It happens everyone, all around us, next to us. "RACIAL PROBLEMS" for example is what currently happening in U.S. Obama - "is the U.S ready to have a black as a president" -statement comes from media(s) all over the places. Malay/Chinese/India (malaysia) - Is malay ready for the new government where finally "human rights will be given equally not limited to races" (this has not been noticed but seriously the "Malay" has been given such Xtra advantages for over 50+ years. and the new government will be changing that) for example: A "malay" who is getting 2A in (malaysian studies certificate) is having the same advantage as A "chinese" or "indian" who is getting 7-8A(s).
its everywhere here in america, and I really hate racism since I was never raised around racism (northern) and hate the concept but now in Texas its so racist that you get frustrated sometimes. I'm talking about the White - Mexican - Black racism issue... the school here are seperated its crazy
I think racism about this whole skin color thing hasn't been happening much; and shouldn't be happening. but when you're talking about racism, something like which involves culture. I think that is quite natural and is happening all over the world. some chinese in Malaysia is proud of the real Chinese in China lol. because they both chinese. and I mean that is quite natural.
Racism is natural. I don't support it. Absolutely NOT... But, when you study Human Behavior, you'll notice that since the times we lived in caves, roamed around in groups hunting animals, and fighting off other rival clans. Similar-looking people arouse a feeling of belonging. In those times, this feature was very important for self-defense. That can explain our loyalty to tribes, clans, languages, regions and religions... That gene is still present in our DNA... So, there are 2 things we can do... 1. Support DNA Sequencing, so that we may be able to remove that "Racist" gene from human bodies. 2. Support the Rothschild-funded One-World Government
The role of media, internet is important . If media is telling : "is the U.S ready to have a black as a president" does it mean that the media is racist ?
Now i don't believe in racism myself but what your implying is changing a persons DNA so they are not allowed to judge based on race or simply put taking racism thinking out of there thinking. Well when you put it that way you can argue that its nobodys business especially not the governments around the world to tell you who and why you shouldn't hate someone, everyone has there own right to hate who they want even if that means it causes violence. Its not pretty but what your suggestion would be the beginning to stuff like human controlling and pre selecting genes which is messing with nature. It looks good on paper but when the government is stripping your children of certain feelings and emotions for the better human race thats putting humans in gods chair and humans shouldn't have any right "forcing" people down selective paths through gene alteration. I still believe in some parts of survival of the fittest and only the strong survive, So in a way who are we to say that racism is a bad thing? When you look at it from todays prospective, racism is very bad... But throughout history certain races have seemed to be more "advanced" in certain parts of human knowledge and power, and most of it has been through selective race breeding. Not on purpose but just because for a long period of time certain races never mixed. Now its radical to think that just because someone is a certain race means they are any different than you or me right? Well science has found that some black races in africa actually have certain genes now that give most african certain muscles in there legs and other parts of there bodies. They started to adapt to there surroundings. Im not being racist here or anything but african natives aren't exactly known for there advancements in knowledge. For most of there history they were simple living humans whos only real purpose was to build there houses and hunt for food and go on with there daily rituals. Over time nature gave them what they wanted and now some black natives actually have a few extra muscles in there legs and what not to help them give more power in there legs. Science says people started leaving africa in search of other lands and thats how most races today started, they branched off from the original human race, wither or not it was because they started to understand that theres something more out there because there brains naturally made them curious or because maybe they were nuts. Point is, most humans back then were pretty content with there life styles so it took a radical idea or a radical change in some humans that gave them a curious aspect to them to look beyond there natural surroundings. Who knows, But all im saying is we know so little about the human body and the world around us. For all we know nature says Hitler was correct about his Ideas about a one supreme race. Nobody wants to believe that there is a superior race. I am not apart of that race and i wouldn't want to believe it either but sadly history does point to certain few races in our history that have been and still are very successful. I am not trying to be racist here but im just throwing something out and saying that deep native africans aren't exactly known for there inventions or contributions to the world in terms of knowledge, but they seem to dominate things like athletic sports and naturally demanding activities that require a lot out of the human body, Is it a coincidence? Maybe, but i think natures history says otherwise.
Statements like this: show a significant failure in understanding concepts like "genetics" and "time" ...
so your proving my point. Genetics and time evolved and in a demanding world where people still fight to live everyday by hunting there food down, eventually they will get bigger or stronger. more "extra" muscles in this case. its no myth that people evolve differently and for specific needs. If, lets say aliens were real and they do look like people claim they look like, small or skinny no real muscle but a big head, obviously you can't be big and smart, in nature theres a trade off. Its a silly example but if its real then it proves a point.
Again you are not really taking "time" into account. Homo sapiens (according to most theories) left Africa at around 200.000 - 160.000 BC. At this time diversifikation started. Until 5.000 BC (1.000 year before the first KNOWN high culture) ALL groups more or less faced the same problems (basically food and housing). Also the number of "inventions" was extremely small. So being more clever was not really something that helped more in Europe than in Africa. In the remaining 7.000 years (which is a 4% of the total time we overlook) there might be a certain requirement for "cleverness". Though not as much as one might think I assume. If you simply say that most inventions were done by "whites" than you look at a time of hardly 1.000 years or roughly 50 generations. In 50 (or even 200) generations you will hardly see any major genetic differences. Esp. if you look at "knowledge" you have to take into account that during the last 50 years more knowledge was created than in all the million years before. So how can you take this as prove that white (?) brains have more power power than "black brains"?
no no im not saying whites are the supreme race or something, I am not white btw. But as far as what your saying. If theres enough time from that period up until now enough for some african natives to have there genetics change enough that they now have more muscles than the average white person lets say for example. Then really anything is possible. We know so little about the human body and its capabilities. I think you underestimate what our body's can actually do. Its the same thing with the whole neanderthal and cromagnum. Neanderthal were considerable bigger than cromangnum counter part in terms of size and strength but they say cromangnum had a larger brain which obviously worked more in his favor than power and muscles, because he was able to build weapons and apply his knowledge etc. Its already happened before.
I think many of those in the US media are racist to some degree, they perpetuate racism like jesse jackson does.
The "body change" (if there is one), had 160k years to develop. Same as white skin, being very small (inuit), having beards or no beards, etc. But all these changes made sense because of the climate where the population lived. From 160k BC to 5000 BC it was for all "races" only the climate that was different. There wouldn't have been an advantage of having a "better" brain for only one population. Esp. because there haven't been many places where living was always like being in the garden of eden. Most times Homo Sapiens had serious problems to survive. Otherwise the number of individuals would have increased much earlier/faster. Postulating that "africans" are inferior, because they have not contributed much to the knowledge of mankind simply doesn't make sense. Homo Neandertalensis was (according to the latest findings) probably equal in intelligence to Homo Sapiens. But after the climate change - HN was perfectly fitted for a very cold and harsh climate - HS slowly began to outnumber the Neandertals. Weapon technology of the Neandertals was quite high tech (ever tried to kill a Mammoth with bare hands?) and also there hunting tech must be quite good. Pls take into account that the animals during Ice Age in Europe where much larger (larger = better in cold climate!). To survive the Homo Neandertalensis had to kill them - without a very good brain it would have been almost impossible. But after the big mammals were gone it was time for the Neandertals to follow them. But when we have a thesis we try to prove it. Just making wild guesses does not really help. So the first question would be: Can you post any scientific study (peer reviewed) that shows genetic differences in certain races that result in different muscle sizes?
well i mean if you just type the question into google a bunch of studies come up. Its not a myth, It is real wither or not it actually helps black people preform better? Well thats the question, i took this from wiki. "If it is in fact true that black people have different muscle structure it is probably due to thousands/ millions of years of evolution and not anything which occured in the relatively short period of time that blacks were slaves in the United States. Local environments create local adaptations that sometimes become amplified if they contribute to the survival of the person posessing the adaptation. One of the best examples is the so called Sickle cell trait which in its heterogenous form causes little disease, but confers significant resistence to malaria. ---Additionally, some cross-sectional studies have found that, as a population, African-Americans have a greater density of 'fast-twitch' muscle fibers within the muscle bodies. This sort of muscular morphology would also lend to a 'leaner' muscle body (with less fat between the muscle cells). Though the functionality of this has not been specifically proven...think about the top ten sprinters in the world (women and men)? 'The black is the better athlete, and he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started" Truer words have never been spoken! Anthropology teaches that blacks actually do have longer and stronger long bones in the body, ie femur, humerus etc. Therefore, there are more muscle fibres. The cause is most likely due to genetics and environmental factors. "
Nice quote. Just not "Wiki", but wiki.answers.com ... Please quote a scientific study and or link to one (Wiki usually states the sources so one can check the given info). Until you can quote a reliable source, it IS! Sickle Cell anemia is a fact. Just not limited to black africans: from: http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/ Interesting article anyway. It raises the question: How to define "race" in human context?
No he is not. In general blacks, esp. african Americans are very good in Sports that are "cheap" i.e. don't require very expensive equipment. Since the average black american is less wealthy than the "white" americans, he usually does Sports than can be trained without buying Tennis rackets, racing bikes, etc. Why do we have so many blacks in track and field, but much less in weight lifting? You said, that blacks have more muscles. Shouldn't they be good in wrestling too? discus? spear? hammer? Why are there still so many kinds of Sports where you hardly ever find a black man or woman in the top 100? Why are there 5 Formula 1 drivers actually? Germans are natural born drivers? Because of our "Autobahn"? No. Most likely because of Michael Schumacher, who was the hero of a whole generation and all the young boys wanted to become race drivers.
woah that thing about african americans being cheap is 1000% racist. seriously its not a persons color but theyre culture and money status. There are 'white folks' who live in the 'hood' and are no different. vice versa there are african americans who live in high neighborhoods and are the same as the other high people.
There is a structural difference in bodies. Europeans have large bodies and white skin. They lived in cold areas, and hence developed whiter skin and blond hair. Africans have stronger arms and legs, and end to get fat quickly. This may show a ene which accumulates all the energy it gets. Maybe coz the Africans were forest-dwellers for a very long period of time, and had to store all the food they got to survive without food for extended periods. Dark skin can be explained by the hot and humid equatorial temperatures in the region. People in the Indian Subcontinent have medium-sized bodies, and brown skin. Chinese and Japanese have slightly smaller, more flexible bodies. All this can be attributed to the different environmental conditions and surrounding situations in which people lived for thousands of years.
IMHO racism is just fear and we all have it bred in us, some people can rise above this fear and some can't.
No, it's pure statistics. The average "african" american is paid less, more likely to live in poor neighbourhoods etc. If you compare blacks and whites in the same neighbourhood you usually find no really significant differences. Just that you find more blacks to be poor and more whites to be "rich" (middle class, whatever). The major differences you find today are mainly based on social differences and not genetic ones. The main problem is, that most people hardly understand genetics. Body height is massively influenced by other factors and in general not the very best thing to compare different cultures. There was a large increase in the average height in the Japanese population in the last century. Genetics? Not within 2 or 3 generations! Other reason? Milk! Having enough milk or milk products during childhood usually means that people can reach their genetically "defined" max height. So if you compare different body heights, you can never be sure that you compare genetics. Could also simply be sociology or farming output. http://www.sumitomo.gr.jp/english/discoveries/special/84_02.html