Re: Is the black race/culture under evolved (NON RACIST THREAD)?

jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As far as I know there are not "black" highly developed countries. I
mean countries like the USA, Japan or Europe but where the primary
race is black. Somebody told that this is prove that white and yellow
races are far more evolved.

My personal opinion is that the reason for these phenomena is more
historical than evolution related.

Anybody could please contribute with NON RACIST information in favor
or against this theory. I really will like to make an intelligent
discussion out of this!

Clearly, the adaptation of darker skin pigment and the adaptation of
the eyelid against glare are significant evolutionary advancements in
human biology. These are the qualities of a more evolved human than
the Asian and White "races". But, as a consequence of being better
adapted to their environment, Blacks don't have the same needs for
clothing to protect their skin from the sun or hats to protect their
eyes from glare, so no significant need to originate a textile
industry. Asians and whites have adapted their cultures to deal with
their biological shortcomings and having found ways to overcome their
shortcomings, they have learned to be inventive in many other ways.
Africans are better adapted to the environment, therefore the need to
be inventive is greatly reduced. Biological evolution is not equal to
industrial developement.

Nobody can fit more errors into a single paragraph than Grisham.

Dark skin has evolved many times in human populations and so has light
skin, in response to particular environments. Dark skin works better in
the tropics, light away from the tropics. Both are selected in their own
environments and neither can be said to be more "advanced". If we all
accept that we came from Africa, then it's probably that dark skin was
the original human condition.

And textiles are widely used for all manner of things, including
clothing, in Subsaharan Africa. Africa is not some paradise where life
is undemanding and conducive to indolence. Africans do not live and have
never lived in some imagined state of nature.

The last sentence is correct, though. Is one out of six a good average?

Let's see how you did this time.

If we accept the "Out of Africa" scenario, then the original condition
would have been fur.

Wrong. The OoA scenario happens considerably after loss of fur.

Under the fur, the skin would have lacked
pigmentation.

Conceivable, but as a continuation of the previous error I will have to
rule this as wrong too.

There's nothing to suggest that pigmentation was
reaccurring or reevolving over time, because the adaptation is set
genetically.

Non sequitur, and therefore wrong.

It occurred once, sometime in the age of Homo Sapien
Sapiens (recently, within the last 60,000 years).

Multiple errors here: the term is Homo sapiens sapiens, and we have
reason to believe that the subspecies in question is at least 150,000
years old.

If it had occurred
before that, then the "races" wouldn't have been distributed as
regionally as they were and if it had occurred after the move from
Africa, then all the regions would have been more "racially" diverse.

No idea what this is intended to mean, so I must rule it as wrong also.

Because Africans were in Africa and Asians were in Asia and Whites
were in Europe, the pigmentation event could only have occurred once.

Another non sequitur, and again wrong.

While Africa is not a paradise, yet before the intervention of white
cultures, native populations throughout the world were happier,
healthier and very well adjusted to their local cultures and
traditions.

This is partially true. Contact with Europeans did disrupt many
cultures. Whether people were happier then can't be determined.

Whites invented a number of problems for these cultures
(economics, slavery, politics, national identity, class, status, etc.)
which were alien and somewhat surreal.

Nonsense. All these were present in almost all human societies from the
beginning, with the possible exception of national identity, depending
on what exactly you mean.

Because these things are
constructs that exist only in the mind, people living and interacting
with nature have difficulty finding any virtue in them. To some
degree, it's just a white man's Hell, which wisely might best be
avoided, altogether... if, it were only possible.

Your view of happy little natives living in harmony with nature and each
other is quaint and demeaning.

So I would have to go with 0 for 10 this time. You're getting worse.

.

Relevant Pages