The following is mainly based on “Human Equality Is a Contingent Fact of History” in Stephen Jay Gould’s book, “The Flamingo’s Smile” (1985). Note that there was some overlap between these steps:
1. First they said that blacks were not human.
In the early 1800s many scientists said that only whites came from Adam and Eve, not blacks. God created blacks separately as a lower race.
But then Darwin proved that all the races of man belonged to the same species, that they all came from a common ancestor, probably from Africa.
2. So then they said that early man did not come from Africa.
They thought he came from Europe or northern Asia where it was cold and, according to their ideas, challenging enough to evolve mankind.
When the Piltdown Man was found in England in 1912 they believed it, but when Australopithecus was found in Africa in 1924, they doubted it. As it turns out, Piltdown Man was a fake – a fake that was made to beautifully fit their beliefs.
In the 1920s the natural history museum in New York sent an expedition in search of early man – in the Gobi Desert of Outer Mongolia. They looked and looked but all they found was something far more ancient: dinosaur bones and dinosaur eggs. No early man.
In 1929, though, a species of early man was found at last in northern Asia: Homo erectus (Peking Man).
3. So then they said that Homo erectus did not come from Africa.
Homo erectus, unlike australopithecines, could make fire. Mankind may have started in Africa, but it was in the north that they became truly human.
In 1962 Carleton Coon put it this way:
If Africa was the cradle of mankind, it was only an indifferent kindergarten. Europe and Asia were our principal schools.
But then Homo erectus bones were found in Africa that were far older.
4. So then they said that Homo sapiens did not come from Africa.
They said he evolved directly from Homo erectus in Asia and Europe.
But then in 1987 it was shown that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and then spread across the world.
5. So then they said that subspecies of Homo sapiens had evolved outside of Africa.
For over ten years they looked for a “race” gene: a gene that everyone of one race had that was missing from the other races. But there were no “white” genes or “black” genes – just gene frequencies. In fact, in the early 1970s they found out that most of the genetic differences between people were within races, not between them.
Most biologists today no longer think in terms of human subspecies or race. Not because they are afraid to admit the truth out of political correctness, but because human characteristics do not fall into nice little boxes like that. Skin colour, for example, does not match up with blood type. At all. As hospitals know. Yet both are clearly genetic. So where in the world would you draw the lines between subspecies?
See also:
And, as the last map shows, we finns have the same B type blood allelle % in us as do those guys in East Africa, South Africa, , North Africa, Indonesia, southern India, Middle East and Japan. And this despite that we have all these frigging reindeers and snow and ice and darkness 6 months a year. Damned! 😀
LikeLike
Bloody hell Sam, your brain must be humongous with Japanese, and all that snow and ice. But hang on, you’re probably a lazy bastard who fails IQ tests. The African connection, you know… 😉
You know Santa Claus’ home address too, don’t you? 😀
Blood type can get confusing even within one family, like my own. My mother had A+ and my father has B-. I have B+ and the sister I share the most physical similarities with has A-. My baby sis has A+ and she looks the least African of all of us. My older brother who shares the least physical similarities with my youngest sis has A+ too. He looks the least European of all of us.
(Son of a biology teacher speaking.)
One thing we all have in common is a rare cartilage disorder we inherited from our (European) father.
But hey! complexity aside, I’m sure someone from the HBD front will be able to tell what “race” me and my siblings belong to, with all that biological data….
LikeLike
A bit more about the Piltdown Man: it’s not just that he didn’t come from Africa. There were some other features of all human skeletons found, that were unsettling to some people.
You see, it was believed that the brain was the first one that evolved; that the brain is what makes human a human. Only later, it was believed, human ancestors developed other human characteristics, such as the ability to walk standing up (bipedalism) and other features.
Since brain development affects skull, they were hoping to find a human ancestor with a very developed, human like skull, but relatively undeveloped post cranial skeleton (ape like arms and legs and pelvis, for example). In their mind, it would make a perfect “missing link” between apes and modern humans.
But it just didn’t happen. All human ancestor skeletons found were quite the reverse: developed, almost modern looking skeleton, but undeveloped skull (indicating undeveloped brain). People didn’t like it, so somebody had an idea to create a perfect fossil: they took a human skull and an orangutan (if I’m not mistaken) jaw, and voila: the Piltdown man was born! Modern skull proved the ancestor had the same mental capacities as we do, but undeveloped jaw indicated the rest of his body wasn’t quite developed yet.
And as we know, it was a hoax. Humans did develop bipedalism and postcranial skeleton first, and the brain development followed. Not the other way around.
That being said, all of the human ancestor species came from Africa. All of the oldest skeletons found by all of the species are found in Africa. We still have NO idea why, or how it happened, but it’s safe to assume Africa (specifically: Eastern Africa) was where it all begun.
Neanderthals are the only species we’re still argue about. Some scientist see them as a sub branch of Homo Sapiens (we- Homo Sapiens Sapiens being another one), and others see it as a separate species. I am not an expert on this, but I’m one of those who believe we’re both subspecies of Homo Sapiens. There seem to be indicators that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have mated successfully, which is an indicator of being the same species.
Needless to say, Homo Sapiens also originated in Africa, around 200 000 years ago. I believe it had two subspecies: Neanderthals (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) and us (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). Like I said, this still has to be proved, but it’s something I personally believe to be true.
LikeLike
Once again you did an awesome post. I took Anthropology at my university and was amazed at the discomfort of alot my (white) peers. What do you think about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331949,00.html
LikeLike
This is fascinating (said in my ‘Spock’ voice)! But, then there is this article that says early man may have not come out of Africa….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…tion-modern-man.html
LikeLike
oops, when I clicked on the link provided, the article did no come up…
Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa? Israeli discovery forces scientists to re-examine evolution of modern man
By Matthew Kalman
Last updated at 7:51 AM on 28th December 2010
Comments (185) Add to My Stories
Scientists could be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.
Until now, researchers believed that homo sapiens, the direct descendants of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago and gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia.
Recently, discoveries of early human remains in China and Spain have cast doubt on the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, but no-one was certain.
Professor Avi Gopher, a researcher from Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, holds a pre-historic tooth at Qesem cave, an excavation site near the town of Rosh Ha’ayin
The new discovery of pre-historic human remains by Israeli university explorers in a cave near Ben-Gurion airport could force scientists to re-think earlier theories.
Early humans: Middle Awash Aramis, Ethiopia, where the first ‘modern’ human beings were thought to have been discovered
Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin – 10 miles from Israel’s international airport – are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.
The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man. Until now, the earliest examples found were in Africa, dating back only 200,000 years.
Other scientists have argued that human beings originated in Africa before moving to other regions 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens discovered in Middle Awash, Ethiopia, from 160,000 years ago were believed to be the oldest ‘modern’ human beings.
Other remains previously found in Israeli caves are thought to have been more recent and 80,000 to 100,000 years old.
A group of international and Israeli researchers have discovered pre-historic artefacts and human remains at the site that may prove the earliest existence of modern man was about 400,000 years ago
The findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggest that modern man did not originate in Africa as previously believed, but in the Middle East.
The Qesem cave was discovered in 2000 and has been the focus of intense study ever since.
Along with the teeth – the parts of the human skeleton that survive the longest – the researchers found evidence of a sophisticated early human society that used sharpened flakes of stone to cut meat and other impressive prehistoric tools.
The Israeli scientists said the remains found in the cave suggested the systematic production of flint blades, the habitual use of fire, evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of animal meat, and mining raw materials to produce flint tools from rocks below ground.
‘A diversified assemblage of flint blades was manufactured and used,’ the Tel Aviv scientists wrote, describing the tools they found in the cave.
‘Thick-edged blades, shaped through retouch, were used for scraping semi-hard materials such as wood or hide, whereas blades with straight, sharp working edges were used to cut soft tissues.’
The explorers said they were continuing to investigate the cave and its contents, expecting to make more discoveries that would shed further light on human evolution in prehistoric times.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341973/Did-humans-come-Middle-East-Africa-Scientists-forced-write-evolution-modern-man.html#ixzz1A19yzpAT
LikeLike
Oyan,
Its like six in one hand and six in the other. Africa is a continent and if you at the present land mass it would appear that it would detach at the north eastern border of Saudi Arabia rather than at the Red Sea. 400,000 thousand years ago would the Red Sea have been as much of a barrier you so want it to be now.
LikeLike
@oyan: well, interesting indeed, but still, lets wait and see before we draw such conclusions, eh?
After all, the whole human migration around the globe was propably not so neat as it seems to be in the pictorial presentations in the books. There was no authority who set the time tables, migration orders, destinations etc., so all kinds of things happened for sure. Some scientists just try to make sense into it by making these neat charts and timetables, with few hundred thousand years here and there. In reality, we still know very little, but one thing is pretty certain: it all started in Africa.
LikeLike
@ oyan
The only evidence this new discovery may hold is that modern humans are *at least* 400,000 years old. Not more not less.
It cannot explain why human genetic variation decreases, the further you go away from Africa. Nobody has found fossils that old or older in Africa yet.
LikeLike
Like Femi said, everything we know about DNA points to Africa as the origin of our species. However, this is still a valuable discovery, because it can prove Homo Sapiens is even older than we thought.
LikeLike
This is of course a very important discovery for science. It remains to hope though that it will be further analysed only within a serious scientific context.
The aftermath is very interesting as well. It already shows the beginnings of attempts at ideological colouring. It may seem ever so subtle but let’s compare the headlines of different publications.
Daily Mail “Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa?”
(Btw, the wiki about the Daily Mail is quite revealing.)
Even MSNBC states “Ancient human remains may alter human origin theory”.
The headlines for instance in Hürriyet, Discovery News, Physorg and other scientific publications read like “World’s oldest human remains claimed in Israel”.
Well, it’s up to the reader to decide whose journalistic approach is more pragmatic and unbiased.
We shall see what’s still to come from all sorts of “sources”. Mark my words 😉
LikeLike
Well, the proper scientific title would be something like:
“Oldest ever found Homo Sapiens discovered in Israel”.
Nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
Well, it was still a claim when the articles came out as it wasn’t reviewed yet.
LikeLike
Apparently the discovery is making quite a furor, because when I search for a map of Africa or a description of the landscape during 400,000 years ago, all that came up was about the discovery the first few pages.
I think many feel that it validates Genesis.
LikeLike
@hator: and that is all we need here!! 😀 zeesus all mighty!
LikeLike
So that’s how it works? You find a tooth and how ever old that tooth is that’s how old man is until they find an older tooth? Why not just say “we have absolutely no idea how old man is. We found this one really old tooth, but there could just as easily be older teeth somewhere else so it doesn’t really mean anything conclusive.”
LikeLike
So that’s how it works? You find a tooth and how ever old that tooth is that’s how old man is until they find an older tooth?
Yes, that’s how it goes. Well, not really. We can only say- and we always do- the old est remains ever found, not the oldest ever.
But journalists and general public usually ignore this part, so they take “oldest” as in “oldest, period”.
Obviously, all you can say- not just about human remains, but any material remain- it’s the oldest one we know about.
Still, it’s not the same as saying “we have no idea how old man is”. Judging by the existing evidence (DNA studies being just one of them), we do have some idea about it.
All in all, archaeologists ALWAYS put things in a way of “it’s the oldest ever found”- but the media and general public don’t really take it that way.
LikeLike
Anyway, this discovery sure seems exciting, and opens new questions about the evolution of the man and prehistory (paleolithic times). However, I just know it will soon be used for some political (racist, nationalist, etc.) crap, oh, I just know. It’s already started.
LikeLike
Apparently the discovery is making quite a furor, because when I search for a map of Africa or a description of the landscape during 400,000 years ago, all that came up was about the discovery the first few pages.
I think many feel that it validates Genesis.
I don’t get how it would validate Genesis? Does Genesis predict that an old tooth would be found in Israel?
LikeLike
King,
As Mira said it will be used for some political, ethnocentric, racist or religious justification.
There are those who are not creationist and believe in evolution, but never the less believe that first man were Hebrews. The creation of man in Genesis and the location of the Garden of Eden; that is what I was alluding to.
I am not trying to relate the findings to anything, I just notice how the news is being prioritized through a relative unrelated search. Even when I looked up the Pleistocene Age the reports of that dig came up. It also came up as a certainty that the first homo sapien appeared during 400,000 years ago.
I felt the interest in those findings was more than an interest in science. There seemed hardly a blip on in the media when CERN was doing highly controversial experiments, that some thought would create a black hole and possibly destroy the earth. That I thought should have been in the popular psyche.
LikeLike
Hathor,
I am by no means an expert, but I thought the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia, not Israel.
As for the new findings, IF it’s indeed Homo Sapiens, and IF it’s indeed 400 000 years old, then yes, we can say it’s the oldest Homo Sapiens ever found.
However, remember that the Homo Sapiens in question is the so-called Archaic Homo Sapiens and not exactly a modern man; out species is called Homo Sapiens Sapiens… There were other Homo Sapiens species out there. So maybe it’s one of those. I am sorry I’m not able to provide a better answer; I only heard about it on this site!
As for CERN, there were people panicking about it… It was all covered. Maybe not in North America, but definitely in Europe (because we’re closer to it?)
LikeLike
“There are those who are not creationist and believe in evolution, but never the less believe that first man were Hebrews.”
But how could the first man have been be a descendent of Abraham???
Besides…. It thought that Eden was supposed to be closer to the Eurphrates…
“And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.”
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you are talking about the Middle East and the Garden of Eden. You may have read of the new theory that postulates that there was an ancient lost civilization in the area that is now the Persian Gulf. This land was dry, fertile land until 8000 years ago, so it makes sense that people lived there. I’m not Christian, but it does seem to fit in well with the area described for the Garden of Eden as it would have been a place of convergence for several rivers.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/11/new-theory-points-to-submerged-civilization-in-middle-east/
LikeLike
@ Sagat
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Abagond,
You know, what is truly interesting out of all these many posts you’ve put up lately excoriating HBD – and please do not get it twisted, because I’ve had a few choice words both about it and those who proffer it in the way that they do – it continues to fascinate me as to how you dodge some of the most basic questions. I want to suggest that you do this, because you simply are not concerned about:
1. Black Crime. The reality is that you and I, Abagond, are much more likely to be staring down the business end of a gun wielded by a thug who happens to be Black, than the vast majority of the White guys who tout the HBD line, and we have hard stats and data to back this up – the single biggest victim of Black Crime, are Black people themselves, especially, (sometimes innocent) Black Men. True, HBDers may trot out Black Crime rates in a misbegotten attempt to forge some larger point about Black people in general, but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that Black Crime, is real. And a very huge concern for Black people like you and me, who live where Black criminals and thugs tend to be. Neither of us likes racial profiling, but as someone who knows what it’s also like to be staring down the barrels of guns pointing at me by (often but not always White) cops who either can’t or won’t time the time to make the distinction between a law-abiding Brotha like myself, and some thug around the way, I still can’t ignore the fact that Black Crime is again, real. You don’t seem to care all that much about that fact – you certainly don’t have any posts up that squarely, honestly and brutally, address this – the only posts you have up that comes anywhere near approaching the topic have to do with how the topic is used and abused by putative racists. I find such an approach to be, quite frankly, self serving, if not outright dishonest.
2. You fail to take up the basic argument of The Bell Curve, even after you’ve posted numerous times on the book. I honestly have to question as to whether you’d even read it, given how you so often sidestepped what it was saying. Why it is we cannot simply admit that everyone isn’t an Einstein is something that is fascinating to me. That is what The Bell Curve is, in part, saying – and – it is also saying that as our society becomes more and more technologically dependent, we will continue to see a society of haves and have nots – and part of the reason for that divide is because one side simply isn’t as smart as the other side to exist in such as world as is. The book says very little about race, and every book or scholar I’ve seen to debunk it does so on these grounds, and/or other grounds, ie, they didn’t do their studies correctly, etc. never, on the grounds of the basic premise of the argument.
3. You don’t seem to be interested in what the truth of things are; you seem a lot more interested against fighting what you perceive to be racism, and far be it for me to tell you what you should or should not be doing. For what it’s worth, I am more than happy to defend your right to write whatever you want. I just think its personally counterproductive for us to ignore simple things, like Black Crime, or the current state of Black familial life, or poor achievement in schools, to the tune of more than half of all Black males dropping out of highschool, for example. No matter what Whites think about these and other things, the simple truth is, that all of this has a marked and longstanding effect on Black people as a whole, and I for one don’t see many in the Afrosphere taking a brutally hard look at these things. Far too many seem interested in upbraiding Whites for their supposed racism.
In short Abagond, it occurs to me that we as Black folk simply have a lot bigger fish to fry, to be too worried as to what White folks do or don’t think about us. Now to be sure, I take them to task too; but I also try real hard to be evenhanded.
I really don’t get that sense from you.
Perhaps I’m wrong.
You’ll be so kind as to prove it?
O.
LikeLike
@ Obsidian
1) Most of the commenters here have acknowledged the higher (mostly Black on Black) crime rates.
But in a nutshell, what do you think is the answer to reducing it?
2. Why would everyone need to be an Einstein in order to be successful?
LikeLike
@ Obsidian
Most wars are fought on more than 1 front.
LikeLike
King,
Can you please post a few links where such sentiments as you claim were clearly expressed – and – more to the point – can you please post a link or to to posts written by Abagond himself that specifically deals with Black Crime and it not having anything to do with racism at all?
Second, have you read The Bell Curve? Please forgive me for being curt, but at this point I feel I kinda have to qualify people first before discussing the book with them.
Thanks
O.
LikeLike
Jason,
That may indeed be, and if that is indeed true, then why don’t we see hardly any Black bloggers discussing honestly, the things I just noted above? Why is it that the vast majority of them take a more Abagond approach, ie, excoriating those they perceive to be racists and the like? again, I am not saying that there isn’t any legitimate basis for them to do this, only saying that the focus is a bit lopsided, especially given the dire nature of the stakes involved here.
Your response?
O.
LikeLike
@ O
I’m white how would I know? haha
If I were to guess? Maybe they don’t feel comfortable airing BP’s dirty laundry in spaces occupied by WP Because we would probably take advantage of their honesty and throw it back in their faces.
Also, most of the ills you describe are a product of racism induced self-hatred. Unless you believe it to be a genetic flaw? But that would bring us back to the self-hatred wouldn’t it.
LikeLike
@sagat, king; check out the books by David Rohl, egyptologist, particulary the book From Eden to Exile. He places Eden in to present day Kurdistan/Iran, Turkey/Azerbaidzan area and argues it well. All four rivers flow from the place which was later called by the persians as paradise, closed garden.
Also it was in the seventh heaven, that is if you traveled from the present day Irak lowlands up there your road passed trough seven mountain passes, gates of heaven, before you entered into land of Eden.
Very interesting theories and argeological facts to back them up. Recommend.
LikeLike
“Can you please post a few links where such sentiments as you claim were clearly expressed .”
Do, you mean that you want me to post links to instances where a commenter has acknowledged that the Black crime rate is high?
“Can you please post a link or to to posts written by Abagond himself that specifically deals with Black Crime and it not having anything to do with racism at all?”
Are you asking me to find a post in which Abagond refers to Black crime, but has completely removed racism from the analysis of the problem?
And all of this will then allow you to answer what your own solution to the Black high crime problem would be???
It seems to me that your requests are becoming somewhat less rational of late.
“Second, have you read The Bell Curve? Please forgive me for being curt, but at this point I feel I kinda have to qualify people first before discussing the book with them.”
So… what you are saying is that in order to discuss ANY issue that you believe may have been covered in The Bell Curve, the person with whom you are discussing must also have read The Bell Curve.
It’s funny though, because I have the very same problem. Did you know that I refuse to discuss economics with any one who hasn’t read The Wealth of Nations? If someone hasn’t read it, I just don’t want to hear their ideas about economics.
I also won’t discuss politics with anyone who hasn’t read The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. If someone expresses an opinion on legislative justice, for example, I usually just say, “Have you read The Social Contract? And if they haven’t, then I walk away.
So I can sympathize with you on how one book is really the single qualifier to an entire field of inquiry.
LikeLike
Not black, but… I think I remember Abagond saying something about this, about not wanting to talk about “black pathology” and similar stuff, because it’s everywhere (on the news, etc), as if it’s the only thing that blacks do or as if all blacks are like that.
This approach (both media and Abagond) could create unbalanced view for a complete outsider (me, for example), but it shouldn’t be a problem for people who know what’s really going on.
As for the dirty laundry… I completely understands why Abagond, or whoever, chooses not to talk about it, especially with whites. Stuff like that (internal group problems) need to be criticized, but the group itself should do it. It’s not for outsiders. Most of the times, they don’t care, and even if they do, they can’t help. The worst thing, they’ll just use it against your group. So while I’m generally against the “group mentality”, and while I don’t believe “only X can criticize X” philosophy, I can totally relate with not wanting to bring the dirty laundry. (Still, it can be problematic because any race talk would not offer any solutions- which I do see as the biggest problem of so-called race blogs).
LikeLike
“it’s everywhere (on the news, etc), as if it’s the only thing that blacks do or as if all blacks are like that.”
Truth.
LikeLike
@Obsidian. If you want to do a blog about black crime, no one’s stopping you.
This is not the post for this.
LikeLike
@ Obsidian
PS. Why do you link to a blog that no longer exist?
LikeLike
I do believe Jason is onto something. I think some blacks(not Abagond specifically) shy away from those critiques because some people will use it as pass for their racist/ill informed views.
Not saying it’s right, in fact, it’s much better to confront these things head on, but I can see why blacks would shy away from discussing black crime candidly. Doing so could provide ammunition to ‘racialists’
LikeLike
Obsidian:
“In short Abagond, it occurs to me that we as Black folk simply have a lot bigger fish to fry, to be too worried as to what White folks do or don’t think about us. Now to be sure, I take them to task too; but I also try real hard to be evenhanded.”
I disagree. Racism is still the biggest fish to fry, bigger than most black people imagine.
Also, I do not talk much here about supposed black pathologies because they get more than enough attention elsewhere. And because I know full well whites use them to get themselves off the hook: See, blacks create their own mess – it has nothing to do with us!
I will say more later. It might become a post. If it does, then I will post a link to it on this thread.
LikeLike
King and Mira,
I wasn’t trying to be specific, because I don’t study the Bible and it was not my intention to present myself as an authority on the Bible. I do know some people will make anything six-degrees near a possible fact and use it to try to prove their hypothesis. I referenced Genesis, because it is the Hebrew creation story and not the Dogon’s.
Mira,
I was wondering to myself today just if it could be known when a species has totally transitioned. That’s probably not the word, but I wouldn’t think it would be one generation. It would take a long time before all the anomalous chromosomes would fall out and get the right pairings. Even today, occasionally we wind up with more than a pair.
LikeLike
O
Has it occurred to you that the subject has been talked to death, that perhaps someone who has so much concern, should put their feet on the ground and do.
LikeLike
Quote of the day
LikeLike
Obsidian:
More here:
LikeLike
Hathor,
I consider myself a religious person, but I am in no way an expert on Bible. I was raised by atheists in an atheist country, so there were no Bible studies of any sorts… Not even Christmas when I was a kid, so there are so many things I don’t know.
But we did have some studies in my faculty (Ancient History and Biblical Archaeology, to name a few), and I’m sure the garden of Eden was said to be in Mesopotamia.
LikeLike
Black is the ORIGINAL BLOOD AND GENES!
Black people are MORE HUMAN then whites!
For centuries they have been lying to the people. And this include whites too who think they are sooooo much of everything, and really not.
People with white skin are the MISSING PART of the Black chromosome! White people are the true SUBCULTURE of mankind.
Negroes of the North and North East Africa and eslewhere who think that they are ‘white’ ‘colored’, or ‘multiracial’, ‘multatto’ or some other insulting term, need to change their thinking and –THINK AGAIN!
Scientist, arceologist (sp?), historian, and other who love to go around digging up the past know the TRUTH! But wont say to much because the truth may hurt a lot of people. Especially whites. Infact, I think ONLY white people would get the shock of their lives if the truth was put out here.
Face it, European & European decent people have not only bamboozaled, lied to, hood rink ( I think that’s what Malcom said) to not only blacks, but they have done the same to white and so many others to make it look like being white is the best thing God ever created.
Oh, and Adam & Eve are not black. And they werent the first people either. There were more people on the earth at the time Adam & Eve came in the picture. And they WERE BLACK. This is another truth. Adam came from those people. Do the Research. And forget about the King James bible. The world DID NOT start like that in Genesis.
LikeLike
Wrong alternate universe, Denise.
In this universe, the whites got the gun&powder breakthrough and spent the next hundred of years screwing over 70% of humankind. That was such a blast.. for them.
Lot of fun and pain.
If you want to go in the universe where Africans rules the world, just rewind 4 or 5 hundred years and at the crossroad of universes , go right.
LikeLike
Well, I think Denise is right about the genetic bottleneck. If humanity started in Africa and then populated the rest of the world it makes sense that there would be less genetic diversity outside of Africa.
I wouldn’t go so far as 2 say it makes you “more” or “less” human.
Trying to base your politics on genetics is just a fail all around no matter which side of the gene pool you’re on.
We’re people. End of story.
But I guess I understand where it comes from. WP have been trying to convince POC that they are less human for quite some time so…I’m not surprised some people would be seduced by Denise’s rhetoric.
LikeLike
Nah!
For supremacist Bs, whether it’s black or white, for the brain chemistry doesn’t make a difference, same neurons involved and same pattern.
If you’re susceptible to the argument of one side then you’re open to both sides.
It’s just a question of who has achieved a position of power or not.
LikeLike
Which dogs are more doggie?
The prehistoric canine is the only true DOG!
LikeLike
jas0nburns–
Also, most of the ills you describe are a product of racism induced self-hatred.
Where are the studies that show this? Or is it just a (widely held under PC) ideological concept?
The leading people who might describe themselves as realists so far as their understanding and talking about racial differences goes, reference and quote from scientific studies extensively.
LikeLike
Mira
Actually the overall fact that black per capita levels of violent crime are 6-8 times greater than for whites(8 for murder and off the charts higher for interracial rape) is never reported or referenced, and actual horror stories of black criminality are usually avoided or heavily filtered in the mass media – though they may appear in back pages of newspapers. Yeah sure there are still some stories of black crime on the news, but way less than is representative of what’s worst out there. If a story isn’t getting massive day after day attention where it’s impossible to avoid, the race of black perps is often omitted in their description whereas when the suspect is white that will almost always be reported, as if to say, see whites commit violent crime for money too. The media elites believe they have to avoid stoking a resurgence of white racism (the rarely worry about encouraging black racism) by more evenly reporting the facts. Maybe this later censorship has decreased some in the last several years.
Also MTV has been big time promoting blacks for more than a decade, and also the black male hot white girl dating thing – far more than actually happens. The same is true in mainstream movies for a number of years now. In the last census ½ of 1% of married white women were married to a black man. Blacks are often portrayed as excitingly hyper masculine while white guys are increasingly portrayed as geeks and soft. Not at all how Hollywood used to portray white men before the 90s, and more so before the 70s.
The general direction of the propaganda, particularly in mass entertainment where it’s much more effective since it’s portrayed as just what is and subtext, is clearly to build up blacks, especially black men.
LikeLike
doug Yeah sure there are still some stories of black crime on the news,
Most stories on the news are of blk crime. If you live in a heavly Latino area then you may see some stories on latino crime too but for the most part it’s YBMs acting up. I have no idea why you guys keep repeating this over and over again.
doug Actually the overall fact that black per capita levels of violent crime are 6-8 times greater than for whites(8 for murder and off the charts higher for interracial rape) is never reported or referenced
and if this is mentioned then what??? Do other groups of people use this to justify discrimanation against YBMs? Or all we talking about a final solution type thing for blks who misbehave? should we steralize them? should we keep them in jail for ever, or what?
because most blk people do not live this sort of life style. why should we pay for the crimes of other blks simply because we are from the same race. I don’t expect you to apologise for any past crimes of random white people.
LikeLike
Doug1 quoting Jasonburns
jas0nburns–
Also, most of the ills you describe are a product of racism induced self-hatred.
doug I loosely hinted at this over on chuck’s blog when I said the kids in the video have misplaced anger although I not so sure I can call it racism induced because blks today have far more freedom than they did 50 years ago and these sorts of things weren’t happening.
but it is self-hatred you better believe that. Too many single parent families, families were dad ain’t around and mom is too tired from working 2-3 jobs and emotionally worn out to be a parent and maybe even emotionally cold to her children
.
LikeLike
Uncle Obsidian Black Crime. The reality is that you and I, Abagond, are much more likely to be staring down the business end of a gun wielded by a thug who happens to be Black, than the vast majority of the White guys who tout the HBD line, and we have hard stats and data to back this up – the single biggest victim of Black Crime, are Black people themselves, especially, (sometimes innocent) Black Men.
I’ve said this 1 million and 1 times. They just don’t want to hear it. It’s like they don’t care about blk men who are gunned down, they are only worried about themselves.
Uncle mu You don’t seem to care all that much about that fact – you certainly don’t have any posts up that squarely, honestly and brutally, address this – the only posts you have up that comes anywhere near approaching the topic have to do with how the topic is used and abused by putative racists.
Yes I noticed this too I guess it’s because Abagond has experienced wht racism in a way that you and I have not. Abagond isn’t from the hood like you and I. Most of the blks here aren’t actually. They are middle and upper middle class who’ve been around whts there entire life. Some of them come from areas where they were the only “one” so their experiences will be very different from those of you and I. Have some empathy uncle mu. Btw, Ellias Cose broke this down in his book rage of the blk middle class.
That is what The Bell Curve is, in part, saying – and – it is also saying that as our society becomes more and more technologically dependent, we will continue to see a society of haves and have nots – and part of the reason for that divide is because one side simply isn’t as smart as the other side to exist in such as world as is
This is wrong on murrahy’s part. One, the under class is being phased out because cheaper slaves have been brought and it’s working it’s way up the food chain. Two, automation* of the workforce.
*one reason we were given emancipation
LikeLike
No matter what Whites think about these and other things, the simple truth is, that all of this has a marked and longstanding effect on Black people as a whole, and I for one don’t see many in the Afrosphere taking a brutally hard look at these things. Far too many seem interested in upbraiding Whites for their supposed racism.
Again most of the blks on the afrosphere aren’t from the same background as you and I. So theirs and life stories are different. Blk crime is something they see on TV because they don’t experience it on a day to day bases. They are not exposed to the lower tier in the same way that you and I have been, keep that in mind.
Obs In short Abagond, it occurs to me that we as Black folk simply have a lot bigger fish to fry, to be too worried as to what White folks do or don’t think about us.
I agree with this 100%
LikeLike
Americans think and act based on perceptions instilled by the “Old Guard” rather than reality!
LikeLike