19 Feb 2024 7:16 am
(PART II OF III)
I wrote: In his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney writes, "Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism." https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney and many others have documented how, although the African continent possesses a proverbial embarrassment of riches relative to natural resources, colonialism and imperialism have kept Africa impoverished through the underpayment for and the outright theft of those resources by Americans and Europeans."
After deleting the final fifteen words in my last sentence, Cannonpointer dismissed my point by writing, "Yeah, yeah, yeah - there be racism." Impressive.
Cannonpointer: "Didn't keep the Jews down. They didn't have a state and were often disenfranchised and universally regarded with suspicion and hostility - and STILL they prospered. They are to this day the recipients of - what was that term you ran from defending? - so-called "anti-semitism." Yes, they PROSPER."
"Yes, they [Jews] prosper." Notice that Cannonpointer didn't write, "Many Jews prosper," or say, "A lot of Jews prosper." He wrote, "...they prosper." The assertion that all Jews are prosperous is a myth perpetuated by those given to anti-Jewry and right-wing Jewish chauvinists/Zionists. The reality that approximately 15% of American Jews live below the official poverty line is enough to understand that claim's mythical nature.
Cannonpointer: "That leads to the question you keep ducking. Sub-Saharan Africans - with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum. Jews, NOT SO **** MUCH. So what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy that you keep ducking, dancer?"
"...with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum.'
I have no idea what that means. Per "... what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy...?,"
All social factors being equal, which they aren't, there's no difference. Additionally, since Cannonpointer alludes to IQ, few things in life are more culturally biased than IQ tests. They have a strong bias toward white, middle-income groups. As such, "IQ" tests measure knowledge more familiar to white, middle-income groups. Even within the realm of their supposed legitimacy, it's not a coincidence that the two groups who score highest on IQ, Ashkenazi Jews and the Japanese, both combine cultures that value education with diets high in oily fish, which is supposed to be suitable for neurological development. Historically, the Scots have also scored amazingly above their weight in science and technology on good education and a diet that, until recently, was heavy on herring, oatmeal, kale, and red wine.
But what if Kalahari bushmen, thicket-dwelling pygmies, and other racialized people were less intelligent than Europeans? Would it cause typically insecure racists to feel better about themselves? Would it prove some "superiority" of white Europeans? Or would it, more importantly, "justify" the theft of their resources by Europeans and Americans? (Continued in PART III).
http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf
(END OF PART II)