I remember a writer stated that White's were descendents from Albino's, and that the hatred from White's against Blacks stems from when they were driven out by the Blacks. The killing of Albino's in Africa, the flaying of their skins and selling of their body parts evokes this old story.
No it doesn't. Since albinos can crop up anywhere in the world and are the product of a genetic condition, it's unlikely Whites (however one defines the term) are descendants of them.
According to the article, they are killed beause their skin and body parts have magical properties. This is more a sign of backwardness than anything else.
I remember a writer stated that White's were descendents from Albino's, and that the hatred from White's against Blacks stems from when they were driven out by the Blacks. The killing of Albino's in Africa, the flaying of their skins and selling of their body parts evokes this old story.
No it doesn't. Since albinos can crop up anywhere in the world and are the product of a genetic condition, it's unlikely Whites (however one defines the term) are descendants of them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike111:
WIKI
White People
The skin of albinos is similar to European and East Asian people's skin in that it is depigmented relative to other populations. However, in white and East Asian people the enzymes that produce melanin are still active and produce relatively small amounts of melanin to provide some coloration to the skin. With albinos, the enzyme that produces melanin is defective, thus they produce virtually no melanin, which produces the palest skin of all humans. Since melanin protects the skin from UV radiation, albinos have no natural protection and their skin is vulnerable to sunlight that can be tolerated by other light-skinned peoples. Furthermore in the presence of more intense levels of UV radiation from the sun, the skin cells of white and East Asian people are able to produce additional amounts of melanin to tan the skin to a darker complexion, providing extra protection, while albinos lack the ability to tan. Albinism is very rare. For example, one person in 17,000 in the United States has some type of albinism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mike 111,
I do not know you but from a few of your postings, and I like your firebrand style and not going into jargon, so normal people can understand the problems which threaten their existence. Where are you at?
The Topic is ‘Are White’s a Fixed Albino Race?’
I have found that there are many types of Albinism and some permit colouring. Another one is a hereditary type, from Albino parents given to ¼ of their off spring.
When you sum this up I see phenomena which we know from White people today. Also we should remember that no one is pure anything, so the blondest White’s can thank some of their coloured ancestors to permit them to tan beautifully.
Egmond Codfried
The Hague
Holland
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This seems to be an Albino family?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen albinos in Nepal and India before. They always have similiar faces. I never saw a group anywhere else before. This family sits every day in the bright sun at the Puskar Camel Festival begging, (but they seem not to burn, nor do they look Indian to me). (This obviously was the evening) Albinos have red eyes, they have no pigment in their eyes. I am adding this as a note to all: They have pink skin because of the blood in their skin, white hair. They squint, maybe some are blind, the one on the left never looks up, another has a hand and leg cut off. They get food, money and clothing all day, as beggers they really do good, as social human beings, they are complete outcasts. This group has more members not in this picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Caucasians with OCA 2, the amount of pigment at birth can vary substantially. The hair can have a light yellow-blond colour, or it may be darker with a darker blond-red colour. The normal delayed maturation of the pigment system can make it difficult to distinguish OCA 2 from OCA 1. The skin is white and does not tan. Iris colour is blue-gray, and the degree of iris translucency is proportional to the amount of pigment present. As the child ages, increased pigmentation occurs with pigmented nevi and freckles developing in areas of repeated sun exposure. The hair also may turn darker with age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown OCA is part of the OCA 2 spectrum that is exclusive to Africans and African Americans. It is speculated that this syndrome may arise from leaky mutations to the P protein gene, resulting in reduced P protein activity. The hair and skin are light brown, and the irises are gray. As time passes, the hair and irises may darken, while the skin colour remains mainly unchanged. The ocular features are characteristic with punctuate and radial iris translucency and retinal hypo pigmentation. Visual acuity ranges from 20/60 to 20/150.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Part of a series about Albinism in India: most look like regular White folk to me!]
To your eyes they look like "regular white folk," but most regular white folks I've seen in the U.S. do not look like these people. Maybe your perception is influenced by living in Holland with its high percentage of blond people?
Outside of the pale skin and almost-white hair, these albinos look like the populations from which they derive.
I remember a writer stated that White's were descendents from Albino's, and that the hatred from White's against Blacks stems from when they were driven out by the Blacks. The killing of Albino's in Africa, the flaying of their skins and selling of their body parts evokes this old story.
No it doesn't. Since albinos can crop up anywhere in the world and are the product of a genetic condition, it's unlikely Whites (however one defines the term) are descendants of them.
I read your rebuke but wouldn’t we be better off if you would just tell us how White’s have evolved, in your opinion?
And where is William? He did not post anything since the 29 of July and is supposed to start a topic about Anthropometry.
[Part of a series about Albinism in India: most look like regular White folk to me!]
To your eyes they look like "regular white folk," but most regular white folks I've seen in the U.S. do not look like these people. Maybe your perception is influenced by living in Holland with its high percentage of blond people?
Outside of the pale skin and almost-white hair, these albinos look like the populations from which they derive.
Honeychild,
I meant the whole series of about 20 more more persons! Perhaps the artist has given them some glamerous lighting to conceal the harshness from their natural looks. Something we can all benefit from.
But then I have noticed that Whites come in all shapes and sizes. When I see some Alpine Types, they su' look part SSA to me. Then there are these blonds with broad, perky, upturned noses and some light subnasal prognatism.
But the whole point is finding some DNA like proof of how the Whites evolved from the brown East Africans, the first humans. Do you know of anything?
But the whole point is finding some DNA like proof of how the Whites evolved from the brown East Africans, the first humans. Do you know of anything?
I thought that the point of this thread was to discuss murders. If you want to switch it to a discussion of our species' evolution, we should split it to "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics."
Regarding "finding some DNA like proof of how the Whites evolved from the brown East Africans," I do not understand your question. What do you mean by "Whites" in this context? If you mean "northern Europeans" (the least pigmented population) are you suggesting that they are not members of the species?
I sympathize with Codfried's explanation that he is incapable of sticking to a topic, or of starting a new topic whenever his mind wanders. Nevertheless, those are the rules of this site. This thread is now about human adaptation. The next time that Codfried changes the subject without starting a new thread will result in his suspension for one month.
Perhaps the right word is 'adapt' and not 'evolve' because White’s are the same species as Blacks. The White’s from Europe are the same as those from the US. Or perhaps I’m misinformed. I do watch a lot of American movies. Please inform me.
[deliberately off-topic material removed by administrator to avoid having to suspend this member again -- FWS]
Perhaps the right word is 'adapt' and not 'evolve' because White’s are the same species as Blacks. The White’s from Europe are the same as those from the US. Or perhaps I’m misinformed. I do watch a lot of American movies. Please inform me.
Again it comes down to what you mean by "White" people. Does this include the natives of India? Turkey? Ukraine? Greece? Japan? Ask four people to delineate who they mean by White" people and you will get six contradictory answers. What exactly do you mean by "White" people?
To Black U.S. politicians, for example, it denotes anyone who disagrees with them. Hispanics and Asian-Americans who agree with the politician are "people of color." Those who disagree are "White." In the angry but immortal words of U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, after she gave a speech embracing Hispanics as fellow "people of color" but discovered than some still disagreed, "all you White men look alike to me."
For starters, you need to distinguish between ethno-political self-identity, in which sense 90 percent of Puerto Ricans are White, and genetic adaptation, in which sense only natives of the region within 300 miles of the Baltic Sea are White in that they show the distinctive northern European depigmentation.
If your question is about ethno-political self-identity then it is unanswerable. It has been accepted by virtually all scientists since 1910 that cultural or ethnic traits are learned from parents and not genetically hereditary.
If your question is about genetic adaptation, then the New World is irrelevant because until 500 years ago it was inhabited solely by the descendants of a small band of people who crossed Beringia about 20 kya.
If your question is about the genetic adaptation that produced the distinctive de-pigmentation of the natives of the region within 300 miles of the Baltic Sea, then there are two answers:
But if you are interested in the detailed genetics of the specific mutations that enabled this adaptation, I recommend McEvoy, Beleza, and Shriver (2006).
[The rest of your message (the part that I deleted) suggested changing this site's policy to encourage free-form informal fireside-type discussions, rather than adhering to strict scholarly formality. You must post such suggestions in the "Site Management" forum.]
Parts of this highly technical information presented in these two Backintyme essays is presently beyond my understanding, but again I notice the highly hypothetical approach, and the specialist forever contradicting each other, on the basis of the same data. This is why science, in my view, sometimes seems like a religion which requires people to believe things, which are not/ or cannot/ or will (god willing!) someday be proven.
I however do understand the need for an explanation of phenomena, to give people a theoretical reconstruction of the past. That’s why I threw myself in my research. But to me there should also be a stated purpose to science and to me it’s helping out the poor people, the underdog and the oppressed ones. I want to know why such a thing as present day racism, pitting White’s against Black’s, exists. Branding White’s as superior beings and forcing them thus in a role they cannot pull off on their own merits. Blacks and White’s forever fighting over the race of the people who built the pyramids. I view the way most science is practiced as a means to protect the status quo: colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, sexism, racism and so on.
My interest in these matters, and why I still came back after three suspensions, is understanding and proving my own theory/hypothesis that Scientific Racism was the result of a ‘Black and Coloured’ elite oppressing White Europeans (1500-1789). In every scientific approach of human diversity I sense this Scientific Racism which has ‘White Supremacy’ as its concept. I have theorised that there should be a reason for the ongoing hatred of the African, so they must have done something horrific against the Whites.
The rule of the Medieval Moors, coming from Africa, seems to me to marginal to explain this hatred. So I found a more recent and more terrifying domination of White’s in Europe under the spectre of Blue Blood. Blue Blood refers to my understanding to ‘Blue Men,’ as how Blacks in Medieval Europe were called and depicted. The strictly intermarrying Blue Blooded rulers of Europe presented themselves in propagandistic portraiture with a Moor at their side, which was almost always a Classical African. To me these factors make believable that the symbol of the Moor meant Blue Blood and that this elite was of a 'Black and Coloured' ethnicity.
Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation. Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark. [Nelson’s syndrome does this, but it is due to a pituitary tumour, not to a mutation, nor to genetic variability (Robins 1991, 125-26).]
An inherent limitation of population genetic inferences
from this type of data is that the unusualness or significance
of these statistics depends on the underlying demographic
history of each population. For example, negative Tajima’s
D values can result from a severe reduction in population
size (bottleneck). One way to gauge significance is to simulate
population history and compare the observed value with the
simulated range. However, the accuracy of this depends on
the correct specification of the history, which is generally
unknown. An alternative approach compares a particular
observed result with those found in other regions of the
genome: an empirical distribution. Demographic history will
affect the entire genome, whereas natural selection will only
impact a subset of loci and these are expected to lie at the
tails of any empirical distribution.
From these very interesting and informative articles I could not make out why I should not view Whites as ‘A fixed Albino race.’ I would think that all adaptation was mutation driven. And I do not see why the oldest, these first and Brown complexioned East African humans would have ‘White genes’ lurking in their DNA, if a need for this kind of adaptation did not yet present itself. Then when there is mention of Baltic Blonds not being able to tan; well I would immediately think of a type of Albinism.
But as I found mention of some type of Albinism which permits some tanning and darker hair and eye colour, and another type of Albinism which can be hereditary in ¼ of the offspring of two Albino’s, I just stick to my own guns. I do not see it as demeaning of White’s to view them as an Albino race. Much of this data still feels like generalisations and does not take in account that people started moving around the globe from the get go. So nobody is pure anything no matter how blond or pitch black they appear.
Some extremely blond White’s do look unsettlingly like Albino’s, which is perhaps the reason we almost never get to see them in the media. The most famous ‘Blonds’ in popular media like Catherine Deneuve, Brigit Bardot and Lana Turner are usually peroxidised Brunettes.
The First of September 2008 should be noted as a day when reason triumphed over sadistic nastiness and there was an actual transfer of for long requested scientific information.
For injecting value judgement into a non-political forum in violation of rule 1.3, for changing the subject without starting a new thread in violation of rule 3.5 despite repeated warnings, and for expressing an opinion in "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" without having read an introductory textbook on the subject in violation of rule 3.1.3, Codfried's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, October 2, 2008.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
This is more a sign of backwardness than anything else.