I've been doing some thinking...

Let me start this off by saying that I am in no way, shape, or form a racist person, so don't even go there . That being said:

I saw a special on T.V. about some primitive civilization/tribe thing North of Brazil, and it got me thinking. I've never heard or learned about white primitive people. I've seen the tribal Africans, ones in Brazil, the Native Americans in Arizona (Where I live), but I've never heard of tribal white people. It seems that the farthest we go back is the middle ages! Vikings? Where on earth did we come from? I thought of greeks and stuff, but they had black hair and brown eyes. Where did modern day white people, or "Anglos" as you might call them come from? I've never seen on T.V. a tribe of primitive white people living in the jungle. Why is that!? We had to have started off somewhere. Where is that!?

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Herman]

I got a similar thought a few weeks back!

I heard something about white people originating during the Ice age, our skin became brighter to fit in with the terrain, which I guess was mostly snow or ice covered .

That's the only explanation Ive heard of the origin of white skin.

Vorta

actually 'white people' or caucasians, as the name suggests are of central asian origin.

the word can be split into 2 parts. caucas - asian meaning asians from the caucas mountains. though this name is misleading as all caucasians do not originate in this particular area. the caucasians basically belong to the indo-aryan family of people.

about ur question abt never having seen 'tribal whites' well dont tell me u never heard of the celts, or the gauls. they were all tribes. its jus tht europe is so so small tht when civilization (i mean the western version of it) spread then it reached all coners.

and plus i think caucasians are very biased in their view of the world. they consider any culture which is far removed from thier own as tribal. this is a very one-sided view.

one last point european recorded history starts mainly after the greeks i.e. after civilization (western version). so little was known about the early europeans until recently

[edit on 9/2/2005 by puneetsg]

Its because back when white people lived in tribes (the iron age in Europe) we were excelssivly dull. While in Britian we were proud because we had invented the wheel, the ancient greeks were building a steam powered pumping system.

Also its difficult to have knowledge of tries because they didnt write thigns down, we know more about Native Americans and Brazilian tribes because white pople found them and wrote it down.

I scanned this from Jared Diamond’s, Guns, Germs and Steel.

I thought it might help the discussion.

Good question, but I think it may have something to do with skin pigmintation, we are physically the same as any one else, the only diffrence is that my skin is white, I think this is most animals color when you shave off there hair.

Originally posted by imbalanced
Good question, but I think it may have something to do with skin pigmintation, we are physically the same as any one else, the only diffrence is that my skin is white, I think this is most animals color when you shave off there hair.

true. the colour of our skin has nothin to do with race or anything of the sort. there arent any races in homo sapiens. the difference is because of the production of melanin production within our bodies, which is directly propotional to the amount of sunlight received by us.

hence people living in equatorial regions are dark because they receive the max amount of sunlight possible.

hence if you were to transplant a european into africa, over time his skin would become bronze then brown and finally over generations the skin colour would be very mucj like the native africans.

the same works the other way round also, i.e. africans in europe

Originally posted by puneetsg

Originally posted by imbalanced
Good question, but I think it may have something to do with skin pigmintation, we are physically the same as any one else, the only diffrence is that my skin is white, I think this is most animals color when you shave off there hair.

true. the colour of our skin has nothin to do with race or anything of the sort. there arent any races in homo sapiens. the difference is because of the production of melanin production within our bodies, which is directly propotional to the amount of sunlight received by us.

hence people living in equatorial regions are dark because they receive the max amount of sunlight possible.

hence if you were to transplant a european into africa, over time his skin would become bronze then brown and finally over generations the skin colour would be very mucj like the native africans.

the same works the other way round also, i.e. africans in europe

This theory is ok, but then how do you explain the eskimos? they have lived in arctic conditions for generations and they are still colored people.
I know that caucasians are believed to have originated in central asia, then spreading east colonizing europe, some also appeared to have gone towards china and mongolia(tocharians) some to persia and some into india, and in the higher castes in India and persia you can see a resemblance to caucasians, i dont think it is as enviromental as you think. We are all related or of the same species because if we were not, our offspring could not reproduce when mixed and we know this isn't the case, so the definition of 'race' as a different species doesnt work, perhaps sub species. I dont know, interesting topic though.

Also how do you explain features such as caucasians havingsharp noses and thin lips compared to africans who have flat noses and large lips? Dont take this the wrong way or anything, where does red or blonde hair come from? Notice caucasians are the only ethnic group who have different colored eyes and hair.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Rikimaru]

yeah, i agree - it's just skin pigmentation, the way our particular race of humans evolved from the northern colder regions we didn't need dark skin to protect us, we need as much light as we could absorb to stay warm. that's all.

Actually, some Native American tribes could be classed as "Light Skinned". However look at the Germanic Tribes or the Pics, etc.

In fact, there is no major difference between Native American Culture and the Norse Culture when you think about it. Worship a lot of Gods, kill people, take each others children/wives [which they look after well] and go back on their way.

But we just love to go, "They are more primative than us" and "Fear the Might White Man!" and other such lines.

Originally posted by Rikimaru
Also how do you explain features such as caucasians havingsharp noses and thin lips compared to africans who have flat noses and large lips? Dont take this the wrong way or anything, where does red or blonde hair come from? Notice caucasians are the only ethnic group who have different colored eyes and hair.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Rikimaru]

Where you get that idea from?

It's possible to get a black person with blonde hair, it's just statistically low.

There have been cases of two white parents in fact having a black child [2002 I do believe can't remember the Country] and an Indian Family having a White Child. [2003 U.K.]

The main problem is, blonde hair, blue eyes and red hair, etc just exist less and are in fact weaker genetically so they have less chance of passing on to other people. I do believe blonde hair and blue eyes will have died out in about 200 years.

Odium I think the children you talk about were a result of IVF mix ups rather than biology, the eggs were implanted in the wrong women.

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Odium I think the children you talk about were a result of IVF mix ups rather than biology, the eggs were implanted in the wrong women.

Nope, it wasn't actually that.

It was a fairly big case [I'll remember the name soon] because the husband divorced his wife. Once the results got back that they were the parents [and they had not had IVF] he had to pay damages and upkeep for the child.

There are also skeletal differences between races; the intercondylar notch on the femur for example may be used to aid identification of skeletal remains, as it's measurement is reliably indicative of race.

Lin ky

(very, very dry - if you manage to get through it without falling asleep, congratulations!)

More very dry linkage

There's also plenty of orthodontic evidence to support the idea that there are indeed quite distinct differences between the races. There are some really great books out there about this, most of 'em under "forensic anthropology" at the library. Even the thickness of skin and tissue in relation to the skull will differ amongst races; ever seen those shows about facial reconstruction?

Neat page about forensic artistry

We tend to use "race" as a catch-all though; usually we'd be more accurate describing someone's actual ethnicity rather than their race, as obviously most of us share a mixed heritage when all's said and done.

Heinz 57, the lot of us

So were are we...

-Skin pigment is related to how much sun a group of people get ( eskimos??)
-We actually do have diffrent builds physically based on our roots ( Why ?)

Can all of these mutations (pigment and physical structure) be scientificlly proven that they would occur given enough time, or do we have to look deeper.

I think al the animals on earth have addapted as we have, look at dogs...how many types of dogs and cross breeds are there...a lot more types of dogs then humans I think. But then I come to my first statement, all animals are pink when there fur or feathers are taken off, have you ever seen a tan chicken ? that theory of skin getting darker cause we are exsposed to the sun dosnt pan out . If I lived in a cold area and wanted to absorb more light for heat then my skin would be black, not white (black absorbs more)

I think that it is deeper, but skin pigmentation cant be explained by ones overall exposure to the sun. I am no scientist though.....

[edit on 11-9-2005 by imbalanced]

Originally posted by imbalanced
I think that it is deeper, but skin pigmentation cant be explained by ones overall exposure to the sun. I am no scientist though.....

The idea that skin colour is based on how much sun you get is a kind of condensed version of what actually happens. Skin colour is predominately determined by the presence of tiny particles called melanin, as puneetsg has pointed out. Melanin is produced in the epidermis by cells called melanocytes. There are two distinct types of melanin - pheomelanin and eumelanin. Eumelanin, which is the most abundant form found in humans, is dark brown to black in colour.

Melanin acts as a shield against the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation. In areas where UV radiation is strongest, such as the equator, people have evolved melanocytes which are extremely active, producing large amounts of melanin in order to offer better protection against the powerful UV rays. This increase in melanin production results in a greater abundance of eumelanin and consequently a darker skin tone. The skin is not being burnt or turned black by the heat of the sun, it is becoming darker as more melanin is produced to guard against UV radiation.

When humans moved out of Africa many tens of thousands of years ago, they settled in climates further to the north - colder climates where the UV radiation reaching the surface was not as powerful. Over time, their bodies adapted and the production of melanin was slowed. The body usually takes the path of least resistance - if large quantities of melanin are not essential, then the body will only produce what is needed to protect itself. Thus, people from areas where the UV radiation is not as strong (such as northern Europe) have less melanin in their skin and, consequently, a lighter skin tone. It has been estimated that it takes a population approximately 10 000 years before its skin will react to an increase or decrease in UV radiation levels and adjust melanin production. However, this is merely an approximation.

For white people who live in areas where UV radiation is quite strong, such as here in Australia, the risks of skin cancer, or melanoma is greatly increased. Here in my home state of Queensland, we have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world (Reference). This is due to the fact that we have been transplanted from an environment with relatively weak UV radiation (in my family's case Ireland) to a land with extremely powerful UV radiation and our skin has not yet adapted to produce greater volumes of protective melanin. An example of the body attempting to produce greater volumes of melanin in fair-skinned people are freckles and moles, which are areas of concentrated melanin.

Conversely, those people with darker skins are more likely to suffer vitamin D deficiencies, since ultraviolet radiation actually encourages the liver to produce vitamin D.

Check the following links for more information on how skin colour has evolved across different human cultures:

Skin Colour As An Adaptation

Melanin at Wikipedia
Of particular interest to this thread is the section entitled Melanin and human adaptation.

So there you have it. Skin colour is affected by exposure to the sun, but not by being burned. It is rather due to the need for increased levels of melanin to safeguard against UV radiation. Hope this helped.

[edit on 11/9/05 by Jeremiah25]

That explains it. But what about the diffren features. Such as bigger lips, smaller eyes...longer legs, can this also be attributed to the cliamte where ones roots come from ? Reading the post above about the body taking 10,000 years to adapt I would say yes. Does that mean that africans are the oldest or closest people to humans roots ? I wish there was a study on race and roots, that would be really interesting to see how all of the diffrent human races were created.

Theory: Today we do not seem affected by naturally occuring things, so in the future we will all look alike. probably white and very tall.

Originally posted by imbalanced
Does that mean that africans are the oldest or closest people to humans roots ? I wish there was a study on race and roots, that would be really interesting to see how all of the diffrent human races were created.

According to this, yes!

A team of researchers in central Africa say they've uncovered what appears to be the earliest evidence of the human family ever found -- a skull, jawbone and teeth between 6 million and 7 million years old.

Much more here

The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If you keep going with the information there, it'll make a lot of the "migration" part easier to understand, too

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by imbalanced
Does that mean that africans are the oldest or closest people to humans roots ? I wish there was a study on race and roots, that would be really interesting to see how all of the diffrent human races were created.

According to this, yes!

A team of researchers in central Africa say they've uncovered what appears to be the earliest evidence of the human family ever found -- a skull, jawbone and teeth between 6 million and 7 million years old.

Much more here

The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If you keep going with the information there, it'll make a lot of the "migration" part easier to understand, too

Ok, this is all good, but if Africa has the "oldest races", why are they still relatively primitive compared to the rest of the world's cultures? Did the rest of the world evolve more intelligence and Africa's people not? And does this in return mean that intelligence came with a lighter skin colour?

Before I get flamed THIS^ IS NOT MY VIEW or opinion, but more a questioning/challenge of the "roots in Africa" theory!

Originally posted by Gemwolf



Ok, this is all good, but if Africa has the "oldest races", why are they still relatively primitive compared to the rest of the world's cultures? Did the rest of the world evolve more intelligence and Africa's people not? And does this in return mean that intelligence came with a lighter skin colour?

I think the problem is you're assuming intelligence is based upon modernization? Or that intelligence is measured by booksmarts?

It might be naive to think that simply because they choose a simpler way of life, that Africans aren't intelligent....

(Ever seen tribal elders at work? They're probably smarter than 99% of us Westerners...)