posted
The Evolution of the Caucasoid Journal of African Civilizations November 1985 (vol.7, no.2) New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers Rutgers -- The State University, 1985 pp. 20-21, w/notes 41-44 p.311 Dr. Charles S. Finch M.D. Yale undergrad Jefferson Medical College medical training University of California, Irvine Medical Center family medicine residency Center for Disease Control epidemiologist
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They are Slooowly moving in the right direction, but they're not there yet.
But when the Europeans finally admit that they are Albinos: I will insist that our old partner narmermenes aka melaninking, receive some kind of prize for his great research.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhh look yet more racist crap from yet another white people hating black racist black supremacist got my PHd from the University of Wal-Mart get whitey Afro-centric black.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't endorse the theory but I will defend Dr. Finch by stating he has a Undergraduate Degree in history from Yale. Some of his sources are questionable though such as his citations of the Journal of Eugenics.
He also has a medical degree from Morehouse and pratices medicine in the city of Atlanta.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If you don't know what you're talking about then you should shut the phuck up, listen, and learn.
Give evidence of any sources' questionable status. If you can't then shut the phuck up and quit hating.
A tired cliche "talk is cheap" for a tired knee jerk reaction. Research is expensive. Do some and show where the cited sources are questionable; pages and quotations only will do.
The subject isn't history as much genetics hence the word of a board-certified physician much more relevant than a historian's word.
Dr. Finch was Asst Prof of Community Medicine and Family Practice at Morehouse School of Med and then its Director of International Health.
His correct medical vitals are in the parent post.
Just as the benign side of sickle cell anemia was advantageous for blacks of the African and Arabian/Indian tropics ...
... so the non-deleterious aspects of tyr+ albinism was a plus for sub-arctic soon to be whites of Europe.
There is nothing hateful about having the protection of sickle cell trait. Neither is there a thing hateful in recognizing the physical attributes of tyr+ albinism.
While I wouldn't take his word for things historical I respect his medical degrees and background and his opinion on albinoids whether European albinoids or African ones. Open invitation to any and all to pick any paragraph in context and falsify its contents. Since science is involved, falsifiability is built into the hypothesis.Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doxie - Just because we seek truth, doesn't mean that we hate Albinos.
Hasn't it ever occurred to you, to wonder why, after all the atrocities that you have visited upon Blacks: Genocide and expulsion from Europe, genocide in the Americas, occupation and genocide in Africa. Yet after all of that, all Blacks want from you is to be left alone.
Contrast that with Albinos - even today, you seek confrontation, and at every turn, will seek to cause whatever damage you can to Blacks.
A perfect example of your lunatic obsession with Blacks is found in American "Tea-baggers". They are poor Albinos on SS and Medicare, yet they HATE the man who is trying to save those very same things for them. Why? He is a Black man.
Can't you see how sick you people are? My hope is that if you can somehow dispel your delusions about Albinohood, then perhaps you might also be able to face whatever delusions you have that causes such mindless hatred for Blacks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this is directed at me alTakruri then I pointed out Dr. Finch's credentials. I was defending him from the poster above me. I just find the source Journal of Eugenic questionable because of its dissue in the scientific community. The reference dates to in the 50's when pusedo-science was in vogue.
This does not discount any of Dr. Finch's findings or writings for I have much respect for him. I have personally seen his lectures and meet him in person. He is one of the few people that do quality non-mainstream scholarship.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
What some wte folks say on the matter Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
How does one defend Finch by fudging his "CV"???
Why act as if Finch only cites that one source?
Also listed from notes 41-44 are: * South African Medical Journal * Papua New Guinea Medical Journal * American Journal of Anthropology * American Anthropologist * American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Unlisted sources from notes 38-40: * Journal of the National Medical Association * British Journal of Dermatology * Journal of Biosocial Science
Yet you introduce a supposed weak link to snap the chain. One source is questionable without examining its content because of its publisher's title? (A reverse appeal to authority fallacy.) Somehow that tarnishes eight other other sources and sinks the hypothesis?
I think not.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody is trying to snap a weak link in a chain. I simply pointed out that he cited a Eugenics journal which dated to the 1950's. Eugenics is a discounted pusedo science.
You cannot call logical fallacies upon me because I am not debating or discrediting the hypothesis.
Yes, I am aware of Dr. Charles Finch's other sources and they are legitimate. I just found that one reference curious.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What's curious about it? Have you read
NA Barnicot Red Hair in African Negroes a preliminary study Annals of Eugenics (1953) 53:311-332
Until you show pseudo-science in the cited reference it is just you employing a logical fallacy to detract.
Perhaps you'd prefer Finch to have cited Barnicot from the journal Man, published by the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree just because somebody publishes in a questionable journal does not invalidate their research. However, I wonder how far genetics has advanced since the publication of NA Barnicot's articles.
The unfortunate fact about this whole debate is very few people on this board have a strong enough biological science background to disern fact from fiction. Plus the scientific community has turned a blind eye to address such issues unless it benefits them. Just look at Cavalli-Sforza's claim of there being no-races but his texts are sprinkled with outdated racial nomenclature such as negriod,caucasoid,etc.
I'm sorry if you say it as detraction. I just get concerned when I see the word Eugenics.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
The focus shouldn't be on one cited reference. Finch listed 8 other sources.
But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Barnicot source. She published the same material on red haired Africans in Man.
The journal Annals of Eugenics is still published. Today it is titled the Annals of Human Genetics and was published by the Cambridge University Press until 2003 when Blackwell Publishing took it over.
There was never anything Hitlerian about the journal.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the 50's Eugenics was a mainstream science but has fallen out of favor in the scientific community.
Again I am not discounting the hypothesis. I made this quite clear and I will investigate it further when I get some time.
I will also read Finch's article to see how exactly he cites the article.
Consider my post more of an inquiry than an attempt to discredit by appealing to authority.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What happens when cheap talk replaces research and even the simple task of attentive reading? The above type of illogical biased assessment.
Eugenics was from the 1920's until 1955 what is today called genetics. Genetics is more careful in its wording regarding human differences and usually avoids "the race problem" and its "solutions".
This thread got sidetracked to a topic deserving its own thread by someone who didn't even read the opening post which I now of necessity repost.
The Evolution of the Caucasoid Journal of African Civilizations November 1985 (vol.7, no.2) New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers Rutgers -- The State University, 1985 pp. 20-21, w/notes 41-44 p.311 Dr. Charles S. Finch M.D. Yale undergrad Jefferson Medical College medical training University of California, Irvine Medical Center family medicine residency Center for Disease Control epidemiologist
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Open invitation to any and all to pick any paragraph in context and falsify its contents.
Dark skin is a recent mutation itself, so the article has no foundation whatsoever, it's Afrocentric pseudo-science.
The ancestral or original skin hue of all archaic hominids and the different racial stems (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid etc) during the Palaeolithic, was light brown.
Excessively dark skin as found in modern Negroids is a recent mutation, about 10k years old from West Africa. Indigenous Africans, such as the Capoid Bushmen are light brown, not dark like Negroids.
Evolutionary, biologic, and social aspects of skin color. Westerhof W. Dermatol Clin. 2007;25:293-302
A - Capoid B - Negroid C - Caucasoid
Note how the Caucasoid woman (C) is far closer to the skin complexion of the Bushman (Khoisan), than the Negroid. Indeed, many Caucasoids never depigmentated and are still a light brown colour, the original ancestral pigmentation.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol at this pseudo nonsense above, by this dumbarse!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
PyramIdiot commands no respect because his reliances always contradict what he says they say, unless his source is as racialist as he is, eg., Coon, Baker, etc.
Now Westerhof is useless as regards history but is qualified as far as the genetics of dermatology goes. Read his article for his list of references if nothing else. His own text is midling with some above average and some below average passages (where he interjects sociology).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
If you bothered to read the article, instead of rushing to quote-mine, it shows dark skin is a recent mutation -
''...early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had light brown skin'' [p. 293]
''The early modern man who migrated to the open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) where UV radiation is the most intense developed a deep black skin'' [p. 294]
The author subscribes to the 'Out of Africa' theory, so he believes in a dispersion out of Africa by the Bushmen (proto-Capoids), who as he points out are light brown skinned, not dark or 'deep black' like Negroids.
Regardless of what evolution model however you subscribe to, dark skin is a recent mutation. Indigenous Africans were light brown.
And btw, talking of who doesn't look at their own data, your article states that Caucasoids evolved thin noses through cold (European) climate:
quote:the smaller nasal index (narrower nose) of the caucasoid
I've been saying this for years on this forum, yet have been called a 'white supremecist' for saying only Caucasoids have narrow noses. Yet now you quote an article that agrees, lol.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Your quotes say early modern man. My quote says the first modern man. Early is not first. First is first.
This thread is about albinoid origins for the white skins of Europeans but narrow noses in Europe and narrow noses in Africa and Arabia are obviously not due to the same cause.
Rather than falsify Finch it seems Westerhof confirms the fact of tyr+ albinoids not being completely colourless albinos but having skin eye and hair colours normally associated with European whites with what he says about OCA2 and OCA4 albinism genes.
My screen name is not desperate retard. You chose Pyramiologist. Academicians equate that to Pyramidiot. See the last half of this page http://pyramidiot.com/about.html
But anyway from use of nigger and the posting of link with dead black men that revolted even dyed in the wool black haters, a cracker like you can kiss my black ass and go to hell, quick.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri a supporter of the concept of race and caucasians?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Evolution of the Caucasoid Journal of African Civilizations November 1985 (vol.7, no.2) New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers Rutgers -- The State University, 1985 pp. 20-21, w/notes 41-44 p.311 Dr. Charles S. Finch M.D.
THE CHAPTER CONTINUES:
The Evolution of the Caucasoid Journal of African Civilizations[/i] November 1985 (vol.7, no.2) New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers Rutgers -- The State University, 1985 pp. 21-22 http://books.google.com/books?id=JMY1p0t_bHoC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22so+if+ African presence in early Europe By Ivan Van Sertima
The article coins a new term "the Vitamin D albinism theory"
It is a corruption of terminology. Frederick G. Murray and other anthropolgists do not have a "Vitamin D albinism theory."
It is called the
Vitamin D Hypothesis of Depigmentation.
The theory is that over thousands of years people's skin lost pigmentation in order to absorb Vitamin D more quickly. With some exceptions we can see a broader pattern of this in for example Khosian's lighter skin as opposed to equatorial Africans (of course not involving Aurignacians) This represents a gradual adaptation to environmental conditions.
Albinism is not an adaptation to environmental conditions. Most frequent in Africa it is birth defect, something that makes a person less suited to the the African envirionment. It does not occur gradually over thousands of years. It occurs suddenly where the child is born with little or no melanin and looks very different from their parents' skin, hair and eye color. It is also accompanied by eye problems another disadvantage.
So what appears to be a scientifically oriented article is dishonest in coining this term. It is simply an attempt to make pale skinned Europeans look like they are rooted in a maladaptive birth defect which accidentally worked out being advantageous in Northern latitudes.
The attempt to transform slow evolutionary adaptation into a birth defect by inserting the word "abinism" into the Vitamin D hypothesis is called racist spin and it also would include milions of East Asians, many of the Han Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm just showing the albino relatedness of the skin, eye, and hair colour of European whites.
American and other whites accept and promote an identity of caucasian for themselves.
I have posted that this is factually inaccurate. I respect the right of self-determination for those whites who want to call themselves what they chose.
There is only one human race. There are more geographic varieties of humans than anyone can count. While some may fit contrived racial placement most do not. Race factors in temperment and intelligence along with phenotype. Temperment and/or intelligence could place one in a different race than their phenotype would suggest.
Again since a white male proposedhis kind sprang from endemic albinism then how is it racist or anti-white?
You must pay attention and use your intelligence to see that albinoid is not albino. Albinoids display the full range of European white people's light hair, light eye, and light skin values and both Finch and Westerhof say it coalesced in a limited geography under precise ecological pressures with little or no outside geneflow where those without the adaptive advantage died off. All this happening over 10-20 thousand years of evolution.
There is no hatred or involved or inferiority stated or implied thus no racism can be inferred.
The albinoid state just like the sickle cell trait is something that in their benign conditions were advantageous for what the populations were facing in their environments.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nobody knows exactly how European white people came into existance. There are only hypotheses. Sustained congenital loss of colour whether spurred on by survival and reproduction of better vitamin D synthesizers and/or tyr+ albinoids (either/both occuring 20-30kya) and/or an SCL24A5 "sweep" (6kya).
Take your pick. They're all just somebody's best guess. If one is racist they all are racist as they all rely not on hatred or notions of superiority. They each and all rely on genetics.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Races aren't solely defined by their skin pigmentation or hair colour, and never have been. This thread is an epic fail.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The article coins a new term "the Vitamin D albinism theory"
It is a corruption of terminology. Frederick G. Murray and other anthropolgists do not have a "Vitamin D albinism theory."
It is called the
Vitamin D Hypothesis of Depigmentation.
Ha,ha,ha:
Depigmentation means that you have no melanin - thus you are an Albino!
Squirm and slither all you want, the truth is inescapable.
Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Definition of ALBINO :an organism exhibiting deficient pigmentation; especially : a human being that is congenitally deficient in pigment and usually has a milky or translucent skin. (Translucent means: permitting the passage of light.)
So then you ARE an Albino, thus the question is "HOW" did you become an Albino.
The theory is that over thousands of years people's skin lost pigmentation in order to absorb Vitamin D more quickly.
For the sake of argument, let us follow that logic. Europe and Central Asia are at the same latitude, Why would the Blacks in Central Asia need that adaption and NOT those in Europe?
Oh yes, you forgot to include that part: the theory stated that this happened in Europe. But as we know - that is "IMPOSSIBLE" as there is no trace of So-called "Caucasians" in Europe until the current era.
Question: Are there no Summers in Central Asia?
. As we see from the UV chart, Central Asia has 4 months of moderate Sunshine.
And as we see from Ashley H. Robins study of 2009 debunking the Vitamin D nonsense; Blacks readily absorb vitamin D, and have numerous methods of "STORING" vitamin D. Therefore there is no functional need for Blacks to do "ANYTHING" in even REAL low Sunlight environments - which Central Asia and Europe are NOT!
(As an aside in demonstrating the nonsense of Albinos: I was once told by an Albino, in the most serious way, that because Black skin ABSORBED Sunlight, and White skin REFLECTED Sunlight, White skinned people have a greater tolerance for the Sun.
Judging by the number of Albinos on the worlds beaches - He,he,he, many of them actually BELIEVE that.)
ADDITIONALLY!
Mongolia is a land locked country, at the same latitude, with few, if any, sources of Vitamin D rich foods.
Yet we can see that Blacks there, like those in Europe: NEVER changed!
The attempt to transform slow evolutionary adaptation into a birth defect by inserting the word "abinism" into the Vitamin D hypothesis is called racist spin and it also would include milions of East Asians, many of the Han Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.
Just like Blacks with so-called "Caucasian" features can produce Albinos.
So too can Blacks with "Mongol" type features produce Albinos.
Thus in ancient China (up until recent times) you had probably equal elements of both skin coloration's.
Qin Dynasty - circa 200 B.C.
Exactly WHEN China became "Predominately" Mulatto is of course unknown.
But as we can infer from this Painting of Kublai Khan on a hunting expedition circa 1280 AD. We can clearly see that by that time, racial "Blending" was well on its way.
Note that Kublai Khan's wife is the "Only" Albino. Note too, that of the nine men, only two are Blacks.
The others, including Kublai Khan, are "Brown" skinned Mulattoes.
.
It may surprise some to know that in modern China, there are still Blacks; and Whites, who are very close to the original Mongol Albinos.
But nothing demonstrates China's "Racial Blending" better than this photo of an old Black soldier and his granddaughter.
Obvious his child married a very "Pale" Mongol - one of the "almost" Albino types; thus producing a granddaughter who is typical of most Chinese.
posted
WebArticle from the New york Department of Health.
Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is stored in your body fat. In general, adults and children living in New York State can get enough casual sun exposure from March to October to store a significant amount of vitamin D. It will later be released for the body's use during the winter months.
New York is at the SAME latitude as most of Central Asia.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lies Albinos tell themselves, and Black people, about Black people, to convince themselves that White skin has a function, and that they are not therefore Albinos.
Quote: As you probably know, darkly pigmented skin isn't efficient at inducing the synthesis of vitamin D. This isn't a problem in Africa where there's plenty of sun, but it often translates into vitamin D deficiency in areas of the world where sunshine is more limited. Fortunately, if you get enough sun exposure in the summer, your body will make and store enough D to get you through the winter. This doesn't work as well if you're obese because body fat holds onto vitamin D tenaciously and doesn't release it efficiently,says Michael Holick, Ph.D., M.D., an expert at Boston University.
Effect of ultraviolet adaptation on the ultraviolet absorption spectra of human skin in vivo.
RESULTS:
UV adaptation shows as an increase in absorption coefficients over the entire measured UV range and especially in short-range UVB. Subject groups with high vs. low UV exposure can be discriminated by analyzing the difference absorption spectra between dorsal and volar aspects of the forearm. No dependence on the subject's phototype (Skin Color) was seen in the degree of adaptation. CONCLUSION:
The difference between native and facultative pigmentation may be explained by the absorption properties of the two prime chromophores responsible for adaptation to higher UV exposure: melanin and keratin. Stronger pigmentation, i.e. a higher melanin concentration, is found as an increase of absorption coefficients (Multiplication factors) over the entire UVA-II/UVB range. The thickening of the horny layer and accordingly, a higher influence of keratin on the absorption spectra is prominent especially in the UVB region.
{I think that means that Black skin absorbs UV "FASTER"!}
The reason why Blacks are NOT injured by this rapid UV absorbancy, is because with the ability to produce melanin, also comes the ability to quickly REPAIR skin cell damage. The two work hand-in-hand.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
but Mike how did this albinism enable whites to conquer the world and enslave our people for over 400 years?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BTW - How is a DH Doxie different from a regular Doxie?
Do you even know what a Doxie is Mikey boy white people hating black racist black supremacist?
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BTW - How is a DH Doxie different from a regular Doxie?
Do you even know what a Doxie is Mikey boy white people hating black racist black supremacist?
Mike I appologize I was out of line calling you that in this case. Do you know what a Doxie is? I want to make sure before I answer your question.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: but Mike how did this albinism enable whites to conquer the world and enslave our people for over 400 years?
^Forget the bullsh1t, you're not really fooling anybody.
But it's a good question, with a complicated answer that has more to do with Blacks, especially those in Europe, not taking lowly Albino seriously.
But a better question: How did Black skin, enable us to rule for over 40,000 years?
Albino Grimaldi
.
what happened is that the Grimaldis in Europe lost pigment and gradually became white people. Similarly the Central East Africans went down into Southern African and became lighter skin Khosians. Then light skinned Central Asian white skinned people met up with the white Grimaldi mixed with them and the rest was His-Story.
Mike, something I'm confused about in your theories (perhaps you are confused as well) >Are white people Albino Dravidians? or Central Asian Albinos? Most Dravidians are located in South Asia, Southern India not Central Asia. Anyway the prehistoric Europeans were already albinoized before the Central Asian (Dravidian?) migrants came in to meet up with their brothers for a white power rally. That's how they pulled it off, they were already albino.
There is also an ancient biological technique that whites have always kept secret from blacks. It's a way of altering black people to produce albinos, has to do with certain herbs and roots
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: DHDoxies - Well, either you occupy yourself with hounds, or you are a girl who a man might describe as having agreeable habits.
Ah, as I write it, I see it.
DH = Dash-Hounds, silly me.
Just a person who when I have wronged someone in an instance I admit my wrong and apologize for that wrong, its just how I was raised.
Doxie= Dachshund (pronounced Dox hund) DH= my soon to be kennel name its short for Dragonheart. The difference between my dachshunds & "regular" dachshunds is that my dachshunds will be from AKC registered, health tested, champion parents and therefore will be quality doxies.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Mike, something I'm confused about in your theories (perhaps you are confused as well) are white people Albino Dravidians or Central Asian Albinos? Most Dravidians are located in South Asia, Southern India not Central Asia. Anyway the prehistoric Europeans were already albinoized before the Central Asian (Dravidian?) migrants came in to meet up with their brothers for a white power rally. That's how they pulled it off, they were already albino.
There is also an ancient biological technique that whites have always kept secret from blacks. It's a way of altering black people to produce albinos, has to do with certain herbs and roots
Lioness - I see that the previous posts have put you in nonsense mode. But I will answer anyway because I want to make a point.
Over the years, there were many comments as to why I don't read the books of past Black pioneers in the field.
The quotes from Diop is the reason why. Though they were brilliant ground-breaking researchers, they simply didn't have enough information - so like everyone else - they guessed.
As you know, I rarely guess. Rather, I simply string known data together, where it ends up is usually the truth.
I also see that as usual, when you are cornered, you start to falsify.
There is no ambiguity as to the starting point of the Dravidian Albinos or their movements.
They left Africa and entered India with the other migrants. Later they crossed the Hindu kush range and entered the plains of Central Asia.
At about 1500 B.C. they returned to India as the invading Arians. Later still, at the turn of the modern era, the Huns chased the ancestors of modern Europeans from Central Asia into Europe.
Later still (circa) 600 A.D. The Mongol tribes chased the last remaining Dravidian Albinos in Asia (the Turks), out of Asia, and into Asia minor.
That's it, it's well documented by even Albinos, I see no reason for confusion.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: but Mike how did this albinism enable whites to conquer the world and enslave our people for over 400 years?
^Forget the bullsh1t, you're not really fooling anybody.
But it's a good question, with a complicated answer that has more to do with Blacks, especially those in Europe, not taking lowly Albino seriously.
But a better question: How did Black skin, enable us to rule for over 40,000 years?
That's deep! I am afraid your question will remain unanswered.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Races aren't solely defined by their skin pigmentation or hair colour, and never have been. This thread is an epic fail.
There is not such thing as races, so your claim is a epic fail to begin with.
If you claim so, start explaining your races of Europe? Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ desperate retard.
If you bothered to read the article, instead of rushing to quote-mine, it shows dark skin is a recent mutation -
''...early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had light brown skin'' [p. 293]
''The early modern man who migrated to the open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) where UV radiation is the most intense developed a deep black skin'' [p. 294]
The author subscribes to the 'Out of Africa' theory, so he believes in a dispersion out of Africa by the Bushmen (proto-Capoids), who as he points out are light brown skinned, not dark or 'deep black' like Negroids.
Regardless of what evolution model however you subscribe to, dark skin is a recent mutation. Indigenous Africans were light brown.
And btw, talking of who doesn't look at their own data, your article states that Caucasoids evolved thin noses through cold (European) climate:
quote:the smaller nasal index (narrower nose) of the caucasoid
I've been saying this for years on this forum, yet have been called a 'white supremecist' for saying only Caucasoids have narrow noses. Yet now you quote an article that agrees, lol.
Caucasoids did, but black people with long narrow noses are thought to have developed it through hot, arid and dry heat, not cold weather.
Sorry to bust your bubble. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: As to the Mongol Asians:
[
I wonder if this guy is from one of those original Hunnic peoples called the black Huns or Sabir Huns called also Sabirskaya from whose name came Siberia. Attila's and his Hun Ughur people according to Jordanes were short thick set black people with small eyes. The original Tatars and Huns according to documents were black or near black and squat people with small eyes. Or are they the Kara Khitai or all three.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] As to the Mongol Asians:
Just like Blacks with so-called "Caucasian" features can produce Albinos.
So too can Blacks with "Mongol" type features produce Albinos.
NOT WHITE, just an Albino Asian with typical Asian features. Heck this girl way lighter than ME.
It may surprise some to know that in modern China, there are still Blacks; and Whites, who are very close to the original Mongol Albinos.
NOT White would never be accepted as White, is Asian or Mongoloid with typical Japanese features. Why must you White people haters claim every dark skinned person is Black & every light skinned person is White, when that is not the case? That is a serious question btw.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ desperate retard.
If you bothered to read the article, instead of rushing to quote-mine, it shows dark skin is a recent mutation -
''...early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had light brown skin'' [p. 293]
''The early modern man who migrated to the open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) where UV radiation is the most intense developed a deep black skin'' [p. 294]
The author subscribes to the 'Out of Africa' theory, so he believes in a dispersion out of Africa by the Bushmen (proto-Capoids), who as he points out are light brown skinned, not dark or 'deep black' like Negroids.
Regardless of what evolution model however you subscribe to, dark skin is a recent mutation. Indigenous Africans were light brown.
And btw, talking of who doesn't look at their own data, your article states that Caucasoids evolved thin noses through cold (European) climate:
quote:the smaller nasal index (narrower nose) of the caucasoid
I've been saying this for years on this forum, yet have been called a 'white supremecist' for saying only Caucasoids have narrow noses. Yet now you quote an article that agrees, lol.
The two lines you've cited, start with suggested and likely. (this why you left it out).
The modern man who originally came from Africa ousted all hominids and all archaic prede- cessors of Homo sapiens in every continent as de- termined from excavations at different places in the world.
It is quite likely that early modern man inherited its features from the early hominids from the southern part of Africa.
It is assumed that early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had a light brown skin (Fig. 2A).
Consequently, it is suggested that the skin ...
At the end of this/ his thesis, it boils down to.
The first modern man had black skin and black curly hair. He was the first to populate Africa and Asia.
And of course, like other Africans San people are barely hairy, on the overall body. Oldest of humankind arose at Omo Kibish. Not at South Africa a relatively colder environment, to where San people eventually moved.
In your following citation. The author speaks of open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) ?
I wonder what the Omo Kibish is, where mankind originally arose and archaic people can be found? So his theory becomes somewhat problematic, here!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
You must pay attention and use your intelligence to see that albinoid is not albino.
"aibinoid" is a made up word that doesn't appear in Websters or Oxford distionary. It's an attempt to extract the "oid" suffix from Negroid, or Caucasoid or Mongolid and racialize "albino" This thread is a bone thrown to a cockeyed dog named Mike
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
What was she thinking? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
!
Printer-friendly view of this topic