Would prehistoric humans have been considered negroid or australoid by modern standards?

[longly]

It has been claimed — from the early 1900s-onward — that the first humans came from Africa (i.e., the “out of Africa” theory), from Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania [1]. So, the theory goes, all humans are ultimately Africans.

But is that true? We must doubt it. For one thing, ever since the Jew, Franz Boas and his many followers came to dominate anthropology, it has been political. Boas (he became popular beginning in circa 1900; by 1911 his bullshit theories were well-known and popular) was pushing his “Cultural Anthropology” crap as early as 1902. He was then vice-president of an organization he himself co-founded: the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Today, “Boasian anthropology” is a thing, and a powerful thing . Trivia: roughly half of the anthropologists in America today believe that “race is a social construct” even though they can examine human bones and see otherwise, e.g., they can see that the skulls of Blacks are very different from the skulls of Whites! It’s sad and disturbing.

Since anthropology is historically so political and so Jewish, you can’t believe the “out of Africa” claim. Just forget it.

And furthermore, as someone noted recently, negroes can be considered a different species than Whites: they have enough physical differences apart from Whites to make it so. Blacks could instead be called “advanced or sophisticated apes” who resemble humans but aren’t. Read about it below [2].

Anytime you have an activist Jew like Boas as a central figure in a scientific discipline, you’ve got trouble. But unfortunately for anthropology, it had several Jews as leading figures in the field: Boas, Claude Levi-Strauss, Ashley Montagu, Melville Herskovitz, Gene Weltfish. (Montagu wrote the bogus UNESCO statements on race in 1950 and 1951. UNESCO, a branch of the UN, was co-founded by a Jew named Rene Cassin).

Bottom line: the field of anthropology is so political and so Jewed that it must begin again. From scratch.

.

[1] “Homo habilis, probably the first early human species, occupied Olduvai Gorge approximately 1.9 million years ago” — Wikipedia, May 2021. Boas was also the founder of race denial: “Boas believed that the sweep of cultures, to be found in connection with any sub-species, is so vast and pervasive that there cannot be a relationship between culture and race.” — Wikipedia, May 2021. So, Western culture is not White, according to Boas. Even though it is White and has been since ancient Greece!


[2] “Blacks are unique in that when we arrived, they had no written language, no wheel, no architectural works, nothing at all that would indicate they live a human existence. Whereas literature and palaces and cities existed in almost every corner of the earth, from the Incas to the Indians to the Persians to the Chinese to Stonehenge to Ankar Wat in Cambodia — nothing existed in Africa.”

https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03...s-arent-human/

— article “Blacks Aren’t Human


"Recently, two physical anthropologists reanalyzed Boas’s head-form data. They report that Boas — now considered the founding father of modern American anthropology — was wrong.“

“Penn State historian of science Robert Proctor says, ‘Boasians turned away from bones altogether.’ Or, as Skull Wars author Thomas states in an October 8, 2002, New York Times article reporting on the Sparks-Jantz paper: ‘Once we anthropologists said race doesn’t exist, we have ignored it since then.'”

What is a Jew? A human lying machine. Lie, lie, lie, in order to aid the paranoid Jews as a people. Old saying: “each time something big happens in the world, the Jew asks himself only one question: ‘is this good or bad for the Jews?'” Nothing else matters. They are navel-gazing, self-centered people.

https://news.psu.edu/story/140739/20...bones-and-race

Much of what you say is correct, but how can you say blacks are not human? It would be apparent to any unbiased observer that they are humans. They have all the characteristics of humans; therefore, they are human. Liberals are wrong when they say there is no such thing as race, and I am sorry, but you are wrong when you say blacks are not human. I have been banned from liberal sites for telling the truth; I will continue to do it. I am dedicated to the truth.

Let me make something clear; I support anyone's right to say what they want; that is what freedom is all about.

[Golden Lining]

Some subtypes of Australids are certainly morphologically closer to Europids than to Negrids. But Australids are in fact closer to homo erectus stage than to most other modern human races.

The original homo sapiens didn't even look Negrid in the modern sense. Negrid is a relatively new race that spread over Africa in the last centuries. Previously Africa was probably inhabited by the Bushman Khoisanid type and perhaps some we don't know (since African climate destroys bones like hell). Negrids have some progressive traits, like thick lips and long legs. Some Europids have some primitive traits like barrell-chests and strong browridges. And so on. Europids, Mongolids and Negrids are essentially "modern" races, Europids are probably even the oldest type out of them (in the sense of "differentiating" the modern traits that set them apart from more primitive stages). Australid is in fact more archaic (yeah, yeah, evolution is not progressive, bla bla...) than the mentioned ones.

In Coon said that racial types predated modern homo sapiens, that's somewhat true to begin with.

So humans originating in Africa doesn't mean anything at all.

[Aldaris]

Well im not really optimistic because even the forum founder is some sort of creationist. I tend however to respect more, even flatearthers, as it's more rarely a religious belief. Instead it's just their own -awfully- wrong understanding of physic and some. I find it still better than blind belief because a religious scripture said so, they interepretate them litterally and not spiritually as it should be. At least there s thinking involved somewhere, as wrong as it is, there s a thought process.

For most of the flatearthers, it's more about them feeling excited over having some controversial, forbidden knowledge and that they are not the ones to be deceived like the rest the 'flock', rather than just being really bad at physics and other fields. It's still fundamentally emotional, I don't think most of them did actually come up with their ridiculous bull from some kind of non-biased analysis based only (or mostly) on their wrong understanding of physics. Some of us just tend to accept what seems to be cool regardless the facts and that's where the misunderstandings and confirmation bias kicks in. Both creationist and flatearthers think hard, but their standpoint is already set. No point in arguing with either of them. Even if you corner them, they won't reflect on anything anyway.

[Homo Insapiens]

F759ED92-716E-45B3-B6BD-B7483F307F38.png

3241541F-BF3C-4C14-9018-2ABC388516D0.jpeg

Are these masked actors of Homo Erectus reminiscent of Australian Aboriginals?

[Roy]

For most of the flatearthers, it's more about them feeling excited over having some controversial, forbidden knowledge and that they are not the ones to be deceived like the rest the 'flock', rather than just being really bad at physics and other fields. It's still fundamentally emotional, I don't think most of them did actually come up with their ridiculous bull from some kind of non-biased analysis based only (or mostly) on their wrong understanding of physics. Some of us just tend to accept what seems to be cool regardless the facts and that's where the misunderstandings and confirmation bias kicks in. Both creationist and flatearthers think hard, but their standpoint is already set. No point in arguing with either of them. Even if you corner them, they won't reflect on anything anyway.

It is like with anti-vaxxers then except that it is less ridiculous albeit also less harmful if at all.

[Roy]

What is the scientific explanation that SSAs are not older types of humans than Basal Eurasians? Basal Eurasians did mix with Neanderthals and Denisovans, while SSAs didn't and they stayed isolated under the Sahara desert probably until Ancient times. Shouldn't then they be the oldest representatives of the human species? To my understanding the Khoisan should be the oldest types of humans.

'Khoisan' people were not the same 100 thousands years ago, they have likely changed a lot.

[Aldaris]

It is like with anti-vaxxers then except that it is less ridiculous albeit also less harmful if at all.

Anti-vaxxers are one extreme of the issue. When it comes to vaccines, relying on in integrity of those companies and universities is incredibly naive. Our best bet is that they fear enough, so that they take their every action not to be potentially sued before realising their product. Flathearthers, well.. they don't harm anyone. :-)

[Homo Insapiens]

'Khoisan' people were not the same 100 thousands years ago, they have likely changed a lot.

Indeed. They’re some of the most neotenized negroids, if not humans, to the point of resembling mongoloids, probably a far cry from deep prehistoric phenotypes, which would have probably most resembled Australian aboriginals, and that’s comparing with already modern phenotypes.
They’re probably the lightest unmixed negroes.

[Homo Insapiens]

Some subtypes of Australids are certainly morphologically closer to Europids than to Negrids. But Australids are in fact closer to homo erectus stage than to most other modern human races.

The original homo sapiens didn't even look Negrid in the modern sense. Negrid is a relatively new race that spread over Africa in the last centuries. Previously Africa was probably inhabited by the Bushman Khoisanid type and perhaps some we don't know (since African climate destroys bones like hell). Negrids have some progressive traits, like thick lips and long legs. Some Europids have some primitive traits like barrell-chests and strong browridges. And so on. Europids, Mongolids and Negrids are essentially "modern" races, Europids are probably even the oldest type out of them (in the sense of "differentiating" the modern traits that set them apart from more primitive stages). Australid is in fact more archaic (yeah, yeah, evolution is not progressive, bla bla...) than the mentioned ones.

In Coon said that racial types predated modern homo sapiens, that's somewhat true to begin with.

So humans originating in Africa doesn't mean anything at all.

So pure Australian aboriginals are closest to what the last common ancestor of all humans looked like?

[Homo Insapiens]

Imagine this scenario. Imagine in an alternative history, nergoids and/or australoids became extinct, and only their remains were left. I’m not sure whether this is likely or possible, but let’s just imagine it for arguments sake. What does that leave the surviving races, caucasoid and mongoloid? Perhaps negroid as well if our scenario is that just australoids went extinct? Now in this scenario, what would caucasoid and mongoloid scientists think of australoid and/or negroid skulls and skeletons? How would they compare to archaic human remains? Would they look more archaic or ape like to caucasoid and Mongoloid scientists, like how modern scientists tend to look at prehistoric human skulls?
This makes you wonder what races could have existed in the past and are now extinct.