Just the factsFollow

How does interbreeding make non-blacks superior?

So it makes them better at surviving cold environments? Science already knew that--it's why Black peoples living in far-northern or southern environments need more sun than non-whites. They adapted to a sun-rich environment. They can develop a vitamin D deficiency elsewhere.

On the flip side, in sun-rich environments, lighter-skinned peoples are MASSIVELY more at risk. The rate of skin cancer for whites is many times that for blacks (over 20, iirc).

So I fail to see how whites are better in any objective sense from this interbreeding.

The reasons why white people (in general) hold the most power right now has nothing to do with race. For the bulk of human history, white peoples were the most disenfranchised. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance began that they really began to catch up to the mid-east, which continued to have the strongest, richest empire in the world for a few hundred more years.

Even through the French Revolution, many of the texts from the Ottoman Empire were considered mandatory reading for doctors and chemists.

Oh, and that empire stretched into Africa and included black peoples. Know why modern blacks are so disenfranchised? Because those black people who were a part of that empire, along with the blacks who weren't but had regional power, sold the socially weak peoples to slavers. These slaves helped cause an explosion in European progress.

And it doesn't help that the Bubonic Plague struck the non-white empires far harder than it struck northern europe. Why? Because they were the ones who had major trade routes going all over the world. Europeans were pretty much just picking from the scraps.

Now add in the fact that the environment that black peoples lived in was seriously lacking in the kinds of resources they'd need to really begin to urbanize (mainly widespread farmland and copious access to water). The area that did have this has been a world power since the ancient period (Egypt).

You heard it here folks. Because non-blacks are part-Neanderthal, we're superior.

From this, you discern this:


That's quite a leap.

How do you define inferior in human's?

Most of what people associate with Egypt comes from the Ptolemy dynasty which was a bunch of white dudes from southern Europe pretending to be Egyptian.

Proof is trying way too hard but Alma is sure to fly into a tizzy over it so that's kind of amusing.

I do not understand the question, good sir!

Yeah, but it isn't my problem, so it's all good.

As opposed to an idiot with a strong case of white supremacy (or black inferiority) and biased methodology like you, amirite?

Yeah, well people see what they want to see eh.

Education /= intelligence. Physicalness has only gone of out favor as a dominant human trait in the last century...actually the last few decades - a very small percentage of the human time scale.

Funny thing. Neanderthals had larger brains and were quite possibly both smarter and were certainly far stronger than Sapiens Sapiens. The reason our species overtook them probably has more to with diet, seeing as neanderthals required 5000 or more calories a day and would starve more easily than Sapiens. But yeah, probably smarter than we were.

You're of a race. You have a bias.

So superiority in race is strictly defined as a measurement from the western world's IQ test? Does it take into account population growth, monetary wealth, life expectancy, health, happiness, the magnitude of change of any of these values over time?

Looking at the big ecological picture, stable population growth would dictate success or superiority of one organism over another. Blacks while further slipping to Asians are not losing that race.

People are, for all practical purposes, one species. Discussing race as trait is bogus. We're all mudbloods and mutts.



Edited, Jul 20th 2011 4:06pm by Elinda