Admit it, we need peaceful segregation

Please provide evidence for your claims that a) Blacks in Black run Caribbean are still affected by racism/slavery; b) institutional racism exists in nations such as Cuba, Brazil and the UK; and c) racism is the primary cause of the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks.

 

I'm STILL waiting for Libhater to give a rational, logical, fact based response to this: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452662&p=1066102834#post1066102834

 

Yet you don't believe that a certain ethnicity, as a whole, should be held accountable (in as much as suggesting there may be an innate problem there) for, per example, a disproportionately high crime rate? You will blame it on other factors, and even, inevitably, on another race.

Oh, so if I don't think it is their fault I'm NOT a racist? You contradict your subjective definition and estimation of racism at every turn. I am no more racist than you, who believes there are some natural traits of one race that make them superior in some ways to another. The difference is, it's a one way street with you. You don't allow the possibility that another race may have a natural advantage at something else. (At least, if you do, you sure haven't volunteered it.) Not only do you set yourself up as the ultimate determinator of who is racist and who is not, you even think you know how this group you have created perimeters for, thinks. That makes you a self-appointed mind reader who relies upon racial studies that agree with you and dismisses every one that doesn't. Your reasoning is totally arbitrary and circular. Are you like this with everything, or just with the subject of racism, with which you are apparently obsessed with?

 

Institutional racism was exposed in the UK police force in a court of law with the advent of the Lawrence case. A big breakthrough in uncovering racism in UK institutions

 

So blacks are poor, violent and have low IQ because stop and search?

 

Africa was richer than Asia about 100 years ago, but that sure changed.

Also Ethiopia, and Liberia which weren't officially colonized ended up as some of the most poor nations in Africa.

 

A) We were talking about countries in the Caribbean such as Cuba where there is a Socioeconomic divide between Blacks and Whites. Clearly the wealth gap was caused by slavery in countries like Cuba and Brazil and their social policies have not eliminated the disparity nor should we expect them to.

B) Racism exists in Cuba and Brazil. Whether it is institutional is irrelevant to the fact that these countries had slavery and whenever you have a slave population that makes no income while the master population accumulates wealth you are always going to have a Socioeconomic divide even centuries after that slavery has ended.

C) The fact that slavery and segregation causes Socioeconomic disparities between Blacks and Whites is obvious. We know that the achievement gap is caused by environmental differences because once the laws were changed in America to equalize the playing field between Whites and Blacks there was an increase in Black achievement. Only environmental improvement could explain this phenomenon. Not only was there improvement in achievement in the Black community but also an improvement in IQ. If IQ score differences were primarily genetic there couldn't be a significant change in score like this.

Why should I accept your pseudoscientific claims when they are demonstrably false?

You are a racist. I am not. Those are facts. I didn't make the rules on what the definition of racism is. Racism existed as a concept long before I was born. I use the common use definition of racism which doesn't necessarily refer to belief in superiority but to racial discrimination e.g. hatred or intolerance based on race. You stick to the outdated definition of racism so you can claim you are no more racist then your opponents when the fact is that you are very racist. And as far as obsession goes I am combating racism on the internet which is a noble cause and far more respectable than spreading it the way people like you are doing.

Liberia and Ethiopia are part of Africa and Africa as a collective is at the bottom of the rung in the global economy because the way Europeans handled trade was to make it benefit them and their countries at the expense of other regions. Your whole viewpoint on this subject is twisted and evil. Black people are not disproportionately poor because they are innately stupid, they are poor because they were exploited by Whites. They are not the only victims. The native people of North and South America were decimated by war and genocide. The survivors among these populations are poor as well. Southeast Asian countries were also exploited by European powers and they are also poor. Northeast Asian countries had more technologically advanced societies at the time that Europeans were colonizing the world so they weren't as easy to exploit they were able to succeed in the global economy because they could modernize and Westernize better than other countries. You have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to defend the racist narrative of human history and human nature. There are so many problems with these racist ideas people like you have that your argument collapses like a house of cards when we do an in depth analysis of it.

For example can you answer all of these questions?

I could ask others. Racist arguments are simply motivated by ideology not an objective observation of facts.

 

South Africa was colonized longer than much of Africa, and is richer than much of Africa, while Liberia, and Ethiopia weren't officially colonized and are poorer than much of Africa.

 

Nonsense.

I was at one time anti-racist, and after reading Rushton's work at first I objected, but after seeing all the points he made, particularly the points he made on transracial adoption studies where IQ was still at a similar gap for different races after adoption into middle class White households, then it was simply the right argument.

Your side is in fact the biased side, you disregard facts, and come up with goofy simple explanations every time that don't fit with reality.

 

You are asserting claims without evidence. Again. Slavery ended a long while ago and I do not accept that the wealth divide is due to slavery especially in redistributive societies such as Cuba. Please provide the evidence.

The black wealth chart tracks black wealth but does not show white wealth. I've never claimed wealth is stagnant.

I see you're repasting something I responded to last time but ignored and asking for answers. The seems typical of you to evade criticisms of your argument and move onto the next individual.

Btw, how is your Nisbett work coming along? Have you finished his book?

 

How come White countries that were colonized bounce back much quicker?

Ireland, and Finland both gained their independence nearly 100 years after Mexico, or much of Latin America did from Spain.

Yet, Ireland, and Finland are rich nations.

While in Eastern Europe colonization happened until close to 1990, and these countries are still catching up.

However, in the early 1990's Poland had about half the Per Capita Income GDP as Mexico, currently Poland has a Per Capita Income GDP nearly 1/3rd higher than Mexico.
'
Yet, Poland had much worse conditions in the 20th century, than Latin America, or Africa did particularly around the WW2 era.

Yet, Poland's rising fast, and has done well intellectually.

 

south Africa has crippling debts left by Europeans. South Africa also has lots of the world's gold and diamonds. That's where king Solomon's mines are. Btw. You're not really making a point here.

- - - Updated - - -

Ireland and Finland weren't colonized. It was just one group of whites being dominating another, they're the same tribe.

 

Ploand is benefiting from the euro union. They all come to England and send their money to Poland. Tribal bias. Poles don't face racial discrimination in Europe. The only way you can tell a pole from a brit is fashion sense.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

the Germans murdered millions of Polish people, simply due to their ethnicity/language.

they were not the same "tribe" simply due to their skin color.

skin color and tribe are not the same thing.

get off your obsession with race.

- - - Updated - - -

where do you get such comic book nonsense?

LOL!!!

 

Which is not the same as racism. Polish German war was inter tribal tensions, fighting over chiefdoms

 

more silly lies.

same skin color does not mean same tribe.

native american tribes fought each other and massacred each other all the time.

African groups mass murder each other. Rwanda genocide for example.

Nigerian Muslims vs Christains.

Kenyan Muslims vs Christians.

Japanese massacering Chinese and Korean.




skin color does not mean same tribe

 

Cuba does not have true wealth redistribution. Communist societies historically do not work and you often find wealth divides as bad or worse than Capitalist societies.

The point is that as the laws changed so did Black wealth (and IQ). This supports the argument that as environmental quality improves so does the intelligence and standard of living of Blacks.

I vaguely recall you responding to some of my questions but not all. The posting frequency of the forum is increasing so I have forgotten to respond to everything.

When I finish the book I will let you know. Then I will create a new thread and address the Lee and Rushton-Jensen articles.

 

irrelevant points. Germans and poles are still the same tribe, its not the same as racism, its inter tribal wars

 

Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, are the same tribe?

Rwandans all the same tribe?

Kenyans all the same tribe?

Nigerians all the same tribe?

your obsession with skin color, is sad & pathetic.

 

You haven't shown the white-black wealth gap changed.

Your comments were addressed twice over, I believe:
http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/450687-why-race-iq-studies-useless-11.html

 

i dont know but non of that negates the fact that Germans and poles are still the same tribe.

 

silly bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

by your logic, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, are all the same tribe.

Nigerians, Zulu, Kenyans are all the same tribe.

Mohegan, Navajo, Sioux are all the same tribe.

your fixation with skin color=identity, is silly.

 

Ireland, and Finland were colonized by slightly different people.

For starters Finns aren't even Indo-European speakers, they were colonized by Indo-European speaking Germanic Swedes, and Slavic Russians.

Ireland is Celtic, and were colonized by Germanic speakers, although in this case both are Indo-European but still different sects of Indo-European.

In the case of Ireland they were Catholic, and colonized by people who were Protestant. (At least later on)

You claim to be Celtic, yet you say Germanic speaking Protestants who colonized Catholic Celtic Ireland are the same tribe? WTF?

That's insulting to Irish people.

 

What a bunch of bull.

Poland was one of the fastest growing economies in Europe even before it joined the European Union.

Polish face tons of discrimination in Western Europe, and it peaks in the British Isles.

585 hate crimes against Polish were recorded in a single year in the U.K, some of them even severe.

 

Not really, Germans are mostly R1b haplogroup, and speak a Germanic language, while Polish are mostly R1a haplogroup, and speak a Slavic language.

The phenotype is also a little different too, as Polish have more Baltid, Gorid, Neo Danubian, and Pontid phenotypes, while Germans have more Faelid, Borreby, Keltic Nordid, and Atlantid phenotypes.