

In this business they spent five glasses, when they came back aboard, they cheered up the rest of the company saying, we are in a good place and shall make a boon voyage. Then they consulted what time of night was fittest for their intended exploit, and concluded a little before day to be the most convenient season. Whereupon, about two of the clock in the morning they landed some two hundred and thirty musketeers, armed with firebrands, ready to set the houses on fire, prepared with iron bars to break open doors; they brought all their men in the two foresaid boats of Dungarvan and their own ship boats. These things were received by the confession of Hackett and Fawlett afterwards.

The 20 day of June, betwixt the hours of one and two in the morning, they landed their men, who divided themselves, some to one house, some to another, and so on a sudden surprised all of the houses on that part which is called the Cove to the number of 26, and carried with them young and old, out of their beds, to the number of 100 persons, and two they killed.Then the said Captain, leaving in ambush 60 musqueteers betwixt the said Cove and the town himself with about 120 or 140 Turks and one John Hackett an Irish Papist, presently assaulted the said town, when they in like manner surprised ten English Inhabitants, and had further proceeded (after breaking open 40 houses and rifeling of 37) had not one William Harris (wakened with the noise) discovered them to be Turks, and with divers shots in defence of himself wakened the rest of his neighbours, who beating the drum in the upper part of the town, caused the said Rice, with the rest of his company, presently to retrait to their aforesaid amush, and thence to their ship, where they continued at anchor until 3 or 4 o'clock of the afternoon.

On the day aforesaid, before it was light, news came to one Thomas Bennett by some that escaped of the first surprisal, who presently held a letter to Mr. James Salmon, of Castlehaven, praying him to use his best endeavours to persuade Mr. Pawlett, who then lay in the harbour with his ship, to haste to the rescue of the foresaid captives, who it seems could not prevail. Then Mr. Salmon presently, with all speed, sent to Captain Hooks, Captain of the King's ship then riding in the harbour of Kinsale, informing him of the premises, and said Samuel Crooke likewise sent a letter to the Sovereign of Kinsale, manifesting the calamities aforesaid, and praying him to hasten the captain of the King's ship to their rescue. Mr. Salmon's man, by his direction, went also from Kinsale to Mallow, to inform the Lo. President of the premises who presently sent his commands to the Sovereign of Kinsale and Capt. Hook to set forth with the King's ship and to hasten her to the service, who came accordingly within a few days. But the Turks not continued in the harbour longer than they could bring in their anchor and hoyse sail, were gotten out of view, and the King's ship followed after them , but could never get sight of them.

Endorsed:"The second relation of the Turk's insolency done at Baltimore, which is more true and punctual than the former, this being attested by the Sovereign, the Burgesses and Sir Samuel Crooke, Baronet.

The list of Baltimore people carried away by the Turke the 20 June 1631


Wm. Mould - himself and boy
Ould Osburne - himself and mayd
Alexander Pumery - his wife
John Ryder - himself, wife and two children
Robert Hunt - his wife
Abram Roberts - - himself, wife and three children
Corent Croffine - himself, wife, daughter and three men
John Harris - his wife, mother, three children and maid
Dermod Meregey - two children and maid
Richard Meade - himself, wife, sister and four children
Stephen Broddebrooke - his wife and two children (she great with child)
Ould Haunkin - himself, wife and daughter
Evans and the Cook- Evans and his boy, Cooke, his wife and maid
Bessie Floodd - herself and sonne
Stephen Pierse - himself, wife, mother and three children
William Symons - himself, wife and two children
Christopher Norwey - himself, wife and child
Sampson Rogers - himself and sonne
Beese Peeter - her daughter
Thomas Payne = himself, wife and two children
Richard Watts - himself, wife and two children
William Gunter - his wife, maid and seven sonnes
John Amble - himself
Edward Cherrye - himself
Robert Chimor - his wife and four children
Timothy Corlew - his wife
John Slyman - himself, wife and two children
Morris Power - his wife
The sum of all carried from Baltimore is 107
Timothy Curlew - slayne
John Davys - slayne

Ould Osburne - sent ashore again
Alice Heard - sent ashore again
Two of Dungarvan - sent ashore again
One of Dartmouth - sent ashore again

They have taken 9 Portingales, 3 Pallicians, 17 Frenchmen, 9 Englishmen of Dartmouth and 9 from two boats of Dungarvan, 47. The sum of all captives is 154..."

A whole community decimated by the slave trade, but... blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and it's because of slavery?

Sorry, just don't buy it...

[Count Sudoku]

Blaming jews for the deplorable state of Britain is a harder case then in America Dan (and I don't think it generally holds water here), Britain has a proportional representation system (a system much closer to pure democracy then America's) and yet New Labor keeps getting elected.

Britain does not have a proportional system. They have first past the post. They do have more than two major parties though.

[Kamandi]

Well, if it's any consolation, I'm sure harjit, Larrikin and Mr. Angry appreciate and take you seriously. :)
I doubt there's anyone here who sincerely doubts my ability to debate, whether they admit it or not.

[Starr]

Just to begin with, the idea that one ethnic group can be said to be objectively "better" than another one is preposterous.

Such judgments are simply reflections of the prejudices of whomever is making them. "Better" just means "has more social status than an outgroup."

There wouldn't really be anyone to blame for losing your standing in society other than yourself. It's hardly as if you don't desire to ruin OTHER people's standings in society based on your own personal malice.

You get back what you put out.


It was only said here, by a nobel prize winning geneticist that Africans are less intelligent. Certain people are now saying "hate" laws should be looked into to see if this guy's findings are anything that could get him thrown in prison. And you are throwing around terms like Nazi and talking about people wanting to kill others due to "skin color." Who seems more malicious here?

Do you truly believe a reasonable society should be imprisoning scientists for findings that contradict what modern society wants to believe? Should science be about observations and findings that might bring us closer to better understanding the world around us, rather than merely advancing whatever social agendas are fashionable at the time? for this to be accomplished society has to allow things to be looked at from all angles without the thought of punishment or basically "damnation" hanging over the heads of these scientists.

[harjit]

Irrational describes your efforts to explain away the chaos and backwardness of Black Africa as being the result of racism on another continent.
You're putting words in his mouth.

With regards to black Africa, Kam said (1) That circumstances would make it impossible to effectively measure intelligence in such places as the Congo, (2) There was racism and colonialism in Africa.

He didn't attribute racism in the U.S. to intelligence levels in Africa.

[Kamandi]

Irrational describes your efforts to explain away the chaos and backwardness of Black Africa as being the result of racism on another continent.
"Irrational" would best describe the idea that British colonial exploitation has nothing to do with African economic backwardness.

[Warka]

I doubt there's anyone here who sincerely doubts my ability to debate, whether they admit it or not.

Is that so? I'll go on record saying I, for one, doubt it.

After all, I'm still awaiting a reply, for a couple months now, here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=412325&postcount=248).

[Kamandi]

It was only said here, by a nobel prize winning geneticist that Africans are less intelligent.
His Nobel Prize in genetics qualifies him to discuss genetics, not intelligence psychometrics. It shouldn't be overlooked that this was a guy who ran the Cold Spring Harbor eugenics facility, responsible for spreading the propaganda that got tens of thousands of Americans sterilized for being "genetically unfit."


Certain people are now saying "hate" laws should be looked into to see if this guy's findings are anything that could get him thrown in prison.
Not in the US. Anything he says falls squarely under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

[Petr]

"Irrational" would best describe the idea that British colonial exploitation has nothing to do with African economic backwardness.
Colonial administration promoted African progress if anything. In many African areas, things turned to decidedly worse once those meanie colonizers were gone.

You are in desperate position, defending the indefensible.


Petr

[harjit]

Well, if it's any consolation, I'm sure harjit, Larrikin and Mr. Angry appreciate and take you seriously. I know it's no Dream Team, but, hey...take what you can get, right? :)
Say what you will but I have yet to see Kamandi bested, here or at MSF.

It invariably ends with name-calling on the part of the racist side. It must be frustrating.

[Kamandi]

Is that so? I'll go on record saying I, for one, doubt it.
You're a hilariously demented idiot who claims that Jews kill children and drink their blood, so you'll understand, I trust, if I don't really care what you think. :rofl:

After all, I'm still awaiting a reply, for a couple months now, here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=412325&postcount=248).
I forgot about that thread.

[Starr]

"Irrational" would best describe the idea that British colonial exploitation has nothing to do with African economic backwardness.


Irrational would be to state that this is the one and only explanation and to basically refer to other ideas, not just as incorrect and something that can be debated, but "evil." The modern "human equality" crowd likes to refer to themselves as "enlightened", but all too many of them sound pretty dark age to me.

[ivory bill]

You're putting words in his mouth.

With regards to black Africa, Kam said (1) That circumstances would make it impossible to effectively measure intelligence in such places as the Congo, (2) There was racism and colonialism in Africa.

He didn't attribute racism in the U.S. to intelligence levels in Africa.


I refer you to Kamandi's own words in post#77, page 8 of this thread:

That in itself doesn't make the racist case, particularly since our country's history of racism is likely a large factor in it.

[harjit]

Irrational would be to state that this is the one and only explanation and to basically refer to other ideas, not just as incorrect and something that can be debated, but "evil." How dark age.
On the contrary, it is being debated, and I'm not sure who you mean that is simply writing it off as evil.

[harjit]

I refer you to Kamandi's own words in post#77, page 8 of this thread:
That discussion was about blacks in the U.S.

You later came in and asked about blacks in Africa.

[Warka]

Say what you will but I have yet to see Kamandi bested, here or at MSF.

It invariably ends with name-calling on the part of the racist side. It must be frustrating.

You're a hilariously demented idiot who claims that Jews kill children and drink their blood, so you'll understand, I trust, if I don't really care what you think. :rofl:

LOL...

Anyway, Kamandi, you cannot point to a single instance where I've ever posted anything about jews killing children and drinking their blood.

I forgot about that thread.

Quite conveniently. Even after I've reminded you about it, what, 3 or 4 times now?

This is the reigning debate champ on the Phora??? :rofl:

[Kamandi]

Colonial administration promoted African progress if anything. In many African areas, things turned to decidedly worse once those meanie colonizers were gone.
Colonial administration was very good in the way of building infrastructure and absolutely terrible in the way of educating or enfranchising the people they exploited and enslaved.

The political turmoil that created meant that the said infrastructure simply increased the efficiency of the authoritarian regimes which filled the power vacuum in further suppressing and marginalizing the African peoples.

You are in desperate position, defending the indefensible.
Not desperate at all. I'm the obviously defensible, which is the advantage of being on the side of the truth.

[ivory bill]

That discussion was about blacks in the U.S.

You later came in and asked about blacks in Africa.

Let me to guide you back to the initial post:


Quote:
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The subject of the thread has never been about racism in the USA.

[Francis]

Colonial administration promoted African progress if anything. In many African areas, things turned to decidedly worse once those meanie colonizers were gone.

For 70% of the population of Africa it made no difference, as they were never directly under British control, of the 30% that were most were not directly affected, meaning there was only ever a small percent who were, and yes, I think we can say they benefited, I mean aside from the £750,000 (several hundred million dollars in current values) paid to the Portuguese to end the slave trade, and the millions spent on patrolling African waters to protect them, apart from the schools, and hospitals, the improved farming conditions, the irrigation, the railway network, the roads, the increased medicare, the increased life expectancy, and the improved utilities, we also created a lot of work, which brought a lot of money into these countries.

But hey, I'm British, so I'm probably biased...

[Kamandi]

LOL...

Anyway, Kamandi, you cannot point to a single instance where I've ever posted anything about jews killing children and drinking their blood.
You've forgotten claiming that the USS Liberty was motivated by a Jewish religious command to sacrifice gentiles as evidenced by the murder of the Trent martyr?


Quite conveniently. Even after I've reminded you about it, what, 3 or 4 times now?

This is the reigning debate champ on the Phora? :rofl:
I'm posting at work -- I often forget about whatever I was debating when I come back the next day or, of course, actually do some work.

[Starr]

On the contrary, it is being debated, and I'm not sure who you mean that is simply writing it off as evil.


Not you. Kamandi is coming very close with a few of his statements. I am talking about anti racist types in general. You know they love to toss around terms like "evil" and "genocide" when the topic of racial differences comes up.

[Kamandi]

For 70% of the population of Africa it made no difference, as they were never directly under British control
We're discussing the population of sub-Saharan African in particular, which was, of course, primarily under British control.

And the empowerment of the later dictators caused by the damage done by the colonialists affected more than just South Africa.

[Warka]

You've forgotten claiming that the USS Liberty was motivated by a Jewish religious command to sacrifice gentiles as evidenced by the murder of the Trent martyr?

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else- I don't recall ever posting about the Liberty here. In any case, how does that involve killing children to drink their blood?


I'm posting at work -- I often forget about whatever I was debating when I come back the next day or, of course, actually do some work.

Right. Like I said, how convenient. :rolleyes:



Posted again for posterity- classics like this don't come every day:
Originally Posted by harjit
Say what you will but I have yet to see Kamandi bested, here or at MSF.

It invariably ends with name-calling on the part of the racist side. It must be frustrating.
And only minutes later:


Originally Posted by Kamandi
You're a hilariously demented idiot who claims that Jews kill children and drink their blood, so you'll understand, I trust, if I don't really care what you think.

Hilarious. :rofl:

[Kamandi]

Not you. Kamandi is coming very close with a few of his statements. I am talking about anti racist types in general. You know they love to toss around terms like "evil" and "genocide" when the topic of racial differences comes up.
Eugenics was certainly evil and this guy was one of the spearheads of it in the United States. That fact informs all of his statements, not his Nobel Prize.

[Francis]

We're discussing the population of sub-Saharan African in particular, which was, of course, primarily under British control.

Like I said, 70% of Africans were never under British control, it might kind of shoot your argument in the foot (a bit like your Britain's are the indigenous people of Palestine argument) but it's the facts none the less.

Here you go, look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/ColonialAfrica.png

Look at all them areas that are not pink, and look, some of that pink isn't sub-Sahara, but hey, it's all the British fault, isn't it?

(I wonder what you'd say if I blamed ALL crime on blacks, including those not committed by blacks? Wonder if it would be labeled racist?)

You can try jigging about, and redrawing borders if you want, how about not only removing areas above the Sahara, but also areas not controlled by the British, then you can claim that the British controlled all of Africa, under British control, and therefore were responsible for all evils in the world?

And the empowerment of the later dictators caused by the damage done by the colonialists affected more than just South Africa.

What damage?

You mean the end of slavery?

The hospitals?

The schools?

The transport infrastructure?

The improved farming methods?

The increased life expectancy?

Just saying "damage" repeatedly doesn't make it so...

[ivory bill]

Posted again for posterity- classics like this don't come every day:

Quote:
Originally Posted by harjit
Say what you will but I have yet to see Kamandi bested, here or at MSF.

It invariably ends with name-calling on the part of the racist side. It must be frustrating.


And only minutes later:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamandi
You're a hilariously demented idiot who claims that Jews kill children and drink their blood, so you'll understand, I trust, if I don't really care what you think.


Hilarious.
____________________________________________________________________
Let me add the great 'bater's clever riposte to me:

Originally Posted by ivory bill
Carry on, then. Just don't be surprised to find that you're not taken seriously.

By bitter, irrational racists like you? I'm shattered!!

[Kamandi]

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else- I don't recall ever posting about the Liberty here. In any case, how does that involve killing children to drink their blood?
Ooops, looks like I confused you with Leon De Poncins: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=445693&postcount=70

I apologize for the confusion - he's the idiot and not you. I'm sorry for the error.


Right. Like I said, how convenient. :rolleyes:
There are loads of threads all over the Phora I've never replied to simply because I forgot about them, got involved in other threads, didn't post for a few days, etc.

[Warka]

You've forgotten claiming that the USS Liberty was motivated by a Jewish religious command to sacrifice gentiles as evidenced by the murder of the Trent martyr?

Confirmed. Wasn't me, pal. A search on my name and the key word "Liberty" here yeilds no results pertaining to any such discussion.

Now, where were we, champ?

[Warka]

Harjit's got to be feeling like the world's biggest tool right now. Way to go, Kamandi! :rofl:

[Kamandi]

It wasn't you -- it was a case of mistaken identity on my part. Sorry.

[ivory bill]

It wasn't you -- it was a case of mistaken identity on my part. Sorry.

Would you believe Kamandi intended the name-calling for someone else? Yessss, that's the ticket!

[Warka]

Would you believe Kamandi intended the name-calling for someone else? Yessss, that's the ticket!

Nah, harjit says Kamandi wins debates because the other guys resort to name-calling and such. :rofl:

[Kamandi]

What can I say? You all look alike to me. http://www.mootsf.org/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif

[Warka]

What can I say? http://www.mootsf.org/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif

Not much. Tell us, how does it feel to slap your friend in the face and make him a liar like that?

[Fallen King]

I'm posting at work -- I often forget about whatever I was debating when I come back the next day or, of course, actually do some work.

Arbeit macht frei!

[Kamandi]

Heil Victory!!

[Fallen King]

Here you go, look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/ColonialAfrica.png

One question, how did Ethiopia alone (the grey area) manage to stay Independent?

There must be some explanation for that... it can't be just a random anomaly.

[Petr]

One question, how did Ethiopia alone (the grey area) manage to stay Independent?

There must be some explanation for that... it can't be just a random anomaly.
They militarily defeated the Italians who tried to colonize them in the 1890s.

(This later prompted Mussolini's invasion to Abyssinia as a revenge for this defeat.)


Petr

[Warka]

Heil Victory!!

You know it, Jew.

Until next time... :)

[Fallen King]

They militarily defeated the Italians who tried to colonize them in the 1890s.

(This later prompted Mussolini's invasion to Abyssinia as a revenge for this defeat.)

Petr

How come no other Western power moved in to take over instead?

It seems strange that in the African land grab by the Western Imperial Powers, they would leave even one region unclaimed.

[Winston]

Say what you will but I have yet to see Kamandi bested, here or at MSF.

It invariably ends with name-calling on the part of the racist side. It must be frustrating.

He might give the illusion of not being bested due to his use of language. However, he is often wrong, this thread being a case in point.
He is an incredibly mendacious person.

[harjit]

Posted again for posterity- classics like this don't come every day:


And only minutes later:


Hilarious. :rofl:

Ouch. :mad:

Anywhoo, an egg in the face that doesn't kill me makes me stronger. :p

[harjit]

He might give the illusion of not being bested due to his use of language. However, he is often wrong, this thread being a case in point.
In this thread he was wrong in confusing Prac with "Pounce the Lion". He's not infallible, and yes, I'm sure he's been wrong in debates too.

He is an incredibly mendacious person.
Wow, that's really severe, you're nearly calling him a habitual liar.

I haven't known this to be the case, do you have examples?

Il Ragno thinks I am vicious and two-faced. :rolleyes: There seems to be no limit to the aspersions that get thrown around on these boards, by all sides, and including between co-ideologues.

[Fallen King]

In this thread he was wrong in confusing Prac with "Pounce the Lion". He's not infallible, and yes, I'm sure he's been wrong in debates too.


Wow, that's really severe, you're nearly calling him a habitual liar.

I haven't known this to be the case, do you have examples?

Ever see this thread?:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28933

[Transcendentally Challenged]

"Irrational" would best describe the idea that British colonial exploitation has nothing to do with African economic backwardness.

Please, show the connection between colonialism and economic backwardness on the example of Rhodesia (British colony, third strongest economy in Africa, second in South Africa)/Zimbabwe (independent country, enjoying the fruit of freedom along with rapid economic stagnation for several decades).

Thanks in advance.

[guy]

Surprise, surprise.. this thread has turned into a flaming bitch fight in less than a day. :snore:

We know that Sub-Saharan Africans score lower on IQ tests. We know that just about every place in the world that has a high percentage of Sub-Saharan Africans is either a shithole, or something very close to being a shithole. We know that IQ is at least partially genetic. And, of course, we know that many Western countries have had serious problems due to immigration from Africa.

But because it is hypothetically possible that somehow non-genetic factors like "racism" "oppression" "colonialism" and other such platitudes are responsible for this reality, in every single case, all over the world, throughout all known history, then we should embrace immigration from African countries, and not mind at all if White populations are slowly being replaced by Black Africans (due to immigration and breeding habits). After all, reality might just be a coincidence. :duh:

[Omniel]

The even more stunning coincidence is the fact that all races and ethnicities, the world over, evolved with the same potential for intelligence. Isn't life strange?

[Starr]

The even more stunning coincidence is the fact that all races and ethnicities, the world over, evolved with the same potential for intelligence. Isn't life strange?


Not even just with intelligence. Apparently all of the races are exactly the same in every single way with the exception of "skin color" and other solely physical characteristics. We will ignore the seemingly strange concidence as mentioned in guy's post, that there seem to be universal patterns of common behavioral traits among the different races. You can look at the average conditions of negroes in the united states as compared to other peoples and you will find they are poorer, do not do as well in school, are much more likely to be in prison, be infected with AIDS, and to be involved in gangs,etc. This is blamed on slavery and past and present "racist" yet, you will find a very similar phenemenon in other parts of the western world(and we won't even get started on Africa) as well that do not have this history. All I can think of is that there must be some sort of universal conspiracy to keep the black man down.:tard:

[Kodos]

Quite justifiably, given the amateurishness of his ignorant psychologizing.

I don't care about averages when it comes to individuals and my only policy changes re race would be to repeal anti discrimination laws and stop immigration. But facts are facts. Empirical test show a lower average black IQ.


Racist non-specialists seem to love to try to cash in on their scientific cachet when they win the Nobel for contributions to fields far removed from psychometrics, then lament til their deaths when they get their asses handed to them by professionals.

Shockley's views were never disproven by professionals. He got railroaded by the forces of political correctness because he spoke scientific heresy.

[Dan Dare]

I doubt there's anyone here who sincerely doubts my ability to debate, whether they admit it or not.

If by debate you mean insisting on always having the last word, You be da Man!

[Fallen King]

Kamandi's just here to distract us from taking any constructive action to stop the destruction of our nation.

Why do we even get involved in these long-winded debates?

I have to blame Fade the Butcher... he was the first one to post book-length treatises and perfect the art of straw-splitting, and now we've become just like him.

And to what end?

What tangible, productive result is being accomplished here?

Are we changing peoples thinking the way the original VNN used to?

Are we giving affirmation to societally demonized White males?

Are we attracting an audience of intelligent, culturally suspicious people who want to know why everything in this country is going haywire?

No... we're just wasting time splitting hairs with antis, jews, homos and browns.

Why?

They are all hostile to the straight white male patriarchy that founded and built this country, so "debating" with them is just a waste of electrons.

[guy]

So at some point you were under the impression that posting on an internet debating forum is an efficient way to achieve your political goals? :eek:

[Fallen King]

Under the impression that it could be used as a tool to organize people for a purpose, like disseminating the work of good writers, forming networks with other forums, sites and blogs on the net, and contacting congressman to make our voices heard on important issues like immigration.

[guy]

So why don't you start some pertinent threads aimed towards achieving those goals? :duh:

[Petr]

You know WN, many people here have already noticed your pretentious newbie-ness.

Not too long ago you were on VNN Forum (and Fade's forum) telling what a dump this place was, and now you're here looking down on VNN - are you planning to start badmouthing this place again?


Petr

[calvin]

So why don't you start some pertinent threads aimed towards achieving those goals?

Keep getting interupted by twats maybe?

[Fallen King]

So why don't you start some pertinent threads aimed towards achieving those goals? :duh:

Because nothing can be accomplished until the jews, antis, homos and browns are marginalized or driven off.

These things take time.

I don't see too many people helping.

[Fallen King]

You know WN, many people here have already noticed your pretentious newbie-ness.

Not too long ago you were on VNN Forum (and Fade's forum) telling what a dump this place was, and now you're here looking down on VNN - are you planning to start badmouthing this place again?

Petr

No. I'm quite satisfied with the impression I made.

[Fallen King]

Keep getting interupted by twats maybe?

No. Just still getting the lay of the land and figuring out who's who.

[Choppy deroute]

There's no way to legitimately compare the two, given the vast differences in education and culture that exist.

An IQ test adapted to European culture would not be appropriate for people from other cultures.

Could you explain to me, how a test like Raven's progressive matrices is culturally biased?

"There was no evidence of test bias revealed in this study. Inter-item matrices were the same for African students and for non-African students, both having similar a coefficients, item difficulty levels, and g factor loadings. In other words, the items on the Matrices ‘behaved’ in the same way for the African students as they did for the non-African students, thereby indicating the test’s internal validity."
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/IJSA2004.pdf


Intelligent people in Asian cultures find the directions on Western intelligence inventories extremely confusing, for example.

If that was the case, obviously 'intelligent people in Asian cultures' wouldn't be 'intelligent', since they would be unable to score high enough to be classified as 'intelligent'.

I'm surprised anyone even bothers to argue the 'test are culturally biased' line anymore. That's a dead parrot. Abstraction is the essence of g, and that has nothing to do with culture.

[Fallen King]

Kamandi just slings shit at the screen and hopes it sticks.

[Kriger]

No. Just still getting the lay of the land and figuring out who's who.

Planning on taking over this forum with your White National agenda (the Jews did it and Nigra News) then, are you?

Why don't you go to VNN and resurrect it? Or better yet start your own forum?

Obviously those of us who post here at the Phora like it the way it is. Listening to White National "activists" is like listening to frothy-mouthed bug-eyed "preachers" on street corners. Not only that, but the rhetoric brings all the frothy-mouthed bug-eyed antis out of the woodwork.

In case you hadn't noticed, any changes being made are being done within the system. You fringe fanatics remain nothing more than that....fringe fanatics. Fringe fanatics who do harm more than good.

[Winston]

Majority Rights thread on the subject.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/james_watson_rocks_the/

It's bound to have some good commentary soon.

[Fallen King]

Planning on taking over this forum with your White National agenda (the Jews did it and Nigra News) then, are you?

Why don't you go to VNN and resurrect it? Or better yet start your own forum?

Obviously those of us who post here at the Phora like it the way it is. Listening to White National "activists" is like listening to frothy-mouthed bug-eyed "preachers" on street corners. Not only that, but the rhetoric brings all the frothy-mouthed bug-eyed antis out of the woodwork.

In case you hadn't noticed, any changes being made are being done within the system. You fringe fanatics remain nothing more than that....fringe fanatics. Fringe fanatics who do harm more than good.

I agree with you. I don't consider myself a fringe fanatic by any means. If you look through my posts, you'll see that I'm still trying to solidify my positions, and haven't posted much in the way of "nigra news" and "jews to blame?"

Regarding VNN Forum: it's unresurrectable... many of those people are clinically insane. VNN, the news and commenatary site on the other hand, used to be quite good, and still has potential.

I've said repeatedly that all change needs to come from within the system, so I don't disagree with you there.

[guy]

I agree with you. I don't consider myself a fringe fanatic by any means. If you look through my posts, you'll see that I'm still trying to solidify my positions, and haven't posted much in the way of "nigra news" and "jews to blame?"

Regarding VNN Forum: it's unresurrectable... many of those people are clinically insane. VNN, the news and commenatary site on the other hand, used to be quite good, and still has potential.

I've said repeatedly that all change needs to come from within the system, so I don't disagree with you there.
I think Bamse was referring to your "Because nothing can be accomplished until the jews, antis, homos and browns are marginalized or driven off" point, WN. This is a forum of ideas. Jews, homos, antis and browns can state their opinions here just like you can. I doubt that any of these groups have much to do with your ability or inability to communicate your own ideas.

[Starr]

An IQ test adapted to European culture would not be appropriate for people from other cultures. Intelligent people in Asian cultures find the directions on Western intelligence inventories extremely confusing, for example.

If what you are getting at here was true than westernzied blacks should not be scoring lower than their white conterparts, but this continues to be the case. But I suppose there is still cultural bias going on there, since blacks are not asked enough questions about chitlans and pigs feet and such. And then those very tricky question that deal with certain patterns and number sequences surely are full of cultural bias that would be difficult for blacks to relate to as opposed to whites. The excuses are endless.

And those Asians couldn't be finding things too confusing considering their average IQ scores are higher than that of whites. Or maybe Asians are better able to relate to and understand that European cultural bias than Europeans and other white folks?

[Fallen King]

I think Bamse was referring to your "Because nothing can be accomplished until the jews, antis, homos and browns are marginalized or driven off" point, WN. This is a forum of ideas. Jews, homos, antis and browns can state their opinions here just like you can. I doubt that any of these groups have much to do with your ability or inability to communicate your own ideas.

From my experience, people from those four groups tend to hide their group affiliation, while pretending to objectively argue positions that directly or indirectly benefit their group.

That's dishonest.

[Starr]

From my experience, people from those four groups tend to hide their group affiliation, while pretending to objectively argue positions that directly or indirectly benefit their group.

That's dishonest.


We can never really know if anyone is who they claim to be on the net. There are too many people who actually do not belong to any of them groups, however, that will argue against their own. Too many of our own siding with others to earn their brownie points and to feel like some great raceless humanitarian is a big part of the reason we find ourselves in the position we are in and no one seems to care too much.

[Starr]

And the blacklisting begins:

LONDON (AP) — A Nobel prize-winning scientist who reportedly claimed Africans and Europeans had different levels of intelligence is no longer welcome to deliver a lecture at London's Science Museum, the museum said Wednesday.

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering DNA, drew widespread outrage when he told The Sunday Times that Africans and Europeans did not share the same brain power.

The newspaper quoted the 79-year-old American geneticist as saying 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."

He told the paper he hoped that everyone was equal, but added: "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

The comments drew condemnation from British lawmakers, scientists, and equality campaigners(what on earth is an equality campaigner?) On Wednesday The Independent newspaper put Watson on its front page, against the words: "Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer."

The Independent catalogued what it said were a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to abort their unborn children if tests could determine they would grow into homosexuals.

Watson, who serves as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, was due to speak Friday at a sold-out event at the Science Museum, but on Wednesday night the institution said Watson's comments had gone too far and the lecture had been canceled.

This is not the first time Watson's speaking engagements have caused a stir. In 2000 Watson shocked an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, when he advanced his theory about a link between skin color and sex drive.

His lecture, complete with slides of bikini-clad women, argued that extracts of melanin — which give skin its color — had been found to boost subjects' sex drive.

"That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

Telephone and e-mail messages left with the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after business hours Wednesday were not immediately returned.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbWwe16Y68vdK7nUgcoOOPzuXuFAD8SB8I281

[harjit]

Keep getting interupted by twats maybe?
There are boards where only WNs are allowed to post. No debate with antis, just discussion amongst themselves.

MuadDib and Francis Playfair's board is one example. Or Stormfront, for that matter, apart from OV.

[Helios Panoptes]

The Independent catalogued what it said were a series of controversial statements from Watson, including one in which he reportedly suggested women should have the right to abort their unborn children if tests could determine they would grow into homosexuals.

What is controversial about that? Women are permitted to aborth their unborn children for any reason whatsoever.

[Larrikin]

Again it comes to energy levels. The sunlight helps build Vitamin D3, without it you feel sluggish and in some people depression can occur, both reduce a man's libido. Vitamin D is a prohormone, it isn't a hormone itself but is converted into a hormone.

Cholecalciferol (D3) is converted into Calcitriol which main controls the calcium balance of the body. I don't know about any relation to libido.

D3 is structurally similar to testosterone which is directly related to libido.

:confused:
Testosteron:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Testosteron.svg/200px-Testosteron.svg.png

Calcitriol:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Calcitriol2.svg/200px-Calcitriol2.svg.png

Not really similar, apart from that both are hormons.

[///M power]

actually white nobility is quite balanced, he is not "vnn material" but a reasonable person.

now about the story,it was today in the Israeli news paper, it was also written that he said Jews from Germany were more intelligent then other people. the press labeled him as a racist... bullshit. the press always hates when people tell the truth, I mean their agenda is to decide whats wrong and right,they are actually more influential then the high courts.

[Larrikin]

actually white nobility is quite balanced, he is not "vnn material" but a reasonable person.

Like this?

Egypt was founded by Caucasians.
They built a great civilization.
They let Semites immigrate.
They imported black slaves.
And then they collapsed.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29609&page=10

And this was at the end of a thread in which some really good information about ancient Egyptians and their origins were presented...

[Angler]

Could you explain to me, how a test like Raven's progressive matrices is culturally biased?Bingo! The new guy beat me to it.

The accusation of cultural bias in intelligence tests has been the primary escape route for the "equality" crowd for quite some time. But the fact is that the less culturally-loaded a test is, and the greater its g loading, the greater the white-black difference.

The Raven's Progressive Matrices has not a single number or word on it. Practice questions are given before the test to make sure all test-takers have adequate familiarity with what they're supposed to do. The questions start off extremely easy.

Why is it that whites consistently outscore blacks on this test?

Also, if these tests are culturally biased, then why do non-whites such as Asians do just fine on them?

Why do these test results parallel the uneven development of civilizations by different races?

If the exploitation of Africa has suppressed Africans' intellectual development, then why wasn't the intellectual development of, say, Poland suppressed by its occupation by Germany and, later, exploitation by the USSR?

Why is it that Western nations were able to rebuild entire cities that were bombed flat during wars, when most black Africans still can't build a single modern city on their own, without outside help?

Moreover, Kamandi, I believe you claimed earlier in this thread that there are no tests that can be done to determine the extent of genetic versus environmental effects on IQ. As a PhD in psychology, you of all people should know better. There have been studies of identical twins reared together, reared apart, and so forth, and the heritability of IQ has been determined to be quite high.

In addition, I believe there have been studies of the white-black IQ gap that controlled for socioeconomic status by one or more methods (e.g., using only black subjects of higher SES). This doesn't shrink the gap very much, if at all.

Let's face it, folks: blacks are not as intelligent as whites, and while groups such as the APA are not going to admit it, all the evidence points to genetic causes for the gap.

[Francis]

MuadDib and Francis Playfair's board is one example.

We're just special like that!

Yeah, horses for courses

[Kamandi]

Please, show the connection between colonialism and economic backwardness on the example of Rhodesia (British colony, third strongest economy in Africa, second in South Africa)/Zimbabwe (independent country, enjoying the fruit of freedom along with rapid economic stagnation for several decades).
Simply having the strongest economy in the world's most economically depressed region is not "evidence" that those sub-Saharan nations weren't quite obviously harmed by colonialism.

True, not all nations were hurt as badly as Uganda or the Congo, but that's not evidence they weren't harmed, which they obviously were.

Thanks in advance.
You're welcome.

[Kamandi]

If what you are getting at here was true than westernzied blacks should not be scoring lower than their white conterparts, but this continues to be the case.
It hasn't crossed your mind that OTHER environmental factors might ALSO be at work in their case, given that they're still disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged?

Hint: in every other instance that's ever been tested anywhere in the world, economically disadvantaged caste-like minority groups ALWAYS test lower than their counterparts from non-economically marginalized groups, usually around one standard deviation below.

That's true, for instance, for the white Irish in white Britain as well.

[shanemac]

It hasn't crossed your mind that OTHER environmental factors might ALSO be at work in their case, given that they're still disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged?

Hint: in every other instance that's ever been tested anywhere in the world, economically disadvantaged caste-like minority groups ALWAYS test lower than their counterparts from non-economically marginalized groups, usually around one standard deviation below.

That's true, for instance, for the white Irish in white Britain as well.

Here we go again... excuses excuses.

Ever hear of Occam's razor? The simplest solution to a problem is usually right.

Negroes are less intelligent than whites. They have less impulse control, and lower work ethic. These facts will explain everything you need to know about the differences you may observe between white and black communities.

[harjit]

It hasn't crossed your mind that OTHER environmental factors might ALSO be at work in their case, given that they're still disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged?

Hint: in every other instance that's ever been tested anywhere in the world, economically disadvantaged caste-like minority groups ALWAYS test lower than their counterparts from non-economically marginalized groups, usually around one standard deviation below.

That's true, for instance, for the white Irish in white Britain as well.
I believe I've heard this to be the case for Korean minorities in Japan as well.

[ivory bill]

Here we go again... excuses excuses.

Ever hear of Occam's razor? The simplest solution to a problem is usually right.

Negroes are less intelligent than whites. They have less impulse control, and lower work ethic. These facts will explain everything you need to know about the differences you may observe between white and black communities.

Occam was a racist and an antisemitic conspiraloon.

[Fallen King]

actually white nobility is quite balanced, he is not "vnn material" but a reasonable person.

I oscillate between reasonable and unreasonable.

I used to think it was an advantage, having that "passion" (emotion, hence unreason), but it's often a hindrance.

[Kamandi]

Here we go again... excuses excuses.

Ever hear of Occam's razor? The simplest solution to a problem is usually right.
Actually, because the group intelligences theory posits the existence of genetic and neurological differences that aren't observable; and requires several theoretical entities that have resisted definition, Occam's Razor would suggest it's the wrong answer.

The principle of parsimony says, "Don't multiply theoretical entities unnecessarily" (My paraphrase.)

An "excuse" to you is any factual and plausible explanation of the environment involving observable and measurable phenomena that doesn't allow you to consider yourself superior to non-whites simply for being born.
Negroes are less intelligent than whites. They have less impulse control, and lower work ethic. These facts will explain everything you need to know about the differences you may observe between white and black communities.
They tell us nothing about either of the communities, but plenty about you.

[Winston]

It hasn't crossed your mind that OTHER environmental factors might ALSO be at work in their case, given that they're still disproportionately economically and socially disadvantaged?

Hint: in every other instance that's ever been tested anywhere in the world, economically disadvantaged caste-like minority groups ALWAYS test lower than their counterparts from non-economically marginalized groups, usually around one standard deviation below.

That's true, for instance, for the white Irish in white Britain as well.

Why do you think the oppressors subjugate these groups in the first place? Usually because they are seen as inherently inferior upon first contact with them. (The same way you notice your intellectual superiority within moments of coming up against the average VNNer).
Cream rises to the top. Witness the success of immigrant Jews in Britain and America, often coming from the poorest and most squalid of backgrounds. More recently we have seen Asians doing the same thing.
You are looking at the natural consequences of genetic differences and trying to twist them into the root causes of those same consequences. Your arguments just don't hold water.

[Kamandi]

The oppressors subjugate them because it's economically advantageous for them to do so and they have the military power to pull it off.

Considering them "inferior" is just the ideological grease that allowed them to politically rationalize their activities.

Again, there's no proof whatsoever of said "natural genetic differences" being responsible for the B-W testing gap. You just like that explanation because you like feeling superior to other simply for being born, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many environmental factors have been found that impact variation in testing performance.

[shanemac]

Asians are a minority in the USA... a much smaller minority than negroes. Most come from families that arrived in America only a generation or two ago. Their culture is totally different to that of white America. Asians score on average 105 in IQ testing (from memory).

Negroes are a minority in the USA, but much larger in numbers than Asians. The vast majority come from families that have been in America for several hundred years. Their culture is very similar to that of white America. Negroes score on average 85 in IQ testing.

Please explain this Kamandi.

[calvin]

Many environmental factors have been found that impact variation in testing performance

The only time that sub-Saharans have ever risen above stone-age systems of social organisation is when they have been subjected to the influences of non-blacks. Sub-Saharan Africans have made no significant contribution to human civilization at any point in history, including the modern age, but they are, of course, just as intellectually capable as Eurasians; that’s one great big fucker of a streak of bad luck they’ve had isn’t it?

[Kamandi]

That's irrelevant - the Asians who got here were the ones who could AFFORD to get here. They're not a random sample.

Africans were FORCED here after being essentially randomly selected from African civilization. ie, blacks are a random sample, while Asians are a sample selected for above-average socioeconomic status and education.

Not surprising they'd be doing better economically in that case.

[Fallen King]

Asians are a minority in the USA... a much smaller minority than negroes. Most come from families that arrived in America only a generation or two ago. Their culture is totally different to that of white America. Asians score on average 105 in IQ testing (from memory).

Negroes are a minority in the USA, but much larger in numbers than Asians. The vast majority come from families that have been in America for several hundred years. Their culture is very similar to that of white America. Negroes score on average 85 in IQ testing.

To be fair, blacks being enslaved and systematically oppressed for hundreds of years is probably a big part of it.

[Kamandi]

The only time that sub-Saharans have ever risen above stone-age systems of social organisation is when they have been subjected to the influences of non-blacks. Sub-Saharan Africans have made no significant contribution to human civilization at any point in history, including the modern age, but they are, of course, just as intellectually capable as Eurasians; that’s one great big fucker of a streak of bad luck they’ve had isn’t it?
Even if that were true, that in itself means nothing regarding group intelligence and genetics. It's about economics - weather, germs, natural resources, etc.

[Kamandi]

To be fair, blacks being enslaved and systematically oppressed for hundreds of years is probably a big part of it.
*skies part and light shines down from heaven as WN has his first rational thought*:dance:

[Fallen King]

That's irrelevant - the Asians who got here were the ones who could AFFORD to get here. They're not a random sample.

True.

Africans were FORCED here after being essentially randomly selected from African civilization. ie, blacks are a random sample,

The blacks may not have been a random sample either... it's likely that the less intelligent blacks were easier prey for the tribal chieftains who captured and sold them to the slave traders.

while Asians are a sample selected for above-average socioeconomic status and education.

Kamandi is making some valid points.

[Fallen King]

*skies part and light shines down from heaven as WN has his first rational thought*:dance:

:rofl:

Hey, I felt a little indulgent today. :)

[Kamandi]

The blacks may not have been a random sample either... it's likely that the less intelligent blacks were easier prey for the tribal chieftains who captured and sold them to the slave traders.

It's likely that was far more about force of arms than IQ. And of course it says nothing about the intelligence of the captured populations themselves.

[Fallen King]

It's likely that was far more about force of arms than IQ. And of course it says nothing about the intelligence of the captured populations themselves.

True. Good points.

[Jimbo Gomez]

That's irrelevant - the Asians who got here were the ones who could AFFORD to get here. They're not a random sample.

Africans were FORCED here after being essentially randomly selected from African civilization. ie, blacks are a random sample, while Asians are a sample selected for above-average socioeconomic status and education.

Not surprising they'd be doing better economically in that case.


I don't think they were a random selection at all. Most slaves were caught by other negroes in large raids.

Do you really think that a random sample of negroes caught another random sample? In most societies in history, it was the strongest who enslaved the weakest, or at least the more intelligent who enslaved the less intelligent.

Slaves were selected on resale value basically, which meant that they were selected basically on the criterium of brute strength. Those raids went on for centuries. I'm of the opinion that America imported the least valuable people that could be caught in western Africa as slaves.

[Jimbo Gomez]

It's likely that was far more about force of arms than IQ. And of course it says nothing about the intelligence of the captured populations themselves.


That would be true if there had only been a couple of raids. Whites arming the raiders who then go out and capture random people. But if raid after raid after raid takes place for centuries, patterns emerge. The targeted people begin to look for ways of preventing to get caught. The more intelligent among them are successful. Nobody wants to be enslaved, people will do whatever pops into their head to prevent it.

[Fallen King]

I don't think they were a random selection at all. Most slaves were caught by other negroes in large raids.

Do you really think that a random sample of negroes caught another random sample? In most societies in history, it was the strongest who enslaved the weakest, or at least the more intelligent who enslaved the less intelligent.

I see your point, but there's different forms of intelligence... group co-operative intelligence, individual intelligence, contemplative intelligence, predatory intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc...

[Kamandi]

I don't think they were a random selection at all. Most slaves were caught by other negroes in large raids.

Do you really think that a random sample of negroes caught another random sample? In most societies in history, it was the strongest who enslaved the weakest, or at least the more intelligent who enslaved the less intelligent.
There's no evidence that's true; it's the economically strong vs. the weak, and there's precious little evidence, particularly in a tribal society, that's based on IQ.

In a tribal society, it's about strength (and luck), not intelligence. Some segments of the population get access to more resources, better nutrition, higher birth-rates, etc. Those resources are eventually parlayed into military and economic strength.

Slaves were selected on resale value basically, which meant that they were selected basically on the criterium of brute strength. Those raids went on for centuries. I'm of the opinion that America imported the least valuable people that could be caught in western Africa as slaves.
What's brute strength got to do with intelligence? Next, your criteria for "value" are based on nothing other than prejudice.

Of course, even if the populations WERE less intelligent, we need workers to maintain our economy and they don't really have to have first-class brains.

[Kamandi]

I see your point, but there's different forms of intelligence... group co-operative intelligence, individual intelligence, contemplative intelligence, predatory intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc...
That's a speculative theory, not a fact. It hasn't been proved or even substantiated with much evidence.

[Kamandi]

That would be true if there had only been a couple of raids. Whites arming the raiders who then go out and capture random people. But if raid after raid after raid takes place for centuries, patterns emerge. The targeted people begin to look for ways of preventing to get caught. The more intelligent among them are successful. Nobody wants to be enslaved, people will do whatever pops into their head to prevent it.
In a tribal society where some are armed and a advanced foreign military power backs them, there's little to nothing which can be done to avoid capture.

And the outcomes were based on decisions made by leaders; they don't necessarily say anything about the variation of intelligence of the individuals in the captured populations themselves. It's not like their countermeasures were typically voted on democratically by a collective plebiscite.

[Jimbo Gomez]

My point wasn't about brute strength. My point was that the smartest of them probably had better chances to avoid capture, and among those that got caught there was probably absolutely no screening on intelligence.

We have our problems with negroid immigrants too here, and Lord knows there is some bad blood between congolese and belgians based on history. But way more of them here make something of their lives than that you see among native blacks in America. I suspect our negroes are more intelligent than yours on average, to put it blunt (not saying they're rocket scientists or so).

I have no evidence for this, it's just a personal theory, but it'd explain a lot of behavioral patterns.

[Kamandi]

The captured populations were typically entire tribes, whose structure was clan-like. Their decisions were usually made by hereditary elders from certain bloodlines - they weren't made by the people collectively.

The fact leaders made bad decisions which resulted in capture by armed hostile tribes (a circumstance they likely had little experience with or resources to oppose) doesn't necessarily reflect the distribution of intelligence in the whole captured populations.

[Jimbo Gomez]

On an individual basis perhaps, but after hundreds of years and thousands of raids, people know what's going on, with themselves and with their neighbours.

Human behaviour is simple: if you know that a threat is coming, you either run away or stay and do your best to defend yourself against it. Slavery had existed for millenia in Africa. Every tribe knew of the risk.

[Kamandi]

The people were being razed by tribes armed with (what was then) advanced technology from industrialized nations. There was little they could do in their pre-industrialized circumstances with or without experience.

[harjit]

That would be true if there had only been a couple of raids. Whites arming the raiders who then go out and capture random people. But if raid after raid after raid takes place for centuries, patterns emerge. The targeted people begin to look for ways of preventing to get caught. The more intelligent among them are successful. Nobody wants to be enslaved, people will do whatever pops into their head to prevent it.
Darn, what a way to live. :(

I wonder if there is a way to find happiness in a short nasty brutish life. Thomas might have some thoughts on this, he seems like a man who derives pleasure in eschewing comfort and luxury.

But I digress (what else is new).

[Fallen King]

To get back to the original topic of the thread, which is the claim that blacks are less intelligent than whites, I think this could be possible for the following reason:

Blacks lived in a warm climate where food was more abundant, and thus were not as environmentally challenged as whites, who lived in a seasonal arctic climate.

Thus, blacks did not have to develop the same degree of food and shelter pre-planning as whites, who had to find inventive ways of surviving the brutally cold winters.

Also, perhaps all those long winters sitting in caves and staring at the fire, contemplating existence, led whites to develop more complex conceptualization skills.

[calvin]

Yeah! Some really interesting digressions there, however, the fact remains that, when tested Black Africans have lower average IQs that American Blacks and indigenous Chinese have higher IQs than native Europeans; funny how Western Europeans managed to devise a system of intelligence testing that was biased in favour of East Asians.

[Winston]

The oppressors subjugate them because it's economically advantageous for them to do so and they have the military power to pull it off.

Considering them "inferior" is just the ideological grease that allowed them to politically rationalize their activities.
We cannot boil down all historical victim/oppressor situations into one, but I think it's pretty obvious that the inherent nature of blacks was a factor in their being taken as slaves so frequently and by so many different traders. Descriptions of blacks from ancient history should be familiar to any honest person who has observed them in the present day.


Again, there's no proof whatsoever of said "natural genetic differences" being responsible for the B-W testing gap. You just like that explanation because you like feeling superior to other simply for being born, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many environmental factors have been found that impact variation in testing performance.

Can you list some of the environmental factors that account for the 15 point average IQ difference between blacks and whites? I'll need to see proof that the whole 15 points are won or lost entirely on the basis of these external factors. Nobody has said that environmental factors can't retard development, it is the degree to which they influence cognitive function which is being contested.
While you're at it, I'd like for you to suggest some environmental reasons for why diaspora Ashkenazim score so much higher than White Gentiles.

Oh, and don't presume to tell me my motivations for anything. It would be ever so easy to present reasons for why you are so fixated with arguing for your own particular collection of viewpoints.

[Winston]

That's irrelevant - the Asians who got here were the ones who could AFFORD to get here. They're not a random sample.

Africans were FORCED here after being essentially randomly selected from African civilization. ie, blacks are a random sample, while Asians are a sample selected for above-average socioeconomic status and education.

Not surprising they'd be doing better economically in that case.

Is it your contention then that for the most part, Asians in the US - including the 100,000-plus who came to the country in the 1800s and worked building railroads in the Western states - arrived in possession of enough economic capital and education to put them above negroes? I would laugh at that. Immigrants in some cases are the more wealthy and educated members of the nations they are choosing to leave, but in other cases this is most definitely not the case. The Chinese who entered the US before 1865 were poor and uneducated workers, rather like the Mexicans flooding over the border today.

[Choppy deroute]

Kamandi, would you mind addressing my comments please?


Originally Posted by Kamandi
There's no way to legitimately compare the two, given the vast differences in education and culture that exist.

An IQ test adapted to European culture would not be appropriate for people from other cultures.


Could you explain to me, how a test like Raven's progressive matrices is culturally biased?

"There was no evidence of test bias revealed in this study. Inter-item matrices were the same for African students and for non-African students, both having similar a coefficients, item difficulty levels, and g factor loadings. In other words, the items on the Matrices ‘behaved’ in the same way for the African students as they did for the non-African students, thereby indicating the test’s internal validity."
http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/fac...s/IJSA2004.pdf



Intelligent people in Asian cultures find the directions on Western intelligence inventories extremely confusing, for example.


If that was the case, obviously 'intelligent people in Asian cultures' wouldn't be 'intelligent', since they would be unable to score high enough to be classified as 'intelligent'.

I'm surprised anyone even bothers to argue the 'test are culturally biased' line anymore. That's a dead parrot. Abstraction is the essence of g, and that has nothing to do with culture.

[Fallen King]

Yeah! Some really interesting digressions there, however, the fact remains that, when tested Black Africans have lower average IQs that American Blacks and indigenous Chinese have higher IQs than native Europeans; funny how Western Europeans managed to devise a system of intelligence testing that was biased in favour of East Asians.

My understanding is that Whites evolved from Asians, who previously evolved from Blacks, and so forth.

Therefore, it's possible that Asians and Whites share some conceptualization patterns that Whites and Blacks no longer have in common... probably a mental disconnect created by drastic linguistic changes over time.

[Starr]

What is controversial about that? Women are permitted to aborth their unborn children for any reason whatsoever.


Women aborting their pefectly normal and healthy children is perfectly acceptable, but the idea that they should be able to abort a child of a special protected class of people, who have special rights, because of who they are, is "inhumane" and "bigoted." That is exactly all that is going on there.

Don't expect any rational thinking with these kinds of people.

[Transcendentally Challenged]

Simply having the strongest economy in the world's most economically depressed region is not "evidence" that those sub-Saharan nations weren't quite obviously harmed by colonialism.

True, not all nations were hurt as badly as Uganda or the Congo, but that's not evidence they weren't harmed, which they obviously were.


You're welcome.

Aborigenes who lived on the territory of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe from the beginning (bushmen and gottentots) were eradicated by the Bantu onslaught from the East by XIXth century (most facts taken from Dimitri Tiomkin's articles on the history and politics of Rhodesia - http://tiomkin.livejournal.com/profile).

White men came to Rhodesia in 1840, when Cecil Rhodes received an exclusive right to organize British South African Company. When Rhodes and armed men of the BSAC came, local population (matabels) were busy doing one thing - organizing genocide of another tribe - mashons - who they believed to be dogs, which ate dirt. After Cecil's arrival, both tribes also started organizing raids against white men's settlements. By the beginning of the XXth century, Rhodes' administration conquered both tribes and finally put an end to intertribal warfare.

In 1961 a new constitution was adopted. According to it, voting rights were granted based on wealth and education census, not skin colour or race.

Votes for the A list of representatives (the majority of all representatives in representational bodies across the country) could be given by those citizens who had annual income no less than 792 pounds/property with market price estimated at no less then 1650 pounds - for citizens who had no education; annual income of 330 pounds/ property with market price estimated at no less than 550 pounds - for citizens who finished at least four classes in high school. To vote for B list of representatives (15 representatives across the country), requirements were even lower.

By 1966, 95700 whites and 2400 blacks voted for the A list of representatives, for the B list - 589 whites and 10780 blacks.

As claimed in many modern cultural-marxist education establishments with regards to system of colonialism, Rhodesian education system was racist. And the facts that don't fit the picture are simply ignored. For example, University College of Rhodesia was a multiracial education establishment and non-white students received grants to continue their education if they couldn't get sufficiently high marks during exams. White and black population had equal access to all hotels, restaurants, bars, though some of them truly were considered by tradition either 'white' or 'black'.

In Rhodesia every sixth african was studying at school. Compare it to the cultural-marxists' favourite, free black countries - Liberia: 1 out of 40, Ethiopia - 1 out of 108. 9% of Rhodesian budget were provided for education of African population. The majority of soldiers in Rhodesian army were black.

Now, please, tell me, how was Rhodesia/Zimbabwe harmed by colonization and how current experiment in black statehood with return to intetribal warfare, collapse of economy, starvation and genocide (using information available freely in the internet) is better than enlightened colonial leadership?

Yet again, thanks in advance.

[Starr]

The oppressors subjugate them because it's economically advantageous for them to do so and they have the military power to pull it off.

Considering them "inferior" is just the ideological grease that allowed them to politically rationalize their activities.

Again, there's no proof whatsoever of said "natural genetic differences" being responsible for the B-W testing gap. You just like that explanation because you like feeling superior to other simply for being born, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Many environmental factors have been found that impact variation in testing performance.


yes, the old you need to feel superior to someone argument. He mentioned in that very post that other certain minority groups tend to do well in a society that supposedly is so bigoted as to be holding back the potential of minority peoples. I guess his white bigoted need to feel superior did not extend to those he mentioned.:whip: The fact is negroes are bottom of the barrel in western society in numerous ways. All other people, even hispanics, many of whom do not even come to this country speaking English do better then they do. Are we to believe that the fact that it has been constantly shown that negroes have a lower IQ, has nothing to do with this and these things are all mere coincidences? Is it also a mere concidence that the two groups he mentioned, asians and jews, who tend to do very well in western societies, also have been tested as having a high average IQ? This should not be rocket science.

Originally Posted by Kamandi
It's likely that was far more about force of arms than IQ. And of course it says nothing about the intelligence of the captured populations themselves.

A people who were able to construct and make good use of the superior weapons and tactics that would be neccessary to capture and dominate another population, does not say anything about the nature of the people, themselves? Did they just happen to get lucky?

[Dan Dare]

Update on the Watson furore:

The old buffer has recanted, but even so, the Science Museum has cancelled his lecture anyway


Nobel scientist who sparked race row says sorry — I didn't mean it (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2687364.ece)

Quite good commentary here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anjana_ahuja/article2689740.ece) from an Indian, no less.

...The Science Museum in London has cancelled Professor Watson’s sell-out speaking engagement tonight, on the ground that his views have gone “beyond the point of acceptable debate”. A spokesman also claimed that “the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics”.

The intellectual cowardice of the cancellation strikes at the heart of what science stands for: the full and free exchange of scientific ideas.

[LarryMahan]

Quite good commentary here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anjana_ahuja/article2689740.ece) from an Indian, no less.[/QUOTE]


I thought this was an incheresting point.

"As well as intellectual cowardice, the Science Museum is guilty of hypocrisy. On October 30, it will hold an event called Is Science Colour-Blind? “Might race have a useful role to play in contemporary science? Talk about the legacies of scientific racism today . . .” runs the blurb. You know what? The museum had a perfect opportunity to do exactly that tonight – and blew it."

[harjit]

I'm surprised he would do a 180.

He's always been controversial, why stop now? He's 79 and surely not scraping financially.

Is it possible that it really isn't what he had meant, and his original words were twisted?

Last night, at a book launch at the Royal Society, Dr Watson withdrew the words attributed to him. “To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly,” he said.

“That is not what I meant. More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2687364.ece

[Dan Dare]

...
Is it possible that it really isn't what he had meant, and his original words were twisted?




There's always the possibility he was stitched up by the hackette who wrote the original article (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece) in the Sunday Times.

Although it does appear that she was a protegee of his, so it seems unlikely.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

National income is not a function of intelligence; it's a function of moral compromise.
That's kinda sick Kamandi. Actually, national wealth is a function of a people's initiative, work ethic, character, intelligence, and creativity. And did I say "work." Yes, the work ethic.

You use that "blonde Euro" avatar because you secretly believe they are smarter, don't you.

[Fallen King]

National income is not a function of intelligence; it's a function of moral compromise.

Then applying your statement on an individual level:

The much higher than average Jewish incomes I've seen documented in various books must be indicative of, not Jewish intelligence, but rather Jewish moral compromise.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Kamandi]That's irrelevant - the Asians who got here were the ones who could AFFORD to get here. They're not a random sample.

If these asians were merely the cream of the crop/most intelligent of their societies than we would not see Asians living in their own nations also testing at that higher average score.

and for pure Africans, of course, their average IQ is even slightly lower than that of american blacks who are more mixed.

A pretty universal pattern here of asians scoring highest, whites in the middle(though closer to asians) and blacks at the bottom from one nation or area where any of these peoples live to the next.

[guy]

That's kinda sick Kamandi. Actually, national wealth is a function of a people's initiative, work ethic, character, intelligence, and creativity. And did I say "work." Yes, the work ethic.

You use that "blonde Euro" avatar because you secretly believe they are smarter, don't you.
I didn't even notice that one, JL.

http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/ptfaculty/images/members/UpsideDownWorld.gif

I bet this ^ is the map Kamandi uses in his "double blinded controlled" studies of Sub-Saharan intelligence..


...

[Fallen King]

What's interesting is that I've actually seen maps like that hung up recently in this multiracial neighborhood I live in.

So, just out of curiousity ... is there any objective, celestial reason to determine the North pole "up" when positioning a globe, or it just due to habit and cultural conditioning?

In my somewhat accidental studies of various occult fringe groups and topics, I've seen repeated mentions of a "pole shift" either happening or scheduled to happen. Anyone know or hear anything about this?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Yes, and it's pretty funny seeing someone like Kamandi preach about "moral compromise." In other threads he's the Phora's self appointed "yogi" who seeks every way from Sunday to September to claim that the word "celibacy" in yogic scriptures don't actually mean celibacy, and that 'any sort of sex between consenting adults is groovy.' Now here he unctiously naysays about moral compromise. All to keep unique Peoples from having any self-awareness, or even hope of survival.

[Fallen King]

Yes, and it's pretty funny seeing someone like Kamandi preach about "moral compromise." In other threads he's the Phora's self appointed "yogi" who finds every way from Sunday to September for claiming that the many references to "celibacy" in yogic scriptures don't actually mean celibacy. This totally amoral libertine spouting about "moral compromise" is pretty repugnant.

I agree... it's long been known in Chinese medicine (and yogic culture as you've mentioned) that a man releasing his seed drains his life force. Non-ejaculatory sex was the prescription for Chinese emperors from their physicians in order to guarantee a long and healthy life, and it was extremely effective.

Even the Judaic Bible portrayed a man spilling his seed as contemptable.

The seed is the energy of life... once every natural organism (whether plant or animal) passes on it's seed, it begins to decay and die (hence the description of something "going to seed")... ie: peaking and decaying.

[Starr]

And there goes his career:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwats1019,0,1054521.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

Amid an international uproar, Nobel Prize winner James Watson was suspended Thursday night by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the wake of published comments denigrating the intelligence of Africans and the equality of blacks.

The suspension comes as the renowned geneticist was roundly denounced from London to Washington as a racist for telling the Times of London that he's "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."

While he hopes all people are equal, Watson also told the paper, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson, 79, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Watson won the Nobel Prize with Francis Crick in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA. He was promoting a new book about his life when he made the remarks.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where Watson has worked since 1968, suspended the scientist's "administrative responsibilities" as chancellor of the Watson School of Biological Sciences after an emergency teleconference of its 34-member board of trustees.

The board said it could take further action.

It was not clear if the suspension was with or without pay, or if Watson participated in the trustee teleconference.

Rumpled and proudly politically incorrect, Watson has sparked headlines in the past, saying people of color have greater sex drives and that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests determined it was destined to be homosexual.

Thursday night's suspension marked the first time Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory took action against him.

Scientists said Watson went too far this time and damaged his legacy.

"He has failed us in the worst possible way," said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists. "It is a sad and revolting way to end a remarkable career."

Eric J. Cooper, president of the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education in Lake Success, said Watson perpetuated long-dismissed stereotypes.

"It just reinforces the ideas of those who are out there hanging nooses," Cooper said. "That starts when we stop believing in the capacity of all people."

[harjit]

That's kinda sick Kamandi. Actually, national wealth is a function of a people's initiative, work ethic, character, intelligence, and creativity. And did I say "work." Yes, the work ethic.
Julian I have to agree with this (although calling Kam's point sick is a bit harsh).

Being in Japan, a foreign culture that I can observe objectively, makes this especially clear. Working in, and with, small companies (especially in recent years as a consultant) has also been a great vantage point. You can clearly view the relationship between the initiative, work ethic, character, etc. of individuals with the final results. And I can see all kinds of commonalities in the way Japanese people and companies think and behave and operate, a kind of basic "operating system" they seem to possess. There is no black box, cause-and-effect relationships are clear.


You use that "blonde Euro" avatar because you secretly believe they are smarter, don't you.
I always got a kick out of the pissed-off expression of that blond dude juxtaposed with the curt nature of Kam's posts.

[Felix the Cat]

And there goes his career:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwats1019,0,1054521.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines
lol :rofl: We are truly the laughing-stock of the world

It's this kind of thing that invited 911, you know

[shanemac]

I always got a kick out of the pissed-off expression of that blond dude juxtaposed with the curt nature of Kam's posts.

That is exactly how Kamandi actually looks in my imagination. :D

[harjit]

That is exactly how Kamandi actually looks in my imagination. :D
Mine too.

I actually don't know what he looks like. He only shows his picture to chicks, like Eddy, and is apparently very good-looking. Everything about the guy is mysterious and mythological but he still doesn't deserve the level of dislike he gets here.

Mac, your MSF avatar sort of sums up your persona there - trying to be this creepy ogre scaring antis, succeeding when it comes the humourless ones, but being viewed as fun and cuddly by those like myself and Bip who aren't anally PC.
http://www.mootsf.org/forums/member.php?u=2492

[ivory bill]

That is exactly how Kamandi actually looks in my imagination. :D

I get this:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1036027035822_2002/11/01/ent_fagin02.jpg

[Petr]

James Watson is a hardcore-materialist Darwinian asshole.

For me, to see Watson and liberal egalitarians fighting with each other is a win-win situation. :)


Petr

[Francis]

Being in Japan, a foreign culture that I can observe objectively, makes this especially clear. Working in, and with, small companies (especially in recent years as a consultant) has also been a great vantage point. You can clearly view the relationship between the initiative, work ethic, character, etc. of individuals with the final results. And I can see all kinds of commonalities in the way Japanese people and companies think and behave and operate, a kind of basic "operating system" they seem to possess. There is no black box, cause-and-effect relationships are clear.

I got a question for you harjit

Hint: in every other instance that's ever been tested anywhere in the world, economically disadvantaged caste-like minority groups ALWAYS test lower than their counterparts from non-economically marginalized groups, usually around one standard deviation below.

That's true, for instance, for the white Irish in white Britain as well.

As someone who has origins that can be found in a country, "oppressed by the evil empire of the British", who then moved to become a minority, in a British colony, and now lives as an economic migrant in a fairly Nationalistic country, and who therefore has an entire life, and back story, influenced by being a minority (and I assume you are not extravagantly rich) and therefore an economically disadvantaged caste-like minority, and twice in countries (India under colonial rule), and Canada (where rights have been campaigned for), do you feel particularly stupid?

Do you feel that the actions of my "evil" grandfather, and great grandfather, and other relatives of mine, robbed you of any chance of being even remotely intelligent?

[Brechun]

Really though, many african nations most likely have IQ's roughtly equivalent or well above african-americans. Nigerians especially.

And I liked this quote:

"It just reinforces the ideas of those who are out there hanging nooses," Cooper said. "That starts when we stop believing in the capacity of all people."

.....Just like egalitarianism could be used to reinforce marxism. Woops.

[shanemac]

I just wish one of these guys would stick by his words just one time.

[Kamandi]

We cannot boil down all historical victim/oppressor situations into one, but I think it's pretty obvious that the inherent nature of blacks was a factor in their being taken as slaves so frequently and by so many different traders. Descriptions of blacks from ancient history should be familiar to any honest person who has observed them in the present day.
The only pertinent factor was the ability of the colonialists to conquer them militarily and the economic advantageousness of utilizing established European trade routes.

European arrogance in their self-estimate as the pinnacle of human society on the basis of their industrialized mode of production was of course a factor. It wasn't based on the "inherent" nature of blacks - it was based on appearances and the Europeans unenlightened racial attitudes.


Can you list some of the environmental factors that account for the 15 point average IQ difference between blacks and whites? I'll need to see proof that the whole 15 points are won or lost entirely on the basis of these external factors. Nobody has said that environmental factors can't retard development, it is the degree to which they influence cognitive function which is being contested.
Actually, the only cross-racial IQ comparison that ever controlled for maternal effects - quality of prenatal care, for example - Devlin's The Heritability of IQ, put black children AHEAD.

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring06/mcguem/psy5137/readings/devlin%201997.pdf

Other environmental factors which have been identified include SES, parental involvement in education, families eating together, early childhood nutrition, stereotype threat, parents reading to children -- or the reverse of the above working against a child.

While you're at it, I'd like for you to suggest some environmental reasons for why diaspora Ashkenazim score so much higher than White Gentiles.
Jews have even MORE of a selection factor working for them than Asians: not only could only those Jews who could afford to get to the New World come here, they were more likely to be admitted by the State Department if they were highly educated and professionals than Jews who were not.

And unlike Asians, who came from non-industrialized primarily peasant societies, Jews came from the most highly industrialized societies of their day and therefore were even more likely to have European-style professions and education.

Of course, other environmental factors work in Jewish favor: high parental involvement in education, parents reading to their children, families eating dinner together, stereotype threat working in favor of Jewish academic achievement, strong perception of the importance of academic achievement in the Jewish community, etc.


Oh, and don't presume to tell me my motivations for anything. It would be ever so easy to present reasons for why you are so fixated with arguing for your own particular collection of viewpoints.
Your motivations are quite obvious and transparent. It's hardly as if you can DENY your racism at this point.

[shanemac]

So Kamandi you obviously agree that selection and heritability play a role in population group IQ.

Extrapolate that idea and apply it to selection of successive generations over 100,000 years and reproductive isolation caused by geographic separation of the continents (eg Africa and Europe). The idea that these populations would be phenotypically identical is quite absurd.

Of course you will now present some nit-picking argument talking about environmental factors such as the lack of Orange juice in the diet of niglets or something like that... You are either stupid, poorly educated or intellectually dishonest.

[Kamandi]

yes, the old you need to feel superior to someone argument.
The old and obviously true you need to feel superior to someone argument. IN particular, you need to feel superior to social outgroups you dislike on the basis of race.

He mentioned in that very post that other certain minority groups tend to do well in a society that supposedly is so bigoted as to be holding back the potential of minority peoples.
Maybe, but they did it in SPITE of said bigotry and also had advantages over other minority groups - higher socioeconomic status, more education, etc.

I guess his white bigoted need to feel superior did not extend to those he mentioned.:whip:
And that's logical in your mind because .... ?

The fact is negroes are bottom of the barrel in western society in numerous ways. All other people, even hispanics, many of whom do not even come to this country speaking English do better then they do. Are we to believe that the fact that it has been constantly shown that negroes have a lower IQ, has nothing to do with this and these things are all mere coincidences?
Correlation doesn't equal causation; and it's very that such prejudices have a lot to do with their lower testing success.

It's also not a coincidence that blacks test lower after being stigmatized to such an extent.

Is it also a mere concidence that the two groups he mentioned, asians and jews, who tend to do very well in western societies, also have been tested as having a high average IQ? This should not be rocket science.
They have a high average IQ to a large extent because only the high IQ Jews and Asians were let into country or could even get here in the first place. That shouldn't be rocket science.

A people who were able to construct and make good use of the superior weapons and tactics that would be neccessary to capture and dominate another population, does not say anything about the nature of the people, themselves? Did they just happen to get lucky?
You're just assuming that it was "better weapons and tactics" and not simply higher populations, due to more resources and better economics, due to luck = larger armies.

Further, the intelligence of hereditary leaders in a clan-like society doesn't necessarily reflect the intelligence distribution of their followers, which is essentially random.

[Felix the Cat]

Other environmental factors which have been identified include SES, parental involvement in education, families eating together, early childhood nutrition, stereotype threat, parents reading to children -- or the reverse of the above working against a child.
Would you have government intervene to force parents to do this?

I agree this would be helpful. But the civil-liberties issues here are controversial.

[Kamandi]

So Kamandi you obviously agree that selection and heritability play a role in population group IQ.
On a sample selection basis in the US genpop and not necessarily a genetic one.

Extrapolate that idea and apply it to selection of successive generations over 100,000 years and reproductive isolation caused by geographic separation of the continents (eg Africa and Europe). The idea that these populations would be phenotypically identical is quite absurd.
As I'd expect you'd know, 100 millenia is nothing on the evolutionary time-scale of neuro-development - what, with your honors degree in genetics and all.

Of course you will now present some nit-picking argument talking about environmental factors such as the lack of Orange juice in the diet of niglets or something like that... You are either stupid, poorly educated or intellectually dishonest.
Uh...you're stupid, poorly educated and intellectually dishonest if you think that nutrition has nothing to do with performance in psychometrics, despite the vast quantity of evidence to the contrary.

[Kamandi]

Would you have government intervene to force parents to do this?

I agree this would be helpful. But the civil-liberties issues here are controversial.
Perhaps, but there'd be nothing wrong with simply encouraging them to do so.

[Felix the Cat]

How?

As I see it, you'd have to make divorce much more difficult, while discouraging single motherhood (if necessary by withholding public assistance)

[ivory bill]

Originally Posted by lovebot
Would you have government intervene to force parents to do this?

I agree this would be helpful. But the civil-liberties issues here are controversial.
Perhaps, but there'd be nothing wrong with simply encouraging them to do so.

That's the ticket! The government could easily establish and fund an "Encouraging Commission" to solve all the Blacks' problems.

[Kamandi]

That's predicated on the completely unwarranted assumption that you can obtain a good social outcome from the state's dictatorial intrusion into the private life of the family.

Ask Romania or Germany if that worked for them.

[shanemac]

As I'd expect you'd know, 100 millenia is nothing on the evolutionary time-scale of neuro-development - what, with your honors degree in genetics and all.


100,000 years is 4,000 human generations... this is quite enough time for significant evolutionary changes to occur. People have this idea that evolution must take place "over eons"... but this is not really the case. Given high selection pressure, evolutionary changes can occur pretty rapidly. Look at dogs... the multitude of breeds (which have different IQ levels and different behavioural patterns) were bred within the space of a couple of hundred years (about a hundred dog generations in time).

What about that species of moth in England that changed its colour from white to dark grey within a few decades during the industrial revolution? Insects evolve physiologically within the space of a few years to become resistant to pesticides.

Yes I believe 4,000 human generations was plenty of time for Aryan ubermensh in Europe and Nigger beasts in Africa to diverge significantly.

[Frank]

If these asians were merely the cream of the crop/most intelligent of their societies than we would not see Asians living in their own nations also testing at that higher average score.

and for pure Africans, of course, their average IQ is even slightly lower than that of american blacks who are more mixed.

A pretty universal pattern here of asians scoring highest, whites in the middle(though closer to asians) and blacks at the bottom from one nation or area where any of these peoples live to the next.

I remind all WN'ists that IQ scores and accomplishment are actually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; David Lane stated in the 22nd of the 88 precepts:

"In the final analysis, a race or specie is not judged superior or inferior by its accomplishments, but by its will and ability to survive."

Personally, I do not care if whites are superior or not; the right to survive is the greatest issue of all. I am willing to put our civilisations against anything created by the mudhut dwellers of Africa but our civilisations have to survive for us to make that comparison happen. IQ tests be damned...

[Kamandi]

That's the ticket! The government could easily establish and fund an "Encouraging Commission" to solve all the Blacks' problems.
Well, a few PSA's wouldn't hurt, if not a full-scale intervention.

Studies have consistently shown that minority women don't get the same quality information from their OB-GYNs about the importance of breastfeeding in cognitive development.

The state could pick up at least a little of the slack.

[Kamandi]

100,000 years is 4,000 human generations... this is quite enough time for significant evolutionary changes to occur.
Evolutionary changes, yes; changes in neuroanatomy on a wide scale, no. Millions of years are required for that, for the simple reason that even the smallest brain mutations are usually fatal - or at least prevent reproduction.

That's why it's impossible to distinguish "black" brains from "white" brains by simple observation.

[Kamandi]

Personally, I do not care if whites are superior or not; the right to survive is the greatest issue of all. I am willing to put our civilisations against anything created by the mudhut dwellers of Africa but our civilisations have to survive for us to make that comparison happen. IQ tests be damned...
The US is not a "white" civilization.

[ivory bill]

Well, a few PSA's wouldn't hurt, if not a full-scale intervention.

Studies have consistently shown that minority women don't get the same quality information from their OB-GYNs about the importance of breastfeeding in cognitive development.

The state could pick up at least a little of the slack.

Try to remember that the thread concerns Black Africa. Are you acquainted with conditions in Zimbabwe? That "state" cannot provide even the means to keep food on the store shelves, much less set up a US-style head-start program.

[shanemac]

Evolutionary changes, yes; changes in neuroanatomy on a wide scale, no. Millions of years are required for that, for the simple reason that even the smallest brain mutations are usually fatal - or at least prevent reproduction.


How do you explain the changes that occured in dogs over a short time then? Border Collies and pugs came from the same genetic stock not so long ago and yet, their neuroanatomy is completely different (look at the shape of their skulls). Furthermore a border collie is far more intelligent, energetic and hard-working than a pug.

[Kamandi]

Yes, that's a serious problem. Their gov'ts usually rank extremely high on the corruption index.

I was referring primarily to our own underserved minority communities here in the United States.