National Geographic's Staunch Cultural Marxism

[Autosomal Viking]

I just watched a program on NatGeo about the history of human migration and gene flow. It started off by stating that all humans are 99.9% genetically the same, and showed the ancestors of humankind in Africa thousands of years ago as modern Negroes with kinky hair!

My greatest fear is that naive people watching the program are not going to understand what is being presented. The entire aim of the program was to create a sense of kinship with all the people of the world, invoke 'we're all the same' feel-goodness, and to promote miscegenation.

It conveniently forgot to explain that we share over 99% DNA with chimps, making that .1% between humans very significant. They also conveniently forgot to explain that according to the out-of-Africa theory, we descend from African ancestors that were different from any human in existence today, not modern African Negroes with kinky hair. The kinky hair is a derived trait, as are other traits of modern Negroes.

The NatGeo presented the cultural Marxist version of the out-of-Africa theory: We started as Negroes in Africa thousands of years ago, then migrated at different times and because of our new environments, superficially changed to look different but we are all related and have the same DNA.

So according to this program, you are a descendant of Negroes that moved out of Africa into Europe and only superficially changed into a northwestern European!

Then it went on to say how a Puerto Rican with some French ancestry is basically the same as his wife from Slovenia, and that babies like theirs are to be more common and the babies of the future. That is what they are trying to encourage!

It picked certain genetic markers to make the claim that people of different races can belong to the same genetic group and at the same time people of the same race to belong to a different group. This might be true, but I suspect more misrepresentation. This is all in the attempt to discredit definition of different races, or race in its entirety.

They said it themselves: traits that took thousands of generations to appear are disappearing in only a few. And after saying this, they encourage us to mix and call it a "family reunion!"

I feared the worst of propaganda as soon as they presented ancient African ancestors as modern Negroes, and I was right.

I have suspected it for a while just from watching: NatGeo/History channel must be owned by Jews.

I hope everything is clear and in the right subforum, I should have gone to sleep hours ago.

[Dunkelchen]

That's a damn shame to see National Geographic producing such biased documentaries. NG is one magazine that I consistently enjoy reading, so it is a bit of a disappointment to show such a lack of integrity when it comes to such topics.

I remember an incredibly interesting article about some Russian scientists who were studying the domestication of animals, and selectively bred foxes for good and bad traits. There came to be huge differences in the respective character of either group: one group snarling and nipping at the slightest human presence, had to be kept in cages. The other basically acted like lap dogs, wagging their tails, happy with - indeed craving - human company. Even the physical aspects were quite different, the domesticated foxes had floppy ears as puppies, developed shorter tails and snouts, and in some cases blotches on their fur - characteristic traits found in other domesticated animals, and only after a few short generations!
They illustrate how genetics can have such a huge influence on the way certain traits are expressed, on the nature of an animal, and separated for such a short time. It is then hypocritical when it comes to humans to treat us so differently from other animals, as though after tens of thousands of years separate from other races we're basically the same, just superficially different.

I also find it immensely hypocritical that such leftist ideologies promote diversity, then continue to undermine the very idea of it. How can we possibly appreciate the diversity of humanity if we're really all just the same? To truly respect our differences, we must accept them and embrace them, not deny and dismiss them as mere superficiality. We're all unique - all human but nevertheless unique.


(On a side note, I daresay, as with the foxes, selective breeding must have played some part in human evolution - not wholly, but at least partly we make our breeding decisions consciously.)

[Æmeric]

National Geographic has always had a leftist tilt. I have several decades worth of thier magazines, and mixed in with fascinating articles on nature & geography you will find profiles of several nations that put certain regimes in a positive light. Like the DDR & Romania in the 1970s & Mugabe's Zimbabwe in 1981. NatGeo has never done a follow up to the chaos in Mugabe's Zimbabwe over the last decade. In recent years NatGEo has done glowing articles on demographic transition in places like the US. I inherited the subscription from my father but I may let it laspe, it has gone too far over to the left to justify supporting any of NatGeos projects.

[TheBlackCross]

I am not surprised at all.

If you take a good look at the NG catalog you'll notice they are extremely PC.

[Sybren]

Some time ago i saw the same documentary.

It is indeed sad that such an institution as National Geographic, who i consider as one of the few decent and worthwile tv channels left, has to bring this information in such a way.

In this case it is extremely important to tell the whole tale and tell it thoroughly. People who already are leaning towards the idea of 'we are all the same, we have to come together', can now add another "argument" to the list of why their ideas are the right ones. National Geographic (which is quite a trusted source among many) says it, so it hás to be true...

[Hilderinc]

The Censorship of Science isn't isolated to National Geographic, sadly...

You wouldn't happen to be able to find a link to this documentary, would you? It would make a fitting addition to the thread.

[Melisande]

So, I'm curious. Is everyone here in favor of the "Europeans evolved in situ theory, the Out of Asia theory or some other theory? Mosaic theory perhaps?

How do you explain the mtDNA and Y chromosome (and autosomal) evidence? There are lots of threads here exploring the various European Y chromosome data.

When do you think the first Europeans showed up in Europe? How'd they get there?

No way should humans at 50,000BP be presented as looking like modern Africans (although certainly, people with facial structures within the types found among the Ju/Huansi are found in many parts of the world - but they aren't particularly dark-skinned people.

No one was "black" at 50,000BP - both melanization and demelanization were just getting started. However, the first people out of Africa were certainly darker than many contemporary Northern Europeans.

[Caledonian]

The out of Africa theory on evolution is junk science and indeed a form of intellectual cowardice in the face of the more rational logical choice of multiregional theory which is the total opposite in the tracking of human evolution not to mention very non politically correct in it's approach to the evolution of races as well.

National Geographic is simply allowing intellectual cowardice to flourish while it stifles genuine debate on evolution.

[Hrogar]

If anyone worries about the out-of-africa theory or it's consequences, They can rest assured by the fact that we are also 99% genetically identical to chimpansees.
No one will ever claim that we should interbreed with chimps. The essential difference is in the 1% or 0,1%. This is the reason why different races and ethnicities exist and have different traits. We don't have to interbreed, live together or destroy cultures in order to get along peacefully. Better yet, nature shows us that these slight differences in the gene pool hardly ever leads to interbreeding and are indeed maintained by groups existing in ethnoplural conditions.

So these percentages are actually the reason why peoples should have their own land.

[Hersir]

Well, we might have pretty much the same genes, but what matters is what genes are active. Only about 2% of the genes in the DNA are actually active, the rest is "junk" DNA. But they say we are 95% the same geneticly as chimps too...