We know that the general consensus is that the first human beings were brown skinned, "african" in appearance ala modern Africans, since the first
humans originated, according to Science theory, in East/Northeast Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt). Then they migrated at
various stages, some tribes moving Northwest to Marutania/Morocco and Spain, while others went East, up into the Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia, where
the lands were not all desert at the time, but much the opposite of desert. It was much more fertile land for growing crops that it is today.
From there, a group went up into East Europe, while others went East into Iran, then Tibet, from where there was a split from a common ancestor of
Central/East Asians and Eurasian Caucasian people. So, some people went North and Northeast up into the Caucasus Mts, then up into the Steppes of
Russia and Ukraine, from which, later on, tribes of warriors on horseback would bring the "Battle Axe" culture into Europe as they would
invade/migrate from the East. These were Sarmatians, Scythans, etc.
Now, I am not going to trace ALL of the migrations, as it would be a massive project and National Geographic has already done so. So I present their
interactive page which shows all the routes of migration and information about the people from those migrations.
Atlas of the Human Journey: Human Migrations and DNA
See, most of my life I have thought that black African people were the first human beings, that the first humans resembed modern day black African
people more so than any other modern human group. I thought that the first people to come up out of Africa and migrate were thus dark skinned, African
tribes. But now I have gotten what I have found to be a very different proposal of history.
What if the first humans in Africa were lighter skinned? What evidence is there that we have from 100,000 years ago that conclusively tells us these
people were black skinned? There's absolutely no evidence of that, we just assume it because the locals are all black in Africa, and as such, we
figure these are the ones who never left, correct? Well .. thnk about this.
What if the first people had pale, white skin, and Africa wasn't as arid and dry at the time, which it wasnt according to Science
. The desert
that seperates North Africa from the rest of Africa used to be fertile lands. We dont know how humid it was back then, how the sunlight was affecting
the skin back then, and all sorts of things we will never know.
The thing is, the whitest, palest people, are the ones that have travelled and settled FURTHEST
away from the origin point of Humanity. Take
for example, the Scandinavian peoples, and the Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles incl Scotland/Ireland, and even the Germans and so forth. These
are all people who have nations deep into the North, close to the North pole. This means they had to migrate out there, over time, travelling massive
distances. What if the oldest humans from Africa were white initially, and as they left while others stayed, over time the ones who stayed became
affected by the changes in the climate, habitat, temperature, ozone layer, humidity, sunlight, and so on. The humans who never branched out and stayed
in the origin land, Africa, are there to this day. But who is to say that they looked exactly the same 100,000yrs ago? Wouldn't being there so for
long has gradual changes into DNA of the people, who would have offspring with darker and darker skin and hair, to protect from increasing sun and
larger nostrils for humid air and so forth. Likewise, whatever tan pigment some of these North Europeans had was changed by the opposite effect.
So in other words, imagine it like this. First humans leave Africa, they go into the Middle East. At this time they look what he call "white" or
Caucasian. Once settling down in the Middle East for thousands of years, the skin tone, as well as hair and eyes, could gradually change to suit the
climate around them. This happens automaticly, from generation to generation, passed through DNA. But once they first arrived in the Middle East, some
didn't want to settle there, and still yet wanted to continue the migration Northward. There were also those who went Eastward, toward Iran and
Tibet. So, some passed through the Mid East, retaining relatively pale skin, and then others stayed, and now 100,000s years later, they have tan skin
and darker hair. Well geee id sure hope so.
Now, this group that doesn't stay in the Middle East but keeps going North, they eventually make it into Southern Europe in various places. Some
settled here, and this is why, being that the Southern Europe nations are closer to the equator, those who settled here naturally slowly became more
pigmented over tens of thousands of years, thus getting the tan/olive complexion that lots of Mederranian Europeans have. However, groups didn't all
stay in Southern Europe, some immediately continued their migration, eventually making it to the Northern limits of the land. This is where they
settled. At the time, perhaps the Ice and harshly cold temperatures may not have been quite as bad, I thought I read that at one point way back when,
even the Scandinavia had a temperate climate and not too much snow/ice.
Now I know there were tons of later, smaller migrations of individual tribes, like the Wesward push on Europe from Horde after Horde of horseback
warriors, as well as migrations from the Islamic Jihadists trying to come up through Spain, conquering it, and gunning for France n beyond. But these
small tribes and migrations are not what I'm talking about. I'm saying take it back 50,000 years and we will be on the same page here.
So if the first humans were white, the only humans that would be white today would be the ones who reached their current locations without stopping to
settle anywhere else, the tribes that travelled the longest. this is because they wouldnt have stayed in any particular area long enough to allow the
climate to affect their DNA in such a way that it does to people who settle in regions that are different from that which they came. So if they
travelled longest, is this not also corroborated by the fact that the North European civilizations were the least advanced during Antiquity in the
B.C. times, but became the most advanced, most powerful nations of all?
Those groups of humans who stopped to live here or there further south for a few milleniums, well, its going to show on their skin, hair, culture, and
so forth. Then the people who didn't go anywhere at all since the very beginning, well, they've been in Africa for the longest time, ever since it
became terribly arid, desert filled, and so forth. There was a seperation barrier, that huge desert that splits North and South Africa. Well the
people above the Desert have tan skin, those below it have black skin, and we know this desert has kept these peoples apart for millenia.
It's just so easy to think "if the first ones are black, the more time goes by, the ones furthest from the first ones will be white, and those
inbetween will be tan." Yeah, that makes some kind of sense. But so does this one: "if the first ones are white, the more time goes by, the ones
furthest from the first ones will also be white, because they made it to their destination by stopping the least amount of time & thereby having
minimal DNA change (pigment change). Their destination was furthest away to get to but had the same style of climate from that which they are from,
thus changing the DNA the least, having the least amount of change in pigmentation and hair color, as well as features indicitive of the climate of
the area." Just think of the Norse people, the Welsh, the Celtic, the Gauls, the Germanics. Then i can go on to say "Those who decided to stop and
settle in various ideal "pitstops" for massive human migration on foot, such as the Middle East and the coasts all along the Mediterannian Sea, all
sides of it, and stayed there to this day, now have slightly darker pigmentation to the point of a natural tan, brown/black hair becomes much more
common, brown eyes become much more common." Just think Italians, Spainiards, Arabs, Iranians, and Greeks.
So, in the end, it could only happen in two ways. Either the 1st ones were black, and became white through eons of migration through different
climates, or they were white, and became black as well as tan through staying put in certain climates while the rest of the humans move on to migrate
onward. Only those who stay somewhere will become in tuned with their new climate, even if it takes 1,000's of years.
During Antiquity, the Mediterannian and Middle East peoples were all at the peak of their Empires, warring it out for supremecy. These were all the
tan skinned ones who stayed put in the Mediterannian area and the Middle East. So why is it that the "white people tribes" were so.. primitive in
the sense of not having the same glorious achievments as these other people? The answer is right in front of you. They were on the move since humans
first existed! So while the Greeks were settled and working on building up, these white pale tribes were still hunter gatherer, why? Because they were
constantly on the move! Because they were constantly migrating Northward. And now who is in the Northernmost lands of our World? The most pale,
"white people" in existance.
I could be wrong, but there is something to the fact that if you're from the North, you are white. If from the middle, you are tan. If from the
South, you are varying shades of brown.
[edit on 1/21/2008 by runetang]