Zone1 Are Asian-Americans “The New Jews”?

[Lisa558]

You are over simplifying it. Eye color and others are very simple genetic traits influenced by only one or a few genes. Intelligence and personality traits are much more complex and more difficult to separate from environmental influences. They are influenced by genetics not caused by genetics.

No, you are trying to diminish the role that genetics play In how intelligent one is. The fact is that intelligence Is primarily genetic but can be nurtured to some extent by environment.

As far as personality, differences can be seen in babies by the first year - and within the same family. One is more outgoing; another is more shy. One is more determined to pull herself up by the crib rim into a standing position; another is content to just lay there. One says her first word at age 9 months; her sister doesn’t speak at all until 11 months. These are all innate.

 

[Hector12]

Oh, I would say your obsession with black people would indicate otherwise. What awful thing did Jamal do to you that engenders this level of hate?

I love the truth about many things, including hereditarianism and race realism.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson that, “There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world,”

and I agree with Professor Arthur Jensen that we should "look at the data."

You hate certain truths, and you think truths you fear should be suppressed because they will lead to eugenics, or maybe genocide.

 

[Kruska]

A lot of material to read, spoken with the arrogance of presumed racial superiority.

Your typical fake argumentation - and falsely trying to interpret stating FACTS as being presumed racial superiority.

1. Tribal Systems
Much of the world is governed by tribal suystem. It is human nature as a social hierarchical species. Tbe concept of nations is simply a more expansive tribe where nationalism replaces tribal or ethnic or religious identity. Many nations that were the product of colonialism were the product of “divide and conquer” pitting tribes against each other in order to control a large area. Modern boundaries were drawn without regard to local ethnic/tribal groups. The result is often a weak federal system that cannot or will not represent or protect all its citizens, and a high degree of corruption. When the central government cannot offer security then allegiances shift to ethnic, tribal or religious ties over state. This is not. Unique to Africa by a long shot. Look at Iraq, the Balkins, Indonesia…

Unlike Africans - those other countries plagued by tribal systems are and were ABLE to control it - see Brazil, see White Rhodesia, Apertheid South Africa - Portuguese Angola and Mozambique.
And e.g. Iraq, Syria, Balkan isn't tribal - it's an ethnic issue - so is e.g. Indonesia - you don't even understand the difference between tribal and ethnicity - as such a discussion with you is factually MEANINGLESS.

2. Malaysia and Tanzania. Tanzania, pre-colony, was a thriving center of trade with Arabs, Persia, China and India. one of its major trade cities was among the first to use money. In 1525 they were conquered by the Portuguese and then later the Arabs gained a foothold. That is when Zanzibar became a center for the slave trade.

Tanzania was NEVER a thriving center of trade, - the trading posts erected by the Arabs - e.g. Dār al-Sālam, Zanzibar, Malindi (Kenya) and Mogadishu (Somalia) were thriving trading centers, all developed by ARABS - the Portuguese never held any influence in Tanzania. despite having taken possession of Zanzibar. The same goes for Malacca - the Portuguese controlled the city of Malacca - they never controlled or held influence in the rest of the Malayan world.

That would be like ridiculously claiming that the British controlled and held influence over Germany due to possessing the island of Helgoland.

The Arabs had erected their first trading posts within Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe already since the 10th century - when they encountered traditional African slavery by the people they called Kaffirs. Start to read up some Arab literature about Africa.

India, Persia and China NEVER had own trading posts in Tanzania - but made use of the known Arab trading harbors and after the Portuguese had conquered Zanzibar. - another false claim by you. If e.g. Admiral Zheng He ever reached Tanzanians shore lines isn't even proven - he might have anchored at Zanzibar or Dār al-Sālam since these places were known.

To state that slavery started to come into play upon the Portuguese taking Zanzibar - is utterly ridiculous and simply false.

It's obvious that you don't know anything about the Arabs and Africans and simply keep-on stating false claims.

Slavery existed in Malaysia.

Swettenham referred to two distinct forms of slavery in Malaya. First, there was slavery in the traditional sense involving the capture and enslavement of individuals by the chieftains of a rival clan as booty or the random seizure of the inhabitants. This was particularly the case with the indigenous people, the Orang Asli, who, if they could not escape, were virtually powerless to resist capture.

The second form of slavery was debt-bondage which arose where a person usually went to the Rajah, or person of rank or wealth, requesting a loan of money or goods and if he failed to comply with the terms of repayment he was forced to enter their service until the debt was repaid. The debtor’s wife and children also entered into bondage, and all became the property of the creditor who was free to commit cruelty and abuse. Work performed by the debtor did not count as repayment of the debt. Even if repayment was offered by the debtor or a third party the creditor could refuse and release could be denied indefinitely. The Rajah who administered the laws had the power to impose fines on his subjects for perceived offences which if unpaid also resulted in bondage.

First off all - serfdom or debt-bondage is NOT slavery and is NOT slave trade. A typical Lefty&Lib try - you failed.

Secondly - I had clearly stated that Malays never took Malays as slaves nor traded them - an Orang Asli is NOT a Malay - neither is a Dayak or Iban from East-Malasia or a Batak from Ajeh or a Sasak from Lombok. Unlike Africans who traded even their own tribes-folks - again you failed.

The only ones who traded Malay's as slaves were the Colonialists - e.g. those Malays enslaved by the British and send to South-Africa until today termed as Cape-Malay's.

The vast majority of illegal slaves were due to Piracy - with Pirates having their own ports and forts outside the Malayan world. E.g. Palawan or Brunei (especially during the reign of the notorious WHITE Sultan of Brunei - aka Sir James Brooke - another Raffles) or Celebes and the Moluccas and Ajeh - right down to Timor.

Thirdly - Today's West-Malaysia aka part of the Malay culture did not posses tribal chieftains, and especially not tribal clans from the 8th century onward - only the indigenous uncivilized Orang Asli in today's West-Malaysia beheld that. The Malayan world since around 700 A.D. was ruled by Rajahs (Kings) and Sultans (Kings&Dukes) who appointed their respective village heads and partially raised them to be aristocrats, e.g. the title Dato or Tan Sri. Such as e.g. Dato Maharaja Lela - not a chief, and especially not a tribal chief as described by the British, but a regional Lord aka a Pembesar (dignitary) who had been appointed by the Sultan of Perak.

The Malayan world's governing and ruling system was ensured by a very strict and professional bureaucratic system. (Imported from India). which the British desperately tried to destroy from 1805 onward.

The cited Swettenham or people like Raffles, or Mrs. Bird, - never understood the Malayan world - they factually destroyed it with utmost persecution and used amongst many other fake accusations e.g. debt-bondage to highlight supposed slavery. To disempower Sultans who objected their overlord claim - just like you. It's really mind-boggling when a Lefty&Lib racist uses known British racists like Swettenham or Raffles or Mrs. Bird, trying to make a point.

East-Malaysia aside from the former large Brunei Sultanate - was NEVER a part of the Malayan world. Its main population aka indigenous population until today are NOT Malayan people - but belong to the same group as those indigenous people who live on Taiwan right down to the Southern Philippines and Eastern-Indonesia.

You don't even know who and what the Malayan world was. But cite some racist garbage from known Colonial imperialists.

There is more but I am out of time this morning and will come back to it.

No need - since you obviously don't know what you talk about (see above) - and simply enjoy forwarding false statements to support your obvious Left&Lib racism.

You and your pals - don;t even know and understand as to WHY slavery played such an important role in the African culture - and that is why you and your pals keep blaming it ignorantly onto the Arabs and Europeans.

Aside from some lucky African tribes that possessed minerals such as salt and gold - they had nothing of worth to trade with each other - because they never manufactured anything of worth or in quantity that other African tribes wouldn't have. So in order to pay tribute (to pay for a lost war or mostly in order to prevent a war), the only commodity of value they ALL had to offer, were their own people - therefore paying and trading with slaves became a standard feature of their culture.

Long before any Arabs or Europeans ever arrived.

 

[Kruska]

Kruska,

This is an interesting and informative essay. I hope it does Coyote some good.

Thanks, but these people are a lost cause to themselves. Just like those SA fanatics, standing in front of Jewish businesses yelling don't buy from Jews (factually Germans) - whilst at the same time propagating that Jews are resonsible for destroying German businesses aka economy.

I would add that gene alleles shape culture. Jews and Orientals create thriving, low crime societies even when they are poor and discriminated against. Negroes move into thriving, safe white working class neighborhoods and turn them into crime infested slums.

I don't quite see it that way.

China e.g. from 1880 - 1930 (when my Great-grandfather was there), was shit poor. (He also was in DSWA/Nambia for two years and a year in SA during the Boer-England war).
In China according to his records and reports, a high criminal rate in urban areas conducted in majority by large organized syndicates. Large and massive robber bands operating throughout the rural parts of the country. E.g. unless one was rich and lived in a secured compound or area, Shanghai, Nanjing, or Tianjin was anything but safe.

Providing personal protection for individuals and security personal for e.g. trading caravans or bank houses was big business in China those days.

The factual difference between a poor African and a poor Chinese were the intelligence and energy devoted towards crime. Thus making Chinese criminals far more effective then Africans. Whilst Africans possess a far lower hurdle towards killing others even for gaining nothing of value, the Chinese mentality (culture) resorted far more towards coercion, determined/designed to prevent killings and ensure a big loot - aka profit oriented - whilst Africans would steal anything, right down to a mug or a fork and a uniform button and even be willing to kill for such tripe.

One could also say that a poor African is willing to kill just to get some tripe - whilst a poor Chinese would only kill for a big gain.


Another very big difference is the socializing and integration aspect,

The following witnessed by me multiple times in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Mozambique, Namibia and South-Africa

Africans love to place themselves into other peoples territory, starting off with your front-lawn, if you don't happen to have a fence, or trying to sit in your car, especially kids and teenagers, if you leave your door wide open. or try to move into your nice neighborhood, regardless of his social/educational background.
Or their favorite, e.g to sit in a pub predominantly frequented by e.g. Whites. Even though they don't drink or eat anything - or very little, they can spend 3-6 hours just sitting there - without ever trying to communicate.

A Chinese or a European will generally try to avoid other peoples territory, and stick to his own people, if he does move into a new neighborhood he will make sure that his social/educational background fits in - if he does join in, e.g. a pub he will immediately start to communicate or offer drinks to get into contact. He simply goes there in order to get into business or is simply enjoying himself.

So unless a racist like IM2 is in that bar - and starts to get uneasy due to a Chinese or a White being there, the vast majority of those other bar guests will state according to my own multiple witnessing - hey that Chinese fellow or that European fellow is a funny, interesting or entertaining guy.

Now what will Chinese or White patrons/guests state about the African?
According to my own multiple witnessing: Hey saw these two Africans? - yeah I think they had a single beer together for 5 hours. Annoying people aren't they? just sitting there and staring into the air. WTF they even come here for?

Yeah, yeah I know I know - these damn White and Chinese racists.

 

[Coyote]

Your typical fake argumentation - and falsely trying to interpret stating FACTS as being presumed racial superiority.

Unlike Africans - those other countries plagued by tribal systems are and were ABLE to control it - see Brazil, see White Rhodesia, Apertheid South Africa - Portuguese Angola and Mozambique.
And e.g. Iraq, Syria, Balkan isn't tribal - it's an ethnic issue - so is e.g. Indonesia - you don't even understand the difference between tribal and ethnicity - as such a discussion with you is factually MEANINGLESS.

Incorrect. For one thing, in terms of loyalties and internal conflict, there is little difference between tribal and ethnic. Second, divisions can be BOTH tribal and ethnic. Iraq and Syria are have both tribal and ethnic divisions for example.

To state that slavery started to come into play upon the Portuguese taking Zanzibar - is utterly ridiculous and simply false.

I don’t think I stated that. I said that is when it became a major trade center for slaves.

It's obvious that you don't know anything about the Arabs and Africans and simply keep-on stating false claims.




The Malayan world's governing and ruling system was ensured by a very strict and professional bureaucratic system. (Imported from India). which the British desperately tried to destroy from 1805 onward.

The cited Swettenham or people like Raffles, or Mrs. Bird, - never understood the Malayan world - they factually destroyed it with utmost persecution and used amongst many other fake accusations e.g. debt-bondage to highlight supposed slavery. To disempower Sultans who objected their overlord claim - just like you. It's really mind-boggling when a Lefty&Lib racist uses known British racists like Swettenham or Raffles or Mrs. Bird, trying to make a point.

East-Malaysia aside from the former large Brunei Sultanate - was NEVER a part of the Malayan world. Its main population aka indigenous population until today are NOT Malayan people - but belong to the same group as those indigenous people who live on Taiwan right down to the Southern Philippines and Eastern-Indonesia.

You don't even know who and what the Malayan world was. But cite some racist garbage from known Colonial imperialists.

No need - since you obviously don't know what you talk about (see above) - and simply enjoy forwarding false statements to support your obvious Left&Lib racism.

You make a big point about the many different ethnic groups in Malaysia, (and I’ll grant you know more about the many ethnic groups in Malaysia than I do), but you lump the entire African continent into “Africans”.
In another post you make derogatory references to “the African” and the “African Culture”.

There are over 3,000 different ethnic groups speaking 2,100 languages on African continent.

Who is being racist?

 

[Coyote]

There was NEVER slavery in the Malayan world - since it would have been incompatible with their culture. As such neither the Arabs, nor their colonial overlords, the Portuguese, nor the Dutch and nor the British ever considered to take or trade Malays as slaves. Simply because Malay's were not traded or held by their own kind as slaves.

Back to this. It isn’t internally consistent.

There WAS slavery. The fact that they enslaved others that they captured and not their fellow Muslims doesn’t change that.

The untold story of how Malays in the 1800s used Orang Asli as slaves

[This story was originally written in BM. You can read it here.] In the early years civilisation, owning slaves wasn’t as controversial as it is in modern times. When we think about slaves, we would most likely picture members of an ethnic minority, being forced to work as laborers with barely...

cilisos.my

Time to concede it was the West who stopped bumiputera slavery

LETTER | Like it or not, it was the British who freed Malays and Orang Asli from the age-old trade practised by locals.

www.malaysiakini.com

It continues to exist in a different form today.

One in three migrants working in Malaysian households are ‘trapped in forced labour’

New report finds that 29 per cent of country’s household carers, cleaners and cooks are working involuntarily

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kruska]

there is little difference between tribal and ethnic.

Simply shows you got no clue and idea as to what you talk about - especially in regards to Africa, neither in regards to the Middle-East or Asia.

But you lump the entire African continent into “Africans”.

ME? you must be joking.

That's because people like you and your pals ridiculously take offense at e.g. the historic term Kaffer - that describes and pertains to a specific group/ethnicity of Southern-Africans. And I don't have the time and willingness to list up 20 tribal groups of a single Ethnicity - if they can be named and represented by a common term. That was used for centuries by Arabs and Southern Africans amongst themselves. E.g. a Hottentot, Swahili, Bastar, Xhosa, Swazi or a Zulu is not a Kaffer.

The reason why a ruthless dictator and terrorist like Mugabe objected to it's usage, falsely and intentionally declaring it to be a White racist term - since he is a Shona (Kaffer). And e.g. Ndebele (Zulu nation) themselves - traditionally since centuries refer to e.g. Shona as Kaffers. The same goes for South-Africa and it's intentional false declaration towards the term and therefore denying the ethnicity and rights of non-Kaffers. The vast majority of Negro people living in e.g. Natal, Free-State, Northern-Province, Swaziland or Lesotho are NOT Kaffers. But almost the entire SA government since 1992 consists of ANC Kaffers - and they persecute and treat non-Kaffers as second class citizens. Logically "THEY" don't want to be called and identified as Kaffers.

It's like English people upon forming Great-Britain, declaring Anglo-Saxon to be a racist term - since Celtic aka Gaelic people from Ireland, Wales or e.g. Scotland have used it for millennium to refer to non Gaelic people. And "They" Anglo-Saxons, suppress and treat Gaelic folks as second-class or inferior citizens.

It's lefty&lib and ill informed racist people like you, that therefore lump everyone living on the African continent as being Africans. Anyone with common sense would never refer to a person from e.g. Egypt, Algeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, as being an African. So folks like you come up with a North-Saharan African and a Sub-Saharan African. Again lumping totally different ethnicity like e.g. Songhai people, Pygmies, Owambo, Ambo and Ashanti folks into the same group, or ludicrously supporting the idea that a Moroccan is the same ethnicity as a person living in Egypt.

As for e.g. Iraq - there are only tribes within the same and only one single ethnic group - Bedouins. Kurd's do not have tribes nor behold tribal customs - they are an ethnicity on their own and live within different communities - sharing the same culture and traditions, unlike Bedouins. The Baath party united these tribal clans - Bedouins (hence stopped tribal killings) and termed them to be Iraqi's. The Shiite and Sunni issue however still plays a part in this tribal or ethnicity issue. The same goes for Syria aka Syrians and Libya aka Libyans, even though many e.g. Tuareg or Berber tribes reject being called Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians or e.g. Moroccans.

Just like a member of the Sioux nation doesn't want to be lumped into the Cherokee nation - But lefty&Libs will decide that they need to be referred to as the indigenous people of North-America (Africans) and that the term Sioux (Kaffer) is a racist term - invented by Whites.

In another post you make derogatory references to “the African” and the “African Culture”.

If you interpret the statement of facts as being derogatory - then that is only your personal problem - not mine or any other person that doesn't have a problem with acknowledging facts.

Same goes for your ridiculous statement (that a well informed person like me in regards to history) - lumps all people living on the African continent to simply being Africans - whilst this whole issue, and political correctness nonsense, aka referring to people as Africans, originates entirely and solely from lefty&Libs. Who are in defiance of terms such as Kaffer or Negro which would NEVER be applied towards e.g. an Egyptian or an Algerian.

 

[Kruska]

Back to this. It isn’t internally consistent.

There WAS slavery. The fact that they enslaved others that they captured and not their fellow Muslims doesn’t change that.

Are you able to read and comprehend a statement? without twisting it into a lefty&Lib rebuttal.

Quote my former statement: Simply because Malay's were not traded or held by their own kind as slaves.

And forwarding your false British colonial propaganda, holds no merit towards the actual and true Malayan culture and its customs.
Next you will forward German colonial propaganda to let the Herero massacre shine in another light.

Same goes for your Lefty&lib tactic, trying to promote "HUMAN TRAFFICKING" as being slavery - equivalent to the former African slave-trade.
If you had been to Malaysia - you would also be aware that ANYONE can approach a policemen or a police-station ANY TIME.
What policemen or police-station could an e.g. African slave have approached????

You believe that these Human trafficking "victims" from e.g. Bangladesh in Malaysia - wouldn't know what awaits them? or these Filipinos signing contracts to go to e.g. Dubai? or Vietnamese women signing of to go to Japan? - who are you trying to kid? - aside from yourself and your pals?

If you come from those countries - you prefer to work under partially harsh conditions in e.g. Malaysia or you want to get tranquilized in India and lose your kidney or your liver in some shabby hut in India? If you got a problem with the latter go to India and protest - Malaysia got nothing to do with this.
Lefty&Libs - simply hopeless and blind towards any facts and reality.

You are a MODERATOR - the least I expect from a Moderator is NOT to twist around peoples statements. Or to promote factually incorrect statements.

 

[IM2]

Incorrect. For one thing, in terms of loyalties and internal conflict, there is little difference between tribal and ethnic. Second, divisions can be BOTH tribal and ethnic. Iraq and Syria are have both tribal and ethnic divisions for example.




I don’t think I stated that. I said that is when it became a major trade center for slaves.




You make a big point about the many different ethnic groups in Malaysia, (and I’ll grant you know more about the many ethnic groups in Malaysia than I do), but you lump the entire African continent into “Africans”.
In another post you make derogatory references to “the African” and the “African Culture”.

There are over 3,000 different ethnic groups speaking 2,100 languages on African continent.

Who is being racist?

There are either 54 or 55 countries in Africa. So what Kruska does is like calling an Irish person French.

 

[Kruska]

There are either 54 or 55 countries in Africa. So what Kruska does is like calling an Irish person French.

Again you only proof your inherent ignorance, and your, fascist-racist conviction.
Show me were I called a Kenyan a Zambian - you absolute moron
Are you trying to deny, that an Irish person and a French person are Europeans? - you full-sized moron

This will be my last reply to you on this thread - since you proved endlessly to be moron that only posts lies and moronic statements.

 

[JoeB131]

I love the truth about many things, including hereditarianism and race realism.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson that, “There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world,”

and I agree with Professor Arthur Jensen that we should "look at the data."

You hate certain truths, and you think truths you fear should be suppressed because they will lead to eugenics, or maybe genocide.

I don't have to "fear"... It's already happened. Some fanatic decides that a certain percentage of the population is unworthy and decides to kill them. We saw that with the Nazis, with Pol Pot in Cambodia (who would execute people if they wore glasses!), with the Armenian Genocide in 1916, in the Belgian Congo. Once you denigrate the humanity of other people, genocide inevitably follows.

This is why crap like this needs to be refuted and the people who promote it ostracized.

 

[Coyote]

Simply shows you got no clue and idea as to what you talk about - especially in regards to Africa, neither in regards to the Middle-East or Asia.

But you lump the entire African continent into “Africans”.

ME? you must be joking.

No.

It's lefty&lib and ill informed racist people like you, that therefore lump everyone living on the African continent as being Africans. Anyone with common sense would never refer to a person from e.g. Egypt, Algeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, as being an African. So folks like you come up with a North-Saharan African and a Sub-Saharan African. Again lumping totally different ethnicity like e.g. Songhai people, Pygmies, Owambo, Ambo and Ashanti folks into the same group, or ludicrously supporting the idea that a Moroccan is the same ethnicity as a person living in Egypt.

No. That is what you did referencing traits of “the African”. The point I was making was that Africa is a continent with over 3000 different ethnic groups. Not one generic “African”.

Folks “like you” seem inconsistent in your labels.

As for e.g. Iraq - there are only tribes within the same and only one single ethnic group - Bedouins. Kurd's do not have tribes nor behold tribal customs - they are an ethnicity on their own and live within different communities - sharing the same culture and traditions, unlike Bedouins. The Baath party united these tribal clans - Bedouins (hence stopped tribal killings) and termed them to be Iraqi's. The Shiite and Sunni issue however still plays a part in this tribal or ethnicity issue. The same goes for Syria aka Syrians and Libya aka Libyans, even though many e.g. Tuareg or Berber tribes reject being called Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians or e.g. Moroccans.

Just like a member of the Sioux nation doesn't want to be lumped into the Cherokee nation - But lefty&Libs will decide that they need to be referred to as the indigenous people of North-America (Africans) and that the term Sioux (Kaffer) is a racist term - invented by Whites.

Lumping all Native American groups into one conglomerate is insulting. It is like putting all Europeans or all Africans into one ethnic grouping. You righties&cons seem to do that a lot. The Canadians use a better term: First Nations, identifying many different groups.

Kaffer, the way you use it, is not familiar to me, it seems to have a range of meanings, often derogatory: Kaffir (racial term) - Wikipedia

If you interpret the statement of facts as being derogatory - then that is only yourpersonal problem - not mine or any other person that doesn't have a problem with acknowledging facts.


Same goes for your ridiculous statement (that a well informed person like me in regards to history) - lumps all people living on the African continent to simply being Africans - whilst this whole issue, and political correctness nonsense, aka referring to people as Africans, originates entirely and solely from lefty&Libs. Who are in defiance of terms such as Kaffer or Negro which would NEVER be applied towards e.g. an Egyptian or an Algerian.

You use a lot words and knowledgeable sounding paragraphs without recognizing the dog whistles. I have no doubt you know history, and that in itself would be a fascinating discussion given your seeming background, but you aren’t an honest “broker” of information. What you consider “statements of fact” are sometimes your own conclusions and opinion.

There is an overall lack of interest in Africa beyond the superficial and the many conflicts. “Well informed” people like you don’t seem any more genuinely interested in it, being quick to label what you don’t like as political correctness/libtard, etc.

As for e.g. Iraq - there are only tribes within the same and only one single ethnic group - Bedouins. Kurd's do not have tribes nor behold tribal customs - they are an ethnicity on their own and live within different communities - sharing the same culture and traditions, unlike Bedouins.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course tribes exist only within one ethnic group.

Definition - this one seems pretty good.
Ethnic groups and tribes belong to factors of social stratification. Ethnicitycovers a wider range of community while tribe can be comparatively a small set of people who follow their historically adopted customs and traditions, living under one accepted leader. Various ethnic groups can also be described as the historical evolution of tribal groups. The key difference between ethnic group and tribe is that people belonging to one ethnic group share similar religious linguistic and cultural identity but they can live in different places, whereas tribes comprise of a set of related families having similar tastes, ideology, religious and dialectic identity, most frequently living together in one place.

Tribe is a collection of families, clans or generations that share common ideologies, interests, religion, linguistic and cultural practices. The significance of a tribe is that it is a set of people primarily having blood ties, living together in one specific area under one accepted leader to guide them. Anthropologist and consultant Dr. Whitney Azoy gives a clear definition of what basically a tribe means,

“Tribe refers- to an ethnic sub-set within which all or most human activities are organized on the basis of kinship. Tribal people interact with each other primarily in term of family relationships, both by descent and by marriage”.


So given that definition, tribes can be a subset of an ethnic group defined by family ties. That makes sense.

However, while Kurds are an ethnic group, they are also tribal.

It would seem the same applies to Bedouin. They are tribal but also an ethnic group dispersed over different areas. While Bedouin are mostly Muslim, some are Christian. They are dispersed over a wide geographic area.

In Iraq specifically there are divisions along ethnic, tribal and religious lines, and they can overlap. And that is not much different than certain conflicts in Africa. It also is a big contributor to corruption both in Iraq both in a number of African countries and the Middle East.


The EUAA thematic report shows that tribal disputes and feuds in Iraq are frequent, especially in the governorates of Baghdad, Maysan, Al-Basrah and Thi-Qar, and arise from a wide range of causes including honour, personal or communal disputes and resource-related reasons. The federal Government of Iraq has made efforts to address tribal feuds that lead to security issues, but has only had limited success in some areas. Due to the challenges in the Iraqi justice system as well as societal attitudes, many Iraqis tend to resort to the tribal system for the resolution of disputes.

 

[Coyote]

Again you only proof your inherent ignorance, and your, fascist-racist conviction.
Show me were I called a Kenyan a Zambian - you absolute moron
Are you trying to deny, that an Irish person and a French person are Europeans? - you full-sized moron

This will be my last reply to you on this thread - since you proved endlessly to be moron that only posts lies and moronic statements.

“the African”.

 

[Coyote]

You are a MODERATOR - the least I expect from a Moderator is NOT to twist around peoples statements. Or to promote factually incorrect statements.

As a moderator, I am allowed to post as a member. You have to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it a fact and doesn’t mean your opinion can not be contradicted or disputed.

You are quite arrogant.

 

[Coyote]

Again you only proof your inherent ignorance, and your, fascist-racist conviction.
Show me were I called a Kenyan a Zambian - you absolute moron
Are you trying to deny, that an Irish person and a French person are Europeans? - you full-sized moron

This will be my last reply to you on this thread - since you proved endlessly to be moron that only posts lies and moronic statements.

Yet you refer to traits of “the African”. That is like referring to traits of ”the European”.

 

[Hector12]

I don't have to "fear"... It's already happened. Some fanatic decides that a certain percentage of the population is unworthy and decides to kill them. We saw that with the Nazis, with Pol Pot in Cambodia (who would execute people if they wore glasses!), with the Armenian Genocide in 1916, in the Belgian Congo. Once you denigrate the humanity of other people, genocide inevitably follows.

This is why crap like this needs to be refuted and the people who promote it ostracized.

The following assertions are amply documented. There should never be any sanctions and taboos against the spread of facts, especially when they are facts most people privately know are true.

-----------

RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective​

2nd Special Abridged Edition
by Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks...

Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Orientals. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brains and highest IQs. Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

Liberals complain about book banning. If I was a high school civics or biological teacher I would want to assign my classes to read this essay. I would not be allowed to by those who fear the truth.

 

[Coyote]

No, you are trying to diminish the role that genetics play In how intelligent one is. The fact is that intelligence Is primarily genetic but can be nurtured to some extent by environment.

As far as personality, differences can be seen in babies by the first year - and within the same family. One is more outgoing; another is more shy. One is more determined to pull herself up by the crib rim into a standing position; another is content to just lay there. One says her first word at age 9 months; her sister doesn’t speak at all until 11 months. These are all innate.

No, I linked to an article that examined the latest research and concluded a greater role for environment than “some extent”. I think your are trying to diminish that.

 

[Hector12]

No, I linked to an article that examined the latest research and concluded a greater role for environment than “some extent”. I think your are trying to diminish that.

If you look hard enough you can always find an article somewhere that says the right environment will close the race gap. The persistence of the race gap disproves those articles. I think we have wasted enough money on social programs that do not work.

 

[JoeB131]

The following assertions are amply documented. There should never be any sanctions and taboos against the spread of facts, especially when they are facts most people privately know are true.

A bunch of old debunked racists aren't facts.
Most people are racists like you are.
Even the ones who are racists would probably find you reprehensible.

 

[Coyote]

The following assertions are amply documented. There should never be any sanctions and taboos against the spread of facts, especially when they are facts most people privately know are true.

-----------

RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective​

2nd Special Abridged Edition
by Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

Modern science shows a three-way pattern of race differences in both physical traits and behavior. On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, less aggressive, and have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole. Whites fall in the middle, but closer to Orientals than to Blacks...

Race differences start in the womb. Blacks are born earlier and grow quicker than Whites and Orientals. The three-way race pattern occurs in milestones such as sexual maturity, family stability, crime rates, and population growth.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

IQ tests measure intelligence and predict real life success. The races differ in brain size and on IQ tests. On average Orientals have the largest brains and highest IQs. Blacks average the lowest, and Whites fall in between. The brain size differences explain the IQ differences both within groups and between groups.

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

Liberals complain about book banning. If I was a high school civics or biological teacher I would want to assign my classes to read this essay. I would not be allowed to by those who fear the truth.

—————————

J. Philippe Rushton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

John Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012) was a Canadian psychologist and author. He taught at the University of Western Ontario until the early 1990s, and became known to the general public during the 1980s and 1990s for research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and other purported racial correlations.[1]

Rushton's work has been heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research,[2] with many academics arguing that it was conducted under a racistagenda.[3] From 2002 until his death, he served as the head of the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded in 1937 to promote eugenics,[4][5] which has been described as racist and white supremacist in nature,[6][7][8] and as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[9] He also published articles in and spoke at conferences organized by the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance.[10]

Rushton was a Fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association[11] and a onetime Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.[12] In 2020, the Department of Psychology of the University of Western Ontario released a statement stating that "much of [Rushton's] research was racist", was "deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint", and "Rushton's legacy shows that the impact of flawed science lingers on, even after qualified scholars have condemned its scientific integrity."[1][13]As of 2021, Rushton has had six research publications retracted for being scientifically flawed, unethical, and not replicable, and for advancing a racist agenda despite contradictory evidence.[14][15][16]
——————————-

Psychology journal retracts two articles for being “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda”

A psychology journal has retracted a pair of decades-old articles by a now-deceased psychologist with noxious views about race and intelligence after the editors concluded that his work was “unethi…

retractionwatch.com

The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:
Rushton, J. P. (1990). Race, brain size, and intelligence: A reply to Cernovsky, Psychological Reports, 66, 659–666
Rushton, J. P. (1991). Race, brain size, and intelligence: Another reply to Cernovsky, Psychological Reports, 68, 500–502.
This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race has been rejected based on the following findings:– A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)
–An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992; Anderson, 1991)
– A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)
– Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)
– Rushton’s findings have not been able to be replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)