quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: and as seen from the above post by Markellion makes no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
But one thing guys: if the Chimps show up complaining about "aren't we all Great Apes" and then the macaque's show up complaining about "aren't we all Primates". YOU deal with them!
posted
markellion – Hey man, great posts, and thank you, they make my point beautifully; Brada-Anansi and JayDot_Ptah, you guys might want to pay close attention.
Charles Darwin The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
I don’t want to put words in the mans mouth, but I would swear that the man was saying that that those “non-Whites” were Human or at least “Almost Human”, that is one generous White man.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
There is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro.
That’s a tricky passage above; but I think that he is saying that the Negro has the capacity to be “Smart”. Once again, that is one generous White man.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach
Such a countenance—even in the nose and the somewhat thick lips— was so far from being surprising, that if one could have set aside the disagreeable skin, the same features with a white skin must have universally pleased.
Oh oh, here we find the problem; Yes the Negro may be Human or at least “Almost Human”, and yes the Negro might even have the capacity to be “Smart”. But that skin color is a non-starter.
Damn – And I was beginning to feel so hopeful!
He he, you know, I was trying to think of a good analogy for the stuff above: And the best that I could come up with, was some “Aunt Jermima” type in the American South exclaiming: Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, our Albino outcasts done gone away, and made something of themselves, and now they have come back to bring us up to their level!
Are you guy’s serious?? Do you remember my statement above: Quote – “actually I am more interested in providing Sunlight”. What that means is that I am about revealing the TRUTH! The truth is that the White man is a defective Negro. The truth is that the White man came from nothing, and has merely built upon that which the Black man had created.
The truth is that the White man has very little Phenotypic and genetic Variety – BECAUSE HE IS A “SUB-SPECIES”. The truth is that the Black man – as the ORIGINAL HUMAN – has a great deal of Phenotypic and genetic Variety – Therefore they ARE different. That is not my made-up bullsh1t opinion, it is truth, it is measurable fact!
BTW - The White man is well aware of his state of "DEFECTIVENESS" thus he comes up with a myriad of theories to explain how his defectiveness is actually an advantage, and an indication of advancement - only fools pay attention to it though.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have since that had the opportunity of making, and who have equally convinced me of the truth of what so many unsuspected witnesses have assured me about the good disposition and faculties of these our black brethren; namely, that in those respects as well as in natural tenderness of heart*, they can scarcely be considered inferior to any other race of mankind taken altogether*. I say quite deliberately, taken altogether, and natural tenderness of heart, which has never been benumbed or extirpated on board the transport vessels or on the West India sugar plantations by the brutality of their white executioners. For these last must be nearly as much without head as without heart, if after such treatment they still expect to find true attachment and love from these poor mismanaged slaves.
3rd Footnote on same page 307
quote:* Listen to one guarantee for all, our own incomparable Niabuhr: "The principal characteristic of the negro is, especially when he is reasonably treated, honesty towards his masters and benefactors. Mohammedan merchants in Cairo, Jeddah, Surat, and other cities, are glad to buy boys of this kind; they have them taught writing and arithmetic, carry on their extensive business almost entirely through negro slaves, and send them to establish business places in foreign countries. I asked one of these merchants, How he could trust a slave with whole cargoes of goods! and was told in reply, 'My negro is true to me; but if I were to conduct my business entirely by white men, I should have to take care that they did not run off with my property.' "
posted
Above, I made the rather strong - and some might say "Racist" statement that: The truth is that the White man has very little Phenotypic and genetic Variety – BECAUSE HE IS A “SUB-SPECIES”. The truth is that the Black man – as the ORIGINAL HUMAN – has a great deal of Phenotypic and genetic Variety. The truth is that the White man is a defective Negro.
So fearing being unfairly branded a Racist; I think it best to justify by statement - If I can prove what I say, then I can't be a Racist, rather I am a truth teller.
So lets look at what makes the prototypical Caucasian AND/OR Mongol.
Narrow pointy Nose, Straight Hair, Blonde/Red hair (dark hair is common to all), Blue eyes, Eye lids with fold (mongol). I think that about covers it all, so lets begin.
Narrow pointy Nose
Straight Hair
Blonde Hair
Red hair
{Ya, malcolm X was a natural redhead.}
Eye lids with fold (mongol)
So far, I have demonstrated that Black people possess all of the traits commonly thought to be unique to the sub-species, Caucasians and Mongols. The only things missing from the list above, are Pale Skin and Blue eyes.
posted
Variations of human skin tones facials features and hair textures does not a species make. and you proved my point with your above post Mike...because right there in mother Africa, you have phenotype seen all over the globe and their looks depends on their environment and will change when moved to a different environment or adopt new dietry pratices. eg formally short statured people become taller by adding more protein.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geez Brada-Anansi - That's kind of a lame statement. Where do you think that they all came from??
Well if you don't know, I will tell you. (Excluding interAfrica migrations)
The Human race, in the person of Black people, evolved in Southern Africa. From there, they migrated to south Asia and Australia. From Australia and the Pacific Islands, Blacks settled the Americas.
Later another group migrated to North Asia, this group had elements that would become Caucasians in central Asia, and Mongols in East Asia.
Still another group entered Europe through Gibraltar at about 45,000 B.C.
From Asia, the Whites migrated to Europe and India, North Africa and the Middle-east, and then the Americas - displacing Blacks as they moved.
From East Asia, The Mongols migrated to Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia, The Americas, and many Pacific Islands - displacing Blacks as they moved (not sure if that was true in Korea, but it probably was).
From those migrations and subsequent cross-breeding, all of mankind is accounted for - where is the mystery??
BTW - so you think that environment changes phenotype eh. And you think that if Pygmy's ate more meat, then they wouldn't be Pygmy's anymore, is that it?
He he, then answer me this question, Blacks were in Europe for about 45,000 years, the skeletons say that they NEVER did change. Now I know that you are a disciple of DJ, but face it, he is full of sh1t. The EVIDENCE clearly shows that those Black people REMAINED Black.
So Brada-Anansi - If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to find a way to prove your rather odd pronouncements - just your saying it, doesn't make it true you know.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike the above post did not change anything I said I know about population movements...the facts still remains that the people who under went some physical changes some where out in the steppes or before an ice box in northern-Eurasia that was a mile deep.. does not change the facts that they are not a different race/species and that those who remain in milder climes were unrelated to them.
And yes change of diet more protien and carbs plus location. why do us "moderns" tend to be taller than our ancestors.
About the Twa:
The question is controversial. Traditional explanations attribute pygmies' small stature to minimizing caloric requirements and walking in dense forests. However, a new study by researchers at the University of Cambridge suggests that there are some problems with this explanation, and offers an alternative hypothesis.
Human pygmy populations are defined by an average male height of less than 5 feet (155 cm). By this definition, a wide range of pygmy societies exist today in parts of Africa, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, and Bolivia – different environments that don’t match the traditional hypotheses for small body size.
Besides the differences within pygmy populations, there are also some non-pygmy populations that face some of the same physical challenges as pygmies but haven’t evolved a short stature. For example, many human populations live in dense forests and experience regular food shortages, and yet these populations have larger body sizes.
Now, scientists Andrea Migliano, Lucio Vinicius, and Marta Lahr have performed a study on two pygmy groups from the Philippines, the Aeta and the Batak, and concluded that there may be a better explanation for pygmies’ short stature. Their study is published in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers point out that one characteristic unique to but common among many pygmy populations is their short lifespan compared to other humans. With this in mind, the researchers suggest that pygmies represent the “fast” extreme of life history strategies, with short stature being a side effect.
“We first thought that we would find a relationship between small body size and increased fitness in pygmies – for example, that the shorter pygmies would have more advantages, such as higher fertility, than the taller ones,” Migliano told PhysOrg.com. “However, the smaller pygmies had lower fertility than the taller pygmies. So this gave us the idea that perhaps there was no advantage in being short among pygmies.
“Then, when I went to the field, and started to interview them, I noticed the very high mortality rates – really high compared to any other population,” she said. “So when we checked that different pygmy groups followed the same pattern, we thought that these facts should be linked. Also, life history theory has been used for a long time to understand body size diversity among mammals, and we thought it should also apply to the understanding of human diversity.
Because of their short life expectancies, the researchers speculate that pygmies have had to shift their reproductive years forward. The average life expectancy at birth for different pygmy populations ranges from just 16 years to 24 years. Very few pygmy women reach the end of their reproductive period, as only a small percentage survive past age 40.
In order to compensate for the lack of older reproductive women, natural selection has shifted the reproductive period forward. The fertility peak of age at first reproduction in the Aeta is around 15 years old, which reduces generation time and compensates for their short lifespan.
In order to make this fertility shift, pygmies must reach full maturity faster than longer-lived human populations. For this reason, many pygmies stop growing at about age 12, several years earlier than other humans. Their childhood growth rate isn’t any more or less rapid than the growth rate of other (traditional) humans; pygmy youth are roughly the same size as non-pygmy youth. (This is the opposite of what is observed in cases of nutritionally induced stunting, where humans delay growth but achieve adult body size later). Instead of experiencing the “teenage growth spurt,” pygmies’ growth is simply truncated.
Migliano also explained why pygmies’ growth rates don’t increase in the early years to compensate for their truncated growth at an early age.
“I think that, besides the high mortality, they have very low calorie intake, so it is a combination of the two factors that lead to the different phenotypes,” she said. “The pygmies grow in the same rates as the Turkana [eastern African Pastoralists], who also suffer from poor nutrition – but because the Turkana have longer life expectancy, they have time to grow for longer and achieve larger body size. I would expect that a population with high mortality and high resources would grow fast and taller.” In other words, human height in general is partially influenced by lifespan.
Still, the life history hypothesis leaves a few unanswered questions. For one, what originally caused the extremely high mortality rates among pygmies? The researchers suspect that the traditional hypotheses of environment, nutrition, thermoregulation, and other challenges may jointly or partially contribute to the high mortality rates observed in a wide variety of pygmy populations. In that case, the traditional explanations may be indirect causes of pygmies’ short stature, although the chain of effects would be much more complex than originally thought.
More information: Migliano, Andrea Bamberg, Vinicius, Lucio, and Lahr, Marta Mirazon. “Life history trade-offs explain the evolution of human pygmies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. December 18, 2007. vol. 104, no. 51, 20216-20219.
Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - Are you sure that you are not related to DJ? He used to post the same type of studies about why White people were White. BTW - hypotheses are just guessing games.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
why White people are white why some Black people have wirey- straight hair,and some has tightly curl hair.why are some Asians flat nosed and some has straight noses,why black Australians have a lot of blonds.and their equally Black kinsmen Back on the Asian main land seems to lack that feature...as far as I can tell having been to both areas myself. WHY??
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - You bring up a very interesting question when it comes to the Mongols. I touched on it in a previous post above;
Quote: But somehow two sub-races evolved in Asia; the Caucasian and the Mongol. The Caucasian in his pure state is White, and may have evolved from Albinos. The Mongol runs the gambit from dark brown to White.
Since the basic Human is Black/Brown, then logically the Mongol MUST have originally been a oriental looking Black (like many San - who just happen to inhabit the territory that those expatriate Africans left from thousands of years ago). Who cross-bred with his next door neighbor in Central Asia, the Caucasian.
But of course it is much more complicated then that. But unfortunately, the Mongols want to distance themselves from Africa, therefore there is no ongoing research to explain the Mongols obvious bridge between Blacks and Caucasians. One could jokingly call Mongols, the Super Mutts, because they carry attributes of Blacks and Caucasians.
As I indicated above, to me it is obvious that the original Mongol was a Black man. I say that with a great deal of certainty, because the "Oldest Images" of the ORIGINAL Mongols that we have, show them to be Negroid with Black skin. (That they were painted Black, can be seen on some of the Qin soldiers before the paint was stripped off). On a more positive note: the Chinese government has promised to stop stripping them in subsequent excavations, and try to restore the original paint. He he, sound familiar? Ya, it's the same thing, except it was noses, that Europeans were doing with Black statues.
Except for the hair, do you see much difference between these two? (San girl).
But the really interesting thing here, is that admixture between White and Mongol, seems to be a RECENT thing, WHY???
We know that they BOTH got to north Asia by at least 45,000 - 50,000 ya. Yet as recently as 250 B.C. the Qin were still certifiably Negroid. So how does it happen that in almost 50,000 years, there was no crossbreeding, and then in only 2,000 years, there was almost TOTAL crossbreeding - Why?
One possible answer to that, may be an error in our original hypotheses. (I wish Clyde was still posting, so I could run this by him).
I always assumed that the Xia of the Longshan culture were "normal" looking Blacks, as were the later Shang of the Yangshao culture. The artifacts seemed to bear that out - sort of.
Official Chinese history says that these two kingdoms enslaved the Chinese people - I always assumed that to mean, types like the Mongols that we see today. But the Qin soldiers say that is not the case, as they were Black also. Therefore ALL of the people in Eastern Asia must have looked the same - they were Black people, the Xia/Shang overlords and the Slaves.
That hypotheses makes perfect sense, when taken with another error in thinking. It was assumed that the nomadic Zhou tribe from the West, who conquered the Shang in about 1050 B.C. was a "MONGOL" tribe from Western "CHINA".
In hindsight, that hypotheses is obviously wrong. The look of "Modern" Chinese can ONLY be explained by the Zhou being a White tribe, NOT from Western "China", but from Western "ASIA".
That hypotheses is supported by another interesting fact.
Many "modern" Mongols look Caucasian, but there is no similar Mongol look in Europeans. That indicates that crossbreeding was a one way street. That can only mean that Whites entered and conquered China, but Mongols did NOT go to Central Asia to crossbreed with Whites there - if they had, then they would have been part of the Whites who entered Europe at about 1,200 B.C.
BTW - As I am sure you know; ancient southeastern Asians were "Normal" looking Blacks, and mongol admixture with them was a one-way street, therefore their input in China cannot be considered in this case - except with the Taiwanese woman at the bottom.
Modern Mongols - They are All Chinese except the bottom
posted
Mike,the only thing separeting us on this issue is your insistance on calling people of different shape,size and complexions...."races" plus Iam not sure there was anything such as white people 45kya~50kya atleast not moderns like us.And also all the different features came from all the above...micro evolution plus intermixing with various populations, because the same that held true in Asia is the same for poplutions within Africa..that's why there is no uniformity except in rear cases where folks became extremly isolated. I know you hate Videos but stop being a snob for once and checkout the video posted on the Neanderthal thread..listen and see the various scientist talk about their findings.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:why White people are white why some Black people have wirey- straight hair,and some has tightly curl hair.why are some Asians flat nosed and some has straight noses,why black Australians have a lot of blonds.and their equally Black kinsmen Back on the Asian main land seems to lack that feature...as far as I can tell having been to both areas myself. WHY??
You don't suppose any of this has something to do with activity between the sheets do you... and has nothing to do with micro evolution?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - Thanks for the offer, but science isn't about storytelling - White people do way too much of that already; science is about data and artifact.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman,osshasiburrui, I am sure a lot happened between the sheets as posted above,but micro evolution also played it's part. eg.short statured people from all over the globe,and giants like the Wa-Tutsi and Swedes.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - You seem to suggest that short stature is a nutritional problem, and that all Black dwarfish people are Pygmies.
Neither is correct; Genetically speaking, The Mbuti or Bambuti of the Ituri Rainforest in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are the only true Pygmies. They are separate and distinct from all other Human populations. Combined with the fact that they are the oldest indigenous people of the Great Lakes region of Africa - most consider them a Human Race or sub-species if you prefer.
They are/were Hunter gatherers with a varied diet - they even hunted Elephant when opportunity allowed. Like all people, they had their ups and downs, depending on weather and other factors, but to consider them nutritionally deprived is incorrect - as the picture below indicates.
I have become so used to my posts being deride as too fantastic to be believed - by the ignorant and uninformed; that I can't help but post this excerpt from a Encyclopedia Britannica article that I just ran across.
Encyclopedia Britannica
The first sign that steppe nomads had learned to fight well from horseback was a great raid into Asia Minor launched from the Ukraine about 690 B.C. by a people whom the Greeks called Cimmerians. Some, though perhaps not all, of the raiders were mounted. Not long thereafter, tribes speaking an Iranian language, whom the Greeks called Scythians, conquered the Cimmerians and in turn became lords of the Ukraine. According to Herodotus, who is the principal source of information on these events, the Scyths (or at least some of them) claimed to have migrated from the Altai Mountains at the eastern extreme of the Western Steppe. This may well be so, and some modern scholars have even surmised that the barbarian invasions of China that brought the Western Chou dynasty to an end in 771 B.C. may have been connected with a Scythian raid from the Altai that had occurred a generation or two before Scythian migration westward to the Ukraine.
It appears White people are starting to catch up. Now if they would spend more time trying to figure out their own history, and stop trying to steal the history of Black people, then we would all be better off, and better informed.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike you may indeed be right about the African Twa..as a rereading of my above post on the Twa suggest that the diet theory is by no means the definitive explaination of why they are short.But other short or formally short statured people did gain greater hight with an improvement in diet. as stated by the link/source.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi – While I am all for scientific studies, it should be understood that the majority of them, are bullsh1t studies intended to gain public attention and secure another grant, for more bullsh1t studies.
To me, a serious scientist would have taken one look at that Efé man, and thought; hey we know that they have been here in this forest for more than 90,000 years; Based on the following.
The Efe pygmies are considered by mitochondrial DNA haplotype analysis to be one of the oldest races on earth. They are an early branch from "mitochondrial Eve," exhibiting the L1 haplotype, now considered to be the oldest genetic haplotype. The Semliki harpoon, 90,000 years old, is one of the oldest tools known to mankind and occurs in the natural range of the Efe pygmies. This reinforces their role in the development of humanity and suggests an initial aquatic civilization based on fishing.
Continued; So this is a perfect opportunity to see how a pristine group of Humans evolved free of outside influences. Then I would have gone straight for that NOSE! (I noticed immediately how, for it’s overall size, how unusually wide it was at the base).
The hair is of no interest because; from a lecture by Dr. Ben some years ago, I learned that short, tightly curled hair, was the perfect adaptation for HOT environments. The short length allows for maximum air circulation and cooling, and it does not mat from perspiration - like long hair does, which only leads to more heat build-up and discomfort.
Background:
The AVERAGE temperature in the Ituri Rainforest is 88 F. the average humidity is 85%. As you know, Hot air has far less oxygen content then Cold air, and with the humidity at 85%; water is displacing even more of the airs oxygen.
So that Efe mans nose, with it’s very wide base and round nostrils (round provides better airflow than elliptical), seems to be the perfect adaptation for maximizing oxygen intake to the Lungs in an oxygen depleted environment – to me THAT is worth studying. But of course, to investigate things like that, would serve to disprove the White myths of great age and beneficial White adaptations – of which there are none!
An interesting note: As you know, Asian Indians in the Amazon Rainforest, live in very similar conditions. But they have not been there long enough to have evolved to perfection as yet. So their adaptation is to limit activity – and not SWEAT – Ya, many of them no longer perspire, as it has no cooling effect in the Humid environment - plus, you know what it would do to their hair.
posted
But Mike, there are North East Asians all very pale in pigmentation whose nasal indices approximate that of the Efe man you show.
Yes, Nature sometimes behaves in puzzling fashion--and does not follow any script.
The same for height: I doubt that the average Japanese or the average Amerindian from Central America is much taller--usually about the same height--than the Twa you discuss.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But Mike, there are North East Asians all very pale in pigmentation whose nasal indices approximate that of the Efe man you show.
I have never seen a pale one with that wide a base. But don't forget, the Efe predate the Mongols exit from Africa, so it is not impossible.
Yes, Nature sometimes behaves in puzzling fashion--and does not follow any script.
Nature always makes sense, except in mutations that are accidental.
The same for height: I doubt that the average Japanese or the average Amerindian from Central America is much taller--usually about the same height--than the Twa you discuss.
Actually, I am talking about the Mbuti or Bambuti of the Ituri Rainforest whose average height for males is 4'8" (142 cm). While there are other people termed Pygmy, These people are genetically distinct and are the only true Pygmies.
The average Chinese is (5' 8")
The average Japanese is (5' 7.2")
The average Brazilian is (5' 6.5")
lamin: So are you saying that you think that the Efes physical attributes are not an adaptation to environment, but rather an accident?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin - You brought up a very interesting point. The problem is that we don't know where in Africa the people that we now call Mongols evolved. So we can't say what environmental conditions caused them to evolve with those particular physical attributes.
But I did find a statue of a Western Han dynasty (206 B.C.) soldier with very similar nasal indice to the Efe Pygmy.
But this was only about 800 years after the Black Shang were conquered by the the invading White Zhou from Western Asia. Therefore the Mongol population would still be, basically a Black population.
But contrast that statue, with this one from the Tang dynasty (618-906 A.D.); almost 2,000 years after the conquest by the White Zhou.
As you can see, the evidence of White admixture is very clear by that time.
BTW - That same clear evidence of White admixture can also be seen in European statues of a similar time.
posted
Mike, I want to question the claim that the average North Esat Asian male is about 5' 8". Not from what I see. And the women are like dwarfs compared to average height Africans.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But Wiki is just another blog site--anybody can post just about anything--including lies, damned lies and statistics.
For example soccer is sport that does not require height as an attribute. So have you ever seen the Japanese national team? Almost all to a man are very short--with stubby legs. I say again that the average Japanese or North East Asian are should be in the same height cohort as the Twa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic