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.

 

Where did the White man come from?

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
double.
edit on 3 29 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

So its not about where we came from , but about where we live. This is what evolution can do. Black people , are black not for just no reason , it started because their body , was protecting it self from the sunburns. Asians , have eyes the way they do because of the windy enviorment they were raised in. So all races were not made for no reason , but the evolution did it , so our bodies are used to the enviorment around us. If you would have a family in Africa lets say , the skin of youre family will start changing after decades , it may take over 200 years maybe more , but the family will look diffrent.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Check out this account of various races of color. (www.urantia.org...)


(post by ziplock9000 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
Yeah thats the obvious answer. But Europe is so large. Where is the empire?

I would say ancient Greece but their has to be something more ancient than that.
Plus most greeks at the time were olive skin and black hair.

Same with Rome, most had olive skin and black hair.

With every race of mankind you can point to a civilisation that they came from, but not the white man.


No. its smaller than the other places mentioned in the OP



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
wow so when someone asks where the black man came from they are instantly labelled racist but this nonsense is allowed to exist on a site that claims to deny ignorance? as a white man, i am offended! political correctness be damned.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JourneymanWelder

This is not a discussion of racial issues in the social sense, but a discussion of physical traits and their origins. You seem to be misunderstanding the topic?

This is the ancient & lost civilizations forum, not a social issues forum or political mud pit.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Melanin is produced within the skin, is responsible for the color of our skin and protects us against the harsh rays of the sun.
The color of our skin is totally of environmental consequence, as the human population moved out of Africa, into different climates where they needed more or less than the average level of melanin coloration required to protect them.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The Caucasus through White Russia.




Yeah, apparently it was Japheth, Noah's son, who migrated through the caucus mountains that eventually gave rise to the caucasian race. The REASON these people became white is because their geographic latitude was far from the equator and they required less melanin in their skin to absorb sunlight, which caused their skin to get lighter. less melanin in your skin means whiter skin tone.

The reason, for example, why Native Americans maintained a consistent skin tone among latitudes on their continent is because they migrated with the sun, unless they were in a sedentary civilization near the equator (around central america and the upper half of south america). Europeans remained sedentary through winters at relatively extreme latitudes, and thus got less sun, and it was adaptable to not waste energy on manufacturing melanin when sun exposure was not as common as say, near the equator in central Africa.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

From what I have heard, white people do produce malanin. They just produce a different type. Its not about needing more or less...its just different due to different needs.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Where do white horses come from? They must be from a different specie than the average horse.



Seriously, grow up.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

Yeah, apparently it was Japheth, Noah's son, who migrated through the caucus mountains that eventually gave rise to the caucasian race. The REASON these people became white is because their geographic latitude was far from the equator and they required less melanin in their skin to absorb sunlight, which caused their skin to get lighter. less melanin in your skin means whiter skin tone.


No, less melanin in your skin does not mean whiter skin.Melanin is simply a broad term for the pigments that determine skin and hair color and to an extent, eye color. Skin tone has far more to do with vitamin D absorption, or more precisely the need for such. A native born Congolese doesnt have more or less melanin than a native born Norwegian.



The reason, for example, why Native Americans maintained a consistent skin tone among latitudes on their continent is because they migrated with the sun, unless they were in a sedentary civilization near the equator (around central america and the upper half of south america).


Except that aboriginal Americans do not have a consistent skin tone irrespective of latitude. Most populations were not moving seasonally to the extent it would affect pigmentation the way you try to depict it. Many were, as you say, sedentary. For those that did not stay in one spot all year, the variation in latitude just wasnt enough to cause the effects you imply.


Europeans remained sedentary through winters at relatively extreme latitudes, and thus got less sun, and it was adaptable to not waste energy on manufacturing melanin when sun exposure was not as common as say, near the equator in central Africa.


What does thst even mean? "It was adaptable to not waste emergy manufacturing melanin..." Its a non sequitor and not remotely true. All humans produce melanin, even those with albinism. The albinism is a result of the bodies inability to synthesize the malanin. There is some variation in concentration of melanocytes whuch react to UV radiation but its not the same as whatyou are imp,yimg in relation to skin color.

Just to give a correlation, here are latitudinal maps of N. America and Europe with cities from the other continent overlayed to give you an idea of how faulty your analogy is regarding latitudinal correspondence being a primary factor in pigmentation expression.





edit on 30-3-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Hay all thanks for contributing,

Just a quick note to bring most people on track, this is not a thread how humans became white.
Mearly curious on the 1st known society/culture where white people were the prodominent people.

I understand the use of the word race, how about breeds? the different 'breeds' of humans.
Such as the different breeds of cats or dogs etc. Their still cats/dogs!

Also the opinion that this thread is racists please educate yourself in the actual definition of racist, please.

'The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.'

or

'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.'

Like my OP said
'Also this is not a racist thread nor do I wish racist comments. Facts are not racist but if said fact are written on this thread to be derogatory I would like the mods to remove it.
No race is better than any other. All has geniuses, dumbarses, trouble makers, saints and more.'


If anyone is racist on this thread I would very much like the mods to remove their post.

Also I and most people with a light beige skin colour consider themselves white. This is not racist!
My African friends, although differing shades of brown, considered themselves black. This is not racist this is just how we as a race define ourselves to other races... sorry breeds of human.
Science may not define skin colour as a defining racial feature, but most humans do.

Also dont really want this thread to get into Alien genetic engineering or mythical islands.
Dont get me wrong I love entertaining the hell out of these ideas but there is no evidence of it.

Atlantis my fav myth island, I think this was just a grandfather telling his grandkid a story and the kid believed it even when he grew up. This is quiet normal even in todays times. How many stories do adults tell kids that arnt true?
All information from Atlantis that has survived originated from said grandkid, Plato. Even smart people can be fooled.

---

Spider879 bro and tadaman, all good with your posts and very interesting. Although not really part of the OP if you want to continue your debate all good. Interesting info.

peter vlar,
come on, whats your qualifications? Really, your posts seem like you know what your talking about, which is good given the topic of this thread. Dont really mind if your self taught but in what fields? Also thanks for the contribution.

--

Been looking at ancient Greek paint work and gotta say, most people are white skinned. Or at least Athens was.
At this stage it appears this is the earliest known culture or society where white people where the more predominant.
Cannot really find any paintings from ancient Caucasia. Does anyone know where to find these?

Anyone able to point me towards any reliable ancient russian sources? Seems it was settled around 40k years ago.
but earliest known culture is around 800Bc. Gotta be something earlier than that!

Again cheers all for the contribution as I think this is a good subject to discuss.

Coomba98


edit on 30-3-2015 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2015 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2015 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman
Ok Tadaman agree with some stuff disagree with others



The language of Tut and co, was late Egyptian. We know that it was definitely of the proto Afro-asiatic language family. The language spoken by Tut and co came before Demotic and the later coptic which is still used somewhat. It is far removed from the Egyptian arabic spoken today.

At the time of Tut and Fam, Afro-asiatic was fully developed and branched off long ago, Semitic being the youngest branch and the Semitic itself the proto part came out of present day Ethiopia and spread to the Arabian peninsular by about 5kyrs B.C
A Conversation with Christopher Ehret

Christopher Ehret, UCLA
Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas


WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.

And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu...

Caution the above is kinda old he may have tweaked the info since then.





The Berber people call themselves Amazigh: Berber is a name that has been given them by others and which they themselves do not use. Their often dark appearance is caused by the sun: they are ethnologically and genetically White. Ethnologically, the Tuaregs of North Africa (the so-called "Blue People of the Sahara") are Berbers who speak an ancient dialect of Berber called Tamachek. Genetically light-skin and blue-eyes prevail. With their aquiline noses, high cheekbones (often with blonde or reddish hair), they are said to resemble their alleged Atlantean ancestors—many individuals are over six feet tall. When questioned, they do not hesitate to name Atlantis as their lost homeland.

Ok here we need to be careful, Proto-European being the operative word here,we all agree on back migration from Iberia those are just facts, however what those early Iberians looked liked is a whole other story, remember La Brana man, well he was just about the right time frame in Spain for a crossing back into Africa, the thing is he was as dark as a New Guinean but less so than a Southern Sudanese, and that's pretty black, I'd roughly match him in complexion, his other brothers would end-up in North Europe to become White sometime there after.
How Farming Reshaped Our Genomes
news.sciencemag.org...
Klik^^here.

If I were looking for a definite Lite-skinned rather than a dark skinned Eurasian crossing back into Africa,I'd lay my bets on the 19th Dyn under Merneptah, the Thera eruption, mass migration and conflict that swept the Mediterranean, you might recognized them as the Sea People,displaced refugees from the Trojan wars they overran much of the east but were stopped dead in their tracks by the Kemities, Mereneptah more than likely kept some as slaves but he couldn't settle an entire people within in his borders so he sent them west to Libya to live among the Tehennu a Black folk with whom they were allied in their war against Kemet, they appeared after this date on the walls and in history as the Temahu,one source said the name meant the created white people..don't know how true is but they appeared like this.

Book of Gates
Note they rapidly took on the culture of their host the original Libyans in dress and mannerism they intermarried among them, however something weird happened with their Dna it seemed lopsided, by their mothers they are heavily Eurasians but by their fathers they are heavily East African, either the Eurasian males were depleted through wars or, their host turned on them. but they never stopped importing Eurasian females centuries later that practice was remarked upon the Romans and the Arabs later yet.

Note the Tattoo on this modern day Fulani man and the Temahu of centuries earlier.

Compare the dress of these to the above.
The Amazigh live in different tribes called Kels, those on the coast tend to be lite others in the interior tend to be Black.
The Tuareg also are basically black in the interior,the Kybeles are among the whitest group however many suspect they are recent but they do not present the Kels as a whole.

President of Algeria A coastal, meeting with Berber Chiefs from the interior note he himself is a Berber both are related despite the difference in looks and color.
edit on 30-3-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Interesting stuff.

I know an ethiopian group of males. There are about 20 of them that go to the bar /restaurant I work at.

Here is how they explained their identity and that of Africa.

Africa was divided into west and eastern parts at least to the civilized world of the ancient past. There was Ethiopis which was the west, and Soudan for the east. The names being taken over by MODERN populations of Ethiopia and Sudan respectively but were completely unrelated to the ancient people living in the territories with these names of the ancient past. There is interesting history behind the choice of both these names but thats not really important.

Modern day Ethiopians consider themselves a mixed people. You are right. The term Amazigh, what encmopasses the berber set of languages is said to mean "freemen", though the Ethiopians I know think it means "mixed people" and that somehow Germans gave them that name....In any event, these men tell me they are a mix of Kush, semitic, kemetic, and Nile peoples. They also think that many other groups were absorbed into them as time went on.

I think you are mistaken about Afro Asiatic being a well developed language family in the upper neolithic. It was well on its way, but to say that it was similar to its modern and final state is off. These are times when stone age languages were still being used in decreasing numbers or were influencing later ancient languages, such as semitic languages were. Though a sub group, that doesnt mean a semitic language family could have been a separate group and later absorbed as a sub group by the speakers transcending into a minority status. Semitic languages though a sub group of Afro Asiatic could have been a founding base for the larger language family they now are classified as a subgroup of.

In any event interesting stuff. I dont want to go on and on since now I think we would start to delve into subjects not related to the OP.

I just wanted to address one thing you said earlier. The thing about head binding. That is a GLOBAL practice that no one can explain away since it developed independently from each people that did it. In almost all cases it was to emulate the Gods.

The use of red magnetite ore applied to the skin so as to appear RED is also a global religious practice from the remote prehistory of man. Some hominids had elongated skulls like neanderthal and may have been the dominant groups of a tribute system where subservience by modern humans living under older hominids like Neanderthal was standard. Who taught who what is still debatable if we consider all the evidence of Homosapien and neanderthal development.

In the end I think we were servants and that a select group of these RH- older more robust hominids intermarried with more modern populations they bred into existence of modern man and these traditional neanderthal overlords just emulated what was the norm of dominance over modern homosapien for a LONG time by becoming the ruling classes mixed with sapien stock of later populations centers they helped to create. These mixed populations in the role of ruling classes oversaw purely sapien populations. Like before, Neanderthal could have drawn from his longer and more developed experience to shape how Homosapien perceived them. Perhaps neanderthal found a way to take a role of preeminence in early sapien spirituality placing neanderthal at preeminence over large groups of sapien. It is possible that neanderthal even shaped this perception itself by giving sapien a form of spirituality to all aspects of life which was under a larger pantheon or Hierarchy of neanderthal leadership and spirituality.

neanderthal with their elongated skulls and wealth of knowledge could have taken advantage of Homosapien mythologies and traditions if not directly shaped them to their own convenience and for them to be emulated by sapiens physically with head binding and by painting themselves red like them. There is evidence of mostly neanderthal females choosing sapien husband men in the DNA we know we inherited from them. As far as Ireland there are myths of red headed Goddesses who took native men to be their husbandmen so as to have children of mixed heritage.

This could be reflective of older mythologies where fertility and the role of the female was supreme over the males. In prehistoric times, society was probably maternal in nature and the females probably chose their sexual partners...Also, Tut and company would have spoken late Egyptian, but would have been speaking middle Babylonian to each other and other rulers they were related to. Perhaps since it was a sort of mother culture to the ruling classes of the ancient world rather than one to different populations.

What is interesting is the fact that the place of cohabitation by neanderthal and Homosapien was in the middle east and not too far from the traditional center of Babylonian life.

The royals may have inherited their practice of inbreeding from neanderthal who practiced inbreeding as a norm. Neanderthal Formed tightly knit family units that existed near but not with other small family units in an agreed upon area of influence that they were semi nomadic in, but not fixed to with large scale agriculture and settlements. They are thought to have been VERY incestuous.

The origin to the white man is neanderthal and other former hominids both known and unknown.

Homo sapien may have been born modern and with white and other classifications of what we see as race already well developed. We modern humans may have been bred like dogs by more dominant hominids of the remote past.

No one likes that part.

In any event, have a good one.
Hold it down.


edit on 3 30 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Thanks for the input bro cheers..



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Yeah man, good conversation.

have a good one sir,
Hold it down.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar


No, less melanin in your skin does not mean whiter skin.Melanin is simply a broad term for the pigments that determine skin and hair color and to an extent, eye color. Skin tone has far more to do with vitamin D absorption, or more precisely the need for such. A native born Congolese doesnt have more or less melanin than a native born Norwegian.


That is completely ignorant, melanin is what determines skin color. skin tone has nothing to do with vitamin D absorption, vitamin D is synthesized when the skin is exposed to sunlight. When white people "tan" it is their melanosomes that begin to synthesis melanin which becomes visible in the epidermis as a tan. Darker skin complexions have higher baseline production of melanin.



Except that aboriginal Americans do not have a consistent skin tone irrespective of latitude. Most populations were not moving seasonally to the extent it would affect pigmentation the way you try to depict it. Many were, as you say, sedentary. For those that did not stay in one spot all year, the variation in latitude just wasnt enough to cause the effects you imply.


Most sedentary Native American Cultures were near the equator (Think Mayans, Incans, etc), whereas the ones who were in where contemporary USA is were mostly nomadic (think teepees). The nomadic lifestyle was made apparent to anthropologists observing that the Native Americans planted desirable plants along a north-south axis to coincide with their seasonal migration.



What does thst even mean? "It was adaptable to not waste emergy manufacturing melanin..." Its a non sequitor and not remotely true.


Why produce melanin if there is no sunlight for the melanin to absorb? Only sedentary europeans actually stayed through a winter season. White people have a lower baseline production of melanin, they can produce melanin, which is what a tan is. This way, they did not have to waste energy producing melanin during winter months, because producing melanin requires energy.



All humans produce melanin, even those with albinism.


No. "Albinism is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin."

Albinism is a perfect example. complete Albinos (as in, albinos that produce no pigment) cannot produce melanin, that is why their skin is completely white.



Just to give a correlation, here are latitudinal maps of N. America and Europe with cities from the other continent overlayed to give you an idea of how faulty your analogy is regarding latitudinal correspondence being a primary factor in pigmentation expression.






Yeah exactly, European countries are very far north, and thus they were farther away from the sun especially during winter months. This is why the Europeans developed a paler skin complexion. There's even a gradient within Europe, look at the Swedes, they are much paler than say, Spaniards.

This map shows what I'm saying: www.pinterest.com...
edit on 30-3-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
You guys are wrong about melanin MAKING skin color. That is not a climatological adaptation but rather a genetic one. Having more or less melanin determines skin color but what governs melanin production is not climate. Our genes do.


There are two types of melanin--eumelanin and pheomelanin. In general, the more eumelanin in your skin, the darker your skin will be. People who make more pheomelanin than eumelanin tend to have lighter skin with freckles.

Like many other traits, the amount and kind of pigment in your skin is controlled by genes. The version you have of each of these genes work together to create the final product -- your skin color.



The amount of melanin production is governed by genes. If not you would have black people living in northern latitudes turning white...or lighter.



There are at least three ways people can end up with different skin color. One way is if people make less pigment. Less pigment = lighter skin.

Another way is when people have fewer melanocytes. Fewer melanocytes mean less pigment overall and so lighter skin.

The third way is a bit more complicated and has to do with the kind of pigment someone makes. There are two types of melanin. Eumelanin is black or brown pigment and pheomelanin is red or yellow pigment.

People who make lots of pheomelanin tend to have lighter skin, often because of freckling. Freckles happen when melanocytes clump together.

Melanocytes are usually spread pretty evenly in the skin. So when freckles form, some spots of the skin have lots of melanocytes (freckles) and other spots have few or none. Where there are no melanocytes, the skin is very fair.



Skin Color Genes

Scientists have figured out that several genes are involved in skin color. One of these genes is the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R).

When MC1R is working well, it has melanocytes convert pheomelanin into eumelanin. If it's not working well, then pheomelanin builds up.

Most people with red hair and/or very fair skin have versions of the MC1R gene that don't work well. This means they end up with lots of pheomelanin, which leads to lighter skin. (For more information on MC1R and red hair, check this out.)

Two other skin color genes were first identified in fish. One gene was found in stickleback fish and the other in zebrafish.

Researchers studying the stickleback fish found that the kit ligand gene (kitlg) was different between dark and light stickleback fish. They also found that humans have different versions of this gene too! And that certain versions lead to lighter skin
genetics.thetech.org...

EDIT TO ADD:
There are studies that show that what we know about melanin producing skin type or protecting from UV radiation may be off.


There are two types of melanin in mammals, the brownish black eumelanin and the reddish yellow pheomelanin. Eumelanin and pheomelanin are present in human hair and this study was carried out to see whether both pigments are also present in human epidermis. Samples of epidermis were obtained from suction blisters raised in the upper arm of 13 Caucasian subjects of skin types I, II, and III and analyzed for both eumelanin and pheomelanin using a procedure involving high-performance liquid chromatography.

Eumelanin and pheomelanin were found in all epidermal samples and their relative proportions correlated well with those found in samples of hair taken from the same subjects. The lowest concentrations of eumelanin were found in subjects of skin type I, with higher levels in skin types II and III. The concentrations of pheomelanin were more variable and showed no relationship to skin type. Increases in the concentrations of both pigments occurred following PUVA therapy, but whereas the largest increases in eumelanin were seen in skin types II and III, the increases in pheomelanin showed little relationship to skin type. Unlike eumelanin, epidermal pheomelanin also showed little relationship to PUVA-induced tanning. The present findings could be particularly significant in view of recent suggestions that pheomelanin, rather than protecting the skin against UV radiation, may actually contribute to UV-induced skin damage.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




edit on 3 30 2015 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
You guys are wrong about melanin MAKING skin color. That is not a climatological adaptation but rather a genetic one.


The genes changed according to the environment; in this case it was the different levels of sun light that coincide with a given latitude and lifestyle (staying inside during the winter). Genetic expression was altered due to these factors. Melanin, or lack there of, is the result of climate. maybe, MAYBE not, but empricial evidence suggests that this is the case:

www.gnxp.com...

Melanin is much more than just a skin protectant, but that requires its own thread.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join