Finally finally properly into this vid and have the time, enjoying.
Printable View
Likely white or albino was a mutation etc from black peoples imo with lots of other variables, like how races link etc plus what star systems or galaxies other human type groups come from of course, science is getting closer imo but slowly.
Albino is not the same as white. Albinos have genes which block expression of other genes. White people aren't white because of this genetic mechanism.
White people do produce melanin, just not as much. And there are three kinds of melanin.
To say that white people originated from albinos is wrong. Humans develop, adapt and evolve according to their environments.
In addition, we still barely understand genetics. There are all kind of factors which influence hair, eye, and skin color.
A genetic survey of people in a room would find genetic similarities where the physical appearance is quite different. You might think two people are close because they look alike, and they might be the most genetically different.
it was neanderthals, denisovans, and 'ghost' races, as well...I think albinism is genetically more common in Africans...at least it is more obvious... :) I think his hypothesis is generally closer to current science regarding location, he is going off the rails, however. Homo heidelbergensis blended with neanderthals and denisovans who had a long term history of exit and entrance from/to Europe and Africa. Later, the native Africans (Heidelberg) did their thing along the way and entered Europe at a more recent date as 'equal intellects to more modern humans. Physically different in the fact that they were less robust than the later versions of Neanderthals that they intermingled with in Europe. As modern man existed literally all over the world in the neolithic they began to diverge in phenotypic presentation as Middle Eastern, East Asian, Australoids, Native Americans and, of course, European.
Hi NAP, that sounds real wiki from you, yes ?.
Hi Aianawa,
Though, I do see Wiki as the one true source, I diverged from it out of a real interest in cultural anthropology. One thing I've learned is that CroMagnon is not quite a misnomer but it does lack any real genetic qualification in scientific terms (in search of truth regarding Maggie's video post from the other day). And current science, relatively that is, can't quantify skin color in neanderthals, heidelbergensis, CroMagnon, or denisovans. Translated that means all of the above could have been black or white which kind of counters my longstanding belief that "out of Africa' meant blackness...oops! The 'ghost' race that I referred to relates to 'unidentified' gene sequences in today's humans. There is nothing that categorically discounts anything stated in your video or Maggie's. :)
Humans' hair color comes in a huge array of shades. Much of that has to do with what we like when we look at each other and who we reproduce with.
Skin color is logically an outcome of the environment people are living in, both natural and cultural. Our genes provide a wide array of possibilities in terms of how they express themselves. And a lot of it depends on the environmental triggers. It's a complex process.
The ideas of race related to skin color don't have much value scientifically.
true, it doesn't...which if one REALLY stops and thinks about that...it couldn't open up a lot of new neural pathways.
Wee bit of new data since back when > http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_h...Video_list.htm
Interesting, n put it here for now >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGBms4QMY4&spfreload=10
Interesting, n put it here for now >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmD99uAOmH4
Before watching this video I want to make a comment:
Why is blame necessary? I guess the central question is going to be one of reparations? One thing is true, the legacy of the United States both pre and post slavery involves a denial of shared resources to blacks/African Americans whose transgenerational effect is one of an inability to accumulate wealth like most citizens. In my opinion, reparations COULD at least be considered.
good point but for the most part they weren't owned...but yeah, that is a good question. Thing is, where the mistreatment of AA was blatant and open...the mistreatment of Native Americans after the initial takeover, anyway, was more subtle (since the Revolution days) and the gradient of mistreatment is well acknowledged among the 'others'.
Reparations come in large measure from actual promises which were made and then broken. For example, "Forty acres and a mule".
The parallel with Indians is the treaties which were broken. The case for reparations is parallel.
If the two could join forces for such things, they might get results. That is very difficult since both groups suffer from deep poverty, drug/alcohol issues, and no opportunity.
Black people did have businesses and thriving communities up until de-segregation. The blowback from that was to target black people, churches and businesses. They were literally burned down and the folks were beaten, dragged, etc. It's a rather sad and ugly history.
Nowadays, a dollar stays in a black community for only minutes. The businesses take it out.
A dollar stays in a white community for two weeks. It's a huge economic difference.