Scandinavian race never televised WHY?

Originally posted by atlantean i am not saying that those descended from aryans havent built any civilisations, but what i would be hinting at is that those that have no aryan blood have not built any civilisations at all. there where bigger civilisations in asia than in europe at that time, civilisation is more than just about purity, anypeople who have aryan blood can develop civilistion but sadly those who do not, like australian aboriginies and african negroes, there are no civilisations, oh and black africans did not build the egyption civilisation they were just slaves. thanks

I suppose you think the ancient Egyptians had blonde hair and blue eyes? The Pharaohs were almost certainly black, or at least mixed race, despite claims to the contrary by some Arab nationalists and European racists. The Chinese built an advanced civilisation yet had no "Aryan blood" as white supremacists would define it. So did Indian tribes like the Mayans, Aztecs and Inca

I think atlantean means Aryan civilizations have been always superior than other civilizations, it could be because their physical and intellectual capabilities, I read somewhere that ancient Elamites called the Aryan invaders as giants, anyway they could easily conquer all ancient civilizations in the middle east and afterwards there were just some battles between them and other related people, such as Greeks and Romans.

People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research. A team of scientists has tracked down a geneticmutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen. The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

I think any theory of a people tens of thousands of years ago that were meant to have been both blonde haired and blue eyed looks to be a no show.

Btw Had these people existed and moved around in the way the OP suggested, in the last tens of thousands of years ago, then we would be falling over the remains of these people, that would show the traits indicated. If anyone has links showing evidence of these people's remains being in the areas indicated, then please do deposit those links here for the members to peruse at their leisure. 

I think Europeans and Americans are shameful of their racist history, so they prefer to not talk about these things!

Race and racism are two different things, like religion and religionism, the fact is that religionists, especially Islmists, have killed several more poeple and have committed much more crimes than racists, but the problem is that religion is a holy thing, so people proudly talk about it.

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 15-Mar-2012 at 12:01

What I see as racism is claims that a certain group of people, no matter which, is a superior to others, no matter which. The reasons why certain groups of people created a more complicated civilization that other did has nothing to do with any "superior" ability /I don't like the word "superior" to start with, it has haughty connotation to it/, it's well proven that people from different phenotypes perform in the same way in the same circimstances. To claim intellectual or other superiority due to physical looks is unscientific and racist thinking. Racialism is a variation of racism, and leads to it in a more roundabout way; both are ethically dangerous and scientifically flawed.

There is no explanation why one group of people created a literary society, and the group next to them didn't /I was asking this myself many times in connection with my favorite Thracian, how lived just next to the Greeks and never created a literal society, even though they were the same as the Greeks were in terms of phenotype - this I specify especially for Atlantean/. Nevertheless, there are no "superior" and "inferior" people or cultures - all cultures, developed technologically or not, are human creations that deserve respect and interest; and this is a position I'm not going to budge from. The Australian Aboriginal culture deserves our utmost respect and research as well as any other culture that created a literally society - otherwise the Celts can be called what the Australian Aborigines were called here.

In 21 century we should know better that to divide people in "superior" and implied "inferior" Darwin has nothing to do with anything - he was talking about natural selection, not about purported "superiority". The facts are that up to the, say, beginning of the Middle Ages, the most advanced  literally and  technologically societies were located around the Mediterranean, the Middle East, India and China - none of which phenotypes are "blond and blue eyed". Northern Europe, /where the said phenotype is most widespread/ started coming to it's own in the late Middle Ages-Renaissance period, like the last 10 centuries. Anyway, phenotypes have nothing to do with anything.

I'm light-haired, blue-eyed, very-white-transparant skinned with freckles - so what? All my relatives are Mediterranean type, in Bulgaria my type is recessive. The Thracians were reported to have been blue eyed and read haired - and they never developed a literal society, never wrote about themselves, but as the Celts are a "mute" civilization. The Alans and the Scythans, and the Celts were supposed to have been blue-eyed - they were all "mute". in times when Mediterranean, - as well as Indian, and Chinese - phehotypes were writing their histories and creating what we will call the "base of the Western world". All Europe now writes with the alphabets Mediterranean phenotypes came up with, brown-eyed and olive-skinned as they were; an dthe Greek and Roman science, engineering, literature and social sciences are what the same in the Western world are based and build on. So, phenotypes have nothing to do with anything.

Originally posted by atlantean okay then my lovelies, lets get into some real thinking white skin? White skin would not have evolved in the climate of Asia or even Southern Europe could it because it is to darn sunny,  am i right? Arabic peoples have white skin, why would people from say Iran have substantially lighter skin than those from Africa when it is just as sunny in Iran as it is in Africa? why would evolution work that way? white skin must have evolved in a dark environment dont you think? white skin is genetically dominant over black the lack of light is is the only thing that could have turned our skin white, and where is there a lack of light SKANDINAVIA. perhaps the only way that i can prove my theory is to discredit every other theory! Arabic peoples that are not exposed to the sun all the time have white skin. why would evolution have given arabic people white skin when they were evolving there must have been lots of sunlight on there bodys?

Another topic on the Middle East's desertification. Great civilisations like Sumeria collapsed due in part to deforestation and overfarming. There was once a time when timber was regularly exported
Causes and Progressions of Desertification

I'd rather have dogs than children, but stopping people from reproducing is immoral and very close to the Nazi theory of Eugenics. Sexuality or behavioral traits like stupidity are not neccessarily hereditary: the offspring of welfare recipients can also succeed in life and end up with a well-paid job (and until last year, many have done thanks to cheap university fares and improved teaching methods).