It talks about distance and similarities in various haplotype groupings. At no point, I repeat, no point, I again repeat, [B]no point[/B] does it state these groupings mean more/less powerful ethnic groups.
I mean good god almighty
[QUOTE=dannass;49050832][url]http://www.techyville.com/2013/06/news/study-finds-that-blacks-are-genetically-stronger-than-whites/[/url]
Explain how this is the case. Of course it's because of their genes. And generations of slave labor and natural selection (by natural selection I mean the distribution of the fittest slaves, because the past for black people is fucked up like that)[/QUOTE]
dont know that much about genetics but is 35 people really a big enough sample size
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49050922]It talks about distance and similarities in various haplotype groupings. At no point, I repeat, no point, I again repeat, [B]no point[/B] does it state these groupings mean more/less powerful ethnic groups.
I mean good god almighty[/QUOTE]
Read the link I just gave you. Which tells you exactly what i have been saying.
I have given you various studies which points out that blacks have a better gene pool when it comes to physical strength, caused by slavery. Are you just going to discard everything you've been shown here because it's fucked up and "7th grade biology"?
Like holy fuck.
[QUOTE=dannass;49050933]
I have given you various studies which points out that blacks have a better gene pool when it comes to physical strength, caused by slavery.[/QUOTE]
Not really. It says resistance to various diseases and the lack of abnormal genetic properties such as the creation of sickle celled hemoglobin.
But also, in the thing you linked, it kinda says something not so "better gene pool" sounding:
[quote]nterestingly, the new gene variants that African-Americans acquired in America are connected with higher risks for hypertension, prostate cancer, sclerosis, and bladder cancer.[/quote]
and also
[quote]. Richard Wilk, for example, a cultural anthropolgist at Indiana University, told theGrio that biological evolution does not work as fast as the study is claiming. [B]“People do not adapt physically in a couple of generations,” he said. “A couple of thousand years is the minimum… And not all of Africa is hot and tropical either.”[/B][/quote]
and also
[quote]Wilk emphasized that the study also may not be plausible since it is based on the assumption that the people exported from Africa as slaves were all from the Yoruba people — a West African ethnic group. [B]The study ignores the vast genetic and environmental diversity of Africa[/B].[/quote]
and also
[quote]“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. [B]“Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.”[/B][/quote]
and also
[quote]These conclusions suggest that the methods used by the team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [U][B]were not thorough[/B][/U]. By contrast, [B]because evidence of natural selection is subtle[/B], the Shanghai team asserts that scientists in the future will need to analyze many thousands of genomes to make their exploratory research more conclusive.[/quote]
[QUOTE=NoobieWafer223;49048547]But, black kids are killing each other more and more everyday in the inner-cities.[/QUOTE]
I know this isn't really what you're saying, but I'm just going to use this as a platform for attacking the woman's racist attitudes.
There's often this argument thrown around about black-on-black crime but it's bunk. Poor black people do kill each other a fair bit, because poor black communities are ridden with violence. This is the truth, but it's not a matter of race. Racists like to point to this and proclaim it as "black culture", or inherent to black people. It simply isn't. What that is is poor-on-poor violence, not merely black-on-black. Poverty breeds desperation, stress, and animosity. Poverty breeds non-status quo organizations like gangs and criminal syndicates. It breeds contempt for the system and hopelessness and pushes people towards violence and extremism. Poverty is a huge factor in support for radical politics, and it's no surprise that an a-political impoverished population turn towards equally non-status quo actions through criminal syndication and seeking a lot for themselves in whatever currency is important in their community, be it money or status.
Examples of this are far-reaching. It's not just black people. The "bad part of town" exists in every culture and in every nation not because of race, but because of poverty. It's easy to blame minorities, because they're usually disparaged by the system and therefore the ones ghettoed into the "bad part of town", either intentionally as black people were after the Great Migration, or through systematic consequences. It happened in America with the Irish, who at one point were seen as more violent and rowdy as blacks, and the Italians, and the Jews for a period in some places, and southern and eastern Europeans, and latinos and even among the Chinese and Japanese- though in this particular group with less violence. Criminal syndication and violence comes with poverty- there's a reason why unions in the US have had a connection with the mob and crime at times in their history- any organization dealing with the poor also has to deal with the fact that poverty breeds crime.
Happy people don't shoot each other. Rich people living good lives aren't prone to violence. Contentment doesn't breed crime. Rather than race-baiting the issue with "black people killing each other" let's look at the facts. Poverty is the root cause, not black culture, not black people, not inner-city culture even.
-mmmmmmmmmmerge-0
[QUOTE=dannass;49050933]Read the link I just gave you. Which tells you exactly what i have been saying.
I have given you various studies which points out that blacks have a better gene pool when it comes to physical strength, caused by slavery. Are you just going to discard everything you've been shown here because it's fucked up and "7th grade biology"?
Like holy fuck.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It is acknowledged that researchers can analyze and trace the genomes of contemporary mixed populations, but some experts claim that it is difficult to prove that natural selection can take place within a period as short as 300 years through the means used in the study. Richard Wilk, for example, a cultural anthropolgist at Indiana University, told theGrio that biological evolution does not work as fast as the study is claiming.
“People do not adapt physically in a couple of generations,” he said. “A couple of thousand years is the minimum… And not all of Africa is hot and tropical either.”
Wilk emphasized that the study also may not be plausible since it is based on the assumption that the people exported from Africa as slaves were all from the Yoruba people — a West African ethnic group. The study ignores the vast genetic and environmental diversity of Africa.
“This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” [/QUOTE]
it doesn't even mention physical strength, just sickle cells and immunities. probably because your sperm can't carry a steroid injection and a barbell set and tell the fetus to get fuckin swole. if it were actually possible for an entire race to get universally super strong in the space of about a hundred years or two, [I]everyone would have been as strong as the black slaves long before then.[/I] backbreaking physical labor was not invented with the discovery of the African continent.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];49051003']-explanation-[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, goddamn, thank you so much.
This is what I've been trying to say for the past couple years but couldn't work it into a proper way to say it
The strength from breeding slaves thing falls short when you learn how slaves were procured in the first place. Most Africans sold into slavery back during those days were sold by their own people. Villages/towns/etc. would willingly sell the weak and unwanted members of society in exchange for wealth. The big/tall/strong men weren't sold, as they were useful.
People have this ideal that the whites grabbed the biggest strongest motherfuckers and threw them on ships to other lands and bred even bigger stronger motherfuckers. In reality, they didn't want big strong motherfuckers. They wanted small frail guys who could work a field all day on nothing but an apple. Big and strong means a lot of food for upkeep, and slavery was all about efficiency. You don't need strength to pick crops or work fields, you need endurance, and thinner/lighter frames are more suited for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
