Pathological Anthropology

The reader who submitted this photo explains,

The university of Cincinnati anthropology department had twelve faculty member post pictures like this on Facebook. They’ve also put them all together as their page’s cover photo, no matter how loosely connected it is to their field’s actual study.

Notice the lack of colored people claiming there is no such thing as race. Find a black man and tell him his blackness doesn’t matter because you don’t see race, and see whether he congratulates you on being a good one.

There is hope for change. Some are beginning to push back against the insanity of the equalist leftoids. (Scroll down for evidence of resistance.)

41 comments

    1. See this:
      South Africa: White students barricading themselves against black rioters outside

      Coming to a town, city, country near you if we don’t wake up. This is serious people.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Pingback: Pathological Anthropology | Neoreactive

  5. Most Social “Sciences” are pretty messed up, but Anthropology is so totally f*cked in the head, it’s not even entertaining shooting down their arguments. They aren’t even bothering to try to make sense, or to make reasonable-sounding points anymore – they just point, sputter, and posture. A sad ending of what was once an impressive academic field of study. Carleton Coon wept…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp. 569-570, 1996

      PREAMBLE
      As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.

      POSITION
      We offer the following points as revisions of the 1964 UNESCO statement on race:

      1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth’s geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.

      2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.

      3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

      4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.

      5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.

      Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

      6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.

      7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth’s environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.

      Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.

      8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.

      9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.

      10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.

      11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.

      Like

      Reply

  6. If there is no base for race, if there is no such thing as race… Then racism also doesn’t exist. This is like saying Bigfoot is fake, but Bigfoot tracks are real. Complete idiocracy

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  7. I just got done looking at a few months worth of posts. I’m angry, depressed, and disgusted all at the same time. I don’t think I’ve experienced so many emotions in such a short period of time, ever. I can only put my faith in collapse. God certainly is not here.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yeah, this site is like driving past a bad car wreck…you can’t help but stop and look. You’re saddened and disgusted all at the same time….yet count yourself lucky it’s not YOU!

      Like

      Reply

  10. Sorry, but for every “push back” sort of comment there is another flat-earth ‘race is a social construct’ type. Fucking unreal.

    Like

    Reply

  12. I read through the comments on the Facebook page and there are indeed challenges to this absurdity. What is interesting is that these are Facebook comments that are tied to actual people and not pseudonyms. It takes some guts to stick up for reality in those forums as you can be easily shamed in public. Hopefully, as the blogger suggests we are seeing some push back by the realists.

    Like

    Reply

  13. I actually enjoyed Anthropology class. I learned fun new words, like Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. I wonder what words they use in Ms. Lucky Charms’ class. Privelegoid and Unprivelegoid?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  15. A few years ago the American Anthropology Associate issued a statement that they would no longer be using the scientific method. Archeologist & physical anthropologist protested but to no avail.

    Like

    Reply

  16. “race: 1. A group of people considered to be distinct on the basis of physical characteristics that are transmitted genetically. Most biologists do not consider race to be a scientifically valid concept. 2. A group of organisms that have similar genetically based characteristics and form a distinct type within a species or breed.”

    –In other words, 2. is the correct definition and is “scientifically valid”, and it absolutely applies to human beings, whose races are based on “similar genetically based characteristics” (not just “physical characteristics” but behavioral, cognitive, et. al) and form distinct types within the species (I’ll waive for now the question whether Sub-Saharans aren’t a “subspecies” lzlzolz).

    –And 1. is pure hand-waving bullshit. Because “people” are “organisms” too. And “most biologists” are PC cowards.

    Like

    Reply

  17. Actually she is not a bad looking woman. I can imagine her 20 years ago…

    Too bad there seems to be something seriously wrong with her brain.

    Like

    Reply

  21. Samuel Morton was framed! Carlton Coon was a light unto the world.

    ((((Stephen Jay Gould)))) ((((Franz Boaz))) …every fuckin time….

    Like

    Reply

  22. The sign she’s holding doesn’t even make basic sense. “No biological basis for race”. If they had written “the concept of race”, or “for racial classifications” it would at least make grammatical sense, even if it would still be false scientifically.

    The concepts of race and gender are ultimately, after all the signifying and preaching are done, still based in biological reality. And this infuriates the Left and the academics. The attempt to make them fluid “constructs” is not much more than intellectual masturbation.

    Like

    Reply

  24. I’ll bet she support public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world. Because blacks like those policies.

    Just betcha. 🙂

    Like

    Reply

    1. Check out the website of the place they’re pissing, and you might wish they were shitting on it instead. A bunch of SJW shit about helping Abo’s, and this gem from their Diversity page:
      The current focus of our diversity group is on GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex). The fuck is intersex?? and how dare they exclude intrasex? Hermaphrodites with bendable boners have rights too!
      They offer services: for “women who have experienced family violence”, for adolescents “using violence in the home”, for children (whatever), and because they’re sanctimonious enough to help out those evil bastard men — they offer a Men’s Behavioural Change program. Oh, and all the female Board members are “Mizz” – even the married ones.

      Like

      Reply
  31. Pingback: Faculty Lounge Follies | Rotten Chestnuts

Leave a comment