I began the thread, “Were the Phoenician-Canaanite Africans the later Moors?” With the Moors settling in Spain also from Mauritania, and mixing with the population there from which comes today’s Spanish people, an interesting question arises: to what extent was Spain African and what is the origination of the Basques? From Wikipedia, we read:
“Recent genetic studies (Stephen Oppenheimer) have confirmed that about 75% of the people of the British Isles have bloodlines that can be traced to inhabitants of the Basque areas of Spain and France based on Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis. The originators of these genes are thought to have traveled up the Atlantic Coast in the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic period.”
Those who became the Basques travelled up the Atlantic Coast. What’s down the Atlantic Coast? Africa. He is indirectly saying that the Basques came from Africa. However, this was an Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic movement. There is enough evidence to show that those sharing the same language with the Basques came from Northern Europe. My web page shows the Upper Paleolithic population in Europe was African [ http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/05-09-05.html ] Is there more direct evidence to show that the population of the Basques, though originally from Africa, as Africans populated Stone Age Spain? The Moors would have been interacting with the Basques: African interacting with African.
What’s your take on the situation?
Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't doubt that there was influence from Africa well before the Moorish invasion of Spain. Seeing how close Spain is to Africa I would almost be willing to bet there was considerable influence.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The originators of these genes are thought to have traveled up the Atlantic Coast in the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic period.”
Yes, traveled up the Atlantic Coast from Vasconia to the British isles....................
Basques are overwhelmingly Eurasian in their genetics. Little African about them except of course being Human and Humans appeared in Africa...............
Upper Paleolithic population in EUROPE was EUROPEAN by default............
Please, stop this....
@Celt: Of course, that's not even an issue, E3b, at least a part of it/certain subclades is a proof of this. As is U6....
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You guys are addressing Marc Washington-- the same guy who claims all ancient Europeans as Africans including the Vikings, as well as ancient Siberians, Chinese, Japanese, and Native Americans including the Olmecs! LOL
As such, there is really no point in even addressing this thread.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Djehuti if there's no point in addressing this thread then why did you even reply? When you saw who the creator of the thread was why did you even click on it?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you are right Djehuti. But I can't believe Marc Washington is for real. He certanly dedicates a fair amount of time to these with his nice, albeit wrong images, but could he be a troll?
He seems quite a peacefull man, despite the way he is usually adressed. Might be a nice person..a shame..=/
Posts: 218 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You guys are addressing Marc Washington-- the same guy who claims all ancient Europeans as Africans including the Vikings, as well as ancient Siberians, Chinese, Japanese, and Native Americans including the Olmecs! LOL
As such, there is really no point in even addressing this thread.
Not agreeing with him totally, but this is one issue I've wondered about myself. I don't see it as being totally without reason.
As far as the Vikings being black...LOLOLOL Of course some of the Vikings probably did take foreign wives back home with them. Some maybe even being black. I wouldn't doubt that in the least.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Well Djehuti if there's no point in addressing this thread then why did you even reply? When you saw who the creator of the thread was why did you even click on it?
Simply because I noticed his thread getting many replies and I wanted to let the respondants know.
quote: He wasn't being malicious anyway. He just asked a simple question.
I never said he was being malicious, but he is as usual a slight nuisance.
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: Yes, you are right Djehuti. But I can't believe Marc Washington is for real. He certanly dedicates a fair amount of time to these with his nice, albeit wrong images, but could he be a troll?
He seems quite a peacefull man, despite the way he is usually adressed. Might be a nice person..a shame..=/
You are correct, Miguel. The man does seem a little obsessed with the dissemination of his nonsense. It is very sad. His photoshop skills are also impecable I might add, and it is a waste that he doesn't use them for displaying accurate information.
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Not agreeing with him totally, but this is one issue I've wondered about myself. I don't see it as being totally without reason.
His premise of African genetic influence in pre-Moorish Spain is in fact correct. We have evidence of paternal haplogroups like E2 being present in Spain that date to the Neolithic-- long before the Moorish invasion of course. But such lineages are not associated with the Basque people in particular who carry predominantly European lineages.
quote:As far as the Vikings being black...LOLOLOL Of course some of the Vikings probably did take foreign wives back home with them. Some maybe even being black. I wouldn't doubt that in the least.
Actually, genetic evidence shows Scandinavians (modern ones at least) to carry minute frequencies of E3b paternal lineages, suggesting male genetic influence.
But getting back to the main topic at hand, the Basque show predominantly U8a mitochondrial/maternal lineages and R1b1 Y/paternal lineages-- both lineages are associated with paleolithic and so therefore indigenous (white) Europeans.
So, this should be the end of it right here.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Well Djehuti if there's no point in addressing this thread then why did you even reply? When you saw who the creator of the thread was why did you even click on it?
He clicked in because he is Marc's personal troll.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Miguel Antunes: You wondered if Basques were African, Celt??
No. What I meant was that I've wondered how much Africa has been an influence on Spain over the thousands of years. Sorry for the confusion.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti. In your state of denial about Africa, you are cut of the same cloth as your predecessors for thousands of years who have intentionally falsified African accomplishments and claimed them for their own. The column on the right shows your bloodline:
As I asked you before, as you originally came from the Steppes, you, the Africa expert, tell us a little about your own history: what life was like for your ancestors on the Steppes before encountering Africans. You are from the Steppes. Who were your gods? What was your dress? What did you create 5000 years back?
Keeping it related to the subject-matter of EF, why did your ancestors seek out black settlements, cities, nation-states and come and stay as was done in Egypt? Your ancestor created the Apian Way using slaves (Africans); captured thousands of African patriots fighting to protect their lands from invasion and crucified them. Romans-to-be from the Steppes, people with smug, condescending attitudes like you, came and stole a land and culture and committed genocide on it's original people. Why? And why the chest-bursting pride about it? How did coming into black lands change the quality of life for your ancestors? Tell us a little about yourself for a change - related to the subject matter of EF. I am listening.
And to the others at EF. With whites lying and falsifying history as they have, you should question the motives and character of a person like Dj. It is not forthright and clean.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Djehuti. In your state of denial about Africa, you are cut of the same cloth as your predecessors for thousands of years who have intentionally falsified African accomplishments and claimed them for their own.
If you think that of Djehuti, you obviously have not seen this thread by him:
Doesn't sound like the type of guy who'd falsify African accomplishments.
Matter of fact, it's you who's trying to steal other cultures' accomplishments.
quote:As I asked you before, as you originally came from the Steppes, you, the Africa expert, tell us a little about your own history: what life was like for your ancestors on the Steppes before encountering Africans. You are from the Steppes.
Actually, Djehuti's ancestry comes from the Phillipines. The wild regions of those islands are tropical jungles, not steppes like northern Eurasia.
quote:Keeping it related to the subject-matter of EF, why did your ancestors seek out black settlements, cities, nation-states and come and stay as was done in Egypt? Your ancestor created the Apian Way using slaves (Africans); captured thousands of African patriots fighting to protect their lands from invasion and crucified them. Romans-to-be from the Steppes, people with smug, condescending attitudes like you, came and stole a land and culture and committed genocide on it's original people. Why? And why the chest-bursting pride about it? How did coming into black lands change the quality of life for your ancestors?
Where is your evidence that Filipinos were involved in oppressing black Africans that long ago? They probably never even seen an African back then.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now filipinos have also killed or displaced blacks?
Hey Marc Washington, so far you've covered almost all the world where blacks have been pushed away by practically everyone. Now can you tell us why it was such an easy task for the celt, basques, vikings, greeks, romans, chinese, japanese, dravidians, iraqis, lapplandish, filipinos, iranians, kurds, macedonians, anglos, assyrians, phoeinecians etc etc to subjugate and kill all of these blacks from their homeland? Wouldnt logic tell us that all these societes founded by blacks on all corners of the world have quite an easy time repulsing these attacks? how could all fail so tremendeously and become completely displaced or exterminated by these hordes from the steppes who were less advanced? Now answer these questions, or were they all like ghandi or maybe these flower power people who preached love and denounced violence, were they all coincidently pacifists?
Instead of constantly just posting images why not try for once describing the stories of these images and the faith of those people depicted in more detail. That will be more interesting i think.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, the aboriginal black peoples of the Philippines dubbed 'Negritos' are still there. While they have been displaced in certain areas, and are lacking somewhat in status compared to ethnic Filipinos they are fareing much better than other aboriginal groups like those of Australia.
And no Marc, I am NOT a white person.
Now to get back to the issue at hand...
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Djehuti. In your state of denial about Africa, you are cut of the same cloth as your predecessors for thousands of years who have intentionally falsified African accomplishments and claimed them for their own.
Incorrect. It is YOU who is in a state of denial when YOU make the same mistake as white Eurocentrics in falsifying African history in the opposite way-- glorifying it via false rhetoric and information.
Your whole premise of 'races' in itself is false as has been discussed here!
Now, as I have shown, the Basque people are by and large descended from the Paleolithic i.e. indigenous (white) Europeans. Genetics shows this and even YOUR silly picture spamm unwittingly shows this with Grimaldi and Aurignacian remains being representative of these Paleolithic Europeans.
And to Clyde, I am not a "troll" since all I do is merely refute Marc's silly claims with facts. Don't get mad because I call your simple follower out! Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Why else are there so few Aeta, Ati, Batak, and Mamanwa (none of whom are negritos since they do have names for themselves more important to themselves than their oppressors obsession with their colour) and why aren't they represented throughout the full range of the Phillipine social order?
Let's not fool ourselves. Blacks have been catching hell everywhere around the globe from non-blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: So now filipinos have also killed or displaced blacks?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes. Why else are there so few Aeta, Ati, Batak, and Mamanwa (none of whom are negritos since they do have names for themselves more important to themselves than their oppressors obsession with their colour) and why aren't they represented throughout the full range of the Phillipine social order?
Let's not fool ourselves. Blacks have been catching hell everywhere around the globe from non-blacks.
You are right, Takruri. I never said the Negritos never faced any problems or discrimination from ethnic Filipinos, but they definitely did not suffer any 'genocide' as some like Marc would like to believe.
Actually, there is evidence of much cultural interaction between Filipinos and the 'Negrito' groups. In fact, some argue Filipinos have adopted certain cultural things from Negritos which is not surprising since they were original people.
From my personal experience in the Philippines, Negritos are stereotyped as being "backwards" and "primitive". Even modern Filipinos have positive views and are more welcoming of African or African American visitors than Negritos. I do see Negritos in the Filippine media, but they are usually used in comedies or for comedic purposes, which is sad. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You are right. I actually thought of that, but I do not know the exact term for the so-called "mongoloid" non-'Negrito' Filipinos.
The Ainu were also aboriginal Japanese, but we hear all the time how the non-Ainu so-called "mongoloid" Japanese are the 'ethnic Japanese' while the Ainu are not.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Well Djehuti if there's no point in addressing this thread then why did you even reply? When you saw who the creator of the thread was why did you even click on it?
He clicked in because he is Marc's personal troll.
I thought he's your personal troll. [???]
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now, as I have shown, the Basque people are by and large descended from the Paleolithic i.e. indigenous (white) Europeans. Genetics shows this and even YOUR silly picture spamm unwittingly shows this with Grimaldi and Aurignacian remains being representative of these Paleolithic Europeans.
Did I hear someone say indigenous white population of paleolithic Europe. Could you be more specific with the time frame?
Recall that there were no white population anywhere in the world prior to 5,000 years ago. So what period of paleolithic Europe did this your mythical white people come into existence???
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Recall that there were no white population anywhere in the world prior to 5,000 years ago. So what period of paleolithic Europe did this your mythical white people come into existence???
Although the mutation for fair skin is indeed relatively recent, it is not THAT recent.
At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Recall that there were no white population anywhere in the world prior to 5,000 years ago. So what period of paleolithic Europe did this your mythical white people come into existence???
At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.
The date here is 6,000 years as your article argues. Granted. 6KYA is a long long time from 45,000 to 15,000 years ago when the auriginicians and the grimaldi cultures from Africa dominated Europe.
They may have been European in the sense that they were born on the European continent. But they were Black Africans in phenotype and genotype because there were no white/pale skin group at that time.
So what the heck is that bwoy Jehute talking about?
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why are you distorting (lying about) the article, LordofDenial?
The article clearly stated 6,000-12,000 years ago. All of this was presented before.
And no, I never said that the first Europeans were white, but only that they are the direct ancestors of whites. There is fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence that support this, however according to your partner, Marc as well as your false preacher, Clyde, whites entered Europe only recently "from the steppes" during the "middle ages"!
So enough with the nonsense!
The identity and history of the Basques has already been assessed. There is nothing else relevant about this thread.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: "...however according to your partner, Marc as well as your false preacher, Clyde, whites entered Europe only recently "from the steppes" during the "middle ages"!"
Yes, I believe this is very close to precisely correct as it provides a much more realistic base for building an accurate history of European Whites; rather than stealing by fabricating history via computer generated images, flawed genetic theories (CHM) and high gloss multi-million dollar Hollywood movie productions (dressing so-called Spartans with in costumes criminally different from alleged historical references), Atlantis (another White name for Blacks/Ancient Kemet), Mars theories...etc
[****warning: black people talk & swagga below****]
Don't be mad cuz people (who just happen to be Black) be kicking dem commonsense thoughts. Mad cuz dem not sleepin' no mo. Mad cause dem checking up on your ****. Like I say and da great Biggie Small said; you mad cuz my intellectual style you admiring, don't be mad UPS iz hiring. Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And no, I never said that the first Europeans were white, but only that they are the direct ancestors of whites. [/QB]
Originally posted by Djehuti: "Now, as I have shown, the Basque people are by and large descended from the Paleolithic i.e. indigenous (white) Europeans."
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Djehuti writes] "...however according to your partner, Marc as well as your false preacher, Clyde, whites entered Europe only recently "from the steppes" during the "middle ages"!"
[Marc writes] I can't let this pass. Get it right, Dj. The final transformation of Europe from an African land to white was marked by the outset of the Dark Ages. The same thing happened in Greece. When your people came in and destroyed the temples and social capital of the African phase of Greece with the entry of the Doric people, Greece entered into a Dark Age that lasted a full 1000 years.
More of the Dark Ages: When your people entered Spain, the African presence there for a recorded 40,000 years went up in smoke and the same in Etrusca and throughout Central Europe. When your people entered Egypt during Greco-Roman times and bled the great land into abject impoverishment, Egypt's 4000 year history of flourish and creativity ended abruptly as a water spigot turned-off. When your people (and I personally don't believe this crap about you being Philippine. You white and use Philippine as a cover) entered India, Mohenjo Daro, and other alluring, majestic kingdoms, they became defunct. I have not had the opportunity to show the extent to which Africans covered the United States and North America, but they did once. And when your people came with their disease and guns, their population plummeted and their civilization was consigned to its sarcophagus. In New Zealand, Australia, in the Pacific, we could go on and on, when your ancestors entered, disease and the serene quality of life enjoyed ended. Goodness. I could go on for another five minutes listing the utter death and destruction that is the ominous shadow of your historic approach to some land that is others that falls into your grasp. The smug, obnoxious attitude which you so well embody is the mark of your people who committed genocide on Africans wherever they were found. One word typfies your presence on the planet: death.
Dj. Why, thank you There is one thing that delights me about you, though, Dj. And that is that you can speak English. My. You and your ancestors learned our language well. Keep in mind that the Anatolia 99% of the IndoEuropean language-spread maps we see start from Anatolia as if it were an origin. Yet, it was not an origin but destination. You came from the Steppes and in Anatolia, learned another language of African peoples that, crooks that you are, you claim for yourselves. Dj, my own little Africa expert (and for someone who lambastes others for being evasive and not answering questions, you still have not answered mine about your roots and the state of your people in the Russian Steppes 5000 years ago before they encountered Africans. Naughty, naughty you!! Bad boy!!) Anyhow, study this page.
Tell me please (forget about it. Don't tell me) how a language learned from Africans in Anatolia could be called IndoEuropean when it has nothing to do with Indian and European (Europe was also a destination, not birth place) originations.
You are articulate. You argue against us with the language your ancestors learned from us. This is why I burst with pride to see you write and speak. We taught you language skills well. And for this, why, I am proud.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ignoring the nonsense above, and only addressing Lord as his mind seems to have somewhat more promise of sense.
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Originally posted by Djehuti: "Now, as I have shown, the Basque people are by and large descended from the Paleolithic i.e. indigenous (white) Europeans."
Correct. What I meant was that indigenous/white Europeans are descended from the Paleolithic. Your point? White people did not displace any blacks. White people evolved 'white' or rather pale skin complexions in situ Europe!
My point is as usual that Marc's claims are utter nonsense. I expect from the new moderator to follow Yonis's suggestions and close his threads down, including this one.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marc Washington: There is one thing that delights me about you, though, Dj. And that is that you can speak English. My. You and your ancestors learned our language well.
posted
^ So English is an African language now? ROTFLMAO
Will wonders ever cease!
By the way, why are you still talking as if I or my ancestors are white? I am ASIAN! But then again according to you Asian languages and cultures are African also, aren't they? LOL
Marc, you are in desperate need of psychological help.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing of all is, that this is not a confused teenager but a grown "mature" man believing in such things. I seriously have no words.
Why isn't he banned, he's making a fool out of this forum which otherwise has quite intelligent posters? I feel disgust every time i read his posts, it only conveys message of extreme inferiority complex nothing more.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Why isn't he banned, he's making a fool out of this forum which otherwise has quite intelligent posters?
Posters like you I suppose? In my opinion you don't sound very intelligent.
quote:I feel disgust every time i read his posts, it only conveys message of extreme inferiority complex nothing more.
Because you are such a self hating negro shepard, any historical account that validates your roots would ofcourse sound repulsive to your non-intelligence.
Go swallow some Paxil and chill.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lord of the nile: Because you are such a self hating negro shepard
Self hating negro?? sorry my friend i have my own identity i dont consider myself a "negro" thus i can't be a "self hating negro", but if that's what you call yourself and your friends then thumbs up to you i guess.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yonis, you know very well we are dealing with minds that have apparently been damaged by racism.
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: What time did this evolution start and when did the pale skin become predominant in Europe according to your analytical frame?
The Lord
Those questions were answered here. 'White' skin evolved as a response to low UV climate in Ice Age Europe.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: What time did this evolution start and when did the pale skin become predominant in Europe according to your analytical frame?
The Lord
Those questions were answered here. 'White' skin evolved as a response to low UV climate in Ice Age Europe.
Jehute
Please answer a simple query. You are quick to shoot off your young mouth but quick to retreat when challenged. Because empty vessels make the most noise.
The Lord
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests Ann Gibbons
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA–At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.
Science 20 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364 DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
This research conducted by Europeans descendants seeking the roots of their origin supports the view that the first pale-skin European was born 6,000 years ago. In 2005, researchers linked the paleness of the modern European skin to a mutation in gene SLC 24A5. Its implication is immense if fully comprehended. The “whites” or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Haak et al (2006)
1.5 million years ago when human beings first began to evolve in Africa, they had Black skin. 100,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, they gave rise to the Black man and woman.
They lived in Africa as Black people, some of these people left Africa, 50,000 years ago as Black people, entered Europe as Black people, and they settled and lived in Europe as Black people until 6,000 years ago when the mutation that gave rise to the pale-skin arose.
Rogers posits that all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today’s Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
Nina Jablonski claims that dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted as argued by Rogers that the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans’ skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).
However the surprise is that this mutation only occurred after more than 45,000 years in which only Black-skinned African people lived in Europe as its original human aboriginals. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was only in the last 6,000 years that the pale-skin (aka whiteman) first appeared.
The mutation gene must have spread gradually (as often occurs with new mutation) from that time but it surely would have taken another two or three thousand years down the line before it would become the dominant European profile. That makes it just three thousand years ago.
It was only three thousand years ago that whiteman became the dominant type in an African-owned Europe! Before that it was Black-skinned African. For more than 48,000 years Black-skinned Africans would have been the only Europeans!!! Europe was discovered and mapped by Black skin Africans. Europe of yesterday, today and tomorrow will ever remain Africa’s heritage.
posted
^ LOL I never retreat, let alone from cowards like YOU! Because only cowards distort facts or findings; which is what you are doing. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Young whelp...you are becoming insolent. Yet, I forgive your impetuosity. Because you are surely on the path of auto-destruction. Thus, I will leave you to wallow and die in the cess pit of your pitiful ignorance.
Fools die from want of wisdom.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Black skin was the original human condition, but for some of those populations that moved out of Africa, black skin became a disadvantage in living in higher latitudes with less sunlight. Europeans are a special case in which they became especially adapted to glacial climes with very little sunlight and so developed major depigmentation. [in Europe]" (Nina Jablonsky)
All of this was discussed before, and most recently here. The latter thread, you were humiliated for the buffoon you are, so was your comrade Marc, and your leader, Clyde.
Don't make me humiliate you again. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What I meant was that indigenous/white Europeans are descended from the Paleolithic. ... White people evolved 'white' or rather pale skin complexions in situ Europe!
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Djehuti: And no, I never said that the first Europeans were white, but only that they are the direct ancestors of whites. [/QB] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Djehuti: "Now, as I have shown, the Basque people are by and large descended from the Paleolithic i.e. indigenous (white) Europeans."
Comments: Completely confused! Either he is mad, an illiterate or a disingenious liar.
Jehute
Yet...this conversation has outed your depressing vacuity. Now that we engage logical analysis you are in full flight, tail between legs like a jackal, howling in fear and spewing your venomous angst.
Yet, fools will forever die from want of wisdom.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Read this and fill your empty world with knowledge. This shows you precisely when the pale skin was first noticed in Europe...between 12-6KYA. Now that is way outside your 40KYA period.
A high-school drop out from some beacon school district in Georgia could even do better than your emotionalism when your lower intelligence is indicted or exposed...
The Lord
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING:
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Ann Gibbons
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA–At the American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting, held here from 28 to 31 March, a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggested that Europeans acquired pale skin quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago.
Science 20 April 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364 DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
This research conducted by Europeans descendants seeking the roots of their origin supports the view that the first pale-skin European was born 6,000 years ago. In 2005, researchers linked the paleness of the modern European skin to a mutation in gene SLC 24A5. Its implication is immense if fully comprehended. The “whites” or Caucasians are not native to Europe as noted by Sokal. Haak et al (2006)
1.5 million years ago when human beings first began to evolve in Africa, they had Black skin. 100,000 years ago when anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, they gave rise to the Black man and woman.
They lived in Africa as Black people, some of these people left Africa, 50,000 years ago as Black people, entered Europe as Black people, and they settled and lived in Europe as Black people until 6,000 years ago when the mutation that gave rise to the pale-skin arose.
Rogers posits that all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today’s Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
Nina Jablonski claims that dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted as argued by Rogers that the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans’ skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).
However the surprise is that this mutation only occurred after more than 45,000 years in which only Black-skinned African people lived in Europe as its original human aboriginals. It cannot be over-emphasized that it was only in the last 6,000 years that the pale-skin (aka whiteman) first appeared.
The mutation gene must have spread gradually (as often occurs with new mutation) from that time but it surely would have taken another two or three thousand years down the line before it would become the dominant European profile. That makes it just three thousand years ago.
It was only three thousand years ago that whiteman became the dominant type in an African-owned Europe! Before that it was Black-skinned African. For more than 48,000 years Black-skinned Africans would have been the only Europeans!!! Europe was discovered and mapped by Black skin Africans. Europe of yesterday, today and tomorrow will ever remain Africa’s heritage.
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Jehute
Read this and fill your empty world with knowledge. This shows you precisely when the pale skin was first noticed in Europe...between 12-6KYA. Now that is way outside your 40KYA period.
LOL I don't need to read it. I've read it a long time ago, and I understand it. I never said Europeans were white 40KYA. 40KYA was when Europe was first settled! It were these people who were the ancestors of modern whites! This runs counter to your (and Marcs, and your cult leader, Clyde's) claims that white people entered Europe recently from elsewhere, "the steppes" I believe is what you claimed!
LOL So what you are doing now is merely creating a huge strawman to distract everyone from your blatant folly. I have some news for you 'LordofDenial', it's not working!!
quote:A high-school drop out from some beacon school district in Georgia could even do better than your emotionalism when your lower intelligence is indicted or exposed...
If I was a highschool drop-out I wouldn't be in college right now you moron. LOL
Now go run away and lick your wounds only to resurface again when you muster up your false courage rooted in false precepts. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question for you. How could the first Europeans be African if they arrived in Europe tens of thousands of years after they left Africa? Also, if you consider them to be "Africans" then why not their modern white descendants?
Any valid answers, or more hot air from broken Lordoflies?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Black Africans who settled Europe thousands of years ago and founded all the present elements of culture therein did not break their cultural nor genetic continuity from the continent as a result of having settled Europe.
The Greek myths narrate of ceaseless cultural exchange between the mainland Africans and the European-African Diaspora in those ancient times. Note that Greek myths and modern genetics are the main protagonists of this truth and not the Lord, nor Marc, nor Clyde.
Spanish farmers are wont to say that the borders between Africa and Spainish-Europe starts at the Pyreenes. See Encyclopedia Britannica. Note that Spanish farmers hold this axiom and not the Lord, nor Marc, nor Clyde.
It was Herodotus and not the three wise men who stated that Colchians of Southern Georgia near Russia were Blacks with curly hair and dark skin. See Herodotus History Book 2.
Ancient European artifacts testify to the fact that African Blacks used to live extensively in Rome, in Greece and in western Europe. See Snowden.
Irish legends tell of the Black African Formorians the original inhabitants of Ireland, whom the archeologists describe as being of Ibero-maurisian culture. Maurisian references moor, mauris the Africans!
In this time reference I have outlined, your ancestors from the Steepes were yet asleep. They had not stirred and the dark ages had not descended.
Making a great leap forward, the Moors of Europe are African Europeans. The word Moor means black (its root being mauris - latin for black) and is synonymous with the word African. To say that there are Moorish Spains is to assert that there is African Spain.
There were Moors in Italy, Sicily and England and Scotland.
The Moors just did not arrive in Europe with the muslim conquest. They were there even when Hannibal the great African general was ruling Spain and the present day Switzerland.
There are yet more tales I could narrate to your young mind but I do not have the time nor the inclination presently. But just know this Rastafari axiom: "Half the story has not been told."
The African Black man is the original man of Europe. Get this firmly in your head.
Be humble when you seek understanding, boy. And, maybe you will get it one day.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Historical rubbish aside. How can the modern humans who first settled Europe be called Africans if they have been living outside of Africa for tens of thousands of yesrs? Do you consider their descendants (whites) to be Africans? What about other Eurasians like Chinese and Koreans? Do you consider these folks to be African? What about Native Americans?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Historical rubbish aside. How can the modern humans who first settled Europe be called Africans if they have been living outside of Africa for tens of thousands of yesrs? Do you consider their descendants (whites) to be Africans? What about other Eurasians like Chinese and Koreans? Do you consider these folks to be African? What about Native Americans?
Besides your childish blusters, can you answer this simple query: When was the word Europe first used to designate the entirety of the present portion of land now called "Europe"?
You are trapped in semantic confusion. Conflating reality with conventions of men.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Marc, you are in desperate need of psychological help.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic