Another Africa thread hijacked

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

I’ve rubbed your nose in this bit of your ignorance before, but looks like you need another lesson. It is correct that there’s no objective definition of “race”–you can’t rub a person with a piece of paper and blue mans “white” or red means “black.”. However, one could use subjective criteria to group people into different categories and could call those categories a “race.”

No with any biological scientific validity, you couldn’t.

And there are no “studies” showing variations in intelligence among “racial groups.”

One thing you’ve never responded to when we’ve discussed this before is that there is also no objective way to determine a person’s gender. Rather, there are various ways to define “male” and “female,” and a given person could me male under one definition and female under another. Maleness or femaleness is subjective and not binary (just like race).

Does that mean that it’s meaningless to talk amout a person as “male” or “female”? Of course not. In the same way, it’s not meaningless to talk about a person as “asian” or “white.”

Chromosomes.

[wonky]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Chromosomes.

One could also search for the presence of boy cooties.

[suranyi]

@jsgoddess

This messageboard is a haven for racists. We aren’t allowed to call them on it in GD except in the most mealymouthed ways, and we seem to pick up a new one every so often. It’s a disgrace.

Every general-purpose messageboard is a haven for racists, I find, and many special-purpose messageboards as well. The only remedy is very strict moderation – much more strict than is found on most messageboards.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@you_with_the_face

This is what you get when it’s even verboten to call a self-proclaimed racist a racist. Because God forbid we call someone who expresses racist views by the word that best describes them, instead of favoring nambypamby-assed euphemisms that do nothing except encourage people’s ignorance.

I have learned over the years to avoid those discussions as much as possible, precisely because of the ambiguity of this. What, precisely, is racism when put into this context? Does saying anything negative at all about Africa or African culture constitute racism? Can there possibly be a reasoned, rational discussion if people have to use “nambypamby-assed euphemisms” so that they are not accused of racism?

I understand that some comments are absolute indicators of racism, but at the same time the well has been so poisoned with regard to this topic that it seems like any sort of negative comment is deemed racism, and that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[orcenio]

@Malthus

I disagree. The focus of discussion is on what difference an event - imperialism - made on the trajectory of african history, not on the average intelligence of Africans.

I suppose one could argue that the average intelligence of a group is the important determinant of every historical “what-if” scenario, but the absurdity of constantly harping on this must surely be evident. It reduces what is different about different questions on Africa to a boring sameness - simply put, every discussion on African historical questions would reduce to the same-old, same-old wearisome discussion about the Bell Curve.

Imagine if some group responded to every question like “What if Bismark’s unification of Germany had not happened?” or “what if the German generals had succeeded in assassinating Hitler?” with endless repetition of theories about the inherent intelligence of Germans. It would get annoying, fast.

This. You have eloquently summed up my position. I would also expand to say that all threads (not only the ones about Africa) could/should be reduced to the same-old, same-old wearisome discussion about the Bell Curve too.

It’s just that these racist assholes are not hijacking all threads about China/India/Germany/etc history/politics; they are just doing it for all black/Africa threads (simply due to the fact that these assholes are anti-black racist scum).

So, tangentially to them being racist assholes who push idiotic, 18th century, voodoo, race theories; if one holds that the above linked topic is “fair game” for these idiotic race theories, then all political/historical/world topics can/should be reduced to the same idiotic racist theories too.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It’s not because they’re anti-black. It’s because the Bell Curve theory makes it look like Asians are more intelligent than white people, and then they’d have to explain why China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and so on are also poor.

In other words, if they talk about anything other than Africa and black people they’re going to destroy their own arguments.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

I have learned over the years to avoid those discussions as much as possible, precisely because of the ambiguity of this. What, precisely, is racism when put into this context? Does saying anything negative at all about Africa or African culture constitute racism?

It’s racist when beliefs are expressed about imagined biological inferiority, such as intelligence. Beliefs in innate, biological inferiority/superiority among “races” (a category without biological meaning in the first place) is, by definition, racist.

Can there possibly be a reasoned, rational discussion if people have to use “nambypamby-assed euphemisms” so that they are not accused of racism?

If they say racist things, they should be called out for it. Complaining about the use of the word “racist” is in itself PC whining. If you want frank language, take all of it.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not because they’re anti-black. It’s because the Bell Curve theory makes it look like Asians are more intelligent than white people, and then they’d have to explain why China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and so on are also poor.

In other words, if they talk about anything other than Africa and black people they’re going to destroy their own arguments.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors further argue that differences in average national IQs is one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

[orcenio]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not because they’re anti-black. It’s because the Bell Curve theory makes it look like Asians are more intelligent than white people, and then they’d have to explain why China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and so on are also poor.

In other words, if they talk about anything other than Africa and black people they’re going to destroy their own arguments.

I think you are giving these racist nose-measurers a level of foresight and reasoning that simply doesn’t exist.

All I, personally, can gather is that they are loud, delusional, preachy and committed.

[GIGObuster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1] The book argues that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) correlate with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). The authors further argue that differences in average national IQs is one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

Criticism

Several negative reviews have been published in the scholarly literature. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams wrote that “we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionable validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified.” They also wrote that cross country comparisons are “virtually meaningless.”[19] Ken Richardson wrote “This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little credit from having assisted this one.”[20] Thomas Nechyba wrote of “relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions.”[21] Astrid Ervik asked “are people in rich countries smarter than those in poorer countries?” and concluded that “the authors fail to present convincing evidence and appear to jump to conclusions.”[22]

[Rand_Rover]

Dio, looks like you choose to remain ignorant. No skin off my ass. I’ve fought well and can accept that sometimes ignorance remains.

By the way, chromosomes are one way to determine gender but by no means the only way.

[gravitycrash]

@jsgoddess

This messageboard is a haven for racists. We aren’t allowed to call them on it in GD except in the most mealymouthed ways, and we seem to pick up a new one every so often. It’s a disgrace.

No, this message board is a haven for people who like to call other people racists because they don’t think like the PC police who run around here.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

There is no such research. There is also no such thing (biologically) as a “racial group.”

Why can one determine a person’s race from his skeleton? Why can DNA evidence tell that someone who looks white is 1/32 black, or visa versa?

[Rand_Rover]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not because they’re anti-black. It’s because the Bell Curve theory makes it look like Asians are more intelligent than white people, and then they’d have to explain why China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and so on are also poor.

In other words, if they talk about anything other than Africa and black people they’re going to destroy their own arguments.

But the flip side of that is that critics of the IQ/race studies never seem to realize that they don’t put whites on top. “We’re number 2!” doesn’t seem like a racist’s rallying cry to me, but that’s what these critics would have you believe.

[Smeghead]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Chromosomes.

Not really. XXY? XO? XYY? X chromosomes carrying a translocated SRY region? There are lots of exceptions to the norm.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@gravitycrash

No, this message board is a haven for people who like to call other people racists because they don’t think like the PC police who run around here.

When someone calls me a racist I know I have won the argument, and ask, “What did I say that is not true?”

[GIGObuster]

@gravitycrash

No, this message board is a haven for people who like to call other people racists because they don’t think like the PC police who run around here.

Well, I found that the ones that claim not to be are just another kind of ignorant*: the ones that follows crackpot theories.

So choose your poison.

*Racism IMHO is an special kind of willful ignorance

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

Dio, looks like you choose to remain ignorant. No skin off my ass. I’ve fought well and can accept that sometimes ignorance remains.

Nothing is stopping you from posting cites to back up your contentions about intelligence being variable across “racial groups.”

By the way, chromosomes are one way to determine gender but by no means the only way.

Chromosmes determine sex. Gender is is a different, and not synonomous concept. Sex has a biologically definitive meaning (even for the intersexed). “Gender” is about identification and social perception and has no purely objective biological meaning (though it obviously correlates highly with sex, that correlation is not 100%).

“Race” has only a social meaning, so purported biological analysis is nothing but pseudoscience.

[GIGObuster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

When someone calls me a racist I know I have won the argument, and ask, “What did I say that is not true?”

What is true is that there is controversy about your say so’s so claiming that they are the whole truth is misleading.

[orcenio]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

I have learned over the years to avoid those discussions as much as possible, precisely because of the ambiguity of this. What, precisely, is racism when put into this context? Does saying anything negative at all about Africa or African culture constitute racism?

I certainly don’t think so, however could just me. For example, while I thought the comments made by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor were ignorant, not racist; others might take a similar argument to be ignorant and racist.

That said, there were arguments put forth that were also unambiguously racist. Use the force young one.