Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic My feeling on race issues Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post jakelong Posted at 3:31 pm on July 4, 2009 "Where Is The Love?" What's wrong with the world, mama People livin' like they ain't got no mamas I think the whole world addicted to the drama Only attracted to things that'll bring you trauma Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism But we still got terrorists here livin' In the USA, the big CIA The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK But if you only have love for your own race Then you only leave space to discriminate And to discriminate only generates hate And when you hate then you're bound to get irate, yeah Madness is what you demonstrate And that's exactly how anger works and operates Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight Take control of your mind and meditate Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all, y'all ... I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder Most of us only care about money makin' Selfishness got us followin' our wrong direction Wrong information always shown by the media Negative images is the main criteria Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity Whatever happened to the fairness in equality Instead of spreading love we're spreading animosity Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found Now ask yourself Where is the love?

Replies Moonscar Posted at 3:37 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Chava at 6:26 am on July 11, 2009 Wow oshould have been in this thread a little earlier. I guess I'll just reply to the OP. The song is lame and idealistic. I disagree. But it's not a surprise that you would dislike a song that talks about not being prejudice and to judge people for the content of their character and not their race. Chava Posted at 6:26 am on July 11, 2009 Wow oshould have been in this thread a little earlier. I guess I'll just reply to the OP. The song is lame and idealistic. jakelong Posted at 2:29 am on July 11, 2009 Yeah I know the song is funky And yeah its a bit gooey   But thats how I feel though about race issues. Anyway it was more directed at all the racists and WNs around here   Laurence Posted at 11:27 pm on July 10, 2009 This song always makes me smile because it is so hoplessly idealistic and romantic in its view of people, relationships and ideas. Of course no one can disagree with its view. It reminds me of another similar song "We are the world"   I suppose however that in thes times of cynicism and bitterness a little bit of goodie-two shoe idealism cannot hurt. jakelong Posted at 10:21 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:47 pm on July 9, 2009 I believe that it's possible for a Negro to have the same skills as a White - and a White the same as an East Asian person, and so on and so forth. Remember we said ALL the SAME skils..If some skills do NOT exist in one and do in the other then we can have diversity of skills from diversity of race. But I'm not sure if an all-Negro country can ever make it to the first world. That is a completely different question. First world, second world third world depend on politics, economics, the effects of colonization, of communism, etc... Asia has 1st world countries, so do many nations created/maintained/inhabited by Whites. Do you believe that there is a CONNECTION? Do you believe that if whites had NOT colonized them or inhabited those countries then these asian nations would NOT be first world. Remember that Japan has NEVER been occupied colonized or inhabited in significant amount by whites. Yet it has been an economic political and military power since 1904. It even beat Russia during the war of 1904-1905 There is no evidence to support that it is beneficial There is but you keep refusing it. No, I'm saying the skills commonly found in some Asian countries (Some Asians are 3rd world) and White countries are not commonly found among Negroes. Is the reverse true? Are some skills commonly found among blacks an NOT commonly found in asians and whites? If YES then they can complement each other! (snip irrelevant shit about IQ) Remember Kidd we are speaking of SKILLS NOT just IQ. There is not enough evidence to suggest whether or not that only one or more races has certain "Skills" that would influence the development of a nation. We are not speaking of "development" (that is relative anyway) but CONTRIBUTION. I haven't seen anything to conclude either point, and #2 isn't necessarily "Racist" if it comes out true. First there is not enough evidence to make that claim so the motivation for making it is racist. Second it suggest that whites are superior to nonwhites which is racist. In the English language, Negro has a specific meaning, and it is not "Black" In scietifc terms it is inaccurate. Many words exist in the english lnguage. Not all are accurate or appropriate. Negroid is not a color Negro is. Negroid is derived from negro which refers to color. It is more accurate to use geography. Again why make AN EXCEPTION for that category of people? Congoid and capoid make more sense since they refer to geography in the SAME way that caucasoid and mongoloid do. Coon said it was DECEIVING because it made people think of black skin Oh so you are DECEIVING us then? Ok so long as that is clear. Why does it matter to you what I use? Why does it matter o you what other ppl use? Why were you saying you "prefer" that ppl do not say "dark skin"? I am just showing that you are TOTALLY INCONSISTENT in your reasoning. That was the term coined for whatever reason, and it stuck. "Black people" ws also coined for whatever reason and it stuck. Yet you object to that. We create the term and we define it's accuracy. Who is "we"? White people? The fact that the word "Blancoid" has nothing to do with the Negroid race does not make it inaccurate. So I can say you are a blancoid? Ok!   kidd rune Posted at 9:47 pm on July 9, 2009 That does not prove anything anyway. Why make an exception for blacks? Do you TRULY believe that VARIETY of skills exists within ANY race yes or no? If yes then those skills MUST exist among purely black societies or purely asian societies. If no then VARIETY of skills CAN come from diversity of races.   Simple, Kidd.   Just answer the question. My answer is "I don't know." I believe that it's possible for a Negro to have the same skills as a White - and a White the same as an East Asian person, and so on and so forth. But I'm not sure if an all-Negro country can ever make it to the first world. I want to see it happen though. Asia has 1st world countries, so do many nations created/maintained/inhabited by Whites. So you don't have enough evidence to claim anything then. Why claim that diversity is not beneficial if you have no evidence anyway? There is no evidence to support that it is beneficial, which is why I don't believe it, and there are numerous historical instances to show that racial diversity creates conflict. So you are saying that SOME skills CANNOT be obtained within blacks or within whites or within asians?   No, I'm saying the skills commonly found in some Asian countries (Some Asians are 3rd world) and White countries are not commonly found among Negroes. Jensen tested 100's of identical twins, and the largest IQ difference between two twins observed was 24. If race has nothing to do with IQ, then the largest deficit of any populations should be 24. It isn't. Black Africa has an average IQ of 70, White Europeans and North Americans 100. Mongoloids of East Asia have 106. Ashkenazi Jews have 115. 1. IF it is UNLIKELY that some skills can be found among blacks and among whites and among asians THEN bringing them TOGETHER would LIKELY bring a DIVERSITY of skills! UNLESS 2. you claim that whites surely have a variety of skills and other races are not likely to have them. THAT would be racist. SO you can't possibly believe option #2 since you are not racist There is not enough evidence to suggest whether or not that only one or more races has certain "Skills" that would influence the development of a nation. AKA - I haven't seen anything to conclude either point, and #2 isn't necessarily "Racist" if it comes out true. Then negro doesn't belong in English. Just because some ppl have used it in the wrong way does not mean it should continue being used in the wrong way I'm not using it in the wrong way. In the English language, Negro has a specific meaning, and it is not "Black" So you are using color to designate race. And using terms that have been deermined not to be accurate while fully knowing it just because that what you CHOOSE?   Negroid is not a color - and nobody said it wasn't accurate. Coon said it was DECEIVING because it made people think of black skin - but that's irrelevant and Negroid is used more, and I can choose to use whichever I want. Congoid and Negroid are the same. If you didn't know. Why does it matter to you what I use? Neither does caucasoid or mongoloid. If we use those terms then why MAKE an EXCEPTION and call ppl negroid (using a reference to color) rather than congoid? That was the term coined for whatever reason, and it stuck. Would that make it "accurate"? No. Yet you claim that negro is accurate. It is not. We create the term and we define it's accuracy. The fact that the word "Blancoid" has nothing to do with the Negroid race does not make it inaccurate. jakelong Posted at 9:30 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 4:18 pm on July 9, 2009 I don't know because I haven't seen any evidence to support that Negroes can create a civilization or nation like Whites can. That does not prove anything anyway. Why make an exception for blacks? Do you TRULY believe that VARIETY of skills exists within ANY race yes or no? If yes then those skills MUST exist among purely black societies or purely asian societies. If no then VARIETY of skills CAN come from diversity of races.   Simple, Kidd.   Just answer the question. There is not enough evidence to support any of the conclusions So you don't have enough evidence to claim anything then. Why claim that diversity is not beneficial if you have no evidence anyway? Maybe, but there is no evidence to support such an assertion and everything around us contradicts that So you are saying that SOME skills CANNOT be obtained within blacks or within whites or within asians?   I mean it's possible that the earth was created by two planets having sex, but it's incredibly unlikely - though right now we have no certain answer. 1. IF it is UNLIKELY that some skills can be found among blacks and among whites and among asians THEN bringing them TOGETHER would LIKELY bring a DIVERSITY of skills! UNLESS 2. you claim that whites surely have a variety of skills and other races are not likely to have them. THAT would be racist. SO you can't possibly believe option #2 since you are not racist Some are, not all. Some what are what? You quote a senetence and you answer does not correspond to it.   Negro doesn't mean "Black" in English. Then negro doesn't belong in English. Just because some ppl have used it in the wrong way does not mean it should continue being used in the wrong way Negro means someone of the Negroid race.   That's how I use it. So you are using color to designate race. And using terms that have been deermined not to be accurate while fully knowing it just because that what you CHOOSE?   It was based off of the location but does not refer to it. Neither does caucasoid or mongoloid. If we use those terms then why MAKE an EXCEPTION and call ppl negroid (using a reference to color) rather than congoid?   I'm sure if someone used the term "Blancoid" and continued to use it, numerous others did, and it became the norm - it would be the one used. Would that make it "accurate"? No. Yet you claim that negro is accurate. It is not. kidd rune Posted at 4:18 pm on July 9, 2009 Why don't you know? Are you saying that whites MAY NOT have some skills that nonwhites have? I don't know because I haven't seen any evidence to support that Negroes can create a civilization or nation like Whites can. So you are saying you chose the last option? No, I didn't. I don't know if only certain races can do this - and others can't. There is not enough evidence to support any of the conclusions, and the fact that it is tabooed to study isn't helping one damn bit. If you don't know then you can agree that it is POSSIBLE that different races can complement each other in skills and therefore diversity can bring good things. Maybe, but there is no evidence to support such an assertion and everything around us contradicts that. I mean it's possible that the earth was created by two planets having sex, but it's incredibly unlikely - though right now we have no certain answer. anthroplogists are moving away from that type of terminology. But nice to see that you are NOT CONSISTNT with YOURSELF! Some are, not all. Negro means black. Using that word brings the meaning that those people are black. If you do not want people to use "black" or dark skinned" then you should not use "negro" either. Negro doesn't mean "Black" in English. Negro means someone of the Negroid race. That's how I use it. It uses the word referring to the geographical location associated to their race JUST as caucasoid refers to the Caucasus and mongoloid refers to Mongolia. It does not mean obviously that those locations are 100% that race or even that it is where the race originates. Why would we use negroid and not blancoid? It was based off of the location but does not refer to it. I'm sure if someone used the term "Blancoid" and continued to use it, numerous others did, and it became the norm - it would be the one used. But it wasn't. Negroid was used as the norm, and only a few anthropologists have used other terms. jakelong Posted at 3:42 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:29 pm on July 9, 2009 I don't know if other races can do what Whites have. Why don't you know? Are you saying that whites MAY NOT have some skills that nonwhites have? It's not racist, try again. So you are saying you chose the last option? I don't know. If you don't know then you can agree that it is POSSIBLE that different races can complement each other in skills and therefore diversity can bring good things. Not really, especially in the context of anthropologists - and how I use it. anthroplogists are moving away from that type of terminology. But nice to see that you are NOT CONSISTNT with YOURSELF! I don't use Negroid as "The Black skinned race" at all. Negro means black. Using that word brings the meaning that those people are black. If you do not want people to use "black" or dark skinned" then you should not use "negro" either. They are based on geographical locations - but that is not what they mean or refer to. It uses the word referring to the geographical location associated to their race JUST as caucasoid refers to the Caucasus and mongoloid refers to Mongolia. It does not mean obviously that those locations are 100% that race or even that it is where the race originates. Why would we use negroid and not blancoid? kidd rune Posted at 3:29 pm on July 9, 2009 What DO you state then? Just asking stupid questions for the sake of it? Clearly your "question" was a rhethorical question from the context. If it was not then why ask it when I was saying that racial diversity brings a wide variety of skills. Perhaps I should say instead a wide variety of expertise. If you think however that ANY single race DOES have a WIDE variety of skills within then you should agree that blacks or asians or amerinds can have it too. If you think that ONLY whites CAN have a wide variety of skills then you are racist. But we all know you are not so this is not possible. I'm leaving it to question. I don't know if other races can do what Whites have. It's not racist, try again. CAN they have ALL the SAME skills as whites? I don't know. It does not HINT. It MEANS black color. Not really, especially in the context of anthropologists - and how I use it. It contradicts what you say about color not being accurate description of people. No it doesn't. I don't use Negroid as "The Black skinned race" at all. Nobody does. Black skin isn't a race. You misread what I said or fail to understand. It is SIMPLE Kidd! Capoid refers to the Cape of Good Hope Congoid refers to the Congo BOTH refer to GEOGRAPHY. They are based on geographical locations - but that is not what they mean or refer to. They refer to a specific race. you didn't give me the source. Yes I did. "According to The History and Geography of Human Genes figure 3.5.1..." No shit. THAT is WHY facial features and other ophysical crap is NOT an ACCURATE way to categorize by race Not just by themselves, nobody classifies race by only one indication. Race is a collection of triats. One gene, one trait, one measure is never going to be enough to classify race. If they don't agree which one do you prefer? They are both relevant when speaking of race, but genetics is probably the most relevant. You make no sense at all here. No. The study I showed tested many Caucasoid groups, one being Near Easterners. They compared these specific groups separately to Capoids. Your study groups Norse, Hungarian, and other Caucasoids. I'd assume that European Caucasoid groups aren't as close to Capoids as other groups - like North African or Near Eastern, and they aren't. jakelong Posted at 3:15 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:50 pm on July 9, 2009 It was a question - I didn't state anything. What DO you state then? Just asking stupid questions for the sake of it? Clearly your "question" was a rhethorical question from the context. If it was not then why ask it when I was saying that racial diversity brings a wide variety of skills. Perhaps I should say instead a wide variety of expertise. If you think however that ANY single race DOES have a WIDE variety of skills within then you should agree that blacks or asians or amerinds can have it too. If you think that ONLY whites CAN have a wide variety of skills then you are racist. But we all know you are not so this is not possible. They haven't created a first world nation, and I'm not sure if they can or can't. CAN they have ALL the SAME skills as whites? Negroid doesn't refer to color at all. It just has "Negro" in it, which means "Black" in some languages. It hints at color. It does not HINT. It MEANS black color. "Negro" means "black" in Spanish, Portuguese, and ancient Italian[5]; all of these derive from the Latin niger (i.e., "black"). Everyone knows that. You even used that explanation to claim that negro is not derogatory. I can use it because it's 100% clear what it means. It contradicts what you say about color not being accurate description of people. Capoid is irrelevant to Negroids, and Congoid does not refer to geography, but race. You misread what I said or fail to understand. It is SIMPLE Kidd! Capoid refers to the Cape of Good Hope Congoid refers to the Congo BOTH refer to GEOGRAPHY. I already gave it in this thread. you didn't give me the source.  There is also environmental influences. No shit. THAT is WHY facial features and other ophysical crap is NOT an ACCURATE way to categorize by race Though it's inaccurate to compare genetics, and try to contradict it with morphological studies. If they don't agree which one do you prefer? The other mistake you made was adding Caucasoid as one specific group.   You make no sense at all here. kidd rune Posted at 2:50 pm on July 9, 2009 you said One race can't have those same skills? Clearly you think that whites can have ALL THE SAME skills that blacks have and Blacks can have ALL THE SAME  skills that whites have Right? Or are you saying that ONLY whites can have ALL the skills of every other races but NOT blacks? No you couldn't be saying that since you are not racist. It was a question - I didn't state anything. I'm not going to say whether or not Negroes can match up to other races in that sense. I don't know if they can. They haven't created a first world nation, and I'm not sure if they can or can't. They DO NOT mean the same thing really. Negroid refers to color and you admitted that COLOR is a deceiving indicator of race. So don't use it! Congoid and Capoid refers to GEOGRAPHIC which is more consistent. Negroid doesn't refer to color at all. It  just has "Negro" in it, which means "Black" in some languages. It hints at color. I can use it because it's 100% clear what it means. Capoid is irrelevant to Negroids, and Congoid does not refer to geography, but race. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich coming from you! Irrelevant. You can't source that something isn't. You made the claim, I denied it. The burden of proof already started before you asked for source. Since I denied it, I got the benefit of the doubt until you support your claim. If you did, the burden would then shift to me. Support your claim, Wiki contradicts it, which I assume you were using. Source? I already gave it in this thread. I posted proof in my reply to Takinam: 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. They are closer to Near Easterners than any Negroid group Wait! I thought cranial morphology agrees with genetics!!! Can I ditch cranial pmorphology as a race indicator then? They are not 100% equivalent. There is also environmental influences. Though it's inaccurate to compare genetics, and try to contradict it with morphological studies. The other mistake you made was adding Caucasoid as one specific group. I claimed that San are genetically closer to Near Eastern Caucasoids than any of the given Negroid groups. Your study could have very well used European Caucasoids, or some other group. Actually, looking over it, they didn't use any Near Easterners. They used Medieval Norse, Mideval Hungarians, Bergs, and Egyptians. Perhaps if it was JUST Egyptians it may have been different? jakelong Posted at 2:20 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 12:15 am on July 9, 2009 I didn't say that. you said One race can't have those same skills? Clearly you think that whites can have ALL THE SAME skills that blacks have and Blacks can have ALL THE SAME  skills that whites have Right? Or are you saying that ONLY whites can have ALL the skills of every other races but NOT blacks? No you couldn't be saying that since you are not racist. Since Congoid and Negroid mean the same thing I can use whichever I want. They DO NOT mean the same thing really. Negroid refers to color and you admitted that COLOR is a deceiving indicator of race. So don't use it! Congoid and Capoid refers to GEOGRAPHIC which is more consistent.   *sigh* You shift the burden of proof unfairly. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's rich coming from you! So where did you get the term capoid from then? It was coined by Coon, and used by many people since. The San the largest Capoid group, is closer to Near easterners (Genetically) than any of the given Negroid groups. Source? The source I gave was on genetic differences, the one you gave on cranial morphology. Wait! I thought cranial morphology agrees with genetics!!! Can I ditch cranial pmorphology as a race indicator then?   kidd rune Posted at 12:15 am on July 9, 2009 According to you there is no reason why it shouldn't happen. So there's nothing to see or guess. I didn't say that. Why do you use the term negroid if he didn't? Be consistent. If we are using GEOGRAPHIC meaning rather than reference to COLOR then you should say Congoid instead, Coon isn't my king. I don't have to follow what he said. Since Congoid and Negroid mean the same thing I can use whichever I want. The same information goes through. Source? *Sigh* You shift the burden of proof unfairly. You claimed they WERE a subrace of Congoids, and I denied this since it is not true. You did not support it at all, and your "Proof" was Coon, and Wiki (Your source) said otherwise. So where did you get the term capoid from then? It was coined by Coon, and used by many people since. Explain. What are San Easterners? San easterner? That wasn't what I quoted. The San the largest Capoid group, is closer to Near easterners  (Genetically) than any of the given Negroid groups. This source gives the following fitted distances http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch39.pdf Their tree shows  capoids are further from Mongoloids, Congoid and Caucasoids Different comparison. The source I gave was on genetic differences, the one you gave on cranial morphology. jakelong Posted at 11:15 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:20 pm on July 8, 2009 I guess, I'd like to see it happen. According to you there is no reason why it shouldn't happen. So there's nothing to see or guess. Your claim that Coon believed it was a subrace of the Negroid race I don't think is accurate. Why do you use the term negroid if he didn't? Be consistent. If we are using GEOGRAPHIC meaning rather than reference to COLOR then you should say Congoid instead,   They aren't. Source? I haven't been quoting Coon in reference to Capoids. And Wiki isn't my source either. So where did you get the term capoid from then? I posted proof in my reply to Takinam: 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. They are closer to Near Easterners than any Negroid group Explain. What are San Easterners? This source gives the following fitted distances Caucasian-Mongoloid      0.78 Caucasian-Negroid           1.25 Mongoloid-Negroid           1.25 Four races: Caucasian-Mongoloid       0.81   Caucasian-Congoid          0.81 Caucasian-Capoid           1.71 Mongoloid-Congoid          0.93 Mongoloid-Capoid            1.71 Congoid-Capoid               1.71 http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch39.pdf Their tree shows  capoids are further from Mongoloids, Congoid and Caucasoids Most recent 15 of 75 previous replies displayed.