The Real American Cowboy #racist

The Real American Cowboy #racist fstdt.com

Correct. There is actually strong scientific evidence to suggest that the negro evolved along different lines than the rest of the human population. There are actually two strands of genetic lineage in the human race - the African negro and everyone else. Studies show that the negro's skull and jaw structure are actually closer to those of a primate than the rest of the human population. This is why negros typically have large, flat noses (like a gorilla), heavy jaws, and sloping brows.

82 comments

old comment by Mister J

Then for God's sake prove it. Your opinions are just that: opinions. Empty, unfounded opinions punctuated by the odd hyperbole.

You claim that Africans are sub-human? To the point that they are a different species? Give me citations: any post-1950's paper that can justify that they are remotely different to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Bonus points if you can find any proof from DNA studies.

Only that you won't, for one very simple reason: they aren't. Humans of any race can successfully breed together and produce healthy offspring that can also in turn reproduce successfully with other humans. If races were indeed separate species we would find that mixed-race people would be incapable of producing any viable offspring.

QED, fucker.

old comment by Undecided

Allow me to give a much less unscientific explanation of race, put in lay terms:
1. For the most part, human characteristics either vary continuously and smoothly with respect to geography, remain evenly distributed across the entire species, or stay limited to fairly small ethnicities.
2. For any two (large geographically local) human populations, on the whole individuals from each population are more similar to each other than they are different.
3. However, for two such populations, it is possible to pick an archetype from each population such that individuals from one population are more similar to their archetype than to the other population's archetype.
4. Since contact between isolated populations was rare, a socially defined archetype immediately emerged when members of two populations came in contact with each other, as per the point above.
5. Such populations began associating cultural attitudes, then perceived personality traits with those archetypes, turning them into stereotypes.
6. In order to explain the perceived stereotypical differences, people backformed the stereotypes onto the perceived archetypal differences, i.e., they judged the stereotype to be a consequence of the physical distinctions they perceived, and thus the concept of race was born and was used to justify all sorts of cruel actions.
7. The concept evolved: in the 19th century, western concepts of race were systematised into the field of anthropology, and this added legitimacy solidified the already-existing racial boundaries.
8. Finally, in the 20th century, the social scientific community was all like "OH SHI--" and now we're all busy trying to repair the vast amount of damage that was done.

Race is a social construct, a defect in perception brought about by the human tendency to detect differences over similarities. It is one of many cases where our natural tendencies cause more problems than they solve. It is something to be universally transcended.

old comment by Mister J

"Evolutionary ladder"?

So you're claiming that different races are different species now? Got a journal reference for that claim?

You STILL haven't explained why humans of ANY race can successfully breed together to produce offspring without any defect or disadvantage. Children of interracial couples can in turn breed successfully as would any offspring of two "racially pure" (sic) parents. On the other hand, mules (the result of donkey & horse breeding) are born sterile and are incapable of producing any offspring of their own.

In short, you fail at taxonomy and basic evolutionary biology. Small-scale differences in features/melanin =/= speciation. Thanks for playing...

old comment by wintermute

"The negro evolved from from our primitive ancestors, and is the closest race to pre-human primates. The white race is much more advanced on the evolutionary ladder. I'm sure you can see this for yourself."

Um, no. the idea of an evolutionary ladder is distinctly Lamarkian; even in Darwin's day you'd have been laughed at for making a claim like that. Blacks are not going to "evolve into" whites, and whites didn't "evolve from" modern blacks.

All humans, regardless of the melanin content of their skin, have been evolving at the same rate for the same amount of time. Blacks didn't suddenly stop evolving just because they lived somewhere with more sunlight.

old comment by Mister J

How about you stop dodging my questions and be man enough to actually defend your retarded hyperboles. I remind you that you still haven't:

-Cited any formal research that defines races as separate species
-Explained why mixed-race individuals are perfectly healthy and capable of reproducing despite your idea of races being completely separate from one another
-Given a proper reference to the fossil record as to when this "speciation" of races took place. All races share the same common features of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, with differences in melanin content or facial features superficial at best, along with near-identical mitochondrial DNA. How do you explain that, if Africans are indeed "lower" than white people?

old comment by wintermute

"All I said was that they are closer to the missing link thank the rest of us; since human life began in Africa (as you guys rightly point out), it stands to reason that the African negro was the first off the evolutionary boat, so to speak."

So your point is that when some tribes left Africa, the ones who stayed where they were magically stopped evolving? Do you honestly think that only one group can evolve at a time?

"As he migrated northward, his skin became lighter (the middle east, where people have tanned olive skin, to Europe and Asia, where people are fair-skinned)."

Yes, skin colour is very mutable; a few tens of thousands of years of different rates of UV exposure is sufficient to change it. I'm not sure how this makes it more significant than, for example, the amount of body hair as an indication of who's most closely related to non-human apes.

"This corresponded with a rise in evolutionary maturity."

What does this even mean? What is "evolutionary maturity"? Can you quantify the amount of "evolutionary maturity" shown by Australian aboriginies (who you claim are highly evolved, because they left Africa very early and live on a continent with no apes, or even placental mammals), as compared to the Masai?

old comment by Mister J

FOR THE LAST TIME: QUOTE A GODDAMN CITATION

You and 88 have once again claimed that black people are a species. Prove it. I don't care what study you quote- fossil records, mitochondrial DNA, whatever- so long that a reputable source in anthropology that has come to a conclusion that black people aren't Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

THEN after you've finished doing that I want you to explain why the hell can black people successfully breed with "other" humans to produce offspring that in turn can breed without any deficiencies- something that no inter-species offspring can otherwise do.

As previously mentioned here, where do you place Australian Aborigines on that Lamarckian "ladder" of yours?

Still confident that you can explain all that, you impotent, inbred hillbilly-wannabe? Explain how the "inferior" black race managed to form kingdoms like the Kongo, Mali and Abyssinia- civilisations with a professional military, civil service and unique languages- AND successfully resist Western imperialism for centuries (how's this: the fascists you so ardently jack-off to only managed in the last century to finally conquer Abyssinia)

88: You seem to have a burning desire to help out your cow-fucking friend here, why don't you chip in?

old comment by The Real American Cowboy

John Galt, first of all, Ayn Rand would have nothing to do with an asspipe like you. If she were around today, she'd go for a real man like me, and we both know that.

That being said, I've repeatedly stated on these boards that I think the decision of the American government to bring negros into the United States was a HUGE mistake. It is one of the biggest mistakes in American history, Galt, and we are still paying the price for it today. Unfortunately, we're on the verge of repeating the same mistake, as we're now importing Mexicans to do labor in the United States. One day we're going to wake up, and the Mexicans will have taken over, just like the blacks did. It won't be long before we have a Mexican president at this rate.

old comment by Mister J

You made the claim when you said that black people have a completely separate evolutionary lineage and referenced a page tagged as "science proves N****** are not human" to try to back up your points. Again, you still haven't answered wintermute's challenge that your "ladder" idea of evolution was debunked ages ago.

Also, 88 said: "I'm inclined to say that s****** should be considered an inferior species to monkeys."

Do you suffer from a basic comprehension deficiency as well as being generally wrong in everything? If you're going to claim that humans became more "advanced" (for want of a better term I guess) you have to take into account that Australia was one of the last continents colonised by humans: hundreds of thousands of years after your so-called "white men" developed on mainland Europe. Aborigines came to Australia well after your so-called "inferior" Africans and "superior" white races were established- so in your view they ought to have been superior due to this time difference, right? The two races developed with a massive time gap between them- your idea that humanity somehow became more intelligent over time is bullshit.

As for your last cry of ignorance: Abyssinia is a name given to the Ethiopian Empire (lasting, ironically enough, longer than the Roman Empire)- a cursory Google search would have told you all you needed to know. Do yourself a favour and look up Benin and Mali as well- it's a far cry from your moronic claim of "jungle savagery" being prevalent in Africa that you so ardently cling to.

old comment by LH

"LH

Of course, my previous statement still doesn't excuse the West for actively exploiting it to an industrial level. After all, in the grand scheme of things the aforementioned Africans only in part contributed to the Slave Triangle- the plantations that the slaves were brutally worked to death on, and the ships that they were forcefully crushed together like sardines were both provided and maintained by European, and then later American owners..."

So what ? Slavery was the norm until we decided to abolish it. Almost all civilizations or human groups practiced it at some point during their histories, some Arab states were still trading African slaves as recently as 100 years ago. We don't owe any apology to anybody.

old comment by When has libertarianism ever been relevant? Social democracy ftw

Just thought I'd contribute a few points:

1) European civilisation only really got off the ground after the advances made in farming from civilisations like Egypt and those in Mesopotamia (Iraq) & the Indus Valley (India).

2) Even at it's height Classical civilisation still had to contend with the Persian Empire to the East, the last remnants of which were finally finished off by the Turkish Ottoman Empire too.

3) The Crusades failed miserably in the long run- Palestine remained predominately an Islamic possession.

4) The Renaissance was only possible due to the simultaneous advances in Islamic science & medicine & the translated texts from the Classical period in their possession that were otherwise lost in the West.

5) Also, lol China/India/Mayan civilisations...

("White") Europe becoming the dominant force in the world really only came about in the last 500 years of the 100,000 years that modern humans have been around, and was due (to summarise a multitude of different factors) to dumb luck.

old comment by John Galt

John Galt, first of all, Ayn Rand would have nothing to do with an asspipe like you. If she were around today, she'd go for a real man like me, and we both know that.

First of all, I don't why you'd want to be with a Jew like Ayn Rand in the first place. And you're gay, you've shown that repeatedly here, I don't know why you're talking about women. That's probably why your wife left you...

Second, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was whites that committed these atrocities against blacks, before they could even have a chance to do anything great. To blame blacks for their shortcomings is absolutely moronic. It's like cutting off someone's leg in a race and then telling them you won when the race is over.

Third, importing Mexicans is not slavery, they're working for pay, and they're doing the jobs that asshats like yourself won't do.

old comment by wintermute

"Blacks, however, insist on invading white societies and destroying white cultures."

Right, because whites never invaded African societies, or destroyed African cultures.

image

"And the aborigines are another black people group who have never built a civilization and still remain squatting behind bushes and eating kangaroo even today. Why am I not surprised? It looks like you just made my point for me - two different negro populations, on totally seperate continents, and both equally primitive."

No, your point was that Africans are inferior because they live on a continent where apes live, and because they magically stopped evolving when other groups moved into Eurasia. By contrast, Aboriginies evolved from Asians, who evolved from Middle-Easterners, both groups that you consider "more highly evolved" than blacks, and they live on a continent with even fewer apes than Europe. Therefore, by your stated logic, they should be the most advanced people on the planet.

If you think it proves your point that they're not, that presumably means that you're not taking your own arguments seriously. If you don't believe your evolutionary claims, why do you expect us to?

old comment by Zipperback

"Wintermute, it's funny how blacks are found on continents where primates predominate, while whites can be found farther away from their jungle origins, where there are few if any monkeys, gorillas, etc."

Primates are found in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia and a few islands such as the Indonesian chains, Madagascar, ect.

There are very few blacks in China, Thailand, Borneo, Argentina and four to five centuries back there were none. Meanwhile China, Thailand Borneo Argentina and a number of other countries have considerable native monkey or ape populations. ONLY in southern Africa do you find indigenous blacks and primates.

Perhaps when you said "continents" you meant part of a single continent. For someone who "states the facts" you really are a pig ignorant failure.

“Correct. There is actually strong scientific evidence to suggest that the negro evolved along different lines than the rest of the human population.”
But they’re part of the human population, as you say. So they share the lines of evolution with the rest of us. If not, then where do light-skinned black people come from?

"There are actually two strands of genetic lineage in the human race - the African negro and everyone else.”
But we all have the same mitochondria, right? We all come from the same distant “Eve,” and not from all that long ago. So, no. You’re just wrong.

"Studies show that the negro's skull and jaw structure are actually closer to those of a primate”
Um… Humans ARE primates, dumbass.

“than the rest of the human population.”
That’s just not possible. It’s a meaningless claim. That’s like saying a hamburger is closer to a pure sandwich than a cheeseburger is.

"This is why negros typically have large, flat noses (like a gorilla), heavy jaws, and sloping brows.””
No, it isn’t.

The Real American Cowboy #racist fstdt.com

82 comments

Confused?