Looks like RFK Jr. supports affirmative action.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
It's always going to come down to what definition you want to use. Is it writing, or proto-writing, is it cave painting - but whatever standard you want to use everywhere had it in spades compared to sub-Saharan and Aus.
Proto-writing for example:
7000 BC Eastern Europe and China
4000 BC India
3500 BC Mesopotamia
500 AD Nigeria
Not to leave out the Americas, here's a 10000 BC frieze. Sure looks like they're telling a story of some kind.
Here's a sword from 3000 years ago in Germany. Absolutely gorgeous even after having been in the ground for all that time. You need civilization to make something like this - they didn't just wake up one day and make this - and consequently there's nothing even remotely like this from Africa proper.
It seems to me that you moved the goalposts to something that you think Africa won't satisfy.
Here as well. Suddenly metallurgy is the standard for civilization? And of course, these things move about a lot. Was this actually produced in Germany? Even in late Roman times, 'Germany' was not 'civilized', but tribal. Why do you think there was such movement of peoples?
I'm saying it doesn't matter what goal posts are used, same result which is that Africa below the desert was the retarded stepson.
And similarly, whatever the goal posts you'll dither over details because that gives you an out to ignore the reality, which is the Germans (and all other peoples) were so far advanced over Africa they may as well have been aliens or wizards.
I know you don't want to accept the reality of these differences you can even see with your own eyes in artifacts, so here's a challenge for you: find anything about historic Africa where you believe they were more advanced than other places, or even just not very, very far behind. What's your best example to show Africa in a positive light?
I mean maybe you'll educate me here, because I can't find a single fucking thing and if that's because I failed at research I want to know so I can at least try to do better.
But your first goalpost was not really successful at that. Most alphabets are copied from others, which is why isolation matters.
When? In 300 AD? Surely not.
Nope, I am fully aware of racial differences in IQ as well as other things. I just don't think that your arguments were particularly strong. You started out with an incorrect impression of literacy, and then moved to some other things that you thought were stronger points. The idea that every place was literate 5000 years ago is quite laughable, but you seem to be open-minded enough to admit that.
Like I said, the advancement of peoples in isolation is not a valid measuring stick, no more for Africa than the people of the Canary Islands.
I'm not questioning that conclusion. Just what you then conclude on that basis. There are environmental factors as well, as well as geographical factors, that may account for part or all of Africa's lack of development. You also cannot take development at any given moment in history and make conclusions on that basis. In 1000 BC, you'd have concluded that clearly, the tawny and Mongolian peoples are superior to everyone else, as all white people were at the level of savagery.
Well isn't this interesting. I said they had writing 5000 years ago, and you changed that to "literacy". Wonder why you would do that? You're moving the goal posts because the writing you were shown wasn't 'advanced' enough.
Again I didn't say alphabets. Cuneiform is writing, so is Chinese and neither have alphabets.
Sub-Saharan Africa isn't particularly physically isolated compared to say the Americas.
Again moving the goal posts. I didn't say particular peoples were "superior" to others at certain times, I said that they all had certain features by at least 5000 years ago - except sub-Saharan Africa (and Australia).
All you've done is move goal posts, which is what I called out beforehand since it's entirely predictable. People like you can be well aware of the body of evidence and the inescapable conclusion, yet refuse to draw it. "It's geography, no it's environmental, or... something else."
It's possible that Egypt was given a star gate and that's how they became civilized. Possible means nothing without likelihood, and I'm sure you've not even thought about how probable some other explanation is - it's about the same as the star gate.