Morgan Freeman says the terms ‘Black History Month’ and ‘African American’ are insults

submitted by hfxB0oyA from (theguardian.com)

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MagicMike 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Does he have white ancestors? I read that 25% of boons have white ancestors. This is also why boons in Africa have an IQ average of 71: no white ancestors.
(71 is the AVERAGE. No wonder boon countries are terrible.

[–]ActuallyNot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Smarter than the average american at the start of last century. American IQs in 1900 Averaged 67 Points.

A little bit of childhood nutrition and education makes a fuckton of difference.

But you do the racism thing, if it makes you feel better. You should know that you're wrong though, so that you understand why you're offending people.

[–]MagicMike 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Not racism if it’s a fact. You realize America was flooded with immigrants from non English speaking countries?
Boons have lower IQ because they evolved on a ghetto continent, got sold by their Kangs to ghetto plantation owners, then freed to live in city ghettos. I might feel sympathy for people who evolved like that but they are still violent low IQ boons who should be avoided.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You realize America was flooded with immigrants from non English speaking countries?

You mean other than England?

Boons have lower IQ because they evolved on a ghetto continent, got sold by their Kangs to ghetto plantation owners, then freed to live in city ghettos.

Modern Homo sapiens evolved in Africa. Those that moved to Europe back-bred with Neanderthals, and retained the Neanderthals white skin and straight hair. Be proud of your neanderthal genes, but don't claim they make you smarter than a human. They don't.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    there is an abundance of recently discovered archeolgical evidence that it can't explain.

    Really.

    Can you link me to a few such "archeolgical" pieces of evidence?

    Not only does every race but blacks possess neanderthal dna, blacks also have an unknown hominid in their ancestry whose dna isn't present in anyone but sub-saharans.

    I hadn't heard that either. Can you link me to the DNA studies that show that?

    [–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Out of Africa is by far (not even by a small amount) the dominant theory. You can express your contrary opinion and express your reasoning, but to suggest that it is anything other than the most well-evidenced theory is like saying that there is an ancient Neanderthal civilization under the Antarctic ice. The evidence for both fringe positions is exceedingly small compared to the established positions. It is exciting to imagine that there are cabals censoring The Truth from getting out, but scientists are not particularly good at that, honestly. The theory has been challenged many times and successfully defended many times too. If you want to argue for race categories in humans, you should know, you don't need to tie your argument to the hope that Out of Africa is wrong... it's a bad position to start from.

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'race' so I'm not sure what your claim is when you say that only Africans don't have Neanderthal DNA. South Asians and Australian Aboriniginals also don't have Neanderthal DNA, but I doubt they fit your definition of African. Perhaps you meant to use the word 'ancestry' instead of race?

    You are right about unknown hominid ancestry in African DNA--you are wrong that it is at all extraordinary. There are many such 'ghosts' in the DNA of diverse human populations. Indonesia, North India, Phillipines...

    The definition of 'subspecies' is not standard in taxonomy and is tailored for usage in specific fields. Usually 'subspecies' appears in population genetics or field biology when a researcher is studying two distinct populations that have not yet diverged according to the biological species definition, but are expected to due to their current evolutionary trajectory. For example, two distant and distinct wolf populations occupying different national parks might be considered 'subspecies' by a wolf researcher, not only because a certain amount of genetic difference is detected, but because that difference is expected to increase. Researchers studying fruit flies, trees, and mice all have their own subspecies criteria. It isn't a real taxonomic category, it is a placeholder for a hypothetical category that is more of a localized tool for niche resesearchers to communicate. Basically, the way 'subspecies' is used in biology, it means "two distinct breeding populations that, given the current lack of gene flow and differing trajectories of genetic drift, are strong candidates for an imminent or ongoing speciation event."

    Given how human mixture is only increasing, it is not scientifically appropriate to apply subspecies concepts to them. Using the logic of subspecies concepts, which include expectations about gene flow and drift ('subspecies' invoking more of a forward-facing expectation and the methods that are used to assess that), it would be more appropriate to suggest that human intermixture has resulted in a relatively homogenous mono-race.

    [–]MagicMike 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Sub Saharans had no arithmetic, no written words, and lived in mud huts. Since they were never cold and had year round crops, they never developed much of a civilization. They never learned how to store food for the long term because there was no need, unlike in Europe and NE Asia. Face it: they weren’t much above the antelope wandering the Serengeti. Their brains remained small while people facing ice ages had to develop brains to survive.

    This is why boons are more like wild animals. If they are lucky enough to have some white ancestors, they can get out of the ghetto. Otherwise, like wild animals, they need to stay in their ‘enclosures’.

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Sub Saharans had no arithmetic, no written words, and lived in mud huts.

    There's a lot of different peoples and cultures that are geographically "Sub Saharan Africa". At some point they would have all had no arithmetic and no written words, but at no point were they behind the Neanderthals of Europe in toolmaking.

    They never learned how to store food for the long term because there was no need

    No one had refrigeration in 1700 or earlier. Whether or not there was a need.

    Their brains remained small while people facing ice ages had to develop brains to survive.

    The Neanderthals of Europe did have a bigger brain case than the modern humans that arose in Africa, and spread around the world.

    They didn't have the same skill in tool-making or agriculture, and they were pretty much a one-trick pony when it came to lifestyle. They hunted megafauna. I don't think the Neanderthal brain was better. They were certainly outcompeted by the smaller brained modern humans.

    [–]Countach_3D 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    so that you understand why you're offending people

    Someone being wrong doesn't offend me. I just don't waste my time.

    [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The reason its offensive is not because it's wrong. It's offensive because it's trying to claim that MagicMike is smarter than another group, using misinformation.

    If someone is trying to show that they're more intelligent than someone by avoiding their personal IQ, it's not going to go well. But racism has impacts on careers and how people are treated from by the justice system, so trying to construct (wrong) arguments for it is doing a disservice to the country and the world.

    [–]hfxB0oyA[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Based undefinable black mongrel man.

    [–]GuyWhite 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    It’s another nigger. Who cares what it eeks and ooks.

    [–]clownworlddropout 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You see this a lot with rich black guys, they tend to throw the black community under the bus.

    [–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    He's not doing that.

    He has legit reasons.

    This is an old story.

    [–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Freeman said of the first: “You’re going to relegate my history to a month?”

    This isn't throwing the black community under the bus. The reason that there is a black history month, is because significant people tend to be overlooked by "history" as it is taught. His comment affirms that and goes further.

    I understand less what he's saying about the term "African American" but in the end, he's right enough to say "black" gets that information across, and there aren't any issues with it if you're proud to be black.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    And screw teenage relatives

    [–]Godknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Amen.

    [–]dissidentrhetoric 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I just call them all Africans.