Origin of the Racist Myth "Blacks are Less Intelligent"

The fact that you know nothing about African culture shows that you have a tendancy to talk out of the wrong end of your torso, which leads us all to believe you less intelligent than you think yourself.

 

A good definition of a racist is "a superstitious twit who thinks himself superior to others based on membership in a genetic lineage from a different part of the world."

 

What I don't understand is why liberals haven't learned that Blacks are not less intelligent. Sure, since the liberals consign them to failing schools with incompetent teachers they make it appear that way but Blacks aren't less intelligent. If they could go to decent schools and have competent teachers they could perform as well as anyone. I realize the unions would be highly pissed so liberals can't consider that and they sure don't want vouchers that might get black kids into a decent school.

And, LeftySergeant, explain that African culture business. You know, the culture that ties the Zulus, Egyptians and Ethiopians all together. I don't think the Hutus and the Totsi buy into that. Is that like the culture that binds the Germans, the Greeks, and the French into one group? Even better, the English -Irish culture. Whoo-hoo.

 

Most of the developed civilizations were Muslim by that time, so they couldn't sculpt, but they did develop some interesting music.

[video=youtube;9V4V6Lwbz-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V4V6Lwbz-0[/video]

 

so, you are saying that your fellow buddy is a liberal now? This is too rich....

 

Now that's funny....LOL

 

Utter twaddle. The reason that the schools are failing is that they are asked to do too much with too little. Class sizes are groing as idiots like Mittens and Snott Walker cut their budgets and drive the experienced teachers out of the system. Yes, the quality is going to go down. That is not the result of "liberals putting them into the ghetto," regardless what kind of superstitious crap the gurus of the right are teaching you. It is the resiult of stingy bastards not funding the schools the way they should be, out of income taxes, distributed state-wide, per pupil, with adequate funding for special-needs students.

You people need to listen more to those union teachers than to idiots like the boy-bumper at the EIB. The unionized teachers know more about how to educate kids than the self-aggrandizing blathermeisters on Fox Boobs or the congress critters who are in the pockets of lobbyist for the private school industrty. There are already interstate corporations forming to try to siphon off the money that should be used to improve the public schools. We may soon see the schools privatized the way that some fascist idiot governors are trying to do the prison system, with the same results as far as ability to perform the expected function. Vouchers will just take money away from the schools that are already under-funded and give a subsidy to the rich parasites who already send their kids to St Elsewhere's Academy for Yuppie Larvae, while the poor just have to go hat in hand looking for a decent school that will accept them just at the cost covered by the voucher. What they will probably be stuck with is some commercial MsScrew that will just teach them the basics that the corporations want them to know, but probably not such things as the actual history of the USA and definitely nothing about the Labor Movement.

Vouchers are just a sham to entice the poor into peonage.

Don't give me any crap about how much better the private schools are until they are required to accept any child who shows up with a voucher, regardless of that child's special needs or family situation. Of course a private school is going to turn out high-performin g students if they caan turn away the ordinary kids whose parents cannot give them all the advantages that they need to compete with a rich kid's private tutoring and vacations top exotic places where they can learn thiongs beyond the experience of the working class kids.

Vouchers are based on a non-causa-pro-causa argument, in fact, a dirty lie.

Of course there is no single "African culture," just as there is no single "European culture," but there are more similarities between the cultures of Africa than between Africans and Europeans. The Tutsi, the Hutu and the Acholi are, in that sense, not much different from the Schiptars, Kosovars and the Serbs.

I raised the point about some people's needing to learn more about African culture because so many people here are dumb enough to think that Africans in general were at a paleolithic state of development when Europeans made contact with them, which is fall-on-the-floor-laughing wrong.

 

they were slaves at that time, I doubt their slave owners were much into slave education back then...

 

how does math have a cultural bias?

 

To some degree, yes. You have to be taught math. If you do not have need for it, you are not likely to develop it. Pre-industrial, agricultural and non-seafaring peoples who build with adobe and timbers do not need to know a great deal of math, compared to coastal, sea-faring traders who build with stone.

Although sub-Saharan Africans did not discover new mathematical principles, they did apply them to some degree in scientific research once they made contact with Muslim cultures that had developed those skills. As to why black students seem to have trouble lerning math today, it is more a failing of the schools as the rightwingers have debased them today.

 

I know plenty about African culture. "Anti-racists" were asked to provide example of great black civilizations, not African civilizations. It is you that knows nothing of Africa if you do not know that North Africa is Caucasian, not black. The exact requirement was to provide an example of high civilization from an undisputably black population. Now that's a huge area. And you have presented exactly nothing. Because there isn't anything.

 

But blacks are bussed into the same schools remember.



James Flynn (psychologist trying to find an environmental explanation for black failure): "The causes of the black gains are like hearing aids. They do cut the cognitive gap but they are not eliminating the root causes."

 

Then I'm not a racist. Obviously I do not reason from average superiority to individual superiority.

 

Actually, you are.

But you do wrongly assume your own group to be superior.

 

Not that often.

You are mis=applying what is written here to fit your own superstitous beliefs.

Blacks are still not treated as equals and thewre are still people trying to keep them down. This, of course, makes it easier for those with no ambition to claim that white peopl;e are never going to accept them as equals anyway. Your constant harping on the idea that blacks are geneticly behind whites, and the chorus that like-minded people join in with you helps convince people who might otherwise have some potential that it is not worth the effort.

 

What the hell are you on about now. The Mande peoples aren't black? Dude, bring something besides your abyssmal ignorance to the debate.

 

Of course I'm a racist. The actual definition of "racist" is "somebody who uses or studies the concept of race", like a cellist uses a cello, and a psychologist studies the psych or mind. The left (starting with Trotsky) has attempted to redefine a simple word to have entirely negative connotations. This is not acceptable and the word should be used in its natural root state. Then there is nothing wrong with being a "racist".

No, I consider my group to have some superior qualities, based on evidence.

 

No, I am reporting what a professional psychologist has reasoned based on his analysis that black gains post desegregation do not correlate with the g-loadings of subtests therefore seem to be a superficial gain. In other words, your Marxist boilerplate is incorrect.

 

From the Ghana Empire? The Ghana Empire was a southern extension of Arab Saharan trade routes.

Now these Arab Muslims provided almost the entire literate class. You were asked to reference a black civilization, not an extension of a Caucasian one.

 

Your attempt at historical revisionism falls face-first in the latrine. You are not going to get away with crafting your alternate reality and selling it to us as the truth.

You don't get to do that.

And you seem to expect the world to conform to your ethnocentric superstitions. Not happening in this time/space continuum.

 

Slap that crocodile again, dude. you're really on a roll here.

Why, when I mentioned the Mande people, did you bring up Ghana? Are you out to prove yourself an enormous waste of an education?

The Romans made up the entire literate class in England, too, so your point is kind of shattered against the inside of your thick skull.

 

Horse hockey. Either you aremisapplying what he said or he was not firing on all six chambers.

It takes more than a couple decades to turn around the results of centuries of repression.

 

It's history. It's the left that have crafted an alternate reality. They've taken an inherently neutral word: "racist", and attempted to load it with a purely negative meaning. It's you that doesn't get to redefine simple words because of a political agenda. If you mean "race hater" say "race hater". If you mean "unfair discrimination based on race", say that. Don't say "racist", it doesn't carry a point.

 

Why did you bring up Mande (some of whom live in Ghana)? Am I supposed to guess your point? My guess is that you don't have one.

And the point is that 1000s of years after being exposed to writing, blacks still didn't take it up.

 

No, I am reporting what he said. Did you ever consider the possibility that you are wrong?