On Race

On Race: The Propagation of Genes, Focus of Culture, and Influence

This map is the generally accepted version of human migration. There are variants, but it essentially goes like this:

Do you find it interesting that human life began in Africa, yet most of the country is still in the third world? We’ll get back to that.

First I want to talk about the propagation of genes. Our earliest ancestors from Africa were able to branch out and become every race in the region including those in the Mid East. According to our map, the people in the Middle East branched out to become the Scandinavians, Europeans, Asians, Aboriginal Australians, and Indians. This would demonstrate the particular affinity to genetic mutation of races genetically similar to our earliest ancestors, but late into the human migration depicted above we see noticeable differences in race between races across the Bering Strait where they supposedly crossed in the land or partial-land bridge. Instead, one can only assume that mutations happen on a nearly-equal basis from race to race.

Why certain genes are more prevalent than others in a region is due to environmental factors. This is simple natural selection: Asian bodies must be more apt to survive in Asia, Africans in Africa, Native Americans in the Americas, and so on. I was never trying to dispute this in Satyr’s thread.

So, environmental factors play an obvious role in our genetic makeup. Our genetic makeup includes the blueprints for our minds, so why wouldn’t these environmental factors influence brain power? Well, they do. Certain races score better on certain types of tests than others. Again, I wasn’t rying to dispute this fact. I even talk about a similar concept in this thread.

However, does this genetic makeup impose a limit on the intelligence of every person in a particular race? In the same thread I discuss how statistics are only valuable when applied across a statistically significant sample. One person is not a significant sample. One person can break the mold, they can be deviations above (or below) the mean. Given that mutations are random and equally distributed among races, and that people of many races are living in relatively similar conditions with respect to nutrition and shelter, a ‘stupid’ race could produce an incredibly intelligent person. Even if it’s an anomaly, the possibility is there.

“Well then, Anthem, where then are the African Aristotles?”

Why thank you for that well-timed question. The answer could lie in the focus of culture. DISCLAIMER: I don’t take this as fact, just as a possible explanation to counter equally verified claims.

The African culture is an oral tradition. Life was hard…but easy. Hard in that you didn’t have much free time, but easy in that if you did exactly the same thing your ancestors did you had a great chance at survival. This lack of free time lessens the opportunity for written language, and indeed many African languages didn’t have a writing system until the 19th and 20th centuries. The counter argument, of course, is that Africans just simply weren’t intelligent enough to come up with symbolic writing. Like I said, this is just an alternative.

The Greek culture, since we’re talking about Aristotle, has a written tradition. Life was easy…but hard. There was free time to be had but only due to innovation. Innovation led to specialization, this specialization made work more efficient, and then people began to specialize in writing ideas down. The counter-argument here is that necessity of innovation created smarter people which were capable of writing a symbolic language.

With no written culture, of course there’s no way for someone to become an Aristotle. One, people and facts get lost and skewed in oral tradition so we would never hear about them with any validity, and two, there was no theory for other thinkers to build on (again due to the shortcomings of the oral tradition). Not only that, but by the time the written tradition got started in Africa or they were indoctrinated into another culture with a written tradition, the other races had already monopolized all the easy stuff! There can be no more Aristotles or Newtons because they were able to write on a lot of subjects that had little foundation. There are no more Renaissance men, and couldn’t be shortly after the time of Newton; there’s just too much that goes too in depth. Africans never got the opportunity to become great thinkers because they didn’t even have writing until after Newton’s time, and certainly weren’t getting too many opportunities as slaves in cultures with a written tradition.

The only evidence I have to support the focus of culture idea over lack of intelligence are the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians. They also had oral traditions, yet they were descended from people intelligent enough to create a written tradition.

A problem in both theories is a racial anomaly: South American Empires. According to Satyr, they should have great thinkers like Aristotle because they endured hardships that led to great cultures with better thinkers. According to me, they should have great thinkers because they have an ancient written tradition. Do you know any great Incan or Aztec philosphers by name?

Anyway, it comes down to this: Were some races incapable of creating symbolic writing, or just unable? Maybe a little of both? I don’t know.

What I do know is this: if a race is on the average less intelligent than another on the average, which is entirely possible and I think does happen, there is still a chance of amazing thinkers coming from that race. That’s the nature of statistics and genetic mutation: it’s random.

Isn’t the presence of leisure and of a written tradition a result of intelligence?

If we use your argument, then we can say that the only reason Chimpanzees haven’t developed a culture comparable to human cultures is that they lack both an oral and written tradition…and yet they still have leisure time. Lazy monkeys!

It’s funny to think that the only thing that separates us from apes is that we invented language and writing.

But aren’t languages and the written word a result of our intelligence?
No ,according to this genius it is our intelligence that is a result of our written tradition.

Say why did you neglect to include Flip Wilson and Michael Jordan in the pantheon of Negro geniuses?

Such great minds should not be forgotten.

We already went over this reducio. We can only compare intelligence within a species. So sorry I forgot to mention it.

Not quite…a person is either born with the capacity to be intelligent or not. Written language helps a person hit this full potential better than an oral tradition. Written languages are a result of free time. There were no problems that weren’t already solved in the African tradition, and in fact their survival depended on sticking to that tradition. Unfortunately for them, the African tradition didn’t have much free time.

And before you continue belittling artists, the emotionally in-tune, and the athletic, maybe you should look into something called ‘multiple IQ’.

There is a bigger physical difference and between people of the same race who have different body types and are beautiful or ugly than the are of those of different race, do all the aforementioned physical differences effect intelligence in any significant way ?
If so surely more than race ?

Still cant they in this modern age as a result of technological advancement change their body types and level of beauty just as any human not retarded can alter their intellect.

A trivial issue no less.

Why do you think it only applies to humans?
If the mutation of intelligence, as you call it, pops up equally within all population groups, then why is it not uniformly distributed across species?

Did they have immunity?

You still haven’t explained why no African tribe developed any written tradition or didn’t develop a civilization that offered them leisure time comparable to any European one.

Did the Zulu kings not have free time?
Were they too busy sharpening their spears and fluffing their feathers.

By the way the Hellenic miracle was based on an agrarian system where men toiled the land. Because the Greek peninsula wasn’t very fertile.
I wonder how they found the time to think.

You know I would love to discuss your fantasies about how throwing three-pointers is a special kind of intelligence but we’re dealing here with actual intelligence the kind that differentiates man from animal.
Or is this also non-existent like Negroes suddenly became?

Imagination and projection.
You can teach a monkey to shoot hoops, you can even teach it to juggle and entertain.
Some animals sing well and perform nice pieces.

Too bad you can’t build a civilization that way, singing and dancing and playing ball and woo-wooing and ‘who left the dogs out?’ - what a work of genius that was, huh?

Dude I saw Black eyed Peas on T.V. the other day…those guys are geniuses. The way they say we should love each other and shit. Deep stuff.
Their message is so profound.
Aren’t we presently going through an artistic renaissance? No wonder there are so many Negro geniuses, all of a sudden.
Negro intelligence, just like female intelligence, thrives under such grand conditions of quality.
Why, the other day i opened the car-radio and thought to myself:

“How can there be so many brilliant works of musical art, these days? So many, in fact that we quickly forget last years crop of geniuses and focus on the new stuff.”

When I listen to RAP, the street poetry touches me. The work of genius. My biatches this and look at my bling-bling, and my crib is bigger than yours and I got money now and all that important philosophical shit.
It sells, man, so it must be good.

I think you’re onto something, here.
I never realized what brilliant lyrics those works of RAP art had.

Those guys are genius.

There’s a scaling factor in animals. I’m sure some squirrels are smarter than others, but their brains are not designed for the cognition we have. Can we get off the animals now?

No one can, we can only guess. I’m postulating their survival demanded a lack of the leisure time necessary to develop a language. I’m not flat-out saying “you’re wrong,” but that “you could be wrong.” I personally think that random genetic traits given a more or less uniform standard of living makes it possible for any one person of any race to grow a superbrain.

Let’s look at chess. Chess is a game, but to be great it requires deep focus and analytical thinking, traits of an intelligent man, no? The game has been dominated by the Europeans and Russians for hundreds of years. There are cultural reasons for this, but part of the reason might be their brains are better suited to play chess. Certainly there’s a gender bias in chess…men’s brains are better suited to playing chess. So maybe the Russians’ just have a head for chess as a result of evolution.

Well, just as there are females who broke the mold and became grandmasters, there are Africans doing the same. Even given the small amount of Africans who play chess in comparison to nearly the entire population of Russia plus, Africans are able to obtain a slot that is in something like the first half a percent of players in the world.

Maybe these Africans and women are statistical improbabilities. That’s cool. But they do happen sometimes. Why, given that you like your flux so much, are you trying to put this absolute barrier on a race? Things are constantly changing, right?

Speaking of which, Mr. Flux Capacitor, why isn’t your ability to be right constantly changing? It’s odd.

why don’t animals fit into your logic?

I’m saying if what you say is true then why are there squirrels at all?
Mutations would pop out in every isolated group and so would uniformly spread across the globe. No interaction necessary.

Then why hasn’t it in the Negro group?

Don’t tell me Bill Cosby is a superbrain.

You saw that BBC documentary, didn’t you?

And so the environment does produce disparity.

The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t disprove it.
We are a little surprised every time we hear of an exceptional female mind, aren’t we?
Bur then we listen more and realize that it still doesn’t compare to the most brilliant male minds.

Are you saying that reality is not available to Negroes as much as it is to Caucasians?
Chess is a cultural invention with specific rules and dynamics. Reality is accessible to all.

I’m establishing that there’s a difference in potential.
I’ve looked at these statistical improbabilities and I am not impressed.
They aren’t even close to the level of the greats.

Because the rate of flux is not as fast as you think it is. If it were fragmentation would not allow life to evolve at all. The laws of nature would be fragmenting and changing at such a speed that nothing could keep up.

Change is constant but it isn’t constantly radical.
The ground is solid beneath our feet not because it isn’t deteriorating but because it changes at such a slow speed, in relation to our awareness and us, that it appears solid and stable to us.

I actually beleive that consciousness is falling behind the flux. The mind is an ordering tool. Disorder is increasing exponentially.
Maybe that’s why we invent machines to do the thinking for us, at a faster rate.

Oh, do you mean why isn’t there just one species? I’m not saying environment doesn’t influence evolution, if that’s what you mean.

Naw son. I’m a great chess player. I’ll open a game with you: c1-e6

I’m saying chess is not as available. It’s a huge part of modern Russian culture, not so much for Africa.

Fair enough.


Your map is outdated and inaccurate. I’ll try and dig up a more accurate one but suffice to say humans didn’t emigrate outwards from the center of the Sahara and neither did they exit Africa at its northern most point. This is because pale skinned humans are indigenous to North Africa but latecomers relative to their sub-Saharan cousins.

Are you suggesting here that everyone was originally black? What evidence would you supply for this?

So why do Australian Aborigines live in one of the most harshest climates on Earth but possess so little intelligence? Where are their great thinkers? And why have Tasmanian Aborigines lived in Tasmania for over 40,000 years - a country with a climate similar to Britain and with the same amount of sunlight - and yet are still as black and Abo looking as the day they arrived?

Why didn’t they have much free time?
Central and West Africa are the most resource rich regions on earth. There is no winter and perfect growing conditions for food all year round. Exactly what was their time taken up with? These people were gifted with all the resources and nature you could wish for and what did they achieve? Not much. Nature provided them with everything they needed to realize their full potential which unfortunately wasn’t very great when all is said and done - certainly not compared to other races.
All human races had a potential for growth locked inside them from very early on, it was just a matter of finding the space and resources to allow it to flourish.

Err…so what were they doing for the 80,000 years or so that other humans were spreading around the world?
Just sit back for a moment and consider that. 80,000 years in the same region! There aren’t really any excuses are there?

Both for sure in the case of sub-Saharan Africa.

Leander, you need to re-read my post. A lot of the counter-points you brought up I fully admit are possible, and I also admit that my theory is just that: a theory. Even Satyr realized I was saying nearly the same thing he was with a few significant deviations. At least I think he did. He stopped bashing everything I said and focused on the differences, at the very least, which is more acceptable. I could be wrong.

My little hypothesis here doesn’t make races all on a level playing field, but it doesn’t restrict an individual’s potential. My hypothesis doesn’t say some races aren’t less intelligent than others, but it gives a possible explanation for why there are no African Aristotles.

I’ll say it again, this is a possibile answer to the racial intelligence question. It’s an idea, don’t expect it to be a thesis…I wrote it in an afternoon, after all. I’m not an anthropologist, and even experts in the field can’t agree on what happened in human history so no one is qualified to say exactly what occurred.

More and more it seems that I’m just trying to point out and refute absolutes…

Maybe the ones that got run off had to think harder to survive, necessity being the mother of invention.

Use improving mental ability is pretty well documented.

An environment that produces no new challenges, would not tend to stimulate mental activity.

The Tasmanian aborigines is a point I was not even aware of, hmm.

I believe this point has already been made repeatedly, by me.
Reason doesn’t work in matters such as these, where emotion is caught up with cultural teachings.

Careful, Satyr, that can be construed as a nurture argument. I know what you mean from an evolutionary point of view, though.

Stephen: I agree that’s what could explain the intelligence gap (if you were to look at something like IQ or other similar tests) between races, but I don’t know if that’s enough to explain why we don’t study (weren’t any?) great ancient African thinkers.

Oh damn, now I’m thinking about standard deviation. Come to me, instrumentation measurement and statistics notes…

You’d love my poli sci teacher, Satyr…

He’s an extremely intelligent black man, although he thinks he’s smarter than he is. You two would get along swimmingly :sunglasses:

My final word on this matter (because it’s getting boring).

The entire topic can be based on deductive reasoning.

  1. Is appearance different than essence?
    In which case duality comes into play.
    Schopenhauer would claim that appearance is essence and Kretschmer would claim that how a man looks reveals what a man is.
    Appearance is what a phenomenon is.
    If we claim that appearances don;tr matter then no species exists, since we can say that their essence is not exposed by their outward manifestations.

The speration of mind and body rests no the assumption that mind is something magical and mysterious when mind is brain as brain is mind.
The mind is simply the brain’s functions and architecture, its order, expressed through actions or words or thoughts.

  1. Environment does not only affect the body - even if we were to accept a mind/body dichotomy - but affects the entire organism, or else what is intelligence, how does it become a dominating survival factor and how does it evolve at all?
    The organism’s adaptations to environmental conditions are not simply cosmetic or superficial but are of its entire nature.
    This is how species diverge and become distinct and this is how individuals, within the same species, diverge and become distinct, even if to a lesser degree.

  2. Essence is the organism’s total past.
    You can’t discount any environmental period as irrelevant without discounting the present one as such. Nature is merely the sum of all nurturing which cannot be simply erased or surpassed in the present. If not then all species and organism identifications can be reversed with a carefully planned and controlled nurturing environment.
    The delusion that education or training creates essence is like claiming that a well trained animal is the genuine one just because it has been conditioned, using reward/threat methods, to respond and to act in accordance to specific rules.

  3. To suppose that there’s an undisturbed, unalterable core essence behind appearances is to project there an ideal for which no justification and no proof can ever be presented.
    All we can ever say about existence is that it is temporal, it changes, and it is continuous. No evidence for the reverse or the opposite can be found nor supported using reason.

Whether this core be called a God or a Nothing or a Something or Allah or Emptiness is irrelevant since no evidence of any of this is available and it goes against the very nature of existence.
For if there were any of these labels of the Absolute then existence is superfluous and a vast conspiracy or a farce with no motive but play.

  1. The conclusion that humans are immune to the forces that produce evolution, such as environment, adaptation, natural selection and genetic isolation, is the epitome of undeserved arrogance or fearful stupidity.
    The only manner in which evolution is even imaginable is for geographical isolation coupled with diverse environmental conditions producing diversity.
    The idea that mutations pop-up uniformly within all population groups negates the very process and is contradicted by reality.

  2. In every age there are certain topics which are considered taboo. In out western, modern age the topics of human distinction are considered so controversial and destructive that children are taught to feel ashamed for even considering them and all those that propose them are automatically deemed ill or dysfunctional or evil.
    The attempt to associate any opinion pointing to a vicious and often unfair reality, when it concerns human beings, with violence or some extreme expression of socially unwanted behaviors is commonplace.

I don’t think it’s the differences between differing human races that are taboo, Satyr, but what one does with them (those differences…) of which all races are guilty of, btw.

…these ‘race’ threads are boring me senseless, btw :astonished:

Has anyone suggested 'doing anything with them?

But why all this resistance to the obvious?
Because morons will follow whatever teachings they are given at birth, unquestioningly and without a second thought.

We’re at a point where history is rewritten to support our ludicrous cultural myths, just like Christian apologists rewrite the meaning of the bible to fit into modern scientific insights.

What damage are we doing to critical thought when stupidity is allowed such leeway?

Shouldn’t everyone already have a purpose? or why are they here :-s

Resistance is futile (in the end…) :wink:

No it’s not.

Assimilate and draft enough imbeciles to your cause and then truth becomes irrelevant.
Hell, if enough retards believe in a lie it becomes as good as truth.

Look at religion.


Phythophthora infestans is a protist that evolved as a spoilage organism for potatoes in the Andes region. Potatoes in the Andes don’t grow very large because they have to be small and hardy to survive. Indeed, with the competition, that is all they really can do.

Move those potatoes to Europe and they can grow to be as large as your fist – heck, as large as your head. But that Phythophtora that is a minor nuisance in the Andes can destroy damned near every potato in Europe when let loose. Indeed, it did. Well, not Europe. Ireland was hit hardest.

Just some food for thought.