posted
LOL It is "whitey" who is killing himself. It never occurred to you idiots that impoverishing the world, and nonwhite populations in your midst, would come back to f**k you all up. Like the stupid whites in South Africa created a sea of despair and ignorance for years and now have to gate themselves in to protect their asses, this is the microcosm of your stupidity. Maybe its too late, the Frankenstein you all created is going to destroy you. If we all go down then we will no doubt rise again and give the world a new civilisation as we did before. Ebb and flow of history.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Never said "their intellect is genetically based", I acknowledged they have a culture that is in-group oriented and this contributes to their high achievement today.
Just like their unique genetic diseases, their intelligence is genetically based.
You cannot have high achievement without high IQ. In-group orientation resulting in success is intelligence manifested. They realize that to be successful they need to be unified and focus on education. Other groups will never get it because they don't have the capacity for it. And even if they understood that it takes unity and commitment, neither of those things will make you an A student if your IQ is too low.
quote: If your thesis is correct then they, not Africans, would have founded civilisation; they, not the Greeks, would have been responsible for Europe's first high culture. Their dominance is only recent,and within context, with rise of the west after 1492.
You need a critical mass of intelligence people, an ideal population size, and a condusive environment to create civilization. Nobody knows if Jews always possessed high IQ or if this is something that evolved only within the past 500 years. Clearly, if Jews in ancient times shared average IQ as their modern day brothers in Israel, it's not surprising that they would not have initiated civilization.
Being a people without a home, relatively small group, and constantly persecuted whereever they went also puts a damper on their ability to create a civilization.
quote: Irony is your position is irrational history is against you, which is why you have to brush it aside as some sort of "dark age" of slavery and superstitions before rise of modernity, which simply means you are totally ignorant of history and the evolution of knowledge and science.
I have not ignored history. I explained the differences between historical civilizations and modern civilizations and above I put forth reasons why Jews may not or could not have been responsible for civilization.
quote:Ah yes in the absense of absolute certainty you fill the in void with racism. It's funny how you talk of witch doctors yet your "science" is not far from it. lol [/qb]
I absolutely abhore racism. I'm interested in scientific integrity and truth.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: If we all go down then we will no doubt rise again and give the world a new civilisation as we did before. Ebb and flow of history.
Yes, another civilization complete with slavery, human sacrifice, appeasements to Gods, Kings and temples in their honor, but without air conditioners, theme parks, referigeraters, televisions, stereos, cars, shopping malls, or the internet.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would wager that the vast majority of you posting have few black friends that you truly admire. In fact, you probably get along with Whites better than you do with blacks. This is because of your high IQ. You're the exceptions. The reality is that there are disproporionately small number of blacks with high IQ compared to those with low IQ, so chances are you hang out with Whites or you have a few select black friends that you found who you can actually carry on a conversation with.
posted
^ Oh my god. I don't know where to even begin to answer your entire incoherent, ahistorical, bigoted BS. As Sundiata said you already got beat down so I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time. Like trying to educate a "low IQ" person, yes? LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The words meant black but they still divided the "Blacks" into different ethnic groups.
^ All ethnic constructs can be either sub-catagorized or super-extended, so your comment makes no point, and does not make any sense.
Niether does non-Wolof ever make any sense.
Nor do either of you ever answer questions.
You only make stupid remarks. It's sad that when confronted with Historical texts from Al Jihaz and Ancient Egypt, dumb remarks, is the best you can do. You're both lame.
Did any ancient culture have a word that was used for all black people and exclude all non black people. For example even when being described as colonists sent out by the Ethiopians I've never heard of Kemet people being called Ethiopians. The word meant burnt skin but it wasn't used as a label for all black people. Were Colchians considered Ethiopian, even though they are black with wooly hair? So Ethiopian wasn't the equivalent of Negroid.
I don't know if Arabs have a word for ALL black/Negro (whatever you want to call it) people I'm just asking
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ index is not indicative of intelligence...many Nobel price winners are from India and Anglo-Saxon countries where cultures are not conformist like some other cultures...culture plays a large role in innovative thinking...IQ is garbage...the more you are independent culturally the more you can produce...just compare the impact of Indians in the western world compare to other cultures in art, politics, business, academia...they tend to influence successfully less innovative and independent cultures they encounter like in the western world...the same can be said about people who don't have an attachment to a certain land or nationality like Lebanese or people of Jewish background...they tend to think outside of the box and you will find them among the most innovative people: just look at France, Great Britain, Germany, the USA...we know who were the greatest thinkers are...the financial leaders, academic leaders....they don't have French, German, Irish or English sounding names...trust me I lived in many places...it's the guy from the minority background who rise...the rest are too comfortable in their lives...they will be happy enough in regular jobs....
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did any ancient culture have a word that was used for all black people and exclude all non black people
^ This is another dumb example of question begging.
It is a tautology.
This forum is ironic - racist idiots who can't think take respite in the fallacy of 'race based IQ'.
Prove me wrong.
Write back and explanation of what is 'question begging', and what is 'tautology', then show how your question would not qualify as such.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^The above link is to a thread where we encourage sshaun to get better after getting trounced in the now shut-down (closed/locked) thread he started.
^Well, scratch that. Actually .. all of the thread wasn't us trying to make him feel better:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: You guys just don't get it. That's fine. Let's agree to disagree. No more discussions on race and IQ from me. Let's get back to discussing Egypt.
There wasn't anything to get. You want to believe in races by any means necessary and will use anything to define race, even though those things do not define race. You should have stopped talking about it a long time ago, since you obviously dont know what you are talking about, especially if you think blonde hair or lactose intolerance defines a race. I guess Europeans are a different race because they didn't have cows in the Neolithic, so they developed into a non dairy subspecies.
In fact, most of the world is lactose intolerant, which means little because we know quite well that many pastoral Africans have diets that consist ALMOST COMPLETELY of milk. On top of that we also know that cow domestication occurred in many sites all over the world, all EXCEPT Europe. Therefore, another example of how data is twisted to support a ridiculous point of view.
posted
shaun is from west virginia and he's a proud hard working white man and who likes to drink beer...and thinks he's representative of America...but at the end of the day he's not representative of academia or intellectual circles in America...they(the thinkers, the political strategists) are not English or Irish, no they are recent arrivals in America...the brain of America are recent arrivals and a corn eating midwesterner or apalachian farmer or Irish beer drinker don't run America...or Academia....we know that...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Euros are indeed "supernaturally" intelligent over others as sschaun so passionately likes to *imagine*, then surely this trait has escaped him.
Btw, does the "s" mean "slow one", or what?
Posts: 233 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did any ancient culture have a word that was used for all black people and exclude all non black people. For example even when being described as colonists sent out by the Ethiopians I've never heard of Kemet people being called Ethiopians. The word meant burnt skin but it wasn't used as a label for all black people. Were Colchians considered Ethiopian, even though they are black with wooly hair? So Ethiopian wasn't the equivalent of Negroid.
I don't know if Arabs have a word for ALL black/Negro (whatever you want to call it) people I'm just asking
The Greek word for "black skinned" is "melanchros" and as far as I know the term "Aethiops"[corruption to "Aesop" for the well-known Greek fabulist]does not have any specific reference to skin pigmentation.
What is a fact though is that Greek writers often spoke of the "Egyptians" and "Ethiopians" as if they were kin people. As in the case of Aristotle and Herodotus. Both often mentioned the 2 peoples on matters of skin pigmenation--even when they could easily have just written "Ethiopians". Example: "Too black a hue marks a coward as for example Egyptians and Ethiopians. So too--too white a hue as in the case of women. The best colour is the intermediate colour as in the case of lions. That makes for bravery..."(Physiognomica)
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: IQ index is not indicative of intelligence...many Nobel price winners are from India and Anglo-Saxon countries where cultures are not conformist like some other cultures...culture plays a large role in innovative thinking...IQ is garbage...the more you are independent culturally the more you can produce...just compare the impact of Indians in the western world compare to other cultures in art, politics, business, academia...they tend to influence successfully less innovative and independent cultures they encounter like in the western world...the same can be said about people who don't have an attachment to a certain land or nationality like Lebanese or people of Jewish background...they tend to think outside of the box and you will find them among the most innovative people: just look at France, Great Britain, Germany, the USA...we know who were the greatest thinkers are...the financial leaders, academic leaders....they don't have French, German, Irish or English sounding names...trust me I lived in many places...it's the guy from the minority background who rise...the rest are too comfortable in their lives...they will be happy enough in regular jobs....
Name those Indian Nobel Prize winners and I'll search to see if they've taken IQ tests. IQ tests are not heavily culturally dependent. If those Nobel Prize recipients received the honor in the sciences or maths, I will put money that they have higher than average IQ (at or above 120). Care to wager?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian: If Euros are indeed "supernaturally" intelligent over others as sschaun so passionately likes to *imagine*, then surely this trait has escaped him.
Btw, does the "s" mean "slow one", or what?
Nobody has made this claim. I've never injected the word "supernatural" or "superior" when comparing blacks and whites. I've simply acknowledged factual evidence of an average IQ gap. Nothing more.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Does she have low or high IQ? It's safe to assume it's low. In fact, given the larger population of Whites in America, there will be more Whites with IQs at or below 85 than Blacks in America.
What should happen to these people? They're a burden but they cannot help it.
Now, imagine if the overwhelming majority of people were like her. The country would be in trouble, right? This is what I'm getting at. For blacks, there is a very high proportion of people with IQs similar to this White girl's. This means prospects for self improvement are gloomy, to paraphrase Watson.
Her IQ cannot be raised. If as a teenager she hasn't learned basic communication skills even though she's been exposed to the world like everybody else, it's simply a matter of her innate cognitive limitations revealing themselves. Her only hope is to breed with somebody with a higher IQ and hope that their offspring will be mid-range.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Instead, it will be Mexicans beating down Whites. But it won't stop there. The Blacks will suffer the same fate or worse under Mexican rule. So, by all means, cheer for your own demise.
You really want America to resemble Mexico? lol. Have you any idea what Mexicans think about Blacks and how foreigners are treated in Mexico? lol. Ever seen a Mexican prison? It's not a cake walk like the ones housing close to 1/3 of Blacks in America. Ever had to deal with law "enforcement" officials in Mexico? lol Have you any idea the sheer brutality of Mexican and Columbian gangs that are making their way deep into LA, and recently into Canada? Beheadings, people skinned alive, you name it. What a wonderful new America you want to usher in. Be my guest - your sons and daughters are the ones that are going to live in daily terror as a result.
If you think the economy is in the pits now, just wait until under Mexican rule, when a sizable portion of the population cannot even feed themselves, like in Zimbabwe. Things get ugly when it's down to the bare necessities. When America becomes the new Mexico, Mexico will have no nation to leech off.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nobody has made this claim. I've never injected the word "supernatural" or "superior" when comparing blacks and whites. I've simply acknowledged factual evidence of an average IQ gap. Nothing more.
Let me get this straight: so you are no longer espousing "racial superiority" via intelligence of Euros over Blacks?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Note that before the killings of Whites started in countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, the governments in those regions made it illegal to own firearms. These people are sitting ducks. Think about that next time you read about legislation for gun control in America. Those nations are shining examples of precisely where America is headed. If you cannot see that, you're delusional.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Do you know the concept of answering questions, or has that Euro trait of IQ also escaped you?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nobody has made this claim. I've never injected the word "supernatural" or "superior" when comparing blacks and whites. I've simply acknowledged factual evidence of an average IQ gap. Nothing more.
Let me get this straight: so you are no longer espousing "racial superiority" via intelligence of Euros over Blacks?
I've never espoused such a thing. If you equate high IQ with racial superiority, that's your issue.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
You're a very conflicted personality. Either Euros are naturally intelligent over Blacks according to your dogma, or they aren't. Which is it?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: rasol, pre-order this new book from Richard Lynn. As we all know, race/ethnicity and IQ averages are genetically linked. In Lynn's new book, he explores this relationship globally. As I've said before, take an average African and wherever you find him, he will have an IQ of about 85. For a White, whether he's in America, Europe, Australia, Africa, or Asia, his IQ is likely to be 100. So on and so forth.
IQ is related to socio-economic status as well. Hence, in Lynn's book, globally we find a pattern. Aboriginals and Africans the poorest with least educational attainment. Asians and Whites the wealthiest with the highest educational attainment.
"For example, in Brazil, it is the Japanese who are the highest achieving population. They were brought in as indentured labourers to work the plantations after slavery was abolished in 1888. Yet, today, the Japanese outscore Whites on IQ tests, earn more, and are over-represented in university places. Although they are less than 1% of the total population they comprise 17% of the students at the elite University of Sao Paulo."
These genetic inequalities between man based on evolutionary development will continue to make themselves obvious throughout the next several hundred years, until medicine and treatment can correct it - or are extinguished.
The Bass is back, time for the sheriff to decimate the desolate and trolling posters and clean up this place, starting with you. This post is a:
Fallacy: Red Herring
Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Stay on topic and quit trolling through your fallacious reasoning.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Does she have low or high IQ? It's safe to assume it's low. In fact, given the larger population of Whites in America, there will be more Whites with IQs at or below 85 than Blacks in America.
What should happen to these people? They're a burden but they cannot help it.
Now, imagine if the overwhelming majority of people were like her. The country would be in trouble, right? This is what I'm getting at.
[...]
Some one on the video commented about the girl:
quote:Originally posted by someone:
She actually believes that she made an honest mistake. She actually believes that she was in shock being on national television. She didn't seem in shock when she was doing other things (i.e. Bikini) which means that she is farking stupid. She actually thinks that she is going to university to study animations/special FX for movies.
Priceless ...
It could mean "she's farcking stupid", OR it could just mean, that like many Americans, she just doesn't give a F.
With the statistics that suggest 'low IQs' are learned and fed in a culture, the whole 'low IQ' media-eugenist-phobia driven hysteria is a WILD GOOSE CHASE in an of its self.
Arguement done [ ... here]. Talk about it in a new thread if you want to discuss your agreement or disagreement with the stats given in a link, or don't talk at all.
You won't be heard here by me.
Your debunked arse should just START A NEW THREAD.
quote:The Greek word for "black skinned" is "melanchros" and as far as I know the term "Aethiops"[corruption to "Aesop" for the well-known Greek fabulist]does not have any specific reference to skin pigmentation.
What is a fact though is that Greek writers often spoke of the "Egyptians" and "Ethiopians" as if they were kin people. As in the case of Aristotle and Herodotus. Both often mentioned the 2 peoples on matters of skin pigmenation--even when they could easily have just written "Ethiopians". Example: "Too black a hue marks a coward as for example Egyptians and Ethiopians. So too--too white a hue as in the case of women. The best colour is the intermediate colour as in the case of lions. That makes for bravery..."(Physiognomica)
^ In the Book of Gates the AE refer to themselves [Rm.t] and other Africans from the south [Nehesi] as Km.t [Black] Nw.t [community].
Nehesi is also the name of the 1st 14th dynasty pharoah.
posted
Jews run Western civilizations. And Jews have the highest IQs. I wonder who invented the IQ tests and defined the baselines?
Nah, could it be us Jews?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Jews run Western civilizations. And Jews have the highest IQs. I wonder who invented the IQ tests and defined the baselines?
Nah, could it be us Jews?
Nope. Jews didn't invent it. In fact, IQ tests were initially used to degrade Jews. Since then, IQ tests have been made to account for cross-cultural differences. Jews didn't create it; they're just better at it. Ditto for Asians. They didn't create IQ tests either. They're just better at it. Genetics.
The more you shun truth, the more you have to grasp at straws.
Do you think that it pleases me to know that the average North American and European Kike has a higher IQ than the rest of the population? It's not necessarily something that I prefer, but it is what it is.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Greek word for "black skinned" is "melanchros" and as far as I know the term "Aethiops"[corruption to "Aesop" for the well-known Greek fabulist]does not have any specific reference to skin pigmentation.
What is a fact though is that Greek writers often spoke of the "Egyptians" and "Ethiopians" as if they were kin people. As in the case of Aristotle and Herodotus. Both often mentioned the 2 peoples on matters of skin pigmenation--even when they could easily have just written "Ethiopians". Example: "Too black a hue marks a coward as for example Egyptians and Ethiopians. So too--too white a hue as in the case of women. The best colour is the intermediate colour as in the case of lions. That makes for bravery..."(Physiognomica)
^ In the Book of Gates the AE refer to themselves [Rm.t] and other Africans from the south [Nehesi] as Km.t [Black] Nw.t [community].
Nehesi is also the name of the 1st 14th dynasty pharoah.
quote:Nope. Jews didn't invent it. In fact, IQ tests were initially used to degrade Jews. Since then, IQ tests have been made to account for cross-cultural differences. Jews didn't create it; they're just better at it. Ditto for Asians. They didn't create IQ tests either. They're just better at it. Genetics.
I don't think IQ tests were ever used to "degrade Jews". It so happened that Jewish immigrants to the U.S.--along with other migrants--were given the same IQ tests and while the Scandinavians scored slightly above 100, Jews, Italians(score 85), Portugese(score 83) and Eastern Europeans all scored in the 80s. I don't see how that degrades Jews--more than blacks are being degraded by the IQ scores they supposedly garner.
But I am sure that some Jewish academics had inputs into devising IQ tests beyond the Stanford-Binet. How about the long-standing Weschler tests? That name sounds suspiciously Eastern European.
It is fact that in terms of intellectual achievement in the U.S. and Europe the Ashkenazi have distinguished themselves from the 19th century onwards.
It's based on their culture--not their genetics because there was little of such achievement prior to the 19th century and more importantly, the Jews did not practice polygamy.
It's through the practice of polygamy over several thousand years that a particular advantageous trait could be passed on by those individuals who have the particular "fitness trait".
It's just that the Jews operate on a kin-solidarity basis and believe that brains are there to be used--not fried.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One may also ask: what is the sociological cement that holds Jews together so that they act in unison on matters important to them?
I belive it has to do with the fact that they are constantly reminded of their history and culture through historically commemorative holy days and ritual ceremonies. Think of the the relatively large number of Jewish holy days and events such as Bar Mitzvar, etc.
But they are a relatively flexible people on matters of religion and culture. A Jew can be flaming atheist but he's still a Jew to other Jews. In theory, having only one Jewish parent(European only and preferably the mother) is enough to gain acceptance as a kin member. And unlike Islam and Christianity Jews don't really care about winning converts. They prefer to keep things in the family.
Europeans just rely on pure racial prestige to hold their group together. Blacks, on tne other hand, don't have any pan-black cultural or historical narrative. That's why the recent xenophobic events in South Africa could take place.
Or if blacks have a narrative it could be just what Western history has imposed on them. That's why a black with a name like Peter Worthington doesn't feel strange or odd with such a name. The same for the blacks in Northern Sudan and North Africa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the people of Sind,...the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks" --Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
^ This quote is 1000 years old. It precedes the ENSLAVEMENT OF YOUR MIND by Europeans, whom you wish to credit with inventing Blacknesses....when in reality, they invent only white supremacist hatred of Blacks, which in fact, delimits your intellect.
The words meant black but they still divided the "blacks" into different ethnic groups.
Exactly and this is attested by a freakin' Arab lol . Show me an African calling themselves *black* before Arab or European Imperialism. 1000 years ago is NOT far enough back Rasol I am afraid. You are enslaved by Eurocentricity by holding on to the fact that *black* is a "special" designation just because you have a fantasy that "Egyptians called themselves black" lol.
But this is beside the point. I have voiced my inquiry about a scientific definition of *black* and yet again the "heroes" of this site RUN away hmmmm.
I will ask again:
quote:I ask the question because in this site "Black" is used anthropometrically and scientifically. If so how do we "quantify" what "black" is like we can quantify genetic evidence in Bio-anthropology?
So again, if "black" started about 1.2 million years ago(which I had forgotten you told me this when I posted this question, sorry about that) when did it end with Non-African people? If we are looking at Eurasians etc. in retrospect and only have anatomical data to assess; at what time can we say with confidence who is "black" and who is "not black"? And what would the answer to that question be based on?
I just want to be able to say - "these people were black "x" amount of years ago in "x" location and I say they are black because of "x" " so that I won't be incorrect to whom I am speaking to.
I ask this because I have read other threads here saying that some Native Americans and many South East Asians have been called "black" here and ONLY here and no where else and I don't agree nor believe that the said people were black nor saw any evidence of methodology to test that they were.
By the way, my people never called themselves *black* until colonialism times despite me personally or my family NOT having a problem with the distinction, but objectively I can understand an African that WOULD have a problem with that term. All I ask for is the scientific process by which *black* is defined, ethnicity or culture has nothing to do with that inquiry.
quote:The words meant black but they still divided the "blacks" into different ethnic groups.
quote:Exactly and this is attested by a freakin' Arab
Both these remarks can be taken as a measure of the posters stupidity.
They seem to think that the notion of Blacks as multi-ethnic [which it is today, and has in fact always been], is somehow the antithesis of Black being ethnic.
In actuality multi-ethnic is and extention of ethnic, and the antithesis of *non*-ethnic.
Multi-extends.... "non" negates.
But these two knuckleheads can't get their minds around this.
In fact, I doubt they can even understand the above sentense, or the root concepts of thesis and antithesis, extension and negation.
In Al Jihaz "The Glory of the Blacks".... Black is and ethnic reference, in precisely the same context in which it is commonly used today. This should be obvious.
ES continues to wallow in the intellectual adolescence of Holocaust deniers and Kemophobic losers, and their general lack of brainpower, which enables them to evade any reality they don't like......
quote:The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the people of Sind,...the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks" --Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I don't think IQ tests were ever used to "degrade Jews". It so happened that Jewish immigrants to the U.S.--along with other migrants--were given the same IQ tests and while the Scandinavians scored slightly above 100, Jews, Italians(score 85), Portugese(score 83) and Eastern Europeans all scored in the 80s. I don't see how that degrades Jews--more than blacks are being degraded by the IQ scores they supposedly garner.
This is incorrect. There was tremendous resistence to Jews, Southern, and Eastern European immigrants to North America. Administrators tried to use IQ scores as a weapon against immigration from these places and peoples. They scored poorly because early tests were heavily culturally dependent. An immigrant wouldn't know intricate details of things specific to American life and it would be doubly difficult since they were no fluent in English. Once IQ tests were made culturally independent, a true reading of Jews and other immigrants IQ scores were obtained. Jews outscored everybody else. With or without IQ tests being taken, Jews would eventually find disproportionate representation in all major institutions and high levels of education. Because they're smarter.
quote: But I am sure that some Jewish academics had inputs into devising IQ tests beyond the Stanford-Binet. How about the long-standing Weschler tests? That name sounds suspiciously Eastern European.
Bogus conjecture. Read Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing to know who and how IQ tests are created and administered. Futhermore there have been plenty of researchers who have tried to find bias in IQ tests and all have concluded there is no significant cultural biases. The American Psychological Association says as much in its statement about the achievement gap.
quote: It is fact that in terms of intellectual achievement in the U.S. and Europe the Ashkenazi have distinguished themselves from the 19th century onwards.
It's based on their culture--not their genetics because there was little of such achievement prior to the 19th century and more importantly, the Jews did not practice polygamy.
There was plenty of achievement prior to 19th century, but like everything else, more achievements were made possible thanks to the industrial revolution and universal education. Jews have been making recorded contributions since the Middle Ages. They may have made contributions before then too but remain uncredited, but this is debatable.
quote: It's through the practice of polygamy over several thousand years that a particular advantageous trait could be passed on by those individuals who have the particular "fitness trait".
??? lol
quote: It's just that the Jews operate on a kin-solidarity basis and believe that brains are there to be used--not fried. [/QB]
Empty rhetoric and opinion. Jews have higher IQ. No amount of solidarity is going to get Tyrone or Latrina into a first class university on scholarship because on average their IQ hovers at 85. It just doesn't work that way. You have to have a certain type of brain power to make everything else possible.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: One may also ask: what is the sociological cement that holds Jews together so that they act in unison on matters important to them?
I belive it has to do with the fact that they are constantly reminded of their history and culture through historically commemorative holy days and ritual ceremonies. Think of the the relatively large number of Jewish holy days and events such as Bar Mitzvar, etc.
But they are a relatively flexible people on matters of religion and culture. A Jew can be flaming atheist but he's still a Jew to other Jews. In theory, having only one Jewish parent(European only and preferably the mother) is enough to gain acceptance as a kin member. And unlike Islam and Christianity Jews don't really care about winning converts. They prefer to keep things in the family.
Europeans just rely on pure racial prestige to hold their group together. Blacks, on tne other hand, don't have any pan-black cultural or historical narrative. That's why the recent xenophobic events in South Africa could take place.
Or if blacks have a narrative it could be just what Western history has imposed on them. That's why a black with a name like Peter Worthington doesn't feel strange or odd with such a name. The same for the blacks in Northern Sudan and North Africa.
Ah, so it all comes down to a self-esteeem issue and knowing and understanding one's "blackness" and connection to history and the past and racial heritage. Is that about right? lol
It seems just about everything under the sun is possible to explain the consistent worldwide pattern of differing average IQ scores between population except the one that's simplest and most likely: populations genetically differ in their natural mental capacities just as they do physically.
quote:Ah, so it all comes down to a self-esteeem issue and knowing and understanding one's "blackness" and connection to history and the past and racial heritage. Is that about right? lol
It seems just about everything under the sun is possible to explain the consistent worldwide pattern of differing average IQ scores between population except the one that's simplest and most likely: populations genetically differ in their natural mental capacities just as they do physically.
Stop the charade.
Your dogmatic stance on the issue of IQ suggests that you really don't understand what's being debated. Your various posts also beg a lot of questions.
1) Populations differ genetically--in trivial ways--depending on how one demarcates the different populations. But individuals also differ genetically--as evidenced by DNA analysis of individuals used to exonerate individuals of various crimes.
So, therefore, is each individual an independent population in his/her own right? Do we then have 6 billion populations in the world today?
I can arbitrarily establish in my own fanciful way different population groups based on arbitarily chosen criteria and come up with whatever fanciful claims I choose.
I can choose in one set 5,000 Twa of the Congo region of Africa then choose 5,000 Dinka of the Sudan. These 2 groups would certainly be easily distinguishable phenotypically. I could then subject both groups to a set measurement tests--ear shape, toe shape, height, pigmentation, heel shape, nose height, finger length, etc. The explanation here for any noted significant differences between same group individuals and averages between the 2 groups would be based on simple genetics. And of coures, there would also a large number of average measurements that would not be significantly different
But any test I subject them to involving learning tasks and cognitive abilities will have to be explained in terms of the learning and cognitive environment that both groups have been acculturated into.
It is sheer illogical thinking entailing the fallacy of induction to assume that if 2 individuals or groups differ in N traits, therefore they must differ in ALL traits
The fact that any normal individual could learn any human language at the same rate means that the architecture and neuronic structures of the human brain are the same in all populations. Individual differences would derive in the main from the random permuatations of the human brain neuronic structures. That's why the offspring of illiterate farm peasants could produce individuals who could write novels and solve differential equations with great skill. Just expose the individuals to the appropriate leaning environment and that' what you get in a lot of cases. Google the names Abiola Lapite, Jonathan Farley and Kunle Olukotun, for example, to get my point.
Of course, your obvious agenda is to appeal IQ scores to argue for innate cognitive abilities between population groups that have lived in different environments over time. You are wrong in this because even the most ardent psychometricians of nativist persuasion admit that the learning environment counts for between 20% to 50% of displayed cognitive behavior.
But in all your posts you have not acknowledged what psychometricians call "the Flynn effect"(term coined by Jensen).
James Flynn has looked at almost all the reported data on IQ testing for the last 60 years and noted that there has been a 0.3 point IQ gain IQ scores in all 12 kinds of tests used from 1972 to 1995. And even further back in time.
This is from Lynn("What is Intelligence", 2007, 113): For the Weschsler(WISC and WAIS) and the Stanford-Binet IQ tests, the best rule of thumb is that Full Scale IQ gains have been proceeding at a rate of 0.30 points per year since 1947. The rate is based on comparisons of all of the Weschler and Stanford-Binet tests used in recent years(see box 11)
And Flynn pointed out that Raven's Progressive Matrices tests, which are heavily "g" loaded led to the following: "However, it[RM] cannot avoid measuring habits of mind. Note that after people shifted from reasoning on the concrete to the formal level, Raven's scores began to rise dramatically"(p. 55)
Again, "Dutch males of 1982 were 20 IQ points above the previous generation. According to Jensen's mathematics, the average environment of the previous generation would have to be worse than 99.9% of the 1982 environments. Jensen assumed that no one could make a case for something apparently so implausible"(p. 37).
On the black-white U.S. gap: "And yet Dickens and Flynn(2006) have shown that this is not so: black Americans gained 5.5 IQ points on white Americans between 1972 and 2002; the gains were not factor invariant; and yet the g gap between black and white Americans closed by the equivalent of 5.13 points. How is that possible? The simplest answer is that if one group really could not make g gains on another , they would be incapable of making gains on cognitive tasks that have g loadings. We have already seen that the present generation has made huge gians compared to the last on Raven's, perhaps the test with the highest g loading of them all."
It is obvious then that the environment is crucial in determining average IQ scores. Thus individuals who score 85 on IQ tests in one environment could easily score 100 plus in e a different learning environment.
So the Ashkenazi scores are to be explained by the fact that their learning environment promotes the kind of thinking that allows them to score relatively high on IQ tests. The question though is whether those tests have been normed.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ tests were culturally bias - only against the Jews. LOL
You people never give up do you. Makes me wonder what kind of mind would be so fixated on a people to come amongst them in forums and preach debunked pseudo-science. What do you people fear?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Administrators tried to use IQ scores as a weapon against immigration from these places and peoples. They scored poorly because early tests were heavily culturally dependent.
And still are; do you think a white man like you will scorely highly in an IQ test prepared by the Dogan on cosmology and astrology?
Why are you so fatally obsessed with IQ scores; is it because you feel inadequate in that department, and must convince yourself otherwise, by bringing it up in virtually every topic you enter, to put down some "group of people" [without having to openly subscribe to the bankrupt dogma of human races], in order to feel better about yourself? Explain.
On the other hand, don't explain.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Your dogmatic stance on the issue of IQ suggests that you really don't understand what's being debated. Your various posts also beg a lot of questions.
1) Populations differ genetically--in trivial ways--depending on how one demarcates the different populations. But individuals also differ genetically--as evidenced by DNA analysis of individuals used to exonerate individuals of various crimes.
So, therefore, is each individual an independent population in his/her own right? Do we then have 6 billion populations in the world today?
We could classify 6 billion colors in the color spectrum but we don't because it becomes unmanageable and useless. We can start by using the same populations that people use right here on Egyptsearch - Blacks and Whites.
quote: I can arbitrarily establish in my own fanciful way different population groups based on arbitarily chosen criteria and come up with whatever fanciful claims I choose.
I can choose in one set 5,000 Twa of the Congo region of Africa then choose 5,000 Dinka of the Sudan. These 2 groups would certainly be easily distinguishable phenotypically. I could then subject both groups to a set measurement tests--ear shape, toe shape, height, pigmentation, heel shape, nose height, finger length, etc. The explanation here for any noted significant differences between same group individuals and averages between the 2 groups would be based on simple genetics. And of coures, there would also a large number of average measurements that would not be significantly different
You could do this but like I said previously, it wouldn't make much sense and you wouldn't establish any meaningful relationships as a result. The corresponding data for IQ and population groups based on geography are the most striking, resiliant, and comport with salient physiological features that we use to denote groups socially eg. blacks and whites.
quote: The fact that any normal individual could learn any human language at the same rate means that the architecture and neuronic structures of the human brain are the same in all populations. Individual differences would derive in the main from the random permuatations of the human brain neuronic structures. That's why the offspring of illiterate farm peasants could produce individuals who could write novels and solve differential equations with great skill. Just expose the individuals to the appropriate leaning environment and that' what you get in a lot of cases. Google the names Abiola Lapite, Jonathan Farley and Kunle Olukotun, for example, to get my point.
We're all humans and belong to one race, thus we're more similar than we are different. The average differences in cognition are subtle and are averages after all. You talk of individual differences derived from permutations of brain structure. Simply extrapolate this to a population group average and voila, you get population differences in average cognition.
We can all run, jump, and so forth at similar rates too. Yet some of us are better at it overall. And some populations are better at select activities than others. We haven't seen a white 100 meter dash winner for decades.
quote: Of course, your obvious agenda is to appeal IQ scores to argue for innate cognitive abilities between population groups that have lived in different environments over time. You are wrong in this because even the most ardent psychometricians of nativist persuasion admit that the learning environment counts for between 20% to 50% of displayed cognitive behavior.
Correct, environment accounts for roughly 20% The remainding ~80% is genetic.
quote: But in all your posts you have not acknowledged what psychometricians call "the Flynn effect"(term coined by Jensen).
James Flynn has looked at almost all the reported data on IQ testing for the last 60 years and noted that there has been a 0.3 point IQ gain IQ scores in all 12 kinds of tests used from 1972 to 1995. And even further back in time.
There is debate right now regarding these gains and whether they're g loaded or not.
quote: So the Ashkenazi scores are to be explained by the fact that their learning environment promotes the kind of thinking that allows them to score relatively high on IQ tests. The question though is whether those tests have been normed. [/QB]
It's two sides of the same coin. Ashkanzi's promote a certain learning environment because they're naturally smarter to begin with.
Whites in Australia, or Canada, or Europe, or a group of Whites living in Brazil or in small pockets anywhere else will average 100 on IQ tests even though the culture and environments they're in differ tremendously. The reason is that genetics trumps all else and is quite resistant and uniform.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: IQ tests were culturally bias - only against the Jews. LOL
I didn't say that at all. I said IQ tests were culturally biased against all non-English speaking immigrants. This is why not only Jews, but Russians, Italians, and many other groups that were unwanted performed poorly on the tests. Asking an immigrant who Lincoln was might not get you the correct answer. But give them an abstract question using spacial and mathematic concepts and you begin getting to a truer measure.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian.: And still are; do you think a white man like you will scorely highly in an IQ test prepared by the Dogan on cosmology and astrology?
Yes, if given the opportunity to study and familiarize one's self with those disciplines. This is just a guess.
quote: Why are you so fatally obsessed with IQ scores; is it because you feel inadequate in that department, and must convince yourself otherwise, by bringing it up in virtually every topic you enter, to put down some "group of people" [without having to openly subscribe to the bankrupt dogma of human races], in order to feel better about yourself? Explain.
I don't think I'm obsessed with IQ scores. I just know that they're the best measure we have for predicting social outcomes. Therefore, they are the best measure for predicting educational attainment, productivity, incarceration rates & crime, job status, and so forth. This in turn allows us to explain, in part, why some populations cannot progress or constantly lag behind and appear to be entrenched in that position indefinitely.
For example, there is a lot of talk about if Obama becomes President how this gives black kids hope. They will know that they too can break the highest glass ceiling and become ANYTHING in America. The argument was the same years ago when we went from virtually no black actors on tv and film to many in recent years and in roles such as doctors rather than criminals.
However, because I know how IQ distributions look like, Obama's success will have little impact on black progression. He has high IQ while the most do not therefore they can never follow in his footsteps in any way shape or form.
No amount of education or change in environment has a dramatic affect on one's innate IQ. Black kids raised in white homes come out with virtually the same IQ score as blacks raised in black homes - 85. Whereas Whites raised in white and black homes come out with 100. Asians a bit higher. There is no great mystery as to why.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are obviously an IQ fundamentalist. When empirical facts are put to you, you just avert your eyes and continue with your robitically dogmatic mind-set.
I said that the Flyyn effect is an empirical fact and you just cannot address that fact. I don't want to read what silly prevaricating quacks like Gottfredson and others think. Let's hear you think.
Your claim is that IQ tests reflect the innate cognitive abilities of individuals regardless of environment. You also claim that Ashkenazi scores on IQ tests largely reflect their innate brain power. Yet you say that they were degraded by IQ tests because they scored low on those tests. Can't you see the contradiction in what you say? Figure it out!
When asked to explain the empirical fact of inter-generational increases in IQ scores for individuals within the same culture you prevaricate and dance around with nonsensical irrelevancies. Just stay on the facts and debate.
The empirical facts state that IQ "g" has changed over time. Yet you answer that with reference to some quack. "G" has changed over time. Why? Your answer is like that of a child who has not learnt how to reason. You just repeat what you said before presented with facts :"G" has not changed over time.
Again, you don't seem to know how to think logically when you argue that if you have 2 populations from different cultural and geographical environments and one group scores higher than the other in IQ tests then it must be due to genetics. Wrong. Do you understand anything about how basic statistical research is done.
If you are comparing groups and you want to know the impact of a single variable, you must establish 2 groups: an experimental group and a control group. Given your fanaticism about IQ here's what you might do: pick 5,000 Africans at random and at birth, then take them to a society that is fairly egalitarian like,say, Norway or Iceland. Also pick 5,000 Europeans and 5,000 East Asians, all at random. Now we place all 15,000 in the same Norwegian/Finland environment first in boarding schools. We then choose a set of teachers and caretakers who have been thoroughly vetted for racial bias, etc. These teachers and care takers will then raise those children for the next 20 years in an isolated area. We then await the results from testing these persons in a battery of cognitive tests. Personally, I believe that the Africans might just outdo everybody else. LOL.
My reasoning: Africa's environments are the most challenging in the world and to survive there over 160,000 years requires superior cognitive and physical abilities. That's why when Europeans settled in Africa, they chose the easy places--where the climates are quite temperate and the lands fertile: Southern Africa and coastal North Africa.
Here are some amusing examples of how European peasants who have not been exposed to the environments where they would be taught to think conceptually.(from Flynn 2007)
Tests offered by A.R. Luria(Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations, 1976):
[b]Dog and Chickens Q: What do a dog and chicken have in common A: They are not alike. A chicken has 2 legs, a dog has 4. A chicken has wings but a dog doesn't. A dog has big ears and a chicke's are small. Q: Is ther one word you would use for both of them? A: Of course not Q: Would the word animal fit? A: Yes
White Bears and Novaya Zemlya Q: All bears are white where there is always snow; in Novaya Zemlya there is always snow. What color are the bears there? A: I have seen only black bears and I do not talk of what I have not seen.
Q: But what do my words imply? A: If a person has not been there then he cannot say anything on the basis of words. If a man of 60 or 80 had seen a white bear and told me about it, he could be believed.
Fish and Crows Q: What do a fish and crow have in common? A: A fish-it lives in water. A crow flies. If the fish just lies on top of the water, the crow could peck at it. A crow can eat a fish but a fish can't eat a crow. Q: Could you use one word for them both? A: If you call them animals that wouldn't be right. A fish isn't an animal and a crow isn't either. A crow can eat a fish but a fish can't eat a bird. A person can eat a fish but not a crow.
There you have it--your cognitively able, naturally high IQ Europoids. LOL.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[b/]I don't think I'm obsessed with IQ scores. I just know that they're the best measure we have for predicting social outcomes. Therefore, they are the best measure for predicting educational attainment, productivity, incarceration rates & crime, job status, and so forth. This in turn allows us to explain, in part, why some populations cannot progress or constantly lag behind and appear to be entrenched in that position indefinitely.[/b]
SSShaun, IQ scores are iffy when you use them to predict social outcomes. India has an IQ of 81 and Nepal scores 79, yet the crime rates there don't match those of Western nations. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait score 83 and crime in those 2 places is much lower than say Italy.
IQ scores often underpredict workplace performances a in the following case on the post graduation careers of a cohort of Berkeley Chinese-extraction students, discussed in Flynn(2007).
"In 1980,when 32 years of age,the Chinese members of the class of 1966 had 55% of their number in managerial, technical or professional ocupations, while their white counterparts had only 34%. This meant that Chinese Americans had mimicked a subgroup of the white population with a mean IQ of almost 120, which was 21 points above their actual mean. In 1980, the Chinese members of the class had incomes 20% above their white contemporaries".(Lynn 2007, p.120)
And "At Berkeley in the fall of 1966, native born Chinese entrants had an IQ threshold 7 points below whites. Despite this, they were as sucessful at university as whites".(p.119)
The point is that an intra-cultural individual with an IQ of 90 could perform at the 100 level once other variables kick in.
Obviously, your doomsday analysis about so-called low IQ individuals echoes the silly tantrums of a Richard Lynn.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The words meant black but they still divided the "blacks" into different ethnic groups.
quote:Exactly and this is attested by a freakin' Arab
Both these remarks can be taken as a measure of the posters stupidity.
They seem to think that the notion of Blacks as multi-ethnic [which it is today, and has in fact always been], is somehow the antithesis of Black being ethnic.
In actuality multi-ethnic is and extention of ethnic, and the antithesis of *non*-ethnic.
Multi-extends.... "non" negates.
But these two knuckleheads can't get their minds around this.
In fact, I doubt they can even understand the above sentense, or the root concepts of thesis and antithesis, extension and negation.
In Al Jihaz "The Glory of the Blacks".... Black is and ethnic reference, in precisely the same context in which it is commonly used today. This should be obvious.
ES continues to wallow in the intellectual adolescence of Holocaust deniers and Kemophobic losers, and their general lack of brainpower, which enables them to evade any reality they don't like......
quote:The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the people of Sind,...the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks" --Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.html
This cat just doesn't get it!! LOL
For the last time:
1. Fulani = Ethnic 2. Wolofi= Ethnic 3. Mandinka = Ethnic 4. Black = Race/Color 5. White = Race/Color 6. Red = Race/Color
Get it? Got it? Good Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are obviously an IQ fundamentalist. When empirical facts are put to you, you just avert your eyes and continue with your robitically dogmatic mind-set.
I haven't read Flynn's book but Linda S. Gottfredson has and refers to it in the post I provided above. In essence, Flynn dances around the concept of g. I won't say the there is a nail in the coffin on this issue but your position more or less hangs by a hairpin at this point. The only researcher with any significant output with regard to knocking the IQ paradigm is Flynn and his position is not firm.
You cannot explain away mountains of evidence, within culture results, cross-cultural studies, adoptive studies, IQ uniformity, patterns and resiliance globally, by arguing that it's culture that's responsible.
I've posted before that Jews represent barely 1% of the population yet hold nearly 30% of Nobel Prizes in America. It's borderline baffoonery to postulate that it's due merely to Jewish culture, lol.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: SSShaun, IQ scores are iffy when you use them to predict social outcomes. India has an IQ of 81 and Nepal scores 79, yet the crime rates there don't match those of Western nations. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait score 83 and crime in those 2 places is much lower than say Italy.
Cross-national crime comparisons are limited because law is a social construct (so what constitutes a crime differs) and enforcement and reporting standards differ between nations. Oh, I'm sure that crime is "low" in dictatorships or at least reported as such, and the penalties much more severe.
quote: IQ scores often underpredict workplace performances a in the following case on the post graduation careers of a cohort of Berkeley Chinese-extraction students, discussed in Flynn(2007).
"In 1980,when 32 years of age,the Chinese members of the class of 1966 had 55% of their number in managerial, technical or professional ocupations, while their white counterparts had only 34%. This meant that Chinese Americans had mimicked a subgroup of the white population with a mean IQ of almost 120, which was 21 points above their actual mean. In 1980, the Chinese members of the class had incomes 20% above their white contemporaries".(Lynn 2007, p.120)
Exceptions are not the rule. And the difference between a group with an average IQ of 100 to a group with an average of 120 is going to be much more subjective than betwen a group with 85 and 100. At 85, you're at the threshold or close to functioning at the most basic level.
Personality traits also compensate. Asians are known for persistence, dedication, and work ethic. So an Asian with an IQ of 100 could theoretically compete or at least be judged to be competitive with somebody with a higher IQ who lacks the same work ethic.
quote: And "At Berkeley in the fall of 1966, native born Chinese entrants had an IQ threshold 7 points below whites. Despite this, they were as sucessful at university as whites".(p.119)
The point is that an intra-cultural individual with an IQ of 90 could perform at the 100 level once other variables kick in.
Obviously, your doomsday analysis about so-called low IQ individuals echoes the silly tantrums of a Richard Lynn. [/QB]
The dream you cling to is that comparing IQ of 85 with IQ of 100 is a fair comparison to IQs of 100 and higher. For example, it's ridiculous to compare a group with an average IQ of 90 to a group with an average IQ of 75. The latter is facing retardation and significant social adjustment difficulties because they lack any analytic brain power. Blacks are overrepresented in this group.
Barring any breakthru in modern medicine, the only way out of this is mating between blacks and whites to boost low black IQ to a more moderate average of say, 90 - 95.
This is the sad reality and no amount of crowing from your ivory tower will change it. You look in the mirror and believe that just because you're capable that others are. It's not true. Some people 'got it' and others just don't.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Show me an African calling themselves *black* before Arab or European Imperialism. 1000 years ago is NOT far enough back Rasol I am afraid. You are enslaved by Eurocentricity by holding on to the fact that *black* is a "special" designation just because you have a fantasy that "Egyptians called themselves black" lol.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic