DINDUS AND SINGLE WHITE MOTHERS: MYSTERY EXPLAINED

Guess what?
In most tribal societies, upbringing follows this pattern:

>Man from another family is allowed to fuck the girl and procreate
>however, upbringing is undertaken by the girl AND her brother
>so young tribal kids use the word "father" to refer to their maternal uncles
>the "biological" father, to them, is just a nice man who takes them out for hunting and fishing, and can take them as apprentices, but for all that matters it is the mother's family that does the childrearing job.

(cont.)

Other urls found in this thread:

people.bridgewater.edu/~mtembo/menu/articles/TraditionalAfricanFamily.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_inclusive_fitness
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
springer.com/us/book/9783642399787
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

(cont. from )

>The lineage is the effective kinship unit among the Bemba around which "......marriage and the organization of family life...." revolves.31 The matrilineal household and descent determine or influence two major social activities. First, in succession and inheritance the man inherits his dead grandfather, maternal uncle, or brother. A woman inherits her maternal grandmother or sisters. Headmanships of villages, court offices, ritual titles, and chieftainships are passed on in this way.

>Second, social support is usually sought from the matrilineal line or descent group. For example, in debt and marriage obligations. The male head has control over children produced by the children of the group. When a girl is getting married her mother's brother must be consulted. In many matrilineal societies, the maternal uncle in the go-between or undertakes all the arrangements and responsibilities for his nephew's marriage.32 In case of divorce, the women's people were legal guardians of the kids.

(cont.)

tl;dr

i fucked your bitch mother right in the shit hole faggot

...

>Children among the matrilineal peoples are brought up in a similar traditional extended family village social environment. There is socialization to raise boys and girls to become responsible and acceptable adults of the village, community, and ultimately society. The children learn the customs, beliefs, and culture pertaining to the social roles of being a woman, mother, and wife for girls; and a man, father, and husband for boys. Matrilineality is the major influence in what children learn and come to accept about their society.

>Power and authority in matrilineal societies ultimately lies in the woman and her brother. As such children at an early age learn that their father has little authority or responsibility for them. The father knows that his children are not his ultimate responsibility but his sister's children. Meanwhile the man and her married sister do not live in one locality, as they must maintain their marriages. Some scholars have suggested that this arrangement might be fraught with potential social problems and conflict.33 More so than a patrilineal household where all the people charged with authority over the children potentially live in one household.

THE END.

All of the above, ladies and gentlemen, explains:
>why all white women who fuck dindus become single mothers
>that is, because dindus are culturally engineered to think of kids as a responsibility of the mother's family (and not of the biological father)

This also explains:
>the true Alpha male is a male with sisters
>that is, sisters to marry
>by marrying his sisters and managing their kids, he acquires a superior social role (and can breed with women of opposite clans as a consequence)

If you don't screencap me on this, you are a bunch of idiots because I have just explained what Sup Forums has been trying to sort out for the past decade.

You can hide yourself from the truth, but this will not transform it into falsehood.

Just plainly admit I have neatly explained what happens when two members of two tribes with different parenthood systems have sex and breed.

>WHITES
>culture where responsibility is upon the biological father

>BLACKS and other TRADITIONAL PEOPLE
>culture where responsibility lies with the mother's brother

If you don't grasp this and if you don't understand how much supportive of the Sup Forums mindset this is, then either you are an idiot or you are likely to be one of those niggers everyone talks about.

Got any source on this?

>implying you can take care of your nephew from prison

Try, for example:
>every fucking handbook of Anthropology
I'm not even kidding you.

I can find you some random websites if you like, but basically this is Anthropology 101.

The first thing anthropologists studied were kinship relations because they didn't have genetics and when they met tribes they discovered:
>words like "father", "sister", etc. were not understood in the same way by tribals... so there is no one-to-one translation of the English words (it depends on the system of kinship adopted by the tribe)
>same goes for affective relationships (e.g. behaving towards your uncle like Western kids do toward their biological father)
>eventually, some extremely elaborate systems that border eugenetics (e.g. clans that constitute a same tribe change place where they live at rotation and they construct a circle or a square in which people from clan A can only marry people from the opposite side of the campfire, but then when the kids grow up they are adopted by the clan immediately to the left of the camp fire and then they will marry across the camp fire)

The last thing I have said is reported by Claude Lévi-Strauss (but it's just his summary of studies made by others).

>pic
Pic related is an example.

The way villages are set up is not randomly or aesthetically. It is fucking eugenics all the way through.

Basically you are allowed to marry only women from houses opposite to you, and then your kids will grow up in your house and when they are adult they will move to a different house (but not that of the mother).
Once in the new house your kids will marry from the opposite house but not from the houses of their mother or their father...
...and so on.

>pic related
I think it's some Brazilian village in Esclavado.

Abo pls.

your melanine-rich tribe might do it that way but civilization does it better.

We know this. "Civilized society" and "patriarchy" are literally one and the same, hence third wave feminists attempting to destroy civilizwtion at its roots.

I'm just explaining how thousands of years of cultural segregation have created two completely different systems of kinship.

And America brought them together.

Of course there was going to be a fuck up.

Are there any attractive abbos?

people.bridgewater.edu/~mtembo/menu/articles/TraditionalAfricanFamily.shtml
You can follow the sources this professor used in his footnotes.

This board is not useful for discussion.

I need to read this stuff and when I'm done this thread will die.

...

Also, this one.

youre also a fucking Aussie

Kids look awesome (in a non-sexual way).

That's not my problem, my Reverse Singaporean Friend.

You're full of bullshit. Why would African -Americans uphold the cultural traditions of their ancestors? They aren't being taught these traditions or inheriting them genetically.

That's a mix iirc

Are all Americans idiot?
I am not saying they are AWARE of it.

If you practice this for 300,000 it is very likely at some point you will be hardwired to act like that.

Whatever. Would impregnate her every day of the year.

But African Americans have barely any connection to Africans culturally. They were purged of their culture.

>If you practice this for 300,000 it is very likely at some point you will be hardwired to act like that.
Citation please.

>They were purged of their culture.
Implying 19th Century America and early 20th Century was 1984-ish and able to eradicate everything.

Fuck no. It was like South Africa back then. Blacks living in villages in the Dixieland in the south. Singing Afro songs, etc.

It's not citation, moroon. It's fucking evolution.

I'm not talking Lamarckian stuff. I am talking basic "evo by culture".

I'll explain very briefly because it is pointless to refer you to an academic paper (and anyway I am packing right now).

I will make an example with something older than culture: language.

So basically there are two theories of how language evolved:
1. As a completely novel trait
2. As a rewiring of other traits that had other purposes

The 1st option was proposed by Chomsky in the 60s-70s. E.g. language is a new trait... much like a pair of wings.

But the latter one seems to be more realistic
[a] So basically you start with basic animal cognitive skills like cognitive maps for spatial reasoning (something all mammalians can do)...
[b] If such traits reveals itself useful (for environmental reasons), then individuals with the best of it will be more likely to reproduce
[c] So next generation has more people with this trait. The others are less likely to make it to reproductive age...
[d] Generation by generation, the trait is selected and refined... and the genetics are refined so that the hardwiring looks more like 2016 human brains than 300,000 BCE ape brains.
[f] This goes on as long as: 1. mutations occur; 2. SHTF (environmental upheaval)

TL;DR:
So basically we can say environmental feedback on pre-existing traits favoured the evolution of superior cognitive abilities such as language.

PROBLEM 1:
>language is then diverted for the purpose of group coordination, cooperation (within small groups) and also to attract mates

So now we have a scenario in which culture (which allows mate and cooperation) increasingly affects people's action.

So Culture becomes the "new environment" that selects people... the "natural" environment remains a strong selective force, but it is not alone in this. Not any more.

This is how culture shapes genes... it takes many generations, but not a huge amount to change some relevant aspects.

They developed a new bastard culture but all over America blacks to this day have a bastardized version of whatever is around them. Go down to new Orleans then head north and see the difference. The only parts that stick out are the deep cities where they were labor now have no jobs and shit is just getting worse and worse in a downward spiral.

TL;DR:
>although behavioural traits and culture are subject to broader individual variability than essential functioning mechanisms such as the spinal chord or muscles, it is still a fact that cultural trait, if enforced or present for a sufficiently long period of time, will become "fixated" and affect evolution (in the same way environment does).

This explains alot.

Many parts of evolution for us are software user. They dont necessarily make it to the hardware. Culture carries its own kind of evolution.

If you managed to clone a caveman and set him loose you will not end up with what a caveman was like back when.

>They aren't inheriting them genetically.
Are you sure about that?
Can you explain what we call "instinct"?
Like how birds know how to build nests.
Its genetic encoding.

This would be fantastic but our women are way too ingrained with the being taken care of shit. They cant even see all the ways it effects them and us.

What you say is compatible with: Again, see:

This isn't representative of the whole of Africa...
In the west (were most slaves in the Americas came from) they get raised by their grandparents...

So, you're kinda right. But not quiet.

Tldr, niggers will hang

Holy shit, I didn't realize I was posting a gif. I thought thumbnail was the pic.

Who the fuck cares about tribal societies, did they give us the airplane or the internet?
Any advancement in modern medicine or something?
Abbo's are tribal sub human untermensch, arab nations are made up of tribes that have nonstop conflict going between them whether if it's about religion, ethnicity, trade or politics.

Tribes don't amount to nothing, we shouldn't be interested in them, we should abolish them and ignore everything they stand for.

i dont care man.

black women are a guilty pleasure of mine anyway.

> parenthood only happens the exact way I say, you're a retard if you don't agree

Guess I'm a retard then. Truth doesn't change to whatever you say it is either.

African tribalism shouldnt have an effect on 21st century negroes.

they should be more civilized by now, not "goin bak 2 muh roots" ooga booga chimpout style

Your point being?
Also why should we listen to you, no really, who cares?
We shall do as we wish.

Besides, doesn't this apply for both groups of people?
Sounds like favoring black arbitrarily.
You said anthropology.....
Biology says otherwise.

>Many parts of evolution for us are software user. They dont necessarily make it to the hardware. Culture carries its own kind of evolution.
Yes, but things are more murky than you think.

E.g. WTF are brain chemicals in your view? Are they software or are they hardware?
Possibly both.

Think of how drugs can affect the fitness of entire generations of individuals... or how a newly discovered food can boost with vitamins the fitness of many other individuals, thus making them cognitively aware, quicker when it comes to reaching reproductive age, etc.

And culture can give sufficient boost even though it is not fixated... much like special food would give you unexpected or unprecedented boosts.

If "cultural pressure" is applied long enough (e.g. by the transmission of culture you mention), genetic change will also occur as an adaptation to such constant pressure. It just requires time and repeated effort -- upheavals and civilizations' downfalls may reset an ongoing process of refinement.

So I am not saying *everything cultural* is eventually fixated... but you must admit something cultural *can* become fixated in a sufficient amount of time.

Wait, did this thread just prove that this is why niggers are so shitty for caring and raising families? Are dindus harmful to the environment?

>are dindus harmful to the enviroment

the reason why we're half a desert is because abos couldnt be fucked hunting and burned the forests down over and over again.

Like on Easter Island, fucking dindus man.

>Your point being?
Dindus are hardwired to leave kids alone.
>Also why should we listen to you, no really, who cares?
Thank you for making me notice you didn't take a notice by means of taking notice.
>We shall do as we wish.
Bluepilled Christian detected. He thinks he has free will.
>Besides, doesn't this apply for both groups of people?
Yes. In fact here I said two separate tribes can have completely different systems.
# example #
>tribe 1 thinks biological fathers have to take care of their offspring
>tribe 2 thinks maternal uncles have to take care of their offspring
>woman from tribe 1 fucks with man from tribe 2
>man from tribe 2 leaves because wtf it's muh kangz culture
>woman from tribe 1 is left alone
>her brother is supremely pissed off by the man who left her
>war ensues
That's basic tribal logic.


>Sounds like favoring black arbitrarily.
Why? I just said they might have evolved to respect certain systems of kinship. I am not saying their system is superior.

>You said anthropology.....
>Biology says otherwise.
What about no? What about you think of anthropology and biology with a mindset from the 1960s? Ever heard science has made leaps forward and is now exploring very thoroughly how human mind evolved?
Ever heard of fields such as evolutionary psychology? Cognitive psychology? Evolutionary anthropology? Just to name a few.

> I'm not talking Lamarckian stuff.
> proceeds to use the exact same definition for 'evo by culture' that Lamarck did for his evolutionary theory

Looks like Giorgio moved to Australia.

>Wait, did this thread just prove that this is why niggers are so shitty for caring and raising families? Are dindus harmful to the environment?
Yes and no.

I have just explained that niggers simply rely on a completely different kinship system.

Take your pic and consider the following:
>every human stands on the right side of the axis
>difference between you and niggers is not the "time of parental investment" but "who is supposed to do the parental investment"

So if you try to answer the question:
>who is supposed to dedicate time to parental investment (i.e. childrearing)?
White answer is:
>biological father and mother
Nigga answer is:
>biological mother and her bro

As simple as that.

>kids look awesome

it's a fucking nigger

>> proceeds to use the exact same definition for 'evo by culture' that Lamarck did for his evolutionary theory

Wrong you idiot.

Lamarck claimed that basically if you stretch your muscles long enough then your kids will be ripped.

Let's put things in perspective:
# Glossary #
>ontogeny: what happens during an individual life
# theories #
>hard core Lamarckism says: "casual traits acquired during your ontogeny will be passed to your offspring"
>hard core Darwinism says: "fuck no. Casual traits acquired during your ontogeny are the result of your make-up, which will be passed to your offspring simply because interaction between your genes and environment was successful enough so your kids live to see another day and reproduce"
>genetic Darwinism adds: "fuck yeah. In fact, you can tell that it is genes that affect your behaviour. If you then survive thanks to such behaviour, you will make kids, and kids of course will be likely to carry the same genes that made you behave so and so. If environment changes and behaviour expressed by your genes becomes useless, your kids will die and next generations will not have your genes"
>more genetics adds: "yes, but let's also consider that there are things like linkage disequilbirium, mutations, and stochastic variations that can make things last in the gene pool for longer (so shit goes into hiding and re-emerges generations later)"
>finally, current year evolutionary biologist and anthropologists claim: "culture can basically create the same kind of bottlenecks environment does"

TL;DR:
>saying that building a wall (Trump meme) has the same effect of an ocean suddenly dividing two populations so that they evolve differently is NOT Lamarckism. Just evidence of how culture can affect genetics.

So, brother from another mother has merit?

Now you understand what bro culture is about.

Also: Dagos.

Dagos had the same systems in place up until the 50s. Especially Dagos of the South used to say things like these:
>The most sacred women in a man's life are
>Holy Mary
>one's own mother
>one's own sister

Their culture has more respect for women *within* the family than women *outside* the family.

Dagos would usually go full kinfe-fight to revenge their sisters' honours... and only secondarily their wives' honour. Usually both... but let's not forget how protective Dagos are toward sisters and mothers who baked pizza every day from them.

Now I am being a bit stereotypical, and things have changed in 40-50 years... but still.

So basically, the jews inherited psychological trauma from the holocaust and many more centuries of persecution? Is that the same logic? not even kidding

ppl r strange

>So, brother from another mother has merit?
Forgot to say in some tribal cultures all cousins consider themselves like brothers. As such, they might not even have a word for "cousin".

In fact, the Uncle who is the head of the Clan will rear all the kids of his sisters (together with the sisters themselves). All the kids will grow up an call each other brothers.

Again, Anthropology 101.

Bro culture at its best.

Let's say that, assuming they kept inbreeding (which you can prove for Ashkenazi but not for Sephardites) they might have evolved for 20-50 generations basically in order to express the same traits that granted them survival.
Does it make sense?

Null hypothesis would be something like:
>take kids away from parents
>completely away from culture
>they still develop some traits of the Jewish culture

It's a bit far fetched, but not unthinkable of.

However, it is more likely the inbreeding you witness is just the result of the past 100 years of inbreeding... because we don't really know how much inbreeding occurred before (maybe waves of mixing and isolation)... or maybe we do know a lot but my knowledge of Jewish genetics is not updated.

>Null hypothesis would be something like:
>>take kids away from parents
>>completely away from culture
>>they still develop some traits of the Jewish culture

Apologies. I am a bit fucked up at 02:30 am

So, theory is:
>Jewish don't just have Jewish culture, but years of isolation and inbreeding
>together with years spent under the same kind of environmental pressure (i.e. repeated persecution)
>made them not just provided with a culture of survival of a certain kind
>but it also made them provided with genetics to express such culture

Now, given this theory, the Null hypothesis is:
>no; if removed from their culture they will develop other behavioural traits

If null hypothesis is confirmed, theory is wrong.
If null hypothesis doesn't occur, theory is likely to be right (but you still have to control for other shit to make sure theory is confirmed).

>>Jewish don't just have Jewish culture, but years of isolation and inbreeding
>>together with years spent under the same kind of environmental pressure (i.e. repeated persecution)
>>made them not just provided with a culture of survival of a certain kind
>>but it also made them provided with genetics to express such culture

yes, but, technological progress removed those selection pressures.

I mean, a stupid Jewish trader died without offspring. A smart and cunning Jewish trader made progress.

Today nobody dies because of lack/possesion of IQ.

>Today nobody dies because of lack/possesion of IQ.
Let's assume you are correct... how many generations do you suppose technology etc. has been so stronk? 2 generations? Maybe 3 generations?

Compare with pressure operating systematically for the past 80 generations.

Also
>linkage

So genes are not nice little chunks of DNA floating around. They are linked and can do many things. So usually you cannot transmit stuff singularly, but genes tend to carry each other around.
I'm not expert of the science around it, but basically there are real chemical connections that make the structure of the DNA viable, so that some genes are "linked" (physically) to a neighbourhood... and positive selection on a gene will end up positively selecting its neighbours too!

Finally, remember that behaviour is an encounter between
>brain dispositions
>environmental triggers
And brain dispositions are, again, the result of:
>genetic dispositions,
>early childhood brain development and acquired individual structure
>all triggered as a response to an environment

(cont.)

(cont. from )


[1]
So, first of all I would suggest to find homozigote twins that have lived in different families:
>they will have traits that emerge regardless of the different environment [these traits are so fixated they always emerge; they are super-programmed]
>they will have traits that emerge only depending on the environment. This doesn't mean the other twins doesn't have the disposition. It just means that the environment triggered them differently
>finally, they will have traits that are unique and might depend to the environment, but would not happen to the other twin anyway had he changed environment [something like free will I suppose?]

Such studies exist and are very interesting. E.g. twins separated at birth who grew up liking to do the same shitty thing with biscuits ( = same genetics + same environment).

(cont.)

Go back to the bush and study abos you fucking cuck. Modern society isn't the bush, half of the nogs living in modern society have never experienced traditional nog ways. They're just irresponsible scum.

>>Jewish don't just have Jewish culture, but years of isolation and inbreeding
>>together with years spent under the same kind of environmental pressure (i.e. repeated persecution)
>>made them not just provided with a culture of survival of a certain kind
>>but it also made them provided with genetics to express such culture

makes more sense, but still weird.

So:
>Jews persecuted for centuries
>Their DNA changes due brain stimulations
>Now their are more 'anxiety prone'
>Jewish person finds himself in a situation that activates either anxiety or something else
>More likely to trigger an anxiety response

Is that it?

(cont. from )

[2]
Second thing, I suggest:
>be careful that just because a trait disappears from a population, it doesn't mean its genes have completely disappeared. They might just be asleep in a certain slice of the population... ready to re-emerge in the following generations.

[3]
Yes, Jews are a dying race... but all races are dying as we knew them. That's because communication and travel and current year neo-nomadism.

[4]
>IQ
Maybe IQ is not selectively interesting any more. So what is the new thing? Being Kawaii maybe? :^)

>posting this pic
>writing text
you want nobody to read it eh?

Correction 99.9% of nogs never experienced traditional nog life.

>Let's assume you are correct... how many generations do you suppose technology etc. has been so stronk? 2 generations? Maybe 3 generations?

at least since 1945 I would say.

since 1900 in leading economies.

...

> culture can basically create the same kind of bottlenecks environment does

Not in a statistically significant sense. If it did, Israelis would have a resistance to Zyklon B.

Do keep talking about oceans and walls, though. I'm fascinated to see where your logic goes next.

No. More long run:

>Jews are persecuted
>Only anxious and cunning people survive
>Next generations are more likely to have cunning and anxious individuals
>New environmental catastrophe (persecution) reinforces the trait by wiping out trusting individuals
>Cultural threats and also traditions favour inbreeding
>Inbreeding and persecution fixate behavioural traits that used to be more randomly distributed
>I am talking population here: you start with N individuals and only N/100 (1%) have X trait. After 20 generations, you find that N/2 (50%) have X trait. This means the trait is becoming increasingly fixated.
>Now pressure has been removed so you will see population behaving erratically because they have traits that are not adaptive any more; but you will also see in future generation traits emerge that look new to you, but had just been repressed in the gene pool for ages (e.g. some individuals with them kept surviving for statistical reasons, but now they are allowed to contribute even more).
>and so on
This is hard science. Maybe badly explained, but kinda certain.

Instead, what you are talking about is more a fringe-theory some people are exploring, but it is not hard science yet.
It's the theory that:
>sudden dramatic events
>change the brain (thanks fuck)
>but also release proteins or markers (or WTF I'm not an expert)
>that stay around in the body
>and then affect the body of the fetuses developing in the womb

This is why you sometimes find articles like:
>tragedy of the grandfathers is inherited by grandchildren
Basically it's the idea PTSD is intergenerational not just because crazy people make kid crazy until one sees a therapist. Rather, PTSD is intergenerational also because of some chemicals and whatnot released from the body of mothers to those of kids.

Serious shit. I tell ya.

>you want nobody to read it eh?
I am doing it for posterity.
I don't care about you Kraut specifically.

>Correction 99.9% of nogs never experienced traditional nog life.
It doesn't matter. Traditional life had been experienced long enough for 80+ generations (possibly 800+) so that it has become fixated by evolution.

That's the core thesis of this topic.

If thesis is correct, you don't need the nigga to grow in the Savannah to display Savannah mentality.

dude your study is of one or two tribes in Africa, not the entire african people. Are you stupid?

That's not a long time in evolutionary terms.
In special cases (bottlenecks, etc.) change can occur very quickly.

Also, you can think of slave trade as a huge selective bottleneck... both at home (in Africa poor tribes and stupid people were enslaved by neighbours) and then on the slavers ship (only the stronk survives) and finally in the plantations...

My fucking God American negroes have undergone so many bottlenecks that change (or, alternatively, fixation of some traits) might have occurred in 400 years rather than 4,000 years. Simply by:
>isolating selected individuals
>put them under repeated pressure

>pic
Anita looking thick

Huh. Now take a guess how the Sahara Desert came about? Well, current research only suggest that it was "human made", but not if it was dindus or sandniggers. Same point though.

>Israelis would have a resistance to Zyklon B.

>Niggers are this!
>Another sociology pseudoscience debate
TOP KEK

>Not in a statistically significant sense. If it did, Israelis would have a resistance to Zyklon B.
Okay, Ameribro, but my thread is about traditional foraging culture in sub-Saharan Africa that is supposed to have been around for some 100,000 years at least.

>Do keep talking about oceans and walls, though. I'm fascinated to see where your logic goes next.
I can tell from your way of arguing that you have already decided I am wrong a priori that culture cannot change genetics in any significant sense.

You must be one of those idealists who think culture is a special little snowflake that is completely independent and on a different rail with regards to genetics and evolution... so that the two rarely meet.

Guess what: culture is just another way to call human mass behaviour... and behaviour is genetically very important. Like, say, choosing to go right rather than left on a path can make you more fit or less fit.

>Zyklon B
Of course your example is tailored in a stupid way.
There are clearly things about our basic make-up that culture and technology cannot yet override. So of course you make an example about body chemistry, and you say:
>muh duh... Jews are not immune to Zyklon B even if they got exposed to it
I agree there are some things that are so powerful they will wipe out many individuals no matter what... and so quickly they will not have time to build resistance (inter-generationally speaking).

But what about more nuanced shit such as body odour, smells, chemicals released by the body? Or basic computational abilities, language... certain perceptual abilities and shit.

>(only the stronk survives) and finally in the plantations...

Yes! I wondered why all the violence. It's not African inheritance.

Plantations are a closed space, the equivalent of a lawless jail, where the inmates are left alone and conflict is not managed, punished or prevented.

The most aggressive, bullying and strong prisoners have the best chances of surviving jail. Nobody gets to breed in jail, but on a plantation that would be the next step. Monopolizing access to women.

I doubt plantations were totalitarian systems. Those were systems where the management exploits the subjects, but otherwise prefers them to organize their social relations for themselves, like a Russian Gulag.

>dude your study is of one or two tribes in Africa, not the entire african people. Are you stupid?
That was a link I have taken from the Internet.
But many many studies exist about populations in Brazil, Cherokee, other Negroes, etc.

Basically, if you are here arguing about single mothers and have no idea of how formalized kinship can be in different cultures (even if individuals may not be aware of such finesse), this means you have to go back to Wikipedia and read, at least:
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_inclusive_fitness
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

And that's really the ABC... the 101 of all discussion on culture, parenthood, etc.

>It's not African inheritance.
What about recent studies trying to demonstrate that human brain developed at two stages for different cooperative purposes.

# Stage 1 #
>Small groups and clans.
>Foraging culture.
>Intra-group dominance is more important
>Freeriders are quickly punished (proto-judicial system)
>Individuals are aggressive within the Clan against motherfuckers
>But also caring towards cooperators
>Hardly any archeological evidence of war between groups (foraging ground is spread evenly... if output is reduced, groups spread even more and travel)...
>violence is still supposed to occur within the Clan to make people fall back in line

# Stage 2 #
>Settlement occurs
>Agriculture and sheit
>People live in relatively isolated farms
>They are vulnerable to those humans who did not embrace agriculture
>Raiding occurs
>So farmers develop a warrior mindset
>Also, languages are used to connect people over wider networks (not just 1 language = 1 tribe = 150 people; but 1 language = thousands of people)
>This backfires at around 20,000 BCE (if I remember correctly) and acts as a selection for new brain and behavioural traits

So, man, there are things and ways of doing things and traits that have a very long evolutionary history.

>your ideas about Negro slaves
You might be right in both senses:
>either pressure caused them to evolve completely novel traits (innovative adaptation)
>or pressure caused the selection of people with ancestral aggressive traits that have been developed in either of the 2 stages of human evolution I have outlined above
The second is more likely.

P.S.: my source here is a 2016 article by Kim Sterelny. Both Professor AND Hobo.

Can't we all just say Niggers suck in general?

No. They are redeemable by removing environmental triggers that make them express over and over the same traits we dislike.

what is that horrible tumor growth? that needs seen to.

Are you talking that spot under her right boob?

Looks like a water droplet to me tbqh.

Let's examine her more carefully!

Holy shit, I thought she had a bikini bra on.
Fucking thumbnails. I must sort out my pics asap.

Hnnngggghh muh dik

Never knew blacks could be this attractive. Am i the only one who would smash?

So, patriarchy is not supporting Eugenics?

White Inbred Sister Fucking Dumb Bitches...is culturally explained? Thank you.

it's not truthful to say that.

you can say that they suck on average, but not in general. You can't make a generalization that would serve as a rule like "IF black THEN sucks".

Individuals are different. Populations have averages and standard deviations.

>>Am i the only one who would smash?
>Implying OP wouldn't smash all of the girls he posted.

>So, patriarchy is not supporting Eugenics?
No. I'm just claiming every culture has its own version of eugenics.
Thinking Negroes are not doing eugenics just because they don't have the brains for it means underestimating the fact evolution is just a big eugenics project.

>you can say that they suck on average, but not in general
Africans are pretty based. I'm more concerned for shitskins, frankly.

OP That's some very interesting shit.

Can you point me to some resources/books I can read to further expand on your theories? Or maybe who are your main influences?

Well, she looks pretty famous, but I never save source in my fap folder... I live my life one wank at a time.

but really, could you point me to something? At least an author to start with on the subject, this shit is very interesting.

>but really, could you point me to something? At least an author to start with on the subject, this shit is very interesting.
Aw you mean the whole shit?

Well:
>Anthropology (basic kinship)
>just start reading Tristes Tropiques by Claude Lévi-Strauss
Why? Because it is also biographical etc... so even though it has some hard core ethnography, it is an entertaining reading.
Also, you could use a handbook, but FFS don't go back and read the originals like Lewis Henry Morgan or even Franz Boas because they are boring as fuck... unless you wanna go in-depth, you don't wanna read pages and pages on who married whom in which fucking micro-tribe of whateverland.

>Evolutionary Anthropology and Biology
Two recent books:
>Kim Sterelny, The Evolved Apprentice
>Robin Dunbar, Human Evolution
I strongly suggest the latter.
The former tries to be like the latter one, but is a bit too focussed on pushing a certain idea by the author. Instead, Dunbar is very introductory and accessible.

These should be a very basic starting point.
Let me think about more advanced readings...

She looks like Khal Drogo

Steer away from super-expensive books like this one:
springer.com/us/book/9783642399787
I can access them through my Uni, so no problem... but basically the title is misleading:
>Handbook
They indeed do contain state of the art articles on all topics. But many articles will be like:
>we found that bone X in place Y supports the idea that individual Z was bipedal etc. etc. etc.
So they are not 1st-year handbooks but handbooks for experts. I think they are readable and accessible. But again: it's a problem of how in-depth you wanna be. Some rides never end.

>implying you wouldn't assrape Khal Drogo.

You fail to embrace something very important.

It doesnt matter WHY they act the way they do.

The way they act is a problem. What is the solution?