Stonehenge Was Built by Black People, according to Children’s History Book

Maciamo said:
Cheddar Man was indeed darker than the WHG average. But Cro-Magnons had very dark skin, so skin progressively got lighter over time and Cheddar Man was probably one of the few people who still had relatively dark skin just after the end of the last Ice Age.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't, I think you ignored the actual DNA study on Cheddar man, he seems to have more genes for fair skin than dark skin.

F7r00YqbgAEwewl
 
Yes and the piece of shit I shitted in 2013 was of an Mongolian, Chinese, Arab, Jewish and Natufian ancestry, I never realized this till now..
 
Just the other day, I watched a television programme hosted by German journalist Gert Scobel. It was titled "What made us human?" and can be watched on Youtube. It shows again that you have to dig into the scientific papers yourself if you aspire to get to an approximation of facts. Archeogenetics, paleoanthropology and evolution are a work in progress as new data comes in all the time and new discoveries are made. There is absolutely nothing you can learn from these television programmes. Scobel shows something I have seen previously in a BBC-produced documentary. In one of those "dramatised" scenes depicting archaic but anatomically modern humans, you see a Homo sapiens "who was the spitting image" of modern humans and whose African ancestry was obvious. The Homo sapiens is basically a modern SSA man which is laughable. It is also mentioned during this scene that the "so-called white phenotype" is the result of malnutrition. The narrator (not Scobel himself) concluded that it makes no sense to believe that white people are the pinnacle of evolution. Well, who exactly believes that apart from some supremacist nutjobs? Most people in the West are confronting racism in their midst and have been doing so for a while. The history of racism, slavery, fascism, nazism and whatever inhuman ideologies and practices is thoroughly studied and discussed at Western universities, in media, in schools etc. No other part of the world practices that level of self-reflection. As a matter of fact, there is barely any self-reflection in non-Western societies. You see all the same or at least similar supremacism in the Arab world, in Japan, among some blacks, and even China. Israel is a supremacist state as well. Slavery de facto existed in Saudi Arabia until the late 1960s. It still exists in the form of the most brutal exploitation of South Asian workers. Is there a wide debate on racism in Arab societies? It is a racism amplified by religous bigotry and the belief of belonging to a religion of the pure. Where are the Arab books and documentaries about the Arab slave trade? Unlike European slave owners, their Arab counterparts were castrating their black slaves and it is estimated that 6 in 10 slaves died from the procedure alone. While African slaves in the Americas got a chance to live behind offspring that would eventually be born in freedom, the Arabs had their slave population partially exterminated. Where is the self-reflection?

The comment that the "so-called" white phenotype resulted from malnutrition is proof of the disrespect that our ruling elites and their media lackeys have for the intellect of the general population. If anything, light skin is the result of an adaptation to avoid malnutrition. The other joke is the showing of a modern SSA man (a Bantu at that) as the archetype of early modern humans, as if black people (as they are defined today) didn't evolve themselves to their current phenotype. No one is denying that the earliest, fur-free modern humans were dark-skinned. They must have been, also because we have evidence that the areas where they are thought to have originated were much more exposed to UV radiation than today. But no present-day race or ethnicity can claim to be "the spitting image" of those early modern humans. And we can see right now where this ideological distortion of science leads to. It has the opposite effect of what its advocates (ostensibly) intend: instead of combatting racism and bringing people together, it simply empowers the racism of non-whites. I see comments by the "we wuz kingz" crowd all the time that "they were the original humans." The ideological groundwork for that is laid by Western academia just like the Islamic attack on modernity as something "eurocentric" owes a lot to postmodernism and its moral and cultural relativism which is another child of Western academia. Not everything goes back to mere ideology, of course. It is accompanied and economic and political reality and the many defeats and disappointments among the losers of globalisation.
 
Last edited:
Good points, Norbert, as a whole.
 
So much non-historical BS based on some ancient European having darker skin than today's average European. As if just having darker skin makes modern Europeans something other than the indigenous Europeans. The degree of categorization based simple on skin tone is the most non-historical and non-scientific BS. But certain political parties love to marginalize 'white people' based upon this nonsense to justify their political immigration policies. The ends justifies the means - which seems to be at all costs.

How one can even take dark skin as being SSA is beyond me given a cursory view of people everywhere who are genetically very distance from SSA and have dark skin. But I supposse all his other Europoid features can be ignored. Ha! But hey they are so tied to skin color that anyone who is black skinned must be used not only as SSA but as a tool to jab at European's identity. And yet they have the nerve to complain about racism and prejudice. Black privelage and blackwashing on the move.

Welcome to Clown World!
 
VMax said:
So much non-historical BS based on some ancient European having darker skin than today's average European. As if just having darker skin makes modern Europeans something other than the indigenous Europeans. The degree of categorization based simple on skin tone is the most non-historical and non-scientific BS. But certain political parties love to marginalize 'white people' based upon this nonsense to justify their political immigration policies. The ends justifies the means - which seems to be at all costs.

How one can even take dark skin as being SSA is beyond me given a cursory view of people everywhere who are genetically very distance from SSA and have dark skin. But I supposse all his other Europoid features can be ignored. Ha! But hey they are so tied to skin color that anyone who is black skinned must be used not only as SSA but as a tool to jab at European's identity. And yet they have the nerve to complain about racism and prejudice. Black privelage and blackwashing on the move.

Welcome to Clown World!
Click to expand...
As others I agree here. Poor future world. It is not only a question of "Black"s but the great rapt of power by an all people suffering a severe inferiority complex, justified or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 3186 times.

Back
Top