Oracle you make me laugh, what have you posted that proves your point, nothing I say. Do you know who Carleton Steven Coon was? Read this tonight but be warned you will not sleep a wink once you realise you have been lied too!
On the Antiquity of Races by Carleton Stevens Coon.
At the dawn of of history, which is another way of saying "beginning with Herodotus," literate people of the ancient world were well aware that mankind was divided into a number of clearly differentiated races. Even before that, racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations. We also have pictures of white people on the walls of western European caves which are as much as 20,000 years older.
How many kinds of people there were in the world was not really known until after the voyages of discovery that tore the veil from the Americas, the Pacific islands, and Australia. Even then the problem of classifying the races remained, and it has not been settled to this day.
For present purposes I am using a conservative and tentative classification of the living peoples of the world into five basically geographical groups: the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid, and Capoid. The first includes Europeans and their overseas kinsmen, the Middle Eastern Whites from Morocco to West Pakistan, and most of the peoples of India, as well as the Ainu of Japan. The second includes most of the East Asiatics, Indonesians Polynesians, Micronesians, American Indians, and Eskimo. In the third category fall the Australian aborigines, Melanesians, Papuans, some of the tribal folk of India, and the various Negritos of South Asia and Oceania. The fourth comprises the Negroes and Pygmies of Africa. I have named it after a region (not a specific nation) which contains both kinds of people. The term Negroid has been deliberately omitted to avoid confusion. It has been applied both to Africans and to spiral-haired peoples of southern Asia and Oceania who are not genetically related to each other, as far as we know.1 Negroid will be used in this book to denote a condition, not a geographical subspecies. The fifth group includes the Bushmen and Hottentots and other relict tribes, like the Sandawe of Tanganyika. It is called Capoid after the Cape of Good Hope. If this subspecies once occupied Morocco the cape can be thought of as Cape Spartel. Either way, the term is appropriate.
My aim in this book is to see how far back in prehistoric antiquity these human racial groups can be traced. Did they all branch off a common stem recently, that is, within a few tens of thousands of years, after mankind had evolved as a single unit to the evolutionary state of the most primitive living peoples? Or did their moment of separation lie lower down on the time scale, when long-extinct types like the so-called ape men of Java and China were still alive? If the second is true, much of the evolution of the different existing races may have taken place separately and in parallel fashion over a period of hundreds, rather than tens, of thousands of years. The first hypothesis is the one more commonly held, but it presents some impressive stumbling blocks!
If all races had a recent common origin, how does it happen that some peoples, like the Tasmanians and many of the Australian aborigines, were still living during the nineteenth century in a manner comparable to that of Europeans of over - oo,ooo years ago? Either the common ancestors of the Tasmanians cum Australians and of the Europeans parted company, in remote Pleistocene antiquity, or else the Australians and Tasmanians have done some rapid cultural backsliding, which archaeological evidence disproves.
If the ancestors of the living races of mankind were a single a few thousands of years ago and they all spoke a single language, how does it happen that the world contains thousands of languages, hundreds of which are unrelated to each other, and some of which even use such odd sounds as clicks? Some languages are tonal and others are not, and the difference between a tonal and a nontonal language is basic and profound. Eskimo and Aleut, which are closely related languages, have been separated for about two thousand years. It takes at least twenty thousand years for two sister languages to lose all semblance of relationship.' If, therefore, all languages are derived from a single mother tongue, the original separation must go back many times that figure. The only alternative is that more than one line of ancestral man discovered speech independently.
Even so, the number of languages spoken by a single subspecies, the Mongoloid, is great enough to imply a vast antiquity.
All the evidence available from comparative ethnology, linguistics, and prehistoric archaeology indicates a long separation of the principal races of man. This is contrary to the current idea that Homo sapiens arose in Europe or western Asia about 35,000 B.C., fully formed as from the brow of Zeus, and spread over the world at that time, while the archaic species of men who had preceded him became conveniently extinct. Actually, the homines sapientes in question were morphologically the same as living Europeans. To derive an Australian aborigine or a Congo Pygmy from European ancestors of modern type would be biologically impossible.
The current idea is based on the study of comparative anatomy without reference to evolution, and a misunderstanding of paleontology. One anatomist, Morant,' found by means of a number of measurements taken on less than ten Neanderthal skulls that this ancient population differed in mean measurements from a number of modern populations more than the modern skulls differ from each other. The differences reflected mainly the fact that Neanderthal men had low, flattish cranial vaults and protruding faces; but these features could have come from a small number of genes concerned with adaptation to cold weather. Since 1927, when Morant's study was published, "progressive" and "transitional" high-headed Neanderthals have been unearthed in western Asia. These new discoveries suggest that the total extinction of that fossil race is unlikely. We now have fossil skulls from China, Africa, and Europe, found since Morant studied the Neanderthals, which closely resemble the modern races in features that seem to have evolved and been handed down locally. Such features in clude the extent to which the face is flat or beak-like, the shape of the nasal bones, and the size ratio of front teeth to molars. If we grant that races, like the species to which they belong, can evolve, our problem becomes simpler.
The misinterpretation of paleontology by nonpaleontologists came about naturally. Anyone who studies the family trees of various lines of animals over millions of years is bound to be impressed by the multitude of extinct species, and to notice that the living animal species are descended from very few ancestral ones. When this observation is applied to many forms of life over the span of geological time, it holds true; but for man it does not. Man is little more than a half million years old. Geologically speaking, we were born yesterday. The fossil men now extinct differed from each other in race, and were not members of separate species except in the sense that one species grew out of another.
As human beings are animals, they are subject to the same laws of evolutionary change that govern the rises and falls of other species and their transmutations into increasingly complex and efficient forms. Therefore we have two jobs to do: (i) to survey the rules of species formation and the differentiation of races, including the composition of populations, systems of mating, differential fertility, and geographical adaptation at different ecological levels, as they may apply to man; and (z) to go over with a fine-toothed comb all the original evidence about fossil specimens of man and his predecessors which can be found. This includes actual specimens, casts, and technical reports, some lying on the bottom shelves of library stacks, with pages still uncut, and undisturbed for decades. Because few textbook writers have bothered to consult these primary sources, few new ideas about the evolution of races have reached the public for a long time.
http://carnby.altervista.org/toor/01-01.htm
Don't call me a racist because you don't like what I post, prove what you think is true. Forget the junk science ie. Einstein, Dawkins or Hawking, embrace the true geniuses such as Archimedes or Tesla.
I have some food for you.
Reminders of Ku Klux Klan and the worst of the US!
Race is not defined with eye colour or hair colour but different races do have different types of hair such kinky hair. There were three races, Caucasian, Mongolian and Negroid. Now there is a fourth type, Mixed which includes Afro American/Caribbeans and Turks. Various Genetic studies have proved this ie. like the one about the Turks which showed they are part Mongolian but have large amounts of Caucasian blood (Armenian, Greek and Slavic), funny enough they have the blood of the people they hate the most.
