• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why some countries are rich and some are poor.

I mean you, with your racial profiling based upon socio economics.It is nonsense.
If u were to attemptp the same kinds of pseudo science at many points in history, you would reach differant conclusions.

Anyone who denies that certain races, or cultures, have not yet developed as well as others is also denying the daily proof of the differences we have.
We are not all alike, period. The differences are due to location, ancestry, ethnic culture, natural abilities, etc.
And certainly calling someone a racist for being smarter than you is an indication of prejudice....:2razz:
 
Anyone who denies that certain races, or cultures, have not yet developed as well as others is also denying the daily proof of the differences we have.
We are not all alike, period. The differences are due to location, ancestry, ethnic culture, natural abilities, etc.
And certainly calling someone a racist for being smarter than you is an indication of prejudice....:2razz:

Biological races do not exist. The characteristics we use to define them are arbitrarily chosen, choosing a different set of equally valid characteristics would result in racial classifications that may group Sweedes with Xhosas.
 
Last edited:
Biological races do not exist. The characteristics we use to define them are arbitrarily chosen, choosing a different set of equally valid characteristics would result in racial classifications that may group Sweedes with Xhosas.

There are many diseases and syndromes that are race specific....is that biological?
 
Biological races do not exist. The characteristics we use to define them are arbitrarily chosen, choosing a different set of equally valid characteristics would result in racial classifications that may group Sweedes with Xhosas.

The human species have developed differently in different places under different climate epecially and under influence of different things by different sets of lives, this have created the different races of humans.. If you do not understand that an Asian and a white man are two very different human beings, then the problem is all yours. They are two different races whom in addition have most likely grown up in completely different ways and have completely different knowledge as well, they arent just different like this, but in addition Asians tend to be smaller than whites, and less prone to ill health, actually let me just say it simply, the biology is just different from each other, but very similar in comparison to humans and any animal. People are different, just live with that and accept it please.
 
The human species have developed differently in different places under different climate epecially and under influence of different things by different sets of lives, this have created the different races of humans.. If you do not understand that an Asian and a white man are two very different human beings, then the problem is all yours. They are two different races whom in addition have most likely grown up in completely different ways and have completely different knowledge as well, they arent just different like this, but in addition Asians tend to be smaller than whites, and less prone to ill health, actually let me just say it simply, the biology is just different from each other, but very similar in comparison to humans and any animal. People are different, just live with that and accept it please.

Why don't we introduce some science to the discussion?

Species of organisms that are monotypic (i.e. form a single subspecies) display at least one of these properties:
* The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation displays a lack of allopatric partition between groups (i.e. a clearly defined boundary demarcating the subspecies), which is usually required before they are recognised as subspecies.[28]
Race (classification of human beings) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humans exhibit clinal variation so they are monotypic (i.e. no subspecies or races). There's really no need to go any further, although we can.
 
So? There arent different races of monkeys either then? There are equally large biologic variation between humans as there as between the different races of large monkeys.

Let's break down the inaccuracies in this post:

1) Monkeys are superfamily, humans are a species. The comparison is null.

2) Monkeys most likely have more variation than humans, as there are 100's of species of monkeys and only one species of humans.

3) I doubt any specie of monkey has less variation than humans and is classified into subsepecies, if there is one please tell me.

4) The amount of variation has nothing to do with my post, but was a reference to clinal variation. If clines exist (which they do in humans) then you can't classify subspecies because any lines drawn between groups are arbitrary and psuedo-scientific.
 
Let's break down the inaccuracies in this post:

1) Monkeys are superfamily, humans are a species. The comparison is null.

2) Monkeys most likely have more variation than humans, as there are 100's of species of monkeys and only one species of humans.

3) I doubt any specie of monkey has less variation than humans and is classified into subsepecies, if there is one please tell me.

4) The amount of variation has nothing to do with my post, but was a reference to clinal variation. If clines exist (which they do in humans) then you can't classify subspecies because any lines drawn between groups are arbitrary and psuedo-scientific.

1. Monkeys is a species of animals just like humans are

2. I said "large monkeys"

3. The point here is that if you find all the large races of monkeys and compare the differences, the biological variations between them will be about equal to the biological variations between human races.

4. Different races of humans exist, even brainsizes are different between the different races of humans.
 
1. Monkeys is a species of animals just like humans are

No they are not.
Monkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. I said "large monkeys"

"Large monkeys" is an ambiguous, unscientific term. What exactly is a "large monkey"?

3. The point here is that if you find all the large races of monkeys and compare the differences, the biological variations between them will be about equal to the biological variations between human races.

1) "Large monkeys" is still ambiguous and not a species.

2) I pretty sure your wrong on that. Have a source?

4. Different races of humans exist, even brainsizes are different between the different races of humans.

Why because you look different than an Asian or African you automatically assume that they belong to a different race? Go down to South Africa and take a walk north all the way up to Cairo and then further north to the Caucasus and Russia. You'll notice that population characteristics slowly and gradual change, there is no point where hair becomes straight and skin goes from black to white. Races are discrete groups. Discrete groups do not exist in humans.

But since you seem so convicted to this idea the tell me how do you define race? What characteristics do different races exhibit?
 
I am not racist at least, my intellect strictly forbids me prejudice, and I play with blacks as well as I do with whites. I have absolutely no racism in me.

I never called you racist, I said that what you are saying is racist.

Just so you know, before you read the rest(which will probably sound racist in vulnerable ears).. Maybe you are black or something and over-react in this case

I think it's quite obvious that this statement itself is racist.

I have black hair and relatively tan skin compared with northern Europeans whom are definitely another race than for example Italians and Spaniards.

Lets simplify and define continents with different races, shall we? Asians in Asia, predominantly whites in Europe, blacks in Africa, predominantly white in North America and hispanics and indians in south America...

No we're not simplifying. You have attempted to dodge the question here. Let me ask you again then, and I will be more specific. Define these races for us. What is "Asian"? What is "black"? What is "white"? What is "hispanic" and "indian"? How do you classify someone into one of these categories? Moreover, are these the only "races" that exist? Or are there more? I'm looking for an objectively verifiable (i.e. scientific) method of classifying people into different races.

You are presuming that races biologically exist and I am calling you out on that presumption. Now before we can discuss the differences between these races you have to show me what you mean when you say "race" or when you talk about a specific race.

Incredible amounts of them, but only really 1 race, humans, but to explain our differences we do use the term race rather fairly about major differences rather than small differences.

This is a cop out. See above.

Re: Why some countries are rich and some are poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
This has to be the most racist post I've seen on here in a while. Before we can really talk about this, you're going to have to answer a few questions. .
I am not racist at least, my intellect strictly forbids me prejudice, and I play with blacks as well as I do with whites. I have absolutely no racism in me.

Just so you know, before you read the rest(which will probably sound racist in vulnerable ears).. Maybe you are black or something and over-react in this case, because I certainly am not a racist. But I do understand if you are black in America that you would react in this way, taken into consideration how fragile non-racism is in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
First, what is race? Could you define "race" for us?
I have black hair and relatively tan skin compared with northern Europeans whom are definitely another race than for example Italians and Spaniards.

Lets simplify and define continents with different races, shall we? Asians in Asia, predominantly whites in Europe, blacks in Africa, predominantly white in North America and hispanics and indians in south America...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
Second, how many different races are there? What are they? How are they distinguished from one another?
Incredible amounts of them, but only really 1 race, humans, but to explain our differences we do use the term race rather fairly about major differences rather than small differences.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
Third, where is your justification for saying that "On the other hand black people have superior physique to for example white people, which are in most cases quite weak when it comes to health"
Ever been to England? Been in the locker rooms there? Ever seen black people who have never focused on their health and exercised in a gym? They have a more natural bodily strenght than white people who do not have this, but weaknesses and fragility rather. Put 100 average blacks on a line and white opposites to them and you will see what I mean...

Uh-oh, I said "put blacks in line", dont jump to conclusion and judge me as racist for that please, there was a context...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
Of course it does. First off, you're presuming that the concept of race exists biologically in humans. That alone is a racist position. Second, you're stating that countries with more "nonblack" people are better off, which implies that black people are inferior. That's blatantly racist. Third, you're making ridiculous assumptions about different "races" which in itself is racist.
Its not racist if its true is it? I am not poiting these things out to be a bastard, I just did it because it was relavant. Dont be so fuc***g emotional.

I never said blacks were inferior, if anything, I as a white have actually been closer to saying they are superior, especially their physique.

Again, I AM NOT a RACIST.
I think white people are assholes anyways... Is that racist? Is it not because I am talking about my own race? I find whites to have problems with health, I generalized about a race, my own, is that not racist in your view? Or is it only when I talk about blacks? I actually like blacks better than whites, they tend to be more honest and straight forward. Am I racist now for generalizing about blacks?

Dont be an asshole, just admit you are wrong. I am not racist and you know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
Generally it is because capitalism was born in Europe (England first, to be specific), and through this development came the development of productive forces and the need to expand. This led to the colonialism of less developed parts of the world whereby the capitalist armies dominated due to technological advances spurred on by capitalism (i.e. the gun). In a colony the only ones that are benefiting from the colonization are the colonists themselves and whoever they belong to; wealth was being exported from these colonies with the natives seeing none of it. Which caused the system that we see today.
Yeah, and I like this type of capitalism that have existed in Europe for thousand of years, but new capitalism is simply to puke of, very unbiblical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
The US started off as a colony and, due to the American Revolution, became an independent capitalist state, which expanded the "development" of capitalism through colonialism in the Americas, slavery and the annihilation of the native population.
.
All this is true...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
It's about power, not race. I don't see how that's not blatantly obvious. Have you ever read a book?
Ive read many books. Aside from that I would believe the amount of word I have read in my life is just about the most of anyone on this forum.

Are you making silly presumtion here? hate speech against people who do not read books? Thats prejudice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
There's numerous reasons for this, although it would help for you to be more specific and provide countries themselves. Generally, though, the reason goes right back to imperialism/colonialism. In Congo, for example, the country started out as a private colony of the King of Belgium that essentially used the natives as slave labor. This was at the beginning of the 20th century. This kind of violent suppression breeds violent consciousness (i.e. when you live in a ****ed up environment you get ****ed up yourself), which perpetuates the violence even after the colonizers are driven out. Fanon discussed and analyzed this in detail in his book. The only way it has to do with race is that it was caused by the colonizers who looked upon the natives as inferior.
I already know too much about this subject, it makes me sick to think of.. I probably hate racism more than you anyways.
And I hate prejudice..

Aside from that you dont counter that south Africa with the largers white population is most successfull as a nation, nor that namibia is more successful than other countries in Africa as well, or that the white population in the US is more successful than the black population in the same country, or how white Europe came to dominate Africa, or the fact that white countries have been more successful nations than black countries.

You can, can you? Because what I say is true.

Ok, so you're not basing your opinions on anything objectively verifiable but rather on your personal experiences. This actually supports what I've previously said, that race is an ideology. You basically just shot yourself in the foot.

Its not racist if its true is it? I am not poiting these things out to be a bastard, I just did it because it was relavant. Dont be so fuc***g emotional.

I'm not being emotional. If anything, you are the one being emotional, considering the fact that you are basing your entire viewpoint on this subject not on any academic studies or thinking, but rather on what you've personally experienced and how you feel. Perhaps, then, it should be I who should tell you to stop being so emotional and to start thinking, and start thinking critically at that.

I think white people are assholes anyways... Is that racist?

Of course it's racist. You're making stereotypical presumptions regarding a particular race. That's racism.

Yeah, and I like this type of capitalism that have existed in Europe for thousand of years, but new capitalism is simply to puke of, very unbiblical.

Capitalism isn't a moral system, it is an economic system. There is no "old" and "new" capitalism.

Aside from that you dont counter that south Africa with the largers white population is most successfull as a nation, nor that namibia is more successful than other countries in Africa as well, or that the white population in the US is more successful than the black population in the same country, or how white Europe came to dominate Africa, or the fact that white countries have been more successful nations than black countries.

Because it's completely irrelevent if you are unable to define what you mean when you say "white" or "black". If you can't do that then you can't claim that countries with a larger white population are more successful. Of course, that entire premise is completely ridiculous and is completely ignorant of historical development.
 

The point here is that there are great biological and some genetically differences between human races, just like there are between different type of "large monkeys"..


"Large monkeys" is an ambiguous, unscientific term. What exactly is a "large monkey"?

I am not a scientist so I actually dont care.. By large monkeys I mean anything as big as or bigger than chimpanzees, orangutan and those size monkeys, or perhaps those are "apes".. But the large ones I mean.. Those arent so many as "all monkeys" which I certainly wasnt comparing the amount of biological differences between them as in humans. Point is that there are biological differences between human races.

1) "Large monkeys" is still ambiguous and not a species.

2) I pretty sure your wrong on that. Have a source?

1) Yah, I am trying to generalize here, ok?

2) I recall you saying there are no differences. Between any two humans there are about 0.1% genetic variations, which is not huge, but in effect when you look at this biologically it plays out huge. How many percentage is variation between black and white? I can imagine its a very small digit with many 0s added before the 1. Its quite a clear difference between two people, black and white, very visibly different. Take then the 0.1% which can be huge and many diffences, but of those 0.1 only 8% are differences linked with race, meaning 0.008% genetic differences contributed to races. Thats quite a lot of difference in a genetic world, meaning that whites could be more prone to a lot of illnesses, while blacks could have a completely different functioning of muscles, making Asians smaller etc etc etc.. The point is that there are differences between the races, even if those sound small in the genetic variations, its huge in the biological differences.

The end point here is that there is reason to believe that race plays a role in the development of a society. Especially when you take a look at the main "races" of humans, where they live and how the society has developed there. Also take a look at minorities and how they have affected a society or how they fare different in the exactly same society as another race does when it should according to you be equal since you say race plays no role.
This is not about the technicalities, they are there, but the point here is as said, race is a factor in development of nations.


Why because you look different than an Asian or African you automatically assume that they belong to a different race? Go down to South Africa and take a walk north all the way up to Cairo and then further north to the Caucasus and Russia. You'll notice that population characteristics slowly and gradual change, there is no point where hair becomes straight and skin goes from black to white. Races are discrete groups. Discrete groups do not exist in humans.

Id say there are a few dusin main races around the world, then you have tens of thousands of easily identifiably different races among them also. Take Europeans for example, you can easily admit that even scandinavians and southern Europeans are different races, but a smaller variation than any European(white/mediterranean) and a black African where there is a major difference. Not saying anyone is better or worse(which would be racist), but different they are.

But since you seem so convicted to this idea the tell me how do you define race? What characteristics do different races exhibit?

Personally I would say there are 4 major races, whites, asians, blacks and indians.


edit. Race and genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
last post

I was just saying you over-reacted, maybe because you are black and have been victim of racism?

Anyways, point here is, look at the continents, the races and so on and honestly tell yourself that race has NOTHING to do with how a nation develops. You cant, because it would be a lie.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who denies that certain races, or cultures, have not yet developed as well as others is also denying the daily proof of the differences we have.
We are not all alike, period. The differences are due to location, ancestry, ethnic culture, natural abilities, etc.
And certainly calling someone a racist for being smarter than you is an indication of prejudice....:2razz:


I am not trying to say that there is no diferance between genetic stocks of diferant localities. Not at all. I said your racial profiling based on socio economics.


A cultures affluence is not evidence of genetic strengths any more than its past poverty (the larger part of history) is evident of our weaknesses.
I mean, its not like we evolved our way out of the dark ages. We didnt. We worked, learnt and traded our way through it.

If you want to find general diferances in genetic stocks evolved in diferant localities ("races"), youd be wise to start at the genetic levels, rather than extrapolating from a narrow slice of history. Im well open to the idea there could be generalisable diferances (muscle type, for example). The lense you are looking at things through is far to biased.
 
I was just saying you over-reacted, maybe because you are black and have been victim of racism?

Anyways, point here is, look at the continents, the races and so on and honestly tell yourself that race has NOTHING to do with how a nation develops. You cant, because it would be a lie.

In other words, you don't want to respond to what I've said because you have no practical way to defend what you are saying, as is evident by all of your posts where you just say "come on, you know I'm right!" It's quite pitiful, really.
 
Pointing out factual differences between races and cultures is not racism.
We are NOT all the same...

To PC liberals anything that suggests two people aren't exactly the same, unless one is a rightwinger of course, is basically an executable offense.
 
In other words, you don't want to respond to what I've said because you have no practical way to defend what you are saying, as is evident by all of your posts where you just say "come on, you know I'm right!" It's quite pitiful, really.

If you dont think development and races plays a role then I dont even care to try to explain it further. Take a good ****ing look at the world man..
 
Liberty is the key to prosperity.
 
I never called you racist, I said that what you are saying is racist.



I think it's quite obvious that this statement itself is racist.




You are presuming that races biologically exist and I am calling you out on that presumption. Now before we can discuss the differences between these races you have to show me what you mean when you say "race" or when you talk about a specific race.



This is a cop out. See above.



Ok, so you're not basing your opinions on anything objectively verifiable but rather on your personal experiences. This actually supports what I've previously said, that race is an ideology. You basically just shot yourself in the foot.



I'm not being emotional. If anything, you are the one being emotional, considering the fact that you are basing your entire viewpoint on this subject not on any academic studies or thinking, but rather on what you've personally experienced and how you feel. Perhaps, then, it should be I who should tell you to stop being so emotional and to start thinking, and start thinking critically at that.



Of course it's racist. You're making stereotypical presumptions regarding a particular race. That's racism.



Capitalism isn't a moral system, it is an economic system. There is no "old" and "new" capitalism.



Because it's completely irrelevent if you are unable to define what you mean when you say "white" or "black". If you can't do that then you can't claim that countries with a larger white population are more successful. Of course, that entire premise is completely ridiculous and is completely ignorant of historical development.

Telling someone their statements are racist is the same as calling them a racist. Ignorance and arrogance combined with a mindset that is not open to the ideas of others doesn't work. There are differences in the races, some are an asset, some are not, depending on other variables.
Saying that there are differences is not making a racist statement. Denying that there are differences is not an intellectual statement.
 
In other words, you don't want to respond to what I've said because you have no practical way to defend what you are saying, as is evident by all of your posts where you just say "come on, you know I'm right!" It's quite pitiful, really.

What is pitiful is having the minority opinion, or being WRONG, and refusing to accept the idea that you might be wrong....
Ignorance is lack of knowledge, stupidity is willful lack of knowledge...
 
Personally I would say there are 4 major races, whites, asians, blacks and indians.

I think, historically, scientists have broken it up into three races: caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. This translates to "white", "black", and "asian".
American indians count as mongoloid (because they're actually the descendants of asians who came across the Bering Strait).
All Middle Easterners, weirdly, count as caucasoid/ caucasian, as do Eastern Indians (the kind from India), despite the fact that their skin can range in color from café au lait to charcoal black.They are still considered, technically, caucasian. At least under this system.

Don't ask me how I know about this; I think I've read about it in old books.
I just know that this three-race system was the definitive system that was used to classify people into different races up until the 50s or 60s; since then, it and the idea of biological races in general has pretty much been debunked.
 
I think, historically, scientists have broken it up into three races: caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. This translates to "white", "black", and "asian".
American indians count as mongoloid (because they're actually the descendants of asians who came across the Bering Strait).
All Middle Easterners, weirdly, count as caucasoid/ caucasian, as do Eastern Indians (the kind from India), despite the fact that their skin can range in color from café au lait to charcoal black.They are still considered, technically, caucasian. At least under this system.

Don't ask me how I know about this; I think I've read about it in old books.
I just know that this three-race system was the definitive system that was used to classify people into different races up until the 50s or 60s; since then, it and the idea of biological races in general has pretty much been debunked.

Dont you think Indians from India would be a seperate race from other asians in general? And that American indians and especially south American indians would fall under this?

The concept of races still exist, perhaps with the sensitivity in the US in the 60s you were forced to stop using these concepts completely.
It hasnt been debunked at all.. There are large genetical variations between the races of about 0.008%.. In terms of biological difference that is quite huge.

Can you deny that black men in general have a superior physique to white men? And do you believe race plays NO ROLE AT ALL in how nations have developed socially and economically? If you think so I suggest you fall back to the first grade and get a completely new education.. There are SO many examples that race plays a large role.
 
Last edited:
Dont you think Indians from India would be a seperate race from other asians in general?

They are; under this system, they're considered caucasoid, ie white.

And that American indians and especially south American indians would fall under this?

No; they're all considered mongoloid, ie asian. They are the descendants of asians who came across the Bering Strait god-know-how-many millenia ago to populate the continents of North and South America.
Pacific Islanders are also considered "mongoloid" under this system.

The concept of races still exist, perhaps with the sensitivity in the US in the 60s you were forced to stop using these concepts completely.

Well, I wasn't; I was born in 1974. Like I said, I think I read about this in some old books or something.

There are large genetical variations between the races of about 0.008%..

There are no "races", especially in the US; don't know about anywhere else.
All black people here have some white blood, unless they emigrated from Africa within the past few decades. Nearly all white people have some native American or other blood.
There are as many different "genetic variations" as there are people. If there are any at all, which I kind of doubt.

Can you deny that black men in general have a superior physique to white men?

Yes, I do deny it.
I've seen many, many men of both- and in fact, all- races naked, up close and personal.
I do deny that any one race has a universally "superior" physique.
Black men, beyond earliest youth, tend to carry a good amount of body fat, which can't be healthy. Then again, so do white men and hispanics. And black men suffer from all the attendant illnesses and disabilities that accompany being overweight- diabetes, hypertension, certain cancers- perhaps even disproportionately. I don't believe this is a matter of ethnicity, however, but a matter of socioeconomic class; the poor tend to be more overweight and less healthy in our culture, and many of the poor are minorities.
It's pretty much a biproduct of Western culture, I believe, that affects men and women of all ethnicities.
I know that a certain class of white men- mostly the poor and uneducated sort- often fear that men of other races are physically superior, stronger, more masculine, healthier, and more virile; but they aren't. All men are the same (which is to say, each individual man is different, regardless of his race) and I have a theory about why white men have this inferiority complex; it has to do with darker genes being more dominant, and white men subconsciously fearing that their genetic characteristics will be bred out of the human population by darker men. In fact, however, this is silly, since people retain the genetic characteristics of all their ancestors, regardless of their superficial appearance such as their skin tone and whether their eyes are blue or brown. Do you really not think Obama is as much a white man as he is a black man?

And do you believe race plays NO ROLE AT ALL in how nations have developed socially and economically?

Yes, I really think that. I believe factors like climate, geography, and history of colonization determine how nations develop.

If you think so I suggest you fall back to the first grade and get a completely new education.

I doubt that's a feasible option, at this point.

There are SO many examples that race plays a large role.

I disagree.
 
Last edited:
If you think so I suggest you fall back to the first grade and get a completely new education.. There are SO many examples that race plays a large role.

From what I have seen here, both you and 1069 CAN be quite knowledgeable and articulate, especially when agreeing with me..:2razz:
Suggesting that she might need a completely new education is uncalled for...
 
From what I have seen here, both you and 1069 CAN be quite knowledgeable and articulate, especially when agreeing with me..:2razz:
Suggesting that she might need a completely new education is uncalled for...

If he cant see that race have played a role in social and economic development then I repeat that call. Not only the biology of it has matter, but especially racism. Look at Nazi-Germany for example, there are countless worse examples further back in time doing the same thing.. Race have played a role, its that easy.
If race doesn't play a role then there wouldn't be any genocides either..

In my greatest hope, I wish for a world where all humans unite, forgetting race and nationality and working together for the common good of humanity.
 
If he cant see that race have played a role in social and economic development then I repeat that call. Not only the biology of it has matter, but especially racism. Look at Nazi-Germany for example, there are countless worse examples further back in time doing the same thing.. Race have played a role, its that easy.
If race doesn't play a role then there wouldn't be any genocides either..

In my greatest hope, I wish for a world where all humans unite, forgetting race and nationality and working together for the common good of humanity.

I'm a girl.

Oh, gee, if you couldn't see that, maybe you need to go back to first grade and get a whole new education.

:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom