Africans inferior due to genetics???

[Shinova]

Inferior may be too strong of a word, but that's what someone put forth. Since there have been no notable African civilizations in history, there must be something inside Africans that prevents them from being successful like Europeans or Asians. Hence, a cause of that must be genetics.

This is what I heard from someone (won't say who). Personally I think that person has been wanking and sucking off of his own cock and delusions for nearly all his life. The idiocy that there have been no notable African civilizations is only one of many.


And once again, I think this person has been self-perpetually screwing himself in the head for the last decade. What do you guys think?


(Note: This person also apparently thinks that the environment directly affects genes. At least that's what he seemed to be saying, amongst a bunch of other "incoherent" junk)

[Durandal]

The "scientific studies" which "prove" this ridiculous assertion were debuncked a long time ago, and any recent such studies have been funded by white supremecist groups.

In biology, "race" is a meaningless distinction.

[Montcalm]

What a fucking moron

[The Dark]

Inferior may be too strong of a word, but that's what someone put forth. Since there have been no notable African civilizations in history, there must be something inside Africans that prevents them from being successful like Europeans or Asians. Hence, a cause of that must be genetics.

LOL..."no notable African civilizations?" Egypt doesn't count? Or the Western African empire centered in Mali that was a major world power in the ancient world? Africa had a few decent Empires until they were destroyed by either foreign powers (Egypt) or nature (the one whose name I can't recall, but was known for salt and gold mining...arrgh!). That theory's complete and utter tripe.

[Sea Skimmer]

Inferior may be too strong of a word, but that's what someone put forth. Since there have been no notable African civilizations in history, there must be something inside Africans that prevents them from being successful like Europeans or Asians. Hence, a cause of that must be genetics.

Okay, that's enough bullshit for Skimmer, I don't need to read the rest. Africa had countless civilizations, some quite huge others more modest. Heck, the Zulu's could still field 20,000 warriers in the 1880's.

[Darth Yoshi]

As far as genetics go, Africa is home to a tribe with the largest brain mass of humans living today. I forget the name, but they live in southern Africa, and their brains are comparable to the Cro-Magnon, who had slightly larger brains than us.

[Shinova]

Inferior may be too strong of a word, but that's what someone put forth. Since there have been no notable African civilizations in history, there must be something inside Africans that prevents them from being successful like Europeans or Asians. Hence, a cause of that must be genetics.

LOL..."no notable African civilizations?" Egypt doesn't count? Or the Western African empire centered in Mali that was a major world power in the ancient world? Africa had a few decent Empires until they were destroyed by either foreign powers (Egypt) or nature (the one whose name I can't recall, but was known for salt and gold mining...arrgh!). That theory's complete and utter tripe.

Oh yeah, this person considered the Egyptian civilization to not be African. I believe he considers Egyptians to be more Arabic than African by race.


He also said that Africa is actually pretty abundant in terms of natural resources, good climate, good land for growth, etc.

[Darth Wong]

The myth of European intrinsic superiority drives a lot of white supremacism, and colours most of their perceptions of other parts of the world. Europeans lagged behind the rest of the world through most of history, only achieving a recent upsurge to a brief period of supremacy in the 18th and 19th centuries before virtually self-destructing in the 20th and leaving the door open for the American protege.

It is arguably an accident of history that the Europeans were positioned to take advantage at the right time and with the right combination of environmental factors, and there is certainly no evidence to connect anything with genetics. As Japan showed, it is possible for a seemingly stagnant feudal society to abruptly modernize, seemingly at will. Those who would attribute such things to genetics are merely being idiots.

[HemlockGrey]

No African civilizations?

Mali. Songhai. Ghana. The Swahilian city-states. The Zulu empire.

This person is clearly ignorant of anything remotely resembling history.

[Howedar]

White men can't jump. Blacks are not inferior, but superior.





I am only slightly serious, by the way.

[kojikun]

Black people have more genetic diversity because theyre a much older "race" having not left africa and gotten large numbers of themselves killed thanks to unsuitable climates.

They also never built massive cities in the way Europeans and Asians did, so they stayed more dependent on nature and thus still remained influenced by its laws like natural selection, and also kept quite fit thanks to necessary exercise from hunting, which explains why africans tend to be better then europeans and asians as sports and physical labor.

By all accounts, black people are genetically SUPERIOR.

[Bob McDob]

Lay off Shinova folks, he's just trying to incite discussion

While I will admit that blacks bear a slightly greater physical resemblance to primates (probably because they were the first humans, if I recall), there are many, many nonblacks who have apeish personalities. (And that would be an insult to apes).

The problem with Africa has more to do with its cultural scars from European settlement than with any genetic abnormality. Blacks are subtly taught they are inferior to whites, and many believe it. Those who do not become violent and militant, proudly asserting their "black heritage".

It is my experience that environment, rather than pure genetics, colours one's self.

[Bob McDob]

The Zulu empire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Zulus basically a bunch of thugs who conquered most of south africa before the British invited themselves?

[HemlockGrey]

Well, if you put it that way, so were the Romans.

[kojikun]

The Zulu were a great people. Conquering is often a great thing, as well.

It is how a civilisation acts in itself that is important, now how it acts with other nations. Conquering is a political game, little more. It says nothing of the nation.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I dont think genetics have anything to do with one racial group making it or losing out. I believe it is the "culture" that accompanies that group.

ie) The Chinese lost out when they isolated themselves from the world after building a magnificent fleet that was better than anyone elses.

[kojikun]

The Eunuchs were the ones who ordered the ships burned. Had they not, the Emperors voyages of exploration would have continued and the Americas would be Chinese, not British and Spanish.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

While I will admit that blacks bear a slightly greater physical resemblance to primates (probably because they were the first humans, if I recall)

and in what traits do we resemble primates any more than the melanin deprived? I ask in utter seriousness.

The problem with Africa has more to do with its cultural scars from European settlement than with any genetic abnormality. Blacks are subtly taught they are inferior to whites, and many believe it. Those who do not become violent and militant, proudly asserting their "black heritage".

It is my experience that environment, rather than pure genetics, colours one's self.

here you make sense... too bad you didnt earlier.

[Darth Wong]

Ummmm, since humans are a form of primate, what does it mean for one race to resemble primates more than another?

I think he's probably talking about apes rather than primates, and referring to certain tribes which have more of a sloped forehead (I've seen this myself). Mind you, to characterize all dark-skinned people by such examples is ridiculous, since minor aberrations of that sort can probably be found in every colour-grouping.

In fact, if anything it is the Europeans who most resemble primates, because they're the hairiest. I always found it amusing to hear certain men brag that certain activities will put hair on your chest; I had no idea it was considered a good thing to make yourself look more simian.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

How could genetics be a factor if the genetic difference between blacks and whites is only .0127% (If I read correctly)?

The white supremacy arguments are flawed and illogical (And whenever they turn to crime and education statistics, they're actually "proving" Asian supremacy).

[Master of Ossus]

Inferior may be too strong of a word, but that's what someone put forth. Since there have been no notable African civilizations in history, there must be something inside Africans that prevents them from being successful like Europeans or Asians. Hence, a cause of that must be genetics.

LOL..."no notable African civilizations?" Egypt doesn't count? Or the Western African empire centered in Mali that was a major world power in the ancient world? Africa had a few decent Empires until they were destroyed by either foreign powers (Egypt) or nature (the one whose name I can't recall, but was known for salt and gold mining...arrgh!). That theory's complete and utter tripe.

Egypt was a caucasoid civilization, however its neighbors to the south, the Nubians, were black, as was Mali.

The reasons behind the lack of (apparently) notable African civilizations are numerous, however the lack of immunity to European and Asian diseases, the vast and comparatively untapped wealth of African natural resources, and the lack of domesticated animals made Africa very vulnerable to other groups. More importantly, their geography in Africa did not lend itself to the construction of the kind of civilizations that sprang up in Europe and Asia, and even parts of Central and South America during this time. To criticize an entire ethnic group for the continent that it happened to appear on is to vastly understate the effects of such factors on the progress of "civilization," and is a short-sighted and laughable objection.

[kojikun]

one must wonder, since africa was the first place where iron working became common place (they still use it for jewelry, for fucks sake!) why did hoardes of iron-equipped africans take over Africa like Rome did?

what societal and cultural issues were such that it didnt occur?

[Shaka[Zulu]]

They also never built massive cities in the way Europeans and Asians did

actually, koji that statement about cities isnt true at all. there have been a number of great cities across africa, although most did not endure as long as their asian and european counterparts -- for a number of reasons. many were simply swallowed by the shifting sands of the deserts... others fell into ruin as trade routes shifted over time, or sources of food and water became difficult to access. remember that inland landlocked cities in ancient times were far more transitory than their coastal or tributary counterparts. there are still a number of major cities in sub-saharan africa alone which have a rich histroy dating back a millenia or more.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Ummmm, since humans are a form of primate, what does it mean for one race to resemble primates more than another?

I stand corrected...

[kojikun]

well thats what i mean shaka -- ancient african metropolitan areas never were like european ones, they had little permanency. they also never grew to the scale and numbers that european cities like Rome did. There were a few big ones, but none of such endurance, or numbers.

me personally i think it has to do with the lack of need. in africa theres an abundance of huntable animals, and while this is also true for europe, its also very easy to plant crop and be done with it, while i do not think it is as easy to do this in africa. also theres the nasty wet-dry season thing in the savannas.