World's most ancient race traced in DNA study

[Flint Steel]

The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth, according to the biggest and most detailed analysis of African DNA. The San, also known as bushmen, are directly descended from the original population of early human ancestors who gave rise to all other groups of Africans and, eventually, to the people who left the continent to populate other parts of the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html

That might be so. If you go back even more millions of years, we were all fish walking onto the beach on our fins. That doesn't mean I want to queue up in KFC with them.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The oldest race there is eh. I wonder why they still dress in animal hides and sleep in the dirt, if they had more time than any other race to develop cool new technology.

[Gregz]

The oldest race there is eh. I wonder why they still dress in animal hides and sleep in the dirt, if they had more time than any other race to develop cool new technology.

The San maybe primitive however they are far a nicer people than most Africoons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Bushmen_Rock_Painting.jpg

http://www.ejozi.co.za/img/South-African-Cuisine/San-Hunters.jpg

http://www.bonasafari.com/files/PICT0135.jpg

http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/pics/africa2_2/afr20018.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/BushmenSan.jpg/800px-BushmenSan.jpg

[Dreadnought]

Well, it at least gives the lie to to idea of degeneration from an earlier 'perfect' epoch.

I have heard, yes, that they are less barbaric than the black Africans. It's strange how these people look kind of like a mixture of all the world's races - perhaps to do with their status as originators of everyone else?

[PseudoCop]

The San maybe primitive however they are far a nicer people than most Africoons.


Maybe that's why the Zulus had such a easy time pushing them around- nice guys finish last.

[La Cosa Blanca]

Is it just me or as Negroes go do they not look a lot lighter skinned than their brethren? The old guy with the stick and shell socks also looks slightly Asian around the eyes to me.

That's the Khoisan for you...

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/bushman2.jpg

[Soulless Doubter]

Is it just me or as Negroes go do they not look a lot lighter skinned than their brethren? The old guy with the stick and shell socks also looks slightly Asian around the eyes to me.
Those are leg warmers, not socks. The fact that white women in the United States finally caught up with the trend in the 1980's, after a ten thousand-year lag (at least), is a testament to the ingenuity of these people. We were predated in almost every category of civilization, and only upon closer study of these folks and their culture will we see how far behind we have been in the world of ideas.

Anyone want to take a stab at where the first computers were designed? Now, before you venture forth with China, France, or the United States, take a look at those shells...

[elbwgreez]

I think we should offer them a job as branch manager.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/monkey.jpg

[Vessper]

Is this actually true?
Then, we are all descendants of a primitive black tribe, right?. Sad.

[Larrikin]

The old guy with the stick and shell socks also looks slightly Asian around the eyes to me.


That's the Khoisan for you...

Khoi-san. Obviously.

[Larrikin]

Is this actually true?
Then, we are all descendants of a primitive black tribe, right?. Sad.
Whatever the color, a couple of thousand years back everything was pretty primitive from todays point of view.

Europe 1000 BC? Piece of crap.

[Dreadnought]

Whatever the color, a couple of thousand years back everything was pretty primitive from todays point of view.

Europe 1000 BC? Piece of crap. I take it you mean northern and western Europe, which was probably about as populated as pre-Columbus North America, as opposed to the cultures around the Mediterranean basin?

Is this actually true?
Then, we are all descendants of a primitive black tribe, right?. Sad. They're not really black.

[Vessper]

I take it you mean northern and western Europe, which was probably about as populated as pre-Columbus North America, as opposed to the cultures around the Mediterranean basin?

They're not really black.
Yeah, I think the same..
I think that the races are like branches of the Homo Sapiens and we all haver a common ancestor, is not that we descend from each other.

[Larrikin]

I take it you mean northern and western Europe, which was probably about as populated as pre-Columbus North America, as opposed to the cultures around the Mediterranean basin?

Obviously. The Mediterranean civilizations at that point were basically from the Middle East (Assyrians, Hethites, Phoenicians etc). This was even before the foundation of Rome and the Greek polis states (which of course were also heavily influenced by the above).

[Dreadnought]

Well, you didn't specify a very exact time period, so "at that point" could have been a wide range of things. Of course, there was less of a division between the various parts of the Mediterranean basis then, as there was much less of a historical religious divide.

Though of course, the level of technology is not all there is to a culture. The Aztecs had a higher level of technology and social organisation than many of their neighbours, and other North American Indians, but were bloodthirsty, tyrannical savages. And the ancient Germans were admired for their honourable morality by Tacitus, despite being "ignorant barbarians" in the Roman view. The "noble savage" idea is stupid, but it doesn't mean savages are less noble than civilised people, though you have to ask the questions of why they are in a pre-literate state or whatever.

[Larrikin]

Well, you didn't specify a very exact time period, so "at that point" could have been a wide range of things. Of course, there was less of a division between the various parts of the Mediterranean basis then, as there was much less of a historical religious divide.

I think I said 1000 BC? That's a pretty defined point of time, isn't it?
But since we agree on the matter (the ancient Mediterranean being of Middle Eastern / North African influence) we'll leave it at that.

Though of course, the level of technology is not all there is to a culture. The Aztecs had a higher level of technology and social organisation than many of their neighbours, and other North American Indians, but were bloodthirsty, tyrannical savages.

And now we're talking about 15th century AD when Europe (the today's by then) was already in the Renaissance.

And the ancient Germans were admired for their honourable morality by Tacitus, despite being "ignorant barbarians" in the Roman view.

And even Tacitus mentions the human sacrifices of Germanic tribes (he didn't know of the anthropophagy though). By all means the Germans then were pretty primitive compared to the Romans or Greeks.

The "noble savage" idea is stupid, but it doesn't mean savages are less noble than civilised people, though you have to ask the questions of why they are in a pre-literate state or whatever.
True. It is a striking fact that no culture or civilization without a wide-spread writing system transformed very fast and successfully.

I think the major key is population density and cultural exchange. The narrow, dense river bank civilizations moved fast and first, then the Mediterranean Sea was (compared to al other oceans) an easy way to bridge distances. The Alps and Balkans provided some barrier that was then overcome and thus created an area of communication between a very large number of people (cultures).

On the other hand (central/south) African populations remained pretty isolated until the Bantu migrations much later.

Taking a look at Australia of Pupua the very, scarce wide-spread cultures pretty much stagnated for centuries/millenia.

I'm not familiar enough with the developement of Asian cultures to really prove that point there, but looking at the population size of China/India and the density of Japan makes me think its not far off the mark.

[Dreadnought]

I think I said 1000 BC? That's a pretty defined point of time, isn't it?
But since we agree on the matter (the ancient Mediterranean being of Middle Eastern / North African influence) we'll leave it at that. Apologies, didn't see that somehow.

And now we're talking about 15th century AD when Europe (the today's by then) was already in the Renaissance. I'm aware of that, but it's a good analogy. Whatever year it is has no bearing per se on human civilisation.

And even Tacitus mentions the human sacrifices of Germanic tribes (he didn't know of the anthropophagy though). By all means the Germans then were pretty primitive compared to the Romans or Greeks. Romans had an odd revulsion at human sacrifice - odd because they were certainly a bloodthirsty lot, the nadir being the gladiatorial games.

True. It is a striking fact that no culture or civilization without a wide-spread writing system transformed very fast and successfully. Vikings?

I think the major key is population density and cultural exchange. The narrow, dense river bank civilizations moved fast and first, then the Mediterranean Sea was (compared to al other oceans) an easy way to bridge distances. The Alps and Balkans provided some barrier that was then overcome and thus created an area of communication between a very large number of people (cultures).

On the other hand (central/south) African populations remained pretty isolated until the Bantu migrations much later.

Taking a look at Australia of Pupua the very, scarce wide-spread cultures pretty much stagnated for centuries/millenia.

I'm not familiar enough with the developement of Asian cultures to really prove that point there, but looking at the population size of China/India and the density of Japan makes me think its not far off the mark. This is all very true, but there is the matter of how people adapt when they come into contact with the outside world.

Also, if you look at it dispassionately, there is no reason that genetic variations couldn't have come about from those geographical variations, if specific populations were actually formed in those areas. This brings up the whole "ice age people" argument, and the Australian aboriginals with their "tracking" brains. Bushmen have not really been exposed to anything new in an evolutionary sense, whereas many other races were formed by migration and exposure to new and initially difficult environments.

[Larrikin]

Romans had an odd revulsion at human sacrifice - odd because they were certainly a bloodthirsty lot, the nadir being the gladiatorial games.

And it was but in 1st century BC that Romans themselves actually abandoned religious human sacrifices (IIRC).


Vikings?

The Skandinavians runes date back quiet a bit before the Vikings came into attention though literacy wasn't very widespread. The greatest transistions and developements in the Germnic/Nordic tribes rather came with christianization that came with the latin writing.

This is all very true, but there is the matter of how people adapt when they come into contact with the outside world.

Also, if you look at it dispassionately, there is no reason that genetic variations couldn't have come about from those geographical variations, if specific populations were actually formed in those areas. This brings up the whole "ice age people" argument, and the Australian aboriginals with their "tracking" brains. Bushmen have not really been exposed to anything new in an evolutionary sense, whereas many other races were formed by migration and exposure to new and initially difficult environments.
For sure there are genetic differences between populations (that's how we actually can tell them apart, isn't it?). Whether genetics really have that much to say or if the cultural exchange (or lack thereof) is rather the dominant factor for civilisatory development, is a hard to decide point.

[Macrobius]

Is it just me or as Negroes go do they not look a lot lighter skinned than their brethren? The old guy with the stick and shell socks also looks slightly Asian around the eyes to me.

That look is not unlike some Ethiopians I know (being well acquainted as I am with various Copts, Eritreans, and Ethiopian Orthodox). Probably, not unlike the early Babylonians too I would think. Babylonians, as the prototypical Semites, are very similar to Hamites -- the later two being closely related linguistically. Those who have traditions encoded in Amharic are a very learned people by the way, far smarter than your average black ghetto dweller, and showing the potential of that people -- assuming they are related, of course.

The connection between the 'Asian' look and the Indians from India is the basis of the 'Red man' theory as well (for those who prefer 4-race theory, Red/Yellow/Black/White as in Alchemy, to 3-race or trinitarian theory, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).

Doubtless, an early migration or radiation along South Asia would explain the darker populations from Ethiopia to Polynesia.

[Mike]

Whatever the color, a couple of thousand years back everything was pretty primitive from todays point of view.

Europe 1000 BC? Piece of crap.Even by 1000 BC, the peoples of Europe were advanced well beyond the people of sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the Indo-European peoples at that time lacked writing, but many other technologies never remotely conceived by the San were already in place and put to productive use: agriculture, husbandry, metal working, weaving, pottery, boat building, wheeled vehicles - the list goes on and on.

Stonehedge, which gives evidence for a level of social organization and cooperation not unlike medieval monarchy, was built between 3000 and 2000 BC.

Racial egalitarianism is nonsense regardless of what historical epoch you look at.

[Susan]

My local county paper ran this article too. I just shook my head sadly. Tsk tsk tsk. The jews want us all to be niggers from Africa. It just never ends. And they won't be happy until we're all that again. Only this time, here.

[Crowley]

Chimpanzees are even older.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

I am not sure why it scares White Nationalists so much that our ancestors had darker skin.

If our ancestors crawled forth from slime in the sea than is it that difficult also our ancestors come from African tribes. The point is evolution occurs, and a different group arose and that group build civilization.

However just to speak in terms of semantics, modern day africans for the most part are now our ancestors. Most of the original African population were basically aborginees and they were replaced by more competitive and violent modern day African populations.

However the pygmies, congoids, negritos, and proto-negroids are all seperate groups but probably different variations of the earlier genes.

These people are in my perspective, absolutely unique due to their ages of their races. We can gain a key insight on human development, evolution, and helps butter understand things overall.

I'm not entirely sure about the specific group being mentioned but the Asian charachteristics seems to show. Perhaps the epicanthic fold did not form in Siberia but Africa. Another view may be that this is a seperate genetic mutation.

[Clancy Boy]

Maybe that's why the Zulus had such a easy time pushing them around- nice guys finish last.

The Bantus herded cows. Milk makes niggas into hueg niggas.

[Susan]

Kerguelen: It's the reason the jew media does this all the time that bothers me so much: to give the impression, if not the hard science or theory at least to back it up, that we are all one people which is the constant drone of the multiculturalists. Even those of you who think the show Celtic Woman is so damn great, should listen to the lyrics of their songs once in a while: many of them talk about one world, one people, love for everyone because we're all the same. We are all being insidiously indoctrinated everywere we look.

Of course, the crux is not that we might have all originated from the same point, but that some of us left that area and moved away to conquer lands and invent the modern world. But that aspect is never focused on by the jew media.

It's simply more White hating wrapped up in more African embracing political correctness. It's sickening is what it really is. And the jews know what Whitey is going to remember from all of this: guilt for being White so it's easier to think of himself or herself as being non White. Ergo, more White females turning to nigger males and more White men afraid to speak up.

And this may seem or sound anti Science, but frankly I don't care about those primitive African cultures. In a sane world, it wouldn't matter to us Whites. Because we've advanced so far beyond that, that that world now or then really has no meaning or relevance or concern to us modern day Whites.

And if some of you think that studying African culture is worthy, just how do we do that? At some point, you have to actually GO there,and then you put yourself in harm's way of being harmed or killed and what have you accomplished? Call me anti science, but that's how I see it.

Now if we could somehow wipe Africans off the face of Africa, because the only thing wrong with Africa is Africans, that might be a worthy endeavor for us to undertake. What they are doing to a once beautiful country and its wildlife that once gone is gone forever, is nothing short of criminal, and removing them from the equation over there would probably be well worth the effort. But I'm dreaming here.

There are so many things that we Whites could be doing with our lives instead of studying or worrying about nigger culture: how about enjoying OUR lives for a change?

When one looks at Africans, it's hard to come up with any real reason why they even exist--anywhere.

[harjit]

Now if we could somehow wipe Africans off the face of Africa, because the only thing wrong with Africa is Africans, that might be a worthy endeavor for us to undertake. What they are doing to a once beautiful country and its wildlife that once gone is gone forever, is nothing short of criminal, and removing them from the equation over there would probably be well worth the effort. But I'm dreaming here.
When it comes to devastation of the environment Africans don't hold a candle to Europeans and Americans. Not just historically but NOW, in terms of per-capita C02 output and other metrics.

If we're going to credit Europeans with industrialization (which I do) then it's only fair that the negative side of that also be recognized.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Fat Cunt sez:

Now if we could somehow wipe Africans off the face of Africa, because the only thing wrong with Africa is Africans, that might be a worthy endeavor for us to undertake.

Calls for genocide.

But yes, racialism is about love of one's own race...not hatred for other races and the desire to eliminate them.

I suggest you racialists here on The Phora do a bit of house cleaning because Susan is making you guys look quite ugly. She's playing to all the stereotypes associated with you guys by the usual suspects.

[Dreadnought]

Now if we could somehow wipe Africans off the face of Africa, because the only thing wrong with Africa is Africans, that might be a worthy endeavor for us to undertake. What they are doing to a once beautiful country and its wildlife that once gone is gone forever, is nothing short of criminal, and removing them from the equation over there would probably be well worth the effort. But I'm dreaming here. Native Africans would not be causing environmental problems if we the West were not chucking vast amounts of money they are not prepared to handle at them. Steps to preserve, say, the Congolese gorillas should be taken (a lot of egalitarians agree, they can't run their countries in Africa for whatever reason so it's not exactly immoral if we step in), as the Africans are completely unable to prevent poaching and illegal trade, but annihilating the entire black race?

[Larrikin]

When it comes to devastation of the environment Africans don't hold a candle to Europeans and Americans. Not just historically but NOW, in terms of per-capita C02 output and other metrics.

It is frigging absurd and delusional for any westerner to point a finger at Africa (or any developing nation) for ecological destruction.

There's hardly a native tree left in most of Europe is either ecological devastation (just look at Ireland) or factory forests of imported woods. Most of the large mammals (let alone predators) are long extinct and a dozen wandering the Alps or Pyrenees upsets the whole tourism industry. Rivers were turned into water channels and people wonder about flooding when 50% of the land surface is blocked for infiltration.

The US are hardly any better or did I miss some million bisons roaming the Plains lately?

And we won't even start about energy consumption, waste production, emissions or the marine environment cleared from life down to the bottom.

[delete]

It is frigging absurd and delusional for any westerner to point a finger at Africa (or any developing nation) for ecological destruction.

First, if we let the brown races do to their habitat, what you europeans did to yours, there would be no wildlife left.

Second, If you want to get enough people in the western population to think that we should just decimate brown people for the good of the wildlife, showing how they really do turn their environment into shitholes left unattended is quite effective.