Welcome back, Jigga.

The first thing I would point out is that with the singular exception of Human Interest, all of my opponents are so bereft of ideas that all that they can do is to ask me sneery questions, thereby making me do all the work.

But that is OK in a way, Jigga. To any impartial observer, it is clear who has the knowledge and who is hiding their weakness by attacking everything and defending nothing. But in future, please limit yourself to one question per post because of the 350 word limit. You asked me five questions in your last post and that is not reasonable. This is a debate, not an Inquisition.

I will not bother to solve the problem of black / white cultural incompatibility in what is left of my 350 words. The rules of this forum do not allow for detailed examination of complex problems.

As for “getting rid of the blacks”, the blacks appear to be doing a very good job of doing that themselves. Australia’s sainted doctor, Fred Hollows, warned aboriginal leaders that if “certain practices” (culturally accepted sexual abuse of children) did not stop immediately, “there will soon be no aborigines.” Recent news reports indicate that aboriginal leaders are not heeding that warning.

I would also submit a recent statement by the Agriculture Minister of “Zimbabwe”, who announced at a press conference recently that it would be a “good thing” if 3 or 4 million Zimbabweans starved to death because “there are too many Zimbabweans.” (Real bright, huh?)

Then there is Somalia, a Mad Max country where wild eyed crazies with Kalashnikovs hare around in cut down Toyotas routinely murdering the AID workers who are trying to stop them all from starving to death.

Finally I would submit the continued pandemic of AIDS in Africa which the Africans, after blaming the whites for inventing a human pathogen, refuse to modify their cultural values in order to combat it.

Whats the use in asking someone whos blinded.Theres noway people like 'Redneck' will see good things in black people .We call people like him racist,rednecks for a reason, total waste of time.

Amel
you could struggle a bit harder to understand Rednecks position.

He is basing a lot of what he says on observations.

I personally think he is missing a point that you could have taken the trouble to highlight, and that is the tribalism causing a lot of the trouble. In africa this is certainly partly the case, and it would be the same trouble if the people were 'white' and the encroachers had been black instead of white.

You could have tackled him on the 'reading the symptom' rather than the actual disease, and you could have demonstrated that the sad situation of Australian indigenous people is related to many factors, historical and cultural, but it seems most of Rednecks critics just take the lazy easy path and call him a racist.

I do note that one poster mentioned about the lack of genetic basis for 'race' which would lead naturally into a discussion of CULTURE and it could have then discussed how Redneck is (to me) confusing 'culture' with inherrent genetic racial characteristics.

That is a most important point in any discussion like this.

Importantly, its worth pointing out that in Christ, the racial and cultural issues become secondary to the primary goal of knowing,loving and serving God. No, they don't dissappear completely, but in Him we have the equipment, spiritually and morally to deal effectively and amicably with issues such as these if and when they arise.

So it’s all a conspiracy, Redneck: “…the hard evidence in the form of genetic science is being ruthlessly suppressed by ideologues who are openly bragging of their success in shutting the scientists up.” Where's the evidence? How does the suppression conspiracy work? Who’s responsible? Which scientists? Do you too feel suppressed?

Are thesuppressed scientists the same scientists who argue - as Redneck does - that because different breeds of dogs exist it’s somehow OK to discriminate against sub-groups of humans?

Meanwhile, Redneck is happy to twist my statement that “the idea of 'race' evolved from the sixteenth century (it was hardly known before) to become in her post: “The idea that “race” was an invention of white men in the 19th century to justify colonial expansion is a typical example of left wing airbrushing of history to conform to ideological theory.”

To find earlier examples of alleged racism as both Redneck and Philo claim does not weaken my two propositions: (1) “Race has no genetic basis because no single genetic characteristic and no gene distinguishes all the members of one 'race' from all the members of another 'race'”; and (2) “Skin color is just that - skin deep because the genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing blood type, musical talent, athletic ability, forms of intelligence or moral worth."

I repeat: knowing someone's skin color doesn't enable you to predict anything else about that person especialy their moral worth.

Finding historic examples of racism, Redneck and Philo, doesn’t justify contemporary racism, just as historic slavery or forced prostitution wouldn’t justify those barbaric practices today.

Redneck,

So that's your "Solution" to the "Black Problem"? It's like using problems to try and solve problems.... Apparently I asked you only one question in my last thread (what is the solution to the 'black problem'?), wording it differently for you. Personally I don't even know what you are talking about now or the purpose altogether. You seem to have made up your mind, refusing to consider others' opinions. I can't continue discussing with you over merit.... coz' you just seem to be talking the talk just for the sake of it. But with 'freedom of speech' working in this country, you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't agree with what you say but I respect your right to say it. Just know one thing: Black people were there from the beginning, are here, and will be there until the end of time.... Please pass this information over to your generations to come to see if it can be proved wrong in future!
I'M OUT,
Jigga

To-FrankGol

I always know when I am winning a debate because my opponents resort to chucking numerous questions at me. They are desperately trying to hide their lack of knowledge while trying to keep the initiative.

You claimed that racism was a social construct of white people in the 16th Century. I pointed out that the propaganda that you have swallowed unquestioningly is obviously wrong and gave examples. Here is another one. The English word “barbarian” is actually a 2500 year old Greek word. The ancient Greeks did not think much of the Scythians and Dacians who lived to their north and North West. They noted that these people spoke in a tongue which made them appear to the Greeks as saying continuously “babababa”. So the Greeks coined the racist word “barbarian” to describe them.

I see that you are still chanting the mantra that race “has no genetic basis.” I stand by my previous submission to you on that premise. The readers can consider their verdict on who has the better explanation.

If race has no bearing on athletic ability, why are black people renowned for their running abilities, but so poorly represented in swimming related sports?

A race of black people were discovered by Australian Army soldiers during WW2, living in the rugged Finisterre ranges behind Japanese held Lae in PNG. These mountains are so steep that it is the only place in the world that ships can see snow capped mountains on the equator. The people who lived in these mountains had developed an amazing genetic adaptation to their environment. They had normal sized body trunks but very short, powerful legs to cope with the terrain where there was practically no flat land at all.

Would you deduce that these people would run as fast as the very long legged Masai people in Africa? If not, would you consider that genetics does indeed affect athletic ability?

The evidence I have that scientific evidence is being withheld was mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. Could you please read back and save me a lot of typing?