Africans inferior due to genetics???

[Shaka[Zulu]]

There is only one human race and we are it, I hate the racist retards who claim the black and brown and what have you races are inferior.

Dumb fucks, learn some science for once, humans are polymorphic, not polytypic.

Genetics does not dictate civilisation, memetics does.

my sentiments exactly... thats why its gotten down to discussion of culture instead -- come to think of it every thread here that starts off with genetics and civilization drops the genetic part really quick

[kojikun]

thats not quite true koji, as my paternal ancestry (dad's parents & other family members) came over here as hired servants (not indentured in any way) to a wealthy british family from Nigeria, the realtionship ended in the bahamas and my dad's parents emigrated from the bahamas to D.C., where my dad was born. My mom just happens to be Polish.

They actually hired black people back then? Holy shit thats news to me. Didn't think there were any people smart enough to not rampage africa with a gun.

btw shaka, the Khoisan are pre-divergence and have characteristics typical of africans, caucasians, and orientals all in one. They are probably the oldest group of people on the planet and are without doubt the direct descendents of the first modern humans, and ancestors to all of mankind.

[Bob McDob]

There is only one human race and we are it, I hate the racist retards who claim the black and brown and what have you races are inferior.

Dumb fucks, learn some science for once, humans are polymorphic, not polytypic.

Genetics does not dictate civilisation, memetics does.

*ponders pulling out SPEAK ENGLISH OR GET THE FUCK OUT sign*

[Master of Ossus]

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

and where oh where do you get this? or have you merely fallen into the trap laid by the colonial europeans over the last few centuries... I suggest you take a closer look at dynastic era heiroglyphs, artwork etc -- in particular the scarcophagi... those are most definitely NOT the features of the typical caucasoid! The Idea of the ancient egyptian civilization being caucasoid was put forth by colonial era egyptologists (and their backers) who could not bring themselves to consider the idea that one of the greatest societies to ever exist was built by anyone else. the idea simply refuses to die because the modern egyptians have been so mixed up in the last 2-3000 years with everybody else ranging from the greeks, romans, & arabian hordes (which eventually colonized spain) to the later european colonialists that they no longer really resemble the original dynastic founders.

What are you talking about? They're clearly Arabic peoples (ie. caucasoid). There were only a few dynasties with black African rulers, and all of those were from Nubia following a Nubian conquest of Egypt. The vast majority of paintings of the Egyptian court depict comparatively light-skinned peoples, despite the fact that the Egyptians DID create representations of peoples with darker skin when creating images of Nubians and other people from the South.

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.

all untruths... I can tackle them point by point if necessary, but the level of ignorance of history above renders such dissection unnecessary.

Are you ignoring geography as a factor in the development of human civilization? All that I talk about in that entire paragraph is what natural resources and random geographic problems helped to discourage African civilizations from growing. Sure, there were exceptions to the "rule," and those have been underrepresented in European historical circles, but to ignore the influence of geography on the growth and development of civilization is to neglect an important and undeniable link between social sciences.

[Master of Ossus]

Timbuktu... Benin... Ife... Idoma... Kano... to name but a few that survive to this day.

And yet none of them spawned nations of equal magnitude to european and asian cities. you have to admit, timbuktu, while being the center of learning and economy during its time, was no Rome or London. There were no grand armies of Timbuktu, or anything remotely like the kingdoms and empires of european and asian hsitory. Africa, for some reason, never made it past typical iron age levels of civilisation until it was forced.

Actually, Timbuktu was far wealthier than London was throughout most of history. A better parallel would be Beijing.

[Master of Ossus]

3. Lack of ability to unite the varying tribes, even when it became clear that it was important for them to band together.

This is the single most important reason for the "underdevelopment" of Africa, every war between Africans can be, at it focus point, be pinned down to tribal wars.
Examples? Angola, Zaire, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, South Africa, Senegal, Guiné-Bissau, Congo, Biafra...

Even behind official sounding names, there is always a tribe in control, and their confrontations result almost always in extremes of violence that we, "westerners" would deem savage, but to them, is quite normal.

Exactly. Even today there are various wars going on between different tribes in Africa. Look at Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even the comparatively modern Nigeria and Cameroon. In all of those nations, there has been massive social upheaval following their independence that has largely been the result of tribal infighting.

[Master of Ossus]

Seriously, I'm amazed this thread exists.

Everything Shinova's correspondant said was absolute complete bollocks. The end.

You could wipe out EVERY SINGLE non African race, and over 80% of the black African people, with absolutely no genetic loss. Every single gene present outside Africa is present on that continent. The is no such thing as genetic superiority.

And, while I'm not an archaeologist (at least not in the post-pleistocene sense) everything I've seen from ancient Egypt confirms what Shaka says - the likenesses do not look Caucasian in the slightest.

Shinova's correspondent was so obviously wrong that the thread rapidly moved beyond this. Right now it is more a discussion of what combination of factors lead to the development of western-style civilizations, and what obstacles Africa has faced that have tended to make its civilizations less substantial than the super-massive ones in China, Rome, and other parts of the Far East, and what factors have led to a marginalization in the West of the African civilizations that HAVE grown up in places like Nubia, Mali, Ghana, Songhai, etc. etc. etc.

However, Egyptians were NOT black Africans. At least, the majority of their civilization wasn't throughout the majority of their history. They appear to be a caucasoid race--even in the artwork that they drew to depict themselves.

[kojikun]

ossus, wealth is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. sure, Timbuktu has gold coming out the wazoo and all, but where are the aqueducts and colloseums and grand forums?

Timbuktu was built of mudbrick and wood, Rome was built of hewn stone. Theres no denying that Timbuktu couldn't even come close to even ancient Egypt in terms of advances.

And whats worse is that the height of Timbuktu's power came in the middle ages to early renaissance, nearly 5 millenia after the beginnings of egypt and 2-3 millenia after Egypt's height.

Africa simply never made it very far in the game of civilisation, not in the same ways europe and asia did.

[Master of Ossus]

ossus, wealth is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. sure, Timbuktu has gold coming out the wazoo and all, but where are the aqueducts and colloseums and grand forums?

I would argue that Timbuktu was VASTLY more culturally developed than London until AT LEAST the late renaissance in Europe. Prior to that time, London was a dump that lacked all of these features.

Timbuktu was built of mudbrick and wood, Rome was built of hewn stone. Theres no denying that Timbuktu couldn't even come close to even ancient Egypt in terms of advances.

I'm not arguing that Timbuktu was more advanced than Rome. I'm saying that it was more developed and wealthier and culturally more advanced than London was until fairly recently. I'm also arguing that it was not as advanced, powerful, etc. as Beijing has been throughout much of that city's history.

And whats worse is that the height of Timbuktu's power came in the middle ages to early renaissance, nearly 5 millenia after the beginnings of egypt and 2-3 millenia after Egypt's height.

I hardly see that the time frame a civilization peaks at also affects how spectacular that civilization was (except, of course, in the sense that you can only have so many great civilizations in the same area at the same time, and that these require "feeder" civilizations and that sort of thing).

Africa simply never made it very far in the game of civilisation, not in the same ways europe and asia did.

I primarily agree with you, however I still don't agree with your original statement that Timbuktu was not as powerful as London.

[Superman]

Hey guys, the differences in our "races" (a term that I hate) lays in the different genetic expressions that we possess. These differences are so small that they do not even warrant putting any race into a subspecies category.

The differences between ALL of us lie in our CULTURE. It's that simple folks.

You could probably read just about any textbook on the subject of anthropology and confirm this.

[Superman]

Shinova, also I must correct you. Before the arrival of the Europeans into Africa, there were three large African Empires that many civilizations recorded. You may want to look these things up before you make these statements. Off the top of my head, I can only remember the name of one of the African empires. It was called "Male" or "Malay."

[Master of Ossus]

Hey guys, the differences in our "races" (a term that I hate) lays in the different genetic expressions that we possess. These differences are so small that they do not even warrant putting any race into a subspecies category.

Duh.

The differences between ALL of us lie in our CULTURE. It's that simple folks.

AND on our geography, though perhaps indirectly since geography affects culture. That's all that's going on, here.

[Superman]

Thanks for being a smart ass, Master. Maybe I should confirm these things with you before I post?

[fgalkin]

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.

Heck, the Zulu's could still field 20,000 warriers in the 1880's.

Are you sure you don't mean 200,000?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Coyote]

The book "The Bell Curve" supposedly proved African to be inferior; it is pseudoscience like the Nazi's measuring of skulls ot determine intellectual capacity. Incidentally, the Ethiopian Empire is one of the few civilizations that never fell to European colonization, until the 1930's use of gas by the Italians, something of an unfair advantage...

[Shaka[Zulu]]

btw shaka, the Khoisan are pre-divergence and have characteristics typical of africans, caucasians, and orientals all in one. They are probably the oldest group of people on the planet and are without doubt the direct descendents of the first modern humans, and ancestors to all of mankind.

well, thats news to me (honest... I didnt know that ). if that's what you meant by the pre-caucasoid founders of ancient egypt, I find myself in total agreement. Of course, that also means pre-asian/semitic/etc...

anyway, my dad's side of the family came over here sometime around 1900, so slavery definitely wasnt a factor.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

What are you talking about? They're clearly Arabic peoples (ie. caucasoid). There were only a few dynasties with black African rulers, and all of those were from Nubia following a Nubian conquest of Egypt. The vast majority of paintings of the Egyptian court depict comparatively light-skinned peoples, despite the fact that the Egyptians DID create representations of peoples with darker skin when creating images of Nubians and other people from the South.

what criteria are you using to determine the ehnicity? simply lighter skin isnt sufficient -- koji & I have come to agree that they were most likely a pre-divergence group (or something close) like the Khoisan, who embodied a wider range of physical traits (bonewise) than any post-divergence group like the caucasoids or semitic peoples -- unless you have evidence of a pre-egyptian migration of caucasoids back to africa. Skin pigmentation in the range exhibited by the Khoisan would also have been more appropriate for the climate than that of the caucasoids.

damn I hate classifying people into fictional sub-taxonomic groups like this, but it is necessary to acknowledge the differences in order to better fight the misconceptions.

Are you ignoring geography as a factor in the development of human civilization? All that I talk about in that entire paragraph is what natural resources and random geographic problems helped to discourage African civilizations from growing. Sure, there were exceptions to the "rule," and those have been underrepresented in European historical circles, but to ignore the influence of geography on the growth and development of civilization is to neglect an important and undeniable link between social sciences.

I'm not ignoring geography, but looking to reduce or prevent the exaggeration of its' influence -- it can only help or hinder a culture to a certain extent (barring natural disaster). Having said that, it is the overall mindset of a culture *edit* influnced by geography *end edit*, and that of its' individual people that drives advancement.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Egypt was definitely a caucasoid culture from the start - I mean, come on, Ramses the Great was a redhead, we don't need to settle for paintings, we can go for mummies, and they're all of basically semitic people from the very start.

North Africa has always been Berber, or essentially Arab. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region which is black, along with the Horn of Africa. The horn was colonized in part by semitic peoples but we don't have a good idea for the date or the extent of the penetration.

Anyway, Nubian civilization was definitely black, and there was heavy cross-polinization with Egyptian civilization. The two were functionally equal; the Nubians, if anything, were just smarter and didn't waste money on massive Pyramids.

Ethiopia's first great civilization was the Axumite Empire, which was counted as one of the six greatest Empires in the world at its time, dominated the Hejaz and Yemen along with the whole horn of Africa, and controlled the sea trade to India, making it enormously wealthy. It also might have actually had colonies in India and further south along the African coast though that's debateable.

It converted to Eastern or Monophysite Christianity - The variant of which is practiced in Ethiopia today is led by the Abyssinia Church - and has stayed that way since. They built massive Obelisks early on, always had impressive cities - they went through hard times during the Muslim jihad, but they had strong fortified cities in their medieval period, and with the alliance of the Portugese briefly regained the coast just to have the Ottomans retake it. Finally the Italians came in from Eritrea and they crushed them at the battle of Adowa in the 1890s in one of the most humiliating defeats for a western army in the history of the colonial age, just to lose in the 1930s when going up against tanks, gas, and airplanes with a mix of shields, spears and swords, clubs, and some 19th century vintage rifles.

The Empire was reestablished postwar, eventually fell thanks to the autocratic tendencies of the last Emperor, and the Republic that followed has gone through various permutations. It's one of the longest lasting civilizations around. Africa and Africans are hardly incapable of achievement when you consider that, and anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot and probably a racist.

[Peregrin Toker]

Egypt was definitely a caucasoid culture from the start - I mean, come on, Ramses the Great was a redhead, we don't need to settle for paintings, we can go for mummies, and they're all of basically semitic people from the very start.

Actually, Ramses was a Libyan mercenary who had some good connections to the royal family, and this way he became king.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Egypt was definitely a caucasoid culture from the start - I mean, come on, Ramses the Great was a redhead, we don't need to settle for paintings, we can go for mummies, and they're all of basically semitic people from the very start.

Actually, Ramses was a Libyan mercenary who had some good connections to the royal family, and this way he became king.

You'd be referring to Ramses I, founder of the 19th Dynasty. I was referring to Ramses II the Great. There probably would have been some marriage with the Egyptian nobility to solidify their position before the house of Ramses I attained the Dynastic position and adopted the..... Royal peculiarity of Egypt.

[InnerBrat]

Hey guys, the differences in our "races" (a term that I hate) lays in the different genetic expressions that we possess. These differences are so small that they do not even warrant putting any race into a subspecies category.

You'd be an Eden Hypothest, then?

[Peregrin Toker]

Hey guys, the differences in our "races" (a term that I hate) lays in the different genetic expressions that we possess. These differences are so small that they do not even warrant putting any race into a subspecies category.

You'd be an Eden Hypothest, then?

But what the heck is an "Eden Hypothist??"

[Shinova]

Shinova, also I must correct you. Before the arrival of the Europeans into Africa, there were three large African Empires that many civilizations recorded. You may want to look these things up before you make these statements. Off the top of my head, I can only remember the name of one of the African empires. It was called "Male" or "Malay."

Look, those stupid assumptions I posted; they're not from me. They're from someone else.

[Darth Gojira]

The original Egyptians were probably what Caucasians probably first looked like before they moved north and became white.

[InnerBrat]

Hey guys, the differences in our "races" (a term that I hate) lays in the different genetic expressions that we possess. These differences are so small that they do not even warrant putting any race into a subspecies category.

You'd be an Eden Hypothest, then?

But what the heck is an "Eden Hypothist??"

Superman knows what I mean...
(and so am I, BTW)