mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 7, 2005 22:46:24 GMT -5
I'd hate to break up the pretense here, but I hope you understand that most scientists don't really subscribe to your ideas on race anymore, no offense but when you go out of this board, stormfront, RAS, whatever (though the topics may be interesting) very few people except predictable types will take you seriously....... No its not a "PC agenda" or anything, its just the honest truth. I notice you trumpet alot of scientific journals here, but those studies cited are over 2 years old , a study came out less than a year ago claiming exactly the opposite. I think you like to make these claims because its rather polically convenient and assuring for you, but I assure you there is no "race war" there is no competetion between races, realise that people are individuals not amorphous blobs of racial goo, what is your day job dienekes?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 8, 2005 1:32:47 GMT -5
The differences in testosterone levels alone make for some signifigant differences in behavior.
Most scientists have no interest in pursuing something that will get them blacklisted, no.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 8, 2005 2:25:53 GMT -5
The differences in testosterone levels alone make for some signifigant differences in behavior. Most scientists have no interest in pursuing something that will get them blacklisted, no. All of that is insignificant claptrap nonsense that racialist spew out. Scientists avoid it because it makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 8, 2005 2:35:42 GMT -5
mmmkey, it must be awfully tiring carrying those giant sequoia on your shoulders. Give it up, you sound rather raving.
This board is biased. Americans seem to be given carte blanche to post Afrocentrist shite. Try that on Stirpes. They don't like any Americans whether you are Snow White's brother or looked like you fell out of some Afrikaner's hidden skeleton closet. PC exists on this board. The five letter word for black color or person in Spanish or Italian is banned. The usage of African with American is quite acceptable despite the fact that American blacks are partly of African descent and Africa is multiracial with races varying from pink white to olive to swarthy to brown to black. And I am referring to Africans with pedigrees going back to the Holocene/Pleistocene which is about as far as racial types can be attributed to human remains.
Civilizations in Africa are nearly all within the Eurasian zone of influence. Egypt, Axum in particular. The defunct pre Phoenician/pre Roman/pre Greek civilisations of North Africa. I as a European don't have any qualms accepting that the civilizations in Asia are older than those in Europe and contributed to European civilizations. But you Americans find it hard to accept that civilizations in Africa are similarly indebted to Asia. What is wrong with the Meso American civilizations which have nothing to do with any other continent or races? If I were American, I would be studying them and taking pride in them rather than boring foreign civilizations of Egypt and Axum. Of course I consider the Afrocentrist link to the Olmecs a wank.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 8, 2005 2:40:30 GMT -5
The differences in testosterone levels alone make for some signifigant differences in behavior. Most scientists have no interest in pursuing something that will get them blacklisted, no. All of that is insignificant claptrap nonsense that racialist spew out. Scientists avoid it because it makes no sense. You are not a scientist. Science deals with science not civilizations. That is for anthropologists, archeologists and the like to deal with not scientists. The study of race is not scientific as race is merely a minor difference between humans who are overwhelmingly the same genetically. Culturally, linguistically they differ, but that is not scientific either. Behavioral differences should be left with psychologists.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 8, 2005 2:43:43 GMT -5
mmmkey, it must be awfully tiring carrying those giant sequoia on your shoulders. Give it up, you sound rather raving. This board is biased. Americans seem to be given carte blanche to post Afrocentrist shite. Try that on Stirpes. They don't like any Americans whether you are Snow White's brother or looked like you fell out of some Afrikaner's hidden skeleton closet. PC exists on this board. The five letter word for black color or person in Spanish or Italian is banned. The usage of African with American is quite acceptable despite the fact that American blacks are partly of African descent and Africa is multiracial with races varying from pink white to olive to swarthy to brown to black. And I am referring to Africans with pedigrees going back to the Holocene/Pleistocene which is about as far as racial types can be attributed to human remains. I knew you were a closet Afrocentrist. wishful thinking Eurasian zone of influence, lol!
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 8, 2005 4:28:14 GMT -5
So women and men don't exist?
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 8, 2005 9:11:34 GMT -5
The thing Americans in their little towns mimicing European towns with quaint names like Cambridge and Boston don't understand is that Europe and Asia are closer to Africa than the Western Hemisphere barring a part of South America. John O'Groats is closer to Benin than any part of North America. You guys are totally up your clackers if you think that Europe and Asia haven't influenced Africa millenia before America was a twinkle in some Puritan's eye. Get an atlas and see have close Axum is to Arabia. See how close Egypt is to the Fertile Crescent, to Mesopotamia. Even austere Moscow is closer to Egypt than Detroit. Peter Ustinov had an Ethiopian ancestress when some Americans were saying "Yes baas". Europeans like Pushkin or Dumas had black African ancestors and no-one could give a shite whereas in America they would be picking cotton or hanging from some tree.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 9, 2005 4:09:05 GMT -5
You know what, they might have, but west asia more so than europe up untill the colonial era. But you don't go totally ascribing civilizations like axum to anyone but the people who lived there, that is, the people are visibly what you might call "black african" in the east african sense, therefore you would ascribe it their ancestors (I'm walking a tight line here, gotta remember my "race association" thread) not wishful thinking about arabs or europeans.
I hate it when you guys like to say civilizations in africa were "influenced" by eurasian ones but refuse to let it go the other way. You forget that southern arabia was conquered by the axumites (ethiopians) for a time and the kushites (nubians) controlled parts of palestine when they ruled egypt.
There's also evidence to suggest that europes expansion was partially financed by west africa's gold supply.
Respect is earned, please be more balanced in your endeavors, thats all. Why do you think Mike is so popular?
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 9, 2005 4:13:59 GMT -5
Really? Im freeeeee! no more sequioa trees!
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jul 9, 2005 19:15:31 GMT -5
From Egypt going south, to Nubia and Aksum where did civilization end in Africa?
In Rome and China you had dangerous barbarians at the north, was there a similar situation in Africa?, in europe later the barbarians became civilized, why didnt civilization spread to the south in Africa? Was it because of geographic reasons, like bad soil for farming or something like that?
BTW, I am not a racist, I ask because I dont know, and where I live in Latin America they dont teach you anything about Africa.
I remember thinking in highschool about huge empty spaces on the map with no civilization (I know civiliation is relative, you know what I mean).
For Example in America you had the Incas on the Andes in south America, the Aztecs on mexico, and the rest was empty, these 2 great empires were not that far away, they were even connected by land, but they didnt even know about the existance of each other, that always fascinated me. Their isolation was most likely because they didnt have horses, the incas had literally guys running all over the empire for communication purposes, without horses there was no way to do sucha long distace trip, to trade, had they had horses i think civilization would have spreaded all over America.
|
|