Is it true we all come from the black African race
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Archaeology & Anthropology
Forum Discription: Topics on archaeology and anthropology
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21149
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 00:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is it true we all come from the black African race
Posted By: Surmount
Subject: Is it true we all come from the black African race
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 14:23
| I've heard this numerous times. I myself have briefly looked in and out of this topic back and forth. The Evidence seems to be there. What do you guys think. |
Replies:
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 17:31
|
pffffffffffff B*O*R*I*N*G We have no evidence that these people we come from were black or blue or whatever else. Yet we are fairly sure they were from Africa. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 18:33
|
There is / was no black African race. ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 23:06
| One things for certain, there is absolutly no evidence that we DIDNT come from Africa. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 23:45
African is not only black, and black doesn't always mean African |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 23:55
| I don't understand, What do you mean |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 23:59
|
Thats what most Anthropologists say, and archeology seems to go with it also. I just want feedback. What do you guys no about the beginnings of man. But i still don't understand what Feanor is trying to say. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 00:19
|
Surmount, you will also have to take into consideration, that we humans, as a race, do not know exactly what may have occured millions of years ago. We only have "tidbits". And like i stated before, there is with out a doubt, no evidence that shows we didnt come from that great region.
Which also brings up a question.
Since there is unsurmountable evidence showing that our race Did originate in Africa. Should we all acknowledge it as our "Cradle", and respect it in every possible aspect?
|
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:04
|
Well if we find out that its true. Then We should just except it. I mean we all came from somewhere. I have yet to take Anthropology. But from what I hear they basically teach Africa is the cradle of civilization. Then through time the Africans spread out to other regions of the world and physically adapted to the climate they traveled to. Overtime They physically started changing to fit there enviroment. When they moved more north to what is now known as Europe there skin lightened due to the lack of sun year around, there noses grew thinner which would be better for that enviroment. When they moved to the modern day Asain regions they began to overtime physically change for that region. They thefore adapted smaller thinner slanted eyes good for the windiness and climate of that region. This is just some of what i basically heard. I guess that's part of what they teach. |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:06
But i like how you used unsurmountable
|
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:08
| I have yet to take Anthropology. But from what I hear they basically teach Africa is the cradle of civilization. Then through time the Africans spread out to other regions of the world and physically adapted to the climate they traveled to. Overtime They physically started changing to fit there environment. When they moved more north to what is now known as Europe there skin lightened due to the lack of sun year around, there noses grew thinner which would be better for that environment. When they moved to the modern day Asian regions they began to overtime physically change for that region. They adapted smaller thinner slanted eyes good for the windiness and climate of that region. This is just some of what i basically heard. I guess that's part of what they teach. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:22
Your not very clear in what you mean, can you make a better effort to build your position. (FYI im deleting your double posts) |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:28
|
LOL.Stop playing with me you know what i mean. LOL good one though.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:48
Your acting like another spammer troll that cant discusses or even build a case. Watch your conduct. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:55
Exactly! Bones do not give you a skin color of the individuals, maybe because such a trivial thing does not matter. Just another Afro-Centric propaganda drive.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 01:59
Another fact, as Leonidas pointed out. You have populations in southern India that would look "black" as the poster of this thread surely would identify them if he knew not that they were from India. Skin color changes, and is not constant in populations, given enough time it can change to improve the survivability of a certain population.
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 02:44
Thanks!
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 10:11
|
As far as I know modern man appeared in Africa in a people very similar and closely related to the Khoi-Sans.
From them derivated all the so called races: the Bantues (Blacks), the Horners, Middle Easters, East Asians, Europeans, Australoids and Amerindians, all derivate from the same group of proto Khoi-San peoples of East Africa, perhaps in Kenya.
If Khoi-Sans are Black or not Black is not as important as to notice the following. If we look at them carefully we can find in that group of humans features of all the races of the world.
Pinguin ------------- |
Posted By: Perun
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 09:24
I agree completely... I recommend you Steve Olson "Mapping Human History". This books helps a lot to understand the development of human "races".
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 12:52
|
...And there! You've all come to the same conclusion as everyone else has, for over hundereds of years, so what was the point of discussing it? ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 23:03
Everyone except, that is, the scientists and others, like myself, who favor the concept of regional continuity. It seems as if when this is talked about the harsh reality of the Genetic Bottleneck that occurred [thanks to Mt. Toba] approx 77,000 years ago is completely forgotten. Also pushed aside are the Australian skeletons, dated to about 40,000 bce that have no mtdna connection with the rest of us. As smug as some of us can get, we are still missing major pieces of the puzzle. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 23:43
Just becuase a topic has been discussed for over a hundred years, and millions of threads have been produced, does not mean that there is no point in bringing certain topics back up. People come online to LEARN. Now, is learning a crime?
|
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 00:54
Do you mean that we can find the features of all the races of the world present in every Khoi-San person, or that there are people within the khoi-Sans who have different racial features parallel to all the races of the world? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 09:13
From the geneticl point of view, a group very close to the Khoi-Sans are the origin of all of other "races", including what we call Blacks, Ethiopians, Asians, Australoids and Amerindians. None of the later group is the origin but that particular group that lived in Kenya circa 100.000 ago.
Now, if you look at the Khoi-San people with an open mind, you could get surprised to find facial features from different "races" on them. But this is subjective. Genetics is not.
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 10:39
| I think you missunderstood me, I was asking whether every khoi-San person has all the racial features of the world present on him/her, or that different people within the Khoi-Sans show different racial features ? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 10:59
|
find out pictures of the Khoi-sans on the web and post in here to discuss them... ------------- |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 22:45
|
Just becuase a topic has been discussed for over a hundred years, and
millions of threads have been produced, does not mean that there is no
point in bringing certain topics back up. People come online to LEARN.
Now, is learning a crime? Exactly Thank you Penelope  |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 22:47
Pinguin you wanted to see people of the  
|
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 22:48
| There you go penguin i found that picture for you but what did you want it for? |
Posted By: Almazy
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 13:45
khoisans usualy have slanted eyes and are short with that yellowish brown skin.    In terms of DNA Ethiopians are thought to be the oldest form of humanity. Humans originated from Ethiopia and spread throughout the world. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 18:35
|
Evidence is building up that suggests humans evolved in Africa and Asia, simultaneously. Regional continuity again? ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 20:03
|
I'm convinced man first came out of SE.Asia! The very short stature Flores type of man was predominant in the early stages of human evolution. Perhaps there was a land bridge to Africa?
------------- elenos |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 20:43
|
Wow, Thank you Almazy. You are the only one who answered my question regarding the Khoi-Sans. I really appreciate it.
So the Ethiopians are the oldest peoples. It is interesting that every body claims different peoples to be the oldest, and mentions different theories for the beginning of humans. I guess it shows that nothing is known for sure at the moment. In this case we have to consider all the possibilities. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 21:34
|
As far as I know, The Khoisan group is earlier than the Ethiopians, but these later group is in the path of the development of all groups in Eurasia. Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 22:32
|
the deep copper of the Khoisan reminds me of the Kalahari Bushmen. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2007 at 23:58
You almost got how evolution works, and this is a great moment to remind everyone how it really does. Every new human has natural mutations. Some are fatal, and the conceptus never makes it to life, some are just weird or seemingly useless, but if you are born and survive, you will pass your weird and useless traits if you manage to reproduce. With humans it would have worked like this. A moving population of humans get to a place where there is less sun, so the darker skinned people got to have less vitamin D, which is naturally produced by our bodies when exposed to the sun. Lack of vitamin D would makes calcium absorption hard, which produces brittle bones. (Read more about what happens when you do not get enough vitamin D here http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050430/food.asp - http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050430/food.asp ) The end result is that brittle bones may have killed the darker skinned humans before they reproduced, leaving the genetic freaks with light skin alive, and these passing their genes to their children. Let me repeat this part again because people often missed it Evolution works through death. Humans don't adapt; populations adapt. The poor girl with dark skin who move too much to the north didn't develop lighter skin. She died, and those who were genetically lighter made it to reproduction. If you think about it, we are all the children of mutants--rather cool, I would say. 
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 00:02
You must talk more about this. I am not familiar with these fossils ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 01:09
| Almazy, your pictures are very beautiful, thanks. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 06:47
See Not Out Of Africa, here- http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/notafrica.php - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/notafrica.php ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 18:42
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_language_families.png">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_language_families.png">
The distribution of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages - Khoi-San language family can be seen in this map (in green) of African language families. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khoisan&action=edit§ion=2 - edit ] Oldest human group?According to Knight et al. (2003) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_%28Y-DNA%29 - Y-haplogroup A , the most diverse or oldest-diverging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_haplogroup - Y haplogroup transmitted purely by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrilineal - patrilineal descent, is today present in various Khoisan tribes at frequencies of 12-44%, and the other Y-haplogroups present have been formed by recent admixture of Bantu male lineages E3a (18-54%), and in some tribes, noticeable Pygmy traces are visible (B2b). The Khoisan also show the largest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity - genetic diversity in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal - matrilineally transmitted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtDNA - mtDNA of all human populations. Their original mtDNA haplogroups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L1_%28mtDNA%29 - L1d and L1k are one of the oldest-diverging female lineages as well. However, analysis of neutral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosomal - autosomal (inherited through either parent) genes finds that the Khoisan are similar to other sub-Saharan African populations. The presence of Haplogroup A, especially the subclade A3b2, in East Africa suggests some ancient connection between those populations and the Khoisan. This may not be a simple migration in one direction, but the result of various movements of people in Eastern and Southern Africa over tens of thousands of years, followed by the recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion - Bantu expansion separating the two regions. One interpretation is that the Khoisan are the earliest-diverging human group, or even a group that has preserved the original human lifestyle along with genetics. More conservatively, it can be said that the patrilineal or matrilineal descent of most individuals in most other human groups have passed through common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_bottleneck - genetic bottlenecks that are later than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam - most recent common patrilineal ancestor or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve - most recent common matrilineal ancestor shared by all humans, and that the ancestors of the Khoisan avoided these particular bottlenecks. Such bottlenecks might be associated simply with the chance reproductive success of particular males, or with the settlement and subsequent expansion of a small group (e.g. modern humans venturing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa - out of Africa , or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Pump_Theory - Sahara Pump Theory , or recovery from disasters like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe - Toba catastrophe ) or have even more complex causes. This does not show that the Khoisan were particularly isolated through history and prehistory; in fact, the autosomal genes demonstrate interchange with other African populations. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 19:06
|
What is your source, Surmount? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 19:27
Thanks for the link. It was a great article. At the same time, I think that the title exaggerates the debate. Torne says that the first humans came out of Africa, so he is still an out of Africa scholar. The difference is a technical one on how the migration and evolution of humans happened. From the article, it seems that what they call the out-of-Africa theory says that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, and then went out and replaced the other humanoids. Thorne says that all of the other humanoid species that lived together with the Homo Sapiens were actually Homo Sapiens, and that further evolution happened out in different regions. So this is more like an infighting within the Out-of-Africa scholars about how it happened. I like Thorne's theory; let's see if it holds ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 22:21
|
I have heard about the Australian skeletons, I believe the guy lost any
credibility by making unsubstantiated claims. Australia still does
hold to rigorous standards that are overridden elsewhere. Also the
Australian Aboriginals, as the situation stands right now, is they will
will take any ancient bones and destroy them. They say "ancestor
relics" should not be handled. They are under instruction from American
Indian lawyers in how to handle these things. Knowing something about
the state of current affairs in the country involved helps in many of
these cases. If
you do make significant finds concerning the ethnic background of
Australia the thing is to hide any evidence away until the situation changes. ------------- elenos |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 05:13
| I have some questions. When did the first humans appear? And when did they start to leave Africa? I mean how much time was there between the birth of human species in Africa and their first migration out of Africa? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 10:49
|
Homo sappiens is not the only human that developed, so that's to be taking into account. Homo Nearthental, for instance, lived up to 20.000 years ago in Spain in a time when there were already homo sapiens not only in Europe but in the Americas! Now, homo sapiens appeared circa 150.000 years ago. Men abandoned Africa 60.000 years ago and reached Australia 40.000 years ago. Aroud 30.000 they were in Europe and 20.000 years ago in the Americas.The original group of modern humans were small bands of hunter gatherers living in Kenya and closely related to modern Khoisans.
You can see the whole thing in here:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 23:31
He means that within the population you find some individuals who have Asiatic, or "mongolian" facial features, otheres who look "caucazoid", others who look "negroid' etc They have a yellowish brown skin tone, which means that their descendants migrating into a hotter climate will get darker, or migrating to a colder, lighter. The hair is very short and extreemly kinky. As to whether or not they are Black, they are considerd so by the South African government and the various Europeans who encountered them, but not like the zulu for instance. They considered them a different type of black or another variation I should say. |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2007 at 23:40
These are one and the same people. Bushman is just a slang name that was given to them by the European settlers. Their real name is the Khoisan and they do live predominantly in the Kalahari |
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2007 at 08:48
I dont buy the out of Africa theory because its racist to claim Caucasians/Asians etc etc evolved an devoloped while Blacks remained the same  Africans evolved in their environment whilst other groups evolved in theirs. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 16:51
|
But black people didn't stay the same! They adapted too to their environment, through the process that huogestr describes. Look for example at the pygmies in the forests of Equatorial Africa: they are extremely short because they had to adapt to life in a dense forest. The Maasai by contrast are very tall and skinny being adapted to life on the savannah. Two questions we have to establish before going forward: what are humans and what is black? It may seem obvious but it's not. As far as humans are concerned, the consensus is that the first hominids appeared in Africa's great Rift Valley around 6-3.5 million years ago. The first hominid to leave Africa was Homo Erectus about 900,000 years ago. Here's were it gets more complicated: Homo Erectus started to evolve. Thus we have Homo Neanderthalensis in Europe and the Middle East who was well adapted to cold climates, and Homo Florensis on the island of Flores. Most researchers believe that modern humans (Homo Sapiens) appeared in Africa again (I heard South Africa), about 200,000 years ago, and spread throughout the world, displacing the other species. Some researchers however believe that from Homo Erectus, other species of humans have evolved, which mixed with the African Homo Sapiens, to give rise to certain populations. I believe that in particular the Chinese reseachers back this theory. So, did hominids originate in Africa? Most definitely. Did (all) humans originate in Africa? Probably, but not certainly. Now, as far as the meaning of black, supposing that the Khoisan are indeed the earliest humans and that South Africa is the land where they first appeared (it's difficult to say based on their current geographical location, because they used to occupy a much larger landmass in the past), then are the Khoisan one and the same with black people? No. They are African, but they differ as much from a black person from Senegal or Nigeria or Somalia, as they differ from a Chinese. From the standpoint of white ignorant people (or black or chinese ignorant people for that matter), they are black simply because their skin is somewhat dark and they are African. But then again, they are about as dark as say a Phillipino, so is that a fair statement? South Africa is as the same latitude as a place like Buenos Aires in Argentina or Sydney in Australia; or in the Northern Hemisphere, as the same latitude as Texas, Palestine, Iran or Central China, so the whole idea of being "black" for the purpose of adapting to sun radiation doesn't hold much ground. Also, evolution and adaptation means a whole lot more than skin color and appearance. We have a lot of genes, regulating our metabolism, makeup of organs, skeletal system, immune system, etc. The differences between individuals of the same population are often greater than the differences with members of another population. For example, two individuals from Nigeria may be more different genetically from each other than one of these individuals and another individual from Sweden or China. Race is a myth based on a very shallow understanding of superficial differences, which ignores the rest of the similarities and differences. Appearance is like the tip of an iceberg, when it comes to genes. To summarize, humans probably appeared in one spot and then evolved and diversified through a process of natural selection. Black Africans along with everyone else went through this process. Even the Khoisan probably evolved to some extent, though they may be closest in appearance to our ancestors having stayed put in the original homeland. No one people can claim being the original people, because it appears that we are all descended from a common population. There is no race, other than a very inacurate but quick convention of describing people. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 00:23
I am positive that there must be some people who agree that we did not come from Africa and have came up with proof to defend their points. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2007 at 00:41
|
The point is the hard core Out of African theorists are struggling to make it appear that all modern man evolved in Africa and came out at a ridiculously late date. So there is OOA1, OOA2 and OOA3 with a million years, half a million years and hundred thousand of differences. There is a pick your own favorite answer for whom they married while hotfooting around the world and so on and on. What proof is needed when these historical revisionists not only argue with others but argue among themselves. ------------- elenos |