Caucasian Revisionism

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Ghassan Kanafani, Jul 2, 2003.

  1. bhudmaash Banned Banned

    Messages:
    871
    so which scientist(s) first attributed the nomenclature "caucasian" to equate to "white"?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. bhudmaash Banned Banned

    Messages:
    871
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    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.
     
  8. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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.
     
  9. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    will you stop this Nazi shit?
     
  10. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Ghassan

    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.
     
  11. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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 .
     
  12. bhudmaash Banned Banned

    Messages:
    871
    Prozak:

    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:
     
  13. bhudmaash Banned Banned

    Messages:
    871
    Those Georgian women!!


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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ghassan:

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2003
  14. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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 .
     
  15. cornelius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    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).
     
  16. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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 .
     
  17. cornelius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    -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.
     
  18. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    -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 .
     
  19. cornelius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    -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.
     
  20. cornelius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    BHUDMAASH

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
     
  21. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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 .
     
  22. cornelius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    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.
     
  23. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    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 ?
     

Share This Page