Chinese Scientist Proves The First Inhabitants Of China Were Black

reply to post by bowtomonkey


It is interesting you mention Australian aboriginals ....did you knkw that they are the closest link to Neanderthal alive today?

Their skeletal structure is very close to Neanderthal for example. Their shoulder blades are almost identical. People used to think that Neanderthal couldnt throw projectiles but looking at the Aboriginals and their Boomerangs, throwing spears and other such tools it was realized that Neanderthal COULD have hunted with projectiles.

Also aboriginal culture is probably similar to Neanderthal as well. A dream culture / spirituality.

The use of red iron oxide ore for one is a common and WIDE SPREAD spiritual practice all over the world most likely taught by Neanderthal to other people's.

The aboriginals fill in the holes where they dig for the stuff because they believe that the earth is a living being and that they only borrow from it.....much like the concept of native American peoples in the way they treated the land. A female entity.

It seems that when modern man embraced a paternal lineage of Deities that the concept of land was changed and replaced by a more structured spirituality focused around the fathers of the family....where before it was the mother.

This changed and replaced the old culture of female fertility Gods...and that of the dream spirituality we all once shared.

The main reason could ha e been the building of the first cities that made the deities take on a more structured role like that of king, war maker, and all those roles surrounding agriculture, medicine and the such.

So everyone had a particular God for their role in the city.

Beaver:

Perhaps people are upset because they are judged as "primitive" if they distance themselves from the squalor and violence that is modern-day Africa.

To label someone primitive because they don't agree with you is ignorance personified.

tadaman
reply to post by purplemer

 

ok this is ridiculous. African centric theories are starting to annoy the hell out of me.

So is the "evidence " from this ONE Chinese lab and scientist being peer reviewed yet?

Will it and will every African centrist wait until it is before speaking about it as though it is fact?

No sadly....they will just go into a self induced craze.

Also...There is NO evidence of the olmecs being from africa...Only the opinion that the giant stone heads were thought to resemble African traits.

I knkw MANY South Americans who have such traits. My wifes family has them and they are 100% Mexica.....

To me the olmec heads look like Neanderthal .....sooooo

Until evidence is peer reviewed it is NOT proof.

Gawd.....

edit on 9 21 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

edit on 9 21 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Wow, someone is taking such extreme offense at the "idea" that they may be descended from black people.

Forgive me, but wasnt this study also assisted by labs from around the world, and it isnt the spurious claims of just one scientist in China, who had a completely different theory to prove, only to fail, by coming up with the same result that previous DNA studies have come to, being that we are ALL descendants from a bottleneck in Africa, many thousands of years ago.

But yeah, how dare anyone say that you may be descended from black people?
Racist much?

Upton33
reply to post by purplemer

 

Let me tell you why the idea that first inhabitants of China being black is bull.

Africa is located too far from the pacific.

Black civilization are more tribal, and artifacts are not their to prove it.

Over 90% of the race in China is Han Chinese.

Don't believe every thing you hear on the interwebs.

edit on 21-9-2013 by Upton33 because: .

So i'm guessing you are ignorant to the fact that several civilizations lived in a "tribal" fashion besides just black African civilizations?

Europan Celts? Germanics? Britons? American Indians? Basically most civilizations of the damn planet?

Tribal factions was a way of life, yet it's shocking to see this custom allocated pt African 's only in history books.

Upton33
reply to post by Oannes

 

I think you mean Aborigines, were indigenous in South America. African population came later with the very first settlers abandon there colonies and joined up Indian tribes. By the way the Ivory coast located in West Africa had a huge slavery industry and these West Africans made their way to the new world.

Before Columbus the Americas had at least 900 million Indians living in mostly dirt brick structures, warring with each other and cutting out hearts.

And European tribes were treating each other any better? What do you think these Europeans were doing in Europe before heading to other regions?

Restricted
reply to post by tadaman

 

People seem to ignore the fact that scientific theories are constantly debunked. It is currently "in fashion" to attribute everything to the African race.

Seriously? Geez...

Where in your world is this fashion existent?

I thought that it had already been tested, that all humans originate from a small group of africans. Its really not that baffling to me. Im not black and I have no problem with any of this. I think that a lot of people are way more close minded than they really want to admit.

Restricted
Beaver:

Perhaps people are upset because they are judged as "primitive" if they distance themselves from the squalor and violence that is modern-day Africa.

To label someone primitive because they don't agree with you is ignorance personified.

edit on 9/23/2013 by Restricted because: clarification

Who the hell actively tries to distance themselves from the situations in Africa, and who judges them for it? In what way will such a dialogue even arise in the first place?

And for your information, you should take a look at the colonial powers formerly and currently shadow ruling in Africa to find the source of the squalor and violence.

reply to post by Restricted


As far as i knew its all ways been the case i guess he was hoping to prove it wrong. But from everything i read humans made it in to china about 60000 years ago from an African migration. Every man woman and child on earth has roots in Africa in fact i remember reading they placed it in the Congo according to genetic markers.

reply to post by OneManArmy


wow someone is eager to call others racist just for disagreeing with their ideas....pretty ignorant in its own right.

The " origin" people ascribe to Africa is not even to a particular race. You do realize that the "races" we have today weren't even around during the times we are talking about.

In the same fashion that a poodle and a golden retriever have veered from their common wolf ancestor, humanity wasn't even divided from selective breeding and climatic adaptaions into separate "races".

What we are arguing, you ignorant bafoons who call others racist at the drop of a hat is the patterns of ancient migrations.

Race has NOTHING to do with it. Unless you are completely retarded and clueless you couldnt think that yours or anothers race was distinguishable between groups at a a time when even evolutionary theory argues that we were still all members of the same core group that branched away into cromagnon man. It was cromagnon man that changed as he spread into other climates and the earths climates changed themselves.

sonnny1
reply to post by purplemer

 

Well it seems that no one is willing to support this thread or the story. To bad. I can see the possibility in it.

S&F Purple.

It's somewhere between really amusing, and really sad to watch people have immediate knee-jerk negative reactions to this idea ("Can't possibly be true!") And then try to pretend that their knee-jerk reaction is not rooted in racism.

tadaman

What we are arguing, you ignorant bafoons who call others racist at the drop of a hat is the patterns of ancient migrations.

Tis a fair point, thats why Im awesome.

reply to post by OneManArmy


you are awesome, we are all awesome .....very true.

reply to post by iwilliam


for one we know who populated asia....and it wasn't populations out of africa.

Sorry if your ultra race sensitivity is tingling ....but there is a vast and almost unquestionable certainty as to who populated Asia. That is also becoming clearer as more and more specimens are found which lead into the current idea of when and where populations spread into eastern europe and then asia.

It wasn't out of one of the 3 or 4 Afican migrations.....which happened thousands of years before Asia was lost by Neanderthal man.

that is why I say it is absurd.

Now the out of africa model wants to claim these early humans migrated into asia directly .......what's next the moon?

That is why I say no.

Because I and others have already read the plethera of material that establishes many groups of cromagnon man and his possible interactions with Neanderthal as Neanderthal retreated out of Asia...

The genetic markers for those isolated in the African continent whih were not part of the 3 or 4 migrations into Europe and at one point back again were never found in Asia. We know when (thousands of years apart) those migrations spread into southern asia / australia and then the Americas supposedly ......

This idea that there was yet another masive migration directly out of Africa into asia is retarded.
What did they do? hop over entire established groups without interbreeding or dying off from competing over resources?

Its retarded. That is why I don't blindy follow the race sensitive leader..

tadaman
reply to post by bowtomonkey

 

It is interesting you mention Australian aboriginals ....did you knkw that they are the closest link to Neanderthal alive today?

edit on 9 23 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

I don't believe that to be accurate at all. There are two studies I'd like to illustrate.

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710

This outlines the prevalence of Neanderthal admixture in higher concentrations in Western Eurasia then in the East

www.plosone.org...

Is a more recent paper that discusses the admixture levels in North Africa...

Australian Aborigines came from a linage that hugged the Indian Ocean coast and probably never even came into contact with Neanderthal. Can you please provide where you found that info?

Here are the papers

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710
johnhawks.net...

reply to post by tadaman


I agree with you and by these peoples logic the Amerindians are African as well.

I believe a common ancestor came out of Africa. A common ancestor being the key term. Common ancestor, not human. Now, the common ancestor stayed in Africa and the others migrated, doing their thing becoming different races.

But, OOA is still a theory. Don't discredit the Multi-Regional hypothesis. Due to the vast physical and "other" differences, I personally lean more toward the Multi-Regional theory of evolution.

reply to post by slip2break


Maybe not Neandertal but very possibly Denisovan. And who knows what other type of hominid. Only about 1% of fossil records are ever found, even it it were 20-30% of fossil records that are found, that still leaves a ginormous gap for which many, many types of hominids have come and gone and we know nothing about.

tadaman
reply to post by iwilliam

 

for one we know who populated asia....and it wasn't populations out of africa.

edit on 9 23 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

What theory do you subscribe to then?

kimish
reply to post by tadaman

 

I believe a common ancestor came out of Africa. A common ancestor being the key term. Common ancestor, not human. Now, the common ancestor stayed in Africa and the others migrated, doing their thing becoming different races.

But, OOA is still a theory. Don't discredit the Multi-Regional hypothesis. Due to the vast physical and "other" differences, I personally lean more toward the Multi-Regional theory of evolution.

I agree it is a theory-- its not like math where something can be proven absolutely. So it will forever remain a theory. Even with the genetic studies--

But the OOA theory doesn't preclude admixture and further evolution outside of Africa. It postulates that the species originated there and further developed outside of Africa. There are tons of genetic markers that are found outside of Africa and not within Africa. The opposite is true as well. Through the study of these commonalities and absences it has provided near conclusive proof that OOA is the correct theory.

I would like to see one recent paper that supports another conclusion. Not that I don't believe they are out there-- but they are fringe and are contradicted usually by other research.

reply to post by slip2break


There isn't many and by knowing that you can tell that OOA if by far the most popular thus far, and probably will be for some time.

news.nationalgeographic.com...
anthrojournal.com... he-out-of-africa-2-model
www.actionbioscience.org...