Are all races equal?

[Sandman]

Would a white athlete that could run as fast or faster than black athletes not really be white? Seeing as sprinting success is a commonly used 'racial trait' for blacks.

[Lancer]

That's right Sandman. I see a white guy in a sprint with a bunch of black guys and I think, damn, that's the fastest white man on earth! He loses by a long ways but I always think of him as a winner, just being there.

[Sandman]

You've lost me.

[Sava]

ohtellmewhythisthreadissoactivebecausethetopicisso absurd

[Luk]

Im proud to be white, Im proud of my ancestors who developed the best civilization in the world. And nobody will tell me that I can not be proud of it!

[Velociryx]

Feel free to be proud of it, Luk.

But understand that there is a difference between being proud of the accomplishments of a collective group of people with light-colored skin who have, historically, spent AT LEAST as much of their time ripping each other's throats out as they have building this society you're so proud of, and claiming that because of this accomplishment, all other groups of humans with different shades of skin coloration must be inferior.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Luk,
Two points.

1) Make your own accomplishments. Don't claim your own superiority by the accomplishments of others.

2) Be proud of the accomplishments of humans. We're all humans.

[MrFun]

Let's talk about something more stupid -- I bet blondes make better athletes than those with red hair.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Sandman
Would a white athlete that could run as fast or faster than black athletes not really be white? Seeing as sprinting success is a commonly used 'racial trait' for blacks.

As Dave Chapell puts it,

It's not the black genes folks. Theres no such thing that makes the black man run any faster than the white man. Its all the years of running from the lions in africa and cops today... We have to be able to run fast or we dont survive!

[Ben Kenobi]

ohtellmewhythisthreadissoactivebecausethetopicisso
absurd

Sava-

Go somewhere else, please. IF you don't have something to contribute, DON'T POST!

[JCG]

Considering truly "pure" races do not exist, either you treat all races as equals or you're being a hypocrite.

That said, you can and should be proud of the particular fragment of human civilization you belong to, regardless of such issues as race.

Sadly, some people still don't get it...

[Sava]

Originally posted by obiwan18
ohtellmewhythisthreadissoactivebecausethetopicisso
absurd

Sava-

Go somewhere else, please. IF you don't have something to contribute, DON'T POST!

While I am not contributing to this discussion... attempting to educate people about it's stupidity is a contribution to mankind.

[MrFun]

Someone answer my question -- are blondes better athletes than those with red hair?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then say why this discussion is stupid.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Luk
Im proud to be white,

I'm not. I didn't do anything to make myself white. Why be proud of an accident of birth?

Im proud of my ancestors who developed the best civilization in the world.

What did you have to do with it? Poland was a great country at one time. How the might have fallen. Don't worry, our time will come too.

[cavebear]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Luk

Cavebear - of course you can not say what I would say 50 years ago. Even in XIX century Gobineu wrote that Blacks people are more sensitive, and better in some physical things then whites. You know that Gobineu was a precursor of rascism. [QUOTE]

Racism has an immensely long history reaching back far beyond Gobineu. The Romans thought themselves racially superior to the Gauls, and the Chinese and Egytians before them thought the same about *everybody*. Racism is hardly a modern fallacy.

But you will not cheat the history. Actecs, Mayans, Asians, Indians, some people in Africa, Middle East - all this civilizations had equal, or even better enviroment then Whites. But only we created the expansionist culture, and spread all over the world. It is history, history is hard to lie... But of course today many scientist try to explain that history is wrong, because they try to feat their ideology to history

If ever a statement justified an ad hominem attack... But no, I must resist.

Everyone wants to think their ansectors accomplished great things solely on the basis of their innate superiority, because it follows that the descendents possess that same superiority. Alas, no. Cultural success depends on more non-racial conditions, like geography and resources. And those are very much temporary things. The assumption is simply innaccurate.

I don't have either the time nor spacve to educate you on the importance of location and resources, but I will offer some very brief examples in the hope that you will stop and think about them.

The ancient civilizations that developed first depended on the opportunities to domesticate plants and animals. So why did China, Egypt, and Persia develop when other people didn’t? The answer is plants, animals, and geography.

First, think of the continents in terms of climate bands. EurAsia runs east/west. Africa and the Americas run north/south. This is important. A domesticated plant or animal can spread through a similar climate band very much more easily than across different ones. Hemce, a crop domesticated in one place can spread east/west to other places of similar climate, but not easily move north/south where growing conditions change rapidly.

Second, some plants and animals are inherently more suitable for domestication than others. The original wheat plants were native to Persia, rice to China, corn to mesoamerica, and potatoes to the Andes. The original sheep were native to Persia, the the pig to China, the turkey to mesoamerica, and the llama to the Andes.

These plants and animals were domesticated for a reason. Not all plants and animals are suited to domestication. Plants need to be amenable to controlled planting and harvesting and be easy to obtain the food value from. Animals need to be fast-growing, biddable, and able to reproduce in enclosures. Consider wheat. There are many wheat realtives in the grass family. Only two originally had large seedheads. Those were both native to the Middle East. The rest of the world had only small-headed “wheat” available. Consider the horse family. Horses meet the needs of success in domestication. Zebra, on the other hand do not; they are far more aggressive and do not have the same herd structure allowing human control over them. Equally, you can’t domesticate antelope, they are too fast to be controlled in enclosed spaces. Horses are easy to domesticate, but many cultures have tried to domesticate zebras and antelopes but it does not work!

Third, consider geography. For a civilization to arise, it needs both domesticatable plants AND animals. And some animals are needed for food, while others are needed for burden (work). Very few places on Earth had all three. So, the first successful civilizations to arise had them, and the others did not. You think it just *happened* the the humans in those locations were inherently racially superior to the rest? I *hope* you did not say “yes”. So it was not racial superiority but local advantages that brought the first great civilization into existence. Conversely, no location that had such advantages failed to develop into important civilizations.

But there are problems. Mesoamerica had suitable crops, and an animal food source, but lacked a beast of burden for plowing and transportation. The same for the North American Indians (the horses died out about 10,000 years ago and were only returned by the Eurpeans after 1492). You can’t haul wagons with turkeys.

Through no fault of their own, the Africans, Indians, and Native Americans were out of luck. Their geographical locations did not provide the “complete package” needed to build a successful civilization. The Europeans landed in the Americas with the technology they needed because they had the start they needed. The Incas did not land in Spain because they didn’t have the whole package they needed.

Mineral resources became important later. The relative value of resources changes with time. If a culture happens to have what is needed at the time, they invariably succeed. When gold was the important thing (to buy food and pay soldiers), Egypt was the most powerful nation in EurAfrica. South Africa has most of the gold today, are they powerful? Things change. Persia used to be the important nation because of their wheat supplies, but climatic conditions changed and it became a poor growing area. At the same time, the wheat cultivation had spread east/west to Europe and India, and those locations suddenly became centers of powerful civilizations. Gosh, what a coincidence. The people there didn’t suddenly become superior, they just had the things needed to become a powerful civ. The Greeks received the new plants and animals before the Italian pennisula did, so they preceded the Romans in civilization developement. That was an east movement of the wheat.

It took longer for wheat and other food crops to adapt to northern Europe, though, so it was several centuries before the Gauls had the supporting food supplies to develop enough to increase their population and conquer Rome. Are you starting to understand that it is not people but geography that matters? Need I continue? And I haven’t even gotten to the “germs” part. Please read “Guns, Germs, and Steel”; it may alter your whole perception on “racial superiority”...

We are different... It is matter of our conscience if we say that our differency is better or worser then others races (for example we are more inteligent then Blacks, more creatfull, and expansionist from Asians, but is this means we are not equal???? They are better from us in other things, Blacks in sports, Asians in mathematics, engineering etc.)

You are so incorrect, and I mean that not "politically or socially", just factually. The European Cro-magnons who were the first people to paint pictures on cave walls and carve astonishingly artful statuettes were emmigrants from Africa only 40,000 years before. We are *all* Africans in that sense. Those same African emmigrants colonized Central Asia (from whence the Cro-magnons came to Europe) and went to India, Siberia, and eventually to the Americas.

You mistake the cultural differences in human societies for inherent racial ones. Europe succeeded after the Roman collapse because if abundant natural recources not available elsewhere. The United States succeeded very much for a similar reason. When you have abundant metals for plows and animals for food and burden, it's not really saying a whole lot that you do better than some place with terrible droughts and depleted resources.

As far as specific abilities go, Africans and African-Americans have focussed on sports because that was one of the few socially-allowed paths they had to success. Asians have culturally focussed on education and small business (as have the Jews) because that was allowed to them and was encouraged by their Asian and European cultures (respectively).

And I will thank you to not mistake "intelligence" with "education" when education has been both culturally and socially encouraged for Whites in America but not for minorities. When physical prowess was the road to sucess and social acceptance in the early 1900's, White minorities excelled. As their other opportunities expanded, athletics were not so important and other groups replaced them (as today, with many professional athletes being Black). One can easily see a future when professional athletes will come from new immigrants, perhaps mideast arabs and Asian Indians.

It's not race that matters...

[Boris Godunov]

I see cavebear has read Jared Diamond...

And yes, all races are equal. Genetically, we are all virtually identical, certainly to a point where what differences do exist are negligent. Anyone who thinks their race has some inherent superiority over another is wrong, plain and simple.

[GePap]

Take a tribesman from Papua New Guinea and a man from any American city: change places. Who last longer in their new environment? My bet, the Tribesman. There tend to be few welfare offices, helpful cops, and info stands back in the Tribal areas of Papua New guinea.

Does that make the tribesman and his "race" superior?

[Sirotnikov]

Please read through before answering.

Whether races exist or not, is not the point discussed here. It's arguing about terminology, which is silly. Call it ethnical groups, or what ever.

Are 'races' equal or do they have physical differences? I tend to believe they have some physical differences.

Why? Because different 'races' spent alot of time evolving on thier own, without mingling with other 'races' (or else, we'd be a single 'race').

We all agree that the single most important effect on a person, is the environment.

Now, in a given environment, those who are better fit for it, reproduce better. Thus prolonged stay in a certain environment, affects a community of people, do develop certain physical traits, in which they are different from people in other environments.

What does it mean? Nothing.

Why? because one can't say that a single 'race' is best. There are a 1001 criterias which can be measured, and we so far, do not know what combination makes a race "better".

Why else? Because we keep evolving, and most importantly, we change our environment all the time in these days.

You can't say that , for instance a "white race" (even though it's hard to establish such a group) is better than a "black" race intellectually, because even if this situation is to supposedly exist, it doesn't meant that it will last.

Because just as much as the traits developed in different environments are inherited, they can also change, rather quickly, when a drastic change in environment (both physically, mentally, sociologically etc) occurs.


In conclusion - 'races' are different, due to the different traits they develop due to environment, but can not be judged, because they keep changing, and there is no possible way we can measure or judge all the possible variables according to which we could "measure up races".

Thank you - and good night.

[Sirotnikov]

Does that make the tribesman and his "race" superior?

Why does want to label anyone superior?

One could claim that the tribesman would be better equipped to fit in the western world, than the westerner would be to the jungle.

That is however, a very sociological and cultural judgement, that has little to do with physical traits.

[loinburger]

I'm proud of my ancestors, since they apparently lived long enough to procreate.

[Luk]

God!

Your speech about geography did not prove anything. Of course geography is a one of things which determine is civilization going to be superpower, but not the only one. The horses. There is many other possibilities to transport things from place to place, wiothout horses. It is not said that only horses do that! And the most important is to start use the disadvantage as advantage. The geography is not ideal, all civilizations had a problems, and had a opportunities, but only specific civs tried to overcome this geographical problems, and solve them. The main problem of every civilization was the organization of the State. Organization of the state is the result of the culture, which is created by people in this civilization. Civs before Greeks had better possibilities to organize and create strong countries, and strong culture, and good social system in the society, but they did not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luk]

In mostly, I agree with Sirotnikov, but I have my own criteria about superiority, and inferiority, and I can say that Whites are superior for my criteria, like Leo2A6 are superior then M1A2s in my criteria.

But the differences are facts!!

And hmmm... is the first person born in Africa???? Todays science says that, but what will say tomorrow science????

But we know history, and history is not lying

[DuncanK]

Luk,

Wasn't his post long enough. He was attempting to explain the theory that is overwelmingly believed by Anthropologists and other Social Scientists. He could have gone into detail about the geography of each successfull civilization and how it benefited them, but he spared us all instead.

[loinburger]

History says that all societies are transient -- one day the Mongols rule the world, the next day the Romans rule the world, the following day the Ottomans rule the world, etc. Claiming that one "race" is inherently superior to another based on such a (by your own admission) relative measure of value demonstrates nothing but historical ignorance.

My ancestors were great because they spawned me. Your ancestors were inferior because they spawned you. 'Nuff said.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
My ancestors were great because they spawned me. Your ancestors were inferior because they spawned you. 'Nuff said.

[Luk]

Of course every position you can prove, every single, even the most stupid. I can prove my theory, and this theory (my theory) is much more natural, then is artificial tries to beat the racial theory. Of course as I said every theory could be proven. And the theory of equal races are developed by... whites Because only we know how to controll other people, and how to organize them in the best way. We are now entering in the stadium of globalisation, which is developed by whites, maybe we are entering in the last, the BEST stadium of the Human civilization (means WHITE civilization), but it is the development of White People. Other races would never develop democracy, human rights etc... So all other races should be gratefull to their superior brothers, that we let them share our cultural heritage, and development It is the one of the example of our superiority, and greatness

[Luk]

Of course many civs had a times of greatness, but only White culture had a continuation in the process of development. We created all ideas, we past all stages, we continued our expansion in all directions, even if our geopolitical structures collpased, they always reborn after it. Of course there are diferent worlds in different dimensions, but there are different histories of White People, with different role of others

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Luk,
I don't care about superiority! Can you establish a concrete difference across the races? Perhaps the top 1% of black people may run faster, but does it make sense to say that black people as a whole run faster? Compare the entire sample of a race, are there significant differences?

Besides, some of the fastest long distance runners are Arabic.

Eugenics is not about finding differences, but about changing people to fit the desires of the state. In 'improving' man, you impose your own conceptions as to what is best for the world. It also means discarding and rejecting those who don't measure up.

[Luk]

Heh... It is not my fault, that science proved that black people have more testeron, and have some things in legs muscless (I do not remember what it was exatcly) that makes them better in runs.

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