If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
What are your views on immigration?
Maybe because we have yet another pratt who has arrived on the boards :chin:
Aye, im right
Are you an anarchist?
Who did you vote for in the last general election?
If there was a general election tomorrow who would you vote for?
What do you think the reasons were for attacking iraq?
You might be apolitical but surely you must have a view or an opinion.
Professing to not having a stance is a stance in itself.
There is no escape.
And if you are reading this, ask any leading historian or geographer on immigration patterns over the centuries.
The blacks in Africa are the most genetically pure race of people on Earth. If you don't believe it ask someone who knows about geography or history...
wait, I do know about geography and history.
Millenia ago human life evolved in Africa, probably Tanzania. Before the seperation of the continents people spread forth from Africa and started colonising different areas in the search for food. Everywhere we went, we prospered. The Northern humans no longer needed dark skin for protection from the sun, so over hundreds of years they got paler and adapted to suit the colder conditions. We became hairier and our bodies store more fat.
If you compare a European to an African, Europeans are broader and normally squatter, with more muscle mass around the shoulders. Africans are usually a lot slimmer, they sweat less and have more muscle around the legs to cope with the strains of the heat.
As the continents seperated our race became many races, we developed societies. The Africans, kept their populations low and were able to live off the land. There was never any need to create industry, farming or other technology. Europeans, living in a colder climate had to develop techniques to survive, and in doing so eventually we industrialised. We banded together in large groups in order to exploit local resources whilst our African forefathers were better suited to living in small, mobile tribes that could go where the food went. The Africans kept their genetic purity, whilst we lost ours through interbreeding and and immigration.
We came to rely on our tools. Europeans were the earliest to industrialise because we needed to, we lacked the strength and endurance of our counterparts to farm by hand so we created machinery to help us.
not quite hehe
A much better idea than asking you:D
if you could come up with one relevant link to substantiate this strange stream of conciousness, I'd be very surprised
bonkers
We moved, changed colour and started breeding all over. We are hybrids of the first humans.
Where do YOU think we came from? Do you believe we just appeared from nowhere?
And why did you not respond to my point about none of us being truly English anyway?
and do you deny that the grandchild of a polish refugee during world war 2 is any less English than us?
Do you deny that the grandchild of a Jaimacan worked whom WE invited to help rebuild after world war 2 is less English than us?
You mindless BNP rants highlight your own ignorance with regards to colour and race. You say we are pure English because we are white, when to belong to a specific nation is just something in the mind. Especially when you consider we are ALL human.
But I suppose you're like the communists aren't you. We all human, just some of us are more human than others.
That sums you right up.
they bred eh
accepting your baloney for a second, list the achevements of Africa over the last 1000 years
They created a society that has managed to sustain itself without over exploiting the carrying capacity of the land.
Maybe if you read my last post fully you'd understand the reasons.
Since they've been in contact with Europeans they have had our technology forced upon them. The population has exceeded the land's carrying capacity and now there is mass starvation.
Step 1: Google - http://www.google.com/search?q=theories+on+the+evolution+of+man&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Step 2: Click on link, and read - http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/
"Two theories have been proposed to explain where and when modern Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus. The multi regional theory suggests that H. erectus originated in Africa and spread across the Old World where the species then evolved into modern humans in those separate regions. However, the out-of-Africa theory maintains H. erectus evolved into modern H. sapiens only in Africa and the new species spread to the other continents. Evidence, both genetic and from fossils, has been discovered and used in support for both theories. Scientists believe only one theory can be correct, but this debate may continue for many years to come."
http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/hollysherard.html - a more in depth look at the two theories, comparing them etc. But both the theories say that we came from Africa, whether we fully evolved before or after we left Africa is in debate. If you have your own theories, I'd love to hear them
and the AIDs epidemic... sorry
How would you survive without electricity or tap water? You wouldn't last 2 minutes
From New Scientist - 01/07/1995 (831 words)
GAIL VINES
THE shameful history of scientific racism in the 20th century is well known. For most of the first half of the century, fashionable genetic theories were quickly reflected in public policies - from compulsory sterilisations in the US to the Nazi death camps. Yet horrifying as the stories are, they remain historical accounts. It is not immediately obvious what they can tell us about the connections, if any, between contemporary molecular genetics and contemporary racism.
Human Biodiversity is one of the first books to rise to this challenge. Its author, Jonathan Marks, is associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, but he is also a biologist. Unlike many academics in the "human" or "social" sciences, he understands what modern genetics is all about. This makes him able to explain and to mount a critique of what science today is saying about the biological basis of "race" - in other words, about human genetic diversity. His clear and engaging writing makes this an altogether excellent book.
Marks uses a combination of history and biology to show that conventional notions of human "races", as well as the scientific theories current earlier this century, are and were intellectually bankrupt: modern molecular genetics has established that genetic profiles cannot divide humanity into any definitive types. There are no genetic markers for "race" or "ethnicity": even the few genes apparently found only among "Africans" or "Jews" or "Chinese", for instance, are by no means possessed by all the individuals designated to such groups. This intermingling of genes so characteristic of our species is the result of years of travelling and trading, migration and pilgrimage, invasion and conquest. Salman Rushdie's description of himself as "a bastard child of history" applies equally to us all.
But this is not the end of the story. For, as Marks describes, contemporary genetics has not yet entirely abandoned the attempt to catalogue humanity along genetic lines. Instead of concentrating on the biologically more meaningful task of attempting to understand the microevolutionary processes that have created the rich genetic diversity within groups, "molecular anthropologists" still hanker after global explanations. They continue to seek descriptions of "racial types", now conceptualised as genetic variation between populations. But this is to ask the wrong question, says Marks.
In a nutshell; Marks contests the direction of contemporary molecular anthropology, which is now closely aligned with the Human Genome Project in the US. He argues that current plans to reconstruct the history of human genes by sampling the DNA of exotic tribespeople throughout the world is fundamentally misguided. Resting on a tacit belief in genetically "pure" races, this "Human Genome Diversity Project" is essentially old scientific racism dressed in new clothes, Marks claims.
The new scheme to chart the "history and geography of human genes" through DNA analysis of far-flung "primitive" peoples rests on the mistaken assumption that such exotics do not have a history, says Marks. Yet other cultures are not "frozen in time" and are rarely "completely isolated". Genetic intermingling - or "admixture" in the crypto-racist jargon - is not, as some geneticists suppose, "largely a recent nuisance", says Marks. "Thus the San peoples of South Africa, targeted at the top of the Human Genome Diversity Project's list of isolated and unmixed populations, are neither."
Geneticists have made this error many times before, says Marks. In the 1950s, for instance, scientists persistently proclaimed the genetic "purity" of the Navajos of North America, despite ethnohistorical evidence of extensive intermarriage with other Native American tribes. Today's molecular anthropologists want to use genetic data to create an evolutionary tree of human populations, and various rival versions have already been produced.
Indeed, the task is not especially taxing. "One can always get genetic data and a tree from them," says Marks. The trouble is, "the meaning of the tree may be elusive". For instance, "one can ask, after all, whether Cambodians are more closely related to Laotians or to Thais, but the forces that shaped the gene pool of Southeast Asia were operating long before the sociopolitical boundaries were erected, and independently of them". So it makes little sense to regard these arbitrary national divisions as transcendent biological entities. "It is almost as misleading as asking whether lawyers are more closely related to architects or to accountants," says Marks.
The Human Genome Diversity Project will never "resolve for us the nature of the large-scale relationships among populations", Marks argues, simply because the genetic diversity it documents springs largely from the messy and convoluted histories of continuously intermingling populations.
The long search for a science of genetic "purity" throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries has inadvertently demonstrated that the very idea of "race" is a biological nonsense. Today's reincarnation of that quest looks set to show even more convincingly that genes are no substitute for history. Human Biodiversity is an important book that deserves a wide readership.
For more science news see www.newscientist.com
As whites, who are supposedly superior to everyone on the planet, explain please the massive domination of the world by Asia and the Middle East.
While we were flinging shit at each other, Egyptians were building pyramids. Whilst we were shivering through the dark ages, China was holding fireworks displays.
From New Scientist - 09/03/2002 (481 words)
TWO equally brilliant scientists apply for a prestigious research fellowship awarded by a top scientific organisation. One is white, the other black. Does the colour of their skin matter?
Most scientists will already be screaming a resounding "no". Those who progress in science do so because of their work, not their pigmentation. Science is meritocratic and objective. It must therefore be rigorously colour-blind and shun both racial discrimination and affirmative action.
Well, let's think about this. If science really is so meritocratic, where are all the black Nobel prizewinners and fellows of the Royal Society? The black chairs of government scientific panels? The black Richard Dawkinses and Susan Greenfields? When Newsweek magazine recently surveyed Europe's largest 100 companies, it was shocked to unearth only six board members of non-European racial origin. One shudders to think what a similar survey of the upper echelonsof European science would reveal.
Even the usually stick-in-the-mud British government now acknowledges there is aproblem. Last month it promised new funding for projects designed to combat institutional racism in science education in schools (see Science' racist shame). As measures go it is little and late, but welcome nonetheless. Despite starting school as the top achievers, black British children have long underperformed in science.
And there are positive changes afoot higher up the scientific career ladder too.At present, few scientific organisations, funding bodies or labs in Europe bother even to track the racial backgrounds of those they hire or fund. As a result the full scale of the under-representation problem is hidden. Not for much longer. Britain's newly amended Race Relations Act requires all government bodies, including funding councils, to track the effects of their activities on different ethnic groups and ensure that all benefit equally. And next year a European Union directive will push all EU employers this way too.
But ethnic monitoring alone will not create the black role models European science so badly needs. Something else is needed. Funding agencies and influential organisations like the Royal Society must bite the bullet of affirmative action. That means ring-fencing fellowships and grants for applicants from particular racial backgrounds. And it means seeking out those who have broken through the barriers of race and giving them preference over their equally well-qualified white peers for positions of influence and places in the spotlight.
Tokenism and fine sentiments will no longer do. With other professions having already leapt ahead in this area, the enduring whiteness of science is more thanan embarrassment: it is a barrier to its very credibility. If a large segment ofEurope's schoolchildren never see a scientist who looks like them, they will continue to think science is not for them. And if scientists don't reflect the multiracial societies they live in, they'll find it hard to win the public trustthey crave.
Does colour matter? You bet it does.
Copyright 2002 New Scientist, Reed Business Information
Date: 09/03/2002
Publication: New Scientist
And if Afrcans +asians had gone to Europe when we did what do you think they would be doing but flinging shit at each other. We weren't flinging shit at each other for long were we
doh!
Doh!
Another bad day at the office is on the cards... How much more can you take?
What are you on about, you're another jack-in-the-box type that air-brushes his own defeats into victories
You wouldn't be Comical Ali by any chance would you?
What the hell are you on with?
Whilst we were building stone circles and dancing naked with druids, the Egyptian empire was in full swing.
The Greeks and the Trojans had just finished beating the shit out of each other, and there was a fledgling Roman empire in the making.
The Greek, Egyptian and Roman empires combined lasted for at least 2000 years, all that time we had nothing. No technological achievements, no culture until the Romans "discovered" us. When the Romans left we lost all the technology and spent the next 600 years being told we were going to be burnt as heretics. Society only began to truly develop in England again with the Norman invasions.
Britain as a true powerful nation only emerged during the 1400's, 1000 years after the Roman empire had left our shores.
Admit it, all you know of history is the last 50 years, and you revel in the delight that if your party wins we'll see a remake of the holocaust but with black and asian people instead of jews. Actually, I bet we'll see Jews being gassed to death as well won't we!
Immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and has been for millenia. Or didn't they teach you at Hitler Academy?
Why are black people inferior to white people?
Do the other users agree this is a pertinent question to put forward to our less than noble trolls, or should I delete it?
What, when, where, who or should I say, Whowhere. Excuse me for being a bit underwhelmed but what you describe isn't exactly the Sistine chapel anyway, is it?
You really hopping around in space +time aren't you, suddenly the history of africa becomes Egypt +pyramids what was going on in the rest of that continent at that time?(Like you'd know)
You introduced the idea of non-GM africa, I doubt those Egyptians were so genetically pure, besides they ran a crap brutal society which enslaved
You've gone round a few historical loops and achieved nothing
Africa would be in a sorry state without the West now, they know it and so should you, what's your problem?
They'd be better off if they'd never heard of Europe, or the west!