That's racist!

[Weezer]

Do you also believe that white people became white from living in the caves of the Caucus mountains ?

What about the reddish skin of Native Americans, or the yellow hued skin of Asians? Why do Asians have an epicanthic fold? Why are space aliens green?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Again, you are confusing the aristocracy who were serial inbreeders to the point of deformity. If you want to get a better picture of any civilization you start with the people, rank and file. Not the aristocracy for the stated reasons above.

Fair point. But that study didn't test the rank and file across all of Ancient Egypt. They only tested mummies near the Mediterranean delta region far to the north. If you know anything about Ancient Egyptian history then you would know that for most of Ancient Egypt's dynastic period, the capital was in the south at the modern city of Luxor (known as Thebes in the past). This is where the famous "Valley of the Kings" is located where they've found the most mummies of Pharoahs in Egypt. If you were being a fair researcher you would test mummies from all regions of Egypt not just one. And if you were only gonna pick one region wouldn't it make more sense to go to the region that was the capital of Ancient Egypt for long periods of its history?

Also if you really wanted to know how black or Sub-Saharan the Ancient Egyptians were wouldn't you compare their DNA to their black neighbors in Nubia and East Africa rather than going all the way to West Africa. For the record, modern day Nubians differ greatly from West Africans genetically but I don't hear anyone saying the Nubians weren't black. That study had holes all over the place that serious scholars had attacked for years. You guys just fell for the headline and their agenda which was to push a narrative of a non-black Ancient Egypt. Which as you can tell by the hoops they had to jump through is a tough position to prove.

 

[KB5252]

When Europeans first started categorizing people by race there was no genetic testing. Race isn't based on DNA. Race is based on phenotype (aka how one looks). The game yall are trying to play right now is you wanna frame race as simply being about your DNA when in reality none of us use DNA in our everyday life when we categorize people.

You see this guy walking down the street, what race would most people think he is?

View attachment 552706

They would think he's 100% black. But yet his DNA would say he's most closely related to the Japanese and not any Africans. So is he black or not?

My argument has been very simple. The first Americans looked like black people. I never argued that they were directly descendants of modern day Africans. I only said they looked negroid as the fossil remains in Brazil showed as well as the Olmecs heads in Mexico.

Again, this is where your agenda shows. This man's features, save his nose, do not look like the Olmec bust. If your point is that they share common ancestry then my response would be no shat, but we both know that isn't what you're stating.

 

[KB5252]

Fair point. But that study didn't test the rank and file across all of Ancient Egypt. They only tested mummies near the Mediterranean delta region far to the north. If you know anything about Ancient Egyptian history then you would know that for most of Ancient Egypt's dynastic period, the capital was in the south at the modern city of Luxor (known as Thebes in the past). This is where the famous "Valley of the Kings" is located where they've found the most mummies of Pharoahs in Egypt. If you were being a fair researcher you would test mummies from all regions of Egypt not just one. And if you were only gonna pick one region wouldn't it make more sense to go to the region that was the capital of Ancient Egypt for long periods of its history?

Also if you really wanted to know how black or Sub-Saharan the Ancient Egyptians were wouldn't you compare their DNA to their black neighbors in Nubia and East Africa rather than going all the way to West Africa. For the record, modern day Nubians differ greatly from West Africans genetically but I don't hear anyone saying the Nubians weren't black. That study had holes all over the place that serious scholars had attacked for years. You guys just fell for the headline and their agenda which was to push a narrative of a non-black Ancient Egypt. Which as you can tell by the hoops they had to jump through is a tough position to prove.

They moved north to the more fertile ground, my understanding from my research in the late 90's to early 2000's was even at Thebes the civilization was diverse ethnically.

From the Delta to Thebes had been a trading corridor for thousands of years. It was much more diverse than you give it credit for. The Nubians and those from Kush were very dark skinned and had prominent features. Even Africans living on the east coast today have Arab features and even hair.

If your argument is that we do share common ancestry then I've got no problem. But you seem to want to attribute all ancient civilization to "black" people and that's where I can't join you. It sounds very similar to what Hitler attempted to do. And we know where that lead, so I cannot and will not walk that path with you. Ancient Asians built great civilizations, so did South Americans. Africans built great civilizations and so did Arabs. They were not all black, they share common ancestors as do we all but claiming they were black is pushing an agenda.

 

[hndog609]

So there's something called a subnasal prognathism. It's a feature where the lower jaw is farther from the rest of the face. A facial characteristic that is common in Sub-Saharan Africans and other "negroes" (i.e. Papua New Guinea) but is not commonly seen in Europeans or Asians. In the past racist scientists used this feature to argue Africans were less human. See here:


View attachment 552572


The Sphinx is commonly cited for having one of the most famous examples of this characteristic.

View attachment 552570


The remains of Luzia woman and other early Americans showed this characteristic hence why the archeologists when they first found the remains said she was "negroid". You can clearly see in the reconstruction he has a strong prognathism.

View attachment 552571

Trying to combine proselytizing with issues like these is a bad look. You pounding on your pulpit with biased origin stories isn't moving the needle a nanometer. You have presented nothing that controverts, on any level, that the ancient SA's didn't look more like these guys



than whatever "black/negroid" look you're trying to push. And make no mistake, there's not a person reading this thread (possibly even including yourself) that doesn't know you're pushing something. Nobody believes they were "white", okay? Somewhere, many many thousands of years ago, nobody is arguing common ancestry. Over that time and much change in environment things diversified. Peoples came about that were not "black" by any useful definition. It's a fact observable through even the most cursory of investigations.

Again, there is a stark contrast to some real and interesting input you have regarding the ancient Egypt discussion. (whether it's convincing in all aspects is debatable but you do have some real knowledge) As to your "black" South Americans agenda you're putting lipstick on a pig. You would do well to let it go.

 

[landscapingvol]

Another non white, white supremacist strikes again! How can they be stopped if they aren't even white? No one can be trusted now!!

 

[headhunter15]

White Suprematist.

 

[robbymoore94]

They did lay his Nazi flag, which looked awfully new, right where the media could get a really good photo op of it. I’m not an officer of the law, but I would assume that evidence of someone in this level of trouble wouldn’t be laid out all Willy nilly.

 

[headhunter15]

They did lay his Nazi flag, which looked awfully new, right where the media could get a really good photo op of it. I’m not an officer of the law, but I would assume that evidence of someone in this level of trouble wouldn’t be laid out all Willy nilly.

Also, that’s tampering with a crime scene evidence. Something is fishy.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

Again, this is where your agenda shows. This man's features, save his nose, do not look like the Olmec bust. If your point is that they share common ancestry then my response would be no shat, but we both know that isn't what you're stating.

This is at least the 2nd time d4h has purported this over the last few years in a thread and derailed it to the point it's ridiculous.

 

[allvol123]

Also, that’s tampering with a crime scene evidence. Something is fishy.

Yea. We can’t get a shooter’s manifesto but we can sure get some propaganda all laid out nicely for some photography.

 

[DC_Vol]

White Suprematist.

He’s certainly not your grandfather’s white supremacist.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Again, this is where your agenda shows. This man's features, save his nose, do not look like the Olmec bust. If your point is that they share common ancestry then my response would be no shat, but we both know that isn't what you're stating.

His face looks more like the Olmec busts than the average native American.



Sorry but these guys don't look like the Olmecs.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

But you seem to want to attribute all ancient civilization to "black" people and that's where I can't join you.

Not me. That's what the Ancient Greeks said. Go and look up the Ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus Siculus - Wikipedia

Read this book of his: Bibliotheca historica - Wikipedia

He wrote extensively about Egypt having traveled through the country in the 1st century. Even at this point almost 3000 years after the pyramids were built, he described the people of Upper Egypt as being black. He also wrote about how the foundations of Ancient Egyptian civilization started in Nubia.

You gotta realize black people didn't just start making this stuff up. We are simply regurgitating what the Ancient Greeks and other contemporaries of the Ancient Egyptians said. If you read the works of Herodutus and Diodorus Siculus you'll come to the conclusion that Ancient Egypt was fundamental a black African civilization and the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Were there other races in Egypt? Sure. But they weren't Egyptian. They were foreigners.

The only way you could be a native of Ancient Egypt was to be black. Non-black people were simply outsiders.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Trying to combine proselytizing with issues like these is a bad look. You pounding on your pulpit with biased origin stories isn't moving the needle a nanometer. You have presented nothing that controverts, on any level, that the ancient SA's didn't look more like these guys

View attachment 552731

than whatever "black/negroid" look you're trying to push. And make no mistake, there's not a person reading this thread (possibly even including yourself) that doesn't know you're pushing something. Nobody believes they were "white", okay? Somewhere, many many thousands of years ago, nobody is arguing common ancestry. Over that time and much change in environment things diversified. Peoples came about that were not "black" by any useful definition. It's a fact observable through even the most cursory of investigations.

Again, there is a stark contrast to some real and interesting input you have regarding the ancient Egypt discussion. (whether it's convincing in all aspects is debatable but you do have some real knowledge) As to your "black" South Americans agenda you're putting lipstick on a pig. You would do well to let it go.

You ever heard of the Andaman Islands? They're a small island chain off the coast of India. They're famous for having one of the most isolated human populations in the world. The natives of the Andaman Islands have been isolated from the rest of humanity for the last 60,000 years. They're descendants of some of the first humans to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the world.

This is how they look:



Phenotypically they look like black Africans but genetically they are most closely related to Indians.

I'm using them as an example to show you how everyone on Earth originally looked when we first started to spread across the globe. Everyone looked like this. As we reached new environments our phenotypes changed. Similarly as our population grew we got more genetic diversity through more mutations given the larger sample sizes. Groups like those in the Andaman Islands that were separated from the rest of humanity kept those original features. And groups in Africa and the Pacific that stayed in tropical environments kept those features.

South America is a tropical climate similar to Africa and the Pacific. It makes sense that if humans from the Pacific reached South America they would have kept those tropical features. Then as they encountered other humans who came across the Bering Straight from Eurasia that they would mix and their features would change. So yes over time that picture you posted would be representative of South Americans. My argument is about the first Americans. And the archeological data is clear that those early Americans had negroid features.

 

[C-south]

Change thread title to “African mythology”.

 

[KB5252]

His face looks more like the Olmec busts than the average native American.

View attachment 552840

Sorry but these guys don't look like the Olmecs.

Plains Indians? Seriously? That doesn't do it chief...pun intended.

Many native American tribes in the US have been shown to have come in a much later wave than those in Central and South America via DNA.

But ignore the rest of my point because your agenda is easier to push that way. You pick and choose pieces of the whole story to fit your narrative. You have to be exhausted contorting yourself like this.

As I've said repeatedly, of your point is that we all come from American ancestry that's fine. I'm on board....... But that isn't what your agenda is. You want us all to believe that everyone was black until some recent point after civilization and then......boom! Everyone morphed into various ethnicities and doin tones magically at roughly the same after the spark of civilization. That isn't how genetics and evolution work. It didn't make sense and isn't supported by anything other than your imagination, episodes of Ancient Aliens and anecdotal evidence.

 

[hndog609]

You ever heard of the Andaman Islands? They're a small island chain off the coast of India. They're famous for having one of the most isolated human populations in the world. The natives of the Andaman Islands have been isolated from the rest of humanity for the last 60,000 years. They're descendants of some of the first humans to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the world.

This is how they look:

View attachment 552842

Phenotypically they look like black Africans but genetically they are most closely related to Indians.

I'm using them as an example to show you how everyone on Earth originally looked when we first started to spread across the globe. Everyone looked like this. As we reached new environments our phenotypes changed. Similarly as our population grew we got more genetic diversity through more mutations given the larger sample sizes. Groups like those in the Andaman Islands that were separated from the rest of humanity kept those original features. And groups in Africa and the Pacific that stayed in tropical environments kept those features.

South America is a tropical climate similar to Africa and the Pacific. It makes sense that if humans from the Pacific reached South America they would have kept those tropical features. Then as they encountered other humans who came across the Bering Straight from Eurasia that they would mix and their features would change. So yes over time that picture you posted would be representative of South Americans. My argument is about the first Americans. And the archeological data is clear that those early Americans had negroid features.

At some point everyone is wondering when the light bulb will come on in how time and environmental changes bring about the diversity you're trying to reconcile. NOBODY I've seen in this thread has made any kind of anti common ancestry argument. The next time you try to lob that at me I'm going to flatly call you an idiot. Only an idiot could keep going back to the same tired observation that isn't relevant to the discussion. We can accept the point of origin argument and still (and do) reject the rest of what you're selling.

So let's take your bit of phrase "As we reached new environments our phenotypes changed." and give you a visual aid.



So assuming you can actually understand what you're looking at on this map there's a fairly straight coastal route running along nearly the same latitude as point of departure from Africa for your Andamanians. Assuming the dates are correct they're putting the early inhabitants hitting there 60k years ago*. Meanwhile look at what Luzia's ancestral path looks like. So given your above quote do you think a path leading all the way up through E Asia to the Bering Strait (You know, effing Siberia) and down through NW Canada and W US would constitute "new environments"? So looking at this hugely different trek through about as different an environmental scenario as our planet had to offer over 50 thousand+ years of time would you, given your quote above, actually expect Luzia in Brazil to look like your Andaman Islanders? It's such a nonsensical stance only someone with a genuinely delusional bias could even glance askance at the notion.

*And bear in mind this time spent by the Andamanians moving E out of Africa is already time spent moving through changing environments by those that ended up NA/SA.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Change thread title to “African mythology”.

Mythology isn't supported by archeological and genetic evidence like I've provided in this thread.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Plains Indians? Seriously? That doesn't do it chief...pun intended.

Many native American tribes in the US have been shown to have come in a much later wave than those in Central and South America via DNA.

But ignore the rest of my point because your agenda is easier to push that way. You pick and choose pieces of the whole story to fit your narrative. You have to be exhausted contorting yourself like this.

As I've said repeatedly, of your point is that we all come from American ancestry that's fine. I'm on board....... But that isn't what your agenda is. You want us all to believe that everyone was black until some recent point after civilization and then......boom! Everyone morphed into various ethnicities and doin tones magically at roughly the same after the spark of civilization. That isn't how genetics and evolution work. It didn't make sense and isn't supported by anything other than your imagination, episodes of Ancient Aliens and anecdotal evidence.

Then find me your choice of a group of non-black people with stereotypically black features like a wide nose, thick lips, and braids. I'll wait.

Cause that's what the Olmec heads show. People with very wide noses, very thick lips, and who rocked braids as their hairstyle of choice.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

At some point everyone is wondering when the light bulb will come on in how time and environmental changes bring about the diversity you're trying to reconcile. NOBODY I've seen in this thread has made any kind of anti common ancestry argument. The next time you try to lob that at me I'm going to flatly call you an idiot. Only an idiot could keep going back to the same tired observation that isn't relevant to the discussion. We can accept the point of origin argument and still (and do) reject the rest of what you're selling.

So let's take your bit of phrase "As we reached new environments our phenotypes changed." and give you a visual aid.

View attachment 552872

So assuming you can actually understand what you're looking at on this map there's a fairly straight coastal route running along nearly the same latitude as point of departure from Africa for your Andamanians. Assuming the dates are correct they're putting the early inhabitants hitting there 60k years ago*. Meanwhile look at what Luzia's ancestral path looks like. So given your above quote do you think a path leading all the way up through E Asia to the Bering Strait (You know, effing Siberia) and down through NW Canada and W US would constitute "new environments"? So looking at this hugely different trek through about as different an environmental scenario as our planet had to offer over 50 thousand+ years of time would you, given your quote above, actually expect Luzia in Brazil to look like your Andaman Islanders? It's such a nonsensical stance only someone with a genuinely delusional bias could even glance askance at the notion.

*And bear in mind this time spent by the Andamanians moving E out of Africa is already time spent moving through changing environments by those that ended up NA/SA.

Once again you make the mistake of falling for wrong data. The idea the first Americans crossed the Bering straight is outdated. New evidence is coming to light that the first Americans came by sea. Similar to how Ancient humans populated Australia and the Pacific Islands. Science | AAAS

Also there's growing evidence that humans have been in the Americas as early as 30,000 years ago. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-2...o,Asia, archaeological research reveals today.

And those early humans could have only arrived by boat since Ice Sheets covered North America until 13,000 years ago.

So all you've been doing thus far is arguing based on outdated theories of how our ancestors spread across the globe. Our ancestors actually arrived in America far earlier than previously thought. They also came by sea rather than by land. And those sea faring ancestors would have looked like tropical peoples because they wouldn't have spend millenia in cold northern climates like modern day Asians. They would have kept their black skin and negroid features like the peoples of the Andaman Islands, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji, etc.

 

[KB5252]

Then find me your choice of a group of non-black people with stereotypically black features like a wide nose, thick lips, and braids. I'll wait.

Cause that's what the Olmec heads show. People with very wide noses, very thick lips, and who rocked braids as their hairstyle of choice.

Asians have those features, central Americans have those features.

And it's really hard to rock a helmet and have exposed hair. Even if it were braids that doesn't show they were African. You are using his and pieces of info to fit your agenda. Continue to ignore the rest of my post as well. It's your MO.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Asians have those features, central Americans have those features.

And it's really hard to rock a helmet and have exposed hair. Even if it were braids that doesn't show they were African. You are using his and pieces of info to fit your agenda. Continue to ignore the rest of my post as well. It's your MO.

The braids on the Olmec heads are well known and have been written about many times. I even posted a picture earlier.

The point about the braids is the fact that it's a well known cultural practice of black people. Hair braiding is only ubiquitous among people with kinky afro textured hair. The Olmec heads having braids only adds to the likelihood they were black.

 

[KB5252]

The braids on the Olmec heads are well known and have been written about many times. I even posted a picture earlier.

The point about the braids is the fact that it's a well known cultural practice of black people. Hair braiding is only ubiquitous among people with kinky afro textured hair. The Olmec heads having braids only adds to the likelihood they were black.

Hair braiding was common on every continent and common among many if not most cultures. This is getting silly. Again even it they were braids, which is likely not the case because the bust is pictured wearing a head covering or helmet, it isn't evidence they were black. This is beyond silly.

The places where black people retained darker pigment..... Except in Africa..... has been shown via genetic sampling and archaeology to have occurred because the genetic pool was smaller..... Meaning because those people were isolated, think Aboriginal Australians and some various island cultures who were not long range travelers overseas.....they did not get the infusion of other DNA. In fact studies indicate it was lucky those branches didn't die out, it's a testament to their resilience the bloodlines survived. Ethnicities world wide were branching off and developing the various skin tones we see today, except in those isolated pockets. You however point to those isolated pockets and say they were the norm. That isn't the case.

This is all backed up by science on a global scale. Not your cherry picked isolated examples you string together to fit a narrative. If you have to jump around so much and ignore established science that overwhelmingly counters your position it can't be based on solid footing.

You've been reading too many of those agenda based Facebook pages like Imanhotep. It's basically Ancient Aliens without the aliens.

 

[EasternVol]

Then find me your choice of a group of non-black people with stereotypically black features like a wide nose, thick lips, and braids. I'll wait.

Cause that's what the Olmec heads show. People with very wide noses, very thick lips, and who rocked braids as their hairstyle of choice.

Those traits are common among Malays, other Southeast Asians, and a lot of Chinese. Braiding's a practice and not a physical trait. I suppose you already include Melanesians and the Negritos of the Andamans and SEA as black.