Re: what race wa sresponsible for acheivements ancient Greec

Agamemnon wrote:

"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 ?

Why what? Why was the caste system invented when all of
the society's members were of the same basic race? I
don't have a clue. Do you? -or- Why does some of my reading
suggest what I wrote? You'll have to ask the authors, whose
url's I'll find and post when I can.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but, weren't all of
the invasions you speak about subsequent to the Dravidian
occupation of the sub-continent? If so, why may my statements
above be true (asked rhetorically because I thing you may be
confusing time lines).

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.

Is this a typo?

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

I think invaders might, with it's conquerer connotations, be
the wrong word here. In pre-agricultural societies conquering
others was hardly an issue since there was no wealth. Passing
through, mixing with the locals, liking what they saw and
staying would be a better way characterize population movements
prior to the invention of agriculture.

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, if I read your DNA data correctly, that you have
the Dravidians coming to India before the invention of
agriculture. If so, there would have been no need for a
caste system. This also does not negate my statement that
Dravidians may have invented the caste system before the
arrival of Indo-Europeans.

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.

Nonsense to you my friend. I don't disagree with your DNA
data (how can I), I merely said that the Germans who took
over the Empire LOOKED like the people they were lording it
over. There was no racism based on SKIN COLOR. (I also didn't
say there wasn't any racism)

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.

It's not nonsense until I make dogmatic assertions. I merely
asked if someone could provide and answer to my question
whether or not the population of the Fertile Crescent area
could have been of a dark skinned group, specifically
African. You have provided an adequate answer but I do
wish you could adopt a little less antagonistic style.

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.

From archaeological evidence it is clear that agriculture was
invented independently and at different times in:

Ethiopia, at an early but unknown date,
The Sahel region of Africa, by 5000 BCE
Tropical West Africa, by 3000 BCE

And, oh yes, agriculture has been practiced
in the Indus valley since 7000 BCE, though it
was mainly borrowed from Southwest Asia (The
Fertile Crescent)

As for the Phoenicians who allegedly circumnavigated
Africa, they might have found food, if they would eat
it, in Tropical West Africa, though it would have been
quite different from what they were used to. If they
had been aboard ship, they wouldn't have gotten very
close to the Sahel.

South of the equator you'd be quite right. Agriculture
didn't spread to southern Africa until the Bantu
migrations of the last 2000 or so years.

Herodotus couldn't have known it all, he could only
report what others (and himself) saw. The Phoenicians
saw no agriculture.

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
    ... The cast system was invented because of 3 or 4 successive invasions of India whereby the invaders imposed their superiority via cast. ... 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 ... Does anyone know what the facial futures of the higher casts look like. ... Tropical West Africa ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Incisions on ochre from a South African cave suggest modern human behavior emerged around 100,00
    ... years ago in southern Africa, ... Others posit that a brain-boosting genetic mutation ... Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin ... an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "Survival of the Sickest"
    ... Vitamin D (mostly made from sunlight contacting the skin) because ... less but is darker because of the longer exposure to the sun. ... So the forces of evolution are not acting according to theory. ... The "move out of Africa" took place over milennia, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what race wa sresponsible for acheivements ancient Greec
    ... The cast system was invented because of 3 or 4 successive invasions of India whereby the invaders imposed their superiority via cast. ... 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. ... Tropical West Africa ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: OT: Pope attacked
    ... "Spizz" wrote in message ... to this once great and independent country. ... raping the wealth of countries like India and Africa to name a couple? ... You should try visiting Africa or India, talk to the occupants, and compare a former British colony to a French one. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)