Ask an African-American anything

[Agrippa]

I could ask you the reverse question: show me a land which managed to get wealthy withouth capitalism.

I dont question Capitalism at the current state of development per se, but just a specific kind of it, namely Liberalcapitalism and associated plutocratic reign. And still I wait for your examples since I can name plenty of examples which show the success of controlled Capitalism and group oriented social unities if its about both the effectiveness, general wealth and individual distribution and the degradating effects of Liberalcapitalism.

[nockwasright]

Here they are: USA; UK; New Zealand.

[Agrippa]

nockwasright said:

Here they are: USA; UK; New Zealand.

So the USA had not phases of protectionism and corporatism until it reached a relative (never comparable to more social balanced states) wealth of both the general population and in distribution?

Furthermore in a land like the USA even the most stupid system would have flourished, at least for a limited time, with that natural and human ressources..

[Crimson Guard]

<<Why Jazz >>

Jazz was both White and Black from its most earliest beginnings. In fact,a great many Italian-Americans contributed to it since its conception by the way.

[Planet Asia]

crimsonguard said:

<<Why Jazz >>

Jazz was both White and Black from its most earliest beginnings. In fact,a great many Italian-Americans contributed to it since its conception by the way.

Nonsense, you do know what you're talking about.

[Planet Asia]

To clear up the nonsense, Jazz was first played by African-Americans and African-American Creoles in Louisiana. Whites, let alone Itlains had nothing to do with its creation.

[annienormanna]

agrippa said:

nockwasright said:

Here they are: USA; UK; New Zealand.

So the USA had not phases of protectionism and corporatism until it reached a relative (never comparable to more social balanced states) wealth of both the general population and in distribution?

Furthermore in a land like the USA even the most stupid system would have flourished, at least for a limited time, with that natural and human ressources..

Kinda like that great outback of barbarism, Germania, was to Rome.

It just took longer for the Greman people to become a nation than any other common languaged European people. That's a backwardness that's hard to overcome, especially in light of The English Civil War. Never developed an offensive naval capability either. Germans are not a seafaring people.

American economic policy towards Europe was to help Europeans get back to an economic parity with America.
See, the German nation screwed every other European nation, a shambling of automatomic self hate in the development of national Psychosis.

From a population standpoint there is every bit an indication of a geocentric autosomal recessive disorder- weakness as it relates to intracephalic prionic activity.
(Hydrocarbons are typically the petrie dish where it relates to immunodeficiency/succeptability.)

Anyway, Germany remained Ground Zero for the Armageddon of Soviet vs. NATO till you were born.

Now, you pick it up from here and tell me who are these plutarchs. Give me names and locations. I'd advise you not to name any oligarchs, from here on in. An important distinction.

Let's see if we can't bridge some gaps, here

[annienormanna]

bertrand said:

To clear up the nonsense, Jazz was first played by African-Americans and African-American Creoles in Louisiana. Whites, let alone Itlains had nothing to do with its creation.

They were there when the Black folk of the New Orleans area came up with it,and picked it up because it was a Beautiful Human Creation. Louis Prima played in Black clubs in Harlem before he led The Greatest Lounge Act in the history of Vegas:

[Dienekes]

crimsonguard said:

Olympias made claims of her lineages going back to Achilles,among the other one like Zeus being Alexander's real father ,Alexander simply repeated them or never quashed them,not unusual for the time or royalty in general perhaps,but dubious and fantasy facts if you accept them...and its very possible that Alexander paid off those people to accept him...so thats questionable to.

Yes, Alexander was descended from Neoptolemus son of Achilles on his mother's side as well, which is not relevant though because his Argive origin suffices to render him as unquestionably Greek.

Come on don't pull an attitude,were all having a cool discussion,and I'am loose. Besides thats more an anecdote than historical evidence you gave their.

Incorrect, there are many testimonies of Latins bemoaning the inability of their inability to read Greek, in addition to numerous comments by copyists "graecum est non legitur" establishing firmly the inability of Latins to read Greek.

You make it out like once the Greek language disappeared from the Greek Italians,so did their "Greekness" to...it must've took off and flew away like bird?!

By losing their language they became separated from the Greeks. And, since ethnicity is mutual (self-identification + recognition by the ethnic community) they ceased to be Greek. I see no evidence that Sicilians consider themselves to be Greek, and they are certainly not considered to be Greek, even though their Greek heritage is acknowledged.

The Greeks werent exempt from anything your describing either,they suffered from Multiple foreign incursions,invasions and conquests from Huns,Goths,Bulgars,Turks,so back down their.

Indeed, but we speak Greek, whereas Sicilians speak a foreign language.

And Ancient Greek isnt the same as Modern Greek language. Languages are subject to outside influences and change at random for various reasons you know. Scholars are always at odds over etymology,and languages are still a mystery .

Languages change over time. Modern Greek is a stage in the development of the Greek language, whereas Sicilian is a foreign language.

The Languages of the tribes of Italy are complex,however they spoke both Italic and Greek even before the rise of the Roman tribe and well after the fall of Western Rome,so your wrong.

Of course there were Greeks in Italy and Sicily in the past, but most are extinct.

Well what happened to Greece once Constantinople fell in the East to the barbarian Ottomans swept in? The Greeks lost themselves for a while to!

Incorrect, Greeks continued to be Greek, even though they had lost their political independence. Unlike the Sicilians who were de-Hellenized by their occupiers, the Greeks retained their Greek ethnicity.

And I doubt the Italians fell into such a dramatic rut your implying up their...The Renaissance occurred in Sicily and Southern Italy which was the Celebration and remembrance of classical Latin and Greek culture and arts...while Greece and her (as you sorta claimed above a type of) continuous bliss was under a dark time spiral slump of her own .The Italians carried on the Traditions,not the contemporary Greeks. On top of this,the Eastern Roman(Byzantine) imprint as very much imbedded in Southern Italy/Sicily ,it did not take up and fly away either. Frederick II retained Greek as a spoken Language and Byzantine culture was also present ,even though Sicilian was the main language. Come on, don't talk nonsense.

The R. happened primarily in Northern and Central Italy.

Heck even the Arabs had to reteach both the Italians and Greeks alot of our own things,as they held onto alot of what the Romans taught them,and thats a fact to.

Arabs didn't teach Greeks anything, although they did teach Western Europeans through translations of Arabic copies of Greek originals into Latin.

How would I be ignorant though? The Romans did not wipe out the Greek language or Culture,which was well within their power to do so,and often they did such things,nor did they instill their own language which was supposedly only Latin and Latiness onto the Greeks.

The Romans could not impose their language on the Greeks, because Greek was the language of high culture. The Romans were smart enough to learn from the Greeks.

In fact they continued it and encouraged it to prosper. Rome simply allowed it to survive on, that's the major difference. Greek culture didn't magically persist onwards as you make be.

The Romans could impose their language on primitive peoples of Europe, but they could not do so in Greece and other civilized countries of the East. Even in the Balkans, the primitive peoples of the north were Latinized.

An important fact you dont realize is ,the Romans themselves where bi-Lingual ,much of their own major writings was in Greek rather than Latin even before they invaded Greece.

True, as I said above, the Romans were smart to learn from the Greeks.

So anything "Greek" was in no way shape or form "Alien" to the Latin Romans contrary to modern misconceptions .

Agreed. The Romans, together with the Arabs are indeed to be praised for adopting some elements of Greek civilization.

The myth of the Latin West and Greek East of Middle Age Europe,was just that,it was infact partly fabricated by the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne,a Germanic Frank who hated the Eastern Empire. Much of Italy still spoke Greek even at that time period.

Yes, at that period there was much greater cultural affinity between the Eastern Romans and the Western ones. Unfortunately, Charlemagne and the Frankish Popes succeeded in driving a wedge between the two.

That would mean something only if use the modern invented statehood of Greece as your pedestal and a some nationalistic gloat.The Eastern Roman Empire was in Anatolia not the Greek peninsula(i.e Greece) alone.

Greeks are not limited to the Greek peninsula. There are Greeks in Cyprus, Turkey, and Georgia, for example.

As I mentioned above the ancient Italians where Bi-Lingual. The Greek Languages didnt magically disappear from Italy,in fact its still around and survived in certain parts of Southern Italy/Sicily to this day.

In Southern Italy, yes, it has survived. In Sicily, no.

The Greek Nation is a modern invention.Non-existent in the Ancient world,theirs a big difference to what your talking about and alluding to.

The Greek ethnos is the descendant of the Greek-speaking ethnic community which has never ceased to exist in historically Greek areas or colonies.

[Ras-Xafun]

crimsonguard said:

<<Why Jazz >>

Jazz was both White and Black from its most earliest beginnings. In fact,a great many Italian-Americans contributed to it since its conception by the way.

;D ;D C'omn Let blacks atleast keep this!! It's funny to even see a dispute here.

[anodyne]

agrippa said:

nockwasright said:

Here they are: USA; UK; New Zealand.

So the USA had not phases of protectionism and corporatism until it reached a relative (never comparable to more social balanced states) wealth of both the general population and in distribution?

Furthermore in a land like the USA even the most stupid system would have flourished, at least for a limited time, with that natural and human ressources..

The USA is not the only nation blessed with natural resources but we've been the most efficient at exploiting those resources because of our general economic and cultural beliefs. Even with a stupid policy such as a limited form of protectionism (limited compared to other nations) after 1860 we've been able to pass other nations economically.

I'm not sure how you're using the the term human resources.... do you mean the fact that we've had such a large population? or do you mean human capital? Human capital is much more important than population size. I want to know which before I answer so I don't waste my time.

Considering your side note: "never comparable to more social balanced states."

You mean thieving states. Taking from one group that produces to pass along to another less efficient part of the population to keep them quiet. This has nothing to do with benevolence but with fear and clearly it doesn't work. 1/4 of the working population of Sweden doesn't work because they don't have to bother. Then you have a nation like France with a high employment rate and very angry unemployed muslims rampaging. So bribing the inefficient doesn't work. In the USA the economic discrepency is between black and white, which is based on cultural differences. The black ghetto subculture doesn't place value on education or work. When given the opportunity to suck at the government tit the inefficient jump at the chance. Why work if your bills will be paid by others? This goes for the southern white hillbilly subculture as well (think of Appalachia), which has the same cultural roots as the black ghetto subculture. Land lords in Detroit discriminate against whites with southern accents for the same reason they discriminate against blacks. But, and this must be noted, the economic discrepancy between whites and blacks is not as large as the media, and certain political groups, like to believe. Most blacks live in the south where wages are lower but cost of living is also much lower. So when taking this into account the discrepancy is not as large, although it still exits.

relative (never comparable to more social balanced states) wealth of both the general population and in distribution?

Actually, until there was a greater emphasis on protectionism (the so called "American System" put into place) there wasn't a significant discrepancy between Americans to be noted. Well, if you're speaking of regions then yes there was a difference, which is the same of every nation. The northerner was better off than the southerner, for the most part, but this, once again, has to do with a difference in culture. Northerners who move to the south were much more productive with what they had than their southern neighbors. Just like Koreans are more efficient businessmen than blacks in modern day America. In both cases there was resentment.

[Agrippa]

We had this discussion already and I posted links to longer discussions about economy and social justice on Skadi.

I dont just meant numbers speaking about human ressources, but about the quality too both from biological perspective (progressive types with a good average inherited mental ability), sociocultural one (social discipline) and general education.

[anodyne]

We had this discussion already and I posted links to longer discussions about economy and social justice on Skadi.

Yes, and I wasn't convinced by your arguments, which is obvious. I shouldn't sit by and say nothing when I find your post to be incorrect.

I dont just meant numbers speaking about human ressources, but about the quality too both from biological perspective (progressive types with a good average inherited mental ability), sociocultural one (social discipline) and general education.

Yes, everyone is aware of your pseudo- scientific term. The so called "progressive types," which hasn't convinced many people on this forum.

You keep making the assumption that race is all. The fact that people from less affluent areas, which would imply a lack of ability from that ethnic group, of the world can arrive in the US and be successful proves that it is not race but culture that lead to economic and social differences. Sometimes the group has aspects of their culture conducive to success but are limited in their own nations and find the opportunity in the states Other times these ethnic groups are those that lack a culture that is conducive to success and either eventually adopt a culture (well, there children or grandchildren do after years of contact with the more successful culture) that leads to individual success or suffer for not being able to do so. Irish immigrants were a burden to American society during the 19th century. They followed similar patterns that current AA's follow but yet today no one thinks they'll be mugged in an area that is heavily populated by Irishmen. Most were able to adopt a more productive and moral culture. Those that didn't are in the very small minority and can be found in places like south Boston. Point: if race creates culture then such drastic changes in culture, as I've shown with one example, would be nonexistent.

[Agrippa]

Yes, everyone is aware of your pseudo- scientific term. The so called "progressive types," which hasn't convinced many people on this forum.

Well, probably it was the presentation, probably people dont want to see, probably minor faults of mine lead to this - however, things are clear since we can see basic biological tendencies largely independent, partly interconnected to regional adaptations, just read here:
dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1138366890

You keep making the assumption that race is all.

Where did I say that? In various articles here and elsewhere, if I wrote about Eugenics, I said that individual feature combinations are more important than (sub-) racial categories especially inside a population, But at the same time its about progressive traits as well considering individuals, but thats not the same as race per se.

The fact that people from less affluent areas, which would imply a lack of ability from that ethnic group, of the world can arrive in the US and be successful proves that it is not race but culture that lead to economic and social differences.

Nonsense. Because affluent is relative and racial types dont come up in some years, but longer periods of time. Furthermore it was proven that at least earlier immigrants had on average the same or even higher racial level than those which stood at home. Namely they were taller, more leptomorphic and had a more dolichocephalic skull (without all being dolichocephalic obvious) than the local average - in fact, though not as strong, we see the same pattern as we saw it for social selection for special professions and way of living like military, police, sports in general, students etc., or certain social areas for which certain psychological dispositions are more common.

Sometimes the group has aspects of their culture conducive to success but are limited in their own nations and find the opportunity in the states

Compare the population density of Western Germany and the Benelux states with that of the USA. The USA was just a wide but fertile land of similar climatic conditions in which lived much fewer people. You didnt had the same space like in the USA anywhere in Europe with the exception of Russia probably and Sibiria can't be compared with the areas of the USA though there are plenty of ressources, since the continental climate is different.

In established structures and areas of high population density there are obviously in most systems less opportunities especially for those of the lower and middle level to have real "freedom" and "success". Again there is a structural moment independent from the actual political system in it as well.

Other times these ethnic groups are those that lack a culture that is conducive to success and either eventually adopt a culture (well, there children or grandchildren do after years of contact with the more successful culture) that leads to individual success or suffer for not being able to do so.

Thats flawed again because "lack a culture" is nonsense, what we can see in racial types is that they have potential and oftentimes can go up and down over time, but their general potential stays the same. So a type with high potential might look in bad times the same as one without the same level - though thats rarely the case - but in a situation of probation he can show his real abilities.

Its the same in individuals anyway. There is the actual height and intelligence, and the potential. You can bring someone down both if its about height and intelligence if setting him in very bad conditions, but in his genes the potential lives on and if you bring his children and grandchildren in a better environment the full potential of growth and mental abilities will show up again.

Contrary is true in the case of someone with very limited genetic predispositions: Even the best encouragement and education, best environmental conditions will not change the character of the individual, only if changing his physiology or genes would really change something.

So better conditions for all people actually dont eliminate genetic differences, but allow us to see the genetic differences since they become more important than if social differences would be of more significance (with bad nutrition, housing, diseases, social environment etc.).

Irish immigrants were a burden to American society during the 19th century. They followed similar patterns that current AA's follow but yet today no one thinks they'll be mugged in an area that is heavily populated by Irishmen.

Read above.

Most were able to adopt a more productive and moral culture. Those that didn't are in the very small minority and can be found in places like south Boston. Point: if race creates culture then such drastic changes in culture, as I've shown with one example, would be nonexistent.

Questionable since they just adapted to the Liberalcapitalistic insanity from an ethnic unity. However, I would agree with you that Negroids (note the difference to Negrid) could be much better off - I explained partly how, namely in own communites, with their own responsibility, cut off from drugs and given the chance to be productive in an ordered society.

[anodyne]

Well, probably it was the presentation, probably people dont want to see, probably minor faults of mine lead to this - however, things are clear since we can see basic biological tendencies largely independent, partly interconnected to regional adaptations, just read here:
dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=physanth&action=display&thread=1138366890

The reason, perhaps, is that you don’t post any sources. Sources can be interpreted differently by anyone here. There’s nothing wrong with a layman having an opinion. But stating an opinion as fact is a different story.

Where did I say that? In various articles here and elsewhere, if I wrote about Eugenics, I said that individual feature combinations are more important than (sub-) racial categories especially inside a population, But at the same time its about progressive traits as well considering individuals, but thats not the same as race per se.

Ah, then you won’t have issue with Nigerians, or other types of immigrants, moving to Germany and intermarrying with Germans and thereby creating a significantly large mixed race population. A significant population that will be absorbed completely and have a biological effect on future Germans. Wait... you don’t want that at all and nor do you consider such people German, even though they may be culturally German, because of they're mixed race. Therefore, culture doesn’t matter but race does.

Question: If Germany absorbs a large number, lets say 10 million, Turks, for example, over time and their children and grandchildren adopted German culture (lets just say they all do.. this is a hypothetical question to make your view clearer) would the "direction" and habits of Germans be different? Why or why not?

Nonsense. Because affluent is relative and racial types dont come up in some years, but longer periods of time.

affluence? you shouldn't use that word considering it means "abundant wealth." I consider someone who is self sufficient successful. I expect people to be able to take care of themselves without relying on other members of society. If you wish to see which culture leads to self suffieciency then take a look at the information gathered by the US census, or, if you're more active, walk through a black ghetto and then walk through a middle class/working class town. Stop by a trailer park if you have some extra time.

Furthermore it was proven that at least earlier immigrants had on average the same or even higher racial level than those which stood at home. Namely they were taller, more leptomorphic and had a more dolichocephalic skull (without all being dolichocephalic obvious) than the local average - in fact, though not as strong, we see the same pattern as we saw it for social selection for special professions and way of living like military, police, sports in general, students etc., or certain social areas for which certain psychological dispositions are more common.

1) That doesn't explain away Irish habits that were just as bad, perhaps even worse, than current AA ghetto culture.

2) When you say early immigrants you must mean British, Germans, Swedes. Why shouldn't I be surprised that they may be physically similar to the American population?

3) Also.. what does this have to do with the argument considering other groups who are not of the same ethnic stock that was common in colonial America, or that came soon after from the British Isles and Germany, are just as successful after they became assimilated. Southern Italian immigrants were short and considered physically weak considering they were somewhat inbred.

4) I would like to see the study that you're refering to.

Compare the population density of Western Germany and the Benelux states with that of the USA. The USA was just a wide but fertile land of similar climatic conditions in which lived much fewer people. You didnt had the same space like in the USA anywhere in Europe with the exception of Russia probably and Sibiria can't be compared with the areas of the USA though there are plenty of ressources, since the continental climate is different.

In established structures and areas of high population density there are obviously in most systems less opportunities especially for those of the lower and middle level to have real "freedom" and "success". Again there is a structural moment independent from the actual political system in it as well.

That’s not correct. It depends on the nation’s role in its economy. It’s not a given that a large population brings down opportunities. As we have seen in the US, current population growth isn’t able to meet all opportunities presented. That’s why we have so many immigrants arriving. Although we have a high proportion of our immigrants out of work it doesn’t reach the levels of Muslim immigrants (and their children) in France or for the younger generation of Frenchmen, whose economy is more state directed than that of the USA.

Population density isn't always the main thrust. There are several areas of Europe that had high populations but yet had a small population immigrating. Northern Italy would be an example.

Also, immigrants tended to come from the same villages and hamlets. So although population density may be high in two particular areas there may be little or no immigration from one area compared to the other. Even in wealthy areas, where opportunities will be more present, there can be massive immigration. I was reading "Cousins and Strangers: Spanish Immigration to Buenos Aires." Basques, at that particular time (late 1880s), made up 4% of the population but made up 25% of the immigrants. While Estremadura, the Castillian plateau, Western Andalusia had only a puny number of its people immigrate. These are poor areas, then and now. The Basque lands were and are not.

Thats flawed again because "lack a culture" is nonsense, what we can see in racial types is that they have potential and oftentimes can go up and down over time, but their general potential stays the same.

Actually, ethnic groups with a more primitive culture tend to be influenced by a superior culture, and that’s why they advance. But this is not even what is under discussion. Although, it touches on it.

So a type with high potential might look in bad times the same as one without the same level - though thats rarely the case - but in a situation of probation he can show his real abilities.

I’m not denying that there is not potential in a group that lives in a primitive culture, or a culture that is not conducive to success, but potential needs an outlet. Some cultures provide it and others do not. The black ghetto culture obviously does not since they are out competed in everything except sports and music, which are superficial and doesn’t affect 99.9% of AA’s. They’d be best able to fulfill their own needs by adopting cultural traits that lead to success in any modern nation.

Its the same in individuals anyway. There is the actual height and intelligence, and the potential. You can bring someone down both if its about height and intelligence if setting him in very bad conditions, but in his genes the potential lives on and if you bring his children and grandchildren in a better environment the full potential of growth and mental abilities will show up again.

That’s the point! When you say “environment” you might as well say culture. A black youth who grows up in the black ghetto, for the most part, develops a poor work ethic, has a distorted view of “respect,” no understanding of family obligations, and no respect for education. The culture that child is born in gives him no chance in life to be successful. Placed in a middle class black environment (and obviously they adopted the cultural traits of society or else have reached that level) or in a white, Asian family, and you may see different results. In the more successful culture the child is taught habits that will lead to a productive and meaningful life. IQ, and other personal characteristics would play a role on how well he does in society, but whether he becomes a janitor or a doctor we can claim that he’s a success considering he isn’t a burden on society.

Contrary is true in the case of someone with very limited genetic predispositions: Even the best encouragement and education, best environmental conditions will not change the character of the individual, only if changing his physiology or genes would really change something.

Of course, like I said above. But I also want to point out that a person with an IQ of 85 is more likely to be criminal in an unstable environment, which is almost a given in a black ghetto, but even the slowest person can learn good habits. The US prison system is full of people with below average IQs. But among the white population the number of inmates is low and those with below average IQs (who are the majority) is lower than the proportion of whites with low IQs in the population. Most of those inmates come from families that are far from the American mainstream. The rest on the left of the bell curve learned how to behave properly. Not surprisingly many of the white convicts in California are, or in some way have family roots, in the southern part of the states.

Questionable since they just adapted to the Liberalcapitalistic insanity from an ethnic unity. However, I would agree with you that Negroids (note the difference to Negrid) could be much better off - I explained partly how, namely in own communites, with their own responsibility, cut off from drugs and given the chance to be productive in an ordered society.

But they didn't adopt it when they first arrived, and nor did many adopt it in the second or third generation. They brought their own cultural baggage, which was a burden on the rest. Violence and other types of crime, high rates of alcoholism, men abandoning their wives and children, etc. Take note of the difference between an Irish community in the mid 19th century and the same community a few generations later. They’re worlds apart. This was no accident. They had been mainstreamed.