>>81843
my father is 0- and he's not superior to anything. there are almost 400 antigens on the red blood cells, and only 62 are included in rh factor, the largest such group.
There's also no evidence that rh- came first, tbh. That's just based on the assumption that mutations create, not destroy, antigens. However, since rh- women cannot bring rh+ babies to term, the trait could have been selected for (due to invasion and rape) that way. It does tend to be the NW of Europe and mountainous regions that have a higher incidence to this day.
I would be careful about attributing "superiority" in such silly ways. You should try to stick close to the science and not speculate so much