Re: P.Comm - Follow up - Is It True black hips are narrower...

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 05:33:02 GMT

You are just SO stuck on the past here, SO stuck on the errors of the past -
that you can't see that TODAY, research is NOT conducted that way AT ALL.

"MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.0407031303.2c9c3ac8@posting.google.com...
> desertcactus@emailcorner.net (DesertCactus) wrote in message
news:<f25f7f62.0407030636.58dddc78@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > I did already. Most of it's over a century old, far too old in
scientific
> > > terms. And if we're going that old, then in pre-Darwinian days, they
said
> > > black hips were wider so that black women would have easy births,
which
> > > in turn was of course part of the "blacks aren't human" ***.
> > >
> >
> > What argument did they put across about blacks not being human because
> > they have wider hips and easy births?
> > Don't most mammals have difficulty giving birth? Sorry I don't get it,
> > just curious.
>
> Well, most don't have that much trouble, namely because their newborns
> are so small, and also because the female still gets plenty of exercise.
> (OTOH, with humans, the good news is that most often there's only one at
> a time.)
>
> Whatever the case, it was pre-Darwinian, so they had that whole thing
> about Eve being cursed. With the rise of evolution, the worst element of
> polygenism was put to rest, at least among naturalists, but races could
> still be ranked.

Quantcast