Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

I want to dedicate this thread to discussing the stereotypes and misconceptions based on race. So called multiculturalism, genetics, anti-race memes, and all that are fair game here. What I'll do is state what I think the misconception or stereotype is and then will try to offer why I think it's wrong to begin with. Feel free to add on and respond to anything.

 

I've seen a few ideas on multiculturalism floating around this forum. Some of the sentiments are that multiculturalism is driven by the need for votes, cheap labor, usurping the native culture, etc. After much thought, I think businesses are the main, if not sole, drivers of so called multiculturalism. Consider the following in America:

Many African Americans are in this country because European Americans didn't want to pay other White people a fair wage for cotton picking and other work.

Many Southern Americans (Mexicans and all) are in this country because Capitalist don't want to pay other Americans a fair wage for doing menial jobs.

Many other foreigners are in this country because American companies want cheap H1B visa workers instead of paying Americans a decent wage for high-skilled jobs.​

The idea of multiculturalism looks like a smokescreen for cheap labor. The foreign races coming into America can't get the blame. It should go to businesses.

 

When some people think of AA, they immediately think of black/brown people. Ironically, affirmative action has benefited white people more than any other group. The only minority groups that saw major increases in opportunities are Jewish and Asian demographics.

White women have benefited disproportionately in employment

Jewish [and Asian ] over-representation at elite universities explained

Another stereotype stemming from AA is that somehow black/brown people are punishing white people. This is simply not true. White students are concentrated in more elite and selective universities. White people being of ~68% of the U.S. population (at the time of the study) make up over 70% of the enrollment. Black and Brown people are most likely in community colleges. In fact, Black students make up just 4% of undergraduate enrollees in the top decile of the nation’s four-year colleges.

Hopefully, the negative connotation against Black and Brown people regarding affirmative action dies upon receiving this information.

 

Affirmative action also covers religious minorities, disabled people, military veterans, and women. If people want to cry about AA, then cry about every segment it covers.

 

Economic concerns are VERY important to the powers that be. You are right.

 

Then I will offer one. Did Multiculturalism "fail us"? Fail in this case meaning that race relationships haven't improved at all since let's say the start of the civil rights movement.

 

No, because ethnic groups usually contend with pressures to assimilate and multiculturalism is often attacked. It never really had a chance to work.

Multiculturalism is the existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction. An example of this would be in East Africa where you can see people in a wild variety of cultural dress, behaviors, food, music, etc. Also, within these groups, they will have norms that pertain to their tribe, group, or family and was allowed to exercise much of them without interference. There is no mainstream culture or pressure to conform to specific standards.

Conversely, in the U.S., there are pockets where a wide variety of ethnic groups congregate, but their cultures are confined to their section of the marketplace. Beyond the marketplace, people will go off into their own living areas. However, even though these groups have their own living areas, their conformity to the mainstream culture is still demanded.

History books will show that just about every ethnic group that came to America got demonized one way or another. Withing a few generations, the groups that would accept assimilation into the mainstream culture would be "Americanized" and those that would not would be relegated to their own separate communities and cut short economically.

There is nothing wrong with conformity or assimilation. In a region/country that enjoys a certain standard, it has a duty and a right to demand a little less of an incoming culture and more conformity to their own. This type of blending out of cultures will keep true multiculturalism from taking place.

All in all, I wouldn't say that multiculturalism failed us, but will say that either the intolerance of it or the failure to properly assimilate is where the failure lies.

 

You missed the big one. Are IQ's, aptitutes in various fields and behaviors inherited along racial lines? Or are they not?

It seems that physical characteristics like skin pigmentation, hair type and color, and body size and muscle structure are all known to be inherited. One would have to believe that inheritance stops cold once the brain is reached---or believe that the human brain is so large and complex, that is has unlimited memory and processing powers. All ones needs is the right environment , the right teachers and upbringing, and anyone can be a genius.

It's easy to find the top guys from any race or ethnicity and say, "See them......" But civilizations are not based on what a few can do, it must be based on the collective abilities of the majority of the people. When you take a 1,000 people or 100,000 thousand and look at them---this tells the better story.

So, I'm curious, where are our Black friends doing well, doing much better than everyone else around them IN significant numbers, anywhere in the world?

 

Yes, but IQ, aptitude, and behavior must be sufficiently developed and development depends on environment.

For example, if one were to compare how a Black population fares in Michigan's Detroit, Maryland's Mitchellville, Bermuda, and Ghana's Accra, they would see stark differences in education, crime, business & home ownership, poverty levels, etc.

Further, Africa has a whole host of tribes each different from the next. Ghana, for example, has several major ethnic groups and plenty of subcultures within each group. Depending on location, one can see major differences in dress, mannerisms, language, building standards, foods, etc, yet they are Black.

Q: "So, I'm curious, where are our Black friends doing well, doing much better than everyone else around them IN significant numbers, anywhere in the world?"

A: Africa.

 

Those that grow up in affluent areas of Europe and North America and have all the same advantages in life and education are just as intelligent as any other race and obviously far more intelligent than some whites, Axe.

 

I'd like something more concrete. Black genes in Western nations have been contaminated on average with about 20% white material.

Our great and hallowed leader Obama is half White, but still identifies himself Black.

So how much is inherited and how much a product of environment? What if we studied how well Black and other minority children did if adopted by White vs non-White parents while they were still very young---and then compared their performance later on?

So this was done about 40 years ago:

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

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

The studies show that genetics are about 80% of the driving factors in one's potential IQ and environment only 20%.

However, this is the 21th Century! I say take DNA (saliva sample) profiles, and MRI brain scans, and do simple IQ tests such as digit span tests on significant numbers of the world's different ethnic groups and see what transpires.

 

The poverty excuse is a bit thin. Looking at the Amish communities in the US one could say they are among the poorest and have about the least amount of material things----however they have a very devoloped society and culture and very low crime.

So, you point out the Acura dealer in Ghana and say "Look at him." I say, look at the Ghana and rate it with the rest of the world:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-1-human-development-index-and-its-components

Looking at the latest table of the UN human devolopment index, we see that no, Africa on the whole is at the bottom of the list. Of 200 nations, all the top nations are Western and East Asian.

The highest mark for an "African Nation" is 90th down the list in Tunisa---an Arab nation. The highest ranked Sub-Saharan African nation is Gabon at #112, Ghana is little further down at #138.

The vast majority of the least developed nations are in Sub-Saharan Africa.

I believe it takes an average IQ of 100 to build AND maintain a high culture and society. Having a few bright guys allow some to live nicely while the majority live in teaming slums---as the case is in Ghana:



http://www.myjoyonline.com/business/2015/March-16th/75m-ghanaians-live-on-gh3-daily.php

The vast majority there live on less than $2 a day.

Please try to give me a better example of where a majority Black population is doing very well.

 

There are so many flaws here.

First, I offered examples of blacks in different places. In Mitchellville they are doing pretty darn well compared to everyone else there. There they have a violent crime rate of 91% below the national average, 75% of the businesses are Black owned, income over $100,000, and only 2.6% of people living under the poverty line.

Second, it's Accra not Acura. Accra is a city in Ghana not a dealership.

Third, who gives a flip about the UN index? The 1st world nations don't even care about the irrelevant UN or its recommendations.

Fourth, the Amish are a breakaway from a larger religious culture. It would have been a good example if their culture was from pure scratch, but it isn't. Also, the Amish can be compared to Masai tribe in Africa. Both live pretty comfortably and neither are poor and want for nothing. The difference is skin tone. Both groups decided on their own lifestyle and are living it.

Fifth, $2 a day goes a helluva further in Ghana than it does here. Besides, the Ghanaian currency is the cedi. The Ghanaians aren't economic slaves like people are in this country. Vegetation (fruits and vegetables) is all over the place and the poor are allowed to panhandle. Also, many of the poor are capable of making adobe abodes so they have shelter. We really can't say the same for the people in this country.

See the so called metrics Westerners use against other people is simply a measure of how much they can exploit a people without much pushback. The idea to explore genetics and come to conclusions that favor one race over others is simply propaganda for the world in the justification in the raping of resources from other people/countries. What other reason is there to use fatally flawed tests and measures against a race of people if not to conquer and rape their resources?

 

I guess we sent a man to the moon to rape it's resources. You seem to have a fear all too common with liberals when it comes to using the latest tech to better understand different peoples and cultures.

I think your fear is not unlike the ancient sailor's who thought they would fall off the edge of the earth if they sailed too far.

Due to government hiring practices in the Washington DC, one would expect the Black majority city to have more affluent suburbs nearby---as with the case of Mitchellville, MD. As with any area of the world, there will be those with more wealth than others. So this smaller residential area that is 78% Black of 11,000 people consisting of more upscale homes would be occupied by those in the top 10%. Crime there is not as rosey as you say, with the town only getting a C+ and violent crime being not too much above average---given the relative wealth of the city.

http://www.areavibes.com/mitchellville-md/crime/

Looking at Maryland and DC areas as whole, one cannot exclude large cities like Baltimore, that have some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the US, riots and high murder rates.

I see Mitchellville to be not unlike the walled neighborhoods in Africa where the top people live in more relative safety.

Without the support of welfare from US government, so many of the poor Blacks and Hispanics would end up living in the very same conditions as in their homelands. Look at what happened to Detroit.

Aside from the very few rich areas in Ghana, the rest of the nation is not unlike a giant sewer. There isn't even a 911 call service there.
http://kofisaidit.com/2013/04/20/why-not-adopt-911-as-the-emergency-number-in-ghana/

If someone is killed out in the bush, there are no CSI police crime scene investigators sent in solve the case. What happens in the jungle, stays in the jungle.

Ghana has been free of the White devils running their affairs for over a lifetime. If someone is raping their resources, it's their own fault. If they want to clean up their slums and modernize, it's high time they do it themselves.

A costal nation such as Ghana should be able to do at least half as well as Singapore---who was in little better shape 60 years ago. With vastly more natural resoures, Ghana could be capable of so much more.

Of course PROPER, modern genetic-based IQ testing would be wonderful, if it wasn't such a taboo subject.

Otherwise, continue to read fantasy literature such as "Germs Guns and Steele."----and feel better.

 

The fear of people "better understanding" different peoples and cultures is warranted. This understanding is usually to develop profiles so that a conqueror can most efficiently exploit and kill the profilees for whatever reasons they may have. By allowing people to study genes and make raced-based observations, people open themselves up for biological warfare and other human atrocities. Oh and I've never read "Germs, Guns, and Steel."

The citation in your post concerning Mitchellville show the following for violent crime:

murder: n/a
rape: n/a
robbery: n/a
Assault: n/a​

The ones grayed out are estimates. In the national index, it still has a very low crime rate (91% below nat average, grade A) compared to the national average.

Concerning Baltimore and those places like it, the riots and high murder rates are instigated by outside pressures. Nothing whatsoever to do with genetics.

The welfare and undermining tactics to jail or kill off people that work for the community is not the doing or result of blacks either. Not at all. One can look to the ghettos of Limerick, Ireland and see the same hell on earth, if not worse.

Speaking of Ghana and being free from whites, that independence occurred in 1957. I would rather they not be "fully developed" than to have some Western country's hand up their ass to be in "better shape."

The link you shared to depict Ghana as a sewer was just a blogger complaining about 911. The what happens in the jungle stays in the jungle is simple anti-black rhetoric. In this country there are all sorts of systems (including 911) yet murder, arson, rape, and other violent crimes happen constantly. With the high power weapons, the people here are able to kill much more people. Also, people snap and kill people every single day. So, there are trade-offs.

 

I think you are overly paranoid. I don't think the average non-Black person in the world is out to get thier resources in Africa or exploit them as slaves or so forth. The Blacks in Africa can only blame themsleves for the shape they're in now for the last 60 years. The slavery bit is a simple Black defense mechanism that should have rusted-out long, long ago.

I would like to see the Sub-Saharan Africans at least as advanced as the Amish Americans. But however they all live by 3rd world standards, where the officals are only in it to stuff their own pockets.

Genetics aren't everything, but based on the best, outdated studies, genetics are about 80% of one's potential. I've seen lots of bad communities with White trash, living in nasty trailers and rotting homes. Some nations and areas have more of these than others. But statistically, Blacks have it the worst almost eveywhere in the world---so I see it as a genetic problem. Blacks also kill themselves 95% of the time. They do this to themselves. I don't see any Asian, Indian, or White people in the Crips or the Bloods doing the majority of the gang killings. But with heavy-handed policing, crime CAN be kept better in check---and have crime levels in the bad areas what there were 50 years ago.

But back to the people of Ghana. I'd tell them, "Shame on you. Your leaders suck. Get your heads out of your rears---and get it in gear." Demand individual accountability. Demand a nationwide 911 call service and national police agencies be installed---with oversight. Demand a nationwide system of paved roads that don't have thugs manning checkpoints. After that you can build more infastructure.

 

The problem is the constant attempt to compare one race to another in a particular standard. It's like berating the brown bear for not faring as well as a polar bear in the ice caps. Africans aren't going to fare well trying to adopt all of the European scarce economics and living standards. Hell Europe can barely self-sustain themselves without insurmountable violence against themselves and others. None of this is paranoia, it is well documented history. Lastly, materialism and individualism as indication of advancements always seems to leave out the poor sociopathology that accompanies it. It always fails to acknowledge that many so called poor people want for nothing, similarly the way you dismissed the Masai & Amish comparison.

 

Could you please explain frequency differences by race of genes correlated with academic achievement?

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/418691-study-reveals-racial-iq-gap-genetic.html

 

What part of Africa are Blacks doing better than non-Blacks in the same country?

 

Everywhere they are that they are not in some conflict. Pretty much the whole place.

 

Did you understand the question?

Which countries in sub-sahara Africa have Black and non-Black populations?

Of these, which have Blacks doing as well as non-Blacks.

Please name any country, eg., South Africa, Zimbabwe, where you feel Blacks do as well as Whites and/or Indians, and/or Arabs?

Please show educational attainment, income, etc., are equal or better for Blacks compared to non-Blacks.

 

Now that's a little hard to believe.

Why are there still giant Black townships in South Africa that are massive slums, while the vast majority of Whites and Asians there live in much richer accomodations?

The poorest 10 percent of South Africans receive less than 1 percent of the national income, but the richest 10 percent get 57 percent. This while 67 percent of black children live below the poverty line compared to 2 percent of white children.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/most-black-sa-kids-live-in-poverty-study-1.1405705

“Income inequality begins with our political leaders and corrupt wealthy business people who, more often than not, illicitly own the resources of the continent,” Claris Madhuku, director of the Platform for Youth Development, a democracy lobby group in Zimbabwe, told IPS.

Diamonds, for example, which have made many traders wealthy, are often mined by the poorest of the poor, treated almost as slaves in war-torn African countries, despite the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which was established in 2003 to prevent the flow of these diamonds.

“It’s a case of greed and corruption,” thundered Zimbabwean independent political analyst, Ernst Mudzengi. “Africa has parasitic politicians who are primarily concerned with self-centred political power and economic gain as ordinary Africans remain at the periphery in poverty,” Mudzengi told IPS.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/02/the-hidden-billions-behind-economic-inequality-in-africa/

The only Blacks consistantly doing better than everyone elsein Africa are the corrupt leaders.

Instead of the outrage on shooting a lion in Zimbabwe, there should be outrage that the Marxist scumbag Mugabe has not been shot or removed from power.

 

I understood the question very well, but you gotta understand SSA. The vast majority of Sub-Saharan Africans are Black. The demographic breakdown in most countries there occurs at the ethnicity level, not race. Most countries' policies will not allow foreigners to conduct official business unless they are nationals. Many foreigners marry natives to get a foothold in the country, but the business and land cannot go solely to the foreigner. Anyway Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Congo are the examples of countries where Blacks fare better than others. If you want a breakdown by race, you'll have to go and observe for yourself.

A slum is a European construct. Africans that subcribe fully to European ideals should expect to live in miserable poverty and never having their basic needs met.

Notice that during the last 20 years, according to some sources, abject poverty for whites in S. Africa has grown significantly. IQ and aptitude won't save people from poverty.

The rest of your post exposes a complete obliviousness to Western assassination of African leaders and the habit of placing crippling sanctions on non complying countries. Mugabe is pretty corrupt, but he's ruling by a European standard. Those who would wait for the European model to give them a materialistic standard of living will end up starving to death. Those that went ahead and work towards a more contemporary African standard enjoy an enhanced life.

 

You can't have it both ways. You squawk about Black sterotypes on one hand, then say that Blacks should then by their own Black African standards and culture on the other.

Of course you don't like the idea of genetic, biometric IQ testing done----that wouls spoil the argument about slavery and the evil Whites and other outsiders keeping the Black man down.

The highest African standard of living can be seen by what Detroit is now: a ****hole.

South Africa is becoming worse since it is becoming more like a primitive, corrupt 3rd World state. Just like you like it.