Jump to content
Frequently asked questions... Read more... ×

FIrst humans had light skin

46 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Cosmikel said:

It’s important to include both genetic pools when dealing with evolution you know. How can you call them humans when they are barely half of what we are today. 

They are included in all timelines of HUMAN evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

:deadbanana4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, maat said:

They are included in all timelines of HUMAN evolution.

So are the fish that decided to come onto land 500 mil years ago :gaycat3:

 

your point? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they weren't humans yet so it doesn't matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gorgeous said:

Hairy and light, just how i like em. 

 

3 hours ago, Cloudy said:

:deadbanana2:

 

2 hours ago, xDiamondx said:

:skull:

 

2 hours ago, Cherry123 said:

:grump:

:ahh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cosmikel said:

Why are you grouping white people (when they are a shrinking world minority) as all humans? :grump: the majority of the planet has dark to light brown skin tone.

Where tf did you get that from that's not what I was saying at all wtf??:deadbanana2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gorgeous said:

Hairy and light, just how i like em. 

ulcxLTZ.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cherry123 said:

:grump:

This reaction is taking me OUT omg :dies:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

Lol you didn't  lie.

 

Op you clearly aren't well versed in this subject matter. human ancestors =/= humans. So no, first actual humans that can be fully called humans are most likely dark skinned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Brando said:

Question is when will humans stop obsessing over the amount of melanin in their skin. There is literally no such thing as race. 

 

11 hours ago, Brando said:

Absolutely meaningless. From genetical, biological or any other type of perspective. 

Lol all these post-racial lies! This post racial BS is harmful.

Race is a man made concept based on minute biological/phenotypical differences, the fact that millions have suffered for this and continue to suffer just to have folks like you go "oohh it's nothing we are all africa" like gtfo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

KEITH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

Oop, some points have been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what people are trying to accomplish by saying "race doesn't exist!", but no, race does exist. We need to acknowledge that there are differences, and that it's not a bad thing. We're different but equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

I'm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RightAsRain said:

 

Lol all these post-racial lies! This post racial BS is harmful.

Race is a man made concept based on minute biological/phenotypical differences, the fact that millions have suffered for this and continue to suffer just to have folks like you go "oohh it's nothing we are all africa" like gtfo. 

Excuse you? So stupidly presumptions.

 

First of all, you said the same thing I said. Secondly, maybe it wasn't clear from my post, but just because race doesn't really exist, it is still a social construct and therefor racism is real. Go take a chill pill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't this an old news? The black skin prevents the sun light 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Keith said:

This isn't shocking. That's why I never understood why white people called black people monkeys when their thin lips and light skin are more similar to them.

It’s a long history, beginning with when Plato – by quoting Heraclitus – declared apes ugly in relation to humans and men apish in relation to gods, this was cold comfort for the apes.

 

It transcendentally disconnected them from their human co-primates. The Fathers of the Church went one step further: Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Isidore of Seville compared pagans to monkeys.

 

There’s also an association of it being labelled with disease. Animalisation and even bacterialisation are widespread elements of racist dehumanisation.

 

They are closely related to the labelling of others with the language of contamination and disease. Images that put men on a level with rats carrying epidemic plagues were part of the ideological escort of anti-Jewish and anti-Chinese racism.

 

Africa is labelled as a contagious continent incubating pestilences of all sorts in hot muggy jungles, spread by reckless and sexually unrestrained people. AIDS in particular is said to have its origin in the careless dealings of Africans with simians, which they eat or whose blood they use as an aphrodisiac.

 

But it’s essentially it’s a combination of factors might be the cause:

• the prevalence of a variety of great apes in Africa, closest in size to humans. The Asian great ape population is more limited, while in the Americas one finds monkeys, but no apes;

 

• the extent of the aesthetic "distance" between whites and blacks, their greater degree from a white perspective of physical "otherness" (deviant not merely in skin colour and hair texture but facial features) as compared to other "nonwhite" races;

 

• the higher esteem generally accorded by Europeans to Asian as against African civilisations; and above all the psychic impact of hundreds of years of racial slavery in modernity, which stamped negroids as permanent sub-persons, natural slaves, in global consciousness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Brando said:

Excuse you? So stupidly presumptions.

 

First of all, you said the same thing I said. Secondly, maybe it wasn't clear from my post, but just because race doesn't really exist, it is still a social construct and therefor racism is real. Go take a chill pill. 

There were no presumptions made, my post was precise and a direct reply to the absurdity you wrote in yours. Don't get heated because your stupidity was called out.

A social construct based on clear to see phenotypical differences. Unlike many other social constructs like class or caste (in india), racial difference actually exists for all to see. It seems it's not only your last fm that's outdated, go have a seat and read a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fitzswiftie said:

It’s a long history, beginning with when Plato – by quoting Heraclitus – declared apes ugly in relation to humans and men apish in relation to gods, this was cold comfort for the apes.

 

It transcendentally disconnected them from their human co-primates. The Fathers of the Church went one step further: Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Isidore of Seville compared pagans to monkeys.

 

There’s also an association of it being labelled with disease. Animalisation and even bacterialisation are widespread elements of racist dehumanisation.

 

They are closely related to the labelling of others with the language of contamination and disease. Images that put men on a level with rats carrying epidemic plagues were part of the ideological escort of anti-Jewish and anti-Chinese racism.

 

Africa is labelled as a contagious continent incubating pestilences of all sorts in hot muggy jungles, spread by reckless and sexually unrestrained people. AIDS in particular is said to have its origin in the careless dealings of Africans with simians, which they eat or whose blood they use as an aphrodisiac.

 

But it’s essentially it’s a combination of factors might be the cause:

• the prevalence of a variety of great apes in Africa, closest in size to humans. The Asian great ape population is more limited, while in the Americas one finds monkeys, but no apes;

 

• the extent of the aesthetic "distance" between whites and blacks, their greater degree from a white perspective of physical "otherness" (deviant not merely in skin colour and hair texture but facial features) as compared to other "nonwhite" races;

 

• the higher esteem generally accorded by Europeans to Asian as against African civilisations; and above all the psychic impact of hundreds of years of racial slavery in modernity, which stamped negroids as permanent sub-persons, natural slaves, in global consciousness.

 

 

Your post is a tad bit informative but also quite disgusting. Perhaps it's the way it's phrased, many parts of it are worded not as the wrongful fabrications of racists but as though they are cold hard facts, that then led to racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RightAsRain said:

There were no presumptions made, my post was precise and a direct reply to the absurdity you wrote in yours. Don't get heated because your stupidity was called out.

A social construct based on clear to see phenotypical differences. Unlike many other social constructs like class or caste (in india), racial difference actually exists for all to see. It seems it's not only your last fm that's outdated, go have a seat and read a book.

Physical appearance does not equal race. People of similar skin tones often show wider genetic difference than people of different skin tones. Scientifically race doesn't exist. So why categorise people on something that doesn't exist based on social (erroneous) perceptions. You're aggressively rude and presumptuous. Once again, take a chill pill and take your own advice about reading a book perhaps.

 

42042093.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites