Africans are being taken for a ride
better watch out !There's been a large increase in genetic studies in the last few years. Many of them are totally unscientific and designed to put down africans, some crudely and some very, very subtly. They are usually white supremacist in intention.
"African" is a geographical term. The admittedly crude classification into "black" or "African types" include ancient australoid, bushmanoid, pygmy and negrito peoples, etc besides the recently evolved "negro" type. 'NEGROID' is a crude term applied mostly to west african folks. Obscure unscientific and baseless classification used as crude rule of thumb adds things like east african Hamitic, ethiopian, etc. But in african excavations , in the earliest levels, the human remains found are australoid, pygmoid and bushmanoid...NOT negroid...meaning the "negroid" are evolutionally quite advanced actually.
On the other hand, Old EUROPEAN remains, cave skeletons, are ALL neanderthaloid and show a change to negrito /african , 'cromanyon' etc. The distinctly 'negrito' remains are seen at Grotte des infants at Grimaldi and the various paintings and carvings --all these being the remote ancestors of europeans. Then the neanderthal connection---east european remains which have been conveniently destroyed also show transition from neanderthals to modern. There is a feeble hunch the mixed neanderthal- sapiens people were sterile like mules....why not take the simpler solution. In any case no amount of chanting 'cromanyon' can change the real facts. Almost all the paleolithic venuses have sticking out backsides and heads of plaited/pattern shaved frizzy hair. (There are also few cave paintings / sculptures where humans are depicted : the pictures of these published in books generally are cropped at strategic places so that the characteristic ethnic features are obscured. Also, many of the great caves are closed to the public due to "humidity problems". Possible, but the humidity problem includes sweat running down the face of bigots when they recognize with a jolt the great artists really had "soul" :-)
According to one current theory called Multiregional evolution, old types of human beings like H. Erectus arose in africa and moved all over the world and further evolved to local climatic conditions and further interbred with others, to eventually make humans of today. This theory strongly bases itself on concrete examination of fossils.
Another theory, getting popular at present and picturesquely named Out Of Africa, or 'eve' theory, bases itself primarily on genetics--analysis of mitochondrial /Y chromosome DNA of large numbers of people--- says sure, there may have been many species ancestral to us, but fully modern humans arose in Africa fairly recently and moved out in several waves gradually all over the world and completely killed off the older ones.
There are further modifications to both these theories too. Scientists don't agree on the dates and methods, and all agree much more research needs to be done.
Partisans of these two theories Out-of-africa and Regional Continuity sometimes even accuse each other of racism !! While some variants of OOA might seem very warm-we-are-all-chilluns-of- one-negro- mamma, there is a sharp hidden dagger. If we all came from africa, well africans are the ancestral stock, they are the oldest...most primitive ...sub human untermensch...! No details of what are the ethnic features of the 'primitive' africans really are. Just "africans".
Actually the primitive humans in Africa ( and India too ) were PYGMY-LIKE and BUSHMAN-LIKE and AUSTRALOID-LIKE, AND NOT SO CALLED NEGROID, who are a fairly recent evolutionary development. This is a major trap and africans better watch out and not parrot such theories without understanding the implications. They're out to get you. There is also a 'black racist' trend which crudely bases itself on "african race" without going into the huge genetic, ethnic, and social cultural differences in such a large geographical area like africa. Almost as absurd as white racism. At this rate, pretty soon there may be yellow or red or brown or green racism too?
As far as moving out of africa by paleolithic peoples, it is not clear to me why any sensible paleolithic folks would want to move out of a tropical eden to harsh arctic tundra-steppe. Dr.Lalji Singh said "well maybe it so happened there were weaker tribes pushed out by stronger ones." Yeah, ethnic cleansing and all that. Well, a very weak group of archaic humans bearing M89 haplotypes could possibly be pushed out to numb cold europe by stronger tribes, subsequently developing into M 170 neanderthals. But even simple chimpanzees and macaques refuse to migrate to frigid regions even today. (except for a eccentric japanese monkey who takes regular dips in hot pools.,,.Hokkaido, I think.) If the palaeolithic people HAD to move, it would be to a warm subtropical Indian subcontinent and South east Asia. Of course some could have become trapped by glaciers and be forced to adapt and evolve to a cold climate, like neanderthals did, or sudden drying up of the climate like in the sahara forced the Tassili people to pack their bags. To me, seems more likely this movement out of Africa actually deals with H.erectus i.e. a remote ancestor of ours. Erectus spread all over the globe, and adapted to local environmental conditions over a long period of time. And moved back and forth too, mixed peacefully, sufficient to remain as a single species or a super-species. Gradually, erectus developed into modern humans. You, me, we, they. All of us.
ethnic strands in India Part 1
---Africans, Southeast Asians, Malaysians Indonesians, Polynesians, Papuans, China, Jewish, Palestine, Arab, Turkic, Greek, etcethnic strands in India Part 2
---Aryans, Celts, Scythian, Goth, Greek, Hunnish, etc
news, notes and jottings here
Please send your additions, suggestions and questions too. No nigerian offers, OK.
back to index of cultural stuff, other communities too
© by v ramchandra rao ||email vramrao@yahoo.