Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

YES! It's weird that some people WANT there to be a hard-coded difference between intelligence and race. I can understand why a racist would want this to be true. But I don't honestly believe everyone that wants there to be a difference is necessarily racist. So what gives?

I don’t think they necessarily want it to be true; I just think they’re naturally curious about what would happen given how racially charged the world is today.

 

[JordanN]

Your problem is you think I believe everyone is the same. I don't. I don't think all races are the same either. But it's worrying that you believe that the type of technology a society has equals how smart they are, instead of it only displaying the type of society that they have/are.

It's relative. Look at South Africa before it was colonized. It didn't have hospitals, schools,electricity etc all things necessary to support a growing population.
Does this mean that the native San people were hopeless? No. But it also means they would never have developed South Africa in the same way the Dutch settlers did.

War and murder will stop a smart kid from changing his life, his family's life, and the life of the world. Let us not act like black people aren't intelligent by looking at Africa as a continent (and coming to one conclusion).

Is Africa not the original homeland of all black people? Why wouldn't the continent with the largest and oldest black population not be judged by how it looks today?
Do you seem to have a problem when Japan is judged to be a very prosperous nation? Do you not think that it's because of Japanese people the country gets that reputation?

Again, these differences only sound harsh because we want to ignore every shred of evidence that might make one group feel left out, when the goal should be using this information to help them raise up from these conditions.

Lets go back to Africa again before European contact. What is the best thing they built?

Timbuktu. Which I think is still cool.

Now what have Europeans and Asians have built using nothing but their own race?

It's not even a competition. Africa just couldn't keep up with the same level of advancements the Europeans and Asians could achieve all throughout history. We can't keep ignoring these disparities but face reality.

 

[JordanN]

No we don't that's the entire point I am making. They are primarily based on genotype. Like saying a German Shepard and Black Retriever are more genetically similarly because they are similar size and color.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don’t think they necessarily want it to be true; I just think they’re naturally curious about what would happen given how racially charged the world is today.

But why are they so curious? And the world has always been racially charged. The slave trade in North and South America would have looked 100% different if things weren't racially charged back then.

It's relative. Look at South Africa before it was colonized. It didn't have hospitals, schools,electricity etc all things necessary to support a growing population.
Does this mean that the native San people were hopeless? No. But it also means they would never have developed South Africa in the same way the Dutch settlers did.


Is Africa not the original homeland of all black people? Why wouldn't the continent with the largest and oldest black population not be judged by how it looks today?
Do you seem to have a problem when Japan is judged to be a very prosperous nation? Do you not think that it's because of Japanese people the country gets that reputation?

Again, these differences only sound harsh because we want to ignore every shred of evidence that might make one group feel left out, when the goal should be using this information to help them raise up from these conditions.

Lets go back to Africa again before European contact. What is the best thing they built?

Timbuktu. Which I think is still cool.

Now what have Europeans and Asians have built using nothing but their own race?

It's not even a competition. Africa just couldn't keep up with the same level of advancements the Europeans and Asians could achieve all throughout history. We can't keep ignoring these disparities but face reality.

So we are going to just easily ignore Egypt?

 

[ProudClod]

No we don't that's the entire point I am making. They are primarily based on genotype. Like saying a German Shepard and Black Retriever are more genetically similarly because they are similar size and color.

Its the same thing I've said the entire thread. When you are miscategorizing Aboriginals as genetically similar to South and Central Africans while they are more genetically similar to south Asians then you have a severe problem in your categorization and identification system. That's the point.

There is no goalpost movement, its a legitimate question of what is phenotype related and what is genetic related.

Now you're just debunking arguments that no one made.

First off, German Shepards and Black Retrievers are distinct categories of breed. We don't need to look at their fur colour to determine that. And more genetically similar when compared to what? And why do I even care, if, for example, my main goal is performance based -- like choosing the best breed for law enforcement?

Secondly, misconceptions about gene similarity are, once again, irrelevant. Let's return to the dog example again. Did you know that, despite looking and behaving nothing like a wolf, the Shih Tzu is one of the wolf's closest genetic relatives? But in our categorization of this breed, we would never make that connection. Why, exactly? Because, despite the % of genes it may have in common with the wolf, the tiny differential is enough to completely transform the wolf into an unrecognizable animal. It is much smaller, much weaker, has a different skeletal structure, different hair, different behaviour, etc.

Percentage of genetic similarity is simply not relevant.

The only relevant thing to this discussion is the genetic differential responsible for IQ, which might be caused by a tiny percentage of genes (<0.0001%).

 

[JordanN]

So we are going to just easily ignore Egypt?

Egypt wasn't black. You are are confusing them for the Nubians who lived further South and manage to rule over Egypt for only a short amount of time (88 years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

Ancient Egypt were Caucasoids who were even discovered to have red hair like Europeans.

Pictured: Ramses II mummy

 

[DKehoe]

Again, these differences only sound harsh because we want to ignore every shred of evidence that might make one group feel left out, when the goal should be using this information to help them raise up from these conditions.

Lets go back to Africa again before European contact. What is the best thing they built?

Timbuktu. Which I think is still cool.

Now what have Europeans and Asians have built using nothing but their own race?

It's not even a competition. Africa just couldn't keep up with the same level of advancements the Europeans and Asians could achieve all throughout history. We can't keep ignoring these disparities but face reality.

Are you just intentionally ignoring the various posts people have made explaining why this could be the case? Why is "black people are inherently less intelligent" the only possibility you are willing to consider? Just to use one example, the idea that the Romans built the Colosseum using "nothing but their own race" is ridiculous.

 

[JordanN]

Are you just intentionally ignoring the various posts people have made explaining why this could be the case? Why is "black people are inherently less intelligent" the only possibility you are willing to consider? Just to use one example, the idea that the Romans built the Colosseum using "nothing but their own race" is ridiculous.

Because if I bring up modern Africa, the excuse is that "racism/colonization" is to blame for them being so underdeveloped. Yet if we look into the past, before there where was contact with Europe, Africa was still behind technologically compared to the rest of the world.

You can't have it both ways. Especially when you consider Africa is much more older, yet somehow the "flukes" only happen in areas that also coincide with having higher IQ.
Did flukes somehow miss Africa throughout all of history? And why would that be?

 

[DKehoe]

Because if I bring up modern Africa, the excuse is that "racism/colonization" is to blame for them being so underdeveloped. Yet if we look into past, before there where was contact with Europe, Africa was still behind technology compared to the rest of the world.

So you didn't read my point. I'll restate it for you then. What I suggested was that it's because other regions were able to be in contact with each other far more easily than with sub-Saharan Africa. If we continue to use Rome as an example, Rome drew a lot from Greece who in turn drew a lot from Persia who were themselves able to interact with other societies stretching east. So you have one long chain that's able to pass ideas and resources back and forth to each other. As llien said, civilisations advance by a series of flukes building off each other. It's all a case of standing on the shoulders of giants. They learn from what others have done and build upon that. If you have a smaller pool of people to draw upon it's natural that the development will happen at a much slower rate.

 

[mckmas8808]

s

Egypt wasn't black. You are are confusing them for the Nubians who lived further South and manage to rule over Egypt for only a short amount of time (88 years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

Ancient Egypt were Caucasoids who were even discovered to have red hair like Europeans.

Pictured: Ramses II mummy

And this is the portion where white people take claim for anything black or people of color for themselves. This is exactly why these conversations will always be terrible, because there's a certain segment of people that can't allow black people to be intellegent, naturally beautiful, and/or hard working.

You don't even know that black people come in all different shades, complexions, and with many different hair textures.
What race would you consider this entertainer/singer and the people after?

Because if I bring up modern Africa, the excuse is that "racism/colonization" is to blame for them being so underdeveloped. Yet if we look into the past, before there where was contact with Europe, Africa was still behind technologically compared to the rest of the world.

And why ignore what the black people from Africa a few generations removed (right after slavery ended) added to America with their intelligence?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

And why ignore what the black people from Africa a few generations removed (right after slavery ended) added to America with their intelligence?

Yes?

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes?

Yes what? I don't get it.....

 

[Vicetrailia]

Race based associations ruin the discussion.

"The hard truth, why can't we discuss this?"

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

I just think they’re naturally curious about what would happen given how racially charged the world is today.

I can guarantee it won't fun for blacks.

 

[ProudClod]

Man, this thread is devolving.

No one is saying that black people can't be smart, or that they haven't contributed to society. That's just silly talk.

So you didn't read my point. I'll restate it for you then. What I suggested was that it's because other regions were able to be in contact with each other far more easily than with sub-Saharan Africa. If we continue to use Rome as an example, Rome drew a lot from Greece who in turn drew a lot from Persia who were themselves able to interact with other societies stretching east. So you have one long chain that's able to pass ideas and resources back and forth to each other. As llien said, civilisations advance by a series of flukes building off each other. It's all a case of standing on the shoulders of giants. They learn from what others have done and build upon that. If you have a smaller pool of people to draw upon it's natural that the development will happen at a much slower rate.

This is a great point. But it has some hidden implications.

Over the last 40K+ years, Africans have evolved in relative isolation from the world. They lacked the cultural trade (and genetic mixing) of the "Western" and "Eastern" world. This, perhaps, played a big role in the IQ discrepancy between Sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of the world. If the genetic traits that are beneficial to building civilization were not selected for as they were in other parts of the world, this would naturally lead to Sub-Saharan Africans scoring lower on tests designed to measure those traits.

 

[JordanN]

s

And this is the portion where white people take claim for anything black or people of color for themselves. This is exactly why these conversations will always be terrible, because there's a certain segment of people that can't allow black people to be intellegent, naturally beautiful, and/or hard working.

No, I'm being accurate. Ancient Egypt was located far away from where the slaves that were taken across the Atlantic were located. Hence why I brought up Timbuktu, because that was an actual black ruled kingdom in the same proximity of the slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

But Egypt was never black outside of the short ruled Nubian dynasty and modern Black Americans do not have Ancient Egyptian ancestors but West African ones.

And why ignore what the black people from Africa a few generations removed (right after slavery ended) added to America with their intelligence?

Ok?
But America before the 1960s was always a majority white country.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, I'm being accurate. Ancient Egypt was located far away from where the slaves that were taken across to atlantic were located. Hence why I brought up Timbuktu, because that was an actual black ruled kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

But Egypt was never black outside of the short ruled Nubian dynasty.


Ok?
But America before the 1960s was always a white country.

1. I know Ancient Egypt is located far away from where black slaves in America came from.
2. Stop limiting black people to parts of Africa that you want them to be from.
3. Stop telling people that white people ruled Egypt for 3,000 years. It's literally a lie. It's a lie lots of white people love to tell because they don't want people to believe that black people were smart back then. It's part of the reason why the "Tulsa Race riots" aka Black Wall Street ( https://www.history.com/topics/tulsa-race-riot ) happened almost 100 years ago. We black people know how "certain" white people like to create a narrative about us and will even murder us to do so.

4. The majority of the time Egypt was black. Again black doesn't always have to look like sub-Subhuran Africa black. Black people look different depending on where we are from.
5. America might have been a run by white people before 1960, but many many black people invented things and did things in America that helped it to become a world power before 1960 that's for sure.

 

[JordanN]

1. I know Ancient Egypt is located far away from where black slaves in America came from.
2. Stop limiting black people to parts of Africa that you want them to be from.
3. Stop telling people that white people ruled Egypt for 3,000 years. It's literally a lie. It's a lie lots of white people love to tell because they don't want people to believe that black people were smart back then. It's part of the reason why the "Tulsa Race riots" aka Black Wall Street ( https://www.history.com/topics/tulsa-race-riot ) happened almost 100 years ago. We black people know how "certain" white people like to create a narrative about us and will even murder us to do so.
4. The majority of the time Egypt was black. Again black doesn't always have to look like sub-Subhuran Africa black. Black people look different depending on where we are from.

You cannot claim Ancient Egypt as black. Again, there were other African civilizations that are more accurate (Mali, Nubia, Ethiopia, Zulu), but Ancient Egypt was never a black civilization.
Last time I'm going to say this.

5. America might have been a run by white people before 1960, but many many black people invented things and did things in America that helped it to become a world power before 1960 that's for sure.

Blacks contributed to America but you're in denial that it's world power status came exclusively from them.
And you even said so yourself. "Run by white people before 1960". What did that make America if one race was the majority demographic and in control of its institutions?

 

[Papa]

I can guarantee it won't fun for blacks.

I agree, and I think my post on the first page explains why. Group-level statistics are irrelevant at the individual level.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Phenotype, can be an expression of certain genes, but that doesn't indicate proximity or grouping of genetics.
Example, assuming all those which blond hair are more genetically similar than brunettes would exclude siblings or parents who may not share the same phenotype and false assume that because they do not have the same outward genetic expression, their genes are more dissimilar than someone who is not directly related but shares similar visual expression.

Look on a single trait, that's nice, but we're in an age when we can do full genome sequencing. If a full genome sequence comparison says two individuals are more related, then so it is.

Complex traits like height can vary significantly between ethnic groups. The idea that internal Traits vary between groups, just like there are many external traits, that vary and the variations are shared in group by large groups, seems like a reasonable one.

Look at marathon runners

How an ethnic minority that makes up 0.06% of the world's population came to dominate most of its long-distance races. -theatlantic

You can say, we must define what ethnicity means, but that does not make it less real. Does not deny the fact that certain genetic variants may be more common in certain groups and provide them an advantage.

 

[EviLore]

I don't think this thread is going in useful directions and I don't think it can. We can't think along racial boundaries and dehumanize people like this and ever get along. Judge people individually and judge others as little as possible. I'll close it off with an anecdote to reflect upon about Africa.

I did my Kilimanjaro trek with a random group since it was last minute. They were all European or American Caucasian males. The most respectable one of the bunch was a worldly, badass elderly Alaskan guy, and the most thoughtful were two blue collar British guys who had saved up for a long time and trained hard to do it and didn't think they were better than anyone else. The rich guys who were there to check boxes and Do Awesome Stuff as purely selfish acts were functionally retarded assholes most of the time. I will withhold comment about myself in this situation but you're welcome to see me as a selfish asshole checking boxes too if you'd like. Anyway:

One guy in the group took selfies every 30 seconds and proudly proclaimed that Dubai was the most idyllic place on Earth and he didn't understand why everywhere couldn't be that way. Dubai, with the slave labor and the sewage dumped into the ocean for everyone to swim in? Where you get thrown in jail for kissing in public without being married or if you pass through customs with a poppy seed from a bagel on your shoe? Jesus Christ.

Another guy interrupted a conversation I was having with an incredibly thoughtful porter/assistant guide who was fluent in several languages and understood global politics more than most people I've met internationally. The dude immediately jumped in and described a black guy as an "animal." He was trying to give him a compliment using sports jargon. The porter's heart sank at another white man dehumanizing black people. "Animals? .........We are not animals, sir.........." The sports dude doubled down on the comment: "No, I mean, an *animal*, you know, he was a fuckin' BEAST!" lol oh boy. Keep in mind the Tanzanian spoke at least three languages and English was not his native tongue, and was speaking English with me eloquently about GEOPOLITICS when we were interrupted by animal/beast mode guy. I tried to deescalate the whole thing and I spoke with them each individually afterwards to try to smooth things over and help forge mutual understanding, but it wasn't the impoverished African dude in that situation who was acting the fool. The Tanzanian should be lecturing in a university and the other guy should be carrying shit up a mountain.

One of the other guys in the group explained the terrible personal tragedy of how he lost his business unfairly. I was curious about the details and asked him later. He broke the law and was cheating customers and the other business he was working for, but he was too blind to see it as his own fault in any way. Contrast that: I was exhausted post-summit at the exit point of the mountain and left my $800 phone sitting around and walked away to sign the official entrybook that confirms you've done the whole route successfully etc. A $10/day porter who I had never met or spoken to, who carries a ton of gear on his back and on his head jogging up Mt. Kilimanjaro for a living and had just finished the latest round of that had found it while no one was looking, and was walking around the exit camp holding it up in the air and loudly trying to find the idiot it belonged to to give it back to him. That idiot's me. Holy shit.


The more self-righteous someone is the more blind they are to their own shortcomings and the stupid shit coming out of their own mouth. Start by knowing you have shortcomings that you don't see in yourself. Then find the good in other people and attempt to understand the bad on a human level, since we're all human. Then preferably just stop there and live life or you're going to end up saying some dumb shit. Thanks.