What happened to the public opinions about Blacks in theUSA?

Post Reply New Topic

So, I have some opinion about the intelligence of different races.

How did the politically correct opinion of the American public go from "Blacks are apes" to "Blacks are just as smart as us!" in only 200 years?

The answers is actually very simple. The white Europeans "found" the black population in Africa for about 500-300 years ago. They formed the opinion that they were stupid, sent some of them to the green garden states(USA) for slave lab our.

Later, in the USA, the slave system was abolished, cause it was a cruel and pointless system. With little gain even for land owners.
So, during the 1900, blacks where treated like dogs in the USA. At the same time, mating between whites and blacks where more and more frequently occurring, thus mixing the genes.

In the early 1990, blacks where still suffering alot from bad treatment in the green states. In 92, the beating of Rodney king sparked the extremely violent LA riots.

After this incident, immediate action where necessary.

What happened? The society finally got that the mistreatment of blacks where pointless, and gave no positive effects what so ever.

So, over a short time period the mistreatment of blacks grinded to a max stop in the states.(92-07) Finally, the blacks in the USA where treated with the respect they deserve.
The system of mistreating blacks where extremely destructive, this, the society recognized, and took action as a collective.

This is fantastic for the USA blacks, finally. The new order have just a few side effects.

That people are denying the truth about the black intelligence level. [b]A pure black population is not as smart as certain heavy white populations, but they are pretty close.
Today, people such as barack obama have pure white genes. [b]Obamas mother are heavy white[/b]. since white/black mating is common in the states, the difference in intelligence are closing in between the 2 races. Today, you can find a black man, put him besides a white man, and the black man will be smarter. This is however very rare, but it will only be more common in the future.

But, the truth must be recognized, Blacks are not as smart as Whites on an global average scale.

The fore runners of evolution are probably Canada, Sweden and Denmark.
in this country's you will find the most evolved humans, with out doubt.
this is what i believe have happened over the last 300 years.

its possible that humans evolve by experience, if so, the blacks in the USA have evolved much faster than there colleague's in Africa, but this is beside the point.

blacks today can live a good life in the green garden states, they will only face moderate miss treatment. I believe all humans and great apes and whatever should be treated with the same respect, even if some are not as evolved than others.

do you agree with this? whats wrong? whats right?

How do you define a "most evolved human"? If you're basing evolution on IQ, then I think the east asians take it, man.

I wasn't aware that we formed the opinion that they were stupid so much as decided that we wanted slaves. We weren't the ones who took the slaves, we simply became purchasers in a pre-existing slave market.

The slave system was not abolished for its pointlessness. If that were so, then slavery would be less of an issue and the South would have stopped breeding or selling or keeping slaves. Slavery was too big of an issue, and too much wealth was owned in the form of slaves for slavery to dismissed as pointless. As well, research by economists such as Robert Fogel shows that slave owners were not acting against their economic interests in their behavior.

I would also argue that changes in our treatment of blacks likely did not purely result because we collectively chose to act in our self-interest in a short period of time. Self-interest did mitigate the poor treatment of blacks most certainly as I believe is shown by research by Gary Becker. Realistically though, the revampings of US social policy was not likely due to some epiphany but rather changing social values over a very long period of time.

I don't think that I agree entirely with your perception of black intelligence. We can argue that a black population is less intelligent on average than a white population, however, I don't think that the data is available, especially given that IQ can be impacted by social/environmental traits. IQ tests cannot measure raw genetic cognitive ability. Not only that, but Barack Obama is not the only intelligent black by far given that we have had men of intelligence such as George Washington Carver, W. E. B. Du Bois, Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, Benjamin Banneker, and Booker T. Washington, and modern scholars such as Thomas Sowell, Cornel West, Roland G. Fryer, Condoleezza Rice, and Walter Williams, and naming those folks is only what I can do without going into extensive research(although, I will be honest and say that I researched Banneker because I could not remember his name, only his efforts to appeal to Thomas Jefferson)

I don't see much reason to apply evolution to nations though, most nations have not existed long enough for major genetic changes to occur(and have existed with major interbreeding between nations to boot), not only that, but evolution is not marked by increases in the traits I like, but rather better comparative survival as measured by offspring. So, really, stating "more" or "less" evolved, while a popular misconception is a misconception none-the-less.

The problem with your statements is that there seems to be in them a sort of denial of the fact that intraracial genetic diversity is far more important than interracial diversity. If you were to hop into a time machine and go back to the year 500 BCE, you would still find plenty of berry-black Africans that have a higher "intelligence" than the North European average. The point of saying that "race just doesn't matter" is not to deny, for example, that there are more piss-poor genes among Africans than Europeans. The idea is simply that individual differences are more important!

Exactly. If you plotted the two groups, there would be two near identical bell curves, perhaps with one shifted slightly. The difference between one end of a bell curve to the other is far greater than any difference between the two bell curves.

Even the possible shift of one population curve relative to the other is debatable. Do we really know how to measure intelligence? Do we know how to remove the environmental influences? I really don't think we can say that we do. Are kids that have a vocabulary more similar to the test makers really more intelligent? How is malnutrition accounted for - clearly, it lowers intelligence, but it is an environmental factor, not a genetic one. What about the difference between the groups in terms of resources devoted to education - surely this has a role in the development of intelligence.

I think that the slight difference between the 2 populations can be explained by non-genetic factors.

Last edited by monty on 22 Apr 2008, 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

eugenics and the measurement of intelligence is to always be as thoroughly scrutinized as possible.

we're not that far removed from the racist practices involved with old biometrics (back when they'd actually just measure the circumference of your skull).

Black culture is very "in style" right now.

I know I for one am having trouble deciding
whether or not I should be a pimp, drug dealer,
rapper, or basketball player.

"where the white women at?"

This statement is rather contradictory. You are saying that if you pick a random white man and a random black man, the black will most likely be smarter. You then say that this is rare, which is illogical. If you are referring to possibilities, then your statement is rather unnecessary considering you could find a very smart black 200 years ago and match him vs. an above average white person, and of course the black person would emerge as more intelligent.



Because I like accuracy, I would point out the difference between black and white average intelligence is about 15 points when last I looked (which is about 1 standard deviation), which I would not call pretty close. Of course I also believe individuals have high or low intelligence, not groups, just as individuals are affected by mental retardation, not whites on average or blacks on average.

Also, don't confuse evolution with the Flynn Effect; evolution occurs again with individuals over millions of years, and it is not at all clear that IQ is necessarily preferred by natural selection (those with an IQ above 126 for example are less likely to be married by age 30).

Lastly, if you take an average of an entire population and then look at group averages, you should expect to see differences between groups. Why are you even concerned/bothered by racial differences in IQ? I don't see why blacks having a lower average merits any real meaningful discussion unless you want to incite some sort of race warfare or are trying give a race a "pep rally" of sorts.

The 15 point figure is accurate for IQ in the United States, IIRC. While that's a significant difference, it does mean that roughly 15% of "blacks" in the US have higher IQs than 50% of "whites", which completely invalidates:
(Emphasis added)

Aside from my above points, grain-and-field's post is to say the least very tasteless, but more importantly presents a simultaneously lop-sided racially naive perspective and uses some pretty badly bunk science. If you wanna argue IQ statistics we might get somewhere, but right here:


epic fail. You want intelligence, you talk to the Ashkenazi Jews. You want not quite as intelligent but still better than Europe, you go to east Asia.

Next there is your naive notion of what constitutes "evolved"; this is absolute nonsense.

Edited due to not reading the entire post
Sorry

Last edited by spudnik on 22 Apr 2008, 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Assuming people come here with a somewhat open mind, then discussion of any kinda could be considered good, especially if there are naive people around. I think grain-and-field should feel free to post what he wants, and hopefully he will realize his initial assumption was not correct or his theory needs modification and he'll change his beliefs (hey, we can hope at least). Pointing our inaccuracies, bad logic, or actual data should help in achieving this. If he can come out with rational counter-arguments, then all the better (mostly because I like arguing). Of course if we assume everyone here is completely closed minded and unwillingly to consider any different opinions, then posting at all in this forum would be rather meaningless (of course you should argue for your position, but should rational and logic arguments be made against it, you must at least considering changing your views or come up with logical counter-arguments).

As an aside, I read grain's post as more of a odd sort of black power kinda of post, not a white power one.

Last edited by Sargon on 22 Apr 2008, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My bad Sargon, I had read the first quote and absolutely lost it, had I had read the entire post I would have gotten what he was getting at, I have had some dealings with a few raciest, since I am of mixed blood, it can be a hot topic for me, having grown up in Alberta, where we still have the Clan and a bunch of Nazi scum, I have gotten quite defensive when it comes to race, and I will edit my post and apologize to everyone here,

Talking about the mistreatment of blacks in one sentence and calling for respect of all men and apes in the next sentence is clumsy at best.

The school where I went was about 10% black. Most were also poorer, and believed that they should just graduate from high school and get a job - no need to work so hard in school when they would soon be in the brickyard or steel mill. On the other hand, those who had parents that were teachers or other professionals were really no different from others in the college prep track.



OK, lets agree on 15 points difference between groups. The average IQ in western countries has also gone up 15 points since WWII - more in some countries (like the Netherlands). This is not due to genetic changes ... most people still have ten fingers and ten toes and boinking was the same in the 1920s as the 1950s. Do you agree that the increase (and possibly much of the difference) in IQ is is due to environmental factors like diet and education?

Firstly, IQ rankings are a percent of the population, an IQ of 130 for example is the top 2% of the population under most tests. The 15 point difference was from some studies during the mid 90s I believe, so it should still be fairly accurate today. The Flynn Effect is the theory that says people are getting smarter overtime, like your WW2 example (so, an IQ of 100 today is relatively higher than an IQ of 100 in 1950). Many people have tried to statistically explain for this, some have found that environmental factors matter, others found they don't (studies of fraternal and identical twins separated at birth show the twins end up with similar level of IQs in early adulthood regardless of the household they were raised in for example), so it is hard to say (although non environmental factors like parent's IQ contribute quite a bit in most every study, and usually has the higher correlations, but like you said it would be hard to solely attribute genetics to the relative increase in IQ over time).

I'm not sure if I should be offended by this remark.






What constitutes as pure white genes?

and what is it with this word evolve and evolved in these topics? Humans have been here for thousands of years if not more. Aside from the you are a highly evolved human IQ, I think one should take into consideration the environmental, cultural, and economic differences rather than just a race of people.