Are Blacks Inferior to Whites?

[zarathustra]

A list of black inferiors:

Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806)- Born into a family of free blacks in Maryland, Banneker learned the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic from his grandmother and a Quaker schoolmaster. Later he taught himself advanced mathematics and astronomy. He is best known for publishing an almanac based on his astronomical calculations.

Dr. Daniel Hale Williams (1856-1931)- Williams was born in Pennsylvania and attended medical school in Chicago, where he received his M.D. in 1883. He founded the Provident Hospital in Chicago in 1891, and he performed the first successful open heart surgery in 1893.

George Washington Carver(1865?-1943)- Born into slavery in Missouri, Carver later earned degrees from Iowa Agricultural College. The director of agricultural research at the Tuskegee Institute from 1896 until his death, Carver developed hundreds of applications for farm products important to the economy of the South, including the peanut, sweet potato, soybean, and pecan.

Dr. Charles Richard Drew(1904-1950)- Born in Washington, D.C., Drew earned advanced degrees in medicine and surgery from McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, in 1933 and from Columbia University in 1940. He is particularly noted for his research in blood plasma and for setting up the first blood bank.

Elijah McCoy (1844-1929)- The son of escaped slaves from Kentucky, McCoy was born in Canada and educated in Scotland. Settling in Detroit, Michigan, he invented a lubricator for steam engines (patented 1872) and established his own manufacturing company. During his lifetime he acquired 57 patents.

Lewis Howard Latimer(1848-1929)- Born in Chelsea, Mass., Latimer learned mechanical drawing while working for a Boston patent attorney. He later invented an electric lamp and a carbon filament for light bulbs (patented 1881, 1882). Latimer was the only African-American member of Thomas Edison's engineering laboratory.

Garrett Augustus Morgan (1877-1963)- Born in Kentucky, Morgan invented a gas mask (patented 1914) that was used to protect soldiers from chlorine fumes during World War I. Morgan also received a patent (1923) for a traffic signal that featured automated STOP and GO signs. Morgan's invention was later replaced by traffic lights.

Frederick McKinley Jones (1892-1961)- Jones was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. An experienced mechanic, he invented a self-starting gas engine and a series of devices for movie projectors. More importantly, he invented the first automatic refrigeration system for long-haul trucks (1935). Jones was awarded more than 40 patents in the field of refrigeration.

David Crosthwait, Jr.(1898-1976)- Born in Nashville, Tennessee, Crosthwait earned a B.S.(1913) and M.S.(1920) from Purdue University. An expert on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, he designed the heating system for Radio City Music Hall in New York. During his lifetime he received some 40 U.S. patents relating to HVAC systems.

Speaking from the standpoint of evolution, white civilization, as well as contributing and drawing upon their own genius, was built on the genius of other civilization: the Arabic, the Greek, the Semetic ( jews), the Chinese, the Egyptian and the Indian, to name a few. If we did an IQ test on the white nomadic tribes that inhabited Western Europe 25,000 years ago I wonder if we'd get the same results? At that time there were great universities in India the remnants of which have been recently found and dated. Given the right conditions, intelligence 'evolves' like everything else. To assume that it is a static inherent quality that one race possesses over another is ignorant and foolish. I wonder what these same intelligent tests would reveal if taken in another 100 years when the white race has lost its dominant position?



z

[Iolaus]

That's a nice list, Z. Last year, a black doctor at work brought in a calendar for Martin Luther King day. I was very, very amazed by the list of accomplished blacks, which was way more than just twelve. It corroborated what I have often thought - this overemphasis on Martin Luther King, naming a street after him in every town in America - makes it seem like he musta been the only interesting black person on offer. Far from it!

GW Carver is my favorite - born a slave, he became a well respected scientist and he was also a mystic.

[Ryan Rudolph]

This thread is not denying that blacks can be gifted in areas of practical innovation and skill, but it is their total lack of philosophical works specifically in the sphere of enlightenment that is a cause for concern.

It seems to me that general intelligence can occur in all races, but as far as enlightenment goes, it seems that all races are not born with an equal shot. Basically, the world is not fair. Natural selection is a blind unforgiving process that gives some advantages, and others disadvantages.

[zarathustra]

Its odd how many people in here throw the word enlightenment around...it seems to be the flavour of the month. In terms of 'origins' it had its beginnings in the East - not the West - thousands of years before Christ, Socrates or Buddha were ever born or invented. It has been mostly 'ignored' by serious philosophers because of its ambiguity and nihilistic implications i.e. the quest for nothingness...Shankara, the celebrated eighth century Indian mystic - teacher and founder of Vedantic nondualism or Advaita (not two) philosophy, from which many of the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived, referred to that which is absolute as "pure consciousness" or "fullness." Yet Gautama the Buddha is famous for declaring that that which is absolute is "emptiness" or "voidness." So fucken what? Big deal....

The question of what enlightenment is and what it has to do with human life is a dizzying business to try to understand because when one begins to look beyond the superficial, it soon becomes apparent that even the most respected authorities seem to disagree on the most fundamental of matters.

What makes matters even more complex is the fact that whenever human beings have dared to ask questions that are absolute, there have always been those who have been more than willing to impose the answers that they have found upon others. The big problem is that inherent in any conclusion about the nature of life and death that is absolute is the great danger of missing the mark, of being mistaken, of making the biggest error that it is possible to make: believing without any doubt that one has found that which is absolute—when in fact, one has found nothing more than one’s own desire for absolute certainty.

Getting back to the negro peoples of Africa. Since there is no one on earth who knows what enlightenment is, apart from vague notions about fullness and emptiness, how can anyone say with certainty that these people never pursued it?

z

[Kevin Solway]

Since there is no one on earth who knows what enlightenment is . . .

Since you claim not to know what enlightenment is, you can't judge whether other people know what enlightenment is. You have disqualified yourself, since you have confessed to being blind to such matters.

[Nick]

Its odd how many people in here throw the word enlightenment around...it seems to be the flavour of the month. In terms of 'origins' it had its beginnings in the East - not the West - thousands of years before Christ, Socrates or Buddha were ever born or invented. It has been mostly 'ignored' by serious philosophers because of its ambiguity and nihilistic implications i.e. the quest for nothingness...

They viewed it as a quest for nothingness? Well then I can tell you right now they weren't "serious philosophers".

Shankara, the celebrated eighth century Indian mystic - teacher and founder of Vedantic nondualism or Advaita (not two) philosophy, from which many of the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived, referred to that which is absolute as "pure consciousness" or "fullness." Yet Gautama the Buddha is famous for declaring that that which is absolute is "emptiness" or "voidness." So fucken what? Big deal....

Right, if it doesn't give you an orgasm then fuck it!

The question of what enlightenment is and what it has to do with human life is a dizzying business to try to understand because when one begins to look beyond the superficial, it soon becomes apparent that even the most respected authorities seem to disagree on the most fundamental of matters.

What makes you think the authorities don't graze just like you?

What makes matters even more complex is the fact that whenever human beings have dared to ask questions that are absolute, there have always been those who have been more than willing to impose the answers that they have found upon others. The big problem is that inherent in any conclusion about the nature of life and death that is absolute is the great danger of missing the mark, of being mistaken, of making the biggest error that it is possible to make: believing without any doubt that one has found that which is absolute—when in fact, one has found nothing more than one’s own desire for absolute certainty.

I can assure you, anyone who imposes truth upon those not capable of understanding it are just as much a cow as those they seek to convert.

[zarathustra]

enlightenment = nihilism.
z

[acebackwords]

Thats a little condescending, isn't it? This notion that blacks are more "emotional" than "intellectual."

You need to read a little more carefully before accusing someone of condescension. Anna didn't say that. I'm not sure I agree with what she did say, but she certainly didn't say that.

You're probably right, Dan. I probably should have read Anna's post a little more carefully. I was making more of a general comment about how many whites view blacks, more than commenting specifically on Anna's comment. I probably should have worded it more clearly.

[Iolaus]

I agree with Zarathustra that enlightenment is an eastern concept and pursuit. And also that it has more than one definition.

Blacks of Africa were mostly what we call tribal or indiginous people and they tend to come to similar conclusions about spiritual things. They do engage in philosophy, they just don't write it down. The Amerindians engaged in hours long discussions and debates in which each participant talked as long as they liked and were not interrupted, each one retaining in his mind the progress of the answers while formulating his own thoughts until his turn came. Therefore, they organized their thoughts very well, and were great orators. Certainly most indiginous people have a higher spiritual understanding than average Chrisitians, in my opinion. Problem with Christianity is that it blocks the upwelling of inner knowledge.

Enlightenment is probably a notion of civilization, not tribes.

I remember reading an excerpt of a Christian missionary, talking with a young lad of an African tribe. The missionary could only think in hierarchical terms, not wholistic ones. He asked the boy what animal was the greatest. The boy carefully explained how there isn't one greater than another and all are equal in their place. This is exactly the same as the highest Chinese wisdom as put forth in Hua Hu Ching. But the missionary was disgusted with the 'savage mind.'

[Kaidara]

Ryan,
What is enlightenment and how would you go about judging wether a particular group of people are more prone to attaing it over others? Is enlightenment not an individual endeavor. Just because the existence of writing in some societies has given you access to certain works of so-called "enlightenment" individuals hardly counts as proof that some are somehow more inclined to be "enlightened". Its more an accident history.
But just to let you know, but admit you ignorance because you knowledge of African history, religion and culture is infantile. Why make such a sweeping judgement about a people based on the persception that "I haven't heard of anything coming out of Africa" than you wouldn't
know of Tierno Bokar or Dhun Nun Al-Misri or the Mwindo Epic or Bambara cosmology and rites of iniation or the numerous "enlightened" sufi masters of the Swahili coast.
BTW, the idea of general intelligence is going the way of the Dodo. Its swiftly losing credibility in academia and not because of political correctness but simply because it really has no basis in reality. The human mind is far to plastic and habit forming and mediated for their to be a realistic and grounded conception of "pure", general intelligence. Of course if there is a general intelligence, we are far from finding a good way to measure.
And Iolaus, enlightenment is hardly an "eastern" concept. Everyone has some idea of what a perfected being is supposed to be and have a term for it. BTW, the concept of enlightenment is particular, different in different cultures. A Buddhist and Hindu would have very different ideas of what counts as enlightened.

[JoshWagner]

every1 is = and if you think differnt ure a racist kkk

[Kaidara]

BTW, Ryan, when the Europeans didn't have a written language, were they producing works of philosophy?
O wait, when they did adapt the Latin script(based off a greek one, based off a semitic one based off an Kemitic(African) one etc.), Europeans actually didn't much talk about enlightenment much at all. I mean western philosophy of enlightenment is nothing like that in India or China. So why are you conflating the two. What does one have to do with the other. Basically, your privreledging the written word and making the erroneous connection that if a oral culture doesn't produce a written work of philosophy than they are somehow genetically incapable to do so. c'mon, I'll give you more credit than that. What are really saying?
Of course, in the East many would say that enlightenment really can't even be written or talked about it so maybe those folks who don't write about it are on to something. Perhaps too busy getting enlightened.(An african sage just might suggest such a thing. Life isn't lived in books)
And Ioalus, Africa is just not tribes and such. There have been plenty of centralized "states" but what is the correlation between living in a centralized "state" and enlightenement.
Of course, a centralized society may more likely possess writing and therefore an "enlightened master" or his followers may more likely write down his teachings.
BTW, those "europeans" who usually studied Africa(missionaries, anthropologist) rarely had full access to african societies and could only document what they "saw" (usually communal rituals and such)therefore their knowledge incomplete. Many africans very much value "knowledge" and almost hoard it like gold(Kaidara refers to a god of gold/knowledge from west africa) and believe it is dangerous in certain hands. So only iniates in certain societies have access to certain modes of knowing.
Just a thought because I know many here are eurocentric and think that if the western academies don't know it than its not worth knowing(Okay, I know thats probably an unfair assumption)

[Iolaus]

And Ioalus, Africa is just not tribes and such. There have been plenty of centralized "states" but what is the correlation between living in a centralized "state" and enlightenement.

Well so far as north Africa and the Kemites and sufis, I would attribute those to the semitic groups, more than what we call blacks. At least so far as origin. Of course, if a black person becomes an enlightened sufi, it qualifies as much as anyone else, since we are all borrowing religions from one another.

I don't know what enlightenment is, or if I do, whether my ideas correspond to what others are saying. Here, they are mostly thinkingin eastern terms, Buddhist, zen type enlightenment.

They disparage mysticism here, and I don't. There's one difference so far as tribes. I think tribes would not drop the mystical from the picture. But I read the Three Pillars of Zen, a famous book about people sitting in intensive meditation retreats and having breakthroughs. Their enlightenment it seems to me was not distinquishable from a mystical experience, but not the type like a vision or a drug induced one. Rather, what zen does is try to change the brain, which can happen in sudden spurts.

As far as the correlation between a centralized state and enlightenment, it seems that the change in lifestyle which is part of becoming a centralized state - greater authoritatian power, division of labor - tends to lead to harsher warfare, numerous laws and punishments, underclasses and marginalization of women, and last but not least, an institutional priesthood. The people, too, change their attitudes toward life and spirit. In general, tribal people have more leisure and more individual autonomy, their manhood is not patterned after the chimp model (alpha male, beta male) and they seem to have a more positive feeling about the bounty of the earth. Would tribal people come up with the idea that life is suffering?

[Kaidara]

"Well so far as north Africa and the Kemites and sufis, I would attribute those to the semitic groups, more than what we call blacks."

Why, Kemites were africans. The origins of some sufic concepts originate from northeast africa. The first known sufi master was a nubian. And d
on't you know that the Semites came from Africa or that most Semitic languages are spoken in Africa(Tigre, Tigrinya, Amharic). Semites can be black, brown or whatever.
And by your reasoning couldn't we give Christianity, Latin, Greek and a host of other European cultural forms to the semites as well since the origins lay in the Middleast.
And if we are talking about a Zen type of enlightenment I know of only one European who has ever documented such an experience. Miester Eckhardt and maybe the author of the cloud of unknowing.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Iolaus wrote:

In general, tribal people have more leisure and more individual autonomy, their manhood is not patterned after the chimp model (alpha male, beta male) and they seem to have a more positive feeling about the bounty of the earth. Would tribal people come up with the idea that life is suffering?

It seems to me tribal people are not capable of enlightenment because their language is too rudimentary, and most tribes are held together by superstition and animalistic values.

To be enlightened, one must turn agaisnt the group-think of the tribe, and stand totally alone, which is pretty rare, and individuals that were strong enough to defy tribe leaders would probably be killed as a result.

Kaidara wrote:

What is enlightenment and how would you go about judging wether a particular group of people are more prone to attaing it over others?

Sophistication in reasoning and use of language, not attached to anything, not belonging to any group, tribe, or institution. Very little emotional response over anything..

Kaidara wrote:

han you wouldn't
know of Tierno Bokar or Dhun Nun Al-Misri or the Mwindo Epic or Bambara cosmology and rites of iniation or the numerous "enlightened" sufi masters of the Swahili coast.

Oral traditions aren’t adequate; the only acceptable form of verification is an entire body of philosophical writings, which reveals the contents of their mind, and whether they had a deep understanding of reality.

However, let me clarify something – the other races only had a very small number of enlightened individuals. Most people live their entire lives without any desire to understand the nature of reality.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

If you post after me then you're a nigger.

Whoops, did I do that?

[Kaidara]

Ryan,
you get the ignorance award.
Most tribal languages are intricately complex because language is largely a social phenomenon and "tribal" peoples tend to very social. (In other words social relations are very important) but these langauges are also immensenly abstract since they have to explain the complex cosmology many "tribal" peoples possess. Dude, your ideas come straight out of some 19th century. Update your programming.
However, since when did enlightenement have to do with language. And dude, all human socieites are held together by superstition or beliefs and practices not upheld by reason or direct experience. And what are animalistic values? Explain please.
And yes, many "enlightened" persons do tend to be outcaste by tribal peoples actually don't tend to kill their outcaste. They turn to them for "blessing" while its usually medieval type societies that kill heretics.

"Sophistication in reasoning and use of language, not attached to anything, not belonging to any group, tribe, or institution. Very little emotional response over anything.."

I see, well you view of enlightenement if very different from mine. i conjecture that your is very different from most traditions.
However, the idea of not being attached to any human institution. Ummm....Who in history do you think is enlightened. And btw, the fact that to be enlightened one must not be attached to any human institution means that the whole philosophical tradition of the east and west are null and void by your definition since those traditions arose within very human and very social institutions.

[zarathustra]

That's his second award! He got his first one on Plato's forum!
z

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kaidara,

Most tribal languages are intricately complex because language is largely a social phenomenon and "tribal" peoples tend to very social.

Just because a society is social doesn’t mean they are enlightened. Teenage girls are quite social, they can talk on the phone for hours, but I wouldn’t call them enlightened.

However, since when did enlightenement have to do with language.

The quality of your thoughts is only as good as the quality of your language.

And btw, the fact that to be enlightened one must not be attached to any human institution means that the whole philosophical tradition of the east and west are null and void by your definition since those traditions arose within very human and very social institutions.

Yes, I would say anyone that strongly identifies with an institution is not enlightened. They are deluded, an enlightened man stands totally alone, not belonging to anything, no religion, no group, nothing. He is anti-tribal by his very nature.

[zarathustra]

the catchcry of a nihilist!!! Has the great wisdom of philosophy really come to this: isolation as a precondition to......nothing.

z

[Kaidara]

"The quality of your thoughts is only as good as the quality of your language."

You are really naive. How would you gauge the quality of a language. Linguistics tried that years ago and failed because there is no objective barometer. Almost any thought or concept can be expressed in any langauge in the world. Thats the nature of human langauge.
Plus, some would say that enlightenment is to be rid of thought in the form of terms and concepts since they act as veils to true reality. Hence, a complex language would be a hinderance.

[Kaidara]

And I never said their society was enlightened( is that possible?) I was making a claim about their langauge. You seem to imply that their language was somehow "primitive" or rudimentary which implies simple(curiously, many thinkers and scientists have sought out the most simple language since they believed scienctific knowledge should be expressed in the simplistic, most effective language). And I was pointing out that most tribal tongues(whatever that means) is immensely complex full of complicated grammar and a large vocabulary.

[Iolaus]

Ryan,

Goodness, most tribal languages are highly complex. English is a very simple languagae, although it has a large vocabulary, nonetheless, Russians find it crude.

Our societies are held together by equally silly notions as tribal superstitions.

To be enlightened, one must turn agaisnt the group-think of the tribe, and stand totally alone, which is pretty rare, and individuals that were strong enough to defy tribe leaders would probably be killed as a result.

This is an exaggeration. Enlightened zen masters did not turn away from society they were revered and people came to learn and meditate. Society supported the pursuit of enlightenment. Also, tribes are far more tolerant than civilizations. They have their weirdos living on the outskirts, always a job they can do. Schizophrenics tolerated...do you know how schizophrenics were treated in our society until recently? And even now they are shunned street people?

You write very imperiously as if you knew something of importance, and you haven't even moved past your Freudian projection - blaming the savages for the ills of your own society!

Tribal leaders are often defied, sometimes just to keep the chief from throwing his weight around. And can you top civilizatiaon for killing those who disagree? Ever read about how the church treated heretics? And sought them out and posted notices in the towns about how the people must turn them in or be punished?

Oral traditions aren’t adequate; the only acceptable form of verification is an entire body of philosophical writings, which reveals the contents of their mind, and whether they had a deep understanding of reality.

Oh, how I am tempted to act like Victor and call you a stupid little fuck. Who are you to decide that people you know nothing about have failed to provide evidence for you to judge? At least be a little more honest and say that you can't evaluate their achievements because without written and translated works you have no way.

What makes me angry is your imperious tone.

As if you know anything about turning against the group mind, you ass licking follower !

[Iolaus]

Kaidara,

Why, Kemites were africans. The origins of some sufic concepts originate from northeast africa. The first known sufi master was a nubian. And d
on't you know that the Semites came from Africa or that most Semitic languages are spoken in Africa(Tigre, Tigrinya, Amharic). Semites can be black, brown or whatever.
And by your reasoning couldn't we give Christianity, Latin, Greek and a host of other European cultural forms to the semites as well since the origins lay in the Middleast.
And if we are talking about a Zen type of enlightenment I know of only one European who has ever documented such an experience. Miester Eckhardt and maybe the author of the cloud of unknowing.

Well, the kemits were Egyptians, weren't they? Egyptians are Africans of course, but racially semites and blacks aren't quite the same, altho no doubt somewhat mixed. I don't know about the first sufi master but I thought I had read about it and it was an Arab/semitic or such type, maybe Persian. Who was this nubian? Sufism has prospered it seems to me near the border with India, and may be the result of absorbing Indian spiritual ideas.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Iolaus,

English is a very simple languagae

I would say out of the remaining 6000 languages, English is far superior to over 90% of them, this is largely due to the fact that English has been the universal standard for much of civilization's scientific progress, and countless philosophical bodies of work have been written or translated in English. I would say there is less than a dozen languages that can even compare to the scope of its perception. This is why a language is going extinct every two weeks, it is survival of the fittest. And guess what? The languages that are going extinct are usually tribal languages, what does that tell you?

Our societies are held together by equally silly notions as tribal superstitions.

I think you are glorifying the potential of tribal communities, group-think environments prevent enlightenment, and it seems to me that most tribes would fall into a sort of feminine-group-think mentality, which applies to our modern civilization as well. However, my point is that it is much easier to break away from the group-think of civilization because our society is much more individualistic, and it is easier to survive, therefore technological democratic societies are much superior as far as the potential for enlightenment is concerned.

Enlightened zen masters did not turn away from society they were revered and people came to learn and meditate. Society supported the pursuit of enlightenment.

Most teachings through the ages were watered down and appealed to people’s egos, and that is why gurus are held in a high regard. An actual teacher of enlightenment is usually hated by the masses. Why do you think Socrates and Jesus were put to death? The ego hates anything enlightenment by its very nature, and it will lash out against any sort of threat to its animal values.

What makes me angry is your imperious tone.

I prefer the term authoritative.

As if you know anything about turning against the group mind, you ass licking follower !

Did that make you feel better?