“The Masked Singer” host Nick Cannon lit up the internet this past weekend when he said that white people are inferior to black people due to the lack of melanin in their skin.
Speaking on an episode of “Cannon’s Class,” the television host argued that “melanated people” have a natural sense of compassion and soul that white people lack, creating jealousy and fear that causes them to act out in evil ways.
“When we talk about the power of melanated people,” he said on the program. “Melanin is so power[ful], and it connects us in a way, that the reason why they fear black … is because the lack that they have of it.”
Cannon argued that this lack of pigment in their skin leads white people to fear genetic annihilation.
“When you have a person that has the lack of pigment, the lack of melanin, that they know that they will be annihilated,” he said. “So, therefore, however they got the power, they have the lack of compassion. Melanin comes with compassion, melanin comes with soul. Cc 1 corinthians notes online lutheran bible study. We call it soul. Soul brothers and sisters. That’s the melanin that connects us. So the people that don’t have it, and I’m going to say this carefully, are a little less.”
Ivermectin was not given to people or animals in this study. Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It seems that people can be roughly divided into those that feel little affinity for animals or the environment, and those who are predisposed to delight in both, adopting pet-keeping as one of. People and Animals: The International Journal of Research and Practice (PAIJ) is the official, peer-reviewed, open-access publication of the International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations (IAHAIO, www.iahaio.org). Ngurah Alit, an 18-year-old Balinese teenager, was caught in the act of intercourse with a cow after claiming that it had flirted with him. So in June 2010, Alit was forced to marry the animal in a ceremony as part of a Pecaruan ritual, a ceremony to cleanse the village of the unholy act of a man mating with a cow.
Essentially, according to Cannon, melanin equates to having the power of the sun. Given that white people’s skin negatively reacts to the sun, they brutalize other people out of a deficiency.
“When they didn’t have the power of the sun, the sun then started to deteriorate them, so then they’re acting out of fear, they’re acting out of low self-esteem, they’re acting out of a deficiency,” he said. “So, therefore, the only way that they can act is evil. They have to rob, steal, rape, kill … in order to survive.”
Cannon even went as far as to compare white people with animals and barbarians, referring to them as the “true savages.”
“They had to be savages, they had to be barbaric, because they’re in these Nordic mountains, they’re in these rough … environments, so they’re acting as animals,” he said. “So they’re the ones that are actually closer to animals; they’re the ones that are actually the true savages.”
People For Animal Welfare
Nick Cannon says white people are 'a little less,' 'closer to animals,' 'the true savages,' 'acting out of a deficiency so the only way they can act is evil.' When does he get canceled? pic.twitter.com/vK3TBDW9i8
— Adam Ford (@Adam4d) July 14, 2020
Cannon made these comments to former Public Enemy member Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin, “who was kicked out of the rap group in 1989 for making anti-Semitic comments during an interview with the Washington Post where he was quoted as saying Jews were responsible ‘for the majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe,'” according to Fast Company.
Amid mounting backlash, Cannon addressed the controversy on Tuesday and refused to apologize while inviting people to come on the show and debate him.
People For Animals Hillside Nj
“There’s no malice or negative intent, but in a time like 2020 we got to have these conversations,” said Cannon. “And if there’s an assumption that is perceived as ignorant, let’s debunk it right away.”
“My podcast is specifically an academic podcast to have tough and difficult conversations based off of text. And if we read something and something’s not accurate, let’s do away with it,” he continued. Dell driver update tool windows 10. “I can’t wait to sit down with some people that can help educate me and help further this conversation. Download game android clash of clans mod offline. I want to be corrected.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
The recent popularity of “designer” dogs, cats, micro-pigs and other pets may seem to suggest that pet keeping is no more than a fad. Indeed, it is often assumed that pets are a Western affectation, a weird relic of the working animals kept by communities of the past.
About half of the households in Britain alone include some kind of pet; roughly 10m of those are dogs while cats make up another 10m. Pets cost time and money, and nowadays bring little in the way of material benefits. But during the 2008 financial crisis, spending on pets remained almost unaffected, which suggests that for most owners pets are not a luxury but an integral and deeply loved part of the family.
Some people are into pets, however, while others simply aren’t interested. Why is this the case? It is highly probable that our desire for the company of animals actually goes back tens of thousands of years and has played an important part in our evolution. If so, then genetics might help explain why a love of animals is something some people just don’t get.
The health question
In recent times, much attention has been devoted to the notion that keeping a dog (or possibly a cat) can benefit the owner’s health in multiple ways – reducing the risk of heart disease, combating loneliness, and alleviating depression and the symptoms of depression and dementia.
As I explore in my new book, there are two problems with these claims. First, there are a similar number of studies that suggest that pets have no or even a slight negative impact on health. Second, pet owners don’t live any longer than those who have never entertained the idea of having an animal about the house, which they should if the claims were true. And even if they were real, these supposed health benefits only apply to today’s stressed urbanites, not their hunter-gatherer ancestors, so they cannot be considered as the reason that we began keeping pets in the first place.
The urge to bring animals into our homes is so widespread that it’s tempting to think of it as a universal feature of human nature, but not all societies have a tradition of pet-keeping. Even in the West there are plenty of people who feel no particular affinity for animals, whether pets or no.
The pet-keeping habit often runs in families: this was once ascribed to children coming to imitate their parents’ lifestyles when they leave home, but recent research has suggested that it also has a genetic basis. Some people, whatever their upbringing, seem predisposed to seek out the company of animals, others less so.
So the genes that promote pet-keeping may be unique to humans, but they are not universal, suggesting that in the past some societies or individuals – but not all – thrived due to an instinctive rapport with animals.
Pet DNA
The DNA of today’s domesticated animals reveals that each species separated from its wild counterpart between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago, in the late Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. Yes, this was also when we started breeding livestock. But it is not easy to see how this could have been achieved if those first dogs, cats, cattle and pigs were treated as mere commodities.
If this were so, the technologies available would have been inadequate to prevent unwanted interbreeding of domestic and wild stock, which in the early stages would have had ready access to one another, endlessly diluting the genes for “tameness” and thus slowing further domestication to a crawl – or even reversing it. Also, periods of famine would also have encouraged the slaughter of the breeding stock, locally wiping out the “tame” genes entirely.
But if at least some of these early domestic animals had been treated as pets, physical containment within human habitations would have prevented wild males from having their way with domesticated females; special social status, as afforded to some extant hunter-gatherer pets, would have inhibited their consumption as food. Kept isolated in these ways, the new semi-domesticated animals would have been able to evolve away from their ancestors’ wild ways, and become the pliable beasts we know today.
The very same genes which today predispose some people to take on their first cat or dog would have spread among those early farmers. Groups which included people with empathy for animals and an understanding of animal husbandry would have flourished at the expense of those without, who would have had to continue to rely on hunting to obtain meat. Why doesn’t everyone feel the same way? Probably because at some point in history the alternative strategies of stealing domestic animals or enslaving their human carers became viable.
There’s a final twist to this story: recent studies have shown that affection for pets goes hand-in-hand with concern for the natural world. It seems that people can be roughly divided into those that feel little affinity for animals or the environment, and those who are predisposed to delight in both, adopting pet-keeping as one of the few available outlets in today’s urbanised society.
As such, pets may help us to reconnect with the world of nature from which we evolved.