Jun 26 2012, 07:15 PM
Prof. Rushton has found that blacks reach sexual maturity earlier than whites. By age 12, 19 percent of black girls have full development of breasts and pubic hair, whereas only two percent of white girls do. Black American women menstruate at an earlier age than white women. They then go on to have sexual intercourse for the first time at an average age that is two years younger than that of whites.
Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seems to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners.
Somewhat comparable differences have been found between whites and Asians. Even after controlling for body size, Danes have testes that are proportionately twice the size of those of Chinese. Whites are also estimated to produce twice the number of spermatozoa per day as Asians.
Earlier maturation and early sexual activity among blacks may have a biological price. In the United States, blacks, on average, can expect to die six years sooner than whites. Higher homicide, accident, and disease rates contribute to this difference, but it is entirely possible that blacks may also have a naturally shorter life span.
Our society generally keeps quiet about physical differences between the races, but information about them occasionally surfaces in news stories about disease. Alcoholism, for example, appears to strike different races at different rates. Asians (and American Indians to whom they are related) react more strongly than whites to alcohol. More Asians than whites show an allergic reaction to alcohol and therefore do not drink, whereas many American Indians seem to have a biological predisposition to alcoholism. Curiously, Asians are twice as likely as whites to suffer from motion sickness.
In the United States, the most frequently reported medical differences concern blacks and whites. It is well known that only blacks suffer from sickle-cell anemia, for example, a condition that helps the body resist malaria, and is therefore a benefit in the African jungle.
Most of the known medical differences, however, seem to disadvantage blacks. Black women are twice as likely to have strokes as white or Hispanic women, and they suffer more damaging aftereffects. Blacks are three to four times more likely to have dangerously underweight babies. This could be due to bad diet, poor general health, or scant medical care, but some studies indicate that even when these factors are equalized, black babies are more likely to be underweight.
Kidney disease is eighteen times more common among blacks than whites. Left untreated, AIDS kills blacks more rapidly than it does whites or Hispanics, and blacks do not respond as well to the drug AZT as do patients of other races. Glaucoma strikes blacks five times more often than it does whites. It sets in earlier, and the likelihood of getting the disease does not appear to be affected by social status or availability of medical care.
Blacks are also twice as likely as whites to have high blood pressure, and five to seven times more likely to have dangerously high blood pressure. This is often attributed to the pressures of “racism,” but physiology is certainly part of the cause.
A study at the University of Maryland found that when black and white students were paired for age, diet, fitness, and medical history, and given a mild stress—their hands were put in ice for 30 seconds—blacks reacted by constricting their blood vessels (a hypertensive reaction) for at least ten times longer than whites. Research in Barbados has shown that mixed-race blacks are more likely to have high blood pressure if their maternal rather than paternal ancestors were African; genes passed down from the mother seem somehow to be involved. One reason for high blood pressure among blacks may be their relative inability to secrete sodium, so a salty diet can be more dangerous for blacks than for whites.
It has long been known that blood transfusions and organ transplants work best between people of the same race. Until the Second World War, stocks of blood were routinely segregated by race for this reason. Classification by race was ended when it was discovered to be “racist,” but blood banks are reinstituting segregation.
The distribution of the common blood types is different from race to race, and some rare types are unique to certain races. Only blacks have U negative blood; only whites have Vel negative or Lan negative blood. Dr. W. Laurence Marsh of the New York Blood Center justifies racial classification: “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.”
Kidneys and other organs are classified by race for similar reasons. About 20 percent of blacks are so genetically incompatible with whites that they reject organs from all white donors.
Origin of Species
Clearly, all these differences cannot be dismissed with the fashionable notion that race is nothing more than a matter of skin color. No one knows for how long the different races have been evolving independently, but it might be necessary to go back one million years or more to find an ancestor common to all races. Clearly, a great deal of divergence has taken place during that time.
In his magisterial work, Race, John Baker suggests that certain racial groups are already so different from each other that they are not, technically speaking, the same species. Certain matings between extremely unrelated stocks—Bushmen and Europeans, for example—are thought to have produced only female children, or in some cases hybrids that could not mate successfully among themselves. These are well-known signs of an unrelatedness that is so vast as to be verging on separation into different species.
Indeed, according to Dr. Baker, in the prehistoric past different races and sub-races probably avoided cross-breeding and behaved as if they were different species. He points out that in nature, animals that are no more different from each other than northern Europeans and southern Europeans never breed with each other. It is only in domestication that a horse, for example, can be made to mate with a donkey. Man is, of course, the most domesticated of animals. As the French anthropologist Paul Broca remarked, “Man, especially civilized man, is of all the animals the least exclusive in his amours.”
Separate development is, to use Charles Darwin’s phrase, the origin of species. Apes and humans once had a common ancestor but are now distinct species. Likewise, racial differences are nature’s first steps towards the creation of new species. Left to themselves for long enough, the different races of man would have become so different that they could no longer produce fertile young. This might well have happened if the domesticating effects of civilization had come later, or if discovery and travel had not brought isolated peoples into contact with each other.
One of the great ironies of today’s quest for “diversity,”—the forcible mixing of peoples as unlike each other as possible—is that it is a destroyer of diversity. It is only through separation that nature can produce that culmination of true diversity: a new species.
Jun 26 2012, 10:10 PM
I do not deny being a "racist". It's a stupid word, the natural root of which is "a person who applies the concept of race". But it's been redefined by the left to mean "a person who applies the concept of race in a way that I don't like". So a person is "racist"? So what? It isn't a valid counter point to anything. Sadly, many people seem to think it is.
Originally Posted by Proud Progressive
Jun 27 2012, 04:01 AM
"Racism is the belief that different characteristics in racial groups justify discrimination. Some sources emphasize that racism involves the belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, or follow practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups, for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.
The definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about what the word "race" means, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination. Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person's behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of how seemingly benign such assumptions might be. Other definitions would only include conscious malignant forms of discrimination. Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of racial stereotypes through the media and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component...
...In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological underpinning of genocides such as the holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the USA in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights."
Jun 27 2012, 04:47 AM
"Racism is the belief that different characteristics in racial groups justify discrimination."
Originally Posted by Meta777
That's an imprecise definition. Are you discriminating because of the traits, or because of the race?
Jun 27 2012, 05:14 AM
Any discussion of 'Racism' should begin with a definition of it.....most confuse it with discrimination etc. Also---unfortunately---too many make up their own definition of the word to reinforce their own political prejudices.....the word thus has been politizized.
Originally Posted by mikemikev
Popular dictionries are of little use in attempting to get to the true meaning of the word..... To really understand the meaning of a word one must study the etymology of the word...and the only dictionary that does that in depth is The Oxford Englsh Dictionary.....the authority on the English Language.
What the popular dictionaries do is to merely cite the popular usage of a word...how they perceive the word is used or what they think most people mean when they use the word. Now this may be ok for most words but when dealing with a topic as serious and controversial as the concept of racism....we need to dig as deep as possible to uncover the essence or true meaning of the word.
I pulled this definition of 'racism' off the Oxford English Dictionary website. Most people can't access it unless they have access through a university or other academic organization, so I'll quote the whole thing here.
[f. RACE n.2 + -ISM; cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).]
a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
Jun 27 2012, 05:19 AM
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the definitive record of the English language.
The OED is one of the largest dictionaries in the world and the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language, tracing the use of more than 600,000 words over the last 1,000 years through 3 million quotations. The OED defines and illustrates how a word has been used, where it came from, when it first entered the language, and how its meaning has changed over time and around the world, by quoting from more than one hundred thousand modern and historical texts, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts, wills, cookery books, and blogs.
The OED is a historical dictionary, with a structure that is very different from that of a dictionary of current English such as ODO. In ODO, only present-day senses are covered and we describe the most common meanings or senses first, making it easy for you to find guidance on today’s language quickly. For each word in the OED, on the other hand, the senses are dealt with in chronological order according to the quotation evidence. This way the senses with the earliest quotations appear first, and the senses which have developed more recently appear further down the entry – like a ‘family tree’ for each word. Also, unlike current English dictionaries, senses are never removed from the OED. For example, if a word developed with a particular sense in the nineteenth century but has more recently changed to mean something quite different, the OED will show you both senses.
Jun 27 2012, 05:40 AM
THE TRUE ORIGIN OF RACISM
The Real Origin of Racism
It is too bad people do not look more carefully into the term "origin of racism" before discussing the topic. Better still, if they went to church and asked your pastor what the good book has to say on the topic. They would be surprised.
The Man said ... (Matthew 15:24 NKJV) But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Ahhh! Not to the Jews, but the diaspora of the Northern tribes of that nation. Sounds racist?
It gets worse, or better depending on your perspective ...
The prophet said ... (Jeremiah 50:16 NKJV) " For fear of the oppressing sword everyone shall turn to his own people, and everyone shall flee to his own land." Oh! he was not very multicultural with his end-time prophecy.
Now HEAR this ... (Deuteronomy 17:15 NKJV) "you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may NOT set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."
Wow! It is a good thing the Jews of both New York state, and Florida did not read that before voting for Obama. Do you think the average Caucasian American would have voted Obama in as president, if that was preached from the Sunday pulpits? I think not.
What is missing in our Judao-Christian culture is that the Old Testament (the Torah) teaches us how to build a nation and keep the peace within. The New Testament teaches us how to build a church or synagogue. Yes, the apostles kept "Shabbat."
Maybe we should all read The Book, before talking about racism. The origin of racism is from those who HATE the idea of a "chosen people". The surprise is, who are the rest of the chosen few. That is -- the "lost friends" of the Jewish folk, talked about by the man called Jesus.
Jun 27 2012, 06:19 PM
Discrimination because of intrinsic racial characteristics/traits as opposed to individual actions or beliefs.
Originally Posted by mikemikev
Jun 27 2012, 07:09 PM
The problem with your definition of racism ......is that one can be a racist without discriminating against any race in any way shape or form.
Originally Posted by Meta777
For example I am a racist based on the definition of racism in The Oxford English Dictionary......and I hold to the definition of racism in The Oxford English Dictionary...."The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. "
Yet I do not discriminate against the Negroid Race or any other race.
Personally I dislike most negroes...but that is based on behavior. I also dislike most white people...that also is based on behavior.
The reason there are so many 'false' definitions of racism is because of political correctness.
The Liberals managed to convert just about everyone into believing their politizized false definition of racism....involving superiority etc.
Discrimination because of race, ethnicity or nationion origin, sex or sexual preferance or religion .....is illegal in the workplace....and in the housing arena. It is federal law.
There is no law against racism ....only against discrimination.
Thus your defintion does not hold water.
Racism and discrimination are two entirely different concepts.
That is not to say all racists do not discriminate.
This is not to say a non-racist never discriminates.
The bottom line is simply this....everyone discriminates every day in one shape or form. That does not make them either racist or non racist. That does not make them good or bad...it only shows they are human and have the freedom to discriminate aka...make personal choices.....just as long as they do not violate federal laws against discrimination in the work place or in the housing arena.
I hope I have cleared up some of the confusion regarding 'racism' vs. 'discrimination'.
Jun 28 2012, 12:05 AM
the banksters for this reason created the eu,un, to mix up all nations
Tags for this Thread