Are some races just genetically more intelligent than others?

[Dragnov]

Argue what you will, but its historical fact that the US worked with Japan to set up their current economical structure. I'm not going to argue that, because it's in plain text in a textbook right in front of me. You are free to believe what you will, but I do not appreciate being called ignorant. I am not ignorant, and you have no qualifications to declare me as such. You can simply state your opinion, there's no need to attack someone else. That just shows your integrity. Congratualations, you have shown that you do not possess much.

EDIT: And for another matter, if it wasn't for the "strong arm tactics" of Matthew Perry (from the US mind you), Japan might still be an isolationistic country today. They might be nearing the bottom on all social-economic scales.

The US worked with Japan a lot forming it's government and economic structure. However, I would not say they had as much of an effect as you state, although US influence was still important.

In fact, the US pushed Japan to pursue their "comparitive advantage" in low-textile industry. (Remember when Japn used to have all those cheap electronics and dolls?) Thankfully, Japan did not listen and you can see where they are today.

The United States pushed for a lot decentralization and to break up the zaibatsu of Japan (large conglomerate government back businesses), but if you look at Japan today, you can easily tell they still exist. It is arguable that they are party of the problem still contributing to the current depression, but they were still around during the rebuilding and were vital in Japans growth.

But without US funding, and US support I doubt Japan would be where it is today. I think its stupid to deny that US had any influence, but how much we will never really know. This stuff is always argued on both sides. Just say its in the middle. =P

 

[Dragnov]

Without knowing it Gr1mL0ck makes my point for me... ignorance must be bliss

Making blanket comments about me is not nice. Provide some knowledge if you want to prove me wrong.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Argue what you will, but its historical fact that the US worked with Japan to set up their current economical structure. I'm not going to argue that, because it's in plain text in a textbook right in front of me. You are free to believe what you will, but I do not appreciate being called ignorant. I am not ignorant, and you have no qualifications to declare me as such. You can simply state your opinion, there's no need to attack someone else. That just shows your integrity. Congratualations, you have shown that you do not possess much.

EDIT: And for another matter, if it wasn't for the "strong arm tactics" of Matthew Perry (from the US mind you), Japan might still be an isolationistic country today. They might be nearing the bottom on all social-economic scales.

The US worked with Japan a lot forming it's government and economic structure. However, I would not say they had as much of an effect as you state, although US influence was still important.

In fact, the US pushed Japan to pursue their "comparitive advantage" in low-textile industry. (Remember when Japn used to have all those cheap electronics and dolls?) Thankfully, Japan did not listen and you can see where they are today.

The United States pushed for a lot decentralization and to break up the zaibatsu of Japan (large conglomerate government back businesses), but if you look at Japan today, you can easily tell they still exist. It is arguable that they are party of the problem still contributing to the current depression, but they were still around during the rebuilding and were vital in Japans growth.

But without US funding, and US support I doubt Japan would be where it is today. I think its stupid to deny that US had any influence, but how much we will never really know. This stuff is always argued on both sides. Just say its in the middle. =P

You're right, the US didn't solely set up the Japanese economic structure, which is why I corrected myself in my second reply by saying "worked with the japanese." Without help from the US, I don't believe Japan would be where it is today. Hell, without the US selling scrap metal to the Japanese in the 30s, they might never have bombed Pearl Harbor. And without the intervention of Matthew Perry in 1854, Japan might still be in the Edo era, not wanting to trade with anybody. The US has had alot to do with Japanese growth, but you won't find me claiming the US to be solely responsible.

 

[Dragnov]

You're right, the US didn't solely set up the Japanese economic structure, which is why I corrected myself in my second reply by saying "worked with the japanese." Without help from the US, I don't believe Japan would be where it is today. Hell, without the US selling scrap metal to the Japanese in the 30s, they might never have bombed Pearl Harbor. And without the intervention of Matthew Perry in 1854, Japan might still be in the Edo era, not wanting to trade with anybody. The US has had alot to do with Japanese growth, but you won't find me claiming the US to be solely responsible.

Agreed.

I had my stuff typed out based on your old post before the edit so I didn't get the "worked with" edit.
What are you studying? I took one class on East Asia Political Economy. I liked it very much.

I still have no idea what LAUST is talking about though.

 

[Vic]

No.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

You're right, the US didn't solely set up the Japanese economic structure, which is why I corrected myself in my second reply by saying "worked with the japanese." Without help from the US, I don't believe Japan would be where it is today. Hell, without the US selling scrap metal to the Japanese in the 30s, they might never have bombed Pearl Harbor. And without the intervention of Matthew Perry in 1854, Japan might still be in the Edo era, not wanting to trade with anybody. The US has had alot to do with Japanese growth, but you won't find me claiming the US to be solely responsible.

Agreed.

I had my stuff typed out based on your old post before the edit so I didn't get the "worked with" edit.
What are you studying? I took one class on East Asia Political Economy. I liked it very much.

I still have no idea what LAUST is talking about though.

I'm dual majoring in History and Asian Studies. I plan on getting my doctorate in History, then going on to teach.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Hey, if one race can be athletically superior, why couldn't a race be intellectually superior. I think that is possible, but I don't know if it's currently provable.

 

[clicknext]

Originally posted by: dighn
i think it's more cultural/socioeconomical than genetic.

Yeah, I think it's just the way their culture thinks. For example, Chinese people tend to have the opinion that school marks are the most important thing in your life. That's the way my family is, and while I don't completely agree (probably because I've been living North America all my life), I think along the same lines.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Very likely, and I won't get into it because a lot of people simply can't keep a straight head when talking about it because of PC. intelligence is considered by most a combination of nature and nurture. Nurture aside, nature/genetics do make up a portion of intelligence. Since there have been proven physical differences between certain races in regards to stature, physical strength, propensity to develop certain illnesses, etc. etc, I find it quite unlikely that physical differences there cannot or have not propogated themselves in peoples' brains as well. If you take it further and follow survival of the fittest it seems to me that a ruthless tribe of people in one area of the world that has been around for 2000 years and favors strength above all else is going to be stronger than a tribe of people who favor a more cognitive approach to life including science and things of that sort. I suspect that those who are quick to respond saying no are doing so not because they've thought about the issue in depth but because it's the PC response, and anything else can be deemed by those who know nothing about it as racist. That's my $.02! Oops, I got into it

This is true. I was actually shocked when I answered a question on my psychology exam wrong by taking the PC approach to this issue. When I talked to my professor he pretty much told me in plain english that there are differences. This is despite the fact that intelligence tests are geared to particular races by the biases of test writers. I was both surprised that he could/would say that in today's stupid PC environment and glad that he told it the way it is.

 

[Siddhartha]

What defines "race" is cultural.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
What defines "race" is cultural.

How do you explain that? A caucasian from Russia, France and the US are still caucasian. They definitely have different cultures, and one of those pretty much lacks a culture compared to the other two.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
What defines "race" is cultural.

Race is a population distinguished by genetically transmited physical aspects, or a people united by common history and nationality. Take it as you will.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
What defines "race" is cultural.

How do you explain that? A caucasian from Russia, France and the US are still caucasian. They definitely have different cultures, and one of those pretty much lacks a culture compared to the other two.

If you go by that definition, then caucasians also inhabit northern Africa, western Asia, and India. They also vary in skin color from very light to brown skin. I don't know why caucasian is used to specify "white" people.

 

[WhiteKnight]

Races:

Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids. After that it's ethnicity.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Humm, interesting point. But still, if there's no such thing as "race" there would still have to be something similar. Otherwise, how does one explain things like sickle cell amnemia, a condition far more common in blacks than other population segments?

PS phatj, take a chill pill man; it's not worth getting worked up over

I had the same thought, but the article linked by naddicott says that's wrong:

"The first is called balancing selection. That is also called heterozygous advantage. This explains sickle sell anemia. Though the origin of this allele is uncertain, we do know that it is distributed at high frequency in groups that have been anthropologically described Negroid, but also groups that have been described as anthropologically Caucasoid. There are high frequencies of the sickle cell allele in Western Africa, but also in the Middle East and in the Mediterranean and in India. The only reason we think that sickle cell is a black disease is because the slaves imported to North America came from Western Africa. If they had come from the Mediterranean, if they had been Greek, they would come from the Middle East, or if they had come from India, Americans would have been describing sickle cell anemia as an Indian disease or a Yemen disease or whatever. It is not a racially identified disease. It has to do with the presence or absence of malaria. For example, Kenyans, who live at high altitude, do not exhibit any sickle cell because the mosquitoes that carry malaria do not live at high altitude, so you do not find it there."

About halfway down the article

 

[Dragon365]

I tend not to believe that.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth What defines "race" is cultural.

How do you explain that? A caucasian from Russia, France and the US are still caucasian. They definitely have different cultures, and one of those pretty much lacks a culture compared to the other two.

If you go by that definition, then caucasians also inhabit northern Africa, western Asia, and India. They also vary in skin color from very light to brown skin. I don't know why caucasian is used to specify "white" people.

Races are genetically defined, not geographically defined. Certain medical risks are defined by race no matter where they live or where they come from. Just because you see a light skin person in Africa doesn't necessarily mean they are caucasian. The group are actually named after geographical regions but those are geographical regions that are thought to be where these characteristics originated thousands of years ago.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Hmmm... are some ATOT'ers more racist than others? :Q

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth What defines "race" is cultural.

How do you explain that? A caucasian from Russia, France and the US are still caucasian. They definitely have different cultures, and one of those pretty much lacks a culture compared to the other two.

If you go by that definition, then caucasians also inhabit northern Africa, western Asia, and India. They also vary in skin color from very light to brown skin. I don't know why caucasian is used to specify "white" people.

Races are genetically defined, not geographically defined. Certain medical risks are defined by race no matter where they live or where they come from. Just because you see a light skin person in Africa doesn't necessarily mean they are caucasian. The group are actually named after geographical regions but those are geographical regions that are thought to be where these characteristics originated thousands of years ago.

You might want to take a look at the definition of race then, because race can be genetically defined, or a race can be a group of people who share a common history or nationality, thus being geographical.

Just because you see a dark skinned person in America doesn't necessarily make them African-American, they could have come from Jamaica. It doesn't matter that they were originally brought over by slave traders, because that was hundreds of years ago.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Hmmm... are some ATOT'ers more racist than others? :Q

Right, because any discussion that is based on race automatically makes it a racist discussion, unless the discussion is started by a minority.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Hmmm... are some ATOT'ers more racist than others? :Q

Right, because any discussion that is based on race automatically makes it a racist discussion, unless the discussion is started by a minority.

No,your question is one that's been asked before ie:the bell curve and is one that has been deemed to be racist by many,many people.Folks come in all shapes,sizes and colors with differing levels of abilities in skills that society deems important and worth measuring.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Hmmm... are some ATOT'ers more racist than others? :Q

Right, because any discussion that is based on race automatically makes it a racist discussion, unless the discussion is started by a minority.

No,your question is one that's been asked before ie:the bell curve and is one that has been deemed to be racist by many,many people.Folks come in all shapes,sizes and colors with differing levels of abilities in skills that society deems important and worth measuring.

And many, many people are overly-sensitive to any subject matter that might be negative towards them or their "culture." It's not racist to hold a discussion on the matter, and have it proven one way or another.

P.S. It wasn't MY question.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You cannot ask this question, because if you do you are racist.

WE are all racists one way or another. We are taught in life to analyze a situation and participants. The deshoveled black guy in the corner will be looked at differently than the guy in an Armani suit. Notice I didn't mention the suit's race. Most here would assume that I would mean him to be white.

There you go.


I associate characteristics with objects that frequently display those usual characteristics. The difference however is that many people, including myself, place a higher importance on other qualities.

To deny yourself is to die before death's arrival. However, to utilize only but one's simplest thought processees deems you a waste in embettering society.

 

[Cerb]

Doubt it. Cultures definitely are, though.