A Smithsonian Magazine article (from February 2018) states that scientists were able to extract DNA from a 10,000 year old man and analysis revealed his skin and eye colour. Wow – pretty impressive feat to find the DNA in the first place (the source was an ear bone).

From the Smithsonian Magazine, February 7, 2018:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ancient-briton-had-dark-skin-and-light-eyes-dna-analysis-shows-180968097/

Excerpts:

“In 1903, the remains of a 10,000-year-old man were discovered in the Cheddar Gorge of Somerset, England. Dubbed the “Cheddar Man,” it remains the oldest almost complete skeleton ever found in Britain. Over the years, research has shown that he stood around five-foot-five, he was well-fed and he likely died in his early 20s. Now, as Paul Rincon of the BBC reports, genome analysis has revealed that Cheddar Man had dark brown skin and blue eyes—a discovery that adds to a growing body of research indicating that the evolution of human skin color was far more complex than previously believed.

“The genome analysis was conducted by researchers at London’s Natural History Museum, who extracted DNA from Cheddar man's inner ear bone, located at the base of the skull. Experts at the University College of London then used the DNA information to create a facial reconstruction of Cheddar Man, rendering his dark complexion, deep brown hair, and light eyes in life-like detail.

“As Hannah Devlin of the Guardian explains, Cheddar Man’s appearance has been the subject of considerable interest because he belonged to the first wave of migrants to establish a continuous human presence in Britain after around 11,700 years ago; before that, humans had temporarily settled in the region and cleared out during various ice ages. Around ten percent of people with white British ancestry are descended from this group of first settlers, and previous reconstructions of Cheddar Man have depicted him with pale skin and light hair.

“But the new discovery suggests that light skin evolved in European populations much later than is commonly believed.

“The results of Cheddar Man’s genome analysis align with recent research that has uncovered the convoluted nature of the evolution of human skin tone. The first humans to leave Africa 40,000 years ago are believed to have had dark skin, which would have been advantageous in sunny climates. But humans did not uniformly develop light skin when they reached the colder regions of Europe. In 2015, for example, a study of ancient DNA found that while individuals in northern Europe had pale skin, hair and eyes around 8,500 years ago, humans in the regions of Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary likely had dark skin. Genes for light skin may have only become widespread in Britain around 6,000 years ago, when farmers from the Middle East migrated to the region and began to reproduce with indigenous populations, according to the BBC’s Rincon.”

---

So, what happens to the 6,000 year timeline for creation in all this (as well as all the other finds and studies)? You’d have to believe that all the scientific techniques are flawed and hence all the conclusions that arise from them if you're going to stick to the six.

As for me, I’m just amazed they could recover 10,000 year old DNA from this skeleton. The possibilities seem endless at that point. (Maybe they’ve done this before and I’m only just paying attention to it).

What I'd like to know is if the guy had dark skin (to protect his skin from the sun, as the article states) then why were his eyes pale? Pale what colour? I kind of assumed blue but I could be wrong. Because usually brown is "dark" and blue is "light". (Is that correct, if casual, terminology or is it borne out of racist tropes, as so much is, as we are sadly finding out with increasing frequency)?

(Like I recently tripped over an article about the "racist roots" of country music, something I'd never heard before about one of my favourite types of music. Still not over that sad discovery...).

This is really great... Except that there were light skinned, big nosed, fair haired people in Europe during the Neanderthal period and Europeans are part Neanderthal. This is supposedly "just a coincidence"! Light skin is not just something which popped up during the agricultural period.

"Like I recently tripped over an article about the "racist roots" of country music, something I'd never heard before"

Probably because it's false like most of these race-baiting articles? Country music comes out of Scottish and Irish folk music, which predates the African slave trade and the colonization of the South. There is nothing intrinsically racist about country music... There may be a problem in some of the culture around it, but that's a different issue.

Country music has been played and covered by black artists since at least the fifties, and white country artists also played a lot of black-penned tunes which is where rock and roll came from.

Genetics may be different in Canada, but can you point to any studies that show that the genes Europeans inherited from Neanderthals coded for light skin color?

Also, how does your theory comport with the fact that the greatest concentrations of Neanderthal DNA are in New Guinea, Aboriginal Australia, and Micronesia? Because it would be curious if Neanderthal DNA coded for pale skin in Europe and for dark skin in other regions.

You may have sources for your claims and analysis to resolve your contradictions--I doubt it, but it's possible--so help us out here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 07:09PM by Lot's Wife.

And how do you account for this--that Neanderthals were gone tens of thousands of years before European HSS skin turned paler?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/

*Thanks, anybody.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 07:16PM by Lot's Wife.

Modern Europeans have Neanderthal DNA TO THIS DAY and share a number of their unusual physical features. Just a coincidence. The Neanderthal range was Europe and Western Asia. Another coincidence. Occam's Razor must be blunt today.

Even you know all this, so why do you have to be reminded of this again?

The 40,000 year estimate is also way too late. The ancestors of Indigenous Australians colonized tbeir continent 50 or 60,000 years ago from tbe islands of south east Asia. They have Denisovam ancestry but are also clearly Homo Sapiens.

The ancestors of modern humans were throughout Eurasia, Australia and Africa long before 40K BP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 10:07PM by Tevai.

Brandeis Brandies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Modern Europeans have Neanderthal DNA TO THIS DAY
> and share a number of their unusual physical
> features.

Jordan, let me make this so easy even you can understand it. First, if there is a genetic advantage to a particular skin color in a particular climate it is likely to evolve more than once in that and similar climates. You therefore cannot infer a genetic connection between light-skinned Neanderthals and light-skinned HSS any more than you can claim a common origin for diminutive stature in people on the island of Flores in Indonesia and certain ethnicities in Africa.

Second, and you would know this if you'd bothered to read the links provided above, geneticists have identified the three particular genetic mutations that produce paler skin in HSS and they are NOT among the contributions inherited from Neanderthals. So your assertion is false.


--------------
> Just a coincidence. The Neanderthal
> range was Europe and Western Asia. Another
> coincidence.

Again you have your facts wrong on several scores. Consider geography. Neanderthals ranged as far east as Denisova Cave in southern Siberia: hence the discovery of a Neanderthal-Denisovan child in that cave. Neanderthals moved as far south as Northern Africa, where the most detailed genetic research shows constant presence of the DNA going back tens of thousands of years. And again, the highest concentrations of Neanderthal DNA are found not in Europe but in New Guinea and regions east, so no reasonable person (I put that carefully) would attempt to tie a particular skin color to Neanderthal DNA.


------------
> Occam's Razor must be blunt today.

Occam's Razor is a principle used to make judgments of probability in the absence of more precise evidence. But we have the new evidence: you just aren't familiar with it.


-------------
> Even you know all this, so why do you have to be
> reminded of this again?

Yeah, I do know the evidence. And it is evident that you do not. Your ideas are at least a decade out of date.


-------------
> The 40,000 year estimate is also way too late. The
> ancestors of Indigenous Australians colonized
> tbeir continent 50 or 60,000 years ago from tbe
> islands of south east Asia. They have Denisovam
> ancestry but are also clearly Homo Sapiens.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say here. You seem not to know that the density of Neanderthal DNA in New Guinea, Australia, and Micronesia and Polynesia is greater than anywhere else in the world. But that is in any case irrelevant to light-skinned European HSS.

The fact is that European Neanderthals died out, taking any light-skin DNA with them, tens of thousands of years before European HSS experienced the three genetic mutations that produced lighter skin color among them. There is no common origin.


------------
> The ancestors of modern humans were throughout
> Eurasia, Australia and Africa long before 40K BP.

Again, irrelevant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 10:10PM by Tevai.

Additionally, Dali Man--an early homo sapien skeleton found in China--is estimated to be about 235,000 years old (give or take a few days). Pretty much blows the "Out of Africa" theory out of the water.

Brandeis Brandies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Like I recently tripped over an article about the
> "racist roots" of country music, something I'd
> never heard before"
>
> Probably because it's false like most of these
> race-baiting articles?

You've made a statement here, but without evidence to back it up.


> Country music comes out of Scottish and Irish folk music

This makes sense.


>...which predates the African slave trade and the colonization of the South.

Irrelevant. The creation of country music took place after the "African slave trade and the colonization of the South," which is true but irrelevant. That it was largely the creation of Irish-American and Scottish-American culture IS relevant.


> There is nothing intrinsically racist about
> country music...

Largely true, but not completely. Historically there were always at least some songs written, and often sung by the general public (on the radio, etc.), in which American white domination over people of color (includes Latinos, Chinese immigrants, etc.) was implicit in the lyrics, backed up by the specifics of the music. (When I was growing up, there was always a bunch of sheet music--some of it country/Western--in the piano bench in my home, and in the homes of my maternal relatives. Not only were there often illustrations included in that sheet music which were often outright racist (bug-eyed black people, etc.), but the lyrics (for those who could "hear" what the composer was actually saying in the sub-text) were [meant to be] "amusingly" racist, and carried a "we just love our [black- and brown-skinned fellow Americans] because they make us white people laugh--just so long as they stay in their place" of course, vibe.


> There may be a problem in some of
> the culture around it, but that's a different
> issue.

No, it is the issue at hand which being discussed in this thread.


> Country music has been played and covered by black
> artists since at least the fifties...

True. [This was a solid step forward for the music industry (both the production arm, AND the distribution arm), and taken with a significant amount of fearful trepidation by the people involved. This process had begun a few years before I entered the recording industry, and during that time in my life--I was just out of high school--I knew producers who had been a part of the process as it was happening....and they had been basically scared to death regarding their professional futures if the new innovations had proved to not fly at those comparatively earlier times.

When "you" are mindfully attempting to modify a huge chunk of American culture, it is downright scary when you (with great reason) are terrified you might not ever work in the industry again, but they did it successfully, and now--looking back at industry history--they're all considered industry geniuses of one kind or another.]


> ...and white country artists also played a lot of black-penned
> tunes...

True.


>which is where rock and roll came from.

Also true.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 09:03PM by Tevai.

Thank you, Tevai, for sharing your experience and insights. Much appreciated.

In my post above, I was stating what I had recently read about country music origins being racist, which I had never heard of before. It would have been better for me to have included a link.

Here’s the account of “the racist roots” of country music:

Title: “Country music reckons with racial stereotypes and its future” (June 26, 2020)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/country-music-black-artists-1.5628236


Excerpts:

“The country music industry has long been hesitant to address its long and complicated history with race, but the death of George Floyd in police custody and the protests it sparked in the U.S. and around the world became a sound too loud for the genre to ignore.

“Over the past weeks, country artists, labels and country music organizations posted about Black Lives Matter on social media, participated in the industry wide Blackout Tuesday or denounced racism outright. On Thursday, Grammy-winning country group, The Dixie Chicks announced it would drop "dixie" from its name. The group said in a statement that it wanted to meet "this moment."

“But Black artists say the industry still needs to address the systematic racial barriers that have been entrenched in country music for decades.

“Stereotypes that country music is just for white audiences, written by white songwriters, and sung by mostly white males are reinforced daily on country radio, playlists, label rosters and tour lineups. In recent years, however, the conversations about country music have shifted to a broader acknowledgement that non-white artists have always been in the genre, even if they aren't always recognized.

“Artist/scholar Rhiannon Giddens received a MacArthur Foundation grant for her work to reclaim Black contributions to country and folk music. And artists like Darius Rucker, Kane Brown and Jimmie Allen have all had No. 1 country hits in recent years, while Mickey Guyton just released an unflinching song called Black Like Me. But that ingrained culture of exclusivity remains a struggle to change.

"You can look at the reviews of my first album. I was called coloured, like, 'I didn't know colored people like country music,"' said Palmer, who had three singles reach the Hot Country Songs Chart. "I used to get messages all the time on MySpace, saying, `I am so sick of you. Why are you trying to be white?' or `Why are you trying to take over country music?"'

“Historically country music was created by and played in both white and Black communities in the South, but the music became marketed along racial lines in the Jim Crow era, said Amanda Marie Martinez, a historian and writer who is studying country music and race. White country music was stigmatized early on as "hillbilly music" so the industry started pushing it toward the rising white middle class as a way to make the genre more respected and hugely profitable.

"In the process, they've also prioritized the white, middle income, relatively conservative listener as their demographic, kind of the opposite of youth culture," Martinez said.

“But there were periods of diversity, such as the post-Civil Rights era, when Black artists like Charley Pride, Linda Martell, O.B. McClinton and Stoney Edwards were having success, alongside Johnny Rodriguez and Freddy Fender, who were singing in English and Spanish.

“Black artists today are also reclaiming spaces that have been overwhelmingly white domains.”


I was going to retract the phrase “racist roots” (of country music) that I had used in my OP and replace it with the perhaps less stark phrase of “systemic* racial barriers” which is a direct quote from the article I had read (link posted above).

But after reading the article again, and several others, and again listening to the absolutely haunting signature song of Billie Holiday, “Strange Fruit”, I’m going to stick with “racist roots” to avoid minimizing the mountain black country artists have had to climb.

I'm not saying that Billie Holiday was a country artist (she was known as a jazz singer) but that this song of hers tells the story of the injustices and outrages that Blacks have faced and still do.

I believe it was TLC, (amazing) former poster, who first mentioned the song Strange Fruit, which remains absolutely haunting no matter how many times you hear it. (Warning: graphic, disturbing content. But. We should know.):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGY9HvChXk


If we think that “racism” is too strong a charge to level at country music, how about (from the article):

“long and complicated history with race”

“systemic racial barriers”

“stereotypes”

“ingrained culture of exclusivity”

Etc.

*NB: The linked article above uses the phrase “systematic racial barriers” – I changed it to “systemic” as I believe that is the word they meant to use.


Here are excerpts from another article (about a related incident I’m not focusing on here):

“…the possibility of the famously White genre [country music] embracing a more inclusive version of country music. This possibility is driven by a multiracial coalition (and Black women in particular) of artists, writers and fans outside the confines of Nashville’s Music Row, who have organized to reclaim a genre people of color have always loved and move the music away from a business model where they have never been welcomed.

“The country genre was created as a marketing category in the 1920s, when record executives capitalized on the potential to record and sell music from the American South. But while Black and White Southerners often played and enjoyed similar music, thanks to Jim Crow segregation the executives created two music categories, one White and one Black: “hillbilly” and “old-time” music — now collectively referred to as country music — and “race music.”

"The industry’s resulting business strategy routinely ignored evidence of non-White artists and fans and instead branded its music as the sound of racial backlash politics in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of the period’s most well-known songs capitalized on feelings of White anxiety, which the industry pushed even when artists resisted such branding. After Merle Haggard released his No. 1 hit “Okie from Muskogee” in 1969, the singer hoped to follow with “Irma Jackson,” a song about interracial love. Recognizing the money to be made on the heels of “Okie,” however, Haggard’s producer, Ken Nelson, instead insisted he release the jingoistic anthem “The Fightin’ Side of Me,” which also became a number one hit.

“The industry worked to keep country White despite evidence that Black artists could be commercially successful within the genre. In 1962 Ray Charles’s transformative album “Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music” was certified gold and received a Grammy nomination. Although the album brought a new, middle-of-the-road audience to country music, the industry failed to support the album as one of its own.

“In 1965, the industry did make an exception to its Whites-only rule, when Charley Pride became the first non-White artist signed to a country record label. In the years following, Pride would become one of the best-selling country artists of all-time.

“Following his success, new potential emerged for country to broaden its focus. Black artists like O.B. McClinton, Stoney Edwards and Linda Martell earned a string of small hits. And Mexican American singers Johnny Rodriguez and Freddy Fender achieved superstardom as well.

“But rather than market to a multiracial audience, the country music industry instead doubled-down on its Whites-only approach — even embracing Richard Nixon, who saw the country audience as part of his “Silent Majority,” during the throes of Watergate.

"The industry marketed its music as the product of White nostalgia, featuring many popular songs celebrating the “redneck” figure, such as Vernon Oxford’s “Redneck! (The Redneck national anthem).

“By the 1980s, country hits like Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” emerged as the soundtrack of Reagan-era conservatism. Like Nixon, Ronald Reagan identified country listeners as his voters, making multiple visits to the Grand Ole Opry, and rhapsodizing that “Country music represents the story of out nation … It tells of our way of life and the men and women who built this nation and made it the greatest land on earth.” At a time when moral panic surrounded popular music and the Parents’ Music Resource Center sought to censor what children listened to, country was again presented as the genre of choice for White conservatives and members of the PMRC.

“Though the music has always been sold as a White genre, it has maintained widespread appeal, with fans across not only race but class, region, age and gender and sexuality lines. Over the past year especially, country artists, writers and fans of color who have not traditionally found acceptance within the country music business because of racism have worked diligently to reimagine a more inclusive country music community.

“Yet a paradox rests at the heart of this country climate. Though the music has always been sold as a White genre, it has maintained widespread appeal, with fans across not only race but class, region, age and gender and sexuality lines. Over the past year especially, country artists, writers and fans of color who have not traditionally found acceptance within the country music business because of racism have worked diligently to reimagine a more inclusive country music community.

“Writer Andrea Williams, meanwhile, has worked tirelessly to expose the racism rampant throughout the country music business. And singer Mickey Guyton has led the effort to support fellow Black country artists.

“But while Guyton’s song, “Black Like Me” received a Grammy nomination, she still receives little airplay on country radio, which continues to be the most powerful platform in promoting country artists.

“…two possible routes for country’s future: continue on its traditional path, catering to a marketplace built on Whiteness and reactionary right-wing politics. Or foster a new audience that takes advantage of country’s potential to be an inclusive musical community.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/17/crossroads-facing-country-music-after-morgan-wallens-use-racist-slur/


NB: The 2nd article linked above includes some political comments, which I have tried to bypass in the excerpts above. That is not an aspect of this discussion that I wish to become the focus, as it is against board rules to discuss politics (as surely we all know by now). Some aspects of the discussion do include a historical political reality, however.

There are plenty of articles discussing this aspect of country music, if one cares to take the time to do a deeper dive. I read a lot so I am greatly surprised that I have never come across this fact about country music until this recently. I am distressed to discover this malignant reality about a genre of music I have always greatly enjoyed. I think many of us are still largely struggling with the relatively recent onslaught of negative facts about human society that are beyond question now. Does a negative past doom the future or is there redemption? If so, in what form and how to achieve it?

I can’t help but reflect on the current Canadian nightmare of the past racism-based residential schooling (compulsory) for children of Indigenous families. As we speak, ever more burial sites of their children are being located around the country, several here in B.C. to date, with certainly more to come. First Nations Peoples are now calling what happened “genocide”. A startling word to hear. A horrific word. A heartbreaking word. And yet. First Nations representatives have long been in negotiations with the Government of Canada to try and achieve “truth and reconciliation”. One Indigenous leader stated recently (not for the first time) that first comes truth - there can be no reconciliation without truth. Such a heartrending and powerful reality. First we have to know what happened, all of what there is to be sorry for, and that we are indeed sorry. Then, the Peoples most grievously, and irreparably, harmed are willing to be conciliatory, in the sense of peace-making. How much heart must that take? What a great hope to hold out. What a great gift from those who have been irretrievably wronged to be willing to hold out to (representatives of) the wrongdoers.

We must know and understand the past. And then work to find the way forward. Sometimes it feels overwhelming to learn of the many deep and appalling wrongs of history. I’m currently studying the history of Ireland. Finding out how exactly how warmongering my British ancestors were (English and Irish in this instance). So much learning and culture, the Enlightenment, the achievements, and yet swords into ploughshares wasn’t a concept they were ready to embrace, at the cost of untold numbers of lives, in the most brutal ways imaginable.


I’m disturbed to learn of the racist history of country music. My first impulse was I can’t listen to it any more, as some kind of silent protest against what occurred in the past. And yet, that’s the general course of history. We can’t change it. But we can make any necessary changes in our lives and attitudes to be better. And we can pay tribute by increasing our knowledge about past injustices, and within our own spheres trying to make amends somehow. If only by being informed and staying aware and trying to be a positive force.

So yeah. I’m sticking by my original conclusion in my previous post. Not only are the roots of country music racist, so has been the culture and practice of it. To my sorrow.

All I can do is be informed. Move forward. And be better.


(Post lightly edited for spacing and punctuation).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2021 02:41PM by Nightingale.

I’m unencumbered by reading actual research, but I see no reason why that should stop me, so hear me out.

There have been multiple instances of large animals migrating to islands, and shrinking substantially in size in a relatively few generations. This has happened on Madagascar, Sicily, and Wrangel Island.

In the case of Sicily, a recent report says that dwarf elephants developed in a matter of centuries, not millennia.

Perhaps there is a similar effect with humans. Light skin has a strong survival benefit in polar regions because of better vitamin D production. Dark skin has a strong survival benefit at the equator by preventing skin cancer. I suspect any group of humans will have skin tone change in reaction to the latitude they live at, after several dozen generations, which on an evolutionary timescale, is quite rapid. The wrong skin tone dies out, the right skin tone survives.

Now of course we have SPF 50 for the lily white, and vitamin D supplements and tanning beds for the melanin-proficient, so we can do an end run around evolutionary pressure.

Basically I think any group of humans can be either light or dark skinned if they live in the proper environment for a long enough period of time.

Edit to add: oops, I looked up the Sicily dwarf elephant article. It reports that the elephants evolved to that much smaller size over 350,000 years, not a few centuries. That is still fast for elephants shrinking by 80%, but I was pretty far off on the time scale. I assume my time scale on human skin color changes is also off, but I still stand by the basic point that skin color will change either direction given enough time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 08:33PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Lighter skin is more effective at combating Seasonal Affective Disorder, which is a major problem in higher latitudes. It affects white people badly enough, but is even worse for people with darker skin tones e.g. Norway's ethnic Pakistani population.

Since milk provides a substantial amount of Vitamin D, it makes little sense to link its development with the dawn of dairy farming.

I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence about milk. Yes, it provides substantial vitamin D. People living in northern latitudes needed external sources of vitamin D. Most human adults have trouble digesting milk, except for Northern Europeans, because the ones who kept producing the proper enzymes to digest milk preferentially survived over adults who could not take advantage of that external source of vitamin D.

The article states that Cheddar Man would have been lactose intolerant.

Oh, the irony.

Hah!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/

The finding agrees with earlier studies suggesting that modern humans did not lose their dark skins immediately on reaching Europe, says Katerina Harvati at the University of Tübingen in Germany. “[The new study] is interesting because it suggests a very late differentiation of skin pigmentation among modern humans,” she says.

An earlier analysis of ancient DNA in 40,000 and 50,000-year-old Neanderthal bones, respectively from Spain and Italy, suggested that our extinct cousins had light-coloured skin and reddish hair in their European heartland. But the Neanderthals went extinct around 28,000 years ago – long before modern humans in Europe gained a pale skin. Evidently Neanderthals did not pass these useful local adaptations on to modern humans, despite genetic evidence that the two species interbred.

Yeah, I cited that article (with attribution to you) above. Jordan didn't read it then and I'll bet he won't read it now.

and it's tied up with Genesis and concepts of being "pure" and being created in God's image.

There's no advantage to being "white" unless you are living in cold, cloudy, high latitude northern Europe. It's not an advantage if you live somewhere else and that's why the vast majority of human beings on Earth are not white.

White Nationalist Identity Religion used to be extreme fringe cult stuff like from neo-Nazi groups like "The Order," NSM, and other radical far right groups. Now it's becoming mainstream in many communities in America. Faux News spews it out by the ton every night.

Does it really matter if you aren't "pure?" Does it make any difference? Only if you think that culture is a product of genetics and think that if you have Sub-Saharan African genes you will have uncontrollable urges to wear kinte cloth and live in a grass hut or something. How many people have French ancestors or French last names and don't have any interest in French culture, cuisine, or language because they aren't French? It's ridiculous, but that's the problem we face now. Fundies can't deal with being a minority in America and religion is used as a structural tribal reinforcing mechanism.

There's a town in South Africa called "Orania" that promotes itself as the last refuge of white Afrikaner culture, race, and religion. The only trouble is that the town can't find enough people who want to live there — especially young people. Some move there, but not many. That's how I see this playing out in America. There will always be some people who are into being "separate" and "pure" but that number is shrinking year by year. There are more and more multi-ethnic and multiracial families every day. Even advertisers know which way the wind is blowing and that's why you see so many interracial commercials on television these days. Most people under thirty-five simply don't care — much to the angst of some of their boomer parents and greatest generation grandparents who see their golden brown grandchildren and can't sleep at night because they fear being replaced...even though they marvel at how much the grandkids are just like themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 10:39PM by anybody.

I've noticed that lately with inter-racial couples in commercials. What a concept.

I think Brigham Young invented it.

I don't think it is immediately about race in this iteration. If you look at the Proud Boys and some of the other white supremacist groups, they do include the occasional non-white.

In my view this is about culture. We saw it in the rabid criticism of Obama, both during his presidency and during the successive one. We've also seen and heard the "Jews will not replace us" mantra, which inadvertently revealed the primary motive: fear of replacement. And then came the bout of "tourism" on January 6, whose participants disproportionately came from districts that were undergoing rapid demographic change and had in fact voted for Biden.

In short, this is about the decline of traditional American culture, which approximates but does not equal, skin color. People are deathly afraid of the replacement of apple pie by churros, of corn on the cob by collared greens or even lentils. A lot of white Americans do not overtly hate foreigners and people with dark skin, but they do feel more comfortable with a white president and whites dominating Capitol Hill and the country's cultural edifices. That renders them sympathetic to the viler people on the right, whose ranks have also swelled.

This doesn't excuse the new racism, just indicates the different "flavor" this time aound and explains why some POC are involved in the present totalitarian movement. That white Americans, like homogeneous cultures worldwide, will eventually go away doesn't bother them as much as the probability that their culture will dissipate. The goal is not a permanent reversal of demographic trends, just an effort to prevent cultural change while the present generation are still alive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews

Many German Jews fought in WW1, were conservative and middle class and no different than many other nationalistic Germans who supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and their economic and re-armanent policies.

They thought all of the racist and anti-Semitic talk was just heated rhetoric and the Nazis weren't really serious.

Big mistake.

As to the culture part, there are a plethora of studies about how after the second or third generation descendants of immigrants become Amercanized. All of American cuisine is made of from other cultures anyway, so American "culture" is a constantly evolving work in progress :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 11:33PM by anybody.

Oh, the parallels with the Fascist (used in the technical sense) revolutions are clear. But you are describing the willingness of the victims (or alternatively the lack of comprehension by the victims) whereas I am describing the attitude of the aggressors.

While there were Jews for Hitler, there wasn't much indication of Hitler's reciprocation--which is my flippant way of saying that Hitler would not look out over his audience and say, "there's my Jew." Nor were there any Brown Shirt corps run by Jews or black people. Hitler had no POC ministers in his governments.

So there is a difference between the two phenomena. The violent American right is different from the Fascist right to the extent that the former is relatively willing to tolerate non-whites if they fully and fulsomely embrace traditional American culture. Culture wars almost inevitably have a racial component but they are not primarily focused on race.

Obama was a cautious, pragmatic, consensus oriented center left politician who was a lot like Eisenhower and actually went against many left leaning progressives in his own party. If you look up pictures of his mom's dad from WW2, they look just like each other.

That's why I didn't understand at first why there was so much rabid opposition against him from some people at first. It seemed totally irrational.

Then I figured it out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2021 11:35PM by anybody.

There are those on this site and elsewhere who suggest that over time the GOP abandoned its historical values and became a centrist or even a liberal party. But as you point out, that is blatantly false. The GOP was the check on FDR; and Eisenhower was both an integrator and a believer in high taxes and fiscal discipline. Nixon not only treated the USSR and the PRC as responsible international actors, he also established OSHA and the EPA. After a few confrontational years Reagan ended up internationally where Nixon had been and his views on social policy were far more liberal than today's Republicans.

The truth, therefore, is that the GOP has gradually moved from the center right to the extreme right, with most of that occurring over the last 15 years. There was never a Golden Age of extreme conservatism as today's revisionists claim.

To the contrary, the Democrats are the ones who broke free from their moorings. Bill Clinton was much more conservative than his predecessors; his strategy of triangulation, the brainchild of the conservative Dick Morris, was explicitly a policy of moving to the right to steal the GOP's thunder. And as you note, Obama was not much of a liberal if measured by historical norms.

So you are right. The reaction against him and his agenda was most certainly NOT about politics. With a single glaring exception, his traits would have made him a typical Republican as recently as the George W. Bush Administration, So yeah, what you "figured out" makes a lot of sense.

though doubt the fearful could articulate it with such precision - or are even conscious of the geometry, perhaps.
It makes sense.

It's always the fearful.

Spurred a thought:
Wonder if these folks are just not well glued together.
That they are not solidly developed and so are forced to rely heavily on external shared demographics/affiliations/histories/myths to prop up a rather shaky sense of "who am I" -- so the terror of having things shifting. The ultimate 'sheeple.'

It's like the 1000' radio antenna - pull off the guy wires, the thing falls over

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> In my view this is about culture. We saw it in
> the rabid criticism of Obama, both during his
> presidency and during the successive one. We've
> also seen and heard the "Jews will not replace us"
> mantra, which inadvertently revealed the primary
> motive: fear of replacement. And then came the
> bout of "tourism" on January 6, whose participants
> disproportionately came from districts that were
> undergoing rapid demographic change and had in
> fact voted for Biden.

Fascinating. How is it you know these things?
>
> In short, this is about the decline of traditional
> American culture, which approximates but does not
> equal, skin color. People are deathly afraid of
> the replacement of apple pie by churros, of corn
> on the cob by collared greens or even lentils.

“Deathly afraid” really? How do you quantify this and how is it that you can present this as factual in your usual “everyone needs my teaching” manner?


A
> lot of white Americans do not overtly hate
> foreigners and people with dark skin, but they do
> feel more comfortable with a white president and
> whites dominating Capitol Hill and the country's
> cultural edifices. That renders them sympathetic
> to the viler people on the right, whose ranks have
> also swelled.

I dunno, but my non-scientific observation tends to see that every ‘tribe’ is more at ease in their own tribe. The comfort level outside of the tribe varies by the individual mindset and the experiences - negative or positive - while interacting outside of their tribe.
>
> This doesn't excuse the new racism, just indicates
> the different "flavor" this time aound and
> explains why some POC are involved in the present
> totalitarian movement. That white Americans, like
> homogeneous cultures worldwide, will eventually go
> away doesn't bother them as much as the
> probability that their culture will dissipate.
> The goal is not a permanent reversal of
> demographic trends, just an effort to prevent
> cultural change while the present generation are
> still alive.

The focus and unswerving narrative that is highlighting racism while ignoring non-racist societal ills is, in my unscientific opinion going to prolong the problem rather than ending it.

As you have previously declared with absolute certainty that I am intellectually inferior, particularly in comparison to your empirical knowledge of all things, so please take my comments and consider the source, yeah?

csuprovograd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fascinating. How is it you know these things?

Well, if you go back and read the first three words of the paragraph you'll see that I wrote "in my view," which is a bit short of saying "I know these things." As to the substance are you asking about my retailing of Italian and German history or about my view on events in the States. If the latter (I don't think you really care much about historical precedents), the "Jews will not replace us" observation showed up on your TV dozens of times after the demonstrations and murder. If the question is about the origins of the "tourists" on January 6th, I provided that source (UChicago research based on police records) weeks ago and others have commented on it, so I'm confident you could find it on RfM if you did a quick search.


----------------
> “Deathly afraid” really? How do you quantify
> this and how is it that you can present this as
> factual in your usual “everyone needs my
> teaching” manner?

Is that question about white American culture or about my "teaching manner." I suspect your concern is about the latter, and whether you care about my views doesn't make much difference to me. As for the frequency of the word "replacement" and the phrase "American culture," you can get that from your favored sources: Fox News, in particular Tuckums, the speakers at the latest CPAC conference, and the others. Seriously, csuprovo, no one on the right is hiding the ball.


--------------
> I dunno, but my non-scientific observation tends
> to see that every ‘tribe’ is more at ease in
> their own tribe. The comfort level outside of the
> tribe varies by the individual mindset and the
> experiences - negative or positive - while
> interacting outside of their tribe.

That does not contradict what I said in the least. If your tribe feels threatened by other tribes, then your tribe will get upset and seek to change the cultural balance. That was the point I was making, so thank you for putting it so succinctly.


---------------
> The focus and unswerving narrative that is
> highlighting racism while ignoring non-racist
> societal ills is, in my unscientific opinion going
> to prolong the problem rather than ending it.

And yet my focus was not on racism but the underlying cultural transformation--what you call "interacting. . . outside of their own tribe." So once again you are reinforcing my point.


--------------
> As you have previously declared with absolute
> certainty that I am intellectually inferior,
> particularly in comparison to your empirical
> knowledge of all things, so please take my
> comments and consider the source, yeah?

I have never declared you my intellectual inferior. I have claimed that in my opinion you are sometimes an emotional rather than a logical thinker--like when you entered a thread on Q and started talking about Trump only then to accuse me of putting words into your mouth when I applied your comments to those two subjects--and I stand by that characterization. But as evidenced in this exchange, I think my style offends you more than the substance, which is more similar than you might like.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have claimed that in my opinion you
> are sometimes an emotional rather than a logical
> thinker--
===============================
It does seem there is irritation sprinkled throughout, starting with "Fascinating" -- and irritation is emotion.

Just a casual observation

Not dinging navigation by emotion; nor lauding reason.
Navigation by emotion and by reason are both valid, and useful - but optimal for different tasks.
Both have their particular strengths and vulnerabilities.
That's why it's useful to know one's own primary method of navigation.

Here’s an article that covers the demographics of the districts of the participants in Jan 6 protests. The districts were by and large undergoing rapid diversification, and voted for Biden.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/617895/

Thank you. That should settle some points.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here’s an article that covers the demographics
> of the districts of the participants in Jan 6
> protests. The districts were by and large
> undergoing rapid diversification, and voted for
> Biden.
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/
> the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/61
> 7895/
================================

Did not expect.

Rather reinforces both hypotheses:
1. that the impetus is cultural shift; and it is
2. motivating people who feel vulnerable, therefore fearful.

Sounds a lot like Mormons. I think Utah isn’t so insular these days. Fear could be what’s driving the church’s rising authoritarianism.

To veer back toward the topic, “isms” are the problem. Mormon tribalism doesn’t help. America was built on classism and evolved structures to enforce that. It’s like India’s caste system but with the hope (or myth) of upward mobility. “I am my brothers keeper but you are not my brother.” That is especially evident in the modern church, which is an eminent front.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds a lot like Mormons. I think Utah isn’t so
> insular these days. Fear could be what’s driving
> the church’s rising authoritarianism.
>
> To veer back toward the topic, “isms” are the
> problem. Mormon tribalism doesn’t help. America
> was built on classism and evolved structures to
> enforce that. It’s like India’s caste system
> but with the hope (or myth) of upward mobility.
> “I am my brothers keeper but you are not my
> brother.” That is especially evident in the
> modern church, which is an eminent front.
===============================

Yeah, I think you've dissected some interesting points.

Mormonism and other cults are founded on the concept of being "special" and so "apart" from the common detritus - which necessitates building walls, wherein some are brothers to be kept, others excluded. ("isms".) Explains phenomena like "shunning" doesn't it.

Under stress those walls grow higher.

It's the foundation of cruelty, really.
How that happens.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I cited that article (with attribution to
> you) above. Jordan didn't read it then and I'll
> bet he won't read it now.

Yeah, it's all just a co-innydense. This soyence is all more about modern-day concerns than what happened back then.

In one way you're right. Europeans have much more African ancestry than darker people in the Pacific region... But the idea light skin is all to do with dairy farming is nonsense. The Neanderthals had no such thing. It's an adaptation to dreary damp weather like one sees in lowland Oregon. It makes most people there depressed and angry.

Brandeis Brandies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that you didn't read the article either time: willful ignorance as well as cultural Marxism.


-------------------------
> Yeah, it's all just a co-innydense. This soyence
> is all more about modern-day concerns than what
> happened back then.

The article is about "back then." You wouldn't know that, however, since you didn't read it.


--------------------
> In one way you're right. Europeans have much more
> African ancestry than darker people in the Pacific
> region...

Wrong. All HHS got all of their DNA from African sources even if it was in part intermediated by Neanderthals and Denisovans for they too obtained their DNA from Africa. So the claim that Europeans have more African ancestry than HSS in the Pacific is false.


----------------
> But the idea light skin is all to do
> with dairy farming is nonsense.

Show me where I said that, Jordan.



---------------
> It's an adaptation to dreary
> damp weather like one sees in lowland Oregon. It
> makes most people there depressed and angry.

And thus a discussion of archaic human genetics degenerates into Jordan's moaning that he feels "depressed and angry." Perhaps you should start a separate thread to discuss your psychological state.

Instead of just parroting what an article says, why not try and use your critical faculties.

For example:
"All HHS got all of their DNA from African sources even if it was in part intermediated [sic] by Neanderthals and Denisovans for they too obtained their DNA from Africa"

There is no evidence that the genes for pale skin come from Africa - that mutation/adaptation took place OUTSIDE Africa and therefore those genes do not derive from Africa. Pretty basic stuff.

Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some other hominids left Africa millions of years earlier. Again, many of the relevant gene changes took place outside Africa. With that time scale it is arguable if they can meaningfully be called African. The adaptations Andeans and Himalayans have to high altitude took place long after leaving Africa.

As for your comment about Europe, again, that's easily proven. There has been contact between northern Africa and southern Europe for thousands of years by sea. Almost all Iberians and Italians have post-Ice Age African ancestry, as well as Neanderthal input. Therefore Europeans have inherited African genetic mutations which took place AFTER the earliest migrations from Africa into the Middle East. If you were fit enough, you could actually swim from Morocco to southern Spain although due to the strong currents through the Straits, few people would survivw the journey or make landfall before drowning.

On the other hand, the ancestors of Hawaiians, Samoans and Maori had little or no contact with people of (recent) African descent for tens of thousands of years, from when their ancestors crossed Asia to their dispersal across the Pacific to the early modern period... Some people say Egyptian and Punic vessels etc crossed the oceans and even reached Australian but that is not widely accepted.

And so on and so on. Snore. And so you ramble. Unlike the cavemen, your debate never evolves and is tied into your modern-day political view than historical fact.

Brandeis Brandies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Instead of just parroting what an article says,
> why not try and use your critical faculties.

People with solid critical thinking facilities value and evaluate sources. I'm not going to apologize for being more rigorous than you.


---------------
> There is no evidence that the genes for pale skin
> come from Africa - that mutation/adaptation took
> place OUTSIDE Africa and therefore those genes do
> not derive from Africa. Pretty basic stuff.

Pretty basic indeed and yet you get it wrong. The genes for skin color arose from Africa. Mutations may have occurred elsewhere, but those are mutations in African genes. For your statement to have been accurate, you'd have to show that new genes--not just mutations--arose outside of Africa and then interposed themselves in human chromosomes.

Do you have evidence that that happened? And yes, you'll need to provide sources because your statements per se comprise neither data nor analysis.


-------------
> Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa hundreds
> of thousands of years ago. Some other hominids
> left Africa millions of years earlier. Again, many
> of the relevant gene changes took place outside
> Africa.

See? You concede my point. Above you said the genes came from outside of Africa, which is false; and here you say "gene changes" or mutations came from out of Africa, which is my point. You really should choose one story and stick to it.


--------------
> With that time scale it is arguable if
> they can meaningfully be called African. The
> adaptations Andeans and Himalayans have to high
> altitude took place long after leaving Africa.

As I said, the genes originated in African and the mutations arose later and in different places.


------------------
> As for your comment about Europe, again, that's
> easily proven. There has been contact between
> northern Africa and southern Europe for thousands
> of years by sea. Almost all Iberians and Italians
> have post-Ice Age African ancestry, as well as
> Neanderthal input. Therefore Europeans have
> inherited African genetic mutations which took
> place AFTER the earliest migrations from Africa
> into the Middle East.

See above.


-----------------
> If you were fit enough, you
> could actually swim from Morocco to southern Spain
> although due to the strong currents through the
> Straits, few people would survivw the journey or
> make landfall before drowning.

Fascinating. But irrelevant.


-----------------
> On the other hand, the ancestors of Hawaiians,
> Samoans and Maori had little or no contact with
> people of (recent) African descent for tens of
> thousands of years, from when their ancestors
> crossed Asia to their dispersal across the Pacific
> to the early modern period...

See above.


--------------
> Some people say
> Egyptian and Punic vessels etc crossed the oceans
> and even reached Australian but that is not widely
> accepted.

Irrelevant but telling.

Again and again, you offer a theory and then devalue it. But you leave it up as if it is important. Are you paid by the word?


-------------------
> And so on and so on. Snore. And so you ramble.

Irony.


----------------
> Unlike the cavemen, your debate never evolves and
> is tied into your modern-day political view than
> historical fact.

I defer to your greater familiarity with troglodytic cognition.

Some of us are afraid of reality (see above) because it doesn’t match up with their Woke CULT Dogma. That’s called delusion.

https://youtu.be/5r_E0bXF54U

Oh, yeah . . . The “Only my reality is real!!” stance.

Joe Rogan again.