jbg Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Posted April 25, 2009 And all this has what to do with pre-1491 Western Hemispheric history? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Geez, Tango implies that "White Bread" European culture became so advanced because they were just lucky! Lictor616 makes it out to be a "race" thing. Then we get a dozen pages or more of posts of various accusations of racism. As I scanned through the mess, only DogonPorch made a post even hinting at the real reason Europeans were more advance...culture! It seems like nearly everyone confuses race and culture, yet they are so very, very different! Culture, among other things, determines a society's ability to cope with its environment and improve its living standard. At times in Man's history various races have had positive and negative cultures in this regard. Europeans, especially the British, developed a culture of universal education and a strong work ethic. Some pundits believe that colder climates force cultures to be more progressive, just to survive. They point to the fact that few tropical cultures where you can sleep under the stars and pick food from trees have produced steam engines. That would be another thread but it's obvious there's something to the argument. European culture lead to the Industrial Revolution and eventually to the very digital media we are all using to have this argument! It wasn't luck and it wasn't race. It was a social attitude where enough people perceived needs and the potential rewards of trying to address them, coupled with a high enough baseline of education where there were large enough numbers of people educated enough to do it! As opposed to some priest caste being the only ones educated. Those cultures that restricted education to such small castes rarely advanced at all. The idea of race being the basis for intelligence was seriously blown out of the water during the second World War. Armies often found themselves based in foreign lands and needing to use local populations for their labour. A Polynesian was found able to be as equally skilled as a Westerner, or an Inuit (Eskimo at the time) or a North African. He simply needed some education that his own culture had not yet or perhaps never would provide. Some things are vital for a culture to progress technologically. Education and attitudes must produce a sufficiently high enough number of individuals that can think logically and use scientific method in their approach to problems. Before the North American aboriginals could have developed modern medicine, computers, central heating and such they would have had to morph their culture into one more like the Europeans. Otherwise it would have just "stood still" for hundreds if not thousands of years. No, Europeans were not just "lucky". They just happened to be first at embracing using your head before using your heart. Sometimes things can get out of balance but for tens of thousands of years in our history societies were skewed away from universal hard work and intellectualism. Why do you think that in Britain over a thousand years are referred to as the "Dark Ages"? Those cultures over the past few centuries that adopted the European cultural attributes tend to have prospered. Those that fiercely resist and cling to fundamentalist religions have not, except in a parasitical sense. Islamist terrorists can use the weapons and technology of the West but could never develop them on their own. To suggest that the West developed to the point where we are curing many diseases and cancers only because of luck makes no sense. To suggest that it was only because we happened to be born of a "white race" is just as ludicrous. Children adopted from other races and cultures and raised in Western culture families fare just as well or poorly as "domestics". Race is irrelevant. Interesting points. I think the word "luck" is a misnomer more than anything. I would say that where a culture is and what haqppens to it are what determines changes. To take your ecample, while where Great Britain is located may explains in part the type of free enterprise culture it developed, the Protestant Reformation, the scientific boom resulting from the Renaissance (itself a consequence of the capture of Constantinople), the decline of the Spansih power in the 17th century and other factors all contributed to pushing Albion ahead of the pack. It's not "luck", it's being at the right place at the right time with the right tools. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) What other website!?!? what are you even talking about... could you be less obvious in diverting the attention from the actual topic at hand? I mean you make it so easy to call you an intellectual coward.,.. unable to address the ISSUES of a debate: you ALWAYS put the onus back unto me personally .. what are you afraid of in debating rationally? Upset because I recognize you, I see. As for me being afraid of debating rationally... when you write something rational, then you'll be able to determine if that's the case or not. Race is essentially group physical and physiological features. There is no logic, and no foundation, to the bellief that those features have anything to do with a society's capacities in term of scientific, social or cultural development. Edited April 25, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) thank you then: the concept of heredity and cline and extended hereditary group (ie RACE) is indeed a valid and real notion... thank you for agreeing with EVERYTHING I've been saying... Your usual dishonesty. I agree with the only factual aspect of your cr*p, so I agree with everything you say. Yeah right. You really think intelligence is not highly influenced by characteristics inherited at birth? I agree that intelligence is also half nurture... as is everything, but to say that we are all born with the same intelligence and capacity for self discipline is just plain old liberal poppycock... its NONSENSE ON STILTS... We know for instance that many serial killers are BORN not BRED ... so clearly genes undoubtedly play a deciding role in EVERY human faculty. Who said everybody is born with the same intelligence? Nobody. Who said genetic factors cannot explain some aspects of an individual's personnality? Nobody. But the notion that some races are as a whole more intelligent, more "advanced" or "better" than others because of their genes is not founded in fact, or in logic. Nor is the idea that people can see that's exactly where you are going. Edited April 25, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Skin pigmentation? That's not all that race or "clines" are... you're quite wrong in saying that what affects the individual cannot afffect the group.. i don't know where you're getting the bundle of your ideas and notions... not only do you self contradict over and over again ( first saying race doesn't exist... then saying it does exist ... but doesn't do anything, then saying genes influence intelligence and physical aptitudes... but are irrelevant... that people are determined by their genetic makeup.. but its only individual).... more proof taht you're going out on a whim and don't know what you're talking about... You mean... more proof of your intellectual dishonesty. Quote
jbg Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Posted April 25, 2009 You mean... more proof of your intellectual dishonesty. Sir. A proof is a proof. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) you like the words c*ap and horse m*nure don't you... obsessed with pooh... No, not particularly. It's just that the words are the best definition of what you write. And i'm sorry but the Bell Curve and about 60 other controlled tests for IQ point to about the same gap in type and degree of intelligence and the break is along RACIAL LINES. There are many reasons to believe race and IQ are intricately linked, judging from the type of societies certain types of people create, judging from the crime stats in any given country or "diverse" area in a country (ie Detroit, South Central, Louisiana). I mean that actually isn't a single exception to the rule.. The most orderly and capable societies are the northern asiatic ones (who surpass our own in this respect)... and they consistently (and I stress consistently- show up an average IQ of 104 to 106 compared to our 100 or 101) Look at every tool of measurement for scientific literacy and mathematical literacy ... look at the very leftist and liberal OECD indexes of measurement (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy) there isn't a single exception for the rule... so no... THERE IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT RACE DOES HAVE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP WITH IQ... the TESTING CERTAINLY SUGGESTS it does... history also points towards that direction, as does the record of technology and inventions... the illusion is that we're all precisely equal in all aspects of intelligence and applications of intelligence... Andhere we go... some races are more intelligent than other... Like we didn't all know all along that's where this was leading. A task force of the American Psychological Association concluded in 1885 that. while differences between test results of certain races was not linked to biases in test construction. However, and more importantly, the task force cconcluded that evidence fails to support a correlation between genetics and test results. It is interesting to note that, in the U.S., tests that used notions and concepts familiar both to Blacks and Whites tend to show virtually no overall difference between results, unlike tests where notions and concepts familiar only to Whites are useed. And that i.q. scores have raised during the 20th century in parralel with the wider availability of public education. And that the difference in test results between American Blacks and Whites has declined steadily since the mid-2oth century, which happens to be the time of school desegregation. It is also interesting to note that the influence of heredity on i.q. test results tend to be in reverse to social-economical status. Most importantly, the relationship between i.q. scores and actual intelligence is tenous at best. In other words, the notion that intelligence varies with race is bad science at best, as in hijacking test results to draw conclusions that have lttile basis in the data itself. But I'll grant you one thing - some people are less intelligent than others... you're a living proof of that. Edited April 25, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Again, oral histories have nothing much to offer on this subject. I'm not sure where dna evidence comes into this; how exactly can it contribute to the understanding of how disease spread among Indians? And why is it that "whitey" science suddenly has merit when it supposedly can bolster one of your claims? One thing dna evidence has shown is that the Indians were not native to NA at all; they originated from around Mongolia and Siberia. Except for the Ojibway, who evidently come from southern Europe. The true first invaders from Europe... Yep, came here about 14,000 years ago. The very term "Native American" is a misnomer. Humans did not spring from the earth in North America. They migrated from elsewhere. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Wild Bill Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Interesting points. I think the word "luck" is a misnomer more than anything. I would say that where a culture is and what haqppens to it are what determines changes. To take your ecample, while where Great Britain is located may explains in part the type of free enterprise culture it developed, the Protestant Reformation, the scientific boom resulting from the Renaissance (itself a consequence of the capture of Constantinople), the decline of the Spansih power in the 17th century and other factors all contributed to pushing Albion ahead of the pack. It's not "luck", it's being at the right place at the right time with the right tools. "Luck" was Tango's description. I was merely responding to it. You're right that "Albion" may have caught some breaks. However, the Law of Averages states that so must have any other culture. Not necessarily the same ones but breaks nonetheless. My point is that it is not so much the cards you're dealt as how you play them. Britain and Europe had cultures that "capitalized" (if you'll pardon the pun!) on these breaks. Other cultures didn't then and do not today. As a sidebar, there is a good argument to be made that the West has lost much of its cultural values that enabled it to progress so far and is "past its prime". I hope not. What do we see to replace it? I like the idea that perhaps the disease that I get when I'm older has already seen a cure developed. It will be technology that conquers world hunger, not religious fanaticism. This further illustrates that it is not a "race" thing, if the same folks that were so successful are not any longer. Their race hasn't changed, just their culture. So I guess I agree with you, but with a post script. It's not luck but being in the right place at the right time with the right tools and a culture of the right attitude to take advantage of them! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
benny Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 And all this has what to do with pre-1491 Western Hemispheric history? A guilty feeling about slave trade legacy I guess. Quote
jbg Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Posted April 25, 2009 So I guess I agree with you, but with a post script. It's not luck but being in the right place at the right time with the right tools and a culture of the right attitude to take advantage of them!Exactly. Or else explain why the Australian Aboriginals and the English settlers (note that they were prisoners) created vastly different societies. Or why the Gaza and West Bank are shi**oles and Israel is a place where the desert has bloomed. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Posted April 25, 2009 A guilty feeling about slave trade legacy I guess. I was referring to the ugly and very personal exchange that preceded my post. And what does that exchange have to do with the slave trade? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
benny Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) Some white supremacists like to think that the finding of the Kennewick man in Washington state give them the right to do whatever they want in the New World. Edited April 25, 2009 by benny Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Or else explain why the Australian Aboriginals and the English settlers (note that they were prisoners) created vastly different societies. Or why the Gaza and West Bank are shi**oles and Israel is a place where the desert has bloomed. Exactly! It's all culture, but our "white-ass" liberal culture doesn't like to make comparisons or value judgements about other cultures. It's all about "luck" and "greed" and a lack of "spirituality". Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
benny Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Exactly! It's all culture, but our "white-ass" liberal culture doesn't like to make comparisons or value judgements about other cultures. It's all about "luck" and "greed" and a lack of "spirituality". Buffalo Bill was not exactly a sophisticated man. Quote
lictor616 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) Your usual dishonesty. I agree with the only factual aspect of your cr*p, so I agree with everything you say. Yeah right.Who said everybody is born with the same intelligence? Nobody. You said some genetic factors may explain some aspects of an individual's personnality? Nobody. But the notion that some races are as a whole more intelligent, more "advanced" or "better" than others because of their genes is not founded in fact, or in logic. Nor is the idea that people can see that's exactly where you are going. OKay canadien, realize please that you conceded a moment ago that indeed a theory of genetic equality between every human is impossible. Notice also that we agreed that intelligence is also determined by ones genes as is clear from your unwillingness to say that we are all born with the same intelligence potential your precise quote again: "Who said everybody is born with the same intelligence?".... So how do you determine the "impossibility" of different genetic cluster groups (ie: races) who have all manner of genetic traits that CONSISTENTLY DIFFER (black skin for instance is not possible for nordic europeans) that these consistent and persistent genetic traits cannot also have implications for type and degree of intelligence? What you're saying is that one's genes does affect one's intelligence... but when it comes to different races ... we all have the same genes and hence potential for intelligence(?) if race has a persistent and predictable outcome as far as skin tone is concerned... why is it wise to assume it cannot have similar "consistency" and different "outcomes" when it concerns matters of intelligence? Especially when... as I said numerous time: the historical record (in terms of scientific achievement, IQ testing, looking at the status of regions in the world according to race) all confirm this as fact. now I realize that you will reject this out of hand or ignore it... because you will never accept this conclusion no matter how many incontrovertible facts supporting this are presented to you... You, (like the christian fundamentalists) believe in your doctrine of complete racial equality out of a catechism.. out of dogma .. and IN SPITE of reason and logic NOT BECAUSE of it. I bet you your response will include the following words: "nazi" "bigot" "hater" "fascist" "c*ap" "m*nure" etc ... and will avoid the subject ... Edited April 25, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) Exactly. Or else explain why the Australian Aboriginals and the English settlers (note that they were prisoners) created vastly different societies. Or why the Gaza and West Bank are shi**oles and Israel is a place where the desert has bloomed. The Aborigene culture was isolated from all others on the planet for more than 25000 years, on a continent that is most desertic: a sure recipe for technological stagnation. The first English settlers were bringing with them the culture, the tools and a connection to the most technologically advanced culture on Earth. Better luck choosing an example next time. Edited April 25, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote
lictor616 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) The Aborigene culture was isolated from all others on the planet for more than 25000 years, on a continent that is most desertic: a sure recipe for technological stagnation. The first English settlers were bringing with them the culture, the tools and a connection to the most technologically advanced culture on Earth. Better luck choosing an example next time. Aborigine "culture" far from being isolated: grew OUT of south east asia and spread over to the Deccan in southern india.... they had contact with chinese "culture" they traveled extensively... The aborigines (who's intelligence I will let you judge for yourself) from the fact that for the 60+ thousand years that they propagated themselves on Australia ... they never ONCE suspected that there MIGHT BE a causal relationship between sexual intercourse and pregnancy.. (in other words they never understood that sex = pregnancy)... IQ testing for Abo's also corroborate this Carlton S Coon, Bell Curve and others put their IQ at the lowest echelon... 63-65... higher only then Congo pygmies (who where discovered to have an average IQ of 60) They also (and you can find this out) FORGOT how to make 2 of their very few tools: canoes and bows... They forgot how to make canoes even though canoes gave them access to a type of fish which they considered to be the most delicious... They forgot bowcraft event though they needed this tool for effective fighting and effective hunting... And today its much the same Aboriginals in Australia are living in pestholes... and are quite incapable of integrating Australian society effectively... again the evidence is there for people willing to open their eyes... I mean just LOOK at them: http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.jpg http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/aborigines_5.jpg EQUALITY: Man's Most Dangerous Myth Edited April 25, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Aborigine "culture" far from being isolated: grew OUT of south east asia and spread over to the Deccan in southern india.... they had contact with chinese "culture" they traveled extensively... Those contacts with Chinese culture over the past 20000 years were so extensice that no mention of them appear in any Chinese texts. All evidence points to the fact that Australia was culturally cut from the rest of the world for more than 20000 years. And the huge technical gap between pre-European conquest populations of the Deccan and Australia is proof that your "race determines intelligence" nonsense is exactly that... nonsense. And today its much the same Aboriginals in Australia are living in pestholes... and are quite incapable of integrating Australian society effectively... again the evidence is there for people willing to open their eyes... Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Australian Aborigenes have been deliberately pushed to the margins of society most most of the past two centuries. The evidence is there for all to see, nobody's fault but yours if you refuse to see it. Quote
lictor616 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Those contacts with Chinese culture over the past 20000 years were so extensice that no mention of them appear in any Chinese texts. All evidence points to the fact that Australia was culturally cut from the rest of the world for more than 20000 years.And the huge technical gap between pre-European conquest populations of the Deccan and Australia is proof that your "race determines intelligence" nonsense is exactly that... nonsense. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Australian Aborigenes have been deliberately pushed to the margins of society most most of the past two centuries. The evidence is there for all to see, nobody's fault but yours if you refuse to see it. If only you could read more attentively: I SAID CONTACTS WITH Chinese culture... and EXTENSIVE TRAVELS... are you willfully obtuse here? How is proof of a people walking their way towards the Deccan ( with no great civilization to boot mind you) somehow indicative of an intellectual equality with European? and what technical gap? on whose part? be clearer... Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
jbg Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Posted April 25, 2009 The Aborigene culture was isolated from all others on the planet for more than 25000 years, on a continent that is most desertic: a sure recipe for technological stagnation. The first English settlers were bringing with them the culture, the tools and a connection to the most technologically advanced culture on Earth. Better luck choosing an example next time.The first English settlers were brought in leg irons as prisoners. I read the rather excellent book The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes, which, as described in Amazon's review (link) is "(a)n extraordinary volume--even a masterpiece--about the early history of Australia that reads like the finest of novels. Hughes captures everything in this complex tableau with narrative finesse that drives the reader ever-deeper into specific facts and greater understanding. He presents compassionate understanding of the plights of colonists--both freemen and convicts--and the Aboriginal peoples they displaced. One of the very best works of history I have ever read".These Englishmen that were brought over were quite a marginal crew, according to this book. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
lictor616 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) The first English settlers were brought in leg irons as prisoners. I read the rather excellent book The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes, which, as described in Amazon's review (link) is "(a)n extraordinary volume--even a masterpiece--about the early history of Australia that reads like the finest of novels. Hughes captures everything in this complex tableau with narrative finesse that drives the reader ever-deeper into specific facts and greater understanding. He presents compassionate understanding of the plights of colonists--both freemen and convicts--and the Aboriginal peoples they displaced. One of the very best works of history I have ever read".These Englishmen that were brought over were quite a marginal crew, according to this book. excellent link... apparently the dregs of English society were able to build a civilization from scratch in all of 150 years.... Its quite amazing what afew generations of Europeans can do in a howling wilderness... while 60 000 years of existence for the aboriginals brought them........ um....... the didgeridoo... what an appalling record of iniquity... oh but don't you dare suggest that the Aboriginals where in any way shape or form "different" to the Europeans though... no no... that would be the height of "racism" and racism is the damnable wickedness (that only whites can be guilty of) which doubts the self evident fact that Europeans are a dumb gang of brutish melanin deficient cavemen who lack in spirituality and "earth new age values"... Edited April 25, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 If only you could read more attentively: I SAID CONTACTS WITH Chinese culture... and EXTENSIVE TRAVELS... are you willfully obtuse here? How is proof of a people walking their way towards the Deccan ( with no great civilization to boot mind you) somehow indicative of an intellectual equality with European? and what technical gap? on whose part? be clearer... It is exactly because I read your drivel attentively that I know it's drivel. There is evidence to suggest that Chinese texts mentions that they've heard of a continent to the south, but that they never visited it. So much for contacts, extensive or otherwise.. The only reported contact between Australians and the outside world before the arrival of the first Europeans was trade between Maccassan fishermen and the north coast of Australia. Interestingly enough, it occured almost right before the first sightings of the continent by Europeans. Also interesting is that some of the Australian population of the northern coasts changed their CANOE building techniques, proof that they knew how to build canoes and could learn froom contact. Moving to the Deccan, its interesting that the Iron Age throughout the Indian sub-contient is contemporary of the same type of culture in Europe. India had a culture using a writing system about 3000 years before our era, a good millenium before the Indo-European invasions of the sub-continent, as well the Minoean cluture. As for your typical bit of intellectual dishonesty... claiming that I am trying to claim that races are intellectual equals. My whole point is about the FACT that race has nothing to do with intelligence or intellectual capacities. But thabks for making me laugh with that one. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 The first English settlers were brought in leg irons as prisoners. I read the rather excellent book The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes, which, as described in Amazon's review (link) is "(a)n extraordinary volume--even a masterpiece--about the early history of Australia that reads like the finest of novels. Hughes captures everything in this complex tableau with narrative finesse that drives the reader ever-deeper into specific facts and greater understanding. He presents compassionate understanding of the plights of colonists--both freemen and convicts--and the Aboriginal peoples they displaced. One of the very best works of history I have ever read".These Englishmen that were brought over were quite a marginal crew, according to this book. No doubt the first British settlers were at the margin of their society. Does not change the fact that they were from the margin of a society that was a few thousand years ahead in technology and understanding of their world compared to the Aborigenes. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 excellent link... apparently the dregs of English society were able to build a civilization from scratch in all of 150 years.... Its quite amazing what afew generations of Europeans can do in a howling wilderness... while 60 000 years of existence for the aboriginals brought them........ um....... the didgeridoo... what an appalling record of iniquity... oh but don't you dare suggest that the Aboriginals where in any way shape or form "different" to the Europeans though... no no... that would be the height of "racism" and racism is the damnable wickedness (that only whites can be guilty of) which doubts the self evident fact that Europeans are a dumb gang of brutish melanin deficient cavemen who lack in spirituality and "earth new age values"... The racism, since you talk about it, is the nonsense that you are peddling about how race is a determinant factor in intelligence. And the British settlers of australia did not start from stratch... unless you want to argue that the late-18th century British culture was worthless ;-) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.