Also, the thing is, we treat different animals different. One would not try to plow with a duck or ride on a wulrus. Does presence of a difference not require difference of treatment?
Animals are treated differently because of physical or intellectual differences. You plow with oxen because they are stronger than other animals. You herd sheep with a Border Collie because it's smarter than other dogs.
Humans are indeed physically and mentally different, but those differences aren't race-based. You've got smart whites, you have smart blacks. There are strong Hispanics and strong Asians. The differences among humans are not enough to warrant much different treatment. We are all the same in a physical sense. I suppose I can concede your point if you're arguing from a cultural standpoint, but I somehow doubt that you are.
But those differences are due to varying development of different races a long time ago, not inherent genetics or whatever.
Well, development over a long period of time is what makes genetic diversity. Also, the thing is, we treat different animals different. One would not try to plow with a duck or ride on a wulrus. Does presence of a difference not require difference of treatment?
quote:
So it's none of that race superiority bullshit you are speaking about.
I am not supremacist. One race is no more superior than another race because of the society it creates. But races are different, and those differences need to be respected. White society has historically had much more violence and bloodshed on much greater scale than Blacks, but that does not change the fact that RIGHT NOW, blacks are partial to crime.
quote:
The first Homo Sapiens came to be in Africa. Having lived for so long next to animals it encouraged "microbes causing disease in animals to cross species lines to evolve into human disease
The part you mentioned about farming was actually quite a interesting point. But the microbes stuff is silly. As I remember 1/3 of Europe was wiped out by the bubonic plague. Europeans have not been less affected by disease than Africans. In fact, when the Euros colonised various countries, the natives suffered greatly from the diseases they brought with them, showing Euro diseases were at least as bad. Also note that Euros developed medicine to stop these diseases.
quote:
you're taking what I said out of context
I doubt it. If you want to, go back and look at the context.
And why didn't the white man just stick with this, hmm? Was it perhaps, that we are (shock horror) different?
Europeans have been industrialized and "civilized" for a very, very long time. Peoples in other parts of the world (Africa, Australasia, natives of North and South America) developed differently. I'd know more about that if I had stuck with reading Guns, Germs, and Steel (as Maya mentioned with the Jared Diamond reference).
Also, I don't recall ever saying straight out that we're all the same. I believe I was saying that people shouldn't be treated any differently due to their race, skin color, etc. Of course we're different. But those differences are due to varying development of different races a long time ago, not inherent genetics or whatever.
sorry for the double post. Here are the key points of the article that you apparently didn't read RaceDriver.
Basically what the article was getting at is that geography and history can explain a lot about Africa's situation today. Do to Africa's north-south orientation it took thousands of years more for Africa to develop agriculture than Europe or Asia. because "crops and livestock tend to spread much more slowly from north to south than from east to west, because different latitudes require adaptation to different climates, seasonalities, and diseases". The author is trying to point out that this has nothing to do with the Africans but with Africa's geography. So it's none of that race superiority bullshit you are speaking about.
The other important point Jared Diamond makes is about diseases: The first Homo Sapiens came to be in Africa. Having lived for so long next to animals it encouraged "microbes causing disease in animals to cross species lines to evolve into human disease(...)For a microbe already adapted to a species to adapt to another can take a lot of time, and more time has been available in Africa than in any other part of the planet(...)That's half the answer to Africa's disease burden, the other half is that the animal species most closely related to humans(those who's microbes require less adaptation to jump species) are the African great apes and monkeys."
quote:
Are you stupid?
quote:
Booorrrring. Your not giving yourself enough time to comprehend what I say (a requirement which im afraid, is probably a very long time), so your blurting out things in anger.
you're taking what I said out of context, re-read what I was responding to, reflect, and then answer me.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
I don't profess to know exactly how African states transformed from European colonies to war-mongering nations
Aside from what's already been mentioned about the struggle for resources, etc. etc. here's some interesting facts to consider:
quote:
Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 to Divide Africa In 1884 at the request of Portugal, German chancellor Otto von Bismark called together the major western powers of the world to negotiate questions and end confusion over the control of Africa.
divided Africa into fifty irregular countries. This new map of the continent was superimposed over the one thousand indigenous cultures and regions of Africa. The new countries lacked rhyme or reason and divided coherent groups of people and merged together disparate groups who really did not get along. At the time of the conference, only the coastal areas of Africa were colonized by the European powers. At the Berlin Conference the European colonial powers scrambled to gain control over the interior of the continent. The conference lasted until February 26, 1885 - a three month period where colonial powers haggled over geometric boundaries in the interior of the continent, disregarding the cultural and linguistic boundaries already established by the indigenous African population.
OK, if your going to start text-chucking then im out. I don't have the time. I read over that (unbelievably), but as it was mere copy-paste (maybe you have to rely on others intellect, I don't know) it was not specific enough to this discussion.
quote:
First off, what quality of life did Africans have in South Africa? Yeah they lived like kings right?
You must read too fast. They had a higher quality of life than the other black africans.
quote:
Would you care to explain these to me?
You don't need it explaining to you that Dalmations are different to Golden retrievers.
quote:
Are you stupid?
Booorrrring. Your not giving yourself enough time to comprehend what I say (a requirement which im afraid, is probably a very long time), so your blurting out things in anger.
quote:
Africa became a continent of peripheral nations dependent on the core nations of Europe.
But, not the other way round. Your insistent on believing we are all the same, and to hell with the reality.
quote:
They got everything they needed for the land around them.
And why didn't the white man just stick with this, hmm? Was it perhaps, that we are (shock horror) different?
quote:
I don't profess to know exactly how African states transformed from European colonies to war-mongering nations
Just to put some ideas out there, the Blacks did not create the tools of war they use. The whites spent thousands of years developing them in complement with their society. People are equal if they are equal, and not otherwise. Respect that they are different.
Another interesting point worth mentioning is the exterior debt held by many african nationss. As you probably know one of he main impediments towards development in third world country's are the huge owings of these country's. The upper estament of society, wich is usually composed of the military and a few select business men, has allways been eager to bolster personal fortune through projects that use national development as a pretext for demanding huge loans to international funding programs(the world bank and the IMF). Typically the government will contract engineering and consulting corporations(Halliburton and Bechtel are good examples) to make economic growth estimates, and design infrastructure construction projects that go accordingly with them. These estimates are invariably largely exagerated, thus countrys demand oversized loans to fund the projects, and doing so incurr in huge debt wich their projected economic growth will be unable to pay off. This is also the way the united states has managed to hold so much influence on the rest of the world in economic terms, through debt.
And yes, a sociologist would say this is exactly why black people hold hatred towards others and are more prone to crime, because we have made them miserable, and destroyed their culture.
I suppose the reason you will give for blacks being more impoverished than whites is because they are done down to by the whites.
I'm sure Maya gave a more in-depth answer, but mine would be this: Africa became a continent of peripheral nations dependent on the core nations of Europe. Basic dependency theory.
Now, the poverty of African nations is not due to white oppression. It is more due to one of two things: major reduction of resources by European powers, and overly strong militaries in developing African states. Pre-colonial Africans were not impoverished because poverty didn't exist as a concept for them. They got everything they needed for the land around them. Money didn't exist. Capitalism was as foreign to them as gunpowder. They may have been materially poor, but material goods were something they didn't need.
Under European rule, they were introduced to material goods. European influence essentially corrupted many of the tribes as they were forcibly "civilized" through baptism and other such culture-destroying methods the Europeans employed. Indeed, under the colonial powers, the Africans were "better off" materially than independent Africans, but not better off in any other sense.
I don't profess to know exactly how African states transformed from European colonies to war-mongering nations, but I do know the current poverty in Africa is a direct result of militaristic African states. In normal state development, the government comes first, establishes a small military to defend itself, and then creates an economy to sustain the government and military. Democracy may or may not follow based on a variety of circumstances I won't go into. In Africa, however, the military grew too fast. Undoubtedly, the people didn't want to risk colonization again, so they bolstered their military to prevent any incursions by other nations. Unfortunately, the quick military build-up resulted in a weak government, which was quickly overpowered by the military. The same thing happened in Japan immediately prior to World War II.
A military-controlled government is inherently corrupt, and so the leaders of African countries exploited the economies to bring more personal gain, completely ignoring the needs of their people. It's a rather basic view of the situation, but I don't want to get too in-depth on an only slightly related subject.
No doubt, a sociologist would say that this historical context most likely resulted in slaves, and thus modern blacks, being more prone to violence. But a sociologist I am not.
Originally posted by RaceDriver205: Yes, but none of that changes the fact that blacks tend to crime far more strongly than whites. Giving a reason why it is does not change that fact.
Are you stupid?
quote:
I suppose the reason you will give for blacks being more impoverished than whites is because they are done down to by the whites. It is not true. Is it really just a coincidence that Europe ended up rich, while lower africa remained poor (until euros settled)? Africa is rich with resources, arable farming land, but yet poverty until whites arrived? Do you forget, that under white rule, Blacks in south africa had less quality of life than the whites, but greater quality of life than blacks in the rest of Africa?
First off, what quality of life did Africans have in South Africa? Yeah they lived like kings right? Here's an article published in the National Geographic that you should read, by Jared Diamond.
quote:
Ask someone to tell you quickly what they associate with Africa, and the answers you'll get will probably range from "cradle of humankind" and "big animals" to "poverty" and "tribalism." How did one continent come to embody such extremes?
Geography and history go a long way toward providing the explanations. Geographically, Africa resembles a bulging sandwich. The sole continent to span both the north and south temperate zones, it has a thick tropical core lying between one thin temperate zone in the north and another in the south. That simple geographic reality explains a great deal about Africa today.
As to its human history, this is the place where some seven million years ago the evolutionary lines of apes and protohumans diverged. It remained the only continent our ancestors inhabited until around two million years ago, when Homo erectus expanded out of Africa into Europe and Asia. Over the next 1.5 million years the populations of those three continents followed such different evolutionary courses that they became distinct species. Europe's became the Neandertals, Asia's remained Homo erectus, but Africa's evolved into our own species, Homo sapiens. Sometime between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago our African ancestors underwent some further profound change. Whether it was the development of complex speech or something else, such as a change in brain wiring, we aren't sure. Whatever it was, it transformed those early Homo sapiens into what paleoanthropologists call "behaviorally modern" Homo sapiens. Those people, probably with brains similar to our own, expanded again into Europe and Asia. Once there, they exterminated or replaced or interbred with Neandertals and Asia's hominins and became the dominant human species throughout the world.
In effect, Africans enjoyed not just one but three huge head starts over humans on other continents. That makes Africa's economic struggles today, compared with the successes of other continents, particularly puzzling. It's the opposite of what one would expect from the runner first off the block. Here again geography and history give us answers.
It turns out that the rules of the competitive race among the world's humans changed radically about 10,000 years ago, with the origins of agriculture. The domestication of wild plants and animals meant our ancestors could grow their own food instead of having to hunt or gather it in the wild. That allowed people to settle in permanent villages, to increase their populations, and to feed specialists—inventors, soldiers, and kings—who did not produce food. With domestication came other advances, including the first metal tools, writing, and state societies. The problem is that only a tiny minority of wild plants and animals lend themselves to domestication, and those few are concentrated in about half a dozen parts of the world. As every schoolchild learns, the world's earliest and most productive farming arose in the Fertile Crescent of southwestern Asia, where wheat, barley, sheep, cattle, and goats were domesticated.While those plants and animals spread east and west in Eurasia, in Africa they were stopped by the continent's north-south orientation. Crops and livestock tend to spread much more slowly from north to south than from east to west, because different latitudes require adaptation to different climates, seasonalities, day lengths, and diseases. Africa's own native plant species—sorghum, oil palm, coffee, millets, and yams—weren't domesticated until thousands of years after Asia and Europe had agriculture. And Africa's geography kept oil palm, yams, and other crops of equatorial Africa from spreading into southern Africa's temperate zone. While South Africa today boasts the continent's richest agricultural lands, the crops grown there are mostly northern temperate crops, such as wheat and grapes, brought directly on ships by European colonists. Those same crops never succeeded in spreading south through the thick tropical core of Africa. The domesticated sheep and cattle of Fertile Crescent origins took about 5,000 years to spread from the Mediterranean down to the southern tip of Africa. The continent's own native animals—with the exception of guinea fowl and possibly donkeys and one breed of cattle—proved impossible to domesticate. History might have turned out differently if African armies, fed by barnyard-giraffe meat and backed by waves of cavalry mounted on huge rhinos, had swept into Europe to overrun its mutton-fed soldiers mounted on puny horses. That this didn't happen was no fault of the Africans; it was because of the kinds of wild animals available to them. Ironically, the long human presence in Africa is probably the reason the continent's species of big animals survive today. African animals co-evolved with humans for millions of years, as human hunting prowess gradually progressed from the rudimentary skills of our early ancestors. That gave the animals time to learn a healthy fear of man, and with it a healthy avoidance of human hunters. In contrast, North and South America and Australia were settled by humans only within the last tens of thousands of years. To the misfortune of the big animals of those continents, the first humans they encountered were already fully modern people, with modern brains and hunting skills. Most of those animals—woolly mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and in Australia marsupials as big as rhinoceroses—disappeared soon after humans arrived. Entire species may have been exterminated before they had time to learn to beware of hunters.
Unfortunately the long human presence in Africa also encouraged something else to thrive—diseases. The continent has a well-deserved reputation for having spawned some of our nastiest ones: malaria, yellow fever, East African sleeping sickness, and AIDS. These and many other human illnesses arose when microbes causing disease in animals crossed species lines to evolve into a human disease.For a microbe already adapted to one species to adapt to another can be difficult and require a lot of evolutionary time. Much more time has been available in Africa, cradle of humankind, than in any other part of the planet. That's half the answer to Africa's disease burden; the other half is that the animal species most closely related to humans—those whose microbes required the least adaptation to jump species—are the African great apes and monkeys.
Africa continues to be shaped in other ways by its long history and its geography. Of mainland Africa's ten richest countries—the only ones with annual per capita gross domestic products over $3,500—nine lie partly or entirely within its temperate zones: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco in the north; and Swaziland, South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia in the south. Gabon is Africa's only tropical country to make the list. In addition, nearly a third of the countries of mainland Africa (15 out of 47) are landlocked, and the only African river navigable from the ocean for long distances inland is the Nile. Since waterways provide the cheapest way to transport cumbersome goods, geography again thwarts Africa's progress.
All these factors can lead to the question: Is the continent, or at least its big tropical core, doomed eternally to wars, poverty, and devastating diseases? I'd answer: Absolutely not. On my own visits to Africa, I've been struck by how harmoniously ethnic groups live together in many countries—far better than they do in many other parts of the globe. Tensions arise in Africa, as they do elsewhere, when people see no other way out of poverty except to fight their neighbors for dwindling resources. But many areas of Africa have an abundance of resources: The rivers of central Africa are great generators of hydroelectric power; the big animals are a major source of ecotourism revenue in eastern and southern Africa; and the forests in the wetter regions, if managed and logged sustainably, would be renewable and lucrative sources of income.
As for Africa's health problems, they can be greatly alleviated with the right planning and funding. Within the past half century several formerly poor countries in Asia recognized that tropical diseases were a major drain on their economies. By investing in public health measures, they have successfully curbed those diseases, and the increased health of their people has led to far healthier economies. Within Africa itself, some international mining and oil companies have been funding successful public health programs throughout their concession areas because they realized that protecting the health of their workers was an excellent business investment for them.
What's the best case for Africa's future? If the continent can overcome its health problems and the corruption that plagues many of its governments and institutions, then it could take advantage of today's globalized, technological world in much the same way that China and India are now doing. Technology could give Africa the connections that its geography, particularly its rivers, long denied it. Nearly half of all African countries are English speaking, an advantage in trade relations, and an educated, English-speaking workforce could well attract service jobs to many African countries.
If Africa is to head into a bright future, outside investment will continue to be needed, at least for a time. The cost of perpetual aid to or military intervention in Africa is thousands of times more expensive than solving health problems and supporting local development, thereby heading off conflicts. Not only Africans but the rest of us will be healthier and safer if Africa's nations increasingly take their places as peaceful and prospering members of the world community.
source Granted, the article doesn't explain everything, I still have some questions about it, but it does get you to think.
quote:
You need to respect racial differences, and not pretend we are all the same.
Would you care to explain these to me?
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
Yes, but none of that changes the fact that blacks tend to crime far more strongly than whites. Giving a reason why it is does not change that fact. Those historical notable cases you speak of I have not heard of. I am talking about the way things are now, which is cetainly the most important. If we are only to worry about serial killers, than yes, we should assume if we are looking for a serial killer that he is white. That is correct. But note serial killers are incredibly rare as opposed to other criminals (plain murders, theives etc) as a whole.
Remember that South Africa is now under Black Marxist rule, with every effort made to give the blacks what the whites had.
Blacks ARE more likely to shoot people than whites are. They're situation does not change this fact, it merely gives a possible reason.
I suppose the reason you will give for blacks being more impoverished than whites is because they are done down to by the whites. It is not true. Is it really just a coincidence that Europe ended up rich, while lower africa remained poor (until euros settled)? Africa is rich with resources, arable farming land, but yet poverty until whites arrived? Do you forget, that under white rule, Blacks in south africa had less quality of life than the whites, but greater quality of life than blacks in the rest of Africa?
You need to respect racial differences, and not pretend we are all the same.
Sorry for the double post, but YN wouldn't let me edit (as usual).
I was going to add that if you were to look at serial killers, you would think only whites can be psychopaths. I can't think of one notable black serial killer. In fact, they all seem to have been middle-aged white males. Gary Ridgway, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein... Heck, even people like the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh were white.
If blacks are so prone to violence, why have the only notable acts of violence caused by blacks been riots caused by unfair action by white authorities against blacks, such as the 1992 riots in LA as a result of the Rodney King beating or the riots in Detroit in 1943, where police sympathized with white rioters and shot only black? Where are the blacks shooting up city hall and blowing up buildings? It would seem from a certain standpoint that whites are the more violent ones.
Could it be that places like Detroit and South Africa have high murder rates...because they're poor? Poverty and crime are very much intertwined. If you can't get something legitimately, you're going to get it illegally. As in with a handgun and some pantyhose on your head.
Blacks are no more likely to shoot people than whites are. It's not a matter of race; it's matter of situation. There is no genetic code that says white people will always be legit and black people will sell crack cocaine the first chance they get. Put people of both skin colors in poverty and I guarantee you they both will have an equal chance of turning to crime to make ends meet.
Does it make us safer? no is it accurate? statistically yes, shitty but true
An inconvenient truth. Its is inconvenient in an age when a new Race Doctrine is being pushed, that: South africa, overwhelmingly majority black, is a complete shite-hole, with 20000 murders a year (after government fiddles the figures, and ignoring the ones that go unreported). It is No.1 for Rape in the world, and No.1 for murder by firearm. It is also inconvenient, that Detroit exists, what with the overwhelmingly black population, and the title as the most murderous city in America.
But of course, Black men and White men are exactly the same, we are all equal comrades, and we will destroy the capital... er I mean the RACISTS, which say otherwise.
Racial profiling won't make people safer .. It will provide a better disguise and opportunity for those who are less targeted by the cops to commit crimes ..
Topics 
