The human races have different DNA...

Originally posted by j_kalin
The original african progenitor race didn't simply freeze in place--it continued to evolve into all the various african tribes that exist today.

Hold on again. I think it's a major misconception that Africa was just spewing out humanity to the rest of the world for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yes, the most ancient human-like fossils (so far) were discovered in Africa, but the location of their discovery is no indicator of race. As far as paleo-anthropologists can tell, there were several migrations of humanity both out of and back into Africa over the ages — so the sub-Saharan Negroids of today could conceivably be descendents of humans who returned to Africa at some point in pre-history. In other words, we have no idea of the "race" of the very first humans — or, if the original humans were alive today, they might constitute a fourth distinct race.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by marg6043


EUGENICS, ala Hitler is the most likely target.

So are we supposed to stifle science and the news of its new discoveries, so that we don't hurt someone's feelings? This is sooooo stupid.
Is there such a thing a being just plain honest?
Can people just be honest about themselves and their abilites?

Of what use is pretending that you can be a CPA when you just don't have the head for math?
Not everyone can be trained to do anything. We are all different, with different abilites in different areas.

This idea that we are all totally equal is totally dishonest.

For what reason should anyone not admit that he does not have the brain power of someone else?
It is so obvious in school that there are vast differences in the ability to do the school work, regartdless of race/ethnicity. No one hates or mistreats the "D" average students.

Can't we all have self respect and do the very best at what we can do?
And likewise, can't we have mutual respect for others whoever they are?

The very idea that this new would be used to discriminate against others is so stupid I cannot even find a word for it.

reply to post by eyewitness86


The problem is that your premise rests upon the idea that humans forcing Nature to suit humans is more desirable than humans adapting to the dictates of Nature and living alongside it. The Intelligence Quotient is based upon this decidedly Western idea. It puts a number, a score, to what a person or groups of people are likely to achieve in the context of Western Cultural ideals. To my knowledge what has not been done is to test the intelligence of individuals relative to their respective backgrounds. Analyzing what a person is likely to achieve relative to their own societal and cultural infrastructures. It is erroneous at best to include sub-Saharan African countries in the context of Western standards and achievements. It is erroneous for many reason, but most notably it is erroneous because it sidesteps the issue of the catastrophic results of European colonialism and the European and American slave trades that affected sub-Saharan and West African countries and their development.

The Sahara Desert served as a natural barrier between sub-Saharan nations and North African, European, and Asian nations for thousands of years. Here's a timeline that references the development of music throughout the entire continent of Africa. The timeline, of course, highlights other matters of importance.

Historical Timeline

3500BCE Agriculture and large kingdoms form along the Nile in
Ethiopia and West Africa.
• 400BCE Iron forging in Sudan - weapons and musical
instruments.
• 100BCE Trade with Arabia, India, & Indonesia - possible Asian
musical influences came to Africa.
• 1000CE Imported crops and trade enabled Bantu people of
Central and West Africa to gain population and migrate
to occupy most of Central and South Africa - displacing
Pygmy and Bushmen peoples.
• 400-1076CE Kingdom of Ghana - gold trade, patronized drumming
orchestras, praise-singers, and musical storytellers.
• 1000CE Islam comes to Africa, bringing musical culture, wealth,
and scholarship with it (Timbuktu and Gao)
• 1456CE Portuguese establish first slave trade
1652 Dutch settle in Capetown, South Africa.
• 1760-1810 Height of slave trade - millions of West Africans were taken to
the Americas, disrupting nations and cultures. Brought music
and cultures with them (to varying degrees in different places).
• 1880-1900 Depopulation from slavery, ethnic warfare, and advanced
firearms allowed the Europeans to colonize large territories. The
artificial boundaries created during this time are still related to
the interethnic strife of modern Africa.
• 1960-1980 African countries gained independence from colonial powers.
New governments sponsored traditional arts and fostered
African nationalism. African popular music also became
extremely influential throughout the world (combines
African and European instruments and elements).
• 1993 Apartheid ended in South Africa.

Source PDF

What westerners are encouraged to focus on is the conflict, i.e., the competiition between European and South Asian, Arab, and American states, and the advances that resulted from these intense relationships; the relative equilibrium that resulted. Westerners are not encouraged to focus on the competition and conflicts among sub-Saharan tribes and countries pre-European contact, and especially post-European contact that resulted in depopulation of West Africa and the destabilization of nations and cultures, and interethnic strife that resulted from the demarcation of false boundaries that Europeans created. With the notable exception of South Africa, and perhaps Eritrea, all other European colonies in Africa were dismal failures. South Africa owing its success to the the discovery of diamonds and gold in the late 1800s. Presumably, we are all somewhat familiar with the history of South Africa.

What we now have is the Human Development Index which designates most of sub-Sahara's human development as low. This takes into account life expectancy, education, literacy, and standard of living. There is no real way to determine the progress of nations that this statistic represents had trade not been disrupted and colonialism not been undertaken by Europeans. If healthy trade routes existed, would development of at least some sub-Saharan nations be on par with its Western counterparts today?

All of the classification systems used, Intelligence Quotient, First World, Second World, Third World, Human Development Index, are all classification systems designed by Europeans to highlight the achievements of Europeans relative to the rest of the world. And for all their smarts and supposed intelligence they cannot remember how their, by their own account, supposedly, rumored to be, "Caucasoid" brothers and sisters built the Pyramids of Egypt.

My point is that easily accessible trade routes favored nations north of sub-Sahara. By the time of European colonialism the most valuable commodities of trade, scholarship and advanced technology, did not have a reasonable chance to take hold and spread among sub-Saharan nations precisely because of the carried out aims of the European colonialists representing Europe and the Americas.

Now we are at the forefront, the emergence, of genetic classification systems. Systems that are being used, predictably, to highlight the allegedly superior and more desirable genes found most commonly among Europeans. Studies have not shown these genes to be exclusive to Europeans, or not present in sub-Saharans. These genes are said to be correlated with brain size and possibly intelligence. Well, the million dollar question is, of course, how do "they" arrive at these conclusions? I personally haven't been offered a reasonable answer through these forums or through the media. Apparently lab mice tell us all we need to know. Well, lab mice aren't constructing skyscrapers and rocket ships to the moon either... Anyway, it's quite strange that a people, for example Native Americans, that had learned to live alongside Nature, rather than against it, are considered less intelligent than those who would impose themselves and their will upon Nature, destroying it and themselves at every conceivable chance. Quite interesting.

Originally posted by Areal51
It's quite strange that a people, for example Native Americans, that had learned to live alongside Nature, rather than against it, are considered less intelligent than those who would impose themselves and their will upon Nature, destroying it and themselves at every conceivable chance. Quite interesting.

Who ever said that the aborigines of North America were or are "less intelligent"...?

I know this, that the American Indians — for all the noble virtues attributed to them collectively — were some extremely violent and extremely prejudiced people. They may have lived in harmony with Nature, whatever that means, but they slaughtered each other on a regular basis, and on a scale that far surpasses the losses of modern warfare. For instance, there are ancient aboriginal battlegrounds in the Americas that contain tens of thousands of skeletons, thought to be the remains of monumental pre-Columbian conflicts between the natives. I mean, the last time the White Man saw that kind of carnage was during the Civil War, and we haven't seen combat losses like that since. But the American Indian tribes were tearing up each other's asses like that for centuries.

Does that make the American Indians less intelligent? No, not necessarily, but I think it makes them every bit as aggressive and bloodthirsty as the European "invaders" who eventually drove them from the land. Hey, the stronger civilization won.

The story of human life on Earth is a story of warfare and conquest, of this group stealing that group's land, of that group enslaving this group, et cetera, ad nauseum, and that's the way it's always been, dating back into prehistory. Welcome to Humanity. I don't believe in portraying the losers in humanity's ongoing struggle against itself as "victims"... Without fail, those same "victims" enjoyed their own victories at somebody else's expense in the past. You can't show me a "perfectly innocent" culture or group of "victims" who don't have some particularly grisly skeletons in their own closets.

What goes around comes around.

— Doc Velocity

PS:My dad's side of the family were Cherokee out of Alabama, and I never heard any of my Indian relatives complain about being "victimized"; in fact, they shunned the victim mentality and even looked down on those who whined and complained about events of the distant past.

[edit on 11/14/2007 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


A few points. Over 70 million people lost their lives in World War 2. Nearly 11 million of those were victims of the Holocaust. Does the centuries old wars among the Native Americans even begin to approach those numbers? Does the atomic bombing of Japan account for anything less than maximum aggression potential? It wasn't the Aboriginal Americans that nearly exterminated the entirety of Europeans. It was the other way around.

On the point of prejudice:

Intertribal and interracial mixing was common among Native American tribes making it difficult to clearly identify which tribe an individual belonged to. Bands or entire tribes occasionally split or merged to form more viable groups in reaction to the pressures of climate, disease and warfare. A number of tribes practiced the adoption of captives into their group to replace their members who had been captured or killed in battle. These captives came from rival tribes and later from European settlers. Some tribes also sheltered or adopted white traders and runaway slaves and Native American-owned slaves. So a number of paths to genetic mixing existed.

Source

The Seminole nation came into existence in the 18th century and was composed of Native Americans from Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, most significantly the Creek Nation, as well as African Americans who escaped from slavery in South Carolina and Georgia.

Source

The Black Seminoles are descendants of free Africans and some runaway slaves who escaped from coastal South Carolina and Georgia into the Florida wilderness beginning as early as the late 1600s. They joined with the Native Americans inhabiting Florida at the same period. Together, the two groups formed the Seminole tribe, a multi-ethnic and bi-racial alliance.

Source

I'm not saying you are wrong. You're not. I'm just saying that the picture is more complex than your comments make it out to be. And I'm sure it's more complex than I've illustrated.

On the point of intelligence, on who said what:

Hitherto studies of race differences in intelligence have been largely conducted and discussed in local contexts. In the United Sates they have been largely concerned with the IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native American Indians. In Australia they have been concerned with the low IQ of the Aborigines, and in New Zealand with the low IQ of the Maoris. These differences have typically been explained by racism and discrimination of Europeans against minorities the legacy of slavery, although a number of writers have posited a significant genetic factor (Jensen, 1998; Rushton and Jensen, 2005). Lynn’s book differs in taking a global perspective and consists of a review more than 500 studies published world wide from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the present. He devotes a chapter to each of ten races, differentiated by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza (1994) into “genetic clusters”, which he regards as a transparent euphemism for races.

His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).

Source

Generally, whenever the subject of intelligence is brought up among European psychologists and geneticists it is inevitable that the Intelligence Quotient is used as a measure of intelligence. Why is that? They create the test and select the criteria. Why aren't indigenous people measured on abilities as related to their developed and chosen way of life? Why is the intelligence of people measured at all? What is generally done with this information outside of creating statistical maps?

Personally, I don't think that intelligence can be measured. I think that tests can be given that people can past or fail. I think that it's been proven that those who work hard improve their test results. I also think that there are many social and environmental concerns that inhibit development of certain ways of thinking. What is your concern is not necessarily my concern, and therefore grasping certain specific concepts might be more of a problem for you than myself, or vice versa. And I think that this extends to all groups of people.

What I'm not doing is doubting the influence of genes on the development of groups of people. What I am against, however, is the practice of measuring the intelligence of a group of people against the intelligence of another group of people in order to bolster biological claims.

A European psychologist shows up in community of Pygmies in the Congo rain forest and issues a test that has been created by that European. Because the Pygmies are well below par with the concepts and problems that the European has introduced, the European makes the determination that the Pygmies lack intelligence. Yet those concepts and problems have no relevance to the life of Congolese rain forest Pygmies, as far as the Pygmies themselves can determine.

What I find disturbing is scientific inquiry being used for the purpose of separating one group of human beings from another group of human beings. Knowing that humans tend to mate for the purpose of genetic and economic benefit should put to rest any of this separatist nonsense. Ideally, the pressures that now face humanity as a whole should be paramount to the pressures that face any one group of humans. Still, the humans that occupy the lower rungs of the Intelligence Quotient spectrum are not the ones who created those pressures. Why should they be held in contrast to those pressures when it's readily apparent that they have survived just as long as those who are in large part responsible for creating those pressures?

reply to post by j_kalin


Here's the link re: the chimps...

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by j_kalin


From that article, clearly it's important to pay attention to Dr. Morris Goodman's quote of Charles Darwin:

“As we have no record of the lines of descent, the lines can be discovered only by observing the degrees of resemblance between the beings which are to be classed. For this object numerous points of resemblance are of much more importance than the amount of similarity or dissimilarity in a few points.”

Source

Originally posted by Areal51
Over 70 million people lost their lives in World War 2. Nearly 11 million of those were victims of the Holocaust. Does the centuries old wars among the Native Americans even begin to approach those numbers?

You're talking about a World War that lasted over 5 years, involving participants from all over the globe. I'm talking about individual battles between American Indian tribes that took the lives of tens of thousands of combatants per battle. And, yes, those per-battle numbers surpass the per-battle numbers of the 20th Century. The American Civil War was the last time our nation saw per-battle losses that even approached those of the American Indians.

Originally posted by Areal51
Does the atomic bombing of Japan account for anything less than maximum aggression potential?

Frankly, no. The nuclear strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were beyond top secret projects, as was the development of nuclear weapons. A mere handful of individuals carried out the creation and deployment of these weapons, and it required only the loyalty of a single bombardier to actually drop the goddamned thing on unsuspecting civilians. So, no, this doesn't represent anything like maximum aggression potential, except for a handful of individuals operating within the shadows.

The American Indians, on the other hand, took it to the field in hand-to-hand combat, using stone knives, clubs, spears and such like. These were tens of thousands of crudely-armed individuals tearing one another to shreds during a single battle. This does, indeed, give us a very clear perspective on the aggression potential of entire cultures in pre-Columbian North America. Not a handful of madmen dropping a nuclear weapon, but thousands and thousands of like-minded American Indian warriors prepared to slaughter their adversaries in the most grisly manner possible.

Originally posted by Areal51
It wasn't the Aboriginal Americans that nearly exterminated the entirety of Europeans. It was the other way around.

Ah-ah-ah... Different argument. Aggression potential of individual cultures has very little to do with the elimination of one civilization by another. A lazy civilization with advanced technology can easily exterminate an extremely motivated stone-age civilization. Take a look at what the Spanish did in South and Central America — a mere handful of conquistadors butchered one civilization after another, not because the Spanish were such brilliant strategists or tacticians, but because they possessed the heavy firepower. The diseases they brought were just a bonus.

Then, again, consider their "victims" -- a whole civilization of bloodthirsty savages. I mean, I'd give the Aztecs much higher points for aggression potential than I'd give the Spanish.

On the point of prejudice, I wouldn't rely too much on Wikipedia to provide a comprehensive overview of tribal interactions in the Americas. By the time the White Europeans landed, a great many American Indian tribes had gone the way of the dodo. Some had certainly learned how to cooperate and thereby survive, but there was also quite a bit of "ganging up" by tribes who hated and wanted to eliminate other tribes out of sheer prejudice.

For instance, who among the Western tribes do you think was the most despised? I'm saying who did the Indians hate the most, among Indians? The Lakota, maybe? The Apache? The Comanche? You might be surprised to learn that the Navajo were the most despised, because they were considered thieves and low-life murderers by other tribes. Although we traditionally think of the the Navajo as passive and patient, they have a fairly nasty history on this continent — amongst other tribes, the Navajo were known as the "Head Crushers," because they typically crushed the heads of any prisoners taken in battle. In other words, the Navajo took no prisoners. And they frequently raided other tribes for food. They were hated with a passion and are still hated in some quarters, mainly because the Navajo kissed the white man's ass and became the most favored of the tribes remaining in the USA.

In fact, if the white man hadn't arrived and wiped the slate clean, the Navajo probably would've been exterminated by other tribes, with extreme prejudice.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 11/15/2007 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


First point. I'm referring to two things. Europeans, i.e., Caucasians wiping out 11 million Caucasians -- in addition to millions of other Caucasians over the course of the WWII. Did not a faction of the Germanic tribe, the Nazi Germans, seek to erase the Jewish tribe? 30 million -- civilians and combatants -- died during the Eastern Front War of WWII. That war was comprised of many battles. Pick any individual battle you like. It doesn't matter that I'm referring to battles within the context of war. I'm referring to killing in the context of "race". Period. You're talking about thousands and thousands of like-minded American Indians representing different sides slaughtering each other, and I'm talking about millions upon millions of like-minded Europeans representing different sides slaughtering each other in the most grisly ways possible. Hand to hand combat, concentration camps. I don't see a difference.

Second point. As far as I can tell nuclear weapons represent maximum aggression potential, but that's just me. What other weapons have Westerners created that are capable of extinguishing all human life on the planet with as much efficiency as nuclear weapons? If you can think of one, then that represents maximum aggression potential as well. The Cold War and the current nuclear armament situation in the world today continues to represent maximum aggression potential. The atomic attack on Japan represented not only maximum aggression unleashed, it also represented maximum aggression potential because more atomic bombs could have been made potentially for use against Japan.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Ah-ah-ah... Different argument. Aggression potential of individual cultures has very little to do with the elimination of one civilization by another. A lazy civilization with advanced technology can easily exterminate an extremely motivated stone-age civilization. Take a look at what the Spanish did in South and Central America — a mere handful of conquistadors butchered one civilization after another, not because the Spanish were such brilliant strategists or tacticians, but because they possessed the heavy firepower. The diseases they brought were just a bonus.

I understand your point here, but I don't agree. What I said fits the argument, though another argument could be made. The capacity to kill another person or one's self already demonstrates maximum aggression potential. To use whatever means at one's disposal to eradicate the enemy. It doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used. A suicide bomber definitely displays maximum aggression potential. An extreme Islamic terrorist or a Japanese Kamikaze fighter pilot. This also highlights the maximum aggression potential of those in command who issue orders for suicide attacks. They would use any means to eradicate the enemy. Those who design weapons of mass destruction, who give the authorization for those weapons to be built, and the use of those weapons, all represent maximum aggression potential. They would use the most extreme measures possible to eradicate the enemy. To wield a weapon that through its use has the potential to take out not only your enemy but also yourself -- can't get anymore aggressive than that.

If maximum aggression potential is expressed the conditions which brought it about only matter in the context of understanding the causative variables. Stress, duress, mental impairment, being brave or a coward, these conditions don't matter much.

Anyway, I think we've veered off-topic.

I can think of one. The harpe project in alska( and who knows where else). they admitted to using it against the terrorist in afganistan. fried them deep in their caves! ouch, ugly way to!

Originally posted by Areal51
Anyway, I think we've veered off-topic.

Quite so. And I was just getting ready to bring up how the Rockerfellers, through their capitalist ventures in exploiting the rainforest, exterminated whole Amazonian cultures without even batting an eye. Nevermind racial prejudice, the Rockerfellers considered cultural extinction a sort of acceptable collateral damage. Ah well, that's fuel for another fire in another thread.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by eyewitness86

 

Historical Timeline

3500BCE Agriculture and large kingdoms form along the Nile in
Ethiopia and West Africa.
• 400BCE Iron forging in Sudan - weapons and musical
instruments.
• 100BCE Trade with Arabia, India, & Indonesia - possible Asian
musical influences came to Africa.
• 1000CE Imported crops and trade enabled Bantu people of
Central and West Africa to gain population and migrate
to occupy most of Central and South Africa - displacing
Pygmy and Bushmen peoples.
• 400-1076CE Kingdom of Ghana - gold trade, patronized drumming
orchestras, praise-singers, and musical storytellers.
• 1000CE Islam comes to Africa, bringing musical culture, wealth,
and scholarship with it (Timbuktu and Gao)
• 1456CE Portuguese establish first slave trade
1652 Dutch settle in Capetown, South Africa.
• 1760-1810 Height of slave trade - millions of West Africans were taken to
the Americas, disrupting nations and cultures. Brought music
and cultures with them (to varying degrees in different places).
• 1880-1900 Depopulation from slavery, ethnic warfare, and advanced
firearms allowed the Europeans to colonize large territories. The
artificial boundaries created during this time are still related to
the interethnic strife of modern Africa.
• 1960-1980 African countries gained independence from colonial powers.
New governments sponsored traditional arts and fostered
African nationalism. African popular music also became
extremely influential throughout the world (combines
African and European instruments and elements).
• 1993 Apartheid ended in South Africa.

Source PDF

LMAO!!!! Apartheid ended in South Africa in 1993?? Ummmm, last time I checked, I thought it was still going on.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by TheoOne]

Originally posted by TheoOne
LMAO!!!! Apartheid ended in South Africa in 1993?? Ummmm, last time I checked, I thought it was still going on.

What?

reply to post by j_kalin



Why do some members like you post such threads? Is your life really that bad that you have to find confidence in such racist ignorant reports?. Real pathetic.

May god have mercy on you.






[edit on 16-11-2007 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


That's a good one. The title of the thread could possibly be, "Corporate Sociopaths: The Minds and Deeds.













[edit on 17-11-2007 by Areal51]

reply to post by rockets red glare


can you supply some more info on this? I thought HAARP was for communicating with submarines?

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
reply to post by j_kalin

 

Why do some members like you post such threads? Is your life really that bad that you have to find confidence in such racist ignorant reports?. Real pathetic.

May god have mercy on you.








[edit on 16-11-2007 by southern_Guardian]

Obviously you have not read my posts. Please re-read them, then re-read the points where I responded to those who called me a racist/bigot. Then I will accept your apology. Although some may have turned this thread into a black vs. white discussion, that is not the point of either the article I referred to nor my analysis of it.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by j_kalin]

unsure of his name, but didnt a nobel scientist recently trash his career by commenting on his doubt about africans future wellfare due to the conclusion of their allegedly lesser iq average/potential?

reply to post by j_kalin


The thread didn't turn into a black and white discussion. It rightly focused on Intelligence Quotient scores, a psychological device, being used to bolster biological claims based on the interpretation of data produced by the study of the human genome. That one focused on race at all is directly attributable to classification systems created from the combination of psychological and biological data mentioned in external sources cited in the OP and other posts throughout the thread. However, some internal commentary did ignore the core issues and focused exclusively on the issue of race. Personally, I don't think we need a rehash.



[edit on 17-11-2007 by Areal51]