[Cronos]

well, firstly, to claim any "race" as best or worst is stupid in my opinion. Genes take you so far, but individuals count -- the Battle of Isandlwana when the Zulus armed with spears defeated the Brits armed with rifles is a case of sub-saharan africans having superior tactics for example.

Anyway, there is no "white" civilisation or "white" race -- there is the race of Caucasians and the sub-grouping of Indo-Europeans/Aryans. There is no over-arching "white" civilisation -- the Italics, Celts, Iranis, Slavs, Indics, Germanics, etc. have been separate civilisations for millenia.

It's a fact that the Sumerians were trading with Egyptians, Bahrianis and Indus valley civilisations. The Sumerians were God-knows which race, though I'm inclined to believe blam's link about them being related to Dravidians as were the people in the Indus valley (a Caucasian civilisation). The Egyptians in the Old Kingdom were definitely a mixture of Berber with Ethiopic-Semitic blood, later kingdoms having Sudanese blood. The Chinese of course, had their own race. The sub-saharan africans -- the ground was too inappropriate for civilisation to spring up, ditto for Amazonia.

[wardaddy]

first you say this:

well, firstly, to claim any "race" as best or worst is stupid in my opinion

then you say this:

The Chinese of course, had their own race

so Cronos, are u stupid ...your own words...

you just exemplified on this very thread why I take any modern anthropology talk with a grain of salt.

First you dismiss the concept of race.

The you proceed to explain how Caucasians were a myriad spanning from Celts to the Sub-Continent and so forth as though that is news and that Egyptians were sorta negroid...that is disputed except in the brief Nubian rule.

And then you claim the Chinese are their own race and explain away SubSaharan negroid race's poor civilizations development as just so much topography...how convenient...ditto tropical Amerinidians.

You have an agenda here and it ain't objective science. Your explanations are for one thing just as I claimed in my first post which you dismissed.

There is no doubt in my mind as exemplified by your post that many in this field whether as scientists or observers are in it to prove precisely what I stated in my first post. Dilute Caucasian history and promote alternatives to pump up other accomplishments to civilization or to excuse why some lagged.

This sort of redress basically permeates everything in the culture and is just as dishonest as some old whites are superior thinking textbook would have been.

Those who say race does not matter or is nonexistent are being dishonest with themselves...it matters very much to them and your post to the contrary of your purported intent does just that.

There are plenty of reasons some races have a higher mean civilizational development than others and it's instructive to study that....I wish folks actually did that.

I will give you last word since this argument can be an easy Never Ending Story and unprovable