posted
I've been hearing for the longest that the first people in Madagascar were the Vazimba people who were believed to have came from Indonesia. Now I'm hearing different viewponts that the Vazimba actually came from Afrca, so the first people in Madagascar were Africans rather than Indonesian, which makes much more sense.
Any take on this?
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geez HabariTess, seems like none of you newbies believe in research.
Wiki:
Initial human settlement of Madagascar occurred from 350 BCE and 550 CE by Austronesian peoples arriving on outrigger canoes from Borneo who were later joined around 1000 CE by Bantu migrants crossing the Mozambique Channel. (Probably bullsh1t, but it's something to work with).
Borneo:
Borneo is the third largest island in the world and is located north of Java Island, Indonesia.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Geez HabariTess, seems like none of you newbies believe in research.
Wiki:
Initial human settlement of Madagascar occurred from 350 BCE and 550 CE by Austronesian peoples arriving on outrigger canoes from Borneo who were later joined around 1000 CE by Bantu migrants crossing the Mozambique Channel. (Probably bullsh1t, but it's something to work with).
Borneo:
Borneo is the third largest island in the world and is located north of Java Island, Indonesia.
I've read that wikipedia article already, thank you very much. However, just like you can't believe most things on the internet when it comes to Africa, I was hoping people here may have further studies on the Madagascar orgins. Who first settled Madagascar is still begin question so this is a legitimate question, though I thank you for the second link.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did you hear that the first people in Madagascar may have been African? Not that I doubt it, but I just want to know where you heard it. The people of Madagascar are primarily Africans with some Indonesian Admixture and most of those Indonesians are/were black. So even if there were Indonesians there in 350BC they were not white Asians. And it is also true that even up to 100 years ago, many of the native Indonesians were black as well. It was primarily due to European colonization and movements of populations on plantations from China and elsewhere in Asia that you get the phenotypes you see in Indonesia today. Which is pretty much the same thing that happened all across South Asia in the colonial period.
The Dutch themselves documented a lot of these indigenous blacks, along with the British. You can see the Dutch photos online at Wikimedia commons, some of the others you can find online, but many if not most may not have been digitized.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where did you hear that the first people in Madagascar may have been African? Not that I doubt it, but I just want to know where you heard it. The people of Madagascar are primarily Africans with some Indonesian Admixture and most of those Indonesians are/were black. So even if there were Indonesians there in 350BC they were not white Asians. And it is also true that even up to 100 years ago, many of the native Indonesians were black as well. It was primarily due to European colonization and movements of populations on plantations from China and elsewhere in Asia that you get the phenotypes you see in Indonesia today. Which is pretty much the same thing that happened all across South Asia in the colonial period.
The Dutch themselves documented a lot of these indigenous blacks, along with the British. You can see the Dutch photos online at Wikimedia commons, some of the others you can find online, but many if not most may not have been digitized.
It was actually from a person on a different site who claim that the Vazimba people were African. Interesting enough, he also claim that the admixture between the Indonesians and Africans actually happen before they came to Madagascar. I look into this, and there was more than one site that claim that it is possble that the admixture occured before both groups landed on the island. I came here to see if any of you read any studies on the matter. As far as Africans beng the first, I came here to see if anyone else have found studies on the matter.
quote:How and exactly when this diverse ancestry reached Madagascar is the subject of some speculation. It has been suggested that the population mix is the product of a series of sea migrations related to trading activities from Indonesia, along the littoral of the Indian Ocean to East Africa and from there to Madagascar somewhere between the first and sixth centuries. In this scheme the settlers would have intermarried with indigenous East Africans prior to reaching Madagascar. Others suggest that the Indonesian population element crossed the Indian Ocean directly in a colonization drive and was later followed by African settlers. It is also asserted that the migration, whether directly across the Indian Ocean or via the littoral, was not a once-off affair, but rather a process that continued as late as the 1400s (Hurles et al 2005, US State Department 2005, Columbia Encyclopedia 2005).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where did you hear that the first people in Madagascar may have been African? Not that I doubt it, but I just want to know where you heard it. The people of Madagascar are primarily Africans with some Indonesian Admixture and most of those Indonesians are/were black. So even if there were Indonesians there in 350BC they were not white Asians. And it is also true that even up to 100 years ago, many of the native Indonesians were black as well. It was primarily due to European colonization and movements of populations on plantations from China and elsewhere in Asia that you get the phenotypes you see in Indonesia today. Which is pretty much the same thing that happened all across South Asia in the colonial period.
The Dutch themselves documented a lot of these indigenous blacks, along with the British. You can see the Dutch photos online at Wikimedia commons, some of the others you can find online, but many if not most may not have been digitized.
It was actually a viewpoint of a guy on another forum who claim the first people were African, Interesting enough, he also claim that the admixture between the Africans and Indonesians happen before they settled into Madagascar. I look up the matter, and there was more than one site who claim that the admixture occured prior to them settling on Madagascar.
quote: How and exactly when this diverse ancestry reached Madagascar is the subject of some speculation. It has been suggested that the population mix is the product of a series of sea migrations related to trading activities from Indonesia, along the littoral of the Indian Ocean to East Africa and from there to Madagascar somewhere between the first and sixth centuries. In this scheme the settlers would have intermarried with indigenous East Africans prior to reaching Madagascar. Others suggest that the Indonesian population element crossed the Indian Ocean directly in a colonization drive and was later followed by African settlers. It is also asserted that the migration, whether directly across the Indian Ocean or via the littoral, was not a once-off affair, but rather a process that continued as late as the 1400s (Hurles et al 2005, US State Department 2005, Columbia Encyclopedia 2005).
As far as Africans being first, I was hoping anyone had any studies that might have appoach on this possibility.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously Madagascar is much closer to Africa than Indonesia so it only makes sense that Africans have been there since the beginning. The point being that the population of Madagascar today is primarily African with some Indonesian. I would argue it is mostly African. Therefore, it would seem obvious that the proximity to Africa has been the primary reason for the heavy African presence and this goes back to the beginning. Given that, it defies logic to claim that this "African mix" came about before the settlement of Madagascar. Black South Asians have always been there and of course Africans have always been in Africa as well. So it is unlikely that Indonesians and Africans got to Madagascar at the same time and magically mixed.
It should be obvious that the predominant phenotype of South Asia for most of its history has been tropical, which means much like the original migrants from Africa, but some may have problems with that, especially if they are working from the old colonial anthropological framework put in place by Europeans when they conquered south Asia. But this also does imply that travel between South Asia and Africa never stopped after the first migrations there thousands of years ago, even though such travel would not have altered the populations already present that much.
Not to mention that even as far back as the Periplus of the Erythraen Sea, there has been trade between East Africa and Asia, not to mention the Kushite trade links prior to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplus_of_the_Erythraean_Sea
Other scholars have also noted trade links between Southern Africa and South Asia prior to European contact, as the great Zimbabwe empire was trading gold to Asia via the trade outposts in Kenya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_glass_tradePosts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least one study shows a 50:50 component of African and East Asian recent common ancestry in a Madagascan sample. I haven't come across any material that has definitively discerned which group inhabited the African island first. While the Austronesian-based language spoken in Madagascar is infused with Bantu-derived lexical items.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think the linguistic evidence points to the africans being there 1st. Most of the languages spoken in madagascar are of the Malay language family (whose origins are obvious). However, their words for animals of madagascar and some madagascan plants are from the bantu family. If the malay speakers from asia arrived before the africans then they would've developed their own words for madagascan flora and fauna instead of adopting words from african languages. That wiki citation you posted puts african arrival 450-650 yrs after the asians. So in all that time the asians never developed any words for the flora and fauna around them? Doesn't make sense.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by africurious: HabariTess,
I think the linguistic evidence points to the africans being there 1st. Most of the languages spoken in madagascar are of the Malay language family (whose origins are obvious). However, their words for animals of madagascar and some madagascan plants are from the bantu family. If the malay speakers from asia arrived before the africans then they would've developed their own words for madagascan flora and fauna instead of adopting words from african languages. That wiki citation you posted puts african arrival 450-650 yrs after the asians. So in all that time the asians never developed any words for the flora and fauna around them? Doesn't make sense.
Great insertion.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I too find the idea that Africans were unable to cross the Mozambique Channel until after the Indonesians hard to believe.I still remember the African series of lectures in World History at university, and how the lecturer seemed to use the peopling of Madagascar to support his dismissive attitude towards Africa.
Good points, Africurious.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point that some folks don't really want to acknowledge is that there have been blacks with "slanted eyes" in Africa since thousands of years ago and it shouldn't be surprising that the precolonial populations of South Asia often had very African looking indigenous Asians....
posted
you should really stopo playing games! I am not even going to waste my time explaianing it. Mongols invaded southeast Asia, Java, Indoneasia Vietnam etc etc etc
You should really get a life! we know what those slanty eyed bastards did to East Asia, southeast Asia and everyehere else that you see their slanty eyed phenotype
Posts: 166 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by africanolmec: you should really stopo playing games! I am not even going to waste my time explaianing it. Mongols invaded southeast Asia, Java, Indoneasia Vietnam etc etc etc
africanolmec - I'm amazed, you actually DO know something!
Big test - can you give the approximate date for each country?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are talking about Madagascar and as far as I know no Mongols have ever invaded there. And no Mongols did not cause most of the changes in places like Indonesia. Yes, invasions did happen, but that wasn't what made most of the changes in a place like Indonesia and other parts of South East Asia. Most of the changes occurred after European colonization when they began to import workers from other parts of Asia and China to the plantations as well as promoted mixed mulatto offspring as the "new race" of Indonesians. In fact, the collection of Dutch photos on wikipedia has a lot of images from these plantations. One example is the Billiton company:
quote: was a private mining company established in 1850. It operated until 1958 when it was nationalized by the Indonesian government. Billiton Maatschappij operated tin mines in the Indonesian island of Belitung ("Billiton" in Dutch and in English), under concession of the Netherlands government. The first forty-year lease expired in 1892, and the state in the new concession increased its share of profits. Following economic difficulties in 1923/24 the state toke a five-eighths share in the company. Peaked in the early 1920s Belitung employed over twenty thousand mineworkers, many of them recruited in China. From 1875 to 1891, Belitung's production climbed to match or even surpass that of the state owned mines in Bangka, the center of tin-mining in Indonesia. The Billiton Company returned to Indonesia in 1968 with an offshore tin concession in Pulau Tujuh which has since been liquidated. Bought out by Shell in 1970, the successor to the Company is now Billiton International Metals BV (BHP Billiton)
And like I said, blacks with the prototypical "Asian" phenotype have been in South Asia for thousands of years. And they have also been in Africa as well as attested by many South Africans (and not just Khoisan either).
Heck you can find such slanted eye and doe eye phenotypes in all parts of Africa even West Africa if you look.
And a lot of the people of Madagascar look like the blacks in the old Indonesian photos, which I am saying is because of the fact that South Asia was originally settled by Africans and there were movements back and forth in later times.
Again, due to the creation of white anthropology in the same time frame as the colonization of South Asia, their methods and descriptions have been used to obfuscate the history and create false notions like Mongoloid being the basis of the epicanthic fold, even though Africans have had similar folds for thousands of years.
But of course how can you expect them to uphold the oneness in the African origin of mankind when they are going around the world enslaving, exploiting, raping, killing and murdering the same people?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M - The two points are not mutually exclusive. I was merely making the point to HabariTess that even IF the Wiki history was true (they came from Borneo), the first settlers of Madagascar would still have been Blacks, not Mongols. In his own smooth way, I think that was africanolmec's point too.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Post the Mongols of the Khans: The Chinese were apparently incapable or uninterested in forced expansion. The Black kingdoms of Asia fell, not because of wars with Mongols, but rather, war among themselves. The Mongols simply filtered into these decimated countries.
The one exception being Champa (now called Vietnam).
In about 446 A.D, - in retaliation for Cham raids on their coast - the Chinese invaded Champa, bringing down Bhadravarman, and placing the region under Chinese suzerainty.
One hundred and fifty years later, in about 600 A.D, a new Cham dynasty arose, and Champa was able to expel it's Chinese overlords.
But by the late 8th century A.D, the Chams were at war with either Java to the south, China to the north, or the Khmer in the west, sometimes more than one at a time. So that by the late 15th century A.D, incessant wars had for all practical purposes, wiped out the Champa kingdom. One by one their provinces were annexed, until finally Champa and its people, were entirely absorbed by the current Mongol inhabitants in the 17th century A.D.
Modern Vietnamese People
. It should also be pointer out, that the French occupation (1859-1954), also had an effect on the local genetics too.
Oh boy, here we go with this nonsense. The people in asia who look like africans are no more african than white skinned chinese or japanese. Let's cut the nonsense. DNA has already shown that these african-looking asians were among the 1st groups to leave africa. They only look like africans because they stayed in tropical climes the vast majority of their time outside of africa. If you call them africans, then you'd have to call everyone on the planet africans because everyone has roots in africa ultimately. Smh.
And this exaggeration about chinese immigrants changing the population of SE asia. Chinese immigrants were in no way numerous enough to change the general population of SE Asia. And there weren't many euros there to change things either, so idk what mike is talking about. Even in the philippines where there would be more euro dna than anywhere else in SE asia genetic tests have shown that the spanish contribution to flip dna is small (despite some inferiority complex flips claiming spanish heritage as badge of honor).
And then some loons are on here dissing certain asians and then wanna complain when the euro racists come on here to diss them.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/B] [B]Oh boy, here we go with this nonsense. The people in asia who look like africans are no more african than white skinned chinese or japanese. Let's cut the nonsense. DNA has already shown that these african-looking asians were among the 1st groups to leave africa. They only look like africans because they stayed in tropical climes the vast majority of their time outside of africa. If you call them africans, then you'd have to call everyone on the planet africans because everyone has roots in africa ultimately. Smh.
I agree, I wouldn't regard the people shown above as African.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by africurious: Tx, Troll Patrol and Claus.
Oh boy, here we go with this nonsense. The people in asia who look like africans are no more african than white skinned chinese or japanese. Let's cut the nonsense. DNA has already shown that these african-looking asians were among the 1st groups to leave africa. They only look like africans because they stayed in tropical climes the vast majority of their time outside of africa. If you call them africans, then you'd have to call everyone on the planet africans because everyone has roots in africa ultimately. Smh.
And this exaggeration about chinese immigrants changing the population of SE asia. Chinese immigrants were in no way numerous enough to change the general population of SE Asia. And there weren't many euros there to change things either, so idk what mike is talking about. Even in the philippines where there would be more euro dna than anywhere else in SE asia genetic tests have shown that the spanish contribution to flip dna is small (despite some inferiority complex flips claiming spanish heritage as badge of honor).
And then some loons are on here dissing certain asians and then wanna complain when the euro racists come on here to diss them.
In upper Paleolithic sense I would say yes, we are all afrricans. Not in lower Paleolithic/ Mesolithic, Neolithic sense.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Is it that you are too young to be able to read with comprehension, or is that you simply got a very bad education?
I don't recall anyone saying that they were Africans. They are clearly mulattoes. Owing to your obvious comprehension problems, I will supply a dictionary definition for mulatto.
Mulatto A person of mixed black and white ancestry.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by now if people don't know that there are all kinds of Asians, then they are the ones talking nonsense out of their behinds.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And by now if people don't know that there are all kinds of Asians, then they are the ones talking nonsense out of their behinds.
On reflection, you are quite right, there is no reason to believe that many members have the sophistication to understand that "White" is not exclusive to Europeans.
So to correct whatever confusion there might be, I will explain.
Just like Blacks with so-called "Caucasian" features can produce Albinos.
So too can Blacks with "Mongol" type features produce Albinos.
Thus in ancient China (up until recent times) you had probably equal elements of both skin coloration's.
Qin Dynasty - circa 200 B.C.
Exactly WHEN China became "Predominately" Mulatto is of course unknown.
But as we can infer from this Painting of Kublai Khan on a hunting expedition circa 1280 AD. We can clearly see that by that time, racial "Blending" was well on its way.
Note that Kublai Khan's wife is the "Only" Albino. Note too, that of the nine men, only two are Blacks.
The others, including Kublai Khan, are "Brown" skinned Mulattoes.
.
It may surprise some to know that in modern China, there are still Blacks; and Whites, who are very close to the original Mongol Albinos.
But nothing demonstrates China's "Racial Blending" better than this photo of an old Black soldier and his granddaughter.
Obvious his child married a very "Pale" Mongol - one of the "almost" Albino types; thus producing a granddaughter who is typical of most Chinese.
posted
^Understanding that it is difficult to make-out detail in that poor quality picture of the Painting of Kublai Khan on a hunting expedition above, that is found on Wiki. (Can't help but wonder WHY they used such a poor quality picture - He,he,he: of course I know why!).
Anyway, here are better pictures of Kublai Khan, his wife, and the two Black chieftains.
posted
I always believed that the first people or original people of Madagascar were from Asia. Maybe they were from the Indonesian area. My personal belief is that Madagascar broke away from the Asian continent though today it's closer to Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Surprisingly, no one has asked why paradoxically, though most Mongols - Black, albino, or Mulatto - have the epicanthic eye fold, low nose bridge, and wide nasal base, of their "Donor" Africans.
A surprising number, have the features of Europeans.
Of course the answer is very simple, Europeans were originally "Central" Asians, and of course Mongols are "East" Asians.
Before the Mongols chased every single Central Asian Albino (the Europeans) out of Asia - save for those in Xinjiang, The European albinos were next-door neighbors of the Mongols. Consequently European/Mongol mulattoes were common.
Chinese artifacts regularly show them in their art.
.
The real question for me is "WHY" did the Mongols chase every single Central Asian Albino (the Europeans) out of Asia?
Did they commit some great crime? Or is it that because they were neighbors from the very beginning, the Mongols knew what great crimes they were capable of, and preemptively expelled them?
Either way, it would have been nice if they had warned the Blacks in Europe.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bottom line fact is all humans come from Africa and therefore all diversity stems from it. However, Europeans indoctrinated by their thieving, raping and murderous royalty into global conquest, needed to believe they were "biologically" superior and above all others. Hence they created the pseudo science of race and have used it to twist the minds of most people around the world into believing in their point of view. For example, to this day there are some scholars who are stubbornly clinging to the notion of "mongoloid" being a distinct characteristic of Asian people. However, mongoloid means Mongolian. The first people of Asia were not Mongolian and most modern Asians do not descend from Mongolians. However, the myth is that the Mongolians and people like them in the Northern steppes adapted over time to the wind blown exposed environments by developing the epicanthic fold, high cheek bones and so on. But we now all know that these features existed in Africa before any human set foot in the central Asian steppes.
The fact that all modern humans have descended from Africans has not stopped or swayed Europeans from trying to create fake boundaries between human populations based on "race". And the purpose of this is not for science it is again to support white supremacy. And for white supremacy to hold true and maintain its power, then non black people have to be shown to be an evolutionary step "up" from blacks and distinct and different from them. Therefore, they have to find ways to arbitrarily subdivide and categorize people into groups based on supposed evolutionary traits that characterize a "race". But once you show that these arbitrary boundaries are purely nonsense and made up, the whole story falls flat on its face like a deck of cards.
That is why for the last 200 years or more, the Europeans promoted race mixing and blending in order to create new ethnic groups and types to reflect their world view of what races should be in Asia. Hence, all over South East Asia, the original black Asian type was whitewashed first by mulatto Chinese/Aboriginal mixed breeds and then further by more and more simply Chinese looking people. These people were then held up as the epitome of the original Asian population, even in South Asia, where the aboriginal black Asian type still dominated even up to 150 years ago. Just look back at old photos from Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and so forth and you will see this. Over the time span of 100 years in many cases these aboriginal black Asian types retaining their strong African derived features and often having the epicanthic fold were bred out and replaced by mixed breed and Northern Asian (Chinese) phenotypes.
So why do Europeans go through so much effort to lie and obfuscate? Because they know they aren't **** to be absolutely honest. They know they are liars, thieves and murderers and they know that they had no "natural" superiority over anyone. For if they were, then they would have been the first humans to circle the globe and settle it but they didn't. So the fact remains that only Africans are the only humans to have settled the entire planet and adapt to all environments on the face of the earth, which by any definition makes them physically superior for their ability to adapt. But white folks cannot give blacks any credit and therefore must lie in order to maintain their position in the world which is based on subterfuge, collusion, treachery, thievery and murder. So that is why they had to erase any and all evidence of the black origin of humanity by eradicating any and all traces of advanced black cultures historically throughout the world because it didn't fit with the world view they were trying to promote.
Hence, to this day on wikipedia you find an article like this which is full of so much nonsense:
All of which is an attempt to deny and/or down play the simple fact that all Asians originate in Africa. And the easiest way to do this is to create fake distinctions based on "race". Which means that in their history of Asia, at some point the original black folks disappeared and magically popped up the "mongoloid" who was almost from another planet....
Some example of this European insanity:
quote: The Indies are the homeland of the Malay branch of the Mongoloid, or yellow, race. The Malay type, in general, is characterized by very short stature (5 feet 2 or 3 inches for males), brown skin, straight or wavy black hair, a flat face with wide nose and lips of medium thickness, and a slender build. There is little growth of hair on face or body. Most of Indonesia, with the exception of the extreme eastern islands and certain isolated sections elsewhere, is inhabited by peoples of the Malay race, which also spreads up into the Philippines and the Malay Peninsula.
Two subdivisions of the Malay stock can be distinguished in the islands. The interior districts, mostly highlands, of Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes, as well as the chain of island stretching from Bali to Timor, are peopled mainly by tribes of the so-called proto-Malay type. They represent the earlier Malay immigration into Indonesia from southeastern Asia and have a much less Mongoloid appearance than the coastal dwellers., The seacoast population of the large western islands is mostly of the deutero-Malay racial type. They are descended form the later Malay settlers in Indonesia and show more Mongoloid traits. The principal differences between the two Malay subraces may be summarized as follows: the proto-Malay is shorter and has a darker skin, wavier hair, and stockier physique than the deutero-Malay, and his facial features lack the characteristic Mongoloid slanting eye with inside fold on the upper eyelid, as well as the prominent cheekbones of the deutero-Malay.
The reason for this interesting division is that originally southeastern Asia, the ancient homeland of the Indonesians, was inhabited by tribes who were dark and distant outliers of the European peoples. The proto-Malays, with their Caucasoid features, show evidence of this "white" ancestry. They left the Asiatic mainland before an ever increasing movement of Mongoloid peoples from the north invaded southeastern Asia, and, mixing with the old inhabitants there, gradually changed the racial type from dark Caucasoid to predominantly Mongoloid. The later arrivals in the Indies from this region were progressively more Mongolized, and their living descendants show this in their wider faces, higher cheekbones, straighter hair, and more slanting eyes. The later Malays pushed the earlier ones back into the interior districts, where the proto-Malay type still prevails, and occupied the coastal lands themselves.
Long before the Malay race spread down into the islands, other human stocks had settled there. The earliest of these archaic races was probably the Australoid. Traces of the Australoid type, with its coarse features, beetling brows, and hairy body, can still be detected in the Indies, particularly in the islands nearest Australia, the present home of this ancient race. Two branches of the Negroid race also lived in Indonesia in prehistoric times. One, the rather tall, spare-framed, bushy-haired Melanesian or Oceanic Negroid type, has now disappeared from most of the islands; but in the Timor-Flores zone of eastern Indonesia certain tribes still preserve relatively pure Melanesian traits. The center of Melanesian Negroid habitation has long since moved eastward, beyond New Guinea, to the Solomons, the New Hebrides, the Fijis, and New Caledonia. The other Negroid type, the so-called Negrito or dwarf Negro, still survives in sections of eastern Sumatra, Timor, Alor, and the mountains of New Guinea. Other Negrito groups are found in the Andaman Islands, Malaya, and the Philippines. One more archaic racial type of the Indies is, like the Negrito, dwarfish and frail. This so-called Veddoid strain has brown skin, wavy hair, and a prognathous face with receding chin. It appears to be a stunted hybrid of Malay and Australoid. Remnants of the Veddoid race inhabit the east Sumatra swamplands, parts of Borneo and Celebes, and certain islands of eastern Indonesia, notably Ceram. Other Veddoid peoples are found in Ceylon, Malaya, and the Philippines.
While most of Indonesia is peopled by tribes of the Malay race, with interspersed remnants of the archaic stocks just mentioned, the most easterly sections were never reached by the main Malay migrations. Here, in New Guinea and neighboring islands, the Papuan stock prevails. It looks like a hybrid of Australoid and Melanesian Negroid, being characterized by a lanky and long-limbed body, dark skin, and a narrow and angular face, with thin lips and a long nose, the latter often full-fleshed and hooked at the tip. The body is hairy, the face frequently bearded, and the head hair frizzy. Indeed, papua means "frizzy-haired" in the Malay language. In the Moluccas, between Celebes and New Guinea, intermixture of the Papuan and proto-Malay types has produced the so-called Alfur hybrid, with medium to tall stature, slender physique, medium to dark brown skin, straight to wavy hair, a relatively hairy body, and features varying from the broad-faced, flat-nosed proto-Malay norm to the narrow-faced, "semitic"-nosed Papuan conformation.
And there are many others covering the Dutch and their policies that promoted ethnic mixes.
And because of this, the African origin and black presence in Asia has been distorted and warped, with the black Asian type labelled as "mongoloid" even though the people descend from the Aboriginal black stock and not Mongolia.
Yet and still from the document above these aboriginal black Asian types are called "caucasian" and "mongoloid" in order to obfuscate the fact that they had features strongly reminiscent of Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following up on this, folks can see what is happening in Burma as a continuation of the policy of eradicating and replacing indigenous dark skinned South Asians with more "northern" Asian types......
Keep in mind it was the United States who defended and supported Aung San Suu Kyi being released and becoming president. She is the daughter of the first native leader of Burma after independence from the British. Her father was originally a Communist as much of the resistance to British rule came from the Communists (supported by the Japanese). Today the military of Burma is mainly supplied by China.
quote: PHNOM PENH — Myanmar leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should try to stop military atrocities against Rohingya civilians or resign, fellow Nobel laureate Tawakkol Karman said on Monday.
Rights groups and United Nations investigators have collected evidence of widespread abuses including sexual violence, killings and arson and described the military crackdown as “ethnic cleansing.” But since coming to power in 2016, Aung San Suu Kyi — who won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her decades-long pro-democracy fight — has failed publicly to condemn abuses against Rohingya civilians which began after Rohingya insurgents attacked police and military outposts.
“We are so angry about our Nobel sister Aung San Suu Kyi,” said Karman, who visited women in refugee camps on Sunday and Monday along with another two laureates.
“She should tell the truth or she should resign,” said Karman by phone from Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. “If she continues in this role, she is one of the perpetrators.”
Karman, who in 2011 was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in Yemen, said Aung San Suu Kyi could face international prosecution — along with military officers — as she had failed to protect civilians.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic