Disclaimer: I do think the British are human. The point of this post is to mock the reasoning in Diamed’s post, “Blacks Aren’t Human”.
No one on earth says dogs and wolves are the same species, even though it is possible for dogs to mate with wolves and have fertile offspring. The genetic differences are vast enough, the phenotypic differences in looks, behavior, and personality are great enough, that everyone instinctively recognizes dogs and wolves are different species now.
Why then are the British considered human? They could not look more different, act more different, or have more different personalities. There is a vast genetic divergence between the British and the rest of mankind dating back tens of thousands of years. And even though the British can mate with the non-British and have fertile offspring, biologically that has never been used as the exclusive standard for whether you belong to the same species or not.
Phenotypic Variations between the British and non-British:
The British, unlike most humans, do not have brown eyes and black hair. They have pale skin, pale eyes, pale hair. They have long heads, long noses and soulless, vacant eyes. Their women are shaped like boys. Everything about them is ugly.
They lack intelligence. This was so widely known in Roman times that British slaves had to be sold at a discount. Christian missionaries complained that they were a savage and unteachable race. Yet intelligence is what makes humans better than animals.
They never produced civilization on their own: before the Romans came they were barbarians living in huts. They had no writing, no cities, no public baths, no architecture. They were savages who worshipped oak trees and believed in magic and superstition.
Even during hundreds of years of Roman civilization they produced no literature, no great art, no philosophers, no contributions to the hard sciences. Nothing. And after the Romans left they quickly sank back into barbarism, into blood and violence and darkness, showing their true nature as being little better than savage animals. Something they would later prove to the whole world by wiping out the people of North America and Australia.
After the Romans left the British remained backwards for a thousand years. It would have lasted longer if the French had not stepped in to take over. In the 1400s the Aztecs and black Africans had larger cities than the British. Even when the British at last became rich and successful they had to rob a fourth of the world to do it. But despite all that wealth and power they barely held out against Nazi Germany. Further proof that they are not terribly bright.
Rape is endemic: the main countries they settled – Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – are all among the top 13 countries where rape is most common.
And they do not even have a human heart: in North America they made their own children into slaves! That is not how humans act.
Thanks to commenter Ikossie for pointing out Diamed’s post to me.
See also:
Daimed has to be a troll blogger. I mean, I read the piece. Nobody could have typed out that sh!t without LOLing to themselves. Hell, I laughed reading that crap. The comments were pathetically funny. On guy writes “Im not racist but Im tired of the way black negro animals treat the white race”
black negro animal? Sorry only a troll and his buddies could create such a cesspool.
LikeLike
QUOTE;
“They never produced civilization on their own: before the Romans came they were barbarians living in huts. They had no writing, no cities, no public baths, no architecture. They were savages who worshipped oak trees and believed in magic and superstition.”
————————————————————————–
If given the time and space this above quote could easily be refuted and perceptions of babarism upon a people are usually from those unrequainted or ill-informed of the people, place or culture.
Just like the British that looked down upon the black man no so long ago with Darwinian eyes and feeling intellectually and culturally taller then they because these non-europeans lived in huts and where they could perceive any recognisable system of government or evolved civilisation?
When the Romans swept through western europe it decimated and destroyed indigenous culture and tongue, it made citizens and slaves by force and dispursed people far and wide. Rome was a suposed hub of progress in the ancient world, of high art and government, but were nothing more then a machine for the ceasars to drive their Empire into new lands and subjegate or kill people on their way!
Much like the british empire had done in many places, like all empires have from Summaria to the Kushites, Carthaginians onward to the mongols, Abbasid Caliphate and Ottoman etc……… all have acted in human and tragic ways and have the blood of millions tarnishing their collective histories!
To suggest that a lack of writing is a hallmark of barbarism is soundly flawed and ignores the reliable use of oral culture, which at one point was more prevalent then written forms of knowledge. The Ancient Picts of Scotland wrote in pictographs, the ancient irish wrote in a form of writing call Ogham and Germanic tribes used Runes to write with. All had intricate and intelligent societies and worked within a frame of purpose, customs and government, with in tribes or larger based Kingdoms.
From what i understand mainly northern African peoples had a written language, this was developed in Kush (Sudan) by way of Egypt, not of them selves. Ethiopia aswell down to the east coast, but south and central Africa never had awritten language and civilisations, there buildings, architecture and so on but all these things come and go, nothing is forever and certainly not a hall mark of a progress or intelligent or civilsed society!
here’s a bit on Afican writing systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_systems_of_Africa
*I do find the above quote somewhat lacking from your other wiritngs and think further study and less generalisation would benefit the blog entry?
ONce again people are people and to think that murder, rape, crime, jealously, envy and strife are owned more so by one or more peoples from another, therfore suggesting a blood or nationality based reasoning for such activities negates to much and plays blindly into racial veiws that can not be sustained when looked at more indepthly!
Environment, customs or the collapse there of, disturbance, removal or dillution of culture or even the experience of extended prosperity and can create opportunities where people become what their fore fathers never thought possible!
The Aztecs may of had huge cities, but the neighbouring and far off tribes of the jungled surrounding paid for that big city in labour and bloody sacrfice upon their great stone architecture……. all empires are the same!
Hence why it is for a easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to enter heaven!
LikeLike
I know you wrote this as a satirical essay against some racist guy who thought that black people are not human.
But i am bringing up the point that you constantly say white women’s eyes are soulless. I don’t understand this because it always sounds as if you believe white women to be mechanical robots or something which in some ways is just as racist as white men seeing black women as ugly. I can maybe see how this is true if you’ve never met any white women in real life and maybe only seen pictures of them but still it confuses me as most white men would agree that a woman’s eyes is one of the most beautiful features on her. White women (and men) are not creatures with dead eyes that betray their soullessness .
LikeLike
This is awesomeness.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, I cringe everythime I see a picture of that woman paedophile in your post.
she looks just like my ex-Manger from hell….Horror…I cringe each time I see that face, brings back really bad memories!
I was having a conversation or should I say confrontation on some of the points in this article on youtube with someone who seems to think that black people are all parasites, baboons, monkeys etc…..Just yesterday.
LikeLike
Hence the proof, the British are not human! Interesting post. Daimed is an idiot.
LikeLike
@ Y: I agree, that one commenter has to go in the “I’m not racist, but…” hall of fame.
LikeLike
It’s obvious they are not human. I wonder why we even need to talk about it.
I’m not racist, but it’s evident.
PS-And no, I don’t think the original comment was a joke. It has all the points of a typical pseudo-scientific article. He tried to base his post around “scientific” facts and not on feelings. That’s the first sign of a serious troll.
LikeLike
But i am bringing up the point that you constantly say white women’s eyes are soulless. I don’t understand this because it always sounds as if you believe white women to be mechanical robots or something which in some ways is just as racist as white men seeing black women as ugly. I can maybe see how this is true if you’ve never met any white women in real life and maybe only seen pictures of them but still it confuses me as most white men would agree that a woman’s eyes is one of the most beautiful features on her. White women (and men) are not creatures with dead eyes that betray their soullessness.
Well, true, Abagond does mention “white women’s soulless eyes” way too often. And while it’s racist on itself, I tried to understand what he’s talking about. At first, I thought he was actually referring to eye colour. Blue and green eyes often look weird on photos/TV.
That kind of eyes do require a careful makeup or it will look strange (empty?)
But then I guess it’s not about the eye colour per se, but rather about the “vibe” we’re getting from those women. Not all white women are like this, but I do agree many white women are taught to care a lot about the exterior, the shell, their image. I’m not saying black women don’t care about their physical appearance or image, but the outcome is different. White women often tend to care more about how people see them instead of how they really feel and what they really think inside. They care more about being polite and nice than actually being a unique human being with faults. They generally care more about appearing as good and generous than actually being good or generous. Etc, etc. This sort of constant pretending leaves scars and psychologically, it’s not healthy. That’s why many of them, especially celebrities, often look like empty shells.
(Just my interpretation)
LikeLike
Mike said:
“*I do find the above quote somewhat lacking from your other wiritngs and think further study and less generalisation would benefit the blog entry?”
Some of the writing and fact checking is worse than in my other posts, but that was to keep it within the Diamed style of thinking and writing.
For example, I doubt I would have said “have more different personalities”. I am not even sure that is English. Also, dogs and wolves belong to the same species.
I tried to write what popped in my head and then fight the urge to fact check it because that is what Diamed seemed to do.
The first paragraph and most of the second is lifted straight from Diamed. “Worshipped oak trees” is half-remembered Pliny. The stuff about rape, Christian missionaries and British slaves are all true because I had to look those up. Diamed says “Rape is endemic” among blacks but does not even bother to back it up, like it was common knowledge or at least believable.
LikeLike
Aren’t dogs subspecies of wolves, created by humans?
LikeLike
J:
I put in “soulless, vacant eyes” because that is what Diamed said about blacks. I did not know where he was getting that from, so I just applied it back to the British.
On the other hand I have said elsewhere on this blog that white women’s eyes seem empty or something:
I know it sounds racist but I doubt that it is because even among white Hollywood actresses it seems to be more common now than in the past.
LikeLike
Mira said:
“Aren’t dogs subspecies of wolves, created by humans?”
Right, they are domesticated wolves who have been bred to suit humans.
LikeLike
I’m glad that someone finally had the guts to tackle this most difficult question!
LikeLike
@J
are you the J from the UK or a different J (the one from Roissy)
Just curious
LikeLike
Thanks Abagond. Your articles are on point.
And you said that “they were savages who worship oak trees” lol …and don’t forget dogs. They worship I think every animal surrounding the Caucus mountains. Wolves. Dogs. You name it.
LikeLike
This explains why white folks love to yell out WOOOOOOOOO a lot. And all kinds of other strange yelling. They got it from the animals they lived around. And this is a known fact.
LikeLike
Thank you Abagond. Stick it to people like Niall Ferguson who think by and large the Empire was good for “uncivilized” countries. Oh he cloaks it very well. But that is the gist of his thinly veiled admiration for colonialism.
LikeLike
I lol’d
LikeLike
Man, those comments under Diamed’s posts are insane. Why are racist/white supremacists so obsessed with the people they hate?
LikeLike
Good point, dogs and wolves are the same species since they can breed. I looked that up and you are right.
There are some errors in his troll post.
Africans had no metallurgy or domesticated animals. Wrong, Africans had ironworking before Europeans did. Africans were domesticating animals, especially around Ethiopia, very long ago, 3-4,000 YBP.
Blacks are 90% of the prison population? That can’t be so?
Black murder rate is 9X the combined White/Hispanic rate. Not so. It is 9X the White rate and 3X the Hispanic rate.
Blacks are the stupidest people on Earth. Well, African IQ is low, but there is a problem with the extremely low scores in Africa, Papua and Australia in that they seem to underestimate the intelligence of the subjects.
Rape and crime are endemic in Black societies. Islamic Black Africa and Arabia have very low rape, homicide and general crime rates.
Dominican Republic population is 1/2 Black. Anyway, DR is no paradise.
Haiti is not the only Black state in the Caribbean. There are other very Black islands that are in quite good shape. Wrong to use Haiti as an example of all Black Caribbean.
US Blacks have not been free here to do whatever for centuries. Initial Liberation occurred only 150 years ago.
South Africa and Zimbabwe were terrible countries if you were Black, only nice for Whites.
LikeLike
This post is a genius answer to Diamed’s post.
LikeLike
Jade,
There’s a thin line between love and hate. From what I understand the opposite of love is actually indifference not hate. Make of it what you will. LOL.
LikeLike
Robert Lindsay:
Thank you for pointing some of Diamed’s errors of fact.
His picking on Haiti is a good example of one of the main faults with the post: Haiti is by far the poorest black country in the Caribbean yet he compares that with what? Japan! Come on. If you are going to cherry pick your data you can prove anything. Why not, say, compare Jamaica with Laos? Why Japan and Haiti?
LikeLike
Brilliant! I forwarded it to a half-dozen people. Am going to use this in my history class.
LikeLike
Louis, check out the “suggestions” board for an excellent in-class tool to graphically demonstrate white privilege.
LikeLike
I was more concerned with the fact that people actually commented on Diamed’s post trying to prove him wrong. His opinion represents that of millions of white people, and there is more than enough evidence to prove what he’s saying isn’t true-it’s called common sense.
I wouldn’t waste a minute of my precious life trying to argue with that coward.
The analogy of dogs vs. wolves and whites vs POC is incredible, really. I never thought about it that way. It makes perfect sense that whites are a different species than the rest of the world. I wonder why people don’t make these distinctions in everyday life-oh wait…we do!
LikeLike
Sorry whites are not different species-but I’m sure you get what I mean.
LikeLike
You who wrote this, this is what i have to say to you: you are all racist idiots. i hate you for what you are you sick monsters.
LikeLike
steve’s emotional but it’s typical of some whites to be unable to handle the truth. They can not understand anything that does not support their warped view of reality. It’s pathetic.
LikeLike
Steve:
So, are going to go to Diamed’s blog and tell them the same thing?
http://diamed-the-road-less-traveled.blogspot.com/2009/04/blacks-arent-human.html
LikeLike
everyone instinctively recognizes dogs and wolves are different species now.
Tell that to all the wolf-dogs out there! Those wolves are sneaky! They enjoy getting a legover with the more genteel domesticated dogs. They usually disappear after they have done their damage!
There is a vast genetic divergence between the British and the rest of mankind dating back tens of thousands of years.
I’d say. They are world renowned for the horrendous state of their teeth. Their hygiene aint that great(The French are worse!).
And even though the British can mate with the non-British and have fertile offspring, biologically that has never been used as the exclusive standard for whether you belong to the same species or not.
French can mate with Germans, Czechs with Russians, what’s your point? It’s all good!
Their women are shaped like boys.
Wrong! Their women are pear-shaped!:
Everything about them is ugly.
Again wrong! Billions of white men and self-loathing racialized men can’t be wrong!
Yet intelligence is what makes humans better than animals.
We are all dumb, the British just happen to be dumber than most, get it? Animals are much more intelligent than humans. They don’t have to do laundry, housework, cook, fight with their spouses, kids, extended family etc. If a kid is acting up for example, they just eat them! Another post topic: Are men dumber than women? Perhaps in the British women’s defence, they are at least smarter than their menfolk! Who cares about the Christian missionaries? Another set of dumb humans without a clue. The male ones of course dumber than the females!
They had no writing, no cities, no public baths, no architecture.
I told you they had poor hygiene. Looks like they didn’t lean from the Romans after all. They are dumb!
Even during hundreds of years of Roman civilization they produced no literature, no great art, no philosophers, no contributions to the hard sciences.
It took them centuries to discover soap for pity’s sake! Do you expect them to know any better in regards to more advanced learning? Thievery doesn’t count now!
Further proof that they are not terribly bright.
Proof, you need further proof? It’s as plain as the nose on your face!
Rape is endemic:
Rape? They called it lovemaking, that’s how dumb they were!
in North America they made their own children into slaves! That is not how humans act.
Who said they were human?
Disclaimer: If you believe the above commentary, I’ve got swamp land in Florida if you are interested. Nice satirical post, keep it coming sir!
LikeLike
I read the post, and I seriously felt like crying. I’d read posts about how deep white racism ran, but seeing that, I finally understand where you’re coming from, Abagond.
LikeLike
Diamed is one very sad and pathetic human being. I can’t even get mad at that person; you have to feel sorry for someone who is so filled with hate.
LikeLike
This racist view of “n-rs aren’t human” is relatively common (not rare at all) lately among the standard anti-Black racists. By these I mean the Chimpout.com and N-rmania.com crowd. These folks of all races hate Blacks, but don’t necessarily hate other groups. It’s become more widespread with data showing wide genetic distance between Blacks and all other groups. It’s often used as a joke – “N-rs aren’t human! LOL! LMAO! etc etc.”
White nationalists, White racists who hate all non-Whites, don’t usually talk like this, but one guy who does is Richard Fuerle, who wrote Erectus Walks Among Us. He takes the position that Blacks are a separate species, with a lot of data to back up his case. I don’t think he proved his case. The book is interesting, but it’s pretty horrible.
The main point is that we can breed. That’s the bottom line. Species can’t breed. Once they start breeding, we chop them up into subspecies.
Among humans there are *supposedly* some groups who have a hard time breeding with Whites. Data is scarce, old and anecdotal. I have heard that pure Khoisans have a hard time breeding with Whites. A lot of miscarriages, infertile marriages, etc. This is what you start seeing when genetic distance gets very far. The Khoisan are an ancient group who started 90,000 YBP. Blacks or Negroids are the latest model, a much more progressive group that evolved out of Khoisan and Pygmies in the context of agriculture 9,000 YBP in the Sahel.
Blacks and Whites have no problems breeding at all. A B-W couple can easily make 15-20 healthy and fertile babies. B-W offspring show no signs of defects or lack of adaptability. They are fertile. End of argument.
On the outlier of Homo sapiens, we have Neandertal. He was so genetically distant from us that we call him a subspecies. Yet he bred fertile offspring with us.
The distances between the races are quite great, great enough to split them into subspecies on genetic distance. The reason this is not done is PC. Calling the races subspecies will likely give a booster shot to the racists, so there’s no reason to do it.
Are Blacks a separate species from the rest of Homo Sapiens? It’s an empirical question, though an ugly one for sure. A cursory examination of the data though shows that the answer is NO.
The comments page is interesting. One fellow says, “I’m not racist,” then proceeds to roll into some outrageously racist anti-Black discourse.
LikeLike
Ok was this serious? Self-Assertion is one thing, but this is a bit far.
LikeLike
Don’t want to get too far off topic–but I believe a large part of the reason white women are often so into appearance is because white men are so harsh about their looks. You won’t have to look any farther than Craigslist to see a slew of angry vitriolic comments of older white men ripping women apart, throwing a tantrum that they aren’t size 6. It’s as if men won’t take women who don’t look like actresses. But they specify they don’t want anyone too prissy or concerned with appearance.
Doesn’t give women any leeway to be shallow or a flake. Just think white guys don’t treat their women as being very loveable…which helps to breed flakes.
LikeLike
And yeah, that was one ugly “article.” Idiot.
LikeLike
The distances between the races are quite great, great enough to split them into subspecies on genetic distance. The reason this is not done is PC. Calling the races subspecies will likely give a booster shot to the racists, so there’s no reason to do it.
No, it is not.
In the first place, it comes out to be less than 2% of the genome, which is about the average distance between any two human groups anywhere.
According to Cavalli-Sforza, the man who literally wrote the book on this topic, when one looks at SPECIFICALLY human genes, the greatest distance between the continents is between Africa and Oceania – 24%. That’s huge you say? No it isn’t: the margin of error for this sort of measurement is 20%. The average distance between Europe and Africa is only 16%.
Furthermore, this distance is measured in increasing genetic HOMOGENEITY as one distances oneself from Africa. ALL of the human genes are present and accounted for in Africa, but not on the other continents. If anything, then, Africa is humanity in miniature, not a seperate sub-species.
Finally, this is ridiculous: “I have heard that pure Khoisans have a hard time breeding with Whites. A lot of miscarriages, infertile marriages, etc.”
You’ve “heard”, huh? No data to back that up, but hearsay, of course, is more important than science. Especially the “politically correct” science of a guy like Cavalli-Sforza, the world’s most renowned human geneticist.
Like it or not, Bobby, the trend in biology in general – and not just among humans – is to REJECT subspecies as a useful classification among the higher mammals in most cases, replacing that with a clinactic view of biodiversity.
Clines are not discrete genetic packages which make up “subspecies”. There certainly aren’t any genetically congruent human groups on the level of “black” or “white” out there on the planet. What congruent groups we do have are shifting and quite temporary in biological terms.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading the biological literature for 10 years now, mostly endangered species listings and petitions. Also, I had friends who worked as wildlife biologists for the government. Your statement is completely false:
Like it or not, Bobby, the trend in biology in general – and not just among humans – is to REJECT subspecies as a useful classification among the higher mammals in most cases, replacing that with a clinactic view of biodiversity.
Not the case. In these listings, species and subspecies classification is essential. Previously, the analysis was observational, but lately, it is done with DNA. Many subspecies are being wiped out or lumped together due to insufficient distance, new ones are being created all the time due to sufficient distance, new species are being created, and species are being lumped, all on the same basis. As Threatened and Endangered species listings is based on either specific or subspecific designation, the science is essential on this matter. It’s certainly something that is not being tossed aboard in place of some cline nonsense. How will you give these clines a Latin name? How will you describe them?
A cursory examination of the distance between the major human races shows that there is far greater distance between the major races than there is between where we characteristically split subspecies. Yes, the distance is greatest between Blacks and Aborigines, but Blacks are far different from everyone else. There’s probably more distance between two tribes in Nigeria 20 miles apart than between an Englishman and a Papuan.
Since the distance between the major races is far greater than the distance between many or most subspecies, it should be scientifically accurate to split the races subspecifically. That this has not been done must be due to PC, of which Mr. Cavalli-Sforza is a major champion, mostly due to coercion and threats from PC Nazis. However, it’s best to call them races and not subspecies, since calling them the latter just helps the racists.
Yes, the data on Khoisan-White pairings is anecdotal, but I find it interesting nonetheless. It might be nice if we could verify it one way or the other.
PS, I ain’t no race denier.
LikeLike
GataAgressiva,
“I was more concerned with the fact that people actually commented on Diamed’s post trying to prove him wrong. His opinion represents that of millions of white people, and there is more than enough evidence to prove what he’s saying isn’t true-it’s called common sense.
I wouldn’t waste a minute of my precious life trying to argue with that coward.”
Yup, exactly. Finally someone says it.
Every white loser with a PC and some prejudice is not worthy of a blog post.
LikeLike
Ames,
“Don’t want to get too far off topic–but I believe a large part of the reason white women are often so into appearance is because white men are so harsh about their looks. You won’t have to look any farther than Craigslist to see a slew of angry vitriolic comments of older white men ripping women apart, throwing a tantrum that they aren’t size 6. It’s as if men won’t take women who don’t look like actresses. But they specify they don’t want anyone too prissy or concerned with appearance.
Doesn’t give women any leeway to be shallow or a flake. Just think white guys don’t treat their women as being very loveable…which helps to breed flakes.”
Men of other groups do not differ in this regard. This is not so much a race or ethnicity issue as it is a patriarchy, gender, and socialization issue.
LikeLike
@ Y
no, I’m a different J altogether 🙂
I didn’t realize this letter was already used
LikeLike
I read the post by Diamed and had to stop so much stupidity was overloading my brain I could not take it anymore lol.
What your post proves Abagond is that you can take any race stack up info and claim that they are not human to inflate a racist ego.
LikeLike
@Steve
Make sure to go over to Diamed’s blog to say that too alright.
LikeLike
We may never hear from Steve again.
LikeLike
@Robert
I’ve been reading the biological literature for 10 years now, mostly endangered species listings and petitions.
Well, hey, I can’t argue with your expertise then. I mean I teach race and biology at a major university and I generally use Cavalli-Sforza as one of my key writers in that course.
But that’s nothing compared to the biological knowledge of a man who reads endangered species petitions and has a few biologist friends. Yeah, that’s excellent training for the understanding of human genetics, Robert. My hat’s off to you.
In these listings, species and subspecies classification is essential.
Sorry, not true, Bobby. First of all, species and subspecies are not the same thing. Even someone who gleans their knowledge of biology from a pamphlet should be able to recognize that. apparently, you don’t, however, because otherwise why even bring up species in this context? what we’re talking about here is RACES or subspecies. Exclusively.
The genetic homogeneity that the notion of “subspecies” or “race” traditionally presumes does not naturally occur in ANY of the higher mammals without outside intervention. This is not my opinion, Bobby, but C-S’, the man who’s the world’s leading authority on this topic. Races and subspecies are arbitrary classifications.
It’s certainly something that is not being tossed aboard in place of some cline nonsense. How will you give these clines a Latin name? How will you describe them?
You can give anything a name by arbitrarily establishing its limits. The problem is, these limits are not established by mother nature, but by us: humans. Race is thus a function of our abstractions, not a natural fact.
It’s a bit like astrological signs, Bobby: you can look into the sky, draw an imaginary line around a bunch of stars and say “That’s Orion”. But that doesn’t mean that there’s a big belt-wearing giant in the sky.
For some animal species, clines are abrupt enough that talking about subspecies or races makes a certain degree of sense. These are species which have been divided off from each other for tens and hundreds of thosands of years. When it comes to humans, however, there is no place on earth where a significant population has been isolated from outside genetic mixing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The average movement of human genetic mixing is about 1 kilometer per year. This is fast enough, in evolutionary terms, to ensure that no discrete (let alone homogenous) subspecies have every evolved among humans.
A cursory examination of the distance between the major human races shows that there is far greater distance between the major races than there is between where we characteristically split subspecies.
No it doesn’t, Bobby. When the greatest distance is 24% with a margin of error of 20%, that is not much at all (typical subspecies distances are much greater than that). Furthermore, the average distance between Africa and Europe is 25% LESS than the margin of error. In rational, scientific, terms this means that there IS NO EFFECTIVE DISTANCE. That inconvenient fact takes the wind out of the sales of your next comment…
Blacks are far different from everyone else. There’s probably more distance between two tribes in Nigeria 20 miles apart than between an Englishman and a Papuan.
Er, sorry, no. That’s blindingly improbable. There is no scientific study that has ever shown anything like that. In fact, all known studies that I’ve seen to date show exactly what one would expect: humans tend to f*** with their neighbors, in spite of all tabus, and this makes them genetically linked. If you have access to peer-reviewed scientific studies that show differently, by all means, link us to them. Otherwise realize that making stuff up off the top of your head is no substitute for actually learning about human genetics.
Since the distance between the major races is far greater than the distance between many or most subspecies, it should be scientifically accurate to split the races subspecifically.
And if we had some ham, we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some bread. The problem, Bobby, is that your reading of pamphlets is leading you astray: the genetic difference between human populations is quite small. Every single major geneticist who is publishing out there agrees on this.
So you’re asking the world to believe you, a guy who reads pamphlets and has “biologist friends who work for the government” and who’s apparently vague on the difference between species and subspecies, or men and women who’ve been trained in this field and have worked all their lives in it, writing the very textbooks those pamphlets you read are based on.
Golly, who is more informed here? What does Occam’s Razor tell us? 😀
That this has not been done must be due to PC, of which Mr. Cavalli-Sforza is a major champion….
Quaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaquaqua!
😀 😀 😀 😀
Thanks for making my day, Robby!
If you’d actually even read the first thing about C-S, you’d notice thatthe left HATES him and that he’s frequently called and imperialist and a biodeterminist. He’s about as far away from “politically correct” as you can get. The man’s won about every award there is to win in the field of genetics, but you think he’s a political shill (in spite of the fact that lefties hate him) because “liberals” or what have you secretly run the sciences and manage to brainwash everyone in them into thinking that C-S is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Tell me, Bobby: do you go to sleep with a tinfoil night cap wrapped tightly around your head? Because if you TRULY believe that the world’s primier human geneticist is a raging lefty, you are close to being clinically paranoid.
Yes, the data on Khoisan-White pairings is anecdotal, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Translation: I made this up on the fly.
Source, please.
PS, I ain’t no race denier.
No, you’re just a typical American who thinks reading a pamphlet or doing a google search is an adequate replacement for an education. You are ignorant and think that you are wise.
LikeLike
It is more than alittle freaky I will be working with ppl who hold these opinions, not AT ME specifically, but at me simply living my anonymous life.
LikeLike
HILARIOUS! What a PERFECT response! (and as an irish person… it completely reinforces my racial stereotypes of the brits)
LikeLike
I never understand these people. I hate cockroaches myself, but you wouldn’t catch me writing blog post after blog post ranting about them and their (real and imagined) evils. That’s just a waste of energy.
LikeLike
Ahahaha! Touche! This was hilarious.
LikeLike
@Robert:
Luckily you can dismiss everything Thaddeus says, as it is a known fact there are no hard-science black men.
When I read Diamed the Damneds’ post I thought of another nonexistent hard-science black man, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, known for this statement: “…we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically…It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
Put another way, which must be true because a hard-science white man (Carl Sagan) said it: “We are made of stardust.” Uh-oh, does that make us, genetically speaking, the same species as ET?
Now that’s some crazy shit. No one on earth says hominids and ETs are the same species. The genetic differences are vast enough, the phenotypic differences in looks, behavior, and personality are great enough, that everyone instinctively recognizes hominids and ETs are different species.
Wow, I guess we’ll have to f*** ’em to find out for sure!
LikeLike
Luckily you can dismiss everything Thaddeus says, as it is a known fact there are no hard-science black men.
Not true!
James D. Watson, the nobel-prize winning molecular biologist, was certainly black by American standards. Check it out:
http://racism.suite101.com/article.cfm/racist_geneticist_is_part_black
To bad he was apparently a self-hating black. 😀
LikeLike
“Luckily you can dismiss everything Thaddeus says, as it is a known fact there are no hard-science black men.”
There’s billionairre electrical engineer Mo Ibrahim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Ibrahim
LikeLike
I`m sure we could find plenty more if we tried.
LikeLike
*The first half of this is tinged with mild-sarcasm*
As a black person, I read that article. And I believe we aren’t human either. I have this WILD theory (its just as crazy as the opposing one) that we black people are some long lost race of demi-Gods. We hardly age, heal faster, and perform physical feats that baffle man kind. And I feel as though are mentally capabilities are WAY down played.
But that’s okay.
I think its better if everyone thinks we are mentally handicapped anyways. Underestimating your opponent is the easiest way to get fucked up.
*Sarcasm ends about here*
Another thing WHY is it that NO ONE wants to talk about WTF really went on in Africa? It baffles my mind that these racist-egomaniacs try to say that when the glorious white man came to Africa everyone was running around chasing Lions , swinging from trees , and scratching their asses.
When there is PROOF of all kinds that there were thriving civilization (western definition) going on in various parts of Africa. & There were NO Europeans. Hell, in the 1400s certain groups of white folk were being ass-raped by the Church and greedy kings while living in total DARKNESS hence the need for a “Renaissance” which everyone always fails to explain …the “HOW”.
And I think you are onto something about the British people. And from a totally biased stand point, they have to be the most unattractive lot in ALL of Europe. Something screams Neanderthal to me. ..
LikeLike
@Thaddeus/FG:
You do know I was kidding, right?
@Tatum:
I think you’re on to something with the demi-god thing. You forgot to mention music and dance, along with the physical feats part.
But, seriously, it IS absurd to characterize pre-European-influenced African culture as backward. I could go into great detail, but the most telling example is man’s relationship to the natural environment. The so-called “civilized” nations are destroying the planet (and perhaps the human race), while the so-called “primitive” ones could have lived in harmony indefinitely. Who’s stupid now?
LikeLike
TLS, take a look at Watson and then ask me again if I knew you were kidding… 😀
LikeLike
@TLS
You’re right. I was in a rush, but most people will get the drift.
LikeLike
“Their women are shaped like boys.”
I know this post was sarcasm, but apparently British women have the biggest breast in Europe. Over 50% wear a D cup.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article17807.ece
LikeLike
@ thaddeus:
“Too bad he was apparently a self-hating black.”
Well, he was less than one-fifth of a hard-science black man; maybe that explains it.
Sorry I didn’t follow your link earlier. LOL. thanks!
LikeLike
“Their women are shaped like boys.”
I know this post was sarcasm, but apparently British women have the biggest breast in Europe. Over 50% wear a D cup.
Unfortunately, so do the men…
LikeLike
I know this post was sarcasm, but apparently British women have the biggest breast in Europe. Over 50% wear a D cup.
Unfortunately, so do the men…
Perhaps they use one of these:
As for having the biggest breasts in Europe, what good is it if you have boobs hanging to your knees?
LikeLike
The original article “Blacks Aren’t Human” was sooo absurd that I had to point it out to you Abagond. thank you for responding 🙂
LikeLike
I thought the genetic difference between ALL humans and chimps was less than 2%. As far as I was aware, we’re all just clever animals in clothes capable of great or horrible things. Or capable of weird pointless hair-splitting & bizaare statistical comparisons in this case.
Diamed’s article is scary, but in a sad/pathetic way, Abagond’s is funny, but comments on both articles mostly just made me nervous (or unfortunatley tipped into the tl;dr catagory because of my blossoming headache enduced by sitting in crappy autumnal British light with a glowing monitor).
LikeLike
This is a funny article…. It is meant as a joke… right?
LikeLike
It is a joke meant to mock the reasoning of a quite serious one about blacks.
LikeLike
Erm… I can be very naive and easily confused at times…
Is this a joke???
I feel like there should be some sort of disclaimer at the end or something, if it is, for people like me… -___-
Are ANY of the points in here actually factual? Or is EVERYTHING made up? I need clarification. LOL.
– Esther
http://roseywinterrose.blogspot.com
LikeLike
@ Esther
There is a disclaimer at the beginning. I am mocking this post by Diamed:
http://diamed-the-road-less-traveled.blogspot.com/2009/04/blacks-arent-human.html
by showing that I could apply the same style of thinking to to the British and come to the same sort of conclusions.
Contrary to what the Diamed and my mock post says, dogs and wolves DO belong to the same species, as proved by the fact they can still successfully mate. Dogs are just wolves bred by humans over thousands of years.
But most of the facts about the British are true:
– There is a genetic divergence between the British and the rest of mankind dating back tens of thousands of years.
– The British can mate with the non-British and have fertile offspring.
– The British, unlike most humans, do not have brown eyes and black hair. They have pale skin, pale eyes, pale hair.
– Their lack intelligence was so widely known in Roman times that British slaves had to be sold at a discount.
– Christian missionaries complained that they were a savage and unteachable race.
– They never produced civilization on their own: before the Romans came they were barbarians living in huts. They had no writing, no cities, no public baths, no architecture.
– Even during hundreds of years of Roman civilization they produced no literature, no great art, no philosophers, no contributions to the hard sciences.
– After the Romans left they quickly sank back into barbarism, into blood and violence and darkness
– After the Romans left the British remained backwards for a thousand years.
– In the 1400s the Aztecs and black Africans had larger cities than the British.
– Even when the British at last became rich and successful they had to rob a fourth of the world to do it.
– Despite all that wealth and power they barely held out against Nazi Germany.
– The main countries they settled – Britain, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa – are all among the top 13 countries where rape is most common.
– In North America they made their own children into slaves!
– Wiping out the people of North America and Australia.
LikeLike
I just have a low tolerance for the british, they are rude weird and very racist. They also believe their is something very amusing about their obnoxious behavior.. There isn’t.
LikeLike
An excellent piece.
LikeLike
@Mike
“Just like the British that looked down upon the black man no so long ago with Darwinian eyes and feeling intellectually and culturally taller then they because these non-europeans lived in huts and where they could perceive any recognisable system of government or evolved civilisation?”
The problem here is that whites in general still do that. Feel free to lie and say they don’t.
LikeLike
I just have a low tolerance for the british, they are rude weird and very racist. They also believe their is something very amusing about their obnoxious behavior.. There isn’t.
LikeLike
One obvious evidence of that is the food. Has any human in this group ever tried to eat british food? Humans can’t eat that stuff.
Oh, and they created those stupid system of miles, yards, feet, pounds and gallons. That’s proof they are demons.
LikeLike
@abagond, it’s wrong to presume pre-roman brits are the ancestors of modern brits. These are the offspring of anglos, saxons, danes and normands, that wiped out the roman-celt population that lived there.
It’s the same error as supposing the iraqians are assyrian or babylonian, just because they live in the same territory
LikeLike
This ironic post being met with serious responses in agreement is really a testament to what kind of low common denominator drivel scum that you attract, Abagond.
LikeLike
@ Damian
You were attracted to this site. You even took the time to leave a comment. What does that say about you?
LikeLike
@ Damian
Most if not all of those responses are either also irony (some even say outright that they’re being sarcastic) or engaging in hyperbole to make a point.
If you really want to see “low common denominator drivel scum,” check out the blog post that inspired this one & the comments there:
http://diamed-the-road-less-traveled.blogspot.com/2009/04/blacks-arent-human.html?m=1
LikeLike