Neo-Nazis Organize Music Festival in Australia

[Teljkon]

asdasdad

[Quill]

sorry telly thats pretty dubious. Better tell an anatomist

[nabraxas]

And Frankly I take facial factors of africans as sign of in breading with anglo races as aposed to others who do accept the out of affrica theory. Think about this the though if that is true and we are all out of africa why is there a blood related deiseas that hits only africans.

It is of course true that geographically separated populations came to differ in respect to such physical traits as skin colour, hair shape, facial structure, blood type, susceptibility to certain bodily diseases, etc. However, these differences form gradients (clines) that are causally independent of each other. There is no convincing evidence of correlated genetically based variations in psychological and behavioural attributes. And most certainly there are no discrete, clearly bounded “racial” groups distinguished by “packages” of related physical, mental, and behavioural attributes....

http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/documents/the_race_fallacy.pdf

To be clear, i don't take the 'out of africa' theory as gospel because there can be no certainty in anything, but that cuts both ways: there's no way ov being sure that it's wrong; none ov the arguments presented here are more compelling than the archaeological or genetic evidence.

[SunChaser]

All homo sapiens evovled from a single tribe or family of homo erectus in Africa who developed very effective sweat glands which allowed them to develop large brains that wouldn't over heat. We travelled from Africa to the middle east and spread out across the world, wiping out all other huminoids that had already made it out of Africa, with our large brains which gave us the intelligence to have highly devoploped communication skills (which other humanoids lacked), good communication means knowledge and knowledge is power. The out of Africa theory has been varified with DNA evidence, so it's looking pretty good. 

Interestingly, they say in china they teach a theory that the Chinese evovled from a separate branch of homo erectus, but that's been proven false with DNA evidence. I think it's clear to anyone that spends a large amount of time researching this issue that all homo sapiens started from a single branch of evolution, in one region of the earth and then we used our highly devolped brains to spread out and become the most dominate species on earth.

Of course it might of been another intelligent civilization that came to earth and genetically modified one of the huminoids that were roaming the earth, linked two chomosomes, which created awarness in us, then let us loose, which would explain why homo sapiens seem out of sync with evolution. But that doesn't take away from the theory that it happend in Africa.

Anyway, I don't have a problem if someone has a personal belief and want's to keep there own racial genetics going, like many different races of people have done and still do around the world. I mean just like wanting to keep the genetics of a breed of dog pure, there's nothing racist in that in it's self. But it becomes a racist, dangerous and disrespectful opinion when there's a culture created around it, or when people start calling it wrong and condeming other people that don't share there opinions and start creating an idealistic belief behind it.

White people don't have any culture anyway, imo, except for death, destruction and war. That's what we are, a product of many generations of waring and raping other cultures. Thats the reason why we seem so much more devoloped to other cultures, because we have spent so long stealing other cultures technology, land and even genes from raping them, we've been able to throw all other races knowledge, culture, genes and land in to one single culture and then claim ourselves supreme!

No one civilization on earth (or ever has, from what I've researched) has a race of people that are all blonde hair blue eyes, so how the fuck can we be a master race, when the race doesn't actually exist!!! 

Since white people (as they call us) come in many different colours and shades and don't have any real traditions that can be traced back for any real length of time, I don't think you can really call us a "race" of people, like you can the aboriginal or asain cultures, imo.   

[Quill]

White people don't have any culture anyway, imo, except for death, destruction and war. That's what we are, a product of many generations of waring and raping other cultures. Thats the reason why we seem so much more devoloped to other cultures, because we have spent so long stealing other cultures technology, land and even genes from raping them, we've been able to throw all other races knowledge, culture, genes and land in to one single culture and then claim ourselves supreme! 

 

Offensive and untrue. "White people" definitely have a culture, it is perhaps not as interesting as more "exotic" cultures perhaps.

And, unfortunately, war exists across cultures.

[SunChaser]

"White people" definitely have a culture

 

which is?

I'd actually like to be proved wrong.

[Quill]

First of all define white people. British? Irish? Anglo Australians? French?

[Quill]

Actually scratch that Jabez. I dont have time for the kind of bs i am foreseeing

[Teljkon]

fghdgh

[ThunderIdeal]

"And Quill you fail to recognize the clarity of the argument if im not a liar and im not there is a genetic diffrence other than skin type that makes affrican decent diffrent not only on an external level but an internal level. Mind you this was asian teaching being applied to every race and it didnt work on a affrican but works on everyone elese there is some thing to that im sorry."

why didn't you explain this to researchers? would have saved them sifting through the dirt for bones, charting all the changes in mitochondrial dna etc. one guys body was different to ten other guys' bodies, damn that's compelling evidence.

[Teljkon]

asd

[SunChaser]

I think if you read some more there is also a part of some posts that mention that afriacan decent lack scalp features that other races have as well. So diffrence in nerves and in the way the scalp grows hair I dont know but your kinda geting on the edge of diffrent species if we were talking about animals.

 

Rubbish!

What about dogs? They come in every different colour, shape and size you could imagine, some have thin fur, some have thick, some are even hairless, but there still all dogs! The diverisity in dogs is something that humans have created in maybe only 70 thousand years.

So why is it so hard for people to except as theory how all homo sapiens have come from a single source and slightly changed in appearance over a peroid of about 200 thousand years, when dogs have all come from one source (the wolf) and have now got far more diversity than homo sapiens and in less time?

[mutant]

What about dogs? They come in every different colour, shape and size you could imagine, some have thin fur, some have thick, some are even hairless, but there still all dogs!

most dogs have been designed in a lab or by selective breeding by humans, so this example/arguement is worthless Jabez, as most of your arrogant and dogmatic statements

out of africa theory is not the only present theory and definately not the only believable one, actually it's less believable than other options

[ref1ect1ons]

I have watched the film. Just because it makes Israel look bad doesn't mean it is untrue or even bigoted. I am not going to pretend in half-truths just to make morons happy.

[SunChaser]

most dogs have been designed in a lab or by selective breeding by humans, so this example/arguement is worthless Jabez, as most of your arrogant and dogmatic statements

out of africa theory is not the only present theory and definately not the only believable one, actually it's less believable than other options

 

"Most" breeds of dog have 'not' been designed in labs, that's BS! Yes, a lot of breeds of dogs have most likely come from "selective breeding". But how does that debunk my point in any kind of way?  

My whole point was, it's an observed fact that it's very possible for one single species to change dramaticly in appearance in a very short amount of time, well still being considered the exact same species, which as I pointed out in the case of the dog is true. Anyway, people engage in selective breeding all the time whether they know it or not, from sexual attraction. As far as I can see your point was meaningless!

The out of africa theory is the most credible and most accepted theory from where we came from that there is, It's been around for ages and has now been varified with DNA evidence. So until a more credible theory is presented to me, I like this one.

Anyone who spends a little time looking into the origion of homo sapien and still can't accept the out of Africa theory as a very 'probable' theory is probably just insecure and can't accept they started of as a black man. Either that all they don't know the meaning of 'theory'.

Nothing in life can really be a universal fact, all we can usually do is gather all the available evidence and then draw the most logical conclusion. Which in the case of the origion of homo sapien is that we probably all came from a single branch of evolution in Africa.

Unless you can actually reference a more credible theory mutant! you can stick your meaningless drunken rants and personal attacks up your arse, I won't bother replying!

      

[dworx]

just for some interesting reading.

Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth

by Dr. William L. Pierce

All racial differences are either genetic (hereditary, inborn) or cultural (acquired from society after birth). The latter can be changed or eliminated by enforced social changes; the former are independent of man's laws and customs, except over a period of many generations.

Examples of cultural traits which differ from race to race are mannerisms of speech ("Amos 'n' Andy" dialect or "Black English"), styles of dress, and personal grooming. If Blacks and Whites are forced to live together from birth, attending the same schools and exposed to exactly the same cultural influences, they will grow up speaking and dressing in very nearly the same manner. Even Blacks who have grown up in the tribal areas of Africa and who customarily distort their earlobes or lips with huge wooden plugs or plaster their hair with liquid cow dung as a means of attracting Blacks of the opposite sex can be trained to adopt White standards of personal cleanliness and grooming.

The fact is, however, that the most important racial differences are genetic rather than cultural. Skin and eye color, facial features, skull shape, skeletal proportions, patterns of body fat disposition, tooth size, jaw shape, female breast form, odor, and hair texture are only the most noticeable genetically determined physical characteristics which differ racially.

Beyond these things are the entire biochemical constitution and development of the individual. There are profound racial differences in blood chemistry, in endocrine function, and in physiological response to environmental stimuli. Blacks and Whites mature at different rates. They have different susceptibilities to many disease organisms as well as different patterns of congenital disease. They even have different nutritional requirements.

Racial differences, in other words, are much more than skin deep; they permeate the individual and are manifested in virtually every cell of his body. They are the products of millions of years of separate evolutionary development which has adapted the different races, with considerable precision to different environmental demands.

When we understand the all pervading nature of genetic racial differences, we can see that cultural racial differences are not so superficial as some would have us believe. Far from masking any fundamental "equality" or exaggerating racial dissimilarities, they simply manifest the genetic differences of which they are, in fact, expressions.

The culture of a race, free of alien influences, is telling evidence of that race's essential nature. The African Negro with a cow-dung hairdo, a bone through his nose, and teeth filed down to sharp points, in other words, presents to us a far more accurate image of the Negro essence than does the American Black in a business suit who has been trained to drive an automobile, operate a typewriter, and speak flawless English.

Negro culture is not merely DIFFERENT from White culture; it is a LESS ADVANCED culture and, by practically any standard, INFERIOR. It is a culture which never advanced to the point of a written language or a civilized society. It never saw even the barest glimmerings of mathematics or the invention of the wheel. The smelting and use of metals and the quarrying and dressing of stone for architectural purposes are crafts that were taught to the Negro by members of other races. The hokum currently being served up in the schools about a centuries-old Negro "civilization" based on the ruins of stone walls found at Zimbabwe, in Rhodesia [note: at the time of this writing, the country was still called Rhodesia] is simply the product of wishful thinking by proponents of racial equality who are willing to ignore all facts which conflict with their equalitarian mania.

Negro culture inferiority is the consequence of the physical inadequacy of the Negro brain in dealing with abstract concepts. On the other hand, the Negro shows an ability approaching that of the White at mental tasks requiring only memory. That is why the Negro can be trained relatively easily to adapt to many aspects of White culture.

His verbal ability and his ability to imitate allow him, when properly motivated, to assume much of the outward appearance of "equality." In a decade of special college-admission quotas for Blacks, many thousands of Blacks have obtained college diplomas -- but only in those disciplines in which a glib tongue and a good memory suffice. There have been virtually no Black graduates in the physical sciences and very few in engineering.

Thus the Negroes inability to handle the abstract concepts required in problem-solving and technological innovation make a mockery of outward appearances. And this inability is genetic in nature, rooted in the physical structure of the Negro brain.

Until the post-World War II campaign to blend the White and Negro races began in earnest, the Negro's mental limitations were common knowledge. The 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says of the Negro, in part:

"...Other characteristics appear to be hypertrophy of the organs of excretion, a more developed venous system, and a less voluminous brain, as compared with the White races."

"In certain of the characteristics mentioned above the Negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the White man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids ...."

"Mentally the Negro is inferior to the White ... While with the latter the volume of the brain grows with the expansion of the brainpan, in the former the growth of the brain is on the contrary arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures and lateral pressure of the frontal bone."

And the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana lists, among the distinguishing characteristics of the Negro race, the following:

"3. Weight of brain, 35 ounces (in gorilla 20 ounces, average Caucasian 45 ounces) ...."

"8. Exceedingly thick cranium, enabling him to use the head as a weapon of attack ...."

"14. The cranial sutures, which close much earlier in the Negro than in other races."

As the media stepped up their flow of "equality" propaganda, later editions of these encyclopedias simply deleted the racial data on Blacks. One had to turn to specialized medical texts to learn that the associative areas of the brain, where abstract thought takes place, are less developed in the Negro than in the White.

It has been well known since the large-scale intelligence testing of U.S. Army recruits in World War I that the average Negro IQ is approximately 15 per cent below that of the average White. Apologists for the Blacks have tried to explain away the earlier test scores as being due to the effects of segregated schools and Black poverty; i.e. they claimed the tests were "culturally biased."

Later IQ tests, however, showed essentially the same degree of Black deficiency in IQ: whether Black graduates of integrated high schools were tested against White graduates of the same schools, or Blacks in a certain socio-economic category against similarly categorized Whites, the Blacks always scored substantially lower, even though standard IQ tests measure memory skills as well as purely associative ability. Tests which focus on the latter type of mental function show a much larger difference between Black and White scores.

But it is precisely the ability to associate concepts, to deal with abstractions, to mentally extrapolate the present into the future that has allowed the White race to build and maintain its civilization, and it is the Negro's deficiency in this regard which kept him in a state of savagery in his African environment and is now undermining the civilization of a racially mixed America. That is why it is vitally important for every White person to understand that there can be no such thing as "equality" between Whites and Blacks, regardless of the amount of racial mixing forced on Americans by the government.

[mutant]

Re:jabez

before:

All homo sapiens evolved from a single tribe or family of homo erectus...

after:

The out of africa theory is the most credible and most accepted theory

see the difference? lots better like that...

so my point made you rephrase your opinion in a more subjective, less arrogant matter!

I was ready to give you congratulations for not firing back, which would gonna be surprising, but you did...

What the hell, nobody's perfect!

Peace!

[dworx]

Chinese challenge to 'out of Africa' theory

00:01 03 November 2009 by Phil McKenna

For similar stories, visit the Human Evolution Topic Guide

The discovery of an early human fossil in southern China may challenge the commonly held idea that modern humans originated out of Africa.

Jin Changzhu and colleagues of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, announced to Chinese media last week that they have uncovered a 110,000-year-old putative Homo sapiens jawbone from a cave in southern China's Guangxi province.

The mandible has a protruding chin like that of Homo sapiens, but the thickness of the jaw is indicative of more primitive hominins, suggesting that the fossil could derive from interbreeding.

If confirmed, the finding would lend support to the "multiregional hypothesis". This says that modern humans descend from Homo sapiens coming out of Africa who then interbred with more primitive humans on other continents. In contrast, the prevailing "out of Africa" hypothesis holds that modern humans are the direct descendants of people who spread out of Africa to other continents around 100,000 years ago.

The study will appear in Chinese Science Bulletin later this month.

Out of China?

"[This paper] acts to reject the theory that modern humans are of uniquely African origin and supports the notion that emerging African populations mixed with natives they encountered," says Milford Wolpoff, a proponent of the multiregional hypothesis at the University of Michigan.

Others disagreed. Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, questioned whether the find was a true Homo sapiens.

"You need to keep in mind that 'Homo sapiens' for most Chinese scholars is not limited to anatomically modern humans," he says. "For many of them, it is all 'post Homo erectus,' humans."

Chris Stringer of London's Natural History Museum said that it was too early to make far-reaching conclusions. "From the parts preserved, this fossil could just as likely be related to preceding archaic humans, or even to the Neanderthals, who at times seem to have extended their range towards China."

The present analysis of the mandible focused almost exclusively on determining the fossil's age. The researchers said a follow-up study would give a more complete treatment on what exactly the find represents.

Source http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory.html

[FancyPants]

humans have been [insert differentiating characteristic here]ists since the beginning of time

 

Yep.

All comes down to fear of the unknown in the end.

[nabraxas]

In response to the objectional crap dworx posted:

William Luther Pierce III (September 11, 1933 – July 23, 2002) was the leader of the white separatist National Alliance organization, and a principal ideologue of the white nationalist movement. First educated as a physicist, he later worked with George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party. He achieved notoriety as the author of the novels, The Turner Diaries and Hunter, which were written under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald and published under the aegis of National Vanguard Books. He is also the founder of "Cosmotheism", a religion based on white racialism, pantheism, eugenics, and National Socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce

Still Our Most Dangerous Myth: The Race Fallacy

Allegations recently made by Macquarie University academic

Andrew Fraser against certain migrant groups in Australia have

depressingly returned us to a debate on the nature of human

differences that most social scientists assumed was resolved and

archived long ago. While from the scientific viewpoint the idea that

humanity is divided into distinct “races” or “racial groups” is a

fallacy, it persists strongly in the thinking of many people about

human differences. That a senior Australian academic today not

only seeks to encourage this mistaken notion, but invokes it to

denigrate the human worth of sections of our multicultural society

is as disturbing as it is astonishing.

In European thought until well into the 1700s, human physical and

cultural diversity was often understood to be the manifestation of

divine grace, or of a fall from grace. For all its ethnocentric

ignorance, that antiquated Biblical vision at least had the virtue of

not assuming a natural divide between superior and inferior

peoples. Those seen to have fallen from God’s grace were not

considered to be inherently inferior.

The more pernicious idea of “race”, the notion that humanity is

divided into discrete types of people distinguished by their

biologically fixed superiority or inferiority in the possession of

mental and moral capacities, derives from the use of speculative

concepts of natural science to validate the oppressions of slavery

and colonialism perpetrated on non-European peoples when new

ideas were emerging in support of human equality. How else to

resolve this contradiction and justify continuing the profitable

oppression of subjugated peoples than with a belief that they are by

nature inferior to their masters, and so not eligible for equality. The

idea of race difference was formulated in inextricable relationship

to realities of power and exploitation that required a new

ideological validation in an age of revolutionary social change.

Darwin’s work was used by some to argue the notion that “race”

differences represented evolutionary levels of human achievement.

In the late 19 th C and early 20 th C, the eugenics movement used

such understandings about human differences to argue for the engineering of racial purity by a political regulation of reproduction.

Although this vision found its most extreme expression in the

policies of Nazi Germany, the movement had been particularly

strong in the USA and the writings of American eugenicists helped

inspire Hitler. There were many organisational manifestations of the

eugenics movement in the USA. One of them, the Pioneer Fund,

continues to support especially research on questions of “race”

differences. Its current president, J.P. Rushton, is one of the

principal researchers Andrew Fraser cites in support of his claims

against people of African descent.

The view that human group differences are to be understood in

terms of divides between superior and inferior types of human

beings, has long been repudiated by anthropologists and biologists.

It is of course true that geographically separated populations came

to differ in respect to such physical traits as skin colour, hair shape,

facial structure, blood type, susceptibility to certain bodily diseases,

etc. However, these differences form gradients (clines) that are

causally independent of each other. There is no convincing evidence

of correlated genetically based variations in psychological and

behavioural attributes. And most certainly there are no discrete,

clearly bounded “racial” groups distinguished by “packages” of

related physical, mental, and behavioural attributes. The

designation of people as distinct and unequal “racial” groups has

figured prominently in the organisation of social and political life in

many countries during the last two centuries, particularly as a

means of maintaining relationships of domination. But such

divisions have no natural existence. They are social constructs, not

biological entities.

Genetic differences within populations that are often characterised

as racially distinct are far greater than the genetic differences

between such populations. Ironically, a striking illustration of this is

the very population that Andrew Fraser targets in his claims about

inherent inferiority: the sub-Saharan Africans (including the

descendants of African slaves in the USA). Genetic diversity within

this allegedly “racial” population is greater than in any other “racial”

population.

What then are we to make of Fraser’s claims, especially his

assertion that African Australians are mentally deficient and

disposed to criminal behaviour? In his strident denigration of this migrant community, he enthusiastically invokes certain results of IQ

tests, instruments of Western scientific culture which have

questionable validity as adequate measures of the capacities of

peoples of other cultures and of peoples who have long been

subject to discrimination. Fraser naively extrapolates from these

very limited data of ambiguous meaning, to judgements about the

human worth of entire populations.

The significance of “racial” differences in performance on IQ tests

has been debated among Western psychologists for several

decades, a debate spurred partly by the determined efforts of a few

in the profession to find ostensibly scientific evidence that might be

useful in supporting claims about the inferiority of “Blacks” (namely

Afro-Americans). The human genome project, with its findings of

genetic bases for various physical and emotional attributes and

disorders, has also strengthened interest in the question of genetic

factors contributing to intelligence.

It is generally agreed among Psychologists that genetic factors do

play an important part in determining IQ differences among

individuals. However, there is no compelling evidence of genetic

causation of differences in average IQ test performance between

so-called racial groups (eg Euro-Americans and Afro-Americans).

Aside from the issue of genetic causation, there is the contentious

question of what human “intelligence” really is. What are its

dimensions? What are the variety of mental and moral capacities? IQ

tests produced by Western academic culture assess abilities in

certain kinds of cognitive tasks under special conditions. But what

can they tell us about practical intelligences, social intelligence, and

perhaps most especially wisdom which has often been lamentably

deficient in the practical applications of abstract reason?

These matters have been given close attention in critical reviews

published by the leading professional journal American Psychologist

in its issues for February 1996 and January 2005, partly in response

to claims of the kind that Andrew Fraser has been making.

The first of these reviews, conducted by a panel of eleven scholars

appointed by the Association, found that no convincing reasons had

yet been demonstrated for reported average IQ test score

differences between Afro-Americans and Euro Americans (“Blacks”

and “Whites”). The report concluded : “Explanations based onfactors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have

little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for

a genetic interpretation”. The review also emphasised that the IQ

tests “do not sample all forms of intelligence” : “Obvious examples

include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity;

there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we

know very little about them: how they develop, what factors

influence that development, how they are related to more

traditional measures”.

The most recent review, by three Yale University scholars including

a former president of the American Psychological Association, does

not differ substantially from the earlier one in its conclusions. The

authors firmly repudiate the view that IQ tests are a reliable “tape

measure” of human mental capacities, and they find that “attempts

to link intelligence, race, and genetics have lacked an adequate

scientific foundation” : “The statement that racial differences in IQ

or academic achievement are of genetic origin is, when all is said

and done, a leap of imagination. The literature on intelligence, race,

and genetics constitutes, in large part, leaps of imagination to

justify, post hoc, social stratifications”.

It is very clear that Andrew Fraser’s assertions about racial

superiorities and inferiorities reflect a gross misunderstanding of

the significance of psychological research findings. Moreover, the

vast evidence from anthropology on the diversity and complexity of

human cultural creativity cutting across the so-called racial divides

repudiates a simple-minded equation of IQ test measures with

human mental and moral capacities.

Robert Norton

Senior Research Fellow

Department of Anthropology

Macquarie University

Ph 9850 8120

Sorry about the formatting.

[Teljkon]

sdfsd

[FancyPants]

Still Our Most Dangerous Myth: The Race Fallacy

In European thought until well into the 1700s, human physical and

cultural diversity was often understood to be the manifestation of

divine grace, or of a fall from grace. For all its ethnocentric

ignorance, that antiquated Biblical vision at least had the virtue of

not assuming a natural divide between superior and inferior

peoples. Those seen to have fallen from God’s grace were not

considered to be inherently inferior.

Really? Sons of Ham (dark-skinned Africans) weren't seen as inferior? Non-Jewish (according to the Torah) people weren't allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven of the One True God, but that doesn't make them inferior? Same with Christians...

The designation of people as distinct and unequal “racial” groups has

figured prominently in the organisation of social and political life in

many countries during the last two centuries, particularly as a

means of maintaining relationships of domination. But such

divisions have no natural existence. They are social constructs, not

biological entities.

Agreed mightily! So much of the time Science and Fact will be manipulated into Social Ideals and Emotion.

What then are we to make of Fraser’s claims, especially his

assertion that African Australians are mentally deficient and

disposed to criminal behaviour? In his strident denigration of this migrant community, he enthusiastically invokes certain results of IQ

tests, instruments of Western scientific culture which have

questionable validity as adequate measures of the capacities of

peoples of other cultures and of peoples who have long been

subject to discrimination. Fraser naively extrapolates from these

very limited data of ambiguous meaning, to judgements about the

human worth of entire populations.

Try arguing with someone who presents a table on racial groups' mental and physical health as supposed proof of "white" supremacy... they'll never accept that gee it might just possibly be because "white" people receive better healthcare, are overall wealthier, are generally uninflicted with the same environmental upbringing of perceived subjugation and inferiority. Said person used a table from the USA.

There's plenty of "white" people who have grown up with more access to benefits and no inherant feeling of inferiority, who nevertheless end up wasting their lives, their health, their minds. If we're going to be fair why doesn't someone make a table wherein those who are offered more, take less, thus get minus points.

Which still wouldn't make it right because it's still punishing people on behalf of their skin colour and things in which they had no say in the matter.

These matters have been given close attention in critical reviews

published by the leading professional journal American Psychologist

in its issues for February 1996 and January 2005, partly in response

to claims of the kind that Andrew Fraser has been making.

The first of these reviews, conducted by a panel of eleven scholars

appointed by the Association, found that no convincing reasons had

yet been demonstrated for reported average IQ test score

differences between Afro-Americans and Euro Americans (“Blacks”

and “Whites”). The report concluded : “Explanations based onfactors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have

little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for

a genetic interpretation”. The review also emphasised that the IQ

tests “do not sample all forms of intelligence” : “Obvious examples

include creativity, wisdom, practical sense, and social sensitivity;

there are surely others. Despite the importance of these abilities we

know very little about them: how they develop, what factors

influence that development, how they are related to more

traditional measures”.

Some common sense prevails out there

[ThunderIdeal]

so dworx...

did you enjoy the festival?

1. sub saharans are genetically very diverse. good reason to believe that they have been chilling down there, diversifying, before other continents were populated and subsequently diversified.

2. a species is able to interbreed. humans are all one species.

3. maybe africans do tend to have less by way of advanced cognition. for arguments sake lets say africans are "dumber", and better at athletics. what of it? genetic diversity is a good thing. in this scenario, interbreeding will lead to more people with great combinations of physical and mental traits, or maybe a combination will produce offspring that are outright "superior" mentally AND physically. you'll never know if everyone breeds with similar people. saying one type of person is "superior" is a bit like growing only one type of trich because it's the strongest. maybe some bug comes along and that type of trich has no defenses compared to other trichs. it's a bit like relying on commercial farms to grow their commercial food varieties and letting "heirloom varieties" disappear. those genetics could prove useful if not downright necessary when conditions change a bit. let's say you live in brisbane with pasty white skin like me, i'm not in the environment my genetics evolved in and the chance of skin cancer is very very high. these are all pretty basic concepts.

natural selection will catch up with us, i reckon, even if it has throttled down for now. that's the process of evolution, first creation or diversification, then destruction when natural selection defines which genetics will continue and which genetics just went extinct. who will lose out? it's impossible to say because we don't know which filter is going to be applied (i doubt dinosaurs thought much of the little hairballs that were appearing during their several hundred million year, warm, sunny reign). for now survival and reproduction are practically your right, rather than being a privilege. it can't stay that way forever.

[GingaNinja]

dworx, do you actually beleive that article "Equality: Man's Most Dangerous Myth"?

dont forget the guidelines under which these stupid "studies" are being done are created by the same people that happen to come out on top.

they use "data" from 1932 ffs. Those "studies" have been proven to be a big smelly turd. It was used to justify colonialism and spread racist ideals. The smallest ever recorded brain of a black person was used and compared against the largest ever brain recorded for white people. With that methodology any outcome can be found.

im baffled that people can actually still entertain those ideas

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm a bit baph'led too.

:chinscratch: