Intelligent or Talking Out Of My Ass? [Archive]

View Full Version : Intelligent or Talking Out Of My Ass?

EliSnow

07-13-2006, 09:15 AM

Recently, I was having a conversation with someone with, let's just say, slightly different political viewpoints than I have.  He's was making a comment, similar to what Ron just said, about how innovations in society, inventions, etc. have come from mainly from European or Western countries, and that none of that has come from any countries in Africa (other than Egypt - which he excluded).  Obviously, he was using this "fact" to make a point that Africans are naturally less civilized and intelligent as caucasions.  Ignoring the racist sentiment behind the point, I tried to explain these facts in the following manner.  I said that if you look at the currently "civilized" countries in the world that have created modern inventions, each of these countries did not come up with these innovations on their own.  For instance, in order for such innovations to occur, the citizens of the country have to (somewhat) civilized and educated.  However, none of these countries created their civilizations on their own.  Citizens of the United States built upon ideas, etc. that they learned primarily from Great Britain, France and some other European countries.However, if you look at those countries, "civilization" was brought to them by being conquered by the Roman Empire.  Before Rome came to Britain, France (or Gaul) and Germany, the individuals living there were considered savages.  By civilization here, I'm not saying that Romans weren't barbaric in certain ways, but rather they had a government and socitey that built streets, buildings, etc.  The Romans didn't develop this on their own.  They built upon what they learned from the Greeks.  Similarly the Greeks learned from previous cultures, including Egyptians.  In other words, to the extent that a country is now civilized, it's because sometime in the past, its people were conquered or settled by people from another country that was civilized.  Now with regard to the countries in the heart of Africa, because of geography, etc., those countries weren't "conquered" or "civilized" until recent history.  They didn' t benefit from this practice the way that Western countries were, and thus, are considered not as advanced.  It has nothing to do with genetic abilities, etc. but rather socio-political developments in their history.  Mind you I was a little drunk at the time, so I'm not sure if I was being particularly astute or if I was talking out of my ass (or both).  What do you think?

This message was edited by EliSnow on 7-13-06 @ 1:17 PM

MilkmanDann

07-13-2006, 09:17 AM

2/3rds Ass, with a 3rd of some valid points.

A.J.

07-13-2006, 09:19 AM

He's was making a comment, similar to what Ron just said, about how innovations in society, inventions, etc. have come from mainly from European or Western countries, and that none of that has come from any countries in Africa (other than Egypt - which he excluded).  We still haven't invented a way to win marathons.

JustJon

07-13-2006, 09:33 AM

Do you consider India to be "Eastern or Western"?

EliSnow

07-13-2006, 09:34 AM

JustJon wrote: Do you consider India to be "Eastern or Western"? Neither of us addressed India in our comments, and its contributions to the "civilized" world, but I guess I would consider it Eastern.

Furtherman

07-13-2006, 09:35 AM

EliSnow wrote: Now with regard to the countries in the heart of Africa, because of geography, etc., those countries weren't "conquered" or "civilized" until recent history.  They didn' t benefit from this practice the way that Western countries were, and thus, are considered not as advanced.  It has nothing to do with genetic abilities, etc. but rather socio-political developments in their history.  Not talking out of your ass at all.  Modern civilazation as we see it today started in Europe because it's landscape was easily to travel, starting trade and social development.Africa, not so easy to get around, and its modern civilazation is based on socia-political developments, which for the most part, have only benefited its rulers and not its people.

terry1979

07-13-2006, 10:09 AM

complete ass talk, you may as well have bent over and farted in the guys face for 5 or 6 minutes.  It would have been a lot more memorable (and funny) for him....A better point to refute his point about Africa which you took as racist, I however do not, would have been to point out that while Western Nations were making strides toward inventions and entering into the industrial Africa was in the ending stages of a 500 year slave trade.  Not only were there strongest men and women (and possibly the brightest too, we'll never know what people sold into slavery could have accomplished because they were regarded as property and never given a chance to flourish economically or academically) sent away from their country to work as slaves, but the ones who weren't were consumed with maintaining their freedom, they hardly had time to ponder new innovations. It is also worth mentioning that Africans were very instrumental in the Industrial revolution in this country.  The Cotton Gin, one of the was designed to mimmick the work that slaves were doing on farms at the time.   Although Whitney was from the North and I am not sure if there were slaves up north in the early 1800's or not, but I gaurantee plenty of inventor's down south used their slaves to do a lot of the labor needed to develop their inventions.

EliSnow

07-13-2006, 10:13 AM

terry1979 wrote: A better point to refute his point about Africa which you took as racist, I however do not, would have been to point out that while Western Nations were making strides toward inventions and entering into the industrial Africa was in the ending stages of a 500 year slave trade.  The point I took as "racist" wasn't his "facts" or points Africa, but his purpose and the ultimate conclusion he reached based on his points that essentially African-Americans were genetically inferior to persons with European heritage.

terry1979

07-13-2006, 10:21 AM

EliSnow wrote: terry1979 wrote: A better point to refute his point about Africa which you took as racist, I however do not, would have been to point out that while Western Nations were making strides toward inventions and entering into the industrial Africa was in the ending stages of a 500 year slave trade.  The point I took as "racist" wasn't his "facts" or points Africa, but his purpose and the ultimate conclusion he reached based on his points that essentially African-Americans were genetically inferior to persons with European heritage.Well, if that was his ultimate point than hand him a hood and move on to the next conversation.  Anyone who is inherently racist you will never connvince otherwise.

EliSnow

07-13-2006, 10:24 AM

terry1979 wrote: Anyone who is inherently racist you will never connvince otherwise.I'm not sure he's inherently racist.   I just think that he's looked at some "facts" and never really thought them through properly, and came up with racist conclusions.

phixion

07-13-2006, 11:16 AM

African-Americans were genetically inferior wow apparently this person needs to think deeply. okay lets say that the 'civilizations' created in europe were tuly an advancement. certain things occur alongside technological developments. the technology makes life easier, that is something we all agree with. lets take technological advancements in medicine and see its effects on the sociociety genetically. lets say a child develops cholera in europe he may surivive due to whatever advancements in medicine. that same child in africa would have a greater chance of dying. (i know what im about to say is very very cold hearted.) that death thins the herd and makes sure that child will not reproduce, in doing so his genetic weakness to cholera will also not be handed down through generations. also intelligence and creativity would be actually higher in primitive peoples more than modern ones. in high population areas you can always find someone fo fix a problem. need a new weapon find the mason, oh in the mood for fish tonight find a fisherman. in africa the village is much smaller and has to be much more self sufficient. you cant be an expert at any one thing, you have to be an expert at many things.

SinA

07-13-2006, 12:41 PM

I'd say you were basicall right (not ass-talking).  Conquest and geography had a lot to do with the way places developed, as did a lot of other factors.  I'd say that "civilization" (maybe "society" is a better word) developed in many places, some places more than others, by an exchange of ideas/technology.  The exchange was a dialogue or a network, more than just being brought to one place by other people.

ChimneyFish

07-13-2006, 01:00 PM

I'll give you the thumbs up.Your point about the whole Rome-Greece-Egypt connection was very intelligent.(and some thing I wouldn't have thought of on the spot)On a side note, they just had this thing on the History channel on the engineering marvels of ancient Rome. Some really interesting stuff.

EliSnow

07-13-2006, 01:04 PM

SinA wrote: I'd say you were basicall right (not ass-talking).  Conquest and geography had a lot to do with the way places developed, as did a lot of other factors.  I'd say that "civilization" (maybe "society" is a better word) developed in many places, some places more than others, by an exchange of ideas/technology.  The exchange was a dialogue or a network, more than just being brought to one place by other people.  I think you're right.  After thinking about this more, I thought along similar lines that the "conquered" or "settled" country would bring their own ideas, cultures, etc. to those brought by the "conqueror" or "settlor" countries and that the combination led to greater innovations, etc.

Sheeplovr

07-13-2006, 01:10 PM

thats why he gets payed the big bucks you can't argue against this lawer he's a big shot

HeyGuy

07-13-2006, 01:16 PM

<div>EliSnow I agree 100% with your first post in this topic. Very intelligent</div>

SatCam

07-13-2006, 01:34 PM

You're a lawyer. Obviously talking out of your ass.

http://www.heidihowe.com/image/sm%20heidi%20wink%20cartoon.jpg

Dudeman

07-13-2006, 02:42 PM

the answer to this issue is in Guns, Germs, and Steel (it won the pulitzer prize)

Bulldogcakes

07-13-2006, 06:15 PM

EliSnow wrote:Ignoring the racist sentiment behind the point, I tried to explain these facts in the following manner. I said that if you look at the currently "civilized" countries in the world that have created modern inventions, each of these countries did not come up with these innovations on their own. For instance, in order for such innovations to occur, the citizens of the country have to (somewhat) civilized and educated. However, none of these countries created their civilizations on their own. Citizens of the United States built upon ideas, etc. that they learned primarily from Great Britain, France and some other European countries.However, if you look at those countries, "civilization" was brought to them by being conquered by the Roman Empire. Before Rome came to Britain, France (or Gaul) and Germany, the individuals living there were considered savages. By civilization here, I'm not saying that Romans weren't barbaric in certain ways, but rather they had a government and socitey that built streets, buildings, etc. The Romans didn't develop this on their own. They built upon what they learned from the Greeks. Similarly the Greeks learned from previous cultures, including Egyptians. In other words, to the extent that a country is now civilized, it's because sometime in the past, its people were conquered or settled by people from another country that was civilized. Now with regard to the countries in the heart of Africa, because of geography, etc., those countries weren't "conquered" or "civilized" until recent history. They didn' t benefit from this practice the way that Western countries were, and thus, are considered not as advanced. It has nothing to do with genetic abilities, etc. but rather socio-political developments in their history. Mind you I was a little drunk at the time, so I'm not sure if I was being particularly astute or if I was talking out of my ass (or both). What do you think?  Eli, how about we boil this all down to one sentence?    " If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"Isaac Newton, Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675 <blockquote />

FezPaul

07-13-2006, 06:25 PM

"Civilization came from Africa, and hasn't been back since." - P.J. O'Rourke

FreshJ

07-14-2006, 07:12 PM

Talking out of your Ass, because you have not taken into account all of the factors that make a nation civilized or uncivilized.  Africa is covered by one of the largest deserts in the world, this greatly affects easily availible resources that may allow for economic growth, part of the other reason is due to political systems which you had partially mentioned, but there were no revolutions that created a lasting government that promoted advancement over their own agendas.