read my reply to a white-supremacist on the net:

< Previous | Home | Next >

Reply to Msg 75

I am not a trained psychologist.

However, from my reading of abnormal
psychology literature and having witnessed the irrational aspirations
of race-supremacists it occurs to me that the psychological
establishment
has rather conveniently failed to include "extreme ethnocentrism" in
its
repertoire of mental disorders.

Given the fact that the psychological
establishment is predominantly european and that "extreme
ethnocentricism"disproportionately affects individulas of european
ancestry, such a
decision is readily understandable.

every psychologist undertands that in an abusive relationship in which
one person represses another, both the repressor and the repressed are
being psychologically damaged.

In other words, one ends up dehumanizing
himself/herself in the process of dehumanizing another.

This is not
surprising if one undertands that "mutual affectation" is the nature of
psychology.

Therefore, slavery would not only affect blacks but also
whites as well. It would not only tend to incapacitate blacks with
self-doubt with a somewhat dependency complex, but slavery would also
render whites almost incapable
of being objective and honest in their relationhip with blacks, an
attitude that is being reinforced by the tactics of "moral
disengagement".

furthermore, being apparently incapable of being
objective with respect to their black counterparts, whites would
respond to blacks with either excessive admiration, extreme
indifference or hatred.

On "the excessive admiration side" are found
the arch-liberal,
anarchistic and paternalistic whites.

To this type, blacks were
naturally docile beings who have been corrupted only after their
contact with
europeans.

Therefore, in this faulty logic, all black actions, no
matter how dispeakable they may be, are automatically excusable.

On
"the extreme
hatred side" are found the reactionary, apologetic right-wingers and
the race
warriors.

That type is a peculiar bunch.

At best, they are eloquent
pseudo-scientific intellectuals, and at worst delusional and
self-contradicted..

the pseudo-scientific hate-mongers would utilize
prejudicial statistical data and linguistic
sophistication to advance their racist opinions.

for instance, they
would use comtemporary mulattoes in their IQ data in an attempt to
argue that the partial white blood makes the mulattoes smarter than the
african, but ignoring the fact that comtemporary mulattoes come
predominantly from black males and white females of whom the black
males are usually better off economically and academically.

In fact,
there is a cliche in America that says that successful black males
marry white trash.

in other words, a more consistent eugenist scholar
would have concluded that these contemporay mulattoes were made better
off by their paternal line since their mothers seem to have come from a
long line of trailer-park dwellers.

it is worth noting that i do not
share any of these arguments, and that my mentioning of them is
intended to demonstrate the logical weakness of the predominant racist
views of racial superiority/inferiority.

Despite the falsehood of their racial arguments, Some of these racist
schoalrs are quite successful intellectually from Nobel-prize winner(
i.e Shokeley) to world-renown novelist(i.e. kippling).

In fact, They
can be as clever as to coerse us into considering their racist opinions
as serious scholarship.

A typical example is shockley, the co-inventor
of the world-changing transistor.

As for the delusional and
self-contraicted
white-supremacists, they blindly believe, in the very absence of
evidence, that the future of the white race is being threatened and that
there is
a black conspiracy to subjugate them. they would pile up tons of
offensive weapons and organize training camps, particularly in the
united states,
even though there is no african country with nuclear weapons or with G8
membership.

A typical example is the late timothy Mcvey, the terrorist
who blew up the oklahoma federal building with hundreds of innocent
men,
women and children.

It is worth noting that all human subgroups are ethnocentric to a
certain extent, however europeans seem to be the first to elevate "
Ethnocentricism" to the status of a "proud cultural heritage".

Our continuing failure to address these culture-based psychological
problems does nothing but hindering human progress.

imagine what would
have become of Banneker had he been allowed to pursue academia freely
in a meritocratic washingtonian unites states of America.

it is not
only Banneker who would have greatly benefited from his having had
access to equal opportunities, but also its society, and succeeding
generations.

Thus, racism may provide some individual members of the
dominant group with amazing wealth and privileges, but in the long
term, it will negatively affect society as a whole.

do not you realize
how systematic racism is begining to affect whites in many different
ways?

for instance, it is doing so in the character-assassination of
some individual whites, and in the public-imposed censorship of their
freedom of speech.

these realities are not the result of a fictitious
black conspiracy as some nuts would argue, but rather reverberating
consequences of our transgenerational racist attitudes.

remember, every
action has a reaction, and in human affairs, the reaction may not fall
upon the original actor just as a bouncing ball may return to the guy
who has initially bounced it.
WHAT ABOUT AFRICA?

The chronic panafrican crisis has been the main argumentative basis of
the white-supremacist movement: i have heard and read all kinds of
opinions and witnessed all kinds of actions from extreme pessimism to
unilateral paternalism with regard to Africans.

The private
conventional wisdom is that Africans cannot make it in this
technology-based world.

The argument, which is more of a statement than
it is a real argument, is that africans are either culturally too
superstitious or genetically deficient to succeed in this modern world.

these commentators are generally Europeans who have failed to view the
african crisis from a historical perspective.

As if they were suffering
from selective Amnesia, these eurocentric pessimists have not realized
that what is happening in africa has already happend in europe.

Africa
is emerging from tribalism to nationalism, a process that is generally
chaotic and bloody just as it had been for charlemagne with the Franks
and for the Chinese during the bloody period of the warring states.

History reminds us not to rush to judgement when facing with what seems
to be plausibly "the case" because apparent truths often turn out to
be disappointing.

Why is this so?

for the reason that i have mentioned
earlier, that is the world, having developped from the actions of
competitive players, is inherently deceitful.

For instance, when ancient literate greeks and romans were faced with
the realities of illiterate celtic and scandinavian cultures with their

habit of drinking out of their enemies' skulls, they falsely concluded
that these
people were genetically inferior and therefore were incapable of
becoming civilized; but how wrong they turned out to be is not even
worth
mentioning for today's scandinavian nations are far better off
intellectually,
socially and economically than greece and italy combined.

What could
have
happened in the last seven hundred years (a minuscule time in
evolutionary terms)
that would have subsequently propelled the scandinavians from millenia
of
cultural stagnation to become today's undisputed models of efficient
states?

whatever it is, It definitely cannot be of genetic origin for
evolution does not take
such a suddenly drastic leap in such a relatively minuscule amount of
time.

Just as we are today laughing at those who thought of jews as
intellectually incompetent,
our descendants( yours and mine, for the record, i am a black male)
will certainly laugh at you and other white-supremacists for your
unfavorable opinions of Africans for intelligence and ingenuity are
human characteristics, not merely European monopolies.

To defeat the
illusionary force of your plausible observations( remember, the world
is inherently deceitfuI, and that most plausible things are
fundamentally false no matter how true they appear to your
impressionable eyes), try to consider the following analogy:
I had learned to walk way before my infant son was even conceived, and
i have been holding his hands and directing his clumsy steps for quite
some months now; but does that guarantee me superior running abilities
over my son in the future?

not at all, for bipedalism is not my
monopoly, but a universal characteristics of the human animal; but,
this seems to have been and continue to be Europeans' attitude toward
the human neocortex and its marvelous abilities.

Similarly, the alleged
and widely accepted lowly opinions of Africans may be plausible, But
they must be false for the sames evolutionary reasons that these
race-supremacists have corrupted in their pseudo-scientific analyses;
for Africans cannot be stupid because they are obviously evolutionarily
stable: they have proved themselves against evolutionary pressures.

No
human subgroups can do that unless they are capable of continually
producing thinkers and competent leaders capable of responding to the
challenges of their environment.

As anthopological history shows,
those groups that have failed to do so (such as the Neanderthals) are
no longer with us. Think about the following for a minute:
if africa is the birth of humanity, and that modern humans migrated
from africa to other places, these migrants must have left due to stiff
competition created by scarsity of food or control for safer habitats;
and if our own contemporay history suggests that the migratory groups
tend to be weaker than their competitors, that is people that leave
tend to be weaker than those that stay( the weakness does not have to
be genetic), then there is no logical basis why evolution should make
the descendents of the out-of-africa migrants smarter than those of the remaining tribes.

Contrary to what some may have already assumed, my
text is not in any way a so-called liberal bashing of Europeans.

i do
not believe that europeans are particularly evil no more than i would
believe africans to be inherently moronic.

In all fairness, my text is
not intended to demonize or indict Europeans for i am a devout
humanist.

however, i understand what would lead an individual to hold
such a plausible yet erroneous belief with regard to European colonial
history.

As we all know, critical thinking is in short supply in the
age of the constant bombardment of subliminal effects in the media, in
history books, and in politics.

Most human individuals irrespective of
race are superficial thinkers, not because of some inherent
intellectual deficiency, but due to lack on interest in critical
reasoning or fear of looking at things with a healthy skeptical mind.
Therefore, to most observers, in-depth analysis is generally not an
intellectual prerequisite when making a judgement or reaching a
conclusion.

therefore, when the average person looks at the history of
the world with Europeans attempting to dehumanize an entire race
(Africans), dropping two nuclear bombs on an already-defeated enemy(
japan), consistently making a travestry of judicial ideals( i.e
celebratory mob-lynching of alleged black rapists, who often are secret
lovers of white mistresses who did not dare reveal their attraction in
a patriarchal, racialized american south), he or she cannot help but to
erroneously conclude that Europeans are inherently evil. Similarly,
when an average observer looks at Africa with its wars and diseases,
and extreme dependency on foreigners, he/she cannot help but to
fallaciously conclude that Africans are inherently inferior.

Did Europeans make the world more civilized as you seem to be boasting
in almost every single text that you have written on this site?

I completely disagree with the assertion of the white man's natural
burden; however, I recognize that europeans have made tremendous
contributions( popularization of scientific inquiry, individualism,
capitalism, ...) to the world in spite of their shortcomings(
xenophobia, manifest-destiny-complex, succeptibility to
self-contradiction particularly in interracial socio-political
situations..).

Earlier in my text, i have attempted to demonstrate the fallacy of a
very common misconception, that is the intellectual and creative
superiority of the caucasian type with the following analogy: "i had
learned to walk way before my infant son".

In fact, my infant-son seems
to be exhausting my patience.; but does that guarantee me superior
running abilities over him in the future?

or does that give me a
monopoly or a copyright on bipedalism?" As i have concluded, that seems
to be the attitude of europeans vis-a-vis the human neocotex and its
capabilities among which are found reductionism, abstract extraction
and scientific methodology.

in my attempt to couteract the widely accepted assertion of europeans'
alleged inherent superiority, and their assumed indispensability to
civilizational development, i will use an altered version of the same
analogy as follows:
let's assume that my infant-son is not my biological son but a result
of compassionate adoption.

therefore, his existence becomes independent
of mine. in other words, even if i never existed, my infant-son would
still be conceived and probably adopted by a different family from whom
he would certainly learn how to walk, for bipedalism does not in any
conceivable way depend on my individual existence.

similarly, the
neocortex the center of man's most valuable cognitive capabilities, is
an intrisic physiological part of the human brain_ in other words, it
does not require the existence of any one particular human subgroup,
whether it be europeans or non-europeans to reveal its magical power.

thus, technological civilization was bound to eventualize sooner or
later, and with or without europeans; for civilization is the result of
man's desperation and curiosity, an effective attempt to diminish his
insecurities and fears of economic scarcity and existential
uncertainties.

Were european colonizers of Africa and the Americas good-will
ambassadors as popularized by the likes of Kippling?

not at all; for in
trying to dominate a group on the basis of one's stronger technology,
one incidentally necessitates the acquisition of this same technology
by the observing dominated group.

In the same way, just because
contemporary Africans have learned the technologies invented by
europeans, it does not follow that the intention of the European
settlers was to bring modern technological knowledge to Africa.

For
instance, if "X" is trying to shoot "Y", "X" will have to use that gun
in the inpressionable eyes of "Y" or its fellow tribesmen; Then, being
naturally curious, a characteristic of their human nature, these
witnessing tribesmen will ponder on that new technology for a long time
until they successfully acquire it; for such a technology is proven to
possess tremendous power.

It is this kind of internal desire to posess
power that facilitates the absorption of these new tecknological tools,
not the so-called civilizational mission dubbed "The White Man's
burden".

Do slavery and dominance reflect inherent inferiority and superiority
respectively as many commentators would tend to argue?

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Europeans, particularly in
Russia, are descended from peasants who were once called "inherent
inferiors"; But could the Aristocrats and Royals who were once presumed
to be "inherent superiors" reproduce at such a great rate to satisfy
the constant demand for good engineers, and physicists required by the
Soviets during their demanding geopolitical competition with the
Americans?

what many fail to realize is that the enslavement of one's fellow human
beings suggest only marginal technological superiority; if one can
possess a mechanical entity with no sense of self, anger or tendency to
disobey, one will not take the risk of repressing a sentient entity
with the ability to plot against one's life. Soundless and
non-nightmarish sleeps must have been very rare in the masters'
mansions on a slave-plantation.

in retrospect, it makes perfect sense
for the slave-onwers to imagine their slaves as "happy and
simple-minded"; for only with this defense-mechanism that they could
manage to sleep without frequent aweful nightmares of violent slave
rebellions.

No wonder such distortions still persist through this day
as they often represent the argumentive basis of traditioanal European
apologists as evidenced by a teacher in south carolina who taught her
students that slaves were very happy, and their joyous songs were an
expression of such as a happiness; following the same line of thoughts,
American apologists with regard to the Native Americans tend to argue
that modern America greatly benefits the remaining surviving native
tribes; After all, goes the saying, "they pay no taxes".

How does it benefit the native americans?

their people have been
decimated whereas the tiny community of survivors is crippled by
chronic alcoholism and rampant criminality.

When the European settlers
in colonial America built rudimentary schools in the indian
reservations, their intention was not to educationally enhance the
Natives.

why would they be interested in creating potential competitors
and challengers to the continuation of European hegemony in the their
colonies?

the schools were simply intended to make more efficient
servants out of the natives in the european-dominated society; for an
illiterate servant is not very efficient, especially if one happens to
serve in an upper-class residence.

there is also an ego-centric aspect
in this apparently good act, for when a slave or a servant is
marginally educated, this consequently tends to reflect on the personal
accomplishments of the master.

For instance, the master would boast of
his greatness in the presence of fellow gentlemen with statements such
as this one: " ...despite the inherent stupidity of the Negro type, i
have succeeded in educating my Negro servant, Romeo; in fact, he is
much better cultured than many white commoners in the shantytowns of
London." Our boasting English gentleman would proceed with " Romeo is
fluent in many languages and he is quite a gentleman" and finish his
"eloge" with an aristocratic puffing from a comically held Pipe.
Was ancient Egypt white or black?

both the eurocentric and afrocentric
scholars are wrong, because the survinving artifacts seem to suggest
that at different times in the history of ancient egypt different
ethnic groups had established dynasties.Some were unquetionably
african( i.e the Tutmosis), some were white( i.e, the Ptolemy) and some
were mixed( i.e Haknaten).

Furthermore, a recent discovery by national
geography scholars reveals that ancient Egypt was governed At some
point in its history by a Nubian dinasty.

Bear in mind that while there
is a controversy as to the racial type of Ancient Egyptians, no one
questions the fact that the Nubians who once occupied the region known
as present Sudan, were phenotypically Africoid.

In fact, Nubiology is
becoming a full-fleshed scholarship in its own right as archeologists
and historians begin to appreciate the complexity of Nubian culture.

Most historical scholars with sufficient intellectual integrity agree
that Subsaharan Africans were moving toward a higher state of
civilization way before their contact with Europeans.

For instance,
they had iron-casting and found use for Copper and Tin way before their
contact with Arab merchants.

they were also consolidating geo-political
entities under imperial umbrellas ( Songay, Ghana, Mali, Timbuktu etc).

They did that in spite of the horrible deterrent presence of the Sahara
desert and without the advantage of cultural diffusion enjoyed by other
peoples around the mediterranean Seas. individuals like topaz seem to
have learned nothing from history; history has an ironic way of
disappointing superficial judgers of cause-and-effect relationships;
For instance, how disappointed the dutch and the spaniards would have
been, after centuries of Ridiculing jewish intellectuals( i.e spinoza)
and undermining their intellect to realize today that the young nation
of isreal is a nuclear power and that their own descendents often would
travel to Tel-Aviv for ground-breaking surgeries.

If were to go back in
time and tell the story, would these critics believe that these jews
from the dirty ghettos will have eventually produced far more
influential thinkers (einstein, poper, wittgenstein, feynman,
wiensberg, godel...

and coutless others) in the twentieth century alone
than all of Spain and Holland in their combined histories; Similarly,
After years of repressing women, sexist and chauvinistic men have been
proven wrong, namely that ADAM is nothing but a myth. In other words,
it is man that comes from woman, not the other around; for the "Y"
chromosome is proven to be an evolutionary mutation of the "X"
chromosome.After millenia of perpetuating the myth of woman's innate
intellectual inadequacy, sexist men, at least in America, find to their
their dismay that women have a higher percentage of college completion;
and After millenia of assuming women to be the "weaker sex", the
chauvistic males are disappointed to discover that in fact women have
better cell-repairing mechanisms as they are more likely to recover
from many diseases and traumatic injuries.

Topaz, As i have said many times, the world is inherently deceitful,
and as a consequence of that fact, most plausible and apparent truths
are in fact fundamentally false.

P.S: you have certainly heard of the cranium-size argument, that is the
argument that claims that Europeans generally have larger crania than
Africans, thefore they must be smarter.One thing that these social
commentators have failed to realize is that the fuegians, considered to
have the largest crania among humans went extinct in cultural
stagnation without inventing any complex machinery or creating any
elaborate arts.
Also, in thinking about the cranium-size argument, i have one day
thought of a concept in biology known as " Convergent Evolution", and i
thought that it may explain the racial differences in cranium-size as
follows:
the measures generally come from volumes as if increasing volumes were
the only way to increase neural matter; that is not necessarily the
case because of the concept of density.

how does the concept of density
may be related to that of convergent evolution to tentatively explain
the racial differences in cranium-size?

In colder areas such as Europe where "Maximal Surface Area" is
evolutionarily favored due to a lack of sunlight, the inhabitants of
such regions may have increased their neural matter by increasing their
cranium-size via the process of evolution in order to make rooms for
more networking neurons during which the average-distance among
adjacent neurons has been maintained; whereas, in hotter areas such as
subsarahan Africa where "Minimal Surface Area" is evolutionarily
favored due to an excess of sunlight, inhabitants of such regions may
have
increased their neural matter via the same process of evolution using a
different route, that of reducing the average-distance among adjacent
neurons in order to make rooms for more networking neurons without
expanding the cranium.

In other words, biology within the frame of
"Convergent Evolution" may have allowed both europeans and africans to
reach the same goal, that is more neural matter using different routes,
one of increased volume, and the other of increased density
respectively.

Bear in mind that i am not promoting any personal biological theory
here, nor do i believe that any increase in neural matter will
necessarily translate in a superior intellect.

OBSERVER KEEN!!

Observer Keen, March 23 2006, 2:33 AM

Start a NEW topic or,
Jump to previous | Next Topic >

< Previous | Home | Next >

 

Messages in this topic

 

< Previous | Home | Next >