That Satanic Study on Unattractiveness of Black Woman
By Yushau Shuaib
Some so-called scientists sometimes behave as if they are gods. They manipulate research processes; they deliberately tailor and guide the outcomes towards hidden agendas. They then publish such findings in research journals and blogs. That is the route used by controversial scholars in their academic exercises for seeking recognitions and grants.
While many could be easily fooled by academic theories churn-out from the campuses, we should be wary of accepting every research finding as if they are infallible. It has been discovered that some researchers are not only fake but are subjective in all their methods: in determining the population, in selecting the participants for studies and in the analyses of the findings. They give out inaccurate statistics and present irresponsible and unreliable findings.
Not only are scientists the major culprits in distortion of facts, we are living witnesses to how United States of America under George Bush and United Kingdom under Tony Blair unilaterally invaded and Destroyed Iraq on purported findings that President Saddam Hussaini harboured Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). After several years, their so-called findings turned out to be naked lies to justify their illegal and unwarranted massive killings of innocent Iraqis and the destructions of their infrastructures just to acquire cheaply the oil from the Arab nation.
Recently a professor in the London School of Economics, Satoshi Kanazawa who relishes his role as an agent provocateur, provokes a public outrage with a research finding he tags "Objective Attractiveness" that was published and eventually removed by Psychology Today magazine from its website. Kanazawa who is referred to as evolutionary biologist and psychologist entitled his article "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive than Other Women?"
Kanazawa, has always been criticised by fellow scholars over his provocative studies which could be tagged as his mere personal opinions and deceptive illusions than credible findings. While the student union in London have called for his dismissal from the university some respected bloggers who have studied some of his works have publicly come out to criticise his faulty findings.
Khadijah M. Britton, for instance points out recently that: "Kanazawa is a repeat offender, with years of roundly criticized and heartily debunked pseudoscience-based shock-jockery under his belt. Despite this, he is still posting on the blog of a reputable mainstream publication, still teaching at a respected university and still serving on the editorial board of one of his discipline's peer-reviewed research journals. Though, possibly not for long: this particular post's racist hypothesis offended many, unleashing serious righteous outrage across the internet: social media users raced to blog, tweet and even petition demanding that Psychology Today remove Kanazawa as a contributor to their Web site and magazine."
Since Kanazawa and his likes do not believe in the idioms that "Beauty is in the eyes of beholders" his research's conclusions are nonsensical, unscientific, godless and outright stupid.
How one could measure and rate the attractiveness of a woman? Should the attraction be on the face, body structure, gesticulation, complexion or the attitudes? How could one determine the entire physical embodiments of a woman?
An African (black) woman is naturally dark, thick and robust, devoid of a skinny, bony and tiny body frame. From her femininity, one could mirror self from the unblemished skin and fleshy cheeks. Black woman is naturally healthy and full of life with enticing physiques. Artificial makeup and expensive attires are not what make the natural beauty of a black woman.
Though I am not a scientist like Professor Kanazawa, I can rightly say like majority of people who use their senses to pass judgement that black is naturally beauty and attractive. Any godless research would have a place in the dustbin.
Yushau A. Shuaib