The Final Frontier

Star Forge wrote: Let me ask you this, though. Let's look at pre-colonial Africa and compare it to its contemporaries. Compare African bushmen at any point in time during the pre-colonial era to a contemporary European or Asian or Inuit or anything. Of course, it's not the European or Asian's....

History is not my strong area, but its pretty clear that mixing of cultures leads to competition and development. Central Africa is bounded to the North by quite a large desert, and to the other directions by large Oceans.

Basically they have been cut-off from other cultures when compared to trade routes like the Silk Road for Eurasia, or Central America for the America's. If you look at Australia, which was also relatively cut off by being an island the indigenous people (not African's) were very primitive when discovered.

So going back to Africa, it's main avenue of contact seemed to be pretty much one way down the Nile.... until other nations already had a huge leap forward with technology to enable contact, colonization and then abandonment etc - but by then they already had a huge lead.

That would be just one reason of many, which would support nurture as the cause. If it's actually nature then science will show it as such soon enough. Until then though, it's more logical IMO to be nurture.

Star Forge wrote: ...or why does the entire world try to "fix" Africa, rather than let it be itself?

It's a small world and all that means... and many people don't like to see others suffering. It's more complicated then that though, and so therefore more difficult then it should be.

Adder wrote:

Star Forge wrote: Let me ask you this, though. Let's look at pre-colonial Africa and compare it to its contemporaries. Compare African bushmen at any point in time during the pre-colonial era to a contemporary European or Asian or Inuit or anything. Of course, it's not the European or Asian's.

History is not my strong area, but its pretty clear that mixing of cultures leads to competition and development. Central Africa is bounded to the North by quite a large desert, and to the other directions by large Oceans.

Basically they have been cut-off from other cultures when compared to trade routes like the Silk Road for Eurasia, or Central America for the America's. If you look at Australia, which was also relatively cut off by being an island the indigenous people (not African's) were very primitive when discovered.

So going back to Africa, it's main avenue of contact seemed to be pretty much one way down the Nile.... until other nations already had a huge leap forward with technology to enable contact, colonization and then abandonment etc - but by then they already had a huge lead.

I can understand where this explains it to an extent, but I don't see it as a total complete explanation, but maybe just a factor.

Yes, the Americas were connected by Central America, but this connection really didn't have any consequences or benefits for the natives. A good example of this is the fact that metallurgy was very developed and widespread in South America but completely absent in North America.

I don't consider the Sahara to be an excuse. Remember, while the Africans didn't cross it, other people did to reach them. Then again, the Arabs, whites, and whoever else who crossed it had domesticated animals, navigation, portable and sealing water containers- all of which Africans never bothered (couldn't?) acquire on their own.

Another thing to consider- while extreme isolation may stunt technological development, it doesn't stunt creativity, intelligence, and will. Every time I think about the Inuit, I wonder anew at how the hell they managed to survive and *prosper* at the top of the world, as well as travel across the pole. They didn't have a printing press or written alphabet, but they were navigators, genius hunters, warriors (who could hold their own against the vikings), seafarers, improvisors, and maintain a complex mythology and detailed oral history- all of which Africans still lack.

Star Forge wrote: History is not my strong area, but its pretty clear that mixing of cultures leads to competition and development. Central Africa is bounded to the North by quite a large desert, and to the other directions by large Oceans.

Basically they have been cut-off from other cultures when compared to trade routes like the Silk Road for Eurasia, or Central America for the America's. If you look at Australia, which was also relatively cut off by being an island the indigenous people (not African's) were very primitive when discovered.

So going back to Africa, it's main avenue of contact seemed to be pretty much one way down the Nile.... until other nations already had a huge leap forward with technology to enable contact, colonization and then abandonment etc - but by then they already had a huge lead.

I can understand where this explains it to an extent, but I don't see it as a total complete explanation, but maybe just a factor.

Yes, the Americas were connected by Central America, but this connection really didn't have any consequences or benefits for the natives. A good example of this is the fact that metallurgy was very developed and widespread in South America but completely absent in North America.

I don't consider the Sahara to be an excuse. Remember, while the Africans didn't cross it, other people did to reach them. Then again, the Arabs, whites, and whoever else who crossed it had domesticated animals, navigation, portable and sealing water containers- all of which Africans never bothered (couldn't?) acquire on their own.

Another thing to consider- while extreme isolation may stunt technological development, it doesn't stunt creativity, intelligence, and will. Every time I think about the Inuit, I wonder anew at how the hell they managed to survive and *prosper* at the top of the world, as well as travel across the pole. They didn't have a printing press or written alphabet, but they were navigators, genius hunters, warriors (who could hold their own against the vikings), seafarers, improvisors, and maintain a complex mythology and detailed oral history- all of which Africans still lack.

I think we're imagining Africa like some National Geographic documentary where people run around naked and the babies have flies crawling all over their eyes and distended stomachs from malnutrition and cholera. amiright?

If my recollection of world history serves me correctly, Africans in Egypt invented writing, religion, farming, irrigation, civilization, ushered in the Bronze age, maths, medicine, ships, faience(ceramic and glass) and had a military. If you jump over to Iraq(mesopotamia) the Arabs invented our alphabet, alcohol, and gave us much of our math, etc.

Star Forge wrote: A lot of people say that race doesn't exist. It's generally accepted as fact, but then again, it's the only opinion on the issue that's allowed in the mainstream. The final verdict on race is really far from reached, though, as the issue is not settled, but suppressed. The "mainstream" opinion on the issue is not a result of science, but of social change in the post-war era. "Racism" is the new blasphemy.

The war(WWII) was about ethnic/racial cleansing and the Aryan supreme race, which was backed by scientific racism at that time. So yeah racism is very real but it's all based on some dude's opinion and has no scientific basis. The mainstream social changes that followed seem logical.

Star Forge wrote: "Why do black kids perform worse than white kids in school?" White racism (and the consequences thereof) and culturally biased education.

You're probably referring to "The Bell Curve" which was really bad science and is rejected by researchers. Black kids don't perform worse than white kids in school, all things being equal.

Star Forge wrote: "Why do Asian kids perform better?" Cultural emphasis on academic performance.

They don't. All humans have the same performance, all things being equal. Most Asian kids in the US have immigrant parents that were successful entrepreneurs and came here to make more money so they give their kids private tutoring, put them in better schools in rich neighborhoods, etc.

Star Forge wrote: except, perhaps Ashkenazi Jews.

Again, this is another fallacy. Rich people's kids do better because they are given unlimited opportunities to succeed. George W. Bush was president because his daddy was rich, not because he's smart or successful.

I read the article and I still don't think race is a valid construct. If we were to follow this guy's logic, your sister would be considered a different race because she has genetic differences (e.g. female vs male).

Come on now, lol...

That is not what he said...

The physical characteristics that each race exhibits, is what defines us by race...

Yes, the lines do and can blur between them, since we all came from a common base...

My sister has the same skin tone, facial features, and other physical characteristics that define her as 'white', like myself, as opposed to 'black'... lol...

So yeah racism is very real but it's all based on some dude's opinion and has no scientific basis.

Um, it is very real science...

Science is they study of something, and just because a microscope isnt needed to notice the differences between races, doesnt make the science any less valid...

Is it old science? Yes... So is 'gravity', or 'the earths rotation around the sun', yet these are still valid...

Humans like to classify, and, the first way to classify is appearance...

Birds are different from bats, observance one... There are physical differences... So, let us leave the bats alone... SO there are birds... Wait, there are some differences between birds, well, physically, some are red, some are yellow, some are blue, red and brown, blue and black, short beaks, long legs, big eyes, some look like they have horns (Great Horned Owl)...

Physical appearances first...

And, (Uhh, again), EVERYTHING is some dudes opinion... Nature doesnt classify...

The problem I see many have, is that 'race' isnt very scientific enough... How about if we used 'species'?

Would that help?




However, since most do not realize this, the term 'race' to begin the subdivision of human classifications will be around for a long time....

All humans have the same performance, all things being equal.

"All things being equal"

Really...

The world is not equal, in case you didnt get the memo...

We can wish that it is, but it is not... Some of us are better at some things than others...

Stereotypes exist because patterns have been noticed, is it scientificly verified? No, that I am aware... Maybe, Im short on time, and have no data to back me up... :dry:

And, not only are some of us better at some things than others, but it can also be said that some species are better at some things than others...

Cranes are excellent fisherman, whereas sparrows suck... They eat the worms before they can get the hook baited..

Whyte Horse wrote:

Star Forge wrote: History is not my strong area, but its pretty clear that mixing of cultures leads to competition and development. Central Africa is bounded to the North by quite a large desert, and to the other directions by large Oceans.

Basically they have been cut-off from other cultures when compared to trade routes like the Silk Road for Eurasia, or Central America for the America's. If you look at Australia, which was also relatively cut off by being an island the indigenous people (not African's) were very primitive when discovered.

So going back to Africa, it's main avenue of contact seemed to be pretty much one way down the Nile.... until other nations already had a huge leap forward with technology to enable contact, colonization and then abandonment etc - but by then they already had a huge lead.

I can understand where this explains it to an extent, but I don't see it as a total complete explanation, but maybe just a factor.

Yes, the Americas were connected by Central America, but this connection really didn't have any consequences or benefits for the natives. A good example of this is the fact that metallurgy was very developed and widespread in South America but completely absent in North America.

I don't consider the Sahara to be an excuse. Remember, while the Africans didn't cross it, other people did to reach them. Then again, the Arabs, whites, and whoever else who crossed it had domesticated animals, navigation, portable and sealing water containers- all of which Africans never bothered (couldn't?) acquire on their own.

Another thing to consider- while extreme isolation may stunt technological development, it doesn't stunt creativity, intelligence, and will. Every time I think about the Inuit, I wonder anew at how the hell they managed to survive and *prosper* at the top of the world, as well as travel across the pole. They didn't have a printing press or written alphabet, but they were navigators, genius hunters, warriors (who could hold their own against the vikings), seafarers, improvisors, and maintain a complex mythology and detailed oral history- all of which Africans still lack.

I think we're imagining Africa like some National Geographic documentary where people run around naked and the babies have flies crawling all over their eyes and distended stomachs from malnutrition and cholera. amiright?

If my recollection of world history serves me correctly, Africans in Egypt invented writing, religion, farming, irrigation, civilization, ushered in the Bronze age, maths, medicine, ships, faience(ceramic and glass) and had a military. If you jump over to Iraq(mesopotamia) the Arabs invented our alphabet, alcohol, and gave us much of our math, etc.

I thought it was understood that I was talking about sub-Saharan black Africa. If you see the part where I talked about Arabs crossing the Sahara, you'll see that they are not a part of my evaluation of Africa. I'm talking specifically about black Africans.

In response to your next post... I hardly think "racism" is just some dude's opinion. To me, racial differences don't need some complex scientific study to be proven- they're readily discernible and very obvious. Tell me one sub-Saharan African country that has a Western standard of life. Not even South Africa has that anymore; they inherited it from the Boers, but in less than a decade, everything went straight to hell. Botswana might be the closest thing (though still third world), but, then again, there's so much Western interest there with the diamonds that they are not short on money (but imagine what, say, Sweden would be like if it had diamonds just naturally laying around?). Conversely, the Japanese, who were stuck in the Middle Ages (both technologically and socially) until the mid-1800s modernized WITHIN A DECADE and won a war against the Russian Empire. And now they're an economic superpower.

But let's look even closer, at America. Which race group commits the most crime, welfare abuse, and generally has the worst statistics in anything? The same one that is the biggest underachiever on the world scale as well. Many excuses can be made, such as "racism," "institutional racism," "cultural bias," "white privilege," but the truth is painfully obvious.

Jestor wrote:

I read the article and I still don't think race is a valid construct. If we were to follow this guy's logic, your sister would be considered a different race because she has genetic differences (e.g. female vs male).

Come on now, lol...

That is not what he said...

The physical characteristics that each race exhibits, is what defines us by race...

Yes, the lines do and can blur between them, since we all came from a common base...

My sister has the same skin tone, facial features, and other physical characteristics that define her as 'white', like myself, as opposed to 'black'... lol...

So yeah racism is very real but it's all based on some dude's opinion and has no scientific basis.

Um, it is very real science...

Science is they study of something, and just because a microscope isnt needed to notice the differences between races, doesnt make the science any less valid...

Is it old science? Yes... So is 'gravity', or 'the earths rotation around the sun', yet these are still valid...

Humans like to classify, and, the first way to classify is appearance...

Birds are different from bats, observance one... There are physical differences... So, let us leave the bats alone... SO there are birds... Wait, there are some differences between birds, well, physically, some are red, some are yellow, some are blue, red and brown, blue and black, short beaks, long legs, big eyes, some look like they have horns (Great Horned Owl)...

Physical appearances first...

And, (Uhh, again), EVERYTHING is some dudes opinion... Nature doesnt classify...

The problem I see many have, is that 'race' isnt very scientific enough... How about if we used 'species'?

Would that help?

Attachment ha01a957.jpg not found

However, since most do not realize this, the term 'race' to begin the subdivision of human classifications will be around for a long time....

All humans have the same performance, all things being equal.

"All things being equal"

Really...

The world is not equal, in case you didnt get the memo...

We can wish that it is, but it is not... Some of us are better at some things than others...

Stereotypes exist because patterns have been noticed, is it scientificly verified? No, that I am aware... Maybe, Im short on time, and have no data to back me up... :dry:

And, not only are some of us better at some things than others, but it can also be said that some species are better at some things than others...

Cranes are excellent fisherman, whereas sparrows suck... They eat the worms before they can get the hook baited..

Can't use species. If we are different species then we can't have babies together. Humans are all the same species, regardless of color.

We can, however, use stereotypes. That's the most accurate definition of race. But even then, it breaks down. When I was in Europe, I sat next to a "black" woman who had a British accent, was very intelligent, and looked like a million dollars. She'd probably fit into the stereotype of white or ashkenazi jew or whatever. So there's nothing genetic or scientific about race.

Anyway, yeah the stereotype has been around a long time and will probably be around for a long time. Now that we have fMRI and PET brain scans that show no difference in brains, DNA that shows your sister is more genetically different from you than a brown male, and anthropological findings which show old DNA is almost the same as new DNA, we can safely say there is no scientific basis for race.

Sometimes the science is created to support the ruling elite's world-view. We now know that poverty knocks 10 points off your IQ. Poverty causes crime. There are hundreds of facts that are just thrown out the window because they contradict the power and wealth of the almighty <job> creator.

Star Forge wrote:
I thought it was understood that I was talking about sub-Saharan black Africa. If you see the part where I talked about Arabs crossing the Sahara, you'll see that they are not a part of my evaluation of Africa. I'm talking specifically about black Africans.

In response to your next post... I hardly think "racism" is just some dude's opinion. To me, racial differences don't need some complex scientific study to be proven- they're readily discernible and very obvious. Tell me one sub-Saharan African country that has a Western standard of life. Not even South Africa has that anymore; they inherited it from the Boers, but in less than a decade, everything went straight to hell. Botswana might be the closest thing (though still third world), but, then again, there's so much Western interest there with the diamonds that they are not short on money (but imagine what, say, Sweden would be like if it had diamonds just naturally laying around?). Conversely, the Japanese, who were stuck in the Middle Ages (both technologically and socially) until the mid-1800s modernized WITHIN A DECADE and won a war against the Russian Empire. And now they're an economic superpower.

But let's look even closer, at America. Which race group commits the most crime, welfare abuse, and generally has the worst statistics in anything? The same one that is the biggest underachiever on the world scale as well. Many excuses can be made, such as "racism," "institutional racism," "cultural bias," "white privilege," but the truth is painfully obvious.

Dude, where are you getting this from? Have you seen sub-Saharan black Africa lately? I can show you places in the US(pine ridge, detroit) that are far worse than most places in Africa. You've been spoon-fed images of DR Congolese genocides as representing the whole of Africa. It would be like if I just showed you the Native American genocide photos and that was all you knew about the US.

Nairobi, Capitol of Kenya circa 2007


Pine Ridge, South Dakota circa 2008


Detroit, Capitol of Michigan

South Africa,

Where I grew up....






Pretoria, where I was born (now called Tshwane)






Google street view of my house in johannesburg (my family still lives there)

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&q=hurlingham+sandton&ie=UTF-8&ei=d4dpUrbjPIXAiQfCgoGQBQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg

Doesnt look like hell to me

Brenna wrote: South Africa,

Where I grew up....

Attachment h57a250c.jpg not found

Pretoria, where I was born (now called Tshwane)

Attachment h6568502.jpg not found

Google street view of my house in johannesburg (my family still lives there)

https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&q=hurlingham+sandton&ie=UTF-8&ei=d4dpUrbjPIXAiQfCgoGQBQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg

Doesnt look like hell to me

Whyte Horse- You're comparing extremes and you know it. The fact that there are mansions in Ghana and slums in Switzerland does not mean anything.

Brenna- of course there are still first-world-esque parts of SA (largely thanks to the Afrikaners). But you know good and well what's happened there since the "old days" ended, and while I know you'd rather not discuss it, I am sure that you know what I mean. One of my Boer friends told me this: "During Apartheid, we drove on the left of the road. After Apartheid, we drive on what's left of the road."

I am not meaning to insult SA in any way. You must know by now that I admire the Boers greatly.