|
Post by Freedom on Sept 1, 2009 18:02:11 GMT -5
Though the aborigenes had a far superior understanding and balance within nature than other modern homo sapiens (not that all our ancestrors didn't before the advent of farming and enslaving each other took root), new evidence points to an earlier migration(s) of archaic humans which migrated to Europe, South America, Asia, southern Africa and Australia far earlier than believed in academic circles. This may account for the different races today.
|
|
|
Post by tko on Sept 4, 2009 0:48:02 GMT -5
You might know, but there was a show on National Geopgraphic channel that traced the human lineage back to scientific adam and scientific eve. They said the our races probably arose because we were living in different spots on the globe. In Europe the colder weather favored light skin. In Africa, it favored darker skin. Pretty interesting stuff.
Basically it said that people immigrated out of Africa in two phases.
1. The first phase was the phase that headed to Indonesia and Australia.
2. The second went out of Africa to Central Asia. This group that lived in Central Asia then split. One group headed to Europe and met up with the Neaderthals. The other group headed to Asia and across the land bridge to North America.
|
|
|
Post by Freedom on Sept 4, 2009 1:20:11 GMT -5
You might know, but there was a show on National Geopgraphic channel that traced the human lineage back to scientific adam and scientific eve. They said the our races probably arose because we were living in different spots on the globe. In Europe the colder weather favored light skin. In Africa, it favored darker skin. Pretty interesting stuff. Basically it said that people immigrated out of Africa in two phases. 1. The first phase was the phase that headed to Indonesia and Australia. 2. The second went out of Africa to Central Asia. This group that lived in Central Asia then split. One group headed to Europe and met up with the Neaderthals. The other group headed to Asia and across the land bridge to North America. Personaly i believe the science is in it's infancy, they don't really have firm proof as to how we evolved as we are today. Just a theory: homo erectus died out around the same time as neanderthal, erectus inhabited south east asia. We could add another theory as to the inhabitants of the region cross breeding with these groups. Skin colour is not the only indicator of race or human groups, the bones reveal much of what is still not understood today. From what i understand, the oldest DNA collected from modern man is from Australia, dated at the controversial age of 60-70 thousand years old. If we migrated out of Africa, then why is the oldest DNA found on another continent? Who is to say neanderthal or erectus were not as smart as homo sapien sapien? After all it was disease that almost wiped out the homo sapien sapien of the western hemisphere, not brains.
|
|
|
Post by tko on Sept 4, 2009 10:50:29 GMT -5
In the documentary they never mentioned that the oldest DNA is found in Africa. They assumed that the aboriginee arrived in Australia from Africa. They postulated that the aborinee could have gotten lost and floated to Australia. Maybe they just presented one of the theories?
I think they said they were unsure how smart Neanderthal was. They assumed that homo sapiens were dominant because we had better technology developed in Central Asia, weapons that could be thrown rather than the Neanderthal's thrusting spears.
|
|
Strange Conversation
Guest
|
Post by Strange Conversation on Jan 12, 2010 2:18:06 GMT -5
Good conversation here...
I believe that the history of humans on this planet has been so fragmented and concealed over the years, with new nations dominating regions, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome to the British Empire of today where the USA is their military arm. I think it all stretches way beyond what we've learned in history classes and such. Case in point, there was in interesting find in a marble quarry some years ago in north america where a large slab of marble, when cut in half, found a human body inside, nearly perfectly preserved. Marble takes millions of years to develop. How many times have humans destroyed the world only to defy nature and return?
There is no "missing link" to support the idea that we "evolved" from apes leads me to entertain notions that can only make sense to the open minded. Free is familiar with my former premises I've presented in past discussions that suppose alien races from nearby star systems or even a rogue planet like Planet X or Nibiru, came here and tampered with homo erectus to create a slave to mine gold for them to bring home to their planet. That's one notion. The other is that there were ancient civilizaitons that preceeded known history here but due to dramatic changes of sea level, their continent is under the pacific ocean. Some call it Mu, or Lemuria. Also, there's the notion of Atlantis, which might just be Antartica after the plates shifted the land masses on their ear after perhaps some catatastropic event like a meteor or earth quake, etc ... I have done my research but can't find anything that would be believeable to the common person of typical education.
There are also notions that different aliens came here and created humans closer to their own appearence and that's why we have such distinctively different "races" of people.
If humans could make dogs via genetic engineering, why is it so impossible to believe that might be how WE came to be here? It makes more sense than the bible or much of the bullshit we ever learned in school.
NW Africa fits neatly into the eastern seaboard of north America as Brazil fights right into southwest Africa, so I can see how dark skinned and light skinned folks ended up in certain areas. There are black tribes of indians who are native to this continent (usa) they don't have afro like hair but their black skinned, while up to the north, the natives were rather fair skinned by comparison. Relation to the sun does influence skin color. Look at all those whites who migrated to souther California fifty years ago, their kids are darker than the parents! Sun.
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 13, 2010 11:25:28 GMT -5
"There are black tribes of indians who are native to this continent (usa) they don't have afro like hair but their black skinned"
Dark-skinned but not Negro, except where they may have mixed with escaped slaves or other negroes. "Black" or "African" is not synonymous with Negro. There are, for instance, people on the Indian subcontinent whose skin is darker than many Negroes but they are part of the Europid (White/Caucasian) race. There are very dark-skinned indians, particularly in the northwest US. Their ancestors came over the land bridge from northwest Asia.
People nowadays are deliberately kept dumbed down on this most vital subject, race. They are instructed that "there is no such thing as race," or all races are exactly the same except for the tincture of their skin (except that the white man is evil). Their libraries are stuffed with agitprop by the likes of "Ashley Montagu" t/n Israel Ehrenberg but have been purged of books by Prof. John Baker and Carlton Coon.
ww
|
|
|
Post by ninjamantis on Jan 16, 2010 2:41:45 GMT -5
"There are black tribes of indians who are native to this continent (usa) they don't have afro like hair but their black skinned" Dark-skinned but not Negro, except where they may have mixed with escaped slaves or other negroes. "Black" or "African" is not synonymous with Negro. There are, for instance, people on the Indian subcontinent whose skin is darker than many Negroes but they are part of the Europid (White/Caucasian) race. There are very dark-skinned indians, particularly in the northwest US. Their ancestors came over the land bridge from northwest Asia. People nowadays are deliberately kept dumbed down on this most vital subject, race. They are instructed that "there is no such thing as race," or all races are exactly the same except for the tincture of their skin (except that the white man is evil). Their libraries are stuffed with agitprop by the likes of "Ashley Montagu" t/n Israel Ehrenberg but have been purged of books by Prof. John Baker and Carlton Coon. ww Its a good point that all black skinned folks are not Africans but is the word negroes not exclusive to the slave trade? What is so vitally important about race outside of the study of how each group coped with their environments and developed culture? From what I know, human beings today are homo sapiens, be they black, white, red, yellow and even high yellow! All members of the human race. Skin tone is based on geographic location and exposure to sunlight. Cold climates, people wore lots of clothes to keep warm and absorb less sun, so over years become pale skinned. Hot climes is the opposite, they're always exposed to the sun and so more melanin in the skin makes for darker folks. But lets take it a step up and talk about recessive and dominant traits Prez. You go first...
|
|
|
Post by werewolf on Jan 17, 2010 9:18:41 GMT -5
Its a good point that all black skinned folks are not Africans but is the word negroes not exclusive to the slave trade? ---Of course not. It's the scientific and accurate name for the race. All the ever-changing trendy politically correct appellations make no sense - like "black", which I already mentioned; "African-American" is even more senseless since Africa is a continent, not a race, a continent of four major and distinct races and many subraces.
What is so vitally important about race outside of the study of how each group coped with their environments and developed culture? ---Because, again quoting Benjamin Disraeli, "race is the key to all civilizations". Once the race is destroyed the civilization is destroyed forever. Once a race is totally destroyed, like the passenger pigeon, it is gone forever.From what I know, human beings today are homo sapiens, be they black, white, red, yellow and even high yellow! All members of the human race. --- Different races within the "human race" are fertile and can interbreed, but so can lions and tigers and different races of dogs. That does not mean that a pit bull and a golden retriever are the same, except for the colour of their skin. Likewise a Japanese and a Congo pygmy, or an Esquimo and a Bushman from the Kalahari, or a Swede and an Australoid. These races are very very different, and the superficial skin colour is the least of the differences.Skin tone is based on geographic location and exposure to sunlight. --- Skin tone is just one of the many many differences amongst the races, and the most superficial.Cold climates, people wore lots of clothes to keep warm and absorb less sun, so over years become pale skinned. Hot climes is the opposite, they're always exposed to the sun and so more melanin in the skin makes for darker folks. But lets take it a step up and talk about recessive and dominant traits Prez. You go first... --- I don't know what you mean by this. Anyway, as I said, people have been totally dumbed down on this vital subject, and this is deliberate. By the time they wake up it will be much too late. ---Quick educaton on race: Sumary of John Baker's book, *Race*. www.euvolution.com/articles/racereality.html
|
|
|
Post by maddogblues on Jan 26, 2010 17:10:36 GMT -5
"There are black tribes of indians who are native to this continent (usa) they don't have afro like hair but their black skinned" Dark-skinned but not Negro, except where they may have mixed with escaped slaves or other negroes. "Black" or "African" is not synonymous with Negro. There are, for instance, people on the Indian subcontinent whose skin is darker than many Negroes but they are part of the Europid (White/Caucasian) race. There are very dark-skinned indians, particularly in the northwest US. Their ancestors came over the land bridge from northwest Asia. People nowadays are deliberately kept dumbed down on this most vital subject, race. They are instructed that "there is no such thing as race," or all races are exactly the same except for the tincture of their skin (except that the white man is evil). Their libraries are stuffed with agitprop by the likes of "Ashley Montagu" t/n Israel Ehrenberg but have been purged of books by Prof. John Baker and Carlton Coon. ww That's right about the black skinned natives. Here in the PNW I saw a very dark man but he was obviously not an African American or African. He appeared to be more native American in body structure. I asked Taj she told me he was an Indian. That would have been my guess, but he was really dark, almost as dark as an African American, but not brown, on the black side.
|
|
|
Post by ninjamantis on Jan 27, 2010 1:02:35 GMT -5
Its a good point that all black skinned folks are not Africans but is the word negroes not exclusive to the slave trade? ---Of course not. It's the scientific and accurate name for the race. All the ever-changing trendy politically correct appellations make no sense - like "black", which I already mentioned; "African-American" is even more senseless since Africa is a continent, not a race, a continent of four major and distinct races and many subraces.
What is so vitally important about race outside of the study of how each group coped with their environments and developed culture? ---Because, again quoting Benjamin Disraeli, "race is the key to all civilizations". Once the race is destroyed the civilization is destroyed forever. Once a race is totally destroyed, like the passenger pigeon, it is gone forever.From what I know, human beings today are homo sapiens, be they black, white, red, yellow and even high yellow! All members of the human race. --- Different races within the "human race" are fertile and can interbreed, but so can lions and tigers and different races of dogs. That does not mean that a pit bull and a golden retriever are the same, except for the colour of their skin. Likewise a Japanese and a Congo pygmy, or an Esquimo and a Bushman from the Kalahari, or a Swede and an Australoid. These races are very very different, and the superficial skin colour is the least of the differences.Skin tone is based on geographic location and exposure to sunlight. --- Skin tone is just one of the many many differences amongst the races, and the most superficial.Cold climates, people wore lots of clothes to keep warm and absorb less sun, so over years become pale skinned. Hot climes is the opposite, they're always exposed to the sun and so more melanin in the skin makes for darker folks. But lets take it a step up and talk about recessive and dominant traits Prez. You go first... --- I don't know what you mean by this. Anyway, as I said, people have been totally dumbed down on this vital subject, and this is deliberate. By the time they wake up it will be much too late. ---Quick educaton on race: Sumary of John Baker's book, *Race*. www.euvolution.com/articles/racereality.htmlWhat I mean by that is that people 'evolved' and assimilated to their climates. The darkest folks live nearest to the equator, the light skinned folk live to the north, where its colder. There are many theories about Pangea and how the continents evovled into their stations today. That stuff is relevent as to WHY people are white, brown or yellow or black. Cold weather people are naturally more industrious, since you gotta find ways to keep warm so you learn house building and technology faster than hot weather folks, who need that seista cause its too fuckin hot to run about. All the great religions of man come from hot weather climes, as they have time to meditate on these things, while the cold weather folk were more anxious and dependent of material goods, like furs and such to keep warm. Of course as the world shrunk, technology spread around the globe and now India can make a car (the Tata) that sells retail for 2000 bucks... while American can't make a car worth a damn that sells for less than 15,000. Ok, outside of quoting Disraeli, the first Jewish politician in Britian, who was of dubious character...you failed to explain what the "importance" of race is. How is it important. Why is it important and Where is it important. To me, humans come in four types, cool, uncool, stinky and unstinky. If you're cool and don't stink...we cool.
|
|