BLACK LIKE THE FIRST EUROPEANS
The first people of Europe were prehistoric Africans. They lived mostly in the southern parts of Europe, and created many paintings and cave art throughout the region.
Pretentious scholars struggling with their self-inflicted racist diseases attach ill-fitting names to the first peoples of Europe. They call them funny names like Neanderthals, Paleolithic men, Mesolithic or Neolithic, Cro-Magnons, Grimaldi, Aurignicians, in a desperate bid to hide the cultural and historical identity of those people.
It is generally conceded by those scholars however, that the African people were the bearers of the first substantive elements of culture into the European continent.
Many thousands of years before the rise of the current pale tribes of Europe, an Afrocoid people known as the Grimaldi people, established the Aurignacian cultures. These people were anatomically modern human beings of the West African typology. They brought the first indications of cultural thoughts and rites into Europe.
The Grimaldi were Black Africans with very little body hair, black and smooth skin; they had the facial features typical of West African forest dwellers. They had kinky hair too. They arrived in Europe 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.
They ranged in height from tall to medium. Their culture had developed in Africa tens of thousands of years before they moved to Europe. It was called the Arugnician Culture. In 1994, scientists found corroborating evidence of stone and bone tools on the banks of the Semlike River in Zaire. They were finely crafted tools made between 75,000 to 100,000 years old long before modern humans migrated to Europe.
The Neanderthals non-modern human specie of man had left Africa early in time (80,000 years ago) and settled in central and southern Europe. It is speculated by bio-anthropologists that the genes of those Neanderthals are extensively sown in the modern European tribes of today.
The “Cro-Magnon,” people, late contemporaries and perhaps descendants of the Grimaldi people also existed in Central and Southern Europe many thousands of years after the Grimaldi Negroid had expanded to Europe but before the appearance of the pale version of Europe now known as Caucasians.
Actually, Caucasians as a race did not appear in Europe until about twenty to thirty thousand years after the arrival of the first Africans who by this very fact are the aboriginals of Europe.
WHENCE COMETH THE PALE ONE
There are many theories which seek to explain the reason for the switch in skin color of the Europeans. The theories proposed range from the Ice-Age effect theory, to those of miscegenation and others that suggest malnutrition. In all these theories lies the admission that the pale skin is a relatively recent genetic modification that occurred in originally Black Europe.
One of the more interesting propositions suggest that the change from black to pale Europe occurred as a result of miscegenation between the modern Africans arrivals in Europe and the primordial Neanderthal which had originally come from Africa. It should be noted that the primordial human Neanderthal (physiologically and intellectually) said to be among the ancestors of Europeans and Caucasians, also came from Africa to Europe about 80,000 years ago. Thus, the Neanderthal, which had apparently been forced to Eurpe from out of Africa, was also of the African genotype.
Some theories suggest that Neanderthals (who were originally black as all original Africans) later became pale-skinned and retained excessive body hair due to genetic selection responding to the need to adapt to the cold and darkness of Ice-Age Europe.
The modern day Europeans are the products of interbreeding between these mutated pale skin Neanderthals (i.e. mutated non modern-human Africa) and the later arriving modern black Africans of 40,000 -10,000 years ago i.e. the Grimaldis.
Warm blooded animals undergo de-pigmentation in the absence of light and warmth. If there were no Ice Age in Europe, the people would have remained Negroid/Black. Some of the darkest Africoid peoples still exist as the Australian Aborigines and Tasmanians. Their ancestors left Africa in the same waves as the Africans that went to Europe. It appears that of the anatomically modern human Africans who had migrated around the globe, those in the warmer southern climates retained their African pigmentation and those in the Northern climates lost theirs as a result of miscegenation with the pale skinned Neanderthals, who it should not be forgotten were originally of the African continent.
Ogu Eji Ofor Annu,
April 1, 2006
Whites are simply the product of the first albino born in africa of two black parents.In other words whites are the result of africans bad genes.Do the research
I believe, it has been prooven by Mythocondrial DNA, that we are all descendents of one African mother. What happened during evolution is not the issue. The real issue is that we ,modern humans, seem to have no respect for the place that gave birth to our kind! Only Unity not difference will save Africa from the grip of the corruption and the imperialist money makers!! Wake up!!
! have been reading the comments with a lot of interest. I am a white Norwegian and know the origin of the modern man lies in Africa, no question about it (Lucy). My interest in the website was pure grounded in science. I do not have any education in any of the directions mentioned above, I’m a pure layman.
My theory is: One need sunshine to produce vitamin D. Is pale skin better to absorb vitamin D then black skin, so that one better can survive conditions with lesser sunshine?
I pardon my lesser English, and hope my reply isn’t all faar out.
Sincerely Argon
Movies movies,roman(tics),hollywood-couldnt be futher from the truth. No African countries ever mass produced weapons of mass destruction.most of,if not all of mining corporations are owned by multi-nationals(?)Black has the most potential to absorb vitamins(energy)…e.g Blackholes.
“DNA tests have shown that the percentage of Greeks who have Middle Eastern or African DNA in them is less then 2%. Semino et al. [10] studied DNA samples of Greeks from the Greek region that show influences from the Near/Middle East and North Africa in historical times are unlikely, and amount to something like less then 2%; in additonal two specific haplogroups E and J which are frequent in the Mediterranean region and can be used to detect population movements between Europe, Africa and the Near East have found that 2.4% of Greeks belong in haplogroup E-M123 and 21.4% in E-M78. Clades of E prevalent in Northern or Sub-Saharan Africa were not found. According to Cruciani et al. [11] most Greeks and other Balkan people belong to a specific cluster a within haplogroup E-M78 that is found in lower frequencies outside the Balkans and marks migrations from the Balkan areas not into it. E-M123 and its daughter haplogroup E-M34 originated in the Anatolia in prehistoric times. As for haplogroup J, most Greeks belong to J-M172 and its subclades which is associated with Neolithic population movements. The results show the majority of Greeks belong to a specific cluster of gene pool that is found within the Balkans. Only 0.4% are possible non-Caucasoid contribution to the Greek gene pool and 2% are of ME contributions. This shows that Greeks are closer related to the peoples of the Balkans then any other groups of people (African/Semetic/ME) groups. The emerging picture of Y chromosome variation in Greece indicates genetic continuity, with slight influences from neighboring Caucasoid regions and virtually no influence from non-Caucasoids groups. The mitochondrial DNA of Greeks was examined and was found to be predominantly mostly with comprehensive European- mtDNA caucasoid, with a total precentage of less then 1.6% which come from Mediterranean-Eastern, Asian, African. The Greeks, like most Europeans are fairly pure in terms of their maternal ancestry.
Highly polymorphic DNA loci were tested in Greek population samples residing in geographic areas of Greece, populations of Greeks from Asia Minor/N. Africa living in eastern and central Macedonia (Figure 1) and compared to skeleton remains from ancient Greek burial grounds from antiquity. These population groups were chosen to provide material that is relevant to the cultural, historical, and genetic questions regrading Greek migrations through out the centuries. Eastern Macedonia is a region north of the Aegean where Neolithic settlements appeared. In central Macedonia there are many excavation sites, such as Dion, Aiges, Pella, Edessa, and Sindos, and the oldest Neolithic settlement was found in Nicomedia, between the Aliakmonas and Axios rivers, which were important for the transmission of farming to Europe from the Axios valley. In Thessaly the fertile plains are of central importance for the first farmers of Europe, where the Neolithic (5000-4000 B.C.) settlement of Sesklo was found. In the mountain region of Epirus there are possible preNeolithic elements. Finally, the Greeks from Asia Minor & N. Africa were chosen because of the Greek presence that was in those regions and the Fertile Crescent of the Near East prior 1922 due to Greek migration from the Greek mainland since antiquity. No statistically significant heterogeneity (p > 0.30) was observed in the gene frequencies between the pooled Greek data and other European populations(Schnee-Griese et al. 1993; Buscemi et al. 1994; Klintschar and Kubat 1995; Martin et al. 1995; Pestoni et al. 1996; Rose et al. 1996; PerezLezaun et al. 1997). At the DI S80 and DI 7S5 loci the allele frequencies were not significantly different between our pooled data and data from other studies on the Greek population (p = 0.48 and p = 0.61, respectively) (Hatzaki et al. 1995). These results support the notion of Alonso et al. (1995) that the allele frequencies of microsatellite loci are well preserved in Europeans. In conclusion, this survey provides the allele frequencies for the construction of a Greek genetic database, indicates that any peculiarities of some markers that may be able to discriminate between population samples from Greece, points toward the similarity of the Greek population sample to other European populations, and interpret the genetic data in light of the known history of the studied populations. No significant differences with other European populations were found for the loci studied.†-Genetic studies in Greek population samples using 12 highly polymorphic DNA loci: Human Biology, Wayne State University Press Feb 1999
What this research shows is that genetic research proves ancient Greeks and modern Greeks show no “African” origins to them. According to Cruciani et al. [11] Most Greeks and other Balkan people belong to a specific cluster a within haplogroup E-M78 that is found in lower frequencies outside the Balkans and marks migrations from the Balkan areas not into it. I also find it interesting how you neglect to point out the caucasian features of those pictures you call “African” and did not provide the many Minoan Frescoes and ancient Greek artifacts that cleary depict Minoans as tanned and fair people with caucasian features.
Sorry replied to the wrong thread
“Black†and “White†skin are adaptations to certain conditions, nothing more. If you have darker skin and live in a sunny climate then you are less likely to get skin cancer or a really bad sunburn, that could otherwise kill a lighter skinned person. A person has lighter skin because their ancestors lived in a climate with less sunlight and therefore got enough Vitamin D. People with darker skin in those climates had more miscarriages and were prone to developing rickets and so were bred out of the gene pool. It’s that simple. Neither is superior to the other, they are just adaptations to varying degrees of sunlight.
As to everyone having come from Africa. Yes, people did come from that geographic region; specifically from the tip of the country we now call South Africa. Blombos cave has the oldest anatomically modern human remains dated at around 100,000 years old. However, it is ridiculous to say that we are all African. Nationalistic ideas like this did not even come into existence until around 200 years ago. Africa is so large and diverse it is folly to wrap it all up into one convenient thought package. We have all come a long way in 100,000 years, especially culturally. Culture and where our more recent ancestors came from is how we identify ourselves. Though doubtlessly it would be better and more humanistic to just see us as one global species, instead of so divisively stratified by skin color, religion/beliefs, and national borders.