Superiority of white over brown, yellow, black?

Why is it that nations with predominantly white population have a better standard of life? We don’t hear of influx of immigrants into the black, brown and yellow nations. Most Nobel prizes seem to go to white dominated nations. It’s always the white dominated nations that go to four corners of the world with humanitarian aid - medicines, food; and military aid - peacekeepers, liberators, nation-builders.

We all talk about our great pasts, our great potential in future…what are we doing wrong in the present?

Or are the current stock of white really in some way superior to us all?

Did you read The Bell Curve? The authors have researched to substantiate claims that African Americans (black people) are genetically inferior. Something I do not believe.

Re: Superiority of white over brown, yellow, black?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomSawyer: *
Why is it that nations with predominantly white population have a better standard of life? We don't hear of influx of immigrants into the black, brown and yellow nations. Most Nobel prizes seem to go to white dominated nations. It's always the white dominated nations that go to four corners of the world with humanitarian aid - medicines, food; and military aid - peacekeepers, liberators, nation-builders.

We all talk about our great pasts, our great potential in future...what are we doing wrong in the present?

Or are the current stock of white really in some way superior to us all?
[/QUOTE]

What you have said above is absolutely true. However genetically we, (all races) have the same exact capability.
Even though most countries with power and technology are caucasian if does not mean that mental capacity of Sub-continent, China Japan etc is any less than US.
If fact if you look at sports and singing Blacks seem to have an edge. So who is to say that one is better than the other just becasue they have wealth and means. Physically we are all humans capable of all achievments regardless of the color of the skin.

What the hell are you all talking about. Indian and Pakistanis are caucasians. Jews are not white, they are like arabs, semitic. Eastern russians are a lot like Native americans. So all this crap is just that crap…
and you are still ugly :stuck_out_tongue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/o.../11KRIS.html?th

Is Race Real?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

OXFORD, England

I had my DNA examined by a prominent genetic specialist here, and what do you know! It turns out I’m African-American.
The mitochondria in my cells show that I’m descended from a matriarch who lived in Africa, possibly in present-day Ethiopia or Kenya.
O.K., this was 70,000 years ago, and she seems to be a common ancestor of all Asians as well as all Caucasians. Still, these kinds of DNA analyses illuminate the raging scientific debate about whether there is anything real to the notion of race.
“There’s no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all,” said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of “The Seven Daughters of Eve.” “I’m always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn’t. . . . We’re very closely related.”
Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine once editorialized bluntly that “race is biologically meaningless.”
Take me. Dr. Sykes looked at a sequence of my mitochondrial DNA to place me on a kind of global family tree. It would have been nice to learn that my ancestors hailed from a village on Loch Ness, but ancestry can almost never be pegged that precisely, and I appear to be a mongrel. One of my variants, for example, is scattered among people in Finland, Poland, Armenia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Israel, Germany and Norway.
On the other hand, is race really “biologically meaningless”? Bigotry has been so destructive that it’s tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups.
Jews are more likely to carry mutations for Tay-Sachs, Africans for sickle cell anemia. It’s hard to argue that ethnicity is an empty concept when one gene mutation for an iron storage disease, hemochromatosis, affects fewer than 1 percent of Armenians but 8 percent of Norwegians.
“There is great value in racial/ ethnic self-categorizations” for medicine, protested an article last year by a Stanford geneticist, Neil Risch, in Genome Biology. It warned against “ignoring our differences, even if with the best of intentions.”
DNA does tend to differ, very slightly, with race. Profilers thought a recent serial killer in Louisiana was white until a DNA sample indicated he was probably black. (A black man has been arrested in the case.) As genetic science advances, the police may eventually be able to recover semen and put out an A.P.B. for a tall white rapist with red curly hair, blue eyes and perhaps a Scottish surname.
On the other hand, genetic markers associated with Africans can turn up in people who look entirely white. Indians and Pakistanis may have dark skin, but genetic markers show that they are Caucasians.
Another complication is that African-Americans are, on average, about 17 percent white: they have mitochondria (maternally inherited) that are African, but they often have European Y chromosomes. In other words, white men raped or seduced their maternal ancestors.
Among Jews, there are common genetic markers, including some found in about half the Jewish men named Cohen. But this isn’t exactly a Jewish gene: the same marker is also found in Arabs.
“Genetics research is now about to end our long misadventure with the idea of race,” Steve Olson writes in his new book, “Mapping Human History.”
When I lived in Japan in the 1990’s, my son Gregory had a play date with a classmate I hadn’t met. I asked Gregory, then 5, whether the boy’s mother was Japanese.
“I don’t know,” Gregory replied.
“Well,” I asked sharply, “did she look Japanese or American?” Although he’d lived in Tokyo for years, Gregory replied blankly, “What does a Japanese person look like?”
He was ahead of his time. Genetics increasingly shows that racial and ethnic distinctions are real — but often fuzzy and greatly exaggerated. Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism.
“There are meaningful distinctions among groups that may have implications for disease susceptibility,” said Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at the New York University School of Medicine. “The right-wing version of this is `The Bell Curve,’ and that’s pseudoscience — that’s not real. But there can be a middle ground between left-wing political correctness and right-wing meanness.”
I’ll be searching for that middle ground this year as I’m celebrating Kwanzaa.


So getting back to the original, why are white dominated nations ahead as norm by standard of living? Sheer coincidence? Results of colonial era? Density of population?

And as you think about it, it only seems to get worse. Whiskey decimated more native Indians than its white makers. The guns, the ships, the plagues and even regressive philosophies originated by the white seem to impact more browns, blacks and yellows. We're talking general norm here and exceptions are plenty.

What are we talking about 200 yrs of dominance in the fields of science and technology? Civilizations and dominance or culture are fleeting in the greater scheme of things. Things like the bell curve and Nazism are similar facets of the same evil. Varying in degrees. The reason I posted the above artice to showcase that what we think of as race is changing everyday. For the better..

In this regard I find Jews to be a great example of expectations driving achievement. I had a number of Jewish friends in school, and sometimes met their parents. Kids who had incredible grade point averages were brow beaten by their mothers to get into the best med school, bring up that one B they got this quarters, study for the entrance exams, and work hard to pay for school.

Absolutely no genetics at work here, but a culture that demands achievement. Average students were goaded into extra levels of performance, simply to please their parents.

Perhaps this is why a lot of psychologists are also Jews! :)

Upbringing (& parental intensity) certainly is something. And no, I am not making a racial genetic arguement either. Cultural?

Would you consider the American, French, Swiss and German people of the same cultural background, say in the past 3 centuries? (not talking 'similar'). Or the Italians, the Spaniards or the Portugese? "Western" or "European" is too broad a descriptive. What made these people tick in the last 250 years?

One theory for the advancement of lighter skinned people is because of the their acclamation to northern environments that were much harsher than Africa and that exerted greater evolutionary pressure (after all, we all came from monkeys). In colder regions people must make clothes, build shelter, store food for the winter and plan more for survival. They developed the tools, skills and intelligence to cope. Cooperation between men was necessary for hunting and surviving the winter. Asians developed the highest intelligence because Siberia was especially harsh. Warm weather climates lend themselves to people not working as hard or being challenged as much. They developed more physically because they had the warm weather all year round. So the theory goes.

I don’t think the climate in the Middle East has changed considerably in the last few hundred years and Greece is anything but ‘nippy’.

It’s all about the grey skies in Weatern Europe and a need to go sea faring to sunnier climes all in the name of bringing back some potatoes or dried cumin. In the process they happen to sow the seeds for first European, then exported European (American) hegemony.

The brown folk having had their fill of delicacies such as potatoes elected to go for spiritual development instead and pine away for the latest in DVD technology.

Times will change and with the next coming ice age we'll all be living in igloos and eating raw frozen fish and loving it.

^ The evolutionary changes that brought about the larger sized brain and other differences between the races began over 100,000 years ago. The past few thousand years represent the culmination of these traits.

If the grey skies were motivation for the Europeans, why wasn't the parched desert reason enough for those people to go in search of watermelon and camel feed?

I must have missed the lecture on eugenics when I studied human evolution at university; please enlighten us all on differing brain sizes in relation to race.

coughNazicoughahemcough.

Hard work pays off, simply. China worked hard, see now its in line to become strong candidate for a "super-power", India worked hard and its paying off as well. Though population (which in turn is result of another hard work) is a big hurdle in improving life style for everyone, but I think if progress remains on track then it won't be long enough for almost everyone to have a better lifestyle.

Seminole...that colder climate theory is hogwash. And we all know how most people feel about pigs on this forum. :)

Cooperation and skills and tools development as an indication of current dominance of western thought is stupid. These are universal thoughts. Are you saying that from 1000-1500ad, there was no cooperation, desert like climate and dark skin that made europeans the laggardsof civilization for close to a Millenium? I don;t think so...you wouldn;t say that.

AS Jared Diamond put it in three simple words... "guns, germs and steel"

There are several studies that indicate larger brain size for orientals over white over black. I’m sorry your politically correct human evolution class overlooked those studies. Now whether brain size and itelligence are related is a different story.

J.P. Rushton’s History of Race, Evolution, and Behavior advances this theory. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html

I think a lot of his points makes sense. And while it makes good fodder for apoligists, Marxists and bleeding heart liberals to accuse this theory as “Nazi”, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that races might differ genetically in behavior and physical traits.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
And while it makes good fodder for apoligists, Marxists and bleeding heart liberals to accuse this theory as "Nazi", there is a LOT of evidence to suggest that races might differ genetically in behavior and physical traits.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe they do but that isn't the reason why white nations have a better standard of living, more to do with the fact that they have cottoned on to the fact that wasting time bickering over non-issues is unproductive. Learning good habits has a lot to do with it.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *

Cooperation and skills and tools development as an indication of current dominance of western thought is stupid. These are universal thoughts. Are you saying that from 1000-1500ad, there was no cooperation, desert like climate and dark skin that made europeans the laggardsof civilization for close to a Millenium? I don;t think so...you wouldn;t say that.

[/QUOTE]

No, I'm not saying that. I haven't studied the subject enough to have an educated opinion, just advancing an opinion that I'm not sure about. But the cold weather theory is based on over 100,000 years of development, not just the past few thousand years of recorded history.

^ But practical evidence of theory to results is nil. From the stone age to the information age, the cold weather inhabitants have only a coule of centuries of dominance. So even by going by that length of time as a data point, it is simply unfounded.

^ If you separate humans into three categories as I believe this theory proposes, it is the white and asian people who have developed to higher levels. So along those lines, it is these people who have dominated world history. Advanced civilations among black Africans have lagged.

asians are also catching up in education and technology

Johnny Can’t Add
But Suresh Venktasubramanian Can