Orientals Are The Superior Race?

Status
Not open for further replies.
White flight:

"Whites aren't quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they're leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

The two schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian."

http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/archives/2005/11/academic_overac.html

"Across the country, Asian-Americans have by and large been successful and accepted into middle- and upper-class communities. Silicon Valley has kept Cupertino's economy stable, and the town is almost indistinguishable from many of the suburbs around it. The shrinking number of white students hasn't hurt the academic standards of Cupertino's schools -- in fact the opposite is true."
 
"Some students struggle in Cupertino's high schools who might not elsewhere. Monta Vista's Academic Performance Index, which compares the academic performance of California's schools, reached an all-time high of 924 out of 1,000 this year, making it one of the highest-scoring high schools in Northern California. Grades are so high that a 'B' average puts a student in the bottom third of a class."
 
francois said:
That said, I don't think any race is superior. They're just different. Blacks had their time of success, whites have had their time, and now I'm guessing Asians will have their golden age sometime soon.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that China and India already had great success and civilisations, long before white Europeans.
 
francois said:
I think Phillipe Rushton's research explains a lot of things, and they do seem to make sense out of what we see in the real world, or at least what I see. I think most of the liberal minded people here will dismiss his research as racist and him as a quack, because what he has to say isn't always uplifting.
Click to expand...


francois,

I agree.

I like to call it a 'walking around reality'. This is the day to day reality we experience as humans rather than the abstract one dictated by science or the superficial one dictated by politics.

I intuitively felt that Rushton had hit the nail on the head when it came to my experience of different races.

The pathetic spectacle of white liberals attempting to explain the athletic achievements of black people by turning intellectual somersaults will hopefully become a thing of the past - I know it sickens black people.
 
Last edited:
tablariddim said:
Don't forget that China and India already had great success and civilisations, long before white Europeans.
Click to expand...

And Africa.

It's almost as though we are heading towards a greater consciousness and re-ordering of the world as a result of applying reason and logic to race.

Earlier civilisation does not translate into superiority. Neither does the present civilisation.
 
DeepThought said:
The pathetic spectacle of white liberals attempting to explain the athletic achievements of black people by turning intellectual somersaults will hopefully become a thing of the past - I know it sickens black people.
Click to expand...
Please explain your theory on the athletic achievements of black people. I'm all ears.
 
static76 said:
Please explain your theory on the athletic achievements of black people. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

static76,

From an evolutionary perspective Blacks have greater musculature which helps the body remain cool in a hot climate. Conversely whites have more fat to help insulate their bodies against the cold.

Greater musculature translates directly into greater kinetic power.

Its all about genetics and evolution, ie, the invariables.

Rushton covers this ground in much more detail than I can:

"White men can't jump. Asian men can’t either. But according to Jon Entine’s new book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, Black men — and women — sure can. The usual reason given for Black athletic success is that Blacks have little chance to get
ahead elsewhere. But Entine’s new book shows that in sports, Blacks have a genetic edge. The physical facts Entine reviews are quite well known. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides
a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates into more explosive energy. Entine points out that these physical advantages give Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting. However, some of these race differences pose a problem for Black swimmers. Heavier skeletons and smaller chest cavities limit their performance.

Race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they are more mature as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response. East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians.
But admitting these genetic race differences in sports leads to the greater taboo area — race differences in brain size and crime. That is why it is taboo to even say that Blacks are better at many sports. The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners
is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless
in school and prone to crime."
 
Last edited:
I don't see that anyone, least of all Rushton or Deep Thought, have defined race in any proper manner.
 
guthrie said:
I don't see that anyone, least of all Rushton or Deep Thought, have defined race in any proper manner.
Click to expand...

Guthrie,

White people have lower bone density than black people which results in an increased risk of bone diseases such as osteoporosis in later life.

from: http://bone-muscle.health-cares.net/primary-osteoporosis-risk-factors.php

[I]"Caucasian and Asian women are most at risk for the disease, but African American and Hispanic women can get it too. Of racial groups, white people are most prone to osteoporosis. Asians are next, then Hispanics. Black people are less prone to osteoporosis, possibly because black people tend to have denser, stronger bones during young adulthood. Thus, they can better tolerate the decrease in bone density that occurs with aging and at menopause."[/I]

If you wish to put your opinion contrary to the entire medical profession go ahead but personally I think your on to a loser.
 
I dont know whay people try to deny that there are differences between races. Many people deny the existence of race, yet there are obvious physical differences between them. Are we to believe that racial differences are purely physical, and that everything else is identical?

Why is it that people accept easily that blacks have darker skin or orientals have thinner eyes, yet refuse to think that blacks have a different muscular and skeletal system that gives them an advantage in sports or that orientals have on average higher IQs? Why is it that anyone saying that the races are different is viewed as racist?

Are some of this guys views farfetched? probably. Is he biased? probably. Is there validity to the basic premise of his opinion that races are different and evolved differently due to environmental factors? Absolutely.
 
You could possibly classify humans into three races. You could also use 5, 10, 15, or 300. It's rather arbitrary, as most biological classification systems are.
 
Ive read Rushton's book 'Race, Evolution and Behaviour' in hard copy, and I can say that there isnt the slightest political or racist agenda to be found anywhere in his writing.

If he was a white racist I suppose he wouldnt be pointing out that european jews and orientals consistantly have higher IQ on average than aryan folk.

He also points out that africans are physically superior in some ways...again, on average.
 
DeepThought said:
Rushton covers this ground in much more detail than I can:

"White men can't jump. Asian men can’t either. But according to Jon Entine’s new book, Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, Black men — and women — sure can.
Click to expand...
I find the first line from Rushton fascinating. If "White men can't jump"...., why are the top 10 High Jumps dominated by White men? Why are the top 10 High Jumps for women also dominated by White women. :shrug:
The usual reason given for Black athletic success is that Blacks have little chance to get
ahead elsewhere. But Entine’s new book shows that in sports, Blacks have a genetic edge. The physical facts Entine reviews are quite well known. Compared to Whites, Blacks have narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides
a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians.
Click to expand...
Are we talking Black americans only...because that's a broad brush that's being stroked. What did Entine based his data on?
The testosterone translates into more explosive energy. Entine points out that these physical advantages give Blacks the edge in sports like boxing, basketball, football, and sprinting. However, some of these race differences pose a problem for Black swimmers. Heavier skeletons and smaller chest cavities limit their performance.
Click to expand...
Why aren't African countries dominating the Olympics and professional sports, if sports performance is based on race??? :shrug:

Opportunity and economic status seems to be a bigger reason, rather than race. Kids who live in working class and poor neighborhoods walk from place to place alot more. They spend more time playing sports and doing physical activities than their middle class and above counterparts(largly because they have less). Games are much more competitive do to the gritty nature of growing up in a poorer community. Focus on sports is heightened due to it's potential for monetary gain.

Also add in geographic culture, bias against different races for certain positions in sports, and you can understand that Sports is much more complex than being just about race. If Tiger Woods had never been born, I'm sure people like Rushton would have assumed golf to be too intellectual for Black people. The NBA is becoming more and more European now that the game has spread and a generation of fans are finally growing up. Shouldn't soccer be dominated by African nations? What about hockey?
Race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies, yet they are more mature as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response. East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians.
But admitting these genetic race differences in sports leads to the greater taboo area — race differences in brain size and crime. That is why it is taboo to even say that Blacks are better at many sports. The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners
is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.
Click to expand...
Again, I have to question whether Rushton checks his facts out. He mentions the High Jump where the records are dominated by White men. The long jump and sprint are full of steroids and most of those records post 88' are worthless for analysis. Interestingly, on the women's side where steroids is much less an impact, records are held by people from across the globe.
Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless
in school and prone to crime."
Click to expand...
Strange.....100+ years ago most crimes were committed by "White" people. Blacks were oppressed and mistreated. People were spouting off how the Irish or Italians were bringing America down.

Could it be the fact that these new immigrants were poor and that's why crime was higher, and not about "race"....:shh:
 
DeepThought said:
Guthrie,

White people have lower bone density than black people which results in an increased risk of bone diseases such as osteoporosis in later life.

from: http://bone-muscle.health-cares.net/primary-osteoporosis-risk-factors.php

[I]"Caucasian and Asian women are most at risk for the disease, but African American and Hispanic women can get it too. Of racial groups, white people are most prone to osteoporosis. Asians are next, then Hispanics. Black people are less prone to osteoporosis, possibly because black people tend to have denser, stronger bones during young adulthood. Thus, they can better tolerate the decrease in bone density that occurs with aging and at menopause."[/I]

If you wish to put your opinion contrary to the entire medical profession go ahead but personally I think your on to a loser.
Click to expand...
It's called Vitamin D....:shrug:

The reason darker skinned people have less osteoporosis is because of their ability to have longer sunlight exposure and vitamin D production.
 
Jeff 152 said:
I dont know whay people try to deny that there are differences between races. Many people deny the existence of race, yet there are obvious physical differences between them. Are we to believe that racial differences are purely physical, and that everything else is identical?

Why is it that people accept easily that blacks have darker skin or orientals have thinner eyes, yet refuse to think that blacks have a different muscular and skeletal system that gives them an advantage in sports or that orientals have on average higher IQs? Why is it that anyone saying that the races are different is viewed as racist?

Are some of this guys views farfetched? probably. Is he biased? probably. Is there validity to the basic premise of his opinion that races are different and evolved differently due to environmental factors? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Physical differences does not equal race. Aboriginals and Africans have the same skin color, yet are more genetcally different than any other population.

Placing so much value on skin color is no different than grouping people by eye color, or hair color. I'm sure some "researcher" would be able to produce a study that says green eye people are superior, or that blonds have a lower IQ(well, that one is true...).
 
Green-eyed people are not a race. that is one trait. we are talking about people roughly grouped into different categories based on multiple traits--skin, hair color and type, eye shape and color, muscular and skeletal structure.

These are all evolutionary differences. Dark skin and tightly curled black hair of africans protects them from the sun in their tropical environment. Thin eyes are a protection against the cold for Orientals who live in cold climates.

Africans are more succeptible to sickle cell disease, but it is an evolutionary defense mechanism from malaria, since the malaria virus can not live in the sicle cells, and the environment of Africa is malaria filled.

Different people developed differently over thousands of years to best adapt to their environment, what is so hard to accept about that?
 
Every race has developed physical traits to adapt to various environment. I don't know if one is superior or not. I very much doubt it. Perhaps some might have developed more superior physical build than another in certain envoironment. As for brains well that's genetic but also depends on capacity and effort of individual. I could go ahead and agree with the topic and say I'm superior (I'm only part asian boohoo...:p) but IMO his topic is silly me think.
 
Jeff 152 said:
Green-eyed people are not a race. that is one trait. we are talking about people roughly grouped into different categories based on multiple traits--skin, hair color and type, eye shape and color, muscular and skeletal structure.

These are all evolutionary differences. Dark skin and tightly curled black hair of africans protects them from the sun in their tropical environment. Thin eyes are a protection against the cold for Orientals who live in cold climates.
Click to expand...
Genetically, we're pretty much the same. If we were to attribute race to every population with environmental based differences, then I guess we have thousands of different races, and tens of thousands throughout human history. :shrug:

Africans are more succeptible to sickle cell disease, but it is an evolutionary defense mechanism from malaria, since the malaria virus can not live in the sicle cells, and the environment of Africa is malaria filled.

Different people developed differently over thousands of years to best adapt to their environment, what is so hard to accept about that
Click to expand...
Here's a good article for you to read:

"But what's that got to do with "race"? We all have ancestors from elsewhere - and if we go back far enough, about 70,000 or so years ago, all our ancestors can be traced back to Africa. But if our idea of race assumes that different groups each share among themselves a different suite of inborn traits, then we have to ask, "What difference makes a difference?" Certainly not micro-satellite short tandem repeats.

Still, there's no question that some gene forms show up more often in some populations than others: alleles that code for blue eyes, or the A, B, O blood groups, and of course, those alleles that influence skin color . (We all have the same 30,000 or so genes. But some genes come in different forms, or varieties, called alleles.) But just because some members of a population might carry a specific gene form, doesn't mean all members do. Only a small percentage of Ashkenazi Jews carry the Tay-Sachs allele. When a couple I know were screened upon their pregnancy, the non-Jewish partner was found to be the Tay-Sachs carrier, not the Jewish one.

That's because most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

Take sickle cell. Doctors were long taught that sickle cell anemia was a genetic disease of Negroes, a marker of their race. Yet sickle cell is found among peoples from central and western Africa, but not southern Africa. It is also carried by Turks, Yemenis, Indians, Greeks, and Sicilians. That's because sickle cell arose several thousand years ago as a mutation in one of the genes that codes for hemoglobin. The mutation soon spread to successive populations along the trade routes where malaria was common. It turns out that inheriting one sickle cell allele confers resistance to malaria and thus provides a selective advantage in malarial regions (inheriting sickle cell alleles from both parents causes sickle-cell disease). In other words, sickle cell, like tandem repeats in the Science study, is a marker not of skin color or race but ancestry, or more precisely, having ancestors from where malaria was common.

Like sickle cell, most traits are influenced by separate genes and inherited independently one from another. They are said to be "non-concordant." Someone with brown hair might carry A, B or O blood. Sub-Saharan Africans tend to have dark skin. But so too do Dravidians from India, Aborigines from Australia, and Melanesians from the South Pacific. Large numbers of West Africans are lactose intolerant as are Japanese, but East Africans aren't. German and Papua New Guinean populations have almost exactly the same frequencies of A, B and O blood. At one point on the genome an individual might share a gene form common in Africa, at another site East Asia, and still another, Europe. Jared Diamond and others have pointed out that for each trait we can classify people into "races" by that trait, each giving us different and overlapping races depending on the trait selected.
'

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm
 
If humans first evolved in Africa, wouldn't it stand to reason that the population that remained in Africa would be subject to less selective pressure than the much smaller populations that ventured elsewhere?

As the birthplace of humanity, Africa would have had the largest population of humans at most points in our evolution.

Groups trying to survive in the harsh northern climates in areas they'd never been to would have been subject to much greater stresses and so would have evolved more quickly or died off altogether.

You'll note that, if the author's theory is correct, the farther you get from Africa, the smarter humans get. Those humans entering new territories had to sink or swim. Only the best survived to breed.

Meanwhile, back in Africa, the more established human population there was not subject to such harsh conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top