Category Archives: Anthropology

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.

I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Central Africa, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, East Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Europeans, History, Livestock Production, Near East, Nigeria, North Africa, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa, Tanzania, West Africa

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.

One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.

Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.

It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.

The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).

A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.

The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.

There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.

Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.

Not so fast now.

Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.

This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.

Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.

So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.

The cognates look like Chinese.

Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.

That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.

Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.

But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.

Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.

The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.

A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.

One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?

Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.

In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.

If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.

Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.

Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.

Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.

After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.

So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.

What do I think?

I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.

The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.

All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.

References

Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Austro-Tai, Austronesian, Cambodia, Cantonese, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, India, Language Families, Laos, Linguistics, Malaysia, Mon-Khmer, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, South Asia, Tai-Kadai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

You Can’t Fool People Forever

You can’t fool people forever.

You can fool people for a pretty long time, but sooner or later, people are going to catch on to the fact that you are screwing them over. Why is that? Because human beings, contrary to popular belief, are not stupid. Even a 100 IQ human is easily one of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, far more intelligent than most other animals.

Ordinary people aren’t as dumb as you think. People have a nose for being screwed over, and they don’t like it. Most humans are able to figure out who is scamming them, lying to them, and ripping them off after a while. As part of an instinct towards self-preservation, we have our antennas out all the time looking for enemy creatures and particularly, sneaky enemy creatures because those are the most dangerous people of all. Go visit some primitive tribe and stay with them for a while. Try to lie to them, scam them, and rip them off by devious means. See how far it gets you. Even those “idiots” and “low IQ tards” with war paint and spears will figure you out faster than you think, and the payback will not be pretty. You’ll be lucky to get out alive.

This is why con artists move around all the time. Like child molesters (who also move around a lot), after they have been in one place for a while, people start catching onto their cons and molestations, so they need to take off. Con artists are always in search of new victims and that means always finding “fresh blood” who are not onto them yet.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Philosophy, Psychology

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Societies

Research has shown that psychopaths are present in all human societies. Robert Hare, famous psychopath researcher, asked some Eskimos if they had psychopaths in their villages.

“Yes,” they said, “We have people like that. It’s usually a man. He refuses to hunt or do any work at all and simply lives off everyone else. He is charming and has a high sex drive and when the men go off hunting, he stays in the village and has sex with all of the other men’s wives. He steals and gets into a lot of fights with other man and lies almost constantly.”

“What do you do about someone like that?” Hare asked.

The Eskimos replied, “Well, after this behavior has gone on for some time, the men of the village will get together, tie up the psychopath, and paddle him out to an ice floe. They will drop him off on the ice floe and paddle back to shore.”

In case you don’t know about the Arctic, being left on an ice floe is a death sentence for a human being. So the Eskimos say that after putting up with the psychopath’s antics for some time, the men of the village rise up and all kill the psychopath.

American Indians were known for their kindness and charity. I did a lot of anthropological work on California Indians when I was working as a cultural anthropologist. Here in California, some Indians refused to work. However much the other Indians disliked this behavior, they continued to feed the parasite. He was allowed to survive. Obviously you can’t allow too many folks like this in your society or your tribe will go extinct. In primitive societies, if nobody works, nobody eats because work mostly consists of efforts to obtain food.

However, in doing research on the Indians of the Southwest, I found that some Indians who chronically engaged in bad behavior or broke group rules by committing adultery, stealing, getting into fights, or killing other members would typically simply be thrown out of the tribe. In tribal societies, this could well be a death sentence because while the tribe together knows how to hunt and gather to survive, an individual Indian may not be able to do it well enough to survive.

However these men often survived long enough. In addition, being thrown out of tribes for bad behavior was uncommon but not rare. At any given time, there were a number of  Indian loners roaming about who had been tossed out of their groups for bad behavior. It was common for these men to find each other, and they would then roam about in pairs, threesomes or even in small groups. There were enough of these men that they sometimes formed mini-tribes of their own – outcast tribes so to speak.

11 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, California, Cultural, Inuit, North America, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, West

Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

8ball writes: No, I’m telling you, the latest data shows the human genetic tree split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africans on one side, the rest on the other.

That is a fucking long time ago. For comparison Neanderthals split off from us about 600,000 years ago.

I am not aware of this new data. Someone needs to link me to some proof of this if it is even true at all, which I doubt. I don’t see how it’s true. All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

There were no Homo sapiens sapiens 250-300,000 YBP. Our species had not even been created yet. We were some prior form or Homo, I think Homo sapiens idaltu, but even he does not appear until 190,000 YBP. I have never heard that Blacks split off that early. Anyway, Negroids are a new race. They were only formed in the last 9,000 years. The oldest races are the Khoisan (52,000 years), and the Orang Asli in Thailand (72,000 years). Everybody else is way more recent. There are no human lines that go back 250-300,000 years and anyway back then we were not even the fully modern humans that we are today.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

32 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Asia, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Thailand

Race in India: An Anthropological View

I have had lots of East Indians coming to my site lately for some reason. They are looking at a few pieces, especially The Major and Minor Races of Man, The Peopling of India and The Birth of the Caucasian Race.

They’ve mostly been females, possibly young females. They are interested in a few questions. First, what race are East Indians? Caucasians (Whites), Africans (Blacks), Asians or Australoids? These are the four macro races of man, though honestly, there may be more than that. They’ve been subjected to a lot of Afrocentric propaganda that says that East Indians are Black people. Truth is, East Indians don’t have a speck of Black in them. Your average group of Germans has more Black in them than a group of East Indians.

There are some other theories about East Indians suggesting that they are Asians. In my work The Major and Minor Races of Man, which I worked on for many months, I dealt with this question a lot. True, some charts show East Indians just outside of Caucasians proper. But those same charts don’t really show them in Asians either. They are floating in between both groups.

But most other charts seem to show them in Caucasians. Truth is that even those charts show them right on the border of the two groups. But if we look at the charts from a great enough distance and look at the group as a whole, they are clearly in Caucasians. In these cases, we have to go by what they look like. Do East Indians look like Asians? Of course not.

East Indians are part of a cline running from Turkey up to the Chukchi Peninsula that rides right on the border between Asian and Caucasian. Some groups are almost literally 50-50. The cline includes Jews, Armenians, Turks, Iranians, people of the Caucasus, Kurds, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uighurs, Mongolians, Altai, Shor, Buryats, Koreans, East Indians, Punjabis, Pakistanis, NE Chinese, Manchus, up to the Chukchi. On one chart, the Chukchi, bizarrely enough, are over with Caucasians. But if you look at them, they look like Eskimos. So into Asians they go.

With East Indians, we go by appearance. What do they look like, Caucasians or Asians? All or almost all East Asians have an epicanthic eyefold, lacking in most Indians. What about Asian genes? Asian genes are found up to a maximum of 10-15% in NW Indians around Punjab.

They look like Caucasians, lack an eyefold, and have few Asian genes, so into Caucasians they go.

The fact that Caucasians are also referred to as Whites is confusing to some. Blacks get upset when Whites claim East Indians. “Those people are not White!” They exclaim angrily. White is just shorthand for Caucasians. A lot of White folks, or Caucasians, can have skins that are anywhere from slightly to very dark.

So genetically and based on simple appearance, we can put all East Indians into Caucasians. The problem arises in that a paper has found that Tamils have skulls that link them, phenotypically but not genetically, to the Australoid race. Who are the Australoids?

Genetically, they are Aborigines, Melanesians, and Papuans.

Phenotypically, they are Tamils and some other South Indians, Senoi (a tribe in Thailand that resemble Veddoids), Semang (a Negrito group in Thailand), Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines.

Hema Malini, a very White-looking Indian.

Hema Malini, a very White looking Indian. Caucasian by phenotype and genes. She could easily be a Spaniard or Italian.

The question arises about which South Indians are also Australoids phenotypically? So far, only Tamils have been proven to be Australoid by skulls. However, any other South Indian group that looks a lot like Tamils is probably also Australoid, such as the Telegu.

Raju, Bishop N John S D classic dravidian

Bishop N John S D Raju, an Indian Christian and a classic Dravidian type. Possible Australoid phenotype.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

4 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Armenians, Asia, Asians, Caucasus, Chinese (Ethnic), East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Kazakhs, Koreans, Kurds, Melanesians, Mongolians, Near East, Near Easterners, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Pakistanis, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Tajiks, Turkey, Turks, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Whites

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

We already dealt with the racist nonsense about Black people being a different species than the rest of us. By the way, this is just another way of saying, “Niggers aren’t human,” which is exactly what a lot of anti-Black racists say about Black people in precisely those words.

I hate to break it to these guys, but Black people are as human as the rest of us. We are all one species.

I did a lot of research on the question the other day because I wanted to see if there was anything to the racist argument. The overwhelming opinion, based on multiple lines of excellent evidence is that all races of human are part of a single species. I won’t go into the lines of evidence here, but you can go look them up if you want. And it’s good science too, not junk science.

One of the lines is that no human race has any particular type of DNA that is particular to its own race. In different species, the new evidence is that all species have areas of DNA that are specific to just them. This is true even in species that can and do interbreed.

In studying two types of butterflies in the Amazon that readily interbreed, it was found that one area of DNA in each species never transferred to the other. Obviously when you mate two different lines, you end with each line contributing a lot of its DNA to the offspring. This is the DNA that carries over so to speak in interbreeding. The areas of DNA that never carried over or transferred in interbreeding were two areas: one that gave it its blue flavor and another that deals with how the blue butterfly is able to recognize others of its kind. In the orange butterfly, the non-transferring DNA was also for orange color and for how the species recognizes its own species. This is where we get the notion that “species breed true.”

Another is that humans can readily interbreed with other humans. For an example of what happens when humans breed with other hominid species, we can look at the evidence of human-Neandertal breeding.

Human-Neandertal breeding was very difficult and most of the offspring did not survive for some reason. Neandertal males mating with human females was rarely successful. However, human males mating with Neandertal females apparently worked sometimes.

The example given that species can interbreed is dog and wolves. However, science now says that dogs and wolves are one species. From my study of birds, when two different bird species start interbreeding a lot, after a while, they usually merge them into one species on the basis that they interbreed.

Crossbreeds of different species often produce sterile offspring. Yes, a horse can breed with a mule but the offspring is a donkey and donkeys are sterile. I believe that ligers, the offspring of lions and tigers, are also sterile. There are other species that can interbreed, however the offspring are weak, sickly and fail to thrive.

If any human races were separate species, we would expect to see something like the results of the human-Neandertal interbreeding and we don’t see that. Blacks and Whites can interbreed just fine, immaculately, in fact.

The question then boils down to whether any races could be said to be subspecies. The German Wikipedia has done some work on that and they have concluded that based on geographic separation, Negritos, Aborigines and Khoisan (Bushmen/Hottentots) could probably be seen as subspecies. On looking at their work, I think the writers on the German Wiki are basing their argument on good, solid science.

I would also argue that these three could be seen as subspecies based on genetic distance. The genetic line of Negroid Africans specifically does not go back all that far. They are a new race that only arose 9,000 YBP.

However, the Khoisan are one of the oldest people on Earth with a specific line going back 53,000 years.

Previously, a type of Negrito Australoid in Thailand, the Orang Asli, had been found to be the oldest race of living race with a line going back 72,000 years.

The Aborigine of course are very ancient. They are quite distant from all other humans. In fact the two races with the greatest distance between them are Aborigines and African Negroids. If anyone would have a hard time interbreeding it would be them, but there’s no evidence of any problems. On the other hand, few if any of them have bred at all. African Negroids and European Whites are dramatically closer to each other than Africans and Aborigines. If Africans and Aborigines are one species, how could Africans and Whites be two species? Makes no sense.

It is important to note that by their nature, all subspecies can interbreed. They are only called subspecies because for whatever reason, they only live in a restricted geographical area. In addition, there are some anatomical and genetic differences in all subspecies. At some genetic and anatomical difference level, two types of a species are said to be separate subspecies. Since no humans are restricted to any separate geographical areas, we cannot use that metric for setting aside human subspecies. However, I would no problem with setting aside Aborigines, Negritos and Khoisan as human subspecies. There’s nothing derogatory or racist about that statement, at least to any rational person, which leaves out all SJW’s.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

5 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Birds, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Genetics, Horses, Khoisan, Mammals, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thailand, White Racism, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves

Black People Are Fully Human

Nope folks, Black people are fully human, just like us. Their line has been evolving longer than ours has, by the way. Also, Negroids are a new race, as new as Europeans. They only go back 9,000 years in agricultural Central Africa in the context of organized agriculture and the village societies it produced. If you want to look at Blacks who are more archaic, check out the Khoisans. Their genetic line at least goes back ~45,000 years, the oldest of any humans. Pygmies are also very archaic. Some proto-Pygmies were around ~50,000 YBP.

We are just the latest model is all.

 

 

European types only go back ~13,000 years. Before that, Europeans looked like Arabs and before that, like Amerindians from Washington state. Check out the Makah. Their skulls are closest to Europeans ~22,000 YBP. If you go back 35,000 YBP in Southern Russia, Proto-Caucasians look Australoid. So Australoid types may be the mother of us all.

Anyway Whites and Blacks can breed just fine, so we are not separate species. In fact when two species of say birds start breeding in the wild, they quit calling them separate species and lump them all into one species because they can breed.

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Anthropology, Blacks, Central Africa, Eurasia, Europeans, Khoisan, Physical, Pygmies, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia

Humble Pie Origins: The Glorious Caucasian Race Was Created By Crossing Two Types of Aborigines

All White people used to be Black or Asian.

1/3 Proto-Black (Warm-adapted Australoid, Negrito type?) + 2/3 Proto-NE Asian (Cold-adapted Australoid, proto-Ainuid?) = Caucasoids, 42,000 YBP.

So basically you crossed two Ainu Australoids with one Negrito Australoid and you get a White person. So Caucasians were created by breeding two types of, let’s call it what it was, Australian Aborigine types together.

Most humans don’t have illustrious lines if you go back far enough. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I mean after all, if you go back far enough, we were all frogs. Why is that an insult. It’s not an insult to say that Pepe is the Father of All of US Shitlords.

3 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Whites