Purpose of race and intelligence research

[OripahsTrebor]

Why do people perform this research... People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.

Why do people use IQ to argue that one race is inferior and subhuman? Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?

The world will be better off if everyone is equal.

[DNAReplicator]

Because by demonstrating that people with a higher proportion of genes in common with the researchers are in some way 'superior', the sequestering of resources necessary for survival and reporoduction from individuals with fewer genes in common with the researchers is therefore 'justified'. Unpleasent stuff.

[toth8]

Why do people perform this research... People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.

Why do people use IQ to argue that one race is inferior and subhuman? Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?

The world will be better off if everyone is equal.

It's probably more of an issue of the psychology of racism.

But really, Africans should prove the white supremacists wrong. Creating a technologically advanced, politically stable country in sub-Saharan Africa would undermine a lot of white supremacist thought.

[OripahsTrebor]

It's probably more of an issue of the psychology of racism.

But really, Africans should prove the white supremacists wrong. Creating a technologically advanced, politically stable country in sub-Saharan Africa would undermine a lot of white supremacist thought.

So what are you saying? The people at the cesspool Stormfront are correct? If they really have an average IQ of 80, I doubt it will happen. I think the best way is to help blacks by forcing them to have children via embryo selection when the technology is available. It will raise their IQ by 15 for each generation.

The wikipedia entry on "Richard Lynn" discusses this.

In Eugenics, Lynn argues embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents' IQ. Lynn argues this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilizing the population's IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after as little as six or seven generations.

By forcing blacks to have children by embryo selection, James T. will be unable to propound his theories on black inferiority.

Of course, such a policy isn't racist, every race should be forced to have children this way because every race could use some serious improvement. We need to increase intelligence by at least 4 standard deviation units.

[Sarpedon]

race is an artificial concept, but one that we in the USA are very preoccupied with. Race is very much a politicized topic, and since scientific funding is also political, one should not be surprised that money is spent on researching this topic.

[James T]

Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?I cannot speak for the others, but for myself the issue is not about race or IQ but the lies.

There are three lies:

Races do not exist
IQ does not exist (or is not an effective predictor of performance)
There is no possible genetic reason for IQ differences between races.


Were someone simply to say, yeah sure, we accept that race, IQ and a genetics is a potential explanation for racial IQ differences but let's move on to something more interesting I'd happily go along. Indeed I tried this, but the thread which was based on the lies got more traction here.

The reason I was attracted to this issue here was not about race, nor about IQ, it was about the various attempts people make to say they are not important, not by stressing another issue, but by stating untruths about race and IQ and my reluctance to accept intellectual dishonesty.

[OripahsTrebor]

I cannot speak for the others, but for myself the issue is not about race or IQ but the lies.

There are three lies:

Races do not exist
IQ does not exist (or is not an effective predictor of performance)
There is no possible genetic reason for IQ differences between races.


Were someone simply to say, yeah sure, we accept that race, IQ and a genetics is a potential explanation for racial IQ differences but let's move on to something more interesting I'd happily go along. Indeed I tried this, but the thread which was based on the lies got more traction here.

The reason I was attracted to this issue here was not about race, nor about IQ, it was about the various attempts people make to say they are not important, not by stressing another issue, but by stating untruths about race and IQ and my reluctance to accept intellectual dishonesty.


I hate IQ, I wish it didn't exist. People use it to demonstrate that some people are innately inferior and have no dignity.

Since IQ is a measure of innate worth, people might interpret race and intelligence research to show that blacks, in general, have no dignity.

If IQ had no predictive power, then I wouldn't care about race differences. But since it does have predictive power, it predicts that blacks would be miserable because they do not have the skills to cope in this world.

[James T]

I hate IQ, I wish it didn't exist.But does this allow you the right to deny it's existence? Does the fact that you will die mean that you should deny that death exists? Unpleasant facts do not disappear because we might wish them away.

People use it to demonstrate that some people are innate inferior and have no dignity.True, some people do. There are inherent difficulties in this issue. Correlation coefficients are tend to be low for social measures. To use them requires an understanding of what the statistical measures are actually saying and where they are effectively able to be used. People generally have a poor understanding of the correct use of statistical measures.

For example, the statement Black's have a mean IQ approx 1 SD below Whites is often mistakenly used to support a statement which is clearly wrong (on an individual basis) You are black therefore you are less intelligent. As many people point out, the second statement has an extremely high chance of being wrong. However they then mistakenly say that because the second statement is wrong the first must also be wrong. This is simply misuse of statistics in the opposite direction.

As usual no knowledge is inherently good or bad, it is how we use it. The problem is that if you don't have the knowledge (by refusing to see it as people do on this issue) then you can't deal with it's misuse as effectively. Knowing the truth is a much better defense that fooling yourself to match your preconceived idealistic view.

[FatherMithras]

I've never seen an "appropriately conducted" racial test of IQ. But if blacks turn out to be significantly less intelligent than whites, why should we suppress it and pretend like it isn't true? Hell, if whites have an IQ lower than 80, why not tell? Because it'd be better to live in fantasy?


I don't think the studies were accurate that say that African americans are less intelligent. But claiming we should just pretend everyone is equal (if they weren't) seems stupid to me. It's like if we found out being Korean gave you ten times the chance of cancer, and we didn't address it because it'd be "unfair" and better to act as if we're all the same.

[toth8]

So what are you saying? The people at the cesspool Stormfront are correct? If they really have an average IQ of 80, I doubt it will happen. I think the best way is to help blacks by forcing them to have children via embryo selection when the technology is available. It will raise their IQ by 15 for each generation.


I'm not saying they are right at all. But it is true that sub-Saharan Africa has never produced a technologically advanced culture. White supremacists cite this as a symptom of black inferiority.

[premjan]

There are many reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa (or aboriginal North America) did not produce a technologically advanced culture. And IQ need not be be a major factor in it. It is pure speculation to lay this at the door of IQ, based on some IQ measurements whose efficacy in measuring human effectiveness are still a matter of debate.

[whichphilosophy]

If race does not exist in the first place as asserted by evidence of their research that we are all decendants of the San African Bushman then the statement that different races have different IQs would be nonsensical.

Indeed we should question how they arrived at the conclusion that some races are inferior to others in terms of IQ apart from social demographics. Certainly the research results of Herstein and Murray were aligned to the philosophy of the ultra-right-wing Pioneer Fund who funded their work.

[JamesBannon]

Both race and IQ are meaningless concepts.

The first can be shown by the fact that we can pick any genetic marker we like and define a "race" using that genetic marker. It makes about as much sense as judging someone by the length of their nose, the colour of their eyes, the size of their penis or the possession of some talent.

IQ only makes sense, if it makes any sense at all, within some well-defined cultural and educational contexts. It is of little use to anyone if, for example, we say that someone has a poor IQ because they cannot count when, culturally, they have no well-defined concept of number or they have not been otherwise introduced to numbers. What would that even mean? Nothing whatever.

[Preno]

Why do people perform this research... People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.Since IQ is a measure of innate worth, people might interpret race and intelligence research to show that blacks, in general, have no dignity.No, dude, scientists do not use IQ as a measure of one's "ontological worth" or of "innate worth". You just made that up. It is true that the society values intelligence and IQ pretends to be a measure of intelligence. It does not follow, however, that IQ is a measure of one's "innate worth". That's just non-sense.
The world will be better off if everyone is equal.That's a pretty silly statement in this context and I say that as an egalitarian myself. What does "ought" have to do with "is"? The world will be better of if X is the case - but what the hell does that have to do with determining whether X indeed is the case or not?
Since IQ is a measure of innate worth, people might interpret race and intelligence research to show that blacks, in general, have no dignity.And exactly how the fuck is that relevant? Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I am quite pissed off by people who want to suppress scientific research because "people might interpret it as such and such". So what? People "might interpret" the theory of evolution as saying that morality doesn't exist - but who cares about such idiots? What matters is the truth, not the "reasons why people perform this research".

I for one would be quite interested in seeing whether there are statistical differences between races/ethnics in intelligence (and, of course, other characteristics), and I am not interested in people who try to stop such research on either mistaken ("IQ is a measure of innate worth") or irrelevant ("why do people perform this research?", "people might interpret the research the wrong way") grounds.

[premjan]

What I question is the rather triumphalist tone adopted by some IQ researchers in defending their results. Other than that, IQ research could be useful in improving testing procedures. But it tends to get used as far as I can tell, to defend the fact that there are different races. Is there some way in which race vs. IQ research is really adding to the sum total of human knowledge? I would require some convincing on that. Because humans have a tendency to think politically, it could be that all that race vs. IQ research is doing is reinforcing our political prejudices (race being one of various political categories used to divide up humanity though it is attempted to be given a fundamental definition in this sort of work).

[whichphilosophy]

Both race and IQ are meaningless concepts.

The first can be shown by the fact that we can pick any genetic marker we like and define a "race" using that genetic marker. It makes about as much sense as judging someone by the length of their nose, the colour of their eyes, the size of their penis or the possession of some talent.

IQ only makes sense, if it makes any sense at all, within some well-defined cultural and educational contexts. It is of little use to anyone if, for example, we say that someone has a poor IQ because they cannot count when, culturally, they have no well-defined concept of number or they have not been otherwise introduced to numbers. What would that even mean? Nothing whatever.

Race is more likely to be a socially devisive term as quoted by Dr. Spencer Wells in the Out of Africa research. That is to say we made physical changes over thousands of years due to differences in weather, altitude and diet.

If race does not exist then there cannot be racial differences in IQ.

Of course giving an Aborigine in the outback a European or American IQ test is like giving a European a test suited to an Aborigine.

[whichphilosophy]

I hate IQ, I wish it didn't exist. People use it to demonstrate that some people are innately inferior and have no dignity.

Since IQ is a measure of innate worth, people might interpret race and intelligence research to show that blacks, in general, have no dignity.

If IQ had no predictive power, then I wouldn't care about race differences. But since it does have predictive power, it predicts that blacks would be miserable because they do not have the skills to cope in this world.

Since modern research shows we are decended from the African Bushman the above would not follow.

[Preno]

If race does not exist in the first place as asserted by evidence of their research that we are all decendants of the San African Bushman then the statement that different races have different IQs would be nonsensical.How does it one follow from the other? (that race does not exist from that we are descendants of Bushmen)

[JamesBannon]

Race is more likely to be a socially devisive term as quoted by Dr. Spencer Wells in the Out of Africa research. That is to say we made physical changes over thousands of years due to differences in weather, altitude and diet.

If race does not exist then there cannot be racial differences in IQ.

Of course giving an Aborigine in the outback a European or American IQ test is like giving a European a test suited to an Aborigine.
Precisely my point. The terms are meaningless when applied to humans generally as so much depends on cultural influences.

[barbos]

Since modern research shows we are decended from the African Bushman the above would not follow.
Modern research shows that we descended from the fish.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

I'm not saying they are right at all. But it is true that sub-Saharan Africa has never produced a technologically advanced culture. White supremacists cite this as a symptom of black inferiority.

Africa has produced MANY advanced civilizations, there are mountains of books and journals to support that. What white supremacists want to say is that blacks haven't produced any civilization that THEY would consider technologically advanced. White supremacists put themselves in the position of being the decider and arbiter of what is considered an advanced civilization. A position which is wholly unjustified.

[premjan]

Technologically advanced civilization has emerged only once in history so there is no rational basis for comparison.

[Febble]

Well, I have to say that all this talk about people "having" an "IQ" is a bit silly. An IQ score isn't something you "have". It's something you score on a particular test on a particular occasion. The confidence intervals are quite wide, different people score differently on different test instruments, the same people score differently at different times of their lives, scores are affected by educational opportunity, perinatal care, access to literature, mental state (depression tends to lower scores), nutritional status, all of which are, inter alia, indices of poverty. And above all, they are normed on populations. So you can't easily compare mean IQ scores from populations on which the test was not normed with IQ scores on which it was.

So there IQ scores obtained from people in Africa are not comparable to IQ scores obtained from people in America (because of population norming), nor are IQ scores obtained from black Americans comparable to IQ scores obtained from white Americans (because of the confound with poverty). And even if they were, the fact that IQ is correlated with educational achievement doesn't tell you which causes which. It is actually very clear from longitudinal studies of IQ that bidirectional causality is at work. And of course, general cultural exposure pf IQ tests raises scores, which is why mean IQ scores tend to rise by a point or so for each year since the test was published.

And all that is before you even start to unpack what "race" might mean (not a lot).

[James T]

Both race and IQ are meaningless concepts.

The first can be shown by the fact that we can pick any genetic marker we like and define a "race" using that genetic marker. It makes about as much sense as judging someone by the length of their nose, the colour of their eyes, the size of their penis or the possession of some talent.

IQ only makes sense, if it makes any sense at all, within some well-defined cultural and educational contexts. It is of little use to anyone if, for example, we say that someone has a poor IQ because they cannot count when, culturally, they have no well-defined concept of number or they have not been otherwise introduced to numbers. What would that even mean? Nothing whatever.This is pretty much a perfect example of the kind of crap some people spout. Thanks for the example JamesBannon. I'm not going to counter these idiotic statements, merely observe that you have not responded to the OP in any sensible fashion. OripahsTrebor thread was on why people get involved in this area, not whether it was valid.

[JamesBannon]

This is pretty much a perfect example of the kind of crap some people spout. Thanks for the example JamesBannon. I'm not going to counter these idiotic statements, merely observe that you have not responded to the OP in any sensible fashion. OripahsTrebor thread was on why people get involved in this area, not whether it was valid.
Why is it "crap" James? There is no such thing as "race". I'll grant you that there are different cultures with different histories, but it is a very big leap to say that these must be determined by some genetic differences. Even if they were, we are in no way entitled to conclude that such differences confer any degree of superiority, whatever that superiority is supposed to be. Like the OP states, I would immediately suspect an ulterior motive for any study that made such a conclusion. Why? Simply because, almost without exception, such studies have been carried out by people who wanted to demonstrate the superiority of some (usually the "white") "race". Also, I challenge you to come up with any convincing evidence that so-called race and IQ are in any way related.

[toth8]

Africa has produced MANY advanced civilizations, there are mountains of books and journals to support that. What white supremacists want to say is that blacks haven't produced any civilization that THEY would consider technologically advanced. White supremacists put themselves in the position of being the decider and arbiter of what is considered an advanced civilization. A position which is wholly unjustified.

And which civilisations are these?

Black Africa has contributed little to general scientific or philosophical thought.

[Newton's Cat]

I remember reading somewhere that the mixed race offspring of Japanese and Caucasians are the most intelligent group on the planet ...

Is there anyone here who belongs to this group?

I'm a Caucasian ... going back hundreds of years. A sort of "pure-blood".

If I'd known this when I was younger I'd have sought out a Japanese wife ...

[whichphilosophy]

And which civilisations are these?

Black Africa has contributed little to general scientific or philosophical thought.

The Nubian society goes back to at least 7,000BC

DNA research shows us we are all African Bushmen with no sub species division.

[whichphilosophy]

I remember reading somewhere that the mixed race offspring of Japanese and Caucasians are the most intelligent group on the planet ...

Is there anyone here who belongs to this group?

I'm a Caucasian ... going back hundreds of years. A sort of "pure-blood".

If I'd known this when I was younger I'd have sought out a Japanese wife ...

When you get past 45, anyone will do :)

[barbos]

DNA research shows us we are all African Bushmen
That is not true

[Neo-Nietzschean]

And which civilisations are these?

Black Africa has contributed little to general scientific or philosophical thought.

And how do you know? You've already shown that you have no knowledge whatsoever of African civilization, so therefore what could possibly make you think that you are qualified to make assertions about African contributions?

Instead your post should say; black Africa has contributed little to white supremacist thought.

I would agree with that.

[premjan]

And which civilisations are these?
Black Africa has contributed little to general scientific or philosophical thought.Science and philosophy are purely western endeavors (that too, mostly post-renaissance pretty much by definition. Why single out Africa? The rest of the world sucks. But it could still kick your ass in a few years. Wait and watch.

[Orpheus]

And how do you know? You've already shown that you have no knowledge whatsoever of African civilization, so therefore what could possibly make you think that you are qualified to make assertions about African contributions?

Does cannibalism count as a contribution?

[Orpheus]

DNA research shows us we are all African Bushmen with no sub species division.

This is nonsense. Human populations vary in their gene frequencies. A Bushman can be distinguished from an American Indian at the DNA level quite easily.

[Orpheus]

I remember reading somewhere that the mixed race offspring of Japanese and Caucasians are the most intelligent group on the planet ...

Ashkenazi Jews are the most intelligent ethnic group. Given the disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Jews amongst Nobel Prize winners, this hardly comes as any real surprise. How many Nobel Prize winners can be found amongst Australian Aboriginies, Kalahari Bushmen, or Congolese Pygmies? It is absurd to suggest that all groups are equally intelligent. While the causes of variance in IQ are disputable, its existence is not.

Is there anyone here who belongs to this group? I'm a Caucasian ... going back hundreds of years. A sort of "pure-blood".

This is a straw man. There is really no such thing as a "pure blood" Caucasian. There are Caucasians who are more genetically distant from, say, Congolese Pygmies than others. No one has any problem accepting the fact that there are different breeds of dogs. I don't see why the existence of human biodiversity should trouble anyone.

[Orpheus]

Science and philosophy are purely western endeavors (that too, mostly post-renaissance pretty much by definition. Why single out Africa? The rest of the world sucks. But it could still kick your ass in a few years. Wait and watch.

This isn't true. East Asia is a center of much scientific activity. Sub-Saharan Africa and the contemporary Middle East contribute virtually nothing to science.

[Orpheus]

Africa has produced MANY advanced civilizations, there are mountains of books and journals to support that. What white supremacists want to say is that blacks haven't produced any civilization that THEY would consider technologically advanced. White supremacists put themselves in the position of being the decider and arbiter of what is considered an advanced civilization. A position which is wholly unjustified.

What are these advanced civilizations? I will grant you Egypt and Carthage (neither of which are Sub-Saharan African civilizations).

[Orpheus]

So what are you saying? The people at the cesspool Stormfront are correct? If they really have an average IQ of 80, I doubt it will happen.

What the people who post at Stormfront believe is really irrelevant to question of the existence of race and any correlates it may have with intelligence.

I think the best way is to help blacks by forcing them to have children via embryo selection when the technology is available. It will raise their IQ by 15 for each generation.

This presupposes that intelligence is a genetically based trait and embryo selection would be effective at increasing the frequency of highly intelligent blacks.

By forcing blacks to have children by embryo selection, James T. will be unable to propound his theories on black inferiority.

If embryo selection is made available to everyone (once the technology matures), traditional group differences would quickly become obsolete. Then again, reprogenetic healthcare is expensive and its benefits will accrue primarily to those who are already privileged. The gap between Sub-Saharan Africa and the industrialized West would only become larger than it is now.

Of course, such a policy isn't racist, every race should be forced to have children this way because every race could use some serious improvement. We need to increase intelligence by at least 4 standard deviation units.

Presumably, Caucasians would be taking advantage of this technology as well. It would be more accurate to say this technology will benefit only a small wealthy minority which are disproportionately atheists. Most Americans would reject this technology for religious reasons.

[premjan]

This isn't true. East Asia is a center of much scientific activity. Sub-Saharan Africa and the contemporary Middle East contribute virtually nothing to science.Yea, sure, they have been doing a bit of science for the last few years, but I think it is premature to say that Sub-Saharan Africa will not be contributing to science. The reason is that until a country develops a reasonably good economy, national institutions etc. it is unlikely to contribute to science. Plus you probably just don't know about the science that is today being done in Africa.
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/
And the Middle East definitely does some science - maybe not as much as you are expecting but it is ramping up. After all, Europe also had some dark ages - which according to some had to do with Islamic control of the trade routes.
http://cnpublications.net/

[Orpheus]

Why do people perform this research...

Because they are psychologists interested in understanding the mechanics of the human mind? What is wrong with that?

People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.

This is false. Being highly intelligent doesn't necessarily make you a better person.

Why do people use IQ to argue that one race is inferior and subhuman?

I don't believe that at all.

Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?

Why should it matter? Sub-Saharan Africans have darker skin than I do. Most people would grant the point. If blacks are less intelligent than whites (generally speaking), we still would not be able to draw any moral conclusions from that (i.e., the naturalistic fallacy).

The world will be better off if everyone is equal.

No, it would not. The human species would be more likely to go extinct because of the contraction in genetic diversity.

[premjan]

What are these advanced civilizations? I will grant you Egypt and Carthage (neither of which are Sub-Saharan African civilizations).
Egypt: A Learning Module
Kush
Axum
The Iron Age South of the Sahara
Ghana
The Islamic Invasions
The Almoravids
Mali
Songhay
The Hausa Kingdoms
Kanem-Bornu
The Forest Kingdoms
The Swahili Kingdoms
Great Zimbabwe / The Mwenemutapa Empire
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/CIVAFRCA.HTM
So you don't know much is all that proves.

[Orpheus]

Yea, sure, they have been doing a bit of science for the last few years, but I think it is premature to say that Sub-Saharan Africa will not be contributing to science. The reason is that until a country develops a reasonably good economy, national institutions etc. it is unlikely to contribute to science.

The S&E article output of Sub-Saharan Africa, which accounted for less than 1% of world output in 2003, fell 7% between 1988 and 2003.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c5/c5s3.htm#c5s3l1

Plus you probably just don't know about the science that is today being done in Africa.
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/

Virtually no science is being done in Sub-Saharan Africa. The vast majority of it there is being done in South Africa which is increasingly a basket case.

[Orpheus]

So you don't know much is all that proves.

I believe the original point was about advanced Sub-Saharan African civilizations.

[premjan]

How does the science in sub-saharan africa correlate with its economy? I would expect the two to bear some correlation.
Here's one article on Nigeria (AIDS stuff).
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2007/april/nigeriahiv.htm
Here's something from Botswana.
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2007/april/telemedicine.htm
Here's something from Kenya
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2007/april/coral.htm
Here's something on science in indigenous Africa:
http://www.africahistory.net/
Here's a bunch of facts you perhaps did not know:
Chemistry

1. 1,500 to 2,000 years ago near Lake Victoria, carbon steel was made in blast furnaces. The temperature achieved in the furnaces, 1,8000C, was much higher than was managed in Europe until modern times (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 9).

2. Fire was first used 1,400,000 years ago in Chesowanja, near Lake Baringo in Kenya (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 293). Physics and Earth Science

Astronomy

1. The Dogon of Mali had an excellent understanding of the solar system and the universe 700 years ago. The Dogon had detailed knowledge of a white dwarf companion star to Sirius A which was not visible to the naked eye. Western scientists stated that there was no way that the Dogon could have uncovered this knowledge on their own and that it must have been supplied to them by a visiting European or an extra- terrestrial visitor. (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 13)

2. The Yoruba tribe had an exceedingly complex number system based on twenty. (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 15)

3. An 8,000 year old bone found in Zaire, the Ishango bone, covered with series of notches is thought to be the world's earliest number system. (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 14)

4. There was a very accurate calendar system in Eastern Africa by the first millenium B.C. (Lynch & Robbins, 1984, p. 55).

5. A megalithic site similar to stonehenge dating to 300 B.C. was found in northwest Kenya. Its nineteen basalt pillars were aligned extremely accurately with the stars and constellations (Lynch & Robbins, 1984, p. 51).

6. Beatrice Lumpkin discusses the development of the pyramids from African technology, "...from mud bricks to huge stone monoliths..." (Lumpkin, 1984, p. 67). The Egyptians of that time possessed sophisticated mathematical skill which was the foundation of the western science still to come.

7. A model of a glider dated to the 4th or 3rd century B.C. was found in Egypt. The structure of the object was most definitely aerodynamically designed (Messiha et al, 1984, p. 92).

8. An iron-ore mine in Swaziland, the oldest found in the world, was dated as 43,000 years old. The ore specularite was used as a cosmetic and pigment (Zaslavsky, 1984, p. 110).

9. The concepts of distance, area, weight, volume and time were all used by the Egyptians. Egypt also invented standards, units and methods of measurement (Pappademos, 1984, p. 184).

10. Egyptians invented geometry, trigonometry and many other mathematical techniques such as Algebra (Pappademos, 1984, p. 184).

11. Africans developed technology to build sea-worthy boats and the ability to navigate over long expanses of ocean . There is ample evidence to suggest that African explorers reached South and Central America long before Columbus made his journeys (Malloy, 1984, p. 163).

Biology

1. Africans were the first humans to raise crops and to domesticate cattle 15,000 years ago (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 20). "...between 17,000 and 18,500 years ago while ice still covered much of Europe-African peoples were already raising crops of wheat, barley, lentils , chick- peas, capers and dates" (Wendorf, Schild & Close, 1984, p. 58).

2. Africans developed their own aspirin and used kaolin to treat diarrhoea (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 22).

3. The Zulus had over 700 medicinal uses of plants (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 22).

4. Traditional African doctors carried out autopsies and were able to treat psychosis (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 23).

5. The Africans had a smallpox vaccine long before Jenner invented it. They used the same principle Jenner did and scratched a smallpox pustule with a thorn and then scratched themselves to acquire immunity to the disease (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 23).

6. Africans were skilled surgeons. In 1879 in East Africa, a European observed an African doctor carry out a caesarian section succesfully, using antiseptic techniques, before this type of operation had been done successfully in Europe (Van Sertima, 1984, p. 23).

7. Camille Yarbrough (1984) traced the development of cosmetic science in Africa. One of the results of the practice of cicatrization by African women, "...cutting and plucking their skin with sharp stone, twigs, thorns, crystal splinters or knives and then sprinkling the open wounds with ask, Africans stimulated their bodies to create protective antibodies and to resist disease" (Yarbrough, 1984, p. 90). According to Yarbrough (1984, p. 91) the reflected glare from the waters of the flooded Nile led to the invention of eyeshadow "...applying soothing salves to the eyelids and brows and then dusting the eyelids with powdered lead, copper, or any substance that could relieve the strain on the eyes..." In addition, African women invented wigs and breath fresheners, produced polished mirrors made of copper and jewlery, made perfumes and scented oils and pomades, and used henna to stain the fingernails and toenails (Yarbrough, 1984).

8. Beatrice Lumpkin (1988) and Margaret Alic (1986) have both described the life of Hypatia, " For fifteen centuries Hypatia was often considered to be the only female scientist in history. Hypatia is the earliest woman scientist whose life is well documented" (Alic, 1986, p. 41). Lumpkin provides evidence that Hypatia was not Greek and instead was an Egyptian and thus of African origin. It seems that contrary to the customs of Greek women at that time, "Hypatia remained unmarried and moved freely and publicly in her scientific pursuits" (Lumpkin, 1988, p. 155). Hypatia lectured on mathematics, philosophy, physics and astronomy (Lumpkin, 1988). She wrote important treatises on Algebra and Conic sections. Hypatia is credited with designing an astrolabe, a water still, an instrument to measure water level and an hydrometer (Alic, 1986, p. 44). Hypatia refused to convert to Christianity and in 415 A.D. she was murdered brutally by Christian fanatics (Lumpkin, 1988).

9. Margaret Alic (1986) in her book, Hypatia's Heritage, discusses women in science. Alic asserts that women were the first botanists. She attributes the following accomplishments to the women of prehistory, many of whom were undoubtedly African:

-methods of gathering, preparing and preserving food
-construction of devices to carry food and infants
-sticks, levers, hand axes for digging and processing plants
-invented the mortar and pestle Alic (1986, p. 13) states that "The tools developed by prehistoric women are still in evidence in modern-day chemistry laboratories."
-butchering of animals, tanning of hides
-production of needles, use of dyes
-drying, storage of herbs for use as medicines
-discovery of the uses of plants through trial and error and experimentation
-clay pottery, firing of clay in kilns
-domestication of crops
-selective breeding of plants

Alic (1986, p. 15) bases her claims on the assumption that "...evidence from the early scientific work of women can be traced..." from "oral traditions." Alic (1986, p. 15) goes on to say that Neolithic women were often thought to be possessed of magical powers, not only because of their ability to give birth, but also because of their skills in the domestic sciences - manufacturing, pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals and healing. It was these achievements that early cultures personified in their goddesses.

10. Alic (1986, p. 21) relates that in the Kahun medical papyrus, women "...diagnosed pregnancy, guessed at the sex of the unborn child (if the mother's face was green it would be a boy), tested for sterility and treated dysmenorrhoea (irregular menstruation). Women surgeons performed caesarian sections, removed cancerous breasts, and set bones with splints."

11. Women are given credit for inventing weaving and spinning (Alic, 1986, p. 16).

12. Cleopatra wrote on gynecology, obstetrics, cosmetics and skin diseases (Alic, 1986, p. 33). Nkwankwo Ezeabasili (1977) wrote at length on the practice of medicine in Africa. Although African doctors do not have an Hippocratic oath, there is an unwritten but observed code of ethics. According to Ezeabasili (p. 32) a doctor should "...charge a patient according to his income..." there are "...no fixed fees for a disease", payment is by installment and in full only upon the successful cure of the disease, and a doctor is expected to reject a patient if he or she is incapable of treating a certain case. In addition, a doctor is required to taste any medicine he or she has prepared, before administering it to a patient. According to Ezeabalisi (p. 36) traditional African beliefs of causes of disease may be grouped into the following categories:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/African_Science.html

[Orpheus]

And the Middle East definitely does some science - maybe not as much as you are expecting but it is ramping up. After all, Europe also had some dark ages - which according to some had to do with Islamic control of the trade routes.

I said the contemporary Middle East. The retarding factor in the Middle East is Islam. Similarly, Christianity was the retarding factor in Europe during the Dark Ages.

[Orpheus]

How does the science in sub-saharan africa correlate with its economy? I would expect the two to bear some correlation.
Here's one article on Nigeria (AIDS stuff).

I'm sure the virtual non-existence of science in Sub-Saharan Africa is positively correlated with economic underdevelopment. Both are in turn correlated with below average intelligence in the region. It is important to keep in mind that Sub-Saharan Africa is worse off than it was fifty years ago. Under colonial administration, the region was making rapid progress. The exceptions tell us quite a lot about the rule. The economic powerhouse of Sub-Saharan Africa is South Africa which was colonized by Europeans. South Africa has been declining though since its government was taken over by blacks.

[Orpheus]

If Sub-Saharan Africa sunk into the ocean tommorrow, the international scientific enterprise would barely notice.

[Orpheus]

ROFL.

You are reduced to quoting crank Afrocentrists like Ivan van Sertima now?

[premjan]

I'm sure the virtual non-existence of science in Sub-Saharan Africa is positively correlated with economic underdevelopment. Both are in turn correlated with below average intelligence in the region. It is important to keep in mind that Sub-Saharan Africa is worse off than it was fifty years ago. Under colonial administration, the region was making rapid progress. The exceptions tell us quite a lot about the rule. The economic powerhouse of Sub-Saharan Africa is South Africa which was colonized by Europeans. South Africa has been declining though since its government was taken over by blacks.That's an offensive, ideological statement that jumps to political conclusions based on scanty data. I don't believe that unless it is established that Africans can't do science. The reason that Africa progressed rapidly during the colonial enterprise was because only a very small percentage of Africans benefited from colonialism. In South Africa also, progress took place under an authoritarian system that concentrated power in the hands of a few European transplantees that brought their own culture and links with their civilization with them. Let's see the Europeans throw everything away and start from scratch.

You see what happens among dirt-poor whites in e.g. Afghanistan. India which consists of more aboriginal people does better than the whites in the region (Pakistan and Afghanistan).

[premjan]

ROFL.
You are reduced to quoting crank Afrocentrists like Ivan van Sertima now?
Prove to me that Africans cannot do science because of their inherent intelligence. Prove it to me.

[premjan]

If Sub-Saharan Africa sunk into the ocean tommorrow, the international scientific enterprise would barely notice.
And if you sank into the ocean tomorrow, few people would care. So what?

[premjan]

I'm sure the virtual non-existence of science in Sub-Saharan Africa is positively correlated with economic underdevelopment. Both are in turn correlated with below average intelligence in the region. It is important to keep in mind that Sub-Saharan Africa is worse off than it was fifty years ago. Under colonial administration, the region was making rapid progress. The exceptions tell us quite a lot about the rule. The economic powerhouse of Sub-Saharan Africa is South Africa which was colonized by Europeans. South Africa has been declining though since its government was taken over by blacks.
Prove to me that Africans are stupid and can't do science.

[Orpheus]

That's an offensive, ideological statement that jumps to political conclusions based on scanty data.

No, economic underdevelopment in Sub-Saharan Africa is correlated with below average intelligence, as it is throughout the world.

I don't believe that unless it is established that Africans can't do science.

Sub-Saharan Africans live outside of Africa. Many live in the industrialized West. In fact, wherever Sub-Saharan Africans live, they are generally less intelligent, less educated, and less successful in science than other populations.

The reason that Africa progressed rapidly during the colonial enterprise was because only a very small percentage of Africans benefited from colonialism.

This is false. The standard of living in Sub-Saharan Africa rose enormously under colonialism. What little infrastructure still there is mostly from the colonial period. It is hardly the fault of Europeans that Congolese tyrants prefer to build fabulous palaces in the jungle instead of hospitals and schools.

In South Africa also, progress took place under an authoritarian system that concentrated power in the hands of a few European transplantees that brought their own culture and links with their civilization with them. Let's see the Europeans throw everything away and start from scratch.

South Africa was the one area of Sub-Saharan Africa most affected by colonialism. It is also the most wealthy and developed. Anyone with two eyes can see what the country is now like today under African rule.

You see what happens among dirt-poor whites in e.g. Afghanistan. India which consists of more aboriginal people does better than the whites in the region (Pakistan and Afghanistan).

Afghanis are not "whites" or Europids. The retarding factor in Afghanistan is Islam, as it is throughout the Islamic world, irrespective of race. India is one of the most dirt poor countries in the world. I wouldn't attribute that to race though. The differences that exist between non-Sub Saharan Africans are trivial compared to the gulf between them and Sub-Saharan Africans. Most of the world outside of Africa was colonized by a small group of hunter gatherers.

[Orpheus]

And if you sank into the ocean tomorrow, few people would care. So what?

This is nonresponsive. My point stands. Sub-Saharan Africa contributes virtually nothing to science.

[premjan]

Show me figures that African standard of living rose enormously due to colonialism. Of course if you mobilize enormous amounts of resources quickly you create temporary prosperity. Show me that lasting prosperity could have been created by the colonialist model. Show me some figures.

[premjan]

This is nonresponsive. My point stands. Sub-Saharan Africa contributes virtually nothing to science.
That doesn't mean that it could never contribute anything to science.

[Orpheus]

Prove to me that Africans are stupid and can't do science.

In what sense? Sub-Saharan Africans are less intelligent than Europeans and East Asians. Virtually all the surveys done in the region confirm this. I don't deny that individual Sub-Saharan Africans can do science. There are talented people amongst all races (most science is done by this small minority). Nevertheless, given the disparities in IQ that exist between Africans and other humans, we shouldn't expect many Africans to be as successful in science as other groups. Indeed, this prediction is confirmed by what we see in reality.

[premjan]

Afghanis are not "whites" or Europids. The retarding factor in Afghanistan is Islam, as it is throughout the Islamic world, irrespective of race. India is one of the most dirt poor countries in the world. I wouldn't attribute that to race though. The differences that exist between non-Sub Saharan Africans are trivial compared to the gulf between them and Sub-Saharan Africans. Most of the world outside of Africa was colonized by a small group of hunter gatherers.
Afghans are white. Take a look.
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r781932023.jpg

[Pavlov's Dog]

What is with all the Stormfronters around here lately? Did somebody post a link to this forum over there?

[premjan]

If Afghans are white, why the hell as they so stupid to follow a retarded religion like Islam?

[Orpheus]

That doesn't mean that it could never contribute anything to science.

I never made this assertion. Still, we have no reason to believe they will either. As the NSF study shows, Sub-Saharan Africa is becoming more backward in this respect every year.

Show me figures that African standard of living rose enormously due to colonialism. Of course if you mobilize enormous amounts of resources quickly you create temporary prosperity. Show me that lasting prosperity could have been created by the colonialist model. Show me some figures.

See Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa: A History of 50 Years of Independence. See also Robert Edgerton's The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. I prefer written sources. They are more comprehensive and reliable than those on the net. In South Africa, for example, millions of blacks migrated to the country to work in its industries. Diseases like malaria were almost entirely wiped out. Schools were built. Hospitals were built. Airports and railroads were built. The Congo started out as an independent nation with a democratic constitution put together by the best minds of Europe. See the rates of economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa prior to the end of colonialism.

[premjan]

When whites lack advantages, they end up like the rabble in Afghanistan. When blacks lack advantages they end up like poor blacks in Africa or any underclass members (of which they are far from the only member).

[Orpheus]

Afghans are white. Take a look.
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/r781932023.jpg

Afghans are Caucasians. That doesn't imply they are "whites." "White" is a generic term that refers to people of Northern European ancestry.

[premjan]

I never made this assertion. Still, we have no reason to believe they will either. As the NSF study shows, Sub-Saharan Africa is becoming more backward in this respect every year.

See Martin Meredith's The Fate of Africa: A History of 50 Years of Independence. See also Robert Edgerton's The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. I prefer written sources. They are more comprehensive and reliable than those on the net. In South Africa, for example, millions of blacks migrated to the country to work in its industries. Diseases like malaria were almost entirely wiped out. Schools were built. Hospitals were built. Airports and railroads were built. The Congo started out as an independent nation with a democratic constitution put together by the best minds of Europe. See the rates of economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa prior to the end of colonialism.

And of course you automatically assume that because blacks are poor, blacks are stupid. I hope someone makes the same assumption of you one day, if you ever happen to be down and out.

Have you ever heard of something like the Sahara? At one point in time it did not exist. Then the weather changed and the whole place turned into a barren mass. Have you wondered whether the environmental conditions might not be a barrier to developing Africa? Have you considered what technological and business advantages South Africa has in relation to other more black-dominated parts of Africa?

[premjan]

Afghans are Caucasians. That doesn't imply they are "whites." "White" is a generic term that refers to people of Northern European ancestry.
How far north? Denmark far enough? So if I can dig up examples of other far north countries like Russia that are suffering dirt poor conditions you will write them off as racially inferior too?

[Orpheus]

When whites lack advantages, they end up like the rabble in Afghanistan.

Intelligence doesn't determine economic prosperity. I have never made that assertion. Environmental factors do play a role: the disastrous effects of communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia, Islam in the Middle East, Christianity throughout European history. Intelligence is a necessary condition for economic development, not a sufficient one.

When blacks lack advantages they end up like poor blacks in Africa or any underclass members (of which they are far from the only member).

Is it not interesting how blacks seem to fall behind everywhere? Jews were discriminated against and abused for centuries. They are the smartest people in the world.

[Orpheus]

And of course you automatically assume that because blacks are poor, blacks are stupid. I hope someone makes the same assumption of you one day, if you ever happen to be down and out.

Sub-Saharan Africans are poorer and less intelligent than other populations. This is not to say lack of intelligence alone causes poverty. North Korea, for example, is a backward third world country because of communism. Vietnam and China have made enormous strides in recent years because they are moving beyond Marxist dogma.

Have you ever heard of something like the Sahara? At one point in time it did not exist. Then the weather changed and the whole place turned into a barren mass.[/quote]

That was thousands of years ago.

Have you wondered whether the environmental conditions might not be a barrier to developing Africa?

The Sahara is not a barrier to economic development in Africa today. Sub-Saharan Africans have access to all the knowledge, markets, and resources of the outside world.

Have you considered what technological and business advantages South Africa has in relation to other more black-dominated parts of Africa?

A talented and highly educated European minority . . . which is disappearing at about the same rate South Africa is falling to the African norm.

[premjan]

Jews also had a culture that valued financial and intellectual performance at one point, probably in the Middle East and in places like Poland. My belief is that the outstanding performance of Ashkenazi Jews stems from the culture of the group that managed to overcome adversity in Eastern Europe. The existence of that culture is what helps them to climb out of poverty. Whether or not it is genetic or environmental factors has not definitely been determined.

[Orpheus]

How far north? Denmark far enough? So if I can dig up examples of other far north countries like Russia that are suffering dirt poor conditions you will write them off as racially inferior too?

Russia isn't a dirt poor country. It is less wealthy than Western European nations, but it is nowhere near African conditions. I never said that intelligence determines economic prosperity. I do believe that it is a necessary condition for economic development. This explains why the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Poland, China, Malaysia, and South Korea have made such enormous strides in recent years whereas Sub-Saharan Africa hasn't.

[premjan]

Sub-Saharan Africans are poorer and less intelligent than other populations. This is not to say lack of intelligence alone causes poverty. North Korea, for example, is a backward third world country because of communism. Vietnam and China have made enormous strides in recent years because they are moving beyond Marxist dogma.

Have you ever heard of something like the Sahara? At one point in time it did not exist. Then the weather changed and the whole place turned into a barren mass.

I suggest you read some books by Jared Diamond to understand how environmental factors may affect the development of a continent historically. Also, there are other poor countries which contain groups of supposedly high IQ such as the Philippines. So economic success is a pretty tortuous story. Probably you haven't experienced the rags to riches story yourself so you have only a vague intellectual rather than practical grasp of what it takes to turn a country into an economic success story. If there are leading economic authorities that attribute the poverty of Africa to their low intelligence we could pay a little more attention to this sort of theory. Though it would be far from conclusive.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Afghans are Caucasians. That doesn't imply they are "whites." "White" is a generic term that refers to people of Northern European ancestry.

So, Italians and Greeks aren't white? Racism can get confusing. Someone needs to make a list of all these "races" for reference in these threads.

[Orpheus]

Jews also had a culture that valued financial and intellectual performance at one point, probably in the Middle East and in places like Poland. My belief is that the outstanding performance of Ashkenazi Jews stems from the culture of the group that managed to overcome adversity in Eastern Europe.

By and large, Jewish immigrants to the U.S. from Eastern Europe were not wealthy.

The existence of that culture is what helps them to climb out of poverty. Whether or not it is genetic or environmental factors has not definitely been determined.

I believe this is a ridiculous explanation. You seem to be implying that Africans want their children to be poor, uneducated, less intelligent than other populations. I disagree. Most people around the world have essentially the same desires; irrespective of what types of food they eat. No one wants Sub-Saharan Africa to approach first world conditions more than Sub-Saharan Africans themselves.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I suggest you read some books by Jared Diamond to understand how environmental factors may affect the development of a continent historically.

You can also look at countries on other continents with similar environmental conditions and see they are not exactly flourishing.

[Orpheus]

So, Italians and Greeks aren't white? Racism can get confusing. Someone needs to make a list of all these "races" for reference in these threads.

"White" isn't exactly a scientific term. It was a popular phrase used by early Americans used to describe their phenotype. In nineteenth century America, no one would have had any problem believing that the English were whiter than other Caucasians (they really do have fairer skin), especially the Italians and Greeks, but the Greeks and Italians would have been accepted as white, although less so than Nordics.

[premjan]

Russia isn't a dirt poor country. It is less wealthy than Western European nations, but it is nowhere near African conditions. I never said that intelligence determines economic prosperity. I do believe that it is a necessary condition for economic development. This explains why the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Poland, China, Malaysia, and South Korea have made such enormous strides in recent years whereas Sub-Saharan Africa hasn't.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/russ-m11.shtml
The great majority of Russian families are teetering on the edge of poverty. The World Bank has calculated that an average decrease in income of 10 percent would produce a 50 percent rise in the poverty rate. The majority of the poor in Russia are to be found among working families headed by adults with average technical professional training, and in families with children.

[premjan]

I believe this is a ridiculous explanation. You seem to be implying that Africans want their children to be poor, uneducated, less intelligent than other populations. I disagree. Most people around the world have essentially the same desires; irrespective of what types of food they eat. No one wants Sub-Saharan Africa to approach first world conditions more than Sub-Saharan Africans themselves.
Wanting doesn't affect things that easily. I want to be rich as Bill Gates but even if I have an IQ that shoots through the roof, without being in the right place at the right time, it may not happen.

[premjan]

"White" isn't exactly a scientific term. It was a popular phrase used by early Americans used to describe their phenotype. In nineteenth century America, no one would have had any problem believing that the English were whiter than other Caucasians (they really do have fairer skin), especially the Italians and Greeks, but the Greeks and Italians would have been accepted as white, although less so than Nordics.
White refers mainly to the conscious identity of ex-European colonists in countries like South Africa, Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA. When inside Europe most of these phenotypic whites would prefer to call themselves Irish or Italian or Norwegian or whatever.

[Orpheus]

I suggest you read some books by Jared Diamond to understand how environmental factors may affect the development of a continent historically.

I personally own a copy of Jared Diamond's book. If you would like, I can explain the flaws in his thesis.

Also, there are other poor countries which contain groups of supposedly high IQ such as the Philippines. So economic success is a pretty tortuous story.

Filipinos to my knowledge are not exactly a high IQ population. They are more intelligent than Sub-Saharan Africans.

Probably you haven't experienced the rags to riches story yourself so you have only a vague intellectual rather than practical grasp of what it takes to turn a country into an economic success story.

We can compare South Korea and Ghana in 1950 to South Korea and Ghana today.

If there are leading economic authorities that attribute the poverty of Africa to their low intelligence we could pay a little more attention to this sort of theory. Though it would be far from conclusive.

It would also probably get them fired, or worse.

[Orpheus]

Wanting doesn't affect things that easily. I want to be rich as Bill Gates but even if I have an IQ that shoots through the roof, without being in the right place at the right time, it may not happen.

If you want to explain Sub-Saharan African underdevelopment culturally, then you must show that Sub-Saharan Africans have radically different desires than other populations.

[Pavlov's Dog]

If you want to explain Sub-Saharan African underdevelopment culturally, then you must show that Sub-Saharan Africans have radically different desires than other populations.

You do?

[Pavlov's Dog]

It would also probably get them fired, or worse.

You are obviously an expert on the subject, so are you unemployed?

[Orpheus]

White refers mainly to the conscious identity of ex-European colonists in countries like South Africa, Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA. When inside Europe most of these phenotypic whites would prefer to call themselves Irish or Italian or Norwegian or whatever.

Of course. "White" is a term that was commonly used by Anglo-Saxon colonials to distinguish themselves from their darker skinned natives. It is not a scientific term (although it does have genetic correlates). Certain populations of Europeans really are more fair skinned than others. The indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain evolved under greater cloud cover than other populations. As a consequence, they sun burn very easily. Hence, the expression "rednecks."

[James T]

The purpose of race and IQ research is clearly just to fuck a lot of people off.

[premjan]

I personally own a copy of Jared Diamond's book. If you would like, I can explain the flaws in his thesis.

Filipinos to my knowledge are not exactly a high IQ population. They are more intelligent than Sub-Saharan Africans.

We can compare South Korea and Ghana in 1950 to South Korea and Ghana today.

It would also probably get them fired, or worse.

I don't see why it should get them fired. Unless they are in some sort of governmental agency.

Filipinos are hard to distinguish from Taiwanese racially. How come their performance is so much worse? I attribute it to being colonized multiple times by Spanish, Americans etc.

Ghana is too ethnically diverse to experience the same sort of growth as South Korea IMO. Also I haven't seen rapid industrial growth in most non-temperate zone countries. You could probably compare Ghana with Malaysia more justly as that is a more similar sort of country environmentally. Though the ethnic uniformity is greater in Malaysia as they mostly all speak Malay (other than forest tribals in e.g. Northern Borneo).

Major tribes: Akan 49%, Moshi-Dagomba 16%, Ewe 13%, Ga 8%. European and other: 0.2%

Religions: Christian 63%, Indigenous beliefs 21%, Muslim 16%[4]

Languages: English (official), African languages (including Akan, Moshi-Dagomba, Ewe, and Ga)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana

[premjan]

If you want to explain Sub-Saharan African underdevelopment culturally, then you must show that Sub-Saharan Africans have radically different desires than other populations.
They may have somewhat different desires - for instance someone commented that Asians are much more materialistic than whites. Or that Indians are less materialistic etc. Most great cultures of antiquity flourished in regions of significant agricultural resources - mainly rivers such as China or India, Egypt, Iraq etc. Greece was an exception where there was Minoan civilization in Crete and the Mycenean and classical Greek civilizations which were located along seaboards. In the middle ages, religion appears to have taken center stage, and then in modern times, technology. In Africa, the congo is heavily forested like the amazon basin so unlikely to develop until modern times when the ability to clear away all those trees is there. Also, the soil in forest areas tends to be poor for agriculture. The Niger basin is the one river valley where you could expect agriculture, and then crops from Eurasia were slow to arrive here until a later date probably due to geographical and tribal barriers. The greater genetic and tribal diversity in Africa also probably contributes to human separation and lack of communication and large empires. Though there certainly were large empires in e.g. West Africa in the middle ages (e.g. Songhay).

[Orpheus]

I don't see why it should get them fired. Unless they are in some sort of governmental agency.

See Imus. Race is an extremely taboo subject in our society. In many European countries, racially insensitive statements entail criminal penalties.

Filipinos are hard to distinguish from Taiwanese racially. How come their performance is so much worse? I attribute it to being colonized multiple times by Spanish, Americans etc.

Filipinos are of Southeast Asian ancestry. Taiwan was heavily settled by East Asians.

Ghana is too ethnically diverse to experience the same sort of growth as South Korea IMO.

Ghana and South Korea were economically on about the same level fifty years ago. The problem with Ghana is that its population simply lacks the intelligence to build a first world economy.

Also I haven't seen rapid industrial growth in most non-temperate zone countries.

Malaysia and Brazil?

You could probably compare Ghana with Malaysia more justly as that is a more similar sort of country environmentally. Though the ethnic uniformity is greater in Malaysia as they mostly all speak Malay (other than forest tribals in e.g. Northern Borneo).

Why are Singapore and Malaysia prosperous societies? Both were colonized by the British. Now that I think about it, Ghana was a British colony as well.

[premjan]

The purpose of race and IQ research is clearly just to fuck a lot of people off.
Perhaps you meant piss a lot of people off, as I am otherwise unsure what you mean.

[premjan]

See Imus. Race is an extremely taboo subject in our society. In many European countries, racially insensitive statements entail criminal penalties.

Filipinos are of Southeast Asian ancestry. Taiwan was heavily settled by East Asians.

Ghana and South Korea were economically on about the same level fifty years ago. The problem with Ghana is that its population simply lacks the intelligence to build a first world economy.

Malaysia and Brazil?

Why are Singapore and Malaysia prosperous societies? Both were colonized by the British. Now that I think about it, Ghana was a British colony as well.It is not my fault your society fucked up right at the start by enslaving people instead of paying them wages. My guess is that you are guessing and I am also guessing. The Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines#Demographics) was settled by ethnic groups mainly from Taiwan. So your guess is not quite accurate enough. And I could choose to explain Malaysia's success as a sort of osmosis from East Asia, whereas there are no proximate culturally-related African success stories to Ghana. Now if we had two neighboring tribes, one white and one black in Africa we would be in a better position to make these comparisons. What about the Berbers? They aren't advanced economically as far as I know, but they are white, and they live in Africa. Of course their environment is also a bit removed from Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Pavlov's Dog]

See Imus. Race is an extremely taboo subject in our society. In many European countries, racially insensitive statements entail criminal penalties.

I guess there are no good economists in the US where you won't go to jail for racially insensitive remarks. Imus was obviously about more than race, otherwise the dozen other radio shows that make racially insensitive remarks would be gone too. See Rush Limbaugh's "magic negro" bit.

It is funny because you have academics who take on other taboo topics. See religion, Palestinian/Israeli conflict, homosexuality, etc. But not this topic because it is especially controversial and they are scared. :rolleyes:

[Orpheus]

They may have somewhat different desires - for instance someone commented that Asians are much more materialistic than whites. Or that Indians are less materialistic etc.

I'm not so sure about that.

Most great cultures of antiquity flourished in regions of significant agricultural resources - mainly rivers such as China or India, Egypt, Iraq etc.

I suppose the Congo would be an exception here.

Greece was an exception where there was Minoan civilization in Crete and the Mycenean and classical Greek civilizations which were located along seaboards.

That's an understatement. Attica had none of the natural advantages of Egypt. Yet Athens gave the world some of its most brilliant thinkers.

In the middle ages, religion appears to have taken center stage, and then in modern times, technology.

The backwardness of Byzantium as opposed to Classical Greece is largely explainable by the triumph of Christianity. Books were destroyed in massive bonfires. Plato's Academy was closed by Justinian in 529.

In Africa, the congo is heavily forested like the amazon basin so unlikely to develop until modern times when the ability to clear away all those trees is there.

See below.

Also, the soil in forest areas tends to be poor for agriculture.

Which the Mayans in the Yucatan and Amerinds in the Amazon overcame by ingenious terraforming.

The Niger basin is the one river valley where you could expect agriculture, and then crops from Eurasia were slow to arrive here until a later date probably due to geographical and tribal barriers.

West Africa was in closer contact with the Islamic world than Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

The greater genetic and tribal diversity in Africa also probably contributes to human separation and lack of communication and large empires.

Tribalism was endemic in Northern Europe well into the Middle Ages. Just look at the plethora of tribal names the Romans used to describe their northern neighbors (i.e., Chatti, Macromanni, Quadi, Saxons, Franks, Gepids, etc.)

Though there certainly were large empires in e.g. West Africa in the middle ages (e.g. Songhay).

You mean slave states, right?

[Orpheus]

I guess there are no good economists in the US where you won't go to jail for racially insensitive remarks. Imus was obviously about more than race, otherwise the dozen other radio shows that make racially insensitive remarks would be gone too. See Rush Limbaugh's "magic negro" bit.

It simply doesn't pay in the U.S. to make racially controversial remarks. It can ruin your career. We see that time and time again. The Imus debacle is the latest example.

It is funny because you have academics who take on other taboo topics. See religion, Palestinian/Israeli conflict, homosexuality, etc. But not this topic because it is especially controversial and they are scared. :rolleyes:

None of these subjects are anywhere near as taboo in the U.S. as racial differences in intelligence. In fact, I cannot think of any subject that is more taboo. Not one.

[premjan]

Songhay may have used slaves. I'm not really up on it. Iran is mainly mountains but it also developed an empire, and in fact the Persians were enlightened enough not to use slaves unlike the Greeks. Of course their success probably automatically makes them white, even though Afghans aren't. I agree that some of the Greek contributions were instrumental to further progress, like mathematics (Euclid).

[Orpheus]

It is not my fault your society fucked up right at the start by enslaving people instead of paying them wages. My guess is that you are guessing and I am also guessing.

No, Lamarckism is pseudoscience. Virtually all populations in the world practiced slavery at one time. Slavery existed in Europe well into the Middle Ages. In any case, it is not like this matters, as acquired characteristics are not biologically transmitted to future generations.

The Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines#Demographics) was settled by ethnic groups mainly from Taiwan. So your guess is not quite accurate enough. And I could choose to explain Malaysia's success as a sort of osmosis from East Asia, whereas there are no proximate culturally-related African success stories to Ghana.

Taiwan and Malaysia have large populations of ethnic Chinese capitalists.

Now if we had two neighboring tribes, one white and one black in Africa we would be in a better position to make these comparisons.

The Boers built a first world country in South Africa.

What about the Berbers? They aren't advanced economically as far as I know, but they are white, and they live in Africa. Of course their environment is also a bit removed from Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Berbers are Caucasians, but they are not "white." They are not of Northern European ancestry. The retarding factor in North Africa is religion and the climate.

[Orpheus]

Songhay may have used slaves. I'm not really up on it. Iran is mainly mountains but it also developed an empire, and in fact the Persians were enlightened enough not to use slaves unlike the Greeks.

I wouldn't compare Songhay to either Persia or Greece.

Of course their success probably automatically makes them white, even though Afghans aren't.

The Afghans are religious fanatics. That's their problem. The number one factor holding back economic development all across the Islamic world is, surprise surprise, Islam.

[premjan]

The fact that Taiwan and Malaysia have ethnic Chinese capitalists - does this point to genetics or culture? Are you going to point to some capitalism gene? Or is that also pseudoscience?

The Boers didn't do anything unusual because they simply copied the accomplishments of Europeans.

[premjan]

I wouldn't compare Songhay to either Persia or Greece.

The Afghans are religious fanatics. That's their problem. The number one factor holding back economic development all across the Islamic world is, surprise surprise, Islam.

Maybe it is their stupidity that causes them to cling to Islam. Who knows.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It simply doesn't pay in the U.S. to make racially controversial remarks. It can ruin your career. We see that time and time again. The Imus debacle is the latest example.

It pays Rush Limbaugh and about a dozen other radio talkshow hosts very well. You seem to want to ignore that for some reason.

None of these subjects are anywhere near as taboo in the U.S. as racial differences in intelligence.

Now you have changed it from race, to racial differences in intelligence. That is called shifting the goal posts, but let us proceed from there. What you just stated was an opinion. The topic of racial differences in intelligence has been dealt with by academics in the US. So, is your point that most of the research does not conform with your ideas it must be researchers lying because they are scared?

In fact, I cannot think of any subject that is more taboo. Not one.

Well, that is a problem with your thinking. You should try to think harder. If you are "white" that shouldn't be a problem.

[Febble]

"White" isn't exactly a scientific term.

I'll say. So why are you even using it?

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Orpheus your post have proven that you have no knowledge whatsoever of African civilization, however that doesn't seem to stop you from making assertions about Africans or African civilization. Such actions underlie an anti-black biasness which automatically disqualifies you from any meaningful discussions concerning Africans or African civilization, on the grounds of intellectual dishonesty.

All your posts in this thread cannot be taken seriously, being that they are obviously motivated by an anti-black racist ideology.

[toth8]

And how do you know? You've already shown that you have no knowledge whatsoever of African civilization, so therefore what could possibly make you think that you are qualified to make assertions about African contributions?

Instead your post should say; black Africa has contributed little to white supremacist thought.

I would agree with that.


It's simple fact. Most of humanity's scientific thought has originated from Europe or East Asia. The same with philosophical thought.

There was never a black African Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, etc.

Now I'm not saying white supremacists are right. But the fact remains that black Africa has contributed little to human intellectual advancement.

If that is solely down or attributable to climate, then maybe. But Africans really should prove the world wrong and dispel any notion that blacks are an inferior race. But no, they care more about selling diamonds to fight wars than any kind of development. Help comes to those who help themselves. ;)

[toth8]

The Nubian society goes back to at least 7,000BC


And what did the Nubian civilisation contribute, either scientifically or technologically?

DNA research shows us we are all African Bushmen with no sub species division.

True. That still doesn't alter the fact that black Africa is backward, in comparison to many other parts of the world.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

It's simple fact. Most of humanity's scientific thought has originated from Europe or East Asia. The same with philosophical thought.

How would you know? You've already demonstrated a lack of knowledge concerning African civilizations. So then what puts you in the position of saying what scientific or philosophical insights Africa did or didn't contribute?

[toth8]

Did a black African formulate a theory of gravity? Or learn how to harness electricity? Or formulate a theory of displacement? Where was the black African Enlightenment?

Enlighten me and tell me the scientific/intellectual contributions of black Africa.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Did a black African formulate a theory of gravity? Or learn how to harness electricity? Or formulate a theory of displacement? Where was the black African Enlightenment?

Enlighten me and tell me the scientific/intellectual contributions of black Africa.

Look, what you are essentially asking me to do is to prove that Africans are Europeans. And if I can prove to you, to your satisfaction, that they are you will extend to them respectability. By this, you are simply proving my point that you are demonstrating a Eurocentric bias in what should and what should not be considered scientific or philosophical knowledge.

Why do insist on putting yourself into the postion of judge and jury as to what Africa has to offer, despite your apalling lack of knowledge about Africa?

Why does African thought have to reflect European thought in order to be considered respectable?

If African civilizations had no scientific or philosophical thought then how were they able to sustain themselves and prosper for thousands of years?

[toth8]

No, I'm simply asking you to demonstrate what scientific discoveries that African civilisations have made. If you possess such a great knowledge of African history, then you should be a good position to tell me.

So, what are the scientific acheivements of black Africa?

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Now I'm not saying white supremacists are right. But the fact remains that black Africa has contributed little to human intellectual advancement.

A fact for who? It's a fact for white supremacists. I agree, black Africa has never contributed anything to white supremacists notions of civilization. In regards to Africa, white supremacy only seeks to cast Africans as some type of inferior "race" and therefore dismisses, demeans, mischaracterizes or outright ignores anything that Africans would do that would run contrary to the worldview they are trying to sustain.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

So, what are the scientific acheivements of black Africa?

You're still not getting my point. Let me ask you this question again; why do you insist upon placing yourself into the position of judge and jury, in regards to African civilization, despite the fact that you lack any knowledge about African civilization?

You seem to feel that, having no knowledge about a certain subject does not preclude you from being able to form meaningful opinions about it. Tell me, whould you do the same thing with String Physics? Or M theory, or evolutionary biology?

[toth8]

I'm not missing any point. Again, for the third time, please explain what the scientific achievements of black Africa are?

[barbos]

You're still not getting my point. Let me ask you this question again; why do you insist upon placing yourself into the position of judge and jury, in regards to African civilization, despite the fact that you lack any knowledge about African civilization?

You seem to feel that, having no knowledge about a certain subject does not preclude you from being able to form meaningful opinions about it. Tell me, whould you do the same thing with String Physics? Or M theory, or evolutionary biology?
Hmmm, I don't get it.
To me it seems he HAVE knowledge about subject, and that knowledge is: africans (including african-american) have disproportionally small contribution to science.

[wnope]

I eargerly await the first multi-variant test (i.e. tracks many genes instead of one or two) that shows the existence of distinct races or subspecies within homo sapiens that isn't due strictly to contextual geographical factors such as malaria-sickle cell factors.

[wnope]

No, I'm simply asking you to demonstrate what scientific discoveries that African civilisations have made. If you possess such a great knowledge of African history, then you should be a good position to tell me.

So, what are the scientific acheivements of black Africa?

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Read it.

Also, how about comparing the scientific advances of Egypt to the Europe in pre-colonial days? When you start bitching about sub-sarahan africa you run into the problem that knowledge doesn't diffuse well over the Sahara Desert (i.e. farming).

[barbos]

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Read it.

Also, how about comparing the scientific advances of Egypt to the Europe in pre-colonial days? When you start bitching about sub-sarahan africa you run into the problem that knowledge doesn't diffuse well over the Sahara Desert (i.e. farming).
Well, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" doesn't contradict to the "fact" that africans are "inferior" in terms of intellect. In fact it can explain why they became "inferior".

[JamesBannon]

But Africans really should prove the world wrong and dispel any notion that blacks are an inferior race.
Why is it up to them? It is not the Africans who are claiming that they are inferior.

[toth8]

Why is it up to them? It is not the Africans who are claiming that they are inferior.

Because the Africans are living up to the concept of inferiority in this case. By having wars, corrupt governments, etc. only adds fuel to the fire.

[toth8]

Guns, Germs, and Steel

Read it.

Also, how about comparing the scientific advances of Egypt to the Europe in pre-colonial days? When you start bitching about sub-sarahan africa you run into the problem that knowledge doesn't diffuse well over the Sahara Desert (i.e. farming).

Were the ancient Egyptians black? I doubt it, unless there have been numerous migrations of ethnic groups in that part of Africa.

[toth8]

You seem to feel that, having no knowledge about a certain subject does not preclude you from being able to form meaningful opinions about it. Tell me, whould you do the same thing with String Physics? Or M theory, or evolutionary biology?

Of course all opinions aren't equal. I haven't attempted to be "judge and jury" regarding intellectual achievement from Africa.

[Febble]

By having wars, corrupt governments, etc.

And Europeans don't? I seem to remember a little incident around 1939....

[toth8]

And yet Europeans dominated the world at the time, especially scientifically.

If anything, WWII made a significant contribution to technological development. Which African war has done this?

[Febble]

And yet Europeans dominated the world at the time, especially scientifically.

If anything, WWII made a significant contribution to technological development. Which African war has done this?

So you don't walk back your comment about wars and corrupt governments?

Or do you accept that it is quite irrelevant?

[toth8]

no my point was that despite war, European countries were still amongst the most technologically advanced in the world.

Contemporary African wars deplete countries of natural resources and manpower. Corrupt governments also halt progress and development. Such actions only play into the hands of the white supremacists, who cite this as an argument that black Africans are inferior. Or you don't think civil wars and corrupt government are a primary reason why African countries fare poorly?

WWII may have been disastrous, but many of the major European combatants of that war have successfully recovered from it, be it economically or socially. It's not really a good comparison.

[premjan]

It seems that Europeans are a bit obsessed with proving their racial superiority. Perhaps this is because their actual superiority is slipping just a little bit?

[premjan]

http://www.uneca.org/mdgs/MDGs_page.asp

[Pavlov's Dog]

What I want to know is what scientific contributions the Eskimos have made to the world?

[premjan]

kayaks? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayak) Plus the Greenland Inuit survived whereas the Norse died out due to relying more on hunting than dairy farming / agriculture.

[Cosmo]

Whether a country has contributed to science or not doesn't count one iota to the argument that the people in it are inferior or not. I mean there are European and Asian nations that have not contributed anything scientific yet. Yet the racists love pointing the finger at Africa. And, if you care to look around, science these days can only be financed by huge corporations and governments. It's an international affair. You'll see scientists from various races, and much to the chagrin of those that cling to racist ideologies, you'll see "Black" scientists on these large cutting edge projects. In fact, I was watching an interesting program the other day about the Cern "atom smasher" and lo one of the chief physicists there by the name of Verdibee (I think)was "Black" ( Ooooooooooooahhhh)

It's not exactly as if African countries can afford to mount expensive science today. So, it's hardly a reflection of any innate inability. If anything, an innate inferiority may be attributable to racists, who cannot understand the irrelevance and non-sequiturs in their arguments.

[Godless Dave]

Why do people perform this research... People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.

Why do people use IQ to argue that one race is inferior and subhuman? Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?

Why are you asking us?

[premjan]

What I want to know is what scientific contributions the Eskimos have made to the world?
Oh I think they also had an innovative harpoon that allowed them to kill whales without losing the harpoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toggling_harpoon

[Orpheus]

Guns, Germs, and Steel. Read it.

I own a personal copy of the book. Jared Diamond is not a historian and has virtually nothing to say in it about European history. His explanations as to why Europeans came to dominate and colonize the planet after the sixteenth century are laughable. Did the Greeks and Romans consume enormous quantities of beef and dairy products?

Also, how about comparing the scientific advances of Egypt to the Europe in pre-colonial days?

The ancient Egyptians never practiced anything resembling what we would call "science," but they were responsible for several advances in mathematics and astronomy. In any case, this is irrelevant, as the ancient Egyptians were not black.

When you start bitching about sub-sarahan africa you run into the problem that knowledge doesn't diffuse well over the Sahara Desert (i.e. farming).

The Sahara desert IS NOT a barrier to the diffusion of knowledge in the contemporary world.

[Orpheus]

Whether a country has contributed to science or not doesn't count one iota to the argument that the people in it are inferior or not.

This is a straw man. I haven't claimed that Sub-Saharan Africans are "inferior" or "superior" because of their lack of accomplishment in science and technology.

I mean there are European and Asian nations that have not contributed anything scientific yet. Yet the racists love pointing the finger at Africa.

I'm not aware of any European nation that approaches the Sub-Saharan African norm in terms of output of scientific articles.

And, if you care to look around, science these days can only be financed by huge corporations and governments. It's an international affair.

This is false.

You'll see scientists from various races, and much to the chagrin of those that cling to racist ideologies, you'll see "Black" scientists on these large cutting edge projects.

No one denies that there are black scientists. There are talented individuals amongst all races. That said, accomplishment in science generally requires above average intelligence, and certain populations will be underrepresented or overrepresented in certain fields to the extent that high intelligence is distributed amongst them.

In fact, I was watching an interesting program the other day about the Cern "atom smasher" and lo one of the chief physicists there by the name of Verdibee (I think)was "Black" ( Ooooooooooooahhhh)

See above.

It's not exactly as if African countries can afford to mount expensive science today. So, it's hardly a reflection of any innate inability.

For that matter, neither can chimpanzees.

If anything, an innate inferiority may be attributable to racists, who cannot understand the irrelevance and non-sequiturs in their arguments.

This speaks more to your inability to empirically substantiate your quasi-religious belief that all people (and populations) are equally intelligent.

[Majestyk]

The Sahara desert IS NOT a barrier to the diffusion of knowledge in the contemporary world. A thought occurred to me when reading that statement. Up until about 10 years ago, communications was very dependent on a hard infrastructure. Today's wireless communication networks have eliminated the need for a good portion of that hard infrastructure. Wireless communication has already permeated areas where land lines were a luxury. It wiill be intreresting to see, what impact this new level of personal communication/information access has on these cultures, over the next decade.

[Orpheus]

Well, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" doesn't contradict to the "fact" that africans are "inferior" in terms of intellect. In fact it can explain why they became "inferior".

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" does nothing of the sort. Sub-Saharan Africa was in closer contact with the Islamic world during the Middle Ages than Western Europe. Much of the region is still Islamic even today.

[Orpheus]

And what did the Nubian civilisation contribute, either scientifically or technologically?

Nothing. Describing Nubia as a "civilization" stretches the utility of the term.

[Orpheus]

Maybe it is their stupidity that causes them to cling to Islam. Who knows.

Given the hostility to Islam to rationality and independent thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if Islam throughout history has acted as a selection factor for below average intelligence. The Catholic Church was a similiar drag in Europe throughout the Middle Ages by confining intellectual activity to the priesthood and requiring priests to be celibate.

[Orpheus]

I'll say. So why are you even using it?

I'm responding to the use of the term by others.

[Orpheus]

Orpheus your post have proven that you have no knowledge whatsoever of African civilization . . .

African civilization = oxymoron.

[Pavlov's Dog]

African civilization = oxymoron.

What definition of civilization do you use?

[Orpheus]

A thought occurred to me when reading that statement. Up until about 10 years ago, communications was very dependent on a hard infrastructure. Today's wireless communication networks have eliminated the need for a good portion of that hard infrastructure. Wireless communication has already permeated areas where land lines were a luxury. It wiill be intreresting to see, what impact this new level of personal communication/information access has on these cultures, over the next decade.

I predict that the gap between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world will continue to widen, as it has done since the end of colonialism. China and India will make enormous strides forward. Russia and other Eastern European countries will recover and their living standards will eventually approach Western norms. I suspect countries like Cuba, Cambodia, and North Korea might shake off the legacy of communism and surprise us. Vietnam has already done so. The progress Ireland has made is amazing.

The Islamic world and Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the eyesores of humanity. Eventually, in the distant future, Muslims might finally reconcile themselves with modernity, and if that happens, progress will rapidly be made in the Middle East as well. Iran might possibly become another Malaysia. Sub-Saharan Africa will remain a basket case until we better understand the genetic antecedents of intelligence and some medical remedy for Africans is found.

[Majestyk]

African civilization = oxymoron. Although I cannot recall a civilization the spanned the entire continent, your use of the term "oxymoron", is inappropriate.

[Majestyk]

I predict that the gap between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world will continue to widen, as it has done since the end of colonialism. I really have no interest in your predictions. I have enough unsupported speculations of my own, thank you.

[Orpheus]

Although I cannot recall a civilization the spanned the entire continent, your use of the term "oxymoron", is inappropriate.

How come? I'm unaware of any extremely complex, indigenous, Sub-Saharan African societies. Carthage and Egypt qualify as civilizations. What Sub-Saharan African societies would you place in that category?

[Orpheus]

I really have no interest in your predictions.

That's unfortunate.

I have enough unsupported speculations of my own, thank you.

We can only speculate about the future. Nevertheless, some outcomes are more probable than others.

[Larsguy47]

Why do people perform this research... People use IQ tests as proxies for innate worth; IQ is now an exercise in metaphysics, it has the ability to measure one's ontological worth.

Why do people use IQ to argue that one race is inferior and subhuman? Why do people such as James T., youngalexander, and Guillaume get excited about this? What do people have to gain by saying one race has a lower IQ than another?

The world will be better off if everyone is equal.

I don't think the research shows anything more than that some people are talented in some areas and others in others. It's called being "gifted". Even in the Bible, certain families became master of certain crafts. And in general observation, racial "tendencies" and idiosyncracies when positive are acknowledged all the time but negatives are discouraged as unfair "stereotypes" which probably have some foundation. But often, yes, it is used by racists.

Another interesting study, by the way, compared the sexuality of Negroes, Indians and whites. Generally the study found that white women were dainty and yes, quite intelligent and very small, with small hands and small genitalia. The black woman was said to have clumsy large hands that were too large for the dainty work of doing fine needlework, etc. They also compared penis sizes and determined that the average Negro penis is quite large, in fact, so large that it would be quite painful for a white woman to accommodate him, proving black men were not supposed to have sex with white women. In turn, black women were much larger to accommodate their black husbands and suitors. But of note, the white man, with average penis size or small penises would perfectly accommodate the dainty white women, but also, of course, made as painless sexual encounter with black women. So it was okay for the white man to have sex with black women. The Indian was said to have even a smaller penis than the white men.

So differences in race, is used for favorable comparison when that's the case.


But the racial issue of recognizing these differences goes deeper than this. Issues that seem to be apparent, such as the "twitching" muscles associated with blacks which make them better sprinters and perhaps better at certain physical sports in general, like basketball, for instance. On the other hand, whites are said to have more of a thin fat layer under their skin which makes them more bouyant in water and thus they tend to excell more in swimming, blacks being less bouyant generally.

So there are absolute characteristic differences in what makes up certain racial groups. Some have even suggested these subtle differences show up in things such as smell. On that note, smell is very closely associated with taste and apparently, different races taste differently, blacks being considered to be more sweet tasting than whites. Perhaps that's in the "twitching muscles" or the extra melanin in the skin, but blacks became an important high "CUI-SINE" item at one time among Europeans who have a long history of being cannibals in certain areas (i.e. around the Baltic Sea).

Of course, this is all "taboo" for European and The Deep South history of America, but it does show up or is implied in folklore and some jokes. For instance, the black man is suggested by gingerbread, and in the German story of Hanzel and Gretel, who partake first of the gingerbread house, associate them with sweetness and being black. The old woman inside capturing them to eat them. That would suggest the practice somewhere back in German history of eating blacks.

Also certain names like "Blackburn" or even "Schwartzenegger" suggests the practice of burning/singeing blacks. "Schwartz" means black and "negger" means Negro.

Then there's some more overt suggestions about this, such as in the film starting recent Academy Award Winner Helen Mirren in "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and her Lover". The representations are switched around, of course, but eventually a high cuisine setting has the lover who was killed by The Thief being cooked and prepared as a fabulous meal. But at one point in the movie, The Wife, before asking the Cook to cook her lover, asks him how he prices things on his menu? He Cook, of course, tells here "anything BLACK is always more expensive."

Even the basis of the word CUI-SINE = CUSH-SINGE, suggests at some point the difference in the taste of blacks in particular became appreciated and they were eaten as part of the highest cuisine.

Of course in the Deep South, with Southerners using "terms" to define slaves as inhuman gives us another clue that slaves were being eaten as well. That is, they were called many degrading things, including "my property" but in general as an animal, they were not called necessarily "dogs" or "monkeys" which is not part of the Southern human food chain, but "cattle" and the mean "bucks." Deer, of course, were edible. Why were they coded as "cattle" and "bucks" rather than "monkeys" or "horses" or "donkeys"? Answer: They had to psychologically justify eating them from time to time.

As much is very casually suggested even in some pop culture movies, most pertinently one starring Debra Winger and Tom Berringer called "Betrayed". This movie was interesting because the big deal involved a handful of whites who liked to go "hunting" every now and then to kill a black man. The ritual involved selecting one, kidnapping him, taking him into the woods and giving him a weapon to protect himself and giving him a head start before they hunted him down. That was supposed to the shocking "racist" effect. But that makes no sense in the context of a ritual of just killing a black man for fun. But it does make sense to ritualize the killing of the black man if the true "habit" was eating him. Thus no big surprise, three days after the killing we find FBI agent Winger going to this cue clux clan rally where one of those on the hunting expedition also prepares this great "stew" everybody keeps complimenting him on. In the meantime, i