Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[Hector12]

Stronger? Idk

I feel like there’s a lot more strong black dudes out there than there are white dudes

As a rule Negroes are stronger; whites are smarter. This is because the Negro race represents an earlier stage of human evolution.

 

[JoeB131]

As a rule Negroes are stronger; whites are smarter. This is because the Negro race represents an earlier stage of human evolution.

Wow, now you show you really don't understand how evolution works.

There are no "earlier stages" that coexist. Every species is adapted for it's own environment.

All humans are the same species.

Again, most of human existence, 390,000 years of Homo Sapiens Sapiens being a species, we were all on the same level. "Civilization" has only been around for about 6000 years or so. We were all hunter-gatherers before that.

That white people figured out how to weaponize gunpowder first is not proof of superiority, just luck of the draw.

 

[Hector12]

Wow, now you show you really don't understand how evolution works.

There are no "earlier stages" that coexist. Every species is adapted for it's own environment.

All humans are the same species.

Again, most of human existence, 390,000 years of Homo Sapiens Sapiens being a species, we were all on the same level. "Civilization" has only been around for about 6000 years or so. We were all hunter-gatherers before that.

That white people figured out how to weaponize gunpowder first is not proof of superiority, just luck of the draw.

According to current theories, based on fossil evidence and DNA research, distinctly human evolution began about six million years ago, when the Rift Valley developed in Africa, separating the common ancestor of Chimpanzees and humans.

Chimpanzees have evolved to spend much of their time living in trees. They cannot move quickly on open ground. They can walk for short distances on their legs. For longer distances, they need to use their legs and arms, walking on the outside edges of their fingers. The term "knuckle dragging morons" comes from this.

Humans evolved in open areas with few trees. The first distinctly aspect of human evolution was the human foot and leg. With human legs and feet our ancestors could move on flat ground faster than chimpanzees could. Even then they could not move as fast as other animals on flat ground. They did not have teeth and claws long enough to enable them to hunt effectively, and to fight off felines and canines.

They compensated by using their brains. There is an increase in brain size as the more intelligent of them survived, and the rest did not.

About two and a half million years ago a small number of these proto humans left Africa for Asia, perhaps crossing the Sinai Peninsula. There does not seem to have been a continual migration out of Africa. The Sinai Peninsula is usually very dry. My theory is that there was rarely enough rain fall to make it passable.

During this time human evolution was moving faster in Africa than outside for two reasons. First, the human population in Africa was larger. A larger population offers more scope for beneficial mutations. Second, those in Africa had more genetic diversity. Even today, Negroes have more genetic diversity than non Negroes.

As each group of humans left Africa they encountered humans who were less evolved than they were. They mated with some, and killed the rest.

Modern humans appear in Africa about 100,000 years ago. Their bodies were within the range of modern humans. They were nearly as intelligent. They most closely resembled the San Bushmen of south east Africa. The San Bushmen continue to live a Paleolithic lifestyle, and can be seen as our living ancestors.

About 60,000 years ago - these numbers are approximate - one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa, again probably crossing the Sinai Peninsula. On the other side they encountered Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were less intelligent, but stronger, and they had better reflexes and coordination.

Initially the Neanderthals were victorious in violent conflicts. When the modern humans developed more advanced stone weapons, like the spear thrower and the stone ax with a wooden handle, the modern humans, who palaeontologists call "Cro Magnons," could defeat the Neanderthals. They were also better hunters. Eventually the Cro Magnons exterminated the Neanderthals, although not before mating with a few of them. Everyone who is not a Negro has some Neanderthal gene alleles.

Agriculture began in the Fertile Crescent a little over ten thousand years ago. Later it began independently in various parts of the world, including the far east and the Americas. Once agriculture begins it spreads.

Agriculture requires more intelligence than hunting and gathering. One must be able to plan at least a year into the future. One must be able to defer gratification. One must understand how to domesticate usable plants and animals.

Civilization begins simultaneously in the Tigris Euphrates River valley and in the Nile Delta about fife thousand years ago. Again, civilization places more evolutionary pressure on intelligence than a neolithic way of life, and much more than a paleolithic way of life.

The ancestors of American Negros only began to adopt agriculture about four and a half thousand years ago. They never developed indigenous civilizations.

 

[DGS49]

Imagine any anthropoligist who wanted to do a study of the differences in characteristics of the different races. For example, Black people have longer arms and legs than "white" people of the same height. It's a fact.

Not only would said anthropoligist get no funding, s/he would probably be censured, fired, and cast into the Pit.

 

[MizMolly]

Whites have nothing based on merit.

Change the word whites out to blacks. You would call that a racist comment.

 

[JoeB131]

According to current theories, based on fossil evidence and DNA research, distinctly human evolution began about six million years ago, when the Rift Valley developed in Africa, separating the common ancestor of Chimpanzees and humans.

Dude, your mangled understanding of anthropology would be laughable if it weren't so evil.

Initially the Neanderthals were victorious in violent conflicts. When the modern humans developed more advanced stone weapons, like the spear thrower and the stone ax with a wooden handle, the modern humans, who palaeontologists call "Cro Magnons," could defeat the Neanderthals. They were also better hunters. Eventually the Cro Magnons exterminated the Neanderthals, although not before mating with a few of them. Everyone who is not a Negro has some Neanderthal gene alleles.

It's just as likely that the Neaderthals died out because the Ice Age had such a bad impact on them, while Homo Sapiens thrived in warmer climates and just mopped up what was left.

None of which makes any racial group of H. Sapiens better than any other.

Civilization begins simultaneously in the Tigris Euphrates River valley and in the Nile Delta about fife thousand years ago. Again, civilization places more evolutionary pressure on intelligence than a neolithic way of life, and much more than a paleolithic way of life.

Which, again, didn't involve white people.

They were more middle Eastern.


Point is, H. Sapiens only has been doing the civilization thing for about 5000 years, less than 1% of human existence.
If any race is in decline right now, it's white people. We have lower birth rates, we are becoming a smaller and smaller part of the population and more of us are choosing to mate outside our race.

The real question is, will future generations look back at White folks with any fondness when we are gone.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine any anthropoligist who wanted to do a study of the differences in characteristics of the different races. For example, Black people have longer arms and legs than "white" people of the same height. It's a fact.

Not only would said anthropoligist get no funding, s/he would probably be censured, fired, and cast into the Pit.

Quite the contrary, such studies are done all the time for VALID scientific reasons. We know, for instance, that blacks have a higher incidence of conditions like sickle cell syndrome.

The debunked Eugenics of guys like Hector belong to an earlier age.

 

[Hector12]

Dude, your mangled understanding of anthropology would be laughable if it weren't so evil.

You do not prove that by asserting it. What you prove is that you are incapable of an intelligent, civil discussion of an important issue.

 

[miketx]

A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as “having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do”. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article “What is White Privilege, Really?”, “white privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American life”. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as “the boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumni”. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called “legacies”, and they are “admitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peers”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

​

While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: “legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic students… only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all students”. To drive this point home even further, while “Asian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni children”. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilege’s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, “at the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the school”. These preferences thus elevate “predominantly white, affluent applicants”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

Study finds 43 percent of Harvard's white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff

The number drops dramatically for black, Latino and Asian American students with less than 16 percent each coming from those categories, the study said.

www.nbcnews.com

‘Affirmative Action’ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges’ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. We—like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college students—could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peers—a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students—remain untouched.

It’s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class

'Affirmative Action' For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges' Legacy Admissions Must End Now

While the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students that's excluded students of color and low-income students for decades—remain untouched.

newsone.com

Take a bath. Get a job.

 

[miketx]

You do not prove that by asserting it. What you prove is that you are incapable of an intelligent, civil discussion of an important issue.

No leftist is.

 

[Hector12]

It's just as likely that the Neaderthals died out because the Ice Age had such a bad impact on them, while Homo Sapiens thrived in warmer climates and just mopped up what was left.

The fact that Neanderthals survived several ice ages in Europe demonstrates that they were better suited to survive cold climates than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Although Neanderthals had larger brains than Cro Magnons, the shape of their brains were different. The parts that were larger were the parts that determine reflexes and coordination. The part that was smaller was the frontal lobes, where conscious thinking occurs.

Paleontologists have also determined that the Cro Magnons were more intelligent from evidence coming from their campsites. Cro Magnons has a more advanced stone tool kit than Neanderthals.

Finally, Cro Magnons practiced trade. Neanderthals do not seem to. Flint makes better stone weapons than other kinds of rock. Neanderthals used flint when it was available. Otherwise they used what is near at hand. Cro Magnons nearly always used flint. This indicates that where it was not available Cro Magnons traded with other Cro Magnons who had flint in their areas.

Sea shells from the Mediterranean Sea have been found in Cro Magnon camps as far north as in what is not Ukraine. Nothing like that exists with Neanderthal campsites.

Finally, Cro Magnons were able to plan for the future. If salmon flow up a stream or river they do so every year at the same time. It makes sense to get there before the salmon run, and prepare for it by building the ability to catch the salmon and preserve them. These preparations are found in Cro Magnon campsites, not in Neanderthal campsites.

 

[Hector12]

No leftist is.

I am a leftist about some issues. You are right about racial issues.

 

[Hector12]

None of which makes any racial group of H. Sapiens better than any other.

"Better" is a normative term. I prefer to deal with differences that can be seen empirically. It is obvious to anyone willing to look that white and Oriental societies have higher standards of living, lower crime rates, and better functioning government than black majority, black run countries.

In the United States whites and Orientals tend to be more intelligent by every objective, measurable criteria than Negroes. We also have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy.

 

[Hector12]

Which, again, didn't involve white people.

They were more middle Eastern.

They were also Caucasians. Negroes have never developed indigenous civilizations, the way Caucasians, Orientals, and American Indians did.

 

[miketx]

The fact that Neanderthals survived several ice ages in Europe demonstrates that they were better suited to survive cold climates than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Although Neanderthals had larger brains than Cro Magnons, the shape of their brains were different. The parts that were larger were the parts that determine reflexes and coordination. The part that was smaller was the frontal lobes, where conscious thinking occurs.

Paleontologists have also determined that the Cro Magnons were more intelligent from evidence coming from their campsites. Cro Magnons has a more advanced stone tool kit than Neanderthals.

Finally, Cro Magnons practiced trade. Neanderthals do not seem to. Flint makes better stone weapons than other kinds of rock. Neanderthals used flint when it was available. Otherwise they used what is near at hand. Cro Magnons nearly always used flint. This indicates that where it was not available Cro Magnons traded with other Cro Magnons who had flint in their areas.

Sea shells from the Mediterranean Sea have been found in Cro Magnon camps as far north as in what is not Ukraine. Nothing like that exists with Neanderthal campsites.

Finally, Cro Magnons were able to plan for the future. If salmon flow up a stream or river they do so every year at the same time. It makes sense to get there before the salmon run, and prepare for it by building the ability to catch the salmon and preserve them. These preparations are found in Cro Magnon campsites, not in Neanderthal campsites.

I didn't know we had ever seen one of them brains.

 

[Hector12]

The debunked Eugenics of guys like Hector belong to an earlier age.

Eugenics has been discredited by the Nazi effort to exterminate the most accomplished group in existence. It has never been debunked.

As people with IQ's below 80 continue to reproduce, and as computer technology and automation continue to eliminate jobs they are capable of learning,, the need for eugenics will grow.

 

[JoeB131]

The Grand Kleagle babbles on.

You do not prove that by asserting it. What you prove is that you are incapable of an intelligent, civil discussion of an important issue.

Racists aren't capable of intelligent discussion and don't deserve it. Your racism was debunked centuries ago.

The fact that Neanderthals survived several ice ages in Europe demonstrates that they were better suited to survive cold climates than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Not really. Extinction is a complex thing. We never really know why a species disappears. Take the Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). During the 19th century, they frequently appeared in huge swarms. They were so common that most entomology departments didn't bother to keep specimens for reference. Then one day, just like that, the up and disappeared. A bunch of theories as to why, none of which really are conclusive.

Now, as much as you whine about the supposed superiority of white people, our "sub-species" is really only adapted to an artificial environment we created. What do you think happens when the fossil fuels run out in 100 years. I expect a mass extinction event unless we come up with something better. I was reading that China has a real problem is that they rely on nitrogen-based fertilizers to keep their agriculture running. Seems to me that when we eventually get to the Mad Max dystopia greedy and stupid white people are creating, black people will be far better adapted to survive than our lily-white asses.

"Better" is a normative term. I prefer to deal with differences that can be seen empirically. It is obvious to anyone willing to look that white and Oriental societies have higher standards of living, lower crime rates, and better functioning government than black majority, black run countries.

In the United States whites and Orientals tend to be more intelligent by every objective, measurable criteria than Negroes. We also have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy.

Um, you think China has a "better" form of government? Uh, yeah, it's so awesome women are willing to come over here as prostitutes and male order brides to get away from it.

The only countries in Asia that have "good" forms of government are Japan and South Korea, and that's because we IMPOSED them on them.

The first world has a better standard of living because of its willingness to exploit the third world. This is nothing to be proud of. We should actually be ashamed of it.

Eugenics has been discredited by the Nazi effort to exterminate the most accomplished group in existence. It has never been debunked.

The thing is, the Nazis just didn't try to rid the world of Jews. They also exterminated Slavs, Gypsies, homonsexuals, the Disabled. And Dr. Goebbels could come on here and tell you why the Jew was "inferior" with all the same conviction that you babble on about Blacks.

As people with IQ's below 80 continue to reproduce, and as computer technology and automation continue to eliminate jobs they are capable of learning,, the need for eugenics will grow.

Or, as stated, white people will become too complacent. Now, I really do think that our future is going to be a mixed race one, because, hey, your girlfriend really did dump you for Jamal at the end of the day because of your "shortcomings".

 

[Hector12]

The Grand Kleagle babbles on.



Racists aren't capable of intelligent discussion and don't deserve it. Your racism was debunked centuries ago.

My racism is as modern as the most recent discoveries about human genetics.

 

[Hector12]

Now, as much as you whine about the supposed superiority of white people, our "sub-species" is really only adapted to an artificial environment we created. What do you think happens when the fossil fuels run out in 100 years. I expect a mass extinction event unless we come up with something better. I was reading that China has a real problem is that they rely on nitrogen-based fertilizers to keep their agriculture running. Seems to me that when we eventually get to the Mad Max dystopia greedy and stupid white people are creating, black people will be far better adapted to survive than our lily-white asses.

Um, you think China has a "better" form of government? Uh, yeah, it's so awesome women are willing to come over here as prostitutes and male order brides to get away from it.

Whites are developing alternatives to fossil fuels, Blacks are not.

 

[Hector12]

Um, you think China has a "better" form of government? Uh, yeah, it's so awesome women are willing to come over here as prostitutes and male order brides to get away from it.

The only countries in Asia that have "good" forms of government are Japan and South Korea, and that's because we IMPOSED them on them.

We supported the governments of South Korea and Taiwan when they were ruled by dictatorships. They developed democratic governments on their own. The success of South Korea and Taiwan demonstrates what Orientals are capable of. So does the success of the Model Minority in the United States.