Further thoughts on “race realism”

For those unfamiliar, a race realist is an individual who postulates that there are distinct genetic differences between races that separate them.  These differences explain the social and intellectual behaviors of races and it is important to understand these differences as it pertains to social policies and opinions.  This movement has several proponents that vary in their range of credibility and social acceptability; however, it would be intellectual dishonest and irresponsible to completely dismiss it as nonsense as I initially did.  This is not to say that this is indisputable as a social and biological theory.  There are many more credible entities that oppose this school of thought than support it.  However, my research has shown that it deserves more attention and discussion in the realm of race relations in America and worldwide.

In my experience, the biggest proponents of these theories are usually whites who could be best described as “anti (insert pertinent nonwhite here).”  I use the term anti black instead of racist because most of the followers of this theory do not accept the label nor do they exhibit all of the usual traits of the typical racist.  In my interactions with “race realists” I have yet to be called a nigger, and in comparison to my other experiences with more traditional “anti black” individuals, their tone is fairly tame (although calling it civil would be a bit of a stretch).

I realized that what makes these racialists less hostile is the fact that finally they feel that they can justify their animosity towards blacks and other people of color because it has been substantiated by science.  Now, it is not their hate, fear, or ignorance that forces them to label ALL black people as a “net negative” on society because now it is historically sound and scientifically proven.  For them, there is no need for any hate and emotion in the face sound science and documented history.  This shows that they also realize that their opinions are well within the area of Fringe or extreme and know that if they ever want to popularize or validate their views that it cannot be attached to hate or oppression. 

The core element of racialist theories is that all people who derive from Sub Saharan African gene pools (ie black people) are genetically destined to be barbaric, irresponsible, overly aggressive and generally unable to thrive in a “civilized” world.  They believe that this is the core reason for the problematic state for around 35% of African Americas, as well as the rampant dysfunction of Africans in Africa.  Lastly and more significantly is the role of culture in these theories.  As far as I can tell concepts of cultural bias, social structure, or environmental factors are effectively rendered insignificant by the racialist theory.  From what I have read and ascertained, many Race Realist do not believe that those factors have much to do with the results.

I was wrong to so quickly and categorically dismiss this as “pseudo science” in my earlier arguments.  It is clear that there is much merit to this information as a plausible scientific study.  My problem is that in no logical way can one use this to define an entire race of people world wide without taking into account other aspects of reality.

I am willing to give this theory credence up until this point.  Aside from the large amounts of counter evidence to its theories, the problematic concept of IQ, and the damning factor of the definition of “civilized” through white society being essentially inapplicable upon African culture, this idea that culture has nothing to do with behavior does not hold water on any level. 

 There are several reasons why.

1-In America, unarguably one of the most diverse and stable nations in the world, African Americans enjoy a standard of living much higher than their African counterparts.  Since the civil rights movement of the 1960s almost every indicator of cultural progress has been on the rise.  This includes important indicators such as Median income, home ownership, college education, etc.  This is not to say that there are not many problems, but if culture were not a factor these facts would not exist.

2- The core of the race realist that i have seen thus far seem to have a really poor concept of history prior to 1950.  I have seen them speak of white culture and civilizations as if they were all incredibly stable, crime free, and socially just.  The reason for this is that you cannot believe that culture and environment have anything to do with behavior in order to use race realism as a argument against black people if you cant first establish that White people throughout history have fared excellently without the "net negative" influence of people of color.

White culture throughout history has been one of the leading killers of human beings by a wide margin.  White cultures have always been highly militaristic and imperialistic dating back to the Viking era Germanic tribes that serve as the basis of White culture.  The Vikings were known to hit land, kill all the men, steal all the goods, rape all the women,  and take whatever needed back to their nomadic tribes.  This behavior serves as the template for white culture as a whole to follow whenever it meets others, even if they are also white.  The first notable modern victims of this type of behavior, as well as the one of the first to be dehumanized through controversial science were the Irish.  The British ruling class promoted the (mis)use of Charles Darwin’s studies to establish that the Irish had to be some sort of sub human that was not worthy of humane treatment.  What followed was similar to what would happen to Africans in Africa, and Blacks and Native Americans in America.  In fact the only race that wasn’t rampantly murdered were the Asians, although that did not leave them immune from the effects of European imperialism.  Not mentioned are the various other genocides committed by white people such as the Holocaust, Spanish inquisition, Bosnian Genocide, Aboriginal genocide and so on.  Furthermore, even though blacks represent a greatly disproportionate amount of criminal activity in almost every category, white greatly outnumber blacks in terms of crimes of perversion or rage such as school shootings, killing sprees, serial killings and child molestation.  Also, let’s not forget the epidemic of white collar crime, whose victims often range in the hundreds or thousands per incident, that has occurred in the last 20 or so years.  Now, according to Race realism the only explanation for this can be genetic markers on how people build societies.  What in the genetic code of white culture could account for such behavior?  Furthermore there if you look at the historical data of Africa you see little to no sense of aggression in their nature.  No massive spanning kingdoms, no great wars, no imperialism.  This is not to say that all African tribes were peaceful (the Zulu come to mind) but they were far from feral aggressive beasts.  In fact many early accounts of European exploration into Africa describe Africans as simple and relatively docile. None of this information fits with the racialist’s model for how genetics mark our behavior. 

It is quite likely that the genetic markers discussed could explain the Nature of African people prior to rampant European imperialism.  Africans who were lower in IQ but high in all physical attributes functioned with relative ease within the bountiful environment of Africa.  Although some nations and kingdoms were established, most were relatively simple and tribalistic even as Asians and Caucasians were establishing complex empires.  With an understanding of basic genetics and evolution, it makes sense that Asians and whites, faced with a harsher climate and a weaker physical genetic code would have to develop ways to thrive in their environment.  Race realism does a very efficient job explaining this.  However it fails to explain that these events and trends cultivated by their genetics would eventually establish a specific CULTURAL normalcy for a given area.

To take this further let’s take a cursory glance at Asian(essentially Chinese) history and their kingdoms.  Minus the Mongols, Asian empires were far more stable, peaceful, and advanced than their white counterparts, in fact it was the appropriation of many Asian elements (along with Egyptian) that lead to the development of many significant aspects of Anglo culture.  At the same time, even though their IQs were higher, Asians never embarked on massive conquests of other nations or exploration.  If there were a significant relationship between IQ and a tendency to seek dominance, one would think that Asian ideology and culture would be the dominant force within the world. However every major scholar points that it was the conservative principles of isolation along with the mountainous coast that made Asian Culture sit still while Europeans were colonizing everything in sight.

All of these issues lead to the logical conclusion that while there is much to be made of race realism within the study of race and sociology, it alone cannot explain or provide significant guidance in addressing racial, social, and economic issues.  The only reason it is being so rampantly dropped in sites like this and other quasi racist sites is because it can be used to support white supremacy, which is next on my list.

A response to a "race realist"

The new look for Racism in America is not going too look familiar. to some of you out there. When a lot of us think racism, we imagine hordes of angry white crowds shouting epithets and throwing rocks, or burning crosses at our doorsteps.  However, in the 21st century, with the advent of the information age, there has been an emergence of racist culture occurring behind the scenes and under the guise of social networking and science.

One such example is the rise of "race realism."  Race Realism is a pseudo scientific theory that purports that there are distinct genetic differences between the different races that explain how and why Whites are superior to blacks.  Because race realism is based on a scientific method, you find that many followers of this theory attempt to be more cordial and present their racism as fact as opposed to opinion.

Recently I engaged a follower of this theory in debate on a message board from a blog dedicated to this new movement of scientific racism. The following is my most recent response as the message board was not really the best place to have a civil debate on race being that most of the posters were simply throwing rocks from the background and taking away from any sort of civil discussion of this theory.  You will have to excuse the fact that some of it will seem slightly out of context, but god willing a few of those people will post here and we can continue the discussion without the nuisance of ignorant people with little to add.  His comments are in white block while my responses are in black.

Californian, your effort to actually engage in a civil discussion as opposed to namecalling and nonsense has inspired me to respond.  Thank you.  This will be lengthy, but I hope you take the time to read it.  I will try my best to respond to your statements and give concession and credit where it is warranted.

“So now who is judging an entire group, etc., etc? 


Have you bothered to check out the backgrounds of race realists? How do you know that they live in log cabins, or do not have a "life" or access to books?”

After spending more time on the site and observing the candor of some of the responders, it became clear that although a few individuals were clearly addressing this issue from an academic and reason based stance, there were plenty of the usual stereotypes of fringe racists along for the ride. 

I looked up race realism.  After doing a little research and seeing a handful of merited scholars and professors, you also see names like David Duke mixed in.  So obviously there is definitely some element of the classic ugly image of the old uneducated white racist involved here.  Is it unfair and inaccurate to group you in with the cabin dwellers, probably.  But you cant disavow the people you share ideals with any more than I can the people you see on worldstar hip hop.  All I can do is represent myself as best as I can.  Which, I must say you have which is why I have bothered to respond. 

Still for the sake of making sure this discussion stays focused I will apologize for my crassness and pledge to avoid it when possible as we continue this discussion.

“Why is sticking the term "racists" enough to cause you to dismiss the opportunity for dialog? Supposing one were to say they were not going to waste time debating an "egalitarian?"

What if it turns out that the "racists" are correct? Do you suppress facts which conflict with your ideological assumptions? And treat dissidents from the current egalitarian orthodoxy as heretics? 

Do you support the violation of civil rights by, say, censoring people who might exercise their free speech rights to promote a race realist viewpoint on college campuses or in the media?”

Sticking out the term racist was a shorthanded way of expressing that you cannot argue with people so set in their ideology that their first instinct is to denigrate and insult you without even attempting to respond to your opinion.  Is this not the same way you feel when you try to civily present your belief and people respond with ignorance?  Would you go to an urban media message board and waste time arguing with people who didn’t respond civily? If you read my first post you have to acknowledge that although smarmy it was not insulting or ugly and the responses that followed were mostly geared toward scaring me away, insulting my intelligence and my people, etc.  None of them outside of 1 made any significant attempt to engage in debate on an intelligent or civil level.  Because of this I assumed what most would assume in my position; I was dealing with kids/trolls/idiots whose main goal was to attack me.  At that point it became clear that formulating a thoughtful or serious response would be a waste of time.  That is part of the reason why you are reading this here and not on that other site. 

As for the suppression of “race realism” I think you over estimate the validity of your claims.  People don’t entertain these theories for the same reason that they don’t entertain 911 truthers or alien abductee testimonials.  We have been through these arguments countless times, for every shred of info or fact that supports the claims there is a mountain of info that refutes it. 

The bottom line is that this “race realism” stuff is flawed science where the end result is decided before hand and all of the research and studying done is done only for the purpose of finding the desired result and not to look for truth.  But more on this later.

“When whites (or others) have tried to dissent from the prevailing party line on race, they have been shouted down, lost their jobs, been subjected to lawsuits, seen their conferences canceled, been physically assaulted, and even had the SWAT teams come after them. The thing is, trying to hold a civil dialog on race just does not seem to work in these decadent days. This is one reason that race realists often sound a tad extreme in their rhetoric. Because being civil is not an option.” 

Again you are playing victim and greatly blowing things out of proportion here.  Please however share some examples of when civil and nonviolent people from your ideology were unfairly persecuted or legally/violently attacked by a real authority.  Hell, share some examples of some true attempts as civil discourse where you all don’t rally in the middle of a black metropolitan area and shout racial epithets.  Although I am sure that there have been cases where there may have been violence and arrests when people like yourself try to congregate and promote your ideals, there are plenty of other instances where you all congregate without issue.  Its just usually within your own communities where no one disagrees with you and there is no reason to spark chaos.  The truth is no one cares enough to really engage you all at the level you all exist in.  There are rallies and meetings for your ilk all the time that go off without hitch so don’t act like you are some severely persecuted group just trying to politely get your message across.  You think you are persecuted because that is the only time anyone pays any attention; most of the time you are simply ignored until you do something crazy or inflammatory which is what you all are most notable for.

Your ilk exists in very small numbers and in very remote places.  A large portion of people who share your opinions are not really the type of people who are prone to civil discussion.  Its well known and documented that “hate” groups recruit wayward troubled youth because people with a better grip on life tend not to have so much disgust towards others.  When you all come to major cities where your opinions are in a minority the wild cards in your congregation get everyone in trouble. 

People like you lose their jobs because in the real world that everyone else lives in, disliking or disparaging individual people based of perceived attributes of their race or culture (ie-bigotry) is usually frowned upon and does not make for a productive working environment.  Its well within an employer, or convention center, or news papers rights to avoid topics and people who will at best annoy and at worst incite anger and violence. 

Btw a civil dialogue is not one where you take to the streets with racial slurs and hate speech on either side.  Nor is it a situation where you present a highly insulting opinion of a small minority to a group of people as if it were gospel, or come to the table with no solution to the problem or any semblance of an want to solve it outside of “sending the blacks back to Africa” A civil conversation has to start from a place of mutual respect and understanding or there is little chance of civility and its goal has to be a reasonable solution not an extreme fringe one that defies realism.  A civil dialogue is what you and I are having here… kinda…you know minus the other 20 comments that serve as nothing but insults to me. 

Any dialogue about race in this country has always had one side coming to the table with a lack of civility and a rock in their hand, and yes that does include black people.  Now hopefully I can stop hearing the classical logical fallacy of “black people are racist too” as if that explains or justifies ignorance on either side. So please don’t act like civil dialogue has occurred and failed because it has not even begun yet.  The truth is that few people on either side posses either the civility or knowledge of the subject to really discuss the issue, and if they did they would likely find it difficult to speak with their peers throwing rocks across the table in the middle of the discussion.  This is why I initially was pleased with this site because although I vehemently disagree with its stance, at least it was based on a practical and logical framework when compared to other sites with similar opinions.  At a minimum that meant that although fringe and extreme, some here are on some level open to intellectual dialogue and that is a start.  This of course was before the insults began.

I too would love to have such dialogue in a public forum, but that is not realistic.  I hope you are not insulted by this; however, your ideals are in the same category as Nambla, and 911 truthers, and The westboro Baptist church.  They are the ideals of a fringe society that have little place in the common civil discourse  And as such they illicit a significant emotional response from those ill equipped to engage intellectually.  So doing this before a mixed crowd or a crowd of any kind is only useful for creating turmoil. 

“What this site does, among other things, is record trends which demonstrate the systemic discrimination against white people and then provides a reasoned analysis.”

Reasoned analysis is very much a stretch.  This site scours the net to find cesspools like worldstar hip hop so that it can present sensational and outlandish stories as evidence for a race wide issue.  The analysis again starts with an idea in mind and pulls everything possible toward that opinion while leaving out anything that could be used against it.  For example, in one article the site author decries the Rooney rule as an example of racist dogma.  However he fails to point out that considering the makeup of the NFL, there is absolutely no logical reason why there would not have been more African American coaches.  Furthermore he excluded the fact that after the Rooney rule helped promote the hiring of minority candidates many of them found great success with their new found opportunities.  This site is selective reasoning at its best.  But at least it attempts reasoning.



“And it does give many people cause for concern to see the high rates of black-on-white violent crime, all of which is generally ignored by the media and government when it comes time to prosecute for "hate crimes." 

What high rates of Black on white crime?  What statistics do you have to prove that?  Or are you spending too much time watching world star hiphop.  This is not to say that there are not crimes against whites committed by blacks, but the image you purport is just not based on anything factual.

According to the dept of justice 86% of white murders are committed by white people.  Black America has a disproportionate problem with violence and crime, but in truth the victims are almost always other black people.  Your “concern” is misguided as you are much more likely to be victimized by someone that looks like you than someone who looks like me.

The truth is that the slave mentality that most black criminals have would make them far too scared to consistently try to commit crimes upon white people.  Their self hate however makes it very easy for them to attack their own.  Seriously how many black youth gangs or drug dealers are active in white communities?  Statistics AND common sense say that this is where the bulk of black crime comes from.  Again you are dealing in untruths and exaggerations much like the site as a whole.

“Those of us who have experience in Africa might also note how in countries in which blacks are a majority, whites are systemically driven from their lands and jobs, as well as subjected to some really unpleasant torture killings. Again, all with little in the way of notice from those who normally trumpet "racism" and "genocide" when a black is the target of, say, an inopportune use of certain forbidden words.”

I cannot speak confidently on race relations in Africa.  I am confident however that the same statistics remain constant in that more than likely the victims of African Violence are often other Africans.  Also, to be blunt most countries in Africa are recently independent from white imperialistic occupation.  To say they are driven from their land as if it wasn’t stolen years prior is yet another example of your narrow scope selectively presenting facts.  That said, because of recent release of imperialistic rule and the residual effects of such,  Africa (and to a lesser extent black America) is the equivalent to a recovering rape victim and as such lacks proper functionality on almost any real level. 

However again I want to point out that you are cherry picking acts and presenting them as the norm.  If I were to do that I could have a litany of offenses past and present from white people.  However I have enough sense to recognize that those who act in a violent or hateful way towards me based on race are very much the minority.  Also, I don’t need to use such weak tactics to prove my point.

“Might there not be a cause for concern with the much ballyhooed prediction that whites will be a minority in America by the mid-21st century?”

I guess you guys need to start breeding more then huh.  In all seriousness what is the real complaint here and furthermore what exactly do you expect to do about it?  Are you going to kill us… really?  You do know that if this is the case it will be Mexicans and not Blacks who make up the majority.  Is white America that fearful of living in a world where they do not dominate?  Do you all expect people of color to exact revenge for prior offenses against us.  This point just seems silly in my opinion; i ask you to elaborate the cause for concern here before I put more effort into a rebuttal.

“It gets back to the phrase Black Run America (BRA). This does not mean that blacks literally run the country, but that the country is run as if blacks are a privileged class. They not only receive legal privileges (affirmative action, minority grants, etc., etc), but special protections (from "hate crimes"), as well as near mandatory deference (try questioning MLK and see how long your job would last).”

The BRA term is ridiculous on several levels but ill have to come back to that along with AA, minority grants etc.  The hate crime thing is easily dealt with as it (much like Affirmative Action) is not a black only law and although the media doesn’t report on it, it does not mean that blacks have been exempt from the law again you are exaggerating/cherry picking.  The media is a manipulative and crooked entity that presents an image that works best for social cohesion and only puts out news that gets the type of attention and messages they desire. So yes they do shamelessly ignore black hate crimes, but they ignore all kinds of things on so many sides of the coin that your point is rendered toothless as it can be countered with countless examples of equal treatment from countless angles. 

Similarly, questioning MLK is probably just as detrimental to your career as question George Washington or 911 victims, or any other sacred cow in this country.  It seems that what some of you want more than anything is to be a jerk who gets to spout their opinion to anyone who is in earshot and be immune to the consequences of being a loudmouth with an unpopular opinion.  This why the image of your ilk is often log cabin Appalachian mountain dwellers, because out there you can say whatever you want and no one cares.  You opinion is unpopular for a reason and its not because everyone else is so stupid or so wrong.

“If there is anything that has pushed people into race realism, it is this sort of statement: blacks blaming whites for their problems. 



"If "race is just a construct" then how can the fact that people with white skin did something to people with black skin centuries ago possibly have any impact on what is happening today?”

Here is where we get to some actual meat. 

First, my point in saying that race is a construct is to show that something that as artificial as race/skin color cannot be used to explain things like IQ and behavior on a wide scale.  Although I am certain that there are genetic elements attached to behavior, there is very little in the way of credible science to say that it is based on race as there is essentially no such thing.  Im sure you are going to bring up Rushton, whose work i assume you got most of you nonsense from, but his studies and theories have been greatly disputed and refuted by pretty much everyone in his field on countless levels except for the fringe “racialist” that severly lack objectivity.  But we will come back to him.

Secondly, and most significantly is this.  The impact made “hundred of years ago” (slavery ended less than 150 years ago im not sure that counts as “hundreds” furthermore the civil rights act is about 50 years old so were not talking about a long period of time that we have had rights in the country)  was not upon black people but upon black culture.  It is the culture of black people that is the culprit for our ills not our genetic code.  This is not a cop out or excuse, in fact it is a great indictment upon many elements of what is considered black America.  We celebrate our victimization, we fear progress, we champion ignorance, we resist authority and we lack focus and motivation and we accept failure.  However its not because of our genetic code its because of our shared perception and history.  Once EVERYONE figures this out we can fix things but there are forces inside and outside of the black community that hold this back. 

Culture, values, and mores are what make groups of people who they are.  White culture is greatly influenced by the principles and history of the Germanic Nordic north.  Although Nordic culture had elements of positive family values and community, its greatest asset was its stance on warfare and its ruthless attitude toward outsiders and others who may pose a threat or have something of value.  As such Vikings were known to be ruthless, violent, and heartless to anyone deemed an outsider.  These principles guide every great white civilization which is why countless genocides have taken place over the history of time and almost always include white participants. 

Its funny that the same Darwinesque pseudo science presented by racialists like Rushton were also used to attack the Irish a few hundred years ago.  Now if I were a racist and an idiot I would use this to say “well it must be in white peoples genetic code to be evil towards anyone deemed an outsider” but its more responsible and productive to realize that it’s a cultural tie and not a racial one, and that I should not walk around in fear of being killed or persecuted by every white person.  Unlike race and genes, culture can be changed.

That said, consider that outside of Egypt (kinda), there is no trace of African culture that was not tainted or destroyed by white imperialism except for indegnous tribes that remain completely unaffected by the rest of the world.  The Berlin conference in the 1800s was the first formal agreement that Africa would be looted and plunder by those who could, but before then Europe had long since colonized and tainted black people with many of the traits that we see today.  Slavery in America is just a different version of this.  It is this culture born through slavery and imperialism that is most indicative of why Black people are fucked up world wide.  The problem is self esteem. 

The core requirement for imperialism and slavery was to establish the fact that black people were not really human.  How else could it be possible to reconcile these heinous acts with Christian beliefs?  Consequentially, it was perfectly fine to use them as slave labor or kill them off all together.  That principle was instilled into the perpetrators of slavery/imperialism, and it was also driven home into slaves/Africans for GENERATIONS.  


Being born black in a white world is to automatically be born lesser.

It is this internal feeling of being lesser, this dehumanization that serves as the core defining principle of black culture worldwide.  If you look at any culture that is stricken with systematic poverty or has been tainted by generational violence or war, the common thread is that the people within think very little of themselves in comparison to people whose history and cultural lineage presents a positive image of self.  This is true for war ravaged areas of the middle east, eastern Europe, Asia and of course Africa.  The average terrorist is illiterate and poor, how hard is it for them to strap a bomb to their chest if they have shit else to live for?  The crime, poverty, poor health, and lack of education only produce more crap and suddenly you have cultural norms that are detrimental both to the people of said culture and also those immediately around it. 

I have spent a lot of time working with the types of inner city youth that are likely to commit crime.  The thing I realized about most of them is that they have no hopes, no dreams, and no aspirations for anything in life other than numbing their own pain or inflicting it upon others. Deep down inside these are angry, depressed, self hating individuals who perceive the world to be a cutthroat and ugly place that has nothing positive for them and wants nothing more than their death.  You can see this motif reflected in rap music which is also a small part of the problem.  However, if you can give them hope, give them something to live for and something to look up too then they are able to make some changes.  It is a slow process and one that can only be fixed internally which is why I am not a fan of welfare but things like minority grants and Affirmative action help multiply the opportunities to do so. 

As for white peoples role in this, it may not have been your hands, but recognize that the social structure you rely upon is responsible for this situation.  If you beat a dog for years when it turns on you, you cant blame it on the dogs nature because you altered it with your abuse.  AGAIN this is not to say that black people are without responsibility in this situation.  But understanding this on both sides, is the most important step to change.

So to answer your question, the instillation of the slave mentality by White people is the core issue why a few decades of quasi equality (Again, lets not be ridiculous and act like the civil rights movement didn’t just happen 50 years ago, something some of you guys don’t seem to get)and “handouts” haven’t dramatically changed black people.  Cultural shifts take generations, we are basically just entering the first generation of African Americans who will grow up without genuine fear of overt racism.  I don’t know how many more generations it may take, but statistics show that improvement is already underway.

“How do you account for increasing black dysfunctions, such as the growing rates of illegitimacy, school drop outs, black men in prison, flash mob violence against other races, etc? These are far in excess of the rates for other races in the USA, and can be correlated to genetic factors such as median IQ levels.”

Again we have falsehoods and exaggerations at work. First off where do you get the notion that all of those things are increasing?  I simply googled “black drop out rate decreasing” and found that it in fact has decreased over the last 20 years, same thing for teenage mothers and black men in prison and the flash mob thing is coming right out of your behind straight from worldstar hip hop.  Now don’t get me wrong, things are still screwed up and disproportionate, but your exaggeration speaks to the fallaciousness of your overall stance.  As I said before, in the end it comes down to the culture that breeds this behavior, as the culture changes, the people will change.

“Then explain why blacks have the highest standards of living, education rates, levels of economic development, etc., in the USA (slavery-segregation) and South Africa (imperialism-apartheid)? 



White South Africans busted their humps to provide blacks with education, hospitals, functional homelands, and various amenities of civilization. Why not compare life under apartheid with life under a Mobutu or Idi Amin or Shaka Zulu?”

Through what measure can you ascertain that blacks enjoy a higher standard of living than anyone else?  Same thing in South Africa.  Have you seen the neighborhoods that these people live in, how is that a high standard of living?

And where do you get this “busted their humps” nonsense?  Im starting to regret engaging you at all as I don’t know if you have a basis in reality.  Under Aparthied white people relocated (often with force) Africans to infertile remote and poverty stricken areas and made it illegal for them to go anywhere or do anything without special permission passes that were almost impossible to get and even harder to maintain.  How can you intelligently skip that part, next thing youll be telling me that slavery was just black people working for free to pay for their boat fare to America.  And lets not forget that Aparthied has only been gone for less than 20 years not hundreds.  How quickly do you expect those types of scars to heal?

“I could point out that many people here had ancestors here who were abolitionists or who served in the Union army or Royal Navy (both of which fought wars against slavery). 



If you are going to hold people collectively accountable, then how about showing a little appreciation here? “

Thank you, arbitrary white people on an anti black “racialist” website, for possibly being descendants of people who tried to undo some of the horrors that their peers inflicted upon black people.  Im sure if they looked down upon you all today they would be very proud…

“What are those positive things from sub-Saharan Africa? Illiteracy? Lack of development of technology and architecture? Slave raiding?”

Art, trade, communal development, familial and cultural development, relative peace.  What you fail to understand is that you are applying white principles born out of the hardship and warfare of nomadic Germanic tribes to African people who never had any need to build a navy or invent guns.  I would be a liar if I didn’t admit that white culture was much more advanced, but said advancement is a direct result of cultural principles that were not present in Africans.

For example, either you or another individual used the whole sub Saharan concept as proof that it was black genes that failed sub Sahara Africa.  Now although it is slightly inaccurate to call Egyptians “Black” by our current standards, you would be a fool to attempt to say that their genetic markers did not put them well into the Black category.  Their skin on average was likely much darker than President Obama’s is.  The thing that made them form into the great civilization that they were was the combination of hardships from desert living, and the fertility and usefulness of the Nile.  It was not their Arabic, African, Asian, or Italian genes. 

In the essentially tropical and bountiful sub sahara Africa, there was no hardship to serve as the cornerstone for civilization.  Because of this African people stagnated compared to other areas of the world. 

“Explain to me why Rhodesia, under white rule, could be a functioning society, one which exported food and maintained a general civility. Yet under black majority rule Zimbabwe has become a failed state presided over by a police state regime). Same environment, same people, but the difference is one between white and black rule.”

The Kingdoms that make up modern Zimbabwe were relatively peaceful and functional for hundreds of years.  They maintained trade and a functioning kingdom they even got into that architecture thing you mentioned earlier.  After a while white people with guns show up, kill a bunch of people, take their stuff and push them off their land.  After 100 or so years of fighting they finally leave.  Since then (again 20 years ago) everything has been messed up.  Explain to me how this proves your point and not mine?  I look forward to your response.