Flaws in the Genetic View of Racial Behavior

As you can see in this horrible article, Blacks in Zaire*, including all parties in the war there, think it’s pretty cool to kill Pygmies and eat them for food. They’ve even set of Pygmy Meat stalls in the local market so you can pick out the choice cuts for yourself and save yourself a Human Hunting Expedition.
The article is six years old, but I understand that this behavior is ongoing. This is part of a long-standing slow-motion genocide against the Pygmies that the Bantus have been waging against them since they conquered them 2,000 years ago. Bantus have also been slo-mo genociding the Khoisan in Southwest Africa for about 800 years ago. That’s also ongoing in places like Botswana.
Blacks in West Africa have also been eating their enemies in the recent wars there. It seems to be sort of an Africanism to eat your enemies in wartime. Actually, this is common tribal behavior not just in Africa but in New Guinea, the Philippines, Polynesia, Melanesia, the Amazon and probably other places.
White nationalists on sites like American Renaissance love articles like this and always use them to point out the innate depravity of Blacks. I think this theory is in error. Perhaps if you want to make a case for the innate depravity of African Blacks, you might be on slightly better grounds, but even there, the theory would probably bite the dust.
A good example of why theory is flawed can be seen in US Blacks. Racist posters on Amren are always talking about how American Blacks “would probably try to eat you” after they killed you in some street crime assault.
This is faulty thinking because it conflates US Blacks with African Blacks and assumes that the behavior of both is identical because it is genetically encoded.
But as much as we complain about US Blacks here, but they don’t do stuff like those below, and they probably never will.
But if US Blacks had never come to the US and were still in Africa, they would probably still be running around:
1. Consuming other humans in backyard barbecue get-togethers,
2. Slaughtering each other by the millions in insane, cruel and stupid wars,
3. Killing other humans to cook up their body parts as voodoo recipes,
4. Burning witches,
5. Launching pogroms against albinos,
6. And all sorts of other charming and highly evolved behaviors.
It’s not only US Blacks, but all Blacks in the West that don’t do this stuff, including Blacks in the Caribbean and South America.
But as I’ve noted, the Western Hemisphere Blacks would probably be doing all this sick stuff if they were still back in Africa. Why? Because that’s what Blacks do in Africa. And why don’t they do it here? Because Blacks in the Western Hemisphere have lost a lot of their African traditions and have become culturally a part of Western Hemisphere cultures instead. So, the reason US Blacks don’t do 1-6 above is because they are Americans, and Americans don’t do things like that.
Have they genetically changed in America, and is this the reason they don’t do these things? Probably not. But they have culturally changed, and that culture change has been so long-lasting that behaviors like 1-6 above have been wiped out in the US for centuries.
Using this behavior as an argument for the innate depravity of Africans is also difficult. Because quite a few of the folks doing 1-6 above will quit doing it at some point if you take them out of Africa and put them in, say, the Western Hemisphere.
Racialists are always bashing culture, but it’s much more important than you think. They bash culture at their peril.
*The Blacks in Zaire cannibalizing the Pygmies include many Rwandans also. There’ also a long tradition of cannabalism in the Congo, dating back centuries.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

15 thoughts on “Flaws in the Genetic View of Racial Behavior”

  1. To be fair:
    1. Consuming other humans in backyard barbecue get-togethers,
    Whites have the occasional Jeffrey Dalmer
    and Albert Fish:
    albeit their behavior is highly incongrous with White society.
    2. Slaughtering each other by the millions in insane, cruel and stupid wars…
    For full scale violence I tip the hat to Whites in 20th century. Africa may outdo WWI and WWII.

  2. Dear Robert
    Our white ancestors in Europe in the 16th century thought that it was OK to burn heretics, enslave some people, give massive privileges to aristoctats, especially kings, persecute witches, treat disease with bloodletting practice judicial torture and cruelty to animals, and subjugate non-Europeans. We are clearly different from them, but not biologically. It s not only blacks that needed progress.
    Regards. James

  3. I was watching a National Geographic documentary on the Celts and the Roman invasion of what would later be known as the U.K. Celts practiced cannibalism of their enemies. After Western civilization was brought to them by the Romans, they became the British people we know today. Of course that behavior was certainly not genetic. There was a lot of barbarism and violence amongst pre-western Norse cultures, but those same people are pretty docile today. Same story for Mongolians and Japanese.
    As for why these sheer levels of barbarism still go on Africa to this day, I think is due to nothing but the cultural, religious and economic isolation of many of these cultures from the rest of the world. When pre-Roman Anglos were just as isolated, you saw similar behavior. I often wonder if you’d built a giant wall keeping the Romans out of N. Europe, how long would it have taken an advanced civilization to take hold up there.

    1. One bad argument that White nationalists make is that Whites were immune from human sacrifice. They pour scorn on Amerindian societies that were really into this stuff. I think the Aztecs were sickos too, but the notion that Whites did not do such stuff is wrong. My understanding is that human sacrifice was widely practiced in many cultures, including many ancient European cultures.
      Often if things were not going well, they would “sacrifice a virgin” to get things going better. Often they would kill a beautiful young woman. The Gods were regarded as capricious and nuts, and they only way to appease these crazy entities was by killing, say, a beautiful young woman.
      I’m rather disgusted by Africans, I must say. All the other cannibals seem to have knocked it off.
      The worst cannibals on Earth were in Polynesia and Melanesia, but that’s history. There were also high levels of cannibalism in the Amazonian jungle. That’s all a memory now. Even the Papuans have knocked it off.
      It’s almost gone from Africa too, but it does seem to flare up during these horrible African wars, when Africans seem to do just completely degenerate back into their worst ancient customs.

  4. My understanding is that human sacrifice was widely practiced in many cultures, including many ancient European cultures.
    Definitely by the Vikings, but I think such sacrifices were not nearly as frequent as the Aztecs.
    Closer perhaps to Egyptian sacrifice.
    In Leviticus when Jews are admonished not to “throw their seed in into the fires of Moloch” it was specifically to counter some of the pagan rituals that involved sacrificing first born children to assure a good harvest.

    1. I don’t think we are getting the point I am trying to make here. Sure, in most cultures, sooner or later there’s some lunatic and whackjob who kills people and eats their flesh. Well of course.
      But that’s not the same thing as institutionalized cannibalism. What’s going on in the Zaire and even during the wars of West Africa was institutionalized cannibalism in the context of a chaotic and anarchic war. Furthermore, it seems to be somewhat societally sanctioned, too.
      I can’t think of any other wars in anywhere outside of Africa in recent years where cannibalism was routinely practiced in the context of a war. In Africa, it’s usually believed that eating the flesh of your enemy or a Pygmy gives you some kind of superhuman voodoo or magic powers.
      Can anyone show me any major wars in Asia, the Middle East, Europe or the Americas even in the 20th Century was mass cannibalism was practiced? I can’t think of any.

  5. Nah, nothing unique about African cannibalism. Your premise is a non-starter. In the 20th century, the Chinese, the Russians, the Ukrainians all responded to famine and war with instances of famine. It’s not ‘institutionalized’ in Africa. Civil society is not even institutionalized, let alone cannibalism. Unless there’s a Ministry for Cannibalism in Cameroon that I haven’t heard of.
    Cannibalism was so prevalent in Leningrad that “Hundreds, perhaps thousands, resorted to cannibalizing the dead, and in a few cases people were murdered for their flesh. The Leningrad police struggled to keep order and formed a special division to combat cannibalism.” http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?id=7014&action=tdihArticleCategory
    As far as I know there were not many Africans in Leningrad. Or Pygmies.

    1. It’s one thing to eat other people when there is a famine and people are starving to death. They are eating the bodies of those who died. Most humans will so such things rather than starve to death.
      However, it is quite another thing altogether to en mass and ritualistically, as part of a cultural norm, eat your enemies that have fallen in war.
      Cannibalism was rife in the recent wars in West Africa, especially in Liberia. Charles Taylor, the leader of one of the armies, is accused of eating the fallen troops of his enemies. Many of his soldiers did the same. They did it to get voodoo powers.
      Same thing in Zaire. In the context of war, large numbers of Pygmies are being murdered so that troops on all sides can eat their flesh in order to get voodoo powers to help them in wartime. It’s mass cultural behavior, not the behavior of a lone crazy here and there.
      The fact that this seems to be pretty widespread in Africa implies that cannibalism was widely practiced in Africa in the past. Especially, one’s enemies were eaten.
      That’s common tribal behavior, but the entire WORLD, forget the civilized world for now, the whole world, civilized and uncivilized, has given up non-famine cannibalism. There hasn’t been any cannibalizing of enemy soldiers or cannibalizing to gain voodoo powers in any major war in the 20th century. As depraved and evil as these wars got, humans just would not stoop that low. That was even too much for Nazis, and almost nothing was too low for them.
      What in God’s name is the matter with Africans?!!? They are continuing to engage, widely, in condoned cultural practiced that have been rejected by the entire planet outside of Africa.
      What in the Hell is the matter with these people?

    2. This all makes me wonder about Malcolm Gladwell’s theory that IQ may be more an indicator not of how inherently smart we are, but how *modern* we are.
      “Our great-grandparents may have been perfectly intelligent. But they would have done poorly on I.Q. tests because they did not participate in the twentieth century’s great cognitive revolution, in which we learned to sort experience according to a new set of abstract categories. In Flynn’s phrase, we have now had to put on “scientific spectacles,” which enable us to make sense of the WISC questions about similarities. To say that Dutch I.Q. scores rose substantially between 1952 and 1982 was another way of saying that the Netherlands in 1982 was, in at least certain respects, much more cognitively demanding than the Netherlands in 1952. An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are.”

    3. That may be true, tulio, but even in modern societies, there are still gaps between groups. I doubt that Blacks are any less modern than Whites in the US.
      Nevertheless, I do have high hopes for the 3rd World and in particular for Africa to see some major IQ rises concurrent with modernization. In fact, there is a wild Flynn Effect going on in the 3rd World right now. The IQ’s are going up very fast, faster than in the 1st World.
      A lot of it is correlated with increased education, but a lot of it is also unexplained. At the end of the day, the Flynn Effect is sort of mysterious.

  6. The Culture creates the Race. Yockey.
    But it always works seminally & spiritually, thru similiar groupings.

  7. “Have they genetically changed in America, and is this the reason they don’t do these things? Probably not. But they have culturally changed, and that culture change has been so long-lasting that behaviors like 1-6 above have been wiped out in the US for centuries.”
    Culture is probably the primary reason although there has been genetic change also. And this could have some impact.
    For instance, in the Scarr Minnessota Transracial Adoption Study the children of mixed ancestry scored between the black and white adoptees on psychometric tests. They had been adopted earlier than either the whites or the black adoptees also.

  8. Cultures vary widely in Africa. Barbarism may be in full effect in one country while the country next door can be completely hospitable and safe to visit. It’s just weird like that there. Even countries like Rwanda that went through a heinous genocide is considered quite safe to visit these days. I was reading the wikitravel entry for Rwanda:

    wanda is a very conservative society; most people dress modestly, especially women. Wearing shorts or tight skirts and skimpy tops is likely to get you stared at twice as much as normal.
    It is unusual for a couple to make public displays of affection, even though many men walk hand in hand with male friends. Also, Rwandans will generally never eat or drink in public, apart from at restaurants. Rwandan women are rarely seen smoking in public or out in bars unaccompanied.
    Rwandans are very private, reserved people and loud public confrontations (shouting matches) or obvious displays of emotion (such as crying) are also frowned upon. If you feel you are being overcharged by a trader, quietly persisting with the negotiation (or your complaint!) is likely to produce results much faster than an angry outburst!
    It is also impolite to make eye contact with an elder.
    Please understand that Rwanda is still recovering from a civil war and genocide in which over 800,000 people, perhaps a million, were killed. Many Rwandese lost relatives and friends. Remember to be sensitive to this sad fact when dealing with Rwandese. Most people today are trying to forget the tribal divisions and would rather be referred to as Rwandese than Hutu or Tutsi. It is considered impolite to ask someone about their ethnic origin.
    There is not much political discourse in Rwanda, unlike in many neighboring countries such as Uganda and Kenya where people talk freely about the government and political issues, people in Rwanda will be uncomfortable if asked their views or even if seated at a table where national politics is discussed.

    The people seem to go against the stereotypes that many place on blacks as being hyper-emotional, hyper-sexed and lacking mannerism and politeness. Given the diversity of black cultures, it’s amazing some people thing behavior is so strictly correlated with race.

  9. “The Bantus” wage a war against Khoisan and Pygmies? Who are “The Bantus”? Bantu is actually a term that refers to the speakers of a certain language group, not an ethnic term (with the exception of apartheid-era South Africa, where it was used as such). Many “Bantus”, especially in Southern Africa, are actually directly related to the Khoisan. Particularily the Xhosa-speaking people, but not exclusively.
    I’ve met many “Bantus” in Southern Africa, who have relatives in their family, which Westerners would categorize as Khoisan and this is nothing unusual in South Africa, Namibia or Botsuana. So, it seems like you lack a realistic perspective on the topic and you only write based on book/newspaper-knowledge, not based on actual first hand experience.
    Acts of cannibalism and witch-hunting in Africa today are disgusting relicts of an obsolete mentality and a product of lack of proper knowledge in certein regions of the continent.
    The Nazis had a high level of scientific knowledge available, so they didn’t eat their “enemies”, but they gassed them or executed them in mass shootings. Were they more civilized, just because their means of killing were more technologically advanced? I don’t think so. Their scientific advance only made it possible for them, to kill even more people in a shorter amount of time (I guess white Europeans call that “efficiency”).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)