I get it....when you cannot deal with the message.....shoot the messenger. More truth: http://conservative-headlines.com/2...-activity-a-young-white-female-can-engage-in/
Ancient White Egypt This work refutes Afrocentrist nonsense which claims that Egypt was black through reviewing the historical record of Egyptian art, images of mummies, and new dramatic DNA evidence. Lavishly illustrated with over 106 full color pictures, DNA evidence and a complete historical overview, this book proves that white people created the initial Egyptian civilizationand that ancient Egypt culture came to an end once those people had been bred out of existence. Contains the dramatic DNA evidence which shows that Tutankhamun was of the same racial stock as present-day western Europeans, additional DNA evidence and much more. Eurocentric history is back! http://www.amazon.com/The-Children-..._UL160_SR107,160_&refRID=0CG9AEDVZTNA75ETVSD5
This is a powerful exploration of the debilitating impact that politically-correct multiculturalism has had upon higher education and academic freedom in the United States. In the name of diversity, many leading academic and cultural institutions are working to silence dissent and stifle intellectual life. This book exposes the real impact of multiculturalism on the institution most closely identified with the politically correct decline of higher educationStanford University. Authored by two Stanford graduates, this book is a compelling insiders tour of a world of speech codes, dumbed-down admissions standards and curricula, campus witch hunts, and anti-Western zealotry that masquerades as legitimate scholarly inquiry. Sacks and Thiel use numerous primary sourcesthe Stanford Daily, class readings, official university publicationsto reveal a pattern of politicized classes, housing, budget priorities, and more. They trace the connections between such disparate trends as political correctness, the gender wars, Generation X nihilism, and culture wars, showing how these have played a role in shaping multiculturalism at institutions like Stanford. The authors convincingly show that multiculturalism is not about learning more; it is actually about learning less. They end their comprehensive study by detailing the changes necessary to reverse the tragic disintegration of American universities and restore true academic excellence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/a...to-display-at-chicagos-field-museum.html?_r=0 http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-myth-of-diversity_4.html
Thanks. I agree that we should have sufficient evidence before making claims of any kind. Check out this thread on the Ancient Egyptians. Arthur Kemp is not a credible scholar. He is a White Supremacist from South Africa who is notorious for writing pseudohistory. I find it hilarious that Rushton endorsed that book.
Can you believe this DusheBag, El Diablo? He keeps acting like he's a conservative. I"M a Conservative, He's some kind of "Supremecy Nazi". Gawd, I hate the blemish that his type of people put upon reasonable conservative like myself. My family suffered during and after WWII, because of people with his mindset.
The Ancient North Africans weren't black. There are graveyards in Egypt with thousands upon thousands (possibly millions) of blonde and red-haired mummies. Many people think were the true indigenous people of ancient Egypt. [video]http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=red+headed+mummies+fo und+in+egypt&view=detail&mid=711A8F53736B3E9F47E7711A8F 53736B3E9F47E7&FORM=VIRE[/video]
If you will refer back to my other posts, you'll see that I never said that the North Africans were Black. In fact, I pointed out quite the opposite. It is a know fact the North Africa was populated by Europeans, albeit many, many thousands of years ago.
your post is highly sceptical and only entertained by white academia and their compulsion to rewrite history and omit anything black. We've seen it all before and thanks to the new age of enlightenment we are becoming to see the true picture which is total contrast to YOUR WHITE SAVIOR MYTH North Africans were black in antiquity. Only recently with in the last 1000 years have they become paler due to the colonization of Africa by Arabs then Europeans. In fact ancient Europeans were black too until fairly recently as the "WHITE RACE" is only about 3000 years old. The white race cannot even claim ancient Greece or time as white as we now know ancient Greece was a black culture and Roman empire to a large extent. Britain was also a black culture in ancient times and ask any knowledgable celt and they tell you they descend from north Africa which was a black culture.
Man, you're as bad as that other bigot I was discussing this with , earlier in this thread. Why all the Caps? Why the accusations towards me about "YOUR WHITE SAVIOR MYTH"? You know, talking to that other bigot, I mentioned that I'm in an interracial marriage, with mixed race kids. I'm not the Racist here. I'm not the Bigot here. But you two are the ones making the same Racist, Bigoted arguments, just from opposite sides. To HELL with the BOTH OF YOU! Shove your Racism and Bigotry up your backside for all I care. Good Day, Sir!
True, but irrelevant. Tribal constructs are among the most persistent of all human creations. Their lifespans are measured not in decades, but centuries...even milennia.
It's irrelevant to note that 'white' is not a real racial construct, but an ideology? I think not. People believe that certain characteristics, including physical and mental, are inherent of that made up construct. This ideology has brought us the Bell Curve, Manifest Destiny, Imperialism, etc. One can't fight against this type of ideology if they think it's irrelevant!
Any more anecdotes? I've heard the ice got black friends many a time. Even by hard-core racists - - - Updated - - - Any body who argues that north Africans are/were/will be white or Caucasian is a racist, end of.
Only Northern Europeans have a lot of light hair, very light skin, and light eyes, not to mention a lot of Western European Hunter Gatherer (WHG) DNA, as well as tolerance of lactose. We're really like a sub-race of Caucasoid, sort of, but different from other Caucasoids such as Arabs, and Asian Indians who have darker complexion, but also more elongated features. I suppose you can call us Borealized Caucasoids of Northern Europe.
Britain at one time was mostly Neolithic farmer by DNA, who were likely more swarthy, but they were from Anatolia, not North Africa, and this DNA is best preserved in Sardinians ironically. But, this changed with the arrival of Yamnaya Culture Indo-Europeans from Ukraine / Russia who bought Indo-European Celtic languages to Britain, but also likely red hair.
Unfortunately, you have the cart before the horse. The 'ideolgy' about did not cause white misbehavior. The behavior was enabled by historical and geographic accidents that gave Europeans an expoitable advantage. It was no different from previous empires throughout history (aside from technological changes that gave Europeans an unprecedented advantage). The ideology was pasted on later in an attempt at self-justification. You are at war, not with an ideology, but with human nature. Changing the ideology doesn't the behavior, rather the reverse. There are ways of controlling human social behavior, many of them quite effective. Attempting to un-invent the white race, tribe, ethnicity, (or whatever) is guaranteed to make things worse...a lot worse. By directing your wrath towards the identity of a particular group, they will react negatively and defensively. They will interpret your stance as an attack, not on what they do but what they are.
Race is not a meaningless, semantic category. They represent genetic clusters and statistical regularities. Are they perfect categories? No, but they are useful categories.
You just ignore all of the evidence that is presented, don't you? In another thread I was challenged to provide evidence of East Asian IQ differences, and I provided three very solid studies. There are more. I find it miraculous that you could have all that data, know that populations were separated by thousands of years, and conclude that only physical differences exist.
We've had a lot of discussions about this recently and I know I haven't responded to everything. But out of curiosity what is it about East Asian IQ that you think makes it high? What evolutionary factors led to their high intelligence? And why is it only the Northeast Asian countries like China, Japan and Korea that have high IQs and not Southeast Asian countries? They're all Asians ("Mongoloids"). Why the difference? Now as far as human populations being separated by thousands of years leading to racial differentiation and intelligence differences is concerned, we've had that discussion on here. Perhaps we need to explore it in more detail. I recommend reading the following articles on the evolution and race topic: 1) The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence American Anthropologist Volume 99, Issue 3 September 1997 Pages 534544 2) Biological Races in Humans Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Volume 44, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 262271 3) An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264 4) Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92 I believe that high Northeast Asian IQ is caused by the culture of these communities not superior genetics for intelligence. Richard Nisbett has done a lot of research on this subject. I am currently reading his book Intelligence and How to Get It. When I am finished I will make a thread to address Empress' obsessive assault on Nisbett's research and perhaps another thread on Asian and Jewish IQ.
I disagree a little. When people subscribe to any type of thinking, it is usually because of indoctrination. Human nature may be what makes them susceptible to what people get taught and how they react to it, but it's ultimately thoughts, ideas, and suggestions that we deal with. I see the current racial construct like I do religion. All these ideas can be defeated. New ideas can replace them and the old ones get shunned. The "white" race is a just a way to group certain ligh-skinned people together and make distinctions for those outside the it (unofficial classism). Europeans decided to call themselves 'white' and even rode roughshod over ethnic Europeans who tried to hang onto their heritage when they got here. Generations later, they're 'white' people. In the modern world, the current construct should go away altogether. Instead of using race, we could use ethnicity. Or, we could do away with race and ethnicity and simply call all the citizens Americans. The only thing skin tone should be used for is description. Instead, it's featured on official documents as if it's supposed to mean something more and that's because it does. ETA: I should add that my arguments aren't directed towards the people, but the actual structure that perpetrated the idea. Structure meaning, the laws, the unofficial double standards, the propaganda, the ideas, etc.
Well, first I'd say that racial categories that broad are rightly criticized as being a little too inclusive and less meaningful. For instance, many of those tripartite, racial taxonomic systems put middle easterners, western Europeans, and those of Amerindian admixture in the same category, which doesn't make sense. This isn't to say that statistically meaningful information isn't produced, but that it isn't as good as being a little more regionally specific. The differentiation between East Asians and South Asians is pretty normal within psychological research, academic departments that study these regions, and is perceptibly instantiated. The similarities between Han Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are quite clear, and they are distinct from Southeast Asian populations. Many people who have studied the region, like myself, can actually differentiate between the different groups based purely on physical features, though of course there is overlap. For instance, the Chinese in Dongbei province are often indistinguishable from North Koreans, though the Chinese in China proper are more noticeably different from Koreans. Similarly, southern Chinese, like those in Guangzhou, can often look very similar to the Vietnamese, who share a border with them. To complicate matters, The Han Chinese have meddled in the region for centuries, so there is significant Han Chinese blood in most of Southeast Asia. For the most part, Japan and Korea are the "purest" statistical examples of what most mean when they say East Asian. They have very light skin, are taller than southern Asians, and have different facial features--I can spot the difference between a Korean and someone from Indonesia quite easily. You can gnaw at the edges of this taxonomy if you want, but the fact that, as a statistical group, they have demonstrated higher IQ's than whites is very well documented, even when adjusted for environment. You would be hard pressed to explain the adoption studies (not the one you've previously debated), the persistent difference between verbal and nonverbal IQ, and overall performance by appealing to environmental factors. I predict that, once more research is conducted, we will also find that East Asians rank higher than whites in conscientiousness, adjusting for environmental differences, along with many other differences. I'm not sure if you saw my other posts on East Asian intelligence, but I discussed how interesting it is that the verbal/non-verbal split is so persistent. If studying explains their high performance relative to other races, then why don't they achieve higher verbal scores? On every aptitude test that I know of, no matter what collegiate level, this pattern remains. Why would they have intermediate verbal ability and superb non-verbal ability? Why the other behavioral differences? I do not think Nisbett will be able to explain these differences.
No one is doubting that "whiteness" isn't something that has changed over time, but you are knocking down straw men. The fact is that we have developed statistical categories, confirmed their validity through genetic testing (genetic clustering), and observed numerous physical and behavioral differences that transcend culture and environment. Do you not deny that there are physical differences between, say, Koreans and Scandinavians? You seem to just ignore the data I present and keep maintaining the same position. Based on your other statements, I think you have a political agenda you are pursuing (most likely egalitarianism).
Was this post meant for me? I believe people are biochemically different. That negates nothing I said on 'white' being a social construct and that who is 'white' varies from person to person. There are half black people passing as white and I'm supposed to take the category serious as a biological construct? You should see who is labeled white in North Africa and see if you should still believe in it being biological. Even with the studies you shared, you still can't help but separate the NE Asians from the other Asians.
