quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said before there is no uniform color among these people. There are some who are very dark and there are some who are very light. To sit here and claim ALL these people are the same complexion is simply a lie. It is nonsensical and based on pure absurd nonsense logic. There is no such thing as a dam "brown" race. That is the point. You keep saying it but it simply does not exist. They are called brown because white folks called them that going back to the concept of the Malay Race being a "brown" race, which is word for word what you are describing...
Exactly what do you mean by "these people"? Which people?? You are obviously confusing the Orang Asli with Orang Malayi when they are entirely two different people with the former being aboriginal. Also, when have I ever said there was a uniform color?? I specifically said that there was mixture between the two groups hence the varying shades of complexion but that does not change the FACT that Malay were/are NOT the same as the aboriginals! And of course there is no such thing as a "brown race"! I just stated that myself! The fact that we describe ourselves as "brown" due to complexion has nothing to do with any outdated European race-scheme! Also, Malayan peoples have always distinguished themselves from black aborigines simply because they are not!
quote:..The original populations referred to as "Malays" were black, even though they did have mixture from other populations. Over time they have become more mixed with other Asians just like all other South and Southeast Asians. That has produced the various shades of "brown" you are referring to which also exists among the Orang Asli who also are not all dark brown as you claim. So it is simply an issue of arbitrary definitions based on old racist white anthropologists and has nothing to do with reality. Like I said the original people labeled as "Malays" were black aboriginal populations who adopted Islam. There was no separate "race" of people that came in and replaced the aboriginal folks. That is the nonsense I am referring to. Yes, there is a mixture CURRENTLY in Malays and other Asians but that doesn't change one bit of what I said.
Again, you are very much mistaken. Malayans are in indigenous to Southeast Asian in that they have lived in that region for thousands of years but they are NOT aboriginal to the region in that they were the first peoples which is evident in the fact that they are NOT black. They (we) have always in our own traditions and histories made a distinction between ourselves and the black aboriginals! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with European colonial racism but simply a matter of FACT. Why do you think the black aboriginals are called 'Orang Asli' meaning 'First People'?? Why is it that in our foundation myths and legends there are stories that about the relations between the Malay and the Asli, Aeta, and the various aboriginal peoples who inhabited the various areas of Southeast Asia?? All of this of course predates Islam or Buddhism or even Hinduism in Southeast Asia!! Even Troll Patrol cited a source that talks about an indigenous Taiwanese that talk about "black dwarves" being aboriginal!! Again, this is not from the Chinese but the indigenous Formosan tribes! The point is Malayan peoples and the black aborigines are NOT the same.
quote:All people labeled as "black" are shades of brown. This has always been true and there has never been any such notion of "brown" people being separate from "black" people except when white folks want to associate "civilized" traits to a specific "black" population and must try and associate it with "non black" people.
It has nothing to do with "white people". The majority of Southeast Asians including Malayans share a recent ancestry with other East Asians further north. Yes, there was intermixture with black aborigines which explains the variety of complexions even darker ones with other features but that still does not change the fact that we are NOT the same as the aborigines! You are talking to me as if I am some ignoramus who has been brainwashed by Euronuts! I know the history of my peoples and I know what I am talking about! YOU are the one who is ignorant as well as confused about the history of Southeast Asian populations. You're attempts to claim Malayan peoples as 'black' is almost though not quite as ridiculous as Afronuts like Mike and Marc!! Yes black people are the aboriginal people of Southeast Asia as they are in South central Asia (India) and even Southwest Asia, and YES blacks are ancestral to all lighter skinned peoples but to say that the Malayan peoples are those aborigines is incorrect at the least and absurd at its worst!
No Djehuti, what I said was you are jumping through hoops claiming 'special exception' for Malays being considered as black. All that other stuff you said is meaningless. I post a black "Malay" and you claim that the label "Malay" is a racial label meaning all the people are some special subset of Asian humanity. But then you go on to claim they are mixed, but what population in Asia or on earth is NOT mixed? What does that have to do with it. You are going in circles making illogical arguments in order to reinforce an argument that the Malays are a separate "race" as in separate from the Aborigines of Malaysia. HOw on earth is that? How do you have an aboriginal population that is NOT the basis of the modern population in the same area? See that is the problem you are spouting some old European nonsense because it is the Europeans who word for word codified everything you are arguing about Malays and you can't show me any such thing prior to European writings in the 18th and 19th century. Remember the concept of Malay being a "brown race" came from Blumenbach himsself. And the whole point is to separate these people from the "blacks" when obviously the browns can only come from blacks as black people are brown in the first dam place. And what I mean is that those Malays who are dam brown are basically black folks and not some special separate category.
And as I posted earlier the Chinese or "NOrthern Asians" considered the original people of Malaysia or the "Malays" to be black people. Most of that mixture you are referring to happened during and after colonization just like in much of South Asia and the Pacific and the whites created new racial labels to basically cover up the facts:
quote: Malays were once referred to as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun originally referred to a fabled mountain range believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese in reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of mountains and jungles from the remote part of the geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term was applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Old Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants came in their ships carrying valuable goods to trade with the Chinese".
And on top of all of that if the Malays are "mixed" then doesn't that make them partly descended from aborigines at the very least? And how does that not mean the black genes were passed down? So their brown skin came from the North of Asia now? Really? And how do you know that some of these folks weren't historically just aborigines who adopted the Islamic and "Malay" culture? Why is that so impossible or are we to believe that these folks just invaded and uniformly mixed with the aborigines producing a uniformly special "brown" population. What you are saying doesn't even make sense.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
And on top of all of that if the Malays are "mixed" then doesn't that make them partly descended from aborigines at the very least? And how does that not mean the black genes were passed down? So their brown skin came from the North of Asia now? Really? And how do you know that some of these folks weren't historically just aborigines who adopted the Islamic and "Malay" culture? Why is that so impossible or are we to believe that these folks just invaded and uniformly mixed with the aborigines producing a uniformly special "brown" population. What you are saying doesn't even make sense. [/qb]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Labels such as 'black' and 'white' are descriptive of COLOR and are no more 'racial' than say other features like narrow noses vs. wide noses. This is why very dark South Asians (Indians) are still called 'black' not only by Westerners but by fellow Indians hence the label 'kalu'. Even in the Philippines we call fair-skinned people especially northeast Asians 'puti' which means white even though they are not 'caucasian'. Skin color is independent of other features and definitely independent of ancestry. A pale person whether European or northeast Asian could still be labeled 'white' the same way a dark person could still be called 'black' regardless if the person is African or aboriginal Southeast Asian.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Djehuti, what I said was you are jumping through hoops claiming 'special exception' for Malays being considered as black...
There is no 'special exception' because the Malay peoples by and large are not black!! I'm not the one jumping through hoops. You post pictures of Malayans with mixed aboriginal ancestry or even pure aborigines and claiming them to represent all Malays, yet you are accusing me of "jumping through hoops"
quote:All that other stuff you said is meaningless. I post a black "Malay" and you claim that the label "Malay" is a racial label meaning all the people are some special subset of Asian humanity...
Exactly what is meaningless? The native traditions, the native ethnic distinctions prior to European contact?? You posted a picture of an aborigine i.e. Orang Asli and tried to pass him off as Orang Melayu without knowing the difference! And since when have I ever claimed Malay to be a "racial label", quit making false accusations and attributing words I never said to me! That is a pet-peeve I have with trolls unless you are now becoming one. When have I ever said Malays were a "special subset" of Asian humanity?? The Malayans are no more special than Vietnamese, or Thai, or Khmer. We are all Southeast Asians though not aborigines!
quote:But then you go on to claim they are mixed, but what population in Asia or on earth is NOT mixed? What does that have to do with it. You are going in circles making illogical arguments in order to reinforce an argument that the Malays are a separate "race" as in separate from the Aborigines of Malaysia. HOw on earth is that? How do you have an aboriginal population that is NOT the basis of the modern population in the same area? See that is the problem you are spouting some old European nonsense because it is the Europeans who word for word codified everything you are arguing about Malays and you can't show me any such thing prior to European writings in the 18th and 19th century. Remember the concept of Malay being a "brown race" came from Blumenbach himsself. And the whole point is to separate these people from the "blacks" when obviously the browns can only come from blacks as black people are brown in the first dam place. And what I mean is that those Malays who are dam brown are basically black folks and not some special separate category.
Again, I never said Malays were a "separate race", you liar! When I say we are "brown" I am speaking only in terms of complexion which is no different from say indigenous Mexicans and Central Americans and said nothing about "race"! I also simply said Malays are NOT aboriginal but share a recent origin from further north along with other non-black non-aboriginal Southeast Asians like Vietnamese, Thais, Khmer, etc. Of course all these groups like Malayans do have some admixture with aboriginal populations this is NOT the same as your argument that they ARE the aboriginal populations! It is simple as that.
quote:And as I posted earlier the Chinese or "NOrthern Asians" considered the original people of Malaysia or the "Malays" to be black people. Most of that mixture you are referring to happened during and after colonization just like in much of South Asia and the Pacific and the whites created new racial labels to basically cover up the facts:
Southeast Asia was never heavily colonized by Europeans the way the Americas were. And even though there was Chinese colonization such did not effect the tribal groups of the rural areas.
Here are some indigenous Malays from rural areas never colonized.
Indonesia
Dayak
Iban
Bidayuh
Dusun
The Philippines
Ihapo
*Ilocano*
I myself am Ilocano by the way.
quote: Malays were once referred to as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun originally referred to a fabled mountain range believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese in reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of mountains and jungles from the remote part of the geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term was applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Old Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants came in their ships carrying valuable goods to trade with the Chinese".
Yes, note 'Kunlun' originally designated areas south of the Himalayas i.e. India, and there is no disputing that black aboriginal people were present in Malaysia and other areas of Southeast Asia and were quite prominent hence, the black queen of ancient Funan. But Chinese stereotypes based on sightings or encounters with aborigines instead of the later exploration and extensive trading does not change the fact that the Malayan cultural group NOT 'race' were not aborigines.
quote:And on top of all of that if the Malays are "mixed" then doesn't that make them partly descended from aborigines at the very least? And how does that not mean the black genes were passed down? So their brown skin came from the North of Asia now? Really? And how do you know that some of these folks weren't historically just aborigines who adopted the Islamic and "Malay" culture? Why is that so impossible or are we to believe that these folks just invaded and uniformly mixed with the aborigines producing a uniformly special "brown" population. What you are saying doesn't even make sense.
Of course Malays and other Southeast Asians are partly descended from aborigines, I myself have stated this, but "brown" complexion is not necessarily due to black admixture but simply the fact that we originated just north of the tropics. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that skin color is not divided into 'black' and 'white' only but grades into various complexions. Populations who adapted to temperate latitudes tend to have this complexion. You do realize that there are 'brown' Chinese and Mongolians as well, does this mean they too have immediate black ancestry??
By the way, genetics proves my point as well since the predominant Y chromosome clade among Malayan peoples is hg O (M-175) which is shared with other East Asian peoples but not aborigines. Southeast Asians and especially Tai and Austronesian speakers tend to carry the sub-clade O-M119. Aborigines tend to carry older C and D clades. On the maternal side the predominant mitochondrial clades are D, E, and B again common with East Asians but not among aboriginals who tend to carry older M or N sub-clades.
Remember, you are speaking to a member of the very people you talking about-- my people.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Djehuti, what I said was you are jumping through hoops claiming 'special exception' for Malays being considered as black...
There is no 'special exception' because the Malay peoples by and large are not black!! I'm not the one jumping through hoops. You post pictures of Malayans with mixed aboriginal ancestry or even pure aborigines and claiming them to represent all Malays, yet you are accusing me of "jumping through hoops"
quote:All that other stuff you said is meaningless. I post a black "Malay" and you claim that the label "Malay" is a racial label meaning all the people are some special subset of Asian humanity...
Exactly what is meaningless? The native traditions, the native ethnic distinctions prior to European contact?? You posted a picture of an aborigine i.e. Orang Asli and tried to pass him off as Orang Melayu without knowing the difference! And since when have I ever claimed Malay to be a "racial label", quit making false accusations and attributing words I never said to me! That is a pet-peeve I have with trolls unless you are now becoming one. When have I ever said Malays were a "special subset" of Asian humanity?? The Malayans are no more special than Vietnamese, or Thai, or Khmer. We are all Southeast Asians though not aborigines!
quote:But then you go on to claim they are mixed, but what population in Asia or on earth is NOT mixed? What does that have to do with it. You are going in circles making illogical arguments in order to reinforce an argument that the Malays are a separate "race" as in separate from the Aborigines of Malaysia. HOw on earth is that? How do you have an aboriginal population that is NOT the basis of the modern population in the same area? See that is the problem you are spouting some old European nonsense because it is the Europeans who word for word codified everything you are arguing about Malays and you can't show me any such thing prior to European writings in the 18th and 19th century. Remember the concept of Malay being a "brown race" came from Blumenbach himsself. And the whole point is to separate these people from the "blacks" when obviously the browns can only come from blacks as black people are brown in the first dam place. And what I mean is that those Malays who are dam brown are basically black folks and not some special separate category.
Again, I never said Malays were a "separate race", you liar! When I say we are "brown" I am speaking only in terms of complexion which is no different from say indigenous Mexicans and Central Americans and said nothing about "race"! I also simply said Malays are NOT aboriginal but share a recent origin from further north along with other non-black non-aboriginal Southeast Asians like Vietnamese, Thais, Khmer, etc. Of course all these groups like Malayans do have some admixture with aboriginal populations this is NOT the same as your argument that they ARE the aboriginal populations! It is simple as that.
quote:And as I posted earlier the Chinese or "NOrthern Asians" considered the original people of Malaysia or the "Malays" to be black people. Most of that mixture you are referring to happened during and after colonization just like in much of South Asia and the Pacific and the whites created new racial labels to basically cover up the facts:
Southeast Asia was never heavily colonized by Europeans the way the Americas were. And even though there was Chinese colonization such did not effect the tribal groups of the rural areas.
Here are some indigenous Malays from rural areas never colonized.
Indonesia
Dayak
Iban
Bidayuh
Dusun
The Philippines
Ihapo
*Ilocano*
I myself am Ilocano by the way.
quote: Malays were once referred to as "Kun-lun people" in various Chinese records. Kunlun originally referred to a fabled mountain range believed to span parts of Tibet and India. It was used by the Chinese in reference to black, wavy-haired barbarians of mountains and jungles from the remote part of the geographically known world. The Champas and Khmers were called Kunlun people by the Chinese before the term was applied to the Malays or more accurately Austronesians as a whole. In 750, Jianzhen (688–765) noticed the presence of many "Brahmans, Persians and Kunluns in Canton". The Old Book of Tang reported that "every year, Kunlun merchants came in their ships carrying valuable goods to trade with the Chinese".
Yes, note 'Kunlun' originally designated areas south of the Himalayas i.e. India, and there is no disputing that black aboriginal people were present in Malaysia and other areas of Southeast Asia and were quite prominent hence, the black queen of ancient Funan. But Chinese stereotypes based on sightings or encounters with aborigines instead of the later exploration and extensive trading does not change the fact that the Malayan cultural group NOT 'race' were not aborigines.
quote:And on top of all of that if the Malays are "mixed" then doesn't that make them partly descended from aborigines at the very least? And how does that not mean the black genes were passed down? So their brown skin came from the North of Asia now? Really? And how do you know that some of these folks weren't historically just aborigines who adopted the Islamic and "Malay" culture? Why is that so impossible or are we to believe that these folks just invaded and uniformly mixed with the aborigines producing a uniformly special "brown" population. What you are saying doesn't even make sense.
Of course Malays and other Southeast Asians are partly descended from aborigines, I myself have stated this, but "brown" complexion is not necessarily due to black admixture but simply the fact that we originated just north of the tropics. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that skin color is not divided into 'black' and 'white' only but grades into various complexions. Populations who adapted to temperate latitudes tend to have this complexion. You do realize that there are 'brown' Chinese and Mongolians as well, does this mean they too have immediate black ancestry??
By the way, genetics proves my point as well since the predominant Y chromosome clade among Malayan peoples is hg O (M-175) which is shared with other East Asian peoples but not aborigines. Southeast Asians and especially Tai and Austronesian speakers tend to carry the sub-clade O-M119. Aborigines tend to carry older C and D clades. On the maternal side the predominant mitochondrial clades are D, E, and B again common with East Asians but not among aboriginals who tend to carry older M or N sub-clades.
Remember, you are speaking to a member of the very people you talking about-- my people.
Djehuti, I know a lot of Asians in Malaysia today are lighter skinned. What I said was that many of these people were much darker even 100 years ago, not to mention 1000 years ago. The migrations of Northern Asians into these areas has been continuous and has not stopped. My point is that the black aborigines were not "separate" and wiped out in some ancient era thousands of years ago and replaced with new immigrants. This happened gradually over time. It is the white racists and their lies in anthropology that has covered this up and created the nonsense of separate "races" in Asia which is false. Look up pictures of Dayaks from 100 years ago (who are mostly in Borneo) and you will see a lot DARKER people in those photos with more "Aboriginal/Africoid/Black/Negroid" features. Which you seem to want to deny and pretend that these features come from some invading population separate from the aborigines, when in reality you are talking of populations who are a mixture of aboriginal black and recent north Asian migrants.
As for Malaysia, I am talking the Malaysian peninsula which historically had a large black "Malay" population. The only reason they are lighter skinned today is primarily because of RECENT mixture, which is the same for most of South East Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and so forth.
Djehuti, I know a lot of Asians in Malaysia today are lighter skinned. What I said was that many of these people were much darker even 100 years ago, not to mention 1000 years ago. The migrations of Northern Asians into these areas has been continuous and has not stopped. My point is that the black aborigines were not "separate" and wiped out in some ancient era thousands of years ago and replaced with new immigrants. This happened gradually over time. It is the white racists and their lies in anthropology that has covered this up and created the nonsense of separate "races" in Asia which is false. Look up pictures of Dayaks from 100 years ago (who are mostly in Borneo) and you will see a lot DARKER people in those photos with more "Aboriginal/Africoid/Black/Negroid" features. Which you seem to want to deny and pretend that these features come from some invading population separate from the aborigines, when in reality you are talking of populations who are a mixture of aboriginal black and recent north Asian migrants.
As for Malaysia, I am talking the Malaysian peninsula which historically had a large black "Malay" population. The only reason they are lighter skinned today is primarily because of RECENT mixture, which is the same for most of South East Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and so forth.
Doug seems to be in a state on confusion
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Look up pictures of Dayaks from 100 years ago (who are mostly in Borneo) and you will see a lot DARKER people in those photos with more "Aboriginal/Africoid/Black/Negroid" features....
This happened gradually over time.
A 100 years is gradual ??
Doug is simply cherry picking photos in order to try to prove a preconceived idea he has
Dayak man from 100 years ago
Contemporary Dayak man
Also Doug fvucked up the thread format again on page 2 with the long URLs. I already explained to the idiot how to use the URL button
And secondly nobody has learned anything about the Southern Chinese Yi people
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Various types of "Malays", reflecting the fact that these people are a mixture of Aboriginal and other Asian populations from China to India, just like most modern South East Asians and some are indeed black.
The point being that there are no "races" just variation and diversity among human populations, with darker skin being an "aboriginal" trait going back to the first humans who were tropically adapted.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Various types of "Malays", reflecting the fact that these people are a mixture of Aboriginal and other Asian populations from China to India, just like most modern South East Asians and some are indeed black.
Doug makes these statements completely on eye balling, no genetics involved
And "black" the stereotyped color identifier word for certain brown people is applied on an arbritray basis. "Black" is whoever you feel is dark enough according to your personal color chart
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the hypocrisy here comes from the fact that racists in the West have created this concept of 'race' based on skin color and therefore most folks have blindly followed this convention leading to absurd arguments on this forum and others.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Djehuti, I know a lot of Asians in Malaysia today are lighter skinned. What I said was that many of these people were much darker even 100 years ago, not to mention 1000 years ago. The migrations of Northern Asians into these areas has been continuous and has not stopped. My point is that the black aborigines were not "separate" and wiped out in some ancient era thousands of years ago and replaced with new immigrants. This happened gradually over time. It is the white racists and their lies in anthropology that has covered this up and created the nonsense of separate "races" in Asia which is false. Look up pictures of Dayaks from 100 years ago (who are mostly in Borneo) and you will see a lot DARKER people in those photos with more "Aboriginal/Africoid/Black/Negroid" features. Which you seem to want to deny and pretend that these features come from some invading population separate from the aborigines, when in reality you are talking of populations who are a mixture of aboriginal black and recent north Asian migrants.
Again, you are incorrect. The photos I showed you are of tribes or ethnicities of rural areas that never mixed with any "recent migrants from 100 years ago". They are the SAME as their ancestors 100 years ago or even 1,000 years ago! You can't get it through your head that these people are NOT aborigines but peoples who came later but NOT "100" years later but at least since the neolithic!! There was displacement of the aborigines in some areas but not all. As I said, there was even intermarriage with aborigines as there is today but the fact still remains that Malayan peoples are NOT aborigines hence the native term for black aborigines ORANG-ASLI which means FIRST people as in the first people of the area!! Also the black aboriginal population was likely sparse by the time the ancestral Malays and other lighter-skinned Asians began settling the area. These aboriginal populations obviously became sparse due to the submersion of Sunda. Interestingly, all the old Austronesian legends say that Malayan ancestors spread by boat after a great flood and upon the lands they settled they encountered the first inhabitants i.e. the black aboriginal or Orang Asli.
quote:As for Malaysia, I am talking the Malaysian peninsula which historically had a large black "Malay" population. The only reason they are lighter skinned today is primarily because of RECENT mixture, which is the same for most of South East Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and so forth.
All of Southeast Asia was black, but again you are wrong about how recent lighter-skinned Asians settled these areas. This did not happen in "100" years but millennia before. The same
LOL Okay, so I saw all those black-and-white films and apparently you don't realize that all those people in the videos are the SAME complexion as they are today. Again, exact complexions or coloring may be obfuscated by colorless photos or films especially by certain lighting conditions but especially in parts of the video that are well lit by sunlight these people are the same as their descendants who still live in rural areas having the same medium i.e. 'brown' complexions like those of Native Americans and not the very dark or 'black' color of the Asli or Aeta.
So what are you saying?? That the woman in the photo is a recent Chinese immigrant and not a native like the man??! LOL In fact the woman is only scarcely lighter than the man! I'm starting to think that you either need to get your eyes checked or your brain!! Perhaps both.
You are obviously ignorant of Southeast Asian history. Malayans are NOT aborigines but ARE the lighter-skinned Asians who entered the region NOT 100 years ago but several thousand years ago during the neolithic if not earlier but at least after the Pleistocene and the submersion of the Sunda subcontinent. If all these lighter-skinned non-black Asians were somehow Chinese from a hundred years ago then why do non of them speak Chinese?? Why do they share ancestry with Chinese but one that dates to thousands of years?? Why are the black aboriginal lineages only present as a minority??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course the hypocrisy here comes from the fact that racists in the West have created this concept of 'race' based on skin color and therefore most folks have blindly followed this convention leading to absurd arguments on this forum and others.
The hypocrisy as far as color is concerned is due to social and political issues. The African Americans in the photos above are obviously light-skinned and likely due to having mixed-ancestry. Most Southeast Asians like the ones in the photos above are no different in complexion from say indigenous Mexicans and Guatemalans.
Tell me Do you consider these Mexicans to be black??
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Various types of "Malays", reflecting the fact that these people are a mixture of Aboriginal and other Asian populations from China to India, just like most modern South East Asians and some are indeed black.
The point being that there are no "races" just variation and diversity among human populations, with darker skin being an "aboriginal" trait going back to the first humans who were tropically adapted.
Correct, Malays and other Southeast Asians show a variance of phenotype due to admixture not only with aborigines but recent Chinese, however by and large most display a predominant phenotype that is neither aboriginal nor Chinese. Again, I never said anything about "race" it is only YOU who brings up race. I'm just speaking about general populations. The dominant groups of Southeast Asia today including Malays are NOT aboriginal but branched off from the common ancestors of northeast Asians several thousands of years ago NOT 100 years ago!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Of course the hypocrisy here comes from the fact that racists in the West have created this concept of 'race' based on skin color and therefore most folks have blindly followed this convention leading to absurd arguments on this forum and others.
The hypocrisy as far as color is concerned is due to social and political issues. The African Americans in the photos above are obviously light-skinned and likely due to having mixed-ancestry. Most Southeast Asians like the ones in the photos above are no different in complexion from say indigenous Mexicans and Guatemalans.
Tell me Do you consider these Mexicans to be black??
Black Americans are called black because of their skin complexion so why is it we should have one definition for America and a different one for everyone else. As I have said before the only ones being inconsistent are the racists. They want to label some folks black in one place when other folks in another place with the same complexion are not black. How is that? Again, I did not create the concept of race, but most people whether they know it are operating based on the European concept of race. When I say black I only mean people with various ranges of brown skin based on biological adaptation to tropical and subtropical environments and that is not limited to Africa. However, WHITE RACISTS want to downplay and deny the fact that all humans stem from BLACK PEOPLE all over the world so they make up nonsense terms to separate and divide up populations based on made up 'racial' categories so to deny the obvious. Hence they will label dark Mexicans as not blacks because they simply are trying to lie about the obvious fact that many native Mexicans were and are indeed black as they live in Sub Tropical environments.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Various types of "Malays", reflecting the fact that these people are a mixture of Aboriginal and other Asian populations from China to India, just like most modern South East Asians and some are indeed black.
The point being that there are no "races" just variation and diversity among human populations, with darker skin being an "aboriginal" trait going back to the first humans who were tropically adapted.
Correct, Malays and other Southeast Asians show a variance of phenotype due to admixture not only with aborigines but recent Chinese, however by and large most display a predominant phenotype that is neither aboriginal nor Chinese. Again, I never said anything about "race" it is only YOU who brings up race. I'm just speaking about general populations. The dominant groups of Southeast Asia today including Malays are NOT aboriginal but branched off from the common ancestors of northeast Asians several thousands of years ago NOT 100 years ago!
How on earth do you quantify and identify this "separate" branch of Asians in South East Asia that is not derived from aboriginal Asians? You said the "Brown" Malays are separate from the "black" Aborigines when as I have shown you before they have the same features and many times the same "brown" complexion? The point you don't get is that there is no way for a downstream population to have different features from the parent population. So as I said, whether you know it or not you are saying these "other" Asians magically evolved separate from the Aborigines that birthed them, as if to say they aren't ultimately derived from the aborigines and get most of their features from them. That is simply nonsense. Most Malays are no different in features from the Aborigines, except some Aborigines are "negritoes" but all of them aren't. Many aboriginal South East Asians are dark brown with straight hair and epicanthic folds just like other Asians but from PRIOR to the evolution of light skin. Just as you have Africans with similar features. Like I said all of this is based on the old racial stereotypes created by whites centuries ago. Black people are the most diverse people on earth starting with Africans and extending into the aboriginal black populations all over the planet. This is what white racists are working so hard to try and cover up because they want you to believe that certain features are associated with race and came from somewhere else other than black folks.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug is a proponent of the human race being divided into two types "blacks" and "whites" and that any person who is darker is more closely related to Africans. The cut off point is wherever he feels like on that day
The assumption is false and he continues to be oblivious to genetics which looks at things beyond skin deep. A second problem is he also does not consider the possibility that some people who were originally dark skinned who later evolved light skin may have also evolved back into dark skin when they moved on to a more southern position. So it is not necessarily a direct line to Africans. Evidence of this is their dark skin yet at the same time having bone straight hair which is not a tropical trait but it takes much longer, relatively, to change back and forth like skin does when people settle in different environments. Case in point Peruvian Indians. Some are quite dark yet they are genetically less related to Africans than are "white" Europeans. So, the skin color always = connection to older populations theory is down the tubes. Then he's going to come up with "but they must have mixed with"... When I hear stuff like that one wonders if they even believe in human evolution. It's like there are no people who are naturally in an 'intermediate" postion they can only be products of "mixing"
When you study genetics you leave the old 19th color based paradigms. Doug is still trapped there. He is merely switching the sides of the same coin and doesn't realize it.
This is the 21st century, DNA has been discovered and it reveals truths not discernible to the naked eye.
That dark skinned people have often been oppressed by light skinned people is also true but that is a separate political issue from precise analysis of ancestry.
this is clear contradiction>
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
As I have said before the only ones being inconsistent are the racists. They want to label some folks black in one place when other folks in another place with the same complexion are not black. How is that? Again, I did not create the concept of race, but most people whether they know it are operating based on the European concept of race. When I say black I only mean people with various ranges of brown skin based on biological adaptation to tropical and subtropical environments and that is not limited to Africa. However, WHITE RACISTS want to downplay and deny the fact that all humans stem from BLACK PEOPLE all over the world so they make up nonsense terms to separate and divide up populations based on made up 'racial' categories so to deny the obvious. Hence they will label dark Mexicans as not blacks because they simply are trying to lie about the obvious fact that many native Mexicans were and are indeed black as they live in Sub Tropical environments.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Look up pictures of Dayaks from 100 years ago (who are mostly in Borneo) and you will see a lot DARKER people in those photos with more "Aboriginal/Africoid/Black/Negroid" features.
^^^ all of the sudden Doug is talking about "Black/Negroid features"
yet simultaneously claiming that that is not a racial analysis that is total bullshyt
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say black I only mean people with various ranges of brown skin
this type of thing goes on endlessly. He says it's not about features yet he brings up "Black Negroid" features and also cherry picks photos for these features. That is incosnsitent nonsense
Doug ignores my posts because he knows his theories fall apart when you try to apply them to photos of people he hasn't hand picked
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
my comment: Flores hobbits were extremely inbred due to single pregnant *pygmy woman, avoiding komodo dragons on flat ground favored adaptations for cliff/tree climbing.
*Pygmy diaspora ~50ka when tropical rainforest reached from African Rift (eg. Lake Malawi Akafula pygmies) east to Narmada R India, Andamans, Queensland, Flores, Laos
posted
DD'eDeN, yes Negritos that is the most likely scenario.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m not even going to waste my time engaging in the silly semantic argument about the difference between ‘black’ and ‘brown’ which is totally relative and subjective. My main point is that Doug is obviously ignorant about Southeast Asian populations and their history. He thinks that non-black Southeast Asians only entered the region “100 years ago” which is FALSE, and that Malayan peoples were/are themselves black aborigines who became lighter via admixture with the said immigrants, which is also FALSE. Even Troll Patrol cited this article below which Doug either didn’t read or it totally went past his head:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote: In honor of the Little Black People Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the "Ritual of the Little Black People" (矮靈祭) is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend. For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe (賽夏族) has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan. In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places. Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together. But one day, the Little Black People sexually harassed some Aboriginal women. So, the Saisiyat took revenge and killed them off by cutting a bridge over which they were all crossing. Just two Little Black People survived. Before departing eastward, they taught the Saisiyat about their culture and passed down some of their songs, saying if they did not remember their people they would be cursed and their crops would fail. The Saisiyat kept their promise and have held the Ritual of the Little Black People every year, though they scaled down the ceremonies during the Japanese colonial period (1895 to 1945). Now the ritual is held every two years on the 10th full moon of the lunar calendar, with a big festival once every 10 years. At this time, the Saisiyat are not supposed to fight and they congregate in their ancestral areas of Miaoli and Hsinchu, in the mountains. "I've seen it written of as a celebration, but to me it seemed quite a mournful affair, especially in the way the music came across, which was trancelike, a haunting kind of chant with a series of 10 to 15 songs," said long-term Taiwan resident Lynn Miles, who has been to the ritual three times and will be going again this year. "There's nothing else quite like it in its tone and in its mood. I've been to other festivals but this is non-stop." Miles said the dances were not set pieces but usually involved holding hands and moving around in a circle, chanting, with those who know the songs doing most of the singing and a shaman figure keeping order. Pagina 2 van 2 A spokeswoman at the Council of Indigenous Peoples (under the Executive Yuan) said that those who have "unclean thoughts" have their souls snatched by the spirits of the Little Black People and will pass out until the shaman revives them. Miles said the shaman seemed to serve a public-order function by chasing off those who were too drunk or out of order. The ceremonies are held in two places. The ritual began yesterday in Nanchuang Township, Miaoli County, and will carry on there until Monday. Rituals start today in Wufeng Township, Hsinchu County, and will last through tomorrow. Getting there: To Wufeng: Route 122 to Wufeng can be accessed off No. 1 Highway near Toufen. To Nanchuang: Take western No. 1 Highway. Near Toufen, take Route 124 toward Sanwan to Nanchuang. Shuttle buses will take visitors to the ritual site at Xiangtian Lake.
^ As you can see from the part I emboldened, the ‘Taiwanese Aborigines’ despite their name are not the black aboriginals themselves but peoples who came after them NOT 100 years ago but much earlier during the Neolithic. The article claims that the Austronesian homeland was the Malay Archipelago though interestingly Taiwan itself has the greatest diversity of Austronesian languages not only having the deepest linguistic divisions but also possessing most of the phylum’s branches. Because of this fact, most linguists think that Taiwan was the original homeland of Austronesian speakers or at least where the phylum developed and began to diversify before it spread farther south. Either way, because the Malayan peoples have lived in Southeast Asia for several millennia, they are indigenous but not aboriginal. This is why the Malay people have always distinguished themselves from the black aborigines calling themselves Orang Melayi but calling the latter Orang Asli meaning ‘First People’ as in the first people of the region.
By the way, here are some photos—old and recent—of the Saisiyat tribe.
As we all know, the aboriginal populations of Southeast Asia are black peoples who directly descend from the first modern humans to settle the region during the end of the Pleistocene. During this time period Southeast Asia looked quite different from what it does today. Because of the Ice Age, much seawater around the poles was frozen making the sea levels at that time much lower than it is today. The effect was that much more of the continent shelf was exposed. There was no Malay Peninsula or Malayan Archipelago but instead a subcontinent much larger than India called Sunda. Australia and New Guinea were also joined by a land bridge to form the continent of Sahul.
It was when the Ice Age ended at the beginning of the Holocene that the glaciers melted creating a great flood that increased the sea level and submerged much of Sunda and other land masses. It was during that time or a little after that ancestral Austronesian and Austroasiatic began to spread. There is still debate as to which language phylum spread to Southeast Asia first—Austronesian or Austroasiatic. And of course there are some linguists who propose that both diverged from an ‘Austric’ super-phylum. I’m not as certain about the theory as some people are but I don’t deny the possibility. There is also the theory that proto-Austronesian may be derived from languages spoken by black aborigines but adopted by newcomers from the north. I don’t deny the possibility of this scenario as well but for now I am only discussing the speakers or populations themselves, and my main point is that the non-black peoples entered Southeast Asia from the north during this time and this included the ancestors of today’s majority Austronesian speakers. Again, because of the linguistic situation in Taiwan the theory is that expansions began from this island though ultimately the original homeland of these people was in mainland China likely in the southeastern coastal area. Of course all of this is difficult to prove archaeologically because most of the material of these people was perishable wood and much of the original coastline is now submerged. There are scholars who postulate two main waves of Austronesian expansion first by Proto-Malays in the beginning of the Holocene and then later Deutero-Malays. Other scholars dispute this and say there was simply continuous settlement until the beginning of the 1st millennium CE. Either way these people were distinguished from the aborigines phenotypically in a number of ways such as lighter skin and straighter hair as well as being less tropically adapted but there’s also a genetic distinction. Aborigines tend to carry older OOA lineages like hg C, D, and K on the Y chromosome, while the majority of Malayan men overwhelmingly carry hg O, specifically O1 (M119). As usual, mitochondrial lineages tend to be more diverse but typical Malayan clades are hgs E, F, B, and D, while aborigines tend to carry hgs M, N, R, and P. As I mentioned before, there was some intermarriage and thus admixture between Austronesians and Aborigines that shows in the features of some individuals or certain communities but by and large the ethnic distinction remained.
In the past, Western/white scholars did promote the idea of a lighter-skinned “superior race” entering Southeast Asia from the north and displacing and dominating the aboriginal darker/black “inferior race”. They even went as far as suggesting that modern Southeast Asians, especially seafaring Austronesians were “Mediterranean Caucasoids” [sic]!! You can look this up yourself. Of course modern bio-anthropology has debunked such racial notions and has proven that modern Southeast Asians are if anything, more “Mongoloid” than anything else being closely related to other Eastern Asian populations. However their settlement of Southeast Asia was not as simple as displacing or conquering the aboriginal populations. What little archaeological evidence is left suggests that when Austronesians and others from the north began settling the Southeast, the aboriginal populations were already sparse and thinly spread out as it was. This was likely due to the effects of the great flood that submerged Sunda. Also, as shown in the native traditions, instead of violent conquest there was peaceful cohabitation and even intermarriage between the groups. That Austronesian language (assuming such originated from the north) and culture became dominant was the typical result of rapid growing Neolithic populations in contrast to the smaller hunter-gatherer aboriginal populations which eventually became absorbed and assimilated. This process continues to this day with many aboriginal Asli in Malaysia and Aeta in the Philippines marrying members of the predominant ethnicities who surround them. This is why some of the photos Doug posted of Asli are actually mixed types. Lastly, there is a theory that the aboriginals may not have been as “primitive” as many think. There are native Malayi legends that the Asli formerly had nations, which explains why there were noble families and rulers from among them as noted in the ancient Chinese annals. There are even megaliths spread throughout the Malaysian archipelago which many natives attribute to the aboriginals. Even Stephen Oppenheimer, the author of The Real Eve: Modern Man’s Journey Out of Africa wrote a book called Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, where he proposes the existence of a civilization in Sunda that was destroyed by the deluge and thinks that myths of this civilization and the ‘Great Flood’ originated from this area and spread as far west as the Middle East. Although, I think it’s more likely that some of the peoples and their culture spread to India judging by not only cultural similarities but even Hindu myths with accurate descriptions of eastern lands, the deluge, and seafaring.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I’m not even going to waste my time engaging in the silly semantic argument about the difference between ‘black’ and ‘brown’ which is totally relative and subjective. My main point is that Doug is obviously ignorant about Southeast Asian populations and their history. He thinks that non-black Southeast Asians only entered the region “100 years ago” which is FALSE, and that Malayan peoples were/are themselves black aborigines who became lighter via admixture with the said immigrants, which is also FALSE. Even Troll Patrol cited this article below which Doug either didn’t read or it totally went past his head:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote: In honor of the Little Black People Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the "Ritual of the Little Black People" (矮靈祭) is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend. For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe (賽夏族) has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan. In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places. Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe. The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together. But one day, the Little Black People sexually harassed some Aboriginal women. So, the Saisiyat took revenge and killed them off by cutting a bridge over which they were all crossing. Just two Little Black People survived. Before departing eastward, they taught the Saisiyat about their culture and passed down some of their songs, saying if they did not remember their people they would be cursed and their crops would fail. The Saisiyat kept their promise and have held the Ritual of the Little Black People every year, though they scaled down the ceremonies during the Japanese colonial period (1895 to 1945). Now the ritual is held every two years on the 10th full moon of the lunar calendar, with a big festival once every 10 years. At this time, the Saisiyat are not supposed to fight and they congregate in their ancestral areas of Miaoli and Hsinchu, in the mountains. "I've seen it written of as a celebration, but to me it seemed quite a mournful affair, especially in the way the music came across, which was trancelike, a haunting kind of chant with a series of 10 to 15 songs," said long-term Taiwan resident Lynn Miles, who has been to the ritual three times and will be going again this year. "There's nothing else quite like it in its tone and in its mood. I've been to other festivals but this is non-stop." Miles said the dances were not set pieces but usually involved holding hands and moving around in a circle, chanting, with those who know the songs doing most of the singing and a shaman figure keeping order. Pagina 2 van 2 A spokeswoman at the Council of Indigenous Peoples (under the Executive Yuan) said that those who have "unclean thoughts" have their souls snatched by the spirits of the Little Black People and will pass out until the shaman revives them. Miles said the shaman seemed to serve a public-order function by chasing off those who were too drunk or out of order. The ceremonies are held in two places. The ritual began yesterday in Nanchuang Township, Miaoli County, and will carry on there until Monday. Rituals start today in Wufeng Township, Hsinchu County, and will last through tomorrow. Getting there: To Wufeng: Route 122 to Wufeng can be accessed off No. 1 Highway near Toufen. To Nanchuang: Take western No. 1 Highway. Near Toufen, take Route 124 toward Sanwan to Nanchuang. Shuttle buses will take visitors to the ritual site at Xiangtian Lake.
^ As you can see from the part I emboldened, the ‘Taiwanese Aborigines’ despite their name are not the black aboriginals themselves but peoples who came after them NOT 100 years ago but much earlier during the Neolithic. The article claims that the Austronesian homeland was the Malay Archipelago though interestingly Taiwan itself has the greatest diversity of Austronesian languages not only having the deepest linguistic divisions but also possessing most of the phylum’s branches. Because of this fact, most linguists think that Taiwan was the original homeland of Austronesian speakers or at least where the phylum developed and began to diversify before it spread farther south. Either way, because the Malayan peoples have lived in Southeast Asia for several millennia, they are indigenous but not aboriginal. This is why the Malay people have always distinguished themselves from the black aborigines calling themselves Orang Melayi but calling the latter Orang Asli meaning ‘First People’ as in the first people of the region.
By the way, here are some photos—old and recent—of the Saisiyat tribe.
....
As we all know, the aboriginal populations of Southeast Asia are black peoples who directly descend from the first modern humans to settle the region during the end of the Pleistocene. During this time period Southeast Asia looked quite different from what it does today. Because of the Ice Age, much seawater around the poles was frozen making the sea levels at that time much lower than it is today. The effect was that much more of the continent shelf was exposed. There was no Malay Peninsula or Malayan Archipelago but instead a subcontinent much larger than India called Sunda. Australia and New Guinea were also joined by a land bridge to form the continent of Sahul.
It was when the Ice Age ended at the beginning of the Holocene that the glaciers melted creating a great flood that increased the sea level and submerged much of Sunda and other land masses. It was during that time or a little after that ancestral Austronesian and Austroasiatic began to spread. There is still debate as to which language phylum spread to Southeast Asia first—Austronesian or Austroasiatic. And of course there are some linguists who propose that both diverged from an ‘Austric’ super-phylum. I’m not as certain about the theory as some people are but I don’t deny the possibility. There is also the theory that proto-Austronesian may be derived from languages spoken by black aborigines but adopted by newcomers from the north. I don’t deny the possibility of this scenario as well but for now I am only discussing the speakers or populations themselves, and my main point is that the non-black peoples entered Southeast Asia from the north during this time and this included the ancestors of today’s majority Austronesian speakers. Again, because of the linguistic situation in Taiwan the theory is that expansions began from this island though ultimately the original homeland of these people was in mainland China likely in the southeastern coastal area. Of course all of this is difficult to prove archaeologically because most of the material of these people was perishable wood and much of the original coastline is now submerged. There are scholars who postulate two main waves of Austronesian expansion first by Proto-Malays in the beginning of the Holocene and then later Deutero-Malays. Other scholars dispute this and say there was simply continuous settlement until the beginning of the 1st millennium CE. Either way these people were distinguished from the aborigines phenotypically in a number of ways such as lighter skin and straighter hair as well as being less tropically adapted but there’s also a genetic distinction. Aborigines tend to carry older OOA lineages like hg C, D, and K on the Y chromosome, while the majority of Malayan men overwhelmingly carry hg O, specifically O1 (M119). As usual, mitochondrial lineages tend to be more diverse but typical Malayan clades are hgs E, F, B, and D, while aborigines tend to carry hgs M, N, R, and P. As I mentioned before, there was some intermarriage and thus admixture between Austronesians and Aborigines that shows in the features of some individuals or certain communities but by and large the ethnic distinction remained.
In the past, Western/white scholars did promote the idea of a lighter-skinned “superior race” entering Southeast Asia from the north and displacing and dominating the aboriginal darker/black “inferior race”. They even went as far as suggesting that modern Southeast Asians, especially seafaring Austronesians were “Mediterranean Caucasoids” [sic]!! You can look this up yourself. Of course modern bio-anthropology has debunked such racial notions and has proven that modern Southeast Asians are if anything, more “Mongoloid” than anything else being closely related to other Eastern Asian populations. However their settlement of Southeast Asia was not as simple as displacing or conquering the aboriginal populations. What little archaeological evidence is left suggests that when Austronesians and others from the north began settling the Southeast, the aboriginal populations were already sparse and thinly spread out as it was. This was likely due to the effects of the great flood that submerged Sunda. Also, as shown in the native traditions, instead of violent conquest there was peaceful cohabitation and even intermarriage between the groups. That Austronesian language (assuming such originated from the north) and culture became dominant was the typical result of rapid growing Neolithic populations in contrast to the smaller hunter-gatherer aboriginal populations which eventually became absorbed and assimilated. This process continues to this day with many aboriginal Asli in Malaysia and Aeta in the Philippines marrying members of the predominant ethnicities who surround them. This is why some of the photos Doug posted of Asli are actually mixed types. Lastly, there is a theory that the aboriginals may not have been as “primitive” as many think. There are native Malayi legends that the Asli formerly had nations, which explains why there were noble families and rulers from among them as noted in the ancient Chinese annals. There are even megaliths spread throughout the Malaysian archipelago which many natives attribute to the aboriginals. Even Stephen Oppenheimer, the author of The Real Eve: Modern Man’s Journey Out of Africa wrote a book called Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, where he proposes the existence of a civilization in Sunda that was destroyed by the deluge and thinks that myths of this civilization and the ‘Great Flood’ originated from this area and spread as far west as the Middle East. Although, I think it’s more likely that some of the peoples and their culture spread to India judging by not only cultural similarities but even Hindu myths with accurate descriptions of eastern lands, the deluge, and seafaring.
Djehuti so you just said that some "other" aboriginals replaced the "black" aboriginals as if to suggest that whoever these "new" aboriginals were they weren't black at all. So lets call them Northern cold adapted Asians. And because of this, the "real" aborigines, who are black are not the ones who are called "aborigines". Doesn't that sound convoluted? Of course. Not only is it convoluted, it misrepresents the facts. ALL of South Asia had sizeable black populations even up to 100 years ago. Therefore, if all these people were "non blacks" why were the Europeans themselves writing of the large numbers of blacks in the areas of South Asia they conquered? My point is that populations were always diverse and there never was a separation between aboriginals and later people. Your story is simply suggesting that magically the aborigines are not related to the later populations, as if to say the later populations popped up out of thin blue sky from another planet. That is not how biology works. Change is a gradual process the first people to settle Asia were blacks and over time as some of these people moved north, they developed lighter skin, but otherwise, ALL OTHER features in Asians were present among the black aboriginal populations. This is the key point that you are missing. Europeans and their 'race theories' is more than just about racial superiority. It is also about the idea that human populations can be grouped into separate and distinct sub species where each sub species has its own biogenetic origin and separate unique and distinct features. And what you said reflects that.
My point is that ALL these populations, even in NORTHERN ASIA have always been diverse, with elements of the aboriginal black populations surviving even to the present day. There are still black folks in parts of Siberia, Mongolia and Tibet to this day. And if you have NORTHERNERS who still have black features in environments typically associated with light skin, then of course it was even more predominant in South Asia. From Southern China, to Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and so forth on down into the Philippines you have always had black "Chinese looking" Asians or in other words black people with/without epicanthic folds and straight hair. All black aboriginal populations did not have curly hair. And this is where the arbitrary distinctions of the racists have formed the basis of the modern ethnic and anthropological understanding of South Asian history. I am not denying that there were migrations of populations from Northern Asia into the South, what I am saying is that there was no such thing as an "aboriginal" then and the modern understanding of such a term did not exist. And among those folks you classify as "Austronesian" there has always been a black aboriginal straight haired element. Austronesian is not a skin color. But that is what you are claiming even when the facts show otherwise.
And the modern populations of South Asia are more mixed with recent Chinese populations to the point where you really aren't talking about the same kind of population diversity even from 100 years ago.
Not only that but the pictures from Taiwan are available from over 100 years ago showing that the aboriginal populations were much more diverse than you suggest. And the same is true for the Malays and Philippines as well. It is not a simple as you try and make it out to be. All "aboriginals" were not curly haired and short. Some were short and straight haired and others were tall and straight haired. To be aboriginal means to carry all the ancestral features of later populations. It is a parent/child relationship not a sibling relationship. ALL Asian populations get their features from black aboriginal ancestors. Period.
Note how the darker "black" aborigines have the same features as the lighter skinned aborigines. They are the same people. And this is what I mean by diversity and aborigines carrying ancestral traits passed down to later populations. It isn't simply a question of mixing and it isn't simply a case of 'new' populations bringing in exclusive features unique from the existing ones (other than lighter skin on average).
The point being that the transition from dark Asian populations to light Asian populations across the board was gradual and not simply a transition that took place over night as suggested by some "migration" that introduced certain features to a certain part of Asia. Those features were already there and brought there by the aborigines who carried them before any other population existed. What you have today is the acceleration of lightening in south Asia due to the influence of European racial theories and the population explosion in China.
This old image of Balinese women is more typical of what an Average South Asian person looked like for most of the history of South Asia. And they don't look like Negritoes:
Note how the darker "black" aborigines have the same features as the lighter skinned aborigines. They are the same people
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
And if you have NORTHERNERS who still have black features in environments typically associated with light skin, then of course it was even more predominant in South Asia. From Southern China, to Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and so forth
Why use the term "Black" in anthropological discussion if the term is applied arbitrarily and has no standard? It only leads to confusion. Why not deal with "dark skin" in describing an individuals skin (not as a type) and "African" if applicable? Doug looks at this old photo and arbitrarily decides some people in it are Black and others aren't. Can we tell? No, it's just Doug's opinion who's Black and who isn't. That is all it is. The he's go this other quote about "Black features" Now all of the sudden the shape of a person's features can be Black. Ther is no consistency here. It's entirely eyeball opinion and not observation. Scientific accuracy as per these people's skin color and most Africans is brown. When people come in and decide based on some kind of personal paper bag type yardstick in their mind that one brown skin person is black and another is brown it's just politics, not observation, not science
posted
For those who don't understand the point. Nothing is static in time and space. Everything is change. On this site we have discussed at length the fact that all humans originated in Africa. That means at some point in history all humans were black Africans in appearance and from that original population of humans ALL other features originate. The racists try and obfuscate this fact by trying to push racial theories about humans being segregated into species of non overlapping features. Not only is that false, it is an outright fairy tale designed to down play and erase the black history of most of the worlds populations. And from this you get nonsense concepts like that of a "brown race" as if that makes any sense when all black people are "brown" in the first damn place.
The reality is that most human populations only recently lost their dark pigment in most parts of the world relatively recently. And this nonsense about race is simply a way to deny and omit this fact and replace it with nonsense about other "races" being in place, which in reality means light skin being in place.
All 'aboriginal' black South Asians were not negritoes meaning having kinky hair. The term Negrito came from Negroes because that is the term Europeans used for Africans. Other ethnic groups in the same areas were also aboriginal and black but not called Negrito because their hair was not curly. And from that diversity comes all the nonsense about different races in South Asia, because some folks just cant accept that black folks have the most diversity of any population on the planet. It is easy for them to accept them looking like "negroes" in Africa but like black mongoloids before mongoloids existed? That cuts to the heart of many folks notions about race.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] For those who don't understand the point. Nothing is static in time and space. Everything is change. On this site we have discussed at length the fact that all humans originated in Africa. That means at some point in history all humans were black Africans in appearance and from that original population of humans ALL other features originate. The racists try and obfuscate this fact by trying to push racial theories about humans being segregated into species of non overlapping features. Not only is that false, it is an outright fairy tale designed to down play and erase the black history of most of the worlds populations. And from this you get nonsense concepts like that of a "brown race" as if that makes any sense when all black people are "brown" in the first damn place.
This is more straw man argumentation. Nobody said anything about a "brown race". Every photo in this thread according to objective observation the skin color is brown.
"Black" there for is a racial term. It's a stereotype. It divides the world of brown people, people who we can see with our own eyes who have brown skin and says some are "Black" and some are not then he goes on to talk about "Black features" which makes nonsense whatosver. All that is is American upbringing. And this divide that Doug makes, if we were to apply it to some of the Khoisans, a very old population, some of them would have a skin tone like some of the Taiwanese indigenous, the ones that Doug determined (by his secret papaer bag measuring methods) not to be black.
The prevailiing theory the Out of Africa hypothesis (OOA), is recent and comes out of Darwin. It says that humans originated in Africa and then spread out to other parts of the world. This is the prevailing theory of European scientists and most Americans and Europeans who are not religious. And most of these scientists are avoiding the concept of race anyway
But Doug wants to impose his own concept of race. He says there are two races in the world the Black race which is the original people and the light race which is much more recent. You can see how he tried to divide a single tribe of Taiwanese inot Black and non Black
So Doug shouldn't pretend he doesn't have his own racial concept becasue he most certainly does
And if we go back to the thread theme, the Black Yi and White Yi as I have pointed out, is a cultural distinction not even having to do wth skin color. The extinct "Little Black People" a different people altogether the Southern Chinese describe are probably not their ancestors
So where does blond haired Donald Trump fit in? Most scientists of his culture, European Americans, would say that his ancestors were African
So Doug has no point
What he's doing is trying to create a concept, based on looks of one race that is original and another race that only came about recently and is not original. So a different form of racism emerges out of this. The original people and the recent "mutants"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: For folks really interested in the diversity and history of Southern China, just look at some books references to Yunnan and other regions:
Obviously it is more to it than some legend about black yi.
I am about the take a trio to China next years. I things go according to plannings of course.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Djehuti so you just said that some "other" aboriginals replaced the "black" aboriginals as if to suggest that whoever these "new" aboriginals were they weren't black at all. So lets call them Northern cold adapted Asians. And because of this, the "real" aborigines, who are black are not the ones who are called "aborigines". Doesn't that sound convoluted? Of course. Not only is it convoluted, it misrepresents the facts...
Again, you fail to comprehend what I said. "Aboriginal" means original or first inhabitant. If a population is not the first inhabitants of a region then they are not aboriginal. In the case of Taiwan, the pre-Chinese inhabitants of the ssland are known as 'Aboriginal Tawianese' because it is thought they were the first or original inhabitants. I myself did not know that they were preceded by black people until Troll Patrol cited that article where the alleged Aboriginal Taiwanese say in their folk traditions that there were black inhabitants of the island before them. If this is true, then their label as 'aborigines' is a misnomer. There is nothing convoluted about it at all and nothing is being "misrepresented".
quote:ALL of South Asia had sizeable black populations even up to 100 years ago. Therefore, if all these people were "non blacks" why were the Europeans themselves writing of the large numbers of blacks in the areas of South Asia they conquered?...
Exactly what do you mean by "South Asia"? Does this include areas like the islands of Taiwan or Hainan where there were no black people at all when Europeans arrived?? Of course there were sizable populations of black populations but it depends on what area or region. Many of the islands and coastal areas of Southeast Asia by the time of European conquest with only a few exceptions were already inhabited by non-black Asians.
quote:My point is that populations were always diverse and there never was a separation between aboriginals and later people. Your story is simply suggesting that magically the aborigines are not related to the later populations, as if to say the later populations popped up out of thin blue sky from another planet. That is not how biology works. Change is a gradual process the first people to settle Asia were blacks and over time as some of these people moved north, they developed lighter skin, but otherwise, ALL OTHER features in Asians were present among the black aboriginal populations. This is the key point that you are missing. Europeans and their 'race theories' is more than just about racial superiority. It is also about the idea that human populations can be grouped into separate and distinct sub species where each sub species has its own biogenetic origin and separate unique and distinct features. And what you said reflects that.
And again you seem to have difficulty comprehending my brief passage on the population history of Southeast Asia. Of course the populations of that region are diverse as I have already explained, the black populations were the first but you had non-black peoples from the north who entered and gradually made their way south. The same situation happened in South Asia i.e. India which is why you have lighter-skinned populations living in that region as well. Of course ALL Eurasians descend from black people, but how does that refute the fact that there was population change via northern immigration, the same way North Africa's population has changed in the last 1400 years or the Americas??
quote:My point is that ALL these populations, even in NORTHERN ASIA have always been diverse, with elements of the aboriginal black populations surviving even to the present day. There are still black folks in parts of Siberia, Mongolia and Tibet to this day. And if you have NORTHERNERS who still have black features in environments typically associated with light skin, then of course it was even more predominant in South Asia. From Southern China, to Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and so forth on down into the Philippines you have always had black "Chinese looking" Asians or in other words black people with/without epicanthic folds and straight hair. All black aboriginal populations did not have curly hair. And this is where the arbitrary distinctions of the racists have formed the basis of the modern ethnic and anthropological understanding of South Asian history. I am not denying that there were migrations of populations from Northern Asia into the South, what I am saying is that there was no such thing as an "aboriginal" then and the modern understanding of such a term did not exist. And among those folks you classify as "Austronesian" there has always been a black aboriginal straight haired element. Austronesian is not a skin color. But that is what you are claiming even when the facts show otherwise.
I have never heard of black Siberians or Mongolians but yes, there are people in those regions who are darker than the typical fair complexions associated with northern Eurasians. That is your problem-- you tend to identify anyone with any amount of melanin in their skin or anything darker than fair as 'black'. Again I never divided the world's populations between black and white, that is YOU who does this. I and others know that there are populations who grade in between with various shades of light brown.
quote:And the modern populations of South Asia are more mixed with recent Chinese populations to the point where you really aren't talking about the same kind of population diversity even from 100 years ago.
This is true with areas that have been colonized by China but the vast majority of Southeast Asia has never been colonized by China. Hence many indigenous non-black Southeast Asians even in rural areas are such not because of recent Chinese ancestry as you claim. I have already shown you examples of this. Attributing their lighter color to recent Chinese of 100 years ago is a ludicrous fallacy.
quote:Not only that but the pictures from Taiwan are available from over 100 years ago showing that the aboriginal populations were much more diverse than you suggest. And the same is true for the Malays and Philippines as well. It is not a simple as you try and make it out to be. All "aboriginals" were not curly haired and short. Some were short and straight haired and others were tall and straight haired. To be aboriginal means to carry all the ancestral features of later populations. It is a parent/child relationship not a sibling relationship. ALL Asian populations get their features from black aboriginal ancestors. Period.
I have already shown you black-and-white photos of indigenous Taiwanese from a hundred years ago and they still look the exact same as their descendants in rural areas unaffected by Chinese admixture today! Yes I know black aboriginals varied in feature, but what does have to do with the fact that non-black Southeast Asians are the result of migrations from thousands of years ago NOT "100 years ago". And yes ALL Eurasians including pale skinned Europeans got their features from black ancestors, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand??
Note how the darker "black" aborigines have the same features as the lighter skinned aborigines. They are the same people. And this is what I mean by diversity and aborigines carrying ancestral traits passed down to later populations. It isn't simply a question of mixing and it isn't simply a case of 'new' populations bringing in exclusive features unique from the existing ones (other than lighter skin on average).
LOL Again, those darker individuals are not much darker from the lighter ones. And you keep missing the point that although they are dark they are not dark enough to be considered 'black'. I have shown you modern colored photos of the direct descendants of these people and in complexion are no more darker than American Indians especially of Central and South America. If you consider these people (including myself) as 'black' then that is your prerogative but that does not change the fact that they distinguished themselves from the truly black aboriginals.
quote:The point being that the transition from dark Asian populations to light Asian populations across the board was gradual and not simply a transition that took place over night as suggested by some "migration" that introduced certain features to a certain part of Asia. Those features were already there and brought there by the aborigines who carried them before any other population existed. What you have today is the acceleration of lightening in south Asia due to the influence of European racial theories and the population explosion in China.
I'm not talking about physical features but entire populations. I already explained to you that there was a migration but it did NOT happen over night or even 100 years ago but THOUSANDS of years ago and this is evident by the anthropological evidence via skeletons and DNA as well as archaeology and folk traditions. That you do not accept this is your fault.
This old image of Balinese women is more typical of what an Average South Asian person looked like for most of the history of South Asia. And they don't look like Negritoes:
That's my point. The 'average' Southeast Asia by the time of European colonization did not look like 'Negritos' but were not black aborigines!! I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. I've already given you a brief history on the populations of Southeast Asia, yet you want to black-paint all indigenous pre-Chinese inhabitants even though they (we) distinguish ourselves from black aborigines.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Djehuti so you just said that some "other" aboriginals replaced the "black" aboriginals as if to suggest that whoever these "new" aboriginals were they weren't black at all. So lets call them Northern cold adapted Asians. And because of this, the "real" aborigines, who are black are not the ones who are called "aborigines". Doesn't that sound convoluted? Of course. Not only is it convoluted, it misrepresents the facts...
Again, you fail to comprehend what I said. "Aboriginal" means original or first inhabitant. If a population is not the first inhabitants of a region then they are not aboriginal. In the case of Taiwan, the pre-Chinese inhabitants of the ssland are known as 'Aboriginal Tawianese' because it is thought they were the first or original inhabitants. I myself did not know that they were preceded by black people until Troll Patrol cited that article where the alleged Aboriginal Taiwanese say in their folk traditions that there were black inhabitants of the island before them. If this is true, then their label as 'aborigines' is a misnomer. There is nothing convoluted about it at all and nothing is being "misrepresented".
quote:ALL of South Asia had sizeable black populations even up to 100 years ago. Therefore, if all these people were "non blacks" why were the Europeans themselves writing of the large numbers of blacks in the areas of South Asia they conquered?...
Exactly what do you mean by "South Asia"? Does this include areas like the islands of Taiwan or Hainan where there were no black people at all when Europeans arrived?? Of course there were sizable populations of black populations but it depends on what area or region. Many of the islands and coastal areas of Southeast Asia by the time of European conquest with only a few exceptions were already inhabited by non-black Asians.
Of course I am referring to South and South East Asia. Southeast is a part of South. You are simply running from the issue that ALL Asian populations originate from black aborigines. There is no "other" type of Aborigine and all diversity in Asia and on the planet originates with black aboriginal out of Africa populations. What you are claiming is that yeah there were aborigines who were black but "we" meaning whatever tribes you want to identify, somehow came from somewhere else, but not China, and did not descend from Aborigines. Meaning, that you are not diverse in features and complexions as a result of the evolution of features stemming from the aborigines. It is a nonsensical argument, there is no "other" origin of Asian populations and you simply are running from blackness. Europeans who arrived in Southeast Asia noted the blacks in almost every place they conquered and they didn't distinguish between Aborigine and other. There were blacks across all of the various ethnic groups in those areas and they weren't segregated off into separate camps called "aboriginal". Whatever it is you believe you are defending don't confuse what I am saying with what you are trying to argue. There is more than enough evidence from now and 100 years ago to show that indigenous populations in SOutheast Asia, including the Philippines have always contained populations who are black. You simply hate the word black because as a result of colonial European oppression, most of the world hates blackness, no matter if great grandma or grandpa was black.
quote:
quote:My point is that populations were always diverse and there never was a separation between aboriginals and later people. Your story is simply suggesting that magically the aborigines are not related to the later populations, as if to say the later populations popped up out of thin blue sky from another planet. That is not how biology works. Change is a gradual process the first people to settle Asia were blacks and over time as some of these people moved north, they developed lighter skin, but otherwise, ALL OTHER features in Asians were present among the black aboriginal populations. This is the key point that you are missing. Europeans and their 'race theories' is more than just about racial superiority. It is also about the idea that human populations can be grouped into separate and distinct sub species where each sub species has its own biogenetic origin and separate unique and distinct features. And what you said reflects that.
And again you seem to have difficulty comprehending my brief passage on the population history of Southeast Asia. Of course the populations of that region are diverse as I have already explained, the black populations were the first but you had non-black peoples from the north who entered and gradually made their way south. The same situation happened in South Asia i.e. India which is why you have lighter-skinned populations living in that region as well. Of course ALL Eurasians descend from black people, but how does that refute the fact that there was population change via northern immigration, the same way North Africa's population has changed in the last 1400 years or the Americas??
That wasn't the point and you know it. You keep trying to claim that populations in South East Asia ONLY originate with migrants from North Asia who replaced the aborigines and moved them to isolated areas. This is garbage and basically tries to put any kind of 'advanced' culture in South/SouthEast Asia into the hands of 'northern Light skin migrants'. But the facts state otherwise. The ancient civilizations of the Chams and Khmers prove that wrong and those people were NORTHERNERS compared to the Philippines. Your point is to try and make all Asians in Southeast Asia recent Northern migrants who got there before Europeans and replaced all the blacks. That is such bull sh*t it isn't even funny as European scholars of the time all noted the presence of blacks in these areas. No matter how you spin it, you simply are running from blackness. Not to mention there were plenty of black (not mixed with African) native Americans as well and there still are some. But even they have been infected with white supremacy as a result of conquest, the same way many Southeast Asians are in denial of their roots. Most Southeast Asians on arrival of Europeans were not "northern" migrants they were the same people who had always been there, some dark and some light. There was no segregation based on skin color as dark skin is natural in the Southern parts of Asia. You simply are creating nonsense fantasy history.
quote:
quote:My point is that ALL these populations, even in NORTHERN ASIA have always been diverse, with elements of the aboriginal black populations surviving even to the present day. There are still black folks in parts of Siberia, Mongolia and Tibet to this day. And if you have NORTHERNERS who still have black features in environments typically associated with light skin, then of course it was even more predominant in South Asia. From Southern China, to Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and so forth on down into the Philippines you have always had black "Chinese looking" Asians or in other words black people with/without epicanthic folds and straight hair. All black aboriginal populations did not have curly hair. And this is where the arbitrary distinctions of the racists have formed the basis of the modern ethnic and anthropological understanding of South Asian history. I am not denying that there were migrations of populations from Northern Asia into the South, what I am saying is that there was no such thing as an "aboriginal" then and the modern understanding of such a term did not exist. And among those folks you classify as "Austronesian" there has always been a black aboriginal straight haired element. Austronesian is not a skin color. But that is what you are claiming even when the facts show otherwise.
I have never heard of black Siberians or Mongolians but yes, there are people in those regions who are darker than the typical fair complexions associated with northern Eurasians. That is your problem-- you tend to identify anyone with any amount of melanin in their skin or anything darker than fair as 'black'. Again I never divided the world's populations between black and white, that is YOU who does this. I and others know that there are populations who grade in between with various shades of light brown.
No. I don't identify anything other than the facts that human skin color is a result of environmental conditions all over the planet and that "black" skin color is no more special or unique than white skin color and has been found among indigenous populations all over the globe. You simply are trying your best to rewrite history to omit that fact and put black people in little isolated camps cut off from the history of Asia as a whole, which as I have said before is primarily, but not exclusively, a result of white colonialism. My point is that there have always been blacks in Asia, all parts of Asia, but primarily in the Southern parts in modern times and they were never separate or isolated from everyone else. That is garbage that only came from the last 100 years since colonization.
quote:
quote:And the modern populations of South Asia are more mixed with recent Chinese populations to the point where you really aren't talking about the same kind of population diversity even from 100 years ago.
This is true with areas that have been colonized by China but the vast majority of Southeast Asia has never been colonized by China. Hence many indigenous non-black Southeast Asians even in rural areas are such not because of recent Chinese ancestry as you claim. I have already shown you examples of this. Attributing their lighter color to recent Chinese of 100 years ago is a ludicrous fallacy.
quote:Not only that but the pictures from Taiwan are available from over 100 years ago showing that the aboriginal populations were much more diverse than you suggest. And the same is true for the Malays and Philippines as well. It is not a simple as you try and make it out to be. All "aboriginals" were not curly haired and short. Some were short and straight haired and others were tall and straight haired. To be aboriginal means to carry all the ancestral features of later populations. It is a parent/child relationship not a sibling relationship. ALL Asian populations get their features from black aboriginal ancestors. Period.
I have already shown you black-and-white photos of indigenous Taiwanese from a hundred years ago and they still look the exact same as their descendants in rural areas unaffected by Chinese admixture today! Yes I know black aboriginals varied in feature, but what does have to do with the fact that non-black Southeast Asians are the result of migrations from thousands of years ago NOT "100 years ago". And yes ALL Eurasians including pale skinned Europeans got their features from black ancestors, but what does that have to do with the issue at hand??
Note how the darker "black" aborigines have the same features as the lighter skinned aborigines. They are the same people. And this is what I mean by diversity and aborigines carrying ancestral traits passed down to later populations. It isn't simply a question of mixing and it isn't simply a case of 'new' populations bringing in exclusive features unique from the existing ones (other than lighter skin on average).
LOL Again, those darker individuals are not much darker from the lighter ones. And you keep missing the point that although they are dark they are not dark enough to be considered 'black'. I have shown you modern colored photos of the direct descendants of these people and in complexion are no more darker than American Indians especially of Central and South America. If you consider these people (including myself) as 'black' then that is your prerogative but that does not change the fact that they distinguished themselves from the truly black aboriginals.
Or how about some of the other people are as dark as the black people in those photos? That is the problem with you. You keep jumping around contradicting yourself and making up new ways of redefining blackness. So black is only black when it is 'aboriginal' but any other type of black is not black it is just 'a little darker' than light. And I have posted repeatedly very dark people in those old Taiwan photos and there is no confusing that they are very dark and they are not segregatated off into separate camps as 'aborigines' separate from your 'recent northern light skin people'. You are denying diversity within populations as a result of light skin evolving within populations of dark Asians over time who all descended from Aborigines tens of thousands of years ago. You keep making up absurd arguments about "other groups" separate from the aborigines to reinforce the idea of historically segregating blacks into different camps from the rest of Asians, but that is historically inaccurate and you are just making up nonsense. Black people as aboriginal to the planet are the diverse populations on the earth. Yet to hear you tell it they only come in one shape and size, while everyone else is 'diverse' but not including blackness as part of the diversity. You are simply a sick puppy.
quote:
quote:The point being that the transition from dark Asian populations to light Asian populations across the board was gradual and not simply a transition that took place over night as suggested by some "migration" that introduced certain features to a certain part of Asia. Those features were already there and brought there by the aborigines who carried them before any other population existed. What you have today is the acceleration of lightening in south Asia due to the influence of European racial theories and the population explosion in China.
I'm not talking about physical features but entire populations. I already explained to you that there was a migration but it did NOT happen over night or even 100 years ago but THOUSANDS of years ago and this is evident by the anthropological evidence via skeletons and DNA as well as archaeology and folk traditions. That you do not accept this is your fault.
This old image of Balinese women is more typical of what an Average South Asian person looked like for most of the history of South Asia. And they don't look like Negritoes:
That's my point. The 'average' Southeast Asia by the time of European colonization did not look like 'Negritos' but were not black aborigines!! I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. I've already given you a brief history on the populations of Southeast Asia, yet you want to black-paint all indigenous pre-Chinese inhabitants even though they (we) distinguish ourselves from black aborigines.
Like I said, all Asian populations descend from black aborigines and the lighter skinned Asians didn't just magically appear from somewhere else. The first Asians in Northern Asia were also black and over time they became lighter producing diverse sets of populations with darker skin becoming more genetically recessive in the north while black or dark skin being more predominant in the South. We aren't talking about oil and water here. These features were always mixed together within populations and light skinned people did not just separate out like oil from the water of black aborigines. That is simply not how it works.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ If the first humans were Khosians or East Africans why arew you putting up West Africans, a region populated much later?
And, your concept is people are related by phenotype You ignore DNA completely and also stuck in the 19trh century
-and are stuck in the European artifical white and black two color paradigm for humanity which ancient people did not have. You use the same two color paradigm you just advocate for the opposite side of the artifcial construct
White people do not come from us. Their bodies' needs are completely different than ours because their melanin is completely different than ours. https://youtu.be/9ixcKuQQ-MM This guy is an MD that breaks it down.
Posts: 11 | From: Georgia | Registered: Nov 2014
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic