SHsheff Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I would bow to your claim of superior intelligence but I strongly suspect that my dog could give you a run for your money on a chess board. That's just being silly, not to say inflamatory. I said that the races all have differences. If we have taller races, shorter races, races with different bone structures, muscle distributions, immune systems, why can you not see that other parts of the body vary from race to race? These are the result of varying environmental effects on evolution. Does it seem so incredibly unbelievable therefore that we might have dissimilar characteristics inside our skulls when every other part of our bodies varies so much from race to race? When the various races have been subject to wildly different living conditions, climates, threats, and survival needs for thousands of generations, can you really, truly say that you think they will all evolve to be exactly the same??????? If that were the case, we would all be the same colour, size and shape. We are not. I know where you're coming from, and - against the odds, you might say -agree with the line of argument and would be pleased to pursue it with subtantiated source material. Sadly, we ARE so programmed that any discussion of this nature is 'racist' that there cannot be any real debate on the subject. Not in public, at any rate. That's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I'm not missing the point at all Bartfarst, I'm posing a hypothesis. Is it inconceivable for a people to consciously decide to retain a (for example) nomadic self sustaining existence with no need for western models? The whole of man's evolution has been based on what you just said. Man first started rummaging around on two legs, thereby having a free hand to scratch his bum, in Africa. By and large, the more inquisitive individuals (requiring more stimulus, and wanting to explore) moved the species' boundaries further. They made conscious decisions to do so, rather than to stay and make do with what they had. (We see exactly the same happen today in our society – some people choose to stay I their job, happily sweeping and quite content with that level of stimulus and excitement, others need to do more, push themselves and find out what’s round the corner). Those branches of man that moved out encountered harsher conditions which required complex survival strategies to get through the winters and deal with the new environments. More complex tools, agriculture and buildings were part of this. Against those requirements, survival came to those who could think round a problem rather than run away from it, and the evolutionary paths of mankind in different parts of the globe differed. That’s why you don’t see a whole lot of white Olympic sprinters, and you don’t see a whole lot of black physics professors. Of course you do get some of each, but in a very small minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketpig Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I think inteligence of a culture should be measured by what that culture, as a group has acheived and i think its safe to say that as a culture......black cultures have acheived a lot less than any others. obviously black individuals have performed very well, but i can not think of many black communities that are prosperring. as a group, blacks have acheived gun crime and poverty and i'd argue this is due to lack of inteligence. Obviously i recognise that black people have acheived individually, but i don't see communities of black people prospering together. perhaps this is due to external factors, not their inteligence but due to the extreme of the case i don't think so. I am also more than happy to share that I think black people, as a group have a very poor work ethic in comparison to other ethnics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VARB Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Is it inconceivable for a people to consciously decide to retain a (for example) nomadic self sustaining existence with no need for western models? Some of Australia's aboriginal people are trying this after what has been a disaster when our 'western' culture was forced on them . Anyone wanting to see the effects of destroying a peoples culture should study Australian history how crime, suicide and alcoholism now blight a people who didn't even have word in their language for these things . Is the culture imposed on them more intelligent than theirs ? not for them . Culture is not about a subjective things like intelligence it's not about any stupid notion of superiority it's the cement that keeps societys together . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 That's just being silly, not to say inflamatory. I know where you're coming from, and - against the odds, you might say -agree with the line of argument and would be pleased to pursue it with subtantiated source material. Sadly, we ARE so programmed that any discussion of this nature is 'racist' that there cannot be any real debate on the subject. Not in public, at any rate. That's the way it is. The comment wasn't inflammatory when taken in context with the post it replied to. As for the rest of your own post, it saddens me. What I infer from your statement is that, even if you were to accept that there are differences between the races, you see it as a total taboo to discuss them? We accept that some races have different colours – but surely it isn't racist to accept that an Indian usually has darker skin tones than a Swede. It's a factual observation, with no ill intent. Is it racist to say that black men make better sprint athletes and heavyweight boxers? No, it isn’t. It certainly isn’t if you’re a fan and cheering somebody on. I had always thought that racism comes when there is ill intent, or when somebody prejudices against somebody else due to there ethnicity. Surely accepting that there are differences cannot be racist. We have problems between the races because we refuse to accept, and make allowances for, the fact that we are different. As for substantiated source material, look at a map of the world, think about its climate, its varying seasons and environments, and you have an lump of evidence weighing about 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 As for the rest of your own post, it saddens me. Yes, I accept that. I made a statement of fact. Not saying I agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 How many Einsteins and Newtons have been lost to the World because of lack of education. It makes you think how much more advanced we could be, if all the money wasted on educating rich mens sons, had been spent on educating the best amongst us. When you think no great world leader or great thinker ever came from a very aristocratic background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titian Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 does anybody out there actually think that a doctorate level survey would just put a westernised tick-test in front of an illiterate villager? Come on people, tests are specially developed. You can accuse me of anything you choose, but can you really believe that the academic institutions, departments full of highly qualified social sicentists and psychologists don't understand this better than we do? Yes, so smart they can't figure out who invented the wheel.................or test his intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 How many Einsteins and Newtons have been lost to the World because of lack of education. It makes you think how much more advanced we could be, if all the money wasted on educating rich mens sons, had been spent on educating the best amongst us. When you think no great world leader or great thinker ever came from a very aristocratic background Er - maybe I've wrongly understood our education system, but I really did think that GCSEs, A levels, degrees and doctorates were open to everybody - or am i wrong in that? As for the last statement, it's pointless listing them becasue yuo'll decry every one simply on the basis of your inverted snobbery. Feel free to answer the questions I asked you on post 96. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Yes, so smart they can't figure out who invented the wheel.................or test his intelligence. I think you'll find that he wasn't African, that much is worth a fiver at the bookies. Seeing as the wheel predates written language, and we haven't made time machines, I think I'll excuse the historians not knowing who that was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.