posted
Facial reconstruction of the Shang, Xia and cultures and civilization during 5000BC in China were 100% Mongoloid people like the modern East Asian people, not like the brown skinned Southeast Asians ( who are considered East Asians in genetics but racially different to North Asians), not like the Polynesians ( who are closer to the mongoloid race but with some melanesian admixture in their Autosmal DNA), not like the Australoids and definitely not even close to the Africans who has 0% genetic relations with Pacific people. Please do not listen to the lies of these Afro-centrists who steals history, their only evidence is manipulating and misinterpreting genetic and historical evidences to their advantages.
" A careful study of the bones of 400 individuals removed from more than 300 graves indicates that the Jiahu ethnic group may be identified with the North Asian Mongolian group, and also with the Xiawanggang and Miaodigou groups in Henan Province and the Dawenkou, Yedian and Xixiahou groups that were later found in Shandong Province. The range of male heights was from 170 to 180 cm. In the late Palaeolithic Zhoukoudian Cave, `unspecialized' Mongoloids were described6. By the Yangshao period (3000 BC± 5000 BC)7, the skull measurements are `physically Chinese' and `modern'6. The physical similarity of the Jiahu people to the later Dawenkou (2600 BC±4300 BC) indicates that the Dawenkou might have descended from the Jiahu, following a slow migration along the middle and lower reaches of the Huai river and the Hanshui valley. "
Racial & Cultural continuity, from Yangshao to the Shang.
" Racially the Shang were Mongoloids, like the preceding Yangshao and Longshan cultures. The Shang bones are indistinguishable from the Longshan. The Shang were not invaders from the Middle East. In addition to racial similarities, the Shang also shared cultural similarities with the Yangshao and Longshan cultures. "
PLEASE don't listen Clyde Winters nonsense on Polynesians in Pacific today are descendants of Xia and Shang, there's no genetic or skeletal evidence to prove it.
Recent genetic has proven that the Polynesian mtDNA marker B4a1a1 have existed in the Bismarck Archipelago 6000 years ago during the time when there was an very few people, it's way before the Taiwanese aborigines (ancient ones, not like modern ones) have even migrated to Pacific and intermixed.
You are the dealing with the kind of people who could even claim that God was black man if he had little dark skin or little curly hair. Afro-censtrists have been ridiculously claiming every civilization in the world, they keep taking advantages of the way sculptures were built and anything that resembles their physical traits like dark skin, wide nose, curly hair for their own history manipulation when these traits are not strictly to negroid. At the same time they would claim that Dravidian or Tamils as black, despite the fact they are straight haired, hairy bodied, facial haired, long nose-bridged people. They even claimed Mediterranean people like spanish, italians have darker skinned due to mixing with black despite the fact that Australian aborigines have different skull and genetics to African, afro-centrist would still claim them as their own. Despite the fact that Australoid are an much older race and the most genetically distanced to african negroid they still claim them as one of their. Afro-censtrists want's to claim ancient homosapiens as the same race as african black despite the fact their skulls and genetics don't match. And if they ever founded one australoid skeleton from 2000 years ago they would make wild claims that he was an emperor with all sorts of fantasy they can come up with. They keep creating evidence through MANIPULATION and taking ADVANTAGE of every little things is and than piece them bit by bit to the point they can come up with there own theories.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all i have never discussed Polynesian origins. My research has been concerned with the Melenesian population.
Jiahu culture is related to the Dawenkou. Dawenkou was a Negro culture--not mongoloid.
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China.
The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites, as noted by Dr. Chang, make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
Chinese nationalist are attempting to re-write Chinese history so they can steal the negro rise of civilization in China.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
NONSENSE. Dr Chang has never mentioned the presence of any Negro skeleton, you obviously got your source from an written Afro-centrist books that twisted and manipulated it's meaning. I've read what Dr Chang said in Chinese, he didn't mentioned no negro skeleton but rather those skeletons had straight hair and were more similar to the polynesian-mongoloid type like this. Also I've not read any Chinese historian who associated Xia civilization with Dawenkou culture NONE. This BS book was clearly written by an Afro-centrist.
According to Dr Chang, he claimed Dawenkou were of mongoloid-polynesian looking type rather than Chinese. He also claimed that the very old type of Southeast Asian Mongoloid look like Dawenkou people so it doesn't even mean they have negro admixture
In other words they would have looked like this rather than negrito.
Here's what Taiwanese aborigines looked like from 3000 or 4000 years thousands years ago. Taiwanese aborigines are genetically 100% East Asian mongoloid but even their morphology was similar to polynesians rather than East Asians.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
ONE MORE THING, Jiahu were always an north Asian mongoloid like North Chinese but old Dawenkou culture had an old mongoloid look like Taiwan aborigines or like Polynesian mongoloid look, but the later Dawenkou culture had an very physically East Asian appearance, perhaps like the Taiwan aborigines they too evolved into an morphological East Asian look after some timne becoming physically indistinguishable to the East Asian mongoloid.
舞阳贾湖: Volume 2 河南省文物考古硏究所 - 1999 - 1041 pages
" Through the study of the more than 300 burials and 400 human skeletal specimens, we understand that the Jiahu people belonged to the North Asian type Mongoloid. "
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Btw, sorry for my English I know I still need to learn and practice more )
Xia Civilization had nothing to do with Dawenkou, nobody knows what culture there connected so the fact that somebody is claiming it's related with Dawenkou shows this guy is making B.S that something neither Chinese or European archaeologists have suggested.
Most Chinese archaeologists[2] identify the Erlitou culture as the site of the Xia Dynasty, while most Western archaeologists remain unconvinced of the connection between the Erlitou culture and the Xia Dynasty since there are no extant written records linking Erlitou with the official history. IN OTHER WORD, nobody knows but is is for sure that people who inhabited in the Xia Civilization were all mongoloids and like modern Chinese.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what an Jiahu looked like from 7000 BC an straight hair mongoloid with facial characteristics of northern mongolian group like northern Chinese and Tibetan. DO NOT GET ANY WRONG IDEAS about the brown shades or yellow shades, Chinese anthropologist have not been to able determined whether he was light skinned or lighter brown, but racially he looked just like what the neolithic Chinese have looked like.
Here's what an women from Dawenkou looked like from 5000 BC. Anthropologist determined she was an straight haired mongoloid women but has characteristics that are more similar to the old Taiwan aborigines, polynesians, Native Americans(Ameridians). Again no info on her skin color.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my - Another delusional mulatto who thinks "God made them that way". Well no SingaporeanROCKS, God didn't make you that way - A Black man and an Albino, or a Mongol, made you THAT way. Now if you want to think those Black men - or women - were divinely guided, so be it.
Now ordinarily I would take great delight in kicking your delusional mutt ass. But I'm tired today, I've been quite busy. So I will just direct you to a previous thread on the same matter. Please read it and then go away - you have nothing to offer us.
SingaporeanROCKS - Do you have the mental capacity to wonder how a skinless, hairless, skull could possible indicate hair type - damn boy.
BTW Cass (Anglo_Pyramidologist) is our resident Albino nut case. Consider the source, if you are capable of that kind of thought.
posted
Lol. You are funny. I give the page number below.
First of all i have never discussed Polynesian origins. My research has been concerned with the Melenesian population.
Jiahu culture is related to the Dawenkou. Dawenkou was a Negro culture--not mongoloid.
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China.
The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites, as noted by Dr. Chang, make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
Chinese nationalist are attempting to re-write Chinese history so they can steal the negro rise of civilization in China.
. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the point you're trying to prove is that those cultures are negro, and I'm telling you that Jiahu were proven to be an north Mongoloid group and the Dawenkou were proven to be Mongoloid groups aswell with traits more in common with polynesians, Ameridians, Taiwan aborigines, none of them had any negro features or traits.
Clyde Winters, I see your only source is backed up by an Afro-centrist book. Since when did Shangdong became southern China? Chinese did mentioned of homosapien skeletons, but they claimed that none of them even looked like modern humans.
REALLY???? NEGRO SKELETON???? you're so wrong about that. The skeletons they found in Southern and northern China looked either like an ape or half human/half ape.
Here's an very old fossils from southern China, they are the first very inhabitants from over 100,000 years ago.
Here's another one they found in Southern China from Yunnan from 14,000 years ago known as "Red Deer Cave people". Chinese anthropologist says that they are the evolution of what the fossils from 100,000 years ago looked like. He had the nose and face between that of an ape and man. He also had straight hair and hairy body that is between a man of an ape, in other words those skeletons in southern China were NOT EVEN HUMAN.
ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO CLAIM THEM AS NEGRO'S? are you seriously trying to say that these apes and half ape people as part of the negro people? and even if you do prove there was an negro skeleton in Southern China how the heck can you just connect them with an civilization so randomly like that?
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to provide hardcore evidence instead of piecing up misinterpreted information and creating theories of your own from that.
Clyde winter, I'm not sure if you're the same person who claimed that Southern Chinese have dark skin due to negrito admixture, but just in case you are that person (and may not want to admit it) let me just tell you that neither Northern Chinese and Southern Chinese have negrito DNA however Southeast Asians do because Negrito women and men have intermarried with them. Unlike you, I'm not biased person Clyde winters.
Malaysian has about 10% Negrito female mtDNA. M21a and M21b, melanesian Q, P and 3% Melanesian male Y-DNA.
Thailand has about 8% Negrito female mtDNA. M21a and M21b ect
Filipino has like 1.50% to 3.50% Negrito mtDNA and 7% Negrito Y-DNA. Some of the tribes however have very heavy negrito admixture. Even more surprisingly is that 20% of filipino today also have Chinese ancestry from the 200,000 Chinese migrants in 16th century who married with them during the Spain colony of Philippines.
East Indonesians are predominately the mixture of Austronesian women and Melanesian men from 4000 years ago with only some admixture from the Austronesian men and melanesian women.
The pacific island of polynesia and Micronesia were believed to be an mixture of Austronesians and Melanesians. In deed they are genetically an mixture of East Asians and melanesians however the polynesians motif B4a1a1a1 had existed in the Birchmark archipelago 6000 years ago which suggested there was already admixture with the melanesian population way before the Austronesian expansion. And the fact that B4a1a1a1 makes up for 90% of polynesian mtDNA means there was an genetic drift of an hybrid population from the contribution of few East Asian women. However the Austronesian language and culture did dispersed from the Taiwan aborigines and replaced the melanesian and negrito languages, and evidence of has an moderate frequencies of Haplogroup O3 and O1a in melanesia and polynesia.
Malagasy people are an mixture of African Bantu and Austronesians, but are linguistically and culturally Austronesians. They are an mixture of 38% African maternal DNA, 51% African paternal Y-DNA, 34.2% Austronesian paternal Y-DNA and 62% Austronesian maternal mtDNA. The highlander are almost mixture of 50/50 African/Ausronesians while the coastal ethnic group are mixture of Bantu African and the already mixed race Merina. However the mixture did not from Taiwan but from Borneo.
King Radama 1st wast am Asian king who united and ruled Madagascar, he was an light skinned Asian man.
Radama 1st portrait from 1820 during his time.
His father King Andrianampoinimerina was said to be an light skin man who initiated the unification of Madagascar under Merina rule and is considered one of the greatest military and political leaders in Madagascar history. There's no doubt he too would have been an Asian man.
An idolized portrait.
The current president of Madagascar is also an Malagasy that looks like an Asian man, like an Indonesian, Taiwanese aborigine looking Asian man
This means that the lightest skinned and most Asian looking represented the upper class of madagascar.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Singaporean, I learned a long time ago to leave Clyde alone. Why bother the fool when he refuses to accept basic scientific let alone historical facts. This is the same guy who claims the Dravidian languages to be African yet denies Berber-- a language group actually spoken in Africa-- to be such and claims it to be European.
If the guy wants to claim Chinese, Siberian, and whatever else as African so be it. He suffers from the same delusions and stupidity as Anglo-PrimeIdiot who claims Egypt as well as every civilization in Africa to be the work of "Caucasians".
By the way, I don't like the racial label of "mongoloid" as it is rooted in one ethnic group-- the Mongols-- but was also used as an epithet for down-syndrome a kind of retardation. I just say they were East Asian in phenotype and that's it.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! This clown pops up here regurgitating all the nonsense that has been taught about Asian history by white people. Even white Europeans know that most of that "history" is bull sh*t. But they spent the last 200 years socially "engineering" and ethnically cleansing many parts of South Asia and creating all sorts of bull sh*t history and anthropology to support their new ethnic colonies. And those populations who came about as a result of this have no choice but to worship and reiterate the lies and nonsense told by these Europeans because everything about their modern society was created by white Europeans.
And there is no better example than Singapore. Singapore is nothing but a small island that the British decided to make one of their key colonial holdings and built up into a major trading region and seaport. Originally it was primarily populated by folks related to the Malays. After the British colonized the region and set up this new "country", they brought in many people from China, including the infamous Coolie, which became the basis of the new population in the country. In many ways Singapore is simply the Hong Kong of South Asia, meaning a British created commercial colony that eventually became independent after being built up into a modern state by the British.
quote: Singapore had been a part of various local empires since it was first inhabited in the second century AD. Modern Singapore was founded as a trading post of the East India Company by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819 with permission from the Sultanate of Johor. The British obtained full sovereignty over the island in 1824 and Singapore became one of the British Straits Settlements in 1826. Singapore was occupied by the Japanese in World War II and reverted to British rule after the war. It became internally self-governing in 1959. Singapore united with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963 and became a fully independent state two years later after separation from Malaysia. .... Some 5 million people live in Singapore, of whom 2.91 million were born locally. Most are of Chinese, Malay or Indian descent.
Some examples of early people from Singapore taken from the National Photo Archives of Singapore website (but these pictures were taken by the British during colonial times)
quote: MALAY FISHERMEN IN SINGAPORE. THIS IMAGE WAS TAKEN DURING THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. ALERT BETWEEN 1878-1882
posted
Singaporeans don't like Europeans this is why always call them ang moh. British left when Singapore was in a third world. It was our Singaporean Chinese president Lee Kuan Yew who made our Singapore country from an third world into an first world. British helped Hong Kong but Hong Kong would eventually surpassed many European countries, even surpassed British themselves.
I don't believe bullshit taught by white people but also that trust the bullshit taught by Afro-centrists.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SingaporeanROCKS: But the point you're trying to prove is that those cultures are negro, and I'm telling you that Jiahu were proven to be an north Mongoloid group and the Dawenkou were proven to be Mongoloid groups aswell with traits more in common with polynesians, Ameridians, Taiwan aborigines, none of them had any negro features or traits.
Clyde Winters, I see your only source is backed up by an Afro-centrist book. Since when did Shangdong became southern China? Chinese did mentioned of homosapien skeletons, but they claimed that none of them even looked like modern humans.
REALLY???? NEGRO SKELETON???? you're so wrong about that. The skeletons they found in Southern and northern China looked either like an ape or half human/half ape.
Here's an very old fossils from southern China, they are the first very inhabitants from over 100,000 years ago.
Here's another one they found in Southern China from Yunnan from 14,000 years ago known as "Red Deer Cave people". Chinese anthropologist says that they are the evolution of what the fossils from 100,000 years ago looked like. He had the nose and face between that of an ape and man. He also had straight hair and hairy body that is between a man of an ape, in other words those skeletons in southern China were NOT EVEN HUMAN.
ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO CLAIM THEM AS NEGRO'S? are you seriously trying to say that these apes and half ape people as part of the negro people? and even if you do prove there was an negro skeleton in Southern China how the heck can you just connect them with an civilization so randomly like that?
You're in the wrong place to be parroting your high school history!Its been proven beyond doubt within these pages that blacks were present in China from the first OOA migration to the Paleolithic,Neolithic,Shang eras till very likely the Cultural Revolution. An American missionary wrote of indigenous black Chinese in the 30s,in Yunnan IIRC. Also Hong Kong University did a study showing how the dialect of the Qiang,who are descendants of the original Shang still use W.African tonals in their dialect. In fact they said it was more African than Chinese in 10 out of 12 tonal forms. Its all here in these pages-use the search function. Also,the relevant thread exists explaining how the Indonesians were already carrying bantu genes before they reached Madagascar Fyi,its not a good look being a noobie and already you're BFF with the resident retard,Anglo.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proven beyond an doubt ONLY by Afro-centrists lies and manipulations.
All the Shang bones were proven to mongoloids and like modern Chinese and that has been proven many times anthropologically. Also Shang were Sino-Tibetan speaking people what the heck does that have to do with the Qiang who are Tibeto-Burmese? not to mention they live between Tibet and Sichuan which is far away from the heart of Chinese civilization.
LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION: Qiang Mianchi dialect is an Tibeto-Burmese language in grammars, vocabulary, verbs.
The study does not claim the feature is similar due to African influence but it seems to me you're claiming that the Mianchi southern dialect of Qiang is due to African influence which is nonsense. The African feature may just be coincidental or due some tonal changes. If there was African influence in the Qiang dialect how come there's no African vocabulary? even Madagascar speaks an Austronesian language with Bantu influence because of contact with the population. Even the Chinese dialect of Shanghainese tone is different from all other Chinese dialects and similar to Japanese and Korean but this was not due to influence.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
If Indonesians were already carrying Bantu genes when they reached Madagascar how come than Indonesian has no African genes in them?
And why there is no African genes in Qiang? These are the Qiang ethnic group.
REALLY? indigenous black Chinese in the 30s? please link me an source. I've looked everywhere on the net and cannot find of such thing. And why does it have to be indigenous Blacks? why can't they be slaves who brought to China like in the middle east and South Asia when there too is evidence of african slaves and pygmy slaves being traded in Southern China.
No evidence of negro skeleton has been found in China unless somebody considered those half ape/half human homosapiens as negro. From what I read on Chinese anthropologist site, they did say that the modern Australian aborigines are somewhat closest to those half ape/half human homosapiens than other people though not exactly either.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SingaporeanROCKS: Singaporeans don't like Europeans this is why always call them ang moh. British left when Singapore was in a third world. It was our Singaporean Chinese president Lee Kuan Yew who made our Singapore country from an third world into an first world. British helped Hong Kong but Hong Kong would eventually surpassed many European countries, even surpassed British themselves.
I don't believe bullshit taught by white people but also that trust the bullshit taught by Afro-centrists.
I don't know about Singaporeans, but most Chinese in regards to anthropology are heavily influenced by Weidenreich's polycentric evolution model.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
SingaporeanROCKS you have to understand with these Afrocentric trolls, they believe Australoids, and most inhabitants of Melanesia are ''Black''.
What they do is call anyone they like ''Black'' to extend their own racial cluster out of self-hatred, which is why regular Afronut trolls here like Doug M et al claim Indians, to Polynesians are ''Black''... None of them have any interest in their own West African roots. They are self-hating Congoids.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:SingaporeanROCKS you have to understand with these Afrocentric trolls, they believe Australoids, and most inhabitants of Melanesia are ''Black''.
Yet he still has no problem calling these Melanesians blacks lol
posted
^ Looks like you didn't read that thread. The title is taken from a linked article: ''Blacks worship Whites as their Gods''. I never claimed they were ''Blacks'' in the thread itself. I post numerous links, but don't always agree with the titles. Here is another one: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=007085 This one says ''brown people'', again another bogus term i don't agree with.
In no thread have i ever claimed Melanesians are ''Black''. I have always claimed they are not Negroid ''Black''. As someone pointed out in the above thread, Australo-Melanesians are actually genetically polar to West Africans.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does a dumb ass sit up here and say that Melanesians aren't black when the word itself and the person who created it used it as a reference to BLACKS in the pacific. Such is the sorry state of the mind of dumb @ass retards who don't dare pick up a history book let alone read but sit up there and spout bull sh*t all day.
And they whine and complain when nobody takes them seriously.
From some old books written by white Europeans:
quote: The South Pacific island world, Melanesia, the dark islands of early geographers, because of the black or brown skin color of its native in- habitants, lies entirely south of the Equator, fringing continental Australia on the north and northeast.
quote: The love of dancing seems to be strongly de- veloped in the mind of the black man. This taste he shares with the European, but the two styles are widely different. The dances of the South Sea Islanders resemble rather the elaborate evolutions of a pantomime ballet, than the exer- cise as it is practised socially amongst our selves.
The natives of the New Hebrides are far in advance of the Solomon Islanders in their skill as dancers. I was present some years ago at a public dance at Mota^ and I was much struck by the ingenuity shown in the various figures of the dance, and the knowledge of their parts displayed by the dancers. The whole spectacle was an admirable specimen of native design, carried out
But these dumb behind clowns need to shut the f*ck up with the retarded nonsense they are spewing, because they know they are lying through their teeth. 100 years ago, most white European anthropologists said openly that the blacks were the primitive and aboriginal race of Asia, with remnants of this race in South Asia and the Pacific that got replaced by later arrivals of lighter skinned Asians, who built the first civilizations. Now they are not content with just that lie. Now they must pretend that these people were never black in order to claim them as white folks....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Great Ireland (Old Norse: Írland hið mikla or Írland it mikla), also known as White Men's Land (Hvítramannaland), and in Latin similarly as Hibernia Major and Albania, was a land said by various Norsemen to be located near Vinland
quote:The Hauksbók states that the inhabitants of Hvítramannaland were albani, meaning people with white skin
lol. You Afronut trolls get dumber by the day.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
As shown and documented, those explorers and "scientists" who created and used the word "melanesia" explicitly identified it as a reference to the color of the people and nothing else.
What the f*ck does that have to do with Ireland?
Are you dumb and stupid too? Ireland is not Melanesia d*ck face. One is a country see, which means a national and political entity. The other is a geographic designation for a region which includes multiple countries and also indicates related ethnic groups. Boy o boy the dumb @asses on this forum who claim to be intelligent are beyond belief. Buffoon @ss clowns. Melanesian means and has always meant black people of the pacific, even though they aren't the only ones, that is exactly what the word means doofus.
quote: There are at least three main types of people in the Pacific, and the first of these is the Negrito, now very rarely to be seen. He is a short, round-headed, frizzy- haired type, without marked eyebrow ridges, and not unduly black of skin. His nose is short and fairly straight, but broad at the nostrils and depressed at the root. He is of much the same type as the Andaman Islander, and is to be seen, though often blended with other races, in parts of the Pelew Islands, the Philip- pines, Papua, and as the so-called pygmies of the New Hebrides, described by Dr. Speisser.
He was also known in tradition in Tahiti (the names of three tribes being recorded), and is probably trace- able in some of the Fijian hill tribes to-day. Facing the following page I give a photograph that was exhibited by Mr. Hocart at a meeting of the Royal Anthropological Institute, and I well remember the discussion it aroused, as it was obvious that it could not be reconciled with the ordinary extremely long-headed mountaineer tribes, hitherto thought to be the most primitive people of that group.
The Negrito is dull and apathetic, and for this reason probably was easily exterminated by the succeeding races.
The next main type is the " Melanesian," who is noted for his dark skin, overhanging eyebrow ridge, sunken orbits, longer nose, projecting lips, narrow and receding forehead, and generally dolichocephalic head. His face is somewhat angular, he has bushy, " up- standing " hair, and can grow a good beard when he wishes. He is quick and furtive in his movements, sulky according to European ideas, but a good worker under supervision. His legs are thin and weedy, but he is wiry and not easily tired.
The last of the three divisions is the Polynesian, who is brachycephalic, wavy-haired (it is usually round on cross-section), and without much hair on the face. He has high cheek-bones, which, with the hair, show the remote mongoloid ancestry, and when this is strengthened in the northern islands by more recent blendings from eastern Asia he frequently shows a just perceptible slanting of the eyelids. (It is this latter blended type that is known as the " Micro- nesian.") The lips of the Polynesian are thinner, the features more regular, and the chin better formed than in the case of the Melanesian.
posted
Chinese people's current phenotyp is recent and due to cultual changes.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: LOL! This clown pops up here regurgitating all the nonsense that has been taught about Asian history by white people. Even white Europeans know that most of that "history" is bull sh*t. But they spent the last 200 years socially "engineering" and ethnically cleansing many parts of South Asia and creating all sorts of bull sh*t history and anthropology to support their new ethnic colonies. And those populations who came about as a result of this have no choice but to worship and reiterate the lies and nonsense told by these Europeans because everything about their modern society was created by white Europeans.
And there is no better example than Singapore. Singapore is nothing but a small island that the British decided to make one of their key colonial holdings and built up into a major trading region and seaport. Originally it was primarily populated by folks related to the Malays. After the British colonized the region and set up this new "country", they brought in many people from China, including the infamous Coolie, which became the basis of the new population in the country. In many ways Singapore is simply the Hong Kong of South Asia, meaning a British created commercial colony that eventually became independent after being built up into a modern state by the British.
Singapore had been a part of various local empires since it was first inhabited in the second century AD. Modern Singapore was founded as a trading post of the East India Company by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819 with permission from the Sultanate of Johor. The British obtained full sovereignty over the island in 1824 and Singapore became one of the British Straits Settlements in 1826. Singapore was occupied by the Japanese in World War II and reverted to British rule after the war. It became internally self-governing in 1959. Singapore united with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963 and became a fully independent state two years later after separation from Malaysia. .... Some 5 million people live in Singapore, of whom 2.91 million were born locally. Most are of Chinese, Malay or Indian descent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
Some examples of early people from Singapore taken from the National Photo Archives of Singapore website (but these pictures were taken by the British during colonial times)
quote: MALAY FISHERMEN IN SINGAPORE. THIS IMAGE WAS TAKEN DURING THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. ALERT BETWEEN 1878-1882
I don't know of any European scholars who try to hide the fact that not only Singapore but all parts of Southeast Asia had blacks as the aboriginal inhabitants. Though I don't doubt such psychos exist. Long before Euros arrived, even the Chinese had records of small black people inhabiting the area. Lighter 'brown' skinned Asians of course arrived and some mixed in with the aboriginals, and then only recently did fair-skinned Asians like Chinese begin to infiltrate Southeast Asia as well. It's a fact that many if not most of the fair-skinned peoples in not only Singapore but Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam are of Chinese or mixed-Chinese descent. Virtually all of them live in the urban areas but the countrysides are a different story.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Chinese people's current phenotype is recent and due to cultural changes.
I have no idea what you mean by this, but even Chinese themselves vary in phenotype. There are certain stereotypical looks associated with northern Chinese vs. southern Chinese and even east vs. west.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't know of any European scholars who try to hide the fact that not only Singapore but all parts of Southeast Asia had blacks as the aboriginal inhabitants.
When I was a little kid living in Singapore as an expat, I believed that black people were the indigenous Singaporeans. I got the idea because I once saw a photo of a black man in tribal gear in a Singaporean history book and assumed that he represented a native.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Dumb @ss. Shut the f*ck up.
As shown and documented, those explorers and "scientists" who created and used the word "melanesia" explicitly identified it as a reference to the color of the people and nothing else.
What the f*ck does that have to do with Ireland?
Are you dumb and stupid too? Ireland is not Melanesia d*ck face. One is a country see, which means a national and political entity. The other is a geographic designation for a region which includes multiple countries and also indicates related ethnic groups. Boy o boy the dumb @asses on this forum who claim to be intelligent are beyond belief. Buffoon @ss clowns. Melanesian means and has always meant black people of the pacific, even though they aren't the only ones, that is exactly what the word means doofus.
Clown. There is no such thing as ''Black people'' [sic] which was my point. By your same logic Native Americans are ''White'' because the natives of North America were called ''White Men'' (albani) by the Norse. So according to you the native Amerindians are ''White''...
What you can't seem to understand is that these terms have no scientific racial basis. What is scientificially valid are: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc. Terms like ''white'' or ''black'' are not scientific and never have been used.
''The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color [...] Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people.'' - Frost, Peter. (1990).
So are the English (such as myself) and Japanese now Black? Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Melanesians are Australoids who are similar to Australian aborigines not Africans. Africans have negroid skulls but Melanesians and Australian aborigines both have Australoid skulls, both are genetically very distant and different from Africans. Surprisingly Melanesians , negritos, Australian aborigines are genetically close to Asians however in appearance they look nothing alike.
Even so I would consider both melanesians and australian aborigines as Black despite their difference in skulls and genetics.
But I could never understand why clyde winters and other censtrists consider Dravidians as Black. One look at them you can mistake them for Pakis, sri lanka, bengali, Indians but yet none of them are considered Blacks but only Dravidians is, what the heck is up with that? is there even an logical explanation, the one's who think Dravidians are Black need to get their eyes check. The difference is not only their skulls and genetics that are very different but the fact almost all Dravidians have straight/wavy hair, facial hair, hairy bodies and trait that's almost non-existant in Africa. Clearly their traits and bone structure are the same as south Asians.
Tamils protesting in Canada
I see not a thing similarity between Blacks and Dravidians accept for their skin color but their traits clearly resemble all their south Asian neighbours.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not even until recently that some Afro-centrist began to all of sudden consider them as part of the Black race when in fact they look no different to the Indians, Pakis, Bengalis, Sri lankans.
In Singapore we have seen many Tamils and other Indian ethnic groups. I've myself have seen Tamils many times before and not once in my head have I considered them Black, it's easy to their difference from Africans simply from their bone structure, hair, traits. There is nothing similar to them when looking at them in real life. Even North Chinese, Japanese, Koreans can be as light as white people but you don't see white people claiming there white. Where is the commonsense in those afro-centrist who claim Dravidians is Black is just plain stupid.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have friends who are Sri Lankans who do consider themselves Blacks, not that they considered themselves African but Blacks yes,
SingaporeanROCKS
quote:There is nothing similar to them when looking at them in real life. Even North Chinese, Japanese, Koreans can be as light as white people but you don't see white people claiming there white. Where is the commonsense in those afro-centrist who claim Dravidians is Black is just plain stupid.
And White people when it suits them do just that.or turned them into "Negroes" when displeased
A high court in South Africa ruled on Wednesday that Chinese-South Africans will be reclassified as “black,” a term that includes black Africans, Indians and others who were subject to discrimination under apartheid. As a result of this ruling, ethnically Chinese citizens will be able to benefit from government affirmative action policies aimed at undoing the effects of apartheid. In South Africa, Chinese is the New Black In 2006, the Chinese Association of South Africa sued the government, claiming that its members were being discriminated against because they were being treated as whites and thus failed to qualify for business contracts and job promotions reserved for victims of apartheid. The association successfully argued that, since Chinese-South Africans had been treated unequally under apartheid, they should be reclassified in order to redress wrongs of the past. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2008/06/19/in-south-africa-chinese-is-the-new-black/
But during the Apartheid era Japanese were classed as white as they had all the money that matters.
And I have been to Singapore and Malaysia and some of the folks there did said straight out said they were black, and no I did not asked them if they were.
The Orang Asli, nevertheless, are not a homogeneous group. Each has its own language and culture, and perceives itself as different from the others. Linguistically, some of the northern Orang Asli groups (especially the Senoi and Negrito groups) speak languages - now termed Aslian languages - that suggest a historical link with the indigenous peoples in Burma, Thailand and Indo-China
quote:Originally posted by SingaporeanROCKS: Melanesians are Australoids who are similar to Australian aborigines not Africans. Africans have negroid skulls but Melanesians and Australian aborigines both have Australoid skulls, both are genetically very distant and different from Africans. Surprisingly Melanesians , negritos, Australian aborigines are genetically close to Asians however in appearance they look nothing alike.
Even so I would consider both melanesians and australian aborigines as Black despite their difference in skulls and genetics.
But I could never understand why clyde winters and other censtrists consider Dravidians as Black. One look at them you can mistake them for Pakis, sri lanka, bengali, Indians but yet none of them are considered Blacks but only Dravidians is, what the heck is up with that? is there even an logical explanation, the one's who think Dravidians are Black need to get their eyes check. The difference is not only their skulls and genetics that are very different but the fact almost all Dravidians have straight/wavy hair, facial hair, hairy bodies and trait that's almost non-existant in Africa. Clearly their traits and bone structure are the same as south Asians.
Tamils protesting in Canada
I see not a thing similarity between Blacks and Dravidians accept for their skin color but their traits clearly resemble all their south Asian neighbours.
Scientist have already proven that different races do not exist, And black simply refers to the color of a persons skin
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The study does not claim the feature is similar due to African influence but it seems to me you're claiming that the Mianchi southern dialect of Qiang is due to African influence which is nonsense. The African feature may just be coincidental or due some tonal changes.
quote:
That right there is why I avoid entanglements with your ilk! You're all uniformly incapable of seeing the truth intellectually or emotionally.That W.African/Qiang tonal similarity proves what we're all saying but you dismiss it as COINCIDENCE. Read the whole study-TWICE!! Its not long.Its in pdf,so I can't copy paste. http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_3_01_8656.pdf Fyi,here's KC Chang's bio:
quote:
The extraordinarily wide range of K. C. Chang’s intellectual interests is evident from the bibliography of his works, which follows this introduction (pp. 1-42). He has contributed to a staggering variety of fields; the following enumeration is by no means an exhaustive one. Having started out in palaeolithic archaeology, he subsequently became —and remains to this day —one of the principal scholars to define the methods and theories of settlement archaeology. He contributed in influential ways to the general methodological debates in archaeology during the 1960s and 1970s. He has been a key figure in building up the now-burgeoning field of Taiwanese archaeology. He has produced the standard synthesis on the archaeology of mainland China (currently being completely revised and updated for its fifth edition) —a book that has done more than any other to establish ancient China on the map of modern American anthropological consciousness. Bridging the gap between historiography and archaeology, he has pioneered the anthropological analysis of early Chinese society, and he has written a classic, multidisciplinary study of Shang civilization. He has also variously framed the genesis of Chinese civilization in broader comparative terms. More successfully than any other scholar, K. C. has brought the methods of modern anthropology to bear on the study of East Asian civilization. Indeed, if the study of East Asian archaeology in Western academia has recently been on an ascendant trajectory, this has been in large measure due to his efforts. In fulfilling its above-defined mission, the present journal will be following in the trails that K. C. has blazed. You really shouldn't dismiss him with such speed. http://www.bu.edu/asianarc/kcc_biblio.shtml If he says the Shang were black,then they were black. The entire region from S.E Asia to the N.E corner of Asia was black in early times. In fact there's a thread explaining the Mande substratum of Japanese as well as E.African bantu and Somali vocabulary.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claiming Sri lankans Black is like like claiming Koreans are white and why exactly would Chinese be classified as "Black"? is it due to the fact we both have flat wide noses and full lips?
When are you Afro-centrist going stop with all your day dreaming and delusions. Do you honestly believe that everything dark has to be related with Black? There's quite few Mongolian with very dark skin but this is due the fact that they lived Gobi where the skin can get sunburned due to being exposed to the sun under extreme heat day and night But their traits are still 100% mongoloid despite light any light skin Mongolian.
Dark skin Mongolians with 100% mongoloid features.
Light Skin Mongolians with 100% mongoloid features.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afro centrist = extraordinary lies and bullshits
If those Turkish says Egyptians were Turks than Egyptians must have been Turks?
Besides where the flipping heck does it say that K.C Chang claimed that the Shang were Black? why in all this time none of you Afro-centrist can prove to me about the crap you so boldly stated and claimed other than backing your sources from Afro-centrist manipulated books and articles?
K.C Chang Chinese written name is 張光直. I've searched every data on the Chinese Baidu and cannot find an single thing about him saying they were negroes, the only thing he mentioned is Peking man and ancient humans like those ape men pictures I showed you. He did mentioned Shang but not an single damn thing to do with Negro. Why would you Afro-centrist make an claim that even K.C Chang did make?
There seems to be only 2 possibilities.
1. Afro centrist deliberately used his name and manipulated the data by adding fake lies to make it seem more realistic for it's readers.
2. Afro centrist was misinformed believing that when Chinese anthropologist and K.C Chang mentioned of homosapien and first inhabitants , Afro-centrist believed they were like modern Australian aborigine or Melanesian when in fact they actually looked like those ape people.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SingaporeanROCKS: Afro centrist = extraordinary lies and bullshits
If those Turkish says Egyptians were Turks than Egyptians must have been Turks?
Besides where the flipping heck does it say that K.C Chang claimed that the Shang were Black? why in all this time none of you Afro-centrist can prove to me about the crap you so boldly stated and claimed other than backing your sources from Afro-centrist manipulated books and articles?
K.C Chang Chinese written name is 張光直. I've searched every data on the Chinese Baidu and cannot find an single thing about him saying they were negroes, the only thing he mentioned is Peking man and ancient humans like those ape men pictures I showed you. He did mentioned Shang but not an single damn thing to do with Negro. Why would you Afro-centrist make an claim that even K.C Chang did make?
There seems to be only 2 possibilities.
1. Afro centrist deliberately used his name and manipulated the data by adding fake lies to make it seem more realistic for it's readers.
2. Afro centrist was misinformed believing that when Chinese anthropologist and K.C Chang mentioned of homosapien and first inhabitants , Afro-centrist believed they were like modern Australian aborigine or Melanesian when in fact they actually looked like those ape people.
Lol just because someone is black does not mean that they are African, if I say a indian or a Melanesian is black it is referring to there skin tone not the ancestry you retard, why cant you euro racist get that through you thick heads lol
Btw only a corny lame ass white boy would come up with a name like singaporerocks
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you ask me Dravidians look like an very dark version of middle easterners like Persians and Afghans, Arabs.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:That right there is why I avoid entanglements with your ilk! You're all uniformly incapable of seeing the truth intellectually or emotionally.That W.African/Qiang tonal similarity proves what we're all saying but you dismiss it as COINCIDENCE. Read the whole study-TWICE!! Its not long.Its in pdf,so I can't copy paste. http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2008_3_01_8656.pdf Fyi,here's KC Chang's bio:
Well you clearly can't avoid misinterpretation. The study does not mention that tonal similarity was due to African influence. Don't tell me you actually believe that the tonal of Qiang dialect was influenced by Africans without leaving behind any African words or vocabulary into their dialects. Such thing are not possible, there's isn't an language in this world that can have the tonal of another language without the influence of some or even few vocabulary from other languages.
Japanese is an isolated language and sometimes considered Altaic though it's controversial. Stop believing in theories that had already been disprove by 99% of linguist.
Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Dumb @ss. Shut the f*ck up.
As shown and documented, those explorers and "scientists" who created and used the word "melanesia" explicitly identified it as a reference to the color of the people and nothing else.
What the f*ck does that have to do with Ireland?
Are you dumb and stupid too? Ireland is not Melanesia d*ck face. One is a country see, which means a national and political entity. The other is a geographic designation for a region which includes multiple countries and also indicates related ethnic groups. Boy o boy the dumb @asses on this forum who claim to be intelligent are beyond belief. Buffoon @ss clowns. Melanesian means and has always meant black people of the pacific, even though they aren't the only ones, that is exactly what the word means doofus.
Clown. There is no such thing as ''Black people'' [sic] which was my point. By your same logic Native Americans are ''White'' because the natives of North America were called ''White Men'' (albani) by the Norse. So according to you the native Amerindians are ''White''...
What you can't seem to understand is that these terms have no scientific racial basis. What is scientificially valid are: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc. Terms like ''white'' or ''black'' are not scientific and never have been used.
''The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color [...] Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people.'' - Frost, Peter. (1990).
So are the English (such as myself) and Japanese now Black?
Shut the f*ck up moron. Black in reference to human populations has always meant black skin and especially when it comes to Europeans use of the term as they went around the world. Stop talking that retarded asinine bullsh*t. Europeans and white racists used the term black as a perjorative reference to skin color as a way of distinguishing themselves as "superior" to those who were not superior. But you stupid @ss clowns know it is a crock of nonsense so now you want to include obviously black people in your special extended definition of "white" using the word "caucasoid" as a pseudonym for "white".
No matter how much you may not like it, these people are black and have always been:
No matter how you try and twist the facts and change terms and want to make it seem otherwise, these people are not "white folks". Stupid retarded clown hypocrite.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SingaporeanROCKS: True, no matter how much people twist the facts they can't deny there are white and yellow Koreans.
White Koreans
Yellow Koreans
SingaporeanROCKS - You are living in the past. With Charlie Bass now gone, I don't think that there are any more of the Black American types, who feeling themselves disenfranchised and alone, used to resentfully refer to light-skinned Asians with this; "They think they White". Meaning, they think they're better than me. (At least I hope there is no more of them). That kind in their sublime stupidity, were of course victims of the Albinos physiological warfare, and had come to believe that they were indeed "Inferior". Which of course they were, just not in the way they thought.
Hopefully, all those that are left, are intelligent enough, and secure in themselves enough, to see and accept the world as it really is. And will leave those pathetic attempts to pull in others, regardless if they want to be included with them or not, to Albinos like Cass, who are now feeling abandoned by the rest of the world.
I myself, have seen Koreans who are Whiter than the Whitest European. These are of course, like their European counterparts, almost "Pure" Albinos, with very little, if any, Black admixture. On the other hand, there are Asians (Chinese included) who are just as Black as the Blackest African. These are of course, the original and unmixed "Normal" people.
But you do the other Asians a disservice by calling them "Yellow". They hate it, and justly so. It is a derogatory term coined by the Albinos to describe a skin hue, often found in Mulattoes. Of course most Chinese are indeed mulattoes, But that is no reason to use such a term for the general population.
Not to say that Black Americans are much better in terminology:
They refer to mulattoes with that yellow hue as "High Yellers".
And those with the Red hue, as "Red Bones".
. Which brings up an interesting observation about Asians: Why are there no Asian "Red Bones"? At least I have never seen any. Anyone have thoughts on this?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:SingaporeanROCKS - You are living in the past. With Charlie Bass now gone, I don't think that there are any more of the Black American types, who feeling themselves disenfranchised and alone, used to resentfully refer to light-skinned Asians with this; "They think they White". Meaning, they think they're better than me. (At least I hope there is no more of them). That kind in their sublime stupidity, were of course victims of the Albinos physiological warfare, and had come to believe that they were indeed "Inferior". Which of course they were, just not in the way they thought.
Hopefully, all those that are left, are intelligent enough, and secure in themselves enough, to see and accept the world as it really is. And will leave those pathetic attempts to pull in others, regardless if they want to be included with them or not, to Albinos like Cass, who are now feeling abandoned by the rest of the world.
I myself, have seen Koreans who are Whiter than the Whitest European. These are of course, like their European counterparts, almost "Pure" Albinos, with very little, if any, Black admixture. On the other hand, there are Asians (Chinese included) who are just as Black as the Blackest African. These are of course, the original and unmixed "Normal" people.
But you do the other Asians a disservice by calling them "Yellow". They hate it, and justly so. It is a derogatory term coined by the Albinos to describe a skin hue, often found in Mulattoes. Of course most Chinese are indeed mulattoes, But that is no reason to use such a term for the general population.
Not to say that Black Americans are much better in terminology:
They refer to mulattoes with that yellow hue as "High Yellers".
You're living in delusions and fantasy. Having Black skin does not mean original or unmixed. Do you even know the reason why Black people were born with such dark skin? it's not because Africans were genetically born that way but because you were environmentally adapted to the extreme hot climate in Africa as did other parts of the world though not as intense as Africa.
The black skin color are not restricted to the Black/African race only. Many South Asians, Native Americans, Southeast Asians, Middle easterners have naturally really very dark skin that appears like Black. In Mongolians case those few who have very dark skin is because the climate in one location of the Gobi desert is very hot, almost as hot as South India.
My brother used to have very light skin as a kid but now his skin tone turked dark as he goes to the beach often.
As you can see all countries from the north are lighter and all countries from the South are darker and it was thanks the ice age that Posts: 76 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic