This is topic OT: White Teacher Says Blacks are Inferior in forum Egyptology at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004820

---

Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
 
White Teacher says Blacks are Inferior(VIDEO)
 

---

Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
 
I personally don't care about the view of a stupid American from the South, he's obviously not intelligent and you should follow the attitude of people like Barak Obama who take the lead whether among White or Blacks...just be a leader not a follower...Race is a social construct...as a matter of fact, your teacher has a Black Ancestor as all human beings on earth...
plan2replan Copyright © 2006 Africa
 

---

Posted by What Box : carLos manGuiNGez (Member # 10819) on :
 
OH GOD,
OH NO,
SOME D-ranged don't think us deft
I'ts tha end of tha world
WHAT HAVE WE GOT LEFT!



On a serious note:
I don't give a F|U|C|K about this and

I don't give a F*U*C*K about this because:

*In my eighteen years on the planet I've come to know that racism DOES still exist.

*I know some who are maliscious has hell in their general opinions towards "white" people.

*I just read the rest of that BULLSH|T BLONDE AFRICAN thread, and seen about a million racist retarded comments by whites (That I never hear in real life {****ers}) and worse yet,

*based on the media and history spewed out, alot african-americans don't know the difference either, which is the most sad to me. Afro-americans (us) have to help ourselves.

______________________________________________________________________________

So therefore, based on tha above, I just don't give a ****.

We need to help ourselves, **** EVerybody else. Maybe we can help others too, but just to do it. Read history, nobody's thanking any contributions made, just taken advantage, so any comments about my not being productive awards whO EVAh a nice phat F U.

To me it's okay to help other africans out. Be advised, some are sensitive (with reason I guess) against outside help/accomplishment and others don't give a flyin ****.

If it was in someones best interest to sell us out, and we want to go kiss/save/sniff* ass, wish for friend/kin-ship, and get the opposite -----Then we need to re-assess things.

Same for trying to gain acceptance from another group (they were one w/ regards to us so F. whatchu think) which enslaved "ours" and put "ours" through a holocaust: don't expect anything. This is why it's good to NOT get sucked into b.s. I would make an analytical assessment, but I no longer give a u know because: it wouldn't address my target audiences.

Everyone looks into their best interest, not the %uckin state of the world, so (I'm starting to realize in life and on here why this is one of chapelles fav. words)
the ONLY CRITERIA WE SHOULD LOOK AT IS:

Is it in my best interest?

I feel good right now, toher than the feeling that I need to 'discharge' all this negative energy. Haven't felt this way in ages. Good to be back.
 

---

Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
 

quote:

---

...just be a leader not a follower...Race is a social construct...as a matter of fact, your teacher has a Black Ancestor as all human beings on earth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box : carLos manGuiNGez:
OH GOD,
OH NO,
SOME D-ranged don't think us deft
I'ts tha end of tha world
WHAT HAVE WE GOT LEFT!



On a serious note:
I don't give a F|U|C|K about this and

I don't give a F*U*C*K about this because:

*In my eighteen years on the planet I've come to know that racism DOES still exist.

*I know some who are maliscious has hell in their general opinions towards "white" people.

*I just read the rest of that BULLSH|T BLONDE AFRICAN thread, and seen about a million racist retarded comments by whites (That I never hear in real life {****ers}) and worse yet,

*based on the media and history spewed out, alot african-americans don't know the difference either, which is the most sad to me. Afro-americans (us) have to help ourselves.

______________________________________________________________________________

So therefore, based on tha above, I just don't give a ****.

We need to help ourselves, **** EVerybody else. Maybe we can help others too, but just to do it. Read history, nobody's thanking any contributions made, just taken advantage, so any comments about my not being productive awards whO EVAh a nice phat F U.

To me it's okay to help other africans out. Be advised, some are sensitive (with reason I guess) against outside help/accomplishment and others don't give a flyin ****.

If it was in someones best interest to sell us out, and we want to go kiss/save/sniff* ass, wish for friend/kin-ship, and get the opposite -----Then we need to re-assess things.

Same for trying to gain acceptance from another group (they were one w/ regards to us so F. whatchu think) which enslaved "ours" and put "ours" through a holocaust: don't expect anything. This is why it's good to NOT get sucked into b.s. I would make an analytical assessment, but I no longer give a u know because: it wouldn't address my target audiences.

Everyone looks into their best interest, not the %uckin state of the world, so (I'm starting to realize in life and on here why this is one of chapelles fav. words)
the ONLY CRITERIA WE SHOULD LOOK AT IS:

Is it in my best interest?

I feel good right now, toher than the feeling that I need to 'discharge' all this negative energy. Haven't felt this way in ages. Good to be back.

---

Real talk... A bit of Ma'at philosophy can help with the rage though. Don't go shooting at people

It's not time for that just yet.
 

---

Posted by Young Horus (Member # 11484) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
It's when they use their authority to carry out injustices that you have to be concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kemson:
Time allows for refinements and as more Black people become aware of their pre-slave history, naturally, mentalities and view of self begins to enhance and this is not good news for racist gate-keepers like Winston McCuen...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young Horus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box : carLos manGuiNGez:
OH GOD,
OH NO,
SOME D-ranged don't think us deft
I'ts tha end of tha world
WHAT HAVE WE GOT LEFT!



On a serious note:
I don't give a F|U|C|K about this and

I don't give a F*U*C*K about this because:

*In my eighteen years on the planet I've come to know that racism DOES still exist.

*Seen alot ofwhite people that vehemently deny this.

*I know some who are maliscious has hell in their general opinions towards "white" people.

*I just read the rest of that tribal BULLSH|T BLONDE AFRICAN thread.

*Seen about a million racist retarded comments by whites on tha net (That I never hear in real life {****ers}) and to add to this,

*based on the media and history spewed out, alot african-americans don't know the difference either, which is the most sad to me. Afro-americans (us) have to help ourselves.

______________________________________________________________________________

So therefore, based on tha above, I just don't give a ****.

We need to help ourselves, **** EVerybody else. Maybe we can help others too, but just to do it. Read history, nobody's thanking any contributions made, just taken advantage, so any comments about my not being productive awards whO EVAh a nice phat F U.

To me it's okay to help other africans out. Be advised, some are sensitive (with reason I guess) against outside help/accomplishment and others don't give a flyin ****.

If it was in someones best interest to sell us out, and we want to go kiss/save/sniff* ass, wish for friend/kin-ship, and get the opposite -----Then we need to re-assess things.

Same for trying to gain acceptance from another group (they were one w/ regards to us so F. whatchu think) which enslaved "ours" and put "ours" through a holocaust: don't expect anything. This is why it's good to NOT get sucked into b.s. I would make an analytical assessment, but I no longer give a u know because: it wouldn't address my target audiences.

Everyone looks into their best interest, not the %uckin state of the world, so (I'm starting to realize in life and on here why this is one of chapelles fav. words)
the ONLY CRITERIA WE SHOULD LOOK AT IS:

Is it in my best interest?

I feel good right now, toher than the feeling that I need to 'discharge' all this negative energy. Haven't felt this way in ages. Good to be back.

---

Real talk... A bit of Ma'at philosophy can help with the rage though. Don't go shooting at people

It's not time for that just yet.

---

Yep, I felt like doing something retarded yesterday, but with how things are -- naa. I guess I'll take it out on that calculus test today.
 

---

Posted by Jimmy Jones (Member # 11484) on :
 

 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
And this?

http://rense.com/general75/subj.htm

quote:

---

Subjugating Your Inferiors
With A Human Touch
Compassionate Oppression
By Jason Miller
2-19-7


An Open Letter to Ehud Olmert
By T.D. "Daddy" Rice

Ehud Olmert
Office of the Prime Minister
3 Kaplan St.
Hakiyra, Jerusalem 91919

Dear Ehud,


My hearty congratulations to you and your fellow Zionists! You sure know how to contain those infernal camel jockeys infesting your Holy Land. A man can't help but admire your fierce determination to keep that pack of maggots from maturing into a full blown infestation of flies.

But I have to tell you that despite my reverence for you and your cause, I have concluded that you folks are going about this the wrong way. You've infuriated most of the Arab and Islamic world, the UN is constantly assailing you, and untold numbers of liberal (excuse my language) pussies are calling for my great nation to stop funding your good work. By persistently applying those ruthless, heavy-handed tactics to rein in your inferiors, you're borrowing trouble faster than our spend-happy government can increase its debts with Chinaand Japan. You are in some deep fecal matter, my friend.

I know our situations are different. We in the United States imported our ineducable criminals. Yours were squatting on your land when you arrived. Yet we both have the same essential problem. Our nations are populated by a large number of lazy, illiterate, and violent beings who stopped evolving somewhere between ape and human. I feel a deep sense of solidarity with you, brother. Therefore, nothing would please me more than to see you manage your horde of savages in a more civilized and humane manner, like us.

The smartest thing we did in the United States was to enslave the Negroids. The existence of chattel slavery for two centuries enabled a very small group of our people to accumulate tremendous amounts of wealth. Under the yoke of servitude, our African underclass had little opportunity to contaminate us with their filth or demand the "humane treatment" your scourge in Gaza and the West Bank clamor for in perpetuity. Unfortunately, overt slavery became untenable with the advent of that sanctimonious Abolitionist movement and the disastrous Civil War.

Ironically though, the emancipation of the slaves was probably the best thing that could have happened. Had we maintained that institution, the United States would have become moral pariahs, like your country.

We found better solutions to our Negro problem. We promised them forty acres and a mule. Boy did we shine in the eyes of the world when we delivered. And who noticed when Congress rescinded the Freedmen's Bureau Act and gave the land back to its rightful owners?

Old Jim Crow rose to towering heights to keep the "free men" in their rightful place. Poll taxes, separate but "equal" institutions, and lynchings (in which we all delighted) committed by radical fringe groups (with the complicity of law enforcement) were just a few of our strategies. We kept our former slaves ignorant, terrorized, impoverished, and politically impotent. What could they do but shuffle along and mumble "yes sir"?

Tragically, some uppity Negroes managed to overcome their innate deficiencies. The small handful that actually manifested some intellect and moral fiber wreaked havoc on a nearly ideal system. Genetic anomalies like W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X brought the United States to the brink of insurrection. We had to do something. So we gave our troglodytes the "special rights" they demanded. Rights like voting, sharing public institutions and facilities with the rest of us, living where they wanted to, borrowing money from the lender of their choice, and unfortunately, many more.

But did we give up? Hell no! Like you Zionists, we true Americans are tenacious, clever, and innovative. We were not about to roll over and allow a group of uncivilized, genetically disadvantaged Africans steal our treasure and power.

While the losses of slavery and institutionalized racism were both significant blows, they merely steeled our determination to come up with a more opaque and subtle system of oppression.

Which brings me to the point of my letter, Mr. Olmert. Your current modus operandi is unsustainable. So pay close attention to the next few paragraphs as I delineate the fine art of subjugating a segment of your population while maintaining the appearances of a society based on equality, justice, and all that nonsense.

In the aftermath of the civil rights movement, we quickly recognized that despite our setbacks, we could still wield our power like a skull-crushing cudgel. Desegregate our schools and let those disgusting cockroaches move into our neighborhoods? No problem. We simply built an interstate highway system and created a vast network of suburbs to enable white flight from the inner cities. Before the uppity Negroes and their weak-kneed liberal allies knew what hit them, we had legal segregation of schools created by demographics, ghettos riddled with crime, poverty, and blight for "people of color" and clean, safe, comfortable neighborhoods for us real Americans. And now that dark folks are slithering their way into suburbia, we are gentrifying the inner cities to take them back for our people.

What about empowered black leaders, you might ask?

At first our methods were crude. As you know, we simply assassinated MLK. That was probably the most effective thing to do in the long run. King was a real threat. However, in the short term eliminating him caused us a host of problems. We have since learned to give the appearance of appeasement by throwing agitators like him a few meaningless crumbs. We now watch with delight as those suckers snap them up as if we had presented them with a feast fit for a King.

We have even begun carefully screening rising leaders in the colored community. Once we feel confident that such a leader will represent the interests of our moneyed elite, we allow them a degree of political power. Yet they are painfully aware that the spigots that fill their campaign coffers can close rapidly and that the corporate media selling them to the American public can turn on them in a heartbeat. As one of those rare Negroes that has attained wealth and privilege, we might just allow Obama to become President. That is provided he behaves and doesn't let his black genes come to the fore.

In a stroke of sheer brilliance, we learned to capitalize on the natural talents of these lesser beings in our midst. We all know they excel in running, jumping, and song and dance. While we allow a tiny percentage of our darkies to make millions of dollars by showcasing their talents in the sports and entertainment industries, the nearly invisible detriment to their race is worth that sacrifice. Tens of millions of young blacks neglect educations and real opportunities to chase a one in a billion chance to become a "star". A significant number of them also join a violent subculture glorified by some of the performers they emulate. Media-induced self-destruction is a powerful tool indeed.

All right, Ehud. I know this has been a long letter. Here is your payoff for laboring through it. Having saved the best for last, I will now reveal our most ingenious means of maintaining social control.

As you are well aware, in the United States the masses are easily manipulated. They eagerly accept the tripe about the mainstream media being "liberal". We both know the reality is that virtually anything that moves more than a tick left of dead center on the political spectrum is DOA in a system of "news" delivery monopolized by five behemoth corporations. Thankfully, they wouldn't let those cowardly morons from the true Left within miles of their centers of propaganda dissemination. Thus faux liberal commentators and pundits have successfully inculcated many real Americans with the belief that the black mongrels amongst us represent a perpetual threat that can only be contained through brutal incarceration.

Herein lies the essence of our domination of the African scourge in our midst. Consider, my dear comrade in arms, the myriad benefits of our resplendent mechanism that nauseating moonbats cynically refer to as the "prison industrial complex":



1. 90% of black males face arrest and jail for at least a minor offense at some point during their lives.

2. As I compose this missive, at least one million of our 35 million former slaves are safely behind bars.

3. In 1989 we had more blacks in our prisons than did the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

4. From 1980 to 2000 we increased spending on law enforcement by over 400%. This enabled us to funnel tremendous sums of public money away from education, health care, and other programs that would have benefited the black canker that slowly eats away at our social fabric.

5. 1.4 million so-called Afro-Americans have permanently lost the right to vote because they are convicted felons. An impressive political coup on our part considering the fact that only 4.6 million blacks voted in the 1996 federal elections. And remember that your good friend in the White House "won" the 2000 election in part because we managed to disenfranchise thousands of voters in Florida, despite their lack of a criminal record.

6. Rather than promoting treatment or ways out of the poverty that often motivates a person to become addicted to drugs, we have criminalized the behavior. We impose the harshest sentences on those caught possessing crack, the drug of choice for our Negroids.

7. Prison inmates, half of whom are black, provide a pool of free labor for major corporations such as Nordstrom's, IBM, Toys R Us, Victoria's Secret, JC Penney and Microsoft.



Preying upon and feeding their miserable cycle of impoverishment, violence against one another, splintered families, substance abuse, ignorance, and incarceration, we have our undesirables well in hand.

Forgive me if I am too blunt, but I must tell you that in contrasting America with Israel, it is painfully obvious that your nation needs to make some significant adjustments in how it deals with its lower order of beings. Despite the best efforts of our corporate media, which is as sympathetic to your cause of Palestinian oppression as I am, the world is awakening to the brutality of your tactics.

Increasingly, when people look to Israel, they see a nation that imposes collective punishment on a vulnerable group of indigenous people because some of them resort to violence. They see eight Palestinian children killed by Israelis for every one Israeli child killed by Palestinians, oppressive military checkpoints, wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure in the Occupied Territories by the IDF, imprisonment at a ratio of 10,000 Palestinians to ten Israelis, four Palestinian adults slaughtered for every one Israeli adult, the Apartheid Wall, illegal Israeli settlements, razings of Palestinian homes and orchards, Israeli monopolization of water supplies, and Palestinians living in abject poverty as a result of Israel's withering economic sanctions.

We in the United States project an entirely different image. The world reveres us for emancipating our slaves, abolishing the Jim Crow laws, desegregating our schools, and enacting civil rights legislation. Many view the African refugee population in our country as the failed subspecies that it is. Outside observers are intelligent enough to note that we gave those festering pustules of our society welfare, affirmative action, affordable housing, and a host of other means to escape their misery, yet they chose to continue wallowing in it.

While we in the United States are certainly under fire for our aggressive foreign policy, through brilliant machinations we have managed to preserve the façade that our domestic policies are benevolent, compassionate, and just. From the world's perspective, our Negroes have demonstrated themselves to be a failed segment of the human race, in spite of our monumental, magnanimous efforts to help them. Meanwhile, your stratagems and actions are martyrizing the Palestinians.

Ehud, I applaud your objectives and the agony you have inflicted upon those sand monkeys in your back yard. Yet my purpose in writing you is to express my deep concerns that your approaches will come back to haunt you and your fellow Zionists. I felt it was my duty to warn you of the perils of your present course and to bring potential alternative tactics to your attention.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but I do hope that you implement changes concerning the Palestinians before circumstances force your hand. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Best Wishes,

T.D. "Daddy" Rice

---

Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He writes prolifically, his essays have appeared widely on the Internet, and he volunteers at homeless shelters. He sometimes writes satirical apologias for racism and Zionism under the nom de plum T.D. "Daddy" Rice. He welcomes constructive correspondence at willpowerful@hotmail.com or via his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/

---

 

---

Posted by What Box : carLos manGuiNGez (Member # 10819) on :
 
^Very good post, would've commented on it a day ago if could.

I wonder though, might that teacher be our very own Professor H./ARROW99. though I thought hore taught [distorted] history.

Anyway he's not the only racist person out there. Someone posted maybe in another thread that it was not in the Jew's best interest to be perceived as racist and therefore they make sure they don't appear that way. The was actually a racist Jewish/Israeli group I saw on youtube the other day. So in conclusion, it's not in their bestinterest just as much as it's not in a white persons best interest.
 

---

Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
 
Al Sharpton's ancestors were slaves owned by Strom Thurmond's relatives


NEW YORK - Genealogists have found that civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by relatives of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Daily News said professional genealogists, working at the newspaper's behest, recently uncovered the ancestral ties between one of the nation's best known black leaders and a man who was once a prominent defender of segregation.

Al Sharpton's quote

"It's chilling. It's amazing."


Masonic Rebel says

What the &&$#

Full Story Here !
 

---

Posted by Sonofisis (Member # 12762) on :
 
Haha! That guy is a clown, he says "generally" blacks are inferior to whites, yet some individual blacks can be smarter than individual whites? That would be extreme overlap, is there a such thing as a Chimpanzee who is individually more intelligent than a normal brain functioning human being? If this is some type of golden rule, that blacks are dumb on average then shouldn't there be an end point, like the black IQ stopping at 130 or something since the average black IQ is in the 80s(because of social/cultural reasons)? So all blacks with an IQ higher than 120 (me, lol) must be some type of freak. Haha, racism is so unbelievably idiotic, there's no way to even argue ignorance..
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
What is really the issue is this.

These kind of white racists make these "logical" determinations that blacks are inferior. Of course they have to acknowledge that those blacks who make it into success with their intelligence are 'exceptions' but...

they can not explain how these exceptions (which in their minds are few... but still number in the millions) genetically are "superior" to the rest.

they have no way of resolving those potential "exceptions" which they assume are failures. So all of the other "superior" blacks whom they assume are "inferior" are lost as well.

they have no way of dealing with the millions of inferior whites who fail. Shall a "superior" black have "superiority" rights over an "inferior" white?

Most importantly, as these questsions to this ponderous nonsense called "white supermacy" suggest, the rationalization of white supremacy is based on assumptions and on "symptoms" and not on root causes.

It was the rule-breaking of laws that allowed whites to colonize and destroy Native American lands. It was the brutality of slavery and the sexual rape of black women that created so many mixed children. It was the prejudice and rejection of representative government that allowed southern states to hold a 50/50 hold on government thanks to the Electoral College allowing them to count 60% of their slaves as extra votes at the ballot box. It was the inability to accept democracy that caused Mississippi to be a dictatorship for 4 years after the government there was voted out by the black majority of the state. It was the insanity of slavery that sent white confederate men to their death to uphold an institution which has no moral basis.

Basically it's the concept that the rules and standards of goodness only apply to "me" when convenient. When i don't get my way, then I won't count that against me. And my personal favorite "It's only morally good when it benefits my desires"

Good job teacher. Ignoramus infinitium
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
if white racists would stop being racist, i guarantee, the black IQ test scores would jump to the white average. Most blacks have to deal with being seen as inferior, bad, and resigned to following, as early as the 3rd grade. I've seen it myself. Black kids who are intelligent ore more astute and sharp than white kids are usually pushed out of leading (unless of course they are the ONLY black kid in class, then they become a novelty and are pushed into being THE leader). But the average black kid, or teenager, when in a group setting with whites, the black does not get to assert himself or herself without whites trying to backstab, undermine, or distance themselves. It doesn't matter what the circumstance is. IQ tests are a reflection on how much a child or adolescent is able to know they can assert themselves intellectually. If you are taught that intellectual prowess is something to be doubleguessed or checked... then you will obviously subconsciously do so yourself when you take a test like an IQ test.

Oh and lets not forget how little access black kids have to the concepts and environment that a high IQ score would require.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sonofisis:
Haha! That guy is a clown, he says "generally" blacks are inferior to whites, yet some individual blacks can be smarter than individual whites? That would be extreme overlap, is there a such thing as a Chimpanzee who is individually more intelligent than a normal brain functioning human being? If this is some type of golden rule, that blacks are dumb on average then shouldn't there be an end point, like the black IQ stopping at 130 or something since the average black IQ is in the 80s(because of social/cultural reasons)? So all blacks with an IQ higher than 120 (me, lol) must be some type of freak. Haha, racism is so unbelievably idiotic, there's no way to even argue ignorance..

---

 

---

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
 
---I like your excuses for the lower I.Q averages , well it must be the racism!---

Yeah that is a pretty lame excuse I have to agree here.


---You know that an I.Q 70 and below is considered mentally retarded?---

LOL!!! That's funny


---first blacks go to the same schools. Also if anyone has the right to claim racism now a days its white. 90% of hate crimes are committed by blacks . It would be the white kid who went to school who would always be called cracker and whitey. IF a nigger went to school and was called the n word you would see that **** all over cnn.---

That is very true I will admit, but you also have to take in account that there is much race baiting in the media. Most of the people at the front of defending racism against blacks are WHITE and they use this just for sensationalism and also to get uneducated whites like yourself riled up to add to the contingent consciousness of white supremacy. Pretty good tactic actually if you ask me lol...it worked on you didn't
By the way what is a white person like you doing at a black school? *snickering* Seems like you po' whites are the only ones that pull the "reverse racism" card. Whites with status could give a shiit less lmao hmmmm.


---Of course they never show any black hate crimes. Why? Because all the media is racist against whites lmao---

Another white trash statment, and I guess all liberals are commies too; huh; Mr. George Dubya lova.

---Also you guys have hundreds of black only organizations. Why? because you cant handle fairness---

Ummm this is because of a thing called "slavery" and "segregation" lol and the result of these two circumstances. Yet again; another white trash argument. Hey, "ya'll" still got dem der KKK and NRA lol so don't feel too lef' out ya heya.


---When whites went to Africa they had no laws or civilizations---

I am going to have to ask you to support this claim. Thanks in advance .


---They already proved I.Q averages even in Africa and have hard evidence along with it.---

I.Q tests are indicitive of "test taking" skills and of course the criteria and model of these test taking skills are European in origin. Why SHOULD an African have a high "European" I.Q; and thank the Gods that we don't *whew*. Now let us make an African I.Q test and polarize your argument shall we .


---YOU GUYS JUST LIKE TO WHINE AND BITCH LIKE SCHOOL GIRLS GRABBING EVERY EXUSE YOU HAVE. LIKE A MAN FALLING DOWN A WELL TRYING TO GRAB ON TO EVERYTHING---

That is because African Americans mostly aren't raised by fathers and when they are; the fathers are not fit to be productive fathers. Also, there are no Alpha Males in the African American community so I would agree with this point unfortunatly.


---YOU GUYS SEEM TO BE HYPOCRITES THOUGH. YOU CLAIM TO BELIVE IN EVOLUTION THEN DENY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHITES AND BLACKS LMAO---

That's a good point and I posted something about this in another thread. They seem to keep trying to make all humans the same, yet are spiteful against the white's perception of difference. Very peculiar and definetly implies an inferiority complex. Hell, I LOVE being different than WHITES LOL, but then again I can't relate to African Americans becuase I was never a slave to any Arab or Jew or White man nor worshiped their archetype for perfection (YAHWEH/ALLAH/JESUS). So maybe you should try to empathize with this "false identity" fallacy instead of condemn them for it.


---BLACKS NEVER DID ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN---

I will need some support for this claim. Thanks in advance.


---AND DONT GO INTO THE NIGGER BLABBLE ABOUT EGYPT--

I hate to agree, but you are correct. As soon as you whites attack African Americans about civilization and culture they like to pull Egypt out of their azz. Egypt has nothing to do with African Americans what so ever and was not a homogenous culture or civilization. So it's kind of like they implicitly want to claim the civilization based on the European concept of race i.e black/white/red/yellow and include themselves because they are "black", but all the while try to abolish the European concept of race. Very odd contradiction.


---BLACKS LEFT AFRICA AND TRAVELED EAST INTO ASIA. THEY EVOLOED IN TO THE SUPERIOR MONGOLOID WITCH IN TURN EVOLOED IN TO THE SUPERIOR CAUCASOID IN ICE AGE EUROPE. SINCE WHITES HAD THE MOST TROUBLING AND ITELLENGE REQUIRED EVIRONMENT THEY HAD MORE STIMULI. THIS STIMULI RESULTED IN A SUPERIOR BRAIN---

You never know this could be true, but I don't correlate intelligence with the brain nor it's size considering my mother and grandmother are both psychiatrists and are firm non materialists and do not conform to the "the brain is the mind" as most neurologists do and I concurr with them despite my up bringing.


---OH AND DONT GIVE ME THE WHITE MAN RAPPED THEIR LAND---

Oh, but they did. As well as the Jew and the Arab and the Moor/Berber Isn't this supposed to make you MORE proud rather than GUILTY considering you are superior in everything including weaponry and savagery and theft and murdering and raping and pilaging etc. hmmmm .


---YOU THINK ONE COUNTRY COULD FUCKING STAND ON ITS FEET AT LEAST---

I am going to need support for this. Thanks in advance.


---REALLY WHERE ELSE IN NATURE DO YOU SEE A ANIMAL THAT ONLY EVOLVED PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES?---

I don't get the point here? Could you clarify?

---NO PURE NEGROID HAS an I.Q OVER 130.---

Mine is 148 and I am more pure negroid(whatever that means)than anyone here lol, but then again I went to white schools and white colleges and had strict parents that are in the top 2% of the United States economic tier so who knows that maybe why. Your statistics need to have a more diversified model in the variables, but then again that would defeat the purpose of the statistic to begin with now wouldn't it


It's clear to see you are just some filthy Irish/Welsh/Scot MICK Celt which infects almost all of the United States gene pool due to your expulsion, out-breeding and oppresion of the English to get rid of their degenerate trash and ship you to other islands being that you are descendants of criminals. Your lack of an education shows in your sentence structure and typing skills and also considering most of you filthy Micks are in the south and midwest of the United States (more segrated in the East coast where I grew up and thant the Gods lol) I can narrow you down to what?...Bama or Texas or Arkansas? LOLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh by the way did I mention along with hating the Jews/Anglos/Latins/Arabs/Indians/Native Americans/Pakis/African Americans/Hausa/Berbers/Tuaregs/Fulani/Fon/Ewe/Ashanti/Ibo/Tutsi that I also hate filthy Celts? 
 

---

Posted by Sonofisis (Member # 12762) on :
 
HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ
A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)
Richard E. Nisbett
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

ABSTRACT

J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black-White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nil.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-1 #1 Rushton and Jensen's (2005) article is characterized by failure to cite, in any but the most cursory way, strong evidence against their position. Their lengthy presentation of indirectly relevant evidence which, in light of the direct evidence against the hereditarian view they prefer, has little probative value, and their “scorecard” tallies of evidence on various points cannot be sustained by the evidence.
The Current Difference in Intelligence Between Blacks and Whites

Nisbett, Richard E. S-2 #1 One of the most serious misrepresentations in Rushton and Jensen's (2005) article is their claim that the current difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is slightly more than 15 points, or 1 standard deviation. The best evidence we have indicates that that value is out of date and that the Black-White IQ gap has lessened considerably in recent decades (Grissmer, 1994; Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998; Grissmer, Williamson, Kirby, & Berends, 1998; Hedges & Nowell, 1998; Nisbett, 1995, 1998). We do not have actual IQ scores available to establish this point but rather various ability tests, most of which are highly correlated with IQ—some as high as.8 to.9. Though IQ scores would be preferable to speak directly to the question of IQ change, such data are unavailable in the form of a national random sample. In contrast, several probability samples of U.S. elementary and high school students are available. These include, over the period 1965-1994, the Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO) survey, the National Longitudinal Study, the High School and Beyond survey, the National Education Longitudinal Study, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress program (NAEP).

Nisbett, Richard E. S-2 #2 Hedges and Nowell (1998) found improvement on almost all tests for African American 12th graders compared with other 12th graders over the period 1965-1994. The best estimates in terms of the stability the scores provide, and in terms of their correlations with IQ, are in the form of composites, for example, reading + vocabulary + mathematics for the EEO survey. The Black-White gap on these composites over the period decreased on average by 0.13 standard deviation per decade, yielding an estimate of a reduction of the gap by around 0.39 standard deviation over the period. The largest study, conducted by the NAEP, indicated that, if trends were to continue, the gap in reading scores would be eliminated in approximately 25 years and the gap in science scores in approximately 75 years.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-2 #3 Grissmer, Flanagan, and Williamson (1998) found comparably large gains on the NAEP for Blacks in elementary school, junior high, and high school. Whites gained slightly in both math and reading between 1971 and 1996, but Blacks gained much more, narrowing the gap by 0.2 to 0.6 standard deviations. This would yield estimates of obliteration of the gap somewhere between 20 and 60 years from now, except that the gains were concentrated among the students, at all age groups, who entered school in the period between 1968 and 1980. Students entering prior to that period and after that period showed no gains. It would take us far afield to discuss why the gains occurred when they did, but the main relevance is that the old estimate of 1 standard deviation in ability scores no longer applies. The gap is substantially less than that at the present time, probably more like 0.6-0.7 standard deviation or approximately 10 IQ points.
The Effects of Intervention

Nisbett, Richard E. S-3 #1 A second misrepresentation by Rushton and Jensen (2005) flows from their statement that the Head Start program leads only to immediate and not to long-term gains. Because no other early childhood intervention programs are mentioned, the implication is that such programs are not effective over the long run. But in fact, more ambitious interventions produce very significant gains that last as long as until age 15, the oldest age tested to this point to my knowledge (S. L. Ramey & Ramey, 1999). For example, Campbell and Ramey (1994) provided Black infants with an 8-hr per day intervention involving exercises designed to enhance cognitive, language, perceptual-motor, and social development. Mothers of the children had an average IQ of 85. At age 12, 56% of control children had IQs in the normal range (above 85), about what would be expected based on the mothers' IQ and assuming that the fathers' IQ was in the same vicinity. But 87% of children exposed to the intervention had IQs in the normal range. Only 13% of intervention-exposed children were of borderline IQ, and none were even mildly retarded. In contrast, 37% of control children were of borderline intelligence, and 7% were at least mildly retarded.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-3 #2Other early intervention programs have shown IQ effects of intervention programs in the range of 4-5 points, which are sustained until at least age 8-15 (e.g., S. L. Ramey & Ramey, 1999). Effects on academic achievement can also be substantial. Ramey and his colleagues found an intervention program resulted in 12% placement in special education classes at some point by the age of 15 as compared with 48% for control children (C. T. Ramey et al., 2000). They found that 30% of children who had participated in an intervention program had been retained in a grade by age 15 as compared with 56% of control children. By now, there are many studies showing significant, sometimes marked and sustained, effects of early intervention programs. But Rushton and Jensen (2005) choose to cite only one failure, and by implication to allow it to stand as the only relevant finding.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-3 #3 It should also be noted that it is not merely early intervention that increases IQ and school achievement. Programs at every age level from infancy to college can be effective (Bennett, 1987; Herrnstein, Nickerson, De Sanchez, & Swets, 1986; Selvin, 1992; Steele et al., 2004; Treisman, 1992). There is thus very good reason to believe that steps can be taken—some not terribly expensive—to improve test and academic performance of Blacks.
Direct Tests of Heritability of the Black-White IQ Difference

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #1 Most important, Rushton and Jensen (2005) ignore or misrepresent a large literature dealing with the most direct sort of evidence, which relates to the influence of European ancestry on Black intelligence. U.S. “Black” populations contain as much as 30% European genes. This means that an individual who is identified as Black could have anywhere from 100% African ancestry to mostly European ancestry (true of as much as 15% of some U.S “Black” subpopulations; Herskovits, 1930). This allows us to identify the extent to which percentage African ancestry, variously assessed, is associated with IQ. Five different types of studies allow for an estimation of the effect of relatively African versus relatively European genes on IQ. I report these below in increasing order of what I take to be their probativeness.
Skin Color

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #2There are numerous studies of the association between skin color and IQ. Skin color can be used as at least a weak proxy for racial admixture. We can ask whether lighter, presumably more European, skin is associated with higher IQ. Of course, if it were, this would constitute only modest support for the genetic hypothesis because there would be valid grounds for assuming that more social and economic advantages accrued to people with relatively light skin than to people with relatively dark skin and that these advantages would be reflected in higher IQs. In fact, however, the correlation between lightness of skin and IQ, averaged over a large number of studies reviewed by Shuey (1966), is in the vicinity of.10. The average correlation between IQ and judged “Negroidness” of features is even lower.
Self-Reports of European Ancestry

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #3 Another way to determine the genetic origins of the Black-White difference is to examine the tails of the distribution of Black IQ. We can ask whether Blacks having a significant degree of European heritage are more likely to have high IQ scores. The extreme high-end tail of the IQ distribution should be especially telling, because on the hereditarian theory one would expect people at the tail to be particularly likely to have substantial European ancestry. Jenkins (1936) identified 63 children in a sample of Black Chicago schoolchildren with IQs of 125 or above, and 28 with IQs of 140 or above. Degree of European ancestry was assessed on the basis of self-reports about parents and grandparents. Children with IQs of 125 or above, as well as those with IQs of 140 or above, were slightly less likely to have substantial European ancestry than was estimated to be characteristic of the U.S. Black population as a whole at the time. The results are consistent with a model of zero genetic contribution to the Black-White gap. Rushton and Jensen do not mention this study.
Children in Postwar Germany Born to Black and White American Soldiers

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #4 Eyferth (1961) examined the IQs of several hundred German children fathered by Black GIs during the post-1945 occupation and compared them with the IQs of children fathered by White GIs. The children of the Black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5. The children of the White GIs had an average IQ of 97. Because the (phenotypic) Black-White gap in the military was similar to that for the U.S. population, these data imply that the Black-White gap in the U.S. population as a whole is not genetic, even in part (Flynn, 1980, pp. 87-88). The results seem particularly telling because it seems highly likely that environmental conditions were inferior for Black children.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #5 How do Rushton and Jensen (2005) treat this study, so telling on the face of it? They give it only two sentences of description and then proceed to critique it on two main grounds. First, 20% to 25% of the “Black” fathers were North African. But one would have to assume preposterously high IQ scores on the part of the North African portion of the Black population to make up for the substantial difference between offspring of Blacks and Whites predicted by their hereditarian theory. Second, Rushton and Jensen assume that Black soldiers were more rigorously selected than Whites and so might have had IQs nearly as high as those of the White soldiers. Blacks in the military did indeed have higher IQs than did Blacks in the general population, but the same was true of White soldiers compared with the general White population. Flynn (1980) has argued that the evidence indicates that the gap in IQ between Black and White soldiers was the same as that in the U.S. population at large.
Mixed-Race Children Born to Either a Black or a White Mother

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #6If the Black-White IQ gap is largely hereditary, then children having one Black and one White parent should have the same IQ on average, regardless of which parent is Black. But if one assumes that mothers are particularly important to the intellectual socialization of their children and if the socialization practices of Whites are more favorable to IQ development than those of Black mothers, then children of White mothers and Black fathers should have higher IQs than children of Black mothers and White fathers. This could of course not have a plausible genetic explanation. In fact, it emerges that children of White mothers and Black fathers have IQs 9 points higher than children with Black mothers and White fathers (Willerman, Naylor, & Myrianthopoulos, 1974). This result in itself suggests that most of the Black-White IQ gap is environmental in origin. But because mothers are not the only environmental influence on the child's IQ, the 9-point difference might be regarded as a very conservative estimate of the environmental contribution to the gap.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #7 What do Rushton and Jensen (2005) have to say about this study? Because the White mother-Black father pairs averaged 1 year more of education than the Black mother-White father pairs, they conclude the study is uninterpretable! Of course, there can be no basis for assuming that 1-year's difference in education on the part of the parents could possibly translate into an expected 9 IQ point difference for the children.
Studies Measuring European Ancestry Through Blood Group Indicators

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #8Different races have different frequencies of various blood groups. If the hereditarian model is correct, Blacks having more blood groups characteristic of Europeans should have higher IQs. But Sandra Scarr and her colleagues (Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, & Barker, 1977) found that the correlation between IQ and “European” heritage among Blacks as measured by blood groups was only.05 in a sample of 144 Black adolescent twin pairs. They found a typical correlation of.15 between skin color and IQ, which suggests that the comparable correlations between skin color and IQ in other studies are due not to more European genes on the part of light-skinned Blacks but to social and economic advantages accruing to individuals with lighter skin.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #9 Another blood-group study, by Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973), also examined the association between Europeanness and IQ in a sample of Blacks. In this study, the estimated Europeanness of blood groups (rather than the Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) was correlated with IQ in two small samples of Blacks (Loehlin et al., 1973). A.01 correlation between IQ and the extent to which blood group genes were more characteristic of European than African populations was found. In another small sample, they found a nonsignificant, −.38 correlation, such that blood groups associated with Europeanness predicted lower IQ scores.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #10 How do Rushton and Jensen (2005) deal with these data, so apparently damning of an even partially hereditary model? They report that “these studies failed to choose genetic markers with large allele frequency differences between Africans and Europeans” (p. 262). Of course, on the hereditarian hypothesis, the markers would have to have been worthless to yield a zero difference between the populations studied.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #11 Rushton and Jensen (2005) add only a few studies to the list above concerned with racial admixture, and those have extremely weak findings, poor methodology, tangential relevance, or a combination of the three. For example, they cite one study by Lynn (2002), which found a correlation of.17 between self-report of skin color as “very dark,” “dark brown,” “light brown,” or “very light” and a 10-word vocabulary test score. Another study, by Rowe (2002), is merely yet another showing that Blacks have lower IQ scores than Whites. Still other studies ask us to believe that average IQ scores of 70 (in the retarded range) for samples of Africans and for the Black children in a particular Georgia county could possibly be an accurate reflection of genotypic IQ in pure African populations. This would mean that an individual 2 standard deviations from the mean would only manage to reach an IQ of 100, which is average for Western White populations.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-4 #12 Rushton and Jensen (2005) end the empirical part of their article with a scorecard. The scorecard results: hereditarian model (+); culture-only model (0). But any sensible reading of the directly relevant research would have to conclude that there is no support whatever in these studies for an even partially hereditarian model. On the contrary, the converging methodologies provide strong evidence that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is close to zero and do not even suggest a direction for any possible genetic contribution.
Adoption Studies

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #1There are three major adoption studies that address the question of genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ difference. The first two reported below receive one sentence each of description from Rushton and Jensen (2005); the third receives seven paragraphs.
Assignment of Black Adoptees to Families of Different Races

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #2 Under the hereditarian model, it should make relatively little difference whether Black children are adopted by Black families or by White families. Under an environmental model that assumes that White families are especially likely to intervene in their children's socialization in ways that result in their having high IQs, it should make a substantial difference whether the Black child is raised with a Black or White family. And in fact, it does. Moore (1986) found that Black children raised by Black middle-class families had mean IQs of 104, whereas Black children raised by White middle-class families had mean IQs of 117.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #3Though it is possible that self-selection of some kind might have operated to produce this difference, it could only have happened if genotypically less intelligent children were more likely to be assigned to the Black families than to the White families. But there is no reason to assume that this was the case, or at least that it could possibly account for the results by itself. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that adoption agencies could have engineered IQ differences in placement on the order of 13 points.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #4 Moore's (1986) study also provides some evidence about socialization for intelligence. White mothers were more supportive of their children's intellectual explorations and more forgiving of mistakes than were Black mothers, who tended to be highly critical.
Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to the Same Environment

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #5 Tizard, Cooperman, and Tizard (1972) studied Black and White children assigned to a highly enriched institutional environment. At age 4 or 5, the White children had IQs of 103, the Black children IQs of 108, and mixed-race children IQs of 106. The Black children were West Indian and the White children were English, and though it is possible that the Black children were born to more intelligent parents than the White children, Flynn (1980) has argued that the difference could have been only enough to eradicate the Black advantage in IQ score, not to turn the advantage to the Black children.
Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to Different White Families

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #6 The study to which Rushton and Jensen (2005) allocate so much space is the single adoption study that provides any support whatever to the hereditarian position. This is a study by Scarr and Weinberg (1976; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992), which examined adoptees into White families who had two White biological parents, two Black biological parents, or one Black and one White parent. The study is more difficult to interpret than the other two, one of which assigns Black children, who were probably equivalent in expected IQ, to either Black or White middle-class families and the other of which assigns both Black and White children to the same environment. The Scarr and Weinberg study held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children's mothers had lower educational levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure environmental model.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #7The average IQ of the White children at age 7 to 8 years was 112, that of mixed-race children 109, and that of Black children 97. The results are consistent with the assumption that the middle-class family environment resulted in a substantial gain in IQ for all groups. They do not rule out a genetic contribution to explain the gap because the Black children had lower IQs than those of either of the other two groups. Because of the likelihood that the Black children had lower IQs to begin with, for both genetic and nongenetic reasons, however, the results do not give strong support to the hereditarian model. At age 17 the White children had IQs (as measured by another test) of 106, the mixed-race children 99, and the Black children 89. These results are not materially different, in terms of size of the gap, from those at age 7 to 8. The Black children at the earlier point had IQs 15 points lower than those of the White children and at the later point had IQs 17 points lower. The gap was 3 points at age 7 to 8 between White children and mixed-race children and 7 points at age 17.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #8 Rushton and Jensen (2005), however, wish to emphasize the relative difference at the two ages. Because the genetic influence on IQ asserts itself progressively over the life span, they maintain that the greater gap at the later age is reflective of a genetic contribution to the gap. In fact, Rushton and Jensen give as one of their main reasons for reviewing the Scarr and Weinberg study in such depth is that it continues out to the older ages (the other two reasons being that it is the “largest” and “best-known”). There are several flaws with the developmental argument. First, the relative magnitude of differences at the two ages are slight, and second, and more important, the life span data that Rushton and Jensen themselves cite do not support the claim that more of the IQ variance at age 17 is genetically driven than at earlier ages. Evidence of a greater genetic contribution to IQ occurs only after the age of 20 (see their Figure 3). Finally, Weinberg et al. (1992) noted that the scores of the adolescent Black and mixed-race children have to be interpreted in light of the fact that these children as a group had severe adjustment problems, a fact that Rushton and Jensen do not mention.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #9The Scarr and Weinberg study thus provides nothing more definite than the likelihood that middle-class environments raise the IQs of children of all racial combinations. Many aspects of design weakness have to be overlooked to infer any support at all for the hereditarian model.

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #10 How do Rushton and Jensen (2005) assess the adoption results across the two studies showing unambiguous lack of support for the hereditarian model and the one study showing at most ambiguous support for it? Their scorecard results: hereditarian model (++); culture-only model (-)!

Nisbett, Richard E. S-5 #11 The rest of Rushton and Jensen's (2005) article consists of reports of brain size and reaction time correlates and other indirect evidence. If the direct evidence were not so strongly supportive of a purely environmental explanation of the Black-White difference in IQ, then such findings would have relevance to an understanding of the difference. But when direct evidence points so clearly to the conclusion that there is no hereditary basis for the difference, indirect correlational evidence has little meaning.
Conclusion

Nisbett, Richard E. S-6 #1 In short, Rushton and Jensen (2005) ride roughshod over the evidence concerning the question of whether the Black-White IQ gap has a hereditary basis. The most directly relevant research concerns degree of European ancestry in the Black population. There is not a shred of evidence in this literature, which draws on studies having a total of five very different designs, that the gap has a genetic basis. Adoption studies give scarcely more support to the heritability position. Finally, Black and White IQ scores have converged in recent decades, and in addition, we know that intervention programs can produce substantial and lasting effects on Black IQ. The most obvious policy relevance of this set of findings is that at-risk children—those born to impoverished women, especially those likely to be unable to provide a stimulating environment, and in particular children who have low birth weight or other factors predisposing to low IQ—should be exposed to the most extensive intervention programs that it is practical to provide. This group happens to include a disproportionate percentage of Black infants, but race need not, and perhaps should not, be made a criterion for inclusion.
 

---

Posted by Sonofisis (Member # 12762) on :
 
Proof that varying IQ has no basis in racial genetics and is really just a correlation between poverty/environment and IQ, not race and IQ.


IQ by nation:

Hong Kong 107 Korea, South 106 Japan 105 Taiwan 104 Singapore 104 Austria 102 Germany 102 Italy 102 Netherlands 102 Sweden 101 Switzerland 101 Belgium 100 China 100 New Zealand 100 U. Kingdom 100 Hungary 99 Poland 99 Australia 98 Denmark 98 France 98 Norway 98 United States 98 Canada 97 Czech Republic 97 Finland 97 Spain 97 Argentina 96 Russia 96 Slovakia 96 Uruguay 96 Portugal 95 Slovenia 95 Israel 94 Romania 94 Bulgaria 93 Ireland 93 Greece 92 Malaysia 92 Thailand 91 Croatia 90 Peru 90 Turkey 90 Colombia 89 Indonesia 89 Suriname 89 Brazil 87 Iraq 87 Mexico 87 Samoa (Western) 87 Tonga 87 Lebanon 86 Philippines 86 Cuba 85 Morocco 85 Fiji 84 Iran 84 Marshall Islands 84 Puerto Rico 84 Egypt 83 India 81 Ecuador 80 Guatemala 79 Barbados 78 Nepal 78 Qatar 78 Zambia 77 Congo (Brazz) 73 Uganda 73 Jamaica 72 Kenya 72 South Africa 72 Sudan 72 Tanzania 72 Ghana 71 Nigeria 67 Guinea 66 Zimbabwe 66 Congo (Zaire) 65 Sierra Leone 64 Ethiopia 63 Equatorial Guinea 59-

First of all, Sub-Saharan Africa has an IQ difference of 18 points from Zambia to Equatorial Guinea and they're both considered to be of the "Negroid"(obsolete) race. It's important to note that Equatorial Guinea is one of the poorest countries in the world. Hong Kong and China differ by 7 points yet they're the same exact people! Every nation from Iraq on down scored the same or less than the African American average. I'm looking more into the difference between Ashkenazi Jews and other Jews, Asiatics, and Europeans because they seem to score a lot higher than any of them, which may be in direct relation to their previous persecution and cultural strive for academic and financial success, some what like Asians.


Either people will have to accept that IQ differences seen from test scores are worthless and completely environmental, or that if it is partly genetic, it varies just as much as phenotype. And seeing how 85% of genetic variation is between individuals and not "race", it's easy to acknowledge the fact that IQ would vary immensely between individuals, and not so much between race. The remaining 15% can easily be overlapped by 16% out of the 85% since genes are random. Also, there would be so many people in between and around that it's impossible to single out one group as inferior or one as superior. If that's the case, then individuals are superior to others as someone else brought up, there are blacks who are superior to whites and vice versa. But as I started out, I think the evidence indicates that differences in IQ are purely environmental and no evidence suggests a genetic explanation, the genetic explanation has been contradicted by other studies so many times I'm surprised that this is still a debate for some people. Just check the consensus over at the American Psychological Association.
 

---

Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
 
simply put: When Africans are tested an IQ of 67, and are able to socialize, learn, and mentally function like a normal human being, instead of one that is mentally disabled, there IS something wrong with this so called "IQ" test.
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
OH and your excuse that blacks are genetically inferior is a better excuse??? Whites created the IQ test, they scale it based on their own results, and they determine the cut off based on the ideal middle ground for their own race. Other than "genetic inferiority" what other excuse is there for lower IQ tests for blacks? If you say "lack of educational ambition", then ask yourself why? It's either a genetic predisposition, or a social catastrophe caused by prejudice... i.e. racism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vidadavida:
[QB] ---I like your excuses for the lower I.Q averages , well it must be the racism!---

Yeah that is a pretty lame excuse I have to agree here.
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
Blacks don't go to the same schools, the school systems in predominantly black areas have been consistently crappy since the Civil Rights era. So you already start off by lying and passing your lie off as generally accepted and agreed upon fact. Hate crimes are still and always will be overwhelmingly committed by whites. You have simply very little chance of convictions. You in here right now calling blacks niggers and what not, you're part of that problem, but you want it your way 'first' before you acknowledge the problems you cause. When did white people just all of a sudden stop being racist? When? Find out the answer before you just assume that the whole thing is turned around.

Most companies are still owned by whites, most whites still play the hiring racist game, the get them fired for nothing game, the shoot them becuse i thought they had a gun game, the steal their tax money and use it for some other reason game.

Whites went to Africa, and first of all when they went to Ethiopia they say a Christian nation older than their own, so they tried to make the Ethiopians convert to THEIR christianity. They went to West Africa and when they saw many tribes, they sold one tribe weapons to enslave the other tribe and pay them off. In East Africa when some groups refused to participate in the slave trade, they simply paid the Arabs as middle men to get more slaves anyway. Then when they wanted to take land they just came in, broke laws, and stole it. Look at South Africa. Look at that catastrophe they caused, and now you have black people there trying to learn how to read and write because for 60 years they were not allowed to. Garbage!

The only thing whites managed to do is to systemize the use of trade and technology. they did not invent civilization, they did not invent good and fair laws. Most whites were serfs and peasants when America was being colonized, they wouldn't know how to open a tin can without some rich king paying some white or arab scientist to invent something. AND SO WHAT DO THEY DO? They start off by conquering small island tribes, then they take their resources, then they attack larger and then larger tribes... each time they would pretend to mutually respect, make agreements only to break them later. The only thing Black and people of color were stupid at was trusting white people at their word, even on paper. Every country that has been colonized was done so either when they were smaller at an early time, double or triple teamed by 2 or 3 european countries, or betrayed by some sneak attack after a treaty was signed in good faith. Whites never had a real edge in anything other than mass production of guns and manipulation of treaties. Once India fell to British treachery (hence the name Jafar) that's when the whole world became suceeptible to this so called European Imperialism.

And as far as animals go, every animal comes in differnt colors while being identical in their "evolutionary" capacities, whether its a dog, a squirrel, a cat, or a frikkin horse. Skin color has nothing to do with any of this and humans have not been seperate long enough for brain capacity to be distributed by intelligence and region.

quote:

---

Originally posted by vidadavida:
---I like your excuses for the lower I.Q averages , well it must be the racism!---

Yeah that is a pretty lame excuse I have to agree here.


---You know that an I.Q 70 and below is considered mentally retarded?---

LOL!!! That's funny


---first blacks go to the same schools. Also if anyone has the right to claim racism now a days its white. 90% of hate crimes are committed by blacks . It would be the white kid who went to school who would always be called cracker and whitey. IF a nigger went to school and was called the n word you would see that **** all over cnn.---

That is very true I will admit, but you also have to take in account that there is much race baiting in the media. Most of the people at the front of defending racism against blacks are WHITE and they use this just for sensationalism and also to get uneducated whites like yourself riled up to add to the contingent consciousness of white supremacy. Pretty good tactic actually if you ask me lol...it worked on you didn't
By the way what is a white person like you doing at a black school? *snickering* Seems like you po' whites are the only ones that pull the "reverse racism" card. Whites with status could give a shiit less lmao hmmmm.


---Of course they never show any black hate crimes. Why? Because all the media is racist against whites lmao---

Another white trash statment, and I guess all liberals are commies too; huh; Mr. George Dubya lova.

---Also you guys have hundreds of black only organizations. Why? because you cant handle fairness---

Ummm this is because of a thing called "slavery" and "segregation" lol and the result of these two circumstances. Yet again; another white trash argument. Hey, "ya'll" still got dem der KKK and NRA lol so don't feel too lef' out ya heya.


---When whites went to Africa they had no laws or civilizations---

I am going to have to ask you to support this claim. Thanks in advance .


---They already proved I.Q averages even in Africa and have hard evidence along with it.---

I.Q tests are indicitive of "test taking" skills and of course the criteria and model of these test taking skills are European in origin. Why SHOULD an African have a high "European" I.Q; and thank the Gods that we don't *whew*. Now let us make an African I.Q test and polarize your argument shall we .


---YOU GUYS JUST LIKE TO WHINE AND BITCH LIKE SCHOOL GIRLS GRABBING EVERY EXUSE YOU HAVE. LIKE A MAN FALLING DOWN A WELL TRYING TO GRAB ON TO EVERYTHING---

That is because African Americans mostly aren't raised by fathers and when they are; the fathers are not fit to be productive fathers. Also, there are no Alpha Males in the African American community so I would agree with this point unfortunatly.


---YOU GUYS SEEM TO BE HYPOCRITES THOUGH. YOU CLAIM TO BELIVE IN EVOLUTION THEN DENY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHITES AND BLACKS LMAO---

That's a good point and I posted something about this in another thread. They seem to keep trying to make all humans the same, yet are spiteful against the white's perception of difference. Very peculiar and definetly implies an inferiority complex. Hell, I LOVE being different than WHITES LOL, but then again I can't relate to African Americans becuase I was never a slave to any Arab or Jew or White man nor worshiped their archetype for perfection (YAHWEH/ALLAH/JESUS). So maybe you should try to empathize with this "false identity" fallacy instead of condemn them for it.


---BLACKS NEVER DID ANYTHING ON THEIR OWN---

I will need some support for this claim. Thanks in advance.


---AND DONT GO INTO THE NIGGER BLABBLE ABOUT EGYPT--

I hate to agree, but you are correct. As soon as you whites attack African Americans about civilization and culture they like to pull Egypt out of their azz. Egypt has nothing to do with African Americans what so ever and was not a homogenous culture or civilization. So it's kind of like they implicitly want to claim the civilization based on the European concept of race i.e black/white/red/yellow and include themselves because they are "black", but all the while try to abolish the European concept of race. Very odd contradiction.


---BLACKS LEFT AFRICA AND TRAVELED EAST INTO ASIA. THEY EVOLOED IN TO THE SUPERIOR MONGOLOID WITCH IN TURN EVOLOED IN TO THE SUPERIOR CAUCASOID IN ICE AGE EUROPE. SINCE WHITES HAD THE MOST TROUBLING AND ITELLENGE REQUIRED EVIRONMENT THEY HAD MORE STIMULI. THIS STIMULI RESULTED IN A SUPERIOR BRAIN---

You never know this could be true, but I don't correlate intelligence with the brain nor it's size considering my mother and grandmother are both psychiatrists and are firm non materialists and do not conform to the "the brain is the mind" as most neurologists do and I concurr with them despite my up bringing.


---OH AND DONT GIVE ME THE WHITE MAN RAPPED THEIR LAND---

Oh, but they did. As well as the Jew and the Arab and the Moor/Berber Isn't this supposed to make you MORE proud rather than GUILTY considering you are superior in everything including weaponry and savagery and theft and murdering and raping and pilaging etc. hmmmm .


---YOU THINK ONE COUNTRY COULD FUCKING STAND ON ITS FEET AT LEAST---

I am going to need support for this. Thanks in advance.


---REALLY WHERE ELSE IN NATURE DO YOU SEE A ANIMAL THAT ONLY EVOLVED PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES?---

I don't get the point here? Could you clarify?

---NO PURE NEGROID HAS an I.Q OVER 130.---

Mine is 148 and I am more pure negroid(whatever that means)than anyone here lol, but then again I went to white schools and white colleges and had strict parents that are in the top 2% of the United States economic tier so who knows that maybe why. Your statistics need to have a more diversified model in the variables, but then again that would defeat the purpose of the statistic to begin with now wouldn't it


It's clear to see you are just some filthy Irish/Welsh/Scot MICK Celt which infects almost all of the United States gene pool due to your expulsion, out-breeding and oppresion of the English to get rid of their degenerate trash and ship you to other islands being that you are descendants of criminals. Your lack of an education shows in your sentence structure and typing skills and also considering most of you filthy Micks are in the south and midwest of the United States (more segrated in the East coast where I grew up and thant the Gods lol) I can narrow you down to what?...Bama or Texas or Arkansas? LOLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh by the way did I mention along with hating the Jews/Anglos/Latins/Arabs/Indians/Native Americans/Pakis/African Americans/Hausa/Berbers/Tuaregs/Fulani/Fon/Ewe/Ashanti/Ibo/Tutsi that I also hate filthy Celts? 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirica:
Oh and no i'm not talking about ALLLL white people, so save me the racist reverb. I'm speaking of those Eurocentric and racist types that are obviously making their presence known in this thread and elsewhere. Some white people, a lot actually, UNDERSTAND. I don't believe in a "white race", I belive that whites, like everyone else vary and have differeing origins and points of view. But this racism is such a permeating presence, I address it from it's benefactors.

---

well said.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
Check out this and this

{Click-able links}
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
you know what is so funny about that nonsense called the bell curve (and all of this genetic/biological inferiority)...

They can not find the actual evidence.

They insist it's genetic, but they can't find a gene, chromozome or any genetic evidence. Again they assume it must be genetics.

They insist it's biology of the brain... but again, try as they might they can't prove it. They can't find brain structures that differe.

Although my favorite attempt was the one where they try to say that Africans have slightly smaller brains on average.

So I waited for the "control" research done on whites...

Anyone know where the paperwork that was published showing that smaller brained whites are on average 20-30 points dumber than their larger brained white counterparts?

That's right, it doesn't exist. They wouldn't even attempt to publish that because it would cause the most destructive backlash in the white race. Imagine... whites discriminating against each other based on their brain size.

Oh wait, that's just it... many just might. And the Bell Curve people wouldn't want THAT to happen.

No... thats where they try to really dig in deep and find and illustrate and pay MORE Attention to the other factors.

So until we find the "Intellectual capacities amoung Caucasians of different brain sizes" paper, I would chuck all of this Bell Curve crap to the trash.
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
YOu know what else? That teacher was playing a role someone else probably is coordinating with him. The most important part of his video wasn't the insulting comments about blacks.. no it was at the end when he was asking in so many words if his "rights" were going to be taken away. He wants to create a backlash. He just hates black people and wants to get rid of us and like all racists he wants to piggy back his hateful hope on the 1st amendment.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):
Check out this and this

{Click-able links}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poetry25:
Well, after reading the article it seems that a few of his theories have been tested and disconfirmed.This coupled with the test he had performed on himself not looking good has allot to do with his backing off. He's simply lost confidence and doesn't feel he has anything to stand on so he's rather back off and save face.His claim that it has become "too controversial" is a cop out. It wasn't any less controversial when he first began this kind of research. A scientist that is confident in his theories isn't going to back away from controversy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poetry25:
Exactly, he's just backpeddling and trying to save face. I've always wondered what is the purpose of this kind of race and intelligence testing? I keep hearing how there's this great overlap of IQ scores between US blacks and whites so what's the purpose of the testing then? If these scientist really wanted to understand differences in intelligence why not study sibilings? Or differences between people who reside in different geographical locations? Why choose race unless you have some kind of agenda? The emphasis on race is what makes these studies so tainted and just plain disgusting. It just seems that there are individuals out there who desperately want to justify the mistreatment of other groups by deeming them to be inately inferior. There are people who are so guilt ridden by their ancestors role in past and present history that they are driven to prove that the mistreated group was inferior to begin with so therefore destined to fail. It's such a shame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The basic problem with attempting to link brain size and intelligence is that the brain is not a muscle, it's a staggeringly complex organ whose underlying functionality is only poorly understood.

For example, Neanderthal man had a brain that was on average, larger than the modern human brain.

Yet his vocal cords were primative, suggesting that Neanderthal may not have had the same physical ability or mental dexterity to speak a true language.

This in turn leads anthropologist to suggest that Neanderthal's big brain size may have provided insulation against the extreme cold of ice age Europe, and may not have been indicative of any particular intellectual adeptness.

It is a fact that Neanderthal is the most fully cold adapted hominid in history, having evolved in Europe over the course of several hundred thousand years - yet Neanderthal was apparently completely replaced by tropically adapted Africans [homo sapiens is and african species, neanderthal is a eurasian species] ... who had evolved in tropical Africa during the same several hundred thousand year timespan.

African homo sapiens had migrated into Northern Eurasia only a few thousand years hence.

A further problem with a simplistic equasion of 'big brain' equal 'smart', is that many diseases which effect the brain cause 'hypertrophy' or increase in brain size.

In these cases abnormally large brains indicate such conditions as retardation or even cancer.


There is no proof that brain size variation within homo sapiens is and indicator of superior intellect.

---

 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
there is no such thing as superior intellect other than that some people have exposure to experiences and are raised in such a way that their intellect is challenged and harnessed as they grow older and they are able to utilize it efficiently through mental training.

You try pulling that off in the ghetto as a matter of course.

In fact, if you even play along with these racists, even still, if you put black children in better environments, they will do so much better that the comparitive "intellect" becomes irrelevant. They are productive members of society, whether or not they become the leading scientists. That's what gets me, they contradict their own philosophy. Why is it so hard to invest in positive change in our society.

Me personally, I don't see any difference given all environmental and external psychological factors being the same. You take racism out, the preoccupation with whiteness being better (esp. at an early age), then you take out 70-90% of the factors that make the IQ and economic disparities. The other 10%-30% is dependant on parent upbringing (both have two parents, both are taught to respect each other mutually, etc).

You guys should see that youtube video of the little black kids that are asked to choose which doll is the good doll, which is the bad doll, and which doll is most like them. Seeing their reaction should give you an indicator of why this problem is what it is.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
a boy like me

a girl like me

and if you want, I can get you some pretty crucial parts of the original.
 

---

Posted by osirica (Member # 6179) on :
 
Outstanding, I never even saw the Bill Cosby one. Outstanding.

How much of a child's mind develops, and has to contend with these things... it takes a significant amount of mental energy and focus away from these "IQ tests" and makes it harder to do well in school, but more importantly decreases the quality of life over time.

Maybe it's not so cut and dry, but it is the most important factor. Much more than genetics or brain size.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Osirica:
You try pulling that off in the ghetto as a matter of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):

quote:

---

Osirica:
You try pulling that off in the ghetto as a matter of course.

---

For real!!! That was on point! And I'll add to that, "try pulling that off in the ghetto" from start to finish, growing up there.

Now, it's not the worst place on earth, plenty of fun and interesting times, but it's definetly NOT conducive to learning.

Also, the belief of American youth (especially ours) that it's not cool for us (blacks) to be smart added to the belief of most that we can't do it complicates things.

And our "hip-hop/African-American/Ghetto" culture gets exponential (like to the fourth power) as you move in to the ghetto. Your legal and community accepted goal choices are: singing, dancing, something to do with music or making beats, rapping, other poetry, and sports.

You should look for the original study on Youtube, the old one with the nice white lady (a teacher).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
That doesn’t prove anything? Blacks have far lower I.Qs, None of that was phoney science. Their brains are smaller and I.Qs lower. And for you phoney ass bullshit about environment, They did a study showing blacks that are half white, but look fully black have higher I.Qs then that of 100% blacks even when the mixed race black kid looks fully black. They also did a study of adopted kids living with a rich white family. The study showed that the whites kids had a far higher I.Q then the blacks . When the black kid was half white but still looked fully black he got a higher I.Q then that of a full black. Meaning if racism was at fault then that half black kid should have also had a lower I.Q because he looks fully black. ALSO read that entire fucking thing. None of what they say is debatable. BLACKS REALLY ARE Inferior. Read all of it, not one bit is debatable.

---

Smaller skulls you say?

Neanderthal had smaller skulls too, and those 'bullshit' scientists figured that it was only for the purpose of INSULATION FOR THE BRAIN AGAINST THE COLD!

Can you tell me what happened when the Neanderthal's met the africans?
 

---

Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
That doesn’t prove anything? Blacks have far lower I.Qs, None of that was phoney science. Their brains are smaller and I.Qs lower. And for you phoney ass bullshit about environment, They did a study showing blacks that are half white, but look fully black have higher I.Qs then that of 100% blacks even when the mixed race black kid looks fully black. They also did a study of adopted kids living with a rich white family. The study showed that the whites kids had a far higher I.Q then the blacks . When the black kid was half white but still looked fully black he got a higher I.Q then that of a full black. Meaning if racism was at fault then that half black kid should have also had a lower I.Q because he looks fully black. ALSO read that entire fucking thing. None of what they say is debatable. BLACKS REALLY ARE Inferior. Read all of it, not one bit is debatable.

---

Smaller skulls you say?

Neanderthal had smaller skulls too, and those 'bullshit' scientists figured that it was only for the purpose of INSULATION FOR THE BRAIN AGAINST THE COLD!

Can you tell me what happened when the Neanderthal's met the africans?

---

Correction, the neanderthals had larger skulls, for the same purpose you mentioned. (insulation)

btw flashlight you're more than welcome to make a fool out of yourself. Your posts gave me some good laughs.
 

---

Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
That doesn’t prove anything? Blacks have far lower I.Qs, None of that was phoney science. Their brains are smaller and I.Qs lower. And for you phoney ass bullshit about environment, They did a study showing blacks that are half white, but look fully black have higher I.Qs then that of 100% blacks even when the mixed race black kid looks fully black. They also did a study of adopted kids living with a rich white family. The study showed that the whites kids had a far higher I.Q then the blacks . When the black kid was half white but still looked fully black he got a higher I.Q then that of a full black. Meaning if racism was at fault then that half black kid should have also had a lower I.Q because he looks fully black. ALSO read that entire fucking thing. None of what they say is debatable. BLACKS REALLY ARE Inferior. Read all of it, not one bit is debatable.

---

+


 

---

Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
 
Flash please stay within your own forum boundaries...in other words go back to the board you came from.
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
no wait, Can any one really explain why blacks have lower I.Qs , also the study all get track of how well they did in school. So can anyone tell me why blacks have way lower I.Qs and are doing poorly in school? And it cant have anything to do with environment.
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
the study also kept trackof how well they did in school*
 

---

Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
 

quote:

---

Average IQ scores of racial and ethnic groups living in North American, Europe and East Asia according to Lynn 2006. The normalization average of 100 is shown as a dotted line. Each dot is the average IQ from a single study.[56] Datasets from South/Central America and Africa were criticized as being unrepresentative by a review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, a previous book by Lynn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
no wait, Can any one really explain why blacks have lower I.Qs , also the study all get track of how well they did in school. So can anyone tell me why blacks have way lower I.Qs and are doing poorly in school? And it cant have anything to do with environment.

---

Why are there blacks with higher IQs than whites, moron? It makes absolutely no sense to have an "average" when enviornments produce DEFINITE biological characteristics.

for example flash, my IQ > yours

^ Does that mean i was brought up in a cold climate with light skin, and a large brain size? Please say it does .
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
Yea and I know a women that is really tall, Does that change the fact that men are taller>?
 

---

Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
Yea and I know a women that is really tall, Does that change the fact that men are taller>?

---

In other words, gene variation is as random and spontanious as your irrelevant answer concerning height among sexes?

Answer the question...
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
Can anyone fucking explain why blacks have lower I.Qs???? And from that study it proves it cant be from environment!
 

---

Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calypso:

quote:

---

Average IQ scores of racial and ethnic groups living in North American, Europe and East Asia according to Lynn 2006. The normalization average of 100 is shown as a dotted line. Each dot is the average IQ from a single study.[56] Datasets from South/Central America and Africa were criticized as being unrepresentative by a review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, a previous book by Lynn.

---

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence


The above is a depiction of current world wide IQ stats.

IQ testing by race presupposes the validity of racial categories. One first has to demonstrate that race exists before they can argue that intelligence is determined by race.

Veterans of Egypt search ought to know by now that Greeks have significant amounts of African ancestry - about 20-25% E3b in males. Yet they were the first literate and civilized people in Europe! How could that be if Europeans are superior?

Why was Europe the last continent to experience such boons as agriculture, writing, achitecture, animal husbandry, etc., if Europeans are superior? What's more we now know that none of these elements of civilization were developed independently in Europe.

Recommended reading: Stephen Jay Gould "The mismeasure of man"

---

.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
Oh great. I didn't think this thread needed to be started much-less last two pages.


^If you look at the image above, the spans of the I.Q.s between these so-called races over-lap.

This means that these so-called race's intelligence spans are equal.

Since we know economically blacks are definitely not more privelaged than whites, then we know that these spans are definitely fair to whites, just maybe not for blacks, but hey, life isn't fair.

Since the spans are equal, but the means (the lumps/accumulations) are different, we can assess:

Heredity is equal, but something else is seperating chunks of each group.

Anyway, here's a good critique on the bell-curve supplied by our very own UP-man.

Mostly, it's retarded brain-dead inbred hicks that support such a book.

How else could you support a piece-of-crap that uses studies based on psychology tests given in english that quiz on western things like tennis-courts. Some utter waste of time that uses the studies of someone who surveys people of certain races in a mall of their penis size.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Underpants Man:
Link

quote:

---

Excerpt

In the Bell Curve itself, the authors cite 13 "scholars" who have had their work funded by Pioneer. Among these is Phillipe Rushton of Ontario. Rushton is cited eleven times in the Bell Curve, and Murray and Herrnstein go to great lengths to ensure their readers that Rushton "is not a quack." This despite the fact that Rushton's "scientific methodology" has included approaching shoppers at a Toronto mall (one-third black, one-third white, and one-third Asian) and asking them "how far can you ejaculate," or "how large is your penis?" He has also said, that intelligence is inversely related to penis size, because "it's more brain or more penis. You can't have everything," and has claimed that the success of the Nazi army was due to its Aryan genetic purity. Interestingly enough, Rushton's data on penis size all comes from one study, conducted in 1898 by an anonymous French Army surgeon who traveled through Africa and recorded the size of African penises, and from a second study comparing the penises of Nigerian medical students to Czech army officers. In this study, it turned out the Nigerians penises were longer, and the Czech's had greater circumference. So why is length more important in effecting brainpower than girth? Who knows? Neither the original study, nor Rushton, explains this point.

Rushton's arguments on brain size are based on the genetic distance studies of Dr Allen Wilson, from the University of California. Yet Wilson, having reviewed Rushton's work, notes that those scientists using his work to argue for innate racial differences, let alone superiority or inferiority in intelligence, have "totally misrepresented" his findings. Furthermore, respected anthropologists like Christopher Springer at the British Museum have noted that Rushton's brain size and head size data is completely without merit.

[...]

The Bell Curve references Lynn's work in an effort to "prove" the following propositions that are central to the book's arguments:

1) African Blacks have IQ's substantially below the African American average;
2) East Asians have higher IQ's than any other group; and,
3) Immigrants of color to the US have sub-par IQ's

Taking a look at his "evidence" on African IQ, there is little doubt of its intellectual vacuity. Lynn's "proof" was based heavily on a 1988 review by three South African psychologists who looked at Black South African test performance. But the authors of this study concluded the OPPOSITE of Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein. In fact, when presented with Lynn's interpretation of their work, they responded with the following:

"It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid measures of intelligence among non-Westerners. The inability of most psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own cultures has led to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the ‘simplicity' of African mental structure and ‘retarded cognitive growth'."

The main source for the Bell Curve's claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the "best studies" on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the "best" was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study's author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was "not at all" evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.

Another of the "definitive" studies cited by Lynn in his own article was a 1929 study, in which 293 blacks in South Africa were given the Army Beta Test and scored a mean of 65. But this test was administered by M.L. Finch, an open protagonist of the view that blacks were inherently inferior, even before he had done any studies to "prove" such a thing: he was, in other words, hardly a pure, unbiased scientist. Furthermore, the Beta Test was one of the most culturally biased tests in the world at that time: one question on the 1929 version in dispute showed people playing tennis without a net. To get full credit for the question, one would have to draw the net in the picture—something few black Africans could have possibly known to do in 1929, having never been exposed to the game. A leading proponent of the Beta Test, C.C. Brigham, actually admitted that the test had no validity whatsoever for non-Americans: a fact totally ignored by Lynn, and by the Bell Curve.

[...]

Two other studies cited by Lynn to "prove" higher Asian IQ's are equally bogus[b]. The first used samples of American, British and Japanese students on a test of abstract reasoning. On this test the Brits and Americans did far worse; and the second study found that 9-year-olds in the UK did worse on the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices than 9-year-olds from Japan and Hong Kong. But if you check the footnotes for this "evidence," you find that the author Lynn was citing for both of these studies was himself. And if you look up the studies, it doesn't take long to notice the flawed methodology involved in both: The first of these studies consisted of a test given to 178 Japanese children that did not reflect the demographic makeup of the nation as a whole, economically, culturally, or in terms of gender. The testers showed up at two schools, one urban and one rural, and gave the tests to whomever was present that day. Lynn then took the results of this test and compared it to a test that was thirteen years old, had been given to 64,000 American children, and had been pre-screened for representativeness; he then compared the Japanese results to a similarly pre-screened sample of 10,000 British children who had been given a similar test in the previous decade.

In the second study, Lynn claims to have found a substantial difference between Japanese and Hong Kong student IQ's on the one hand, and those of British children on the other. Yet this study looked only at 118 9-year olds from Hong Kong, 444 children from Japan and 239 British children, and involved [b]no known controls for environmental and demographic representativeness.

The third set of studies cited in the Bell Curve dealing with Asian IQ, comes from Harold Stevenson in Minnesota, who found that once socioeconomic status and various demographic variables were controlled for there was NO difference at all between the IQ's of Japanese, Taiwanese and American kids. Despite the fact that these studies were the most comprehensive and methodologically sound of all the studies cited on the subject in the Bell Curve, (even according to the authors themselves who noted that Stevenson "carefully matched the children on socioeconomic and demographic variables"), Murray and Herrnstein essentially dismiss them as quickly as they mention them, noting only that they are evidence of the "ongoing debate" about race and IQ, as if they are on a scientific par with the work of folks like Lynn.

---

[This message has been edited by Underpants Man (edited 15 October 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Underpants Man (edited 15 October 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Underpants Man:
More juicy info here.

quote:

---

Excerpt

...other studies cited by Lynn were also misinterpreted, including one involving a test given to black and white youth in South Africa, which actually found that the black students scored higher than the white students. In seven of eleven studies cited by Lynn to “prove” inferior African IQ, subjects were never assigned IQ scores at all: Lynn simply concocted them after the fact.

Rushton also ignores an array of studies going back over 150 years, which find no significant racial differences in size or weight of human brains. According to the preponderance of these studies, the average difference in white and black cranial capacities is no more than 50 cubic centimeters: a size difference of less than three-and-a-half percent. Even Rushton can’t seem to make up his mind about the importance of cranial and brain size to intelligence: indeed, despite insisting that the relationship is strong, he has also said, in typically inconsistent fashion: “…head size is a weak predictor of intelligence;”

---

And here.

quote:

---

Excerpt

Black students are well aware of the negative stereotypes held about them by members of the larger society. As such, when blacks who are highly motivated and value educational achievement take a standardized test and expect the results to be used to indicate cognitive ability, the fear of living down to the stereotype negatively impacts their performance. These students may rush through the test—so as to seem more confident than they truly are—or alternately take too much time, trying desperately not to make mistakes. The self-doubt engendered by the racist beliefs of the larger culture is added to the general anxiety that all test-takers feel, to produce, for black students, a unique disadvantage.

As proof that it is stereotype threat and not inherent ability differences that explain racial gaps on standardized admissions tests, Steele notes that when the same test questions are given to whites and blacks in experimental settings, and yet the students are told that the results are not indicative of ability, and will not be graded, the stereotype threat dissipates and they perform as well as their white counterparts.

---

[This message has been edited by Underpants Man (edited 15 October 2005).]

---

 

---

Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
 
The chart above depicting world wide IQ stats was meant to illustrate that across much of the world people have scores no different from Africans. These graphs are definitely a measure of poverty; probably a measure of cultural assimilation within a given society. There are groups amongst native Europeans that score very poorly. Are they inferior?

Are SouthEast Asians a different race than East Asians? If South Asians are inferior to whites, as their average IQ's suggest, why do they dominate whites academically in the United States?

I mentioned above that before you can claim IQ is a function of race you first have to define race. The burden is twofold however: before you claim intelligence is a function of race you also have to tell us exactly what human intelligence is.
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
NO PEOPLE ARE NOT LISTENING!!!!!! cAN ANYONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY BLACKS HAVE FAR LOWER I.Qs???????? AND YOU CANT NOT SAY ITS BECAUSE OF THE EVIROMENT
 

---

Posted by flashlight101 (Member # 13071) on :
 
can not
 

---

Posted by With a name like Smuckers (Member # 10289) on :
 
lol flashlight, well OBVIOUSLY it must be because they are just less smart than the rest of us right??

I mean it seems like that's what you're driving at, that's the answer you want? why is it important who's IQ is higher or lower?
I met a man once supposed to have a very high level IQ and over time I realized he was the biggest idiot on the face of the planet....I immediately threw out all my ideas about IQ and their ridiclous tests...

I just can't believe in this day and age this is even an issue...let it go..
 

---

Posted by H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
 
All colored people (black, brown, red & yellow) produce the neurotransmitter, melanin which makes us infinitely superior to those who don't

This neurotransmitter makes us extra-sensitive and is the reason we (colored) people often get emotional. The evil ones know this and use it to their advantage

Lack of this neurotransmitter is the definition of evil. You can't blame them for trolling around the planet and killing millions of colored people in their path. It is up to us to civilise these barbarians.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
To Flashlight

IQ scores derive both from environmental and biological sources. Even nativists don't deny that the impact of the environment(whether the culture is agricultural or industrialised, etc.) is significant. Tests done on identical twins reared apart in the same general culture prove this point. Individual twin scores can vary as much as 15 to 20 points.

You speak of "blacks" and "whites"--well, what do you mean?

Studies of the total African American genome shows that the non-African input is some 17%--speard over some 30% of that population. And it is claimed in the most recent studies that the average AA IQ is 92. The IQ of Africa is averaged out--based on very dubious studies of tests given to people in European languages--is put at 70. But if IQ tets reflected genetics then the score of African Americans would be ~75.

The old AA score was 85 so there is a difference of 15 points which means that 10 of those points is a pure environmental effect.

But again here's a number of IQ scores from groups that supposedly had impressive civilisations long before those of Europe.
The scores are taken from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

India: 81

Pakistan: 81

Iraq(Mesopotamia--the claimed cradle of Western civilisation): 87

Cambodia: 89(East Asian nation)

Thailand: 91

Iran(Ancient Persia): 84

Egypt: 83

Nepal: 78

Mexico: 87(but Hebert(1978) says 83)
Honduras: 84
Guatemala(seat of ancient Meso-American civilisations): 79

Philippines: 86

Greece: 92(the first civilisation of Europe as is claimed)

Israel: 94

Mauritania: 73

Morocco: 85

Saudi Arabia: 83

Quatar: 78

Somalia: 68

Kenya: 72

Yemen: 83

Turkey 90

Ethiopia:63

Syria(seat of ancient civilisation for which there is a branch of research called Assyriology): 87


But Zambia and Zimbabawe are the same people and they share borders, yet Zambia scores 77 and Zimbabawe scores 66.

Psycologist Thomas Flynn has argues that IQ scores in Europe have increased some 15-20 points in 50 years--thereby showing that there is a large envorinmental effect in IQ scores. This environmental effect is called by psychometricians "the Flynn Effect" and it was demonstrated by giving the same IQ tests given decades ago to Europeans to their contemporary offspring. The offspring scored some 15-20 points more on average than their parents.

The point is that transcultural comparisons of IQ are practically worthless in determining the innate cognitive abilities of groups.
 

---

Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
 
Egypt: 83, hell naw!!! Anyways, I wonder what's Nubia's IQ lol......
 

---

Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 
Good post Lamin.

And it is interesting to see those IQ scores by nationality.

White racists always harp about African-Americans having an average IQ that is 1 standard deviation below the European-American average yet there are several nations with a history of advanced civilization that are lower than that.

It completely undercuts the premise of their racist beliefs.

I do believe that intelligence, as with all things biological, has a genetic component which can result in individuals having different learning styles or an apitude toward certain mental processes over others.

But that is a separate issue from humans having a disparity in overall innate mental capacity. I think intelligence is far more complex than that and that humans are not "born stupid". If you have a genetic defect such as mental retardation that is a separate issue but making a supremacist point over that makes as much sense as claiming superiority over a blind or deaf person because you are able to see or hear. It's a disability!

IQ disparities by ethnic group are strongly correlated with disparities in education. You cannot perform well at something if you have not learned the material.

The nuture argument has an advantage over the nature argument because there is a disparity in the very thing that is required to perform well on an IQ test.

If Lynn, Murrary and Rushton were objective scholars they would conduct tests on groups of people from the same Socio-economic status and level of education to see whether or not there is a disparity instead of cherry picking data and taking advantage of the disparities in SES between African-Americans and European-Americans which is directly related to social injustices of the past.

But they are not objective, they are racist eugenicists who have recieved multi-million dollar grants from a like-minded foundation to promote their theories.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
To Obelisk:

Sudan is put at 72 by Lynn and Vanhanen.

As I said IQ scores are strongly ideological in intent. They are meant to show that Europeans are naturally more intelligent than persons of non-African ancestry except North East Asians--but even the scores for China are suspect. And the Philippines which is just next door to China scores 86.

The African scores are bogus because in the West an IQ of 70 means that you cannot even know how to count change or take a bus and go downtown. Furtheremore, those tests are given in European languages which are not known well by most people.
 

---

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
 

quote:

---

Egypt: 83, hell naw!!! Anyways, I wonder what's Nubia's IQ lol......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H*O*R*U*S:
All colored people (black, brown, red & yellow) produce the neurotransmitter, melanin which makes us infinitely superior to those who don't

This neurotransmitter makes us extra-sensitive and is the reason we (colored) people often get emotional. The evil ones know this and use it to their advantage

Lack of this neurotransmitter is the definition of evil. You can't blame them for trolling around the planet and killing millions of colored people in their path. It is up to us to civilise these barbarians.

---

Is this your counter to the racist psuedo-science game?

I know (hope) you're joking, but a good pointer is to remember that they usually rig the game altogether to make sure that the odds are just right for them.

Besides the major flaws, (one of which being the basis for the entire page itself) I find it a fun page to read:

"There are important race differences in time-orientation and motivation. One study aske Black children in the Caribbean to choose between a small candy bar now and a larger bar a week later. Most chose the small one now."

I agree, this is a crucial issue, but a crucial one in our CULTURE.

I also love how they don't associate their prolaimed perception of "restlessness of black children" with the grades they recieve in school. They only go on to say that it makes us restless in school and more prone to crime.

It also goes on to speak of the fact that this matter has been thought of before, but doesn't go into detail about what Darwin thought, or that Greek philosophers thought black people were smart and whites stupid, which is ironically now, the opposite of what the IQ scores say.

:

"Today, writers like Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) and S. J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man (1996) tell us [(Yeah you're on OUR innocent ass acting team)]there is no link between race, intelligence, and culture. The differences we see are all just because of bad luck or White racism."

If you say so about the bad luck or racism, but that statement about the books is just assinine.

*They say there is no race,

*there IS culture you deceptive asshole who teaches for those slow racists,

*therefore there CAN be no link between 'race' and intelligenceand, and

*they disprove the points in the bell-curve
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
Also, another thing: Knowing that most people don't know that arabs have been racist towards blacks, they write the following:

"The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocke by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of them go naked... the child doos not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes down. A few even wrote books and made paingtings of Africans with over-sized sex organs."
LMFAO, DEAD-Wrong.

[gotta go] [/I'm back ]

The first explorers of east african would have been themselves. Others, would have been the people of the Sahara(, the ones who would later become the dynastic race of Ta Seti and Egypt ).

I guess this author must meen to say the first middle-eastern or med. explorers there which in either case he would have been wrong.

This man must have forgot about the Greeks.

I wonder why this man forgot about the Greeks. (?)Good-night flashlight
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
For those interested in the matter here's the recent(2006) Flynn-Dickens paper that argue that AA IQ scores have increased by 4-7 points in recent years. The average score, according to Flynn-Dickens, is 91.

See http://www.brookingd.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf.

And for the AA IQ by state see:

http://Anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state-html.

The average AA IQ is estimated at approximately 91--approximating that of Greece(92) and Turkey(91), Ireland(93)and Israel(94).
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
Error

In the above: read...."estimates-by-state.html".
 

---

Posted by blackman (Member # 1807) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
Here is proof That blacks are inferior and dumber http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf . Proof that its not environment and that’s it genetic. Proof that blacks are dumber. No one can debate this. NOT ONE BIT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
READ THE DAMN LINK THEN YOU CAN TALK, ASSHOLES. and you cant mess up an average I.Q its not a hard thing to look up. Blacks have an average I.Q of a retarded kid. Why is that? environment doesn’t count because of that adoption study.

---

• There are no human biological races.
• IQ is correlated with learning which is related to education and disparities in education are related to Socio-Economic status.
• IQ tests done internationally in some countries have often been biased against the test takers, being written in langauges they are not fluent in.
• High IQ status is not strongly correlated with what we know about the history of human development in certain regions (i.e. There are countries with low average IQ where advanced societies were once present).
• IQ has RISEN in certain ethnic groups within generations or even decades, debunking a genetic correlation (e.g. The Flynn Effect).

See Also: Skeptic's Dictionary - IQ and race


As it relates to African-Americans and your obsession with Black inferiority, it has been proven by a recent study by Flynn that Black IQs have risen in the past 3 decades as their SES increased, undercutting a genetic explanation for the disparity:


Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples

Forthcoming: Psychological Science, October 2006






"The constancy of the black/white IQ gap is a myth. Blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ
points on whites over the last 30 years. Neither changes in the ancestry of those
classified as black nor changes in those who identify as black can explain more than a
small fraction of this gain. Therefore, environment has been responsible. The last two
decades have seen both positive and negative developments: gains in occupational status
and school funding have been accompanied by more black preschoolers in single-parent
homes and lower income in those homes (Neal, in press). We believe that further black
environmental progress would engender further black IQ gains."

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf
 

---

Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
 
^^Great stuff Mansa Musa and Lamin.
 

---

Posted by H*O*R*U*S (Member # 11484) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):

quote:

---

Originally posted by H*O*R*U*S:
All colored people (black, brown, red & yellow) produce the neurotransmitter, melanin which makes us infinitely superior to those who don't [Wink]

This neurotransmitter makes us extra-sensitive and is the reason we (colored) people often get emotional. The evil ones know this and use it to their advantage [Wink]

Lack of this neurotransmitter is the definition of evil. You can't blame them for trolling around the planet and killing millions of colored people in their path. It is up to us to civilise these barbarians. [Smile]

---

Is this your counter to the racist psuedo-science game?

---

Indeed, it's not AS IF we don't have ammo against these d-bags. Actually, I lifted the 'neurotransmitter' stuff straight out of a book. It's funny how one can find ANYTHING if one wants to find it

However, let it be known: TRUTH has to be proven, not just stated.
 

---

Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):
Also, another thing: Knowing that most people don't know that arabs have been racist towards blacks, they write the following:

"The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocke by the nudity, paganism, cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of them go naked... the child doos not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes down. A few even wrote books and made paingtings of Africans with over-sized sex organs."
LMFAO, DEAD-Wrong.

[gotta go] [/I'm back ]

The first explorers of east african would have been themselves. Others, would have been the people of the Sahara(, the ones who would later become the dynastic race of Ta Seti and Egypt ).

I guess this author must meen to say the first middle-eastern or med. explorers there which in either case he would have been wrong.

This man must have forgot about the Greeks.

I wonder why this man forgot about the Greeks. (?)Good-night flashlight

---

Oh, Rushton, he's the worst of them all, lol.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
The first explorers of east-africa!

I wonder what the first literate explorers who wrote about Europe had to say? You know, the Greeks.?
 

---

Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
 
Lol, since all these nations with ancient empires and foundation laying civilizations have sub-par IQs, I think there's a correlation between how old your civilization is and your nations IQ lol.... so ethiopia is the cradle of civilization folks..... what son what lol....
 

---

Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
 
The whole IQ business is pure pusedo-science. Intelligence is a very abstract concept - it's not a physical thing. How can it be measured meaningfully?
 

---

Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
 
The first explorers of east-africa!

I wonder what the first literate explorers who wrote about Europe had to say? You know, the Greeks.?


^^^Very good polarized point lol.


One thing that interests me and I don't want to sound like a typical negro defeatest, but on that chart I can't help but to think maybe racism does have an effect on African American I.Q's considering they get considerable "lower" as the people AGE hmmmm. When we are kids the world is "ours" ya know, but we get more environmental awareness as we age. And not to sound racist, but I have always noticed how young black kids are so much sharper than white kids at the respective age.

Do you think it could be racism OR just the culture of not WANTING to learn or to be scholastic aswell as hopelessness that causes the decrease as African Americans get older? Because I bet you if took alot of African Americans from ages 15-25 and whites from the same age and asked them what they wanted to be at the age of 30 OR what they were doing to accomplish this at that age it would be totally imbalanced just on the opportunity that whites have and the lack of hopelessness in their subconscious.

Just something to ponder.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
^I agree on the point about the feeling of hopelessness.
 

---

Posted by Africa (Member # 12142) on :
 
I.Q. test is very questionable, I studied with very intelligent people in their field (I studied Math) when you start talking about other subjects, they are completely lost, I'm wondering whether those people would score lower at an I.Q. test than let's say someone at the same level of success in school but more knowledgeable...I.Q. test is very subjective and inaccurate...an A student in Math can score lower because he's not interested in other subjects...
plan2replan Copyright © 2006 Africa
 

---

Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):
The first explorers of east-africa!

I wonder what the first literate explorers who wrote about Europe had to say? You know, the Greeks.?

---

This is what the iraqi traveler Ibn fadlan wrote about northern europeans in the year 921.

"They are the filthiest creatures of Allah. In the morning a servant girl brings a basin full of water to the master of the household; he rinses his face and hair in it, spits and blows his nose into the basin, which the girl then hands on to the next person, who does likewise, until all who are in the house have used that basin to blow their noses, spit and wash their face and hair in it.
They do not wash themselves after defecating or urinating, nor do they bathe after seminal pollution or on other occasions. They refuse to have anything to do with water, particularly in winter..their underclothes are fraying apart from dirt, for it is their custom never to take off the garment they wear close to their bodies until it disintegrates.
They shave their beards and eat their lice. They search the folds of their undergarments and crack the lice with their teeth.
 

---

Posted by What Box (Willing Thinker) (Member # 10819) on :
 
^I noticed that in "The thirteenth Warrior".

I could quote some fun-facts about NW eruope acording to the Greeks if I had my "Black Spark, White Fire" book w/ me.
 

---

Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
Black people are mentally inferior. It is inherent through behavior of their environment.
 

---

Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Black people are mentally inferior. It is inherent through behavior of their environment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Black people are mentally inferior. It is inherent through behavior of their environment.

---

Enviroment doesn't have a "behavior".

If you are going to call someone else mentally inferior you should be sure to use correct grammar.

Are Whites or anyone else inferior because of their enviroment?

If not why just Blacks? Explain your opinion. Since you talk of inferiority I'm sure you are capable of defending your views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
I type fast and I will not proof read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
^Define what you specifically mean by "mentally inferior". Is this based on polling each and every "black" person on this planet? The same requests go for your blanket application of "gullible passive mind" on this same entity of "blacks". What specific environment causes this "mental" inferiority? Do all the said "blacks" live under that same environment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
I type fast and I will not proof read.

---

That argument could fly if you had written a post with long paragraphs but you only made two sentences.

Everyone makes spelling, typo, and grammatical errors.

I just think that if you are trying to put down other people you should make sure you come off as intelligently as possible.

That being said, you haven't given any evidence for your beliefs only made generalizations.

I've seen the qualities you've described in every group of people and most Blacks that I know don't fit those stereotypes.

You said Blacks are mentally inferior because of their enviroment and the influences around them, but which enviroment would that be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
I'm not going to repeat myself. What I said is true without statistics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
I'm not going to repeat myself. What I said is true without statistics.

---

If you cannot go into specifics then your assertions have no support, which would make them worthless.

Simply making a statement does not make it true.

"It's true because I said so", is not an argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

What "valid evidence" you are speaking of. What I said is facts not based on opinions. His question was answered. I don't like talking in circles. Maybe he overlooked the answers or they are invalid because he don't agree with it. I can't help him on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Young H.O.R.U.S:
Every man is rich in excuses to safeguard his prejudices, his instincts, and his opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tee85:
What specifics about the houshold, school, and overall community fosters Black's inferiority??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

What "valid evidence" you are speaking of. What I said is facts not based on opinions. His question was answered. I don't like talking in circles. Maybe he overlooked the answers or they are invalid because he don't agree with it. I can't help him on that.

---

Firstly, it's best to get in the habit of "directly" addressing people. Secondly, I never sought "help" from you or anyone; I "requested" answers relevant to my specific questions. Thirdly, giving an 'answer' in itself doesn't constitute providing 'correct' or 'relevant" answer. And yes, your answer was this:

Of course this doesn't apply to every single black person on the planet.

If this is your answer to my questions, then you've made it clear that your assessment is 'baseless". If you cannot include such individuals in your "collective" black entity, then your generalization is without objective merit.

On an additional note, how would you know if I "overlooked" [or what have you] your answer, if this very post you are looking at, was to be my first feedback to the answer in question?

---

I don't know what you are talking about and you are not making any sense.
 

---

Posted by Tee85 (Member # 10823) on :
 
^IDIOT

This is you: "Oh, just believe me because it's a widley held ethos that Blacks are inferior. Sure, I don't have any evidence. My opinions get pulled outta my a55"

The ignorance AND arrogance.

If you make a statement that is so very obviously stereotypical and STUPID, you DEFEND IT. Although you seem mentally INCAPABLE of doing so, which just tears your whole stance down.

Bettyboo, you've just proven that the sword cuts BOTH ways--Some whites are mentally inferior(YOU).

You can't even defend you stance.

The trick part about it is, no one has really ENGAGED you and ripped you to pieces. We've only asked you to CLARIFY, which you also seem mentally incapable of doing.

Your whole STYLE of "arguing" defeats your original point about Blacks being mentally inferior, notwithstanding the CONTENT which has YET to be made clear by YOU, which you ALSO seem too dumb to do.

You screwed yourself.

If you clarify, you're REALLY screwed. You do know that huh??

I'd bet $100 you'll NEVER win.
 

---

Posted by Young H.O.R.U.S (Member # 11484) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

What "valid evidence" you are speaking of. What I said is facts not based on opinions. His question was answered. I don't like talking in circles. Maybe he overlooked the answers or they are invalid because he don't agree with it. I can't help him on that.

---

Firstly, it's best to get in the habit of "directly" addressing people. Secondly, I never sought "help" from you or anyone; I "requested" answers relevant to my specific questions. Thirdly, giving an 'answer' in itself doesn't constitute providing 'correct' or 'relevant" answer. And yes, your answer was this:

Of course this doesn't apply to every single black person on the planet.

If this is your answer to my questions, then you've made it clear that your assessment is 'baseless". If you cannot include such individuals in your "collective" black entity, then your generalization is without objective merit.

On an additional note, how would you know if I "overlooked" [or what have you] your answer, if this very post you are looking at, was to be my first feedback to the answer in question?

---

I don't know what you are talking about and you are not making any sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

What "valid evidence" you are speaking of. What I said is facts not based on opinions. His question was answered. I don't like talking in circles. Maybe he overlooked the answers or they are invalid because he don't agree with it. I can't help him on that.

---

Firstly, it's best to get in the habit of "directly" addressing people. Secondly, I never sought "help" from you or anyone; I "requested" answers relevant to my specific questions. Thirdly, giving an 'answer' in itself doesn't constitute providing 'correct' or 'relevant" answer. And yes, your answer was this:

Of course this doesn't apply to every single black person on the planet.

If this is your answer to my questions, then you've made it clear that your assessment is 'baseless". If you cannot include such individuals in your "collective" black entity, then your generalization is without objective merit.

On an additional note, how would you know if I "overlooked" [or what have you] your answer, if this very post you are looking at, was to be my first feedback to the answer in question?

---

I don't know what you are talking about and you are not making any sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Oh just cut it out with this "cannot go into specifics" crap. I already gave my specifics, if you cannot grasp that I cannot help you. What I said is true not because I say so but because truth is what it is.

---

You gave specific generalizations.

But you failed to support your beliefs with any valid evidence.

You have not answered the questions Supercar and I asked you which would support your views, which makes your opinion worthless.

---

What "valid evidence" you are speaking of. What I said is facts not based on opinions. His question was answered. I don't like talking in circles. Maybe he overlooked the answers or they are invalid because he don't agree with it. I can't help him on that.

---

Firstly, it's best to get in the habit of "directly" addressing people. Secondly, I never sought "help" from you or anyone; I "requested" answers relevant to my specific questions. Thirdly, giving an 'answer' in itself doesn't constitute providing 'correct' or 'relevant" answer. And yes, your answer was this:

Of course this doesn't apply to every single black person on the planet.

If this is your answer to my questions, then you've made it clear that your assessment is 'baseless". If you cannot include such individuals in your "collective" black entity, then your generalization is without objective merit.

On an additional note, how would you know if I "overlooked" [or what have you] your answer, if this very post you are looking at, was to be my first feedback to the answer in question?

---

I don't know what you are talking about and you are not making any sense.

---

The fault lies on your end; you need to take English lessons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

There is no fault and I still don't know what you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

There is no fault and I still don't know what you are talking about.

---

I can't help you with your reading deficit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

You just didn't make any damn sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
Black people are mentally inferior. It is inherent through behavior of their environment.

---

Enviroment doesn't have a "behavior".

If you are going to call someone else mentally inferior you should be sure to use correct grammar.

Are Whites or anyone else inferior because of their enviroment?

If not why just Blacks? Explain your opinion. Since you talk of inferiority I'm sure you are capable of defending your views.

---

You're too smart for your own good. Never mind my grammar. You was able to read and understand what I wrote. I type fast and I will not proof read. So apart from that, Blacks are mentally inferior because their environment shapes the way they think. People grow up and imitidate what they hear, see, and perceive. Black people don't think or use reasoning. They don't question and are often irrational. They are mentally inferior because their household, school, and neighborhood is surrounded by people who are mentally inferior. There is a reason blacks are easily manipulated and convinced. There is a reason blacks have a gullible passive mind. I don't see these traits in other races. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by flashlight101:
NO PEOPLE ARE NOT LISTENING!!!!!! cAN ANYONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY BLACKS HAVE FAR LOWER I.Qs???????? AND YOU CANT NOT SAY ITS BECAUSE OF THE EVIROMENT

---