The dangers of working on TV…
I’m sure that some of you have heard about the little kerfuffle going on about Brian Kilmeade\’s \”pure genes\” comment on Fox & Friends recently. It came up in a discussion about genetic predisposition to various ailments (heart disease, cancer etc.) All the libs that heard it are shouting “racist” (as they typically do in situations like this) – some are making fun of the fact that he kinda stuttered or hesitated while making his statement and calling him a moron and a nazi (again, as liberals typically do in situations like this). This episode however is extremely useful as an instructional tool on the dangers of working for the media, especially on a network that has conservative leanings. What Brian said was effectively the following: Swedes generally marry other Swedes, whereas Americans (read “white americans”) are more likely to marry someone from a different genetic background. As a result, the Swedes are more likely to have “pure genes”, and therefore are less likely to carry genetic predisposition to a wide variety of ailments. Now, on the surface (which is where most liberals usually hang out in the knowledge pool) that might appear to have some inherently racist overtones. If you delve a little deeper though, you start to see the logic behind the statement. To explore this further, I would like to visit the historic and present racial makeup of both the USA and say, Sweden, Norway or perhaps Iceland.
In the 1600’s and 1700’s the United States played host to an abysmal episode in the history of mankind, the slave trade. This however introduced to this country yet another variation to the ever expanding gene pool that was North America. At that point, there were already persons from just about every area of Europe, and the indigenous American tribes from different areas of the continent. As the US advanced through history, all of those bloodlines mingled (even as many of them were persecuted and driven out of their homelands). Today, the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world as far as genetic makeup. I would wager that there are genes from just about every human population on the planet floating around somewhere between Atlantic and Pacific.
Now, if we look at the historical background of Norway, we don’t find that same level of genetic mixing. Norway didn’t grow labor intensive crops that encouraged the importation of a low cost, slave-based workforce. Not only that, but Norway doesn’t share a land border with a country, much less a continent that has a significantly different genetic makeup from that of the typical Norwegian. For example, how many Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal) do you think enter Norway in a given year? Are there any reservations or pockets of tribal societies left in Norway? Has Norway ever experienced a large scale wave of immigrants from Asia to it’s West Coast? On all counts, no. So, relatively speaking, Norway would be a homogeneous collection of individuals. Sure, there are variations of hair color, height, etc., but in terms of visible ethnic differences, virtually nothing.
Ok, before I go any further, let me stop before any libs reading this get really wound up to say the following: The recent history of the human race has shown an ever increasing tendency of groups to intermingle in a global sense. In the last hundred years, travel has become cheap, easy, and much more rapid. Not only that, but the economy is global in reach now, and people are routinely transferred to offices located in different parts of the world. I am aware of this. Yes, there ARE people that live in Norway that aren’t decended of blonde-haired, blue eyed Scandinavian stock. But, before you call me a bigot or racist, see if you can give me a recommendation for a restaurant in the “Little Havana” section of Oslo. If you can, I’ll stand down. In the mean time I’m gonna go look for a good Ethiopian restaurant in downtown Reykjavik. I’ll probably need to order a pizza though, it could take a while to find one.
The point is this:
There are plenty of idiots out there that love to watch people that they disagree with and then “shoot off” at the mouth without considering what is ACTUALLY being said (the two that come to mind most readily are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson). Most of them probably also thought that “Change you can Believe In” was a slogan to get behind. Note, none of them asked “Change to what?” Those of us that actually look a little further into the background of any situation, usually have a better view on the realities of present and future. If I worked on TV, I might stutter a little too if I was about to say something that most people were too ignorant to understand.