[color="#0000FF"]Ramana, please see Dhu's post 597 a couple of posts up.[/color]
Post 1/2
1. On this in post #593:
Gobekli Tepe buildings unearthed are at present thought to be temples or for some such mystical purpose. Carvings of presumably vultures in a certain setting are currently interpreted as being an indication of a funeral rite where the dead are left to - that other common practice - [color="#0000FF"]exposure and hence carion fowl (as opposed to burial or cremation or a watery grave).[/color]
More to be said on Gobekli Tepe which knew wheat farming back in 12000 years BP: everyone else probably knew already, but it [color="#0000FF"]turns out that it's genetically proven that wheat farmed anywhere in the world is originally derived from the wheat that emanated from Gobekli Tepe (IHJ-3) - apparently all other wheat has been shown to trace back to the one mutation that occurred at Gobekli Tepe. Again, the time is important: 12000 years before present for farming this wheat at Gobekli Tepe.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]Now, this affects stuff like:[/color]
a. As stated before, [color="#0000FF"]Gobekli Tepe did not have PIE-speakers, because "PIE couldn't have existed then" as per IE linguistics[/color] as wacky entities explained in arguing against PCT version of PIE (already quoted in some post above) - of course, tomorrow they'll change the PIE linguistics rules just in order to claim Gobekli Tepe for Oryanism/PIE-ism next:
Since Gobekli Tepe is dated 2000 years before the earliest allowed date of 10000 BP (aka 8000 BCE) of PIE - and 8000 BCE for PIE is further said to "stretch" it - Gobekli Tepe is obviously not PIE speaking. Not IE.
[color="#0000FF"](And by implication, (the farmed, mutated) wheat - and wheat farming - is not IE in origin.)[/color]
b. Next, the news item in #586 said:
That is, they guesstimated that 10,000 years BP was when the blue eye mutation arose. But the first guy they have so far actually found having the genes for the blue eye phenotype is from 7,000 years ago, though we are also repeatedly told by the news article that he had African genes for skin colour.
Now, [color="#0000FF"]the Gobekli Tepe (GT) neolithic civilisation in modern-day Turkey that is from 12000 years BP - when they were already into wheat farming - therefore GT did not have a single blue-eyed individual and had an even even larger number of "dark" individuals (with "African genes for skin-colour") than 2000 years later when "blue eyes first arose 10,000 years ago in individuals living around the Black Sea" - assuming for the moment there were any fair-skinned people back at that time, let alone specifically anywhere in or near that area. (And Gobekli Tepe of 12,000 yrs before present would have had far larger numbers of dark people still than even at 7000 years BP when the dark-skinned Stone Age European with blue eyes was found in Spain.)[/color]
In fact, it is not impossible that there may have been barely any (or any at all for that matter) "white" people in Gobekli Tepe. And certainly none with blue eyes. That is to say, more people back in 12,000 BP (and especially in the Anatolian region of Gobekli Tepe) would have had "African genes for skin colour" than in 7000 BP Spain/Europe proper.
The point being, [color="#0000FF"]we won't hear that Gobekli Tepe was part of "white civilisation" any time soon. And "white civilisation" theories, as you know, rest on notions of homogenous white societies, not societies that look miscegenated let alone mostly/all "dark"[/color] (now I didn't make the rules - I don't actually care - but even sticking within their idiot logic, things aren't working out in favour of for white supremacists and their notions). I mean, no blue eyes and no homogeneous "white" skin. Oh how tragic.
Worse still, [color="#0000FF"]the origins of the farming of wheat is not just non-IE, it is also not "white civilisation".[/color]
Since I seem to always be rooting for the underdog, I think African claimants should pounce all over this thing. I mean, Gobekli Tepe was populated by some intermediate stage of the Modern Humans that left Africa and who likely hadn't yet started looking European in any important sense, right? GT's population are even more likely to have had the "African genes for skin-colour" than even the European 'distinctly Scandinavian' La Brana Spanyard had 5000 years later. And all this makes Gobekli Tepe - a civilisation - up for grabs, just screaming to be claimed, surely? (Since neither oryanist nor other white supremacists can claim it :mwahahahaha
. So - even if it's all the way in "Anatolia" and not in mainland Africa, a minor detail - as Gobekli Tepe certainly isn't some "white civilisation", I think Africans should just put their flag on it already. And if they won't, then I'm going to put a flag for Africans on GT. (Unless people have already researched the genetics of its inhabitants from 12000 years ago and worked out which modern population they cluster closest too? Make it in terms of phenotype [of skin-colour etc]. Isn't that what white supremacists always do? :evil grin: "Red-haired mummies! Red-haired mummies!" indeed.)
As to this statement I made in #593:
Supporting data:
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/205250/Fertile-Crescent
And these next are Encyclopedia Britannica's maps for "Fertile Crescent":
media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/53/64953-004-9F75721A.jpg
media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/69/569-004-2B15D15E.jpg
media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/50/64950-004-EAA1108C.jpg [Note lists biblical tribes like "Hittites", and "Elamites" for Susa.]
Hmmm, there's a possible close shave with Turkey on the map (am bad at geography and too lazy to look it up), so don't know if Gobekli Tepe (GT) falls right there in the border region of the Fertile Crescent - but GT was only found in the '90s (1990s) whereas the phrase "Fertile Crescent" was coined quite some time earlier on, if that counts for anything. Plus the Turkey/Anatolia region doesn't appear to be included in Brittannia's textual listing above of the countries making up "the Fertile Crescent"...
Either way, the major point still stands: Gobekli Tepe is not a "white civilisation" in any sense of the words.
[[color="#0000FF"]Digression.[/color] "IIRC" -
Susiana in Persia I think refers to the city of Susa (?): ancient population native to Iran that spoke a non-IE language and IIRC which language is so far thought to be independent of other language families. Susa was famous for veneration of the dog (which seems to be inherited in Zoroastrianism) - IIRC engravings from 10,000 to 8,000 BCE from Susa showed that dogs were part of the religion of Susa. They seem to have been one of the populations that domesticated the dog early on. The others being Africans - who IIRC have the oldest type of domesticated dog - various E Asians (Japan, China) and Tibet and of course the many Spitz types like huskies and malamutes and Greenland snowdogs of the various Circum-Polar peoples - Inuit in Canada/Alaska and the many related ancient native populations of Siberia. (North American native Americans have a deep connection with wolves and it is a sacred totem animal there :cheer: Also among Chinese vanavaasis IIRC.)
As mentioned, huskies are one of these earliest type of domesticated wol.. I mean dogs. Japan's Sakhalin Husky too. (And IIRC even the cuddly ancient breed of African dog has a tail that curled attractively over onto the body of the dog.)
I suspect that the position of snow dog/Spitz types like huskies in Shamanistic societies traces back to a long connection between man and wolf kind there, until the point where these became fully domesticated and which thereafter officially formed breeds of dogs.
The Afghan dog - another early dog breed - seems related to the Iranian dog that the people of Susa had venerated/started domesticating. It looks very similar and is shown in the genetics maps about these earliest dog breeds as being a "cousin" to the Persian breed. Both breeds certainly look unlike the E-Asian/Circum-polar dogs.
I guess I was disappointed at some level when the top 10 ancient dog breeds as per the current status of genetics did not show any to have been domesticated in India. Sigh. Never mind, we seem to have always had Wolves. Indian dogs - as seen in images of Dattatreya's dogs or Kovil moorties of Bhairava's Shvaana vahanaam in Kovils - do look, at least in terms of appearance, more like they could be derived from the Susa-n and related Afghan kind, than the Tibetan, E/Asian or Circum-Polar kind.]
2. BTW: [color="#0000FF"]from memory, Stephen Oppenheimer said that migrations could be dated with genetics.(IHJ-4-24)[/color] But no mention of the degree of accuracy/amount of leeway for dates: 100s of years, 1000s? (May paste a literal quote eventually.)
If it's not already been done, should look into what genetics has to say for migrations 4000 BCE and 6000 BCE for India. (Or even all the way to 12000 BP/10,000 BCE and beyond to cover more of the stone age.) Want to know what those earlier dates say about any "invasions" of the notorious variety so far alleged as being at around 1800 BCE or later. Around 1800 BCE and later dates it is clear: no invasions.
But I think Indians should move past the AIT dates and be more curious about the part of the archeological record that was not covered by J Schaffer and Lichtenstein (was it? sorry, I am lousy at remembering people's names or anything that I'm neutral about): need to look for whether there's any evidence for migrations vs proof of indigeneity earlier. Why are Indians not curious about these earlier dates (or maybe I'm wrong and Indians have already tested for this timeframe)? At a minimum, these will be the next alleged dates for Oryan invasions/migrations/miscegenations, after all.
3. [color="#0000FF"]And another inadvertently funny (hysterical!) side-effect of the realisation that even at 7000 years BP, native Europeans weren't yet a homogeneous "white" looking population. Again, the thing to remember at this point is that Da Definition of "white race/people" (and civilisation) was always that it refers to a *homogeneous* "white" population.[/color] (Since anything else was conceived of by the original formulators of "whiteness" - all the way down to the one-drop rule and beyond - as being "miscegenated" or "half-formed", or even de-formed and malformed if you will - again: I never made these rules, and they're as tacky to me as they are to any other sane person. I'm just being spiteful with them). And now this definition seems to me to be working against its peddlers. Because, remember this old article:
prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/
[color="#0000FF"]Wait wait wait. So let me get that straight. Is Oppenheimer's data saying that when Britain was first peopled - and which population were the native ancestors of 3/4 of the current natives of Britain - these 3/4ths of all the ancestors of the modern natives of the British Isles weren't part of the alleged "white race"....? Well, not yet anyway, not by Da Definition.[/color] Oh, how sad. "Boohoo."
And that everything ever achieved by said original British population until such a moment that it turned homogeneously "white" at last... is not the achievement of the alleged "white" race? "But that's so unfair."
Now, if they had individuals with "African genes for skin-colour" back when much of Britain was peopled - and who went back and forth between Iberia during the last ice age - just as the Stone Age La Brana man from 7000 years BP still had, then by definition does this not mean that Africans have a right to claim Brits' ancestors and their achievements right up to the point in time where the natives of Britain finally became a homogeneous "white" population. Surely? (By logic)
Hysterisch. Obviously I'm being sarcastic for such parts of this post. And yet, I can't see that my application of the logic that's been dictated by other people's deeply-lame rules folds anywhere. (Am I wrong?)
There's just so many ways that the whole "white" thing can be lampooned. [color="#0000FF"]Some crazy comments at that western blog page alluded to in Kaushika's post further above showed that the La Brana discovery turned into some deeply existential crisis for Whitists (=the subset of Europeans obsessed with self-perceptions of "white race"/"white civilisation" as some entity separate from the rest of the human species).[/color] I mean, their desperate excuses to explain away La Brana and the genes for lightening that became fixed in Europeans is just ... wow. I can't even believe these are adults - being, presumably, over 18.
(I suspect the whole Neanderthal interspecies mingling thing is being treated as a windfall to mitigate this horrific discovery that Europe wasn't very "white" - let alone distinct/unique - 7000 years ago.)
Nothing like stupid memes to permanently debilitate human minds. Deserves to be lampooned.
Disclaimer: This post is not remotely directed at western heathens. They never invented "white" race nonsense. (Or even "Europeans". Or PIE/IE.)
These disclaimers should be regarded implicit, IMO.
[color="#0000FF"]Ramana, see Dhu's post 597.[/color]
Post 1/2
1. On this in post #593:
Quote:"Gobekli Tepe"* - located in what's now Turkey - "contains some of the oldest buildings in the world" (btw, with intricately carved animal figurines on pillars) "dating to nearly three times the age of the first Egyptian pyramids": Gobekli Tepe buildings are dated to "12000 years before present". The people farmed wheat, already ushering in the Neolithic. The wheat had a mutation which became widespread owing to human dispersal/artificial selection.[*There may be a trema - or umlaut or whatever - on the o in Gobekli Tepe. I'm not sure.]
(HTGAP-3)
Gobekli Tepe buildings unearthed are at present thought to be temples or for some such mystical purpose. Carvings of presumably vultures in a certain setting are currently interpreted as being an indication of a funeral rite where the dead are left to - that other common practice - [color="#0000FF"]exposure and hence carion fowl (as opposed to burial or cremation or a watery grave).[/color]
More to be said on Gobekli Tepe which knew wheat farming back in 12000 years BP: everyone else probably knew already, but it [color="#0000FF"]turns out that it's genetically proven that wheat farmed anywhere in the world is originally derived from the wheat that emanated from Gobekli Tepe (IHJ-3) - apparently all other wheat has been shown to trace back to the one mutation that occurred at Gobekli Tepe. Again, the time is important: 12000 years before present for farming this wheat at Gobekli Tepe.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]Now, this affects stuff like:[/color]
a. As stated before, [color="#0000FF"]Gobekli Tepe did not have PIE-speakers, because "PIE couldn't have existed then" as per IE linguistics[/color] as wacky entities explained in arguing against PCT version of PIE (already quoted in some post above) - of course, tomorrow they'll change the PIE linguistics rules just in order to claim Gobekli Tepe for Oryanism/PIE-ism next:
Quote:For PIE, dates between 8000 BC and 2500 BC are possible (10000-4500 BP, i.e. a factor of 2.2): 8000 BC is extremely early and 2500 is extremely late, most people will agree that a 6000-3000 BC range (factor of 1.6) still has a very high confidence.
Since Gobekli Tepe is dated 2000 years before the earliest allowed date of 10000 BP (aka 8000 BCE) of PIE - and 8000 BCE for PIE is further said to "stretch" it - Gobekli Tepe is obviously not PIE speaking. Not IE.
[color="#0000FF"](And by implication, (the farmed, mutated) wheat - and wheat farming - is not IE in origin.)[/color]
b. Next, the news item in #586 said:
Quote:A Stone Age man who lived about 7,000 years ago and whose buried bones were discovered in 2006 has turned out to be the earliest known person with blue eyes, a physical trait that evolved relatively recently in human history, a study has found.
A DNA analysis of the manââ¬â¢s tooth has also revealed that although he was more closely related to modern-day Scandinavians that to any other European group, he had the dark-skinned genes of an African, though scientists do not know his precise skin tone.
[...]
Previous research published in 2008 found that the earliest mutations in the eye-colour genes that led to the evolution of blue eyes probably occurred about 10,000 years ago in individuals living in around the Black Sea.
That is, they guesstimated that 10,000 years BP was when the blue eye mutation arose. But the first guy they have so far actually found having the genes for the blue eye phenotype is from 7,000 years ago, though we are also repeatedly told by the news article that he had African genes for skin colour.
Now, [color="#0000FF"]the Gobekli Tepe (GT) neolithic civilisation in modern-day Turkey that is from 12000 years BP - when they were already into wheat farming - therefore GT did not have a single blue-eyed individual and had an even even larger number of "dark" individuals (with "African genes for skin-colour") than 2000 years later when "blue eyes first arose 10,000 years ago in individuals living around the Black Sea" - assuming for the moment there were any fair-skinned people back at that time, let alone specifically anywhere in or near that area. (And Gobekli Tepe of 12,000 yrs before present would have had far larger numbers of dark people still than even at 7000 years BP when the dark-skinned Stone Age European with blue eyes was found in Spain.)[/color]
In fact, it is not impossible that there may have been barely any (or any at all for that matter) "white" people in Gobekli Tepe. And certainly none with blue eyes. That is to say, more people back in 12,000 BP (and especially in the Anatolian region of Gobekli Tepe) would have had "African genes for skin colour" than in 7000 BP Spain/Europe proper.
The point being, [color="#0000FF"]we won't hear that Gobekli Tepe was part of "white civilisation" any time soon. And "white civilisation" theories, as you know, rest on notions of homogenous white societies, not societies that look miscegenated let alone mostly/all "dark"[/color] (now I didn't make the rules - I don't actually care - but even sticking within their idiot logic, things aren't working out in favour of for white supremacists and their notions). I mean, no blue eyes and no homogeneous "white" skin. Oh how tragic.
Worse still, [color="#0000FF"]the origins of the farming of wheat is not just non-IE, it is also not "white civilisation".[/color]
Since I seem to always be rooting for the underdog, I think African claimants should pounce all over this thing. I mean, Gobekli Tepe was populated by some intermediate stage of the Modern Humans that left Africa and who likely hadn't yet started looking European in any important sense, right? GT's population are even more likely to have had the "African genes for skin-colour" than even the European 'distinctly Scandinavian' La Brana Spanyard had 5000 years later. And all this makes Gobekli Tepe - a civilisation - up for grabs, just screaming to be claimed, surely? (Since neither oryanist nor other white supremacists can claim it :mwahahahaha
. So - even if it's all the way in "Anatolia" and not in mainland Africa, a minor detail - as Gobekli Tepe certainly isn't some "white civilisation", I think Africans should just put their flag on it already. And if they won't, then I'm going to put a flag for Africans on GT. (Unless people have already researched the genetics of its inhabitants from 12000 years ago and worked out which modern population they cluster closest too? Make it in terms of phenotype [of skin-colour etc]. Isn't that what white supremacists always do? :evil grin: "Red-haired mummies! Red-haired mummies!" indeed.)As to this statement I made in #593:
Quote:(In case anyone didn't yet know: Anatolia is now ~Turkey.
And IIRC Turkey is not even included in the countries of the "Fertile Crescent", wherefrom farming is to have emanated in at least non-Anatolian Hypotheses.)
Supporting data:
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/205250/Fertile-Crescent
Quote:Fertile Crescent, the region in the Middle East where the civilizations of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin began. The term was popularized by the American Orientalist James Henry Breasted.
The Fertile Crescent includes a roughly crescent-shaped area of relatively fertile land which probably had a more moderate, agriculturally productive climate in the past than today, especially in Mesopotamia and the Nile valley. Situated between the Arabian Desert to the south and the mountains of Armenia to the north, it extends from Babylonia and adjacent Susiana (the southwestern province of Persia) up the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to Assyria.
And these next are Encyclopedia Britannica's maps for "Fertile Crescent":
media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/53/64953-004-9F75721A.jpg
media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/69/569-004-2B15D15E.jpg
media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/50/64950-004-EAA1108C.jpg [Note lists biblical tribes like "Hittites", and "Elamites" for Susa.]
Hmmm, there's a possible close shave with Turkey on the map (am bad at geography and too lazy to look it up), so don't know if Gobekli Tepe (GT) falls right there in the border region of the Fertile Crescent - but GT was only found in the '90s (1990s) whereas the phrase "Fertile Crescent" was coined quite some time earlier on, if that counts for anything. Plus the Turkey/Anatolia region doesn't appear to be included in Brittannia's textual listing above of the countries making up "the Fertile Crescent"...
Either way, the major point still stands: Gobekli Tepe is not a "white civilisation" in any sense of the words.
[[color="#0000FF"]Digression.[/color] "IIRC" -
Susiana in Persia I think refers to the city of Susa (?): ancient population native to Iran that spoke a non-IE language and IIRC which language is so far thought to be independent of other language families. Susa was famous for veneration of the dog (which seems to be inherited in Zoroastrianism) - IIRC engravings from 10,000 to 8,000 BCE from Susa showed that dogs were part of the religion of Susa. They seem to have been one of the populations that domesticated the dog early on. The others being Africans - who IIRC have the oldest type of domesticated dog - various E Asians (Japan, China) and Tibet and of course the many Spitz types like huskies and malamutes and Greenland snowdogs of the various Circum-Polar peoples - Inuit in Canada/Alaska and the many related ancient native populations of Siberia. (North American native Americans have a deep connection with wolves and it is a sacred totem animal there :cheer: Also among Chinese vanavaasis IIRC.)
As mentioned, huskies are one of these earliest type of domesticated wol.. I mean dogs. Japan's Sakhalin Husky too. (And IIRC even the cuddly ancient breed of African dog has a tail that curled attractively over onto the body of the dog.)
I suspect that the position of snow dog/Spitz types like huskies in Shamanistic societies traces back to a long connection between man and wolf kind there, until the point where these became fully domesticated and which thereafter officially formed breeds of dogs.
The Afghan dog - another early dog breed - seems related to the Iranian dog that the people of Susa had venerated/started domesticating. It looks very similar and is shown in the genetics maps about these earliest dog breeds as being a "cousin" to the Persian breed. Both breeds certainly look unlike the E-Asian/Circum-polar dogs.
I guess I was disappointed at some level when the top 10 ancient dog breeds as per the current status of genetics did not show any to have been domesticated in India. Sigh. Never mind, we seem to have always had Wolves. Indian dogs - as seen in images of Dattatreya's dogs or Kovil moorties of Bhairava's Shvaana vahanaam in Kovils - do look, at least in terms of appearance, more like they could be derived from the Susa-n and related Afghan kind, than the Tibetan, E/Asian or Circum-Polar kind.]
2. BTW: [color="#0000FF"]from memory, Stephen Oppenheimer said that migrations could be dated with genetics.(IHJ-4-24)[/color] But no mention of the degree of accuracy/amount of leeway for dates: 100s of years, 1000s? (May paste a literal quote eventually.)
If it's not already been done, should look into what genetics has to say for migrations 4000 BCE and 6000 BCE for India. (Or even all the way to 12000 BP/10,000 BCE and beyond to cover more of the stone age.) Want to know what those earlier dates say about any "invasions" of the notorious variety so far alleged as being at around 1800 BCE or later. Around 1800 BCE and later dates it is clear: no invasions.
But I think Indians should move past the AIT dates and be more curious about the part of the archeological record that was not covered by J Schaffer and Lichtenstein (was it? sorry, I am lousy at remembering people's names or anything that I'm neutral about): need to look for whether there's any evidence for migrations vs proof of indigeneity earlier. Why are Indians not curious about these earlier dates (or maybe I'm wrong and Indians have already tested for this timeframe)? At a minimum, these will be the next alleged dates for Oryan invasions/migrations/miscegenations, after all.
3. [color="#0000FF"]And another inadvertently funny (hysterical!) side-effect of the realisation that even at 7000 years BP, native Europeans weren't yet a homogeneous "white" looking population. Again, the thing to remember at this point is that Da Definition of "white race/people" (and civilisation) was always that it refers to a *homogeneous* "white" population.[/color] (Since anything else was conceived of by the original formulators of "whiteness" - all the way down to the one-drop rule and beyond - as being "miscegenated" or "half-formed", or even de-formed and malformed if you will - again: I never made these rules, and they're as tacky to me as they are to any other sane person. I'm just being spiteful with them). And now this definition seems to me to be working against its peddlers. Because, remember this old article:
prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/
Quote:Myths of British ancestry
by Stephen Oppenheimer / October 21, 2006 / 288 Comments
[...]
[color="#0000FF"]The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago[/color], after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.
Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.
[color="#0000FF"]Wait wait wait. So let me get that straight. Is Oppenheimer's data saying that when Britain was first peopled - and which population were the native ancestors of 3/4 of the current natives of Britain - these 3/4ths of all the ancestors of the modern natives of the British Isles weren't part of the alleged "white race"....? Well, not yet anyway, not by Da Definition.[/color] Oh, how sad. "Boohoo."
And that everything ever achieved by said original British population until such a moment that it turned homogeneously "white" at last... is not the achievement of the alleged "white" race? "But that's so unfair."
Now, if they had individuals with "African genes for skin-colour" back when much of Britain was peopled - and who went back and forth between Iberia during the last ice age - just as the Stone Age La Brana man from 7000 years BP still had, then by definition does this not mean that Africans have a right to claim Brits' ancestors and their achievements right up to the point in time where the natives of Britain finally became a homogeneous "white" population. Surely? (By logic)
Hysterisch. Obviously I'm being sarcastic for such parts of this post. And yet, I can't see that my application of the logic that's been dictated by other people's deeply-lame rules folds anywhere. (Am I wrong?)
There's just so many ways that the whole "white" thing can be lampooned. [color="#0000FF"]Some crazy comments at that western blog page alluded to in Kaushika's post further above showed that the La Brana discovery turned into some deeply existential crisis for Whitists (=the subset of Europeans obsessed with self-perceptions of "white race"/"white civilisation" as some entity separate from the rest of the human species).[/color] I mean, their desperate excuses to explain away La Brana and the genes for lightening that became fixed in Europeans is just ... wow. I can't even believe these are adults - being, presumably, over 18.
(I suspect the whole Neanderthal interspecies mingling thing is being treated as a windfall to mitigate this horrific discovery that Europe wasn't very "white" - let alone distinct/unique - 7000 years ago.)
Nothing like stupid memes to permanently debilitate human minds. Deserves to be lampooned.
Disclaimer: This post is not remotely directed at western heathens. They never invented "white" race nonsense. (Or even "Europeans". Or PIE/IE.)
These disclaimers should be regarded implicit, IMO.
[color="#0000FF"]Ramana, see Dhu's post 597.[/color]