Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their is no way you are actually surprised. Don't you espouse the same views but in the opposite direction. It's not like your ilk don't want their guys to not run government with their racialist views so how could you be surprised when someone who believes the exact opposite gets into power. When you start supporting one group as scientifically superior or "different" as l said, don't be surprised if someone else takes your ideas and runs with it in another direction.
Like I said this racialist nonsense, is nonsense regardless of who espouses it with their fake data and doctored science.
Their is no way you are actually surprised. Don't you espouse the same views but in the opposite direction. It's not like your ilk don't want their guys to not run government with their racialist views so how could you be surprised when someone who believes the exact opposite gets into power. When you start supporting one group as scientifically superior or "different" as l said, don't be surprised if someone else takes your ideas and runs with it in another direction.
Like I said this racialist nonsense, is nonsense regardless of who espouses it with their fake data and doctored science.
It's not fake or doctored science that genetic groups differ and tend to create different cultures when left to their own native devices. If I didn't prefer my leaders to be conservative white males, or at least of like mind of a typical white conservative male, I would move to another culture and stop being an imposition on or trojan horse in this one.
Their is no way you are actually surprised. Don't you espouse the same views but in the opposite direction. It's not like your ilk don't want their guys to not run government with their racialist views so how could you be surprised when someone who believes the exact opposite gets into power. When you start supporting one group as scientifically superior or "different" as l said, don't be surprised if someone else takes your ideas and runs with it in another direction.
Like I said this racialist nonsense, is nonsense regardless of who espouses it with their fake data and doctored science.
I am honestly a little surprised, and disappointed, to see this post from you. Some of your previous writing here seemed to show legitimate interest and some understanding of the topic of human diversity. But this... it's not even worth responding to.
It's not fake or doctored science that genetic groups differ
That much is true beyond question. We know that humans can be legitimately sorted into population groups based on their genes and that these groups differ in some important ways.
The problem with Kristen Clarke's letter isn't that she showed an interest in scientific study of racial difference, it's that the particular theories she promoted are complete nonsense, lacking any scientific merit whatsoever.
My view on this is the same as other self-reported racialists. Hogwash is hogwash.
Pretty much. It’s reactionary racial thought that some Black people espouse. It sounds like comments you hear from some Rastas, Hebrew Israelites etc, in those religions that arose out of the experience in the West.
I do wish they would leave it alone. That kind of stuff is not originally part of our cultures and should have no part.
It's not fake or doctored science that genetic groups differ and tend to create different cultures when left to their own native devices. If I didn't prefer my leaders to be conservative white males, or at least of like mind of a typical white conservative male, I would move to another culture and stop being an imposition on or trojan horse in this one.
It's based on geography not race. Till this day it's based on geography. Most cultures are based on food-gathering. Farmers settled in fertile valleys on nearly every continent. Nomads settled in Steppe like conditions on nearly every continent. Hunter-Gatherers developed in certain conditions in nearly every continent. It has nothing to do with race. Their are prehistoric cultures based on nomadic herders in Eastern/Northern Ethiopia, Northern Nigeria, Northern China, North America, Far Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia. Their are also prehistoric farmers in Central Ethiopia, Southern Nigeria, Central/Southern China, Mississippi River Valley, Central/Eastern Europe, Mesopotamia.
Theirs's nothing special about the continent except the animals and specific climactic conditions. But the geography is what decided the culture and that's why we saw similar cultures crop up everywhere. All farming civilizations built cities. Now some were more impressive than others. But if we are talking the basis of culture and the first thing you bring up is race, and not river valleys then you clearly don't care about the actual origin of culture. All of the river valley civilizations even though they were isolated from each other managed to figure out farming basically on their own. All of them had to deal with constantly invading nomads. Some of them like Mesopotamia were so exceptional that Western Civilization essentially spurned from them and spread. Same with Eastern Civilization spurning from India (Buddhism is from India).
I believe in human diversity as well but only an idiot would look at 100m run and say that this is because of the genetic superiority of black people. African Americans and Jamaicans aren't even 1/20th of the world's black population yet they thoroughly dominate today. Even when you say vague things like West Africans. Their are more West Africans who are of peak running age (15-30 years old), than their are White Europeans who are similar age. This number is only growing. Dozens of countries/regions of West Africa and the majority of East and South Africa have zero runners in their history. Zero runners in their history that have broken the 10 second barrier.
How can running be a black thing, or West African thing if the only people who dominate that aspect of the sport come from the Caribbean and the U.S.
Blacks are supposed to be joined together by their "low cognitive ability", but the East Africans are exceptional at Long Distance (Just like West Africa it's literally one region that crosses both the Ethiopian and Kenya border but for argument sakes we'll talk about all of East Africa) and The West Africans dominate sprinting (but vast parts of West Africa have zero famous sprinters who even break the 10 second barrier, and Africans don't even compete with their African American and Caribbean brethren).
Southern Africa is bang-average when it comes to sprinting...
Saying blacks are super-athletic and living your entire life in America is akin to saying white people are short and living in Turkey. The only reason and The Dark Enlightenment don't realize what your doing is because you have massive cognitive dissonance.
The diversity of humans is shaped by Geography and when I'm talking Geography, I don't mean a vague term like Africa, but I mean the Namib Desert, the Ethiopian Highlands, The Sahel, The Serengeti, The Temperate Forests of South Africa. So the more you say "Blacks/Whites and this, the more you lose me..."
Because culture at it's basis is based on local geography always will, always has been.
Last edited by NigerianNightmare; 01-12-2021 at 01:57 AM..
That much is true beyond question. We know that humans can be legitimately sorted into population groups based on their genes and that these groups differ in some important ways.
The problem with Kristen Clarke's letter isn't that she showed an interest in scientific study of racial difference, it's that the particular theories she promoted are complete nonsense, lacking any scientific merit whatsoever.
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Where I disagree is when someone argues black people have fast-twitch muscles because their black. Hence why the region of the Ethiopian Highlands and Kenya show those high twitch muscles by crushing long-distance. Hence why the 10 second barrier is something that literally only a few Carribean Islands, America and Nigerians break. Take away people with ancestry from those 3 places, the list of black people is less than 5 but we are supposed to believe that blacks are super-athletes because 3 countries (America/Jamaica/Nigeria (and folks of descent from those countries)) have broken the 10 second barrier.
I would happily tell you that Southern Nigerians and Jamaicans are Athletic people. But I would never tell you Africans are athletic people. Jamaicans are also incredibly musically gifted, with the small island producing the origins of several music genres including EDM, Rap, Ska, Reggae, Dancehall, Grime and a long list of more. In fact when talking of the small island of 3,000,000, Jamaicans manage to have a massive outsized presence in Athletics and Music making them cultural juggernauts.
I would love to claim this as the Southern Nigerian ancestry in them. But know the accomplishment of Jamaicans can't and shouldn't be attributed to them being from Africa, when no one in Africa is even close to replicating them. Also Jamaicans themselves aren't fully West African. Neither are African Americans. Yet people just based on their narrow-minded, American bias see African Americans perform athletically, and say things like black people (the race) are athletic. I've lived a substantial amount of time in Africa and can confidentially tell you we aren't all African Americans and Jamaicans. You don't walk outside and see anyone hitting Olympic time. Hell, African Americans aren't Jamaicans because no one is. Theirs's 40,000,000 African Americans yet Jamaicans have 20 people vs. 48 breaking the 10 second barrier, their are 12-13 times as many AAs as Jamaicans in that age range. Jamaicans are 5 times more likely to be running under 10 seconds than African-Americans who themselves are several times more likely than Nigerians, who themselves are several times more likely than the rest of West Africa, who themselves are several times more likely than the rest of Africa (70/71 people to break the 10 second barrier were West African, one was Namibian and the 72nd person was a White Frenchman since then a Japanese person and a half-Japanese person and several other white people have broken the record).
Last edited by NigerianNightmare; 01-12-2021 at 01:51 AM..
It's based on geography not race. Till this day it's based on geography. Most cultures are based on food-gathering. Farmers settled in fertile valleys on nearly every continent. Nomads settled in Steppe like conditions on nearly every continent. Hunter-Gatherers developed in certain conditions in nearly every continent. It has nothing to do with race. Their are prehistoric cultures based on nomadic herders in Eastern/Northern Ethiopia, Northern Nigeria, Northern China, North America, Far Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia. Their are also prehistoric farmers in Central Ethiopia, Southern Nigeria, Central/Southern China, Mississippi River Valley, Central/Eastern Europe, Mesopotamia.
Theirs's nothing special about the continent except the animals and specific climactic conditions. But the geography is what decided the culture and that's why we saw similar cultures crop up everywhere. All farming civilizations built cities. Now some were more impressive than others. But if we are talking the basis of culture and the first thing you bring up is race, and not river valleys then you clearly don't care about the actual origin of culture. All of the river valley civilizations even though they were isolated from each other managed to figure out farming basically on their own. All of them had to deal with constantly invading nomads. Some of them like Mesopotamia were so exceptional that Western Civilization essentially spurned from them and spread. Same with Eastern Civilization spurning from India (Buddhism is from India).
I believe and no human diversity very well but only an idiot would look at 100m run and say that this is because of the genetic superiority of black people. African Americans and Jamaicans aren't even 1/20th of the world's black population yet they thoroughly dominate today. Even when you say vague things like West Africans. Their are more West Africans who are of peak running age (15-30 years old), than their are White Europeans who are similar age. This number is only growing. Dozens of West Africa and the majority of East and South Africa have zero runners in their history. Zero runners in their history that have broken the 10 second barrier.
How can running be a black thing, or West African thing if the only people who dominate that aspect of the sport come from the Caribbean and the U.S.
Blacks are supposed to be joined together by their "low cognitive ability", but the East Africans are exceptional at Long Distance (Just like West Africa it's literally one region that crosses both the Ethiopian and Kenya border but for argument sakes we'll talk about all of East Africa) and The West Africans dominate sprinting (but vast parts of West Africa have zero famous sprinters who even break the 10 second barrier, and Africans don't even compete with their African American and Caribbean brethren).
Southern Africa is bang-average when it comes to sprinting...
Saying blacks are super-athletic and living your entire life in America is akin to saying white people are short and living in Turkey. The only reason and The Dark Enlightenment don't realize what your doing is because you have massive cognitive dissonance.
The diversity of humans is shaped by Geography and when I'm talking Geography, I don't mean a vague term like Africa, but I mean the Namib Desert, the Ethiopian Highlands, The Sahel, The Serengeti, The Temperate Forests of South Africa. So the more you say "Blacks/Whites and this, the more you lose me..."
Because culture at it's basis is based on local geography always will, always has been.
You are essentially making a 100% environment argument for the differences between genetic groups when plenty of scientific research show that on average many psychological and physiological differences between groups are at least 50% genetic. Geography matters very little. The British planted themselves around the world in the past and ended up with similar cultures. Today there isn't really a separation in geography or information but cultures still remain distinct, and subcultures remain in a mixed race integrated country like the US because culture arise from within. Geography only matters over centuries and thousands of years because over time it differentiates the genetics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
