What Is The Underlying Cause Of Astronomically High Black Crime Rates?

Who mentioned congoid (whatever that is)? It appears that when someone anyone mentions Africa you think of a certain type of people though, it makes my job easier

Those mummies you are referencing could have been any number of people who invaded Africa from greek to roman and nobody ever said Africa was the cradle of civilization that would be either Sumer or AEgypt you can take your pick it matters little considering they were both so- called black civilizations according to Israelite literature.

 

Incorrect. European civilization was the result of Roman civilization which in turn was the result of Greek civilization. Greek civilization was an offshoot of civilizations that emerged in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

The unifying factor of European civilization was Christianity. Christianity itself isn't even European, its Asian in origin.

As for similar people working towards similar goals, that's a gross oversimplification of European history. Indeed, the various European nationalities viewed themselves as different people for centuries. The Romans viewed the northern Europeans as human trash. Western Europeans still view southern and eastern Europeans with disdain. The Jews and Gypsies were constantly persecuted and had extermination policies levelled against them.

The constant wars that ravaged the continent up until the middle of the previous century doesn't show much in the way of commonality, or a group of people working towards a common goal. What it does show is a push towards mutual destruction and domination by whatever nation was on top of the heap at any given time. The only reason Europe isn't experiencing the throes of a third world backwater is because of American intervention after the second world war.

 

No...The US has not been 'multicultural' it has been multi-ethnic. That is, folks who immigrate legally eventually assimilate as opposed to illegal aliens who wish to impose their culture.

America boasts many different ethnic groups that retain their family traditions, cuisine, and generally contribute to the ethnic diversity of the US.

However, it is quite a different matter to want to establish your country of origin here in the US. Aztlan is a good example. Mexican dissidents already have a map of Aztlan which would carve out a huge section of the US an replace it with the La Raza culture.

 

Well said, although I might add that the origins of Christianity could well be Ethiopia.

 

In my opinion, it is simply morals not race that is the problem.

 

I dunno...

... mebbe it's astronomically 'high' blacks.

 

Interesting...



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1m4HLNCRrs&feature=relmfu"]Japan and Haiti earthquakes - YouTube[/ame]

 

Actually, that is incorrect. American culture itself is multicultural. Always has been, and it always will be. The reason it may not appear that way is because the country doesn't have restrictions on religion and the expression of different cultures, so people from various backgrounds are free to intermingle and blend their cultures together. Heck, there isn't even an official language. This has allowed various cultures to be freely practised while getting absorbed by the overarching American culture, which in itself is a blend of European, African, and Indigenous cultures.

If you visit an Italian or Polish neighborhood on the East coast of the U.S., you'll see lots of cultural and even linguistic norms still fully on display. The same applies to African Americans and Asian Americans. The fantasty of Hispanics or Asian groups creating balkanized sections of America are exactly that, and little more. The children of these groups eventually assimilate into the larger American culture, and even intermarry into the white majority at insanely high rates.

 

There's nothing interesting about a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

Well, after the fall of Rome, yes there were a lot of unifying factors. The vast majority of Europeans were Roman Catholic, read from a translation of Jerome's Vulgate Bible (or listened to it read in Mass on Sunday). Due to the influence of Rome and Greece, almost every educated European or European Colonial could at least read Greek or Latin (Greek was more common in the East). The differences between a Roman Catholic German and a Roman Catholic Pole and so on are much smaller than the differences between a Chinese Buddhist, a Saudi Muslim, and a Hindu Indian -- and the fact is that compared to 1511, we are FAR more multicultural than the European civilizations of the past. In fact, while most Europeans of the 16th century would live their entire lives without ever meeting a person who wasn't of their ethnic group and their denomination of Christianity, today it's not uncommon to walk down a city street in any middle-sized city in the West and find 12 different ethnic groups and in many cases, a representitive of every major world religion living or working there. So we're still dealing in apples and oranges if you want to make European civilization overwhelmingly multicultural -- it just isn't true of the Post-Roman world. New York alone is probably more culturally diverse than the Roman Empire as a whole.

I won't say that multiethnicity is a problem, but at some point it becomes too difficult to get all of the cultures -- with mutually exclusive ideas -- to work together as a single social unit. Just as an example, the Dutch have always been rather tolerant. They believe in living and letting live. They don't care what you do in your private time, right down to you smoking pot. The Muslim faith is a very intolerant culture. They believe that Allah sent down a set of rules that must be obeyed. If those to cultures are both trying to run a society, you have a big big problem. Namely, what happens when what the Dutch tolerate runs against what the Muslim minority finds acceptable? There aren't many options. Either you will enforce the tolerance or you will enforce the intolerance -- you can't have it both ways. If I tolerate that which Islam forbids, I alienate those Muslims who want to be a part of Holland, which makes them less likely to identify themselves with the Dutch state and the Dutch community. If I force the Islamic laws, I alienate the Dutch who will not like the Muslims for banning something that they like. As such situations grow in number, eventually, the societies separate and don't cooperate at all. Eventually, they'll only participate in governing as a means to get goodies for their side while trying to get one over on the other side. Then you have a Bosnia or Rwanda on your hands in which the resentment of those on top boils over into active warfare.

 

Religion and expression of different cultures is what I call ethnicity. America is a distinct culture and the reason for this is that its citizens have been born here an have the legacy from the Founders OR they immigrated legally and learned our Constitution, our legacy and our culture and BECAME Americans. Illegal aliens are no more than invaders with no ties to the country. They are living in their own cultures. In the past most of the illegals' offspring assimilated however, with the huge numbers invading US now it's time to get serious on our border.

You are lumping together disparate factions. Italians and Polish (for instance) came here legally for the most part. They do not share a border with the US and could not just hop the border.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but two or more cultures living together in one society is a multicultural society.

The legality of immigration doesn't change whether or not someone is of a different culture of not. The East Indian man who immigrated to the U.S. from India is just as culturally different as the Mexican who hopped the fence into Texas. Both add to a multi-cultural society that is the U.S. And again, even the illegal immigrant eventually assimilates into the general American society through their children, who are born as legal U.S. citizens, and fuse their parent's culture with the overriding U.S. culture.

Again, their legality in immigrating to the U.S. doesn't change the fact that they are of two different cultural groups. You're lumping illegal immigration with culture. The two have nothing to do with each other. Religion, language, customs, etc. are expressions of culture. Not the ability to hop over a border fence.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that New York isn't more culturally diverse than Medieval Europe. That really wasn't the point. The point was that European civilization arose out of multiculturalism, and the strength that allowed it to eventually become the dominant force in modern history also arose out of multiculturalism. Certainly, there were unifying factors that allowed Europe to develop, however even you admit that those unifying factors came from a variety of cultural influences. Greek and Roman culture for example was far different than the culture of the Franks and Visigoths.

The Christian religion, one of these "unifying factors" you speak of, didn't even originate from the European continent. Heck, the majority of Europeans after the fall of Rome couldn't even read or understand Latin. That allowed the church and the Pope to exert a great deal of power over Europe for the better part of a millennia.

What about Numeric system (1234567890)? Europeans got that from the Muslims who in turn got it from East India.

Christianity was just as intolerant a culture as Islam is now. In fact some sects of Christianity could give fundamentalist Islam a run for its money. It was the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions that pushed religion into the backburner, and made Christianity a more tolerant force in European and American culture. Those forces will do the same to Islam as well, because Muslims will find it very difficult to thrive in a western nation holding on to some of the tenants of fundamentalist Islam, and they will adapt.

I already see Muslim women walking around without the burkas or headdresses here in the states.

 

Two different languages, but same race. Or are we to believe that Polish and Italians are as completely different as Germans and Mozambicans?

 

None of that addresses what I wrote. You are creating your own argument and answering it. Religion, tradition, food, etc. are all ethnic. The 'eventual' assimilation of illegals doesn't cut it. Legal immigrants should be here on a temporary basis but, can embark on the road to citizenship if they so desire. This requires studying our history and constitution so as to become an American and adopt our CULTURE. Illegals bring THEIR culture here. In the past the few illegals were not a problem but now, with millions storming our borders, it's time to clamp down.

Language is culture. In America we speak American English, that is our language. It is not Mexican, Spanish, French etc. That being said, I have nothing against an LEGAL immigrant speaking the language they grew up with but, at some point, they need to learn OUR language. The problem with illegal aliens is that there are too many of them coming across our borders (I cannot emphasize that enough) to the point where we have to print paperwork and have phone menus in different languages. That is just wrong. Religion and customs (as long as they adhere to our laws) are part of ethnicity which we Americans welcome.

Illegal 'immigration' by definition is invasion perpetrated by a foreign power. It's time for US to emphasize borders, language and American culture before we lose it.

 

So much wrong with this post like europe being uinified through catholicism in the dark ages then we have the co conspirators of modern day white supremacy being lorded as a tolerant and righteous people, staggering. Still, nothing amazes me in how europeans like to gloss over the absolute horrors they inflicted on foreign cultures. God knows why you ignore the truth.

 

In our US case, we already have a supreme law of the land, it merely requires sufficient morals on the part of those elected to "rule over us" to bear true witness to our own laws. We could be pursuing Happiness and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, at the same time.

 

Reality now is harsh, but having seen the rest of America, I grew up in 'poverty', don't get me wrong here, I'm white, and never once once realized exactly how bad it was until I MADE GOOD! First step was the Military, and then College, and then real JOBS... Wow not at all hard to do.. I thank GOD my father was PROUD! Poverty may suck, but he'd at least let us suffer without taking handouts! That I RESPECT! Now that I'm doing ok, I send them a check every month so that they don't have to live the same way we used to live!

 

I'm not talking about anything outside of Europe, actually. You Brits did have some nasty habits in your colonies, I get that. As to catholicism or at least christianity being a unifying force -- yes it is. It imparts a single set of values to be aspired to, a single belief system, a single holy scripture. Each of those things promotes unity among a community of people. Black Baptists and White Baptists can unite around being Baptist. It happens all the time.


There have always been problems, mostly because a human being is a nasty brutish creature prone to starting wars and taking what isn't his.

 

So you were (are?) under the influence of some type of drug. Got it.

 

Why do you believe recourse to the subjective moral values of Religion, should be preferred over our own supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

Our federal Constitution is more supreme than any religious Commandments.

Besides, what is not covered by our Ten Amendments and Bill of Rights? Our Founding Fathers ordained and established our secular and republican form of morals in our "charter" and even gave us our mission statement:

 

Polish culture and Italian culture are different. Yes, the same "race" of people can have different cultures. Look at the Japanese, Okinawans, Koreans, and Chinese for example. Sometimes the culture is so strong that groups that could be considered the same people view themselves as being very different people. Again, see the Polish and the Italians. Even better, see the British and the French, the French and the Germans, and the Germans and the Polish Jews.

 

Why should any species have "race" problems?

 

The most recent published research weighs against the idea that sub-Saharan Africans have genetically determined lower IQ levels.

Wicherts et al. have published A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: "Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82. It is suggested that this estimate should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western IQ tests for Africans."

Wicherts et al. also published Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence: "[W]e show that national IQs are strongly confounded with the current developmental status of countries. National IQs correlate with all the variables that have been suggested to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world."

Rushton responded in Brain size as an explanation of national differences in IQ, longevity, and other life-history variables.

Wicherts et al. write in Raven's test performance of sub-Saharan Africans: Average performance, psychometric properties, and the Flynn Effect: "Average IQ of Africans is approximately 80 when compared to US norms. Raven's scores among African adults have shown secular increases over the years. It is concluded that the Flynn Effect has yet to take hold in sub-Saharan Africa."

Lynn and Meisenberg responded in The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: Comments on Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas.

Wicherts et al. respond to Lynn and Meisenberg in The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers: "We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg's unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy."

Wicherts et al. have the last word so far in Another failure to replicate Lynn's estimate of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: "We again fail to replicate Lynn's low estimate of the average IQ of Africans. We argue that these scores are hard to interpret in terms of latent cognitive variables such as g because of the psychometric incomparability we established and because the Flynn Effect has yet to take hold in sub-Saharan Africa."

 

There's more than one race of people living in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Interesting post though.