Black boxer bias

[FISTIC ART]

...................

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?

i agree on most points with squeaky even though his boy hatton is gonna get embarrassed on dec 8th...lol...however as to what he's saying here africans did sell africans tot he white man.... as did the arabs....and the white man captured and took africans away as well.... now racism will always exist... however class has come into the picture alot these days... meaning the powers that be are still white supremacists and thats the way the food chain is setup at the moment... but its more of the elite...im sure that the powers that be could careless about squeaky and less about me... and im guessing squeaky is not in a position of power... but a regular citizen wherever he is from... the elites have the power and if u want to shift that control its gonna take a whole lot more than posting in a boxing forum.....

[FISTIC ART]

..............

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.

Actually pizza originated in India or china theres still debates over which it was ....but it defintely wasnt italy..........

[toyboy33]

Actually pizza originated in India not italy..........

Maybe, but the encyclopedia and wikipedia don't mention India. In any case it has nothing to do with being black like the ******* was trying to make a joke about.

The precise history of the pizza and its origin will never be known, but here is what we know about the Italian pizza history:

* The history of pizza goes back to the time of Virgil, who died in the first Century BC, but not before writing down a pizza recipe for posterity.

* Around 1000 AD the word “picea” started to appear in historical records in Italy , it was a circle of dough and the topped with a variety of fillings then baked. The word pizza came into common usage at about the same time.

* It was some time later before pizza became to be made from leavened dough, as we know it today. At the same time the pita type bread schiacciata was made.

[FISTIC ART]

................

Maybe, but the encyclopedia and wikipedia don't mention India. In any case it has nothing to do with being black like the ******* was trying to make a joke about.

The precise history of the pizza and its origin will never be known, but here is what we know about the Italian pizza history:

* The history of pizza goes back to the time of Virgil, who died in the first Century BC, but not before writing down a pizza recipe for posterity.

* Around 1000 AD the word “picea” started to appear in historical records in Italy , it was a circle of dough and the topped with a variety of fillings then baked. The word pizza came into common usage at about the same time.

* It was some time later before pizza became to be made from leavened dough, as we know it today. At the same time the pita type bread schiacciata was made.

Wilkipedia is written by the white supremacist....lmaoooooooo...dont go by wilkipedia its nonsense...i would expect u to know better.....



pizza actually originated in india, in a place called muslampatty...the italians as conquers went there and stole the recipe....others attribute it to china...in any case no matter who u try to claim do some more research and ull find that italy was never the originator of pizza..thats a fact...and if u dig deeper alot of the ideas of other races were stolen by whites....and thats not to say that whites didnt come up with any ideas ...all races have come up with ideas but whites are tragically associated with stealing many ideas... i mean look at bill gates stealing the windows operating system from apple....lmaoooooooooooooooooo

[sonofisis]

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!

Though this wasn't directed at me, I'd like to impede momentarily if it is all the same.

I agree here with most of what you say as slavery has been an established institution in basically all societies with at least some form of centralization or ethnic conflict. Though one must take into consideration the divergence of ideology and driving force behind any institution. The Bantu migrations is not a necessary example since most of the data concerning its detail is scant, and we really have no evidence of a total displacement of the Central African Pygmy populations or South African Khoisan. But it can indeed be demonstrated as being of great convenience to the middle age societies and empires like Mali, Songhay, Kongo and I believe Benin. However, the motivation was not racial or dependent upon an ideology meant to literally dehumanize your captive based on a predefined system of racial classification. It was for the most part an economic convenience with most targets being that of POWs or women. Neither was it as intense or strategic in its design. A fine example of this is King Afonso I of Kongo. While he did participate in the trading of ****** with the Portuguese, he grew reluctant as he began to realize the ramifications of what he was doing and the shear underhandedness of the Portuguese.



In one of his letters to the King of Portugal in the late 15th/early 16th century:

Sir, Your Highness should know how our Kingdom is being lost in so many ways that it is convenient to provide for the necessary remedy, since this is caused by the excessive freedom given by your agents and officials to the men and merchants who are allowed to come to this Kingdom to set up shops with goods and many things which have been prohibited by us, and which they spread throughout our Kingdoms and Domains in such an abundance that many of our vassals, whom we had in obedience, do not comply because they have the things in greater abundance than we ourselves; and it was with these things that we had them content and subjected under our vassalage and jurisdiction, so it is doing a great harm not only to the service of God, but the security and peace of our Kingdoms and State as well.

And we cannot reckon how great the damage is, since the mentioned merchants are taking every day our natives, sons of the land and the sons of our noblemen and vassals and our relatives, because the thieves and men of bad conscience grab them wishing to have the things and wares of this Kingdom which they are ambitious of; they grab them and get them to be sold; and so great, Sir, is the corruption and licentiousness that our country is being completely depopulated, and Your Highness should not agree with this nor accept it as in your service. And to avoid it we need from those (your) Kingdoms no more than some priests and a few people to reach in schools, and no other goods except wine and flour for the holy sacrament. That is why we beg of Your Highness to help and assist us in this matter, commanding your factors that they should not send here either merchants or wares, because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of ****** nor outlet for them.1 Concerning what is referred [to] above, again we beg of Your Highness to agree with it, since otherwise we cannot remedy such an obvious damage. Pray Our Lord in His mercy to have Your Highness under His guard and let you do forever the things of His service. . . .


^This was the general sentiment through out West and Central Africa in pre-colonial times. So it was sort of a "conquer and divide" strategy per se, and of course Europeans had much to do with a lot of Africa's problems, but this is not to excuse either from what is documented.

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.

What I am suggesting is that any such demonstrable discrimination based on arbitrary artifacts has more to do with primitive regression, rather than human evolutionary concepts.

In fact, Rushton (scientific racist) argued just this in justifying a genetic cause for the lower IQ scores seen among Africans. K selection, he argued, entails a higher need for social complexity as opposed to discriminatory barbarism. Smedley (2001) countered by pointing out that traditional African societies have some of the most complex kinship systems in the world. - Source

"Advanced" society from an anthropological standpoint is not to be confused with "civilization" from a cultural standpoint.

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.

Good point. But this is more based on a subsistence strategy and not necessarily a genetic need to discriminate or a predisposition to racism. Or even an awareness of race or attention to phenotypical differences. It is a survival of the fittest application but it has been well documented that once different ethnic groups converge and submit to the ideas of another ethnic group, there is usually no tension. Indicating that such discrimination is either a subsistence strategy or cultural phenomenon.

[sonofisis]

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.

Too many general fallacies contained within your argument here. You're suggesting that there had to be some type of punctuated evolution among agricultural societies when most interpretive models don't allow for such a process. You also contradict yourself by pointing out that agriculture played a critical role in the development and allowance of populated societies or settlements, yet you somehow attribute earlier isolation to some kind of inherent "distrust" of other groups, when in fact it was merely the best subsistence strategy that was permitted by hunter-gatherers. This tells us nothing of a pre-historic scenario of individuals being rejected from these societies due to their level of skin pigment or nose width. Warfare is usually based on a competition of resources, not phenotypical discrimination.

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?

Actually, again, you contradict your self and slightly distort the new evidence cited. Data on neanderthals is scant, but due to the the anatomy of the Neanderthal's vocal box, which rendered them unable to enunciate most syllables and tones, they were unable to communicate and therefore, compete with pre-historic man. There is absolutely no evidence of any "warfare" or crushed Neanderthal skulls inside of a human cave. Again, refer to Darwin's "survival of the fittest".. Besides, Neanderthals looked 10 times different from you than any human ever has in the past 800,000 years.

[toyboy33]

Wilkipedia is written by the white supremacist....lmaoooooooo...dont go by wilkipedia its nonsense...i would expect u to know better.....



pizza actually originated in india, in a place called muslampatty...the italians as conquers went there and stole the recipe....others attribute it to china...in any case no matter who u try to claim do some more research and ull find that italy was never the originator of pizza.....and if u dig deeper alot of the ideas of other races were stolen by whites....and thats not to say that whites didnt come up with any ideas ...all races have come up with ideas but whites are tragically associated with stealing many ideas... i mean look at bill gates stealing the windows operating system from apple....lmaoooooooooooooooooo

Thanks for the info. Its good, so thanks to whoever made it. I'm done with pizza talk.

[kayjay]

I read a bunch of studies but there don't seem to be any (I can quickly find) that deal with how white people perceive race, let alone comparisons between whites and blacks.

What there is a ****LOAD of is studies relating perceived racism to health. Blacks who claim to perceive racism more frequently have greater health problems (depression, high blood-pressure, etc.) than other blacks.

There's also a lot of stuff that relates pereived racism to other factors of racial identity, whicgh is all quite interesting though I won't try to repeat it here

[sonofisis]

I read a bunch of studies but there don't seem to be any (I can quickly find) that deal with how white people perceive race, let alone comparisons between whites and blacks.

What there is a ****LOAD of is studies relating perceived racism to health. Blacks who claim to perceive racism more frequently have greater health problems (depression, high blood-pressure, etc.) than other blacks.

There's also a lot of stuff that relates pereived racism to other factors of racial identity, whicgh is all quite interesting though I won't try to repeat it here

I'm not sure that I see a correlation, neither have I heard of these said studies.. Where might they happen to be accessed?

[FISTIC ART]

..............

The problem is that most people just deal with pointing out the problems.... most of us can see whats wrong with the world ...but few try to change it....its like u training a boxer and always saying something is wrong with ur jab u dont throw it correctly ... but u dont explain or show how to throw it.... the problem is that most people say forget and move on but its not easy... when isreal goes into the ********* territory and blast them with tanks while the *********s throw rocks ....and isreal kills their families ... how can u tell them forget it lets have peace... i know myself i would never forget and we would war till the end of time which seems to be what is occuring... now would that raise my blood pressure adn would i be depresed...id go with yes... but the fact remains that the people in control are white supremacists and the system for ********** is made for them to fail... now indivisuals within the **********... arent all fighters...some are lazy some are destructive... but it dosent change the fact that the system is established to defeat u ... the education system is garbage... they pump drugs into the neighborhoods than tell u dont seel them thats wrong knowing all along that they want u to sell it to destroy ur people.... but they do want u to get a job at mcdonalds and make miniumum wage that pays for nothing... the kid who sells the drugs is than arressted and they say were fighting the war on drugs but the next day there is another kid selling the same thing... they brainwash people into thinking that ****** or hood is a low level place...when in actuality its just a place where u live... the suburbs are no better the people there are up to their necks in bills... they just use a mental warfare to destroy ur thoughts and ur notion of getting ahead.... so to them if out of 10000 ...1 makes it that obviously serves their purpose... now the regualr white citizen is not involved in all this... some may be racist but if they dont have the means to discriminate it dosent matter....but the elites have alot of power obviously and they use it to their advantage to keep the people controled..... even to this day the higher echelon read niccolo machiavelli "the prince"...which is a blueprint on how to control people......