What is the end game for race realist?

You're a pro. But you're clearly very emotional and seems to get side tracked easily. Also getting lured to debate irrelevant things like the race of Egyptians which has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand.


The problem is that you debate realist as if people are on the fence about it. The reality is people either are a realist or they're not. There really isn't an in between. People who are ace realist minds are already made up. And people who are not really can't be swayed by any argument they make.

The reality is race realist know they're full of it. The challenge is getting them to admit it. I'm more or less trying to get down the the real agenda because there is one. I don't waste my time debating facts with realist because they're not interested in facts.

The key is to prove your position is from a place of reason and logic. But when you and act emotional you give them ownership of reason and logic. Ando that's why race realism lives. It isn't about facts it's about getting emotional people to feel like they're getting behind a perfectly logical position.

 

The first problem for your argument is that the African ethnic groups I mentioned not only have these narrow features you are calling Caucasoid evidence shows they were indigenous to Africa (i.e. not Caucasian or Eurasian in origin) and the Ancient Egyptians shared close biological affinities with these populations. Egypt was populated from the Sahara, Sudan and Horn of Africa with some input in Northern Egypt from the Near East.



Most anthropologists, biologists and geneticists do not believe that racial labels like Caucasoid and Negroid are biologically meaningful. Human biological variation does exist but it is not structured in to races.

My argument is not that the Ancient Egyptians were Negroid. I do not use racial labels like Negroid and Caucasoid because they are not scientific. My argument is that human history does not fit the racist narrative that people who look at certain way are incapable of developing advanced civilizations because they are stupid. Ancient Egypt is just one example. This can be looked at in many different ways.

 

You are trying to attribute advanced civilizations to Sub-Saharan Africans where none exist. There is no doubt that there was intermingling of races in Egypt. The tomb art clearly shows this. The ancient Egyptians were not much different than modern Egyptians and most folks don't consider them Black/Negroid.

 

I haven't made any emotional outbursts in this thread. You on the other hand have insulted me because you don't like my contribution to the thread and expressed extreme frustration in the direction of the thread which is emotional. I'm not treating these people like they are on the fence. Just the opposite. I recognize that racists are ideological zealots who believe what they want to believe and aren't going to concede defeat no matter the evidence. The key is to shut them down not to get them to admit they are wrong. That is extremely rare. These people are dishonest, emotional and extremely devoted to believing racist nonsense. At best you can shut them down or at least make a fool out of them when they continue rehashing the same tired old arguments. If you are worried about the direction of the thread you can encourage the discussion to go the way you want it but you don't have the power to enforce that and you don't get your way with complaints and insults. You're really barking up the wrong tree here. I know what I am doing. I know how to debate racists and what point I am trying to make here. I'm also not derailing the thread. I addressed your opening post. The racists decided to take the thread in different directions and argue about different things. It's not against the rules to do that. Instead of attacking me try steering them in the direction you want them to go by asking questions but don't be surprised if they dodge you.

 

Africa is no limited to the Sub-Saharan regions. There are dark-skinned people in the Sahara region today and there were in antiquity as well including Egypt. The intermingling occurred when Egypt was continually invaded by foreigners. From the Early Dynastic Period to the New Kingdom period Egypt was primarily populated by dark-skinned people from the citizens to the rulers and after the decline of the civilization foreigners came in. Saying that the modern Arabic people who are the majority in Egypt today makes as much sense as saying the ancient Aztecs, Incas and Mayans looked like Spaniards. Those people aren't native to the region. Modern Egyptians primarily speak Arabic and practice Islam because a different culture was introduced to the region. Not just culture but people as well. The scientific evidence is clear on this.

The Negroid-Caucasoid ruse isn't going to work.

The Sub-Saharan ruse isn't going to work.

Accusing me of trying to disconnect myself from my West African ancestors isn't going to work.

I have encountered all of these tactics before. You're not throwing anything new at me. You're not challenging my points.

 

Show me some advance cultures in Sub-Saharan Africa, from whence you hail.

 

If even one advanced culture existed in Africa that was inhabited by Black Africans before any comparable civilization existed in Europe what so ever then the racist narrative has been completely destroyed.

From there you can look at the rest of African history in context. There were several empires, kingdoms and complex societies in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Examples:

• Ancient Ghana
  
• The Mali Empire
  
• The Songhai Empire
  
• The Mossi Kingdoms
  
• The Benin Empire
  
• Great Zimbabwe
  
• The Nok Culture
  
• The Kingdom of Aksum

 

If you can't understand my direct answers, so be it. How about some from your end?

What is YOUR personal goal or endgame for Blacks in America---that is for anyone who would be observed as being Black? Do you want Blacks to have more or less political power in the US? What ethnic groups have too much power in the US? What do you think should be the ideal racial makeup of the US in 50 years? What races should there be more or less of?

Also, is there any city in the US that is too Black and has too many Blacks running the city such as Detroit, Baltimore, Jackson, or Birmingham?

For your imagined grasp of crime statistics, you fail to grasp the concept of "relative risk."

One can't predict how one person from a group will perform in a certain area, but when there are 100 or more from the group then one can make accurate predictions. The politicians who often construe crime studies will always used very broad data to confuse the facts. You to use nationwide data on crime, and even then don't seem to realize Blacks are 13% of the population. In fact young Black men make up only 1% of the US population, yet commit 25%of the murders. If I am in a urban area like South Side Chicago and there is one murderer running free on every block, then I'm going to be at far, far greater risk than being in a farming town in North Dakota where there have been less than 10 murders in the whole state that year. Here is an accurate assessment of Black crime:

[video=youtube;w5JbAO5_NMw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw&t=93s[/video]

Your understanding of genes seems limited. There isn't just one gene for skin color, hair type, intelligence or behavior. There are probably 100's and 1000's of genes involved in shaping intelligence and behavior that both are likely 80% inherited. Looking for a small number of "Warrior Genes" isn't going to show much.

 

It's healthy to have fantasies, like your fantasies about the great advanced, Black civilizations in Africa you mentioned.

 

Advanced Black civilization in Africa predates advanced White civilization in Europe. That's not a fantasy it is reality.

 

You defined oppression as the Government discriminating against you. How does a racist criminal justice system, which is a function of Government, not qualify as oppression? Both the police, who act on the behalf of the state, and the court system are apparently (in your left-wing view) racist against blacks and applying discrimination, yet somehow that doesn't fit the definition of oppression that you gave.

Your argument completely fell apart. You're not willing to admit it, but I'll keep pointing it out, regardless.

So simply having a few blacks in them is enough to qualify as not-Caucasian to you? Middle Easterners have Caucasoid, not negroid, DNA, and that appears to be the dominant genetic component in Ancient Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Egypt

100 years versus 3,000 years. Good for them.

It's also becoming more common because of certain media perceptions and narratives that are being pushed by progressives in society.

I already provided it.

You clearly didn't read the article. The number of seats held by far-right groups has been doubling in every election and is now at nearly 25%. Hitler gained power by getting 37%. All the far-right groups have to do is continue the momentum they have had over the past 17 years and they will eventually gain power.

You won't get rid of the Electoral College without an Amendment to the Constitution. Good luck with that.

And yes, Hispanic immigration heavily favors Democrats. Amazing how people from the least educated and most impoverished countries in the Western hemisphere make such good Democratic voters. Whether that is good for the country is a subjective thing.

Like I said, the left should give up the prediction business for a while, after their embarrassing 2016 election predictions.

- - - Updated - - -

Refusing to concede an argument that you've lost doesn't make you the winner.

 

You know, if a racist claims that there have been no advanced black civilizations or that black countries' current economic disadvantage is the product of innate defects, of course Egypt, Mali etc. are going to be brought up as historical counterpoints. Sure, it may steer the conversation in a different direction, but in the end it's the racist who brought up the topic of African civilizations (or the claimed lack of them) in the first place. So I don't think it's fair to accuse EgalitarianJay of being the one to derail the conversation when he was simply responding to someone else's claim that black countries must always lag behid white or Asian ones.

 

Caucasians have always included brown skinned Indians and Middle Easterners. Negroid was a completely separate classification.

 

Afro-centrists try and take credit for the advances made under the Middle Eastern cultures of North Africa because Sub-Saharan African, where most black people are derived from, is very light on historical contributions towards human civilization and history.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are all the great Sub-Saharan mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers?

 

There has never been a time when the cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa were the most advanced in the world. For the most part they never even had a written language.

 

I have no personal goal for black America, because I think is ultimately pointless to have a goal for an entire race of people. My goal however as an individual is to prove you wrong, and if I can use the black race as a means to do so, I will. Since I am very good at technology, mathematics, and a lot of things that fall underneath STEM, and I found it to be incredibly easy. Then logic would dictate that STEM isn't actually that hard if you choose to learn it correctly. My goal is to prove that

1) All problems in the actual world are knowledge and logic problems. Both that are easy to learn. Rendering whatever IQ test as basically irrelevant. Since IQ test assert that knowledge isn't as important as the ability to find patterns. Discovering patterns is important in the real world, but this is something that can be learned once someone trains their mind to see patterns.

2) IQ test can be raised or lowered. Which has been proven

3) Based on my system, blacks should be able to greatly out compete whites and Asians by an extremely wide gap. Proving me right. Actually I know I'm right, being able to raise my own IQ and working with cutting edge technology and understanding abstract mathematical concepts.


I also don't care about political power at all. I care only about economic power, and economics should have little to do with politics. The issue is that they do have a lot to do with each other now, which is a big part the problems we see in society today.

I fail to see the relevance of this question

Yes there is a relative risk based on certain statistics. But there are other variables such and neighborhoods and environments, population density, and poverty. And any study that discusses relative risk almost always use these as factors.

Also relative risk is not the same as absolute risk. But when you read off your statistics you try to make it sound like there is an "absolute" risk from blacks, which isn't true. Again, the volume of crime relative to the entire population of blacks is VERY low.

Black men in this demographic is more than 1%. and a few thousand murders amongst a population of several million still is just a few percentages. This does not create an overall risk, and it's STILL very low. So there is still no sweeping generalization that can be made about black's propensity to commit crimes, even though you're trying to make it sound this way. Furthermore you're trying to make it sound as if it's genetic, but if it were genetic, then well over 50% of the entire black population would commit murders. But as you have seen this is not the case.

[video=youtube;w5JbAO5_NMw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw&t=93s[/video]

you are right, I am not a geneticist. However I have tried to increase my understanding of genes. The only gene I've ever heard given a name to account for violence in blacks was MAOA. If there are thousands, why are race realist so tight lipped as to what they are? You can blame it on a lack of academic freedom, but I find that to just be a cop out

 

Any examples?

- - - Updated - - -

Fantasyland.

 

Mathematics is very basic for human beings.

 

"Black men in this demographic is more than 1%. and a few thousand murders amongst a population of several million still is just a few percentages. This does not create an overall risk, and it's STILL very low. So there is still no sweeping generalization that can be made about black's propensity to commit crimes, even though you're trying to make it sound this way. Furthermore you're trying to make it sound as if it's genetic, but if it were genetic, then well over 50% of the entire black population would commit murders. But as you have seen this is not the case."

You don't seen to be too sharp at math. Blacks make up about 13% of U.S. population, males 6.5%, males 18 - 25 about 0.65% You knowledge of genetics is no better.

 

Wow. What a convoluted journey you bring. So, in your mind, then, only white folk are racist. Hmm. Seems you yourself are the purveyor then of what you yourself define as racism.

So, the question is, what is the point then? To suggest that we have white racists? Sure. We do. Most of them are democrats. We know this because it's the use of this social data you describe that they use to then justify their public policy, no? So, we see this peppered throughout democratic policies. The use of terms like "super pradators",etc. Justification of birth control centers located within racial inner city enclaves. It all melds together.

So, I agree, racists aren't generally conservative at all.

 

Most people agree that there is corruption within the criminal justice system not that it is entirely racist. There is a difference. There are plenty of good cops and fair court rulings but racial bias does exist.

These Wikipedia quotes you guys keep posting are worthless. I'm not talking about a few Blacks. The Ancient Egyptians were biologically similar to their Southern neighbors in the Sudan and Horn of Africa which is where their ancestors came from.

Both the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians were Black. If you can accept even just Nubians as Black that is still enough to undercut the racist narrative.

If that is true that is fine by me. I have no problem with interracial relationships.

They won't but you can keep dreaming.

It can happen. For now the Democrats need to regroup and get a strong candidate to take on Trump after his failed first term.

The Democrats are looking out for everyone while Republicans only care about the rich and dupe uneducated White voters by catering to conservative values.

Trump will be a bad President. If he is a good President you can gloat all you want. Let's see what actually happens.

I haven't lost any arguments to you or anyone in this thread.

White Supremacists try to deny the Ancient Egyptians were Black because they know that this fact destroys their racist arguments. Most White people don't descend from Greece or Italy yet it is perfectly fine to consider the ancient civilizations of those regions to be White civilizations but if you talk about other regions of Africa being the location of Black civilizations it is a major problem. It's a major problem for White Supremacist arguments obviously. Ancient Egypt and Nubia are not Middle Eastern cultures. The Middle East as a region is a concept that Europeans created to label Arabic countries. It's a Eurocentric concept. The Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. Arabs invaded North Africa in the 600s A.D. There were light-skinned Africans in antiquity but they were mostly concentrated to Northwest Africa (Berbers). The Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves as much darker than the Libyans and Asiatics and only slightly lighter than Nubians (Medium Brown vs. Jet Black). Instead of just accepting the Ancient Egyptians artistic depictions of themselves and the scientific evidence that corroborates it White Supremacists perform mental gymnastics to deny this evidence because it threatens their racist ideological agenda.

The White Supremacist narrative of human history is a farce.

 

Ah see the argument isn't if black males commit 18-25 commit murders. The argument is that blacks are predisposed to violence, and it's a race wide characteristic. so it should be evident in ALL black people no matter what age. But with there being 40 million blacks, all we can do is churn out a measily 3,000 murders a year.

Edit: And that number has been dropping for 20 years.

 

I said nothing about white people being racist.

 

White Supremacists try to deny the Ancient Egyptians were Black because they know that this fact destroys their racist arguments. Most White people don't descend from Greece or Italy yet it is perfectly fine to consider the ancient civilizations of those regions to be White civilizations but if you talk about other regions of Africa being the location of Black civilizations it is a major problem. It's a major problem for White Supremacist arguments obviously. Ancient Egypt and Nubia are not Middle Eastern cultures. The Middle East as a region is a concept that Europeans created to label Arabic countries. It's a Eurocentric concept. The Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. Arabs invaded North Africa in the 600s A.D. There were light-skinned Africans in antiquity but they were mostly concentrated to Northwest Africa (Berbers). The Egyptians clearly distinguished themselves as much darker than the Libyans and Asiatics and only slightly lighter than Nubians (Medium Brown vs. Jet Black). Instead of just accepting the Ancient Egyptians artistic depictions of themselves and the scientific evidence that corroborates it White Supremacists perform mental gymnastics to deny this evidence because it doesn't fit their racist ideological agenda.

Black racist try to appropriate Egyptian culture because they have none of their own. Nubians were Negroid. Egyptian weren't. Skin color has little to do with race. Ancient Egyptians look much like modern Egyptian. There are few/no ancient cultures we have more information on than the Egyptians.

 

Ancient Egypt. We already had this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already proven all of your claims on this subject are false. There is nothing racist about saying the Ancient Egyptians were Black. That is simply the truth.