---

I don't think you get it, Jake.

The introduction to Whites in South Africa - which wasn't really inhabited, and if it was, it was by non-Black African people (Khoisan or San peoples, belonging to the Capoid race) - was not beneficial to ANYONE but the Whites themselves.

 
Since the aim of a multiracial or multiculutral society is not to have one group on top, and the rest in the lower class, the example of South Africa before Black rule is an example of failed diversity.

Once the Whites left, which had pretty much all the money, South Africa spiraled down and is becoming more and more like the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
150 years after the first colonies around Capetown, no Negroes existed for 100s of miles.

 

You could easily say that North America benefited from the European presence. But then you would be ignoring Amerind treatment from then until now.
Was it really helpful to Amerinds, or just the Whites?

 
Tell me, Jake, what "Skills" did the people from Asia have that the Whites in South Africa not have?

---

No more of this anthropological bullcrap. Capoids, and Negroes, and bullshit. Post actual science, none of this useless social science crap that proves nothing.

This is more of a case of "bad culture" than anything else. Culture moulds a human into a monster, not the other way around. If one could fix their culture, one can make it so multiculturalism works. If they cannot and will not, then it will not work. Black and White Americans have already had their culture "fixed"; they are authentically American and more poised towards accepting multiculturalism than they were 200 years ago.

Whites didn't do bad simply because they were white; race was not the factor. It was culture. And culture can change.

---

Whites didn't do bad simply because they were white; race was not the factor. It was culture. And culture can change.

---

The Khoi and San were the inhabitants of South Africa when the White settlers came.
They were similar morphologically and had similar language.
And, afterwards, we have found that they are separate from other Africans genetically - thus put in a separate race.

You may call it "Bad culture" and that if people are more accepting of other cultures and races it will be great.

It's not possible - or at least it has never happened.

Races can not live harmoniously like it is believed, and they never have. Racial diversity is a source of conflict.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Absolutely not. Conflicts and division exist whereever you go, and multiculturalism teaches tolerance and understanding and curiosity from our very birth - we must be these things so that we can live happy lives in our society. All of which, I might add, are positive traits for people to have when they are growing up and participating in an increasingly globalized world.

I'm Canadian, and we are a multicultural country, and the only qualms I have with multiculturalism is that it can sometimes be divisive (as you said) as some people like to hang around their "own". They like to hang around their ethnic enclaves (ChinaTown, Little Italy), etc, and this can lead to problems in integrating into mainstream Canadian society. However, second generation Canadians are integrated from birth and do not face the same obstacles as their parents. They are Canadian, through and through, and that is the end of it.

---

---

Different cultures speak different languages - perceived race has little to do with it. There are whites that come to Canada and speak not a word of English and don't bother learning English in their little ethnic enclaves; So, again, race has little to do with it. Culture would be the culprit if there was a victim - there sadly is not.

Immigrants don't HAVE to speak English. If they want to be successful, they will LEARN. And speaking English does not mean one cannot contribute to society. There are foreign-born people that have other skills that they can use to contribute while they are learning English - bit by bit.

---

---

Did you just say Latin Americans don't want to speak English, and then cite that as an example for why diversity and multiculturalism aren't helping?

Pretty weak point, imo. America IS multiculturalist and diverse; THAT is America. You act as if there is some other alternative. As if multiculturalism were some sort of "science project" that America could just toss away when you think some experiments haven't been fruitful enough. You would ask the French to stop being French, so I don't know why you would ask America to stop being American.

---

The Americans all came from Europe, and "Americans" are of many racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.

America may be diverse, but why do we need to make it more diverse?
It isn't helping at all - just separating us into various groups, the ingredients for racial/cultural/ethnic conflict.

America has failed this "Diversity" bullshit. The multicultural homeland they want us to have will never work, and it can't work.
It hasn't worked.

Post edited at 2:14 pm on July 8, 2009 by kidd rune

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

A contribution is not necessarily a good contribution, nor is one always favorable in multiracial society.

---

---

It's funny how they kicked the remaining Whites out by force

---

---

Is that the joy of diversity, Jake?

---

---

Innocent White men, women, and their children SLAUGHTERED, RAPED, and much more?

---

---

What about one racial group having all of the money, and another living in poverty?

---

---

The North Americans did not.
North America did.

---

---

And I did not make any argument about how Whites are racist or exploitive.

---

When you admit that all whites did in the US and elsewhere ONLY BENEFITTED THEM you are admitting that everything they did was ONLY FOR THEMSELVES and did not help any nonwhite. That is pretty racist and exploitative

its funny because I never would have gone that far and very few anti-whites would have claimed that but YOU DID!!!!


-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

So you are saying whites did not contribute any GOOD for South Africa? Ok if you say so.

---

---

And do you think that getting rid of another race and keeping South Africa monoracial ws an improvement?

---

---

How is it "diverse" if whites are gone? You see you contradict yourself right there!

---

---

You mean like what was done in Nazi Germany against white jews? I agree.

---

Also, show me where the Jews were slaughtered and raped and murdered.
Actually - post it here:
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-ynaesnn-support-a.html

Or make a new thread so we don't stray off topic.

---

That is what happens with SEGREGATION yes.

---

---

They did NOT until multiculuralism ALLOWED them o have more and benefit as FULL citizens.

---

Some of the damn Amerinds don't even want the loads of money we present them with. They just want their land back.
Too bad they aren't getting it back, and the money is just sitting there.

---

Oh yes you did.
When you admit that all whites did in the US and elsewhere ONLY BENEFITTED THEM you are admitting that everything they did was ONLY FOR THEMSELVES and did not help any nonwhite. That is pretty racist and exploitative

its funny because I never would have gone that far and very few anti-whites would have claimed that but YOU DID!!!!

---

---

Post actual science? It's quite clear that Capoid peoples are a separate race from "Black" African people.  

The Khoi and San were the inhabitants of South Africa when the White settlers came.  
They were similar morphologically and had similar language.  
And, afterwards, we have found that they are separate from other Africans genetically - thus put in a separate race.  

---

Race, again, in itself is a fuzzy concept; as in content and values of application can vary according to context and conditiopns.I have already told you what Templeton said and have already linked you to what various sources have said about race as a whole. Some scientists disagree, some don't. Templeton doesn't, Rushton does. What Coon said about Khoisans and Negroids is either a truthful analysis of race or scientific racism based on evidence that is significant enough to even classify humans into race.  

I will reiterate and state that Templeton produced findings that said summarily said the difference humans have in their genetics is not SUBSTANTIAL enough to warrant racial classification as been noted in various other species. That means that by the typical means by which scientists now seperate animals in races, HUMANS do not meet the criteria. Humans are animals, and genetically, they are not special. They do not accord to all genetic principles, but this racial one, as if this is some special trait that scientists could not properly classify with research.

Mice are remarkably similar to humans and are used in test after test with scientifically significant, when accounted for scale, results when it comes to comparing them to humans in scientifc experiments. So, tell me why they are suddenly not useful in this case? Why they are "animals" now and not "animals" when tested for reactions to cancer-causing agents or hormone testing or other genetic testing?

Having genetic difference =/= racial classification. That could mean a different ethnicity but =/= racial classification. You must have ENOUGH.

---
Alternatively, if you want to say the Capoid race exists, the only noticeable difference between them and the Negro race that Coon observed was golden brown skin Epicanthic eye folds; none of which presents morphological evidence that they are more closely related to whites than to any other group. They are a genetically diverse group, which is a trait most similar to the peoples living just north of them than any other group (which would make sense).  

---

You may call it "Bad culture" and that if people are more accepting of other cultures and races it will be great.  

---

Bad culture in the sense that it wasn't suited towards the better parts of tolerance, global happiness, etc. And more towards "Me and My", " My group", etc.

---

It's not possible - or at least it has never happened.  

---

It happens all the time. I'm accepting of other cultures, religions, etc because I have been groomed into it. Even you are, to a certain extent; you see different peoples as the norm even if you don't like them. You don't see them as alien, you just don't like that them. Lol. You treat them with some sort of reverance, even if it be subtle - more than what you would've treated them if you were a Dutch explorer 300 years ago and found dark people on the island 100 miles to the west.

---

Races can not live harmoniously like it is believed, and they never have.

---

Ethnicities live together all the time. It's all down to culture and the way you see yourself and others.

---

Racial diversity is a source of conflict.

---

Only if you make it one. War happens, but only if you accept it will do so. If you fight against conflict, and encourage that it doesn't happen, then it will happen less. We fight against racism, and less of it has occured. It will always happen, but it will happen less in a blatant public fashion.

People will and have become more secure with themselves. Be the change in the world you wish to see. The easiest path isn't always the best one. I think finding the solution to the hardest problem on the test is better than simply solving the easiest and handing it in or ripping the test apart altogether. If you cannot accept that you are human, and that you can accept and cooperate and collaborate to making yourself and your peers better - then racial diversity will always lead to conflict of you. You cannot start the ball rolling if you will not even glance at the ball.

You can help us roll it down the hill, faster and faster, or you watch and curse us and say that "it'll never work" whenever we hit a road bump. And say that "racial diversity has never worked" - it hasn't really be tried in such a fashion, so how you know it will never work is beyond me and you and jakelong and everyone else. If you sabotage it, and instead of pushing with us, push AGAINST us, then yeah, it won't work because its you and about a billion others who don't want it to work.

Post edited at 3:13 pm on July 8, 2009 by Takinam

---

Race, again, in itself is a fuzzy concept; as in content and values of application can vary according to context and conditiopns.I have already told you what Templeton said and have already linked you to what various sources have said about race as a whole. Some scientists disagree, some don't. Templeton doesn't, Rushton does. What Coon said about Khoisans and Negroids is either a truthful analysis of race or scientific racism based on evidence that is significant enough to even classify humans into race.  

I will reiterate and state that Templeton produced findings that said summarily said the difference humans have in their genetics is not SUBSTANTIAL enough to warrant racial classification as been noted in various other species. That means that by the typical means by which scientists now seperate animals in races, HUMANS do not meet the criteria. Humans are animals, and genetically, they are not special. They do not accord to all genetic principles, but this racial one, as if this is some special trait that scientists could not properly classify with research.

Mice are remarkably similar to humans and are used in test after test with scientifically significant, when accounted for scale, results when it comes to comparing them to humans in scientifc experiments. So, tell me why they are suddenly not useful in this case? Why they are "animals" now and not "animals" when tested for reactions to cancer-causing agents or hormone testing or other genetic testing?

Having genetic difference =/= racial classification. That could mean a different ethnicity but =/= racial classification. You must have ENOUGH.

---
Alternatively, if you want to say the Capoid race exists, the only noticeable difference between them and the Negro race that Coon observed was golden brown skin Epicanthic eye folds; none of which presents morphological evidence that they are more closely related to whites than to any other group. They are a genetically diverse group, which is a trait most similar to the peoples living just north of them than any other group (which would make sense).  

---

Capoids generally point to another race.

The difference isn't substantial enough? Tell me, how much is enough?
Is there a limit? Who created this limit? Why do we apply this limit to humans?

There is no reason to not put humans into different racial categories. Saying there 'is not enough' difference is faulty, and it is not based on anything scientific.

Humans and animals should not be held at the same level of importance. Our species is of greater value to ourselves, obviously.

A small genetic blip in mice to make them hyperagressive is a "Problem" if anything, but one in humans is an epidemic.

To put differences between our species at the same level as mice is unscientific.

Coon observed different skin and pseudo-epicanthus among Capoids, but did very little research on them.
The also differ in the fact that they have steatopygia and tablier.

Numerous other differences are pointed out in the book The peoples of southern Africa and their affinities(1985) and Tobias' book The Bushmen(1978)

These books both show genetic information on the Capoid race.

The Capoids are actually closer to Caucasoids than sub-Saharan Africans, according to genetic data.

According to The History and Geography of Human Genes figure 3.5.1, FST(x10,000) between San and Near Easterners is 880. Compared to Bantus, it is 994. Nilo-Saharan, 1002. West Africans, 885. Mbuti Pygmy - 1496.

mtDNA data suggest the Capoid people are direct descendants from our first human ancestors.(Vigilant et al 1989)

Autosomal data suggests that the first separation of humans included the group soon to be considered the Capoid race, and they have been separate for longer than any other races (Though gene flow has been observed in small amounts with other African groups)

---

Bad culture in the sense that it wasn't suited towards the better parts of tolerance, global happiness, etc. And more towards "Me and My", " My group", etc.

---

Why can't we have global happiness with everyone in their own countries?

---

It happens all the time. I'm accepting of other cultures, religions, etc because I have been groomed into it. Even you are, to a certain extent; you see different peoples as the norm even if you don't like them. You don't see them as alien, you just don't like that them. Lol.

---

---

Ethnicities live together all the time. It's all down to culture and the way you see yourself and others.

---

---

Only if you make it one. War happens, but only if you accept it will do so. If you fight against conflict, and encourage that it doesn't happen, then it will happen less. We fight against racism, and less of it has occured. It will always happen, but it will happen less in a blatant public fashion.

People will and have become more secure with themselves. Be the change in the world you wish to see. The easiest path isn't always the best one. I think finding the solution to the hardest problem on the test is better than simply solving the easiest and handing it in or ripping the test apart altogether. If you cannot accept that you are human, and that you can accept and cooperate and collaborate to making yourself and your peers better - then racial diversity will always lead to conflict of you. You cannot start the ball rolling if you will not even glance at the ball.

---

---

They obviously contributed something, and I'm not going to decide for you whether it was good or bad.

---

If yes then the skills of a differnt race provided some good.

---

then again, it's not the land of Negroes either.
Negroes don't belong to South Africa any more than Whites.

---

The BANTUS were there BEFORE whites.

Look up the Kingdom of Mapungubwe and learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapungubwe
http://tinyurl.com/n6jhgg

---

Thulamela, Ancient Kingdom
Thulamela - the name means "giving birth" in Shona - was the political capital of an Iron Age kingdom, and the place evokes a powerful sense of ancient Africa.

Ancient Beginnings
People first started settling along the banks of the Limpopo River, further north, from as early as 200 AD. It would have been hotter then, and wetter. The tsetse fly was in abeyance; and the Limpopo flowed constantly. These favourable conditions attracted Bantu-speaking Nguni people who moved down from Zimbabwe and settled along rivers like the Limpopo, Shashe, Shingwedzi, Letaba and Luvuvhu.

The major settlement along the Limpopo was Mapungubwe, centre of the largest Iron Age kingdom in the sub-continent, where a highly sophisticated people traded gold and ivory with China, India and Egypt. Today you can walk among the almost untouched remains of palace sites, as well as a settlement site and 2 earlier capital sites, each offering an extraordinary picture of social development over 400 years. When Thulamela was built some 200 years later, it was allied to Mapungubwe.

Elephant Highway
Thulamela overlooks an elephant highway that ran from the Indian Ocean in the east, westwards towards the Okavango. The rulers here at Thulamela controlled a far-reaching trade network between Mozambique and the South African interior. The people of Thulamela were skilled goldsmiths and they traded gold and ivory for glass beads, cloths, ceramics and corn, with traders who came from north of the Limpopo - what is today Mozambique. There is also evidence they had contact with people from West Africa.

African Architecture
The architecture here is purely African, and the people who lived here were evidently disciplined. There is a central royal enclosure that would have accommodated a 1000 people or so, amongst them the chief or king and his family. Beyond the walled citadel, the hillsides are peppered with ancient stone walls and houses that show that as many as 2 000 people may have lived here.

---

---

Thulamela was "discovered" by a park ranger in 1991 and much of the original site has been restored. Some years ago archaeologists excavated the tombs of an African king and queen who ruled here during the sixteenth century. According to one account:

'Analysis of the king's skeleton indicate that he was probably murdered - stabbed through the stomach in approximately 1640 - and that Thulamela was abandoned shortly afterwards'.

The king was dubbed King Ingwe - meaning leopard, because on the day his grave was found, the excavators returned to their vehicle to find a male leopard walking along the road. The queen was named Queen Losha - because she was buried with her hands placed under her cheeks in a position of great respect known as losha. On the day her grave was found, the excavators returned to their vehicle, which was parked in the same place, and they saw the same male leopard walking along the road, this time with his female companion.

Human Greatness
The spirit behind the reconstruction and preservation of Thulamela has been a very important one. Although the ruins are set on state-owned land within the Kruger National Park, extensive community consultation occurred in the course of the reconstruction of the site. These negotiations were unique because they involved the reburial of human skeletal remains, and because they resulted in an innovative open-air museum that is a tribute to historical human greatness. Few people who visit Thulamela remain unmoved by the power and history of what they have seen.

---

---

On 8 April 1933, The Illustrated London News reported a remarkable discovery in the Transvaal: a grave of unknown origin, containing much gold-work, found on the summit of a natural rock stronghold in a wild region. This site, Mapungubwe Hill, is on the farm Greefswald where the international borders between South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana meet.

Since the site was discovered in 1933, numerous research and news reports have told the story of Mapungubwe, a flourishing Iron Age metropolis on the Limpopo ruled by an African king almost a thousand years ago. Mapungubwe and K2 are a National Monument and therefore the cultural objects from these sites have been proclaimed as part of a specifically declared heritage collection. The Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape became South Africa's fifth World Heritage site in July 2003 and in May 2004 it was officially announced as Mapungubwe National Park.

The remains of this ancient society, now known as the Kingdom of Mapungubwe, lay forgotten for more than seven centuries until, in the early 1930's, a local resident revealed their existence to the University of Pretoria. Today, the Mapungubwe Museum at the University of Pretoria promotes the largest archaeological gold collection in Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

http://www.mapungubwe.com/cultural.htm

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

Do you think whites provided skills that were not in South Africa before?
If yes then the skills of a differnt race provided some good.

---

We don't need to import people with skills - we can surely learn them ourselves.

---

How do you figure?
The BANTUS were there BEFORE whites.

Look up the Kingdom of Mapungubwe and learn something.

---

They were slaughtered by other Africans, yes we know this, but they are the rightful inhabitants.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Yes, but that wasn't 2009.
Today is 2009.

---

---

We don't need to import people with skills - we can surely learn them ourselves.

---

---

Originally, the Capoid people inhabited South Africa.

---

Genetic differences are presumably deemed insigniicant in comparison to what scientists have observed in the differences other creatures share amongst themselves and to which they have then seperated into differing lineages. You can question their judgement, but then you can question anything scientifically valid if you cannot immediately see it.

"With modern molecular evolutionary techniques, the study found that, over time, genes in any one local population are shared by all of humanity throughout time, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another. There are no distinct branches, no distinct lineages of humans."
http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/23092
^
I assume this has something to do with gene flow and the like; it is scientifically accepted that for one to be of a seperate race or species, they must not be in contact with another group for a long time (this is what I remember from Biology).

This asserts that that has never had enough time to happen. And that if it had, there would be genetic difference close to what has been observed elsewhere in other species expected to have been recently seperated.
----

---

Why do we apply this limit to humans?

---

Humans are animals; there is no reason to suggest that it shouldn't be applied to humans if it has worked and been accepted in relation to closely-related animals. That is why we accept the limit. This is the scientific method.

There is no reason to not put humans into different racial categories. Saying there 'is not enough' difference is faulty, and it is not based on anything scientific.

You're laughable - how can you say that?

"In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races," Templeton said.

That's enough science in one post to invalidate your claim. He quoted that in OTHER large mammalian species (of which humans are apart of), there are 2x or 3x the difference before the lineages are recognized by races. So, objectively, Templeton has just basically said that everything else that has EVER been studied in the animals presumed CLOSEST to humans has NEVER yielded results so low and been seperated into new lineages. It would be a farce for scientists to suddenly start doing so. Even if you are not a scientist (as I am not and neither are you) and don't fully understand how they seperate into lineages for all large mammalian species, this is crystal clear. Either Templeton and other scientists have been doing it wrong for years (it has never been questioned before - only politics can make it a question now) or humans have special genetics that Templeton and his team could not properly investigate, experiment, and research (unlikely).

"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that, unfortunately, is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans—genetic differences," Templeton said.

---

Humans and animals should not be held at the same level of importance. Our species is of greater value to ourselves, obviously.

---

They are treated genetically the same in genetic studies, and that is all that matters. I don't see your logic here.

---

A small genetic blip in mice to make them hyperagressive is a "Problem" if anything, but one in humans is an epidemic.

---

As scientists who sometimes study mice relate it to humans, they would not regard it as a "problem" when they put it down in a journal. It is insignificant only when it affects a mousy test subject, but substantial when it comes to writing on humans. This is self-evident and ludicrous of you to mention. You say this as if scientists have found some sort of significance that they've chosen to ignore.

---

o put differences between our species at the same level as mice is unscientific.

---

Differences are not put on the same level as mice (in the sense that we don't care about mice as a species, just as test subjects), and differences are not treated as insignificant if they are not insignicant in humans. If they are significant to mice, they will probably be significant to humans. That is genetic similarity. If you don't like it, too bad.

Difference can exist without having racial classification.
There are whites with some genes, and whites exist without other genes. That difference does not mean one is human and one is not. They are all humans but differ in some way. Maybe someone else differs more, but the insignificance in this is that it does not follow to say that difference automatically equals seperate race.

Post edited at 4:50 pm on July 8, 2009 by Takinam

---

So? If diversity provides some good wouldn't it be valid ANYTIME? What does the date have to do with it?

---

Sure, Jake, let's do that!

---

So you agree that black Africans can learn anything Europeans have done by themselves.

---

---

Since even coon thinks that the capoids are a SUBRACE of the "negroid" race and not a seperate race then I fail to see whats the problem. If Africans take over Poland would you say they have AS MUCH RIGHT to it as the Germans?

---

Coon used "Congoid" which has the same meaning as Negroid.

And I'm sure he doesn't think they are a subrace, but show me a source if you can.

If Africans take over Poland, the Polish have a right to it. If the Polish can't take it back - then perhaps their genetic cousins should have a right to it.

The fact that the Capoid race is closer to some Caucasoid groups than Negroids genetically, means that Negroes don't really hold any claim to the land.

Since the Southern part of Africa is the ONLY homeland of Capoids - they truly deserve it.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

What good came from diversity in South Africa?

---

---

I have faith in them Jake, but it's not like sub-Saharan Africa is importing Whites.

---

---

I don't think that's entirely accurate, since Coon did not use the term Negroid

---

---

Coon used "Congoid" which has the same meaning as Negroid.

---

---

And I'm sure he doesn't think they are a subrace, but show me a source if you can.

---

---

The fact that the Capoid race is closer to some Caucasoid groups than Negroids genetically,

---

---

Since the Southern part of Africa is the ONLY homeland of Capoids - they truly deserve it.

---