₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Sammy107_d link=topic=252482.msg3636872#msg3636872 date=1237909905]The article states why SA is the the preferred cricket loving country to host the tournament. . . what's your purpose posting this here??[/quote]Leave that boy called RSA. He's our resident schizophrenic patient suffering from the inability to let go of his screwed up reality, still trying to prove to himself that his beloved SA is heaven on earth despite what we all know.

Unfortunately the boy just won't learn.

Ikomi:
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[color=#990000][/color]
Wekipedia.

"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Mayr 1969

Phenotypically similar, therefore monotypic, does not mean indifferent, according to Mayr they could still be in different taxonomic ranking.

Don't tell me humans can not be classified into taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien, as this is still being argued amongst scientist as far as I know.

You may have chosen to be on the line of thought that believe humans should not be further subdivided, but I and Mr Botha can clearly see the difference and would stand for the thought that humans should be be subdivided into the taxonomic ranks in the specie of Homo Sapien.

And I must warn you that scientist don't in most cases look for the origins, they try to explain the result.

If I and Mr Botha can not clearly point out any animal or plant apart from humans - which I believe you yourself have not done - of different taxonomic rank that have freely interbred with each other, then we say that humans which should be of different taxonomic rank breeding with each other is strange.

I asked you in your example of dogs, show me anywhere in the wild, the natural habitat of dogs, where dogs of different taxonomy have freely interbreed with each other. Am sure you could not, but you would rather refer to the dogs that have been tamed by humans, such that, these same humans have successfully passed there corrupt nature of breeding with each other to the dogs.

What Mr Botha is saying in a nut shell is that we should reverse back to how it was, whether he is mother nature or not. And clearly you are not mother nature to say "since it is as it is now, lets just live on".

All am trying to tell you is that Mr Botha has a point which might not be a populist idea today. Although it is solidly based on the fact that no other animal or plant apart from humans of different taxonomic rank have freely interbred.

Again Botha's or your stance is not scientifically valid as there is no historical or biological evidence to group humans into subspecies. Please reference to the rules that apply to rules that apply to subspecies. There are too many gradations between so called  human"races" to define a group as a subspecies. Why stop at races to define subspecies. Why not hair color, morphology, eye color

Again the opinion that it is 'strange" behaviour for subspecies of Animals (in this case "races' of human populations) to breed with each other is nothing more than an opinion.

When in the history of man was there never an interbreeding of populations as to suggest a "reversal' back to normal breeding patterns.  "Strange" in this case can be subsituted with "unique" depending on who is presenting the information.

What is plain to infer is Mr Botha's true agenda of the opinion which obviously is to state that intebreeding of so called races in this case white and black  is unatural and somehow diminishes the ability of his subspecies to survive. Therefore the suggestion of a reversal. Which was never the case to begin with.



On the dog issue "where is the natural habitat of dogs?Are you talking about wild dogs in the kalahari or wild dingos in Australia as compared to domesticated animals. Are you trying to state that somehow behavioural breeding patterns of domesticated dogs ha been manipulated by human intervention to undo the natural tendency of the dog to isolate itself from other dog species.  Areyou saig this is the case for human so called subspecies as well.

Can you point me to any scientific data or studies which indicate this as an unatural manipulation of the innate nature of subspecies of dogs to interbreed


The burden is on you to prove this activity as "strange behaviour" among so called subspecies of humans to an extent where this is not normal behaviour amongst the species from time memorial. If you or Mr. Botha's only proof is to point out practices among subspecies of other near human populations as evidence of this then sorry can't accept that as a valid arguement. As there are many other "strange/Unique" behaviours/traits inherent in human populations when comparing their selection of breeding partners in comparison to lizards,Hedgehogs or crocodiles enough to assert that interbreeding is a 'natural' occurence amongst the Human population/species.

Further more it can be argued that this interaction/inter breeding has ensured the survival of the species as a whole.

Ikomi:
What is the subject of this conversation you might ask me? The conversation at hand is, is it natural or somewhat strange that animals of the same taxonomy but of different sub-specie, to breed with each other. This I believe is also Mr Bothas argument, as stated in the article. My answer to this question is that it is strange that animals or plant of different sub-specie to breed with each other. My answer is so as I have volunteered to take the side of Mr Botha.

Okay lets get straight to the point then.

What is "strange' about it. Those are opinions by both you and Botha and hold not merit in todays scientific field.

If your arguement is "natural" vs "Strange" tendencies then you are scientifically inaccurate  in your observation.

Please see the article on definitions of sub- species below and take into account the part which mentions the conditions the species most meet to be catergorized as sub species as well as monotypic and polytypic species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_species

Humans are a monotypic species.

Neanderthal is a subspecies of the Homo sapiens

Modern Man Homo sapien sapien is a subspecies of Homo sapiens

A black man is not a  subspecies of the Human population
A white mans is not a subspecies of the Human population.

Therefore if there is a perfectly "natural" tendency for interbreeding patterns to occur within  a population they are normally not classified as subspecies and if there has been a natural tendency for gene flow as is evident and has been evident for millenia concerning The single Human "race",I don't see how the opinion that it is unatural should hold any water.

Ikomi:
Dogs of different sub-specie breeding with each other is definitely a strange act.

Again what is strange about this. If its a natural tendency then it cannot be strange. Dogs were not forced to interbreed. No one put a shot gun around their necks and compelled them to do so.

Ikomi:
But you also digressed from the subject when you tried to equate the reason for different sub-species breeding with each other as a case of the survival of the fittest. Your analogy there is strongly flawed. Since you might not be able to point to a time when there was only one monkey in an Island and only one orangutan, such that in other for them to survive they decide to breed with each other. I also had a problem with your analogy of the temperature some time hitting 120 degrees, there you really digressed from the subject because Mr Botha is not really concerned about unforeseen circumstances, he was merely concerned that as long as there are different traits between a Caucasian and a black, which has necessitated them to be classified in different groups, whether socially or naturally, then they should not breed with each other. So on that single presumption of Mr Botha, there I shall make my stand and there I shall continue this conversation.

You obviously don't get my point concerning survival of the fittest rule so I'll leave that one out so we can keep to the main point.

Mr Botha is not mother nature nor does he make much sense using such animals in comparison to human beins.  Therefore he should not be allowed to dictate outdated opinions on the "natural"' tendencies of Human beings.
If you and Mr. Botha find breeding patterns of dogs and humans "strange" then thats basically an opinion and I can accept that on that level.

However if he or your point is to drive home the mindset that it is "unatural" or "strange" for human populations to interbreed. What is the basis for the opinion? That humans are repulsed at the site of one another based on race? That humans are not attracted to people of the opposite so called "race. What is the evidence that this is unatural.

He should likewise have commented as well on those Hot spanish sailors who openly bred with the native Indians as very unnatural behaviour.

Ikomi:
However I would like for a moment to take a stand on the side of Mr. Botha that all men are not created equally. I know my initial analogies do not really hit the mark, but I shall try to convince you that Mr Bothas view of life is not totally flawed by citing orangutans and monkeys as compared to humans.

Botha's views were based on an understanding of human populations as a result of late 18th century/ 19th century studies on Race which were filled with all kinds of racist ideologies and misconceptions. The Africans nationalist party were heavily aligned to Nazi ideology concerning race matters which undoubted left an imprint in the mind of the Afrikaaner peoples and most simple minded people at that point in history.

It is very true all men are not created equal. Equality in this instance is based on ones attributes and how it applies to their enviroment and is a very relative term in relation to what you are comparing.

Ikomi:
Now do you by any means agree that Orangutans and Monkeys fall into the category of Apes - either great or non great, although different subspecies. But yet they don't breed with each other. Could it be that it is only for this reason that they don't breed with each other has scientists decided to group them differently, such that if an incident of an orangutan and a monkey engaging in the act of reproduction could be proved then there is a chance the monkeys would fall into the category of the great apes. Even though the same scientists that placed the monkey and the orangutan in different groups still believe that they both share the same characteristics, except for the fact that the orangutan has longer arms, different colour and of course higher intelligence.

If we are to follow the reasoning of the above statement then it would be very strange why dogs who undoubtedly are not created equal in the same capacity as humans have the instinct to breed with each other irrespective of physical or mental traits.

Ikomi:
In Mr Bothas view - which am standing by now (and please its just for the sake of the conversation) - this same situation matches his view of how humans should live. Is it not those same scientists that classified us as blacks, Caucasians and orientals. If the definition of Taxonomy is to be followed then are we of the same specie. Yes we might be of same specie just like the monkey and the orangutan is but definitely not of the same subspecie.
Then comes a summary of Mr Bothas point, if orangutans and monkeys do not breed with each other although they might be of the same specie but not of the same subspecie, why should the Caucasian breed with an oriental or black since they are not of the same subspecie. Believe it or not there are millions of people who share this view and would stand by it strongly.

Socially controlled processes of natural selection is not "natural selection". It is not unatural for humans to interbreeed with each other depending on the rule of survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is relative to the situation at hand.
If you put a male and female of different 'races" on a desolate island and they are compelled to survive. They will breed with each other. That's natural instinct.
If the average temperature of the whole planet were to hit and average of 120 degrees celsus. As a result a large number white people begin to die from skin cancer and their numbers begin to deplete an an astronomical rate. Inversely blacks survive this phenomena and out live their counter parts.

Who is more superior in this instance?

What do you think would be the ultimate response as far as breeding patterns are concerned. I would almost gurantee you that you would see a lot of mixed babies popping of everywhere.

My point is Botha's point is flawed because it is selective in its reasoning. As much as people want to hold on to that school of thought. They would change their view in an instance when presented with an alternate reality.

Ikomi:
I will ask u again just for the sake of the conversation. Since am a strong believer that all men are born equall.

Lets give Mr Botha a chance that he might be right.

Coming from ur own definition of species, just because we have the same characteristics, are able to procreate with each other, therefore are able to pass on the same trait (mind u when u mention trait, it could be in-between). In the case of a white mother and black father. The fathers eye might be black while the mothers eye is blue with the childs eye coming out grey. Just for the conversation still, and therefore in-between.

Could we by any chance apply the same theory to monkeys and orangutans. Since they both share the same characteristics, and are able to procreate. But naturally would not mate.

I dont know if u get where am coming from. Except u would tell me they are not of the same specie. Then I might have to take u up on that.

Like I said just for the conversation, I would quite like it to be polite and coherent. Thank u.

Your analogy is inconsistent with your reasoning. You cannot ponder on Aligators, lizards and different types of birds in comparison to Human beings.
if you believe all men are equal then you would not have used that analogy in the first place knowing that it does not apply to human beings in any shape or form.

Monkeys are not in the same taxanomic family grouping as great apes(orangutans). What do you mean by they are able to procreate but naturallly would not?

Again my problem is with your analogy as compared to Botha's statement. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his analysis on racial isolationism and so called god's creation of different peoples or do you se the differencies in people as mere mutations and adaptational reactions to their enviroment.

Ikomi:
But queenblack imagine if u were not black, wont you for a moment think Petr Botha was right there, I sometimes wonder myself.

The lizard, the aligator and the crocodile. They all look the same, but the day the lizard looks into the aligators eye, it is by it own hands calling for its death.

So also an aligator would never say it is the equal of a crocodile, not in size nor strength.

To be honest with you I really think of this things sometimes, is it the gods trying to amuse themselves at humans not been able to see beyond there skin and tribe with all the technological advancement, or they are just sitting together wondering what exactly they did wrong in just trying to be a little creative by using different colours.

Queenblack are u black or brown, I wish I had a say in it, I would have asked the gods to make me green. 

The conversation stems from your above analogy. If I am right what you are trying to say is that some animals look alike yet vary in terms of size, strength or intellect and this should be applied to humans as well.

Lizards and aligators are not the same species. They belong to the same family of reptiles.

All birds cannot mate with each other yet they belong to the same family or phylum.

All humans belong to the same family, same breed, the same characteristics,  are able to procreate with each other, therefore are the same SPECIES, therefore are able to pass on the same traits from one to the other. Therefore only "circumstancies" account for their differences in intellect or any other difference for that matter.

Point is all humans have the same abilities.

Clear enough for you!

Ikomi:
Where have u seen an Eagle playing with pigeons kwanu. Although they are all birds.

So oyinbo man is not Eagle and black man pigeon.

You need to look up the world "species"

Go to psychiatric wards in Naija and once you see the people there you will never pick that stuff up again in your life.

Ikomi:
The lizard, the aligator and the crocodile. They all look the same, but the day the lizard looks into the aligators eye, it is by it own hands calling for its death.

So also an aligator would never say it is the equal of a crocodile, not in size nor strength.

Can a lizard mate with an aligator? Can a lion mate with a panther? Can a aligator mate with a wall gecko?

After asnwering this questions then ask yourself about different human beings then you will get your answer?

queenblack:
It was forwarded to me from a yahoo group of which I am a member. I hope all descendants in Africa and the Diaspora will wake up and see what is really happening with us.

Whats happening to us, may I ask?

Udode:
@morpheus24

its ok, i have checked out the oyibo page, but honestly, i think those are mostly people that work in a oyibo company and are not much integrated in the country, u know what i mean. From what i read they are rather negatively minded and have stayed true to their oyibo culture, i would prefer to hear from people that for example speak igbo and made good experiences, not those who just go to nja for work and then come back to wherever they come from!

Unfortunately you are right as far as the website is concerned but it could be quite useful to you in the long run. Once you get there you will come across others that live there as well and can easily make friends but you have to find the type of people who get along with you,

living in Nigeria requires a lot of changes and even though you mentioned visiting other African countries I would suggest a gradual intergration into the culture and the people, once you are used to mannerisms, customs and so on then you will not find situations frustrating.

Which is why you will need a network of people like you who live in the country,

Don't worry you will find them when you get there.

Udode:
No I am not nigerian - which would make me an expatriate if I live in nigeria :-)
and no i do not want to live in a place where expatriates are concentrated, i am very
fine with nigerians themselves, all I wanted was to find out what experiences people
who are not nigerians made when they moved to nigeria,

Don't mind this hostile people, They like to look for trouble too much. The webiste oyibos online is your best bet but most of them are station in lagos, Abuja and Port harcourt.