posted
The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
Posts: 816 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This dude is part of E.S management..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by facts: The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
The fact they never had a civilization is why they have a modern identity crisis, they are the only race running around the web claiming to be Olmecs, Aztecs, Vikings, Chinese, Arabs to Egyptians. LOL.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by facts: The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
The fact they never had a civilization is why they have a modern identity crisis, they are the only race running around the web claiming to be Olmecs, Aztecs, Vikings, Chinese, Arabs to Egyptians. LOL.
posted
Factless & Anglohasshole why why why why...please don't answer back...but like a wise lady said on another thread your moms should have swallowed, but I think that's waay too dangerous your daddy should have emptied out his man seed in a pile of Kleenex while watching gay porn....just saaying!!!
quote:Originally posted by facts: The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
As usually we can witness another rant by the AshkeNazi delusional African American impostor. Meaning you suffer from schizophrenia!!!!!
Large part of WEST AFRICA were more advanced than WEST EUROPE before the colonial time.
Through trickery and deceive you now lie, when you have on purpose blacked the possibilities of development and progress!!!
THis is a CELTIC HUT from before, during the time of the Roman invasion and shortly thereafter. You folks could not READ NOR WRITE PRIOR THE ENSLAVEMENT OF YOU, BY THE ROMANS!!!!
Architect we see across the Sudanic Belt.
Augustin F.C. Holl et al.
Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, 2009.
Coping with uncertainty: Neolithic life in the Dhar Tichitt-Walata, Mauritania, (ca. 4000–2300 BP)
Abstract
The sandstone escarpment of the Dhar Tichitt in South-Central Mauritania was inhabited by Neolithic agropastoral communities for approximately one and half millennium during the Late Holocene, from ca. 4000 to 2300 BP. The absence of prior evidence of human settlement points to the influx of mobile herders moving away from the “drying” Sahara towards more humid lower latitudes. These herders took advantage of the peculiarities of the local geology and environment and succeeded in domesticating bulrush millet – Pennisetum sp. The emerging agropastoral subsistence complex had conflicting and/or complementary requirements depending on circumstances. In the long run, the social adjustment to the new subsistence complex, shifting site location strategies, nested settlement patterns and the rise of more encompassing polities appear to have been used to cope with climatic hazards in this relatively circumscribed area. An intense arid spell in the middle of the first millennium BC triggered the collapse of the whole Neolithic agropastoral system and the abandonment of the areas. These regions, resettled by sparse oasis-dwellers populations and iron-using communities starting from the first half of the first millennium AD, became part of the famous Ghana “empire”, the earliest state in West African history.
For more, here is an excellent thread by Jari, elaborating on this particular aspect.
Considering all these similarities, we can clearly state that West and Northeast Africa had closer contact with each other than West Europe had with South Europe (Greece) during the same time of their heights. Despite of the large distance on the African continent and the small distance on the European continent.
Of course, a schizophrenic impostor like you doesn't know anything of this! LOOOOOOL
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by facts: The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
As usually we can witness another rant by the AshkeNazi delusional African American impostor.
dont waste your time replying to him, Take up my new strategy of wrecking every thread that he makes with random photos
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by facts: The White man has given us the Internet, telephones, airplanes, cars, sturdy buildings, modern medicine, movies, light bulbs, and just about everything else that makes our society great today.
What have blacks contributed to society?
The technological advances created by Europeans between 1000 AD and today is amazing.
Africans lived in mud huts in 1000 AD and today most of them still live in mud huts. The ones that don't are relying on European technology. Meditate on that to sober your mind.
As usually we can witness another rant by the AshkeNazi delusional African American impostor.
dont waste your time replying to him, Take up my new strategy of wrecking every thread that he makes with random photos
Agreed upon!
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Factless & Anglohasshole why why why why...please don't answer back...but like a wise lady said on another thread your moms should have swallowed, but I think that's waay too dangerous your daddy should have emptied out his man seed in a pile of Kleenex while watching gay porn....just saaying!!!
posted
The information below, offers proof of Caucasoid Neanderthal heritage. Using biodiversity approaches, analyses show that ancestral Caucasoids evolved in Europe into Neanderthals, and failed to progress beyond the stone age. SOme Neanderthal genes carry over to today's Caucasoids:
"Pure white evolution led to Neanderthals both in terms of paler skin and cold-adaptive limb proportions. African evolution led to anatomically modern humans.
QUOTE: "What was different about the Neanderthals? What did the Cro- Magnons think when they saw them for the first time? To begin with, the Neanderthals were very light-skinned and the Cro- Magnons were less so. " --Juan Luis Arsuaga, Andy Klatt. 2004. The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers
"This finding suggests that Neanderthals evolved a functional variant of the MC1R gene independently from modern humans as they dispersed into northerly latitudes, and thus supports the inference for the convergent evolution of depigmented skin in the Neanderthals lineage.." --Michael P. Muehlenbein. 2010. Human Evolutionary Biology
"Regarding environmental buffering, Trinkaus (1986 and this volume) reiterates that while Neanderthal limb proportions are suggestive of cold adaptation, no such indications are shown by Eurasian early modern humans. Their distinct limb proportions are instead indicative of an equatorial ancestry and better culturally based thermal protection.. the limb proportions of the Eurasian early modern samples are retentions of the African ancestral morphology of long limbs with long distal segments.." -- Erik Trinkaus (ed), 'The Emergence of Modern Humans", (C. Stringer p. 88). School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1989.
Modern scholarship shows a great 3-way evolutionary split in hominid lineages s several hundred thousand years ago. European hominids evolved into Neanderthals. Asians into Homo Erectus. Africans went on to evolve into today's advanced anatomically modern humans.
QUOTE: "Following the initial Out-of-Africa event, natural selection and random genetic drift began to drive populations in Africa, Europe, and eastern Asia in different morphological directions. Morphological differentiation was particularly clear by 500,000–400,000 years ago, and from this time onwards, there were at least three evolving human lineages. These may always have been able to exchange genes, but distance and small population size probably limited gene flow, and the composite fossil and archeological records indicate that the African lineage spread to replace or swamp the others beginning roughly 50,000 years ago. It is thus r easonable to supply the lineages with biological species labels: Homo sapiens in Africa, Homo neanderthalensis in Europe, and Homo erectus in the eastern Asia.
.. Many details of Out-of-Africa remain to be worked out, and disagreement persists, for example, on the extent to which dispersing modern Africans and archaic Eurasians may have interbred and especially on what promoted the relatively sudden Out-of-Africa expansion. Most authorities attribute the expansion to behavioral changes that conferred a substantial Darwinian fitness advantage, that is, that allowed modern humans of African descent t o survive and reproduce at a significantly higher rate than the archaic humans they encountered in Eurasia. "
-- Richard G. Klein. 2009. Darwin and the recent African origin of modern humas Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 September 22; 106(38): 16007–16009.
Some white "Racial Reality" or "biodiversity" proponents argue for European descent from NEanderthals "untainted" by Africa- a lily white "pure" line of white evolution.
Ironically, when it suits white racists, dark skinned, kinky haired peoples suddenly become "Caucasoid" when racists seek to appropriate their heritage and civilization to cover up Europe's massive borrowing, copying and latecomer status.
But let's go with their "pure white" evolution approach for a moment. ----------------------------------------------------
Using it, we see then that the first whites were cold-adapted Neanderthals that failed to progress beyond the Stone Age despite a sometimes favorable environment with rich resources available (Lewin 1994). Ice Age Europe was not a cold hell but had variable climate and rich forest, woodland and aquatic resources, including ancient variants of wheat-like spelt and chick peas in place that could have been domesticated, along with ancestors of sheep, cattle and pigs, and a favorable East-West climatic axis that could have aided domestication. Despite tens of thousands of years with these advantages and resources however, white lineages failed to move beyond the Stone Age.
Thus, using the "biodiversity" approach, the first great "racial" split in the humanoid line involved white Neanderthals who colonized Europe, and Africans, who colonized Africa and went on to become anatomically modern humans.
The first “pure” white genetic output was thus brutish, primitive, dead end Neanderthals. By contrast, it was Africa that produced the future of humanity- anatomically modern humans, not cold-climate Europe. White Neanderthals survived, until they were supplanted by more advanced, modern, tropically adapted humans from Africa, via the Middle East, (SW Asia) that mingled with and replaced them. This would be the first instance of the hybridization that produced today's white Europeans. It was the coming of tropically adapted African variants into Europe that caused Europe to progress beyond the brutish “pure” white Neanderthal lineages. Continuing migrations from Africa, passing thru Asia, with a mixture of African and Asian OOA migrants- the Asian based Africoid migrants finally becoming more numerous, resulted in a second, extended round of mixed breeding, that continued to replace remnants of the backward "pure" white Neanderthal lineages to yield today's mixed breed, European hybrid population. QUOTE:
^^"There is wide agreement on a speciation event in Africa at around 0.8 or 0.9 mya when Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) gave rise to a species named Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo sapiens. The new species expanded into Europe leading to the Neanderthal lineage, whereas in Africa it evolved into anatomically modern humans. The lineage of anatomical modernization can be subdivided into three groups, morphs, or grades: an early one including Bodo, Saldanha, Kabwe, Salé, a subsequent one including Florisbad, Laetoli H 18, Ileret (ER 3884), Jebel Irhoud, and early anatomically moderns with Omo Kibish, Herto and others." --Günter Bräuer, "Middle Pleistocene Diversity in Africa and the Origin of Modern Humans". IN: Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. 2012. Series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Hublin, Jean-Jacques; McPherron, Shannon P. (Eds.)
And
” Holliday (2000) examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantine hominids from Qafzeh and Skhul(anatomically modern) and from Amud, Kebara and Tabun (Neanderthal). He determined that they were morphologically distinct; the anatomically moderns had tropically adapted body proportions, suggesting African origins, while the Neanderthals had cold adapted body proportions, suggesting European origins.” --Holliday 2000
This then could be another source of the Eurocentric inferiority complex. Pure white genetics produced only the savage Neanderthals. Africa by contrast, produced a better, more advanced human than white lineages. Today's whites still show some traces of Neanderthal genes, a throwback to their savage evolution. Some white writers argue that this Neanderthal remnant, could account for the white penchant for violence and murder. White writer R. Bradley, advances this theory in his book "The Iceman Inheritance."
So under this biodiversity approach, why then didn't pure white Europeans stay as NEanderthals? According to Bradley, they were replaced with the more advanced Africans and Asians. This diluted the savage white NEanderthal lineages, producing a better level of humanity. However the violent, savage nature of whites still remains, due to remnants of Neanderthal genes. Recent scientific findings showing European whites have traces of Neanderthal genes (Green 2010) have been used by some claimants to support the Iceman theory. Some disagree with Bradley. Others argue that his theory of white ice age adaptation is true. Racial "biodiversity" proponents share general agreement along a spectrum with its central holding of pure white evolutionary lineages, "untainted" by "negro blood."
White European lineages [Neanderthals] were the first humans to engage in cannibalism
"Cannibalism is a good example. Several Mousterian sites, along which Moula-Guercy (France) stands out, have provided reasonably firm evidence of anthropic action on Neanderthal bones.. Defleur and colleagues (1999) compared the patters of ungulate and Neanderthal bones, the skeletal parts that were found and the tool marks on the bone fragments. They concluded that all the fragments with marks indicate prey that had been subject to butchery. This suggests that cannibalistic practices existed among the Neanderthals.. But the question of cannibalism can be understood in another way. When Wolpoff was asked about the meaning of the evidence found at Moula-Guercy, he replied with a question: why should modern humans be the only violent ones? Arsuaga went even further in believing that Neanderthal cannibalistic behavior actually constituted a very human behavior, which revealed a human mind (Both cited by Culotta, 1999). " --Camilo J. Cela-Conde, Francisco José Ayala, 2007. Human evolution: trails from the past.
"But recent excavation by Alban Delfeur and Tim White at the 100,000 year old French cave of Moula-Guercy has demonstrated cannibalism beyond any reasonable doubt. The site contains butchered animal remains, predominantly red deer. Among the bones are the skulls of two young Neanderthals, their masseter muscles filleted and the tongue removed from at least one of them; the cut marks on the inner face of the mandible are virtually identical with those mode on the inside of the 12,5000-year-old modern human mandible from Gough's (New) Cave, [England] described in Chapter 3 (see p. 80). Crania of both deer and Neanderthals were broken open to get at the marrow.."
THE FIRST CAUCASOID CIVILIZATION- THE NEANDERTHALS FAILED. IT WAS AFRICA THAT PRODUCED ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS. MIXED BREED CAUCASOID (white) CIVILIZATION BORROWED AND COPIED HEAVILY FROM AFRICAN AND ASIAN PEOPLES
It was tropical peoples that developed the most wealthy and elaborate civilizations millennia before cold climate Caucasoids. Egypt for example was a leader in civiliation for milenia before anyone even heard of Greece, and Egypt wass founded by indigenous tropical Africans from the south as attested to by mainstream scholars.
The alphabet used by today's EUropeans for example, developed from modified hieroglyphic scripts created in ancient Egypt, copied and adapted by Middle Easterners, then finally filtering down into Europe. Likewise the fundamental innovations responsible for advances in human civilizations - whether it be writing, powered machinery, science, medicine, agriculture, animal husbandry, metallurgy etc are from peoples outside Europe. Joseph Needham's monumental work: Science and CIvilisation in China, is but one example documenting the creations and innovations in place before anything comparable in Europe. The modern CHinese surge in technology and economic muscle continues or recaptures a pattern in part, that began long before EUrope rose to prominence.
Medieval EUropean universities for example drew heavily on the work of Islamic writers, including Islamic compilations of ancient Greek, Indian and Persian writings. Indeed it is commonly recognized that the scholarship of Islam is the central preserver of ancient knowledge and transmitter to medieval Europe, and its centers of learning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_medieval_Islam#On_the_impact_of_medieval_Islamic_science for detailed references.
In fact said EUropean whites are primarily beneficiaries of geograpical windfalls in that numerous technological and cultural advances crucial to civilization, (from key animal and plant domestication- cows or wheat for example, to literacy, to advanced mettalurgy and a host of other items) were put in place first by non-Europeans, and then imported along an easy East-West climate axis to Europeans to cash in on the windfall, without having to do the hard, initial, original work themselves.
Such geographical windfalls for EUrope are shown in detail in Jared Diamond's 1997 Guns, Germs and Steel. Other writers such as Sowell 1981 note further geographic windfalls such as navigable river systems and harbor-friendly coastlines that enabled the spread of non-European derived ideas, technology and innovation. Europeans are borrowers from, and copiers of other peoples par excellence, even in cultural products nowadays deemed "European", such as the massively influential Christian religion.
MOST OF TODAY'S SO-CALLED CAUCASOIDS ARE IN FACT NOT A RACE AT ALL BUT MIXED BREED HYBRIDS. SOME CAUCASOIDS STILL RETAIN NEANDERTHAL TRAITS FROM ANCIENT INBREEDING, YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF CAUCASOID HYBRIDIZATION, IF BIODIVERSITY METHODS ARE APPLIED
quote: "This in turn could be explained by Europeans arising from just a single admixture event between ancestral Africans and Chinese populations occurring in Europe about 30,000 years ago.." A. Templeton 2006. Population genetics and microevolutionary theory
White Neanderthal lineages having failed, the first modern Europeans looked like Africans. Anatomically modern humans developed in Africa not Caucasoid Europe.
Scientists reveal face of the first European The face of the first European has been recreated from bone fragments by scientists.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent Published: 8:22PM BST 04 May 2009
The first modern European Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35000 years ago. Photo: BBC The head was rebuilt in clay based on an incomplete skull and jawbone discovered in a cave in the south west of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania by potholers.
Using radiocarbon analysis scientists say the man or woman, it is still not possible to determine the sex, lived between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago.
Europe was then occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had been in the region for thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens.
Modern humans first arrived in Europe from Africa.
The skull appears very like humans today, but it also displays more archaic traits, such as very large molar teeth, which led some scientists to speculate the skull may belong to a hybrid between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals – an idea discounted by other experts.
Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, said the jaw was the oldest, directly-dated modern human fossil. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe," he said.
The model was created by Richard Neave, a forensic artist, for a BBC programme about the origins of the human race and evolution.
QUOTE BY CONSERVATIVE CAVALLI-SFORZA ON EUROPEAN HYBRIDIZATION
"In addition, they allow one to hypothesize that the European population underwent substantial hybridization about 30 kya. The phenomenon may also have happened repeatedly at different times, before and after 30 kya.. the shortness of the European branch is most probably the response of the method of tree reconstruction to admixture." --Cavalli-Sfoirza, 1994. Genes, Peoples and Languages
Originally posted by some CrispasRawk: In my own musings as to why (as a whole) Africans are so backward, I see their condition in Newton's first law "A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest". At the dawn of man, Africans were very creative and innovative in taming their environment and providing for a comfortable existence for themselves. As time went on, nothing changed in nature or their environment, so there was never a need for them to change.
^^Complete and absolute bullshiit.
Originally posted by claus360 Humans develop their societies as far as the particular ecological basis will allow. Life in Africa has always been tough, since,in ecological terms, Africa was far more difficult to tame than Europe or Asia. There are various reasons as to why, despite man starting out in Africa, it lags developmentally. As I remember from my MA and reading John Reader's Africa:Biography of the Continent, problems included erratic rainfall patterns and drought; largely poor soils due to the stability of the ancient continental landmass/lack of volcanic activity linked to fertile soils; the fact that the continent is - uniquely - bisected by the equator, so proportionately more of the land mass has a tropical climate that allows pests (e.g. mosquitoes, tsetse flies) to breed year round and spread debilitating diseases (e.g. malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness - not to forget bilharzia in the rivers and lakes); from memory, comparatively more effort is required to clear African weeds; and marauding African fauna (e.g. elephants stealing crops) all put a brake on Africa's development. Tropical Africa's population growth rate, until the late/post-colonial era was relatively slow- the ecological factors listed above impacted on the ability of women to reproduce. (Reader does a continental/regional population growth comparison in Biography of the Continent, which, if accurate, shows the extent to which Africa's population growth was hampered compared to what was experienced in other parts of the world.) Without the necessary population growth, hands were tied to food production, meaning that there weren't enough individuals who could be freed up to spend time specialising in other areas. Of course, Kemet, Kush, Mali, etc were the exceptions.
Fair points, noted by several other credible scholars. It should also be noted that similar conditions above promoting isolation and lowered population and agricultural production are nothing new, and occur in Europe as well in various areas- such as parts of the mountainous Balkans- a region that gave the English language a word for fragmentation and confusion. In northern Europe, Ireland would be another case- remaining relatively backward until recent centuries. Places like Bulgaria or Ireland compare poorly to France in terms of technology, population, innovation over the span of European history. Britain by the way was in the exact same position, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, until conquest by Roman hegemons drew it into a wider orbit. Africa is thus no special case of backwardness.
The facts you post claus contradict bullshiit "biodiversity" claims about "tropical" peoples supposedly "laid back" with "easy" lives and environments. To the contrary, Africans have had to do it the hard way, without the convenient network of navigable rivers, good harbors, good soils, snow-melt facilitating irrigation etc etc. Europe by contrast has had it easy- with key plant and animal domesticates moving in an East-West climatic axis, easing the spread of new technologies, ideas and people. This is why Europeans have been massive borrowers and copiers from other peoples historically- they have always enjoyed a favorable climatic axis and location.
As one recent web analyst notes: (Stratfor) "The first is the North European Plain, an expansive stretch of lowland extending from the Russian steppe in the east to the Pyrenees in the west. This region is blessed with the densest concentration of navigable waterways in the world. The combination of a fertile, easily traversable coastal plain with seven major rivers guarantees both agricultural surpluses and the ability to move them easily and cheaply. The plain is perfect for trade, communication and technology transfer -- and from those activities the accumulation of massive amounts of capital. Consequently, Northern Europe is home to the densest concentration of wealth in the world.
The second feature -- the Mediterranean Sea -- plays a similar role to the continent's south. Maritime transport on the Mediterranean is far simpler than oceanic transport in Northern Europe; the North Sea is one of the world's stormiest bodies of water. But mitigating that advantage is the simple fact that much of the southern side of the continent lacks a robust coastal plain. So while Southern Europe is still rich by global standards, it is a distant second by the high standards of Northern Europe. The two regions have very little to do with each other geographically, and their relative isolation has spawned a raft of differing political, social and economic cultures.
Europe it should be noted had to wait on outside peoples to introduce such revolutionary developments as writing, metallurgy, major plant and animal domesticates etc, etc etc. None of these things came from Europe. Even Europe's main religion is imported from the outside.
Where tropical Africans have been able to get good locations and/or access to trade routes facilitating a heavier interchange of material, goods and ideas, advanced civilizations have developed, just like everywhere else. We know the roll call- the Nile Valley with its famous transportation and agriculture engine, the Sahara with its flows of trade linking forest and savannah- making some West African kingdoms richer than many contemporary European kingdoms in certain eras (Mali for example), the gold mining hegemons of the south as seen in Great Zimbabwe, etc etc.
Note: "interchange" above also refers to important INTERNAL exchanges between African cultures and civilizations not merely external locations. These internal interchanges were hindered by difficult environmental conditions (contrast with the dense river network and good natural harbors of other locations elsewhere making for easy movement of men, material, technology and ideas, but nevertheless they did occur at different levels over time. The famed Benin bronze works for example are the product of centuries of regional fermet and interchange. Likewise the famed iron-works of the Sudanic zone down into East Africa- a product fundamentally of long-standing indigenous development.
Finally "tropical Africa" geographically does include part of southern Egypt, and slices of Libya and Algeria, a point conveniently forgotten by many in the Western academy, as well as bogus "biodiversity" types.
CLAIM 1: “HUNTING” ACTIVITIES LEADS TO ADVANCED COGNITION AND CIVILIZATION. - Result when examined- BULLSHIIT.
The “white hunting hypothesis” is facile nonsense. Peoples like the Pygmies rely heavily on hunting, as do Nilotics like the Dorobo, and even so-called “agricultural” peoples in Eastern and southern Africa. The Inuit people of the Artic regions also hunt heavily. But neither they or Pygmies have produced advanced material civilizations, contradicting the bogus “biodiversity” claim.
Sub-tropical peoples in Mesopotamia also did quite a bit of hunting, contrary to Lynn’s claims. And the whole "non-hunting" tropical/sub-tropical meme is debunked by the hunting activities of numerous tropical and sub-tropical peoples in the Americas. Even more devasting, Australian Aborigines make a heavy living doing hunting, yet did not produce advanced material civilization which should have occured under the "biodiversity" "hunting hypothesis."
In short, your claim is the usual bullshiit, and Richard Lynn is an ignoramus when it comes to basic anthropology. He is too busy spinning a bogus tale of "virtuous Caucasoids" versus "backward tropicals/sub-tropicals" to be taken seriously.
CLAIM 2- CAUSE OF THE “COGNITIVE CHALLENGES” CAUSED BY COLD CLIMATE ADAPTATION, “ADVANCED” PEOPLE EVOLVED. Result when examined - BULLSHIIT. If so, why did the “advanced” whites fail in Europe and why did they take so long and had to copy non-white peoples to finally begin civilization in the second round?
Let’s begin by taking a look at the first white Europeans who hunted very heavily and evolved in cold climates. Using it, we see then that the first whites were cold-adapted Neanderthals that failed to progress beyond the Stone Age despite a sometimes favorable environment with rich resources available (Lewin 1994). Ice Age Europe was not a cold hell but had variable climate and rich forest, woodland and aquatic resources, including ancient variants of wheat-like spelt and chick peas in place that could have been domesticated, along with ancestors of sheep, cattle and pigs, and a favorable East-West climatic axis that could have aided domestication. Despite tens of thousands of years with these advantages and resources however, white lineages failed to move beyond the Stone Age.
Next are the early post-Neanderthal successors of Neanderthals. They too, despite plenty of "hunting" and "cold climates" failed to produce advanced material civilzations. Instead such civilizations sprang from the tropical and sub-tropical zone. Cold climate white Europeans borrowed and copied extensively from tropical and sub-tropical peoples, failing to create the advances and innovations crucial to advanced civ, writing, mettalurgy, plant and animal domestication, powered machinery, agriculture etc etc.. In short, the first touted "white hunting Caucasoids" failed to produced the advanced civilization, and the record of later "cold climate white Caucasoids" also failed to independently produce advanced civilization.
CLAIM 3: DUE TO COLD CLIMATE, THERE WUZ HIGHER WHITE IQs WHICH PRODUCED ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS. Results when Examined- BULLSHIIT.
1) Southern Egypt, from which the genesis of Ancient Egypt civilization sprang, lies in the tropical zone, from the Tropics of Cancer to Capricorn. The rest of Egypt is very similar, and lies in the immediately adjacent subtropical or arid tropic zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia. (Thompson and Perry, 1997; Griffiths, 1976)
2) The peoples of ancient Egypt, in the aforementioned tropical and semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners. (Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005)
3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia. (Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
4) The ancient Egyptians in their tropical and sub-tropical/arid tropic environment, did not need cold climate people to develop their distinct culture. Several strands of culture from religion to material living put the Egyptians closer to nearby Africans than to cold-climate Mediterraneans, Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita, 1996, 2004; Yurco 1989, 1996; Williams, 1980; Britannia 1984; Wilkinson 1999; Wendorf, 2001)
5) European/Asiatic cold climate or light skin inspiration was unneeded by the tropically adapted Africans of ancient Egypt. They peopled the Nile Valley from the Sahara and the Sudan, and ancient Egypt is part of a tropical African lineage. Indigenous development sprang from a long tradition going back deep into the Sahara and the Sudan. (Lovell, 1999; Lefkowitz, 1993, 1996; Keita 1993, Irish 2006)
6) European/Asiatic cold climate or light skin inspiration was unneeded by the tropically adapted Africans of ancient Egypt. DNA studies show the Egyptians link with other Africans via Haplogroup "E" to a much greater extent than cold climate Mediterraneans, Europeans or Middle easterners. (Keita 2004, 2008; Richards 2003; Battaglia, 2008; Cruciani 2007; Lucotte 2003; Stevanovitch et al 2004)
7) African people have a range of physical variation and don't need any inspiration or mixes from cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics to explain why. Features like narrow noses, thin lips, height etc are all indigenous to Africa. Africa has both the highest phenotypic diversity and the highest genetic diversity in the world and don’t need cold-climate/light skin inspiration for that established fact. All cold-climate/light skinned Europeans and Asiatics are SUBSETS of original African diversity. Modern DNA studies find even though some African peoples look different, they are genetically related through the PN2 transition clade of the Y-chromosome. Thus light-skinned African Libyans and dark-skinned Zulus are all genetically related Africans, even though they don't look exactly the same. (Keita 2004; Tishkoff 2002, Ely et al, 2006, Stevanovitch 2004)
8) African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
9) Not needing cold-climate/slight-skinned inspiration, the peoples of ancient Egypt are more closely linked with fellow tropical Africans in terms of cranial studies than with Europeans or Asiatics. Analysis of skeletal and cranial remains reveals that the ancient Egyptians of the early Dynastic and pre-Dynastic phases, link closer to nearby Saharan, Sudanic and East African populations than Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples. Greeks, Romans, Hyskos, Arabs and others were to appear later in Egyptian history. Craniometric studies generally place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to the range of tropical Africans in the Nile Valley and East Africa than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (Keita 1990, 1993, 1996, 2004; Hiernaux 1975; Froment 2002; Kemp 2005)
10) Comparatively recent (in evolutionary terms) Europeans and Asiatics LOOKED LIKE tropical Africans with dark skin and other features, before cold-climate adaptation changed them. Light skin color is a RECENT development for Europeans and Asiatics. The foundations of civilization in terms of key animal and plant domesticates, and associated technology in Europe and Asia were thus laid by these dark-skinned migrants from Africa, who resembled today's Africans, undermining claims of the efficacy of white skin in laying the basic foundations or in building advanced civilizations such as that built by the tropically adapted peoples of the Nile Valley. (Jablonski 2000; Brace 2005; Hanihara 1996; Rethelford 2000)
As regards to called "contributions to civilization", the question must begin with the following: What fundamental building-block processes, technologies and institutions of civilization have EUropeans invented? The answer is none or very little. European civilization is built on a foundation of borrowing and copying from non-European peoples. Europe is not a first-mover or inventor in any of the fundamental building blocks of civilization. EUropeans did not invent writing. They did not invent plant domestication. They did not invent animal domestication. They did not invent agriculture. They did not invent metallurgy. They did not invent ship-building. They did not invent the wheel. They did not invent divine kingship. They did not invent astronomy. They did not invent science. They did not invent powered machinery and its gear mechanisms. All of these things came from tropical or sub-tropical peoples of Africa or the Mideast. The alphabets used by EUropeans for example came via scripts invented by tropical Africans in ancient Egypt, which in turn were copied and modified by Middle Eastern peoples like Phonecians, before finally filtering down into Europe. The list can go on.
LEt's recap: For one thing, the earliest most, advanced civilizations in the world were created by tropical peoples, not cold climate Europeans or Asiatics. Egypt for example was a leader in civilization for millennia before anyone even heard of Greece, and Egypt was founded by indigenous tropical Africans from the south as attested to by mainstream scholars, and as already admitted to by even Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz.
In addition, Europe has been a massive borrower and copier and beneficiary of technologies developed elsewhere - from the key plant and animal domesticates of the Neolithic Natufians, to the improvements in metallurgy, pottery, construction etc down the ages, often introduced by said Natufians. The Greeks did what they did mostly on imported, not home grown technology. As the centuries rolled by there was the Arab era, again, benefiting Europe as technology from the east moved Westward to be adapted, copied and eventually improved, including advances in knowledge (the concept of zero for example is from India, algebra from the Middle East), steel-making, mining, engineering, etc etc.
And neither writing or the wheel are native to Europe. Europeans borrowed and copied them from other peoples. The first appearance of the functional wheel for example is in Mesopotamia circa 5500 BC - a time when the people there resembled tropical Africans. And the wheel as used in pottery or toys was well known in all regions of Africa circa 1500, as was the wheeled vehicle in areas where heavy loads had to be hauled and big healthy domesticated animals justified its use. (Shaping world history: breakthroughs in ecology, technology, ... by Mary Allerton Kilbourne Matossian 1997).
Africa's poverty (not all the continent) is nothing unusual. For most of its history, large parts of Africa have been isolated and underpopulated, similar to white areas like Ireland, or the Balkans. These are historically poor European areas that have disadvantages in geography and political fragmentation. parts of Africa likewise show the same pattern. This again, is nothing special. Note that those areas of Africa that had good transport and access to trade show a different pattern. We have already discussed ancient Egypt, but look also at ancient Mali and Ghana. You have to do apples to apples comparisons. In medieval times, Ghana and Mali had a standard of living higher than or equal to numerous contemporry European polities. The wealth of Manus Musa and Mali demonstrate why.
And the west did not "invent" fundamental democracy, capitalism and science. This is simply more nonsense on the part of people like Dinesh Dezousa, who is a journalist, not a historian. Greek "democracy" was a joke. Most of the people could not vote. Most of Sparta's people were semi-slaves, the helots, not "citizens". Likewise, "capitalism" - the operation of the factors of production among freely interacting transactors- is as old as human commerce. It was not "invented" by Europe. EUropeans took A PARTICULAR TYPE OF FREE MARKET INSTITUTIONS and TRANSACTIONS and labeled them "capitalism" but freely interacting transactors using the factors of production is ancient (non-European) history. And "science" has been around long before Europe emerged out of being a backwater region. See for example the book: "Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science--from the Babylonians to the Maya by Dick Teresi (Oct 1, 2003). He shows that so called "western" science, is a product of innnovations and discoveries going back centuries before there was even the entity named 'Europe". As noted above, Europeans freely borrowed and copied what had already been developed by tropical and sub-tropical peoples. Even the alphabet used by Europeans was not invented by them, but comes from Egyptian scribes' adaptations to hieroglyphic scripts, which in turn were copied and adapted by Semitic speaking "Middle Eastern" peoples, before finally trickling down to Europe.
Objections debunked The standard objection will be that those who ask the fundamental question "should not go back so far." But why? Why do white racists get to pick and choose the question, and get to exclude whatever they want, so that their racist claims look better? NO. Put them to the test. If they are going to throw around words like "civilization" - well then they cannot escape the question.
The second objection usually raised is that the early inventors of the fundamental building blocks were not "really black." But again, why do white racists get to define who is black or not? Objection 2 reveals their hypocrisy. WHen they project white goodness and virtue they portray anything non-white as backward and lesser. But when the hard data of history shows that it is non-white peoples who created the fundamental building blocks of civilization their hypocrisy suddenly transforms "lesser breeds" into "whites." But even then they fail. Early "middle Easterners" as late as the Iranian Bronze Age resembled today's tropical Africans as shown by credible mainstream scholars (Hanihara 1996) The incoming Neolithic into Europe that brought numerous advanced innovations did NOT resemble today's white Europeans, but rather today's tropical Africans. In other words it was people looking like Africans that brought most of the building blocks of civilization to Europe, not people like today's whites.
As one scholar notes, Simplistic claims about Africa are long obsolete
Again, research across the continent over the last three decades decisively disproves this point of view. The literature on this topic is expanding rapidly: there is, however, no doubt that complex polities in the Nile Valley (O'Connor 1993; Welsby 1998), in West Africa (Gronenborn 2001; Holl 1985; MacEachern 2005; Mclntosh 1991, 1999; Mclntosh and Mclntosh 1984), in North-east Africa (Curtis 2004; Fattovich 2000; Munro-Hay 1993), in East and Central Africa (de Maret 1999; Kusimba 1999; Schoenbrun 1999; Sutton 1993) and in south-eastern Africa (Huffman 1996; Pikirayi 2000; Sinclair et al. 1993) were indeed African, developing according to their own internal logics. The social and political hierarchies, the external relations and the economic and trading systems of these states were entirely comparable with those of similar polities on other continents, and were frequently recognized as such by European visitors before corrosively racist views of Africans had time to develop (cf. Brooks 1993; Northrup 2002). They did not appear in isolation - indeed, neither did states in other parts of the world, including Europe - and, again, they were not mirror-images of states in those other regions (cf. Mclntosh 1999). The culture history of the continent is one of change and development comparable to that of Europe and Asia, one where particular cultural systems - the development of external symbolic systems, agriculture or states, for example - occur in particular areas, which in turn affect neighbouring regions in different ways.
--SOURCE: Scott MacEachern. Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92
So the fundamental question still remains- What fundamental building-block processes, technologies and institutions of civilization have EUropeans invented? The answer is none or very little.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic