Racial eugenics

[anotheoldgit]

In my recent question, 'Why more left-wing posters, sp1814 gave the following reply when I was accused of being a fascist.

/// AOG certainly isn't a fascist in any way, but he does believe in racial eugenics (AOG - perhaps you could furnish us with the weblink you posted a while back which implied the racial inferiority of black people).///

/// Having a belief in eugenics is equal to, or perhaps worse than believing in the tenets of fascism.///

Well I answered his point regarding 'eugenics' (to which I received no reply), but at the time I could not find the link he requested, although he is wrong in stating that the link implied the racial inferiority of black people, on the contrary it states, "in some things blacks are superior to whites and Asians".

I wish others to read this, and make their own comments.

http://psychology.uwo...volution_Behavior.pdf

It may not be PC and some findings may shock some into shouting racist, but some things need to be said.

[jackthehat]

But you choose *never* to omit mention of skin colour.
By all means, criticise all you like but everyone, and I do mean everyone, who follows you posts, can see that you have a severe hang-up about *race* and your prejudices about the type of behaviour you 'expect' to see exhibited by those particular races shine through.

[sp1814]

anotheoldgit

I assure you - your memory is playing tricks on you. I have never seen that pdf file before. That absolutely wasn't the link you posted.

To refresh your memory - the link alluded to events in Haiti and suggested that the way the people reacted to the collapse of all infrastructure was a result of them being black.

You wrote something along the lines of "Whilst I don't agree with some of the language in this piece, I think it's general thrush is right".

Do you remember now?

[Seadragon]

'It may not be PC and some findings may shock some into shouting racist, but some things need to be said.' - You got that right Oldgit.

I have just logged on for 5 mins today and although I am not shocked, I am sad and surprised that you don't yourself recognise the racist propoganda in the report. And No - why do 'some things need to be said?' Can you explain this to me?

One of Mark Twain's famous quotes - 'What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.'

Racism is a personality trait - Professors, scientists, doctors, historians, antropologists any body of intellectuals are not immune to it.

And as you know Oldgit - where one fact supports one argument, you will find another fact that will support the other side's argument. It is for an individual to logically, reasonably with their experience, knowledge and education and most importantly of all without prejudice to determine which side of the argument carries the most weight or is the most influential.

I would like to return to this thread later if I have some time. The only redeeming feature present here is that I agree with Gromit that you don't actually read the material you post thoroughly and at times I don't think you understand what's written - maybe you quickly skim through it and then are guilty of not researching yourself before posting?

Please answer me though - Why do 'some things need to be said?'

[Seadragon]

Had to log back in just to say this:

I must be half your age Oldgit - if I can see this report is racist propoganda, why can't you?

[LazyGun]

what amuses me is that AoG, in an attempt to defend the report by Rushton, links to an organisation called the Charles Darwin Research Institute, and proudly proclaims "read what others have said" - neglecting to mention that the CDRI was set up by none other than Rushton, the other of the report, himself! Like that site is going to offer any unbiased commentary.

If you want to read some proper science, AoG, I would recommend you read SJ Goulds book "The mismeasure of man", where he points out why Rushtons arguments are fatally and fundamentally flawed.

[sp1814]

AOG

You're probably going to read this and think "Eh? What's going on here?"

...but I've done a 180 degree turn with regards to my opinion of your posts. I actually don't think you're a racist now...

<leaves moment for AOG to wipe up spilled coffee/tea>

As a lefty/pinko/yoghurt-knitter, it's almost impossible for me to admit anything as absurd as being 'wrong', but I will admit that I now understand where you're coming from.

Your posts CAN come across as racist, but I now think that I might be...<ugh> wrong.

So from this day forth, I proffer an alternative point of view to your posts, but I will not stoop to using the 'R' word.

I think that will result in a better level of debate.

I suggest you use Charmin kitche towels to clean up the spilled coffee.

[Seadragon]

I'm going to try and make this quick - not getting into 'Empire talk' as I don't think you saw 'The British Empire - In colour' documentary.

I just read your eugenics answer and I am confused? You say 'It may not be PC these days to openly believe in eugenics, since the Nazi regime took it too far but eugenics is widely practised'. Then you give horse racing as example and certain families regarding gifted children of arranged marriages? That's wrong - those marriages are more down to cultural perception of respect within a social standing than the children. I don't think you really grasp what the term means.

Anyway - racial eugenics - The cr@p that this report sprouts - 'blk family characteristics - large litter size, short birth spacing, many off-spring, high infant mortality, little parental care.' 'Individual characteristics - short life, small brains.'
'Population characteristics of 'whites' - constant exploiters, strong competition, stable occupiers.'
This talk is astonishing and you don't need to be a Professor to puke this out - it is unfortunately common place on some council estates.

It is racist propoganda for the uneducated masses. It is amusing how the 'white' are depicted as the non-contentious intermediary element.

How about - 'Highly k-selected men (white) invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills.'
Even the sexual exploits of our MP's would suggest otherwise.

unfortunately cont...

[Seadragon]

Ok racist propoganda is not new and neither is the linking of it to Darwin as LazyGun points out. Eugenics is basically 'survival of the fittest', that the bad gene would be eliminated. People have twisted and abused Darwin's work of natural selection to become that of 'murder of the weakest.'

I suggest you watch the doc 'Darwin's dangerous idea' if you haven't seen it. The documentary is aboout how Darwin's theory has been used to justify oppression and make democratic progress and looks at the history of eugenics from:

- Winston Churchill's advocating a Bill calling for the sterilization of 'dim-witted' people so they couldn't procreate more 'dimwits' called 'The Feeble Minded Person's Control Bill'. Luckily voted out of Parliament in 1912.
- Charles Davenport's work linking criminality to genes.
- In 1907-1970 U.S the forceable sterilization of 60,000 women to prevent the 'imbecile gene' from breeding.
- Frances Dalton (Darwin's cousin and a scientist) obsessed with Darwin's work who published a book about a breeding programme for humans.
- The link of genes to low intelligence and working class.
And the one you recognise that of the Nazi philosophy of racial purity.

unfortunately still cont....

[Seadragon]

After the Holocaust, basic notions of good and evil were re-considered and Darwin's work became that of human rights and was 'enshrined in the U.S Constitution as fundamental rights to all humans without distinction of sex, race........to all humans as all men belong to same species as homo sapiens.' (luckily I wrote that down in my notes)

If you can't see Oldgit how simple it is to influence another person with so called dodgy 'facts' disguished as scientifically proven evidence and cleverly worded than I can only come to the assumption that you are the same type of person that willingly elected Hitler based upon the propoganda and subsequent lies and you still don't see the difference with any hint of your own independant thought.

You should be asking yourself that if intelligence is gentically determined with blacks having an IQ of 85, which is what the report says, then how come there are 11 black Nobel Prize winners, black writers of distinction - Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, engineers, scientists, inventors, economists and so on:
- Mae Jemison - retired medical doctor and astronaut - 1st black woman in space.
- Garrett Morgan - inventor
- George Washington Carver - agricultural chemist/scientist
- Martin Luther King - Civil activist
- BB King - Guitarist
- Nelson Mandela - Political activist and President
- Michael Jackson
To name but afew

still annoyingly cont.....any mistakes are down too tiredness.

[Seadragon]

You're perfectly capable of researching yourself but you seem to refuse to. Maybe its a hard truth to face but maybe you simply have racist leanings? I know you get angry when someone calls you racist but listen to this:

My friend went to a barbecue, 'white' people mainly, she only 'asian' and one 'black' person. The 'white' people didn't think they were being racist at all simply because a black person was there and they were talking and laughing with him.
At the same time they were referring to him as 'black b@stard' and at one point one guy said to my friend 'have you felt his hands, they are rough, black people have really rough skin.' My friend told him that black people have nice skin and futhermore would he be offended if she called him 'white ***?'.

Just because a 'white' person may have black friends it doesn't mean that they are immune from racism. The people at the party didn't see themselves as racist yet their language showed an inherent, unrealised or unacknowledged racism.

It's getting late - I do hope you think about what's written by all the posters.

[Kromovaracun]

Well, that's this thread killed then :P

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814
Both our memories are playing tricks on us.

You did indeed read the pdf file, it was a very long time ago and you made a comment about it, regarding the author being racist.

Regarding the one you referred to, yes I did post on this, fairly recently, but seeing that you mentioned racial eugenics, I presumed you were referring to the previous one.

The one you are referring to was a series of disturbing pictures, showing the savage attacks inflicted on fellow Haiti's, during the devastating earthquake they recently endured, and I merely pointed out, would whites be as vicious as this in similar circumstances?

Unfortunately the web site was closed down so I was unable to duplicate it for future argument.