What a load of bull shit

[liberty]

What a load of bull shit. It is nice to see that the British are maintaining high standards for their children’s education.

Stonehenge was built by black Britons, children’s history book claims (telegraph.co.uk)

"Stonehenge was built by black Britons, a new children’s history book has claimed.
The illustrated book entitled Brilliant Black British History, by the Nigerian-born British author Atinuke, says “every single British person..".

[Joe Guy]

Is there any indication that the book is required reading in children's history classes at British schools?

[MajGenl.Meade]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... tory-book/

Link provided gratis for incompetent posters

The book, published by Bloomsbury and promoted by Arts Council-funded literacy charity The Book Trust, states that “Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came, and during that time the most famous British monument was built, Stonehenge.”

[Joe Guy]

“Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came,...

That explains why the British have South African accents.

[Bicycle Bill]

“Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came,...

I thought the Picts were blue...

And that statement also raises the question ... if the entire frackin' world was originally populated by black-skinned specimens, where did the white folks originally come from, and how is it that they were able discover how to craft weapons and other tools of metal as well as developing technology that was demonstrably unknown to black populations, thereby becoming the dominant race or species?

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

According to science, the first Britons were likely black.



Cheddar Man

Quite obviously this puts many panties and briefs and boxers in a twist, because some people are so obsessed with their lack of pigmentation. But c'mon people, we are all cousins, pale and dark alike.

[BoSoxGal]

“Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came,...

I thought the Picts were blue...

And that statement also raises the question ... if the entire frackin' world was originally populated by black-skinned specimens, where did the white folks originally come from, and how is it that they were able discover how to craft weapons and other tools of metal as well as developing technology that was demonstrably unknown to black populations, thereby becoming the dominant race or species?

-"BB"-

I don't read 99.9% of your posts, but knowing how racist you are, I had to open this one and you did not disappoint!

I'm sorry that in your 60-odd years you have remained so ignorant that you seriously believe that white humans first crafted weapons and tools, and are a separate SPECIES from humans with other variations of melanin in their skin.

I mean it, I'm truly sorry for you because that is a level of ignorance that is mindblowing. I can't help but wonder how many other racists in America share that level of ignorance (don't bristle, the word means 'lack of knowledge or information') and from it derive their false sense of superiority over their cousins with greater stores of melanin.

Luckily, it is never too late to learn because the human brain has plasticity well into advanced years of age. And you have at your fingertips the world's most massive library of information, full of information we have known about our ancestors for decades and with science adding new discoveries every day.

On human use of tools and weapons:
https://www.history.com/news/hunter-gat ... akthroughs

On human skin tones:
https://www.science.org/content/article ... skin-color

There is SO much to learn, BB. Open your mind, it is never too late to be what you might have been.

That goes for you, too, liberty. Don't go to your grave an ignorant man.

[Bicycle Bill]

On human use of tools and weapons:
https://www.history.com/news/hunter-gat ... akthroughs

This link discusses six advances in the evolution of stone tools.   I made reference to metal tools, which were virtually unheard of in the Americas (which the possible exception of the Meso-Americans, as they were able to work gold) or Africa prior to the appearance of white Europeans.

On human skin tones:
https://www.science.org/content/article ... skin-color

OK, I'll accept this one.  As you said, there is always an opportunity for one to learn something.

But I would like to point out that even anthropologists agree that there have been several variants of the genus Homo that have come and gone, including Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis... so there have been other species of humans.  Maybe there's a possibility that you will learn something as well?

As for my statement about technology — well, when the Europeans first began to colonize Africa or the New World, look at the technology they brought with them compared to what it was that they found.   You can't argue against evidence like that, and I'm not being racist by saying so.

-"BB"-

[Crackpot]

You
Mean the tech they largely gained from the crusades?

[BoSoxGal]

On human use of tools and weapons:
https://www.history.com/news/hunter-gat ... akthroughs

This link discusses six advances in the evolution of stone tools.   I made reference to metal tools, which were virtually unheard of in the Americas (which the possible exception of the Meso-Americans, as they were able to work gold) or Africa prior to the appearance of white Europeans.

On human skin tones:
https://www.science.org/content/article ... skin-color

OK, I'll accept this one.  As you said, there is always an opportunity for one to learn something.

But I would like to point out that even anthropologists agree that there have been several variants of the genus Homo that have come and gone, including Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis... so there have been other species of humans.  Maybe there's a possibility that you will learn something as well?

As for my statement about technology — well, when the Europeans first began to colonize Africa or the New World, look at the technology they brought with them compared to what it was that they found.   You can't argue against evidence like that, and I'm not being racist by saying so.

-"BB"-

Of course there are other species of humans, I didn't dispute that. But there is only ONE species homo sapiens, and there is no distinction between homo sapiens with lots of melanin and homo sapiens with less melanin, which is what you asserted in your first post.

Your assertions about the rise of use of metals in humans is inaccurate. I'm not going to argue with you about this, the information is there easily available on a plethora of websites and even (gasp!) in books. I do urge you to take the position that what you know of human history might have been taught to you by overt or covert or unwitting racists, and spend what years you have left learning the real facts.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Cheddar Family Group

[Bicycle Bill]

Of course there are other species of humans, I didn't dispute that. But there is only ONE species homo sapiens, and there is no distinction between homo sapiens with lots of melanin and homo sapiens with less melanin, which is what you asserted in your first post.

my original statement (copied and pasted):

... thereby becoming the dominant race or species?

Point 1:  The fact that Homo sapiens exists today and the other eight identified and named species of the genus Homo do not means that Homo sapiens is, in accordance with Darwin's truisms of survival of the fittest, the dominant species as of this point in time — and could possibly be superseded by another form ... call it Homo post hominem, if you like.

Point 2:   I also mentioned the word 'race'...  or do you deny that there are in fact different races within the vast pool that is Homo sapiens, just as there are different races (the accepted term is 'breeds') within the vast range of Canis familiaris or Felis domestica?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

I made reference to metal tools, which were virtually unheard of in ... Africa prior to the appearance of white Europeans.

Iron metallurgy in Africa

Iron metallurgy in Africa developed within Africa; though initially assumed to be of external origin, this assumption has been rendered untenable; archaeological evidence has increasingly supported an indigenous origin. Some recent studies date the inception of iron metallurgy in Africa between 3000 BCE and 2500 BCE. Archaeometallurgical scientific knowledge and technological development originated in numerous centers of Africa; the centers of origin were located in West Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa; consequently, as these origin centers are located within inner Africa, these archaeometallurgical developments are thus native African technologies.

Iron metallurgical development occurred 2631 BCE – 2458 BCE at Lejja, in Nigeria, 2136 BCE – 1921 BCE at Obui, in Central Africa Republic, 1895 BCE – 1370 BCE at Tchire Ouma 147, in Niger, and 1297 BCE – 1051 BCE at Dekpassanware, in Togo.[4] Evidence exists for early iron metallurgy in parts of Nigeria, Cameroon, and Central Africa, possibly from as early as around 2,000 BCE.

The invention of radiocarbon dating in the late 1950s enabled dating of metallurgical sites by the charcoal fuel used for smelting and forging. By the late 1960s some surprisingly early radiocarbon dates had been obtained for iron smelting sites in both Niger and central Africa (Rwanda, Burundi), reviving the view that iron-making was independently invented by Africans in sub-Saharan Africa as far back as 3600 BCE. These dates preceded the known antiquity of ironworking in Carthage or Meroe, weakening the diffusion hypothesis.

[BoSoxGal]

Point 2:   I also mentioned the word 'race'...  or do you deny that there are in fact different races within the vast pool that is Homo sapiens, just as there are different races (the accepted term is 'breeds') within the vast range of Canis familiaris or Felis domestica?

-"BB"-

Yes, I do deny that. Science denies that.

There is ONE human race.

There are subcategories within the human race with certain gene expressions relative to melanin which are tied to where geographically a particular group of humans settled and perpetuated themselves for multiple generations.

No, those subcategories of humans are not analogous to different breeds of dogs. There is less genetic variation between subcategories of humans than between breeds of dogs.

The truth is mindblowing, BB. If you open your mind to the truth, you will see the nonsense of all your previous attitudes about race which as I’ve said, were likely taught to you by overt, covert or unwitting racists so I’m holding open the possibility that you are an accidental rather than intentional racist yourself.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, I do deny that. Science denies that. There is ONE human race.

Granted that's true [modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society] why do housing (and other) laws prohibit discrimination based on "race, creed, color"? Surely, if there is only one human race, then it's the same as prohibiting discrimination against humans - which seems a bit redundant since aliens, dolphins and aphids rarely bid on properties etc.

Or should we be back to the good old days in the UK when the problem was "color prejudice" until it was rebranded racialism (UK word) or racism (elsewhere). But that was because "colored" became unacceptable.

I enquire merely as a matter of interest in language - not the merits of law. [[Oh look, enquire is underlined in red on my page - inquire is the thing is it? Language is weird - i before e except after c]]

Well, whatever it's called, discrimination based on a person's skin color is plain wrong as well as illegal.

[Sue U]

Yes, I do deny that. Science denies that. There is ONE human race.

Granted that's true [modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society] why do housing (and other) laws prohibit discrimination based on "race, creed, color"?

Law being a social construct as well, legislation addressing discrimination needed to use terms that were (and unfortunately are still, see, e.g. BB, supra) widely understood by society in reference to those constructs, regardless of whether the terms are "scientifically" valid. I will note that what constitutes a "race" has changed repeatedly over the last 500 years (including several rather embarrassing US Supreme Court opinions deciding who is and who is not to be considered a "white" person under either "scientific" or "commonly understood" uses of the term). Today, as apparently has always been the case, there is no consistency in how the term is used, describing variously ethnicity, nationality, language group, skin color and/or cline characteristics.

Lord Jim once noted something to the effect that we're all of African descent, some just more recently than others. Or as my son observed of his daycare class when he was 4: "We all have brown skin, just lighter or darker brown."

[liberty]

There could be no black people living in Europe before the modern era at least not before agriculture. Their black skin would block the sun's production of vitamin D. People don’t realize how vital vitamin D is to good health. I feel the reason the that too many blacks in America today suffer so many health problems at an early age is because of a lack of the vitamin. Vitamin D is essential for things like a healthy heart and resistance to cancer not to mention the other benefits of vitamin D. And it is only found in Sun exposure, egg yolks, fish liver oils, and milk. My reference is: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Wadsworth publishing company. 1995. None of these sources of the vitamin were found in Europe in sufficient quantity during the Paleolithic. And by the time the Neolithic arrived in Europe the black people of Africa were cut off from the north by the Sahara Desert. There were no black people living in Europe until the time of the Ancient Romans and then their numbers were very small and even they disappeared during the dark ages.

[BoSoxGal]

It’s painful how you ignore science, liberty. The link I provided which explained that Cheddar Man, the first known Briton who lived 10,000 years ago, was very dark skinned/black, also explained that Britons became ‘white’ over time to accommodate their residence in northern latitudes.

Black humans arose in Africa, where the sun shines hot all the time and lots of melanin is no obstacle to vitamin D production.

We ALL started out as black, liberty. Your own grandmother Lucy was black. Then her children migrated around the globe and those who settled in the cold, dark northern places slowly over thousands of years became paler shades of brown - some so pale they liked to call themselves white. This happened only very recently, as the science establishes and as the link I provided also explains.

And even more recently, some humans became obsessed with their paler brown skin and began to weave myths and fantasies that somehow their lighter brown skin made them special. And those people created many generations of BBs and libertys who think they are smarter and better when really they are just brown like all the rest of us.

And yes, it was very likely very dark skinned/black Britons who engineered and labored to build the fantastic Stonehenge. Our clever darker brown cousins built it.

It’s wonderful to be part of the human race.

[Joe Guy]

"Stonehenge was built by black Britons", a new children’s history book has claimed.

Maybe back then the black Britons were the laborers and the white designers of Stonehenge picked them up at a prehistoric Home Depot.

[Bicycle Bill]

We ALL started out as black, liberty. Your own grandmother Lucy was black. Then her children migrated around the globe and those who settled in the cold, dark northern places slowly over thousands of years became paler shades of brown - some so pale they liked to call themselves white.

Pretty good how you — or anyone, for that matter — can make those statements based on fossilized remains that represent less than half of a single specimen of a hominid that was so far back in the chain of evolution that it wasn't even in the genus Homo ('Lucy', as she is called, is classified as Australopithecus afarensis).

But that doesn't stop our BSG.  She states unequivocally that 'Lucy' and her descendants were black, and will brook no dissent.  Stand by ... in another couple of posts she'll also tell us what color hair and eyes she had, and what bra size she would have worn.

-"BB"-