Races of the World

After the Flood, there was a bottleneck.
Noah's 3 sons and their descendants:

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

Man clustered around the Middle-East (also known as the cradle of civilization) in Mesopotamia.
The first urban civilization/kingdom was Babylon, where the famous Tower of Babel was built.

When God scattered the people and confused their languages, different cultures started to develop and people brought the Babylonian paganism with them.

/thread

In layman's terms, Ham would become the black people. Shem became the Semitic people. Japheth became the Europeans and Asians.

There's also the "British Israelism" view which is largely rejected but it's an interesting one nonetheless.

This view says that the word Saxons get their name from Isaac's. "Isaac's son, Saxon". Bill Cooper's book "After the Flood" traces the genealogies from Japheth all the way to the Scandinavians.

This. Its not all about physical appearance either.

Laws are a social construct, should we toss them out?
Morality is a social construct, should we toss that out?
Also any intelligent persons acknowledges race is real, it's only where it one race ends or begins that is ambiguous.

>Native and Asians are the same race

I just knew some retard would have said this, look at the genetic cluster you absolute retard, Native Americans form their own cluster far away both from whites and Asians, you dukb fuck, I just loath retards who keeps parrotting this crap.

I mean just look at Mexicans or Peruans and comapre them with Chinese and Japanese, you don't even need to see their autosomal DNA (though that's the definitive and scientific proof that they're different races)

muh appeal to "intelligent persons"

no one said we should toss out social constructs even if it were possible to do.

>Laws are a social construct, should we toss them out?
>Morality is a social construct, should we toss that out?

But we have. Remember Slavery? It wasn't that ago.

t.red deer
Face it slant eyes, your no different from eskimos in Siberia.

>changing mortality and law is "tossing them out"
Slavery still exist fyi

>pre-history
>genetics
>evolution

So it only counts if we abandon all concept of law and morality and never use it again?

>Slavery still exist fyi
Sure in certain parts of the world, unless of course you are a memester who spouts off about "wageslaves"

>So it only counts if we abandon all concept of law and morality and never use it again?
You know very well the point I was making is that calling something a social construct does not diminishes its value in any way.

thanks i will try my luck there maybe it's not full of retards

>Ham would become the black people.

No, ham's sons would become different tribes, some of which were more closely related genetically and physically to jews, like phoenicians and egyptians.

Mizraim = egypt.
Canaan = Canaan and other semitic tribes.
Cush = East Africans.

It's just a metaphor for the afroasiatic language groups. I guess the jews got it kinda right. Except archaeologists and historians consider the Caananites as the ancestors of the israelites. So they got it wrong as well.

>calling something a social construct does not diminishes its value in any way.
But it proves that it can be changed, as societal beliefs are fluid and changes no matter if it "correct" or not.

Trying to guess from top left to bottom right

>Indian (from India)
>Native American
>Abo
>Aryan
>Nignog
>East Asian

>What I really want to know is which groups of people that moved out of Africa gained these specific traits that are relative to today's races
>Like those who didn't leave Africa are all Negroids

Those who left Africa evolved and became superior
Those who stayed didnt
That's why Africa is the way it is

nice pasta fag

>calling something a social construct does not diminishes its value in any way.
because it isn't something that holds value

Oh, how then do you propose to change race after determining that it is merely a social construct? Does recognizing that magically turn niggers white?

>how then do you propose to change race after determining that it is merely a social construct?
You can't "change race", race is a social construct.

>observable physical consistencies that remain different between humans in separate geographical locations
>"we made it up!!"
ooookaaaaayyyyy....

Do morals and laws hold value?

To a society that believes in them, yes.

Otherwise, no.

So then race holds just as much value as laws and morals so long as society feels these division are appropritate,

Which is why identity politics is ironically causing further race divisions and worsening race relations.

So where did everyone east of Iran come from?

Where did other Africans outside those regions come from?

WE

So if creationism is real and there is no evolution, how did these people became so different in different environments? Assuming Noah's 3 sons looked similar to each other.

For the same reason there are so many different dogs in such a little time period of selective breeding.

Not really though. If a gay guy is getting shat on by his sttes institutes then he discovers that other gays face the same shit should he jsut strike the issue solo or use the power of numbers to actually accomplish something?

You can't just rely on the "good" of mainstream society and population to sympathies with you let alone to consider your plight. Just like how 2nd wav feminism failed to take non white and/or straight women's issues into the light because "cmon don't be divisive".

>no Khoisan women
>no Polynesian women

This list is flawed.

The top three are all the same

>Like those who didn't leave Africa are all Negroids

That's not true, there are actually a ton of races in Africa that barely have anything in common with each other genetically, like the mixed race Horners and Malagasy, the oldest people on the planet Khoisan, the Nilotics, the Bantus, the Niger-Congo speaking people (West Africans basically), Pygmies, etc. The only thing that really keeps them classified as a single race is their skin and hair texture, but that's only superficial.

>Indians and Whites are the same race

Maybe Northwest Indians and whites, but South Indians sure as hell aren't. You would be more right if you said Middle Eastern people.

Prehistory is allowed here actually, read the rules and suck a dick.

>Aborigines and their race are superior to Africans

Nice bait faggot.

the sun

This. At one point most Europeans were dark skinned, save the Northern hicks, until vitamin D deficiency and a new agricultural diet helped shift their entire race to become fair.

Everyone is mixed.

Recycling is a social construct.

Wrong. Europeans evolved from olive skinned blue eyed hunters from Anatolia and pale skinned, browned eyed indigenous Europeans. After that Europeans have generally looked as they do now, with south Europe being darker and the rest of Europe being lighter.

You forgot the earlier group that lives in most of Europe barring North and East.

nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html

sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

The dark Europeans arrived 45,000 years ago, much earlier than the farmers and lighter hunter gatherers.

lol who cares, none of those people even matter

>red heads

>Literally paler than blondes

>Indians and whites are the same race

Wrong.

blame Yakub and his experiments

Diarrhea is a social constructhe. Diarrhea is a word and therefore it's a social constructhe because language is a social construct.

What the fuck do you even mean by social construct? It's so vague and open to interpretation. Why do pop "scientists" think this is a valuable statement? If language is a social construct literally everything one thinks of can in some way be construed as a social construct.

Goddammit autocorrect

>Does that mean that it's possible that the Indo-Europeans were Mongoloid rather than Caucasoid?
Possibly, but the people that inhabited Europe before them weren't Caucasoid either. We know that people living in there were dark skinned until at least 8000 years ago.

>Environment + epigenetics*mutations
But that's wrong. We used to believe it because it was a convinient explanation that seemed to make sense. However, all the data we have indicate that things such as blond hair, blue eyes and white skin are the result of single genetic mutations that happened at different times throughout history and at different places and then likely spread because they were considered attractive, not because they were environmentally beneficial.

There was a skull that looked particularly Khoisan found in Europe, which makes sense as their race left Africa some 20,000-30,000 years ago then came back.

Would it be possible to say all humans both from Africa (obviously) and outside Africa come from a Khoisan or Australasian looking people?

It's interesting to note that blue eyes evolved before light skin in Europeans, isn't it? And it all came from one "mutant" who apparently had a ton of children. Hell, maybe he was some chieftain with a harem.

THERE IS ONLY ONE MASTER RACE, THE DINARIC RACE
TAKE THE BALKAN PILL

Because what Race is in your culture is different from another places let alone the same culture from a different time period.

>However, all the data we have indicate that things such as blond hair, blue eyes and white skin are the result of single genetic mutations that happened at different times throughout history and at different places and then likely spread because they were considered attractive, not because they were environmentally beneficial.

What you said honestly makes more sense.

Possible yes, but it's also impossible to know for certain. We don't even know if the first migrants were originally one group or if humans and already started to spread out and diversify before they left Africa.

>It's interesting to note that blue eyes evolved before light skin in Europeans, isn't it?
Yes. Blue eyes first evolved some 10.000 years around the Black Sea area, and spread from there through Europe and also the Middle-East, which is why you also can find them today in Iran and India, among other places. Blonde hair, on the other hand, seems to have originated at a later time somewhere around the Baltic sea which is why you find it mostly in Northern Europe.

The origin of white skin is more uncertain. It likely didn't originate in Europe, however, but was likely brought in by a migrating steppe tribe, and it's definetly a younger trait than blue eyes.

>who apparently had a ton of children.
Not necessarily. He would have lived so long ago that it would practically impossible for any currently living Eurasian to not be his descendant as long as at we can prove that at least one is - which we can since all people with blue eyes would have to be.

So that's basically the Proto-Indo-Europeans?

>Because what Race is in your culture is different from another places let alone the same culture from a different time period.
So is language. Should we toss that out?

i wish we knew a lot more about prehistory
it fucking sucks

I'm not the guy you're responding to, but those were more likely the Indo-Europeans from the steppes, who were possibly part Asian. PIE people look different.

Oh okay, I understand.

I know right? It's not fucking fair. I want to find out who the hell the 340,000 thousand year old people (who weren't Homo sapiens) were, and why they're in some West African genes.

It would be cool to find a frozen Neanderthal body as well, or even some new DNA from other hominin species.

Most likely not. The strongest PIE candidate that we know of today are the Yamna people who didn't migrate into Europe until at about 4000 years ago. That's a whole 4000 years after white skin had already been introduced to Europe.

To be a race you should all look the same

Ultraviolet

>putting words in people's mouth

Niger-Congoids (Bantus included) are Cush

When i die i just want to be able to go back in time and witness all the turning points in history

Ok but what about Japanese and Native americans? They're obejectively the world's most attractive people.

t. mixed race japanese and xingu indian