Don't call me a racist until you read the whole OP

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by kj6754

 

That's almost an accurate portrait of most of Africa.

I never said the slaves were the lucky ones. Today's black American descendants of slaves are.

*SNIP*

Have you ever been to Africa or are you judging an entire continent based on news coverage in the 80's and 90's of famine and war?

No, Africa is not perfect. Yes, there are many problems there. But then again there are problems everywhere. Take a look closer to home first...

Africa is a continent with 53 countries in it. Of those 53, some are probably not great places to visit, some are developing and modernising at increasingly rapid rates, some are beginning to prosper. There are many different cultures and standards of living in Africa, yet for some reason many "Westerners" remain under the false impression that it's just one big drought plain with starving kids and men with AK-47's running around.

MOST OF AFRICA IS NOT LIKE THAT.

Get that in to your thick *SNIP* skulls please.

MOD NOTE:Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

[edit on 18-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by SkitzoFrenic


Again, claiming that whites by nature are smarter than blacks is racist by definition.

Personally I think those who espouse racist views like this should come out and say "I am a racist" instead of pumping out a lot of ridiculous double-talk.

If you believe that one race is by nature genetically superior or inferior to another, you're a racist, no if's and's or but's.

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by SkitzoFrenic

 

Again, claiming that whites by nature are smarter than blacks is racist by definition.

Personally I think those who espouse racist views like this should come out and say "I am a racist" instead of pumping out a lot of ridiculous double-talk.

If you believe that one race is by nature genetically superior or inferior to another, you're a racist, no if's and's or but's.

Ok...now I will chime in. If by superior you mean that it is impossible for one race to be better in everything than another...I tend to agree when speaking of humans. However, if you say one race is better at something, than another...that isn't racist. That is (or can be) a fact. When you look at the build, history and evolution of any creature, some were built (or evolved) to be faster while others evolved to be slower but more clever.

If, as an example of another species, you look at dogs...some are better at some things than others. This is natural and, if you are strictly speaking of a guard dog, you can honestly say a Rottweiler is "better" than a Poodle.

The people who yell "RACIST" so quickly would serve this world better to realize that every person, and many races ARE better at certain things and not be so quick to try to follow that impossible "everyone is the same" mentality. It isn't true in nature, and therefore, isn't true for humans. We are all animals...as much as you may wish it weren't so.

Humans are not divided into separate subspecies - humans, being a relatively new species, actually have far less genetic diversity than most species in the animal kingdom.

Minor inherited variations do exist among humans, it's silly to deny that - but human inheritance is nowhere nearly as simple as the outmoded idea of "race." For example there is no such thing as a "black" or "African" race - there are three distinct genetic lineages in Africa.

As has been pointed out on ATS already, the modern idea of "race" itself - that humans are comprised of a few discrete & exclusive subspecies - is only about 400 years old, not coincidentally as arguments about the morality of African slavery began in Western societies.

Genetic studies have already consigned simplified ideas about race to the historical dustbin - along with phrenology and the luminiferous aether

xmotex...your information is enlightening. However, I assume you would agree that any people, brought up in different circumstances and places, evolve (even in the simplest ways) to be better at what their environment requires of them to survive and, that those traits are passed down in genetics over generations. Or am I off base here? Or...do you believe such "learned traits" only continue when the environment, parents and communities continue to teach such practices.

In other words, do you think the offspring of generations of "great hunters" (as an example) pass on some of that ability (better eye-sight etc.) or are those abilities only learned...therefore...if you removed an infant from such an environment and community, they would not receive those traits?

And...(boy this is getting interesting) would the offspring of two creative people not yield a, more likely, creative child? Or again...would that creativity only manifest via the parent's involvement?

whoa whoa hold on
dont you guys see teh huge bright green letters on teh top fo the forum page taht says
"Racism is for Ignorant Fools"
the even capitalized Ignorant Folls.
that being said, this thread is entirely racist.

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
It's not racist to talk about race.

It is the genetic make-up that means black people have an advantage, as they have greater muscle mass. However, a disadvantage is that black people can't swim due to denser bones.

It is utterly ridiculous to use Moussambani's time from the 2000 Summer Olympics to reinforce claims that black people cannot swim as well as white people, because of some inherent difference.

Out of context, that video shows one thing, but when you see the following, your perspective may change entirely:

"Before coming to the Olympics, Moussambani had never seen a 50 m (160 ft) long Olympic-size swimming pool. He took up swimming only eight months before the Olympics and had practiced in a 20 m (66 ft) pool at a hotel in Malabo."

Also, four years later, his time in the 100m had improved massively as a result of his personal practice in the event, and by the time of the 2004 Olympics, his personal best was under 57 seconds.

Originally posted by MysterE
I have thought about posting this theory for a while now, but out of fear of being called a racist I have refrained from doing so. Maybe it's the empty bottle of Coppola that has given be the bravado to do so, but whatever it is, here I go.

It is no secret that African American men and women have dominated sports ever since they have been allowed to play along the white man and women.
...
...
So, what do you think, has slavery actually benefited todays African American in a way?

-E-

Glad you noticed however don't feel left out people.

I have studied people for a while as an observer as I tend to see movements, habits and traits in people that I would probably miss if I just idled along without taking a proper look.

White skinned people tend to be very rugged and can cope with harsh weathers and tend to thrive in areas others would not. I have also found caucasians tend to face difficult situations more often, probably due to evolving and conditioning from living in harsher climates.

Africans do have some remarkable traits that tend to point towards people who have evolved to become 'performance humans', able to function in situations that require the body to exceed it's normal abilities.

Orientals tend to be more supple and fluid lending themselves well to martial arts, they mimic the behavior of water, flowing gently in a stream but able to focus and become a formidable strength like a raging river.

Middle Eastern and most other Asian varieties like south americans to Indian and Persian people tend to have the traits of all other other more focused and precise human bodies such as Africans and caucasians, tending to be a blend hence the tend to demonstrate more creative and emotional (empathic) abilities.

Remember we are only a result of our environment, evolving all the time to adapt to the situation at hand.

Certain people tend to go beyond the obvious and not so obvious limitations (man made or natural) where they will condition and evolve their bodies to a point that they excel and master whatever challenge they have tried to complete.

People like Bruce Lee had instinctive genetic knowledge and foundations that allowed people like him to become in total control of their situation (in his case he knew the martial arts biology better than anyone).

Then you have the great creative geniuses of the past like Tesla who was able to develop his mind and access knowledge that people had no awareness off - thus able to produce thoughts and ideas that were far beyond anything at the time (and Teslas work is still yet to be discovered).

Boundaries are only created by those that are not willing to accept differences in the world they see, and equally those that are not willing to see symmetry in the world around them. - People who tend to fall in this category are the ones you see and hear who promote division, hierarchy and hatred in the form of racism and ultimately the machinations of WAR.

If you have any more observations please share them, about time we started taking notice of each other instead of the next big shiny object we want but don't need.

'An Old God Waiting...'

reply to post by Stylez

Hey Stylez, sorry for bumping up a month old topic, but this is my first time seeing it. When will I get rich and what's my future wife's name?

Just wondering.

Thanks!

Originally posted by MysterE


I want to add the disclaimer that I AM NOT A RACIST. I have many African American friends, as well as friends of all races. I am simply trying to logically deduce a statistical anomoly.

So, what do you think, has slavery actually benefited todays African American in a way?

-E-

Do you have any Aborigine friends,for example?
In the Olympics, it seems to me that the athletic events are dominated by African inc. African American, Black British, African Caribbean etc people.
Probably 100s of years adapting to live in Africa has a huger effect than 300? years of living in USA, Barbados etc

reply to post by MysterE



Star and Flag!
I have held this idea for many years now. I was just about to make a thread correlating African American Slavery, Eugenics, and Selective Breeding with Athleticism and Sportsmanship.

Let's face the truth; slavery happened. These African slaves were considered sub-human by the "white man." The slave traders and slave masters wanted to optimize their product [slaves], and they did this through eugenics and selective breeding. Just as mankind breeds animals and plants to manifest desirable traits, so to was the principle during slavery. They bred the slaves to be strong. A strong male was forced to breed with strong females. Weak males were not allowed to breed. Females were chosen based on both their physical strength and their ability to produce as many offspring as possible. As a result, today we have the descendants of the slaves dominating the physically demanding sport professions.

The evidence for slave-time eugenics and selective breeding in correlation to athleticism is evident in the statistics. If African Natives are equally on par athletically to African Americans, why aren't Native Africans scouted and brought to America? Baseball does it with the Puerto Ricans and Japanese! Soccer scouts all around the world. If Native Africans are just as good in sports as African Americans, why aren't African nations dominating the Olympics other than running? Consistently and on average, Native Africans, Whites, Asians, Arabs, or Hispanics can not compete with the African Americans in Football, Basketball, and Boxing.

From this thread I guess society isn't really ready to debate this topic without jumping the gun to racism.

reply to post by Sahabi

These African slaves were considered sub-human by the "white man."

I'm appalled by your racist comment. So it was only the "white man" who was responsible for the disgusting practice of slavery?

What about the 3,000 or so BLACK slave owners in the United States?

Did the BLACK African men that captured their fellow countrymen for slavery consider their fellow countrymen "sub-human"?

Slavery is evil, but don't start blaming one race over another, that's pretty ignorant to history.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm appalled that you found that appalling. If my statement was not true, why did the WHITE government (at the time) of the United States not give equal rights or the right to vote to blacks? Why segregation to the point of drinking fountains, and forcing blacks to give up bus seats, and even making blacks walk in the street when whites were using the sidewalk? Because whites considered blacks as sub-human! There was even debate amongst the WHITE government as to was a black man a man, or did the Declaration of Independence and Constitution give rights to men of all colors or just the white man.

In regards to black slave owners and black slave traders, they did it for the money. They did not do it for the sake of their fellow blacks being sub-human, because it would mean they themselves were subhuman. They sold and traded their own kind akin to Judas Iscariot.

These black slave traders and owners were still not allowed to vote, still were refused entry to certain businesses, still had to give up their bus seats, and still had to walk in the street gutter when whites used the sidewalks.

I am appalled that you attack me for stating the facts surrounding the white founders of the U.S. They made the policies and debates, not me.

reply to post by Sahabi


So are you talking about "segregation" or 'slavery"? Your post was about slavery, not segregation. That was just as wrong as well, but I took offense to your claim that it was just the white man's embarrassment.

No, slavery in the U.S. was not the fault of one particular race of people.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No. The point was "sub-humanism." Slavery was practiced all over the world. But it was the whites that went as far as to consider the entire race as sub-human. Arabs, Africans, and Asians all had slaves at some time, but it was only the white man that treated "colored" slaves and "colored" freemen as the same. Arabs, Africans, and Asians held slaves on an individual level, or as a conquest of war, but they didn't treat all people as sub-human, only the particular slaves. To the white man it did not matter if one was free or if one was a slave.... a black was sub-human and had no rights, no protection, and no equality even if he was a free man.

If the subject offends or embarrasses you so much, then keep pretending like it all never happened. While you're at it go burn all of the books dealing on the subject. Go rewrite history and make everyone forget the truth. I'm not espousing racism, I'm simply stating what happened in history.

If you are going to keep arguing a false point and inaccuracies, I will not engage you on this subject any further. The thread is about correlating eugenics and selective breeding during slavery to create a more physically strong human. If you have nothing to add besides inaccurate argument based on emotion, I am done debating you.

reply to post by Sahabi

No, slavery in the U.S. was not the fault of one particular race of people.

What I stated above is still accurate.

reply to post by MysterE


Since we have no data before said 1970s then we couldn't know for sure if it was indeed a trait they always carried (hence the reason they were chosen for slavery)? We could not know for sure.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Now you are picking and choosing your arguments. Ignoring parts of the argument to focus on other points that you can still try to argue. This is typical of letting emotions blind you.

Your original argument was concerning my words: These African slaves were considered sub-human by the "white man." Prove to me and provide evidence that the "white man" during slave times only treated "colored" slaves as sub-human. Prove to me the "white man" treated freemen of color with equality and freedom. If you can not, then please stop debating the point.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Is it not valid to compare the African American with Native Africans to determine this? To compare the strength and physical performance of African Americans that were descendants of slaves to Native Africans that never endured forced selective breeding.

reply to post by Sahabi


Yes that would certainly give us an answer. Has this been done?
Then we would see if it was just a genetic trait they'd always had.