May 06, 2009

The Emperor's Clothes


Two comments at VFR caught my eyes:
So now we have a manufactured ancient Negro to show whites that they are not even the legitimate heirs of their own lands.
Yes, that may be a possible implication. In fact, the discussion about the legitimate ownership of land is a specifically hot topic here because of the ongoing discussion about the lost eastern territories of the German Reich, which has been projected to "Palestine". But frankly, it didn't occur to me that any sane person would use that argument 35,000 years after the case.

I suppose it's almost too obvious to remark on, but the subtext here seems to be "your ancestors were black, so you shouldn't mind your descendents being so, too."
Yes, it IS that obvious and yes, it totally and utterly escaped me. The emperor DOES wear clothes, after all.

Start of yesterday's original entry:

Larence Auster writes at VFR:
Talking about scientific hype in service to fashionable liberalism, here, as reported by the Telegraph, is a British forensic scientist's reconstruction of the head and face of the first Cro-Magnon European of 35,000 years ago, which he created using fossilized fragments of a skull and jawbone found in a cave. But before you click on the link to see the full entry page where I've placed the photo, guess what the first European "really" looked like, just guess.

The first modern European: Forensic artist Richard Neave
reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35,000 years ago

Then see the attractive white female anthropologist and BBC presenter Alice Roberts looking with deep satisfaction and self-satisfaction at this consummate creation of politically correct science:

Alice Roberts contemplating the bust of Homo ...
europeansis. 'I look at that face and think "I'm actually looking
at the face of somebody from 40,000 years ago"', she says

Oh, the joy, the bliss! It's as good as having a black U.S. president! Give that woman a cigarette. This is the one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The sheer shameless obviousness of these liberals, completely unembarrassed to reveal what they're really about.
I guessed and I was right. It wasn't all that difficult to guess, though.

The question remains what the implications of those findings are supposed to be, granted, for argument's sake, that they are true. So our ancestors in the mists of history didn't look like us. How very unexpected. They bore a vague resemblance to what we would identify now as a black person. So? Does that elevate the black race in any way? If yes, it seems to go over those scientists' heads that it is racist and demeaning to imply that it lends kudos to the black race having been the ancestors of white Europeans, but nobody will ever accuse them of thinking more far than their immediate demagogic goal. Do we owe blacks increased respect now for that performance? Why? By what logic? If yes, don't we then owe increased respect to everything further down on the ladder of phylogeny now? Oh we are SO proud to be derived from the protozoon! And are those non-racists really not twigging that one could draw the conclusion now that the white race has, in 35,000 years ... continued to develop?

No comments: