QuoteReplyTopic: Hang ups between Blacks and Africans Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 04:03
Originally posted by HEROI
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
Originally posted by HEROI
Ignorance is based on lack of information,and Africa has a higher degree of ignorance among it population then Europe,not because African are black but because Europians have very easy acsess to information.
Ignorance? Ignorant in what way? They are not ignorant they are impoverished due to the effects of colonial exploitation of their resourses, the destruction of their social structures and the agitation of rivalries between groups. Not to mention the expliotation of the world bank and multi-national corporations and the undermining of their own elected governments by the USA and other so called first world nations.
I personally make a distinction between ignorance and capabily to learn.If you were never given the chance to learn you will be an ignorant.That does in no way say that your brain is less capable then somebody's who have been fed books and education from an early age lets say.
Poverty breeds ignorance.
A poor country run by dictators is not gona be helped by W.B,M-N.Corp, or USA.It is goin to be exploited.Thats a fact and the world over better get used to it.Even if is not gona be U.S.A one day is gona be U.S.O or U.S.E.Governments must first and formost have the respect of the majority of their populations,then of other countries and INTER-ORG.
In the rural villages these people speak at least 2 to 3 other languages other than their own and in urban areas, just as many in addition to at least one or two European languages. In the end it is the perception of an ignorant Africa that still needs to be fought because we are never shown evidence of African intelligence in the media. We know more about the elephants and lions than we do about any country in Africa. Why is that? The very internet we use to communicate owes its existance to an African, yet most of the world knows nothing about his contribution to its developement, why is that?
Because the (negative) perception (regarding Africans) on the Europian media comes when inteligence applies to the standarts of Europian life,or that of an industrialy developed society.And sometimes they deliberately dont make the distinction which i made above,and they are wrong.The dinstiction that being ignorant on one aspect of life when the posibility of learning was not presented to you in the same oportunities does not make you or any human being ,less naturaly capable,therefore such an issue as inferior,superior is pure stupidity in that case,there are just lucky born and unlucky born in this world.[QUOTE=HEROI] My opinion is that African-American is not the Ideal name for this community,but their history in America is not like the history of the other communities,therefore we can not say why are black people called like that but white europian people not.Because there is a difference as to the origines of this communities and their history in America.
The thing is that white people who are not of English origin ARE singled out. Last time I looked Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Greek Americans, Russian Americans are all white. The real question is why should any American be required to identify themselves as anything other than an American? So as long as all other Americans are identified by the government based on a name that identifies their geographic and cultural location, why should these people be identified by their skin color rather than their geographic location?
Thats because the English (the British) were the first ones to go there,and the new comers were given names acording to their country of origine,and with the English not being friendly to new comers,a phenomenia happened in the U.S.A which continues to this day,Diaspora comunities.And when the country is devided by communities which did not find shelter in their government but held close ties with their land of origine,you will end up , with Irish-Americans, Italian -Americans ,Polish-Americans etc.
As for the Blacks they are singled because of their colour ,because their identity in America has never been national,but racial.
The origines of the problem are with the Slavery,which fought national or tribal identity of Africans to make them simply workers.
Above all,in my opinion,the African-Americans are Americans more then any other community,only if they were a litle bit more politicaly counssious.Their biggest enemy has been Hollywood.( Guys,thats just my opinion)[QUOTE=HEROI] I think as long as there is a complete reconsiliation between the communities the term African-American is well fited.
It even helps Africans realise that their fate has been shared during the course of history for being black Africans,not for being from one nationality or the other.
Sad but true. Which is why I find the term caucasian in reference to African peoples insulting and rediculous. Any African, regardless of how narrow their features are, how straight the hair or light the skin is considered a nigger when they get to America and Europe. They are not recognized as a branch of the same human family by white people there. It was only a few years ago that an Ethiopian, so called CAUCASIAN was killed in a race crime by a group of white supremacist skin heads. Caucasian in theory, nigger in practice. That's the way it is, all else is just stupidity and mind games.
And countries and tribes that fight each other in Africa because of national or tribal loyalties better keep this in mind and wake up,gather forces and look ahead to a new millenium,because the world is about to get a harder place soon.
No my friend, THE ENTIRE WORLD had better keep this in mind and wake up. All our lives and destinies are intertwined any notion to the contrary is an illusion. I can't live without you, nor you I. We are all connected to each other, WE ARE EACH OTHER. This is why the mentality of categorizing people into different groups is such an abomination. The second you categorize this person as a negro, that person as a caucasian, you dive a wedge between them and reenfirce the illusion they are unrelated. The problem is much deeper than blacks and Africans, its muslim and jew, indian and pakistani, greek and turk. This is what we refuse to see. Even on this forum there are far too many who defend the mentality of segragation because it implicitly supports their ego driven illusions of supremacy. They will always deny it, but their words, actions, their refusal to learn, understand, or allow for other possibilities show them for what they really are. It's when confronted by these mentalities that I tend to loose my cool because I can't stay quiet in the face of lies, nor smile in the face of liars and hypocrites.
I don't like to talk about race, but this is my standpoint.
When I describe people the last thing I grab for is race. If I have a friend who is smart regardless if he's African, Asian, or European I describe them based on their personality and who they are not what they are. African American is the proper term, calling someone 'Black' is in my opion unproper and unbecoming.
People use it as a crude term to describe people with black skin, to bad that inaccurately describes the physical make up of a person.
I really don't care who I hang out with as long as their positive regardless of their color, I've had to deal with this stuff before and have realized it's just not worth it.
Ignorance is based on lack of information,and Africa has a higher degree of ignorance among it population then Europe,not because African are black but because Europians have very easy acsess to information.
Ignorance? Ignorant in what way? They are not ignorant they are impoverished due to the effects of colonial exploitation of their resourses, the destruction of their social structures and the agitation of rivalries between groups. Not to mention the expliotation of the world bank and multi-national corporations and the undermining of their own elected governments by the USA and other so called first world nations.
I personally make a distinction between ignorance and capabily to learn.If you were never given the chance to learn you will be an ignorant.That does in no way say that your brain is less capable then somebody's who have been fed books and education from an early age lets say.
Poverty breeds ignorance.
A poor country run by dictators is not gona be helped by W.B,M-N.Corp, or USA.It is goin to be exploited.Thats a fact and the world over better get used to it.Even if is not gona be U.S.A one day is gona be U.S.O or U.S.E.Governments must first and formost have the respect of the majority of their populations,then of other countries and INTER-ORG.
In the rural villages these people speak at least 2 to 3 other languages other than their own and in urban areas, just as many in addition to at least one or two European languages. In the end it is the perception of an ignorant Africa that still needs to be fought because we are never shown evidence of African intelligence in the media. We know more about the elephants and lions than we do about any country in Africa. Why is that? The very internet we use to communicate owes its existance to an African, yet most of the world knows nothing about his contribution to its developement, why is that?
Because the (negative) perception (regarding Africans) on the Europian media comes when inteligence applies to the standarts of Europian life,or that of an industrialy developed society.And sometimes they deliberately dont make the distinction which i made above,and they are wrong.The dinstiction that being ignorant on one aspect of life when the posibility of learning was not presented to you in the same oportunities does not make you or any human being ,less naturaly capable,therefore such an issue as inferior,superior is pure stupidity in that case,there are just lucky born and unlucky born in this world.
[QUOTE=HEROI] My opinion is that African-American is not the Ideal name for this community,but their history in America is not like the history of the other communities,therefore we can not say why are black people called like that but white europian people not.Because there is a difference as to the origines of this communities and their history in America.
The thing is that white people who are not of English origin ARE singled out. Last time I looked Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Greek Americans, Russian Americans are all white. The real question is why should any American be required to identify themselves as anything other than an American? So as long as all other Americans are identified by the government based on a name that identifies their geographic and cultural location, why should these people be identified by their skin color rather than their geographic location?
Thats because the English (the British) were the first ones to go there,and the new comers were given names acording to their country of origine,and with the English not being friendly to new comers,a phenomenia happened in the U.S.A which continues to this day,Diaspora comunities.And when the country is devided by communities which did not find shelter in their government but held close ties with their land of origine,you will end up , with Irish-Americans, Italian -Americans ,Polish-Americans etc.
As for the Blacks they are singled because of their colour ,because their identity in America has never been national,but racial.
The origines of the problem are with the Slavery,which fought national or tribal identity of Africans to make them simply workers.
Above all,in my opinion,the African-Americans are Americans more then any other community,only if they were a litle bit more politicaly counssious.Their biggest enemy has been Hollywood.( Guys,thats just my opinion)
[QUOTE=HEROI] I think as long as there is a complete reconsiliation between the communities the term African-American is well fited.
It even helps Africans realise that their fate has been shared during the course of history for being black Africans,not for being from one nationality or the other.
Sad but true. Which is why I find the term caucasian in reference to African peoples insulting and rediculous. Any African, regardless of how narrow their features are, how straight the hair or light the skin is considered a nigger when they get to America and Europe. They are not recognized as a branch of the same human family by white people there. It was only a few years ago that an Ethiopian, so called CAUCASIAN was killed in a race crime by a group of white supremacist skin heads. Caucasian in theory, nigger in practice. That's the way it is, all else is just stupidity and mind games.
And countries and tribes that fight each other in Africa because of national or tribal loyalties better keep this in mind and wake up,gather forces and look ahead to a new millenium,because the world is about to get a harder place soon.
vibo, that study of Richard Lynn is methodologically flawed. Many countries worldwide did not have any massive IQ testing, the results are "adjusted" so to fit the conclusion.
Yes, just to correct you slightly, it is Dr. Richard Lynn.
That is the problem, he adjusted results to make a conclusion fit a predetermined belief. This is by a Proffesor of Psychology. A man who teaches young minds at a University.
How is the common man to believe anything less, if an educated, doctor of psychology tells us this as if where fact.
My experience with I.Q. tests is that they measure the knowledge of a person in certain areas; I had to answer some questions like who wrote Faust, a lot of math, specifically calculus, as well as english comprehension/grammar. Obviously that part of the test does not measure intelligence, simply how much one has learned and whether one has retained that knowledge. (of course one could say it measures intelligence based on whether the person was smart enough to not slack off in school and learn this stuff to get into a good college, a person I was not) The part where it actually measures ones "intelligence" is when it tests how quickly a persons mind can process information, and then how much a person can comprehend. Though what I've noticed is the test results can be quite contradictory: I learned I have a gift for hearing numbers and then reciting them backwards, which is a sign of strong memory, yet on another section of the test I learned I had trouble remembering phrases/word association; or something like that, I can't remember. Then there are the numerous differences in scores among different tests. The one I took had a max score of 155.99 or thereabouts. The ones used to remark on what Einstein's was usually are considerably above this.
Edited by Justinian - 07-Feb-2008 at 21:41
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
vibo, that study of Richard Lynn is methodologically flawed. Many countries worldwide did not have any massive IQ testing, the results are "adjusted" so to fit the conclusion.
Joeamonroe the success of ethnicities is bound to their efforts. Whether in social skills, religious perspectives or most anything else, understanding and shaping the world we live in is a personal and group effort. Blacks in the US have a unique history. Blacks in other parts of the world do as well. In fact if we stop looking at peoples' most obivous yet basic characteristics, color, then we could get over our judgemental attitudes easier and appreciate what lies underneath the skin.
I as an american spend most time learning about religion, not from a black African view point but from a white american stand point. I don't blame whites I blame blacks for not treating our history to our kids. We has black americans and Africans need to take control of our life our country and stand together or die apart
Though hangs ups from Black-Americans apparently have been born out of injustices directed toward them, reverse bias, at times, also exist no matter if seemingly unwarranted. Instead of diminishing the value of professionally utilized testing apparatus (no matter how faulty to a minor extent), perhaps we could understand what tests are supposed to measure and leave it at that.
Correct!
A Standard I.Q. test measures what a person has learned based on their age compared to a sample population of the same age group. The markers of these test generally attempt to get a broad range of people to sample from prior to creating the test.
I agree the are helpful in testing a persons education level and a persons ability to resolve some problems, but not necessarily their intelligence. The problem is that under privileged groups generally score 10 to 15 percent lower than more privileged groups of the same age.
There are even studies that show the average I.Q. of person in Ethiopia is 63
This makes the average person in Ethiopia to be mentally retarded, according to the WIAS. (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale). This is impossible!!! They could not survive as a civilization for thousands of years if they are really retarded.
So clearly, there are more than minor problems with using a standardized test across the board as a measurement of "intelligence quotient." it should be called an "E.Q.O.S.S', Education Quotient On Specific Subjects
From Wikipedia: Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.
In your book since I.Q does not appropriately measure intelligence, Rakas, what does it matter if certain individuals have low scores or not?
The standardization process does have elements of cultural affinity. Yet that mostly effects the verbal part of a popular Intelligence test, the WAIS-R, such as comprehension, vocabulary and information subtests for instance. The other subtests of the verbal and performance scales are non-cultural enough to support the whole test's validity. It's a measure of global intelligence, not achievement. Significant correlations exist for academic success as well.
I do agree with the second part of your statement in that socialization skills are not fully reflective of an IQ test's scores. It is a start though. Maybe emotional I.Q., and personality tests present a better indication of healthy social skills. Yet any Psychologist worth their meddle would give a client a battery of diverse tests instead of just one IQ test.
Though hangs ups from Black-Americans apparently have been born out of injustices directed toward them, reverse bias, at times, also exist no matter if seemingly unwarranted. Instead of diminishing the value of professionally utilized testing apparatus (no matter how faulty to a minor extent), perhaps we could understand what tests are supposed to measure and leave it at that.
I think you might be over-generalizing there, amigo. For one thing, MENSA is an international organization, so I highly doubt that it's requisite testing only measures "familiarity with White Protestant Middle Class American culture." Also, to call them "some of the dumbest nitwits I [sic] will ever meet" is categorically wrong. Now, I'm not disputing that many IQ tests (for there are many different permutations) do have certain cultural biases (because certainly many of them do), but throwing around blanket generalizations and casting about slurs doesn't do anything to rectify the problem or even begin to address a solution. Any form of standardized testing will have a certain contextual/cultural slant; it's just unavoidable. So do all forms of language, all social norms, all customs, biases, prejudices, opinions and worldviews. Postmodern theorists have been addressing these sorts of concerns for years. I'd look some of them up (Foucoult is always a good place to start) before falling back on the "sweeping generalizations/ unoriginal insults" card...
Are all MENSA members nitwits, of course not, but many of the ones I know personally are. As for unoriginal insults, why go through the trouble of making up a new one when the ready made ones work just fine?
The real point of the matter is that a high I.Q. is not a gaurantee of how a person is able to interact in the real world. You can have a very high I.Q. and be dysfunctional in the extreeme. People put much too much trust in them than they deserve. Knowledge without wisdom is useless, wisdome without knowledge is useless. An I.Q. test does not measure how well rounded an individual is, their ability to interact and communicate effectively with other people or any of the other things one actually needs to function in the practical world.
Ignorance is based on lack of information,and Africa has a higher degree of ignorance among it population then Europe,not because African are black but because Europians have very easy acsess to information.
Ignorance? Ignorant in what way? They are not ignorant they are impoverished due to the effects of colonial exploitation of their resourses, the destruction of their social structures and the agitation of rivalries between groups. Not to mention the expliotation of the world bank and multi-national corporations and the undermining of their own elected governments by the USA and other so called first world nations.
In the rural villages these people speak at least 2 to 3 other languages other than their own and in urban areas, just as many in addition to at least one or two European languages. In the end it is the perception of an ignorant Africa that still needs to be fought because we are never shown evidence of African intelligence in the media. We know more about the elephants and lions than we do about any country in Africa. Why is that? The very internet we use to communicate owes its existance to an African, yet most of the world knows nothing about his contribution to its developement, why is that?
[QUOTE=HEROI]
My opinion is that African-American is not the Ideal name for this community,but their history in America is not like the history of the other communities,therefore we can not say why are black people called like that but white europian people not.Because there is a difference as to the origines of this communities and their history in America.
The thing is that white people who are not of English origin ARE singled out. Last time I looked Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Greek Americans, Russian Americans are all white. The real question is why should any American be required to identify themselves as anything other than an American? So as long as all other Americans are identified by the government based on a name that identifies their geographic and cultural location, why should these people be identified by their skin color rather than their geographic location?
[QUOTE=HEROI]
I think as long as there is a complete reconsiliation between the communities the term African-American is well fited.
It even helps Africans realise that their fate has been shared during the course of history for being black Africans,not for being from one nationality or the other.
Sad but true. Which is why I find the term caucasian in reference to African peoples insulting and rediculous. Any African, regardless of how narrow their features are, how straight the hair or light the skin is considered a nigger when they get to America and Europe. They are not recognized as a branch of the same human family by white people there. It was only a few years ago that an Ethiopian, so called CAUCASIAN was killed in a race crime by a group of white supremacist skin heads. Caucasian in theory, nigger in practice. That's the way it is, all else is just stupidity and mind games.
I think you might be over-generalizing there, amigo. For one thing, MENSA is an international organization, so I highly doubt that it's requisite testing only measures "familiarity with White Protestant Middle Class American culture." Also, to call them "some of the dumbest nitwits I [sic] will ever meet" is categorically wrong.
Now, I'm not disputing that many IQ tests (for there are many different permutations) do have certain cultural biases (because certainly many of them do), but throwing around blanket generalizations and casting about slurs doesn't do anything to rectify the problem or even begin to address a solution. Any form of standardized testing will have a certain contextual/cultural slant; it's just unavoidable. So do all forms of language, all social norms, all customs, biases, prejudices, opinions and worldviews. Postmodern theorists have been addressing these sorts of concerns for years. I'd look some of them up (Foucoult is always a good place to start) before falling back on the "sweeping generalizations/ unoriginal insults" card...
Only one problem Pinguin, often I.Q. tests are given early in life and ask children to identify shapes and patterns. These tests also don't take into account disabilities, there are many people with learning disabilities who are actually very intelligent but might not test well. For instance some people with dislexia might not do well on I.Q. tests while actually having a high IQ. The cultural bias is not in asking somebody who's language is not English to do it in English but rather in the actual questions.
I agee with you king John,
The first I.Q. test where developed in north eastern U.S.
The people in this area did rather well on the test, with a good distrubution of scores. The same test was taken to the southern U.S. states, where the scoring was much lower for both whites and blacks. leaving the stigma that southern americans were dumber than northerners, especially blacks.
Later research into this test showed the test used many words not commonly used by southern americans, but where common to north-eastern states.
Some test results show that certain neighborhoods in black communities have a mental handicap rate of 30%, which is impossible!! It has to do with the words being used, or the concepts being asked to make judgements about, they are not familar to the test takers therefore the test taker does poorly.
They are difinitely bias.
Thank god there are people who realize this. My mentor is a member of MENSA and organization for people with above average I.Q scores. She took the test because she was dared to by a couple of snotty bitches who thought that just because she chose to be a dancer she couldn't possibly have a brain in her head. She took it, aced it and is of the opinion that the test DOES NOT test intelligence. Its tests how familiar the individual is with White Protestant Middle class American culture. I've met many MENSA members over the years and they are some of the dumbest nitwits you will ever meet. So while they have have a certain type of intelligence, they lack common sense, social skills and other basic knowledge essential for living in the real world. Like racial categorizations, its just another tool used by the ruling elite to decide who has access to the resources in society and who doesn't.
Only one problem Pinguin, often I.Q. tests are given early in life and ask children to identify shapes and patterns. These tests also don't take into account disabilities, there are many people with learning disabilities who are actually very intelligent but might not test well. For instance some people with dislexia might not do well on I.Q. tests while actually having a high IQ. The cultural bias is not in asking somebody who's language is not English to do it in English but rather in the actual questions.
I agee with you king John,
The first I.Q. test where developed in north eastern U.S.
The people in this area did rather well on the test, with a good distrubution of scores. The same test was taken to the southern U.S. states, where the scoring was much lower for both whites and blacks. leaving the stigma that southern americans were dumber than northerners, especially blacks.
Later research into this test showed the test used many words not commonly used by southern americans, but where common to north-eastern states.
Some test results show that certain neighborhoods in black communities have a mental handicap rate of 30%, which is impossible!! It has to do with the words being used, or the concepts being asked to make judgements about, they are not familar to the test takers therefore the test taker does poorly.
Only one problem Pinguin, often I.Q. tests are given early in life and ask children to identify shapes and patterns. These tests also don't take into account disabilities, there are many people with learning disabilities who are actually very intelligent but might not test well. For instance some people with dislexia might not do well on I.Q. tests while actually having a high IQ. The cultural bias is not in asking somebody who's language is not English to do it in English but rather in the actual questions.
.... I think you are confusing IQ with being a savant. IQ testing doesn't demonstrate intelligence, what it demonstrates is the ability to choose the right answer. The questions are normally culturally biased and if it is effected by how much education a person has then it doesn't measure intelligence but rather how well a person retains learned information. I.Q. tests also only measure one type of intelligence out of many.
I.Q. do measure the problem solving skills in individuals.
Of course if you ask people that solve a test in English to people that read only chinese, the results won't be very good at all, and in that case we have a problem of "environment".
However, given all the rest even, the test measure the actual intelligence of individuals that is the result of genetical and social factors.
Intelligence, of course, understood like the skill to solve abstract problems, and nothing else.
I am not a genious at all, but in the academic world I have seen genious a couple of times.
After that, I got convinced the difference between the average people and them is rooted in genetics.
I.Q. tests simply measure intelligence. Of course there will be distorsions according to education, environment, etc., but we shouldn't discount there is also a genetical component involved. Pick people of the same aspect, country, income level and experiences and measure the intelligence. You will find they are not the same at all. That some are genetically more intelligent than the rest.
Now, for people that believe I.Q. test are worthless I believe they are wrong. They measure intelligence, which is the result of enviromental and genetic influences in people. But they measure something very real.
Now, I.Q. is not fixed in stone. Can improve with education and training. But I.Q. is not flexible as much as we would like it to be, either. Not all people got the genes to be a Mozart, an Eistein or a Gauss.
I think you are confusing IQ with being a savant. IQ testing doesn't demonstrate intelligence, what it demonstrates is the ability to choose the right answer. The questions are normally culturally biased and if it is effected by how much education a person has then it doesn't measure intelligence but rather how well a person retains learned information. I.Q. tests also only measure one type of intelligence out of many.
Ignorance is based on lack of information,and Africa has a higher degree of ignorance among it population then Europe,not because African are black but because Europians have very easy acsess to information.
My opinion is that African-American is not the Ideal name for this community,but their history in America is not like the history of the other communities,therefore we can not say why are black people called like that but white europian people not.Because there is a difference as to the origines of this communities and their history in America.
I think as long as there is a complete reconsiliation between the communities the term African-American is well fited.
It even helps Africans realise that their fate has been shared during the course of history for being black Africans,not for being from one nationality or the other.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum