This is one of the reasons why we are behind the west. When you ignore the rights/issues of half of the population (women) how does your country prosper?
Wait, what ....you really just said that(in bold)! Ok now that last notion knocked me out of my posting hiatus ...goes off to the lab to construct.
Feminism has to go! It's a distraction and I have no time for that nonsense.
Now white women ...by all means go for broke with feminism. It's their issue, but it has nothing to do with us and obscures what African peoples need to be doing.
After looking at the article on Ancient Egypt colonizing Africa I thought it had potential as an interesting topic but no one was discussing what I felt were the pertinent angles. That said it caused me to rethink of an old idea which I felt was a much more realistic question.
Should Hannibal Barca have taken Ptolemaic egypt instead of attacking Rome?
Carthage Hannibal Barca initiated the second Punic war at around 218 BCE at this point Carthage already had southern Iberia(Spain) under control. They also had an experienced army from that conquest. There goal wasn't to attack Rome directly it was to attack it's surrounding client states and choke it out by weakening it's access to troops and resources.
The Carthaginian army in Iberia, excluding the forces in Africa, totaled, according to Polybius, 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 37 war elephants: it was thus one of the largest in the Hellenistic world and equal in numbers to any that the Romans had yet fielded. Hannibal departed with this army from New Carthage (Cartagena, Spain) northwards along the coast in late spring of 218 BC.
Ptolemaic Egypt Around the same time(218 BCE) in Ptolemaic Egypt the Battle of Raphia was a year away 217(BCE). After this successful war the native Egyptians used their war training to rebel against the Ptolemaic kingdom establishing an autonomous kingdom for 20 years. Ptolemaic Egypt was generally in decline around this point anyway.
Battle of Raphia According to Polybius, Ptolemy had 70,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 73 war elephants and Antiochus 62,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry, and 102 elephants.
The two largest of the Hellenistic kingdoms, Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, were bitter enemies, and repeatedly fought for control of Syria. These were the Syrian Wars. The Fourth Syrian War began in 219 B.C. Ptolemaic Egypt was ruled by Ptolemy IV, and the Seleucid Empire was ruled by Antiochus III the Great. By 217 B.C. Antiochus and the Seleucid army advanced through Syria. Ptolemy’s self interests led his ministers, advisors and generals to make serious preparations. Both kingdoms disputed Syria.
According to Polybius, Carthaginian army in Iberia had 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 37 war elephants(excluding the forces in Africa) According to Polybius, Ptolemy had 70,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 73 war elephants
My position is Carthage takes Egypt in order to consolidate hold of the southern Mediterranean trade along with exit to the Atlantic(Carthage already controlled the straits of Gibraltar) This provides... 1.Economic might over Rome by trade from the Senegal river all the way to Egypt 2. A war cushion against rome in terms of supplies(from egypt) and second base of operations Egypt 3. A war cushion against Arabian peninsular in terms of supplies(from Carthage) and second base of operations Carthage
Between (southern Iberia, Carthage, and Egypt) they could have weathered most any attack of that day up till the Mongol introduction of gun powder into the region. It's up for grabs after that.
Conclusion: Cognitively I don't think it would've even crossed his mind. This was a generational vendetta from his dad, step brother, down to him. By the time he gained control of the army he was in tunnel vision mode against Rome. Maybe if it had been successful they would've looked to Egypt
These four guys are Nigerians living in the U.S. The two on the right grew up in the U.S. while the two on the left grew up in Nigeria. In reaction to all the crazy that's been going on in the U.S they decided to have this discussion.
Personally given what they are speaking of I would say the more manageable option is young children to attend boarding school in an African country until college then move back to the U.S for business opportunities & further education. Actually it might be good to do university in an African country to avoid life long debt that happens in the U.S. from college loans. It's hard to strike out on your own in a serious way with 40k+ hanging over your head.
Hell with that said maybe all African Americans should attend university in Africa ...maybe that's a topic for later.
...Fundamental Principle: if a characteristic is largely genetic and there is an observed difference in that characteristic between two groups, then there is very likely a genetic difference between the two groups that goes in the same direction as the observed difference.
Applying this principle to the case of IQ: given the substantial heritability of IQ, if East Asians are superior in measured IQ, then, according to the Fundamental Principle, they are highly likely to be genetically superior; and if Blacks are inferior in measured IQ, then they are highly likely to be genetically inferior in IQ.
But while the Fundamental Principle seems intuitively plausible, it is either irrelevant to the Herrnstein-Murray argument, or simply false. To see the problem, we need first to understand that the term "genetic" has two senses. In the next section, I describe those senses in some detail: to put the point schematically for now, "genetic" can mean either genetically determined or heritable. Once that distinction is in place, the problems for the Principle follow. Again, to put the point schematically for now: if "genetic" is used to mean genetically determined, then IQ is not genetic, and the Principle is therefore irrelevant. If "genetic" is used to mean heritable, then IQ is genetic but the Principle is false. In neither case, however, does the Principle support the Bell Curve's claim about genetic differences in IQ.
Two Senses of "Genetic"
[b]To understand The Bell Curve's fallacy, we need to distinguish two concepts: the ordinary idea of genetic determination and the scientific concept of heritability, on which all Herrnstein's and Murray's data rely. Genetic determination is a matter of what causes a characteristic: number of toes is genetically determined because our genes cause us to have five toes. Heritability, by contrast, is a matter of what causes differences in a characteristic: heritability of number of toes is a matter of the extent to which genetic differences cause variation in number of toes (that some cats have five toes, and some have six). Heritability is, therefore, defined as a fraction: it is the ratio of genetically caused variation to total variation (including both environmental and genetic variation). Genetic determination, by contrast, is an informal and intuitive notion which lacks quantitative definition, and depends on the idea of a normal environment. A characteristic could be said to be genetically determined if it is coded in and caused by the genes and bound to develop in a normal environment. Consequently, whereas genetic determination in a single person makes sense - my brown hair color is genetically determined - heritability makes sense only relative to a population in which individuals differ from one another - you can't ask "What's the heritability of my IQ?"
For example, the number of fingers on a human hand or toes on a human foot is genetically determined: the genes code for five fingers and toes in almost everyone, and five fingers and toes develop in any normal environment. But the heritability of number of fingers and toes in humans is almost certainly very low. That's because most of the variation in numbers of toes is environmentally caused, often by problems in fetal development. For example, when pregnant women took thalidomide some years ago, many babies had fewer than five fingers and toes. And if we look at numbers of fingers and toes in adults, we find many missing digits as a result of accidents. But genetic coding for six toes is rare in humans (though apparently not in cats). So genetically caused variation appears to be small compared to environmentally caused variation. If someone asks, then, whether numbers of toes is genetic or not, the right answer is: "it depends what you mean by genetic." The number of toes is genetically determined, but heritability is low because genes are not responsible for much of the variation.
Conversely, a characteristic can be highly heritable even if it is not genetically determined. Some years ago when only women wore earrings, the heritability of having an earring was high because differences in whether a person had an earring were "due" to a genetic (chromosomal) difference. Now that earrings are less gender-specific, the heritability of having an earring has no doubt decreased. But neither then nor now was having earrings genetically determined in anything like the manner of having five fingers. The heritability literature is full of cases like this: high measured heritabilities for characteristics whose genetic determination is doubtful. For example, the same methodology that yields 60 percent heritability for IQ also yields 50 percent heritability of academic performance and 40 percent heritability of occupational status. Obviously, occupational status is not genetically determined: genes do not code for working in a printed circuit factory.
More significantly, a child's environment is often a heritable characteristic, strange as this may seem. If degree of musical talent is highly heritable and if variation in the number of the child's music lessons depends on variation in musical talent, then the number of music lessons that a child gets may be heritable, too, despite not being genetically determined. In fact, recent studies of heritabilities of various features of childrens' environments show substantial heritabilities for many environmental features - for example, the "warmth" of the parents' behavior toward the child. Even number of hours of TV watched and number and variety of a childs' toys shows some heritability. If this seems unintelligible, think of it this way: variation in these environmental properties is in part due to variation in heritable characteristics of the child, and so the environmental characteristics themselves are heritable. Readers of The Bell Curve often suppose that a heritable characteristic is one that is passed down in the genes, but this identification is importantly flawed. The number and variety of a child's toys is not passed down in the genes. Heritability is a matter of the causation of differences, not what is "passed down". [/b]
The Case of IQ
I have given examples of traits that are genetically determined but not heritable and, conversely, traits that are heritable but not genetically determined. Do these weird examples have any relevance to the case of IQ? Maybe there is a range of normal cases, of which IQ is an example, for which the oddities that I've pointed to are just irrelevant.
Not so! In fact IQ is a great example of a trait that is highly heritable but not genetically determined. Recall that what makes toe number genetically determined is that having five toes is coded in and caused by the genes so as to develop in any normal environment. By contrast, IQ is enormously affected by normal environmental variation, and in ways that are not well understood. As Herrnstein and Murray concede, children from very low socio-economic status backgrounds who are adopted into high socio-economic status backgrounds have IQs dramatically higher than their parents. The point is underscored by what Herrnstein and Murray call the "Flynn Effect:" IQ has been rising about 3 points every 10 years worldwide. Since World War II, IQ in many countries has gone up 15 points, about the same as the gap separating Blacks and Whites in this country. And in some countries, the rise has been even more dramatic. For example, average IQ in Holland rose 21 points between 1952 and 1982. In a species in which toe number reacted in this way with environment (imagine a centipede-like creature which added toes as it ate more) I doubt that we would think of number of toes as genetically determined.
It is worth emphasizing the solidity of the data about the large IQ increases in Holland. The 21 point increase reported by Flynn is based on comprehensive testing of all Dutch 18 year olds who pass a medical exam (and there has been no change in the pass rate). The test used is Raven's Progressive Matrices, a widely respected "nonverbal test that is an especially good measure of g" (273). Even Richard Lynn, the arch-Jensenist who is the source of much of The Bell Curve's data on race concedes this point. He says "The magnitude of the increase has generally been found to be about three IQ points per decade, making fifteen points over a fifty year period. There have, however, been some larger gains among 18 year-old conscripts in The Netherlands and Belgium amounting to seven IQ points per decade." Lynn also mentions that similar results have been found in France. Herrnstein and Murray concede that "In some countries, the upward drift since World War II has been as much as a point a year for some spans of years" (308). In an area where the facts are often contested, it is notable that this set of facts seems to be accepted by both sides.
One very important conclusion from the Flynn data is that no one understands very much about how environmental variation differentially affects IQ. The cause of the large increases in Holland is simply unknown. Even Herrnstein and Murray concede that "relatively little [of the environmental variation in IQ] can be traced to the shared environments created by families. It is, rather, a set of environmental influences mostly unknown at present, that are experienced by individuals as individuals" (108; emphasis added). Indeed, the crucial factor that has enabled the research that Herrnstein and Murray report to exist at all is the fact that one can measure the heritability of a characteristic without having much of an idea of what the characteristic is. To calculate the heritability of IQ, we do not need to know what IQ tests measure; we need only be able to measure IQ - whatever it is - in various circumstances.
A few additional observations about heritability and IQ will underscore the need for great caution in drawing any inferences about the sources of differences in IQ. A common method for measuring heritability relies on comparisons of the correlations of IQ among one-egg twins raised by their biological parents compared with two-egg twins raised by their biological parents. Suppose your neighbor is one of triplets. One of them is your neighbor's one -egg twin, the other is his two egg (fraternal) twin. Suppose that you can predict the IQ of the one egg twin very reliably from the IQ of your neighbor, but your prediction of the IQ of the two egg twin will be much less reliable. This difference would be an indication of high heritability of IQ because one-egg twins share all their genes whereas two-egg twins normally share half their genes.
Heritability studies of IQ within White populations in the US and northern Europe have tended to yield moderately high heritabilities: Herrnstein's and Murray's 60 percent is a reasonable figure. But it is important to note that no one would do one of these heritability studies in a mixed Black/White population. The reason is straightforward: if you place a pair of Black one-egg twins in different environments "at random," you automatically fail to randomize environments. The Black twins will bring part of their environment with them; they are both Black and will be treated as Black.
Moreover, heritability - unlike genetic determination - can be very different in different populations. For example, the heritability of IQ could be decreased if half the population were chosen at random to receive IQ lowering brain damage: by damaging the brains of some people, you make the environmentally caused variation larger. Or suppose we could make a million clones of Newt Gingrich, raising them in very different environments so there would be some variation in IQ, all environmentally caused. Heritability in that population would be zero because the ratio of genetic variation to total variation is zero if the genetic variation is zero. To take a real example, the heritability of IQ increases throughout childhood into adulthood. One study gives heritability figures of under 20 percent in infancy, about 30 percent in childhood, 50 percent in adolescence, and a bit higher in adult life. Studies of older twins in Sweden report an 80 percent heritability figure for adults by age 50 as compared to a 50 percent heritability for children. One possible reason for the rise in heritability is that although the genetic variation remains the same, environmental variation decreases with age. Children have very different environments; some parents don't speak to their children, others are ever verbally probing and jousting. Adults in industrialized countries, by contrast, are to a greater degree immersed in the same culture (e.g., the same TV programs). With more uniform environments, the heritability goes up. I hope these points remove the temptation (exhibited in The Bell Curve) to think of the heritability of IQ as a constant (like the speed of light). Heritability is a population statistic just like birth rate or number of TVs and can be expected to change with changing circumstances. There is no reason to expect the heritability of IQ in India to be close to the heritability of IQ in Korea.
These issues are pathetically misunderstood by Charles Murray. In a CNN interview reported in The New Republic (January 2, 1995), Murray declared "When I - when we - say 60 percent heritability, it's not 60 percent of the variation. It is 60 percent of the IQ in any given person." Later, he repeated that for the average person, "60 percent of the intelligence comes from heredity" and added that this was true of the "human species," missing the point that heritability makes no sense for an individual and that heritability statistics are population-relative. In a letter to the editor in which Murray complains about being quoted out of context (January 30, 1995), Murray quotes more of what he had said: ". . . your IQ may have been determined overwhelmingly by genes or it may have been - yours personally - or overwhelmingly by environment. That can vary a lot from individual to individual. In the human species as a whole, you have a large genetic component." The Bell Curve itself does not make these embarrassing mistakes. Herrnstein, the late co-author, was a professional on these topics. But the upshot of part of this essay is that the book's main argument depends for some of its persuasive force on a more subtle conflation of heritability and genetic determination. And Murray's confusion serves to underscore just how difficult these concepts can be, even for someone so numerate as Murray.
What's the upshot of the distinction between genetic determination and heritability for the argument of The Bell Curve? Recall the sloth example: Toe number is genetic in sloths and in humans; there is a difference in toe number; so the toe-number difference is genetic. This is a good argument: it strains the imagination to suppose that the genetic toe difference between sloths and humans goes in the opposite direction from the observed toe difference. It is ludicrous to suppose that our genes code for two, despite the five we see at the beach. So in this sense the Herrnstein and Murray argument works for the concept of genetic determination. But the data on genes and IQ are about heritability, not genetic determination.
Is IQ genetically determined as well as heritable? No! As I already pointed out, IQ is very reactive to changes in environments in the normal range. Recall the example of the large rise in Holland. Further, the claim that IQ is genetically determined is not the kind of quantitative claim on which Herrnstein and Murray would want to base their claims about genes and race.
If "genetic" means genetically determined, then, IQ is not genetic in whites or anyone else (and in any case the issue is not quantitative), so the Fundamental Principle is irrelevant. If "genetic" means heritable, however, then IQ is largely genetic (among Whites in the US at least). But in next section I will show that in this sense of "genetic," the argument does not work because the Principle is false....
@kingston277 Glad to see you have gotten some use out of that Angola picture, there is a second wheeled vehicle picture in either Angola or the Congo I just can't remember where I saw it.
That said, sorry to leave the heavy lifting to you but I have little patience with pleep. Most people probably don't remember be he had this same topic going back before the big data wipe where him and @physicsPHD where going back and forth about Jews and IQ but it was essentially the same topic as this and other similar topics pleeps been throwing around for the past 2-3 years. Personally I marked him "lost cause" when he started espousing that "human biodiversity" talk.
...Below is a little ammo/provision pack for the cause.(I trust you to give a decent analysis)
Parachute drop
Data dump 1 of 2
The intelligence "g" concept also has a number of limitations and claims of "declining" or "static" non-white intelligence are undermined by the Flynn effect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Johnson, "Dome Improvement," WIRED MAGAZINE, MAY 2005 pp. 102-105 -------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man or Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences or any critique of The Bell Curve is liable to dismiss 10 as merely phrenology updated, a pseudoscience fronting for a host of racist and elitist ideologies that dare not speak their names.
These critics attack IQ itself - or, more precisely, what intelligence scholar Arthur Jensen called g, a measure of underlying "general" intelligence. Psychometricians measure g by performing a factor analysis of multiple intelligence tests and extracting a pattern of correlation between the measurements. (IQ is just one yardstick.) Someone with greater general intelligence than average should perform better on a range of different tests.
Unlike some skeptics, James Flynn didn't just dismiss g as statistical tap dancing. He accepted that something real was being measured, but he came to believe that it should be viewed along another axis: time. You can't just take a snapshot of g at one moment and make sense of it, Flynn says.
You have to track its evolution. He did just that. Suddenly, g became much more than a measure of mental ability. It revealed the rising trend line in intelligence test scores. And that, in turn, suggested that something in the environment - some social or cultural force - was driving the trend.
Significant intellectual breakthroughs -to paraphrase the John Lennon song - are what happen when you're busy making other plans. So it was with Flynn and his effect. He left the US in the early 1960s to teach moral philosophy at the University of Otaga in New Zealand. In the late '70s, he began exploring the intellectual underpinnings of racist ideologies. "And I thought: Oh, I can do a bit about the 10 controversies," he says. "And then I saw that Arthur Jensen, a scholar of high repute, actually thought that blacks on average were genetically inferior - which was quite a shock. I should say that Jensen was beyond reproach - he's certainly not a racist. And so I thought I'd better look into this." This inquiry led to a 1980 book, Race, IQ, and Jensen, that posited an environmental -not genetic - explanation for the black-white 10 gap. After finishing the book, Flynn decided that he would look for evidence that blacks were gaining on whites as their access to education increased, and so he began studying US military records, since every incoming member of the armed forces takes an IQ test.
[b] Sure enough, he found that blacks were making modest gains on whites in intelligence tests, confirming his environmental explanation. But something else in the data caught his eye. Every decade or so, the testing companies would generate new tests and re-normalize them so that the average score was 100. To make sure that the new exams were in sync with previous ones, they'd have a batch of students take both tests. They were simply trying to confirm that someone who tested above average on the new version would perform above average on the old, and in fact the results confirmed that correlation. But the data also brought to light another pattern, one that the testing companies ignored. "Every time kids took the new and the old tests, they did better on the old ones," Flynn says. "I thought: That's weird."
The testing companies had published the comparative data almost as an afterthought. "It didn't seem to strike them as interesting that the kids were always doing better on the earlier test," he says. "But I was new to the area." He sent his data to the Harvard Educational Review, which dismissed the paper for its small sample size. And so Flynn dug up every study that had ever been done in the US where the same subjects took a new and an old version of an IQ test. "And lo and behold, when you examined that huge collection of data, it revealed a 14-point gain between 1932 and 1978." According to Flynn's numbers, if someone testing in the top 18 percent the year FDR was elected were to time-travel to the middle of the Carter administration, he would score at the 50th percentile. [/b] When Flynn finally published his work in 1984, Jensen objected that Flynn's numbers were drawing on tests that reflected educational background. He predicted that the Flynn effect would disappear if one were to look at tests - like the Raven Progressive Matrices - that give a closer approximation of gr, by measuring abstract reasoning and pattern recognition and eliminating language altogether. And so Flynn dutifully collected IQ data from all over the world. All of it showed dramatic increases. "The biggest of all were on Ravens," Flynn reports with a hint of glee still in his voice.
The trend Flynn discovered in the mid-'80s has been investigated extensively, and there's little doubt he's right. In fact, the Flynn effect is accelerating. US test takers gained 17 IQ points between 1947 and 2001. The annual gain from 1947 through 1972 was 0.3110 point, but by the '90s it had crept up to 0.36.
Though the Flynn effect is now widely accepted, its existence has in turn raised new questions. The most fundamental: Why are measures of intelligence going up? The phenomenon would seem to make no sense in light of the evidence that g is largely an inherited trait. We're certainly not evolving that quickly.
The classic heritability research paradigm is the twin adoption study: Look at IQ scores for thousands of individuals with various forms of shared genes and environments, and hunt for correlations. This is the sort of chart you get, with 100 being a perfect match and 0 pure randomness: The same person tested twice 87 Identical twins raised together 86 Identical twins raised apart 76 Fraternal twins raised together 55 Biological siblings 47 Parents and children living together 40 Parents and children living apart 31 Adopted children living together 0 Unrelated people living apart 0
After analyzing these shifting ratios of shared genes and the environment for several decades, the consensus grew, in the '90s, that heritability for IQ was around 0.6 - or about 60 percent. The two most powerful indications of this are at the top and bottom of the chart: Identical twins raised in different environments have IQs almost as similar to each other as the same person tested twice, while adopted children living together - shared environment, but no shared genes - show no correlation. When you look at a chart like that, the evidence for significant heritability looks undeniable.
Four years ago, Flynn and William Dickens, a Brookings Institution economist, proposed another explanation, one made apparent to them by the Flynn effect. Imagine "somebody who starts out with a tiny little physiological advantage: He's just a bit taller than his friends," Dickens says. "That person is going to be just a bit better at basketball." Thanks to this minor height advantage, he tends to enjoy pickup basketball games. He goes on to play in high school, where he gets excellent coaching and accumulates more experience and skill. "And that sets up a cycle that could, say, take him all the way to the NBA," Dickens says.
Now imagine this person has an identical twin raised separately. He, too, will share the height advantage, and so be more likely to find his way into the same cycle. And when some imagined basketball geneticist surveys the data at the end of that cycle, he'll report that two identical twins raised apart share an off-the-charts ability at basketball. "If you did a genetic analysis, you'd say: Well, this guy had a gene that made him a better basketball player," Dickens says. "But the fact is, that gene is making him 1 percent better, and the other 99 percent is that because he's slightly taller, he got all this environmental support." And what goes for basketball goes for intelligence: Small genetic differences get picked up and magnified in the environment, resulting in dramatically enhanced skills. "The heritability studies weren't wrong," Flynn says. "We just misinterpreted them."
Dickens and Flynn showed that the environment could affect heritable traits like 10, but one mystery remained: What part of our allegedly dumbed-down environment is making us smarter? It's not schools, since the tests that measure education-driven skills haven't shown the same steady gains. It's not nutrition - general improvement in diet leveled off in most industrialized countries shortly after World War II, just as the Flynn effect was accelerating.
Most cognitive scholars remain genuinely perplexed. "I find it a puzzle and don't have a compelling explanation," wrote Harvard's Steven Pinker in an email exchange. "I suspect that it's either practice at taking tests or perhaps a large number of disparate factors that add up to the linear trend."
Flynn has his theories, though they're still speculative. "For a long time it bothered me that g was going up without an across-the-board increase in other tests," he says. If g measured general intelligence, then a long-term increase should trickle over into other subtests. "And then I realized that society has priorities. Let's say we're too cheap to hire good high school math teachers. So while we may want to improve arithmetical reasoning skills, we just don't. On the other hand, with smaller families, more leisure, and more energy to use leisure for cognitively demanding pursuits, we may improve - without realizing it -on-the-spot problem-solving, like you see with Ravens."
When you take the Ravens test, you're confronted with a series of visual grids, each containing a mix of shapes that seem vaguely related to one another. Each grid contains a missing shape; to answer the implicit question posed by the test, you need to pick the correct missing shape from a selection of eight possibilities. To "solve" these puzzles, in other words, you have to scrutinize a changing set of icons, looking for unusual patterns and correlations among them. This is not the kind of thinking that happens when you read a book or have a conversation with someone or take a history exam. But it is precisely the kind of mental work you do when you, say, struggle to program a VCR or master the interface on your new cell phone.
Damn, I'm over hear asking academic questions(well I think they are practical but anyway....)
I turn on the news and find that some white guy walked into the AME(African Methodist Episcopal) church cofounded by Denmark Vesey opened fire and killed 9 people including a state senator from South Carolina. Have a feeling this is going to be a long crazy summer.
@AAinEqGuinea I'm glad you caught/mentioned that which is why I added the video and the link. Though I'm surprised you didn't check and see that the drunk guy was suspected of assaulting a woman on the street earlier before being stopped.
That said it allows me to open the real question....... (BTW, no this wasn't a bait thread but I did have other things swirling around my head)
1. What do you think happens at the tipping point of people feeling that if I.... a. comply with the police I'm victimized b. Leave/run from the situation I'm victimized c. fight back I'm victimized
Will people opt out of society all together**move to an all black area, leave U.S, etc** / go on the offensive attacking societal structures before those structures attacks them. / Something else all together.
NOTE: What people should do and what they often likely will do are different things.
2. On the question of appropriate force: in what tangible*everyone can see it, smell it, touch it* circumstances do you feel a police officer should shoot a suspect with a gun versus using non-lethal deterrents such as mace, stun gun, etc.
NOTE: I don't deal in the "perfect victim scenarios" that conversation leads full circle right back to question number one of If I feel no matter what response I take I'll be victimized What response do I take.
Hey he died but at least he tested the fight back rout.... <-- this was actually my initial and still main response to the story. Ol' boy was swinging that pole like a champ
apparently he couldn't speak English and was drunk. When the officer questioned him he walked off and got a flag pole and started swinging on the officer. Apparently the "trained law enforcement officer" couldn't deescalate with a drunk flagpole waving guy and shot him twice(maybe he left his pepper spray or tazer in the car ...hell, a billy club would work on a drunk ).
In his case 9 officers were fired......they hardly ever go to jail(I wonder can they get a job in a different police force)
Nine Georgia deputies have been fired in connection with the death of a 21-year-old student in Savannah, Georgia, authorities announced Friday
The firings are related to the case of Matthew Ajibade, who died in an isolation cell on New Year’s Day, said Gena Bilbo, the Chatham County Sheriff’s spokeswoman.
Meh, this seems like one of those cases of the "vocal minority" I find that these people are usually folks from immigrant heavy places like (NYC, DC, etc.) people such as myself who didn't grow up in immigrant heavy places like that don't seem to spout that kinda stuff. My interaction with people on the continent, newly from there, or grew up outside of places like NYC,DC, etc are cool ass hell when I speak to them.
You are always going to have the odd man out no matter were they come from especially if they had a hard childhood but the overwhelming majority of people I meet from Africa are ok.
Example: I liken it to something I saw about women complaining about being harassed on the street. They blow it up as though it applies to every women in the U.S. even though it's basically a dense urban issue in a place like NYC. In the south most people drive everywhere because things are so spaced out. People are barely in a position to speak to people who aren't there immediate neighbors unless they are in a store, school, work, or parking lot. The culture is just different down here but you have certain women screaming from the hip as though their problems are reflective of everyone else's experience.
Mitsurugi: I've always wondered why there is so much hullabaloo whenever a lady bares a generous portion of her cleavage, but then the world would go gaga if she was to leave her home on a hot day clad in only boxer shorts to buy boli across her crib. Are breasts PRIVATE PARTS in the true sense of the word? So I have to ask why is it indecent for a lady to bare her (beautiful) bosoms in public and not so for the guys?
Mitsurugi: I've always wondered why there is so much hullabaloo whenever a lady bares a generous portion of her cleavage, but then the world would go gaga if she was to leave her home on a hot day clad in only boxer shorts to buy boli across her crib. Are breasts PRIVATE PARTS in the true sense of the word? So I have to ask why is it indecent for a lady to bare her (beautiful) bosoms in public and not so for the guys?
From a previous post
RandomAfricanAm: I don't think anything is inherently wrong with "Unclad girls" or na.ked girls/people at all. Nu.dity was/is religious European & Arab insecurities that was imparted on others. I have a problem with trying to market sex in an attempt to sell me something as though it's some kind of common denominator that goes with everything from Breakfast cereal to New cars.
Actually ...I don't have a problem with "Unclad girls" or sex. I have a problem with insulting lots of peoples intelligence by lazily pandering to the idea of ("Unclad girls" or sex) to sell stuff.
It's like Hollywood movies where everything has to have a love interest and a happy ending. It's just lazy, be adventurous and explore the world of ideas!
I.E People care because some of our ancestors spent to much time listening to foreigners, fakers, and fools !!!
That said I have to fall back on my principles. If they are going to mass protest that protest should be used to galvanize enough people to stop whatever business Indonesia is doing in Nigeria. If an embasy is there it is to facilitate business of some sort. Find out what that is and disrupt it. If it is a truly pan African organization in the sense of having branches/contacts across the continent / diaspora then the Indonesians should effectively face a pan-African embargo on doing business in Africa until thy leave West Papua.
To be clear you don't even have to burn or shoot up anything. Just make sure the trucks don't move. When they can't conduct business they will get the picture.
The point of the protest is to: 1. Issue a warning and state demands 2. Gather talent to plan and act out those warnings
You're just joking other wise.
You have to gunk up the system until it grinds to a holt or else people will look out the window at the protesters and go on about their business.
Culture › Re: 3 Feminist Things That Nigeria Gets Right Better Than The West by RandomAfricanAm: 4:37pm On Sep 20, 2015
...maybe that's a topic for later. 
Parachute drop 
