SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

I wonder if you read this article yourself, or if you found it and threw it at me.


The idea that the average intelligence of Africans is severely decreased relative to that of people in other parts of the world simply does not accord with the experience of people who have worked on or even visited that continent…

Africanist archaeology itself for a long time shared many of those assumptions, particularly expressed by an unwillingness to accept evidence for indigenous African cultural advance…

African history is entirely comparable to that of other regions and other continents in terms of the human capabilities that it evokes…

This implies African domestication of millet, sorghum and cowpea during the fifth millennium BP. This is certainly later than was the case in many other areas of the world…

The picture provided by African archaeological data is entirely incommensurate with claims by Rushton and his colleagues that African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits or other behavioural disadvantages when compared with human populations from Europe and Asia…

Examination of archaeological data on the culture history of African populations, and comparison of those data with data from other parts of the world, yields no evidence for the behavioural and cognitive disparities claimed by Rushton. African cultural history is entirely comparable with that of other regions of the world.
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.ca/2010/05/blog-post.html


The author maintains that the performance of blacks in Africa in the economy belies the assertion that their average IQ is 70. Most businesses in Africa, even small businesses are operated by people form outside the area. This is also true in the United States. Small shops, grocery stores, and so on are usually owned and operated by immigrants.

The author also maintains that the archaeological record of sub Saharan Africa does not indicate intelligence differences with other races. Agriculture began ten thousand years ago in the Near East. Whites began it. Civilization began five thousand years ago in the Near East. Whites began it. The Bantu may have begun agriculture four thousand years ago, but they never created a civilization in any way equivalent to those in Mesopotamian and Egypt, or even in the New World.

The Bantu did build towns with brick and stone buildings, but they never developed their own systems of writing and mathematics the way the Mayans did in the New World. They adopted iron age technology about two and a half thousand years ago, but they learned if from the Nubians, who learned it from the Egyptians.

Professor Rushton does seem to give too much importance to living in a cold climate. The Neanderthals lived in Europe during several ice ages, but they were less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here:

Attributes the superior intelligence of whites and Orientals to many more thousands of years of experience with agriculture than Negroes have, and to several thousand years of urban civilization.

That is all they can say. They cannot demonstrate that blacks behave and perform as well as whites. Nor can they explain why, over four decades after the civil rights legislation was signed, there has not been more of a racial convergence in rates of crime, illegitimacy, and academic performance. The argument that it is the fault of whites that blacks are what they are is becoming less plausible. Optimistic assessments of black potential have had to be postponed.

Everything you just quoted speaks nothing to genetic differences.

Stop using circumstantial ‘evidence’ and cite some peer reviewed articles.

Preferably ones on genetics or genomics.

The fact that blacks everywhere, and always throughout history have been characterized by inferior intelligence and criminal proclivities is sufficient evidence of genetic differences. If the negro race was biologically equivalent to the white race there would be less variability between the races.

That statement is not verifiable by hard science.

Try again.

You are a moron.

You stomp your feet and make non-stop racist declarative statements in every thread you post. AND you call us close minded?

sigh What to do with the shrill, deaf, and blind preachers of truth™? Honestly. What?

again, this statement is not verifiable by hard science.

Try something like,

You have repeatedly made a genetics claim.

It’s only fair that you provide genetics based proof.

Smurf subvariant?

I applaud this pitting and encourage olives to start more threads about other Dopers in the future.

That’s because we don’t have to. Black people do test lower than white people on IQ tests. Thing is, that’s not your argument. You have to prove that the difference is genetic in origin. We very much have proven that this is highly unlikely.

Also, way to use liberal as an insult. You are supposedly a New Deal Democrat. The New Deal was liberal.

This is as perfect an example of begging the question as one is likely to find. It’s like it came straight out of the common fallacies chapter of a logic textbook.

Spoken just like a liberal.

Speaking as an actual scientist-in-training, who is even now reading this nonsense when I should be scoring microscope slides I made to collect data for a real scientific paper, I can say without reserve that no it fucking well is NOT.

What you describe is a collection of anecdotal accounts, collected by unscientific methods, reflecting - like ALL such collections, regardless of topic - a massive amount of inbuilt biased. Data collection is important, and it must be done correctly, scientifically, as carefully as possible in order to get meaningful results. There’s not a scientist alive that wouldn’t laugh you off the stage if you made this statement at a conference, even if you were talking about, say, the color of the sky rather than race.

It also comes in incredibly handy for identifying racists.

In March it was still possible to believe that New Deal Democrat’s inferior debate performance and higher rates of error and illogicality were due to forum mockery. Two months after repeated reiterations of refuted arguments, it is much more difficult to believe this.

Eymologically speaking, “Asian” is the same as “Oriental” – Anatolia is east of Greece, so they called it Asia, “the East.”

So there’s a universal belief throughout history that black people are inferior?

Then why are you in the middle of a thread where everyone is telling you you’re wrong?

All you have is a consensus of you and your fellow racists.

Here’s what I said in the previous pit thread and it’s still true:

All true, but you’re like a guy who wanders into a Church picnic and points out that there really isn’t much evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

The main differences are that (1) modern Christians tend to be a lot less nasty than Leftists when it comes to those who question their dogma; and (2) most modern Christians are reasonable enough to admit that their beliefs are a matter of faith – they don’t insist that their beliefs have been scientifically proven or that anyone who doesn’t accept their beliefs is stupid or evil or both.

Dilly-Dilly?