NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw other posters mention this. So here we go. :D A few choice passages that I was able to find.




The Inequality of Human Races (1855)

By Count Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau.
French diplomat, writer, ethnologist, and social thinker.

The negroid variety is the lowest, and stands at the foot of the ladder. The animal character, that appears in the shape of the pelvis, is stamped on the negro from birth, foreshadowing his destiny. His intellect will always move within a very narrow circle. He is not however a mere brute, for behind his low receding brow, in the middle of his skull, we can see signs of a powerful energy, however crude its objects. If his mental faculties are dull or even non-existent, he often has an intensity of desire, and so of will, which may be called terrible. Many of his senses, especially taste and smell, are developed to an extent unknown to the other two races.

The very strength of his sensations is the most striking proof of his inferiority. All food is good in his eyes, nothing disgusts or repels him. What he desires is to eat, to eat furiously, and to excess; no carrion is too revolting to be swallowed by him. It is the same with odours; his inordinate desires are satisfied with all, however coarse or even horrible. To these qualities may be added an instability and capriciousness of feelings, that cannot be tied down to any single object, and which, so far as he is concerned, do away with all distinctions of good and evil. We might even say that the violence with which he pursues the object that has aroused his senses and inflamed his desire is a guarantee of the desires being soon satisfied and the object forgotten. Finally, he is equally careless of his own life and the life of others; he kills willing, for the sake of killing; and this human machine, it whom it is so easy to arouse emotion, shows in the face of suffering, either a monstrous indifference or a cowardice that seeks a voluntary refuge in death.


The yellow race is the exact opposite of this type. The skull points forward, not backward. The forehead is wide and bony, often high and projecting. The shape of the face is triangular, the nose and chin showing none of the coarse protuberances that mark the negro. There is further a general proneness to obesity which, though not confined to the yellow type, is found there more frequently than in others. The yellow man has little physical energy, and is inclined to apathy; he commits none of the strange excesses so common among negroes. His desires are feeble, his will-power rather obstinate than violent; his longing for material pleasures, though constant, is kept within bounds. A rare glutton by nature, he shows far more discrimination in his choice of food. He tends to mediocrity in everything, he understands easily enough anything not too deep or sublime. He has a love of utility and a respect for order, and knows the value of a certain amount of freedom. He is practical, in the narrowest sense of the word. He does not dream or theorize; he invents little, but can appreciate and take over what is useful to him. His whole desire is to live in the easiest and most comfortable way possible. The yellow races are thus clearly superior to the black. Every founder of a civilization would wish the backbone of his society, his middle class, to consist of such men. But on civilized society could be created by them; they could not supply its nerve-force, or set in the motion the springs of beauty and action.



We come now to the white peoples. These are gifted with reflective energy, or rather with an energetic intelligence. They have a feeling of utility, but in a sense far wider and higher, more courageous and ideal, than the yellow races, a perseverance that takes account of obstacles and ultimately finds a means of overcoming them; a greater physical power of extraordinary instinct for order, not merely a guarantee of peace and tranquility, but as an indispensable means of self-preservation. At the same time, they have a remarkable, and even extreme love of liberty, and are openly hostile to the formalism under which the Chinese are glad to vegetate, as well as to the strict despotism which is the only way of governing the negro.

The white races are, further, distinguished by an extraordinary attachment to life. They know better how to use it, and so, as it would seem, set a greater price on it; both in their own persons and those of others, they are more sparing of life. When they are cruel, they are conscious of their cruelty; it is very doubtful whether such a consciousness exists in the negro. At the same time, they have discovered reasons why they would surrender this busy life of theirs, that is so precious to them. The principal motive is honour, which under various names has played an enormous part in the ideals of the race from the beginning. I need hardly add that the word honour, together with all the civilizing influences connoted by it, is unknown to both the yellow and the black man.

Sounds like someone was a racist.

1855. Scrapping at the bottom of the barrel are we?

Oh wow. You attempt to prove a racist ideology by, surprise surprise, QUOTING racist ideology. Bravo! Quite a magnificent arguing process you have there. Let me have a go at it:

"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."
Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2000
Louis Farrakahn

Hey look, I just proved that white people are inferior! Go me!

That post says nothing about the other races. How did you prove white people are inferior? And what did you prove they were inferior to?

Sigh... read between the lines, will you? That was a prescriptive statement by a known black supremacist. If someone like that makes a statement that white people are unevolved, he makes the unspoken statement that the reverse is true about black people, hence making black people superior to white people. Why do I have to spell everything out all the time.

We don't need to go back to 1855 to prove the inequality of the human races. At least in regard to blacks, who really are, in my opinion, the true untermensche.

Actually, it's not just my opinion. We all tend to ignore the fact that blacks have lower IQ's by far than any other group, that even the beneficiaries of affirmative action whose children are raised in comfortable middle class homes still have average IQ's way below those of anyone else.

Liberals/leftists and even conservatives tend to disregard this by saying IQ tests prove nothing, or are biased towards whites because whites invented them. This doesn't explain why the Japanese and the Chinese and the Koreans and the Indians now outscore whites in IQ tests. Or why blacks, on average, do so poorly in high school and college compared to everyone else. Liberals mumble incoherently about "institutional racism" to explain this, when in fact white racism in the US is at an all time low. It's truly sad, that people are so misguided to believe in racial equality. But times will change!!!

Sigh... read between the lines, will you? That was a prescriptive statement by a known black supremacist. If someone like that makes a statement that white people are unevolved, he makes the unspoken statement that the reverse is true about black people, hence making black people superior to white people. Why do I have to spell everything out all the time.
...I understand how the rest could be infered, and I'm not saying I didn't understand the point you failed to make. I was just pointing out that what you quoted proves nothing.

We don't need to go back to 1855 to prove the inequality of the human races. At least in regard to blacks, who really are, in my opinion, the true untermensche.

Actually, it's not just my opinion. We all tend to ignore the fact that blacks have lower IQ's by far than any other group, that even the beneficiaries of affirmative action whose children are raised in comfortable middle class homes still have average IQ's way below those of anyone else.

Liberals/leftists and even conservatives tend to disregard this by saying IQ tests prove nothing, or are biased towards whites because whites invented them. This doesn't explain why the Japanese and the Chinese and the Koreans and the Indians now outscore whites in IQ tests. Or why blacks, on average, do so poorly in high school and college compared to everyone else. Liberals mumble incoherently about "institutional racism" to explain this, when in fact white racism in the US is at an all time low. It's truly sad, that people are so misguided to believe in racial equality. But times will change!!!


Yeah, you'll stop singing songs from the Wizard of Oz.

"If I only had a brain..."




Seriously though, you haven't provided any sources or proof for your post. Please do so. If you can.

...I understand how the rest could be infered, and I'm not saying I didn't understand the point you failed to make. I was just pointing out that what you quoted proves nothing.

You did read my post, right? I did make it fairly obvious that I was being sarcastic. His post proved nothing, and neither did mine. That was the point.

But times will change!!!

Yes siree. We've got to work for the change though. Remember, we're the army of God.

You did read my post, right? I did make it fairly obvious that I was being sarcastic. His post proved nothing, and neither did mine. That was the point.
You were comparing it to the first quote, which attempts showing how one race is inferior to another. Your quote is just a statement out of the blue about a single race. You suck at sarcasm.

Yes siree. We've got to work for the change though. Remember, we're the army of God.

Which one?

Last time I heard that, it was in relation to these towers...

Yeah, you'll stop singing songs from the Wizard of Oz.

"If I only had a brain..."




Seriously though, you haven't provided any sources or proof for your post. Please do so. If you can.

Well, you can read The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray, which talks extensively about the racial distribution of IQ, and how blacks are the most likely to have inferior average IQ's and academic achievement the world over. Or you can try "The IQ argument: race, intelligence, and education", By Hans Eysenck. Or there's "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen". I can give you a whole list of books that discuss racial inequality, but it'd take me a while to remember all the titles. And these are books you can find on Amazon, recently written, and by respected academics.

BUT... racial equality is such a given in the hysterical, equality-driven mindless America that we live in today that nothing I can suggest to you would change your prejudices. So I know you won't read any of the above books. But who cares? ;)

You were comparing it to the first quote, which attempts showing how one race is inferior to another. Your quote is just a statement out of the blue about a single race. You suck at sarcasm.

I just don't regard saying that one race has a sloping forehead and is lazy as a serious enough attempt to prove inferiority, or that such a statement is markedly better than making a similar statement without its irrelevant "evidence".

Is this the best you got DA? A century and a half old racist essay? Slavery was still being practiced in the U.S. when this thing was written. What exactly do you think this proves (besides you being a moron for bringing it up).

The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2416
The IQ argument: race, intelligence, and education", By Hans Eysenck.
A quick search showed nothing. Is that the books name? I couldn't find it.
Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen
"Our last book is Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen by Frank Miele, Skeptic magazine senior editor. Jensen is, perhaps, best known for promoting the "g factor"-the idea that all intelligence tests measure a common trait, to a degree which can be determined by a factor analysis. Jensen writes, "In principle, there's no essential difference between the measure of psychometric g and physical g [Newton's law of gravitation]. "

However, there clearly is. In the last 30 years, Newton's g has not changed, while the most flaunted measure of intelligence, I.Q., has risen-anywhere from five to twenty-five points worldwide within the last thirty or so years. In other words, today's kids-given yesterday's I.Q. tests-do markedly better than yesterday's children did. Yet strangely enough, instead of being treated in the chapter titled "What Is Intelligence," the topic appears in the section called "What is Race?"

Perhaps Miele is not skeptical enough.

Also disconcerting is the book's treatment of the controversy arising from Jensen's 1969 Harvard Educational Review report on race, education, and I.Q. The report, which opened with the statement, "Compensatory education has been tried and it apparently has failed," came in the midst of race riots and just 15 years after the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision which led to the desegregation of schools. When Miele asks: "So weren't you looking for a chance to get into the fray in those tumultuous times?" Jensen responds, "Not at all, but I don't think it would be in the least reprehensible if that were the case."

Jensen's views on population genetics also give pause. Jensen believes "races are defined as breeding populations that differ in the frequencies of one or more genes." By this definition, there is a slew of distinct races. A contrasting view comes from population geneticist Daniel L. Hartl, who defines race as "a group of populations of a species that are geographically separated from other such groups and that differ in allele frequencies." Following this definition, then, there is only one race in the United States, or on the planet for that matter: the human race. For we are not, and never have been, completely geographically separated. The Italians may not look like the Chinese, but the Italians look like the Greeks who look like the Turks who … the chain goes on. The adjectives may change, but the nouns-the human beings-stay the same."

http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/next1.cfm?article_ID=392

Furthermore:
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0305&L=anthro-l&F=&S=&P=22742

So we have two debunked, the other non-existing.

Well, you can read The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray, which talks extensively about the racial distribution of IQ, and how blacks are the most likely to have inferior average IQ's and academic achievement the world over. Or you can try "The IQ argument: race, intelligence, and education", By Hans Eysenck. Or there's "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen". I can give you a whole list of books that discuss racial inequality, but it'd take me a while to remember all the titles. And these are books you can find on Amazon, recently written, and by respected academics.

BUT... racial equality is such a given in the hysterical, equality-driven mindless America that we live in today that nothing I can suggest to you would change your prejudices. So I know you won't read any of the above books. But who cares? ;)The bell Curve? A you fuckin' serious! That book has been denounced as a piece of racist crap since the day it was published. The Bradley foundation and the Pioneer Fund have their racist fingerprints all over the authors wallet. You'll have to do much better than that.

The bell Curve? A you fuckin' serious! That book has been denounced as a piece of racist crap since the day it was published. The Bradley foundation and the Pioneer Fund have their racist fingerprints all over the authors wallets. You'll have to do much better than that.


Well it doesn't matter what he does, it all gets back to white supremacy and you denounce that as racism. We try to prove it but you just say the proof is racist and toss it out.

Okay, I admit the proof for racism being true, is racist! You'll just have to accept that the truth itself is a racist truth! Races were not made equal, and if they were, we sure are not equal today. We can clearly see certain races are much better off than others due to their superior ability to adapt their settings to better suit their needs.

Well it doesn't matter what he does, it all gets back to white supremacy and you denounce that as racism. We try to prove it but you just say the proof is racist and toss it out.

Okay, I admit the proof for racism being true, is racist! You'll just have to accept that the truth itself is a racist truth! Races were not made equal, and if they were, we sure are not equal today. We can clearly see certain races are much better off than others due to their superior ability to adapt their settings to better suit their needs.

No, you obviously can't read.

The book has been DEBUNKED. That means PROVEN FALSE.



As in, you know, IT'S NOT FUCKING TRUE.

No, you obviously can't read.

The book has been DEBUNKED. That means PROVEN FALSE.



As in, you know, IT'S NOT FUCKING TRUE.


Yeah, so some marxist writes 1/2 a page about "That white racist book is wrong, here is why. We're all the same, we can mate together, so we must all be equal!!" And then you all run around shouting "Debunked!"

Well it doesn't matter what he does, it all gets back to white supremacy and you denounce that as racism. We try to prove it but you just say the proof is racist and toss it out.

Okay, I admit the proof for racism being true, is racist! You'll just have to accept that the truth itself is a racist truth! Races were not made equal, and if they were, we sure are not equal today. We can clearly see certain races are much better off than others due to their superior ability to adapt their settings to better suit their needs.
What don't you get, none of this crap proves any white superiority, It all uses outdated or skewed information to reach the conclusion the author has in mind when he starts his 'research'. We call it racist because that is the motivation behind it. There is no 'race' but the human race, we're all homo sapiens. All genotypes have equal capacities for intelligence, strength etc. None are more moral, creative or any way superior than others. In fact the only credible research hints that the more diverse the gene pool the better.

Yeah, so some marxist writes 1/2 a page about "That white racist book is wrong, here is why. We're all the same, we can mate together, so we must all be equal!!" And then you all run around shouting "Debunked!"

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2416

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/owned22.jpg

Yeah, so some marxist writes 1/2 a page about "That white racist book is wrong, here is why. We're all the same, we can mate together, so we must all be equal!!" And then you all run around shouting "Debunked!"Try a google search on the book, most of the hits will be sites written by credible sources that say the same thing we are. You are a thick one aren't you.

Gustav Labon (1879) "In the most intelligent races, as amoung the Parisians. Women's brains are closer to those of gorillas than male human brains. An intelligent woman is possible, but is likely as a gorilla with two heads"

another.

Aristotle, "Even the bodies of men prove that some are born to rule and others to labour. The upright carriage of the noble renders him unfit for servile work."

All this racist talk should STFU Already!!

*Calls in the STFU Sword Strike and it's I.G.N.O.R.E. Launcher Strike counterpart to resolve the situation*
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Sword_Strike_Gundam-01.gifhttp://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Launcher_Strike_Gundam-01.gif

I've had enough of this copy/paste crap. Once more, and it's a forumban. For you, Communist Mississippi AND VoteEarly. Don't think using puppets can protect you.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator