[JonatonM]

Does this really hold true if you take an African and give him all the opportunities that your average white man would? And if the opposite were to happen, and you took a white and put him in an African environment, or gave him the opportunities that were available to an African American? Would you expect his IQ to still be 100? For some reason I don't think this will remain true..

I did give you the example of african americans, with their 85 IQ. It seems to be the case that they just aren't that good at math, or inventing stuff, nor do they have an interest in how things operate which is part of philosophy and science.

Nothing wrong with this, nor does this make them inferior. They are just as capable of becoming a waliullah. Only if you subscribe to the western mindset that only measures superiority on ability to make money by 'manipulating matter', as in industry, which requires mathematical ability, financial shrewdness and inventiveness. It's only in a society that values these kind of things that such people would feel inferior. So the problem lies with society, for not emphasising things like spirituality which everyone is capable of, and overemphasising things like mathematics which not everyone is capable of.

[Thunderzee]

BTW: one of the tallest men in the world is Chinese. Just saying.

[JonatonM]

From personal experience I've seen white people grow up in majority African American environment, "ghetto", and I don't see a difference.

Please backup that these whites would be naturally predisposed to be more intelligent despite their environment.

Depends on how we define intelligent. An intelligent person is one who has 'understanding', this is the meaning of the word 'intellectus' in its latin original form. It is more nuanced than the english word 'intellect', which only seems to apply to analytical skills, the ability to do math.

Whites have the analytical skills, perhaps, but a lot of them seem to lack understanding.

That said, I'm struggling with myself not to assign you into the category of racist or 'other' It is hard to do, I can see how some of us are struggling intellectually with it and making statements that are cruel, unjust and unethical. I don't agree. There shouldn't be anything wrong seen in having a lower analytical ability, which is what IQ measures. But it just so happens this skill is needed to create all this modern technology we have.

[Thunderzee]

I did give you the example of african americans, with their 85 IQ. It seems to be the case that they just aren't that good at math, or inventing stuff, nor do they have an interest in how things operate which is part of philosophy and science.

Nothing wrong with this, nor does this make them inferior. They are just as capable of becoming a waliullah. Only if you subscribe to the western mindset that only measures superiority on ability to make money by 'manipulating matter', as in industry, which requires mathematical ability, financial shrewdness and inventiveness. It's only in a society that values these kind of things that such people would feel inferior. So the problem lies with society, for not emphasising things like spirituality which everyone is capable of, and overemphasising things like mathematics which not everyone is capable of.

Then you must also know that such societies also limit who makes it to certain positions. It isn't that people aren't capable of getting there and some actually do despite the hurdles that are deliberately put in front of them.

[JonatonM]

Then you must also know that such societies also limit who makes it to certain positions. It isn't that people aren't capable of getting there and some actually do despite the hurdles that are deliberately put in front of them.

Maybe, but if that was the case then africans wouldn't have lived in mud huts until 200 years ago, nor would aboriginals roam naked in the desert for 40,000 years.

They just weren't interested in making civilisations. Nothing wrong with that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Inequality.png

[Thunderzee]

Allah (SWT) guides whom He wills.

Peace, out.

[wizardasa]

Black americans have been in america for hundreds of years, yet their IQ is still around 80, and have made little to no contributions to science or anything, even now when american universities have affirmative action programs.

Slavery was only completely abolished in America in 1865. After that, blacks still didn't have equal rights for about another 100 years. Discrimination is alive and well, even in my supposedly liberal home state of New York. Unless you've actually spent time in poor communities, you have no idea of the hurdles they face, or of the huge competitive advantage that whites enjoy in this country.

Despite all that, they have made plenty of contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_scientists

Afraid not. It's objective.

Proof?


Yes, but once they encountered greek philosophy they took it up and made progress in that area. The same can't be said for all races.

Meanwhile, the Greeks have made little or no progress for the past 1500 years.

Chinese IQ is basically equivalent to europeans anyway. On average they are still shorter. Ever see a 2 metre tall chinese person? Nope.

Ever heard of Yao Ming?

Please provide links to the research papers in which the findings of these IQ tests were published.

As for aborigines and such; just because people don't have ambition, doesn't mean they don't have the capability for progress. Not to mention, these communities have been isolated until very recently, and cross-cultural exchange is essential for scientific advancement.

The vast majority of the world's population lived in huts until 200 years ago. Many still do, and not just in Africa. The ancient Egyptians undoubtedly had "negroid" heredity. The Ghanians and Malians definitely did.

[JonatonM]

Please provide links to the research papers in which the findings of these IQ tests were published.

As for aborigines and such; just because people don't have ambition, doesn't mean they don't have the capability for progress. Not to mention, these communities have been isolated until very recently, and cross-cultural exchange is essential for scientific advancement.

The vast majority of the world's population lived in huts until 200 years ago. Many still do, and not just in Africa. The ancient Egyptians undoubtedly had "negroid" heredity. The Ghanians and Malians definitely did.

Why do you think everyone needs to be equal in intelligence at all? This is very liberal cultural imperialist attitude, that everyone must be equal, the implication being 'as equal as europeans', in ability to invent and all that. Everyone is different, so what if they aren't able to make a civilisation? Progress is a western superstition.

As for egyptians, their leaders were greek. From ptolemy to cleopatra.

Proof? Read plato.

Meanwhile, the Greeks have made little or no progress for the past 1500 years. They were busy being subjugated by the turks, you know.

Please provide links to the research papers in which the findings of these IQ tests were published. IQ and the wealth of nations.

Slavery was only completely abolished in America in 1865. After that, blacks still didn't have equal rights for about another 100 years. Discrimination is alive and well, even in my supposedly liberal home state of New York. Unless you've actually spent time in poor communities, you have no idea of the hurdles they face, or of the huge competitive advantage that whites enjoy in this country. Yes yes, slavery is always the excuse. Slavs used to be slaves, hence their name, yet they managed to get somewhere. I think its simply the fact that the people you are talking about are incapable of anything, so they constantly blame white people. Easier to blame other people than to take responsiblity for your own actions and life.


Anyway I don't think this is going anywhere. I'm going to stop.

wsalam

[wizardasa]

Why do you think everyone needs to be equal in intelligence at all? This is very liberal cultural imperialist attitude, that everyone must be equal, the implication being 'as equal as europeans', in ability to invent and all that. Everyone is different, so what if they aren't able to make a civilisation? Progress is a western superstition.

As for egyptians, their leaders were greek. From ptolemy to cleopatra.

I dont think this is going anywhere.

I don't think anyone needs to be anything. I am disputing your ill-founded claims that certain races are inherently less intelligent than others. Populations vary in much more than simple genetics. Geographical location, population size- all have massive effects.

Talking about which races have had how many inventors is meaningless. The Ashkenazi Jews probably have contributed more to science than any other group, relative to their population size, in the past 200 years. Yet, before that they had basically made no contributions. So 200 years ago, you would have been saying the same things about them as you are now saying about blacks.

You have cited some unknown IQ studies and other generalizations in support of your claims which I have already poked holes in.

The history of Egypt did not start with Ptolemy and end with Cleopatra. Egypt was at its height during the New Kingdom, hundreds of years before Ptolemy. That may be unwelcome news to you since it doesn't fit your bogus racial theory.

[JonatonM]

I don't think anyone needs to be anything. I am disputing your ill-founded claims that certain races are inherently less intelligent than others. You have cited some unknown IQ studies and other generalizations which I have already poked holes in.

The history of Egypt did not start with Ptolemy and end with Cleopatra. Egypt was at its height during the New Kingdom, hundreds of years before Ptolemy. That may be unwelcome news to you since it doesn't fit your bogus racial theory.

I told you the name of the book. What have you got against black people being less intelligent? What about your own racial theory? Are you racist, that they must be equal to others in IQ, and to say otherwise is to deem them inferior? Who is the racist now? Cultural imperialist liberalism at its finest. To be honest I'm not surprised you live in New York.

http://www.google.com.au/search?clie...hannel=suggest

I simple google search brings up plenty of examples, besides the book I mentioned. No doubt you will reject these since it doesn't fit with your worldview.

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ed...ion-average-iq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Na...Inequality.png
The Ashkenazi Jews probably have contributed more to science than any other group, relative to their population size, in the past 200 years. Yet, before that they had basically made no contributions. So 200 years ago, you would have been saying the same things about them as you are now saying about blacks. Except that blacks have been free for a long time, and haven't done anything. Why does this matter to you anyway? Why does a race need to accomplish anything in order to be equal? You are the real racist.

The history of Egypt did not start with Ptolemy and end with Cleopatra. Egypt was at its height during the New Kingdom, hundreds of years before Ptolemy. So what? The pharaohs were not sub saharan negroid by any means. They had millions of black slaves though, which explains a lot.

[wizardasa]

Why do you think everyone needs to be equal in intelligence at all? This is very liberal cultural imperialist attitude, that everyone must be equal, the implication being 'as equal as europeans', in ability to invent and all that. Everyone is different, so what if they aren't able to make a civilisation? Progress is a western superstition.

As for egyptians, their leaders were greek. From ptolemy to cleopatra.

Already addressed in previous post.


Read plato.

Yes, yes, I know all about Greek ideas about beauty being defined by symmetry, proportion and whatnot. Too bad plato was not a scientist and is not the final word on anything.

They were busy being subjugated by the turks, you know.

You are proving my point.

IQ and the wealth of nations.



Yes yes, slavery is always the excuse. Slavs used to be slaves, hence their name, yet they managed to get somewhere. I think its simply the fact that the people you are talking about are incapable of anything, so they constantly blame white people. Easier to blame other people than to take responsiblity for your own actions and life.

So oppression is a good enough excuse for the Greeks, but not for Negroes?

Anyway I don't think this is going anywhere. I'm going to stop.

wsalam

[HagsPusia]

Salaam 'aleikum,

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last century or so, you would know that IQ and similar "intelligence" categories are firmly liked to social/economic development, and not any inherent biological factors. Therefore, the level of education/IQ in Namibia, for example, is drastically different from that of Chad, both Black African countries. You're almost delving into phrenology here, and it really is a shame these sentiments pop out in the Muslim community. Eugenics is not a dead science, but it certainly is dead when it comes to talking about intelligence potential based on biological factors (brain size etc.)
By the way - the best example of this faulty theory is the near absence of Arab contribution to science/art in the last few hundred years. Is it a genetic predisposition? Or a political/economic reality? It is the latter of course, since Arabs were foremost contributors in the same areas centuries before.

M

[HagsPusia]

And sorry, but etymologically, Slav is derived from slava - meaning honor. Very opposite from slave, which is a common myth regarding the word. Im a Slav, just fyi.

[wizardasa]

I told you the name of the book. What have you got against black people being less intelligent? What about your own racial theory? Are you racist, that they must be equal to others in IQ, and to say otherwise is to deem them inferior? Who is the racist now? Cultural imperialist liberalism at its finest. To be honest I'm not surprised you live in New York.

I just told you I don't have any need for blacks to be more or less intelligent. I haven't proposed any racial theory. I'm simply saying that the "evidence" you're using to back up yours is ridiculous. When did I say that a person who is less intelligent is inferior to someone who is more intelligent? I'll look at the links you posted

http://www.google.com.au/search?clie...hannel=suggest

I simple google search brings up plenty of examples, besides the book I mentioned. No doubt you will reject these since it doesn't fit with your worldview.

http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ed...ion-average-iq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Na...Inequality.png


Except that blacks have been free for a long time, and haven't done anything. Why does this matter to you anyway? Why does a race need to accomplish anything in order to be equal? You are the real racist.

Omigod. As I said before, not being a slave is not the same as not being oppressed. It's not as if after slavery was abolished, Blacks magically became as wealthy and enjoyed the same privileges as middle and upper middle class whites. By the way, poor whites in America tend to be just as "stupid" as poor blacks. The difference is, the majority of blacks are poor, and it has everything to do with slavery and racial discrimination. Freed slaves had no wealth and no opportunities. Many of them had no choice but to return to work for their former masters, and face even worse living conditions. A century is not a very long time for a community to rise up out of extreme poverty, malnutrition, and all the other lovely holdovers of slavery or other catastrophic societal collapse. After the decline of the western Roman empire, it took about 900 years for the European Renaissance to kick in.

Despite this, blacks have made notable contributions, which I linked you to earlier.


So what? The pharaohs were not sub saharan negroid by any means. They had millions of black slaves though, which explains a lot.

No, but it's not entirely clear that they didn't have any Negroid heredity at all. Just look at the statues of the ancient pharaohs. Many of them have features that look negroid to me.

.

[Mello]

Back to issues related to the number of Muslims in Europe.

[JonatonM]

So oppression is a good enough excuse for the Greeks, but not for Negroes? You seem to be under the impression that blacks were oppressed for eternity, which I know is the politically correct narrative, but it holds no water.

Yes, yes, I know all about Greek ideas about beauty being defined by symmetry, proportion and whatnot. Too bad plato was not a scientist and is not the final word on anything. He was a scientist actually, not that scientists are the final say in anything, and he showed quite well how beauty is eternal and objective. Your words seem to indicate the opposite of what you say; that you don't know anything about philosophy.

IQ and similar "intelligence" categories are firmly liked to social/economic development, and not any inherent biological factors Only according to cultural marxist anthropologists who have a vested interest in denying the biological reality of race. There was a study done on medical students in some african country, whose name I don't remember, and they scored around the expected 80 point range. Why is that? They can't blame it on oppression or anything other factors. Chinese peasants still score around 100, despite having no education. So your argument doesn't seem to work.

As for arabs, they aren't really a race. Egyptians, syrians etc, are all arabised, not arabs as such. It wasn't the arabian tribemen from the arabian peninsula who made all the advancements; they themselves went back to their simple lives not long after the openings of the middle east. The islamic intellectual tradtion, specifically ashari theology, is essentially Persian, the whole line of philosophical argumentation that came via the mutazila into asharism came by the persian and christian converts to islam. Even in grammar, the one to formalise grammar, sibawayh, was not even an arab, he was persian.

As for blacks, they never progressed to a stage from which they could stagnate.

No, but it's not entirely clear that they didn't have any Negroid heredity at all. Just look at the statues of the ancient pharaohs. Many of them have features that look negroid to me. lolno.

By the way, poor whites in America tend to be just as "stupid" as poor blacks. Stupid, yes, in lacking education. But there is still the IQ gap.

A century is not a very long time for a community to rise up out of extreme poverty, malnutrition, No excuse, they've had since the beginning of time, and only 'progressed' once they were given european technology.

And I can only scoff at your 'list.'

[wizardasa]

You seem to be under the impression that blacks were oppressed for eternity, which I know is the politically correct narrative, but it holds no water.

No, I'm not under that impression. You totally ignored my point about the Ashkenazim, who weren't oppressed for eternity either, but made no contributions to science till about 200 years ago.

He was a scientist actually, not that scientists are the final say in anything, and he showed quite well how beauty is eternal and objective. Your words seem to indicate the opposite of what you say; that you don't know anything about philosophy.

Why do you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks? Philosophy happened to be my second major, although I was never awarded a certificate for it because I wasn't able to pay for the last couple of courses...but that's neither here nor there. Plato was most definitely not a scientist in the modern sense of the word. In fact, that's one of the main differences between him and Aristotle.

And you're right, scientists are not the final say in anything. Neither are philosophers.


Only according to cultural marxist anthropologists who have a vested interest in denying the biological reality of race. There was a study done on medical students in some african country, whose name I don't remember, and they scored around the expected 80 point range. Why is that? They can't blame it on oppression or anything other factors. Chinese peasants still score around 100, despite having no education. So your argument doesn't seem to work.

As for arabs, they aren't really a race. Egyptians, syrians etc, are all arabised, not arabs as such. It wasn't the arabian tribemen from the arabian peninsula who made all the advancements; they themselves went back to their simple lives not long after the openings of the middle east. The islamic intellectual tradtion, specifically ashari theology, is essentially Persian, the whole line of philosophical argumentation that came via the mutazila into asharism came by the persian and christian converts to islam. Even in grammar, the one to formalise grammar, sibawayh, was not even an arab, he was persian.

As for blacks, they never progressed to a stage from which they could stagnate.



lolno.


Stupid, yes, in lacking education. But there is still the IQ gap.

I haven't had time to read this IQ book, so I can't comment on this. I did look it up on Wikipedia, and it seems people have pointed out flaws in the methodology.

Never mind the fact that IQ is by no means an absolute measure of intelligence, just like the SAT or MCAT aren't. Were all the same IQ tests administered in the countries being compared? Was the sample size and composition always the same? Were IQ tests administered in the vernacular? Apparently, about two-thirds of the nations that were compared were not even tested, but simply assigned an IQ by averaging that of other countries. This kind of statistical "research" is sketchy. The numbers can always be manipulated to fit a thesis.

No excuse, they've had since the beginning of time, and only 'progressed' once they were given european technology.

And I can only scoff at your 'list.'

Why? Have you accomplished anything near any one of those on the list in your life?

.

[Nikkkola]

I had a Muslim friend who I shared many meals with, joined in halaqa for years, and considered him to be a cultured, educated Muslim (been to hajj successfully, masters degree in computer engineering). It just so happened that one day over a meal, we and a few other brothers were discussing culture and race and this brother broke into his personal views on race, IQ, human evolution, etc. which were essentially Eugenics from 19th century Europe. He perceived that there were only three races (Caucasian, Negro, Mongol) and how Indians were Aryans from Causasian race, having evolved over millenia etc. I personally was a little shocked. All this time, he held quasi scientific, Social Darwinian views about races of people. But the good thing was several of us brothers were able to intellectually unravel, deconstruct, and eventually overcome his long held views. But he eventually spilt apart from us. he has abandoned his wrong ideas and is well.

[HagsPusia]

Only according to cultural marxist anthropologists who have a vested interest in denying the biological reality of race. There was a study done on medical students in some african country, whose name I don't remember, and they scored around the expected 80 point range. Why is that? They can't blame it on oppression or anything other factors. Chinese peasants still score around 100, despite having no education. So your argument doesn't seem to work.

As for arabs, they aren't really a race. Egyptians, syrians etc, are all arabised, not arabs as such. It wasn't the arabian tribemen from the arabian peninsula who made all the advancements; they themselves went back to their simple lives not long after the openings of the middle east. The islamic intellectual tradtion, specifically ashari theology, is essentially Persian, the whole line of philosophical argumentation that came via the mutazila into asharism came by the persian and christian converts to islam. Even in grammar, the one to formalise grammar, sibawayh, was not even an arab, he was persian.

t.'

See therein lies your problem. I could provide hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the last century firmly disproving any notion of inherent biological differences between races as related to intelligence. I really dont think you want to get into this, if we're taking a strictly scientific approach. Eugenics is hooey. Lets go back to phrenology if you're at it.

In regards to your second statement, it really don't matter if it was Persians. The point is, the European was a complete savage at one point, even though on the time scale, he had just as much opportunity to be as progressed as his Egyptian or Chinese counterpart by, say 1000 BC. Did the European all of a sudden evolve biologically? No - the European success can be explained by a multitude of factors, all of which are better guesses than some inherent idea of White intelligence. Lol at "cultural marxist anthropologists". Its simple science dude - grey matter, neurology, cellular structure. Do you also believe in the flat earth theory, because there are a few theories and some fringe scientists wrote some articles?

And the idea that the Nubian or Egyptian civilizations weren't "Black" in actuality is a common new myth perpetuated by many Neo-Nazi and White Power movements. Plenty of evidence suggests that both civilizations were ruled by the Negroid rather than Caucausoid peoples. Not all Black people need to look Gambian or Zimbabwean. Again, we're talking science here right? DNA and such?

[Nikkkola]

Uber Mensch,

Are you familiar with IQ testing?
Are you aware that there are well known cultural bias' within the tests themselves?
Have you ever taken an IQ test in Mandarin? What would your IQ test results be compared to if you took it in english (or your native language)?

So as you refer to an unknown "study" of African medical students in some African country, the test itself may have been biased such that it may have been in a European language as opposed to the native language. As well, social scientists of the West have academically recognized cultural bias in their IQ testing. My first language was NOT english. If I had been tested in english when I was still grappling with the language as a child, I would have had a different IQ than I had when I had gained literacy and control over the language. And my education and culturing in english directly shaped my ability to test. I was raised in a safe environment (recent studies show that children raised in insecure, unsafe environments ( high stressors ) engage in 'fight or flight' response more frequently in the brain, which detracts from the culturing, education, and intellectual development needed for "intelligence". Hence, there is a direct material correlation between environment and IQ).

As well, if the cultural bias is removed from IQ test to a relevant degree, it is patently untrue that racial/ethnic groups' score as a cluster- ie. African medical students score an average of 85. This "racialist" citation attempts to show that 'Africans' (subSaharan West Africans, perhaps?- or do you mean the blue eyed, "white skinned" Berbers of North Africa?) that even medical doctors in Africa are less intelligent than European factory workers with average IQs of 100.

Social scientists admit that IQ tests show that there are individuals of all ethnicities and 'races' who score in every bracket, forming the same Bell curve for every human grouping.

Even the famous Bell Curve by Charles Murray admits these same results, and he's a kafir social scientist who was funded by white racialist groups.

Or perhaps you are confused between "mean" and "median"?


Racialism is a form of asabiyah, which is Haram. The Prophet said asabiyah is rotten, that believers should stay away from it, that it is not from "us", the Ummah of Muhammad .

And Allah knows best.