Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MissCalico; All
Both the link and the links within the linked article sure do set off the 'racism alarm.'

There's the promotion of genetics as the primary influencer of personality. The use of the term 'race-baiting' as an attempt to brush aside criticism that conclusions are not only racist, but not based solidly on facts. And then there's the particularly revealing quote: "If they would have been black [they] probably would have gotten flak", which the author chose to bold. Add on the traditional tendency of 'startling' *evidence* that 'whites' are more intelligent, compassionate/friendly, beautiful than all the other races (with the exception that some suggest East Asians are more intelligent than 'whites,' but also more cowardly and less friendly/compassionate). Just how full of themselves can some people be?

The people who make such arguments are probably: ugly; moderate intelligence; and--obviously--are lacking in the kindness department.

You can find a 'white' who is more intelligent than a 'black.' You can find a 'black' who is more intelligent than a 'white.'

You can find a 'brown' who is more compassionate than a 'yellow.' You can find a 'yellow' who is more compassionate than a 'brown.'

As for beauty, will state that there's a toss-up. As some here suggest, colorful traits such as blue eyes, blondism (includes red-hair) do give 'whites' a leg up. However, in terms of structure, as a percentage, the most beautiful people seem to be in an area surrounding Mesopotamia. That is, if you were to pick the most beautiful genetic nation, that nation would be around Mesopotamia. However, if you were to pick the top 100 most beautiful people in the world, Europeans would be overwhelmingly represented. And yet, beauty is finicky, and not for PC reasons. Only a few generations ago, extremely pale-skinned men were considered more attractive than more tanned ones--that has since changed. A few generations before, an attractive woman would be what is now considered fat. During the Middle Ages, a high, broad forehead was attractive. That has become less of a decisive trait. And that's just taking a glimpse at Western standards of beauty. That standard has so dominated the global view on beauty that finding out what the local standards were before the Age of Colonialism. In contrast to the egotism of some 'white' racists, 'whites' might not have been universally considered beautiful upon first contact. If some surviving text about non-Europeans' views on European appearance is discovered, that could be revealing, either way.

In any case, prideful people--especially those who have no reason to be proud--are akin to a full-body mosquito bite.

/rant.

26 posted on 02/04/2008 12:58:23 PM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Jedi Master Pikachu
You certainly read more into things than I did. I don't remember any mention of beauty at all in the article and the poster and owner of the website is an ethnic South Asian. (I don't have blue eyes either, btw)

I guess we're not supposed to be curious about how the great variety of physical differences between humans came about and just leave it be, but people are going to always wonder about it and seek answers, especially as the studies on genetics advance. I certainly don't want to add any hurt to anyone in anyway so I'll apologize if I did offend.

27 posted on 02/04/2008 3:58:37 PM PST by MissCalico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson