Why some countries are rich and some are poor.

[Maximus Zeebra]

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:

:rofl

Thats just funny.

 

[UtahBill]

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.

With the nazis, other races were a convenient target, a rally point, etc.
If the wealth of the nation had been held by the catholics, he would have railed against them...and Hitler was supposedly catholic!
Look at the purges in other countries, often enough they are of the same race, but have a different culture or are not willing to be forced into accepting some leader's idea of what is right, or expedient....
Hell, look at christians in the USA. A slight difference in a belief system, and there is hatred.....

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

With the nazis, other races were a convenient target, a rally point, etc.
If the wealth of the nation had been held by the catholics, he would have railed against them...and Hitler was supposedly catholic!
Look at the purges in other countries, often enough they are of the same race, but have a different culture or are not willing to be forced into accepting some leader's idea of what is right, or expedient....
Hell, look at christians in the USA. A slight difference in a belief system, and there is hatred.....

I often cry myself to sleep when I start thinking about how the world REALLY is..

 

[Frank Talk]

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"..

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.

Why did you even bring up this point? How does there being less variation in some ambiguous group of monkeys have to do with there being variation between humans?

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

When you speak in ambiguous, unscientific terms about a scientific concept your point gets lost, 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.

I never said there was no variation, I specifically said that the variation is clinal and not discrete. You have conveniently ignored the fact that humans fit the definition of monotypic in favor of reasoning that since we look different there must be different races.

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.

This has nothing to do with whether or not races exist, but I don't think its true that race caused societies to develop this way. If your read my past posts Europeans clearly benefited from technology introduced to them by the Arabs, Chinese and Afircans.

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.

If your going to define tens of thousands of races then you've made the term meaningless. Even the lines you draw for major races are arbitrary. Somalians are usually considered black but cluster with both Africans and Europeans, Armenians are considered white but cluster with both Europeans and Asians.

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

And what characteristics do they express?

edit. Race and genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the point of this link? It gives just as much information on both viewpoints/

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Why did you even bring up this point? How does there being less variation in some ambiguous group of monkeys have to do with there being variation between humans?

Its our closest relatives, many people believe we are highly developed monkeys. I am not saying we aren't, but not supporting completely that we are.

I never said there was no variation, I specifically said that the variation is clinal and not discrete. You have conveniently ignored the fact that humans fit the definition of monotypic in favor of reasoning that since we look different there must be different races.

There are many measurable biological differences between humans
of different races. This discussion is not about if "race" exist or not, but if it has played a role in the socio-economic development of societies, which in the end is just a small part of the original thread..
I say there are, based on:
-Where societies are socially and economically and what kind of races inhabit these places.
-How minorities have effected a country
-How race have played a role throughout history in surpression and domination over each other
-How races have always been in conflic
-How minority or even majority races in any society never have been completely integrated with one another, not even whites and blacks in America, which lives in two different worlds almost.
-South Africa as an example in Africa that race have played a role in socio-economic development
-How there are differences between the intelligence of races, despite superior education in the west asians still score higher in intelligence testing, while one explanation for the poor performance of for example blacks could be education, but another COULD be contributed to race, and the lack of education again a contribution of socio-economic development in primary black nations.
-How the white race came to dominate through force, and why blacks for example couldnt resist this.
-Speculation into blacks being superior physically, which in a case with no weapons they would be able to dominate white people, but that whites have developed more rapidly socially and economically.
-How different continents have developed, and what kind of races are clearly in majority.

This has nothing to do with whether or not races exist, but I don't think its true that race caused societies to develop this way. If your read my past posts Europeans clearly benefited from technology introduced to them by the Arabs, Chinese and Afircans.

Many coincidences like this exist, but how come in the long run they arent coincidences and Europeans came to benefit the most in almost all cases? Why is that?
Does climate affect intelligence, I am sure it does, but not as much as education. Does race affect intelligence, most likely, but not as much as climate and certainly not as much as education. But in the end, all these are connected, and you will see that whites have always coincidentally come out strongest for some reason.

If your going to define tens of thousands of races then you've made the term meaningless. Even the lines you draw for major races are arbitrary. Somalians are usually considered black but cluster with both Africans and Europeans, Armenians are considered white but cluster with both Europeans and Asians.

Tens of thousands of clear variations yes, but I also said 4 main races..

What's the point of this link? It gives just as much information on both viewpoints/

So? You should always take both views into consideration.. I am not saying you are definetely wrong, but I am saying that I am most likely right, none of us will ever prove anything more. you cant prove 100% that race doesnt play a role, nor can I prove 100% that it does, both viewpoints are interesting however.

File:Lead levels children.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an interesting biological difference that backs up my point even more, because it affects intelligence development.

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link is also interesting. it doesnt prove or disprove anything, but to me it seems there are some differences especially the lead factor, which is clearly biological.

Here is a link to a small study of races and certain illnesses that befall one race more than another in the same environment.
How race can affect susceptibility to illness - Birmingham Mail

I am not a scientist, but a philosopher, thank you. Anyways, many indications that I have shown clearly show there is some connection between economic and social development between the nations of different races. I even showed that races have different..


How about differences between men and women? You recognize those or dont you? :lol:

 

[Frank Talk]

Its our closest relatives, many people believe we are highly developed monkeys. I am not saying we aren't, but not supporting completely that we are.

Chimps are our closest relatives and I'm still lost on how the amount of variation in monkeys affects whether human races exist.

There are many measurable biological differences between humans
of different races. This discussion is not about if "race" exist or not, but if it has played a role in the socio-economic development of societies, which in the end is just a small part of the original thread..

You brought up the point that race placed a role in the development of societies and it brought us to the point on whether or not races actually exist. Discussions evolve, live with it.

I say there are, based on:
-Where societies are socially and economically and what kind of races inhabit these places.
-How minorities have effected a country
-How race have played a role throughout history in surpression and domination over each other
-How races have always been in conflic
-How minority or even majority races in any society never have been completely integrated with one another, not even whites and blacks in America, which lives in two different worlds almost.
-South Africa as an example in Africa that race have played a role in socio-economic development
-How there are differences between the intelligence of races, despite superior education in the west asians still score higher in intelligence testing, while one explanation for the poor performance of for example blacks could be education, but another COULD be contributed to race, and the lack of education again a contribution of socio-economic development in primary black nations.
-How the white race came to dominate through force, and why blacks for example couldnt resist this.
-Speculation into blacks being superior physically, which in a case with no weapons they would be able to dominate white people, but that whites have developed more rapidly socially and economically.
-How different continents have developed, and what kind of races are clearly in majority.

I'm not going to address all those points individually but most of them can tie into power and culture. Europe's greater economic and social development is a rather recent phenomenon, existing for only the past six-hundred years. For most of the time before that Europe lagged behind most African, Arab and Asian civilizations. When Europe was opened up to trade with other nations was when it's rapid development began. What relevant civilizations existed in Europe before the Renaissance? Rome? Romans most likely clustered just as close to Africans as Europeans.

Many coincidences like this exist, but how come in the long run they arent coincidences and Europeans came to benefit the most in almost all cases? Why is that?
Does climate affect intelligence, I am sure it does, but not as much as education. Does race affect intelligence, most likely, but not as much as climate and certainly not as much as education. But in the end, all these are connected, and you will see that whites have always coincidentally come out strongest for some reason.

You can tell me what you're sure of as much as you like but it doesn't mean anything. Claims that European's are in a strongest economic position right now because they are the "strongest race" is unsupported by historical evidence. Most of the technology they would use to develop and conquer the globe would come from other "races".

Tens of thousands of clear variations yes, but I also said 4 main races..

Why draw the line a four? Why not split Northern and Southern Europeans into different "main" races?

Btw, you still haven't told me what characteristics make someone fit into one race rather than another.

So? You should always take both views into consideration.. I am not saying you are definetely wrong, but I am saying that I am most likely right, none of us will ever prove anything more. you cant prove 100% that race doesnt play a role, nor can I prove 100% that it does, both viewpoints are interesting however.

I can guarantee you I've taken both view into consideration being that I used to think biological races did exist.

File:Lead levels children.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an interesting biological difference that backs up my point even more, because it affects intelligence development.

Blood lead levels are a result of environment not biology. In the US blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in areas with inferior housing and high pollution levels.

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link is also interesting. it doesnt prove or disprove anything, but to me it seems there are some differences especially the lead factor, which is clearly biological.

1) Lead levels are still not biological.

2) This has nothing to do with whether or not races exist.

3) The link between race and intelligence is difficult to determine, not only because environment and culture can effect intelligence, but because races lack a determinably biological basis. Should Somali's be clumped with Africans or Europeans? Should Armenians be included with Europeans or Asians?

It should also be noted that the gap, when relevant variables are controlled, does not exist prior to schooling. [1]

Here is a link to a small study of races and certain illnesses that befall one race more than another in the same environment.
How race can affect susceptibility to illness - Birmingham Mail

Once again, I never said differences don't exist but that the differences ar clinal.

I am not a scientist, but a philosopher, thank you. Anyways, many indications that I have shown clearly show there is some connection between economic and social development between the nations of different races. I even showed that races have different..

Great, so your a psuedoscientist. You haven't shown anything but that you know how to build a strawman.

How about differences between men and women? You recognize those or dont you? :lol:

I can point the Y-chromosome and say that is the difference between men and women. You can't do the same for race.

Local News | Race gene does not exist, say scientists | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[Frank Talk]

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.

This discussion has to do with science, not with political correctness.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

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..

Wow, good job proving me right.:lol::lol::lol:

Telling someone their statements are racist is the same as calling them a racist.

Of course it's not. If that were the case then everyone would be racist and the term would lose its meaning. There's a difference between saying something racist and being racist.

There are differences in the races, some are an asset, some are not, depending on other variables.

Ok, I've asked numerous people that are arguing from your perspective to do this, and so far every single one of them has avoided answering it. Maybe you could do it for me:

What is race? How many different races are there? How are they defined?

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..

Well, you and your ilk haven't really offered any kind of evidence for me to consider. Hell, you haven't even tried defending your position, you just keep saying "come on, I'm right and you know it!" You can't even define what you mean when you say "race," "black," "white," etc... so you haven't even attempted to clarify your position.

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.

There have actually been dozens of different theories based on numerous different "classifications". I remember back when I was studying this how ridiculous it was that they were developing racial classification systems based on ear lobe size and shape!:doh

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

Yes, of course I can. Can you actually offer anything substantial or are you going to keep talking out your ass?

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

Of course it played a role. But that doesn't in any way support your ridiculous idea that race is biological.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Ive said it several times. Blacks, whites, Asians and Indians are the main races.. Do I need to repeat it a tenth time?

 

[1069]

Ive said it several times. Blacks, whites, Asians and Indians are the main races.. Do I need to repeat it a tenth time?

Do you have any scientific basis for this, or is it just something you thought up all by yourself?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

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

Of course it played a role. But that doesn't in any way support your ridiculous idea that race is biological.

And that is the point here, look at the thread headline man, its not about racial technicalities, which I also was so nice to answer.. So in the end we agree.

Thanks. End of this round of discussion, unless you contribute with some more reasons why nations have developed differently, which I have given several reasons, among them race.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Do you have any scientific basis for this, or is it just something you thought up all by yourself?

It doesnt matter does it? look at the headline, I went enough into the technicalities, even if they do not matter in this case..

Thread headline:"Why some countries are rich and some are poor"

I gave several ideas to the guy who posted originally, including that "race have played a role"..

 

[Khayembii Communique]

And that is the point here, look at the thread headline man, its not about racial technicalities, which I also was so nice to answer.. So in the end we agree.

No, that's not what you were claiming in your OP at all. It's quite clear that race has played a significant role in history; what isn't true, though, is that race has any kind of biological basis. Race as a social construct, though, has played a very important role. I don't see how you could even think I was implying that your OP was true.

It doesnt matter does it?

Are you kidding me? You make a thread stating that some countries are better off based on race, and now you're saying that defining what you mean when you say race "doesnt matter"? You're clearly dismissing that question because you can't answer it, even though it's the entire basis for your argument.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Claims that European's are in a strongest economic position right now because they are the "strongest race" is unsupported by historical evidence.]

I never ever said that they are the "strongest race", THAT would be racist.

Aside from that, I am done talking about the technicalities when its the broader picture that matters, not 2 pixels of it, nor 5, but the whole picture, and in this case its socio-economic development and the very high likelihood that race have played a role in this, not ONLY biologically, but mostly because of racism.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

No, that's not what you were claiming in your OP at all. It's quite clear that race has played a significant role in history; what isn't true, though, is that race has any kind of biological basis. Race as a social construct, though, has played a very important role. I don't see how you could even think I was implying that your OP was true.



Are you kidding me? You make a thread stating that some countries are better off based on race, and now you're saying that defining what you mean when you say race "doesnt matter"? You're clearly dismissing that question because you can't answer it, even though it's the entire basis for your argument.

This thread is not about race, but I mentioned race as being one of the things that have been relevant for how socio-economic development have been among various nations and regions. Thats the point and we agree. We clearly don't agree on the other things, but please, if you want to fight about that, make a new thread(which I will not visit), because I don't really care to debate race here in this thread at least.

 

[rhinefire]

The entire world is run by approximatley 6,000 rich people from many nations and always will be. One work order.