Are All Black Americans Racist?

[Lonestar_logic]

Are all Black American Presidents racist?

So far it's just one.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought they called Clinton the first black president.

 

[topspin]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

 

[Wicked Jester]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

Ya mean like these morons?:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8]YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters[/ame]
Which one is you?

LMAO!

 

[lizzie]

G Bush Junior did not have any use for Negro people. He executed Negros at an alarming rate when he was Tsar of Texas. .

Between 2/27/96 and 12/07/2000, death row inmates were executed in the following proportions:
whites: 70
blacks: 43
hispanic: 20
other: 1

The racial demographics of Texas death row inmates is
white: 29.3%
black: 38.8%
hispanic: 30.6%
other: 1.4%

Based on this, is appears that under Bush's governorship, whites were disproportionately executed at a higher rate, relative to their racial demographic representation.

 

[saveliberty]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

This statement could lead to all sorts of false conclusions.

 

[gautama]

I thought they called Clinton the first black president.

Clinton was the "first" black President but he just PRETENDED to be a "Black Racist" President...then....when his wife HELLary locked horns with Obami Salaami for HER bid for the Presidency......Blo Job Billy became the ERSTWHILE "first" black President who just pretended to be a "Black Racist" President.

It's all very wierd & complicated.......yet 1000% true.

Bottom line: probably well over 80% (my estimate) of the Dems are LIEbturds. Add to that the FACT that practically ALL the DEMS are Obamarrhoidal. Result: The DEM PARTY is a QUAGMIRE of UNBELIEVABLE CORRUPTION & WIERDNESS !!!

 

[gautama]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

This statement could lead to all sorts of false conclusions.

Typical Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd ploy to OBFUSCATE & DISTORT.....by a certified Obamarrhoidal LIEbturd stooge, The Tailspin.

 

[loosecannon]

I really don't want to argue with anybody and I really don't want this to turn into flaming/trolling. It's a simple request for discussion.

I really do not want to be a racist and I want to believe that each culture had its accomplishments, victories, failures etc. However, I've been talking to a family member who believes in some form of racial theory or social Darwinism. Basically, they argued that certain cultures/races are superior to others and cited simply looking at each civilisation and their accomplishments. To this I responded that each culture had its period at the top and that it doesn't really indicate anything- i.e. China was more technologically advanced than Europe at one point in history (Japan still is in terms of electronics). Egypt was THE civilisation at one point. The contributions of the Jews are too much to count. The Arabian civilisations had their days of glory. Up until this point, my thought process was clear. However, they conceded the point, but replied that that may be so, but Africans (and Native Americans) never had their point of technological or military might. That these people never built a civilisation.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that this point is correct. However, it did make me think a little bit. Basically, what I'm looking for is either an evolutionary (both biological and sociological) reason why certain civilisations have prospered at given times and examples of the accomplishments of the African civilisation. I certainly don't think the issue has anything to do with race (though it doesn't help that the seemingly most advanced African country was the one run by white people, which irritated me in trying to think of a comeback). It can't, however, be denied that Africa and the Americas have historically been much less technologically evolved than Europe or Asia. Partially, I would blame colonialism, but that still doesn't give the whole story- Europe seems to have been significantly more advanced than Africa before colonialism or the slave trade came about.


TL;DR How do you respond to the argument that African civilisation is less advanced than European civilisation hence proving certain cultures (and races?) are inherently superior to others?


Inb4 shitstorm

Unfortunately not all people are created equal:

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are observed differences in average test score achievement between racial groups, which vary depending on the populations studied and the type of tests used. In the United States, self-identified Blacks and Whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. The Black-White IQ difference is largest on those tests that best represent the general intelligence factor g.[37] Using data primarily from the United States and Europe, Jensen and Rushton have estimated the average IQ of Blacks/Africans to be around 85; of whites/Europeans to be around 100, and of East Asians to be around 106.[38] Estimates from other researchers are more or less similar.[6] Gaps are also seen in other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, including university admission exams, military aptitude tests and employment tests in corporate settings.[39]

The American Psychological Association has concluded that the racial IQ gap is not the result of a simple bias in the content or administration of tests, and the tests are equally valid predictors of achievement for Black and White Americans.[6] Arthur Jensen has found that when black and white individuals are matched for IQ, their relatives tend towards different means.[40][41]

The IQ distributions of other racial and ethnic groups in the United States are less well studied. The few Amerindian populations that have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives,[42][43] tend to score worse on average than White populations but better on average than Black populations.[39] East Asian populations score higher on average than White populations in the United States as they do elsewhere.[29]
International comparisons

The validity and reliability IQ scores obtained from outside of the United States and Europe have been questioned, in part because of the inherent difficulty of comparing IQ scores between cultures.[44][45] Several researchers have argued that cultural differences limit the appropriateness of standard IQ tests in non-industrialized communities.[46][47] In the mid-1970s, for example, the Soviet psychologist Alexander Luria concluded that it was impossible to devise an IQ test to assess peasant communities in Russia because taxonomy was alien to their way of reasoning.[48]

Nevertheless, some reseachers have attempted to measure IQ variation in a global context. According to Richard Lynn, racial differences in IQ scores are observed around the world.[49][50] With several colleagues, Lynn collated IQ data from more than a hundred countries and, using various estimation techniques, reported mean IQ scores for 192 nations. Adopting the ten-category classification scheme of human genetic variation introduced in The History and Geography of Human Genes by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues, Lynn argues that mean IQ varies by genetic cluster, or "race". According to his calculations, the East Asian cluster (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) has the highest mean IQ at 105, followed by Europeans (100), Inuit-Eskimos (91), South East Asians (87), Native American Indians (87), Pacific Islanders (85), South Asians & North Africans (84), sub-Saharan Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), and Kalahari Bushmen & Congo Pygmies (IQ 54). Lynn also argues that IQ differences between these genetic clusters are substantially hereditary, that they have been caused by different evolutionary pressures, and that they explain much of the variation in economic and social development between nations.

These test results may not be perfectly accurate of course. But in many cases very deliberate and careful efforts were engaged to achieve accuracy.

Within the US military and educational systems, where testing is routine and universal, these results have been verified to death.

All people are definitely not created equal. And for good reason. "Diversity" itself is opposed to homogeny. And traits need to be preserved within a species even if they don't promote a survival advantage today. They may tomorrow. when circumstances change.

A diverse gene pool is a strong gene pool.

Sometimes all that matters is whether you can jump.

Sometimes all that matters is whether you can build the first atomic weapon.

Duh! Reality 101! Any fool would have figured it out if they only had a mind set on open.

 

[Londoner]

Jimmy Carter has a 156 IQ, JFK 119, and Ronald Reagan 105.

I wonder how "intelligence" factors into effective action. Does "intelligence" as it is conventionally measured give us the full picture?

 

[loosecannon]

Jimmy Carter has a 156 IQ, JFK 119, and Ronald Reagan 105.

I wonder how "intelligence" factors into effective action. Does "intelligence" as it is conventionally measured give us the full picture?

no. It doesn't measure how high you can jump.

 

[DiveCon]

Jimmy Carter has a 156 IQ, JFK 119, and Ronald Reagan 105.

I wonder how "intelligence" factors into effective action. Does "intelligence" as it is conventionally measured give us the full picture?

i call BULLSHIT

U.S. Presidential IQ hoax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiveCon]

and in case you want to challenge the wiki link

snopes.com: Presidential IQ Hoax

 

[Ringel05]

lol!!

I'm waiting for serious responses.

Don't worry...I'll wait.

Have you considered a career in comedy? This is hilarious! You expect serious responses to such a ludicrous question?!
(I think we can get you booked, leave your card with my secretary.)

 

[California Girl]

What's the difference in hating a person because they're a particular color and loving a person because they're a particular color?

Hating someone because of their skin color is stupid - and can be dangerous (if you're a nutjob). Loving someone because of their skin color is stupid.

Would you say one is more racist than the other?

I would say, in my own view, that hating anyone is stupid. Loving someone is not. Therefore, loving someone because of their skin color is the lesser of the two.

I tend to agree with MLK - let's just consider the 'content of their character'.

 

[California Girl]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

This post tells us one thing.... topspin is a dumbass.

 

[rhet 2]

Racism is just another form of clique identification and entitlement mentation.

KKK: I am white, so I belong to a superior group -- and that entitles me to have a superior amount of money and control over others. Especially that degraded and nasty bunch of Blacks who keep stealing what is MINE by birthright.

Hutu: I am Hutu, so I belong to a superior group -- and that entitles me to have a larger amount of money and control over others. Especially that degraded and nasty bunch of Tutsis who keep stealing what is MINE by birthright.

And the inverse is also a form of group demand for wealth and control:

I am Tutsi. I belong to a group just as good as the Hutu -- and the Hutu have slaughtered and abused MY GROUP -- therefore, I am ENTITLED to TAKE BACK what the Hutu has stolen from me, and CONTROL them for a change, and GET EVEN for all those years of misery and suffering they caused MY GROUP.

I am Mexican. I belong to a group just as good as those nasty, vicious, cruel Anglos. They slaughtered MY GROUP, they STOLE what belonged to MY GROUP -- therefore, I am ENTITLED to TAKE BACK what they stole from MY GROUP, to CONTROL them for a change, and GET EVEN for all those years of misery and suffering they caused MY GROUP.

Reality: it's NOT the group a man was born into that matters a pile of ant shit -- it's the PERSON -- as an individual -- which is significant.

Group Entitlement in endless wars of conquest, each group determined to prove it's own GROUP superiority and RIGHT TO TAKE AND CONTROL the other group

vs.

Individual human achievement NOT as a member or representative of an entire group of people but as a PERSON unique and as different from whatever group claims ownership as every other person in that same group.

A Black who is superior in dance movements should be honored as a dancer -- not as a Black -- individual and purely personal achievement -- because GROUP MEMBERSHIP did not create that talent -- he is not a superior dancer because he's Black and the group did NOT create his talent, nor did it foster his talent, nor did it cause him to achieve mastery over that talent.

A Black who is a superior dentist is NOT A SUCCESS because he is Black -- that claim would be RACISM -- the group claiming ownership of the PERSON and using that dentist to demand control and ENTITLEMENT to take FOR THE GROUP whatever the leaders of the group desire -- the dentist is superior because he is a PERSON, irrespective of whatever group he is or is not identified with.

Obama is NOT proof of the superiority or the equality or the worthlessness of the entire Black Community. OBAMA IS ONE PERSON -- the Black Community DID NOT CREATE Obama, has nothing to do with Obama's success or failure as a PERSON -- the Black kid who just died of an overdose somewhere -- the Black kid who just killed another Black kid in a fight somewhere -- the Black kid who has been up all night writing that damned term paper for that triple-damned prof so she can make another A in another course and someday get into medical school -- the BLACK TRIBE did NOT create them, did not cause their failures, did not cause their successes -- NONE OF IT is a Group Success or a Group Failure -- and Group membership DOES NOT DEFINE the potentialities and talents and value of the White baby that just took its own first breath somewhere in the world.

There's a world of safety in seeing oneself as a member of an entire group -- and a world of self-suppression and obstructionism in that perception as well.

Racism denies individualism -- and it substitutes Group Identity for Personal Identity -- it's a way to deny accountability for personal choices (I can't help it, I'm White, so I'm forced into poverty and crime) and demand ENTITLED privileges (I am entitled because my White tribe is better than your tribe -- or my White tribe has been more abused and picked on and suffered BETTER THAN your tribe) based not on PERSONAL strengths and weaknesses but on GROUP IDENTITY which buries and obscures personal self achievements and failures.

But people are both individuals and members of communities -- every one of us belong to many different -- and sometimes conflicting -- groups.

It's when GROUP identity replaces PERSONAL identity that racism occurs.

And that is a risk that any group based on biological commonalities -- ancestry -- runs.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

G Bush Junior did not have any use for Negro people. He executed Negros at an alarming rate when he was Tsar of Texas. .

Between 2/27/96 and 12/07/2000, death row inmates were executed in the following proportions:
whites: 70
blacks: 43
hispanic: 20
other: 1

The racial demographics of Texas death row inmates is
white: 29.3%
black: 38.8%
hispanic: 30.6%
other: 1.4%

Based on this, is appears that under Bush's governorship, whites were disproportionately executed at a higher rate, relative to their racial demographic representation.

Yukon has been challenged on every claim he made. But just like a cowardly Canadian, he ran and hid. Canadians needs to worry about their own country and stay the hell out of US's business.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

All Klansman do think blacks are racist. And most Klansman didn't go to college like the morons here.

This statement could lead to all sorts of false conclusions.

He's simply speaking from experience.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hating someone because of their skin color is stupid - and can be dangerous (if you're a nutjob). Loving someone because of their skin color is stupid.

Would you say one is more racist than the other?

I would say, in my own view, that hating anyone is stupid. Loving someone is not. Therefore, loving someone because of their skin color is the lesser of the two.

I tend to agree with MLK - let's just consider the 'content of their character'.

The way you dance around a question you should consider going into politics. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.