Racism vs IQ

[Pappa]

Everybody had black-skinned ancestors.

Due to a lack of sunhine in the far north, some mutants developed with lighter skin that allowed them to process vitamin D more eficiently.

This was probably no more than 12 000 years ago, insignificant in human evolutionary terms.

Racists are too stupid to understand this.

Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I've ever seen before.

Doesn't explain why Africa which should have a natural advantage, being the birthplace of the human race and replete with resources, still to this day resists modernity. The reality is that black people are more genetically diverse which means a natural biological strife which impedes social culture. Now look at places like China or even India in contrast?

What the retarded fuck are you talking about?

[Tyrannical]

More primitive or less advanced tells us nothing,

I have considered this question before and designed my own answer.

If you want to divide cultures according to how "civilised" they are, I see two ways.

1. How advanced is their technology.
2. How advanced is their relationship with alien peoples.

The latter means that those cultures who are most accepting and most caring about people who are not of their own family or tribal group, are most advanced.

You aren't allowed to define words according to your whims. There are already well accepted definitions of culture in regards to advancement and primitiveness in anthropology books. Of course if you wish to twist the definition of advancement so that somehow bongo drums are more advanced than the internet than go ahead.

[Tyrannical]

Everybody had black-skinned ancestors.

Due to a lack of sunhine in the far north, some mutants developed with lighter skin that allowed them to process vitamin D more eficiently.

This was probably no more than 12 000 years ago, insignificant in human evolutionary terms.

Racists are too stupid to understand this.

Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I've ever seen before.

Doesn't explain why Africa which should have a natural advantage, being the birthplace of the human race and replete with resources, still to this day resists modernity. The reality is that black people are more genetically diverse which means a natural biological strife which impedes social culture. Now look at places like China or even India in contrast?

What the retarded fuck are you talking about?

It's a bit muddled, but what I think he means is that he expected more cultural advancement from sub-Saharan Africa since "modern humans" existed solely there for tens of thousands of years before the out of Africa event. And that genetic diversity causes cultural adversity.

[JimC]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

How would/do you define "inferior" in relation to a culture? Inferior in what exactly?

Actually, one can do it by comparing western cultures, separated in time, on a variety of issues. Modern attitudes to the treatment of animals, to how we view the mentally ill, to our view of homosexuality and non-conventional sexual arrangements in general are simply better than they were 200 years ago, on average. Pinker's views on the general decrease in violence also apply, as does the reduced stranglehold of religion. The zeitgeist has moved on.

I am quite prepared to be politically incorrect, and to hold that other current cultures who still exhibit dark-age attitudes and actions in these areas are inferior, at least in those particular aspects.

[Blind groper]

I agree with Jim here. His approach is fully consistent with my view that cultures that are socially advanced will be more caring of people outside their family and or tribe that those of less advanced cultures.

[Hermit]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

How would/do you define "inferior" in relation to a culture? Inferior in what exactly?

Actually, one can do it by comparing western cultures, separated in time, on a variety of issues. Modern attitudes to the treatment of animals, to how we view the mentally ill, to our view of homosexuality and non-conventional sexual arrangements in general are simply better than they were 200 years ago, on average. Pinker's views on the general decrease in violence also apply, as does the reduced stranglehold of religion. The zeitgeist has moved on.

I am quite prepared to be politically incorrect, and to hold that other current cultures who still exhibit dark-age attitudes and actions in these areas are inferior, at least in those particular aspects.

Well said, but I cannot see how the inferiority or superiority of some cultures is due to genetic differences. Not that you said otherwise. It's just that the point is worth highlighting in regard to Pappa's query. And there's nothing politically incorrect in preferring one cultural environment when compared to another.

I have no problem to declare that I prefer to live in today's Australian culture to that pertaining 50 or 150 years ago. I also prefer to live in Australia to living in Germany full stop. I'd also prefer to live in today's South Africa than that society's culture under the Apartheid regime. Come to think of it, I'd prefer to live in China today to living there during the time Mao ruled it, or when it was ruled by emperors.

[JimC]

Yes, I was certainly all about the cultural aspect, with there being absolutely no believable evidence that there is any genetic component to aspects of one society that can be reasonably seen as superior to those in another. In a way, that's why I emphasised the time element.

[En_Route]

I am much more prepared to accept that certain cultures are inferior to others in many respects...

This is politically incorrect, but doesn't fall foul of scientific facts...

How would/do you define "inferior" in relation to a culture? Inferior in what exactly?

Actually, one can do it by comparing western cultures, separated in time, on a variety of issues. Modern attitudes to the treatment of animals, to how we view the mentally ill, to our view of homosexuality and non-conventional sexual arrangements in general are simply better than they were 200 years ago, on average. Pinker's views on the general decrease in violence also apply, as does the reduced stranglehold of religion. The zeitgeist has moved on.

I am quite prepared to be politically incorrect, and to hold that other current cultures who still exhibit dark-age attitudes and actions in these areas are inferior, at least in those particular aspects.

My own take on this is a preference for societies which minimise the visiting of avoidable suffering on its members. So, I would be rooting for the eradication of blind prejudice, moral dogmatism and stigmatisation of difference for its own sake , all of which are productive of enormous cruelty and pain. Where I part company from you is the idea that my preference represents any kind of objective standard or enshrines any absolute truth.

[cronus]

I don't care who started it. The human race has already made enough critical mistakes to ensure it's probable extinction within a few centuries. My task, as I see it, is to minimize further damage to the biosphere regardless of human activity towards itself. If race issues can be utilized to reduce numbers with minimal damage to the trees the bodies are hanging from so be it. What do you want me to do? Save someone? Save you?

[rainbow]

Since we are in the science forum, we should try and stick to scientific terms. Black is a color, Africa is a continent, and Negroid is a race. Or if you prefer, Congoid and Capoid.

Then define scientifically, the term "negroid".

[Tyrannical]

Since we are in the science forum, we should try and stick to scientific terms. Black is a color, Africa is a continent, and Negroid is a race. Or if you prefer, Congoid and Capoid.

Then define scientifically, the term "negroid".

Negroid (also known as Congoid[1]) is a term that is used by some forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are generally associated with Black African ancestry

[rainbow]

Since we are in the science forum, we should try and stick to scientific terms. Black is a color, Africa is a continent, and Negroid is a race. Or if you prefer, Congoid and Capoid.

Then define scientifically, the term "negroid".

Negroid (also known as Congoid[1]) is a term that is used by some forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are generally associated with Black African ancestry

Good. That makes you "negroid"

[cronus]

Since we are in the science forum, we should try and stick to scientific terms. Black is a color, Africa is a continent, and Negroid is a race. Or if you prefer, Congoid and Capoid.

Then define scientifically, the term "negroid".

Negroid (also known as Congoid[1]) is a term that is used by some forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are generally associated with Black African ancestry

Good. That makes you "negroid"

I've a theory white folks came from interbreeding with polar bears.

[rainbow]

I've a theory white folks came from interbreeding with polar bears.

Don't polar bears have black skin, under their fur?

[cronus]

I've a theory white folks came from interbreeding with polar bears.

Don't polar bears have black skin, under their fur?

That is possible. I have dark brown hair under my grey. Somewhere.