posted
hi marc while i do believe that Africans may have made trips to the America's i dont think they could of transplated civilization whole sail from Africa,even when Africans move around in Africa they undergo changes,4100 b.c what would cause the to book passage to the America's en-mass? and where in Africa did t he earliest of them came from? now we could make a case for somekind of contact.the cocaine mummies came to mind and certain species of hybred cotton per Van Sertima:but wholesale colonies in the Andes? thats a tall order.they could hav e to adapt at break neck speed.in an enviroment that they no familarity with.unless they came from the atlas or the highlands of ethiopia.and what made the earliest phase the same or similar to those found in Africa? what do you have in the way genetics? in physical anthropology.were they tropically adapted? enquring minds wants to know.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Marc – I see that you have been busy broadening your horizons - nice topic.
Yes indeed, the originators of American technology and art, as everywhere else on the planet, were Black people. But the time and circumstances of this happening in the Americas is shrouded in mystery. There are just so many things that don’t make sense; it makes it hard to formulate a working scenario.
The first thing that leaps out at me is the fact that the ancient Peruvians of Norte Chico, apparently developed Architecture BEFORE ceramics and ART. That makes no sense, and is contrary to every other NATURAL development of a civilization.
In my mind, this can only be explained by an advanced people coming into contact with a primitive people and passing on their technology to them, but not maintaining contact long enough to pass on the more general culture and technology.
For those that might be unfamiliar:
Norte Chico was a complex society in the Supe Valley of Peru. It emerged just a millennium after Sumer, and was contemporaneous with the pyramids of Ancient Egypt, and predated the Mesoamerican Olmec by nearly two millennia.
In archaeological nomenclature, Norte Chico is a Preceramic culture of the pre-Columbian Late Archaic; it completely lacked ceramics and apparently had almost no art. The most impressive achievement of the civilization was its monumental architecture, including large platform mounds and sunken circular plazas.
Pyramid at Caral
From Wiki:
The main pyramid (Spanish: Pirámide Mayor) covers an area nearly the size of four football fields and is 60 feet (18 m) tall. Caral is the largest recorded site in the Andean region with dates older than 2000 BCE and appears to be the model for the urban design adopted by Andean civilizations that rose and fell over the span of four millennia. It is believed that Caral may answer questions about the origins of Andean civilizations and the development of the first cities.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^The pre-ceramic civilizations of South America could also be explained by them being “Mimicking” civilizations. But mimicking Who? By conventional dating, they pre-exist the Olmec. Since the only other civilizations of similar type are found thousands of miles away. Then to me, logic says that the Olmec are the answer, and that therefore the Olmec must be MUCH older then conventionally though; and indeed they were the models for South American civilizations.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike you must realize that when Clyde says Africans, he means migrants direct from Africa who settled in the Americas and produced these civilizations. And he is totally against the idea of these people being aboriginal populations in the Americas many of whom had dark skin since arriving there over 10,000 years ago, along with later arrivals who were lighter complexioned.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Doug - We are in disagreement with Clyde on this one. I just don't see where his scenario is workable. Not that mine is so great, but I think that there are a lot of pieces that tie the Peruvians with the Shang and the Olmec - not to mention the MISSISSIPPIANS!!!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike. Good ideas above. Let's take a look at some of the material evidence left by the pre-Inca - those of them predating 2000 BC.
1) Like the Egyptians, they used the huge masonry block for their monumental buildings. This Egypt shared with contemporary Mesopotamia, I believe.
2) However, unlike the Egyptians but like the Mesopotamians (I think I'm right here; I should check my photo database) the Inca used the very wide steps leading up to their altars (compare this with the steeply inclined slopes of the Mayan pyramids of millenniums later).
3) In picture 6 you will see a woman with the cowrie shell eyes. This is found in Mesopotamia.
4) In picture 6 the woman has two pinched balls of clay pushed into her chest representing breasts. This is the same as Mesopotamian female figuration of the pre-2500 year period.
5) In picture 5, the woman has a heavy wig. This type of heavy, bulky wig is found in Egyptian female royal art of the time. But, Egyptian art of this period is more refined.
6) Picture 2 is a neolithic pottery burial as the type found in the Sudan.
There are other similarities; and I think Thor Hyerdahl's expedition adds some circumstantial evidence that plank boats from Mesopotamia could have been the source of that population.
QUESTION: WHERE DID THE PRE-INCA POPULATION COME FROM? It's interesting that it was a pre-glazed pottery era. Picture 2 seems to show that.
I go back to the point I made in the web page. The Conquistadors came from the Russian Steppes into Spain with no history of ship-building or sea-faring. I believe they took these things from the Moors. The Moors, I believe, were carrying on traditions of ocean-going in plank boats that can be traced back to 6500 BC in Mali. Look at the central picture below:
The above testifies to millenniums of ocean-going forays by Africans.
It is my belief that certainly the population found in South America predating 2000 BC was from Africa via trans-atlantic ocean currents and trade winds. And later populations (until the coming of whites from Europe) were their descendents (their descendants for the most part - though there seems to be evidence of "Asians" entering the American Pacific coast from maybe 200 BC onwards).
That's my take on the situation regarding an aspect (not only one) of how (by phenotype) Africans populated the Americas.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ackee. You ask how a case might be made for transatlantic contact between Africa and the Americas? Column two shows over 25 analogies of how this might have transpired in common features between Afrigypt and the Mayan world:
posted
Marc - I see that your thinking is more in line with Clyde's as relates to the Ancient Americans.
The fact that the first Americans were Australoids leads me to believe that the first Americans left Australia and entered the Americas around the area of Tierra del Fuego in Chile; and then finding the Chilean coast too difficult to traverse; headed east through Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia; then back down the Western coast of South America.
Now I have to admit that the sites discovered so far do not support my scenario. Tierra del Fuego is dated at only 10,000 ya, while the VERY old sites (40,000+) are on the EAST coast of South America in Brazil and Uruguay. Which could lead a logical person to say; isn't that too close to Africa to be a coincidence.
But I think that's only because the oldest sites have yet to be discovered. As an example; the Monte Verde site in Chile was dated at only 14,000 ya. But Tom Dillehay's Monte Verde II site in Chile found artifacts and features deeply buried in a sand stratum. The position of this stratum within the geological sequence in the region supports a radiocarbon age of 33,370 years on charcoal fragments. Which proves that the ancient Americans DID try to move north along the West coast.
Of course the people in Central and North America came from China and Siberia. To me, there is no doubt that the Olmec were transplanted Shang who came from China. This scenario would also explain why you have Black platform building people, such as the Mississippians, in the Southern United States.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree. Not an easy jigsaw puzzle to resolve. One thing is, though, that we might be hampered by Western historians guffawing and po-poohing the idea of direct migration to Central and South America from Africa and insist that Columbus, Cortez, Ponce-de-Leon, and the host of European "discoverers" (though people lived there for millenniums before they "discovered" it) must be first because they must. Just because. Because they are white and they must be first.
However, they don't consider the logic that if they "found" the Americas in the tens of years or the first century of their dominance in Europe but that Africans who lived across the ocean from the Americas for tens of thousands of years couldn't possibly have done what Europeans did - Africans just aren't that intelligent, well, I can't think of a more insulting, presumptuous attitude to have. Which in addition flies in the face of facts.
The research I've done shows that (as you note) there is more than one way to skin a cat and more than one way to populate the Americas - and you note the Mississippi Indians and so on. Here is what my page shows related to the subject of how the Pacific coast of the Americas could have been populated (not the subject of the page, per se):
posted
oook!! so you got two things going on aboriginal blacks of the America's,who you term African. and possibile later African migrations, you may want to separate the two,as not being one and same,for one thing the aboriginals would have x;kyrs to develope,but the migrants would only have been sparatic.not sustained. here is why what animals did they brought to sustain them, where are bronze,iron etc did they circumcize their males and excize their females, folks like the phoencians would imho be a mix bag concerning phenotype.remember the gulf of Mexico would be relatively easy to colonize but not the Andes.to this Spanish is only spoken in some areas not to mention actual spanish people,in the high Andes.and that is with 500yrs,of sustained contacts. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ackee. You're right about Phoenicians being a mixed bag racially. However, that would be after migrations of whites from the Steppes when prior to then, the population would be homogenously African. This is especially true when we realize that the word Phoenician meant Canaanite trader. And we have the equivalence of terms here: Canaanite = Hebrew = Semite = African in its earliest phase.
First, that page above shows the Canaanite-Hebrew-Phoenician population. Thing about Africans is that once they start mixing with others they loose their features so when you see the features, you are looking at a pretty pure race at the time. Notice Africans, per se, are not to be found in any numbers in any of the countries in the above page when they were numerous millenniums ago.
Here is a page with the Babylonians of which the Hebrew numbered. [19] for instance, is a Jew of captivity. But, you can see he's African:
Mike, here is a map showing the Canary Current that Columbus and the Conquistadors took to get to the Americas; but Africans, being nearer, and millenniums earlier, certainly used it millenniums before Europeans to colonize and inhabit the Americas.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mike you must realize that when Clyde says Africans, he means migrants direct from Africa who settled in the Americas and produced these civilizations. And he is totally against the idea of these people being aboriginal populations in the Americas many of whom had dark skin since arriving there over 10,000 years ago, along with later arrivals who were lighter complexioned.
This is correct. I will discuss these African groups in an upcoming book which will outline the African settlers of South America.
posted
Hello Dr Winters maybe i have to wait for your book,but is this newly discovered information? and again like Marc are you arguing,for a mass migration from Axum-America.or just a visit,you see i dont have any problem with any African catching a boat ride to anywhere, at anytime but migration en mass is a diffrent story. yes Africans sailed ride to India and China even Indoneasia as traders and mericanery sailors in this case for the Muguals.but in these cases their presence. is accounted for there dna is present,the Portuguse centries later were in competion with them.so Africans comming recently from Africa to just anywhere no problem my concern is mass migration of peoples.and what about the locals weather phenotipical africans or not,did they just lay down and let a bunch of strangers rolled over them?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc – It’s clear that I’m depending more on conventional science as generated by White people then you are. And I do know how dangerous that can be (At Caral and other places, remains were found under the Pyramids and mounds, but now years later, still no Y-DNA results, that can only mean that they are once again, hiding information).
But you can only use information that you have, so I try to make the best of it. Thus having no choice, I have to go along with the conventional chronology that says that the first Americans were Australiod’s at (40,000+), then came the Polynesians at (20,000+), then came the Mongolized people or Amerindians at (10,000+). You will notice that I do not mention the Olmec, that because I consider their arrival undetermined.
But do I realize that even here, there are gaping holes. For instance, New Guinea was named New Guinea because the people there, so closely resembled the people of Guinea in West Africa. So to a White person, what constitutes a Polynesian? The Polynesian thing takes on even greater significance when considering Kennewick Man of Washington state. He is so far the oldest Human found in North America. White people say that genetically he resembles the Ainu of northern Japan, and Polynesians from the South Pacific.
But what does that mean? As far as I know, the only people who could genetically bridge that gap are the Andaman Islanders. So are Andaman Islander type people what White people call Polynesians in the context of American settlement?
If that is the case, then we can say with some certainty; that Polynesian settlement occurred not by water, but by land across the Bering Straits. This scenario does seem logical in that I don’t see why Polynesians arriving by Sea would have ventured so far north.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Above I said that the Mongolized people or Amerindians arrived at (10,000+). But the fact is that I know of no skeleton remains of Amerindians that are anywhere near that old. As I recall, Mongolized Amerindian remains of about 4,000 years have been found in Colombia. But that’s a pretty big gap, so who were the first Mongolized Amerindians and when did they really reach the Americas? And shouldn't the OLDEST remains be in NORTH AMERICA not SOUTH AMERICA. Can't trust those White folks you know!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Mike. I go back to the fact that ultimately the Spanish came from the land-locked Russian Steppes with no ships and no knowledge of seafaring.
They massacred the Moors (as they would later massacre the Maya and Inca), commandeered their ships and used Moorish maps and knowledge of sea-faring to take advantage of transatlantic currents that have been rotating between the sides of the Atlantic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The law of average has it that certainly many African fishermen over the millenniums (and studies speak of ships "hijacked by currents) would be swept away to the Americas.
For whites to claim that whites could arrive from the western side of the Atlantic but Africans not is a thought so offensive it makes my blood boil because of their arrogance and stupidity. Not to mention the fact that they utterly destroyed a civilization and people who had been there for untold thousands of years as the Conquistadors wanted their gold. Robbed Mayan graves to get gold.
I feel offended to deal with the silly idea that Africans couldn't and didn't reach the Americas from Africa. Of course Africans for thousands of years reached the Americas from Africa.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello Marc and Mike,ok let see how we can tease out the tangled web.the post header is about the pre Inca.4100 b.c.,lets deal with them 1st,Mexicans and the rest can chill for a second.Marc are you saying that the Pre Inca came direct from Africa?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may have been a small number of Axumites but they had a tremendous effect on Moche civilization especially in the area of religion.
.
quote:Originally posted by ackee: Hello Dr Winters maybe i have to wait for your book,but is this newly discovered information? and again like Marc are you arguing,for a mass migration from Axum-America.or just a visit,you see i dont have any problem with any African catching a boat ride to anywhere, at anytime but migration en mass is a diffrent story. yes Africans sailed ride to India and China even Indoneasia as traders and mericanery sailors in this case for the Muguals.but in these cases their presence. is accounted for there dna is present,the Portuguse centries later were in competion with them.so Africans comming recently from Africa to just anywhere no problem my concern is mass migration of peoples.and what about the locals weather phenotipical africans or not,did they just lay down and let a bunch of strangers rolled over them?
posted
Alrigthly then,i will just have to find out what moche religion was like and compare it to Axum.yeah i have to check Axum religious pratices.also btw you are talking about pre christian Axumites arent you?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Above I said that the Mongolized people or Amerindians arrived at (10,000+). But the fact is that I know of no skeleton remains of Amerindians that are anywhere near that old. As I recall, Mongolized Amerindian remains of about 4,000 years have been found in Colombia. But that’s a pretty big gap, so who were the first Mongolized Amerindians and when did they really reach the Americas? And shouldn't the OLDEST remains be in NORTH AMERICA not SOUTH AMERICA. Can't trust those White folks you know!
Actually current anthropological studies on remains from South America places the oldest remains in the Americas closer to Australian Aborigines, Melanesians and Africans than current so-called Mongoloid Native Americans. And on top of that the idea of native Americans mostly being Mongoloid is a myth to begin with. There were large numbers of non Mongoloid black Native Americans in North America up until even 150 years ago even and there are plenty of photos of these people showing this.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Ya Doug, I agree. Even more perplexing to me is exactly what is a pure Mongoloid. When the first "Modern Man" Africans reached China at about 50,000 ya, what type of Humans or Humanoids did they find.
Strangely there were no Neanderthals that far east; but they may have encountered Homo- Erectus and Cro-Magnon type people, both of which were Black. Which is consistent with the best example of what an ancient Mongol looked like (that I am aware of), that being the Qin Dynasty soldiers circa 200 B.C.
There is an unmistakable Negroid element to their appearance, which is quite different from modern Chinese.
So did the Africans who went to China look like This? That would explain the look of the Qin, but if that is the case, What happened? Did the Whites in Central Asia move East and add new genes to the Mongol stock?
This discontinuity of phenotype continues in the Americas. I really don't see any Mongoloid features in this North American Indian, yet they are suppose to be the first of the Mongolized people to arrive in the Americas.
But these Eskimo are very much Mongoloid, yet they are suppose to be the last of the Mongolized people in the Americas.
But in Peru it really gets screwed up. The MODERN Amerindian people, have an obvious Mongol look.
posted
^^^ No prmiddleeastern, everybody knows that they were White. Hell, they were the first Puerto Ricans, how could they be otherwise?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ackee: Alrigthly then,i will just have to find out what moche religion was like and compare it to Axum.yeah i have to check Axum religious pratices.also btw you are talking about pre christian Axumites arent you?
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: No, I didn't believe you, and I haven't believed any of your delusions.
Ah come-on prmiddleeastern, I was only teasing you. I just wanted to see what you would say. Of course Puerto Ricans are truly really White. The Indians got killed off, and the niggers came as slaves. Whatever the very few dark ones are, who cares. You be White, period. See for yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Ya Doug, I agree. Even more perplexing to me is exactly what is a pure Mongoloid. When the first "Modern Man" Africans reached China at about 50,000 ya, what type of Humans or Humanoids did they find.
Strangely there were no Neanderthals that far east; but they may have encountered Homo- Erectus and Cro-Magnon type people, both of which were Black. Which is consistent with the best example of what an ancient Mongol looked like (that I am aware of), that being the Qin Dynasty soldiers circa 200 B.C.
There is an unmistakable Negroid element to their appearance, which is quite different from modern Chinese.
So did the Africans who went to China look like This? That would explain the look of the Qin, but if that is the case, What happened? Did the Whites in Central Asia move East and add new genes to the Mongol stock?
This discontinuity of phenotype continues in the Americas. I really don't see any Mongoloid features in this North American Indian, yet they are suppose to be the first of the Mongolized people to arrive in the Americas.
But these Eskimo are very much Mongoloid, yet they are suppose to be the last of the Mongolized people in the Americas.
But in Peru it really gets screwed up. The MODERN Amerindian people, have an obvious Mongol look.
But the ANCIENT ones do NOT!!
Any ideas?
Mike phenotype is based on environment. And it evolves over time. The first Native Americans were more like Australian/Melanesian/Indian aboriginal blacks. This is what most Asians looked like prior to the widespread development of light skin, which was typical of later migrants to the Americas. They were descended from the same people who are aboriginal to all of Asia. And in China and Asia phenotypes vary. Some East Asians look almost European, some look similar to some East Africans and San(albeit much lighter). Modern humanity is very diverse and all of this diversity is the result of the evolution of phenotypes since people left Africa 80,000 years ago. And within this diversity skin color is only one part of the mix. Therefore, you have dark skinned populations with "Asian Mongoloid", "Native American" and "Eurasian" features, because phenotype is a combination of skeletal features, muscular features and skin color. And because all humans originate from African populations who primarily stayed in tropical Southern climates for a large amount of time, it only makes sense that a lot of the evolution in phenotype occurred among people with dark skin, before light skin became predominant in certain areas. Looking at statues and calling them negroid or mongoloid doesn't make sense because such terms are outdated racial classifications which do not allow for the true diversity in phenotypes among populations. The point being that the aboriginal people with mongoloid/Native American features were very dark. And those statues from the Han dynasty look no different than modern Chinese, even though there were black populations in China even up to a few hundred years ago (there may still be some but I don't know and mostly in the South). And there are modern South and Central American populations with dark skin and features similar to both the ancient statues and the modern Inca. Race imposes boundaries based on phenotype and skin color, which has nothing to do with the reality of human diversity.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^What you say makes NO sense, and I can think of no place where it has been demonstrated. Quite to the contrary, every non-Black, non-White, non-Mongol population that I know of, can be explained by the introduction of one or two of the classic races (Black,White, Mongol) to the original population. If you know of any populations where these changes occured by evolution, please present them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Either all humans came from Africa or they did not. Because otherwise if all humans came from Africa, where did these other "races" get introduced from? Mars? Especially if they did not evolve from the aboriginal blacks who ultimately originated in Africa.
Such racial typologies make no sense because they cling to a notion of totally and distinct species which must remain distinct and have no overlap. Hence "Mongoloids" must have always been a distinct "race", along with whites and Blacks, because otherwise the whole racial schema of distinct "races" would fall apart. So Mongoloids come from planet Mongol, Whites come from planet Caucasia and Blacks come from planet Negro, each planet being the home of that "race" that has existed since the dawn of time. Which is absolute nonsense. The only population that has existed since the dawn of time is black Africans. No other population can claim that and they did not simply pop up out of nowhere.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That simply sounds stupid.
----------------------------------
Which part? I thought my answer to be logical and accurate. Do you have a particular issue?
------------------------------------------------
Either all humans came from Africa or they did not. Because otherwise if all humans came from Africa, where did these other "races" get introduced from? Mars? Especially if they did not evolve from the aboriginal blacks who ultimately originated in Africa.
Such racial typologies make no sense because they cling to a notion of totally and distinct species which must remain distinct and have no overlap. Hence "Mongoloids" must have always been a distinct "race", along with whites and Blacks, because otherwise the whole racial schema of distinct "races" would fall apart. So Mongoloids come from planet Mongol, Whites come from planet Caucasia and Blacks come from planet Negro, each planet being the home of that "race" that has existed since the dawn of time. Which is absolute nonsense. The only population that has existed since the dawn of time is black Africans. No other population can claim that and they did not simply pop up out of nowhere.
-------------------------------------------------
As meninarmer will happily tell you, neither he, me, White people, or anybody else (except yourself), have any real idea of how White people came to be. As I have shown, modern Mongols may be the result of Black Mongols mixing with Whites. But that just brings us back to what are Whites?
posted
All of which means you don't know what you are talking about and cling on white skin as something special when it isn't. Hence, your racialism in all your discourse. Almost like you hate the idea of whites being born from black or brown populations at some point. Kinda like you are afraid to admit that these babies like beating up on mommy and daddy. Freudian psychology. White skin color evolved among populations with dark skin gradually becoming more predominant in certain places 20,000 years ago or less, depending on who you talk to. But that evolution mostly took place in deep prehistory. By the historic period 5,000 years ago there were populations who were white, brown and black and there has definitely been a negative trend against blacks during this period. Like it or not it does not change the fact that all humans descend from African blacks thousands of years ago.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug; I see that this Birds and Bees thing has got you stumped, so I will explain.
Lets call this one; how the modern Thais of Thailand came to look as they do.
First, take one Black Mon (the original people).
Then at about 1,400 A.D. add one White Mongol.
And look what you get; A MODERN THAI. Isn’t that amazing?
(Of course results will vary; more Black Mon will result in darker, more Negroid looking people. More White Mongol, will result in paler, more Mongol looking people).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like you are the only one who doesn't understand sexual reproduction. Mixing is a fact of human existence and populations have been mixing since day one. There is nothing new or strange about it.
The point still is that so-called Mongoloids are simply derived from ancient black populations from India who moved north into central Asia and developed lighter skin. You have not refuted this other than to pretend that "Mongoloids" have always existed in Northern Asia as whites even back when the first humans migrated out of Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug; I hope you liked the Thai Birds and Bees thing. Now lets do some more.
Now Lets call this one; how the modern Hindu of India came to look as they do.
First, take one Black Dravidian (the original people).
Then at about 1,000 B.C. add one White Arian from the Central Asian Steppes.
And look what you get; A MODERN Hindu. Isn’t that amazing?
(Of course results will vary; more Black Dravidian will result in darker, more Negroid looking people. More White Arian, will result in paler looking people).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So? Who were the first people in the central Asian Steppes? Black Aboriginal types from India. Seems to me you are simply obsessed with white skin to the point that you deny that all human populations originate from aboriginal populations who were black at some point. That is not politics. That is the birds and the bees, meaning biology.
Racism as a political or social ideology does not care about biology or the fact that all human features originated among ancient black populations. All they care about is breeding among and perpetrating those features that they feel are "superior" or "desired" above all others. But of course this is what you seem to be stuck on. Simply put, the fact that people have varying features isn't the issue, it is that black skin has been looked down upon and degraded even though it is the original skin color of mankind.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug; Can I stop now? My arms are getting tired. But if you still don't get it, I will do some more.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because blacks have been degraded and slandered by whites and their racialist schemes does not mean you have to parrot it. That is simply stupid and doesn't prove anything other than you are as crazy as they are. Whites are the original anybody. They aren't the first humans and nobody comes from them.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Ah come-on prmiddleeastern, I was only teasing you. I just wanted to see what you would say. Of course Puerto Ricans are truly really White. The Indians got killed off, and the niggers came as slaves. Whatever the very few dark ones are, who cares. You be White, period. See for yourself.
Delusional.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn Doug; I can see that you are a real HARD learner. But I’m up to the challenge. I saved the toughest and most complicated for last. This is a tough one, so pay close attention.
Lets call this one; how the modern Hawaiians came to look as they do.
First, take one Black Hawaiian (the original people).
Then at about 1830 A.D. add one White Missionary.
And look what you get; A MIXED Hawaiian. Isn’t that amazing?
Then at about 1880 A.D. add some Japanese workers for the Sugarcane Plantations.
And look what you get; a MODERN Hawaiian; isn’t that amazing?
(Of course results will vary; more Black Hawaiian will result in darker, more Negroid looking people. More White Missionary, will result in paler looking people, more Mongol will result in whatever).
DAMN IT DOUG, THAT'S ENOUGH; IF YOU DON'T GET IT BY NOW, YOU NEVER WILL. AT LEAST MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR, I TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT.
BTW - are you related to prmiddleeastern? The two of you seem to have a lot in common.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Damn Doug; I can see that you are a real HARD learner. But I’m up to the challenge. I saved the toughest and most complicated for last. This is a tough one, so pay close attention.
Lets call this one; how the modern Hawaiians came to look as they do.
First, take one Black Hawaiian (the original people).
Then at about 1830 A.D. add one White Missionary.
And look what you get; A MIXED Hawaiian. Isn’t that amazing?
Then at about 1880 A.D. add some Japanese workers for the Sugarcane Plantations.
And look what you get; a MODERN Hawaiian; isn’t that amazing?
(Of course results will vary; more Black Hawaiian will result in darker, more Negroid looking people. More White Missionary, will result in paler looking people, more Mongol will result in whatever).
DAMN IT DOUG, THAT'S ENOUGH; IF YOU DON'T GET IT BY NOW, YOU NEVER WILL. AT LEAST MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR, I TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT.
BTW - are you related to prmiddleeastern? The two of you seem to have a lot in common.
I learned this in high school. Obviously you must never have gone to high school if you feel you "discovered" this on your own. As a matter of fact I have posted detailed information from Hawaiian and Australian Universities which documents this whole history of interaction and assimilation in Hawaii to great detail. And even the government of Hawaii even acknowledges that most Hawaii is mixed and that there are only a handful of "pure bloods" left. It really isn't a secret that whites have conquered and decimated the natives of Hawaii, the Americas and parts of Asia.
You shouldn't let the impact of white racism make you delusional or adopt racialist ideologies to "counter" white racialism. It is simply dumb.
Next thing you know you will be claiming to have discovered Creoles, Mestizoes and Mulattoes as well......
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You shouldn't let the impact of white racism make you delusional or adopt racialist ideologies to "counter" white racialism. It is simply dumb.
Second it.
quote:Next thing you know you will be claiming to have discovered Creoles, Mestizoes and Mulattoes as well......
That would be hilarious.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignorant much?Skin color is part of the adaptation to the northern climate, and part of the northern human variation.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug; no need to get testy, I was simply answering your claim that the non-Black, non-White people of the world, evolved to look as they do because of environmental factors. I think that I have demonstrated quite convincingly that your claim was “Somewhat” faulty.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug; no need to get testy, I was simply answering your claim that the non-Black, non-White people of the world,evolved to look as they do because of environmental factors.
Yes, it is the cause.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic