Home | Community | Message Board


FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Why has Africa failed?
    #2208237 - 12/29/03 07:06 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Since the other thread in which we were discussing the lack of negroid accomplishment in America was closed due to some interlopers personal attacks, I've decided to make a thread that asks the question, "Why is life so poor in Africa?". My personal belief is that certain characteristics, such as intelligence and ability to create a working form of government, are related to race and thus, negros who have not in their own nation formed these traits, most likely never will.

I'd like to start by asking each of you to compare the number of contributions made in European nations and those from Negroid african nations. Nations such as Egypt and Libya, while existing in Africa, certaintly were not inhabited by Negro's, and thus, their contributions, while numerous and important, are irrelevant to this discussion. The ancient Greeks and Romans contributed volumes of writings on philosophy, morality, education, art and various other subjects. They built houses that were from stone, they had systems that allowed them to have internal plumbing, they wore and traded fine clothes. They established trade routes, conquered and assimiliated numerous cultures (that still retained their culture). They were masters of using metal to build everything from ships that sailed and explored and weapons that kept the empire expanding. They were studying the stars and how they moved, the body and how it worked, medicine, law.

Next we move to the northern european anglos (the nordic peoples inhabiting the scandaniavian countries). The Vikings were masters at traveling, and the spark of exploration and learning more things allowed them to chart most of the northern lands. All of the things that are associated with culture were present, language, art, writings.

Whites in Europe developed beautiful architecture that still exists today. Beautiful castles in England and throughout Europe, massive chateau's in France, the canals of Venice. They learned to use animals as a method of labor, allowing their agriculture system to flourish. Breeding of these animals led to such prize specimens as the Lipezanner stallions, and the massive Clydesdale workhorses. The lower-class farmed the land and had livestock kept for eating purposes. They harnessed the power of fossil fuels and built the steam engine. Their are so many accomplishments that I can't even begin to naem them all.

Now I'd like to discuss other inventions that have come from white people in the New World (America). The telephone, the incandescent light bulb, the internal combustion engine used to power automobiles. Flight is a White American contribution, both space and inner-athmospheric. The study of medicine flourished in America and Europe, leading to cures for diseases, the understanding that clean water equalled less disease, the understanding of sterilization, surgical practises, implements such as the MRI and CAT scan devices. Computers, televisions, most of the electronic devises were made in America (not in Japan, as people seem to think).

White literary and artistic figures have shaped the world that we live in. Men such as van Gogh, Michelangelo, John Steinbeck, Frederich Neitzche,again, too many to even possibly begin to name.

Now, lets look at Africa. The average life expectancy in Africa is thirty-nine years old, partly due to the AIDS plague that is running rampant in their nation. When AIDS came to America, we isloated the virus, began studying it, learned how it reproduced and spread to other people, and began a massive campaign to stop the spread of AIDS. In Africa, none of this has been done. Why not? Why is it that clean water, the cornerstone of a healthy lifestyle, STILL does not exist in 96% of the homes in Africa? Why is it that most Africans, despite living in conditions much easier than my nordic ancestors, are not thriving? Why haven't they discovered other nations as white people did? Where are their Wilbur and Orville Wright? Their Van Gogh? Their Shakespeare? Their Nietzche? Kant? Lewis? Michealangelo? Their Cistine Chapel? Their ancient cities with aquaducts? Their working political system? Their lower crime rate?

Why haven't they accomplished ANY of this? Why is the slave trade still going on in Africa? Why haven't most Negro African nations been able to develop a policital system that is more in depth than "Whoever kills the last leader, is the leader, until he gets murdered as well!". Why is it that African nations always seem to need help getting over a starvation problem, and nordic nations with freezing winters do fine?

I can't possibly think that it's due to anything but race.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 10 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208284 - 12/29/03 07:29 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Perhaps those in Africa measure 'success' on a different scale than you...

Western society is responsible for everything you mentioned and more...Nuclear Weapons, Industrial Waste, AIDS (Patient zero was a white male), both World Wars, Mad Cow disease, I could go on forever...but the point being is that it's obviously a matter of perspective...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208295 - 12/29/03 07:36 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Why should they want any of these things?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: Rono]
    #2208296 - 12/29/03 07:37 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Rono said:
Perhaps those in Africa measure 'success' on a different scale than you...



Rampant AIDS, low standards of living, brutal dicatorships, harsh conditions? They value that? Interesting.

Quote:


Western society is responsible for everything you mentioned and more...Nuclear Weapons, Industrial Waste, AIDS (Patient zero was a white male), both World Wars, Mad Cow disease, I could go on forever...but the point being is that it's obviously a matter of perspective...



Wetern Society is responsible for creating recycling programs, replanting trees, studying the environment, regulations on industrial waste, etc. I'd bet that Africans pollute their waters more than Westernized nations do.  As for Patient Zero being a white male, I'd love to see some infomation on that. The first recorded AIDS patient IN AMERICA was a white man (gay as well), but he wasn't patient zero. I take alot of classes in epidemiology, and patient zero is the person who was the first human vector. Unless you can make the connection (And you'd be famous for your work, since it's not been done yet) showing how PIV became HIV, and how it happened to this gay white male, I'm going to have to call schenanigans on you on that one.

Mad Cow Disease (Bovine CJD) wasn't "invented" by white people, it was RECOGNIZED by white people. How many virii and bacterium do you tthink are plaguing Africa now? THat is an excellent example, and I commend you for giving me another chance to expound on how whites and negro's react to things.

When the AIDS epidemic hit America, we isolated the virus, did everything I said, and are trying to cure it. In Africa, they beleive that having sex with a virgin is the cure, so they rape children to cure it. When their is some sort of health issue in America, we try to use our superior minds to determine what the problem is, and fix it.  Why is Africa free of small pox? Certaintly not their "Advanced medical programs".  AFricans still haven't realized that simply BOILING water would kill alot of the microorganisms that lead to their early demise, most likely attributing it to the spirit gods or some other primitive belief.

World Wars? Africa didn't have massive wars? The brutal tyranny of Idi Amin is forgotten, and Hitler is used as an example of whitey-badness. Come on! I'm the one that is supposedly "ignorant" of African history, not you! Give me some workable examples :smile: Would you like to compare numbers and see where more people diedd as a result of war, Africa or Europe? Wanna bet a dollah?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 5 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: Rono]
    #2208297 - 12/29/03 07:37 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I wouldn't consider starving to death to be very successfull.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208301 - 12/29/03 07:40 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Quote:

Rono said:
Perhaps those in Africa measure 'success' on a different scale than you...



Rampant AIDS, low standards of living, brutal dicatorships, harsh conditions? They value that? Interesting.



Those things are mostly the result of colonialism and globalization. BTW, since there is no known cure for AIDS, I don't see why we should blame them when we're still looking for the cure ourselves.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2208302 - 12/29/03 07:40 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

But thats how htey judge sucess! The more you starve, the better off you are, apparently.


--------------------
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2208303 - 12/29/03 07:42 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Quote:

Rono said:
Perhaps those in Africa measure 'success' on a different scale than you...



Rampant AIDS, low standards of living, brutal dicatorships, harsh conditions? They value that? Interesting.



Those things are mostly the result of colonialism and globalization.  BTW, since there is no known cure for AIDS, I don't see why we should blame them when we're still looking for the cure ourselves.




We are looking for a cure, they are fucking children. Doesn't that seem just a wee wittle bit different? or are your teeeeveeshades blocking reality :smile: Next tim ya ge sick, go to Africa for treatment :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2208309 - 12/29/03 07:44 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Why should they want any of these things?




It's obvious what you give value to, since you are on the internet posting here. Wouldn't you say that whites have contributed more towards what you value than Negros have?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 5 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208311 - 12/29/03 07:45 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Wasn't Africa pretty well off during biblical times?

It hasn't always been a craphole has it? Seems like I remember Ethiopia being mentioned as being a verdant, prosperous nation somewhere in the new testament.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2208319 - 12/29/03 07:49 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
Wasn't Africa pretty well off during biblical times?

It hasn't always been a craphole has it? Seems like I remember Ethiopia being mentioned as being a verdant, prosperous nation somewhere in the new testament.




IT also mentions the dead being raised, so i'm a wee bit skeptical of it's claims :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 5 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208326 - 12/29/03 07:53 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

If it's true, I'm sure there is plenty of secular history to back it up.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208327 - 12/29/03 07:54 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Quote:

Rono said:
Perhaps those in Africa measure 'success' on a different scale than you...



Rampant AIDS, low standards of living, brutal dicatorships, harsh conditions? They value that? Interesting.



Those things are mostly the result of colonialism and globalization.  BTW, since there is no known cure for AIDS, I don't see why we should blame them when we're still looking for the cure ourselves.




We are looking for a cure, they are fucking children. Doesn't that seem just a wee wittle bit different? or are your teeeeveeshades blocking reality :smile: Next tim ya ge sick, go to Africa for treatment :smile:



Who says they're not looking for a cure?  It's just a bit harder when you can't afford the medical technology that we can.  The reason most of those countries are poor is because of colonialist exploitation and globalisation.  And wtf do you mean by fucking children?  I'm not aware of pedophilia being any more common there than anywhere else.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208329 - 12/29/03 07:55 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

enimatpyrt said:
Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Why should they want any of these things?




It's obvious what you give value to, since you are on the internet posting here. Wouldn't you say that whites have contributed more towards what you value than Negros have?



It doesn't matter what I value. It's what they value that should be important to them.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2208340 - 12/29/03 08:03 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


Who says they're not looking for a cure?  It's just a bit harder when you can't afford the medical technology that we can.  The reason most of those countries are poor is because of colonialist exploitation and globalisation.  And wtf do you mean by fucking children?  I'm not aware of pedophilia being any more common there than anywhere else.



Hey what a surprise! It's whiteys fault! It's interesting that most nations that whites "conqeur" end up doing much better with Whites there, such as South Africa.  I bet that medical technology is just something that they don't "Value" as much as we do, right? If you would have read my entire post, you'd see that I posted how in Africa, they believe that fucking a virgin is a cure for AIDS.

How is Negro Africa's substandard performance before whitey got there blameable on whitey? Isn't it interesting that your argument is based on downing the things that whitey did? "globalization", to you, is a nasty evil thing that makes Mr Smart Black man get AIDS, when it is to everyone else, a way of expanding and allowing your own kind to grow and flourish.  Pull your head out :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2208346 - 12/29/03 08:05 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
It doesn't matter what I value.  It's what they value that should be important to them.




I see, so you admit that qualities relating to intelligence and other psychological attributes (wanting things, different valueS), are race-related, right? :smile: Isn't that whatcha said? It's fun when I'm so right, and you are so wrong, because you either contradict yourself, or prove my points.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 5 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208347 - 12/29/03 08:06 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Heh AIDS was a good idea I'm glad we thought of it.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineenimatpyrt
addict
Registered: 11/05/03
Posts: 498
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2208362 - 12/29/03 08:11 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


It's obvious what you give value to, since you are on the internet posting here. Wouldn't you say that whites have contributed more towards what you value than Negros have?



It doesn't matter what I value. It's what they value that should be important to them.




Why don't you just answer the question. It "matters" to me enough to ask the question. Do you think that whites have contributed more towards what you value than negros have? This isn't about them ,it's about you, specificaly, and the reason it matters is that, in an intelligent sharing of ideas, people answer each others questions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208400 - 12/29/03 08:43 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

here's something you might find interesting:

Three is not enough: surprising new lessons from the controversial science of race.

Sharon Begley.

TO MOST AMERICANS race IS AS PLAIN AS THE COLOR of the nose on your face. Sure, some light-skinned blacks, in some neighborhoods, are taken for Italians, and some Turks are confused with Argentines. But even in the children of biracial couples, racial ancestry is writ large--in the hue of the skin and the shape of the lips, the size of the brow and the bridge of the nose. It is no harder to trace than it is to judge which basic colors in a box of Crayolas were combined to make tangerine or burnt umber. Even with racial mixing, the existence of primary races is as obvious as the existence of primary colors.

Or is it? C. Loring Brace has his own ideas about where race resides, and it isn't in skin color. if our eyes could perceive more than the superficial, we might find race in chromosome 11: there lies the gene for hemoglobin. If you divide humankind by which of two forms of the gene each person has, then equatorial Africans, Italians and Greeks fall into the "sickle-cell race"; Swedes and South Africa's Xhosas (Nelson Mandela's ethnic group) are in the healthy-hemoglobin race. Or do you prefer to group people by whether they have epicanthic eye folds, which produce the "Asian" eye? Then the !Kung San (Bushmen) belong with the Japanese and Chinese. Depending on which trait you choose to demarcate races, "you won't get anything that remotely tracks conventional [race] categories," says anthropologist Alan Goodman, dean of natural science at Hampshire College.

The notion of race is under withering attack for political and cultural reasons-not to mention practical ones like what to label the child of a Ghanaian and a Norwegian. But scientists got there first. Their doubts about the conventional racial categories--black, white, Asian--have nothing to do with a sappy "we are all the same" ideology. Just the reverse. "Human variation is very, very real," says Goodman. "But race, as a way of organizing [what we know about that variation], is incredibly simplified and bastardized." Worse, it does not come close to explaining the astounding diversity of humankind--not its origins, not its extent, not its meaning. "There is no organizing principle by which you could put 5 billion people into so few categories in a way that would tell you anything important about humankind's diversity," says Michigan's Brace, who will lay out the case against race at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

About 70 percent of cultural anthropologists, and half of physical anthropologists, reject race as a biological category, according to a 1989 survey by Central Michigan University anthropologist Leonard Lieberman and colleagues. The truths of science are not decided by majority vote, of course. Empirical evidence, woven into a theoretical whole, is what matters. The threads of the argument against the standard racial categories:

* Genes: In 1972, population biologist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University laid out the genetic case against race. Analyzing 17 genetic markers in 168 populations such as Austrians, Thais and Apaches, he found that there is more genetic difference within one race than there is between that race and another. Only 6.3 percent of the genetic differences could be explained by the individuals' belonging to different races. That is, if you pick at random any two "blacks" walking along the street, and analyze their 23 pairs of chromosomes, you will probably find that their genes have less in common than do the genes of one of them with that of a random "white" person. Last year the Human Genome Diversity Project used 1990s genetics to extend Lewontin's analysis. Its conclusion: genetic variation from one individual to another of the same race" swamps the average differences between racial groupings. The more we learn about humankind's genetic differences, says geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford University, who chairs the committee that directs the biodiversity project, the more we see that they have almost nothing to do with what we call race.

* Traits: As sickle-cell "races" and epicanthic-fold "races" show, there are as many ways to group people as there are traits. That is because "racial" traits are what statisticians call non-concordant. Lack of concordance means that sorting people according to these traits produces different groupings than you get in sorting them by those (equally valid) traits. When biologist Jared Diamond of UCLA surveyed half a dozen traits for a recent issue of Discover magazine, he found that, depending on which traits you pick, you can form very surprising "races." Take the scoopedout shape of the back of the front teeth, a standard "Asian" trait. Native Americans and Swedes have these shovel-shaped incisors, too, and so would fall in the same race. Is biochemistry better? Norwegians, Arabians, north Indians and the Fulani of northern Nigeria, notes Diamond, fall into the "lactase race" (the lactase enzyme digests milk sugar). Everyone else--other Africans, Japanese, Native Americans--forms the "lactase-deprived race" (their ancestors did not drink milk from cows or goats and hence never evolved the lactase gene). How about blood types, the familiar A, B and O groups? Then Germans and New Guineans, populations that have the same percentages of each type, are in one race; Estonians and Japanese comprise a separate one for the same reason, notes anthropologist Jonathan Marks of Yale University. Depending on which traits are chosen, "we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan or Italians," writes Diamond.

* Subjectivity: If race is a valid biological concept, anyone in any culture should be able to look at any individual and say, Aha, you are a ... It should not be the case, as French tennis star Yannick Noah said a few years ago, that "in Africa I am white, and in France I am black" (his mother is French and his father is from Cameroon). "While biological traits give the impression that race is a biological unit of nature," says anthropologist George Armelagos of Emory University, "it remains a cultural construct. The boundaries between races depends on the classifier's own cultural norms."

* Evolution: Scholars who believe in the biological validity of race argue that the groupings reflect human prehistory. That is, populations that evolved together, and separately from others, constitute a race. This school of thought holds that blacks should all be in one race because they are descended from people who stayed on the continent where humanity began. Asians, epitomized by the Chinese, should be another race because they are the children of groups who walked north and east until they reached the Pacific. Whites of the pale, blond variety should be another because their ancestors filled Europe. Because of their appearance, these populations represent the extremes, the archetypes, of human diversity--the reds, blues and yellows from which you can make every other hue. "But if you use these archetypes as your groups you have classified only a very tiny proportion of the world's people, which is not very useful," says Marks, whose incisive new book "Human Biodiversity" (321 pages. Walter de Gruyter. $23.95) deconstructs race. "Also, as people walked out of Africa, they were differentiating along the way. Equating 'extreme' with `primordial' is not supported by history."

Often, shared traits are a sign of shared heritage--racial heritage. "Shared traits are not random," says Alice Brues, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado. "Within a continent, you of course have a number of variants [on basic traits], but some are characteristic of the larger area, too. So it's natural to look for these major divisions. It simplifies your thinking." A wide distribution of traits, however, makes them suspect as evidence of a shared heritage. The dark skin of Somalis and Ghanaians, for instance, indicates that they evolved under the same selective force (a sunny climate). But that's all it shows. It does not show that they are any more closely related, in the sense of sharing more genes, than either is to Greeks. Calling Somalis and Ghanaians "black" therefore sheds no further light on their evolutionary history and implies--wrongly--that they are more closely related to each other than either is to someone of a different "race." Similarly, the long noses of North Africans and northern Europeans reveal that they evolved in dry or cold climates (the nose moistens air before the air reaches the lungs, and longer noses moisten more air). The tall, thin bodies of Kenya's Masai evolved to dissipate heat; Eskimos evolved short, squat bodies to retain it. Calling these peoples "different races" adds nothing to that understanding.

Where did the three standard racial divisions come from? They entered the social, and scientific, consciousness during the Age of Exploration. Loring Brace doesn't think it's a coincidence that the standard races represent peoples who, as he puts it, "lived at the end of the Europeans' trade routes"--in Africa and China--in the days after Prince Henry the Navigator set sail. Before Europeans took to the seas, there was little perception of races. If villagers began to look different to an Englishman riding a horse from France to Italy and on to Greece, the change was too subtle to inspire notions of races. But if the English sailor left Lisbon Harbor and dropped anchor off the Kingdom of Niger, people looked so different he felt compelled to invent a scheme to explain the world--and, perhaps, distance himself from the Africans.

This habit of sorting the world's peoples into a small number of groups got its first scientific gloss from Swedish taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus. (Linnaeus is best known for his system of classifying living things by genus and species--Escherichia coli, Homo sapiens and the rest.) In 1758 he declared that humanity falls into four races: white (Europeans), red (Native Americans), dark (Asians) and black (Africans). Linnaeus said that Native Americans (who in the 1940s got grouped with Asians) were ruled by custom. Africans were indolent and negligent, and Europeans were inventive and gentle, said Linnaeus. Leave aside the racist undertones (not to mention the oddity of ascribing gentleness to the group that perpetrated the Crusades and Inquisition): that alone should not undermine its validity. More worrisome is that the notion and the specifics of race predate genetics, evolutionary biology and the science of human origins. With the revolutions in those fields, how is it that the 18th-century scheme of race retains its powerful hold? Consider these arguments:

* If I parachute into Nairobi, I know I'm not in Oslo: Colorado's Alice Brues uses this image to argue that denying the reality of race flies in the face of common sense. But the parachutists, if they were familiar with the great range of human diversity, could also tell that they were in Nairobi rather than Abidjan--east Africans don't look much like west Africans. They could also tell they were in Istanbul rather than Oslo, even though Turks and Norwegians are both called Caucasian.

* DOA, male, 5'11" ... black: When U.S. police call in a forensic anthropologist to identify the race of a skeleton, the scientist comes through 80 to 85 percent of the time. If race has no biological validity, how can the sleuths get it right so often? The forensic anthropologist could, with enough information about bone structure and genetic markers, identify the region from which the corpse came--south and west Africa, Southeast Asia and China, Northern add Western Europe. It just so happens that the police would call corpses from the first two countries black, from the middle two Asian, and the last pair white. But lumping these six distinct populations into three groups of two serves no biological purpose, only a social convention. The larger grouping may reflect how society views humankind's diversity, but does not explain it.

* African-Americans have more hypertension: If race is not real, how can researchers say that blacks have higher rates of infant mortality, lower rates of osteoporosis and a higher incidence of hypertension? Because a social construct can have biological effects, says epidemiologist Robert Hahn of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Consider hypertension among African-Americans. Roughly 34 percent have high blood pressure, compared with about 16 percent of whites. But William Dressler finds the greatest incidence of hypertension among blacks who are upwardly mobile achievers. "That's probably because in mundane interactions, from the bank to the grocery store, they are treated in ways that do not coincide with their self-image as respectable achievers," says Dressler, an anthropologist at the University of Alabama. "And the upwardly mobile are more likely to encounter discriminatory white culture." Lab studies show that stressful situations--like being followed in grocery stores as if you were a shoplifter--elevate blood pressure and lead to vascular changes that cause hypertension. "In this case, race captures social factors such as the experience of discrimination," says sociologist David Williams of the University of Michigan. Further evidence that hypertension has more to do with society than with biology: black Africans have among the lowest rates of hypertension in the world.

If race is not a biological explanation of hypertension, can it offer a biological explanation of something as complex as intelligence? Psychologists are among the strongest proponents of retaining the three conventional racial categories. It organizes and explains their data in the most parsimonious way, as Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argue in "The Bell Curve." But anthropologists say that such conclusions are built on a foundation of sand. If nothing else, argues Brace, every ethnic group evolved under conditions where intelligence was a requirement for survival. If there are intelligence "genes," they must be in all ethnic groups equally: differences in intelligence must be a cultural and social artifact.

SCIENTISTS WHO doubt the biological meaningfulness of race are not nihilists. They just prefer another way Of capturing, and explaining, the great diversity of humankind. Even today most of the world's peoples marry within their own group. Intra-marriage preserves features--fleshy lips, small ears, wideset eyes--that arose by a chance genetic mutation long ago. Grouping people by geographic origins--better known as ethnicity--" is more correct both in a statistical sense and in understanding the history of human variation," says Hampshire's Goodman. Ethnicity also serves as a proxy for differences--from diet to a history of discrimination--that can have real biological and behavioral effects.

In a 1942 book, anthropologist Ashley Montagu called race "Man's Most Dangerous Myth." If it is, then our most ingenuous myth must be that we sort humankind into groups in order to understand the meaning and origin of humankind's diversity. That isn't the reason at all; a greater number of smaller groupings, like ethnicities, does a better job. The obsession with broad categories is so powerful as to seem a neurological imperative. Changing our thinking about race will require a revolution in thought as profound, and profoundly unsettling, as anything science has ever demanded. What these researchers are talking about is changing the way in which we see the world--and each other. But before that can happen, we must do more than understand the biologist's suspicions about race. We must ask science, also, why it is that we are so intent on sorting humanity into so few groups--us and Other--in the first place.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 5 hours
Re: Why has Africa failed? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2208402 - 12/29/03 08:44 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Didn't they invent treatments that increased the odds of surviving the plague by like 10,000%?

White Christians were just falling out left and right, and might have died out completely if not for the negroes timely advancements in medicine.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Negro Project!!! Ellis Dee 652 5 04/09/02 01:38 AM
by
* I think I finally realized why Africa is so poor
( 1 2 3 all )
DoctorJ 2,849 53 05/03/06 12:28 PM
by Rogues_Pierre
* Whites fear Mugabe-style evictions as South Africa seizes first farm lonestar2004 609 7 02/20/08 05:07 PM
by Luddite
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 472 1 07/11/03 02:55 PM
by Xlea321
* Egyptian Jurists to Sue 'The Jews' for Compensation wingnutx 496 3 08/22/03 12:42 PM
by Autonomous
* Power Cuts slam South Africa. The_Red_Crayon 389 1 01/20/07 03:10 AM
by zorbman
* Bush's Africa Trip SlashOZ 1,353 19 02/18/08 12:45 AM
by EntheogenicPeace
* South Africa joins in the persecution of the poor in Zimbabwe Phred 656 5 11/19/05 04:05 PM
by kilgore_trout

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
3,122 topic views. 4 members, 2 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.16 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.