Black music

I’ve considered this for some time now, but now I’m listening to a rap song called ‘I’m the boss’.

Let me explain why rap is so appealing, especially to the youth:

It promotes egoism, wealth, hardship, struggle, and most desires we have. In addition, it inspires bodily movements like dancing and rhymes to the continuous rhythms which is why it brings an influx of the younger crowd to clubs.

The youth feel pressured by modernity and structure and are able to release the tension through the beats.

Here’s why blacks are so good at it:

Their ancestry is closest to a free, anti-authoritarian environment. They dance better because they are free, and the african spirit/genetic code is still prominent.

Black women are bitches because they are stronger. Black men are thugs because they are stronger.

Black women gain weight easier because in Africa, they have little food and store what little they do.

Please add more to the list. I really want to find more evolutionary theories for racial traits.

Nietzsche was hung up on dancing, and culture. I find it helpful in interpreting the meaning. Art in music tells us more than we normally pay attention to.

You might like this:

Iceman Inheritance : Prehistoric Sources of Western Man’s Racism, Sexism and Aggression
By: Michael Bradley (white person)

His ideas/suggestions seem to go against most research on evolutionary biology and even cross cultural studies. Adaptations of any significance and more aggression would have to be an adaptation or it’d be weaned out very fast.

The idea that ‘some of us’ are more violent than ‘others’ is questionable at best. Look at prehistoric violence among all sorts of people in hunter-gatherer groups.

No, the normal conclusion, the one with the most evidence, is that humans everywhere, circumstancially, are capable of great and horrifying violence.

The same reason all humans have five fingers/toes, applies to mental adaptations in the brain, as well.

my point; theres absolutely no evidence that white people are more violent or less violent, when we study hunter-gatherer groups or tribal societies, whether their ‘white-ish’ or ‘blackish’ or whatever color they often-times are, it equals massive massive violence that we couldn’t hope to equal.

For example, crow creek, south dakota, a hundred years before columbus theres a mass grave with like 500 people tortured/scalped, their settlement razed into oblivion. the population amount of the society/group was only supposed to be around a few hundred more than that (most of them into slavery or to die alone in the forests) thats like 50-60% of a population wiped out, this kind of warfare throughout prehistory, across all ‘races’/‘cultures’.

So, we don’t need to explain why some of us are more violent than others, but why humans in general tend to be brutally violent, again and again and again and again when the situation calls for it.

I’m certain that everything arises from a need: needs are greater than wants and is what probably separated early humans into the various ethnic strands that we now have - the need for shelter, for food, for replication etc.

Music itself sometimes seems like a neccessity: the urge to go out and dance the night away to cool tunes/interact with others - a form of self-expression, me thinks: just like poetry, art, drama et al… but I’m sure that everything we do is a means to an end!

The need for protection against the sun, etc. But thats not the interesting question, the interesting question is why do humans *feel, like they *need music/dance. Theres plenty explanations for this, but honestly I think the most fitting is pretty simple; dance shows off ones fitness, its social ritual, and music, one because you can tell your audio-adaptations ar ein perfect working condition and two, because just like some male bird species, the type of music that we can spin, may show of certain traits that are advantageous in a mate.

We can’t talk about ‘needs’ without the environments which spawned them, though. Not that you’re incorrect it’d just require a lot more detail.

‘Africa’ isn’t one homogenous, uniform place. This is, quite literally, nonsense born out of ignorance.

Why? Evolution is crap at explaining behaviour. Brilliant at explaining how the body fights disease, or why certain people are more prone to certain medical conditions than others. But crap at explaining behaviour. It’s all ‘women prefer pink and men prefer red because back in the stone age men hunted animals, and animals blood is red, whereas women were nurturers and foragers, and some berries are pink’.

i.e. absolute rot that can only be substantiated by appealing to modern stereotypes.

Black people were successfully enslaved for more than 2 centuries. And their ‘liberation’ happened largely because of Christian white people, not because they fought for their emancipation. To say they’ve got ‘freedom in their blood’ shows a patent disregard for history.

Dancing certainly shows off co-ordination skills and mind/body connectivity: which would be important factors in determining sentience/consciousness/alertness, and yes, fitness levels too - dancing can show many factors within a person, and not just fitness alone…

In modern times, it seems that the genre of music we dance to also plays a role in attraction/partner selection - in the UK most clubs/bars play a varying remit of music, so it shows if one can dance to varying beats/mix it up/be adaptable…

Sure, environnment plays a big part in adaptations: even our physical/mental attributes are due to environmental factors - the way we think, feel, and what we do: are all adaptations of our inherited needs and requirements.

We all have differing needs and goals, which we seek to satisfy throughout our lifetime in-order to reach the end goal that we desire…

Please, everyone disregard this guy, he’s ignorant and doesn’t know anything about the science of behavior or how evolution can help ask/anwser questions that are other-wise near impossible to ask or think of a reply to.

For example, pregnancy sickness in mothers, people made the prediction that they get sick off chemicals which harm the fetus. Turns out to be correct.

Or why people y’know protect their children, recognize faces, avoid incest, etc. Theres all sorts of behavior which obviously has evolutionary explanations, on top of that, we’ve found evidence that these adaptations exist in the neuro-biological machinery of the brain, and once more, exist cross-culturally in humans. this is supported by plenty of cross-cultural studies, plenty of anthropology, plenty of cognitive science. etc.

You’re ignorant. Shut up already. no one cares to hear your ignorant opinions on evolution/human behavior.

obviously mate-choice, finding a mate, kin-selection, these are all adaptations.

Suggesting evolution has nothing to say about behavior, is suggesting that the neuromachinery in our heads is less complex of an adaptation than say, our fingers, or our stomach, its a stupid, ignorant claim to make, and I don’t care how many forum admin’s you go to complain to, or complain to me about how I talk to you, because your perpetually out of your ‘area of expertise’ whatever the fuck that is.

We wouldn’t even know about the MASSIVE ABUSE RATES in children with ‘step-parents’ if it wasn’t for people making predictions based on evolutionary science. No one even thought to check the abuse rates of children with step-parents, because no one thought to ask whether or not a parent was a genetic parent had any significance in how the children were treated.

Well guess fucking what; abuse rates in step children were found to be fucking massive, and really, its because of people like you, people happy to be ignorant, that we didn’t find out sooner.

thats the power that evolution adds to asking scientific questions, you get a new viewpoint in which you can see questions in which to ask, that other scientists CAN’T.

The Cinderella Effect is well documented by Wilson/Daly, another issue which they tackle in their landmark book ‘homicide’ is how husbands often-times kill their wives when sexual jealousy is envolved.

I suppose that has nothing to do with male specific adaptation.

Either get to work dismissing these landmark scientific tests/research, or shut the fuck up already. Its sickening.

So is it a stereotype to say that in all cultures men are more risky than women on average? Or is that just a ‘stereotype’? Don’t be fucking ridiculous.

Stereotypes are based off of observed trends, whether a ‘stereotype’ is true or not is important. obviously most aren’t like ‘black people are lazy’ but when it comes to making statements based on the differences between men/women, plenty of the statements, say that men/women have different abilities in spatial cognition, is based off of solid research.

if its true that most men have different spatial cognition than women, objectively true, whether a stereotype exists around it is meaningless to whether or not it is true. Researchers don’t find stereotypes and then only attempt to support those stereotypes ignoring all other research, and even if they do, its only because the ‘stereotype’ happens to just show up in all human societies, where human interaction takes place.

Just more meaningless attempts to take away from a science/research you know nothing about.

For another example, i’m sure that human fight/flight mechanisms have nothing to do with behavior, and that they have nothing to do with evolution.

Behavior is shaped by evolution. don’t be stupid on top of ignorant.

most behaviors, most possible actions, end in immediate death, the behaviors which lead to survival for even a few hours, are a tiny subset of all possibilities, let alone the types of behavior which lead to success at mate aquisition, finding food to eat, water, avoiding predators, and finally genetic propagation. if evolution couldn’t describe behavior, absolutely nothing could.

I can explain the behavior of all sorts of animals in terms of evolution/biology. I suppose we can’t apply evolution to the actions of a Lion or Tiger either? How about the other great-apes?

You could apply this exact quote, to the rest of your post after this statement. Except, thinking Africa is one giant place, isn’t as blatantly absurd as your comment that evolution is weak at explaining human behavior.

Ignorant+bigmouth = a lot of talk, and no actual explanation about why the dozens of studies contradicting you are wrong.

Thats right, lets take your word for it, despite the diverse studies that have been going on in well over a dozen different types of science.

I’m sure sexual behaviors can’t be largely explained through evolution, either. ffs. :angry:

:laughing: you’re really pissed at his comments, I see - is your short-fuse a family trait? :slight_smile:

I find that adaptations that helped us in the past, now clash with other’s traits or hinder us in these modern times: which will probably spawn new ones…

However they share certain commonalities.

of course it is.

Hers! I post pictures and I’ve been at this site for how many goddamn years and you still don’t know who I am? Do you need biological analysis for that too?

No evidence, hmm? You haven’t taken a walk with me through the ghetto, sweetie. Yes, whites can be aggressive…but take a black woman’s fried chicken and see if you’ll have time to spare looking up statistics.

My theory is that whites are domesticated. We, the Europeans, have been in ‘civilization’ for far more centuries than any other race.

And thank you, earthy, I did like it.

In that they’re all on the same continent, yes. But the climate range is massive, the cultural range massive, the genetic diversity massive, the degree to which the people have engaged with other races/civilisations varies tremendously.

One thing worth noting is that one hell of a lot of Africans aren’t black.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Your frustration at people who don’t see the world the way you do speaks volumes, once again, for how science is (or rather, has become) a dogmatic philosophy.

Seriously, keep providing with raw source material that evidences what I’ve said. It’s great. Particularly when your entire counterargument (surprise, surprise) is labels and predictable attempts at insults.

Fact is, all evolutionary explanations of behaviour are based on speculation about how humans behaved in the past. Classic scientific logic - make up something, treat it as fact, ridicule and insult anyone who doesn’t accept this explanation as valid.

Fuckin’ terrific. ‘The best’ information available indeed…

South African immigrants mostly, but that is not their home continent. It is evolutionarily mandatory for them to have dark skin in such a climate with no protection.

Food is also scarce, especially among the tribal areas with little to no agriculture. If one were to be moved from such an environment to one with an abundance thereof, it’s not unfeasible that their metabolisms would be off center.