posted
Sniff to the black Asian thread long gone but in homage to threads of days gone by peruse this finest collection of vintage internet photo anthropology......
posted
he is using the definition that black = any dark skinned person that is not European
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I seriously question these photos as proof of black Asians, considering that these are supposedly Koreans and I have never seen or heard of black indigenes in Korea or in any part of northeast Asia. That there are folks darker in color than the usual pale or 'yellow' complexions, sure even such dark complexion are found among Siberians but I wouldn't exactly call them 'black'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I seriously question these photos as proof of black Asians, considering that these are supposedly Koreans and I have never seen or heard of black indigenes in Korea or in any part of northeast Asia. That there are folks darker in color than the usual pale or 'yellow' complexions, sure even such dark complexion are found among Siberians but I wouldn't exactly call them 'black'.
Wouldn't dark skin not be needed for the type of environment Korea is located in?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ True. Not only Korea but even northern Asia around the arctic where there is very little sunlight. Yet there are populations in the region where dark or tan-like complexions do occur. The reason why is because these people supplement their diet with vitamin D. Vitamin D is produced in the skin using UV rays from the sun. Fair skin is an adaptation to areas with little UV so the skin can get as much UV as possible. In areas where there is a lot of UV like in the tropics, too much UV damages the skin so more melanin is needed for protection.
Examples of dark north Asians
Kirgiz Turk
Khalka Mongol
Inuit men
The problem with black-and-white photos is they often give a false impression of actual complexion.
Thus the Inuit man above looks black in the above photo.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sighh!! Even is Asia. Dark are to the South and light skin to the North. You cannot eyeball modern peoples and make assumptions.
Many Koreans, Chinese etc..are new migrants to the South.
indigenous people to the south eg Taiwan, Philopinnes are negritos ie dark. idigenous inhabitants of Taiwan are negritos.
Good god people!!!
Similarly many darks migrated north. STOP IT!!!! PLEASE!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes the Ethiopian above looks Asian due to his epicanthic eyelids which is not uncommon among many Africans. This is why there are many Africans with almond or even slanted eyes. Even many ancient Egyptians had such type eyes.
As for the whole color issue yes there are many North Africans who are 'brown' or quite light obviously due to admixture. The same is true for some West Africans. I don't know about that Nigerian actress, but her very light complexion is unusual for Nigerians unless she bleaches her skin.
So your attempt to obfuscate the label of 'black' is still a failure.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
To the contrary, you are on this thread saying some people are black others aren't ( the True Blackism concept) You say the black is simply a range of certain browns and nothing more. And we have a chart here for you to clarify what is black and what isn't. But you want the term to be obfuscated so you can silently use criteria other than color in your determinations and move the goal posts whenever you feel like.
It's very simple it's out on the table. You said black is certain range of browns, here are some browns what's the range?
^^^^ This guy for instance is darker than the Nigerian man above him yet you call him 'dark' and not 'black'
Now all of the sudden the Nigerian man who the world regards as black is not black because you define black as very dark and he's not 'very dark' but you would be afraid to say that. You keep silent on this type of example which exposes your BS. Now according to you definitions the Nigerian man above is 'mixed' not black but of course you will go silent on that. When somebody is consistently silent about something what they are being consistently silent about starts to show.
Now all of the sudden 50% or more of African Americans aren't black according to your nonense
but you won't say that, you're not that honest, can't take the heat and while you claim black is just a color you leave it unspecified, purposely mysterious
-so you can have wiggle room
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The issue of "race" is complex. Nature does not delineate according to "race". Humans impose their own taxonomic criteria on human populations to come up with their racial classifications. European anthropologists have been the majority on this issue. Some of them have said there are 3 races while others have argued for over 30. European anthropologists Ripley and Coon have each written a book titled "The Races of Europe"--Alpine, Nordic, and Mediterranean. Some even argued for "Semitic" and "Hamitic" races. Even today some continue to argue for the simple-minded "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", and "Negroid" races. Not very intelligent here.
Point is that you have human populations that have behaved like clouds over millennia: they split apart thereby creating "genetic drift" and quite often they encounter each other again.
So let us look at human populations as "breeding populations" that when split apart acquire genotypical and phenotypical traits based on concepts such environmental selection, assorted mating, etc.
The result is that you eventually get human population "isolates" that even so share certain phenotypical traits derived from similar environmental conditions--e.g. isolate populations that have long experienced tropical conditions often evolve heavily pigmented epidermises. As with tropical zone Africans and South Asians.
Think of human populations as intersecting sets[basic mathematical set theory] that share many genomic criteria but not all. Isolate populations may share skin colour but differ in hair form.
Analyses using Haplogroup analysis and MRCA help but not totally when populations are subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures.
The best analysis should be a loose one: in the case of Africa you will have East, West, North and Southern African populations. For Asia: North East Asian, South East Asia, South Asia, North Asia, etc.
So simple chromatic tests about "race" in terms of colour are simply unworkable. Hair form and eye forms may work most of the time but there are many exceptions.
That's Nature for you: always moving, adapting, evolving, sneaking in new traits, eliminating old ones, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Djehutie says race doesn't exist but he says 'black' is a definable term, that it iis a particular range of browns ( but not browns that are too light)
-but it is a secret range of browns that he applies to people but won't tell us his standard, he won't tells us which browns are 'black' and which browns are too light to be black
It's like if he were to report the size of a bone he has. He says it measures 8
Somebody asks 8 inches or 8 centimeters ?
But he refuses to tell you, it's a secret..
we can only hope it's 8
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting observation: one can stand at the corner of the exit point of any American university and pinpoint with an accuracy of p>0.95 the geographical origins of passing students.
As I wrote above "isolate" populations sometimes meet--in the past and present--and intermingle but often there is no phenotypical impact or variance as in the case of say someone who identifies as Zulu(South Africa) marrying someone who identifies as Wolof(Senegal). In this case the MRCA could be some 10,000 YA. But take the case of someone who identifies as Dogon*(Mali) marrying someone from Iran, say, the offspring would be immediately seen as anomalous in both areas even though the MRCA could be just as ancient as 10--12,000YA.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ True. Not only Korea but even northern Asia around the arctic where there is very little sunlight. Yet there are populations in the region where dark or tan-like complexions do occur. The reason why is because these people supplement their diet with vitamin D. Vitamin D is produced in the skin using UV rays from the sun. Fair skin is an adaptation to areas with little UV so the skin can get as much UV as possible. In areas where there is a lot of UV like in the tropics, too much UV damages the skin so more melanin is needed for protection.
He,he,he:
Still at it eh? Are they paying you to post this Albino nonsense?
Please explain:
Many Arctic people live AWAY from the coasts and do not get vitamin "D" rich fish to eat. They live instead on Reindeer meat which has no vitamin "D". Why are they still dark?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seeing as the old Asian blacks thread mysteriously disappeared I assume it is because some folks are uncomfortable with the truth.
Yes, I know old black and white photos sometimes do not accurately portray peoples complexions, but for some of these photos it is simply nonsensical to claim it is due to them being black and white.
For example this one with the bride having the pale white skin (which is painted) in contrast to the complexions (AND FEATURES) of those around her.
Sure photos can alter color but lip shape and eye shape? I think not.
The reason I posted these is to show that most of the ideas of RACE are purely based on the political propaganda of Europeans since the 18th century. ALL features come from Africa, including the high cheekbone, slanted eyed so called Mongolian and all other Asian phenotypes.
Note that the folks who took these pictures were WHITES and if you notice almost ALL of their photos of many parts of Asia from the late 1800s to early 1900s clearly feature blacks and they even comment on it in their writings. So not only are they liars but they are consummate liars but unfortunately most of those in Asia today have been educated by these Europeans and therefore believe in that nonsense.
Being now settled for the time being in Seoul, I must introduce you to the Corean, not as a nation, you must understand, but as an individual. It is a prevalent idea that the Coreans are Chinese, and therefore exactly like them in physique and appearance, and, if not like the Chinese, that they must be like their neighbours on the other side the Japanese. As a matter of fact, they are like neither. Naturally the continuous incursions of both Chinese and Japanese into this country have left distinct traces of their passage on the general appearance of the people ; and, of course, the distinction which I shall endeavour to make is not so marked as that between whites and blacks, for the Coreans, speaking generally, do bear a certain resemblance to the other peoples of Mongolian origin. Though belonging to this family, however, they form a perfectly distinct branch of it. Not only that, but when you notice a crowd of Coreans you will be amazed to see among them people almost as white and with features closely approaching the Aryan, these being, the higher classes in the kingdom. The more common type is the yellow-skinned face, with slanting eyes, high cheek-bones, and thick, hanging lips. But, again, you will observe faces much resembling the Thibetans and Hindoos, and if you carry your observations still further you will find all over the kingdom, mostly among the coolie classes, men as black as Africans, or like the people of Asia Minor.
Now the thing to remember is that in most cases, the diversity of populations seen in these old photos were right around the same time some of the most RACIST Europeans started making up their theories of human origins. And OF COURSE in their world view, being conquerors, they (the white "RACE") had to be the superior or original race, or if not that, at the very least the superior of many different "races".
quote: A decade before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), Samuel G. Morton stated flatly that “the question of the origin of species is [ a question or the origin] of the human species.” In the years between 1830 and 1859 the scientific theory known as polygenesis―which held that humans were divided into races, each with a separate origin and with fixed characteristics―had come to dominate the understanding of human history. Advocated most vigorously by a group of naturalists and doctors which came to be known as the American School, the polygenic theory of human origins was openly acknowledged by some of its proponents as a scientific justification for slavery. It used against the abolitionists, who often turned to the biblical account of humans having one single origin, or monogenesis, to support their cause.
And it is precisely due to the RACE SCIENCE that was created and became popular among the elites doing most of the conquering and pillaging around the world that Europeans began practicing Eugenics and ethnic cleansing in many native populations to rid them of their "impure" or "backwards" elements..... meaning black folks. Now keep in mind that the REAL REASON for all of this is to erase any and all evidence for the FACT that humans originated in Africa. This FACT went AGAINST the goals and aims of the white colonist as it proved that the white race was not superior. So what to do? Well just commit genocide and get rid of the evidence once and for all. But you know time and nature is funny. It just so happened that it was exactly around this same time frame that Europeans invented the camera and being the inquisitive and meticulous documentors of all the things and people and places they visited and conquered, we can see the truth that in many cases they have tried to hide or suppress.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
And it is precisely due to the RACE SCIENCE that was created and became popular among the elites doing most of the conquering and pillaging around the world that Europeans began practicing Eugenics and ethnic cleansing in many native populations to rid them of their "impure" or "backwards" elements..... meaning black folks. Now keep in mind that the REAL REASON for all of this is to erase any and all evidence for the FACT that humans originated in Africa. This FACT went AGAINST the goals and aims of the white colonist as it proved that the white race was not superior.
Charles Darwin was one of the first to propose common descent of living organisms, and among the first to suggest that all humans had in common ancestors who lived in Africa. Later anthropological discoveries were to provide supporting evidence for the theory
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike come off of it you stupid POS. That girl is NOT White she is NOT of my people & NEVER will be. Again we WHITES are NOT Albinos we are NOT Albino derived, we are NOT Dravidians either you stupid idiotic Kill Whitey POS. Lioness those girls are NOT White they are KOREANS (mongols)not part of my people & NEVER will be.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Doxie darling, you poor redneck, White does NOT speak to ethnicity, it merely speaks to skin color. Therefore THEY can be Mongol WHITE and YOU can be Dravidian (European) WHITE without conflict.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point here is that ALL of European history is but one set of lies on top of another and has about as much to do with truth and scholarship as a pineapple has to do with catfish. Race theories of the 1800s were created to JUSTIFY conquest and subjugation and to promote the idea that it was justified in order to bring about progress. And that progress was always equated with the accumulation of wealth and resources in the hands of white men who would then go on and in their leisure create industry and innovation which would lead the world to a better age. Therefore, according to that so-called "philosophy", killing off Natives in any place unable to resist European expansion was justified. And the race theories were simply created at this time to promote scientific propaganda in support of the spread of colonial expansion. Colonies were companies and the point of these companies was to amass as much wealth as possible from the lands of conquered natives outside of Europe in order to create the economic and industrial framework which would go on to dominate the world economic system.
No other group on earth has EVER gone to such great lengths to cause so much death and destruction in the name of "progress" as these Europeans. To the point that they are synonymous with death, disease and destruction. Yet because of their creation of the so called "sciences" and the educational systems they built to teach it, they have been able to brainwash the whole entire world to believe in it. A perfect example of this brainwashing is the fact that people in the 1800s actually believed these scientists were actually trying to engage in "honest" and "unbiased" research into the history of man. But anyone with half a brain could plainly see they were doing anything but. They were really trying to erase and obfuscate the history of man and replace it with their own white washed version of history. But that only makes sense for people going around conquering and killing off people of color around the world. But that is only if you use common sense.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here is a book from the same time period when those photos were taken in Korea.
[Corea; or, Cho-sen, the land of the morning calm (1895) by Arnold Henry Savage Lando English adventurer/painter/traveller/raconteur]
Being now settled for the time being in Seoul, I must introduce you to the Corean, not as a nation, you must understand, but as an individual. It is a prevalent idea that the Coreans are Chinese, and therefore exactly like them in physique and appearance, and, if not like the Chinese, that they must be like their neighbours on the other side the Japanese. As a matter of fact, they are like neither. Naturally the continuous incursions of both Chinese and Japanese into this country have left distinct traces of their passage on the general appearance of the people ; and, of course, the distinction which I shall endeavour to make is not so marked as that between whites and blacks, for the Coreans, speaking generally, do bear a certain resemblance to the other peoples of Mongolian origin. Though belonging to this family, however, they form a perfectly distinct branch of it. Not only that, but when you notice a crowd of Coreans you will be amazed to see among them people almost as white and with features closely approaching the Aryan, these being, the higher classes in the kingdom. The more common type is the yellow-skinned face, with slanting eyes, high cheek-bones, and thick, hanging lips. But, again, you will observe faces much resembling the Thibetans and Hindoos, and if you carry your observations still further you will find all over the kingdom, mostly among the coolie classes, men as black as Africans, or like the people of Asia Minor.
Pic: The Tibetan weather and Landor’s hardships leave their mark (early 1897 and late 1897) ( before and after his trip to Tibet)
"Almost certainly an agent of Empire in the Great Game, he was a success both on the trail and on the printed page, his best-selling books getting him lucrative lecture tours all over the world, and further travel opportunities, which suited this raconteur just fine."
The Great Game was a term for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia.
In the 1990s, the use of the expression "The New Great Game" in reference to classical "Great Game" appeared;to describe the competition between various Western powers, Russia, and China for political influence and access to raw materials in Central Eurasia—"influence, power, hegemony and profits in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus"
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Question: Why are korean people obsessed with being fair?
Generally speaking, not saying every korean - why are they so obsessed with being white/fair? it's quite apparent in the photos they take on the internet, like they do all these pouts and photoshop the crap out of their photos?
Answer:
one word - "media"
95% of the portrayed celebrities and models have fair skin
korea's ideal women would be double eyelid or huge eye, small nose, small lips, straight hair, slim, and tall... which most cultures do....
people in asia think that white skin hides imperfection. It's not just in Korea, it's in China, Japan, Thailand, Laos, Philippines and Cambodia too. For example, I'm a Cambodian girl and people over there worship white skin. In my culture, dark skin indicates that you're 'farmer'.
I think all skin tones are beautiful and everyone should appreciate what they have.
The trend you refer to is called baek-saek-mi-in (백색미인 or 白色美人).
What is considered "beautiful" and "ugly" in a country is generally based upon the way that most upper class/lower class people look.
For example, in Korea, the high-class people spend most of their time indoors. They have very light skin because they don't tan. Therefore, Koreans want to have light skin to look like the high-class people.
People with tan skin look like they might be farmers, construction workers, or parking lot ajeosshis. Therefore, dark skin here is associated with low income and status.
It used to be like this in the United States. In the United States, people used to try to keep their complexions light, because people with tans were like the farmers and parking lot ajeosshis of Korea today. However, as the United States became a post-industrial society, most people worked indoors, and tans became the fashion because only the upper class had enough leisure to spend enough time outdoors to have tans.
On a similar note, being plump in some East Asian cultures (especially China, and old Koreans sometimes still think this way) is still considered a good thing. It's healthy for child birth. Since poor people in China (and old Korea) are almost never plump, being plump was associated with status and health and childbirth capability.
So basically, in the end, beauty is determined by how the upper classes look. The standard of beauty is generally determined by how the upper class people look.
I predict that in Korea, tans will become fashionable within about 10 years. Korea is becoming a post-industrial society. Some of my evidence of this is in Japan. Japan became a post-industrial society a while ago, and at that point, the white-skinned geisha ideal waned and now many attractive Japanese women have tans because, similar to the change that American fashion went through, as Japan has become a post-industrial society, more and more people are working indoors, and a tan is a sign of class.
Korea, when it reaches full post-industrial status like Japan, will also consider tans trendy.
Light skin is a sign of wealth. Wealthy Koreans stay inside more often and are fairer skinned. Dark skin is considered the skin of the working class and farm laborers. It is part of their Confucian/feudalistic society. If you are light skinned then you are superior to someone who is dark skinned.
They may just as well ask you: Why are Americans obsessed with being tan? In Asia, the geisha is the symbol of beauty. Geisha's made a living off of their beauty and grace. These are just cultural differences. A hundred years ago, it was far more attractive to be pale even in America. In Africa, it is attractive to be overweight. Actually, fairer complexion being attractive makes more sense. Tan skin (as in not natural, from tanning) is far less healthy. They wear cream to make their skin lighter, we wear bronze and spray tans.
Fair skin indicates upper class and it gives a cleaner look in Korea.
It means beauty
Being fair is beauty - Korean's view.
______________________________________________
^^^ not really, look at how beautiful that Ethiopian man is
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, I told myself I was gonna do this the next time you called me a redneck hehehehe, just couldn't help myself LOL. Enjoy the song LOL ROTFLMBO
The Philipino Blacks have always intrigued me. They don't look like the Negritos, they look different and unique. The Hair and Skin tone.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Philipino Blacks have always intrigued me. They don't look like the Negritos, they look different and unique. The Hair and Skin tone.
The people in the picture above are likely a mixture of Aeta (Negrito) and Malay. I know because I've seen some (Malay) Filipinos who've intermarried with Aetas and produced such people.
I've also seen a Filipina woman who married a Sudanese man from Africa and her baby son looked 'pure' Aeta in appearance including juvenile blondism.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are right about the Aeta, but how come the Fillipino Aeta look different than the Andaman?
or Is Negrito just a blanket term for the native blacks of S.E Asia
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Negrito' like all racial terms coined by Western anthropologists IS a blanket term!
'Negrito' is Latin for 'little black' and is basically defined as a diminutive 'negro'. Thus 'Negrito' applied to Pygmies of Africa as well as aboriginal Southeast Asians of short stature.
Of course there is going to be diversity looks between the various aboriginal groups of Southeast Asia, so not all 'Negrito' groups will look alike anymore than 'Negro' groups of Africa are supposed to look alike. Therein lies the problem with racial thinking.
posted
^^^Im not saying the Negritos should "Look Alike" persay just that the Fillipino Negritos and the Andaman look like they descend from two different sources, the Fllippinos look more "stereotypically Asian"(Long Hair, Eyes and Nose etc)
Also I was under the impression the Nigritos only applied to the Andaman..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I have no idea what you're talking about. Filipino Negritos or Aeta don't look much like stereotypical Asians at all unless they are mixed. Many Aetas are mixed due to intermarriage with Malays (typical Filipinos).
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Im not saying the Negritos should "Look Alike" persay just that the Fillipino Negritos and the Andaman look like they descend from two different sources, the Fllippinos look more "stereotypically Asian"(Long Hair, Eyes and Nose etc)
Also I was under the impression the Nigritos only applied to the Andaman..
Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.
THESE ARE NEGRITOS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
IN THE LATE 1200s THE MONGOLS INVADED: according to Wiki - "Native people of modern Taiwan and Philippines helped the Mongol armada but they were never conquered."
THESE MONGOL AND MULATTO FILIPINOS ARE THE RESULT OF THOSE INVASIONS AND SUBSEQUENT EUROPEAN INVASIONS.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.
And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
quote:THESE ARE NEGRITOS, THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
IN THE LATE 1200s THE MONGOLS INVADED: according to Wiki - "Native people of modern Taiwan and Philippines helped the Mongol armada but they were never conquered."
THESE MONGOL AND MULATTO FILIPINOS ARE THE RESULT OF THOSE INVASIONS AND SUBSEQUENT EUROPEAN INVASIONS.
LOL 'Mongoloid' peoples of Taiwan and the Philippines have NOTHING to do with Mongolians or Europeans but as I said are Malay people who immigrated to these islands thousands of years before the Mongols even existed! Of course the Aeta and other black aboriginals were the first inhabitants.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL 'Mongoloid' peoples of Taiwan and the Philippines have NOTHING to do with Mongolians or Europeans but as I said are Malay people who immigrated to these islands thousands of years before the Mongols even existed! Of course the Aeta and other black aboriginals were the first inhabitants.
It sounds like you are trying to suggest that the Lapita people were of the Mongol (Chinese) phenotype. That is incorrect, they were stereotypical Blacks, their descendants are Solomon Islanders and such.
Mongol people came recently (the current era).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ similalry according to your teachings American Blacks rather than being of recent African origin are in fact primarily Eurasians like 'whites' both recent to America, go the fvck back to Germany, all of yall
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - European Albinos are NOT Eurasians, they are CENTRAL Asians. They spread from there and admixed with insitu populations that they encountered.
In the south, Negritos present an interesting logical problem:
Looking at South Asia and the Pacific: Conventional history tells us that the Australians left Africa first, then the Paupans, then the Negritoes, then the Austronesians (Lapita people), and then finally the Mongols.
But if you consider how peoples movements are actually controlled by their success and numbers, then that may not be true.
We know that Negritos (small Blacks - perhaps Pygmies) once populated all of South Asia. Australians and Paupans leaving Africa would not have had the strength to displace the Negritos, thus THEY would have been forced to move on to find land that they could claim for themselves. Which would mean that Negritos were the first out of Africa.
Of course it's also possible that the Negritos actually displaced them, and forced them to move on. But Negritos are not known to be warlike.
Note: Australians did not go directly to Australia, it was a process of discovery and settlement that probably took several thousand years.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The look "Asian" to me..but you are saying they are mixed more than likely.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I have no idea what you're talking about. Filipino Negritos or Aeta don't look much like stereotypical Asians at all unless they are mixed. Many Aetas are mixed due to intermarriage with Malays (typical Filipinos).
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike you Im willing to admit to where Im ignorant on a subject matter, my knowledge with Asia is lacking to say the least. That Said I don't buy the crap that comes out of your mouth considering your distortions on other subjects.
You know like how Lioness exposed you on the Hiriri thread..
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] blah blah
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.
And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Unlike you Im willing to admit to where Im ignorant on a subject matter, my knowledge with Asia is lacking to say the least. That Said I don't buy the crap that comes out of your mouth considering your distortions on other subjects.
You know like how Lioness exposed you on the Hiriri thread..
distortions, Hiriri thread???
Yes you ARE ignorant, but now you show yourself to be delusional too!!!
Damn boy, pull up your pants and stay off the Crack.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah you are simply stupid. Its funny how you can't even see how stupid Lioness made you look, but Its not suprizing considering you are a fraud.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Phillipines are no where near Mongolia. So why use "Mongol" for people who probably never seen a Mongol let alone consider themselves one. Malaysia is closer to the Phillipines, Malay can be used similar to Nilotic.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Been here since 2007 and still don't know that the people we call Filipinos ARE Asians (Mongols), and are DIFFERENT from Negritos.
And you've been here since 2005 and you don't know that 'Asian' is anyone living in the continent and associated islands of Asia which includes aboriginal groups like 'Negritos'. Racial terms like 'Mongol' and 'Negrito' are invalid anyway. I prefer the term 'Malay' to describe the stereotypical Filipino. And by 'Malay' I don't mean it in the racial sense Westerners used it but in the cultural or ethnic sense that stereotypical or 'Mongol' (I hate that term) Asians of the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia all belong to the same cultural group or heritage.
You just switched the name (Malay/Mongol) but kept the same concept: a term to designate a specific ethnic/racial stereotypical looking type (i.e. not negrito). At least Mike is honest, you on the other hand are simply playing language games.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Filipino Negritos or Aeta don't look much like stereotypical Asians at all unless they are mixed. Many Aetas are mixed due to intermarriage with Malays (typical Filipinos).
Printer-friendly view of this topic