Replies

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

well, yes, I am stupid :)

however, not for the reason that you put forth --> well, firstly, to claim any "race" as best or worst is stupid in my opinion and The Chinese of course, had their own race are non-sequitors. I point out that the Chinese are part of the Mongoloid Race, distinct from the Caucasian cultures of the Sumerians (most likely), Harappans, Hittites, Minoans and Egyptians (with Ethiopic elements). At no point do I state that Chinese/Mongoloids are best or worst, neither do I do that for the Caucasians

I dismiss the concept of "white race" because there is no such thing --> the Caucasians include Nordics as well as swarthy Italians and darker Iranis, indians and Semites.

Races like ARyanic etc are a fact, but race based on color is false.

I don't state that Egyptians were sorta Negroid, but tht they were Ethiopic -- quite different. The "Africans" are at least 3 different races: Bantu, Pygmies, Bushmen and Ethiopics. The latter have always been in touch with W. Asia and Europe (to a lesser extent). Old Kingdom Egyptians were definitely Berber partly and yet browner, hence an Ethiopic admixture as is apparent in their depictions of themselves. They were not Bantu (west AFrican or as you say Negroid).

Race does not matter in judging individuals -- in judging where a culture goes it does not matter either --> case in point Germanics were barbarians to Italics but look at them now (of course you can say that they are both the same race).

What do you mean by 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. --> which are the "races" you define? Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, Ethiopic, Bushmen. And, please could you define to a better extent that statement?