Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Visiting some racist websites

  1. Feb 1, 2004 #1
    Ever since visiting some racist websites, I became distressed at the ignorance circulating the world. I knew that these types of people really existed, but after delving deeper into it, it was simply appalling. After debating a few racists, I realized that it is simply insane to argue with such people, as if I would present some factual evidence, they would refute it as a "Jewish lie" and we could not argue then. Some of these people present racial "evidence" that they believe is proof for the superiority of the white "race". I know that race is nonexistent. I am reading a number of books that discuss this new "white culture" and their claims as well as their history, as I became interested in it. Some of these racist present certain information that I know is either inaccurate, skewed or is simply a lie.

    The following is a segment of one's racist claims and I just want someone to tell me something about them and drop any comments on this subject. It is difficult to find credible books talk about the issue of racial genetics, although I found one and my library will have it in about three weeks. So please, just drop whatever comments you have.


    "Black vs. White Evolution: Genetic Racial Differences

    I want to show here that differences in race are much more profound than just differences in skin color. The reason is evolution, and this can be seen most apparent by the types of values the different races have in their community, family, and sexual relationships.

    Through out the evolution of man kind, different species of humans developed in different ways according to the enviornments they evolved from. The black races who developed in hot climates, developed characteristics much different from the white races who developed in the cooler northern climates of Europe. Due to the dangers that were present in these cold climates, our white ancestors were forced to think, and plot ahead in order to survive. The winters were long, and food sources for the picking, were not as plentiful. Europeans had to plant vegtables, and hunt animals, which required much thinking, patience, and planning.(delayed gratification) In return this helped the European mind to grow and develope in inteligence, and creativity, beyond that of those races who lived in the warm parts of the earth, where fruits, and vegtable picking was quite plentiful all year round.

    Through the long winters, death rates from disease, starvation, and exposer were high, especialy for children, making the sanctity for human life a highest virtue. As a resualt of these conditions, European peoples often relied on their neighbours, knowing full well that in a crisis, a neighbours assistance could be the deciding factor in a life or death situation. This helped develope the European peoples sense of family, community, morality, intellectual, and the concept of law and order. European familys depened on eachother, and worked closely together in their daily lives. A women depended on her man to provided protection for her and their children, including the hunting for food, and help in raising the family. Being in close courters for much of the year, the relationship between the European man, and women was one of closeness, unity, and warmth. This devoloped the sense of romance, and partnership in the European couple, which is apparent in our white culture today.

    In the warm climates such as Africa, the picking, and gathering of food, and home making materials was pletifull, making the need for farming, and hunting rather obsolete. The mortality rate in these climates was quite low, as far as starvation, exposer to cold, and disease. One could live day to day without having to plan for the future, or worry about how their family will survive. This way of life required little thinking, or planning, because the necesities for life, and comfort, were readily avalible. (instant gratification) In such a climate the male without much need for responsibility to a family, could be promiscuous, leaving the African mother to raise the children on her own, which reflects the culture of most black mothers today. Often the death rate was due more to rivaling black males over a female, or an animal attack. A black male had little to risk by fighting with another male, unlike a white man in Europe who was more carefull knowing if he died, his familys survival could be at great risk. In this climate a black male needed fast reflexes, to run from animals, and fight other rival males, so inturn, blacks developed flatter noses for fast air intake, as opposed to white noses which are longer to warm the air, and filter out diseases.

    The list below are the overall differences between blacks and whites


    darker skin---------------/-----------lighter skin
    smaller brains------------/------------larger brains
    flatter noses--------------/-----------longer noses
    faster reflexes-----------/------------slower reflexes
    more speed, less strength ----/-------less speed, more strength
    less delayed gratification ability---/---more delayed gratification ability
    less intellectual------------/----------more intellectual
    faster maturation rate-------/-----------slower maturation rate
    more promiscuous--------/-----------less promiscuous
    less family oriented--------/----------more family oriented
    higher testosterone levels (males)---/----lower testosterone levels (males)


    longer arms relation to body

    thicker cranium /lower facial angle

    smaller cranium

    smaller brain -autopsy data

    smaller brain by endocranial volume

    smaller brain by external head messures

    brain less convoluted, sulcated

    fewer cortical neurons in brain

    less frontal lobe area / cerebral cortex

    lafger dentition / more prognathic jaw

    IQ test scores lower"


    Thank you for your time. Give me any knowledge that you may have.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 1, 2004 #2

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    wow. I have to admit, that is a reasonably respectable attempt to justify rascism on their behalf. The arguments they present, IMO, are probably largely accurate in many regards, the biggest failing is simply the bias which is more than evident the whole way through. It is clear from the begining that they wish to paint a negative picture of the blacks, and a positive picture of the whites. As such you have to re-filter everything they say into a neutral frame of mind.

    I can agree that the difference between whites and blacks are more than just the skin colour. Whether the differences matter is another question, and whether difference is a good enough reason to discriminate is another question again. The fact that there are differences between people is one of the strongest aspects of humanity that we have these days. Variety is the spice of life. Oh, and its good for genetics too.

    As for the list of differences they gave, I could agree to the physical differences without a second though. It seems quite obvious to me that blacks tend to be bigger as well as stronger, faster reflexes etc On average. But On average doesn't mean much at all when u grab two random individuals and compare them. As with the intelligence stuff, and the promiscuity, I am less certain about it, yet willing to accept it. It seems quite likely that what they have said is accurate, and that such different evolutionary cultures have created that sort of rift between whites and blacks. But once again, the average is just an average, it says nothing about individuals.

    And so, with that in mind, what does this whole speel on their behalf mean? Nothing really. Good for them, they have figured out that people are different. So what? So we should kill people who are different from 'me'? How different? What if there is a black guy who has studied medicine and been in a marriage for 30 years and never cheated? (Since I am certain such relationship exist many times over) Do we kill him just because he is 'black', the obvious tag for people who tend to be 'stupid promiscuous people' (to paraphrase the intent of the article), even though this person in particular has shown himself to be more intelligent than 98% of the white population and less promiscuous than them too.

    What is an average in the end anyway?
  4. Feb 1, 2004 #3

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    My point: If the entire case for the white vs black issue comes down to pointing out how blacks are worse than whites, then eventually they need to realise that all of the problems that they find with blacks are the problems, not the people who are black.

    ie: They need to start being 'People who are against anyone who is stupid, overly promiscuous, and doesn't care for their neighbours.' and not be 'whites who hate blacks'. Because identifying their targets through superficial tags (skin colour) is inevitably going to end up causing them to hate many people who are exactly what they are claiming to be in support of, and cause them to end up associating with people who do what they are supposed to hate.

    That is when the hypocracy comes out.
  5. Feb 1, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I notice they talk about different species. There is only one surviving species of genus Homo, it is Sapiens. We can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so we're all one species.

    Race is a prescientific concept that should be dropped; it doesn't correspond to anything geneticists study. Yes there are slight genetic differences between african descended americans and european descended americans, and those differences can sometimes influence medical conditions. But there are genetic differences between different populations of europeans too, which are maybe just as great as the "black-white" ones but which we don't recognize because they don't show up in physical appearance. A trivial one, but important because it is something we can recognize, is lactose tolerance.
  6. Feb 1, 2004 #5
    That's exactly what I always say! Take a look at some of these arguments that I have proposed:

    He stated that we can see that whites are superior because without them, the world will fall apart. I responded:

    You stated that if whites would leave the earth, the world would look like Mexico. That is because whites hold the intelligence, education, ability, power, etc., am I correct? This idea (which I admit has potential to be a factual statement) is basically stating that without the leadership and intelligence of the whites, the world will fall apart. So let us examine this closely. If these whites are not educated, are not leaders and are not intelligent, then the world would fall apart. What is keeping this world together? Not the white race; leadership and education are. If you reverse this situation and blacks would be in authority in regards to leadership, education, etc., then are you telling me that these blacks would be incapable of running the world if provided with adequate materials and preparations? As you can see, the white race does not determine the welfare of the world. Education/leadership does, as if whites were not educated, they would be unable to run the world. And any individual of any race may become educated and hold this power. Evidently, this confirms the fact that it is not race that is superior, but circumstances are. Education, intelligence and leadership run the world, not skin tone. These qualities do not know race or ethnicity.

    This is in regards to the IQ statistics/all racial statistics that have been used by him in order to demonstrate his point:

    You give me statistics that label blacks as “stupid” and “inhumane”, statistics that see race but are blind to other factors that lie outside of the flesh, other outside circumstances. These figures give an entire race a certain title, a title that is earned not by skin color, but rather by living standards. It is not race that claims these numbers to be accurate, as I may find you a vast number of blacks that excel you in virtually every field when statistics claim that blacks are inferior. One is superior to the less educated or the less talented, not the darker-skinned. If whites were in the fateful situation that so many blacks are in today, I may be writing this for black racists that deem the white race as inferior, as the statistics that you abide by will certainly resemble much of the white race, if that were the case of today. Where underprivileged people exist, certain results from such a fate are found there, these results represented by the figures that you propose. These numbers do not portray the picture in its entirety, only a small portion of it – race. I present you with biological and scientific facts, yet you dismiss them as ignorance or choose not to accept them. If biology whispers that race is nonexistent, why must you press on with the misinformed notion that race is and should be equated with triumph? Racial superiority does not exist, as race is nothing more than a fable. You view people with dissimilar beliefs as brainwashed while you are the ones who are consumed by your beliefs, your very own conditioning of hatred that you fall prey to, the sure sign of brainwashing. The dismissal of facts attests that you can never fight for such a cause, as there is no cause to fight for in a world that is lost in fantasy, a world that you built on the foundation of ignorance.

    Thank you for all of the information.
  7. Feb 1, 2004 #6
    Am I the only one who has a problem with what that passage said about Africa being a more hospitable climate than Europe and that Africans could just gather food passingly without having to do much work? I realize thousands of years ago africa had alot more rainforest and less desert/grasslands than they do now, but hasn't it been found archeologically that most african people lived in the grasslands? Also, didn't Homo Erectus have plenty of random weapons which were used for hunting? As far as I know most early hominid cultures in africa had very perilous lives, were hunters unless they lived near water and had very little produce available to them. Furthermore, wouldn't there have been alot of infant deaths among african hominids because of the "dry season", combined with Hominids general lack of ability to last without nourishment in relation to other animals in Africa?

    Quality of Life: It'd probabally just be better to forget about debating racists. As you've already undoubtedyl noticed, people will take all the evidence you throw at them and seemingly not digest it at all. You're not going to change a belief that someone's had for years in a few internet correspondences, things like that are just far too ingrained in people's mind.

    Think about it this way: is there anything that could convince you to become racist? Your belief that you are right is in all likelyhood shared by the racist people whom you debate, and they likely have a firmer belief in their stance since they are probabally attacked for it more than you would be attacked for not being racist.
  8. Feb 1, 2004 #7

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I thought that too wasteofo2, but I think I said enough in my replies. It did cross my mind that they definately painted the picture too skewered RE the conditions. I am sure the colder climate wasn't that terrible, and I'm sure the african environment wasn't that good. But it seems reasonable that yes, the cold environment was harder than the warmer climate. (IMO)
  9. Feb 1, 2004 #8
    There's also the misconception that it's easy to find food in rain forests. That you just have to reach out of your hammock and grab a banana off the tree. In fact nutrition is far and few between. It takes quite a bit of expertise in hunting to survive well in the rain forest. If you watch documentaries on rain forest aboriginals you'll noticed much of their culture is based around the hunt, and that every able bodied man will go on hunting expeditions for days.

    The common racist explanation for why asians are so smart is because they evolved in the jungles of southeast asia, and that's a very difficult environment to survive in. Not surprisingly this is completely contradictory to what they say about africa.
  10. Feb 2, 2004 #9
    Racial identifiers as general factors of non-unique traits

    Ability to interbreed is not the sine qua non of species inclusion.

    That was from Arthur Jensen's The g Factor. p518.

    It looks like geneticists study human races and classify them into the six broad categories of (1) Mongoloids, (2) Caucasoids, (3) South Asians and Pacific Islanders, (4) Negroids, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans.

    A trivial "one"? Races are not classified by geneticists based on single characteristics themselves. Races are classified by geneticists based on general factors of single characteristics. When you say, "...there are genetic differences between different populations of europeans too, which are maybe just as great...", this may be true in terms of single characteristics, but is it true in terms of general factors of single characteristics?

    For a general factor of individual traits to be different between diffrerent populations, those individual traits themselves do not need to be unique.

  11. Feb 2, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    They identified populations (did you notice how careful Jensen was to use "population" and to avoid "race") with clusters having as he said, various loadings. This is all well and good, but it will not bear the weight that race enthusiasts want to put on the word race. I have read a lot of Cavalli-Sforza and a good deal of Jensen and I am sure neither of them would support the idea of race as a primary division of humanity.

    And if there are other characteristics of a species than fertile intermating, I wish you would state ecplicitly what you think they are. I know some biologists go by look, and others use traditional categories, but really, a concept should be well-defined if you are going to use it in science.
  12. Feb 2, 2004 #11
    I happen to agree with selfAdjoint, as I have read in various sources, scientists made sure to use the phrase "geographic peoples" (or something along those lines) and they would classify people by their geographic locations rather than race. I read one source speaking on behalf of a racist letter that they received from a group of people and they stated that people are "raced" instead of actually belonging to a race. In responding to these racists, instead of stating "black people" or "white people", they would state something such as "people who are 'raced' black" or "those who are 'raced' white".

    On another note, here is what I found:


    Physical characteristics associated with race - such as skin or hair colour - do not necessarily reflect a person's genetic ancestry, a new study suggests.

    A group of scientists - writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - have found that people who appear white may genetically be mainly African, while people who look black may genetically be European or Amerindian.

    The scientists, from the University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal, said their data indicated that, in Brazil, colour was a weak predictor of African ancestry.

    "There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," said one of the researchers, Sergio Pena.

    "Yet races do exist as social constructs," Dr Pena and his colleagues said.

    Colour roots

    The research took place in Brazil and on the island of Sao Tome, a former Portuguese colony off the African coast. Brazil's population comes from three separate ethnic groups: the original Amerindians, Europeans, and Africans.

    These groups have inter-married and inter-bred, yet some Brazilians are popularly regarded as white, others as black. The researchers found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart - genetically - 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome.

    But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair colour, the researchers found.

    Poor guide

    They next tested two groups - 173 Brazilians "classified" as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin colour, hair colour, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white.

    The results threw up some surprises: maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had about 33% of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28% African - indicating that European men often fathered children with black and Indian women.

    "It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48%)," they wrote.

    "Our study makes clear the hazards of equating colour or race with geographical ancestry and using interchangeably terms such as white, Caucasian and European on one hand, and black, Negro or African on the other, as is often done in scientific and medical literature," the scientists' report said.


    Courtesy of BBC News


    [French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
    Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points – such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another – many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.[u/]


    Courtesy of Dictionary.com
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
  13. Feb 2, 2004 #12
    Subspecies vs race vs population

    Jensen is not normally shy about using the word race. He seems to be using it here because Cavelli-Sforza, et al., are using it. Jensen notes elsewhere that geneticists who use words such as populations, but not the word race, use those words such as populations as if they were using the word race.

    I suppose that might depend upon what you mean by primary division of humanity.

    You mean a concept should be categorically, and not relativistically, defined?

    It would seem relatively consistent, I think, in a statistical worldview sense, for a species to be defined as "a category of biological classification ranking immediately below a genus or subgenus" -- which is the first part of the M-W Unabridged definition 1:d(1). A more discrete definition would further include M-W Unabridged's, " a group of intimately related and physically similar organisms that actually or potentially interbreed and are less commonly capable of fertile interbreeding with members of other groups, that ordinarily comprise differentiated populations limited geographically (as subspecies) or ecologically (as ecotypes) which tend to intergrade at points of contact, and that as a group represent the stage of evolution at which variations become fixed through loss of ability to exchange genes with members of other groups."

    After we note that this definition allows for fertile interbreeding between species, and not just within species, we might also note that this definition allows for further deviations known as subspecies. A subspecies, of course, is none other than a race, as we can see in the M-W Unabridged's Definition 3 of the seventh entry of race: "3 : any of various infraspecific taxonomic groups: as a : MICROSPECIES b : SUBSPECIES c : a permanent or fixed variety d : BREED e : PHYSIOLOGIC RACE f : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type <Caucasian race> <Mongoloid race>."

    As for the categorical definition of species that would be needed by a categorically discrete worldview, I cannot supply one.

  14. Feb 2, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Each climate would have their difficulties. In a colder climate, you have winters, in warmer climates, dry seasons. During both, food and water are scarce, and both require advanced preparedness to survive. Winter usually helps curtail the spread of disease by sending disease vectors, such as insects, into dormancy. In each climate, there is an optimal season for births (spring in cold climates, rainy seasons in hot climates), such that promiscuity at the wrong time of year would be maladaptive. Hunter-gatherers require as much cognitive skill in determining where food would be located, remembering the locations of that food, inventing the tools for hunting, and knowing which plants are safe to eat and which are poisonous, as would an agrarian society where knowledge of building fences and animal husbandry or knowing the proper time of year to plant crops are important.

    By the way, has everyone forgotten that Egypt is a country in Africa? Are those engineering marvels known as pyramids so quickly dismissed as not requiring intelligence? Or what about the Middle East as the origin of civilization? Agriculture likely originated around rivers, in warm climates, like the Nile valley in Egypt, or along the Tigris and Euphrates in what is now the Middle East (you know, that place we've been trying to blow up lately). People in cold, Northern climates likely would have subsisted on a hunter-gatherer basis for much longer...they don't have a long enough growing season, so hunting animals would have been a far better way of obtaining food for winter than trying to grow it. Sure, it's easy to justify racist arguments if one chooses to completely ignore history, geography, archaeology, science, etc. That's the reason you can't argue with them, because they don't want to learn. Usually, racists are not ignorant because nobody has tried teaching them, they are ignorant because they actively choose to ignore those lessons in favor of what makes them feel superior.
  15. Feb 2, 2004 #14
    North Africa as distinct from sub-Saharan Africa

    Egypt is a nation in North Africa. North Africa is separated from the rest of Africa by a substantial barrier, the Sahara Desert, which for a long time marked a dividing line between substantially different genotypes, phenotypes and cultures. The author of the piece which began this thread might have specified "North Africa" instead of simply Africa, but his intention was clear to the present author.

    To enlighten yourself further on this topic, I would suggest reading J. Philippe Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior.
    http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Feb 4, 2004 #15
    Re: North Africa as distinct from sub-Saharan Africa

    Not true. Yes, it's part of North Africa but it's hardly isolated from the rest of Africa. Ancient Egypt was quite had quite an ecclectic mix of phenotypes, from blond haired blue eyed Greek transplants to very dark skinned people that many would associate with West Africa. Egypt also shared the same major thoroughfare with the Kingdom of Nubia, which was quite well populated with what most people would call blacks today, and they built many of the greatest temple complexes in Africa and for awhile had conquered all of Egypt. To learn more about the Nubians there was an excellent recent doucmentary about them on PBS.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  17. Feb 6, 2004 #16
    Re: Re: North Africa as distinct from sub-Saharan Africa

    Why does the mummy of Pharoah Ramses [circa 3000-4000 yrs old] have natural Red hair and caucasian features then, if Egyptians were a black people ?

    And about the "ecclectic mix of phenotypes"...just so you know, Ramses is far older than the greeks [by about 1000 yrs], and he ruled Egypt during a time when contact with non-Egyptians was at a minimum...thats not counting the enslaved Jews of course.

    Still, its pretty relevant i think.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2004
  18. Feb 9, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I just skimmed the topic...sorry if this is a repeat.

    According to the American Anthropological Association, there is more genetic variation WITHIN a race than in between races. From their website...

    We define races by superficial characteristics (light/dark hair/skin, etc.). But there's a lot more going on inside us than skin-deep comparisons suggest.
  19. Feb 9, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Indians and Finns both belong to the group 'caucasians', it is more accurate to define a population based on its history.
  20. Feb 9, 2004 #19
    Re: Re: Re: North Africa as distinct from sub-Saharan Africa

    Like I said, and you quote, the egyptians were a broad mix of people. Ramses II might have had red hair. There were also many black pharoahs.

    Egypt was more than just Ramses II.

    When people think of Egypt they quite commonly think of Cleopatra. And just so you know, Cleopatra was a Ptolemy. She was greek.
  21. Feb 9, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I always found it interesting how many Egyptian artifacts you find with the noses smashed off - it isn't just the sphinx.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook