Hidden Colors 3: The Rules of Racism (Official Thread)

[Deluuxe]

man do you know how much of an effort that was, if you aint gonna appreciate it, Im not spending another min loading the others. esp the last bits that got a bit heated. I had a good discussion I dont have to share it. No one here pulled up anything, researched anything, and so this will be my last post, its about time to get ready, wash my face and head to the airport.

I dont even need to see the rest. You lost

 

[Tommy Knocks]

I dont even need to see the rest. You lost

nikka I didnt make that up, do some damn research.

http://www.ansi.gov.in/dna_studies.htm

 

[Deluuxe]

nikka I didnt make that up, do some damn research.

http://www.ansi.gov.in/dna_studies.htm

How can u argue everyone has african origin then deny that same origin in "Asian" ppl at the same time

 

[Deluuxe]

post the rest of the convo... I wana see that ether

 

[Spoonz]

not really. now he's talking about "show me the definition of the negro race prior to 1600s" obv youre not going to find it since race is a more recent concept, but he's trying to make that seem invalid, when in fact it is valid, around 1600s is when the globe got connected and thus the catergorizations began. now it's 2013 and we have an even more precise layout, haplogroups, so I asked him, how can the accomplishments of a certain haplogroup from a continent away, be tied to those of another continent. I'm waiting for that reply while I dress.

if they have strong black features that means they're black/african right?

 

[Blackking]

I like it when people are bold enough to confront the source.... so respect for even messaging dude.

not that i agree w ur points.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

if they have strong black features that means they're black/african right?

that's what his argument was

 

[Tommy Knocks]

How can u argue everyone has african origin then deny that same origin in "Asian" ppl at the same time

ce
where do homosapiens come from?

even white people are of african origin. man, I swear. smh.

are you implying white people are african?
do you know why the jarwa didn't mutate? but are still more related to asians than africans.

I think this discussion is a little too complex for you, perhaps you should do less typing and more reading, just sit back and learn...put your hand down and go to the back of the classroom.
y

 

[Blackking]

The origin story for Homo sapiens is a messy tale. Rather than emerging from one small population, the human species likely evolved from a dispersed, complex network of groups that mixed and mated with each other, scientists report online September 20 in Science.

The new research is one of the largest genetic studies of southern Africa’s click-speaking hunter-gatherers known as the Khoisan. Sometimes called Bushmen, the Khoisan are the world’s most genetically diverse people and diverged from other populations very early in human history.

The new work dates the genetic split between the Khoisan and the rest of humankind to at least 100,000 years ago, which is in line with other estimates. That’s 55,000 years older than the next branch on the human family tree, when Central African pygmies split off. The researchers also found that the Khoisan divided into a northern and a southern group approximately 35,000 years ago.


But when the scientists looked for genetic clues pointing to where in sub-Saharan Africa humankind began, they couldn’t trace modern groups back to any one region. That suggests early humans came from a highly structured population with genetic exchange between subgroups.

“The complexity of the South African population is the big story,” says Adam Siepel, a computational biologist at Cornell University. “It undermines simpler stories trying to pinpoint a single geographic origin of modern humans.” Previous fossil evidence had suggested East Africa while smaller genetic analyses indicated South Africa.

 

[Blackking]

some of the things and traits that we attribute to other groups.....including genetics, originated in Africa and was spread out from Africa, as opposed to forming in the settled regions.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

The origin story for Homo sapiens is a messy tale. Rather than emerging from one small population, the human species likely evolved from a dispersed, complex network of groups that mixed and mated with each other, scientists report online September 20 in Science.

The new research is one of the largest genetic studies of southern Africa’s click-speaking hunter-gatherers known as the Khoisan. Sometimes called Bushmen, the Khoisan are the world’s most genetically diverse people and diverged from other populations very early in human history.

The new work dates the genetic split between the Khoisan and the rest of humankind to at least 100,000 years ago, which is in line with other estimates. That’s 55,000 years older than the next branch on the human family tree, when Central African pygmies split off. The researchers also found that the Khoisan divided into a northern and a southern group approximately 35,000 years ago.

But when the scientists looked for genetic clues pointing to where in sub-Saharan Africa humankind began, they couldn’t trace modern groups back to any one region. That suggests early humans came from a highly structured population with genetic exchange between subgroups.

“The complexity of the South African population is the big story,” says Adam Siepel, a computational biologist at Cornell University. “It undermines simpler stories trying to pinpoint a single geographic origin of modern humans.” Previous fossil evidence had suggested East Africa while smaller genetic analyses indicated South Africa.

 

[Blackking]

It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originating in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia. A phylogeny with very different topological structure would have been expected if an independent Asian origin of modern human had made a major contribution to the current gene pool in Asian populations. Since the methods employed in this analysis can detect only major genetic contribution from particular sources, a haplotype-based analysis will probably detect minor contribution from an independent origin of modern humans in East Asia.

The current analysis suggests that the southern populations in East Asia may be derived from the populations in Southeast Asia that originally migrated from Africa, possibly via mid-Asia, and the northern populations were under strong genetic influences from Altaic populations from the north. But it is unclear how Altaic populations migrated to Northeast Asia. It is possible that ancestral Altaic populations arrived there from middle Asia, or alternatively they may have originated from East Asia.

The analyses of metric and nonmetric cranial traits of modern and prehistoric Siberian and Chinese populations showed that Siberians are closer to Northern Chinese and Mongolian than European

European populations did not appear in Siberia, western Mongolia, and China until the Neolithic and Bronze Age

Furthermore, cranial and dental analyses have linked the Arctic peoples, Buryat and east Asians with American Indians (31–35), which arrived through Beringia (Bering land bridge) somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago (36). These observations are generally consistent with the genetic evidence based on this research and mitochondrial DNA data (37–40). Therefore, it is more likely that ancestors of Altaic-speaking populations originated from an East Asian population that was originally derived from Southeast Asia, although the current Altaic-speaking populations undeniably admixed with later arrivers from mid-Asia and Europe

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/20/11763.long

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

man do you know how much of an effort that was, if you aint gonna appreciate it, Im not spending another min loading the others. esp the last bits that got a bit heated. I had a good discussion I dont have to share it. No one here pulled up anything, researched anything, and so this will be my last post, its about time to get ready, wash my face and head to the airport.

Appreciate taking time from your vacation to post that. However, you forgot to post the part where he agrees with you that blacks didn't do shyt, nor did they influence the various asiatic tribes that they seemed to have a phenotypic similarity with.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Why is listed as some sort of authority in this documentary? that alone should set off alarms.

"Dr. Phil Valentine - Metaphysicist"

a friend of mine used to watch Dr. Phil's videos all the time, I see he's still at it

really though this shyt just isn't very good. No proof is presented, it's just a bunch of people who fancy themselves as intellectuals presenting their theories as facts.

It's kind of offensive to real Native peoples too because it insinuates that they aren't authentic since they dont have "africoid" features.

a lot of the pictures they try to pass off as black to the viewer don't look black at all. That peruvian mummy girl they are trying to say was african looked like any old peruvian girl you would see today.

I thought these videos were supposed to drop heavy science, this shyt is mad weak. Angelfire websites dropped more knowledge back in the 90's.

"the letter J was not invented until the 1600's!!!!" word?

Millions disagree with you friend. Good day.

 

[Blackking]

If most Aboriginal Australians look more 'black' than most Modern Indians...... but they came from India....

What does that tell you about the Indians that Aboriginals Australians came from as compared to Modern Indians?