Like they'd give a fack. The human construct of continent called Europe wasn't a thing in anyone's imagination back then. It isn't even a proper continent now.

What is a “proper continent”?

I think he means Europe is the Western peninsula of the Eurasian continent.

Maybe. But what is a proper continent?

This is accurate because the first Europeans came from Africa via the Middle East and then the Russian Steppe and settled there about 43,000 years ago.

comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 33 minutes ago
Maybe. But what is a proper continent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and Asia are on the same tectonic plate, and geologists further note the lack of a water boundary between the two. They should have been designated as one continent if it wasn't for exceptionalism.

comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 33 minutes ago
Maybe. But what is a proper continent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and Asia are on the same tectonic plate, and geologists further note the lack of a water boundary between the two. They should have been designated as one continent if it wasn't for exceptionalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mambs

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 55 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 33 minutes ago
Maybe. But what is a proper continent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe and Asia are on the same tectonic plate, and geologists further note the lack of a water boundary between the two. They should have been designated as one continent if it wasn't for exceptionalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mambs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're welcome bro.

comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
This is accurate because the first Europeans came from Africa via the Middle East and then the Russian Steppe and settled there about 43,000 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The modern European population is descended mainly from 3 groups of people who blended with eachother.
WHG, neolithic farmers from Anatolia & herders from the pontic - Caspian stepped..the yamnaya who introduced undo European languages to Europe

Is WHG Western Hemisphere Gammons?

if you were to watch the videos I posted, you'd see who the WHG were

lizard peepull?

comment by Peks - Comanche Moon (U6618)
posted 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Arne Sabah Nur (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 52 minutes ago
This is accurate because the first Europeans came from Africa via the Middle East and then the Russian Steppe and settled there about 43,000 years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The modern European population is descended mainly from 3 groups of people who blended with eachother.
WHG, neolithic farmers from Anatolia & herders from the pontic - Caspian stepped..the yamnaya who introduced undo European languages to Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All who came from Africa via the Middle East and then the Russian Steppe.

You don't get it, Mambs.

It's part of peks' and the far right's agenda to assert that it's certain peoples' ancestral right to dwell in Europe. This, of course, serves to exclude others, more or less at will if you're twisted and deluded enough to want to construct an ad hoc case for each.

Amongst all this, as a secondary aim for this racialised view of the right to inhabit Europe, I suppose it's important to have cutoff points that shroud our shared African origins, which is what is achieved by underlining all those 'non-African' lineages. Even if the Aurignacian video explains that certain physical features commonly associated with 'Europeans' hadn't even developed back then and that these peoples were essentially still Black, it's quite convenient for these racist fascists to ignore these points in this particular part of the argument.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 hours, 28 minutes ago
You don't get it, Mambs.

It's part of peks' and the far right's agenda to assert that it's certain peoples' ancestral right to dwell in Europe. This, of course, serves to exclude others, more or less at will if you're twisted and deluded enough to want to construct an ad hoc case for each.

Amongst all this, as a secondary aim for this racialised view of the right to inhabit Europe, I suppose it's important to have cutoff points that shroud our shared African origins, which is what is achieved by underlining all those 'non-African' lineages. Even if the Aurignacian video explains that certain physical features commonly associated with 'Europeans' hadn't even developed back then and that these peoples were essentially still Black, it's quite convenient for these racist fascists to ignore these points in this particular part of the argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am aware of this, and you've actually explained it quite magnificently. I just like to get on Peks' nerves.

Incorrect assumptions are often made when science & ideology mix

The Paleolithic European population especially in the West still lacked the alleles that give modern day Europeans very light skin.

In the eyes of the far left (Marxists) this makes them "black" & "African" and gives them the narrative that the original modern European population was black African & therefore gives further legitimacy to mass immigration from that continent into Europe, as essentially it's "their land" as much as it is white people's
By 50,000 yrs ago the population of modern humans that entered Europe was as well differentiated genetically from SSA populations as Modern Europeans are.
On PCA plots they cluster most closely by far with Modern European populations than SSA populations.

So let's dispel this myth..it's not a magnificent argument, it's garbage

I know most of you know next to nothing about ancient anthropology & population movements...it's obvious to me by the ignorant comments I read

The lefty commentary seems to like darkwashing and Afrocentrism to me, pseudoscience, Afro Science,
an attempt to delegitimise the native Europeans and legitimise the migrant invaders.

Would they make the same arguments to legitimise the European colonisation of the Americas, Southern Africa & Australia ?
Europeans had every right to migrate en masse to those places as they had just as much "right" to those lands as the populations already there by their arguments, no ?
Even though the natives had been there 10,000s years

I posted the videos as I'm interested in palaeoanthropology, not just European but all over the world. I was going to post a series of videos on the peopling of Australia in the Paleolithic too

It was not me that introduced political ideology into this thread

Sew anybidy who dusagree with ur fancyful ideology is a marxissed?

comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 56 seconds ago
Sew anybidy who dusagree with ur fancyful ideology is a marxissed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just like anyone who doesn't agree with the Progressive Liberal ideology is "FARRRRRRRRRR Right"

is that what you mean ?

Hey Benito, who wrote your answer for you?
It only took you 2 days to get back to us.

Why should I take you seriously anyway?

Your interest in the paedolithic aside, it's clear as day that you have a religious and racialised view of who is and isn't entitled to inhabit Europe.

The only one who actually cares who came from where is you. Like you're the one who seems worried about our "Christian" heritage and traditions.

I couldn't really give an actual fack what their complexions were like or what goats they worshipped. But I know you do, because it's all a part of who you consistently show yourself to be around here.

I've posed the question regarding the convenience of your temporal cutoff points before. Never a sensible reply. Why? My best guess is that it's because you actually know there isn't one that actually makes sense.

The long and short of it, is that in your skewed, biased mind, this is all part of your construction of an "us" and an "other".

And I really don't know why you even bother denying you're far right with all your posting history. Unless you actually consider yourself a moderate.

I have a sensible view that was adhered to until fairly recently about immigration into Europe, if that's what you mean.
Moderate & without impacting on the indigenous population & culture
I'm not a Christian theologically. I just recognise the vital role Christianity has had in the origin of Modern Europe...it's culture, vast achievements & vital importance to the Modern world

It's Progressive Liberals (descendants of Marxists) such as you, you have the radical view on immigration and society not me

I'd rather not be part of your social experiment thank you
But as I have gathered over the years you're rather well off, so you will be very insulated from most of the detrimental affects of mass immigration.
A typical bourgeoisie Progressive Liberal...the social elite in the West these days who live in an ivory tower.
Why don't you take in a few Moroccan illegals and house them in your place if you like them so much?

Oh I wrote that reply all by myself & I didn't realise I had a timer on it

Anyway this thread was about Paleolithic cultures, not a lecture by our very own resident Spanish Kier Starmer about the terrible views of the "FARRRRRR right" on mass immigration

Sat on Topic lads

The image you have of me is very amusing. What even is a progressive liberal? Which are my views on immigration? Which is my social experiment? And rather well off comparative to who?

comment by Peks - Comanche Moon (U6618)
posted 5 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 56 seconds ago
Sew anybidy who dusagree with ur fancyful ideology is a marxissed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just like anyone who doesn't agree with the Progressive Liberal ideology is "FARRRRRRRRRR Right"

is that what you mean ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
u didnt anser the question

comment by Peks - Comanche Moon (U6618)
posted 14 hours, 10 minutes ago
I have a sensible view that was adhered to until fairly recently about immigration into Europe, if that's what you mean.
Moderate & without impacting on the indigenous population & culture
I'm not a Christian theologically. I just recognise the vital role Christianity has had in the origin of Modern Europe...it's culture, vast achievements & vital importance to the Modern world

It's Progressive Liberals (descendants of Marxists) such as you, you have the radical view on immigration and society not me

I'd rather not be part of your social experiment thank you
But as I have gathered over the years you're rather well off, so you will be very insulated from most of the detrimental affects of mass immigration.
A typical bourgeoisie Progressive Liberal...the social elite in the West these days who live in an ivory tower.
Why don't you take in a few Moroccan illegals and house them in your place if you like them so much?

Oh I wrote that reply all by myself & I didn't realise I had a timer on it
----------------------------------------------------------------------




What a genius my goodness!

Flow chart showing the ethnogenesis of Modern Europeans

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Corach/publication/280840328/figure/fig3/AS:614312875917337@1523475011792/Modelling-the-relationship-of-European-to-non-European-populations-A-three-way-mixture.png