didn't agriculture originate in the Indian subcontinent and/or Northern Africa?

 

Agriculture began in what is now Syria, southern Turkey, and Northern Iraq 10,000 years ago. From there it spread to Europe, and Northern Africa, and later to the rest of the Africa. It developed independently in East Asia, beginning perhaps 9,000 years ago. It developed independently in the New World, beginning perhaps 5,000 years ago. From Central America it reached the Great Lakes region 1,000 years ago.

The development of agriculture was not a liberation, but a burden. It developed because the human population grew to a point where hunting and gathering no longer could provide enough food. People adopted agriculture to avoid starving. Nevertheless, the change to a diet that was high in carbohydrates, and low in protein caused health problems. The average height declined by as many as five inches. The greater human density, and proximity to farm animals lead to the spread of old diseases, and the evolution of new ones.

Even now, populations that have recently adopted agriculture are more likely to suffer type 2 diabetes, and also alcoholism, because alcoholic drinks began with agriculture. It was only gradually that the human body evolved to process an agricultural diet. In addition, without understanding the chemistry behind amino acids, people learned to mix grains and beans to get complete protein.

 

Agriculture also lead to the evolution of psychological changes, because farmers needed to plan for the future, to defer gratification, and to get along with those they did not like.

People also had to clean up after themselves. Hunters were always on the move, so the remains of prey animals they killed did not have to be disposed of. The remains of butchered farm animals could spread disease.

 

Farming began gradually. Hunters would follow herds, which in turn moved to new pastures as weather changed. As the hunters followed the herds they collected and ate edible plants. Eventually, they learned that if they planted seeds from the plants, there would be more of them next year. Finally, some of the hunters and gatherers remained in place to tend the plants, which they learned to breed to be more useful.

Others began to protect prey animals from other carnivorous animals. These hunters eventually domesticated the prey animals, and became herders, rather than hunters.

 

who told you they are different races? Aiee..
Who put that in your mind that he is different blah blah!?
There is no such thing called race, we all evolve from same species.
It is just some random douche who put that thing in our mind..

 

I think this is already taken care of by politics and by the government.

Examples would be redistricting and changing school districts.

Then you also have races moving into one side of a town, which give you ethnic enclaves.

 

I'm no racist but I am a fan of NASCAR.

 

​

 

*shudders*

never forget.

never repeat.

 

I am not racist, I hate Everyone equally.

 

Kim Jong-il is the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

Kim Jong says." How about me? I hate my own race that live in the south. They are "puppets" of the United States and want to take over my country. Just give me a good reason why I should stop developing and accumulating nuclear weapons. I am protecting our country against American Imperialism and will annihilate those that..."

[A gunshot is heard]

OMG, Kim Jong has been shot by a US Navy Seal Team Sniper and slumps to the floor!

Just a second...

Kim Jong unsteadily gets to his feet, wipes away the blood from his face, then says, "Doesn't anybody see what is going on here except for me? It is my duty to protect our Nation from aggression!"

 

Hatred is not a prerequisite for racism. Many racists don't express hatred towards another race...they simply think them inferior. I put DL in this category. But it still meets the textbook definition of racism and prejudice, and provides the basis for discrimination based on race.

rac·ism

noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 

I think DL is misunderstood. That is all.

 

Actually, I think I do understand him. He thinks that if black people are REALLY inferior, it's okay to feel the way he does. And he thinks that inferiority is a proven, demonstrable fact -- enough so that it has become his religion, with Charles Murray as his god and The Bell Curve as his bible. Racists in the past have used the Bible to justify their racism. What he does is no different, even if it's couched in pseudo-scientific terminology.

But in my view, even if you could demonstrate conclusively that one race of people was inferior to another (which I don't think you can), it would still be wrong to treat them differently, to discriminate against them, or to deny them the same rights we afford everyone else.

 

I've talked with Charles Murray. He is no racist nor is there anything white supremacist in his work or the work of Arthur Jensen.

 

You're welcome to your opinion. But sometime you ought to look into who provided the funding for their work.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

 

The science behind the Bell Curve is pretty strong. It succinctly proves that IQ is largely heritable. I tend to side with James Flynn, who feels environment also plays a significant role--as opposed to Murray and Jensen who feel it plays a lesser one--but you cannot the deny the heritability of IQ contributes to racial IQ gap.

As for the Pioneer Fund? I think the greatest tragedy of the "The Bell Curve" was that it wasn't used a motivator for black strives in scholastic achievement but rather it was read by stoic bigots who misinterpreted the book and used it a justification for the racist beliefs.

Nowhere in the book does Murray even come close to saying that blacks are inferior. Likewise, many great social scientists have receive funding from the Pioneer Group. Racists latch on to whatever legitimate argument they can find...

 

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

 

Of course, the case is slightly different if the think tank founded by Hitler, Manson, Stalin et al provided the funding for the research you're citing.

 

The Pioneer Fund was financed by none of them.