@Dynamo Frokane
In your very first paragraph you really go ahead to support my point because yes, these African groups were bred to be big and strong by slaveowners and such they were; other groups were also bred for specific conditions. Yes, education standards aren't very high in those specific countries but nevertheless they are still smarter than whites there.
No no, west african SLAVES who were shipped to places like the carribean, american and brazil, are going to be stronger and hardier because they are the descendent of slaves which meant they were artificially bred. But you can look at other 'black' people such us somalians, ethiopians who arent big and strong hardy people even though they fall into the same racial group so this kind of goes to invalidate your genetic point. Like I said, there is
more genetic variety among africans then there is outside of africa, which makes sense when you consider we all evolved from there and then left.
No Thai I.Q. is generally lower than 1st world white countries, but then these I.Q. tests cant accurately test for genetics anywyay because it doesn't control for the geo-political and socio-economical factors with each country (colonisation, wars, living enviroments etc) you cant just draw 'genetic' statistics without taking everything else into account first.
Nothing what youve posted says anything about genetics, its just assuming race is a thing and making claims about said thing with no genetic basis to back it up. Which makes it unscientific.
The chitling test is a joke, an almost never used test to counter balance 'white prejudice' to determine how streetwise someone is, whatever the fuck that means, have you seen the questions? Its a bunch of jive turkey, blaxploitation nonsense, which probably gets a pass because it was created by a black guy. Also it was made in 1968 which was only a couple years after the Jim Crow laws were abolished, which makes me wonder how impartial to outside factors it could have been in the initial testing stage, when everyone who took it must have lived in a legally segregated america at that point.
Not scientific at all. Plus this is only an american test, even if it wasnt a load of crap it doesnt speak for the large swaths of people outside the country.
I mean both of your qualifiers for a Belarusian, to a degree. Frankly, it's up to me to decide who a Belarusian is and not you, and I can do it in a case by case basis since after all isn't that supposedly how we are to judge people?
Here are some pictures of people eligible for the title of Belarusians
Here are some of those who are not
If I don't want brown people in Belarus it's my right. They aren't Belarusians, their ancestors didn't fight the Marxists or Nazis, their ancestors were not part of Szlachta or Hristyanstvo, they do not look like me and my kinsmen, they do not act like me and my kinsmen and they are not Belarusians, never will be and that's really that. They have their own countries but to mine they can only come as a tourist. People in Poland and Balkans understand this; visit, but you shall never properly assimilate so don't try.
Alright now youre getting testy, I never said I was trying to determine 'your people' for you, I was asking you a question with examples, calm down, getting this testy about your 'race' makes you sound like an identity politics SJW, friend.
And frankly you can draw as many cultural lines about the belarusian people as you want, this still says almost nothing about genetics. You're not telling me if this is about them being white or olive skinned or whatever or specifically from your country, and if it is an argument of nations you cant tell me that arbitrary country lines some how determine 'genetic sub species' of humans or whatever your standards for a racial group is. How genetically different do you think belarusians and lithuanians are and then how genetically different do you think that they are from other european peoples? (Without showing me random pictures of individuals because it really doesn't mean anything in identifying genes).
So your initial thing was you didnt want to be called a racist, and I granted you that investigating genes by itself isnt racist but drawing lines and treating people different based on nothing but their race is racist. And now youve went on some rant about how its your right that 'brown people' have no right to live in your country wether they were born there or not.
So yeah that is racist plain and simple, because race is the only defining factor, and while its your right to say what you want about brown people, ultimately its not your legal right to determine who does and who doesn't get to be considered a Belarusian citizen. Also this part of your argument is basically entirely emotionally driven an rooted in identity politics which by its own admission isnt scientific at all.
1.To summarize, race is not scientifically recognized, so scientific conclusions about race cant be validated or proven in any reliable way.
2.Any judgement or treatment on someone based completely on their race is by definition racist. If you dont like this label, then stop judging people by their race.
Zman
Scrawl Banditta
Ariamis
AP Ottovan
PrinceAlexus
