Culture vs Race

why do you class aborigonal, african and carribean people as the same?.

do you class mexicans and cubans as black?

peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Carribean people are Africans who were brought to the Carribean as slaves.

Mexicans and Cubans are hispanic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no thats wrong. caribbean people (like my wife), are not african. they come from a south american tribe called the caribs, or some from a tribe called the arawaks. they populated the islands hundrds and hundreds of years ago. they come from the orinoko rainforest in south america.

some africans were brought over as slaves yes, and they mated with arawak and caribs. but there are many pure caribs left on certain islands.

peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

quote from wikipedia


"The Caribbean before European contact
The oldest evidence of humans in the Caribbean is in southern Trinidad at Niggeri Trace where 7,000-year-old remains have been found. These pre-ceramic sites, which belong to the Archaic (pre-ceramic) age, have been termed Ortoroid. The earliest archaeological evidence of human settlement in Hispaniola dates to about 3600 BCE, but the reliability of these finds is questioned. Consistent dates of 3100 BCE appear in Cuba. The earliest dates in the Lesser Antilles are from 2000 BCE in Antigua. A lack of pre-ceramic sites in the Windward Islands and differences in technology suggest that these Archaic settlers may have Central American origins. Whether an Ortoiroid colonisation of the islands took place is uncertain, but there is little evidence of one.

Between 400 BCE and 200 BCE the first ceramic-using agriculturalists, the Saladoid culture, entered Trinidad from South America. They expanded up the Orinoco River to Trinidad, and then spread rapidly up the islands of the Caribbean. Some time after 250 CE another group, the Barrancoid entered Trinidad. The Barancoid society collapsed along the Orinoco around 650 and another group, the Arauquinoid, expanded into these areas and up the Caribbean chain. Around 1300 a new group, the Mayoid entered Trinidad and remained the dominant culture until Spanish settlement.

At the time of the European discovery of most of the islands of the Caribbean, three major Amerindian indigenous peoples lived on the islands: the Taíno in the Greater Antilles, The Bahamas and the Leeward Islands, the Island Caribs and Galibi in the Windward Islands and the Ciboney in western Cuba. The Taínos are subdivided into Classic Taínos, who occupied Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, Western Taínos, who occupied Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamian archipelago, and the Eastern Taínos, who occupied the Leeward Islands.[1] Trinidad was inhabited by both Carib speaking and Arawak-speaking groups."


peace.

 

So, who used my name to start this thread?

 

If such a test is designed, how will one know it? Because it would yield the desired results?

 

Obviously designing a test to produce a particular result is not objective. The study would have to be examined by scientists to see if it was well designed and truly removed the influence of cultural factors.

 

Exactly how is that determined? How is it that one decides that a given test is "well designed and truly [has] removed the influence of cultural factors"?

Is it a quantitative issue or something else?

 

Well, if it undergoes peer review and someone has a good argument that it doesn't discount cultural factors... I don't think it's quantitative. Frankly, I'm not sure how you would design such a test, everyone has a culture. You might have to select a group of orphans of diverse races, raise them all together, and see if their test scores have any correlation with race. You would need a large group in order to discount individual variations, maybe a couple thousand.

 

You'd need a large stratified sample corrected for cultural differences, putting people from immigrant populations together with people from native populations and correcting for socio economic status, education, age, gender and immigrant generation.

 

And then you'd have to convince skeptics like myself, that there is such a thing as mappable intelligence.

 

Yes, for instance, what if someone is smart but was never taught to read? How do you give them a written test? I'm thinking of The Mystery of Caspar Hauser, a great movie by Werner Herzog. An otherwise normal man is raised in a barn with little human interaction and then one day he's dropped off in a town square with a letter pinned to his chest. Everyone thinks he's a retard, but he's not.

 

I just fail to see why people have such faith in their ability to reduce something as nebulous as intelligence to a set value.

 

Would it be intelligent to refuse to take the test? What if you thought it out and figured that it couldn't possibly quantify intelligence? You would test as an idiot! (but it would be wrong)

 

I think a IQ test is not the best way to judge a groups intelligence.

A better way would be to look at a groups rate of crime levels, out of wedlock births, aids cases, obesity rates, unemployment rates, school dropout rates etc......

The group(s) that leads all other groups in these areas would clearly be displaying a lack of intelligence.

 

Why?

 

Well sure, that's the racist fallacy.

 

I know a lot of 'intelligent' people who either lack ambition or have no use for it. They may even avoid commitment, have "illegitimate" children and live-in relationships, experiment with drugs etc. Probably more likely to be homeless and contract AIDS too. May even be overweight. Maybe that makes them unsociable, but talk to them and they are razor sharp geniuses.

Willy is trolling again.

 

Calling others names, is another sign of low intelligence.

 

I think it would be best to measure how much that group loves fried chicken and raping white women.