>>211924259That quote you provided reflects the historical roots of the "big Black penis" myth, but it does not qualify as scientific proof by modern standards. Here's why:
---
The quote you shared reflects outdated racial stereotypes, not scientific proof. While figures like John Baker, Paul Topinard, and the anonymous "French Army Surgeon" made such claims, they did so during a time when racist pseudoscience and colonial ideology shaped much of anthropology. These were not controlled studies, but personal observations often meant to reinforce ideas of racial hierarchy and exoticism.
Their statements lack scientific rigor: no proper sample sizes, no statistical analysis, and no standardized measurement. In many cases, such writings were used to justify colonization, portraying Black people as hypersexual or primitive. Claims like “no race has more developed male organs” are sensationalist and reflect more about the biases of the observer than the people being described.
Today, modern scientific studies using clinical measurements across large, diverse populations show only minimal average differences between racial groups—often under 1 cm. These differences are not statistically significant, and individual variation far outweighs group averages.
In short, those older texts don’t meet any standard of reliable evidence. They are best understood as historical artifacts shaped by prejudice—not as meaningful data. Trusting them today would be like relying on 19th-century medicine that claimed women couldn’t think clearly during menstruation.
> Conclusion: No, these sources are not scientific proof that Black men have larger penises. They are examples of how racism and myth became intertwined with early anthropology.Let me know if you'd like links to modern studies or sources!
