[quote]LoRez wrote:
You forgot the ad hominems.[/quote]
I haven’t attacked you personally at all. I answered all of your questions. [/quote]
The second question was: is “black culture” a separate entity, distinct from “American culture”?
I didn’t see an answer to that.[/quote]
To me it’s not.
For someone to define “American Culture” in some narrowly defined, ideological ways simply does not “get it”.
It is a “composite” culture that allows acceptance of differing parts of many cultures…while maintaining ones owns beliefs, traditions and individuality. (And you want get blown up and gassed for believing them).
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You forgot the ad hominems.[/quote]
I haven’t attacked you personally at all. I answered all of your questions. [/quote]
The second question was: is “black culture” a separate entity, distinct from “American culture”?
I didn’t see an answer to that.[/quote]
To me it’s not.
For someone to define “American Culture” in some narrowly defined, ideological ways simply does not “get it”.
It is a “composite” culture that allows acceptance of differing parts of many cultures…while maintaining ones owns beliefs, traditions and individuality. (And you want get blown up and gassed for believing them).
Mufasa[/quote]
It is also the representation of many different cultures clashing and warring with each other…thus why any white person would ever be completely offended by “sagging pants”…as it becomes a lasting style in pop culture for 2 decades.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So again, where are the “ad hominems”?
Why accuse me of something I didn’t do? [/quote]
After I asked for an explanation of your view, you said…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the only sad thing is that this needs to be explained to anyone.[/quote]
Which is a fairly condescending remark in general (not that I don’t imply the same thing sometimes).
So, if you talk about this group that “needs an explanation” and call the situation “sad”, immediately after I ask for an explanation, you’re also talking about me, albeit indirectly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No kid today is ever going to experience a tv show not playing music because it was made by black artists.[/quote]
But kids today are going to experience TV shows that don’t play music by non-black artists. That are spreading a message, sometimes directly but often indirectly, that only music by black artists is worth listening to; that only jokes by black comedians is worth listening to; that only books by black authors are worth reading, etc.
(I’m by no way implying that this doesn’t happen with any other group of people… rather that it’s not a productive line of thought, and should be guarded against.)
Either way, multiculturalism is difficult, because differences between people and their backgrounds and views regularly creates conflict, and most people don’t know how to deal with it.
A few examples of my own faux-pas:
I made a passing comment once about an ugly building that was “flesh toned” to my Asian girlfriend.
I made a comment once about how I don’t like radishes. She asked which radishes. I replied “radish radishes… you know, radishes”. Apparently there’s several different kinds of radishes used in Asian cuisine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So again, where are the “ad hominems”?
Why accuse me of something I didn’t do? [/quote]
After I asked for an explanation of your view, you said…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the only sad thing is that this needs to be explained to anyone.[/quote]
Which is a fairly condescending remark in general (not that I don’t imply the same thing sometimes).
So, if you talk about this group that “needs an explanation” and call the situation “sad”, immediately after I ask for an explanation, you’re also talking about me, albeit indirectly.[/quote]
It isn’t condescending. You LIVE in this country where all of this happened…and you seem either unaware of it or completely in the dark about it. I was a kid when MTV didn’t show black artists…and when they finally allowed rap on the programming…and when Will Smith was the first black rapper to ever get a Grammy. That shit JUST happened relatively speaking.
Yes, it is sad you were unaware of it yet we live in the same country. Nothing condescending about it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No kid today is ever going to experience a tv show not playing music because it was made by black artists.[/quote]
But kids today are going to experience TV shows that don’t play music by non-black artists. That are spreading a message, sometimes directly but often indirectly, that only music by black artists is worth listening to; that only jokes by black comedians is worth listening to; that only books by black authors are worth reading, etc.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but where is this happening? Where en mass is it happening that ONLY music from black artists is allowed? Many new rap artists are WHITE…and their numbers have been growing since the 90’s. What show or station do you know of that plays ONLY black artists and won’t play Eminem or any white artists at all and make that statement?
I would say what you just wrote is untrue and would like you to explain how whites are being kept out of media.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So again, where are the “ad hominems”?
Why accuse me of something I didn’t do? [/quote]
After I asked for an explanation of your view, you said…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the only sad thing is that this needs to be explained to anyone.[/quote]
Which is a fairly condescending remark in general (not that I don’t imply the same thing sometimes).
So, if you talk about this group that “needs an explanation” and call the situation “sad”, immediately after I ask for an explanation, you’re also talking about me, albeit indirectly.[/quote]
It isn’t condescending. You LIVE in this country where all of this happened…and you seem either unaware of it or completely in the dark about it. I was a kid when MTV didn’t show black artists…and when they finally allowed rap on the programming…and when Will Smith was the first black rapper to ever get a Grammy. That shit JUST happened relatively speaking.
Yes, it is sad you were unaware of it yet we live in the same country. Nothing condescending about it. [/quote]
I see what you mean.
No, I wasn’t unaware of that. Seems that’s what you thought I was unaware of.
I was asking about the divergence between “white culture” and “American culture”, trying to understand what you meant by “white culture” in the first place.
When I was growing up, they played Family Matters and Full House back to back. One with a white cast, one with a black cast.
These days, the majority of shows consist of a multiracial cast, which is some serious progress, even in my lifetime.
On the other hand, I can flip on BET and still find shows that have exclusively black casts. There are a number of exclusively black career fairs. There are a number of exclusively black scholarships.
Those are the things that bother me. Base things on merit and talent, base things on topics of interest, base things on income-level, but don’t base it on race.
On the other hand, I can flip on BET and still find shows that have exclusively black casts. There are a number of exclusively black career fairs. There are a number of exclusively black scholarships.
Those are the things that bother me. Base things on merit and talent, base things on topics of interest, base things on income-level, but don’t base it on race.[/quote]
It doesn’t bother me because we still don’t have a nationally broadcast show like Friends was. Cosby broke many barriers, but let’s get serious. There are very few all black casts that are held in the same light as all white casts…and you aren’t mad at all about Friends being all white.
On the other hand, I can flip on BET and still find shows that have exclusively black casts. There are a number of exclusively black career fairs. There are a number of exclusively black scholarships.
Those are the things that bother me. Base things on merit and talent, base things on topics of interest, base things on income-level, but don’t base it on race.[/quote]
It doesn’t bother me because we still don’t have a nationally broadcast show like Friends was. Cosby broke many barriers, but let’s get serious. There are very few all black casts that are held in the same light as all white casts…and you aren’t mad at all about Friends being all white.[/quote]
Are the shows with all black casts held in the same light with black people, as the shows with all white casts are/were held with white people?
Or are you looking for shows with all black casts to be held in the same light with white people as shows with all white casts were?
Secondly…
Don’t you think you should be promoting multiracial casts over all black casts?
Wanting an all black cast to have national recognition and acclaim doesn’t seem to be too progressive toward any goal of racial harmony.
Are the shows with all black casts held in the same light with black people, as the shows with all white casts are/were held with white people?
Or are you looking for shows with all black casts to be held in the same light with white people as shows with all white casts were? [/quote]
Wow, all black people don’t think the same…and I rarely watch poorly written shows regardless of who is cast in them…however, I have a full understand why someone like Tyler Perry gained a fortune tuning into the very thing I am discussing here.
Blacks have NOT been represented on tv in that way except for very rare shows…like The Cosby show…and how many years ago was that?
The moment you see an all black cast with rating like Senfeld had with its all white cast, then there will be no more need for focus on that specifically.
[quote]
Secondly…
Don’t you think you should be promoting multiracial casts over all black casts? [/quote]
Wouldn’t that come naturally after some equilibration in society? Like I said above already, we now see Asians in horror movies…something we never saw before. We see more Asian Americas and more Indians in prime time tv.
I am not FOR a “multi-racial” cast just for the sake of making it multiracial…just like I do’t watch Tyler Perry movies for the sake of an all black cast because I think he sucks as a director and writer.
You seem to misunderstand quite a bit here.
[quote]
Wanting an all black cast to have national recognition and acclaim doesn’t seem to be too progressive toward any goal of racial harmony.[/quote]
Wow, how is that? Doesn’t racial harmony depend on all races involved feeling equal?
Isn’t it hard to feel equal when you are underrepresented in social media? You are saying it should be ignored that most of these shows are predominantly white yet not ignore the ones that are mostly black?
MOST shows in tv have all white casts…yet you have no issue with that.
Shouldn’t YOU want less white exposure in tv due to overexposure?
Wasn’t a problem for us. I don’t see why it’s wrong for American culture and White culture to be synonymous[/quote]
It may have something to do with it literally being built on the backs of all of those other races.
That “white society” existed at the cost of the identity of quite a lot of black people.
The names of slaves were literally erased. Not too many other races can claim literally having their names taken away en mass to that degree…yet truly building the society that is excluding them.[/quote]
LOL right, because whites hadn’t accomplished fuck all before slavery and colonialism. That’s a line of logic I never got. Everyone is equal, but whites were able to manhandle all the other races, except for the asians who voluntarily adopted Western customs, stopping just short of the liberal dildos currently infesting white countries.
But all that aside, you’ve ignored the one question I really wanted you to answer. Do you wish Europe had left Africa alone? That Europeans had never touched Africa and left it 100% to it’s own self-determination? [/quote]
Whites? You mean some whites. Don’t lump all white cultures and/or ethnic groups as being one. The Romans had indoor plumbing while the pasty whites up north were living in caves. Shakespeare wouldn’t have written anything if the Greeks had never taught him. [/quote]
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
But enough of this racial in-fighting. We’ve got blacker things to worry about.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
[/quote]
Yet, they were unable to invent a proper toilet.
And your IQ statement is false unless you learned it on Stormfront which we all know is right about everything.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
[/quote]
Yet, they were unable to invent a proper toilet.
And your IQ statement is false unless you learned it on Stormfront which we all know is right about everything. [/quote]
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
[/quote]
Yet, they were unable to invent a proper toilet.
And your IQ statement is false unless you learned it on Stormfront which we all know is right about everything. [/quote]
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.
To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.
In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan’s IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstanâ??China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."
and
“Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that “we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified.” They also wrote that cross country comparisons are “virtually meaningless.”[6]”
and
"In a book review in the Journal of Economic Literature, a journal of the American Economic Association, Thomas J. Nechyba wrote that: “(the book’s) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book.”[8]
and
“Some criticisms have focused on the limited number of studies upon which the book is based. The IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, and two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world’s nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[2] The limited number of participants in some studies has also been criticized. A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13â??16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5â??17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6â??12-year olds in Egypt, and of 48 10â??14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.[3]”
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
[/quote]
Yet, they were unable to invent a proper toilet.
And your IQ statement is false unless you learned it on Stormfront which we all know is right about everything. [/quote]
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.
To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.
In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan’s IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstanâ??China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."
and
“Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that “we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified.” They also wrote that cross country comparisons are “virtually meaningless.”[6]”
and
"In a book review in the Journal of Economic Literature, a journal of the American Economic Association, Thomas J. Nechyba wrote that: “(the book’s) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book.”[8]
and
“Some criticisms have focused on the limited number of studies upon which the book is based. The IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, and two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world’s nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[2] The limited number of participants in some studies has also been criticized. A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13â??16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5â??17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6â??12-year olds in Egypt, and of 48 10â??14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.[3]”
[/quote]
What a faygit you are. “I don’t believe your claims about European IQ distribution” “Well, here’s a source” “LOL there’s validity issues with some of the non-European numbers”
Can you say, N-O-N S-E-Q-U-I-T-U-R?
If you want to debate the methodology used here for the non-Euro numbers, I can do that too, but I can only prove your retarded claims wrong one at a time.
I have a serious question that I hope can be taken at face value and not dug apart, but it requires probably an answer from X. I’ll state ahead of time this is naivety on my part.
When I was in South Dakota, one of the closest families to my own was a black family. They made and served a number of delicious meals and such, and I had never known of them - or had them since - that time. People joke all the time about collard greens and stuff. Are these part of the Southern culture and was picked up by Blacks during the slave period, or is this actually a legitimate part of Black culture? I don’t know enough about the South to know. I do know Jumbalaya is a southern dish, but not 100% about others. This was in the late 80’s, so about 20 years after the Black culture was able to freely develop.
And Cabbage Patch Kids! I remember those. My sister had a couple. I think the boy version was called “My Buddy and Me” or something.
I have been a member of T-Nation since 2008. I have not posted on the message boards since that time, when I asked for advice in the “Beginners” thread on improving my leg press strength and not getting “fat” while bulking. (Yep. It happened.) However, after reading this post I felt compelled to respond.
RyuuKyuzo, you are fucking insane. You have spouted some of the vilest doggerel I have ever had the misfortune of reading and I would like to refute just a spoonful of the bullshit you have seen fit to dole out by the shovelful. Exhibit A:
“Do you wish your ancestors hadn’t been bought and brought to America? Hell, there’s still slavery in Africa today, post-colonialism. Had Europe never touched Africa, then as the descendant of a slave, there’s a strong possibility that you’d be a slave in Africa right now. So, are you bitter towards the trans-Atlantic slave trade?”
Do you really think that the current socioeconomic status that Prof X (or any person of sub-Saharan African ancestry) enjoys is due to the “gift” of European colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade? What about his own personal contributions to his success; those of his family; his neighborhood; etc.? Why are these factors being discounted?
Perhaps more importantly, you are legitimizing slavery, and all the horrors that went with it, because (hundreds of years later) it allegedly “improved” the socioeconomic status of those people descended from African slaves - as though improving the fortunes of the savage heathen was the long-term goal all along. It wasn’t - income in the form of rum, cotton, sugarcane, rubber, gold and diamonds was, you pompous asshole.
Black Americans who are fortunate enough to make a good living do so because they bust their asses to make it happen, and because a million people marched on Washington to protest discrimination in the 1960s; because of Freedom Riders and the bus boycotts…not because your noble European conquistadors brought them the shining light of civilization in the form of slavery, servitude, and economic and cultural rape. (Yes, I am co-opting Prof X’s term, because it is both fitting and accurate when one is describing crimes on such a vast scale. Moron.)
A few more minor, but no less problematic, points:
The SAT is not a test of intelligence, nor has it ever been. The test is reductive and simplistic, like all standardized tests, and like all standardized tests it assumes a supremely narrow view of what “educated” is (more on that in a moment). Further, the president of the College Board (the company which administers the goddamn test) has himself called it “flawed”. Lastly, the test does not claim to measure intelligence; it claims to measure preparedness for college success and educational attainment, and even its claims in that regard are dubious at best.
IQ is not a 1:1 indicator of intelligence; it is, much like standardized tests, more like a barometer for accumulated cultural learning (which is itself biased in favor of the power group writing the goddamn test). You brought up this supposed IQ disparity several times over the course of this thread- for the record, your studies are shit, and poorly conducted science.
You seem to be molding the evidence to conform to your beliefs, not the other way around, which is the antithesis of your supposedly scientific proof that darker-skinned races have inferior intelligence. (Or maybe you just think that black people have lower intelligence. At this point, I don’t care.)
The archaeological and linguistic evidence for the Afrocentrist model of classical culture is poor, but your shrill bitching that “EVERYBODY ELSE WAS LIVING IN CAVES UNTIL WE CIVILIZED YOU” is even more poorly supported. For counterexamples, I would direct you to the stories of Sheba and the Great Zimbabwe culture, Jugurtha of Numidia, and the entire history of Ethiopia.
In short, you’re a troll, and it saddens me that people with your moronic views still exist in this country.
Do you really think that the current socioeconomic status that Prof X (or any person of sub-Saharan African ancestry) enjoys is due to the “gift” of European colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade? What about his own personal contributions to his success; those of his family; his neighborhood; etc.? Why are these factors being discounted?
[/quote]
Because these factors mean shit if they fall on barren ground.
Had he been born in a number of sub-Saharan African states he would have most likely been raised malnourished, he would have neurological disorders due to several infections with malaria and he would be parasite infested to the hilt because, no clean drinking water.
Him “working his ass off” would have consisted of digging in the ground with a stick to plant some yummy yams.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
You have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think only southern Europeans have contributed to white culture and innovation. Northern Europeans have notably higher IQ’s than southern Europeans, FYI.
[/quote]
Yet, they were unable to invent a proper toilet.
And your IQ statement is false unless you learned it on Stormfront which we all know is right about everything. [/quote]
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62.
To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner.
In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan’s IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to KyrgyzstanÃ?¢??China, which is a geographic neighbor, is not counted as such by Lynn and Vanhanen. This is because ethnic background is assumed to be more important than proximity to other nations when determining national IQ."
and
“Several negative reviews of the book have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that “we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified.” They also wrote that cross country comparisons are “virtually meaningless.”[6]”
and
"In a book review in the Journal of Economic Literature, a journal of the American Economic Association, Thomas J. Nechyba wrote that: “(the book’s) sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book.”[8]
and
“Some criticisms have focused on the limited number of studies upon which the book is based. The IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, and two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world’s nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[2] The limited number of participants in some studies has also been criticized. A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13Ã?¢??16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5Ã?¢??17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6Ã?¢??12-year olds in Egypt, and of 48 10Ã?¢??14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.[3]”
[/quote]
What a faygit you are. “I don’t believe your claims about European IQ distribution” “Well, here’s a source” “LOL there’s validity issues with some of the non-European numbers”
Can you say, N-O-N S-E-Q-U-I-T-U-R?
If you want to debate the methodology used here for the non-Euro numbers, I can do that too, but I can only prove your retarded claims wrong one at a time.[/quote]
It’s the source for YOUR GRAPH and the majority of is garbage.
