|
Post by Hairless on Nov 3, 2005 11:44:05 GMT -5
Yes it does, and i can't see how you don't realize. Really? Is there some invisible writing only you can see that actually addresses his comment?
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 3, 2005 12:12:19 GMT -5
He asks why so many people choose sub-saharans instead of australoids.
I responded that is related to USA way of thought which led by historical process such as slavery has the perception that sub-saharans are not smart.
It's about putting the pieces together. It's kind of obvious.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Nov 3, 2005 12:16:19 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is denying that Germans have a barbaric history Of course not. Barbaric just means "not able to speak Greek" and then whent to mean "not Roman or Greek", and finally now, "uncivilised". Actually the most recent interpretations of primitive history, based on observation of primitive cultures still existing in Africa and I think Oceania, affirm that hunter ghaterers do not switch to farming, even knowing well the seeds/plants connection, and generally the vegetation, unless enviromental condition made it very convenient to do so, and change way of life. In other words, farmers were not brighter or more knowledgeable than hunter ghaterers, just were hunter ghaterers who somewhat find themselves in a position such that it was convenient to switch to farming. And with the farming came the "civilisation". Most of "who was civilised first and better" amounts to who started farming first, which is no sign of superior intelligence per se. Then, a relevant difference in the time that a community has been farming or hunting may have breed some difference by social selection (we are in Agrippafield here). Germans were farmers for less than Greeks but for more than Pygmyes, who still aren't. Nobody really knows if some difference has been created by this and which differences, but is fun to give it a try. In another thread, maybe. I'm not implying anything about races' intelligence with the above, only stating that the moment of the passage from hunting ghatering to farming, that determines the passage from being "barbarians" to "civilised" is not relevant to the intelligence of a population.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Nov 3, 2005 14:01:24 GMT -5
He asks why so many people choose sub-saharans instead of australoids. I responded that is related to USA way of thought which led by historical process such as slavery has the perception that sub-saharans are not smart. It's about putting the pieces together. It's kind of obvious. I read your comment to be a criticism of his comment as a way of "USA thinking".
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Nov 3, 2005 14:53:34 GMT -5
arent semites West asian and Pakis East Asian? or am i missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Nov 3, 2005 15:41:36 GMT -5
Southwestern Asia is the Near East. Pakistan is situated in South Asia.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 3, 2005 21:52:07 GMT -5
In Civilization IV you can now play with Mali Thank God. Zulu was ridiculous. They had a better examples than that. Oh, and Mike, aren't those the same Anheuser-Busch pictures that show the Phoenecian general Hannibal as a big Black guy, and Cleopatra, a Greek woman, as a Black woman? Blacks are almost always miscredited--not getting credit for what they did accomplish and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Nov 3, 2005 21:55:31 GMT -5
yeah,replacing zulues with mali is wise
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 3, 2005 22:34:13 GMT -5
Oh, and Mike, aren't those the same Anheuser-Busch pictures that show the Phoenecian general Hannibal as a big Black guy, and Cleopatra, a Greek woman, as a Black woman? Yeah, but the pictures of the actual black civilizations are still pretty good. I just ignore the Egypt and Carthage stuff cause I know better. Blacks are almost always miscredited--not getting credit for what they did accomplish and vice-versa. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 4, 2005 15:19:16 GMT -5
Don´t the australoids get some credit trough mixed civilizations in India and South East Asia? Unless you think that the caucasian and mongoloid part of their genes did all the work...i don´t know... It is a fact that in their pure state the australoids didn´t gave birth to any great civilization..
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 4, 2005 16:45:46 GMT -5
Don´t the australoids get some credit trough mixed civilizations in India and South East Asia? Unless you think that the caucasian and mongoloid part of their genes did all the work...i don´t know... It is a fact that in their pure state the australoids didn´t gave birth to any great civilization.. Yes, by Australoids, I meant Veddoids, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, Australians, etc. by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 4, 2005 17:40:25 GMT -5
I thought australoid wasn't a valid cluster.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 4, 2005 17:44:06 GMT -5
It's a convenience term to describe that big whallop of Eurasians who aren't Caucasoid or Mongoloid.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 4, 2005 22:43:26 GMT -5
Don´t the australoids get some credit trough mixed civilizations in India and South East Asia? Unless you think that the caucasian and mongoloid part of their genes did all the work...i don´t know... It is a fact that in their pure state the australoids didn´t gave birth to any great civilization.. Yes, by Australoids, I meant Veddoids, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, Australians, etc. by themselves. South India is Australoid by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 5, 2005 18:51:39 GMT -5
And what about the Khoi/San people....what have they achieved?
|
|