Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the history of human civilization, the only reason needed by one group to enslave another group was having some advantage over their victims. If a war or battle was won, then their captured slaves were dominated by sheer force, whether by superior weaponry, greater numbers or just pure luck. No one was administering IQ tests to see if their slaves instead deserved respect and a seat at their dinner table. And if the weaker group had items of value, their assets were just seized as were their womenfolk.
I would say that it's not having a higher IQ or higher socio-economic level that allowed whites to dominate those that they did, it was having higher education and knowledge which gave them their advantages of superior weaponry and strategies, their sailing ships, metalworking skills that gave them chains, cannons, swords and guns, and also having a written language which gave them better communication skills and over long distances. The European cultures also had a long history of networking and doing trade with each other, they also shared the same religions which is another way of bonding. Cultures like the Native Americans, the natives of South America and those from the African continent were at a grave disadvantage for being much more primitive societies which caused them to be respected less. Those cultures had no allies in Europe, they had different spiritual beliefs so they weren't protected by the christian god, no common language, and no royal family ties or allegiances. These primitive cultures were complete outsiders to the Europeans and therefore very vulnerable to being bullied and taken advantage of.
Human beings have a tendency to be bullies. So do other animals, like chimpanzees.
Nobody disputed that Indians had slaves. But they, as culturally tribal Indians, did not systematically capture black slaves. Most slaves held by Indians were members of other tribes, either kidnapped or defeated in battle. when white men came into Indian territory and brought slaves with them, the Indians who were inclined to own slaved didn't really care what color they were.
This whole sub-thread is about the assertion by jeepgirl that "even American Indians kept Blacks as slaves", which is technically true, but they did not set out to set blacks apart and establish a system of slavery based on the availability of blacks. A few Indians Europeanized enough to become slaveholders, just like whites, but within the Indian context of "owning slaves", they owned whatever spoils they could acquire, and some, by the luck of the draw, happened to be black.
So what you're really saying is that it was DIFFERENT when Whites owned slaves, as opposed to all the other racial & cultural groups throughout history who have owned slaves.
One thing I find quite strange among English Speaking caucasoids in the US is that many brag about having "Indian Blood". Aren't they Half Breeds?
In many Latin American countries, Argentina, for example, they would be considered Half Breeds, "Little black heads".
How come those Half Breeds are not duly counted as Minorities, and how come they were not segregated to the "Half Breed" reservation of Minnessotta?
If those families with Indian Blood, that are relatively old in the United States, mixed with mainstream society, it means that all "Anglos" are half breeds except very recent European immigrants, luckily a large percentage of the caucasoid population of the United State.
There is a big difference between being tanned and being African American. There is not a comparrison. Whites may want to get darker because they simply enjoy not looking as pale. Blacks usually want to look lighther to escape the racial barrier that whites measure them with. I don't have anything against whites. Just telling it like it T- I- IS. Yeah, some may want to make their lips a little plumper, their booty a little thicker, but I'll never believe that they want to be black.Some blacks no doubt want to get away from their brown skin because of ignorant racism.
One thing I find quite strange among English Speaking caucasoids in the US is that many brag about having "Indian Blood". Aren't they Half Breeds?
In many Latin American countries, Argentina, for example, they would be considered Half Breeds, "Little black heads".
How come those Half Breeds are not duly counted as Minorities, and how come they were not segregated to the "Half Breed" reservation of Minnessotta?
If those families with Indian Blood, that are relatively old in the United States, mixed with mainstream society, it means that all "Anglos" are half breeds except very recent European immigrants, luckily a large percentage of the caucasoid population of the United State.
Most Native American tribes require that you be atleast 25% Indian in order to be eligible for membership.
That is why most of the people whom you refer to as "half Breeds" are counted as White and not as Native American in the U.S census bureau, because the overwhelming majority of them have significantly less than 25% Indian ancestry, and hence can not legally be recognized as Native Americans.
By the way I doubt very much that anybody in Argentina would see a person who has less than 25% Indian ancestry and is only 1/8 Indian as being Nonwhite.
97% of Argentina's may population self identify as White, but that sure as hell does not mean that 97% of Argentines are genetically pure unmmixed 100% European.
Last edited by John McClane; 07-20-2009 at 08:08 PM..
They are half-breeds according to your "one drop rule". They are no different from many Mexicans with some Indian blood that try to pass as white.
It's quite curious that one of the most overtly racist country in the world is composed by a population of half breeds that pretend to be Europeans. For the most part they don't know where they come from, they don't talk the language of their elders and they are mixed people.
In Argentina there's large percentage of European population arrived recently, during the past century. They are first or second generation Europeans.
In Argentina, people with 25% or less of Indian ancestry are classified as "Moruchos", not whites.
I guess that almost all "Wasp" and "Anglos", except those arrived recently (4 to 5 generations) that can trace their lineage to Europe, are half breeds. They should have been confined to a reservation or segregated, just as they did with blacks.
They are half-breeds according to your "one drop rule". They are no different from many Mexicans with some Indian blood that try to pass as white.
It's quite curious that one of the most overtly racist country in the world is composed by a population of half breeds that pretend to be Europeans. For the most part they don't know where they come from, they don't talk the language of their elders and they are mixed people.
In Argentina there's large percentage of European population arrived recently, during the past century. They are first or second generation Europeans.
In Argentina, people with 25% or less of Indian ancestry are classified as "Moruchos", not whites.
I guess that almost all "Wasp" and "Anglos", except those arrived recently (4 to 5 generations) that can trace their lineage to Europe, are half breeds. They should have been confined to a reservation or segregated, just as they did with blacks.
They are "Moruchos", like Maradona.
The overwhelming majority of White Americans are not "half breeds".
Only 30% of White Americans are not genetically pure European, while the other 70% of White Americans have absolutely no Indian or African ancestors what so ever. White American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And among that 30%, the overwhelming majority do not have enough Indian ancestry to be legally be considered Native American, since the average Indian admixture is only a mere 2%.
So there is absolutely no comparison to Mexicans, because the overwhelming majority of Mexicans have a heck of alot more than just 2% Indian ancestry.
In the history of human civilization, the only reason needed by one group to enslave another group was having some advantage over their victims. If a war or battle was won, then their captured slaves were dominated by sheer force, whether by superior weaponry, greater numbers or just pure luck. No one was administering IQ tests to see if their slaves instead deserved respect and a seat at their dinner table. And if the weaker group had items of value, their assets were just seized as were their womenfolk.
I would say that it's not having a higher IQ or higher socio-economic level that allowed whites to dominate those that they did, it was having higher education and knowledge which gave them their advantages of superior weaponry and strategies, their sailing ships, metalworking skills that gave them chains, cannons, swords and guns, and also having a written language which gave them better communication skills and over long distances. The European cultures also had a long history of networking and doing trade with each other, they also shared the same religions which is another way of bonding. Cultures like the Native Americans, the natives of South America and those from the African continent were at a grave disadvantage for being much more primitive societies which caused them to be respected less. Those cultures had no allies in Europe, they had different spiritual beliefs so they weren't protected by the christian god, no common language, and no royal family ties or allegiances. These primitive cultures were complete outsiders to the Europeans and therefore very vulnerable to being bullied and taken advantage of.
Human beings have a tendency to be bullies. So do other animals, like chimpanzees.
Europeans developed more complex civilisations because they had the advantage of geography. Superior crops and large, domesticable animals to work the lands and produce the large surpluses required for specialisation. It really had nothing to do with any particular ingenuity.
Mesopotamians would have been more advanced than Europeans had they not overworked their already unstable environment.
In the history of human civilization, the only reason needed by one group to enslave another group was having some advantage over their victims. If a war or battle was won, then their captured slaves were dominated by sheer force, whether by superior weaponry, greater numbers or just pure luck. No one was administering IQ tests to see if their slaves instead deserved respect and a seat at their dinner table. And if the weaker group had items of value, their assets were just seized as were their womenfolk.
I would say that it's not having a higher IQ or higher socio-economic level that allowed whites to dominate those that they did, it was having higher education and knowledge which gave them their advantages of superior weaponry and strategies, their sailing ships, metalworking skills that gave them chains, cannons, swords and guns, and also having a written language which gave them better communication skills and over long distances. The European cultures also had a long history of networking and doing trade with each other, they also shared the same religions which is another way of bonding. Cultures like the Native Americans, the natives of South America and those from the African continent were at a grave disadvantage for being much more primitive societies which caused them to be respected less. Those cultures had no allies in Europe, they had different spiritual beliefs so they weren't protected by the christian god, no common language, and no royal family ties or allegiances. These primitive cultures were complete outsiders to the Europeans and therefore very vulnerable to being bullied and taken advantage of.
Human beings have a tendency to be bullies. So do other animals, like chimpanzees.
You do bring up a point that humans tend to be bullies. I can agree with that. We see eye to eye that IQ scores have nothing to do with the situation.
On that note, I am aware of a documentary by Jared Diamond called Guns,Germs,and Steel. You mentioned that Africa being a primative society put them at a big disadvantage. Well, there are some things to consider. Societies like Mesopotamia and Europe had the advantage for this reason. Societies that are mainly based on a cash-crop society can form into states, and when states become bigger, they have more people to support and for this reason, they become bullies and go after other people. On that note, there must be some things in place for this to happen. Societies that were highly agricultural had the plow. In order to use the plow, you need an animal to pull it. There are no animals in Africa that can be domesticated for agricultural use. In fact, there were no animals in African that could be domesticated. For this reason, Much of Africa was a hunter gatherer society. In a hunter-gatherer society, it is mainly subsistence. It isn't about trying to build a bigger society and onto a state. It is about supporting your group. There isn't much of a chance to develop higher education/technology. For the environment Africa had, much of what they had worked. They fell prey to other societies who were after their resources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
