It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where do the primitive white cultures live?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by JustCurious1

Brief knowledge and rich ignorance indeed.
Slavory was common among all cultures. African tribes would kidnap neighboring tribes and sell to the slave traders. Egyptians had slave armies. The bible discusses proper care of ones slave. India etc. etc.

Slaves everywhere. The "White Man" was a late comer to that game.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:18 PM
im sure theres got to be a few. race separation is a big tool the govt. uses. maybe theyre trying to show that the white man is more evolved than the other races. more civilized. im not a racist or anything but its just a possibility. its one of those subliminal things they could quite easily do because they do control everything we see and read nowadays. of course they'll never directly say it but they would let us come to that conclusion.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by EternalChef

Well, "White" is very subjective. Technically Arabs are Caucasian at least in genomic classifications.
Also.. "Primitive". If the question is more living in straw huts-I dare say there are none anymore. The spread of the holy roman empire basically subjugated all Europe under a banner that led the next few centuries.

Europe is relatively small and easy to reach to spread ideas and trade. Its not like a jungle where a village might be separated by poisonous animals and extremely difficult terrain.

There are sects such as the Amish who voluntarily live in a subdued technological level-roughly equivalent to the 1700s. No electricity or motors etc. They hand build everything. But they are aesthetic and or religious. Not because of a reduced culture level-if that makes sense.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:33 PM
Primitive or advanced... in attainment of spirit? or in the practice of subjugation and expoitation of others?

I do a menial job now , but I write music and soar into the world of Gods, in my spare time.

Loosen your yoke if only just a small turn....its all inside...somewhere inside.


posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:36 PM
The Amazigh (Berbers) were in North Africa as long as 70,000 years. They are tribal people, but herders and mostly white.

Europe was uninhabitable many times over the last 70,000 years. perhaps 35,000 years ago People migrating North from Africa stumbled upon indigenous white people (living a safe distance away from Neanderthals). Even 5000 years ago people with 16,000 years of civilisation stumbled on hunter gatherers, but I doubt they would exist anywhere near migratory corridors.

I think for the main part white people are white because of civilisation, living indoors, clothed and out of the sunlight. In fact if a bunch of white people in my country (Australia) decided to form a tribe, strip off and live off the land without housing etc, it wouldn't take more than 50 generations until they were all black.
edit on 5-1-2011 by squandered because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by EternalChef

You are right. Divide and conquer it's the socialist way.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by LUXUS

No it's be because neuroscience and pyschology have evolved. For the last 15 years nobody takes I.q. Seriously.

Iq can be changed

IQ isnt discussed because its related to race.
IQ cant be changed very much.
Lord knows I cant change mine. I was sure planning from a
very early age to be the next Einstein. Didnt happen. I ended
up as smart as my father and mother. My cousin, whose mother
was in the near genius range,flew a helicopter for the coast guard, ended up working for Microsoft and as a computer professor,my other cousin whose father had
a PHd, ended up an MD. My mothers brother married a somewhat disturbed lady and produced a somewhat disturbed
child with no genius IQ. My sister and brother ended up like
The really pitiful thing is that with very simple selective breeding
it should be possible to create a human race of healthy,geniuses with multiple talents in the arts.
Education is not the answer. Every year the teachers and schools are blamed for the 50% dropout rate of X,and Y groups
that have an average IQ of 85.
How will these people compete against China with an average IQ of 105?
We wont.

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by LUXUS

That is THE definition of racism. Superiority by genes you should be ashamed of yourself.

And thats just PC terrorism
which explains your position.
edit on 5-1-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:01 AM
I think that in this thread there are a lot of people who doesn't understand the difference between primitive, simple and poor.

There are groups who choose to live simple, that doesn't mean they are primitive people.

There are groups who are poor, that doesn't mean they are primitive people.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Some great Daniel Quinn quotes on tribalism:

There is always a hierarchy.
Its called sexual selection.
That drives evolution.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

That's really interesting. I knew the Irish were treated like garbage back in the day, but I didn't know that it was that bad or that they were actually slaves at one point alongside the "African Americans". I would like to study this further. Do you have any reading materials to suggest?

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:52 AM

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Some great Daniel Quinn quotes on tribalism:

There is always a hierarchy.
Its called sexual selection.
That drives evolution.

Care to elaborate...?

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by LUXUS

Also there are massive differences in races, not genetically but terms of IQ e.g. the average (yes I stated "average" Japanese has an IQ of 105 whilst the average person in Equatorial Guinea has an IQ of 59, almost half the intelligence of a Japanese person. Look-up a chart for country's and IQ and you will find that those with the highest IQ are most technologically advanced whilst those with the lowest IQ are most primitive....yes I know some wont like this but my job is not to make you feel comfortable, rather to say it as I see it.

I think maybe our IQ tests are a little bit biased in our (the western (mostly white) races favour)....I recently did one of those online IQ level tests, and while I did come out way above average (over 170, as if it matters), I did notice that the majority of the questions had to do with mathematical concepts, which to be honest, virtually no indigenous tribes-person would even be able to begin to answer, not due to intelligence coefficient, but rather due to the fact that they have never practiced those ways of thinking.

In my personal experience when dealing with other races from around the globe, I've found that they ALL seem to have the same level of intelligence as the rest of us, at least as far as pure problem solving of situations that life may present are concerned. So I think that the statement that the most technologically advanced cultures have the highest IQ is possibly more than a little bit skewed in favour of those whose culture wrote said IQ test. I suppose it's kind of similar to judging black people's sports ability by having a curling competition - the blacks would surely lose, but not because they're inept at sports (duh, obviously, in general we all know which race are the best athletes lol), , rather because they've never even considered playing such a sport. Give them an IQ test more in accordance with their day to day paradigm and things would be different I imagine.

As for the OP's original idea, I agree fully, very good point - we can find indigenous races of all sorts around this planet, but none of them are white, except those who are primitive by choice such as the why is this??
I think this is truly a very interesting concept - Maybe us whites are simply the most recently evolved, and we never had the chance to be primitives since the world was already starting to organize itself into an agricultural/civilized way of being...maybe Sitchin is right and we're a genetic experiment and the whites are the result of that (not my personal favourite option), maybe one or a few families have been controlling the planet's destiny for millennia and those families happened to be white (I see this one as more probable), or maybe it's all just coincidence. Anyway, it does either give credence to a theory similar to Sitchin's or else to a Nazi Aryan philosophy.

Anyway, it's past 8 am here in Madrid and I've yet to go to bed, so my points of view are probably far from coherent, hope this all made a bit of sense, peace and love y'all, and happy old christmas to any catholics out there,

international criminal

edit on 6/1/2011 by internationalcriminal because: spelling mistakes

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:15 AM
"Race" by skin color is mainly a social construct. Genetically, there is very little variation among humans.
IQ differences are due to flaws in the education system that favor a specific CULTURE (not race).
What makes one "primitive" is also highly subjective, as many self sufficient people that choose to live without modern luxuries could be considered primitive. What about the Amish? They don't use electricity; does that make them primitive?

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by squandered

The Amazigh (Berbers), Kurds, and Laplanders are great examples and I for one feel better educated as the result of the many contributions that have been made in this thread, I thank you all.

However, the suggestion that one could take a group of white Australians, leave them in the desert for 50 generations, and though they be completely isolated - will somehow magically transform at the genetic level into aboriginal black people?

When you look at it like that doesn't it seem at least more than a little silly?

If they were to bring English Bulldogs with them would the Bulldogs magically be transformed into Dingos as well?

I truly mean no personal offense and I know there have been people in the past who have taught these things to children - but to me the idea of such spontaneous magical genetic shape shifters, sounds just plain goofy.

That being said, I'm sure you probably meant it in the sense that the white Australians would learn the desert survival skills of the aboriginal people - not some magical transformation of their DNA.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by leakat
"Race" by skin color is mainly a social construct. Genetically, there is very little variation among humans.

Genetically there is very little difference between a human and a grain of rice, but those very little differences mean everything.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by RRokkyy

See, the fact is that IQ among groups can and have changed, measurable and substantially. source.

We have very little understanding about IQ and its relation to intelligence, so it is unwise to carelessly throw around these numbers as prophecy of a group's potential.
Btw, it is interesting to note that there has been a decline in IQ among some northern European nations. The links to the relevant news articles are in the section of the wikipedia entry I linked titled "Possible End of Progression." Here is one of the links: click me

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

I see that the idea of 'white guilt' has been firmly embedded as axiomatic in many of the respondants here - not at all surprising considering that the whole history writing and publishing business was hijacked and taken over early last century........

Really? Why don't you highlight these examples of white guilt, because oddly enough, nobody else sees it.

Well here is what the first page holds - I guess you are not too hot on reading comprehension, no surprise really because your entire life you have been fed a diet of propaganda, designed not to educate or inform you but to socially engineer your attitudes into being a more compliant NWO serf! - as the link I posted will have shown you had you had the intellectual curiousty to read it.

with my very brief knowledge of history I would take a guess at it being because the "white man" was the race that suppressed others into servitude & slavery thus keeping other race's cultures back while we progressed.

Perhaps because us 'whites' are more war-like in sociological nature, less attuned to physical nature, lovers of comfort even to the detriment of 'others,' have accumulated the wealth of our conquests, and are totally self-absorbed in consumerism and as such we gravitate toward civilization?

What do you mean by primitive? Some might say those of us living in a culture based on consumerism and materialism are pretty darn primitive, while those living in cultures focused on family and taking only what one needs are way more civilized.

the primitive white cultures destroyed the ancient world for its resources, and gave very little back, if you have any doubts you can ask the millions that died in the Americas, the millions that died in India, and the millions dying in Africa, cause the barbarians just want to keep craping in golden outhouses...


Now let’s go to the words of Norman. Dodd, as he described these events before our cameras in 1982. He said: This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency

So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They
interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best
suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will
explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be
expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would
have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism
was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future. In other words, in the guise
of analyzing history, they would create history by conditioning future generations to accept
collectivism as desirable and inevitable.

Under the orchestrating baton of Nicholas Butler, President of Columbia University
and President of the Carnegie Endowment, an organization was formed in 1884 called The
American Historical Association. This then created a series of controlled groups, called
Committees, each of which focused on a particular segment of the overall educational
mission. After these had published their recommendations, the Carnegie Fund created
another controlled group in 1929 called The Commission on the Social Studies, which
attracted to its membership an impressive list of academic personalities, including the
Superintendant of Schools in Washington, D.C., the Director of the American Geological
Society of New York, the President of Radcliff College, the Dean of the Graduate School at
the University of Minnesota, the head of the Institute for the Study of Law at John Hopkins
University, and eleven professors of history at such prestigious institutions as Columbia
University and the Universities of Chicago, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Other
institutions that provided staff services or facilitated its work in other ways included
Harvard, Stanford, Smith College, and the Universities of Iowa, North Carolina and West
Virginia. The Commission was funded by a $340,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation
– at a time when $5,000 was an excellent annual salary for a college professor

There's a massive difference between white guilt and universal historic fact.

How can you honestly think the following statement is white guilt, "What do you mean by primitive? Some might say those of us living in a culture based on consumerism and materialism are pretty darn primitive, while those living in cultures focused on family and taking only what one needs are way more civilized".

That you see these comments as 'white guilt' says more about yourself than it says about others. You can're bare to see any comment or view point that doesn't bow down and hail white history and society. It's really quite said.

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:16 AM
no offense to anyone but from my studies "white men or the pale skinned" were made by genetics in the past civilization by YAKUB(look it up) all other races are the original MAN and WOMB-MAN. the "whites" or pale skinned or w/e u wanna call them(elite) were cast out of the holly land to the rocks and caves of euoropa, were they were cast on the left side of their brains.. so u see they come from cave men not all the other they were the last to do anything!!!!! last to travel last to build last to do everything!!! put it all 2gether yall

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by EternalChef

You are right. Divide and conquer it's the socialist way.

That's an oxymoron in itself

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in