|
Post by mendeman on Jan 16, 2014 15:52:47 GMT -5
He says "whiter" and "straighter haired" not white and straight haired. Big difference. Straight hair and white skin are not African traits and Keita knows this. All he saying is that straighter hair textures than woolly evolved in Africa. The straightest African hair textures are nowhere near "straight" like hair common in East Asia. Keita in his video talks of "ecological principles". This rules out white skin completely from being African. Pale skin only evolved in latitudes north of Africa. There are conditions south of Europe in North West Africa where developing lite skin or even white skin and straight hair could be possible,not saying that's the case here but the conditions are there,remember what Keita said about polytopicity. Courtesy of Azrur from p1 of this thread Although the above is to the far south of Europe dark skin would not be an advantage in those condition and how far back in time have folks been living in that area. My problem with this silly notion of Evolution and climate etc is, where is the proof? How long does it take for this to happen? There were black people (and still are) living in the Caucasus region, specifically in Georgia. They were there since Herodotus time and apparently they had been there for far longer than that. I don't know what brought about white skin. Could have easily been the result of albinism or some other mutation, as opposed to a climate argument. I think people need to stop drinking about the European alter of science, its poisoned with infantilism, ie their science is VERY young, they also look more at and understand effects, rarely do the truly understand causes. Hence why they have to back track all the time.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 16, 2014 17:47:13 GMT -5
There are conditions south of Europe in North West Africa where developing lite skin or even white skin and straight hair could be possible,not saying that's the case here but the conditions are there,remember what Keita said about polytopicity. Courtesy of Azrur from p1 of this thread Although the above is to the far south of Europe dark skin would not be an advantage in those condition and how far back in time have folks been living in that area. My problem with this silly notion of Evolution and climate etc is, where is the proof? How long does it take for this to happen? There were black people (and still are) living in the Caucasus region, specifically in Georgia. They were there since Herodotus time and apparently they had been there for far longer than that. I don't know what brought about white skin. Could have easily been the result of albinism or some other mutation, as opposed to a climate argument. I think people need to stop drinking about the European alter of science, its poisoned with infantilism, ie their science is VERY young, they also look more at and understand effects, rarely do the truly understand causes. Hence why they have to back track all the time. First of all white skin isnot the exclusive property of Europeans. They are only one group of people who have this trait of pale skin. Second, Skin tones varry even among Europeans. Some are lighter some are darker. It depends on where in Europe they are. Central Asians and Siberians also have very pale skin, as do a lot of Mongolians and other East Asians. For Example the Ainu of Japan are very pale in complexion. So I think we need to take Europe off that pedestal and stop refering to things as being European features when the reality is that they have no features that are exclusive to them alone. Third, a form of albinism doesn't make sense. Albinism is the absences of any skin coloring, not light skin coloring. Most Europeans are not blond haired or blue eyed. The majority of them have dark hair and dark eyes. It's just that light hair and light eyes are found in greater percentages in Europe. So if it were albinism, why ardn't the other pigmented areas of the body affected? Fourth, there is no such thing as European science. Science is science, period. The laws of the universe do not belong to any one group. A lot of the scientists in the field are Asians, as well as Afro Americans. Everyone is making contributions to the advance of science and technology. This idea that modern science is a white game is a delusion. Fifth the black people living in the Caucuses are people who have settled there. Even Herodutus mentions that the people there in his time were originally from Egypt and points to the fact that they practiced circumcision, an African, not Asiatic cultural practice. Sixth, just because the science doesn't support your opinion doesn't mean it should be rejected. As far as proof, the fact that in subtropical Africa, the native people who have been there the longest are not dark brown, but yellowish is an indication of a correlation between environment and skin color. Why is it that with the exception of South America, the people allong the equator are darkest complection, while the people in more northern latitudes are pale also indicates that environment plays a role. Until you have a plausable theory to offer an explanation, you can't debunk the current theories in place. Seventh, no matter what the cause, the unquestionable fact is there are people living in North Africa who are lighter in complexion that tropical Africans. These people are native to the continent because their language is restricted to Africa, as is the majority of their DNA and their cultural practices. They are Africans. Why is it so hard to accept? Indians look nothing like Chinese and neither of them look anything like Persians. They all look extreemly different and yet no one questions the fact that they are all Asians.
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Jan 17, 2014 11:49:50 GMT -5
My problem with this silly notion of Evolution and climate etc is, where is the proof? How long does it take for this to happen? There were black people (and still are) living in the Caucasus region, specifically in Georgia. They were there since Herodotus time and apparently they had been there for far longer than that. I don't know what brought about white skin. Could have easily been the result of albinism or some other mutation, as opposed to a climate argument. I think people need to stop drinking about the European alter of science, its poisoned with infantilism, ie their science is VERY young, they also look more at and understand effects, rarely do the truly understand causes. Hence why they have to back track all the time. First of all white skin isnot the exclusive property of Europeans. They are only one group of people who have this trait of pale skin. Second, Skin tones varry even among Europeans. Some are lighter some are darker. It depends on where in Europe they are. Central Asians and Siberians also have very pale skin, as do a lot of Mongolians and other East Asians. For Example the Ainu of Japan are very pale in complexion. So I think we need to take Europe off that pedestal and stop refering to things as being European features when the reality is that they have no features that are exclusive to them alone. Third, a form of albinism doesn't make sense. Albinism is the absences of any skin coloring, not light skin coloring. Most Europeans are not blond haired or blue eyed. The majority of them have dark hair and dark eyes. It's just that light hair and light eyes are found in greater percentages in Europe. So if it were albinism, why ardn't the other pigmented areas of the body affected? Fourth, there is no such thing as European science. Science is science, period. The laws of the universe do not belong to any one group. A lot of the scientists in the field are Asians, as well as Afro Americans. Everyone is making contributions to the advance of science and technology. This idea that modern science is a white game is a delusion. Fifth the black people living in the Caucuses are people who have settled there. Even Herodutus mentions that the people there in his time were originally from Egypt and points to the fact that they practiced circumcision, an African, not Asiatic cultural practice. Sixth, just because the science doesn't support your opinion doesn't mean it should be rejected. As far as proof, the fact that in subtropical Africa, the native people who have been there the longest are not dark brown, but yellowish is an indication of a correlation between environment and skin color. Why is it that with the exception of South America, the people allong the equator are darkest complection, while the people in more northern latitudes are pale also indicates that environment plays a role. Until you have a plausable theory to offer an explanation, you can't debunk the current theories in place. Seventh, no matter what the cause, the unquestionable fact is there are people living in North Africa who are lighter in complexion that tropical Africans. These people are native to the continent because their language is restricted to Africa, as is the majority of their DNA and their cultural practices. They are Africans. Why is it so hard to accept? Indians look nothing like Chinese and neither of them look anything like Persians. They all look extreemly different and yet no one questions the fact that they are all Asians. So may problems, so little time. For a theory to hold true, it has to be true across the board and you sir have once again proven my point. You don't see those black skinned people dominating along the equator in Indonesia and South America. But even if you do, so what? It is a fact that Africans left their home lands all those thousands of years and settled in these areas. As to the Georgian blacks. I don't care where they came from, they have been there for a VERY long time, and magically they have not developed white skin and straight hair. Nor did Asians who traveled down into South America all those thousands of years ago. So that's problem one with your theory. Secondly, you have ignored my question, why is it that North Africa is about 50% black and you have these white and tan people there too? Your theory of evolution, once again is put to the test here and it fails miserably. Why are there black people along the equator when you leave Africa? Well they sailed their silly, we know so called Austronesians dint magically pop up there out of the sea from mythical single celled organisms. Thinking caps must be engaged. Again, the European approach to science is very different from other cultures, that's a fact. You are not well acquainted with history, or facts mind you, so this conversation is sorta difficult to have.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jan 17, 2014 13:51:36 GMT -5
Mandeman But they once did dominate in Indonesia the lank haired lighter skinned types moved in and mixed or displaced the darker woolly haired types a situation still on going on the Indonesian controlled part of New Guiana right now!! and as to how they got there,well for the most part they simply walked ,taking thousands of yrs splitting off and going in different directions and environments mind you they started on that hike over 150kyrs ago do you know what the flora and fauna was like back in those times?? giant man eating birds woolly mammoth and sabre tooth tigers roamed the land,matter of fact Neanderthal and other human species were also present,so a mere 3kyrs ago is only yesterday and as far as Black Abkhazians goes 3kys ago is simply not enough time to make that jump especially since the area is not terribly cold and over cast,in any event most of the current population is quite recent and goes back no further than the Ottoman empire. Luiza and her people as the first Americans. About the America's these same Austronesian types were in the New World long before the lank haired Brownish yellowish skinned folks showed up,matter of fact some of their representatives may well be found among the Olmecs,however even some of the second wave of native Americans began to differ feature and even color wise from their Siberian ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 18, 2014 15:45:52 GMT -5
First of all white skin isnot the exclusive property of Europeans. They are only one group of people who have this trait of pale skin. Second, Skin tones varry even among Europeans. Some are lighter some are darker. It depends on where in Europe they are. Central Asians and Siberians also have very pale skin, as do a lot of Mongolians and other East Asians. For Example the Ainu of Japan are very pale in complexion. So I think we need to take Europe off that pedestal and stop refering to things as being European features when the reality is that they have no features that are exclusive to them alone. Third, a form of albinism doesn't make sense. Albinism is the absences of any skin coloring, not light skin coloring. Most Europeans are not blond haired or blue eyed. The majority of them have dark hair and dark eyes. It's just that light hair and light eyes are found in greater percentages in Europe. So if it were albinism, why ardn't the other pigmented areas of the body affected? Fourth, there is no such thing as European science. Science is science, period. The laws of the universe do not belong to any one group. A lot of the scientists in the field are Asians, as well as Afro Americans. Everyone is making contributions to the advance of science and technology. This idea that modern science is a white game is a delusion. Fifth the black people living in the Caucuses are people who have settled there. Even Herodutus mentions that the people there in his time were originally from Egypt and points to the fact that they practiced circumcision, an African, not Asiatic cultural practice. Sixth, just because the science doesn't support your opinion doesn't mean it should be rejected. As far as proof, the fact that in subtropical Africa, the native people who have been there the longest are not dark brown, but yellowish is an indication of a correlation between environment and skin color. Why is it that with the exception of South America, the people allong the equator are darkest complection, while the people in more northern latitudes are pale also indicates that environment plays a role. Until you have a plausable theory to offer an explanation, you can't debunk the current theories in place. Seventh, no matter what the cause, the unquestionable fact is there are people living in North Africa who are lighter in complexion that tropical Africans. These people are native to the continent because their language is restricted to Africa, as is the majority of their DNA and their cultural practices. They are Africans. Why is it so hard to accept? Indians look nothing like Chinese and neither of them look anything like Persians. They all look extreemly different and yet no one questions the fact that they are all Asians. So may problems, so little time. For a theory to hold true, it has to be true across the board and you sir have once again proven my point. You don't see those black skinned people dominating along the equator in Indonesia and South America. But even if you do, so what? It is a fact that Africans left their home lands all those thousands of years and settled in these areas. As to the Georgian blacks. I don't care where they came from, they have been there for a VERY long time, and magically they have not developed white skin and straight hair. Nor did Asians who traveled down into South America all those thousands of years ago. So that's problem one with your theory. Secondly, you have ignored my question, why is it that North Africa is about 50% black and you have these white and tan people there too? Your theory of evolution, once again is put to the test here and it fails miserably. Why are there black people along the equator when you leave Africa? Well they sailed their silly, we know so called Austronesians dint magically pop up there out of the sea from mythical single celled organisms. Thinking caps must be engaged. Again, the European approach to science is very different from other cultures, that's a fact. You are not well acquainted with history, or facts mind you, so this conversation is sorta difficult to have. Look, no one is trying to have an argument here. I know, based on our past interactions, this may seem hard to believe, but people do change.... My basic position is that regardles of why they look the way they do, all North Africans are Africans. To address your first question. Didn't I say that people who live on the Equator were dark skinned? Yes, I did. Where dothose dark skinned Asians live, on the Euator. Keita addressed this in his video. could it be that these people retained their tropical traits because they stayed in the tropics when they left Africa, or have they readapted to tropical conditions? I personally thing its the former. With regards to the Black Georgians. If you listened to Keita and scientists like Jeblonski, they estimate that it takes about 15,000.00 years for skin color to adapt. I don't know how long those Georgians have been there, but if they came as Egyptian soldiers as Herodotus speculated, they'd have only been there for 3,000.00 yrs. Not long enough to make the adaptation. Also something to consider, Georgia was once part of the Ottoman Empire which imported many Africans who were settled in the areas in and around Anatolia. There are still pockets of them in Cypres for example. To this day there are Afro Turkish communities in Turkey. So whose to say that those people there now do not represent the second migration of Africans brought to the area by the Islamic slave trade? Now we're talking within the past 500yrs. With regards to Natve Americans, they have the straihtest hair in the world. Skin tones range from light brown to very pale. Those in the Northern latitudes who are still light brownish are those who have a diet rich in sea foods that are high in vitamin D. The Lap Landers in Scandinavia on the other hand have the same slanted eyes and high cheek bones of Mongolians, but their skins are white, their eyes are blue and their hair is blond. The Chuckchi in Siberia are also fair skinned. They are the direct ancestors of many of the Native Americans today. One can see the cultural connections in the fact that they live in the same types of teepees that the plains Indians did. With regards to North Africa.... You know tere is this thing called migration.... Just sayin... Yes, there are people who have been in that region for so long they have their own haplogroup, U6. U6 is restricted to North West Africa and decreases in frequency the farther east you move. But here's the thing, there have always been people moving up from the south to the north. The process continues to this very day. So when you add up, southern migrations, regional evolution, occasional absorbtion of lighter skinned neighbors what you end up with is what you have today, a rainbow of colors. It's not a mystery. Now, with regards to so caled "European science", let me ask you this, what sort of science should we be looking at? Is there such a thing as an Asian science, or an African science that I've missed? As far as I can see the science that we have today was created with the input of Europeans, Africans, Asians and everybody on the planet. They all work together. There is no such thing as "European science", there is only knowledge. The knowledge the Europeans aquired over 500yrs ago was brought to them by the Greeks and Romans who had aquired their knowledge from the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians. Later they acquired knowledge and ideas from the East Indians, the Chinese. They acquired pharmacological knowledge from various Africans, Native Americans in North and South America, even the Pacific Islanders. This is how knowledge advances. All the achievements we have today have come from everyone, not just Europeans. So, as I said, if therer's some "other science" floating around out there, please share whit us and provide some source materials, studies etc.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jan 18, 2014 15:56:05 GMT -5
Mandeman But they once did dominate in Indonesia the lank haired lighter skinned types moved in and mixed or displaced the darker woolly haired types a situation still on going on the Indonesian controlled part of New Guiana right now!! and as to how they got there,well for the most part they simply walked ,taking thousands of yrs splitting off and going in different directions and environments mind you they started on that hike over 150kyrs ago do you know what the flora and fauna was like back in those times?? giant man eating birds woolly mammoth and sabre tooth tigers roamed the land,matter of fact Neanderthal and other human species were also present,so a mere 3kyrs ago is only yesterday and as far as Black Abkhazians goes 3kys ago is simply not enough time to make that jump especially since the area is not terribly cold and over cast,in any event most of the current population is quite recent and goes back no further than the Ottoman empire. Luiza and her people as the first Americans. About the America's these same Austronesian types were in the New World long before the lank haired Brownish yellowish skinned folks showed up,matter of fact some of their representatives may well be found among the Olmecs,however even some of the second wave of native Americans began to differ feature and even color wise from their Siberian ancestors. Exactly. Skin color is only one variable with regards to physical features. Peruvian Andeans look nothing like Seminols or Inuit. So if socalled "European science", is flawed, then what sort of science can we look to for an explanation of the incredible amount of physical diversity on the planet? Or better yet, let's just stay confined to Sub Saharan Africa. Why is it that the San have features that look Mongolian and are yellow skinned, but the Batwa people are dark skinned and less than 5 feet tall. Why is it that the Dinka are almost literally black skinned, long skinny limbs and approaching 7 feet tall. Why is it that we find people in the forest belt who are short and round in their body shape, but the Senegalese are tall and athletically muscular? Why do all these African people look so radically different in their skin colors and body shapes?
|
|