Re: what race wa sresponsible for acheivements ancient Greec


"VtSkier" <VtSkier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:44hl2dF29khaU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
citizenoftheplanetearth wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
[..]

Now to citizen's question.
What do you want to know? Were people with dark colored
skin at least in part responsible for the civilization of
ancient Greece? Maybe, maybe not.

I know exactly what you meant. There's no clear cut information and
so when the guy started to sound like - keep in mind that when he siad
blacks, he meant relatives (close anscestors) of current day Africans -
like the whites stole all the glory, I didn't know what to say. About
ancient Idnain, I knew enough to tell him that current day Indians are
not closely related to the Africans or today but he keeps insisting
based on the skin color, totally disregarding the genetics. I don't
think he understands (or do not want to undertsand) science anyway.

[..]

I happen to think that racism is a fairly modern invention.
Perhaps the last 5 or 6 hundred years only.

Let me re-phrase this: Racism based primarily on skin
color is a fairly modern invention. Perhaps the last
5 or 6 hundred years only.

I would say no because caste system of Indian sprang out of racism.
Modern day is just a different form.

In my reading, it appears that the caste system was invented
by Dravidians who predate the Indo-Europeans. That suggests:

Why ?


a) The caste system was invented by a group in which
all members had the same skin color. See my other comments
on slavery and slaves in the ancient world having the same
skin color as masters.

The cast system was invented because of 3 or 4 successive invasions of India whereby the invaders imposed their superiority via cast.

The main DNA linages of India are M89, M172, M52/69, M11/M20 and M17.

M89 evolved in the Middles East and is mainly Dravidian. M172 (an M89 sublinage) comes from northern Mesopotamia and Asia-Minor and is Dravidian, M52/69 is an M89 sublinage and may have evolved in northern India and is evenly spread around the population, M11/M20 is an M9 sublinage and the most common in India but not in Pakistan (where it is least common) and mainly Dravidian and M17 is the most common linage in northern India and in Pakistan and is Indo-European and same linage as the Slavs so evolved in the region of the Ukraine.

M130 is found in India in small proportions and is the linage of so-called black skinned Indians who were the first inhabitants of the land. Its also the linage of the Australian Aboriginals.

M11/M20 must represent the primary Dravidian linage which evolved in southern India from an M9 population that came to Asia 40 years ago.

M52/69 might represent the first wave of invaders from Mesopotamia over 15,000 years ago.

M89 and M172 represent more recent invaders maybe 10,000-7,000 years ago. M89 and M172 might also represent recent Islamic invaders but with the lack of M35 in the same proportion it is highly unlikely the these linages are recent. M35 only evolved 10,000 years ago and since it is out weighed by M89 and M172 in India and since these lineages and are usually found in equal proportion to M35 in the Middle East the M89 and M172 lineages must have left Mesopotamia before M35 arrived.

If M52/69, M89 and M172 were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation in 3000 BC then an African influence on agriculture in the middle east can be ruled out since it must have evolved more than 10,000 years ago. M52/69, M89 and M172 may have imposed the Cast system on the oriental looking M11/M20 linage. Does anyone know what the facial futures of the higher casts look like. Are they long and elongated and do the lower casts have round faces ?

M17 were presumably the Indo-European invaders of India of 1400 BC and its also possible that a group of these were responsible for the Indus Valley Civilisation in 3000 BC but unlikely since the Slavs were hunter gathers until Byzantine times.

The next highest linage is after M130 is M124 and represents Hunnic invaders.




b) this is supported by the fact that the caste system is
stronger in southern India where the influence of the Indo-
Europeans was much less than in the north and that members
of the Brahman caste in southern India tend to be darker
skinned, like the rest of the population suggesting that
they are members of the Dravidian group. Genetics may have
been used to check this out as it's not a new idea.

Northern India was subject to invasions by Persians, Greeks, Muslims and the British the latter two of which tried to abolish the cast system in the north but failed. The people of the lowest casts became Muslims while those of the high casts continued to intermarry with their own cast and in particular with their own relatives as did those who became Muslims thus the cast distinctions still remain.

DNA tests show the DNA of people of the higher casts is less differentiated than those of the lower casts including untouchables which suggests that the higher casts represent individual races who invaded India.


I think it began with the importation and use of African Blacks for
slavery. Slavery existed for thousand of years before this
came about. But by and large, slaves were basically the
same racially as their masters. When Africans began to
be used as slaves, there was a bigger difference between
"them" and "us". In prior ages, when a slave was freed and
entered into the world of slave owners, all he had to do
to fit in was dress properly. When a black was freed, he
had the devil's own time changing his skin color.

Also, the whites were culturally quite establish by the time the
Africans were taken as slaves tp America. In ancient India, the
invaders were not civilized (or settled yet) as the the natives and
hence a great deal of inter-mingling happened. But the ones with the
force wanted to stay on top and so systematic racism: caste
development.

See above. Also note that a conqueror always invents some
way to lord it over the conquered. I suggest that the
Indo-Europeans borrowed much of the caste system which
was already in place, where their population was greatest,
they simply replaced the indigenous people in the highest
positions.

Not true that the Indo-Europeans were not "culturally established"
The picture we get from those times is a race (termed used
loosely to signify perhaps a nation, but at least a
chiefdom type of political unit) of warriors who had to
have some backing along the way from peasants in their own
land. Warriors who travel distances to conquer do not rise
from hunter-gatherer groups. Nor do they arise even from
groups who produce food and have perhaps a "big man" as
head of the village. The Indo-Europeans were both supported
back home and were quite sophisticated culturally.

Intermingling happens.

Remember that the German tribes who conquered the Romanized
Celts of Europe were of the same basic physical type(s) as
the conquered, and for many years thereafter there were
lower class grumblings against the Frankish overlords or
whichever German group were the conquerers of the particular
area.

Nonsense. The Germans were M170 linage and more closely related to the people of the Middle East than to the Europeans they conquered who were more closely related to the Indians, Chinese and Native Americans who are all M9 linage whereas the German paternal tribe like those of the Middle East does not contain the M9 mutation.


This is a very brief explanation of why I don't think you
will find out a very clear cut answer to your question.

I know. I was just chekcing whether there was any base to what that guy
wanted to imply.

[..]

The invention which led to civilization, agriculture,
grew up independently in at least nine different areas of
the globe.

The fertile crescent of the middle east
China
Mexico
Andes and Amazonia
Eastern US
The sahel of Africa
Tropical West Africa
Ethopia
The New Guinea Highlands

Only the first one listed can be considered today
and probably for the last 10 thousand years, as
white man's territory.

If indeed the people of the
fertile crescent were really white.

That guy would claim black, i.e Africans.

Who would know? Has this been checked for the possibility
by genetics?

So again, did people from racially black areas
have influence on Greek civilization? Probably yes.

I can undertsand "Influence" but he wanted to sound like the blacks
were responsible for it all.

Where does "responsibility" begin? Were blacks really
responsible for the invention of agriculture in the
fertile crescent? I've heard it suggested that the
people of Sumer and the people of Harappa were very
closely related. It that is so, then perhaps very dark
skinned people did invent agriculture. Were they
Africans any more than the fact that we (physically
and culturally modern humans) are all Africans? I
don't know but maybe someone does.

This is yet more nonsense. There is no trace of any recent African DNA lineages in the Middle East except M35 which is a white northern African linage. Whoever the inventors of agriculture were they were the same lineages and colour as the people of the Middle East today.

From Herodotus it is clear that agriculture did not exist anywhere in Africa
except the north and Egypt because when the Phoenicians circumnavigated the continent they had to grew their own corps on uncultivated land since they found nobody to trade for food with. The people of southern and central Africa were obviously hunter gathers.


Civilization cannot have arisen without the invention
of agriculture. Greece is a recipient of Fertile
Crescent agricultural crops. Draw your own conclusion.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what race wa sresponsible for acheivements ancient Greec
    ... sublinage) comes from northern Mesopotamia and Asia-Minor and is Dravidian, M52/69 is an M89 sublinage and may have evolved in northern India and is evenly spread around the population, M11/M20 is an M9 sublinage and the most common in India but not in Pakistan and mainly Dravidian and M17 is the most common linage in northern India and in Pakistan and is Indo-European and same linage as the Slavs so evolved in the region of the Ukraine. ... Does anyone know what the facial futures of the higher casts look like. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: India largesse to non-Indians?
    ... why India, with so much poverty amongst its people, was offering so ... many scholarships to Africans. ... She felt guilty coming to India to study for free while deserving ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • India largesse to non-Indians?
    ... why India, with so much poverty amongst its people, was offering so ... many scholarships to Africans. ... She felt guilty coming to India to study for free while deserving ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • Re: The taxi driver almost hit the African ...
    ... more commonly use for people from the sub-continent (India, Pakistan) ... rather than Africans. ... Continentals are referred to as "Asians". ...
    (soc.culture.thai)