100 Facts

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Big D, Jan 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Big D
    Online

    Big D Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Sadly, I would have to say they are true. They certainly cite many sources at the bottom.

    Beware, you will now be called a racist for simply presenting the facts. Call me a racist all you like, that page is a huge reason why I say whites are simply superior.

    I like fact #100 "FACT #100: The American taxpayers have spent over $2.5 TRILLION trying to upgrade Blacks since the l960's." How far have we come in that time with such substantial assistance? How sad.
     
  3. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Though I cannot disprove most of the facts, the author seems to have made a conclusion that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. With the exception of the section on the brain of black people, which I think has no bearing on intellect and I have heard this theory before. Interestingly enough, I've heard of a similar comparison (heck if I can find my source other to say that I know that it exists) between white's and asian's where asians are found to be mentally superior.

    I completely acknowledge that it would seem that the whites, on the average, on a world wide comparison, are more "civilized" by the standard generally attributed to civilization. However, I would argue that it is due more the sociological and societal differences rather than physical differences. Even in the US, the concept of the "black ghetto" is amazingly predominant with its own urbanized culture. So much so, that it is a shock for me to visit your large urban centres as a Canadian. Only Toronto in Canada and to a very lesser extent Montreal would such areas exist. Its a question of segregation versus intergration.

    A better study would say to take black people that are fully assimilited into our, so called, white Western-American culture and then compare sociological trends. My hypothesis would be that a black person in a suburban, middle-upper income class would perform nearly identical as a white person from the same class.
     
  4. Big D
    Online

    Big D Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    JIMNYC

    What I find that holds these facts to be true, is that if these facts had been written about Whites, the facts would be very easy to disprove.
     
  5. Big D
    Online

    Big D Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Isaac

    I think a good question to ask is:

    What would be the achivements of blacks if they had never came in contact with any other groups of people?
     
  6. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    No I don't think that is the right question as it avoids the socio-economic and environmental factors that spurred the growth of European civilization. From an anthropological perspective, the black tribes of africa were well better suited to their environment in terms of a healthy, prosperous, hunter-gathering culture. While the lack of game, but excellent soil, in the fertile crescent or mesopotamia saw the advancement of technologically based agriculture in order to support a booming population growth, spurring on civilization. A better question would be if you replaced the whites in europe with the blacks in africa, would a similar course of history of advancement happen. I would hypothesize, yes, however the question is a thought problem at bet.
     
  7. r3volut!on
    Online

    r3volut!on Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Priorities and Prospects
    by Noam Chomsky
    http://contemporarylit.about.com/cs/firstchapters/a/hegemony.htm

    A few years ago, one of the great figures of contemporary biology, Ernst Mayr, published some reflections on the likelihood of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

    He considered the prospects very low. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call "higher intelligence," meaning the particular human form of intellectual organization. Mayr estimated the number of species since the origin of life at about fifty billion, only one of which "achieved the kind of intelligence needed to establish a civilization." It did so very recently, perhaps 100,000 years ago. It is generally assumed that only one small breeding group survived, of which we are all descendants.

    Mayr speculated that the human form of intellectual organization may not be favored by selection. The history of life on Earth, he wrote, refutes the claim that "it is better to be smart than to be stupid," at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival. He also made the rather somber observation that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years."

    We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will not be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.

    The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well.
     
  8. r3volut!on
    Online

    r3volut!on Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The reason I post that is to point out the following: If whites, and our superior brains hadn't invented all of this wonderful technology that we have we wouldn't have problems like Weapons of Mass Destruction, environmental pollution, heart diseases caused by "fast food" diets, etc. And wasn't it whites who started mass producing tobacco, a product that kills millions? The list of "wonderful" things we've invented over the years could go on and on. And yeah, I'm aware that we've also invented a lot of great things. But we've invented some seriously terrible things too. Atomic bombs. Chemical weapons. Nuclear warheads. The Big Mac.

    Native Africans may not be the most vibrant intellectuals, (and I believe even that can be argued) but they at least know how to survive and how to live more in harmony with their environment.

    It's the white man that will destroy the world.

    Aren't we proud of ourselves.
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    BWAAhahaHAhahAhaHhaAA!!!!! :laugh:

    Did you just say blacks know how to live in harmony? Have you ever been to Harlem? The Bronx? NYC? Trenton? Camden? Detroit? Compton? LA? Atlanta? Yeah, they sure are a harmonious bunch! :rolleyes:

    And yes, I am EXTREMELY proud not to be like the FACTS presented in the original article. It reminds me that even though I am surrounded by degenerates and animals that I have risen beyond their disgusting ways of life.
     
  10. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    I have to admitt I agree wholeheartedly with you. I do so with one main point supporting your thesis in mind. In anthropology it is called appropriate technology . That's to say a technology that is developped that betters ones rapport with their environment in order to promote healthy sustainable growth. Examples over the vast span of years would be slash and burn agriculture, selective forest harvesting, recycling, solar and wind power.

    If you isolated both communities ie, our advanced western culture and indigenous cultures and let them run their course, an indigenous culture would be able to sustain itself almost indefinitely since it has developped sustainable technology to support its growth. Examples can be seen time after time in history when indigenous cultures adapted our western technologically based societal values and failed outright. It has also shown that "civilization" is volitile and large powers will undoubtably collapse because their critical mass exceeds what it can support. Examples of failed western-style states (not necessarily european) that had reached their critical mass:

    1. Roman Empire
    2. Ottoman Empire
    3. United Kingdom
    4. Timurid Empire
    5. Golden Horde
    6. Easter Island Kingdom

    Examples of sustainable cultures that have existed relatively the same for more than 5000 years:

    1. Native american culture
    2. Polynesia
    3. Savannah tribes of central-southern africa
    4. Lappland tribes of northern finnland, norway and russia.


    I dare anyone to find one "civilized" society that has existed in its current form for more than 5000 years. I guaruntee you will not find any.

    The main point is that a conclusion that western society is superior to indigenous cultures cannot be drawn based on facts relating to a "conquered" people. To do so id anthropologically irresponsible and the more I look at those facts, the more I see the flaw in the approach rather than the facts themselves.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page