Re: Racism disguised as Anthropology

Mike Muller (
Wed, 24 Jul 1996 09:58:33 -0400

> From: Alex <>
> Newsgroups: alt.genealogy
> Subject: Why African Blacks are as they are
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 02:48:17 -0700

> The Asians have suffered much more racism than African blacks

Appearantly you have never lived in South Africa...move there for five
years and then tell me how much racism African Blacks suffer

Instead, they wish to cling to
> the primate like instincts of hostility and stubborn refusal to deal with
> their problems preferring to invoke revenge and retribution from long dead
> white ancestors.

Hell that sounds like the KKK to me...still whining about those primates
being equal. YOu wouldn't happen to have a white robe at home would you?

All races have suffered persecution and minorital status
> at some point in history, and most of us have learned to overcome it.

Now you are speaking for all races...when exactly did the white Europeans
suffer persecution and a minority status?

> So
> my question is, if other races can overcome religious and racial
> persecution and become, for the most part, productive members of society why can't African blacks do the same?
> One hypothesis I have been able to reach after analyzing human behavior
> and physiology was this: The skull structure of the typical African black
> human is the most primitive (primate like) in that the rear areas of the
> skull protrude further than the skulls of other races ie. whites, Asian,
> Arabic, Aleutian etc. which is characteristic to prehistoric man and
> modern apes. This leads me to believe that the early African human brain
> evolved at a lessened rate due to the lack of necessity of a more evolved
> brain.

If this is true exlpain the evolution of the modern cultural package in
Africa and not in Europe....blade technology was in use there at 90,000
years ago....and was brought to the rest of the world by those
*unevolved* Africans.

> Basically, because the Africans did not need to be smarter than an
> exceptional ape in order to survive, their brains evolved at a much slower
> rate than their European and Asian counterparts. In Europe and Asia the
> ambition and pursuit of higher technologies was not only desired, but
> essential for the survival of the large populace in order to produce
> larger amounts of food and to protect themselves, therefore forcing man to
> utilize more brain power, and in essence, become a more advanced human
> than his African counterpart.

Because some African populations desired to remain hunter-gatherers and
not persue technology doesn't diminish there survival skill. And if those
from Europe and Asian had stopped encroaching on their territories and
left them to there culture they would not be experiencing the poverty
they do now. I challenge you...with you superior brain to survive with
the pygmies...without your pc or batteries or tent or packaged food or
bug repellent or any of the other niceties of your civilized world. I
submit that you wouldn't last a week.

> Today the evidence of this hypothesis is
> apparent in African black behavior and attitude, as well as the state > of
> military turmoil in the African continent.

The state of military turmoil is due to the presence of European
interests and policies. If war was due to lack of intelligence then
explain...Bosnia...Vietnam...Korea...etc. I guess your people then fall
into that category in fact most Asian countries do.

> And slavery in no excuse for the third world situation in Africa niether.

What about South America....Mexico....Reservation right here in
America....gettos with all races in them....India. All are *Third World*
in some repects...the travesty is that no one seems to care... they are
more interested in proclaiming their superiority and then absolving
themselves of responsibilty by assigning the culture at question a lower
intelligence or social capability. Does this sound familiar?

> Remember that in the slave trade, the slaves were not kidnapped from their
> jungle (jungle is used figuratively, most of Africa is not actually
> jungle) homes as they will have you believe(stealing thousands of African
> natives with only a boat crew would be impossible or take years). They
> were in fact traded to the whites in exchange for molasses(ref. The
> Gold-molasses-slave triangle). Well who traded them off, you ask? Their
> own people, that is who. During the many tribal wars in Africa, countless
> numbers of prisoners were taken, either to become the capturing tribe's
> slave/servant, or to become food for those tribes that practiced
> cannibalism. After the introduction of the slave trade in Africa, those
> prisoners of the tribal wars, were sold off in exchange for molasses as
> slaves to the whites. It was African blacks who sold the first African
> black slaves, another little irony.

If someone offered you a little black girl to treat as an animal in trade
for some computer chips and a laser printer I suppose you would have no
problem making the point is taking what is offered in YOUR
choice. These colonists didn't have to make the trade. SO therefore, by
doing so, they are as ruthless and cruel as those offering the trade. Or
should I say as *primate-like*.

> Feel free to respond, but please, no ignorant insults or threats. I am
> duly qualified as a paleontologist with a BA from ASU and after 4 years of
> research, I have come to this theory. If you believe any facts to be
> false, I encourage you to prove me wrong and to provide due documentation
> to the fact.

I must point out that four years of undergraduate classes does not
qualify you as anything. To become a *qualified* paleontologist you must
complete at least a MA degree and do some ACTUAL research...when you
publish this so-called research you have done in a peer-reviewed journal
and get some reprints then let me know. Until then crawl back to the
Student Union and drink somemore beer with the rest of the undergrads. Oh
sorry didn't mean to insult you...

Holly Reeser Florida Musuem of Natural History
University of Florida