I noticed that politically correct people lyk to say we all humans are one and that there is no differences between the different races of human i.e. Negr*oids (people of sub saharan african ancestry),, caucasians (white europeans ancestry peoples, most arabs, a lot of south asians, north africans, half of central asian ....) , mongoloids (chinese, japanese, vietnamese, koreans.....), australiods/polynesians (aboriginals,pacific islanders...) are all thesame. That is jst a big lie. Yes we are all frm the family of humans- homo sapiens but that's where the oneness ends . All the races ave their strengths and weakness wen compared to each other. Take for example africans especially west africans are better at sprinting than whites. Whites are better than blacks at been better organised and inventive. Saying we are all thesame is lyk saying the lion,tiger,cheetah,leopard.... are thesame jst cos they are all big cats. Absolute rubbish.

cool story negroid

eaxes: Take for example africans especially west africans are better at sprinting than whites.

There's an environmental/physiologic reason for this. I can't remember the details right now. Just like East African highlanders make better long-distance runners and whites generally make better swimmers. I hardly think it negates the basic oneness of the human family. Unless u wanna say a Kenyan highlander belongs to a different race from a South Sudanese because the highlander got greater oxygen capacity, and thus greater stamina.

Whites are better than blacks at been better organised and inventive.

This is one thing I've heard all my life, and frankly intelligent Africans should stop saying that. Just because white people have been on top of their game since the 1400s or so doesn't mean that's the way it has always been. When the ancestors of the Soninke in West Africa were organizing a civilization around Tichitt-Walata, the ancestors of the present German people were unorganized savages in the frozen forests of Germany. Read what Tacticus wrote about these Germanic tribesmen. Its hard to believe its their descendants (especially the Anglo-Saxon branch) running the world today. (Meanwhile, the Italian descendants of Tacticus aren't considered as 'organized and inventive' as the descendants of the primitive ancient Germans) I dare say Medieval London wasn't as well-organized as Benin in the 1400s. The basic inventions that kicked off civilization: , the wheel, pottery, metallurgy, agriculture, writing, sailing ships et cetera, all came to 'white' people from the ancestors of people who today will be judged ill-organized and uninventive.

Saying we are all thesame is lyk saying the lion,tiger,cheetah,leopard.... are thesame jst cos they are all big cats. Absolute rubbish.

Not the best analogy to use. The lion, cheetah etc are different species. All men belong to one species.

Radoillo:

Not the best analogy to use. The lion, cheetah etc are different species. All men belong to one species.

Hmm. Can U̶̲̥̅̊ please enlighting ♍є hw the lion, tiger...... are different species? Frm wat i know they are all fellains. Dont sєє them has different species cos the lion and tiger can breed together. Although not in the wild ¢☺§ animals are even more racists †☺ themselves than humans but they αvє been joined in labs.
I also watched a documentary where female wolves in the wild started breeding Ψi† coyotes becos there weren't enough male wolves resulting in a hybrid wolf. They arε̲̣̣̣̥ both same species but ψє can oviously tell that coyotes are different frm wolves not J§† in appearance but in size, strength, intelligence characteristics etc

eaxes:

Hmm. Can U̶̲̥̅̊ please enlighting ♍є hw the lion, tiger...... are different species? Frm wat i know they are all fellains. Dont sєє them has different species cos the lion and tiger can breed together. Although not in the wild ¢☺§ animals are even more racists †☺ themselves than humans but they αvє been joined in labs.
I also watched a documentary where female wolves in the wild started breeding Ψi† coyotes becos there weren't enough male wolves resulting in a hybrid wolf. They arε̲̣̣̣̥ both same species but ψє can oviously tell that coyotes are different frm wolves not J§† in appearance but in size, strength, intelligence characteristics etc

Lion: Panthera leo
Cheetah: Acinomyx jubatus
Leopard: Panthera pardus
Tiger: Panthera tigris

(Feline or felinidae is a 'family' name; not a 'species' name)

Black man: Homo sapiens sapiens
White man: Homo sapiens sapiens

Coyote: Canis latrans
Wolf: Canis lupus

Go figure.

And sometimes closely related but different species can interbreed and produce offspring. Often however, the offspring are infertile.

We are all the same race. The human race. That being said race is socially constructed. I know this because I am referred to different things where I go. As a somali, i am referred to by my ethnicity if i go anywhere in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Kenya, and the Middle Eastern countries. If i go to places that don't have high somali population or don't know what somalis look in especially in small towns in USA, Latin America, Asia, than people will refer to me as maybe Indian (as many people know how indians look), When jamicans see me they say am Coolie (what they refer to as indians), But on applications for jobs in the USA i write down other if that option is available. I once was at a hospital and the nurse asked me if i was hispanic, she thought i was Dominican. But on job applications that have Black/African i check that since i am African.

so race is socially constructed. It changes from century to century, from country to country. If I was in Minneapolis, Mn (which has a large somali population), they would just call me Somali as if i was in Somalia. Since they are familiar with how Somalis look. Even within Horn Africans, its hard for us to tell each other apart some times.

For almost 2 months i was in this class with this girl who i thought was from India. It wasn't until we were working on a group project that she asked me if I was Somali, and she told me she was Ethiopian. I have also confused some Somalis for Ethiopians and vice versa. I have even once believed that this Nurse who is Dominican was Somali, and was shocked that she didn't have her headscarf on, until she told me she was not somali and wad Dominican.


Inconclusion, Race is made up by society. Their is no clear distinction. People only focus on the extreme differences like the differences between a West African and a White European. But forget all the people in between. When you look at all the people in between these two polar opposites you know that race is unscientific. I have seen some Whites who look very middle eastern. Some Indians who look brown and who I confused for Horn Africans, I have seen some Arabs look very light who looked as white as Europeans. I have seen many latinos who look very middle eastern. I have even seen some bantus who look kinda like Horn Africans. And some Horn Africans who don't have soft hair and look like some bantus.


So with all that overlap race is not scientific. People just hold notions of how some ethnic groups look and judge by those standards. Hell many people don't even know where many countries are from, so race for them is a convenient way of lumping people together. But of course that works many times but their are exceptions. Not everyone in Africa is black. There are bantus, arabs, berbers, cushitic (somali,ethiopians). Not all asians look chinese there are 1 billion indians. Not all Europeans look the same, there are many in southern europe who look arab.

Ajuran: We are all the same race. The human race. That being said race is socially constructed. I know this because I am referred to different things where I go. As a somali, i am referred to by my ethnicity if i go anywhere in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Kenya, and the Middle Eastern countries. If i go to places that don't have high somali population or don't know what somalis look in especially in small towns in USA, Latin America, Asia, than people will refer to me as maybe Indian (as many people know how indians look), When jamicans see me they say am Coolie (what they refer to as indians), But on applications for jobs in the USA i write down other if that option is available. I once was at a hospital and the nurse asked me if i was hispanic, she thought i was Dominican. But on job applications that have Black/African i check that since i am African.

so race is socially constructed. It changes from century to century, from country to country. If I was in Minneapolis, Mn (which has a large somali population), they would just call me Somali as if i was in Somalia. Since they are familiar with how Somalis look. Even within Horn Africans, its hard for us to tell each other apart some times.

For almost 2 months i was in this class with this girl who i thought was from India. It wasn't until we were working on a group project that she asked me if I was Somali, and she told me she was Ethiopian. I have also confused some Somalis for Ethiopians and vice versa. I have even once believed that this Nurse who is Dominican was Somali, and was shocked that she didn't have her headscarf on, until she told me she was not somali and wad Dominican.


Inconclusion, Race is made up by society. Their is no clear distinction. People only focus on the extreme differences like the differences between a West African and a White European. But forget all the people in between. When you look at all the people in between these two polar opposites you know that race is unscientific. I have seen some Whites who look very middle eastern. Some Indians who look brown and who I confused for Horn Africans, I have seen some Arabs look very light who looked as white as Europeans. I have seen many latinos who look very middle eastern. I have even seen some bantus who look kinda like Horn Africans. And some Horn Africans who don't have soft hair and look like some bantus.


So with all that overlap race is not scientific. People just hold notions of how some ethnic groups look and judge by those standards. Hell many people don't even know where many countries are from, so race for them is a convenient way of lumping people together. But of course that works many times but their are exceptions. Not everyone in Africa is black. There are bantus, arabs, berbers, cushitic (somali,ethiopians). Not all asians look chinese there are 1 billion indians. Not all Europeans look the same, there are many in southern europe who look arab.

Sometimes Ayanle you speak like an educated individual like right now and then sometimes you take a completely 180° turn in your rhetoric. But nicely stated nevertheless. Same to you Radoillo

eaxes: I noticed that politically correct people lyk to say we all humans are one and that there is no differences between the different races of human i.e. Negr*oids (people of sub saharan african ancestry),, caucasians (white europeans ancestry peoples, most arabs, a lot of south asians, north africans, half of central asian ....) , mongoloids (chinese, japanese, vietnamese, koreans.....), australiods/polynesians (aboriginals,pacific islanders...) are all thesame. That is jst a big lie. Yes we are all frm the family of humans- homo sapiens but that's where the oneness ends . All the races ave their strengths and weakness wen compared to each other. Take for example africans especially west africans are better at sprinting than whites. Whites are better than blacks at been better organised and inventive. Saying we are all thesame is lyk saying the lion,tiger,cheetah,leopard.... are thesame jst cos they are all big cats. Absolute rubbish.

Also not to be mean, but you sound very mis-informed.

All Humans are one in the same, whites are not better organised and as Radoillo stated, ones atmosphere/ones surroundings influences and affects the way a person can behave and be physically adapted.

Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs and Leopards may all belong to the felidae family (Cats) but they are all different. Lions and Tigers are very close genetically speaking though. Cheetahs, Leopards, Cougars (Pumas or Mountain Lions), and Jaguars are all very different and are not the same species at all.

All Human beings belong to Homosapien. We are all able to mate with one another. A black person with a white, a white with a black, a black with an asian, an asian with a white etc. etc. How do you think we are all able to co-exist with one another despite different phenotypes? A lion could not co-exist with a leopard.

usually the ones looking for green card, booty call, joystick, etc, say that.

konji things + some other agenda.

All men are from one stock. Race is an invention of convenience. People holds to historionics to patronize racism. history is the healthy form of this while religion is unfortunately the worst in race relations. The west shrewdly rode on her opportunities to greatness, while others look on and on.

@Post

I am trying to understand the purpose of this thread? I guess another inferiority complex stricken negro is on the loose. okay, you and your white masters are not the same according to your analogy. Happy now? You can go back to picking cotton on the white man's plantations while the white man teaches you on how to be organized since your parents sadly did not teach you that. Thank God mine did.

Ajuran: We are all the same race. The human race. That being said race is socially constructed. I know this because I am referred to different things where I go. As a somali, i am referred to by my ethnicity if i go anywhere in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Kenya, and the Middle Eastern countries. If i go to places that don't have high somali population or don't know what somalis look in especially in small towns in USA, Latin America, Asia, than people will refer to me as maybe Indian (as many people know how indians look), When jamicans see me they say am Coolie (what they refer to as indians), But on applications for jobs in the USA i write down other if that option is available. I once was at a hospital and the nurse asked me if i was hispanic, she thought i was Dominican. But on job applications that have Black/African i check that since i am African.

so race is socially constructed. It changes from century to century, from country to country. If I was in Minneapolis, Mn (which has a large somali population), they would just call me Somali as if i was in Somalia. Since they are familiar with how Somalis look. Even within Horn Africans, its hard for us to tell each other apart some times.

For almost 2 months i was in this class with this girl who i thought was from India. It wasn't until we were working on a group project that she asked me if I was Somali, and she told me she was Ethiopian. I have also confused some Somalis for Ethiopians and vice versa. I have even once believed that this Nurse who is Dominican was Somali, and was shocked that she didn't have her headscarf on, until she told me she was not somali and wad Dominican.


Inconclusion, Race is made up by society. Their is no clear distinction. People only focus on the extreme differences like the differences between a West African and a White European. But forget all the people in between. When you look at all the people in between these two polar opposites you know that race is unscientific. I have seen some Whites who look very middle eastern. Some Indians who look brown and who I confused for Horn Africans, I have seen some Arabs look very light who looked as white as Europeans. I have seen many latinos who look very middle eastern. I have even seen some bantus who look kinda like Horn Africans. And some Horn Africans who don't have soft hair and look like some bantus.


So with all that overlap race is not scientific. People just hold notions of how some ethnic groups look and judge by those standards. Hell many people don't even know where many countries are from, so race for them is a convenient way of lumping people together. But of course that works many times but their are exceptions. Not everyone in Africa is black. There are bantus, arabs, berbers, cushitic (somali,ethiopians). Not all asians look chinese there are 1 billion indians. Not all Europeans look the same, there are many in southern europe who look arab.

for the first time in ur life,u typed like a reasonable boy,i guess u ain't bad after all.


Come give me a big hug my black child but u must get this indian thing out of ur head pls

Ajuran:


While i don't really care for indians, i only use them as we look more like them, then we do like arabs, despite the fact we have traded with arabs for thousands of years. People play up the connections horners have with arabs, but don't think about how we look very much like souther indians.

would you rather i compare my features to bantus. because bantus and somalis don't look the same.

Tutsis are Bantus and look very Somali, there are different kinds of African black groups like you mentioned with Europeans. White people can look differently as can black people. Africans have more phenotypes than anyone else.

Fulaman198:

Tutsis are Bantus and look very Somali, there are different kinds of African black groups like you mentioned with Europeans. White people can look differently as can black people. Africans have more phenotypes than anyone else.

tutsiss themselves don't look somali at all, but do have sharp features sometimes even though their hair is not soft, but they say they came from the horn of africa originally. who knows. but you will never see a tutsi with soft hair or straight nose, they just don't look as bantu as other bantus.

Ajuran:

tutsiss themselves don't look somali at all, but do have sharp features sometimes even though their hair is not soft, but they say they came from the horn of africa originally. who knows. but you will never see a tutsi with soft hair or straight nose, they just don't look as bantu as other bantus.

My point is and verified by your post is that there is no such thing as looking Bantu since their looks vary. A south African Bantu speaker will not look like a Cameroonian Bantu speaker.

Fulaman198:

My point is and verified by your post is that there is no such thing as looking Bantu since their looks vary. A south African Bantu speaker will not look like a Cameroonian Bantu speaker.

Thats true, but their are certain features that band bantus, just like their are certain features that band somalis/ethiopians/eritreans.

Ajuran:

Thats true, but their are certain features that band bantus, just like their are certain features that band somalis/ethiopians/eritreans.

Yes, horn Africans may not resemble South Africans of whatever, it's the same thing as saying an eastern European does not resemble a western European. An southern Italian or Spaniard from the the Basque region won't resemble a Brit or German man.

Fulaman198:

Yes, horn Africans may not resemble South Africans of whatever, it's the same thing as saying an eastern European does not resemble a western European. An southern Italian or Spaniard from the the Basque region won't resemble a Brit or German man.

i think thats a false comparison. cause at least europeans have the same features just different skin tone. While somalis/ethiopians have totally different features and hair than bantus.

watch this very funny video on how somalis see each other. Even Iman will not admit she's black until she wants to sell some make up to blacks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5atezn_g5o

Ajuran:

i think thats a false comparison. cause at least europeans have the same features just different skin tone. While somalis/ethiopians have totally different features and hair than bantsu.

Europeans like Africans don't have the same features at all. Some have blue eyes, some have dark eyes. Some have light complexioned hair, some have very dark hair. Some are tall, some are very short. I have seen Italians with even curly hair.

Fulaman198:

Europeans like Africans don't have the same features at all. Some have blue eyes, some have dark eyes. Some have light complexioned hair, some have very dark hair. Some are tall, some are very short. I have seen Italians with even curly hair.

i believe the differences between bantsu and cushitics is much more than the differences between english and german or italian.

Blue eyes are a minority in europe, even where its the most common like sweden its only 20percent.

what do you think of this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5atezn_g5o

Also, I don't care what some low self-esteem Somalis consider themselves to be. Do you think we're blind? 95% of those people in that video look like black Americans to me because of the way they dress. Some look like gangster thugs (just joking, what I said sounded like a white male racial profiling black people).

Fulaman198: Also, I don't care what some low self-esteem Somalis consider themselves to be. Do you think we're blind? 95% of those people in that video look like black Americans to me because of the way they dress. Some look like gangster thugs (just joking, what I said sounded like a white male racial profiling black people).

In your afrocentric world somalis look black lmao. Don't black women wear weaves to have our hair.

Ajuran:

i believe the differences between bantsu and cushitics is much more than the differences between english and german or italian.

Blue eyes are a minority in europe, even where its the most common like sweden its only 20percent.

Blue eyes is common in a lot of Nordic countries not only Sweden, countries that also have other Germanic speaking populations as well and also parts of Russia (though Russia is very diverse).

Blue eyes are indeed becoming less common in the world. One study showed that about 100 years ago, half of U.S. residents had blue eyes. Nowadays only 1 in 6 does.

What is happening in the U.S. will undoubtedly happen throughout the world as well. Especially as Europe opens itself up to more immigration. This is one of the reasons blue eyes are becoming less common in the U.S. -- immigration.

In the recent past, lots of brown-eyed people have moved here. Even with no other explanation you'd expect a smaller percentage of blue eyed people because of this.

But this is only part of the story. Another reason blue eyes are declining is because they were at an artificially high level before. In the past, blue-eyed people tended to have kids with other blue-eyed people. When this happens you get blue eyed kids.

Today people use ethnicity less often as a way to pick a partner. This means that blue eyed people have kids with brown eyed people more often than before. And often that means mostly brown eyed kids.

These two facts -- more brown eyed people and more mixed eye color marriages -- will undoubtedly continue into the future. Which means that blue eyed people will continue to decline in numbers.

But they won't go away completely. The version of the eye color gene that leads to blue eyes doesn't disappear from the human race when someone with blue eyes has a brown eyed child. This gene version instead goes into hiding, waiting for the right opportunity to cause blue eyes again.

What I'll do for the rest of the answer is go over the history of blue eyes according to our DNA. From that you'll get a good feel for how blue eyes work. And why they'll become even rarer.

Back in the day, everyone had brown eyes. Basically, like brown eyed people today, our ancestors had brown eyes because of a gene called OCA2.

This gene tells our cells to make lots of pigment in the front part of our eye. Lots of pigment there means brown eyes.

Then sometime a few thousand years ago, someone developed a small glitch in their DNA. This glitch was caused either by damage from the outside or from some mistake made by this person's own cells.

Whatever the cause, this change made the OCA2 gene stop working in the eye. When OCA2 isn't working, it doesn't make any pigment. And when no pigment gets made in the front part of the eye, you end up with blue eyes*. Except this person undoubtedly had brown eyes.

Why? Because this person still had one working OCA2 gene.

Remember, we have two copies of most of our genes -- one from mom and one from dad. Since it is very unlikely that two glitches will happen in the same gene at the same time, this person probably had one working and one nonworking OCA2 gene.

The working copy could still do the job of making pigment on its own. So this person had brown eyes.

But the blue version of OCA2 was now released into human DNA through this person's children. At some point two people who each carried a blue OCA2 met and had a child. This child happened to get a blue OCA2 from each parent and so had no working OCA2 genes. The end result was no pigment and so blue eyes*.

This blue-eyed person must have been special somehow because the blue OCA2 quickly swept through the European population. Soon there were places where blue eyed people outnumbered brown eyed ones.

We don't know what made these blue eyed people special. It may have been that they were irresistible to the opposite sex and so had lots more babies than brown eyed people. Or blue eyes may have been tied to some useful Northern European trait like pale skin.

Whatever the reason for their eye color, these blue eyed people established themselves and spread. And, for various reasons, they tended to have children with only each other.

So there were pockets of blue eyed people in a world of brown eyes. When populations started to move around more easily, there started to be a blending of blue and brown eyed people. And then brown eyed people started having kids with blue eyed people.

Since brown beats out blue (brown is dominant, blue is recessive), the blue eyes started to fade into the background. The same number of blue OCA2 genes were there it was just that they were now hidden more of the time

Ajuran:

In your afrocentric world somalis look black lmao. Don't black women wear weaves to have our hair.

You are talking about like 30% of black women. The Somalis in that video do look black except for that former model woman Iman, who looks no longer beautiful anymore after performing lots of surgery on herself. I can link several photos of people who resemble the people in that video. I don't know where you get this false sense the people in that video don't look black.

Fulaman198:

You are talking about like 30% of black women. The Somalis in that video do look black except for that former model woman Iman, who looks no longer beautiful anymore after performing lots of surgery on herself. I can link several photos of people who resemble the people in that video. I don't know where you get this false sense the people in that video don't look black.

iman never had surgery. she has makeup. how would she change her face. she has soft hair, and straight nose?

Ajuran: Back in the day, everyone had brown eyes. Basically, like brown eyed people today, our ancestors had brown eyes because of a gene called OCA2.

This gene tells our cells to make lots of pigment in the front part of our eye. Lots of pigment there means brown eyes.

Then sometime a few thousand years ago, someone developed a small glitch in their DNA. This glitch was caused either by damage from the outside or from some mistake made by this person's own cells.

Whatever the cause, this change made the OCA2 gene stop working in the eye. When OCA2 isn't working, it doesn't make any pigment. And when no pigment gets made in the front part of the eye, you end up with blue eyes*. Except this person undoubtedly had brown eyes.

Why? Because this person still had one working OCA2 gene.

Remember, we have two copies of most of our genes -- one from mom and one from dad. Since it is very unlikely that two glitches will happen in the same gene at the same time, this person probably had one working and one nonworking OCA2 gene.

The working copy could still do the job of making pigment on its own. So this person had brown eyes.

But the blue version of OCA2 was now released into human DNA through this person's children. At some point two people who each carried a blue OCA2 met and had a child. This child happened to get a blue OCA2 from each parent and so had no working OCA2 genes. The end result was no pigment and so blue eyes*.

This blue-eyed person must have been special somehow because the blue OCA2 quickly swept through the European population. Soon there were places where blue eyed people outnumbered brown eyed ones.

We don't know what made these blue eyed people special. It may have been that they were irresistible to the opposite sex and so had lots more babies than brown eyed people. Or blue eyes may have been tied to some useful Northern European trait like pale skin.

Whatever the reason for their eye color, these blue eyed people established themselves and spread. And, for various reasons, they tended to have children with only each other.

So there were pockets of blue eyed people in a world of brown eyes. When populations started to move around more easily, there started to be a blending of blue and brown eyed people. And then brown eyed people started having kids with blue eyed people.

Since brown beats out blue (brown is dominant, blue is recessive), the blue eyes started to fade into the background. The same number of blue OCA2 genes were there it was just that they were now hidden more of the time

I'm well aware

p2 +2pq+q2=1

In this equation p=B and q=b. Also, p2=BB people, 2pq=Bb people and q2=bb people. (Remember, BB and Bb have brown eyes and bb have blue.)

From 350 million blue eyed people, we come up with q=0.59 and p=0.41. Punching these numbers into the equation, we get 170 million BB, 480 million Bbb and 350 million bb.

Combining these numbers with the numbers from the first population, we get the following:

12.82 billion B

1.18 billion b

Punching those numbers back into the HW equation we end up with a q2 of .007. If we assume 7 billion people in the world, that translates to 49 million blue eyed people. Down but not out...




only 49 million people have blue eyes out of the 500 million white people on earth. Thats only 10 percent of whites.

Ajuran:

iman never had surgery. she has makeup. how would she change her face. she has soft hair, and straight nose?

Umm