[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by OrionzRevenge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I typically don't keep peer reviewed papers rolled up in my back pocket just to chat on the internet. The papers are out there but peer review organizations have a nasty habit of wanting people to pay to review them. A lot of times the work is couched in some other research on racial differences as it relates to medical issues. One of the things I find amusing is that no one raised an eye brow when medical researchers concluded that African descendants need to be exceptionally cautious as per hypertension because the environmental selection pressure of the Serengeti causes their bodies to retain sodium 4 times greater than Eurasian descendants. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. In his recent book The Social Conquest of Earth Edward O. Wilson (Honorary Curator in Entomology and University Research Professor Emeritus, Harvard University. He has received more than 100 awards for his research and writing, including the U. S. National Medal of Science, the Crafoord Prize and two Pulitzer Prizes in non-fiction.) Describes as I previously did the Prototype Human That is the African.

Well, you should try google scholar then. It takes all of two seconds to look something up. As your answer goes, nothing you really said goes into the little 400-500 yearish stretch that the olympian is referring to. That is what I would like to see peer reviewed research for. I guess I didn't make myself clear and thought people would provide research on that small little stretch of evolutionary time. Saying that there are differences between Caucasians and Negroids is kind of a obvious as the difference in black and white. Crap, I wouldn't even mind seeing articles on slave breeding bringing evolutionary change in other slave groups throughout the years.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The sources are provided in the links. The information is there. One article is comparing college-aged African American men with college-aged Caucasian men, one is a journal dedicated to sports medicine and is just a review article, and the other looks specifically at Kenyan runners. So, no... none of these sources are making, or attempting to make, any sort of generalized conclusion.

My question is specific and meant to point something out. Were ALL college aged Caucasian men on this planet compared to ALL college aged Black men living in America (African Americans)?

---------- Post added 07-11-2012 at 05:00 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Daniel86 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Slavery did not take people who will living in advanced societies, and throw them into barbarism, as occurred with your other examples. We are not talking about very non-linear, unintended "benefits", but very direct material and social progress.

Define "advanced" and "Barbarism."

Both of the societies in question were pretty Barbaric from my perspective. The difference is that one society had the guns & morals to brutalize the other.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Define "advanced" and "Barbarism." Both of the societies in question were pretty Barbaric from my perspective. The difference is that one society had the guns & morals to brutalize the other.

Don't you have an "Ethnocentric to English" dictionary?

He means white people are great, and black people live in huts, kill each other with blunt axes and have flies on their eyeballs.

---------- Post added 07-11-2012 at 03:16 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As your answer goes, nothing you really said goes into the little 400-500 yearish stretch that the olympian is referring to. That is what I would like to see peer reviewed research for. I guess I didn't make myself clear and thought people would provide research on that small little stretch of evolutionary time.

Try Google Scholar. I hear it takes all of two seconds to look something up.

That, or you could ask on a forum and patiently wait, but since it takes all of two seconds to look something up on Google Scholar, this seems quite masochistic and actually makes it appear as if you're not really that eager to see such research.

[LadySpock]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't you have an "Ethnocentric to English" dictionary? He means white people are great, and black people live in huts, kill each other with blunt axes and have flies on their eyeballs.

Yeah - I figured as much.

People's biases are invisible to them...

[Polymath20]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
with them being bribed by Western countries for permission to take the resources.

[LadySpock]

True. Many people don't know that Africans were complicit in the enslavement of other Africans.

[Daniel86]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah - I figured as much. People's biases are invisible to them...

You are welcome to your view, however the truth is that a 'rising tide raises all boats' - the poor of a developed society live better than the rich of a backwards society. That is progress.

[thod]

I would rather be rich man in a backward nation. I could fly over to NYC to buy crap, get medical treatment etc. But I could keep a harem, have servants and live in a palace. Sure beats being a poor person over here.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is debate as to whether Africa's problems can be fixed with money and infrastructure, or if there are intrinsic social/cultural values preventing progress from being made. Africans tend not to look out for each other. They tend not to cooperate. In fact, they tend to be each others worse enemies.

I'm not sure "Africa's problems can be fixed" - there's too much wrong with that statement to tackle. And undoubtedly social and cultural values play a role in preventing progress from being made. But a.) wouldn't that be true of every culture on the planet (i.e. doesn't every culture have "values" that prevent progress? a quick glance at some of the threads here would suggest that); b.) that certainly doesn't mean that those social and cultural values are uniform, much less intrinsic; and c.) it's simply not plausible that social and cultural values are the dominant, much less single factor. Of course "lack of progress" is multifactorial.

But honestly, the statement "Africans tend not to look out for each other" isn't even a plausible stereotype. I suppose it's unclear who "each other" would be, so maybe you're referring to a lack of nationalism. Probably because the national borders there tend to be pretty arbitrary and ridiculous, to many, and certainly not reflective of anything like a shared identity. Or maybe you're referring to the fact that those arbitrary borders and the political spoils that go with it have generated conflict. Unsurprisingly. We have seen this happen before. Neither of those things, though, have anything to do with whether "Africans look out for each other." They look out for their own, if anything to a much greater degree than western culture. That we don't understand who "their own" might be says more about our commentary on their culture than it does about them.

[thod]

Perhaps the harshness of the northern climate selected for different attributes. The need to cooperate in order to survive the winters resulted in a strong morality whereas the Africans could go 'every man for himself'. Thus they became superb individual warriors but cannot organise in armies because they lack the cooperative spirit. We certainly see far North nations being more socialist.

[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't you have an "Ethnocentric to English" dictionary? He means white people are great, and black people live in huts, kill each other with blunt axes and have flies on their eyeballs. ---------- Post added 07-11-2012 at 03:16 PM ---------- Try Google Scholar. I hear it takes all of two seconds to look something up. That, or you could ask on a forum and patiently wait, but since it takes all of two seconds to look something up on Google Scholar, this seems quite masochistic and actually makes it appear as if you're not really that eager to see such research.

The burden of proof isn't on me, and I am not interested because it's ludicrous. People actually believing this is rather crazy on it's own. Plus, I have access to uni databases, so I could do that. As said earlier, I am not trying to prove anything, I just want the some scientists to be found by the people believing this garbage.

[Daniel86]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would rather be rich man in a backward nation. I could fly over to NYC to buy crap, get medical treatment etc. But I could keep a harem, have servants and live in a palace. Sure beats being a poor person over here.

You couldn't do that 200 years ago. If it hadn't been for the great European Empires then those societies would still be living as they were then - in the basest barbarism imageinable. Think about that.

Even Karl Marx admitted this (with specific regards to India but it applies generally):

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow. England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe: “Sollte these Qual uns quälen Da sie unsre Lust vermehrt, Hat nicht myriaden Seelen Timur’s Herrschaft aufgezehrt?” [“Should this torture then torment us Since it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls devoured without measure?”] [From Goethe’s “An Suleika”, Westöstlicher Diwan

- Karl Marx in the New York Herald Tribune 1853

[ppu6502]

Marx is the new Godwin's

[Daniel86]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Marx is the new Godwin's

I think you misunderstand either Godwin's Law, or the purpose of my quote.

[deconspire]

If it wasn't for slavery the washington generals might have won a few games is all i'm getting out of this. If we have a zombie apocalypse maybe i'll take him more serious.

[Savagelight]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you believe, as Mr. Johnson does, that slavery benefited Blacks?

300 years probably isn't enough time to significantly change the gene pool in that way. Also slavery has happened to every culture so why would it only be slavery among blacks that somehow is a benefit?

So the truth is slavery probably didn't play that much of a role except in the short term. For example if there are a few super duper athletes like Michael Jordan or Shaq then you can say they benefited from whatever mating practices their ancestors had but that would be thousands of years of mating in Africa they benefit from, not the few hundred years in the USA. I think slavery influenced a lot of things but it's very difficult to believe slavery can influence mating practices over long periods of time.

I'd like to see evidence to the contrary.

---------- Post added 07-13-2012 at 02:34 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps the harshness of the northern climate selected for different attributes. The need to cooperate in order to survive the winters resulted in a strong morality whereas the Africans could go 'every man for himself'. Thus they became superb individual warriors but cannot organise in armies because they lack the cooperative spirit. We certainly see far North nations being more socialist.

I think capitalism has had a greater influence on the gene pool than slavery because capitalism was the driving factor in slavery. I think having rich robber barons replace the monarchy probably did influence the gene pool in some way, but I don't think it would be a black white thing but a rich poor thing. At some point in time 100% of American blacks were poor slaves but it wasn't such a significant period of time where I would think it could completely alter the gene pool.

Now on the other hand with capitalism you can go from being poor to being supremely rich and able to mate with the best partners and over a period of a few generations of mating this way it would have a eugenic effect which I think could change the genes over time. Once again it wouldn't be significant change, but if it were the lifestyle of these families for thousands of years to do that then over time it does, so I'd say arranged marriages and eugenics do influence the gene pool over thousands of years but I think all of the changes caused by slavery have had the time to be reversed. So a black person who was a slave but now free could have chosen a completely different mate and that could have gone on for hundreds of years and reversed whatever happened during slavery.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think slavery influenced a lot of things but it's very difficult to believe slavery can influence mating practices over long periods of time.

It's hard to deny that there is a difference between black and white athletic achievement in the western world.

I'm going to go with the culture hypothesis. Blacks don't excel at swimming, gymnastics or lacrosse because those activities aren't available/rewarded in their culture. The fact that certain activities simply aren't accessible to them is the starting point. Some sports simply require a certain amount of financial investment and the average black has significantly less personal financial worth than the average white, so they tend to live in areas that don't pay for those sports and/or can't afford them anyway. They end up focusing on different sports because those are the ones that 1) they can afford and 2) their culture idolizes. Additionally, the white guys tend to self-select out at a higher rate as they assume they have other options in terms of non-sports careers.

At least, the cultural structure makes more sense as a hypothesis than the idea that evolution happened over a couple dozen generations.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My question is specific and meant to point something out. Were ALL college aged Caucasian men on this planet compared to ALL college aged Black men living in America (African Americans)?

Yes, I know. You can't generalize past the study sample. I was backing you on this.

[TheDubhlainn]

	Originally Posted by Sk8ordude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've speculated that perhaps the descendents of slaves would have slightly stronger genes as selective breeding probably played a part in the slave business, but then again Africa itself has a way of selecting the strongest too.

I think I have a man crush. Well said.

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by TheDubhlainn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think I have a man crush. Well said.

Pseudoscience turns you on?

[Collide]

	Originally Posted by Daniel86 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Slavery did not take people who will living in advanced societies, and throw them into barbarism, as occurred with your other examples. We are not talking about very non-linear, unintended "benefits", but very direct material and social progress.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.