quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: If there not Africans but are descent of Africans.Then who were there father's and mother's before them DNA can be wrong as you should know and is not 100% percent correct so .I take a lot of that stuff with a gain of salt and these people have to be more related to African then Europeans by default DNA or no DNA.Because like you and many have said (OOA) and (OOA) means modern humans .Which means travel but if there was indeed a another set of Africans or humans that have African features but are not .DNA wise related to Ancient Africans then that would disprove this event(But there is none).So that would mean that they are indeed of African heritage and are indeed highly related to Africans because there is OOA (Modern Humans) and are the base of all dark Skinned people also African Featured people and are indeed African..
But that is my opinion and i meant be wrong but there's a high chance of be being both..But then again there should be not arguments on this matter because there African or Dark Skin Modern Human's with Stereotypical Features ..
I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: Also how do Europeans look like African's or Early Africans for that matter ? explain..
You read wrong. Early humans in Europe (ancestors of todays Europeans) resembled modern Africans and Australians....
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: Also the European or Caucasoid people are a young modern humans.But the Oceanic's like the Melanesian and Australians and native Asians types are older then the Europeans and are more likely to be consider African or of African descent then there Europeans brother's ..(I use that term lightly)
All modern humans African or non African are as young or old as eachother, we are one species so no modern human outside of Africa is older than another there is no separate or sub human species in our lineage and this is proven genetically, the only difference is that the phenotypes of each respective population are "younger" than others...
The African phenotype being the oldest and Europeans the youngest....
Oceania was the first place consistently populated by Africans migrating OOA 60-80kya (this is consistent with them carrying the oldest lineages ancestral to non Africans) and Europe was the last 40-45kya.
Oceanic's still resemble Africans because they wound up in an environment similar to Africa which was tropical. But the humans that continued on north who eventually became the ancestors of todays N. east Asians, Europeans etc...adapted to a totally different climate, no more tropics, as noted they originally arrived in these northern areas with tropically adapted limb proportions and as time went on there bodies gradually became more suited for the cold.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that Europeans are not African because of the OOA they are and i don't refute that.But from history stand point they as a people don't care about .There African counter part's and like some like to push there agenda on everything is white concept or was concept by them .Which is in fact false information because the Caucasoid are a very young race of people (Hate the Word race)that first had to learn from someone.So who were those people they were Native African's and when people say that they are not african at all but by reasonably history and DNA proof they say there in fact african by OOA..right? know matter what agreement in the context of the OOA subject facts.
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: .Which is in fact false information because the Caucasoid are a very young race of people (Hate the Word race)
Its not that they're a young people because their ancestors are Africans just like yours, but rather their phenotype as in modern facial features I.e., cold adapted body plans, pale skin etc...is recent in anatomically modern human evolution.
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: that first had to learn from someone.So who were those people they were Native African's
They didn't come out of the sky, understand?
Europeans and N.east Asians etc.. descend from those Native Africans you are talking about, the difference happened when these early humans coming from Africa moved out of a tropical environment.
If those Native Africans didn't move to Europe or N. east Asia then there wouldn't have been any difference in the tropical phenotype we see amongst Oceanic's and some Asians....
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: and when people say that they are not african at all but by reasonably history and DNA proof they say there in fact african by OOA..right?
Their people haven't been African for thousands upon thousands of years...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The absurdly silly part of all this is that the biological facts are clear. ALL humans originate in Africa. Therefore, it should not be shocking that the aboriginal populations world wide would have African looking features, including those NOT in tropical regions. But that does not make them Africans in any contemporary sense.
Some people on this board REALLY DO want others to believe that the original populations who left Africa disappeared or were killed off thousands of years ago and that the only way blacks could be in these places outside of Africa is due to RECENT migrations of Africa.
That is bull sh*t.
Call them what you want but these aboriginal populations DID NOT recently leave Africa and they are CLOSER to the populations in the regions they live in than Africans. WHY? Because they represent the original populations of these regions from whom the other populations descend. That is what it means to be aboriginal.
Calling them Africans is like calling a distant cousin your brother or sister, when they aren't.
ALL humans are related on the human family tree but they aren't all CLOSELY related.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So their there own race or human being in a sense and are not african right. to put it simple and we can not classify them as so..understood
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So their there own race or human being in a sense and are not african right. to put it simple and we can not classify them as so..understood
You must be slow, go re-read my posts, there is no subspecies of humans hence no race.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that there is no subspecies and everyone is the same and also thanks for calling me slow that really help full .You should have said let me repeat or something more based on a non angry tone..
I also know there is no such thing as race but in .But till that to the ancients that knew who they were compare to others and knew them self as different and as .I say again i said (I hate using the race term)but it is indeed apart of most peoples mindset.
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I repeated myself more than enough and is why I said let me more clear, and in response you still think "Caucasians" are a young seperate race from all other humans, they're not, like I said they didn't come out of the sky...they came from Africa!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just agree with you dude and it's common sense that **** does not come from no were.I mean really you really think .I don't understand that simple of a concept really but you do have to agree on one thing if you must .That they are indeed a young group of people by terms of history compare to there counter part's..also when did i say that Caucasian were a separate race from everyone else.I said some believe they are unique and are a race of there own that's what i meant...hopefully you understood that and this can end on a piece full note like regular human being's..*
-------------------- Were is the truth at.Why all the lies it's better not to lie and change others history because sooner or later you'll pay the price... Posts: 29 | From: Earth | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Doug and Brada. Again for the zillionth time, if the characteristics of a defined thing match the description, then no matter what the sound, the word, it is that thing.
This is why a greeting when meeting someone is fulfilled in the words hola in Spanish, bon jour in French, what’s happening in Afro slang, annyunghashiminka in Korean, and hello in English.
This is why for something the color of blood (red) is satisfied by pula in Phillipine, rood in Dutch, rosso in Italian, and red in English.
If a person with some combination of a full nose and mouth and wiry/woolly hair is African, where the characteristics fullfil the definition, then an African is someone who phenotypically matches that term.
Your problem, Doug, is that you are a white guy who is infused with that sicko white supremacy thing and you want to throw up at the thought that the word African can be used in a context you are dissatisfied with.
Your nonsequitor madness recently spouted was black people who look Negroid don't have to be African. Doug, you wrote:
"Bottom line, all people with dark skin do not possess stereotypical negroid features and never have. That is both in and outside of Africa. So whatever it is you are talking about, it isn't based on facts. All dark skinned people are not African, whether or not they look Negroid or not."
First of all, 99% of the time from 5 years back until today, I never use color to describe the African and you well know that. You've set up a deceitful straw argument.
This is why I have always portrayed you as the following for you saying things like that:
posted
Marc W no need to go name calling or even hostlie response, but the fact is that no matter how long Black Asians exist..It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
I just don't like Doug's presumptuous, know-it-all attitude that he thinks gives him the right to barge in and define the race his ancestors profited so mightily from.
It catapulted them from impoverishment in medieval Europe resulting in the transformation of that continent into a global super power many times over: genocide to kill the African owners of land and resources and the enslavement of its peoples and confiscation of its raw materials and mineral riches engineered and sustains their empire.
You ask, It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??
Unless someone in the Fareast of Southeast Asia specifically had woolly, kinky, or wiry hair as the first row in those pictures, I'd personally call them Asian. If they have stiff, straight hair, I'd call them now Asian though their grandmother or grandfather might have looked like anyone in Harlem.
WHY I USE THE TERM AFRICAN AND TRY TO ISOLATE THAT POPULATION: I have almost zero interest in who was African after the 1600s. My interest is in Africans before the 1600s and when their roots are traced back to times before whites and Monguls arrived, we see they almost always began the cultures and civilizations that preceded them that the incursive peoples preserve, carry-on, and deceitfully take credit for.
For instance, whaling. It was the provenance of the Ainu and from them, the world began the tradition and also in Japan. But, the Ainu were, by appearance, African. It was (by appearance) Africans who introduced whaling.
Granted, it can be argued that both whaling and smoking are negatives. But, if we did it, flaunt it. Everyone else makes hundreds of billions of dollars from industries we founded. We might as well take psychological credit as its originators.
But, there are hundreds of things presently conventions in the world (for instance, the canoe) which began by Africans.
We need to take credit and this is why I go to such pains to identify ancient Africans and spell-out their accomplishments. That is all we have left. Knowledge of the legacy of their accomplishments.
When I do point-out the presence of phenotypic Africans in Southeast Asia and the Far East, it is only to lay the basis to understand that the ancient foundation culture was also African. We were the ones who carved nations out of forests; built the first cities; established art, law, music, religion, science in those places.
Whites and Asians took what we created. We only have knowledge of our creatorship and that legacy we need to claim and that is what I am about.
This is what Doug M and his kind try to keep the lid on and why he gets so spooked and spastic every time I say the word African for people fitting the term (note I didn't say "black").
Call them anything but African. Doug's type can't live in a world of people who know they stole our legacy and people who know their great value.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Your problem, Doug, is that you are a white guy .......
Hey, how's that white wife of yours, you know, the one you call an albino? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I just don't like Doug's presumptuous, know-it-all attitude that he thinks gives him the right to barge in and define the race his ancestors profited so mightily from.
It catapulted them from impoverishment in medieval Europe resulting in the transformation of that continent into a global super power many times over: genocide to kill the African owners of land and resources and the enslavement of its peoples and confiscation of its raw materials and mineral riches engineered and sustains their empire.
You ask, It is their Johnnie-come-lately off-springs by phonotype with the liter-skin and lank-hair that gets to be called Asians??
Unless someone in the Fareast of Southeast Asia specifically had woolly, kinky, or wiry hair as the first row in those pictures, I'd personally call them Asian. If they have stiff, straight hair, I'd call them now Asian though their grandmother or grandfather might have looked like anyone in Harlem.
WHY I USE THE TERM AFRICAN AND TRY TO ISOLATE THAT POPULATION: I have almost zero interest in who was African after the 1600s. My interest is in Africans before the 1600s and when their roots are traced back to times before whites and Monguls arrived, we see they almost always began the cultures and civilizations that preceded them that the incursive peoples preserve, carry-on, and deceitfully take credit for.
For instance, whaling. It was the provenance of the Ainu and from them, the world began the tradition and also in Japan. But, the Ainu were, by appearance, African. It was (by appearance) Africans who introduced whaling.
Granted, it can be argued that both whaling and smoking are negatives. But, if we did it, flaunt it. Everyone else makes hundreds of billions of dollars from industries we founded. We might as well take psychological credit as its originators.
But, there are hundreds of things presently conventions in the world (for instance, the canoe) which began by Africans.
We need to take credit and this is why I go to such pains to identify ancient Africans and spell-out their accomplishments. That is all we have left. Knowledge of the legacy of their accomplishments.
When I do point-out the presence of phenotypic Africans in Southeast Asia and the Far East, it is only to lay the basis to understand that the ancient foundation culture was also African. We were the ones who carved nations out of forests; built the first cities; established art, law, music, religion, science in those places.
Whites and Asians took what we created. We only have knowledge of our creatorship and that legacy we need to claim and that is what I am about.
This is what Doug M and his kind try to keep the lid on and why he gets so spooked and spastic every time I say the word African for people fitting the term (note I didn't say "black").
Call them anything but African. Doug's type can't live in a world of people who know they stole our legacy and people who know their great value.
. .
Clyde you are not clarifying anything because there are Africans with naturally straight to curly hair. NO FEATURE of the human phenotype originates with whites, except white skin. The FIRST people with straight hair were the aboriginal blacks of the world who developed straight hair. As can be seen by the Australian Aborigines, the people of India and others who have had such features FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
You simply are resorting to outdated notions of human phenotypical variation which has been utterly decimated by the fact that ALL human biological features ultimately originate in Africa. Therefore trying to put whites as the origin of human features other than white skin is retarded.
I agree that many of the populations of South East Asia before the 1600s had kinky hair, but A LOT OF THEM DID NOT. They are called Negritoes for exactly this reason. However, the first people with the typical so called "Asian" features WERE BLACK. I agree that the Negrito type is one of the oldest types, but that was not the ONLY type of aboriginal black population in Asia. In fact, the closest relatives of those aboriginal black negritoes in Asia are the people of Melanesia and the pacific. And THEY TOO have varied hair textures and features, which makes it clear that such features DID NOT originate with whites.
That is tantamount to saying that these people have white ancestry:
And it is from these types of populations that ALL non Africans get their features from: people of India, Asia, Europe and the Americas.
So even before white skin developed you had aboriginal populations that had ALL TYPES of features: round eyes, straight eyes, straight hair, curly hair, blond hair, brown hair, black hair, black eyes, brown eyes, blue eyes, thin noses, thick noses, thin lips, thick lips and so on and so on. THAT is the point you keep missing.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those "negrito" types of South Asia were not Africans they were Asians and related to other Asians and part of the aboriginal diversity of Asia itself, which still exists in some parts of South Asia and into the Pacific.
All that said, I do agree that lighter skinned Asians have moved into these areas in RELATIVELY RECENT TIMES. And in some cases these lighter skinned populations are sometimes passed off by some as the 'original' types of these areas, which is false. However, that does not change the fact that all features originate among aboriginal black populations and that you cannot isolate any one trait as therefore being unique among them when they possess and have possessed a wide range of traits.
I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations.
Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Woolly-haired Africans gave the world civilization
Doug.
You have shown pictures of wavy-to-straight haired peoples and they are outside my definition of African so are irrelevant to the discussion.
I have defined Africans as those with a combination of woolly/wiry hair and full facial features and with that definition, one can see it's them that started civilizations worldwide that incursive whites and Monguls have basically exterminated and taken over while continuing their civilization otherwise intact:
In all of these areas today, we no longer find the woolly haired African. Left in his place are the newcomers who took the land, wealth, committed genocide on some of the population and enslaved the remainder, and carried on their language, culture, religion, and civilization otherwise intact as they found it.
Except they faked things up and re-tooled themselves as civilization's founder.
Woolly-haired Africans gave the world civilization on every continent
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with you Marc is that the basis of your claims are false. All aboriginal black populations in the world did not have curly hair, especially during the times of the civilizations you speak. Some did and some didn't.
AND NO they were not recent migrants from Africa, whether they had curly hair or not.
The point being you are simply omitting that fact in order to make a point. Your chart for the Americas doesn't show any people with tight curly hair. So why are you calling them Africans? Similarly neither does your chart of the arctic circle. Even the Africans of the Nile Valley didn't all have tight curly hair, as some indeed had straight and wavy hair. Hair type does not make one African, because even the darkest curly haired negrito in Asia is not an African.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Maybe there is a hole in that argument.
First of all those are albinos from Brazil not proto-Europeans and if they have kids they will be likely to have kids with a normal pigmentation similar to the other kids and the mother, Europeans can't do that.
They're Brazilian's and so probably aren't fully African and most likely have some admixture, from both Native Americans and Europeans...the kids hair are straighter except for the baby whose hair is a lil curly, and how sure are you that the father is black anyway?
Btw Mike don't run from your responsibilities....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a scientific study on the physical features found in the first migrants to America:
EXTRA-CONTINENTAL MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF PALLI AIKE, SOUTHERN CHILE
quote: As far as we can draw conclusions from a single skeleton, the fact that Palli Aike aligns with Africans and Australians, instead of with Asians and modern Amerindians is significant in at least two different ways for the current debate about who were the first Americans. First, it shows that people similar to those that inhabited the Lagoa Santa area, in central Brazil, and the area of Sabana de Bogotá, in Colombia, once had a wide distribution across South America, reaching even the southernmost region of the sub-continent. Second, but intrinsically related to the first fact, that the non-Mongoloid morphology already demonstrated to occur in tropical and subtropical areas of South America (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1989, 1991; Neves et al., 1993, 1996b, 1998) , can also be found in regions characterized by very cold weather. This supports the idea that the relationship of the first known Americans with Africans and Australians cannot be explained in terms of convergent evolution due to similar climatic factors alone. As we have stressed in previous publications, based on better samples sizes, the best way to explain the similarities of the first Americans with Australians under a historical perspective is to admit that both shared a common ancestral population in mainland Asia, at the terminal Pleistocene. Our own investigations had already detected some similarities between the Australians, the first Americans and the people from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, who lived in China around 20,000 years BP (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1991, 1998; Neves et al., 1996b). Kamminga and Wright (1988) and Wright (1995) have also suggested a morphological relationship of this late Chinese material with Australomelanesians and not with Mongoloids. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave people could well be representatives of the ancestral population hypothesized here. As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), but which retained a very generalized morphology. In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed Groups like Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups... (Lahr, 1996, p.335)
And I would like to add that those "mongoloid" types does not mean WHITE necessarily. As many of the so called 'mongoloid' native Americans were quite dark brown and black at the time of European arrival. In my mind it simply represents the features adopted by aboriginal type populations in the north.
And to me, many historic native american populations still look Aboriginal to me, whether the scientists call them mongoloid or not.
[Doug writes] The problem with you Marc is that the basis of your claims are false.
[Marc writes] The definition I use is Africans for the purpose of identifying those who fathered worldwide civilizations is those having some combination of woolly or wiry hair and full facial features.
One narrows or enlargens their definition to their purpose and mine is suitable for its purpose.
[Doug writes] All aboriginal black populations in the world did not have curly hair, especially during the times of the civilizations you speak. Some did and some didn't.
[Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Funny - These are prototypical Europeans - and it only took 9 months.
Maybe there is a hole in that argument.
First of all those are albinos from Brazil not proto-Europeans and if they have kids they will be likely to have kids with a normal pigmentation similar to the other kids and the mother, Europeans can't do that.
They're Brazilian's and so probably aren't fully African and most likely have some admixture, from both Native Americans and Europeans...the kids hair are straighter except for the baby whose hair is a lil curly, and how sure are you that the father is black anyway?
Btw Mike don't run from your responsibilities....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Doug M - It is not ME who is calling them Black OR African. I clearly said that they are NOT Black or African. Those people are CLEARLY of MIXED ancestry , therefore they CANNOT be Black or African - unless they wish to be identified as such. As a matter of fact, it is only YOU, who seems to be making a case about this.
The problem with your theory is that genetics disproves you, the Asians in question are not recently mixed with Africans, they are more genetically distinct from Africans than are Europeans, you can sit here all day and argue with eyeball guessing games but is there genetic evidence to give your story any value?
Nope none at all, sorry Mike! Show me some African Y-dna and Mtdna markers in these Asian individuals now or stay shut!!
Mindlessone - The reason that I was ignoring you is because you are getting every bit as bad as Afronut or Dirkie - I AM aware that you might all be the same person.
Albinism is hereditary; 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.
Two Albino people making babies results in ALWAYS producing an Albino Child.
THAT is why Europeans are as they are.
The stupidity of your genetics questions will get no response from me - that is just TOO stupid. How long have you been here again? What an asshole!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
Actually Marc, as told you over and over this is the same outdated view held by Eurocentrists so why do you adhere to it?
Eurocentrists also posit that straighter hair in Africa is due to admixture with white men which we know from genetic analysis is certainly NOT true, so why do you adhere to it?
Genetics (Y-dna and Mtdna) disprove all of your erroneous claims Marc, Mike and Clyde too bad so sad...There is no evidence for these people being admixed with white men sorry guys.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ]Mindlessone - The reason that I was ignoring you is because you are getting every bit as bad as Afronut or Dirkie - I AM aware that you might all be the same person.
Kid, you've been on the same level as Dirk and Afronut I don't know what deludes you into thinking differently. My level is way above you, and I mean wayyyyyy above you!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Two Albino people making babies results in ALWAYS producing an Albino Child.
Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans...whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The stupidity of your genetics questions will get no response from me - that is just TOO stupid. How long have you been here again? What an asshole!
Ha ha the stupidity of genetics huh? You nitwit, you won't answer a question about genetics not only because you don't understand genetics but because you know from previous times of you being debunked that there is no genetic evidence, and in actuality the genetic evidence speaks volumes against all your absurd claims, too bad so sad.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just picking ONE of your mindless statements; "Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?"
Please post something - anything, that supports that!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Just picking ONE of your mindless statements; "Actually two African albinos can and most likely will produce a normal melanin packed human, just like other Africans whereas Europeans can't and won't. Why?"
Please post something - anything, that supports that!
Yea, you're well known for cherrypicking, and not answering full posts....
Anyway lol, are you serious? Post something that disproves it then we can talk... Post something to support the fact that two African albinos can't produce a child with regular levels of melanin, can you?
That's like saying only albinos can produce albinos when in fact two regular melanin parent Africans can produce an albino and an albino can produce a child with melanin and so on...
Europeans can't produce a child with melanin, but African albinos can, why not Mike?
Perhaps you need to call in the troops Meninarmer aka Menobrain, Egmond, Marc and Clyde? LOL
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindlessone - I am detecting unmistakable discomfort on your part, that the best part of you, the part that your mutt Puerto Rican ass is most proud of, is derived from defective Humans. He, he - Hey, it is what it is.
But hey, look on the bright side: You live in fear of them thinking of you as Black, and perhaps even calling you Nigger. Well now you have a come-back, you can call them defective Albinos - hope you all have fun with each other.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry folks. Many Australian Aborigines had straight hair at the time of European first contact. Simply put, whites are not the father of the family tree, Africans are and therefore no features (other than white skin) can be said to be a unique feature of 'whites'. Europeans have only been in Australia for a little over 200 years. And only the majority far shorter than that. So how is it these whites intermarried with ALL THESE ABORIGINES but the only sign of their ancestry is straight hair and not light skin and other features?
posted
Doug M - You are correct, straight hair is one of the many African attributes, whoever said that was wrong and should retract the statement.
Sometimes people loose track of all the facts; i.e. if Whites are African, then their traits MUST also be African. Further, the Dravidian (not Hindu) is a pure African extract, they also have straight hair, as well as many other people still IN Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Mindlessone - I am detecting unmistakable discomfort on your part, that the best part of you, the part that your mutt Puerto Rican ass is most proud of, is derived from defective Humans. He, he - Hey, it is what it is.
But hey, look on the bright side: You live in fear of them thinking of you as Black, and perhaps even calling you Nigger. Well now you have a come-back, you can call them defective Albinos - hope you all have fun with each other.
No answers Mike? Only faulty ad hominems as usual? Figures...
Stands....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I'll try to be as clear as possible, yes, all non Africans (Oceanic's, Asians, Europeans etc...) descend from Africans who left the African continent and ultimately populated the world, and after spending thousands of years in each respective environment led to different phenotypes we see around the world today.
Skeletal remains show us that in Asia, Australia, Europe, and even the Americas dating back atleast 45-60kya there were humans present and these were people coming from Africa with tropically adapted body proportions, DNA extracted from these ancient humans coming from Africa shows to be present in each respective area where found, this is why OOA is proven and why all non Africans are noted to be descended from Africa. There aren't any genetic lineages outside of Africa of which can not be traced back to Africa.
As noted already if you are going to call Oceanic's Africans, then you would have to call Europeans African, since Europeans descend from Africans, the same way Australians do, only difference is that due to environmental pressures which altered their (Europeans) features after thousands of years to better suit the environment, you now don't want to call them African.
Europeans genetically are closer to Africans, because Europeans received admixture from Africans which occurred after Australia and Melanesia became populated which in turn Oceanic's became isolated from other populations....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing,
Biologically, there are no "races" since a "race" implies a sub-species within anatomically modern humans, which there are none, all humans around the world can ultimately trace their DNA back to Africa, not Europe or Australia or Asia etc...but Africa.
Note that humans outside of Africa are also less diverse genetically and phenotypically than inside of Africa due to population bottlenecks that occurred when these early humans 60-80 thousand years ago left Africa and were populating the world, so in comparison a single village in Africa will show to have more genetic diversity than all non Africans combined.
This again is because humans have been living inside of Africa for a much longer time than outside of Africa, and so they've had ample amount of time to diversify than non Africans as I've explained who experienced population bottlenecks on their way to populate the world...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms. [/QUOTE Unfortunately that is the case, and while I am up to the fight, I am disturbed that we have not created sufficient parameters that engages our enemy while leaving him less room to maneuver. Meaning while we are making great strides in relation to our discoveries about our history, we are creating collateral damage among those who may either be our allies or who would stay out of the fight altogether. Example: In the 70's and 80's all other races history was treated much like our own in the recent past other groups have their history celebrated while ours on the other hand has remained besieged by racist academia. I presume the racist establishment did this in order to relieve themselves of creating enemies while at the same time singling us out. What they achieved was also to have those other groups join in on their racist bandwagon. I think we as a group are fighting this fight but we are not very careful, and we need to be so if we are going to win. We need to fight in such a way that leaves no room for the racist establishment to outflank us.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
StTigray: As you know ALL Humans are African. Whites are simply African Albinos who have extensively inbreed, but with a degree of admixture with normal Africans - probably in Asia, thereby they are no longer technically Albinos.
So in the pure sense, that is true. But does it really matter?
The rules of man, are just that, "the rules of man". If the man in power sets a rule of war, then regardless of whether or not it makes sense to you, there is no choice but to fight on the basis of that rule.
The White man chose "Skin Color" as the rallying point for his Albino people - probably for good reason, (see modern treatment of Albinos in Africa).
You as a Black man, may think Skin color a very poor reason to fight, but if the White man is going to try to kill you on that basis, then whether or not you agree with it, you had better get your Black ass moving on that basis, or you are going to get your dumb Black ass killed on that basis.
The winner ALWAYS gets to set the terms. The looser ALWAYS has no choice but to accept the terms. [/QUOTE Unfortunately that is the case, and while I am up to the fight, I am disturbed that we have not created sufficient parameters that engages our enemy while leaving him less room to maneuver. Meaning while we are making great strides in relation to our discoveries about our history, we are creating collateral damage among those who may either be our allies or who would stay out of the fight altogether. Example: In the 70's and 80's all other races history was treated much like our own in the recent past other groups have their history celebrated while ours on the other hand has remained besieged by racist academia. I presume the racist establishment did this in order to relieve themselves of creating enemies while at the same time singling us out. What they achieved was also to have those other groups join in on their racist bandwagon. I think we as a group are fighting this fight but we are not very careful, and we need to be so if we are going to win. We need to fight in such a way that leaves no room for the racist establishment to outflank us.
Truth cannot be outflanked by fraud and lies. The problem with your statement is that somehow people need to be careful when telling the truth. WHY? The racists are the biggest liars, thieves, destroyers and ENEMIES of ALL CULTURES on the planet. So how on earth can attacking these frauds be a cause for alarm?
I think you misunderstand the problem. THE PROBLEM is that the frauds and liars control the airwaves and the press. They publish their lies with THE EXPLICIT INTENT of using as a form of propaganda and to INDOCTRINATE people into believing falsehoods. Therefore any ENEMIES of the truth have already been created because they have already been indoctrinated by the liars to begin with. Someone providing the TRUTH should not even be an issue.
And even more than that, how is the search for truth and the trial and error that comes with it ANYWHERE NEAR equivalent to a people WHOSE WHOLE PURPOSE was to STEAL, LIE and DESTROY from day one? I think you are confused about the real situation. The actual outflanking is going to happen when the LIARS AND THIEVES gain allies who see the BENEFIT AND NECESSITY to maintaining such lies, not because of any potential offenses of those seeking the truth. The only people who would be frightened of and or threatened by the truth are those who ARE AGAINST IT to begin with.
And who are these anonymous allies or enemies that you are referring to to begin with?
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: From what Im hearing it seems that race is almost a false construct, man this can be confusing, I wonder would it be more expedient to create academic lines based on politics rather than academics. The only problem is that those lines could very well change at any time.
The fact is that much is already based on politics. Entire careers built on certain methods or models stand to fall when those models are questioned. Race as such is a false construct. The comparison often made is with animal species. The separation of say a donkey from a horse is very clear- they are separate SPECIES even though they may have a certain similarity in appearance. Genetically they clearly separate. With humans however these clear seperators cannot be found. There is more difference WITHIN so-called human "races" than between them. Hence to talk of race in a BIOLOGICAL sense is inaccurate. Therefore many modern scientists reject race. In a SOCIAL SENSE however, where people divide themselves up by language, tribes or whatever, then "races" can be said to exist, but that is a SOCIAL definition, not a BIOLOGICAL ONE.
Scientists who reject biological race say it is much more useful to look at climate, genetic drift etc than the arbitrary checkboxes of race. They substitute the idea of population ranges or affinities. The statement below on the ancient Egyptians captures the concept:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas."
"[comparisons].. must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." (Nancy C. Lovell, "Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, (London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)[2]
However, there is still an ongoing effort by some scientists to resurrect the old race categories under new population affinity labels. One of the most common ways they do it is with skewed sampling, stacking the deck ahead of time so that the analysis yields results in favor of the preferred population interpretation. Like the example below where they drew samples from the far north of Egypt as "representative" of the whole, excluding the historic south. Such slippery methods are common in skeletal, cranial and DNA studies.
Another way they stack the deck is to create stereotypical categories- straw men like the "true negro". Everything not meeting the "true" stereotype can then be neatly categorized as something else. There is a lot of manipulation and disinformation used in certain parts (not all) of the European academy. They cover it with soothing disavowals of race and talk about "diversity", but then slyly resurrect the old race categories in new guises.
Another common tactic is disinformation labeling. Like the study of Somalians which claim East Africans are not as related to "sub-Saharan" Africans as they are to Eurasian types, when the author's own data show EAST AFRICAN Somalians overwhelming cluster with other East Africans. And Somalia and Ethiopia themselves are below the Sahara, and thus "sub Saharan". Then there are cases like the Tutsi. The European academy is full of this sleight of hand. Some studies will look at Egypt then for "comparison" they will skip over populations near to Egypt, in the Sudan, or Somalia, or Chad, or Ethiopia and leap all the way to South African "Bantu" - to provide a stand-in for "true negroes" - like extras in another bad Hollywood movie. Having set up the black "sub Saharan" strawmen, they can then draw comparisons declaring how this and that African population is "unrelated" or only slightly related to the "sub Saharan" strawmen. This is the way the academy operates- soothing politically correct talk up front, devious sleight of hand below. This is how they are pushing the race concept at the present time. It is no longer in the open.
It is taking guys like Keita, Kittles, Armelagos and others, as well as boards like ES to expose the slippery methods, models and concepts and creating a more balanced framework for studying African peoples.
Question thrown out:
Can it be said that Whites as a whole biologically differ between themselves more than they differ with Africans?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Can it be said that Whites as a whole biologically differ between themselves more than they differ with Africans?
Put it this way: Contrary to what some Eurocentric spin-doctor may put it, a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. This no doubt, would serve as an example of more similarity between-group than within-group to said spin-doctor.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Marc writes]
The straight / wavy hair of Australians is surely the result of white men sleeping around:
Actually Marc, as told you over and over this is the same outdated view held by Eurocentrists so why do you adhere to it?
Eurocentrists also posit that straighter hair in Africa is due to admixture with white men which we know from genetic analysis is certainly NOT true, so why do you adhere to it?
Genetics (Y-dna and Mtdna) disprove all of your erroneous claims Marc, Mike and Clyde too bad so sad...There is no evidence for these people being admixed with white men sorry guys.
[Marc writes]
The human being some 7 million years ago emerged from what was then the human being/chimpanzee clade: i.e. a single ancestor from which a branch came leading to human beings along one line and chimpanzees along the other.
As chimpanzees have straight hair along with other apes, it does stand to reason that the first human beings had straight hair.
However, my point was that some rather assume the aborigines have naturally wavy / straight hair but that does not take into account that in a single generation, an African parent with woolly hair and a white parent with straight hair almost invariably produces offspring who WILL NOT have woolly hair.
The hair of offspring will be wavy / straight - sometimes very curly.
It is a fact that when Captain Cook and the other white men entered the Pacific, they had sex with every woman they could get their hands on and this resulted in offspring who naturally would be in large numbers and show a phenotypic shift from original aborigine characteristics to white.
It must be a fact that some degree of the wavy / straight character seen in Australian aborigine hair reflects hundreds of years of white men's sperm just as there are millions of Americans passing for white who trace their ancestry to African slaves but racial dilution washed the black skin color and kinky hair away.
Brown and tan Afro Americans have white men who monkeyed around with the black women in their ancestry.
But, based on the pictures the arrogant, presumptuous, racist Doug showed of early aborigine (not the penciled, faulty drawings but photograph)
aborigine hair was more like African hair, i.e. when not fashioned, standing out like a ball/bush or helmet on the head:
In the 1800s, it looked more curly, wavy and tightly curled and more often puffy and rounded bush-like than the loose wavy, purely straight version we see so often today.
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
So that means you need to take that set of pictures you posted earlier showing Africans world wide and trim it down to just Africa. Because MOST of the other populations you listed as Africans are AS YOU CLAIM hybrids. This includes your beloved dravidians
These Pacific people are NOT Africans because they are white hybrids FROM YOUR OWN MOUTH:
The fact is that these people have less admixture than many African Americans, yet most African Americans don't have straight hair. Including your Barak Obama. Therefore, there is no way that the SOLE TRAIT that these people inherited from their "white blood" is straight hair, while everything else about them is still black aboriginal. LOL!
You just like some racist white folks, cant stand the idea that black people don't come in one shape size and color so you make up all sorts of ludicrous notions in order to get around the facts.
Of course there has been a white genetic impact in the pacific. But how on EARTH are you suggesting that aboriginal COAL BLACK people have white blood because of their hair, without ANY OTHER features from whites? That is nonsense.
These people are not Africans and weren't Africans even before the whites or northern Asians came and no matter how curly their hair was. And bottom line, straight hair does not originate with white people.
Your statement about hair didn't make sense to begin with and makes even less sense now as you try and redefine it which only makes you contradict yourself.
However, let me be clear. I agree that parts of the pacific did have aboriginal populations 300 years ago that had tight curly hair that have now been replaced with more straighter haired, lighter skinned Eurasian types. There is no debate about that. Hawaii is a perfect example. However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the features of the Aboriginal people of Australia. The pacific is one of the most DIVERSE populations on earth and this is among PURELY aboriginal populations. So you should not make to many generalizations without understanding that fact.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
[Marc writes]
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
As feline have hundreds of species as do roses or pine, if you aren't concerned with the entire group, you speak of a portion of it - perhaps lions alone, or Red Canopies, or Douglas Fir.
I am not speaking about the whole range of Africans. I wrote above the group I primarily address.
. .
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: However, my point was that some rather assume the aborigines have naturally wavy / straight hair but that does not take into account that in a single generation, an African parent with woolly hair and a white parent with straight hair almost invariably produces offspring who WILL NOT have woolly hair.
Yea and the kid most likely will have lighter skin and different facial features than its Aborigine ancestor and European ancestor somewhere inbetween, but we don't see that with Australian aborigines, we see they have straighter hair but their skin is dark, and they resemble all other aborigines before any other group they're not intermediate between Europeans and Aborigines cranio-facially, and indeed as I've told Mike Y-dna and Mtdna doesn't correlate with your point of view it contradicts it fully....
Answer me this Marc, why did the white mans genes (which aren't present) only affect their hair and not their skin color, facial features or tropical body proportions?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Doug writes]
Marc. You are simply making up stuff as you go. First you said that ALL blacks with tight curly hair are Africans everywhere in the world. Now you say that these BLACK aborigines are mixed with whites because they have straight hair.
So they aren't Africans then no? They must be white hybrids then huh?
[Marc writes]
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
But, my argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
As feline have hundreds of species as do roses or pine, if you aren't concerned with the entire group, you speak of a portion of it - perhaps lions alone, or Red Canopies, or Douglas Fir.
I am not speaking about the whole range of Africans. I wrote above the group I primarily address.
. .
. .
But the aborigines ARE part of the founder cultures in Asia and the Americas. So again, according to YOUR definition, they aren't African.
The problem isn't with the facts, Marc. It is with you who is trying to over emphasize Africanness based on arbitrary constructs of your own making which ARE NOT NECESSARY to begin with. EVERYBODY agrees that Africans are the parents of humanity. That fundamental fact isn't denied. And the fundamental fact of blacks worldwide being a major part of many of the earliest civilizations is also fact. But all these people did not have the same features, so trying to create a fake typology in order to claim them all as AFRICANS, which implies a CLOSE CONTINUOUS DIRECT relationship with Africa is NONSENSE. Not only does it really reflect the historical complexity of population relationships across a wide range of cultural, physical and political landscapes, it is fundamentally false to begin with.
For example, the early Islamic world featured wide ranging trade between many cultures with significant black populations from Africa to Asia. Be they the Moors of North Africa or the AfroArabs of Arabia or the Africans of East Africa, Madagascar, Zanzibar and Monempotapa, there were significant interactions that will not be understood properly from your false typologies. People cultures and populations grow change and interact over time and space, which is what you are trying to understand by studying anthropology. Nothing stays the same forever.
posted
In terms of true history versus false history, the last 400 years of European so-called "scholarship" has created a boatload of falsehoods.
As an example, the Europeans coined the term Malay "race" as a way of identifying the origins of certain peoples in South Asia. They almost always associated them with more civilized white Asian groups. But the fact is that when the Spanish under Magellan first arrived in the Malay peninsula, it was inhabited mostly by blacks. Since that time not only has Malaysia been repopulated by lighter skinned Asian types but the same has happened in other places they went, like the Philippines.
But of course the fools who go round the world making genocide keep pushing crack and dope to the folks to keep them thinking that they are trying to make a better day for everyone.
These people even went so far as to concoct the notion of 24 stone age populations being discovered in the remote forest of Mindanao. The Tasaday is the name of this so-called stone age group, with many claiming the whole thing was a hoax.
posted
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! The brotha is thick. Afronut reminds me of Clarence Thomas. Was being "lynched" only when he was attacked by the "man". Of course NOT Clarence's intelligence
Thanks for clearing that up.
Great Forum but tough to choose over my toddlers, work and business.. . . .
plus it is football season
quote:Originally posted by astenb: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: [qb] bump...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: RE-READ the thread stupid. Understand and observe the argument. By now you should very well see proof of "Black People" that are aboriginal to ASIA. The issue at question is when pictures such as THIS:. . . .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids'
[Marc writes]
White sperm pervades Australian aborigine. Laugh? It's funny when mulatto children are born and removed from the aborigine parent as is still done today to "save" them from the social stigma of not being raised by "pure" white parents such as yourself?
That's your people.
Bloodshed, murder, and destruction is a laughing matter for you.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids'
[Marc writes]
White sperm pervades Australian aborigine. Laugh? It's funny when mulatto children are born and removed from the aborigine parent as is still done today to "save" them from the social stigma of not being raised by "pure" white parents such as yourself?
That's your people.
Bloodshed, murder, and destruction is a laughing matter for you.
. .
Nobody is denying the evils of white supremacy Marc. We know there have been many bad deeds done to the natives all over the planet.
However, calling these people white hybrids because they don't meet YOUR standard of what blacks should look like or the idea that all blacks of a certain type are Africans, is nonsense. In the eyes of whites, all these people are blacks or negroes and it doesn't matter what type of hair they had or other features.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Just had to laugh at Marc calling these white 'hybrids':
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic