White supremacy or prejudice?

Not really worried

woodwater said:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/fowles/500/index.htm

hi this is a long book. Very enlightening about the role of white race in past civilazations and the dangers it faces today. Do you know if there is scientific evidence of what the author says about races?

thanks:D
Click to expand...

with no offense, I am pretty sure (not certain as I do not plan to read this) that the part on America leading the way in Eugenics (definitely scientifically disproven) appearing to be positive strongly suggests the rest is likewise deficient in scientific. Besides which, the explanation of skin color differences (usually the major indicator of racial difference) was settled about ten years ago and mitochondrial RNA has shown single female definitely negroid ancestor for all major groups (a few not yet tested but...).Oh, I am "white" if that actually matters.
 
woodwater said:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/fowles/500/index.htm

hi this is a long book.
Click to expand...

Have you read it? Or do you want someone else to read long books for you and tell you what they mean?

woodwater said:
Very enlightening about the role of white race in past civilazations and the dangers it faces today. Do you know if there is scientific evidence of what the author says about races?
Click to expand...

Oh, you *have* read it, then. Which part in particular did you want evidence for? Be specific. It's tedious to find verifiable evidence for each point in a 60+ chapter book. Especially when the topic is of little interest.

- Timothy
 
Timothy said:
Have you read it? Or do you want someone else to read long books for you and tell you what they mean?

chapters 1,19 and 22



Oh, you *have* read it, then. Which part in particular did you want evidence for? Be specific. It's tedious to find verifiable evidence for each point in a 60+ chapter book. Especially when the topic is of little interest.

- Timothy
Click to expand...
chapters 1,19 and 22
 
woodwater said:
chapters 1,19 and 22
Click to expand...
Sorry, listing three chapters is not being sufficiently specific about which of the dozens of statements in there may or may not have scientific evidence. Choose a statement you're interested in. Ask an actual question.

- Timothy
 
Race is a social construct, not a scientific one.

Consider that the "classic" theory of race places Australian aborigines and African tribesman in the same race, because they both have black skin.

A moment's reflection will tell you that Africans are genetically closer to Europeans than they are to aborigines of either Australia or the New World. And why? Because they are physically closer. Well. Doh.

There are distinct populations of genes distributions; but they are controlled by geography, not skin color.

The stupidity of racial theory is matched only by its venality. Anyone who thinks that the color of a man's skin has anything to do with his character or intelligence has just demonstrated their complete lack of both.
 
Yahzi said:
Consider that the "classic" theory of race places Australian aborigines and African tribesman in the same race, because they both have black skin.

A moment's reflection will tell you that Africans are genetically closer to Europeans than they are to aborigines of either Australia or the New World. And why? Because they are physically closer. Well. Doh.

There are distinct populations of genes distributions; but they are controlled by geography, not skin color.
Click to expand...

You may be right about your larger point (race is a social construct)-- I haven't done much reading in this area but I understand there are reasonable positions on both sides-- but I don't think this illustration is very convincing. By that logic, caucasian Americans would be more closely related to Native Americans than to Europeans. And why? Because they are physically closer. I don't think it's always quite that simple. Of course, I have no idea whether Africans are, in fact, more closely related to Europeans than to Australian aborigines, but I don't think that physical proximity itself is sufficient to answer that question in all cases.
 
It's hard to study race scientifically, since there are no good definitions of who is what race. Are Mexicans white? Real science carefully defines its terms. In modern terminology, a German and an Italian are both "white" people, but back in the 1800's and before, the Germanic and the Mediterranean races were not considered the same race.
 
Yahzi said:
Race is a social construct, not a scientific one.

Consider that the "classic" theory of race places Australian aborigines and African tribesman in the same race, because they both have black skin.

A moment's reflection will tell you that Africans are genetically closer to Europeans than they are to aborigines of either Australia or the New World. And why? Because they are physically closer. Well. Doh.

There are distinct populations of genes distributions; but they are controlled by geography, not skin color.

The stupidity of racial theory is matched only by its venality. Anyone who thinks that the color of a man's skin has anything to do with his character or intelligence has just demonstrated their complete lack of both.
Click to expand...

in case you dont know europe is the only continent that has all blood groups. American indians have 98% O group,and in the far east group O and E are the only groups,and like europeans, Aboriginals are the only ones to have Group A.
So they are also similar to europeans.
The point the author makes is that when a great colonial power begins to mix with non europeans from the colonies, decadence follows. This is what i find strange. Not to mention that science and Historians want to hide racial differences in the name of political correcteness and good race relations, as you can see in the chapter about Portugal,with the fraud by Encyclopedia brittanica.
 
"I question your use of the word "or" in that sentence. Are you suggesting that the two terms have different meanings?"

Prejudice means a preconcieved judgement that is inherently wrong, or a notion held without looking at the facts, at least according to dictionary.com. The author of the post is obviously trying to show that whites are supreme in every way, so TECHNICALLY I guess they would be two different terms for what he's trying to say. However, they aren't, so, yeah, I guess it would be.

Hooray for making myself feel smart.

I read this GREAT book for my anthropology class that argued that all those african tribes would've TOTALLY banded together and put the smack down on the Europeans if they didn't have to deal with the Sahara Desert and other natural barriers that prevented them from trading ideas with other civilizations. Not really sure how valid that is, but it still SOUNDS cool.
 
Okay, Woodwater, I actually read the link you provided about the races mixing in Portugal or whatever. All I can really say is that, if the author is blaming Portugal's disappearance from the world power scene completely on mixed races then he is ignoring a wealth of other historical events that might have had more to do with it. For one thing, in 1755 a tsunami destroyed one third of the population and devastated their capital. Then came the Napoleanic wars, and THEN all sorts of civil war and infighting (or maybe just one, I am cribbing all this information from somewhere else). The point is, Portugal didn't just die out of nowhere and the only traceable causes are mixed races. The damned nation didn't exist in a vaccuum, you know. And, anyway, you know I got all this from Wikipedia? Took me all of five seconds.
 
Nihilanth said:
Okay, Woodwater, I actually read the link you provided about the races mixing in Portugal or whatever. All I can really say is that, if the author is blaming Portugal's disappearance from the world power scene completely on mixed races then he is ignoring a wealth of other historical events that might have had more to do with it. For one thing, in 1755 a tsunami destroyed one third of the population and devastated their capital. Then came the Napoleanic wars, and THEN all sorts of civil war and infighting (or maybe just one, I am cribbing all this information from somewhere else). The point is, Portugal didn't just die out of nowhere and the only traceable causes are mixed races. The damned nation didn't exist in a vaccuum, you know. And, anyway, you know I got all this from Wikipedia? Took me all of five seconds.
Click to expand...

well i m portuguese and i know he is telling the truth. It wasnt the Napoleonic wars, and by the time of the Tsunami we were already a poor country, and we never had a real cicvil war like you had in US.Why isnt the US poor then? You had so many wars and still have.
What the author seems to suggest is that when a country beginsto get mixed, the original ethnic group loses its purpose. The same happened to the Romans, who were actually typical nordic types as the paintings and writings of the time show, and today we see the same trend in Britain,where to simply mention that youre proud of being British means youre a racist. The hell with political correctness. At least in Australia they dont have that.
 
science recently claimed there are no races. I think thats politically correctness at work.
Look at afriacan countries, south american countries with mixed population. Do you see any rich one?
They have more resources than USA but theyre poor and hopelessly inept.
I`m yet to see any of thsese countries functioning properly without white help.
And climate is no excuse. Whites have succeeded in similar climates. Look at Australia
 
First of all, you're making a mistake in assuming that any ethnic group has a "purpose". Or do you honestly think that, for whatever reason, white people have some kind of overarching goal that other races lack? Because that's completely goddamned ridiculous.

Like I said, all I know about Portugal I learned from Wikipedia, so I'm not going to debate history with someone that obviously knows more than me, then. I'll just say that you're going to have to come up with better evidence if I'm going to take what you're saying at all seriously, like perhaps demonstrating reasons why Portugal should have been flourishing when it wasn't? I mean, all you've done is said "the races mixed at this time and then we got poor". Did you look for any other causes?

Anyway, at any rate, did you read what I posted? About the environment being a factor? I don't mean climate. Look, Europe got the way it was because it had a wealth of other civilizations to trade with, resulting in a greater pool of knowledge, ESPECIALLY once they started trading with the Chinese. Even without the Chinese, though, they had a lot of other people to choose from because the land seperating them wasn't as harsh as the Sahara desert and other places in Africa. Tribes in Africa were seperated by jungles with horrible beasties living inside them, scorching deserts, and other factors that favored extreme isolationism over free trade. Overall, the African countries and South American countries you're talking about are lacking one vital resource that most white countries have, and that's a greater pool of knowledge gained at an early time.
 
woodwater said:
well i m portuguese and i know he is telling the truth. It wasnt the Napoleonic wars, and by the time of the Tsunami we were already a poor country, and we never had a real cicvil war like you had in US.Why isnt the US poor then? You had so many wars and still have.
Click to expand...

History isn't something where you can say "Well, these countries both had wars, how come one's alive and the other isn't? It must not have anything to do with the wars, then!" Wars are not all equal. One country having a war does not make it a level playing field with another country having a war. Wars come in all shapes and sizes. Some of 'em build your economy. Some of 'em raze you to the ground and sow the fields of salt.

For example, you blithely state "it wasn't the Napoleonic wars." Can you defend that statement with any facts? On what do you base this conclusion? Everything I google about the Napoleonic wars in Portugal turns up phrases like "scorched earth." Those are hard on a country. The US, by contrast, has never had a scorched earth campaign fought on its own soil, except for the relatively minor (in contrast to the size of the country) march of General Sherman.

However, if you claim that the Napoleonic wars were not responsible for the decline of Portugal, can you back that with any facts or examples?
 
There are cultural and biological differences between people from different races. It's always a taboo to even talk about it. I'd be interested in knowing why **on average** black people living in different conditions (rich or poor countries) tend to be marginalised. Are they genetically and/or culturally predisposed to remain in the lowest strata?

However, I don't believe there is a race better than other, some races do better than others in specific areas. We just tend to focus our attention on few aspects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom