The Dangers of White Supremacy Ideology in America

[Dagenais]

The topic was Asians in America, whether or not they are foreign born. BV notes that most are, but the domestic ones are also successful and they make up a part of the population.

Just because NoahAfrican chose to focus on the immigrants doesn't make me off-topic. So stop insisting that I am.

 

[NoahAfrican]

I am going to follow Monique's advise...

 

[Monique]

Dagenais, you are stirring up dust and you have absolutely no arguments to support your case. I really don't see the point in stereotyping. The topic of the thread is not Asians in America (consult the title), so that would make it off-topic.

 

[Dagenais]

The topic of the thread is not Asians in America (consult the title), so that would make it off-topic.

BlackVision brought up the "Asians in America" topic. I was simply elaborating on a brilliant point. If I'm off-topic, so are 2 of the most active posters in this thread.

North American Blacks have substantial amount of White Ancestry. Are you going to deny this? So yes of course North American Blacks will have different genes.

Also if I'm not mistaken, NoahAfrican was attempting to argue that blacks with slavery in their ancestry would perform worst in SES, criminal statistics, etc than blacks who do not have any slavery in their ancestry. You then agree that this is false correct?

And you must be severely questioned if you honestly believe from that article you think without a doubt, environment overrides genetical factors. Where is all the evidence from that article that refutes all the genetical evidence for human behavior? Let me check again, oh yes NONE. But yes it still without a doubt shows environment overrides genetical factors. Not exactly the approach a true scientist will make.

By the way, why do Asians in America, the majority which are foreign born, still on average earn more than a Native White? Why do Asians have a higher rate of college graduates than Whites when it is the group that has by far the highest percentage of "foreign born"?

Notice he didn't mention just the immigrants (who NoahAfrican oddly chooses to focus only on), but Asians in America.

Dagenais, you are stirring up dust and you have absolutely no arguments to support your case.

Oh really? My case that both domestic and foreign born-Asians are successful?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031027/chart/2.html

Are you going to lie to me now and tell me that all the SAT takers that were Asian are immigrants?

Now, back to BV's question:

By the way, why do Asians in America, the majority which are foreign born, still on average earn more than a Native White? Why do Asians have a higher rate of college graduates than Whites

NoahAfrican chose to ignore all the domestic Asians. Why?

Explain how Asians, a minority in the US (just like African-Americans), born here just like them, can be so much more successful?

 

[Evo]

BlackVision brought up the "Asians in America" topic. I was simply elaborating on a brilliant point. If I'm off-topic, so are 2 of the most active posters in this thread.

This isn't BlackVision's thread, he does not get to decide what topics to bring up.

Explain how Asians, a minority in the US (just like African-Americans), born here just like them, can be so much more successful?

What a ridiculous comparison. Just like black african americans? They were brought here in the 1600's against their will and forced into slavery? Do you know any of the history of the racism in this country? Do you know that "coloreds" couldn't drink out of a "white" persons water fountain? That they couldn't use "white" bathrooms in public? The list goes on and on. It is ridiculous to bring asians up to compare against blacks.

 

[Dagenais]

What a ridiculous comparison. Just like black african americans? They were brought here in the 1600's against their will and forced into slavery? Do you know any of the history of the racism in this country? Do you know that "coloreds" couldn't drink out of a "white" persons water fountain? That they couldn't use "white" bathrooms in public? The list goes on and on. It is ridiculous to bring asians up to compare against blacks.

We're talking about maintenant (now), ici (here) not 404 years ago. All I'm asking for you to do is explain the SAT statistics and answer BlackVision's comparison of Asians both domestic and immigrants.

 

[chroot]

Just keep in mind, as Evo is trying to point out, that literally hundreds of socioeconomic factors come into play when you try to figure out why blacks score lower on average than asians -- everything from the way black children are treated in kindergarten classes to the schools, neighborhoods, and occupations black people choose in order to minimize their social burden. The disparity in scores is probably not because blacks are inherently less intelligent than asians. All the SAT score disparity shows is that there's an SAT score disparity. Last I checked, SATs were not a reliable indicator of raw intelligence, and I doubt any such test really exists.

- Warren

 

[Loren Booda]

Whenever one comes across an attempt to argue "racial supremacy," one needs remember the phase with which the Jews so aptly described the behavior of their Nazi tormenters - "Schadenfreude" - a malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others. Such an attitude pervades the psychology of anyone who distorts their own beliefs to undermine innocent others just because of perceived ethnic stereotypical differences.

 

[bobf]

Just keep in mind, as Evo is trying to point out, that literally hundreds of socioeconomic factors come into play when you try to figure out why blacks score lower on average than asians -- everything from the way black children are treated in kindergarten classes to the schools, neighborhoods, and occupations black people choose in order to minimize their social burden. The disparity in scores is probably not because blacks are inherently less intelligent than asians. All the SAT score disparity shows is that there's an SAT score disparity. Last I checked, SATs were not a reliable indicator of raw intelligence, and I doubt any such test really exists.

- Warren

How does the lack of advancement in technology in Africa play into this? Why is it that Africa lags so far behind in technology then other countries? Anyone have any in-depth knowledge of the history of the African countries? I hear that the blacks in Africa never advanced to a written language. How true is this?

 

[chroot]

How does the lack of advancement in technology in Africa play into this? Why is it that Africa lags so far behind in technology then other countries? Anyone have any in-depth knowledge of the history of the African countries? I hear that the blacks in Africa never advanced to a written language. How true is this?

I'm no anthropologist, but, to the best of my knowledge, raw human intelligence has not really changed much over the last 10,000 to 50,000 years. Certainly we now have better technology, and have figured out more of the world (math, science, etc.) than our ancestors, but that doesn't mean we are inherently, individually, more intelligent than them.

Although white Europeans happened to be the first to stumble into the Industrial Revolution, black Africans are certainly not necessarily less intelligent.

- Warren

 

[BlackVision]

They didn't back when they were brought over as slaves. Also, adding white genes, if your theory about white genes being superior, should have improved the level of blacks here, obviously that isn't the case, according to your claims. So this hurts your argument even more.

What are you talking about? The fact that blacks born in North America outperform blacks born in Africa both academically and economically completely proves my point. You argument is severely hurt by this.

I haven't read all of his posts, the ones I've read he is addressing black slavery in America. The slaves in Canada would have had better opportunities and less oppression than the black slaves in the US, therefore more opportunity for success.

The slaves in Canada? Canada was a place for American slaves to run to.

I'm making a point that you tend to blurt out things that are either wrong or are unsubstantiated.

Ah just like you trying to state that environmental factors override genetic factors. Yes I found that quite wrong and unsubstantiated myself.

That article throws a wrench in your argument.

Because it shows that blacks with slavery in their roots that also have white ancestry outperform blacks that do not have any slavery in their roots and do not have white ancestry? This perfectly 100% PERFECTLY fits my argument. It has absolutely debunked your argument however.

 

[bobf]

I'm no anthropologist, but, to the best of my knowledge, raw human intelligence has not really changed much over the last 10,000 to 50,000 years. Certainly we now have better technology, and have figured out more of the world (math, science, etc.) than our ancestors, but that doesn't mean we are inherently, individually, more intelligent than them.

Although white Europeans happened to be the first to stumble into the Industrial Revolution, black Africans are certainly not necessarily less intelligent.

- Warren

How does intelligence play into the advancement of technology? Are you suggesting that it doesn't? Why do you think white europeans stumbled into the Industrial Revolution?

 

[BlackVision]

Well, you think wrong. Are you actually going to say that you don't know that Jews living in German occupied territory had relatives living in other parts of the world?

Ah yes with this strong connection, they still were in death camps and slavery camps. Yup all the Jews had such strong connection. And the simple fact that the vast majority of Jews were living in German occupied territory completely refutes your silly notion.

Are you not aware that even though some family members ended up in concentration camps there were families that sent members to other countries to live? You really need to get a better understanding of things that you discuss.

No actually you do if you're going to completely deny the fact that, likely the majority was Jews, were left with absolutely nothing after WWII. No money, no possessions, no place to go.

Yes, the Jews suffered terribly, but, for the reasons I listed, they were better equipped to bounce back.

Wrong again, they were far worst off.

This is why I do not care to discuss things with you BV. You constantly blurt out innacurate information that has to be corrected. It is too time consuming for me.

LOL. The sad thing is you honestly believe it is you with the accurate information and me with the inaccurate one. I pity you.

I know that you are just a young kid in college, but if you would slow down, think things through, listen to others - they may actually know something, you might learn something, maybe you will turn out ok.

I have listened to everything. I have put everything into consideration. I have tried to look at everything from a moderate perspective and these are the conclusions I have come to.

And I seriously believe it is you that needs to listen and learn something.

 

[Evo]

What are you talking about? The fact that blacks born in North America outperform blacks born in Africa both academically and economically completely proves my point. You argument is severely hurt by this.

Not in anything you have provided.

The slaves in Canada? Canada was a place for American slaves to run to.

So, you admit you were wrong.

Ah just like you trying to state that environmental factors override genetic factors. Yes I found that quite wrong and unsubstantiated myself.

Sorry, wrong BV, as always. Look at this. Buh bye.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38546

posts 21 & 25

 

[bobf]

I know that you are just a young kid in college, but if you would slow down, think things through, listen to others - they may actually know something, you might learn something, maybe you will turn out ok.

Why the personal attack? Ad-hominem attacks suggest that you have lost the argument. BV seems to lay out very cogent arguments and when one asks for evidence, he provides it as much as possible. I have been watching a few of these threads and most seem to degrade into personal attacks.

 

[bobf]

Not in anything you have provided.


So, you admit you were wrong.


Sorry, wrong BV, as always. Look at this. Buh bye.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38546

posts 21 & 25

I quickly looked at that thread and it seems to be based on one study. Has the findings been repeated by others? One study hardly proves anything in science.

 

[Evo]

Why the personal attack? Ad-hominem attacks suggest that you have lost the argument.

Not an attack at all, just hope that BV can learn.

I said nothing derogatory about BV, you however, are guilty of false accusation.

 

[Evo]

I quickly looked at that thread and it seems to be based on one study. Has the findings been repeated by others? One study hardly proves anything in science.

That study has been accepted. Find something that can legitimately refute it and we can discuss it.

 

[chroot]

How does intelligence play into the advancement of technology? Are you suggesting that it doesn't? Why do you think white europeans stumbled into the Industrial Revolution?

Well, as I said, I'm no anthropologist, so this is all essentially just my opinion on the matter.

As an engineer, I very well understand engineering personalities -- the thought processes of the sort of people who invented the water wheel and the loom and the printing press.

If you put an intelligent engineer into a room with a lot of resources -- wires, chips, fluid couplings, pumps, motors, etc., he will likely find something interesting to do with those resources. It might not immediately be something capable of redefining the term 'industry,' but it'll probably be interesting. If you put the same engineer in a room with few resources and instead make him work very hard at growing some food to eat, he'll certainly produce fewer interesting or useful things.

While I can't substantiate it, it seems to me that the Africans had to spend a larger part of their day living -- foraging for food, hiding from predators, finding water, rebuilding shelters, and so on. The white Europeans may have had easier access to water, food supply, and good building materials. Once the basic survival needs were met, they might have simply had more time to spend on developing technology.

Also, modern African cultural practices probably consume a larger portion of the day than do European cultural practices, and perhaps did in ancient times, too. Cultural responsibilities are not something an individual can really decide to change all at once, no matter how intelligent that person is.

- Warren

 

[bobf]

You did not consider that a personal attack?? Wow, what do you consider a personal attack to be?

Hey Evo,

"I know that you are just a young kid in college, but if you would slow down, think things through, listen to others - they may actually know something, you might learn something, maybe you will turn out ok."

Maybe he will turn out ok? Are you implying that he is not ok now? What is wrong with him in your opinion? hmm, not a personal attack??

 

[jammieg]

NoahAfrican it is an aggravating thought that I should be oppressed in subtle ways over a great length of time for no other reason than all people are generally blind to see what evil they do when they stand to gain from it, but that is part of the bitter truth I guess, do you believe that inequality between groups or prosperity of one group over another can be attributed primarily to one group taking advantage of another, and then that group giving their offspring the gains to keep them on top? If so, how much of a factor would you guess? My guess is perhaps 90% of all inequality is due to oppression with blindness to know what we do.

 

[BlackVision]

One, most Asians in the USA are concentrated in states and regions where the cost of living is high and the median wages are also high relative to the rest of the nation.

Well of course. If you're making lots of money, you will of course likely live in an area where cost of living is high. That's common sense.

Thus, their median income is boosted given a boost.

Wrong. Their level of income is what allowed them to live in the neighborhoods they do.

You forget that when Asians first arrived to America, and the majority of immigrants from Asia that came during the big wave during the 80s, lived in the poorest of neighborhoods. In Los Angeles, this example can be shown as the area designated as Koreatown. An area that is quite poor and was the area where all the Koreans lived during the 80s. If you visit this area today, you will notice that Koreans do not even make up 20% of this area and that it is now completely Hispanic. The original Koreans that first settled there all have moved up to higher class neighborhoods. Asians worked themselves up from the bottom. They didn't start from the top.

most Asians are filtered into this country via HB1 visas and Educational interest. These usually represent the elites of their native countries.

Wrong again. The vast majority of Asians today come from the poor Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, etc. who come to America with nothing. Try looking at the immigration chart. You'll notice immigration from more wealthy countries such as Japan is very low.

Consequently, you end up with elite Asians being compared with the aggregate averages derived from all American social strata.

Again wrong. IQ studies show there is no difference in IQ level between Asians in America and Asians in Asia. Both Asians in America and Asians in Asia, have a higher median IQ than American Whites. Look to "The Bell Curve" for more information.

Take the Hmong from Southeast Asia. They are Asian but their performance is far below of that of Asians from India, China or South Korea.

The IQ surplus of Asians is only East Asians. Southeast Asians have lower IQ as compared to East Asians. Whether you compare it in Asia or in America.

I agree that BV is misguided.

Quite the contrary. It is you. And many have already punched countless holes in your argument.

 

[bobf]

While I can't substantiate it, it seems to me that the Africans had to spend a larger part of their day living -- foraging for food, hiding from predators, finding water, rebuilding shelters, and so on. The white Europeans may have had easier access to water, food supply, and good building materials. Once the basic survival needs were met, they might have simply had more time to spend on developing technology.

All societies were hunters and gathers at one time. Most had to hide from predators, etc. Do you have any proof that white Europeans had it easier? How did the inventions of the Europeans play into their ability to prosper into industrious societies? How was it that whites were able to go to Africa and build modern cities, etc, if they lacked the resources in Africa?

Also, modern African cultural practices probably consume a larger portion of the day than do European cultural practices, and perhaps did in ancient times, too. Cultural responsibilities are not something an individual can really decide to change all at once, no matter how intelligent that person is.

- Warren

In what tribes of Africa are you referring to? Which tribes spend so much time in cultural practices?

Bobf.

 

[bobf]

NoahAfrican it is an aggravating thought that I should be oppressed in subtle ways over a great length of time for no other reason than all people are generally blind to see what evil they do when they stand to gain from it, but that is part of the bitter truth I guess, do you believe that inequality between groups or prosperity of one group over another can be attributed primarily to one group taking advantage of another, and then that group giving their offspring the gains to keep them on top? If so, how much of a factor would you guess? My guess is perhaps 90% of all inequality is due to oppression with blindness to know what we do.

Can you supply evidence to your claims? How about tribes in Africa? How does this play into your scenario?

 

[BlackVision]

Dagenais, you are stirring up dust and you have absolutely no arguments to support your case. I really don't see the point in stereotyping. The topic of the thread is not Asians in America (consult the title), so that would make it off-topic.

It relates to this topic as a whole so it's completely on topic. Or are you trying to suggest that when we try to debate something we shouldn't use something simliar as examples?

 

[Evo]

You did not consider that a personal attack?? Wow, what do you consider a personal attack to be?

Hey Evo,

"I know that you are just a young kid in college, but if you would slow down, think things through, listen to others - they may actually know something, you might learn something, maybe you will turn out ok."

Maybe he will turn out ok? Are you implying that he is not ok now? What is wrong with him in your opinion? hmm, not a personal attack??

Show me what would be an attack. My hope that he turns out ok? Oooh, that is so harsh. That can mean anything.

 

[BlackVision]

Do you know that "coloreds" couldn't drink out of a "white" persons water fountain?

That applied to Asians as well.

That they couldn't use "white" bathrooms in public?

That applied to Asians as well.

The list goes on and on.

That applied to Asians as well.

It is ridiculous to bring asians up to compare against blacks.

Huh? Even with the fact that I just pointed out?

 

[bobf]

Show me what would be an attack. My hope that he turns out ok? Oooh, that is so harsh. That can mean anything.

Maybe you will turn out ok does not mean that you hope he will turn out okay. When taken in the context of your post, it was very clear what you meant. Evo, Maybe if you start listening you can learn something and maybe you will turn out ok. fair enough?

 

[chroot]

All societies were hunters and gathers at one time. Most had to hide from predators, etc. Do you have any proof that white Europeans had it easier? How did the inventions of the Europeans play into their ability to prosper into industrious societies? How was it that whites were able to go to Africa and build modern cities, etc, if they lacked the resources?

Again, I'm no anthropologist, and I'm stepping into territory here better suited for people with more preparation than I... I'm an engineering/physics/math type, and I apologize if I'm arguing something that's just totally rubbish.

Certainly all cultures began as hunter/gatherers, but not all of them stayed that way as long as others did. Certainly predation in the Savannah is a bigger danger than predation in the Mediterranean -- the African continent is home to some of the fiercest predators on the planet.

I'm not referring to raw materials like stone and wood -- I'm referring more to infrastructure. Resources build on resources... before you can build modern cities, you need to have modern building equipment. Before you can have modern building equipment, you must have modern fuels and engines. Before you can have those, you must have modern mining techniques, and so on. It seems that technology has been developing exponentially (I use the term loosely) for all of recorded history. It took tens of thousands of years for mankind to go from harnessing fire to reaching the industrial revolution, and only a few hundred more to reach the space age. It seems very likely to me that any civilization that began with even a very small advantage in resources several thousand years ago would rapidly snowball into having an enormous advantage today.

In what tribes of Africa are you referring to? Which tribes spend so much time in cultural practices?

I have no specifics to offer you at the moment, but will invest some time in some research if I am sorely in error. I have just gotten the impression from documentaries, etc. that African cultures involve many more rites and rituals and ceremonies. I even get the feeling they spend more time on grooming and maintaining body appearance. If you have any evidence to present that shows African cultures to have equal or less "overhead" to European cultures, I'd be happy to read it.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

It relates to this topic as a whole so it's completely on topic. Or are you trying to suggest that when we try to debate something we shouldn't use something simliar as examples?

I challenge you BV, find legitimate studies since this was accepted that show this is wrong. No garbage, no studies predating this. Studies (legitimate) that specifically debunk this.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38546

posts 21 & 25