I've been doing some thinking...

Originally posted by imbalanced
What about my theory of everyone looking the same in the future, does any one think that holds water?

I can understand how this theory comes about. Logic would seem to suggest that, given enough time, human cultures would have interbred to the extent that the genes which regulate skin pigmentation would be evenly distributed across the globe.

The problem with this theory is that people are continually being born and are living in environments which influence the rate of melanin production in the body. As long as people continue to live in areas such as Africa or Australia, there will always exist people with very dark skin. Similarly, as long as people continue to settle in Europe, their skin will naturally adapt over time to slow the rate of melanin production. So, there will likely always be fair-skinned people. Despite interbreeding and the subsequent sharing of DNA, environment will always exert its influence over the evolution of the colour of human skin.

[edit on 22/9/05 by Jeremiah25]

I agree that environment does play a part, but not a definitive one. The poster who cites Africa and Australia as being evidence that warmer climes produce darker skin was being quite selective with examples. South Africa has a relatively temperate climate, yet the original people still have dark skin. South Asia, and Central America are no colder than Africa or Australia, yet they did not produce such dark skinned peoples. Also, the arctic is about as cold as it gets, yet the inuit have relatively dark skin, while Scandinavians who live at the same latitude have very white skin. So, in my view, geography is not a major factor.
The decrease in ignorance between cultures, and the increase in interaction between all people is a good sign that as time goes on, the physical traits that are so marked now will lessen. Not to say they will disappear, I sure hope not, anyway. I think that the world would lose some of its beauty if there was not such a wide range of beautiful and diverse people. Imagine a world where shopping malls with all the same fastfood joints, retail chains, and physically similar folk were all that there was all over the world..... If a trip to Accra, Khatmandu, Paris, Seattle, or Tokyo found all the same sights, sounds, and tastes.... I hope that never happens.

Hear yah. And I won't try to influence you by telling you we weré by genetics evolved from another race, perhap's a race we call or refer to as UFOs (EBEs). No, I won't try to tell you that. And at the same time you know how I feel.

Dallas

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
South Africa has a relatively temperate climate, yet the original people still have dark skin.

Sorry - I always need to lay an egg when something is said about South Africa. South Africa doesn't have a "temperate" climate. Some parts, yes, but for the greater parts, it's extreme temperatures. To take a quick look at the different "tribes". The Khoi San are from the Kalahari sub-Saharan desert. A hot place to say the least. Zulus are from the Eastern coast - tropical climate - hot! Xhosas are from the Northern parts – bushveld (thick lush bushes). Temperatures easily rise to 40 degrees (Celsius) in the summer.

OK, that said, I completely agree with you that I find it hard to believe that climate plays a (strong - if any!) role when it comes to skin color!

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The poster who cites Africa and Australia as being evidence that warmer climes produce darker skin was being quite selective with examples.

Let me assure you that I was not being deliberately selective in order to strengthen my argument or to avoid civilisations which cast doubt on its veracity. I would never attempt to manipulate information, either directly or indirectly through omission and try to provide appropriate references so that people can verify my statements independently. I focused on Africa simply because the discussion Gemwolf and I were engaged in concerned Africa specifically. I focused on Australia because this is where I live.

South Africa has a relatively temperate climate, yet the original people still have dark skin. South Asia, and Central America are no colder than Africa or Australia, yet they did not produce such dark skinned peoples. Also, the arctic is about as cold as it gets, yet the inuit have relatively dark skin, while Scandinavians who live at the same latitude have very white skin. So, in my view, geography is not a major factor.

You're right, certain cultures do seem to throw some doubt on the impact of environment on skin colour and I certainly do not claim to be able to explain every exception to the environmental theory. Although I may be able to postulate some theories to explain some of these aberrations (the introduction of fairer skin to Central and South America via the Spanish, for example, or the theory that the Inuit descended from the Thule people and did not settle Alaska until approximately 500 AD - Reference) but these would be simple speculation on my part. I am quite willing to concede that factors other than environmental ones may have significant effects on a given culture's skin colour. What those factors may be, however, I cannot say.

I think that the world would lose some of its beauty if there was not such a wide range of beautiful and diverse people. Imagine a world where shopping malls with all the same fastfood joints, retail chains, and physically similar folk were all that there was all over the world..... If a trip to Accra, Khatmandu, Paris, Seattle, or Tokyo found all the same sights, sounds, and tastes.... I hope that never happens.

Hear hear. I could not agree more.

one point i would like to clarify here.

the skin colour is naturally darker in polar areas. it is simply logical and i shall explain how.

skin pigmentation is a directly related to the amt of melanin produced in the body (as has been pointed out several time earlier) and the generation of melanin is in turn goverened by the amount of UV radiation received by the body.

now the equitorial ppl get lots of sunlight and hence high doses of UV, hence dark skin colour.

as we go further north the days shorten and total amt of sunlight, hence UV, reduces, leading to lighter skin colours.

BUT near the poles, the amt of UV tht gets through the atmosohere is much much higher than anywhere else (Aurora lights) this is because the natural atmospheric shileds of the earth (ozone layer etc) are very weak in these areas. Therefore though the days are minimal the amt of UV received is still quite high. Hence darker skin colour.

so i see no contradiction in the fact that the inuit have darker skin tones.

Originally posted by puneetsg
skin pigmentation is a directly related to the amt of melanin produced in the body (as has been pointed out several time earlier) and the generation of melanin is in turn goverened by the amount of UV radiation received by the body.

now the equitorial ppl get lots of sunlight and hence high doses of UV, hence dark skin colour.

as we go further north the days shorten and total amt of sunlight, hence UV, reduces, leading to lighter skin colours.

BUT near the poles, the amt of UV tht gets through the atmosohere is much much higher than anywhere else (Aurora lights) this is because the natural atmospheric shileds of the earth (ozone layer etc) are very weak in these areas. Therefore though the days are minimal the amt of UV received is still quite high. Hence darker skin colour.

Makes sense to me. For those who stated that environmental issues were not a predominant cause of skin colour, what others factors do you propose may also contribute?

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
Makes sense to me.

For those who stated that environmental issues were not a predominant cause of skin colour, what others factors do you propose may also contribute?

Puneetsg's explanation makes complete sense to me, but I'd like to mention a theory I heard (this is not my theory!) and that is the religious theory...

Cain was "marked" after killing Abel (Genesis 4 ... And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him....). The supposed theory states that the "mark" was a dark skin. Thus would explain racial hate - because they bear the mark of a murderer...

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Cain was "marked" after killing Abel (Genesis 4 ... And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him....). The supposed theory states that the "mark" was a dark skin. Thus would explain racial hate - because they bear the mark of a murderer...

I too have heard this theory espoused in the past. The reasons it falls down, in my opinion, are:

1) Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the mark placed upon Cain was a darkened skin. Indeed, the term "mark" would seem to indicate just that - some form of singular, identifying mark somewhere on his body, as opposed to something covering his body entirely.

2) Cain's punishment was unique to him. There is no reference to Cain's mark being passed on to his children, which would be necessary for this theory to make sense. The purpose of the mark was to make it known to people who met him upon the road that Cain was under God's protection. I fail to see how a dark skin would convey this message.

3) Eden was said to have been located in the Middle East (given that it references the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as flowing into Eden). Therefore, it is likely that Cain, if he ever existed, would have had dark skin to begin with.

This theory was likely concocted by Europeans in an attempt to justify slavery and the oppression of dark-skinned cultures, by reasoning that those cultures are the descendants of somebody cursed by God and thus somehow inferior to white-skinned people.

Originally posted by Gemwolf

Puneetsg's explanation makes complete sense to me, but I'd like to mention a theory I heard (this is not my theory!) and that is the religious theory...

Cain was "marked" after killing Abel (Genesis 4 ... And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him....). The supposed theory states that the "mark" was a dark skin. Thus would explain racial hate - because they bear the mark of a murderer...

i wud think its the other way round. racail hate lead to the development of this theory that the mark was a dark skin.

and anway the whole way the western world thinks about their religion is skewed. do u think that jesus was fair skinned with blonde hair. no. sorry. he was dark skinned like the arabs and south asians. and for tht matter cain and abel, assuming they did exist and their location is correct in the bible, would have been dark skinned too, jus like moses and noah and everyone of the christian saints (peter, micheal etc)

getting back to the discussion at hand the fact remains that under our melanin pigmented skin all of us are identical at the DNA level. there are no races. there are adaptations to various external factors.

all of the various specific features in the so called different races have somethin to do with where tht particular race is residing. transplant a particular group to a different environment and they will develop the features needed for survival in tht environment.

Originally posted by puneetsg
getting back to the discussion at hand the fact remains that under our melanin pigmented skin all of us are identical at the DNA level. there are no races. there are adaptations to various external factors.

all of the various specific features in the so called different races have somethin to do with where tht particular race is residing. transplant a particular group to a different environment and they will develop the features needed for survival in tht environment.

First I agree with your (and Jeremiah's) explanations as to why the Cain theory isn't very strong...

But back to the DNA and genetics part...
Isn't it true that creatures/organisms (including humans) evolve so that they can benefit and survive (thanks to the "mutation")? Now, if this is true, then the dark skin - hot climates/light skin - cold climates theory is the wrong way around, not? It's no secret that dark attracts light (and thus heat) and the other way around. Wouldn't it be more beneficiary to have (evolve) a light skin, when you're in a hot climate? Now, because they have dark skins, people in the warmer places have to cover up their entire bodies to protect them from the sun... Wouldn't it make sense for someone who lives in colder parts to have a dark skin to attract heat?

(Again I have little knowledge on the topic... I'm just poking at your statements!)

Originally posted by Gemwolf

Originally posted by puneetsg
getting back to the discussion at hand the fact remains that under our melanin pigmented skin all of us are identical at the DNA level. there are no races. there are adaptations to various external factors.

all of the various specific features in the so called different races have somethin to do with where tht particular race is residing. transplant a particular group to a different environment and they will develop the features needed for survival in tht environment.

First I agree with your (and Jeremiah's) explanations as to why the Cain theory isn't very strong...

But back to the DNA and genetics part...
Isn't it true that creatures/organisms (including humans) evolve so that they can benefit and survive (thanks to the "mutation")? Now, if this is true, then the dark skin - hot climates/light skin - cold climates theory is the wrong way around, not? It's no secret that dark attracts light (and thus heat) and the other way around. Wouldn't it be more beneficiary to have (evolve) a light skin, when you're in a hot climate? Now, because they have dark skins, people in the warmer places have to cover up their entire bodies to protect them from the sun... Wouldn't it make sense for someone who lives in colder parts to have a dark skin to attract heat?

(Again I have little knowledge on the topic... I'm just poking at your statements!)

poking indeed

lets see. the pojnt is tht dark skin is not a result of heat but of the UV in the sunlight. now the thing is tht UV is much more harmful to the body than IR (heat in sunlight) hence the bodies first reaction is to cover up, so to speak, to guard against UV. as for IR there are other mechanisms in place, like sweat glands etc

also one more point. dark colours absorb heat fast true. but they loose heat equally if not faster. therefore changing skin colours to get more heat makes no sense. plus didnt mamals develop into warm-blooded animals just to counter this issue of heat

and lastly, wht are u talkin abt tht dark skinned ppl have to cover up to protect themselves from the heat?? most african tribes have minimalist clothin, simply because they cannot wear too much because of the heat.

ah but if u are talkin about the arabs and the way they cover themselves from head to toe, thts because they are in the desert. they have to protect themselves from the harch desert wind which always carries a lot of sand in it.

Originally posted by puneetsg
and lastly, wht are u talkin abt tht dark skinned ppl have to cover up to protect themselves from the heat?? most african tribes have minimalist clothin, simply because they cannot wear too much because of the heat.

ah but if u are talkin about the arabs and the way they cover themselves from head to toe, thts because they are in the desert. they have to protect themselves from the harch desert wind which always carries a lot of sand in it.

Quite true... traditionally... If you haven't noticed, I live in South Africa, where we have a good deal of dark skinned people .... On a hot day (which we have plenty of) I would naturally wear short, cool clothes, where the black people would wear long sleeves, ie. cover their bodies as much as possible.

And back to effective evolving... The Gemsbok (Oryx Gazella) lives in the desert, and developed a very interesting cooling method:

The gemsbok is an animal that is peculiarly adapted to a dry, hot climate. Rather than cooling its body though perspiration when the air temperature increases, the gemsbok's body temperature will rise as well. After several hours, the gemsbok's body will radiate this excess heat. Should their bodies reach too high a temperature, the gemsbok may cool off by panting. Its kidneys and circulatory system are also adapted for water conservation and heat regulation. Gemsbok can endure temperatures ranging from 99° F to 113° F.

From this site

Why didn't humans rather develop such a cooling method (as if we had a choice )? And on that topic - why don't animals adapt their skin color to the climate, but rather to the environment (camouflage, etc.)

And if the human skin reacts to UV, wouldn't this mean that we'll actually all end up dark skinned (with the destruction of the Ozone) - I think you said this in the thread? Why not develop scales or something to protect us from UV? Why such a sensitive skin?

Yes, Where were all the white tribal people through-out history? I have often asked myself the same question. So I began to do some research on my own and I personally concluded that perhaps color wasn't such an issue way back when. A person was defined by what type of role he/she played in society (how he/she contributed to the welfare of the group as a whole). However, if we really want to get specific I think we need to ask ourselves what truly took place in this old world about a thousand years ago because that seems to be about the time white history really came alive (you know the Viking Wars, the Quest for world trade, power, religious dominion, rich/powerful Popes, merry old England, etc.) My personal opinion is that even the Quest For The Holy Grail was just a means (and an excuse) to grab hold of as much wealth, power and control as humanly possible for the Over-Lords of the time - And the real descendents of the Holy Grail were probably greatly oppressed and yoked to the service of their Over-Lords as is the case today - Having little chance of ever understanding the richness of their true history.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Quite true... traditionally... If you haven't noticed, I live in South Africa, where we have a good deal of dark skinned people

.... On a hot day (which we have plenty of) I would naturally wear short, cool clothes, where the black people would wear long sleeves, ie. cover their bodies as much as possible.

dark skin is more prone to sunburn. hence the covering up. but the fact remains that althoug IR will cause sunburns these are largely superficial and will heal over time, but UV on the other hand causes more severe and permanent damage. this is because of the ozone layer. if the ozone layer was never present then life (if it evolved) wud have been adapted to UV, but since the layer is present almost all life on earth cannot stand UV radiation.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Why didn't humans rather develop such a cooling method (as if we had a choice

)? And on that topic - why don't animals adapt their skin color to the climate, but rather to the environment (camouflage, etc.)

And if the human skin reacts to UV, wouldn't this mean that we'll actually all end up dark skinned (with the destruction of the Ozone) - I think you said this in the thread? Why not develop scales or something to protect us from UV? Why such a sensitive skin?

almost all animals have some form or the other of protection against UV, like u mentioned reptiles have scales, birds are covered with feathers, mamals have fur. but humans no longer have a covering thick enough to be effective against UV. hence we developed melanin. its not a question of sensitivity. its jus another form of protection thts it.

Originally posted by bonijean
Yes, Where were all the white tribal people through-out history? I have often asked myself the same question. So I began to do some research on my own and I personally concluded that perhaps color wasn't such an issue way back when. A person was defined by what type of role he/she played in society (how he/she contributed to the welfare of the group as a whole). However, if we really want to get specific I think we need to ask ourselves what truly took place in this old world about a thousand years ago because that seems to be about the time white history really came alive (you know the Viking Wars, the Quest for world trade, power, religious dominion, rich/powerful Popes, merry old England, etc.) My personal opinion is that even the Quest For The Holy Grail was just a means (and an excuse) to grab hold of as much wealth, power and control as humanly possible for the Over-Lords of the time - And the real descendents of the Holy Grail were probably greatly oppressed and yoked to the service of their Over-Lords as is the case today - Having little chance of ever understanding the richness of their true history.

again. define tribal.

there is none. tribal is a term forcably given to a culture by the western civiliztion simply because it is different from thier own.

infact the whole of europe could be defined as tribal during the dark ages. or if u want before the greek civilization. they are not called so because they are the ones doing the defining simple

Originally posted by puneetsg
again. define tribal.

there is none. tribal is a term forcably given to a culture by the western civiliztion simply because it is different from thier own.

infact the whole of europe could be defined as tribal during the dark ages. or if u want before the greek civilization. they are not called so because they are the ones doing the defining

simple

Tribe: "a social division of (usually preliterate) people"
Wiki: "Church considers a "tribe" to be a higher-level grouping of people than "clan". Groups on a higher level than "tribe" could be "race" or "nation".
More Wiki: "Tribal refers to a culture or society based on tribes or clans. Tribalist as an attitude emphasizes ethnic identity or pride in a cultural sense, as opposed to folkish ideologies focused on race.

In popular culture, tribal refers to a type of design or image that is loosely influenced by artwork of indigenous peoples. Often "a tribal" has reference to a tattoo."


(Aha - here we see a western form of something similiar - Clan...)

Puneetsg, I think you're seeing the word as a racial word. Why? Shouldn't it be seen as a mere group name for a society from a certain region and/or culture (personally I wouldn't say as much culture!) It has the same meaning (generally speaking) as a Clan, which is commonly used in Scotland. Speaking of a "tribe of Indians", or a "Zulu tribe" has no racial reference in the traditional sense.

I have to agree. we "westerners" are pussys. I mean, we have to take a shower every day or else were considered unsanitary.WTF!! Some kids in africa will never take a shower in their life. same goes with india. speaking of which, on of my friends is going on a missionary trip to india to help people with leperosy.


(mod edit to remove comment made that was against site T&C )

[edit on 22-9-2005 by pantha]

Originally posted by ketoes13
I have to agree. we "westerners" are pussys. I mean, we have to take a shower every day or else were considered unsanitary.WTF!! Some kids in africa will never take a shower in their life. same goes with india.

Err... Not sure how to react on that one?! We don't shower everyday because we don't want to be called "unsanitary"... We do it because we want to be sanitary! If you don't wash everyday there's some sure diseases out to get you. Poverty and drought prevent some kids (in poor countries) from bathing once in their lives, not because they're brave and strong and have a choice about it... And the thing is, they don't live that long at all, because of the unhealthy living conditions...

And I doubt if you'll have any friends left if you don't shower for a couple of days... And the ones you've got left, will probably start calling you "Stinky"!


Showering is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of self-preservation and caring about your own well-being!

Originally posted by Gemwolf

Originally posted by puneetsg
again. define tribal.

there is none. tribal is a term forcably given to a culture by the western civiliztion simply because it is different from thier own.

infact the whole of europe could be defined as tribal during the dark ages. or if u want before the greek civilization. they are not called so because they are the ones doing the defining

simple

Tribe: "a social division of (usually preliterate) people"
Wiki: "Church considers a "tribe" to be a higher-level grouping of people than "clan". Groups on a higher level than "tribe" could be "race" or "nation".
More Wiki: "Tribal refers to a culture or society based on tribes or clans. Tribalist as an attitude emphasizes ethnic identity or pride in a cultural sense, as opposed to folkish ideologies focused on race.

In popular culture, tribal refers to a type of design or image that is loosely influenced by artwork of indigenous peoples. Often "a tribal" has reference to a tattoo."


(Aha - here we see a western form of something similiar - Clan...)

Puneetsg, I think you're seeing the word as a racial word. Why? Shouldn't it be seen as a mere group name for a society from a certain region and/or culture (personally I wouldn't say as much culture!) It has the same meaning (generally speaking) as a Clan, which is commonly used in Scotland. Speaking of a "tribe of Indians", or a "Zulu tribe" has no racial reference in the traditional sense.

true i might be a little biased in my views. but then you see a little bias is required in order to get through the thick head of most ppl

and as for the scottish clans. thts the point ihave been trying to make all along (read my first posts), but ppl keep coming back with the same question "how come there are no white tribes??"

u see the simple fact remains tht to most whites, tribes can only mean dark skinned people. and this i find infuriating! ofcourse there are plenty of intelligent ppl out there who know better, but still plenty of duds out there too.

anyways please everyont not THERE ARE WHITE TRIBES!!! GO LOOK AT SCOTLAND OR IRELAND!

on a tangent, i was reading this interesting article the other day about the similarities between irish and indian culture (for all u americans, i mean east-indian) quite startling how much in common we have. will post it once i find it again