Where do white people come from?

[Ravi]

All this angst over Black History month (a yearly event, both Black history and the angst) got me wondering.

Where do white people come from?
Why do white people divide themselves further into groups...i.e. Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
If you are white, hispanic and black would you be able to celebrate black history month and hispanic heritage month?
Why do so many not consider hispanics to be white?
Why don't wingers celebrate European American history month?

Oh, jeesh! I forgot about the orientals.

Thoughts?

 

[Ravi]

And if a mod would be kind enough to change "to" to "do" in my title I would be grateful.

 

[syrenn]

Primordial soup.

 

[uscitizen]

We Beta Traingulans are the most discriminated against minority on this miserable planet.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I dunno.

I'm just a monkey.

 

[Mr. Sauerkraut]

All this angst over Black History month (a yearly event, both Black history and the angst) got me wondering.

Where do white people come from?
Why do white people divide themselves further into groups...i.e. Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
If you are white, hispanic and black would you be able to celebrate black history month and hispanic heritage month?
Why do so many not consider hispanics to be white?
Why don't wingers celebrate European American history month?

Oh, jeesh! I forgot about the orientals.

Thoughts?

as a white man i asked this question to myself.

My theory: Grudge.

From all "Races", the "Whites" are the ugliest.

I´ve never seen an ugly black, asian, oriental, hispanic woman.

But white ones? Hell...

No wonder that we are these all-time mulligrubs.

 

[Madeline]

All humans can trace their ancestry back to Africa, where presumably, people had curly hair and dark skin. Those who migrated North evidentially found some adaptive value in lower and lower levels of melonin -- why, I dunno, nor do I know why straight hair or blue eyes, etc. emerged as traits.

Evolution of Modern Humans:  Early Modern Homo sapiens

"Race" as applied to humans is not a biologically sound concept. A white person and a black person, etc. are not members of different species. For biological classification purposes, mammals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring. (Think mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses.)

Confusions About Human Races

Race as applied to humans is a purely social concept, and over time, the boundaries of who is and who is not considered "white" has changed quite a bit. Hispanics, Southern Europeans and Arabs have all been in and out of that social group at one time or another.

Caucasian race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People seem to have a propensity to xenophobia or some other common character defect that makes them identify with the place where they were born or the religion they follow, etc. and to be antagonistic to at least some nearby neighbors. One quick look at the history of the region now know as Czechsolvakia proves that, though similar tensions exist almost everywhere on Planet Earth (except possibly in island nations).

(This is my own opinion and observation. I could find a link, but I can't find a scholarly one just this minute.)

The "racial identity" of some people whose parents have very different ethnicities has been foisted on them. In the past, it was common for others to view anyone with "one drop" of African blood as black.

"One-Drop Rule" - BlackHistory.com

But this is changing, probably because "mixed marriages" have grown more common. Young people with complex backgrounds now are less and less comfy claiming one and denying the others, and it's more common to hear "I'm biracial", etc. than it once was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/us/30mixed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=iracial%20kids&st=cse

I can't explain the white supremacist movement. I suspect it all comes down to inadequacy and fear, or mebbe they're just assholes.

 

[dilloduck]

 

[Tank]

 

[uscitizen]

I sometimes think the human race is losing.

 

[Ernie S.]

All this angst over Black History month (a yearly event, both Black history and the angst) got me wondering.

Where do white people come from?
Why do white people divide themselves further into groups...i.e. Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
If you are white, hispanic and black would you be able to celebrate black history month and hispanic heritage month?
Why do so many not consider hispanics to be white?
Why don't wingers celebrate European American history month?

Oh, jeesh! I forgot about the orientals.

Thoughts?

If we did, we would be called racist.

 

[30x90]

All humans can trace their ancestry back to Africa, where presumably, people had curly hair and dark skin. Those who migrated North evidentially found some adaptive value in lower and lower levels of melonin -- why, I dunno, nor do I know why straight hair or blue eyes, etc. emerged as traits.

"Race" as applied to humans is not a biologically sound concept. A white person and a black person, etc. are not members of different species. For biological classification purposes, mammals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring. (Think mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses.) Race as applied to humans is a purely social concept, and over time, the boundaries of who is and who is not considered "white" has changed quite a bit. Hispanics, Southern Europeans and Arabs have all been in and out of that social group at one time or another.

White people and negroes are arguably the same species..yes..but they are different breeds..Like a Rottweiler is a dog and a chihuahua is a dog...but they are entirely different breeds.

The problem with the Out of Africa theory, is that it is just a theory.
Do you give much credence to Multi regional theory? or parallel origin theory?


What makes you think that Australopithecines was Black, though?
Just because Blacks make up the majority of the population in Africa today, doesn't mean that was always the case.
Cro Magnon were not Black, Neither were Neanderthals, Hottentots or any of the other people who preceded the Black Africans.
Whites and Asians are the only group known to have Neanderthal DNA.

You realize black skin didn't mutate until after humans had lost their fur?
Africans evolved to be black-skinned after ages in a sun-baked land promoted the proliferation of melanin in their hides.
Neanderthals are thought to have been light skin and the Neanderthal race or species is much older than Homo sapien 600,000 vs. 200,000 years.
It is much more likely that the first humans were light skinned and hairy as opposed to being dark skinned.
At this point in time in Africa, the climate was much different than today. The Sahara didn't exist, it was lush grassland and what is now jungle was forests. There was no biological reason for the first people in Africa to be dark skinned.
Instead of saying 'we all used to be Black' or 'we all have Black ancestry', maybe we should be saying 'we all used to be White' or 'we all have White ancestry'.
The horrible joke on the negroid race would be if it was discovered they are descendants of a White skinned population..

hahahaha..LMFAO...Imagine!
Instead of evolving, humanity in terms of negroes devolved.
De-evolution is certainly possible. Geographic isolation in the Congo valley limiting the mating pool, intermixing with pygmies or non-Homo sapien forms, and so forth could of given rise to the distinct physical and behavioral characteristics that exist today in the Black African.

The placement of the first humans in Africa is political. It is just as likely that the first human populations arose in Arabia or Central Asia. But picking Africa serves a purpose.
It bolsters the equality agenda by suggesting everyone is the same and everyone shares a kinship with Blacks.

People seem to have a propensity to xenophobia or some other common character defect that makes them identify with the place where they were born or the religion they follow, etc. and to be antagonistic to at least some nearby neighbors. One quick look at the history of the region now know as Czechsolvakia proves that, though similar tensions exist almost everywhere on Planet Earth (except possibly in island nations).


I can't explain the white supremacist movement. I suspect it all comes down to inadequacy and fear, or mebbe they're just assholes.

Do you see millions of Whites trying to sneak into non-White countries? Do you see Whites demanding to live in non-White neighborhoods? It is always the reverse. Apparently it's the other races that really believe in white supremacy.

 

[Madeline]

All humans can trace their ancestry back to Africa, where presumably, people had curly hair and dark skin. Those who migrated North evidentially found some adaptive value in lower and lower levels of melonin -- why, I dunno, nor do I know why straight hair or blue eyes, etc. emerged as traits.

"Race" as applied to humans is not a biologically sound concept. A white person and a black person, etc. are not members of different species. For biological classification purposes, mammals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring. (Think mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses.) Race as applied to humans is a purely social concept, and over time, the boundaries of who is and who is not considered "white" has changed quite a bit. Hispanics, Southern Europeans and Arabs have all been in and out of that social group at one time or another.

White people and negroes are arguably the same species..yes..but they are different breeds..Like a Rottweiler is a dog and a chihuahua is a dog...but they are entirely different breeds.

The reason this issue still exists is that ultimately, it is not a purely scientific question. It's a philosophical one, and a sociological one, etc. Yes, people will have offspring that resemble them....that's how DNA works. But the values/importance attached to the resemblance is determined by humans as members of a society, not as scientists.

The problem with the Out of Africa theory, is that it is just a theory.
Do you give much credence to Multi regional theory? or parallel origin theory?

No, I don't. I don't claim to be a scientist, but everything I have read and been taught seems to pretty clearly indicate we have a common ancestor and that ancestor was African.

What makes you think that Australopithecines was Black, though?

Who?

Just because Blacks make up the majority of the population in Africa today, doesn't mean that was always the case.

If you mean we can only guess at what the first Homo Sapiens really looked like, I agree. Obviously, skin and hair is very, very rarely preserved in the geological record.

Cro Magnon were not Black, Neither were Neanderthals, Hottentots or any of the other people who preceded the Black Africans.

Neanderthals did not precede Homo Sapiens. They existed simultaneously and died out. Cro Magnons were ancestors; I admit I have no idea who Hottentots are or were. In any event, we obviously have very little evidence of what their skin or hair looked like.

Whites and Asians are the only group known to have Neanderthal DNA.

This is the first I've ever heard this. Link, please?


You realize black skin didn't mutate until after humans had lost their fur?
Africans evolved to be black-skinned after ages in a sun-baked land promoted the proliferation of melanin in their hides.

This is likely true. But I'm not sure "fur" is the right word.

Neanderthals are thought to have been light skin and the Neanderthal race or species is much older than Homo sapien 600,000 vs. 200,000 years.

Okay, I'll take your word for this. Neanderthals apparently were much hairier; it never occurred to me to ask what color skin they might have had.

It is much more likely that the first humans were light skinned and hairy as opposed to being dark skinned.

The first Homo Sapiens, you mean? I kinda doubt it, but who cares?

At this point in time in Africa, the climate was much different than today. The Sahara didn't exist, it was lush grassland and what is now jungle was forests. There was no biological reason for the first people in Africa to be dark skinned.

Okay.


Instead of saying 'we all used to be Black' or 'we all have Black ancestry', maybe we should be saying 'we all used to be White' or 'we all have White ancestry'.

We all descend from African ancestors. We don't know exactly what they looked like. That better?

The horrible joke on the negroid race would be if it was discovered they are descendants of a White skinned population..

Because why?


hahahaha..LMFAO...Imagine!
Instead of evolving, humanity in terms of negroes devolved.
De-evolution is certainly possible. Geographic isolation in the Congo valley limiting the mating pool, intermixing with pygmies or non-Homo sapien forms, and so forth could of given rise to the distinct physical and behavioral characteristics that exist today in the Black African.

There's not much agreement among scientists that behavior is DNA-based. As for the rest of your statements, while it is true a defective gene can proliferate in a closed or isolated community, Africa has had almost none.


The placement of the first humans in Africa is political. It is just as likely that the first human populations arose in Arabia or Central Asia. But picking Africa serves a purpose.
It bolsters the equality agenda by suggesting everyone is the same and everyone shares a kinship with Blacks.

No, it is not political. The significance of the finding lies not in WHERE the common ancestor lived but in the fact that there was one. When I was a schoolchild, it was thought the common ancestor lived in the Middle East, and science has since discovered older human remains elsewhere. They might find even older ones on the South Pole tomorrow and this would still not undercut the factoid that we all share one ancestor.

People seem to have a propensity to xenophobia or some other common character defect that makes them identify with the place where they were born or the religion they follow, etc. and to be antagonistic to at least some nearby neighbors. One quick look at the history of the region now know as Czechsolvakia proves that, though similar tensions exist almost everywhere on Planet Earth (except possibly in island nations).

I can't explain the white supremacist movement. I suspect it all comes down to inadequacy and fear, or mebbe they're just assholes.

Do you see millions of Whites trying to sneak into non-White countries? Do you see Whites demanding to live in non-White neighborhoods? It is always the reverse. Apparently it's the other races that really believe in white supremacy.

History just not your bag, eh? Prior to 1600 or so, the entire US was a non-white area of the world.

 

[30x90]

Race as applied to humans is a purely social concept, and over time, the boundaries of who is and who is not considered "white" has changed quite a bit. Hispanics, Southern Europeans and Arabs have all been in and out of that social group at one time or another.

Main Entry: social construct
Part of Speech: n

Definition: a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice

A social construct is anything that exists as a product of human social interaction instead of by virtue of objective, human-independent existence. Social constructs are said to be the result of social facts, things that are true of our social world or human existence, as opposed to natural facts.

In other words it's artificial...manufactured...unrealistic...inaccurate...

 

[30x90]

All humans can trace their ancestry back to Africa, where presumably, people had curly hair and dark skin. Those who migrated North evidentially found some adaptive value in lower and lower levels of melonin -- why, I dunno, nor do I know why straight hair or blue eyes, etc. emerged as traits.

"Race" as applied to humans is not a biologically sound concept. A white person and a black person, etc. are not members of different species. For biological classification purposes, mammals belong to different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring. (Think mules, the offspring of donkeys and horses.) Race as applied to humans is a purely social concept, and over time, the boundaries of who is and who is not considered "white" has changed quite a bit. Hispanics, Southern Europeans and Arabs have all been in and out of that social group at one time or another.

White people and negroes are arguably the same species..yes..but they are different breeds..Like a Rottweiler is a dog and a chihuahua is a dog...but they are entirely different breeds.

The reason this issue still exists is that ultimately, it is not a purely scientific question. It's a philosophical one, and a sociological one, etc. Yes, people will have offspring that resemble them....that's how DNA works. But the values/importance attached to the resemblance is determined by humans as members of a society, not as scientists.
You deny that there is a difference between rottweilers and chihuahuas?..

The problem with the Out of Africa theory, is that it is just a theory.
Do you give much credence to Multi regional theory? or parallel origin theory?

No, I don't. I don't claim to be a scientist, but everything I have read and been taught seems to pretty clearly indicate we have a common ancestor and that ancestor was African.
That's arguable and you can't prove it.
What makes you think that Australopithecines was Black, though?

Who?

Just because Blacks make up the majority of the population in Africa today, doesn't mean that was always the case.

If you mean we can only guess at what the first Homo Sapiens really looked like, I agree. Obviously, skin and hair is very, very rarely preserved in the geological record.

Cro Magnon were not Black, Neither were Neanderthals, Hottentots or any of the other people who preceded the Black Africans.

Neanderthals did not precede Homo Sapiens. They existed simultaneously and died out. Cro Magnons were ancestors; I admit I have no idea who Hottentots are or were. In any event, we obviously have very little evidence of what their skin or hair looked like.

Whites and Asians are the only group known to have Neanderthal DNA.

This is the first I've ever heard this. Link, please?


You realize black skin didn't mutate until after humans had lost their fur?
Africans evolved to be black-skinned after ages in a sun-baked land promoted the proliferation of melanin in their hides.

This is likely true. But I'm not sure "fur" is the right word.

Neanderthals are thought to have been light skin and the Neanderthal race or species is much older than Homo sapien 600,000 vs. 200,000 years.

Okay, I'll take your word for this. Neanderthals apparently were much hairier; it never occurred to me to ask what color skin they might have had.

It is much more likely that the first humans were light skinned and hairy as opposed to being dark skinned.

The first Homo Sapiens, you mean? I kinda doubt it, but who cares?

At this point in time in Africa, the climate was much different than today. The Sahara didn't exist, it was lush grassland and what is now jungle was forests. There was no biological reason for the first people in Africa to be dark skinned.

Okay.


Instead of saying 'we all used to be Black' or 'we all have Black ancestry', maybe we should be saying 'we all used to be White' or 'we all have White ancestry'.

We all descend from African ancestors. We don't know exactly what they looked like. That better?

The horrible joke on the negroid race would be if it was discovered they are descendants of a White skinned population..

Because why?


hahahaha..LMFAO...Imagine!
Instead of evolving, humanity in terms of negroes devolved.
De-evolution is certainly possible. Geographic isolation in the Congo valley limiting the mating pool, intermixing with pygmies or non-Homo sapien forms, and so forth could of given rise to the distinct physical and behavioral characteristics that exist today in the Black African.

There's not much agreement among scientists that behavior is DNA-based. As for the rest of your statements, while it is true a defective gene can proliferate in a closed or isolated community, Africa has had almost none.


The placement of the first humans in Africa is political. It is just as likely that the first human populations arose in Arabia or Central Asia. But picking Africa serves a purpose.
It bolsters the equality agenda by suggesting everyone is the same and everyone shares a kinship with Blacks.

No, it is not political. The significance of the finding lies not in WHERE the common ancestor lived but in the fact that there was one. When I was a schoolchild, it was thought the common ancestor lived in the Middle East, and science has since discovered older human remains elsewhere. They might find even older ones on the South Pole tomorrow and this would still not undercut the factoid that we all share one ancestor.

People seem to have a propensity to xenophobia or some other common character defect that makes them identify with the place where they were born or the religion they follow, etc. and to be antagonistic to at least some nearby neighbors. One quick look at the history of the region now know as Czechsolvakia proves that, though similar tensions exist almost everywhere on Planet Earth (except possibly in island nations).

I can't explain the white supremacist movement. I suspect it all comes down to inadequacy and fear, or mebbe they're just assholes.

Do you see millions of Whites trying to sneak into non-White countries? Do you see Whites demanding to live in non-White neighborhoods? It is always the reverse. Apparently it's the other races that really believe in white supremacy.

History just not your bag, eh? Prior to 1600 or so, the entire US was a non-white area of the world.

Yes, it was. So? What's your point about the u.s.?

EDIT:
I'd like to debate some more and I dispute some of your claims but I'm not smart enough to know how to multi quote and parse and insert the quotes with links between all the colors and fonts and it's too labor intensive to cut and paste everything..hell with it......sorry. There are a few points I won't get to.
I don't concede..I guess I'll just withdraw

 

[Madeline]

It is hard to figure out the quote thingie. And we have too many different topics under discussion at once.

If you feel up to it, why not post just one assertion of your own that you'd like to pursue? If there's more than one, mebbe use separate posts?

 

[IanC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ePILrB11c

hahahaha, I see no one is (or can) disputing the points made in this video.

 

[Ravi]

All this angst over Black History month (a yearly event, both Black history and the angst) got me wondering.

Where do white people come from?
Why do white people divide themselves further into groups...i.e. Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
If you are white, hispanic and black would you be able to celebrate black history month and hispanic heritage month?
Why do so many not consider hispanics to be white?
Why don't wingers celebrate European American history month?

Oh, jeesh! I forgot about the orientals.

Thoughts?

If we did, we would be called racist.

So it's fear...

 

[Madeline]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ePILrB11c

hahahaha, I see no one is (or can) disputing the points made in this video.

I'd imagine no one bothered to play it, Ian. I sure didn't. But let me take a wild guess...."blacks are inferior" is the theme?

Tank's a bit of a one trick pony whose one trick is biting his own butt.

 

[Madeline]

All this angst over Black History month (a yearly event, both Black history and the angst) got me wondering.

Where do white people come from?
Why do white people divide themselves further into groups...i.e. Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, etc?
If you are white, hispanic and black would you be able to celebrate black history month and hispanic heritage month?
Why do so many not consider hispanics to be white?
Why don't wingers celebrate European American history month?

Oh, jeesh! I forgot about the orientals.

Thoughts?

If we did, we would be called racist.

So it's fear...

I don't see what they have in common, Ravi. Even assuming that all white people are European (and where that leaves Americans, Australians, Canadians, Russians, etc. I haven't a clue), they don't speak the same language. They don't have a cooperative history. They don't share the same climate.

"European culture" just seems to me like a goofy attempt to cobble together a whole bunch of people who traditionally have hated each other.