White Americans have long compared blacks to monkeys. It did not start with the New York Post cartoon last week but goes back hundreds of years. In fact even scientists once assumed that blacks were half way between monkeys and white people.
Even in the case of the Obamas it did not start with that cartoon. In May 2008 Curious George T-shirts came out showing a monkey eating a banana with the words “Obama in ’08” under it. On the Internet there are pictures comparing Michelle Obama to a monkey.
But so what? George Bush was also compared to a monkey and he is white. He was called the Simpering Chimp. There was even a website about it with pictures of Bush next to pictures of chimpanzees to show how much they look alike.
And anyway, these are just pictures meant for a few laughs. No one takes them seriously. Right?
That is what UCLA professor Dr Phillip Atiba Goff was wondering. Do white people deep down think of black people as monkeys? And even if they do, does it make any difference to black people or is it harmless?
What he found shocked and saddened him. He thought white people do have this general idea of blacks as being kind of like monkeys, but he had no idea how deep-seated it was.
He found that when white people think of black people they tend to think of monkeys – and when they think of monkeys they tend to think of black people. And, even worse, it makes violence against them by the police more acceptable.
This was true even for those who grew up after Jim Crow and for those who said they did not know that blacks have been compared to monkeys in the past.
In his test he showed his subjects pictures of white people and black people and then pictures of monkeys and wild cats that were hard to make out. He found that people who had just seen a picture of a black person could make out the monkey pictures better. That did not work with pictures of white people and monkeys or anyone with wild cats.
He also found out that when subjects were made to think of monkeys and then shown police violence against a black person they found it more acceptable. That was not true for violence against whites.
He also looked at news reports from 1979 to 1999 of court cases in Philadelphia where the person on trial could be sentenced to death. He found that the more news reports used expressions like “urban jungle” and “aping the suspect’s behaviour”, the more likely the person would be sentenced to death – but only if he was black. If he was white then such language did not seem to matter.
Dr Goff is working with police departments across America to look at their records and training to see if their training can be changed to make unnecessary violence against blacks less common, thereby saving lives and, at the same time, making their own policing better.
See also:
- Dr Phillip Atiba Goff – his home page at UCLA. Has links to interesting articles on this and similar subjects.
- white gaze, part two – about the New York Post cartoon
- black brute stereotype
- Oscar Grant
- Sean Bell
Sad. And I also hate the term ‘jungle fever’ for obvious reasons
LikeLike
I call most children monkeys regardless of race. I relized one of my close friends was racist when she got mad at me for calling my niece a monkey. She said “you cant call becca a monkey – thats racist!”…
My response was “all children are monkeys regardless of race, and your thinking that my calling my niece a monkey is racist proves you are. Because her father is black I cant call her a monkey? My use of the term had nothing to do with race, but your mind conencted it. You need to do some serious thinking.”
we are not really friends anymore. She made some comments about mexicans..and other comments about obama which – when I pointed out to her were racist, she told me she thought I was a republican and why am I acting all PC. Funny how her arguements against obama had nothing to do with his politics and everything to do with the color of his skin. I didnt vote for obama because of political beliefs…not because of his race.
She connected my conservative politics to tolerance for racism…thats a sad commentary on white conservatives…
(please disregard my poorly worded response and typos as I have had some personal and shocking news today that has me very much out of sorts…yet I felt I needed to comment on this – if only to think about a bigger, more important problem than my own personal situation)
LikeLike
@White John
Are you troll or a tactless prick!?
LikeLike
@ Vindicator
I’ll take tackless prick for $200
LikeLike
When it comes down to it, all humans look like hairless apes. We share 99% of their genes. Which is why it’s ridiculous to hear whites talk of blacks as being monkeys. Whites are hairless apes just as black people are. ALL humans are in the simian branch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frankly, I’m happier being related to monkeys than to the crowd over at Stormfront…
LikeLike
At one time the Irish was being lampooned as being monkeys. I doubt that image is as strong today as it was in the past. Today, the idea of blacks being monkeys is still strong even if it’s not projected overtly, but I believe many whites view blacks as monkeys but as to no surprise prefer not to admit it.
LikeLike
Tulio – ever read the book, the “Naked Ape”?
Basic premise is that humans are hairless apes because our environment changed to a semi-aquatic nature. Its a really interesting idea.
LikeLike
“Frankly, I’m happier being related to monkeys than to the crowd over at Stormfront…”
LOL yeah that sounds about right.
LikeLike
i just call them bukkake face. Their faces look like cooked sperm and pink pork skin.
Wow someone has been watching some twisted pornography!
LikeLike
http://mediatakeout.com/40627/shameless_one_mtoer_was_just_minding_their_business____trolling_around_white_folks_facebook_pages____and_look_at_the_mess_she_found.html
LikeLike
Y,
I saw that link (I forget where) and it scared the sh*t out of me. Yes, I’m a scaredy-cat.
LikeLike
No matter what! I am black, you found black monkeys in almost every paths of the world. Appriciate that, it is hard to get rid though, monkeys must have some intelligence the very begining how to traveled the world.
LikeLike
Face it, black people look like monkeys. Why is everyone so f ing politically correct? Look at an ape in the zoo. It looks like a black dude, sorry. And their below-average intelligence fits with the whole primate theory.
LikeLike
Yes, please do look:
Who is it that has white skin, thin lips and straight, black hair?
would lit be:
or:
LikeLike
Do you know why black people always are loud when they are out in public… its because there ancesters (monkeys) make a reputation of out who is the loudest. whoever is the loudest is the most respected in the monkeys culture.. and also in a blacks world
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and let’s not talk about how hairy white folks are in comparison with the rest of humanity, shall we (he says as he ponders how he’s going to find time to trim his beard this weekend).
LikeLike
Face it, black people look like monkeys.
I beg to differ!
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbG1_QjJogO7SyZbLkTmPkwmLXR2PGK5DWOXnl-GpzPCR1c0I&t=1&usg=__YVsBwFEy5xIHmvnbwToO6v3qIh8=
Get a load of this clown:
Have a go at this gearbox:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QMFeIi0vZEdWiM:http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g76/andijayne/Pigtails.jpg&t=1
This man could give a woman basket rash!
http://snurch.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/1796_hairy-man.jpg?w=340&h=300
LikeLiked by 1 person
David: “whoever is the loudest is the most respected in the monkeys culture..”
David, you obviously have a deep & INTIMATE knowledge of the culture of your kinfolk. And I’m sure you’ve had some grand adventures with them too. Why not exercise your few remaining brain cells by creating a coloring book that features your particular troop of monkeys?!
LikeLike
I read somewhere that many black Americans are suspicious of the theory of evolution and the idea that man descends from monkeys, because they have been likened to monkeys so often in the past.
LikeLike
Well, the point is we’re all bunch of monkeys. And Thad is right. I’m a hairy white guy and I do look like an orangutang. Except my hair is dark brown/black and some grey now a days thrown in. Lots of facial hair and long, long hair. I pick my nose just like them too. I can not deny it: I am an ape. And not a very pretty one either. Not a pretty boy nor a pretty monkey. Yeah, that’s me alright!
I think there is something here: one biology proff who was studying apes said that the way we now look at them is the way whites looked at blacks some hundred years ago. Even the way apes and their lives and enviroment are discussed is the same way white european scientists used to talk about the africans back in late 1800’s. So maybe some idiots still carry that along?
Maybe this “blacks are monkeys” shit comes from there? It is a racist tradition? Remember what an uproar Darwin caused when he suggested that men and apes have a common roots? Maybe some morons are still offended by the fact that their mother and the blacks have more in common than their mother and Jesus in the bible pictures? I do not know.
For me it is funny. Check out russian champion wrestler Alexander Karelin. Is that guy a gorilla or what? People often use another metaphora for white guys. They do not say you look like a gorilla or orangutang which would be politically correct and scientifically correct. They say you look like a bear. Some women have said that to me too. Like, you are so cute, just like a bear.
A Bear? WTF? Are we white men related to bears? We eat raw meat, run around the woods naked and sleep all winter long? Oh shit, maybe there is something in this…
LikeLike
…and let’s not talk about how hairy white folks are in comparison with the rest of humanity, shall we (he says as he ponders how he’s going to find time to trim his beard this weekend).
True. It’s obvious white people are closest to monkeys- well, maybe apes. They have white skin and straight hair and yes, they are so hairy, like monkeys. Their men even have hairy shoulders!!!!! What kind of humans have hairy shoulders? It’s obvious they are closer to the animals than humans.
I read somewhere that many black Americans are suspicious of the theory of evolution and the idea that man descends from monkeys, because they have been likened to monkeys so often in the past.
Hmmmm…. Not sure. I believe many religious people are not ready to accept the theory of evolution because they see it as radically different than what is said about origin of the man in the religious books. Blacks are often more religious than the whites (right?) so maybe it can be an explanation.
On the other hand, some people in my culture (who are not religious) refuse the idea of evolution because they see monkeys as stupid, dirty and unintelligent beings. But I must say the theory of evolution is very well accepted in my culture, while I see many oppose it in America.
Plus: theory of evolution doesn’t claim people descended from monkeys!!!- it is only said that humans and other animals have common ancestors. The closer in past an ancestor is, the closer connection between species. So while tigers and humans have common ancestor too, it lived long before ape and human common ancestor. But in any case, humans didn’t descend from monkeys!
LikeLike
oh please,just all of you and look around you,It makes sense that those came to earth from heaven to mate with earths daughters.There are 57 types of aliens the government know about and will not disclose or admit those facts because their would be a mass panic hence we are not ready for the truth.
It is proved that the genetic strains between races have around 2-3% difference.Human beings have over 200 + genetic disorders and illnesses compared to primates.
I do believe the first ape humans was at a certain point in evolution and they where dark skinned and then we had a helping hand in a genetic manipulation from intelligent life hence different races and more intelligence ,just so much proof around us.
I also feel that is why the black race has a hard time.
It is because if they have the closet genetics to the monkey human they will not be respected by the most powerful bloodline that runs the world them being the bloodline of the Annunaki. In america the most powerful state and they they still have poverty in mostly black areas.They have a mixed race president and even he still does’nt help people in new Orleans for instants?go figure??
It really does make me laugh when so called professors say the reason white people are white is because they are from a colder climate and black and brown races are from a hotter climate absolute rubbish. I’m sorry we have all been giving a fake history and religious beliefs are their to separate all of us Hence control is needed and believe me the most powerful blood line from What ever visited earth controls the world/ancestors of the true gods from above. Everybody please WAKE UP??
Before you laugh ask your self this do you go to church?? well read the bible out takes of the bible explain all of this! Also when famous people such as mlk,jfk,2 pac,michael j,diana,lennon even bruce lee became to famous they are topped, because the public trusts what they really know about whats going on in the world. They let secrets out they are well, killed.
All what i have said doesn’t mean i think one race is better then the other just researched quite a bit and this makes more sense than anything!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to prove this
LikeLike
Gone off your haloperidol?
LikeLike
Here’s more on the study…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207163811.htm
There was one portion of the report that I found to be particularly interesting/effed up…
“The research took place over six years at Stanford and Penn State under Eberhardt’s supervision. It involved mostly white male undergraduates. In a series of studies that subliminally flashed black or white male faces on a screen for a fraction of a second to “prime” the students, researchers found subjects could identify blurry ape drawings much faster after they were primed with black faces than with white faces.
The researchers consistently discovered a black-ape association even if the young adults said they knew nothing about its historical connotations. The connection was made only with African American faces; the paper’s third study failed to find an ape association with other non-white groups, such as Asians. Despite such race-specific findings, the researchers stressed that dehumanization and animal imagery have been used for centuries to justify violence against many oppressed groups.
LikeLike
Who cares where are we from. Who cares whether we are from monkeys or dogs……Who have time to look into things that happened millions of years ago……..
LikeLike
Bias bias bias crazy crazy crazy stupid stupid stupid. White people think black is bad and black people think white is bad so we will never meet. Whether you like it or not who you are is who you are. What you are is what you are. Where you were born is where you were born. Ignore what stupid jealous people say about where you from, what you are and who you are….. Most white people say stuffs about black people to make black people angry and feel bad about themselves.
I DON’T CARE AND I WILL NEVER CARE ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Yikes!!!!!!!!!!AM HAPPY, MY FAMILY IS HAPPY, MY FRIENDS ARE HAPPY!!!!! WE EAT CHEESE BURGER AND DRINK JUICE WE DON’T GIVE A F***K ABOUT WHERE WE COME FROM!!!!!
WE ARE PROUD AND HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!!!!
BLACK , WHITE; WHITE ,BLACK WHO GIVE A SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIVE HAPPY BE HAPPY NOBODY IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
And before anyone tries to dismiss it out of hand, that article is published in an APA journal; which not only means it’s peer-reviewed, but APA journals are the most difficult to get published in for psychology.
LikeLike
Cool post!
LikeLike
Whites are genetically closer to monkeys and apes. Follow the hair. Monkeys and whites have the same texture of hair and the same pre-disdisposition to excessive body hair (unlike blacks). Some whites even have hair even on their backs and shoulders and on the backs of their hands, fingers, knuckles, etc. No need to even mention hair on the torso, arms and legs. Those are a given.
Monkeys and whites have the same white skin and the same thin lips (or no lips in some cases).
Whites are more likely to have a flat ass like monkeys and apes, though that’s not always the case. But no monkey or ape has a rounded or shapely ass like blacks.
Monkeys and whites have the same pink gums. Granted, some blacks have pink gums too, but no monkeys or apes have dark gums.
Anyway, you can scour the entire planet with a fine-tooth comb and you’ll never find a black man who looks like this:
LikeLike
So…what am I suppose to think the next time I see a human evolution chart showing a monkey evolving into a modern day white man???
LikeLike
Yes, many whites do say we resemble monkeys. Yes, in 2012 we still are referred to that way. A few years ago my young neighbor was visiting while on break from college. The school was in a predominately white city in Iowa. She said. You know what a white girl asked me when I was at school? she ask me if it is true that black people had tails like monkeys and she was serious! my friend asked what made her think blacks had tails she said her parents taught her that when she was a little girl, they told her we were part primates. So don’t believe that junk a grown white person spouts out when their so-called precious little johnny or meg decides to yell a racial slur against blacks, you know their little white lies like” I just don’t know where johnny or meg learned a word like that!” damn it don’t lie! THEY GOT IT FROM YOU WHILE YOU SITTING AT THE KITCHEN TABLE RACIALLY BRIEFING THEM!
Not long after hearing this tale my husband came in from work one evening relaying this account. One of his white co-workers was bragging about his son’s upcoming wedding, the girl he son was about to marry was bi-racial, half white and black. He said point blank to my spouse She is mixed and she not like those other black girls she looks better than MOST of them, because the majority of black women look like weaved headed monkeys.You wonder why Michael Jackson had his face altered and you why a multitude of blacks long to be mixed with other races. It’s all about our racial self-image it takes a very hellish and strong will black to rise this tidal wave of white racism and say you’re not going to make me destroy my physical African Heritage by hiring plastic surgeons to destroy my true self. When I see all the damage whites have inflicted psychologically on African Americans it takes all the strength inside me, not to hate them to the edge of the universe.
LikeLike
@ Rafiah Karam
I can relate to you because I live in a predominately White Southern town and I used to always feel that can’t measure up to a White girl because I was taught that I wasn’t anything compared to them. My mother didn’t teach me that but societ and my teachers do though. I know I am good enough but society and the media doesn’t think so.
LikeLike
How ridiculous!
They say that just to feel better about themselves. I met this black lady who was born in Africa but when she moved to Europe for her fashion job; she told me she constantly heard these words” You’re really different,your beauty, the way you talk, move, act, your attitude etc. She thought it was a compliment not untill she started hearing some akward comments like: Oh i guess your intelligence sprang out when you arrived here in Europe (she’s extremely intelligent) then she stopped mistaking those irritating words of those ignorant whites for compliments; so she saw the whole picture of how some stupid whites see her race, when she deffends her race by saying ” How dare you lack respect for my entire race: every race has it’s ugly, awkward, loud,loose, unintelligent etc people. But if your society especially your media keeps feeding you people with lie, then you’re doomed to remain in the dark! Sometimes she’s told that they weren’t referring to her but black people because she’s different; because stupidly, they keep attributing good qualities to white!
up till today she’s still going through that odyssey!
The worst part of it all is that her boyfriend’s family especially his mum is fond of saying it, just to provoke her by using words like: ” my dear, today i saw a black man/woman they really look like orangutan, i wanted to throw them some nuts”. And she said she once said, why didn’t you bring the nuts to the orangutan that your son is dating? If you call black people orangutan, then you’re calling me an orangutan as well, and she keeps receiving the same reponse, :”you’re different…………………etc, etc”.
They’re truely in love, the guy is crazy over her, she too but unfortunately he isn’t even helping her at all to educate his ignorant family especially mum. Now they’re having a difficult time together, i hope she leaves him for her own good, because if he laughts at things like that, it shows that he finds nothing wrong with his stupid family’s comments.
Plus, she even finds herself uncomfortable with them because she says they are very envious.
LikeLike
negros are greata with a little salt
LikeLike
Abagond:
Common Sense…Black folk are coal and brown because we hail from Africa. The climate of the continent is hot, therefore, we were blessed with M-E-L-A-N-I-N to protect our skin from the rays of the sun. The same goes for animals that are native to Africa as well. In colder climates, the same family of monkeys are tan or white in color…Common Sense. Again, whites are not happy with their color, so, they have to make us feel guilty for being darker…Ditto!
Tyrone
LikeLike
I once saw a Tyra Show episode with a white guest who disliked Blacks, used the N-word, called Blacks monkeys, etc. He was asked to look at and describe a picture of a Black woman with two kids (taken from a magazine, I believe). He said she looked ghetto, on welfare, had two kids from two different men, etc. Perceptively, Tyra asked more personal questions. If I remember correctly, his reason for disliking all Blacks was a childhood incident where some Black kid beat him up because he was poor. He was in college and had a Black roommate who he liked (because he wasn’t like the average ghetto Black man). The roommate was soft-spoken, very attractive, and articulate. It turns out that the white guy’s racism was really envy and jealousy stemming from the fact that he had to work a full-time job to put himself through school and his roommate’s parents, who were financially secure, were paying for the roommate’s education. He admitted it on national TV!!! It was a WOW moment.
Envy is defined as a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with an irrational desire to possess the same advantage. It’s used to justify hate which is why it’s one of the 7 deadly sins.
Aristotle said Envy is pain at the good fortune of others.
Kant said Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. It’s a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. Envy aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune.
Jealousy is defined as a feeling of resentment that another has gained something that one more rightfully deserves.
In other words, the dehumanization and the animal imagery associated with Blacks in the thoughts and beliefs of racist (or perhaps all) Whites and, by association those who identify white, are symptoms of the deep-rooted psychological effects of slavery on Whites themselves. They should really get over it.
It’s also fascinating to think that there are people in this country, like that rube in Iowa (a sociologist’s wet dream) who, with her supposed above-average intelligence, never bothered to question her mother about little monkey tails on Blacks. They must use a Health book from the turn of the century. Or maybe she just wanted to get in his pants…to see his tail.
LikeLike
Kelly,
Excellent comment.
And who is this person from Iowa you’re talking about?
LikeLike
brothawolf, see the post by Rafiah Karam dated Wed 1 Feb 2012.
LikeLike
Oh ok. Thanks.
LikeLike
All human beings resemble monkeys. Here are a few characteristics of monkeys. Monkeys have straight hair. Monkeys have thick hair all over their bodies. Monkeys have brown hair, red hair, white hair, orange hair. Monkeys have thin lips, bowlegs, big ears, little ears. Monkeys have black skin, brown skin, white skin. Monkeys raise hell when agitated. Monkeys are social beings that live in groups. Monkeys use tools. Monkeys have human-like DNA.
Look at these few characteristics of monkwys and see how many you share. If you share more than four of these, mark your banana tree and climb it. No offense is intended toward anyone. It is possible that some people share more monkey characteristics than others. Each should be his own judge..
LikeLike
Africans are like monkeys, like now. It is sad for some fine. But very true, y’all do look like planet of the monkeyys. We hate to say it because africans act fuckktup ALL TIMEES. Yes all you kinda resemble some type of ape. You donot got enough of other races other than african, or your mostly african? Because y’all are a majority black [meaning someone is more into and composed of] african well you can’t tell the differnces. Betwween monkeys and chimps or homoniggerous. Mostly african than you are mostly chim look a likes, and most of the africans are prverted [perverts] but act faggots. If you ain’t into men why you get so angry, if your not stay chimpy. Lol cheery. And some whites may resemble like Bush [pathetic] lol but yalls skin REALLY GIVES IT AWAY. Not all chimps are africans, some africans are apes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Behold! The almighty superior white man, or is it a woman?, holds forth! Clown, you cannot even type a coherent sentence. Get a life! That is all, at ease!
LikeLike
WTF did you just type, jimmy?
Try learning how to write before making incoherent statements that only an inbred yokel like you could type and comprehend.
LikeLike
@Jimmy: All I’m going to say is that if you shave an ape its skin will be very similar to yours. ( I’m assuming he’s white)
LikeLike
Ironically, the majority of phenotypes humans share with Chimpanzees are actually found in WHITE people. very thin lips, low-pigment skin, straight hair, lots of hair – all things shared by white people and Chimps, but not by many people in, say, South Africa.
Dark skin, frizzy/curly hair, ‘large lips’ and less hair are things that evolved after humans became human. The whole ‘black people are monkeys’ thing is a dehumanizing cultural byproduct of colonialism, and it’s absolutely fucking disgusting that it exists into the modern day.
LikeLike
Curiously absent here is the methodology used in the experiment. All we are told here is that the professor thought whites think blacks look like monkeys and then perfomed an experiment which he interpreted as confirming his preconceptions. This all sounds more ideological than dispassionately scientific.
The only thing we are told is “He found that people who had just seen a picture of a black person could make out the monkey pictures better”. This is a pretty thin basis to conclude whites think blacks look like monkeys because it assumes that if someone “makes out a monkey picture better” after seeing a black it means they think blacks look like monkeys, which is an unsubstantiated leap. Maybe seeing anything of a darker hue causes one’s vision to sharpen. Also, why didn’t he do the reverse; show clear pictures of a monkey first followed by blurry pictures of blacks? How many experiments did he come up with before finding one that ‘confirmed’ his preconceptions? The whole expetiment is a tad bizarre.
We also aren’t even told the race of the test subjects though we are led to presume they were white. Did blacks and other non-whites also make out the monkey pictures better after seeing a black person? I’d be curious in seeing the pictures used also.
Sounds like a classic case of confirmation bias at work here.
LikeLike
M.L.
I am confused on how you can asks questions, get no answer, and draw a conclusion? (rolls eyes).
Anyway most if not all of your questions can be answered by researching his website.
LikeLike
Sharina,
Most of my remarks did not involve asking questions but rather pointing out obvious shortcomings in the experiment described. It’s a very strange experiment and certainly not a sufficient basis to conclude that whites think blacks look like monkeys. The questions I did ask are not answered on his site.
LikeLike
When I c white people I think about dogs….that’s wat most of them smell like….and they get upset with u about mistreatment of dogs too….think about it….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hard to believe this is 2015 a great deal of ignorance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the post below, you can see how hard they try to stress “African” and “Not Human”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025466/Was-19th-Century-Siberian-apewoman-yeti-6ft-6in-Russian-serf-outrun-horse-not-human-according-DNA-tests.html
LikeLike
I hope you guys don’t scientists have found out that white people have Neanderthal and monkey DNA you know the only people in the world that don’t have monkey demand and up of DNA and them are black Africans Russian scientists prove that a White Russian scientistI will like to know how did white people become monkeys no one can explain that
LikeLike
I hope you guys know that scientists have found out that white people have Neanderthal and monkey DNA in them. you know the only people in the world that don’t have monkey DNA and neanderthal bna in them are black Africans Russian scientists prove that a White Russian scientist. I would like to know how did white people become monkeys no one can explain that
LikeLike
But they do resemble monkeys and act uncivilized
LikeLiked by 1 person
A full blooded black african has dna closer to an ape than it does to a norther european white person! That is fact. Ooops guess the truth is not suppose to come out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cjfjxjxj
Sorry, but that actually is not facts. Research shows whites DNA is closer to monkeys. This has been know for sometime now .
LikeLike
^Ha! It’s funny that people who obviously know nothing about DNA never seem to know when they are saying things that prove that they know nothing about DNA.
LikeLike
@King
With so much mixing, I am unsure of what a full blooded black African is.
LikeLike
Its funny because a white scientist has said a couple of years back that blacks are the only race that DOESNT HAVE any animal DNA
But keep up the good job of showing the world what rotten, racist, disease-inventing cave demons you all are
*sips tea*
LikeLike
@Vanessa
“Animal DNA”? First off, we’re all animals, human beings are a species of primate. That being said, I’m unaware of any study that shows people outside of Africa have any more “animal” dna than Africans. Unless you are referring to Neanderthal dna as “animal dna”. And even then, Africans can have Neanderthal dna, it just rarer in them than Eurasians.
LikeLike
@ Sharinar
There is no meaningful way to measure DNA commonalities between differently pigmented humans and apes (no less monkeys, of course)
When it comes down to it, humans share about 75% similar DNA with a tomato. There is nothing extraordinary about sharing the majority of our DNA with other living structures. All living things do that! Life is genetically similar to life of ALL kinds. And besides that it’s not really about just the genes, its about how the genes are expressed and interpreted. Add to that the layered complications of epigenetic morphology and it becomes quite laughable that some juvenile DUMMY is trying to count out proteins on his toes and fingers as to which Homo Sapien “race” is closest to which “monkey.”
It’s just a shows how extremely stupid and backward they are.
LikeLike
Benjamin
Not sure about “all animals” but have heard the claim that the Rhesus monkey is where RH can be found and is commonly found in whites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinair
It is relatively common among the Basque peoples in Europe. Beyond them, only a minority of Europeans (15%) have it. However, upon looking into it further, the RH factor found in the Rhesus monkey is actually not the same thing as the Rh antibodies found in humans with the RH blood type. Similar, sure, but actually not the same thing.
LikeLike
A full blooded black african has dna closer to an ape than it does to a norther european white person! That is fact. Ooops guess the truth is not suppose to come out.
What’s your point?
LikeLike
Benjamin
15% is the amount with RH negative. Not the RH positive I was referring to. I apologize for not emphasizing that.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Oh, okay. No worries. But isn’t RH positive found among a lot of different populations? I thought it was the RH negative that was common among Europeans but rare about other peoples? Guess I got that backwards if it is the other way around.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Okay, now I’m confused. Looking into this whole RH thing even further, it appears that Europeans do in fact having a higher rate of RH negative than other parts of the world. Around 16% of Europeans are RH negative, compare to 3% of Africans and 1% of Asians and Native Americans. So if the Rhesus factor in humans really is the same as the one found in the monkey (and it isn’t), wouldn’t that mean Europeans/whites have this “monkey gene” at a lower rate than other peoples, not a higher one?
LikeLike
Benjamin
Only 15 percent of white people do not have it or are RH negative. You have to take into account those that do not have the gene at all. Along with the larger percent who are RH positive.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Right, 15% are RH negative or lack the gene in Europe. But according to a site I went on, which I can post if you want, only 3% of Africans are RH negative. So wouldn’t that mean that Africans are RH positive more often than Europeans are?
LikeLike
Benjamin
Sure post it. Site I am viewing says 7%.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Here it is: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/985200157.Ge.r.html
LikeLike
Benjamin
Problem with your source is it is using percentages of a few different European populations, but then only narrows down 3% based on one African population or Asian populations. Most sources seem to do that, so I won’t say it is just yours. 7% is AA population, so what is the rate with other African populations? I doubt it will show whites at that high rate of RH negative.
http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2014/05/the-mystery-of-rh-negative-blood-genetic-origin-unknown-2445596.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh_blood_group_system
I will post my other source later.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Sorry if this comes off as me looking stupid, but just to clarify: Are you trying to argue that Europeans are RH positive more often than Africans, or RH negative more often than Africans? Because the sources you posted seem to agree with mine, that Europeans tend to be RH negative more often than other groups, even if the difference isn’t as extreme.
LikeLike
Benjamin
I don’t see you as stupid. I am very much arguing that Europeans do have a higher percentage of th positive. I will explain later.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Okay, I look forward to your explanation.
LikeLike
Benjamin
I was trying to point out the major issue with your source as well as others. Do you not notice that there is a detailed RH negative for each European group in those articles? Basque has 25% RH negative. English about 16%. None of them detail the many African national security that so happens to have a high RH negative. The 7% is speaking of only African Americans, but what of other Africans and its dispora? The frequency is higher than thought among Africans.
http://www.firetown.com/2014/07/09/rh-negative-percentages-in-african-countries-might-be-much-higher-than-we%C2%B4ve-previously-thought/
LikeLike
@sharinair
I see your point. The figures from Europe are population specific, whereas the figure for Africa is a “blanket figure” for the entire continent. Your article says that the traditional figure for RH negative people in Nigeria – 3% – may be on the low side. It then goes on to say that it appears that in Lagos State, as many as 6% of people are RH negative. But that doesn’t mean that the population of RH negative people in Nigeria is equal to the number of RH negative people in England, percentage wise.
I’ve seen no evidence so far that Africans have the RH negative blood type at higher rates than Europeans do. Until I see population specific data, like the kind of seen for Europe, I guess it’ll remain up in the air for me.
LikeLike
And europeans used to walk on all fours and had a tail and have sex with animals
They even have sex with animals till this very day (thats how STIs got spread to humans) and eat animal faeces too
But guess the truth werent meant to come out
Oops. But you keep trolling honey *sips tea*
LikeLike
Benjamin
You also skipped over the part of the article that states areas with a 44.7%. I never made the claim it was equal to england.
“Until I see population specific data, like the kind of seen for Europe, I guess it’ll remain up in the air for me.”——You are free to remain, so but being quick to say Europeans have a higher rate based on several areas is false, while dismissing these lack of testing of Areas with an African populace. Yes, that is all you know but you now also know that Africans have a higher rate than thought.
LikeLike
That 44.7 alone is higher than all of your European countries.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Well, why do you think that Africans have a higher rate of people with RH negative than Europeans? Yes, I know now that the rate of RH negative for Africans is higher than thought, but that doesn’t yet mean it is more than the % found in Europeans. When I said “it’ll remain up in the air for me”, I mean I’ll keep an open mind on it. I don’t currently know whether Africans have a higher rate RH negative than Europeans, and I feel that is the appropriate response until I know which group has higher rates for sure.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Also, your 44.7% figure is for part of a population, in one country. Most people in that region, where the Yoruba live, have RH negative at a frequency of 9.5%. Maybe in some part of Basque Country, there are people with higher levels of RH negative than the standard 30% or so given for the area.
LikeLike
Benjamin
I don’t have a thought on why they do, but they do.
Most of your 16% is also the population of one country. May even be one small region in a country. Your point? It does not mean that whites have a higher rate overall now does it? It also does not mean Africans are lower because they were not seen worthy enough to test more than African Americans. That study is pretty recent and is very telling on how many other areas ignored in regards to RH negative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinair
“But they do”?
How do you know Africans have a higher percentage of people with RH negative than Europeans. That is all I’m asking. I’m just curious how you know. From what we discussed, it seems that they haven’t tested enough Africans yet to be sure of the frequency of RH negative among Africans. Yet you have claimed, unless I have misread your above comment, that you know for sure that Africans have a higher percentage of people with RH negative than Europeans.
LikeLike
Benjamin
You just asked me why they do, not how I know.
That 44.7 percent is a rate higher than rates of whites that have been documented. It is reasonable to believe that rates are likely higher than that in other areas , seeing as the studies of some African populace has revealed that it is much higher than 3 percent.
LikeLike
@sharinair
You are right, I didn’t phrase my question correctly the first time. Regardless, my point still stands, we do not know for sure if Africans, overall, have a higher percentage of people with RH negative than do Europeans. Perhaps most Africans have a RH negative frequency of 9% as oppose to 3%. We don’t know if Africans average more than 16% (the European average). Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, all we know is that they apparently do among the Yoruba in one part of Nigeria.
Also, I’m rather curious as to why way earlier in this conversation you said that the RH positive was common among Whites? If anything, it is common among Asians and Native Americans way more than either Europeans or Africans. Not that there is anything wrong with being RH positive, since most people are in fact RH positive, even among the Yoruba and Basque.
LikeLike
Benjamin
That is not your point. Your original point was whites have a higher RH negative overall. The average for them is not 16%. Your source shows that as an gamble estimate of what it might be. I will quote it for you as none if my sources mention 16% in that manner. You are pushing the idea that we know with whites, yet so far we really don’t. What we do have is a consistan pattern of studies saying blacks have 3% or less and it showing that blacks actually having higher. My bet is on them.being higher on average.
RH positive is more common among whites compared to blacks.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Yes my original point was that Whites have a higher RH negative overall. Because that is what my research showed me. When I found the figure for Africa to be incorrect, I then changed my viewpoint to reflect that. Also, your “bet” is on them being higher than average is just that, a bet. You are stating that Blacks have a higher frequency of RH negative than Whites as if it is a fact, when it isn’t.
Also, in your comment about the Rhesus monkey way back, you did not say that RH positive is more common among Whites than Blacks, you said it was “commonly found in Whites”. If it is “common found among Whites” then it is commonly found among everyone. Because every population I’ve looked up has more RH positive people than RH negative.
LikeLike
Benjamin
My bet so far seems to be a fact. Either way you cry about it that 44.7 is higher than any white estimate you have. The other areas of estimates are also creeping quite high. Period. If studies had been done in other areas it likely would reflect that considering. You can argue we don’t know, but so far we know some.
I know what I said, but I also know you tried to bring in other groups such as Asians and native Americans when it is obvious from jump this was a white black comparison. I merely clarified your confusion.
What is common among one group does not necessarily mean it is common among another. Black women commonly are more curvy than white women. So not sure what you are getting at. Based on each study pulled the rate of RH positive among whites has been common. You are more likely to find it among them.
LikeLike
@sharinair
And until studies are done in other areas, we won’t know for sure. In some parts of Nigeria, it appears that people average 6 ~ 9% RH negative, rather than the 3% given. The 44.7%, or anything close to it, has not been repeated in any other study, for any other population. Don’t get me wrong, maybe other groups of Africans do have such high frequencies, but I haven’t seen any data yet that says they do.
“Based on each study pulled the rate of RH positive among whites has been common. You are more likely to find it among them.”
Except in the United States, for some reason. In America, Black Americans are more likely to be Rh positive, at 93%, than White Americans are, at 80 ~ 85%.
LikeLike
Benjamin
And you will likely not see the data as the article I presented was very well hidden. Much effort was put into keeping the false idea that blacks are closer to monkeys, when in reality studies are popping up showing that as not true. That whites are closer.
Except this conversation is not about what is more common in one populace. Whites don’t just exist in America for you to decide what my statement should mean. Overall it is more common among whites to have RH positive.
LikeLike
@sharinair
A few statements. One, being RH positive does not make you, genetically, closer to a ‘monkey’ than someone who is RH negative. Second, no one group of humans, anywhere, are closer to monkeys than any other group. Humans have nothing to do with monkeys, we are related to apes, GREAT APES, not monkeys. Two totally different types of primates.
You seriously believe Whites are more related to monkeys than other groups of humans?
LikeLike
Benjamin
The RH gene comes from the Rhesus monkey, so to say nothing is not entirely true.
“You seriously believe Whites are more related to monkeys than other groups of humans?”—–I sure do, but that does not mean I believe that other groups don’t share some relations as well.
LikeLike
@sharinair
If you don’t mind me asking one last question, why do you believe Whites are more related to monkeys than anybody else? What scientific evidence shows that? The RH positive gene is not exclusive to Europeans, so that can’t be it.
LikeLike
Um, the way I’ve always understood this is that the RH factor, which indicates the presence or abscence of a specific blood antigen, can be found in a number of primates, not just humans and rhesus monkeys. The only reason why it was named that is the scientists who first isolated the antigen were working with rhesus monkeys. Presumably it arose among the primates far back in the evolutionary past.
Rhesus monkeys and humans have a common ancestor from whom they diverged on different evolutionary paths millions of years ago. Humans are related to rhesus monkeys but not descended from them. The majority of human and rhesus DNA is identical, but only because we both have the same common ancestor way, way back.
They are our cousins, so to speak, not our parents.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Yes, good point. I’m assuming that perhaps sharinair does not believe in evolution, however.
LikeLike
Benjamin
Being more related does not mean being exclusive. What you should ask yourself is why it bothers you? My scientific evidence is those studies presented.
LikeLike
Benjamin
I’m a Christian. Of course I don’t believe in evolution. *sarcasm off*
Back to the subject at hand or are we going to change and talk about evolution?
LikeLike
@ Benjamin
I hate to disagree with sharinalr, but on this point I do.
The name choice on the part of the scientists has turned out to be an unfortunate one that has led to a lot of confusion.
There are similar blood antigen problems in other species. For example, horses and cats can both have problems in pregnancy or infant survival related to the mother and the fetus having different positive/negative status for a specific blood antigen.
LikeLike
@sharinair
It doesn’t bother me, you just haven’t offered proof. The studies you’ve presented only seem to indicate that the RH negative frequency is higher than previously accepted in Africans. It does not go on to say, nor even suggest, that Africans average the highest frequencies of RH negative overall. And even if Africans did have the highest frequency of RH negative, that does not make them any less related to our ape ancestors, genetically.
None of us are related to monkeys, because like Solitaire said, we split off from them WAY before we split off from apes, let alone separate races.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Yes, the RH positive in humans is similar to the one in the Rhesus monkey, and they were both discovered by the same scientists. But they are not the same thing. If anybody looks into the RH discover for any length of time, they will discover that.
LikeLike
Benjamin
If you say so, but what I said still stands. Whether you and solitary disagree or not
LikeLike
@sharinair
Some of it, yes, not all of it.
LikeLike
Solitaire and Benjamin
No one said the RH gene did not come from other primates, but that also is not the argument here. The argument is simply that whites have a higher RH positive. Giving them a closer relation to monkeys than others.
You can argue about evolution all day, but evolution or not it still links back to some monkey or primate does it not? There are things in life that have a closer relation than others does it not?
LikeLike
Benjamin
I say all of it, because some of it you are attempting to create a point I never stated.
LikeLike
@sharinair
The thing is, Whites do not have a higher frequency of RH positive than do Asians. But I haven’t heard you claim Asians are closer to monkeys than Blacks. Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I understand, you believe Whites have the highest frequency of RH positive out of any racial group. That is incorrect.
LikeLike
I’m O-
http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-types
LikeLike
@v8driver
Neat. You are RH negative as well as blood type O. I believe I am blood type A, not sure if I am A + or A -, however.
LikeLike
Benjamin
And I am not going to pull in Asians, because they have nothing to do with what my argument was. I will state this for the second time. The comparison was black and white. Not White vs every other group. So what is your point?
LikeLike
@sharinair
Earlier I asked you if you believed Whites were closer to monkeys than other groups of people. I meant to ask if you believed Whites were closer to monkeys than the REST of humanity. So my apologies, I didn’t phrase what I wanted to say properly.
That being said, according to the redcrossblood website that v8driver had in his post, White Americans have a higher rate of RH negative than Black Americans. Why is that, if Blacks in Africa normally have a higher rate of RH negative than Whites in Europe? I’m not pressuring you to answer it, I’m just curious as to why Whites and Blacks in America do not accurately reflect their European and African cousins.
LikeLike
Benjamin
You claim to not care, yet are looking for every angle to argue things that I already stated above and am not changing. Every source was about more than just white Americans. What you are trying to argue is that because it is high for white Americans then it must be high for whites in general.
I don’t know. Which is the same answer I gave when you asked a similar question above. Why is there a moon? Why is my skin black? Why do people have brown eyes. Why do people have blood?
LikeLike
when i’m broke i donate blood or plasma, all the time really
LikeLike
there’s a nifty little ‘reality check’ for paternity in the red cross article i linked above as well!
LikeLike
@sharinair
I said I don’t care if Whites end up having a higher RH positive than Blacks, I never said I wasn’t curious if they did. I’m not arguing that since Whites have a higher rate of RH negative than Blacks in America, that it must reflect the populations of Europe and Africa, respectively. But I am saying that it is weird, if what you say is right, that that isn’t the case. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, just that it strikes me is odd is all.
And I do believe we have answers as to why the moon is in the sky, and why some people have dark skin. But I suppose this isn’t the place to discuss those things.
LikeLike
Benjamin
Then before asking me the same questions. Read what I said the first time.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Fair enough. Bottom line is that you have no proof that Whites have a lower frequency of RH negative then Blacks do. All your studies have shown is that Africans probably have a higher RH negative than previously thought. That is it. And for the record, that 44.7% figure was never even confirmed, according to that website where you got it from:
http://www.firetown.com/2014/07/09/the-yoruba-people-an-african-tribe-with-high-frequencies-of-rh-negative-blood/
Anyway, I suppose we can just agree to disagree on this.
LikeLike
@Sharinair
I posted one last comment, but I guess it isn’t going threw
Anyways I guess we can agree to disagree, I mentioned that in my final comment.
LikeLike
Benjamin
That should go without saying, but you want to make something weird that really isn’t. Each ethnic group in the world will likely have different RH, but that does not mean that because blacks RH negative is low in America that it becomes “weird”.
What should be weird is the amount of studies that blatantly put blacks into one single group and tried to claim their RH as 3%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Benjamin
The article clearly states that the poster was not able to confirm it. Not that it was never confirmed. Which still leaves the the article as proof that a 44.7% still higher among a black population. The study did not show probably. The study just showed the numbers.
He/she then went on to say the RH was in fact significantly higher than other groups. If you are at least going to use an article and claim it says something. Make sure you say it correctly.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
Your blood is probably in high demand since it is universal for all the negative types!
LikeLike
@ sharinalr
“No one said the RH gene did not come from other primates, but that also is not the argument here. The argument is simply that whites have a higher RH positive. Giving them a closer relation to monkeys than others.”
So how does that work on an individual basis? If there are two white people, and the husband is Rh negative, and the wife is Rh positive, does that mean the wife is more closely related to monkeys than the husband? What about their baby?
LikeLike
If being RH positive means you are closer to a monkey, than Blacks in the U.S. really are closer to monkeys. As they are RH positive more frequently than Whites. Of course, being RH positive doesn’t make you closer to a monkey, genetically. It just means that you share a feature that most humans, and primates in general, have. Being RH negative is a recessive trait, and just like blue eyes, is generally uncommon in most populations.
LikeLike
This whole talk about whether whites or Blacks have higher or less amounts of RH positive or negative doesn’t mean anything. Millions of years ago a link was established that proves evolution but it has no relevance today in regards to intelligence, IQ ect. It just race realism pseudo science to connect humans to primates and attempt to show direct relevance today.
Over the last 10,000 years human evolution has accelerated more then the previous 70,000 years.
LikeLike
Solitaire
“If there are two white people, and the husband is Rh negative, and the wife is Rh positive, does that mean the wife is more closely related to monkeys than the husband? “—-Yes it does. As to the baby it really depends on his/hee make up.
LikeLike
Benjamin
Here we go again with the blacks and whites in America bs. You whine about it over and over again like a baby about it, yet this argument is and never was about US only. That is the only bone in this fight you really have and frankly it is sad.
Food for thought….blacks in America have more of a mixture. It can be said that such mixture is why they have a high rate of RH positive.
LikeLike
michaeljonbarker
You are right. It does not really matter, but I find it odd that not a single “white” commenter had much to say when some troll was screaming blacks were closer to a monkey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharinalr
Regarding cjfjxjxj’s comment… Sorry, but their comment was so obviously aimed at stirring the pot and so utterly, and ridiculously trollish that I felt any rational response would have never penetrated the commenter’s wall of ignorance. There are trolls here that seem intelligent at times, and I have tried (and failed) to reach them on occasion, but this one just didn’t seem worth the effort.
As for the discussion that has resulted? RH factor relates to the presence of specific protein on a red blood cell. If one is trying to leverage a trait that minor to suggest that it impacts anything other than a protein on a red blood cell (such as degree of monkeyness), well, that’s silly. To insinuate that one factor somehow makes a person closer to a monkey would be to ignore the presence or absence of the rest of the 95% of genes we share with primates. Not to mention whether or not those genes are even expressed or how they are regulated in a specific individual. I’ve read (but not independently validated) that we share 50% of our genes with bananas… maybe there’s a Banana Synthetase gene that some humans have and some don’t. In fact.. now that I mention it… I believe we need more research studies on that Banana Synthetase factor. We can call it the BS factor and I’ll be first in line to get tested.
LikeLike
Open Minded Observer
I call bs, because this conversation did not start until Vanessa said whites are closer. A statement I agree with.
Saying that having RH positive makes one closer to primates does not ignore other genes that makes them closer at all. It is just saying that having the gene makes you one step closer. People have genes that make them one step closer to having diabetes or cancer.
LikeLike
“I’ve read (but not independently validated) that we share 50% of our genes with bananas… maybe there’s a Banana Synthetase gene that some humans have and some don’t.”—I have read tomatoes, so some of us should be closer to fruits I reckon. Maybe I can start using humans for my banana bread.
LikeLike
@sharinair
The first article you posted actually says the opposet of your conclusion that white are more likely to be RH+.
“In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendent and about 1% of Asian or Native American descendent has the RH-negative group.” from: http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2014/05/the-mystery-of-rh-negative-blood-genetic-origin-unknown-2445596.html
The 44.7% you keep quoting is a specific group but the entire country is much lower:
“According to her, the prevalence of Rhesus negative women in the country varies between five and 9.5 percent with higher occurrence of about 44.7 percent amongst the Yoruba race.” from: http://www.firetown.com/2014/07/09/rh-negative-percentages-in-african-countries-might-be-much-higher-than-we%C2%B4ve-previously-thought/
Which means if Europeans in general are 40 to 45%, then your “That 44.7 alone is higher than all of your European countries.” might not be true either.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
That’s my misunderstanding then, I thought it started with cjfjxjxj posting “A full blooded black african has dna closer to an ape than it does to a norther european white person! That is fact. Ooops guess the truth is not suppose to come out.” That’s the post I thought you were referring to when you stated, “…some troll was screaming blacks were closer to a monkey.”
My point was that while RH positive makes you one step closer, any one of the other 95% of our genes can negate that by making you one step further away. “Monkeyness” is not quite the same as diabetes or specific cancers. So, I’ll grant you that being RH positive might constitute a risk factor for “monkeyness”, but the only way that single factor could be determinate is if the two individuals were otherwise genetically identical.
I get that this genetic distinction is important to you. I’m assuming that why you chose to engage in the discussion. When you mentioned that you found it odd that no White commenters had anything to say, I just jumped in to personally let you know why I had nothing to add. It wasn’t that I agreed with the troll, it was that I saw the genetics discussion as not being particularly relevant. I saw the troll as an attempt to dehumanize and the rest of the discussion as debating statistics and studies that were, in my opinion, only related to the OP because those involved in the debate believe RH +/- to be a significant indicator of a person’s “monkeyness”. Since I believe no particular race is any more or less related to primates and that many more factors than RH need to be evaluated in order to determine just how closely related a particular individual is, I stayed out of it. I only chimed in to let you know why when I got the impression you were taking silence as support for the troll.
To sum up my opinions:
– “Monkeyness” = Not a real thing. Just something people argue to justify their prejudices.
– cjfjxjxi = Valueless troll who’s post was ridiculous, so I remained silent.
– Vanessa = Commenter I’m not familiar with but who’s responses to the troll I took to be satirical.
– sharinalr = Familiar commenter who’s opinion I value (though disagree with sometimes), so I chimed in to explain my silence when it was pointed out.
That’s my misunderstanding then, I thought it started with cjfjxjxj posting “A full blooded black african has dna closer to an ape than it does to a norther european white person! That is fact. Ooops guess the truth is not suppose to come out.” That’s the post I thought you were referring to when you stated, “…some troll was screaming blacks were closer to a monkey.”
My point was that while RH positive makes you one step closer, any one of the other 95% of our genes can negate that by making you one step further away. “Monkeyness” is not quite the same as diabetes or specific cancers. So, I’ll grant you that being RH positive might constitute a risk factor for “monkeyness”, but the only way that single factor could be determinate is if the two individuals were otherwise genetically identical.
I get that this genetic distinction is important to you. I’m assuming that why you chose to engage in the discussion. When you mentioned that you found it odd that no White commenters had anything to say, I just jumped in to personally let you know why I had nothing to add. It wasn’t that I agreed with the troll, it was that I saw the genetics discussion as not being particularly relevant. I saw the troll as an attempt to dehumanize and the rest of the discussion as debating statistics and studies that were, in my opinion, only related to the OP because those involved in the debate believe RH +/- to be a significant indicator of a person’s “monkeyness”. Since I believe no particular race is any more or less related to primates and that many more factors than RH need to be evaluated in order to determine just how closely related a particular individual is, I stayed out of it. I only chimed in to let you know why when I got the impression you were taking silence as support for the troll.
To sum up my opinions:
– “Monkeyness” = Not a real thing. Just something people argue to justify their prejudices.
– cjfjxjxi = Valueless troll who’s post was ridiculous, so I remained silent.
– Vanessa = Commenter I’m not familiar with but who’s responses to the troll I took to be satirical.
– sharinalr = Familiar commenter who’s opinion I value (though disagree with sometimes), so I chimed in to explain my silence when it was pointed out.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
Literally LOL’d at that. Dark sense of humor I guess.
@Abagond
Can you delete the duplicated text in my post? I went to post and needed to log in, cut/pasted for safety and must have double pasted.
LikeLike
Speaking of antigens and enzymes which were developed over millennia to determine which ‘race’ is more or less similar any other specific animal isn’t even science.
Have any of the HBD crowd even considered; environment, toxins, proximity, diet, etc.,… .
Using Rh for blacks being similar to monkeys is like saying whites must be more closely related to cows because they can tolerate lactose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Open Minded Observer
He said that, but it did not become a big deal to anyone until Vanessa spoke. At that point Benjamin felt he must defend, but was not bothered to say a word to cjfjxjxj. See how this post is several comments longer because white commenters are up and arms about RH positive and a % of them being closer to a monkey?
“My point was that while RH positive makes you one step closer, any one of the other 95% of our genes can negate that by making you one step further away.”—–It could, but I don’t think it is that simple to sat that this gene cancels out that one.
You don’t have to explain. Plenty of commenter did not say anything and many I can guess the reasoning, but the issue is not so much that no one bothered to address cjfjxjxj, so much as the addressing only began when it was stated whites are closer to a monkey. At that point it became a matter of getting scientific and explaining.
To sum it up:
There are people who share a closer genetic trait to primates than others. I don’t see what the problem is…..oh nevermind. The problem is that it is stated that whites have a closer genetic trait.
LikeLike
@sharinalr
I’ll leave you guys to that discussion.
LikeLike
@sharinair
Even if they are mixed with Whites, shouldn’t Black Americans still have a higher RH negative than White Americans? If Blacks normally have a high frequency of RH negative, and Whites have a high frequency of RH positive, shouldn’t a Black American’s RH negative frequency be in between the two? Higher than a White American’s but lower than a “pure” African? But it isn’t, Black American’s RH negative frequency is lower than that of White Americans.
And for the record, I didn’t see this “cjfjxj” or whoever they were’s comments. Vanessa’s comments just struck me as incredibly stupid. White’s use to have tails and walk on all fours? Really now, people actually believe that? There is no science to support such BS, and anybody with basic scientific knowledge knows that.
LikeLike
Benjamin
Your questions are retarded and so are you.
“Even if they are mixed with Whites, shouldn’t Black Americans still have a higher RH negative than White Americans?”—-Enough of a mixture can bring that RH negative % down significantly. You need to realize these studies are several years and generations of mixturesome down the line. For example if blacks from African in 1600s come to American and the RH negative among the pop is 16%. They mix with whites in the pop who have a high rates of RH positive. If that RH positive takes over then it is likely that 16% starts to drop to 8% over time. We are talking about several generations here.
“But it isn’t, Black American’s RH negative frequency is lower than that of White Americans.”—-I never said it wasn’t in the case of Americans, but I do realize how it could have gotten that way. Just as I realize that you mad bro.
“And for the record, I didn’t see this “cjfjxj” or whoever they were’s comments. Vanessa’s comments just struck me as incredibly stupid. White’s use to have tails and walk on all fours? Really now, people actually believe that? There is no science to support such BS, and anybody with basic scientific knowledge knows that.”——Please stop being a liar. The comment about whites on all fours came some posts down from your first response you made to her. Right above her comment was the cjfjxj person.
LikeLike
@sharinair
You haven’t proven any of your points, yet you state them to be fact. You have not proven Africans overall have a higher RH negative frequency than Europeans, just that their frequency appears to be higher than previously thought. It has also been told to you that being RH positive does not, genetically speaking, make you closer to a monkey. Yet you keep saying it does.
Stick to religion, please.
LikeLike
Benjamin
If that is the lie you want to tell then tell it, because the questions you ask have nothing to do with my point.
I have proven plenty, so my little facts still stand.
“It has also been told to you that being RH positive does not, genetically speaking, make you closer to a monkey. Yet you keep saying it does.”—-Because it does. Nothing scientific was presented to say it does not and most are giving their understanding of it.
“Stick to religion, please.”—-Nope. 🙂
LikeLike
@ sharinalr
If you want to argue that white people have more neanderthal DNA and therefore are less pure homo sapiens sapiens than Africans, I’d be willing to concede that point, based on my understanding of the science as it now stands.
I find the Rh argument to be bad science, and I would feel the same way if someone was trying to use the same argument in reverse to say black people were closer to monkeys.
You believe it is scinetific and feel very strongly about it. I don’t see either of us managing to sway each other’s view, so I’m bowing out.
LikeLike
*scientific
LikeLike
Solitaire
“I find the Rh argument to be bad science”—–I don’t disagree with that.
“I don’t see either of us managing to sway each other’s view, so I’m bowing out.”—–Thank you for understanding that.
LikeLike
@ The KIng of All Racists
Comment deleted for use of racial slur.
LikeLike
The KIng of All Racists
King sh*t from turd’s island more like. That is his true moniker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The resemblance has nothing to do with monkeys and apes, and everything to do with adaptation, over a long period of time, to Africa’s environment. It’s hot and dry. Many of the people are tall and lean. Their nostrils are shorter, flared, and they have kinky hair. All these features are designed to keep them cooler than we would be over there. A longer nose heats the air more, as it’s inhaled. A longer thinner frame doesn’t retain heat as much as the shorter, stockier body of an Eskimo’s would. Springy, kinky hair repels more heat than straight hair would. I should appreciate my kinky hair a lot more. 😀 I did have an African ancestor which means there were more leading down to him. There’s more to it, but that’s the gist of it. God’s a clever creator. All people originated in Africa, and spread out from there. If separate races is real, we shouldn’t be able to reproduce with just any fertile person, only our race, and we’d have to have organ transplants from only our race. We don’t, because we are one race, human. Part of the differences is changes through time. Sticking with one group of people as they went their own way thru time. Look at so-called “native” Americans. Their looks and their languages can be traced back to Asia, the place some of their ancestors went. What it all boils down to is that race is an optical illusion, the product of changes thru time in different groups. Without the processes of mitosis, meiosis, and genetic mutations we’d all look alike and like the very first couple. That wouldn’t be any fun!
LikeLike
Jesus, Black people can´t escape stereotypes and mischaracterization, even if they are royal and European! See https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/09/uk/danny-baker-tweet-royal-baby-gbr-scli-intl/index.html
LikeLike