 |
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:25
|
|
Luk:
You are confusing race with culture in a way which totally invalidates the "facts" you give to support your, shall I say INCORRECT thesis.
Read a little economic history, I suggest David Landes' The Wealth And Poverty of Nations to appreciate a little better the true reasons why the west is "superior" at this moment. Also think about it, the west's superiority has been evident in the last 500 years of history, considering the written history of the world goes back to 4,000 BC that's a fraction of all time.
I do think that, like Samuel Huntington said, that Culture Matters (read it too). If you were to take a newborn child of a different race and raise him as part of the culture of the "new" race, he will end up exactly with the same values and atitudes of his new culture (allowing of course that the new culture treats him as equal).
This of course must happen in a controlled environment. Asians are good at math because their primary schools are excellent and they are heavily drilled in the subject. Still, they are good at math outside of Asia, because much of that culture remains in familiy education which is just as demanding wherever they may settle. I bet that asian kids raised by another culture will not have this math advantage so evident.
With respect to white and black's athletic abilites, as I said there are slight biological differences between races, blacks are better athletes at some sports, just as whites are more likely to get skin cancer. These, however are minimal and are not enough reason to truly believe races are that much different.
In conclusion, good for you to be proud of your "race" as if you somehow did something to earn it (don't mention Michael Jackson). I'm happy at being a Latin American, I'm happy to be able to dance and party better than any other race in the world, happy that our women are F-I-N-E, screw world domination, just pass me another tequila! And if you were my adopted brother you'd feel the same way too...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luk
God! |
Thank you for the attribution, but I'm "cavebear", not "God".
quote:
Your speech about geography did not prove anything. Of course geography is a one of things which determine is civilization going to be superpower, but not the only one. The horses. There is many other possibilities to transport things from place to place, wiothout horses. It is not said that only horses do that! And the most important is to start use the disadvantage as advantage. |
You didn't comprehend a single thing I said, did you? Sad.
Concerning horses... Horses are only one domesticated animal capable of carrying burdens and transporting goods. The point was that there are few other animals equally capable. The horse was symbolic. In most areas of the world, there are *not* animals suitable for domestication for that purpose, and in those areas, early civilizations did not arise. Later, as domesticated horses spread (that east/west thing again), people who had no native domesticatable beast of burden were able to adopt horses and raise them for themselves. But they weren't the first and they were always behind the civs that originally had horses to domesticate. The civs with the most easily domesticatable animals, be they horses or cattle or whatever, had the initial advantages.
"And the most important is to start use the disadvantage as advantage." I'm going to hope you blush with embarrassment when you think about that statement of your's. The whole *point* of the example is that advantages are what determine which civs arose in the first place. A disadvantage isn't an advantage! 
quote:
The geography is not ideal, all civilizations had a problems, and had a opportunities, but only specific civs tried to overcome this geographical problems, and solve them. The main problem of every civilization was the organization of the State. Organization of the state is the result of the culture, which is created by people in this civilization. Civs before Greeks had better possibilities to organize and create strong countries, and strong culture, and good social system in the society, but they did not. |
No! All civs tried to overcome problems, but some had better opportunities than others to overcome them. It isn't that some civs failed to solve problems, it is that some civs solved problems better than other civs solved problems because of local advantages! Can you seriously think that the Incas didn't *try* to solve transport problems just because they didn't have a good domesticatable beast of burden? Of *course* they tried. They just did have a solution that worked.
And people before the Greeks *did* create successful civilizations, but because they had suitable domesticatable plants and animals (wheat, pea, olive, sheep, goats).
quote:
Your text is based upon todays reality, and it is based on the hypothese that history had to be as it be. Nope, it is not. I bet that White people if they would be set in America, they would create the same type of organization, and they would have more advanced civilization then Aztecs. Because not the sources, food etc. determines that civilization if great or not, but the ideas, culture, organization, the ability to adpot many things, the social sphere of living people, the communications, etc. etc. so it is in most the abstract things. More of this things are based upon physicaly abilities of man. |
On the contrary, my explanations are based on the situations of the past (which are equally true today, though). History is as it was for reasons, not happenstance and not racial superiority. Speaking of that, would you have it that all non-white races were once superior but later devolved? The first great civs were Chinese and African. LOL! Have you in mind a mechanism for explaining why non-white civs were once superior and are not now that requires that white civs will not be inferior in the future?
I thought not...
More bad news... The Native Americans spring from the same stock as the Europeans. Same Central Asian ancestors. If the Cro-magnons had colonized the Americas instead of their relatives from Central Asia, the results would have been the same. 20,000 years ago, people were pretty much all alike. The Americas would have offerred the same paucity of domesticatable animals and plants to ancient Europeans that it did to the colonizing Native Americans. Even the stone tools would have been about the same except for minor decorative differences. Neither would have have had any suitable domesticatable animals, so neither would have used the wheel, and both would have been limited to the same plants to domesticate.
quote:
The fall of Rome is not based on support of Gales in food |
It *is* (based on food) more than you seem to be able to understand. Abundant food supplies mean social security and the ability to have some members of the group become artisans and other specialists. Artisans and specialists create new technologies. New technologies create new opportunities to exploit the resources of the area. Exploitations means that you have bronze weapons when your enemies have stone ones or that you have iron ewhen they have bronze. Etc. Abundant food becomes weapons and more people to weild them. In addition, division of labor through organized food collection leads to more organized fighters, and that leads to military success.
quote:
Europe civilization not suceed after Rome Collapse because they had natural resources not available nowhere, but because they managed to organize their countries, and their society in that way, that they won the war with Islamic civilization, which was obiectivly many more stronger then Europeans. If Islamic civilization would be better organized, and adopted so fast as European to the reality they would then easly conquer Europe. But they did not, because of racial superiority of Europeans. |
Arounf what do you think countries organized? They organized arounf natural resources because that is what allowed them to resist the attacks of their neighbors. The Europeans won their war against the Moslems because the Moslems were approaching through material-poor areas and had a weak technology. I'm not saying the Europeans weren't brave, fighters, but the Moslems were too and they lost because they had insufficient material support through Northern Africa.
By the time of the Moslem expansion, the Middle East no longer hads the resources to support such an expansion. What was once forested land was desert. I might also add that when the Moslems attacked Europe they faced a growing population that could replace its losses. The Moslems could not.
quote:
Asians are better in IQ tests from White, so it proves that Asians are better in mathematic, logical inteligence. You can not learn this tests, and maths in Europe are far more advanced then in Asia. |
Again, you confuse education and focus with intelligence. People of all races that are brought together under the same teaching conditions and social/family expectations do about equally well. The failures are more cultural than racial.
quote:
It is proven, that genetically Blacks has better abilities to Athletics, specially long distances, org sprint. It is proven by official science. We can not easly determine how races are different in psychical aspects, because after WWII this element of science were almost banned... |
Proven? Really? Please offer such proof. In fact, I *demand* that you present proof. Your contention is beyond belief without evidence.
quote:
You did not as you see prove that Europeans had a better natural possibilities to create such a wonderfull civilization, you did not prove how natural resources affect the culture, organization etc. As I said, long before Europeans civilization there were great other civilizations, which died quickly because they did not culture evolved. Only European civilization evolved all stadiums of organizations of countries. From democracy, to republic, the monarchy, absolutism, etc. etc. etc. etc. We were always developing something... And it is not based fo sure on fact, that we had more food then other, and that we had horse. It is so stupid, and nonsense and it proves me the fact that you try to prove that sun is not shining, because you are afraid that if sun is shining people will be 24h/day on sun, and sunshine will kill them by the skincancer. it the same that people now think that if we prove that races are different the people all start to be fascist. |
Wow. I think the bizareness of the above paragraph speaks for itself. In any case, I can make no sense out of it.
quote:
Of course race are not closed totally, it is not North Korea There are mixing, but generaly the types of the specific races are dominating at most of people . The races, had subraces, and we can start to think, is blondhair people different from dark-hair people. I think there is a difference, but the difference is deeper, then only a hairs... But deffinintly, the humanity is divided into races, and after this the race is divided to subraces. The people from the same race are different each other, but less then from people from other race. |
You are from a different planet than I inhabit... Congratulations, you are a raging racist.
I feel a need to go wash my hands after sharing a keyboard with such bigotry.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
foolish_icarus
|
 |
the thievery continues
Nov 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
I just saw this thread and I admit that i have not read through all of it, but in case this point has not yet been made I would like to present it. It is partly in response to the origional question in the first post and partly in response to what the discussion seems to have developed into:
Firstly, all claims of superiority or inferiority are completely subjective and equally pointless. Whether it is a species or an individual it can only react to the environment it exists in. This includes all the seeming advantages or disadvantages it is presented with. There is no justification for the conditions that exist, no claims of "not fair" or "if only we had been where you were". If something, a group or a single entity, survives the conditions it inhabits, it succeeds. If it dies or ceases to exist, it fails. There is no intermediate measure, because at every single point in time the conditions will be different, and the only way an outlook for a group absolutely cannot change is if they don't exist. That is the fundamental law in operation here. If it can exist, it does. If it cannot, it doesn't. Often the conditions decide a fate that is completely beyond the control of the participant, be it negative or positive. So any seeming advantages at one point of time are not the result of any special merit, merely an indicator that the thing has been able to survive in the conditions it has been presented with. No more. No less.
Secondly, and more in line with the origional question:
There are definitely differences between groups when averaged or some such nonsense. But individually there is no such distinction. It is much like melecular activity, if you have enough of the substance you can somewhat predict what the bulk of it will do, but the actions of the individual parts is unpredictable to us. Just as with people. I certainly feel a connection with people based on their personal attributes, not their racial heritage, because that is meaningless. Its all about circumstances, not what the statistics say will probably happen, because that has no effect on the individual scale. And finally, this is because we are all of the same species, able to breed and continue our species, no matter what the race, and so we certianly share a fairly common fate. Partly because of this reproductive link and partly because of the social conditions that have been created, there can only be an evaluation on the individual scale, and even this is based on how well the person does in each given environment. I hope you follow my reasoning (assuming it hasn't been presented in this thread before, i didn't see anything like this but that doesn't mean much). If something is unclear, or you just think i'm full of crap, i will be happy to attempt to be more accurate and precise, or just verbally stick a poker up your ass, whatever is necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Luk
|
|
Wroclaw, Lower Silesia, Poland
Mar 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
Well, I think that not only in Europe there were horses, and other civs did not create such a great Civilizations like Europe (China, and India were definitly inferior in many aspects, like social sphere, individualism, organization, culture, ideas, etc). Not only in Europe were the cattle. Most of domestic able animals and plants were in Middle, and Far East.
Greeks for example had definitly worser natural enviroment then other civilization, they had to import many things to their country etc, etc. There were many other tribes like Fenicians, and many others which we do not know which had the same, or better resources as Greeks, but only Greeks managed to create such a culture, and such an organizations like Greeks, Platon, Aristoteles, Sofokles, Sokrates and many others created something which is not affected by natural enviroment but mostly because of their spirit, their will o createness Gobineau, the precursor of racial superiority theory was examining the differences between races, and he exclude Natural Enviroment, because as he said, even the best enviroment is not enough to create an advanced culture, and he exclude social enviroment, because even the best institutions and goverments given to societes non-white are not gonna to be realised.
Europeans had disadvantages and advantages, many other civilizations in Euroasia had more advantages, and they did not use that. Even if they create a great empire, when the geopolitical strucutre collapsed they could not reincarnate in other geopolitical strucutre, because their culture, and civilization were not moderniznig, and were not as vital as European culture does. Europeans had a great ability to adpot new things to their culture, they had very good organization, they create all ideas, and all types of social lives, they always tried to change and they were always modernizing. The geopolitical structures were changing, Greek, Roman Empires collapsed, but after this always were coming another geopolitical structure. For example in China, India, in South America there was not such a development, despite that natural recources were the same or even better. Europeans had to import many things, they did not have everything, and after Rome Collapsed they were inferior, and weaker then Islamic Empires.
Incas did not solve that problems, because they did not create the culture in the full meaning of this word. They did not created cuch an organized society like Europeans, they did not tried to expand, Im sure that they could create much more well organized society, and much more expansionist. For example, South America is far more inferior then north america... Why???? Because in South America there are lot of Indians, and lot of Indians crossed with Whites, and in North America the civilization were created by pure European people, who destroyed all natives. South America is now poorer because they did not destroyed, and killed all Indians.
Chinese, and African civs were superior then White???? I first time hear it! Egypt was a pathetic civilization, and Chinese is a symbol of civlization which has no will to expand. Chinese are not able to be never superpower even in our times, because it is not in their nature. Chinese civilization had fisrt invented the gunpowder, and many, many more technologies, but they did not use it effectivly, but Whites, Europeans gained it, and use it more effectivly, because we are geneticcaly different. The civilization is the development of people. The people create civilization, and of course natural enviroment does have matter, but not only this. As I said Chinese, Indians, Middle East had better start locations then Europe, and they did not expand, they did not use even their great scientifical research as mentioned above gunpowder. Why???? Because of genetically differences of race.
Native Americans are Yellow race. They are not White, so they are definitly not in white race group.
Galls, and Germans had no better technologies or even equal then Romans, and they conquer Rome, so you the fall of Rome is not based on support of food. I could give you a lot of reasons why Rome collapsed, and it was not connected at all with natural enviroment.
Moslems were material poor???? Moslems had insufficient materials????? You are stupid, or uneducated. Moslems had in that times better technique, were richer, and more powerful, and Europe in that times, the times of middle ages had not above average population grow. In that times I can say that European population did not grow too much. You trie to fit your theory, but it not fits. Moslems had of course the advantage in that times over Europe, but they did not manage it, because white even in bad times, times when their geopolitical structures were after collapse, and new geopolitical strutures started to create, even in that times they defended from far more rich civilization as Moslems were.
And IQ tests measured at Black students after Universities in America with White students resulted in 20 points disadvantage.... Why???? In the same conditions in America white students are better then blacks... Why????
I can't proof you anything because I do not have abilities to do it, and I do not keep all newspapers! All your texts are not backed with profs. And if you did not hear about this diferences geneticaly in Athlets, you read to less newspapers, and books. I do not want to prove you something which is proven
Generally my theories are backed by science, and history. Your are backed by nothing, but artificial theories which tries to fit the facts for the theory which is set before the facts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Luk
|
|
Wroclaw, Lower Silesia, Poland
Mar 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
And I have to say that I do not really belive in IQ testes, it is rather a symbol of racial differenes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Luk
|
|
Wroclaw, Lower Silesia, Poland
Mar 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
Well, todays science about IQ says that IQ is affected by enviroment and genetics. It is a mix.
Gobineu was the writer quoted here to prove that even in XIX century racism were answering to Enviromental bullshit.
As I said, now I do not belive in science after II WW but even this science are proving racial differences, but of course uses political correctness.
I think that my belive in racial superiority is based on facts. Fact is that we, whites created the best civilization. How we did this is a matter of science, and research, and as you all see science are changing rapidly, and science is very affected by politics, and trends. So science, and research are not facts. Facts are obiective. And obiective is that White race is the best. I do not care why, but we are the best. The best from ancient times to modern times. Always the best, and I think that forever, because if something is not ending for 2000 years, it will not end in another 2000 years
Nazism... It is stupid, by nazism Europeans destroyed their chances to be superpower for years...
Racial superiority should be idea of elite, only elite... as it is now. Normal people should think as you all people think. And Im glad that Europeans did this trick with Human rights. Because of human rights, and democracy, we white people rule the world. But as European I want European White people to rule the world, not American White People
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
Just because others have made it before, certainly does not make it the truth.
Yes....since Luk seems to enjoy pointing out facts, the US economy IS the biggest, no matter how you slice it. That's an undisputable fact. (the only way Europe has been able to hold a candle, size wise, is to begin to merge their economies....yeah, if you take fourteen, sixteen industrialized countries in Europe, add up the sum-total of their economic output, you begin to come close, that's true, but the EU is not a unified political governing body...it's not a "United States of Europe" so the comparison isn't exactly apples to apples).
So...by his logic, the argument above holds.
::shakes head in wonder::
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DuncanK
|
 |
Evil Empire
Dec 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luk
I think that my belive in racial superiority is based on facts. Fact is that we, whites created the best civilization. How we did this is a matter of science, and research, and as you all see science are changing rapidly, and science is very affected by politics, and trends. So science, and research are not facts. Facts are obiective. And obiective is that White race is the best. I do not care why, but we are the best. The best from ancient times to modern times. Always the best, and I think that forever, because if something is not ending for 2000 years, it will not end in another 2000 years
|
I think you don't know that we are talking about social science not science. You can't prove things in social science. It's just that no social scientist believe in your theory, because it's too ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2003 06:05
|