Another Race Thread!!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Just to clear a few things up:

The blacks in America are direct descendants of slaves. If the more intelligent slaves were killed off (for the most part) then this theory could have some merit to it.

I’m in no way talking about evolution. I’m not even really talking about selective breeding. I’m saying all of this happened (for lack of a better term) by “accident”.

[/quote]

It doesnt matter if it was caused by a spacemonkey flying down from its helicopter and jizzing in your soup, if a population leans towards a specific phenotype/genotype based on environmental factors is still evolution, the question is weather its natural selection or artificial selection.
Now i think the majority who think blacks are better athletes say its artificial selection from breeding done by slave owners/traders to get better slaves to work the field and shovel shit.
so yes you are talking about evolution.

62

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

The thing is, cattle breeders have stupid stupid animals that demonstrate their abilities daily. Humans are not cattle. How could one test for athletic ability when they were all being under fed and over worked? How could they test for intelligence when their education was suppressed? And most of all, how could they breed out all of the recessive genes for these qualities completely causing such a drastic impact on the later generations whose breeding is no longer controlled?

[/quote]

simple, the ones that dont drop dead in the field are better. Breed them. The ones that can work all day without getting sick. Breed them too. Basically the ones that respond to stress favorably should be bred. Being naturally hardy and stout makes for good genes to be an athlete that has a high work capacity and low “burnout rate”(like in bulgarian weightlifters who cant handle 2 a day training sessions and quit, the slave decendents are better able to handle 2 a days without taking a shit)

What was that about “recent west africans” does that mean west africans that are not slave decendants?

63

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
The thing is, cattle breeders have stupid stupid animals that demonstrate their abilities daily. Humans are not cattle. How could one test for athletic ability when they were all being under fed and over worked? How could they test for intelligence when their education was suppressed? And most of all, how could they breed out all of the recessive genes for these qualities completely causing such a drastic impact on the later generations whose breeding is no longer controlled?

I’m not even arguing anymore, by the way, I’m just interested.

I am not talking about intelligence. That is a totally different tangent than the one we have taken.

I have no idea how difficult it would be to breed out intelligence, although high inbreeding coefficient would probably be a decent start.

Humans are not cattle. But selectively breeding for desirable physical traits is not that difficult regardless of the animal.

I think you hold the human genome in too high of a regard for this discussion.

If I want to create a bigger stronger stock animal, I buy bigger stronger stock, and breed it. Then I take the best of the offspring and do it over again. You do that for 200 years, and you get bigger stronger animals that will do it on less food.

Try not to think of humans s being that much superior than the rest of the animal kingdom. I think that cattle share like 90% of our genetic make up. Hardly that much difference when talking about such basic attributes as physical stature. [/quote]

you said it better than me

64

[quote]rander wrote:
What was that about “recent west africans” does that mean west africans that are not slave decendants?
[/quote]

Ethiopians and other non-slave descended Africans still bring home plenty of Golds. So I htink the whole breeding thing is a bit moot point. The Africans who grew up and were born in Africa don’t seem to have a lesser athletic ability than the US grown, slave descended blacks.

65

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rander wrote:
What was that about “recent west africans” does that mean west africans that are not slave decendants?

Ethiopians and other non-slave descended Africans still bring home plenty of Golds. So I htink the whole breeding thing is a bit moot point. The Africans who grew up and were born in Africa don’t seem to have a lesser athletic ability than the US grown, slave descended blacks.
[/quote]

Then again, having to walk fifteen miles every day to fetch firewood and water, while avoiding being picked off by the odd leopard, lion, hyena, or guerrilla, makes for good natural selection.

66

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rander wrote:
What was that about “recent west africans” does that mean west africans that are not slave decendants?

Ethiopians and other non-slave descended Africans still bring home plenty of Golds. So I htink the whole breeding thing is a bit moot point. The Africans who grew up and were born in Africa don’t seem to have a lesser athletic ability than the US grown, slave descended blacks.

Then again, having to walk fifteen miles every day to fetch firewood and water, while avoiding being picked off by the odd leopard, lion, hyena, or guerrilla, makes for good natural selection.[/quote]

The Kalenji-tribes of Kenya live 2000m above sea level. Since 1980 they have won 40% of the gold medals in international competitions. They account for over 70% of Kenyas medals. Half of this 70% was won by the subtribe nandis, who comprise 1,8% of Kenyas population.
According to a scandinavian research-group the main reason for their success is in their style of running. They run economically, which is again a consequence of their small and light legs.

http://www.playthegame.org/Knowledge%20bank/Articles/Why_are_Kenyan_Runners_Superior.aspx

67

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rander wrote:
What was that about “recent west africans” does that mean west africans that are not slave decendants?

Ethiopians and other non-slave descended Africans still bring home plenty of Golds. So I htink the whole breeding thing is a bit moot point. The Africans who grew up and were born in Africa don’t seem to have a lesser athletic ability than the US grown, slave descended blacks.
[/quote]

Only is distance running. They do not compete well in most sports that require explosive strength.

Africa is the most genetically diverse continent. It is no wonder it produced a wide range of people with a wide range of capabilities.

68

[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]

  1. I too believe that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites and asians.

2 the explanation is that the climate in which blacks lived most of the time of their existence allowed for an abundance of food and shelter hence they didnt have to be as clever or creative to survive. They could literally just walk around and pick the food of the trees and from the ground. NO Challenges. THe white race however grew up in parts of the world where the climate made the psysichal environment were rough and scarce of food. The winters were often long and bitter cold thus killing many of the animals normally hunted for food. So the white man had to THINK more to survive. He had to be outgoing and creative to survive.

  1. THe proof : Look around. who made most revolutionary inventions of science, art and philosophy. WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??
69

[quote]Deus vult 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.

  1. I too believe that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites and asians.

2 the explanation is that the climate in which blacks lived most of the time of their existence allowed for an abundance of food and shelter hence they didnt have to be as clever or creative to survive. They could literally just walk around and pick the food of the trees and from the ground. NO Challenges. THe white race however grew up in parts of the world where the climate made the psysichal environment were rough and scarce of food. The winters were often long and bitter cold thus killing many of the animals normally hunted for food. So the white man had to THINK more to survive. He had to be outgoing and creative to survive.

  1. THe proof : Look around. who made most revolutionary inventions of science, art and philosophy. WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??

4 Blacks are in some areas better athletes. BUt only a few. The general rule is that they can RUN and thats about it. Take a look at the olympics. They can run. All other things that reqiure more than that (coordination and timing and brute strenght theyre deeply inept:

[/quote]

70

Intellgence didn’t get changed just because you can read a forgien language doesn’t mean your more intellgent. Intellgence comes on so many more levels so it’s very hard to eleminate intellgence without giving them some forms of IQ test.

However I feel it helped them pysically as it’s clear to see who is bigger and stronger. It’s well documented that many slave owners breed them with the biggest and strongest. To get stronger slaves much like dog breeding.

71

[quote]Deus vult wrote:
WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??
[/quote]

The Arabs.

72

[quote]Deus vult wrote:
Deus vult 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.

  1. I too believe that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites and asians.

2 the explanation is that the climate in which blacks lived most of the time of their existence allowed for an abundance of food and shelter hence they didnt have to be as clever or creative to survive. They could literally just walk around and pick the food of the trees and from the ground. NO Challenges. THe white race however grew up in parts of the world where the climate made the psysichal environment were rough and scarce of food. The winters were often long and bitter cold thus killing many of the animals normally hunted for food. So the white man had to THINK more to survive. He had to be outgoing and creative to survive.

  1. THe proof : Look around. who made most revolutionary inventions of science, art and philosophy. WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??

4 Blacks are in some areas better athletes. BUt only a few. The general rule is that they can RUN and thats about it. Take a look at the olympics. They can run. All other things that reqiure more than that (coordination and timing and brute strenght theyre deeply inept:

[/quote]

Are you smarter than a 5th grader? NO.

73

[quote]Blacken wrote:
Intellgence didn’t get changed just because you can read a forgien language doesn’t mean your more intellgent. Intellgence comes on so many more levels so it’s very hard to eleminate intellgence without giving them some forms of IQ test.

However I feel it helped them pysically as it’s clear to see who is bigger and stronger. It’s well documented that many slave owners breed them with the biggest and strongest. To get stronger slaves much like dog breeding.[/quote]

I’d like to see those documentations of yours. I call serious BS on that. Bredding is a concept you can only vaguely impose on humans. We’re no dogs. Our females get single children that take their sweet time to grow. They eat tons before a “breeder” can even hope to judge if his new “whelp” has promising genes. And if he hasn’t, what will he do? Geld him, his investment, and risk death?.Also, the timeframe is MUCH too small for any big genetic impact. Breeding is a dead end in this discussion.

Of course, it’s entirely possible for a “race” to be one or two IQ points dumber, be it blacks or whites, so what? Then again, mere IQ is of little worth and no precise measurement of that what we call intelligence.

However, genetic disposition for certain diseases is undeniable coupled with “race” and will be addressed by the big pharma companies, wether some guys here like it or not.

74

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Blacken wrote:
Intellgence didn’t get changed just because you can read a forgien language doesn’t mean your more intellgent. Intellgence comes on so many more levels so it’s very hard to eleminate intellgence without giving them some forms of IQ test.

However I feel it helped them pysically as it’s clear to see who is bigger and stronger. It’s well documented that many slave owners breed them with the biggest and strongest. To get stronger slaves much like dog breeding.

I’d like to see those documentations of yours. I call serious BS on that. Bredding is a concept you can only vaguely impose on humans. We’re no dogs. Our females get single children that take their sweet time to grow. They eat tons before a “breeder” can even hope to judge if his new “whelp” has promising genes. And if he hasn’t, what will he do? Geld him, his investment, and risk death?.Also, the timeframe is MUCH too small for any big genetic impact. Breeding is a dead end in this discussion.

Of course, it’s entirely possible for a “race” to be one or two IQ points dumber, be it blacks or whites, so what? Then again, mere IQ is of little worth and no precise measurement of that what we call intelligence.

However, genetic disposition for certain diseases is undeniable coupled with “race” and will be addressed by the big pharma companies, wether some guys here like it or not.[/quote]

I’m going off the OPs post. It’s been documented that Egpyt as well as Rome used to do this catch an episode when it comes history channel or discovery channel. All humans are animals it has little to do with color. If you take an animal with breed it with another animal you hope for certain gene traits in this case bigger size. Sure it won’t be as dominant as how people breed dogs as you can breed them faster but you take only the biggest male and only allow him to impregant big females your messing with the gene pool to produce something. Also you don’t allow the weak males and females to breed as that would be a business expense. When you get old and die your kids inherit the slaves and the cycle repeats

The kid certainly has a small chance of coming out tiny but odds are against that. Just look at most regular people today you have two tiny people make a kid the kid is almost always tiny not big same goes with two big people. On top of them growing up in the same envirment which means they’ll be eating the same as the parents will insure they grow the same which slaves did.

Completely messed up morally speaking but well documented and not just documented with blacks but with white slaves as well. Rome had it’s share of white slaves for example. Just about every race and culture became slaves at one point in time and also slave owners at one point and time. You either conquer or get conquered once your on top enjoy it while it last because in time you will be conquered no empire last forever. We are a fucked up species that likes war and the illusion of power.

I completely agree it’s impossibble to change IQ it’s just a gene impossible to measure. It seems wealth plays a role with IQ some how. I’m willing to bet if you took the test of a poor black getto, poor latin getto and a poor white trailor park the IQ test would be the same for all races.

75

The breeding argument (blacks were bred to be strong, not smart) IS a dead end.

Rome and Egypt did fancy things with slaves, as did a lot of cultures. And while homo sapiens technically is of course an animal, he is ill suited for breeding, as I already told you.
While a human female can’t produce one child even after a decade, a bitch is ready after a year in most cases. While she has bears about 8 puppies, our females are monopara and can die extremely easily from childbirth in a nonmodern environment.
The litter’s genetic disposition becomes apparent pretty quickly, while for a young human slave it may take 15 years to mature enough to check his bones and muscles. At the same time, you must feed him enough quality food and it’s not easy to sperate him from the rest of the gene pool. It’s also a mess to control the sexuality of both your human slave “studs and mares”, cause homo sapiens can be horny practically anytime, spoiling your breeding plans.
If it would be so easy to breed human slaves at least for height, as you said, why aren’t african-americans much bigger then their african cousins?
Also, you have a wrong impression of the whole concept of slavery, even in the rare case of a whole tribe or folk being enslaved, their masters hardly cared about them, as long as they worked their asses off. Apart from that, they could sing, pray & fornicate however they preferred.

I totally agree with your ghetto comparison, IQ it’s mainly a socio-cultural thing.

76

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The breeding argument (blacks were bred to be strong, not smart) IS a dead end.

Rome and Egypt did fancy things with slaves, as did a lot of cultures. And while homo sapiens technically is of course an animal, he is ill suited for breeding, as I already told you.
While a human female can’t produce one child even after a decade, a bitch is ready after a year in most cases. While she has bears about 8 puppies, our females are monopara and can die extremely easily from childbirth in a nonmodern environment.
The litter’s genetic disposition becomes apparent pretty quickly, while for a young human slave it may take 15 years to mature enough to check his bones and muscles. At the same time, you must feed him enough quality food and it’s not easy to sperate him from the rest of the gene pool. It’s also a mess to control the sexuality of both your human slave “studs and mares”, cause homo sapiens can be horny practically anytime, spoiling your breeding plans.
If it would be so easy to breed human slaves at least for height, as you said, why aren’t african-americans much bigger then their african cousins?
Also, you have a wrong impression of the whole concept of slavery, even in the rare case of a whole tribe or folk being enslaved, their masters hardly cared about them, as long as they worked their asses off. Apart from that, they could sing, pray & fornicate however they preferred.

I totally agree with your ghetto comparison, IQ it’s mainly a socio-cultural thing.
[/quote]

Your ignorance of selective breeding is exceeded only by your inability to understand the economics of the slave industry in early America.

Please come back when you have even the slightest grasp of either subject. Thank you.

77

As always, you don’t fail to refuse engaging in arguments, prefering instead to rely on mindless slander.

78

[quote]Deus vult wrote:

  1. THe proof : Look around. who made most revolutionary inventions of science, art and philosophy. WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??

[/quote]

Deus vult, how many revolutionary contributions have you made in science, art and philosophy?

By the way, while the overwhelming number of slaves in the South were black, there were white slaves, although there were special terms to their enslavement. Also, one can cite plenty of other historical examples of slavery where those enslaved were CAUCASOID. Check out ancient Greece, etc. So, given that, you must admit that a large portion of
the white race is inferior as well, since that is your benchmark.

79

[quote]Deus vult 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.

  1. I too believe that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites and asians.

2 the explanation is that the climate in which blacks lived most of the time of their existence allowed for an abundance of food and shelter hence they didnt have to be as clever or creative to survive. They could literally just walk around and pick the food of the trees and from the ground. NO Challenges. THe white race however grew up in parts of the world where the climate made the psysichal environment were rough and scarce of food. The winters were often long and bitter cold thus killing many of the animals normally hunted for food. So the white man had to THINK more to survive. He had to be outgoing and creative to survive.

  1. THe proof : Look around. who made most revolutionary inventions of science, art and philosophy. WHO discovered Africa and who made who slaves ??
    [/quote]

The flipside of this is that an abundance of food was necessary for the developement of the frontal lobe. That easily gotten and without a challenge thing is preposterus though. We haven’t been an apex predator for that long in an anthropological sense.

On #3, who discovered Africa? Come on man. Africa is in fact the mother continent of humanity. No one discovered Africa, Africa gave birth to the developement of humanity as we know it.

Back on topic- Heres a radical suggestion- This whole thread is based on the idea that white slave owners killed off the smarter slaves, changing the intelligence of a race on this continent. This entire premis could in fact be flawed

Something for consideration- The smarter and more observant of the groups of slaves saw this happen, and dumbed it down a little. If they observed that the smart ones were being taken out, this would be the smart thing to do. Act dumb for the sake of self preservation, work hard, then live to reproduce.

There is also the subject of testosterone as it pertains to brain developement and function. It has been proven that higher intra-uterine male sex androgen levels are linked to higher math and analytical skills in children and in adults. This, combined with higher testosterone levels measured in african american men would lead me to believe that they would have better potential to carry out these types of tasks. Whether or not the education is there to facilitate this potential is a big factor. Without the education, the ability exists in a void.

What do you guys think of that?

80

[quote]Deus vult wrote:

  1. I too believe that blacks are generally less intelligent than whites and asians.

2 the explanation is that the climate in which blacks lived most of the time of their existence allowed for an abundance of food and shelter hence they didnt have to be as clever or creative to survive. They could literally just walk around and pick the food of the trees and from the ground. NO Challenges. THe white race however grew up in parts of the world where the climate made the psysichal environment were rough and scarce of food. The winters were often long and bitter cold thus killing many of the animals normally hunted for food. So the white man had to THINK more to survive. He had to be outgoing and creative to survive.

[/quote]

Also, just for shits and giggles- If the conditions were so good in the warmer climates wouldn’t you have to be an idiot to move to the colder more difficult climates?

Even though you may have to be smarter to survive, wouldn’t you have to be an idiot to stay in the harsher climates?