CNBC commentator Marc Faber says "Thank God white people populated America, not black

[oldjones]

I’ve never seen any stats that predict more African Americans than whites in the US. Provide a link, we know how you feel about those.

If it's not African Americans that supplant European Americans as the majority so what? You tell me why it matters what colour of people are in the majority, pink, purple, black or white. We know it matters to the racist the OP cited, and for reasons known only to themselves Americans go through bizarre definitional contortions to differentiate jews and non-hispanic and goodness know what other sub-species of whites from, … what? basic economy-model whites?

I stated my case: Faber's wrong on the history he cites to justify his racist view of the present that's quickly changing and will soon see his supreme white majority status disappear. If the newly popular ethnicity/race/colour's important to you, you look it up.

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"

 

[Frankfooter]

If it's not African Americans that supplant European Americans as the majority so what? You tell me why it matters what colour of people are in the majority, pink, purple, black or white. We know it matters to the racist the OP cited, and for reasons known only to themselves Americans go through bizarre definitional contortions to differentiate jews and non-hispanic and goodness know what other sub-species of whites from, … what? basic economy-model whites?

I stated my case: Faber's wrong on the history he cites to justify his racist view of the present that's quickly changing and will soon see his supreme white majority status disappear. If the newly popular ethnicity/race/colour's important to you, you look it up.

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"

Exactly, in Toronto already its sometimes almost impossible to note the 'race' of people these days, there is such a mix of people in this city and so many mixed backgrounds.
It makes for such a beautiful mix of women here and turns the 'where are you from' question into a cliché that's totally meaningless.
Bring it on.

 

[basketcase]

Outcomes are easy to measure, causes are not.

Name a Jewish player in the NBA.....

Omri Casspi - Golden State

But I'm sot surprised you believe in racial predetermination.

 

[Smallcock]

Do you really think the difference are based on race?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, since humans of all backgrounds will inevitably interbreed - it is the nature of things. However, your presumption that disparate outcomes in geographic region cannot be due to race is wrong.

You can substitute race with whatever synonym that you're comfortable with. Let's try "populations" based on region of origin. Human groups are on a gradation like dog or cat breeds, or even the colour spetrum - e.g. when does something become red rather than pink? We know it when we see it. But there is large overlap at the fringes.

Humans obviously evolved differently on each continent due to environmental pressures. It's why Chinese people look different from Africans and Europeans. The idea that all groups collectively are identical in all respects is antithetical to evolution. One can argue that differences are small or insignificant but there can be little doubt that they exist broadly speaking.

A racist will take this and run with it as support for his racism and that's a sad byproduct. But racism has no place in a free society where each individual should be judged upon their unique character and intellect. For every racist that exists, there is someone of another race that is "superior" to him on every range of human ability.

 

[Smallcock]

There was more intent to it then that.

What's done is done, but it shouldn't be forgotten or used as a basis to argue that any one colour of people are better/smarter then any other.

The central thesis of the book I linked above, Guns, Germs, and Steel is that different groups of people did better then others based on resources available.
In Europe/China there were grains that lead to farming, and domesticable animals (none in Africa and only Guinea Pigs in America) that lead to farms that could support a village. That lead to specialization that lead to metal works. That increased populations, and people living with farm animals and higher density lead to the creation of diseases. Those diseases and guns that were taken around the world decimated other populations that didn't have the natural resources to increase their populations and specialize or create their own diseases.

I've read the book. It's very good. I agree with the thesis completely except that Diamond uses an all-environmental explanation. I think environment is obviously far more important than any biological factors because all human groups are so similar, but I cannot accept a theory that completely ignores biology no more than I could accept a theory that says outcomes are due only to biology.

For example among the "white race" it was a subgroup on the small island of Great Britain that pushed the western world into modernity. Environment and the circumstances created by it led to certain initiatives and innovations. The US and Canada are unique derivatives of the people from that subgroup of "whites" and would not exist in the same form or at all if it had been other Europeans that settled. South America was ruled by Spanish and Portuguese Europeans and things are very different there because of it.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've read the book. It's very good. I agree with the thesis completely except that Diamond uses an all-environmental explanation. I think environment is obviously far more important than any biological factors because all human groups are so similar, but I cannot accept a theory that completely ignores biology no more than I could accept a theory that says outcomes are due only to biology.

For example among the "white race" it was a subgroup on the small island of Great Britain that pushed the western world into modernity. Environment and the circumstances created by it led to certain initiatives and innovations. The US and Canada are unique derivatives of the people from that subgroup of "whites" and would not exist in the same form or at all if it had been other Europeans that settled. South America was ruled by Spanish and Portuguese Europeans and things are very different there because of it.

Except there are no 'races', genetically we are not different races.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/

 

[Smallcock]

Except there are no 'races', genetically we are not different races.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/

You can call them whatever you like - genetic clusters, populations, geographic groups, clines.

Are humans races distinct biological and genetic groups - of course not. I don't even think that could be possible since we all share the same ancestors and belong to the same species, with no complete isolation over significant periods of time.

The truth is that there is no consensus on whether "race" exists or not (there are biologists and geneticists on both sides) but like all things mainstream media, only one point of view is promoted by journalists (clearly with good intentions), which is fine, but be aware that there are social and political reasons for that. The concept of racial categories has been so terribly abused in recent human history that it is a sensitive topic. Most researchers, biologists, and geneticists will shy away from anything deemed potentially un-PC to avoid the backlash that would come with it.

 

[Smallcock]

Only if you believe in bible fairy tale of Adam and Eve.

What does the bible have to do with all humans coming out of Africa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_the_most_recent_ancestor_shared_by_all_humans

 

[Smallcock]

There's another theory that says Asians evolved from primates natives to Asia and don't have any ancestors from Africa.

There are lots of theories, but the one theory with the most supporting evidence is the Out of Africa theory.

 

[basketcase]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, since humans of all backgrounds will inevitably interbreed - it is the nature of things. However, your presumption that disparate outcomes in geographic region cannot be due to race is wrong.
....

Your argument is based on the fact that 'race' developed as a result of evolutionary pressures but your second sentence above seems to suggest that race was the factor that determined the success of failure. In fact evolution shows that every group that survived was a success for their environment simply because they survived.

 

[Smallcock]

Your argument is based on the fact that 'race' developed as a result of evolutionary pressures

Of course it did. That's how evolution works.

but your second sentence above seems to suggest that race was the factor that determined the success of failure. In fact evolution shows that every group that survived was a success for their environment simply because they survived.

What does "the success of failure" even mean? We're talking about different types of societies created by different types of people. It's pretty clear that all human groups on the planet are successful at survival. To say that Natives or Africans wouldn't have created the same civilization that Western Europeans did in North America doesn't mean Natives or Africans cannot survive.

 

[basketcase]

...
For example among the "white race" it was a subgroup on the small island of Great Britain that pushed the western world into modernity.....

The weakness of your claim is that the circumstances that set up Western Europe are all a historical result of exactly what Diamond discusses. Western Europe was able to benefit from the remains of the Roman system without being as impacted by the waves of migratory tribes pushing from the east. The Roman Empire made it to France and Britain because of the similarity in climate and the Steppe tribes destroyed much of Eastern/Southern Europe's society (as well as the Middle East) and forced China into an introspective empire, all because of the ease of east/west travel.

To go a step further, the Roman system that set up western Europe mainly existed because the eastward spread of people and technology from Greece who benefited from eastward spread from the Levant and from further east.

 

[basketcase]

...



What does "the success of failure" even mean? ...

Success OR failure. Sorry, typo.

 

[Smallcock]

The weakness of your claim is that the circumstances that set up Western Europe are all a historical result of exactly what Diamond discusses. Western Europe was able to benefit from the remains of the Roman system without being as impacted by the waves of migratory tribes pushing from the east. The Roman Empire made it to France and Britain because of the similarity in climate and the Steppe tribes destroyed much of Eastern/Southern Europe's society (as well as the Middle East) and forced China into an introspective empire, all because of the ease of east/west travel.

To go a step further, the Roman system that set up western Europe mainly existed because the eastward spread of people and technology from Greece who benefited from eastward spread from the Levant and from further east.

Just to be clear, you believe that all human populations are identical in all aspects, despite evolutionary pressures on them in different environments? Do you accept or deny evolutionary theory?

 

[basketcase]

Just to be clear, you believe that all human populations are identical in all aspects,...

Where the hell did you get that from? Is it because you chose not to read the entire post or is it because you don't have a rational response?

 

[FAST]

Just to be clear, you believe that all human populations are identical in all aspects, despite evolutionary pressures on them in different environments? Do you accept or deny evolutionary theory?

I think there is plenty of evidence that the "environment" does effect a cultures evolution.

But of coarse to state that, would be racism,... at least by those who would state that facts can be racist.

 

[Smallcock]

Where the hell did you get that from? Is it because you chose not to read the entire post or is it because you don't have a rational response?

When you have something to contribute, do so. You're making a mockery of yourself and evolutionary theory.

 

[Frankfooter]

Just to be clear, you believe that all human populations are identical in all aspects, despite evolutionary pressures on them in different environments? Do you accept or deny evolutionary theory?

All human populations are so similar genetically that you can't argue any one group is more evolved then any other.
That would racist and wrong.

 

[basketcase]

When you have something to contribute, do so. You're making a mockery of yourself and evolutionary theory.

And you are making a mockery of literacy.

 

[Smallcock]

All human populations are so similar genetically that you can't argue any one group is more evolved then any other.
That would racist and wrong.

I don't know what you mean by "more evolved". I've never said that. I said evolved differently.