Blacks, whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientis

reply to post by sara123123

....after the powers that be lost their power base of white male preferences to divide and conquer the public - turning citizen against citizen - they had to come up with a new racial hate and discrimination scheme to create a new divide and conquer power base. So in the seventies, they moved to preferring Blacks and all women as a group (later adding an invented "race" - Hispanics), complete with race and sex studies that develop doctrines to explain their superiority over the new targets - white males. They turned white males into the demons society must punish for being genetically and morally unequal to the new prefered grouping. This justifyed them denying white males equality under the law and an idenity.

Targeting white males has killed two birds with on stone. First, American white males hold the history of the constitutional ideology and second they held the ethical standards and philosphy of Western culture. To get total power over Americans - to defeat the consitutional contraints and the ethical requirements of American culture, the elite had the chance to demolish it in the name of erasing white male racism.

So this is why the sheeple are taught to vomit out "racist" at anyone who dares speak outside the box of the proper multicultural race and sex superiority and hate doctrines. There is a lot Black pride wrapped up in the idea that they were the first people on earth and all races of people came out of their superior genetics....

White males are targeted out of revenge against a perceived racial stereotype which comprised the male members of the German Third Reich. It is out of the perception that an inclination towards Fascism, Racism, Misogyny, Homophobia and Patriarchal domination are inherent characteristics of an Aryan race. One can argue that it was German Nazi pseudoscience, that promoted the existence of proof that a white or Aryan race possessed certain superior qualities and was destined to rule over others, but the very fact that this group or "perceived race" has been systematically dis-empowered socially seems to suggest that another "perceived race" is afraid that one of the two perceptions is true.

Either this imaginary white race is the root of all prejudicial evils or they are feared to be superior. If neither is true then why would social engineers spend so much energy to make sure that they are absorbed by the racial melting pot.

If Hitler could have seen what was to eventuate in the future he would have returned to painting. What an influential man! Almost every post I have read on this thread subject, has been influenced by his social-political movement.

reply to post by sara123123

Ah yes, the old reverse-racism ploy, much beloved of racist losers who find that society has moved on and left them behind. Wondered when we were going to see it on this thread.

Yes, of course we all sympathize with poor oppressed downtrodden white people who have no human rights and are forever being hounded by evil politically correct coloured Commie liberals. Especially in America.

Good luck with that sell. You'll be needing it.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Because, you know, IQ tests are not at all culturally biased (!).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

IQ tests correlate with most of the other factors.
People with high IQs earn more.
Countries with high IQ people tend to be more prosperous,etc.
Somalia and Haiti versus Sweden and Japan

Much of it has to do with educated parents having the time and energy to do things with their kids.
The better off a family is, the more likely they are to be able to do this.

Practicing IQ test type activities helps too. The more practice kids are given in puzzle solving and abstract thinking, the better they will be able to solve problems on an IQ test. The more IQ tests you do the better you score.

Confidence and attitudes to being tested will affect scores.
Some people, "cool, what fun!"
They expect to do well and thus their brains can work at their best. When these kids can't solve a problem they stay relaxed, and go back to it later, sure that they'll find an answer if they keep trying.
At the other end of the spectrum, "Nooo! I can't do this!
Terror freezes the brain and they can't see answers which would normally be obvious.

However the important thing to ask when discussing I.Q. tests is exactly what do they measure?

I.Q. tests measure your ability to do I.Q. tests - to some extent.

Even in that small regard, the score you get is not a measure of your I.Q..
It's a measure of your minimum I.Q.

I.Q. != intelligence.

But if I plunk you and an Aboriginal Australian down in the middle of a plain, you're gonna die.

No way! RRockyy wouldn't starve or die horribly of thirst, to be left, slowly mummifying, on a lonely, barren sand-dune in the hellish Australian sun. He'd do just fine.
The Aborigine would take good care of him.

- Unless he got very hungry.

reply to post by sara123123

Isn't there a special forum for this kind of rant?
Not sure what it's called, but there's a lot of rants there; this rant would feel quite at home.

I think it might be called, "the forum for rants that would be off-topic in any other forum," or something like that.

reply to post by Astyanax

Yes, of course we all sympathize with poor oppressed downtrodden white people who have no human rights and are forever being hounded by evil politically correct coloured Commie liberals. Especially in America.

Being as you are South Asian by your own admission I really do not see how you can have any perception of what it means in the modern world to be a white heterosexual male. The facts are that the PC trollops are out of control, and whilst not targeting this group specifically, the result is such as the other groups are given more favourable voice. Now as to whether you consider this fact, perception or nothing is not relevant as it is the way the WHMs feel so do me a favour and on that subject stop being sarcastic about something you are not in a position to appreciate.

This of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. Whilst there is considerable genetic evidence to point to M-Eve and Y-Adam and it is reasonable with current knowledge to suggest that this is the answer, as you are well aware there is little in science in these frontier areas that is set in stone and even the theory admits that as it does not positively commit 100% to the possibilities.

We do not actually know where or when the human evolved/originated. What was the transition point between earlier hominids and homo sapiens sapiens? It is not known. Could there have been outside interference?

Caucasian by the way is not a race or a genotype or indeed anything at all other than an erroneous classification. I discussed this at length here - about half way down the post.

reply to post by Astyanax


So....colour, race, grouping, genetic difference doesn't matter....except if you are white.

Another excellent point. Thank you.

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Perhaps cross-breeding of the three species has resulted in a decline in the pureness of the former unadulterated races and explains the current situation human-wide? This would mean we are all mutts and jackasses. I feel qualified to make that assessment.

Hi Aliensun, thanks for your reply.
Just interested, but why do you think that cross-breeding explains the current situation human-wide?
Because, don’t you think that when that cross-breeding of the three species did not have happened it would be any different?
Is it not so then that the current situation human-wide is in now and as it seems for a very long time now, is really nothing more than a matter of power, greed, money, jealously, feeling themselves better for some reason than others, different religions and such?

And why may I ask do you think that we because of that are all mutts and jackasses, because I do not consider you as one.

Therefore, why may I ask, do you feel qualified to make that assessment?

reply to post by Kailassa


You can call it a rant if you want. But really it is an observation I have made after many years of study and that study came out of a deep desire that the elite no longer have the power to define, debase and discriminate against us by race to keep us separate.

Racism has been the base of power for the elite of our country since the beginning and you can not deny that they still make sure it contnues. It's very sad to me. I did not pretend segregation was all in good fun and I don't pretend today's scheme of racism is all in good fun. It is very serious to me.

reply to post by PuterMan

Being as you are South Asian by your own admission I really do not see how you can have any perception of what it means in the modern world to be a white heterosexual male.

Having lived, studied, worked and played among them, drunk with them, etc., etc., for quite large chunks of my life, and having more white friends of both sexes than I can feasibly count, I consider myself qualified to make a reasonable guess.

The facts are that the PC trollops are out of control, and whilst not targeting this group specifically, the result is such as the other groups are given more favourable voice.

If this were true (a claim that statistics from America and elsewhere do not--yet --support) it would merely be the inevitable pendulum-swing away from four hundred years of economic and cultural world domination by white men. Notice the word 'inevitable'; historical process observably works this way; the pendulum swings, the sceptre passes from hand to hand. No doubt it feels unpleasant to you to feel it pass from your grasp; I can only suggest you take your medicine like a man.

Whilst there is considerable genetic evidence to point to M-Eve and Y-Adam and it is reasonable with current knowledge to suggest that this is the answer, as you are well aware there is little in science in these frontier areas that is set in stone and even the theory admits that as it does not positively commit 100% to the possibilities.

To find out how wrong you are, read the foregoing discussion on the thread. As somebody pointed out, mitochondrial Eve and Y Adam lived millennia apart. Anyway, there is absolutely no possibility of parallel human evolution leading to a single species in which several genotypes conflue. Humans are not bacteria.

We do not actually know where or when the human evolved/originated.

Africa. The evidence is overwhelming.

What was the transition point between earlier hominids and homo sapiens sapiens? It is not known.

But we know that the hominoids returned to Africa before giving rise to the hominids.

Could there have been outside interference?

Oh, not that pathetic aliens-fiddled-with-our-DNA tosh again...

Caucasian by the way is not a race or a genotype or indeed anything at all other than an erroneous classification.

I do not recall having used the word in this thread.

*

reply to post by Aeons

So....colour, race, grouping, genetic difference doesn't matter....except if you are white.

I don't recall having said anything of the kind. I never said colour didn't matter; in the world of human affairs it obviously has and does have cultural implications. Race does not exist but culture does.

And what on earth is 'grouping'? It sounds like something adolescents get up to when the lights go off.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

But that always happens to such earthshaking new views.

There's nothing new about such views. Racism is very old and such claims are very similar to those made by Nazis who went so far as to trudge up an entire branch of pseudoscience to prove their claim to a Master Race. If human beings had evolved from separate species in separate parts of the world we would be separate species probably unable to interbreed and our genetics would not be as similar. The genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.

Please, I don't mean to be rude to you. What you say about the Nazis is true. The American white racists had their own set of bizarre race doctrines demonizing Blacks and other races of people, too.

But I am wondering if you looked at the studies by the scholar referenced by the OP which made the claim that people did not all begin in Africa or are you just guessing that it is a racist ruse?

reply to post by sara123123


The evidence for our origins being in Africa is pretty solid and most scientists agree that only after we left Africa and traveled to vastly different climates did the differences we collectively call race begin to emerge. I don't need to read the study to know that most scientists disagree with this guy, if he manages to change the scientific consensus however than I'd be more inclined to believe him.

It's not necessarily racist but it sure sounds that way. Attempts at racial pseudoscience go back a long way. It could be that this guy isn't racist and that he honestly thinks he has a legitimate point and, if he does have the evidence to support his claim peer review should see his ideas vindicated and scientific consensus should be overturned.

reply to post by sara123123

I am wondering if you looked at the studies by the scholar referenced by the OP which made the claim that people did not all begin in Africa or are you just guessing that it is a racist ruse?

Akhil Bakshi's own words can be read at the links provided in the OP. He has not, as far as I know, published anything else yet about his 'theory'.

Bakshi is not a scientist or a scholar. He is a photographer! As for his educational background, it is in management. You can read about him here. Yes, it's the same guy.

It is true that Bakshi is a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society, but this is not as prestigious as it sounds. The RGS is not the Royal Society. Membership is open to all and sundry and Fellowship may be conferred on anyone who has been a member for more than five years.

To sum up, this is a hypothesis by a nonscientist with no scholarly or academic credentials. If it wasn't racist, no-one would have paid it the blindest bit of attention.

As for racism and racial supremacism, they exist worldwide. Indians are as susceptible to it as anyone else--and are particularly fond of the same Aryan poppycock spouted by white Nazis. A massive stream of racial and religious bigotry has always run through Indian society and politics; indeed, South Asia contains some of the most divided, hate-filled societies in the world. I am not sure where Bakshi fits into all this, but you may be sure he does.

Originally posted by sara123123
But I am wondering if you looked at the studies by the scholar referenced by the OP which made the claim that people did not all begin in Africa or are you just guessing that it is a racist ruse?

It's quite reasonable that you would assume someone making these extraordinary claims would be basing them on studies he's made.

However he has not published any such studies,
it appears no-one else has either,
there is no indication that any such studies were done and
he does not have any qualifications which would lead one to believe he knows what he's talking about.

Akhil Bakshi's hypothesis is that each continent, after separating from Pangaea, evolved its own humans from whatever small mammals happened to be on it. It's unlikely these continents even possessed the same mammals. The idea that each continent could evolve a species separately, for that length of time, and they would all turn out looking human and being interfertile is so silly one has to look at the possible motives for promoting this idea. And that was not just for the three main racial groups.

He claims indigenous “Negroid” populations occur in places like Australia, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and the Andaman Islands . . . and North America

The only support he gives for his theory is his belief that man could not have spread according to the current out of Africa theory because that would have entailed crossing oceans, and there was no way primitive man would have been capable of doing that.

However Bakshi was not the first to raise this objection. In the early 20th century there were others who saw this as a stumbling block. Hoping to prove his own settlement theory, Thor Heyerdahl launched the Kon Tiki expedition.

Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times. His aim in mounting the Kon-Tiki expedition was to show, by using only the materials and technologies available to those people at the time, that there were no technical reasons to prevent them from having done so. (Although the expedition carried some modern equipment, such as a radio, watches, charts, sextant, and metal knives, Heyerdahl argued they were incidental to the purpose of proving that the raft itself could make the journey.)

The Kon-Tiki expedition was funded by private loans, along with donations of equipment from the United States Army. Heyerdahl and a small team went to Peru, where, with the help of dockyard facilities provided by the Peruvian authorities, they constructed the raft out of balsa logs and other native materials in an indigenous style as recorded in illustrations by Spanish conquistadores. The trip began on April 28, 1947. Heyerdahl and five companions sailed the raft for 101 days over 4,300 miles across the Pacific Ocean before smashing into a reef at Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7, 1947. The crew made successful landfall and all returned safely.

Kon-Tiki demonstrated that it was possible for a primitive raft to sail the Pacific with relative ease and safety, especially to the west (with the wind). The raft proved to be highly maneuverable, and fish congregated between the nine balsa logs in such numbers that ancient sailors could have possibly relied on fish for hydration in the absence of other sources of fresh water.

Later Thor Heyerdahl demonstrated the Atlantic also could be crossed in a primitive boat, Ra II.

In 1969 and 1970, Heyerdahl built two boats from papyrus and attempted to cross the Atlantic from Morocco in Africa. Based on drawings and models from ancient Egypt, the first boat, named Ra, was constructed by boat builders from Lake Chad in the Republic of Chad using papyrus reed obtained from Lake Tana in Ethiopia and launched into the Atlantic Ocean from the coast of Morocco. After a number of weeks, Ra took on water after its crew made modifications to the vessel that caused it to sag and break apart. The ship was abandoned and the following year, another similar vessel, Ra II was built using totora reed instead, by boatmen from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia and likewise set sail across the Atlantic from Morocco, this time with great success. The boat reached Barbados, thus demonstrating that mariners could have dealt with trans-Atlantic voyages by sailing with the Canary Current.

So we can see the only argument Bakshi has for his hypothesis of separate, parallel evolution was disproved long ago.

reply to post by Kailassa


Thanks for the information.

Originally posted by Aeons
There is a significant difference between "they all look alike" and "there are groupings of persons who share similiar traits, and those groupings are and have historically been geographically clustered."

edit on 2010/12/6 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Except they really don't share similar traits, if you're actually looking. Let's take Africans, who are often just lumped together as one group. Yeah, the vast majority of Africans have dark skin; they also have toenails The two traits are about equally meaningful, not the least of which because "dark skin" is pretty damn common around the world, even in people who's connection to Africa is about two hundred thousand years distant.

Does a Moroccan look much like a Masaai? Does this Igbo lady look a lot like the Masaai dude? They're both part of the "Bantu" ethnic group. Here's a picture of some Twa people. They're all from the same village, but they look like, nothing alike. Aside from stature, they don't much resemble the Mbuti people, either. And here, we have a picture of four other peoples from Africa; Clockwise from top left, a !kung woman from Angola, Jo//hoansi hunters from Namibia, ≠Kx’au-//ein hunters from Botswana, and Hadzabe men from Tanzania. Here we have a pair of Falasha from Ethiopia, while this fellow is from Sudan.

And this is just African people, who's longest genetic origin is in Africa; There's no shortage of "whites" and "arabs" in Africa, and the Malagasy people are actually Asian in origin (No, really, their ancestors lived in what is today Taiwan.)

So how broad a "geographical cluster" are we talking about?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

So how broad a "geographical cluster" are we talking about?

Oh, I think a continent should just about do.

Just posting to add that those 'negroid' Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Australians, etc., aren't actually 'Negroid' at all. They look very different from the race-stereotype African, and differ among each other too.

The truth is, nowadays nearly everyone's a mongrel. After thousands of years of exploration and seafaring, our genes are bouillabaisse.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

The genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.

Doesn't explain the horned skulls found in Sayre, Pennsylvania for example.

We've been living for quite a few decades and nobody's seen a genetic mutation of someone growing two horns out of their head.

Had to come from not-of-this-world.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Africans don't look alike because the two groups were separted by a gigantic desert for a long time.

Are you telling me you can't look at Africans from Africa and SEE which group their ancestry is from????

Also, many of the people whom you are saying don't look alike do. Their skeletons look similar to each other.

The areas you are referencing are also in zones where groups are clearly intermingling. If you moved to away from those zones and into the center of those areas, the contributing sources become more apparent in their differences.

Differences are defining. They need not be used for comparisons of superiority. This doesn't make those differences unimportant.

Again, Neanderthal admixture proves the point.

Groups in different areas have mixtures of other isolated groups of closely related hominids.

Genetic studies have led to the suggestion that in early hominids the continued breeding with the ancestors of chimpanzees continued for sometime. These exact same phenomena would have happened with other closely related hominids or even isolated human groups.

The two pan sub-species show some pretty important differences mainly created by geographic isolation. One group is coloured differently than the other. One is larger than the other. But they can cross breed, and many of the captive chimpanzees ARE cross breeds.

The differences between the two pan are very interestingly the same types of differences you see in HUMANS who were geographically separated - Differences that OTHER hominids were also showing. For example, the Neanderthal.

Scientists keep coming up with some ridiculous reasons for Europeans. When I can point out THREE other simians in existence today with the same variations, and where those variations occur in one species with geographic isolation those variations are SUB-SPECIES.

It isn't a MORAL difference. It's a description of a genetic sub-set showing notable differentiation.

******

As to the people with the "whites are superior" or the "whites are all oppressive meanies" thing going on - the idea that the Irish (arguably the whitest people on the planet) would have been considered superior to ANYONE before 1930 is ludicrious. Seriously, you have to have no knowledge of history of the peoples you are talking about if you think that.

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

The genetic evidence showing our migration out of Africa is pretty strong.

Doesn't explain the horned skulls found in Sayre, Pennsylvania for example.

We've been living for quite a few decades and nobody's seen a genetic mutation of someone growing two horns out of their head.

Had to come from not-of-this-world.

Horns aren't a new phenomena. And no, they aren't from out of this world. They are bone growths, warts gone wild, and have happened in many places over time. there are people alive right now with them.

If you found a cluster, it is likely a case of a tribe or family group with a immunity issue and a case of warts provoking the same reaction in closely related people.

www.wjso.com...

reply to post by Aeons


Aeons, you are (apparently) arguing that humanity consists of three races, which each evolved separately, on separate continents, from different types of simian.

Do you agree that a fusion event occurred which created chromosome 2?
Do you agree that this event occurred in our ancestors after they became human?
Do you agree that this fusion would have initially made reproduction difficult, and thus the survival of this trait was unlikely?

How do you explain all humans today having this trait if we evolved from separate ancestors?

How do you explain all human mitichondria pointing back to one distant human female ancestor?

How do you explain human genes all pointing back to one human male ancestor?

How do you explain the fact that human "races" are closer to each other genetically than they are to any simian ancestor?

And lastly, do you have any reason to believe the Out Of Africa theory is not possible?