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:p


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:bugeye:

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 (http://www.**********.org/whitehistory/)

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 :confused:

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.

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 ?

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.

Originally posted by Vortexx


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

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

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


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.

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
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 .


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:


while Caucasus aint even European , lol

Indeed..:

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




Persians, Khazars, Arabs, Huns, Turko-Mongols, and Russians have invaded and migrated into the Caucasus and have given the region its ethnic and linguistic complexity. The Russians assumed control in the 19th cent. after a

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? :confused:

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

so which scientist(s) first attributed the nomenclature "caucasian" to equate to "white"?

THIS IS A WHITE MAN'S ORGANIZATION, exalting the Caucasian Race and teaching the doctrine of White Supremacy. This does not mean that we are enemies of

http://www.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec4_philosophy_klan.shtml

The term was invented by this German philosopher Blumenbach . His Idea was the origin of mankind to be in the Caucasus (ofcourse while its not the origin of MAN-kind but only the Indo-European part) . Now God knows why the hell he was right (that it was the origin for the Indo-Europeans) since his motivation was aimed at another purpose (origin of all man) and his reasoning was totally ridiculous : get this :

Because the peoples of Georgia he considered the most beautifull of all mankind he'd figure thats where the first man comes from .

WHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Uh, no. There's other reason to suggest the Caucasus at least as an intermediate dropping off point, besides its geographical location. The Nazis were interested in Mongolia for similar reasons.

The truth is that different races need to stay apart. This way, we can coexist without hating each other, except for the Jews, who just need to be shoved into gas chambers and suffocated. Judaism? I can forgive it. Christianity? Alone, I can forgive it. Shoah whining? Alone, I can forgive it. Israel? Alone, I can forgive it? Judaism + Christianity + Shoah + Israel = ovens. Light 'em up.

If you would know actually something about anthropology Prozak is that the first racial mizture happens when a man and woman mix for a new product . Races arent pure , they cant stay apart because they are not apart . Ypur very first ancestors are Black-skinned , accept it .

Everything is mixed , you are mixed , do you believe you are pure ?

What we need is for peoples to stop mixing up characteristics for causes .

As for the Caucasus , its a very nice point indeed as others have also pointed out , but mankind does not come from there , just the last group of mankind , the Indo-Europeans.

Originally posted by prozak
... except for the Jews, who just need to be shoved into gas chambers and suffocated

will you stop this Nazi shit?

there are 2 theories about where humans originated from.

1: humans originated in africa and spread around the world. initially leaving the forest and trees to explore, then adapting to new environments and continue to develop from there.

2: each human "race" originated in a different part of the world.

apparently all the continents used to be 1 big continent millions of years ago so i tend to support the 1st theory.

at any rate, Caucasus is not in Africa... and as far as Georgian women go...ahem...
no comment.

I know the 2 options (it used to be Caucasus instead of Africa in the old days , lol) . Obviously it isnt #2 , it is simply to coincidental .

If we assume that each "race" originated elsewhere we eventually imply different species : How likely is it that these obvious different species (if they would be the same they would have the same origin , correct ?) eventually develop so similar that they are able to interbreed .

Its #1 , without a doubt .

Prozak:


Jews, who just need to be shoved into gas chambers and suffocated.

ahuh...which jews?? Ashkenazim? Mizrahi? Sepheradim? Falasha??

Being anti zionism (or at least the way zioinsim is being manifested today to eradicate an entire people) is fine. Problem is if you're gonna come out with statements like that..then I'm sorry to say you're going to make yourself look like a fool :bugeye:

Because of Blumenbach's obsession with Georgian "beauty," the word "Caucasian" became a "scientific" synonym for "white."


http://www.geocities.com/shavlego/anthropology.htm

:D

Ghassan:


and as far as Georgian women go...ahem...

...dont knock it 'till you try it.......:D

Buhdmaash : Our friend Prozak is one of those White-supremacist allies we just have to deal with when it comes to Zionism . If the man lived in the 30's he'd loooooooooove Zionism , just like his brown-shirted buddy's did .

As for anthropology , wonderfull link , and more wonderfull is their Oxford link . Im always very bothered by not finding decent anthropological information on the internet (unless its accademical like this one ofcourse) because its a subject always very politically used by supremacists groups . Its much easier to find out how the White Aryan comes from atlantis then actual Indo-European anthroplogic history .

If you know any more nice links dont hesitate in posting them
:)

As for Georgian woman , I do know Chechnyan girls can be quite hot and they're located at the Caucasus as well .

Anyways Blumenbachs point deals with men (still in closet at that time , LOL) and I you know Arveladze & Kingkladze etc ? Well he's right allright :

That stock displays...the most beautiful form of the skull, from which, as from a mean and primeval type

The man just has other asthetic values thats all . He thinks caveman is nice :D

Besides, it is white in color, which we may fairly assume to be the primitive color of mankind

The obvious racist context of his scientific approach .

Indo europeans were a part of aryan tribes which populated an area between south of Ural mountains, to north east of Caucasus mountains; in south, they included the present days Iran and Afghanistan (which are also indo europeans). An aryan branch extended south east and conquered India, other branch move westward and conquered Europe. The main tribe (toward the Europe) was the Goths; the part of them which colonized western Europe, were named Visigoths, while the eastern Europe was colonized by Ostrogoths. The trully aboriginal populations of Europe, were the etruscs (middle Italy), bascs (north Spain), and the ilirs (central Balcans).

Indo europeans were a part of aryan tribes which populated an area between south of Ural mountains, to north east of Caucasus mountains

What are Aryan tribes would there be ? Anyways there is quite an issue weither it is proper to call Indo-Europeans Aryans .

south, they included the present days Iran and Afghanistan (which are also indo europeans).

Iran :
Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

This at least indicates an ethnical mixture , Iranians have indeed quite some Caucasian racial influence , but that is not all .

Afghan :
Pashtun 44%, Tajik 25%, Hazara 10%, minor ethnic groups (Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others) 13%, Uzbek 8%

The same goes for Afghans only with less Caucasian racial influence . To call Afghani racially Indo-European is laughable .

aryan branch extended south east and conquered India,

Also something very questionable .

The main tribe (toward the Europe) was the Goths; the part of them which colonized western Europe, were named Visigoths, while the eastern Europe was colonized by Ostrogoths.

Are Goths not merely Germanic ?

The trully aboriginal populations of Europe, were the etruscs (middle Italy), bascs (north Spain), and the ilirs (central Balcans).

And from whom would they have decended then ? Also , as far as the Basques go , I dont think you can dismiss them as not being Caucasian , the racial difference between them and their surroundings is minimal .

-This happened 3000-5000 years ago; the present local demographics, have nothing to do with. However, the ethnicity has nothing to do with race.
-It is not laughable; 2-3 years ago, Time has a cover picture of an afghan girl; she have blue/green eyes.
-Indeed India was conquered by aryans; the events are depicted in Mahabaratha.
- The germans were goths; not all goths became germans.
- The Europe's aboriginal populations, were not caucasians in the sense that they did not come from Caucasus area; but in time they were absorbed and by far the predominant element is caucasian.
Generally, because of the large populations movement during the history - I am talking about Eurasia( Earth mainland)- it is almost impossible to talk about a pure 100% racial background for any group.
Regards.
PS: aboriginal come from the latin "ab originem" which mean initial people.

-This happened 3000-5000 years ago; the present local demographics, have nothing to do with. However, the ethnicity has nothing to do with race.

The relevance in todays demographics lies in the mixture .
What do you mean the ethnicity has nothing to do with race ? Its one of the things we can grab for a potential link , for instance through linguistics .

-It is not laughable; 2-3 years ago, Time has a cover picture of an afghan girl; she have blue/green eyes.

Is there proof that blue or green eyes are stuck with indo-Europeans ? Anyhow even if it would be so , I do not deny any mixture , just know that most Afghani dont have blue eyes . I think its laughable that you lable them as Indo-European when racially mostly have merely some influences . Not enough influence to lable them as such .

-Indeed India was conquered by aryans; the events are depicted in Mahabaratha.

And that makes it true ?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8984

Its debatable . Its also debatable if its correct to lable Aryans as Caucasians .

- The germans were goths; not all goths became germans.

I was talking Germanic not German . Are the Slavs Goths as well ?

it is almost impossible to talk about a pure 100% racial background for any group.

I totally agree there .

-Slavs, except those of early swedish/viking backgroung (varegs; the first cneaz, Vladimir / Kiev was of swedish extraction), are descendants of the scithians. However, in nord/West Russia, they have an evident swedish ethnic component (Bielorussia in russian mean "white russia")
- The present days afghans, are indeed a mixed group, as is any other; however, the mixing is mainly local, and generally in the same race.
-The eyes and hair colour are interesting features; any other color than black is linked with the caucasian race.
-Again, aryan expansion took place before the caucasian race appear.
-Regarding what is today named germanic, it is very possible that on top of the gothic element, a local one -scandinavian- played an important role. However, the finns are of ugrofinic extraction (Also the hungarians, which partially are descending fron huns; Hungary), and have very blue eyes and blond hair, even if the huns come from what is today north-west Mongolia.
Peoples move a lot during their history, and consequently
there are a lot of racial influences, but still restricted either to a given area or to given time frame.
-You may found an afghan girl with blue eyes but not a australian aborigen. The reason is the level of isolation in which different cultures develop. Usually the most isolated, are the most undeveloped ones.

BHUDMAASH:(europeans)"were desendants of middle eastern peoples, most likely from what are now the Turks. "
Turks are not from middle east; they are turcomans, which move from Central Asia approx. 1200 years ago toward West; they enter Europe in 1452 with the fall of Constantinopole (today Istambul), which was the last capital of the last (Bizant) roman empire.

Cornelius you say interesting things :

"europeans were desendants of middle eastern peoples, most likely from what are now the Turks. "

Turks are not from middle east; they are turcomans, which move from Central Asia approx. 1200 years ago toward West; they enter Europe in 1452 with the fall of Constantinopole (today Istambul), which was the last capital of the last (Bizant) roman empire.

Obviously what is ment is that Turkics as a racial peoples when compared to their fellow Caucasians (Germanic,Slavs,Romantics etc) are more closely related to the original Caucasian (white) peoples . I go with Blumenbach on this only without the asthetic value and the white Eurasian origin of mankind . The only peoples who would be more closely related (and they seriously show for it physically) are todays Caucasians like the Georgians .

This brings me to a nice example of full original Caucasoids would be the Huns :

Also the hungarians, which partially are descending fron huns; Hungary), and have very blue eyes and blond hair, even if the huns come from what is today north-west Mongolia.

Lets clear something up first . Todays Hungarians are of what is called Magyar . Magyar is not the same as Hun . Magyar consists of more peoples like Avar & other Germanic influences .

1600 years ago the Huns came with their Hordes into Europe . The Huns are of Turkic stock as well as Bulgars Or Szcekly (who are mostly Hunnic) or Khazars or many others . Know that these Huns were real barbarians , there are indications that they didnt even know of fire .

The line of the origin of the Caucasoids drawn from central/west asia to western europe is a historical one in migratory sense .

As for their eyes , what is your point ? Turkics are obviously a darker peoples than Germanics or Baltics , do you imply origin of those eyes east or west ? Because if you do so , then why not consider an origin of those light colors beyond Caucasoids ? What came first ? Skincolor or eyecolor ?

The eyes and hair colour are interesting features; any other color than black is linked with the caucasian race.

But is it a link that shows the origin ? What came first ?
I say :

1)Facial Structure
2)Skincolor
3)Eyecolor
4)Haircolor

What say you ? And I wonder if you have any time-period of when it would have happened ? Any links ? Anyone ?

Again, aryan expansion took place before the caucasian race appear.

Ok what do you then mean with Caucasian race and what with Aryans ? who are those other Aryans who are not Caucasian ? That means not Slavic , Baltic , Romantic or Turkic or todays Caucasian .

-Slavs, except those of early swedish/viking backgroung (varegs; the first cneaz, Vladimir / Kiev was of swedish extraction), are descendants of the scithians. However, in nord/West Russia, they have an evident swedish ethnic component (Bielorussia in russian mean "white russia")

For the scinthians , you got any sketch for this Indo-European group ? I mean some things showing who comes from what exactly ? Only thing I could find about it was a Ashkenaz relation (obviously this is the implication of Khazaric thus Turkic) . So do Turkics decend from those as well , say they are moms and dads of Turkics & Slavs ?

Also nice to mention the Scandinavian invasion of Russia , the Rus is a scandinavian peoples not a Slavic ones (ofcourse linguistically they are). I wonder in howfar that deals with the extreme whitest-white/darkest-white difference one can find there . This again deals with the origin of the change of haircolor and the change of eyecolor .

- The present days afghans, are indeed a mixed group, as is any other; however, the mixing is mainly local, and generally in the same race.

Very relevant are their eastern neighbours (as Afghan was included in Ancient India) , maybe Bhudmaash knows something on that , Im not very familliar with it . Anyways Im convinced that they are more non-Caucasoid .

You may found an afghan girl with blue eyes but not a australian aborigen.

But Australian aborigines are not the only pre-caucasoids peoples , others might have it as well .

Just because today shows these eyes with a certain peoples does not mean it originates from them . The migration was from east to west , so then would the eyes have changed AFTER their migration from their alikes ? Why ?

If it would have changed beofre , and one tribe with such specific eyes goes and settles and grows , its logical that it would be filled with those eyes . Couldnt that have happened ?

Maybe this thread should be moved to human now .

I do not believe in the concept that all humans originated in a single place, even if it is very "political correct". However, any continental size landmass (Eurasia, Africa, Americas) has his own racial groups, which are more (culture) related between them that with groups from a different landmasses.
Eurasia was the place of huge migrations during the istorical times in which different cultures reach each other -mostly in an unplesant way- and were evidently mutually influenced, up to mixing in some places. The original civilizations (Summer, China, India) were the sources of all latter cultures which sprang around. Our present day civilization (assuming that is a civilization in spite of idiotic killing each other for the most stupid reasons), is the result of this original civilizations. Definitelly the races are different, but no one may claim superiority, each being "superior" at different times in history. The main advantage of eurasian civilization, is that the sheer size of the land mass insured the initial individual developement of different races(=cultures) which provided a vast pool of alternatives, when latter they contacted each other. Also, the variety of climate play a role, forcing the locals to adapt to different environments.

do not believe in the concept that all humans originated in a single place

Then how do you explain the evolution from Neanderthal to HomoSapien to be ending up as one specie as each originated elsewhere ? Coincidence ? Why do we have 1 homo sapien (yes it is one as it can intermix succesfully) if they all developped elsewhere ?

which are more (culture) related between them that with groups from a different landmasses.

How would that defend your view of multi-origin ?

Also, the variety of climate play a role, forcing the locals to adapt to different environments.

But intermixing creates much faster a result than evolution , doesnt it ?

1. Do you believe that all dogs are the descendents of a single dog, and latter they cross the mountains and the oceans in order to spread? A genetic pattern may be defined and occur slightly different in many places; who defined the pattern? I do not know; may be God?
2. It is more easy to interact with a near by group than with one far away; consequently, there are more chances of mutual influences.
3. Intermixing in a racial sense, may be a risky option, the result being unknown; see the africanized bees from South America.

I appologize on behalf of my race "caucasian" "european" or "white".
We have done great harm to this planet and its people.
We have done great good AND great harm.
For the good, we should not gloat, since few of us personally have contributed very significantly to the great advances that the human race has made and is making.
For the harm we have caused, we should appologize, because we benefit from many of the injustices that you complain about, past and present, and I regret to say even future.

So we "whites" should do the magnanimous thing and appologize for the harm we benefit from.
Likewise, we should not gloat about our position on the economic scale, because much of this advantage comes from unfair and sometimes downright brutal abuses of other races.

All that being said, I really do feel sorry for anyone who cannot think about things other than race.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but, I'm sorry to have to feel sorry for you.

Sorry,
Jasper

Ghassan Kanafani I feel sorry for anyone who thinks about race as much as you do.

What bullshit is this man is anthropology a problem nowadays ?
Get real please

I appologize on behalf of my race "caucasian" "european" or "white".

Dont apologize for anything you are not responsible for , and you might wanna know I have quite some Caucasian influence in my heritage as well .

You go ahead feel rather sorry for yourself that you bother peoples on dealing with anthropology , its hilarious Jasper .

Go tell them all about it in an email (http://wings.buffalo.edu/WEDA/)

You sir , are an enemy of knoweldge :

And if you wanna know , I really dont feel sorry for you .

Bye

I feel more sorry for you everytime you write.
At first I was angry when I read some of the inflamatory things you write.
May I suggest that you re-read things before hiting the Send or submit button.

You maintain that one race exists, say caucasians, but that another doesn't exist.
So for you as an individual the jews as a race don't exist. You would then be a A-jew-ist a person who does not beleive in the existence of jews.
I for one, am a A-the-ist, meaning that I don't beleive in "the one" or "the deity".
However, I recognize that trying to get you stop beleiving in this or that is futile.

I feel sorry for the jews, because people hate them for being jews.
I feel sorry for blacks because people hate them for being black.

I feel sorry for you too, but I don't know why

Peace Love and Granola,
Jasper

Granola Schmanola get yourself some therapy dude .

1)Jews are not a race but a religious multi-racial group of peoples , in exact the same way Muslims are not a race .

2)A-Jew-Ist ? So a racial lable would be the only way to identify a group of peopels , otherwise they dont exist ? Are you high ?

3)Thanks for explaining atheism , I do want to remember you that there are multiple forms of theism and not those 2 exaples you gave . If you wanna be correct then Atheism would deny any theological concepts , not just 2 .

4)You get angry all you want , it shows your lack of emotional controll . Its quite pathetic to get angry because of what peoples post on forums , are you sure that you are a stable person ?

So back to the essence , therapy would be a very good advice .

Have fun over there Jasper

:)

The definition of a racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some extent. In this context, Jews and Muslims can be considered a racial group.

Cornelius :

Do you believe that all dogs are the descendents of a single dog, and latter they cross the mountains and the oceans in order to spread?

Do you believe that multiple species have become one ? If so , then could this happen in the future as well ? I think that the further we evolve the smaller the internal difference the larger the external (as species with other) . Obviously level of consciousness in evolution has shown such a path toward difference , how could it be the other way around , as you propose ?

It is more easy to interact with a near by group than with one far away; consequently, there are more chances of mutual influences.

So ? How then does one so far away turn out to become the same ?

Intermixing in a racial sense, may be a risky option, the result being unknown; see the africanized bees from South America.

I have no clue about bees , but by definition we are intermixing within our species constantly as 2 peoples never are identical . Also racial mixing has not shows any problems other than on social-cultural level through intermixing , no biological ones .