Are all races equal?

[Sandman]

I bet that White people if they would be set in America, they would create the same type of organization, and they would have more advanced civilization then Aztecs.

Europe had a headstart of several thousand years, a far better supply of domesticated plants and animals, much better trade links with the rest of the Eastern hemisphere, and far more diseases. Race simply does not come into it.

If Islamic civilization would be better organized, and adopted so fast as European to the reality they would then easly conquer Europe. But they did not, because of racial superiority of Europeans.

They grabbed the Balkans and Iberia. Were the Muslims therefore racially superior to the Greeks, Iberians and Balkan groups?

[Ben Kenobi]

And of course it is true that if the best people from different races are from year to year, generation to generation gaining different results (one inferior, one superior) then we can say that typical Blackman is far more faster then Whiteman.

Luk,
What's your sample size? Olympian runners? Not very large, or representative of black people as a whole.

Do you have a source for your testosterone mechanism? Why does increased testosterone help with short distance running, and to what extent?

Your reasoning was used earlier by white people to claim the superiority of whites. This is why I am so suspicious about innate racial claims.

What if things change later, and blacks become a minority in the 100 metre sprint? Will the model then be gauged a failure?

[Master Zen]

Luk:

You are confusing race with culture in a way which totally invalidates the "facts" you give to support your, shall I say INCORRECT thesis.

Read a little economic history, I suggest David Landes' The Wealth And Poverty of Nations to appreciate a little better the true reasons why the west is "superior" at this moment. Also think about it, the west's superiority has been evident in the last 500 years of history, considering the written history of the world goes back to 4,000 BC that's a fraction of all time.

I do think that, like Samuel Huntington said, that Culture Matters (read it too). If you were to take a newborn child of a different race and raise him as part of the culture of the "new" race, he will end up exactly with the same values and atitudes of his new culture (allowing of course that the new culture treats him as equal).

This of course must happen in a controlled environment. Asians are good at math because their primary schools are excellent and they are heavily drilled in the subject. Still, they are good at math outside of Asia, because much of that culture remains in familiy education which is just as demanding wherever they may settle. I bet that asian kids raised by another culture will not have this math advantage so evident.

With respect to white and black's athletic abilites, as I said there are slight biological differences between races, blacks are better athletes at some sports, just as whites are more likely to get skin cancer. These, however are minimal and are not enough reason to truly believe races are that much different.

In conclusion, good for you to be proud of your "race" as if you somehow did something to earn it (don't mention Michael Jackson). I'm happy at being a Latin American, I'm happy to be able to dance and party better than any other race in the world, happy that our women are F-I-N-E, screw world domination, just pass me another tequila! And if you were my adopted brother you'd feel the same way too...

[MrFun]

I think that people with dark brown hair make the best athletes.

[Master Zen]

I have also yet to meet an truly intelligent blond woman. Really!

Coincidence or race issue? You tell me...

[Zero]

It is proven, that genetically Blacks has better abilities to Athletics, specially long distances, org sprint. It is proven by official science. We can not easly determine how races are different in psychical aspects, because after WWII this element of science were almost banned...

Somebody needs to retake Sociology

[MrFun]

I think we should segregate people based on hair color.

People of different hair colors are just too different to get along very well.

[Zero]

people with green hair wont hav so much support then...

[Master Zen]

Luk:

This is just me, but I think you have a MAJOR inferiorty complex. Perhaps the fact that the Nazi's wanted to use your country for slave labour gave you that chip on your shoulder.

Anyway, you'd have been a prime candidate for a polish SS division if there had ever been one. Sadly (for you), I bet the grand majority of your countrymen and "racemen" are smart enough to think differently.

One final example to make my point. Again I shall use the Argentinian example (people who have read my other posts in other threads must think I have a thing against Argentina since I usually use the country as an example for bad things. Not the case, Argentinians are wonderful people and if I say these things it is only because I believe their country deserves MUCH better). Anyway, Argentina is made overwhelmingly by direct decsendents of white people, mostly Spanish, Italian and German. Over 80% or 90% of the population is White. Same thing with Uruguay. Still, they act like latins, do the same mistakes as other latin countries which are made up of a higher proportion of indians or blacks. Does race matter then? Nope.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Luk
God!

Thank you for the attribution, but I'm "cavebear", not "God".

Your speech about geography did not prove anything. Of course geography is a one of things which determine is civilization going to be superpower, but not the only one. The horses. There is many other possibilities to transport things from place to place, wiothout horses. It is not said that only horses do that! And the most important is to start use the disadvantage as advantage.

You didn't comprehend a single thing I said, did you? Sad.

Concerning horses... Horses are only one domesticated animal capable of carrying burdens and transporting goods. The point was that there are few other animals equally capable. The horse was symbolic. In most areas of the world, there are *not* animals suitable for domestication for that purpose, and in those areas, early civilizations did not arise. Later, as domesticated horses spread (that east/west thing again), people who had no native domesticatable beast of burden were able to adopt horses and raise them for themselves. But they weren't the first and they were always behind the civs that originally had horses to domesticate. The civs with the most easily domesticatable animals, be they horses or cattle or whatever, had the initial advantages.

"And the most important is to start use the disadvantage as advantage." I'm going to hope you blush with embarrassment when you think about that statement of your's. The whole *point* of the example is that advantages are what determine which civs arose in the first place. A disadvantage isn't an advantage!

The geography is not ideal, all civilizations had a problems, and had a opportunities, but only specific civs tried to overcome this geographical problems, and solve them. The main problem of every civilization was the organization of the State. Organization of the state is the result of the culture, which is created by people in this civilization. Civs before Greeks had better possibilities to organize and create strong countries, and strong culture, and good social system in the society, but they did not.

No! All civs tried to overcome problems, but some had better opportunities than others to overcome them. It isn't that some civs failed to solve problems, it is that some civs solved problems better than other civs solved problems because of local advantages! Can you seriously think that the Incas didn't *try* to solve transport problems just because they didn't have a good domesticatable beast of burden? Of *course* they tried. They just did have a solution that worked.

And people before the Greeks *did* create successful civilizations, but because they had suitable domesticatable plants and animals (wheat, pea, olive, sheep, goats).

Your text is based upon todays reality, and it is based on the hypothese that history had to be as it be. Nope, it is not. I bet that White people if they would be set in America, they would create the same type of organization, and they would have more advanced civilization then Aztecs. Because not the sources, food etc. determines that civilization if great or not, but the ideas, culture, organization, the ability to adpot many things, the social sphere of living people, the communications, etc. etc. so it is in most the abstract things. More of this things are based upon physicaly abilities of man.

On the contrary, my explanations are based on the situations of the past (which are equally true today, though). History is as it was for reasons, not happenstance and not racial superiority. Speaking of that, would you have it that all non-white races were once superior but later devolved? The first great civs were Chinese and African. LOL! Have you in mind a mechanism for explaining why non-white civs were once superior and are not now that requires that white civs will not be inferior in the future?

I thought not...

More bad news... The Native Americans spring from the same stock as the Europeans. Same Central Asian ancestors. If the Cro-magnons had colonized the Americas instead of their relatives from Central Asia, the results would have been the same. 20,000 years ago, people were pretty much all alike. The Americas would have offerred the same paucity of domesticatable animals and plants to ancient Europeans that it did to the colonizing Native Americans. Even the stone tools would have been about the same except for minor decorative differences. Neither would have have had any suitable domesticatable animals, so neither would have used the wheel, and both would have been limited to the same plants to domesticate.

The fall of Rome is not based on support of Gales in food

It *is* (based on food) more than you seem to be able to understand. Abundant food supplies mean social security and the ability to have some members of the group become artisans and other specialists. Artisans and specialists create new technologies. New technologies create new opportunities to exploit the resources of the area. Exploitations means that you have bronze weapons when your enemies have stone ones or that you have iron ewhen they have bronze. Etc. Abundant food becomes weapons and more people to weild them. In addition, division of labor through organized food collection leads to more organized fighters, and that leads to military success.

Europe civilization not suceed after Rome Collapse because they had natural resources not available nowhere, but because they managed to organize their countries, and their society in that way, that they won the war with Islamic civilization, which was obiectivly many more stronger then Europeans. If Islamic civilization would be better organized, and adopted so fast as European to the reality they would then easly conquer Europe. But they did not, because of racial superiority of Europeans.

Arounf what do you think countries organized? They organized arounf natural resources because that is what allowed them to resist the attacks of their neighbors. The Europeans won their war against the Moslems because the Moslems were approaching through material-poor areas and had a weak technology. I'm not saying the Europeans weren't brave, fighters, but the Moslems were too and they lost because they had insufficient material support through Northern Africa.

By the time of the Moslem expansion, the Middle East no longer hads the resources to support such an expansion. What was once forested land was desert. I might also add that when the Moslems attacked Europe they faced a growing population that could replace its losses. The Moslems could not.

Asians are better in IQ tests from White, so it proves that Asians are better in mathematic, logical inteligence. You can not learn this tests, and maths in Europe are far more advanced then in Asia.

Again, you confuse education and focus with intelligence. People of all races that are brought together under the same teaching conditions and social/family expectations do about equally well. The failures are more cultural than racial.

It is proven, that genetically Blacks has better abilities to Athletics, specially long distances, org sprint. It is proven by official science. We can not easly determine how races are different in psychical aspects, because after WWII this element of science were almost banned...

Proven? Really? Please offer such proof. In fact, I *demand* that you present proof. Your contention is beyond belief without evidence.

You did not as you see prove that Europeans had a better natural possibilities to create such a wonderfull civilization, you did not prove how natural resources affect the culture, organization etc. As I said, long before Europeans civilization there were great other civilizations, which died quickly because they did not culture evolved. Only European civilization evolved all stadiums of organizations of countries. From democracy, to republic, the monarchy, absolutism, etc. etc. etc. etc. We were always developing something... And it is not based fo sure on fact, that we had more food then other, and that we had horse. It is so stupid, and nonsense and it proves me the fact that you try to prove that sun is not shining, because you are afraid that if sun is shining people will be 24h/day on sun, and sunshine will kill them by the skincancer. it the same that people now think that if we prove that races are different the people all start to be fascist.

Wow. I think the bizareness of the above paragraph speaks for itself. In any case, I can make no sense out of it.

Of course race are not closed totally, it is not North Korea There are mixing, but generaly the types of the specific races are dominating at most of people . The races, had subraces, and we can start to think, is blondhair people different from dark-hair people. I think there is a difference, but the difference is deeper, then only a hairs... But deffinintly, the humanity is divided into races, and after this the race is divided to subraces. The people from the same race are different each other, but less then from people from other race.

You are from a different planet than I inhabit... Congratulations, you are a raging racist.

I feel a need to go wash my hands after sharing a keyboard with such bigotry.

[Zero]

first im gonna grab this 100th post then edit it later.

Dammit, I read that long@$$ post by cavebear and I cant think of anything to reply to. However I will say this:

Cavebear you shouldhave saved time by just reiterating what I said = Someone really needs to retake sociology again...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Calc II
first im gonna grab this 100th post then edit it later.

hahahaha

then i'm gonna grab www.calcii.com like a true web-squatter and you'll have to sue me when you're famous... :P

just kidding.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by raguil_79
I have also yet to meet an truly intelligent blond woman. Really!

Coincidence or race issue? You tell me...

Maybe you just don't think of them as intelligent. Maybe their teachers didn't either.

[mindseye]

External appearances and physical abilities are obviously not "equal", so I don't know why anything else has to be.

I'm sure in general all races are quite similar, although I'd be shocked if they were exactly the same in every aspect, including "intelligence" (whatever that means).

[Master Zen]

I agree that intelligence is too vague a term to be accurately measured scientifically. Plus, being an "internal" function of the body, it would be like saying that one race digests food better than another.

And now that I remember, I did know a very intelligent, and very blond woman...