• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

Can only whites be racists and oppressors? Are whites out of place in Africa?

  • Only white people can be racists and opressors

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not only white people can be racists and opressors

    Votes: 26 74.3%
  • Africa is no place for whites - they should all leave

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Africa is a place for its inhabitants regardless their skin colour

    Votes: 27 77.1%
  • The structure of land and capital ownership should fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio of populace

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The structure of land, capital ownership doesn't have to fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • No action should be taken regarding the land ownership in South Africa

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • A non-state organisation should be established for buying land and distributing it among black popul

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people with full compensation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The state should cofiscate the land and distribute it among black people with partial compensation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people without compensations

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • The state should confiscate the land and make its ownership according to racial ratio - full compens

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - partial compe

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - no compensati

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I like frogs.

    Votes: 15 42.9%

  • Total voters
    35
Yes cultural being the new term to espouse the same idea. I'm sure all those billions of Asians working the farms are because if their culture naturally smarter than White American farmers, because, culture.

That's socio economic.And perhaps a racist statement as a lot of those farmers in China, Vietnam etc are migrating towards the cities.

Here they have "dumbed down" the schooling so the well off are having their kids sit international exams to get them into "better" universities.

It's also an advantage job hunting if you have an older qualification which used the old exam system.

There's cultural differences between the Anglosphere nation's lol let alone say NZ and China or Russia.
 
That's socio economic.And perhaps a racist statement as a lot of those farmers in China, Vietnam etc are migrating towards the cities.

Here they have "dumbed down" the schooling so the well off are having their kids sit international exams to get them into "better" universities.

It's also an advantage job hunting if you have an older qualification which used the old exam system.

There's cultural differences between the Anglosphere nation's lol let alone say NZ and China or Russia.

Sooooo do those cultural differences make average joe Asian lower class poor farmer smarter than average joe lower class poor white farmer?
 
Sooooo do those cultural differences make average joe Asian lower class poor farmer smarter than average joe lower class poor white farmer?

Nope I never claimed Asians were smarter.

A middle class Asian probably has a better work ethic than a white trash American or whatever.

At University level in America you're not being exposed to average Asians but their educated middle and upper class.

And due to sheer size of population there's a lot if them from China for example even if that % is smaller than the US one it's still more people

At University when I was there I noticed a lot of racial and gender divisions in who studied what.

Not many Asians in the humanities relative to what I saw in the Bcom lectures.

Not many males doing gender studies.

Personally I prefer working with immigrants and tourists. Better educated and work ethic.
 
It's funny, but I'm pretty sure TMIT just gave Usain Bolt as an example of an individual who has an "inherent superiority". The fact that he's black has nothing to do with the point TMIT was making, yet within a few posts we're talking about pygmies?!
 
It's funny, but I'm pretty sure TMIT just gave Usain Bolt as an example of an individual who has an "inherent superiority". The fact that he's black has nothing to do with the point TMIT was making, yet within a few posts we're talking about pygmies?!
Tbh, Bolt is Jamaican, and they have been dominating the sprints the same way Ethiopians and Kenyans have dominated long-distance running. Speculation abounds that genetics is one factor behind this.
Being as disinterested in sports as I am, some of this was not known to me before this thread. :shifty:
 
That may well be true, but I really don't think that was the point TMIT was making at all.
 
Tbh, Bolt is Jamaican, and they have been dominating the sprints the same way Ethiopians and Kenyans have dominated long-distance running. Speculation abounds that genetics is one factor behind this.
Being as disinterested in sports as I am, some of this was not known to me before this thread. :shifty:

The Flying Finns dominated long-distance running between the two world wars. To what extent do you think this was due to genetics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Finn
 
Yes, I'm totally with @AmazonQueen, genetics only seem to be brought up when it's a non-white person. Like she said, when Michael Phelps is dominating, and people are wondering about his talent, how often did you see people exploring "What's his genetic background that gives him such an advantage?" It just doesn't seem to happen.
 
Seriously? Height, size, build. All crap that routinely gets discussed regarding upper Midwest people and their Scandinavian heritage, when it's relevant(less frequently than sport). Then again, that comes from a position of not giving two rats asses about professional athletics, so maybe the quality of show attracts the quality of audience? Not to be, like, cynical or anything.
 
There are lots of articles discussing Michael Phelps unusual anatomy and genetics.
 
I never googled that before, lol. I stand pat.
 
There are lots of articles discussing Michael Phelps unusual anatomy and genetics.

But not attributing his success to race afaik.
If genetics gave Jamaicans a major advantage in sprinting there wouldn't be anyone other than Jamaicans winning sprinting medals at the Olympics. Usain Bolt is an exceptional athlete, most Jamaicans are not same as most Americans, most British, most Russians etc are not.
In the 70s West Indian cricketeers were very common in English county cricket sides and the West Indies dominated international cricket. Not true now. Their genetics and culture are pretty unchanged but economic factors mean they are now more likely to go into other sports than cricket.
 
There aren't many by Google, to be honest. A lot focusing on his post-retirement career, his philanthropy gets a bunch of hits, and so on, but even if you narrow down a search to "michael phelps ability", only the top five most relate to physical advantages; the second five trail off into a generic biography site, Wikipedia, and a profile on how his ADHD helped his swimming career. The focus on the biological spans a few articles, one dating back as far as 2008. So in terms of a focus on any biological baseline, not much has survived the onslaught of time (and SEO r.e. web search history).

It might be worth focusing on a particular media cycle / rapid publishing of articles, but they're a lot harder to track after the fact. Certainly nothing a random declaration on CFC can prove. It's certainly easier to search for similar articles about Bolt. The second to top result for the same search ("usain bolt ability") is a link where the blurb exposed to Google mentions "gene" specifically. The similar match for Phelps doesn't (most focus on his "wingspan" and general reach; it takes several paragraphs for the top-rated article about Phelps to even mention lactic acid).

Do note that unless you do it from a private window (and even then there are probably things Google biases by language / general location by ISP) that these things will be impacted by however much data Google has built up on your search history and how it pertains to the subject. I certainly don't go investigating this much, but I used to be a swimmer and my Google profile is pretty much omnipresent for me on any device I use, heh.
 
There aren't many by Google, to be honest. A lot focusing on his post-retirement career, his philanthropy gets a bunch of hits, and so on, but even if you narrow down a search to "michael phelps ability", only the top five most relate to physical advantages; the second five trail off into a generic biography site, Wikipedia, and a profile on how his ADHD helped his swimming career. The focus on the biological spans a few articles, one dating back as far as 2008. So in terms of a focus on any biological baseline, not much has survived the onslaught of time (and SEO r.e. web search history).

Google "Michael Phelps genetics."
 
But not attributing his success to race afaik.
Right, his unique genetics doesn't appear to be related to his race or ethnicity. May be to small population of his relatives.

If genetics gave Jamaicans a major advantage in sprinting there wouldn't be anyone other than Jamaicans winning sprinting medals at the Olympics.
May be it gives minor advantage, which only makes Jamaicans appear in list of best sprinters more often than others?
 
The similar match for Phelps doesn't (most focus on his "wingspan" and general reach; it takes several paragraphs for the top-rated article about Phelps to even mention lactic acid).

Bet he trained like crazy for that wingspan. Nutrition probably didn't hurt.
 
The Flying Finns dominated long-distance running between the two world wars. To what extent do you think this was due to genetics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Finn
No idea - science at the time hardly could study it? I would also hazard a guess that genetic diversity of Olympic athletes was somewhat lower at the time.
Reading about Ethiopian/Kenyan runners, I found their success being attributed to:
- geography (higher altitudes - more red cells);
- history (colonial rulers/missionaries widely popularised sports);
- socio-economic conditions (those countries being poor, professional running is a viable and accessible career choice);
- favorable genetic makeup (lighter feet/ankles, whatever)
- placebo effect (those athletes believe in their superiority and this in turn boosts performance).
It seems reasonable to assume that it is, in fact, the compound effect of all those factors that is behind the dominance of Ethiopians/Kenyans.
 
Right, likely a combination of these factors plus some others we aren't yet aware of.
 
Top Bottom