It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The extermination of white people?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Undo. why do you say that Europe is a place where mass genocide is about or going to happen in the near future?
a reply to: undo




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: g146541
NONSENSE!!!
White people will be naturally bred out of existence without any assistance whatsoever.
Someday intermingling of races will produce an all light brown human species.
This is evolution.

There have been separate races since the dawn of time and there will still be pure, different races in the end.

No.

All human beings were originally black. Human life originated in Ethiopia. People migrated all over the world and changed in appearance due to climate adaptation. The concept of "purity" when talking about ethnicity is absurd. We are essentially just Africans who adapted to different climates.



Can you prove without a reasonable doubt that all humans were originally black? The old theory of "out of africa" is slowly being phased out with new DNA evidence...



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jheated5
you got that backwards. All evidence points to most of humanity originating in that area of the world. you got proof of your claim that its being disproved? Also just because they came from their does not mean they were black looking.
Do w e know how much sunlight and heat they had back then to influence their looks?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The latest anthropological and DNA evidence suggests that while the out of Africa theory is somewhat correct. The thing is the DNA evidence suggests that East Asians, Indians, Caucasians, Semites (Arabs, Hebrews, Druze etc.), and on and on aren't simply Black sub-Saharan Africans that have adapted to the region, but rather are various admixture of Hybrids. To define more clearly, Sub-Saharan Africans have basically 0% Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. Semites, Caucasians, and Indians have various Neanderthal mixture ranging from between 2.5% to 6% depending on the individual and region. In some instances, this means an individual could actually be more closely related, genetically, to a Neanderthal than to a modern sub-Saharan African. It creates a genetic delta that large. East Asians and South East Asians have both Neanderthal mixture, but also have shown to have Denisovan mixture as well. Tibetans are a good example: www.nature.com...

The genetic makeup and level of hybridization answers a lot of the questions regarding the various phenotype occurrences, races, breeds, whatever you want to call it, around the world.

So your notion, while basically correct, is less complete than the current accepted state of anthropology.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eryiedes

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: Eryiedes lol What a cop out. We all have to tolerate certain amounts of racism everyday. Do not lie to yourself. People are more comfortable around likeness and skin color is the first thing most see to rely on a bond. It is not everyone that sees this and seeks to dig deeper into character of each. Going around pointing out flaws with eachother does not help the whole process even though some are inclined to speak out everytime they get a chance degrade a trait that most are raised with.



If black people never banded together by color then they would not be as advanced as they currently are. I see nothing wrong with pride in herritage and culture but do see the downfall of groups thinking they are the master race and groups putting themselves above others. When any group of same people get together and gain power they have no other plans but to dominate and this is another problem.







Okay.

Most of this post is garbage.

Ex-postfacto reasoning to fit your own special brand of neurosis.

I see no such hatred where I live and work.

We have brown, black, red, yellow, white and guess what?

They don't cower in fear of what's different between people.

They embrace it.

They try and learn from it.

They discover new things about other people and themselves in the process.

We are all richer because of this...not weaker.

All this racial purity crap is waste of time and so is this thread.



-Ciao-

You are just being full of it. Everything you describe in your post beging as i am better than you view of anyone with a thought. You should reread my post because you did not get the meaning i was conveying to you. Let me ask you how much difference there is in someone that sees color and judges vs someone that judges based on how well they can twist someones words. You are superrior in your own mind and that alone puts others beneath you. That is a tactic used by someone with an agendea. At every post in this thread you seem to be attracted to you seek to demeen others because you feel you have reached some type of higher groung than everyone else. You know what you are the only poster to make it a point to tell us your skin color. I guess you won the race.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Fylgje


originally posted by: g146541

NONSENSE!!!

White people will be naturally bred out of existence without any assistance whatsoever.

Someday intermingling of races will produce an all light brown human species.

This is evolution.


There have been separate races since the dawn of time and there will still be pure, different races in the end.


No.



All human beings were originally black. Human life originated in Ethiopia. People migrated all over the world and changed in appearance due to climate adaptation. The concept of "purity" when talking about ethnicity is absurd. We are essentially just Africans who adapted to different climates.



Well i believe that there is some truth to your post but i am interested in how and when these changes took place. It is my personal belief that a person of power that was white from somewhere else created black people and his son created light brown people and another person created white people and in that order. I absolutely do not expect or want anyone to believe that but it is what i was shown at some point. I do somewhat understand the idea that we evolved to different pigments over time due to enviroment but i do look for the places and times where the changes took place. It is easy for the sun to cause these pigment changes but bone structure is something else. I guess you can say i believe in intervention of us throughout the years more that subtle changes.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: g146541
NONSENSE!!!
White people will be naturally bred out of existence without any assistance whatsoever.
Someday intermingling of races will produce an all light brown human species.
This is evolution.

There have been separate races since the dawn of time and there will still be pure, different races in the end.

No.

All human beings were originally black. Human life originated in Ethiopia. People migrated all over the world and changed in appearance due to climate adaptation. The concept of "purity" when talking about ethnicity is absurd. We are essentially just Africans who adapted to different climates.



You think that white people were black??? I think that many scientists are leaving that bizarre theory in the dust.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I agree with Xaphan. The current species of Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa and migrated outward from there. I would like to read some dissenting scientific views of the current 'Out of Africa' theory. (as long as they're considered as expert in the field of anthropology and not some crackpot).



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
I agree with Xaphan. The current species of Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa and migrated outward from there. I would like to read some dissenting scientific views of the current 'Out of Africa' theory. (as long as they're considered as expert in the field of anthropology and not some crackpot).


You want ATS to do your work for you? The evidence by scientists is out there if you're willing to look, google it if you want.... No crackpots involved.... Although there is still more evidence to be found all current ideas of human origins is all hypothesis still.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I sense a fair bit of thread drift going on here.

Look again at the thread title.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: g146541
NONSENSE!!!
White people will be naturally bred out of existence without any assistance whatsoever.
Someday intermingling of races will produce an all light brown human species.
This is evolution.

There have been separate races since the dawn of time and there will still be pure, different races in the end.

No.

All human beings were originally black. Human life originated in Ethiopia. People migrated all over the world and changed in appearance due to climate adaptation. The concept of "purity" when talking about ethnicity is absurd. We are essentially just Africans who adapted to different climates.



You think that white people were black??? I think that many scientists are leaving that bizarre theory in the dust.

A lot can happen over many thousands of years. The closest ancestors of white people were actually Persians who migrated into Europe over the Caucasus mountains. And yes, skin does lighten over time, or darken, depending on what climate a group of migrants is adapting to.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jheated5

originally posted by: masqua
I agree with Xaphan. The current species of Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa and migrated outward from there. I would like to read some dissenting scientific views of the current 'Out of Africa' theory. (as long as they're considered as expert in the field of anthropology and not some crackpot).


You want ATS to do your work for you? The evidence by scientists is out there if you're willing to look, google it if you want.... No crackpots involved.... Although there is still more evidence to be found all current ideas of human origins is all hypothesis still.

Then why did you ask me for proof? He did the same thing you did earlier, yet you criticize him for it.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I sense a fair bit of thread drift going on here.



Look again at the thread title.
I suppose before anyone makes their mind up on if whites will be done away with they want to know who was here first.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Doing away with human beings is what this is all about. It'd be great to know that all humans are human regardless of their skin colour.

Pointing out that our common ancestor originated on the African continent makes the case that 'racial distinction' is a social construct.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua It goes beyond simple social constructs because along with color we also have other attributes that differ throughout regions. Let's take the carp invasion in the u.s. for example. They were placed in our waters by people from china that thought because they were no harm to their origional habitat in china they would not be a problem here. scientist have traced their orgin here back to one single male fish. This guy must have been pissed off because they are destroying the vegatation in a manner never seen by that species. They are choking out the native species to a point of danger for the natives. If you run this by anyone from china that have observed them in their natural habitat they will not believe that these fish have became flying fish and destroyers. They will deny this to the point of not believing they are the same fish. So what do we do just stand by while native habitats are being destroyed and native fish are taken out of the cycle of life forever?



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Are you comparing white-skinned humans to Asian Carp?


If so, it must be said that the Europeans have indeed invaded much of the world in the last 500 years. But, then again, Attila the Hun also had his kick at world domination - as did the Turks, neither of which cultures I'd call very 'white skinned'. In fact, when you get right down to it, human beings are great at invading, whether it's globally or just your next door neighbour.


edit on 16/7/14 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua Well it reads like i was making that comparison but in truth i have not made my mind up either way about the races and tend to take the thought that no matter what the differences we can find common ground but at the same time see the differences. The comparison was that a species of fish made a total transformation of character based on enviroment. Does this mean that all carp are showing the signs that domination is means of survival? Of coarse not but the new group when viewed shows dramatic differences from their ancestors to the extreme point that without genetic testing many would not put them in the same group anymore. The group of carp that is in the u.s. now is definitly winning the race and the way to know who they are is found in their looks and actions. This same reasoning can be applied to any group by way of perception. Perhaps this is a racist view of fish but as humans it is the most common means of identification.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

There's a reasonable argument that racism is inter-cultural violence as an expression of natural selection and evolutionary theory. Where we think we *hate* someone for the colour of their skin, it could be simple genetic imperatives calling the shots.

If so, skin-colour prejudice is simply cultural make-believe and just evidence that one community is seeking dominance over another or is responding from fear of extinction.

This quote is describing human behaviour from over 10, 000 years ago:


Unprovoked attacks on members of a neighboring community thus convey a selective advantage, provided that the costs to the attackers are low. The mechanism by which aggression is rewarded is intercommunity dominance. “If raiding leads to the wounding or death of a neighboring male, the neighboring community's competitive ability is substantially reduced” (ref. 6, p. 15). The dominant community can thus freely encroach on the territory of its neighbor whenever food resources within its own territory are in short supply. The dominant community also may ha
The Evolution of Inter-Group Violence; R. C. Kelly; 2005 -



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky Thanks for the addition. This raises questions in my mind though of what to do when a community or group acts in a manner that puts the whole in danger.



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The out of africa theory does not explain traits of different races very well. There has been no real data on eveloution of traits. Of coarse people speculate but then my speculation of intervention of dna explains this much better than assuming that over time people over came certain traits while changing skin color due to geography.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join