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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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!!!!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
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.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
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:
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.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
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):
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. Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
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.
Enjoy.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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 by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
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 by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^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!
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
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.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
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?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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 by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
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?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^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? Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
The next thing I will see is"Were the Taino Poeple African People? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^ No prmiddleeastern, everybody knows that they were White. Hell, they were the first Puerto Ricans, how could they be otherwise? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^That guy is such a dick, he believed me - Ha ha.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
No, I didn't believe you, and I haven't believed any of your delusions.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
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?
Yes
.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
That simply sounds stupid.
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 by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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).
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug; Can I stop now? My arms are getting tired. But if you still don't get it, I will do some more.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Still delusional, Mickey?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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......
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Albinism: The beginning of the White "Race".
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Ignorant much?Skin color is part of the adaptation to the northern climate, and part of the northern human variation.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: Skin color is part of the adaptation to the northern climate, and part of the northern human variation.
That variation began in Africa with the introduction,distribution and admixture of, Albinism.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Albinos are people with no pigment, Whites are people with little pigment. Albinos are pink eyed, whites are blue eyed, and albino is an hereditary condition, not a race,I have sen Albino indians, Albino blacks, and albino whites, it is a condition
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Wrong on all counts. Do your research.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer, you are our secret weapon, the ace-in-the-hole of the logical, if you will. Whenever they get totally stupid and refuse to accept the truth, even when it is demonstrated to them in pictures (how stupid do you have to be to not even understand a series of pictures). Then you come out and blow them away. Cling to White (or hopes of White) all they want, but there is still no answer to your terrible Saber-like thrust.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Albinism is hereditary; it is not an infectious disease and cannot be transmitted through contact, blood transfusions, or other vectors. The principal gene which results in albinism prevents the body from making the usual amounts of the pigment melanin. Most forms of albinism are the result of the biological inheritance of genetically recessive alleles (genes) passed from both parents of an individual, though some rare forms are inherited from only one parent. There are other genetic mutations which are proven to be associated with albinism. All alterations, however, lead to changes in melanin production in the body.
Albinism was formerly categorized as tyrosinase-positive or -negative. In cases of tyrosinase-positive albinism, the enzyme tyrosinase is present. The melanocytes (pigment cells) are unable to produce melanin for any one of a variety of reasons that do not directly involve the tyrosinase enzyme. In tyrosinase-negative cases, either the tyrosinase enzyme is not produced or a nonfunctional version is produced. This classification has been rendered obsolete by recent research.
The chance of offspring with albinism resulting from the pairing of an organism with albinism and one without albinism is low, as discussed in more detail below. However, because organisms can be carriers of genes for albinism without exhibiting any traits, albinistic offspring can be produced by two non-albinistic parents. Albinism usually occurs with equal frequency in both genders.An exception to this is ocular albinism, because it is passed on to offspring through X-linked inheritance. Thus, males more frequently have ocular albinism as they do not have a second X chromosome.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Albinism (from Latin albus, "white"; see extended etymology, also called achromia, achromasia, or achromatosis) is a form of hypopigmentary congenital disorder, characterized by a partial (in hypomelanism, also known as hypomelanosis) or total (amelanism or amelanosis) lack of melanin pigment in the eyes, skin and hair (or more rarely the eyes alone). Albinism results from inheritance of recessive alleles.
Also remember that southern europeans and North Africans are pigmented whites.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
Any mutation that produced lighter skin color would have been a severe disadvantage to those living under the bright African sun. When humans left Africa for less sun intense regions of the world, the selective pressure against lighter skin would have relaxed. This probably explains the greater variety of skin color found outside sub-Saharan Africa. Lighter skin colors may have been advantageous at higher latitudes since they allow greater penetration of the sun's UV radiation, a requirement for vitamin D synthesis. This may have led to selection for lightly pigmented skin. Scientists have identified at least 100 genes associated with pigment processing. Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study they possess a greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations. It is therefore likely that many of the alleles associated with light pigmentation were already present in an ancestral population in Africa prior to their dispersal. When humans migrated out of Africa, the lighter skin causing alleles may have accumulated in one population, either by genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection or a combination of these effects. Since their effects are additive it is possible light skin could arise over several generations without any new mutations taking place.
A 2006 study provides evidence that the light skin pigmentation observed in Europeans and East Asians arose independently. They concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection.
Molecular biology of light skin
Skin color is a quantitative trait that varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified, however two genes are known that do contribute to skin color, they are the MC1R and the SLC24A5 genes.The mutation resulting in the light skin version of the SLC24A5 gene has been estimated to have originated in Europe between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago, indicating that at least one of the genes responsible for pale skin colour in Europeans arose relatively recently.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Did humans leave Africa or did the primates that later became humans leave africa? there is some dispute on this at present. The recent u of toronto study suggests that may well be the case.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did humans leave Africa or did the primates that later became humans leave africa?
The first one.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did humans leave Africa or did the primates that later became humans leave africa? there is some dispute on this at present. The recent u of toronto study suggests that may well be the case.
The latter would be called multi-reginonalism, and yes it has been proven false. I've already addressed this the last time you posted it.
Here's a little information about earliest anatomically modern humans in Africa from 200,000 years ago.
quote: "From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
and of course the genetic and physical evidence to boot...
quote: Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained:
"The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
Yes this has been shown to be accurate. But it does not say anything about two already differentiated populations coming together to form a new one. Instead it says the genetic variation in both Europeans and Asians are actually subsets of the variation in the African population.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Instead it says the genetic variation in both Europeans and Asians are actually sub sets of the variation in the African population.
Yes, that is a fact.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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. I think that I have demonstrated quite convincingly that your claim was “Somewhat” faulty.
Really? So where did these non black people come from?
The only thing you have demonstrated is an absolute dependence on racialist doctrines modeled on the theories of the racists you supposedly hate. The "if they call you an ape call them albinos" school of nonsense argument. It is nothing but immature feel good rhetoric that masks the fact you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am still waiting for you to say that "discovered" that these non blacks are the results of evil science experiments or space ships. Just like you "discovered" that whites conquered America, Africa and Asia a few hundred years ago.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ The truth has nothing to do with retaliation for name calling, but is validated and verified in all major world medical documentation, which in my mind, far supersedes those highly speculative and unconfirmed opinions of historians.
While it is a safe bet many of the world's people of color have adjusted their melanin densities to compensate for varying UV exposure around the globe. It's fairly certain, European did not recently and magically turn "white", while totally losing their DNA repair mechanisms a few thousand years ago when white Albino Africans have existed thousands of years prior to this event in Africa, and also have defects in their DNA repair facilities as a direct result of the mutation.
As shown above, many whites don't even understand the many distinct levels of Albinism, and the fact that it does not just consist of a complete lost of melanin, but also several other key distinguishing characteristics which are all consistently present in two of the world's people, Albinos, and European whites.
I doubt this is any surprise to European researchers, and why none of their DNA comparison studies include African Albinos, in spite of their being genetically the closest to the European DNA structure.
#
Oculocutaneous albinism 1 is caused by a mutation in a gene on chromosome 11. Most people with this type of albinism have milky white skin, white hair and blue eyes at birth. Some people with this disorder never experience changes in pigmentation, but others begin to produce melanin during childhood and adolescence. Their hair may become a golden blond or brown. Their skin usually doesn't change color, but it may tan somewhat. The irises may also change color and lose some of their translucence.
Oculocutaneous albinism 2, caused by a mutation in a gene on chromosome 15, is the most common form of the disorder worldwide. It's more common in Sub-Saharan Africans and African-Americans than in other population groups. In people of African descent, the hair is usually yellow, the eyes are blue-gray or tan, and the skin is white at birth. With sun exposure, the skin may over time develop freckles, moles or lentigines. In some cases, the skin may be light brown, and the hair may be brown, auburn, ginger or red.
In Caucasians with oculocutaneous albinism 2, the hair is usually blond, the skin white and the eyes blue at birth. The hair and eyes may darken. The skin usually develops freckles, moles or lentigines.
The rare oculocutaneous albinism 3, caused by a gene mutation on chromosome 9, has been primarily identified in black South Africans. People with this disorder usually have reddish-brown skin, ginger or reddish hair, and hazel or brown eyes.
Oculocutaneous albinism 4, caused by a gene mutation on chromosome 5, is a rare form of the disorder generally presenting signs and symptoms similar to those of type 2. Studies suggest that this type may be one of the most common forms of albinism among people of Japanese and Korean descent. #
X-linked ocular albinism. The cause of X-linked ocular albinism is a gene mutation on the X chromosome. (A woman inherits an X chromosome from each parent. A man inherits an X chromosome from his mother and a Y chromosome from his father.)
In order for a woman to have ocular albinism, she must inherit the gene mutation from both parents. A man with the disorder inherits the gene mutation from his mother. Because there's no corresponding gene on the Y chromosome, the single mutated gene on the X chromosome is sufficient to cause ocular albinism in a man.
People who have ocular albinism have the developmental and functional vision problems of albinism. But a person's skin, hair and eye color are generally in the normal range or slightly lighter for his or her family.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
What I find interesting about this site is that if you go through the slides you will see just how Bowcock and Sforza's racial divergence theories fit perfectly with both the "essentialist" as well as the "population concept". The latter sees race as local or "core" populations - a feature of Sforza's works as Keita shows. This is seen by their sample choice: Bay Area Chinese for Asian proto type, the "Forest Negro" for their African proto type and "Caucasoids of European origin" for a European proto type.
This is why Keita said, despite the fact that they show the Caucasoid as a secondary type, they still conform to the racial schema. And we can see why as the essentialist model (the next slide) sees races as being divided into primary "ideal types" represented by few isolated or "unmixed" groups e.g. Bowcock's Pygmies = True Negro and Asian = Bay Area Chinese/Mongolian) and the secondary races (their "Caucasoids of European origin") comprise of mixtures of the primary races or types.
Hence a population (a racial hybrid) arose as a consequence of two already differentiated populations.
But as the slide goes on to show, none of this fits the data.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Dougie and PR - I hope you guys don't think that I am trying to give you a hard time. I am sure that your position that non-Black, non-White people, evolved independently of admixture; and purely as a result of environmental conditions is true.
It's just that I can't see it, maybe other people have the same problem. So here is a chance for you guys to explain it to all of us that don't understand.
Now as I understand it, people who inhabit cold areas in the north where sunlight is not so strong, their skin turns lighter over time, so as to absorb more sunlight.
I'm not sure why their facial feature also change, but maybe you will explain that also.
So lets do a test, as our test subjects, lets use Mongols, they seem to have great diversity in skin color. And as you know, I foolishly attributed that to admixture between slanty-eyed Blacks from Africa and Whites from Central Asia, (silly me).
As a reminder; latitudinally China traverses from about Arabia to Poland. Mongolia traverses from about northern Italy to Germany, but because of it's terrain and location, it is much colder (normal temp. range of -50c to +40c).
So lets begin, starting with the first picture, which is of an ancient Mongol, please explain how the other people came to look as they do without admixture.
ORIGINAL PEOPLE!
Warm region
Warm region
Warm region
Warm region
COLD REGION!!
COLD REGION!!
COLD REGION!!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Did humans leave Africa or did the primates that later became humans leave africa? there is some dispute on this at present.
It's simple: In the case of most people, the former applies. In your case, however, the latter applies. You are still going through the gradual process of attaining the human state. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
LOL, that's quite funny since Homo Erectus began walking in Africa on 2 feet over 1.5Mya. The professor seems to have fallen a bit behind.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [b]Dougie and PR - I hope you guys don't think that I am trying to give you a hard time. I am sure that your position that non-Black, non-White people, evolved independently of admixture; and purely as a result of environmental conditions is true.
It's just that I can't see it, maybe other people have the same problem. So here is a chance for you guys to explain it to all of us that don't understand.
Now as I understand it, people who inhabit cold areas in the north where sunlight is not so strong, their skin turns lighter over time, so as to absorb more sunlight.
I'm not sure why their facial feature also change, but maybe you will explain that also.
So lets do a test, as our test subjects, lets use Mongols, they seem to have great diversity in skin color. And as you know, I foolishly attributed that to admixture between slanty-eyed Blacks from Africa and Whites from Central Asia, (silly me).
As a reminder; latitudinally China traverses from about Arabia to Poland. Mongolia traverses from about northern Italy to Germany, but because of it's terrain and location, it is much colder (normal temp. range of -50c to +40c).
So lets begin, starting with the first picture, which is of an ancient Mongol, please explain how the other people came to look as they do without admixture.
Because skin color has nothing to do with facial features.
First Asians:
Light skin is simply one aspect of human phenotype and skin color is not the determining factor of facial features. Otherwise you wouldn't have "Asian looking" Africans in Africa who have no Asian admixture. Otherwise how do you explain the San people?
Basically that is the flaw with racialist thinking. It tries to pigeonhole populations into primary "types" based on phenotype, but it breaks down when the reality of true phenotype variation among people of different skin colors is observed. The idea that "pure races" based on phenotype is a strictly Western European concept and has no place in a true understanding of Africans and the origin of mankind.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Dougie, does this mean that you're not going to answer my question about the Mongols???
If you don't, then what are we to believe, but that you are talking out of your anus.
BTW - If you would care to annotate your pictures, I might take a stab at explaining their heritage and appearance. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Please, don't waste my time with your nonsense. There is nothing to explain. The first Asians, first Europeans, first Native Americans were all black people. All human features originate among aboriginal black populations. Period.
So unless you can show me the space ship white people and "Mongoloids" flew in on, I don't need to hear your B.S. explanations. You simply cling to white racialist nonsense because that is what you have been taught by whites and therefore that is what you believe. But this isn't strange, even the NOI was preaching similar sorts of nonsense at one point as well. But people are to truly be liberated of the white racialist methodology they must totally reject it and embrace the truth.
But you don't want to do that because you love to perpetrate the white crackers ain't nothin but alien albinos from outer space nonsense to make you feel good, while whites still continue to spread their racialist nonsense around the world. And your feel good ridiculous nonsense does nothing to stop it other than cause laughter.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: this mean that you're not going to answer my question about the Mongols???
Mike, would you be so kind as to elaborate for inquiring minds on the specific features attributed to Mongols, when they arose, and amongst what population?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: this mean that you're not going to answer my question about the Mongols???
Mike, would you be so kind as to elaborate for inquiring minds on the specific features attributed to Mongols, when they arose, and amongst what population?
Damn mindless one, read the fuching first part of the thread.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Damn Dougie, you and the NOI say Whites are Spacemen, and meninarmer says that they are Albinos, MindoverMatter718 says that they were Black people who woke up one morning to find that they had turned White. I AM SO CONFUSED!! Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Why would ancient African Albinos make the very wise decision to migrate to other regions. For a very compelling reason. Skin cancer. 30% of African Albinos die by the age of 30 from skin cancer. As is obvious, even the children below are showing signs of skin burn, skin cancer, and eventually, melanoma. If I were a parent or husband of an Albino, I think I would take a trip to extent my children or wife's life span. So, if any African had a compelling, life saving reason for migrating out of Africa, you can put African Albinos on the top of the list. No to mention the social dangers they faced daily.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Damn Dougie, you and the NOI say Whites are Spacemen, and meninarmer says that they are Albinos, MindoverMatter718 says that they were Black people who woke up one morning to find that they had turned White. I AM SO CONFUSED!!
Actually you say all of that. That is why you are confused. And the reason you are confused is you are stuck on white racialist dogmatic thinking. Yes, whites as a segment of the human population have become more predominant in the world over the last 1000 years or more due to conquest, assimilation and destruction of many black populations world wide, but that does not change the fact that the first populations in all parts of the world were black and that all human features originate from these people.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
No, whites are products of Chinese and Pygmies...duh! Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Damn Dougie, you and the NOI say Whites are Spacemen, and meninarmer says that they are Albinos, MindoverMatter718 says that they were Black people who woke up one morning to find that they had turned White. I AM SO CONFUSED!!
Actually you say all of that. That is why you are confused. And the reason you are confused is you are stuck on white racialist dogmatic thinking. Yes, whites as a segment of the human population have become more predominant in the world over the last 1000 years or more due to conquest, assimilation and destruction of many black populations world wide, but that does not change the fact that the first populations in all parts of the world were black and that all human features originate from these people.
Dougie, That's all well and good, but what are they, and where did they come from????
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: this mean that you're not going to answer my question about the Mongols???
Mike, would you be so kind as to elaborate for inquiring minds on the specific features attributed to Mongols, when they arose, and amongst what population?
Damn mindless one, read the fuching first part of the thread.
No need to be upset and throw your little hissy fits when questioned, which actually shows your inability to answer simple questions.
So you're basically telling me you can't answer the question; right?
Nowhere in this thread was my questioned answered.
If so, please point me to the post or simply re-post it for inquiring minds, or is this asking too much of you?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
It's really quite simple and not at all as convoluted as whites would have you believe.
If you were an African Albino, and a person back migrating from Asia/Europe informed you the climate was less warm there. Would you sit and wait in Africa for this to happen to you. Surly, African Albinos had observed the typical life span and melanoma is other Albinos to understand there are strong possibility they would undergo the same.
There is no need to post children of any kind naked. Have more respect for the people in the photos.
Peace
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
"Hay Hay" people "focus focus"the thread header?we all now very well that no one is going to change the minds of Marc and DR Winters about when OOA's stop being Africans,if they fit a certain phenotype.we see black people they see Africans,that aint gonna change.instead lets focus on the tangible:culture,mode of food production,artifacts,language and corbon putdatings,lets see if we can use these things to make sense or non-sense,of the thories put forth.eg; the Axumities journey to the Andes Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
Hi King i know there are sick m....fkers"out there,but the above is niether offensive or inapropprate.the fact is there are meny places in the world where kid runaruond nude.you can't mandate everyone should coverup. but i do understand your concern,about potentical child abuse. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee: Hi King i know there are sick m....fkers"out there,but the above is niether offensive or inapropprate.the fact is there are meny places in the world where kid runaruond nude.you can't mandate everyone should coverup. but i do understand your concern,about potentical child abuse.
I don’t see it that way; I see King as playing the “I am a good Christian” holier than thou sh1t. And as is typical with these “Good Christian” assholes, they are “chock full of sh1t”. There was nothing indecent about that picture, but the asshole “Good Christian” saw it as an opportunity to assert moral dominance. Like the rest of us can’t decide what is indecent, we need a “Good Christian” or Good Muslim, or Good Jew, to do that for us. And of course, once we let them tell us what is right and good; then it is a short step for them to tell us what to believe. King fuch-off.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
meninarmer - Your point is well made and well taken. But I don't know if it will be necessary to post any more pictures of those poor unfortunates with melanoma. I find it heartbreaking to see the condition of those poor people.
BTW - I have seen White guys who look just like this guy.
If there is such a thing; it would be interesting to see pictures of Horn African Albinos.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Dougie - Nice pictures; was there a point?? Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
That you don't know what you are talking about.
You are running all over the map to reinforce your absurd pseudo historical features. But I will use your own logic against you.
Even if whites were albinos where did they come from? Black folks?
Therefore, whether it is due to albinism or evolution, white people come from blacks. So your absurd stance that whites are a separate species that did not come from blacks is still false. Whether through albinism or evolution, white people are the children of ancient aboriginal blacks. So again, other than trying to support your silly racialist agenda, you have no point. As an example, the albinos above have features just like the mother and father respectively, aside from the white skin and hair. Therefore, their features come from their black parents and no where else. The same goes for all populations on earth whose features also come from their ancient black parents and no place else. Albinism does not change other aspects of phenotype. It does not cause slanted eyes, it does not cause narrow noses and it does not cause thin lips. Those features have developed among black populations over many thousands of years and have nothing to do with white skin.
Simply put you feel that name calling and racialist ideologies is somehow a way to counter white supremacist nonsense, when it isn't. It is simply a form of defeatism, as you are joining those you are supposedly against and following their ideologies.
Another East African with so-called Asian features, but not from Asia:
Skin color is simply one aspect of phenotypical variation and there is nothing "special" about it that makes or defines a race.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Damn Dougie – Just because I have a scientific curiosity about the people of the world: you know, like how they got where they are, and why they look the way they do. Does that make me a bad guy?
But that aside; meninarmers posts are getting to you, aren’t they?
Well unlike King, I don’t claim to be holier than thou:
If it is proven that Whites are really just defective Blacks; I will be laughing my ass off. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
What can I say, You have your opinion. All I can say is that I do not think I am better then anyone else. Nor do I think I am "holier than thou"(Your words).
All I know is that there is no need to show kids naked for any reason. This is poor way to get your point accross. I could take your insults and insult you back, but I am not going to lower myself to your standard.
Also Mike please show me the post I made that gave you the impression that I am "Holier than thou"(Your words).
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Mike111
What can I say, You have your opinion. All I can say is that I do not think I am better then anyone else. Nor do I think I am "holier than thou"(Your words).
All I know is that there is no need to show kids naked for any reason. This is poor way to get your point accross. I could take your insults and insult you back, but I am not going to lower myself to your standard.
Also Mike please show me the post I made that gave you the impression that I am "Holier than thou"(Your words).
Peace
Also Mike please show me the post I made that gave you the impression that I am "Holier than thou"
This is it!!!
Beautiful children as nature (or whatever) made them, is something indecent????
Like I said, fuch-off. You so-called “Religious” assholes are really just sickos looking for cover. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
Naked children should not be in ANY post. I live for 4 years with a girl that was abused. The sicko is people who post images of naked children as if this is really needed to prove a point.
Just to let you know. ANYONE who posts images of children that is not proper, will get messages from me. I know we have a forum that is not moderated and that is why people freely curse, insult, and post pics of naked kids. When Ausar was the moderator we had none of these things.
Again show me the post that made you say I am "Holier than Thou"(Your words).
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Again show me the post that made you say I am "Holier than Thou"
You really are too dense to get it, aren't you?
ALL of your posts SCREAM "I am Holier than Thou".
And in your sick mind, Child abuse is equated with a naked toddler. Get on line with the child abusers, you need help too.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
So now you think that Naked children is innocent?
So all the perverts online don't look at pics of naked kids?
I will NEVER allow people to post pics of children naked for any purpose. Mike please tell the forum how naked pics of kids serve a purpose in the Ancient Egypt forum.
Also like I said and will continue to say please show me a post of mine that made you say "Holier than Thou"(Your words).
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Going in circles is not my favorite pastime.
Anybody want to talk about the Inca's. Before Doug got miffed that they didn't magically grow from seed in Peru. I was about to invite theories as to when and why the Mongolized people, such as the Inca and Aztec, apparently suddenly showed up. And also, where were they before they established dominance in the Americas. Any ideas?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
Going in circles?
You made comments attacking me as being "Holier then Thou"
Then you called me a sicko. I did not respond in like manner because insults never solve anything.
I will continue to ask you how naked pics of kids serve a purpose in Ancient Egypt forum.
Also show me a post of mine, where I was acting "Holier then thou"
Remember Mike you started this by attacking me for no reason, so you should be able to come up with answers to the questions I posted.
Peace
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The sicko is the person who gets off on seeing naked pics of children, not someone who posted them with no such intent in mind. The kids I posted were naked in public in their native land. That is totally different from posting pics of kids naked taken in private who normally are clothed in public.
Like I said the sicko is the person who gets off on this sort of stuff, because in many parts of the world to this day some people still are naked/half naked for a large majority of their lifetimes in public, children most especially.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
What about those that revert to the "true negro" criteria to argue against certain Black Madonnas? Ain't that a sicko? Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Doug M
In no way am I calling you a sicko.
You are one of the most important and valuable scholars on this forum. I just wish you would use more care about the pics you use. I will always hold you and other veterans to a higher standard then others. I have learned alot from you and I wish to continue to learn. Just be careful of the pics you use.
Peace
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Slant eyes in African San
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
meninarmer
As you can see, the diversity in Africa, cannot be put into a box. African features are the most diverse features on Gods green earth. People who try to take away from africas diversity, and say certain people look this way because of mixing with other "races" are just plain wrong.
It may take sometime, but soon rather then later
People will compare themselves to African populations instead of Africans being explained away by being compared to other ethnicities.
Peace
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:
Interestingly Sforza don't consider the Khoisan, like Northern Africans, "black Africans". It amazes me how some in here quote his work liberally without any comprehension of what the racialist is actually saying.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^So with the exception of Doug; are we saying that the original Mongol was actually a Khoisan type African who acquired pale skin by virtue of crossbreeding with Whites?
As an aside: traditionally Mongols have been known as the "Yellow" race. As anybody in the west knows, when you cross a White with a Black, the offspring often has a yellowish skin tone.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
Don't think I forgot your insults and attack on me.
Answer the questions.
What does pics of naked kids have to do with Ancient Egypt forum. What purpose does it solve
Please point to a post of mine that gave you the idea that I was "Holier then thou"(your words)
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Not claiming to be an expert or anything; But since you have set yourself up as the morality police, aren't you suppose to forgive me my transgressions and move on?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike111
I only ask people who I respect to give me good reasons for why they are angry with me. Notice I never challenged Marc for his views on me.
We are both veteran posters on this forum and we need to hold ourselves to a higher degree of debateing.
Also it does not hurt to tell a person what he did to make them upset. Maybe I can change that aspect of myself.
I don't want ANY poster feeling like I think I am better then them. You have as much right to post as I do and your views should be respected as well.
All I say to posters is that If they post pics of children, to have a little respect for them.
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Wednesday, January 03, 2001, updated at 14:49(GMT+8) Sci-Edu
Scientists Succeeded in Extracting DNA from Ancient Human Bones
As reported from the Molecular Anthropology and Human Colony Genetics Lab, Chinese scientists have successfully extracted DNA from ancient bones of Shanghai people, dating back to the period of 4,000-5,000 years ago. This marks a big stride forward for China to set its foot into the modern molecular biology field.
Molecular Anthropology and Human Colony Genetics Lab was co-founded by Shanghai History Museum and Genetics Institute of Fudan University. The two research departments have all along been engaged in DNA study of ancient human bones, and so far, a series of results have been achieved by them.
Prior to this, the lab researchers extracted DNA from ancient human bones of 3200 years ago in Hami area of Xinjiang. Sequencing test proved that Caucasus and Mongolian races had ever (always) lived together at that time in Hami.
Up to now, the lab has collected a great number of ancient human bone materials from various archaeological sites all over the country and will set up an ancient Chinese bones gene bank.
By PD Online Staff Li Yan
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^So with the exception of Doug; are we saying that the original Mongol was actually a Khoisan type African who acquired pale skin by virtue of crossbreeding with Whites?
As an aside: traditionally Mongols have been known as the "Yellow" race. As anybody in the west knows, when you cross a White with a Black, the offspring often has a yellowish skin tone.
No. What is being said is that Mongols are an ethnic group and that human features are the result of human adaptation to their environment. San people have the features they do because of the environment and the first Africans who settled South Africa did not look like the San. The first people of Central Asia did not look like Mongols either, but after exposure to the high winds of the steppes and the low UV environments their bodies adapted the features you see today. Environment is the reason for all human features and the adaptation of human body to various environments happened to the first populations of aboriginal blacks as they spread across the globe. Hence you can see black Asian features among the aboriginal populations of South Asia as well as the Pacific. Ancient aboriginal Mongols would have also been black as a result of this environmental adaptation and it does not mean that black San like people migrated to Central Asia. It means that aboriginal black populations in Asia adapted San like features because of their environments the same way that the first Africans in Southern Africa developed those features among the San, including lighter skin.
Just as the San are Africans who developed lighter skin and 'Asian' features as a natural process adaptation to the environment, so too did the aboriginal blacks of Asia. The only difference is that the environment of Northern Asia caused skin to become much lighter than that of the San.
You keep arguing that Mongols or Mongoloids are a race separate from Africans, but if that is the case then so are the San. If the San are not a race separate from other Africans then neither are Asians. They are simply the result of environmental adaptation among ancient populations in Asia. If you treat the San as Africans that adapted their features as a result of environmental conditions, then your whole argument of 'Mongoloids' and 'Caucasoids' as separate races or 'species' that developed separate from Africans is empty.
The mixing you see of white Northern Asians and aboriginal black populations in South Asia and the Americas is a much more recent event and has nothing to do with 'Mongoloids' or 'Caucasoids' being separate species. There were no 'Mongoloids' or 'Caucasoids' 20,000 years ago. Human mixing is a fact of life that existed even before there was a white skinned population. All humans are mixed, because every time two humans mate the result is a mixture of genes. Therefore, mixing is not unique to people of different skin colors. It is something that is more obvious than the other traits that are the result of any human mating. And this mixing of people of different skin complexions is not that old since such vastly different skin complexions are relatively new compared to the age of humanity which is 200,000 years old.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doug, Again you might not be thinking this thing all the way through. Are we trying to equate races that formed thousands of years ago to modern peoples. Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as did Mongoloids and caucasians. That developmental process is only partially known and understood. You are correct that, if the if the african source idea is correct then you would not have three separate species. Species would be a bad choice of words. You would , however, have three equally distinct groups of people. Twenty years from now they will have most of those snswers.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Evidence is of no consequence to Doug; he believes what he wants to believe. To him, the proven fact that White people and Mongols lived TOGETHER for thousands of years, has no meaning. And of course there was no cross-breeding, they all stayed exactly as they were.
He is very much like the Chinese themselves. According to John R. Moore on his site; "Black History" School textbooks in China have been teaching that the Chinese race evolved from Peking Man - Ha. BTW - Moore also has concluded that the Mongol race derived from slanty-eyed Khoisans.
TheAmericanPatriot - I very much appreciate your sudden lucidity. But "Negroes DIDN'T developed FROM ancient africans - They WERE the ancient Africans. Mongoloids and caucasians developed from THEM!!
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Evidence is of no consequence to Doug; he believes what he wants to believe. To him, the proven fact that White people and Mongols lived TOGETHER for thousands of years, has no meaning. And of course there was no cross-breeding, they all stayed exactly as they were.
He is very much like the Chinese themselves. According to John R. Moore on his site; "Black History" School textbooks in China have been teaching that the Chinese race evolved from Peking Man - Ha. BTW - Moore also has concluded that the Mongol race derived from slanty-eyed Khoisans.
The migrations out of Africa to the rest of the world did not come from South Africa and they were not Khoisan. The aboriginal blacks of Asia had a wide range of features, from India to South Asia into New Guinea and Australia. Among these aboriginal types were people with slanted eyes and these people have been there for over 50,000 years. They were not Africans. These people can still be found among the aboriginal people of South Asia and parts of the Pacific. Such features are simply a result of environmental factors and natural random genetic profiles. It is not a "racial type". The first people of the Americas were more like these aboriginals than the later migrants who were more like later populations in Central and East Asia.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
TheAmericanPatriot - I wish to take advantage of your sudden lucidity, to investigate the mystery of the races in Ancient Asia from a White point of view.
As I have shown, modern Mongols are a hybrid of White and slanty-eyed Blacks. And of course, these slanty-eyed Blacks didn't jump directly TO China. They were also part of the Indus Valley population also.
As you know, the great remaining mystery of the races is; What are White people, and where did they come from (before they settled in Asia)?
Even though meninarmer has provided creditable proof that Whites are derived from Albinos; I am still not convinced, and here is why.
As you can see from this Qin soldier, as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Mongol race was still identifiably Negroid.
But the other day, I perused through pictures of the 54 minorities of China, and I could not find any group that was still "identifiably Negroid". Rather, I found pictures like this. (Ya I know, who says the pictures were accurate, Chinese lie just like White people do - and we already know they don't want to admit that they were originally Black).
These pictures suggest to me that in perhaps the majority of cases, Black genes have almost totally been overwhelmed by White genes in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea).
This further suggests a VERY large White population in China and East Asia, one much larger than the Black population.
When the White population in West and Central Asia is taken into consideration, (those that moved to Europe, and those that stayed behind), it amounts to a HUGE White, or mostly White population in the world.
With all due respect to meninarmer, I just don't see that large a White population deriving from a colony of Albinos.
Unless Whites have lied to us again, and the migration at 50,000 ya WAS the Albinos. With the slanty-eyed Khoisans coming MUCH later.
This scenario WOULD work. Whites have told us that the White race started with just seven breeding pairs. With a head start of thousands of years, Whites would have had a chance to multiply their numbers by the millions in Asia.
Thus when the NORMAL Blacks arrived "much later" they could have been easily absorbed by the Albinos already there. This NEW infusion of genetic material, could also explain why MODERN Whites and Mongols are no longer completely Albino.
What's your thoughts? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
Read a book.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Clyde - Following the scenario above:
I have always wondered why civilization started so late in China (1,500 B.C.), relative to Egypt and the Middle East. And why the Black Jomon and Ainu in Japan never did establish a true civilization.
Could it be that the people who established civilization in China, the Black Xia and Shang, were actually Indus Valley people? The timeframe seems to work.
But explaining the Black Jomon and Ainu in Japan is tougher. They were there since 35,000 B.C. So could it be that they too, were part of the 50,000 ya migration, and they left China to go to Japan before the later arriving Blacks brought civilization? (Maybe they just couldn't stand the Albinos - just kidding).
Any thoughts?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Mike, Negroes developed FROM ancient africans just as everyone else did. Ancient Africans were not modern negroes.
Read a book.
TheAmericanPatriot: Never mind, I will read a book for you. (And in the future, try not to be such an a-hole).
Encyclopedia Britannica
Homo-sapiens:
The Genus and species to which all modern human beings (Homo-sapiens-sapiens), belong and to which are attributable fossil remains of humans in Africa, from 400,000 years ago or more. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other animals and from earlier humanoid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches, high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin, construction and use of tools, and the ability to make use of symbols such as used in language and writing. Some of these features were possessed by the immediate ancestor, Homo erectus; but in the aggregate they are characteristic only of Homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens, “man the wise,” is the only currently existing species of the genus Homo. It is difficult, if not impossible, to follow the evolutionary steps that led to modern man in the fossil record. Charles Darwin himself defined the problem. “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creatures to man as he now exists, he wrote in The Descent of Man, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used.”
One of the things that makes discovery of a point of distinction so difficult, is that Homo-sapien is the product of an evolutionary process called mosaic evolution. Which postulates that humans did not evolve smoothly as a species, but that various populations evolved at different rates, according to environmental and genetic circumstances. And because fossils are the remains of individuals, who may differ even within populations, one fossil alone or even a few do not adequately describe how a population may have evolved.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: TheAmericanPatriot - I wish to take advantage of your sudden lucidity, to investigate the mystery of the races in Ancient Asia from a White point of view.
As I have shown, modern Mongols are a hybrid of White and slanty-eyed Blacks. And of course, these slanty-eyed Blacks didn't jump directly TO China. They were also part of the Indus Valley population also.
As you know, the great remaining mystery of the races is; What are White people, and where did they come from (before they settled in Asia)?
Even though meninarmer has provided creditable proof that Whites are derived from Albinos; I am still not convinced, and here is why.
As you can see from this Qin soldier, as recently as 2,000 years ago, the Mongol race was still identifiably Negroid.
But the other day, I perused through pictures of the 54 minorities of China, and I could not find any group that was still "identifiably Negroid". Rather, I found pictures like this. (Ya I know, who says the pictures were accurate, Chinese lie just like White people do - and we already know they don't want to admit that they were originally Black).
These pictures suggest to me that in perhaps the majority of cases, Black genes have almost totally been overwhelmed by White genes in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea).
This further suggests a VERY large White population in China and East Asia, one much larger than the Black population.
When the White population in West and Central Asia is taken into consideration, (those that moved to Europe, and those that stayed behind), it amounts to a HUGE White, or mostly White population in the world.
With all due respect to meninarmer, I just don't see that large a White population deriving from a colony of Albinos.
Unless Whites have lied to us again, and the migration at 50,000 ya WAS the Albinos. With the slanty-eyed Khoisans coming MUCH later.
This scenario WOULD work. Whites have told us that the White race started with just seven breeding pairs. With a head start of thousands of years, Whites would have had a chance to multiply their numbers by the millions in Asia.
Thus when the NORMAL Blacks arrived "much later" they could have been easily absorbed by the Albinos already there. This NEW infusion of genetic material, could also explain why MODERN Whites and Mongols are no longer completely Albino.
What's your thoughts?
Mike they evolved from aboriginal blacks. There were no "other" people in Asia when the aboriginal blacks got there. So there is no way to pretend that there was a separate migration of white people into Asia separate from the first blacks aboriginal populations. The development of white genes came about long after the settlement of North Asia and therefore such features in Northern Asia are not the result of mixing it is the result of evolution among black aboriginal populations. Only much later did the white Northern Asian Mongols and Chinese become dominant and begin to move South and conquer or assimilate the remaining populations of Asian blacks who have been there all along.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug - I am very sorry, but what you say lacks logic. Why don't you try this. Do as I did, set out your chronology step by step, and provide some bits of evidence to support your scenario. I mean, you can't just say stuff, and that makes it true. Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: please explain how the other people came to look as they do without admixture.
You answered it oyurself, because of the environment and variation.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug - I am very sorry, but what you say lacks logic. Why don't you try this. Do as I did, set out your chronology step by step, and provide some bits of evidence to support your scenario. I mean, you can't just say stuff, and that makes it true.
Actually Mike you are simply trying to support the views of the racialists who believe that humans come in distinct races and that all these races are the basis of the primary "traits" of racial "science". This does not follow logic it follows a racialist paradigm which is not based on science or fact. Therefore you are supporting the racialists not rejecting them and are a fraud in pretending to do otherwise. In fact you follow their methodology including using their "racial" terminology. So how does that make you anything but one of them?
Simply put, if all modern humans originate in Africa then where did whites and asians come from? You have not provided anything to answer the question all you have done is to talk about everyone else's ideas.
You keep trying to make claims like Mongoloids mixed with blacks, but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from? You cannot answer this and you wont answer this because in your mind there were alien featureless white bodies living in Northern Asia who were waiting for the incoming aboriginal blacks of Asia and so that they could create pods and clone their features.
You don't make any sense.
There were no other humans in Asia when the aboriginal blacks got there.
So either blacks were the first people of Asia and eventually evolved white skin in the Northern regions, or there were featureless white body aliens in the North who performed body snatching on the blacks to produce the features of modern Asians.
Which is exactly the kind of logic you believe in.
Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: please explain how the other people came to look as they do without admixture.
You answered it oyurself, because of the environment and variation.
Like what and how?? What environment thing led to a physical adaptation in the Human who experienced it?
Don't bother trying to answer, I was just demonstrating your lack of thought.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Doug Quote: Simply put, if all modern humans originate in Africa then where did whites and asians come from? You have not provided anything to answer the question all you have done is to talk about everyone else's ideas.
You keep trying to make claims like Mongoloids mixed with blacks, but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from? You cannot answer this and you wont answer this because in your mind there were alien featureless white bodies living in Northern Asia who were waiting for the incoming aboriginal blacks of Asia and so that they could create pods and clone their features.
Damn Doug; you're not reading the posts, are you? I guess your tact is to ignore everyone so that they can't change your mind. Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ True, there had to have been a beginning, and that beginning very likely carried much of the major physical deviation (skin color, eye flips, UV sensitivity,...) that we see today.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Like what and how??What environment thing led to a physical adaptation in the Human who experienced it?Don't bother trying to answer, I was just demonstrating your lack of thought.
I will bother to answer,environmental changes like climates,places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from?
They came from Africa.
quote:Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
But human variation do exist.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: but where is your evidence of the first so-called "Mongoloids" and where did they come from?
They came from Africa.
quote:Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear. It has nothing to do with biology and anthropology and is simply a social phenomena based on superficial traits that have no real bearing on the concept of race.
But human variation do exist.
You boys try to work out your silliness, let us know when you're done.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Like what and how??What environment thing led to a physical adaptation in the Human who experienced it?Don't bother trying to answer, I was just demonstrating your lack of thought.
I will bother to answer,environmental changes like climates,places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Teacher to Puerto Rican kid: pr, What environment things are likely to lead to a physical adaptation in the Human being who experiences them?
Puerto Rican kid to Teacher: environmental changes like climates, places and way of living(ie sedentary and nomadic ones)and alimentation.
Teacher to Puerto Rican kid: pr here is your "F" go home, there is no point in hanging around here.
Big hearted me helping the Puerto Rican kid: Dickhead - It's a trick question! The only phenotype trait NOT found in Africa, but is found elsewhere, is PALE SKIN. Talk to meninarmer for a clue on how that might have happened.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race and racism is s social construct, no different than gangs who base their identity on the colored clothing they wear.
Race and racism is a little more than gang colors don't you think, you little simpleton?
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
^ Interesting that Native Africans are highly resistant to speaking on the terrible treatment of African Albinos in the past and present. The ill treatment goes well beyond racism and most of it borders on sheer ignorance and tribal superstition. With historic memories of these various atrocities, a definite ancient hatred and psychotic mindset would certainly become very realistic.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: It's a trick question! The only phenotype trait NOT found in Africa, but is found elsewhere, is PALE SKIN. Talk to meninarmer for a clue on how that might have happened.
Then why are there African Albinos if is not found in Africa?
PS: I don't need your compassion.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
prmiddleeastern - Normally we don't consider sick and diseased people, such as Albinos, as being typical of the population. HEALTHY Africans are NOT pale skinned.
I was only trying to help.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: prmiddleeastern - Normally we don't consider sick and diseased people, such as Albinos, as being typical of the population. HEALTHY Africans are NOT pale skinned.
But you do consider Europeans that, what a contradiction, and they aren't sick and diseased people.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
I make no claim in understanding why White people are otherwise healthy. Egmond Codfried has a thread exploring this very subject (ARE WHITE'S A FIXED ALBINO RACE?), and of course meninarmer has provided a great deal of research and insight.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I make no claim in understanding why White people are otherwise healthy.
They are healthy because they are not sick.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Well as meninarmer’s research has shown, they are not well adapted to the Earths environment, even in the northern latitudes, such as Europe and North America. So if it is true that all humans originate in Africa, and we know that Africans DON’T have pale skin and ARE well adapted to the Earths environment. Then the logical conclusion MUST be, that SOMETHING happened to White people that was of a deleterious nature. So whether you call it disease or loss of ability, you certainly CAN’T call it normal or healthy.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So if it is true that all humans originate in Africa, and we know that Africans DON’T have pale skin and ARE well adapted to the Earths environment. Then the logical conclusion MUST be, that SOMETHING happened to White people that was of a deleterious nature. So whether you call it disease or loss of ability, you certainly CAN’T call it normal or healthy.
I call it variation.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Sorry, simple variation is when there is NO loss. Since White people LOST something, it cannot be called simple variation. Now of course you can still call it variable disease in degree by virtue of melanin levels, or something like that; If you really like the word that much.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
prmiddleeastern – If you really hate the Albino tag so much, why not come up with a competing theory? For instance you could look for examples in nature where creatures have lost their pigmentation. I watch nature programming all the time and there are several creatures which have done this.
Problem is; they were all in deep caves or deep Ocean where there was NO light. And unfortunately, they also lost their eyes. Okay, that was a bad example, but work on it, you might be able to come up with something.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Mike, the trait in Albinism is much more than a decrease in skin pigment. It also involves a severe compromise of DNA repair mechanisms which repair cellular damage due to over exposure to solar radiation.
An example is, in a black or dark person, if they sun burn, their immunization system kicks in and begins repairing any damage done by over absorption of radiation/heat.
In Albinos and whites, this immunization feature is absent or compromised so sun burn damage is not repaired and progresses to skin cancer.
The sign of a compromised closed loop ADAPTIVE feedback system, which the human body comprises, is once the system adjusts to absorb greater amounts of solar radiation for the intent of creating more Vitamin D, the system is aware of the compromise and greater risk of susceptibility to sun burn. Therefore, as melanin density is decreased, immunization sensitivity is increased. Ideally, the boost in immunization promotes faster repair of DNA damage. In Albinos and Europeans, the Adaptive system totally fails, in that melanin densities are decreased while sensitivity to solar radiation impact and immunization is decreased as well. So, Adaptive feedback is not possible resulting in severe sun burn which cannot be repaired which ultimately become, skin cancer.
This condition could very well develop in creatures who have lived generations in caves.
Perhaps, this is the origin of the myth of Vampires who can only come out at night and burst into flames in sunlight.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^I was just trying to give the kid something to hold onto.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: prmiddleeastern – If you really hate the Albino tag so much, why not come up with a competing theory?
I put it on the albino thread.
Posted by blackmanthinking (Member # 17520) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
