I’m going to briefly discuss Drake Shelton’s rationalization for white supremacy. Why should I waste my time on a fruitloop like Drake? Because he’s a noisy Clarkian Scripturalist.
BTW, I wonder what fellow Clarkian Scripturalists like Vincent Cheung and Daniel Chew make of his position on race.
Now to the white supremacy thing. It depends what one means.
I do believe their is one human genus but three primary races: That of Shem, that of Japheth and that of Ham. God sovereignly had these three men born with their disticnt ethnic characteristics. The black Hamites with their clear physical superiority. The white Japhethites and Shemites with their clear mental superiorities. Each with their own distinct beauty, strengths and weaknesses. How these could have come about by climate change I will leave to the dark places of your mind Steve. The blacks have never built an empire or advanced civilization and if one simply looks at an anthology of black writers vs. white writers, the comparison is alarming. Clearly the white Japhethites have built the greatest civilizations and invented all of the fundamental parts of modern civilization. The blacks were selected by the early African slave traders to do be slaves specifically because they were the only group of people that could withstand all of the physical hardships of slavery and not fall into despair (See William O. Blake, Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern pages 95-96). So the idea that the differences between the races is only the color of their skin is ignorant Neoplatonic, monadic, rubbish
i) A basic internal problem with Drake’s Confederate eisegesis is that Gen 10 identifies Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Hamites. For more background:
If (arguendo) we combine this with Drake’s claim that blacks are Hamites, that would mean blacks founded the great urban civilizations of the ANE. Hence his argument self-destructs.
So Drake has backed himself into a dilemma. If, on the one hand, he identifies blacks with Hamites, he must admit that blacks were the founders of ancient Near Eastern civilization. If, on the other hand, he denies the identification to avoid that implication, then he can’t invoke the curse of Ham over blacks.
ii) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) doesn’t attempt to address race or ethnicity in general. Rather, the scope of the document is confined to Israel’s neighbors. To the known world, taking the ANE as the frame of reference. That’s why it doesn’t cover East Indians, Chinese, sub-Saharan Africans, &c.
iii) Drake doesn’t bother to explain why physical differences between one race and another can’t be climatic adaptations.
iv) Races don’t invent anything. Gifted individuals are inventors.
v) Likewise, some “white” nations have made far greater contributions to the arts and sciences than other “white” nations. So it’s hard to make race the differential factor.
vi) The Bible is indifferent to interracial marriage, per se. Interracial marriage is only a Biblical issue when that coincides with interfaith marriage.
I believe that the most evil men in the world are white and the most righteous men in the world are white.
That’s simply heretical. One’s moral character is the result of common grace, special grace, and sin–not race or ethnicity.
We are all descended from Adam as well as Noah. Thus all of "one blood" (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/orob/one-blood)
ReplyDeleteThe only distinction that matters is the seed of the woman vs the seed of the serpent.
First, when I was researching the issue of Theology Proper, Divine Simplicity and the Trinity, Vincent Cheung, in no uncertain words told me that he was not as knowledgeable or influenced or even interested in Clark as much as people think. He is surprised people even come to him as if he is an expert in Clark’s writings. He didn’t have the first clue how to answer my questions; so what Vincent Cheung has to do with this conversation is for you to prove Steve.
ReplyDelete“i) A basic internal problem with Drake’s Confederate eisegesis is that Gen 10 identifies Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians as Hamites. For more background:”
>>>>That does not mean that Hamites designed the empires of Egypt, and Babylon does it Steve? You avoid the history of Shemite and Japhethite invasions. I deal with this here: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/who-built-egypt-case-studies-in-black-african-societal-impotence/
“ii) The Table of Nations (Gen 10) doesn’t attempt to address race or ethnicity in general.”
>>>So you are admitting then that you do not have a theory as to how the distinctions between the races came to be. Thank you for the admission.
“iii) Drake doesn’t bother to explain why physical differences between one race and another can’t be climatic adaptations.”
>>>I have no burden to prove a negative.
“iv) Races don’t invent anything. Gifted individuals are inventors.”
>>>You sound just like Eastern Orthodox apologists. Just because generic nature doesn’t personally act does not mean that generic nature does not influence the activity of numeric nature.
“v) Likewise, some “white” nations have made far greater contributions to the arts and sciences than other “white” nations. So it’s hard to make race the differential factor.”
>>>Asserting your opinion is not an argument steve. How does it make it difficult?
“vi) The Bible is indifferent to interracial marriage, per se. Interracial marriage is only a Biblical issue when that coincides with interfaith marriage.”
>>>Why even bring up inter-racial marriage Steve? Notice you offer no quote. I am not absolutely against inter-racial marriage. But just like every other critic I have had in these matters you refuse to understand my position and hurl your bigoted ignorance at me.
“That’s simply heretical. One’s moral character is the result of common grace, special grace, and sin–not race or ethnicity.”
>>>But the potency of one’s moral or immoral character has alot to do with one’s intellect. I’m not a Behaviorist, but there is something to say for the white man’s exceptionally large brain.
Drake Shelton
Delete"That does not mean that Hamites designed the empires of Egypt, and Babylon does it Steve? You avoid the history of Shemite and Japhethite invasions."
Where's your historical evidence that the Sumerians were black?
churchvictory,
ReplyDeleteNotice i mentioned that hamites and shemites were in the same genus as japhethites. Your comment about us being of one blood is irrelevant to my position.
Drake Shelton:
ReplyDelete“…so what Vincent Cheung has to do with this conversation is for you to prove Steve.”
No, that’s up to Cheung.
“That does not mean that Hamites designed the empires of Egypt, and Babylon does it Steve? You avoid the history of Shemite and Japhethite invasions.”
i) In which case you can’t prooftext your position from Gen 10.
ii) Where’s your exegetical evidence that Hamites are black?
iii) BTW, why is a Scripturalist like you relativizing the Biblical ascriptions in Gen 10 in light of your extrabiblical sources?
“So you are admitting then that you do not have a theory as to how the distinctions between the races came to be. Thank you for the admission.”
i) Once again you disregard the exegesis of Gen 10.
ii) I already attributed racial differentiation to climatic adaptation. You lack basic reading comprehension.
iii) But even I didn’t have a theory, so what? It’s better to have no theory than have crackpot theories like Drake Shelton.
“I have no burden to prove a negative.”
In other words, you don’t have an argument. Thank you for the admission.
“Just because generic nature doesn’t personally act does not mean that generic nature does not influence the activity of numeric nature.”
So it’s your contention that whites have a different generic nature than blacks?
“Asserting your opinion is not an argument steve. How does it make it difficult?”
I see you have difficulties following a simple argument. If you think white identity accounts for the (allegedly) superior cultural contributes of the white race, then why do some white countries make such a disproportionate contribution?
“…you refuse to understand my position and hurl your bigoted ignorance at me.”
The charge of “bigotry” is deliciously ironic issuing from your lips.
“…but there is something to say for the white man’s exceptionally large brain.”
Did you get that factoid from Stormfront.org?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that scientific studies corroborate your claim, why would a Clarkian Scripturalist rely on inductive reasoning or empirical evidence?
Drake Shelton
ReplyDelete"But the potency of one’s moral or immoral character has alot to do with one’s intellect. I’m not a Behaviorist, but there is something to say for the white man’s exceptionally large brain."
So you attribute intellect to the brain rather than the soul. Are you a physicalist? Your position is radically different than Augustinian dualism or Clarkian idealism.
Drake Shelton
ReplyDelete"That does not mean that Hamites designed the empires of Egypt, and Babylon does it Steve? You avoid the history of Shemite and Japhethite invasions."
Where's your historical evidence that the Sumerians were black?"
When did I make the argument that the sumerians were black?
The Canaanites were, but that is the only exception outside of the African continent I have read.
DeleteYou appealed to the Table of Nations to justify your position. You spoke of "the white Japhethites and Shemites with their clear mental superiorities." And you said "the blacks have never built an empire or advanced civilization."
DeleteWell, the Table of Nations classifies the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian civilizations as Hamite civilizations.
You deny that Hamites "designed" these empires or civilizations. You attributed that achievement to "invaders."
Well, the Sumerians were the seminal Mesopotamian civilization. And they were non-Semites. Babylon and Assyria were later taken over by Semites. That's the standard historical interpretation.
Where do you fit blacks into the timeline? You're not getting that from Gen 10. The Table of Nations doesn't identify Hamites as black. Unless you have compelling extrabiblical evidence that Sumerians were black (as well as prehistoric or Old Kingdom Egyptians), you have no textual or historical basis for your claim.
Not to mention that, as a Scripturalist, you don't believe in extrabiblical historical *knowledge*, do you?
So Drake, do you take the David Duke/Kevin MacDonald/stormfront.org view that white ashkenazic jews aren't white, despite all appearances to the contrary? What makes a true white person?
ReplyDeleteDrake Shelton
Delete"The Canaanites were, but that is the only exception outside of the African continent I have read."
The Canaanites were what? Negroid? What is your exegetical and/or archeological evidence for that claim?
“No, that’s up to Cheung.”
ReplyDelete>>>Up to Cheung to defend why he has been added into a discussion about white supremacy. That should pretty much end our discussion. This will be my last reply.
“i) In which case you can’t prooftext your position from Gen 10. ”
>>>You did not say what position you were referring to.
“ii) Where’s your exegetical evidence that Hamites are black?”
>>>Probably the closest case that can be made is from Gen 30:32 (chuwm which seems to be from the root of Ham’s name Cham)
“iii) BTW, why is a Scripturalist like you relativizing the Biblical ascriptions in Gen 10 in light of your extrabiblical sources?”
>>>I don’t understand your question. Are you suggesting that a Scripturalist cannot have an opinion of history? Then you confuse demonstration with opinion.
“I already attributed racial differentiation to climatic adaptation”
>>>No you didn’t. You wanted me to show why climatic adaption could not be the answer. And btw what is your evidence for that?
“iii) But even I didn’t have a theory, so what? It’s better to have no theory than have crackpot theories like Drake Shelton. ”
>>>Don’t ever expect me to believe you are a Christian or even close to anyone who seeks after truth. You call me a crackpot when you have publicly admitted you have no explanation of God or the hypostatic union. And it amazes me people still come to this blog to read your fragmented confusions.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“So it’s your contention that whites have a different generic nature than blacks? ”
>>>With reference to species not genus, yes.
“then why do some white countries make such a disproportionate contribution”
>>I can’t accept the premise to begin with. It is yours to prove.
“The charge of “bigotry” is deliciously ironic issuing from your lips.”
>>Only one brainwashed by Jesuit Counter Reformation casuistry can say that. I am the one seeking to preserve the races and ethnicities. I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities. You want them integrated into the Monad, in nonexistence. Yes, you are the bigot.
“Did you get that factoid from Stormfront.org?”
>>>I have never visited that website.
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that scientific studies corroborate your claim, why would a Clarkian Scripturalist rely on inductive reasoning or empirical evidence?”
>>>Emperical Archeology and such is required for a complete philosophy of human history. I understand that. I am not saying that these claims are at the level of scripture. These are my OPINIONS that I have used Revelation to guide me to.
“So you attribute intellect to the brain rather than the soul. Are you a physicalist? Your position is radically different than Augustinian dualism or Clarkian idealism.”
>>>When did I say that? I simply think that the largeness of the white man’s brain is EMBLEMATIC of his superior intellect.
All in all steve this is a typical useless conversation with you. You keep bringing up the scriptualist diversion like you do every time I am on this blog. It is your obsession obviously. So to that obsession I leave you with this:
http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/
Your view of analogy of proportionality is the scholastic doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity. I have had your doctrine of God and knowledge under my boot for some time now. Refute it. I dare you!
Drake Shelton:
Delete“Up to Cheung to defend why he has been added into a discussion about white supremacy.”
Since he and Daniel Chew are Chinese Clarkian Scripturalists, it would be informative to have their perspective on your racial theorizing.
“That should pretty much end our discussion. This will be my last reply.”
I appreciate why you wish to beat a hasty retreat to salvage the tatters of your reputation (such as it is…or was).
“You did not say what position you were referring to.”
Your combined claim that Hamites were Negroid, and blacks never founded an advanced civilization or empire.
“Probably the closest case that can be made is from Gen 30:32 (chuwm which seems to be from the root of Ham’s name Cham)”
i) What does that verse have to do with anything?
ii) How do you infer that Hamites were Negroid from your proposed etymology?
“Are you suggesting that a Scripturalist cannot have an opinion of history?”
Opinion doesn’t trump knowledge. You’re interpolating distinctions into the text that aren’t there.
“And btw what is your evidence for that?”
Are you really unaware of correlations between pigmentation, body shape, facial/body hair, nasal configuration, blood type, and the epicanthic fold to climate? Or, to take a minor example, developing a sun tan.
Climatic adaptation isn’t confined to humans. Take the snowshoe hair.
“With reference to species not genus, yes.”
How can it be in reference to species not genus if it’s generic?
“I can’t accept the premise to begin with. It is yours to prove.”
Are you really that ignorant? “White” countries like France, Italy, German, and England have made greater cultural (e.g. arts and sciences) contributions than other “white” countries like Finland, Lithuania, Portugal, or Sweden (to take a few examples).
“I am the one seeking to preserve the races and ethnicities. I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities.”
Ethnicity has always been fluid. That’s a creative cultural dynamic.
“I simply think that the largeness of the white man’s brain is EMBLEMATIC of his superior intellect.”
What a lame makeshift assertion.
“All in all steve this is a typical useless conversation with you.”
You’re just stalling because you dealt yourself a losing hand. So you’re trying to save face by extricating yourself from a losing argument.
“You keep bringing up the scriptualist diversion like you do every time I am on this blog.”
Because you need to be consistent with your epistemology.
Drake Shelton
Delete"Emperical Archeology and such is required for a complete philosophy of human history. I understand that."
Where is your archeological evidence that Hamites were black? Where is your archeological evidence that Sumerians were black? Where is your archeological evidence that ancient Egyptians were black? From my reading, your theories run contrary to archeological findings. Cf. E. Yamauchi, Africa and the Bible (Baker 2004.
Conversely, a nation like Egypt was never racially homogenous.
Likewise, you seem to suggest that Mesopotamia was originally settled by primitive black Hamites who were later conquered by culturally sophisticated Semites. But from my reading, Sumerians settled Mesopotamia, and theirs was an already advanced ANE civilization. Their Semitic conquerors absorbed Sumerian culture, like Rome conquering Greece or Islam conquering Byzantium.
In the post you link to you cite two works: one published in 1867 and the other in 1903. Have you bothered to read any standard modern monograph on ANE people-groups, viz., Peoples of the Old Testament World (Baker 1994), Hoerth, Mattingly, Yamauchi, eds.
"I am the one seeking to preserve the races and ethnicities. I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities."
And how does that comport with your statement: "Why even bring up inter-racial marriage Steve? Notice you offer no quote. I am not absolutely against inter-racial marriage."
But segregation and miscegenation don't go together. So which is it?
"Emperical Archeology and such is required for a complete philosophy of human history. I understand that."
ReplyDeleteActually you don't. What you MEAN is that archeology completed before 1910 (flavored with some good-ol-boy racism) is required.
BTW, empirical doesn't have that second "e."
"I don’t understand your question. Are you suggesting that a Scripturalist cannot have an opinion of history? Then you confuse demonstration with opinion."
ReplyDeleteYou can have an opinion of history, but your opinion has no positive epistemic status. Indeed, it's an unjustified opinion. Is it intellectually virtuous to hold to unjustified opinions that you believe have no positive epistemic status? Why would you even take a *positive* epistemic attitude toward your theory, then? Doesn't it seem more rational to *withhold* judgment? To *not* "have an opinion" on the matter?
“You can have an opinion of history, but your opinion has no positive epistemic status. ”
Delete>>Yes it does because as Clark said in his Festschrift, Revelation can provide the significance (Though not the event itself) of a non-revealed event in history.
I am sure it is just me but the stuff Mr. Shelton is putting forward is nonsense, it really is. There is help out there for you Mr. Shelton there is no shame in admitting one needs help with some issues what ever they may be. You seem like a very passionate person and quite well read, but sectioning off segments of the USA for people of different "colors" is well quite silly. I lack the skills others seem to have to refute you. Personally I think you are self refuting but that is just me. Oh and the I know some really cool back people tripe does not cut it. It really does not.
ReplyDeleteLooks like we should put White Supremacists and Kinists like R.J. Rushdoony in the same room and see how it all pans out.
ReplyDelete"The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires… The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his [genetic] heredity has been governed by radically different considerations." - Rushdoony http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/rj-rushdoony/
Rushdoony was very proud of his Armenian pedigree, and it's possible that this led to excessive ethnic pride on his part.
DeleteIf anyone is interested, I discussed Kinism, Racialism, Supremacy, 13th Tribe Theory, Seed of Satan Theory and Anglo-Israelism with the Reformed folks at First Word in 2009 http://firstword.us/2009/06/adam-eve-as-mulattos/
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to find some of the more controversial blogs they used to have there. Maybe they erased them.
Whatever the case, they have a series of blogs critiquing Ken Ham's "One Blood" which argues against any kind of racism or racialism.
Here's their table of contents: Ham On Blood http://firstword.us/2009/06/ken-ham-on-blood/
I'm the one who posted as "James A.M."
What is Drake Shelton referring to when he says "you [Steve] have publicly admitted you have no explanation of God or the hypostatic union."
ReplyDeleteThanks.
That's just his tendentious characterization of the fact that I defend the Trinity and the Incarnation on exegetical grounds. I don't require a philosophical explanation.
DeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete“Since he and Daniel Chew are Chinese Clarkian Scripturalists, it would be informative to have their perspective on your racial
theorizing.”
>>>Again that is an assertion, not an argument. Why would that information be relevant to our discussion?
“Your combined claim that Hamites were Negroid, and blacks never founded an advanced civilization or empire.”
>>>It shows the beginning of race and ethnicity. The subsequent genealogies fill out the later details. As Ridpath pointed out “Among the sons of Ham are mentioned Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan, with their respective descendants. To Cush is assigned Nimrod and his historical progeny. Mizraim is doubtless the original tribal name of the Egyptians” etc. I have already shown that the name Ham implies a darker complexion. Ridpath goes into detail on the distribution of the races from Genesis 10 here: http://archive.org/stream/ridpathsunivers06ridpgoog#page/n17/mode/2up
“Probably the closest case that can be made is from Gen 30:32 (chuwm which seems to be from the root of Ham’s name Cham)”
i) What does that verse have to do with anything?”
>>>Read the verse. The dark spotted and dark colored lambs are focused upon specifically because of the dark color.
“Are you really unaware of correlations between pigmentation, body shape, facial/body hair, nasal configuration, blood type, and the epicanthic fold to climate? Or, to take a minor example, developing a sun tan.”
>>>So if a woman has a suntan then that means her children will have one too! Notice no reference to any research done on the matter. This is why I didn’t want to continue with this conversation. It is pointless to sit here and waste my life on your pedantic useless assertions.
“How can it be in reference to species not genus if it’s generic? “
>>It is not generic that is the point. You loaded your question with an assumption to try and smear me with something I am not saying. You even quote me saying “I do believe their is one human genus but three primary races: That of Shem, that of Japheth and that of Ham.” In my above comment I clearly stated: “Notice i mentioned that hamites and shemites were in the same genus as japhethites. Your comment about us being of one blood is irrelevant to my position.” But you don’t care about representing me properly which is another reason why I did not want to continue this conversation.
“Are you really that ignorant? “White” countries like France, Italy, German, and England have made greater cultural (e.g. arts and sciences) contributions than other “white” countries like Finland, Lithuania, Portugal, or Sweden (to take a few examples).”
>>>This would mean that my position requires every white person on earth to be a world changing genius which is ridiculous. You are taking my position which asserts an emphasis to the nature of the white man and confusing the argument with modes and circumstances. Straw man.
“I am the one seeking to preserve the races and ethnicities. I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities.”
“Ethnicity has always been fluid. That’s a creative cultural dynamic.”
>>>The white people here in my city of Louisville are aborting, inter-racially mixing and homosexualizing themselves out of existence. I wouldn’t call that fluid. For something to change you have to have something that doesn’t change through qualitative change. You are using a term that implies that to something completely different. Here, the anglo protestant culture of the people who founded my original colony has been completely annihilated. The two biggest nominally protestant churches in my state, Presbyterian and Anglican are many of them pastored by lesbian women, more than nine out of every ten white men I see is tattooed and pierced like a savage and the women dress on average like complete whores. That is not fluid Steve. That is not one thing changing qualities. It is a metamorphosis: One thing changing into something unrecognizable.
Steve,
ReplyDelete“You’re just stalling because you dealt yourself a losing hand. So you’re trying to save face by extricating yourself from a losing argument.”
>>>I have already shown numerous times why I wanted to avoid this argument. You are a dishonest pedantic Jesuit coadjutator who doesn’t have a clue what to believe and tries to twist and turn everything I say in an attempt to make me as confused and miserable as you .
You have no epistemology. Get one and then you can criticize mine.
“Where is your archeological evidence that Hamites were black?”
>>>Maspero’s section that I link below shows that the first peoples in Egypt were Black because Ham’s son Mizraim led the original tribal peoples. Where is your archeological evidence that the climate could make a black man’s hair, physical structure (remember the black peoples were clearly selected for slavery because of how physically different they were to white and shemite peoples), and culture so different from white people and please show me when a suntan was ever genetically passed on to someone’s offspring. Was it climate that made the Asian’s eyes look so different from ours? Was it climate change that required the black man’s penis to be larger? Was it climate that made the white man’s brain so large?
“Where is your archeological evidence that ancient Egyptians were black?”
>>>How ancient? What period? Maspero mentions that the original peoples in Egypt were black and were attacked by invading white influences: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/who-built-egypt-case-studies-in-black-african-societal-impotence/
“Likewise, you seem to suggest that Mesopotamia was originally settled by primitive black Hamites who were later conquered by culturally sophisticated Semites.”
>>>No. They were conquered by whites who later received Asiatic shemite elements.
“But from my reading, Sumerians settled Mesopotamia, and theirs was an already advanced ANE civilization.”
>>>I’m sorry but it was in the 4th dynasty that Egypt began to be built into an advanced civilization and I showed it in my article linked above.
“In the post you link to you cite two works: one published in 1867 and the other in 1903. Have you bothered to read any standard modern monograph on ANE people-groups, viz., Peoples of the Old Testament World (Baker 1994), Hoerth, Mattingly, Yamauchi, eds.”
>>>No I haven’t because I am aware that modern scholarship is dominated by Roman Catholic influence and their Jesuit Black supremacy-female supremacy-white men are devils propaganda which you have swallowed hook line and sinker. The human race did not originate in Africa and that is what modern scholarship teaches. You have failed to provide any errors in Maspero’s or Ridpath’s writings as it relates to our dialogue.
"I am the one seeking to preserve the races and ethnicities. I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities."
“But segregation and miscegenation don't go together. So which is it?”
>>> Too much miscegenation is my problem because it destroys the ancient culture that God ordained in Gen 11. I agree with Black Nationalist Scholar John Henrik Clarke who says that the key issue here is culture not necessarily skin color. I am not a Kinist and I am not a hateful malicious racist. I am a follower of the Historicism and Nationalism of Francis Nigel Lee and his worthy student J. Parnell McCarter. We are biblical tribalists not neo nazi or post first generation hateful KKK advocates. We believe in the maintaining of the ancient cultures and tribes God ordained in Gen. 11 not the “purifying” of the world through genocide. Immigration and inter racial marriage are not absolutely forbidden. What is forbidden is the destruction of ancient culture with its distinct history and ethnicity.
I may be back my Jesuit opponent but probably not.
Drake Shelton said:
Delete"I have already shown that the name Ham implies a darker complexion."
I used to know an African-American or black woman whose name was Kristen White. I guess by your logic she was really Caucasian!
"Read the verse. The dark spotted and dark colored lambs are focused upon specifically because of the dark color."
Indeed, animals are inherently racist. This must be the origin of the old adage, "Birds of a feather flock together".
I hate to pull out the science card but when you're holding a trump card it's only the most natural selection: I believe the airspeed velocity of an unladen African swallow is much faster than the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Here is a good starting point.
Ornithologists have likewise demonstrated time and time again that yellow chickens are model chickens.
Finally, check out this expose on racist Hollywood animals. Warning: some off-color language.
"So if a woman has a suntan then that means her children will have one too! Notice no reference to any research done on the matter. This is why I didn’t want to continue with this conversation. It is pointless to sit here and waste my life on your pedantic useless assertions."
Actually, Steve mentioned several medically relevant points. But you chose to take one of them out of context and spin it so that it sounds absurd. But as I read him Steve is referring to the genetics behind melanin production, which in turn is relevant in protection against UV radiation as well as other important physiological processes in the human body (e.g. Vitamin D production, which is impaired in a disease like Rickets).
"The human race did not originate in Africa and that is what modern scholarship teaches."
If you're referring to human evolution, Steve has a tremendous (and in my opinion convincing) track record arguing against evolution including human evolution.
Besides, insofar as "modern scholarship" is concerned, there are two predominant competing theories to explain how humans arose: regional continuity and complete replacement. The latter argues the earliest Homo sapiens originated in Africa and non-African archaic H. sapiens made little or no genetic contribution to modern humans. However, this is not the case with the former which argues distinct populations of early hominins (H. erectus) remained in their regions and developed similar characteristics to become H. sapiens. These early hominins supposedly spread into different climates and developed distinct characteristics, but due to inevitable inbreeding, the advantageous characteristics developed within all descendents regardless of conditions. Or the argument goes.
Drake,
DeleteYou might begin with differentiating between adapation and acclimatization. Adaptation is a genetically determined modification in a population in response to a changing environment over several generations, whereas acclimatization is a physiological response to changes in the environment that occurs during an individual's lifetime.
With regard to skin pigmentation, skin pigmentation is important in determining the amount of exposure to solar radiation. Darker skin protects the basal skin layer from damage. Excessive UV increases the risk of skin carcinoma as well as the destruction of folate, which in turn increases the risk of neural tube defects in offspring. A lack of UV can lead to vitamin D deficiency, which can result in rickets and/or the narrowing of the birth canal, which woudl then increase the risk of death for both the mother and child.
Drake Shelton
Delete“Again that is an assertion, not an argument. Why would that information be relevant to our discussion?”
I see that you need to have everything spelled out for you. Okay. You are making sweeping claims about race. Since Chew and Cheung are Chinese, as well as fellow Clarkian Scripturalists, they might have a different perspective on race. Why are you so hostile to that suggestion? Does judgment by a jury of your peers frighten you?
“I have already shown that the name Ham implies a darker complexion.”
So I can tell someone’s complexion if they’re named Mr. White, Mr. Black, Miss. Green, Miss Brown, Miss Rose, Mr. Gray, Mr. Gold, &c.
BTW, I hate to break it to you, but a darker complexion doesn’t entail Negroid ethnicity. That’s pretty common in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean countries.
“Ridpath pointed out…”
That was published in the 1890s. It’s hopelessly out of date.
“So if a woman has a suntan then that means her children will have one too!”
i) I didn’t cite that as a heritable characteristic. Rather, I cited that as an example of how the body adjusts to climate. Do you deny that a suntan is a climatic adjustment?
ii) In this case, the adjustment is temporary because exposure is temporary. It typically happens to humans who’ve lived in Northern latitudes (with long winters and short summers) for generations. But for humans who’ve lived for generations near the equator, the change in pigment is more permanent.
iii) You also blew past my example of the shoehorn hare, which has a white coat in winter and a brown coat in summer. Camouflage which varies with the seasonable background conditions. And that is heritable.
“Notice no reference to any research done on the matter.”
Because information on adaptation and acclimatization is readily available.
“This is why I didn’t want to continue with this conversation. It is pointless to sit here and waste my life on your pedantic useless assertions.”
No, the problem is that you can’t follow the bouncing ball.
“It is not generic that is the point.”
You said “Just because generic nature doesn’t personally act does not mean that generic nature does not influence the activity of numeric nature” to explain how whites are alternately the most righteous and evil men in the world.
But if the generic nature is shared in common by all races, then that can’t explain why one race is (allegedly) more righteous, evil (or both) that another.
“Your comment about us being of one blood is irrelevant to my position.”
I didn’t make that comment.
“But you don’t care about representing me properly which is another reason why I did not want to continue this conversation.”
More like the longer you talk the dumber you sound, so you’re trying to cut your losses. Only you want to have the last word. So that’s your dilemma.
“This would mean that my position requires every white person on earth to be a world changing genius which is ridiculous. You are taking my position which asserts an emphasis to the nature of the white man and confusing the argument with modes and circumstances. Straw man.”
No. Nations are aggregates, so there’d be a randomizing effect. The mean intelligence of a given country.
Drake Shelton:
Delete"I am a follower of the Historicism and Nationalism of Francis Nigel Lee and his worthy student J. Parnell McCarter. We are biblical tribalists..."
Somehow I doubt it's purely coincidental that Lee came of age in S. Africa during the Apartheid era. In that respect he's a throwback to British colonialism and its Afrikaner counterparts.
Cont. “White” nations are white aggregates. If you think race explains why some nations make greater cultural contributions than others, then you need to explain why some “white” nations make greater cultural contributions than other “white” nations. Clearly race can’t be the differential factor when we’re comparing different nations with the same racial composition.
ReplyDelete“The white people here in my city of Louisville are aborting, inter-racially mixing and homosexualizing themselves out of existence. I wouldn’t call that fluid. For something to change you have to have something that doesn’t change through qualitative change. You are using a term that implies that to something completely different. Here, the anglo protestant culture of the people who founded my original colony has been completely annihilated. The two biggest nominally protestant churches in my state, Presbyterian and Anglican are many of them pastored by lesbian women, more than nine out of every ten white men I see is tattooed and pierced like a savage and the women dress on average like complete whores. That is not fluid Steve. That is not one thing changing qualities. It is a metamorphosis: One thing changing into something unrecognizable.”
Change can be for the better as well as the worse. Caucasians weren’t always Protestant. They used to be pagan. Christian missionaries had to evangelize Caucasians. Same thing with Arabs, Africans, Asians, &c.
“I have already shown numerous times why I wanted to avoid this argument.”
You’re a loser. Losers want to leave before they do even more damage to their public image. That’s perfectly understandable.
“You have no epistemology. Get one and then you can criticize mine.”
Actually, I do have an epistemology, but that’s a decoy on your part.
“Maspero’s section that I link below…”
Back to your quaint 1903 source. Archeology is not a static discipline. Archeological knowledge advances with the passage of time, given new discoveries, new scientific techniques to study archeological artifacts, newly deciphered texts, and so on. You need to keep up with the developments.
Where is your archeological evidence that the climate could make a black man’s hair…
i) You’re the one who’s obsessed by race, not me.
ii) From ancient fine arts we can sometimes tell the race of certain ancient nationalities, or their neighbors.
iii) Archeology doesn’t have to explain acclimatization. We have other sources of information for that.
iv) Naturally short hair is beneficial in a hot climate. By contrast, long hair, hairy bodies, and heavy beards are beneficial in frigid climates.
“...physical structure (remember the black peoples were clearly selected for slavery because of how physically different they were to white and shemite peoples)”
A body that’s well adapted to survive in one climate may be poorly adapted to survive in another climate.
At the same time, humans migrate, so you may find “races” or ethnicities physiologically adapted to one climate now residing in another climate.
In addition, modern technology has diminished the need for the human body to naturally adjust to climate, for we create artificial climates in cars, buildings, &c. We also have a wide variety of clothing to choose from, plus sunglasses, &c.
“Please show me when a suntan was ever genetically passed on to someone’s offspring.”
I never said it was. But heritable dark pigmentation is a natural extension of sun tanning.
Cont. “Was it climate that made the Asian’s eyes look so different from ours?”
ReplyDeleteI imagine Asians might ask why white folks have such funny-looking eyes. In any event, yes, there is a climatic explanation for the epicanthic fold.
“Was it climate that made the white man’s brain so large?”
You keep making that unsourced claim. Why should I grant the premise of the question?
“Was it climate change that required the black man’s penis to be larger?”
So your white supremacy is based on penis envy. An overcompensation for your genital inferiority complex.
I hope you don’t resent God for shortchanging you where it counts. Wouldn't a male enhancement product help you more than Confederate propaganda?
BTW, how did you become so expert on penis size? Do you frequent gay bathhouses with a tape measure?
“I’m sorry but it was in the 4th dynasty that Egypt began to be built into an advanced civilization…”
That’s unresponsive to what I wrote. I said: “But from my reading, Sumerians settled Mesopotamia, and theirs was an already advanced ANE civilization.”
If you imagine that Egyptians are synonymous with the Sumerians, you are exceptionally confused.
“No I haven’t because I am aware that modern scholarship is dominated by Roman Catholic influence and their Jesuit Black supremacy-female supremacy-white men are devils propaganda which you have swallowed hook line and sinker.”
Be sure to keep that tinfoil cap tightly strapped to your head when you shower, so that Jesuits can’t beam subliminal messages into your (allegedly) big brain.
“The human race did not originate in Africa and that is what modern scholarship teaches.”
Since you haven’t read the books I mentioned, you don’t know what they teach.
“I want segregation for the purpose of preserving the ethnicities.”
I do think it would be prudent to segregate Drake Shelton from the rest of the population. We don’t want his contaminated DNA polluting the human race.
“Too much miscegenation is my problem because it destroys the ancient culture that God ordained in Gen 11.”
I didn’t know they were using laptops back then. Shouldn’t you learn cuneiform and clay tablets to express yourself? Shame on you for destroying the God-ordained culture of Gen 11 by your apostate hitech innovations.
“I am not a hateful malicious racist.”
Of course, if you were a hateful malicious racist, you’d be the last man to admit it.
“We believe in the maintaining of the ancient cultures and tribes God ordained in Gen. 11.”
Like worshipping Baal, Chemosh, Dagon, and Molech.
Munches popcorn.
ReplyDelete“I am not a hateful malicious racist.”
ReplyDeleteJust a stupid one.
Since you asked:
ReplyDeletehttp://godshammer.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-dangerous-fruits-of-a-troubled-mind/
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/more-poisoned-fruit-from-a-deranged-mind/