fyi

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

They had "Safe" neighborhoods in Northern Cities before Blacks moved in.

But, what about the conditions?

Fact is many apartments in the late 19th, and early 20th century were without indoor plumbing, or refrigeration, or other modern conveniences.

By the time the Blacks moved in to say "Chicago" in the mid 20th century there was an increase in murder, and also living standards.

The big question is "How come"?

Bullshit. But hey we'll blame blacks and ignore the fact that Chicago was an white organized crime controlled city.

The white racist is the dumbest human being walking this planet.

The chart I listed proves that the murder rate in the 1920's (White crime period) of Chicago, was nothing compared to the later (Black crime period) of Chicago.

The Chicago city and government are practicing genocide on black people The police are behind many of these shootings and blame it on gang violence.

Multiple people shot and killed and no one coming forward to say anything ?

Or are you so deeply soaked in a white supremacist way of thinking that you think “well, ya know, that’s what those blacks are like”

All several hundred witnesses to these shootings are not keeping silent out of a "no snitch code"

No snitch code goes out the window when little children are being killed. You saw how fast the black community came forward in the murder of Tyshawn Lee ?

Even a jailhouse informant, a convicted felon came forward and turned the killer in. Because there is no one standing for that.

There is no way possible in the 3rd largest city in America. The most powerful nation on earth; that multiple killings can happen this often.

There is no way possible for all that killing to go on without some dirty cops being involved.

And no

I'm not saying that the police are behind every killing in Chicago. But you got concentrated gun violence, concentrated poverty, unemployment, concentrated food deserts, concentrated malt liquor, cigarettes, and crates of guns dropped off in alley ways in Chicago’s Black neighbourhoods.

So of course stuff is gonna go off from time to time.

Most of these kids can barely afford a burger from McDonald’s. How can they afford these guns?

The guns they have can’t even be bought legally, not only that, there are no gun shops in Chicago.

Where do they get the bullets from?

Also city taxes pay for camera’s on every block but when a shooting takes place no one is in custody, nor do they have leads.

Yeah right.

But let one of their own get murdered ? They'll know the killer their in less 48 hrs.

But anybody else ?

It's always

A lot of the gang wars were initially instigated by police and government agents to destabilize the communities and drive down property values for eventual gentrification and ethnic cleansing. So Chicago has long been a place of violent criminal activity and it was started perpetrated by white people.

It was white people who got the ball rolling in Chicago.

People like Al Capone, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson. Also events like the Valentine’s Day Massacre. What’s ironic is that people like the ones mentioned are applauded, romanticized as heroes and have films and documentaries made about them.

These peoples planted the seeds of street crime. Do some research on Chicago gangsters..

Police murdering Blacks, and pretending it's Blacks doing it?

Wow, I guess even in Detroit which is worse than Chicago in murder, the Black police chief, and majority Black police force do this too, huh?

Have you been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, by any chance?

You really need to study how things went down SSE. You are ignorant to a lot of American racial history.

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

 

[Paul Essien]

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

Western Europeans to me are quite a bit like your Negroids, which would explain their deplorable behavior.

This DNA study supports that Western Europeans are genetically closer to Negroids.

Eurogenes Blog: Low genomic diversity among ancient Swedish foragers (+ no East Asian admix for La Brana1 and MA1)

They have more O blood type, like Negroids.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types - BloodBook.com, Blood Information for Life

They have lower cephalic indexes (Dolichocephalic leaning) like Negroids.

They have shorter skull heights like Negroids.

They have thicker skulls like Negroids, despite having larger skull sizes, they don't have larger cranial capacities.

Head size map.

Cranial capacity map.

 

[Paul Essien]

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

Western Europeans to me are quite a bit like your Negroids, which would explain their deplorable behavior.

This DNA study supports that Western Europeans are genetically closer to Negroids.

Eurogenes Blog: Low genomic diversity among ancient Swedish foragers (+ no East Asian admix for La Brana1 and MA1)

They have more O blood type, like Negroids.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types - BloodBook.com, Blood Information for Life

They have lower cephalic indexes (Dolichocephalic leaning) like Negroids.

They have shorter skull heights like Negroids.

They have thicker skulls like Negroids, despite having larger skull sizes, they don't have larger cranial capacities.

Head size map.

Cranial capacity map.

There is only one species of human and that's Homo Sapiens

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals.

No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact. They all failed. They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

There is a reason why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why a “black ” persons blood can save an white Irishman’s life with a transfusion and vice versa Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people…but the genes are the same.

If I can classify 100,000 humans as a race and then discover that the genetic diversity between any two of them is as great or greater than the diversity between any one of them and any other random human on the planet, then no, we don’t have a biological subspecies, no matter what those people look like.

And - NO - It's not because we are all the same.

There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups and more so than many believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.{/quote]

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

In that case then you white people need to sort that "white on white crime" you got going on there.

Western Europeans to me are quite a bit like your Negroids, which would explain their deplorable behavior.

This DNA study supports that Western Europeans are genetically closer to Negroids.

Eurogenes Blog: Low genomic diversity among ancient Swedish foragers (+ no East Asian admix for La Brana1 and MA1)

They have more O blood type, like Negroids.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types - BloodBook.com, Blood Information for Life

They have lower cephalic indexes (Dolichocephalic leaning) like Negroids.

They have shorter skull heights like Negroids.

They have thicker skulls like Negroids, despite having larger skull sizes, they don't have larger cranial capacities.

Head size map.

Cranial capacity map.

There is only one species - Homo Sapiens

But - NO - we are not all the same.

There are persistent and real genetic differences that cluster within racial groups and more so than many believed.

Yet these differences still fall far short of indicating sub-speciation, which is the normal standard used by biologists to indicate different “races” or breeds of a larger species.

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair colour can be identified between individuals.

No consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. It has never been a case of there not being differences between the way human beings look.

The trouble is in the imprecise taxonomy. How do you define a “race” and might there not be other equally valid ways of dividing humans into taxonomical groupings ?

Many scientists worked hard (REAL HARD) on finding working definition of race as a biological fact. They all failed. They all failed not because genetic differences can’t be observed between various humans (after all, if there weren’t mDNA differences, we wouldn’t know much about human maternal ancestry).

They all failed because genetic differences do not support social races, races that divide people into (pardon my words) “black”, “white”, “yellow” and “red”.

The only living subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is Homo sapiens sapiens. That is current scientific knowledge. And it is very likely to remain the only one, unless Sasquatch or the Yeti decide to walk into a science lab for a DNA test one day.

There is a reason why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why a “black ” persons blood can save an white Irishman’s life with a transfusion and vice versa Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people…but the genes are the same.

If I can classify 100,000 humans as a race and then discover that the genetic diversity between any two of them is as great or greater than the diversity between anyne of them and any other random human on the planet, then NO, we don’t have a biological subspecies, no matter what those people look like.

The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Coyotes in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Coyotes leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

 

[Paul Essien]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

The fact is you assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word.

But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

The fact is you assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word.

But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

East, and West Eurasians split at least 45,000 years, that's surely enough time to create separate sub-species, no?
Eurogenes Blog: East and West Eurasians separated at least 45,000 years ago, but...


If not, how come Eastern Coyotes are a separate sub-species, from Plains Coyotess, having split from Plains Coyotes in the 1940's, or so?
If not, how come Dingoes are a separate sub-species having split from Dogs some 4,000 years ago?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

Yes, I do have reason to believe the Scientists are being biased when it comes to Humans.

The Coyote sub-species prove it.

Coyotes moved out of the Mid-West in the 20th century, and created many new sub-species in less than 100 years.
How can this be "Honest"?

Coyote migration.

Coyote sub-species.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[IM2]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

The fact is you assume “race” in humans as a biological fact without delivering a precise, uncontested biological definition

The science doesn’t support it.

As for the differences between groups, we acknowledge that human beings adapt to their geography to some extent – but not enough to become different *kinds* of human beings.

Now, if you choose to call the differences in groups “races” it stretches the original meaning of the word.

But let’s accept that for a moment. You want races so badly, then I shall give them to you.

But you’re going to need more races (based on genetic variance) than they culled off in the past centuries. And the races won’t be arbitrarily colour-coordinated. There will be several European races, many Asian races, and a large number of African races.

East, and West Eurasians split at least 45,000 years, that's surely enough time to create separate sub-species, no?
Eurogenes Blog: East and West Eurasians separated at least 45,000 years ago, but...


If not, how come Eastern Coyotes are a separate sub-species, from Plains Coyotess, having split from Plains Coyotes in the 1940's, or so?
If not, how come Dingoes are a separate sub-species having split from Dogs some 4,000 years ago?

 

[IM2]

Bullshit. But hey we'll blame blacks and ignore the fact that Chicago was an white organized crime controlled city.

The white racist is the dumbest human being walking this planet.

The chart I listed proves that the murder rate in the 1920's (White crime period) of Chicago, was nothing compared to the later (Black crime period) of Chicago.

The Chicago city and government are practicing genocide on black people The police are behind many of these shootings and blame it on gang violence.

Multiple people shot and killed and no one coming forward to say anything ?

Or are you so deeply soaked in a white supremacist way of thinking that you think “well, ya know, that’s what those blacks are like”

All several hundred witnesses to these shootings are not keeping silent out of a "no snitch code"

No snitch code goes out the window when little children are being killed. You saw how fast the black community came forward in the murder of Tyshawn Lee ?

Even a jailhouse informant, a convicted felon came forward and turned the killer in. Because there is no one standing for that.

There is no way possible in the 3rd largest city in America. The most powerful nation on earth; that multiple killings can happen this often.

There is no way possible for all that killing to go on without some dirty cops being involved.

And no

I'm not saying that the police are behind every killing in Chicago. But you got concentrated gun violence, concentrated poverty, unemployment, concentrated food deserts, concentrated malt liquor, cigarettes, and crates of guns dropped off in alley ways in Chicago’s Black neighbourhoods.

So of course stuff is gonna go off from time to time.

Most of these kids can barely afford a burger from McDonald’s. How can they afford these guns?

The guns they have can’t even be bought legally, not only that, there are no gun shops in Chicago.

Where do they get the bullets from?

Also city taxes pay for camera’s on every block but when a shooting takes place no one is in custody, nor do they have leads.

Yeah right.

But let one of their own get murdered ? They'll know the killer their in less 48 hrs.

But anybody else ?

It's always

A lot of the gang wars were initially instigated by police and government agents to destabilize the communities and drive down property values for eventual gentrification and ethnic cleansing. So Chicago has long been a place of violent criminal activity and it was started perpetrated by white people.

It was white people who got the ball rolling in Chicago.

People like Al Capone, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson. Also events like the Valentine’s Day Massacre. What’s ironic is that people like the ones mentioned are applauded, romanticized as heroes and have films and documentaries made about them.

These peoples planted the seeds of street crime. Do some research on Chicago gangsters..

Police murdering Blacks, and pretending it's Blacks doing it?

Wow, I guess even in Detroit which is worse than Chicago in murder, the Black police chief, and majority Black police force do this too, huh?

Have you been diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, by any chance?

You really need to study how things went down SSE. You are ignorant to a lot of American racial history.

Oh the poor Black babies had it so hard, when their Black slave population grew faster than my Poland did at the same time.

When in the course of over 80 years 3,400 Blacks were lynched.

As opposed to 10,000 Polish civilians killed in 1 day in Wola Massacre on August 5th of 1944, and by August 12th 1944 40,000 - 50,000 Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.

 

[Paul Essien]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

Yes, I do have reason to believe the Scientists are being biased when it comes to Humans.

The Coyote sub-species prove it.

Coyotes moved out of the Mid-West in the 20th century, and created many new sub-species in less than 100 years.
How can this be "Honest"?

Coyote migration.

Coyote sub-species.

So black people are a sub species of mankind. Is that your claim ?

I just need you to be clear on that. Now please don't chicken out here and waffle. Just a Yes or No.

 

[IM2]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

Yes, I do have reason to believe the Scientists are being biased when it comes to Humans.

The Coyote sub-species prove it.

Coyotes moved out of the Mid-West in the 20th century, and created many new sub-species in less than 100 years.
How can this be "Honest"?

Coyote migration.

Coyote sub-species.

So black people are a sub species of mankind. Is that your claim ?

I just need you to be clear on that. Now please don't chicken out here and waffle. Just a Yes or No.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

.
The scientists must be highly dishonest when it come to Humans, the most important one, go figure.

Examples include the sub-species of Wolves in North-America, which many of these sub-species were created in less than 100 years, from Wolves leaving their Mid-West homeland.

Another example is Dingoes being only split from Dogs 4,000 years, or so, and became a separate sub-species.
The Human races have been split on the whole for some 40,000 years.
Sure, the Dingo have liters (Kids) earlier, however even when we account for that, there's not much of a difference in time that Humans have been split from each other, as Dogs, and Dingoes did.

The scientists are wrong now ? Really ?

Yes, I do have reason to believe the Scientists are being biased when it comes to Humans.

The Coyote sub-species prove it.

Coyotes moved out of the Mid-West in the 20th century, and created many new sub-species in less than 100 years.
How can this be "Honest"?

Coyote migration.

Coyote sub-species.

So black people are a sub species of mankind. Is that your claim ?

I just need you to be clear on that. Now please don't chicken out here and waffle. Just a Yes or No.

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

 

[Paul Essien]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

 

[Paul Essien]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

 

[Moonglow]

I’ve seen several recent posts about the fact that black people in Africa sold their own people into slavery. It’s been cited as a basis to declare that black people are also at fault and are therefore just as bad as the white people who enslaved them. I am currently reading “Slaves In The Family,” by Edward Ball. In chapter 7 he gives the most thorough explanation of this I have ever heard.

“The coast of Loango, included a port settlement, Cabinda. The Royal African Company, which brought slaves to Charleston, made the Loango coast its trading base, so much so that the company’s records from the 1720s show that all of its ships going to central Africa during that time listed Cabinda as a destination.

Whites had long ago given up making raids themselves and instead operated forts on the coast known as “factories.” These were heavily armed buying centers to which black slave-handlers delivered their merchandise in exchange for guns, rum, and fabric. The captives brought by the black middlemen to the factories had previously been held by chiefs and headmen farther interior, away from the coast. These chiefs rounded up victims in several ways – by staging raids on villages for the purpose of getting prisoners of war, by punishing people in debt through sale into slavery, and sometimes by selling members of their own tribe for personal profit. With this involvement at the source of the capture business, slavery became a shared venture.

Forced labor was practiced in West Africa before the Europeans began to carry people off, but it was not plantation slavery like that in America. West African slavery consisted of the subjugation of whole villages by invading chiefdoms, which led to arrangements that resembled the vassal societies of feudal Europe. As it was in medieval England, the vanquished were required to make oaths of obedience to a piece of land and to work it, giving tribute to the lords in services and crops but holding on to personal identity. By contrast, American slavery meant the denuding of individuals of all rights and property, one person at a time.

In the Asante kingdom of southern Nigeria, for example, a slave could own property, own a slave him or herself, intermarry with the kin of the ruling family, and be an heir to his or her master – none of which rights were held by captive American blacks. When the Europeans arrived on the African coast, this patriarchal system became rapidly more harsh, and the pace and methods of slave capture were sharpened to suit white demand.”

I have believed and am now even more convinced that American slavery was its own evil, not to be compared to or blamed on anyone else.

If you don't like it there is the door..Now, stop playing codependent's for black victimization, you are not helping, in other words, it's time to stfu about it and stop pointing fingers..You are more of the problem than the word niggah..

 

[Moonglow]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

Which other different human races are sub-species?Which is a fallacious statement