Genetic differences and racial differences and the sons of Ham

[Pergamum]

Hello,

I had a friend that asked this to me:


Should we expect to see genetic differences, and ethnic and racial differences between the 3 broad streams of mankind that came from the sons of Noah (i.e. the sons of Ham, the sons of Shem and the sons of Japheth)?

Do current world situations reflect those differences?

This friend pointed out that since pre-history the sons of Ham have never produced an advanced civilization and black Africa is still a mess today. I pointed out the Cushites, Nubians, and the traders in Mali and Central Africa, but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated. I pointed out that some of the Pharaohs of Egypt appeared to have black, african features, but he denied this.

Of course, I could not deny that Africa does appear messy and Melanesia is the same, but this talk of racial differences does make one uncomfortable.

He also pointed out that westerners (the greeks, then the romans, then the europeans) have led world advance. White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant. Thus, it was only natural that world history would have turned out like it is turning out, with the Western European nations doing the exploring and the colonizing.

Certain sports are dominated by certain races, too, he says. I did have to admit that I don't see many blacks in ice hockey, and Kenyans do seem to dominate marathons.

He mentioned the Bell Curve book, but I have read that book and am unconvinced and even unsure of the whole concept of IQ at all since the tests are all biased towards the dominant culture. But he thinks IQ varies by race as well (of course, the Bell Curve puts Asians on top, and this guy is a white american, a middling sort even by the Bell Curve book's conclusions).

He pointed out that the Chinese, from even pre-history, had the ability to organize, but the Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant. They will never have a decent and well-ordered society he says, unless helped out by the advanced nations or colonized by them.

This friend stated that this was one of the characteristics of the sons of Ham.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

How do I respond to him?

What is the history of "the theology of racial differences." How has the church historically dealt with race?

Rae's thread on the kinists has me curious - how prevalent are these attitudes and how do they justify them? Why are most of them Reformed?

What is the exegesis involved?

And, if I reject his opinions, what alternate explanation do I propose for the disordered state of African and Melanesian cultures? How far can we generalize concerning race, ethnicity and different people-groups?

-
-
-
P.s. I realize this might be a controversial thread. But, I am sure that some others of us have also met folks who hold to these views.

 

[Skyler]

I don't have a problem with saying that different "races" are better or worse at different things. Some of it is definitely because of genetic factors, while other effects seem to stem more directly from cultural or ethnic roots.

I would hesitate to say that this implies a superiority of a particular ethnic group or groups over another.

That said, it is also true that Paul says the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles, because of their special treatment by God in giving them the Law. I don't think we can immediately rule out the possibility.

 

[Rufus]

Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.

But I don't have all the answers.

 

[Skyler]

By the way, I would argue that what Africa needs is not help from "advanced" nations so much as it is the transformative power of the Gospel. There's nothing inherently wrong with a tribal lifestyle.

 

[TimV]

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

 

[Pergamum]

Traders in Mali and Central Africa aren't pre-history if they are recorded. You could make the same arguement for many Asians and the Native Americans, and some white ethnicity's. Looking back at the Bible, Ethiopia. Don't know much about them but the Ashanti Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Ghana Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this whole list List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A lot of this could have to do with geography and other factors that make living in Africa much more difficult than the West.

But I don't have all the answers.

Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.

 

[Andres]

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

 

[Pergamum]

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

 

[TimV]

If a Reformed person doesn't know Egyptians are from Ham, and that they had hugely successful empires, they're stupid. And what of the Philistines? Gold workers, navigators, centuries of lording it over Semites. He's got to put up or shut up. Ask him about those two descendants of Ham and see if he's willing to admit he's wrong on the empire deal. If he's man enough to do so, continue talking. But if not....

 

[Pergamum]

He stated that, though the Philistines were dominant for a time, they could not resist the will of God and the Jews conquered them in a short time. I did not ask him for descendants of Ham, because I don't think I remember many of them off-hand right now either without looking in the Bible... (Cush.....and then mostly blanks....)

 

[ChristianTrader]

Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf

 

[Andres]

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

 

[Philip]

Might do to mention the Berbers---Augustine's people.

 

[Pergamum]

but he said this was pre-history, that the Egyptians conquered the Nubians easily, and then he challenged me to find an Empire in the ADs that was black-dominated.

Sounds like your internet scholar isn't aware that Egyptians are descendants of Ham.....So, how do you argue with someone with strong opinions about subjects they know nothing about???? That's the biggest question.

He had enough know-how to quote several of the reformed. I am trying to engage him without merely saying, "racist, begone."

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

He even quoted a few older reformed theologians (others besides just Dabney, though Dabney made an appearance). He seemed to prove that a large segment of reformed Christendom both in the US and South Africa had certain views about racial differences. "Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa. He was 100% serious on all counts.

He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations. This really made me uncomfortable, but I looked, and yes, those sort sof quotes do, in fact, exist.

And? So because some theologians and/or missionaries before us were racist means absolutely nothing. Why are you giving this argument any weight? We can find quotes that make groups say all kinds of things.

I don't know if he is a kinist. Does he sound like one?

Yes he does and I don't know why you'd even entertain this kind of thinking. Come on Perg.

Not all racists are kinists, right? Even some secular scientists have defended racial differences. So, I need to give him solid answers, instead of "Come on man, stop being racist."

No, but all kinists are racists. This means quite a bit.

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

I am trying to understand his points and engage him point-by-point rather than merely cry racist and shut him off.

Also, as he pointed out the differences between Africa and New Guinea versus Europe, there are discernible differences in standard of living, peace, etc, and so there is SOMETHING that accounts for those differences. Something is clearly wrong in much of Africa.

Therefore, I need to give him evidences that this "something" is not merely race but worldview (religion, etc) and environmental and not racial in origin.

Also, I am not sure that rape and the belief that the races vary in qualities are analogous sins.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 AM ----------

Here is an article by probably the most prominent living Reformed Theologian to hold to some form of Kinism - http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf

Yes, your link sounds very much like this man's arguments.

Do you know if anyone has written a rebuttal or a critique?

 

[smhbbag]

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?

To bring out the racism charge, I think you need something stronger than the view in the first post.

Has he denied that we are to bring the gospel to all peoples with fervency? Has he denied the inclusion of any race in the people of God? Has he denied the human status of certain races? Would he be less outraged at the murder, rape, or plundering of a person of one race than another? Would he deny eligibility for church office to any race (because, hey, they'll just screw it up)? Is one race less condemned from birth by the stain of Adam? Are any in less (or more) need of Christ for redemption or forgiveness? Would he withhold the Word from people who he thinks don't deserve it?

Then you have a charge that sticks. Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.

You can call him wrong or stupid. But racism takes more.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let's just grant, for a minute, that certain people-groups are less inclined to "organize," and others more so. What is the upshot? Apparently, the "approved result" is that the highly organized ones dominate, crush, or enslave the less organized.

Oh, boy. I guess the lesson of history is that the evolutionists are correct. Darwin must have been on to something, eh? with his little book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Obviously, this whole line of reasoning is post-hoc nonsense. However, if any of us belong to a genetic group that (apparently) has abused its organizational predisposition to"dominate" other people, if we happen to believe that this is the truth, I think we ought to recognize that sinful potential in ourselves, and hate and forsake it, because it is displeasing to God.

And besides, the main advantage to the Euros (who are of mixed ancestry), was their geographic proximity to the gospel spread, the then-current dominance of Rome (in the providence of God). As has already been pointed out, NorthAfricans are Hamitic, and they also benefited from the gospel early. The Ethiopian culture has been Christianized for almost as long as any other, and it shows--although their relative isolation is another factor in their makeup. Isolation external and internal, non-navigable rivers, and perhaps other environmental factors also affect sub-Saharan Africa's development as a "region" with a certain "people group" (by Providential ordering).

And I think it can be decisively shown that the main tool of dominance had and continues to have NOTHING to do with genetics, and about EVERYTHING to do with technology. Philosophical/religious advantages aside, we can take world-societies back to about AD 1000, and world-over, the main groups of people or nations are about technologically equal. Sailing technology is hardly any different in European waters as they are in African waters, or Chinese waters, etc. Different places use their building materials and must consider their weather-requirements for housing. But a typical house in England uses grass for its roof, the same as a hut in Africa!

After half millennium more, there is a technological surge in Europe (there's bound to be studies on the combination factors that contribute to it, genetics probably plays next to no role), and suddenly we get a handful of Conquistadors--with a bit of "luck" and some acquired immunity to smallpox--who suddenly take the rule of a pre-existing empire in the New World (Aztecs). The competing (not cooperating) countries in Europe seek to press this technological advantage all over the world. But it takes a LONG LONG time to make inroads into Africa because of geography, weather, diseases, etc. Not until the 1800s does this closed-continent get opened up to the outside, by outsiders. Inside, are we to believe that the plethora of languages, the diseases-issue, the geographical isolation of people-groups had less to do with Africa's lack of "organization" than genetics? Please.

South Africa? When the Boers, and later the English, came to S.A., there wasn't anyone there. There were fewer dark-skinned people in that territory than there were dark-skinned people in the territory that became the 13 Colonies. The native-African populations were moving southward, in expansionary movement, even as the Euros were landing on the coasts, and moving northward and inland. Once again, it was technology that gave the Euros their advantages, and philosophy/religion, and the fact that the African tribes were not internally unified, but warred with one another. The Euros had a common goal of colony, but the irony is that those "tribes" ended up warring with each other also (the Boer Wars)!


Cutting to the chase, this genetic junk is plain stupid and toxic. The "Hamites" are not just dark-African, but are the native Egyptians, and other northern-African peoples, and possibly a good many others. And there is mixing that has gone on forever, so no group is "pure." Sub-saharan Africa is actually a relatively small geographic area, and it happens that it is isolated from other population centers on earth, and has internal features that isolate pieces inside it. Welcome to the world of a subset of Hamites. These are peoples who were not brought the gospel early (except for the Ethiopians), but late--and by the time it came, the mercantilists were just as likely to get there first as the missionaries were. And even when the came later, they still imposed an outside order on these native populations (except in the New Word, where we tended to war with them).

All I see, when I see "empire" and "survival-of-the-fittest" in the world's terms (dominating, colonizing, using and exploiting), is one version of sin's ugly tendency to magnify evil, and ruin humanity. When we read Daniel and Revelation, we are presented with a "beastly" description of organized, sinful man. If we never observe a unified, dominating power emanating from a Hamitic-origin again, we might wish we could have had that advantage ourselves.

 

[MW]

Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

There is only one race -- humankind.

 

[Pergamum]

Dr. Nigel Lee states in the link above:

When one considers Extra-Biblical History, it is remarkable that all the great monotheistic
world religions started in the tents of Shem -- namely, pure Old Testament religion among the
Semitic Jews; early pure Christianity among the Semitic Ex-Judaists; and later even apostate
Islam among the Semitic Arabs. It is also remarkable that God truly enlarge the Caucasian or
Japhethitic white race -- which, by and large, has until recently progressively more and more
dwelt in the religious tents of Shem since making the acquaintance of Christianity. And it is
equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.39

There is general agreement that Shem is indeed the father of the Semitic peoples who
inhabited the early Middle East. The Bible too tells us that Shem is the father of "all the children
of Eber" (probably the H-Ebr-ews) -- and of "Elam and Asshur (or Assyria) and Aram (or Syria)"
etc.40 The question in dispute is as to whether Ham is really the father of the dark-skinned races,
and Japheth the father of the Caucasian or white race.

As far as one can still ascertain, this is indeed the case. For the Bible tells us that the sons
of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras and (looking westward
from Palestine) "the isles (or 'coasts') of the Gentiles" and their descedants41 -- which probably
includes the Germans, Russians, Persians and Greeks (all of the white race). The Bible also tells
us the sons of Ham were Cush, Misraim, Phut and Canaan and their descendants42 -- which
definitely includes the Egyptians, the dark-skinned Ethiopians and the early Palestinians, and
which probably includes the Lybians and other early African peoples too.

More specifically:

And it is equally remarkable that the dark-skinned races of the world have, on the whole, been culturally
and especially technologically backward -- alienated from the spiritual blessings of the tents of
Shem, and until very recently the colonial servants of the Japhethitic white race and the vassals
of the Semitic Arab slave-traders.

What this friend of mine told me almost sounds word for word what Dr. Lee puts forth.

Is this a common view, or a historical view among the Reformed? Or at least a strong minority view in the past? Also, what denomination do the kinists belong to, are any in mainstream denominations?

 

[TimV]

There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start

Ham being basically Africans
Japheth being basically Whites

and he elaborates

Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others
Japheth being White.

The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

 

[Peairtach]

The tribes of the British Isles were running around with their bottoms dyed blue before Christianity came to these shores.

"Africa" - and that's a big generalisation - won't always be behind the rest of the world in terms of peace, prosperity and economics.

There are parts of Africa ahead of parts of Europe in terms of Christianity.

---------- Post added at 01:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

There's general agreement that Shem is the Semites. Now if what Lee says and implies is true then you have to start

Ham being basically Africans
Japheth being basically Whites

and he elaborates

Ham being backwards dark skinned people colonial servants, which makes them Africans and North and South American Indians and a few others
Japheth being White.

The question then is where are the bulk of the earth's populations, the Asians? If North and South American dark skinned colonized people are Ham, then that includes the Thais and Chinese and Japanese, so there goes the theory. Or, Thais and Chinese and Japanese are Shem, which means every linguistic and genetic study ever been done is false.

---------- Post added at 05:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

Where do the Asians fit in re the sons of Noah? Henry Morris had some theory about this in his book on Genesis, which I don't have?

 

[Theoretical]

I should add that in the Baptist church I grew up in some people resolved the problem of that theory ignoring 75 percent of the worlds population by saying Asians came from a civilization circling the sun that went nova to announce the birth of Christ. The idea was that God felt obligated to give them a new planet since he destroyed their home world when the Bethlehem star went nova. You pretty much have to come up with a theory of that sort to support Lee's view of anthropology.

That's ludicrous.

 

[Peairtach]

Arthur Custance gives another take on this subject and on the curse of Noah on Ham:
Noah (Vol.1) - Frontpage

 

[TimV]

Richard, next time you see a Jew, an Assyrian or a Lebanese ask yourself whether they look more White than Black or Asian.

 

[Jack K]

Race, as we understand it, is not even a biblical construct. The Bible divides people into "nations" and "tribes" and "tounges," prefering to focus on cultural differences while maintaining that we are biologically one, all descended from Adam. Besides, whatever inherent differences we might have, believers are brought together in Christ anyway. So all told, it's silly for Christians to think in racial terms.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Rev Winzer and Jack K. are correct theologically and biology vindicates their statements as well. Quite a few recent studies have demonstrated that there are no significant genetic differences between races when viewed on a population-wide scale. And what differences are there are not specifically linked to race. In other words, people of different races may respond differently to medication or have increased risk for certain diseases, but that is more a function of mating patterns over the years rather than skin color. Race is a social construct, not a biological or theological one.

I find that conservative Christians often try to make these claims about racial genetics not so much out of racism, but to somehow cast history in a more positive light. Such claims are baffling to me since men liker Hitler and Stalin came from white Europe and not black Africa.

 

[Andres]

Perhaps I have too much invested in this fight, but when I read your OP, it sounds like you are almost entertaining this man's ideas. That bothers me a lot. And I don't see any problem with saying, ""Come on man, stop being racist." Racism is hate. He's not going to listen to reason until he puts away his racism, so instead of pandering to him, call him out on his sin. If he was advocating raping some woman and he gave you some good quotes to back up why he thought it made sense, I doubt you'd try to get all intellectual with him before you called him out on his sin. Why is this different?

Where is the racism in the OP? And what is racism, anyway?

Racism is defined as - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Here are some quotes from the OP which directly fall under that definition.

“White,westerners climbed on top due to certain character traits that made them dominant.”
“he thinks IQ varies by race as well”
“Africans and Melanesians to this day have a tribalistic mentality that allows crime and fighting to run rampant”
"Races naturally tend to segregate and the cream rises to the top", he said, explaining white dominance in South Africa”
“He also pointed out several quotes by Western missionaries to Africa which spoke of Africans as a "degraded race" that needed the elevation of the white, christian nations.”

Until then, you just have a guy who thinks some groups are generally less gifted in intelligence, social stability, time preference, etc. by nature.”

No he doesn't just think some groups are less gifted, he thinks blacks are less gifted. This line of thinking is racism! I’m baffled at how it’s not! Perg’s friend is saying that black people are less intelligent than white people. He specifically said that blacks have a propensity for crime. Seriously, what am I missing here because to me it’s pretty clear this is racist thinking.

 

[Skyler]

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

 

[goodnews]

Let's remember our Reformed, evangelical, commitments and simply acknowledge (from Genesis 9) that the tribe of Canaan was cursed by God from very early on to be mastered by his brothers. If that's true then it was something done by God and not b/c one race is inherently superior.

 

[Andres]

@Andres: Relax. Calm down. It's gonna be okay. =)

I'm calm, but I take racism seriously and therefore your comment isn't appreciated.

 

[Rufus]

Yes, it is hard to have complex societal structures in a highly malarial region. However, this man pointed out the Norse and the Dutch, who prospered despite environmental harshness.

The Norse where not successful until about seven hundred years ago, the Dutch where originally "barbarians" to the Romans. Its also a lot easier to keep warm than it is to avoid malaria.