Inspired by a real original caveman , I would like to ask a question to all those peoples with vivid imagination when it comes to their identity and athropologic history :

Why do you think everything is European ? No the Americans are not European , Kemetians are not European , Sumerians are not European & Indians are not European either .

Why do you need to make everything into "made in Europe" (while Caucasus aint even European , lol .) ? Is that because somehow you feel not happy with who you are , so you have to make things up ?

You use anthropological data and draw your own uneducated conclusions , when you know you have nothing to stand on .

typicial European elements of facial structure have not European origin , get over it . It is totally racist to claim that it does based on the actual facts , as it is OBVIOUS that is reasoned from a "typical" perspective , while relative quantity isnt even looked at .

So quit the bull please .

elaborate. the post is confusing

so which peoples specifically belong on the european list according to you?

I you just go back enough in time you will find that we ALL just came from an area between Botswana and Burundi,

NOW

as the small groups of humans traveled north (driven by severe ice-age related drought, hence following the scarce waterseeking wildlife) Basically the Caucasus and Black Sea are, is a large crossroad from where branches of the human race went south , east, north, west.

All these branches developed their unique genetics, but we can prove the common ancestors through mitochondrial DNA.


So yes, black and whites have common ancestors, so do jews and arabs, indians and pakistani etc etc....


Even the white european skeleton found to prove whites were native americans, has originally developed from black ancestors


Being Native just means that you kicked out the other dudes and after 3-4 generations people believe it was always this way.....

geneticists have concluded, the earliest inhabitants of what we now call "europe" were desendants of middle eastern peoples, most likely from what are now the Turks.
heard this on a radio item ages ago, I suppose i'll have to dig some stuff up.....when i feel like it

Spookz : White supremacists are trying to make it look like ancient civilizations come from their ancestors , Europeans .

This had been done with Kemet (Egypt) , India & now America as you can see in Prozaks wonderfull thread .

Well at least he's not denying Indo-European as white as more extreme racists do , who cannot handle "Caucasian elements" on their beloved race (for instance Slavs , Turks) .

Y'all should have a look at :
MARCH OF THE TITANS

I understand why they reject seemingly non-White (compared to the blond-blue) Caucasians . And I understand why they feel the need to make ancient history (India , America , Kemet) a white one , my question lies this in the lack of accepting your own identity . Obviously they cannot accept to be decendants of other Indo-Europeans , nor can they accept the Caucasian history to be related to cavemanism .

And I wondered why exactly supremacists like Prozak for instance think they are doing this . Obviously they wont ever accept that they are since they claim this as truthfull history , but I wonder how deep we can get when they are confronted with facts .

Even the white european skeleton found to prove whites were native americans, has originally developed from black ancestors

Not according to them Vortex , it all fits in a theory that seperates the white man from the rest as a being , as an Ubermensch .

Being Native just means that you kicked out the other dudes and after 3-4 generations people believe it was always this way.....

Mostly yes , but not always . One time has to be the first time correct ? I say "native" Americans havent kicked anyone out , it was empty land .

as the small groups of humans traveled north (driven by severe ice-age related drought, hence following the scarce waterseeking wildlife) Basically the Caucasus and Black Sea are, is a large crossroad from where branches of the human race went south , east, north, west.

Ehm.......this isnt true . Mankind doesnt originate in Caucasus , Indo-Europeans do . Mankind isnt the same as Indo-Europeans .
Maybe Im misunderstanding you ?

I you just go back enough in time you will find that we ALL just came from an area between Botswana and Burundi,

But you seem to be aware of this ......... so Im not getting it

Anyways what was the exact period of time for the Indo-Europeans to have left that area of the Caucasus ?

so if one has blue eyes and blond hair that doesn't necessarily mean he came from a "white" tribe?

If you are going to define European like that the term has lost its usefulness. We tend to label things not as they were but rather as they are. Heck can you imagine what you'd call people who originated on some chunk of land that fell into the ocean?

Now when you give an unfair connotation to the title "European" that's is when I have a problem. If they seem to dominate today it simply has to do with luck and something they seem quite good at: exploitation.

Ghassan, you are reading into this too deeply. What Vortexx is saying is not that all humankind originates from the Caucasus, but rather that the region is unique for being a crossroads of all races. Nothing has been said that suggests that this is the original home of mankind. I think you are trying to find a racial elemant that simply does not exist.

2 - Very True.

1 - Separated by thousands of years in evolution, of course.

so if one has blue eyes and blond hair that doesn't necessarily mean he came from a "white" tribe?

I have absolutely no idea on the origin of the specific haircolors , I do believe eyecolor to originate pre-Caucasian as well .

Any accademic information on these 2 items would be highly appreciated .

My point however has to do with facial structure .

Congrats :
but rather that the region is unique for being a crossroads of all races.

Yes I now understand , thanks .

But what do you mean with this ? :
I think you are trying to find a racial elemant that simply does not exist.

Is it still about Vortex post or something else ?

Prozak
1 - Separated by thousands of years in evolution, of course
Yes indeed , however your intentions with this statement driven from supremacy is not THAT correct ......... or do you consider Ice-age a positive factor for natural selection ?

Evolution means change , not better change nor worse change .
The better of worse is being brought in through mankinds subjective and often emotional and illogical positive or negative points .

Why dont you rather respond on the thread ? I mean it is about YOU and YOURS , so why not at least bring something in ? Why are you looking for ancient ancestors ? Are you not content with your own ? Is it reality repression ? Is it simple unbelief another peoples could have acchieved somuch ? Tell us please .

Why are you a caucasoid revisionist ?

i believe that amongst the kemet peoples there were those who had pale skin, and lighter eye colour.

i believe that amongst the kemet peoples there were those who had pale skin, and lighter eye colour.

It seems that there might have been a lighter eye-color amnongst them , but weither this lighter color was with caucasian peoples is highly doubtfull .

In the earliest period there was no way there could be any mixture as the caucasians were still in their original region .

After that it was all quite barbaric (thats why i dont believe the Sanskrit "Aryan" idea of Caucasian) , I highly doubt Kemetians would want to intermix in that period , perhaps they held them as slaves ? ...... and maybe later they were released and they mixed ? We really should have an Egyptologist on this one .

www.indo-european.org

This isn't revisionism, it's fact.

The "revisionism" is the attempt to remove credit given to certain races because of its unegalitarian impliations.

What other races had lighter eye and hair color back then?

What other races had lighter eye and hair color back then?

Semites

The question is did they gain it from the Caucasians or did they have it already .

This isn't revisionism, it's fact.

Obviously they wont ever accept that they are since they claim this as truthfull history

Remeber me saying that ?

Nice link btw , do you have a point with it ? I dont hope its facial structure however .....

Trust me your white hiney would get burned after 6.000 years of African sun .

The "revisionism" is the attempt to remove credit given to certain races because of its unegalitarian impliations.

Yes yes , yet you are not prepared to give me any evidence of all these white-civilizations ?

so what u're saying that a certain people had paler skin and lighter eyes millenias ago, and now they are darker?
if yes, then the opposite can be true too. (i.e. millenias ago they were "darker" and now are "whiter")

so what u're saying that a certain people had paler skin and lighter eyes millenias ago, and now they are darker?

Not at all , evolution didnt go like that . That is why a caucasian origin of these ancient peoples is totally ridiculous .

OK, is it me just being thick:

Indeed..:

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0857218.html



these are the true peoples of Caucasus, ie: Caucasians.
ok, so why today is the term caucasian so blatantly used to denote "blond and blue eyed western european"??

when was the original term hijacked?

scientifically, the term "caucasian" refers to "white" people.

but those ppl who call themselves caucasian are ppl from the mountainous region in the Caucasus. they look sort of like Iranians but slightly darker.

i.e Aizerbajan