Comment by opticksversi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by opticksversi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Kenya was in Africa last I checked.

American blacks tend to be (mainly; averaging 83%) Bantu, whereas Barack Obama is (half) Nilote.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aisteve.blogspot.com+ni...

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/east-africas-tall-vs-aver...

The tall black Nilotics generally see themselves as more intelligent than the shorter brown Bantus. Obama's Luo relatives in Kenya told him: "The Luo are intelligent but lazy." The Bantus tend to fear that they will be outsmarted by the Nilotics if they give them a fair shake, so they often treat the tall people like the Jews tend to be treated in Eastern Europe.

The dividing lines between the Nilotics and Bantus are not sharp. There's been lots of interbreeding. (This is Africa, after all.) But, they still exist. The situation is rather like that in Latin American, where after five centuries of interbreeding, the economic elites are still pretty white-looking, and the indigenous masses occasionally organize under demagogues like Hugo Chavez to fight back.

I'm disgusted that they would use a term like "interbreeding" as though they were referring to animals. The correct word is "miscegenation."

as though they were referring to animals

Are humans not animals?

By "animals," I mean that one would only use the term "interbreeding" when referring to wild or domesticated animals mating. It's an inherently zoologic term, much like the word "mating."

interbreeding" [is] an inherently zoologic term

From where did you get that idea?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22racial+interbreeding%22

1,750 hits.

.

It's an inherently zoologic term, much like the word "mating."

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22human+matings%22

1390 hits.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22humans+mate%22

3,370 hits.

And the first result for the second search has the title, "Can humans mate with other animals?" I rest my case.

Edit: Also, Google result tallies for individual search terms is crap evidence, just so you know. If you're going to gather evidence from the interwebs, at least try somewhat. Here's what I came up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding (redirects to the "Hybrid (biology)" article!)

From where did you get the idea that interbreeding is an inherently zoologic term? Dictionaries do not seem to mention any such zoological inherency.

Here's what I came up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

.

Wikipedia also has an article in inbreeding depression, which discusses inbreeding among humans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression#In_humans

In humans

Although severe inbreeding depression in humans seems to be highly uncommon and not widely known, there have been several cases of apparent forms of inbreeding depression in human populations. As with animals, this phenomenon tends to occur in isolated, rural populations that are cut off to some degree from other areas of civilization. Some notable examples include:

The Vadoma tribe of western Zimbabwe, many of whom carry the trait of having only two toes due to a small gene pool.

The Ulas family of southern Turkey have several members who walk on all fours, due to mental retardation caused by inbreeding.

Inbreeding is not interbreeding. Inbreeding is an accepted term, as in a people being "inbred." But I've had enough, you're clearly coming from a point of ignorance and are just frivolously debating now.

Which has racist overtones

Since when does "miscegenation" have racist overtones? It's a very common term in history and sociology and is the accepted term to refer to the mixing of races. It's certainly better than "interbreeding."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com