Where do the primitive white cultures live?

reply to post by LUXUS


That was a very interesting video. Good find!

Originally posted by LUXUS
For those of you who think white people developed in Europe, how does this fit into your theory?

Seems like poorly done pseudo-history to me. A secret race of giants "12 to 15 feet tall"... Really?

Originally posted by Movescamp
reply to post by Turiddu

 

I have to disagree with you on that one. Almost no is not true.
upload.wikimedia.org...

I realize the Germanic and Slovak invasion nearly wiped out the indigenous culture but the country is melting pot. I travelled through Albania, Serbia, and Bulgaria after my tour in Iraq. I have to say there were a lot of different cultures. I was stationed in Budapest as well in 2000. I don't think the census gets out to many rural areas. Also population density in cities obscures such things. Many people to me looked identical to people in Turkey and Iraq.

I hear what you are saying about skin tone but i don't believe the rest based on travel to the countries. As far as I can remember there are saphartic Jews and Berbers and moorish ancestors in southern Spain. I remember about 30 percent of the population or so.

Well those might be your anecdotal observations but modern genetic research and anthropological survey work has dismissed the notion that non-Whites influenced those areas in any meaningful way. The Moors and Berbers were mainly kicked out of Spain after the Reconquest. There is a reason the patron saint of Spain is "Saint James the Moor Slayer".

---

On another note it seems certain people in this thread seem to believe that "race" does not exist, this is simply untrue from a scientific sense. We know that races exist and there are meaningful differences between them. Open any medical journal for example and you'll find plenty of evidence for racial differences. Whites and Asians are much more likely to get arthritis than Blacks whilst Blacks are much more likely to develop blood pressure problems. I recommend reading the two books I posted earlier to get a good introductory view of "human biodiversity".

Really? There is no meaningful genetic contribution from the Middle East or Africa to account for the the Southern end of Europe? REALLY?

There are not very many people yet tested. Of those people, most of them have not been tested for nuclear DNA where the traits you are suggesting aren`t there for would be.

If you are basing your evidence for nDNA traits being well documented by association to mtDNA and yDNA tracing of a VERY minor fraction of the population, I'm afraid that you are making sweeping generalizations and assuming them to be fact inspite of the evidence of your EYES and on a fact which is not.

reply to post by Movescamp


You are mistaking the work of RNA triggers, which can be impacted by diet and environment, for DNA.

They aren't the same thing. RNA can turn on and off, or modulate your genes. This is actually a different thing.

reply to post by Aeons


I've traveled extensively through Italy, Greece and Spain and I've never seen this "evidence", the local peoples look like Europeans everywhere else albeit with a tan. The fact is that no legitimate anthropological study has ever shown significant African or Middle Eastern genetic input in any Southern European country, its an old racist-inspired myth (note how White and Black Supremacists are the groups most eager to perpetuate these fantasies) that finally needs to be put down.

As you can likely guess from my username I am of Southern Italian descent and nobody in my large family looks like they have African or Middle Eastern genetics.

Sure - of all the people on the planet, only the Italians don't screw outside their pristine genetic stock.



Anyone knowing a few Italian boys and their proclivities is welcome to join my mirth.

Oh, and it might be nice to remember that Northern Italians have a greater proportion of Celtic contribution.

reply to post by Aeons


Who claimed Italians are of a "pristine" genetic stock?

Italians are a mix of Celtic, Greek, Etruscan and indigenous Italic genes. Later Germanic invasions and occupation by France, Spain and Austria also added some minor admixture.

reply to post by Turiddu


I think you are basing way to much on a few books. Anthrolpology being a very expanding and relatively new field changes pretty quick. Aeons was right about DNA testing and if you read most reports now adays they state DNA testing has not been an adequate test for race until very recent advancements.

I was talking about chromosome markers when talking about saphartic
Jews and Berbers. Only because there has been no other way to test.

Also Berbers and Saphartic Jews were not kicked out of Spain but majority wise forced to convert. Hence all the fuss trying to figure out the ethnic background of peoples in southern regions like andulicia.

I can tell you there are significant Albanian people in Serbia. I am sure they have off spring with Slovak people etc. Serbians also have many Hungarians, and Turks. So I think my statement was fair. Serbia is an ethnic melting pot.

Because a culture identifies themselves say as "Serbian" that doesn't mean there Grandmother didn't marry an Albanian etc. You are mistaking peoples own identification for an actual genetic trait.
DNA testing hasn't been able to show those traits until recently. I can guarantee they certainly have not tested "nearly everyone". Especially in countries like Serbia.

Also anthropology is based on field work. Reading things in books is no substitute. If you have never done any field work or even travelled to those places it's pretty hard to make definite statements. It's not math we are talking about it's a relatively new social science using extremely new field techniques. A population as huge as Serbia is far different than observing say the Yanomami.

My job in the military trained me specifically be able to identify different people from different ethnic backgrounds. As limited as that was I would take my "anecdotal" evidence over your two books anyway.

Those caucasion mummy and pyramids in China vids were very interesting.
There is also some controversy in the US with ancient bone and skull findings, that these older samples were not "Native America", but again, caucasion.

It makes me think that "Caucasions" aka "white people" were really the 1st people on the planet.
Not that one is superior or lesser.

Originally posted by tom502
There is also some controversy in the US with ancient bone and skull findings, that these older samples were not "Native America", but again, caucasion.

Initial reports suggested "caucasoid" not "caucasian"...there is a difference.

Go down to a trailer park...will clear this whole thread up lol

reply to post by tom502


Um sorry nissim is a highly controversial (snake oil) figure. I happen to enjoy his physics theories but they are a stretch. His anthropology is kind of a joke. While the Chinese thing is true he is out of his league and new age for his conclusions. Also to note the aborigine are far older than the findings. I believe their was an earlier culture similar to this but the red flag is his approach and absolute assuredness on the subject. He is selling tickets basically. He also has called himself a physicist. He has no physics background and doesn't understand mathematics. He should refer to himself as an author or he is misleading people.

Interesting non the less.

People have to be very careful when something is defined as caucasion.

Ie: mummies, bone finds, etc.

A caucasion bone structure does not equal white.

The cauacsion (officially caucasoid) skeletal type is shared by a host of different skin colours.

I do believe that this holds true for all the skeletal types.

So it is very plausable to find a caucasoid skeleton in asia, it could have been from a mid east traveller, indian traveller, etc. Same with finding negroid skeletal remains in europe.

reply to post by peck420


Exactly. That's the danger in people who have absolutely no training in the field they are presenting themselves as "experts" in. I fully understand however an outside point of view often provides unseen wisdom. The flag is the demeanor of the presenter here. You should see his physics work. I find it compelling but he sites a peer rated Belgiun science journal as a credit to his theory. When you read closer you see it was lay people at a conference that voted for his theory. It's that kind of misleading that makes me question this guy.

It reminds me of a bob Dylan poem

A boy asks his dad to buy him a magazine. "dad can you buy me this science magazine? My teacher said it will teach me about the moon." "no son the purpose of the magazine is to sell more magazines."

Originally posted by Turiddu
Italians are a mix of Celtic, Greek, Etruscan and indigenous Italic genes. Later Germanic invasions and occupation by France, Spain and Austria also added some minor admixture.

Roman Legions were comprised of any men living within the borders of the empire. That means there were Egyptians, Greeks, Syrians, Northern Europeans like Germanic, Gallic and Mongol tribes inducted into its legions and marching across an area stretching from Africa to Britain. They raped, pillaged and died all across those lands, leaving bastards and corpses strewn about all over the region and beyond.



The above map shows the established borders. It wasn't so neat and tidy as failed attempts at widening the Roman conquests left their tracks far beyond those borders as well.

I generally do not like to label things primitive but there is a relative light skinned native people in Lapland Northern Scandinavia (Finland and Sweden) called the Sami people. Very proud people and have a almost autonomous existence. Here's one article for instance: boreale.konto.itv.se... and another www.galdu.org...

The problem with Scientists is that when looking to find the origin of Caucasian peoples they look at land that is currently above sea level and pin there origin there. What if the story of Atlantis is true and that is where white people originated?

So these Scientists now find Caucasian in ancient china and and come to the conclusion that they came from Europe. Personally I think time will tell that there is a city under the sea that is not too far from Europe and that during a disaster the inhabitants fled in all directions, some to Europe, Some to china, some to India etc etc

Something that I think is very interesting is that they found some of those Caucasian mummies in China wearing tartan kilts. The Chinese government have now forbidden digging up any more Caucasian mummies, Its obvious that they don't like this one bit!

reply to post by LUXUS


Nobody said white people. Caucasoid. It's not strange we already knew Indian monks went to China. It's where Kung fu came from. They probably did it long ago too.
Cau·ca·soid (kô′kə so̵id′)
adjective
designating or of one of the major geographical varieties of human beings, including peoples of Europe, Africa, the Near East, India, etc., who are generally characterized by tall stature, straight or wavy hair, etc.: loosely called the white race although it embraces many peoples of dark skin color

See what happens when you don't understand the topic you are talking
About.

China is a cagey place. It is not out of character for them to bury this stuff. Hell they burned books art. It's the nature of communism.