Black boxer bias

[squealpiggy]

Actually Europeans created division between the African tribes so they could
fight each other and kidnap each other to sale them to the Europeans.

The Europeans learned that divide and conquer trick from the Arabs.the Arabs
used that tactic on Africans thousands of years before.

Europeans use this same tactic today to take over African land and resources.

all the gold that you see here is stolen from Africa.

So you are suggesting that prior to European involvement in Africa there was no slavery and no tribal warfare? You are suggesting that all the hardships suffered by (black) Africans can be directly attributed to (white) Europeans? You see that sort of model strikes me as being an intrinsically political one rather than a scientific one. I would never be patronising nor indeed racist enough to ever think that black people were completely incapable of inventing such hallmarks of civilisation as warfare and slavery without being shown how by whites, nor would I be naive enough to assume that black people lived in complete harmony before the arrival of those dastardly white folks. There is evidence that pygmy tribes had been completely wiped out by Bantu tribes long before Englishmen and the Dutch donned white cork helmets and set off to discover Africa!

According to what evolutionary/psychological model? Maybe you should read "Before Color Prejudice" by the late Frank Snowden to see why historically, this isn't necessarily true

It is more of an anthropological model based on studies of existing hunter-gatherer tribes and on work done investigating both "primitive" set-ups (such as hunter-gatherers in New Guinea or chieftain-warrior tribes in Polynesia) and more "advanced" societies such as the Aztecs and Maya. Not only does it seem to be true historically based on anthropological and archaeological studies, it is also true among modern hunter-gatherer and other tribal societies such as those living in the highlands of New Guinea. Read The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse by Jared Diamond, they are a good start.

Again, according to what evolutionary model did we evolve a need to discriminate? Conversely, it is said that selection focuses more on working together and forming better and more complex social relationships, as human beings being physically inept, had to learn how to work together and communicate. I have sources for this also as I was just reading about it days ago..

Human beings indeed do need to work together. We are a social animal. However we form small social networks based on filial and familiar ties, and those ties often bring us into direct conflict with other social networks of humans (or other hominids) who either have resources we want, or are trying to take resources we already have. Hence ********s (and this just means anyone you can recognise as different) mean potential danger. As society has developed into larger and larger groups other features replaced those indicators of danger. Among those features is skin colour, but the phenomenon is certainly not limited to that.

The way to end racism, according to the evolutionary model alluded to above, is to evolve more, period. There is no benefit to the survival of a species by way of discriminating, that is a flaw that has been reworked for thousands of years, yet we still haven't progressed beyond that primitive urge.

According to carbon dating and soil sample studies human beings have been forming agrarian societies for approximately 11,000 years. For agriculture to work you need relatively large numbers of people to work together to produce food. Agriculture is the only way to produce a surplus of food, and it is only with a surplus of food you can have non-food producing members of a society. This starts with a chief, then soldiers, then moves on to specialists such as priests, artisans, metallurgists etc.Until you have agriculture you cannot have large societal structures, so as evidence suggests that agriculture started around 11,000 years ago we can deduce that society (as we know it) began to develop at around the same time. Society didn''t reach large scale "civilised" organisation ( in the form of large cities, large numbers of non-food producing people, standing armies, kings etc) until around 5000 - 6000 years ago. So we have had 11,000 years to "evolve" our fear of strangers away in total since societies began to form, and only 6000 years to evolve away our fears since large scale civilisation and organisation began. Furthermore civilisation has not been a constant by any stretch of the imagination. The Mesopotamian empire eventually collapsed, as did the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Turkish and British empires. For the most part their collapse resulted in a chaotic period of warfare. In fact warfare has been a standard presence in the history of civilisation. Given that we've only had 11,000 years to "evolve" into better, non prejudicial people, and those years were hardly all spent in fundamental harmony, why would you think that a solution to our current state should be evolutionary? We evolved the distrust of strangers and ********s over the course of millions of years.



According to fossil records it is likely that precursors of humans broke from the branch of the evolutionary tree that developed into modern chimpanzees some six million years ago.Since that time there are several species of hominids who are no longer with us. The most recent, the Neanderthal, disappeared leaving evidence that they were wiped out by smarter hominids who were able to communicate better (according to current theory) and therefore organise better in warfare. Giv en the aggressiveness of humans, and the evidence suggesting that humans destroyed the Neanderthals, does it seem unlikely that humanity's precursors did not also play some part in the destruction of other rivals off the same evolutionary chain? Would it therefore seem to be not unreasonable for humans to fear strangers?

[squealpiggy]

You however, side step the fact that Hitler's political agenda was feuled by a belief in racial superiority. "Returning Germany to its Glory days" literally meant cleansing Germany and the world to make way for racial purity. Communism was an affront to this ideology as with communism there are no hierarchical groups, which would lead to a lack of control. It undermines exclusive Aryan domination, so his racial and political beliefs are inextricably linked and cannot be separated.

I can't agree I'm afraid... Hitler along with many Germans (he was Austrian but considered that Austria was a part of Germany) felt as though the post-Kaiser Weimar government had betrayed the German people by agreeing to the humiliating and crippling capitulation demanded by the Treaty of Versaille. He felt that the Weimar traitors consisted of communists or those sponsored by the communists, who had already taken over Russia and a number of other reasons. He also was quick to note that many in the Weimar government happened to be ***ish. In reality the Treaty of Versaille put the Weimar in an impossible situation. They had suffered in the First World War and failure to to agree to the treaty would have resulted in annihilation and the breaking up of Germany. The post-war government was hated by just about everyone in Germany. Restoring Germany to former glories meant to stop the capitulations, rebuild the armies and dominate Europe once more. Nietzche emerged with his theories at around the same time and they tied in well with Hitler's desire to rebuild the Reich. Hitler's first priority was to make Germany great. If anything the ***s were a handy bunch to point the finger at, after all they seemed to be doing OK in postwar Germany.

A good book on this particular era of history is A Brief History of the Birth of the ****s: How the Freikorps Blazed the Trail for Hitler (Paperback)

[cerealkiller135]

Whats the difference between a medium pizza and a black?

[Barlog]

So you are suggesting that prior to European involvement in Africa there was no slavery and no tribal warfare? You are suggesting that all the hardships suffered by (black) Africans can be directly attributed to (white) Europeans? You see that sort of model strikes me as being an intrinsically political one rather than a scientific one. I would never be patronising nor indeed racist enough to ever think that black people were completely incapable of inventing such hallmarks of civilisation as warfare and slavery without being shown how by whites, nor would I be naive enough to assume that black people lived in complete harmony before the arrival of those dastardly white folks. There is evidence that pygmy tribes had been completely wiped out by Bantu tribes long before Englishmen and the Dutch donned white cork helmets and set off to discover Africa!





It is more of an anthropological model based on studies of existing hunter-gatherer tribes and on work done investigating both "primitive" set-ups (such as hunter-gatherers in New Guinea or chieftain-warrior tribes in Polynesia) and more "advanced" societies such as the Aztecs and Maya. Not only does it seem to be true historically based on anthropological and archaeological studies, it is also true among modern hunter-gatherer and other tribal societies such as those living in the highlands of New Guinea. Read The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse by Jared Diamond, they are a good start.



Human beings indeed do need to work together. We are a social animal. However we form small social networks based on filial and familiar ties, and those ties often bring us into direct conflict with other social networks of humans (or other hominids) who either have resources we want, or are trying to take resources we already have. Hence ********s (and this just means anyone you can recognise as different) mean potential danger. As society has developed into larger and larger groups other features replaced those indicators of danger. Among those features is skin colour, but the phenomenon is certainly not limited to that.



According to carbon dating and soil sample studies human beings have been forming agrarian societies for approximately 11,000 years. For agriculture to work you need relatively large numbers of people to work together to produce food. Agriculture is the only way to produce a surplus of food, and it is only with a surplus of food you can have non-food producing members of a society. This starts with a chief, then soldiers, then moves on to specialists such as priests, artisans, metallurgists etc.Until you have agriculture you cannot have large societal structures, so as evidence suggests that agriculture started around 11,000 years ago we can deduce that society (as we know it) began to develop at around the same time. Society didn''t reach large scale "civilised" organisation ( in the form of large cities, large numbers of non-food producing people, standing armies, kings etc) until around 5000 - 6000 years ago. So we have had 11,000 years to "evolve" our fear of strangers away in total since societies began to form, and only 6000 years to evolve away our fears since large scale civilisation and organisation began. Furthermore civilisation has not been a constant by any stretch of the imagination. The Mesopotamian empire eventually collapsed, as did the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Turkish and British empires. For the most part their collapse resulted in a chaotic period of warfare. In fact warfare has been a standard presence in the history of civilisation. Given that we've only had 11,000 years to "evolve" into better, non prejudicial people, and those years were hardly all spent in fundamental harmony, why would you think that a solution to our current state should be evolutionary? We evolved the distrust of strangers and ********s over the course of millions of years.



According to fossil records it is likely that precursors of humans broke from the branch of the evolutionary tree that developed into modern chimpanzees some six million years ago.Since that time there are several species of hominids who are no longer with us. The most recent, the Neanderthal, disappeared leaving evidence that they were wiped out by smarter hominids who were able to communicate better (according to current theory) and therefore organise better in warfare. Giv en the aggressiveness of humans, and the evidence suggesting that humans destroyed the Neanderthals, does it seem unlikely that humanity's precursors did not also play some part in the destruction of other rivals off the same evolutionary chain? Would it therefore seem to be not unreasonable for humans to fear strangers?

No,i was talking about in the context of European enslavement of Africans.

And alot of the tribal warfare was instigated by Arabs and sometimes Europeans so they could enslave them and in alot of cases take their natural resourses.

[EliteSoldier]

Barlog get the **** out of here with that slavery ****. Any educated person knows Africans sold their own kind to the europeans and Africans slaved themselves. Go **** yourself trying to put the blame on white people, when you should put the blame on Africans. ****ing ****, I'd break you if I knew you because I hate ignorant little pricks like you.

[toyboy33]

Whats the difference between a medium pizza and a black?

Pizza is a food originating in Italy also called pizza pie. Its made of unleavend flat bread covered in tomato paste and your choice of toppings. Black is a hue that absorbs all other colors of the spectrum, but emits none. The difference is however ignorant posters want to associate them.....Dumbass.

[Barlog]

I can't agree I'm afraid... Hitler along with many Germans (he was Austrian but considered that Austria was a part of Germany) felt as though the post-Kaiser Weimar government had betrayed the German people by agreeing to the humiliating and crippling capitulation demanded by the Treaty of Versaille. He felt that the Weimar traitors consisted of communists or those sponsored by the communists, who had already taken over Russia and a number of other reasons. He also was quick to note that many in the Weimar government happened to be ***ish. In reality the Treaty of Versaille put the Weimar in an impossible situation. They had suffered in the First World War and failure to to agree to the treaty would have resulted in annihilation and the breaking up of Germany. The post-war government was hated by just about everyone in Germany. Restoring Germany to former glories meant to stop the capitulations, rebuild the armies and dominate Europe once more. Nietzche emerged with his theories at around the same time and they tied in well with Hitler's desire to rebuild the Reich. Hitler's first priority was to make Germany great. If anything the ***s were a handy bunch to point the finger at, after all they seemed to be doing OK in postwar Germany.

A good book on this particular era of history is A Brief History of the Birth of the ****s: How the Freikorps Blazed the Trail for Hitler (Paperback)

You both wrong. hitler was funded by u.s and british corporations to drive the ***s in to palastine now known and formally known as israel so they can take over the middle east.

That is why he persecuted ***s.And he did`nt kill 6 million ***s.There was`nt even 6 million ***s in Europe at that time.Go research the Almanac on the web on how much ***s was in Europe at the time.


Hitler was ***ish on both sides and he knew it.

His nephew blackmaled him saying that if he did`nt give him any money he was going to tell people that hes ***ish.

The austrian government even research his background and found out he was part ***ish.

And hitler orederd the cemetery in austria where at least one of his parents was buried to be destroyed so people don`t find out that he`s ***ish.

It was even on the history channel.


Hitler said in his book mein kamf that he was trained by the u.s and britian.

Many of these facts was found out in the documents that was found in
Germany when that country was defeated.


Numerous books was written about this since the 40`s.

[larrytyson]

Dumb and blatant alt.


I am more and more su****ious of who is making this kind of threads, either a clever(not smart) white person trying to instigate some more racial tension on this forum or a really dumb black person not understanding the fallacies of his argument and the possible outcome, resulting into yet another racial war.


Thank you very much and die.

Great post! I hate racists!

BTW I'm white!

[Barlog]

Barlog get the **** out of here with that slavery ****. Any educated person knows Africans sold their own kind to the europeans and Africans slaved themselves. Go **** yourself trying to put the blame on white people, when you should put the blame on Africans. ****ing ****, I'd break you if I knew you because I hate ignorant little pricks like you.

listen fool, i never said Africans did`nt sell other Africans to Europeans, idiot.
I said that division was created by Europeans to get different tribes to fight each other you mentally challenged idiot.


Why don`t you go read a real book about slavery.instead of the whitewashed bull**** they teach you in your propaganda school.

[ianwigley]

Has any of the black posters noticed that everytime a black person talks smack or taunts another fighter he gets attacked by nonblack boxing fans.witter being the latest example,but when a latino does it its considered entertaining.

Whats wrong with you bias f*gs are you ****`s or something.
What you want black fighters to behave like robots or house negros?
hell f`ing no you f*gs,black fighters will continue to talk **** and light all
your favorite fighters asses up.

Can`t wait to when Cotto and Hatton gets destroyed.


If you black posters don`t back me you are a bunch of house negros.

What in the name of **** are you talking about?

Get this joker off of boxingscene.com

Also, it's ****s not ****'s. Sort out your punctuation. But most of all check your head because you are so living in the 1920s.