Another Race Thread!!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Over the holiday weekend I got into a discussion about race with one of my family members, who expressed a rather interesting view.

His view is that blacks are not as intelligent as whites because during slavery the white slave owners killed any of the blacks that could read or write, killing off most of their smarter gene pools, leaving only the less intelligent ones to make babies.

He also contends that blacks are better athletes because when whites were shipping them over here, all of the weaker ones died, leaving only the stronger, more physically dominant specimens to mate with each other.

Just wanted to throw his theory out there and see what everyone thinks. I know I’ll get a host of replies saying that blacks are just as intelligent as whites and all that. That may very well be true. I’m just throwing his POV out there to see who thinks it holds water, and why.

2

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Over the holiday weekend I got into a discussion about race with one of my family members, who expressed a rather interesting view.

His view is that blacks are not as intelligent as whites because during slavery the white slave owners killed any of the blacks that could read or write, killing off most of their smarter gene pools, leaving only the less intelligent ones to make babies.

He also contends that blacks are better athletes because when whites were shipping them over here, all of the weaker ones died, leaving only the stronger, more physically dominant specimens to mate with each other.

Just wanted to throw his theory out there and see what everyone thinks. I know I’ll get a host of replies saying that blacks are just as intelligent as whites and all that. That may very well be true. I’m just throwing his POV out there to see who thinks it holds water, and why.[/quote]

…Evolution doesn’t really work like that. Too small of a scale. The hundreds of genes that go into intelligence and athleticism prevent something like a selective breeding type scenario from being viable over a long period of time.

3

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Over the holiday weekend I got into a discussion about race with one of my family members, who expressed a rather interesting view.

His view is that blacks are not as intelligent as whites because during slavery the white slave owners killed any of the blacks that could read or write, killing off most of their smarter gene pools, leaving only the less intelligent ones to make babies.

He also contends that blacks are better athletes because when whites were shipping them over here, all of the weaker ones died, leaving only the stronger, more physically dominant specimens to mate with each other.

Just wanted to throw his theory out there and see what everyone thinks. I know I’ll get a host of replies saying that blacks are just as intelligent as whites and all that. That may very well be true. I’m just throwing his POV out there to see who thinks it holds water, and why.[/quote]

Your family member is onto something here. He should notify the leading scientific figures in the world, and run this by them. Seriously, this is too important of a hypothesis to not share.

5

Slaves didnt learn to read and write because in most cases nobody taught them how to, it wasnt because they werent smart enough to learn. Imagine trying to read a book in a foreign language that you have never learned, are you stupid because you cannot understand it?

6

Not sure how many African schools were teaching reading and writing around the time that the slave trade started, I think you will find that, there was no educatiional system in place around that time

7

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

…Evolution doesn’t really work like that. Too small of a scale. The hundreds of genes that go into intelligence and athleticism prevent something like a selective breeding type scenario from being viable over a long period of time. [/quote]

Actually it does. This is exactly how evolution works. Breeding is simply forced evolution. Evolution is going on around us right now.

But I don’t think there was a significant breeding program going on. It did go on, but not as much as people might think. The people were already capable of doing what was needed, so there was no real push to breed stronger individuals.

No part of the breeding intentionally included intelligence. If it did, it would have been to improve it, not reduce it.

And current intelligence for most Americans is pitiful because of our terrible education system. Designed to pump out brain dead workers, instead of intelligent people.

8

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

…Evolution doesn’t really work like that. Too small of a scale. The hundreds of genes that go into intelligence and athleticism prevent something like a selective breeding type scenario from being viable over a long period of time.

Actually it does. This is exactly how evolution works. Breeding is simply forced evolution. Evolution is going on around us right now.

But I don’t think there was a significant breeding program going on. It did go on, but not as much as people might think. The people were already capable of doing what was needed, so there was no real push to breed stronger individuals.

No part of the breeding intentionally included intelligence. If it did, it would have been to improve it, not reduce it.

And current intelligence for most Americans is pitiful because of our terrible education system. Designed to pump out brain dead workers, instead of intelligent people.[/quote]

I was saying that a single generation of forced breeding couldn’t produce any kind of significant evolutionary change because of the ridiculous amount of genes that go into determining ones intelligence, ability to learn, and athletic ability.

Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Not one generation of selective breeding.

9

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I was saying that a single generation of forced breeding couldn’t produce any kind of significant evolutionary change because of the ridiculous amount of genes that go into determining ones intelligence, ability to learn, and athletic ability.

Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Not one generation of selective breeding.
[/quote]

Only one generation of slavery? Wow I did not know that.

10

Your relative’s hypothesis could be checked by comparing scores between societies, specifically those where black people were not oppressed and those where they were. Unfortunately that’d be very hard to do.

Black men DO have higher levels of Testosterone (using PSA testing as a guide) and this may explain athleticism.

11

First of all, can someone explain how valid IQ is in determining someone’s intelligence? It occurs to me that the IQ test I have taken only measure certain types of intelligence, namely those that have to do with logical/mathematical capabilities. Since I am an engineer, I do quite well on them. However, it occurs to me that the world would be FUCKED if everybody was an engineering type.

In fact, I know it would be FUCKED. There ARE other types of intelligence. I live in Silicon Valley, and am around a bunch of engineers. Very few have what I would call a “well-rounded” intelligence. In fact, it’s not hard when you get them into areas outside of their specialty to discover they are quite incompetent in many ways. That applies to “Yours Truly” as well.

I also suspect that since I work everday with the kinds of problems that are usually found on IQ tests, my IQ would be higher than someone who designs clothes.

I am not straining to be politically correct here. Still, I have to question how valid these tests are AND if they are as culture-blind as some seem to think they are.

12

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Your family member is onto something here. He should notify the leading scientific figures in the world, and run this by them. Seriously, this is too important of a hypothesis to not share.[/quote]

Haha, that made me laugh out loud. Yes, I bet the OP’s family member comes up with other “bleeding-edge” intellectual material when you pour a beer in him.
Could someone ask him his take on Chaos Theory?

13

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Over the holiday weekend I got into a discussion about race with one of my family members, who expressed a rather interesting view.

His view is that blacks are not as intelligent as whites because during slavery the white slave owners killed any of the blacks that could read or write, killing off most of their smarter gene pools, leaving only the less intelligent ones to make babies.

He also contends that blacks are better athletes because when whites were shipping them over here, all of the weaker ones died, leaving only the stronger, more physically dominant specimens to mate with each other.

Just wanted to throw his theory out there and see what everyone thinks. I know I’ll get a host of replies saying that blacks are just as intelligent as whites and all that. That may very well be true. I’m just throwing his POV out there to see who thinks it holds water, and why.[/quote]

I think it’s plausible that some [relatively] intelligent blacks may have been eliminated from the gene pool within the U.S. pop, but as a general rule, I think the average Negroid is less intelligent than his European or Asian counterpart. I’m one of those who applies the characteristic to the entire race and sees it as an inherent attribute, rather than a product of selective breeding in a limited population.

What’s evident to me is that Negro’s reach physical and emotional maturity much faster than whites. They “hit the ground running”, so to speak. This alone, presents a solid case for segregating the schools.

White children are particularly naive and prone to outside influences while in their developmental stages. This is the reason why “urban culture” has had so much sway on white kids over the past two decades. And the Jews are the ones pushing it onto them - it’s quite astounding.

The problem is even further compounded among young, white women, who are inherently naive and susceptible to corruption. If you’re raising a girl these days, you’d better keep her away from the racially integrated schools, or she’ll be a whore by 16, as can be amply demonstrated by the abundance of suggestive photos of young women on the net.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Haha, that made me laugh out loud. Yes, I bet the OP’s family member comes up with other “bleeding-edge” intellectual material when you pour a beer in him.
Could someone ask him his take on Chaos Theory?
[/quote]

A good idea or theory should always be heard, no matter how mundane it may be.

There are plenty of people in this world who couldn’t produce a good idea, no matter how much they drank. Once those people have been executed, we can get more selective about which good ideas to entertain and which to disregard.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…Evolution doesn’t really work like that. Too small of a scale. The hundreds of genes that go into intelligence and athleticism prevent something like a selective breeding type scenario from being viable over a long period of time. [/quote]

Sure it does. The scale goes from one single generation to infinity. If you start with a population of 10 people in a room, with 4 of them being noticeably more intelligent than the rest, and you off the remainder on the spot, letting only the 4 breed, you’ve just influenced the “evolution” of that sample population towards said phenotype.

Selective breeding is perfectly viable if you select by attributes, rather than genes. The second must follow from the first. If someone possesses a certain attribute, you know that they have all the requisite genes for that attribute, as well.

14

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I was saying that a single generation of forced breeding couldn’t produce any kind of significant evolutionary change because of the ridiculous amount of genes that go into determining ones intelligence, ability to learn, and athletic ability.[/quote]

What are you talking about? How do you manage only one generation in 200+ years of slavery?

[quote]Evolution takes thousands if not millions of years. Not one generation of selective breeding.
[/quote]

Bullshit. You can see major changes in as little as 3-4 generation intervals. You are talking about natural selection versus selective breeding. Both contribute to evolution - but at much, much different speeds.

15

[quote]entheogens wrote:
First of all, can someone explain how valid IQ is in determining someone’s intelligence? It occurs to me that the IQ test I have taken only measure certain types of intelligence, namely those that have to do with logical/mathematical capabilities. Since I am an engineer, I do quite well on them. However, it occurs to me that the world would be FUCKED if everybody was an engineering type.

In fact, I know it would be FUCKED. There ARE other types of intelligence. I live in Silicon Valley, and am around a bunch of engineers. Very few have what I would call a “well-rounded” intelligence. In fact, it’s not hard when you get them into areas outside of their specialty to discover they are quite incompetent in many ways. That applies to “Yours Truly” as well.

I also suspect that since I work everday with the kinds of problems that are usually found on IQ tests, my IQ would be higher than someone who designs clothes.

I am not straining to be politically correct here. Still, I have to question how valid these tests are AND if they are as culture-blind as some seem to think they are.

[/quote]

IQ is interesting. It doesn’t seem debatable that high IQ means higher potential for success in modern society - but whether it captures “g” (general intelligence) is a matter of debate. The wikipedia article is good:

It is also a matter of debate how much is heritable and how much is environmental - it’s safe to say that it’s both, and no one really knows the percentages:

There’s also probably some component that isn’t heritable per se, but is affected by in utero environmental factors such as mothers’ consumption of DHA and B vitamins.

There seem to be racial differences in average IQs.

However, one thing that needs to be emphasized: one should not assume anything about an individual based solely on an average statistic for a group of which that individual is a part.

Also, entheogens has a good point - IQ isn’t even close to the end of the story for defining the individual.

16

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Over the holiday weekend I got into a discussion about race with one of my family members, who expressed a rather interesting view.

His view is that blacks are not as intelligent as whites because during slavery the white slave owners killed any of the blacks that could read or write, killing off most of their smarter gene pools, leaving only the less intelligent ones to make babies.

He also contends that blacks are better athletes because when whites were shipping them over here, all of the weaker ones died, leaving only the stronger, more physically dominant specimens to mate with each other.

Just wanted to throw his theory out there and see what everyone thinks. I know I’ll get a host of replies saying that blacks are just as intelligent as whites and all that. That may very well be true. I’m just throwing his POV out there to see who thinks it holds water, and why.

I think it’s plausible that some [relatively] intelligent blacks may have been eliminated from the gene pool within the U.S. pop, but as a general rule, I think the average Negroid is less intelligent than his European or Asian counterpart. I’m one of those who applies the characteristic to the entire race and sees it as an inherent attribute, rather than a product of selective breeding in a limited population.

What’s evident to me is that Negro’s reach physical and emotional maturity much faster than whites. They “hit the ground running”, so to speak. This alone, presents a solid case for segregating the schools.

White children are particularly naive and prone to outside influences while in their developmental stages. This is the reason why “urban culture” has had so much sway on white kids over the past two decades. And the Jews are the ones pushing it onto them - it’s quite astounding.

The problem is even further compounded among young, white women, who are inherently naive and susceptible to corruption. If you’re raising a girl these days, you’d better keep her away from the racially integrated schools, or she’ll be a whore by 16, as can be amply demonstrated by the abundance of suggestive photos of young women on the net.

entheogens wrote:
Haha, that made me laugh out loud. Yes, I bet the OP’s family member comes up with other “bleeding-edge” intellectual material when you pour a beer in him.
Could someone ask him his take on Chaos Theory?

A good idea or theory should always be heard, no matter how mundane it may be.

There are plenty of people in this world who couldn’t produce a good idea, no matter how much they drank. Once those people have been executed, we can get more selective about which good ideas to entertain and which to disregard.

Beowolf wrote:
…Evolution doesn’t really work like that. Too small of a scale. The hundreds of genes that go into intelligence and athleticism prevent something like a selective breeding type scenario from being viable over a long period of time.

Sure it does. The scale goes from one single generation to infinity. If you start with a population of 10 people in a room, with 4 of them being noticeably more intelligent than the rest, and you off the remainder on the spot, letting only the 4 breed, you’ve just influenced the “evolution” of that sample population towards said phenotype.

Selective breeding is perfectly viable if you select by attributes, rather than genes. The second must follow from the first. If someone possesses a certain attribute, you know that they have all the requisite genes for that attribute, as well. [/quote]

Even if your point is right (I just skimmed), why the hell are you posting on a loaded race thread with a Ron Paul avatar when the man has been accused of racism himself? Fuck man, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. If Paul loses, it’ll be because his supporters are dipshit jacobins with no common sense, not due to Paul’s own ideas. When the man is being advocated for on stormfront and you start talking about “the Negroid” and “Jews pushing it on them…”. You morons are sabotaging the man’s campaign because you are batshit crazy and don’t know when to shut the fuck up. Show some discretion for fuck’s sake.

mike

17

Relax, this is friendly territory.

I think.

18

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…

Even if your point is right (I just skimmed), why the hell are you posting on a loaded race thread with a Ron Paul avatar when the man has been accused of racism himself? Fuck man, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. If Paul loses, it’ll be because his supporters are dipshit jacobins with no common sense, not due to Paul’s own ideas. When the man is being advocated for on stormfront and you start talking about “the Negroid” and “Jews pushing it on them…”. You morons are sabotaging the man’s campaign because you are batshit crazy and don’t know when to shut the fuck up. Show some discretion for fuck’s sake.

mike[/quote]

Good post.

I have many issues with Paul. I dislike his stance on the war and I think he is incredibly naive in many area but I also think his push for smaller government, a sounder fiscal policy (not gold standard) and many other things are the right direction.

I personally think he is the wrong man but he has some of the message right. Unfortunately the nuts and nazis that are supporting him may just kill the whole thing before it gets started.

20

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:

Even if your point is right (I just skimmed), why the hell are you posting on a loaded race thread with a Ron Paul avatar when the man has been accused of racism himself? Fuck man, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. If Paul loses, it’ll be because his supporters are dipshit jacobins with no common sense, not due to Paul’s own ideas. When the man is being advocated for on stormfront and you start talking about “the Negroid” and “Jews pushing it on them…”. You morons are sabotaging the man’s campaign because you are batshit crazy and don’t know when to shut the fuck up. Show some discretion for fuck’s sake.

mike[/quote]

But I think, Mikeyali, you have it backwards. When a disenfranchised, or perhaps uneducated, bigot like Nominal Prospect is dredging around in a sewer of discarded notions and claptrap he will find, and accrete, oh, gold standards and hatred for the Federal Reserve, and justification for race-baiting and anti-semitism, however unsupported or backward. And in that sewer is effluent that comes from someone like Ron Paul. And as in a sewer, marginalized vermin will stiff out the source until it finds its “origin.”

We are each responsible for our own batshit. Perhaps Nominal Prospect, and others, can re-examine his own post and consider whether racism, so casually displayed, is a tenet worth holding. Does Nominal Prospect bring discredit to Ron Paul? No, I think Dr Paul does a good enough job on his own.