Taboo questions about racial hierarchy, differences, origins

[Winston]

I have some taboo questions about race that I'm wondering about.

This is a very taboo subject. But could there be a racial hierarchy that is innate?

It seems that all over the world, lighter complexion people are wealthier, of higher status and treated better than people of darker complexion.

Why is that?

I don't think it's just cultural. It seems almost instinctive. Could there be an innate racial hierarchy that we all know of by instinct?

I was reading David Icke's new book and it said that when people who hate the Queen of England and criticize her face her in person, they suddenly are in awe and bow down and pay her respect, because in her presence, their reptilian brain (known as R-Complex in science) which responds to hierarchy suddenly takes over. It's as if they know their place in the presence of someone higher on the hierarchy.

Could it be the same with race and skin color?

Also, here is another taboo question:

Other than skin color and language or culture, what are some major general differences between whites, blacks, asians, latins, etc? Are they all the same other than color, as the politically correct crowd demand that you believe? Or are there real innate differences in personality, behavior, characteristics, strengths/weaknesses, attitudes, etc?

If so, anybody dare to specify these differences?

Medical science does recognize racial differences in terms of one race being more prone to diseases or medical conditions than others. For example, Asians get ulcers more than Whites do. And Asians get nearsighted more often earlier in life than Whites do. Also, less Asians have RH negative blood type than Whites do.

So there are differences. But who here dares to specify them?

Finally, where did all the races come from? How did they get that way?

It seems that in colder climates, people have lighter or fairer skin, while in warmer climates people have darker skin. That seems to be the pattern. So is race due to sun exposure and temperature or climate?

Or is that a mystery?

Anyone want to take a crack at any of these questions?

[momopi]

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/06/ch ... tical.html

Tuesday, June 29, 2010
China: genomics without political correctness

Economist: ... with the delivery of 120 spanking new top-of-the-range Illumina sequencing machines. When they have all been installed the building will, so it is claimed, have more DNA-sequencing capacity than the whole of the United States.

... The building belongs to the BGI, once known as the Beijing Genomics Institute. Mr Wong manages the institute’s Hong Kong operation, but the institute itself is based over the border in the People’s Republic proper, in Shenzhen. The BGI itself is one part—arguably the leading one—of China’s effort to show that it can be the scientific peer of the West.

Its boss, Yang Huangming, is certainly the peer of people like Dr Venter, Dr Lander and Dr Collins. He is a man on a mission to make the BGI the first global genomics operation. Part of the reason for building his newest sequencing centre in Hong Kong is to reassure researchers from other countries that the facility will operate inside a reliable legal framework. If all goes well, laboratories in North America and Europe will follow.

... The BGI was the first outfit to clone pigs, and it has developed a new and more effective way of cloning mammals that might ultimately be applied to humans, if that were ever permitted.

But the organisation is involved in even more controversial projects. It is about to embark on a search for the genetic underpinning of intelligence. Two thousand Chinese schoolchildren will have 2,000 of their protein-coding genes sampled, and the results correlated with their test scores at school. Though it will cover less than a tenth of the total number of protein-coding genes, it will be the largest-scale examination to date of the idea that differences between individuals’ intelligence scores are partly due to differences in their DNA.

Dr Yang is also candid about the possibility of the 1,000-genome project revealing systematic geographical differences in human genetics—or, to put it politically incorrectly, racial differences. The differences that have come to light so far are not in sensitive areas such as intelligence. But if his study of schoolchildren does find genes that help control intelligence, a comparison with the results of the 1,000-genome project will be only a mouse-click away.

[ladislav]

In a nutshell and a very simple version- people originated in Africa and moved out of there. As they spread around the globe, they mutated. When they got to colder areas, over milennia, they lost pigment and because of living in caves, the eyes became grey and blue because of vitamin D deficiency. People mutated as they moved to E. Asia but the eyes did not get blue for some strange reason, maybe because they had food richer in vitamin D.
In colder climates and with more limited resources and a shorter time to plant and harvest people had to become more inventive to survive. In warmer climates they remained more relaxed and did not have to develop technical intelligence as much. Instead they developed humanitarian intelligence.
Did not always happen that way but those are general patterns.

[Winston]

In a nutshell and a very simple version- people originated in Africa and moved out of there. As they spread around the globe, they mutated. When they got to colder areas, over milennia, they lost pigment and because of living in caves, the eyes became grey and blue because of vitamin D deficiency. People mutated as they moved to E. Asia but the eyes did not get blue for some strange reason, maybe because they had food richer in vitamin D.
In colder climates and with more limited resources and a shorter time to plant and harvest people had to become more inventive to survive. In warmer climates they remained more relaxed and did not have to develop technical intelligence as much. Instead they developed humanitarian intelligence.
Did not always happen that way but those are general patterns.

So that's the official explanation?

How come Africa didn't become the center of power and technology then?

And how come lighter skinned people are richer and get treated better in the world? How did it get that way?

Is it due to a racial hierarchy that we all instinctively know but never talk about cause it's taboo?

In the PH for instance, the scammers and hustlers are usually darker skinned and ugly looking. They are never fair skinned. I'm sure you've noticed that too.

Also, how come all movie stars have thin smaller noses, not flat? Even in Asia, movie stars and models do not have the typical flat nose look. Their noses are pointy and smaller. Why is that more attractive? Cause of symmetry?

[Rock]

In a nutshell and a very simple version- people originated in Africa and moved out of there. As they spread around the globe, they mutated. When they got to colder areas, over milennia, they lost pigment and because of living in caves, the eyes became grey and blue because of vitamin D deficiency. People mutated as they moved to E. Asia but the eyes did not get blue for some strange reason, maybe because they had food richer in vitamin D.
In colder climates and with more limited resources and a shorter time to plant and harvest people had to become more inventive to survive. In warmer climates they remained more relaxed and did not have to develop technical intelligence as much. Instead they developed humanitarian intelligence.
Did not always happen that way but those are general patterns.

So that's the official explanation?

How come Africa didn't become the center of power and technology then?

And how come lighter skinned people are richer and get treated better in the world? How did it get that way?

Is it due to a racial hierarchy that we all instinctively know but never talk about cause it's taboo?

In the PH for instance, the scammers and hustlers are usually darker skinned and ugly looking. They are never fair skinned. I'm sure you've noticed that too.

Also, how come all movie stars have thin smaller noses, not flat? Even in Asia, movie stars and models do not have the typical flat nose look. Their noses are pointy and smaller. Why is that more attractive? Cause of symmetry?

1. Winston, I really like your new avatar. Its the best you've had so far. And I'm sure Diane is a lot happier with it too, lol.

2. Lad said that people in cold climates had to develop strong technical intelligence due to harsh climate conditions. Africa is by and large tropical so according to him, they did not have to develop this kind of intelligence to survive. But his theory about 'humanitarian intelligence' is an interesting idea. Technical intelligence enables a group to control the world but does not necessarily make its members happy about life.

[Winston]

Why is my new avatar the best one? Dianne complained about my other avatar and said I should be showing her off, not other girls, so she pressured me into using this one. lol

I think by "technical intelligence" Ladislav means left brained intelligence, the kind where you memorize steps and scientific data, the cold calculating materialistic self-interest type of intelligence.

So if life originated in Africa, then the first humans were black right? I remember there was a Time magazine article saying that Adam and Eve must have been black?

How come people in Latin America aren't as black as people in Africa? Their climates are similar right?

And how come people in Siberia are not blonde haired and blue eyed? Their climate is colder than Europe, so shouldn't they look white?

[Guts]

In a nutshell and a very simple version- people originated in Africa and moved out of there. As they spread around the globe, they mutated. When they got to colder areas, over milennia, they lost pigment and because of living in caves, the eyes became grey and blue because of vitamin D deficiency. People mutated as they moved to E. Asia but the eyes did not get blue for some strange reason, maybe because they had food richer in vitamin D.
In colder climates and with more limited resources and a shorter time to plant and harvest people had to become more inventive to survive. In warmer climates they remained more relaxed and did not have to develop technical intelligence as much. Instead they developed humanitarian intelligence.
Did not always happen that way but those are general patterns.

Ladislav....I respect your work and what you do to help out lonely frustrated beta males (such as myself) but you have to be one of the most self-hating, disohnest people when it comes to racial issues and realities. You think people that evolved in warmer climates have great "humanitarian" intelligence? Considering that in Africa, slavery (which still exists there), canablism and murder and intertribal warefare are a reality of daily life there I really don't see how they could be considered "humanitarian" in any way. Not to mention that they, the people of a darker persuasion, worldwide are experiencing a major population explosion (thanks to all those inhumanitarian White westerners who shared their food,medicine and industry with them) and are desimating their environment and are causing the extinction of local wildlife and polluting their own rivers and lakes ect with reckless abandon. They are reproducing recklessly and irresponsibly and are a major threat to themselves and every other civilization as they continue to grow in number and need to expand. Instead of simply keeping to ourselves and using our resources only for ourselves us selfish, non-altruistic Whites stupidly gave away our technology that is sustating high birthrates in the third world where nature would have kept their population in check and weeded out their less nimble members.

[Winston]

Guts, you are going by what you see in the media. Most of Africa is advanced, modern and peaceful. See the thread with images in the Africa board of this forum entitled "Questions about Africa".

You're not gordan are you?

[momopi]

I think by "technical intelligence" Ladislav means left brained intelligence, the kind where you memorize steps and scientific data, the cold calculating materialistic self-interest type of intelligence.
So if life originated in Africa, then the first humans were black right? I remember there was a Time magazine article saying that Adam and Eve must have been black?
How come people in Latin America aren't as black as people in Africa? Their climates are similar right?
And how come people in Siberia are not blonde haired and blue eyed? Their climate is colder than Europe, so shouldn't they look white?

1. Technical intelligence in this case is roughly equivalent to Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

2. Skin color was probably determined by amount of sun/UV light exposure over tens of thousands of years. What color were the first humans? Probably pink-ish at birth.

3. "Black Africa" refers to Sub-Saharan Africa and does not apply to the entire African continent. Its geography is very different from South America. From historical perspective, African civilizations did have an early head-start, the Nubian civilization in Sudan probably pre-dates the Egyptians.

4. People living in remote regions (Siberia, Alaska, Northern Canada, Artics), such as Eskimos, were probably displaced and pushed out to the fringes. i.e. the Inuits couldn't compete against the Algonquians and Siouans, so they ended up living to the north.

"White" people, such as the ancient Caucasians from Iran, were smarter and moved to warmer parts of Asia. See: Yuezhi, Scythians, Aryans, Tocharians, etc. After they moved south, they inter-married with the locals by conquest or choice.

[Rock]

Guts, you are going by what you see in the media. Most of Africa is advanced, modern and peaceful. See the thread with images in the Africa board of this forum entitled "Questions about Africa".

You're not gordan are you?

Winston, I totally disagree. Most of Africa, esp. sub-Saharan Africa in NOT advanced, modern, and peaceful.

1. Africa, by most any measure, is the most backward continent on the planet (not incl. Antarctica of course). How can you just look at a few photos and presume its advanced?

2. What is modern about Africa relative to the rest of the world? When I think of modern, I think of Dubai or Singapore. Even the so-called cosmopolitan cities of Joburg, Cape Town, Nairobi, Lagos, or some of the oil cities/countries do not stand out as being modern once you see them from the ground-up.

3. Peaceful??? In what way? The majority of Africa's bigger cities are very dangerous for street crime. Murder and assault rates are off the charts. People in many parts suffer under ruthless political systems or tribal violence. AIDS rates are very high. There's a hell of a lot of misery there. How can you deny all that as media BS?

[Rock]

Why is my new avatar the best one? Dianne complained about my other avatar and said I should be showing her off, not other girls, so she pressured me into using this one. lol

Don't you think she's right? And anyway, she looks better than that last girl IMO.

[Winston]

Guts, you are going by what you see in the media. Most of Africa is advanced, modern and peaceful. See the thread with images in the Africa board of this forum entitled "Questions about Africa".

You're not gordan are you?

Winston, I totally disagree. Most of Africa, esp. sub-Saharan Africa in NOT advanced, modern, and peaceful.

1. Africa, by most any measure, is the most backward continent on the planet (not incl. Antarctica of course). How can you just look at a few photos and presume its advanced?

2. What is modern about Africa relative to the rest of the world? When I think of modern, I think of Dubai or Singapore. Even the so-called cosmopolitan cities of Joburg, Cape Town, Nairobi, Lagos, or some of the oil cities/countries do not stand out as being modern once you see them from the ground-up.

3. Peaceful??? In what way? The majority of Africa's bigger cities are very dangerous for street crime. Murder and assault rates are off the charts. People in many parts suffer under ruthless political systems or tribal violence. AIDS rates are very high. There's a hell of a lot of misery there. How can you deny all that as media BS?

I'm going by what Ladislav said, who is a credible source and usually observes the same things I do.

[Rock]

Guts, you are going by what you see in the media. Most of Africa is advanced, modern and peaceful. See the thread with images in the Africa board of this forum entitled "Questions about Africa".

You're not gordan are you?

Winston, I totally disagree. Most of Africa, esp. sub-Saharan Africa in NOT advanced, modern, and peaceful.

1. Africa, by most any measure, is the most backward continent on the planet (not incl. Antarctica of course). How can you just look at a few photos and presume its advanced?

2. What is modern about Africa relative to the rest of the world? When I think of modern, I think of Dubai or Singapore. Even the so-called cosmopolitan cities of Joburg, Cape Town, Nairobi, Lagos, or some of the oil cities/countries do not stand out as being modern once you see them from the ground-up.

3. Peaceful??? In what way? The majority of Africa's bigger cities are very dangerous for street crime. Murder and assault rates are off the charts. People in many parts suffer under ruthless political systems or tribal violence. AIDS rates are very high. There's a hell of a lot of misery there. How can you deny all that as media BS?

I'm going by what Ladislav said, who is a credible source and usually observes the same things I do.

Lad, do you really disagree with anything I wrote above? Which parts? How much time have you spent in Africa and in what countries?

[ladislav]

Gentlemen, here I must admit my incompetence. I have only been to Kenya, Tanzania and S. Africa. And not for long so I cannot judge. Those of you who have lived in those countries must know better. So, I am bowing out of this.

Now, as far as light skinned being treated better, the question is "where"?
You would not want to be light skinned in Zimbabwe today.

Most of these racial hierarchies are very recent -and have appeared after colonialism has been introduced. Those people who had weapons and ships went in search on resources and then formed power classes in the countries they had conquered. The natives became peons. So, being darker means poorer and lower class. Being lighter means richer and upper class.
In countries like Thailand for example, lighter skinned means they do not till the land under the sun and they are land owners and darker means- tanned and peasants.

In tourist areas lighter skinned means people are 'Americans' and have money. But again, not always. Darker skinned Arabs from Saudi do not get treated bad in a lot of places. Again, it depends where you are.

Uncontrolled fertility comes from a peasant or tribal mindset. For millenia people would multiply so that a tribe would get bigger and also so that there would be more people to work on the farm. And most importantly because making kids is our primary instinct. Population control and family planning is a recent and urban development.

[E_Irizarry]

In a nutshell and a very simple version- people originated in Africa and moved out of there. As they spread around the globe, they mutated. When they got to colder areas, over milennia, they lost pigment and because of living in caves, the eyes became grey and blue because of vitamin D deficiency. People mutated as they moved to E. Asia but the eyes did not get blue for some strange reason, maybe because they had food richer in vitamin D.
In colder climates and with more limited resources and a shorter time to plant and harvest people had to become more inventive to survive. In warmer climates they remained more relaxed and did not have to develop technical intelligence as much. Instead they developed humanitarian intelligence.
Did not always happen that way but those are general patterns.

No wonder you and I get along. We scarily think alike! LOL Whoa.