Its clear these are white skin afro people.
Meet the albinos
So my question to denekes, mathilda, greek dna myth and all the other eurocentricks, if the black skinned afro hair art that predominate the ancient Etruscan tombs and art represents the white people then do the white skin images represent black people? I am curious what do the white people represent in the art, or is everything just white, blacks are white, and whites are white.
Not too sure what is meant by *black* in this context. If you are talking about their skin complexion, then they could be easily be pakistanis. as for facial phenotypes, most do have positive chins and high rooted noses. if youre trying to say that they are black as in black african, then i would ask you for some literature to help me understand this better.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
-Duttamachandro Illamahal Xianshan
Yes black people aren't the only one with black skin, that is true, pakistanis have black skin as well. and Pakistanis are not that far removed from blacks in the historical chain, man left africa, went into arabia and the near east then india and diffused. The Pakistanis have indo-european (white) central asian admixture so they are not considered to be fully black, at least not the ones I know. But this is really irrelevent because no one argues the ancient romans or greeks were pakistani ( a country that didn't even exist back then). Yes I am saying they are black in terms of "black african". But it is almsot silly to use the term african for a peoples who spended 50,000+ years in the region going back to grimaldi man days. Please read the rest of the blog to find the literature.
ReplyDelete>>Yes black people aren't the only one with black skin, that is true,<<
DeleteReally? so, logically, white people arent the only ones with white skin, right?
>>pakistanis have black skin as well. and Pakistanis are not that far removed from blacks in the historical chain, man left africa, went into arabia and the near east then india and diffused.<<
Not many pakistani people have black skin actually. mostly muhjirs and coastal sheedis do. some of the most ancient people in pakistan are the Kalash people. they are looking white. many have glowing light eyes and even pinkish skin and blondish hairs. and they speak an indic language of the dardic branch.
>>Yes I am saying they are black in terms of "black african". But it is almsot silly to use the term african for a peoples who spended 50,000+ years in the region going back to grimaldi man days.<<
what is your point then? by that logic we are ALL african. the standard theoy is called the "Out of Africa" theory. it states that all modern man evolved and spread from africa at a number of different times. WE might as well call european africans, since prehistorically african meant black and black meant african, one and the same.
So what is the point you are trying to articulate and where is the literature that supports it?
Cheers!
>>Yes black people aren't the only one with black skin, that is true,<<
Delete“Really? so, logically, white people arent the only ones with white skin, right?”
Well I suppose. I’ve seen albinos of every “race” with white skin.
>>pakistanis have black skin as well. and Pakistanis are not that far removed from blacks in the historical chain, man left africa, went into arabia and the near east then india and diffused.<<
“Not many pakistani people have black skin actually. mostly muhjirs and coastal sheedis do. some of the most ancient people in pakistan are the Kalash people. they are looking white. many have glowing light eyes and even pinkish skin and blondish hairs. and they speak an indic language of the dardic branch.”
You are slowly exposing yourself. First you argued that black skin people were not black but could be easily Pakistani, now you are arguing that most Pakistanis do not have black skin defeating your initial argument.
>>Yes I am saying they are black in terms of "black african". But it is almsot silly to use the term african for a peoples who spended 50,000+ years in the region going back to grimaldi man days.<<
“what is your point then? by that logic we are ALL african. the standard theoy is called the "Out of Africa" theory. it states that all modern man evolved and spread from africa at a number of different times. WE might as well call european africans, since prehistorically african meant black and black meant african, one and the same.”
I agree that most of the ancient civilizations were primarily black peoples. Modern Europeans are albinos from central asia. What you want to call them is your prerogative.
“So what is the point you are trying to articulate and where is the literature that supports it?”
The literature is in the blog you refuse to read but you will read only my comments for some bizarre reasoning.
“Some studies have also identified this region as the likeliest source of the populations who later inhabited Europe, Siberia, and North America.[2] According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the northwest of the region is also considered to be the source of the root of the Indo-European languages.[2]”
The report on the genetic study of Central Asians, Stanford University Publications
Can also be found at Wikipedia because you don’t have libraries in china apparently
Note from this text book with image attached when indo-europeans arrive in the late period.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7499/indoeuropeanmigrations1.png