Discussion:
Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
(too old to reply)
mg
2018-04-09 12:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas

By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM

Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.

‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”

Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming
book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are
those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no
significant genetic differences among people of different racial
ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical
traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in
intelligence.

Such people responded with rage and fury to the publication in 1994 of
Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s book, The Bell Curve. That
book, solidly based on the then-available psychological research,
explored differences among races in intelligence as measured by
rigorous IQ tests.

Herrnstein and Murray’s conclusion was that those differences are the
result of both nature and nurture—genes and environment—in as yet
unknown proportions. They predicted that research like Reich’s would
provide a clearer understanding of just how much is genetic.

Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray,
who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at
pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist
practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the
Holocaust.

He also makes a point that is obvious to the ordinary person but that
he—and some of his critics who wrote to the Times—thinks needs
reiteration, which is, as one reader put it, “differences in
individuals vary far more widely than populations.” When we are
comparing traits of people with different genetic ancestry, we are
looking at averages, such as the differences between American whites’
and Asians’ IQ scores. (Asians’, on average, are higher.) But within
the white and Asian populations, there is wide variety—which can be
represented as a bell curve.

The assumption of “well-meaning people” is that ordinary Americans
aren’t capable of grasping this. My view is that they understand it
very well. They have learned—from school, from work, from everyday
life, from public events—that there is a wider variation within each
measured group than there is among measured groups.
To take a concrete and accurate example, they suspect that even if
blacks might on average score lower than whites on average in
intelligence tests, it does not change the fact that former president
Barack Obama is a highly intelligent person. Indeed, you can read
reams of anti-Obama commentary and look in vain for claims that he was
not smart enough to be president. . . .
© 2018 CREATORS.COM"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/genetic-science-does-not-support-racial-quotas/
Gary
2018-04-09 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
Post by mg
Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming
book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are
those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no
significant genetic differences among people of different racial
ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical
traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in
intelligence.
I don't see how anybody could say that ! I know for a fact that
Asians are more intelligent than us European white people are. And we
are more intelligent than African black people. And Africans are far
more intelligent than the late Neanderthals -- and the chimps.

<snip>
Post by mg
Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray,
who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at
pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist
practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the
Holocaust.
There was nothing racist about the slave trade. There were a lot of
Southern planters who needed some cotton-pickers -- and Africa was
full of them. The traders just "filled a need".

So much for genetics class for today :-)
mg
2018-04-09 20:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain, but I don't think they do,
anymore. The things that people believe, evidently, evolve just like
everything else and, in general, I think most people believe what they
are told to believe.

I once had a friend, for example, who was telling me about his wife
who one day said to him:

"SHUT UP! If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is. :-)
:-)



----------------------------------------
"How do most people live without any
thought? There are many people in the
world,--you must have noticed them in
the street,--how do they live? How do
they get strength to put on their clothes
in the morning?"
--Emily Dickinson
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming
book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are
those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no
significant genetic differences among people of different racial
ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical
traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in
intelligence.
I don't see how anybody could say that ! I know for a fact that
Asians are more intelligent than us European white people are. And we
are more intelligent than African black people. And Africans are far
more intelligent than the late Neanderthals -- and the chimps.
<snip>
Post by mg
Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray,
who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at
pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist
practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the
Holocaust.
There was nothing racist about the slave trade. There were a lot of
Southern planters who needed some cotton-pickers -- and Africa was
full of them. The traders just "filled a need".
So much for genetics class for today :-)
Gary
2018-04-09 22:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain, but I don't think they do,
anymore.
I doubt it too. As I pointed out, my grandma was born about 1883.
So she probably picked up what was a common belief back then.

I do sometimes wonder how humans evolved. A good argument could be
made that Africans were the original humans -- and all the rest of us
are descended from them. I honestly don't know what to believe. I do
think it strange that there are three distinct races.
Post by mg
The things that people believe, evidently, evolve just like
everything else and, in general, I think most people believe what they
are told to believe.
That is so true. And the teachers in public school -- for the past
50 years have been telling children (1st grade through 12th) that
blacks are not only their equal -- but probably their superior. And
kids have accepted it.
Post by mg
I once had a friend, for example, who was telling me about his wife
"SHUT UP! If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is. :-)
:-)
Sounds like something my grandmother would have said 60 or 70 years
ago. She ruled her family of one husband, six daughters and three
sons.
mg
2018-04-10 03:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain, but I don't think they do,
anymore.
I doubt it too. As I pointed out, my grandma was born about 1883.
So she probably picked up what was a common belief back then.
I do sometimes wonder how humans evolved. A good argument could be
made that Africans were the original humans -- and all the rest of us
are descended from them. I honestly don't know what to believe. I do
think it strange that there are three distinct races.
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).

There is evidently an hypothesis kicking around the internet, however,
that says something to the effect that the reason whites are more
intelligent than some other types of humans is because they have a
larger number of Neanderthal genes, but less than Asians.
Post by Gary
Post by mg
The things that people believe, evidently, evolve just like
everything else and, in general, I think most people believe what they
are told to believe.
That is so true. And the teachers in public school -- for the past
50 years have been telling children (1st grade through 12th) that
blacks are not only their equal -- but probably their superior. And
kids have accepted it.
Post by mg
I once had a friend, for example, who was telling me about his wife
"SHUT UP! If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is. :-)
:-)
Sounds like something my grandmother would have said 60 or 70 years
ago. She ruled her family of one husband, six daughters and three
sons.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-10 05:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 21:36:35 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:

<snip>
Post by mg
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
to be a completely settled problem yet, according to this URL:
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul

I don't think anybody knows what skin colour Neanderthals had.

Contrary to what that article suggests, I've read elsewhere
that blue eyes originated around the Volga River.

The "single mother" is called the "microchondrial Eve", so
named because semen has Eukariotic DNA but not the
bacteria-like mitrochondrial DNA. Thus all children inherit
their mitrochondrial DNA only from their mothers.

It seems to me, on the basis of nothing but speculation,
that the ancestors of mitochondria were bacteria, who got
ingested by a Eukaryotic cell, but in some cases were not
digested. The Eukaryotic cells that held them, but didn't
digest them, serendipitously received the huge benefit
to the Eukaryotic cell of being able to process oxygen very
efficiently to make energy. Thus those Eukaryotic cells that
nurtured their mitochondria were naturally-selected as the
most competitive cells, which drove the others to extinction
by being superior users of resources.

There are several other funny things in the modern
Eukaryotic cell, which it seems must serve some purpose but
I don't know what it is.
mg
2018-04-11 13:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
<snip>
Post by mg
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.

One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.

For me one of the most interesting things about genetics is that, in
my opinion, genetics completely destroyed the Mormon religion, or at
least it should have. The problem is that the Mormons don't believe
all that much in science unless it conforms to their belief system.
So, the LDS people just continues along in their own merry way,
blissfully unaware (and probably purposely unaware) of what genetic
science says.
Post by Gary
I don't think anybody knows what skin colour Neanderthals had.
Contrary to what that article suggests, I've read elsewhere
that blue eyes originated around the Volga River.
The "single mother" is called the "microchondrial Eve", so
named because semen has Eukariotic DNA but not the
bacteria-like mitrochondrial DNA. Thus all children inherit
their mitrochondrial DNA only from their mothers.
It seems to me, on the basis of nothing but speculation,
that the ancestors of mitochondria were bacteria, who got
ingested by a Eukaryotic cell, but in some cases were not
digested. The Eukaryotic cells that held them, but didn't
digest them, serendipitously received the huge benefit
to the Eukaryotic cell of being able to process oxygen very
efficiently to make energy. Thus those Eukaryotic cells that
nurtured their mitochondria were naturally-selected as the
most competitive cells, which drove the others to extinction
by being superior users of resources.
There are several other funny things in the modern
Eukaryotic cell, which it seems must serve some purpose but
I don't know what it is.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-11 15:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.
That's politically incorrect, though even El Castor agrees
that Ashkenazi Jews and far-eastern Orientals score higher
on average on IQ tests, and deservedly receive more
academic honours, than most Caucasians.
Post by mg
One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.
That's correct, as far as I know. Koko the gorilla couldn't
speak, but could communicate effectively with sign language.
Post by mg
For me one of the most interesting things about genetics is that, in
my opinion, genetics completely destroyed the Mormon religion, or at
least it should have.
It's happening, with glacial slowness, though people fear
death so the plum that you're not really going to die dead
if there's a "god" is hard for many people to let go of. That
promise is so seductive, of course, that most religions have
to incorporate it if they're going to win the popularity
contest against religions that don't promise it.
Post by mg
The problem is that the Mormons don't believe
all that much in science unless it conforms to their belief system.
So, the LDS people just continues along in their own merry way,
blissfully unaware (and probably purposely unaware) of what genetic
science says.
Darwin hesitated to publish his theory of evolution because
he foresaw what a backlash there would be about it from
people who didn't want to die dead. He left humans out of
the original, then later published "The Descent of Man" to
fill in the gap he'd felt obliged to leave in "The Origin of
Species". Maybe he figured that there had been such an
uproar from the religiosi about the original book, that it
couldn't get any worse. Most scientifically-minded people
even in his own day were immediately persuaded of the
truth of "The Origin of Species" though, because it makes
so much sense in explaining what had never been explained
before.

I think it was T.H. Huxley who exclaimed after reading
"The Origin of Species" how perfectly stupid it was of him
not to have thought of that himself. Darwin was compelled
to publish when, as an academic reviewer, he was astonished
to receive a paper by Alfred Russell Wallace laying out the
basics of evolution for review. Wallace's paper lacked the
evidence that Darwin had been building up laboriously over
20 years because he knew how fierce the opposition to him
would be, but he arranged for his preliminary paper and
Wallace's be published jointly. Despite that Darwin had
the original idea 20 years before Wallace, Wallace still has
his supporters as the "real" originator of the Theory of
Evolution.

The idea was "in the air", like the idea for Mozart's great
Symphony #40, which is foreshadowed by J.C. Bach's
(the "London Bach", youngest son of J.S.) earlier g-minor
symphony, which Mozart probably had heard since he
and J.C. Bach were great pals and mutual admirers in
London, though J.C. was a long-established composer and
Mozart was only about 8, spending a year in London on
a "grand tour".

Gary
2018-04-11 15:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.
One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.
A black person could have white skin -- and still look like an
African. Their nose and lips are shaped different. Their head is
covered with wool -- not hair. Their legs are longer. (I've only
recently noticed that when at the grocery store). There are probably
many more that I have never noticed.

So .... what am I ? A racist or -- an observant citizen :-)
Post by mg
For me one of the most interesting things about genetics is that, in
my opinion, genetics completely destroyed the Mormon religion, or at
least it should have. The problem is that the Mormons don't believe
all that much in science unless it conforms to their belief system.
So, the LDS people just continues along in their own merry way,
blissfully unaware (and probably purposely unaware) of what genetic
science says.
mg
2018-04-11 22:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.
One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.
A black person could have white skin -- and still look like an
African. Their nose and lips are shaped different. Their head is
covered with wool -- not hair. Their legs are longer. (I've only
recently noticed that when at the grocery store). There are probably
many more that I have never noticed.
So .... what am I ? A racist or -- an observant citizen :-)
I've always thought that blacks have longer legs and arms than whites
and that's why they're so good at basketball, but I don't know where I
got that from. If they do have longer extremities, though, it might be
to help with the dissipation of body heat.
Post by Gary
Post by mg
For me one of the most interesting things about genetics is that, in
my opinion, genetics completely destroyed the Mormon religion, or at
least it should have. The problem is that the Mormons don't believe
all that much in science unless it conforms to their belief system.
So, the LDS people just continues along in their own merry way,
blissfully unaware (and probably purposely unaware) of what genetic
science says.
Gary
2018-04-11 22:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.
One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.
A black person could have white skin -- and still look like an
African. Their nose and lips are shaped different. Their head is
covered with wool -- not hair. Their legs are longer. (I've only
recently noticed that when at the grocery store). There are probably
many more that I have never noticed.
So .... what am I ? A racist or -- an observant citizen :-)
I've always thought that blacks have longer legs and arms than whites
and that's why they're so good at basketball, but I don't know where I
got that from. If they do have longer extremities, though, it might be
to help with the dissipation of body heat.
Let me re-post some comments I made on this subject three years ago.
It was my first notice that black mens legs are longer than white men.

Quote below from ----- 11/22/15

-------------------------------------
I have just today made a biological discovery I had never noticed
before.

I was at the grocery store with my wife this morning, and as she
shops, I walk around and look at things. But what caught my
attention ?

I noticed these two men standing and talking. One black guy and one
white. They had their back to me -- and both were dressed
similarly. Long sleeve shirt, slacks and belt. And they
appeared to be the same height. But then I noticed something !
As they stood there, their belts were at the same level. But wait !
How could that be ? They are the same height -- the black is
wearing his belt halfway down to his ass -- the white man has his
around his waist. How could the belts be at the same level ?

I began to look around. There were a lot of black males there this
morning. And it seemed to me -- that if you actually look closely
-- the negroes's waist is a few inches higher than the white man.
Which means -- a shorter waist and longer legs ! Why had I never
heard that ?

When I got home -- I checked the internet ! And guess what ? I'm not
the first person who ever noticed that.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-12 00:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
The consensus I've heard is that the equatorial homo sapiens
(who are considered to be the originals) are dark-skinned for
protection from the sun, whereas the immigrants into the
less equatorial reasons evolved (by natural selection which
includes death) lighter skin to avoid vitamin D deficiency which
would result by not being exposed enough sunlight to make
Vitamin D. I don't know if that has merit or not, it doesn't seem
https://tinyurl.com/y8poxnul
In regard to skin color, that sounds like a reasonable explanation,
but with the various races, there's more differences than just skin
color. If someone is a "racist", for instance, he might see not just
the skin color difference, but dozens, if not hundreds, of differences
between one race and another and might conclude that some races are
superior to others in some ways and inferior in other ways.
One argument that I hear, incidentally, is that there is only a very
small amount of genetic difference between races. Personally, though,
I don't find that argument to be very persuasive. As I recall
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, for instance, are only different by
a few percentage points, also.
A black person could have white skin -- and still look like an
African. Their nose and lips are shaped different. Their head is
covered with wool -- not hair. Their legs are longer. (I've only
recently noticed that when at the grocery store). There are probably
many more that I have never noticed.
So .... what am I ? A racist or -- an observant citizen :-)
I've always thought that blacks have longer legs and arms than whites
and that's why they're so good at basketball, but I don't know where I
got that from. If they do have longer extremities, though, it might be
to help with the dissipation of body heat.
Post by Gary
Post by mg
For me one of the most interesting things about genetics is that, in
my opinion, genetics completely destroyed the Mormon religion, or at
least it should have. The problem is that the Mormons don't believe
all that much in science unless it conforms to their belief system.
So, the LDS people just continues along in their own merry way,
blissfully unaware (and probably purposely unaware) of what genetic
science says.
Kenyans in particular are strikingly more likely to
win foot races than other groups. Black Kenyans,
that is - I doubt that Richard Dawkins was ever
much of a runner, though it would have come in
handy (or footy) if he were ever cornered on the
street by a mob of raving religiosi.

Gary
2018-04-10 14:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain, but I don't think they do,
anymore.
I doubt it too. As I pointed out, my grandma was born about 1883.
So she probably picked up what was a common belief back then.
I do sometimes wonder how humans evolved. A good argument could be
made that Africans were the original humans -- and all the rest of us
are descended from them. I honestly don't know what to believe. I do
think it strange that there are three distinct races.
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
I've read that, but I disagree. I've seen too many intelligent
blacks. I would argue that intelligence is more a product of your
culture than your genes. Imagine twin black babies born in Africa.
One is immediately brought to the USA and given to a middle class
family to raise. The other is left with his mother in her native
village. I will suggest in 20 years, the American raised boy's
intelligence level will be far above that of his twin brother in
Africa.

Let me add a thought. What I said above -- is better described as
"general knowledge" and ability to use said knowledge. However -- the
IQ of a person is genetic. IQ being the "ability" to learn (when
given a chance). I'm sure there are people with (latent) high IQs
who can not read. And people with low IQs, who -- when cared for
and taught when a child -- seem very intelligent.

I do think our Neanderthal ancestors had a strong influence on giving
us the IQ gene.
Post by mg
There is evidently an hypothesis kicking around the internet, however,
that says something to the effect that the reason whites are more
intelligent than some other types of humans is because they have a
larger number of Neanderthal genes, but less than Asians.
I agree. I wonder why Asians are so physically different from us ?
Besides a Neanderthal - I wonder what else was in their fammily tree?
mg
2018-04-10 17:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain, but I don't think they do,
anymore.
I doubt it too. As I pointed out, my grandma was born about 1883.
So she probably picked up what was a common belief back then.
I do sometimes wonder how humans evolved. A good argument could be
made that Africans were the original humans -- and all the rest of us
are descended from them. I honestly don't know what to believe. I do
think it strange that there are three distinct races.
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
I've read that, but I disagree. I've seen too many intelligent
blacks. I would argue that intelligence is more a product of your
culture than your genes. Imagine twin black babies born in Africa.
One is immediately brought to the USA and given to a middle class
family to raise. The other is left with his mother in her native
village. I will suggest in 20 years, the American raised boy's
intelligence level will be far above that of his twin brother in
Africa.
Let me add a thought. What I said above -- is better described as
"general knowledge" and ability to use said knowledge. However -- the
IQ of a person is genetic. IQ being the "ability" to learn (when
given a chance). I'm sure there are people with (latent) high IQs
who can not read. And people with low IQs, who -- when cared for
and taught when a child -- seem very intelligent.
I do think our Neanderthal ancestors had a strong influence on giving
us the IQ gene.
Post by mg
There is evidently an hypothesis kicking around the internet, however,
that says something to the effect that the reason whites are more
intelligent than some other types of humans is because they have a
larger number of Neanderthal genes, but less than Asians.
I agree. I wonder why Asians are so physically different from us ?
Besides a Neanderthal - I wonder what else was in their fammily tree?
I've always wondered about the people of India (Indians). Where did
they come from and why aren't they considered to be a separate race? I
eat out regularly at the Golden Corral Restaurant and they have quite
a few young Indian girls working there and all of them are
fantastically beautiful.
Gary
2018-04-10 20:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
I've read that, but I disagree. I've seen too many intelligent
blacks. I would argue that intelligence is more a product of your
culture than your genes. Imagine twin black babies born in Africa.
One is immediately brought to the USA and given to a middle class
family to raise. The other is left with his mother in her native
village. I will suggest in 20 years, the American raised boy's
intelligence level will be far above that of his twin brother in
Africa.
Let me add a thought. What I said above -- is better described as
"general knowledge" and ability to use said knowledge. However -- the
IQ of a person is genetic. IQ being the "ability" to learn (when
given a chance). I'm sure there are people with (latent) high IQs
who can not read. And people with low IQs, who -- when cared for
and taught when a child -- seem very intelligent.
I do think our Neanderthal ancestors had a strong influence on giving
us the IQ gene.
Post by mg
There is evidently an hypothesis kicking around the internet, however,
that says something to the effect that the reason whites are more
intelligent than some other types of humans is because they have a
larger number of Neanderthal genes, but less than Asians.
I agree. I wonder why Asians are so physically different from us ?
Besides a Neanderthal - I wonder what else was in their fammily tree?
I've always wondered about the people of India (Indians). Where did
they come from and why aren't they considered to be a separate race? I
eat out regularly at the Golden Corral Restaurant and they have quite
a few young Indian girls working there and all of them are
fantastically beautiful.
I've never been to Golden Corral. And I cannot recall ever meeting
any Indians (India) in person. But the pictures I've seen indicate
they are a very handsome people. They have very good facial
features.
mg
2018-04-11 11:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
It's an interesting subject, but for some reason, or another, I've
never got around to studying it. So, I don't know the answer. However,
I do vaguely remember hearing someplace that all humans can be traced
back to one single mother and that probably applies to Neanderthals
too. Neanderthals, however, evidently were different from humans in
some very major ways. In fact, I think some experts consider them to
be a separate species. The different races, however, are a lot more
similar and are considered to have changed simply by isolation, or
separation, over a number of years (about 40,000?).
I've read that, but I disagree. I've seen too many intelligent
blacks. I would argue that intelligence is more a product of your
culture than your genes. Imagine twin black babies born in Africa.
One is immediately brought to the USA and given to a middle class
family to raise. The other is left with his mother in her native
village. I will suggest in 20 years, the American raised boy's
intelligence level will be far above that of his twin brother in
Africa.
Let me add a thought. What I said above -- is better described as
"general knowledge" and ability to use said knowledge. However -- the
IQ of a person is genetic. IQ being the "ability" to learn (when
given a chance). I'm sure there are people with (latent) high IQs
who can not read. And people with low IQs, who -- when cared for
and taught when a child -- seem very intelligent.
I do think our Neanderthal ancestors had a strong influence on giving
us the IQ gene.
Post by mg
There is evidently an hypothesis kicking around the internet, however,
that says something to the effect that the reason whites are more
intelligent than some other types of humans is because they have a
larger number of Neanderthal genes, but less than Asians.
I agree. I wonder why Asians are so physically different from us ?
Besides a Neanderthal - I wonder what else was in their fammily tree?
I've always wondered about the people of India (Indians). Where did
they come from and why aren't they considered to be a separate race? I
eat out regularly at the Golden Corral Restaurant and they have quite
a few young Indian girls working there and all of them are
fantastically beautiful.
I've never been to Golden Corral. And I cannot recall ever meeting
any Indians (India) in person. But the pictures I've seen indicate
they are a very handsome people. They have very good facial
features.
Sometimes I tell the people who I'm with that there are a couple of
those really beautiful Indian girls there who are hot for my body, but
I don't think they believe me. :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 23:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Post by mg
but I don't think they do,
anymore. The things that people believe, evidently, evolve just like
everything else and, in general, I think most people believe what they
are told to believe.
I once had a friend, for example, who was telling me about his wife
"SHUT UP! If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is. :-)
:-)
----------------------------------------
"How do most people live without any
thought? There are many people in the
world,--you must have noticed them in
the street,--how do they live? How do
they get strength to put on their clothes
in the morning?"
--Emily Dickinson
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming
book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are
those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no
significant genetic differences among people of different racial
ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical
traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in
intelligence.
I don't see how anybody could say that ! I know for a fact that
Asians are more intelligent than us European white people are. And we
are more intelligent than African black people. And Africans are far
more intelligent than the late Neanderthals -- and the chimps.
<snip>
Post by mg
Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray,
who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at
pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist
practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the
Holocaust.
There was nothing racist about the slave trade. There were a lot of
Southern planters who needed some cotton-pickers -- and Africa was
full of them. The traders just "filled a need".
So much for genetics class for today :-)
mg
2018-04-10 02:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Genetics Is Undercutting the Case for Racial Quotas
By MICHAEL BARONE, April 6, 2018 6:30 AM
Science may serve communities better than well-meaning people’s good
intentions.
‘I am worried,” writes Harvard geneticist David Reich in the New York
Times, “that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of
substantial biological differences among human populations are digging
themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive
the onslaught of science.”
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
but I don't think they do,
anymore. The things that people believe, evidently, evolve just like
everything else and, in general, I think most people believe what they
are told to believe.
I once had a friend, for example, who was telling me about his wife
"SHUT UP! If I want your opinion, I'll tell you what it is. :-)
:-)
----------------------------------------
"How do most people live without any
thought? There are many people in the
world,--you must have noticed them in
the street,--how do they live? How do
they get strength to put on their clothes
in the morning?"
--Emily Dickinson
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming
book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past. The “well-meaning people” Reich references are
those who argue that race is a “social construct,” that there are no
significant genetic differences among people of different racial
ancestry. Maybe there are differences in appearance and other physical
traits, these people say, but there definitely aren’t any in
intelligence.
I don't see how anybody could say that ! I know for a fact that
Asians are more intelligent than us European white people are. And we
are more intelligent than African black people. And Africans are far
more intelligent than the late Neanderthals -- and the chimps.
<snip>
Post by mg
Reich obviously wishes to avoid the demonization endured by Murray,
who was shouted down at Middlebury College just last year. Reich is at
pains to say that his findings should not be used to justify racist
practices, such as the slave trade, the eugenics movement, and the
Holocaust.
There was nothing racist about the slave trade. There were a lot of
Southern planters who needed some cotton-pickers -- and Africa was
full of them. The traders just "filled a need".
So much for genetics class for today :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-10 04:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
That URL says that the wholly babble claims there were
no people alive at that time other than Cain himself and
his parents, Adam and Eve. Assuming that Adam and
Eve had other children who were not worth mentioning
because they were females, he must have married and
had children with a sister, but that's a "sin":
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_717.cfm

(What a pile of crap the wholly babble is!)
Post by mg
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
I seem to remember hearing that they once didn't
even allow blacks to be members of the church at all.
mg
2018-04-10 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
<snip>
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
That URL says that the wholly babble claims there were
no people alive at that time other than Cain himself and
his parents, Adam and Eve. Assuming that Adam and
Eve had other children who were not worth mentioning
because they were females, he must have married and
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_717.cfm
(What a pile of crap the wholly babble is!)
Post by mg
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
I seem to remember hearing that they once didn't
even allow blacks to be members of the church at all.
I think most people need something to "believe in", but I think you
and I might be exceptions to the rule -- probably because we spent so
many years on the receiving end of people's belief systems.
Gary
2018-04-10 12:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by Gary
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
In order to make the American liberals love them, the Mormons went
against Brigham Young and Smith -- and took the colored boys to their
bosom. I wonder if the Mormon religion appeals to blacks ?

BTW, that is an interesting site. I never realized the belief in the
Cain curse belief was so wide spread.
mg
2018-04-10 18:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by Gary
My grandmother (born circa 1883 to an Alabama family of former slave
owners) once explained to me why blacks are different from whites.
She said it all goes back to the Garden of Eden. And us Europeans
are descended from Adam. Africans are, too. In a way. She said
that when Cain left the Garden -- he ended up in Africa. But none of
his sisters went with him. So, while there -- he mated with a
monkey. And -- guess what he produced !
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
In order to make the American liberals love them, the Mormons went
against Brigham Young and Smith -- and took the colored boys to their
bosom. I wonder if the Mormon religion appeals to blacks ?
The Mormon leadership changed the rule prohibiting blacks from holding
the Priesdthood in 1978. At the time there were some schools that were
boycotting BYU and wouldn't play ball with them and the list of
schools boycotting BYU was snowballing, I think.

In addition, some people with Mormon license plates were experiencing
vandalism in other states, like Nevada, for instance. In fact, I don't
really know, but there might have been a few attacks on Mormons in
other states by blacks. My wife and I used to go to Las Vegas from
time to time back in those days and I remember that I was a little bit
nervous about it.

The bottom line is that the Mormons didn't come enthusiastically to
the civil rights party; they came kicking and screaming.
Post by Gary
BTW, that is an interesting site. I never realized the belief in the
Cain curse belief was so wide spread.
Gary
2018-04-10 20:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
In order to make the American liberals love them, the Mormons went
against Brigham Young and Smith -- and took the colored boys to their
bosom. I wonder if the Mormon religion appeals to blacks ?
The Mormon leadership changed the rule prohibiting blacks from holding
the Priesdthood in 1978. At the time there were some schools that were
boycotting BYU and wouldn't play ball with them and the list of
schools boycotting BYU was snowballing, I think.
In addition, some people with Mormon license plates were experiencing
vandalism in other states, like Nevada, for instance. In fact, I don't
really know, but there might have been a few attacks on Mormons in
other states by blacks. My wife and I used to go to Las Vegas from
time to time back in those days and I remember that I was a little bit
nervous about it.
The bottom line is that the Mormons didn't come enthusiastically to
the civil rights party; they came kicking and screaming.
Good for them. I am surprised it was as late as 1978 that they
allowed integration of the priesthood. Like I've said before -- the
Mormons do interest me.
mg
2018-04-11 02:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
I think it used to be fairly common for Christian religions to believe
that black people are descendents of Cain,
I think I've only heard that in connection with Mormons, but I
might be wrong.
Actually, it appears that there were other religions that interpreted
it that way, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
However, the Mormons were probably more vocal about it and they didn't
used to allow blacks to hold the priesthood for that reason.
In order to make the American liberals love them, the Mormons went
against Brigham Young and Smith -- and took the colored boys to their
bosom. I wonder if the Mormon religion appeals to blacks ?
The Mormon leadership changed the rule prohibiting blacks from holding
the Priesdthood in 1978. At the time there were some schools that were
boycotting BYU and wouldn't play ball with them and the list of
schools boycotting BYU was snowballing, I think.
In addition, some people with Mormon license plates were experiencing
vandalism in other states, like Nevada, for instance. In fact, I don't
really know, but there might have been a few attacks on Mormons in
other states by blacks. My wife and I used to go to Las Vegas from
time to time back in those days and I remember that I was a little bit
nervous about it.
The bottom line is that the Mormons didn't come enthusiastically to
the civil rights party; they came kicking and screaming.
Good for them. I am surprised it was as late as 1978 that they
allowed integration of the priesthood. Like I've said before -- the
Mormons do interest me.
One thing that I find extremely interesting about the Mormons is that,
for the most part, the church is ran by one man and when he makes a
decision, the membership goes with it, without any debate or
disagreements or antagonism, and that was the case with fully
integrating blacks into the church. And when people are integrated,
incidentally, they are completely assimilated. In my opinion, it's a
lot like being assimilated by the Borg.
Gary
2018-04-11 11:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
The Mormon leadership changed the rule prohibiting blacks from holding
the Priesdthood in 1978. At the time there were some schools that were
boycotting BYU and wouldn't play ball with them and the list of
schools boycotting BYU was snowballing, I think.
In addition, some people with Mormon license plates were experiencing
vandalism in other states, like Nevada, for instance. In fact, I don't
really know, but there might have been a few attacks on Mormons in
other states by blacks. My wife and I used to go to Las Vegas from
time to time back in those days and I remember that I was a little bit
nervous about it.
The bottom line is that the Mormons didn't come enthusiastically to
the civil rights party; they came kicking and screaming.
Good for them. I am surprised it was as late as 1978 that they
allowed integration of the priesthood. Like I've said before -- the
Mormons do interest me.
One thing that I find extremely interesting about the Mormons is that,
for the most part, the church is ran by one man and when he makes a
decision, the membership goes with it, without any debate or
disagreements or antagonism,
Exactly. I don't know anything about the present leadership of the
church -- but a few years ago I read a short biography of Joseph
Smith. The guy fascinated me ! He was a genius to have written a
bible book, organized a church and then drew so many people to his
church. If he had not been murdered -- I really believe he might have
headed west and founded -- not only a state -- but his own country.
Post by mg
and that was the case with fully
integrating blacks into the church. And when people are integrated,
incidentally, they are completely assimilated. In my opinion, it's a
lot like being assimilated by the Borg.
The race problem we have in this country is quite simple. Whites
have accepted and integrated blacks -- but the blacks (as a group)
have not assimilated and adopted our Anglo Saxon culture. A few
have -- and they make very good Americans. How can a person be --
"African and American" ? What if all of us descendants of Europe
went around demanding our heritage and claiming to be French American,
German American, Dutch American, etc, etc ? Culturally -- we'd rank
below most of the South American countries.
mg
2018-04-11 12:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
The Mormon leadership changed the rule prohibiting blacks from holding
the Priesdthood in 1978. At the time there were some schools that were
boycotting BYU and wouldn't play ball with them and the list of
schools boycotting BYU was snowballing, I think.
In addition, some people with Mormon license plates were experiencing
vandalism in other states, like Nevada, for instance. In fact, I don't
really know, but there might have been a few attacks on Mormons in
other states by blacks. My wife and I used to go to Las Vegas from
time to time back in those days and I remember that I was a little bit
nervous about it.
The bottom line is that the Mormons didn't come enthusiastically to
the civil rights party; they came kicking and screaming.
Good for them. I am surprised it was as late as 1978 that they
allowed integration of the priesthood. Like I've said before -- the
Mormons do interest me.
One thing that I find extremely interesting about the Mormons is that,
for the most part, the church is ran by one man and when he makes a
decision, the membership goes with it, without any debate or
disagreements or antagonism,
Exactly. I don't know anything about the present leadership of the
church -- but a few years ago I read a short biography of Joseph
Smith. The guy fascinated me ! He was a genius to have written a
bible book, organized a church and then drew so many people to his
church. If he had not been murdered -- I really believe he might have
headed west and founded -- not only a state -- but his own country.
There is some sort of an almost magic, social-religious thing that
goes on in the Mormon religion. When blacks, or Latinoes, etc., become
Mormon church members (in the US), they entirely drop their old
customs, attitudes, and culture and are completely and totally
integrated as Borg -- whoops I mean Mormons. In other words a black
Mormon, for instance, becomes a white person, who just happens to have
black skin.
Post by Gary
Post by mg
and that was the case with fully
integrating blacks into the church. And when people are integrated,
incidentally, they are completely assimilated. In my opinion, it's a
lot like being assimilated by the Borg.
The race problem we have in this country is quite simple. Whites
have accepted and integrated blacks -- but the blacks (as a group)
have not assimilated and adopted our Anglo Saxon culture. A few
have -- and they make very good Americans. How can a person be --
"African and American" ? What if all of us descendants of Europe
went around demanding our heritage and claiming to be French American,
German American, Dutch American, etc, etc ? Culturally -- we'd rank
below most of the South American countries.
I would like to see something happen right now, this week, that would
make it so that a black child born today has just as good of chance as
anyone else to live a happy, fulfilling life and I think that there
are some reasonable things that could be done to work towards that
goal. Some of the problems, though, are politics and money. The
politicians just want to get elected and the black leaders want to
become millionaires. and, to some extent, I suppose ideology is a
problem, also. The ideologists only want to solve the problem, if it's
solved in an ideologically acceptable manner.




-----------------------------------
Here lies the yellow man, killed by
a black man, fighting for the white
man, who killed all the red men.
--Malcolm X
Gary
2018-04-11 15:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Good for them. I am surprised it was as late as 1978 that they
allowed integration of the priesthood. Like I've said before -- the
Mormons do interest me.
One thing that I find extremely interesting about the Mormons is that,
for the most part, the church is ran by one man and when he makes a
decision, the membership goes with it, without any debate or
disagreements or antagonism,
Exactly. I don't know anything about the present leadership of the
church -- but a few years ago I read a short biography of Joseph
Smith. The guy fascinated me ! He was a genius to have written a
bible book, organized a church and then drew so many people to his
church. If he had not been murdered -- I really believe he might have
headed west and founded -- not only a state -- but his own country.
There is some sort of an almost magic, social-religious thing that
goes on in the Mormon religion. When blacks, or Latinoes, etc., become
Mormon church members (in the US), they entirely drop their old
customs, attitudes, and culture and are completely and totally
integrated as Borg -- whoops I mean Mormons. In other words a black
Mormon, for instance, becomes a white person, who just happens to have
black skin.
As I've mentioned -- I don't know anything about the religious beliefs
of the Mormons. It has always been their leadership that I admired.

One other thing might attract me to them. As I've mentioned before
-- neither me or my parents have belonged to a church. But my
mother's mother -- and three of her sisters became Seventh Day
Adventists back when I was a kid in the 1950s. So by visiting them a
lot, I experienced how strong an influence a church can have on
humans. They couldn't eat pork. My cousins would not even touch a
hot dog when their parents were not looking.

It's funny, though. When growing up, I was torn with two thoughts.
One thought was the church power was wonderful. The other -- that I
wanted no part of it. In a way, I still admire and respect church
power. Which draws my interest to the Mormons. (Not religiously :-)

<snip>
Post by mg
Post by Gary
The race problem we have in this country is quite simple. Whites
have accepted and integrated blacks -- but the blacks (as a group)
have not assimilated and adopted our Anglo Saxon culture. A few
have -- and they make very good Americans. How can a person be --
"African and American" ? What if all of us descendants of Europe
went around demanding our heritage and claiming to be French American,
German American, Dutch American, etc, etc ? Culturally -- we'd rank
below most of the South American countries.
I would like to see something happen right now, this week, that would
make it so that a black child born today has just as good of chance as
anyone else to live a happy, fulfilling life and I think that there
are some reasonable things that could be done to work towards that
goal.
I hate to sound overly stupid -- but I really think it is the fault of
the black community far more than the whites. About 60 years ago --
blacks were finally spared the segregation laws that had held them
back since 1866. In the early 1960s, I met several black men who
were becoming just as successful and -- culturally -- like white
Americans. Just as the black community were becoming equal citizens
what happened ? Black Power was introduced to them in the 1960s.
They became "AFRICAN -- americans". IMO, there is one very
destructive thing about being an African. Nothing about the African
culture is geared to gain success in the modern Western world. It
would be sort of like me deciding to join my ancestors culture and ---
become a ..... "CAVEMAN -- american". Neither cavemen nor Africans
-- can conceive of how the free enterprise system and "equality for
all" works. And neither do modern people who want to be either.
Post by mg
Some of the problems, though, are politics and money. The
politicians just want to get elected and the black leaders want to
become millionaires. and, to some extent, I suppose ideology is a
problem, also. The ideologists only want to solve the problem, if it's
solved in an ideologically acceptable manner.
To be honest, I had never given the black leaders (Jesse Jackson,
etc) much thought. But after our several discussions on the subject
-- I'm beginning to think you are right.
Loading...