|
|
 | | From: | stlbl | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | 13 Jan 2005 04:18:55 -0800 |
|
|
 | So the Egyptians were white...and they all had blue eyes....and the
Mayan and Tolmec civilizations were white---even if either one of us is
completely wrong we are still talking about appearances---and skin
color is NOT what determines whether or not someone is considered
black, especially in America---here, the criteria for black is "One
drop" of Negro blood-
The squalor Im talking about is , say, 1000 to 1500 AD when the
Mayans were coming out of a period of high civilization, Egypt's
pyramids and sphinx and astronomical knowledge had been around for
millenia---and most of Europe (except for the landed gentry and
nobility) lived along side of rivers, used open trenches for latrines
and were at the mercy of disease plague and ignorance. Everyone knows
the Renaissance only happened after cultural exchange (if you want to
call the Crusades cultural exchange) with the near east--Ottomans
universities, systems of accrued knowledge, etc. In fact the Catholic
church would send their popes and other reiligious dignitaries to Spain
for education.
>>>>>What convinces me that behavioural difference are caused
through
hereditarian factors is looking at the socio-economic differences of
countries and at their racial make-up. There is definitely a
correlation.>>>>
You are your own best critic---all that correlation is shows is just
that economic warfare has been perpetrated in countries by whiter
people upon darker ones. And it wasnt because the "whites" had more of
anything aquired through heredity except maybe gunpowder. Thankyou.
Reply
|
|
| | From: | P.Comm | | Subject: | Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:52:58 GMT |
|
|
| "stlbl" wrote in message
news:1105618735.290023.20580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> So the Egyptians were white...and they all had blue eyes....
What's with the blue eyes? Seems to me that depigmented color is something
kinda recent - I can post something from a Professor that's very good
(below). Egyptians were graphically described by people as having skin sort
of like how I get if I'm in the sun a bit - coppery. Dark eyes. They dyed
their hair all kinds of colors, LOL. They also waxed their legs or other
body parts - which means they had hair on them. WHY they'd do that, is a
good question. Who'd they see with lack of body hair? Asians?
and the
> Mayan and Tolmec civilizations were white
Olmec or Toltec? Which? They were white? No they weren't, if you base it
on features. One of them may have been Chinese from T'ang Dynasty people
coming there. I've seen pure blooded Mayans in the backwaters of Mexico -
they look like S. Chinese people - VERY much so. They don't speak Spanish,
either.
Skin color - most Chinese people are whiter than any S. Europeans. Hell,
I'm whiter than most S. Europeans if I stay out of the sun. I easily get as
dark as people from India with a bit of sun, same shade as theirs - fast,
too.
---even if either one of us is
> completely wrong we are still talking about appearances---and skin
> color is NOT what determines whether or not someone is considered
> black, especially in America---here, the criteria for black is "One
> drop" of Negro blood-
Features are what people see - facial recognition. Not color. Color is too
changeable.
> The squalor Im talking about is , say, 1000 to 1500 AD when the
> Mayans were coming out of a period of high civilization, Egypt's
> pyramids and sphinx and astronomical knowledge had been around for
> millenia---and most of Europe (except for the landed gentry and
> nobility) lived along side of rivers, used open trenches for latrines
> and were at the mercy of disease plague and ignorance.
It was a LOT worse than that there - civilized people described it in detail
and wrote of it.
Everyone knows
> the Renaissance only happened after cultural exchange (if you want to
> call the Crusades cultural exchange) with the near east--Ottomans
> universities, systems of accrued knowledge, etc. In fact the Catholic
> church would send their popes and other reiligious dignitaries to Spain
> for education.
Spain had a HIGH civilization under the Moors - they were Berber people.
When the Moors lost to the Spanish - the civilization went out the door and
it became 3rd world - but the Moors went and made war with Songhay and
wrecked the shit out of it. Whole library vanished due to that. Ibn
Battuta chronicles Songhay - some parts of it had lit up streets at night.
He doesn't say HOW they lit it up. Back then the Chad River was also HUGE.
Climate changed big time there.
>>>>>>What convinces me that behavioural difference are caused
> through
> hereditarian factors is looking at the socio-economic differences of
> countries and at their racial make-up. There is definitely a
> correlation.>>>>
Yeah, but that changes. As I once argued with an off the cliff leftie that
blamed all evil imperialism on white males - well, heh, the mantle of
imperialism seems to have been passed along from one group of people to
another - and only very recently do white males have the mantle. They'll
probably lose it to China in the future.
>
> You are your own best critic---all that correlation is shows is just
> that economic warfare has been perpetrated in countries by whiter
> people upon darker ones.
But that's only recently in terms of human history. Oh, you are talking to
another person - I can't tell who said what on here.
And it wasnt because the "whites" had more of
> anything aquired through heredity except maybe gunpowder. Thankyou.
> Reply
Heh, the Chinese had gunpowder first - and you may not know, but us Tatars
USED that - tho no one else knew what the hell it was - Europeans thought
it was demonic power from Tartarus, LMAO. You see, the wisdom of the
Chinese on this was that war should NEVER be made so easy that you can just
blow up so many people with one shot, including non soldiers. Making war
that easy was seen as a very bad idea.
Here is the information on depigmented humans (not all whites are
depigmented like that).
http://interracialvoice.com/sweet7.html
Where Did White Folks Come From?
By Frank W. Sweet
People with the extremely pale skin, hair, and eyes typical of northern
Europeans first appeared on the world stage a mere five millennia ago --
long after cave men turned into farmers. Despite Hollywood's casting lovely,
talented Darryl Hanna as a Paleolithic huntress, it turns out that "The Clan
of the Cave Bear" were not White folks at all.
We shall discuss European prehistory in a moment.
[NO, SNIP SNIP - it's discussed right here.]
Actual complexion, not "race," is the subject of this essay.
Everyone Came From Africa But Only Europeans Lack Color
It seems trivial to say that our species originated in Africa and so
everyone has dark brown ancestors, but there in an important subtlety here.
Europeans are more recently African than most. Several waves migrated out of
Africa over the past hundred millennia. The ancestors of Europeans came from
Africa more recently than did the settlers of any other continent. The final
wave of African migrants to populate Europe arrived only about thirteen
millennia ago, long after Australia and China had been settled. In fact, DNA
analysis of Africans of Bantu stock and Europeans reveals that these two
groups are today genetically closer than either group is to, say, Asians or
Native Americans. Complexion, like beauty, is truly only skin-deep.
Nevertheless, despite Europeans and Africans being closely related, few
differences among people's appearance are as dramatic as their skin color.
Observe families at the beach. Neither the contrast between fat folks and
thin ones, or between tall families and short ones, catch your eye the way
pale pink European-looking bodies differ from dark brown African-looking
ones.
Hair-, skin-, and eye-color all come from a body-produced substance called
melanin. Africans have lots of melanin. Europeans have very little. And yet,
when it comes to melanin, Europeans, not Africans are the exception. This is
hard to grasp today. Europeans conquered the planet a few centuries ago, and
so you see their descendants everywhere. But consider only natives, and you
will soon realize that people from southern India, Andaman Islanders,
Melanesians, and Australian Aborigines are all as dark as Africans, although
they are only distantly related to them. On the other hand, pink skin,
blonde hair, and blue eyes are virtually unknown among temperate-climate
Northern Asians or Native Americans. Even Arctic Inuits (Eskimos) and Aleuts
are swarthier than northern Europeans. Nobody is as pale.
And so the title question, "Where did White folks come from?" really comes
down to asking, "What happened to Northern Europeans that made them so
pale?" Clearly, something made folks around the Baltic who lacked melanin
more successful than their darker neighbors. The complexion gradient we see
across Europe from north to south today is obviously the result of
prehistoric intermarriage between the melanin-deficient folks of the Baltic
and the melanin-endowed population south of the Mediterranean.
Two lines of evidence, art and DNA analysis, tell when the mutation took
place. Art brackets the time period of the event. DNA analysis pinpoints it
so precisely that we can figure out the cause of its regional success.
Art Suggests When
Many books have been written praising the near-photographic realism of
Paleolithic cave art. Few stress how seldom human figures are depicted. Very
few point out that, whenever people and animals are depicted together, the
hunters are routinely painted as darker than their prey. Some
paleoanthropologists mention this oddity as evidence that the cave artists
depicted animals realistically, but for some strange religious reason
painted people much too dark. A more plausible explanation is that folks
really were dark back then. The hunting scene above, showing dark-brown
bowmen shooting medium-brown deer, was painted in what is now France. It
dates from about thirteen millennia ago, around the time of the last
Africa-to-Europe migration. Europeans had not yet lost their color as of
this date.
Similarly, early Egyptian paintings depict only brown people. For example,
consider the fragmentary picture of boats, at left. Examine the row of
oarsmen. The picture dates from six millennia ago. Again, no
European-looking people are to be seen. Of course, one could say that
fair-complexioned people might simply not have reached Egypt yet by that
time, but see the next example.
Another strategy of examining art approaches the question from the other
direction, "When was the first portrait of an undoubtedly fair-complexioned,
European-looking person painted?" As it turns out, it was a statue painted
in Egypt about five millennia ago. It depicts Prince Rahotep and his Consort
Nefret, of the Old Kingdom, early Fourth Dynasty. He is brown. She is pink.
For this piece and similar examples ancient art, see P.P. Kahane, Ancient
and Classical Art, ed. Hans L. C. Jaffe, 6 vols., 20,000 Years of World
Painting, vol. 1 (New York: Dell, 1967).
The evidence of art suggests that the mutation making northern Europeans
melanin deficient happened sometime between five and six millennia ago.
DNA Reveals Why
As it turns out, DNA analysis shows that the dramatic change in European
complexion happened around the Baltic in about 3000 B.C. -- just yesterday,
geologically speaking. This was a hundred millennia after our species'
emergence. It was forty millennia after the invention of culture (art,
music, language, religion, fashion). It was twenty millennia after horses
and oxen were painted on the cave walls of Lascaux and Altamira. It was four
millennia after the invention of agriculture -- long after the "The Clan of
the Cave Bear" stopped hunting and settled down to raise crops. It was
centuries after the invention of writing in Sumeria. It was around the time
when Egypt's Early Dynastic Period was starting.
For details on the when and how of the paleness adaptation, read Luigi Luca
Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography
of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994).
This book is the most comprehensive DNA analysis yet published of the
migrations and waves of human Diaspora that began about one hundred
millennia ago in Africa and colonized the globe. It has become a standard
reference for scholars of prehistory. It mainly covers events that
transpired across the entire planet, but it spends a page (145) explaining
the European paleness mutation. Here is what happened.
Vitamin D is essential to calcium metabolism. Without it, you get rickets:
grotesquely bowed legs and malformed skull and chest. Human skin produces
vitamin D when the sun's ultraviolet light penetrates the protective melanin
layer. This means that the complexion our ancestors inherited from
equatorial Africa was a delicate balance. Too little melanin (too fair a
complexion) and you would get skin cancer. Too much melanin and you would
not produce enough vitamin D.
As we spread out of Africa and across the globe, we moved into regions where
sunlight was too weak to penetrate our skin. Fortunately, other animals also
produce vitamin D and store it in their fat, just as we do. As long as we
made a living by eating animals, especially animal fat, we simply consumed
their vitamin D. Our own skin's inability to produce vitamin D in weak
sunlight was not even noticed.
Next, about nine millennia ago, the invention of agriculture changed our
diet. From then on, most of us lived mainly on grains (wheat, barley, oats).
Farmers who lived around the Mediterranean and further south no longer ate
vitamin D from animals, but their dark skins produced it from the bright
sunlight of the region. Inuits and Laplanders who lived in the far north
never switched to grains. They continue to consume mainly animal fat to this
day and so acquire vitamin D despite weak sunlight. But the Gulf Stream
washes northern Europe and warms the Baltic Sea. In this narrow region, the
climate allowed the switch to agriculture, but sunlight was too weak to
penetrate dark skin and produce vitamin D. Rickets spread through the
population, as can be seen in the fossil bones of the time.
Then, about five millennia ago, a random mutation occurred along the Baltic.
It suppresses melanin production and created a breed of people who could
live off agriculture in the far north and still not get rickets. Their pale
skins are so unprotected that even the weak sunlight of the far north can
penetrate and produce vitamin D. Free from rickets, the pale ones multiplied
and prospered as their rickety dark-skinned neighbors died out. (SEE COMMENT
ON THIS)
Folks remained dark in Africa. Paleness is harmful near the equator, so the
pale ones never spread into Africa until the age of European expansion.
Paleness offers neither advantage nor harm around the sunny Mediterranean,
so people there are about a 50-50 mix between the pale European model of
human being and the original African model. Nowadays, vitamin D is added to
commercial foods, so rickets is rare, no matter where you live or how dark
your complexion.
---
Readers interested in the details of prehistoric migrations should read
America's Odd Two-Caste System. This 32-page booklet is the first in a
series by the author titled Paths not Taken. The entire series is available
for online purchase at www.backintyme.com/books2.htm and also from
Amazon.com. They are also sold at numerous historical site and museum gift
shops in Florida, or can be borrowed from libraries.
- END -
COMMENT - imagine the people's reactions way back then to the rickets and
the pigment of the women who died and who lost babies. Shamanic thinking
prevailed back during those days - they'd have concluded that perhaps a
CURSE was upon the darker people. If anything, they'd have quickly shoved
them out of their society and not mated with them anymore. That would
account for a HEAP of dualistic thought that I don't see ANYONE has except
whites - where anything dark or of the dark is evil - and anything light or
of the light is good.
Hypothesis: this DEEP kind of trauma of the sick, dead and dying babies,
MAY account for this demonification of all things dark - including dark
people. Sandor Gilman "On Blackness Without Blacks" is a must read - to see
how DEEP this feeling is.
|
|
|
