Posted by pancho (188.8.131.52) on February 10, 2002 at 20:17:20:
Back in the late forties, I think, there was a famous study conducted at Duke University to determine if there were inherent differences between Whites and Blacks. The esteemed researchers took a number of skulls clearly labelled "Black" and "White" and tested them all for thickness.
That's cute to begin with...giving some scientific credence to the notion that a "thick skull" indicates stupidity somehow. The thickness of the skulls was measured by the most exacting micrometers money could buy and by teams of reasearchers no less...because they wanted to be thorough...settle this nagging problem about whether they were right to keep a little Black child from drinking at the same water fountain as the white one.
The results shouldn't have surprised anyone, and they didn't. Turns out the white skulls were "significantly" thinner than the black skulls...therefore Whites were more intelligent...bigger brains I suppose or better ventilation.
The test of any scientific result is its repeatability...silly word but it means anyone else using the exact same methods should get the same results. One wary scientist noticed that Duke University was in the South...surrounded by trees just right for lynching and what not, along with all of them Jim Crow horrors the good white Christians...what did you expect, had been inflicting on Blacks since when.
The same study was conducted again...but not in the South and by segregated researchers AND as a real test should have been conducted in the first place...no identifying marks on the skulls...just skulls tossed together in one pile...of course someone knew which was which.
Surprise again...this time there was no difference in the thicknes of the walls of the skulls. Now you would think a micrometer is a pretty egalitarian tool...has no prejudices where blacks or whites are concerned. How could this "scientific" study be faulted?
They figured out that, knowing which skull belonged to which group, the racist prone and white "researchers" bore down for a few extra twists of the dial on the micrometers when they knew a skull belonged to a white man...and eased up just as much as it takes to show your prejudice when the skull was Black.
The study results of the original one were never duplicated and I am here to tell you that there is no difference at all in the thickness of the skulls of whites and blacks...or Christians and Muslims.
But Peter will not believe...he will conduct a study and the Muslims will lose every time...and when you understand his own personal demons and prejudice...you can see how the personal is NOT always personal in its social effects. The fact that Peter hates Kurds and Muslims enough to change his name because of its association BY SOUND alone...leads you to understand how volumes of "scientific" research and reports and books and philosophies and opinions and policies that ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people can come about just because someone is ashamed of himself for raping or lynching an innocent victim...and fears the retaliation he knows he would visit on anyone who treated him as badly as he treats those whom he despises, and has to invent reasons even with a micrometer, to hate anyway.
This is what Peter does...this is why we couldn't even discuss the subject...and why David Chibo's post was removed along with any responses to it...a few days after Firas and Peter both said David was an exemplary Assyrian and welcome over there at any time etc. Apparently David transgressed...by seeking to understand something that plagues us yet...something none of these people want to ever resolve... and bothers Peter particularly. We must forever go on hating Muslims for what some of them did a while back...while excusing all Christians because the "bad" ones aren't "real" Christians...while the true and real Muslims are the BAD ones by visrtue of being devout Muslims...or some such thing. Anyway, we gotta go on and on hating and hating...and not for reasons of State or because science or history of facts tell us to, but because Peter doesn't like his name.
When a white judge refuses to rule ONCE in favor of a Black defendant on trial for his life...when the cousins of the white man who killed a Black child for no reason, sit as jury and hangman...when Black children can be lynched, "legally"...then you want to examine the family background, the prejudices, maybe even the very private parts of those people who sit in judgement and make the lop sided rules.... maybe you want to ask Peter about the reason for his name change...if it came from a hatred of its sound, and if so how that makes him feel towards those who kept that name, or have other names that cause Peter problems...maybe you want to do that if you are the subject of his hate filled diatribes...or his spurious "rules". I do.
Post a Followup