NationStates Jolt Archive

http://krose.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/12/1158343-scientist-who-sparked-racism-row-has-black-genes

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who provoked a public outcry by claiming black Africans were less intelligent than whites has a DNA profile with up to 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European. An analysis of the genome of James Watson showed that 16 per cent of his genes were likely to have come from a black ancestor of African descent. By contrast, most people of European descent would have no more than 1 per cent.

So it would seem that this negro hating fool has a bit of African in him. God does funny things with silly people :)

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!

Over 40 years ago...

rofl

But seriously, it's James freakin' Watson. In general, I doubt he is silly or foolish.

Over 50 years ago...

Ah well, that explains that.

http://krose.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/12/1158343-scientist-who-sparked-racism-row-has-black-genes



So it would seem that this negro hating fool has a bit of African in him. God does funny things with silly people :)

Sweet, sweet, genetic justice. Right on. It's like a Twilight Zone segment.

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson


Goes to show you how much consideration is given to that award.:p

BTw, I am kidding. He did figure out the double helix and such.

How accurate are such analysis?

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!

He was part of the team that discovered the structure of DNA.

rofl

But seriously, it's James freakin' Watson. In general, he is neither silly nor a fool.

Wait -- not of Watson & Crick? Not THAT Watson? **Checks Google** Sure enough. The guy who helped discover the structure of DNA gets pwned by genetics. Nice.

I don't see how that's racist. Africa is a dump, and African-Americans are... well, look at them.

And 16% black genes doesn't make you black.

*lol
Reminds me of a TV show a while back about the genetic make-up of the average Briton. They selected some seriously xenophobe and racist examples and tested their DNA. African percentages were common, as well as a good deal of Southeast Asian, Arab and even Native American.
On average, none of the subjects (just like the European majority) had more than about 50% of their genetic material from Northern Europe.
We're all a bunch of mongrels, really :)

I don't see how that's racist. Africa is a dump, and African-Americans are... well, look at them.

And 16% black genes doesn't make you black.Funny. I could swear that kind of attitude is racist as well.

Funny. I could swear that kind of attitude is racist as well.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true.

I would say they made the most important contribution of them all... they gave birth to the first homo sapiens, after all.

As for the rest, may I recommend "Guns, germs and stell" by Jared Diamond for an interesting and rather enlightening read?

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.Yeah. Racist indeed. Perhaps you should invest in learning a bit more about African history instead of listening to your heart when it comes to "racialist" issues.

I would say they made the most important contribution of them all... they gave birth to the first homo sapiens, after all.

So black people invented evolution?

As for the rest, may I recommend "Guns, germs and stell" by Jared Diamond for an interesting and rather enlightening read?

"Our land isn't as good as yours" isn't an excuse. They still had the capabilities to be as advanced as everybody else, and they buggered it up. Look at the Middle East! Arabs had one of the greatest civilisations ever, and they lived in the desert. Mesoamericans and Inca too.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.


...right... Go back to your troll lair.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.

what? this is a good way to annoy people.
I mean really, what counts as a contribution? oh yes it was the West that came up with the idea for the nuclear bomb, amazing contribution that was.
read up on Africa then you'l change your mind.

what? this is a good way to annoy people.
I mean really, what counts as a contribution? oh yes it was the West that came up with the idea for the nuclear bomb, amazing contribution that was.
read up on Africa then you'l change your mind.

And most of what the "west" came up with was stolen from other cultures.

So black people invented evolution?



No, silly, Darwin invented evolution of course.


"Our land isn't as good as yours" isn't an excuse. They still had the capabilities to be as advanced as everybody else, and they buggered it up. Look at the Middle East! Arabs had one of the greatest civilisations ever, and they lived in the desert.

Not all to do with land, mostly to do with possible interaction and cultural transfer between societies. Arabs could make use of influences coming both from Asia and Europe, whereas Africa south of the Sahara was basically cut off. Human societies need interaction, otherwise they stagnate.

what? this is a good way to annoy people.
I mean really, what counts as a contribution? oh yes it was the West that came up with the idea for the nuclear bomb, amazing contribution that was.
read up on Africa then you'l change your mind.

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

And most of what the "west" came up with was stolen from other cultures.

Much of what Europe learnt was either drawn from classical society or taken from Asia and then applied better.

Not all to do with land, mostly to do with possible interaction and cultural transfer between societies. Arabs could make use of influences coming both from Asia and Europe, whereas Africa south of the Sahara was basically cut off. Human societies need interaction, otherwise they stagnate.

Even then, what about West Africa? Resource rich, contact with Arabs...

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

Algebra and trigonometry did.

Even then, what about West Africa? Resource rich, contact with Arabs...

And a rich culture. Your point?

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.

*cough*Egypt*cough*

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

Steam engine, what was good about that? from a human perspective, it put alot of people out of jobs.
Gunpowder is not the best invention to be thought of by anyone.
Paper making, maybe although the environmentalist in me is screaming.
algebra? that's just confusing.

just google African inventions and there are loads.

Much of what Europe learnt was either drawn from classical society or taken from Asia and then applied better.

Where do you think Classical society got their ideas from? Ever heard of Carthage, for example?

Algebra and trigonometry did.

Nobody's going to count Egypt as an African society. Not the way we think of Africa today, anyway.

Where do you think Classical society got their ideas from? Ever heard of Carthage, for example?

Carthage was... Phoenician.

Just stop aruging with Ferrous Oxide and maybe he'll go back under his bridge.


Hes one of those "Im not racist because I dont hate asians!" people.

Nobody's going to count Egypt as an African society.

Why?

Nobody's going to count Egypt as an African society.

Really? Because...um...its in fucking Africa.


Now I know your just an idiot.

Why?

Not black.

Not black.

That doesnt really matter. Theyre still African. Some Latin American natives are very very white. Are they not Latino? Many Spaniards and Italians are brown. Are they arabs?


What about Carthage? Or the Moors? Theyre African.

Steam engine, what was good about that? from a human perspective, it put alot of people out of jobs.
Gunpowder is not the best invention to be thought of by anyone.
Paper making, maybe although the environmentalist in me is screaming.
algebra? that's just confusing.

...

Wow.

He may be a racist by the technical definition, but he's not the 'hating Negros' sort. He proposed a scientific hypothesis in which genetically, Africans should have a lower IQ on average than whites, and attempted to support this with statistics.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.

They came up with peanutbutter. But that was in America.

That doesnt really matter. Theyre still African.

If we transplanted the Chinese to the middle of Africa can we suddenly say "The Africans invented paper and the compass! Look how advanced they are!"

What about Carthage? Or the Moors? Theyre African.

Carthage was Phoenician. Moors were Arab and Berber.

...

Wow.

and?:confused:

Nobody's going to count Egypt as an African society. Not the way we think of Africa today, anyway.


You think trigonometry and algebra came from Egypt? You really ought to read up on facts before posting nonsense, both came from Northern Africa (the Mahgreb region)

Not black.
Proof?

They came up with peanutbutter. But that was in America.

Nice.

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

Paper making did if you count Egypt. But then, they are pretty much arabs, so maybe that dousn't count.

If we transplanted the Chinese to the middle of Africa can we suddenly say "The Africans invented paper and the compass! Look how advanced they are!"

But, see, China is not currently located IN Africa. Egyptis.



Carthage was Phoenician.

But most people in the society were African.


Moors were Arab and Berber.

From...guess where? North Africa.

I would say they made the most important contribution of them all... they gave birth to the first homo sapiens, after all.

As for the rest, may I recommend "Guns, germs and stell" by Jared Diamond for an interesting and rather enlightening read?

JD=Frickin' Awesome...even if he is a birdwatcher (Spawns of Satan).

Proof?

Well, I can't speak for the majority, but Nefertiti wasn't black. Mummies have also been noted to have lighter hair than would be found on blacks.

If we transplanted the Chinese to the middle of Africa can we suddenly say "The Africans invented paper and the compass! Look how advanced they are!"

Sure, why not? If the Chinese lived there long enough to be regarded as an indigenous culture...


Carthage was Phoenician. Moors were Arab and Berber.

All of whom came *gasp* out of Africa.
And not only that, they still live there!

Just stop aruging with Ferrous Oxide and maybe he'll go back under his bridge.


Hes one of those "Im not racist because I dont hate asians!" people.

But Asians are teh awesomeness.

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

now youre just being funny.

is this a test to see who knows where those inventions came from?

Paper making did if you count Egypt. But then, they are pretty much arabs, so maybe that dousn't count.That's just fucking stupid. Egyptians being Arabs today has little influence on achievements of the non-Arab Egyptians of the past.

Well, I can't speak for the majority, but Nefertiti wasn't black. Mummies have also been noted to have lighter hair than would be found on blacks.

So, when you say "Africa", you're exclusively talking about sub-Saharan Africa?
So not all Africans are black... big surprise. Not all Europeans are white, either.

But, see, China is not currently located IN Africa. Egyptis.





But most people in the society were African.




From...guess where? North Africa.

We're talking genetics. Living somewhere doesn't not make you genetic that ethnicity. I am not a genetic Australian.

On the subject of Egyptians...

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

Well, I can't speak for the majority, but Nefertiti wasn't black. Mummies have also been noted to have lighter hair than would be found on blacks.You're basing this statement on Nefertiti's skin color on what exactly? And please name a hair color not found on blacks.

So, when you say "Africa", you're exclusively talking about sub-Saharan Africa?

I'm talking about African blacks. A discussion about racial genetics would sort of miss the mark if we were talking about nationality and not ethnicity.

So not all Africans are black... big surprise. Not all Europeans are white, either.

Well, not any more.

We're talking genetics. Living somewhere doesn't not make you genetic that ethnicity. I am not a genetic Australian.




And...if since the dawn of their societies, they had been located in Africa...chances are...they have African genetics. So, the Egyptians and the Moors are...african and arabic.


Its called breeding.

We're talking genetics. Living somewhere doesn't not make you genetic that ethnicity. I am not a genetic Australian.

So you never noticed that people coming to a new place have this tendency to just mix with whoever was there before? Depending on when your fols arrived in Australia, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you've got some Australian in your genetic profile.

You're basing this statement on Nefertiti's skin color on what exactly? And please name a hair color not found on blacks.

Nefertiti's bust. Also, blacks typically do not have fair hair. Blonde hair is really rare on races other than whites.

I know that the Tuskegee Airmen was an all black squadron who never lost a single bomber during their career as bomber escorts in WW II.

In 2007, Youngest and first black pilot to fly solo around the world. From Miami Gardens, Florida, Barrington Irving flew a Columbia 400 plane named Inspiration around the world in 96 days, 150 hours (March 23-June 27).

Blacks have contributed to society, whether it's by introducing a new type of food, a new medical procedure (First Open Heart Surgery was done by a black person), aviation related, or in any facet of life.

Blacks are more than just gangster and rappers that you see on TV, there are some good ones too. Just like not every white person is a redneck and a Klansman.

Well, not any more.

Italians havent been white for a very long time...if ever. Theyre "olive skinned", which often times makes them brown.

If Rusty needs some African civilizations he can look them up here

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/CONTENTS.HTM

and there was also this little-known place called Timbuktu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu)

So you never noticed that people coming to a new place have this tendency to just mix with whoever was there before? Depending on when your fols arrived in Australia, I'd say there's a pretty good chance you've got some Australian in your genetic profile.

Well, my mum came from Germany, my dad came from Ukraine, and I have not rooted an Aboriginal. Close to nobody living in Australia has genetic Australian in them.

I'm talking about African blacks. A discussion about racial genetics would sort of miss the mark if we were talking about nationality and not ethnicity.


How black do they have to be for your taste to qualify? Egyptians (even in ancient Egypt) do have rather dark skin, as well as the facial features typically associated with Africans.


Well, not any more.

They never were.

Also, blacks typically do not have fair hair.

Now I know your full of it.


Rea a book on ancient African societies. In many cases they were far more advanced than their Europian and Arab counterparts.

And...if since the dawn of their societies, they had been located in Africa...chances are...they have African genetics. So, the Egyptians and the Moors are...african and arabic.


Its called breeding.

We ALL have African genetics in us. But you know, maybe genetically, the Egyptians moved on a bit and the blacks didn't?

That's just fucking stupid. Egyptians being Arabs today has little influence on achievements of the non-Arab Egyptians of the past.

Such as?

Italians havent been white for a very long time...if ever. Theyre "olive skinned", which often times makes them brown.

Not really. Darker skinned Italians are from the south. Northerns have fairer skin and hair.

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!


If Al Gore and Yasser Arafat can win a noble prize... anyone can.

We ALL have African genetics in us. But you know, maybe genetically, the Egyptians moved on a bit and the blacks didn't?

:rolleyes:


Im done here. Everyones pretty much shown your full of crap. Im just beating a dead horse.

You're basing this statement on Nefertiti's skin color on what exactly? And please name a hair color not found on blacks.

Red an blond I think.

Not really. Darker skinned Italians are from the south. Northerns have fairer skin and hair.

Yeah, I know, thats my point. So Sicilians by your logic are not white.

Well, my mum came from Germany, my dad came from Ukraine, and I have not rooted an Aboriginal. Close to nobody living in Australia has genetic Australian in them.

Pity, 2 or 3 generations more and you could have been sure of some.
And from the stats I've seen virtually everyone from the 4th generation onwards has some genetic Australian.

If Al Gore and Yasser Arafat can win a noble prize... anyone can.

Then where's mine? I um...have a Siamese cat who isn't mean and isn't snooty like the typical Siamese is?

Paper making did if you count Egypt. But then, they are pretty much arabs, so maybe that dousn't count.
Egyptians were not "pretty much Arabs" until, you know, the area was arabicized, specifically during the expansion of Islam. Pre-Muslim Egypt was very much not Arab.
Well, I can't speak for the majority, but Nefertiti wasn't black. Mummies have also been noted to have lighter hair than would be found on blacks.

As you progress from the North to the South in Egypt, the general population's skin color ranges from dark to very dark. As with all superficial racial signifiers, skin tone tends to gradually change (well, all physical "racial" features, actually). There is no line where suddenly the people are coal black and on the other side of the line they're white as snow.

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires for a list of African societies that arose in Africa. There was another thread (actually about the same guy) a while ago with a number of good links posted but you can search for it yourself; it is your own responsibility to drop that veil of ignorance you seem to be wearing.

We ALL have African genetics in us. But you know, maybe genetically, the Egyptians moved on a bit and the blacks didn't?

As in, they decided to get rid of the curly hair cause they didn't like it?

Such as?

http://www.mattnortham.com/blog/wp-content/images/2007/01/great-pyramid.jpg

Pity, 2 or 3 generations more and you could have been sure of some.
And from the stats I've seen virtually everyone from the 4th generation onwards has some genetic Australian.

Great! So my grandchildren will be 1/10000th Aborigine, and they can claim comp?

Red an blond I think.

Blond is. Red is rather rare outside of Northwest Europe...

Yeah, I know, thats my point. So Sicilians by your logic are not white.

Hardly. I consider the Arabs to be white as well. Various shade of white.

*snip*

Could you please show us some kind of research which clearly states that blacks have a genetic predisposition for being less intelligent? For instance a study in which the intelligence of a large sample of black and white students from the same social strata are compared?
Or don't you have sources and are you just basing all your assumptions on guesswork?
And even if this was true, what would it matter? What would be the importance of it?

Great! So my grandchildren will be 1/10000th Aborigine, and they can claim comp?

Why would I care?

Blond is. Red is rather rare outside of Northwest Europe...

Both are rare in non-whites. It's believed that blonde and red hair evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic to help find a mate in the cold climates.

Hardly. I consider the Arabs to be white as well. Various shade of white.

Again, how black does a black person have to be for you to consider him/her "black"?

Nefertiti's bust. Not evidence of any sort.
Also, blacks typically do not have fair hair. Blonde hair is really rare on races other than whites.Indeed, but blond blacks exist.

Red an blond I think.

Gingervitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gingervitis)....lol...:p

Again, how black does a black person have to be for you to consider him/her "black"?

I think of people in gradiants, really. I'll put it this way; those darker dudes from middle and southern Africa tended to be less successful than those lighter dudes from Europe, Asia and the ME.

Could you please show us some kind of research which clearly states that blacks have a genetic predisposition for being less intelligent? For instance a study in which the intelligence of a large sample of black and white students from the same social strata are compared?
Or don't you have sources and are you just basing all your assumptions on guesswork?
And even if this was true, what would it matter? What would be the importance of it?

What I'm trying to say is that it's not racist to look at history, and then say that the theory of intelligence being affected by race isn't at least plausible.

Both are rare in non-whites. It's believed that blonde and red hair evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic to help find a mate in the cold climates.

Believed by you, you mean?
There are blond Africans, even sub-Saharan. The only hair colour that's unique to Northwestern Europeans is red.
The hair colours as well as the skin and eye colours developed as a reaction to a climate with significantly less sunlight. They're not active new developments, but rather they are bodies not wasting the energy of having darker skin, hair and eyes when it's not necessary.

Not evidence of any sort.

Yeah, I sure she said "I want to be more of a BROWN, rather than black...".

I think of people in gradiants, really. I'll put it this way; those darker dudes from middle and southern Africa tended to be less successful than those lighter dudes from Europe, Asia and the ME.

And the only possible explanation for that is genetics? Do you even know anything about genetics? Or history for that matter?

http://www.mattnortham.com/blog/wp-content/images/2007/01/great-pyramid.jpg

WOULD YOU KINDLY show me something that DIDN'T come out of Egypt?

Still no answer New Manvir? I thought not...

Believed by you, you mean?
There are blond Africans, even sub-Saharan. The only hair colour that's unique to Northwestern Europeans is red.
The hair colours as well as the skin and eye colours developed as a reaction to a climate with significantly less sunlight. They're not active new developments, but rather they are bodies not wasting the energy of having darker skin, hair and eyes when it's not necessary.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS1090513805000590/abstract

Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe. The many alleles involved (at least seven for hair color) and their independent origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favor color traits and color polymorphisms. In addition, hair and eye color is most diverse in what used to be, when first peopled by hunter-gatherers, a unique ecozone of low-latitude continental tundra. This type of environment skews the operational sex ratio (OSR) of hunter-gatherers toward a male shortage in two ways: (1) men have to hunt highly mobile and spatially concentrated herbivores over longer distances, with no alternate food sources in case of failure, the result being more deaths among young men; (2) women have fewer opportunities for food gathering and thus require more male provisioning, the result being less polygyny. These two factors combine to leave more women than men unmated at any one time. Such an OSR imbalance would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of color traits: hair- and eye-color diversity and, possibly, extreme skin depigmentation.

And the only possible explanation for that is genetics? Do you even know anything about genetics? Or history for that matter?

When did I ever say "only"? I said it's a possibility. I'm arguing it's plausibility, not it's fact.

Blond is. Red is rather rare outside of Northwest Europe...

Really? A full blooded black man/woman can be blond? Wow, I never knew that.

I think of people in gradiants, really. I'll put it this way; those darker dudes from middle and southern Africa tended to be less successful than those lighter dudes from Europe, Asia and the ME.

Mostly cause those darker dudes had far more trouble getting their civilisations started. No indigenous plants nor animals that can be domesticated means smaller overall populations means less contact with other societies means less communication means less innovation means slow start and limited potential.

I am white, and probably have African etc in me, but I don't care. In fact we all probably originated in Africa, so what?

What I'm trying to say is that it's not racist to look at history, and then say that the theory of intelligence being affected by race isn't at least plausible.Yes it is. It ignores the possibility that crime and lower scores on IQ tests are somehow related to poverty.

When did I ever say "only"? I said it's a possibility. I'm arguing it's plausibility, not it's fact.

Even if it was established as a fact, what would it matter?

I am white, and probably have African etc in me, but I don't care. In fact we all probably originated in Africa, so what?

I originated in America, where I was born. If you are a black person born in America you're AMERICAN. Nobody is AFRICAN-AMERICAN unless they moved here from AFRICA.

Yes it is. It ignores the possibility that crime and lower scores on IQ tests are somehow related to poverty.

What... so Europeans and Asians haven't been poor? China used to be pretty bad.

I originated in America, where I was born. If you are a black person born in America you're AMERICAN. Nobody is AFRICAN-AMERICAN unless they moved here from AFRICA.

But if you trace back thousands of years ago, we all came out of Africa.


Way to totally miss the point of the quoted post.

I originated in America, where I was born. If you are a black person born in America you're AMERICAN. Nobody is AFRICAN-AMERICAN unless they moved here from AFRICA.

link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_Origin)

I originated in America, where I was born. If you are a black person born in America you're AMERICAN. Nobody is AFRICAN-AMERICAN unless they moved here from AFRICA.

The only ethnic Americans are people with native American (either north or south) in them.

What... so Europeans and Asians haven't been poor? China used to be pretty bad.You brought up earlier that all you have to do is look at the portions of blacks in the US and how Africa is doing. Let's see if you can figure out which of the two the poverty argument applied to.

You brought up earlier that all you have to do is look at the portions of blacks in the US and how Africa is doing. Let's see if you can figure out which of the two the poverty argument applied to.

Not all blacks in the US are poor. Many whites in the US are poor. Many whites in the US are always stupid. Personally, I prefer to avoid using the US in examples at all.

And Africa. They're not just magically poor. There's a reason they're poor. It took time for them to become that poor.

Not all blacks in the US are poor. Many whites in the US are poor. Many whites in the US are always stupid. Personally, I prefer to avoid using the US in examples at all.

What's your definition of Poverty, and intelligence?

The only ethnic Americans are people with native American (either north or south) in them.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, if you were born in American, you're AMERICAN. It's not that hard to grasp people.

What's your definition of Poverty, and intelligence?

Well, actually, Americans are usually just ignorant. Really, really ignorant. And poverty varies, compared to the social norm.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, if you were born in American, you're AMERICAN. It's not that hard to grasp people.

How did this thread get turned into your personal crusade for blind patriotism?


What you are saying is irrelevent.

WOULD YOU KINDLY show me something that DIDN'T come out of Egypt?



Still no answer New Manvir? I thought not...

This has nothing to do with ethnicity, if you were born in American, you're AMERICAN. It's not that hard to grasp people.

Ethnicity =/= nationality.

And Africa. They're not just magically poor. There's a reason they're poor. It took time for them to become that poor.

Please, you're really implying that they're poor because of genetics? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ever heard about colonialism, slavery, neocolonialism etc? Even IF genetics had anything to do with it history probably would have turned out the same if africans had our 'superior white genes'.

How did this thread get turned into your personal crusade for blind patriotism?


What you are saying is irrelevent.

You're not helpfull at all, at least i'm debating something related to the topic.

Please, you're really implying that they're poor because of genetics? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ever heard about colonialism, slavery, neocolonialism etc? Even IF genetics had anything to do with it history probably would have turned out the same if africans had our 'superior white genes'.

I'm implying that they're poor because of their history, and if their historical struggle was in some part due to lower average intelligence, that wouldn't surprise me.

You're not helpfull at all, at least i'm debating something related to the topic.

Thats the kicker. Youre not. I have been. I just wanted to tell you to stop your rant about how African Americans should drop the african part.

I'm implying that they're poor because of their history, and if their historical struggle was in some part due to lower average intelligence, that wouldn't surprise me.

and what's your definition of intelligence?
IQ?
Education?
success?
Other?

and what's your definition of intelligence?
IQ?
Education?
success?
Other?

Hard to describe. I sorta define it as what kind of mental capacity to have to learn and experience things. Like how small children don't have the intelligence to see that a container that's wide and short can contain more than a container that's tall and thin.

Thats the kicker. Youre not. I have been. I just wanted to tell you to stop your rant about how African Americans should drop the african part.

I don't care if they call themselves a lie. You always stop to criticize my every post in threads. Do you really have that little to contribute that you must bother others to justify your staying in topics?

I'm implying that they're poor because of their history, and if their historical struggle was in some part due to lower average intelligence, that wouldn't surprise me.

Ever heard of the great empires of Africa? Were they created by unintelligent beings? Perhaps you are lesser in intelligence and are trying to compensate through your ignorant white supremacist views.

Ever heard of the great empires of Africa? Were they created by unintelligent beings? Perhaps you are lesser in intelligence and are trying to compensate through your ignorant white supremacist views.

It depends on what you classify "Trade School" as, in terms of intelligence.

I'm implying that they're poor because of their history, and if their historical struggle was in some part due to lower average intelligence, that wouldn't surprise me.

Even if it was, it should have been significant to make an impact, which would mean that it's easily testable, which would mean there is some proof, which nobody has shown.

Ever heard of the great empires of Africa? Were they created by unintelligent beings? Perhaps you are lesser in intelligence and are trying to compensate through your ignorant white supremacist views.

The great empires of Africa had a lot of help. Some also weren't that great. And... how am I a white supremacist when I acknowledge that Asians are more intelligent than European whites?

And finally, yes, I am "lesser in intelligence". I think I could say that I'm quite comfortably the dumbest non-mentally challenged human being on the planet (actually, that's a bit inaccurate, I have borderline AS, but I consider myself normal because having a mental disability doesn't excuse me from being an idiot).

And... how am I a white supremacist when I acknowledge that Asians are more intelligent than European whites?



Not really, they just work a whole lot harder.

Not really, they just work a whole lot harder.

Statistically, you're somewhat right.

I wouldn't say this is a catchall stereotype of "Asians." Take it from an Asian (provided Indians are considered Asian. You people have some weird classification methods)

Statistically, you're somewhat right.

I wouldn't say this is a catchall stereotype of "Asians." Take it from an Asian (provided Indians are considered Asian. You people have some weird classification methods)

Asians are generally considered to be the "yellow skinned peoples". Indians are technically Asians, but most people just call you Indians (at least around my area).

The great empires of Africa had a lot of help. From who?


And... how am I a white supremacist when I acknowledge that Asians are more intelligent than European whites?
The fact that you believe genetics as opposed to culture, makes one more or less likely to be intelligent, makes you so. Just because you are asian doesn't mean you have some math skill programed in your DNA. Nor does being African mean you are programed to be a chicken and watermelon loving inferior human. It has everything to do with culture, and nothing at all to do with genetics. We are all like 99.9999999999% the same, whether you like it or not.




And finally, yes, I am "lesser in intelligence". I think I could say that I'm quite comfortably the dumbest non-mentally challenged human being on the planet (actually, that's a bit inaccurate, I have borderline AS, but I consider myself normal because having a mental disability doesn't excuse me from being an idiot).

We don't care about your personal problems

WOULD YOU KINDLY show me something that DIDN'T come out of Egypt?

Alright, this is really pissing me off(Not necessarily you).

The State called "Egypt" was a 100% African originated civilization. King Namer(Or Menes or Catfish Chisel, or what have you), of Lower Fucking Egypt, was completely, 100% African upon unifying Egypt. He was the first King of what is now called "Egypt". In reality, there was little in the way of outside influence(Granted, there was *some* Mesopotamian influence, as seen in Mastabas and the like, but there is was also Egyptian influence in Mesopotamia, and the same goes for the Harappan Civilization in the Indus valley, albeit to lesser extent. That said, the bulk of Egyptian power and conquest, and expansion was entirely African in nature. Mesopotamia *never* extended anywhere near Egypt, for the love of God.) It was not until *much* later that Non-African influence came into play, and guess what happened to this Civilization pretty damn soon after wards? It collapsed with a mighty thud. Hell, the damn Nubians, who nobody in their right mind would consider Non-Africans, revitalized Egypt when they took over.

Bloody. Hell. I'm a bit pissed.

Alright, back to Kontor!

http://www.garycook.co.uk/Africa/Zimbabwe/Photo47233.jpg

That's some mighty fine craft work for dem dare Afrikaans, eh?

More information on Great Zimbabwe:

http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/zimbabwe/art/greatzim/gz1.html

Also look up Shaka Zulu, if you want.

The main problem with Sub-Saharan Africa not developing in civilization level states is due largely to the wonderful barrier of a dessert, massive forest, and another dessert, cutting them off from the rest of the world. Other people forming civilizations had a great deal of contact with the rest of the world, and they traded information and ideas quite well, utilizing the ones they deemed fit. Sub-Saharan Africa did not have this luxury, and quite frankly had difficulties "advancing" because of it. As well, much of Africa is absolute shit in terms of cultivation. Egypt was blessed with the Nile, which is why it lasted so long. Mesopotamia had the Tigris/Euphrates, Europe had a milder climate with more precipitation, reducing the need for intensive irrigation, Harappan civilization had the Indus river and the Ghaggar-Hakar(I think that's the name, it's dried up now), and so and so forth. Water is the necessity of civilization.

Guess what Sub-Saharan Africa tends to lack? Decent and predictable water sources, in the right place, that can be utilized.

Among other reasons, of course, none of which has anything to do with a Genetic explanation. Which is just bloody stupid, in the end.

From who?.

I'm inclined to say the Muslims.

The fact that you believe genetics as opposed to culture, makes one more or less likely to be intelligent, makes you so. Just because you are asian doesn't mean you have some math skill programed in your DNA. Nor does being African mean you are programed to be a chicken and watermelon loving inferior human. It has everything to do with culture, and nothing at all to do with genetics. We are all like 99.9999999999% the same, whether you like it or not.

Is there any way for me to be not racist in our modern society? If it's genetics, I'm racist. If it's culture, I'm racist. Is it possible to not be racist and still point out that some cultures and peoples really shit all over other ones?

Hard to describe. I sorta define it as what kind of mental capacity to have to learn and experience things. Like how small children don't have the intelligence to see that a container that's wide and short can contain more than a container that's tall and thin.

By that standard children are actually the most intelligent entities in the world. A child has a much higher capacity for learning than does an adult. You need to alter your definition. You seem to be confusing geometric reasoning with capacity for learning.

Hard to describe. I sorta define it as what kind of mental capacity to have to learn and experience things. Like how small children don't have the intelligence to see that a container that's wide and short can contain more than a container that's tall and thin.

Ah, so a completely subjective method, with absolutely no hard evidence to back it up, that allows you to call any group of people you want stupid. Not only that, but there is no way to dispute this, because once again this very scientific, non-scientific method of yours is entirely opinion based.

Nice. Very scientific of you.

I'm inclined to say the Muslims. Are the Muslims a race now? And they have only existed since the 7th century AD, what about all the achievements before hand?



Is there any way for me to be not racist in our modern society? If it's genetics, I'm racist. If it's culture, I'm racist. Is it possible to not be racist and still point out that some cultures and peoples really shit all over other ones?

OR, you could say that all people are born equal, and treat them the same, despite what background they come from. Look past their outward appearance and see the real problems.

Ah, so a completely subjective method, with absolutely no hard evidence to back it up, that allows you to call any group of people you want stupid. Not only that, but there is no way to dispute this, because once again this very scientific, non-scientific method of yours is entirely opinion based.

Nice. Very scientific of you.

Wouldn't this be like the third or fourth Seangoli? Have you tried nation restoration, incidentally?

Ah, so a completely subjective method, with absolutely no hard evidence to back it up, that allows you to call any group of people you want stupid. Not only that, but there is no way to dispute this, because once again this very scientific, non-scientific method of yours is entirely opinion based.

Nice. Very scientific of you.

Yeah, there's no evidence to back up the fact that some peoples, animals and life forms have greater capacity to learn and reason than others. We sure as hell can't prove that my dog can or can't master fire. :rolleyes:

By that standard children are actually the most intelligent entities in the world. A child has a much higher capacity for learning than does an adult. You need to alter your definition. You seem to be confusing geometric reasoning with capacity for learning.

It's a bit of both, I'm not confusing them. A person who has the capacity to learn, say, theoretical physics, is more intelligent that the person who doesn't.

Are the Muslims a race now? And they have only existed since the 7th century AD, what about all the achievements before hand?

I preferred to use the term Muslims to avoid confusing people.

OR, you could say that all people are born equal, and treat them the same, despite what background they come from. Look past their outward appearance and see the real problems.

Bullshit! All people are not equal! How the hell am I in any way equal to Albert Einstein?

Yeah, there's no evidence to back up the fact that some peoples, animals and life forms have greater capacity to learn and reason than others. We sure as hell can't prove that my dog can or can't master fire. :rolleyes:



How does a dog even begin to compare to a human? We are talking about HUMANS here. Unless one is born mentally incapable due to birth defects, they have just as much a chance as another person anywhere else in the world to be intelligent, or ignorant.

How does a dog even begin to compare to a human? We are talking about HUMANS here. Unless one is born mentally incapable due to birth defects, they have just as much a chance as another person anywhere else in the world to be intelligent, or ignorant.

No. They don't. Sorry, but that's just not true. I come from a long line of idiots. It's definitely genetic.

I preferred to use the term Muslims to avoid confusing people. Your arguments are confusing anyways.



Bullshit! All people are not equal! How the hell am I in any way equal to Albert Einstein?

Okay, besides prodigies ALL people are equal. There was a famous test with children, I forget by whom, but he said that he could take any baby and turn them into doctors, despite their parents or race, if i recall correctly.

Okay, besides prodigies ALL people are equal. There was a famous test with children, I forget by whom, but he said that he could take any baby and turn them into doctors, despite their parents or race, if i recall correctly.

Pfhhh. He hasn't met my family.

No. They don't. Sorry, but that's just not true. I come from a long line of idiots. It's definitely genetic.

If its a genetic mental disability, yes I can understand. But if you have no disability, then your long line of idiots would probably be due to lack of education or lack of interest in education and expanding one's horizons.

Racist? No, he just said truth.

16% black genes? I guess his black ancestor was some shaman or one of those few at least a little bit smart black.

WOULD YOU KINDLY show me something that DIDN'T come out of Egypt?

Still no answer New Manvir? I thought not...

Still no answer New Manvir? I thought not...

Calm down man, I don't spend 24 hours a day on a computer trying to rebut people...

As for something that didn't come out of Egypt, Timbuktu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu)...home to one of the most ancient University and library

Timbuktu's long-lasting contribution to Islamic and world civilization is scholarship. By the fourteenth century, important books were written and copied in Timbuktu, establishing the city as the centre of a significant written tradition in Africa

During the early 15th century, a number of Islamic institutions were erected. The most famous of these is the Sankore mosque, also known as the University of Sankore.

The primary focus of these schools was the teaching of the Qur'an, although broader instruction in fields such as logic, astronomy, and history also took place. Scholars wrote their own books as part of a socioeconomic model based on scholarship. The profit made by buying and selling of books was only second to the gold-salt trade. Among the most formidable scholars, professors and lecturers was Ahmed Baba – a highly distinguished historian frequently quoted in the Tarikh-es-Sudan and other works.

The most outstanding treasure at Timbuktu are the 100,000 manuscripts kept by the great families from the town. [8]. These manuscripts, some of them dated from pre-Islamic times and 12th century, have been preserved as family secrets in the town and in other villages nearby. The most were written in Arabic or Fulani, by wise men coming from Mali Empire. Their contents are didactic, especially in the subjects of astronomy, music, and botany. More recent manuscripts deal on law, sciences and history (with unique records as the Tarikh el-Fetash by Mahmoud Kati from the 16th century or the Tarikh es-Sudan by Abderrahman es-Sadi on Sudanic history in 17th century), religion, trading, etc.

The collection of ancient manuscripts at the University of Sankore and other sites around Timbuktu document the magnificence of the institution, as well as the city itself, while enabling scholars to reconstruct the past in fairly intimate detail. Dating from the 16th to the 18th centuries, these manuscripts cover every aspect of human endeavor and are indicative of the high level of civilization attained by West Africans at the time. In testament to the glory of Timbuktu, for example, a West African Islamic proverb states that "Salt comes from the north, gold from the south, but the word of God and the treasures of wisdom come from Timbuktu."

It's a bit of both, I'm not confusing them. A person who has the capacity to learn, say, theoretical physics, is more intelligent that the person who doesn't.

What about the person who naturally has a green thumb, or someone who has a natural grasp of economics? Are they more or less intelligent than the theoretical physicist who is hopelessly incapable of growing even a small garden or the renown lawyer who struggles with complex economics?

This isn't even a matter of which area a person focuses their energies on. Some people have natural inclinations to certain fields of study just by way of luck. So the person who is just so bad at theoretical physics might be a genius when it comes to, say, the law. Who is more intelligent in that scenario?

No. They don't. Sorry, but that's just not true. I come from a long line of idiots. It's definitely genetic.

But is it due to your ethnicity? I believe you either stated or inferred that you were white earlier. Are all white people idiots because they are white?

Pfhhh. He hasn't met my family.

And your family is the shining example of what all the rest of humanity is? Show me some empirical evidence, and not your sorry attempts at humor.

What about the person who naturally has a green thumb, or someone who has a natural grasp of economics? Are they more or less intelligent than the theoretical physicist who is hopelessly incapable of growing even a small garden or the renown lawyer who struggles with complex economics?

This isn't even a matter of which area a person focuses their energies on. Some people have natural inclinations to certain fields of study just by way of luck. So the person who is just so bad at theoretical physics might be a genius when it comes to, say, the law. Who is more intelligent in that scenario?

Some things are harder to learn that other, so yes, I'd say that someone with a tendency towards physics probably has a higher intelligence than someone with a tendency towards bricklaying.

Can You All Please Shut Up about the Value of the continent of Africa?!

This thread is supposed to be about the hilarity of the situation that ol' James Watson of the famous Watson and Crick duo has gotten himself into again. He's talked about this stuff before, along with remarks favoring aborting the stupid and defective unborn, or that if genetic screening and therapy can create artificial beauty, then humans should pursue such goals. To him, it's all nature. Funny guy, if he weren't so offensive and iconic.

If its a genetic mental disability, yes I can understand. But if you have no disability, then your long line of idiots would probably be due to lack of education or lack of interest in education and expanding one's horizons.

They call it disability, but I think it's just a manifestation of a long line of genetic stupidity.

But is it due to your ethnicity? I believe you either stated or inferred that you were white earlier. Are all white people idiots because they are white?

No. It's just us, we're just morons.

And your family is the shining example of what all the rest of humanity is? Show me some empirical evidence, and not your sorry attempts at humor.

I thought YOU were the one who said everybody has the same capacity to learn, regardless of race or parentage.

Statistically, you're somewhat right.

I wouldn't say this is a catchall stereotype of "Asians." Take it from an Asian (provided Indians are considered Asian. You people have some weird classification methods)

That pisses me off because I've heard it from so many people in the past...

Asian =/= Chinese

I thought YOU were the one who said everybody has the same capacity to learn, regardless of race or parentage.

And I can back it up? I want to see your "proof"

And I can back it up? I want to see your "proof"

How can you back it up? You said a guy took a bunch of babies and turned them into doctors. I'm saying he mustn't have used a very big sample size, because he clearly missed the idiots of the world.

No. It's just us, we're just morons.

So if a group of white people is stupid, it's just that particular family, but if it's a group of black people that you don't see the accomplishments of, all black people are inferior, correct?

That pisses me off because I've heard it from so many people in the past...

Asian =/= Chinese

Actually, in the United States, Indians are actually classified as "Caucasian" for some reason. But most people consider Asian to be the stereotypical Mongoloid type person, not considering the fact that there were Caucasians and other ethnicities in the region just as long.

So if a group of white people is stupid, it's just that particular family, but if it's a group of black people that you don't see the accomplishments of, all black people are inferior, correct?

White civilisations thrived in spite of my people, not because of them. Why are black civilisations in tatters? Perhaps because have more idiot families than whites. Clearly, I have distant relatives in Africa.

How can you back it up? You said a guy took a bunch of babies and turned them into doctors. I'm saying he mustn't have used a very big sample size, because he clearly missed the idiots of the world.

Dude, I am not going to argue with you anymore. Its like talking to a wall.

Some things are harder to learn that other, so yes, I'd say that someone with a tendency towards physics probably has a higher intelligence than someone with a tendency towards bricklaying.

That makes no sense, though. In my example we have a theoretical physicist and an economist. The physicist finds the economist's studies much harder to learn than his own, and the economist finds himself in a similar position. Who is more intelligent? They both find the other field of study "harder" than their own.

That makes no sense, though. In my example we have a theoretical physicist and an economist. The physicist finds the economist's studies much harder to learn than his own, and the economist finds himself in a similar position. Who is more intelligent? They both find the other field of study "harder" than their own.

The physicist. Economics is less complex. It's like me, I can program. I find maths hard. I'm sure many good mathematicians find coding confusing. Does that make me smarter than a mathematician? Hell no, I'm not smart than anybody.

I know that the Tuskegee Airmen was an all black squadron who never lost a single bomber during their career as bomber escorts in WW II.

In 2007, Youngest and first black pilot to fly solo around the world. From Miami Gardens, Florida, Barrington Irving flew a Columbia 400 plane named Inspiration around the world in 96 days, 150 hours (March 23-June 27).

Blacks have contributed to society, whether it's by introducing a new type of food, a new medical procedure (First Open Heart Surgery was done by a black person), aviation related, or in any facet of life.

Blacks are more than just gangster and rappers that you see on TV, there are some good ones too. Just like not every white person is a redneck and a Klansman.

African-Americans are almost completley mixed with whites, as many were bred with slaveowners to produce more slaves. Same with African-Europeans.

I have to agree with Ferrous-Oxide. Sub-Saharan Africans had a 100000 year head start on the rest of human society (thats when the whites were migrating and evolving) and are still anywhere from 50-1000 years behind the rest of the world. What other explanation is there? Europe had to deal with 2 world wars, countless infighting wars, the bubonic plauge, the dark ages and the fall of Rome and they are STILL way ahead.
Oh yeah, having 'Black genes' is meaningless. Its just an allignment of ATGC molecules. Its where they are and what follows them that matters. If you look into it, we have lots of pig, dog and monkey genes too, but in a better order.

Oh yeah, having 'Black genes' is meaningless. Its just an allignment of ATGC molecules. Its where they are and what follows them that matters. If you look into it, we have lots of pig, dog and monkey genes too, but in a better order.

We share half of our genes with bananas. Half. HALF.

We share half of our genes with bananas. Half. HALF.

My banana half happens to be coded between my legs.

My banana half happens to be coded between my legs.

A banana sticking out of your rectum was not put there by genetics. :p

Calm down man, I don't spend 24 hours a day on a computer trying to rebut people...

As for something that didn't come out of Egypt, Timbuktu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu)...home to one of the most ancient University and library

Sorry for the "WOULD YOU KINDLY" caps, it was a joke. Haven't you ever played bioshock?


Edit: I see you have some proof, I believe ya, although I would prefer a non-wiki source.

White civilisations thrived in spite of my people, not because of them. Why are black civilisations in tatters? Perhaps because have more idiot families than whites. Clearly, I have distant relatives in Africa.

So the fact that black people have been continually disadvantaged has nothing to do with it?

That pisses me off because I've heard it from so many people in the past...

Asian =/= Chinese

So.....Japanese+Chinese= Asian? ;)

So.....Japanese+Chinese= Asian? ;)

He's saying Indians should be included with Asians. Something I tend to agree with.

Sorry for the "WOULD YOU KINDLY" caps, it was a joke. Haven't you ever played bioshock?


Edit: I see you have some proof, I believe ya, although I would prefer a non-wiki source.

Silly Fontaine.

A banana sticking out of your rectum was not put there by genetics. :p


Banana split anyone? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syCLHUkBUTQ)

(watch it all the way through for the joke)

So the fact that black people have been continually disadvantaged has nothing to do with it?

Ummm... Black Plauge, Fall of Rome, Dark Ages, War of the Roses, 100 Year War, Feudalism, WWI, WWII, Soviet Control all happened to WHITE PEOPLE! And still they are way more advanced. Hmmmm

Ummm... Black Plauge, Fall of Rome, Dark Ages, War of the Roses, 100 Year War, Feudalism, WWI, WWII, Soviet Control all happened to WHITE PEOPLE! And still they are way more advanced. Hmmmm

Black plague affected everyone, so did the two world worlds. But i'll tell you something worse than all of that...colonialism. Having white people rule you, draw up new boundaries, and then leave you with nothing except war and poverty.

A banana sticking out of your rectum was not put there by genetics. :p

Deus Malum-1 Belkaros-0
Dang.

Black plague affected everyone, so did the two world worlds. But i'll tell you something worse than all of that...colonialism. Having white people rule you, draw up new boundaries, and then leave you with nothing except war and poverty.

Roman Empire?

Deus Malum-1 Belkaros-0
Dang.

Hehe.

Roman Empire?

Roman Empire affected North Africa, and the Middle East.

Ummm... Black Plauge, Fall of Rome, Dark Ages, War of the Roses, 100 Year War, Feudalism, WWI, WWII, Soviet Control all happened to WHITE PEOPLE! And still they are way more advanced. Hmmmm

Was there a point at which other civilizations came in and destroyed European self-rule and controlled the countries for years and years, that white people managed to overcome despite a lack of natural resources?

Ummm... Black Plauge, Fall of Rome, Dark Ages, War of the Roses, 100 Year War, Feudalism, WWI, WWII, Soviet Control all happened to WHITE PEOPLE! And still they are way more advanced. Hmmmm

Apart from the Black Plague and the Fall of Rome (including Dark Ages), the rest can hardly be considered detrimental to Europe. Feudalism is irrelevant, it was a system of government, by our standards it was repressive. But then, it was simply another evolving form of society.

The Wars which you mention actually did Europe more good than bad, in my opinion. The War of The Roses resulted in a centralized monarchy with the reduced power of nobles and it was confined to England. Hardly indicative of the entire continent. The 100 Year War, was probably the most significant in introducing new tactics and completely changing the face of war in Medieval Europe. These tactics would later be used to overcome other nations, and we know where that ended. The 100 Years War provided Europe with a horde of advantages because it affirmed the power of standing armies, artillery and cannon, rather than just allowing nobles to fight.

WWI and WWII, despite the horrific loss of life, resulted in some amazing technical advancements. Advancements that benefit us today to a great extent. Not to mention, "the white people" got back up thanks to the billions of dollars from the US which was relatively untouched from WWII. Soviet control can hardly be described as "omg white people are threatened". It was confined mainly to the East and the Third World. It was a threat to Europe of course, but mutual destruction would have ensued if either side made a move.

My point is that Europe got to where it is because of its heterogenous and militant nature. The fear of war, or maybe their propensity for war enabled Europeans to dominate the globe. With so many different nations on one continent all jockeying for power, why do you think that so many military advancements occurred there? Its the simple matter of humans trying to kill more efficiently. It hardly makes them superior. Wasn't the case with India or China. They were isolated, they had homogenous populations. Gunpowder was developed in China, they had no reason to use it for military means, because no one threatened them at the time. Finally of course, we do have to mention the huge advantage the peoples of Europe had over other continents. Want some examples? Ok, Europe is smack right in the temperate belt, huge areas of arable land, barely any natural predators, plenty of waterways and most importantly, almost all animals that can be domesticated originate in Europe (the horse for one)

I seem to recall you said the Middle-Eastern peoples managed to bring up civilizations in the desert. What you failed to mention is that those civilizations sprouted in the Fertile Crescent. You can probably guess why its called that.

Ummm... Black Plauge, Fall of Rome, Dark Ages, War of the Roses, 100 Year War, Feudalism, WWI, WWII, Soviet Control all happened to WHITE PEOPLE! And still they are way more advanced. Hmmmm

TRADE


Europe has it. Africa does not.

Trade = advanced civilisation. No trade = no need for advanced civilisation, and therefore no advanced civilisation.

A simple formula, easy to remember, which explains quite well why certain groups of people developed and others did not. It's not the whole story but it certainly helps.

Bogus, ignorant article.

Almost every one of everyone's genes is African in origin.
Well over 90% go back to our distant primate ancestors.

We are all 98% chimp.

And 50% banana.

There are a few genes that have differentiated in the past 100,000 years, but these are only a handful among our tens of thousands, less than .1% of our genome. It is mathematically impossible given that every one of us has at least 99.9% African genes, for any one individual to have 16 x as many non-African one.

Such as person would be as different from the Human mainstream as the Human is from the Chimpanzee.

TRADE


Europe has it. Africa does not.

Trade = advanced civilisation. No trade = no need for advanced civilisation, and therefore no advanced civilisation.

A simple formula, easy to remember, which explains quite well why certain groups of people developed and others did not. It's not the whole story but it certainly helps.
Good fucking grief, that's so incredibly inaccurate it's almost funny again.

Never heard of Mali, Egypt, or Nubia, have we?

Bogus, ignorant article.

Almost every one of everyone's genes is African in origin.
Well over 90% go back to our distant primate ancestors.

We are all 98% chimp.

And 50% banana.

There are a few genes that have differentiated in the past 100,000 years, but these are only a handful among our tens of thousands, less than .1% of our genome. It is mathematically impossible given that every one of us has at least 99.9% African genes, for any one individual to have 16 x as many non-African one.

Such as person would be as different from the Human mainstream as the Human is from the Chimpanzee.



Did you know that 86.5% of percentages are made up right on the spot?

rofl

But seriously, it's James freakin' Watson. In general, I doubt he is silly or foolish.

Well said.

I'm not agreeing with any of his comments about the Negroid race, but I don't agree with people saying "why the hell did he get a nobel prize?"

Good fucking grief, that's so incredibly inaccurate it's almost funny again.

Never heard of Mali, Egypt, or Nubia, have we?

Welcome to generalisation city where things are generalised

Trading posts existed along Africa's coast, in Africa, out of Africa etc etc etc throughout the continent's history, but all-in-all most of the continent (specifically, Sub-Saharan) has had little contact with other groups of peoples up until colonial days. Even when they did contact each other, they had little need to trade, in much the same way that all pre-agricultural civilisations had little need to trade. As to why agriculture didn't develop in Africa, that's another matter entirely (less competition for resources, lower population levels, difficulty of domesticating plants and animals as compared to hunter-gathering etc).

Wouldn't this be like the third or fourth Seangoli? Have you tried nation restoration, incidentally?

Let's count...

1.Seangolia
2.Seangolio
3.Seangoli
4.Seangoli Deuce

So Four in five years! Whoo...

And yeah, I've tried restoration. I tried to restore Seangoli a few months back, but for some reason they didn't(Or at least not for the week thereafter, and I gave up-I might have screwed up or something trying to get it restored, or they were so bored in Restoring Seangoli, I believe I did it at least six or seven times, that they gave up completely), so eh. This was a simpler and faster method.

Nice to see I'm remembered.

Sorry for the "WOULD YOU KINDLY" caps, it was a joke. Haven't you ever played bioshock?


Edit: I see you have some proof, I believe ya, although I would prefer a non-wiki source.

I'd buy Bioshock if I weren't broke...:(

Black plague affected everyone, so did the two world worlds. But i'll tell you something worse than all of that...colonialism. Having white people rule you, draw up new boundaries, and then leave you with nothing except war and poverty.

And railroads. Don't forget, white people left Africa with railroads.

That rant is just silly. You really believe having government leaders with a different skin color is worse than death from the Plague? The Black Death killed in ways that are truly ghastly. Horrific.

The whole "it is all colonialism's fault" argument falls apart when we consider that areas of Africa never colonized by Europe (for ex. Ethiopia, Liberia) have the same problems as the rest of the continent. And areas that were more intensely developed by Europeans are better off today. In Somalia, for example, northern (more colonized) Somalia is so much better off than the south that the world's media forget it's there, and many of the inhabitants want to break off from the freaks running the south and establish their own nation.

The Belgian "footprint" in the Congo was very, very light. The British control in Kenya was much more extensive. Compare and contrast the outcomes. The MOST colonized nation was of course South Africa, which has one of the better standards of living in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The final thing to consider; color is not the whole of the colonialism equation. The Zulus slaughtered more black Africans than the English and Dutch put together. Are they colonists too, or do they get a free pass to the lands they conquered because they are black?

Let's count...

1.Seangolia
2.Seangolio
3.Seangoli
4.Seangoli Deuce

So Four in five years! Whoo...

And yeah, I've tried restoration. I tried to restore Seangoli a few months back, but for some reason they didn't(Or at least not for the week thereafter, and I gave up-I might have screwed up or something trying to get it restored, or they were so bored in Restoring Seangoli, I believe I did it at least six or seven times, that they gave up completely), so eh. This was a simpler and faster method.

Nice to see I'm remembered.The process has changed dramatically since then. Mayhap you would like to try the new method?

I'd buy Bioshock if I weren't broke...:(

Buy it.....would you kindly. ;)

There are a few genes that have differentiated in the past 100,000 years, but these are only a handful among our tens of thousands, less than .1% of our genome. It is mathematically impossible given that every one of us has at least 99.9% African genes, for any one individual to have 16 x as many non-African one.

Such as person would be as different from the Human mainstream as the Human is from the Chimpanzee.

I think that they would compare the "white genes" with the "black genes" and then compare how much more he has than a standard white person. So he has 16x more genes that are typically only found in black persons than the average white person, or something like that.

Alternatively they might also have compared the mitochondrial DNA I think. I believe it's often used to trace ethnical lineages of people.

And I'm also not sure how they compare DNA between species. At what level do they look when they say that people share 98% of our DNA with monkeys? Is that based on genes? base pairs?

The whole "it is all colonialism's fault" argument falls apart when we consider that areas of Africa never colonized by Europe (for ex. Ethiopia, Liberia) have the same problems as the rest of the continent.Now here's the fun part, you're wrong.

Now while Liberia and Ethiopia have never been colonized in the colonial sense, that doesn't mean that they were left alone. Liberia was America's little outpost where they could send former slaves back and it was just as fucked up by arbitrary borders as the rest of West Africa, which is why Liberia has been such a shithole. Ethiopia was doing rather well up until the Italian occupation (compared to the rest of the continent). In all, one can hardly argue that while neither country was ever officially colonized, they were not negatively impacted by colonialism.

No. They don't. Sorry, but that's just not true. I come from a long line of idiots. It's definitely genetic.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural background of your family, and "idiocy"(Your words, not mine) is most definitely not a self perpetuating personality trait(Not linked to genetics).

For instance, let's say your grandfather thought that schooling was not worth it. Chances are, he's going to be downplaying the importance of school to his children. Who will then think that school is worthless. Who then teach the same line of thoughts to their children.

See how this works? It's called enculturation. Which interestingly enough has nothing to do with genetics.

The process has changed dramatically since then. Mayhap you would like to try the new method?

Really? What's the new method? Hehe... I've been away for a while.

The geneticist who proved Black Africans where genetically less intelligent.

Yep thats real racist :rolleyes:

Welcome to generalisation city where things are generalised

Even when they did contact each other, they had little need to trade, in much the same way that all pre-agricultural civilisations had little need to trade.

Not exactly the situation. Many African civilizations reached bronze age and iron age technology, and there WAS trade. Just not much of it.

The reasons have nothing to do with people. Africa is short of:

1) Good overland trade routes.
2) Domesticable animals that can provide transport.

In otherwords, if you are in Egypt, you can trade along the Nile. But you won't ever reach Ghana or Zimbabwe because of the natural obstacles. On the other hand, if you are in Greece, you can find workable routes to India. And due to differences in biology and evolution, you simply can't domesticate Zebras like horses. It's been tried. It doesn't work. By the time the camel reached northern Africa, giving traders the ability to set up trade routes across the Sahara, Europe and Asia already had substantial leads.

I don't see how that's racist. Africa is a dump, and African-Americans are... well, look at them.

And 16% black genes doesn't make you black.


Yeah, that kind of % would mean the guy has like what, 1 black great-grandparent to get that small % of black DNA - but even then, hes possibly pissed he has any in his family
:mp5:

For some reason I think that Ferrous Oxide is 16% African... :P

Now here's the fun part, you're wrong.

Now while Liberia and Ethiopia have never been colonized in the colonial sense, that doesn't mean that they were left alone. .

So? You're argument is a red herring. NO nations have been left alone, anywhere, not even Iceland. Ethiopia was occupied for a few years by Italian troops- big deal, Norway and Greece were also occupied. But somehow, Norway and Greece are 1st world nations today, while Ethiopia, not so much. Ethiopia has done well historically by African standards, which means... on the European scale, not so good.

So why is it lagging NOW. It is the one nation that has seen LESS foreign influence than most others. In fact, Ethiopia has seen less foreign influence over the last 2000 years than FRANCE!

If colonialism is such a culprit, then, Ethiopia should be Africa's brightest star today. But it's not.

Korea has spent most of the 20th century occupied. And it still has a US troop presence. But it is one of the most successful nations in the world. Since 1953, it has rebuilt from zero. Where is Africa's Korea?

You talk about arbitrary borders? Hah. Name a NON-arbitrary border in the world. (Other than island nations, of course!) Every border in Latin America was established by Europeans, but Argentina is no Tanzania. Europe? They spent 1500 years fighting about borders. There are still pockets of Celtic civilization in France (Brittany), the France/German border region has all sorts of cultural spillover, most of Eastern Europe's borders were drawn up by the same kind of people who drew Africa's etc. And now we've just made Kosovo- drawing yet MORE borders on the map. And somehow these are "real"?

Asia: The middle east was chopped up from the rotting carcass of the Ottoman Empire, EVERY border is arbitrary, created by Europeans. India was divided in 1947. Korea? Plenty of ethnic Koreans live north of the Yalu river, so why is THAT a more "natural" border than any in Africa.

Borders are an empty argument.

The only REAL arguments are those in which you can show an existing line of development that was halted and/or reversed under colonialism.

There are not many.

Nah. It's common sense. I just can't in good conscience say that blacks from Africa have contributed as much to human civilisation as whites from Europe, Arabs from the Middle East and Asians. I'd like to say it, but I can't because it's not true, regardless of the fact that the PC brigade spends their time trying to thump it into everyone's heads.

Ancient steel
Steel was known in antiquity, and may have been produced by managing the bloomery so that the bloom contained carbon. Some of the first steel comes from East Africa, dating back to 1400 BCE. In the 4th century BC steel weapons like the Falcata were produced in the Iberian peninsula. The Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) created steel by melting together wrought iron with cast iron, gaining an ultimate product of a carbon-intermediate—steel by the 1st century AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Ancient_steel

This whole thing stems from an inflamatory title in an interview : Black people 'less intelligent' scientist claims

inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

This is more a momentarily on Nurture. that is a Foreign Government with a western or individualistic culture cannot expect success with policies not geared toward a communal or tribal culture in Africa

He was commenting on sub-Saharan Africa and development aid we've all been pessimistic there

In the very same interview he was also quoted as saying:

He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.

In other words individuals should be dealt with on the basis of individual merit and NOT according to race-based affirmative action (still current policy as far as I know), proportional quotas or official discrimination on the basis of outward appearance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece

The very same Newspaper effectively apologized a week later in a column by Colin Blackmore an influential scientist in Britain:

I am now in Singapore and have learnt from erroneous reports that James Watson, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century, had advocated discrimination against blacks in an interview in this newspaper.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2702762.ece

Long Story Short

If you work at a lab in Cold Spring Harbor which lives and dies on government (pork barrel) contacts to produce flakier brook trout that tastes like salmon because it was spliced or the grizzly bear genome; then you don't get to object to current policies. :sniper:

It dosn't matter why things are the way that they are. What matters is that there is scientific proof of Dr.Watson's offensive theories. People don't want these things to be made public to avoid fueling racism. Its not racism if its true. Sub Saharan Africans are generally less intelligent than Europeans. How is that offensive if it is true? Not to mention that I would bet that EVERYONE involved in this little conflict is A. White (of some kind) and B. NOT sub saharan african.

http://krose.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/12/1158343-scientist-who-sparked-racism-row-has-black-genes



So it would seem that this negro hating fool has a bit of African in him. God does funny things with silly people :)

On December 9, 2007, a Sunday Times article[60] reported a claim by deCODE Genetics that 16% of Watson's DNA is of African origin and 9% is of Asian origin. deCODE's methods were not reported and details of the analysis were not published. According to deCODE's Kari Stefansson, the analysis relied on an error-ridden version of Watson's full genome sequence, and Stefansson "doubts [. . .] whether the 16 percent figure will hold up"[61]
- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

That, coupled with the fact that I couldn't find any credible news story that backed this up.

I think that they would compare the "white genes" with the "black genes" and then compare how much more he has than a standard white person. So he has 16x more genes that are typically only found in black persons than the average white person, or something like that.

I know what you're thinking, and this is the logical likely answer. Every ethnic group has certain typical marker genes. (The Spencer Wells & Brian Sykes books on this are very good.) So one might say, on average, a European carries X genes more commonly associated with Africans, but Watson has 16X. The fact that the article does not read like this shows me it was written by people who have at best only a vague understanding of the subject.

Alternatively they might also have compared the mitochondrial DNA I think. I believe it's often used to trace ethnical lineages of people.

Yes, that is how it is done. Mitochondrial DNA stays the same, because it is not mixed during reproduction. You have your mothers. When a woman is conceived with a mutation, all her children have it. All people with that exact mutation in the mitochondria can be traced to a single ancestral woman. And since we know how frequently these mutations appear, we can judge how far back in time that ancestral woman lived. (read the 7 Daughters of Eve for the whole explanation.)

A very similar process uses male Y chromosome DNA. It's passed unchanged father to son, expect for mutations, so lineages can be traced this way.

And I'm also not sure how they compare DNA between species. At what level do they look when they say that people share 98% of our DNA with monkeys? Is that based on genes? base pairs?


It's really not so easy to compare. The famous line about chimpanzees, bananas, and genes in common was a British geneticist being semi-facetious. The reality is, we may have 98% of the same genes as a chimp, but 1, those genes may differ in exact base pair composition (but there are some very, very primitive genes we all have that go back to YEAST, almost unchanged!) and 2, those last 2% are VERY important and control just how those other 98% are expressed. After all, if you think about it, the basic mammal structure, Human, Chimp, or Mouse, really is the same, just tweaks to the design in each case.

It dosn't matter why things are the way that they are. What matters is that there is scientific proof of Dr.Watson's offensive theories. People don't want these things to be made public to avoid fueling racism. Its not racism if its true. Sub Saharan Africans are generally less intelligent than Europeans. How is that offensive if it is true? Not to mention that I would bet that EVERYONE involved in this little conflict is A. White (of some kind) and B. NOT sub saharan african.

Please, show me this scientific evidence.

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samplearticles.html

Branded as racist by the ignorant.

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samplearticles.html

Branded as racist by the ignorant.

Let me ask: What is his method of measuring intelligence? IQ tests? Which are culturally biased(Every freakin one is). "Advancement", which has more to do with practically 0 contact? What are his methods?

Quite frankly, different cultures hold different values on different forms of knowledge. Depending on how one culture views intelligence(Which inevitably is centered around a certain form of knowledge), and tries to apply their version of intelligence on another, will vastly skew the results. I could slap together a test which would show that you are an idiot, and a Sub-Saharan is genius, if I wanted to, and it wouldn't even be that hard. They have the abilities to survive in their environment, you in yours. I would like to see you survive, say, a year in Sub-Saharan Africa without help from outside sources, given your current background. Actually, I'd give you a week before you come begging for help.

So really, don't talk about what you obviously don't know.

And railroads. Don't forget, white people left Africa with railroads.

That rant is just silly. You really believe having government leaders with a different skin color is worse than death from the Plague? The Black Death killed in ways that are truly ghastly. Horrific.

The whole "it is all colonialism's fault" argument falls apart when we consider that areas of Africa never colonized by Europe (for ex. Ethiopia, Liberia) have the same problems as the rest of the continent. And areas that were more intensely developed by Europeans are better off today. In Somalia, for example, northern (more colonized) Somalia is so much better off than the south that the world's media forget it's there, and many of the inhabitants want to break off from the freaks running the south and establish their own nation.

The Belgian "footprint" in the Congo was very, very light. The British control in Kenya was much more extensive. Compare and contrast the outcomes. The MOST colonized nation was of course South Africa, which has one of the better standards of living in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The final thing to consider; color is not the whole of the colonialism equation. The Zulus slaughtered more black Africans than the English and Dutch put together. Are they colonists too, or do they get a free pass to the lands they conquered because they are black?

There was very limited railroad Africa, most of it designed to get cash crops to the coast. You overestimate both the amount of infrastructure and it's usefulness to the Africans. Remember, the Europeans only built infrastructure that would be beneficial to Europe. They didn't have Africa's best interests in mind.

Liberia was a colony. Owned by the US, where free blacks were sent back to their homeland. It gained its independence in the 1850s, long before the scramble for Africa.

The Belgian footprint was actually quite heavy. I suggest you read up about Leopold II.

You fail to consider that colonialism sent a tribal people hurling into the modern age with absolutely no preparation. By mashing people of different ethnicities into a single nation and by failing to give them much of any preparation, Europe ensured that African independence would be doomed from the start.

Yes, that is how it is done. Mitochondrial DNA stays the same, because it is not mixed during reproduction. You have your mothers. When a woman is conceived with a mutation, all her children have it. All people with that exact mutation in the mitochondria can be traced to a single ancestral woman. And since we know how frequently these mutations appear, we can judge how far back in time that ancestral woman lived. (read the 7 Daughters of Eve for the whole explanation.)

A very similar process uses male Y chromosome DNA. It's passed unchanged father to son, expect for mutations, so lineages can be traced this way.

I see.


It's really not so easy to compare. The famous line about chimpanzees, bananas, and genes in common was a British geneticist being semi-facetious. The reality is, we may have 98% of the same genes as a chimp, but 1, those genes may differ in exact base pair composition (but there are some very, very primitive genes we all have that go back to YEAST, almost unchanged!) and 2, those last 2% are VERY important and control just how those other 98% are expressed. After all, if you think about it, the basic mammal structure, Human, Chimp, or Mouse, really is the same, just tweaks to the design in each case.

Yeah, that's what I meant, I assume most of these lines are more of attention-grabbers than real science.

You fail to consider that colonialism sent a tribal people hurling into the modern age with absolutely no preparation. By mashing people of different ethnicities into a single nation and by failing to give them much of any preparation, Europe ensured that African independence would be doomed from the start.

You should also consider that nowadays we're still exploiting Africa by implementing 'free trade' agreements when our economies are way stronger than theirs.
The irony is in the fact that much of our own wealth is due to protectionism and colonialism. Now that our economies are giants we can open the markets and let 'fair' competition on an 'equal' playingfield sort it out.
(although I agree that the matter is much more complex than I've said here and that continuing our protectionism isn't a great solution either.)

You should also consider that nowadays we're still exploiting Africa by implementing 'free trade' agreements when our economies are way stronger than theirs.
The irony is in the fact that much of our own wealth is due to protectionism and colonialism. Now that our economies are giants we can open the markets and let 'fair' competition on an 'equal' playingfield sort it out.
(although I agree that the matter is much more complex than I've said here and that continuing our protectionism isn't a great solution either.)

This is very true. Free trade is disgustingly exploitive for the third world. It's a bit funny how the US isn't so keen on free trade now that China is starting to use it against us.

It dosn't matter why things are the way that they are. What matters is that there is scientific proof of Dr.Watson's offensive theories. There is?
People don't want these things to be made public to avoid fueling racism. Its not racism if its true. Incorrect.
Sub Saharan Africans are generally less intelligent than Europeans. By what standard? An IQ test? What?
How is that offensive if it is true? Is it actually true?
Not to mention that I would bet that EVERYONE involved in this little conflict is A. White (of some kind) and B. NOT sub saharan african.Not all that important.

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samplearticles.html

Branded as racist by the ignorant.Which one?

Not "IQ Population Genetics: It's Not As Simple As You Think" by any chance?

Hey, just because you're a Nobel Prize winner doesn't give you the right to say idiotic, unfounded stuff and get away with it. James Watson might have been an outstanding and pioneering scientist, but that doesn't give him room to say offensive and scientifically unfounded things just because he's James Watson.

Hey, just because you're a Nobel Prize winner doesn't give you the right to say idiotic, unfounded stuff and get away with it. James Watson might have been an outstanding and pioneering scientist, but that doesn't give him room to say offensive and scientifically unfounded things just because he's James Watson.

I think James Watson would take exception to that. To him, only Nobel Prize winners are capable of judging Nobel Prize winners, and since nobody wants to waste time with him, he goes on. Granted, he and Crick did do that whole DNA thing, which essentially elevated him to scientific-god-status, but those on 'his level' just disregard his remarks as the family's black sheep. Once an uppity psychotic-maverick, always an uppity psychotic-maverick.

Did the steam engine come from Africa? Did gunpowder come from Africa? What about paper making, algebra or trigonometry?

I fail to see what is so good about those things.

http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samplearticles.html

Branded as racist by the ignorant.

Funny you should mention this. I read up on one of the articles there. The author described a study done in California between white and black children. He found that there was only a 14% difference in IQ between races compared to an (approx.) 80% with families. But that's hardly relevant to your point I suppose. But he continues to imply, and actually concludes that environmental factors play a major role in determining IQ, mainly standard of living. He also goes on to say that craniometric variation, i.e. skull size is highest among individuals (81%) compared to the major races (only 13%). His point is that skull size or shape has not been subject to divergent selection between the major races compared to skin colour, which is just a mechanism for UV protection and Vitamin D synthesis. What I also found interesting is his claim that areas with a history of colonial rule and non-colonies have an IQ difference of around 18.8 (non-colonies scoring higher)

There are some differences in IQ between the major races of course, but he goes on to say that IQ is a crude construct, not indicative of other major traits that are equally important.

:rolleyes:I don't see how that's racist. Africa is a dump, and African-Americans are... well, look at them.

And 16% black genes doesn't make you black.

Because it's always about race, not socio economics. :rolleyes:

Racist asshole.

:rolleyes:

Because it's always about race, not socio economics. :rolleyes:

Racist asshole.

Flaming....

I fail to see what is so good about those things.

Well, Trig/Algebra and Paper yes, I can agree.

Steam Power has it's good points and bad.

Gunpowder, that's mostly just a bad thing when you get down to it.

He won a Nobel Prize....really? really?!

The Nobel prize is not like the be all end all thing that it is made out to be.

Gandhi didn't win one, but Arafat won it. ;)

some black inventors - I wonder if Ferrous Oxide ever came up with anything useful in his life that comes close to these things:

1
A.P. Abourne
Refining of coconut oil.
July 27, 1980


2
A. B. Blackburn
Spring seat for chairs. Patent# 380,420
April 3, 1888


3
A.C. Richardson
Casket-Lowering Device. Patent# 529,311
November 13, 1894


4
A.C. Richardson
Churn. Patent # 466,470
February 17, 1891


5
A.E. Long and A.A. Jones--
Caps For Bottles And Jars
1898


6
A.L. Lewis
Window Cleaner
1892


7
A.L. Rickman
Galoshes
1898


8
Anna M. Mangin
Pastry fork
March 1, 1892


9
Alexander P. Ashbourne
Biscuit Cutter
November, 1875


10
Alexander Miles
Elevator and also safety device for elevators. Patent No. 371,207
October11, 1887


11
Alfred L. Cralle
Ice Cream Scooper. Patent # 576,395
February 2,1897


12
Alice Parker
Heating Furnace
1918


13
Andrew Beard
Automatic Car Coupling Device
1897


14
Augustus Jackson
Ice cream
1832


15
B. F. Cargill
Invalid cot. Patent# 629,658
July 25, 1899


16
B.F. Jackson
Gas Burner

17
Benjamin Banneker
Clock, Prints for Wash. DC 1st Almanac

18
Bessie V. Griffin
Portable Receptacle
1951


19
C.B. Brook
Street Sweeper
1896


20
C.V. Richey
Fire Escape Bracket. Patent # 596,427
December 28, 1897


21
C. W. Allen
Self Leveling table. Patent # 613,436
November 1, 1898


22
D. McCree
Portable Fire Escape. Patent # 440,322
November 11, 1890


23
Darryl Thomas
Cattle Roping Apparatus

24
Dr. Charles Drew
Invented Blood Banks And Established Them Around The World
1940


25
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams
Performed First Open Heart Surgery
1893


26
Edmond Berger
Spark Plug


27
Elbert R. Robinson
Electric Railway Trolley


28
Ellen Elgin
Clothes Wringer
1880s


29
Elijah Mccoy
Automatic Lubrication System (For Railroad And Heavy Machinery) 1892
July 2, 1872


30
Folarin Sosan
Package-Park (Solves Package Delivery Dilemma) www.maita.com
1997


31
Frederick Jones
Ticket Dispensing Machine. Patent # 2163754
June 27, 1939


32
Frederick Jones
Starter Generator. Patent # 2475842
July 12, 1949


33
Frederick Jones
Two-Cycle gasoline Engine. Patent # 2523273
November 28, 1950


34
Frederick Jones
Air Condition. Patent # 2475841
July 12, 1949


35
Frederick Jones
Portable X-Ray Machine


36
G.W. Murray
Cultivator and Marker. Patent # 517,961
April 10, 1894


37

G.W. Murray
Combined Furrow Opener and Stalk-Knocker. Patent # 517,960
April 10, 1894


38
G.W. Murray
Fertilizer Distributor. Patent# 520,889
June 5, 1894



39
G.W. Murray
Cotton Chopper. Patent # 520,888
June 5, 1894


40
G.W. Murray
Planter. Patent # 520,887
June 5, 1894


41
G. F. Grant
Golf Tee. Patent # 638,920
December 12, 1899


42
G.T. Sampson
Clothes Drier
1892


43
G.W. Kelley
Steam Table
1897


44
Garret A. Morgan
Gas Mask (Saved Many Lives During WWI)
1914


45
George Alcorn
Fabrication of spectrometer. Patent # 4,618,380
October 21, 1986


46
George Tolivar
Ship's propeller


47
George Washington Carver
Peanut Butter
1900


48
George Washington Carver
300 products from peanuts, 118 products from the sweet potato and 75 from the pecan.
1900-1943


49
Garret A. Morgan
Automatic Traffic Signal
1923


50
Gertrude E. Downing and William Desjardin
Corner Cleaner Attachment.
Patent # 3,715,772
February 13, 1973


51
Granville Woods
Telephone (His Telephone Was Far Superior To Alexander Graham Bell's)
Dec. 2,1884


52
Granville Woods
Trolley Car
1888


53

Granville Woods
Multiplex Telegraph System (Allowed Messages To Be Sent And Received From Moving Trains)
1887


54
Granville Woods
Railway Air Brakes (The First Safe Method Of Stopping Trains)
1903


55
Granville Woods
Steam Boiler/Radiator
1884


56
Granville Woods--
Third Rail (Subway)


57
H. Grenon
Razor Stropping Device. Patent # 554,867
February 18, 1896


58
H.H. Reynolds
Window Ventilator for Railroad Cars.
Patent No.275,271
April 3, 1883


59
H.A. Jackson
Kitchen Table


60
Henry Blair
Mechanical Seed Planter
1830


61
Henry Blair
Mechanical Corn Harvester


62
Henry Single
Patented an Improved Fish Hook. He sold it later for $625.
1854


63
Henry Sampson
Cellular Phone
July 6th, 1971


64
I.O. Carter
Nursery Chair
1960


65
Issac R. Johnson
Bicycle Frame


66
J. A. Joyce
Ore Bucket. Patent # 603,143
April 26, 1898


67
J. Hawkins
Patented the Gridiron
March 3, 1845


68
J. Gregory
Motor


69
J.A. Sweeting
Cigarette Roller
1897


70

J.B. Winters

Fire Escape Ladder

71

J. H. Hunter

Portable Weighing Scales. Patent # 570,533

November 3, 1896
72

J.F. Pickering

Air Ship

1892
73

J. H. Robinson
Lifesaving guards for Street Cars. Patent# 623,929
April 25, 1899
74

J. Robinson

Dinner Pail. Patent# 356,852

February 1, 1887
75

J. W. Reed
Dough Kneader and Roller. Patents# 304,552
September 2, 1884
76

J. Ross

Bailing Press. Patent # 632,539

Sept 05, 1899
77

J.H. White

Convertible Sette (A Large Sofa)

1892
78

J.H. White

Lemon Squeezer

1896
79

J.L. Love

Pencil Sharpener. Patent # 594,114

23 November 1897
80

J.S. Smith

Lawn Sprinkler. Patent # 581,785

May 4, 1897
81

James Forten

Sailing Apparatus

1850
82

James S. Adams

Airplane Propelling

83

Jan Matzelinger

Automatic Shoe Making Machine

1883
84

Joan Clark

Medicine Tray

1987
85

John A. Johnson

Wrench

86

John Burr

Lawn Mower


87

John Parker
"Parker Pulverizer" Follower-Screw for Tobacco Presses. Patent# 304,552
September 2, 1884
88

John Standard

Refrigerator. Patent# 304,552

Jul 14,1894
89

Joseph Gammel

Supercharge System for Internal Combustion Engine


90

Joseph N. Jackson

Programmable Remote Control

91

L.C. Bailey

Folding Bed

1899
92

L. Bell

Locomotive smoke stack. Patent# 115,153

May 23, 1871
93

L. F. Brown

Bridle bit. Patent # 484,994

October 25, 1892
94

L.S. Burridge And N.R. Marsham

Typewriter

1885
95

Lewis Howard Latimer

Light Bulb Filament


96

Lewis Temple

Toggle Harpoon (Revolutionized The Whaling Industry)

1848
97

Lloyd A. Hall

Chemical compound to preserve meat

98

Lloyd P. Ray

Dust Pan


99

Lydia Holmes

Wood Toys. Patent # 2,529,692

November 14, 1950
100

Lydia O. Newman

Hair brush


101

M.C. Harney

Lantern/Lamp

Aug.19, 1884
102

Madam. C. Walker

Hair Care Products

1905
103

Majorie Joyner
Permanent hair wave machine. Patent # 1693515
November 27, 1928
104

Madeline M. Turner

The Fruit Press

1916
105

Marie V. Brittan Brown

Security System. Patent # 3,482,037

December 2, 1969
106

Manley West
Discovered compound in canibis to cure glaucoma.
1980-1987
107

Norbett Rillieux

Sugar Refining System

1846
108

O.B. Clare

Rail Tresle. Patent# 390,753

October 9, 1888
109

O. E. Brown

Horse Shoe

8/23/1892
110

Onesimus

Small Pox Inoculation (He Brought This Method From Africa Where Advance Medical Practices Were In Use Long Before Europeans Had Any Medical Knowledge)

1721
111

Otis F. Boykin

Wire Type Precision Resistor.
Patent # U.S. 2,891,227

June 16, 1959
112

Paul E Williams

Helicopter

113

Peter Walker

Machine for Cleaning Seed Cotton

114

Phillip Downing

Letter Drop Mailbox. Patent # 462,096

October 27, 1891
115

Philip Emeagwali

Accurate Weather Forecasting

1990
116

Philip Emeagwali

Hyperball Computer

April 1996
117

Philip Emeagwali

Improved Petroleum Recovery

1990
118

Philip Emeagwali

World's Fastest Computer

1989
119

R.A. Butler

Train alarm. Patent #157,370

June 15, 1897
120

R.P. Scott

Corn Silker

1894
121

Richard Spikes

Automatic Gear Shift


122

Robert Flemming Jr.

Guitar

March 3, 1886
123

S. H. Love
Improvement to military guns. Patent # 1301143.
22 April 1919
124

S. H. Love
Improve Vending Machine. Patent # 1936515
November 21, 1933
125

Sara E. Goode

Cabinet Bed

1885
126

Rufus Stokes Patent #3,378,241

Exhaust Purifier

April 16, 1968
127

Sarah Boone

Ironing Board

April 26, 1892
128

T. Elkins

Toilet

1897
129

T. J. Byrd

Rail car coupling . Patent# 157,370

December 1, 1874
130

Thomas Carrington

Range Oven

1876
131

Thomas J.Martin

Patented the Fire Extinguisher

March 26, 1872
132

Thomas W. Stewart

Mop

1893
133

Virgie M. Ammons
Fireplace Damper Actuating Tool. Patent # 3,908,633
September 30, 1975
134

W. A. Lovette

The Advance Printing Press


135

W. F. Burr
Railway Switching device . Patent # 636,197
Oct.31,1899
136

W. H. Ballow
Combined hatrack and table. Patent # 601,422
March 29, 1898
137

W.S. Campbell
Self-setting animal trap. Patent# 246,369
August 30, 1881
138

W. Johnson

Egg Beater

1884
139

W.B. Purvis

The Fountain Pen Patent# 419,065

Jan 7,1890
140

W.D. Davis

Riding Saddles

October 6, 1895
141

W.H. Sammons

Hot Comb

1920
142

W.S. Grant

Curtain Rod Support

1896
143

William Barry

Postmarking and Canceling machine


144

Wm. Harwell

Attachment for shuttle arm; device used to capture satellites

Gunpowder, that's mostly just a bad thing when you get down to it.

What about fireworks?

The Nobel prize is not like the be all end all thing that it is made out to be.

Gandhi didn't win one, but Arafat won it. ;)

You see, here's the thing: Even a complete piece of crud can make a massive contribution to society. Just because he/she may be morally questionable, that doesn't mean that their work necessarily has to be. Nor does said person being a douche necessitate them being removed from gaining the Nobel Prize.

What about fireworks?

So Pretty Lights in the Sky=Great invention to mankind?

<snip>

Good man.

So Pretty Lights in the Sky=Great invention to mankind?

Like I said in another topic: "Gunpowder? More like funpowder."

In other words: Hellz yeah, bitch.

Something from Sub Sahara Africa...

The first university was founded in Timbuktu...I'm going to say that Universities are a pretty big contribution to society.

Also from Africa:

Spear
Bow and Arrows
Drums (first musical instrument)
Bridges
Water Pipe from Ethiopia
Use of Cavalry in war

So yeah a few things that civilisation built upon...

Good man.

Ah, but you see most of those might have 1/16th or so European blood in them, and all those inventions are just the 1/16th overpowering the other 15/16ths.

Don't be so blind. :p

Like I said in another topic: "Gunpowder? More like funpowder."

In other words: Hellz yeah, bitch.

Until you have hook for a hand...

Wait...

That would be awesome!

*buys fireworks*

Then where's mine? I um...have a Siamese cat who isn't mean and isn't snooty like the typical Siamese is?

Your cat should win the Nobel Cute Prize.

Liberia was a colony.

Wrong.

This is very true. Free trade is disgustingly exploitive for the third world. It's a bit funny how the US isn't so keen on free trade now that China is starting to use it against us.

What "free trade?" Last I checked, we still had tariffs, subsidies, etc.

Wrong.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

Something from Sub Sahara Africa...

The first university was founded in Timbuktu...I'm going to say that Universities are a pretty big contribution to society.

Also from Africa:

Spear
Bow and Arrows
Drums (first musical instrument)
Bridges
Water Pipe from Ethiopia
Use of Cavalry in war

So yeah a few things that civilisation built upon...

I beat you to it...:D

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

I know about the ACS.

Liberia was never a colony of the U.S.A., though. Therefore, you fail.

And please name a hair color not found on blacks.

Neon green :p

Spear
Bow and Arrows
Drums (first musical instrument)
Bridges
Water Pipe from Ethiopia
Use of Cavalry in war

So yeah a few things that civilisation built upon...
Well, the first three of these things are pretty faux "inventions". The spear, bow, and drum are inventions that have been found in just about every society on earth, no matter how remote. None really have a point of origin from which they spread, as they are all so basic that they emerged even in isolation from one another (hell, even Neanderthals had spears, and may have had bows). Attributing them to Africa is...well, just plain silly.

As for bridges...really? Sub-Saharan Africa? What are we talking about here? Again, I don't think you can really claim anyone "invented" bridges, unless we're talking about a specific type (like an arch bridge, or suspension, etc).

As for the water pipe...what exactly are you referencing? The only thing I found on Google was a discussion about hookahs, which said Ethopia was one of multiple possible origin points.

As for your final point...that's just plain wrong. I mean, that's not even close to correct. The use of horses in warfare originated, without the shadow of a doubt, from Central Asia. Hell, chariots were an Central Asian invention! Central Asia and Iran (the Steppe part) had cavalry before anyone else did. If anything, excluding ancient Egypt (which as others have pointed out wasn't truly a racially "African" civilization), Africa never really had cavalry...in no small part because horses have never lived in Africa (they're Central Asian in origin).

I'm not agreeing that Africans are in any way less intelligent than other peoples, resources and contact absolutely had a major impact on their ability to advance, but to claim they invented these things...idiocy.

Why am I not surprised this has gained 10 pages overnight?

I think James Watson would take exception to that. To him, only Nobel Prize winners are capable of judging Nobel Prize winners, and since nobody wants to waste time with him, he goes on. Granted, he and Crick did do that whole DNA thing, which essentially elevated him to scientific-god-status, but those on 'his level' just disregard his remarks as the family's black sheep. Once an uppity psychotic-maverick, always an uppity psychotic-maverick.

Good point. For those of us who know better than to deify him, I guess we'll have a somewhat more realistic view of his behavior...

China used to be pretty bad.

Which goes to show you're full of it and try to cover up your ignorance with factless blather.

China had poor, they had famines, they serious infighting, but for the most part, they were damned prosperous, far more than the contemporary European nations. So much so that the British had to export opium there just so they could keep their silver while stripping resources from China.

And Africa. They're not just magically poor. There's a reason they're poor. It took time for them to become that poor.

Yeah. Time it took for the Colonial powers to strip them of their natural resources.

China had poor, they had famines, they serious infighting, but for the most part, they were damned prosperous, far more than the contemporary European nations. So much so that the British had to export opium there just so they could keep their silver while stripping resources from China.

Fact: China was the largest economy in the world until the mid-19th century and had one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world for much of that same span of time. China was a very wealthy place for much of its history, and only began to decline for many of the same reasons that caused empires to collapse in all parts of the world. Its fall was hardly unique.

That is well over a millennium of technological, economic, social, and military dominance over the rest of the world.

Fact: China was the largest economy in the world until the mid-19th century and had one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world for much of that same span of time. China was a very wealthy place for much of its history, and only began to decline for many of the same reasons that caused empires to collapse in all parts of the world. Its fall was hardly unique.

That is well over a millennium of technological, economic, social, and military dominance over the rest of the world.

Yes, and Ferrous Oxide here seems to think they had it bad.

Only on NSG can a thread on "Geneticist who claims blacks are inferior discovers black genes in own family" can turn into "Blacks have not made technological or cultural advances so they're inferior to other humans, hur hur hur."

Only on NSG can a thread on "Geneticist who claims blacks are inferior discovers black genes in own family" can turn into "Blacks have not made technological or cultural advances so they're inferior to other humans, hur hur hur."

That seems pretty linear to me. In terms of cycles.
-Geneticist claims inferiority of blacks
-Geneticist is pwnt
-Some NSers claim inferiority of blacks
-Some NSers are pwnt

The fifth step could debateably be "Some NSers support point by sourcing geneticist who claims inferiority of blacks" and the cycle then loops around again.

The cycle of life, threads, and NSG.

And most of what the "west" came up with was stolen from other cultures.

Isn't that statement equally racist? Or does racism just work one way?

Yes, and Ferrous Oxide here seems to think they had it bad.

No, bad was Europe, which (at the same time that China was building great engineering works and entering a booming proto-industrial era) was still mired in the decay of the Dark Ages and only beginning to recoup the damages of the era. We owe a great deal to the Chinese; their technological innovations spurred our own period of exploration and scientific discovery.

Isn't that statement equally racist? Or does racism just work one way?

No because he puts west in "" marks, making it vague enough to be cleared of racism.

Plus west alone is vague enough to mean no race in particular.

Isn't that statement equally racist? Or does racism just work one way?



The west did steal many things from other cultures. We didnt say its because they were white so they had to steal them, we said they did and didnt use their race as an excuse. So no, its not racist, as race has nothing to do with it.

*lol
Reminds me of a TV show a while back about the genetic make-up of the average Briton. They selected some seriously xenophobe and racist examples and tested their DNA. African percentages were common, as well as a good deal of Southeast Asian, Arab and even Native American.
On average, none of the subjects (just like the European majority) had more than about 50% of their genetic material from Northern Europe.
We're all a bunch of mongrels, really :)

I loved that show! I think it was called '100% British'.

I also agree with you about 'Guns, Germs and Steel', that is good read on the effects of pre-existing environments and ecologies upon human inhabitants.

Random info I found while researching for this discussion:
Mansa Musa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa), the Mali king who was so rich that he managed to lower the value of gold in Egypt for TWELVE YEARS with one trip.

EDIT: Also, take Japan.
Nobody would be stupid enough to claim that the Japanese are stupider then everyone else, especially they're currently the second most prosperous nation in the world (by GDP, not GDP per capita).
Until the late 1800's when Commander Perry forced it open with four gunboats, the Japanese were still fighting with bows and swords, and in fact probably would have lost against Africa.
They obviously weren't genetically inferior, the leaders were just too stupid to open the country up to trade.
Africa is similar. Only a few African countries have any major trade with any other countries. Historically, the African nations that were successful were the ones that traded with others. (Egypt, Carthage, Mali, etc.)

And also, Carthage almost conquered Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_punic_war) twice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal).

It seems weird to me that some folks can think that black people are inferior, or non-contributors to society modern society.

African and African American culture is the most significant evolutionary component of the vast majority of modern music in the world, mostly via blues and jazz, but also through more modern layers of African-American influence.

Everything with a drum set playing a beat (or anything with a back-beat) can be traced back to the New Orleans synthesis of the European military beat and African-style syncopation. Call and response, wider use of a minor/"blue" tonality (not just for "sad" emotions), and the dominant seventh as a point of resolution are all musical elements that can be traced back to Africa and are now prominent in all genres of modern music.

It's important to note that African and African-American musical influence isn't just a matter of roots in a specific location, but a matter of continuous involvement in the synthesis of new genres everywhere African-descended communities exist, and improving on the musical innovations of other cultures as well.

Latin rhythms, a direct outgrowth of African rhythms imported by slaves, were incorporated into the evolution of music in America and are now standard fare all over the world. Any beat that can be said to "groove" owes its existence to the African-Americans who created funk. Under primarily African-American leadership, jazz and its related forms have taken European harmonies and built upon them, taking them to a new level of complexity such that classical music now looks to jazz for inspiration rather than vice versa. Jazz itself is an unprecedented genre representing the evolution of music into an emotional language of an infinitely large lexicon in which it is possible to become spontaneously conversant. Another important innovation by African-Americans is rap. At its best, rap is the most engaging marriage of music and speech, comparing every element of both side-by-side and intermingling them.

I know all this because I'm a fairly skilled musician on several instruments in several genres, which is why I focus on music, but the notable accomplishments of Africans and the African diaspora is far broader. In what is functionally the most assimilationist country on Earth (mine), African descendants have flourished culturally, and in some ways dominate. The evolution of the English language is largely driven by African Americans. Just look at innovations in slang and grammatical expression that have come from African-American communities. In fashion, it's a similar story. The ritual games of our culture (we call them sports) are dominated by descendants of Africans. At every level of society, in every group and profession, black people have managed to work their way in. Black people are well-represented among the past and future history's greatest and/or most effective leaders - Rev Dr MLK Jr, Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Frederick Douglas, and possibly Jesus of Nazareth all come to mind.

What makes this most remarkable is that black people in the world have been shat on continuously by non-black societies and cultures up until about 40 years ago (give or take, depending on the society). Virtually all African societies were raped by colonials beyond recognition. After that, weapons galore were dumped into the clusterfuck and proxy wars were waged. And through it all, capitalist exploitation.

In a world where human nature maintains cultural grudges for thousands of years (see Middle East), people expect that Africans should play catch-up to their oppressors in less than a generation? When racism is still very much alive and persistent everywhere? I question the mindset of such people who claim that African accomplishments have been somehow lackluster. I think an objective assessment of the facts can only yield the conclusion that black accomplishment has been practically superhuman given the circumstances.

So Pretty Lights in the Sky=Great invention to mankind?

Yes, without pretty lights in the sky, mankind would commit suicide. Everyone, all at once, dead.