[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.
Wow.
Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
In the case of Europe you had a culture that viewed the world in a very unique way, meaning, the world had fixed rules that could be understood by the human mind. The belief in the power of reason, that is neither intuitively true nor the norm (well, now it is, kind off) was propagated by the Greeks, carried on by the Romans and reinforced by a Judeo Christian tradition that had the idea that the Lord has set up a world of fixed rules from the get go.
Add to that that Europe is relatively small and all the crops and animals that were domesticated in the Middle East could relatively easily adapted to European conditions due to its East West axis and the general shape that forced relentless competition on the European people and you had quite a few advantages that added up.
Now you could propose that longer exposure to culture leads to higher IQs, but that still would not mean that lower IQa necessarily lead to more crime.
