Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Retards can be happy if they are not told that they are as good as everyone else and put into the same society to be jealous and then feel cheated when they cannot make it. A society of retards might crumble upon itself, but it would be best. the world could live without us, and we'd have at least one generation of happy Negros.

Alrighty, let's do this... Just a little note that my arguments will seem slightly crappy because I'm trying to go quickly.

At 9/2/09 03:51 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: White guys fuck all the girls in japan, but they don't have babies.

Wait what? Yes, they do have babies (Unless they can't give birth at all or are using condoms(. They're different races, not different species.

They get to party and have a good time.

So other races can't?

Also, Blacks are considered extremely ugly by all other races,

Prove it. Also, generalizations are wrong.

We'll always be jealous, so we'll never have pride and therefore, we will have no morale to do anything.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of blacks that are fine with their lives and are actually doing stuff.

We cannot aspire to be something that we are not.

Unless you have enough money for surgery

We might never have technology as an African People, but we can be happy and more productive,e ven if it is on an agricultural level, so long as we are not exposed to or taken advantage of by our enemies.

And again, plenty of blacks are productive and fine with their lives, and I'm pretty sure a good amount of them who have and know how how technology.

Violent AJ you do know that Pox is making fun of you right?

At 9/2/09 04:11 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: The world could live without us, and we'd have at least one generation of happy Negros.

God damn I hate you and everything you stand for.

At 9/2/09 04:22 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Violent AJ you do know that Pox is making fun of you right?

Pox and people like him are making fun of all negros, but facts are facts. I cannot argue with the facts except with lies. Like everyone else, I'd like to be the alpha male and aI'd like to be on top, but it's hard when everyone else can beat you down with the truth. That's why I believe that we should separate as a race so that we could be Alpha males in our own societies.

AJ my Neighbor is black he has a college degree and is a professer teaching sociology (Ironic isn't it?) at a local state university in my town and he is intelligent like CRAZY, plus he has a japanese wife (Actually from japan) and they met in college and now there married and have kids.

At 9/2/09 04:32 PM, ViolentAJ wrote:

At 9/2/09 04:22 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Violent AJ you do know that Pox is making fun of you right?

Pox and people like him are making fun of all negros, but facts are facts. I cannot argue with the facts except with lies. Like everyone else, I'd like to be the alpha male and aI'd like to be on top, but it's hard when everyone else can beat you down with the truth. That's why I believe that we should separate as a race so that we could be Alpha males in our own societies.

sat%u22C5ire-noun 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

(Assuming Dante is Right) He's not making fun of all negroes, he's making fun of YOU. What he is saying isn't actually what he believes, he's just saying it in a way to make you look stupid.

At 9/2/09 04:19 PM, CaptainChip wrote: Alrighty, let's do this... Just a little note that my arguments will seem slightly crappy because I'm trying to go quickly.

At 9/2/09 03:51 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: White guys fuck all the girls in japan, but they don't have babies.

They use protection and/or birth control.

Wait what? Yes, they do have babies (Unless they can't give birth at all or are using condoms(. They're different races, not different species.

They get to party and have a good time.

So other races can't?

Other races can, excluding Negros.

Also, Blacks are considered extremely ugly by all other races,

Prove it. Also, generalizations are wrong.

Pox proves it. We also know that Asians generally dislike Black looks. Most people are east asian. Add that to the latinos, who are generally very eurocentric in beauty standards and non-liberal whites.

We'll always be jealous, so we'll never have pride and therefore, we will have no morale to do anything.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of blacks that are fine with their lives and are actually doing stuff.

There are a handful, but we will still be, as a whole, considered unattractive and for the most part genetically inferior.

We cannot aspire to be something that we are not.

Unless you have enough money for surgery

Look at Michael jackson. He was still quite whack in the head. Most Blacks will never have the money to do it, so it's best to love ourselves as we are.

We might never have technology as an African People, but we can be happy and more productive,e ven if it is on an agricultural level, so long as we are not exposed to or taken advantage of by our enemies.

And again, plenty of blacks are productive and fine with their lives, and I'm pretty sure a good amount of them who have and know how how technology.

There are a handful, but I'm speaking about majorities. I don't live for exceptions when others can have the rule.

Trust me, if you are, in fact, inferior to the majority of the population, it has nothing to do with your race.

Oh, and for pox's edification, because I know you'll ignore this just like you ignore everything:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b10 3/f00/web2/ramon2.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/02/23/MN9 4378.DTL
http://physanth.org/association/position -statements/biological-aspects-of-race

At 9/2/09 04:32 PM, ViolentAJ wrote:

Pox and people like him are making fun of all negros,

No, not really.
Just you mostly.

And what I'm saying ( like that last post ) isn't just to make fun of AJ.
Blacks DO underachieve in about any realm imaginable when given the same opportunities as everyone else.

But to say they should all be put on a boat and shipped back to Africa is hella retarded and to focus exclusively on a weird fetish about getting in bed with asian chicks is even funnier.

But hey, if anyone actually wants to turn this thread into a non-shitfest, feel free to challenge me and prove that Sub-Saharan Africans as a race or a nation ( group of nations ) is equal to the rest of the world in any way, shape or form.

At 9/2/09 03:00 PM, poxpower wrote: There's no difference between races? That sounds impossibly retarded.
Explain what you mean by that.

biologically, there aren't any races; i.e. there is more genetic diversity between blacks than there is between blacks and other races. the common racial divisions (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, ...[sometimes there are more]) are extremely general and, in fields such as forensic anthropology, at best offer an educated guess as to the race of a certain individual based on cranial/facial, and body structures.
the term "race" also happens to have many differing definitions, and there is no consensus on what races really are "races" as we are discussing at the moment.

Well you're the big expert here. Please enlighten us all.
Remember that we're talking about Sub-Saharan Africa. So if you were planning a huge dissertation about Egypt or the Middle East, then whoops, sorry.

other than informing people that Africa was home to numerous kingdoms and empires with "advanced" technologies (relative to the times [some, such as steel, outdoing their European counterparts]) until the time of the slave trade and colonialism it would be difficult to list sub-Saharan Africa's history in any particular detail here. in short these kingdoms and empires relied on high-intensity agriculture (a number of crops and animals likely being domesticated by natives), expansive trade routes (reaching the Middle-East, India and possibly China), advanced metallurgy (i.e. the steel i mentioned above), written language (Ethiopia [there is also the distinct possibility that Semitic languages may have originated in Ethiopia]) and the ability to build large/monumental structures. information on African history is readily available on wikipedia (not where i got my information from to begin with, but it does give plenty of information on the things i mentioned).

At 9/2/09 06:14 PM, Ravariel wrote:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b10 3/f00/web2/ramon2.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/02/23/MN9 4378.DTL
http://physanth.org/association/position -statements/biological-aspects-of-race

Well first obvious thing is that they start off by saying "there is no such thing as race".
Which is extremely dishonest because all they do is say that the differences between different people is not ENOUGH to be called "races".

Wow, big deal, what does that prove? Nothing.
What does that refute? Nothing.

The second part, in the third article, is the interesting bit:

"The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. "

My that's interesting indeed! How did they figure that out? What is this based on? Why do they say "appear to possess"? Why didn't they say "possess"?
What are "peoples"?
What is a "culture"? Does that include being smarter?

?

In the meantime, black people continue to underperform everywhere. Will we ever find out if it's genetic? It's hard to say with humans.
There are just too many variables to account for and too many ways to escape a conclusion. In the case of IQ tests for instance, there are many ways to opt out of the conclusions, many of which are valid, but all of which remain untested.

At 9/2/09 08:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

with "advanced" technologies (relative to the times [some, such as steel, outdoing their European counterparts])

Sources are appreciated.

until the time of the slave trade and colonialism

When is that? They were being enslaved as far back as when Egyptians ruled.

expansive trade routes (reaching the Middle-East, India and possibly China),

Who made the routes? Was it them or were the routes established by others? Did they go all the way to China or did the Chinese go all the way to Africa?

advanced metallurgy (i.e. the steel i mentioned above),

Source??

written language (Ethiopia [there is also the distinct possibility that Semitic languages may have originated in Ethiopia])

You'll notice that it's close to the red sea and has a history of being colonized by people namely Arabs, Romans and Byzantines.
What exactly did the native African people of that place ever do? If they even were there at the time it was being exploited by other nations?

and the ability to build large/monumental structures. information on African history

I'm not going to find your sources for you. I don't even know what you're talking about and googling is so fucking slow in this internet here and constantly gives shit results.
Remember that this is a question of race, not a question strictly of geography. My argument is that people who ORIGINATED in southern Africa pretty much did nothing of note in their history.

Wether that can be linked to some kind of inferiority in their genes is not the question and is not relevant to that point.

One thing I do know they did were the Easter Island heads. I'd have to check and see who actually were the people on that Island though, I'm not really sure they were Africans.
In any case their mad dreams of giant heads is what caused their ruin as they stripped the entire island of trees to move the statues around, which caused mudslides and made all the animals on the island get the hell out of there. Without food, they turned to cannibalism until they were all dead.

But the heads sure are nice. It's no Sphinx but... they sure are... heads.

At 9/2/09 09:34 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/09 08:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

Sources are appreciated.

Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. wiki has numerous articles on different African kingdoms, those would have specifics. and advanced is obviously relevant to the times

until the time of the slave trade and colonialism

When is that? They were being enslaved as far back as when Egyptians ruled.

not sure, i haven't studied African history so i do have limited knowledge, one wiki article made mension of a time period from the 7th to 18th century but i didn't read into whether this was referring to a specific set of kingdoms or not.

expansive trade routes (reaching the Middle-East, India and possibly China),

Who made the routes? Was it them or were the routes established by others? Did they go all the way to China or did the Chinese go all the way to Africa?

trade routes aren't easy to give origins to as people generally don't jump from one geographic location to the next but are dependant on overlapping spheres of influence. Ethiopa and Arabia traded extensively, Arabia and India traded extensively, China and India had a fair amount of trade between the two (China was somewhat inconsistent with its trading as its emperors would open and close trade on a whim), eventually resulting in knowledge for distant lands (i.e. Africa and India [sometimes China]) to begin trading more directly. but East-Africans did have the ability to trade overseas (mainly with India).
who opened the trade routes, for trade routes of this size, is also somewhat irrelevant as establishing trade with such distant lands requires the ability to support these trades.

advanced metallurgy (i.e. the steel i mentioned above),

Source??

Jared Diamond.

written language (Ethiopia [there is also the distinct possibility that Semitic languages may have originated in Ethiopia])

You'll notice that it's close to the red sea and has a history of being colonized by people namely Arabs, Romans and Byzantines.
What exactly did the native African people of that place ever do? If they even were there at the time it was being exploited by other nations?

Ethiopa has a history of independent rule (well, African rule).
also; most of the things that gave Europeans an advantage over other peoples came from outside of Europe; writing (from the Middle-East), agriculture/domesticated plants & animals (Middle-East), firearms (Middle-East, from China), etc...
cultural advancements seem to be much more closely tied to trade and population size than any other factors such as biology, or even IQ (Asians have IQs superior to Causasians yet their histories indicate considerable amounts of technological self-destruction (i.e. ancient China [among other things they destroyed their superior seafaring capabilities for no reason] and Japan [guns? guns are bad for the Samurai way!]). (Jared Diamond again)

One thing I do know they did were the Easter Island heads. I'd have to check and see who actually were the people on that Island though, I'm not really sure they were Africans.
In any case their mad dreams of giant heads is what caused their ruin as they stripped the entire island of trees to move the statues around, which caused mudslides and made all the animals on the island get the hell out of there. Without food, they turned to cannibalism until they were all dead.

But the heads sure are nice. It's no Sphinx but... they sure are... heads.

those were Austronesians (who also settled in Madagascar).

At 9/2/09 09:12 AM, bcdemon wrote: Holy shite, 7 pages dedicated to arguing with a guy who wants to be a black nazi.
WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT PEOPLE? Seriously, I am curious why so much interest in this thread.

BC you know NG loves a good troll and an idiotic thread. Remember the Illegalize Masterbation threat that still rears it's head from time to time.

At 9/2/09 09:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Well first obvious thing is that they start off by saying "there is no such thing as race".
Which is extremely dishonest because all they do is say that the differences between different people is not ENOUGH to be called "races".

Um, no that's not what they say at all. The issue is that there is no consistentgenetic variuation that exists that can delineate races. As there is no cinsistent factor at which we can point to say this person is race A and this other person is race B, then scientifically, there is no such thing as race. Also, racial lines are culturally defined... each separate culture views race in a different way. In Brazil, a person can actually change their race. In the Seychelles, there is no real concept of racial division at all.

Wow, big deal, what does that prove? Nothing.
What does that refute? Nothing.

It proves there is no biological basis for race.

"The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. "

My that's interesting indeed! How did they figure that out?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had to list actual anthropological and DNA studies, and effectively give you a 4-year BS in Anthropology and Sociology with a minor in genetics on a message board.

READ THE FUCKING PAPERS. If you want to know "how they figured it out", then read their fucking research. If you're not willing, you're no better than AJ here.

What is this based on?

See above: read their fucking research.

Why do they say "appear to possess"? Why didn't they say "possess"?

...seriously?

What are "peoples"?

........SERIOUSLY!?

Come on, pox... you're fucking better than this.

What is a "culture"? Does that include being smarter?

"Culture" is the learned, shared understanding among a group of people about how to behave and what everything means.

As to your second question; no.

In the meantime, black people continue to underperform everywhere. Will we ever find out if it's genetic? It's hard to say with humans.

Here's a hint: It's not genetic.

There are just too many variables to account for and too many ways to escape a conclusion. In the case of IQ tests for instance, there are many ways to opt out of the conclusions, many of which are valid, but all of which remain untested.

You really need to take some basic anthro and sociology courses, dude. This is freshman-level stuff.

When is that? They were being enslaved as far back as when Egyptians ruled.

European colonialism fucked up Africa far beyond slave trade, and in far more ways than can be enumerated or taught on a message board. Suffice it to say, it has led to hundreds of years of war, poverty, and cultural isolation that has stunted the growth of African society.

Who made the routes? Was it them or were the routes established by others? Did they go all the way to China or did the Chinese go all the way to Africa?

Another one of those minor details that you really should discover for yourself. Read up on the Silk Road, Magellan and other African issues. Inform yourself, instead of sitting there proudly proclaiming your ignorance as if it's evidence of your veracity.

What exactly did the native African people of that place ever do? If they even were there at the time it was being exploited by other nations?

They are the root of all popular music in the WORLD right now... much of it through their own designs, and all in SPITE OF (not because of) their subjugation by other nations.

I mean, what have the Native Americans ever done? What have the Romani ever done? What have the Jews ever done? You seriously need to educate your ass on history, not just factoids... you need to learn about the cultures in specific and broad strokes, and observe where they interact with others and how they chang those cultures they touch, and how they themselves change.

Remember that this is a question of race, not a question strictly of geography. My argument is that people who ORIGINATED in southern Africa pretty much did nothing of note in their history.

You would be wrong, and right... depending on what cultural import you give things. If your only measure of "of note" is technology or industry, then it could be said they have done little. If, instead, you view human culture as more than just the advancement of technology, then you might realize that there's more to their culture than you originally thought.

...but I'm afraid that requires work on your part to educate yourself. I've taken half a dozen or more University courses on anthropology, sociology, and culture and I can only grasp the broadest notions of how the cultures around the world have interacted and helped each other advance (and regress). This isn't something we as posters can do for you, post links that will answer every question you have with perfect clarity. Some questions only have the basest of hints as answer, and we all know how much you love ambiguity and uncertainty... but YOU are the one who'll have to do it. Sol and I have given you the starting blocks... it's up to you to use them to improve your perspective.

At 9/2/09 11:15 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

Gun, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

What if I don't have that book?

wiki has numerous articles on different African kingdoms

Like what?

not sure, i haven't studied African history so i do have limited knowledge, one wiki article made mension of a time period from the 7th to 18th century but i didn't read into whether this was referring to a specific set of kingdoms or not.

So let's say 7th century. Where are these grand technologically advanced sub-Saharan kingdoms that were started by Africans?

expansive trade routes (reaching the Middle-East, India and possibly China),

trade routes aren't easy to give origins to as people generally don't jump from one geographic location to the next but are dependant on overlapping spheres of influence.

No one's saying that "the American Indians established trade routes to the Americas".
So unless you're damn sure sub-saharan Africans established said routes, why use that as proof?

Ethiopa and Arabia traded extensively

Ethiopia being an extension of the Arabic kingdom and ruled by Arabs for the most part of its history.

who opened the trade routes, for trade routes of this size, is also somewhat irrelevant

No, not really, as it's a feat to pioneer a trade route whereas it's not one to sit in your village and trade with the people who come from 1000 miles away on their camels to bring you shit.

Ethiopa has a history of independent rule (well, African rule).

Woops
http://books.google.ca/books?id=djERCIDR nlQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=axumite+race&so urce=bl&ots=fY30w2QvaX&sig=eAaSLLtLkrpi0 VXGsKPXgBTC6V0&hl=en&ei=BUOfSuDxMMnklAeX i4SQDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res num=2#v=onepage&q=axumite%20race&f=false

As suspected, the kingdom of Axum was probably made up of a mix of Arabs and possibly black people.

Not to mention that they don't seem to have one invention to their name and their written language is just a rip off of someone else's.

:O

On top of which the location of that empire can difficultly categorized as sub-saharan seeing as it's on the very northern edge of that area and near trade routes and the sea. It's barely out of the desert
http://geology.com/records/sahara-desert -map.gif

What else you got?

cultural advancements seem to be much more closely tied to trade and population size

The renaissance and the 400 years that follow would disagree with you on that.
They left China, India and the Middle East eating their dust all the while trading with them like never before.
Advancement is about culture first and foremost, I'd say.

The Jews own much of the media. They push these Black faces int he media, which is both good and bad for Blacks. It portrays Blacks as all rappers and ganstas, and Black youth eat it up. However, it's about the only way we get any "pseudo-decent" exposure in the world.

My biggest gripe is hypocrisy. Yes, Japanese had their own grand civilization, but most of the time when I browse WN forums, people praise them for USING technology, yet if when Blacks use technology from other cultures (not just to look at pr0n nowadays, of course, but in the past when they used steel for instance), they are knocked for having not invented it.

At 9/2/09 11:54 PM, Ravariel wrote:

As there is no cinsistent factor at which we can point to say this person is race A and this other person is race B,

While the genetic differences are not isolated or strong enough to define clear-cut races, there is still no denying that there are many different kinds of humans who share different physical traits at a variable rate.

No matter what word you pick to name this is irrelevant. Race, culture, ethnicity, ancestry. Whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genet ic_variation

Just because the variation is not big or clear-cut enough to be called "races" ( which is just a semantics issue like saying "a people" or " a culture" ) doesn't mean certain traits aren't more common or concentrated in certain areas.

"Forensic anthropologists can determine race (e.g. Asian, African, or European ancestry) from skeletal remains with a high degree of accuracy by conducting bone analysis.[16] Studies have shown that individual test methods such as midfacial measurements and femur traits can be over 80 percent accurate, and in combination can achieve high levels of accuracy. The skeletons of mixed-race individuals can, however, exhibit characteristics of more than one racial group. Despite the success of this method with the remains of individuals with ancestry predominantly from a single race, anthropologists, including George W. Gill and C. Loring Brace, disagree on whether race is a valid biological concept.[1"

People from Sub-Saharan countries have a very diverse gene pool but it can still be traced back to Africa and that is the question: is that gene pool different than other gene pools and in what way does this manifest, say, on an intellectual level, if it does at all?

Basically, we know that the rest of the world split from Africa 50 000 ish years ago, which is roughly 25 to 50% that the homo sapiens race has existed.

I'd say it's a pretty bold claim to say nothing of note could possibly have happened during that time to our genes.

See above: read their fucking research.

Yes the "read these 50 books" way of arguing.

European colonialism fucked up Africa far beyond slave trade, and in far more ways than can be enumerated or taught on a message board.

Yes that's a great argument.
I would refute it, but that takes more effort than can be posted on a message board.

Another one of those minor details that you really should discover for yourself.

Your arguments basically are "prove yourself wrong".
???

They are the root of all popular music in the WORLD right now... much of it through their own designs, and all in SPITE OF (not because of) their subjugation by other nations.

What are you even talking about?

then you might realize that there's more to their culture than you originally thought.

Like what? Name 3 things.

Sol and I have given you the starting blocks... it's up to you to use them to improve your perspective.

You didn't really say anything beyond the obvious "humans can't be divided by races like animals can".
Which no one really claimed since like... 100 years ago.

If Blacks were truly equal, we would have had guns to defend ourselves and resist colonization and slavers. I honestly don't believe that all slaves brought over by europeans were sold by their own people. I'm sure that there were slaving expeditions. However, I do know that the arabs (and chinese, which proves my asians hate Blacks Theory) were far worse.

I don't believe that I should suck up to whites at all, especially since many of them are condescending. I respect them, and hopefully, they'll respect me. In this country, I still have a right to the second amendment, and I'd frag any Klansman or japanese woman that tried to attack me, just as I advise any citizen to defend themselves if savage negro animals attack them.

At 9/3/09 02:04 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/09 11:54 PM, Ravariel wrote: They are the root of all popular music in the WORLD right now... much of it through their own designs, and all in SPITE OF (not because of) their subjugation by other nations.

What are you even talking about?

I think he's talking about slave music and subsequently jazz. Obviously such music lies in the lineage of all modern pop... but so does standard western music theory. Infact, the initial contribution has been so abstracted by now I think it's really hard to make Rav's case - particularly when you look at the way standard western theory has survived.

On a side note... to do something in spite of something else is to do something because of something else. Wrong dichotomy.

Pox, your arguments are basically stating that you're unwilling to learn and flaunting your own ignorance of how races are defined and the history of an entire continent as "proof" of your ideas. Until you educate yourself, and can form an opinion on more than just cherrypicked quotes and "stuff you've heard from people", then I'm done with you. Feel free to jauntily express your "victory" to the thread.

At 9/3/09 10:20 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: I think he's talking about slave music and subsequently jazz. Obviously such music lies in the lineage of all modern pop... but so does standard western music theory. Infact, the initial contribution has been so abstracted by now I think it's really hard to make Rav's case - particularly when you look at the way standard western theory has survived.

Just because most music has many roots does not alter the fact that the form, specific progressions and lyrical style of all popular music are based in the Blues... and necessarily from the music that came before, such as field hollers. Yes, western tonality is the structure upon which this music is based, but there is much more to music than mere tonality and even theory.

On a side note... to do something in spite of something else is to do something because of something else. Wrong dichotomy.

Fair enough. My point was that their music survived with minimal support from the ruling class, and often direct opposition.

At 9/3/09 01:04 PM, Ravariel wrote: Pox, your arguments are basically stating that you're unwilling to learn and flaunting your own ignorance of how races are defined and the history of an entire continent as "proof" of your ideas.

Well I have news for you: I know all your answers and they're all wrong. Look for yourself, you'll see that you were wrong all along.

What? You don't want to? That just shows you're unwilling to educate yourself.

Just because most music has many roots does not alter the fact that the form, specific progressions and lyrical style of all popular music are based in the Blues...

Bwoop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues

It's said that blues is influenced heavily by white-composed Christian church hymns.

So you'll now need to change your statement to "Just because most music has many roots does not alter the fact that the form, specific progressions and lyrical style of all popular music are based in church music..."

OH NOES.
This is what happens when you randomly select what point of the "who influenced who" chain to make it mean whatever you want.

For my money, the electric guitar did way more than anything else ever did to create the modern sound.

And as far as I know, Rap is one of the most popular music today and I'll be damned if I can find roots in anything but ass-sucking in that genre.

And of course all this is not to say that there aren't some awesome black musicians who made and make kickass innovative music.

But I'm pretty tired of people insinuating that black people somehow invented modern music in any more significant part than, say, the guy who invented the guitar. Or sheet music. Or people who actually learned how to sign based on traditional Europeans means and not field chants and country music. Or Elvis. Or Record companies.

If I told you white people invented rock, you'd counter with "no blues made rock" but that's equally bullshit.
I'd argue that music is shaped a lot more by what instruments it's played with than anything else.

You can use any notes or lyrics to make a heavy metal song, but if you replace the guitar with a kazoo, you fail.

all people are created equally.

At 9/3/09 06:48 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: all people are created equally.

I disagree, and japanese women certainly disagree. We are not equal, and we may not even be created.

give me proof (LINKS) of genetic proof that blacks are inferior AJ

At 9/3/09 11:18 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: give me proof (LINKS) of genetic proof that blacks are inferior AJ

You notice how you're the only one still replying to him? :)

At 9/3/09 03:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Well I have news for you: I know all your answers and they're all wrong. Look for yourself, you'll see that you were wrong all along.

What? You don't want to? That just shows you're unwilling to educate yourself.

You can be wrong all you want. And once you're wrong on the basis of actual information rather than assumption, I'll be happy to discuss the details with you. But hey, I'm taking an African History until the 18050's class this year... so how about I re-type everything in our books and lectures on here for you so that you, too can learn shit. That would be a grand use of my time.

It's said that blues is influenced heavily by white-composed Christian church hymns.

Of course it is.

So you'll now need to change your statement to "Just because most music has many roots does not alter the fact that the form, specific progressions and lyrical style of all popular music are based in church music..."

All music is based on "church" music. All of it. Every last note in every single culture. Music as worship (or worship-assistance) is the oldest form there is. This is not news to me. And it doesn't change the fact that the Blues is still the formal basis of all popular music. The blues were influenced by christian church music and hymns, but they are equal or greater parts field hollers and african rhythms. If you want, we can go back farther and connect them to the African traditions of song as storytelling, and their own creation/religious myths... which if you think about the storytelling aspect of the Blues, should come as no surprise... because that's what the blues are about: telling a story, telling the truth... to a 12-bar beat :P

For my money, the electric guitar did way more than anything else ever did to create the modern sound.

And I can trace that back through Spain, to the Ashkenazi, to India and China. So does that mean Rock is equally as influenced by Chinese theater music as it is by the blues? If you say yes, I'd love to hear your reasoning (and "lol, everyone uses guitars" doesn't count... be more specific).

But I'm pretty tired of people insinuating that black people somehow invented modern music in any more significant part than, say, the guy who invented the guitar. Or sheet music. Or people who actually learned how to sign based on traditional Europeans means and not field chants and country music. Or Elvis. Or Record companies.

Except the Blues has little to nothing to do with written music, guitars, or Elvis. The Blues is a stylistic way of creating music. It is a form, and can be played by any or no instruments. Without the guitar (which is Spanish by way of the Jews), the blues would still exist. As you said, it was heavily influenced by hymns, and it was the combination of those hymns with field hollers and African rhythmic features that created the blues. The later influence of the guitar was minimal at best, and I would bet that 90% of blues musicians from the beginning until today can actually read music, and even fewer have ever been influenced by a recording company.

And yet, here is this genre of music, created by the lowest class of people, suppressed by the ruling class, that became the main influence of every piece of popular music in the last who knows how many years.

Any my point remains: If you're so stubborn that you can't admit that this is an impressive cultural feat that is directly connected to the cultures of Africa, then I don't know what kind of measuring stick you're using, but it seems a bit unrealistic.

If I told you white people invented rock, you'd counter with "no blues made rock" but that's equally bullshit.

Rock and Roll was, when it first appeared, considered "black music", much like rap today, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

I'd argue that music is shaped a lot more by what instruments it's played with than anything else.

You can use any notes or lyrics to make a heavy metal song, but if you replace the guitar with a kazoo, you fail.

As I already said, the Blues has little to nothing to do with instrumentation, and as such, this argument is moot. Toward other genres that are defined by their instruments (Metal, techno, etc) you are quite right... but the Blues is a different animal.

At 9/4/09 09:27 AM, Ravariel wrote:

And it doesn't change the fact that the Blues is still the formal basis of all popular music.

What does that even mean?
It's a completely empty statement. What examples do you have for this? What specific invention of blues do you find in every song today?

And for that matter, how creative could these possibly have been ANYWAY?
You can no more "invent" a type of beat than you can "invent" a way to sneeze.

What you can invent however, is instruments.

Btw this is the same shit that is done in modern arts, where there is obviously a set range of ways you can use to paint a picture and no matter which you choose, someone did it before. So even if you've never HEARD of them, people will still go "oh blablabal influenced you I see!'. No, idiots, there's only so many ways in which you can paint a fucking face.

It's the same exact thing with music. You can't claim to have invented something like "strumming my guitar twice before I start a song" or "making songs about being sad".

and their own creation/religious myths... which if you think about the storytelling aspect of the Blues

As opposed to 100% OF EVERY SONG EVER WRITTEN ANYWHERE WITH LYRICS?
How was anything in blues typically, independently African?

So does that mean Rock is equally as influenced by Chinese theater music as it is by the blues?

Certainly it's influenced by the invention of the guitar, which can be traced back to many places ( string instruments are not an invention of just one place, it has been independently invented in tons of cultures, so has percussion ) but many genres use a guitar.

The electric guitar is a very special type of guitar that was invented by one man and has revolutionized modern music in a REAL, PROVABLE, easy-to hear way.

If I was going to categorize Rock influences from "most important" to "least important", I think I'd put Les Paul way way up there before even the dude who invented the microphone or the jukebox.

As you said, it was heavily influenced by hymns, and it was the combination of those hymns with field hollers and African rhythmic features that created the blues.

Still waiting for tangible proof. The wiki said that the relation to Africa was tenuous AT BEST.
Quite frankly, it doesn't sound like ANY African music I've ever heard, which is always festive and contains tons of percussion.

Rock and Roll was, when it first appeared, considered "black music"

By the time rythmn and blues was called Rock and Roll in the 50s, it was widely accepted and played by white people all over the country. Some of the greatest pioneers or Rock were white and adored by white people.

I don't know who said Rock was "black people music" outside of KKK meetings.
What you're probably talking about is Rythmn and Blues.

As I already said, the Blues has little to nothing to do with instrumentation

"The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments."

Basically you don't say anything specific. You just keep it as vague as you can and hope that I'll just buy into this idea that blue somehow was clever and inventive and revolutionized music to the point that EVERY POPULAR SONG TODAY ( your claim ) was influenced by it ( in a way you've yet to show with any examples ).

But I will grant you one thing: it's hard as hell to prove that you invented a music genre or that other people borrow specifically from your "inventions".
Why? For the same reasons I explained earlier. You can't lay claim to inventing things that crop up independently all the damn time in language or song just because you were one of the first anyone remembers doing it.

To say that blues is the/a major influence to modern music is total complete utter bullshit and to FURTHER link that somehow to mainland Africa is living with your head in the clouds.

Unless you define "major" in such a way that you can have 50 things being a "major" influence on something at the same time. Which is, for a 3 minute song, PRETTY BOLD.

This thread is derailed. It was about a moron claiming black people are inferior to others, and now it's about blues music.