Where did the White man come from?

Spider879,
I understand through out the ages many races have had empires which also incorporated other races within it.
But when you speak of ancient Egypt, you thing africans. When speaking of ancient India, you think Indians, and so on.
Never heard of the Persians being discribed by the Greeks as white. Can you please supply a link to this.

KnightLight,
your answer 'My mommy' i know this was a joke and all good, but curious of the meaning, what is it?
Also I dont like the term Aryans due to the Nazis way.

peter vlar,
My definition of the white man is someone with natural white skin, doesnt really need to have blonde hair but the skin factor. For example the Persians, they naturally have olive skin, White man has naturally white skin.
Also when thinking of specific races within the human race bone structure also comes into play. An anthropologist could pick up a skull and say which race it belongs to all from the bond structure.

Your quote: 'And you're neglecting the people, the artisans, poets, scribes, musicians and aristocrats of those lands who were brought back by Darius.'
This is pretty normal for invading armies. But again when thinking of a Persian you picture olive skin and dark hair.
Although this is a very loose example, if I say picture a Arab, what would you picture? Olive Skin with black hair.
This also includes facial bone structure.

There has to be a place where a group of people or civilisation evolved to have white skin. Such randomness of white people within a culture does not make sense. Thats not narrow minded, that logic.

How would peer reviewed data on the genetic sequencing show they had the same amount of hair? We barely understand genetic sequencing. I agree it would be nothing more than educated guess based on genomic similarity. But the complexity of DNA and genetic sequencing is beyond us at the moment. We have barely scratched the surface, and when we come to subjects like this, like physics we keep learning whilst throwing away what has been proven wrong.
At most DNA and genetic sequencing is mostly an educated guess at this time in our history.

I conceed to the Otzi thing. No point arguing that.

White is white, olive skinned is olive skinned. Am I missing something here?

'can anyone guess which race within the human race cannot grow facial hair?'
Now days yes they all can, but before the interbreeding one race could not grow facial hair.

The Amercian Indians.

Show me a picture of an ancient american indian that has facial hair. Not current due to interbreeding.

Also I dont know everything or even close to it. I can be wrong alot of the time I just need reasonable clarity to change my mind.

Also thanks for replying digger. And all great contribution here.
Love it.

Coomba98

a reply to: peter vlar

Well we know that the genetic code is kind of like your bar code for tracking your ups package, it can tell when were you started and stopped but not really what's inside the box, a descendant get a slightly different bar code, the trouble is it doesn't really account for other gene expression, such as skin or eye color, as Nina Jabalinsky said we can shift back and forth between skin color and even hair texture depending on our local environments thus this guy is a Eurasian.

This guy is Eurasian

As is this guy

And this guy

And her.
When folks speak of such large areas of the world it's really hard to pin down any one type,for even the "type" keep shifting,folks who we might beleive was "white" may turn out to be something shockingly different,I read an article recently about La Brana man that stated White Skin was only a meager 7000 yrs old.
Was this the first blue-eyed man? 7,000-year-old DNA reveals European and African traits

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

originally posted by: rickymouse
We became white because the colors didn't like us.

Well, I made a stab at it anyway.

I don't buy into us being white because of living in caves either. They make up some stuff.

Scientifically, it seems obvious to me.

Peoples of Europe had wear cloths to stay warm when outside and stay inside because if the bad weather.

So we have cloths blocking sunlight from the skin, I doors blocking sun from the skin, and clouds blocking sun from the skin.

Hence less pigment, there was no need.

Nature wastes nothing, if it is being used, it will be reduced.

Why waste valuable energy and resources on something you don't need?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: coomba98

actually fur and hair are chemically the same. Most people make the difference between themselves and their pets.
But their is no difference chemically speaking. We humans say its different to separate ourselves from animals.
However like most or all humans were totally wrapped up in our own self proclaimed superiority.

No argument there, we just use the term "hair" as opposed to "fur," although we don't sport an undercoat as fur does. Fun fact, humans have as many hair follicles as Chimpanzees, just not the same thickness of hair - barring the occasional specimen of southern European...

Lol!!!!

Italians are hairy aren't they.

originally posted by: coomba98

peter vlar,
My definition of the white man is someone with natural white skin, doesnt really need to have blonde hair but the skin factor. For example the Persians, they naturally have olive skin, White man has naturally white skin.

No offense but you're still being somewhat coy based on specific examples of trepidations and contentions I demonstrated.

I stand by my earlier statement that you appear to by insinuating what would be a "textbook" Aryan depicted by Stormfront.org I'm not implying a racist undertone to your stance, I'm just trying to gain an understanding of what is white to you and it appears stereotypical northern European or Germanic in appearance. Please correct me though as I do not want to impart an intention upon you that is not there. Like the example I gave previously of someone living North of the Tyrolean Alps and someone living south of them. Physically one may have a slightly more Mediterranean appearance whereas one may have a more Germanic appearance yet be related by familial and genetic ties. You seem more concerned with the morphology than the actual genetics.

Also when thinking of specific races within the human race bone structure also comes into play. An anthropologist could pick up a skull and say which race it belongs to all from the bond structure.

I'm well aware. This is what I did my grad work on. Comparative analysis based on cohabitation of the Levant by HSS and HN from 50-80KYA but I started at the basics like many others, comparing the 2 skeletal morphologies, measuring attachment point scars and mapping muscle density.
It still doesn't get to specifically what you think of as white.

Your quote: 'And you're neglecting the people, the artisans, poets, scribes, musicians and aristocrats of those lands who were brought back by Darius.'
This is pretty normal for invading armies. But again when thinking of a Persian you picture olive skin and dark hair.
Although this is a very loose example, if I say picture a Arab, what would you picture? Olive Skin with black hair.
This also includes facial bone structure.

When you say Arab, I think in terms of language groups not morphological features as Arabic or some dialects of it, are spoken from Bangladesh to Morocco and everywhere in between despite a variety of morphologically dissimilar people residing in these areas.

There has to be a place where a group of people or civilisation evolved to have white skin. Such randomness of white people within a culture does not make sense. Thats not narrow minded, that logic.

yes and no because it didn't have to happen all at once or at the same time in the same areas to create some easily labeled white boy homeland. It more than likely occurred in waves over several tens of thousand years based on the most up todate and highest coverage genomic maps we have at our disposal.

How would peer reviewed data on the genetic sequencing show they had the same amount of hair? We barely understand genetic sequencing. I agree it would be nothing more than educated guess based on genomic similarity. But the complexity of DNA and genetic sequencing is beyond us at the moment.

Beyond us? Absolutely not. We have managed to sequence the Neanderthal genome to a high degree of coverage as well as Denisovan. it's nowhere near the elementary level of guesswork you seem to imply. It's very easy to discern which markers were for body hair and plug those numbers in. All the heavy lifting has already been done.

We have barely scratched the surface, and when we come to subjects like this, like physics we keep learning whilst throwing away what has been proven wrong.
At most DNA and genetic sequencing is mostly an educated guess at this time in our history.

Sorry, but in my personal experience, this statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Are we learning more and more every day? Hell yes. Does it toss out what we already know? not at all. It just adds to the compendium of knowledge we have and demonstrates that things like race and ethnicity are just not an easily labeled and boxed in construct. there is no neat place to put it on the shelf.

I conceed to the Otzi thing. No point arguing that.

all fine and good

White is white, olive skinned is olive skinned. Am I missing something here?

My confusion stems from you using Caucasian at some points and white at others. the lack of consistency is confusing and seems a bit arbitrary. An olive skinned Portuguese or Italian are typically considered white while someone from Turkey with the same or lighter complexion may not be based on your criteria.

'can anyone guess which race within the human race cannot grow facial hair?'
Now days yes they all can, but before the interbreeding one race could not grow facial hair.

The Amercian Indians.

Show me a picture of an ancient american indian that has facial hair. Not current due to interbreeding.

Show me a camera from before Europeans hit the Americas. With the array's of shaved heads and varying styles of hair you can't really claim with a degree of veracity that all drawings and paintings showing male aboriginal Americans with clean shaven faces are a result of an inability to grow hair. it is true that some groups of aboriginal americans and north east Asians did not grow facial hair as densely as some others but grow it they did in fact do.

Also I dont know everything or even close to it. I can be wrong alot of the time I just need reasonable clarity to change my mind.

a reply to: Spider879

but for me, just like tracking my UPS package...I think half the fun is seeing the journey the package takes as much as opening it at the end is.

a reply to: tadaman

So let that sink in. Its peer reviewed and though Egyptologists and the government of Egypt tried to hide this fact....it is absolutely true and verified. An international team published the findings after they were tasked with analysing Tuts genetic makeup. They practically had to leave the country in hiding because they had a gag order placed on them. They published it anyways and it is now impossible to deny.

King Tut, who was a descendant of the FOUNDING dynasties of Egypt, was a descendant of proto Europeans.

We have NO IDEA how this can be....

No they did not published their finding until after Man E ,the leak in question was that of a screen shot for controlled test by the scientist not TuT's.
King Tut Related to Half of European Men? Maybe Not

Pusch's team used snippets of Y-chromosome DNA to link Tut to his closest relatives, identifying his mom and dad. But they didn't publish the full genetic data that would allow genomics companies like iGENEA to link modern people to the Tutankhamen lineage. According to Scholz, that crucial data is what appeared on the Discovery Channel
www.livescience.com...
.

But they later they published the whole thing for a follow-up which linked the Amrna dynast to Great Lakes and Southern African folks the closest relatives.these were later used and popularized in Dna tribes plug ins.
dnatribes.com...

leaning towards genetically modified and planted here by aliens or the likes .. same as all humans ... all colours ...

a reply to: coomba98

Dio Chrysostom's discourse on beauty emphasized
(21.16£) the subj ectivi ty of classical narcissistic criteria and raised
the question whether there was not a foreign type of beauty
just as there was a Hellenic type. Sextus Empiricus (Math. 11.43)
noted that men differed in definitions of beauty: Ethiopians
preferred the blackest and most flat-nosed; Persians, the
whitest and most hooked-nosed; and others considered those
intermediate in features the most beautiful. Others, like
Philodemus (A nth. Pal. 5.121) and Martial (1.115.4f), rejecting
the prevailing norm image, did not hesitate to extol the beauty
of blackness.
And there were still others who rejected prevailing
file:///C:/Users/Allen/Downloads/3801-15551-1-PB%20(3).pdf

Ma bad it was Sextus a Roman not a Greek who described them thus, I was thinking of Xenophanes the Greek who made a similar comparison as to the different standards of beauty of his day.
scroll down to pg249.

peter vlar,
Hay curiosity is setting in, you an anthropologist? Biologist? What is your knowledge base?
Dont take this as negative just curious given your responses.

Also when I say Arab I mean middle east.

Coomba98
(Sorry been drinking all day, will give proper response tomorrow)

European traits such as light skin, straight hair, and body/facial hair provided a competitive advantage in cold snow/ice covered climates. Dark skin and other associated traits are advantages for living in hot climates. Also, early humans who migrated to Europe/Asia interbred with Neanderthals. They're theorized to be the source of some physical traits of the northern peoples, such as red hair.

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Actualy we used to be black but all the monsanto food caused our skin to bleach.

Makes sense,

No it's doesn't.

All the confusion in this thread seems to stem from what the OP is implying is the "white man" - the blonde blue-eyed Nordic type, versus what many of the thread replies refer to - Homo Sapiens with light/pale skin.

Culture is not responsible for producing light-skinned Homo Sapiens. Evolution is.

If you want to know what culture produced the blonde blue-eyed Nord, I suppose you could start here: Nordic Race. But then the OP may have been referring to Anglo-Saxons, or Germanic peoples/Teutons, "Aryans," etc.

a reply to: Spider879

Yeah, so like I said,

King tut was a descendant of proto Europeans.

haplogroup R1b1a2 is present in less than 1% of Africa. I dont care what they say in a mad scramble. haplogroup R1b1a2 is not found in south Africa....Even if it was all based on a snippet showing this....its a damned important snippet.

The only place it IS found in Africa is in the SUB-SAHARAN.....

Interesting that the language group most related to Basque is PROTO SAHARAN.....

SOOOO....without reaching for straws, and considering the facts, I think the African centrists have more homework to do.

EDIT TO ADD:
I have spent the last 2 years and a half taking a crash course in genetics. LOL I know. Its for a thread I am going to write. Or for fun....
Here is a good read: dx.doi.org...

The authors have used an online community approach, and tools that were readily available via the Internet, to discover genealogically and therefore phylogenetically relevant Y-chromosome polymorphisms within core haplogroup R1b1a2-L11/S127 (rs9786076). Presented here is the analysis of 135 unrelated L11 derived samples from the 1000 Genomes Project. We were able to discover new variants and build a much more complex phylogenetic relationship for L11 sub-clades. Many of the variants were further validated using PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing. The identification of these new variants will help further the understanding of population history including patrilineal migrations in Western and Central Europe where R1b1a2 is the most frequent haplogroup.

By analysing the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 1 data set of 1,197 individuals, we identified 135 samples bearing the L11 SNP. Excluding Finland, which has a low L11 frequency, approximately 50% of the remaining datasets comprising European populations CEU (CEPH Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry), GBR (British in England and Scotland), IBS (Iberian populations in Spain) and TSI (Tuscans in Italy) were derived at L11 [8]. An additional source of L11 derived datasets came from Latin American populations MXL (Mexican Ancestry in Los Angeles, California), PUR (Puerto Rican in Puerto Rico) and CML (Colombian in Medellin, Colombia) and to a minor extent, the ASW (African Ancestry in Southwest US) population. L11 is divided into two major sub-clades: S116 and U106. A large majority of L11 samples belong to subclade S116 (109 out of 135 or 81%). Using SAMtools and filtering methodology described in the methods section, we identified more than 200 putative non-singleton novel genetic variants in the 135 R1b1a2-L11 samples.

Basically they used data from the 1000 genomes project to identify MANY new and unique genetic markers so as to better trace the origin of R1b1a2.

Genetic approaches offer unique possibilities to resolve longstanding historical and archaeological dilemmas. Analysis of subclades defined by the new genetic markers reported here could help resolve some of these. As marker L21 has its highest frequencies in areas where insular Celtic languages once dominated, and some areas where they are still spoken today, there is no doubt that understanding it subclades will be instrumental in any debate regarding Celtic origins

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility that white people originated in Atlantis or Lemuria(?), it's really one of the more plausible theories I've heard myself and explains why white people suddenly appeared in Europe. Although to be fair I never know how much of those theories are utilizing made up facts, embellishments, or things just taken completely out of context. I too am very curious how white people appeared in India with no known history before that.

BTW Peter, absolutely no offense by this, but your posts come off as someone who is completely indoctrinated into thinking that all people are exactly the same and anyone thinking otherwise, or thinking their race has an origin not shared with all other homo sapiens should be ridiculed. It mostly has to do with the wording of your posts, which I am horrible with conveying correctly myself so I'm not assuming this to be the case.

The first time I ever experienced racism was from someone from this site telling me just that.

White people don't even belong on this planet, and that the native people people of Earth would be justified in killing us all.

It seems to be a popular theory.



CdT

originally posted by: WP4YT

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Actualy we used to be black but all the monsanto food caused our skin to bleach.

Makes sense, apes have black skin.

So whites evolved more.

Before this gets turned into a race war, bear in mind evolution does not always mean better... just different.

I don't think you understand evolution or genetics at the most fundamental level. How would you measure "more evolved?" Varying more genetically from a common ancestor? There is more genetic variability within races than among them.

Also, our closest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, is actually "white" under the fur.

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
The first time I ever experienced racism was from someone from this site telling me just that.

White people don't even belong on this planet, and that the native people people of Earth would be justified in killing us all.

It seems to be a popular theory.

CdT

Well, that wouldn't be very "humane". Instead they could just help us build our space ships so we can leave in peace. A little free labor goes a long ways. Honestly though, I don't even remotely see how that qualifies as a justification for genocide, what did we ever do to deserve that. It's not like we tried to take over the world and kill all of the indigenous people, well, not successfully anyways.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: rickymouse
We became white because the colors didn't like us.

Well, I made a stab at it anyway.

I don't buy into us being white because of living in caves either. They make up some stuff.

Scientifically, it seems obvious to me.

Peoples of Europe had wear cloths to stay warm when outside and stay inside because if the bad weather.

So we have cloths blocking sunlight from the skin, I doors blocking sun from the skin, and clouds blocking sun from the skin.

Hence less pigment, there was no need.

Nature wastes nothing, if it is being used, it will be reduced.

Why waste valuable energy and resources on something you don't need?

To me it would seem that with less sunlight, you would need darker skin to absorb the sunlight. White skin reflects more of the light than dark skin would. White reflects most of the spectrum while black absorbs more of the spectrum.

This contradicts what we are told though, it is backwards. I tan to almost dark brown when I work in the sun though. I have tiny red/tan bumps on my skin. I am half dark Finn.

I come from an area where copper is high in the water, so the body adapted and I don't take in copper properly. Now, copper darkens your hair and many of us have grey hair when we get older. The excess copper that is not utilized correctly accumulates in the kidneys if we do not eat enough tyramines, aged foods, to make us use it.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Spider879

Yeah, so like I said,

King tut was a descendant of proto Europeans.

haplogroup R1b1a2 is present in less than 1% of Africa. I dont care what they say in a mad scramble. haplogroup R1b1a2 is not found in south Africa....Even if it was all based on a snippet showing this....its a damned important snippet.

Sigh but it wasn't his, it was a controlled test sample that the Swedish guy took off the internet, okay look at it from another POV, if this was true then the rest of his male line should be carrying the same, but it does not unless someone other than Akhenaten was playing hide the salami with his Mom supposedly the YUCK! sister minor wife of Akhenaten, and another thing R1b or V88 is present in high amount in Chad, Cameroon and Northern Nigeria, of up ward of 40 to 70 % however don't go looking for a white guy in Chad or Cameroon, or even Iberia where it came from 16kyrs ago and back migrated to Africa, then re-migrated back into Europe thousands of yrs later from Africa, in any case Tut and his fam are Es.